Ship of Fools: Purgatory: EU: in or out?

Thread: Purgatory: EU: in or out? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000994

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

I must confess that I haven't really thought through the arguments for and against continuing UK membership of the EU, but in the light of the recent comment by the chief executive of Nissan, perhaps I ought to be educated in this matter. I generally veer towards 'in'.

Could anyone help by discussing the pros and cons of this?

(Or if there's been a recent thread on this subject, then perhaps I could be directed to it.)

[ 10. January 2014, 21:18: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I am for being in, because there is a necessity - increasing - to be in an economic partnership with others to have successful global markets. OK, there are countries who don't have these sorts of relationships, but to be the sort of world player we want to be - and need to be, because that is where all of our business is - then we need membership of some economic bloc.

More than that, though, I think our economic models would be better looking at the European model than the US model, as we tend to do (this is following the ideas of Will Hutton). His arguments are that these produce lower immediate gains, but better long-term stability. Aligning ourselves from an economic position might be a route towards introducing this direction.

Having said that, there are aspects of the EU that are corrupt and broken. Not unlike other political institutions. So I am all for being involved, and making things changed. But we cannot change without being stuck in.

What is more, the Tories oppose it, which has to be an indication that it is not all bad.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I don't think we get a good deal out of the EU, it's undemocratic and the accounts haven't been signed off for a decade or more.

That said, we'd get screwed to a far greater extent out of Europe (any divorce settlement would make the Versailles reparations look a bargain) and we have a chance to be one of the rare voices of reason there.

We should stay in the tent, pissing out.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Agree with SS basically (for a change.)

But, if we stayed in the tent, better we reversed the direction of the p***

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I don't speak as a Brit, but I think Finland would be better off outside and I think the UK would too. And I don't buy all the bollocks given by the pro-EU groups because it's just scaremongering. I'd love to see the EU and the Euro fail. For me it represents a worrying trend towards ever greater economic and political centralism, globalism, something which neither benefits the people of Europe nor the other people of the world we trade with, just the fat cats at the top.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

The EU - and only the EU - go the extra mile and insist on the free movement of labour, along with the free movement of goods and capital. The latter two on their own are a capitalists' charter. The former is the corrective.

So, for that reason alone, in.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The EU - and only the EU - go the extra mile and insist on the free movement of labour, along with the free movement of goods and capital. The latter two on their own are a capitalists' charter. The former is the corrective.

So, for that reason alone, in.

That's a very interesting point, which I sometimes use in arguments. But of course, the UKIP argument is no to all of it, although I suppose they want to keep some movement of goods and capital!

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The EU - and only the EU - go the extra mile and insist on the free movement of labour, along with the free movement of goods and capital. The latter two on their own are a capitalists' charter. The former is the corrective.

So, for that reason alone, in.
That's a very interesting point, which I sometimes use in arguments. But of course, the UKIP argument is no to all of it, although I suppose they want to keep some movement of goods and capital!

My understanding is that UKIP wants to take Britain out of the EU but not the EEA, which means we would still enjoy many benefits of the single market. The flip side of that is that we might still be bound by some of the rules of the single market. Nobody seems to have called Nigel Farage out on that yet. Perhaps, given time, he will be.

Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :

Whenever I read this thread title I think of the Hokey Cokey...

But I would agree with Doc Tor - the freedom of movement within the EU is a great thing for the ordinary people, not just the 'fat cats'. And EU citizens being able to vote in the EU elections whichever country they are living in is probably a Good Thing too for all the people who work in a country they're not born in.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

The Norwegians and the Swiss enjoy considerable freedom of movement in Europe, don't they?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

What Doc Tor said. The EU is worth it for that alone - even though that wasn't its main purpose nor its most important one.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Norwegians and the Swiss enjoy considerable freedom of movement in Europe, don't they?

That is not what is being talked about.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Having had the annual raking over the old coals of 2 World Wars ,(centred on Europe) . My vote is to stay in in EU purely to prevent anything like that ever happening again .

Having said that I shall be voting UKIP at the next election purely over the matter of an immigration policy which I believe is unsustainable.

Probably not the actions of a typically right-thinking person, but until some can actually tell me how it is good for country, and it's economy , to keep British workers on the dole while giving jobs to workers from outside the UK ? Well then that's how it stays.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Another in.

(Sheesh, what happened to debate, can someone say out please?)

Banking: A lot of EU banking is done through London. If the UK left the EU do you think international brands such as Santander and HSBC wouldn't move their operations to Berlin (Even British brands like Lloyds have a Portuguese top executive.)

The banking sector is one of the top wealth creators in the UK, without it we'd be a much poorer country.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Norwegians and the Swiss enjoy considerable freedom of movement in Europe, don't they?
That is not what is being talked about.

Erm, are you sure?:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The EU - and only the EU - go the extra mile and insist on the free movement of labour, along with the free movement of goods and capital. The latter two on their own are a capitalists' charter. The former is the corrective.

So, for that reason alone, in.

quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
But I would agree with Doc Tor - the freedom of movement within the EU is a great thing for the ordinary people, not just the 'fat cats'.

Free movement of goods, services and labour are cited as reasons to remain within the EU. But if it is possible to take advantage of these things from outside of the EU, like the Norwegians and the Swiss appear to do, then it surely raises the questions whether these are reasons to remain in?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
(Sheesh, what happened to debate, can someone say out please?)

Me me me! I'm an outy. Sorry, but the EU has made Europe too expensive. That's why everything is being outsourced to India and China. The EU has been successful in one thing only and that is in destroying the economies of the EU. It's all part of the globalist scheme (yes, I oppose globalism, it benefits no one except those at the top). And quite why some Fritz or Pierre in Brussels should have any say in how my country is run, I don't know, but then that's why I vote nationalist.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
(Sheesh, what happened to debate, can someone say out please?)
Me me me! I'm an outy. Sorry, but the EU has made Europe too expensive. That's why everything is being outsourced to India and China. The EU has been successful in one thing only and that is in destroying the economies of the EU. It's all part of the globalist scheme (yes, I oppose globalism, it benefits no one except those at the top). And quite why some Fritz or Pierre in Brussels should have any say in how my country is run, I don't know, but then that's why I vote nationalist.

We aren't run from Brussels. Or Washington or Westminster for that matter. We're run from Wall St. and the City, but of all the political institutions that could wrest some power from the globalists, I believe the EU could do it. Mind you, I'd like to see a properly democratic Europe, rather than one in which the legislation is initiated by its civil service.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Sorry, but the EU has made Europe too expensive. That's why everything is being outsourced to India and China.

I don't think EU policy is the cause of offshoring (the EU is more likely to act in a protectionist manner to keep jobs in the EU). Offshoring is the result of bad management practices that focus on short term gains, "economies of scale" and unit cost thinking that actually drives up costs over the long term.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Me me me! I'm an outy. Sorry, but the EU has made Europe too expensive.

The EU country with the largest industrial sector - Germany - is also not amongst the lowest cost.

quote:

That's why everything is being outsourced to India and China.

Unless you are looking at a future of completely isolated national economies, things will continue to be outsourced.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Free movement of goods, services and labour are cited as reasons to remain within the EU. But if it is possible to take advantage of these things from outside of the EU, like the Norwegians and the Swiss appear to do, then it surely raises the questions whether these are reasons to remain in?

You have a point, but the free movement of all these things, on such a grand scale, is only possible because of the EU. The Swiss and Norwegians are hanging on the coat-tails of the EU: they still have to obey all the EU regulations regarding the goods they export, and travel rights, reciprocal arrangements etc are made at the EU level - either that or 30-odd bilateral agreements.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Free movement of goods, services and labour are cited as reasons to remain within the EU. But if it is possible to take advantage of these things from outside of the EU, like the Norwegians and the Swiss appear to do

To an extent, and to that extent they are also subject to the same rules and regulations on manufacturing standards that apply to the rest of the EU.

So basically, they get the benefits but they are also subject to the costs - and more than this they don't have any means to directly affect the content of these rules/regulations as they are never part of the negotiations when such things are drawn up.

[ 13. November 2013, 11:11: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You have a point, but the free movement of all these things, on such a grand scale, is only possible because of the EU. The Swiss and Norwegians are hanging on the coat-tails of the EU: they still have to obey all the EU regulations regarding the goods they export, and travel rights, reciprocal arrangements etc are made at the EU level - either that or 30-odd bilateral agreements.

Even if they are, why can't we hang on the coat-tails too?

My understanding is that Switzerland was able to negotiate a good deal with the EU in terms of which rules she's bound by. If Britain were to go to leave, why couldn't we negotiate as good as if not a better deal? We're the world's sixth-largest economy after all.

[ 13. November 2013, 11:14: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The usual argument to the Swiss example, is that you are governed by rules which you have no say in. Well, of course Euro-skeptics say that about the EU!

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :

I think it will be very difficult and risky for us to come out of the EU. I also mistrust the motives of many antis, as I think they want to turn the UK into even more of a sweatshop economy than it has already become.

I am not a great admirer of the EU, it has lots of faults, but sadly it has become a sort of necessary evil. I would like to see a detailed and honest completely frank list of pros and cons for staying and leaving. The problem is, no such objective account is likely to appear, and people will end up voting on the basis of nonsense printed in the popular press.

I suspect if we do leave we will find ourselves like another Norway, bound to obey the EU's dictates in all manner of stuff and yet having no say whatever in EU policy and laws. I do not see that as any kind of improvement. Indeed I see it as the worst of all worlds.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You have a point, but the free movement of all these things, on such a grand scale, is only possible because of the EU. The Swiss and Norwegians are hanging on the coat-tails of the EU: they still have to obey all the EU regulations regarding the goods they export, and travel rights, reciprocal arrangements etc are made at the EU level - either that or 30-odd bilateral agreements.
Even if they are, why can't we hang on the coat-tails too?

My understanding is that Switzerland was able to negotiate a good deal with the EU in terms of which rules she's bound by. If Britain were to go to leave, why couldn't we negotiate as good as if not a better deal? We're the world's sixth-largest economy after all.

We can hope. But why would we want to be subject to all the rules without a hope of changing them? That would leave us in the invidious position of being in hock to both multi-national corporations and a multi-national political entity that's in many ways a corrective for the first.

For better or worse, individual governments can't stand up to corporations any more. Only a collective of governments can say "if you won't trade fairly with one of us, you don't trade with any of us". For sure, the system isn't perfect, and some of the time it doesn't work. But, for the moment, it's what we have.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
For better or worse, individual governments can't stand up to corporations any more. Only a collective of governments can say "if you won't trade fairly with one of us, you don't trade with any of us". For sure, the system isn't perfect, and some of the time it doesn't work. But, for the moment, it's what we have.

I don't think I agree with your diagnosis of the problem, but even if you're right, on what occasions has the EU proved to be the solution? I can't think of any.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

cheesymarzipan:

quote:
Whenever I read this thread title I think of the Hokey Cokey...

I think 'Shake it all about' is a fairly good summary of the current government's policy towards the EU.

Another vote for 'in', here, for the reasons already cited by Doc Tor and Chris Stiles.

Do any of the outies ever pause to consider that the French might be quite pleased if we left the EU? They never wanted us in in the first place (well, de Gaulle didn't anyway). Do you REALLY want to cut your nose off to spite your face, just to make the French happy? [Devil]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Do any of the outies ever pause to consider that the French might be quite pleased if we left the EU? They never wanted us in in the first place (well, de Gaulle didn't anyway). Do you REALLY want to cut your nose off to spite your face, just to make the French happy?

But when Britain flourishes outside of the EU, and the French continue to struggle through the slough of EU bureaucracy and Hollande's taxes, who'll have the last laugh, eh?

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Norwegians and the Swiss enjoy considerable freedom of movement in Europe, don't they?

I think freedom of movement is one of those things Brits oppose, because of the national paranoia about economic migrants. Heaven forfend that anyone should be able to go to St Pancras station and get on a train to Paris without a passport.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
Heaven forfend that anyone should be able to go to St Pancras station and get on a train to Paris without a passport.

Oh come now, nobody has a problem with people leaving Britain.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Oh come now, nobody has a problem with people leaving Britain.

That wasn't the experience I had last time I took a flight. I got a nice immigration guy in New York, and thoroughly bored people in Dublin, but in Cardiff I got the police asking "Why are you going to the Republic of Ireland?"

But to actually answer the OP this time: out! The European Commission is an affront to democracy, and no-one's interested in materially changing that.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Flights and Eurostar differ in that respect.

I actually find the Eurostar passport checks hilarious. In Paris: passport checked twice, once by the French checking you have the right to leave and once by the British checking you have the right to enter. In London: passport checked once, by the French checking you have the right to enter and nary a British police officer in sight.

Moral: the UK Border Agency is interested in who arrives but doesn't give a flying brief relationship who leaves the country. Because the minute you get on the train you become Someone Else's Problem™. So long as you are leaving, you can go anywhere you please and break as many laws as you like.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

The Swiss do, to a certain extent, have it both ways though. I've worked there, and it needed a work permit - something I didn't need when I worked in lots of other European countries.

The permit wasn't generic - it was tied to the particular job. Lose the job, lose the permit, and lose the right to remain.

And so the Swiss did have the thing that Nigel Farage etc seem to cherish the most - control over immigration.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

I took a day trip on the hydrofoil from Jersey to Normandy.

Going out: no passport checks in Jersey or France
Coming back: no French passport control but people who had travelled without passport had trouble getting back in.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Another in here, although I think the EU as currently organised needs to be slimmed down.

Transnational business has now become so powerful that it has become able to play off states against each other by negotiating preferential tax treatment or watering down of labour laws. International confederations like the EU help counter this.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

According to one reckoning (as it's disputed) I live right on the border between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland - the tidal waters of Lough Foyle, which is the other side of the road from me, are deemed to be in County Londonderry, or Co Donegal depending on who you listen to.

I also shop in both Sainsburys in Derry and SuperValu in Carndonagh.

Do the brave anti EU merchants propose to put up a physical border between the Republic and Northern Ireland? Good luck with that if they think they can. I've no particular love for the EU but I would be bloody annoyed if Little Englanders tried any kind of stunt on Irish/Northern Irish territory or demeaned the rights of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom.

[ 13. November 2013, 18:23: Message edited by: Ronald Binge ]

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
According to one reckoning (as it's disputed) I live right on the border between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland - the tidal waters of Lough Foyle, which is the other side of the road from me, are deemed to be in County Londonderry, or Co Donegal depending on who you listen to.

I also shop in both Sainsburys in Derry and SuperValu in Carndonagh.

Do the brave anti EU merchants propose to put up a physical border between the Republic and Northern Ireland? Good luck with that if they think they can. I've no particular love for the EU but I would be bloody annoyed if Little Englanders tried any kind of stunt on Irish/Northern Irish territory or demeaned the rights of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom.

I am not a British civil servant, but my guess is that it would remain as open as the Norwegian-Swedish border, which has been passport-free for at least as long as the EU. Actually, speaking of borders, why not put up one anyway, seeing as the Danish are raising one against Germany, and the French and Italians are bordering up against one another? Not sure the EU is really more of a guarantee there.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

AIUI open borders - in the sense of no passport controls - are separate from the EU. There are non-EU countries in Schengen and EU countries out of it.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Out, definitely. Renegotiate the terms so that we have the right to trade, but don't have to go down the whole route of harmonization of laws, single currency, etc. I'm not UKIP but I do think it's gone too far. This is not the Common Market that we signed up to in the 70s - I don't think anyone envisaged how close it would become to a single European superstate instead of an alliance of trading partners.

Some of the side effects of EU membership are ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd being told (for example) that they can't sell you half a pound of cheese at the supermarket "because it's illegal". It's not dangerous, it's not hurting anybody. Why are imperial measurements "illegal"?

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Out, definitely. Renegotiate the terms so that we have the right to trade, but don't have to go down the whole route of harmonization of laws, single currency, etc. I'm not UKIP but I do think it's gone too far. This is not the Common Market that we signed up to in the 70s - I don't think anyone envisaged how close it would become to a single European superstate instead of an alliance of trading partners.

Some of the side effects of EU membership are ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd being told (for example) that they can't sell you half a pound of cheese at the supermarket "because it's illegal". It's not dangerous, it's not hurting anybody. Why are imperial measurements "illegal"?

That is nonsense. I always ask for weighed goods in imperial measurements in the Republic of Ireland and get them without quibble. Astonishing that calculating 454g = 1lb is some kind of insurmountable obstacle.

[ 13. November 2013, 18:53: Message edited by: Ronald Binge ]

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Actually, speaking of borders, why not put up one anyway, seeing as the Danish are raising one against Germany, and the French and Italians are bordering up against one another? Not sure the EU is really more of a guarantee there.

Why? For the fun of it? Have you any understanding how this corner of the British Isles actually works?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Do the brave anti EU merchants propose to put up a physical border between the Republic and Northern Ireland? Good luck with that if they think they can. I've no particular love for the EU but I would be bloody annoyed if Little Englanders tried any kind of stunt on Irish/Northern Irish territory or demeaned the rights of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom.

Doesn't the Anglo-Irish Common Travel Area pre-date both countries' membership of the EU?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Having had the annual raking over the old coals of 2 World Wars ,(centred on Europe) . My vote is to stay in in EU purely to prevent anything like that ever happening again .

Having said that I shall be voting UKIP at the next election purely over the matter of an immigration policy which I believe is unsustainable.

Probably not the actions of a typically right-thinking person, but until some can actually tell me how it is good for country, and it's economy , to keep British workers on the dole while giving jobs to workers from outside the UK ? Well then that's how it stays.

Have you seen these studies:

there is an awful lot of bollocks talked about immigration that appears to be unrelated to the evidence, I think it is the EU that has been repeatedly asking the UK government for evidence for the benefit tourism it keeps shouting about - thus far they apparently either can not or will not produce such evidence.

[ 13. November 2013, 20:35: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Do the brave anti EU merchants propose to put up a physical border between the Republic and Northern Ireland? Good luck with that if they think they can. I've no particular love for the EU but I would be bloody annoyed if Little Englanders tried any kind of stunt on Irish/Northern Irish territory or demeaned the rights of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom.
Doesn't the Anglo-Irish Common Travel Area pre-date both countries' membership of the EU?

Republic of Ireland remains in the EU, the United Kingdom pulls out. How do you propose to maintain an open border in that situation, and if you then follow the logic of closing it, how do you deal with the consequences? Anti EU believers need to think all this through.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Out, definitely. Renegotiate the terms so that we have the right to trade, but don't have to go down the whole route of harmonization of laws, single currency, etc. I'm not UKIP but I do think it's gone too far. This is not the Common Market that we signed up to in the 70s - I don't think anyone envisaged how close it would become to a single European superstate instead of an alliance of trading partners.

Some of the side effects of EU membership are ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd being told (for example) that they can't sell you half a pound of cheese at the supermarket "because it's illegal". It's not dangerous, it's not hurting anybody. Why are imperial measurements "illegal"?

Two problems.

One, what if the EU don't want to play? Or if the EU do want to play, and that game is 'hard ball'? And again, we'll still have to follow all the EU regulations if we want to sell to the EU, which I presume we will.

Secondly, the weight displayed on the label is in kg. You can ask for it in pecks or hundredweights if you want. But please do remember that schools in the UK have taught the metric system for as long as I remember, and I'm 47. This won't even be an argument in twenty years time, because it'll be "pounds and ounces, grandad? What are they?"

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Republic of Ireland remains in the EU, the United Kingdom pulls out. How do you propose to maintain an open border in that situation, and if you then follow the logic of closing it, how do you deal with the consequences? Anti EU believers need to think all this through.

The Republic of Ireland has external border controls in the same way that the UK has, doesn't it? If Britain withdraws from the EU the CTA will remain in effect. I don't see the problem.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Why are we happier to have the Irish rather than say, the Roma ?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Why are we happier to have the Irish rather than say, the Roma ?

Presumably in part because of the very deep cultural, social, historic, economic and geographical ties between the two countries?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Roma have been in Britain for centuries. And interestingly, they have never fought a war with us or mounted a terrorist campaign - nor did we ever invade or wholesale exclude them.

On the other hand, they are not white.

(Yay culture !)

[ 13. November 2013, 21:35: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Republic of Ireland has external border controls in the same way that the UK has, doesn't it? If Britain withdraws from the EU the CTA will remain in effect. I don't see the problem.

The problem comes with allowing non-EU citizens into the EU, and then on to other EU countries. The Irish going to the UK is fine - it's UK citizens entering the Republic which is the problem. The EU frontier is right there, whatever bilateral agreements might be in place. The Irish won't want stringent border controls between Ireland and mainland Europe, so they'll just have to put them in the north of the island instead.

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

If we do leave then at least it should stimulate debate elsewhere that should be happening about the EU's purpose. I'm staggered that other countries don't have sizeable neo-UKIP movements.

I'm sure we could be leaner and fitter without the EU, but would multi-nationals think that way? After all, cheaper labour in poorer British regions should have resulted in more jobs being created there in recent decades, but the reverse is often true in practice. Free market decision makers are often sheep-like rather than rational.

We're all swayed by our own perceptions, and as others have said, an objective view with reliable facts is hard to find.

Some of my colleagues justifiably see the EU as huge benefactor to our public sector employer. The extra bureaucracy it creates is a price well worth paying, in their view. My view is the polar opposite. I run a commercial business within the same organisation, selling entirely to UK customers. For me, international trade is an irrelevance and the EU brings no benefits. Yet because it's within a public body, my business is clobbered by bureaucracy that our private sector competitors can sidestep. Some EU-inspired legislation, such as that governing public sector procurement, is scandalously counter-productive.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Ideally, we should be looking at what is good for our society as a whole - rather than just our own particular situation. Especially if we want to weigh up the costs and benefits of leaving.

Is your situation typical, are most businesses in the UK unaffected by international trade (do you really use no internationally traded goods - i.e. would your overheads not be affected if those supplies went up in cost) ?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Oddjob wrote

quote:
I'm staggered that other countries don't have sizeable neo-UKIP movements.

They do, principally far-right parties. The Beeb had an article today on just this - - here.

[ 13. November 2013, 21:55: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I am not sure UKIP isn't a far right party - just with extra spin and media savvy. After all, Godfrey Bloom ...

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Roma have been in Britain for centuries. And interestingly, they have never fought a war with us or mounted a terrorist campaign - nor did we ever invade or wholesale exclude them.

On the other hand, they are not white.

But what cultural, social, historic, economic and geographical ties to the UK does a Romany who has spent all his life on the outskirts of Bucharest have?

[ 13. November 2013, 22:34: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Republic of Ireland has external border controls in the same way that the UK has, doesn't it? If Britain withdraws from the EU the CTA will remain in effect. I don't see the problem.
The problem comes with allowing non-EU citizens into the EU, and then on to other EU countries. The Irish going to the UK is fine - it's UK citizens entering the Republic which is the problem. The EU frontier is right there, whatever bilateral agreements might be in place. The Irish won't want stringent border controls between Ireland and mainland Europe, so they'll just have to put them in the north of the island instead.

Irish trade goes to and from the United Kingdom and also the mainland of Europe, we actively welcome GB and NI visitors, and most of us have personal connections across the island of Ireland and in Great Britain.

Consequently what you have suggested as an Irish response to the UK leaving the EU is pure conjecture and doesn't reflect Irish interests in any way. Any demented idea that we will somehow lash up a border across Ireland isn't going to happen.

[ 13. November 2013, 22:40: Message edited by: Ronald Binge ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Consequently what you have suggested as an Irish response to the UK leaving the EU is pure conjecture and doesn't reflect Irish interests in any way. Any demented idea that we will somehow lash up a border across Ireland isn't going to happen.

The RoI/NI will be an external EU border, not an internal border. You may not have a choice as to what you want - the EU border agency may simply impose a solution on you.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Republic of Ireland has external border controls in the same way that the UK has, doesn't it? If Britain withdraws from the EU the CTA will remain in effect. I don't see the problem.
The problem comes with allowing non-EU citizens into the EU, and then on to other EU countries. The Irish going to the UK is fine - it's UK citizens entering the Republic which is the problem. The EU frontier is right there, whatever bilateral agreements might be in place. The Irish won't want stringent border controls between Ireland and mainland Europe, so they'll just have to put them in the north of the island instead.
Irish trade goes to and from the United Kingdom and also the mainland of Europe, we actively welcome GB and NI visitors, and most of us have personal connections across the island of Ireland and in Great Britain.

Consequently what you have suggested as an Irish response to the UK leaving the EU is pure conjecture and doesn't reflect Irish interests in any way. Any demented idea that we will somehow lash up a border across Ireland isn't going to happen.

They're going to be caught in the middle (if not careful)
If our reason to want to be out of Europe is because we don't want hordes of people who couldn't even be bothered to be born here coming over then we won't want Europeans moving to Ireland then from Ireland to England.
The Russians may have built a wall when we complained about immigration but I can't see Europe going to the extra effort (and I can imagine [us being the same in] vice versa).
If they are going to be stopped it has to be on the boundary from mainland-europe to Ireland, from the republic to northern Ireland or from northern Ireland to England. The latter will lead to effective reunification and (as we've assumed a Ukip Britain*, that won't go down well), the other two force you to decide who to annoy.
The other alternative is for England have some kind of immigrant catchers (and really put on the reich, rather than the isolationist approach).

Of course it's possible that we have some kind of decision to come out of Europe without that issue following. But I can't see it lasting.

*hence why I've put england, elsewhere.
[edited for slight clarification]

[ 13. November 2013, 23:10: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Could Ireland leave the EU along with the UK?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Could Ireland leave the EU along with the UK?

Given the long history of peaceful cooperation between those two countries, I'm sure all the UK would have to do is ask politely. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:

quote:
Actually, speaking of borders, why not put up one anyway, seeing as the Danish are raising one against Germany, and the French and Italians are bordering up against one another? Not sure the EU is really more of a guarantee there.
Why? For the fun of it? Have you any understanding how this corner of the British Isles actually works?

Frankly, I don't have an idea. My point was to say that the EU is rather irrelevant when it comes to borders these days, seeing as how Swedes smuggle tonnes of food into Norway every day without any checks, but that the French and Italians check each other increasingly, and the EU stands idly by in both cases.

From what I hear, the main problem with the UK leaving the EU is that no one knows how it would be done in practice, since nobody planned for it. For such an immense bureaucracy as the EU, that's likely to create plenty of jobs for civil servants for at least a decade to come. Stimulus package, anyone? (And most likely Brussels will agree to make the UK pay all fees that come with this process, to set a good example for the future.)

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Could Ireland leave the EU along with the UK?
Given the long history of peaceful cooperation between those two countries, I'm sure all the UK would have to do is ask politely.

Britain and Ireland now have excellent relations. Britain and Ireland joined the EEC at the same time. The EU isn't popular in Ireland at the moment. If the UK were to leave the EU, is it so far fetched that Ireland might decide to follow suit?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Britain and Ireland now have excellent relations. Britain and Ireland joined the EEC at the same time. The EU isn't popular in Ireland at the moment. If the UK were to leave the EU, is it so far fetched that Ireland might decide to follow suit?

Why would they? That's a serious question. What's their motive? Given how incredibly important international trade is to the Irish economy, why would it make sense to react to one of their biggest trade partners (the U.K.) cutting off free trade relations with Ireland by cutting off Ireland's free trade agreements with just about everyone else it trades with? Why is that a good move, from an Irish perspective?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I was just speculating.

But I disagree that a British withdrawal from the EU would result in the end of free trade between the UK and Ireland. I see no reason why it wouldn't continue.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I was just speculating.

But I disagree that a British withdrawal from the EU would result in the end of free trade between the UK and Ireland. I see no reason why it wouldn't continue.

Good question. How many non-EU countries does the U.K. have free trade agreements with?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Good question. How many non-EU countries does the U.K. have free trade agreements with?

As I suspect you know, one of the features of joining the EEC was that the UK could no longer sign bilateral free trade agreements with other nations - all such arrangements had to be made by the EEC (and now EU) as a whole.

I think most of those who favour Britain's exit from the EU would anticipate either joining EFTA or negotiating similar free trade agreements. You can find a list of Switzerland's free trade agreements here.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Roma have been in Britain for centuries. And interestingly, they have never fought a war with us or mounted a terrorist campaign - nor did we ever invade or wholesale exclude them.

On the other hand, they are not white.

But what cultural, social, historic, economic and geographical ties to the UK does a Romany who has spent all his life on the outskirts of Bucharest have?

Well, quite a lot with the existing UK Roma community for a start. Then there is all we share in common with Europe anyway - e.g. WW11 the Roma were particularly badly effected by the holocaust.

My point being if we are happy to have the Irish it isn't about foreigners coming and taking our jobs is it ? Because cultural ties or not, if you believe immigration disadvantages us then it won't magically absorb less jobs just because the immigrants are Irish. (Though the UCL study I cited above suggests immigrants are in fact a net economic benefit to the UK.)

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Roma have been in Britain for centuries. And interestingly, they have never fought a war with us or mounted a terrorist campaign - nor did we ever invade or wholesale exclude them.

On the other hand, they are not white.

But what cultural, social, historic, economic and geographical ties to the UK does a Romany who has spent all his life on the outskirts of Bucharest have?
Well, quite a lot with the existing UK Roma community for a start. Then there is all we share in common with Europe anyway - e.g. WW11 the Roma were particularly badly effected by the holocaust.

My point being if we are happy to have the Irish it isn't about foreigners coming and taking our jobs is it ? Because cultural ties or not, if you believe immigration disadvantages us then it won't magically absorb less jobs just because the immigrants are Irish. (Though the UCL study I cited above suggests immigrants are in fact a net economic benefit to the UK.)

I think a decent counterpoint could be constructed from the fact that wage standards are so similar between Ireland and the UK that immigration will only affect the market in a marginal way, and society will be affected in a lesser way or at least a more familiar way. The main "problem" with Polish workers is not their looks, they are even whiter than Scandinavians and Brits in general. It's that they work twice as hard at half the pay (in Sweden at least). Try saying that about the Irish. [Biased]

That affects the markets to some degree, and hands power over to the capital-holders and away from the working class.

[ 14. November 2013, 06:57: Message edited by: JFH ]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Republic of Ireland has external border controls in the same way that the UK has, doesn't it? If Britain withdraws from the EU the CTA will remain in effect. I don't see the problem.
The problem comes with allowing non-EU citizens into the EU, and then on to other EU countries. The Irish going to the UK is fine - it's UK citizens entering the Republic which is the problem. The EU frontier is right there, whatever bilateral agreements might be in place. The Irish won't want stringent border controls between Ireland and mainland Europe, so they'll just have to put them in the north of the island instead.

You're confusing membership of the EU with membership of the Schengen Treaty free travel zone which is not entirely dependent on EU membership. The UK and Ireland are not part of the Schengen zone, and instead they have a separate open borders arrangement called the Common Travel Area which is merely a bilateral agreement between the two countries concerned.

The Schengen Treaty rules do require that passport checks are made when entering/exiting the Schengen zone from/to a non-Schengen country for the purpose of verifying visa compliance. This is why people travelling from France to the UK (or Spain to Ireland, or Germany to Australia, etc) have their passport checked when leaving the last Schengen zone country.

New members of the EU are required to also join the Schengen Treaty and the Euro common currency, which could be complex if Scotland secedes from the UK. A post-secession Scotland would have an either/or choice between the trade benefits of EU membership and shared borders/currency with the UK, certain other EU members with potential separatist regions would be lining up to ensure post-secession Scotland would only get a "full" EU membership that includes the common currency and the Schengen Treaty.

Schengen Treaty membership for post-secession Scotland would mean open borders with other Schengen zone countries (i.e. flying to/from Frankfurt would be just like a domestic flight) and mandatory border checks on the Scottish side when entering/leaving Scotland to/from non-Schengen countries like Ireland and the UK - whether the UK would also enact checks on their side of the Schengen frontiers at Carlisle and Berwick would be up to the UK to decide.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
You're confusing membership of the EU with membership of the Schengen Treaty free travel zone which is not entirely dependent on EU membership.

Nope. Not confused at all.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Irish won't want stringent border controls between Ireland and mainland Europe, so they'll just have to put them in the north of the island instead.
Irish trade goes to and from the United Kingdom and also the mainland of Europe, we actively welcome GB and NI visitors, and most of us have personal connections across the island of Ireland and in Great Britain.

Consequently what you have suggested as an Irish response to the UK leaving the EU is pure conjecture and doesn't reflect Irish interests in any way. Any demented idea that we will somehow lash up a border across Ireland isn't going to happen.

I think the mainland Europe thing is significantly over-egged. Look at Ireland's import figures: 38% come from Britain and 14% come from the USA (so that's a majority from just two countries). The continent's mixed in with China, Switzerland, Japan, Singapore, and Canada.

The difficulty comes for Ireland, should Britain leave the EU, in achieving what's good for Ireland without looking like West Brits.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

It's not that simple.

Some countries contribute more to the EC than they pay out.Others are nett receivers.

Ireland is a receiver. Should the UK leave it would still be good financially for Ireland to be in the EC despitethe UK and USA together making up over 50% of it's trade.

As for UK membership, Much of the EU finances goes through London: The London stock exchange is larger than Frankfurt. So despite the UK being a nett giver to The EC, it would be financial suicide to leave.

To the man in the street this would mean a UK recession on leaving. Do you want your standard of living to go down?

On financial considerations alone it would be madness to leave.

Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on :

Basically, we are part of Europe - albeit an island just off the mainland - and I would like us to stay part of the EU. The USA is all very well, but the only common ground seems to be language. Sounds simple, but I feel European.

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
As for UK membership, Much of the EU finances goes through London: The London stock exchange is larger than Frankfurt. So despite the UK being a nett giver to The EC, it would be financial suicide to leave.

To the man in the street this would mean a UK recession on leaving. Do you want your standard of living to go down?

On financial considerations alone it would be madness to leave.

It's not that simple. For example, Germany and France are pushing for taxes aimed mainly (at 95 % IIRC) at the finance sector in London. Similarly, once the Euro crisis resurfaces and the bill is to be paid, I am not so sure being attached to the overarching institution is of that much use. Personally, I see plenty of use in other forms of regional cooperations, but I think this one is beyond salvation from its own bureaucratic and antidemocratic weight.

[ 14. November 2013, 09:09: Message edited by: JFH ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Anglican't:

quote:

The EU isn't popular in Ireland at the moment.

Lol. Yes, for the moment. In another five minutes we will have changed our mind because we're fickle like that. But on a deeper level we have a self understanding as being European, so much as we might complain (a national past-time), it's unlikely we will ever leave it unless something truly awful happens.

I suspect Ireland will be the least of the UK's worries - not that it has ever worried about it before. When Scotland gains its independence and joins the EU, will you erect a border then?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
You're confusing membership of the EU with membership of the Schengen Treaty free travel zone which is not entirely dependent on EU membership.
Nope. Not confused at all.

No, the cheeseburger is right. Iceland and Norway are Schengen but not EU. Ireland and Britain are EU but not Schengen and the open border is a separate treaty that would not, legally at least, be affected by EU withdrawal.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Anglican't:

quote:

The EU isn't popular in Ireland at the moment.

Lol. Yes, for the moment. In another five minutes we will have changed our mind because we're fickle like that. But on a deeper level we have a self understanding as being European, so much as we might complain (a national past-time), it's unlikely we will ever leave it unless something truly awful happens.

I suspect Ireland will be the least of the UK's worries - not that it has ever worried about it before. When Scotland gains its independence and joins the EU, will you erect a border then?

Aiui Ireland has a choice - Schengen or Britain. Scotland as a new EU member would be obliged to join Schengen. The rest of the UK would then have to accept an open border with Schengen via Scotland, or else erect controls.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
You're confusing membership of the EU with membership of the Schengen Treaty free travel zone which is not entirely dependent on EU membership.
Nope. Not confused at all.
No, the cheeseburger is right. Iceland and Norway are Schengen but not EU. Ireland and Britain are EU but not Schengen and the open border is a separate treaty that would not, legally at least, be affected by EU withdrawal.

But the RoI/UK border would be an external EU border, and neither country is party to Schengen. The border controls would be hopefully more like entering France from Switzerland than entering Greece from Turkey, but all those little back roads would surely have to go.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

But Switzerland is part of Schengen, isn't it?

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

But the RoI/UK border would be an external EU border, and neither country is party to Schengen. The border controls would be hopefully more like entering France from Switzerland than entering Greece from Turkey, but all those little back roads would surely have to go.

I imagine it would become something like the Swedish border to Norway: 7 customs stations along major roads, but all other roads open, meaning . Customs only stopping suspicious-looking cars. From what I hear, all along the 1500 km border, the forest is cleared in a 10 m wide alley marking the border, together with yellow marking stones at regular intervals. Here's a picture. Whereas the infrastructure in Northern Ireland is likely to be more developed than in the outbacks of Sweden, it's not hard to find small backroads into Norway on for example Google Maps.

I know the UK is not a member of the Schengen treaty, but I assume they'd work out some sort of treaty to make it easy. I also expect the French to put up a customs station in the middle of the Euro tunnel and charge £100 visa fees/entry.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I've um'd and ah'd about EU membership for a while, but the final straw came for me when I watched Paddy Ashdown on Question Time.

I recall, about a dozen or so years ago, Paddy Ashdown said that if Britain didn't join the single currency the pound 'would be like a cork bobbing on the ocean between two ocean liners'.

When he appeared on Question Time a year or so ago, he said that if Britain left the EU she would be like 'a cork bobbing alone on the ocean'.

That's when it struck me that the people who advocate Britain remaining inside the EU are more often than not the same people who advocated Britain's entry into the single currency and who claimed that many terrible things would happen if we kept the pound.

As it turns out, we were probably better off keeping the pound than joining the single currency. These people have cried wolf once. I'm not minded to give them a second chance.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But Switzerland is part of Schengen, isn't it?

In which case that was a terrible example for me to use... [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But Switzerland is part of Schengen, isn't it?
In which case that was a terrible example for me to use...

To be honest, I only know that because I had a quick look on Wikipedia when the topic came up. I'm surprised, actually, at how big the Schengen area is. I thought more countries had opted out than just the UK and Ireland.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JFH:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

But the RoI/UK border would be an external EU border, and neither country is party to Schengen. The border controls would be hopefully more like entering France from Switzerland than entering Greece from Turkey, but all those little back roads would surely have to go.
I imagine it would become something like the Swedish border to Norway: 7 customs stations along major roads, but all other roads open, meaning . Customs only stopping suspicious-looking cars. From what I hear, all along the 1500 km border, the forest is cleared in a 10 m wide alley marking the border, together with yellow marking stones at regular intervals. Here's a picture. Whereas the infrastructure in Northern Ireland is likely to be more developed than in the outbacks of Sweden, it's not hard to find small backroads into Norway on for example Google Maps.

I know the UK is not a member of the Schengen treaty, but I assume they'd work out some sort of treaty to make it easy. I also expect the French to put up a customs station in the middle of the Euro tunnel and charge £100 visa fees/entry.

Even at the height of the Troubles the hundreds of "unapproved roads" could not all be sealed off. The Irish border goes through fields, streams, mountains and in at least one well known case right through the centre of a a town. I can guarantee you that it will not be the Irish side seeking to erect any barriers and Northern Ireland's executive, will not want barriers to trade and movement between Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain. Northern Ireland has one UKIP assembly member. Good luck with that again.

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I thought more countries had opted out than just the UK and Ireland.

I've been wondering whether it was ignorance or spite that made the Brits such inconveniences when it comes to travelling. The jury's still out on the causes of the disaster that is Heathrow.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
My point being if we are happy to have the Irish it isn't about foreigners coming and taking our jobs is it ?

While the Irish might be technically foreign on some level (i.e. citizens of a republic that isn't a member of the Commonwealth, etc.) they just aren't, are they? They used to be fellow citizens, they travel here, they vote here. As far as I'm aware they enjoy virtually the same rights in Britain as the British do.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
My point being if we are happy to have the Irish it isn't about foreigners coming and taking our jobs is it ?
While the Irish might be technically foreign on some level (i.e. citizens of a republic that isn't a member of the Commonwealth, etc.) they just aren't, are they? They used to be fellow citizens, they travel here, they vote here. As far as I'm aware they enjoy virtually the same rights in Britain as the British do.

Ireland Act 1949. Legally we are not foreigners. Which is why, despite not being fond of the EU I am trenchantly opposed to anything that would limit the rights of any of us in Britain or Ireland to free movement in each other's jurisdiction.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

But the RoI/UK border would be an external EU border, and neither country is party to Schengen. The border controls would be hopefully more like entering France from Switzerland than entering Greece from Turkey, but all those little back roads would surely have to go.

What I'm trying to get at is that if it's possible to have an open border between an EU and a non-EU state - such as those negotiated under the Schengen Agreement - it should be possible to create a similar border between the UK and Ireland.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

But the RoI/UK border would be an external EU border, and neither country is party to Schengen. The border controls would be hopefully more like entering France from Switzerland than entering Greece from Turkey, but all those little back roads would surely have to go.
What I'm trying to get at is that if it's possible to have an open border between an EU and a non-EU state - such as those negotiated under the Schengen Agreement - it should be possible to create a similar border between the UK and Ireland.

And I think the point I'm trying to make is that that's fine if you're entering the Schengen agreement. My understanding is that the UK wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, so even if the UK and the RoI came to a bilateral agreement, the UK would have to also come to an agreement with the Schengen group, that wasn't Schengen, or alternatively, have a stricter border regime somewhere. And that would be between Ireland and the continent, if it wasn't between the UK and Ireland.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

But the RoI/UK border would be an external EU border, and neither country is party to Schengen. The border controls would be hopefully more like entering France from Switzerland than entering Greece from Turkey, but all those little back roads would surely have to go.

There's no such thing as an "external EU border" though, you've made it up on the fly. The only thing which makes a non-Schengen border control between two EU member states any more meaningful than the useless trivia of an "external NATO border" or "external FIFA border" is that the shared EU passport format can be useful for organising traffic flow through the immigration facilities at a large airport.

The only reason that border controls would need to be set up between the UK and Ireland would be if one acceded to the Schengen Treaty and the other didn't. Countries acceding to the Schengen Treaty are obliged to revoke all their other open border agreements and set up controls at what you would call the "external Schengen border."

It could get a bit awkward if Scotland secedes from the UK and, after secession, decides to apply for EU membership. Unlike those countries which were EU members before the Schengen Treaty commenced which were able to "opt out" of Schengen, countries which apply for a new EU membership are required to accede to the Schengen Treaty and work towards joining the Eurozone as a condition of their EU membership. This would certainly apply to Scotland (a number of other EU members would be keen to veto any special treatment being given to a secessionist state) which would lead to Scotland complying with their treaty obligations and setting up border controls at Gretna and Berwick if the UK did not accede to the Schengen Treaty at the same time.

quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
I know the UK is not a member of the Schengen treaty, but I assume they'd work out some sort of treaty to make it easy. I also expect the French to put up a customs station in the middle of the Euro tunnel and charge £100 visa fees/entry.

There are already border controls as part of the Eurotunnel operation. People using Eurostar passenger trains clear them at their station of departure or a mid-journey stop, and people taking cars or trucks on Eurotunnel shuttle trains clear them at the shuttle terminal.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
There's no such thing as an "external EU border" though, you've made it up on the fly.

Dear TCG,

When the official EU page on immigration into the EU uses the phrase "external EU border", eg

quote:
You will enter the EU via an external border when you come from a non-EU country to an EU country. You can enter the EU by air, land or sea.

You can only cross the EU's external borders at designated border crossing-points and during formal opening times.

I get to ignore everything else you say, and strongly suggest that everyone else follows suit.

regards,

Doc Tor

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

I think the thing is that most EU external borders are to countries of dubious administrative development, such as Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Turkey. In many cases, these are borders that would be checked intensely no matter whether or not the country was part of the EU or not. However, Switzerland and Norway are both part of the Schengen area and have historically peaceful and calm borders, as well as administration that keeps decent records of the people, rendering the bordering (and the rest of the) EU countries less worried about trouble coming from there. I dare say that that is likely to become the case with the UK as well.

ETA: That quote from the EU website is evidently proven wrong by the Swedish-Norwegian border, which is ridiculously easy to cross and lacks many border checks. It's a Schengen country, but on the other side of an external border of the EU as well.

[ 14. November 2013, 19:20: Message edited by: JFH ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

That's when it struck me that the people who advocate Britain remaining inside the EU are more often than not the same people who advocated Britain's entry into the single currency and who claimed that many terrible things would happen if we kept the pound.

There are plenty of pro-europeans who are simultaneously anti-euro - or who pointed out that the Euro was unlikely to work without a common fiscal policy and strong fiscal transfers between regions.

Just because a particular politician uses a particular argument incorrectly in one scenario doesn't make that particular argument universally incorrect.

The 'Brussels red-tape' etc. would be exactly the same were we part of EFTA rather than the EU, except that we would no longer be able to influence it even in a small way. Of course we could go down the bilateral road, but we would be economically poorer for it - not massively so, but enough to notice. The raw trade figures don't highlight the 10/20% of trade that goes on primarily because Britain is an Anglophone member of the EU (and therefore a natural place for a lot of overseas business to head quarter).

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
There are plenty of pro-europeans who are simultaneously anti-euro - or who pointed out that the Euro was unlikely to work without a common fiscal policy and strong fiscal transfers between regions.

Just because a particular politician uses a particular argument incorrectly in one scenario doesn't make that particular argument universally incorrect.

It seems to me that many of the politicians who advocated entry to the Euro make exactly the same arguments in relation to the EU, except that they substitute 'EU' for 'Euro'.

I accept that there are some pro-EU, anti-Euro politicians. David Cameron is one of them.

quote:
The 'Brussels red-tape' etc. would be exactly the same were we part of EFTA rather than the EU, except that we would no longer be able to influence it even in a small way. Of course we could go down the bilateral road, but we would be economically poorer for it - not massively so, but enough to notice. The raw trade figures don't highlight the 10/20% of trade that goes on primarily because Britain is an Anglophone member of the EU (and therefore a natural place for a lot of overseas business to head quarter).

I don't quite follow you here. If we were in the EEA but not the EU, why wouldn't we still have this 10-20% of trade that occurs because we're an Anglophone member of the EU? On your argument the British government wouldn't be able to influence red tape, etc. but an American company, for example, would still have access to the European market from Britain.

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

I have to pose a somewhat tangential question:
How many here actually believe that the EU will function remotely in the same manner should the third largest member, one of its largest givers, leave?

From my standpoint, it seems it will affect the situation for the Scandinavians (traditional allies), drastically change the balance of North vs South Europeans, change the argument that everyone who matters is in the union (with >10 % of the population leaving!) and call into question the feasibility of a united Europe, which has always been one of the EU's strongest arguments for its existence.

Would these and other similar effects really pass unnoticed within Europe, or would they be met with reforms changing the inside of the EU making it something else than it is today? (By the way, whoever can define conclusively in less than ten words what it is today wins a cup of coffee at a café in Brussels or possibly Stockholm.)

To me, the turmoil due to the never-ending Euro crisis seems likely to worsen should the basic idea of a united Europe crumble, and a worsened such situation would likely have strong effects on the political situations in Italy, Spain and even France, thus taking Germany with it. So frankly, I'm not convinced by those saying the Brits are solely voting on whether to be included or excluded from Brussels - it's a way greater issue than that, bearing potential historical weight somewhat similar to the Yalta Conference.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
There's no such thing as an "external EU border" though, you've made it up on the fly.
Dear TCG,

When the official EU page on immigration into the EU uses the phrase "external EU border", eg

quote:
You will enter the EU via an external border when you come from a non-EU country to an EU country. You can enter the EU by air, land or sea.

You can only cross the EU's external borders at designated border crossing-points and during formal opening times.
I get to ignore everything else you say, and strongly suggest that everyone else follows suit.

regards,

Doc Tor

In strict legal terms, TGC is absolutely correct - there is no such thing as an "external EU border", only a border between a country that is an EU member and another country that isn't. It is a term of administrative convenience. Similarly, "EU law" just means law of a member state made under an authority legally delegated by a member state to Brussels, and "EU citizenship" just means an incidental benefit conferred on a citizen of an EU member state.

The UK and ROI are sovereign states, regardless of their membership of the EU and their borders are their own business to determine.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
There are plenty of pro-europeans who are simultaneously anti-euro - or who pointed out that the Euro was unlikely to work without a common fiscal policy and strong fiscal transfers between regions.

Just because a particular politician uses a particular argument incorrectly in one scenario doesn't make that particular argument universally incorrect.

It seems to me that many of the politicians who advocated entry to the Euro make exactly the same arguments in relation to the EU, except that they substitute 'EU' for 'Euro'.

I accept that there are some pro-EU, anti-Euro politicians. David Cameron is one of them.

quote:
The 'Brussels red-tape' etc. would be exactly the same were we part of EFTA rather than the EU, except that we would no longer be able to influence it even in a small way. Of course we could go down the bilateral road, but we would be economically poorer for it - not massively so, but enough to notice. The raw trade figures don't highlight the 10/20% of trade that goes on primarily because Britain is an Anglophone member of the EU (and therefore a natural place for a lot of overseas business to head quarter).
I don't quite follow you here. If we were in the EEA but not the EU, why wouldn't we still have this 10-20% of trade that occurs because we're an Anglophone member of the EU? On your argument the British government wouldn't be able to influence red tape, etc. but an American company, for example, would still have access to the European market from Britain.

Or from Dublin. I think we could ride out the mock outrage from the Express etc. as they never respected us in the first place, while they get excited about being able to chuck kids up chimneys again.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
This is not the Common Market that we signed up to in the 70s

I'd like to come back to this.

I recently heard the observation that when it joined the EU, the UK did indeed think it was joining the Common Market, that's how it was referred to (I am old enough to remember!). The interest for the UK has always been about trade.

Among the founding states in continental Europe, though, a huge reason for the European Union was the spectre of World War II and the thought "never again": trade was seen as a means to a higher end.

It has taken me many years of living in France to realise what a difference being a theatre of WW2 has made to the national psyche compared to the UK, and many more to understand how different it makes the perception of the EU.

Another thing I have realised through my job is how bad the EU is at communication and publicity. People don't understand its mechanisms, and perhaps more importantly, don't appreciate the funds that go into various projects across the EU - including in the UK. What they may also not appreciate (in both senses of the term) is that such cross-border projects are deliberately designed to foster a common, European culture among the EU's managerial elite...

[ 16. November 2013, 06:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What they may also not appreciate (in both senses of the term) is that such cross-border projects are deliberately designed to foster a common, European culture among the EU's managerial elite...

It's deliberately designed to destroy national differences and individuality and unite the whole continent into one nation. Yes, I've been saying that for years. It's why I oppose it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I can understand that and I'm not saying it's an unequivocally good thing.

But my experience is that seeing WW2 photographs of soldiers from the occupying army standing outside the local equivalent of Marks&Spencer (which has barely changed since), in a place you call home, offers a chilling realisation that there are more ways than one of trampling on national identity.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I'm old enough to have voted in the 1975 referendum and the memory of that campaign, and the revelations that have come with the release of papers under the 30 Year Rule, leave me less than confident that any future referendum will be either honest or fair.

It is well-documented that the majority of people at the top of the IN campaign in 1975 were not only aware that the plan was for closer, possibly full, political integration on the countries in the EEC but that a conscious decision was made to deny it. Messrs Jenkins, Heath, etc, were gung-ho about the UK ceding huge swathes of powers to Brussels-Strasbourg but knew that it would not get past the electorate so they deliberately covered it up.

Most of the people who voted YES in 1975 did so because they could see trade advantages, and even then we were lied to, particularly in relation to our well-established trade links with Australia and New Zealand.

I'm also disturbed at reports that the European Commission has its lawyers busy trying to find a way to channel funds to the IN campaign for any UK referendum: this is clearly and unequivocally against the law - both UK law and EU law. But the little matter of something being illegal doesn't seem to bother Senhor Barroso.

And there is also the little matter of the EU commission's attitude to national referenda: as has been seen in Ireland, if the country in question doesn't come up with the "right" answer then the EU will re-word the question until they get the answer they deem to be correct.

Similarly, the EU is less than honest when producing statistics to bolster the IN camp's position: for example, the figure usually touted as being the percentage of UK output that is "exported" to the EU includes everything that goes elsewhere in the world via another EU port outside the UK. So if Nissan cars are loaded onto a ship that leaves Immingham for New Zealand (or anywhere) but that docks at, say, Rotterdam briefly on the way, then ALL those cars are listed by the EU as being exported from the UK to the EU.

Above all, the EU has expanded far too rapidly for its bureaucracy, which is corrupt, inefficient, hugely expensive and totally unaccountable. Its creation of a Foreign Affairs department in particular shows just how out-of-touch with reality the politicos who run the EU are: not only has the EU commission decided that IT, rather than national governments, shall decide the foreign policy of member states, but it puts at its head Catherine Ashton: a labour life-peer who has NEVER won an election in her life. With a degree in Sociology, her background has all been in quangos or large public bodies: her brief period at the helm of the Hertfordshire Health Authority was disastrous, as was her period of responsibility for the office of Public Guardian - which she left in a shambolic state which was (rightly) castigated by a commons committee and the National Audit Office. Baroness Ashton (Mrs Peter Kellner) is also supposed to be the EU's head of security policy, despite having no background in either foreign affairs, security or diplomacy of any kind.

This is but one example of the EU but it is fairly typical. The EU not only does nothing to root out corruption at its heart, it hunts down and attempts to punish anyone who attempts to whistleblow. The over-rapid enlargement has only worsened things in this regard so that we now have open boarders with countries with some of the most endemic corruption and organised crime in the world.

The IN campaign is doing its best to cause panic and fear by trotting out a number of multinationals to say they don't want the UK to leave the EU. But with the greatest respect, it is for the people of the UK, not the board of a Japanese car-maker or the US State Department, to decide whether or not we remain in the EU.

Will Nissan leave? No. Neither Nissan nor any of the other large Japanese companies that have plant here have made that investment just to pull out - it wouldn't make economic sense in either the short or the long term.

IN or OUT? My heart says 51% in - but my head says 80% out, simply because the graft, corruption, inefficiency and all-round dishonesty with the EU are just too great and there seems no will (never mind ability) to face them, never mind sort them out.

If you remain in doubt look at Greece. The EU KNEW that Greece didn't meet the criteria it set for joining. It knew because it had anti-fraud investigators in Greece before Greece joined to try and find out what was happening to EU funds. So concerned was it that they employed specialist, non-EU forensic accountants to try to track the money - and so frightening were the threats that at least 2 of those investigators had armed personal protection not only whilst in Greece but when they returned to write their report and for some years after. The EU was given hard evidence of fraud and corruption and chose to ignore it.

Later they were given evidence that ALL of the economic figures on which Greece's membership of the EURO were based were fiction: the EU chose to ignore it.

The evidence now is that there is no change in the fundamental corruption that got Greece into its current state: but the EU is now putting pressure on member states - notably Germany - to accept that Greece is OK and has a working economy and is on-track to dig its way out of the mess. Nothing could be further from the truth: and the EU has had the evidence for years that for Greece to be a member of the Eurozone is a timebomb for the other members - sooner or later there'll be another crisis, and this will continue until common sense prevails and Greece goes back to the Drachma, perhaps even leaves the EU. And for Greece you can read Bulgaria, Romania, etc. Frankly, if the EU was going to expand beyond the 12 the country in the best economic position at the time to do so was Turkey... but we all know why that wasn't an option.

Out. Out now. Ignore the bluster and threats. If we're offered a Free-Trade agreement, fine, but if not there's a whole big world out there without a lot of the red tape that Brussels winds into a club. Out may be a risk, but staying in guarantees a without time limit blank cheque that will shackle our children and grandchildren to paying for graft, corruption and incompetence on a truly epic scale.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm also disturbed at reports that the European Commission has its lawyers busy trying to find a way to channel funds to the IN campaign for any UK referendum: this is clearly and unequivocally against the law - both UK law and EU law.

Do you have a source for that assertion?

[ 16. November 2013, 08:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Eutychus
Yes, I do.

Without going into too much detail I can tell you that the EU have (a) put out feelers to the Electoral Commission about the rules on funding for UK campaigns; (b) back in Brussels the EU's own legal department is busy looking to see if there is a way to circumvent the rule that the Commission cannot give funds to a specific party or campaign team UNLESS it is an EU-wide election, and then only in a very narrowly defined way; (c) it is offering help via un-paid "volunteers" to the In campaign as and when the date is known.

Friends who work for the devil can be useful...

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I meant a source you could quote.

Anecdotal evidence is all very well, but it cannot be subjected to third-party scrutiny or its legality or otherwise easily established.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Apart from my sources who work in Brussels?

Well, even The Sunday Times managed to get something into print on 3rd November

quote:
The constitutional committee of the Brussels parliament has sent a confidential document to lawyers asking for advice on how Europe can participate in national referendums.

EU law prohibits European interference in elections or referendums held in individual nation states, but the parliament believes a detailed study of different national rules may enable it to find ways of legally sidestepping the restriction.

That do for starters?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Sure. What it tells me first and foremost is that the alleged efforts are to "legally sidestep", whereas you said any such action would be "against the law".

It could be argued that the EU has legitimate grounds for voicing an opinion on the secession of a member state and exploring all legitimate means of doing so.

And in any case, I don't think such behind-the-scenes attempts to influence the democratic process are the preserve of any one entity.

The EU is far from perfect and needs a lot more transparency, but I think it's better for existing member states to be in than out.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

"Legally sidestep" means they want to step around the law - in other words, contributing monies from the EU to a particular campaign in one country would be against the law.

You think its better for states to be in the EU than not: what are you basing that belief on?

The best place for you to look would be Norway: despite an overwhelming majority of its political class being pro-EU the good people of Norway have refused to vote to join - TWICE.

So, Norway has a free-trade agreement with the EU. It also contributes on a voluntary basis to some EU projects but it retains the right to stand apart from the EU on others.

The following from the UK Electoral Commission may also answer some of your questions:

quote:
Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), a political party can only contest UK elections to the European Parliament if it is registered with the Electoral Commission. Here is a link to our guidance document "Introduction to registering a political party" which sets out the registration process:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__...

Under PPERA parties registered with the Commission are subject to restrictions on the sources from which they can accept donations and loans. Here is our guidance document "Overview of donations to political parties" which describes the sources from which parties registered in Great Britain can accept donations:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__...

Parties registered to stand for election in Northern Ireland can also accept donations and loans in that regard from some sources in the Republic of Ireland.

These provisions mean that any party that contests European Parliament elections in the UK is subject to PPERA restrictions on sources of donations and loans.

The same rules apply to UK referenda as to other elections.

quote:
I don't think such behind-the-scenes attempts to influence the democratic process are the preserve of any one entity.

I'm quite sure you're right, but any donation(s) to either campaign in the UK will have to be reported to the Electoral Commission, and if they come from a political party, company or trades union they will have to be reported by that body too.

What the EU Commission is wanting to do is to be able to give funds to one particular side of an argument in a sovereign state which is absolutely against EU rules - for the very good reason that national elections (which includes referenda) are just that: a plebiscite for citizens of one nation to be held fairly without let, hindrance, interference or gerry-mandering by any third party(s) - which is the status of the EU in regards to ANY UK election of any type, a third-party. So, to use your own word, it is not "legitimate" for the EU to seek to explore any means whatsoever to try to bring its influence to bear on an election held in the UK, regardless of the subject of that election.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
You think its better for states to be in the EU than not: what are you basing that belief on?

That's not what I said. I said existing member states. I think it would be better for existing member states to work to improve the way the EU works than to slam the door, but that's as much a question of temperament as of politics for me.

quote:
The best place for you to look would be Norway

I am not an expert, but it seems to me that Norway has something the UK hasn't: a wealth of exploitable natural fossil fuel resources within its own territory. This offers it a sure source of autonomy (at least for now).

I am well aware from direct experience that Norway opts into bits of EU operation (such as cross-border projects) when it wants to; but the fact is that it can only do so because those EU projects exist!

quote:
What the EU Commission is wanting to do is to be able to give funds to one particular side of an argument

I don't see how you can give money to a "side of an argument". You have to give it to some sort of agency. The links in your quote don't work, but as I understand it contributions to UK parties and campaign funds have to be declared. This is said to apply to donations from within the UK, but I can't imagine that some foreign entity can simply and legally make a huge donation directly without going through a UK entity and/or declaring it. If foreign entities could do that, the EU would surely not be the first to do so.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
In strict legal terms, TGC is absolutely correct - there is no such thing as an "external EU border", only a border between a country that is an EU member and another country that isn't. It is a term of administrative convenience. Similarly, "EU law" just means law of a member state made under an authority legally delegated by a member state to Brussels

It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

European Union law

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

The Bodleian Law Library thinks EU law exists too...

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

So, when financial services are decimated, worker protection repealed and cheap immigrant labour expelled, what will you do then? Recruit a massive UK Border Agency to police the unpoliceable Irish border to make up the slack?

More importantly, who will the right wing press have as a scapegoat then? Be careful what you wish for.

Ireland tried isolation for decades after independence and it impoverished us. Unless there is some kind of new grouping between the United Kingdom and the Scandinavians that gives the benefits of pooled resources, worker protection and some form of currency link, Ireland will be better off within the the EU - that is the only situation that I could see the Irish dumping the EU or the Euro.

Going back to the Irish Pound would be a carpetbagger's wet dream and we have proven that isolationism is a dead end.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
"Legally sidestep" means they want to step around the law - in other words, contributing monies from the EU to a particular campaign in one country would be against the law.

No, "legally sidestepping the restriction" means finding a way to do what they want that would be in accordance with the law - otherwise it would say "illegally sidestepping."

The two links you attempted to include are

The first is irrelevant; the second is a little more useful, as it lists the permissible donors to political parties, which seems at first glance not to include a category into which an EU body might fit. But political parties aren't the only ones permitted to campaign on referendums, so maybe there's a way in there. You'd probably end up wading into something like PPERA 2000 c.41, Schedule 15, Part II Prohibitions on accepting donations from impermissible donors, so getting an authoritative an answer to the question of how Europe can participate in national referendums probably would require a discussion with lawyers, and ... hey, isn't that exactly what the constitutional committee is said to be doing?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
In strict legal terms, TGC is absolutely correct - there is no such thing as an "external EU border", only a border between a country that is an EU member and another country that isn't. It is a term of administrative convenience. Similarly, "EU law" just means law of a member state made under an authority legally delegated by a member state to Brussels
It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

European Union law

I think you miss the point. As I understand it, EU law exists in the same way that road tax or the bedroom tax exist - they don't, but they are a convenient shorthand for someone more complex.

If Ricardus plc breaches "EU labour law", it will actually be prosecuted for breach of an English law that is an EU directive enacted into English statute. If Westminster had in fact failed to enact the directive, I think Ricardus plc would be in the clear, although the UK itself might not be.

The practical consequence is that when the Daily Mail runs a story about ridiculous EU rules, sometimes it's the way Westminster chose to incorporate those rules into English law that's ridiculous, not the original directive.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
In strict legal terms, TGC is absolutely correct - there is no such thing as an "external EU border", only a border between a country that is an EU member and another country that isn't. It is a term of administrative convenience. Similarly, "EU law" just means law of a member state made under an authority legally delegated by a member state to Brussels
It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

European Union law
I think you miss the point. As I understand it, EU law exists in the same way that road tax or the bedroom tax exist - they don't, but they are a convenient shorthand for someone more complex.

If you follow one of the links at the bottom of the Wikipedia page Doc Tor cites, you can experience the ineffable pleasures of EUR-Lex Access to European Law, which in turn leads to the enthralling Official Journal of the European Union, which contains records of and links to legislative acts like REGULATION (EU) No 1051/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 October 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 in order to provide for common rules on the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders in exceptional circumstances. This contains such exciting passages as

quote:
Where, in the area without internal border control, there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security in a Member State, that Member State may exceptionally reintroduce border control at all or specific parts of its internal borders for a limited period of up to 30 days or for the foreseeable duration of the serious threat if its duration exceeds 30 days. The scope and duration of the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders shall not exceed what is strictly necessary to respond to the serious threat.

This (and the rest of it) looks a lot like other laws I've had occasion to see, and it is filed under "legislative acts" of the EU parliament and Council - so in what sense is it not really a law? It looks to me like the EU is telling member states what to do, and they have to do it - much as the US Congress might pass a law telling states what to do.

Perhaps the distinction you're trying to draw is that EU law applies directly to member states, but only indirectly to the individual citizens thereof? In the US, too, there are plenty of cases in which a higher level of government regulates a lower one without reference to the behavior of individual citizens - but these regulations are still called "laws".

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

"EU law" so called only has effect in the UK by virtue of particlar Acts of Parliament, for example the European Communities Act 1972 and others. These pieces of legislation in essence delegate certain aspects of Parliamentary power to Brussels. This is a very important point to bear in mind when people say that the UK is "no longer sovereign".

The correct situation is that certain laws made in Brussels are part of English or Scots law, pursuant to powers delegated by the appropriate body within those legal systems. It is, however, inconvenient to refer to "Laws passed under a power delegated by the UK parliament and other parliaments to a secretariat in Brussels". It is easier to use the term "EU law".

Do you understand my point now?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Do you understand my point now?

Do you correct everyone who says "sunrise" by telling them that the Sun isn't actually rising, but it's the rotation of the Earth giving the appearance of the sun rising?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I've lost the thread of this in legislation citations, which seems curiously appropriate for the EU, but if it means there could be a border, what will happen to Northern Ireland? Ireland will stay in the EU, Scotland after independence is highly likely too, which would mean that those in Northern Ireland would need a visa to get out of it. Would the UK minister for Northern Ireland need a visa to get into it too?

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

It would be a matter for Ireland, Scotland and the rump UK to deal with under their own domestic legislation - a point that appears to be lost on Doc Tor.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
"EU law" so called only has effect in the UK by virtue of particlar Acts of Parliament, for example the European Communities Act 1972 and others. These pieces of legislation in essence delegate certain aspects of Parliamentary power to Brussels. This is a very important point to bear in mind when people say that the UK is "no longer sovereign".

The correct situation is that certain laws made in Brussels are part of English or Scots law, pursuant to powers delegated by the appropriate body within those legal systems. It is, however, inconvenient to refer to "Laws passed under a power delegated by the UK parliament and other parliaments to a secretariat in Brussels". It is easier to use the term "EU law".

Do you understand my point now?

I'm afraid not, actually. You seem to be describing in some detail the process by which EU member states agreed to abide by certain EU legislative acts and the means by which they effect them, but I fail to see what this situation lacks that makes the term "EU law" shorthand rather than simple fact.

For instance, that "legislative act" I quoted previously - how is that not a law, promulgated by the EU, and thus EU law? It's not a recommendation, and the European Parliament is not a "secretariat in Brussels".

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

In the meantime, that doughty defender of English liberty, the Daily Express is in hot water. Well, actually they will have no hot water at all:

https://www.facebook.com/PrivateEyeNews/posts/10151905883929300

[Big Grin]

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

For instance, that "legislative act" I quoted previously - how is that not a law, promulgated by the EU, and thus EU law? It's not a recommendation, and the European Parliament is not a "secretariat in Brussels".

I never said it wasn't a law. It is just as much a law as any other law. The point is that EU law only has effect insofar that it is part of a member state's national law.

Similarly, the European Parliament (which I never described as being in Brussels as it is in Strasbourg - please read properly) isn't like a national parliament as it has no inherent sovereignty of its own.

The significance of this is that the EU doesn't get to say what individual member states get to do with their borders. FWIW, I'm pretty sure that San Marino isn't part of the EU, and it has an open-border arrangement with Italy, which is.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

For instance, that "legislative act" I quoted previously - how is that not a law, promulgated by the EU, and thus EU law? It's not a recommendation, and the European Parliament is not a "secretariat in Brussels".
I never said it wasn't a law. It is just as much a law as any other law.

And it was promulgated by the EU, and therefore EU law.

quote:
The point is that EU law only has effect insofar that it is part of a member state's national law.

Assuming that acquiescence to EU law isn't optional, I can't see how that makes any difference sufficient.

quote:

Similarly, the European Parliament (which I never described as being in Brussels as it is in Strasbourg - please read properly) isn't like a national parliament as it has no inherent sovereignty of its own.

I did read properly - you said

quote:
It is, however, inconvenient to refer to "Laws passed under a power delegated by the UK parliament and other parliaments to a secretariat in Brussels". It is easier to use the term "EU law".

and previously

quote:
Similarly, "EU law" just means law of a member state made under an authority legally delegated by a member state to Brussels

I am pointing out that the power to make these laws has been delegated to the European Parliament, not to a "secretariat in Brussels."

quote:

The significance of this is that the EU doesn't get to say what individual member states get to do with their borders.

Really? The law I quoted above certainly suggests otherwise, at least as regards borders between members of the Schengen Area.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I'm pretty sure that San Marino isn't part of the EU, and it has an open-border arrangement with Italy, which is.

This diagram gives the answer to the first part of your question (no, it isn't). The Channel Islands are missing off the diagram, and I'm not quite sure what Kazakhstan and Belarus are doing on it.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I'm pretty sure that San Marino isn't part of the EU, and it has an open-border arrangement with Italy, which is.
This diagram gives the answer to the first part of your question (no, it isn't). The Channel Islands are missing off the diagram, and I'm not quite sure what Kazakhstan and Belarus are doing on it.

Geographically Europe perhaps.

With San Marino, it also has no (public) airports or ports (or indeed coast). So in a sense it's rather easy to have a free border with.
Unless they were born/made there, you let them in to your country in the first place (and if there really was someone difficult who you can't stop from going to SM but Spain (& hence Europe) really doesn't want running around, you can probably work something out for that one case).

With say Norway/Sweden/Europe there's scope for play, so it would be a lot harder (they seem to have managed, though). With England/Ireland/Europe you have the added complication that the go-between is the smaller and external party (again they seem to have managed ok).* But if the UK and Europe diverge then...

*it probably helps in both cases that really you need to go by ship at some point (I know there are roads from Norway to Denmark, and Northern Ireland is part of the UK**).
**at least if I've got the terms right.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

So what is the deadline for the decision to withdraw or join the EU? Is it something any country in the EU can do at any time or never after joining or somewhere in between?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

My vague recollection from the period when Greece seemed to be teetering on an exit from the Euro is that no provision has been made for the procedures, either for an exit from the eurozone or from the EU. Is there an agreed procedure for a state to secede from the Union in the US?

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My vague recollection from the period when Greece seemed to be teetering on an exit from the Euro is that no provision has been made for the procedures, either for an exit from the eurozone or from the EU. Is there an agreed procedure for a state to secede from the Union in the US?

I'm sure that's a great image, especially if you want to maintain the point that the EU is a peace project.

You could also add that given the central idea of the EU as an "ever closer union", it's not certain when the people of a nation actually signed on to an unsecedable union. It certainly wasn't clear in 1973, I believe. Claiming that it is now will be another blow against democracy (and legitimacy), delivered by the hands of the eureaucracy.

And frankly, there are more ways than war to lose democracy and independence. Today, 80 % of Swedish law is actually written in Brussels and provided for us to simply sign and agree to. Take away all democratic functions from such a system, and it seems that we've forgone the independence and democracy we wanted to protect when creating a peace-inducing trade agreement.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Agreed.

If the EU (or EEC, for my generation) tries the argument that there is no mechanism for a country to leave then it will only give cast-iron ammo to the "OUT" campaign.

And the use of the word "secede" only adds to the impression that we've been frogmarched into a political union - most Brits, for example, will associate the word with the actions of the Southern states in the US in the run-up to the civil war.

The UK signed a treaty to join a free-trade organisation, with some added bits to bring into line various rules to do with the definition and standard of manufactured goods. We did not sign a treaty to give up our sovereignty and to imply that we can't leave the EU would be to confirm that the EU has taken over the governance of the UK.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Aiui Ireland has a choice - Schengen or Britain. Scotland as a new EU member would be obliged to join Schengen. The rest of the UK would then have to accept an open border with Schengen via Scotland, or else erect controls.

Closing the border with Scotland is a much more practical proposition than closing the one with the Republic of Ireland. There are relatively few roads crossing the border, and all the major ones cross it cleanly once.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If the EU (or EEC, for my generation) tries the argument that there is no mechanism for a country to leave then it will only give cast-iron ammo to the "OUT" campaign.

My statement in response to Palimpsest's question (which nobody has answered for sure yet) was, as I made clear, a vague recollection, not a sure assertion and still less being put forward as an argument.

quote:
And the use of the word "secede" only adds to the impression that we've been frogmarched into a political union - most Brits, for example, will associate the word with the actions of the Southern states in the US in the run-up to the civil war.

I did not use the word "secede" in relation to the EU but in relation to the US, where there has been talk of Arizona seceding from the Union a lot more recently than the Civil War.

At no point have I made the case for the UK being unable to leave the EU simply because there is no provision for it doing so. All I'm saying is that I don't think there is provision for such a move, and I'm wondering whether there is provision for a similar move at federal level in the US.

[ 18. November 2013, 09:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If the EU (or EEC, for my generation) tries the argument that there is no mechanism for a country to leave then it will only give cast-iron ammo to the "OUT" campaign.

Any EU insistence that secession is not allowed may well lead to a greater risk of (civil?) war between those states that want to leave and the rest of the union. Which would be ironic, given the amount of people who claim that the EU is the greatest protection against another European war...

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

[brick wall]

As far as I can tell, nobody here has alleged that a member state leaving the EU is not allowed. Palimpsest asked about the details, and I said I thought it might be the case that no provision had been made - i.e. no formal procedures exist. That was not intended to be transmogrified into an argument or prohibition against member states leaving - at least not by me.

And for those who don't like the comparison with the United States: is there any formal procedure for the eventuality of Scotland leaving the UK?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And for those who don't like the comparison with the United States: is there any formal procedure for the eventuality of Scotland leaving the UK?

Apparently not.

OMGCIVILWAR11!!!Eleventyone

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If the EU (or EEC, for my generation) tries the argument that there is no mechanism for a country to leave then it will only give cast-iron ammo to the "OUT" campaign. ...

That's probably true. On the other hand, didn't the Treaty of Lisbon set up a mechanism (at least, in general terms) for a country to leave the EU? That being the case, it seems unlikely that the EU authorities would deny the existence of such a mechanism.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JFH:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My vague recollection from the period when Greece seemed to be teetering on an exit from the Euro is that no provision has been made for the procedures, either for an exit from the eurozone or from the EU. Is there an agreed procedure for a state to secede from the Union in the US?
And frankly, there are more ways than war to lose democracy and independence. Today, 80 % of Swedish law is actually written in Brussels and provided for us to simply sign and agree to.

I'd be interested to see a source for that figure, or at least a clarification of what it's actually measuring.

So far as I can see, the countries of the EU have vastly different systems of healthcare, transport, education, democratic representation, foreign policy, policing, in fact most things, and where similarities exist, that's mostly a consequence of ideas becoming popular across Europe at the same time, rather than centralised Eurocratic fiat.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Eutychus:

quote:
is there any formal procedure for the eventuality of Scotland leaving the UK?

If it ever happens I assume the government will fall back on the usual strategy of Making It Up As We Go Along...

Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by JFH:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My vague recollection from the period when Greece seemed to be teetering on an exit from the Euro is that no provision has been made for the procedures, either for an exit from the eurozone or from the EU. Is there an agreed procedure for a state to secede from the Union in the US?
And frankly, there are more ways than war to lose democracy and independence. Today, 80 % of Swedish law is actually written in Brussels and provided for us to simply sign and agree to.
I'd be interested to see a source for that figure, or at least a clarification of what it's actually measuring.

So far as I can see, the countries of the EU have vastly different systems of healthcare, transport, education, democratic representation, foreign policy, policing, in fact most things, and where similarities exist, that's mostly a consequence of ideas becoming popular across Europe at the same time, rather than centralised Eurocratic fiat.

This particular web page refers to UK law. I doubt that there is signifiant difference between UK and Sweden in this respect.

quote:
Indeed as the House of Commons Library concluded, it is “possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts, depending on the approach.”

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My vague recollection from the period when Greece seemed to be teetering on an exit from the Euro is that no provision has been made for the procedures, either for an exit from the eurozone or from the EU. Is there an agreed procedure for a state to secede from the Union in the US?

The United States had a debate about whether states could secede from the Union. It was called the Civil War and the conclusion was no, states can't secede. Texas Secession movements occur for Texas to secede from the Union. This has come to issue several times since there are a number of Texans who do want to secede and not a small number of non-Texans who would be happy for them to do so. The federal government has rejected this theory and imprisoned some ardent advocates.

There's occasional attempts for portions of states to form a new state. This has not happened in modern times. While it's easy for two regions of a state to detest each other, since it gives the state more representation in the US Senate which other states aren't likely to allow and allowing the split would require a national vote. In the last election some counties in Colorado tried to switch what state they belonged to in order to escape the incursion of urbanites.

[ 18. November 2013, 19:18: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The United States had a debate about whether states could secede from the Union. It was called the Civil War and the conclusion was no, states can't secede.

Technically the Civil War only decided the question of whether states can unilaterally secede. Some theorize that since it requires a vote of the U.S. Congress to admit a new state to the union it should similarly require permission from Congress to secede. This is presumably similar to the way a Congressional vote is required to split an existing state (e.g. Maine or West Virginia) or form a new state out of the union of two current states (which has never happened to date). As far as I know, the U.S. Congress has never even debated the outright secession of a state from the union.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

The same argument used against unilateral secession (Article IV, Section 4) which states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." applies to secession by Congressional majority vote. If a state was allowed to secede, it would not be possible to enforce that guarantee.

In any event, there's been no discussion of it because no one thinks it would be possible. The only secession talk in Congress that I've seen has been for various US territories, notably Puerto Rico to secede. The Civil War was not fought because the seceding states failed to say "Mother may I?" before seceding.

[ 19. November 2013, 20:43: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The only secession talk in Congress that I've seen has been for various US territories, notably Puerto Rico to secede.

But I suppose the Philippines are sort-of precedent for that.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

There is a longstanding agreement that PR can choose either independence or become a state. So far their voters haven't gone for either.

The other big anomaly is DC of course. The only reason it is not allowed statehood is fear of two liberal Democrat senators.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Apologies, I got that wrong. In last years referendum a majority chose statehood. Apparently Obama has been trying, perhaps not very hard, to get Congress to do the decent thing. I was out of date. I should have checked before I posted.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Apologies, I got that wrong. In last years referendum a majority chose statehood. Apparently Obama has been trying, perhaps not very hard, to get Congress to do the decent thing. I was out of date. I should have checked before I posted.

Puerto Rico chose not to leave the US. However that doesn't mean they qualify for Statehood yet.
Puerto Rico has financial problems that rival Greece. They have over 70 billion dollars in debt in municipal bonds and are closed out of the bond market. In the past they've been assumed to have US Municipal Bond status but there is no clear Bankruptcy route like Detroit took.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Apologies, I got that wrong. In last years referendum a majority chose statehood. Apparently Obama has been trying, perhaps not very hard, to get Congress to do the decent thing. I was out of date. I should have checked before I posted.

Can President Obama get Congress to do *anything*? [Big Grin]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Apologies, I got that wrong. In last years referendum a majority chose statehood. Apparently Obama has been trying, perhaps not very hard, to get Congress to do the decent thing. I was out of date. I should have checked before I posted.
Can President Obama get Congress to do *anything*?

Perhaps the best way to get them to do it would be to come out against it!

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Apologies, I got that wrong. In last years referendum a majority chose statehood. Apparently Obama has been trying, perhaps not very hard, to get Congress to do the decent thing. I was out of date. I should have checked before I posted.
Can President Obama get Congress to do *anything*?
Perhaps the best way to get them to do it would be to come out against it!

I don't think that works. He thinks drone strikes are great, but Congress hasn't stopped them.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0