brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Even if it were just a FTA, there'd still be reason to hate it. I'm sure that many Mexicans hate NAFTA.It was basically a trade block 40 years ago Weltweit, keep up!
Even if it were just a FTA, there'd still be reason to hate it. I'm sure that many Mexicans hate NAFTA.It was basically a trade block 40 years ago Weltweit, keep up!
You sound as though you own a trans-national company!The trade block bit is the bit I want to be in!!
bin down 'spoons?A SAFE PAIR OF HANDS WITH DAVID CAMERON DEFENDING OUR INTERESTS IN EUROPE OR THE CHAOS OF NIGEL FARAGE , EXTREMISTS AND NO WAY TO DEFEND OUR BORDERS AGAINST THE SCOTTISH THREAT
The trade block bit is the bit I want to be in!!
Not much in it, but some. QUOTE]
What?
Which what?
It's not a great model. They get a rum deal that amounts to many of the full member obligations for only some of the benefits, much as you would expect to be offered if you only wanted to half-commit to something.we can do that without the structure of the EU. The scandies trade under the EFTA, as does switzerland and, oddly, lichenstein
@wielty
You'd expect that blue line to be heading upwards in a referendum campaign, I think. Amount of cash and fearmongering they'll throw at it...At risk of being called an utter tool...I'm going to offer some polling evidence!
Would be a brave punter to put money on this though; those is pretty wild swings over such a comparatively short time frame. I suppose the watchword is the economy; stupid. If it were to go tits-up in Euroland (GrExit) I'd expect the lines to crossover again.
Which what?
By what means are they on my side, do you mean? Well, is it not embarrassing that we now have to count in part on EU pressure to stop our government absolving us of human rights legislation? Or to get them to clean up the air?
If the UK failed to maintain a set of national legislation that put into effect the requisites of the European Convention on Human Rights, a fundamental membership obligation, what do you suppose would happen? I don't know either, but I don't imagine it'd be straightforward.What do you think the EU are going to do about the Tories scrapping human rights legislation?
I'm not embarrassed by the situation, no, but that's probably because I'm not begging the European ruling class to protect me from the British ruling class.
Maybe, but the polling seems to react quite sensitively to 'events'....dear boy.You'd expect that blue line to be heading upwards in a referendum campaign, I think. Amount of cash and fearmongering they'll throw at it...
It's not a great model. They get a rum deal that amounts to many of the full member obligations for only some of the benefits, much as you would expect to be offered if you only wanted to half-commit to something.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway–European_Union_relations
Trading rights, but in return, almost all the laws, free movement of people inc. Schengen, free movement of goods, a load of money and no voting rights. This is also a historic agreement from the early days of the EEC and there's limited reason to think it would even be offered today to an exiting member, not least because it would encourage other nations.
No, it's grim, and the ever-larger sprawl of the monetary union project far beyond its closely-aligned origins and far outpacing a sensible timeline has always been predictably disastrous, like trying to play economic Jenga in a hurry, and thus wholly avoidable....are the pro-EU contingent really chilled over what has been inflicted on Ireland & Greece under EU diktat & the necessity when joining the euro to forever forgo exchange rate adjustment for Internal_devaluation..?
I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but can you quantify/qualify this idea of EU legislation being globally and externally led? Someone has to be driving said agreements; they don't just materialise. I also don't agree about voting; you're quite right that Norway has a global voice of its own, but not on EU internal matters, and it's curious to say that EU members lack influence on EU behaviour, because they clearly have representation. Just perhaps not disproportionately, i.e. a veto.except. most of the EU stuff is their interpretation of global agreements, which Norway has a seat on, whilst individual EU members don't.
I love the confused looks on the faces of the the shouty right-wingers in my life when i say I'm against the EU
(same thing happens when i say i don't support Labour)
Vote Yes to leave, give the Scots another go. Love europe hate the EU. etc etc.
I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but can you quantify/qualify this idea of EU legislation being globally and externally led? Someone has to be driving said agreements; they don't just materialise. I also don't agree about voting; you're quite right that Norway has a global voice of its own, but not on EU internal matters, and it's curious to say that EU members lack influence on EU behaviour, because they clearly have representation. Just perhaps not disproportionately, i.e. a veto.
How does this common approach to global agreements equate to no voice though? It amounts to an aggregate rather than independent voice, I agree, but it still appears to a common approach that was the result of member decisions, rather than decided upon by some other central policymaker. Maybe I'm naive & totally wrong but I'd like to see it. As for veto, I don't mean literal Security Council style stuff, I mean using that independent voice to say, 'we will be an intolerably large pain in your arse if you don't do our bidding'.I did n't say EU couldn't influence EU matters, but EU members have to abide by a common approach to global agreements. Though if you want to bring up vetoes, most of them have gone, replaced by majority rule, and Cameron's "heroic veto" didn't stop ALL other states adopting the measures he opposed.
Cameron will come back with "associate membership" (that all non EUro members will be offered) try to sell it as the great victory, when that is the path closest to government by Fax.