[Will Hunt]

if we stay in, can the Euros offer us a decent spread of overgraded 7Cs?

Yorkshire will provide... 

[petejh]

Just a little out right thought theft from the Economist on the subject of national sovereignty:

"
The flaw in this case lies in the tradition's idealistic definition of sovereignty. For Mr Johnson and Mr Gove, being sovereign is like being pregnant—you either are or you aren’t. Yet increasingly in today’s post-Westphalian world, real sovereignty is relative. A country that refuses outright to pool authority is one that has no control over the pollution drifting over its borders, the standards of financial regulation affecting its economy, the consumer and trade norms to which its exporters and importers are bound, the cleanliness of its seas and the security and economic crises propelling shock waves—migration, terrorism, market volatility—deep into domestic life. To live with globalisation is to acknowledge that many laws (both those devised by governments and those which bubble up at no one’s behest) are international beasts whether we like it or not. If sovereignty is the absence of mutual interference, the most sovereign country in the world is North Korea.
"

That's a good piece. What's the counter to it? Which countries aren't part of the EU and how are they faring? Is it possible to 'pool authority' in other ways?

Since that paragraph bases its argument on the challenges/opportunities of globalisation, it should be fair to use global counter examples - because the argument works everywhere - not just European countries.

Without thinking much about it:
Canada.
US.
South American countries?
Norway
Switzerland
New Zealand
Australia
Turkey (soon to join, perhaps)
Etc.

Many countries aren't part of the EU. How do they deal with globalisation (border-less issues such as trade, pollution, migrancy, etc. etc.)?

All I'm saying is the EU isn't the *Only* way to be in a globalised world. It's just the first iteration we've tried. There must be other workable ways, we aren't just going to fall of a cliff.

[dave]

Anyone know which direction wisened scumbag Murdoch is going to instruct the masses to vote this time?

[Fultonius]

I listened to an interesting discussion on Radio 4 a month or so back - it was a Norwegian manufacturer of central heating boilers.  This gist if it seemed to be that even though they are outside the EU, and most of their trade was domestic, they basically had to comply with the vast majority EU legislation anyway.

So the whole "cost savings by cutting red tape" seemed to be a bit of a non-argument.

[johnx2]

Anyone know which direction wisened scumbag Murdoch is going to instruct the masses to vote this time?

hmmm. He'll see which way the wind blows first as per Scotland ref:  http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jun/08/rupert-murdoch-launches-attack-on-eu-nonsense-in-the-mail-on-sunday

(btw a cross between gollum and a desiccated scrotum would be wizened, as opposed to wisened up. I'm really sorry. My pedantry's pretty much all that I have left.)

[slackline]

Many countries aren't part of the EU. How do they deal with globalisation (border-less issues such as trade, pollution, migrancy, etc. etc.)?

There must be other workable ways, we aren't just going to fall of a cliff.

They'll no doubt 'work' but not sure that they're any 'better' (from the perspective of individual humans rather than corporations and share holders)...

Trans-Pacific Partnership

...and its Eastern couterpart...

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

[Oldmanmatt]

Just a little out right thought theft from the Economist on the subject of national sovereignty:

"
The flaw in this case lies in the tradition's idealistic definition of sovereignty. For Mr Johnson and Mr Gove, being sovereign is like being pregnant—you either are or you aren’t. Yet increasingly in today’s post-Westphalian world, real sovereignty is relative. A country that refuses outright to pool authority is one that has no control over the pollution drifting over its borders, the standards of financial regulation affecting its economy, the consumer and trade norms to which its exporters and importers are bound, the cleanliness of its seas and the security and economic crises propelling shock waves—migration, terrorism, market volatility—deep into domestic life. To live with globalisation is to acknowledge that many laws (both those devised by governments and those which bubble up at no one’s behest) are international beasts whether we like it or not. If sovereignty is the absence of mutual interference, the most sovereign country in the world is North Korea.
"

That's a good piece. What's the counter to it? Which countries aren't part of the EU and how are they faring? Is it possible to 'pool authority' in other ways?

Since that paragraph bases its argument on the challenges/opportunities of globalisation, it should be fair to use global counter examples - because the argument works everywhere - not just European countries.

Without thinking much about it:
Canada.
US.
South American countries?
Norway
Switzerland
New Zealand
Australia
Turkey (soon to join, perhaps)
Etc.

Many countries aren't part of the EU. How do they deal with globalisation (border-less issues such as trade, pollution, migrancy, etc. etc.)?

All I'm saying is the EU isn't the *Only* way to be in a globalised world. It's just the first iteration we've tried. There must be other workable ways, we aren't just going to fall of a cliff.

Because they have functionally (though less binding in terms of National legislation?) equivalents.

Without googling the reach of each:

GCC
ASEAN
NAFTA
USAN

Etc etc.

The USA, is of course a "Union" of formerly independent states, who took the EU model to it's natural conclusion and China is (for want of a better word) an Empire of many countries and ethnicities bound into a single economic union.

The anomalies exist only to provide the services other states cannot for political/Religious/angry-mobs-burning-presidents-in-the-streets type reasons, provide.

We, frankly, don't do banking well enough to compete with the more established crooks and it seems unlikely that we will ever have enough silicon boobed hookers to compete with Dubai/Monaco et al.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[galpinos]

Is the "Norway Model" the gold standard we should be aspiring to?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model

[slackline]

Leaving the EU will make the UK more democratic, insists unelected life peer Lord Lawson of Blaby.

[Oldmanmatt]

I was thinking and possibly Andy Popp would be best placed to answer, isn't the whole concept of independent nations a little blip in the history of civilisation?
We pretty much went from tribal society to empires, that only grew bigger as communication improved and that independent nations only really emerge in the post colonial collapse and exist only till the rise of the next empire?
The independent countries of Europe only arose in the post Romano period, most were variously swallowed by Ottoman, French or Austro-Hungarian Empires etc etc and have only existed as they do today since 1918 ish.
England, Wales, Eire and Scotland must be amongst the Oldest nations in Europe and I know England has only been such for a little over a thousand years (with a whole Norman French occupation thrown in for a couple hundred years).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[andy popp]

Not really my field but the modern sovereign nation state is generally regarded as emerging from the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 (actually a series of peace treaties). Basically, the treaty established the principle of national self-determination. Certainly, some modern nation states predate 1648 - often considerably - but it is also the case that a number of very important modern nation states are much more recent; both Germany and Italy are creations of the 1870s and the USA is less than 250 years old. Many others have changed "shape" radically over time or simply disappeared (I haven't read it but Norman Davies' book Europe's Vanished Kingdoms is meant to be excellent). Interestingly, on reflection, its is probably the case that there are currently no significant empires - I don't know when (if ever) it would have last been possible to say that. Perhaps the age of empire is over?

Whether the age of the nation will similarly end it is too early to say. But if history teaches us anything, it is that change is the only constant and that all things are transient.

[johnx2]

England has only been such for a little over a thousand years (with a whole Norman French occupation thrown in for a couple hundred years).

or still going on if you check our betters' ancestry. Been a while since we've had a Cnut on the throne...

[Will Hunt]

I think there are only two people on the thread so far who have said "Out" (assuming that Pete's view is out and he's not simply playing Devil's Advocate, not sure). I'd like to hear more from them.

Leaving aside the migrant issue (a freaky populist sideshow IMO) and looking longer term it seems to me that there are two key strands to address in making a decision and how much weight you put on either of them. Are we better off politically integrating with Europe and are we better off economically ?

Politically the fact that Cameron's extensive negotiations have lead to something closer to a mission statement than a set of fundamental reforms suggests to me that any meaningful leverage on EU policy is limited especially as we have stated we are not 100% committed and aren't part of the Euro (but still partially in hock in teh event of a meltdown). However, we are committed in the UK to legislation formed in Brussells. Is that a sacrifice worth making?

Economically there seems no doubt that there will be a short term dent in GDP and unknowable consequences and outcomes for all manner of businesses and trading situations to be sorted out. But in the round after short term pain I think the long term effect will be minimal. 

So currently, on both counts, my gut tells me that in the long term we will better off as a more independent and responsive nation making our decisions.     

I don't really follow this Shark. The first point suggests that accepting legislation from Brussells is a sacrifice, rather than an advantage as I see it - could you elaborate a bit on why you think this?
In the second point you talk about short term economic pain with minimal long term difference - can I ask why the conclusion is therefore to leave?
I understand that your gut feeling is "better off out" but I can't see from your post why you think this and I'd be really interested to hear you explain further.

Just a little out right thought theft from the Economist on the subject of national sovereignty:

"
The flaw in this case lies in the tradition's idealistic definition of sovereignty. For Mr Johnson and Mr Gove, being sovereign is like being pregnant—you either are or you aren’t. Yet increasingly in today’s post-Westphalian world, real sovereignty is relative. A country that refuses outright to pool authority is one that has no control over the pollution drifting over its borders, the standards of financial regulation affecting its economy, the consumer and trade norms to which its exporters and importers are bound, the cleanliness of its seas and the security and economic crises propelling shock waves—migration, terrorism, market volatility—deep into domestic life. To live with globalisation is to acknowledge that many laws (both those devised by governments and those which bubble up at no one’s behest) are international beasts whether we like it or not. If sovereignty is the absence of mutual interference, the most sovereign country in the world is North Korea.
"

That's a good piece. What's the counter to it? Which countries aren't part of the EU and how are they faring? Is it possible to 'pool authority' in other ways?

Since that paragraph bases its argument on the challenges/opportunities of globalisation, it should be fair to use global counter examples - because the argument works everywhere - not just European countries.

Without thinking much about it:
Canada.
US.
South American countries?
Norway
Switzerland
New Zealand
Australia
Turkey (soon to join, perhaps)
Etc.

Many countries aren't part of the EU. How do they deal with globalisation (border-less issues such as trade, pollution, migrancy, etc. etc.)?

All I'm saying is the EU isn't the *Only* way to be in a globalised world. It's just the first iteration we've tried. There must be other workable ways, we aren't just going to fall of a cliff.

Show us your hand, Pete. What do you think? The question you pose above is valid but my personal response to it would be "if it ain't broke (or very broke), don't fix it". Even if there are some bits of legislation that we don't like, is it worth abandoning the whole project when we arguably get a lot from it?
As far as I know, the Out campaign don't recognise at all the need to operate as part of a globalised world, they just want to go it alone.

[andy popp]

Just a little out right thought theft from the Economist on the subject of national sovereignty:

"
The flaw in this case lies in the tradition's idealistic definition of sovereignty. For Mr Johnson and Mr Gove, being sovereign is like being pregnant—you either are or you aren’t. Yet increasingly in today’s post-Westphalian world, real sovereignty is relative. A country that refuses outright to pool authority is one that has no control over the pollution drifting over its borders, the standards of financial regulation affecting its economy, the consumer and trade norms to which its exporters and importers are bound, the cleanliness of its seas and the security and economic crises propelling shock waves—migration, terrorism, market volatility—deep into domestic life. To live with globalisation is to acknowledge that many laws (both those devised by governments and those which bubble up at no one’s behest) are international beasts whether we like it or not. If sovereignty is the absence of mutual interference, the most sovereign country in the world is North Korea.
"

That's a good piece. What's the counter to it? Which countries aren't part of the EU and how are they faring? Is it possible to 'pool authority' in other ways?

Since that paragraph bases its argument on the challenges/opportunities of globalisation, it should be fair to use global counter examples - because the argument works everywhere - not just European countries.

Without thinking much about it:
Canada.
US.
South American countries?
Norway
Switzerland
New Zealand
Australia
Turkey (soon to join, perhaps)
Etc.

Many countries aren't part of the EU. How do they deal with globalisation (border-less issues such as trade, pollution, migrancy, etc. etc.)?

All I'm saying is the EU isn't the *Only* way to be in a globalised world. It's just the first iteration we've tried. There must be other workable ways, we aren't just going to fall of a cliff.

The USA, is of course a "Union" of formerly independent states, who took the EU model to it's natural conclusion and China is (for want of a better word) an Empire of many countries and ethnicities bound into a single economic union.

The US, Canada, Australia and Russia are all federations.

[andy popp]

We, frankly, don't do banking well enough to compete with the more established crooks and it seems unlikely that we will ever have enough silicon boobed hookers to compete with Dubai/Monaco et al.

Sorry, this simply isn't true. London is one of the longest-established financial centres in the world. And there is a reason it is so long-lived: it has for long been and remains dominant - New York is still its only real competitor.

[Oldmanmatt]

We, frankly, don't do banking well enough to compete with the more established crooks and it seems unlikely that we will ever have enough silicon boobed hookers to compete with Dubai/Monaco et al.

Sorry, this simply isn't true. London is one of the longest-established financial centres in the world. And there is a reason it is so long-lived: it has for long been and remains dominant - New York is still its only real competitor.

Yes, all the nice legal stuff. Those Cuckoo clocks drown out a lot of screaming, for instance.
But, is tradition enough for it to continue?
I think the gateway to Europe has served us well into the 21st century, I think we would lose that. These institutions care only about the legislative environment they occupy, not the address.
Partially, we flourished in this sector by being  stable in a shifting world; that in it's self would be negated by exit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[erm]

Also without thinking much about it:

Canada. UN, WTO, WHO, NATO
US. UN, WTO, WHO, NATO
Norway UN, WTO, WHO, EEA, EFTA, Council of Europe, NATO
Switzerland UN, WTO, WHO, Council of Europe, EFTA
New Zealand UN, WTO, WHO
Australia UN, WTO, WHO
Turkey NATO, UN, WTO, WHO, Council of Europe

And with the UK as member and even founding member of number of these (-EFTA & + now defunct league of nations) the EU is hardly our first try at supranational rule making.

In fact the UK already "pools authority" of 4 nations, and has done for a few hundred years...

[tomtom]

Is the "Norway Model" the gold standard we should be aspiring to?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model

Which is remarkably like what we have at the moment, but with no hand in the decision making process or any form of Veto...

[webbo]

We also may never get a Grand Depart again if we come out.

[the_dom]

My gut feeling, as a non-UK resident and South African / Irish citizen, is that this is isolationist shortsightedness and that the ramifications will be quite significant, both for the UK and Europe.

For some reason, and I'm not sure that I've properly interrogated why I think so, I consider the EU a real success, which I feel has aided the UK significantly - my views based in my UK experience of living there for a while, and having non-UK citizen friends happily living there as welcomed residents (welcomed for their skills, experience and education), so it feels poorly thought-out for the UK to look to destabilise this. Maybe I just dislike the Tories.

[rich d]

I can never get over the feeling that politicians encouraging the out option are just wanted to keep and extend their own power and importance.

[slackline]

I can never get over the feeling that politicians encouraging the out option are just wanted to keep and extend their own power and importance.

[Rocksteady]

To me, the anti-EU feeling progresses from the kind of national identity propagated/created by the immortal Bard:

"This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,-
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England."

I think England/Britain's status (I am deliberately conflating in this context) as an island has profoundly affected our history and national consciousness. It's at least partially why we haven't suffered devastating wars on our own soil - unlike the rest of Europe. And in the face of an ever-complicating world, one simple reaction is to fall back on our (prosperous) history as an island people and think that we're better off as we have always been in the past, alone in the sea, on the edge of things.

I've just returned from a brief trip visiting the WW1 battlefields in France and Belgium. My feelings, perhaps somewhat influenced by that, are that we're all better off working towards bigger ideas than parochial concerns, bigger ideas than a nation. I distrust nationalism for its past outcomes, and I worry that the 'out' argument is tied up with nationalist ideologies.

I can't see that an economic/sovereignty argument has been clearly spelled out, and I think that sticking together for peace in Europe trumps those arguments anyway. The idea that there will be less bureaucracy if we're 'out' I don't find convincing. Negotiating 1001 new trade agreements strikes me as something that might eat up a lot of government manpower and money that might otherwise be allocated elsewhere.

Think I said something similar when Scotland said no to independence. I just see splintering apart as a retrograde step into a more divided world. 

[Will Hunt]

I can't see that an economic/sovereignty argument has been clearly spelled out, and I think that sticking together for peace in Europe trumps those arguments anyway. The idea that there will be less bureaucracy if we're 'out' I don't find convincing. Negotiating 1001 new trade agreements strikes me as something that might eat up a lot of government manpower and money that might otherwise be allocated elsewhere.

The sovereignity and beauracracy arguments are something I'm very distrustful of anyway. They always seem to be championed by the wealthy and those unscrupulous persons who would rather not have to deal with the expensive and bothersome business of ensuring that employees are paid a fair wage and are sent home from work uninjured, breathing relatively clean air etc.

[tomtom]

Note: I am an in-sie..

This governement has drastically reduced the size and role of the state - and IIRC its a fundamental underpinning of libertarian righter wing politics - smaller state to allow business, people, markets etc.. regulate themselves (leading to some big winners and losers). So the whole concept of the EU is pretty against much of this. Maybe its the wrong form of words, but the EU is fundamentally socialist - it aims to give to poorer countries by taking from the richer. Therefore, its against many to the rights fundamental principles (I would suggest).

Fuck knows what a gun toting tea party member would think of the concept!