For the Brits: When will BREXIT referendum happen ?

[Stavros]

So many reasons why. Chiefly, controlling our own nation and laws; not having to do what we're told, having laws and policies (and levies) imposed on us, nor leading us by the nose down paths we don't want to go. Right now, the European ourt has absolute control over us - in short, we cannot enforce any laws if they do not agree.

There's a big difference between agreeing trade deals with a body (the EU) and being bound by that body. As it stands we cannot arrange trade deals with the US, China, Australia, for example, and are missing out by being forced into a bloc who's trade deals are "one size fits all" and may suit another nation more than the next. The EU has also failed to set up trade agreements with some natiosn too, damaging our prospect for growth and trade.

And as un-altruistic as it may seem, it's unjust that a teeny, tiny nation that offers so very little to the EU in terms of wealth, military, jobs, and commerce can hold as much sway as major players on the world stage. Britain once ran the world, her genius and achievements shaped the world, from the industrial revolution to radar to engineering to computing and the world wide web. Her military porwess (now outweighed by supernations) was paramount to the world and is still, even now, a key player and one of just 8 nuclear powers. Her black ops train are the elite and train(ed) all the maor nations secret ops. No way should countries lke Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Finland, oland have anywhere near as much say or sway. Can you imagine the USA having to share parity with Cuba, Bolivia, Peru? Where those countries can impose their will on the US and veto changes or insist on changes?

I think you have accepted uncritically some of the arguments made by the Exit campaigns which deserve closer scrutiny. For example, when you state
As it stands we cannot arrange trade deals with the US, China, Australia, for example, and are missing out by being forced into a bloc who's trade deals are "one size fits all" and may suit another nation more than the next. The EU has also failed to set up trade agreements with some natiosn too, damaging our prospect for growth and trade

You appear to ignore the $40bn worth of trade and investment deals that the UK has signed with China in the last year, deals which have been reached in part precisely because the UK is a member of the EU. The largest source of inward investment in the UK originates in the USA and is mostly in services -telecommunications and finances- and is routed through the UK -in the case of financial services, through the City of London- again, precisely because it provides instant access to the EU. Given that the UK has long established trading relations with the Commonwealth, the USA, China, Japan, and even Russia, one wonders which part of the world the UK is losing out on because of its membership of the EU- Brazil?
You can read about the trade deal with China reported in October 2015 here-
https://www.theguardian.com/business...t-do-they-mean

And if you have time a more exacting analysis of UK trade and the extent to which the EU has benefited British firms is here-
https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default...jan14-8285.pdf

The Financial Times last month tried to imagine the UK leaving the UK and argued that if the UK did leave but did not then apply to join the EU Customs Union, it could instead negotiate tariff-free trade even though some EU states have implied they would not be so easy to negotiate, and makes a telling point about what exactly much of the UK's trade with the EU looks like:

One risk to the UK economy is that much of the trade in today’s world of global supply chains is in intermediate goods such as motor parts and electronic components.

British businesses — and foreign businesses based in Britain — would be likely to find themselves at an immediate disadvantage and potentially excluded from those supply chains...
The point is that motor manufacturers spread production across the EU, so the UK leaving the EU would immediately change the terms of trade in supply chains in that industry, and even if over time some way were found to amend this, the question might be why did the UK leave the UK only to then suffer for 2-5-10 years while contracts had to be re-negotiated? Or not negotiated at all. A similar problem arises in the financial and service sectors. These and a few others can be found in the FT article here-
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8b5907c4-0...#axzz481fkJoDy

From what I have read, so far, on trade and the economy an exit from the EU would be, certainly in the short term, say 10 years, damaging and potentially even worse. It seems to me that the Exit case is premised on an Exit followed thereafter by a re-entry, the crucial difference being the terms of trade, yet on a wide range of trading issues, the UK would not be able to avoid adhering to the rules of the very same single market it claims it wants to leave, so that this whole argument falls apart.

In reality, a fringe group of 'free market liberals' have decided that the globalisation that has trended toward the creation of large trading blocs which sign sweetheart deals with each other that exclude some and include others, is morally wrong because it fixes what ought to be free markets. But the alternative is a world economy made up of individual states whose companies are competing for the same markets where the only issue is that the markets will decide who wins, and who loses, and as is always the case, those arguing in favour of Exit cannot conceive of the UK being a failure if it stands proudly alone. But if losses mount, say, in the USA, a President Trump would then impose tariff barriers and end up practising an economic nationalism that is the antithesis of market forces. Global capitalism has reached a stage of development where the concentration of commodity production through modern technology into fewer economies, makes competition broadly inefficient, as the global production of steel currently shows.

Consider the fact that when the idealists de-nationalised the UK's railways, the utilities such as gas and water, and put them up for sale in a free market, they were snapped up at a bargain price by companies partly or wholly owned by foreign governments. Most of the UK's rail operating companies are owned in part by state-owned companies in Germany, France and the Netherlands. That is the reality of the global economy, just as most of the world's oil and gas is owned by state-owned corporations. Those campaigning for an Exit from the EU refer to the UK as the world's fifth largest economy, but cannot then explain why the UK cannot build a nuclear power station without external financial support from countries such as China and France.
The UK does have a relatively strong economy, but it owes most of this to its membership of the EU.

[King Dong]

I think you have accepted uncritically some of the arguments made by the Exit campaigns

Nope. I've been listening to both sides for years. My heart is just with the leave campaign. And if nothing else, we shoudl be self-determinate. Any country should be - least of all one with the legacy and impact of Britian (preferably England as I want an end to the Union).


It's not so that trading with the EU means adhering to their rules. I know countries like Norway has to but there are caveats and circumstances that allow for greater latitude. I think - could be wrong - that Switzerland enjoys such freedom. Don't forget, as much as the EU and the in camp like to make a fuss of the fact we are one nation looking to leave a huge bloc that is bigger and richer than the USA, that bloc is terrified of us leaving. Our absence would tear a fatal hole in the EU (not that they will admit it) and, like Turkey did over the migrant issue, we need to punch our weight and pull rank to get what's best for us and you can be assured, the EU would follow.

In practice, the UK would likely seek to negotiate a novel form of Free Trade Agreement, but as Pawel Swidlicki of Open Europe notes, the trade-off is between “speed and scope”. If the UK wants a broad deal, particularly one covering services, including financial services, it could take some time. In the absence of a deal between the UK and the EU, the UK would then be required to follow World Trade Organisation rules on tariffs. he UK would pay tariffs on goods and services it exported into the EU, but since the UK would pay ‘most favoured nation’ rates, that would prohibit either side imposing punitive duties and sparking a trade war. Business for Britain, which campaigns for exit, estimates that at worst, tariffs would cost British exporters just £7.4 billion a year and says the UK would save enough on EU membership fees to be able to compensate exporters for that.

* The EU has so far failed to secure free trade deals with US, China, India.Major economies eg.
* Japan (one of the world’s largest) are not in a trading bloc.
* Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does; this suggests that EU membership is not a prerequisite for a healthy trading relationship.
* Britain’s best trading relationships are generally not within the EU, but outside, i.e. with countries such as the USA and Switzerland.
* EU directives are subject to a ‘rachet’ effect – i.e. once in place they are highly unlikely to be reformed or repealed.
* Less than 15% of Britain’s GDP represents trade with the EU yet Brussels regulations afflict 100% of our economy (the 5th largest in the world).
* Over 70% of the UK’s GDP is generated within the UK, but still subject to EU law.
* In 2006 it was estimated that EU over-regulation costs 600bn Euros across the EU each year..
* In 2010, Open Europe estimated EU regulation had cost Britain £124 billion since 1998.
* Official Swiss government figures conclude that through their trade agreements with the EU, the Swiss pay the EU under 600 million Swiss Francs a year, but enjoy virtually free access to the EU market. The Swiss have estimated that full EU membership would cost Switzerland net payments of 3.4 billion Swiss francs a year.
* Norway only had to make relatively few changes to its laws to make its products eligible for the EU marketplace. In 2009, the Norwegian Mission to the EU estimated that Norway’s total financial contribution linked to their EEA (European Economic Area) agreement is some 340 mn Euros a years, of which some 110mn Euros are contributions related to the participation in various EU programmes. However, this is a fraction of the gross annual cost that Britain must pay for EU membership which is now £18.4bn, or £51mn a day.


The 5-10 years talk of negotiating trade deals is, as I said, baloney. Australia comopleted theirs with the US in 8 months and no offence to the Oz Monsters, but they're not even in our league. Washington would still need it's oldest, strongest ally and we are, whether they like it or not, the closest they have in terms of outlook, perspective and culture. As for the EU, we are one of the biggest importers so they need us too.


And yes, unlike the Scottish pro-indepedents, the leave camp has explored options of failure and are ot stickign their heads in the sand. Unlike the Scots, they have answers and sound reasons as to why they don't believe failure would take place and that's a BIG difference from Alex Salmond ignoring the question of "what if Britian won't share the Sterling?" The trth is thee's no sound financial reason why the UK woudl fail going it alone. There are infinitely smaller nations in the world that are prospering just fine - without a fraction of the UK's economy, military might and international standing. The argument that Britain would flounder outside of the EU is a shameful misnomer.

[King Dong]

Plus bear in mind the EU as we know it today is a ery recent construct and a ar cry from what we signed up to in 1973. For thousands of years up until the last couple of decades the UK has prospered on its own so all this talk of collapse is pure nonsense.

[King Dong]

And from the Andrew Marr show this morning:

While the UK would no longer be bound by EU regulation, legal judgements and free movement rules it would, in reality, still have access to the EU's internal market of 500 million people since free trade across the European continent would not suddenly come to a halt, Mr Gove said.

"If you negotiate a trade agreement with a country with which you currently have tariffs, then you need to negotiate which tariffs will remain and which will be reduced," he said.

"If you don't have tariffs then both sides can agree there is no need to erect them. Germany carmakers are not going to want to have tariffs erected when they sell many more cars to us than we sell to them.

"And I can't imagine a situation if any individual nation of the EU wanted to erect tariffs, that others would let them."

With Germany importing far more goods to the UK than the UK exports to them, he said it was in the interest of their "political establishment" for the current status quo to be maintained.

"It is win-win for them at the moment," he said. "It should be win-win for us and it will be if we vote to leave and we can maintain free trade, stop sending money and also have control of our borders."

"I think it would be very difficult for any German finance minister to say to BMW I am afraid you are going to have to lay off workers because I want to punish the British for being democratic by erecting trade barriers...that won't happen."

[Stavros]

Rather than quote your previous posts, I would like to respond by making some points that are raised in them.

To take the last point first the claim that For thousands of years up until the last couple of decades the UK has prospered on its own is risible nonsense. The formation of the East India Company in 1600 marks an important moment in the history of British trade, because it took place at the same time that the Royal Navy was beginning to dominate the high seas, at the expense of the Spanish Armada, and is thus fundamental to the growth of Britain's maritime based Empire. Without the Empire, be it the Americas or Africa, India and China or Australasia, there is no wealth, no power, no glory. And just as the British Empire transformed the places I have just mentioned, so they had a tremendous impact on Britain. If you want to take a trivial example, Fish 'n Chips will suffice -potatoes from America, fried fish from the Jews: the national dish is immigrant food. Throw in tea, coffee, sugar, cotton, silk, diamonds, and opium and you can wave goodbye to the idea that Britain ever prospered on its own, and that is before one adds in those crucial moments when foreign armies intervened to save Harry, England and St George.

It is also the case that in the same decade during which most of the Commonwealth countries achieved their independence, the UK in 1960 was a founder member of the European Free Trade Association, along with six other European states (Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland) and it is estimated that foreign trade among its members increased three-fold, even though this was by volume smaller than economic growth in the existing members of the Common Market at that time. Collectives work.

The argument put out by the Exit campaign that the UK will be able to re-negotiate trade deals with the EU as Norway and Switzerland has done misses some important points, the most obvious of which is that Norway and Switzerland have access to the Single Market, but must adhere to its four freedoms and cannot negotiate amendments because neither are EU members.

Norway offers a startling example of how a 'proud, independent' nation has grown in spectacular fashion since the 1970s when the first oil field in the North Sea was discovered -Ekofisk (1969) -by integrating with Europe and the wider world. Norway had a strong fishing industry and a merchant shipping fleet of historic proportions, although it was in trouble in the 1960s. The problem was that Norway had no expertise in the petroleum industry, and lacked the capital to develop it. The only way Norway could enjoy the prosperity based on petroleum it now has, was to invite foreign companies to do what at the time it could not, even if it did impose stipulations that were designed to protect Norway's indigenous industries. Not only was the development of this industry thus due to international co-operation, the man credited with pioneering exploration in the North Sea, and the subsequent development of the industry was a Muslim immigrant from Iraq, Farouk al-Kasim, whose story, of greater significance to Norway than the murderous career of that cretin Anders Breivik, can be found here-
https://next.ft.com/content/99680a04...b-00144feabdc0

In the case of Switzerland a neglected aspect of the UK's relationship with the EU helps illustrate why membership has not only been a major benefit, but why it would also be so damaging -here we are talking about Research and Development (R&D).
The EU has the largest share of science R&D activity in the world -22.2%- followed by China -19.1%- and the USA -17.6%. As a survey of R&D in the EU has argued-
The EU is now a community of scientific talent which can flow between countries without visas or points systems and which can assemble bespoke constellations of cutting-edge labs, industry and small businesses to tackle challenges local and global...
In 2011 the EU created a single common strategic framework in R&D called Horizon 2020 worth $80bn of funding over 7 years (2014-2020). Switzerland had been participating in science framework projects in the EU since the 1990s, but in 2014 a referendum to limit immigration was passed, and as a result Switzerland refused to grant free movement of participants from Croatia, but therefore fell foul of the provisions of Horizon 2020 and was suspended. As a consequence
The Swiss government was forced to replicate at national level a temporary programme to replace immediate access to the ERC programme and subsequently negotiated limited access to H2020, with much reduced access to programmes, exclusion from the new SME Instrument and loss of ability to coordinate collaborative research within H2020. This is reliant on continued freedom of movement. Switzerland also funds Swiss participants in EU collaborative programmes directly at national level, requiring parallel domestic administration and an agreement to accept all funding decisions made in Brussels, effectively losing control of its national science budget.
Were the UK to leave the EU it would want to retain its involvement in EU R&D such as Horizon 2020 and continue to pay for it while having no influence over the budget, and having to replicate all the administrative procedures currently performed by the EU as it would be an outsider, increasing the costs of participation. This might sound obscure, but R&D is crucial to the economic future because of its impact on projects related to health, engineering, chemistry, communications and all those 'new industries' that we expect our children to graduate into over the next 25 years. You can read the report on the importance of R&D here-
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/20...er-an-eu-exit/

I could go on - but the basic argument of the Exit campaign can be summed up thus: we want to have all the benefits of the club without paying the membership fee or abiding by the rules.

The primary point is that the international economy is an inter-dependent economy, even the strongest economies rely on foreign imports, foreign markets, foreign workers, and foreign capital to survive and grow. The concept of sovereignty is little more than a conceited claim that pretends real power exists only inside the state. It does not. The same people who argue for an exit from the EU do not argue for an exit from NATO or the UN, even though the UK cannot defend itself without NATO and cannot even patrol its maritime borders without asking for help, to the extent that last year on 43 occasions the UK's borders were monitored by NATO aircraft from Spain, France, Germany and the USA. And in terms of sovereignty, if Turkey were attacked by Russia and called on fellow-members of NATO to assist, what is the UK going to say -'we are sitting this one out'? What happens if Argentina re-invades the Falkland Islands and fellow NATO member the USA says 'we are sitting this one out'? Isn't this why we join international organisations, for mutual benefit?

And it is because the benefits outweigh the costs, that we are better of in the EU.

[flabbybody]

Besides all the pro-Trump posts I get on Facebook from friends and family, this is what pops up from one of my former work colleagues. I might need to de-friend

[Stavros]

I have linked below the Financial Times poll tracker with a start date in 2010 updated to yesterday May 17th 2016, which shows on aggregate that the current position suggests a 46% vote to Remain, a 44% vote to Leave. This is in contrast to the What UK Thinks aggregate based on six polls held between the 4th and 15th of May 2016 which produces a 51% Remain and 49% Leave result. Note that the FT tracker also lists the numbers of people polled which ranges from 3,000+ to a poll as low as 800. The Don't Know voters clearly make a difference to the outcome, with the forthcoming poll by the British Election Study reaching the most dramatic conclusion so far.
The BES preview was the lead item on Channel 4 News last night, and shows:
The outcome of the EU referendum vote is on a knife edge with little more than one month to go, according to one of the largest surveys to date.
Among a huge sample of 22,000 voters, Remain has a narrow lead of 43 to 40.5 per cent, according to new data from the British Election Survey.
But the advantage is wiped out among voters who say they are very likely to vote – giving Leave the victory by 45 per cent to 44.5 per cent.
The new data also indicates that ethnic minority voters could hold the balance of power. While white voters are split evenly, all ethnic minority groups are far more likely to back Remain. However, the data also suggests that turnout could be 20 to 25 per cent lower among ethnic minority voters. Voter registration is also lower and with only three weeks to go before registration closes on 7 June, time is running out for new voters to ensure they have their say on 23 June.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7034751.html

The BES findings do return us to the issue of voter registration and voter participation, an issue which appears to be critical in the performance of modern democracies where apathy or an unknown factor has led to low turnouts for local and also general elections. In the case of the EU Referendum, because this is a unique event with a high profile that has long-term ramifications for the UK as a whole, I expect voter turnout in general to be high, but if it is the case that ethnic minorities who on balance are in favour of Remaining in the EU do not/have not registered -the deadline is the 7th June 2016- and do not vote, this would at least narrow the margin. Although I expect Remain to win the vote, a narrow victory will not settle the issue, but for those opposed to the UK's membership of the EU the campaign to leave will continue as if nothing had changed.

The Financial Times poll tracker is here-
https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polli...nce_sem/auddev

The What UK Thinks poll of polls is here-
http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/

The British Election Study website (nothing so far on the poll mentioned above) is here-
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/

[flabbybody]

Good read about Brussels using some backdoor loophole to manipulate UK pension eligibility for non-citizens. This kind of bullshit gives credence to Leave side.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/318...ritish-pension

[Stavros]

Hmm..The Daily Express? One notes that more than half of the article that makes claims the EU is going to 'seize control of the benefits system' is actually about Turkey's application to join the EU which can only happen if ratified by all 28 member states and Cameron saying, explicitly that this is not going to happen. It must also be the case that if an EU migrant worker from Spain, France, Germany, the Netherlands or Romania lives and works in the UK they must be entitled to the same benefits as everyone else, allowing for the new arrangements in the deal Cameron reached with the EU earlier this year which places time-constraints on when migrants can claim benefits. The Express is pumping up an aspect of 'ever closer union' in the Social Union proposals of the EU on the grounds that this removes policy making from London to Brussels, but ignores the reasonable argument put forward by the EU:
One important policy goal of the EU is to ensure that people are not prevented from acquiring adequate pension rights when they move to live and work in another EU country. Social security coordination plays an important role in this regard. The Commission has also proposed legislation to ensure that mobile workers are not prevented from earning and keeping occupational pension rights.
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=752

We are in a single market, the broad assumption must be that people working in it across the EU are entitled to the same range of benefits, of which pensions is surely basic, whether they are British citizens working in France, French citizens working in Britain, or Romanian workers in the Netherlands. My suggestion is that if you want informed articles on the EU, the Daily Express is not the best place to find them.

[flabbybody]

The pension article was in a tweet from someone who would quote Donald Duck if it advanced the Exit viewpoint. I had no idea the source was that dubious.
One thing I remember about British newspapers when I lived in London was the daily pic of a random bare breasted woman. This was back in the early nineties so I guess political correctness would have done away with that journalistic tradition.