French border warning: is it just blackmail?

[WinnieTheW0rm]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35712463

The French Finance minister has said that if UK votes to leave, the French will end border controls at Calais and allow people to leave France unchecked.

Are his comments representative of French governmental thinking?

But what do you expect from a front row made up of Boris (shameless opportunist), Nigel and George Galloway? George Galloway! Really!

Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Howard, John Redwood, Nigel Lawson, Liam Fox, Peter Lilley, Zac Goldsmith, Bernad Jenkin, David Davies, Jacob Rees-Mogg and a swathe of other mainstream MPs would like us to leave the EU.

But in any case Brexit is not about personalities, but democracy.

Biscuits -
interesting that you focus on the personalities point that Drinks made rather than her main point:

"Where the out campaign is saying that the UK has no say in EU legislation, missing out all the steps where the UK frames and shapes EU legislation is plain dishonest."

All those politicians supposedly fighting for 'democracy' never seem all that bothered about the House of Lords.

Curious.

All those politicians supposedly fighting for 'democracy' never seem all that bothered about the House of Lords.

Many of them are, but the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 was scrapped due to opposition from Tory backbench MPs.

Anyone see Question Time last evening?
It was actually less biased for once!
Brexit I feel won the day.

Where the out campaign is saying that the UK has no say in EU legislation, missing out all the steps where the UK frames and shapes EU legislation is plain dishonest.

What are some examples of the UK successfully "framing and shaping" EU legislation?

Do we really have much of a say? How is Britain going to supposedly reform the EU from the inside? If this were possible, why hasn't it been achieved during the years we've already belonged to the EU?

Is it fair that the EU system of lobbying favours big business, who can afford full-time lobbyists?

I've just been reading the French press on the subject of moving the border to Dover.

It's mostly being reported as a spat between Macron (economy minister) and Cazenove (home secretary). What's interesting though is that even in the serious press, 90%+ of the comments below the line are in favour of moving the borders to Dover as soon as possible.

The French public mood can be summed up as follows:

• the UK has created this problem by having no compulsory ID card and making it too easy for immigrants to work
• moving the border would instantly solve the Calais crisis

I'm fairly sure that neither of these two things is entirely true, but the French man and woman on the street is only slightly better informed on these matters than their UK counterparts ...

Is it fair that the EU system of lobbying favours big business, who can afford full-time lobbyists?

Is it fair that the Westminster system of lobbying favours big business, who can afford full-time lobbyists?

Is it fair that the Westminster system of lobbying favours big business, who can afford full-time lobbyists?

I take your point, although two wrongs don't make a right.

Then there's the question of whether Trialogues are democratic.

www.euractiv.com/section/science-policymaking/opinion/trade-secrets-trialogue-underlines-the-eu-s-democratic-deficit/

"In effect, trialogues fuse the two stages of the legislative process into one, highjack the discussion that’s supposed to take place between MEPs in the EP plenary, and replace it with a completely opaque talk between the Commission, the Parliament and the Council. This kills public participation, preventing access to the information required to make the legislative process truly democratic."

Biscuits - the analysis I saw showed that the UK has achieved its position around 87% of the time. So if that doesn't mean we shape the EU's work I don't know what does.

Also - be aware that any Commission proposal that comes out has mostly already been shaped by the UK and others. For example - Commission proposals on Energy and Climate are following a mandate given by the European Council (i.e. the Heads of States) agreed on by all 28 leaders in October 2014 (unanimity).

Plus - there is enormous amounts of consultation before the Commission's proposals come out. There has definitely been a trend recently that they do not propose some legislation that they know has a great deal of opposition.

Here's an overview of the impact analysis and consultation that goes into Commission proposals : ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/images/br_infographic.png. Text overview ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/index_en.htm.

In addition the Lisbon Treaty agreed on new scrutiny roles for national parliaments.

Biscuits - on trialogue, the process has changed. The Parliament now approves a mandate at plenary level before the negotiations start. The Council by the way also agrees a mandate for negotiations before the talks.

The present UK government has a habit of using legislative instruments that don't involve a debate in Parliament in order to introduce legislation. This was what got Osborne into hot water over tax credits.

I take your point that two wrongs don't make a right, but if the object of the exercise is to argue that leaving the EU increases democracy, you need to be able to counter the "out of the frying pan into the fire" arguments.

Many of them are, but the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 was scrapped due to opposition from Tory backbench MPs

Like Jacob Rees-Mogg, Peter Lilley, David Davis, Zac Goldsmith.... That was my point. Democracy when it suits their political or business ends.

What are some examples of the UK successfully "framing and shaping" EU legislation?

I mentioned the 2030 energy and climate package earlier. The UK govt was credited (including by green NGOs who aren't big fans of the Govt green policies in general) with a lot of the content and for getting a final deal that was brilliant for Britain as it locked all 28 member states into the same trajectory as Britain already had in domestic law. The package went well beyond what the Commission originally thought was achievable.

Not an unbiased source but gives a good flavour of how this one played out.

Biscuits - on the lobbying question. did you know that the EU provides core funding to NGOs to in effect lobby them/ counteract bigger lobbies?

www.thirdsector.co.uk/charities-lose-200m-funding-brexit-says-pro-eu-campaign/finance/article/1385211

Sir Stephen Bubb, head of the charity chief executives body Acevo, said in a statement: "British charities benefit hugely from our membership of the EU. Not only does it help us work with partners across the continent, fostering civil society, but some of Britain’s best-known charities receive significant funding to carry out their vital work."

Thanks Kitty, no I didn't know that.

johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/01/25/how-will-we-spend-all-the-money-we-save-if-we-leave-the-eu/

That is a lot of money saved.Charities and I mean charities not the CEOs would be helped.

There are many problems with that figure Daisy from John Redwood. Doesn't count the rebate and the money the EU gets back for research funding etc. I think the figure is closer to 6bn. Also he seems to assume that there would then be no costs for the UK afterwards - Norway probably currently spends about the same per capita if not more as the UK and is not a member. IE there would be no saving for a Brexit.

Nice that you assume that the money I talked about before would just go to the CEOs not the charities. And do you really trust our current government to reallocate to charities, university research etc? They haven't exactly had a great record in this recently.

IF there was any money saved after Brexit, it would just be swallowed up in "reducing the public debt" or some such government phrase.

Anyone who thinks there would be chunks of money floating around looking for good causes is leaving in a dream world.

living

The UK will either have to pay a fee to access the EU market, as Norway does, or pay trade tariffs. I find it astonishing that anyone believes that a country can have free access to a trade bloc without a quid pro quo - especially when that trade bloc will have an incentive to "encourager les autres".

It would also probably need to compensate farmers, and replace EU funding for research. I don't think it's clear whether there would be a net gain or loss, but any gain is certainly smaller than being claimed, and might well be wiped out by other losses (eg the impact of manufacturing relocating to the EU in the event that the UK does not remain in EFTA - my boss is involved in contingency planning looking at the cost of relocating manufacturing capacity to continental Europe, and I'd be astonished if other companies manufacturing for mainly European markets are not doing the same).

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6980256/43-years-of-lies-How-the-EU-spent-decades-robbing-Britain-of-power.html

Would you trust the EU? That is a legitimate question also.

So, Murdoch seems to have made up his mind what we should do.

The UK will either have to pay a fee to access the EU market, as Norway does, or pay trade tariffs. I find it astonishing that anyone believes that a country can have free access to a trade bloc without a quid pro quo - especially when that trade bloc will have an incentive to "encourager les autres".

Iceland trades tariff-free with the EU without payment of fees.

Turkey trades tariff-free with the EU without payment of fees.

Tariifs work both ways.

If the EU insists on charging us tariffs to trade with them, we charge the EU tariffs to trade with us, after all they sell us more than we sell them.

Outside the EU we will be able to trade with the rest of the world without paying the EU to allow us to do so.

Having the 5th largest economy free of EU control may encourage the Norway and Switzerland to re-examine their own trading relationship with the EU. Switzerland has just withdrawn its application to join the EU. Norway has invited us to join them in EFTA.

Tariffs - if they are imposed, which I don't believe they will be, don't scare me at all.

It would also probably need to compensate farmers, and replace EU funding for research.

There is no such thing as 'EU funding'. The money is EU member country money that has been handed to the EU so the EU can rebadge it as 'EU money' and pretend the EU is being bountiful. The EU, not the sovereign Governments, decide how the money is awarded.

The EU is an unnecessary overhead that reduces the money that individual member Governments could be giving directly to their own farmers and scientists. But the EU is not solely about trade, it is also a means of transferring the wealth of rich member countries to that of poor members countries. Sounds great until you realise that poor old Greece was allowed to max out on Germany's credit card and it all went horribly wrong when the Greeks realised they couldn't pay for all those nice new SUVs they'd borrowed to buy.