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?

[SpringingIntoAction]

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

I could tell he would come out for Brexit after looking at his wedding guest list. He invited Gove and some of the Chipping Norton set, but not Cameron or Osborne.

[nearlyhellokitty]

On Murdoch did you see this great quote?
www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/anthony-hilton-stay-or-go-the-lack-of-solid-facts-means-it-s-all-a-leap-of-faith-a3189151.html

"I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”"

I guess from my perspective that's a plus point in favour of the EU :-) But also probably means that you should be extremely cautious about what is published in his papers.

Actually there are some more great quotes in the article e.g.

"There is, however, one fact cited yesterday by the pro-EU MP Damien Green at that same EEF conference. He said his father fought in a war in Europe where millions died; he was brought up in a Europe divided by the Iron Curtain; his children go for weekends in Poznan or Prague as routinely as they go to Preston or Peterborough. The fact is that the EU has made Europe an infinitely better place. To put that in jeopardy by leaving is to play a dangerous game."

"British politicians have to fawn to foreign businessmen so they will invest here. The much-maligned bureaucrats in Brussels can afford to be much tougher — as Honeywell, Microsoft and Murdoch have found in the past and as Google is finding now. That, indeed, is one of the few real certainties in an EU debate which is largely fact-free....

Thus 30 years ago a large number of coastal towns in the UK still pumped raw sewage into the sea and polluted the beaches. It was Brussels regulation which forced a clean-up.

Thirty years ago airlines in Europe were almost all state-owned and charged massively high fares. It was the EU which broke open the cartel and gave birth to easyJet, Ryanair and low-cost air travel. Thirty years ago there was no requirement to allow disabled access to buildings and transport; it is EU regulation which forced the changes to these too.

Currently there is a debate about the appalling air quality in central London. But the regulations which we so lamentably fail to comply with were developed in the EU not the UK.

But the Brexit camp will argue that we might have got there on our own and all these things might have happened anyway. There is no answer to that. The grass may be greener on the outside, as they say, but there is no evidence to support this because the only other country which has ever left is Greenland, with a population of 50,000 people and a concern only with fish.

That is ultimately why it pays to study behaviour, because what people and organisations do gives us a clue as to what is likely to happen. If Japanese car companies built plants here because we were inside the EU, are they more likely to expand them or contract them if we leave? Would the Chinese, who are currently deliberately destroying Europe’s steel industry by dumping huge volumes of the stuff below cost, decide in future to do a special deal with a generous exemption to Britain?

If American drug companies are already trying to break the power of the National Health Service so that they can charge more for their products, will they step up or reduce the pressure with Britain on its own?"

ETCETC

[nearlyhellokitty]

Springing:
on the funding - I was noting that it was not counted in the net payment to Brussels mentioned in the Redwood article.

Don't you think that the benefits are also, when it comes to research, the fact that this has allowed the universities etc to build networks and projects across Europe? It's not just an overhead.

I don't know where you get the idea that Turkey doesn't pay anything:

There is a Customs Union between Turkey and the EU: "A Customs Union came into force on 31 December 1995. The Customs Union covers all industrial goods but does not address agriculture (except processed agricultural products), services or public procurement. Bilateral trade concessions apply to agricultural products. In addition to providing for a common external tariff for the products covered, the Customs Union foresees that Turkey is to align to the acquis communautaire in several essential internal market areas, notably with regard to industrial standards."

Ie trade with us and improve your legislation etc.

[nearlyhellokitty]

springing - also iceland gets to pay contributions both to EFTA and the EU as far as I understand it:
www.efta.int/eea/eu-programmes/application-finances/eea-efta-budget

[nearlyhellokitty]

Here's an analysis from last year of the different scenarios - aimed at providing an idea of the possible risks: www.global-counsel.co.uk/system/files/publications/Global_Counsel_Impact_of_Brexit_June_2015.pdf

Key conclusions:
"If the UK leaves the EU the impact would depend on the new relationship between the UK and the EU. We consider five models. Those at the extremes in terms of proximity to the EU are unlikely. The Norwegian model, involving membership of the European Economic Area, would not give the UK the political flexibility required to justify Brexit. By contrast, a much looser model in which the UK trades with the EU on a most-favoured nation basis would give flexibility, but seriously jeopardise trade
and investment. The most likely models are either a Swiss-style series of bilateral accords governing access to specific sectors of the single market or a comprehensive FTA. Either would require prolonged negotiation followed by compromises and still impose sizeable costs. A lack of clarity over what would replace EU membership is just one reason why the path to Brexit - and beyond - would be long and uncertain, taking ten years or more."

"The impact of Brexit through the trade and investment channels would be most severe in the UK. Regulatory divergence would increase over time, affecting trade volumes and reducing the attractiveness of the UK for investment. This would impact on European businesses invested or trading in the UK and supply chains involving UK firms, but the magnitude depends on the specific Brexit model and is impossible to predict."

There is little prospect of London being dislodged as Europe’s leading international financial centre...However, existing EU regulations would make it harder for London to serve European markets, particularly (but not only) for retail banking and euro trading. Some business would be likely to move to Eurozone financial centres or be lost to Europe. Competition to take this business would be wasteful.

While one or two centres may ultimately benefit, businesses and households across the EU would bear the cost in terms of higher charges and poorer products."

Brexit would impact on the position of both the UK and the EU in the world. In economic terms this would be most evident in trade policy. While the UK would likely be free to strike new trade deals based on domestic priorities it would have less leverage and be a lower priority than the EU for other countries. The UK would also face the huge challenge of renegotiating the existing EU deals that would no longer apply. The EU would likewise be a less attractive partner at a time when it is only second priority for the US and Japan and a lower priority for
many emerging countries."

etc

The point is that all these platitudes from Springy etc about how we'd do absolutely fine outside are major unknowns - we might be ok but the risk is high that we really won't and it is probably a fact to say that there will be an enormous amount of uncertainty for years..

I just read an article which says: “Brexit offers a lot of risk with little obvious reward,” Vice Chairman Philipp Hildebrand said in a report sent to clients on Tuesday. The U.K. could face higher unemployment and inflation if it leaves the 28-member bloc, he said. (From BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest money manager.)

[Chalalala]

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

What on earth is this ridiculous argument?..

You could make the exact same claim about any funding. "individual taxpayers' money that has been handed to the UK government so the government can rebadge it as 'government money' and pretend the government is being bountiful"

[SpringingIntoAction]

"I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”"

I guess from my perspective that's a plus point in favour of the EU

I don't see it as a plus point at all. I see it as an example of the circumvention of sovereign democracy. It demonstrates that our UK is not supreme over the country it is attempting to govern, which is exactly that the MPs have bee saying.

Pendulums swing. The EU may seem a friendly benign socialist organisation, but when right wing parties emerge across Europe, as they are doing, and they start to gain seats, as they did in yesterday's Solvakian election, and they eventually take over Governments, as they have in Poland, and they send their own representatives to the EU, do we really want to be answerable to what could turn into a very right wing institute? I don't. I want the UK to govern itself.

The Global Counsel report is one prediction although given its pedigree I don't see it as particularly independent


^The firm was founded in 2010. Our senior team are former
public policymakers who have worked at the highest level in the
British government and European Union institutions. They draw
on decades of experience and are backed by a global network.
The author of this report is Dr Gregor Irwin, Chief Economist of
Global Counsel. Dr Irwin was the Chief Economist of the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office from 2008 to 2013 and a Director of
the FCO from 2011 to 2013. He has previously held senior
positions at the Bank of England and HM Treasury.^

Lord Lawson, Lord Lamont, Dr David Owen, - all these have also 'worked at the highest in the British Government and European Union institutions' and they are all recommending that the UK LEAVES the EU.

And we have this option from Stiglitz, a Nobel-winning economist


“I think that the strictures imposed by TTIP would be sufficiently adverse to the functioning of government that it would make me think over again about whether membership of the EU was a good idea,” Stiglitz said.

TTIP is going ahead.

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eu-referendum-joseph-stiglitz-ttip-labour-transatlantic-trade-investment-partnership-a6907806.html

[SpringingIntoAction]

*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.

What on earth is this ridiculous argument?.. *

Nothing at all ridiculous about it. It's a fact.

You could make the exact same claim about any funding. "individual taxpayers' money that has been handed to the UK government so the government can rebadge it as 'government money' and pretend the government is being bountiful"

Exactly. Every day the headlines tells us the Government will give £ to this, that or the other. It's not 'Government money' it's money the Government has taken in taxes from the British people. It is British tax-payers money rebadged as 'Government funding'.

It's always a shock when people have to look differently about what they been brainwashed into believing.

[nearlyhellokitty]

Selective quote Springy - Stiglitz also said :

"Elsewhere in the talk, he described the EU as a “visionary idea”, but said that politicians had been distracted by the creation of a single currency without the political integration needed to make that work.

He was broadly supportive of the UK’s membership of the EU, highlighting the examples of Sweden and other European nations that are part of the union but have agreed different rules. "

Also note the argument on TTIP - if the UK leaves the EU do you not think they will need to renegotiate a trade deal with the US? And with what power? You think our current government would stand up to the US or instead run enthusiastically into the fray?

From the Standard article:
"Likewise with governments. Matthew Elliott, of Business for Britain, and in the Brexit camp, says we would be free to negotiate our own trade deals with the rest of the world. He should heed the words of a leading American trade negotiator discussing the slow progress being made on a trade deal between the US and the EU. It was taking time, he said, because the US was having to learn how to deal with an adversary who was an equal. This was in stark contrast with the way the US deals with individual countries. “Normally we just fax them our terms and tell them to sign.”"

Plus "If American drug companies are already trying to break the power of the National Health Service so that they can charge more for their products, will they step up or reduce the pressure with Britain on its own? "

[RockUnit]

Staying in the EU is uncertain too, for our economy and many other aspects. It could all change significantly over the next months and years.

It's certainly not a foregone conclusion that Brexit would have negative financial implications. Many are arguing that this isn't the case.

Lord Flight, Chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund, and former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has written an article called Why Brexit would be best for the City – much of which wants it anyway

He says "Voters should listen to the majority of the City, which is fed up with over-prescriptive EU regulation and for whom exports to the EU are a relatively small part of their business – rather than the oligopolists who are understandably keen to protect their position in a protectionist EU market."

Patrick Collinson in the Guardian argues that nothing much will change, in his article Brexit: for once it’s not about the economy, stupid, saying "Brexit is likely to result in either a small net economic benefit or a small net economic loss. Nobody can know for sure which outcome we’ll see. But the least likely outcome is economic catastrophe if we leave, or if we remain."

A report by Capital Economics for Woodford Investment Management The economic impact of 'Brexit' says "We expect that Brexit will benefit the public finances, but not to a huge degree" and "We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union."

In any case, can you put a price on democracy and sovereignty?

[Thistledew]

I would like to create a misapprehension stated earlier in this thread. It was suggested that the Vienna Convention would operate to preserve the rights of British Citizens living in Europe to remain there, and likewise for settled migrants from Europe to remain in the UK. This is not correct. The Vienna Convention applies only to the "parties" to a treaty. It is only the State entities themselves who are "parties". It does not create rights that are enforceable by individuals who are citizens of those States. I would also query whether the definition of "treaty" itself covers the EU Directives under which free movement rights have been granted. The whole point of exiting from Europe is so that the Directives cease to apply to us; a rather pointless exercise if the Vienna Convention were to bind us forever.

There is nothing under international law that would prevent a State from withdrawing a right of residence granted to a non-citizen - subject only to the provision that such a withdrawal would not leave that person stateless. If we retain our signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, that may provide the possibility for someone to argue for a continued right to reside in an European country of which they are not a citizen, but that right is not absolute and would provide no guarantee.

So yes, there are very real unanswered questions of what would happen to non-British people residing lawfully in the UK. The same questions also apply to Brits living abroad in Europe, but there is no way that those campaigning for exit for the UK can answer that question.

[Chalalala]

Springing, that's not me being brainwashed, that's you refusing to use basic dictionary definitions.

"Funding: Money provided, especially by an organization or government, for a particular purpose" (this one's from Oxford dictionaries online)

So yes, there is such a thing as government funding, and there is such a thing as EU funding.

[nearlyhellokitty]

rockunit - can you put a price on peace across Europe? fundamentally the core vision for Europe - that through increasing peace, prosperity we would escape the cycle of war. And to achieve that partially through increasing ties through trade and working together.

I think we're agreeing that financially this whole 'there'd be 10 billion more to spend per year' is a fallacy. Whether the risk is large or small is to be debated.

Also I'd take issue with the article you posted from conservative home - see a more balanced overview on the factions pro and against in the city: www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/e90885d8-d3db-11e5-829b-8564e7528e54.html#axzz42EH6uXSs - basically many of them hate the EU because legislation was agreed on limiting bonuses.

and I'd disagree on your premise that being in the EU = damaging to our democracy

[SpringingIntoAction]

No ore 'selective' than the other articles that have been posted. I didn't claim Stiglitz as an OUTer. Although he was advising Greece to leave during the Euro crisis last year.


Also note the argument on TTIP - if the UK leaves the EU do you not think they will need to renegotiate a trade deal with the US? And with what power? You think our current government would stand up to the US or instead run enthusiastically into the fray?

With the same power as the other 168 countries that are not in the EU. With an America that values our 'special relationship' with them and also our 'special relationship' with our Commonwealth.
Cameron could not implement TTIP outside the EU and he could not negotiate a replacement TTIP in the time that remains before the 2020 GE. At that point, we have the opportunity to vote against a Government that could seek a TTIP-type agreement. So we either have a simple Uk-US agreement or trade under WTO rules.

I love this twisted logic of the pro-EU camp that says 'we must stay in the EU and have our NHS torn apart by TTIP because if we were to leave Cameron would use TTIP to tear apart our NHS'. He can't. Outside the EU would be a 3rd party to someone else's agreement.

From the Standard article:
"Likewise with governments. Matthew Elliott, of Business for Britain, and in the Brexit camp, says we would be free to negotiate our own trade deals with the rest of the world. He should heed the words of a leading American trade negotiator discussing the slow progress being made on a trade deal between the US and the EU. It was taking time, he said, because the US was having to learn how to deal with an adversary who was an equal. This was in stark contrast with the way the US deals with individual countries. “Normally we just fax them our terms and tell them to sign.”"

It could also be argued that the fact that the EU is trying to negotiate on behalf of 28 disparate countries all with different vested interest also slows things down. It could also be argued that a deal in which the UK is just one of the 27 parties is not a deal that fully represents UK interests. When I go out to do a deal that's in my own best interests, I don't invite my neighbours along to represent their own interests in my deal.

Plus "If American drug companies are already trying to break the power of the National Health Service so that they can charge more for their products, will they step up or reduce the pressure with Britain on its own? "

The NHS will not exist in 5 or 10 years time if we remain in the EU. The NHS can barely afford to treat those currently resident in the UK, it cannot continue to treat 325,000 additional people each year of which 200,000 are immigrants to the UK from EU countries who have a right to live here and to use the NHS.

Even the reciprocal agreement costs the UK millions each year as according to Labour MP John Mann Parliamentary statistics record that the UK paid £647 million to European countries for health costs last year and received £49 million in return.

[SpringingIntoAction]

Springing, that's not me being brainwashed, that's you refusing to use basic dictionary definitions.

"Funding: Money provided, especially by an organization or government, for a particular purpose" (this one's from Oxford dictionaries online)

So yes, there is such a thing as government funding, and there is such a thing as EU funding

Chalalala - you're being pedantic.

If you handed your neighbour £100 to buy your child a birthday present do you then consider that your neighbour funded your child's birthday present?

Would you be upset if your child's nice shiny new bike was emblazoned with slogans 'given to Johnny by his kind neighbour'. Wouldn't you worry that Johnny might question why his parent has given him absolutely nothing but his very generous neighbour has bought him a bike?

That's the insidious EU brainwashing in action.

[Chalalala]

I'm not being pedantic, I'm holding you accountable for your outlandish statements.

You may disagree with the principle, you may dislike the idea, and that's all fine. But when you claim it's a "fact" that "there is no such thing as EU funding", then you are wrong, plain and simple.

[SpringingIntoAction]

Thitsledew

There is nothing under international law that would prevent a State from withdrawing a right of residence granted to a non-citizen - subject only to the provision that such a withdrawal would not leave that person stateless.

Nothing can stop any determined Government doing what Idi Amin did to the Ugandan Asian community but under the Rome Statute of the International Court it is deemed to be a ‘crime against humanity’ for any country to expel any particular sector of its settled population. I don’t see any of our current EU partners wanting to be labelled in that way.

[SpringingIntoAction]

Chalala

I'm holding you accountable for your outlandish statements

You're ignoring provenance. There's nothing outlandish about objecting to the misrepresentation of something funded by the British tax-payers money handed to the UK Government as having been funded by the bountiful EU.

[nearlyhellokitty]

see springing - It's speculation that TTIP will rip apart the NHS. It hasn't been agreed yet and there's been an enormous outcry about this so things are proceeding very cautiously. I've been following the EPHA debate on this.

The Conservatives seem to be reserving the particular pleasure of destroying the NHS for themselves.

I am certainly concerned about some aspects of TTIP but I think you are fundamentally deluded if you think we'll get a better deal with the US as the UK than we would as part of the EU because of our 'special relationship' yeah right. Like the quote I posted. You really think that Jeremy Hunt et.al. with all their private interests in health companies will fight? www.nhsforsale.info/database/impact-database/conflict-of-interest/GOVERNMENT-POLITICIANS.html

If the UK left the EU it would immediately need to negotiate a load of trade deals at short notice and would be vulnerable.

And on that quote of Stiglitz it was like I've seen with many of your quotes extremely selective and implied he was an OUTer. I think it's fine to debate the merits or Brexit or not but I'm getting pretty annoyed by the lack of facts in your posts.

[nearlyhellokitty]

springing - we already addressed the vienna convention thing. I'm getting tired of you repeating stuff that has already been debunked and I think you're being very dishonest. We are not talking about war crimes but restricting access of residents to benefits for example - that currently as a UK citizen we would enjoy in other EU member states but as outsiders to the EU would likely be restricted.

[Chalalala]

I am not forgetting the "provenance", I quoted it in my very first post to you. Here it is again:

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

You are wrong, plain and simple. You were making an ideological point that you tried to present as "fact" (your word). It's not a "fact".

Words do have a meaning. Maybe let's use them?

[nearlyhellokitty]

Another article on the risks written by the chief executive of TheCityUK
"Put simply, a Brexit risks damaging UK-based financial and related professional services right across the UK."

www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/06/why-brexit-risks-weakening-all-our-financial-services/

[Thistledew]

SpringingIntoAction

The deportation or forcible transfer of a population is considered a crime against humanity, but this only applies to people who are citizens of the country from which they are being removed or who otherwise have and indistinguishable right of residence. The point is that if the UK were to leave the EU, Brits living abroad would have no de jure right of residence, and likewise Europeans living in the UK. There would be no need for people to be systematically rounded up and removed: it is far simpler to remove their rights of residence and require them to leave voluntarily, under the compulsion of being here/there unlawfully. There is no real precedent in International law for prosecutions being brought for removing the right of residence for particular groups of people - look what happened when Eritrea and Ethiopia separated (less than 15 years ago). There was a mass displacement of people across the newly-created border as those of Eritrean heritage were denied the right to live in Ethiopia and vice versa. No war crimes prosecutions have arisen from that situation, even though it is vastly less clear cut than the sort of citizenship issues that would arise in Europe.

[SpringingIntoAction]

When my posts are described as being 'dishonest' and a poster vexatiously accuses me of repeating myself, while I am answering a different poster and who themselves repeats the same argument, and who, when I am careful not to ascribe Stiglitiz with an OUT recommendation, accuses me of doing so, then it's reasonable to assume that the poster who disagrees so vehemently with my views is doing so from a rather shaky position and relying on personal attacks to shore up that shaky position.

Cut out the personal attacks please. I have reported your posts to MNHQ. I will not tolerate being bullied, intimidated or being called dishonest because I fail to support your side of this discussion, nor will I continue to include you in m my discussion.

[Thistledew]

Even if EU nationals with settled status in the UK or Brits with settled status in Europe were to be given permission to remain with no further conditions to meet, there will be a massive administrative nightmare to sort out. Every single person to whom this applies would have to send in their passport for their case to be considered and to be issued with a new visa. It maybe relatively straight forward for those people who have obtained a 'permanent residence' card already, but under EU law there is no requirement to do so. There could be hundreds of thousands of people who would have to go through the administrative process of proving that they have resided in their host country for at least 5 years (the current application form to do so runs to over 40 pages). Given that the UK struggles to meet the 6 month deadline for processing such applications as it is, the upheaval and disruption that would be caused by suddenly having to process such a vast number of applications could run to years.