Anyone putting any plans in place in case we leave?

[ThroughThickAndThin01]

I've just checked the EU referendum current polls and it's looking very close at the moment.

I wondered if anyone is putting plans on hold, or will change any plans they have if we leave?

Personally, I am wracking my brains to think of anything which will directly affect me. Although I wonder if there will economical turmoil and whether to plan for an interest rate rise (our very high mortgage). Which will in turn affect Dhs business.

If we remain, I'd imagine it's just business as usual.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Jesus H. Christ.

PS - I'm not a trainee, I qualified years ago.

European Economic Area countries all contribute to the EU budget ( Norway contribute 90% per capita of what we do) all have to abide by EU regulation and bring into law things that the EU do to harmonise, and have the four freedoms.

It might not be controled but it is definately influenced.

The majority of the economic analysis points to adverse conditions oiutside the EU, some don't but much of that analysis is based on an EEA style deal.

The services point is valid because we trade within the EU using services under the terms, Switzerland cannot access the single market for services under the terms of its agreement.

Nowhere else in the world requires "freedom of movement" as a trading condition. Why did the EU find it necessary, if it isn't working towards becoming a superstate?

Mainly because so many people were living and working within other EU borders, because so many businesses operate within many different EU countries maybe?

Nowhere else requires it, but the EU does, so it doesn't matter how much you say it, its going to be one of the things we have to compromise on.

Anyway EU immigration is beneficial to the UK overall.

its going to be one of the things we have to compromise on.

That's not what Cameron would have you believe in his "deal".

Yes, immigration benefits the UK in many ways, so after leaving the EU, our elected government can choose to maintain it. We'll also be able to open it up equally to all the other countries. All this without any need for the EU to organise it for us.

Before we joined the EU people did of course travel, work in other countries etc.

But far less so A4, and we were far less integrated with European countries, remember the EU was joined more than 40 years ago.

Cameron didn't say we wouldn't have to compromise on freedom of movement at all btw.

But far less so A4, and we were far less integrated with European countries, remember the EU was joined more than 40 years ago.

We joined the European Economic Community (Common Market) in 1972. The EEC then morphed into the EC and then EU.

Cameron didn't say we wouldn't have to compromise on freedom of movement at all btw

The only think that Cameron will be deciding on 24 June 2016 is which removals company to book.

Nowhere else in the world requires "freedom of movement" as a trading condition

There is a fundamental difference between a free trade agreement, which facilitates cross border trade (usually in specific sectors) by eliminating tariff barriers and reducing non-tariff barriers, and a single market, which eliminates borders completely as far as trade is concerned. The principle behind the EU is that goods, capital and labour can all move freely within a single market.

There is much uncertainty about what a post-brexit relationship with the EU might look like, but in my opinion the one absolute certitude is that we will not be able to remain inside the single market without agreeing to free movement.

Which has been pretty much stated by the French, Germans and other EU states that it won't happen. EEA countries have to have freedom of movement, Switzerland isn't even in the EEA and it does too.

Unrestricted access to the EU market as we now enjoy will not simply be given away by the EU, almost every analysis says so, there will be comprmises involved and amongst them will be contributions, the four freedoms and regulations.

Otherwise we get a better deal from the EU than EU countries themselves, not going to happen.

You've repeated this many times over about the "we will get a deal" but not been able to back this with evidence, on the other hand many other posters have disagreed and offered evidence for their posts.

The EU, with it's move towards political union is actually trying to create a unified market within the single market.

We may well end up out of the EU but with the EEA. That would still be preferable to being in the EU.

But we'd still have the four freedoms, to contribute to the EU budget, and comply with regulation and legislation, but not have any say in how the EU is run. Does that strike you as a good option?

Access to the single market necessarily implies free movement of labour, or it ceases to be a single market.

Of course a free trade agreement may be negotiated in future, but "free trade" doesn't mean that goods and services cross borders without impediment (as they do within a single market). It simply means that your goods may avoid a tariff, if they come within the sectors covered by the FTA, and may receive some favourable customs treatment - but they will still have to complete formal customs and administrative procedures in order to be allowed onto EU territory.

What people often don't realise is that barriers to trade are often a lot more than a simple percentage of the value of the goods. Shipping goods to the US, for example, is administratively complex - and indeed one of the main aims of current EU-US negotiations is to reduce these administrative, non-tariff barriers to trade.

So in your opinion, how much per year will the UK spend on tariffs? Will it be less than the amount we currently send to Brussels each year?

And what's wrong with a different system of administration and customs? If it works for trade around the rest of the world, surely we can get used to it for trading with the EU. We'd be getting rid of enough red tape to compensate.

Our net contribution to Brussles each year is about £7.5 billion, in terms of fiscal spending it is very small.

But we'd still have the four freedoms, to contribute to the EU budget, and comply with regulation and legislation, but not have any say in how the EU is run. Does that strike you as a good option

Yes, better than being in the EU itself.

we barely have much influence in the EU at present..

Since 1973 the UK's influence in the Council of Ministers has declined from 17% to 8.4%. That's why we've been overruled 72 times according to Peter Lilley. Since 1973 the UK's influence in the European Parliament has fallen from 20% to 9.5%.

Our influence in the EU is small and will decline further when new EU countries join.

We will have to comply with lots of international standards anyway inside or outside the EU.

I'd prefer to be part of the EEA. At least we would be outside the EU.It may even hasten its collapse

You still haven't really explained why you think being in the EEA would be better than being in the EU.

Saying "we have been overruled 72 times" is meaningless when you don't give any context, like, how long a period of time you're talking about, and how many times we have got our way in that period.

The times that Britain has voted "yes", have been when the vote would have been yes anyway with the status quo. But as you know, every single time Britain voted "no", they were outvoted. How has Britain's vote made any difference at all?

Our net contribution to Brussles each year is about £7.5 billion, in terms of fiscal spending it is very small.

A share of £7.5 billion would be appreciated by schools, hospitals, scientists and libraries I am sure.

The scientists are pretty adamant that they want to stay in, A4.

Try the fullfacts.org for some more information about the context behind this "we have been overruled 72 times" statement.

But to be honest, it kind of seems like some people think it's only worth being in the EU if we get our way every time, and then don't think there's anything hypocritical about saying we're being "ruled by Germany" or "dictated to by Brussels bureaucrats".

Is that why it took a freedom of information request to establish that over the last two decades, Britain has voted against 72 measures in the European Council and been defeated 72 times, and that the pace of defeat is accelerating? If we make the mistake of taking the risk of remaining in the EU, how many defeats does the Prime Minister expect over the next two decades?

Full article here

www.peterlilley.co.uk/questions/1873/oral-question-eu-council

The government seems to instinctively resist responding to freedom of information requests, even over trivial things. I think it's a bit silly, it just makes them look like they have something to hide.

EU v EEA membership

some people think it's only worth being in the EU if we get our way every time

Who has said that, and where?

It's just a general observation A4, not specifically a Mumsnet thing. I think it is a bit hypocritical of people to say that other countries are telling us what to do and simultaneously complain about the UK not getting its way about something 72 times in 20 (i.e. 3 or 4 times per year).

Is it only OK for one country to get its way all the time if it's us? How many times have Germany or France not got their way in the same period?

@Buttered: I think the number was something like 5400 times the UK got its way. This was on one of the fact checker programmes. Vs. the 72x UK got over-ruled. Shock horror, be part of a club & you don't always get your own way. Who knew?

I work for a scientific organisation & our official stance is In. DH's [[https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/806/20026
professional engineering institute]] is endorsing In.

I want what Norway and Switzerland have neigotiated. They are not in the EU yet I meet lots of Norwegians & Swiss living and working in the EU. Lots own property in the EU too and are spending at least part of their retirement in an EU country legally. If they can do it why can't the UK neigotiate the same.