Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35522876)

Damien, the EEA was created mostly as a waiting room for States whose governments anticipated full EU membership would follow. That's why it carries a heavy regulatory burden, a la Norway, where despite many years of fierce campaigning the political class has never persuaded the citizens to vote 'yes' in a referendum. The Norwegian government has always enthusiatsically implemented EU directives because it has always believed that it would soon enough be a full member and would have to implement the directives anyway. Unfortunately for the Norwegian government, the democratic voice of the Norwegian people keeps getting in the way. The Norwegian people deserve better than the grubby political consensus that exists ove there, which is still pro-EU even though there is now a growing realisation that accession is a more distant prospect than ever.

There is no reason - absolutely no reason whatsoever - to presume that Britiain outside the EU would have to deal with the EU on EEA or Norwegian terms. This is simply yet more Europhile scaremongering.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35522877)

Political grandstanding and rhetoric aside, I bet the EU would be a lot less worried about the UK leaving if we had a trade surplus with them and were net beneficiaries. At the moment the only thing keeping the Eurozone afloat is the German economy and, IIRC, that shows signs of stalling.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35522890)

Damien, you simply cannot evaluate a treaty or an arrangement like the EEA without due regard for the context in which it was created. To do so is to invite misunderstanding. You claim it's a valid study due to lack of other examples but that's like saying you can describe a dodo by studying a chicken.

The EEA was created as a framework for non-EU states that expected to apply to become EU states. That is the context in which you must understand it. If you get that key fact straight first, then all other questions as to the applicability of the EEA model to a State wishing to leave, or loosen its ties with, the EU, become easier to answer.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35522882)

So what will the agreement be? The EEA is the best example we have of a country not being part of the EU but being part of the free trade agreements. Maybe Switzerland as well. There is no example of a country doing what we propose to do, leaving the EU but keeping all the trade advantages. It is not Europhile scaremongering to therefore look at the closest example there is.

I don't think the concerns are scaremongering. I think they're valid. Rather than scaremongering it could be that there are actual ramifications to consider on this issue and two sides to the debate.

---------- Post added at 09:37 ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 ----------



These numbers are temporary. We're not talking about the next year or the next 5 years. We're talking about a change that could affect us, for better or worse, over the next 10, 20, 50 years. Do we see Europe being a key market as we go forward? Europe is obviously a basketcase right now but I don't see it stagnating and falling over the next few decades. Conversely we might be fundamentally unable to be apart of it if it become more united....

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35522895)

Well of course they are but they're what we have right now and things aren't looking as though they're going to get better any time soon. After all this time when things have inexorably moved in a direction most of us don't want, do we have to wait another 20 years before having the chance to say yes or no? I'd suggest that if we were still in the EU by that time, there'd be no way out at that point because more and more binding decisions will have been forced upon us and powers taken away.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35522898)

I didn't mean we need to re-evaluate in 20 years but we need to consider what the next 20 years have in store rather than using Europe's current economic situation as the basis for any decision. Europe probably will have moved closer to a direction we don't want by then, they'll probably still be a big customer base for our products as well.



Yes and I am just arguing for the other side of the argument. Europe obviously has it's bad points and there are more than enough people telling us what they are. There is little discussion of the good points and that's what I am banging on about. :dunce:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35523014)

There'd probably be more discussion of the good points if the Eurocrats hadn't shown themselves to be so utterly intransigent and totally dismissive of anyone not sharing their views. ;).

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35523029)

You could just.as easily be talking about the euroskeptics, perhaps the solution is to bar anyone with a strong view either way from joining in the debate.

Originally Posted by David Cameron

I admire those countries and they are friends of ours – but they are very different from us. Norway sits on the biggest energy reserves in Europe, and has a sovereign wealth fund of over 500 billion euros. And while Norway is part of the single market – and pays for the principle - it has no say at all in setting its rules: it just has to implement its directives.

The Swiss have to negotiate access to the Single Market sector by sector. Accepting EU rules – over which they have no say – or else not getting full access to the Single Market, including in key sectors like financial services.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35526347)

Also worth pointing out that there will be "preparatory work" on a referendum bill this side of the election, but no Act of Parliament until afterwards, and therefore no guarantee of any referendum at all unless there is an outright Conservative victory at that next election.