[Update] The UK votes to leave the EU

[Osem]

Of course. There are no easy choices or guarantees here but, with the EU steadily heading towards the edge of the precipice, getting out is making a lot more sense even if it boils down to a choice between the lesser of two evils. They'll definitely be big problems either way.

[nomadking]

The US, China, India, etc have to obey EU product regulations to sell into the EU, so no change there.

If freedom of movement is such a central policy, why did it take a long time before it was introduced? It started as a freedom of movement of WORKERS, not benefit claimants. Were they always eligible for housing and non-contributory benefits or again is it a more recent thing?

How many UK originated policies have found there way to be EU directives and how many German originated polices have done so? That is how much say we have.

If we would lose billions in trade and millions of jobs, where would those billions and millions go to instead? Wouldn't the rest of the EU want us to leave as they would benefit from our alleged future losses?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The US, China, India, etc have to obey EU product regulations to sell into the EU, so no change there.

If freedom of movement is such a central policy, why did it take a long time before it was introduced? It started as a freedom of movement of WORKERS, not benefit claimants. Were they always eligible for housing and non-contributory benefits or again is it a more recent thing?

How many UK originated policies have found there way to be EU directives and how many German originated polices have done so? That is how much say we have.

If we would lose billions in trade and millions of jobs, where would those billions and millions go to instead? Wouldn't the rest of the EU want us to leave as they would benefit from our alleged future losses?

A rhetorical question?...

Despite being a major economy and contributor we get very little bang for our buck. We can argue about why that is but it's a fact.

With French help the EU is largely run by Germans for the benefit of Germans rather like we ran our former empire. Germany is by far the biggest beneficiary of EU policy and the adoption of the Euro have only served to make German exports far more competitive than they would otherwise have been.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-808248.html

Anyway it's nice to feel that the EU would prefer to have us within - presumably that confirms they believe benefit significantly from our net 'contribution' to the whole rather than the other way around...

[heero_yuy]

You should also remember that many apparently EU only bits of legislation such as the "CE" mark have their exact counterparts across the globe as jurisdictions have often co-operated to get unified standards.

Our own BSI are very active with their USA counterparts such as UL* in establishing world standards. To think we would have little influence on standards outside the EU is to misunderstand the way these things work.

Inside or out we still have to match world standards as do the Chinese and Americans.

*Underwriters Laborotories.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

You should also remember that many apparently EU only bits of legislation such as the "CE" mark have their exact counterparts across the globe as jurisdictions have often co-operated to get unified standards.

Our own BSI are very active with their USA counterparts such as UL* in establishing world standards. To think we would have little influence on standards outside the EU is to misunderstand the way these things work.

Inside or out we still have to match world standards as do the Chinese and Americans.

*Underwriters Laborotories.

This. ^

British businesses that trade in the USA have to supply products that comply with their domestic trading standards legislation. British businesses that trade in China, likewise.

British businesses that do not trade in the USA or China, do not have to comply with those territories' legislation. Yet, British businesses that have never once exported a widget to Germany, Italy or Romania must comply with reams and reams of rules, all in the name of 'free' trade within Europe.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

This. ^

British businesses that trade in the USA have to supply products that comply with their domestic trading standards legislation. British businesses that trade in China, likewise.

British businesses that do not trade in the USA or China, do not have to comply with those territories' legislation. Yet, British businesses that have never once exported a widget to Germany, Italy or Romania must comply with reams and reams of rules, all in the name of 'free' trade within Europe.

Well it keeps Euro suits busy...

[Pierre]

All the standards bodies work together and unify standards where possible and where there is benefit.

I sit on a British Standards committee.

You have British Standards I.e. BS XXXX

Then if the standard is ratified by the European standards agency such as CEN or CENELEC it gets the EN prefix. I.e. BS EN XXXX

Then if it is adopted as an international standard it becomes an ISO XXXX

Then you have other standards bodies such as ITU and Cigre.

They all talk to each other.

You are correct, but working in IT I think you may have a slightly skewed picture of how significant that is.

There are huge numbers of things that don't get close to ever having an ISO designation, a good example would be in service delivery rather than in physical product manufacture.

In my own case, I'm bound by health and safety rules set in Brussels that now apply to anyone providing B&B, no matter how small scale, that previously, in British legislation, only affected larger operations. It is onerous for very small business operators and also for the local councils that are compelled to maintain a far larger register of so-called "food businesses" in their area, and to conduct periodic inspections of them.

[Osem]

As with so many things it's only onerous for those who choose to comply. The sort of people who couldn't care less and operate under the radar still couldn't care less and carry on regardless, taking their chances. Meanwhile it's just another financial and organisational burden imposed upon decent people doing a very good job providing services to a high standard and who hitherto would be exempt from such legislation. No wonder the big boys are happier eh? The way things are going it won't be worth running a small business because you're subject to all the rules without the backup and economies of scale. Great!

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Pierre

All the standards bodies work together and unify standards where possible and where there is benefit.

I sit on a British Standards committee.

You have British Standards I.e. BS XXXX

Then if the standard is ratified by the European standards agency such as CEN or CENELEC it gets the EN prefix. I.e. BS EN XXXX

Then if it is adopted as an international standard it becomes an ISO XXXX

Then you have other standards bodies such as ITU and Cigre.

They all talk to each other.

Yep, that's my experience too with the Pharmaceutical Industry. The UK regulatory agency being the MHRA which is also a member of the European Medicines Agency. Alignment of the demands of the all the regulatory agencies in Europe mean that you pass muster with the MHRA, you are then free to sell pharmaceuticals across Europe.

The next sticking point is what if you want to sell outside of Europe? Well that's where the International Conference on Harmonisation comes in - a collaboration between the EMA (Europe), FDA (US), MHLW (Japan), HPFB (Canada) and Swissmedic (Switzerland) This group are working towards a consistent way of regulating Pharmaceuticals globally as there are many differences currently and this is a huge cost for drug manufacturers.

See also aviation (EASA)

[Osem]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34711887

George Osborne has insisted Britain can get the "best of both worlds" out of its EU renegotiation, in an interview with the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg.

He said the UK could get the benefits of the single market but not the "burdens" of bailing out the eurozone.

The chancellor is in Berlin to set out the UK's economic demands ahead of a planned in/out referendum.

German leader Angela Merkel said Britain's demands could be met "where justified" or opt-outs offered.

Why do I doubt this?...

[Gary L]

As has been said. we can't be half in half out. we can't be excluded due to health grounds. we can't sit some things out because we're not feeling very well today.

A straight In Or Out Dave. just like you promised in return for voting you into power to destroy the UK and all that sail on her.

Cameron has set out the goals of the 'renegotiation':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34770875

They seem very realistic and achievable which was probably the point. He will be setting out targets he can deliver on otherwise it's pretty bad politics. He will want to say he was won ahead of the vote after all:

Protection of the single market for Britain and other non-euro countries

As far as I aware no one has suggested this isn't the case so can see the EU giving that no problem.

Boosting competitiveness by setting a target for the reduction of the "burden" of red tape

We'll have to see the detail but people can also promise to reduce 'red tape'. Scrap a bunch of niche, antiquated or pointless regulations and the goal is met. The EU can probably give this.

Exempting Britain from "ever-closer union" and bolstering national parliaments

Again, no harm in giving this. It's largely symbolic unless they specify specific powers to 'boost national parliaments'.

Restricting EU migrants' access to in-work benefits such as tax credits

The only one I think is substantial but I expect he has been given the nod behind closed doors that this will be given. After all it will be popular in France and Germany too.

---------- Post added at 11:34 ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 ----------

Actually probably the biggest one: New member states do not get automatic freedom of movement until their economy has aligned with the member nations.

That would probably solve the biggest issue with the freedom of movement.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

Cameron has set out the goals of the 'renegotiation':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34770875

They seem very realistic and achievable which was probably the point. He will be setting out targets he can deliver on otherwise it's pretty bad politics. He will want to say he was won ahead of the vote after all:



As far as I aware no one has suggested this isn't the case so can see the EU giving that no problem.



We'll have to see the detail but people can also promise to reduce 'red tape'. Scrap a bunch of niche, antiquated or pointless regulations and the goal is met. The EU can probably give this.



Again, no harm in giving this. It's largely symbolic unless they specify specific powers to 'boost national parliaments'.



The only one I think is substantial but I expect he has been given the nod behind closed doors that this will be given. After all it will be popular in France and Germany too.

---------- Post added at 11:34 ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 ----------

Actually probably the biggest one: New member states do not get automatic freedom of movement until their economy has aligned with the member nations.

That would probably solve the biggest issue with the freedom of movement.

Who would measure that alignment? The same people who allowed the likes of Greece and Cyprus into the Euro?

It'd be interesting to see how migration might be affected if a decision to change the rules was going to be made. Might there be a sudden surge beforehand? Even if new rules were imposed upon new member states, there's still the question of the countless millions in the rest of the EU who currently have the right to go where they choose.

Maybe freedom of movement could be best managed by allowing nations to impose quotas although that would of course depend on the UK being able to gather rather far more robust migration figures than is currently the case.

Originally Posted by Osem

Who would measure that alignment? The same people who allowed the likes of Greece and Cyprus into the Euro?

It'd be interesting to see how migration might be affected if a decision to change the rules was going to be made. Might there be a sudden surge beforehand? Even if new rules were imposed upon new member states, there's still the question of the countless millions in the rest of the EU who currently have the right to go where they choose.

Maybe freedom of movement could be best managed by allowing nations to impose quotas although that would of course depend on the UK being able to gather rather far more robust migration figures than is currently the case.

Well they wouldn't be able to move before hand unless we suddenly introduced a new member before the referendum which isn't going to happen. Maybe the benefits but it could probably be applied to existing claimants rather than only apply to those who arrived after the introduction of the changes.

It does seem the substance of the changes he wants will amount to the rules over freedom of movement though.