[Update] The UK votes to leave the EU

Pretty shocking video of what David Cameron said to other EU leaders when he thought they were in private, shows he wanted to stay In all along. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

Pretty shocking video of what David Cameron said to other EU leaders when he thought they were in private, shows he wanted to stay In all along. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

The most shocking thing about that is that I can recall when it was a hit.

[heero_yuy]

Seems we're not alone in EU scepticism:

HOLLAND is looking to follow in our footsteps by having its own referendum on whether to stay in the EU.

An opinion poll in the Netherlands revealed more 53 per cent of voters want an in/out vote with 44 per cent opposed and the others unsure.

Pollster Maurice de Hond also asked people how they would vote if a referendum was to take place.

His results show the remain and leave groups are very close with 44 per cent saying they would vote to stay compared to 43 per cent saying they would leave the bloc – and 13 per cent are undecided.

Linky

As for Sovereignty this article makes a good point:

The flaw in this case lies in the tradition's idealistic definition of sovereignty. For Mr Johnson and Mr Gove, being sovereign is like being pregnant—you either are or you aren’t. Yet increasingly in today’s post-Westphalian world, real sovereignty is relative. A country that refuses outright to pool authority is one that has no control over the pollution drifting over its borders, the standards of financial regulation affecting its economy, the consumer and trade norms to which its exporters and importers are bound, the cleanliness of its seas and the security and economic crises propelling shock waves—migration, terrorism, market volatility—deep into domestic life. To live with globalisation is to acknowledge that many laws (both those devised by governments and those which bubble up at no one’s behest) are international beasts whether we like it or not. If sovereignty is the absence of mutual interference, the most sovereign country in the world is North Korea.

Thus the EU is just one of thousands of intrusions on the sort of sovereignty that the likes of Mr Johnson so cherish. Britain is subject to some 700 international treaties involving multi-lateral submissions to multilateral compromises. Its membership of the UN similarly infringes its self-determination, for it can be outvoted there just as it can in Brussels. Likewise the WTO, NATO, the COP climate talks, the IMF, the World Bank, nuclear test ban treaties and accords on energy, water, maritime law and air traffic all require Britain to tolerate the sort of trade-offs that Eurosceptic souverainistes find distasteful: influence in exchange for irksome standardisation, laws and rules set mostly by foreigners not elected by Britons (regulations that Britain would not apply, or would apply differently, if left to its own devices). Yet it submits to all of these knowing that, as with the EU, it is free to leave whenever it wants—but at a price not worth paying.

The EU is only one way in which we've essentially given up some aspects of sovereignty in exchange for something else. The question shouldn't be in the UK is sovereign or not but if this particular arrangement is one we want to keep. I mean most of us here support NATO don't we? But that's pooling our defensive resources and even policy to an extent.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Not strictly true, unless something changes. From the document.

It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom.

Based on what has happened so far since the last time we were told that we definitely weren't signing up to a political union (1975) and the EU's self proclaimed ratchet mechanism that they have built into their stated aims of ever closer fiscal and political union, we know that the above quote is not worth the electrons it's written with.

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

As for Sovereignty this article makes a good point:

....and it's with such on the face of it reasonable but in actual fact weasle words that we will bit by bit be conned into giving up more and more sovereignty......if we buy into that kind of b*ll*cks

Originally Posted by Ramrod

....and it's with such on the face of it reasonable but in actual fact weasle words that we will bit by bit be conned into giving up more and more sovereignty......if we buy into that kind of b*ll*cks

How so? The article is pro-EU obviously but I think the point above sovereignty, that it isn't absolute and increasingly fluid as the world becomes more global, is a good one.

Even outside the EU we'll be subject to global deals, organisations and influences where we will not be able to operate with complete independence.

[Osem]

I think if the EU leaves the EU others will want to do likewise or at least negotiate a better deal. It seems Holland may have already decided to do so. The EU's in between a rock and a hard place - if they're seen to cave in to the UK, they'll be setting a dangerous precedent, whereas they must know that if we leave the EU will be much worse off. Ironically, the UK leaving might be the very best thing which could happen for the future of the EU because it may force them to see sense and act accordingly.

This whole thing is a highly complex mess and the fact that the PM can argue that the concessions can't be reversed and Gove can argue the opposite is evidence of that. The legal arguments are complicated and I can't help feeling that it'll be some 'judges' somewhere who'll decide which side is right regardless of what the politicians have 'promised' before the referendum.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Damien

How so? The article is pro-EU obviously but I think the point above sovereignty, that it isn't absolute and increasingly fluid as the world becomes more global, is a good one.

Even outside the EU we'll be subject to global deals, organisations and influences where we will not be able to operate with complete independence.

But at least we will be able to create and change our own laws and not have laws imposed on us from the EU.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

But at least we will be able to create and change our own laws and not have laws imposed on us from the EU.

Now that would be nice.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

But at least we will be able to create and change our own laws and not have laws imposed on us from the EU.

Originally Posted by Osem

Now that would be nice.

But to what extent is this an illusion, as Cameron would put it, when laws will be created to comply with international treaties, multinational companies and trade deals?

The Norway deal includes compliance with certain EU laws too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway...nion_relations

The EEA agreement grants Norway access to the EU's internal market. From the 23,000 EU laws currently in force, the EEA has incorporated around 5,000 (in force) meaning that Norway is subject to roughly 21% of EU law. This arrangement facilitates free movement of goods, capital, services and people between the EU and EFTA members including Norway.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Damien

Pretty shocking video of what David Cameron said to other EU leaders when he thought they were in private, shows he wanted to stay In all along. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Ouch, rickrolled you b'stard Note to self: never trust the son of the Devil.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Ouch, rickrolled you b'stard Note to self: never trust the son of the Devil.

Really, I've done a deal with him, guess I'm not in the clique after all

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Damien

But to what extent is this an illusion, as Cameron would put it, when laws will be created to comply with international treaties, multinational companies and trade deals?

At least the decision to accept them or not will be ours to make......not Brussels'

The Norway deal includes compliance with certain EU laws too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway...nion_relations

I'm not in favour of a Norway style of relationship wi th the EU either. As Chris pointed out in a post pages back- the Norwegans were sold out to the EU by their polititians and then the people voted to not strengthen their ties to the EU......ending up with a pretty crappy deal.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

At least the decision to accept them or not will be ours to make......not Brussels

Well yeah but we're making one of those decisions now, if we stay in the EU. It's not a question of if the UK is sovereign or not, will we will remain a bit of both. It's a question of degrees.

I'm not in favour of a Norway style of relationship wi th the EU either. As Chris pointed out in a post pages back- the Norwegans were sold out to the EU by their polititians and then the people voted to not strengthen their ties to the EU......ending up with a pretty crappy deal.

At some point the relationship we'll have will have to be seriously considered. Whenever a drawback to a possible deal is floated it's mentioned that this isn't the type of deal with UK would do. However trade agreements require concessions from either side, as i mentioned before it's not a case of simply two sides agreeing to drop tariffs and moving on. They'll seek to include special provisions, exemptions, regulations and sometimes even laws into them.

Originally Posted by Damien

Well yeah but we're making one of those decisions now, if we stay in the EU. It's not a question of if the UK is sovereign or not, will we will remain a bit of both. It's a question of degrees.



At some point the relationship we'll have will have to be seriously considered. Whenever a drawback to a possible deal is floated it's mentioned that this isn't the type of deal with UK would do. However trade agreements require concessions from either side, as i mentioned before it's not a case of simply two sides agreeing to drop tariffs and moving on. They'll seek to include special provisions, exemptions, regulations and sometimes even laws into them.

The eventual relationship the UK has with the EU is an interesting topic of debate, but I do wish you and others would stop referencing Norway. It's a complete straw man.

Every non-EU country in the EFTA has its own relationship with the EU, the details of which were a matter of negotiation between the EU and the country concerned. Those negotiations hinged on what each country, and the EU, wanted to get out of it. As I said earlier, in Norway's case the deal was struck with the expectation that the country would soon have to enact all the EU's directives anyway. Only a pesky democratic referendum put paid to that.