[Update] The UK votes to leave the EU

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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

Gulp. Is the deal for money or women?

The referendum is in desperate need of a conspiracy theory: Initially, 5 cabinet ministers declared for the 'OUT' campaign. Is that what you call a 5th column?

All this 'blue on blue' arguing might be stage-managed with the turncoats conveniently folding at the final fence just before the vote...

Just to labor, if not out right run into the ground, the point about sovereignty: https://next.ft.com/content/26b6a12c...f-1e7744c66818

Britain has long been a prolific signer of treaties and an energetic joiner of international institutions. Dominic Grieve, a Conservative former attorney-general, once asked the Foreign Office how many such international documents bore the British seal or signature. The FCO went back as far as 1834 and counted 13,200, ranging from bilateral defence pacts and arrangements delineating, say, fishing rights to treaties marking UK accession to the United Nations and Nato.

Many of these will have fallen by the wayside but several thousand remain in operation. Each in its way chips away at notional sovereignty, whether by providing for binding third-party resolution of disputes or imposing voluntary restraints and reciprocal obligations. Torture is made illegal by Britain’s signature on the UN Convention against Torture. The courts enforce human rights on the basis of UK accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Originally Posted by Damien

Just to labor, if not out right run into the ground, the point about sovereignty: https://next.ft.com/content/26b6a12c...f-1e7744c66818

It would be interesting to learn how many of those treaties compel our parliament to enact primary legislation handed down to it by directive.

Originally Posted by Chris

It would be interesting to learn how many of those treaties compel our parliament to enact primary legislation handed down to it by directive.

Probably none. No one is saying the EU doesn't impose laws that we have to pass obviously but that it's just one of the many things times that we trade complete 'sovereignty' for something else. Even if we leave the EU this would remain the case just to a lesser extent, although we would then be enacting other laws and regulations when we negotiate new trade deals.

As the article says when it comes down to it we're still sovereign because Parliament could abolish them, including the EU.

Originally Posted by Damien

Probably none.

Which is why that particular statistic should be seen for what it is - a smokescreen designed to obfuscate the true nature of our membership of the EU. It isn't simply a bilateral treaty. Its depth and complexity puts it in a category all of its own.

As the article says when it comes down to it we're still sovereign because Parliament could abolish them, including the EU.

In theory, yes, but the architecture of the whole European project is designed, quite deliberately, to make that so difficult that few would actually try.

[Mr K]

The UK won't be leaving the EU whatever the result of this referendum. We'll just get another amended deal and told to vote again. Too much at stake, not just the break up of the EU, but break up of the UK. This is what happened in Ireland and Greece, when the public foolishly voted to reject bailout deals; don't think so you plonkers - vote again !. If it's an answer the Govt. doesn't want it'll be rejected, and we'll be told to keep voting until we vote the right way. Democracy is just an illusion we like to have.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

Which is why that particular statistic should be seen for what it is - a smokescreen designed to obfuscate the true nature of our membership of the EU. It isn't simply a bilateral treaty. Its depth and complexity puts it in a category all of its own.



In theory, yes, but the architecture of the whole European project is designed, quite deliberately, to make that so difficult that few would actually try.

A bit like a trap you might argue...

Originally Posted by Mr K

The UK won't be leaving the EU whatever the result of this referendum. We'll just get another amended deal and told to vote again. Too much at stake, not just the break up of the EU, but break up of the UK. This is what happened in Ireland and Greece, when the public foolishly voted to reject bailout deals; don't think so you plonkers - vote again !. If it's an answer the Govt. doesn't want it'll be rejected, and we'll be told to keep voting until we vote the right way. Democracy is just an illusion we like to have.

The difference in those cases is that Ireland and Greece are both net financial beneficiaries of the European project, so the nature of the debate is not the same. Where you get a vote against an EU treaty, it is based on the perception that they're going to lose out. It is not based on a fundamental scepticism of the project. Overturning the referendum results required sufficient sleight of hand to persuade the voters they weren't actually being shafted after all (even though they were).

This referendum is wholly different. It is not a vote on a technical measure, it is an all-or-nothing, in or out decision, with a clear, legal pathway for the UK government to follow in the event of a vote to leave.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Chris

This referendum is wholly different. It is not a vote on a technical measure, it is an all-or-nothing, in or out decision, with a clear, legal pathway for the UK government to follow in the event of a vote to leave.

The subject maybe different but the process would be the same. if the UK were to vote No, nothing would happen to begin the UK's exit. The Government have no plans for that because it's not happening whatever (believe me , I work in Govt.) All that would happen is yet another crisis EU summit and another offer to the UK, and another vote. In which time the financial markets would be in enough chaos to make those who voted the wrong way to realise the folly of their ways.

It'll be the end of Cameron whatever, so that's something.

Originally Posted by Mr K

The subject maybe different but the process would be the same. if the UK were to vote No, nothing would happen to begin the UK's exit. The Government have no plans for that because it's not happening whatever (believe me , I work in Govt.) All that would happen is yet another crisis EU summit and another offer to the UK, and another vote. In which time the financial markets would be in enough chaos to make those who voted the wrong way to realise the folly of their ways.

It'll be the end of Cameron whatever, so that's something.

I've done a little government work as well, and I am perfectly well acquainted with the difference between a plan lodged as a document in the GSI and a plan discussed over an instant coffee in a stairwell. I have been party to both. The former can be leaked, the latter can't, because it doesn't exist. This suits the government's agenda perfectly because it prevents the possibility of a PR coup by the leavers.

No plans exist officially, nevertheless those who would have to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty in the event of a Leave vote, doubtless already know what they will have to do.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Chris

Which is why that particular statistic should be seen for what it is - a smokescreen designed to obfuscate the true nature of our membership of the EU. It isn't simply a bilateral treaty. Its depth and complexity puts it in a category all of its own.



In theory, yes, but the architecture of the whole European project is designed, quite deliberately, to make that so difficult that few would actually try.

Exactly. That's why we need to get out. If we don't, we are doomed as an independent nation. It's as simple as that.

---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ----------I

t would be interesting to learn how many of those treaties compel our parliament to enact primary legislation handed down to it by directive.

Originally Posted by Damien

Probably none.

So why on earth were you quoting/posting a 'smokescreen' like that?

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Exactly. That's why we need to get out. If we don't, we are doomed as an independent nation. It's as simple as that.

---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ----------I
So why on earth were you quoting/posting a 'smokescreen' like that?

It's not a smokescreen it's a valid point. I am posting it because I am contesting your notion that this is about if we're a sovereign nation or not. Sovereignty is not a black and white issue and there will remain issues on which we do not have complete sovereignty over if we left the EU.

It's not a question of sovereignty it's a matter of what specifically we want and do not want. Which resources and powers we pool together and which we reserve for ourselves. It's a question of degrees not absolutes.

Originally Posted by Damien

It's not a smokescreen it's a valid point. I am posting it because I am contesting your notion that this is about if we're a sovereign nation or not. Sovereignty is not a black and white issue and there will remain issues on which we do not have complete sovereignty over if we left the EU.

It's not a question of sovereignty it's a matter of what specifically we want and do not want. Which resources and powers we pool together and which we reserve for ourselves. It's a question of degrees not absolutes.

The argument is indeed a smokescreen.

Nobody who is in any way familiar with the EU's enthusiasm for regulating everything from the colour of fire extinguishers to the pre-packaging of olive oil could seriously and with a straight face suggest that it is in the same league as obligations we sign up to bilaterally with organisations like NATO and the UN.

The sovereignty argument is a powerful one, indeed, it is the only one that transcends crises like the Euro and the migrant situation, which will wax and wane over time. It is no surprise to me that we are beginning to see specious arguments attempting to turn what is actually very straightforward into something that is all shades of grey.

Originally Posted by Chris

The argument is indeed a smokescreen.

Nobody who is in any way familiar with the EU's enthusiasm for regulating everything from the colour of fire extinguishers to the pre-packaging of olive oil could seriously and with a straight face suggest that it is in the same league as obligations we sign up to bilaterally with organisations like NATO and the UN.

It's not just NATO and the UN. It's also trade deals. Look at the amount of laws and regulations a trade deal may require. The recent Canada-EU deal imposed a bunch of requirements on Canada:

• requiring Canada to comply with the Trademark Law Treaty (Canada is not a contracting party)
• requiring Canada to accede to the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs
• creating new legal protections for registered industrial designs including extending the term of protection from the current 10 years to up to 25 years
• requiring Canada to comply with the Patent Law Treaty (Canada has signed but not implemented)
• requiring Canada to establish enhanced protection for data submitted for pharmaceutical patents.

Canada has had to accede to all those requirements (and some more on copyright) just to get a deal with the EU. They're mostly boring copyright provisions but one the less they are there on the request of the EU and not their sovereign Parliament. The North American Free Trade agreement has imposed a bunch of regulations as well. The coming Trans-Pacific partnership will allow corporations to challenge the state irrespective of the laws they've passed (although the exact circumstances a bit unclear to me): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-...ion_.28ISDS.29

Then we have Norway. They don't have a trade deal granted but they've had to take EU laws they can't control and even freedom of movement in order to get a deal.

How do you know that Olives and Fire extinguishers won't find themselves subject to regulation under any EU-UK trade deal? Trade deals are far more than just the abolish of tariffs which are rarely the main limitation of trade these days anyway.

The sovereignty argument is a powerful one, indeed, it is the only one that transcends crises like the Euro and the migrant situation, which will wax and wane over time. It is no surprise to me that we are beginning to see specious arguments attempting to turn what is actually very straightforward into something that is all shades of grey.

Because it is all shades of grey as Canada, Norway and countless others can testify too. The Out campaign want to make it straightforward because they want to promise something they're in no position to promise. In the end there will still be many areas of regulation and laws that will be dictated by the trade deals we sign and the organisations to which we belong.

The EU is on a bigger scale but it's not the only example of it. Another one is the european convention on human rights to which, as I understand it, we're not going to be leaving anytime soon. The European Court will still overrule our courts.

More than two thirds of our GDP is not exported. The point about trade deals is you adhere to the rules of that deal whenever you trade with the other party. Canada's domestic businesses that do not export to the EU are not bound by any of the rules you outlined above. Sadly, British firms that deal only domestically must still adhere to whatever EU rules are in force.

And will you please, please stop producing Norway as evidence. Norway's treaty with the EU was designed to smooth the path to full membership. No serious attempt was made to recognise Norway's status as a non-EU country because those brokering the deal fully expected to take Norway in to the EU in due course. It was a democratic referendum that put paid to that, but sadly due to the high-handedness of their politicians, the Norwegian people are stuck with a deal that is far from brilliant for them. Though it should be noted that for all that, Norwegians still prefer their current status to EU membership.