There would be no impact. We don't have any agreement at the moment so there would be absolutely no change.
EU Referendum | UK residents vote today.
- Thread starter 711
- Start date
- Status
Having no agreement does not mean there is no trade at all. The US have already said that there would be barriers to trade for the UK if it was to leave the EU, can't hide away from that and you definitely can't hark back to the good old days of the 19th century.
None of those articles support the sort of exodus which you were previously suggesting. The Bloomberg article about HSBC was perhaps the most interesting, although even there the company's Chief Executive demonstrated a remarkable lack of political awareness (or he was being disingenuous).
While there is the risk that a small number of firms will opt to move from the UK, i rather doubt that they will all pre-empt the outcome of negotiations by well over two years. Yet if the very worst happens and the EU reverts to immature tantrums, the UK could use its newly independent status to provide highly lucrative investment grants.
Much of the future remains a field of speculation however, as does the effectiveness and economic stability of the Eurozone in the years ahead. For the one certainty of the existing structure, is that it is failing millions of people and much of the continent.
I would also highlight concerns over sovereignty, democracy and corruption, but then those defects are probably quite appealing to the corporate giants out there. Just look at the ongoing discussions on TTIP: hundreds of millions of Europeans being sold out in the dark corners of Brussels.
The pharaohs didn't stop with the Bent Pyramid, they moved on and built again. Leaving the EU is simply an acknowledgement that this form of European cooperation has failed, not a rejection of the principle. Why should Britain won't settle for less than the people deserve, to suit a few Eurocrats and the multinationals with their feet under the table?
That is predicated upon the EU signing up to TTIP, an agreement which many many people would rather we weren't at the front of the queue for.
Last edited:
TTIP Is a bad reason to vote for Bexit
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-vote-brexit-barack-obama-leave-eu-trade-deal
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-vote-brexit-barack-obama-leave-eu-trade-deal
That is no more then an opinion piece, and one which has since been overtaken by events (see the leaked info to Greenpeace of last week). The only way to forestall TTIP, and ultimately make it an election issue for 2020, is through a vote for Leave. Many of Remain's supporters will be the very people who exploit its flaws, just as they do in Brussels today.
But the UK won't have any money to build the wall!
We'll make France pay for it.
Block up the tunnel and sink the ferries!!
TTIP is a bad reason to vote in or out...
Firstly there is not expected to be a final proposal until 2020 at which point it will still have to be passed by both houses of the USA the European Parliament and individual States in the EU... so lets be honest we are probably over 4 years away from knowing on what the governemnt at the time will be voting on - but it will almost certainly be an issue in the 2020 elections
Anyway there are 27 separate committees negotiating individual parts of TTIP
The first stage is an initial paper and all have got to that stage
The next stage is proposals and so far we have not managed to get proposals on
Anti Corruption
Energy and Raw Materials
Legal and Institutional
Subsidies
Textiles
So there is not even an outline proposal for some pretty weighty issues
Outline proposals exist on 22 Areas
14 of these areas are undergoing the consolidation stage and only 4 areas of the 27 have actually reached advanced consolidation stage
So basically its years off happening and even if it does it still has to be ratified by parliament... its not a reason to be in or out
Nor does America... presumably we will both have to put any illegal immigrants (or in muricas case anybody who looks muslim or mexican) into some kind of forced labour camp where they can concentrate on the job in hand... namely building the wall... of course we will still have the issue what to do with them all once we have the wall built but I'm sure we will finally come up with a solution.
Duncan Smith using the old immigration driving down wages and driving up the cost of living .Maybe he should look closer to home for that .
I had tooooootally forgotten IDS was once Tory leader until they mentioned it on the news today 
Edit: these gems are on his wikipedia...
So now we know where Big Dave gets it from...
Edit: these gems are on his wikipedia...
So now we know where Big Dave gets it from...
If you don't like the way it is being done then that isn't correct because that goes directly to the way the organisation is run. If you don't like the lack of democratic accountability then looking at the way this negotiation is being handled is absolute proof of your worst fears about a future in the EU.
It's a perfectly reasonable point to make and reason to vote leave.
Employ them in east London just like now
Though they would probably either offer us the same terms as ttip or have a decade long secretive discussion... So either way what's the difference as parliament still has to ratify?
Funny, East london has been the home of immigrant communities for at least a century but the country hasnt coolapsed into a black hole.
Does consent from the people it effects matter or not?
You seem to suggest it does not and I think its everything.
If you think otherwise then explain it to the people you want to vote remain instead of lying about it.
Vote remain it happens, you don't get a say and if it fecks you up the ass get the Vaseline out and try to enjoy it.
Don't worry about it though because it won't happen for five years.
Worst remain political slogans ever if you ask me.
Uk parliament has to ratify if we stay or if we leave UK parliament has to ratify it (or any alternative) deal... So what's the difference.
Earliest ttip will be ready to come before parliament is 2020 I.e when we have a new parliament and let's be honest any deal will be part of the election campaign in or out
It will if uk leaves the eu tho, Dave said so
I'm not sure that is the case Sun. Unlike some other countries, British means of approval is typically derived from the Cabinet or Prime Minister. A vote in the Commons ins not mandatory either i don't believe, and even if one should occur the Government is not bound by it.
As we've seen with the EU's attempts to ease concerns surrounding the ISDS', the mood in Brussels is not one of sincerity. Instead of telling Obama and the US trade representatives to go forth and multiply, they are aiding and abetting them in their efforts.
Do you actually support TTIP btw? Based upon the few details of which we the public are aware that is.
Last edited:
I've honestly not made my mind up - largely because as you say most of it isnt public (mostly because its still in draught format or not even at proposal stage yet)
Who is Craig Oliver and what's his connection with Vote Leave?
Cameron's media guy.
Cameron has for all intents and purposes refused a TV debate with the official Leave campaign. Hopefully it is a decision he will live to regret.
well he wont debate against a member of the conservative party... So currently it looks like being against Farrage
If Boris or Gove were to quit the conservative party I think it would be difficult for him then not to debate against them... but I dont see Boris or Gove doing that
the threats of revenge against ITV dont do vote leave any favours either
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36273499
Is not the inclusion of an ISDS mechanism a red line issue for you?
It's further corroborates the suggestion that this is no 'free vote' at all. I think both Gove and Boris would have the better of him in a debate setting, and Osborne is toxic for many voters.
ITV should have told to the PM to sod off; instead, they've gone down the tabloid route to suit Cameron.
Last edited:
Sounds like a lot of in-fighting within the Leave campaign - personal careers first? Surprise.
Not at all - Firstly its not been decided if that is the mechanism they will use and even if they do those involved will have to be pre vetted by the EU and US... they will need some mechanism in place though and there are currently 4 proposals - they could opt for one of them, all of them, some of them an amalgamation / hybrid model or another as yet un-proposed model
TTIP could potentially open the door for some US defence work for us so clearly defined mechanisms to arbitrate in the event of problems would be beneficial... there seems to be enough thought being put into the process from what I can see not to flag up any concerns right now ... but as I say its draught legislation and its probably more sensible to see what the outcome is before making a decision
Last edited:
That's some quick spinning by Osbourne. Immediately rewriting the BoE statement that Leave 'could' lead to lower growth and higher inflation to 'would'.
I'm sure he just pressed the wrong key
I'm sure he just pressed the wrong key
Who would have thought putting together Farage ,Johnson and Galoway would cause in fighting.
In fairness, Farage has been seen as the foremost face for leaving the EU for a good number of years now, so it's not exactly ridiculous to have a debate between the two. I can understand from Leave's POV though that they're the official campaign and don't get someone there.
He did the same with the Scottish referendum. I'd be surprised if it comes back to haunt him.
That could also be said for members of the Cabinet who have sided with Remain. Or fairly mediocre politicians of all stripes, who wouldn't mind the cushy job of EU Commissioner one day.
EU investment proposal won’t prevent corporate attacks on health & environment - Friends of the Earth
Dangerous attacks against regulations protecting the public interest and the environment would not be prevented by the European Commission’s new investment protection proposals for future trade agreements, according to a new report.
The report – developed by Friends of the Earth Europe, Transnational Institute, Corporate Europe Observatory, the Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung, and the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives - puts to the test the European Commission’s promise that the Investment Court System, its new framework for investment protection, will protect governments’ right to regulate.
Five iconic and controversial investor-state dispute settlements, where environmental and public health protections have been attacked, are reviewed through the lens of the Investment Court System, promoted during negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the EU-Canada Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement (CETA), and the EU-Vietnam agreement. The report finds that all five disputes could still happen under the proposal, which falls short of safeguarding governments’ right to regulate.
Natacha Cingotti, trade campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, said: “The “Investment Court System” is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It further enshrines VIP rights for corporations and will expand the clout of private arbitration and its profiteers. Far from limiting attacks against public interest regulations, it will pave the way for many more”.
These cases include:
• Philip Morris vs Uruguay for the introduction of graphic warnings on cigarette packages and other tobacco control measures in order to promote public health;
• TransCanada vs USA for Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline as part of the US’ commitment to tackle climate change;
• Lone Pine vs Canada for a precautionary fracking moratorium enacted in Quebec;
• Vattenfall vs Germany for Hamburg city’s imposition of environmental standards for water use at a coal-fired power plant;
• Bilcon vs Canada for an environmental impact assessment that prevented the construction of a large quarry and marine terminal in an ecologically sensitive coastal area.
Cecilia Olivet, researcher at the Transnational Institute, said: “The European Commission has repeatedly said that it has listened to public concern and that its new Investment Court System (ICS) will prevent corporations’ blatant attacks on health, environment and democracy. Our study shows that this is patently false. We put ICS to the test and it fails on every count. Public resistance to TTIP won’t be bought off with sham reforms. We need a removal of ISDS provisions from any impending trade deal”.
The European Association of Judges and the Deutscher Richterbund have also criticised the “Investment Court System”, pointing to a potential lack of legal basis for its establishment and affirming that the provisions for the election, time of office and remuneration of the “judges” do not meet the minimum standards for judicial office [3].
If the European Commission is serious about its promise to protect citizens and the environment, it will put an end to private arbitration, starting with the removal of ISDS provisions – under whichever label – from the TTIP, CETA, and the EU-Vietnam trade agreements.
Full report :: http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/icstest_web.pdf
Pretty much. He's probably the one person who, if you take out from general UK politics, would result in there being no referendum. Johnson and Gove are major names, but will largely be doing this for their own benefit and probably wouldn't have pushed for a referendum. Farage has been behind the most anti-EU party, and has undoubtedly played an important part in their rise, and the resulting referendum as a result of that.
^ That is rather beside the point; Cameron shouldn't be allowed to dictate who is opponent is.
But the facts are that there is as yet no proposal involving ISDS or not... there are 4 models currently being considered and the EU has said if one was an ISDS model then they would only want pre vetted arbitrators vetted by both the EU and the US to be eligible
So no current proposals exist - its impossible to make a reasoned and informed decision without facts
From a practical point of view I do see an issue with the national courts as you could theoretically end up with different rulings in different parts of Europe so some form of EU level court would seem the most sensible and my personal [preference would be for the 4th model outlined by the EU - but none of them are proposals as yet and probably wont be for another 4 years as they decide what to do before publishing - and at that point I will make my mind up - If it is private then I would say that the vetting process and the detail behind that would be important but of course no detail on that exists yet either as its years off and anybody who has made their mind up before any proposals are put forward is clearly not basing it on fact but conjecture
Why not? If debates weren't a mandated part of the campaign (which I don't think they were but am open to correction) then they don't really have any leverage, we saw during the GE campaign that if Cameron doesn't want to debate, he won't, and also won't get any flak for it. It's just a TV show in the end, ITV want the ratings.
This isn't simply about vetting procedures, people take issue with the very concept. And by way of its attempts at appeasement, the European Commission has demonstrated a certain bias on the matter. If Europe's own negotiators cannot be trusted...
He has chosen what he believes to be the easier option, and reject the better supported Leave campaign into the bargain, do pardon me if i find that a bit off. The PM has always had the air of a salesman, and he's certainly slithered off to ITV in this instance.
The Eurozone actually does worsen unemployment for many of Europe's citizens, and its flaw have affected economic performance in the UK and elsewhere.
Last edited:
- Status