Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Eu Us Free Trade Deal
14 Answers
Talks are starting on a free trade agreement between the US and the EU on a free trade deal.
This is likely to be worth 10 billion a year to the UK
http://
Talking on the BBC yesterday the US negotiator was making it clear that trying to negotiate a 3 way deal with the UK as well was going to be nigh on impossible.
Is this the real reason that DC wants to delay an in out vote on Europe?
Are people still going to want to leave the EU if it means we'd be outside of an EU/US free trade area?
This is likely to be worth 10 billion a year to the UK
http://
Talking on the BBC yesterday the US negotiator was making it clear that trying to negotiate a 3 way deal with the UK as well was going to be nigh on impossible.
Is this the real reason that DC wants to delay an in out vote on Europe?
Are people still going to want to leave the EU if it means we'd be outside of an EU/US free trade area?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I have listened to several pro EU politicians who trot out the same line.
They say we already have the option of a referendum IF there is a change in the current treaty .
The first point; the treaty is being changed almost daily but they say it's not a change , its clarification, or modification of the existing treaty.
The second point is any real treaty change can be vetoed by any member.
So no matter what we want we are never going to get it under the present
regulations.
The third point ; We are tied into all the European institutions.
If we left the EU tomorrow we would still be tied to all the institutions that have caused us so many problems . For example the ECHR would still prevent us from deporting criminals and terrorists.
What is needed is renegotiation across the board and that is impossible.
We have been told frequently we can't cherry pick what we want .
Cameron talks about negotiations knowing full well he is in a very weak position . Whatever 'deal' he does on Europe the others will find ways around it . Even if we voted for getting out we would still have to withdraw separately from all the other institutions which cause us problems.
They say we already have the option of a referendum IF there is a change in the current treaty .
The first point; the treaty is being changed almost daily but they say it's not a change , its clarification, or modification of the existing treaty.
The second point is any real treaty change can be vetoed by any member.
So no matter what we want we are never going to get it under the present
regulations.
The third point ; We are tied into all the European institutions.
If we left the EU tomorrow we would still be tied to all the institutions that have caused us so many problems . For example the ECHR would still prevent us from deporting criminals and terrorists.
What is needed is renegotiation across the board and that is impossible.
We have been told frequently we can't cherry pick what we want .
Cameron talks about negotiations knowing full well he is in a very weak position . Whatever 'deal' he does on Europe the others will find ways around it . Even if we voted for getting out we would still have to withdraw separately from all the other institutions which cause us problems.
So the US will stop trading with the UK if it leaves the EU?
Yeah right, in the same way that the rest of Europe will do so. Mercedes and Renault will immediately stop selling their cars here; Bosche will stop selling us washing machines; Alstom will immediately withdraw from our rail and power plant markets.
What has to be borne in mind (and what is never mentioned by scaremongers) is that trade is a two way affair. Yes, we sell a lot of goods and services abroad but foreign companies d an awful lot of business here and that business will not cease just because of a small matter of the EU makes it slightly less convenient. Jobs and income in the UK depend on trade with Europe and (increasingly) the rest of the world. They are not dependent on out EU membership and we can have one without the other.
The only other institution which is independent of the EU and which is causing us problems, modeller, is the ECHR. We should have withdrawn from this long ago (in 1998, in fact, when our own Human Rights Act was passed) and the 1998 Act could be adjusted to one which best suits us instead of merely reflection the ECHR.
There needs to be a proper debate on the pros and cons of EU membership and there needs to be proper consultation with the electorate (be they ignorant or not) to determine what they want. The Prime Minister’s suggestion that there will be some sort of renegotiation of the terms of our membership is wind and puff as it will (quite rightly) have to be agreed by all the other members. Those member states who see their membership in the same light as I would view having a joint bank account with Bill Gates are unlikely to agree.
As for life beyond the EU the Lisbon Treaty specifically provides for member states leaving and also provides for trading agreements to be set up between the departing nation and the remainder of the EU. It may be inconvenient and a bit troublesome but it can be done.
Yeah right, in the same way that the rest of Europe will do so. Mercedes and Renault will immediately stop selling their cars here; Bosche will stop selling us washing machines; Alstom will immediately withdraw from our rail and power plant markets.
What has to be borne in mind (and what is never mentioned by scaremongers) is that trade is a two way affair. Yes, we sell a lot of goods and services abroad but foreign companies d an awful lot of business here and that business will not cease just because of a small matter of the EU makes it slightly less convenient. Jobs and income in the UK depend on trade with Europe and (increasingly) the rest of the world. They are not dependent on out EU membership and we can have one without the other.
The only other institution which is independent of the EU and which is causing us problems, modeller, is the ECHR. We should have withdrawn from this long ago (in 1998, in fact, when our own Human Rights Act was passed) and the 1998 Act could be adjusted to one which best suits us instead of merely reflection the ECHR.
There needs to be a proper debate on the pros and cons of EU membership and there needs to be proper consultation with the electorate (be they ignorant or not) to determine what they want. The Prime Minister’s suggestion that there will be some sort of renegotiation of the terms of our membership is wind and puff as it will (quite rightly) have to be agreed by all the other members. Those member states who see their membership in the same light as I would view having a joint bank account with Bill Gates are unlikely to agree.
As for life beyond the EU the Lisbon Treaty specifically provides for member states leaving and also provides for trading agreements to be set up between the departing nation and the remainder of the EU. It may be inconvenient and a bit troublesome but it can be done.
I have not seen that, modeller. As far as I know membership of the EU is only open to other independent nation states and not to conventions or organisations. I don’t believe, therefore, that the ECHR qualifies on this count.
The reason that contradictory judgements are handed down is because the ECHR is deliberately and ridiculously vague in its drafting and it has become increasingly interpreted perversely and contrary to the principles of its architects. If the ECHR were to be granted membership of the EU this will not change. The only way to escape its perverse rulings is to withdraw from its jurisdiction.
The reason that contradictory judgements are handed down is because the ECHR is deliberately and ridiculously vague in its drafting and it has become increasingly interpreted perversely and contrary to the principles of its architects. If the ECHR were to be granted membership of the EU this will not change. The only way to escape its perverse rulings is to withdraw from its jurisdiction.
That was the original purpose of the ECHR, jim - to contain theactivities of an over-zealous government. All very laudable. However (!!!) there is no doubt in many people’s mind that the extent to which it is being used today far exceeds anything it s architects (among which the UK was at the forefront) ever imagined. There can be no way that they could see that it could be used to prevent people convicted of serious crimes from being deported from the UK on the basis that they may face persecution in their country of origin. They could not have believed that some sections of society would have used the legislation to enable them to circumvent the planning regulations to which everybody else is subject on the basis that their “right to a family life” would be curtailed.
Like the EU itself, the ECHR has morphed into an animal completely at odds with its original, quite laudable concept and it is about time it was put out of its (and everybody else’s) misery.
Like the EU itself, the ECHR has morphed into an animal completely at odds with its original, quite laudable concept and it is about time it was put out of its (and everybody else’s) misery.
-- answer removed --
judge //I have not seen that, modeller. //
I'm looking for the link, but in the meantime this shows what a muddle it all is .
//The relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights is an issue in European Union law and human rights law. The European Court of Justice rules on European Union (EU) law while the European Court of Human Rights rules on European Convention on Human Rights which covers the whole of Europe, not just the EU, but not the institutions of the European Union. //
I'm looking for the link, but in the meantime this shows what a muddle it all is .
//The relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights is an issue in European Union law and human rights law. The European Court of Justice rules on European Union (EU) law while the European Court of Human Rights rules on European Convention on Human Rights which covers the whole of Europe, not just the EU, but not the institutions of the European Union. //
Yes I'm quite aware of all the details you kindly provided, infund, especially the separation between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union itself. Sorry if I did not make that clear.
With our own 1998 Act in place I would contend that we have no need to be signatory to the ECHR (the Convention) and so not be subject to judgements made by people from such Human Rights havens as Russia, Albania and Azerbaijan.
With our own 1998 Act in place I would contend that we have no need to be signatory to the ECHR (the Convention) and so not be subject to judgements made by people from such Human Rights havens as Russia, Albania and Azerbaijan.
1 to 14 of 14
