Who is in and who is out?

[Jake]

Are we suddenly going to stop trading? Importing? Running financial services ? I don't think so.

You know as well as I do that Frankfurt and Paris are licking their lips.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Are we suddenly going to stop trading? Importing? Running financial services ? I don't think so.

You know as well as I do that Frankfurt and Paris are licking their lips.

They can lick their lips as much as they like - they don't control world trade. If there's an international currency, it's the US dollar, not the Euro. There's a reason why London (and Edinburgh) are world-respected centres of finance and trade, and that's the back-up of UK Law - fair dealing in the event of dispute.

That doesn't make London (or Edinburgh) nailed-on certainties to control world trade, but it does give them very considerable trading advantages.

 

[Jake]

Are we suddenly going to stop trading? Importing? Running financial services ? I don't think so.

You know as well as I do that Frankfurt and Paris are licking their lips.

They can lick their lips as much as they like - they don't control world trade. If there's an international currency, it's the US dollar, not the Euro. There's a reason why London (and Edinburgh) are world-respected centres of finance and trade, and that's the back-up of UK Law - fair dealing in the event of dispute.

That doesn't make London (or Edinburgh) nailed-on certainties to control world trade, but it does give them very considerable trading advantages.

English law is a big advantage, but you can incorporate that wherever you trade from, and the likes of Singapore and Dubai are trying to establish themselves as serious rivals for venue (as well as NY).

EUR/USD is the biggest forex market and London will be shut out of it the instant we leave. We run EUR fx at the moment under (understandable) protest from the ECB, and only thanks to our current weight in European decision making. Europe can be expected to use its hold on the depositary/custodian chain to disadvantage London too if we were out.

London will not of course die, but its influence will be diminished and anything which weakens its hold on commerce will be seized upon by rivals inside and outside Europe.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Brexit will not insulate the UK from Euro failure, nor will Brexit insulate the UK from EU failure which may well be the outcome of a Euro failure.

Leaving simply makes failure more likely. Treaty obligations will continue for the 2 year notice period. Even after this, failure of the EU will decimate exports (44% of UK export business), and failure of the Euro will likely prompt a world financial crisis with UK banks intimately involved.

It is worth noting that separation of retail from casino/investment banks has yet to happen in the UK (not clear why it has taken so long as the problem was crystallised in 2008/09) so the consumer will not be safe from banking collapse.

 

[Jake]

Jake et al - yes, we have a veto. How long do you think this will last? It's nigh impossible for them to run 28 Countries without vetos let alone with them. Everything of any importance (to them) will be passed on QMV.

So who has a veto as to whether there is more QMV? We do. Circular argument, the rabidly paranoid guns one was better.

Sorry. I bet you wish that was true. Heck, if it was I'd be more in favour of the EU.

Glad to hear that. I hope to see your change of heart reflected in future posts. That is, if your opinions are based on facts and evidence at all, as opposed to ideology.

We do have a veto as to what QMV applies to, don't be ridiculous. Changing that requires treaty change, as did the recent extension to QMV. By definition, unanimity is required for a treaty change as states cannot be compelled to sign a new treaty.

But you evidently havn't read any of the treaties, and, I note, chosen not to reply to me providing chapter + verse on why we're committed right now to propping up the Euro and open borders (and the commitment in AMSTERDAM, 20 years ago, to what will become an European army

As to your earlier post, it was full of tenuous arguments based on an outdated treaty. I have better things to do than engage with that sort of ill-informed windy ranting.

TFEU A.2:

CATEGORIES AND AREAS OF UNION COMPETENCE

Article 2

...

4. The Union shall have competence, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union, to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.

The EDA is not competent to deal with anything other than extra-EU affairs - read the protocol. Membership of the EDA is optional, so we can leave (but we haven't, in order to be able to obstruct its development). And defence is not something which can be decided under QMV so we have a veto.

 

[Jake]

This causes us to skip daintily over to Title VII ("Economic and Monetary Policy"). First off there are two authorities involved in European financial matters, the ECB (European Central Bank), and the less-well-known ESCB (European System of Central Banks). You'd think the latter simply refers to a co-ordinating council of central banks in Europe, until we read Article 107: "(2) the ECB shall have legal personality" and "(3) The ESCB shall be governed by the decision-making bodies of the ECB..."

The ESCB is the group of national central banks of the countries belonging to the Euro. In the nature of currency, they have to be under the control of the ECB as the monetary authority.

Now the nub of the matter - Article 119. I'll skip quoting the whole thing, but basically it's about currency union (the Euro), and what happens when countries get into difficulties with their "balance of payments" (in this case an euphemism for "can't pay their creditors"):

119/2: "The Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall grant such mutual assistance..."

The relevant provisions shouldn't be skipped over. Let's start here:

1. Member States in respect of which the Council has not decided that they fulfil the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘Member States with a derogation’.

2. The following provisions of the Treaties shall not apply to Member States with a derogation:

(a) adoption of the parts of the broad economic policy guidelines which concern the euro area generally (Article 121(2));
(b) coercive means of remedying excessive deficits (Article 126(9) and (11));
(c) the objectives and tasks of the ESCB (Article 127(1) to (3) and (5));
(d) issue of the euro (Article 128);
(e) acts of the European Central Bank (Article 132);
(f) measures governing the use of the euro (Article 133);
(g) monetary agreements and other measures relating to exchange-rate policy (Article 219);
(h) appointment of members of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (Article 283(2));
(i) decisions establishing common positions on issues of particular relevance for economic and monetary union within the competent international financial institutions and conferences (Article 138(1));
(j) measures to ensure unified representation within the international financial institutions and conferences (Article 138(2)).

In the Articles referred to in points (a) to (j), ‘Member States’ shall therefore mean Member States whose currency is the euro.

3. Under Chapter IX of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB, Member States with a derogation and their national central banks are excluded from rights and obligations within the ESCB.

4. The voting rights of members of the Council representing Member States with a derogation shall be suspended for the adoption by the Council of the measures referred to in the Articles listed in paragraph 2, and in the following instances:

(a) recommendations made to those Member States whose currency is the euro in the framework of multilateral surveillance, including on stability programmes and warnings (Article 121(4));

(b) measures relating to excessive deficits concerning those Member States whose currency is the euro (Article 126(6), (7), (8), (12) and (13)).

A qualified majority of the other members of the Council shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(a).

We are (obviously) a member state with a derogation. The members of the Euro-system are by definition not member states with a derogation.

So then we turn to your dreaded A119, now A143.

1. Where a Member State with a derogation is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with difficulties as regards its balance of payments either as a result of an overall disequilibrium in its balance of payments, or as a result of the type of currency at its disposal, and where such difficulties are liable in particular to jeopardise the functioning of the internal market or the implementation of the common commercial policy, the Commission shall immediately investigate the position of the State in question and the action which, making use of all the means at its disposal, that State has taken or may take in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties. The Commission shall state what measures it recommends the State concerned to take.

If the action taken by a Member State with a derogation and the measures suggested by the Commission do not prove sufficient to overcome the difficulties which have arisen or which threaten, the Commission shall, after consulting the Economic and Financial Committee, recommend to the Council the granting of mutual assistance and appropriate methods therefor.

The Commission shall keep the Council regularly informed of the situation and of how it is developing.

2. The Council shall grant such mutual assistance; it shall adopt directives or decisions laying down the conditions and details of such assistance, which may take such forms as:

(a) a concerted approach to or within any other international organisations to which Member States with a derogation may have recourse;
(b) measures needed to avoid deflection of trade where the Member State with a derogation which is in difficulties maintains or reintroduces quantitative restrictions against third countries;
(c) the granting of limited credits by other Member States, subject to their agreement.

3. If the mutual assistance recommended by the Commission is not granted by the Council or if the mutual assistance granted and the measures taken are insufficient, the Commission shall authorise the Member State with a derogation which is in difficulties to take protective measures, the conditions and details of which the Commission shall determine.

Such authorisation may be revoked and such conditions and details may be changed by the Council.

So plainly, this article can only be used to assist countries not within the Euro.

Council of Ministers, and the "mutual assistance" means loans or grants. And the QMV (emphasis mine) means we can't get out of it. So on this one, Osborne is simply lying - it's there in the treaties and has been for two decades*.

Much as I despise Osborne and agree he is in general a loathsome creature, on this occasion I think you owe him an apology for this specific accusation of untruthfulness, being as it has no basis in how the TEU/TFEU is actually framed.

Given how wrong you are on that one, I decline to waste any more time on your so-called analysis of the treaty provisions. That's even ignoring your elision between assistance for balance of payments issues and assistance with public finances, which is not a mistake anyone with any real understanding of economics could honestly make.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

One of the problems with examining the minutiae of EU treaties is that the EU top brass has demonstrated that it is prepared to ignore their provisions if it is politically expedient to do so. I gather from the broadsheet press that the bail-out of Greece (or more accurately the banks loaning money to Greece) was illegal under EU law, but it happened anyway. I'm not sure whether the imposition of an unelected 'technocratic' government on a member state is legal either, but it happened to Italy.

The problem from the ordinary man-in-the-street's point of view is that all these treaties leave us in a position of 'heads they win, tails we lose'. The EU will bring down the full force of the law on any member state that contravenes a treaty provision, but itself cheerfully ignores treaties if it feels the political need to do so.

That's not something I want the UK shackled to. Vote Leave.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Precisely.

 

[Jake]

One of the problems with examining the minutiae of EU treaties is that the EU top brass has demonstrated that it is prepared to ignore their provisions if it is politically expedient to do so. I gather from the broadsheet press that the bail-out of Greece (or more accurately the banks loaning money to Greece) was illegal under EU law, but it happened anyway.

This is a bit vague to deal with, but I assume you mean the challenges which have been made by German citizens against the OMT and ESM. The former has been ruled legal under EU law by the ECJ. The latter was dismissed by the German Constitutional Court. So neither of those support this thesis (the ECJ and German Constitutional Court being somewhat more authoritative on the subject of legality or not than some unnamed broadsheet article).

I'm not sure whether the imposition of an unelected 'technocratic' government on a member state is legal either, but it happened to Italy.

Monti is a EU bureaucrat through and through, but he was appointed by the Italian president, and his government was voted into power by the Italian parliaments.

The problem from the ordinary man-in-the-street's point of view is that all these treaties leave us in a position of 'heads they win, tails we lose'. The EU will bring down the full force of the law on any member state that contravenes a treaty provision, but itself cheerfully ignores treaties if it feels the political need to do so.

My problem with the EU is that they are vampires who eat children and old people, and have literal tentacles which suck the life force out of the EU population with the secret intention of turning the Matrix into reality. But in the real world, those are probably not very credible concerns so should not be given much weight in a vote of this importance. Sadly they might well be on the current state of discourse.

 

[paulm]

One of the problems with examining the minutiae of EU treaties is that the EU top brass has demonstrated that it is prepared to ignore their provisions if it is politically expedient to do so. I gather from the broadsheet press that the bail-out of Greece (or more accurately the banks loaning money to Greece) was illegal under EU law, but it happened anyway.

This is a bit vague to deal with, but I assume you mean the challenges which have been made by German citizens against the OMT and ESM. The former has been ruled legal under EU law by the ECJ. The latter was dismissed by the German Constitutional Court. So neither of those support this thesis (the ECJ and German Constitutional Court being somewhat more authoritative on the subject of legality or not than some unnamed broadsheet article).

I'm not sure whether the imposition of an unelected 'technocratic' government on a member state is legal either, but it happened to Italy.

Monti is a EU bureaucrat through and through, but he was appointed by the Italian president, and his government was voted into power by the Italian parliaments.

The problem from the ordinary man-in-the-street's point of view is that all these treaties leave us in a position of 'heads they win, tails we lose'. The EU will bring down the full force of the law on any member state that contravenes a treaty provision, but itself cheerfully ignores treaties if it feels the political need to do so.

My problem with the EU is that they are vampires who eat children and old people, and have literal tentacles which suck the life force out of the EU population with the secret intention of turning the Matrix into reality. But in the real world, those are probably not very credible concerns so should not be given much weight in a vote of this importance. Sadly they might well be on the current state of discourse.

Regardless of what side of the argument holds sway with me currently, I hope you intended the above to be tongue in cheek and drily humorous, otherwise I fear that posts like this, and many recent ones by Rhossdy also, may cross a line and come across as being arrogant, supercilious and condescending.

Or maybe not, I may be an overly sensitive soul :lol: but just thought I would mention how some recent posts and posters are coming across to me, merits or otherwise of any arguments aside.

 

[Woodmonkey]

[*]So, amongst other things, we cannot finance, let alone actually find, the teachers and healthcare professionals we need, and guess what? It takes at least seven years to train a doctor, and four or five years to train a teacher. They don't grow on trees, and right now (not in three years's time) there is a large shortfall. So this can only get worse.

E.

Hmmm if only it were easier for teachers or doctors from overseas to come and work here....

 

[Jake]

Regardless of what side of the argument holds sway with me currently, I hope you intended the above to be tongue in cheek and drily humorous, otherwise I fear that posts like this, and many recent ones by Rhossdy also, may cross a line and come across as being arrogant, supercilious and condescending.

Or maybe not, I may be an overly sensitive soul :lol: but just thought I would mention how some recent posts and posters are coming across to me, merits or otherwise of any arguments aside.

You quoted my whole post. The first two answers were intended as serious factual rebuttals. The end bit was obviously thoroughly tongue in cheek, but there is quite a lot of far-fetched stuff flying around so satire is not uncalled for.

 

[Woodmonkey]

 

[Claymore]

.

 

[Rhossydd]

Now remind me, Rhossydd, what was the name of that chap, wandering off an aeroplane, and waving a piece of paper in the air and shouting 'Peace in our time' ?

Long dead. We're talking about NOW.

You weren't. This is what you wrote "That's just ridiculous. There's no way ex-prime ministers are in any way gullible."
Clearly your statement is wrong.

This thread is about the current debate on the referendum, not sweeping comments on all of history. You know that.

 

[Rhossydd]

Who has a vested interest in getting out? I can't think of anyone - quite the opposite in many cases.

.....
Phil.p
Please learn to use the quote system properly. At 8.5k+ posts you really should be able to use it effectively by now. It makes it far easier for everyone to follow a discussion here if it's clear where quotes start and finish.

Don't be so patronising.

Asking people (who should know better) to post clearly isn't 'patronising'.

 

[Rhossydd]

I've just read of the tragic murder of Jo Cox. I don't always agree with Polly Toynbee, but her piece about this atrocity makes poignant reading; http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... type=Email

For those that are too blinkered to read anything from the Guardian might contemplate these paragraphs;
"Did we delude ourselves we were a tolerant country – or can we still save our better selves? Over recent years, struggling to identify “Britishness”, to connect with a natural patriotic love of country that citizens have every right to feel, politicians floundering for a British identity reach for the reassuring idea that this cradle of democracy is blessed with some special civility.

But if the vote is out, then out goes that impression of what kind of country we are. Around the world we will be seen as the island that cut itself off as a result of anti-foreigner feeling: that will identify us globally more than any other attribute. Our image, our reality, will change overnight."

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Don't you realise that by equating the desire to leave an unnecessary, expensive corrupt political union with xenophobia it just smacks of desperation? I don't read Toynbee, and tripe like that is why.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Of course if we stay in the EU there'll be no more murders because everyone will be friends.

 

[RogerS]

Phil.p
Please learn to use the quote system properly. At 8.5k+ posts you really should be able to use it effectively by now. It makes it far easier for everyone to follow a discussion here if it's clear where quotes start and finish.

Don't be so patronising.

Asking people (who should know better) to post clearly isn't 'patronising'.

You clearly do not understand the word 'patronising'.

Perhaps English is not your mother tongue ?

See what I did there ?