Yes and any money Westminster allocates will be political, the EU didn't have to win votes so gave on a basis of need
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
The EU does nothing about it, they have an opinion but won't do a thing. They don't like that France expels Romanians everyday but we still do it because we have the right and power to do it. It's stupid to moan about the EU when they don't have the power.
Yup, but we dont have to implement the following:
- EU trade policies
- EU aid policies
- EU customs union
- EU agriculture policies (big no no for Norway)
- Fishery politics (big no no for Norway)
- Resource policies (big no no for Norway)
- Several other policies I didn't manage to translate
And please, before anyone starts calling bullshit and that all must kneel to the mighty EU on the above, all the info is taken from regjeringen.no (which basically means thegovernment.no) , so this is information directly from the Norwegian government.
What's the betting that the South get lots of money, Yorkshire, just like the North in Maggie's day will get sod all?
Very informative, thank you. And some of the very reasons I voted leave.
Last edited:
Douglas Carswell UKIP MP: "We must rule out the single market. We want access but can't be part of the jurisdiction"
Look at this idiot.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That's how I think Boris and co. will play this, it will be sold to the British public as taking back control, and they will try and sweep the other stuff (continued EU payments, free movement etc) under the carpet.
The problem is, only a small minority voted leave due to the reasons you have listed above & I think even remain voters can sympathise with those thoughts. However, the majority voted leave to stop the flow of EU citizens migrating to the UK and that is something that Norway have to implement, as will anyone else wanting to join the EEA.
Had Boris and co. been honest all along, and admitted that stopping free movement was OFF the table, the UK would have been better informed on their votes. That is to say, do the Norwegian pros outweigh the Norwegian cons? Instead we had millions of low educated, xenophobic UK citizens thinking this was a vote to stop immigration.
Last edited:
You cannot simply say it is up to the Prime Minister because the mechanism for enacting Article 50 has not been explained.
"It is a matter for a member state’s “own constitutional requirements” as to how it decides to withdraw. The manner is not prescribed: so it can be a referendum, or a parliamentary vote, or some other means. In the UK, it would seem that some form of parliamentary approval would be required — perhaps a motion or resolution rather than a statute. The position, however, is not clear and the UK government has so far been coy about being specific."
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-gre...vernment-legally-disregard-a-vote-for-brexit/
The part in bold goes along with what MP David Lammy said today.
Read what that includes. We were discussing the EEA specifically.
Foreign Affairs: Brexit has left Britain more divided than ever
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I don't understand the comments about the leave campaign "lying" about the money being spent on the NHS. As far as I can tell, they didn't lie. They misled. They are fundamentally different things and describing it in that way only serves to trivialise the things they did actually lie about (e.g. immigration).
Yeah, for us these things means the world, simply because:
- EU fishery policies would mean that we would have to open our waters (basically our north-sea cod fishery) to the EU fleet, which alone would loose us more than any contribution to the EU on a yearly basis
- EU agricultural policies that would mean that we couldn't heavily subsidise our own agricultural products and tax the foreign ones (Norwegian agricultural products are very expensive, due to cost and our geography that is basically mountain - fjord - another mountain - another fjord)
- Resource policies - which would mean loosing the government control over all the Norwegian oil, and if there is one thing noggies care about it is our oil
So for us it makes a lot of sense to be outside the EU. Not the same for everybody though.
EU leaders indicating they're willing to talk to Sturgeon directly. Scotland will have no problems entering the EU imo.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
@starman asked specifically how much you pay into the EU and the answer for that is €860 million.
The Government does not need a vote. If it did the writer would assert that. The Government has produced a guide on how you leave the EU: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-process-for-withdrawing-from-the-european-union
From that is is clear the Government intends to invoke the Royal Prerogative to trigger article 50. As did David Cameron in his resignation speech, when he said he'd leave it to his successor to trigger article 50. Nowhere in the incorporation of the Lisbon Treaty into British law does it mention a vote being needed to invoke article 50. The Government can do this whenever it wishes to.
@Adisa re Carswell.
The funny thing is, once article 50 is triggered its not up to us. People really don't seem to understand this. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was written the way it is to try to dissuade members from leaving. Since the EU's goal is 'ever closer union' it made sure the article which applies to leaving would be very unfavourable to anyone trying to do it. All the power is with the EU. The EU decides the terms of the negotiation, the leaving state has no say over what its offered, and if the leaving state agrees to those terms, EU co-decision can still strike the deal down.
That is why the six foreign ministers who met today insisted we trigger article 50. Once its done all the power is on their side.
Yep, understand all of that completely. Makes lots of sense for Norway.
The real shame is that had Boris and co. been honest all along, and admitted that stopping free movement was OFF the table, the UK would have been better informed on their votes. That is to say, do the Norwegian pros outweigh the Norwegian cons from a UK point of view?
Instead we had millions of low educated, xenophobic UK citizens thinking this was a vote to stop immigration.
I don't have a problem with the idea of country leaving the EU but you need to be serious about it. The Leaves seem to have no plan, no schedule, they know that being in the EU isn't bad, so as long as they are in it they are fine but that sword of Damocles isn't good for the EU, it's not good for the UK too but if they leave we don't really care, for that reason from the EU point of view a quick and amicable exit of the UK is ideal but if they try to play games or delay things they should be received with great hostility.Now you're being the destructive one.
The EU won't be entertained with it but would probably listen. Let face it no one wants another recession and that's exactly would happen if Britain leaves. Don't take me wrong, it will be a give and take thing and the Tories reputation will end up damaged by it. However Im confident that it can be done
Leaving aside the provable lie that is the figure, there's a very thin line between misleading and lying in this instance. They've worded it about as closely as they can to a commitment without making it an explicit commitment.
Let's not forget that Britain is a major player on the trade front. Europe depends on us as much as we depend on them. I work for a corporation that exports military components to companies in France (and other EU countries) where multiple projects rely on us supplying complex design systems, and they have committed themselves to contracts for the next 10 - 15 years. Deals worth millions of £s. And we are only one corporation. There will be multiple contracts in place worth billions of Pounds/Euros that cannot simply be torn up because the EU is pissed off with us. Many people here need to wake up and realize that negotiating with Brussels will not be as terrible as you think.
Ireland was recently bailed out by the EU, and they rely on us to buy 50% of their meat. We don't have to, but we choose to, and it helps keep them from another bail out.
For goodness sake, stop the teeth chattering, it's going to be ok.
Ireland was recently bailed out by the EU, and they rely on us to buy 50% of their meat. We don't have to, but we choose to, and it helps keep them from another bail out.
For goodness sake, stop the teeth chattering, it's going to be ok.
Last edited:
Don't get the obsession in this thread with Damon fecking hasbeen Alborn.
I am actually not sure what you guys loose by leaving the union. But I would wager that for a largely service based economy like yourselves there might be more pros to staying than leaving. I am not sure how your oil and fisheries business are structured, or how you structure subsidies to the agriculture in your country.
For our part staying outside the EU is the best thing we have ever done. It was a close call in the last vote some 20 years ago, I think they the no-side only won by 8-9%. Today though the opposition against the EU in Norway is extreme, I think the last poll showed something like 74% against. People almost look at you weird and ostracize you if you say you are pro EU here.
Explain?
Another reasonable post, that's a couple over the past few pages, don't expect it to last but we'll said.
And you are completely right to not join the EU particularly regarding the fishery and resource policy, otherwise you will be at the mercy of the big european companies.
Most people who voted leave don't know what immigrants are.
Yeah we are very content with how things are, the way most Norwegians view it is that we get all the pro's like free-trade etc, but don't have to give up any control over our resources and be at the mercy of the huge conglomerates and supranational institutions.
That is why there was huge puzzlement in Norway and in Norwegian press when we were used as some sort of horror example of how being outside the EU is by the "remain" side in the UK. It became something of a running joke over here.
God no, terrible idea.
The European Union and EEA is a shining light in what the World in 2016 should be working towards, knocking down borders, not putting them back up.
Borders cause jealously, and that is never a good thing. Why should people have a right to a better life because they were lucky enough to be born somewhere affluent? So many of the bad things that happen in the World are because people can't just up and leave to somewhere better.
Last edited:
It's good to hear the viewpoint from someone whose country has actively rejected the EU but has still embraced Europe. There's no need for complete isolation. I hope we get to a similar place if all plays out as I hope.
South Wales Evening Post: Several bidders close to abandoning Tata Steel takeover talks
But...but scaremongering
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It would be very difficult for London to remain Europe's financial capital if the UK has no say over EU financial policy and regulation.
Why would they tear them up just because we have left the EU? Of course they won't. What they clearly will do is make it more expensive for you to import into the EU.
If the EU was that responsive to the needs of the businesses working within it, many of its regulations and rules would not look as they do. You are talking about a negotiation that will be extensive, cover many areas, and needs to be agreed on by many people who wouldn't know the first thing about running a business. Indeed, many members of the European Parliament are anti-business and think 'anglo-saxon capitalism' is some kind of dirty word.
The UK will not be dealing with people thinking about the most rational economic outcome. It will be dealing with a Commission, a European Council, and a European Parliament, many staffed with many who believe in 'ever closer Europe' and 'the European Project.' Don't expect that, simply because you approach it in a business minded way, the politicians and bureaucrats of the EU will do likewise.
I don't think many were saying it was terrible for Norway, Norway is completely different. The UK is one of the main players and the same deal as you doesn't really make the same amount of sense for one of the big 3 in Europe, especially when you consider London.
'Project fear'...
We don't anyway, we rejected the Euro.
Especially for a country who encourages big companies to come to the UK.
We do. Indeed the European Commissioner for Financial Services was a Brit until he resigned today.
What you are saying makes logical sense but there are 2 issues at play here. Political one and economic one. On economic front, EU would actually like to keep its relationship with UK same as before. The last thing they need is another blow to their economy. So regardless of UK's boneheaded decision, they should logically want to give them a reasonable economic deal. But this becomes way too complicated due to the political implications of the same. Not for the EU but for the politicians of member nations. If UK gets a good deal of its exit, it would be a massive boost to similar forces in France, Netherlands, Germany etc. As much as the political leaders of these notions want to protect their economy, they want to protect their political power even more. So there is simply no way that the will award UK a deal that will jeopardize their own political future.
In summary, a complete cut off of economic ties with UK will obviously won't happen but there is also little to no chance of it being same as before.
We do. Until he resigned earlier Lord Hill's job in the EU commission was overseeing the EU rules covering finance.
A lot of Euro related activity from clearing to trading is done in London. The British government has fought tooth and nail against French attempts to change this. That ends the section article 50 is triggered: http://www.reuters.com/article/britain-eu-euro-idUSL5N16I2T5