New euro 'empire' plot by Brussels

[Guest]

I'm no different from the MAJORITY of the people in the United Kingdom who want out of the EUSSR. There is nothing unusual about my views. If you were in the UK it'd actually be YOUR views which would be unusual.

No British Government will offer a referendum because they are all too cowardly because they know what the answer to that referendum will most likely be. If the British Government was sure that most Brits wanted to stay in the EU then they would give us the referendum. The fact that they aren't giving us a referendum shows that they are sure the British people will vote to leave the EU. They are cowards.

The most disgraceful party in all of this are the Liberal Democrats who, in the run up to the 2010 General Election, promised the British people an EU in/out referendum if they came to power. Now that they are in power, they are refusing to give us the in/out referendum. They are a bunch of cowardly, left wing hypocrites.

Stop talking a load of nonsense, you silly left wing twerp. It isn't extremist to want to leave the EU. Leaving the EU is a desire shared by the majority of the British people.

If it's extremist for me to want Britain to be independent of the EU, to be a free, sovereign, independent nation in the early 21st Century then logic dictates that it was also extremist for those Irish republicans to want independence for Ireland (those Irish reoublicans who gave their lives for Irish freedom from Britain will be turning in their graves to see Ireland now being ruled from Brussels rather than London).

Why should I believe that article rather than that excellent Daily Mail article and that excellent pamphlet written by David Campbell-Bannerman?

Whatever "dire straits" Britain may be in at least we're nowhere near as bad as Ireland.

And, once out of the EU and free from the needless red tape and bureaucracy of Brussels which strangle the British economy, our economy will beging to flourish once more.

Britain will be better off out of the EU.

Ireland is a willing member of the EU, everyone in Ireland knows that it was domestic mismanagement which led us to our current position - not the EU. We are a Sovereign state among a federation of sovereign states who gain more from the relationship than we lose. For some bizarre reason the ultra-right has managed to dupe the English into believing that it was the EU who led the UK to financial distaste - rather than the deregulation of financial markets which caused an economy destroying bubble to grow.

The Government of Britain knows full well that its primary objective is to look after the countries best interests and to withdraw from the EU at the moment would be economic suicide, as well as making the disintegration of the UK itself inevitable.

Having an ideological objection to been a member of EU is not unfortunately a good enough reason for withdrawal if it causes years of sever financial hardship to the population. Thats the basic reality which will always trump ideology.

Br Cornelius

Edited October 31, 2011 by Guest

[questionmark]

BTW, looks like the Merkel-Sarkozy plan to reign in Euro default speculation is working:

MF Global Files for Bankruptcy Protection

MF Global Holdings Ltd., the holding company for the broker-dealer run by former New Jersey governor and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. co-chairman Jon Corzine, filed for bankruptcy after making bets on European sovereign debt.

The New York-based firm listed total debt of $39.7 billion and assets of $41 billion in Chapter 11 papers filed today in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan. Affiliate MF Global Finance USA Inc. also filed, with debt of as much $50 million and assets of as much as $500 million. The largest unsecured creditors include JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, as trustee for holders of $1.2 billion in debt, and Deutsche Bank Trust Co., as trustee for holders of $690 million in debt.

[stevewinn]

What you have to remember is BR Cornelius and Questionmark as two prime examples. they both thought having the UK in the Eurozone ditching the pound sterling and taking up the Euro was a great idea at the time. fast forward a decade to the present day and - yet all political parties in the UK including big business and financial experts all agree if we (UK) had joined the Euro back in the day it would have been a disaster for us. what does that tell you about the europhiles judgment.

a country like the Rep of Ireland as to be in the European Union. alone its nothing. being in the EU its still nothing - take the recent elections over there. firstly no-one knew they where having an election, and secondly no-ones ever heard of the old fella who won. that says it all.

[Guest]

What you have to remember is BR Cornelius and Questionmark as two prime examples. they both thought having the UK in the Eurozone ditching the pound sterling and taking up the Euro was a great idea at the time. fast forward a decade to the present day and - yet all political parties in the UK including big business and financial experts all agree if we (UK) had joined the Euro back in the day it would have been a disaster for us. what does that tell you about the europhiles judgment.

a country like the Rep of Ireland as to be in the European Union. alone its nothing. being in the EU its still nothing - take the recent elections over there. firstly no-one knew they where having an election, and secondly no-ones ever heard of the old fella who won. that says it all.

What you keep ignore is that the UK managed to create an economic distate zone all on its own. Been in or out of the Euro would very likely have made no practical difference. You seem to be under the dillusion that everything is just tickety boo in UK land

No one in Ireland ever heard of David Cameron until he got elected - what does that prove ?? I think it proves that politics is national

Br Cornelius

Edited October 31, 2011 by Guest

[stevewinn]

What you keep ignore is that the UK managed to create an economic distate zone all on its own. Been in or out of the Euro would very likely have made no practical difference. You seem to be under the dillusion that everything is just tickety boo in UK land

No one in Ireland ever heard of David Cameron until he got elected - what does that prove ?? I think it proves that politics is national

Br Cornelius

Televisions haven't reached Ireland

am under no illusion that everything is tickety boo in the UK. in fact things could and would have been a hell of alot worse if we'd have joined the euro currency. thank god for small mercies.

[Guest]

Televisions haven't reached Ireland

am under no illusion that everything is tickety boo in the UK. in fact things could and would have been a hell of alot worse if we'd have joined the euro currency. thank god for small mercies.

There is no guarantee that that statement is in any way true.

Br Cornelius

[Blackwhite]

Ireland is a willing member of the EU

Irish republicans who fought for Ireland's independence will be turning in their graves at the thought for they gave their lives for a paltry 50 years of Irish independence.

everyone in Ireland knows that it was domestic mismanagement which led us to our current position - not the EU.

It was the euro which led to the mess you currently find yourselves in.

We are a Sovereign state

No you're not.

For some bizarre reason the ultra-right has managed to dupe the English into believing that it was the EU who led the UK to financial distaste

It was actually commonsense which led us to that conclusion.

and to withdraw from the EU at the moment would be economic suicide

No it wouldn't.

as well as making the disintegration of the UK itself inevitable.

Yet more tripe.

Having an ideological objection to been a member of EU is not unfortunately a good enough reason for withdrawal if it causes years of sever financial hardship to the population

.

Being outside the EU will NOT cause severe hardship to Britain. That is just complete and utter Europhile arrogance. 83% of the world's countries are outside the EU and we need to join them. There's a big wide world out there.

I'll say it again in bold: Britain needs to get out of the EU.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Blackwhite

[Guest]

The decision to join the EU was for the benefits it has brought to Britain.

The decision to stay in will be for the benefit of Britain.

The fact that 83% of the countries of the world are not in the EU is irrelevant because it is the process of withdrawal which will cause the hardships, not the imagined end point.

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

The decision to join the EU was for the benefits it has brought to Britain.

The decision to stay in will be for the benefit of Britain.

The fact that 83% of the countries of the world are not in the EU is irrelevant because it is the process of withdrawal which will cause the hardships, not the imagined end point.

Br Cornelius

yet the EU have a procedure for any member wishing to leave. so preventing this "hardship" you talk about. so hardship fallacy out the way - NEXT.

[questionmark]

yet the EU have a procedure for any member wishing to leave. so preventing this "hardship" you talk about. so hardship fallacy out the way - NEXT.

well, you should read it:

Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)( of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

I fail to see the passage where it seez the leaving member will get sugar blown in its behind.

[stevewinn]

well, you should read it:

Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)( of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

I fail to see the passage where it seez the leaving member will get sugar blown in its behind.

accept the facts the procedure above is for a negotiated withdraw acceptable to both. maybe you should read it yourself.

Its only your bitter and twisted logic that brings the "sugar" element into it. face it. if Britain held a referendum tomorrow to leave the E Union Article 50 would come into play. and a nice withdrawal would take place. no "hardship" no catastrophic event. just a nice simple negotiated settlement. so i fail to see the passage where they mention your doomsday scenario. simples.

[questionmark]

accept the facts the procedure above is for a negotiated withdraw acceptable to both. maybe you should read it yourself.

Its only your bitter and twisted logic that brings the "sugar" element into it. face it. if Britain held a referendum tomorrow to leave the E Union Article 50 would come into play. and a nice withdrawal would take place. no "hardship" no catastrophic event. just a nice simple negotiated settlement. so i fail to see the passage where they mention your doomsday scenario. simples.

There needs to be no negotiated agreement, if there is none after two years the exit is without, see article 3. Unless of course the leaving country begs for more time to negotiate and the unanimous rest consentingly nods their heads gracefully. All that needs to be is some feet dragging by the negotiators and one party saying no, which among 27 European countries is not so difficult to find.

If you read something you should read the whole thing, not only what befits your prejudices.

[stevewinn]

There needs to be no negotiated agreement, if there is none after two years the exit is without, see article 3. Unless of course the leaving country begs for more time to negotiate and the unanimous rest consentingly nods their heads gracefully. All that needs to be is some feet dragging by the negotiators and one party saying no, which among 27 European countries is not so difficult to find.

If you read something you should read the whole thing, not only what befits your prejudices.

if the other country begs, i just love the way you spin it and add in your own little bit. if you think that's the way the EU would conduct itself then what a sorry union it is. and even more reason for its demise. disgusting - thought we was part of a so called civilized union seems not if you go by your examples.

lets give the union a bit of credit and just say an agreement is reached within 18 months of notice to leave. no catastrophic event. so what then?

another doomsday prediction if you would questionmark. last time i had a debate like this i was in the school playing ground. am half expecting you to say your dads bigger than my dad.

[Guest]

if the other country begs, i just love the way you spin it and add in your own little bit. if you think that's the way the EU would conduct itself then what a sorry union it is. and even more reason for its demise. disgusting - thought we was part of a so called civilized union seems not if you go by your examples.

lets give the union a bit of credit and just say an agreement is reached within 18 months of notice to leave. no catastrophic event. so what then?

another doomsday prediction if you would questionmark. last time i had a debate like this i was in the school playing ground. am half expecting you to say your dads bigger than my dad.

The sorry fact is that there are implications for all member states of any members withdrawing, so breaking a contract isn't about one country dictating how they intend to stitch the rest up and keep some nice little trading agreement for themselves.

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

The sorry fact is that there are implications for all member states of any members withdrawing, so breaking a contract isn't about one country dictating how they intend to stitch the rest up and keep some nice little trading agreement for themselves.

Br Cornelius

oh so we are a union held together by threats if one wants to leave. marvellous. it gets better and better. but unlike you. even with my anti EU stance i'll give them more credit and would like to think all involved would agree to terms for mutual benefit. i think this would be the most likely outcome. so yet again we avoid that catastrophe you talk about. at every avenue we avoid the doomsday scenario. so what other reason should we remain part of the EU.

[questionmark]

oh so we are a union held together by threats if one wants to leave. marvellous. it gets better and better. but unlike you. even with my anti EU stance i'll give them more credit and would like to think all involved would agree to terms for mutual benefit. i think this would be the most likely outcome. so yet again we avoid that catastrophe you talk about. at every avenue we avoid the doomsday scenario. so what other reason should we remain part of the EU.

Nobody is threatening nobody... except every tie the Gin harvest was a little strong the British with leaving. The point is that Britain will certainly not dictate the conditions to leave. The best they can hope for is a Swiss deal or no deal... that is unless the PM gets serious with breaching contracts by "taking competences back", then the most probable outcome will be an Austrian Haider deal. Comes out to Britain leaving too...without negotiation.

[Guest]

oh so we are a union held together by threats if one wants to leave. marvellous. it gets better and better. but unlike you. even with my anti EU stance i'll give them more credit and would like to think all involved would agree to terms for mutual benefit. i think this would be the most likely outcome. so yet again we avoid that catastrophe you talk about. at every avenue we avoid the doomsday scenario. so what other reason should we remain part of the EU.

The point is negotiations isn't a pick and mix exercise with England doing all the picking. All the member states would want to defend their interests - which would not be the same as Englands. Yes I would also guess that a certain amount of spite would come in, but thats just human nature.

Anyway we're wasting our time discussing this because England aint going to seek a withdrawal short of the total collapse of the EU. Keep your little Englander dreams

Br Cornelius

Edited November 1, 2011 by Guest

[itsnotoutthere]

The point is negotiations isn't a pick and mix exercise with England doing all the picking. All the member states would want to defend their interests - which would not be the same as Englands. Yes I would also guess that a certain amount of spite would come in, but thats just human nature.

Anyway we're wasting our time discussing this because England aint going to seek a withdrawal short of the total collapse of the EU. Keep your little Englander dreams

Br Cornelius

Remember those words my friend, we may come back to them.

Edited November 1, 2011 by itsnotoutthere

[Guest]

Remember those words my friend, we may come back to them.

If that were to happen things would be very bad in general. The Great Depression would likely look like a picnic in comparison. The UK would suffer as badly or worse, despite its position outside the Eurozone, as protectionism undermined its main export markets. We would all be up to our necks and drowning.

If we come back to this - then none of us will be in a position to crow.

Br Cornelius

[Blackwhite]

The decision to join the EU was for the benefits it has brought to Britain.

The EU has not brought any benefits to Britain.

The decision to stay in will be for the benefit of Britain.

Britain leaving the EU will be beneficial for Britain.

The fact that 83% of the countries of the world are not in the EU is irrelevant because it is the process of withdrawal which will cause the hardships, not the imagined end point.

Britain will not suffer any hardships at all outside the EU. Once its free from the stranglehold, bureaucracy and red tape of Brussels it will prosper.

It's time for Britain to leave the EU.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Blackwhite

[Blackwhite]

oh so we are a union held together by threats if one wants to leave.

It seems very sinister to me.

[Blackwhite]

THE UK WILL PROSPER WHEN IT WITHDRAWS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION

02-10-2011 9:45 pm - Ian Milne - BrugesGroup.com

The EU: a failed experiment emulated nowhere else. It is often forgotten that the European experiment in post-democratic governance remains just that: an experiment (and a failing one at that). In no other continent has it been emulated. The preferred option of the majority of countries and peoples of the world is the self-governing nation state.

In contrast, a small minority of countries, all European, have opted to renounce national sovereignty. United Nations membership has grown from 51 countries in 1946 to 192 today. Of those 192, no fewer than 165, or eighty-six per cent, have chosen to function as sovereign nations, whether liberal-democracies such as the USA, Japan, India and Brazil, or autocracies such as China and Russia.

The remaining 27 countries – fewer than one in seven – accounting for five per cent of global population, are progressively ceding sovereignty to a upranational institution, the European Union.

The EU is in long-term structural demographic and economic decline. It also costs a fortune to belong to. UK withdrawal would result in the British people rejoining the ninety-five per cent of the world’s population who live in self-governing states and successfully trade with each other – and with the EU - multilaterally.

THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

The UK is a founder-member of the Geneva-based World Trade Organisation (WTO) (13), the world’s principal forum for negotiating and supervising international trade agreements. The WTO, like the UN and NATO, is a multilateral, not a supranational body. On withdrawal from the EU, the UK would resume its own seat and vote (which it surrendered to the EU in 1973 on joining the “Common Market”) at the WTO. The UK would then be free to strike up trade agreements with fast-growing countries and export markets such as the USA, Singapore and Australia.

British influence at the WTO is sometimes claimed to be stronger as part of the EU Single Market than it would be if the UK spoke and negotiated for itself in WTO councils. That claim has validity only in so far as British commercial and geostrategical interests coincide with all or a majority of its EU partners – all 26 of them.

When British interests do not so coincide – for example in the regulation of the City, or in agriculture and fishing – it follows that British influence is weaker than it would be if the UK were outside the EU and able to make its own decisions at the WTO. Since the structure and pattern of UK global trade is quite different (14) from that of its EU partners, there is no a priori reason to suppose that, on balance, British interests and those of its EU partners coincide more often than they diverge.

It should be noted that in the UN, the World Bank, the IMF and NATO, the other

main multilateral institutions set up after the Second World War by the UK and its wartime allies, the UK shows no inclination to surrender its votes or seats or vetoes to mere functionaries of a regional bloc in irreversible long-term decline.

NO INTERRUPTION TO EU-UK TRADE FOLLOWING UK WITHDRAWAL

On withdrawal, the EU would continue to trade with the UK. The EU-26’s biggest single customer worldwide is the UK (15), and EU-26 sells far more to the UK than it imports from the UK (16). Under Articles 3, 8 and 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (17), the EU is constitutionally obliged to negotiate “free and fair trade” with non-EU countries – which it does. Besides, discriminating against exports would be illegal under the rules of the World Trade Organisation (18).

NO LOSS OF "INFLUENCE" WITH THE EU SINGLE MARKET FOLLOWING UK WITHDRAWAL

After thirty-eight years of adopting successive treaties, UK influence in EU

deliberations has shrunk to a negligible 8% (19). That is the UK vote in the key EU decision-making body, the Council of Ministers, in which member-states have

given up almost all veto powers. In practice, 8% and zero per cent are about the same: zero.

On withdrawal the UK would regain control of key industries such as the City of

London and resume negotiating on its own behalf with trading partners in the rest of the world – including the EU itself. The US and China have zero votes in the Council of Ministers but still manage to out-export the UK to the EU; Norway and Switzerland, not EU members, with zero votes in the Council of Ministers, export far more to the EU in proportion to the size of their economies than the UK (20), showing that outside the EU the United Kingdom would be perfectly able to continue exporting to the Continent.

THE UK’s TRADING OPTIONS AFTER WITHDRAWAL (21)

Outside the EU, the USA (by far the UK’s biggest single-country export market),

the rising Asian superpowers and most of the rest of the world rely on interlocking WTO-compatible networks of free trade agreements. The UK would fit naturally into that system. The UK should also seriously consider transforming the English-speaking, London-headquartered Commonwealth (22) into a user-friendly global trade organisation.

Other models the UK could consider are the “Norwegian Option” (used also by

Iceland and Liechtenstein) or the “Swiss Option” (23). These allow countries to be semi-detached members of the EU Single Market while keeping clear of main EU “policies” such as the Common Agricultural Policy and tax harmonisation; but they still have to impose on their economies a proportion of EU legislation and regulation, and make annual payments to Brussels.

AFTER WITHDRAWAL, THE UK WOULD PROSPER OUTSIDE THE EU

EU membership costs the UK, net, every year, upwards of 4 per cent of GDP, with no discernible benefit. Some studies put the cost at more than twenty per cent of GDP (24). On withdrawal, that burden on the British economy would progressively disappear, as EU regulation were removed from the British polity and economy. If, say, ten per cent of GDP were saved every year, the impact after several years, due to the dynamic compounding effect, would be very substantial indeed.

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE

-------------------------------

THE AUTHOR:

Ian Milne has been the Director of the cross-party think-tank Global Britain since 1999. He was the founder-editor (in 1993) of The European Journal, and the co-founder (in 1995) and first editor of eurofacts. He is the translator of Europe’s Road to War, by Paul-Marie Coûteaux, (published by The June Press), and the author of numerous pamphlets, articles and book reviews, mainly about the relationship between the UK and the European Union. His most

recent publications are A Cost Too Far? (Civitas, July 2004), an analysis of the net economic costs and benefits for the UK of EU membership, and Backing the Wrong Horse (Centre for Policy Studies, December 2004), a review of the UK’s trading arrangements and options for the future.

He is chairman of companies involved in publishing and book distribution. He graduated in engineering from Cambridge.

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_330_30162.php

Edited November 1, 2011 by Blackwhite

[Guest]

THE UK WILL PROSPER WHEN IT WITHDRAWS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION

02-10-2011 9:45 pm - Ian Milne - BrugesGroup.com

The EU: a failed experiment emulated nowhere else. It is often forgotten that the European experiment in post-democratic governance remains just that: an experiment (and a failing one at that). In no other continent has it been emulated. The preferred option of the majority of countries and peoples of the world is the self-governing nation state.

In contrast, a small minority of countries, all European, have opted to renounce national sovereignty. United Nations membership has grown from 51 countries in 1946 to 192 today. Of those 192, no fewer than 165, or eighty-six per cent, have chosen to function as sovereign nations, whether liberal-democracies such as the USA, Japan, India and Brazil, or autocracies such as China and Russia.

The remaining 27 countries – fewer than one in seven – accounting for five per cent of global population, are progressively ceding sovereignty to a upranational institution, the European Union.

The EU is in long-term structural demographic and economic decline. It also costs a fortune to belong to. UK withdrawal would result in the British people rejoining the ninety-five per cent of the world’s population who live in self-governing states and successfully trade with each other – and with the EU - multilaterally.

THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

The UK is a founder-member of the Geneva-based World Trade Organisation (WTO) (13), the world’s principal forum for negotiating and supervising international trade agreements. The WTO, like the UN and NATO, is a multilateral, not a supranational body. On withdrawal from the EU, the UK would resume its own seat and vote (which it surrendered to the EU in 1973 on joining the “Common Market”) at the WTO. The UK would then be free to strike up trade agreements with fast-growing countries and export markets such as the USA, Singapore and Australia.

British influence at the WTO is sometimes claimed to be stronger as part of the EU Single Market than it would be if the UK spoke and negotiated for itself in WTO councils. That claim has validity only in so far as British commercial and geostrategical interests coincide with all or a majority of its EU partners – all 26 of them.

When British interests do not so coincide – for example in the regulation of the City, or in agriculture and fishing – it follows that British influence is weaker than it would be if the UK were outside the EU and able to make its own decisions at the WTO. Since the structure and pattern of UK global trade is quite different (14) from that of its EU partners, there is no a priori reason to suppose that, on balance, British interests and those of its EU partners coincide more often than they diverge.

It should be noted that in the UN, the World Bank, the IMF and NATO, the other

main multilateral institutions set up after the Second World War by the UK and its wartime allies, the UK shows no inclination to surrender its votes or seats or vetoes to mere functionaries of a regional bloc in irreversible long-term decline.

NO INTERRUPTION TO EU-UK TRADE FOLLOWING UK WITHDRAWAL

On withdrawal, the EU would continue to trade with the UK. The EU-26’s biggest single customer worldwide is the UK (15), and EU-26 sells far more to the UK than it imports from the UK (16). Under Articles 3, 8 and 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (17), the EU is constitutionally obliged to negotiate “free and fair trade” with non-EU countries – which it does. Besides, discriminating against exports would be illegal under the rules of the World Trade Organisation (18).

NO LOSS OF "INFLUENCE" WITH THE EU SINGLE MARKET FOLLOWING UK WITHDRAWAL

After thirty-eight years of adopting successive treaties, UK influence in EU

deliberations has shrunk to a negligible 8% (19). That is the UK vote in the key EU decision-making body, the Council of Ministers, in which member-states have

given up almost all veto powers. In practice, 8% and zero per cent are about the same: zero.

On withdrawal the UK would regain control of key industries such as the City of

London and resume negotiating on its own behalf with trading partners in the rest of the world – including the EU itself. The US and China have zero votes in the Council of Ministers but still manage to out-export the UK to the EU; Norway and Switzerland, not EU members, with zero votes in the Council of Ministers, export far more to the EU in proportion to the size of their economies than the UK (20), showing that outside the EU the United Kingdom would be perfectly able to continue exporting to the Continent.

THE UK’s TRADING OPTIONS AFTER WITHDRAWAL (21)

Outside the EU, the USA (by far the UK’s biggest single-country export market),

the rising Asian superpowers and most of the rest of the world rely on interlocking WTO-compatible networks of free trade agreements. The UK would fit naturally into that system. The UK should also seriously consider transforming the English-speaking, London-headquartered Commonwealth (22) into a user-friendly global trade organisation.

Other models the UK could consider are the “Norwegian Option” (used also by

Iceland and Liechtenstein) or the “Swiss Option” (23). These allow countries to be semi-detached members of the EU Single Market while keeping clear of main EU “policies” such as the Common Agricultural Policy and tax harmonisation; but they still have to impose on their economies a proportion of EU legislation and regulation, and make annual payments to Brussels.

AFTER WITHDRAWAL, THE UK WOULD PROSPER OUTSIDE THE EU

EU membership costs the UK, net, every year, upwards of 4 per cent of GDP, with no discernible benefit. Some studies put the cost at more than twenty per cent of GDP (24). On withdrawal, that burden on the British economy would progressively disappear, as EU regulation were removed from the British polity and economy. If, say, ten per cent of GDP were saved every year, the impact after several years, due to the dynamic compounding effect, would be very substantial indeed.

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE

-------------------------------

THE AUTHOR:

Ian Milne has been the Director of the cross-party think-tank Global Britain since 1999. He was the founder-editor (in 1993) of The European Journal, and the co-founder (in 1995) and first editor of eurofacts. He is the translator of Europe’s Road to War, by Paul-Marie Coûteaux, (published by The June Press), and the author of numerous pamphlets, articles and book reviews, mainly about the relationship between the UK and the European Union. His most

recent publications are A Cost Too Far? (Civitas, July 2004), an analysis of the net economic costs and benefits for the UK of EU membership, and Backing the Wrong Horse (Centre for Policy Studies, December 2004), a review of the UK’s trading arrangements and options for the future.

He is chairman of companies involved in publishing and book distribution. He graduated in engineering from Cambridge.

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_330_30162.php

Lots of misinformation and outright lies in that. An anti-European think tank producing an anti-European pamphlet - now theres a surprise

Br Cornelius

Edited November 1, 2011 by Guest

[Blackwhite]

There is no guarantee that that statement is in any way true.

Br Cornelius

Are you stark raving mad?

Britain would be far worse today had it joined the euro.

Ten years ago, you Eurobots were warning that Britain would suffer if it didn't join the euro and that Britain needed to join to prosper. What has actually happened is that the countries who have joined the euro are suffering as a result and the euro has turned out to be a complete and utter disaster.

We were right not to join the euro. Ireland should have kept out of it, too.

[stevewinn]

The point is negotiations isn't a pick and mix exercise with England doing all the picking. All the member states would want to defend their interests - which would not be the same as Englands. Yes I would also guess that a certain amount of spite would come in, but thats just human nature.

Anyway we're wasting our time discussing this because England aint going to seek a withdrawal short of the total collapse of the EU. Keep your little Englander dreams

Br Cornelius

i note how you keep using the word England. its funny how you keep calling me a little Englander yet throughout my posts i refer to my county as the UK. funny how i've been talking and promoting the idea of trading with the wider world, the commonwealth etc.. does that sound like a little englander. i think not. you display all the signs of desperation.

truth is the EU needs us more than we need them, that's why you've spent the the last 40'odd posts across two threads trying to convince us to stay. i say convince but more like shock scare tactics. You know if the UK leaves your EU dream is over as others will follow.