All you EU haters need to just get hold of the facts that DC has said, that leaving the EU means we would have to rejoin EFTA to keep our trading links with Europe and not suffer financial penalties, however one of the basic tenets of joining EFTA is that and country doing so HAS to accept the 'freedom of movement' rules, something that Norway and Iceland have agrred to before they joined. SO the much vaunted argument of 'stopping migration' just doesn't apply, it will continue.

How does Japan trade with Europe? Or the USA? China? I think they all manage it without allowing freedom of movement. But in any case, there is a lot more to it than "stopping immigration". Why don't you try reading Gove's statement to get a better idea of the concerns of other people.

A bit hypercritical methinks considering you and Astera were the first to bring immigration into this discussion at posts #3 & 5.

Now why would 2 EU exponents wish to do that?
Must have been uppermost in your minds.

As Bermuda says. That is only a part of the concern.

I suspect that in the majority of british people immigration is top of their list of concerns, everything else is likely to be ignored, and that's down to the tabloids always going on about them coming over here, piching our jobs, getting benefits etc.

Immigration is only a small part of it. The key thing is self determination, which in the EU that goes out the window.

For a number of people, yes immigration will be at the forefront. And they may be misguided to an extent, but it is still their right to vote as they see fit. Because the UK is a democracy, unlike the EU. But for the majority of the "Leave" camp, there is an awful lot more to this than immigration.

Great news that Boris has joined Brexit this evening.

Excellent! Thanks - I do use double morethan and lessthan quotes to make my posts' quotes clear. That explains it, but why? It only seemed to start a week or two ago. Perhaps the ASCII gets confused?

I think this references access to so called Free Trade Agreements between countries, rather than just general trade.


S

I've never really worked out how freedom of trade should imply freedom of movement. The two seem perfectly separate to me.

My guess is that if the UK dumps the EU, then the EU will refuse to allow a trade treaty between the UK and the EU. The whole 'european integration' shtick is an ideology thing, and I think they'd have their nose out of joint if the UK actually did dump them and what for them is a shiny target of a federated europe. They'd turn bunny boiler.

The smart move would have been to just do a france and give only lip service to the the EU, ignoring anything the UK didn't like. Sure they might have had to push the EU dictates and courts to the side, carefully, but that's what you have a civil service for.

Free Trade Agreements.

Tend to favour the party with cheap labour.

My question is this: Does dumping the EU equate to dumping EFTA? Could they argue that EFTA could remain in place if they walked away from the EU?

The Ballot Paper is only asking the question as to whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union, not if it should also remain a member of the EFTA. The two are certainly not the same thing.


S

Ah, I have answerd my own question. It appears that EFTA membership is no longer operating for the UK since they joined the EEC in 1973, as full EU membership appears to trump EFTA.

UK would need to re-apply to join EFTA again as Astera suggested above.


S

Reading this thread, I think we should be careful about labeling anyone who wants out, as anything other than an individual with his/her own reasons. Sure you've got the people that are just going with what they read in the papers, but ultimately the onus is on the 'in' brigade to make their point in easy to relate to , and inclusive language. If they can't do that then perhaps they're no good at their job.

.
The problem for the "outers" is that quite a large proportion of the voters have no interest in sovereignty - it's a nebulous concept and not as important to them as shorter queues at the arrival desk and whether they get cheaper roaming.

Yet it is the single most important issue regarding the EU. Having the ability of parliament to govern its voters whittled away, year by year, treaty by treaty is an affront to a thousand years of rule by consent.

Many Continental countries have almost within living memory been subjected to dictatorships, revolution, rule by the unelected and so forth, and - rather like the ex-communist countries' populations - have grown accustomed to just keeping quiet and letting "them" get on with it.

Forget about Napoleonic law v common law and all the other things which divide the UK and those cut off by fog. The fact of the matter is that the EU is almost at the point of complete rule by a group of (possibly) well meaning elites who know better than the peasantry what is best for them. In my book it is the equivalent of a dictatorship, not by an individual but by committees.

Go to any capital; Washington, Luxembourg, Brussels and it is creepy: everyone you see is in some way or another connected with the industry of governing others. All that's missing is the funny handshake (and that is probably there as well if you look.)

The EUSSR is by any accounts a failure of democracy - as the Justice minister says. If it gets to its "leaders'" now open endgame - federation - those who vote "in" will live to see results which are not going to be pretty.
.

(Not sure if this will work, BE doesn't do gifv so this is a hack)