British Indy: What Happens Now?

I for one take offence on your veto comments. Its not just the Romanians who decide to make use of their vetos, most EU countries find great use for them. They were an essential part of daily life, especially for small businesses. I used use mine for transporting my MX bike to races and even got a few birds frisky in the ample size rear. They were a fucker of a van for injector trouble though.....

 

Hmmm....
There is a whole lot of difference between badmouthing various political leaders,(and you will have noted that most on here do not have much time for our own let alone yours),and just slagging people off down here for voting for something you don't approve of.
The EC,(now EU),stole the UK fishing grounds,with a gun to the British Governments head.Yes Ted Heath was an idiot who did not think through the consequences of his actions,but that is typical pf politicians everywhere,including yours.
I don't want to bore you to death because I've already stated this,so I will copy paste the details below:
"The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is a French invention. Therefore, from its inception, it was typically French: downplaying the role of markets and rejecting free trade, it focussed on intervention and protection. Its original architect was Raymond Simonnet, an official at the French fisheries administration assigned to the European Commission. The Commission’s choices were strongly influenced by representatives of the French fishing industry like Jacques Huret, president of the Union interfédérale des armateurs à la pêche *1. In June 1966, Simonnet and the fisheries unit within the European Commission produced a document, calling for common action *2. Existing French policies and practices were directly translated to the EU level. The newly introduced Common Customs Tariff (CCT) for fisheries had substantially lowered the high tariffs that France traditionally had used to protect its domestic fisheries. The French demanded compensation - in the form of a price and support system similar to the one given to their farmers by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) *3. Taxpayers’ money would be used to modernise fleets which were not otherwise commercially viable. More taxpayers’ money would be sunk into building infrastructure, creating a marketing organisation, supporting price levels and securing income for producers. The CFP was hastily stitched together by the founding six member states just before the start of the accession negotiations with Denmark, Ireland, Norway and the UK. At a hastily arranged meeting on 30 June 1970, six hours beforenegotiations began, the agriculture ministers of the “six” adopted the principle of ‘equal access’ to EU waters. This meant that the principle of free access was an integral part of EU law - an arrangement which any then EU membership candidate had to accept. The timing was no accident. The waters of these four applicants contain well over 90 per cent of western Europe’s fish, some 80 per cent in seas controlled by Britain, once described by the famous Labour politician, Nye Bevan as an “island made of coal, surrounded by a sea of fish”. French intentions were clear. For instance, by 1970, fishermen from Boulogne, Brittany and Normandy made no less than 65 per cent of their fresh fish catch in what would be the British Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and 20 per cent in the Norwegian and Faroe Islands’ EEZ *4 . So, the trick was to get the ‘equal access’ principle established as EU law before the negotiations began. This would mean that the candidate countries would have to accept it without argument as part of the so-called acquis communautaire, the established body of Community law. As Christopher Booker and Richard North note, “this was a trap aimed at appropriating the applicants’ property, to share it between the Community members” *5. In this way, just as the UK began its journey to accession, the “six”, the UK’s new partners, had fixed a CFP to operate deliberately to their advantage at the UK’s expense. It was part of a pattern: the UK was also presented with a fait accompli on agriculture where French President Georges Pompidou had insisted on a CAP settlement on terms hugely favourable to France, again before the start of negotiations with the UK *6. Of course, the British fishing industry was up in arms, although it was powerless to resist. Acceptance of the CFP as it stood would lead to an invasion of British coastal waters denuding them of both fish and shellfish. But British Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath was determined not to allow the fisheries issue to block or impede accession. Just as Heath was prepared to accept the EU’s inefficient, expensive and protectionist CAP, so he made no serious attempt to challenge a fisheries policy deliberately designed to stitch-up the UK’s fishermen. Sir Con O’Neill, the senior civil servant on the British negotiating team, admitted thirty years later that the principle which guided the negotiations was “swallow the lot, and swallow it now”. Specifically, with regard to the fishing talks, Sir Con O’Neill said that a fundamental mistake had been made in not trying to stop the adoption of the CFP: “I believe we could have at least postponed such an agreement; and if we had, it is possible, though questionable, that we could have postponed it indefinitely. ... Why was our handling of the issue of fisheries far more uncertain, and more faulty [sic], than our handling of other issues? We did not at the outset realise how acute the question would become and, in part, our retreat from our opening position and the gradual stepping up of our demands was due simply to the mounting political pressure exercised upon us” *7. The CFP was thus essentially designed as a resource grab. By imposing from the outset the non-negotiable dogma of free access, Britain’s rich fishing grounds and fish stocks were turned into a common resource that must be shared with other EU member states. Britain received nothing in exchange for this asset. I do not blame the French for their success as negotiators. I do unreservedly blame and condemn Heath and the British political class for letting them get away with such a simple ruse. In short, Heath had walked straight into the carefully-laid French trap and did nothing to try even to mitigate it, let alone stop it. As in all such negotiations, the British Prime Minister responded with depressing alacrity in meeting the EU’s demands in full.
So there you have it.
Right from the get-go the EC/now EU,especially the French, dream up a scheme to steal from the UK and enrich the French.
Those of us who saw this,all those years ago,were aghast at the duplicity of it...we voted for a Common Market,and the UK was immediately stripped of one of it's most valuable assets.
Since than I have seen British Government after Government,including those led by Scots,capitulate to the EU.
My vote was decided because of 43 years of watching the EU take from the UK, and get very little in return.
This is like a giant Ponzi scheme,where money is taken from the populations of,"rich",countries,in order to pay bribes to the poorer ones that wish to join.
And just like every Ponzi scheme,when all of the suckers are bled dry and have nothing more to be extracted,the elite walk away with bulging pockets.
Except there's a fly in the ointment.
Those bloody Brits,who refused to bow down to threats of war and ended up being the catalyst for victory in two World Wars,(which almost bankrupted the UK),have seen through the ruse.(Not all of them of course,those who believe the threats of financial meltdown and WW3 will vote a different way),have stood up AGAIN,and this MAY signal the end of the bureaucratic lunacy.
It's a bit ironic to say that England is tearing itself apart when your own SNP is trying to tear apart the United Kingdom isn't it?
I'm not throwing insults at you,old friend,nor am I being light hearted,(most of the time).
It's all far too serious for that.

 

It would hopefully be a short to medium term inconvenience whilst we wait for the rest of the EU to unravel, as it surely will. Then we can be there to help pick up the pieces.

That little shits like Jean-Claude Juncker, a failed politician from Luxembourg with a dodgy past, can get into a position of authority illustrates how morally bankrupt the EU is.

I just hope the UK survives long enough for the Scots to realise that EU membership is not a panacea.

Meanwhile we have to not panic and recognise that a negotiated settlement with the EU is not something we must have at all costs.

How very depressing it all is.

 

I think your veto might need a bit of polishing, or should that be Polishing, but good effort

 

whether Ted Heath was stupid or not is debateable,, that he was of Westminster , is not....

 

Apparently, someone has been in touch with Jane Austen to ask her view:
Pride and Prejudice: 51.9%
Sense and Sensibility: 48.1%

 

The burning question now is whether the UK want to be inside the single market or outside the single market?

Inside the single market means:

• Free movement of goods, services, capital, and labour
• Complying with regulations
• Contributing financially

So all the Leave campaign pledges about restricting immigration, not being bound by "EU laws", and saving the "£350million" would have to be totally abandoned. The UK would continue to be subject to all the same requirements as before, but would have given up having any control over formulating them. But at least the UK economy could be preserved, at least to a degree.

Outside the single market means:

• No free movement of goods, services, capital, and labour
• No need to comply with regulations
• No need to contribute financially

So all the Leave campaign pledges about restricting immigration, not being bound by "EU laws", and saving the "£350million" could be delivered, but at the expense of the total wrecking of the UK economy. Lots of corporations, especially financial ones, would have to move operations away from the UK into the rEU. Industry would be wiped out. The UK's current account deficit would be unfinanceable. GDP would drop persistently for years.

That is the dilemma. It'll be entertaining to see Leave politicians like Boris wriggling between the options, spinning as he goes.

 

"So from 28 EU Nations, Britain is providing 15% of the budget ! Total Contributions are to the EU from member states are €117.5 Billion and 15% is €17.625 Billion or £14.66.
So the 3 remaining main Contributors - Germany, France, Italy will soon have to increase their contributions.
Germany has estimated €2 Billion increase.
France and Italy are financial basket cases.
Germany has to bear the cost of immigration integration of €22 Billion for 2016 and €26.5 Billion in 2017 on top of contributions to the Turkey €6.3 Billion Migration Fund.
Meanwhile VW agrees €12 Billion on the first of several Class Action Lawsuits and US Govt fines estimated as high as €61 Billion.
And the largest German Bank - Deutsche is scrambling for cash by offering 5% interest on 90 day deposits while holding €75 Trillion of Derivative contracts which is 20 times the size of Germany annual GDP".

 

Any idea what the Bank of England has spent so far on propping up the pound?
I believe they had 250 billion set aside...

 

Business Live: FTSE 100 nears 6,300

• LIVE

London market rises 150 points, or 2.5%, as recovery charges ahead with miners leading the pack, while sterling jumps against the dollar.

 

It is quite funny how you like to label as "failed" any political leader who has left an office they have previously held. A politician who attains high office, holds that office for several years, and leaves office to advance their career and move on to other things has not "failed". Politicians in democracies are not like kings - they hold office for limited terms, not for life. M. Juncker, as it happens, has been an exceptionally successful and highly respected political leader; you may not like him, approve of him, or agree with him but it is absurd to say he "failed".

Incidentally, if you do disagree with M. Juncker, what is it you disagree about? Leaving vague sneering to the side, what actions of his as President of the Commission do you disapprove of exactly?

 

A third option would be

Access to the single market at a price to be determined but certainly less than what we are currently paying.

The tide is turning against the federalist superstate solution and it will be entertaining to watch what the rEU does when it sees that the world doesn't end for the UK.

 

From someone who has conceded that most, if not all, politicians careers end in failure ? Make up your mind Pete

 

is there any real evidence that the EU is so unpopular on the continent? who is pushing this theory?

 

No comment on the facts about the French duplicity then?
Or that they stole Scottish fishing away from your own countrymen?
No,you just noted that Ted Heath was in the Westminster Parliament.
Would I be right in thinking you don't bother to read anything that doesn't back up your position?
Shame that,I was hoping for something a bit more illuminating.

 

Frankly, the cost of the EU was never the issue, although it was sold as such to a public who couldn't be bothered to find out the total government annual budget, and a media who couldn't really be bothered to tell it.

What we pay, or don't, isn't really the point.

 

It's only really unpopular with nationalist tendencies, although I don't think it is that loved in many of the countries.But then nationalist tendencies are on the rise, as you'd expect where there is economic misery.