The United Kingdom and the EU - 'Becoming like Norway'

One of the more interesting conversations regarding the EU focussed on us 'becoming like Norway'. The reasons for this apparent desire to become a Scandinavian state rather than another star on the US flag or a federal member of the EU interested me greatly, so I asked them to tell me more.

And they did.

Apparently leaving the EU and being like Norway would save us 'billions' and because 'everyone' would want to trade with us our exports would rise and we would, once more, become a sovereign nation.

To become like Norway would mean that we have negotiated trade agreements such that we would have continued access to the single market that is the EU, but of course that's not a done deal and 'negotiate' is an interesting word in this context. But if Norway can do it, why can't we - perhaps there is mileage in this tack.

Another cherry on the cake is the fact that Norway, being outside the EU but trading with them is not subject to EU laws on matters of justice or home affairs and they are no bound by the agricultural policies of the EU laws on areas such as agriculture, justice and home affairs - all of which adds to the positives regarding this proposal.

But of course there's always another side of the debate and it seems that were we to leave we would still be bound by most of the EU laws and directives because we are trading with the  EU but would have no ability to influence them - they would merely be handed down to us.

Not only that but  the ECJ and ECHR (European Court of Juestice and the European Court of Human Rights) would still be exactly as they were with regard to laws and judgements as they are now with us as members of the EU because they are nothing to do with the EU! This means that pretty much all of  the claimed regained sovereignty benefits would be in people's heads and hearts rather than something tangible and concrete - and my conversant's claim that, "We would be free from the working time directive" is also not true either!

Superficially this 'becoming like Norway' thing sounds like a win-win situation but of course that's because of the superficial! Once we get into it we find that we will still need to negotiate new trade deals and I have a nasty feeling that many of the EU nations who have to tolerate and buy from us now might just be a little tardy and perhaps a lot obstructive with regard to terms - after all, there is the US-like issue of protectionism to be considered and there are many European manufacturers keen to rape our export market with regard to replacing them with their own EU manufactured goods.

As for sovereignty, this I fear comes at a price for, outside of the EU, we become less of an important partner for the US in terms of NATO and the like and we will perhaps be signing up to become equally important and influential as Norway - not something the xenophobes and jingoistic post- empire little Britain types would relish I'm sure.

So whilst liking this as a proposal I have to say that we won't be gaining much in the real sovereignty stake but might be losing more as we confirm our small offshore island status to the rest of the world. Let's not kid ourselves regarding 'special status' and 'importer of choice' positioning - as much as I dislike the EU, we are in it and are an influential part of it (some Europeans I know say we (and Germany even more so) are too powerful) and to lose that might be to enter a one-way street to anonymity and the acceptance that neither EU or Commonwealth or the States have much time for us.

Better to be small and insignificant rather than to exist as part of Europe?

Oh yeah, seems immigration, which is what the majority of those who want to leave try to hide as being their real reason for an exit, would decrease - but only because no one would want to come to our piddling little island - so that's another win for the xenophobes innit?

Not as straightforward as I'd like all the EU stuff - two sides to everything as usual and the posturing, personalities and lies aren't helping us :-(

PS the same pretty much applies to becoming like Switzerland and other places - and since we stuffed EFTA when Sailor Ted (Heath) conned us into Europe, not sure the kettle's on there either!

Sadly all I've seen so far, to be brutal, is xenophobia and closet racism neatly packaged as being about issues over sovereignty, borders and trade - all getting tiresome.

The United Kingdom and the EU: European Law

The next stop on the debate is the claim that by leaving the EU we would be free to govern ourselves and would no longer be shackled by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) or any of the laws the EU come up with.

LEAVE

One of the more popular areas of conversation I have had relates to the 'fact' that leaving the EU will set British citizens free from EU laws and will guarantee our sovereignty and national identity. Leaving will enable us to break free from the shackles with which the EU binds us.

The European Union has no military might and none of the member states are occupied by force, or consent - it is not federal (even though that Naughty Ted Heath had that in mind when he duplicitously took the UK in to it!) and has no overarching government either - just a talking shop!

There are both the European Commission and the European Council, but the UK plays a major part in the debate and deliberations of both. So what is the root of this desire to break free from the chains of unwanted legislation?

Could it be Boris Johnson's bent banana and square strawberries (not a metaphor for his naughty bits) and the claim that peanuts must have "contains nuts' labels (mind you, might be useful on the door of the House of Commons) have helped people to think that we are wasting millions on silly legislation?

Perhaps it's the fact that (as me dear old Dad used to say) the EU makes the UK comply with laws whilst the rest (with Dad it was always Italy) just ignore them, subsidise their companies and act in a generally dodgy manner.

Generally this 'freedom'  is about sovereignty and parliamentary powers - we are not the masters of our own nation - which is the reason Henry VIII booted Rome out and created the CofE - so why should there be any doubt that this is a right move? Why should we let Johnny Foreigner meddle with us and our laws? After all, the European commission creates all sorts of directives, demands and laws; all of which we have to implement. If we were free then we would be the masters of our own destiny - Rule Britannia and all that stuff.

The same goes for all that civil rights tosh - the stuff that stops us acting as we see fit rather than toe the line because a load of liberal, tree-hugging types say so (a quote from a conversation with a 'Better Out' person). If we want to send a terrorist to the US then we should be able to - anything else is against our security and sovereignty.

Yes indeed - we are better off out because then, "We will be free to act however we want with no one to tell us what to do!" (another quote).

STAY
The first response has to be to quote that last statement:
"We will be free to act however we want with no one to tell us what to do!"

I hate to say it but it sounds like something a child might say when baulking against parental influence - but then again, if we could have divorced ourselves from our parent, wouldn't that have made our life great? We could have done whatever we wanted with no interference or comment - sounds like hell rather than heaven to me!!!

But  let's not get personal - let's look at facts:
first and foremost with regard to EU directives and laws, these have to be to be approved by the council, and voted on in the EU parliament and Britain plays a major part in this - it has a voice that is heard and (generally) respected . If we were to leave and yet still seek to do trade with the EU (our biggest market) then we would need to comply with EU laws and regulations. But being outside we would merely receive them rather than shape or influence them - so what we have is no less a submitting to EU legal things, merely a removing of any power to influence them.

With regards to human rights - we were one of the founders of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and even were we to leave the EU, we would still be bound by its ruling. As to being freer, who in their right mind would want to see anything that protects their human rights limited? Surely a no-brainer of a question!

Bottom line is that to leave does not take away the warrant of law or the decision handed down by European Courts of Justice or Human Rights, it merely takes away any potential for our nation shaping them. Seems to me to be a negative rather than anything positive in this area of consideration.

Vote whatever you like
BUT
You'll still be subject to decisions made here!

The United Kingdom and the EU - Terrorism and Borders

One of the areas most frequently discussed with me by those I meet has been that of terrorism and borders:

LEAVE
Those who want us to leave the EU are telling us that to leave the EU would be to make our nation a safer place.

Quoting figures from the European Union’s law enforcement agency (Europe) those favouring exit claim that Britain is more at risk from terrorist attacks if it continues as a member of the European Union. The reason for this centres largely on the freedom of movement that the EU apparently forces upon the UK - by admitting 'everyone' we apparently 'import risk' into our nation.

To support this position they claim that there are 'up to' 5,000 people in Europe who have attended training camps run by Islamic State and these people, already being in Europe, are free to travel from nation to nation without any border checks. They look to the Paris attacks to support this claim and point to photographs of one of those engaged in the awful happenings there which show they visited the UK.

If we left the EU and made our borders secure then, they reason, it would be impossible for terrorists to enter the country and that would make us safe from terrorism. Add to this the claim that leaving would free us from European law - and the setting us free from the European Court of Justice (ECJ)(remember them, the ECJ have stopped us deporting people to the US and other places because of perceived breaches of human rights) would mean that we could deport whosoever we wanted and govern ourselves make it increasingly difficult to deal effectively with that risk, in order to protect the public”.

It's the EU and the ECJ that cause us to accept everyone and costs us a fortune in monitoring these people once they are here posing a threat to our nationals and our towns and cities and even when we leave, they claim, the EU would be keen to work with us on policing and intelligence matters, after all  - and I quote Dominic Raab - UK Justice Minister here:
“We return more suspects under European Arrest Warrants than any other EU member state. We have the biggest DNA database in Europe. And we have the best intelligence networks. In law enforcement terms, we are massive net contributors to the EU.”

Obvious then, isn't it? The EU would be foolish not to want to keep us onside once we've left!

But what do those who want us to stay have to say about this self-same subject? Left's have a look:

STAY
Fist and foremost what we need to remember is that the UK is outside Europe’s passport-free Schengen area, which means that we have border controls and checks, and this means that those perceived to be a threat to our country can be refused entry. Those of you who have travelled to and from Europe will recall seeing British Police and Home Office types checking passports at ports (and probably complaining about the delay that causes).

So immediately we have an apparent problem in that those supporting the 'leave' position appear to not be telling it as it really is as we already have in place what they claim would only be ours if we were to exit the EU - Isn't that a little naughty I have task myself?

What makes it more difficult is the fact that those who might be coming to our shores are, in the main, not apparently 'naughty' foreigners but are EU nationals; after all looking at the awfulness that was Paris , the majority of those involved were EU citizens. (Salah Abdeslam, was a Belgian-born French citizen, Najim Laachraoui, was also Belgian citizen)

They weren't 'foreigners' unless you consider their roots - in which case I'm Dutch and ready to be deported!

In fact, dare I say it, the xenophobic, racist, anti-immigrant stance in nations like Belgium alienates and creates the backlash that is terrorism. Perhaps we need to stop the marches and popular wholesale responses against 'immigrant'  so that they aren't isolated and alienated. Perhaps we need some education of our nationals to create a society which is more balanced rather than build a wall around our little island!

Living on the edge of one of the largest places where potential for marginalised people are to be found, it is likely that those who might act against our nation and those on its shores will have British passports! The Charlie Hebdo attacks were done by Said and Cherif Kouachi - French citizens, as was Mohamed Merah, who in 2012 killed seven people in Toulouse.

So which camp do you fancy having read this?

As far as I am concerned, overall, the jury is still out, but I know who I think has won this round of the debate. I have read many articles and tried to distill as much information into a concise format - I don't think I've over-egged either camps views and think it to be a fair assessment. But you are the judge and are free to put your views here and dialogue (something I'm not seeing too much of as I am engaged with - am I the only one they talk to?)