EU: will the new draft proposals keep the UK in the EU?

[Grouse]

Of course the UK will and should stay in

Read the FT or Economist if you don't understand why

Even Boris is back on side

The "it's economy stupid" reason for staying in EU just that: dumb. I don't see any economic issues for Norway or Switzerland and they aren't in the EU.

"'Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

Norway and Switzerland have to do what they're told

They are rule takers not rule makers

Next....

[7by7]

<snip>

It will be interesting to hear his comments on immigration as currently the UK population has approximately 15% of non UK born residents with a high number coming from Poland . That is a major voting power .

According to table 3 on page 16 of this December 2015 Parliamentary briefing paper in 2014 a total of 13% of the UK population were born outside the UK.

Of that, 8.3% came from outside the EU and 4.7% were born in another EU country; of whom just under half (2%) come from the 8 accession countries who joined the EU in May 2004; which includes Poland.

Many of those born outside the UK have since become British citizens; but not many EU nationals have; see table 2 on page 16 of the briefing paper.

Like in a General Election, only British citizens plus Commonwealth and Irish citizens resident in the UK will be able to vote. (source1, the BBC; source2, The Daily Telegraph)

So the only EU citizens who will be able to vote are those from Ireland, for historical reasons, and both Malta and Cyprus because they are members of the Commonwealth.

Poles and most other EU nationals do not constitute a major voting power in the referendum; simply because they can't vote!

There are some other considerations according to the Guardian !

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/13/britain-eu-referendum-who-gets-to-vote-deciding-factor

Check the dates.

The Guardian article is dated 13/5/15; before the announcement of who would be eligible to vote.

The Telegraph article is dated 24/5/15; after the, albeit unofficial, announcement of who would be entitled to vote.

The BBC article confirming who will be eligible to vote is dated 2/2/16.

Entitlement to vote in the referendum in the European Union Referendum Act 2015; which received Royal Assent on 17/12/15, clearly lays down who can vote in the referendum. Only those who can vote in a parliamentary (general or by) election can vote in the referendum; with a couple of additions.

Those additions are that peers, who cannot vote in a Parliamentary election, will be able to vote in this referendum, as will residents of Gibraltar provided they are Commonwealth or Irish citizens. Subject to the conditions laid down in the Act.

Therefore, for the reasons I gave previously, the only EU nationals who will be able to vote in the referendum are Irish, Maltese and Cypriot citizens resident in the UK or Gibraltar.

So my statement that "Poles and most other EU nationals do not constitute a major voting power in the referendum; simply because they can't vote!" is 100% correct.

Unless they have naturalised as British, of course. Which as can bee seen from the tables previously linked to is highly unlikely.

Edited February 4, 2016 by 7by7

[nontabury]

Of course the UK will and should stay in

Read the FT or Economist if you don't understand why

Even Boris is back on side

Could it be that those two newspapers represent the aspirations of very large corporations, for that's who the EU are answerable to. Let's not forget that the EU is trying to push through ( may have already done so) the TTIP

Which again is for the benefit of large corporations. This is of concern to many in the UK for many reasons,especially regarding the NHS,the worry there is that with the TTIP in place the NHS could be vulnerable to large American companies. What is for certain is that the undemocratic EU has never, represented the general public and has no intentions of ever doing so.

[7by7]

One recent example of the EU favouring the individual over large corporations.

Last year mobile phone companies were forced by the EU to immediately significantly cut and by June 2017 completely abolish their exorbitant roaming charges when using a mobile device within the EU. The three non EU members of the EEA agreed to this as well.

Which means that when travelling anywhere within the EEA states EEA resident mobile device users will pay the same price as at home, with no extra charges whether making calls, sending texts or using data.

That's just from memory; I'm sure there are many other examples were one to do proper research.

It is the small things as well as the large which must be considered when deciding whether to vote In or Out.

[nontabury]

One recent example of the EU favouring the individual over large corporations.

Last year mobile phone companies were forced by the EU to immediately significantly cut and by June 2017 completely abolish their exorbitant roaming charges when using a mobile device within the EU. The three non EU members of the EEA agreed to this as well.

Which means that when travelling anywhere within the EEA states EEA resident mobile device users will pay the same price as at home, with no extra charges whether making calls, sending texts or using data.

That's just from memory; I'm sure there are many other examples were one to do proper research.

It is the small things as well as the large which must be considered when deciding whether to vote In or Out.

You provide one instance of the EU making a decision against big business,I'm sure there are others,especially if it is of general knowledge to the public. Yet I still say that overall the EU is there to serve these very large companies, certainly not Joe Bloggs. Further more many trade unions including RMT are now openly campaigning to leave, as they recognize that this corrupt and undemocratic Union is not in the best interest of their members.

The Federation of small businesses ( they actually employ more people than the large corporations) are also supporting the exit movement, as are more and more prominent politicians, an exception to this is that man of principle,Jeremy Corbin,who after a life time of campaigning to leave the EU,

dramatically does an about U turn on becoming the Leader of the Labour Party.

To keep this argument balanced I think it's only fair to mention other prominent people supporting David Cameron's campaign to con the general public in favour of remaining in the EU. These are such patriotic politicians as Tony moneybags Blair and Gordon bigot Brown who seem to have no faith in the UK with its 5th largest economy being able to survive outside the EU.

[teatree]

One recent example of the EU favouring the individual over large corporations.

Last year mobile phone companies were forced by the EU to immediately significantly cut and by June 2017 completely abolish their exorbitant roaming charges when using a mobile device within the EU. The three non EU members of the EEA agreed to this as well.

Which means that when travelling anywhere within the EEA states EEA resident mobile device users will pay the same price as at home, with no extra charges whether making calls, sending texts or using data.

That's just from memory; I'm sure there are many other examples were one to do proper research.

It is the small things as well as the large which must be considered when deciding whether to vote In or Out.

But ultimately it is the lack of democracy and loss of sovereignty that will the key factor for those that vote out.

And the fear of being left on the platform while the EU train goes steaming ahead the key for those that vote to stay in.

[i claudius]

One recent example of the EU favouring the individual over large corporations.

Last year mobile phone companies were forced by the EU to immediately significantly cut and by June 2017 completely abolish their exorbitant roaming charges when using a mobile device within the EU. The three non EU members of the EEA agreed to this as well.

Which means that when travelling anywhere within the EEA states EEA resident mobile device users will pay the same price as at home, with no extra charges whether making calls, sending texts or using data.

That's just from memory; I'm sure there are many other examples were one to do proper research.

It is the small things as well as the large which must be considered when deciding whether to vote In or Out.

For those who travel in Europe they no longer have to pay high roaming charges , wow , against the fact that Britain including your taxes , pay the E.U billions of pounds , what can you say , now we MUST stay in the E.U

please note , sarcasm is only one of my many talents .

[SgtRock]

What draft proposals ?

Hot air, nothing more, nothing less.

An '' Emergency Brake '' that the PM will need to go begging to the EU to implement. Which in any case will be vetoed by Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/03/eastern-european-officials-warn-eu-deal-may-not-be-acceptable

A red card system ? Right, that will work wonders.

Smoke and mirrors.

[eliotness]

One recent example of the EU favouring the individual over large corporations.

Last year mobile phone companies were forced by the EU to immediately significantly cut and by June 2017 completely abolish their exorbitant roaming charges when using a mobile device within the EU. The three non EU members of the EEA agreed to this as well.

Which means that when travelling anywhere within the EEA states EEA resident mobile device users will pay the same price as at home, with no extra charges whether making calls, sending texts or using data.

That's just from memory; I'm sure there are many other examples were one to do proper research.

It is the small things as well as the large which must be considered when deciding whether to vote In or Out.

But ultimately it is the lack of democracy and loss of sovereignty that will the key factor for those that vote out.

And the fear of being left on the platform while the EU train goes steaming ahead the key for those that vote to stay in.

So the EU train is "steaming ahead", I agree, but the trouble is where's it actually going and maybe not everyone wants to go there ?

[7by7]

Another example of how the UK benefits from EU membership

How much money do British universities get from the EU?

Universities themselves say that EU membership is beneficial

None of this is to deny that British universities do well financially out of the EU. For example, the second element of the British Influence claim is correct. Only Germany received more from the Commission's research fund than the UK in 2007-2013, and not by much.

Our universities are heavily represented in the top 50 of higher education institutions ranked by success attracting in EU grants. Five of the top 10 were British in 2007-2013.

Is the EU undemocratic?

How EU decisions are made

The EU’s standard decision-making procedure is known as 'Ordinary Legislative Procedure’ (ex "codecision"). This means that the directly elected European Parliament has to approve EU legislation together with the Council (the governments of the 28 EU countries).

There are pros and cons of membership; of course there are.

I believe that the pros outweigh the cons; others believe the opposite.

Most people base decisions such as this on "How will it effect me?"

So something for the anti EU posters here, most of whom live in Thailand, to consider is Surinder Singh.

If the UK does leave, then should you ever wish to return to the UK to live with your Thai family then you wont be able to use the Surinder Singh route, currently used by many ex pats returning home with their non EEA national family. Instead your family members will have to follow the UK immigration route, with it's exorbitant fees and stringent financial requirement.

Also, whilst It is unlikely that Brexit would mean British citizens would suddenly need visas to holiday in other European countries; their non EEA national family members would, as they do now.

Except while the UK is a member these visas are simple to obtain and free; that will not be the case after Brexit..

[teatree]

Another example of how the UK benefits from EU membership

How much money do British universities get from the EU?

Universities themselves say that EU membership is beneficial

None of this is to deny that British universities do well financially out of the EU. For example, the second element of the British Influence claim is correct. Only Germany received more from the Commission's research fund than the UK in 2007-2013, and not by much.

Our universities are heavily represented in the top 50 of higher education institutions ranked by success attracting in EU grants. Five of the top 10 were British in 2007-2013.

Is the EU undemocratic?

How EU decisions are made

The EU’s standard decision-making procedure is known as 'Ordinary Legislative Procedure’ (ex "codecision"). This means that the directly elected European Parliament has to approve EU legislation together with the Council (the governments of the 28 EU countries).

There are pros and cons of membership; of course there are.

I believe that the pros outweigh the cons; others believe the opposite.

Most people base decisions such as this on "How will it effect me?"

So something for the anti EU posters here, most of whom live in Thailand, to consider is Surinder Singh.

If the UK does leave, then should you ever wish to return to the UK to live with your Thai family then you wont be able to use the Surinder Singh route, currently used by many ex pats returning home with their non EEA national family. Instead your family members will have to follow the UK immigration route, with it's exorbitant fees and stringent financial requirement.

Also, whilst It is unlikely that Brexit would mean British citizens would suddenly need visas to holiday in other European countries; their non EEA national family members would, as they do now.

Except while the UK is a member these visas are simple to obtain and free; that will not be the case after Brexit..

Is it undemocratic?

The executive arm of the the EU, the Commission, is not elected by the people, is not directly accountable to the people and cannot be voted out by the people. So, yes it is very undemocratic.

This is the most powerful body of the EU we are talking about, not the local bridge club. It is very much in the driving seat for the EU and sets the agenda, for it then to be rubber stamped by the EU parliament.

And not one citizen gets a say on who they are.

[Richard W]

Is it undemocratic?

The executive arm of the the EU, the Commission, is not elected by the people, is not directly accountable to the people and cannot be voted out by the people. So, yes it is very undemocratic.

This is the most powerful body of the EU we are talking about, not the local bridge club. It is very much in the driving seat for the EU and sets the agenda, for it then to be rubber stamped by the EU parliament.

And not one citizen gets a say on who they are.

This sounds very like a British cabinet. It is not elected by the people, it is not directly accountable to the people, and cannot be voted out by the people. Now, one may object that a British government can be voted out by the UK Parliament. Guess what? The EU Commission can be, and has been, voted out by the European Parliament.

So something for the anti EU posters here, most of whom live in Thailand, to consider is Surinder Singh.

If the UK does leave, then should you ever wish to return to the UK to live with your Thai family then you wont be able to use the Surinder Singh route, currently used by many ex pats returning home with their non EEA national family. Instead your family members will have to follow the UK immigration route, with it's exorbitant fees and stringent financial requirement.

Also, whilst It is unlikely that Brexit would mean British citizens would suddenly need visas to holiday in other European countries; their non EEA national family members would, as they do now.

Except while the UK is a member these visas are simple to obtain and free; that will not be the case after Brexit..

One of the 'reforms' that Cameron wanted was the removal of the right of spouses of EEA citizens exercising the freedom of movement to join them in the EEA. I can see the additional right achieved by exercising freedom of movement as an abuse. I have a feeling this would definitely get Dutch and Danish support. What has become of this 'demand'?

[nontabury]

Another example of how the UK benefits from EU membership

How much money do British universities get from the EU?

Universities themselves say that EU membership is beneficial

None of this is to deny that British universities do well financially out of the EU. For example, the second element of the British Influence claim is correct. Only Germany received more from the Commission's research fund than the UK in 2007-2013, and not by much.

Our universities are heavily represented in the top 50 of higher education institutions ranked by success attracting in EU grants. Five of the top 10 were British in 2007-2013.

Is the EU undemocratic?

How EU decisions are made

The EU’s standard decision-making procedure is known as 'Ordinary Legislative Procedure’ (ex "codecision"). This means that the directly elected European Parliament has to approve EU legislation together with the Council (the governments of the 28 EU countries).

There are pros and cons of membership; of course there are.

I believe that the pros outweigh the cons; others believe the opposite.

Most people base decisions such as this on "How will it effect me?"

So something for the anti EU posters here, most of whom live in Thailand, to consider is Surinder Singh.

If the UK does leave, then should you ever wish to return to the UK to live with your Thai family then you wont be able to use the Surinder Singh route, currently used by many ex pats returning home with their non EEA national family. Instead your family members will have to follow the UK immigration route, with it's exorbitant fees and stringent financial requirement.

Also, whilst It is unlikely that Brexit would mean British citizens would suddenly need visas to holiday in other European countries; their non EEA national family members would, as they do now.

Except while the UK is a member these visas are simple to obtain and free; that will not be the case after Brexit..

A report came out in the last couple of days stating that the number of applications to English Universities are well up, the problem is that the No of applications from English people are down, while those from foreigners,especially those from the EU are up.one reason for this is that the majority of English applicants must pay the full amount,whilst the EU applicants are quite often subsidised by their own country or if not they are granted a loan by the UK, which they then tend not to repay.

It just so happens that today I was speaking with another ex- pat who is having to return to the UK In order for his children to gain entry to a English university. He must be a UK resident for 3 yrs before they are eligible to pay the full costs,seemingly if he were to remain in Thailand until the children enter University he would then be stung for the full cost plus about another 50%.

I might add that his children are 100% English and that he himself has payed and is still paying UK tax. Just think about it,if the UK did not pay into the EU £55 million a day, we could easily subsidise those English students.

Regarding your statement that currently MANY ex-pate are using the Surinder Singh route to return to the UK with their foreign spouse,can you please provide figures and the source of those numbers, or is this another scare tactic

by those opposed to the UK gaining control of its borders.

Edited February 5, 2016 by nontabury

[teatree]

Is it undemocratic?

The executive arm of the the EU, the Commission, is not elected by the people, is not directly accountable to the people and cannot be voted out by the people. So, yes it is very undemocratic.

This is the most powerful body of the EU we are talking about, not the local bridge club. It is very much in the driving seat for the EU and sets the agenda, for it then to be rubber stamped by the EU parliament.

And not one citizen gets a say on who they are.

This sounds very like a British cabinet. It is not elected by the people, it is not directly accountable to the people, and cannot be voted out by the people. Now, one may object that a British government can be voted out by the UK Parliament. Guess what? The EU Commission can be, and has been, voted out by the European Parliament.

So something for the anti EU posters here, most of whom live in Thailand, to consider is Surinder Singh.

If the UK does leave, then should you ever wish to return to the UK to live with your Thai family then you wont be able to use the Surinder Singh route, currently used by many ex pats returning home with their non EEA national family. Instead your family members will have to follow the UK immigration route, with it's exorbitant fees and stringent financial requirement.

Also, whilst It is unlikely that Brexit would mean British citizens would suddenly need visas to holiday in other European countries; their non EEA national family members would, as they do now.

Except while the UK is a member these visas are simple to obtain and free; that will not be the case after Brexit..

One of the 'reforms' that Cameron wanted was the removal of the right of spouses of EEA citizens exercising the freedom of movement to join them in the EEA. I can see the additional right achieved by exercising freedom of movement as an abuse. I have a feeling this would definitely get Dutch and Danish support. What has become of this 'demand'?

UK citizens get to vote in the government and its general policies, and vote them out if they are not satisfied. Far from perfect, as can be seen in the last election when UKIP got a third of the votes yet only one seat. For all its faults there is still a string of democracy, something from which greater democracy can grow.

However, with the EU there is nothing. The people get to decide nothing about the direction the EU is going or any of its policies. As an EU citizen you can do nothing to influence policy. You can't vote in a left wing Commision, a right wing Commision, a Liberal Commsion, a Nationalist Commission or a Communist Commission. It's all decided for you behind closed doors.

You can vote in the rubber stamping committee ( the EU parliament) but you get no vote on the driving committee (the Commission).

[Asheron]

Is it undemocratic?

The executive arm of the the EU, the Commission, is not elected by the people, is not directly accountable to the people and cannot be voted out by the people. So, yes it is very undemocratic.

This is the most powerful body of the EU we are talking about, not the local bridge club. It is very much in the driving seat for the EU and sets the agenda, for it then to be rubber stamped by the EU parliament.

And not one citizen gets a say on who they are.

This sounds very like a British cabinet. It is not elected by the people, it is not directly accountable to the people, and cannot be voted out by the people. Now, one may object that a British government can be voted out by the UK Parliament. Guess what? The EU Commission can be, and has been, voted out by the European Parliament.

So something for the anti EU posters here, most of whom live in Thailand, to consider is Surinder Singh.

If the UK does leave, then should you ever wish to return to the UK to live with your Thai family then you wont be able to use the Surinder Singh route, currently used by many ex pats returning home with their non EEA national family. Instead your family members will have to follow the UK immigration route, with it's exorbitant fees and stringent financial requirement.

Also, whilst It is unlikely that Brexit would mean British citizens would suddenly need visas to holiday in other European countries; their non EEA national family members would, as they do now.

Except while the UK is a member these visas are simple to obtain and free; that will not be the case after Brexit..

One of the 'reforms' that Cameron wanted was the removal of the right of spouses of EEA citizens exercising the freedom of movement to join them in the EEA. I can see the additional right achieved by exercising freedom of movement as an abuse. I have a feeling this would definitely get Dutch and Danish support. What has become of this 'demand'?

UK citizens get to vote in the government and its general policies, and vote them out if they are not satisfied. Far from perfect, as can be seen in the last election when UKIP got a third of the votes yet only one seat. For all its faults there is still a string of democracy, something from which greater democracy can grow.

However, with the EU there is nothing. The people get to decide nothing about the direction the EU is going or any of its policies. As an EU citizen you can do nothing to influence policy. You can't vote in a left wing Commision, a right wing Commision, a Liberal Commsion, a Nationalist Commission or a Communist Commission. It's all decided for you behind closed doors.

You can vote in the rubber stamping committee ( the EU parliament) but you get no vote on the driving committee (the Commission).

That's the thing, EU is run and ruled by a 28 member oligarchy who know VERY well that they are untouchable.

[7by7]

The commission is like the UK civil service; they can recommend and advise but they cannot legislate.

As said previously; for those recommendations to become law they must be approved by both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

The European Parliament is made up of members directly elected by their constituents; citizens of the EU. Sounds democratic to me, perhaps someone who thinks it isn't can explain why?

The Council of Ministers is made up of representatives appointed by the elected government of each member state. Again, how is that undemocratic?

You may not like the fact that these democratic institutions have control over some, but by no means all, of the legislation effecting the UK; but you can't seriously call them undemocratic.

Edited February 5, 2016 by 7by7

[7by7]

Nontabury,

EU students studying in another EU country pay the same fees as nationals of that country and are entitled to the same financial support, loans and/or grants, as nationals of that country.

See University fees and financial help

So British students have the same rights in other EU states as other EU national students have in the UK.

Unless you are English, Northern Irish or Welsh and studying in Scotland!

In Scotland university tuition is free for Scottish and EU students; except those from the rest of the UK who have to pay a fee of up to £9000 per year (see here)! Which seems to me to break the rules.

Students from outside the EU pay higher fees and are not entitled to any financial support from their host country.

I cannot find any reference to "A report (which) came out in the last couple of days stating that the number of applications to English Universities are well up, the problem is that the No of applications from English people are down, while those from foreigners, especially those from the EU are up."

Perhaps you can provide a link?

[7by7]

Regarding your (7by7) statement that currently MANY ex-pate are using the Surinder Singh route to return to the UK with their foreign spouse,can you please provide figures and the source of those numbers, or is this another scare tactic

by those opposed to the UK gaining control of its borders.

Such figures are difficult to come by as it is impossible to count the number of British/non EEA couples currently living in other EEA states while they qualify for this route without searching through the statistics produced by each and every state!

Even discovering the numbers who have successfully returned to the UK is difficult as the UK figures I can find do not distinguish between EEA family permits issued to family members of British citizens and those issued to family members of other EEA nationals.

However, look through any ex pat forum with a visa and immigration sub forum, including TVF, and you will find regular questions about Surinder Singh and how to utilise it.

No matter how many or how few people do use it; saying that if we leave the EU and withdraw from the EEA freedom of movement treaties that British citizens and their non EEA national family will lose this route into the UK is not scare tactics; it's the truth.

[nontabury]

Nontabury,

EU students studying in another EU country pay the same fees as nationals of that country and are entitled to the same financial support, loans and/or grants, as nationals of that country.

See University fees and financial help

So British students have the same rights in other EU states as other EU national students have in the UK.

Unless you are English, Northern Irish or Welsh and studying in Scotland!

In Scotland university tuition is free for Scottish and EU students; except those from the rest of the UK who have to pay a fee of up to £9000 per year (see here)! Which seems to me to break the rules.

Students from outside the EU pay higher fees and are not entitled to any financial support from their host country.

I cannot find any reference to "A report (which) came out in the last couple of days stating that the number of applications to English Universities are well up, the problem is that the No of applications from English people are down, while those from foreigners, especially those from the EU are up."

Tried unsuccessfully to find that report, however did find the same article in the BBC without the detailed reference to the EU students, so I again tried to find the original,still no success, and now cannot even find the link to the BBC article. So it's up to you, to believe and accept what I stated, or not.

I'm glad that you accept that EU students are entitled to receive a British Government loan in order for them to study at a UK university, unfortunately

these loans to EU students do produce a very high level of default,and there is no way that the British Government can enforce these loan repayments. So I again repeat that these debts added to the £55 million a day that the UK pays to the EU,would more than cover the cost of providing free university education for English students, including my tax paying British friend,that I mentioned earlier.

PS. Not only do Scottish students receive free university education,Welsh students only pay half. English students pay full, ex-pat English pay full plus about 50%.

Edited February 5, 2016 by nontabury