I wouldn't categorise the 'leave' posters as being a minority, and you've also been pretty vocal in your challenges of other people's posts.

I think the first of your 'demands' above has been more than adequately explored and I don't see why anyone should jump through hoops answering your other points until you first explain:

• Why in particular the EU is good and why it doesn't needs to change;
• How the UK will be better off staying the EU;
• How power is exercised in the UK and how this is benefitted by EU membership;
• Factual studies or evidence on why the UK benefits from EU membership;
• Any citation of specific EU legislation which you agree with;

__________________
"For sheer delight there is nothing like altitude; it gives one the thrill of adventure
and enlarges the world in which you live," Irving Mather (1892-1966)

Dear, oh dear.

Demands? Jumping through hoops?

We're "In". Being, "In" is the status quo. You want to change the status quo? Don't ask people to first justify the status quo. Tell them why they should want to.

__________________
Paul "Every county of England, every country of Europe and every (part of every inhabited) continent of the Earth" 94% done! What's left? Central America, East, Central and West Africa, Australia & New Zealand

If you want to change something then it should be upon you to state your reasons why. I've already outlined my reasoning for staying in. For me the following quote encapsulates it perfectly.

Quote,
“The European Union is an undemocratic corporate stitch-up. But leaving would be worse.”

So you agree that it's a fascist Federal bunch then.......How could leaving "that" possibly be worse than rolling over and accepting it?

As for all this talk about the so called Status quo.....Who does this "Status quo" serve best? Us or the corporate bankers......we won't get a bail out or a bail in will we?

Sometimes you just got to buck the trend...go off and make your own way....sort of thing this site is all about. And most certainly ###k the status quo when it doesn't serve you.....load up the proverbial bike and get hell out of Dodge. Ok, we may be headed out for some piste....but it will be "our" route and not directions from some corporate sell out monkey boy......

I'm loadin up......

Yes you did and you continue to get it.

__________________
Paul "Every county of England, every country of Europe and every (part of every inhabited) continent of the Earth" 94% done! What's left? Central America, East, Central and West Africa, Australia & New Zealand

Now that the UK government is publishing "dodgy dossiers" here is a document that was published previously.
Until recently I did think that the "Norway option" is the same as the "Swiss option" - it isn't, yet another bit of detail that hasn't come out in the UK MSM.

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/...or%20web_0.pdf

This paper advocates for the Swiss model of arrangements with the future EU, assuming that the EU protectionist customs union remains in place for the future.

Those who don't have the time to read all 140 pages, or thereabouts, could jump straight to the appendices that start at about page 100.

__________________
Dave

In observing the limp wristed Philip Hammond's (et al) capitulation to the EU even before a vote I am left with the strange feeling of admiration for Donald Trump and wishing he was fighting for us outers.

“You wanna make life difficult for us when we leave Germany? 100% tariffs on Mercedes Benz trucks! We'll allow the £30k Chinese trucks to take their place.”

“France calls for trade sanctions? Complete ban on French wine. New world wines – no tariffs.”

“You demand free movement for free trade? Fine. €50 charge for every EU passenger flying through UK airspace”.

“And all you politicians can then go explain to your voters at your next elections why they have been laid off! Don't f**K with us EU”

Like him or loath him, the Donald won't let another country walk all over him or his like our spineless wastes of space do, which explains his presence in poltics.

__________________

I just caught a glimpse of him on a news item; the ultimate grey man in a grey suit.

__________________
Dave

Rational argument – there is no status quo.
Project Fear | Matt Ridley
Written just about a month ago and overtaken by events in terms of the background – but the points made are considerable.

Leaving aside the parochial in-fighting of UK politicos, this is the gist:

In order to defeat Project Fear, and reassure the average voter in Morpeth and Monmouth that she can vote “leave” and not lose her job, the Leave campaign will have to use the ten weeks of campaigning to paint a lifelike picture of life in Britain outside the European Union.
They will have to persuade people that we will not be insular and insecure, but a big country with a flexible and thriving economy attracting international investors and innovators because of our good relations and free trade with both the EU and the fast-growing economies of Asia and elsewhere. The Japan of the West, only more open. On the other hand, the campaign will also have to neutralise fear by entrenching in people’s minds the point that there is no status quo: staying in carries just as many uncertainties and risks as leaving. For example, the migration crisis could lead to the collapse of the Schengen agreement, just as the euro could also collapse. And if either is to be averted, then it will probably require vastly more centralisation of political decision-making, worsening the democratic deficit.
We are living in fantasy land if we think that under those circumstances vague promises made to Britain about ever-closer union, or on not making decisions that hurt non-euro countries, are worth any more than the paper they are written on.
I keep hearing talk from those who want to remain about the “retribution” that might be meted out to us if we left. Don’t count on negotiating a favourable trade treaty with the EU, they say, or getting associate status in EU research programmes (as Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Israel have), because Brussels will be so sore at our having left that they will drag their feet over every deal, or do everything they can to spite us, even if it is not in their interests to do so.
Well, my friends, I am increasingly worried about retribution if we stay in. Feeling grumpy with us after we made such a fuss over renegotiation, but having successfully called our bluff by conceding so little, our partners and Eurocrat masters will say to us (in courteous diplomatic language, of course): right, you pestilential Brits, like it or lump it, you are now in for good. We never need pay any attention to your worries again. We’re off to integration and you are locked in the back of the car. There is no alternative. You see: two can play at Project Fear.

__________________
Dave

You're keeping some strange company.

The "status quo" versus "fear, uncertainty and doubt". Hmm.

__________________
Paul "Every county of England, every country of Europe and every (part of every inhabited) continent of the Earth" 94% done! What's left? Central America, East, Central and West Africa, Australia & New Zealand

You're welcome.
I certainly don't agree with every single point made in that particular article but it does show that there are ways to view the issues which are not expressed generally.
The Institute of Economic Affairs website from whence it came is also worth a look:-

False claims about the Eurozone from the Brexit camp | Institute of Economic Affairs
On the face of it, this article is pro-EU in that it identifies that the Euro currency cannot be fully blamed for the economic woes of some of the major Eurozone countries, namely, Spain, Italy and France.


But it also denigrates the economies of those countries, particularly their endemic protectionist nature, well illustrating why so many nationals of those economies move to the UK for personal employment or to set up businesses.
Can the economies of eastern Europe be any better than those of Spain, France and Italy?


In reading this article it did remind me of a comment made some years ago; the single, sound solution for the problems of the Euro currency is for Germany to leave it.


Should we remain bound to and closely associated with the European economies of this nature or cut away and work in the world markets while also dealing with EU nations as we see fit?


Well, he does have more to say than that and he does deal with the so-called "status quo" in a rather elegant sentence or two.
All to be expected from a professional writer.

Nor, again, do I agree with everything that he says or even less so what he has done in the past - he has "form" in running Northern Rock BS.

I see the recurring theme here: I touched on it earlier - how many levels of government are the optimum, and at what level in our (miserable, worthless) lives?

__________________
Dave

David Charter has written a good summary in today's The Times newspaper covering four example schemes—Norway, Switzerland, Canada and World Trade Organisation.

Both Norway and Switzerland are signatories to the Schengen agreement with the laws that brings and Norway is a member of the European Free Trade Association (Switzerland is not and its FTA free trade association agreement only covers goods, not services).

The absolute fall back is to the level of the WTO, this is considered unlikely given that Germany wants to maintain its sales of 800,000+ motor vehicles into the UK each year. The Canadian model might involve quotas (in both directions, mind), but has the advantage of not having to allow free movement of people or contribute to EU budgets.

The UK already (obviously) meets all EU standards so the conclusion of a trade deal with the EU is much easier than for Canada and other countries.

The degree of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) spread by the 'stay' campaign reminds me of the underhand sales techniques used by IBM salesmen in the 1970s.

__________________
"For sheer delight there is nothing like altitude; it gives one the thrill of adventure
and enlarges the world in which you live," Irving Mather (1892-1966)

Any Free Trade Agreeements (FTA) for the UK will certainly be very much different from any other models for reasons that have been flagged up in here previously + Schauble, the German finance minister, has already stated that Germany will have a FTA with the UK asap to continue their current inbalance of trade into the UK.
In or out, the glaring issue facing the UK today is the lack of export "productivity" and lack of productivity in general.
The EU trade restrictions via its' custom barriers to the remainder of the world do not assist but staying in means that we may be hoisted into a non-attractive TTIP.
Better that we decide for ourselves assuming that we can muster some negotiators who represent the best interests of the nation.

On "daily politics" just run today, the govn representative was ripped apart on the facts of the dodgy dossier. e.g. Norway accepts 9% of EU rules and regs (BBC research) and not the 75% quoted in the dossier.
Swiss exports are 5x the level of UK exports.

The link that I posted above for a 140 page document does discuss many of the issues herein and it talks about a transatlantic FTA to be considered by the UK once out of the EU - this could be negotiated concurrently in the 2 year period laid down for an article 50 withdrawal.
No politician has yet discussed this type of aspect in anything but the most general terms (yet Bombardier, a major Canadian manufacturer with plants in the UK, recently cut 7000 posts worldwide including some in the UK).

The FUD project is a re-run of the Scottish referendum strategy also taken from earlier FUD based on exit from the ERM and about the possibility of joining the Euro (how would that look nowadays?).

__________________
Dave

Coincidentally, I've been doing some reading about the WTO recently, so here it is:-


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization


The United Kingdom has been a WTO member since 1 January 1995 and a member of GATT since 1 January 1948. The WTO was established in 1995.
As well as its existing 162 members, a further 21 countries have applied to join the WTO, including Iran, Iraq and Syria. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international agency and its purpose is to promote international commerce.
Much of the detailed negotiating is done in Geneva, where the WTO has its headquarters. Although the UK is a full member of the WTO it does not represent itself when negotiating with other trading Countries, instead the EU’s executive arm — speaks for all EU member States at all WTO meetings”. The UK and the other 27 (currently) nations of the EU customs union have to try and come to a European Union-wide understanding that may actually end up being against the interests of the UK,
But if the UK were outside of the EU, it would sit at the WTO table in its own right and have a full say.
In simple terms, let's cut out the middleman; after all it's the WTO that makes the global trading rules and EU membership costs the UK a lot of money.
If the Uk were speaking just for itself with the members of the WTO deals could be agreed rapidly.


Summary.
We permit the EU, via the Commission, to act as the middleman, standing between the 5th largest economy in the world and its' markets, and pay them handsomely for their services.

Additionally, the European "input" has been to protect the French farmers:-

"During the Doha Round, the US government blamed Brazil and India for being inflexible and the EU for impeding agricultural imports.[23] The then-President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (above right), responded to the criticisms by arguing that progress would only be achieved if the richest countries (especially the US and countries in the EU) made deeper cuts in agricultural subsidies and further opened their markets for agricultural goods"

__________________
Dave

Thanks for this.

__________________
Paul "Every county of England, every country of Europe and every (part of every inhabited) continent of the Earth" 94% done! What's left? Central America, East, Central and West Africa, Australia & New Zealand