How a Brexit could stop UK biz and Europe swapping personal data If the UK decides later this year to leave Europe – the so-called "Brexit" – it would have a severe knock-on impact on sharing people's personal data between Blighty and Euro nations. So warns internet governance expert Emily Taylor in a piece for London-based international affairs think tank Chatham House. Taylor warns that …
Fragmentation of the EU is not in that organisation's interests as it threatens its status as the largest economy in the world. After a UK withdrawal the EU would still have about $15.5T GDP. The UK, about $3T.
This being the case, the only rational thing for the EU to do is to inflict (with plausible deniability) as much economic damage as possible on the UK as the EU is best served if withdrawal is demonstrated to be economically catastrophic for the withdrawing country (pour encourager les autres).
This is just another tool in the box that can be leveraged to that end.
@ Lysenko
The EU doesnt seem too quiet about how they would like to inflict economic damage if we leave. Considering they inflict economic damage on its members anyway I dont see how we would be much worse off and since they are all self interested anyway with little actual cohesion I expect those who do well out of the UK will resist.
Often I wonder with friends like these who needs enemies
Leaving the EU would increase costs for my company and all my customers and create precisely zero additional opportunities (because we already trade outside the EU as well). There is no conceivable advantage (to us) in turning a trading relationship with France or Germany into one reminiscent of the USA or Turkey.
We already turn down American business because their electrical safety regs (UL) are different to those in the EU and the extra costs of certification make it uneconomic. There are literally thousands of cases like that already and leaving the EU is guaranteed to make things even worse. If the UK votes "out" we're moving the company to Scotland which we trust will swiftly vote out of the UK and back in to the EU.
...which we trust will swiftly vote out of the UK and back in to the EU.
I seem to recall various EU representatives were saying prior to the independence referendum that an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership from scratch and that their application would not be fast tracked.
I wonder how many years would pass between any theoretical Brexit and Scotland not only gaining independence but also being allowed to join the EU?
an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership from scratch
In the case that there would be an additional member of the EU. If there's an out vote in England, I think there is a case for Scotland (plus whatever other peripheral nations/regions) to remain as a successor state. They could even call themselves the United Kingdom...
If there's an out vote in England, I think there is a case for Scotland (plus whatever other peripheral nations/regions) to remain as a successor state.
Outside the SNP's reality distortion field there isn't such a case. The treaties are with the United Kingdom as a whole. The referendum, stupid idea in the first place, is for the whole of the UK. That's the deal that the government of the UK did with the rest of the EU and that the parliament of the UK, where Scotland is more than adequately represented, will produce a bill for a referendum.
A low-oil Scotland would face a tough choice should it decide to leave the UK (main trading partner) and subsequently apply for EU membership. Schengen is now a condition for new members so that would mean border controls between England and Scotland.
British, Bavarian, Catalan, Flemish and probably a whole load of others politicians don't half talk some shit when they get the chance.
Scotland would get a very easy ride in, the situation is very different to the previous referendum. They would be seeking to remain in the EU. If that process is not supper smooth then they would be doing the entire organisation a huge disservice, and I'm sure they all know that.
Schengen would not be a problem for Scotland, because it would be England that would have the stricter rules. Scotland would just allow English visas to be valid as well as Schengen visas and EEA citizens.
England would have to control its own borders, which is what has repeatedly been demanded anyway.
"If there's an out vote in England, I think there is a case for Scotland (plus whatever other peripheral nations/regions) to remain as a successor state."
Ooh, please let Scotland try for that one; I would vote for Brexit under that condition. I'd much rather be debt free and out of the EU than with £1tn of debt and in the EU.
Oh, you mean you want the benefits of being the successor state without the problems? Right.
> Ooh, please let Scotland try for that one; I would vote for Brexit under that condition. I'd much rather be debt free and out of the EU than with £1tn of debt and in the EU.
I don't know, dare say we could make a few bob selling off Trident and Westminster, maybe the contents of the National Gallery. After all, the successor state takes ownership of all government assets as well as the debt doesn't it?
More seriously though, thee's no way Scotland could be considered the successor state by Westminster without some fairly massive caveats on who gets what and how the debt is split up. It'd be more likely the two countries would split, forming new countries, and the debt would be split evenly based on population or something
Rejoining the EU: no way to know. The EU won't show its hand on that until afterwards. It will certainly happen faster than England's readmission though. Plan B is Dublin. We already incorporated a subsidiary there just in case.
As for independence: almost immediate, subject to logistics. The SNP are keeping fairly quiet because they know that UK out of the EU guarantees Scotland out of the UK. They'll want to go for a referendum ASAP in order to ride the inevitable wave of anti "little Englander" sentiment. UKIP is the "English National Party" remember. They have zero traction North or (I believe) West of the border.
NB: I say this as a Scot thus far consistently opposed to Scottish Independence.
"The SNP are keeping fairly quiet because they know that UK out of the EU guarantees Scotland out of the UK. "
This seems to be a common assumption. Is there any evidence to back this up? Scotland voted not to go independent of the UK but are there polls showing a strong attachment to the EU if the UK as whole votes to leave? Or is that just SNP rhetoric? People who support and vote for a party don't always agree with every policy and a possible exit from a non-EU UK might not happen either since the party in government will have to hold a referendum on EU membership.
It creates a precedent for the dismantlement of sovereign unions. If the UK leaves the EU, it's a lot harder for the government of the day to then turn around and say "but Scotland should stay in our union!" without some people perceiving their actions as hypocrisy.
Personally I'd argue quite strongly for Scotland to remain within an independent the UK, but I see no reason why they shouldn't be given another chance to vote on the matter at that point. At the very least there needs to be a fundamental reconsideration of how the UK is governed.
The act of Union was brought about because the opposing political parties in England saw a need for a symbolic head and because of a Scottish history of poor investments and bad treasury decisions. Later, with English backing, the clearances led to a peculiar show of power.
Is there anything in United Kingdomain that inspires anyone to believe the outcome of anything British or expat will ever bring squanderful benefits to any man or beast anywhere in the three countries?
> because of a Scottish history of poor investments and bad treasury decisions.
Interesting bit of revisionist history there. The Act of Union was put through because of a single private venture by Scottish nobility, where they decided to invest all of their own money after England threatened any country allowing international investment with trade route blockades. When the venture failed, England offered to buy off the debts they accrued as a result of this so they could continue to live as nobility in exchange for them signing the Act. It wasn't actually anything to do with the Scottish treasury and only vaguely to do with it's government (since it's government consisted of the nobility largely, this being pre-democratic electiosn)
The real issue here is not whether Scotland seeks indepence but whether Wales and Northern Ireland will go the same route. Both have large majorities in favour of staying in the EU as they both benefit materailly from that organisation.
And for Northern Ireland staying in the EU, whilst difficult politcally in many respects, is just a matter of agreeing to reunite the nation of Ireland.
Polls I have seen are 2:1 in favour of EU membership in Scotland 3:1 in NI (which surprised me, probably due to the Good Friday agreement, everything could kick off again if they leave the EU).
Wales and England were close to evens. Given the reliability of the polls in the General, I do not trust the English figure.
One of the big arguments in the Scottish referendum was the worry they would be chucked out of the EU.
The UKIP do far worse in Scotland than the rest of the Island.
My feeling is the two most likely results of the referendum are a narrow vote to stay, or an English only vote to leave. I think a strong vote to stay or a unanimous vote to leave by all the nations are both unlikely.
> which surprised me, probably due to the Good Friday agreement, everything could kick off again if they leave the EU
Might be right that this is what people are thinking, but the Good Friday Agreement doesn't refer to the EU, but rather the ECHR. That's a large part of why the Conservatives have given up on the British Bill of Rights thing, they realised they would need to re-negotiate the Scotland Act, Good Friday Agreement and the Welsh Act (ok, I don't actually know what this one's called. Has the same conditions though), because all 3 reference the ECHR as an appeals route. ECHR membership is independent of the EU though afaik
One of the primary arguments against Scotland going independent at the time of the referendum was losing EU membership, which has a higher support in Scotland than it does in England. It might not be enough to trigger separation, but it would certainly boost the possibility of another referendum
A likely scenario (assuming a larger pro EU vote than the previous pro UK vote) would be a hasty rerun of the Scottish referendum. Once that is done the UK would give notification of its intention. (Probably at the end of the year) During the two years the UK would split and at the end Scotland would remain within the EU and England would be out. I also suspect part of the deal would be that EU based Brits would be able to request Scottish citizenship, rather than get chucked out.
Of course there are loads of variables. What would Wales and NI do? Would there be a rerun of the vote in England? (Because the question was for the UK, which would no longer exist.)
It would also make the controlling our borders situation even more interesting. (After the fuss about the French saying if you leave we're not doing it for you any more.) How would we stop all the EU citizens who are allowed to to live in Scotland crossing the border? (Hadrian's wall is in the wrong place.)
Interesting times.
The fact that the UK as a whole will be requesting to leave the EU will create issues within the EU legal system not least because it will take more than two years of negotiations for Scotland to negotiate the required separation following an independence vote. There are also the political issues that existing within other EU countries that will have to be addressed if, Scotland were allowed to remain part of the EU. The Spanish and Belgiums will be forcibly anti the desired Scottish position as may others who have communities seeking to find a way to independence in Europe.
As for borders, Kent is not the only border with the EU (Northern Ireland is a large and very porous border today) and when considered fully this whole island by its nature is a border and we do not have the manpower or financial resources to prevent incursions by migrants despite the claims of UKIP and others.
This was something there were a lot of questions about, but because Westminster refused to make an official query to the EU before the referendum was decided there was never an official ruling. Part of the problem for the EU is that there's no mechanism for EU citizens to lose that citizenship, so technically any residents of an independent Scotland would have the full travel rights, work rights, etc which come with the EU without any of the obligations towards other EU citizens if they visited Scotland.
Also I suspect there would be a different position on this within the EU if Scotland was going independent to remain part of it, since that's something they would want to encourage
So you magically lose the ability to comply with eu regs if the uk leaves? Why is that? How is meeting electrical regulations in the same way you do now for the same product you make now, more expensive than relocating your company?
No one is talking about leaving the free trade area. Are you sure you are keeping up with the 5000 new legal regulations coming out of Brussels every year which the law lords have difficulty keeping up with? Are there no costs associated with that?
The article seems to imply that if we exit the snoopers charter will get in the way of companies slurping your data but if we stay in it won't be a problem. Perhaps they are better off without us. It doesn't look good for us either way.
In principle, do we really want foreign nations overriding our legislative? We may have horrible laws, but I don't think overriding our democracy from abroad is the way to fix the problem. Sure it would be nice to have German-style anti-snooping laws but what if the issue were Greek-style accountancy practices? Are you going to be as happy then to have given up the right to self-govern?
"Ever closer Union" is a political goal not an economic one. It's also driven by the same fantasy that suggests one world government would be achievable or good. Have you seen how the Serbs and Croats love each other? I'm willing to sacrifice the New Holy Roman Empire on the altar of pragmatism. I'd love it if we could all sit around singing kumbya but I'm not willing to push political integration for the benefit of business. If you want to see what importing unpleasant foreign laws looks like, look at the TTIP and TPP. What do these treaties have to do with the eu? Not much directly, but we can cancel safe harbour if it turns out to be unsafe. Extracting ourselves from Maastricht is quite a bit harder.
Germany can't control the EU as a whole. Evidence? The Euro crisis. It wouldn't have happened if the Bundesbank had been able to control the Eurozone.
The Germans also have a lot to gain in Frankfurt if London gets marginalised in the finance sector. London is currently the de facto finance hub of an $18T Economy (largest in the world). Brexit and that goes down to $3T overnight.
@ Lysenko
"The Germans also have a lot to gain in Frankfurt if London gets marginalised in the finance sector. London is currently the de facto finance hub of an $18T Economy (largest in the world). Brexit and that goes down to $3T overnight."
Ha no. At no point does leaving mean we lose the financial centre which was before we joined and has continued since. However if we remain they have made clear that they do envy it and want to harm it with more tax. It makes a good scare story but doesnt measure up.
As for leaving increasing the costs to your company, so? 1 company of how many? And since you currently comply with their regulations and as you seem to do international trade will still do if you want to ship to them anyway, it wont make 1 iota difference. On the other hand it removes the requirements on the rest.
The City is uniquely placed to ride out an EU exit thanks to its competitive blend of low/zero tax, money laundering, and financial & legal structures tailor made for the successful international crook.
Oh, and a continuing flow of cash from the UK taxpayer.
I was looking at a news item about the production of Aero Engines in Derby. Apparently Rolls Royce manages to put each one together with a five man team. I hate to think of us losing 5 jobs to the Germans. How will we cope?
More importantly will Boeing manage to afford the obvious improvement in quality of engines not licensed for their ability to withstand chicken canon-fire. I am pretty sure German sausages will be easier to digest.
"At no point does leaving mean we lose the financial centre"
Tell that to the Banks. We've had two projects brought forward for DC builds in the last few months. One US Bank and one British. Both in Frankfurt, both involving site shutdowns in the Milton Keynes/London corridor.
"it wont make 1 iota difference. "
It most certainly will make a difference. Some of our hardware is assembled in China. I know what's involved importing from outside the EU and selling within it. 4.7% import duty now and double that if we leave.
@ Lysenko
I can only assume the company you work for didnt exist before the EU and produces something nobody else would want? Thats fine if so but that doesnt apply to all or most. And the EU is a part of the world but only a part of. As a part of the world it is in constant crisis and serious financial difficulty. It has a severe problem with cohesion and most importantly we have no idea what the EU will end up as. if your business is so sensitive to the EU and their aggression then you may want to be concerned if we tie ourselves to the sinking ship.
Trading with the whole world is bound to be worth more. The banks are not going to abandon the country with the facility to support them for a monolith that threatens them and lack of economic management.
I can only assume the company you work for didnt exist before the EU and produces something nobody else would want?
Correct, it didn't exist before the EU. What we produce has demand pretty much anywhere in the G20, but it's an expensive pain in the ass dealing outside the EU. We've had stuff held up in Brazilian and Mexican customs for months on end. USA and Japan we don't sell to at all (though we've been asked to) because of red tape and incompatible regulations.
And the EU is a part of the world but only a part of.
The EU is the biggest economy in the world and has over half a billion people. Sure, that's only a part of the world ... but it's a big part.
Where the EU ends up is a political matter and I doubt it will be clarified in our lifetimes. My own best guess is a full blown federation with Westminster reduced to the same sort of power as Holyrood (by about 2100 or so).
Being in the EU doesn't prevent us trading with the world, so being out of the EU adds nothing. All it does is ensure that all our business has costly overhead as opposed to maybe 30% of it. The EU is essentially one set of rules. Every non-EU country is another set of rules. A vast explosion in rules, tariffs, taxes and bilateral treaties just means getting buried under huge steaming piles of extra paperwork, middlemen and legal fees.
> if your business is so sensitive to the EU and their aggression then you may want to be concerned if we tie ourselves to the sinking ship.
I am not sure that a company planning on moving to Scotland/Ireland but leaving the choice for the final countdown is unconcerned about ships sinking. Presumably they make lifeboats and/or life-jackets or even submarines?
Having said that the RAF did a nice line in landing on the decks of a submarine after the defeat of Norway, some time ago following a German merger. Do you suppose they could do that again?
It's good to be prepared. This time perhaps, with a more conclusive use of take off gear?
"Trading with the whole world is bound to be worth more." But that is the whole point really in my view. Just because we are in the EU does not mean we cannot trade with the whole world in fact we do that today (have a look at our export figures). So can someone please explain what big of magic occurs when we leave the EU that will mean our trade with the rest of the world will increase? Oh and telling me we can negotiate our own trade agreements won't wash as that can take any were up to 15 years (EU-India Free trade deal as an example) and the UK has little experience in this area as all our trade negotiators currently work for the EU.
@ Bluenose
"Oh and telling me we can negotiate our own trade agreements won't wash as that can take any were up to 15 years (EU-India Free trade deal as an example) and the UK has little experience in this area as all our trade negotiators currently work for the EU."
The UK managed before. In fact we were well known globally for it. The last I heard the EU negotiates trade for us all and takes forever to do so. All the while not providing any better than we could have already done for ourselves without the membership fee.
I dont understand this desire to claim that the country is so beyond hope that we cannot function at all without the EU (obviously ignoring the largest majority of time). And no country can survive outside the EU without being huge, except they do.
We were supposed to be doomed when we rejected the euro, except it turns out the other way around. Just as countries were supposed to be better off within the EU, except it is always in crisis.
@ captain veg
"Because voting to leave would magically transport Britain back to 1972, obviously. Get out your tie-dies everyone."
That something you dream of? I dont see why you long for that date but the EU is much younger than that. It is amusingly a recent development which is why eurosceptics (a word that fell out of favour when the EU and eurozone started tanking) laugh when people claim it kept historical peace.
"Ha no. At no point does leaving mean we lose the financial centre which was before we joined and has continued since"
The UK has always had a finance industry, however it was not a global player prior to the EU. Big Bank really kick started the UK finance industry and the introduction of the Euro supported that even more.
London currently transacts more in Euros than any other major European financial market because it is in the EU and we can block EU legislation that might damage it. If we leave then Frankfurt can seek changes in the Euro nations that ensure that those Euro transactions will take place there thus undermining London.
What damage to the German car industry? They already sell to most of the world including the US and China whereas the UK industry is focussed on sales in the UK and Europe. The only damage to their industry will be if the UK Govt ups import duties and VAT on foreign produced vehicles.
The worst that will happen is that they will withdraw investment from their plants in the UK and take up that capacity in mothballed plants in Germany and France and then flog the Minis back to us at the inflated tax price that the UK Govt would be forced to apply in order to protect whatever rump car industry is left in the UK.
As Mr IDS argued on Radio 4 on Friday that Britain's economy as the 5th biggest in the world with a much lower level of unemployment generally and at youth level has been achieved during our membership of the EU becuase the UK has control of its benefits legislation, I think your argument would be better if it said that membership of the EURO nations imposes material ecomomic harm.
With respect to the EU Data Protection Directive, the legilsation known as the Snoopers Charter needs to be compliant with that Directive from the EU if it is to be passed otherwise the British judges who must apply it will have material issues and may declare it non-compliant with the Human Rights Act and therefore force the government to make necessary changes. This is true even if the vote is Out in June since it will be two years before we leave the EU even from that date and more probably from the date that parliament passes the necessary legislation to repeal the relevant European Act.
As to whether there is an impact on UK business is debateable. Currently more UK data is probably processed in Eastern Europe than the other way around. IT companies and others have been "near-shoring" IT support and maintanence to the like of Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary for many years. The real impact on the UK will be the VAT impact, the cost of doing business in a market with export controls and the potential risk of countries such as those in Eastern Europe raising taxes on the local branches of IT companies (unlikely but if the economic problems of Europe continue not impossible).
Byng is best known for failing to relieve a besieged British garrison during the Battle of Minorca at the beginning of the Seven Years' War. Byng had sailed for Minorca at the head of a fleet which, according to his wife were chosen by their poor condition. Despite losing the wind and being underpowered (lacking enough guns) managed to forge an inconclusive engagement with a French fleet off the Minorca coast (which considering the haste his force was assembled was pretty good military management) he returned to Gibraltar to repair his ships. A very, very sensible management decision.
Byng was subsequently courts-martialled and found guilty of failing to "do his utmost" to prevent Minorca falling to the French. He was sentenced to death and shot by firing squad on 14 March 1757.
Since the Wilson Government I.e from Edward Heath's time we have suffered a crisis of management each one convened by the loser in charge of the governments and the treasury with the demise of Empire came the rise in the Asian super economies where Japan could produce a reliable car complete with seat-belts and radio which ammenities were still charged as extras even on a British car that was costing the manufacturers £5 each to sell.
Since the 1960's lack of investment meant British factories were using machinery that had been kept operational since their construction in the early 1940's. The first thing to go was the motorcycle industry next it was the Range Rover both suffered the illogical fate of enormous popularity in the hands of has-been counters. Hasty production on unsuitable machinery meant supply problems resolved by British management and consequently faulty parts waiting shipments to their agents.
The result being that the Italians could find customers here for cars that were made of metal that turned to soup, overnight. Car sales went like this:
British car > Italian or second hand anything car > Japanese car. British management responded by taking a world class leader like Triumph and turning out Morris Marinas, through a subtle government's encourageous action of amalgamation. Then Rolls Royce went bump after its engines were fed too many frozen dinners. It responded to Thatcherist refusal to support lame ducks by selling the car plant to Germany and the RB211 Jet Engine licenses to Prat and Witlessbutlesstoooopidthanus.
Since then the only piracy that goes on these days is ostensibly against British and American ships (which are not actually British or American) and the majority of British investments are offshore. When calculating the annual budget it doesn't matter why all you are left with in the case of for example the largest pottery maker in Europe at the time is one or two hand crafted artist's collector's piecemakers.
All you are left with in the once mighty Birmingham engineering factories are one or two plants not exactly in Birmingham making cars for India, China and Japan with one (at one time) making cars for France.
Let us by all means have a discussion on the merits of leaving or staying but let us start the discussion by killing all the bean counters. If we could start by removing every merchant Banker to some offshore dungeon modelled on Gunsandammo Bay we might have a sensible one.
Personally I can see the point of lining them up (ALL of the bastards) on the foredeck of a brig and increasing their lead content substantially. But.... who you gonna call?
Guy Fawkes?
On 31 January, Fawkes fell from the scaffold where he was to be hanged and broke his neck, thus avoiding the agony of the mutilation that followed for the next 10 months giving vent to the essay produced by King James on the evils of smoking.
Hence the term "death masque".
(Subtle use of "no icon" indicative of the disgrace of not having THE APPROPRIATE ONE for Britain's most famous terrrst! COME ON EL REG pull your finger out!)
In a Brexit scenario 95% of the legislation governing how a British subject does business in/on the continent is null and void, resulting in fallback to pre-Eu conventions. At the very least - massive pain in the a**e, usually massive extra cost too. Even if Brexit somehow makes British industry more competitive (I doubt that), the extra costs put the overall balance in the red straight away.
Data protection is only the tip of the iceberg and it is a bloody big iceberg indeed.
Even your driving license becomes void in the Eu - it is falback to 1949 International Driving License convention and having to have that abominable piece of paper re-issued every year by a UK post office in the UK (until validity is re-negotiated with every country involved).
British vehicle insurance on the continent (both private and commercial) is null and void - governing legislation are the EEA insurance harmonization directives, so you are back to car green cards and the extortionate costs of underwriting by target country. So yeah... make British manufacturing great again. Jolly good idea, did you realize that it is automatically uncompetitive because of costs of shipment?
Rights to own certain type of properties (on agricultural land) in half of Europe for British subjects are null and void - it is a privilege reserved to local and Eu subjects (enshrined in constitution in some countries). So a British subject will have to register a local limited company _AND_ have sufficient annual turnover through it for it not to be closed by the local tax office. That limited company also has _NO_ double-taxation treaties in force to shield it as all governing legislation on that is Eu level. Leaving individuals and villas aside (they are just lined up for mandatory purchase) - want to ship goods to Europe, think 10 times on how and where exactly establish a distribution center if you do not want an "interesting" bill.
Compared to all of these the inability to handle any data you need in order to sell to Eu customers (even a warranty registration database) is only the icing on the cake and a rather thin one too.
Yes, I agree with you on all points. These are consequences that pose a real threat to the well-being of the UK.
The trouble here is that you are preaching to the converted. The real threat is that the readers of the Express, Sun and the Daily Wail have no idea what's going to hit us if they vote as directed by the vested interests running these shit-sheets.
It's up to the rest of us to try and make sure that the risks in leaving the EU are plainly spelled out. It's going to be a hard job as we have a lot of money and resources stacked against us but if we don't try than all of the things you describe will happen.
The trouble here is that you are preaching to the converted
Not quite. Even the converted (as shown by previous discussions on El-Reg) have not quite thought all of these through. We cannot really blame them for that as we have lived with EU and EEA for so long, we have forgotten what does it mean to be outside it.
When I first moved to the UK 15+ years ago, the country I was moving from was still outside the EU. So I know _FIRST_ hand what is required - the whole drivers license, insurance, taxation, etc rigmarole. I could not buy my first house in the UK as the mortgage provider (hello xenophobic a***holes from RBS) declined to give me a mortgage because I was at a time non-Eu foreign scum. Thankfully, I found a less xenophobic mortgage and insurance provider after that (still charged me extra, but at least I got what I needed).
I also know how much of that changed after the country joined the Eu and I have the basis for comparison of what legislation applies in either case.
All of that is awaiting. Best scenario - massive costs and hassle to everyone who is out. Worst scenario - you outright cannot do business with Eu (that will be the case for some stuff).
Been there, have that T-shirt, do no want to have it again (hence, this is why I keep my Eu passport valid in addition to the UK one).
Compared to all of that, data protection is just that - some spice to make things interesting and interesting they shall become as do we like it or not, the Daily Beobachter and Scum readers are a majority. They will vote Out.
I suppose the in/out question comes down to what is most important to you as an individual.
By all means we should consider the cost and all implications for staying/leaving and base our decisions on balancing out many conflicting judgements.
For example, the TTIP is really good reason to get out as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of whether it is actually selling us all out to the multi-nationals, the way in which the treaty has been composed makes it sound like it came straight out of a Bond movie plot.
If there is one thing that means a *lot* to you, it can outweigh all the other arguments (however valid and correct they might be) that argue against that one thing.
Am I prepared for the cost of standing up for my principles? Probably not, but it won't stop me because I feel I will be doing the right thing.
I'm only one vote though, so don't panic.
If would be preferable to be outside the TTIP. However leaving the EU is likely to guarantee we will sign up for something similar.
Our government is a big fan of it, and Boris has talked about signing up without the rest of Europe. (No-one to trade with otherwise if we get out.)
The rest of the EU is looking like it may reject the idea anyway.
The TTIP is a good argument to stay in.
If we get out, the likelihood is that we will be signed up for something like it, so we can trade with the US and the rest of the EU will reject it, once its biggest cheerleaders are no longer members.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
