You are of course entitled to your opinion,and you have put it well.It is all (on whatever side) a matter of debate/opinion rather than certainty.

Re your first point,agreed,but I thought the point was to focus on Norway and Switzerland as examples of non EU nations,so as to assess the realistic options likely to be "on the table" in such a scenario for the UK.In their cases,the "deal" came with the free movement of labour as a part of the package if they wanted the free movement of goods,capital and services bits.Obviously,neither of us can say for sure if they desired the free movement of labour bit or if it was the necessary price to pay to cut the deal and they had no real choice.

Secondly,I respectfully differ.I believe we would be in a much weaker position than you suggest to negotiate a far better deal than the Swiss or Norweigians, and I take into account the extent to which London-based foreign financial entities and British financial companies would migrate a significant part of their operations to say Frankfurt (which already poses a threat to the history-based supremacy of the City of London),to follow the bucks at the drop of a hat,and the extent to which our "industry" is now foreign owned and which similarly would readily relocate elsewhere in the EU to retain market access at the drop of a hat.

Thirdly,you ask if the EU would want to piss us off because of our economy? You'd think the Swiss with their banking clout would have thought the same,and the Norweigians, being such an important source of gas exports to the EU...

Re the Euro, I personally think they will need a long long time to sort the economic and social mess out,with or without us as members,and that political union is not on the short or mid term cards.I largely blame the crazy lending by the banks in some of those countries (like our own banks here)to other EU countries for the catastrophe as opposed to the EU itself (though "free market" lax regulation played its part),though I think they made a big mistake in not staggering at a greater interval the conversion to the Euro of the weaker EU economies.Its worth also not overlooking that not all EU countries (leaving the UK out of it) have adopted the Euro at this time.

Finally,"scaremongering" depends on the eye of the beholder,of course.To you,it seems to be those who see a big negative from exiting the EU.To some others,it relates to those seeing the EU as the root of all evil in relation to our economic and social woes.

Edited by legaleagle (07 Apr 2015 7.48pm)

Its no more disingenuous or alternatively not disingenuous than dismissing those with an opposite view to you on remaining in the EU as "the EU scaremongers".My view would be neither is disingenuous.

I agree that a principled opposition to federalism is not an "illegitimate" position for someone to adopt,though I personally disagree with many of the aspects of the analysis of the holders of that position,which likewise is a perfectly "legitimate" position to take.

I agree Shanghai (I think the Chinese would like to see Hong Kong diminish over time) is a mid term likely major global financial centre powerhouse.I was referring to Frankfurt more in terms of Europe-based financial centres.

Edited by legaleagle (07 Apr 2015 8.45pm)

The UK hasn't fully embraced the metric system - its only enforced in weights and measures relating to retail. It still applies to distances (miles over km) - Metrification wasn't enforced on the UK either, it was already in place through the EEC when the UK joined in 1973 and the UK had been discussing metricification since 1818, and were in the process of moving towards metric systems from 1965 onwards following pressure from UK industry.

By joining the EEC the UK was obligated to adopt a metric system it was already in the process of implimenting. Also it never really pressured the UK into abandoning the imperial system either, as display of goods in traditional and metric was accepted until 2009.

The decimilation of UK currency in 1973 essentially marked the way the future of UK systems of measurement were going. it was inevitable going into the end of the 20th centuary to adopt a rational system of measurement, and that it would be a decimal based system.

The resistance to imperial measurement was always irrational nationalism for its own sake.

Actually it didn't, not really, because prior to the 1998 Human Rights Act, issues of human rights in UK law were very convolted, expensive and invariably after years (or decades) ended up before the European Court for a decision anyhow.

The Act, by specifically ratifying a number of preceidents and 'understandings', simply made the process easier for both parties.

Since 1950s the final court of arbitration and decision has been the european court, which has consisted of European, including British Legal experts.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Most of UKIP's coverage has been negative anyway, but would many people vote for a trades union or a socialist?

Wanting your own national heritage to remain in place isn't exactly 'irrational'. That's like saying that having more than one language taught throughout Europe is irrational. It isn't....It allows people a sense of their own unique identity.

Also, I'm a fan of mild nationalism. I don't view it as a negative like most people with centralist or left wing worldviews. As long as it remains within the cultural sphere.

We pay towards these costs anyway. The cost difference is hardly much of a motivational point.

Problems within the legal system in terms of time and cost are well within any government's remit to sort out themselves.

I would completely cut out access to European courts for British citizens on human right aspects. I don't regard decisions as superior to decisions our own system could make.

Human rights activists who don't like particular laws should argue their corner within the British system.

I don't believe that..... outside of trade agreements and signed accords....that any nation's common law legal system should be supplanted or altered by a foreign court.

Discussion is ok, but legal requirement is too far and always has been in my view.

It is a pooling of sovereignty that I've never accepted and find embarrassing.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Apr 2015 12.35pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

They're not, they're typically resolutions for a precedent, based on the recommendation of the appeal court (ie the court of appeal will make either make a decision, and give leave to appeal or refer the matter up to an the European court for a ruling).

The Rulings of the European court aren't legally binding to government, however the typically set a basis for precident. Usually this will be a compromise suggestion - And often memberstates will have had similar experiences, or precidents set.

For example in the case of prisoners and the right to vote, the UK courts couldn't rule for a precident based on existing laws, which demanded the suspension of voting rights for prisoners and allowed the right for all citizens to vote.

The ECHR simply stated that, without introdcuing legislation to resolve the issue, the British Government should allow some system on enfranchisement right to prisoners (based on British Law.

They do, in order to get to the ECHR, the appeal court must give leave to appeal, typically because an impartial decision cannot be reached, so its referred to people who specialise specifically in those areas of law and are independent of the UK.

It isn't, it offers an independent specialist interpretation, and if one cannot be found, presents a compromise solution for precident. Its not enforcable, however the Judicary will typically accept it as precident going forwards. Its much more like approching a specialist consultant for their opinion on a matter non-specialists have been unable to comfortably agree upon.

In reality all it does is bind governments to their own laws.

Soverignity of nationality is all well and good, but a system of independent arbitration between citizens and their government only serves to secure that soverignity, rather than diminish it.

The rights of a citizen are the very basis of soverignity not the authority of government. Rights of citizens are 'set as universal' where as governments come and go set by trends and fashons. By securing a definition of what it is to be a citizen, the basis of a quantifable national identity is not only created by enshrined within law and protected.

Irrespective of whether its a Labour, Conservative or even BNP government, the ECHR and Human Rights act, ensures that preservation of the rights of British citizens and allows all aggrived to defend those rights in the face of corporate or governmental power, abuse or negligence.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]