• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Japan suggests UK jobs would be lost on EU exit

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,504
Reaction score
8,591
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In a memo to the UK Government Japan said its firms were attracted to the UK because it offered a gateway to the European market.
"If the UK leaves the single market... that is not good news," the Japanese embassy told the Sunday Times. Link.
Reality is, some parts of the EU are by necessity having to seek greater integration and a smaller number (including the UK) are not. Personally, I think a renegotiation will have to come about - there is already a difference between Eurozone nations and those who are not part of the single currency.

Only logical that this set of differences becomes formalised in a new set of treaties.

Interesting page here on some of the pro and contra arguments.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,221
Reaction score
12,099
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The arguments listed in the "better off out" are either highly miss-leading, based on wishful thinking or out right false.

The "better off in" arguments are the more realistic ones.

As I have said before, the UK wants divorce from the EU, but Nigel Farage wants a divorce while still having conjugal visits and free food and housing. The anti-EU crowd in the UK are delusional if they think that is going to happen.

We can take each point in your link and discuss it if you want..
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,504
Reaction score
8,591
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-- We can take each point in your link and discuss it if you want..
Feel free, I'm bored of "Eurabia" threads anyway. This is more relevant to my country and Europe.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,221
Reaction score
12,099
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Question nr. 1

Yes. Britain could negotiate an "amicable divorce", but retain strong trading links with EU nations.
Highly doubtful. To think that you can have a divorce and still have legal access to the house, bank accounts and conjugal visits on demand... when you are the one who wants to leave... that is frankly delusional.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage says Norway and Switzerland have thrived outside the EU. Both countries have access to the single market but are not bound by EU laws on agriculture, fisheries, justice and home affairs.

Some favour the Swiss model, based on bi-lateral treaties with the EU rather than membership of the European Economic Area (EEA), a kind of "EU-lite".
Others say the EEA/Norway model would be easier as the UK is already a member of the free trade area.
That is outright false. Norway and the Swiss have to follow the same agricultural and fisheries rules as the UK. As for "justice and home affairs".. got no idea what the hell the moron is talking about here, since there is little "justice and home affairs" in the EU as it is.

Also the reason Norway is so "successful" is because of its oil reserves and financial management of the profits from this. The UK does not have the reserves and have squandered away the profits they have had by giving it to big oil. And then there is Switzerland... a country with banking secrecy that the UK has never had. If the UK left the EU, many of the banks and financial institutions who have settled down in the UK because of it being in the EU.. will leave for Germany or France.

Some argue for a clean break from the EU, with the UK free to make trade deals with nations around the word.
More delusions. There are very few restrictions for countries to make bi-lateral trade deals already, and the reason that the UK or the EU have not made deals with some countries is because those countries dont want to. Take India.. highly protective of its market and the UK will not have better success than the EU.. hell it might even be harder, considering you are the former colonial masters. Plus it has always been better to negotiate as a group than as an individual.

But this all boils down to the divorce.. if the UK wants to leave, it aint gonna be pretty because the French and Germans wont allow the UK to get any preferential treatment. The UK needs the EU far far far far more than the EU needs the UK.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
76,101
Reaction score
43,937
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Reality is, some parts of the EU are by necessity having to seek greater integration and a smaller number (including the UK) are not. Personally, I think a renegotiation will have to come about - there is already a difference between Eurozone nations and those who are not part of the single currency.

Only logical that this set of differences becomes formalised in a new set of treaties.

Interesting page here on some of the pro and contra arguments.
It was rushed into to try to make some opponent to America. But Germany is the economic powerhouse of the EU and is forced to pay for all it's Kennedy's (like Greece). Certain member-states are getting the screw and less things are renegotiated, this isn't going to be long lived.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
76,101
Reaction score
43,937
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Highly doubtful. To think that you can have a divorce and still have legal access to the house, bank accounts and conjugal visits on demand... when you are the one who wants to leave... that is frankly delusional.
Assumption, no support. UK is one of the big producers and one of the better militaries in the EU. It may not be all white picket fences and fresh baked Apple Pies, but the EU will not shut out the UK economy if they go rouge.

That is outright false. Norway and the Swiss have to follow the same agricultural and fisheries rules as the UK. As for "justice and home affairs".. got no idea what the hell the moron is talking about here, since there is little "justice and home affairs" in the EU as it is.

Also the reason Norway is so "successful" is because of its oil reserves and financial management of the profits from this. The UK does not have the reserves and have squandered away the profits they have had by giving it to big oil. And then there is Switzerland... a country with banking secrecy that the UK has never had. If the UK left the EU, many of the banks and financial institutions who have settled down in the UK because of it being in the EU.. will leave for Germany or France.
Assumption, no support. Norway, regardless, is successful and the EU doesn't "keep them out", which shows the EU willing to work with and around outside member-states.


More delusions. There are very few restrictions for countries to make bi-lateral trade deals already, and the reason that the UK or the EU have not made deals with some countries is because those countries dont want to. Take India.. highly protective of its market and the UK will not have better success than the EU.. hell it might even be harder, considering you are the former colonial masters. Plus it has always been better to negotiate as a group than as an individual.

But this all boils down to the divorce.. if the UK wants to leave, it aint gonna be pretty because the French and Germans wont allow the UK to get any preferential treatment. The UK needs the EU far far far far more than the EU needs the UK.
Assumption, no support. UK would strike deals with others, the world won't turn its back on the UK economy just because it's not in the EU. The world dealt with a "divided" Europe for centuries, it's not new.
 

Higgins86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
15,802
Reaction score
7,880
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The arguments listed in the "better off out" are either highly miss-leading, based on wishful thinking or out right false.

The "better off in" arguments are the more realistic ones.

As I have said before, the UK wants divorce from the EU, but Nigel Farage wants a divorce while still having conjugal visits and free food and housing. The anti-EU crowd in the UK are delusional if they think that is going to happen.

We can take each point in your link and discuss it if you want..
Nigel Farage would argue that the EU want the marriage to work but the UK has to continue to be the quiet housewife.
 

Bonzai

Banned
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
3,328
Reaction score
503
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Nigel Farage would argue that the EU want the marriage to work but the UK has to continue to be the quiet housewife.
Britain's stance towards the EU may have earned them brownie points in the US, but all it's really done has marginalized Britain's role in the EU..................
 

Higgins86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
15,802
Reaction score
7,880
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Britain's stance towards the EU may have earned them brownie points in the US, but all it's really done has marginalized Britain's role in the EU..................
our influence in the EU has always been marginalized by the continent, quite frankly right now I would rather re-establish good trade ties with the commonwealth and strengthen our relationship with the US.
 

Bonzai

Banned
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
3,328
Reaction score
503
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
our influence in the EU has always been marginalized by the continent, quite frankly right now I would rather re-establish good trade ties with the commonwealth and strengthen our relationship with the US.
We get a leading role in things by being a player in the game, not by telling the rest of the players that they smell..........................
 

Higgins86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
15,802
Reaction score
7,880
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We get a leading role in things by being a player in the game, not by telling the rest of the players that they smell..........................
not sure what you mean by this...
 

Bonzai

Banned
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
3,328
Reaction score
503
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
not sure what you mean by this...
While Britain is not technically part of the continent due to being an island, it's amazing degree of unEuropeanness at times seems like a really advanced case of cognitive dissonance...............Like if say Iceland swore up and down it was a natural member of the African Union........................
 

Higgins86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
15,802
Reaction score
7,880
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
While Britain is not technically part of the continent due to being an island, it's amazing degree of unEuropeanness at times seems like a really advanced case of cognitive dissonance...............Like if say Iceland swore up and down it was a natural member of the African Union........................
well I wish someone had told us in the years between 1914-1918 to 1939-1945 as I'm sure we would of pulled back our troops and defended our own borders.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
our influence in the EU has always been marginalized by the continent, quite frankly right now I would rather re-establish good trade ties with the commonwealth and strengthen our relationship with the US.
You know, I had an aussie friend who said the same thing. Forget the EU, lets go for the commonwealth.
I will tell you the same thing I told him:

No chance in hell buddy boy. The commonwealth is for all practical purposes, dead and burried. it can never be revitalized or restored. And if it were to be restored, the UK wouldn't be the head of the commonwealth in the same unopposed manner. It will have competition for the leading role from nations like India and your own country, Aussieland. It will be a smaller market than the EU and it will also be more spread out, making it overall a weaker union. Which is why it died.

Now nobody is saying the EU is a dream come true. In it's current path and the current trajectory, it's on the road to a dead end and a painful finale. But the EU has a better chance of reforming itself into a more desirable fashion that the commonwealth has to come back to life and the importance it once had. And the EU has a crap chance to reform itself to start with.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,221
Reaction score
12,099
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Assumption, no support. UK is one of the big producers
Of what?

and one of the better militaries in the EU.
Irrelevant when talking about the EU.

It may not be all white picket fences and fresh baked Apple Pies, but the EU will not shut out the UK economy if they go rouge.
Never said they would, but they certainly wont give them a sweet heart deal like Norway and the Swiss.. at least not at the start.

Assumption, no support. Norway, regardless, is successful and the EU doesn't "keep them out", which shows the EU willing to work with and around outside member-states.
They dont keep them out, because of historical ties to Denmark. There was a free movement of people between Norway, Sweden and Denmark long before the EEC was even started.

Assumption, no support. UK would strike deals with others, the world won't turn its back on the UK economy just because it's not in the EU. The world dealt with a "divided" Europe for centuries, it's not new.
Never said the world would turn its back. I am saying that the UK would find it very difficult since they would go from a major player in the EU to a minor economy world wide.. especially against the big new boys of India, China and Brazil. And regardless any bi-lateral deal would have to be defacto approved by the EU as part of the any "sweetheart" access the UK could negotiate with the EU when she left the union.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,102
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The Commonwealth was never, and was never intended to be, an economic trading organisation. So the idea that it offers an alternative market to a post-EU UK is nonsense.

Much of Britain's manufacturing industry is foreign owned, thanks to Mrs T's selling of the family silver. Those foreign investors bought and invested in Britain because it provided entry into the EU. Why would they continue to invest if it no longer offers that access?

The fact is, however, that the economic arguments can be made in both directions and yet they will not be the factors that decide how people will vote in any future referendum. The issue will be decided by the balance of the political forces of internationalism and isolationism, neither of which really field any logical arguments of much worth. Who will make the greater din? The wooly Benetton jumpers and Armani suits linking arms to "We Are The World"? Or the Savile Row suits and twinset and pearls waving the Union Flag and singing "Rule Britannia"? There will be no more sophisticated debate to be had than that, I promise you.
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,504
Reaction score
8,591
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Highly doubtful. To think that you can have a divorce and still have legal access to the house, bank accounts and conjugal visits on demand... when you are the one who wants to leave... that is frankly delusional.
Equally, while France and Germany may not want to grant us an amicable divorce, we are still an export market for them. There's no benefit in punitive reaction from the EU, nor in a trade war. A renegotiation is going to happen anyway as the integration project continues because not all countries are on the same track and that has to be dealt with.

That is outright false. Norway and the Swiss have to follow the same agricultural and fisheries rules as the UK. As for "justice and home affairs".. got no idea what the hell the moron is talking about here, since there is little "justice and home affairs" in the EU as it is.

Also the reason Norway is so "successful" is because of its oil reserves and financial management of the profits from this. The UK does not have the reserves and have squandered away the profits they have had by giving it to big oil. And then there is Switzerland... a country with banking secrecy that the UK has never had. If the UK left the EU, many of the banks and financial institutions who have settled down in the UK because of it being in the EU.. will leave for Germany or France.
Yeah we used our oil resources differently from Norway, we may have had reasonably similar access to oil monies but the spread of that revenue was different between the two nations. Norway doesn't have the same population, military or industrial restructure demands that we had. If I gave £1000 each to two families - one family of 3 and the other a family of 15 - the spend is going to be different. Politically, it's easier to call it "squandering" by the larger family.

Regarding trade and fisheries - it would remain in our benefit to continue to follow EU trade and fisheries rules so we could export to Europe. As for making the rules up regarding that trade; I'm not sure we have much influence now anyway. Where's the benefit from staying in just to have the same rules handed down?

More delusions. There are very few restrictions for countries to make bi-lateral trade deals already, and the reason that the UK or the EU have not made deals with some countries is because those countries dont want to. Take India.. highly protective of its market and the UK will not have better success than the EU.. hell it might even be harder, considering you are the former colonial masters. Plus it has always been better to negotiate as a group than as an individual.
At some point India is going to have to open its market, or British companies will have to learn the ways around those rules. Besides, it's a two way street as India has raised problems that it has in trading with the UK - partly because of EU laws and rules.

But this all boils down to the divorce.. if the UK wants to leave, it aint gonna be pretty because the French and Germans wont allow the UK to get any preferential treatment. The UK needs the EU far far far far more than the EU needs the UK.
It will happen, there's no benefit to France and Germany in a penalty driven divorce between the UK and the EU. Besides, there's still the option on the table of the UK staying within the EU but in a looser arrangement. To extend on your "marital" metaphors - we might not end in bitter divorce but have an amicable and more "open" relationship. This is the best chance of renegotiation right now; the Euro crisis is not finished, the EU is still trying to expand but also recognises that it cannot have the same set of rules for all - from Germany / Greece / Romania etc.
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,504
Reaction score
8,591
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-- No chance in hell buddy boy. The commonwealth is for all practical purposes, dead and burried. it can never be revitalized or restored. And if it were to be restored, the UK wouldn't be the head of the commonwealth in the same unopposed manner. It will have competition for the leading role from nations like India and your own country, Aussieland. It will be a smaller market than the EU and it will also be more spread out, making it overall a weaker union. Which is why it died.
The commonwealth is an association and there is the potential to develop it into something else. To write it off is to ignore that right now there is growth in many of the commonwealth nations and long standing ties.

--*Now nobody is saying the EU is a dream come true. In it's current path and the current trajectory, it's on the road to a dead end and a painful finale.
Agreed, the question is how that trajectory will be changed. Currently the answer in the crisis has been faster and faster integration (banking / monetary policy etc) which is exactly what we don't want.

-- But the EU has a better chance of reforming itself into a more desirable fashion
I don't see what this potential reform could be beyond where it is heading now. Where are the voices calling for new direction?
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The commonwealth is an association and there is the potential to develop it into something else. To write it off is to ignore that right now there is growth in many of the commonwealth nations and long standing ties.

Agreed, the question is how that trajectory will be changed. Currently the answer in the crisis has been faster and faster integration (banking / monetary policy etc) which is exactly what we don't want.

I don't see what this potential reform could be beyond where it is heading now. Where are the voices calling for new direction?
Yes, but commonwealth nations are seeing growth independently, not as part of this commonwealth association. It's dead and buried and nobody in any serious position can truly consider it properly. You would have a better chance of watching cpt Dylan Hunt in Andromeda reunite the commonwealth rather than seeing it in any real life application.

Right, the answer the EU has had to the crisis is to do more of the things we shouldn't be doing but that's because the EU is run by idiots. And there are tons of people who call for reforms in the EU, just reforms mean more of the same in a different color... there aren't many people who suggest we take a step back and look at where we went wrong.
It's either completely abandon the EU project or go full speed ahead. And I disagree with both. I wish there would be some people who would say: Well, let's stop for a moment. Look at the past, see what we did that got us where we are and let's actually do some studying before we make a decision.

But none of those people who are in charge of the EU are skilled in solving problems. They aren't engineers. They are bankers. Financial advisors. Lobbyists. Lawyers... only people who know how to get themselves in a mess and sort it out either with a lot of chatter or a lot of money.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,221
Reaction score
12,099
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Equally, while France and Germany may not want to grant us an amicable divorce, we are still an export market for them. There's no benefit in punitive reaction from the EU, nor in a trade war. A renegotiation is going to happen anyway as the integration project continues because not all countries are on the same track and that has to be dealt with.
Yes but the UK is in the weaker negotiation position. The EU might export to the UK, but the UK is totally dependent on imports of basic food and goods from the EU. And the EU knows fully well that the companies like Ford, Nissan and so on, will move their production to the EU, so there is no rush what so ever from the EU side. All I am trying to point out, is that it is the UK that wants out, and the EU wont give more than absolutely needed and it will take time and in the end chances are the UK might not be in the EU but have to follow all the EU rules anyways and pay billions in fees to have access to the EU market and get none of the perks of being in the EU. Norway and the Swiss pay billions each year in "fees" to have the special relationship they have.... and the UK will have to pay that too. I would not be surprised if that fee might be larger than what it presently pays to be in the EU.

Yeah we used our oil resources differently from Norway, we may have had reasonably similar access to oil monies but the spread of that revenue was different between the two nations. Norway doesn't have the same population, military or industrial restructure demands that we had. If I gave £1000 each to two families - one family of 3 and the other a family of 15 - the spend is going to be different. Politically, it's easier to call it "squandering" by the larger family.
Sorry that is bull****. Norway is insanely expensive to live in, and has the highest food prices in Europe and some of the highest taxes. It has free education and healthcare and yet it has invested its money so that its wealth fund is the second biggest on the planet. The UK has squandered its limited oil revenues by allowing the oil and profits to be taken out by private companies, and not saving up the profits you did get. Instead of investing the money for the future, you push money into useless projects like your nuclear arsenal.

What it comes down to, is a different view on how to use the funds and a different priority... Norway went long term, where as the UK (and Denmark btw) went short term benefits and the private company route. BIG mistake.

Regarding trade and fisheries - it would remain in our benefit to continue to follow EU trade and fisheries rules so we could export to Europe. As for making the rules up regarding that trade; I'm not sure we have much influence now anyway. Where's the benefit from staying in just to have the same rules handed down?
You have influence. You are the table when the decisions are made. You have a vote. That the present government often just sits in the corner like a spoilt brat and does not participate in anything is not the fault of the EU is it now..

At some point India is going to have to open its market, or British companies will have to learn the ways around those rules. Besides, it's a two way street as India has raised problems that it has in trading with the UK - partly because of EU laws and rules.
Yes.. India has, and those "problems" are there because India wont open up its market. Are you in that opinion that the UK would open its market to Inidan products (and at the same time close the EU market) without having the same access to the Indian market? OF course not, and that is why the EU has barriers towards Indian products.

It will happen, there's no benefit to France and Germany in a penalty driven divorce between the UK and the EU.
Lets see .. there is satisfaction.. after decades of UK annoyances..believe me that would go a long way for some politicians.

Plus it is not a penalty per say. It is starting at 0 and adding privileges after negotiations. What the UK wants is to have access to all the privileges while it negotiates and does not pay the fee.. and hopefully still have most of the privileges after the negotiations... that aint gonna happen.

Besides, there's still the option on the table of the UK staying within the EU but in a looser arrangement. To extend on your "marital" metaphors - we might not end in bitter divorce but have an amicable and more "open" relationship. This is the best chance of renegotiation right now; the Euro crisis is not finished, the EU is still trying to expand but also recognises that it cannot have the same set of rules for all - from Germany / Greece / Romania etc.
The only way the UK will get a renegotiation is with an overall treaty change and that aint gonna happen any time soon. And even if there was a new treaty, we both know that certain countries would need to vote on that treaty, and that could mean it would be torpedoed. The dislike of the UK is growing in some countries... I could easily see the Spanish torpedo it over Gibraltar. Just saying, it wont be easy at all.
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,504
Reaction score
8,591
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, but commonwealth nations are seeing growth independently, not as part of this commonwealth association --
That can just as easily be changed. As it is, many commonwealth nations are allying with China and making agreements for the future with China. Even so, many of these nations will still want to develop and export to other nations.

the answer the EU has had to the crisis is to do more of the things we shouldn't be doing but that's because the EU is run by idiots. And there are tons of people who call for reforms in the EU, just reforms mean more of the same in a different color... there aren't many people who suggest we take a step back and look at where we went wrong.
It's either completely abandon the EU project or go full speed ahead. And I disagree with both. I wish there would be some people who would say: Well, let's stop for a moment. Look at the past, see what we did that got us where we are and let's actually do some studying before we make a decision.

But none of those people who are in charge of the EU are skilled in solving problems. They aren't engineers. They are bankers. Financial advisors. Lobbyists. Lawyers... only people who know how to get themselves in a mess and sort it out either with a lot of chatter or a lot of money.
And we come to the crux of the problem. I completely agree with you that the EU reaction is more of the same, faster and this is not the answer. Problem is - how will those at the centre ever see that there is a need to re-assess?

What I'm trying to argue separately with PeteEU is that there is some form of re-assessment, a review of what's working and what isn't. Just because a treaty may have been signed 10 / 20 / 30 / 40 / 50 / 60 years ago does not mean we must ride the rollercoaster till it crashes into the brick barriers at the end. That unfortunately seems Pete's view on anything to do with UK re-negotiation.

I think many in the UK would be prepared to review our desire to pull out if it seemed there was a review of direction or even re-assessment. There's no sign of that now or for the foreseeable future so why should the UK be trapped to a runaway vehicle we highly suspect will crash?

Yes but the UK is in the weaker negotiation position. The EU might export to the UK, but the UK is totally dependent on imports of basic food and goods from the EU. And the EU knows fully well that the companies like Ford, Nissan and so on, will move their production to the EU, so there is no rush what so ever from the EU side.
For some of these companies - they would move anyway as production costs in Eastern European countries will be cheaper than in the UK. Moving production however isn't as simple as you suggest. These major automotive companies are highly dependent on local British engineering companies producing components - that is not so easy to duplicate by moving production to Bulgaria for example. That expertise takes years and money to build.

All I am trying to point out, is that it is the UK that wants out, and the EU wont give more than absolutely needed and it will take time and in the end chances are the UK might not be in the EU but have to follow all the EU rules anyways and pay billions in fees to have access to the EU market and get none of the perks of being in the EU. Norway and the Swiss pay billions each year in "fees" to have the special relationship they have.... and the UK will have to pay that too. I would not be surprised if that fee might be larger than what it presently pays to be in the EU.
Meantime, the EU crisis clock is ticking...

-- Sorry that is bull****. Norway is insanely expensive to live in, and has the highest food prices in Europe and some of the highest taxes. It has free education and healthcare and yet it has invested its money so that its wealth fund is the second biggest on the planet. The UK has squandered its limited oil revenues by allowing the oil and profits to be taken out by private companies, and not saving up the profits you did get. Instead of investing the money for the future, you push money into useless projects like your nuclear arsenal.
As I suggested, we have bigger priorities and costs than Norway. We have a historical place in NATO and a nuclear deterrent to maintain. Bigger and more costs including as the Scots will tell you - the cost of unemployment benefits soaked up the oil revenues. Norway is a smaller population, has less world presence and thus could put its oil revenues into future development.
Of course Norway has insane costs - the same thing is happening in Australia right now as she benefits from being China's mineral basket.

--What it comes down to, is a different view on how to use the funds and a different priority... Norway went long term, where as the UK (and Denmark btw) went short term benefits and the private company route. BIG mistake.
See above - the Scots especially will disagree with you and say the oil revenues went on unemployment benefits for England.

-- You have influence. You are the table when the decisions are made. You have a vote. That the present government often just sits in the corner like a spoilt brat and does not participate in anything is not the fault of the EU is it now..
I'm not saying the fault is of the EU, just stop being petulant please!

We have limited sway, we are at a table but we have little say on the general juggernaut direction to greater integration. That is the truth of the matter. Maybe our politicians should have been clearer with us at the start but the actual mechanics of this direction have problems - if you disagree, just look back at the ERM and then the Eurozone crisis. The solution is not a re-think or re-assessment but putting greater speed into current policy.

Just stupid.

-- Yes.. India has, and those "problems" are there because India wont open up its market. Are you in that opinion that the UK would open its market to Inidan products (and at the same time close the EU market) without having the same access to the Indian market? OF course not, and that is why the EU has barriers towards Indian products.
India has long had a policy of self reliance, even before trade. I worked for a charity long ago working in the 3rd world. There were never any placements in India because India wanted to solve its own problems. Its a mentality thing.

Anyhow, as I said, at some point India will open up further. It has been opening - not just to the EU but to America and China.

--Lets see .. there is satisfaction.. after decades of UK annoyances..believe me that would go a long way for some politicians.

Plus it is not a penalty per say. It is starting at 0 and adding privileges after negotiations. What the UK wants is to have access to all the privileges while it negotiates and does not pay the fee.. and hopefully still have most of the privileges after the negotiations... that aint gonna happen.
Germany can only pay to prop up the Euro for so long - its focus is there. France wants revenge - I'll give you that. Germany is less vengeful - they have always had a bigger eye on exports and sales. Germany won't want a vengeful divorce from the UK because she sells to us.

-- The only way the UK will get a renegotiation is with an overall treaty change and that aint gonna happen any time soon. And even if there was a new treaty, we both know that certain countries would need to vote on that treaty, and that could mean it would be torpedoed. The dislike of the UK is growing in some countries... I could easily see the Spanish torpedo it over Gibraltar. Just saying, it wont be easy at all.
Of course it won't be easy however we can simply wait while the Eurozone crisis empties EU pockets and make a new deal from a better position a few years later. As I keep saying - the crisis hasn't gone away. It may only be Germany profiting from the Euro's position right now but the others can't keep paying in to support it for ever. Germany is not as I said above going to want to exact revenge on a trading partner.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That can just as easily be changed. As it is, many commonwealth nations are allying with China and making agreements for the future with China. Even so, many of these nations will still want to develop and export to other nations.

And we come to the crux of the problem. I completely agree with you that the EU reaction is more of the same, faster and this is not the answer. Problem is - how will those at the centre ever see that there is a need to re-assess?

What I'm trying to argue separately with PeteEU is that there is some form of re-assessment, a review of what's working and what isn't. Just because a treaty may have been signed 10 / 20 / 30 / 40 / 50 / 60 years ago does not mean we must ride the rollercoaster till it crashes into the brick barriers at the end. That unfortunately seems Pete's view on anything to do with UK re-negotiation.

I think many in the UK would be prepared to review our desire to pull out if it seemed there was a review of direction or even re-assessment. There's no sign of that now or for the foreseeable future so why should the UK be trapped to a runaway vehicle we highly suspect will crash?

.
Well PeteEU, is as the names suggests, an EU enthusiast.

I too agree. If the rollercoaster starts shaking, time to stop and pull in for repairs. It's not part of the ride. I mean, I can agree with scare moments when it seems that we are going downhill at a 80degree angle just so that we immidiatly go up again and have a blast overall... it's not fun when your coaster flies off the tracks.

There won't be people to suggest this... at least not the current EU parliament or EU council. We need to put other people who have such views into office at national and EU levels. The EU parliament is filled with 3 kinds of people atm:
--those polarized to be completely pro-EU and go full speed ahead
--those that are polarized to be completely anti-EU and wish for a complete end to the EU experiment
--those that are too stupid to understand what's going on.

While I would normally say that the third class is the worst... for this case I think the first 2 groups are the worse.

But the EU marches on. We keep expanding, now we have 28. The bigger the EU, the harder it will be to reform since the EU itself is not a flexible structure.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,221
Reaction score
12,099
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
For some of these companies - they would move anyway as production costs in Eastern European countries will be cheaper than in the UK. Moving production however isn't as simple as you suggest. These major automotive companies are highly dependent on local British engineering companies producing components - that is not so easy to duplicate by moving production to Bulgaria for example. That expertise takes years and money to build.
Hog wash. The reason that car companies have not moved yet, is massive incentives from local and national UK government and the fact that they are within the EU borders. No amount of incentives will make them stay if they suddenly have to export into the EU, when they can just move their whole business on the other side of the border with minimum hazzle. The expertise exists in places like Poland, Spain and so on.

Meantime, the EU crisis clock is ticking...
Have you looked at the UK gild rate lately? I would be far more worried about the UK economy than anything else... even the French are paying less to borrow than the UK at the moment.

As I suggested, we have bigger priorities and costs than Norway. We have a historical place in NATO and a nuclear deterrent to maintain. Bigger and more costs including as the Scots will tell you - the cost of unemployment benefits soaked up the oil revenues. Norway is a smaller population, has less world presence and thus could put its oil revenues into future development.
Of course Norway has insane costs - the same thing is happening in Australia right now as she benefits from being China's mineral basket.
And I agreed, and pointed out that the UK had short term priorities where as Norway had a long term vision. Norway might have a smaller population and bigger reserves, but the principles are the same. Discovering oil in the North Sea was fantastic, and countries like the UK and Denmark squandered it away for short term gain instead of long term vision.

And as for your "historical place"... stop living in the past and grow up. You are not an empire, you cant afford the nukes... get rid of them. They are nothing but a penis extender for conservative governments.... make them buy a freaking Porsche.. it is cheaper!

See above - the Scots especially will disagree with you and say the oil revenues went on unemployment benefits for England.
And I agree with the Scots up to a point.. point is it was wasted.

I'm not saying the fault is of the EU, just stop being petulant please!
Sorry but it sounded like it. Guess I have been listening too much to Nigel "the liar" Farage.

We have limited sway, we are at a table but we have little say on the general juggernaut direction to greater integration. That is the truth of the matter.
Sorry but the UK has the relative sway of its population size. Germany has most, then followed by France and the UK, and then Spain, Poland and Italy. That is how it always has been. The issue with the UK has been, that it has constantly been confrontational in the EU, much like the Poles were under the twins, and Italy under Berlscoloony and THAT limits your "sway" more than anything else. When you act the way Cameron did with the banking crisis, then you loose credibility and sway with the rest of the EU. It happened to the Poles with the twins.. they went all in trying to get the EU to be a "Christian" union by demanding it in the new constitution, and in the end they lost everything with that boneheaded move.

Maybe our politicians should have been clearer with us at the start but the actual mechanics of this direction have problems - if you disagree, just look back at the ERM and then the Eurozone crisis. The solution is not a re-think or re-assessment but putting greater speed into current policy.
Your politicians are masters of using Europe as the blame for all the political ****-ups they have caused since before Thatcher. They will never be straight with you because it is not in their interest. Take the whole debate we had with the life terms... the media and your politicians say EU this, EU that.. it has nothing to do with the EU, and they always forget to mention who wrote the rules that they now dislike.. funny eh?

India has long had a policy of self reliance, even before trade. I worked for a charity long ago working in the 3rd world. There were never any placements in India because India wanted to solve its own problems. Its a mentality thing.
India has had an official policy of protecting local business pure and simple. South Korea did that, Japan did that.. hell the UK did that in the industrial revolution.

Anyhow, as I said, at some point India will open up further. It has been opening - not just to the EU but to America and China.
No. They have been opening up to everyone, but still insist on all companies are Indian owned, which means that any British, EU, American or Chinese company wanting to set up shop in India, must have an Indian majority owner... and that has for decades been a big turn off for most companies.

Germany can only pay to prop up the Euro for so long - its focus is there.
Not factual.

France wants revenge - I'll give you that.
Not the only nation.

Germany is less vengeful - they have always had a bigger eye on exports and sales. Germany won't want a vengeful divorce from the UK because she sells to us.
After the stunt that Cameron did a year or so ago, then Germany is very vengeful.

Of course it won't be easy however we can simply wait while the Eurozone crisis empties EU pockets and make a new deal from a better position a few years later. As I keep saying - the crisis hasn't gone away. It may only be Germany profiting from the Euro's position right now but the others can't keep paying in to support it for ever. Germany is not as I said above going to want to exact revenge on a trading partner.
UK 10 year guilt.. 2.30%
French 10 year guilt .. 2.21%

4 months ago the French were paying more than the British and had been for years... that has flipped now. That is a sign that the supposed markets clearly dont trust Cameron and his policies, that have not resulted in growth, nor cut the deficit in any meaningful way. You are still borrowing at almost record levels, 3 years after Cameron started his so called austerity drive.

If anyone is going to go down the drain first.. it will be the UK since she stands alone.
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,504
Reaction score
8,591
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-- The expertise exists in places like Poland, Spain and so on.
Cheaper labour certainly exists there - if the car companies were only interested in the lowest costs they would have moved long ago. Unemployment in Spain is ridiculously high - a car manufacturer moving to Spain would have to fight the job applicants off if it moved to Spain. Subsidies paid are illegal no?

-- Have you looked at the UK gild rate lately? I would be far more worried about the UK economy than anything else... even the French are paying less to borrow than the UK at the moment.
UK bond yields briefly rise above France: don't panic, say analysts | Business | guardian.co.uk

-- And I agreed, and pointed out that the UK had short term priorities where as Norway had a long term vision. Norway might have a smaller population and bigger reserves, but the principles are the same. Discovering oil in the North Sea was fantastic, and countries like the UK and Denmark squandered it away for short term gain instead of long term vision.

And as for your "historical place"... stop living in the past and grow up. You are not an empire, you cant afford the nukes... get rid of them. They are nothing but a penis extender for conservative governments.... make them buy a freaking Porsche.. it is cheaper!
Nukes aren't the only thing oil revenues went on..

--Sorry but the UK has the relative sway of its population size. Germany has most, then followed by France and the UK, and then Spain, Poland and Italy. That is how it always has been. The issue with the UK has been, that it has constantly been confrontational in the EU, much like the Poles were under the twins, and Italy under Berlscoloony and THAT limits your "sway" more than anything else. When you act the way Cameron did with the banking crisis, then you loose credibility and sway with the rest of the EU. It happened to the Poles with the twins.. they went all in trying to get the EU to be a "Christian" union by demanding it in the new constitution, and in the end they lost everything with that boneheaded move.
Sorry but the banking changes were punitive against the UK, designed to get money in other ways as we weren't obliged to pay into the Euro bail-out plans in any great way.

-- Your politicians are masters of using Europe as the blame for all the political ****-ups they have caused since before Thatcher. They will never be straight with you because it is not in their interest. Take the whole debate we had with the life terms... the media and your politicians say EU this, EU that.. it has nothing to do with the EU, and they always forget to mention who wrote the rules that they now dislike.. funny eh?
I've explained countless times that just because a rule was written over 40 years ago - doesn't mean it is still current for today's society. The human rights laws were for a different era. Any law or treaty that remains inflexible is going to be dead in the water. It is for us already and will be for others in Europe sometime in the future.

-- No. They have been opening up to everyone, but still insist on all companies are Indian owned, which means that any British, EU, American or Chinese company wanting to set up shop in India, must have an Indian majority owner... and that has for decades been a big turn off for most companies.
India has the same problem with the US as it has with the EU and UK - visa barriers for IT professionals. This is a bargaining chip that will eventually force India to drop it's barriers to external trade and investment.

Your other points have been addressed.

-- If anyone is going to go down the drain first.. it will be the UK since she stands alone.
Funny, we're not hoping the EU collapses because we recognise a major trading partner.
 
Top Bottom