Why are the British so anti Europe?

Boroso

Scofflaw wrote: »

You suggested devaluation as a 'tool', in order to say that it's not available any more:
cordially,
Scofflaw

I gave the facts that previously devaluation was used as an outlet to mitigate some of the negative effects of government policy. You then said the "new" franc was only devalued once, and I have given evidence which shows your claim was misleading and false.

Call it whatever you like, its not an issue for me what you choose to call it. The fact is devaluation of the Euro is no longer available to France.

Scofflaw wrote: »

In order to grasp a stick with which to beat the euro, you're reduced to claiming as policy tools things that weren't policy tools, but were universally regarded at the time as the outcome of poor policy.

If you consider making factual observations that France has no control or ability to devalue the Euro is a stick with which to beat the Euro, then I’ll give you that, if you need to think of it in those terms.

I’ll also give you that it was never French Government policy to allow the currency to devalue to mitigate it’s bad policy. It was merely French government practice over many decades.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And even the good side of inflation is being represented without any reference to the inevitable adjustments it causes - the new proponents of inflation say "look how it erodes the capital of debt", but seem to be happy to ignore the fact that lenders invariably factor inflation into interest - the happy-clappy inflationistas are ignoring the main real cost of servicing debt, which is not, and never has been, capital repayment.

We agree that rampant inflation is not a wholly good thing. Where you seem blind is to the extra pressures now showing in the French economy cause by their inability to allow a devaluations in their currency, which they have used for decades to let some pressure out of their economy. This has political effects both within and beyond France, and to simply say anyone who sees that is using it as a “stick with which to beat the Euro” merely seems to expose your own bias.

We all have biases, but some of us have the ability not to expose them so feverishly

View

Boroso wrote: »

France is competing with China, India and now with increasingly with the USA which is returning to a much higher level of efficiency and competitiveness. The Euro is part responsible for France (and Germany) becoming less and less able to compete on the world stage, due to the fact that it, combined with the comparatively very high EU’s labour and energy costs, seems to ensure those countries in the EU and the Euro are at an increasing economic disadvantage to competitors outside the EU.

German exports are at record highs. French ones near so (they hit their all-time high in Aug 2012).

Neither seems to be having problems competing on the world stage.

Perhaps that is why they don't share your views about the EU and/or the Euro.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. Psychedelic rather than interesting, I would have thought. Where did you get this 'on target' fantasy prediction, out of interest?

I actually read this as well, and quite recently, but unfortunately I can't recall where it was.

I'll see if I can dig out the report or the story and post a link.

EDIT: And here they are. Two stories (BBC and Telegraph), and a link to the British think-tank that complied the predictions. You can download the report from them if you like.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25519110

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10537773/Britain-will-become-biggest-economy-in-Europe.html

http://www.cebr.com/reports/cebr-world-economic-league-table/

I thought the same report also suggested that the UK's economy would grow to be the biggest in western Europe because its population would grow to be larger than Germany's. The report doesn't say that, although it does cite population growth as a major driver of UK economic growth. However, in separate reports Eurostat predicts that the UK will have the largest population in the EU later in this century.

http://www.airo.ie/news/europe-2060-population-projections-ireland-increase-465-interact-data

Scofflaw

Boroso wrote: »

I gave the facts that previously devaluation was used as an outlet to mitigate some of the negative effects of government policy. You then said the "new" franc was only devalued once, and I have given evidence which shows your claim was misleading and false.

Call it whatever you like, its not an issue for me what you choose to call it. The fact is devaluation of the Euro is no longer available to France.



If you consider making factual observations that France has no control or ability to devalue the Euro is a stick with which to beat the Euro, then I’ll give you that, if you need to think of it in those terms.

I’ll also give you that it was never French Government policy to allow the currency to devalue to mitigate it’s bad policy. It was merely French government practice over many decades.



We agree that rampant inflation is not a wholly good thing. Where you seem blind is to the extra pressures now showing in the French economy cause by their inability to allow a devaluations in their currency, which they have used for decades to let some pressure out of their economy. This has political effects both within and beyond France, and to simply say anyone who sees that is using it as a “stick with which to beat the Euro” merely seems to expose your own bias.

We all have biases, but some of us have the ability not to expose them so feverishly

Indeed we do. When you find me claiming that inflation and currency depreciation are used as policy tools, and claiming there's a currency-related problem for countries whose exports show no signs of the problem, I'll accept it applies to me too! In the meantime, I think you're the one wearing the party crown.

amused,
Scofflaw

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed we do. When you find me claiming that inflation and currency depreciation are used as policy tools, and claiming there's a currency-related problem for countries whose exports show no signs of the problem, I'll accept it applies to me too! In the meantime, I think you're the one wearing the party crown.

amused,
Scofflaw

There does seem to be a bit of a problem with France's balance of trade since joining the Euro. In normal circumstances France's currency would devalue, restoring competitiveness. However with the introduction of the Euro, this is no longer possible.

Boroso

View wrote: »

German exports are at record highs. French ones near so (they hit their all-time high in Aug 2012).

Neither seems to be having problems competing on the world stage.

Perhaps that is why they don't share your views about the EU and/or the Euro.

If you think the French are not concerned about the Euro and the effects it is having on the French economy, they we simply disagree. If you don't think there is a big row abrewing between the French and the Germans about the direction of the Euro, then I'd suggest you are not up to date. If you also think the French economy is in good shape, and getting better and better, then again we disagree.

dlouth15 wrote: »

There does seem to be a bit of a problem with France's balance of trade since joining the Euro. In normal circumstances France's currency would devalue, restoring competitiveness. However with the introduction of the Euro, this is no longer possible.

[IMG]file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Jonathan\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image002.gif[/IMG]

It seems, for example in Views post above, that there are some who just can’t bear facts. It’s almost as if the Euro is their baby, and they can’t bear to see that there might be flaws which are causing problems. Only an idiot would wish the Euro harm, but pretending everything is fine and dandy, and ignoring problems is more likely to do long term damage, than facing up to reality and trying to fix problems.

You can see this at EU level where the commission recently announced that the Euro crises is over (they have made similar announcements before following which events showed their announcements were wishful thinking), and anyone who remembers the Old USSR might note the similarities with their annual announcements about the bumper and plentiful harvests, with pictures of smiling peasants in the fields, followed by famine and starving.

SpaceTime

The French economy has strong points and it has huge problems. France still has a lot of high tech companies, very strong manufacturing, quite strong pharma and endless very dominant luxury brands and a food sector that's pretty much second to none. So, all in all has a lot of positives.

The big issue in France is inflexibility and that's become worse and worse over the last 30-40 years rather than improving.
Under Hollande, nothing will be reformed and he's 'solved' problems by hiking taxes. He really has no common ground with Merkel at all and I think that's going to cause a big problem.

Sarkozy never really made the kinds of reforms that were necessary to move the French economy forward either. He spent most of his time embroiled in one scandal after another and the public grew quite weary of him.

The general problem in France tends to be that you get this very hard left vs right divide where the socialists are extremely socialist and the UMP can be very right wing on a lot of issues, particularly law and order and immigration.

If you're a French voter who perhaps leans a little to the left on some issues like say gay marriage, social issues, law and order and maybe don't care that much about immigration however, you're not in agreement about taxing the hell out of the economy and would like to see some labour market reforms, then you've very few options.

In Germany, the Netherlands, even Ireland you've a lot more scope to vote for centrist combinations that take a bit of the left and a bit of the right and mix it all up into a decent pragmatic approach.

Until France gets past that left vs right dichotomy it will simply always have these problems. It's a bit like the UK in the 1970s in terms of politics when Labour was extremely left and the tories were extremely right.

British politics became more pragmatic during the John Major and Tony Blair years and things sort of slid to the centre. However, you're now seeing that start to push apart again, especially with the Tories trying to get the UKIP vote back. Which is why you're seeing all this anti-EU and anti-immigration tabloid coverage.

I think though fundamentally you're going to see a huge problem in the EU where the Northern countries (including Ireland, but not including the UK) are very centrist and pragmatic. While you're seeing this high tempered left/right fight elsewhere.

I don't really know how you can knit it all together when there's really no common political landscape and several very different approaches all happening simultaneously. It's no wonder Eurozone policy is so up in the air.

I can understand the British worries about the EU. I think there's an element of expansion by function creep going on that isn't really being agreed to by anyone in particular.
I would rather see the EU defined a little better so that people know what it's about.

On the freedom of movement issues / movement of labour. They probably do need to look at some approach that allows people to move around yet does not burden states with welfare, housing and health claims when they do. So, I would guess a minimum period of employed residency would be a good barometer for allowing welfare claims in a particular country. There needs to be a little more coordination and burden sharing going on.

I'd also point out though that there are vast numbers of retired UK citizens living in Spain in particular but also Portugal and France. Many of them are benefiting enormously from rather more generous and better organised health and welfare systems in those countries.

I think sometimes the UK forgets that it's not an entirely one-way street. Sending a couple of million UK pensioners back home wouldn't exactly be great either.

Estimated 400,000 UK citizens living in Spain, another 150,000 in France, 104,000 in Germany and so on.
They are officially resident too so, there could be quite a few more who live there for long periods of the year or never registered.

If anything, the UK's been one of the countries that's really embraced freedom of movement within the EU in a big way. Being English-speaking also helps because it's the de facto international language.

....

oscarBravo

SpaceTime wrote: »

I can understand the British worries about the EU. I think there's an element of expansion by function creep going on that isn't really being agreed to by anyone in particular.
I would rather see the EU defined a little better so that people know what it's about.

I really don't know where this comes from. The scope of the EU is defined (and firmly limited) by its treaties. The "function creep" you speak of comes from revisions to the treaties, which are negotiated and agreed to by all the member states.

Boroso

oscarBravo wrote: »

I really don't know where this comes from.

From reading your posts here, it does seem to be the case that you are either unaware, or for some reason unwilling to recognise, that there is a large and growing number of people, both in the UK and across Europe, who not only want to stop giving any more powers to the EU, but many of whom want to get back for national governments powers already given away to the EU. As your attention has been drawn to that here, it seems you must be unwilling to accept that. Why would you, in light of that, expect to know where this comes from?

oscarBravo

Boroso wrote: »

From reading your posts here, it does seem to be the case that you are either unaware, or for some reason unwilling to recognise, that there is a large and growing number of people, both in the UK and across Europe, who not only want to stop giving any more powers to the EU, but many of whom want to get back for national governments powers already given away to the EU. As your attention has been drawn to that here, it seems you must be unwilling to accept that. Why would you, in light of that, expect to know where this comes from?

I can't see any way in which this is a response to the post it quotes. Perhaps you should re-read my post and the post that it quotes, and try replying when you have something to say that's relevant.

Boroso

The British Chancellor will today tell the EU that it must “reform or continue to decline”.

He will go on to say ““Make no mistake, our continent is falling behind. We can’t go on like this.”


To see such views as "anti-europe" (as this thread sugests) is perverse, as what he is saying, as a representative of Britain, is that if the EU keeps burying it's head in the sand and pretending there are no problems, then it is the EU which prevents reform and encourages continuing decline.



By standing up for the truth, and standing up for the people of the EU, he is much more pro-europe than the EU insofar as he is promoting growth and prosperity over the EU's path of continuing decline.

SpaceTime

I still think there's a HUGE communication problem at the EU institutions though.

Anytime I have had to deal with them, you are bombarded with jargon and very badly translated documents that are written in Euro-English or Euro-French which is often unintelligible or at least very off-putting and clumsy to native speakers.

I had a situation where I was at a conference in Brussels and two native English speakers and also one native French speaker were basically laughed at by all the 2nd language speakers in the Euro Bubble because they couldn't actually understand someone with a slight accent who was using idioms and colloquialisms i.e. not speaking European institution versions of English or French.

The 'Brussels Bubble' that has developed really needs to be burst.

They've managed to actually develop a whole culture of communicating from 'eurocrat' to 'eurocrat' and it completely alienates journalists and the general public.

If you're a casual observer of the EU institutions or you want to drop over to do some reporting on a particular issue. It is extremely difficult to understand what's going on because of all of these language and cultural issues.

There's also a pool of journalists in Brussels who are very much part of the Eurocracy and the Brussels Bubble. They speak "Eurospeak" and do not see anything unusual about the way business is conducted there because they're embedded in it and usually come from academic backgrounds that include heavy doses of European Studies etc.

I am even quite taken aback at the use of some terminology by the institutions and companies in the 'Brussels Bubble' such as using the term "journalist" to mean communications officer. You regularly see adverts looking for 'journalists' when they are actually looking for professional copywriters.

There are plenty of other strange examples too.

The other issue I notice is that they are specifically recruiting people who have multiple languages. This results in a rather unusual pool of talent which is very much trained to work within the EU institutions i.e. people who've studied European studies etc.
It also has the effect of actively excluding applicants from major EU countries, particularly the UK and Spain which are extremely monolingual due to the size of their languages and it tends to favour people from the Benelux countries who automatically grow up speaking 2/3 languages because of the size of their countries and the multilingual environment that they grow up in.

The EU institutions actually need more British employees, not fewer if they're going to be seen as accessible to British citizens.

I just always get the impression that the institutions exist in a bit of a parallel universe and really need a major shake up as they're basically not able to relate to citizens or even national media.

micosoft

SpaceTime wrote: »

I still think there's a HUGE communication problem at the EU institutions though.

Anytime I have had to deal with them, you are bombarded with jargon and very badly translated documents that are written in Euro-English or Euro-French which is often unintelligible or at least very off-putting and clumsy to native speakers.

rant rant....

particularly the UK and Spain which are extremely monolingual due to the size of their languages and it tends to favour people from the Benelux countries who automatically grow up speaking 2/3 languages because of the size of their countries and the multilingual environment that they grow up in.

The EU institutions actually need more British employees, not fewer if they're going to be seen as accessible to British citizens.

I just always get the impression that the institutions exist in a bit of a parallel universe and really need a major shake up as they're basically not able to relate to citizens or even national media.

I think the problem may be you? While struggling to read your Anglo-English I made out a (dubious attempt to bring in some French speakers aside) a "those funny foreigners with their funny ways, why can't they all just speak the Queens English" rant.
The EU is a union of 27 countries and many languages an cultures. Blaming multilingual countries for the inability of the English (and for that matter the Irish) is just bizarre.
Your only "suggestion" is to hire more British employees which is entirely a matter for the British Government and citizenry.

SpaceTime

micosoft wrote: »

I think the problem may be you? While struggling to read your Anglo-English I made out a (dubious attempt to bring in some French speakers aside) a "those funny foreigners with their funny ways, why can't they all just speak the Queens English" rant.
The EU is a union of 27 countries and many languages an cultures. Blaming multilingual countries for the inability of the English (and for that matter the Irish) is just bizarre.
Your only "suggestion" is to hire more British employees which is entirely a matter for the British Government and citizenry.

My "Anglo-English" ??
:rolleyes:

I also deeply resent your implication that I'm some kind of xenophobe. I never said anything remotely xenophobic or about 'funny foreigners'.

I made a perfectly reasonable point based on my experience of dealing with the EU. There is a huge issue with lack of clear communication in various languages and excessive use of verbose documents that are full of jargon that is entirely 'Eurospeak'.

It's a well-known problem in Brussels and people in the EU itself are quite aware that it's a major challenge.

What I was trying to point out is that because the EU institutions tend to consider multi-lingual applicants for many roles (including ones that don't necessarily even require a second language) that they narrow their talent pool and tend to exclude larger countries, particularly the UK and Spain which are exceptionally poor at speaking other languages due to the sheer scale of English and Spanish as global languages.

I'm not getting into a slagging match with you!

What I'm saying is that if you want to communicate with British euro-sceptic audiences, you need to have communications units that are capable of dealing with the subtleties of the target language and that are capable of getting down and dirty with tabloid journalists!

The EU institutions basically communicate to academics and a EU-focused press corps. That has to change if they're going to hope to get any kind of message to the citizens of Europe in an effective way.

If EU communications were working properly, there wouldn't be this information gap between regular punters and the mainstream media (including tabloids) and the EU.

As it stands, all I see is gaping holes in reports, total misunderstanding of EU institutional structures and systems and it all comes down to very poor communication and lack of engagement with the media in a meaningful way.
The press tends to glaze over when it comes to reporting EU issues because they are not communicating them with any kind of a narrative that is remotely interesting to the media.

All I see is dry, boring, longwinded press releases full of jargon!

I'm not being anti-EU, or xenophobic or anything of the sort. I am pointing out a HUGE problem that is causing the EU to shoot itself repeatedly in both feet.

micosoft

SpaceTime wrote: »

My "Anglo-English" ??
:rolleyes:

As opposed to their "Euro-Speak" :rolleyes: Perhaps when you stop speaking in Daily Mailese we can understand your arguments a little better.

SpaceTime wrote: »

I also deeply resent your implication that I'm some kind of xenophobe. I never said anything remotely xenophobic or about 'funny foreigners'.

Resent it all you want. It's what your xenophobic diatribe was. Using terms like:

SpaceTime wrote: »

Euro Bubble

SpaceTime wrote: »

Euro speak

SpaceTime wrote: »

eurocrat

SpaceTime wrote: »

Brussels Bubble

SpaceTime wrote: »

Eurocracy

was simply xenophobic offensive caricaturing of EU employees.

SpaceTime wrote: »

I made a perfectly reasonable point based on my experience of dealing with the EU. There is a huge issue with lack of clear communication in various languages and excessive use of verbose documents that are full of jargon that is entirely 'Eurospeak'.

This is not the Daily Mail comments section so no, your point is not reasonable. The later point applies to any government institution. Given they made an entire BBC series of language and verbosity called Yes Minister I really don't understand why you hold the EU to a standard the British Government cannot attain unless you are being UNREASONABLE.

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's a well-known problem in Brussels and people in the EU itself are quite aware that it's a major challenge.

They are aware of the challenge that 95% of reportage in the UK is utter lies about the EU from the usual suspects.

SpaceTime wrote: »

What I was trying to point out is that because the EU institutions tend to consider multi-lingual applicants for many roles (including ones that don't necessarily even require a second language) that they narrow their talent pool and tend to exclude larger countries, particularly the UK and Spain which are exceptionally poor at speaking other languages due to the sheer scale of English and Spanish as global languages.

Gee whiz - asking for multilingual staff in the EU!! When the official languages of the European Union are Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Irish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish that might be sensible no? The inability of English people to speak foreign languages is a reflection on the English Education system and English priorities. There are THREE official languages in Spain so I don't buy your mono lingual Spainish nonsense either.

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'm not getting into a slagging match with you!

What I'm saying is that if you want to communicate with British euro-sceptic audiences, you need to have communications units that are capable of dealing with the subtleties of the target language and that are capable of getting down and dirty with tabloid journalists!

The EU institutions basically communicate to academics and a EU-focused press corps. That has to change if they're going to hope to get any kind of message to the citizens of Europe in an effective way.

If EU communications were working properly, there wouldn't be this information gap between regular punters and the mainstream media (including tabloids) and the EU.

As it stands, all I see is gaping holes in reports, total misunderstanding of EU institutional structures and systems and it all comes down to very poor communication and lack of engagement with the media in a meaningful way.
The press tends to glaze over when it comes to reporting EU issues because they are not communicating them with any kind of a narrative that is remotely interesting to the media.

All I see is dry, boring, longwinded press releases full of jargon!

I'm not being anti-EU, or xenophobic or anything of the sort. I am pointing out a HUGE problem that is causing the EU to shoot itself repeatedly in both feet.

Or just maybe that's not the EU's job. Because as soon as the EU attempts to engage with the UK public it's shot down as propaganda or "euro-meddling" in your parlance.

It's for the UK Government and political parties to persuade the English Public of the merits of the EU - not the EU given the EU is it's membership (a point repeatedly missed or deliberately obfuscated by those against the EU) and to challenge the constant stream of deliberate lies from the bulk of the british press. That does not happen hence the UK relationship with the EU.

micosoft

SpaceTime wrote: »

Fair enough, I can't make any kind of constructive criticism of a huge publicly funded organisation's communications strategy without being called a xenophobe!

Couldn't be bothered posting on this forum anymore. It's worse than the YouTube comments section!

There is supposed to be rule of 'attack the post and not the poster'.

I am utterly offended that I am being called a xenophobe and I do not appreciate being torn to shreds on a personal basis on a forum.

This is the Pot calling the Kettle black. I spelt it out to you - the language & tone that you used was offensive and adds nothing to the debate i.e. not constructive. If you make your argument by calling people Euro-crats living in a Euro-bubble don't go suddenly get all upset when you are challenged about that language and the meaning of it.

If you had posted a constructive statement sans the Daily Mail speak I would have simply addressed you with the last piece of my answer - that it's not the EU's job to communicate to the citizens of a member state - it's that countries Government and other political parties job. Because the EU IS the Member States. Not some absurd 3rd party. So the local representative of the EU is that countries government. Therefore the failure in communicating the EU in the UK lies with the UK Government and UK's political parties. End of.

SpaceTime

micosoft wrote: »

Because the EU IS the Member States. Not some absurd 3rd party. So the local representative of the EU is that countries government. Therefore the failure in communicating the EU in the UK lies with the UK Government and UK's political parties. End of.

That's actually not the case, other than in respect of The Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers).

The European Commission and the various Directorate Generals (Departments) handle all of their own communications needs at their HQs and at local level in each EU country via the European Commissions representative offices and operate quite independently in terms of what they do on a day to day basis.

The commissioners are actually bound not to represent the interests of their own states as they are tasked with representing the European Union's interests.

The European Parliament is also not representative of the member state Governments and is not represented by them either. MEPs represent their constituents directly, not member-state Governments.

The situation you are describing hasn't existed in quite a long time and it's not up to member state governments to provide representative services for the EU. The EU's more than well enough resourced and capable of doing that itself.

The UK Government or any other member state Government doesn't really have any role in providing representation for the EU institutions. Other than the council, they exist as independent entities in their own right as established under the various treaties.

They are very much a third party, much like the US Federal Government is a 3rd party to an individual state (albeit quite a different setup but the same general concept applies)

Scofflaw

micosoft, your last couple of posts were an entirely unacceptable aggressive and misdirected response to a perfectly reasonable point, and one which is well known to anyone communicating the EU in the Member States.

If you're unable to respond to SpaceTime without engaging in this kind of behaviour, don't respond. An apology would also be appropriate.

moderately,
Scofflaw

micosoft

Scofflaw wrote: »

micosoft, your last couple of posts were an entirely unacceptable aggressive and misdirected response to a perfectly reasonable point, and one which is well known to anyone communicating the EU in the Member States.

If you're unable to respond to SpaceTime without engaging in this kind of behaviour, don't respond. An apology would also be appropriate.

moderately,
Scofflaw

I apologise for the over-aggressive tone to Spacetime. Based on personal experience I respectfully continue to disagree on the subject matter.

Yours cordially

Micosoft

Philope

The EU needs Britian more than Britian needs the EU

SpaceTime

Philope wrote: »

The EU needs Britian more than Britian needs the EU

Not so sure about that to be honest.
It's very 50:50.

The UK leaving the EU could potentially do immense damage to business and financial services there (possibly driving a lot of business TO Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg in particular).

It would depend very much on how much access to the single market the UK would be left with if it were to leave.

It would be bad news for the EU too as the UK is it's 2nd largest member state in terms of population and 3rd in terms of GDP.

I think the EU needs to embrace the UK a lot more than it does and the UK likewise needs to stop behaving so irrationally towards the EU.

There's a bit of couples' counselling needed! Both parties will need to compromise.

Philope

The same doom and gloom was predicted for Britian when they stayed out of the eurozone.

I'm not anti EU in any way, but unlike Ireland, the EU needs Britian more than they need the EU.

SpaceTime

Philope wrote: »

The same doom and gloom was predicted when Britian stayed out of the eurozone.

It's quite a different scenario though.
The Euro's not necessary for access to the market.
Membership of the EU might well be though as I don't know if the UK could necessarily get the same deal as Norway and Iceland as it's going to create quite an antagonising situation with some of the bigger EU countries and it's not a legacy situation.

They're already quite antagonised by the City of London's regulation regime.

Suddenly losing full, open access to the world's largest consumer market would be a huge shock.

Philope

SpaceTime wrote: »

The Euro's not necessary for access to the market..

It was claimed at the time that is was, and that Britian was doomed by staying out of it.

Every country is different, and Britian doesn't really need the EU

SpaceTime

Again though it would totally depend on how the EU reacted to the UK leaving.
If it just continued 'business as usual' it will make no difference really at all.

However, if the EU were to say fine. Off you go! Just don't expect to have access to the market. Then, it would be a serious game changer.

48.6% of UK exports still go to other EU countries. That's a HUGE chunk of the British goods/services economy.

The UK's also currently experiencing a fairly substantial trade deficit which would tend to indicate the economic recovery being experienced could be credit and consumer spending generated and isn't export led.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/09/stubborn-uk-trade-deficit-exports-imports-recovery

Philope

How do you think countries like Ireland would fair if they threatened Britain with that ?

SpaceTime

It would be France and Germany not Ireland calling the shots on that.

The French attitude is already that certain countries (UK, Ireland, Lux, NL etc) are undermining it through tax breaks. So, you could see where it could possibly end up as quite a bitter divorce.

It could be a mess for Ireland even if new investment came in, but I don't think that would be of any concern to the big two at the centre of Europe. We're just a little peripheral state that they see as having created huge financial problems. They probably wouldn't give it much thought.

Ultimately, I think what's going to happen in 2015 is the Tories will be out of office as their vote's being split by UKIP while their popularity's sinking anyway.
So, the most likely result is Labour in office again.
Current poll of polls is showing a 58 seat majority prediction for Labour if an election were called today.
So, this whole debate could be an irrelevance like it was when Major went out and Blair came in.

I think you also have to remember that the Tabloids and political correspondents and geeks are more hyped up about this than most people are. A lot of British voters just glaze-over when you talk about the EU. A minority get passionate about either side of the debate.

The reality of an election in the UK will be more about economics than anything else. The UK's experienced some pretty nasty austerity too. They're still proposing another £25bn in cuts!

If you watch the debates, the Tories are desperately trying to talk about everything except economics. Yes, they'll talk about GDP growth, but don't ask about debt levels or anything about balance of trade or exports.
Europe, immigration, Scottish independence... etc
GDP's growing, but nobody's looking at whether that's sustainable. Given that exports are falling, something would suggest a credit driven 'bounce'.

Philope

I think Ireland would be in big trouble if they supported, or failed to campaign against any EU motion to threaten Britain with that.

I also don't see how it would serve the EU to threaten Britian.

SpaceTime

No way Ireland would support move like that.
Irish economic and other links with the UK are just too strong and it would cause havoc with NI/ROI trade.

Philope

I also don't see how it would serve the EU to threaten Britian.

SpaceTime

Philope wrote: »

I also don't see how it would serve the EU to threaten Britian.

It wouldn't necessarily be threatening anything. It might just give them the option of leaving and then having to re-negoiate every aspect of the relationship.

There's really no precedent for it.
It's likely some kind of a flexible arrangement would be come to but who knows!

Some member states might have axes to grind. I mean, you could see the Eastern European states being very annoyed with a huge country getting full single market access without any of the burdens of EU membership.

It would seem rather unfair.

It could go lots of ways. Nobody really knows. I don't think it would the EU or the UK much good though.

sin_city

They have good reason to be anti EU.

Just look at how Norway and Switzerland do without being in the EU.

It was great for Ireland. We got so much free money.

Only problem for us was when the EU didnt respect our right to vote no in treaties and made us return with the correct vote

Scofflaw

Philope wrote: »

I think Ireland would be in big trouble if they supported, or failed to campaign against any EU motion to threaten Britain with that.

I also don't see how it would serve the EU to threaten Britian.

The rest of the EU wouldn't necessarily see it as "threatening" to withdraw single market access if the UK voluntarily left the EU. Indeed, without some other arrangement in place the UK would necessarily and automatically lose access and be on the outside of the EU's tariff walls until such an arrangement was negotiated.

As to how Ireland would fare - well, now, how would an extremely close English-speaking jurisdiction with very similar legislative and regulatory regimes and strong historic ties but still inside the single market fare if the UK were to leave....? I'd say the big question is would there be enough room in Dublin for all the UK companies that suddenly needed to relocate?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

sin_city wrote: »

They have good reason to be anti EU.

Just look at how Norway and Switzerland do without being in the EU.

It was great for Ireland. We got so much free money.

Only problem for us was when the EU didnt respect our right to vote no in treaties and made us return with the correct vote

The EU can't (and didn't) make us re-run our referendums. Our own governments did that.

EU Treaties are written by the governments of the Member States. The institutional EU's role in such matters is passive - they are required to respect the outcome, and not to get involved in the process. Other EU countries may comment or encourage one or other side, but that is not the EU.

The Irish government didn't have the Lisbon Treaty or any other EU treaty imposed on them, but supported it because it was a deal they had negotiated with the other Member States. In the same way, they didn't have a referendum re-run imposed on them, but chose to do it because they wanted a Yes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Philope

Scofflaw wrote: »

The rest of the EU wouldn't necessarily see it as "threatening" to withdraw single market access if the UK voluntarily left the EU.

The rest of the EU might not, but the UK probably would, and I doubt they'd be too happy if Ireland supported such a move.

Scofflaw

Philope wrote: »

The rest of the EU might not, but the UK probably would, and I doubt they'd be too happy if Ireland supported such a move.

There's not really very much they could do about that, though. We're a large export market of theirs, whichever way you look at it.

And legally, there isn't a case to be made as such. If the UK leaves without negotiating something like EEA membership, then it just doesn't legally have any right of access to the single market. Any Member State is free to withdraw from the EU at any time, but you can't both withdraw and keep the benefits of membership.

That simply cannot be described as "threatening". That's like saying you want a divorce but describing as "threatening" any suggestion that you won't then have marital rights. It's not a threat, it's a consequence of the action you're choosing.

About the only thing that could be done in a hurry is to negotiate a free-trade agreement that simply replicates the current access, but those have to be signed off in every EU country, so it only takes one veto. I doubt that veto would be Irish, but that's one out of 27.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Peregrinus

Philope wrote: »

The rest of the EU might not, but the UK probably would, and I doubt they'd be too happy if Ireland supported such a move.

I'm not sure why you would see this as a "threat". The fundamental pillars of the EU are the " the four freedoms" - free movement of goods, capital, services and persons as between all member states. If the UK decides to withdraw from the EU, then, as between the UK and the EU, none of these can be demanded as of right, or taken for granted; they are matters for negotiation as between the UK and the EU.

In those negotiations, of course, each party will look to its own interests. And since the thesis behind the movement for UK withdrawal is that UK interests frequently do not align with those of the rest of the EU, that could make for some difficult negotiations; the parties will be hoping for different outcomes.

But none of that amounts to a threat. Any suggestion that the UK might leave the EU, but that being expected to live with the consequences of leaving is in some sense a "threat", is to my mind unrealistic.

That's not to say that the negotiations might not end up with the UK getting access to EU markets for its goods and services. Three other countries - Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway - have access to the four freedoms through participation in the European Economic Area, and I suspect this would be offered to the UK.

Whether the UK would want access on the same terms as those three countries is another matter - they effectively have to adopt relevant EU law with only limited rights to participate in making it - but the UK being offered it can hardly be described as a "threat".

Philope

Britain were also threatened with all sorts for leaving the Euro zone, but the EU came to their senses and realised such actions would be counterproductive for them, and many of their members.

Peregrinus

Britain never left the eurozone; they were never part of it. I don't recall Britain being threatened with anything for not joining. Various people made predictions about how this would turn out for Britain and, mostly, those predictions have not been borne out. But if anybody threatened action which they subsequently decided not to take, as your post implies, that escaped my notice at the time.

As for leaving the EU entirely, if the UK wants an external relationship with the EU, they're going to have to negotiate it. That's not a threat; it's a simple statement of reality. There are plenty of existing models for such a relationship; it's for the EU to decide which of those might be offered to a non-member UK, and for the UK to decide if what is offered is in their interests, or whether they want to make a counter-offer seeking some new model of relationship. If you can parlay that observation into a "threat" to the UK, I'm afraid we will suspect you of having a persecution complex!

Philope

Less of the ad hom please.

The UK negotiated an opt out from the eurozone, but at the time they were promised all sorts of disasters would befall them.

Peregrinus

Fair enough, I withdraw and apologise. But can you be more particular about the actions threatened against the UK which people later realised would be counterproductive? I still suspect you may be remembering something that didn't actually happen.

Scofflaw

Philope wrote: »

Less of the ad hom please.

The UK negotiated an opt out from the eurozone, but at the time they were promised all sorts of disasters would befall them.

Promised by whom? And when you say "promised all sorts of disasters" are you saying that people predicted these things would happen, or threatened to make them happen?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boroso

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fair enough, I withdraw and apologise. But can you be more particular about the actions threatened against the UK which people later realised would be counterproductive? I still suspect you may be remembering something that didn't actually happen.

All sorts of dire warnings of the apocalypse that will happen any country which dares to leave the full embrace of the EU will be predicted, as many of those who cherish the idea of ever closer union (which translates as transferring more and more power to the centre) simply can’t bear to contemplate that more and more Europeans no longer agree with that policy, and want to see it reversed.

Britain’s trade with the EU accounts for around 14% of its total trade. That’s a lot, and its 15% with non EU and 71% domestic. To suggest that the UK will be in limbo for a protracted time, and imply that it will be unable to trade with other countries in the EU, is as preposterous as it is ridiculous that all those other EU countries will be content to cease selling all their goods to the UK.

The WTO rules trump the EU, and the EU would be stupid to try to prevent, for example, Germany selling BMW’s and Mercedes and Volkswagen cars to the UK. If that, and similar, is what Scofflaw is suggesting might happen, it’s all the more reason for many as to why they no longer want to give the EU any more power, and want to take back powers from such an institution.

MarkK

Boroso wrote: »

All sorts of dire warnings of the apocalypse that will happen any country which dares to leave the full embrace of the EU will be predicted,

The question is predicted by whom?

It's also predicted that the UK will become some sort of nirvana free of regulations and illegal immigrants if they leave the EU.

Peregrinus

Let's get a little bit realistic. Nobody is suggesting that, if the UK leaves the EU, the EU will attempt to ban EU-produced goods from being sold to Britain. The issue is UK-produced good and services; they will no longer have free access, as a matter of right, to EU markets, as they currently do.

Yes, WTO rules will still apply, but currently UK producers enjoy access to other EU countries on considerably more advantageous terms than the WTO requires. Should Britain choose to rely simply on its WTO rights, it will enjoy the same right of access to EU markets as, say, the US or India. That is significantly less advantageous than the current terns.

Of course, this cuts both ways. Producers in the EU-26 will enjoy correspondingly restricted rights to enter the UK market. But, let's be honest, this is a much bigger issue for the EU than for the UK. More than half of the UK's external trade is with the EU-26; I don't have a figure for the proportion of the EU-26 external trade which is with the UK, but it's nothing like that.

There's no doubt that (a) the EU will want more favourable access than the WTO would entitle them to, and (b) that they can get it. But there is equally no doubt that they won't get it on the terms they now have it as EU members. Most likely the best deal they can get will be as EEA members.

The thing is, is this what the UK (or the proponents of UK withdrawal) want? In particular, if you're of the Daily Mail school of euroscepticism, EEA membership is a really bad deal - fully subject to, and bound by, all the "straight banana" EU regulations that the Daily Mail imagines to abound, but practically no right to influence the making or content of those regulations. Plus, still subject to an obligtation to make financial contributions to the Eu budget. If your object in withdrawing from the EU is avoid all that, then you don't want EEA membership either. That leaves you relying on your WTO rights, plus whatever extra you can negotiate with the EU, in a situation where the EU has a much stronger bargaining position than the UK does.

I'm not saying that this could never be in the interests of the UK. I'm saying that there are real risks for, and costs to, the UK in withdrawing from the EU, and pointing that out is not a "threat".

SpaceTime

The other issue is with freedom of movement and of residence.
This seems to be one of the driving forces behind the debate in the UK.

If the UK were to ban EU migrants having left the EU where would that leave the well ovet 1m UK citizens who are permanently resident in other EU states.

It would probably be ok for Irish-British freedom of movement as there are pre-EU agreements and legacy arrangements covering that that go well beyond EU interconnections.

However, what would happen to all other aspects of it? Britons currently enjoy a huge range of health and social benefits when resident elsewhere in the EU.

Would all the insolvent pensioners suddenly be stuffed onto the next flight back from Malaga?

Would UK citizens suddenly be no longer able to work in bars, cafes, participate in Erasumus exchanges etc etc

What would happen to the rather large number of UK citizens working for EU institutions and agencies?

Would structural funding paid to UK regions be refunded to the EU?

Would British farming function without CAP or would it suddenly be forced to be economically viable on its own?

There are vast numbers of issues that would arrise once you get beyond the simple political rhetoric.

For all the down sides there are upsides that the tabloid arguments don't mention.

This could end up being an absolute mess. The timing (during a major global recession / economic instability) couldn't be worse either.

I know for a fact many people in the EU institutions see it like being kicked while they're down and can't understand why the UK parties are adding more instability to what's already a mess.

I don't necessarily think some people will be very happy to bend over backwards to facilitate anything. They could be left in the cold much more dramatically than they think.

Boroso

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course, this cuts both ways. Producers in the EU-26 will enjoy correspondingly restricted rights to enter the UK market. But, let's be honest, this is a much bigger issue for the EU than for the UK. More than half of the UK's external trade is with the EU-26; I don't have a figure for the proportion of the EU-26 external trade which is with the UK, but it's nothing like that.

14% of the UK's trade is with other EU countries, and 15% with non EU countries.

If your argument is that the UK should remain in the EU because it will lose all that 14% of its trade, then tell us. Teshnically, thats less than half and not "more than half" as you claim, although its a small issue.

Or if your argument is that the EU should remain in the EU, and hand over more and more powers to the EU in the coming years, to retain that 14% ( or however much of that 14% you estimate it will lose), then tell us that also.

The problem with this sort of argument is that, across Europe, the growing number of Europeans who are dissatisfied with the EU, and the growing number of those who want to stop handing over more power to the EU and to take powers back frmm the EU, these sorts of arguments are trumped by the what are considered to be more fundamental issues of democracy and self determination.

No one wants to lose what they see as their never ending right to self determination, for a few percent of todays trade. That would be a pretty rotten bargain.

SpaceTime

Are you sure about those stats?

With services exports included (most of the UK economy is services) the figures I have seen are more like 48%

I'm on a mobile but a casual Google brings up ;

Office of National Statistics (British Government)

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/itis/international-trade-in-services/2011/sty-international-trade-in-services.html

There are a lot of inaccurate stats being thrown around in this debate.

MarkK

Boroso wrote: »

14% of the UK's trade is with other EU countries, and 15% with non EU countries.

Trade figures usually refer to foreign trade.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/trade-figures