Europe

[darmstadt]

What we do have in the UK that the EU does not have is a CUK of our very own. I dont know what your hysterical ramblings are seeking to achieve but you and your EU friends can keep your hands off CUK. If you do not like it why not set up a German anti UK propoganda forum of your own?

I have never once said that I am pro-EU, all I have ever posted is in response to your anti-EU rants just to keep some balance. I believe thats part of what a democracy is about. Why would I want to set-up a German anti-UK forum as most of the Germans I know actually quite like the UK whereas most British people (actually I should quantify that, English) seem to have a hang-up about Germany, in particular middle England.

[sasguru]

BBC News - Could airport hub capacity see UK lose out to rivals?

Speaking of Turkey I read this yesterday about the rise in passengers it's seen since 2002 when it was 10 million to now 45 million in 2012.

Business people go to where the money is.

[sasguru]

What's funny about this thread is how so many Europeans (and I include the Uk) think of Europe as being a place that will somehow always be rich. This sort of thinking is encouraged by terminology such as the "developed" world, as if it is a linear process you go along till you reach economic nirvana, there forever to stay.
Whereas anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history knows that it is cyclical, once great and rich empires crash and burn and become dirt poor e.g. India, China, the fertile cresenct part of the Middle East, some of the wealthy kingdoms in Africa.
And some rise again, some don't.

[DodgyAgent]

I have never once said that I am pro-EU, all I have ever posted is in response to your anti-EU rants just to keep some balance. I believe thats part of what a democracy is about. Why would I want to set-up a German anti-UK forum as most of the Germans I know actually quite like the UK whereas most British people (actually I should quantify that, English) seem to have a hang-up about Germany, in particular middle England.

Just about every opportunity you have you cannot stop yourself from sniping at the UK.
I have no hang up about Germany and nor do most Brits I simply respond to your pathetic comments by pointing out that your precious Germany is not necessarily as great as you would have us believe. I use metaphors from German behaviour and German history because I do not think you have the intellect to see a point unless it is supported by something that is so precious to you.
So when for example I point to the inexorable walk to a totalitarian state, I draw a parallel with Hitler because it supports my argument in terms that you might understand. It does not mean I have a problem with the Germans.

[Gibbon]

It does not mean I have a problem with the Germans.

I have no problem with their saunas!

[stevejohnson]

What's funny about this thread is how so many Europeans (and I include the Uk) think of Europe as being a place that will somehow always be rich. This sort of thinking is encouraged by terminology such as the "developed" world, as if it is a linear process you go along till you reach economic nirvana, there forever to stay.
Whereas anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history knows that it is cyclical, once great and rich empires crash and burn and become dirt poor e.g. India, China, the fertile cresenct part of the Middle East, some of the wealthy kingdoms in Africa.
And some rise again, some don't.

Yes it is what us the mortal people are missing. Countries, immigration, labor protection, that is all 20th century thinking. The people who will be well off this century are international, able to adapt no matter what happens in the country. In or out of the EU politicians will find a way to screw you unless you have made sure you are hard to flip with.

[DodgyAgent]

Yes it is what us the mortal people are missing. Countries, immigration, labor protection, that is all 20th century thinking. The people who will be well off this century are international, able to adapt no matter what happens in the country. In or out of the EU politicians will find a way to screw you unless you have made sure you are hard to flip with.

Yes, if you can be devious, manipulative and determined enough to be either part of the EU Elite or a businessman so rich and powerful certainly.
But for the rest of this is what we will get:

The European Union & Soviet Union similarities - 2013 - YouTube

[minestrone]

If we just never had those pesky wars.

[stevejohnson]

Yes, if you can be devious, manipulative and determined enough to be either part of the EU Elite or a businessman so rich and powerful certainly.
But for the rest of this is what we will get:

The European Union & Soviet Union similarities - 2013 - YouTube

"Soviet Union" Authoritarianism is not exclusive to the former soviet union, but is all around us and capitalism for example is even worse in terms of power concentration.

I just hope that if you drop from the EU, they apply to you the same reciprocal measures. For example no UK person can work in the EU unless they have a visa and has proven that a local person is not available. Boy I am gonna laugh my arse out if I live to see the situation turn around like that !

I also want to tell you that the scare with the countries joining in 2014 to the Uk labor market is mostly a media campaign by political reelection agendas. Ireland allowed those two countries to work from last year and there has been no doom, or mass murder, no civil wars nothing. Some people will come to the UK yes, but they will put under the same interviewing process as you and it is up to the employer to hire them, and if they do hire them, it means the employer had no other choice, because believe me they will definitely prefer a local candidate as you know from contracting experience.

I do agree that newcomers should not get benefits without having contributed to the economy, but constrain the debate to fixing that one issue , not going stupid and leaving the EU.

[darmstadt]

I do agree that newcomers should not get benefits without having contributed to the economy, but constrain the debate to fixing that one issue , not going stupid and leaving the EU.

On British radio, a leading business organisation said 'UK business doesn't want to leave the EU, what they want is all the benefits but without having to pay the subsidies.' A bit like a contractor getting contractor rates but his client also providing them with all the permie benefits on top.

A quote from a socialist rag:

The truth is that the UK has never lost a vote on financial market regulation in the EU. We pay about £1 per person per week for membership, and for that don’t just get access to the world’s largest single market, but also shape its rules, and get the benefits of EU clout on global trade (trade agreements with 46 other countries). The tragedy of government rhetoric over the last two years is that it has demonised the status quo in Europe, without advancing an alternative. The fantasy island occupied by Boris Johnson of a club that is all single market and no social, environmental, or judicial cooperation doesn’t exist.

I hope the irony was not lost on anyone that the Prime Minister’s announcement of his big idea for his G8 Presidency – an EU-US trade deal – depends on, yes, the agreement of the EU operating by qualified majority. In the absence of global government, regional associations like the EU are going to become more important in the modern world. If it looks like Britain has forgotten that, and certainly that is the impression from large swathes of the Tory party, then the rest of Europe is going to say "shut up or get out". In fact we should do neither: we should be advancing serious ideas for the EU to advance an agenda appropriate for all 28 members, including Britain.

And a not quite socialist rag:

If Britain walked away entirely—the most extreme scenario—it would quickly see some benefits. The country would no longer have to transfer funds to the EU to subsidise farm incomes or poorer regions. Treasury figures suggest it would be £8 billion ($13 billion) better off each year. Food could become cheaper. Under WTO rules, countries may slash import barriers unilaterally as long as they do not favour some countries over others. Britain could do this for agricultural produce. It would regain control over fishing rights around its coast.

Some irksome regulations could be ditched, too. First to go (if the Tories are in power when Britain leaves) would be the working-time directive. This limits how long people can be at work without a break or a holiday and caps the working week at 48 hours. The scrapping of the EU’s agency-worker directive, which gives temporary staff the same rights as regular employees, would be cheered by business, too. Britain would be free to set itself a less exacting target for green-power generation than it is bound to under the EU’s renewable-energy directive. That could mean cheaper power.

London’s financial district would look to past glories. It thrived as an offshore centre for deposit-taking and loan-making in dollars long before Britain joined the EU. Outside the club, it would be freer to market itself as a freewheeling hub for emerging-market finance—a sort of Singapore on steroids. Free of the obligation to abide by ever-changing EU rules on alternative investments, hedge funds that have left London might be lured back. The burden of impending European Solvency 2 regulations on the insurance industry would become less onerous.

Yet a bonfire of regulations would smoulder rather than blaze. Domestic and global commitments to greenery constrain Britain’s energy policy, for example. And EU regulations bite less hard than is commonly supposed. Britain already has one of the most flexible labour markets in the rich world (employees can opt out of the 48-hour week). This helps to explain why the unemployment rate is as low as in America or Canada, despite a more sluggish economy.

Product regulations would be harder to junk than labour laws. The British suppliers to Airbus, the Franco-German aircraft manufacturer, have to comply with exacting standards. But these exist not because of meddling by Brussels, but to ensure aircraft are safe. Similarly, a minimum standard of food safety stops a race to the bottom by competing firms. British ones would still have to observe Europe’s product regulations in order to export there. A separate set of regulations tailored for the home market would only add to red tape.

That goes for the City, too. Global finance favours common standards, such as the Basel accords on bank capital. And, far from racing to the bottom, countries with large financial sectors are now as likely to create even tougher rules. The Bank of England has hinted that Basel is not strong enough.

And some immediate gains would evaporate as special-interest groups redirected their attention from Brussels to Westminster. British farmers would lose £2.7 billion in EU subsidies once Britain left. They are a noisy lobby group, and it is unlikely that the government would hang on to all that cash. The farming lobby would also try to stand in the way of lowering tariffs on food imported from beyond Europe, potentially depriving the government of a bargaining chip in trade negotiations with big emerging markets such as Brazil and India.

If the benefits of leaving the single market are qualified, what of the costs? The price of exclusion is much smaller than when Britain joined in 1973. Tariff barriers across the world have been steadily lowered in trade deals brokered by GATT and its successor, the WTO. If import tariffs are weighted by the volume of trade in each product, the average faced by exporters from outside the EU into the single market has fallen to around 3%. Exporters routinely have to absorb cost increases of this size caused by a surge in the oil price or a jump in the exchange rate.

Even so, the impact on industries such as food and textiles, where tariffs are much higher than the average, would be far from mild. British dairy exports would incur an import tax of 55% to reach the EU market, with tariffs on some items of more than 200%. Cheddar cheese would face a tariff of €167 per 100kg; the mark-up on Stilton would be €141. Average tariffs on clothing would push up their price in European markets by 12%.

Parts of Britain’s car industry would move out. British-based producers would face a 4% tariff on car-equipment sales to the EU, and there would be pressure to impose tariffs on components imported from it. Factories owned by carmakers with plants and supply chains in other parts of the EU would be most at risk. Vital car components might be held up by customs as they leave the continent. A cheap pound and a flexible workforce may not be enough to keep GM in Britain, for instance, even though it sells many cars there.

The calculation would be slightly different for other carmakers. Only a small fraction of the 300,000 cars Jaguar Land Rover makes in Britain are destined for the EU market. A lot of Minis, made in Britain by BMW, are also sold outside Europe, where they attract an import tariff anyway. Much of what distinguishes a Jaguar from a Mercedes is that it is designed and made in Britain (as are lots of components). There would be little benefit, but huge costs to the brand, in shifting production elsewhere. Japanese carmakers would suffer: most of their British output is sold in the EU, says John Leech of KPMG, a consultancy. But they cannot easily switch production to continental factories, and many of their supplies come from Japan. They would stick around longer than many think.

Over time, though, the general drift of business investment would be away from Britain and towards the continent. That goes for finance, too. If London wants to be the regional hub for trading China’s currency, it will need to retain its position as the main centre for settling trades of cash and derivatives in euros. Some in Europe resent this: the governor of France’s central bank complained this week that euro deals should be done in euroland. Without the shield of single-market rules, London could lose out to rival EU centres.

Financiers from today’s rising economic powers, in Asia and Latin America, are keener on access to a European market of 500m than on the light regulation that drew American banks to London in the 1950s and 1960s. TheCityUK, a lobby group, studied 147 siting decisions between 2006 and 2012. It found that more than two-fifths of finance firms gave access to European markets as a core reason for choosing London. Although the single market in financial services is still a work in progress, “passporting rights” entitle investment firms, banks and insurers based in Britain to establish branches or provide services throughout the EEA.