The 'No to the EU' campaign
Discussion
Pan Pan Pan said:
There is simply no logic in the EU spending billions trying to keep a basket case, non contributing, non productive, intractable country like Greece in the system,. whilst at the same ignoring legitimate requests for reform, from its second largest financial contributor.
Don't mix up the Euro with the EU. They have been desperate to keep Greece in the Euro, although my own feeling is they have now decided that it can go and they will collectively swallow the consequences to the short term value of the Euro. I had a fascinating discussion with two gentlemen last night over dinner. One is a senior chap at the British Bankers' Federation. The other a partner in a major City accountancy company. The latter specialises in Oil & Gas and works with clients in Moscow and the Ukraine.
The conversation got around to a possible referendum in the UK and what would happen if Britain were to leave. The accountant was of the opinion that the world would end if we left and that it was absolutely imperative for Britain to stay within the EU.
The Bankers' Federation chap completely disagreed with him. When I asked him whether it would be difficult for us to trade with the EU if we left, he replied , "No, we would simply sort out a deal with the EU. It would not be difficult and would very much be in the EU's interest".
I was surprised by his reply as I has assumed that he would be firmly in the 'status quo' camp.
The conversation got around to a possible referendum in the UK and what would happen if Britain were to leave. The accountant was of the opinion that the world would end if we left and that it was absolutely imperative for Britain to stay within the EU.
The Bankers' Federation chap completely disagreed with him. When I asked him whether it would be difficult for us to trade with the EU if we left, he replied , "No, we would simply sort out a deal with the EU. It would not be difficult and would very much be in the EU's interest".
I was surprised by his reply as I has assumed that he would be firmly in the 'status quo' camp.
Blib said:
....
The Bankers' Federation chap completely disagreed with him. When I asked him whether it would be difficult for us to trade with the EU if we left, he replied simply, "No, we would simply sort out a deal with the EU. It would not be difficult and would very much be in the EU's interest".
I was surprised by his reply as I has assumed that he would be firmly in the 'status quo' camp.
The EU has been a green eyed monster around the UK's financial services industry (no matter what people here might think of it) and are wanting to regulate it out of existence (or rather move the balance of power of it). So it's no real surprise.The Bankers' Federation chap completely disagreed with him. When I asked him whether it would be difficult for us to trade with the EU if we left, he replied simply, "No, we would simply sort out a deal with the EU. It would not be difficult and would very much be in the EU's interest".
I was surprised by his reply as I has assumed that he would be firmly in the 'status quo' camp.
The EU rely on our trade more than vice versa, especially countries like Germany. There is simply no way they would cut their noses off to spite their face if we exited. It would be seriously detrimental to them to make life difficult.
AJS- said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
This hinges on whether CMD is serious about adhering to the results of a UK referendum, or whether it is just a marketing exercise, and no matter what the result, the UK will be staying in the EU under a poor set of terms. Rather like some other countries being given the option to keep on voting until they come up with the `right' answer!
I think he will adhere to the result, but with a tax payer funded In campaign, the usual scaremongering from "big business" and a loaded question, set against a shambolic Out campaign which isn't even clear on what it is arguing for (I.e. EEA, EFTA, neither) it's very likely to be an In vote anyway. Again it looks more like the 1991 referendum on the USSR than an open debate on the future of the country. This is only partly Cameron's doing, and in a large part a failure of the Out campaign. However I still think it's woefully optimistic to believe that Cameron is even seeking any meaningful reforms.
Wish he was my MP:
The Mayor of London thinks Britain should reject any deal that David Cameron negotiates with Brussels because he does not think the EU will surrender sufficient powers back to the UK.
Mr Johnson has told friends that the British public voting 'no' would force the EU to make another deal, one which would be much more favourable to British interests.
That new deal could then be voted on in ANOTHER referendum.
The Mayor of London thinks Britain should reject any deal that David Cameron negotiates with Brussels because he does not think the EU will surrender sufficient powers back to the UK.
Mr Johnson has told friends that the British public voting 'no' would force the EU to make another deal, one which would be much more favourable to British interests.
That new deal could then be voted on in ANOTHER referendum.
Not sure about that...
So we vote again until we get the answer right. Déja vu?
Then a similar Common Market => European Union transformation occurs.
Because the EU project is about political union via ever closer union and the basic aim remains.
If so and pragmatism suggests it is, is that a win or a different iteration of a can kick sell out?
So we vote again until we get the answer right. Déja vu?
Then a similar Common Market => European Union transformation occurs.
Because the EU project is about political union via ever closer union and the basic aim remains.
If so and pragmatism suggests it is, is that a win or a different iteration of a can kick sell out?
NicD said:
Wish he was my MP:
The Mayor of London thinks Britain should reject any deal that David Cameron negotiates with Brussels because he does not think the EU will surrender sufficient powers back to the UK.
Mr Johnson has told friends that the British public voting 'no' would force the EU to make another deal, one which would be much more favourable to British interests.
That new deal could then be voted on in ANOTHER referendum.
So if we vote to leave the EU then they go and negotiate a few more empty concessions and hold another referendum until we get it right? Not something I'll be celebrating. How about if we vote to leave we get out and stay out?The Mayor of London thinks Britain should reject any deal that David Cameron negotiates with Brussels because he does not think the EU will surrender sufficient powers back to the UK.
Mr Johnson has told friends that the British public voting 'no' would force the EU to make another deal, one which would be much more favourable to British interests.
That new deal could then be voted on in ANOTHER referendum.
Boris seems to be lining himself up as the top Tory who could back an Out vote. I suspect he won't and that this is just another exercise in hedging bets, and ensuring that if we do get it wrong in the first referendum there will be a second and a third until we get it right.
The simple truth of the matter is that so long as we are signatory to the treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Lisbon we are committed to a political union. It doesn't matter what was sold to us in the 1970s, or what will be sold to us ahead of this referendum. That much is there in the treaties.
The simple truth of the matter is that so long as we are signatory to the treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Lisbon we are committed to a political union. It doesn't matter what was sold to us in the 1970s, or what will be sold to us ahead of this referendum. That much is there in the treaties.
V8 Fettler said:
Is there any data re: cost benefit analysis for staying in or getting out? Or is it all guesswork at the moment?
Far too many unknowns, the biggest one being what exactly out means. I.e. EEA, EFTA, Customs Union, bilateral trade agreement or total separation and default to WTO rules. What the results of that are - e.g. it's not inconceivable that Denmark and/or Sweden would look at their position in the EU if this happened.There's also the question of what In means - whether Cameron has the ability or any desire to make meaningful reforms, and the EU any inclination to play along.
As far as I can tell people who come out with daft statements like estimating that X,000 jobs will be lost or GDP will be 2.5413% lower in April 2030 (or indeed vice versa, though this seems less common) are talking absolute rubbish.
AJS- said:
V8 Fettler said:
Is there any data re: cost benefit analysis for staying in or getting out? Or is it all guesswork at the moment?
Far too many unknowns, the biggest one being what exactly out means. I.e. EEA, EFTA, Customs Union, bilateral trade agreement or total separation and default to WTO rules. What the results of that are - e.g. it's not inconceivable that Denmark and/or Sweden would look at their position in the EU if this happened.There's also the question of what In means - whether Cameron has the ability or any desire to make meaningful reforms, and the EU any inclination to play along.
As far as I can tell people who come out with daft statements like estimating that X,000 jobs will be lost or GDP will be 2.5413% lower in April 2030 (or indeed vice versa, though this seems less common) are talking absolute rubbish.
I think all voting is always based on guessing the future as there are far too many variables to be really known.
That's why I prefer to go with solid principles, like democratic government and national independence, as while they might have some short term costs they tend to come right in the long run.
That's why I prefer to go with solid principles, like democratic government and national independence, as while they might have some short term costs they tend to come right in the long run.
irocfan said:
I really don't understand it everywhere countries are splitting up or looking for independence (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Scotland, Catalonia, Basque region, Waloons etc) and yet the powers that be are trying for a superstate? Is it only me that see the irony?
It's as I wrote on the UKIP thread; the post which started with Why do countries exist?Short version.
This is a natural process in human behaviour. People like to live in groups for mutual comfort, aid and protection. The grouping could be based on geography, race, religion, language etc.
As long as the grouping is seen as to the benefit of all then it works. As soon as it doesn't then since the dawn of time a subset who are dissatisfied or being made the mug clear off to the next cave or valley etc.
Bigger the group and more disparate the members more difficult it is to keep it together.
EU has gone way beyond a sensible size and too much difference between the members for long term stability.
Only way such groups can be held together is by force, that doesn't necessarily mean exclusively military force, but economic, political and propaganda are other measures. The only one that the EU hasn't yet deployed is military.
FiF said:
irocfan said:
I really don't understand it everywhere countries are splitting up or looking for independence (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Scotland, Catalonia, Basque region, Waloons etc) and yet the powers that be are trying for a superstate? Is it only me that see the irony?
It's as I wrote on the UKIP thread; the post which started with Why do countries exist?Short version.
This is a natural process in human behaviour. People like to live in groups for mutual comfort, aid and protection. The grouping could be based on geography, race, religion, language etc.
As long as the grouping is seen as to the benefit of all then it works. As soon as it doesn't then since the dawn of time a subset who are dissatisfied or being made the mug clear off to the next cave or valley etc.
Bigger the group and more disparate the members more difficult it is to keep it together.
EU has gone way beyond a sensible size and too much difference between the members for long term stability.
Only way such groups can be held together is by force, that doesn't necessarily mean exclusively military force, but economic, political and propaganda are other measures. The only one that the EU hasn't yet deployed is military.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-...
FiF said:
Bigger the group and more disparate the members more difficult it is to keep it together.
EU has gone way beyond a sensible size and too much difference between the members for long term stability.
For me the issue is more subtle than that - the bigger the group the less prescriptive the solutions need to be.EU has gone way beyond a sensible size and too much difference between the members for long term stability.
I don't see a big issue with a Federal Europe (or world) as long as we have appropriately devolved powers that allow regional needs to be met and doesn't mandate solutions to all that are not universally compatible.
The reality is that this is not what we have even nationally, let alone across the EU!
My struggle is that I look around (northern) Europe and see people who want what I want from life and are prepared to put in to society to get that. I look at most of our immediate neighbours and see prosperous, healthy and happy people. The needs and wants of the Germans, Dutch, Belgians, Swedes, Danes, etc. are what I need and want. We are compatible socially and politically. Why wouldn't we want to be close to them? Are they bad people? Is their culture and society evil, unhealthy or backward? Of course not.
The main issue is the the EU will only work as an all-or-nothing entity. The UK is similar - the wealthy SE is a net contributor to inner cities and rural parts of the UK. This is done because we're a unit - they're us. The issue in the EU is that we don't see Greece as 'us'. They're 'them'.
We still see UK us and them between the nations after hundreds of years together. There's little chance of that being any different in the EU in the very short time-scales post-war.
AJS- said:
I think all voting is always based on guessing the future as there are far too many variables to be really known.
That's why I prefer to go with solid principles, like democratic government and national independence, as while they might have some short term costs they tend to come right in the long run.
Solid principles? Looks like guesswork to me.That's why I prefer to go with solid principles, like democratic government and national independence, as while they might have some short term costs they tend to come right in the long run.
Models needed, based on solid data and reliable forecasts. Most British people who voted to remain within the Common Market in the 1970s did so to benefit from cheap tobacco and alcohol, need more information this time.
IainT said:
For me the issue is more subtle than that - the bigger the group the less prescriptive the solutions need to be.
I don't see a big issue with a Federal Europe (or world) as long as we have appropriately devolved powers that allow regional needs to be met and doesn't mandate solutions to all that are not universally compatible.
The reality is that this is not what we have even nationally, let alone across the EU!
My struggle is that I look around (northern) Europe and see people who want what I want from life and are prepared to put in to society to get that. I look at most of our immediate neighbours and see prosperous, healthy and happy people. The needs and wants of the Germans, Dutch, Belgians, Swedes, Danes, etc. are what I need and want. We are compatible socially and politically. Why wouldn't we want to be close to them? Are they bad people? Is their culture and society evil, unhealthy or backward? Of course not.
The main issue is the the EU will only work as an all-or-nothing entity. The UK is similar - the wealthy SE is a net contributor to inner cities and rural parts of the UK. This is done because we're a unit - they're us. The issue in the EU is that we don't see Greece as 'us'. They're 'them'.
We still see UK us and them between the nations after hundreds of years together. There's little chance of that being any different in the EU in the very short time-scales post-war.
Well yes, one big problem with the EU is that it sees the answer to every problem as greater integration. Then when that step of closer integration hasn't worked they go round the iteration with more integration that's going to fix it this time. I don't see a big issue with a Federal Europe (or world) as long as we have appropriately devolved powers that allow regional needs to be met and doesn't mandate solutions to all that are not universally compatible.
The reality is that this is not what we have even nationally, let alone across the EU!
My struggle is that I look around (northern) Europe and see people who want what I want from life and are prepared to put in to society to get that. I look at most of our immediate neighbours and see prosperous, healthy and happy people. The needs and wants of the Germans, Dutch, Belgians, Swedes, Danes, etc. are what I need and want. We are compatible socially and politically. Why wouldn't we want to be close to them? Are they bad people? Is their culture and society evil, unhealthy or backward? Of course not.
The main issue is the the EU will only work as an all-or-nothing entity. The UK is similar - the wealthy SE is a net contributor to inner cities and rural parts of the UK. This is done because we're a unit - they're us. The issue in the EU is that we don't see Greece as 'us'. They're 'them'.
We still see UK us and them between the nations after hundreds of years together. There's little chance of that being any different in the EU in the very short time-scales post-war.
Yet there are 28 very different members who can't often deal with their own internal tensions all wanting their own spin on things.
It isn't a multiple choice exam.
The data and the models simply don't exist. They can not predict GDP, an abstract metric whose measurement they also control, from one quarter to the next.
The so called "social sciences" are modern day soothsaying in this regard. It is a massively complex question with no reliable data, and even where there is it provides no insight into what will happen due to things entirely beyond our control.
Principles matter because that governs how you respond to events. My observation is that democratic countries with free market economies respond a lot better than centralised bureaucracies with directed economies.
If you are looking for some even vaguely accurate balance sheet detailing even a significant number of the opportunities and pitfalls inherent to either of the possible outcomes you are begging to be take for a fool by charlatans on both sides who will happily spoon feed you the information they think you need to make their decision.
The data and the models simply don't exist. They can not predict GDP, an abstract metric whose measurement they also control, from one quarter to the next.
The so called "social sciences" are modern day soothsaying in this regard. It is a massively complex question with no reliable data, and even where there is it provides no insight into what will happen due to things entirely beyond our control.
Principles matter because that governs how you respond to events. My observation is that democratic countries with free market economies respond a lot better than centralised bureaucracies with directed economies.
If you are looking for some even vaguely accurate balance sheet detailing even a significant number of the opportunities and pitfalls inherent to either of the possible outcomes you are begging to be take for a fool by charlatans on both sides who will happily spoon feed you the information they think you need to make their decision.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff