Britain Considering Leaving the EU

[Togo]

No, but it isn't really that far off. Norway/Iceland have to abide by pretty much all European regulation except that which applies to fishing (the only real reason they're not in the EU) and agriculture.

And Immigration. Which is rather the point those right-wing groups are trying to make, no?

I think what they want to do is reduce their participation in the EU to economic only.

The problem with that is that we will not allow this. You want to be part of the single market, you play by EU rules. Plain and simple.

Ok, but this seems to be a bit of change in ground from what you were saying earlier. Before you seemed to be implying that, economically, the UK could not afford to leave the EU. Now you're saying that economically they could, but that a vengeful EU would damage it's own trade interests for the sake of punishing another country.

Satisfying though that may sound, most countries don't tend to behave like this in practice.

It's a difficult situation. On the one hand, the EU has a lot that the UK wants, including valuable markets, economic ties, police cooperation, political influence, etc. and so on. On the other hand, the UK has a lot that the EU wants, including a healthier economy, and international links.

No. The UK does NOT really have anything to offer that is anywhere near equivalent to what the EU offers. A "healthier" economy? That's highly debatable, and not something that could just be 'offered to the EU' anyway.

Of course it can. If nothing else, it's a net contributor to the budget. You can try and build a trading block out of a small number of industrialised countries and a somewhat larger number of depressed agricultural ones, but the results aren't pretty. Losing the UK would be a major blow to the economy of the EU.

International links? You mean those financial links that are threatening to leave the UK?

No, nor do I mean those financial links that have come out publically in favour of leaving. I mean the majority, who don't play politics at all.

The Eurozone as a whole has far more international "links"; however you define them, whether its ports or banks; than the UK does and can do quite well without those added by the UK.

Well, you'd expect that, since the EU is so much larger. But oddly enough, there are a few measures where the UK does outperform the EU. Including international banking, insurance, and other financial services. I appreciate that may or may not be a good thing...

A break up would be bad for both. We can argue about who it would be worse for,

No we can't, it's already been quite well established by numerous studies and experts that the consequences for the UK would be far worse than those for the EU.

Cite please, where this has been 'established', rather than merely argued for. Perhaps one of the list you gave earlier?

but having one of the world's largest economies leave your club is not a good thing by any measure, and nor is declaring your most immediate geographic and economic neighbours impossible to work with.

The UK is willing to risk economic sabotage (mostly of itself, but to some extent of the EU) for the sole (real) purpose to strengthen its negotiating position.

Is this a recent political action that has got your goat, or the combined efforts of several million people? I'll need some indication of what you're talking about if we're to discuss.

[Why should the UK be allowed to risk such economic damage to strengthen its position, but in the unlikely event that the UK were to *actually* leave the EU shouldn't choose to *not* risk economic damage by keeping the UK out of the single market unless it agrees to our demands?

Because doing so would damage the EU. The economic benefits of being in the EU trade block are very popular, the 'ever closer' political union is far less so, not least because it's seen as a threat to minority interests (such as individual countries). What kind of message would 'punishing' the UK send to others? Is the EU a political union, or a way for Brussels to bully individual members for the sake of a consensus? You'd be setting back the cause of European integration by 30 years or so. And even that is assuming that individual member states would be so annoyed with the UK that they'd want to damage their own economies just to hurt them. That doesn't sound remotely plausible to me.

The damage would already have been done, after all. Once the UK leaves, it has no ability to further damage the EU; so the EU would risk nothing by playing hardball. The UK will want access to the single market in order to maintain its economic position. Naturally, the EU will make demands of the UK in return.

Of course, but as we've already established, the demands in a trade pact are economic, and wouldn't include immigration and devolution of political power.

They're leaving for tax reasons, because most of their business is in the Far East and is growing faster, and because HQ functions employ a lot of admin staff who are much cheaper over there. It doesn't have anything to do with recent politics, or the EU.

If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you.

I know too many people who work there, I'm afraid. I'm happy to listen if you have a specific source, but otherwise I'm just not convinced.

It's really not. They considered leaving when the EERM broke down, when the UK didn't adopt the Euro, when the EBA was founded, and a few other times besides. The problem is that all the expertise, and all their colleagues, are in London, not Frankfurt.

You don't really know much about Frankfurt's position in the financial industry, do you?

I think I know more about Frankfurt's position than you do. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

There have been any number of predictions of banks all moving to Frankfurt, but they can't. The staff don't want to go. Those who do go are desperate to return. Even the EBA in increasing it's presence in London. London is a global financial centre, Frankfurt isn't.

Anybody who says Frankfurt is not a global financial centre doesn't know what the term means. Frankfurt is consistently listed in the top 10 of global financial centers.

And London is in the top 3, and by some measures in the top 1.

It gains a fair amount actually. Free trade is mutually beneficial, it's not a favour you grant to people you like.

Normally that is true. The EU however, stands to lose a great deal by allowing the UK to simply leave without serious consequences. It sets a bad precedent, and whatever you think about the EU, it isn't quite that stupid.

Getting into the habit of punishing countries who don't toe the line would be setting an even worse precedent.

I feel you're undermining your previous argument, which I find a little disappointing. If your analysis relies on the EU spending money, and damaging it's own economy, in order to punish departing countries, then I simply don't think it's accurate. It also strongly suggests that your previous points about the economic cost of departure are based on a fantasy of a vengeful EU smashing countries that annoy it, which I think is doing your sources a disservice.

[The EU would absolutely use any such market access negotiations as a way to demonstrate there are serious consequences to breaking with the EU. It simply can't afford not to.

So.. the UK departing would be both insignificant and irrelevant for the EU, and push it to desperate and unprecedented action?

No, that's not a fair way to describe the trading relationship.

Just because you don't like the term, doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

No, but the fact that you find it emotionally satisfying to describe it in terms of a psychopath-captive relationship doesn't make it accurate either. Norway doesn't follow the same economic policies as the EU, it's business cycle doesn't move in the same pattern as the EU, it's doing rather better than the EU. For a tiny country on the edge of a massive trade block, it does rather well following a set of social and economic policies that are quite different from the EU's. Yes it has to obey trade laws and important/export regs, but that's true of any trading relationship, and despite your constant attempts to conflate them, isn't what the right-wing groups and exit agitators are concerned with.

*Within* the EU it can serve as a balance against Germany and France and exert a great deal of influence.

Which works as a argument only so long as it does have influence. If it can't, in fact, change how things are done it has more say outside the EU than in. So the argument on influence only works if the UK can be seen to be altering EU policy. Which is exactly why the UK has been quite such an annoying country for the EU to deal with.

 

[dystopian]

And Immigration. Which is rather the point those right-wing groups are trying to make, no?

This is incorrect, however. Norway (and other such states) ARE subject to the right to freedom of movement of workers in the single market; however, due to technically being counted as 'old member states' in the treaties of accessions, they *could* impose transitional periods on workers from new member states to the EU. However, since we're talking about the member states that joined in 2003 and 2005 respectively and since the maximum transitional period was only 7 years; it isn't relevant today.

Ok, but this seems to be a bit of change in ground from what you were saying earlier. Before you seemed to be implying that, economically, the UK could not afford to leave the EU. Now you're saying that economically they could, but that a vengeful EU would damage it's own trade interests for the sake of punishing another country.

I never said the UK couldn't "afford" to leave the EU; just that it would be a very poor decision to make as it would damage them. As for the EU damaging its own trade interests; it's less a matter of vengeance and more about sending a message to any other countries that might want to leave following a succesful UK referendum. Taking a hardline stance against an independent UK (which certainly wouldn't last long as the UK would likely find itself force to agree to EU demands before long) is *protecting* its interests; not damaging it out of spite.

Of course it can. If nothing else, it's a net contributor to the budget.

Sure, but that's a relative drop in the bucket. Besides, Norway and the like also contribute to the budget despite having no say in matters. The UK would still have to contribute to the EU budget if it wants in the single market.

You can try and build a trading block out of a small number of industrialised countries and a somewhat larger number of depressed agricultural ones, but the results aren't pretty. Losing the UK would be a major blow to the economy of the EU.

Except pretty much all the independent reports suggest that the net result of the UK leaving corresponds to less than half a % loss in GDP growth for individual member states, and that this is much less than what the UK is expected to lose. Losing the UK would be a blow to the European GDP as a whole; but would not actually seriously affect any of the member states.

Well, you'd expect that, since the EU is so much larger. But oddly enough, there are a few measures where the UK does outperform the EU. Including international banking, insurance, and other financial services. I appreciate that may or may not be a good thing...

However, as has been argued; a large part of the reason WHY the UK does so well in those areas is because it serves as an excellent place to do business... *with* the EU. The UK is a perfect place to set up shop if you want into the European market, today. Not so much if the UK leaves, though.

Cite please, where this has been 'established', rather than merely argued for. Perhaps one of the list you gave earlier?

https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de...-expensive-especially-for-the-united-kingdom/

Is this a recent political action that has got your goat, or the combined efforts of several million people? I'll need some indication of what you're talking about if we're to discuss.

It's pretty clear that the referendum is just Cameron's attempt at hardball politics; he doesn't even want to leave the EU, and he's explicitly scheduling it for *after* renegotiations with the EU. It is painfully obvious that the intent is merely to strengthen his negotiation position. Surely this analysis is common knowledge in the UK as well; or is the British public genuinely naive enough to think he just wants to give them a vote?

Because doing so would damage the EU.

But not showing that there are negative consequences to leaving the EU is potentially far more damaging, given the relative popularity of euroskeptic parties. Free trade will resume in time no matter what; but if the EU doesn't show a tough position, the results could be far worse than a decade of slightly less growth.

The economic benefits of being in the EU trade block are very popular, the 'ever closer' political union is far less so, not least because it's seen as a threat to minority interests (such as individual countries). What kind of message would 'punishing' the UK send to others? Is the EU a political union, or a way for Brussels to bully individual members for the sake of a consensus? You'd be setting back the cause of European integration by 30 years or so.

There seems to be some confusion; we're talking about punishing the UK if it *leaves* the EU. How would that possibly send the message Brussels is bullying individual *members*? If the UK remains IN the union, then obviously there wouldn't be any punishment. Countries in the union ARE us; hurting them is hurting us. If the UK does leave, then they are no longer 'us'.

Of course, but as we've already established, the demands in a trade pact are economic, and wouldn't include immigration and devolution of political power.

Except that they would; since freedom of movement is a key cornerstone of the EEA. It can not be separated.

I think I know more about Frankfurt's position than you do. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

Let's see, Frankfurt is home to the ECB, more than a 150 international banks, and also one of the world's largest stock markets. Claiming that it isn't a global financial center requires a very unusual definition of the term.

And London is in the top 3, and by some measures in the top 1.

Which isn't relevant to the fact that Frankfurt *is* a global financial center. And as argued, it is questionable whether London could remain in the top 3 if it were to leave the single market. It would make far more sense for financial institutions to leave London if London were no longer so attractive a place to insert oneself into the European market from.

Getting into the habit of punishing countries who don't toe the line would be setting an even worse precedent.

Sure, so long as those countries are actually *in* the EU. But as I've already pointed out, this wouldn't apply to a UK that's left. The EU must protect itself from further disintegration should the UK leave; letting a major country leave and then acting as if nothing happened is not a good way to deal with such a situation.

So.. the UK departing would be both insignificant and irrelevant for the EU, and push it to desperate and unprecedented action?

I didn't say it was irrelevant. The economic fallout itself would be not be as bad for the EU as for the UK. The fact that a UK departure could inspire similar referendums elsewhere however, is a serious concern.

No, but the fact that you find it emotionally satisfying to describe it in terms of a psychopath-captive relationship doesn't make it accurate either. Norway doesn't follow the same economic policies as the EU, it's business cycle doesn't move in the same pattern as the EU, it's doing rather better than the EU. For a tiny country on the edge of a massive trade block, it does rather well following a set of social and economic policies that are quite different from the EU's. Yes it has to obey trade laws and important/export regs, but that's true of any trading relationship, and despite your constant attempts to conflate them, isn't what the right-wing groups and exit agitators are concerned with.

If you genuinely think that all Norway's doing is follow trade laws and import/export requirements... then why does Norway directly contribute to the EU projects? Why does Norway fund projects in Bulgaria or Romania? I think you have a somewhat simplified understanding of Norway's relationship with the EU.

Which works as a argument only so long as it does have influence. If it can't, in fact, change how things are done it has more say outside the EU than in. So the argument on influence only works if the UK can be seen to be altering EU policy. Which is exactly why the UK has been quite such an annoying country for the EU to deal with.

There's nothing wrong with trying to alter EU policy; indeed the UK has many allies within Europe on that regard (my own government among them). The problem is when Cameron tries to use a referendum and the threat of leaving as a bargaining chip. He's trying to bully the rest of us by implying that if we don't give the UK what it wants, the Britons will vote to leave. That's dirty politics; and the sort of thing that could blow up in his face.

 

[arkirk]

Egypt:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...riminalize-euhr-nccpim-human-trafficking.html

CAIRO — Youm7 newspaper reported April 26 that the Egyptian government was about to discuss a draft migration law that, if approved, would see irregular migrants — including refugees and asylum seekers fleeing conflict zones — imprisoned for between 15 and 20 years for attempted “illegal immigration.”

It illustrates how reasonable we in Britain are on immigration. I am not aware that UK immigration policy is aimed at race but it illustrates that India tries to protect its workforces. Of course I don’t see British workers flocking to India for a job.

If the UK implemented what has been proposed in Egypt we would most likely run out of prison space. The prisons would be so crowded, the inmates would be sleeping on top of each other.

What Britain has now is what Juan Gonzalez calls "the harvest of empire." Empires are like baloons....water baloons. Ther once was a time when the sun never set on the British Empire...in fact that may still be now...but when the benefits of empire slow, those on the short end of the stick try to move closer to the center...where they compete directly with those in the center. Conflict time! Britain dominated huge chunks of the world with its armies and navies and extracted wealth from its empire till those supporting it in the far reaches said enough! That usually resulted in a political vacuum and local struggles for power in the old colonies. When the empire abandoned a part of its old domain, it took all the educated people with it in most cases and left these third world countries badly divided and with the difficult problem of how to stop killing themselves. Civilization is not just a natural development among peoples who have been deprived of everything...including education. It is easy for them to revert to tribalism. When these struggles get too hot, people naturally flee...oh where to go...well there's always Britain! This is their legacy, their "dependents" coming to a home they never actually knew.

The northern European countries and the U.S. spend money on kinetic operations in the old colonies, when what they need to do is to deal with education and humanitarian aid. They never got the idea and they still are laboring under the notion that when an upstart culture offends, it is time to smack it with smart bombs rather than be smart. So the harvest continues and the refuges keep growing in number, angry there is really nothing much for them in their new home.

It doesn't matter much where Britain goes, there will be trouble. It has such a backlog of dirty messes it has created worldwide, the flow toward Britain will continue with all its cultural pollution...things like Islam etc. The story really is quite similar for Holland and France and even Germany. Italy today is bearing its own cross.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It illustrates how reasonable we in Britain are on immigration. I am not aware that UK immigration policy is aimed at race but it illustrates that India tries to protect its workforces. Of course I don’t see British workers flocking to India for a job.

If the UK implemented what has been proposed in Egypt we would most likely run out of prison space. The prisons would be so crowded, the inmates would be sleeping on top of each other.

What Britain has now is what Juan Gonzalez calls "the harvest of empire." Empires are like baloons....water baloons. Ther once was a time when the sun never set on the British Empire...in fact that may still be now...but when the benefits of empire slow, those on the short end of the stick try to move closer to the center...where they compete directly with those in the center. Conflict time! Britain dominated huge chunks of the world with its armies and navies and extracted wealth from its empire till those supporting it in the far reaches said enough! That usually resulted in a political vacuum and local struggles for power in the old colonies. When the empire abandoned a part of its old domain, it took all the educated people with it in most cases and left these third world countries badly divided and with the difficult problem of how to stop killing themselves. Civilization is not just a natural development among peoples who have been deprived of everything...including education. It is easy for them to revert to tribalism. When these struggles get too hot, people naturally flee...oh where to go...well there's always Britain! This is their legacy, their "dependents" coming to a home they never actually knew.

The northern European countries and the U.S. spend money on kinetic operations in the old colonies, when what they need to do is to deal with education and humanitarian aid. They never got the idea and they still are laboring under the notion that when an upstart culture offends, it is time to smack it with smart bombs rather than be smart. So the harvest continues and the refuges keep growing in number, angry there is really nothing much for them in their new home.

It doesn't matter much where Britain goes, there will be trouble. It has such a backlog of dirty messes it has created worldwide, the flow toward Britain will continue with all its cultural pollution...things like Islam etc. The story really is quite similar for Holland and France and even Germany. Italy today is bearing its own cross.

It sounds like a good case for Britain leaving Europe (It doesn't matter much where Britain goes, there will be trouble) but that is correct. The US, Britain and others, especially the French capitalised on already existing corrupt leaders to do the work for them. At home an imperfect but workable legal system but abroad we don't bother who we support as long as they support the West.
Recently we toppled governments in Libya, Iraq and now fighting in Syria and created a vacuum for all the fanatics to fill. None of these countries were a threat to the West and in fact kept their societies free of religious fanatics.

 

[dystopian]

What Britain has now is what Juan Gonzalez calls "the harvest of empire." Empires are like baloons....water baloons. Ther once was a time when the sun never set on the British Empire...in fact that may still be now...but when the benefits of empire slow, those on the short end of the stick try to move closer to the center...where they compete directly with those in the center. Conflict time! Britain dominated huge chunks of the world with its armies and navies and extracted wealth from its empire till those supporting it in the far reaches said enough! That usually resulted in a political vacuum and local struggles for power in the old colonies. When the empire abandoned a part of its old domain, it took all the educated people with it in most cases and left these third world countries badly divided and with the difficult problem of how to stop killing themselves. Civilization is not just a natural development among peoples who have been deprived of everything...including education. It is easy for them to revert to tribalism. When these struggles get too hot, people naturally flee...oh where to go...well there's always Britain! This is their legacy, their "dependents" coming to a home they never actually knew.

The northern European countries and the U.S. spend money on kinetic operations in the old colonies, when what they need to do is to deal with education and humanitarian aid. They never got the idea and they still are laboring under the notion that when an upstart culture offends, it is time to smack it with smart bombs rather than be smart. So the harvest continues and the refuges keep growing in number, angry there is really nothing much for them in their new home.

It doesn't matter much where Britain goes, there will be trouble. It has such a backlog of dirty messes it has created worldwide, the flow toward Britain will continue with all its cultural pollution...things like Islam etc. The story really is quite similar for Holland and France and even Germany. Italy today is bearing its own cross.

It sounds like a good case for Britain leaving Europe (It doesn't matter much where Britain goes, there will be trouble) but that is correct.

You can't leave Europe. You'd have to cut the islands off from the continental shelf and sail away.

As for being a good case for leaving the EU; I think that's not at all evident from anything arkirk was saying. Even if you take a negative stance against immigration (like Arkirk and you are doing), one would find that EU immigration is not actually a problem when you look at the facts/statistics objectively; and not relevant to Arkirk's analysis in any case, since he's talking about third world immigration.

Besides, "there will be trouble wherever you go" is not itself a valid argument for any particular destination.

 

[arkirk]

It sounds like a good case for Britain leaving Europe (It doesn't matter much where Britain goes, there will be trouble) but that is correct.

You can't leave Europe. You'd have to cut the islands off from the continental shelf and sail away.

As for being a good case for leaving the EU; I think that's not at all evident from anything arkirk was saying. Even if you take a negative stance against immigration (like Arkirk and you are doing), one would find that EU immigration is not actually a problem when you look at the facts/statistics objectively; and not relevant to Arkirk's analysis in any case, since he's talking about third world immigration.

Besides, "there will be trouble wherever you go" is not itself a valid argument for any particular destination.

You are really good at NOT GETTING WHAT I AM SAYING! I agree with you in that I think immigration SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM. The problem is the residue of colonialism and the initial European response to loss of colonies. Instead of sympathizing with these nascent efforts to establish independent governance in 3rd world countries, Britain and other northern European nations' banking systems bought a formal kind of control of the old colonial territory with onerous termed loans to petty dictators and continued exploiting the resources of these countries. It really was an attempt to cling onto what should have been considered the property and wealth of these old colonial countries.

Many years of exploitation makes a shipwreck out of a country's ability to govern itself especially when the exploitation continues even after the former colonial regime is ended. They simply do not have the statesmen and lawyers and bankers, etc. etc. to make things work within the new country and "schools" in these countries sell religion (the first wave of exploitation was the missionaries). Hence, we have this wave of things like Islam spreading and selling various forms of crude fundamentalism in response to territory being liberated from European domination. This all relates to the inherent lack of organization of newly liberated countries and asymmetrical utilization of the country's resources still mainly to support PROFIT of outside interests.

Old colonialist governments do not want to admit that they have huge moral debts to their former colonies. Their pitiful onerous "loans" to these old colonies should have instead been reparation payments. Their "investments" in these lands were merely an extension of a system of extraction of profit from these lands. Northern European countries refuse to admit their policies disassembled all the social mechanisms a society would need to protect itself from economic exploitation. Merely casing the flag and leaving is NOT LIBERATION FOR THE COUNTRY. The damage is already done and the colonialist home governments never had the resources to rescue these people anyway, regardless of any humanitarian motive they may adopt.

What I was talking about when I said "wherever Britain goes" I was talking in terms of ideology and not location. They simply are reliant upon continued inputs from around the world to continue to operate and have the same economic metabolism. They cannot become a gross exporter of their wealth. That was what I was getting at. They are a highly consumptive society that is truly dependent on the same mercantile system they established in days of Empire.

 

[dystopian]

You are really good at NOT GETTING WHAT I AM SAYING! I agree with you in that I think immigration SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM.

Not only should it not be a problem... it actually isn't. Certainly not inter-EU immigration.

The problem is the residue of colonialism and the initial European response to loss of colonies. Instead of sympathizing with these nascent efforts to establish independent governance in 3rd world countries, Britain and other northern European nations' banking systems bought a formal kind of control of the old colonial territory with onerous termed loans to petty dictators and continued exploiting the resources of these countries. It really was an attempt to cling onto what should have been considered the property and wealth of these old colonial countries.

Sure; which has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Many years of exploitation makes a shipwreck out of a country's ability to govern itself especially when the exploitation continues even after the former colonial regime is ended. They simply do not have the statesmen and lawyers and bankers, etc. etc. to make things work within the new country and "schools" in these countries sell religion (the first wave of exploitation was the missionaries). Hence, we have this wave of things like Islam spreading and selling various forms of crude fundamentalism in response to territory being liberated from European domination.

Sure; which has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Old colonialist governments do not want to admit that they have huge moral debts to their former colonies.

There is no real basis for this claim. My government has repeatedly made formal apologies to former colonies; that requires an admission of past wrongdoing; therefore at least in our case it is simply false to claim the government doesn't want to admit to such a thing.

Their pitiful onerous "loans" to these old colonies should have instead been reparation payments.

In the case of some former colonies, that might well be the case. However, the behavior of some of our former colonies would make such reparations morally bankrupt themselves. Take Indonesia for instance. Why should we provide them with reparations when what they did with their newfound freedom was to ruthlessly dominate and conquer their minorities and neighbors? What they did with Papua New Guinea was reprehensible, for instance. Presenting them with reparations would be to contribute to the ongoing repression of minorities and areas that they themselves have colonized through force. Or how about Suriname, whose leader is a wanted international drug lord and known to have been involved in the assassination of his political enemies.

To call for or demand we pay reparations to such countries and regimes requires a very limited (and 2 dimensional) understanding of both history and the present, and a moral naivete that we simply do not share.

Edit: And in point of fact, our government HAS provided reparations to many of the people who actually directly suffered under the worst of Dutch colonial rule. Victims of colonial atrocities (such as with the Rawagede massacre case) have been awarded reparations. Expecting us to give money to countries wholesale though, when neither the general citizenry of our country nor the general citizenry of the receiving countries ever experienced colonialism is unfair, *especially* when we consider the continuing morally bankrupt behavior of their governments.

Besides, none of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

Their "investments" in these lands were merely an extension of a system of extraction of profit from these lands. Northern European countries refuse to admit their policies disassembled all the social mechanisms a society would need to protect itself from economic exploitation.

First of all, and this is a nit-pick but it's important you get your terminology right if you want to talk about issues that are about geography and history; but you keep talking about 'northern European' countries. None of the major colonial powers were from northern Europe. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are Northern European; the number of people who have ever been colonial subjects of these countries is tiny compared to the colonial empires of Portugal, Spain, France, the Netherlands, and England. You should be talking about *Western* European countries.

Second of all, where do you get the idea that this is something we refuse to admit? For fuck's sake, I was explicitly taught about how we exploited them during history class back when I was still in high school, including the specific mechanisms we used. That was government-mandated curriculum. I was also explicitly taught about how multinationals (which are hardly restricted to those from former colonial powers; American multinationals are just as guilty) continue to do so in the post-colonial era. For someone who seems so ideologically certain about things, your actual understanding of these matters is hopelessly limited. It seems it's very easy for an American (as if America hasn't done its share of colonial exploitation; pot calling the kettle black there, though that's not relevant to the point) to make ideological and absolute proclamations about what other countries deserve or refuse to admit to; without actually understanding the first thing about the situation or reality in those countries.

Also, this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

What I was talking about when I said "wherever Britain goes" I was talking in terms of ideology and not location. They simply are reliant upon continued inputs from around the world to continue to operate and have the same economic metabolism. They cannot become a gross exporter of their wealth. That was what I was getting at. They are a highly consumptive society that is truly dependent on the same mercantile system they established in days of Empire.

This is a thread about the UK leaving the EU, and in that context one would be expected to talk about what's good or bad for the UK; NOT whether or not the UK screws over the third world... which is anyhow completely irrelevant to whether or not the UK should be in the EU or not.

 

[arkirk]

dystopian: "Considering" you are so sure I have nothing to say and that historical information has no bearing on what these countries do today. All I said has a huge significance when you consider the policies of the EU. What I was saying essentially is Britain is damned if it quits and damned if it stays and why that is so. Britain is not dependent on Europe, but it is dependent on relationships with its former colonies and those relations are headed downward. It can't really contribute much to the EU of its own. People are not lining up to buy British cars. You can find equally competent crooked bankers many other places in the world. All in all, Britain is more of a liability than an asset to the EU. Whatever partnership Britain engages in will be largely favorable to it and not its partner. It has been overall a parasite on the world economy.

 

[dystopian]

dystopian: "Considering" you are so sure I have nothing to say

Why do you keep making assumptions about others? Countries don't want to admit they were wrong... I'm "sure" you have nothing to say; you keep drawing these conclusions that are not in evidence. Where did I ever say anything remotely like that? You may well have relevant things to say about the topic. You might also have interesting and intelligent things to say about many other subjects. What you actually said, however, was neither relevant to the thread, nor particularly informed about the subject you did end up talking about.

and that historical information has no bearing on what these countries do today.

Of course these countries don't act in a historical vacuum. Of course the past influences their behavior today. I don't see how this matters to the question of how we should treat them however. When a murderer kills someone, we throw him in jail regardless of whether he was abused as a kid. When we're talking about how we treat badly-behaving countries today, it does not matter whether we mistreated these countries in the past. Two wrongs do not make a right.

All I said has a huge significance when you consider the policies of the EU.

None of it has any relevance, in point of fact. Even in the post I'm replying to right now, you're just ranting about how the UK is a parasite... which may or may not be the case; but which you fail to corroborate in any way relevant to the question of EU membership.

Britain is not dependent on Europe, but it is dependent on relationships with its former colonies and those relations are headed downward.

This once again just demonstrates you don't know what you're talking about in this particular instance. Just as with your proclamations about what former colonial governments admit and don't admit to; you make sweeping statements that are simply inaccurate. More than half of ALL British trade is with the EU. Only 10% of its trade is with all of its former colonies combined. Clearly, the UK *is* dependent upon Europe and not a great deal on its former colonies.

It can't really contribute much to the EU of its own. People are not lining up to buy British cars. You can find equally competent crooked bankers many other places in the world. All in all, Britain is more of a liability than an asset to the EU.

This is another one of those sweeping statements that is mindboggingly out of touch with reality. Clearly I don't agree with Whichphilosophy on certain matters; but he was absolutely correct when he states that free trade with the UK is a net benefit for the EU. To suggest anything else is nonsensical.

Whatever partnership Britain engages in will be largely favorable to it and not its partner. It has been overall a parasite on the world economy.

Perhaps.

But we've been an overall parasite on the world economy too, so we have no real cause to not be friends with them on that front.

And America's been an overall parasite on the world economy too. In fact, you're the biggest parasite of all in the modern world; so you really don't have a good footing from which to criticize them.

As long as they're in the EU, we can reel them in; so long as we work together there's at least a chance at a better future. Countries standing on their own as they've done in the past will never lead to a better situation. The UK is better off in the EU; and the world is better off too.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Once a country joins a higher level organization it is never allowed to leave. Ever. It is strictly forbidden. Scotland was the most recent example of this, trying to leave the UK. Oh, and Donetsk trying to leave Ukraine.

Unless, of course, the US supports it doing so. Like South Sudan.

 

[Hickdive]

dystopian: "Considering" you are so sure I have nothing to say and that historical information has no bearing on what these countries do today. All I said has a huge significance when you consider the policies of the EU. What I was saying essentially is Britain is damned if it quits and damned if it stays and why that is so. Britain is not dependent on Europe, but it is dependent on relationships with its former colonies and those relations are headed downward. It can't really contribute much to the EU of its own. People are not lining up to buy British cars. You can find equally competent crooked bankers many other places in the world. All in all, Britain is more of a liability than an asset to the EU. Whatever partnership Britain engages in will be largely favorable to it and not its partner. It has been overall a parasite on the world economy.

Are you Adm. Ernest J King re-incarnated?

No, Britain is not dependent on its relationships with its former colonies. The idea that the UK could replace EU trade with trade with the Commonwealth or is in any way reliant on the latter is nonsense. To quote a 2012 parliamentary research briefing

"in 2011, the Commonwealth accounted for an estimated £29 billion or 10% of all UK goods exports and £22 billion or 12% of all UK services exports. As a source of imports for the UK, the Commonwealth accounted for an estimated £28 billion or 7% of all
UK goods imports and £12 billion or 10% of all UK services imports. The UK had an estimated trade surplus of £0.7 billion in goods with the Commonwealth and a trade surplus of £10 billion in services."

Let's just compare that with the figures for British trade with the EU from October 2013 to date;

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/EUOverseasTrade/Pages/EuOTS.aspx

To put it in a nutshell, Britain's annual trade with the Commonwealth is worth roughly the same as eight weeks trade with the EU.

Furthermore, and in respect of your throwaway comment about cars, to quote Real Business in 2013 ; "A new car is made in Britain every 20 seconds. One in three of all Ford engines used worldwide is made in Britain. Sunderland's Nissan plant makes more cars a year than the entire Italian motor industry."

Whilst ignoring the influence of history upon shaping Britain's trade links and economy is unwise, insisting that Britain's economy is still dependent on that history is foolish.

 

[Togo]

Ok, but this seems to be a bit of change in ground from what you were saying earlier. Before you seemed to be implying that, economically, the UK could not afford to leave the EU. Now you're saying that economically they could, but that a vengeful EU would damage it's own trade interests for the sake of punishing another country.

I never said the UK couldn't "afford" to leave the EU; just that it would be a very poor decision to make as it would damage them. As for the EU damaging its own trade interests; it's less a matter of vengeance and more about sending a message to any other countries that might want to leave following a succesful UK referendum. Taking a hardline stance against an independent UK (which certainly wouldn't last long as the UK would likely find itself force to agree to EU demands before long) is *protecting* its interests; not damaging it out of spite.

It's not going to be seen that way by those actually trading. Heck, remember the difficulties there were in trying to stop arms sales to Russia? Again, you're assuming that the EU will be making decisions purely on the basis of what is best for the EU as an entity, but the decisions are actually made by people from individual member states. There is a limit to how much individuals will sacrifice their own interests to support a European Ideal.

Of course it can. If nothing else, it's a net contributor to the budget.

Sure, but that's a relative drop in the bucket.

Not according to the article you cited.

You can try and build a trading block out of a small number of industrialised countries and a somewhat larger number of depressed agricultural ones, but the results aren't pretty. Losing the UK would be a major blow to the economy of the EU.

Except pretty much all the independent reports suggest that the net result of the UK leaving corresponds to less than half a % loss in GDP growth for individual member states,

The report you cited isn't one of them. It puts the potential loss to Germany alone at up to 2% of GDP.

Of course it also identifies several scenarios it is looking at, from 'soft exit' to 'total isolation'. You appear to be citing the figures for soft exit for the impact to EU, and for total isolation for the UK.

It's almost as if you're systematically overstating your case.

Well, you'd expect that, since the EU is so much larger. But oddly enough, there are a few measures where the UK does outperform the EU. Including international banking, insurance, and other financial services. I appreciate that may or may not be a good thing...

However, as has been argued; a large part of the reason WHY the UK does so well in those areas is because it serves as an excellent place to do business... *with* the EU. The UK is a perfect place to set up shop if you want into the European market, today. Not so much if the UK leaves, though.

London's status as a global financial centre isn't dependent on the EU, being in the EU, or trade with the EU. You can argue otherwise, of course.

Cite please, where this has been 'established', rather than merely argued for. Perhaps one of the list you gave earlier?

https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de...-expensive-especially-for-the-united-kingdom/

Yeah, unfortunately, I actually read links. This source (looking at the .pdf rather than merely the alarmist headlines), says the following:

The question of whether a British exit from the EU would increase or decrease the country’s economic growth and its real in-come as measured by the gross domestic product is controversial. There is a whole series of studies that examine the economic advantages and disadvantages of EU membership – and yield a variety of different results.

Nowhere, in either the website, or the document, does it pretend that it's conclusions are 'established', nor does it support what you're saying.

So, cite please, where this has been 'established', rather than merely argued for. Because I think you're badly overstating your case.

Is this a recent political action that has got your goat, or the combined efforts of several million people? I'll need some indication of what you're talking about if we're to discuss.

It's pretty clear that the referendum is just Cameron's attempt at hardball politics; he doesn't even want to leave the EU, and he's explicitly scheduling it for *after* renegotiations with the EU. It is painfully obvious that the intent is merely to strengthen his negotiation position. Surely this analysis is common knowledge in the UK as well; or is the British public genuinely naive enough to think he just wants to give them a vote?

The EU simply isn't that important to Cameron.

We've just had a general election in which his own party threatened to break apart, and lost huge numbers of voters to UKIP, an explicitly anti-European party. He had to promise a referendum to shore up his own support and win the election. It worked. It's exactly the same thing he did to shore up his support with the Liberal Democrats. It worked that time too. It's the same thing he did with the Scottish Nationalists. It's the third referendum he's promised to be people in this way.

The idea that the entire policy was somehow an attempt to threaten Europe is laughable. Europe and the EU, rightly or wrongly, isn't seen as important enough to threaten.

It also isn't seen as a single entity in any case. It's seen as a Forum in which to engage the Germans, the French, etc. No doubt Cameron will raise the idea that this referendum is coming in an attempt to get some influence, unless Merkel asks him not to, but that's not why he promised it on the eve of a UK general election.

Because doing so would damage the EU.

But not showing that there are negative consequences to leaving the EU is potentially far more damaging, given the relative popularity of euroskeptic parties. Free trade will resume in time no matter what; but if the EU doesn't show a tough position, the results could be far worse than a decade of slightly less growth.

I don't think punishing a country for exiting the EU will make euroskeptic parties less popular. Quite the reverse if anything.

The economic benefits of being in the EU trade block are very popular, the 'ever closer' political union is far less so, not least because it's seen as a threat to minority interests (such as individual countries). What kind of message would 'punishing' the UK send to others? Is the EU a political union, or a way for Brussels to bully individual members for the sake of a consensus? You'd be setting back the cause of European integration by 30 years or so.

There seems to be some confusion; we're talking about punishing the UK if it *leaves* the EU. How would that possibly send the message Brussels is bullying individual *members*?

By threatening them with the same. It's the same principle as the mafia shooting people who want to retire from criminal activity. The intent and effect is to bully the rest into staying. It's not a positive move.

It also involves enforcing individual member states from not concluding bilateral trade deals with the exiting country, which is likely to be seen as bullying them - costing them growth in order to give the union a political boost.

I think I know more about Frankfurt's position than you do. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

Let's see, Frankfurt is home to the ECB, more than a 150 international banks, and also one of the world's largest stock markets. Claiming that it isn't a global financial center requires a very unusual definition of the term.

The original claim was that banks would move from London to Frankfurt. Frankfurt isn't a global player in the same sense.

It's worth noting that claims are made threatening London's status on a fairly regular basis. They never seem to amount to anything.

No, but the fact that you find it emotionally satisfying to describe it in terms of a psychopath-captive relationship doesn't make it accurate either. Norway doesn't follow the same economic policies as the EU, it's business cycle doesn't move in the same pattern as the EU, it's doing rather better than the EU. For a tiny country on the edge of a massive trade block, it does rather well following a set of social and economic policies that are quite different from the EU's. Yes it has to obey trade laws and important/export regs, but that's true of any trading relationship, and despite your constant attempts to conflate them, isn't what the right-wing groups and exit agitators are concerned with.

If you genuinely think that all Norway's doing is follow trade laws and import/export requirements... then why does Norway directly contribute to the EU projects?

The same reason the UK contributes to US projects in central America? As part of a trade arrangement?

Which works as a argument only so long as it does have influence. If it can't, in fact, change how things are done it has more say outside the EU than in. So the argument on influence only works if the UK can be seen to be altering EU policy. Which is exactly why the UK has been quite such an annoying country for the EU to deal with.

There's nothing wrong with trying to alter EU policy; indeed the UK has many allies within Europe on that regard (my own government among them). The problem is when Cameron tries to use a referendum and the threat of leaving as a bargaining chip. He's trying to bully the rest of us by implying that if we don't give the UK what it wants, the Britons will vote to leave. That's dirty politics; and the sort of thing that could blow up in his face.

Probably. It's also, you know, true? We're riding an unprecedented wave of euroskepticism, which Cameron is hostage to. The UK probably won't vote to leave, but it's a serious risk, particularly if people feel the UK is getting a raw deal from Europe. None of this is invented or created by Cameron. The EU really is that unpopular.

Of course, part of that may be the way it gets described. You know, people going on about how the EU doesn't need the UK, how the UK would be nothing without the EU, describing states as 'vassals', and so on. It's not clear to me why you regard Cameron promising a referendum as 'dirty politics' and bullying, but your own description of a state's relationship with the EU using an analogy to a psychopath and his helpless victim as not being bullying at all. Or are you a bully too?

 

[dystopian]

It's not going to be seen that way by those actually trading. Heck, remember the difficulties there were in trying to stop arms sales to Russia?

That's a poor analogy because 1) there's literally no real threat of Russia trying anything against the EU directly while there *is* a very real threat of popularizing exit-referendums across the EU if the UK leaves. And 2) because with those arms sales we're talking about direct money in pocket (and with those Mistrals, direct money out of pocket since they can't really be sold to anyone else and the cost has already been incurred), while with the UK leaving we're talking about long term loss in growth (but not negative growth).

Again, you're assuming that the EU will be making decisions purely on the basis of what is best for the EU as an entity, but the decisions are actually made by people from individual member states. There is a limit to how much individuals will sacrifice their own interests to support a European Ideal.

But if the actual downside to having the UK leave the single market is negligible for individual countries, then that would rank below the threat of further disintegration; especially when there's a risk of Eurozone countries leaving. What will cause Germany to fret more, the potential of losing half a percentage of future growth, or the potential of the Eurozone falling apart?

The report you cited isn't one of them. It puts the potential loss to Germany alone at up to 2% of GDP.

Potentially. That is still small compared to the potential loss to the UK at 14% or even more.

Of course it also identifies several scenarios it is looking at, from 'soft exit' to 'total isolation'. You appear to be citing the figures for soft exit for the impact to EU, and for total isolation for the UK.

It's almost as if you're systematically overstating your case.

How so? I have referred to the UK impact being at 3% in the past; that is NOT the figure for total isolation (which rises as high as 37%).

London's status as a global financial centre isn't dependent on the EU, being in the EU, or trade with the EU. You can argue otherwise, of course.

It's status as *a* global financial centre isn't. It's status as *the* global financial centre very much is.

Yeah, unfortunately, I actually read links. This source (looking at the .pdf rather than merely the alarmist headlines), says the following:

The question of whether a British exit from the EU would increase or decrease the country’s economic growth and its real in-come as measured by the gross domestic product is controversial. There is a whole series of studies that examine the economic advantages and disadvantages of EU membership – and yield a variety of different results.

Nowhere, in either the website, or the document, does it pretend that it's conclusions are 'established', nor does it support what you're saying.

Very well; I will retract the terminology in question. I apologize; force of habit.

Nonetheless, it would be extraordinarily foolish to make major political decisions while ignoring scenarios on the grounds that they're 'controversial'. I don't think you yourself are inclined toward that (though you might be, I don't know); but I do think others have demonstrated thinking along those lines.

The EU simply isn't that important to Cameron.

Then he's either an idiot who'se doing his country a great disservice, or you're simply wrong about whats important to him. I suspect it's a bit of both.

We've just had a general election in which his own party threatened to break apart, and lost huge numbers of voters to UKIP, an explicitly anti-European party. He had to promise a referendum to shore up his own support and win the election. It worked. It's exactly the same thing he did to shore up his support with the Liberal Democrats. It worked that time too. It's the same thing he did with the Scottish Nationalists. It's the third referendum he's promised to be people in this way.

No; implausible imo. If it was purely about getting votes then there were plenty of other ways to get those things; surely. That said, I don't deny that it didn't play a role; however it does not suffice as an explanation on its own (unless, indeed, Cameron is a complete moron who doesn't understand he's inviting disaster by calling such far reaching referendums). The fact that the referendum not only serves to curb his party's deterioration but ALSO allows for a potentially better negotiation position is what does it. The combination of benefits. Of course, those benefits hardly outweigh the risks; but politicians who try to secure their own power by riling up the populace never seem to understand that until its too late.

I don't think punishing a country for exiting the EU will make euroskeptic parties less popular. Quite the reverse if anything.

Perhaps. But Euroskeptics are a minority within Europe to begin with; which isn't going to change anytime soon (especially since young people tend towards being pro-EU). Indeed, pro-EU sentiment appears to be rising across the continent. The skeptics are numerous enough to throw wrenches in the works, but for the most part, that's it. Ensuring negative consequences for countries that leave does, however, work well on the undecided... especially since it would obviously not be done in a black and white "hark, see how we punish this pitiful rebel scum" sort of fashion.

The original claim was that banks would move from London to Frankfurt. Frankfurt isn't a global player in the same sense.

No, the original claim was that a good chunk of them likely would; and that others would likely move elsewhere. Amsterdam, Paris, Madrid, etc. Of course Frankfurt isn't going to turn into a new London. Either way, still bad for London.

It's worth noting that claims are made threatening London's status on a fairly regular basis. They never seem to amount to anything.

It's not a threat though; simply common sense. Businesses will go where it's cheapest/most profitable for them to operate. That would be inside of the single market; not outside of it.

The same reason the UK contributes to US projects in central America? As part of a trade arrangement?

Norway's own foreign minister boasts about being among the fastest in Europe in implementing EU directives. What they're doing is not simply part of a normal trade treaty.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32957134

Probably. It's also, you know, true? We're riding an unprecedented wave of euroskepticism, which Cameron is hostage to. The UK probably won't vote to leave, but it's a serious risk, particularly if people feel the UK is getting a raw deal from Europe. None of this is invented or created by Cameron. The EU really is that unpopular.

It doesn't matter if he created Euroskepticism. What matters is that he's fanning its flames.

Of course, part of that may be the way it gets described. You know, people going on about how the EU doesn't need the UK, how the UK would be nothing without the EU, describing states as 'vassals', and so on. It's not clear to me why you regard Cameron promising a referendum as 'dirty politics' and bullying, but your own description of a state's relationship with the EU using an analogy to a psychopath and his helpless victim as not being bullying at all. Or are you a bully too?

As unpopular as you claim the EU is in the UK, realize that the UK is even less popular in Europe. It's seen as doing nothing but selfishly make trouble, constantly trying to have its own way, demanding special treatment. It should be entirely obvious why my wording (and that of others) might seem a bit... on the annoyed side. There's this popular image of the UK as a spoiled child that's just big enough to get away with it; and now with the referendum, the addition to that image is of the spoiled child that got all that special treatment from us and *still* thinks we're being unfair to it and now it tells us to go screw ourselves, it's going to run away from home because 'fuck you dad, you're the worst!'

Of course that's going to cause resentment. I've seen surveys that suggest a majority in some countries favor just simply kicking the UK out regardless of what they vote in the referendum. People feel like it'd be better for our future as a continent to get rid of the UK now rather than have it continue to hold back integration for its own selfish reasons.

However, you're right; my wording has perhaps been overly antagonistic. This attitude was primarily in response to Whichphilosophy's mentality, which seems more extreme than your own and of the variety that inspires certain sentiments. But I should not have allowed sentiment/resentment to color my words to such a degree.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That's a poor analogy because 1) there's literally no real threat of Russia trying anything against the EU directly while there *is* a very real threat of popularizing exit-referendums across the EU if the UK leaves. And 2) because with those arms sales we're talking about direct money in pocket (and with those Mistrals, direct money out of pocket since they can't really be sold to anyone else and the cost has already been incurred), while with the UK leaving we're talking about long term loss in growth (but not negative growth).

Again, you're assuming that the EU will be making decisions purely on the basis of what is best for the EU as an entity, but the decisions are actually made by people from individual member states. There is a limit to how much individuals will sacrifice their own interests to support a European Ideal.

But if the actual downside to having the UK leave the single market is negligible for individual countries, then that would rank below the threat of further disintegration; especially when there's a risk of Eurozone countries leaving. What will cause Germany to fret more, the potential of losing half a percentage of future growth, or the potential of the Eurozone falling apart?

The report you cited isn't one of them. It puts the potential loss to Germany alone at up to 2% of GDP.

Potentially. That is still small compared to the potential loss to the UK at 14% or even more.

Of course it also identifies several scenarios it is looking at, from 'soft exit' to 'total isolation'. You appear to be citing the figures for soft exit for the impact to EU, and for total isolation for the UK.

It's almost as if you're systematically overstating your case.

How so? I have referred to the UK impact being at 3% in the past; that is NOT the figure for total isolation (which rises as high as 37%).

London's status as a global financial centre isn't dependent on the EU, being in the EU, or trade with the EU. You can argue otherwise, of course.

It's status as *a* global financial centre isn't. It's status as *the* global financial centre very much is.

Yeah, unfortunately, I actually read links. This source (looking at the .pdf rather than merely the alarmist headlines), says the following:

The question of whether a British exit from the EU would increase or decrease the country’s economic growth and its real in-come as measured by the gross domestic product is controversial. There is a whole series of studies that examine the economic advantages and disadvantages of EU membership – and yield a variety of different results.

Nowhere, in either the website, or the document, does it pretend that it's conclusions are 'established', nor does it support what you're saying.

Very well; I will retract the terminology in question. I apologize; force of habit.

Nonetheless, it would be extraordinarily foolish to make major political decisions while ignoring scenarios on the grounds that they're 'controversial'. I don't think you yourself are inclined toward that (though you might be, I don't know); but I do think others have demonstrated thinking along those lines.

The EU simply isn't that important to Cameron.

Then he's either an idiot who'se doing his country a great disservice, or you're simply wrong about whats important to him. I suspect it's a bit of both.

We've just had a general election in which his own party threatened to break apart, and lost huge numbers of voters to UKIP, an explicitly anti-European party. He had to promise a referendum to shore up his own support and win the election. It worked. It's exactly the same thing he did to shore up his support with the Liberal Democrats. It worked that time too. It's the same thing he did with the Scottish Nationalists. It's the third referendum he's promised to be people in this way.

No; implausible imo. If it was purely about getting votes then there were plenty of other ways to get those things; surely. That said, I don't deny that it didn't play a role; however it does not suffice as an explanation on its own (unless, indeed, Cameron is a complete moron who doesn't understand he's inviting disaster by calling such far reaching referendums). The fact that the referendum not only serves to curb his party's deterioration but ALSO allows for a potentially better negotiation position is what does it. The combination of benefits. Of course, those benefits hardly outweigh the risks; but politicians who try to secure their own power by riling up the populace never seem to understand that until its too late.

I don't think punishing a country for exiting the EU will make euroskeptic parties less popular. Quite the reverse if anything.

Perhaps. But Euroskeptics are a minority within Europe to begin with; which isn't going to change anytime soon (especially since young people tend towards being pro-EU). Indeed, pro-EU sentiment appears to be rising across the continent. The skeptics are numerous enough to throw wrenches in the works, but for the most part, that's it. Ensuring negative consequences for countries that leave does, however, work well on the undecided... especially since it would obviously not be done in a black and white "hark, see how we punish this pitiful rebel scum" sort of fashion.

The original claim was that banks would move from London to Frankfurt. Frankfurt isn't a global player in the same sense.

No, the original claim was that a good chunk of them likely would; and that others would likely move elsewhere. Amsterdam, Paris, Madrid, etc. Of course Frankfurt isn't going to turn into a new London. Either way, still bad for London.

It's worth noting that claims are made threatening London's status on a fairly regular basis. They never seem to amount to anything.

It's not a threat though; simply common sense. Businesses will go where it's cheapest/most profitable for them to operate. That would be inside of the single market; not outside of it.

The same reason the UK contributes to US projects in central America? As part of a trade arrangement?

Norway's own foreign minister boasts about being among the fastest in Europe in implementing EU directives. What they're doing is not simply part of a normal trade treaty.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32957134

Probably. It's also, you know, true? We're riding an unprecedented wave of euroskepticism, which Cameron is hostage to. The UK probably won't vote to leave, but it's a serious risk, particularly if people feel the UK is getting a raw deal from Europe. None of this is invented or created by Cameron. The EU really is that unpopular.

It doesn't matter if he created Euroskepticism. What matters is that he's fanning its flames.

Of course, part of that may be the way it gets described. You know, people going on about how the EU doesn't need the UK, how the UK would be nothing without the EU, describing states as 'vassals', and so on. It's not clear to me why you regard Cameron promising a referendum as 'dirty politics' and bullying, but your own description of a state's relationship with the EU using an analogy to a psychopath and his helpless victim as not being bullying at all. Or are you a bully too?

As unpopular as you claim the EU is in the UK, realize that the UK is even less popular in Europe. It's seen as doing nothing but selfishly make trouble, constantly trying to have its own way, demanding special treatment. It should be entirely obvious why my wording (and that of others) might seem a bit... on the annoyed side. There's this popular image of the UK as a spoiled child that's just big enough to get away with it; and now with the referendum, the addition to that image is of the spoiled child that got all that special treatment from us and *still* thinks we're being unfair to it and now it tells us to go screw ourselves, it's going to run away from home because 'fuck you dad, you're the worst!'

Of course that's going to cause resentment. I've seen surveys that suggest a majority in some countries favor just simply kicking the UK out regardless of what they vote in the referendum. People feel like it'd be better for our future as a continent to get rid of the UK now rather than have it continue to hold back integration for its own selfish reasons.

However, you're right; my wording has perhaps been overly antagonistic. This attitude was primarily in response to Whichphilosophy's mentality, which seems more extreme than your own and of the variety that inspires certain sentiments. But I should not have allowed sentiment/resentment to color my words to such a degree.

Whether the UK is kicked out or leaves by itself, it will still have to be a negotiated settlement per Lisbon.

The AMNESTY report quoted low paid workers who sweep roads etc. The Councils would not allow this but in recent years, these jobs were farmed jobs out to contractors.
As I mentioned the LSE report which is often quoted did not highlight important costs of immigration. I also explained that Migrant Watch deals with all parties.
There is also an increase in zero contracts which even the lowest estimates for those under this scheme run into hundreds of thousands. This is where both immigrants and citizens (all ethnic backgrounds) work for employers who need not guarantee them any work. This is a crafty way to disguise unemployment figures.

Of course Immigration will create certain jobs. You need more houses and schools built, more doctors and nurses, unemployment offices more food shops, more policing, and more transport etc. This is only because there are more people not because they all create jobs. Some immigrants will be invaluable so they should be welcome. Certain required workers should be welcome on a contract basis. AIDS and contagious diseases testing should be considered. This already happens in many countries. However, Britain does not have the room to take in hundreds of thousands of people a year.

 

[dystopian]

However, Britain does not have the room to take in hundreds of thousands of people a year.

Nonsense. We hear the exact same kind of argument about immigration to the Netherlands; and it simply isn't true. You could literally fit more than half the planet's population in the UK at a density equal to that of Paris; and still have room to spare. You easily have the room to take in a few hundred thousand people a year.

 

[whichphilosophy]

However, Britain does not have the room to take in hundreds of thousands of people a year.

Nonsense. We hear the exact same kind of argument about immigration to the Netherlands; and it simply isn't true. You could literally fit more than half the planet's population in the UK at a density equal to that of Paris; and still have room to spare. You easily have the room to take in a few hundred thousand people a year.

.
Paris has about 10,500,000 in 20,000 SQ KM
If you put 3.5 billion people into Holland's 41,500 SQ KM plus its population will be much more tightly packed in.
even in the UKs 243,000 SQKM it's still a lot of people.

 

[dystopian]

Paris has about 10,500,000 in 20,000 SQ KM
If you put 3.5 billion people into Holland's 41,500 SQ KM plus its population will be much more tightly packed in.
even in the UKs 243,000 SQKM it's still a lot of people.

As for Holland; first of all, Holland is only 5,500 square kilometers. Presumably however, you were referring to the Netherlands. Secondly, of course packing 3,5 billion people into the Netherlands would require a much higher population density... when the fuck did anyone ever say otherwise? At Paris' density, the Netherlands would "only" fit 872,403,000 people.

Now for the UK: Paris has a population density of 21,000 per square kilometer. Paris is perfectly liveable. Increasing the population of the UK to the point where the population density of the UK as a whole is 21,000 per square kilometers, allows us to fit 5 billion people in the country (5,115,810,000 to be exact).

Of course, no one is suggesting you should actually fit that many people in there. The point is that you *could*; demonstrating that any claims about the UK not having enough room for a few hundred thousand people a year are completely and utterly ridiculous. You easily have enough room for them. So what you need to do is stop coming up with excuses and admit you just don't want to share with immigrants.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Paris has about 10,500,000 in 20,000 SQ KM
If you put 3.5 billion people into Holland's 41,500 SQ KM plus its population will be much more tightly packed in.
even in the UKs 243,000 SQKM it's still a lot of people.

As for Holland; first of all, Holland is only 5,500 square kilometers. Presumably however, you were referring to the Netherlands. Secondly, of course packing 3,5 billion people into the Netherlands would require a much higher population density... when the fuck did anyone ever say otherwise? At Paris' density, the Netherlands would "only" fit 872,403,000 people.

Now for the UK: Paris has a population density of 21,000 per square kilometer. Paris is perfectly liveable. Increasing the population of the UK to the point where the population density of the UK as a whole is 21,000 per square kilometers, allows us to fit 5 billion people in the country (5,115,810,000 to be exact).

Of course, no one is suggesting you should actually fit that many people in there. The point is that you *could*; demonstrating that any claims about the UK not having enough room for a few hundred thousand people a year are completely and utterly ridiculous. You easily have enough room for them. So what you need to do is stop coming up with excuses and admit you just don't want to share with immigrants.

You can fit so many people in a piece of land or a cattle truck but that doesn't mean there is enough room it just means you can fit them in.
If we simply drove in 5 billion into the UK it would be a humanitarian disaster, Virtually no houses no sanitation, shops empty of food, no farming land left, deforestation, environmental pollution insufficient train and air services.

 

[bilby]

Paris has about 10,500,000 in 20,000 SQ KM
If you put 3.5 billion people into Holland's 41,500 SQ KM plus its population will be much more tightly packed in.
even in the UKs 243,000 SQKM it's still a lot of people.

As for Holland; first of all, Holland is only 5,500 square kilometers. Presumably however, you were referring to the Netherlands. Secondly, of course packing 3,5 billion people into the Netherlands would require a much higher population density... when the fuck did anyone ever say otherwise? At Paris' density, the Netherlands would "only" fit 872,403,000 people.

Now for the UK: Paris has a population density of 21,000 per square kilometer. Paris is perfectly liveable. Increasing the population of the UK to the point where the population density of the UK as a whole is 21,000 per square kilometers, allows us to fit 5 billion people in the country (5,115,810,000 to be exact).

Of course, no one is suggesting you should actually fit that many people in there. The point is that you *could*; demonstrating that any claims about the UK not having enough room for a few hundred thousand people a year are completely and utterly ridiculous. You easily have enough room for them. So what you need to do is stop coming up with excuses and admit you just don't want to share with immigrants.

No one said racist xenophobes were smart. Over here we have anti-immigration nuts who use the slogan 'Fuck off, we're full'. Given that we have more land per person than any continent bar Antarctica, this strikes me as more than a touch unrealistic.

 

[whichphilosophy]

As for Holland; first of all, Holland is only 5,500 square kilometers. Presumably however, you were referring to the Netherlands. Secondly, of course packing 3,5 billion people into the Netherlands would require a much higher population density... when the fuck did anyone ever say otherwise? At Paris' density, the Netherlands would "only" fit 872,403,000 people.

Now for the UK: Paris has a population density of 21,000 per square kilometer. Paris is perfectly liveable. Increasing the population of the UK to the point where the population density of the UK as a whole is 21,000 per square kilometers, allows us to fit 5 billion people in the country (5,115,810,000 to be exact).

Of course, no one is suggesting you should actually fit that many people in there. The point is that you *could*; demonstrating that any claims about the UK not having enough room for a few hundred thousand people a year are completely and utterly ridiculous. You easily have enough room for them. So what you need to do is stop coming up with excuses and admit you just don't want to share with immigrants.

No one said racist xenophobes were smart. Over here we have anti-immigration nuts who use the slogan 'Fuck off, we're full'. Given that we have more land per person than any continent bar Antarctica, this strikes me as more than a touch unrealistic.

So it's racist to refuse 5 billion people into the UK as proposed?? What's not smart is suggesting the world population goes to one country.

It doesn't need a rocket scientist to understand the consequences of such a move. We don't have room for hundreds of economic migrants. it means billions of pounds in building houses, roads schools etc. Since many against uncontrolled immigration are themselves from ethnic minorities, then racism seems pretty absurd. When you look at the policies of countries such as China, Singapore, India and the Middle East then they must be racist too.