Why are the British so anti Europe?

Jim2007

McDave wrote: »

I'd be surprised if the UK exit in the end.

There was a time that I would have said the same, but now I'm not sure...

The fact is that time is rapidly running out for DC, the European style of decision making by concensus is not going to deliver any kind of meaningful reform that he can present at a possible referendum in the UK and what does he do then?

His behaviour and that the UKIP in the parliament over the last few days is not the stuff of concensus decision making, so it would seem the only way not to loose face would be to loose the next general election so he does not have to preside over a referendum.

gallag

Jim2007 wrote: »

Yes, Euroland already functions without the UK and the fact is that they members of Euroland have show that they are both willing and capable of defending the Euro when necessary. And with the passing of time these countries are becoming more and more tightly bound than another part of the EU.



No not at all. Voters who voted for the UKIP want out, while in most other countries the anti vote was for change. There is a big difference. The one thing middle Europe voters appreciate about the EU is that it has prevented war in Europe and that is something French/German voters will through away lightly.



It already exists it is called Euroland! Consensus decision making will be stronger and slower because that is the European way. Without the UK I would expect that the 2 Tier approach will become more obvious and some of the smaller countries not already in the Euro will probably join.

More jobs for Irish translator, as UK citizens will no longer be able to work for the commission , more British/US companies opening up in Ireland so that their operations will be within the EU.....

So you don't see any negative effect on the EU? for example if the strongest EU economy, Germany, lost its export market to the UK and had to pick up half of the European payment the UK makes (about €40 million per day!!) It would reduce the Germans economy by about 5%, I think people severely under estimate the UK'S importance to the EU, I would think overnight the military strength of the EU being halved would also be significant.

The EU does not hold all the cards on trade deals with the UK, the UK being a net importer leads me to believe the only way a UK exit would work for all is for the UK to retain free trade status, there would be no reason not to grant this other than the EU cutting of their nose to spite their face. Simple solution , UK exits the EU with free trade status and everyone wins! Other that a self destructive petty need to punish the UK for leaving why not?

whatstherush

gallag wrote: »

So you don't see any negative effect on the EU? for example if the strongest EU economy, Germany, lost its export market to the UK and had to pick up half of the European payment the UK makes (about €40 million per day!!) It would reduce the Germans economy by about 5%, I think people severely under estimate the UK'S importance to the EU, I would think overnight the military strength of the EU being halved would also be significant.

Of course it would have a negative affect, the question is who does it hurt most, the UK 50% export market or the rest of the EU's 20% export market.

gallag wrote: »

The EU does not hold all the cards on trade deals with the UK, the UK being a net importer leads me to believe the only way a UK exit would work for all is for the UK to retain free trade status, there would be no reason not to grant this other than the EU cutting of their nose to spite their face. Simple solution , UK exits the EU with free trade status and everyone wins! Other that a self destructive petty need to punish the UK for leaving why not?

You would imagine that this would be the outcome if the UK did leave, but all those pesky EU directives that the Daily Wail pisses and moans about would still apply to anything the UK wanted to export into the EU.

djpbarry

gallag wrote: »

UK exits the EU with free trade status and everyone wins!

One wonders why the UK is so keen to retain free trade with an entity that it can apparently do just fine without?

Nobody wins in a situation that involves a UK exit. The EU would be worse off without the UK and the UK worse off without the EU. But, I imagine patience with British obstructionism in Brussels must be wearing thin at this stage.

The Corinthian

dlouth15 wrote: »

But the Swiss peg is not a good example. It is too specific to the particularities of the Swiss economy and banking system. I see it as quite unlikely that the UK will have to do something similar in the foreseeable future.

How exactly is it specific to the particularities of the Swiss banking system? Love to hear an explanation for that.

Anyhow, you're still desperately holding onto your straw man, that currency pegging is the point being made, when in reality it is an example of the point being made.

Switzerland is in reality on a very short leash, in terms of sovereignty. They have access to the EU market, but there are strings attached, such as being forced to give freedom of movement and work to EU citizens.

The Francs pegging to the Euro is simply an example of the hegemony that the EU has over the continent, for good or ill, which makes much of the sovereignty of any non-EU nation that's in the EU's sphere of influence moot.

That is the point.

dlouth15

gallag wrote: »

The EU does not hold all the cards on trade deals with the UK, the UK being a net importer leads me to believe the only way a UK exit would work for all is for the UK to retain free trade status, there would be no reason not to grant this other than the EU cutting of their nose to spite their face. Simple solution , UK exits the EU with free trade status and everyone wins! Other that a self destructive petty need to punish the UK for leaving why not?

Most likely if the UK did leave it would be on the basis of a continuing free trade relationship such as those countries in the EEA have. Possibly agriculture would be excluded.

Jim2007

dlouth15 wrote: »

Most likely if the UK did leave it would be on the basis of a continuing free trade relationship such as those countries in the EEA have. Possibly agriculture would be excluded.

The would mean that they would have to take on most of the EU legislation in respect of the internal market without a seat on the Commission, the Council or the Parliament... ya, I don't think that is what they have in mind...

dlouth15

Jim2007 wrote: »

The would mean that they would have to take on most of the EU legislation in respect of the internal market without a seat on the Commission, the Council or the Parliament... ya, I don't think that is what they have in mind...

When you say most, can you point to research where that is quantified?

Jim2007

gallag wrote: »

So you don't see any negative effect on the EU? for example if the strongest EU economy, Germany, lost its export market to the UK and had to pick up half of the European payment the UK makes (about €40 million per day!!) It would reduce the Germans economy by about 5%, I think people severely under estimate the UK'S importance to the EU, I would think overnight the military strength of the EU being halved would also be significant.

Of course it would have an impact, but exactly how big is hard to imagine. For instance it is unlikely that German would loose all of it's export market to the UK, but as it is unlikely that the UK would loose all it's EU trade. On the other hand companies on both sides will have an opportunity to fill the void left by the change.

When it comes to the EU budget the UK contributes around 9% and a the last budgeting round it was the main driver in hold or reducing expenditure while other were willing to increase the budget. That plus the willingness of the Euroland countries to defend the Euro during the recent crises, suggest that the EU will not fall apart from the lack of UK cash.

gallag wrote: »

...UK to retain free trade status, there would be no reason not to grant this other than the EU cutting of their nose to spite their face. Simple solution , UK exits the EU with free trade status and everyone wins! Other that a self destructive petty need to punish the UK for leaving why not?

Don't confuse free trade with fair trade... What the UK would like is to have full access to the internal market, without the costs involved in terms of legal compliance and support of the structural fund. That is not going to happen, there is no way the EU will rewrite it's trade agreements to the disadvantage of it's economies. If it ever comes to it, what will be on the table is fair trade - access to the internal market in exchange for compliance to the EU legal framework, just as was offered to Norway, Switzerland and so on.

It is also worth keeping in mind that such agreement would be more difficult to get today than it was in the past when Norway and Switzerland reached such an agreement. Today the EU Parliment in addition to the Commission and Council would have to agree and if a treaty change was involved France would not also have hold a referendum like Ireland, plus a few others, as they too have seen the power of referendum when it comes to EU negotiations.

Jim2007

dlouth15 wrote: »

When you say most, can you point to research where that is quantified?

At its meeting on 27 June 2014, the EEA Joint Committee agreed to adopt 75 legal acts. Among them were EU programmes for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) and Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (COSME), as well as a new General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER).

Well for a start the above was taken from the press release of the recent EFTA meeting. If you care to take the time to dig back over all there stuff you'll find plenty more.

dlouth15

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well for a start the above was taken from the press release of the recent EFTA meeting. If you care to take the time to dig back over all there stuff you'll find plenty more.

Not really an answer to be honest. It does not tell me the proportion of EU legislation that EEA countries have to adopt.

MarkK

dlouth15 wrote: »

Not really an answer to be honest. It does not tell me the proportion of EU legislation that EEA countries have to adopt.

How do you define "proportion" of legislation?

If an EEA country does not need to implement 9 laws on the packaging of fruit and vegetables but must implement one employment directive affecting all workers in the county, would you say that "they adopt 10% of EU legislation"?

dlouth15

MarkK wrote: »

How do you define "proportion" of legislation?

If an EEA country does not need to implement 9 laws on the packaging of fruit and vegetables but must implement one employment directive affecting all workers in the county, would you say that "they adopt 10% of EU legislation"?

I'm flexible on that definition so long as it is reasonable. I didn't make the claim that most EU legislation has to be adopted by EEA members.

View

gallag wrote: »

The EU does not hold all the cards on trade deals with the UK, the UK being a net importer leads me to believe the only way a UK exit would work for all is for the UK to retain free trade status, there would be no reason not to grant this other than the EU cutting of their nose to spite their face.

The EU has bigger trade partners than a non-EU UK would be, yet those partners still don't have free trade status with the EU, so I suspect the UK would be added to the "To Do" list at the trade negotiation directorate.

gallag wrote: »

Simple solution , UK exits the EU with free trade status and everyone wins! Other that a self destructive petty need to punish the UK for leaving why not?

Alternatively, the EU could propose a free trade agreement for goods only which excludes (financial) services. That would set the cat amongst the pigeons in Westminister at a guess. :-)

dlouth15

View wrote: »

Alternatively, the EU could propose a free trade agreement for goods only which excludes (financial) services. That would set the cat amongst the pigeons in Westminister at a guess. :-)

It would cause a lot of disruption for users of UK financial services across Europe. I doubt if they would do that.

Jim2007

dlouth15 wrote: »

Not really an answer to be honest. It does not tell me the proportion of EU legislation that EEA countries have to adopt.

The proportion is no indicator on it's own because much of the EU law outside the scope of the internal market would have no impact on the EEA in any case.

View

dlouth15 wrote: »

It would cause a lot of disruption for users of UK financial services across Europe. I doubt if they would do that.

Should the UK decide to leave the EU, it is the UK that will opt to disrupt trade in both goods and services (including financial ones).

The other member states may not like that but certainly won't be putting themselves out so a non-EU country gets the benefit from EU-related financial transactions.

dlouth15

View wrote: »

Should the UK decide to leave the EU, it is the UK that will opt to disrupt trade in both goods and services (including financial ones).

The other member states may not like that but certainly won't be putting themselves out so a non-EU country gets the benefit from EU-related financial transactions.

I still think it is unlikely that the UK would be outside any sort of trade arrangement should they leave the EU. They are likely to remain in the EEA and as such will participate fully in those areas covered by the EEA excepting the areas that they choose to opt out of. Remember that the EU also wants to benefit from free trade with non-EU countries including financial services. If Europe currently benefits from UK's financial services they are going to want to continue to do so.

MarkK

dlouth15 wrote: »

I still think it is unlikely that the UK would be outside any sort of trade arrangement should they leave the EU. They are likely to remain in the EEA and as such will participate fully in those areas covered by the EEA excepting the areas that they choose to opt out of. Remember that the EU also wants to benefit from free trade with non-EU countries including financial services. If Europe currently benefits from UK's financial services they are going to want to continue to do so.

The main anti-EU bellyaching we hear from the Brits is about immigration.
If they stay in the EEA, there will be no change to immigration rights.

The free movement of persons is one of the core rights guaranteed in the European Economic Area (EEA), the extended Internal Market which unites all the EU Member States and three EEA EFTA States – Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It is perhaps the most important right for individuals, as it gives citizens of the 30 EEA countries the opportunity to live, work, establish business and study in any of these countries.

The legislation on the free movement of persons aims at eliminating all obstacles to the freedom of movement, and to give the same rights to nationals of an EEA State and their family members within the EEA by eliminating any discrimination on the basis of nationality.

http://www.efta.int/eea/policy-areas/persons

KindOfIrish

There won't be UK if English will leave EU. Scotland and Northern Ireland will vote for independence and stay in EU. By the way, if English will vote for leaving EU, there is a good chance for United Ireland.

dlouth15

MarkK wrote: »

The main anti-EU bellyaching we hear from the Brits is about immigration.
If they stay in the EEA, there will be no change to immigration rights.

http://www.efta.int/eea/policy-areas/persons

Sure but I think it is important to distinguish between what certain sections (for example UKip) want and what is likely to happen if a vote to exit the EU was successful. There's a lot of variation of opinion in the UK. At one end, there's a dislike of any form of sharing of power, full control over immigration etc. At the other end, there are those who want full integration within the EU and for the EU to take over more and more powers. If the UK votes to leave then it is likely to be by quite a narrow margin. Those who want to stay in the UK will have lost and so won't get their way, but likewise, those who want full disconnection from Europe in every respect will most probably also not get their way.

View

dlouth15 wrote: »

I still think it is unlikely that the UK would be outside any sort of trade arrangement should they leave the EU.

If the UK leaves the EU, they have NO trade arrangement with the EU. They would need to negotiate one from scratch.

dlouth15 wrote: »

They are likely to remain in the EEA

No, they are not. No part of the EEA covers a non-EU UK, so exiting the EU means exiting the EEA (and indeed each and every EU-non-EU country trade arrangement that the UK has access to as an EU member).

dlouth15 wrote: »

Remember that the EU also wants to benefit from free trade with non-EU countries including financial services.

Very true but despite the desirability of such arrangments, the EU does not have such arrangments with larger trade partners than the UK.

dlouth15 wrote: »

If Europe currently benefits from UK's financial services they are going to want to continue to do so.

Will they?

There is no interest for the EU member states in a majority of their financial transactions being carried out and dependent on an off-shore financial centre, particularly one that would be politically hostile to the EU in the event of a UK EU exit.

dlouth15

View wrote: »

If the UK leaves the EU, they have NO trade arrangement with the EU. They would need to negotiate one from scratch.

Sure but I don't see any problem in that. Most likely the arrangements will be made during the two years after such a vote is made.

No, they are not. No part of the EEA covers a non-EU UK, so exiting the EU means exiting the EEA (and indeed each and every EU-non-EU country trade arrangement that the UK has access to as an EU member).

The UK are members of the EEA currently in their own right as are most but not all EU countries. If they choose to leave the EU they remain in the EEA. I would therefore see them continuing their membership of the EEA after separation.

Very true but despite the desirability of such arrangments, the EU does not have such arrangments with larger trade partners than the UK.

Well the EU are currently negotiating with the US, so I don't see the the relatively large size of the UK as being a particular issue. In any case, if the UK remains as an EEA member, there will be free trade in those areas in which the UK wishes to have free trade.

Will they?

There is no interest for the EU member states in a majority of their financial transactions being carried out and dependent on an off-shore financial centre, particularly one that would be politically hostile to the EU in the event of a UK EU exit.

I don't see any particular hostility in the UK to the EU as a trading partner. Sure there might be a desire for more sovereignty over their own affairs, repatriation of powers within the EU and so forth but I think it is a mistake to construe this as hostility.

Jim2007

dlouth15 wrote: »

If they choose to leave the EU they remain in the EEA. I would therefore see them continuing their membership of the EEA after separation.

Which would mean they would have to adapt the the EU rules to gain access to the internal market! So it is hard to see how they'd settle for that given their starting point.

Jim2007

dlouth15 wrote: »

If Europe currently benefits from UK's financial services they are going to want to continue to do so.

As someone who has worked in the European financial services sector for the twenty years I'd love to hear how you think we benefit from the UK financial services??? For most European players, the City is handy for unloading the most risky operations on it, doing some trading and that is about it!

If London was out of commission this Monday morning, it would take about 6 to 8 hours for the other major European players to bring up an alternative market, if London, Frankfurt and Zurich were down it might take 8 to 12 hours for them to come alive on an another continent! Having this capability is a require of the ECB, The Fed and the BIS, if you want to play in the markets. And since 9/11 it is a plan that has been tested on a regular basis under the supervision of one o these bodies. It is a basic requirement these days to ensure that couple of well placed bombs can not bring the world markets to stand still.

dlouth15

Jim2007 wrote: »

Which would mean they would have to adapt the the EU rules to gain access to the internal market! So it is hard to see how they'd settle for that given their starting point.

Only for those aspects of the single market in which they choose to participate (I think they may well exempt themselves from agriculture). This I think most people would regard as fair enough. And they wouldn't have to adopt any EU legislation that is not involved in the single market. So the move would mean the restoration of a considerable amount of sovereignty.

dlouth15

Jim2007 wrote: »

As someone who has worked in the European financial services sector for the twenty years I'd love to hear how you think we benefit from the UK financial services??? For most European players, the City is handy for unloading the most risky operations on it, doing some trading and that is about it!

If you are not benefiting from it, why are you paying for it? I presume a fair amount of the City's earnings come from Europe as well as worldwide.

View

dlouth15 wrote: »

Sure but I don't see any problem in that. Most likely the arrangements will be made during the two years after such a vote is made.

Trade arrangements typically take 5-10 years to negotiate and put into force. Two years won't do it.

Also the EU has a in-tray full of ongoing negotiations. The EU is not going to insult other countries by sticking their negotiations on ice to facilitate another non-EU country (the non-EU UK).

dlouth15 wrote: »

The UK are members of the EEA currently in their own right as are most but not all EU countries.

The EEA is a series of bilateral arrangements between the EU (and its member states) and SPECIFIED non-EU countries. It takes the form of "The EU will do..." and "Country X will do..."

A non-EU UK would belong to neither category. It would not be an EU member state nor would it be a specified non-EU country.

dlouth15 wrote: »

If they choose to leave the EU they remain in the EEA. I would therefore see them continuing their membership of the EEA after separation.

Leaving the EU means losing access to all trade arrangments negotiated by the EU. You can't use, for instance, the EU-Korea trade agreement to trade with Korea if you are not an EU member. That also applies to the EEA agreement.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Well the EU are currently negotiating with the US, so I don't see the the relatively large size of the UK as being a particular issue.

The USA doesn't have a free trade agreement with the EU decades after the EU/ECs were set up but a non-EU UK is going to secure one within 24 hours. :-)

Not very likely, is it?

dlouth15 wrote: »

I don't see any particular hostility in the UK to the EU as a trading partner. Sure there might be a desire for more sovereignty over their own affairs, repatriation of powers within the EU and so forth but I think it is a mistake to construe this as hostility.

If Euro-sceptics are in power in the UK, as would be the case in the event of a UK exit, they certainly aren't going to be neutral much less friendly to the EU.

They most certainly are hostile both to the idea of abiding by EU rules (unless the EU agrees with their view) and to the idea of paying monies to the EU budget (which the EEA states do/have had to do to secure market access).

The EU member states have no interest in giving a non-EU UK's financial services free access to the EU - a scenario which means the UK would get all the tax revenue and their FS industry could engage in reckless practices with the EU secure in the knowledge that the EU member states would pick up any future bill and would have no regulatory recourse to stop such behaviour.

McDave

View wrote: »

If Euro-sceptics are in power in the UK, as would be the case in the event of a UK exit, they certainly aren't going to be neutral much less friendly to the EU.

They most certainly are hostile both to the idea of abiding by EU rules (unless the EU agrees with their view) and to the idea of paying monies to the EU budget (which the EEA states do/have had to do to secure market access).

The EU member states have no interest in giving a non-EU UK's financial services free access to the EU - a scenario which means the UK would get all the tax revenue and their FS industry could engage in reckless practices with the EU secure in the knowledge that the EU member states would pick up any future bill and would have no regulatory recourse to stop such behaviour.

If the UK leaves the EU, I think we're looking at a sea change in attitudes. While there will be basic respect, and trade will continue, some of the competitive advantages the Eurozone in particular will enjoy will be asserted and leveraged against the UK. Not least in the financial sector.

Over time political contact will loosen, and the continent will progressively integrate its infrastructures and economies, with all the research and industrial benefits that will stimulate. Foreign policy will also be realigned, with the EU focussing anew on the eastern lands, the near east and north Africa, at the expense of Atlanticism. I'd expect the EU would slowly drift away from the US, loosening military ties and cultural bonds.

All these developments will have fundamental ramifications for us. In an EU without the UK, we'd really have to stand up for ourselves on all accounts, and we'd have to invest heavily in language skills. Personally I think this would be beneficial and help us mature as a society and economy, but I'm not convinced we have it in us to take the strain so comprehensively. There will be many here who in reality would prefer Britain to do the heavy policy and strategic heavy lifting.

dlouth15

View wrote: »

Trade arrangements typically take 5-10 years to negotiate and put into force. Two years won't do it.

Also the EU has a in-tray full of ongoing negotiations. The EU is not going to insult other countries by sticking their negotiations on ice to facilitate another non-EU country (the non-EU UK).

The EEA is a series of bilateral arrangements between the EU (and its member states) and SPECIFIED non-EU countries. It takes the form of "The EU will do..." and "Country X will do..."

A non-EU UK would belong to neither category. It would not be an EU member state nor would it be a specified non-EU country.

Before I proceed to deal with these points, do you agree that the UK is a member of the EEA in its own right and not merely by virtue of being an EU member? You seemed to be arguing on a different basis in your earlier post.