Europe... yes or no for investors?

jamesd

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Who gets to vote? Do Polish citizens have the right to vote?

Not yet decided. In the referendum on Scotland, most Scottish people living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were barred from participating [STRIKE]and people from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who were living in Scotland were also barred from participating. It was one of the fiddles used to increase the chance of a leave vote by barring those most likely to vote to stay.[/STRIKE]

BananaRepublic wrote: »

It sounds not unlike some Eastern European countries which were stuffed with Russian citizens by Russia, to sway the balance in favour of Russian union.

That and these days to provide an excuse to invade "to protect those of Russian origin", which we've now seen twice in countries bordering Russia. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have good reason to be worried because resettlement or Russians to those countries has left them with significant Russian-origin populations.

Marktheshark

The EU is 600,00,000,00 in debt and rising quickly.
Feel free to invest...

Linton

jamesd wrote: »

It's not just a statement it is a declaration of intent and objective:

"RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer Union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity"

The primary reason for the objective being there is political and social, not economic. I assume it'll be continued on the basis of a mixture of objectives.

The harmonsation of tax is what has led to one of the dodges used to avoid tax. Harmonised VAT law says that for many types of intangible goods the sale happens in the jurisdiction were the seller says it is located instead of the location of the purchaser, so by setting up in a low VAT jurisdiction lots of VAT doesn't get paid. Of course with increased focus on issues like this we may see some change to this approach and there are already many exceptions where the tax rate of the purchaser is used instead.

Ultimately political and social reasons are driven by economics. Integration wont happen just because it's stated to be an intent and objective. Integration will happen because it becomes economically desirable or even essential no matter whether there is an overall intent and objective or not.

As to market distortions arising from different VAT rates across the EU a simple answer is to have one single VAT rate or perhaps a range of VAT rates structured to benefit the poorer areas independent of national boundaries. Economics driving integration.

jamesd

Linton wrote: »

Ultimately political and social reasons are driven by economics.

Maybe. I don't think that the Serbian Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip was driven to assassinate Franz Ferdinand by economic interests but rather by his nationalist views. That being a driving cause of both the world wars involving Europe, first directly, then in part due to the economic and political consequences of the treaty which ended the first round. I don't think it's clear how much of his nationalist views were caused by the economic and political decline of the Ottoman empire and its influence in the Balkans. The surrounding treaties that led to the various powers getting involved before and after the assassination weren't just economic but political.

Preventing another German-led war in Europe is perhaps the highest political and social objective of the EU, even if it is not an explicit part of any of the treaties.

BananaRepublic

Linton wrote: »

Ultimately political and social reasons are driven by economics. Integration wont happen just because it's stated to be an intent and objective. Integration will happen because it becomes economically desirable or even essential no matter whether there is an overall intent and objective or not.

As to market distortions arising from different VAT rates across the EU a simple answer is to have one single VAT rate or perhaps a range of VAT rates structured to benefit the poorer areas independent of national boundaries. Economics driving integration.

It is not economics.

This comes down to one simple question: do we want the UK to remain as a democracy, in control of its own destiny, or should we allow a transfer to powers to the EU, and become a province in a larger political entity. We have already transferred some powers, and despite the rather flimsy promises 'won' by Cameron, the EU has a history of ignoring people r.e. the Irish referendum which was held a second time after the people gave the 'wrong' answer first time round.

In my opinion we should get out while we still can. We will without doubt become a favoured trading partner with the EU, and life will continue.

bigfreddiel

BoJo's In - hurrah - I'm getting my car resprayed with the Union Jack and getting BREXIT written all over it

Anyone got BRE1T number plate for sale? I'm sure I can contrive an X somehow in the number.

Cheers fj

Eco_Miser

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Ido we want the UK to remain as a democracy, in control of its own destiny,

It would be nice if we were a democracy in the first place. Turning out every five years to vote for our rulers does not make us a democracy.

And as for control of our destiny, the aftermath of the Second World War showed we had already lost that.

Superscrooge

bigfreddiel wrote: »

BoJo's In - hurrah -
Cheers fj

I think you will find that BoJo is 'Out', not 'In' Now that he has finally worked out whether campaigning for In or Out is most likely to boost his Tory leadership chances.

Not exactly conviction politics!

ColdIron

Eco_Miser wrote: »

It would be nice if we were a democracy in the first place. Turning out every five years to vote for our rulers does not make us a democracy.

It makes us a Representative Democracy rather than a Direct Democracy

Linton

BananaRepublic wrote: »

It is not economics.

This comes down to one simple question: do we want the UK to remain as a democracy, in control of its own destiny, or should we allow a transfer to powers to the EU, and become a province in a larger political entity. We have already transferred some powers, and despite the rather flimsy promises 'won' by Cameron, the EU has a history of ignoring people r.e. the Irish referendum which was held a second time after the people gave the 'wrong' answer first time round.

In my opinion we should get out while we still can. We will without doubt become a favoured trading partner with the EU, and life will continue.

In a global economy "we" (whoever "we" are) cannot be in control of our destiny. That destiny is controlled by the USA, perhaps China, Europe and the large oligopoly multinationals. Our ability to control our own destiny is already constrained by global institutions and treaty obligations. I see 3 possible options....

1) Have a fortress Great Britain that grows its own food and extracts its own energy and ignores the rest of the world - North Korea?

2) Stand alone unable to control global forces much larger than us. Unable to for example tax US multinationals or control them in any way. Unable to create our own multinationals becaiuse our home market is too small to support major indigenous industries.

3) Become part of a larger entity which we can influence and which does have the economic power to counter balance the other global powers - USA and perhaps one day China. I suppose that larger entity could be the USA, but I would rather prefer the EU.

Perhaps you could give an example of a country our size that does have control of its own destiny?