Europe... yes or no for investors?

masonic

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.

Yes, and what a choice we have when we do turn out! I don't think a Brexit would lead to a system in which the UK population has any more influence over policy than it does now. The question is whether staying within the EU would necessarily lead to an erosion of our current level of influence - that's quite unclear to me.

masonic

Superscrooge wrote: »

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.

Thanks for the mental image of BoJo dancing to the hokey cokey! :eek:

themanfromamarillo

jamesd wrote: »

The EU is not just a single market. It is also a long term transfer of sovereignty plan, a supreme court that has precedence of the the UK, a set of human rights principles and much more, including an agreement that has no formal provision for leaving the EU and a commitment to eventually switch the the Euro as the currency.

This demonstrates the problem with the debate at the moment. Most of the pro-Brexit arguments are based on misinformation. I assume by "supreme court" you mean the European Court of Human Rights which is not an EU institution, which the UK has been a member of since 1959 and which counts as members every single country in Europe with the exception of Belarus (the most brutally repressive state in the continent). You claim there is "no formal provision for leaving the EU", Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty is that provision. There is also no "commitment to eventually switch the the Euro as the currency" the UK opted out of that in 1992.

Eco_Miser

ColdIron wrote: »

It makes us a Representative Democracy rather than a Direct Democracy

That's what they say. But just who do the MPs represent? Those who voted for them? Those who voted against them (sometimes a bigger number)? Those who selected them for a cushy seat? The one who gave them a Government (or opposition) job?
The company that they'll be non-executive directors of, after they leave the Commons?

BananaRepublic

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.

You are correct that we are not a democracy in the true sense of the word, but what we have is more subtle and effective, albeit flawed, than many imagine. Our democracy works at two levels.

On the local level we vote for an MP, and if she/he turns out to be a plonker, then we can dump them, and sometimes before a national election. I could vote for an MP of party B, even though I support party A, on the grounds that she/he was a good egg.

On the national level we have what amounts to a dictatorship with a duration of up to 5 years. But it is more subtle, because various groups especially the media hold the government to account. Issues get discussed in the media, and opinion formers influence the government. If something really bad appears, it is highlighted by the media, and often the government is forced to backtrack.

The EU is not like that. The commissioners are appointed, often for reasons that have little to do with democracy, and more to do with favours. EU MPs are elected by proportional representation so it is hard to push out the ne'er do wells. And we have little idea what they do. A lot of it seems to favour big business. The recent or soon to be introduced regulations on plants and seeds would have put the small growers out of business, until massive protest changed the minds of the deciders. The EU had not allowed anyone but big business and EU MPs to input to the rules. TTIP looks to be the same. The EU loves rules and regulations, perhaps a legacy of the French who love bureacracy.

Eco_Miser wrote: »

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

We were nearly bankrupted by the war, as were other European countries. But unlike you I have confidence in our country, and in our ability to decide for ourselves. That does not mean we cannot act as partners with Europe.

bigadaj

jamesd wrote: »

Maybe but it is worth knowing that UK car manufacturers have set up factories elsewhere in the EU and if there were tariffs it's not something that could work in one direction only.

Which British manufacturers is that, there aren't any left as far as I'm aware, certainly not of any size in any case.

BananaRepublic

Linton wrote: »

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?

That is a caricature put forward by some pro-EU people. And quite what a homicidal dictatorship has to do with the issue beats me. Could you be sensible please?

Linton wrote: »

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.

You may find that if we stay in the EU we end up being walked over through the back door, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors. We do not have much say over what happens in Europe, and it is easier for US companies to 'negotiate' with one entity, and get their way than to deal with individual companies.

And who says we have to control global forces. We can set our own laws, control our borders, determine our own future within the world, and form trading partnerships.

Your example, of tax, requires collaboration between countries. There is no reason why we cannot cooperate. And the advantage will be that we can negotiate according to our needs.

Linton wrote: »

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.

The truth is that we have little influence in Europe. Cameron's recent 'concessions' show how true that is. The EU is becoming too big, with Latin countries that have a quite different outlook to us, and East European countries who have very different emerging economies. Without doubt big business favours our membership, due in part to cheaper labour.

I happen to believe that the UK should remain as a unique separate political entity, able to legislate its own laws, and able to cooperate and trade with other countries.

BananaRepublic

bigadaj wrote: »

Which British manufacturers is that, there aren't any left as far as I'm aware, certainly not of any size in any case.

The UK is a big car maker. We make a lot of things. It just so happens that the companies are usually foreign owned. Something to do with foreigners being better managers I think. And we provide the world with a lot of services, including financial services.

Scarpacci

Linton wrote: »

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.

We can't extract tax from U.S. multinationals now even when we're in the EU. Could they two be connected? Google's profits flow through Dublin and Amsterdam before hading off to Caribbean islands (of course, the less said about whose flag flies on those islands the better). Amazon used to send it all to Luxembourg, a country barely the size of many our national parks. Is the EU the solution to tax engineering by American companies or is it the very problem?

An abstract argument I know, but have you considered the smallness of a home market is exactly what creates the conditions for multinationals? Look at Switzerland. They have huge multinationals exactly because their home market was too small. Nestle had to go outside and do business in countries all over the world in different languages with different systems - often opening a subsidiary in each little country.

Japan is about the most homogeneous, isolated nation you can find, but it didn't hold them back from conquering the world with multinationals. Look at the history of UK multinationals. Did the European union exist when Lever Brothers merged with Margarine Unie? There's a long history of Anglo-Dutch companies, even before the EU came about. Companies which truly know what it means to operate worldwide in practically ever jurisdiction, whether it's part of a larger common market or not (and usually the case is not).

themanfromamarillo

BananaRepublic wrote: »

The UK is a big car maker. We make a lot of things. It just so happens that the companies are usually foreign owned. Something to do with foreigners being better managers I think. And we provide the world with a lot of services, including financial services.

The UK has a significant trade surplus with the EU in services. Most EU-associated countries as Switzerland and Turkey do not have free trade agreements which cover services and the UK would struggle to get a deal that would include these. In-fact the "out" argument is that the UK would get to opt out of freedom of movement of labour but retain free movement of capital, goods and services, a deal that no other nation has.