Europe... yes or no for investors?

bigfreddiel

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.

Not exactly conviction politics!

Of course I meant he's in the out campaign, obviously

fj

bigadaj

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.

Exactly, there isn't a uk owned volume car manufacturer, closest would be jaguar Land Rover which is obviously Indian owned.

I don't think there's any 'just so happens' about them being foreign owned, it's the legacy of incompetent management, union interference and inept government policy that has left the country in this situation.

Basing your whole economic future on financial services has led to the unbalanced economy we now have.

bigfreddiel

We'll be living the dream soon, BoJo for PM and Trump for Pres! Hurrah!

fj

jamesd

themanfromamarillo wrote: »

This demonstrates the problem with the debate at the moment. Most of the pro-Brexit arguments are based on misinformation.

Well, at least claims that they are misinformation.

themanfromamarillo wrote: »

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).

That's an odd assumption since we are discussing the EU and it's the European Court of Justice that does things like interpret the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and as required handle a range of other areas where the EU by treaty has exclusive or shared jurisdiction over or with national governments.

themanfromamarillo wrote: »

You claim there is "no formal provision for leaving the EU", Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty is that provision.

Perhaps best to read up more on the disagreement as to whether that really does provide a unilateral right to withdraw and how little it says about what happens when a country wishes to withdraw.

themanfromamarillo wrote: »

There is also no "commitment to eventually switch the the Euro as the currency" the UK opted out of that in 1992.

You're right that the UK opted out of that but it remains binding on many states that have not yet switched to the Euro.

planteria

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

This English voter prefers to stick with the devil you know.

..and i suspect that this will be the outcome. but if so, it will be a false decision. the EU is going to change dramatically in the next couple of years, and if we have voted to 'Remain' we are going to be a big part of that, whether we like it or not.

amongst many examples, German 'generosity' with taking 1m economic migrants will become the responsibility of all EU countries, with the burden upon the contributor nations, like us.

i don't think we should have concern re. our markets as a whole, but sensibly considering the effect of leaving the EU, and also the effects of staying in the consolidating EU, will have on individual companies we are invested in is obviously wise.

as above, protecting The City is important to our prosperity, and could impact companies that many of us are invested in. the risk i see is that remaining in the EU will enable Frankfurt and Paris to continue to chip away at London. however it is dressed up, the balance of power leads that way.

themanfromamarillo

jamesd wrote: »

Well, at least claims that they are misinformation.

That's an odd assumption since we are discussing the EU and it's the European Court of Justice that does things like interpret the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and as required handle a range of other areas where the EU by treaty has exclusive or shared jurisdiction over or with national governments.

Well given that you were talking about "human rights" and almost all the controversy over that subject relates to the UK judges interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights (a Council of Europe measure) it's a sensible assumption to make. The ECJ is there to make sure the EU and EU countries stick to treaties they have agreed on. A perfectly sensible principle, if you agree to play a game by a set of rules it's only fair to appoint a referee.

jamesd wrote: »

Perhaps best to read up more on the disagreement as to whether that really does provide a unilateral right to withdraw and how little it says about what happens when a country wishes to withdraw.

A country can notifies the EU it wants to withdraw, tries to negotiate a deal to keep some access to EU markets or programmes. If that fails it after 2 years it can withdraw unilaterally. That's a "formal provision" for a country leaving.

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

jamesd

Since we're discussing the EU it seems sensible to assume at least at first that a reference to human rights and courts in the EU refers to the EU rights and court, not the non-EU ones. Presumably you do agree that it has precedence over the UK courts, Parliament and Crown in the relevant areas of its jurisdiction, including whether the UK has a right to withdraw? And presumably you agree that this is a reduction in UK sovereign independence? Whether that reduction is desirable is where the referendum voter decision-making comes in - some will consider it desirable or acceptable, others less so or not.

Nice quote and I'll agree that there is the start of a provision to leave since 2009.

Yet it's not remotely close to complete and the ECB observes does not carry out "the daunting task of spelling out the procedure and consequences of withdrawal"

You appear to have ignored the questions about whether it's actually valid and usable, which is why I referred to the article at Wikipedia which covers that aspect and provides supporting references, notably the ECB paper. I expect that few people would regard the European Central Bank as a pro-departure source. The ECB paper recognises what is a core issue for the referendum:

"Recent developments have, perhaps, increased the risk of secession (however modestly), as well as the urgency of addressing it as a possible scenario. One reason for this, ironically, is the EU’s success so far. The Union’s slow but continuing progress towards a more advanced level of integration, involving closer political and economic ties between its Member States and the transfer of an ever-increasing share of their essential sovereignty to the supranational European institutions...

The increase, under the recently ratified Lisbon Treaty, of the number of policy areas where decisions will be taken by qualified majority voting rather than unanimously, the economic difficulties faced by some euro area economies (and the association made between those difficulties and the euro), the rigors of the Stability and Growth Pact, and the impact of EMU on the Member States’ room for manoeuvre in economic policy at a time of severe financial crisis are all additional reasons why the possibility of secession from the EU or EMU, and its implications, are worth examining"

It then moves on to describe some of the daunting issues involved and the related legal challenges, which are rather too lengthy to quote here though the pre- and post-Lisbon 2009 conclusion is not:

"The conclusion is that Member States could not, pre-Lisbon Treaty, withdraw unilaterally either from the EU or, a fortiori, from EMU, and that the only way for them to do so legally would be by means of a negotiated agreement with their fellow Member States. Such an agreement would necessarily involve a Treaty amendment and require the unanimous consent of its partners, in accordance with Article 48 TEU. How likely some Member States are to wish to withdraw voluntarily (however heartily their partners may desire their departure) can only be a matter of speculation. What is clear, however, is that given the serious legal and practical difficulties that the withdrawal of a Member State would entail, and which even negotiations in good faith may not suffice to overcome, those who supported the withdrawal of Member States accused of having ‘thrown a spanner in the works’ of European integration may well have advocated a step which, though politically imaginable, would be legally inconceivable (at least pre-Lisbon Treaty)"

The related difficulties inevitably end up becoming more severe as EU integration progresses.

Thrugelmir

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.

Probably all that's left of the UK automotive industry is Morgan

BananaRepublic

planteria wrote: »

..and i suspect that this will be the outcome. but if so, it will be a false decision. the EU is going to change dramatically in the next couple of years, and if we have voted to 'Remain' we are going to be a big part of that, whether we like it or not.

No doubt many will characterise this as a choice between steady as she goes, and the huge risk of leaving a 'successful' union. But in reality we don't know where the EU is going. We've seen the Euro, that the Eurocrats were going all out to create a single currency, and in doing so they ignored the problems in Southern European countries, and in particularly they willfully ignored the corruption and false accounting in Greece. So both routes have risk.

I agree with you that we will vote to stay in. Fear, uncertainty and doubt, the three handmaidens of mediocrity, will triumph.

Thrugelmir

BananaRepublic wrote: »

No doubt many will characterise this as a choice between steady as she goes, and the huge risk of leaving a 'successful' union. But in reality we don't know where the EU is going. We've seen the Euro, that the Eurocrats were going all out to create a single currency, and in doing so they ignored the problems in Southern European countries, and in particularly they willfully ignored the corruption and false accounting in Greece. So both routes have risk.

I agree with you that we will vote to stay in. Fear, uncertainty and doubt, the three handmaidens of mediocrity, will triumph.

No one knows whether the EU will survive in it's current form either. Even if there is a "yes" vote.