Europe... yes or no for investors?

Linton

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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

I dont believe the EU can survive in its current form, either going towards a United States of Europe or splintering. In say 50 years who knows. It is equally likely the UK wont survive in its current form. Economics and differential birth rates could easily lead to a united Ireland. Scotland could well go it's own way within the EU, perhaps Wales could eventually as well. Leaving what remains as a historic irrelevence, too big to be a niche player and too small to do anything other than simply accept a future world created by the decisions of others made in their own interest.

BananaRepublic

The EU is changing, the underlying principles call for ever greater unification, so it cannot remain as is. And there seems to be general agreement that monetary union requires political and economic union, with a completely free movement of labour.

It seems to me that Germany and France have a large say in the direction of movement. And Germany has a nice stable market for its goods. Greece was brought in with sweeties and false promises. The result is significant suffering as they pay for their mistakes, and EU mistakes. Italy may be forced to restructure, reduce corruption, become more Northern European. Eastern European countries were enticed in by bags of sweeties, and the promise of protection from Russia, which is now flexing its muscles. But once the sweeties are eaten, the Eastern Europeans may well come to resent the direction they are forced to go, and the loss of sovereignty. Admittedly that might be for several decades, as we are now paying for redevelopment in those countries. Perhaps there wil be mass reverse immigration, as the now well off return to their homeland. I suspect not.

The problem with the EU is the lack of democratic accountability, and bureacracy, which may lead to a reduction in competitiveness.

Linton

BananaRepublic wrote: »

The EU is changing, the underlying principles call for ever greater unification, so it cannot remain as is. And there seems to be general agreement that monetary union requires political and economic union, with a completely free movement of labour.

It seems to me that Germany and France have a large say in the direction of movement. And Germany has a nice stable market for its goods. Greece was brought in with sweeties and false promises. The result is significant suffering as they pay for their mistakes, and EU mistakes. Italy may be forced to restructure, reduce corruption, become more Northern European. Eastern European countries were enticed in by bags of sweeties, and the promise of protection from Russia, which is now flexing its muscles. But once the sweeties are eaten, the Eastern Europeans may well come to resent the direction they are forced to go, and the loss of sovereignty. Admittedly that might be for several decades, as we are now paying for redevelopment in those countries. Perhaps there wil be mass reverse immigration, as the now well off return to their homeland. I suspect not.

The problem with the EU is the lack of democratic accountability, and bureacracy, which may lead to a reduction in competitiveness.

Generally agree which is why I support continuing UK participation. If the euro gets through its birth pangs it could well have the intended affect of greatly reducing the disparity in wealth between the north and the rest.

The bureaucracy argument is open to discussion and further investigation as to the facts. I cant be bothered to look it up now but I seem to remember figures to the effect that the EU has fewer bureaucrats than the average county council. Most bureaucracy is probably a necessity of dealing with so many disparate member states at the current early stage of integration.

As to the amount of democratic accountability beyond that provided through the member states, the more the EU has the more powerful the centre when dealing with the member states.

One side point - a significant factor in the enticing of the East was the UK playing cold war politics, perhaps at the behest of the USA. And when the sweeties go the perceived threat from Russia surely will remain, discouraging too many complaints from the Eastern EU countries.

BananaRepublic

The bureacracy arises from companies and organisations having to comply with EU regulations and laws. You could argue that even out we would have to comply when exporting, but we would not when exporting outside Europe, and when exporting to Europe we would only have to comply in so far as the good complied.

That is a fair point about Eastern Europe wanting a big mate even 20 years hence.

Did we play cold war politics? As I understand it the West, including the US and EU, had a chance to plough investment into Russia, but instead allowed it to collapse, and the current thugs took over. Perhaps this is what you mean, except it wasn't just us.

Scarpacci

Linton wrote: »

I dont believe the EU can survive in its current form, either going towards a United States of Europe or splintering. In say 50 years who knows. It is equally likely the UK wont survive in its current form. Economics and differential birth rates could easily lead to a united Ireland. Scotland could well go it's own way within the EU, perhaps Wales could eventually as well. Leaving what remains as a historic irrelevence, too big to be a niche player and too small to do anything other than simply accept a future world created by the decisions of others made in their own interest.

With the birth rates you've got to factor in the decline of Germany. At the current birth rates, Britain will be the biggest developed country in Europe by 2050, although Russia will still be the largest in Europe though much smaller than it is now. So Germany's economic power is surely set to wane. France's population will grow, but not by as much as Britain's, meaning the balance of power in Europe will shift away from Berlin further towards Paris and London. Germany could ultimately end up being the irrelevance, although maybe the current influx into Germany will give them the boost they need.

Now, whether that means we should stay in the EU or not is debatable. One could argue our influence will only grow as Germany stagnates, though a Franco-Anglo alliance ruling it seems far-fetched. Much of the EU is basically in decline whether it's in population or stature, so there's an argument that Britain (whose future is less clouded, in our out) would stand to be a beneficiary.

Within the EU the question of influence is clearly against the UK, but it's not so clear if you widen that out to military or diplomatic power on the world stage. The UK really only ranks alongside France as the key power in that area, as Germany has excluded itself from that sphere. Does the UK's power in that area suffer outside the EU? That's less clear. I don't think it's an exaggeration or wishful thinking to say Britain punches above its weight in that sector, but equally it's clear the EU punches below its weight (perhaps owing to the lack of integration - undoubtedly something Britain is keen to keep from happening). Is it not the case that in the event of a Brexit, the EU would be punching even further below its weight in those areas? It would be France and that's it. And let's face it, as much as France is keen on the European project, when France is operating in Mali, Syria or Libya - that's completely on France and is in no way influenced or helped by Brussels.

The continent is likely to have a declining influence anyway as the developing world grows, but it's not clear that a piecemeal combination of various countries actually helps any one of those nations individually project more power. The EU as an ineffective mouthpiece can hurt nations and their influence, and I would argue that has a particularly detrimental effect on Britain.

TCA

jamesd wrote: »

In the referendum on Scotland ........ 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.

Er, no. Not only did British citizens living in Scotland get a vote, all EU citizens resident in Scotland could vote too. Even Commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland were eligible depending on their residency status.

themanfromamarillo

jamesd wrote: »

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.

Ah yes "sovereignty" an argument rather neatly demolished in the Economist.

The UK's sovereign parliament elects a government to go to EU summits and make treaties. Parliament then ratifies these treaties and agrees to be bound by them. If a person living in a country feels that country hasn't played by the rules they agreed to then they can challenge them and that country may then be told to do what they had agreed to do. It allows citizens to hold the governments to standards they adopted.

jamesd wrote: »

Nice quote and I'll agree that there is the start of a provision to leave since 2009.
........
The related difficulties inevitably end up becoming more severe as EU integration progresses.

Of course a complex negotiation would follow any Brexit, the EU would need to treat any departing state the same as it would any other country it was making a new trade deal with. The terms of the deal would clearly vary depending which state left. The exit clause for a member state is clear, I see nothing in that Wikipedia article that suggests otherwise.

themanfromamarillo

It's worth noting that as with the Scottish Referendum the pound will be extremely volitile over the next few months. Hence those investing overseas may want to read up on currency-hedged investment products.

jamesd

themanfromamarillo wrote: »

Ah yes "sovereignty" an argument rather neatly demolished in the Economist.

Well, that's some time wasted that I'll never get back. It doesn't demolish it or even contradict it. What it asserts is in essence that it's fine and normal to compromise sovereignty and a good thing, with a focus on external arrangements rather than the ability of a country to pass laws that govern its own internal situation without such things as an external court overruling them. Whether that's good or bad will be one of the things that voters use to make their voting decisions. I assume that some will either want or at least accept the external control while others won't.

themanfromamarillo wrote: »

The exit clause for a member state is clear, I see nothing in that Wikipedia article that suggests otherwise.

That blog entry appears to be the view of Steve peters, who is described there as "Professor of EU Law & Human Rights Law, University of Essex". The Wikipedia article refers to the ECB paper that I mentioned earlier.

With respect to Profesor Steve Peters, on this I'll go with the legal opinion expressed by the ECB rather than those of an individual professor who may or may not have a desire to influence potential referendum votes in one direction or another. He does via his job have a conflict of interest, since it seems rather likely that there would be considerably reduced demand in the UK for professors teaching about EU law if the UK was no longer part of the EU.

jamesd

TCA wrote: »

Er, no. Not only did British citizens living in Scotland get a vote, all EU citizens resident in Scotland could vote too. Even Commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland were eligible depending on their residency status.

Thanks! You're right, I was wrong about those classes and have struck out the erroneous parts of my post.

Scottish people not residing in Scotland were denied the vote unless they were service or crown employees.