Well, the thing is, as I understand it, that the UK runs a trade deficit with the EU, so for them not to organise a trade agreement would hurt them more than it hurts us. How snotty can they be about it? The UK doesn't need EU labour in the sense that the world is queuing up to come, although as said, I'd sooner London was crawling with French rather than Chinese. I'm sort of struggling to see what the EU is really doing for Britain that a few trade agreements couldn't handle. As a member, the UK hasn't developed europhilia, which you might have expected it to.
Many people are questioning the orthodox pro-EU view these days. I was educated at the Sorbonne, call myself European and have lived and worked in France and Spain. But like you, I am beginning to think that the whole EU project is flawed. Leaving would be a labyrinthine process, I assume, but we should thoroughly explore the possibility, and the ramifications of doing so, before we are hamstrung by any further expansion.
Frankly, if the EU really thinks that the UK will leave, it might possibly get real about reform. As an economy, the UK is a large bit of the EU. It's a game of poker. The EU thinks the UK is bluffing, but I'm not at all sure that it is. When the EU wakes up (if it does) to the idea that the UK is not bluffing, it's going to get scared. And don't think that the French are in love with the EU. They've never liked the Germans (somewhat understandably, eh?) and they are increasingly out of work. There is also rising anti EU sentiment there. The people who love the EU are the Germans (they run it), Belgium which hosts it, Luxembourg which moves from being a nondescript backwater to something slightly more significant, and all the little countries who get more out than they pay in.
The single market which is the essence of the EU embraces the market in goods, services, capital, and labour. All four of those are enabled to move into and out of member states easily (including, obviously, the UK). Those who argue for UK leaving the EU seem to imagine that just the movement of labour into UK could be stopped, whilst all the other movements in and out could continue as before. This is utterly unrealistic. In that scenario, the UK would necessarily be outside the all markets in goods, services, capital, and labour. The effects would be catastrophic to all parts of the UK economy, which more than any other depends on exchange. The only possible way forward then would be to become in effect an offshoot of the USA - the "51st state" option. The UK would not be an equal partner, as we are in the EU, but very much the junior partner. The billionaires who bankroll the anti-EU brigade take the view that they would be more untrammelled and less regulated under the USA than under the EU. They are correct in thinking that.
The EU will start to crumble after a minor country, such as Greece, is forced out by an economy on the brink of collapse. The people of the EU can't, and won't, subsidise Club Med indefinitely. Life will then adjust and go on.
And the billionaires who make their money from being in the EU,the endless conveyor belt of EU civil servants,and Eastern European countries that benefit from long-standing nations largesse,plus of course a large number of Pro-European citizens will argue exactly what Pete_1950 says,and plenty more besides. They may well be proved right in some instances,but they will be wrong in plenty of others. However they cannot foresee the future any better than anyone else,and it's impossible to see what will happen if the UK departs without the UK actually departing. A good number of European nations have hamstrung themselves economically by introducing the same regulations that EU supporters trumpet as a good thing. Example:France should be outstripping the UK in by every economic measure:it is larger than the UK/far less densely populated/huge opportunities for expanding their workforce with immigration/no overseas shipping costs to the largest economic bloc in the world/plenty of natural resources.....and they can't make it work???????????????????? Hardly an advertisement for staying in,and they are only 22 miles away.
You mean like a Magnox nuclear power house, full of design flaws, cracking from the inside and risking melt down
You may well be right about the vested interests (on both sides of the debate) but the groundswell of public opinion is turning away from you, here and in the rest of the EU.
I'm not so sure about this. Take capital. It seems to flow around the world irrespective of EU membership. What are you trying to say, that the EU is running the City of London? That it regulates capital flows to the US, Singapore and the Asian markets? I don't think so. And London being the financial centre that it is, the UK would soon have organised any agreements with these markets that were necessary. Labour: what, the EU would refuse to allow EU citizens to come to work at the UK behest? Seems very unlikely. Far more likely would be that the UK would fix labour treaties with the EU that would be to their benefit, with reciprocal benefit going to the UK. Services and goods would be organised by other bilateral agreements. Switzerland already has such agreements, despite being outside the EU. But the EU surrounds Switzerland which is a small place. It's not in a position of negotiating strength. The UK, on the other hand, with its fingers in many pies, many of them being in Commonwealth countries, is far better placed to call the tune or at least not have to knuckle under. The UK has taken its cue in the past from the US, but it doesn't have to. The Commonwealth, with its raw materials might be a far better option. I think your scenario is unrealistic.
UK and France have always been neighbours, allies, and competitors. Over the past 50 years there have been many periods when France has done better in terms of economic growth than UK, and rather fewer periods when UK has done better. Overall it has been a draw. You pick on this year's figures, in which UK is doing slightly better than France for a change, and try to use that as an argument against the whole European project. Doesn't wash.
Just this year,eh Pete? I picked a single statistic,but I'm confident there are many others to prove the point. Here's one that shows the UK vs France and Germany a few years ago,just for fun: In exactly the same vein,I'm sure that you could find statistics that would confirm your opinions. But knowing what has happened in the past does not confer an ability to accurately predict the future....
Realistically, can a member state be allowed to benefit from a well managed economy, while others fail? My idea was that the EU was the EU!
There is no real equivalent of the UK press in Switzerland - a small population divided into different languages and regions. The NZZ (Neue Zurcher Zeitung) is the only real paper of any stature, but it's in German so I don't read it. I don't actually read any papers. There just aren't the resources for the sort of in depth articles you'd have in the UK. But in any case, the Swiss aren't pro EU. The EU is seen as a bully (which it is) and the Swiss are far too keen (and rightly so) on their direct democracy to want to hand over any sovereignty to the faceless people in Brussels. The TV is not especially partisan, quite neutrally Swiss, unsurprisingly. But the EU doesn't help its image when the deputy president of the Commission shows up and says that the Swiss have had it too good for too long and that the bilateral agreements aren't going to be in force indefinitely. The EU thinks it can actually coerce the Swiss into joining. It'll never happen. Not a snowflake's chance in hell. The people get to decide and the people are moving to the right. It could perhaps have happened 15 years ago, not now.
Why are you so sure the Swiss will be able to keep the EU from dictating whether or not you join? The EU will just financially break you down into debt. Only if the EU wanted it to happen
If you look at a map, you can see that Switzerland is pretty important to the EU. If you want to move goods between Germany and Italy, say, you pretty much have to go via Switzerland. Ditto France to Austria. If the Swiss were on the edge of Europe, and didn't have so many billions of the EU's wealth invested in their banks, then the EU might well think it could run roughshod over this country. But that isn't the case. Switzerland is the crossroads of Europe and the EU pretty much has to suck it up. The other difference is that politicians can be manipulated. The UK will get, at the moment, largely what David Cameron says it will get. The EU get to Cameron, Cameron gets to the UK. Switzerland is unique in that that just doesn't work here, as the people decide everything. The politicians have very little real power. Everything is put to the popular vote. So when the Swiss people say that immigration will have to be subject to quotas, despite the bilateral agreements with the EU, those agreements may have to be ripped up. The people can't be manipulated by real politik. Sometimes they may make poor decisions, but they are their decisions, not their representatives' decisions. It's an interesting place.
