Merged Now What?

[The Don]

Thanks, I rather needed that. If I watch the news, I despair. I am actually actively repeating to myself "remember the 48+%" over and over.

And some of the 52%...

• Voted on narrow self interest
• Were making a protest vote
• Made their vote based on horribly inaccurate or biased information - for example it's often said that new immigrants immediately get a council house (they do not) but if I was a low information voter in emergency bed and breakfast accommodation waiting for a council house ot come free I might vote Leave

 

[Francesca R]

It is worth pointing out that there isn't a free market in financial services in the EU. UK insurance companies, for instance, can't sell insurance directly in Berlin or Bratislava or wherever.

As I said previously, UK insurance companies can't sell insurance directly in Europe

In case you have a whole bunch of people on ignore, I think everyone else knows the above is false (and you should stop pretending it is true)

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I've picked two at random (that were blocs and not bilateral), the Caribbean one and the South American one, both of which mention further integration, including bringing laws into line with each other.

It's Friday, so I can't be arsed to go through the rest.

It would seem to be fairly inevitable that free trade and customs unions will require some level of legal integration an standardisation to make it work. Especially when you have a zone like the EU with disparate countries, languages, traditions etc.

I think a lot of the other things are driven by a sense that further integration will help business by helping to level out the playing field further and eliminate idiosyncrasies.

Doing business across 28 currencies is a pain when you could have one like the US so let's move towards one currency. There's definitely a logic in that. Even if the implementation is difficult.

Of course you have every country fighting to keep its own idiosyncrasies and a need to keep everyone happy so it's never going to be as clean cut as ideally one might like.

 

[Francesca R]

It would seem to be fairly inevitable that free trade and customs unions will require some level of legal integration an standardisation to make it work. Especially when you have a zone like the EU with disparate countries, languages, traditions etc.

I think a lot of the other things are driven by a sense that further integration will help business by helping to level out the playing field further and eliminate idiosyncrasies.

Doing business across 28 currencies is a pain when you could have one like the US so let's move towards one currency. There's definitely a logic in that. Even if the implementation is difficult.

For decades many have understood that logic but also understood that it requires a fiscal transfer union as a further step rather than fiscal independence and a "no bailout" doctrine. All euro zone countries have balked (for good reasons) at that idea. It's the core underlying reason for the rolling debt crisis in the zone.

 

[Ambrosia]

Like how?

Just let the EU be a Free Trade Club.

Write up a whole heap of EU standards, and let the market decide what standards are useful. e.g. If you want to stamp your widgets with the EU mark of quality, then your widgets must meet the EU standard, and presumably they'll command a higher price in the marketplace, at the same time don't stop the trade in widgets that don't bear the EU quality mark. Leave minimum standards down to member states.

Setup a system whereby law abiding EU citizens can move freely between EU countries, but don't have the right to settle permanently in them automatically. Let member states decide how and how long they let desirable migrants stay.

I'd change the Euro to an optional currency and make it legal tender for cross EU transactions. So if you want to buy widgets from France you can pay in Euros or in Francs. Actual currency union is doomed to fail unless there is one central institution setting fiscal policy and monetary policy for everyone. (see Greece) The Euro in this idealised EU is just a convenient way to pay for goods and services, nothing more.

 

[Craig B]

Just let the EU be a Free Trade Club.

Write up a whole heap of EU standards, and let the market decide what standards are useful.

What about environmental or employment standards? Is the market to be sovereign there too?

 

[Ambrosia]

What about environmental or employment standards? Is the market to be sovereign there too?

Environmental standards can be part of the criteria for becoming members. Employment standards, up to member states.

 

[Craig B]

Environmental standards can be part of the criteria for becoming members. Employment standards, up to member states.

You think the "Club" will accept that? Cheap labour undercutting? No "level playing field"? How will environmental standards be enforced by a Free Trade club whose only criterion is disparity of price levels in the market, as you suggest?

Your "club" merely an entrepreneurial wet dream. I don't think it could be applied in practice.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Just let the EU be a Free Trade Club.

That doesn't work (rough outline).

Write up a whole heap of EU standards, and let the market decide what standards are useful. e.g. If you want to stamp your widgets with the EU mark of quality, then your widgets must meet the EU standard, and presumably they'll command a higher price in the marketplace, at the same time don't stop the trade in widgets that don't bear the EU quality mark. Leave minimum standards down to member states.

If here you refer to engineering standards, business is much better off with common standards; it lowers costs via volume. One of the things businesses love about any common market is just that. Standards.

Setup a system whereby law abiding EU citizens can move freely between EU countries, but don't have the right to settle permanently in them automatically. Let member states decide how and how long they let desirable migrants stay.

This, in my view, indicates that you possibly conceive of nationality in native-born and/or ethnic terms. The more commerce-enabling and enlightened alternative, in my view, is to allow anyone who has arrived legally, acts legally, pays taxes when able (but is not immune to unemployment), and shares common values relating to democracy and human rights who wishes, after a prudent time, to seek permanent residence. This second view makes an immigrant just another voice in a compatible chorus. More profoundly, if one recognizes that each human is equal, then one can immediately understand that, say, someone who has started a family and taken up a mortgage needs a legal foundation to protect family and assets. Just another bloke.

Those who might be unwelcome are only those who commit criminal acts, or would deny or limit for others the same rights they claim for themselves (Art 54 European Charter), or would commit acts of treason/sabotage against the state (foreign agents/terrorists).

I'd change the Euro to an optional currency and make it legal tender for cross EU transactions. So if you want to buy widgets from France you can pay in Euros or in Francs. Actual currency union is doomed to fail unless there is one central institution setting fiscal policy and monetary policy for everyone. (see Greece) The Euro in this idealised EU is just a convenient way to pay for goods and services, nothing more.

See above, first point.

There are indeed many faults in the EU, big and small. Yet it's a common project, something that is frightfully difficult to ever get started. Taking on 28 (27) nations is perhaps too much, too fast, so a two-speed EU with a euro core and periphery makes some sense. Yet the rationale of taking on countries in the Eastern block is the same as the original one for the EU: to unite what otherwise has and can be a continent at war. In the meantime, also create a progressively more wealthy and healthy society within resource constraints.

Brexit has made that war more possible, as a blow has been struck, loudly, in favor of ethnicity as the backbone of freedom and community both. Add some demagogues and economic uncertainty, and we suddenly find ourselves in the early-mid 20th century. This may explain the strong feelings expressed on occasion.

Every time I hear Farage or a Tory leader speak now, I'd leap out of my chair and punch him out (ladies excepted; they get a bronx cheer). [Not a declaration of real or actionable intent.]

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Setup a system whereby law abiding EU citizens can move freely between EU countries, but don't have the right to settle permanently in them automatically. Let member states decide how and how long they let desirable migrants stay.

No. I'm unwilling to accept any system whereby migrants are here at the whim of someone else and become second class 'citizens'. Nor one where people's jobs can be moved overseas and they won't be allowed to follow them.

The much vaunted point system is also a joke (though you didn't propose it here, I'm just throwing that point in) and those proposing it seem fairly uneducated on how it works in practice or why people introduced it in the first place.

 

[Planigale]

Assuming that economy is the only thing at stake. EU could stand some damage for itself slightly by tariffs on British goods, if it means ending the Euroseptic dreams for good. UK a lot less so. Trade with Britain is about 5% of all EU (sans UK) exports, whereas exports to EU amount to 56% of British exports. Who do you think has the upper hand anyway?



This is one of the main reasons why Brexit is inherently a bad idea. Free movement of goods aside, the cornerstones of British economy are existentially linked to the treaties with the EU. UK can not easily replace that, and EU would gladly take the financial business away from London and into Paris or Frankfurt or wherever. It's an inherent weakness that will require substantial concessions from UK.
Furthermore, once Article 50 is triggered, UK doesn't have two years to negotiate a deal on this. It has half the time, if that - the banks will start leaving well before their operations will be hampered by lack of an EU passport. If there is no deal or it doesn't come quickly enough, EU looses a powerful negotiating tool in exchange for a substantial slice of British business, which is a good enough deal in on itself. UK gets the shaft and likely knows this as well.

The problem doesn't actually end there. If UK doesn't use the Article 50 soon, it will demonstrate that UK is not serious about leaving the EU. It will most likely keep it's already privileged position, but forget about extorting an even better deal for the next 50 years or so.

It just shows how poorly thought out the Brexitard position is. UK will come out weaker, practically regardless of what happens.

McHrozni

I actually agree with you.

The one saving grace might be if the UK could rapidly sign up to non EU trade deals. The deal between Canada and the US with the EU are near completing and could be turned into a bilateral deal. A quick deal here would reassure the markets. (This may be complete crap, my knowledge of economics and trade is negligible, all the qualifications needed to vote exit.)

 

[MCel58]

I am actually wondering exactly how big the UK economy actually is at present. Has anyone actually measured it without the EU financial passport, the euro clearance activity, no access to the EU scientific program, no access to agriculture and fisheries subsidies, falling oil prices, no access to the EU intellectual property approaches and the costs of negotiating various trade deals and changes to legal structures etc when it leaves. Has anyone carried out by the sort of assessment that the rest of the U.K. does when Scotland talks about Independence where everyone looks at what Scotland will lose and how much it will cost. We may be a country of 65 million but the EU is a population of 680 million without us. A very large and close market indeed. It seems like it is quite difficult to identify a solely UK economy as at present it is so tied to various aspects of the EU economy and using its role within the EU has made that work for the UK in order to make that stronger.

 

[Darat]

Environmental standards can be part of the criteria for becoming members. Employment standards, up to member states.

We've seen what happens when employment rights and standards are left to "the market" and it is horrendous. Not everything should be about profit.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We've seen what happens when employment rights and standards are left to "the market" and it is horrendous. Not everything should be about profit.

What sre you, Some kind of Communist?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

<snip>and there is nothing in the rules that allows you back out once you've triggered it.

Legal experts disagree with your opinion.

<snip>

Some of them do.

Others seem to agree with it.

How do we determine who is right?

Is there a majority consensus among any of these lawyers?

 

[Aepervius]

My understanding is that the EU have "four freedoms" of goods, workers, capital and services. In that case, surely financial services are included under these rules.

There is also a rule for some financial service of the EU to be ONLY in a member country.

 

[Craig B]

There is also a rule for some financial service of the EU to be ONLY in a member country.

This point was forcefully put in a letter to the President of France by Jean-Christophe LAGARDE Président de l’UDI

It is inconceivable that the continent's investments should go to a now-offshore financial centre, and to a country which, though still a friend and ally, is no longer a partner, but a competitor.​

 

[Francesca R]

We've seen what happens when employment rights and standards are left to "the market" and it is horrendous. Not everything should be about profit.

But that has no relevance to what you quoted.

 

[Childlike Empress]

There you have it, Brits, see what you've done! The leaders of other planets are very concerned now about the future of the EU and Jean-Claude Juncker had to reassure them that everything will be fine!

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Environmental standards can be part of the criteria for becoming members. Employment standards, up to member states.

We've seen what happens when employment rights and standards are left to "the market" and it is horrendous. Not everything should be about profit.

But that has no relevance to what you quoted.

It is completely germane. Product safety, misleading advertising, polluting production methods, and non-delivery on contracted goods and services are rampant in the absence of a regulated and enforced field of play. This is a matter of fact. Employment standards left up to member states introduces the beggar-thy-neighbor logic that is also ruinous.

Caramba with the rational economic 'man' and 'noble savages,' who are as elusive in the field as Bigfoot. I ain't never seen any, and never expect to. Ditto for the mythical 'self-policing industry,' one of neocon propaganda's most hilarious inventions. Heck, even the police are not self-policing. Anywhere.

Right wing 'free' markets: foxes make all decisions regarding chicken coops.