Theresa May: UK must leave European single market
bbc.com
bbc.com
Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people.
Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it.
It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real."
Margaret Thatcher 1988
Should we agree with the quote or find it wrong in hindsight?
it makes the statement "four freedoms are indivisible" somewhat hollow, because there has never been full freedom of services
Today, if I'm a consultant and have a consultancy company registered in EU country X, if I come to EU country Y to provide my services there, it's pretty likely that I will have to set up a separate company in Y or Y's tax people will be after me (that's currently the situation in UK for example).
In a real single integrated market, I'd have company registered in country X, serve customers across entire Europe, but file taxes on the entire income in X only. I'm thinking they don't allow that because it would open doors to all kinds of tax optimization for the little people - ex. say UK workers would register themselves as companies in countries with very low taxes, and continue to work ("provide services") in UK. This kinds of schemes are allowed for the megacorps, but not for us regular folk.
Hardly a cumbersome experience.
Also, there are perpetual costs of having a company registered (such as monthly payments to an accounting company which handles paperwork, health care contributions etc.), so if you move around regularly between a couple different countries, you'll probably need to maintain a legal presence in each one, and thus have these costs multiplied.
That has not been my experience.
If that checkbox was all that held me from "full freedom", then I concede your point.
much has been made of "bureaucracy" but in fact, most of that is hidden from the UK.
The basic fact is that large parts of the UK have been left to rot, suffering terribly from the lack of decent jobs to replace the decline of manufacturing. This has been blamed on immigration, correctly or not. That is why large swathes of the country voted to leave.
Now we won't have that excuse any more.
Had there been a simple test of 10 questions about how the EU works, drawn from 100 previously published questions, that needed to be answered in order to qualify as a voter, then the Brexit would never have happened. Likewise, if there hadn't coincidentally been a bloody civil war in Syria with many refugees looking for a new future at the time of the Brexit, then the Brexit would also never had happened.
Coincidence and lack of knowledge have determined the fate of the UK and Europe as a whole for the next fifty to hundred years or so. But you could say the same about many other historic decisions and events.
I also have not heard a single excellent argument for Brexit so far - not a single one, and as a well-informed and educated person I've heard many if not all of them. "Plenty of" is too vague to be of any value as a statement, but I also wouldn't agree that there were "plenty of" EU-savvy intellectuals who supported 'Leave', unless you're willing to count people like Boris Johnson to this group. You and the rest of the 'Leave' is being dishonest or simply deluded / misinformed.
Please don't bother discussing this topic with me (or Trump supporters or climate change denial, for what it's worth). I'm sick of it and the UK. What I would like to ask you and your kind is to urge your politicians to exit the EU swiftly and then shut up and never blame the EU for anything that happens to the UK again. Bye!
Frankly, I'd love to do the same with goods to and from the US, but since it comes with a lot of barriers, I simply don't buy from there. And at work we don't sell our physical goods to non-EU countries. So, yes, it's makes a difference.
What Thatcher was talking about was literally a single market i.e. where one could buy and sell goods without tariff and other protectionist restrictions.
What we have now with the EU is most definitely not that. We have free movement of people, a much expanded EU with qualified majority voting, significant social (as against economic) legislation, and the Euro.
None of these were really evident in '88 and Thatcher was dead against all of them. Fundamentally, she was a supporter of a wide ranging trade agreement and not very much else.
If you read May's bullets, she has non-tariff market access as one of priorities. She is effectively using the term Single Market to a much wider scope than Thatcher but still attempting to keep the basis of what was originally envisioned, at least in the UK, on the table.
Can't imagine the EU agreeing to this as it's moved well passed that stage but you never know.
A single market includes the free movement of labour, as well as goods and services. Hence, restricting immigration is equivalent to leaving the single market. If we're to have tarriff-free trade with the EU but barriers on migration, that's surely a "protectionist restriction" on British jobs.
I got the link from the Wikipedia article, more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market
Actually it was a bureaucratic plan all along, and badly managed.
And you still can have great access to the same 320 million market even outside of it (like e.g. China or Japan have) -- with the extra benefit that you don't have a German-controlled ECB to impose you rules and monetary policy.
Similarly with fiscal policy, whilst the UK is supposed to "endeavour" to follow the Stability and Growth Pact rules on keeping deficits down, it can and does cheerfully ignore those rules without risk of penalty.
The UK had its own currency and central bank from the get go. What are you're referring to exactly here?
Populism is going to cost the UK dearly. And not just in terms of money. The UK is heading headlong into a kind of society taken straight out of the pages of "V for Vendetta".
________________
[1] "Controls on immigration"
I call "Godwin by Proxy".
There's many reasons to fear current trends but it's a touch premature to predict we're about to become a fascist dictatorship.
[1] as in, not funny at all
Yes, but if you are officially retailing in the EU you are obliged to adhere to EU warranty regulations, to EU safety regulations (flame retardation etc.), you must charge VAT (and pay it to the EU), etc. etc.
Margret Thatcher at the European Union summit in Dublin in 1980
"That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European superstate was ever embarked upon will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era. And that Britain, with her traditional strengths and global destiny, should ever have been part of it will appear a political error of historic magnitude."
Margret Thatcher from her book Statecraft published in 2003
... just pointing out that Margaret Thatchers views on Europe were nuanced at best. Probably best explained by this segment from Yes Minister https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE
Does this mean what it sounds like it means?
I happen to think it's a load of hogwash, but I really don't want to see them proven wrong because I'll still have to live through it.
Go check what the 'modern East India Company' actually sells, who owns it and why he bought it.
Think of it this way: do you think anyone could get away with selling Triangle Trade Rum?
The closest parallel today would probably be something like a merger between Halliburton and Academi, the varied enterprises of which profit hugely from foreign adventurism of their host state and which have autonomous military potential in excess of that of many countries. But even that would fall well short in terms of revenue. Perhaps throw Apple into that mix as well and you'd get close.
Similarly anecdotal, whilst in India met many Indians who held the same view.
I haven't checked but if the BBC still make documentaries on colonization by the British they almost certainly focus on its undoubted sins along with corruption within the East India Company.
We all know how well that turns out.
Thatcher was thoroughly against the centralisation of power and monetary policy in Europe, but all for free trade.
As a European, I believe I'm not alone in thinking it's great that the biggest obstacle to EU integration is leaving the EU, we're just all very puzzled as to why considering the UK had the best deal possible in the EU.
The Brexit yes came overwhelmingly form the old industrial areas of UK. From the towns and such that has seen their quality of life stagnate or deteriorate while the jobs gets done by foreigners that come by the busload.
Damn it, i don't live in UK but i have seen the phenomena myself. A local wharf some years back had a boom year, and the the peak there were perhaps twice as many foreigners working there as locals.
Minimum wage, union nagotiated wages, restricting benefits for non working immigrants, IDs to combat illegal immigration, unused emergency brakes for immigration, none of that matters it's the damn EU's fault and most definitely not the UK government.
I promised myself I will only post one comment and not get dragged into any discussions so I this is my last one.
I likely have a biased sample, but amongst my colleagues and friends, I don't know anyone who wants further European integration, and most want out completely.
Anecdata cuts both ways.
* The EU is not only undemocratic in the sense that the powerful European Commission is unelected, but is in fact antidemocratic in the sense that one generally has to have lost a democratic election in one's own country to be appointed to it.
* The EU places an enormous regulatory drain on its member states, issuing a stifling number of pro-corporate, anti-free-market regulations every year
* Policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy, the Clinical Trials Directive, and the Port Services directive are extremely illiberal policies, introduced to satisfy special interests.
* The EU is in the process of exporting draconian, crushing German-style data protection law to the rest of the continent.
* The European Court of Justice is not only activist, but also highly incompetent, lacking the institutional jurisprudential experience of proper supreme courts, such as those found in the UK.
* The Common Market is not a free trade agreement, it is a customs union. Combined with the EU's inability to negotiate free trade agreements (held up by Italian tomato growers, French vintners, and just about every other special interest wanting protection), this means that export-focussed economies such as Germany's are hampered from engaging with faster-growing economies - and just about every other continent's economy is growing faster than Europe's.
As I said, I don't want to write a thesis here, but these are just a few of the many reasons why I believe that Germany - and almost every other country in Europe - would be better off making its own laws by a democratic process, trading and cooperating freely with its friends and allies, rather than being part of an antidemocratic, supranational bureaucracy.
They also offer very little visibility to what is collected.
Sure data cannot be easily shared or exported but this doesn't increase privacy as much as you think of at all, in fact it can hinder it.
Capitalism proves to be not self-sustainable and now it's self-cannibalizing which is a good thing as we move gradually to the next stage in history according to Karl Marx to socialism and away from capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history#Stage...
I'd remind you that the last 20 years has seen the greatest reduction in world poverty ever in the history of mankind. That was achieved by people trading with each other not by socialism.
A prime example of this is VAT regulations in the EU, which supposedly have been harmonised and simplified some time ago yet with every iteration, with every 'simplification' they just got worse, less harmonious and more unwieldy to handle for companies buying or selling goods or services in other EU countries.
A stupid example: buying a .com domain (as an individual) through an EU registrar will set you back $10 + VAT. If I buy it from a US company, I pay $10. Why would I buy from an EU registrar?
We need a general election. She speaks of what 'she wants'—the most problematic part of this surreal theatrical horror story is fact we the country didn't vote for her.
I don't want this government to make such fundamental changes without the mandate of the people.
Theresa May was not voted into government.
Only 52% of (72.2%) of the population voted for Brexit.
Quite a disappointing response.
People, democracy is not the tyranny of the majority. Quite the opposite actually.
And if so (and this being a political thread) - Trump being elected is totally legit even though he got less votes (as he was voted by the majority in more than half the states) ?
Asking as an outsider - I just feel like everytime the popular opinion does not get voted in - there's an "justified" outcry (but if the majority had won - and there was an outcry by the minority - that's them being childish/not respecting democracy etc.)
With separation of powers and the rule of law.
> And if so (and this being a political thread) - Trump being elected is totally legit even though he got less votes (as he was voted by the majority in more than half the states) ?
1- Everywhere I've lived in, my vote has had less power than the average of the state / region. I'm OK with that because otherwise all policies will only favour the overpopulated areas.
2- I don't know all the US election details, but apparently you've got a big issue with corruption that in this case reflects on gerrymandering.
3- If the situation was the opposite, Hillary winning despite less votes, I guess you wouldn't consider it legit? Don't answer me, that's easy; answer internally to yourself. Be sincere.
4- Your problem with Trump is that your "left" candidate is so to the right, that there's no room for human decency at her right. Just think about it, what's a more right-wing policy that doesn't go against climate change, equality/equity, worker's rights, military intervention, radicalisation of your police force, for profit prison system, stupid healthcare system, ... Should I keep going?
> Asking as an outsider - I just feel like everytime the popular opinion does not get voted in - there's an "justified" outcry (but if the majority had won - and there was an outcry by the minority - that's them being childish/not respecting democracy etc.)
There are always outcries when there's a strong division on a topic. We need to make sure our values stand every single time, whether our opinion wins or we loses.
However, "modern democracies" like Switzerland implement tyranny:
http://www.thelocal.ch/20160609/immigrant-family-denied-swis...
http://www.thelocal.ch/20170109/annoying-anti-cow-bell-campa...
(There are more sources for both, in case you don't trust this one)
Direct democracy is good, but we still don't seem to know how to implement it right or make a responsible use of it.
This suggestion is unpopular among people who deny that there are facts and reality. These people exist both on the left (e.g. `social constructivism about science') and the right (e.g. recent trends among some Trump supporters) side of the political spectrum. Anybody who has no trouble with reality and has passed a drivers license should have no problems with it, though.
Clever, wise and motivated people can also be arseholes and vote against you having local passport because you usually wear a tracksuit, are vegan or think cowbells not right.
The current PM's actions are quite illegitimate.
Of course, you won't do that - because you know very well the current UK government is perfectly legitimate.
And "brexit" was voted for by the people. People like you only start complaining when they dislike the result - or please show me your similar complains when the result was to your liking, because there always are people who abstain. Only votes from people who vote count, what a huge surprise.
Your argument is a fallacy. In any division there are going to be those who agree and disagree with the outcome. Of course the people who get what they "wanted" don't argue against it. But they also shouldn't argue against the legitimacy of those who don't to continue to argue their point. That is the difference here.
Yes, there was a vote on an advisory referendum that had not specific details about what the outcome should be. What does that make legitimate?
If Theresa may had decided that to leave the EU we had to go to war with Europe, would that be legitimised by the vote?
This argument is about the terms of any such approach and how to legitimise those.
They did. The court sided against the government. They appealed to the supreme court, whom we are currently awaiting a judgement from.
I only remember having the option to vote in parliamentary elections for my local MP.
But the government was elected with a manifesto commitment to protect our interests in Europe and hold a referendum. It was not, to my knowledge, invested with a mandate to act on that referendum in the way that it is doing.
Sounds a bit like the EU, but we all know[1] how that's a completely different out-of-control unelected bureaucracy[2].
[1] Have been told
[2] The EU parliament doesn't count, for vague reasons that change every time you hear it.
Yes, there was a referendum – but it wasn't a good one. It was advisory only – i.e. not binding – there was a narrow margin, no minimum turnout or majority requirements, and no concrete plan which was being voted on, or even any set of proposals from government. Two of the four countries in the UK voted to remain in the EU.
It think it's wholly reasonable to question a decision of such huge magnitude being made on the basis of a referendum in those circumstances.
Border controls cannot be achieved without leaving the single market, so if we're honouring the democratic process this is the only possible path.
In case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
Which leave campaign? There was a few of them and they didn't give a consistent message. None actually have any power to implement anything so how can they make pledges anyway?
Also, that link has the picture of the bus as the first image... a 'pledge' completely based on lies that was dropped literally minutes after the vote.
See I'm not a brexiter/leaver/whatever (Personally I think it's a terrible idea), but it's blindingly obvious to me that a lot of leave voters (maybe even the vast majority) thought the main issue was immigration and that Mrs May had a choice either exit the single market, or basically ignore the result of the referendum, she chose the former and not the latter.
UK spent 40 year entangling with the EU, disentangling cleanly in 2 years is a pipe dream.
It is still a possibility though; declaring for hard brexit could very well be a negotiating tactic (as in 'nothing left to lose') as May hinted to the possibility of a transitional agreement.
The challenge for me is that soft-brexit is basically no brexit 'cause EEA access == sign-up to the four fundamental freedoms and accept the primacy of EU law, which seems to cover most of the things that the leave campaign wanted to get rid of.
As you say this could well be a negotiating tactic though, and no-one will really know until they start the negotiations. I think it's entirely possible that once the details are fleshed out people might seek to change it.
By your reasoning, the other opposition parties (Labour, Liberal Democrats et al) should just sit idly by and not question or argue against any Tory policies for that term of Government?
I agree with you that the vote has been cast, the UK is leaving the EU. But to state people are not allowed to have a voice on the terms of leaving is naive at best. Had the result of the vote been the other way (48% leave, 52% remain) would be be having a "hard remain" and telling the leavers to shut up?
But that is exactly what Remain would expect Leave to do, had Remain won, and everyone knows it.
I guess no one will truly now know.
She was voted into government by her party, just like the leaders of every UK government.
Particularly given that 52% of the voters voted for Leave, not for a hard Brexit. Those are two very different propositions and a significant chunk of the 52% didn't want a hard Brexit.
Also, you and I both know very well a lot of people that voted had no clue what it meant to leave.
Or in some cases, what the EU even is, frighteningly.
That may be impossible to reconcile with the other things they said, but there it is.
(Source: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case.html - "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it")
So I conclude what I originally said from those data points.
That (AFAIK) cannot be delivered while remaining in the single market, so the UK government is taking the only possible path to satisfy that requirement which was voted for by the UK population in a referendum...
Now I'd agree that if you actually spelled out the reality of "hard brexit" people might be given pause and really they should have listened to "project fear" as it was dubbed by the brexit crew, but the fact remains that the brexit campaign was on border control and to deliver this the UK has to leave the single market
are you suggesting that (as long as that percentage is less than 95%) the majority of total voters were against 'border control?'
We, the voting public in the UK, never vote directly elect our government. We give a mandate to our local MP and then they decide who forms the government.
Further, we vote for our local MP knowing ahead of time that they could change who they decide will form the government at anytime before the next general election.
Even if we don't like the current government, they do have a democratic mandate.
She was elected by her party, just like Cameron was.
While on the surface this is correct, Cameron subsequently ran as the face of the party in a general election before assuming office, thereby receiving a public mandate (albeit a weak one first time round due to the hung parliament).
May did not.
Michael Howard, 2003
John Major, 1990
Margaret Thatcher, 1975
A post-negotiation referendum might be more of a mandate, but pitching the idea that "the referendum obliges the government to attempt to negotiate the best Leave settlement it can; it doesn't guarantee the outcome of those negotations will actually be more popular than the EU so that deal shoud also be put to referendum" required considerably more unity and political skill on the part of the remains of the Remain campaign to make the idea stick.
It's not too late for the UK - if you do have a general election, and one party promises to not follow the Brexit referendum, and they win, I guess the EU will stay. But then people will moan about government not following the voice of the people, as expressed by the referendum.
That's actually not correct. It's possible to be in the European Free Trade Area without being a member of the EU. Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland have this arrangement.
Stop this revisionism.
Given the percentage of the electorate who supported the current government at the last general election, it doesn't seem likely that you'd get a clearer mandate from a new one.
It seems to me that Mrs May didn't have a lot of choice here, a large portion of the exit vote (which won) was predicated on "control the borders" and the only way that can be delivered is by leaving the single market, anything else is evidently not delivering the will of the majority.
(before you assuming I'm a brexiter, I'm not, personally I think it's a terrible idea, however we live in a democracy and the exit vote won, simple as that)
Now control of immigration predicates leaving the single market as one of the principles of that is freedom of movement, so there's literally no way to achieve the stated brexit campaign goals without leaving the single market.
I didn't say anything about the majority of the population I said people who voted in favour of the referendum. The reality of our electoral system is that you just need the majority of voters, not population (well unless you're scotland in the 70's that is)
EDIT : in case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
It's potentially a clearer mandate on, at most, exactly the question asked in the referendum, but it's not a mandate for any particular method of implementing it nor is it a mandate for any party's or leader's judgement in pursuing it, nor is it even a mandate for any choice on balancing that one priority against others.
EDIT : in case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
A majority of a majority is not necessarily itself a majority, which is why a referendum -- especially one narrowly approved -- provides no mandate beyond the question asked, including on "key tenets" of the campaign for the position that wins that are, themselves, not included in the question asked.
You are presented with the actual literal constitutional changes and whether they are acceptable or not. Usually (but far less so than I would like) there is a public debate about the pros and cons of the proposed changes. The discussion isn't merely polarised, sometimes you will have people who agree with the general principle of the change, but object in terms of the actual proposed amendment. Perhaps on the grounds that it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps on the grounds that the specific wording leaves open other dangerous consequences.
As far as I understand it, the Brexit poll presented voters with the options "Remain" and "Leave". There wasn't any definitive statement on what "Leave" means. Of course it literally means "Hard Brexit" but I don't believe this is what most people had in mind, nor were they adequately briefed on the consequences.
The connection to Article 50 of the EU constitution as a means to "Leave" seems to have been made post hoc.
If you dispute that most British people made this decision knowingly I urge you to read Dominic Cummings' gleeful account of how he believes he captured and manipulated the Brexit vote [0] (it's a fascinating read by the way, and I do have a huge amount of respect for the guy, though his underlying motives seem somewhat veiled).
I agree it seems unlikely at this stage a second referendum would yield a different result. We are definitely in one of these "it's going to get worse before it gets better" situations.
However, you do have an unelected government interpreting the meaning of "Leave" and presenting a vision of what post-Brexit Britain should look like, and that in particular is what's worrying.
[0] https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-refe...
Both sides of the campaign, in my view, heavily had the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt angles playing, but then that's no different to most/all UK elections (just look at the scottish referendum for another example)
However what I do think is that the leave campaign rhetoric (which won) largely revolved around border control and immigration, and any outcome that didn't involve a change here wouldn't be respecting the "will of the people". It's been clear since the vote that the EU (rightly in my opinion) won't budge on this point so the PM had to either do what she's done or basically disregard the result of the referendum.
I will disagree with one point you've made. The current government isn't unelected. In the UK we vote for a party not a person, and reshuffles and changes of PM without a general election have been a factor of UK political life for a very long time.
I'd love to see that change, but it's the system we currently have, and under that system this government is as elected as any other.
From a legal and constitutional standpoint your current government is indeed "elected" (as is the present "minority government" here in Ireland). However I would posit that from a moral standpoint there should be another election.
The public mandate imparted by Brexit is murky at best and necessitates a return to the polls. The most obvious means to that is a general election.
I think taking the campaign rhetoric as some kind of instruction is undemocratic in the extreme. Also taking opinion polls is obviously flawed. They are instructive but if you're taking them into account, how can you ignore more recent polls that show a gradual drift towards "Remain"?
I suppose you "could" have a second referendum where the specific terms of "Leave" were specified ... but I can't see that going down too well as a suggestion.
The problem I see with reverting to a general election is that unless all parties campaign purely on an exact list of what they will and won't do with regards to the EU, the mandate provided would be no clearer than the one derived from the referendum.
A general election would mess the EU issue in with things like labour's infighting and legacy issues with the lib dems (a lot of their traditional vote don't seem to trust them after their deal with the previous tory government)
The reality is that a general election campaign would involve more campaign rhetoric and politicians would be just as tied as they usually are to keeping promises after the fact (i.e. not at all)
For me, whilst the precision of what was being voted for is unclear, the idea that a result after a win for the leave campaign wouldn't involve some kind of change to immigration policy is just unbelievable and because of the binary nature of the decision, todays outcome was inevitable.
You could for instance see a party campaigning on a platform of making government more democratic for instance, which wouldn't have anything directly to do with Brexit but might give piece of mind as you move onward into the abyss.
Of course with the actual state of all the other parties at the moment (SNP excluded) it's hard to imagine a wildly different result to what you have right now, but I guess in a way it's "the principle of the thing".
At the moment, I just can't get past the fact that without leaving the single market, they can't address the core concerns of the winning side (at least as I see those core conerns, and here we're back to the problem that these were never really accurately articulated past political rhetoric), so this path seems inevitable.
I'd love to see political reform in the UK to get a more representative form of government, but I fear absent a major resurgance in the fortunes of the Lib Dems, that doesn't seem like a likely prospect...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article...
Anyway no one listens to "senior academics" anymore :(
I know because I am the CEO of a staffing company in Germany: national as well as international businesses book exhibition staff and other temporary employees for events in Germany and Austria through our platform.
If one of our german customers does not pay, we can easily use the german legal system to ensure that we get our money. If we have to sue, our legal system makes sure that we are reimbursed if we win in court. But if for example an Italian business is using our service and they don't pay our invoice, we have no way to get our money. We technically could appeal to a court in Italy, get a lawyer in Italy, translate all documents to Italian and sue in Italy. But this would cost at least 20.000 EUR in total which are not reimbursed even if we win in court.
That is why businesses who are not based in Germany have to pay upfront. I cannot call the EU a single market, if my business has to treat a customer from EU the same like any other customer around the world.
So, maybe the UK will have some disadvantages if they are not part of the EU anymore. But they are not leaving a "single market" because the EU never was a single market. I guess they will be just fine without the EU.
Oh, it’s already a lot better than it was before. But you are right, a fuckton of work is required to make it even slightly competitive with the US, China, or India.
But we should work towards that – and not split it up even further.
The problem is that all national governments have to approve each EU directive before it becomes law in the EU council. The national governments then usually, due to lobby pressure, add loopholes to net neutrality, reduce consumer protections, or demand TTIP.
If you get rid of the EU, you’re only left with this council – and then you get zero net neutrality but instead TTIP and all the other bullshit.
Not sure how easy would that be in the USA or Canada (transprovincial) as well
Compare this with the need to incorporate in Italy, have people hired there, an office presence, and so on. The barrier is not 0, but it's not even remotely as it is outside EU.
The EU will never have the level of integration the US has, simply because there are different languages at play. But that's no fault of EU politicians.
"the UK cannot remain within the European single market, as staying in it would mean not leaving the EU at all"
can be interpreted as:
"I told them they better give us a special exception for single market access and no immigration and they laughed at me".
With the exception of the Eurotunnel route, customs checks remain unaffected by juxtaposed immigration controls and continue to take place upon arrival after disembarkation.
But I'm sure to some Brexiters brown people at the streets is the fault of the EU somehow
I don't think it would have mattered if the UK actually did restrict immigration or not, it's more about not having the power to choose to restrict it.
For example, not giving unemployment benefits for those that just had arrived (though it seems this applies to all kinds of immigration)
I believe political correctness triggered Brexit, and will eventually kill the EU (not only because of immigration, though)
Of course
Is/was that really the case in the UK? From day one? I hop on a plane today, take a taxi from the airport to the unemployment office, get in line, and I'll have unemployment benefits paid to me starting in February?
You mean those of Indian descent that have been there 5 generations?
However, there will be a lot of pain for ordinary people in the interim. Not for corporations though. it seems.
No. To have access to the EU single market, your company MUST have its main base of operation be in a EU member state.
The UK really needs to sort out it's internal policies and spread the wealth around the country and the not just keep pushing "the London agenda"
Furthermore, 'main base of operation' is pretty vague, and I don't believe it accurately reflects EU requirements. A subsidiary can be based in an EU country and provide you with all the access you would like. This isn't an option for smaller companies, but for larger ones its just an extra cost.
[1] - http://www.arthurcox.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Projecte...
Again.
Not sure the UK has the cost structure that'd allow being a true tax haven. Lower corporate tax alone won't make everyone move/stay.
I hope the best for Europe and UK on their separate path. Given the mess, a clean cut is probably in the best interest of both sides
Only we never done that. We just allowed for easy border access, united a few laws, and had central bureaucrats and heavier countries step on the throats of lesser ones.
And, of course, containing Germany, which brought war upon Europe twice in the 20th century, was a stated goal of the 1950s European politicians and diplomats that designed EU and its early precursors (E.g. "The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany.").
The funny thing is Germany is more contained inside the EU than outside it.
The opposite is usually lamented in the heavier countries, e.g. here in Germany it is often lamented that a German voters vote is less important than that of a voter in a small country like Luxembourg due to the way EU representation is structured.
Additionally, the voting process in the European council is structured so that bigger countries cannot just impose their will in smaller ones (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E... for details).
All sides can lament, but the numbers speak for themselves.
'The apportionment of seats is not proportional to each state's population, nor does it reflect any particular mathematical formula; however, it is stated in the treaties that distribution of seats should be "degressively proportional" to the population of the member states. The process can be compared to the composition of the electoral college used to elect the President of the United States of America in that, pro rata, the smaller state received more places in the electoral college than the more populous states.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_...
There's the EC and bureaucratic ad-hoc groups that nobody appointed like the Eurogroup (an informal assembly of eurozone fin-mins with super powers that's not legitimized anywhere officially), the council of the EU (composed by state leaders and making decisions where strong countries like Germany and France have disproportionate influence using lackey satellite countries or debtors they control), etc.
Here's another Wikipedia link for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_Euro...
Of course I don't expect you to be able to explain it, because if anything the EU has given voice and veto power to small EU countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E...
this is how the spectacularly unpopular migrant relocation was forced through against Eastern Europe's objections
Some might argue that lessens small countries' power to streamline the decision making. Those would be the same that criticised the EU during the CETA negotiations and the whole Wallonia potential veto.
Nothing is black or white indeed.
Those countries themselves -- and any other state actor, that is not tied by a bureaucracy they don't control but Germany does.
>The lack of an existing legal framework agreed upon all actors would mean there's no deterrent for an escalation if, let's say, France or UK decided to side with their Eastern colleagues and get serious about it.
Only then it would mean war or close, and the aggression and control would be evident (and costly).
Whereas within a "existing legal framework" under your control (including controlling several lesser states to always vote for your interests), and with you controlling the centralized "purse" of Europe as well as its monetary policy, you get to push your agenda more effectively.
That doesn't answer the question, what are you on about?
That "bureaucracy" is an actual agreement between each of those countries, up to 27 members. A one sided aggression has no legal framework of defense and it gives full advantage to the bigger bullies.
> Only then it would mean war or close, and the aggression and control would be evident (and costly).
So smaller countries have way more to lose than bigger countries.
> Whereas within a "existing legal framework" under your control (including controlling several lesser states to always vote for your interests), and with you controlling the centralized "purse" of Europe as well as its monetary policy, you get to push your agenda more effectively.
You are able to push any agenda more effectively, with the "minor" detail that the agenda has to be agreed and voted by the representatives of 27 different countries.
Would you want to try again at answering my original question? If international law is not your forte (it's certainly not mine), do you mind just answering the example questions?:
> Do you think Germany wouldn't be able to throw its weight around to push Poland, Czechia or Slovakia to do whatever they want to? Who would legally put an opposition to that?
Even if Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain decided to vote together, the others can still win a vote against them. (Also, the EP is split according to political ideologies, not nationalities, so this scenario is unrealistic.)
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_...
Who's to blame? Hard to say, but no one's free of guilt here.
If you remember what happened a couple of years ago, when Syriza came to power, and Yiannis Varoufakis became finance minister, we threatened to leave the EU if our (vague and silly) terms were not accepted. The rest of the EU refused steadfastly, but nobody ever voiced any desire to make us leave the union.
You can contrast this with what is happening right now. When the UK voted for Brexit, the rest of the EU breathed a collective sigh of relief and wished them good riddance. In Brussels they could hardly keep themselves from laughing and dancing a jig, that the great European troublemaker had finally decided to jump over a cliff, feet-first, entirely of its own volition.
Nothing like that happened when Grexit was afoot. Nobody was laughing, everyone was waiting patiently for our national tantrum to abate. Angela Merkel, that evil ogre of a woman who wanted to roast our babies over an open fire [1], waited patiently for our juvenile prime minister to get his shit together and learn how to rule a country.
Nobody wanted to harm the Geeks and nobody tried to harm the Greeks- all harm that came to us we did to ourselves, or it was a result of the economic crisis. Your comment is blaming the wrong people for our woes.
___________
[1] cf. all of the Greek press at the time.
"Thrived" just meant the Greek state could for a few years borrow money more easily because of the Euro, nothing substantial that one could actually call "thriving". The actual health of the economy (inflated numbers from borrowing aside) was in its worst condition ever.
For the Greek economy it was the beginning of the end, as at the same time, The euro, and the lack of control of its own monetary policy, sealed the inability of Greece to ever repay its debt. And of course made its exports, lackluster even before, collapse completely.
>The Germans actually tried to help, in the way they thought was best
Actually they merely tried to enforce their economic ideology of austerity upon further austerity, totally in spite of dire results and being totally not workable, all the while making billions in the process for the German economy, plus insuring its banks against the crisis with EU money (transferring money from the European public to the financiers).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/11/despite-l...
Greece is now an ex-country on life support giving the semblance of a European country.
>Nobody wanted to harm the Geeks and nobody tried to harm the Greeks
The world is not some hugging and loving place, international politics and finances even more so. Those doing the harm could not care less if they were harming Greeks, Irish, Italians, etc. specifically, so that much is true: they didn't actively try to "harm the Greeks".
It was a matter of pursuing their own financial interests, as always is. The Greek public were just imbeciles in recognizing that, and the Greek politicians where profiting just the same.
Aw, thank you. That's the most offensive thing I've read all month on the internet.
As to the rest of your erudite analysis, no, it was not just the Greek state that prospered and thrived in the time before the crisis. The Greek people also did. Our living standards rose with alacrity, so much so that a British family friend who had been visiting the country for a long time once remarked that the cats get fatter every time she sees them (though, to be fair, they have nothing on the British ones, I should say).
Also, no, people are not automata, and they do make imperfectly rational decisions- as evidenced by the Brexit vote, for instance. Indeed, in politics sentiment rules, otherwise countries would (almost) never go to war, or make catastrophic economic and political decisions, such as adopting communism and so on.
The easiest thing for the EU would have been to kick us out and towards the end of the peak of the Grexit crisis there were indeed voices that suggested the time might have come for the EU or at least the Eurozone, to go on without us. It didn't happen. Why not? Everyone's rational self-interest was to kick us out. Oh, but- I forget. The whole of the Eurozone economy was so hung up on the few millions they got out of the bailout, that they thought they couldn't live without us. Gods! We dodged a bullet, innit!
Of course you might disagree with me. As a Greek I'm used to everyone knowing what went down with the crisis, and Grexit, except me and other Greeks.
I doubt that. Besides, it's still true. Countries prosper or decline all the time. Losing 5% of your young educated population to brain drain, a huge hit on your economy, a continued debt burden, and a supervision program struggling development for the long term future, and a 30% or more income loss over the last decade, are all signs of a country in free fall. Heck, the unemployment alone is close to Weimar republic levels... And let's not go to the health of the banking system, or the welfare system (pension funds, etc).
It's like those persons walking off of cliffs in cartoons, until they realize they are on air, and suddenly fall. Some people just haven't realized it yet.
>As to the rest of your erudite analysis, no, it was not just the Greek state that prospered and thrived in the time before the crisis. The Greek people also did. *
It's easy to "prosper" on borrowed money (that the state distributes) or easy access to finance (that banks lend as if there's no tomorrow). Even so, the Greek people show a steep decline in job prospects post 2004 or so, and their "prosperity" was not based on anything remotely looking like a viable economic progress. There was an actual rise on living standards in Greece since the 70s or so, and the euro era is the period when that rise was put to a hold, and private loaning and credit card debt went on the rise.
>Indeed, in politics sentiment rules, otherwise countries would (almost) never go to war, or make catastrophic economic and political decisions, such as adopting communism and so on.
Going to war can have several important benefits for a country. That's how most countries made their colonies, controlled trade routes, built empires, secured cheap resources, or expanded on the expense of nearby countries. Going to war is abhorrent and murderous, yes, but not really irrational, that's how much of the western progress was funded.
As for "adopting communism", you're thinking with hindsight. At the moment there was not much for countries to not adopt communism, and for some it was even seen as an improvement on the previous situation (being colonial slaves and protectorates mostly). For some countries, communism was the engine that managed to bring them to the 20th century pronto, including Russia/USSR (they would be cannon fodder for Nazi Germany without the forced industrialization done by the communists) and China (which the new regime organized, united, and brought to the 21st century quite the winning power -- besides, after Mao they use their own version capitalism that has little to do with any historical form or dogma of communism apart from the party rule).
>The easiest thing for the EU would have been to kick us out and towards the end of the peak of the Grexit crisis there were indeed voices that suggested the time might have come for the EU or at least the Eurozone, to go on without us. It didn't happen. Why not?
Because they could still pretend-give money to Greece that's siphoned from the European people to the German and other banks.
This way, Greece nominally pays their debt, the fat cats at the European banks are getting money, German banks are secured from their frivolous lending, the Greek state assets (e.g. profitable airports) can be sold for a penny and Greek economy controlled in order to continue the "bailout". Furthermore, they can all pretend that there's an EU and that the euro experiment has not failed (well, if it wasn't for a similar crisis lurking in most other EU countries, the Brexit, Italy and so on).
The losses of Greek and French banks were socialised onto the Greek state by the terms of the bailout so the Greek people suffered rather than people who'd invested in the bank losing.
Now Greece did over borrow but when banks lend they take a risk and sometimes that risk doesn't pay off.
Is breaking apart so that each little insignificantly economic nobody can be bullied by the rest of the world a better solution?
What's your solution to the problem?
It's pretty easy to complain, but coming up with actual solutions is way way harder.
Do you realize you used 'just', talking about countries that were at war with each other for their entire history? When I said "we don't realize", I was talking about you
except they never had this - the richer countries see their contribution as a drain (e.g., the almost collapse for the greeks), unlike the american state, which distributes the federal taxes somewhat more "evently", and there's no "Us vs Them" mentality.
The level of naïveté displayed in this comment is shocking.
America is politically able to let, for example, Detroit, die a lingering death. For obvious reasons the Greeks would rather a similar fate wasn't in store for their country.
"Damned if you do, damned if you don't" as a famous early 90s child philosopher put it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Articles_of_Confe...
States, despite all this fanciful nostalgia, do not exist in a vacuum and their continued sovereignty today is dependent on belonging to a larger unions. It's the only way to protect themselves from the imperialism of powerful federal unions like the US, Russia, and China. If any European state thinks that it can exist independently of a federal (or worse) arrangement, it has misunderstood 20th century history.
And I would also argue the election of Trump demonstrates that you actually can't allow Detroit and similar regions to wither without significant political repercussions. The Democrats tried that and it cost them the election.
The shared attachement to democracy, peace, to solidarity versus exacerbated nationalism, refusing death penalty, of some version of social democracy in the broad sense of the term, is much stronger than what divides us.
Free trade is fantastic, but a unified monatory policy is a disaster - it cannot work- not even on paper.
Would regions like Madrid or Barcelona, easily at e.g. Dutch level, have to share monetary policy with Andalucia or Extremadura - two of the poorer regions in Europe?
Are there studies pointing to when or where a common monetary policy stops making sense?
And that's precisely why it is failing, and will continue to fail.
Imagine combining Canada and the USA into a single country.
That's certainly the endgame. What couldn't be achieved by world wars, is being achieved by the EU project.
> US and Canada... very similar countries
I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic here. And if not, don't you think it's pretty disgusting to suggest the culture of Canadians and Americans is pretty similar? Don't you think that culture is something to cherish and protect, rather than pretend doesn't exist?
this is not very hard to imagine
I was desperately hopeful that the whole Brexit situation could be salvaged in some way, and that some way forward for liberalism might be figured out such that the rising tide of populism could be countered. I'm less and less confident about that.
When Parliament gets its vote, the two year exit period will almost certainly be almost over and a vote of Parliament will not be able to stop the exit. Instead it will be a vote on the new arrangements with the EU. So either they just have to rubberstamp whatever gets put to them or - if they vote down these new arrangements - Britain will be left outside of the EU without any new deal in place.
So possibly, but there is talk of Teresa May rewording the Bill and forcing it through. Democracy eh!
Just like Trump and the electoral college, if we project the vote into MP constituencies Brexit got 60% [0].
This means that most MPs voting 'No' to Brexit would anger their constituents for Subverting Democracy - one of Theresa May's favorite talking points[1]. This would likely lead to a more extreme/populist government in the next election, and perhaps some internal strife and riots in the meantime.
Who would you rather have at the helm?
[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/nomura-2-charts-show-why-rema... [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=subverting+democracy
It'll certainly be interesting to see how the negotiations play out.
When Switzerland was faced with a similar issue (after citizens voted to restrict EU immigration) it was clear their Government knew straightaway they needed the deals with the EU, so it was impossible to negotiate anything of value.
Britain is politically and economically very important to continental Europe, so May does have some bargaining chips.
Exactly that, and it's pertinent timing given the noises that Trump is making regarding import taxes, and the implications of those taxes for EU exporters.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/belgium-reache...
I have the feeling that (from the EU perspective) the opportunity to punish banks with a difficult Brexit will actually make negotiations for the UK harder, not easier.
But May won't do that, because she's decided it's the unanimous will of the people that we storm out and slam the doors closed behind us and then barricade them and lay some mines just for good measure.
Personally, I am not a huge fan of these currency, trading or political blocs. The WTO exists for trade and I would much prefer it to be the vehicle for trade, rather than groups of geographically close-knit countries.
Likewise, subject to the outcome of the negotiations, I imagine after a period of uncertainty and perhaps some turmoil it will be for the best. The timing may be unfortunate for some though.
The EU is a good way to reach that final, ideal state.
The EU seems to be pretty effective at preventing wars within Europe. That's a good enough pro to cancel out all the other cons on my list. But hey, it's been three generations since our last big war, we are probably overdue on a reminder of why fully-industrialized total war is not such a great idea.
I like the EU for what it offers me: a market where I can buy and sell things knowing that some minimum rules are being respected, an area which allows me, as a person the freedom that I think every human being has, to move and work wherever he wants (although this is currently limited to EU citizens), and lots of other advantages.
Peace is good collateral effect.
Have we had no wars in Europe since WW2 because of the EU, or because the generations before us were sick of war?
Also the EU didn't stop a war in the Balkans…
Last time I checked the Balkans were within Europe!
Look I voted to remain and I'm probably going to leave the UK as I don't want to live in the UK post Brexit.
That said there's as many crazy claims for the success of the EU as there were for the UK leaving.
As an institution the EU is very much out of touch with the needs of the common people, and you've only got to look at how they treated Greece as an example (and the whole stupid thing of moving MPs to Strasbourg once a month)
The UK was never really committed to the EU and yet it got special treatment time and time again. I say this as an EU outsider.
The "common people" usually want all upsides with no downsides. No one can deliver that, buy the populist politicians depend on it and promise people the moon (see "closed borders and common market"). Good luck with the Tories and IndyRef 2.
Despite this speech, we still have absolutely no idea what conversations are being had in private, or how anything is going to work out.
An agreement needs to be reached about EU citizens already living in the UK, and UK citizens in the EU. That's maybe the only critical issue where they have common ground. In every other respect, the UK is going to take decades to recover from radical economic upheaval. It's a ludicrous self-imposed crisis.
EU membership is something different that non EU membership. UK is opting for non EU membership, and even for a deal completely different than any other country has. We will reach that kind of deal.
But please do not pretend that the expected agreement is "the UK gets unfettered access to the EU market without having to compromise in other areas like all EU members do", and that any other agreement is unfair.
I am perfectly fine with the UK's starting position to be that one. The EU's starting position is "We want access to the city, free access to the UK market, payment for 40 years of deal making and market uniformization (which is going to be adopted on day one as British law), infrastructures, research, patents owned by British companies paid with EU funds, investments in UK culture and economy, unfettered access to UK's market". Anything less than that would be totally unfair to the EU, right?
Now let's compromise.
I'm completely lost and hopeless. We've torn up everything that's good because it's difficult, and we're exchanging it for everything that's bad, and will be a thousand times more difficult.
I don't understand how a slender majority in favour of leaving ended up with a government of people who are supposed to look out for our best interests going full-on for just about the worst possible outcome.
I made a mistake, it's 3.6%
The American single market is why state socreignty is such a farce, and the U.K. has wiser up to that reality.
America is a lot more homogenous than Europe and even then it's intensely straining here. Neither Alabama nor Massachusetts are happy being forced into the same polity with each other--voting in the same elections and being governed by the same laws.
In the EU we have some countries with Scandinavian-style welfare states, and some without it. And still the EU exists, which seems impossible according to your comment.
Pushed by the UK and the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Articles_of_Confe...
This will work very well for those strong enough to fight the fight - and the UK could very well be one of the winners of this new period. But this will be at the expense of hurting the rest.
That's why the EU should be extremely careful about what role the UK is going to play in the near future. We should recognize and punish any hostile act for what it is, for example the already official threat of creating a tax heaven in our backyard.
Do you think China or Russia care about "hurting" others through their actions? You will be competing with them. Can you punish them as effectively as you can "punish" Britain?
We had left it. In the EU.
> Do you think China or Russia care about "hurting" others through their actions? You will be competing with them
We are competing with China and Russia. To do that we need to be strong. That's one of the reasons why EU membership is important. Thanks for pointing that out.
> Can you punish them as effectively as you can "punish" Britain?
We are not punishing Britain. Britain is leaving the EU. Any deal we get is a new deal. Nothing can be taken for granted, by the EU or by the UK. If the UK does not get access to the EU market, it is because it is
a) either not in the interest of the UK to accept compromises offered by the EU
b) or not in the interest of the EU to accept what the UK is proposing
Buying from any other EU country should free you from customs declarations.
There's also been the possibility to hack with GBP/EUR rates.
That combined with an island mentality and a fear mongering, sensationalist press.
Case in point, my mother complaining of immigration, although she lives in an out of the way town where they had never seen a brown person (apart from at the hospital in the next town) until probably the late 90s.
Now she insists there are too many eastern Europeans, however she swears blind she would never get an Englishman builder / plumber because the Polish ones (catchall, means any Eastern euro) are cheaper, more reliable and just better.
But she wants to make Britain "great" again, "like it used to be". Pressing her when, she cannot answer. Asked if we should invade a "brown" country and get rich of plundering their resources and ruling via the military like we used to do, "no no no we shouldn't do that". "err mother you do realise why we used to be great and rich don't you"
and she voted remain!
As an Aussie, I have no desire to return to the island my ancestors fled 160 years ago but if it enables me to retire to a piece of land in Quebec or the Maritimes, I'm all for it!
Obviously we will have to have some kind of mechanism for choosing between these Economists, as some have shown to be pretty far off in their predictions.
Some sort of system based on the casting and counting of votes perhaps.
Don't know if the article title has changed or submission title was slightly edited.
Correct me if I am wrong but aren't these the things they get by being members of the EU? That is why they paid fees to have all this stuff that benefits them, right?
Honestly, when did the world start getting run by petulant children in the form of old white people? Over here we have The Golden Tariff that is destroying stocks because they pissed him off.
Of course the UK has control of borders: they are not even in Shengen! Besides, only EU citizens are allowed to move around the EU.
It is unfortunate that the EU has allowed the UK to amass that much financial and intelligence clout, and something that I hope will be corrected in the near future, by distributing the financial center around the EU member states, and by building up a world class intelligence service.
I fear that this failure of communicating clearly to EU citizens (and the rest) what the EU project is, what benefits it has, why we need to compromise in certain areas, is having a strong negative impact in how it is perceived, and can bring about its own demise.
For decades the EU bashers have been attributing all kinds of problems to the EU, while very seldom anybody, not even the member states which benefit from membership, have ever taken the chance to praise the role that EU is playing in lots of different areas.
May has made her case quite eloquently, offering the UK's view of the negotiations, but of course without recognizing something extremely obvious: whenever May talks about a UK strength, which can and will be used in negotiation, she omits mentioning that the other side, the EU, has a similar strength, often much bigger.
And she keeps on pretending that the EU is trying to punish the UK for leaving the block, when nothing is further from the truth. The EU is simply not willing to dilute the value of EU membership by allowing the UK to have "its cake and eat it". May repeats and repeats that there is nothing bad in allowing the UK a very favorable access to the EU common market, but I guess that she does not allow her neighbors to enter at their will into her house: being member of a Club has some benefits, but implies following some rules. Put bluntly: giving access to the common market means the end of the EU. As long as that is not the goal of the EU26, we can not accept that.
Finally, the UK has proven to be an extremely unreliable partner, and a very selfish one. After decades of special treatment, the UK is prepared (quite literally, as we see with the threats of becoming a tax heaven) to stab the EU in the back. This, from my point of view, has three consequences:
- the UK can not be trusted again to work together with the EU. Any deal we make with the UK must be done taking into account that the UK can and will break it whenever it wishes
- there is no rolling back: sorry for the remain voters, but it is unthinkable for us EU citizens to get you back on board. Even in case that your leaders rethink their position, I would say that option is not anymore on the table. Brexit it is.
- any other country or economic block making trade agreements with the UK are by now aware of how selfish and unreliable the UK has become. I would say this will have consequences in the kind of deals that the UK will able to secure.
May and the brexiteers have been talking for months about trade deals as if those would never carry any kind of compromises attached. Any deal means a compromise, securing something in exchange of something else. You had an agreement with the EU (as EU member) which is being terminated because you did not like the strings attached. You will now get zick new agreements with other areas, all of them with strings attached. Will you blame those agreements for your future failures?
Do you also think that it is the fault of the drug user and not the fault of the drug dealer? Or the fault of the shooted person, and not the fault of the shooter?
Whatever. It does not really matter how you describe it. There is one country "doing the tax-heaving" or the other "allowing it". But mind you: controlling your companies to exploit tax-heavens, specially if they are based in globally relevant economies with presence in lots of international bodies is not easy matter.
That's why the EU must be extremely firm in this area, and not allow the UK-offered tax heaven to flourish at the expense of the EU. Any trading done from tax-heaven Britain with the EU must be forbidden or punished with extremely high custom taxes.
I assume you agree with me that would be part of the "adjust its laws" comment.
You are the sixth (seventh?) economy of the world, you are expected to pay more. Did you expect Austria to contribute more than the UK? The EU has some associated costs, which need to be paid, and there is budget for investing in depressed areas (many in the UK).
But don't worry, you will get 30 different trade deals which do not cost any penny in supervising or enforcing, because that just happens automagically: you sign in the bottom of a paper, and all written rules are respected, enforced, supervised and updated. Isn't that sweet?
Debate, don't censor.