Seems a bit too early to declare the winner: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/15/dublin-firs...
if that wasn't a middle finger to German (whose chancellor was in France visiting refugees, and wasn't even invited to the parade) I don't know what it is.
It was certainly an attempt to position France as the first port of call for the US in Europe, taking the opportunity of current German unease at dealing with Trump (can't blame them), and well, total political shambles in the UK.
I get it, they are a necessary ungood thing for the economies, but should the hoi polloi cry for them?
But that's Bloomberg caring about the capitalists who would arbitrage your job in a heartbeat.
Either the society has to decide it wants classical music as a protected cultural good (and e.g. put it in government grants and subsidies) or the masses should (and e.g. pay for concerts and stuff).
Apart from those things, I don't see it as any great tragedy for something that's neither of them to lose its bank-derived financing.
No, in my logic there are two distinct things: the public paying for concerts (and the public not caring) vs the public caring and supporting them itself.
In the first case, it's just the banks buying some prestige by playing to supposed upper middle class preferences, and get some free publicity plus some tax exceptions for those sponsorships.
>The dimension you are missing is spatial, in that this would now happen elsewhere from London, and the "externality" of non-banker Londerners being able to experience this, is the negative effect referred to by the OP.
So? If the Londoners didn't care for those events enough to support them themselves in the first place, why would they have a problem now that foreigners, and not themselves, will get to "experience" those?
Maybe rent prices at least drop a bit to compensate. Or Britain&The EU find a way out of this misery once the consequences sink in.
England isn't a global superpower, it doesn't have colonies, it doesn't have the population to compete with superpowers, its overseas territories are a money drain, and there's nothing of value being made in the UK that isn't being made in the US, China or the EU.
The recession will be hard. It was a stupid decision made by stupid people.
Hopefully things will normalize in 4 decades.
You can't really stop history, but people like you would rather be ignorant of it, it seems.
I'm tired of all the "England this, England that". Yes, there's an amazing history, but you can't repeat it. Look at the world today for God's sake.
And with people like May, with their imbecilic policies and ideas, leading it? Please...
Furthermore, I like the idea of a united Europe, and I'd hate if the UK would allocate resources to undermine that (if Russia can, the UK certainly can).
I like the idea of greater cooperation across Europe, but I'm not willing to unite under the EU, at least not in its current form. Unity is not universally good, it's important to know what you're uniting under.
With that in mind, what do you want to gain from a united Europe?
Addressing inherently regional/global issues like environmental ones at the appropriate level ?
Having the clout of a 300 million people market in trade negotiations with China/India/the US ?
Gigantic economies of scale through common legislative work and a single set of consumer/safety regulations for companies to follow across a huge addressable market ?
"greater (bilateral) cooperation" just won't give you that. Creating a higher entity is the only way that makes sense past a certain level of complexity.
The "not in its current form" argument in EU discussions is a classic one (a similar rhetorical device to "I'm not racist but..")
The truth is that while no organisation is perfect (is Westminster perfect?), and with the assumption (a difficult one to make these days) that you are actually aware of how the EU works, there are a very few other forms than the current one the EU could have ended up in.
A problem solved by NATO and the OSCE. The EU is far from the only organisation with widespread European membership. Here are three of the most important non-EU organisations that affect policy in Europe:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_an...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
It's worth remembering that the EU only really found it's current form in 1992. There were earlier agreements that formed the basis of the EU, but it changed considerably after the Maastricht Treaty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty
> "The "not in its current form" argument in EU discussions is a classic one (a similar rhetorical device to "I'm not racist but..")"
Only for the lazy. I simply don't agree with how the EU is run. I'd much rather stay as a member of the Council of Europe than any group that dictates fiscal policy. You can see how well that's worked out for the Greeks, burdened with debts they can't pay for the benefit of European bankers (the bailouts were a bait and switch move, the Greeks got a small percentage of the total funds). The EU will become increasingly focused around the Eurozone, and policies that suit the Eurozone. We may lose some financial benefits from leaving the EU now, but it'd be far harder to leave as time went on, and more power was centralised in Brussels.
Council of Europe with Ukraine and Russia in it. Are you joking? Ask someone from Ukraine or the Baltics, how they feel about the safety of territorial integrity.
I would say, better be safe than sorry in this case.
"A problem solved by NATO and the OSCE."
Did I mention the Council of Europe in relation to war? No I did not.
One could also argue fear of Ukraine joining the EU made the Ukrainian war happen in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union...
"Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that members of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia may impose what he called protective measures in the event of trade liberalization between Ukraine and the EU. The EU condemned Russia's threats, calling them unacceptable. Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov urged Russia "to accept the reality of Ukraine signing the EU agreement" and condemned any artificial barriers as pointless."
"After the economic part of the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement was signed on 27 June 2014 (by the new President Petro Poroshenko) Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that making Ukraine choose between Russia and the EU would split the country in two."
Note that the military action taken by Russia started only a few months later, in November 2014:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_...
England/UK won't become the superpower they were before, just like Spain won't either. Yes, they'll be okay, they have survived through worse, but that's it.
Plenty of sources, but first ones to come were "Global Top 4 Aircraft Engine Manufacturers - Strategic Factor Analysis Summary (SFAS) Framework Analysis - 2015 Pratt & Whitney, GE Aviation, Rolls-Royce, Safran".
Don't get me wrong, Uk is top notch there with Rolls Royce, and they're not a manufacturer aircraft maker would want to ignore being for price nor performance, but it's not something we would lose or need to rebuild if the UK were to suddenly fall into a vortex or something.
As for the article, speaking as someone from the UK, as far as I'm concerned the UK did a deal with the devil back in the 80s, focusing on the fake prosperity of the financial services industry (gambling on markets is ultimately a waste of effort) in place of growth in the productive economy (manufacturing industries were neglected for decades). If Brexit means the government is forced to diversify and not rely so heavily on financial services it could be a very good thing for the UK. There will certainly be challenges in changing the economy if we leave the European single market (I can't see hard Brexit happening anyway, there's very likely to be some form of compromise), but I'll not be crying over lost banker jobs, they can be someone else's problem now.
I think it's sad that people with a PhDs in physics/mathematics seem more likely to end up spending his/her time optimizing my car insurance premium than solving real problems.
It's all good and fun to say bankers jobs will be somebody else's problem, but you are offering to replace that money with what, exactly ?
The UK used to be the laughing stock and sick man of Europe in the late 70s, had IMF loans like Greece today. It really doesn't take that much more than a wound like Brexit to fall back again into misery over a couple of decades.
But that's the problem, over-reliance on a single industry.
The thing is, it wasn't seen as a weakness by politicians whilst the money was rolling in. However, many people outside London recognised it as a weakness as their industries were being neglected whilst the UK transitioned towards becoming a service economy.
I'm not suggesting their won't be a downturn from bankers leaving, but I am suggesting it's a necessary one to break the myth that the service economy approach is the only one worth pursuing. The UK will need to become more self-reliant to return to stability, and that will ultimately be a good thing.
ARM is owned by SoftBank, for what it's worth.
Only short term, and only if we just look at first order effects.
In fact, it's too early to tell. Let's check back in 10 years.
What makes you think the UK can "win" anything in 10 years if it goes down the Brexit path? or 20 years for that matter, feel free to move the goal posts around. I'm curious.
The last crisis was extended by the actions of the government. Quantative easing to boost the wealth of the private banking sector + austerity in the public sector.
You can't save your way out of a recession, but if you are going to spend your way out of it, the money should end up with people who are willing to spend it in productive ways.
As for Brexit, what's your main economic concern? Imports? Exports? The domestic market?
IT has the blue collars (cheap engineers, sales, support, it) in Ireland and they are staying no matter what (zero tax ftw) while all the expensive ppl who refuses Ireland relocation were in london.
but if London is not EU, now it makes everything too complicated. France already started to glob startups. Germany got two big fortune 500 and Switzerland another.
it's a matter of time until they all move. and take all the service cascade with them.
so if you're afraid of crisis getting worse by fleeing investment, there you have it.
That was the case before Brexit, was it not? Companies like Google and Facebook had their European headquarters in Ireland before the Brexit referendum was announced.
> "Germany got two big fortune 500 and Switzerland another."
Interesting that you bring up an example linked to Switzerland, which isn't in the EU (it's not even part of the EEA). Despite that, it does have access to the European single market, something that some European bureaucrats are classing as 'impossible' for the UK post-Brexit. Let's wait and see.
> "it's a matter of time until they all move."
That's what's known as hyperbole. The UK has a large skilled/educated workforce with a strong work ethic. If incentives are made to mitigate against downsides of being out of the EU then I don't see every company leaving, and the ones that do leave will leave behind employees that they helped to train, ready for a competitor to make the most of.
This is how Switzerland has access to the European single market :
- It pays into the EU budget
- It has freedom of movement for EU citizens
- It implements many EU regulations, without having a say in them.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/07/20/how-much-do-non-eu-...
This has been hammered on and on during the campaign : the UK cannot possibly end up with a better deal than what it currently has as a full EU member (with a number of tailor-made opt-outs bordering on unfair to other members, to boot)
The issue is not with "some European bureaucrats", it is with some British people having difficulty coming to terms with reality at the moment.
- It pays into the EU budget
According to the article you linked to, Switzerland pays far less than the UK for access to the common market. Time will tell what agreements are reached here.
- It has freedom of movement for EU citizens
Which I have no problem with. Oh, did you think that people who voted for Brexit were racist? Surprise!
- It implements many EU regulations, without having a say in them.
Again, from the article you linked to, it states that Switzerland has around 100 bilateral agreements with the EU in order to get access to the single market. Having a multitude of agreements allow a certain level of control over which EU policies to take on and which ones to avoid. Can read more about those agreements here:
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/count...
I do recognise that the bi-lateral deals with Switzerland took years to get ironed out, and I'm not expecting a quicker turnaround for the UK. What I predict is that we'll go for some form of soft Brexit where the divorce from the EU can happen gradually, which would be better for both sides.
If you got 40 years to give away to some assholes who don't care about you, be my guest.