Printable View
You need to apply a discount to that £2b per year to get a net present value. i.e. what would we get by spending that £22b example over the next few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
The average discount I've seen in business is 20% though that seems high to me. i.e. ignoring compounding projects must generally pay for themselves in 5 years.
There are potential costs/losses to staying in, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
Consider .... for the eurozone to extract itself from the excrement it is currently floundering in, it needs MUCH closer integration in terms of both fiscal and monetary policy, and regulation. This is already under way, and all indicators are it's going ahead full-steam whether we (the UK) likes it or not. And we do like it, by the way, because the zone is strangling itself without. In my opinion, the EU got ahead of itself with monetary union, going ahead with the Euro project for ideological reasons before all the structures snd economic conditions were right, which is why Greece got itself in such a mess. But either way, the have the Euro, we have the mess and we ARE going to see further eurozone tightening of integration.
Thus, the risk of staying or leaving aren't what you describe, because if we stay, what we are staying in is evolving anyway.
This is a point the Pro Remain advocates always gloss over on TV.
The choice is NOT between remain in current EU, the status quo if you like, or leave into the cold. The choice is :-
- Leave, and run ourselves, including trade agreements with the EU and everybody else, or
- Remain, and be committed to whatever the EU mutates into, especially in the financial sector.
It is not a case of known situation if we stay or unknown risk if we leave. It is a choice between one set of risks if we leave, but an entirely different set of risks if we remain.
And I would argue that latter set of risks are more unpredictable, and for two reasons :-
1) The UK is MUCH more dependent on financial services than ANY other EU nation. Check our national finances to see it, but like it or not, financial services are critical to our prosperity. So, any changes in EU integration in that area, or regulation in that area, affect us more than any other EU nation.
2) As a non-member of the eurozone, we are in the outside of any decision-making on that. We don't have a say in eurogroup decisions.
The result is that we have a sort-of associate member status in the EU when it comes to financial integration, services and regulation, and that is precisely the area in which our economy is uniquely sensitive.
Make no mistake, badass, there are considerable potential losses to staying in, and that's without taking account of potential gains from leaving.
It's a step in the dark either way.
As an addendum to Saracen's post I would also point out that there are non financial costs to staying in the EU as well. Now this may sound a bit like "doom-mongering" but the British legal system is under threat as well. It may be a slow erosion, but piece by piece the underlying principle on which it is founded is being undermined. How is this possible you may ask? Especially when some will point to the EU having "improved" the situation with various pieces of legislation. Well, there is a simple difference between the two systems which makes them incompatible at a fundamental level.
1. British law - I am free to do whatever I want as long as legislation is not passed prohibiting said action
2. EU law - Legislation is passed to allow me to do whatever I want or prohibit me from particular actions
Essentially it it is the difference between being free to run in the park and being given permission to run free in the park. On the one hand I am an adult, on the other a child. So the question is... what would you rather be?
Not quite sure where you get that impression ... could you give me an example of such an EU law? Also, not sure why you think those two are functionally different? If a law is passed that prohibits certain actions, surely that law is also passed to give you permission to do anything that is not included in the prohibited actions list. it might not state it explicitly in the wording, but it includes that implicit permission. The only other option is that you pass law the only permits certain actions, with any other action being implicitly forbidden, and I'm, pretty sure that's not what the EU does...Quote:
Originally Posted by SeriousSam
It's the difference between Saxon and Roman law, or put another way common versus civil.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
*goes off to learn more about legal systems*Quote:
Originally Posted by SeriousSam
The difference is one allows you do do anything not forbidden by law,
The other is that you are not allowed to do anything unless it is expressly permitted by law.
It is often quoted, although I'm not sure how true it is. The latter case is sometimes quoted as Napoleonic law, but that could just be a propaganda story at the time of the Napoleonic wars.
However, what Napoleon failed to achieve through war, the EU is achieving through stealth. :)
I probably should have said it's the difference in application of common versus civil principles of legislating society. So in some respects it isn't just down to the differences between them on a practical level, but also the philosophical mindset behind them as well.
Technically speaking it is possible to combine the two in one legal system, but that requires a singular mindset as to what that means. As soon as you have two mindsets with one pushing common and the other civil, that's where the problems start. In this case the British mindset is "as little law as possible" and the European is "legislate as much as possible".
There are pro's and con's to both systems and to an extent a well thought out combination of both is probably the best option. However, this isn't what we are getting from the EU which is "our way or the highway". If you want an example of why I have a problem with this probably the best is to think about why the French Code du travail went from a sensible little book to a behemoth of a book, or to borrow one of their cartoons;
http://www.fnlp.fr/uploads/images/ar...vail/cdt04.jpg
Having done some reading, as far as I can tell the only real difference - and I'm going to directly quote wikipedia since I can't improve on its wording, is that civil/Roman law is a system "... whose most prevalent feature is that its core principles are codified into a referable system which serves as the primary source of law. This can be contrasted with common law systems whose intellectual framework comes from judge-made decisional law which gives precedential authority to prior court decisions ..." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)).
It turns out most of the world has a civil law system, although there are a number of distinct sub-groups within that.
As it happens, we don't (that is, England, Wales and Northern Ireland don't. Scotland's legal system is, of course, separate, and is generally regarded to be a mixed common and civil system). And that's true regardless of the source of the laws our legal system is debating - EU law is applied by the courts of member states, and our courts are part of our common law system. Our association with the EU doesn't require us to redefine the basis of our legal system (Ireland is more tightly integrated into the EU than the UK but also maintains its common law system).
I've read up on some interesting debates in the area. The prevailing opinion within the English legal system is that the UK's legal position in terms of EU legislation - or at least to general rights derived from EU legislation - proceeds directly from English law. It is, unsurprisingly, all very complex, but as far as I can tell the main implication is that if the EU ever tried to pass down any measure that was directly contrary to a fundamental or constitutional right enshrined in English law it is not guaranteed that we would have to adopt it under English law (although that situation would undoubtedly raise questions about our membership of the EU anyway).
Ultimately, EU legislation gets prescribed into UK law and is then applied by the UK courts under our common law system. And afaict the only way to change that would be through the ratification of a new treaty that vested all legal power within the EU in EU-run courts rather than the member states' courts. And while that might not be entirely inconceivable, I can't imagine the problems arising from trying to get a nation to entirely change it's legal system... :O_o1:
Heh, inevitable cross post on such a complex issue. Will re-read poth our posts, but it looks a lot like we're on a similar page...
It is frighteningly complex and even with a lot of reading I still don't understand it all and to be honest I don't think anyone quite does. So I have to go with a considered opinion based on the information available and my own views on the principles at stake. Some of this will come from extrapolation of current trends, but fortunately unlike the economics these are straightforward.
Simply put the longer we remain in the EU the more regulated our lives will become, and I for one do not want that. Whether it will become as bad as the situation with French labour law remains to be seen. However, if my experience with Food Law is anything to go by, that is the direction we are heading.
Now you make the point about "but as far as I can tell the main implication is that if the EU ever tried to pass down any measure that was directly contrary to a fundamental or constitutional right enshrined in English law it is not guaranteed that we would have to adopt it under English law". This is the area where I think we are already seeing signs that the "EU judiciary" see otherwise, such that what they decide must be enshrined at the country level. Now the EU council et. al. may decide to in rein these judges in at some point, but we don't know and I'm not willing to bet they are.
Oh and it is somewhat ironic that Corbyn talks about a "bonfire of workers rights" if we leave the EU, when what he really means is "I want to stay in so we get more workers rights, like the French". Which is somewhat ironic considering that the only companies that can cope with all that legislation are the multinationals he hates for being greedy capitalists.
I'm still in the undecided camp. The problem I see is that the EU is fundamentally broken as is. A central tenet of the EU is free movement of capital and labour, but given what happened in Cyprus in 2013, it's only free movement of capital most of the time.
I don't really think you can have monetary union without political union, especially given states with such diverse financial ecosystems. If you can be an EU citizen and retire at 55 in Greece, shouldn't you also be able to retire at 55 in Germany? If capital is as liquid as it's supposed to be, what happens if Germany suddenly puts up interest on bonds to 10% and Greece can only afford 0.5%?
I'm not convinced by either camp on the doomsday situation of staying or leaving.
On the flip side, if we do leave the EU, it would mean renegotiating trade and border treaties within Europe and further afield, and we've seen just how adept Mr Cameron was at that whilst trying to get support for EU reform....
As far as I can tell we were seeing signs of that at least thirty years ago, and I see no reason to assume that it won't continue - at some point I'm pretty sure there will be a serious legal challenge/battle over nation state sovereignty and the applicability of all sorts of levels of EU law.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeriousSam
OTOH I personally have no real problem with a UK government being regulated and moderated by an outside force that ensures equality of treatment for people across a broad area. I have seen no indication that EU regulations and directives have a direct negative impact on my life, and I don't even see a trajectory that suggests they will, whereas I've seen a lot of stuff from the UK government (and not just the current one, but the last 2 as well) that absolutely has a direct negative impact on my life. So that particular argument actually supports "remain" from my point of view - and potentially even "remain with closer integration".
I posted a thread with a few quotes on it, but maybe posting a new thread wasn't the best choice. I had found an older article talking about Europe which looked at some of the major players. It gave some brief summaries and quotes. Some of which I think are helpful in understanding the direction the EU is heading and the manner in which it gets there, and thus deciding whether or not one wants to be on that train.
For example:
Jean-Claude Juncker
56, Luxembourg
Position: Chairman of the European Finance Ministers since 2005, reappointed four times
"Monetary policy is a serious issue. We should discuss this in secret, in the Eurogroup. I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious... I am for secret, dark debates."
Herman Van Rompuy
64, Belgium
Position: President of the European Council since 2009, serving a 30-month term.
"We have together to fight the danger of a new Euroscepticism... In every member state, there are people who believe their country can survive alone in the globalised world. It is more than an illusion: it is a lie... The biggest enemy of Europe today is fear. Fear leads to egoism, egoism leads to nationalism, and nationalism leads to war." Yoda anyone?
José Manuel Barroso
55, Portugal
Position: President of the European Commission since 2004, re-appointed for five years in 2009
"All the European Union members should have the euro as their currency. The idea that we have two unions in Europe means disunion... It was an illusion to think that we could have a common currency and single market with national approaches to economic and budgetary policy."
Angela Merkel
57, Germany
Position: German Chancellor since November 2005, re-elected in 2009 for another four years.
"It is time for a breakthrough to a new Europe. A community that says, 'Regardless of what happens in the rest of the world, it can never again change its ground rules’, that simply can’t survive. I’m convinced of this. Because the world is changing so much, we must be prepared to answer the challenges. That will mean more Europe, not less Europe."
Nicolas Sarkozy
56, France
Position: President of the French Republic since May 2007, serving a five-year term
"The consequences of a failure of the euro would be so cataclysmic that we could not possibly entertain the idea. We couldn't even play with the idea of entertaining the idea...
Mrs. Merkel and I will never, never allow the euro to fail. Never will we allow the euro to be destroyed... The euro is Europe. Germany and France have known three barbaric wars. Now Europe is the most stable continent in the world."
There are lots of articles and quotes out there which express the general aim and vision for the EU. It's a giant United States of Europe, with a progression for a union of all areas - monetary, legal, security etc.
However you feel about it, I think it can be established as a certain fact that membership in the EU will guarantee the loss of the Pound as a currency, legal amalgamation so that there is one EU law for all, and a push to greater security (policing and military integration), with all that those bring with them, and all with an autocratic (not democratic) type of mindset. I just don't see that any of those are truly debatable.
So one way to look at this is to say that if you love that vision, then vote remain. If you don't, then vote out.
That's a bit low for you Galant - attacking other people in Europe via out of context selected quotes is kind of a schoolyard approach I'd expect from a tabloid, not in a reasoned discussion of facts. The facts should be clear enough not to need this sort of thing surely? Those individuals do not solely represent the EU.
Rompuy got one thing right, albeit unintentionally. "Egoism that you can force everyone into a one size fits all EU will lead to nationalism."
They may not represent the EU, but they are Heads of State that shape the EU, and while the quotes may have been taken from a longer speech, I don't think it is unreasonable to quote as there general view and how they intend to drive the EU forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
There have been quotes in the media from speeches by Jeremy Corbyn where he has shown very Eurosceptic opinions, until his apparent Damascean conversion in his speech today.
Can a Leopard change its spots? I'd say no, certainly not the EU, as for Mr Corbyn - well make your own mind up.