Cameron: UK won't pay £1.7bn EU bill

[Thanas]

Or, to sink the notion that this was just a sudden new demand:

“The Office for National Statistics published a report over four months ago detailing the changes made to UK growth figures which it stated were for use in the calculation of a member state’s contribution to the EU budget.

“These surcharges are the conclusion of a process launched in 2011 by the European Statistics agency Eurostat, and cited by the ONS in 2012, which was designed to harmonise the GNI calculations for EU nations.”

[DaveJB]

To be honest, it likely wouldn't have mattered when the increased demand was announced. The EU's opponents within this country have succeeded in persuading a significant amount of the population that the EU exists solely so that we can hand them billions upon billions of pounds a year in exchange for allowing tons of East Europeans to swamp our borders. Just the fact that our contribution was increasing significantly faster than the rate of inflation would likely have kicked off a major fuss, no matter what the amount was.

[Zaune]

The Indy

George Osborne left David Cameron in the dark about the EU’s unexpected demand for £1.7bn for days, it has emerged.

Despite the Chancellor knowing about the bill since the beginning of the week, the Prime Minister was only told on Thursday, when he was on his way to meet other leaders at a European summit.

Mr Cameron is said to be fuming about the surcharge and was forced to defend the Treasury, while battling other EU heads of government to drop the extra charge.

Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, also knew about the bill before Mr Cameron was informed.

The fuck?

[madd0ct0r]

Huh. Incompetence or assination?

[DaveJB]

It doesn't seem to make much sense for Osborne to do that to Cameron, considering that they're so closely connected that Cameron's downfall would end any realistic chance of Osborne becoming the next Tory leader. Makes me wonder whether the Lib-Dems, knowing that they're likely to get busted down to being the fourth or even fifth-largest party at the next election (behind UKIP and possibly the SNP) decided to set off a hand grenade in Cameron's face and bring the Tories down with them. Either that, or Sir Humphrey Appleby is still working his magic in the Civil Service.

[Thanas]

The fuck?

Fall guy. I don't believe for a second that the British treasury is so incompetent that they kept this quiet for over two years.

[streetad]

To be honest, it likely wouldn't have mattered when the increased demand was announced. The EU's opponents within this country have succeeded in persuading a significant amount of the population that the EU exists solely so that we can hand them billions upon billions of pounds a year in exchange for allowing tons of East Europeans to swamp our borders. Just the fact that our contribution was increasing significantly faster than the rate of inflation would likely have kicked off a major fuss, no matter what the amount was.

Or to turn that around, neither the EU itself nor any pro EU organisation has ever made more than a perfunctory attempt to engage with British people regarding the benefits of the EU or tried to foster any kind of shared European identity. I'm not necessarily talking about formal education, although when I was at school you would have to have taken Politics at age 16 to get any education at all about how the EU works or what it's for (I'm not sure how it is now). I am talking about a situation where there is zero engagement at all beyond 'of course we should be in the EU, it's self-evident, don't be silly'. (Weirdly the same approach that the 'No' campaign was taking in Scotland until the last possible moment). When the only people who are talking are talking about the drawbacks, EU elections are treated as an opinion poll on the current UK government to the extent that I doubt a majority of Brits could name any of their MEPs, even less than that have a clue what their MEP actually does all day other than go on junkets and knock off early on a Friday, and the commission is a place to send embarrassing politicians who need to disappear for a while like Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock, is it any wonder that vast sections of the public don't recognise the legitimacy of stuff like this and hold the Prime Minister to account for it?

One potential benefit of actually having a referendum is that people will have to actually learn about this stuff (assuming the Pro side have actually learned anything from Scotland that is...)

[Simon_Jester]

So it seems Call-me-Dave has annoyed enough high level people in the EU they'd quite happily see his election sunk, shoaled on his own rhetoric.

Suits me fine. Cameron can go play hopscotch in a minefield for all I care.

However, I don't think it's right to drop billion-euro bills or fees on a sovereign state, expect them to come up with the money in four or five weeks, and presumably penalize them for not doing so.

What penalties did the EU threaten them with? So far I heard none. Citation needed.

Well, there damn well ought to be penalties for refusing to pay 1.7 billion euros in dues to the EU... assuming that the information "you will owe us these dues" was made available in a timely fashion.

If there aren't such penalties, that's just bizarre and stupid.

[Note that this is me arguing that the EU should be more powerful, not less. Please pardon my ignorance. I had simply taken for granted that the EU had some means to hold a deadbeat accountable. It had not occurred to me that one would design a major international organization without such means. To borrow from Churchill, it would be like building a ship with no bottom...]

As for the time limit, it is pretty fair considering this would have been known for decades, probably as soon as it had been decided to change the accounting several years ago. If you are getting told to save up for a huge bill that will be coming in the future then you should be getting into it.

Ah. If the change was formally announced years ago with a timeline in place, then absolutely the UK should have been prepared (or, for that matter, overpaid a little at a time in the runup to the changeover so they wouldn't owe back dues).

It is very disruptive to any well-ordered financial system that runs on a budget to have to deal with sudden demands for large amounts of money. So if the assessments are being done in October and the money is due by December 1, that is a serious potential problem with the system- even if "it worked just fine" in previous years for various countries.

No, it is not. For years all nations have managed to abide just fine by the system. Heck, in 2013, Germany was faced with an extra demand for half a billion. They paid without complaint. It was an increase of 15.8%. So no, the only one who "suddenly" has a problem with it is Cameron - even though he did not mind the extra money.

I think that IF they had not been informed about this reasonably far in advance, THEN the Germans would have had a right to complain in 2013. Even if they chose not to do so.

You waiving your right to make a complaint does not oblige me to do the same.

If you don't think the UK underreported their income, don't compare this situation to a man falsely underreporting his income. It's dishonest of you.

You do know you can unknowingly underreport your income, right? Do I have to explain everything to you?

It had not occurred to me that you would consider an accidental underreporting- because in that case, it would be appropriate to allow the person who made this accidental underreport time to come up with the money. After all, assuming they were honest, they themselves may not have known they had access to that income, or it may be in some way out of their reach.

The extra money is apparently reflecting the UK's black market sector. The problem is, the UK presumably doesn't have tax revenues from its black market. So it's not like the money that the UK now owes the EU is just sitting in Cameron's pockets, having been collected in taxes in the relevant years. It would be better, since this is a non-emergency requirement, to spread out the process of collecting the money over a long period of time in an orderly fashion.

GIVEN THAT Her Majesty's Government presumably knew it would owe this money well in advance, they should have done that collection already. IF they were not informed until recently, then they should be given more time to do it in the near future.

One or the other.

If the EU wants to stick to this December 1 deadline for having the money be reshuffled (from Britain to France, let's say), then they should be doing the assessments earlier in the year.

Jesus Christ, do you think this is a closed-doors process? That the EU just goes into a dark hole and nobody ever talks with their counterparts? Do you have no concept of how those things work? Or how the EU asks for data? (Protip: It is largely based on what the own ministries of the UK reported to the EU).

I apologize. My original position overemphasized the "if the call for more money was made so suddenly it was wrong" aspect.

It is ALSO my position that "if the call for more money was NOT made suddenly it was NOT wrong, the UK should shut up and pay."

I do not know if this counts as an admission, concession, or anything else.

Now that several people have been kind enough to address the specific issue of the timing, as opposed to just "UK pay up," I see that the UK was presumably informed well in advance and presumably has no reasonable grounds for complaint.

A routine transfer payment is not an emergency. The basic financial health of France or Germany does not depend on whether those funds show up now or three months from now.

Neither is the basic financial health of Britain being threatened by paying up. I also do not get why you are so hung up on claiming certain funds could only be used in a crisis. I can only infer that you are unfamiliar with how responsible budgeting works. Every accountant worth his salt keeps a ready reserve for larger bills, which do not have to constitute emergencies.

Well, I am normally loath to dip into my crisis funds for things that do not constitute a crisis. Because I don't want to risk having just spent my crisis fund when an actual crisis occurs.

I do keep a separate, more accessible reserve for routine large-ticket items- but I would still prefer to be informed of large unexpected expenses well in advance, or be given time to bring in the money without having to drill a large hole in my savings.

Yes, that is precisely the system. Germany paid 15.8% more than originally planned just last year. Which is why our national budget keeps a nice cushion precisely for this sort of thing. Why the Brits are suddenly unable to do so - despite doing so for decades, or have you ever heard of this thing being a problem before? - can only be explained by gross ineptitude. They probably already planned to use that money elsewhere or did not include a cushion because they wanted to make the budget look good.

Well, I can certainly believe that Cameron is an idiot.

On the other hand, it would be good to... regularize the payment system so that nations are more easily able to predict in advance how much money they owe the EU, to within better than a 20% error bar.

It is, at best, untidy.

Either the dues should be assessed in such a way that there's less random drift from year to year

That would only be possible in a command economy. The EU gets this extra money usually from taxes levied on business. Business doing well or not accounts for these large swings in revenue. Because these are not taxes levied on the general population, but rather a percentage of specific taxes levied on business.

Again, that is not the fault of the EU. THe EU would be happy to get a European-wide tax level and its own finance ministry with actual powers. Now guess who blocked any such reform. The Brits.

That was stupid of the British. Although perhaps it worked for them (until now, anyway)... that doesn't matter, it's a bad way to run a confederation.

I would prefer such a tax myself. The current arrangement is bad because it forces the member nations to do things in a poorly organized way, in order to ensure any stability in overall EU funding levels.

There is a saying, at least in the US, of the form “A lack of planning on your part doesn’t constitute an emergency on mine.” In this case, I perceive that the EU has grown accustomed to being able to avoid planning when it comes to dues calculations- because they reserve the right at the last minute to reshuffle the dues by large funds transfers between member states.

Your perception is wrong and based on ignorance, like most of your arguments here. It is profoundly unfair to blame the EU for this and only mouth-breading retards who gobble up anti-EU shit like starglider would blame the EU when their own country rejects any kind of move towards EU-wide institutions that could budget like a real state.

People who deliberately prevent the EU from being able to plan ahead are, in fact, responsible for this. So I am convinced that the EU should be given sufficient power so that it can efficiently plan and finance its own budget, instead of this absurd kludge (which happens to inconvenience Britain this year, but inconvenienced Germany last year, and so on).

However, this lack of advanced, accurate planning about who really ought to be paying how much money, and failure to create a system that can amortize these payments over time, should not constitute an emergency on the part of any individual state. If next year it's France that owes extra dues and Britain that receives them, then the same principle applies.

This is golden. "I refuse to let you create a finance ministry" *two seconds later* "How dare you not have an accurate budget or real tax system and how dare you not have a finance ministry planning for years in advance".

I think the EU should have a finance ministry. I also think the EU should have means to punish idiots like Cameron who refuse to pay their dues.

I also think member nations have a right to expect a reasonable amount of time between "country A, you owe us more money" and "country A, the money is due today."

Really. Have you been living under a rock that you did not notice how the Brits have resisted any attempt to turn the EU into a more functional system? Because that would result in an EVIL SUPERSTATE, you see.

I am aware of this. The irony is not lost on me, but I did not explicitly reference it earlier- that a shambolic, disorderly EU funding system is now inconveniencing those who helped ensure it would exist in the first place.

Just because I criticize the status quo doesn't mean I think "therefore, the EU is bad and/or should be dismantled."

I don't know about you but where I come from people can't refuse to fund the mathematics teachers and then complain about the lack of math knowledge.

Do you disagree with that?

I cannot speak to the German educational system. In the American educational system this is standard practice.

Exactly what factors would have made this predictable, aside from "the EU is factoring in the black market this year?" Because I doubt that accounting for the black market alone would have justified a 20% increase in Britain's dues.

Well, one such thing is the tax on capital gains. This is tied to the stock markets doing well. So that is one huge indicator right there. Likewise, Germany usually knows if it has to pay more or less when the taxes on income and jobs are assessed. So in short, the better your economy is, the more you have to pay.

Or in other words: As soon as Britain noticed their economy was not sliding into a huge recession and that the city was doing exceptionally well all things considered they should have expected to have to pay more. Past examples (Germany 2013 + 15.8%, past years probably even higher considering how well our economy was growing) at least showed the general range such increases could take.

Fair enough.

I had not been clear on the way indicators like these tie into dues assessments.

[Thanas]

Or to turn that around, neither the EU itself nor any pro EU organisation has ever made more than a perfunctory attempt to engage with British people regarding the benefits of the EU or tried to foster any kind of shared European identity.

Actually, the EU has had a standing mission in England for several decades now that attempt to get the message out but they are mostly ignored by the media. Heck, nobody in the media or Government even bothered to read their message regarding this current drama. I bet, despite the massive amounts spent on PR, most brits don't even know the EU has a website tailored to themn.

*********************************
Simon, for more info on what the EU is saying, see here.

Statement by President Barroso on the budget contributions

I have to give an explanation of what is happening exactly, as it's a complex issue. I fully understand the surprise and also the concerns expressed by some Prime Ministers, but I want to show that there are some reasons for the documents produced by the Commission. Once again, I ask you for your patience because I think it is important to have the accurate information on this topic.

This is an annual exercise based on figures given by each Member State through their own statistical offices. This is the first point. The figures we have now worked out were the exact figures that were given to us by the National Statistics Office of the United Kingdom. This should not have come as a surprise to the Member States, as the maths are based on the own resource decision they have agreed unanimously.

The European Commission did not create this situation and for some years we have been the ones proposing to move to a different system. And this was rejected by the Member States. So we have to use the system the Member States created, which is based on the GNI (gross national income). So when there are changes in the GNI of the countries, we have to adapt the statistics and the contributions of the countries. We have been careful not to politicise the process we have been asked to administer.

Today, together with the next President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, I have agreed that the Commission will now give further technical explanations about this annual process. There will be a hearing of finance ministers, where, of course, we are ready to provide all information, being clear that we cannot have a negotiation about the GDP of the different countries. It's impossible to have negotiations about GNI. This should be left to, of course, independent statistics authorities.

The EU must have a balanced budget. So every year we undertake an exercise to ensure all Member States are paying in the level of contribution they should, and that the revenues which the EU budget has obtained through, for example, competition fines, are returned to Member States. So this is an exercise where sometimes countries are asked to give more money, and sometimes they receive much more money. Because, for instance, all the proceeds of competition, the fines, go back to the national treasuries. So it's not, as some people might think, that the Commission is asking for more money. Sometimes it is the case, sometimes it is the opposite. I would say many times it's the opposite.

Every year, in the autumn, the Member States' contributions to the EU budget are recalculated in line with the updated statistical base. Each national statistical office has notified its updated GNI figures and these have now been considered correct by Eurostat. Eurostat, I want to remind you, is a completely independent body. We are very much attached to the principle of statistical independent. The Commission, the President of the Commission of the Commission in charge, cannot give instruction to Eurostat. We have taken considerable steps to ensure the independence of this process, and I think this is now an acquis that should not be put in question.

The impact of the updated GNI figures on the contributions of each Member State is implemented on the first working day of December. These, once again, are the rules that have been adopted by the Member States themselves. In the own resources legislation, which was agreed by unanimity and ratified by all national parliaments, the administrative power to make this technical adjustment is given to the Commission, and does not require a decision by the budgetary authority.

If the balances are important, such as this year, the Commission proposes an Amending Budget (in our case, Amending Budget 6/2014) to return the extra revenue to the Member States. This requires adoption by both arms of the budgetary authority. We are recommending a rapid adoption by the budgetary authority (by qualified majority in Council) since the money can then be returned to the Member States quickly.

These corrections are made every year. In some years the net effect will be to increase a Member State's contribution. That is the case for the UK, The Netherlands and some others this year. In other cases, the net effect will be to reduce the contribution. This was the case for the UK in 2008. The Commission is, of course, ready to provide the Member States with any additional explanations.

In the context of the MFF (the multiannual financial framework), the Commission had proposed different criteria for establishing the EU budget through own resources rather than GNI. Member States in the Council insisted on maintaining GNI as a key element of the budget calculation base. The statistical effect has therefore been built into the system by the budgetary authority.

So according to information I received from the Commission's services, from my legal experts, this was a decision taken in full independence by the statistical entities. I understand, of course, the concerns it has raised in London, but any person that has to look with objectivity and honesty to the rules that were approved by the Member States has to accept that sometimes these decisions happen.

I cannot speculate now about non-payment. What I can tell you is that we have agreed with the President of the new Commission, because this is going to be dealt with by the new Commission, that there will be a meeting of finance ministers with the Commission to look at this issue, to have an opinion about this issue, to give all the information that was agreed. But, of course, at this moment I do not have any more comments on this matter.

Goddamn.

This has got to be the best "FUCK OFF, ARSEHOLE" statement I have ever read. I especially like the line about how a better system was rejected by the member states (read: UK) and the not-so-subtle reminder about Cameron's defeat in the Juncker issue.


EDIT: Oh, and the Fins told him to fuck off as well.

“It’s very important we don’t start treating the European Union as some kind of simplified accounting exercise,” Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb said as he arrived for the meeting, noting that the U.K., unlike Finland, receives an overall rebate “regardless of its economic power.”

“Sometimes I think we make mountains out of molehills, or molehills out of mountains,” he said.

Oh, and former Tory power Ken Clarke has come out as saying the PM would realistically have known about this for at least five months.

[Thanas]

And for good measure:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29784488

Mr Cameron said it was usual for member states' EU contributions to vary according to economic performance and that this had meant the UK paid less in 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2012.

But it was "simply not acceptable for the EU to make these kinds of demands and to do so in such a fast-track process", adding: "It's not just small change but a vast amount."

At a press briefing in Brussels, the European Commissioner for Budgets, Jacek Dominik, said the UK government had had "two formal possibilities to react" and that "at none of those meetings" had it expressed "any concern".

Mr Dominik said: "We all agree on the methodology and the elements that are included in the contributions and we simply apply them. Never in the past was there a situation that such a decision was changed and implementation regulations have been changed because one of the member states has contested and… it would be extremely difficult to do it."

He added that "if you open this act for future negotiations you open up a Pandora's box".

[....]
The pro-European former Conservative cabinet minister Ken Clarke raised a laugh when he said: "May I first of all sympathise with the prime minister by being taken by surprise on a subject which everybody in the Foreign Office and the Treasury must have known was coming along for the last five months"

"I was happy with the extra money but now I have to pay more? MOMMY, BIG BAD EU IS BULLYING ME".

It is hard to believe this guy is an adult.

[Metahive]

Shorter Cameron: "Help, I've fallen over my populist hypocrisy and I can't pay up!"

Also, this "I didn't know about this until a minute before it became relevant" is completely unbelievable, didn't Chris Christie use the same excuse when his underlings closed a bridge for the lulz and wasn't that just as preposterous*? But even if it were true, it would just mean Cameron is an incompetent leader who doesn't know what's going on within the group he's leading and should step down. It's lose-lose for the conservative regime.







*this specific form of top guy apologia is actually much older than that, the Czars and Stalin for example made use of it as well.

[DaveJB]

The sad thing is that, barring the emergence of some smoking gun which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Cameron knew about this months ago and chose to sit on it, the press won't call him out. The tabloids will likely relegate it to a footnote and focus on the fact that Cameron had a scuffle with a member of the public earlier today (practically on my doorstep, funnily enough), and the more "upmarket" newspapers will continue to spin this as being the evil EU trying to fleece hard-working British taxpayers of their money.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, the EU has had a standing mission in England for several decades now that attempt to get the message out but they are mostly ignored by the media. Heck, nobody in the media or Government even bothered to read their message regarding this current drama. I bet, despite the massive amounts spent on PR, most brits don't even know the EU has a website tailored to themn.

My condition of relative ignorance has no real consequence for the EU; that of the British might. This sounds like a good time to reassess the way the PR budget is being spent...

*********************************
Simon, for more info on what the EU is saying, see here.

[snip]

Goddamn.

This has got to be the best "FUCK OFF, ARSEHOLE" statement I have ever read. I especially like the line about how a better system was rejected by the member states (read: UK)...

It really is pretty good, not least because it's quite civil and clear about what's going on.

Basically, as I now see it, the original article represented this as a sudden thing, and while I tried to make some allowance I didn't make enough allowance for how slanted it was.

I certainly have no problem with the idea that the EU has been forced into a strange, ramshackle system for financing itself, thanks in large part to the action of Eurosceptic entities, and as a result it has this need to make sudden demands of certain member nations. Or with the idea that the Cameron Government catastrophically failed to plan ahead and see an event like this coming. Or did see this coming and made the dumb decision (reminiscent of House Republicans in the US) to deliberately wait until it became a 'crisis' and then make a stink about their refusal to do the obvious, sensible thing when it would have been easy to do so.

[Thanas]

My condition of relative ignorance has no real consequence for the EU; that of the British might. This sounds like a good time to reassess the way the PR budget is being spent...

Why bother? The UK media (especially Murdoch crowd) refuses to have anything to do with them. Heck, when members of the EU parliament campaigned the only press that bothered to show up was foreign press. Nobody cares about the EU in Britian, nor does the media. And if the EU suddenly starts to spend massive amounts of money to correct that, guess who is going to cry about it first?

The EU just can't win. Commission candidates try to campaign in Britain? Are told not to do so by the government, which then turns around and claims the British people got no chance to meet the candidates. Members of the EU Parliament try to campaign? British parties refuses to host them or publish lists (then complain about how the EU is so undemocratic). The British way of dealing with the EU is beyond schizophrenic and it can only be explained by them using the EU as a convenient fall guy for all their woes.

There is no will among the British media or politics to engage with the EU honestly, going all the way back to the wicked bitch which is now thankfully dead. The Brits want a way to make money fast (preferably money being paid to them for free) while doing everything in their power to block the rest. This, for some unfathomable reason, does not sit well with the rest of Europe.

I am at the point where I honestly believe the Brits will never negotiate with Europe in good faith for the foreseeable future. It would be best for the rest of the world at this point if they would just take their little islands and tow them to the North of the USA, so we can all live happier lives. Because this is clearly not working and not for lack of trying on part of the EU.

[cosmicalstorm]

I'm looking forward to the next round of elections in France and UK, finally some sanity will be added with regards to immigration and EU.

[DaveJB]

I am at the point where I honestly believe the Brits will never negotiate with Europe in good faith for the foreseeable future. It would be best for the rest of the world at this point if they would just take their little islands and tow them to the North of the USA, so we can all live happier lives. Because this is clearly not working and not for lack of trying on part of the EU.

Except that most of those who advocate withdrawing from the EU also appear to be in favour of slashing and burning our trade and political agreements with the US. Someone should probably tell them that the last world leader who tried to get out of a recession by doubling down on isolationism was Herbert Hoover, and that it didn't exactly end well for anyone involved.

[DaveJB]

Well, THIS is going to add fuel to the fire: (link)

Chancellor Angela Merkel would rather see the UK exit from the European Union than compromise over the principle of free movement of workers, according to the German magazine Der Spiegel.

Mrs Merkel is alleged to fear that the UK is approaching a "point of no return".

Downing Street would not comment on the reports.

Mr Cameron wants to renegotiate the terms of the UK's continued membership before holding an in-out referendum.

The prime minister said that freedom of movement would be "at the very heart of my renegotiation strategy for Europe", but Mrs Merkel is said by the magazine to have made clear she will withdraw her support for the UK's continued EU membership if he pushes for migration reform.

According to the Sunday Times, Germany has already rejected a proposal to impose quotas on low-skilled EU migrants by limiting the national insurance numbers issued to them.

Der Spiegel reported that Mr Cameron was now looking at a plan to stretch the EU rules "to their limits" in order to ban migrants who do not have job, and to deport those who are unable to support themselves after three months.

This is the first time that Mrs Merkel has acknowledged that the UK's exit from the EU is possible, Der Spiegel said.

A Downing Street spokesperson said: "The prime minister will to what is right for Britain, as he has repeatedly made clear."

Some people in this country seem to be under the illusion that the UK is negotiating from a position of strength, and that its withdrawal (and that of France upon Marine le Pen's supposedly inevitable rise to power) will fracture the EU beyond repair and lead to the whole thing collapsing. Maybe this will illustrate the problem with that line of thinking.

[Thanas]

The problem is that free migration is probably the cornerstone of the entire EU and Cameron wants to renegotiate that.

EDIT: If you do allow one country to change that you might just as well scrap the entire EU.

[Irbis]

And that after fucking study finding Central European workers left 46 billion pounds more in UK budget than they withdrawn using all social payments combined. Funny he doesn't talk about limiting ex-colonial immigration, Africans/Asians are already too big and integrated voter base (voting right no less) I guess?

I bet naive sheep who voted 'No' two months ago in referendum on Tory urging are starting to have second thoughts, eh?

[Zaune]

Funny he doesn't talk about limiting ex-colonial immigration...

He doesn't have to; we've already done that with a quota system, among other things.

[mr friendly guy]

Slightly off topic, but given the way this conversation is going...

What would happen if the UK did vote to leave the EU? To both the UK and EU economies?

[streetad]

To be fair there has always been an element, not just in Britain, who would prefer to see the EU evolve more into an 'a la carte' model, where individual nations just pick the parts that they want to be involved in, eg the Euro. Angels Merkel doesn't really have any more right than Cameron to dictate the future direction of the EU or which aspects of it are 'non-negotiable'.

[DaveJB]

Slightly off topic, but given the way this conversation is going...

What would happen if the UK did vote to leave the EU? To both the UK and EU economies?

It'd definitely hurt both, although the exact extent to which both would be affected remains up for debate. The EU would lose a strong economy, but since this country isn't part of the Eurozone the damage wouldn't be nearly as bad as it could be. On the other hand, the strength of this country's economy is largely because it has a strong banking and communication infrastructure, which makes it a good choice for non-European companies who want a gateway to the EU; taking away freedom of trade and movement would likely result in such companies moving their European operations to France, Germany or Ireland, and tear the guts out of our economy. That and the fact that if our withdrawal didn't somehow cause the EU to immediately implode, how they treat us now would be absolutely nothing compared to how they'd treat us after we effectively say "You losers are holding us back, so fuck you, we're going solo!"

The weird thing is that UKIP's policies until this point have made virtually no mention of what they would actually do in the event of the UK leaving the EU, and how the transition would be handled. Either Nigel Farage is genuinely insane enough to believe that walking away from the EU is all this country needs to do to immediately turn into a prosperous right-wing paradise, or he actually has no intention of leaving the EU and is (surprise surprise) just another opportunistic politician telling voters what they want to hear.

[Irbis]

To be fair there has always been an element, not just in Britain, who would prefer to see the EU evolve more into an 'a la carte' model, where individual nations just pick the parts that they want to be involved in, eg the Euro. Angels Merkel doesn't really have any more right than Cameron to dictate the future direction of the EU or which aspects of it are 'non-negotiable'.

But then again, there also is strong element saying "no exclusivity whatsoever" opposing any sort of divided union. They believe tight integration is their best best against outside forces (read - Russia/Turkey) and they're willing to give up a lot for it. That's why Baltics for example were willing to pay sums that would be unbelievable in West Europe to join Eurozone. Poland would have, too, but we happened to have right wing imbecile as PM in best pre-crisis years who wasted a decade of hard work to prepare quick joining.

It'd definitely hurt both, although the exact extent to which both would be affected remains up for debate. The EU would lose a strong economy, but since this country isn't part of the Eurozone the damage wouldn't be nearly as bad as it could be. On the other hand, the strength of this country's economy is largely because it has a strong banking and communication infrastructure, which makes it a good choice for non-European companies who want a gateway to the EU; taking away freedom of trade and movement would likely result in such companies moving their European operations to France, Germany or Ireland, and tear the guts out of our economy. That and the fact that if our withdrawal didn't somehow cause the EU to immediately implode, how they treat us now would be absolutely nothing compared to how they'd treat us after we effectively say "You losers are holding us back, so fuck you, we're going solo!"

Ironically, vast majority of what Scotland was scaremongered with just before referendum can be said on UK in EU too. UK is relevant because of its connections - take that away and it will be no different from Norway or Turkey. Ironically, the irony of this is lost on Call Me Dave crew and British press who still harp how UK is best and EU is worst.

That said, divorce would be probably easy to do. UK punched a lot under its weight because they deliberately didn't join a lot of European institutions, more, they kept Ireland and Scotland out of them thanks to their pressure. If UK quits, these two countries might after all say "fuck it" and pick deeper integration with EU, that is, if UK won't manage to force them out too by dragging all of British isles to the bottom.

Sad part is, if UK quits it's possible German/French could become only main languages of EU and everyone who learned English will find the language far less useful in everything outside of Internet.

[Thanas]

To be fair there has always been an element, not just in Britain, who would prefer to see the EU evolve more into an 'a la carte' model, where individual nations just pick the parts that they want to be involved in, eg the Euro. Angels Merkel doesn't really have any more right than Cameron to dictate the future direction of the EU or which aspects of it are 'non-negotiable'.

Actually, considering free migration has and always will be the cornerstone of EU politics (as no tariffs and free trade are directly related and even based on it) it is non-negotiable.