Jon's Europhobic rant.

[crackmonkey]

Is there a left/right divide on the question of the UK and the EU? In other words, is Labor for remaining in the EU and Conservatives against? Or is the breakdown more complicated than that?

 

[Jon_in_london]

Is there a left/right divide on the question of the UK and the EU? In other words, is Labor for remaining in the EU and Conservatives against? Or is the breakdown more complicated than that?

Not really, for example the arch-socialist Tony Benn is very anti-EU. The Tories always like to posture and pose as being anti-EU, who got us where we are now?

 

[Jon_in_london]

Besides, FDI is not always a great thing.

Consider- Germany buys Rolls-Royce, Bently and Rover = increase in UK's FDI. Good thing for whom?

or

UK buys big German cell phone operator = increase in Germany's FDI. Good thing for whom?

 

[BillyTK]

Not really, for example the arch-socialist Tony Benn is very anti-EU. The Tories always like to posture and pose as being anti-EU, who got us where we are now?

I'd call it that the centrists want in, but everyone to the left or right range from less sure through to anti-EU.

Tory-wise, Heath was pro-Europe, Thatcher was Euro-skeptic, and Major was, uhh, I don't seem to remember.

Labour-wise I think Callaghan was Euro-ambivalent, if not anti-, and that's it really until Blair (who is pro-EU [and angling for the presidency, I swear]). Liberal-wise, I dunno; are they important? Are they going to see power anytime this millenia?

 

[ingoa]

Another thing- lots of europoodles say 'we cant leave the EU because of all the subsidies we get' to which I say BWAHAHAHA!! because its is in fact the UK that subsidises the EU. In fact for every £ in subsidy we get from them, we pay them £2.80.

Could you please support your numbers by facts? The British Parliament might want to know. If you're right you caught H.M. government lying.

H.M. Treasury

Leave! Please! Tomorrow or sooner.

 

[Giz]

I'd call it that the centrists want in, but everyone to the left or right range from less sure through to anti-EU.

Tory-wise, Heath was pro-Europe, Thatcher was Euro-skeptic, and Major was, uhh, I don't seem to remember.

Labour-wise I think Callaghan was Euro-ambivalent, if not anti-, and that's it really until Blair (who is pro-EU [and angling for the presidency, I swear]). Liberal-wise, I dunno; are they important? Are they going to see power anytime this millenia?

Essentially then it becomes, those who hold similar (centrist, statist) beliefs similar to those represented by the EU are in favour of this undemocratic bunch (as their "side" will be in charge, maybe overuling pesky national govt who got in when the people voted the "wrong" way).

Those against are principled upholders of liberty and democracy (and a few people with right or left agendas rather than centrists )

As my personal contribution to the anti-EU rants: Heath campaigned for UK membership in the EC on the basis that it was just a trading zone "there is no need to worry about any loss of soveriegnty" etc. A couple of years back he comes out and admits "Well, we always knew that it was a political union, but it was politic not to say so" WTF!!! He knowingly lied to the British public in order to take their soveriegnty away and what happens???!! Respectable elder-statesmanhood!

There should have been a treason trial (hard to think what counts as treason if that didn't)!!! But I don't remember a whisper of criticism from other politicos (may they roast in gravy for eternity OR until the EU gets tough on corruption - whichever takes longer!)

 

[Darat]

I just want to know which continent people who want us out of Europe want us to join - or perhaps we should just float ourselves up towards the equator for the sun?

 

[Drooper]

From my point of view, the most negative effects of leaving the EU or not joining the Euro are not related to international trade but to foreign investment. This could have a deeper impact in the british economy. In fact, in the last year, the drop of foreing investment has been quite significant and scaring.


“Britain's share of foreign investment in Europe has collapsed since the introduction of the euro, according to new figures from the European Commission.
In the three years since the single currency was launched, Britain received 15 per cent of total cross-border investment in the European Union. In the two years before the launch, Britain's share averaged 25 per cent. This corresponds to £108 billion of 'lost investment', say pro-euro campaigners.”
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/euro/story/0,10818,967807,00.html


This interesting statistics show how foreing investment has fallen dramatically in the last two years. Compare year 2000 with 2002.


Net foreign direct investment in the UK. Million pounds
(Net investment includes unremitted profits)

From Europe
1998: 22892
1999: 39398
2000: 53893
2001: 17213
2002: 19142

From the USA
1998: 18596
1999: 15953
2000: 12741
2001: 15025
2002: -3011 (minus indicates disinvestment)

From the total World
1998: 44877
1999: 54376
2000: 78495
2001: 36555
2002: 18533

Source: www.statistics.gov.uk


The most important source of foreign investment for the UK comes from Europe, which in 2000 represented 68.5% of total investment. So, having a different scheme will inevitably lead to deficits in the capital account. Most of the foreign investment in Britain goes to the export sector, so if we link this situation with my previous explanation of the effects in trade, then I wonder what kind of incentives an investor will find in a country that rejects the benefits of a customs union.


Q-S

This is the most spurious use of statistics.

You will in fact see that this supposed plummet in FDI into the UK is a cyclical issue, tied to the recessions in the US and Europe and the US balance of payments (a large current account deficit requiring a large offsetting capital surplus). Also a factor was the rapid and larg appreciation in Sterling vis-a-vis the Euro from 200, which reduced expected returns.

The evidence for this? It comes from my earlier link to the OECD:

Total EU FDI:

1999 $361bn
2000 $585bn
2001 $299bn
2002 $227bn

FDI into the EU fell dramatically, for the reasons I mention above.


Also, something you should have spotted from your own data.


If membership of the Eurozone is so crucial to atracting FDI, why were inflows from the EU into the UK high and rising in the years up to and through the introduction of the Euro. It nearly tripled from 1998 and peaked in 2000?


You have no economic basis for you political point of view.

 

[Shane Costello]

I read how unemployment in the UK is at a thirty year low of 908,000 (4.9%). The EU average is 8.8%, while the figure is even higher in France and Germany.

Originally posted by BillyTK:
The Republic of Ireland is about what, 80 years old isn't it?

Strictly speaking The Republic of Ireland is only fifty years old, but there has been a seperate Irish state for eighty years, on that had an often ambiguous relationship with the UK.

Is there still that Catholic influence, as seen in, for instance, anti-abortion legislation?

We don't have abortion legislation full stop. The 1938 constitution did indeed show a heavy Catholic influence, in terms of recognition of that Church's special position and a constitutional ban on divorce for instance. This has been removed over time by popular vote in various referenda. IIRC the constitution didn't recieve that ringing an endorsement in 1938, the referendum vote went something like 53% for and 47% against.

A little known fact is that the constitution also recognised other faiths, including Judaism, and recognised the position of the Chief Rabbi as spiritual leader of the country's Jewish community. Considering that this was the time of the Nuremburg laws and Kristallnacht in Germany, we should take no small pride that our nation was far more enlightenment.

European unity? Surely some mistake?

Not entirely sure what point your trying to make here?

 

[Drooper]

Re: Re: Jon's Europhobic rant.

Could you please support your numbers by facts? The British Parliament might want to know. If you're right you caught H.M. government lying.

H.M. Treasury

Leave! Please! Tomorrow or sooner.

Could you clarify this post?

Are you claiming that the UK is a net beneficiary of EU funding?

If so it is you who is wrong, even by you own evidence (HM Treasury.


The Treasury report to which you link clearly showsd that the UK has been a net contributor to the EU by a sum of around £4bn per annum over 1998 to 2000.

This fell somewhat in recent years, but in 2002 the UK was still a net contributor to the tune of £2bn.


Over the five years 1998 to 2002, UK taxpayers have subsidised the EU by a total of nearly £16bn!!!!!

I wonder what UK taxpayers would have preferred such a vast sum to be spent on?


PS. Maybe it is you who needs the bang on the head?

 

[BillyTK]

Not entirely sure what point your trying to make here?

In your previous post, you said:

In short, I don't see any practical reason for European unity, and suspect that this agenda is being advanced for the advantage of the few and the detriment of the many.

so I linked to a BBC article about how the European Commission has initiated legal action against France and Germany for breaking EC budgetary rules. Now, considering that these countries are the main architects of the EU in its current form, and often held up as the few who are being advantaged to the detriment of the many, the idea of European unity seems kind of... fragile.

 

[Q-Source]

The UK has been the favoured home for FDI over the last 10 years.

Your statistics are crap, you fool. If you want to understand the behaviour of FDI in the UK you have to analyse growth rates or relative changes, not spout absolute numbers.

Anyway, what does this have to do with my quote about UK's funds to attract FDI inflows??

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
so I linked to a BBC article about how the European Commission has initiated legal action against France and Germany for breaking EC budgetary rules. Now, considering that these countries are the main architects of the EU in its current form, and often held up as the few who are being advantaged to the detriment of the many, the idea of European unity seems kind of... fragile.

By "the few" I was referring to vested interests as well as individual countries. The European commission most definitely is a vested interest, as are the political classes and elites in individual countries that provide it's members.

 

[ingoa]

Re: Re: Re: Jon's Europhobic rant.

Could you clarify this post?

Are you claiming that the UK is a net beneficiary of EU funding?

If so it is you who is wrong, even by you own evidence (HM Treasury.

I asked for the justification of the 2.8 pounds. Because you claim that you only get 35% of your spending back. That sounded like an incredible exaggeration. (which it apparantly was.)

We all know that the UK is a net payer, but so are half of the EU countries.

HM treasury:

2001/2002
9,213 billion ponds gross payments
after reduction of income from the EU
-> 770 million net payments

So for 1 pound which you get, you'll have to pay 1.09 pounds. Not 2.8!

 

[Q-Source]

This is in response to Shane Costello, about UK giving grants to foreing investors to locate their plants in Britain.

This is quite a claim. I await the relevant data.

There is a paper written by Haskel et al. (2002) where they investigate the spillovers created by FDI. They question whether or not the promotion policy RSA has been successful in the last years to keep the FDI in the country and generate all the positive externalities that are expected. But the important point is that some of these companies have failed in their purpose to obtain higher rates of return and eventually some have had to leave.

In 1991 Motorola was paid £50.75 million to locate a mobile phone plant in Scotland, employing 3000 workers. The factory closed in 2001 and Motorola paid back £16.75 million in g rants. Siemens was offered £50 million in 1996 to locate a 1000 worker semiconductor plant in Tyneside, in Notheast England. THe factory closed 18 months later, at which point Siemens had to repay £18 million in grants"

The last case is Samsung, which found production costs in the UK to be very high: Samsumg closes plant

Q-S

 

[Agammamon]

Jon, you need to get out of the EU so that the UK doesn't have to put up with the EU making such usefull and necessary laws like requiring people to certify the animals they hunt are healthy before they're shot. You've got enough kooks like this in parliment already, you don't need foreigners adding to it.

 

[Q-Source]

But I guess this is all just romantic patriotic nonsense to you?

Yes, it is indeed.

You have not provided a single valid argument to support your opposition to the EU. Decisions should be taken on economic and political basis, no in terms of patriotism and love for our sovereignty. You as a single individual depend on a wage to subsist, therefore you will try to work in that company that pays you the highest wage, independently whether or not your country belongs to a union. Being part of the EU guarantees the highest possible economic scenario for you.

Q-S

 

[Q-Source]

If membership of the Eurozone is so crucial to atracting FDI, why were inflows from the EU into the UK high and rising in the years up to and through the introduction of the Euro. It nearly tripled from 1998 and peaked in 2000?

Hello???? wasn't that exactly what I said before?.

Most of the FDI into the UK comes from Europe, from the EU to be specific. If the UK decides to leave the union it would imply that european companies will have to face a rising in production and export costs to keep on operating or to locate their plants in this country. So, the position of the UK is quite vulnerable and most of the debate about whether or not is beneficial to remain with the EU goes around stupid patriotic arguments, such as Jon's.

Q-S

 

[Jon_in_london]

The last case is Samsung, which found production costs in the UK to be very high:

Too high to be profitable because the global price for such goods is too low. Has diddly-poo to do with the UK not being in the euro, note that they have shifted production to the far east (ie sweatshops) not to the eurozone.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Q-Source
But the important point is that some of these companies have failed in their purpose to obtain higher rates of return and eventually some have had to leave.

Only some of them?

The last case is Samsung, which found production costs in the UK to be very high: Samsumg closes plant

But production costs in Europe are even higher.

Decisions should be taken on economic and political basis, no in terms of patriotism and love for our sovereignty.

What's wrong with patriotism? Can't you see that surrendering sovreignty to the EU neccessarily impairs an individual country's ability to make decisions on an economic and political basis?

You as a single individual depend on a wage to subsist, therefore you will try to work in that company that pays you the highest wage, independently whether or not your country belongs to a union.

Had a look at the OECD figures for unemployment lately? They suggest that membership of the EU significantly impairs an indivduals ability to earn a wage or salary.

Being part of the EU guarantees the highest possible economic scenario for you.

So why is there double digit unemployment in Germany, for instance? And you describe other people's arguments as "stupid"!