European dream is dying

[mrswdk]

It would help if you could work out exactly what views you hold. Maybe it's just the way you've phrased some of your posts but several of your views seem to have fluctuated quite a bit as this thread has progressed.

[waauw]

hmm, probably went wrong with the hopping from country to country. and from hopping from one part of history to another part of history.
not to mention the hopping between topics(europe<->south-china sea)

[GoranZ]

If the Russian government is deliberately moving white Russians into Siberia to try and dilute the Chinese population then at the very least that shows some pretty major intolerance.

What? Ethnic Chinese in Russia officially numbered 34,577 according to the 2002 census, and that is negligible number. Ethnic Russians are already majority in the area

There is no rational reason to fear an area of your country becoming racially and culturally diverse.

What Russia and Russians will do with their country is their job, not yours. If you dont agree with their decision its your problem so you can keep it for your self.

I don't really give a shit what Russia does to itself. I was responding to something that waauw said.

Then why are you complaining about how is Russian Government governing their own country? Or you want to portrait the Chinese as underprivileged?

[GoranZ]

Also, I understand that the EU's stated goal isn't really preventing European war, it's more of an economic thing than anything else. But, by tying the various countries together economically, it does indirectly accomplish that task, at least to an extent.)

Actually Europe has been creating with the purpose of avoiding war. At the beginning it was mainly a French-German thing in order to avoid any war in the future.

If you haven't noticed but EU is the main reason why there is civil war in Ukraine. But if you are referring that there wont be another war between France and Germany then you are probably correct, although France is not some military power that can damage Germany.
European dream died when Berlin, Paris and Brussels started telling everyone how they should govern their own countries.

Otherwise, there is a 99.999999% probability that Europe will not die. All your talk are pure non-sense. Maybe we could lose one member or two but that's the maximal extent of loss Europe is gonna have. The vast majority of people are very happy to be in Europe. Just forget about Europe collapsing. This is not going to happen soon.

Considering that the share number of enemies of EU both within and outside are probably highest since the creation of the union, you should dramatically reduce your optimism.


Have you ever considered what would happen when Russian volunteers fighting in Ukraine will be killed by American weapons(or even worse by American soldier)? Russia(and Russians) most-likely will consider that as act of WAR, war that will turn into nuclear one. In that case many Europeans will confront with the awful reality of atomic mushroom appearing before their city. Then you will wonder, How could have come to this? But it will be too late.

So what was the European dream again? To have World War in Europe or to not have war on European soil?

[GoranZ]

Iceland said NO, who is next?

[waauw]

Considering that the share number of enemies of EU both within and outside are probably highest since the creation of the union, you should dramatically reduce your optimism.

EU might break up into pieces, kick out certain members, but it will never break up entirely anymore. Most nations are afraid of leaving the EU. They realize full well what kind of advantages they would be giving up.

Take the UK, they're one of the only countries in the EU at risk of leaving. But that would be a disaster for the british:

• About 50% of british exports is to the EU, exports that are at risk due to import taxes.
• For the moment Commonwealth-countries lead their trade to the EU through the UK, a system greatly at risk if you take the EU out of the equation.

As for the greeks:

• 42% of Greek exports are to the EU, exports that are at risk due to import taxes if they leave.
• The Russians are merely interested in expanding their influence sphere, not expanding the greek economy. That's not a priority for them.
• The main reason the chinese want to invest in greece is to import their goods more cheaply into the rest of the EU. Take the EU out of the equation and most of those deals dissapear.

These are but bordernations and island nations. Leaving the EU is too risky for any member. This leads to the conclusion that a break-up of the EU is highly unprobable. A break-up of the eurozone, that on the other hand is quite plausible.

[waauw]

Iceland said NO, who is next?

next: EU saying no to macedonia

[mrswdk]

Leaving the EU is too risky for any member. This leads to the conclusion that a break-up of the EU is highly unprobable.

And yet some opinion polls coming out of the UK suggest that were the British public to vote on remaining in the EU, the results would be pretty close.

[waauw]

Leaving the EU is too risky for any member. This leads to the conclusion that a break-up of the EU is highly unprobable.

And yet some opinion polls coming out of the UK suggest that were the British public to vote on remaining in the EU, the results would be pretty close.

That's just the british, they've been EU-sceptical from the very beginning. They are like the odd duckling in the bunch. If they decide to leave, they will pay for it dearly. The british would have to completely renegotiate every treaty with the EU and considering how many toes they've stepped on, nobody will be inclined to be lenient. Leaving europe would be an irrational move from the UK.

[mrswdk]

Leaving the EU is too risky for any member. This leads to the conclusion that a break-up of the EU is highly unprobable.

And yet some opinion polls coming out of the UK suggest that were the British public to vote on remaining in the EU, the results would be pretty close.

That's just the british, they've been EU-sceptical from the very beginning. They are like the odd duckling in the bunch. If they decide to leave, they will pay for it dearly. The british would have to completely renegotiate every treaty with the EU and considering how many toes they've stepped on, nobody will be inclined to be lenient. Leaving europe would be an irrational move from the UK.

Invading the USSR was irrational, but Hitler still did it anyway.

So what effect do you think it would have on the EU if the UK left?

[GoranZ]

Considering that the share number of enemies of EU both within and outside are probably highest since the creation of the union, you should dramatically reduce your optimism.

EU might break up into pieces, kick out certain members, but it will never break up entirely anymore. Most nations are afraid of leaving the EU. They realize full well what kind of advantages they would be giving up.

Take the UK, they're one of the only countries in the EU at risk of leaving. But that would be a disaster for the british:

• About 50% of british exports is to the EU, exports that are at risk due to import taxes.
• For the moment Commonwealth-countries lead their trade to the EU through the UK, a system greatly at risk if you take the EU out of the equation.

They have two options... to become Berlin-Paris-Brussels puppet or to look for their luck elsewhere... With the first their failure will be dictated from elsewhere but from the second one their success will be dictated from London. Switzerland, Norway, Iceland are all perfect examples of countries that are not part of EU but they are successful. Jumping the ship that sinks can sometimes save you.

As for the greeks:

• 42% of Greek exports are to the EU, exports that are at risk due to import taxes if they leave.
• The Russians are merely interested in expanding their influence sphere, not expanding the greek economy. That's not a priority for them.
• The main reason the chinese want to invest in greece is to import their goods more cheaply into the rest of the EU. Take the EU out of the equation and most of those deals dissapear.

What would EU do with Greece is EU matter, so it is all up to you.

These are but bordernations and island nations. Leaving the EU is too risky for any member. This leads to the conclusion that a break-up of the EU is highly unprobable. A break-up of the eurozone, that on the other hand is quite plausible.

Whats the purpose of EU without eurozone? Collapse of the eurozone is the road towards collapse of EU.

Iceland said NO, who is next?

next: EU saying no to macedonia

What EU/West had requested from/done to Macedonia since our independence is 1991.
- (1992-1996) EU member enforces economical embargo on EU-Macedonia border.
- (1992-1995) Request for economical embargo on Serbia. We enforced it although that left us without our 2 main export routes and good part of our market. Since we are landlocked country and transport connections with Albania are almost non existent we were left only with our connections with Bulgaria that were not in good shape in 1990's. As a result our GDP drooped sharply.
- 1999 All military equipment heading for Kosovo went threw my country. You guys payed whole 0$ and destroyed our whole North-South transport corridor(although it was 10 years old it wasn't projected for heavy military transportation).
- 2001 Military insurgency from Kosovo in Macedonia. Kosovo was in NATO/EU hands but criminals there didn't had jobs.
- (1996-2014) Request for soldiers for military missions/support in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq...
- (near future) New gas pipeline that replaces South Stream should go threw my country but EU scum will do what ever it can to stop it... although that will cost Macedonia 10% increase in its annual budget.

If you see we have done/sacrificed a lot about EU since our independence, but EU has done nothing for us. But as Canadians say... "We have no other option but to work with EU"(for them it is US). The moment when we wont have to work with EU, no worry we wont, you do much more harm then good.

[waauw]

Invading the USSR was irrational, but Hitler still did it anyway.

So what effect do you think it would have on the EU if the UK left?

It wouldn't be beneficial of course. Not on the short term. But the fact is, the EU needs the UK a lot less than the UK needs the EU. On the long term, the EU could turn the british into a prime example of what happens if you leave.
Once the british get out, we can push them to the brink of desperation and then bend them to our will. This'll be a lot easier if the british leave the EU rather than remain in the EU.

The British will always have large interests in the rest of europe, but at least by remaining in europe they hold a means to influence the rest of us. If they leave, they lose them.

[GoranZ]

So what effect do you think it would have on the EU if the UK left?

And I will add, and UK starts making loosely union(opposite from bureaucratic one in Brussels) with Norway, Iceland and other potential candidates that have compatible economy.

[GoranZ]

Invading the USSR was irrational, but Hitler still did it anyway.

So what effect do you think it would have on the EU if the UK left?

It wouldn't be beneficial of course. Not on the short term. But the fact is, the EU needs the UK a lot less than the UK needs the EU. On the long term, the EU could turn the british into a prime example of what happens if you leave.
Once the british get out, we can push them to the brink of desperation and then bend them to our will. This'll be a lot easier if the british leave the EU rather than remain in the EU.

The British will always have large interests in the rest of europe, but at least by remaining in europe they hold a means to influence the rest of us. If they leave, they lose them.

Using threats is pretty how EU scum in Brussels work, and by using that you turn potential members/friends into enemies or potential enemies.
THAT IS THE REASON WHY EU WILL FAIL AS A PROJECT.

[waauw]

They have two options... to become Berlin-Paris-Brussels puppet or to look for their luck elsewhere... With the first their failure will be dictated from elsewhere but from the second one their success will be dictated from London. Switzerland, Norway, Iceland are all perfect examples of countries that are not part of EU but they are successful. Jumping the ship that sinks can sometimes save you.

Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. All three very bad examples. Norway has a lot of oil and gas, the UK doesn't even come close. Switzerland has a weakening banking sector that could fall if the EU ever decides to sanction Swiss bank secrecy, so hardly a favourable situation. Not to mention the Swiss are are small enough for the rest of europe to ignore, the UK isn't. Iceland has no large tangible exports to mainland europe. Their geography prevents that. The UK does and is thus more dependable on europe.

What EU/West had requested from/done to Macedonia since our independence is 1991.
- (1992-1996) EU member enforces economical embargo on EU-Macedonia border.
- (1992-1995) Request for economical embargo on Serbia. We enforced it although that left us without our 2 main export routes and good part of our market. Since we are landlocked country and transport connections with Albania are almost non existent we were left only with our connections with Bulgaria that were not in good shape in 1990's. As a result our GDP drooped sharply.
- 1999 All military equipment heading for Kosovo went threw my country. You guys payed whole 0$ and destroyed our whole North-South transport corridor(although it was 10 years old it wasn't projected for heavy military transportation).
- 2001 Military insurgency from Kosovo in Macedonia. Kosovo was in NATO/EU hands but criminals there didn't had jobs.
- (1996-2014) Request for soldiers for military missions/support in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq...
- (near future) New gas pipeline that replaces South Stream should go threw my country but EU scum will do what ever it can to stop it... although that will cost Macedonia 10% increase in its annual budget.

If you see we have done/sacrificed a lot about EU since our independence, but EU has done nothing for us. But as Canadians say... "We have no other option but to work with EU"(for them it is US). The moment when we wont have to work with EU, no worry we wont, you do much more harm then good.

Aaaah finally your hatred towards the EU explained. Unfortunately that moment you're waiting for that you won't have to work with the EU is highly unlikely to come any time soon, if ever.

ps: doing some research, I now finally also understand why you are so anti-Greece. The greeks have been blocking any access of Macedonia to the rest of the EU

[mrswdk]

Once the british get out, we can push them to the brink of desperation and then bend them to our will.

How would the EU, realistically, go about pushing the UK 'to the brink of desperation'?

The British will always have large interests in the rest of europe, but at least by remaining in europe they hold a means to influence the rest of us. If they leave, they lose them.

What exactly would they lose? I mean you mentioned tariff-free trade, but even if we assume that they would lose this permanently, what else would they lose?

Countries like S Korea, Singapore, Japan, Australia and New Zealand have done perfectly well without being part of any big EU-like organization. Why should we assume that the UK is so utterly dependent on its EU membership?

[waauw]

Invading the USSR was irrational, but Hitler still did it anyway.

So what effect do you think it would have on the EU if the UK left?

It wouldn't be beneficial of course. Not on the short term. But the fact is, the EU needs the UK a lot less than the UK needs the EU. On the long term, the EU could turn the british into a prime example of what happens if you leave.
Once the british get out, we can push them to the brink of desperation and then bend them to our will. This'll be a lot easier if the british leave the EU rather than remain in the EU.

The British will always have large interests in the rest of europe, but at least by remaining in europe they hold a means to influence the rest of us. If they leave, they lose them.

Using threats is pretty how EU scum in Brussels work, and by using that you turn potential members/friends into enemies or potential enemies.
THAT IS THE REASON WHY EU WILL FAIL AS A PROJECT.

Why? Because the EU works the exact same way as any other political institution does? The powerful use their power. It's pretty much a universal rule. Nothing special about it. Almost everybody does it.

[waauw]

How would the EU, realistically, go about pushing the UK 'to the brink of desperation'?

If the UK were ever to leave the EU and the EU would block any negotiation for a free trade treaty, the UK economy would be screwed.

The concept has become popularized in Britain among those who are self-styled ‘Eurosceptics’, and wish for the UK to leave the formal political structures of the European Union, to be replaced with a Free Trade Treaty with the EU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_free_trade

What exactly would they lose? I mean you mentioned tariff-free trade, but even if we assume that they would lose this permanently, what else would they lose?

Countries like S Korea, Singapore, Japan, Australia and New Zealand have done perfectly well without being part of any big EU-like organization. Why should we assume that the UK is different?

The countries you mention are far away from europe and are far less dependent. None of the countries you mentioned have 50% of their exports to the EU.

Some examples of how the UK would be negatively effected:

• The UK produces cars for export to France, jobs they would lose considering the high competitiveness in the automobile sector.
• Commonwealth products would have no benefit anymore passing through the UK to trade with the rest of the EU.
• According to EU regulations, all capital can freely flow within EU borders. This is something 'the city' has been taking advantage of for a very long time. If the UK leaves the EU, it will become a lot less advantagous for european individuals and businesses to let their money flow to London.
• The nature of services is to follow the secondary sector and as the secondary sector would be hugely disadvantaged by the UK leaving the EU, the tertiary sector in the UK would start dissapearing with it. This is one of the reasons China's economy will remain strong over coming years. The factories are in China and as a consequence financial institutions, marketing institutions, logistics services, etc. will follow over time as they already are.
• ...

[mrswdk]

How would the EU, realistically, go about pushing the UK 'to the brink of desperation'?

If the UK were ever to leave the EU and the EU would block any negotiation for a free trade treaty, the UK economy would be screwed.

1. Pay tariffs on exports to Europe
2. Receive tariffs on imports from Europe
3. ?????
4. PROFIT

And anyway, you're assuming the EU would block a free trade treaty. Given that they're signed free trade treaties with people as far-flung as South Korea, I have a hard time believing they'd refuse to sign one with the UK just out of vindictiveness.

What exactly would they lose? I mean you mentioned tariff-free trade, but even if we assume that they would lose this permanently, what else would they lose?

Countries like S Korea, Singapore, Japan, Australia and New Zealand have done perfectly well without being part of any big EU-like organization. Why should we assume that the UK is different?

The countries you mention are far away from europe and are far less dependent. None of the countries you mentioned have 50% of their exports to the EU.

I'm not talking about those countries' relationship with Europe. I'm talking about the fact none of them are members of any big trade blocs.

Some examples of how the UK would be negatively effected:

• The UK produces cars for export to France, jobs they would lose considering the high competitiveness in the automobile sector.

Is automobile manufacturing a major part of the British economy? And is France a major part of the UK's export market for automobiles? And would French people stop buying those British cars just because they start to cost a bit more?

Answer all these questions and you'll see that this is not much of a thorn for the UK to have to deal with.

• Commonwealth products would have no benefit anymore passing through the UK to trade with the rest of the EU.

Is brokering Commonwealth trade with the rest of the EU a major (or even existent) source of income for the UK?

I mean, what benefit do Commonwealth nations have passing their goods through the UK anyway? The EU already offers preferential access to Commonwealth countries as a bloc.

• According to EU regulations, all capital can freely flow within EU borders. This is something 'the city' has been taking advantage of for a very long time. If the UK leaves the EU, it will become a lot less advantagous for european individuals and businesses to let their money flow to London.

lol, sorry but that's just a total fantasy. Where else would that money go? No other city in Europe comes close to London for global finance.

London doesn't need to rely on preferential trade agreements for its finance center to be attractive. For example, London is by far the top destination for Russian wealth, despite a lack of any kind of special relationship with Russia. Why would Europeans be so hesitant to send their money to London, when people from every other part of the world do so quite readily?

[waauw]

If the UK were ever to leave the EU and the EU would block any negotiation for a free trade treaty, the UK economy would be screwed.

1. Pay tariffs on exports to Europe
2. Receive tariffs on imports from Europe
3. ?????
4. PROFIT

And anyway, you're assuming the EU would block a free trade treaty. Given that they're signed free trade treaties with people as far-flung as South Korea, I have a hard time believing they'd refuse to sign one with the UK just out of vindictiveness.

1. this wil lower their their exports as they will become less competitive within the EU-market
2. this will raise inflation in the UK and affect the common brit in a detrimental fashion.

South-Korea is not the UK. The potential and existing trade EU- South-korea is a lot lower than that with the UK. European nations will thus be more inclined to act protective of their products and exports. Just take a look at the EU-US free trade agreements. Several european nations have been blocking the agreement as the stakes are a lot higher. The same will be the case with the UK. The higher stakes the more difficult and sensitive negotiations.

What exactly would they lose? I mean you mentioned tariff-free trade, but even if we assume that they would lose this permanently, what else would they lose?

Countries like S Korea, Singapore, Japan, Australia and New Zealand have done perfectly well without being part of any big EU-like organization. Why should we assume that the UK is different?

The countries you mention are far away from europe and are far less dependent. None of the countries you mentioned have 50% of their exports to the EU.

I'm not talking about those countries' relationship with Europe. I'm talking about the fact none of them are members of any big trade blocs.

I would refer to you to my argumentation above this one. And I will add:

• Australia and New Zealand are rich in minerals
• Singapore is a city-state. City states are always somewhat different. In europe we have Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Jersey, etc. All small nations and all highly wealthy. You can't compare large economies to city-states.
• Japan and South-Korea can take advantage of the fact that China isn't as highly developed as them yet. Proximity to other nations with similar educational levels are an important factor.

Anyway, though it is possible to prosper without a big trade bloc, it is getting increasingly more difficult. More and more economic blocs are emerging all over the world and their cooperations have been strengthening for decades(NAFTA, ASEAN, EU, ...). Additionally, when economic circumstances change there will always be a need for a transitionary period. You need technological and economical specialization to thrive in the current world without a large trade bloc or without being a large nation yourself. Japan and South-Korea have gone along that path, the UK in much less the same way. As proven by history it can take decades for nations to get as far as Japan has.

Is automobile manufacturing a major part of the British economy? And is France a major part of the UK's export market for automobiles? And would French people stop buying those British cars just because they start to cost a bit more?

Answer all these questions and you'll see that this is not much of a thorn for the UK to have to deal with.

As I mentioned, that was just an example. Of course there are a lot more sectors that trade with europe. And 7.4% of the UK's export goes to France, so France is quite significant.

Is brokering Commonwealth trade with the rest of the EU a major (or even existent) source of income for the UK?

I mean, what benefit do Commonwealth nations have passing their goods through the UK anyway? The EU already offers preferential access to Commonwealth countries as a bloc.

Considering it is their plan to become more dependant on the commonwealth, this is an important factor.
And according to economic research, colonial history and relations are an important factor in foreign relations and trade.
For instance, my country still has strong ties with our former-colony Congo. No european country does as much trade with the republic of Congo as Belgium does.

lol, sorry but that's just a total fantasy. Where else would that money go? No other city in Europe comes close to London for global finance.

London doesn't need to rely on preferential trade agreements for its finance center to be attractive. For example, London is by far the top destination for Russian wealth, despite a lack of any kind of special relationship with Russia. Why would Europeans be so hesitant to send their money to London, when people from every other part of the world do so quite readily?

That's exactly the problem. London is specialized in investment banking. However it is not the only country specialized in investment banking.
The UK's advantage towards Switzerland and Wall Street would dissapear in one go. It would suddenly suffer stronger competition for its financial markets. And it would provide EU-nations, who don't leave the EU, the opportunity to grown their financial sectors themselves. I'm fairly certain Luxembourg would gladly take on that opportunity.

ps: you should also keep in mind that FDI doesn't merely concern the UK's financial sector but other sectors too.

[mrswdk]

You need technological and economical specialization to thrive in the current world without a large trade bloc or without being a large nation yourself. Japan and South-Korea have gone along that path, the UK in much less the same way. As proven by history it can take decades for nations to get as far as Japan has.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Are you saying the UK hasn't specialized technologically or economically? Because the UK does have specializations (in legal and financial services), and technologically is ranked among the very best countries in the world for its innovation capacity (I've seen one ranking which put the UK at number 1 in the world in quite a few areas of innovation).

Is automobile manufacturing a major part of the British economy? And is France a major part of the UK's export market for automobiles? And would French people stop buying those British cars just because they start to cost a bit more?

Answer all these questions and you'll see that this is not much of a thorn for the UK to have to deal with.

As I mentioned, that was just an example. Of course there are a lot more sectors that trade with europe. And 7.4% of the UK's export goes to France, so France is quite significant.

The last question in particular is still valid. Would French people stop buying whatever it is they buy from the UK just because it costs a bit more?

Is brokering Commonwealth trade with the rest of the EU a major (or even existent) source of income for the UK?

I mean, what benefit do Commonwealth nations have passing their goods through the UK anyway? The EU already offers preferential access to Commonwealth countries as a bloc.

Considering it is their plan to become more dependant on the commonwealth, this is an important factor.

In what way is the UK aiming to make increase its links with the Commonwealth nations? Are you referring to the Commonwealth FTA that is being advocated by some in the UK?

And according to economic research, colonial history and relations are an important factor in foreign relations and trade.
For instance, my country still has strong ties with our former-colony Congo. No european country does as much trade with the republic of Congo as Belgium does.

And given that the UK would still have its old colonial relations and common history with the Commonwealth should it leave the EU, what you're saying there kinda suggests that the UK wouldn't have too much to worry about in terms of the effects on its relationship with the Commonwealth.

lol, sorry but that's just a total fantasy. Where else would that money go? No other city in Europe comes close to London for global finance.

London doesn't need to rely on preferential trade agreements for its finance center to be attractive. For example, London is by far the top destination for Russian wealth, despite a lack of any kind of special relationship with Russia. Why would Europeans be so hesitant to send their money to London, when people from every other part of the world do so quite readily?

That's exactly the problem. London is specialized in investment banking. However it is not the only country specialized in investment banking.
The UK's advantage towards Switzerland and Wall Street would dissapear in one go.

One area where London has an advantage over Wall Street is its geographic location. London being where it is, a worker in London can comfortably communicate with East and SE Asia in the morning, Europe all day and America from some time in the mid-afternoon onwards. Given the lack of competition London faces within Europe, this makes it the only worthwhile financial center in the world capable of operating in this manner. Short of America bombing London off the face of the Earth (or waiting a few million years for the UK to float across the Atlantic and crash into America), nothing is going to change this.

As for Switzerland, their finance sector is attractive to some because it allows people to hide their money (although as you point out, its days doing this may well be numbered). When it comes to the areas that London is strongest in, Zurich and Geneva aren't even playing on the same pitch.

It would suddenly suffer stronger competition for its financial markets. And it would provide EU-nations, who don't leave the EU, the opportunity to grown their financial sectors themselves.

On the contrary, the UK has long been the biggest and almost only EU member pushing against the EU's attempts to tighten the regulatory environment that European financial institutions operate in (especially when it comes to investment banking). Should the UK leave the EU, London-based institutions would be free to operate with a relatively high degree of freedom while the EU, free of its biggest roadblock, would most likely tighten restrictions on all the banks operating across the countries which remain in the EU.

Does the EU even have any capital controls that would restrict the freedom of Europeans to continue sending their money to the UK in the event of the UK leaving the EU?

[GoranZ]

They have two options... to become Berlin-Paris-Brussels puppet or to look for their luck elsewhere... With the first their failure will be dictated from elsewhere but from the second one their success will be dictated from London. Switzerland, Norway, Iceland are all perfect examples of countries that are not part of EU but they are successful. Jumping the ship that sinks can sometimes save you.

Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. All three very bad examples. Norway has a lot of oil and gas, the UK doesn't even come close. Switzerland has a weakening banking sector that could fall if the EU ever decides to sanction Swiss bank secrecy, so hardly a favourable situation. Not to mention the Swiss are are small enough for the rest of europe to ignore, the UK isn't. Iceland has no large tangible exports to mainland europe. Their geography prevents that. The UK does and is thus more dependable on europe.

I presume what ever I will throw will be bad example

What EU/West had requested from/done to Macedonia since our independence is 1991.
- (1992-1996) EU member enforces economical embargo on EU-Macedonia border.
- (1992-1995) Request for economical embargo on Serbia. We enforced it although that left us without our 2 main export routes and good part of our market. Since we are landlocked country and transport connections with Albania are almost non existent we were left only with our connections with Bulgaria that were not in good shape in 1990's. As a result our GDP drooped sharply.
- 1999 All military equipment heading for Kosovo went threw my country. You guys payed whole 0$ and destroyed our whole North-South transport corridor(although it was 10 years old it wasn't projected for heavy military transportation).
- 2001 Military insurgency from Kosovo in Macedonia. Kosovo was in NATO/EU hands but criminals there didn't had jobs.
- (1996-2014) Request for soldiers for military missions/support in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq...
- (near future) New gas pipeline that replaces South Stream should go threw my country but EU scum will do what ever it can to stop it... although that will cost Macedonia 10% increase in its annual budget.

If you see we have done/sacrificed a lot about EU since our independence, but EU has done nothing for us. But as Canadians say... "We have no other option but to work with EU"(for them it is US). The moment when we wont have to work with EU, no worry we wont, you do much more harm then good.

Aaaah finally your hatred towards the EU explained. Unfortunately that moment you're waiting for that you won't have to work with the EU is highly unlikely to come any time soon, if ever.

ps: doing some research, I now finally also understand why you are so anti-Greece. The greeks have been blocking any access of Macedonia to the rest of the EU

You are talking about this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16032198
We dont have big problems with greece, we have big problems with EU(can be seen form the list). Greece is not acting according to EU's needs but according to its own twisted needs. And it is EU who is not respecting rulings of Hague court, yet you guys all point out that you respect the law.
And being recognized by 95% of words population does have some weight. Probably those remaining 5% think that are smarter then the rest.

[mrswdk]

They have two options... to become Berlin-Paris-Brussels puppet or to look for their luck elsewhere... With the first their failure will be dictated from elsewhere but from the second one their success will be dictated from London. Switzerland, Norway, Iceland are all perfect examples of countries that are not part of EU but they are successful. Jumping the ship that sinks can sometimes save you.

Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. All three very bad examples. Norway has a lot of oil and gas, the UK doesn't even come close. Switzerland has a weakening banking sector that could fall if the EU ever decides to sanction Swiss bank secrecy, so hardly a favourable situation. Not to mention the Swiss are are small enough for the rest of europe to ignore, the UK isn't. Iceland has no large tangible exports to mainland europe. Their geography prevents that. The UK does and is thus more dependable on europe.

I presume what ever I will throw will be bad example

Not gonna talk about Switzerland and Iceland but what he says about Norway is fair enough. Norway has a population of about 5 million and is sitting on massive oil reserves. It's basically a European Qatar (its GDP per capita is something like 60-70,000USD). Whatever else the UK might do, copying Norway will not be it.

[waauw]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Are you saying the UK hasn't specialized technologically or economically? Because the UK does have specializations (in legal and financial services), and technologically is ranked among the very best countries in the world for its innovation capacity (I've seen one ranking which put the UK at number 1 in the world in quite a few areas of innovation).

UK isn't specialized in all financial services. They are specialized in investments and insurances, two of the most volatile and dangerous markets on the planet as proven by the 2008 crisis. Not to mention, that these sectors are not sufficient to carry the british economy. The UK is simply too highly populated to thrive on merely finances as Switzerland does.

As for innovation, the UK has the same problem the US does. Their innovation thrives on highly educated immigrants. 'The smartest and the brightest' as the americans would call them. This combined with high tuition rates will be catastrophic for both the american and british economies if nothing is done about it.

Due to the eurocrisis, many highly educated people from southern europe have been migrating to the richer parts of europe, the UK among them. If the UK leaves the EU it'll have less genius migrants. Even asians will be less inclined to immigrate. Oft times they still come to study at the highly rated universities like Oxford, only to return home afterwards. The world has changed, the west has become less attractive to live in and asia has become more attractive to live in. All in all british innovation is heading for disaster.

Concerning legal services, I know very little about those. But I can imagine that due to the immense diversity in lawsystems(even within europe), the UK will hardly be the only one with strong legal services. A friend of mine is fiscal lawyer and according to what I've heard Den Haag in the Netherlands is actually one of the top spots in europe to study international fiscal law. So I assume the netherlands probably have strong legal services businesses. It would make sense as universities and businesses of the same kind often pop up in each others vicinity.

The last question in particular is still valid. Would French people stop buying whatever it is they buy from the UK just because it costs a bit more?

Yes. High expenditure goods are more price-dependent than low expenditure goods. People don't think twice when they buy a bottle of cola for 1,5 euro, but they will think twice when buying a car of 15.000 euro.

In what way is the UK aiming to make increase its links with the Commonwealth nations? Are you referring to the Commonwealth FTA that is being advocated by some in the UK?

Not in specific no. The UK, like any country, wants to expand its trade relations. And what better countries to expand to than the commonwealth. They already have good political relations and are hence advocating for stronger economic ties.

And given that the UK would still have its old colonial relations and common history with the Commonwealth should it leave the EU, what you're saying there kinda suggests that the UK wouldn't have too much to worry about in terms of the effects on its relationship with the Commonwealth.

No that's not what I'm saying. What I mean is, good political ties don't per sé make for a good match in economic ties. Those former colonies are not retarded(well most of 'm aren't). They know full well they have to take financial factors into account. The UK has an advantage with them, as opposed to the rest of europe, but it will not matter much if it's the rest of europe they want to reach.

One area where London has an advantage over Wall Street is its geographic location. London being where it is, a worker in London can comfortably communicate with East and SE Asia in the morning, Europe all day and America from some time in the mid-afternoon onwards. Given the lack of competition London faces within Europe, this makes it the only worthwhile financial center in the world capable of operating in this manner. Short of America bombing London off the face of the Earth (or waiting a few million years for the UK to float across the Atlantic and crash into America), nothing is going to change this.

As for Switzerland, their finance sector is attractive to some because it allows people to hide their money (although as you point out, its days doing this may well be numbered). When it comes to the areas that London is strongest in, Zurich and Geneva aren't even playing on the same pitch.

I'll admit I might have exagerated a tad, but it's still dangerous for the UK. You should not give up your strengths and especially not provide your competitors with those(competitors however weak within the EU could grow). This is just doesn't make sense business-wise. In the long-term this could cost London dearly.

It would suddenly suffer stronger competition for its financial markets. And it would provide EU-nations, who don't leave the EU, the opportunity to grown their financial sectors themselves.

On the contrary, the UK has long been the biggest and almost only EU member pushing against the EU's attempts to tighten the regulatory environment that European financial institutions operate in (especially when it comes to investment banking). Should the UK leave the EU, London-based institutions would be free to operate with a relatively high degree of freedom while the EU, free of its biggest roadblock, would most likely tighten restrictions on all the banks operating across the countries which remain in the EU.

Does the EU even have any capital controls that would restrict the freedom of Europeans to continue sending their money to the UK in the event of the UK leaving the EU?[/quote]

Capital controls, no. But it could be worrisome. International transactions are subjected to international treaties. If the UK leaves the EU it would have to completely renegotiate taxation. What that would look like, I don't know. But as I mentioned previously, the UK isn't in a strong negotiating position with europe.
When two nations don't have such treaties, it often can lead to double taxation, which is not very pleasant as you can imagine.

It is also possible that the new european laws for the banking sector concerning investment risks could influence all this, but I'm not really familiarized with those.

[waauw]

They have two options... to become Berlin-Paris-Brussels puppet or to look for their luck elsewhere... With the first their failure will be dictated from elsewhere but from the second one their success will be dictated from London. Switzerland, Norway, Iceland are all perfect examples of countries that are not part of EU but they are successful. Jumping the ship that sinks can sometimes save you.

Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. All three very bad examples. Norway has a lot of oil and gas, the UK doesn't even come close. Switzerland has a weakening banking sector that could fall if the EU ever decides to sanction Swiss bank secrecy, so hardly a favourable situation. Not to mention the Swiss are are small enough for the rest of europe to ignore, the UK isn't. Iceland has no large tangible exports to mainland europe. Their geography prevents that. The UK does and is thus more dependable on europe.

I presume what ever I will throw will be bad example

Not gonna talk about Switzerland and Iceland but what he says about Norway is fair enough. Norway has a population of about 5 million and is sitting on massive oil reserves. It's basically a European Qatar (its GDP per capita is something like 60-70,000USD). Whatever else the UK might do, copying Norway will not be it.

Iceland's economy has very little in common with the british economy. The Swiss economy is somewhat comparable with the british one, if only because the financial sector.

The problem is the UK is a lot larger. Just as the EU would be a lot more guarded towards Turkey, rather than Moldavia due to differences in size. The EU would be a lot more on their guard when it comes to finances when facing the UK rather than Switzerland. The UK economy is a multitude of that of the Swiss. So in the grand european context, the UK has different issues than switzerland.

In addition the political and economical systems are different in both countries. The UK has an anglo-saxon view on economics, whilst the Swiss are economically more resemblent to mainland europe and is politically quite unique.