Appointment of President Blair would be seen as a "hostile act".

[Jason]

smaller countries can act faster to market conditions. and could grow further within the eu framework.

There is an optimum size for a country.

Very big countries have problems. Countries like China and India find it hard to make central decisions which respond to the needs of their enormous populations or are right for them. The USSR actually fell to bits.

Very small countries are responsive, but they get tossed around in the economic storms. If they get it right then life is great (Norway, Switzerland); if they get it wrong then it all goes very wrong (Ireland, Iceland).

The feel is that a population of 20m-130m seems to work, say Australia to Japan. The USA at something like 300m is well outside these boundaries - but the state system seems to be the key factor (with several individual states falling in this range). Scotland with around 5m people would face either the prosperity of Norway or the bust of Ireland - probably both scenarios over a generation or two. It is up to the Scots. If the Scots really want their independence they should have it, but they should take a long look at both the advantages and disadvantages.

It is unfortunate that time and again we have a situation where the economic and social needs of Scotland are different to those of London/SE (where half the UK population lives). Scotland gets lumbered with the wrong decision for Scotland. It may be that devolution can act as a sufficient buffer. Independence for Scotland solves some problems and creates others.

Border posts at Gretna Green? Well if Scotland joined Schengen then the answer is yes there would be. The reality is that a Scotland in Europe would still have to conform in some areas with the decisions of the UK.

 

[Jason]

ok the uk is out of everything now what. who do you sell to. who will invest here. learn to sign on the dole thats what will happen . its a hard world out there

What you are saying is that we cannot survive without the EU. If this is correct then we need as a matter of urgency to broaden our international trade. In the 1970s and 1980s Australia lost a lot of trade with the UK and was forced to find other trading partners. This was problematic but ultimately possible. In the UK we need a decade or so of looking outside the EU for trade so that we are not in a position where one trading group can hold us hostage. In particular we need far more trade with North America, and we need to increase trade with China and India. Barriers to trade with North America are largely political and political solutions are possible. Barriers to trade with China and India include EU regulations. The transition is messy, but a UK aligned with North America (in NAFTA even?) and undercutting the EU in trade with India and China may be viable. Without EU labour laws the UK could import work from EU countries. I just don't buy into the logic of be in the EU or go broke. Yes change is messy - but we have to get out of the EU and better on our terms than otherwise.

 

[798686]

ok the uk is out of everything now what. who do you sell to. who will invest here. learn to sign on the dole thats what will happen . its a hard world out there

I agree with Jase that it's just a matter of time. But it would have to be done sensibly to avoid the situation Scotty mentions. I would prefer a Norwegian-style semi-detachment (which I keep banging on about), which seems to work for them.

I reckon we would have to make it clear that we were still going to be friendly and supportive to our European neighbours, and that we may well opt in to some measures if it was profitable to both us and them. They may actually find us a lot easier to deal with as autonomous allies rather than resentful colleagues.

To not spook the markets into thinking we'd suddenly become erratic, it would have to be planned carefully from the position we're in now. How to arrange the trade-relationship with the EU (which suits both them and us), how involved we would be in joint-European defence action, etc. Also, we'd have to look into (now preferably) what arrangments we'd have with other trade partners - US/Aus, China, India, etc... and whether we'd re-introduce favourable tariffs for ex-empire and Commonwealth countries. Could be done tho - we're quite a strong, resourceful country with a lot to offer. If Switzerland and Norway can do it, then so can we (even Tony Blair has admitted as much).

On a different note (EU Pres again)...I'm not sure Jean-Claude Juncker would be much preferable to Blair. He'd achieve less admittedly, and be less likely to rapidly turn the EU into a globe-straddling political colossus - but he's an arch-federalist in the mold of Romano Prodi and Guy Verhofstadt. Blair would at least encourage EU expansion and the inclusion of Turkey. Hmmm, but on the other hand, I guess...Juncker may instigate a core-EU with a small group moving forward to political integration (maybe that would be ok, if the UK weren't included...).

 

[Jason]

Reading over these posts the really shocking thing is that the people of the UK and people throughout the EU have almost zero influence on decisions that are affecting our future.

We do have democratic power in local and national affairs. Vote, write to the newspapers, take part in other institutions of a free society (trades unions, charities, churches, demonstrations), even post to LPSG. There is democratic impact. The Scots are in control of their future. Personally I hope they will stay in the UK but there are mechanisms for them to leave and if they decide to go that is their choice and they have an absolute righht to make it. But with the Lisbon Treaty we have been betrayed, we have been denied a vote, and we are being bounced into a future that most of us don't think we want.

Now I know there's the argument that big brothers Blair and Brown know best and they heven't bothered the little people with anything as tedious as having to think aabout it. But this isn't democracy. We're left with hoping for a miracle from the Czech Republic, hoping that the unelected president won't be Blair, and with a vague worry that Juncker might not be right either (but why even worry as we have no vote!) We're hoping that the Conservatives will get in, and we're hoping that Cameron will be as Euro-sceptic as possible. And we dream of leaving an undemocratic and corrupt bureaucracy in which we can have no pride. It's all very sad.

 

[798686]

Now I know there's the argument that big brothers Blair and Brown know best and they heven't bothered the little people with anything as tedious as having to think about it.

This is the whole principle that the EU is based around, anyway. Build Europe as quietly as possible without people realising it, then when it's finished, present it to them as something they've wanted all along. :redface: Didn't quite go according to plan tho, with the French, Dutch and Irish rejections of the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. Awful...

 

[Jason]

Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan has just been on television expressing the view that the Conservatives if elected will hold a referendum on Europe even if it is ratified. Hannan may of course be speaking off brief (he's very, very anti Lisbon) but he may also be on brief - it may suit the Conservatives for a strong anti-Lisbon message to be coming right now. We're in a strange position where the moment Klaus signs Cameron has to give some detail of the way in which the Conservatives "would not let matters rest" and the whole way they are managing the issue suggests some big statement forthcoming.

By the way Hannan ends all his speeches with the statement Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est - which probably causes the translators a lot of problems as it is not a working language of the EU. It is Latin (the European Treaty must be voted on) and mirrors Cato's similar repeated tag "Carthage must be destroyed".

 

[123scotty]

reading back posts. i just cannot understand why we have to come out the e.u. to trade with china,India, commonwealth countries. would it be we don't have as much to trade as the manufacturing industries have been left to rot. the British attitude to industry almost is a dirty word. far better to be an academic than some one that makes things. if the trade is there why not go and get it. The u.k is no longer the workshop of the world. and how many companies would leave as the EU trade barriers go up. as for labour laws allot are there to protect workers rights and create an even playing field for trade within the EU. looking china where you find very long working hours and in some case child labour. I think we all have one thing in common to create a better environment and future for all. Its just the way to go about it. In the words from a Honda advert. More forwards please. And thanks jason and joll I enjoy reading your replies and posts.

 

[798686]

Interesting Jase...I've heard of him before. He's often mentioned by Christopher Booker and Richard North - they're quite good on uncovering the details behind euro-developments, but kinda shot themselves in the foot with loads of Climate change denial. :S

Cheers Scotty (was gna call u Sooty then hehehe). When we first joined the EU, we had to get rid of the preferential tariffs we gave commonwealth partners (basically stabbing them in the back) - in order to join the protectionist EU, so we could buy EU subsidised produce, that we also had to pay to produce via the CAP (so we paid twice for it basically).

I'm definitely for trade with lots of places other than EU - I think the ratio until recently was 50/50 between our trade with EU and the rest of the world. I basically want out of any political integration that involves further pooling of sovreignty, but I don't mind co-operating on other things as long as we're self-determining. Plus withdrawing from the EU wouldnt mean we had to stop trading with them.

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

we wouldnt have to stop trading with them if we pulled out, but chances are that countries like france and germany would probably be very reluctant to trade with us. i think most of Europe would be the same.

 

[Jason]

If you want to experience EU protectionism try buying something mail order from the US and getting it sent to the UK. If the company will supply (and a lot won't because they know it is a recipe for problems) you get various taxes and charges levied by customs as it comes into the UK. The process is brutal. The customs work out the value. If something costs $100 they treat this as £100 (because they can't possibly do a currency conversion) and apply tax on £100. Plus fees. Getting out of the EU would enable us to trade properly with the rest of the world. We've got the silly situation where more and more of our trade is with Europe because of these barriers so we are ever more tied to Europe.

What we are going to be trading is a matter for thought. Ireland has just discovered that she produces almost nothing and that her economy is a South Sea Bubble. By contrast the UK has:
* finance. We are still a major financial centre. The City of London creates 12% of our wealth, worth remembering when we criticise bankers.
* IT and media
* knowledge based industry eg pharmaceuticals, publishing
* education and tourism
* some primary industry and manufacturing, though much less than previously.

We're not completely up the creek without a paddle. But we need to start nurturing these industries. The example is Ireland again, that lost IT industry because labour costs and taxes were too high. Most are centred in London and the SE. We might be seeing a UK which starts to function almost as one city. The SE is all London commuter belt. Birmingham, Bristol, York are already within the orbit and faster train speeds bring Manchester, Newcastle and Cardiff into London's orbit, even Edinburgh.

Being outside of the EU would raise issues for trade with Europe, no question there. To an extent they are questions for the EU also. The UK is about 12% of the EU population and considerably more as a percentage of EU GDP. This is a major market for the EU. In the end there would be a deal.

 

[798686]

The UK is about 12% of the EU population and considerably more as a percentage of EU GDP. This is a major market for the EU. In the end there would be a deal.

Great post Jase - very informative.

I agree about the trading - we are a major market for the EU for many things from cars to dairy produce. And I doubt the French would want to lose such a big market for fromage frais, lol. :wink:

 

[123scotty]

If you want to experience EU protectionism try buying something mail order from the US and getting it sent to the UK. If the company will supply (and a lot won't because they know it is a recipe for problems) you get various taxes and charges levied by customs as it comes into the UK. The process is brutal. The customs work out the value. If something costs $100 they treat this as £100 (because they can't possibly do a currency conversion) and apply tax on £100. Plus fees. Getting out of the EU would enable us to trade properly with the rest of the world. We've got the silly situation where more and more of our trade is with Europe because of these barriers so we are ever more tied to Europe.

hi Jason i have to agree buying goods and services outside the e.u. is a pain. its more customs and excise that cause the problems than e.u. rules. also waiting on then to clear the goods at the docks also another pain. i know because i have to do it. trading within the eu group has an advantage of no tax or customs barriers, or hold ups at customs check points or tariff barriers . unlike our u.s. friends who think of tariff barriers every time they have a tiff with us.