EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Abpj17]

I'm advocating the redistribution of wealth to the whole nation instead of one corner of the country based on nothing more than self entitlement.
London is better at commerce than the rest of the country? Are you claiming people in one city are genetically predisposed to trade and finance? Or that they've hogged the business so far and will only forego it at the point of a gun?
The nation as city state is completely unprecedented in a British context. There is no reason why the UK should be a service sector country, it's a choice.

"In the UK the government is investing in creating a "Northern Powerhouse," George Osborne's favourite buzz-word phrase of the moment.
But Europe can't — or won't — do that. If a country is struggling, Europe is unlikely to lend it a hand to encourage growth, as the recent experience with Greece shows."
Business Insider UK 2015

The EU would be happy for Britain to extend its status as London's city state, and London would be happy adopt the position, as the capital's Remainers indicated after the referendum. Now the UK is moving out of the EU, perhaps it's time for a rethink of the entitlement of "provincial" Britain to a share of the nation's wealth in more than benefit payments?

I don't think you actually understand London. London is stronger at obtaining international trade - it's an international centre.

Becoming a dominant mass manufacturing centre simply isn't possible - the UK is small and will never have the scale of the US or China. To imagine otherwise is delusional. What the UK can and does do brilliantly is niche manufacturing - the design, innovation, R&D work - but this requires high tech, highly educated, highly skilled. They aren't mass factory floor jobs.

A similar point applies to the high-end of the service economy - London (and to an extent Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester etc) excels in a cadre of professional services provision across the globe. Particularly accountants, lawyers, consultants. English is the de-facto international law in financial services for example.

Your reference to genetic predisposition is amusing. London attracts domestic and international talent. Around a third were born outside the UK, and many were born outside London. It's the conditions that attract and retain people that makes London hugely attractive for international trade and companies - mass of professional expertise, English as a common business language, co-location of many other firms, proportionate regulation, infrastructure, culture/entertainment/shopping, multiple airports etc. (offset by huge housing costs and schools).

London isn't competing with the rest of the UK (although I understand why it feels like it). It's barely competing with other European centres like Paris or Frankfurt. The true competition is with New York, Hong Kong, Singapore.

Redistribution of wealth is a worthy aim and there should be fair taxation. But it's also important to recognise that knocking London down a peg or two will reduce the amount of wealth to be distributed in the first place. London pays a material proportion of the UK's tax base - more than the next thirty seven (!!) cities combined. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jul/07/london-top-taxpaying-city-uk-report

And of course benefits are subsidisation at an individual level. Grants are at a town/business/charity, but still basically funded by tax. One of the greatest ironies of Brexit is that some of the areas most heavily voting to leave are those most heavily dependent or in receipt of EU funding.

 

[dosxuk]

It is not a culturally lead organisation, and is largely antipathetic to ideas of national and regional culture.

Which is why you never see a "Project part-funded by the EU Department for <whatever>" signs in cultural buildings...

 

[EM2]

Which is why you never see a "Project part-funded by the EU Department for <whatever>" signs in cultural buildings...

http://www.culturalfoundation.eu/grants
http://www.welcomeurope.com/european-subsidies-sector-Culture+Media.html

 

[Barn]

Yes, the EU is quite good at buying support and patronage with our own money.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes, the EU is quite good at buying support and patronage with our own money.

Our own money? Isn't that rather akin to buying your food from a supermarket then claiming that the money you've given to it in payment for the food is somehow still your money? Clearly if you pay for something, whether that something be material goods, services, or membership of an organization, then that money is no longer yours, but now belongs to the entity that you've paid.

The local ASDA round here often has a thing going where it donates money to a local charity, chosen by a 'vote' of customers (you get given a plastic tag at the checkout and can place it in a receptical corresponding to the charity of your choice). Would I be correct to describe this as (partly - to the extent that I shop there) my own money ASDA Is giving away?

 

[Howardh]

Our own money? Isn't that rather akin to buying your food from a supermarket then claiming that the money you've given to it in payment for the food is somehow still your money? Clearly if you pay for something, whether that something be material goods, services, or membership of an organization, then that money is no longer yours, but now belongs to the entity that you've paid.

The local ASDA round here often has a thing going where it donates money to a local charity, chosen by a 'vote' of customers (you get given a plastic tag at the checkout and can place it in a receptical corresponding to the charity of your choice). Would I be correct to describe this as (partly - to the extent that I shop there) my own money ASDA Is giving away?

Asda - is I spent £100 in Asda and (say) £1 was being given to a charity by public poll, which appears to be the case, now hang on there, give me my pound back and I'll give it to a charity I want to receive it!!

 

[meridian2]

I don't think you actually understand London. London is stronger at obtaining international trade - it's an international centre.

Becoming a dominant mass manufacturing centre simply isn't possible - the UK is small and will never have the scale of the US or China. To imagine otherwise is delusional. What the UK can and does do brilliantly is niche manufacturing - the design, innovation, R&D work - but this requires high tech, highly educated, highly skilled. They aren't mass factory floor jobs.

A similar point applies to the high-end of the service economy - London (and to an extent Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester etc) excels in a cadre of professional services provision across the globe. Particularly accountants, lawyers, consultants. English is the de-facto international law in financial services for example.

Your reference to genetic predisposition is amusing. London attracts domestic and international talent. Around a third were born outside the UK, and many were born outside London. It's the conditions that attract and retain people that makes London hugely attractive for international trade and companies - mass of professional expertise, English as a common business language, co-location of many other firms, proportionate regulation, infrastructure, culture/entertainment/shopping, multiple airports etc. (offset by huge housing costs and schools).

London isn't competing with the rest of the UK (although I understand why it feels like it). It's barely competing with other European centres like Paris or Frankfurt. The true competition is with New York, Hong Kong, Singapore.

Redistribution of wealth is a worthy aim and there should be fair taxation. But it's also important to recognise that knocking London down a peg or two will reduce the amount of wealth to be distributed in the first place. London pays a material proportion of the UK's tax base - more than the next thirty seven (!!) cities combined. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jul/07/london-top-taxpaying-city-uk-report

And of course benefits are subsidisation at an individual level. Grants are at a town/business/charity, but still basically funded by tax. One of the greatest ironies of Brexit is that some of the areas most heavily voting to leave are those most heavily dependent or in receipt of EU funding.

I studied, worked professionally and lived in London for over a decade, so I'm reasonably familiar with how the city operates. There are two levels to its monopolising tendencies, the pragmatic one of keeping government and its immediate agencies in one place - something other countries manage outside their capital cities, but I digress - and the secondary tendency which is to offer those agents and their ancillaries an array of financial, physical, social and cultural facilities at the tax payer's expense, without any consideration for the alternatives. This leads to a circle of entitlement, with the professional classes expecting the lion's share because they create wealth entitling them to the lion's share from which to create wealth, ad absurdum. Because such people are close to politics and media by proximity and association, they can lobby to maintain a status quo which benefits by its continuation. I believe this is iniquitous and each public project should bid for, or be accessible to the rest of the country. This is especially pressing as the siting of such projects is normally within an area inaccessible to any but the most wealthy, many of whom are no longer British, never mind Londoners. Until the phenomenon of London protectionism is recognised as a real thing, and not the figment of an envious provincial imagination, the regions will continue to be disadvantaged financially, and hamstrung as entities.

 

[me123]

Asda - is I spent £100 in Asda and (say) £1 was being given to a charity by public poll, which appears to be the case, now hang on there, give me my pound back and I'll give it to a charity I want to receive it!!

I think you misunderstand. Asda donate a proportion of their profits - i.e. it's their money, not yours anymore - through a pseudo democratic system. They aren't attaching a donation your bill like some companies do (and FWIW everyone I've seen who does that allow you to opt out).

Once you hand the money to Asda (or any other company) in return for goods or services it is now their money.

 

[meridian2]

Which is why you never see a "Project part-funded by the EU Department for <whatever>" signs in cultural buildings...

The Baltic in Newcastle was an EU funded project, along with the millennium bridge. Despite the north east getting twice as much EU funding as other parts of the UK, the region's inhabitants still put more into such funds than they receive from them. It would be more cost effective, even for an EU "winner" like the north east to fund its own social projects.

 

[EM2]

Yes, the EU is quite good at buying support and patronage with our own money.

How dare the golf club use my membership fees to improve the drainage on the 12th fairway :roll:

 

[Barn]

How dare the golf club use my membership fees to improve the drainage on the 12th fairway :roll:

We're not talking about them using our fees to run the club. If that's all they wanted to do, they could charge less.

If you want a golf club analogy, imagine a club which charges you £1,000 per day, is really hard to leave, forbids you from joining other golf clubs, is of declining quality versus other, newer clubs out there, charges other members far less than you, and likes to pretend that they're really generous because now and again they send their gardener round to mow your front lawn.

 

[Barn]

Our own money? Isn't that rather akin to buying your food from a supermarket then claiming that the money you've given to it in payment for the food is somehow still your money? Clearly if you pay for something, whether that something be material goods, services, or membership of an organization, then that money is no longer yours, but now belongs to the entity that you've paid.

No, it's more like a supermarket that charges you to walk through the door and then tells you that it is super generous (and that you should put little signs up outside your house telling everyone how generous it is) because it gives you a few items of its own choice from its shelves.

 

[EM2]

We're not talking about them using our fees to run the club. If that's all they wanted to do, they could charge less.

If you want a golf club analogy, imagine a club which charges you £1,000 per day,

Split between how many?

is really hard to leave,

It's easy to leave. You just have to give notice.

forbids you from joining other golf clubs,

Pretty sure we've joined the NATO club, the Commonwealth club...

is of declining quality versus other, newer clubs out there,

What other, newer clubs? I think this club's pretty good.

charges other members far less than you,

Each according to their means.
Also:
http://www.wkgc.co.uk/membership/

and likes to pretend that they're really generous because now and again they send their gardener round to mow your front lawn.

Saves me paying for a lawnmower then.

 

[me123]

If you want a golf club analogy, imagine a club which charges you £1,000 per day, is really hard to leave, forbids you from joining other golf clubs, is of declining quality versus other, newer clubs out there, charges other members far less than you, and likes to pretend that they're really generous because now and again they send their gardener round to mow your front lawn.

I think this is actually the most ridiculous analogy I've ever seen in the EU debate - and that's saying something.

 

[Barn]

It's easy to leave. You just have to give notice.

We'll see what the golf club's idea of the termination payment is shortly.

Pretty sure we've joined the NATO club, the Commonwealth club...

Neither of which are golf clubs, in our analogy.

What other, newer clubs? I think this club's pretty good.

Look at the graphs for EU share of world GDP since we joined. Look at the graphs for EU GDP growth since the last recession. Europe is stagnating.

Each according to their means.

If we want to be forced to subsidise other countries, why Bulgaria and Romania? Why not Belize and Rwanda instead?

Saves me paying for a lawnmower then.

No it doesn't. You could easily have bought several lawnmowers for the price, and chosen when to mow your lawn as you wished.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The Baltic in Newcastle was an EU funded project, along with the millennium bridge. Despite the north east getting twice as much EU funding as other parts of the UK, the region's inhabitants still put more into such funds than they receive from them. It would be more cost effective, even for an EU "winner" like the north east to fund its own social projects.

Maybe take Wales as the example then (as Wales does receive more than we put in).

Also, you are making the pretty questionable assumption that if Westminster did not spend that money on the EU it would spend that money on these areas that currently receive a large amount of EU funding. Surely the fact that these areas have been ignored by Westminster like they have been (indeed that is the very reason they get EU funding to begin with) proves that if we leave the EU, that money will certainly NOT be seen being spent in those regions?

 

[Barn]

I think this is actually the most ridiculous analogy I've ever seen in the EU debate - and that's saying something.

In my defence, I didn't bring golf, or supermarkets, into this. Many people seem to prefer silly analogies rather than addressing the EU as we find it.

 

[EM2]

...rather than addressing the EU as we find it.

Mainly because we don't find anything wrong with it.

 

[EM2]

Neither of which are golf clubs, in our analogy.

So what is?

Look at the graphs for EU share of world GDP since we joined. Look at the graphs for EU GDP growth since the last recession. Europe is stagnating.

By one measure.

If we want to be forced to subsidise other countries, why Bulgaria and Romania? Why not Belize and Rwanda instead?

Because they're not in Europe? It's pretty obvious that the European Union would be a union of countries in Europe.

No it doesn't. You could easily have bought several lawnmowers for the price, and chosen when to mow your lawn as you wished.

But not been allowed to play golf.

 

[meridian2]

Maybe take Wales as the example then (as Wales does receive more than we put in).

Also, you are making the pretty questionable assumption that if Westminster did not spend that money on the EU it would spend that money on these areas that currently receive a large amount of EU funding. Surely the fact that these areas have been ignored by Westminster like they have been (indeed that is the very reason they get EU funding to begin with) proves that if we leave the EU, that money will certainly NOT be seen being spent in those regions?

See my point about the London hegemony. I agree there's a very good chance Westminster would not fund such projects, but the reasons are ideological not financial, as the contribution sums illustrate. Paying over the odds for the privilege of a European Union plaque does not seem the best use of funds, and it hardly underwrites the cultural aspirations of the Union.

 

[Barn]

So what is?

OK, we're dropping your golf analogy. The EU bans us from joining other trade associations. It doesn't prevent us from joining non-trade associations, like NATO or the Commonwealth.

Because they're not in Europe? It's pretty obvious that the European Union would be a union of countries in Europe.

Err, correct. But why should Britain subsidise relatively wealthy countries in Europe? If we wish to use our money in this way, why not use it to support much poorer countries elsewhere - countries that we have a history with, and perhaps even owe a debt to?

Equally, why should we only accept free trade from Europe? Why should freedom of movement be focused on Europeans? Wouldn't the development of poorer countries in Africa be improved beyond recognition if they could supply us with their traded goods or their food? It all seems a bit out of date, even a bit racist.

But not been allowed to play golf.

There are plenty of places at which you can "play golf" - i.e. trade and co-operate.

 

[Howardh]

If we want to be forced to subsidise other countries, why Bulgaria and Romania? Why not Belize and Rwanda instead?
.

I thought that's what Britain did off it's own bat - foreign aid? Not necessarily to those two countries, although 40% Rwanda's budget comes from foreign aid, so probably some from us.

Should we stop/reduce that?
If the EU does, should they stop/reduce it? After all, part of it's our money.

To be honest I've more chance of using an upgraded motorway, or a new sewage pipe in Romania than Rwanda - so at least I'd get some use of my cash.

 

[EM2]

OK, we're dropping your golf analogy. The EU bans us from joining other trade associations. It doesn't prevent us from joining non-trade associations, like NATO or the Commonwealth.

What other trade associations are there for us to join? We were in GATT and we're in the WTO.

Err, correct. But why should Britain subsidise relatively wealthy countries in Europe? If we wish to use our money in this way, why not use it to support much poorer countries elsewhere - countries that we have a history with, and perhaps even owe a debt to?

Why not do both?

Equally, why should we only accept free trade from Europe? Why should freedom of movement be focused on Europeans? Wouldn't the development of poorer countries in Africa be improved beyond recognition if they could supply us with their traded goods or their food? It all seems a bit out of date, even a bit racist.

We buy loads of stuff from Africa. And Asia. And the Americas. And Oceania.
And we do that because we're part of a massive trading bloc that has huge influence in the world.
As for freedom of movement, we could allow it from anywhere in the world, if we wished to.

 

[meridian2]

As this is a rail forum, is there any reason why UK TOCs shouldn't buy British designed and made trains, given that the tax payer is already subsidising the franchise system, and the benefits of doing so would enhance the wider economy?

 

[Barn]

What other trade associations are there for us to join? We were in GATT and we're in the WTO.

We can now enter into bilateral deals and, perhaps, create our own free trade associations.

Why not do both?

Because we do not have unlimited budgets and every spending decision is a compromise and a hard decision.

We buy loads of stuff from Africa. And Asia. And the Americas. And Oceania.
And we do that because we're part of a massive trading bloc that has huge influence in the world.

Our purchasing needs aren't really anything to do with the EU. We buy things because consumers and businesses want those things, not because of some political entity. And businesses in those other areas are hurt by the common tariffs at the edge of our customs union and by internal subsidies. Try being an African farmer in competition with EU farmers receiving CAP payments.

As for freedom of movement, we could allow it from anywhere in the world, if we wished to.

Again, everything is a compromise when you have limited capacity. The only decision is who goes to the front of the queue.

 

[Barn]

As this is a rail forum, is there any reason why UK TOCs shouldn't buy British designed and made trains, given that the tax payer is already subsidising the franchise system, and the benefits of doing so would enhance the wider economy?

At the moment: directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU among others and EU treaty principles.

In the future: because protectionism is always and invariably counter-productive.

 

[miami]

keeping government and its immediate agencies in one place - something other countries manage outside their capital cities

Portugal? Spain? Ireland? France? Italy? Greece? Belgium? Netherlands? Japan? Thailand? Egypt?

Aside from Germany and the post-war split, and large federal states like Austrailia/US/Canada, could you perhaps list what countries you are thinking of?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As this is a rail forum, is there any reason why UK TOCs shouldn't buy British designed and made trains, given that the tax payer is already subsidising the franchise system, and the benefits of doing so would enhance the wider economy?

It depends. The problem is: If some foreign company can make trains to our specifications that are cheaper/better quality/etc., but we choose to buy British trains anyway in order to help our own industry, what's to stop other countries retaliating by doing the same to us when they need something that we could have produced more cheaply? That's the fundamental problem with all the variants of 'our country first and our industries first' - it invites other countries to do the same, and if every country does it, then in the end every country loses out - by getting more expensive/less efficiently produced goods and as a result a lower standard of living. Avoiding that situation is of course one of the purposes of the EU's rules about competition, which I suspect is what your post is really about.

(As an off-topic aside, that's also the fundamental problem with Donald Trump's 'America First' idea).

 

[meridian2]

At the moment: directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU among others and EU treaty principles.

In the future: because protectionism is always and invariably counter-productive.

What's the difference between patriotism ("Buy British") and protectionism? If Britain is incapable of designing and manufacturing a train at a reasonable price - and there's no historical reason why that might be the case - fair enough. However if the train is, say, 15% more expensive than one made in Hungary, shouldn't that be factored into the commissioning equation, especially considering the subsidies and benefits to the economy?

 

[meridian2]

Portugal? Spain? Ireland? France? Italy? Greece? Belgium? Netherlands? Japan? Thailand? Egypt?

Aside from Germany and the post-war split, and large federal states like Austrailia/US/Canada, could you perhaps list what countries you are thinking of?

You've listed four without any help.