Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[EnglishEdward]

Some parts of the UK contribute far more to the rest of the UK than £10bn.
What does London and the Southeast get for the money they give to the rest of the UK.




Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...capital-funds-rest-country.html#ixzz3xWIRbqHc
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

London does not give money to the rest of the UK.

Companies headquartered in London extract profits from businesses and consumers throughout the UK.
The Bank of England invents money and then gives that money to the London based banks via quantitative easing,
and the London based pension funds extract money as management fees from the UK.

It is merely that some of that extraction from the rest of the UK is reversed by taxation and benefits in practice.


Also look at expenditure on major projects (Channel Tunnel, CrossRail, London sewage and water ring mains,
and Millennium dome) and it is clear London does well.

 

[Silurian]

Yes and companies based outside London extract money from London. Corporation tax only contributes 8% of the treasury.

From CityAM includes map of company locations.

Conspiracy theorists may merrily refer to the "metropolitan elite", but it turns out that when it comes to the FTSE 100, the north-south divide is practically a myth: half of the companies on the index are based outside London, we've found, while others have made their homes all over the world

http://www.cityam.com/1418219397/north-south-divide-ftse-100-more-diverse-you-think

 

[SLAAKMAN]

Dismantle the EU.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Am aware of many UK organisations based outside London.

Nevertheless London earnings and thereby taxes
clearly benefits from the headquarters effect there.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

BTW what sort of relation would british euroskeptics want between EU an UK?

 

[Lillefix]

BTW what sort of relation would british euroskeptics want between EU an UK?

I'll take a guess: They want full access to the inner market, without paying anything and without being influenced by Brussels in any way.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Dismantle the EU.

EU represents quite natural process of consolidation of power and resources in face of global development. It can have many faces and forms and isnt inherently wrong but rather progressive. The problem is precisely the shape is going to take and the methods which are being used for its implementation. Somewhere on the way has the idea of unity and solidarity gave away to an idea of power projection and an empire building. The ideals of interdependence and cooperation has been misused for greed and egoistic purposes of elites who use political correctness as an instruneńt of manipulation and democracy with humanism as pretext for unlimited exploit.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I'll take a guess: They want full access to the inner market, without paying anything and without being influenced by Brussels in any way.

Hard continditions but EU will have to accept them, if we dont want to see the continent completely cut off.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

An interesting read(not that I agree with most of it):

It has become clear that the centralization imposed for decades by the EU and its distant, unrepresentative bureaucracy hasn’t created a unitary Europe. Indeed, it has created a powerful backlash across the continent, one that the EU can survive only by figuring out how better to establish its legitimacy among its diverse nations.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-new-medieval-map-1452875514

 

[innonimatu]

If the EU didn't actually stand for anything, it wouldn't be opposed on those things. There would be no need.

The EU stands for control by predominantly german and french corporate interests, and corporate interests in general.

The big offense the EU has over the polish government-s move is that they are kicking outt the people the previous pro/EU party put in charge of the state/owned media. And they may invest more in those media, to the detriment of the foreign-owned corporate media there.

Like the current Hungarian and Polish governments, who'd rather do away with democracy and the kind of free and open society that in particular the UK and US have stood as representatives of.)

You mean the current democratically elected polish and hungarian governments? Though I may dislike right-wing governments, I have no doubt about their democratic legitimacy.

And the definition of open society seems to be one manipulable by foreign interests applied though so/called investment, foreign/owned media, and so-called international institutions.
The election of right-wing (and in the places where the left still puts up a fight, left-wing) radical (hah! not demanding freedom and sovereignty to run ones country is radical) governmens is a rebellion of the population against the open society the EU stands for. The new kafkian empire.

Democracy - the trouble with it is that the damn voters cannot be manipulated for ever. Pesky voters, the EU should arrange a democracy without elections. It certainly does not do well with referenda, that we know.

 

[Lohrenswald]

All that innonimatu said is why Britain at the very least has nothing to lose by leaving EU

 

[uppi]

Hard continditions but EU will have to accept them, if we dont want to see the continent completely cut off.

They will not accept it, because these conditions are impossible. Free access to the European market means that they have to conform to the rules of the market. Which are set by the EU.

Worst case: The UK has to implement all EU regulations without having any right to influence them.

That is, if the EU in its current form would survive the hit of the UK leaving, which I am not entirely sure of.

 

[Agent327]

They will not accept it, because these conditions are impossible. Free access to the European market means that they have to conform to the rules of the market. Which are set by the EU.

Worst case: The UK has to implement all EU regulations without having any right to influence them.

By leaving the EU, you mean?

That is, if the EU in its current form would survive the hit of the UK leaving, which I am not entirely sure of.

You seem under the impression that the British economy is the motor of the EU. It is not. It may turn out that the UK leaving the EU does the UK more harm than good. But I'm sure the PM knows this. Otherwise, why insist on free access to the euromarket?

On a personal note I find this whole populist trend highly troublesome...

The EU stands for control by predominantly german and french corporate interests, and corporate interests in general.

The big offense the EU has over the polish government-s move is that they are kicking outt the people the previous pro/EU party put in charge of the state/owned media. And they may invest more in those media, to the detriment of the foreign-owned corporate media there.

Interestingly, the offense is about state control of media. And your argument shows this is exactly what they are doing, so I don't quite see the problem you are having.

Oh, and the EU also stands for democratic rights and obligations. Which includes such corporations as you mention.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

They will not accept it, because these conditions are impossible. Free access to the European market means that they have to conform to the rules of the market. Which are set by the EU.

Worst case: The UK has to implement all EU regulations without having any right to influence them.

That is, if the EU in its current form would survive the hit of the UK leaving, which I am not entirely sure of.

I was paraphrasing the famous old british newspaper headline "Heavy Fog In Channel. Continent Cut Off".

I dont see why EU wouldnt survive. Maybe it would even become much more united and stronger politically.

And obviously it is UK who needs the 500 millions EU market much more than the other way around. And to be in the common market UK will have to pay his part of the bill just like now, billion more or billion less, and as you said will have to implement all EU rules about the common market (which in fact are most EU rules) just like now but not having neither voice nor vote about said rules. Nice, go for it. The other way is staying out of the common market, which means UK economy is going to be basically screwed.

Fact is UK has right now the best possible position in the EU. I think Cameron knows this very well but have to please euroskeptics somehow who seems as naive as popular in UK.

 

[Silurian]

Am aware of many UK organisations based outside London.

Nevertheless London earnings and thereby taxes
clearly benefits from the headquarters effect there.

London also benefits from regionally based and international companies having sub offices there. But so does the rest of the country.

London gave the rest of the UK £34bn in a year (13-14) and you state the UK as a whole gave the rest of the EU £10bn.

If it is wrong for a richer region of the EU to give money to the rest of the EU, why is it wrong for a rich region of the UK to give three and a half times as much to the rest of the UK.


From CityAM

In the last financial year which ended in April 2014, London’s fiscal surplus was £34bn – about one third of the UK’s projected budget deficit for this financial year. The capital accounted for just a £93bn share of public expenditure in 2013/14 while generating £127bn in tax revenue.

http://www.cityam.com/1415152623/treasury-makes-34bn-year-london

 

[EnglishEdward]

The steel industry in the UK is in the process of being closed down.

There are a number of reasons for this.

But the biggest reason now is that the Chinese are dumping steel during a time of world overcapacity.

Sensible countries such as the USA won't allow that.

If the UK was independent, we could similarly block or put tariffs on dumped Chinese steel being exported here.
It is very unlikely that China would retaliate in any meaningful way because the Chinese would still enjoy a
massive trading surplus with the UK and they would not wish to prejudice that.

However the UK is part of the EU so the task is supposedly delegated to the EU, but the EU is very much driven
by Germany that does not mind if the UK steel industry is wiped out and does not wish to prejudice its own very
favourable trade balance with China.

So from our perspective, the EU does not work on steel. This is particularly appalling as the predecessor to the
European Community was the agreement on steel that included IIRC France, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium.

Now leaving the EU will not solve this steel problem, but from my perspective
remaining in the EU precludes any solution.

There are so many other examples where the EU is not working for the UK, and it is
the totality of such examples@

i. Eurozone,
ii. Over Fishing,
iii. Russia and Ukraine,
iv. refugee crisis,
v. state funded benefits

that are driving the population here to be increasingly sceptical.

Companies that export to the EU know that they will have to comply with EU rules on their products.
So we export left hand drove vehicles. But what is really irritating is that it has become apparent that
while the UK is dutifully complying, continental companies such as VW were flouting that with their emissions.

 

[REDY]

UK as many EU citizens would like to get rid of bureaucracy and keep benefits. The current EU do it the other way around - it is increasing bureaucracy and removing benefits. There are new and new problems which would be trivial without EU but are insoluble now.

 

[Lillefix]

The steel industry in the UK is in the process of being closed down.

There are a number of reasons for this.

But the biggest reason now is that the Chinese are dumping steel during a time of world overcapacity.

Sensible countries such as the USA won't allow that.

If the UK was independent, we could similarly block or put tariffs on dumped Chinese steel being exported here.

You mean these tariffs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff

The protection of the steel industry in the United States had unintended consequences and perverse effects: it reduced production of steel in the United States, increased costs to users, and increased unemployment in associated industries.[5][6]

 

[EnglishEdward]

If it is wrong for a richer region of the EU to give money to the rest of the EU, why is it wrong for a rich region of the UK to give three and a half times as much to the rest of the UK.

I have not stated that it is wrong for a richer region of the EU to give money to the rest of the EU nor that it is wrong for a rich region of the UK to transfer to the rest of the UK; so I assume that this point of yours is addressed to other posters.

The UK has a very large deficit on external trade. I believe that this is because sterling has been persistently over valued since WW2 and in particular very substantially over valued since the late 1970s when the deficit became a seemingly permanent feature.

This has benefited the financial capitalism for which London has a larger share and damaged manufacturing for which the rest of the country traditionally had a larger share. This effectively transferred wealth to London.

Similarly the Eurozone transferred wealth to Germany, although in that instance it is primarily due to the strength of Germany as an exporting manufacturer and only more recently as a banking centre.

 

[EnglishEdward]

You mean these tariffs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff

I was referring to the generality of steel tariffs post WW2. I note that imposing
tariffs in the absence of evidence of dumping is not the same as during dumping.

While the Wikipedia entry is very critical, the USA still has a steel industry.

I do not believe there will be a UK steel producing industry in ten years time.