EU sues UK over limits immigrant benefits & forces UK to pay £800mil more to budget

But in spite all the posturing that's not what national leaders really want. As it is they select the Commissioners, who as a consequence tend to lend them a favourable ear and broadly follow national policy in their work, and the true heart if power remains the Council, not the Commission and Parliament. If they were to become true elected executive and legislature respectively national leaders would be ceding a lot of power.

The EU will probably try to hurt the UK if we leave. We'll get the trade deal but they'll work to: incentivise companies to up sticks to the full EU, given labour costs here will increase that won't be a hard sell to manufacturing; make Frankfurt the focus of financial activity and not the City, that will massively depend whether we stay in FoC (we seem set on goods and people one way or the other) as to its success rate; and they'll encourage EU members to end bi lateral deals, the most obvious ones to hit would be our defence and energy contracts with France, whether France accepts would largely depend on who's in the Elysee.

There would be consequences, we wouldn't simply leave and be welcomed back to enjoy all the perks and none of the drawbacks.

PS EU pres is Jose Manuel Barrosso.

The EU would throw a hissy fit and make things nearly impossible for the UK to trade with Europe. A passive-aggressive and douchey Germany and France is the last thing we need. Then we have America's statement that they would not set up a free trade deal with an independent UK.

Basically we're staying for the foreseeable future.

UK signs up to follow a specific set of laws.

UK breaks the laws they signed up to.

EU punishes them for breaking the law.


Can someone please explain what the EU has done wrong???

because the laws are being passed by the UK being outvoted in the EU Parliament because we only have 10% of the seats (divided by our parties) and the poorer countries outvote us and the legislation is passed

Your argument seems to be 'we don't like this democracy because we aren't getting what we want'... that, to me, seems like a pretty ****ty argument.

The EU would throw a hissy fit and make things nearly impossible for the UK to trade with Europe. A passive-aggressive and douchey Germany and France is the last thing we need. Then we have America's statement that they would not set up a free trade deal with an independent UK.

Basically we're staying for the foreseeable future.

the trouble is the EU does not work the poor countries are destroying the rich and dragging them down they will always vote for the rich countries like the UK to give them money, do you think Poland, Romania, Bulgaria etc will ever vote for reform when their immigrants will lose money they take from the UK= never happen. UK being bled dry

You think these people have an awful lot of power - apparently they can even make bankers and rich socialites want to live in Frankfurt!

Remember a few weeks ago when they promised to punish Switzerland for withdrawing from the free movement agreements? And when they promised to punish Russia for invading and annexing part of a foreign country?

How's that working out?

Forgive my ignorance, but surely it would be up to the individual countries to say whether or not they'd keep trading? Like just because the EU say 'oh the UK are dicks, stop trading with them' why would the countries fall in line with that? Surely it'd harm them if they stopped trading with us? Don't we, as a member of EU currently decide to ignore laws like France & Germany do all the god damn time?

Although fair enough if I've got it wrong.

They set the rules for an entire continent so yes they do. They can't do much to Switzerland as it makes money holding money and as a tax haven, Britain makes money moving money and is too large to realistically operate as a tax haven.

Whether the bankers themselves wish to stay is irrelevant so long as the banks want to go. The decision will be taken by a board made up of representatives from around the globe, most of them couldn't care less that the London staff like the schools and services, if trading costs more here due to free movement of capital rules then they'll move to a more favourable location for European operations, likely Frankfurt but for some it will be Luxembourg or Paris.

I have an alternative theory which I believe fits the facts better: banks are in London because bankers want to live in London and Britain is a favourable jurisdiction, not because London is in the EU. It's the same reason banks are in Singapore, which is a small island not attached to anywhere of importance. Now the EU can take the City from us, at least in principle: they can deregulate their economies, lower taxes, and introduce similar opt-outs on the working times directive, etc.

Bankers might agree to move to Paris, if the Parisians agreed to speak English and stop being so rude. Luxembourg is tolerable. Frankfurt is much too lame. What self-respecting hyper-oligarch wants to live in Frankfurt? It's certainly got nothing to do with Britain's deplorable state health and education systems, which are no doubt much better in Frankfurt.

In other words, partly it's natural advantage: English is the world language and London is the world city. But to the extent it's not that, the EU could take the City only by making a huge amount of concessions to our policy positions, not by forcing us to come in to line with theirs. This would require a head-on confrontation with huge vested interests and hostile public opinion, mostly in France but also in Germany and elsewhere. If they were willing or able to do this, they would do it while we are in the EU as well.

The only way the dirigiste continental powers can really erode the position of the City is by harmonising British institutions and policies with those of France and Germany. A tool for which the EU is designed.

Fair enough, I agree the banks where the decision makers are based here will stay that, but talking to friends that only seems to happen at BarCap if the big names, the rest are largely controlled from the base country still.

I wasn't talking state run, but the big independents around London, Germany has nothing like the Pauls, Westminster, KCS, City of London etc. to which you could send the sprogs.

The only way the dirigiste continental powers can really erode the position of the City is by harmonising British institutions and policies with those of France and Germany. A tool for which the EU is designed.

It might actually be a good thing for most citizens of the UK if the City were brought under more regulated control. The banks massive debt exposures were largely caused by the 'light touch' regulation in London, the 'private zone' nature of the City of London, which allows them to get away with all kinds of things, etc. Of course, it suits the global rich, including those in the EU, to have the City available to them, which is the main reason it continues - that doesn't make it a good thing for the average British taxpayer, who has recently been clobbered with a massive bill to cover their vast losses.

Even if the City does become much more regulated, we would probably end up being stuck with the Too Big to Fails, simply because despite the propaganda from the likes of Barclays, it is implausible that any other state would want to be exposed to the massive risk in taking them on.

However, I can see predatory companies like Goldman Sachs upping sticks, perhaps to relocate in Dubai or perhaps the Mexican drug cartel zones, where much of their cash originates.

Where's the evidence that it's poor countries dragging us down? If anything it's the likes of France, Spain and Italy which are against less regulation and the like.

Also the amount of money immigrants send home is really not a significant amount.

No they don't have to meet the criterion in the first place. So if I go to France today to work for 5 years then come back I am immediately benefits eligible as a UK national. Whereas, if Pierre cones over at the same time as me he must satisfy the residency requirement. Neither of us have been resident for the specified period, but by virtue of my nationality alone I am able to claim. By contrast when I moved to France I was ineligible for certain benefits ubtil I'd paid a certain amount in tax, but Pierre also has to pay that minimum contribution until he's eligible, so there's no discrimination.