Quote:
Originally Posted by Skew
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
End up like Norway? Until recently , Norway was a very successful , homogeneous country. It relies heavily on the oil industry and as such its financial outlook has deteriorated somewhat. But oil prices are volatile (and over the long term WILL trend higher) Norway also has the ability to diversify its economy , with fishing and tech being obvious areas for an affluent and hard working culture to benefit from. It has a state oil fund to see it through periods of low growth and it also maintains control of its monetary system (much as the UK has done)
If Norway or the UK struggles in the future , it will absolutely not be because they are not apart of the single currency or EU. Any prolonged downturn in UK or Norway will be felt far more acutely in Continental Europe , because it would portend to a wider , global downturn.
Norway and hopefully the UK , are models to follow. Not the 50% youth unemployment rates seen throughout the PIGS. And you can soon add France to that acronym.
The EU is fucked without UK , not the other way around , and that is why there is so much gnashing of teeth from the eurocrats.
|
Norway is a model to follow?
You understand they are part of the free trade zone, and in exchange have adapted 75% of the EU's laws?
They don't get to vote for EU at all though, since they are not a member.
This is the proposal the UK might come near though. So basically, lose all EU-related voting rights, retain the same trade agreements, and other then that nothing changes.
You should go a few pages back and read the shit I post, so you don't look uninformed over and over again.
Or ad hominem again, was pretty good try, you seem to have a talent for that.
For convenience:
In theory, an independent Britain could negotiate a deal with the EU that grants British businesses the same kind of preferential access to the EU that they enjoy now. Indeed, Norway has just this kind of deal: It’s not a EU member, but the country has agreed to voluntarily abide by most EU rules, and in exchange it enjoys most of the economic privileges of EU membership.
One problem is that EU leaders may not be in a forgiving mood after a British vote to leave. Many European countries have domestic euroskeptical movements of their own, and European leaders are worried that a successful British exit could embolden them. So the EU may refuse to give the UK a favorable deal as a warning to other countries thinking about exiting the EU.
Another problem is that Britain may not want a Norway-style deal. To gain preferred access, Norway is required to adopt many EU regulations. A recent British government report found that "Norway has adopted three quarters of the EU’s rules and legislation."
So if the point of leaving the EU is to escape its burdensome regulations, it's not obvious that the Norwegian model will accomplish that. And while euroskeptics have complained that the EU is not sufficiently accountable to British voters, voters in Norway have no influence at all over EU laws that — in many cases — Norway’s legislature must approve without modification in order to gain access to the European common market.
To a large extent, then, unfettered access to European markets and diminished British sovereignty are a package deal. It's never going to be possible for the United Kingdom to retain full control over domestic regulation while enjoying access to EU markets on par with the access available to other EU member states.
ps. I don't think this is bad for the EU, since as I posted many times, there will be new negociations. As I also posted, people such as Johnson are already ensuring the populace nothing will change economy-wise when it comes to the relations with Europe.
The UK isn't getting a free pass here, they'll be faced with far worse terms then they enjoyed before, and they'll have to take it, or leave it.
Guess how thats going to turn out?
With Johnsons statements in mind? (I'm trying to help you out here, really)