8 comments posted · 78 followers · following 0
I suspect that many investors have a pragmatic approach. They also do not believe that there will be any detrimental effect to trading with the EU. Also, there are other qualities with investing in the UK rather than the EU. The first is that the EU is overly regulated. It is true that the finished product must conform with EU standards (which is true of virtually every trading bloc) but the actual process of manufacture in the UK is not so burdened by workplace regulation. Secondly, having once been the 'sick man of Europe' through interminable strikes, the UK is by inclination now one of the most stable work forces in Europe.
There is nothing more harmful to commerce than not having the ability to accurately programme work on time and at a predicted cost.
I would say that it is unthinkable that the EU would be so stupid as to initiate a tariff war with us. Not only is it likely that we would reciprocate, but Germany in particular achieves it's GDP mainly in exports (52%). It is bad enough for them that the Euro is weak without having a large tariff imposed on them as well.
I would advocate that we repeal the 1972 Act rather than go the Article 50 route and be able to negotiate from a position of strength in exactly the same way as any other Country would approach the matter. In my opinion, the Article 50 route would be a complete stitch-up for us as we would not be allowed to be privy to the negotiations which they will actually be imposing on us.
Much of the uncertainty to business can be immediately alleviated by the simple expedient of repealing the 1972 European Communities Act, then any negotiation after that can be done from a position of strength. To follow the Article 50 route will deny us the right to negotiate as it is specifically stated in that same Article 50 that Britain (or another State that wishes to secede) will not be allowed to participate in the deliberations of the Council of Ministers that will decide the terms of our secession.
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49."
Paragraph 4 is the point in question. In concerns me greatly that I know of no politician including Mr. Hannan nor for that matter, Mr Farage, have ever mentioned this yet they both appear to favour the Article 50 Route. Should the UK go this route, it would be akin to a pig in a poke.
He has gone on to introducing Resident Parking Permit restrictions all over the City and introduce several additional meter bays outside of the City Centre where none existed before even though there was no parking problem.
He has introduced 20mph speed restrictions all over the City including on trunk routes and plans to extend it City wide. He is also extending the plan of deliberately reducing the capacity of existing roads which actually causes considerable congestion, perhaps in anticipation of being allowed to introduce a congestion charge.
Yet for all this, he has done nothing to bring productivity to Bristol despite there being large swathes of commercial building land available, a confluence of major motorways (M4 and M5), a functioning port and not even mentioning the soon to be built over Filton airfield. If anyone wanting extra terminal capacity to service London (with an existing high speed trains service) and domestic airport facility close to the City covering the West Coast and the South West, they need look no further than this.
This man has just far too much executive power in which to follow his own (or rather his daughter's) political agenda.