tzijlstra Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Some directives. Nothing like as many as now. You don't have to control people to trade with them. We do over half our trade outside the EU and we have no control over them at all. We don't need it. It's not even useful. We're a voice in a choir of 27. Our influence is negligible. It's next to useless. What is the basis for your assertion the Brexit will set the UK back at all? Do you have an independent expert analysis on the matter? None of the other "In" people have offered any that I can find. My assertion is fairly simple. One of the leading industries in this country is that of banking. The world uses the UK as its preferred banking entry to the EU. Companies choose to float on the London Stock Exchange and so on. The EU is already introducing the FTT, it is VERY keen on further regulating the banking market, but Britain is fighting that tooth and nail, the UK commissioner is indeed the commissioner for banking, no surprise Cameron went for that post out of a raft of other interesting posts, is it? The EU will nail the UK banking sector to the post, not to annoy the UK, but simply because the only thing stopping that happening now is the UK itself. Influence. Another big industry in the UK is pharma. Although not exclusively funded by the EU, the EU is a large contributor to many research initiatives in pharma, including here in the UK. It is also very keen on regulating the pharma market to ensure that the semi-public health services of its member states don't pay through the nose for medicines. Several big pharma multinationals will look at the situation and reassess their position. These are just some examples. I am not going to bother finding sources but these points have been raised time and time again and each time companies do, presidents of other nations do (Obama, Abe, Jinping) and so on people like you put their fingers in their ears and shout scare-mongering. A basic understanding of strategic decision making will explain to you that multinationals base in countries based on a significant list of criteria, being in the EU has been one of those criteria for a lot of companies that settled in the UK in the past 20 years - and that is a big list. Never mind the companies that have been here for a long time and are re-assessing their position. Just look at HSBC recently, part of their decision process to significantly cut their UK business was the uncertainty about the EU membership. So no, it isn't the de facto reason (which is why we won't see change immediately) but long term it is definitely a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 The trouble is that only half the Ukranians wanted it. A majority favoured closer ties with the EU..........however many.it's nothing to do with Russia.........Russia started the war on the pretext of 'protecting' Russian citizens in Crimea,there was nothing to protect them from,except the bogus 'Nazis were on their way from Kiev' that Putin invented to start the invasion.........Nazis were not on their way to anywhere,and it was nothing to do with the EU that Putin engineered this scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havanaclub Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 I'm certainly not defending the actions of Russia. Of course Russia has acted very wrongly and rightly been condemned for it. But we're not discussing a political union with Russia. If the EU had not gone out of its way to encourage western looking politicians in the Ukraine to build stronger ties to the EU, (and look toward future membership) and weaken ties with Russia, would the Russian population have been so provoked. It was no secret that the Ukraine was very divided on these matters. At the very least it's a massive diplomatic blunder by the EU which has cost a great many lives and destabilised the region. The Ukraine, despite its divisions, was reasonably stable before the Eu waded in. So much for the EU being a force for peace President Yanukovych was elected based on his manifesto pledge to sign the EU trade agreement. When he back tracked, 1000's of people descended on Maidan Square in Kyiv. They peacefully waited there for weeks and unexpectedly over the winter months. So Yanukovych then passed laws to; 1. Make mass peaceful protest illegal. 2. To make it illegal for civilians to wear protective clothing. 3. to track any mobile phones location and ban their mobile service if they were geolocated to Maidan Square. After the people refused to move from Maidan square. He sent in titushky , (hired thugs) to abduct and murder key protestors. After they still didn't move he sent in Berkut (riot police) and began to at first use rubber bullets then live ammo. Of course Ukraine is a fledging democracy and denying the right to peaceful protest is unconstitutional. The people felt their liberty fading away, and they fought back. Yanukovych party (the party of regions) is Kremlin funded. And any pro western politician has been stitched up royally since Ukraine got independence. What does Ukraine have to do to break free? Because all democratic bids to move closer to the EU have been scuppered. EU membership, if the people of Ukraine want it (and the majority does) is the peoples prerogative. As for your comment on "would the Russian population have been so provoked." If you mean the ethnic Russians living in Ukraine, they were equally represented on the Maidan. Ukraine is some of the most fertile land in Europe, and the largest country. Ukraine really should be the bread basket of Europe. The events in Ukraine are fully orchestrated by Putin. He can't afford to see a successful, democratic, stable and richer Ukraine as a member of the EU. Because if the Russian people see Ukraine is a better place to live than Russia, it's the end of Putin. That's why he will pull every trick in the book, including all out war... for a combination self preservation, and nostalgia for the old USSR. Soviets killed 7 million Ukrainians in in the build-up to WW2. Russia has no claim to Ukraine neither does the EU. It's up to both parties to let the people of Ukraine decide their future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 They've somehow managed to exclude all the positive factors included in the analysis I linked to. They've not mentioned them at all, even to dismiss them. How do you suppose that happened? Take a guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Take a guess Okay. They wrote the conclusions first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Okay. They wrote the conclusions first.Are you sure that you read the full report, beyond the bullet-pointed excerpt on page 1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickyM Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 2 points. 1. It's not a civil war. 2. It was not started by the EU. One point - it was started by the EU. The EU works closely with Nato and they wanted to expand into Ukraine, by bringing it into a trading partnership and eventually as a member of the EU. Also it was san opportunity to provoke Russia so they could impose sanctions and then ruin its economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 One point - it was started by the EU. The EU works closely with Nato and they wanted to expand into Ukraine, by bringing it into a trading partnership and eventually as a member of the EU. Also it was san opportunity to provoke Russia so they could impose sanctions and then ruin its economy. So we should have ignored the Ukrainian people's wishes on seeking closer ties with the EU, just incase it upsets the Russian Political class. I personally don't think that appeasement is a successful policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 One point - it was started by the EU. The EU works closely with Nato and they wanted to expand into Ukraine, by bringing it into a trading partnership and eventually as a member of the EU. Also it was san opportunity to provoke Russia so they could impose sanctions and then ruin its economy. No, it wasn't. The whole notion of that idea is so ludicrous that it is bordering slander. The Ukrainians have been wanting to move away from Russia as the 'motherstate' ever since the inception of the state. For some reason they were fed up with having corrupt politicians. Remember the Orange Revolution? It is all related to what is going on now. Putin seized the moment of weakness with Yanukovich to force his way into the Crimea. Anybody who claims this is the EU's fault is just being obtuse on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 So we should have ignored the Ukrainian people's wishes on seeking closer ties with the EU, just incase it upsets the Russian Political class. I personally don't think that appeasement is a successful policy. And has unwarranted intervention overseas been notably successful on most recent occasions (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts