The same reason Any state of note does the same thing - If your financial centre is external, your entire economy is at risk from external actors.
Letting the UK run the EU financial centre would be as if the Americans accepted that the Soviets got to have nukes on Cuba.
Wanting the good parts and not having to pay for the bad parts.What has freeloading got to do with any of this?
Greece was made an example of, to keep the others in line - I fear you will be made an example of, to keep the others in line.What does the fiscal discipline of members of a monetary union have to do with a trade deal between the EU and the UK?
Exactly what bargaining position do you think you have? - The EU sells stuff to you, you sell services to them - Your position is not very good for anything more than the EFTA deal.
Because that's how bargaining works...?
Especially since the UK made the EU pass laws that make some of those services illegal to offer from outside the EU with the very good argument that services concerning transactions inside the EU should only take place where they are under EU jurisdiction.
The Uk wanted those deals to keep NY from offering those services instead, but if they leave the EU London will be out, too.
Politics and diplomacy is based a lot on perceptions. If China or whoever sees the EU has UK backing for a trade deal, it'll provide some additional leverage for the EU.
= + =
The two scenarios are hardly comparable. One is potentially existential, the other is... potentially expensive.
I'm not sure you understand what freeloading is.
If the UK is an EU member but pays nothing towards the EU, and ignores any rules it doesn't like, it's freeloading.
If the UK is not an EU member and has negotiated a mutually satisfactory trade treaty, neither side is freeloading.
The circumstances are quite different though. For example, the UK had little say over Greece due to it being an internal Eurozone matter. The Germans (ie the dominant power in the ECB) were very annoyed over it, due to the importance they place on fiscal & monetary responsibility. They would also be liable to bail out Greece (and any others in the same situation) indefinitely if they didn't do something - but politically, kicking Greece out of the Eurozone was not an option.
Certainly there will be some who want to make an example of the UK, but between the Germans and other states I've mentioned, I don't think they'll be nearly as powerful as the Germans were re Greece.
You can flip it around though - we trade more with the rest of the world than to the EU, and the difference is only growing even though the UK is in the EU. Under the circumstances, it behooves the EU to get a good deal with us to avoid losing too much of the UK market, which is pretty lucrative.
Uhm... for what it's worth my sympathies were with the Germans over the Greek / Eurozone crisis :P . Not heard any convincing arguments as to why Germany should be obliged to pay due to Greece & Goldman Sachs cooking the books and spending money they didn't have.
That's besides the point though, which is that Germany is a very influential EU member, and that as a result, whether it's in your camp or not is a very big deal when it comes to EU negotiations (be they Brexit-related or not).
Yes, a very influential EU member, but not one that can dominate everyone else, especially not the UK.
If the UK got outvoted then it was not because Germany could dominate the EU at will, but because more countries agreed with them than with the UK.
That is how multinational negotiations work: Everyone gets to take part in the process but no one gets to dictate everything, not Germany, and not the UK.
I get the impression that is what offends the leave voters in the UK so, that the UK does not get to dictate everything.
Actually Cameron gave you the referendum, so you can act like a monkey and insult him and ruin your country with a vote just because racism is so high in you and probably your family that you actually fail to see how much you benefit out of EU. I am not a Brit, but i will laugh my arse out if your country leave EU and you will see when the door gets that shut that you need 100 years to have a chance to open EU door again.
One example, when i used to work in London my boss used to force me into give away commute time 45 minutes in the morning and 45 evening( driving the company vehicle) even if the job was 10 minutes away. EU changed that law and he sucked his shit and could not abuse his staff anymore risking to get sued. This is just one example. As i said, wait and see how many people will actually laugh pointing the finger at UK how retarded they have been to kick such basket with benefits also the great table of power.
There is literally nothing the EU can offer us that we can't get through our own savvy agreements.
You think Europe will suddenly be ok in losing it's biggest trading centre in the world behind a paywall the british can erect?
- - - Updated - - -
I don't see Warsaw being the trading captial of not only EU as a entity, but the European landmass.
the UK puts alot of money and infrastructure into the EU and we deserve more respect.
Sure, but my point is that (a) Germany is a very influential member, and (b) the UK will probably have other friends in the EU when it comes to post-Brexit treaty negotiations. Together, I think that'll be enough to overcome many, perhaps most, of the worst objections against freer EU-UK trade.
Speaking personally I think it's more a feeling that the UK isn't getting a good deal. More like "we get X out, but it costs us 3X, or 5X, or 10X", if that makes any sense. But because we're a part of the EU, we can't back out of such deals the way we could if we were an independent, sovereign nation.
Sure, there are swings & roundabouts: the EU does have more clout on the global economic stage, because it's much bigger and wealthier in absolute terms: no surprises there, nothing wrong with that, etc. But as above, the "one size fits all" side of it is, I think, the bit that most irritates the Leave campaign when it comes to trade (obviously there are lots of other reasons to leave too).
angela merkel is the real boss of the EU, will want turkey in the EU in 5-10 years time, cameron said at the end of one of his statements lets not roll a dice on our childrens future, yet hes already decided to remain so hes already rolled the dice, and wasnt cameron pro-leave at one point sayingwe was better off out of the EU, most descions for the UK are made in the EU we have no control over it, so vote leave if you want to be independant or vote remain to be the EU's bitch, both sides have there pro's and cons but i think leaving will be the best option
Yeah a small joke....... there is automatical small jokes every time "France" or "French" pop up around here. Very old already. Plus some bullshit like those that Dribbles bring to the table. "Nobody talk English" lol.... no petrol at the station? Le Pen on the rise? Just go get yourself informed about the "why" and "how" before spoting yourself talking about things you dont know about.
yea cameron wanted a referendum cos he was so for leaving the EU now he wants to stay in it.and about you working for a boss who abuses workers yeah it sucks but find another job or report your boss to the police, the great table of power which we dnt have a say on, if we stay in the EU your boss will just replace you with a migrant worker cos as we all know you can negotiate lots of things within the EU but the free movement of people is not up for discussion
So you think that there must be one country that dictates all others what to do and you want the UK to be that one.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, that is because the UK does not seem to understand multi party systems, thus they assume there must be one at the top who dictates everything.
Since that isn't the position the UK takes in the EU (because nobody does) they assume they get no say whatsoever.
Maybe in a few centuries when they get a proper democracy going they might understand the rest of the EU?
- - - Updated - - -
In the other post you called it "the dominating member", which implies that it is the only influential member, which in turn means that it cannot be "a" very influential member, because that would imply there are several, thus none could "dominate".
How savvy are you really? Does the UK have any sort of leverage that it won't have risk of losing the moment they leave the EU?
The US leverage is the giant economy and massive army
China leverage is the economy combined with the population, huge resource's used for their massive manufacturing industry
EU leverage is the giant economy
What about the UK? Your economy isn't bigger then germany's for example. You have a hated financial industry that isn't really local and doesn't really like protectionism or becoming,ing isolated with the rest of the world.
So what does the UK offer where the rest of us can't go around?
And you don't bloody deserve anything, your earn respect.
Why would we respect England anyway? For the empire it used to have? For the dreadful, overpaid and average at best football teams?
I for the love of god can't really think about a single reason why you deserve our respect.
Can anybody name a few reasons why the UK deserves respects?
No, she is not, you are not only ignorant of how the EU works, but also how Germany works. No, she does not want Turkey in the EU, she was preassured into giving them a perspective how to get in, but that came with prerequisites Turkey is unlikely to meet in a century or never the way it is heading right now.
No, you do not have "no control over the EU and its decisions", you have more control over it than most, thus the part about "being the EU's bitch" is nonsense, but that will be exactly what you will become if you leave (and I believe many Europeans are looking forward to this after all the shit the UK pulls all the time).
And yes, both sides have pros and cons, leaving has mostly cons for the UK and som pros for the EU, remaining has some cons for both sides and mostly pros for the UK, but also some for the EU.
While I couldn't really care less, I do see some very impractical results if Britain were to leave. A: Britain would lose their tull free trades with mainland Europe, which would severly raise the price of certain basic commodities imported mainly from France, a.k.a. potatoes and other vegetables. B: It might change the Scotts attitude towards leaving the UK, meaning the oil fields would probably fall under their control regardless of the English stance on the matter, yet again Britain as a whole suffers economical loss. C: Mainland Europe would no longer be forced to handle any refugees coming through with their aims set on the British isles as British affairs no longer fall under EU's jurisdiction, no more camps in Calais but in Dover instead, yet again mainland Europe wins.
I guess there's some positives, but I just can't see them.
why would we import potatoes when we grow them in england lol