It is a question of what you value more: democracy or free markets.
No it isn't. A group of democracies have joined together and agreed to abide by a set of rules which block protectionist interventions by their respective governments. To my mind that is good, and I'd like to see more of it - it is in the interests of all the countries, but especially of free-trading Britain.
Well, they also signed up for protectionist barriers for the rest of the world and huge agricultural subsdieis, so let's not over-egg this.
It would be nice if those advocating Brexit, who sometimes at least pay lip-service to free trade and dismantling protectionism, were consistent and honest about this. UKIP, as the link which anotherDave posted shows, sometimes seem to flirt with a Marine Le Pen-style protectionist mindset, closed borders, and xenophobia.
This was a smear not worthy of you. It would be like, after Cameron said Britain was a Christian country, suggesting he was flirting with Pat Robertson-style religious extremism.
The three things you conflate: protectionism, closed borders and xenophobia are three very different things. Xenophobia is clearly unacceptable. With regards to borders UKIP support controlled borders, not closed ones. With protectionism, I haven't heard specific protectionist things from UKIP, but, despite being broadly a free marketeer, I'm not a zealot on this matter and I judge the case for interventionism on a case by case basis. That doesn't make me my views like Marine Le Pen's.
I went to a business meeting this morning without wearing a tie. I have never done that before. It felt very strange. It was Herself's idea, she kept going on about time to leave the 20th century behind and update my ideas. Don't know that I want to do it again.
Do you people still wear ties?
Yes.
Though many years ago I worked for a German firm and the "dress code" was jeans and casual shirts if in our office/factory, even if clients were visiting, but if you went to the very same clients' offices/factories it was suit collar and tie. It seemed accepted by all and "worked" even if looking back it seems an odd mix.
What a ridiculous statement. The elected government should be there to look after the interests of the people of the United Kingdom, they certainly should absolve themselves of this responsibility and pass it on to the EU. Whether we want to have protectionist policies or not the final decision should rest with our elected representatives at Westminster not with the EU which does not have the best interests of the UK at heart.
The ridiculous statement is yours.
The elected government - in fact, successive elected governments - has decided that the best way to look after the interests of the people of the United Kingdom is for the UK to agree with other countries to abide by a set of rules which limit protectionist interventions. That is why we are in the EU, and in the World Trade Organization. It benefits us, because in return for giving up our option to be protectionist, our EU friends (and to a lesser extent our other trading partners) have given up their option to be protectionist. It's a Win-Win in a game which is not a zero-sum game.
Are you against this? I thought you, like Socrates, were keen on dismantling protectionist barriers. Are you, or are you not?
I am keen that those decisions are made by an elected government at Westminster not by an unelcted bureaucracy in Brussels. As is clear from the recent Civitas report membership of the EU has not benefited us as far as trade is concerned and the British Givernment is in a much better position to decide on each case on its own merits rather than allowing those decisions to be made elsewhere by an organisation that has no need to take our best interests into account.
Indeed, even if you advocate an utterly free market in trade acting purely for the benefit of big business, the EU has been one of the most protectionist bodies in modern history and has done much to hinder our trade relations with the rest of the world.
Online UKIPers are less unpleasant than online Tories.
In order of unpleasantness, it probably goes something like, from worst to least bad:
EDL Orange Order BNP Ulster Unionists Tories Lib Dems UKIP Labour SNP Plaid Greens
Wow. You find people you generally agree with more pleasant than those you disagree with. Have you considered that that might be because you do not argue as much with those you generally agree with?
LOL, and that from someone who fits 4 of the top 5 in Stuart's list.
"...Vince Cable admitted on May 6th that 'Ministers do not engage with decisions' of this nature due to a 2004 European Union merger regulation."
Good. That is one unambiguously positive feature of the EU, preventing protectionist interference by governments all over Europe. That is very much to the benefit of the UK, and I would hope we could retain it if we do leave the EU.
It would be interesting to know what UKIP's policy on this is. The link you posted suggests they want to go back to the bad old days which might have prevented AstraZeneca being formed in the first place, and certainly would have prevented Vodafone from building up a pan-European presence.
What a ridiculous statement. The elected government should be there to look after the interests of the people of the United Kingdom, they certainly should absolve themselves of this responsibility and pass it on to the EU. Whether we want to have protectionist policies or not the final decision should rest with our elected representatives at Westminster not with the EU which does not have the best interests of the UK at heart.
Usually when you make a trade agreement you decide a bunch of things the governments of the participating governments aren't allowed to do, and sometimes you come up with some kind of international body that will decide whether they're sticking to it or not. Non-rhetorically, would you also think signing up to one of those was out of order because the government was absolving itself of responsibility?
No. I am not actually a fan of unfettered free trade as I do not adhere to the idea that it benefits the individual in the long run. But there is a difference between having a body which overseas decisions made by governments about trade and a body which makes those decisions itself with no power remaining with the individual states. It is the difference between democracy under a rule of law and dictatorship.
Mr. Nabavi, isn't it protectionist that the French have a veto over the ridiculous occasional sojourn to Strasbourg by the EU Parliament?
Edited extra bit: a veto to prevent any proposals to stop the idiocy succeeding.
Not sure if that's protectionist exactly. Stupid, yes. Although TBF there are some legitimate reasons for trying to disperse the institutions that are supposed to be providing checks and balances on each other.
I reckon one of these days the parliament will decide they've have enough and start finding ways to work around it, like sending one bloke down to Strasbourg to bang a gavel at the appropriate times while everyone else attends the Strasbourg session "remotely", gathered in a large room in Brussels...
It was best summed up by Yes, Minister: It's like having London as the capital with the House of Commons in Swindon and the Civil Service in Kettering.
The fact that the EU can't even reform something this obviously unnecessary, despite huge cost to the taxpayer and inconvenience to those involved, shows how screwed up the whole damn club is. If they can't get this right, how are they ever going to sort out the actual big problems, like the Common Agricultural Policy or the Eurozone imbalances?
The EU is just a busted flush that can't function properly and can't reform. It's like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of old. The ship is slowly sinking and it's better off we get in the life boat sooner rather than later.
UKIP, as the link which anotherDave posted shows, sometimes seem to flirt with a Marine Le Pen-style protectionist mindset, closed borders, and xenophobia.
I don't see where you get that from. The full text is:
"The entire debate on the Pfizer/AstraZeneca merger has exposed the "farcical state of British politics" according to UKIP Leader Nigel Farage.
"As I pointed out on Question Time last night, the elephant in the room has been the fact that when it comes to mergers like these, the government no longer has control. The power now lies with the European Commission.
UKIP's Head of Policy Unit Tim Aker said: "The facts are clear: EU regulation 139/2004 makes it plain that all mergers with what they call a 'community dimension' must be approved by the European Commission.
"The Swedish Finance Minister this week warned David Cameron about Pfizer that the company failed to honour promises made on research jobs when it bought Swedish drug maker Pharmacia in 2002, and so there is some cause for concern here.
"Britain's biggest medical research foundation has also said today that it has major concerns over the takeover and Pfizer's commitment to investment in Britain.
"Yet Vince Cable has said in the House of Commons this week that the Ministers were not engaging in this decision as it did not fall under the jurisdiction of our own national Parliament.
In response to a question on the issue, Vince Cable admitted on May 6th that 'Ministers do not engage with decisions' of this nature due to a 2004 European Union merger regulation.
"Once again we find that far from running our own country and our own affairs, the establishment parties skirt around with the little power the European Union has left the British Parliament with. They might seek to skirt around the truth, but we in UKIP will not: we want our democracy back.""
No. I am not actually a fan of unfettered free trade as I do not adhere to the idea that it benefits the individual in the long run. But there is a difference between having a body which overseas decisions made by governments about trade and a body which makes those decisions itself with no power remaining with the individual states. It is the difference between democracy under a rule of law and dictatorship.
What's that "with no power remaining with the individual states" doing in the comparison? The same powers get taken away from the individual states in both cases. In a free trade agreement, you have an unaccountable court or arbitrator that dictates what governments can and can't do. In the EU, there's a court but it has less power to dictate and a lot of those decisions can be made by the combination of the Commission, appointed by the member states, the ministers, coming directly from the member states, and the parliament, elected directly by the voters.
I'm not a zealot on this matter and I judge the case for interventionism on a case by case basis. That doesn't make me my views like Marine Le Pen's.
If we forget the vexed issue of Europe for a second, it seems there are two general ways for governments to intervene in the markets, in the case of M&A, etc.
1. On a case-by-case basis, in a democratic manner, considering what is for the best of the country (or at least the electoral prospects of the ruling party) at the time 2. According to a rule book, the rules of which are known in advance to all parties, so that someone considering an acquisition can do so knowing whether it is likely to be approved
Outside certain protected sectors (like media), we currently have (2): that is, so long as an acquisition does not cause a firm to have a monopolistic position, and therefore to disadvantage consumers, (and we have fairly clear rules about how this is decided), then it is allowed.
I worry that (1) - whether implemented by independent UK or not - allows governments to be partial. That is, to allow M&A when it involves its friends, and disallow it when it does not.
It seems that - whether we do it together with other countries or not - that (2) is the 'right' solution, from both an ethical perspective, and from a long-term economic growth perspective.
I'm not a zealot on this matter and I judge the case for interventionism on a case by case basis. That doesn't make me my views like Marine Le Pen's.
If we forget the vexed issue of Europe for a second, it seems there are two general ways for governments to intervene in the markets, in the case of M&A, etc.
1. On a case-by-case basis, in a democratic manner, considering what is for the best of the country (or at least the electoral prospects of the ruling party) at the time 2. According to a rule book, the rules of which are known in advance to all parties, so that someone considering an acquisition can do so knowing whether it is likely to be approved
Outside certain protected sectors (like media), we currently have (2): that is, so long as an acquisition does not cause a firm to have a monopolistic position, and therefore to disadvantage consumers, (and we have fairly clear rules about how this is decided), then it is allowed.
I worry that (1) - whether implemented by independent UK or not - allows governments to be partial. That is, to allow M&A when it involves its friends, and disallow it when it does not.
It seems that - whether we do it together with other countries or not - that (2) is the 'right' solution, from both an ethical perspective, and from a long-term economic growth perspective.
Seems reasonable. I haven't followed the Pfizer attempt closely enough, but if it really is down to some tax dodge, then perhaps we should be looking at our taxation rules.
No. I am not actually a fan of unfettered free trade as I do not adhere to the idea that it benefits the individual in the long run. But there is a difference between having a body which overseas decisions made by governments about trade and a body which makes those decisions itself with no power remaining with the individual states. It is the difference between democracy under a rule of law and dictatorship.
What's that "with no power remaining with the individual states" doing in the comparison? The same powers get taken away from the individual states in both cases. In a free trade agreement, you have an unaccountable court or arbitrator that dictates what governments can and can't do. In the EU, there's a court but it has less power to dictate and a lot of those decisions can be made by the combination of the Commission, appointed by the member states, the ministers, coming directly from the member states, and the parliament, elected directly by the voters.
In trade agreements, the rules are set by the governments that sign up to them. You may have a court to interpret those rules in terms of how they apply to specific situations, but that's it. With the EU new rules are being brought in all the time - not by the governments all agreeing by them, but by the supranational bureaucracy.
With protectionism, I haven't heard specific protectionist things from UKIP, .
You haven't been paying attention, or listening to the news in the last couple of days. UKIP seems to think the UK government should renege on international agreements so that it can decide on the takeover of an Anglo-Swedish-American multinational 'in the UK's interests'.
This is my big gripe with the BOOers. They seem to want an Alex-Salmond style cherrypicking whereby we choose all the bits we like and other countries have to fall in line. After all, in the particular case of Astra Zeneca only 6,700 out of 51,000 staff are in the UK. Sure, we could unilaterally decide, having left the EU, that all decisions on this sort of thing would be taken by the UK government alone. But why on earth would any other country, in that scenario, have allowed Astra Zeneca to be formed in the first place, or allowed Vodafone to take over all the telcos which it has around Europe?
You can't have it both ways. Either we give up some blocking powers ourselves in return for others doing the same, or we don't.
I'm not a zealot on this matter and I judge the case for interventionism on a case by case basis. That doesn't make me my views like Marine Le Pen's.
If we forget the vexed issue of Europe for a second, it seems there are two general ways for governments to intervene in the markets, in the case of M&A, etc.
1. On a case-by-case basis, in a democratic manner, considering what is for the best of the country (or at least the electoral prospects of the ruling party) at the time 2. According to a rule book, the rules of which are known in advance to all parties, so that someone considering an acquisition can do so knowing whether it is likely to be approved
Outside certain protected sectors (like media), we currently have (2): that is, so long as an acquisition does not cause a firm to have a monopolistic position, and therefore to disadvantage consumers, (and we have fairly clear rules about how this is decided), then it is allowed.
I worry that (1) - whether implemented by independent UK or not - allows governments to be partial. That is, to allow M&A when it involves its friends, and disallow it when it does not.
It seems that - whether we do it together with other countries or not - that (2) is the 'right' solution, from both an ethical perspective, and from a long-term economic growth perspective.
Seems reasonable. I haven't followed the Pfizer attempt closely enough, but if it really is down to some tax dodge, then perhaps we should be looking at our taxation rules.
Yes: I think there is an excellent case for the UK, the US, Canada, Switzerland, Germany and a few others sitting down and looking at ways to clamp down on the most egregious cross-border tax scams.
Re: ties. I like them and pretty much always wear them with new clients etc. If I know the client very well I may lose the tie for a business lunch etc, particularly on a Friday where there is a clear social element. I think it's actually a bit of a shame that they have fallen out of favour among some - there is nothing wrong, and a whole lot right, with men looking smart. Not least it makes it easier for us to get dressed in the morning!
Women have fashion. Men have rules.
I am with you there, Mr. Fett. Ties also give us blokes a chance to say something about ourselves in an understated, but recognisable, manner. In meeting a new client it was not the choice of suit that gave me pause for thought but the choice of tie (and surprisingly cuff-links). I remember going on business trips to the USA where I might pack a dozen or more ties to ensure that I had the right one for each meeting, presentation and meal, and that was with Septics who would, on the whole, no more recognise a regimental tie from one bought in Walmart.
The young and thrusters in the City amaze me. They will turn up in a thousand guinea suit, which doesn't actually fit (the trousers are usually far too long) that hasn't been pressed since it left the tailors, shoes that have never seen a brush let alone polish, no tie and yet expect people to trust them with their money. If a man is careless with one aspect of his life I reckon he will be careless in others and that includes looking after my money.
Still it would seem the rules are changing. I was very surprised that Mr. Navabi has abandoned the tie and Mr. Charles also on occasion. Mind you the next time I am in Town I shall stick my head into Charles's bank and see what sort of dress code his people enforce.
Independence for Yorkshire!! Not serious (I think) - but it's odd for the Graun to be advocating it even in jest, given its attitude to us Jocks (Kevin McKenna excepted).
Would be complaints about 'Leeds rule' round here if it happened...
Online UKIPers are less unpleasant than online Tories.
In order of unpleasantness, it probably goes something like, from worst to least bad:
EDL Orange Order BNP Ulster Unionists Tories Lib Dems UKIP Labour SNP Plaid Greens
Wow. You find people you generally agree with more pleasant than those you disagree with. Have you considered that that might be because you do not argue as much with those you generally agree with?
LOL, and that from someone who fits 4 of the top 5 in Stuart's list.
Nope, never voted for: EDL Orange Order BNP Ulster Unionists
No. I am not actually a fan of unfettered free trade as I do not adhere to the idea that it benefits the individual in the long run.
The economic evidence would seem to be against you on this one.
It's hard to discuss when when we're talking at such high levels, but this study demonstrates the effect on inequality can be much greater than the increased economic activity, suggesting it may not always be in the interest of the bulk of the citizenry:
"What would happen if you outlawed all mergers and acquisitions, except in the case where the target of the takeover had gone bust?"
Would that not require the government to control who could buy shares? I am not sure that would be a good idea and I am damn certain I would hate to live in a country where I had to ask permission to sell shares.
Surely the government already has such powers if there is discussion of preventing the takeover of AstraZeneca by Pfizer. All I am considering the effects of is making the use of that power more consistent and the effects this would have on economic dynamism, management, etc.
Re: ties. I like them and pretty much always wear them with new clients etc. If I know the client very well I may lose the tie for a business lunch etc, particularly on a Friday where there is a clear social element. I think it's actually a bit of a shame that they have fallen out of favour among some - there is nothing wrong, and a whole lot right, with men looking smart. Not least it makes it easier for us to get dressed in the morning!
Women have fashion. Men have rules.
Mind you the next time I am in Town I shall stick my head into Charles's bank and see what sort of dress code his people enforce.
Good victory for Tories in the Fens last night. Blues and UKIP got circa 80% of vote. Labour/Libs switched to UKIP, Tories stayed loyal. What does it all mean?
It was best summed up by Yes, Minister: It's like having London as the capital with the House of Commons in Swindon and the Civil Service in Kettering.
The fact that the EU can't even reform something this obviously unnecessary, despite huge cost to the taxpayer and inconvenience to those involved, shows how screwed up the whole damn club is. If they can't get this right, how are they ever going to sort out the actual big problems, like the Common Agricultural Policy or the Eurozone imbalances?
The EU is just a busted flush that can't function properly and can't reform. It's like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of old. The ship is slowly sinking and it's better off we get in the life boat sooner rather than later.
It certainly can't do meaningful planned institutional reform, since that gets strangled by national vetos. Lisbon may actually turn out to be the last treaty it ever manages to sign, or if it does sign treaties in the future they may just be ways of making the status quo that's evolved official.
On the other hand, that's not particularly unusual; Countries often get their constitutions wedged so they can't do official reform, and they fix them through institutional mission creep instead. For example, the current US, with its large federal government presided over by a powerful president, is pretty much exactly what its constitution was designed to prevent, and it wasn't made that way by official constitutional revisions. Japan's constitution forbids it from having an army, and the hurdles to changing that are too high for anybody to do more than talk about it, but they made a "self-defence force" instead, and the scope of "self-defence" gets a little bit wider every parliament.
That's how the EU will move as well; You see that with the ECB mysteriously discovering that it has the power to print money for countries that need it, but only if they stick to what it thinks are sensible budgetary limits. So like I say I reckon sooner or later the European Parliament will find a workaround for its Strasbourg annoyance, probably leaving some Westminster-like quaint tradition behind it.
On topic, short-term I reckon Lab's problems get worse before they get better around the Euros, because their left-wing competitors like the Greens and Respect haven't had much attention yet, and they should be able to muster at least a news cycle or too, and possibly even a self-sustaining polling bounce.
Seems reasonable. I haven't followed the Pfizer attempt closely enough, but if it really is down to some tax dodge, then perhaps we should be looking at our taxation rules.
As far as I can tell it's not a tax dodge, but a by-product of the very strange US tax rule that companies get charged tax when they repatriate funds to the US. It's pretty barmy, leading to the absurdity that Apple - with countless billions in cash around the world - has borrowed money in the US so they can return cash to shareholders there.
I went to a business meeting this morning without wearing a tie. I have never done that before. It felt very strange. It was Herself's idea, she kept going on about time to leave the 20th century behind and update my ideas. Don't know that I want to do it again.
Do you people still wear ties?
Yes.
Though many years ago I worked for a German firm and the "dress code" was jeans and casual shirts if in our office/factory, even if clients were visiting, but if you went to the very same clients' offices/factories it was suit collar and tie. It seemed accepted by all and "worked" even if looking back it seems an odd mix.
I generally wear a tie and relatively smart suit for work, because I still meet corporate and regulatory types around the world who think that anyone lobbying on animal welfare is probably somewhere between a hippy and a nutter. You can see the relief on their faces when they see I'm a boring grey chap like themselves.
Even as a perennial optimist for Labour, I obviously agree the Labour share and lead are down.
Nick, if you are around can I ask you a question which has been baffling me regarding Labour's policy suite and the absence of anything truly radical on housing. [snip to fit with the site length restrictions]
Tio be honest I don't think there is a lot of difference between the parties on the issue, as you say - whoever is in power grudgingly allows some building on green belt, whoever is in opposition says it's a disgrace. The political problem for all the parties is that the beneficiaries are by definition not there yet while the opponents are there and it's a passionate vote-changing issue for them. So the tendency is to tack to the wind, which leaves the problem festering.
I'd build lots of modern, well-serviced tower blocks in the cities (and stuff the skyline - decent affordable living is more important). The "everyone must have a house and garden" concept is not compatible with keeping the green areas that people like, and I don't see anything wrong with young people renting a nice flat - it's how I grew up in this building
I went to a business meeting this morning without wearing a tie. I have never done that before. It felt very strange. It was Herself's idea, she kept going on about time to leave the 20th century behind and update my ideas. Don't know that I want to do it again.
Do you people still wear ties?
Yes, I feel naked without one. Trouble nowadays is there's no standards!!
I came across a photo recently taken at a work meeting I was at in the mid90s and the first thing that struck me was how smartly turned out everyone appeared.
This is not a recent trend, of course. In the same that people around the office in open necked shirts and chinos look like slobs to me, presumably much the same was thought of those who turned up for work in only 2 pieces of a 3-piece suit, or without a hat, or in a button-down shirt.
"What would happen if you outlawed all mergers and acquisitions, except in the case where the target of the takeover had gone bust?"
Would that not require the government to control who could buy shares? I am not sure that would be a good idea and I am damn certain I would hate to live in a country where I had to ask permission to sell shares.
Surely the government already has such powers if there is discussion of preventing the takeover of AstraZeneca by Pfizer. All I am considering the effects of is making the use of that power more consistent and the effects this would have on economic dynamism, management, etc.
Sorry, I thought you were thinking about the effect of outlawing ALL mergers and acquisitions. There maybe an argument, though not much of one, for HMG to have the power of veto over foreign take-overs, but not surely for it to stick its oar in domestic matters whenever it feels like it.
Then, companies are owned by their shareholders if a shareholder wants to sell by what right should a politician tell them that they can't?
What I think has been happening is that UKIP originally just took the hard right vote off the Tories, but they're now gaining working-class protest votes all round. In marginals like mine with a large middle-class vote the effect is less evident, but it's certainly there. I'm not convinced that it's permanent, but we shall see.
Now, obviously that is a big generalisation, but, inasmuch as there is any truth in it, it seems to me that there is at least a likelihood, and perhaps a strong possibility, that the drift back from UKIP to Labour will exhibit different characteristics compared with the drift back to the Tories. That is one reason why I am cautious about predictions based on current polling: there is a quite hefty chunk of UKIP vote-share in the current opinion polls, easily enough for any differential behaviour to have a big impact on the final result.
Successful political parties are coalitions of interests.
If UKIP can unite: (a) WWC negatively affected by immigration, income inequality, (b) older people worried about crime, social liberalism, (c) the generally Eurosceptic, and (d) the "I'm looking for a new kind of politics" bunch, then they potentially have enough of a coalition to - in the medium term - gain significant political power, potentially even achieving power on their own.
However, this coalition has not been tried before. And there are some very substantial tensions in there, which could lead to it breaking down. For example, were UKIP to gain power through a coalition, then they (just as the LibDems before) would find themselves losing the NOTA vote.
I expect a very large swingback from UKIP to the Tories in 2015. I may not agree with the Tory meme about letting in Labour but it would be daft not to believe that many will. Whether it will be enough to save the Tories is another matter but those from UKIP pretending it will not happen and that those supporters are lost to the Tories for good are not being realistic.
Richard
Do you fancy my bet of the other day, of (say) £10 a point either side of 10% for UKIP in 2015?
I.e. if they score less than 7% of the poll you owe me £30. If they score over 16% I owe you £60.
Just looking for a bit of fun really - maybe it's £5 per point away from 8%, for example, rather than my 10 and 10.
Online UKIPers are less unpleasant than online Tories.
In order of unpleasantness, it probably goes something like, from worst to least bad:
EDL Orange Order BNP Ulster Unionists Tories Lib Dems UKIP Labour SNP Plaid Greens
Wow. You find people you generally agree with more pleasant than those you disagree with. Have you considered that that might be because you do not argue as much with those you generally agree with?
LOL, and that from someone who fits 4 of the top 5 in Stuart's list.
Nope, never voted for: EDL Orange Order BNP Ulster Unionists
... and never would.
Try again.
Was not posted in reply to a post from yourself , how bizarre, you must have guilt complex
With protectionism, I haven't heard specific protectionist things from UKIP, .
You haven't been paying attention, or listening to the news in the last couple of days. UKIP seems to think the UK government should renege on international agreements so that it can decide on the takeover of an Anglo-Swedish-American multinational 'in the UK's interests'.
This is my big gripe with the BOOers. They seem to want an Alex-Salmond style cherrypicking whereby we choose all the bits we like and other countries have to fall in line. After all, in the particular case of Astra Zeneca only 6,700 out of 51,000 staff are in the UK. Sure, we could unilaterally decide, having left the EU, that all decisions on this sort of thing would be taken by the UK government alone. But why on earth would any other country, in that scenario, have allowed Astra Zeneca to be formed in the first place, or allowed Vodafone to take over all the telcos which it has around Europe?
You can't have it both ways. Either we give up some blocking powers ourselves in return for others doing the same, or we don't.
But other countries (within the EU and outside of it) have used such blocking powers. For example, France has frequently seen off designs on Danone by Kraft; our Government rolls over on Cadbury for some 'guarantees' without a second thought. The US protects its own companies too.
The UK with its successive Tory and Labour Governments has the worst of both worlds in my opinion -a high tax, high regulation economy, with a vast, bloated public sector, but with a neo-liberal laissez faire attitude toward the commanding heights of the economy passing out of UK control. It's like feeding someone to the size of Pavarotti then making them run the 110 meter hurdles. What UKIP appear to be suggesting is what any person with common sense and the well-being of the country at heart would suggest -reversing both these situations. Creating the conditions for growth, AND intervening on behalf of British companies when to do otherwise would be damaging to the national interest.
Comments
The three things you conflate: protectionism, closed borders and xenophobia are three very different things. Xenophobia is clearly unacceptable. With regards to borders UKIP support controlled borders, not closed ones. With protectionism, I haven't heard specific protectionist things from UKIP, but, despite being broadly a free marketeer, I'm not a zealot on this matter and I judge the case for interventionism on a case by case basis. That doesn't make me my views like Marine Le Pen's.
Though many years ago I worked for a German firm and the "dress code" was jeans and casual shirts if in our office/factory, even if clients were visiting, but if you went to the very same clients' offices/factories it was suit collar and tie. It seemed accepted by all and "worked" even if looking back it seems an odd mix.
Indeed, even if you advocate an utterly free market in trade acting purely for the benefit of big business, the EU has been one of the most protectionist bodies in modern history and has done much to hinder our trade relations with the rest of the world.
The fact that the EU can't even reform something this obviously unnecessary, despite huge cost to the taxpayer and inconvenience to those involved, shows how screwed up the whole damn club is. If they can't get this right, how are they ever going to sort out the actual big problems, like the Common Agricultural Policy or the Eurozone imbalances?
The EU is just a busted flush that can't function properly and can't reform. It's like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of old. The ship is slowly sinking and it's better off we get in the life boat sooner rather than later.
"The entire debate on the Pfizer/AstraZeneca merger has exposed the "farcical state of British politics" according to UKIP Leader Nigel Farage.
"As I pointed out on Question Time last night, the elephant in the room has been the fact that when it comes to mergers like these, the government no longer has control. The power now lies with the European Commission.
UKIP's Head of Policy Unit Tim Aker said: "The facts are clear: EU regulation 139/2004 makes it plain that all mergers with what they call a 'community dimension' must be approved by the European Commission.
"The Swedish Finance Minister this week warned David Cameron about Pfizer that the company failed to honour promises made on research jobs when it bought Swedish drug maker Pharmacia in 2002, and so there is some cause for concern here.
"Britain's biggest medical research foundation has also said today that it has major concerns over the takeover and Pfizer's commitment to investment in Britain.
"Yet Vince Cable has said in the House of Commons this week that the Ministers were not engaging in this decision as it did not fall under the jurisdiction of our own national Parliament.
In response to a question on the issue, Vince Cable admitted on May 6th that 'Ministers do not engage with decisions' of this nature due to a 2004 European Union merger regulation.
"Once again we find that far from running our own country and our own affairs, the establishment parties skirt around with the little power the European Union has left the British Parliament with. They might seek to skirt around the truth, but we in UKIP will not: we want our democracy back.""
http://www.ukip.org/eu_restrictions_on_astrazeneca_expose_farcical_state_of_british_politics
1. On a case-by-case basis, in a democratic manner, considering what is for the best of the country (or at least the electoral prospects of the ruling party) at the time
2. According to a rule book, the rules of which are known in advance to all parties, so that someone considering an acquisition can do so knowing whether it is likely to be approved
Outside certain protected sectors (like media), we currently have (2): that is, so long as an acquisition does not cause a firm to have a monopolistic position, and therefore to disadvantage consumers, (and we have fairly clear rules about how this is decided), then it is allowed.
I worry that (1) - whether implemented by independent UK or not - allows governments to be partial. That is, to allow M&A when it involves its friends, and disallow it when it does not.
It seems that - whether we do it together with other countries or not - that (2) is the 'right' solution, from both an ethical perspective, and from a long-term economic growth perspective.
Why do you think people should not be allowed to choose from where they buy their goods?
This is my big gripe with the BOOers. They seem to want an Alex-Salmond style cherrypicking whereby we choose all the bits we like and other countries have to fall in line. After all, in the particular case of Astra Zeneca only 6,700 out of 51,000 staff are in the UK. Sure, we could unilaterally decide, having left the EU, that all decisions on this sort of thing would be taken by the UK government alone. But why on earth would any other country, in that scenario, have allowed Astra Zeneca to be formed in the first place, or allowed Vodafone to take over all the telcos which it has around Europe?
You can't have it both ways. Either we give up some blocking powers ourselves in return for others doing the same, or we don't.
The young and thrusters in the City amaze me. They will turn up in a thousand guinea suit, which doesn't actually fit (the trousers are usually far too long) that hasn't been pressed since it left the tailors, shoes that have never seen a brush let alone polish, no tie and yet expect people to trust them with their money. If a man is careless with one aspect of his life I reckon he will be careless in others and that includes looking after my money.
Still it would seem the rules are changing. I was very surprised that Mr. Navabi has abandoned the tie and Mr. Charles also on occasion. Mind you the next time I am in Town I shall stick my head into Charles's bank and see what sort of dress code his people enforce.
Orange Order
BNP
Ulster Unionists
... and never would.
Try again.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/TPP-2013-09.pdf
Charles compromises by dropping the coat.
On the other hand, that's not particularly unusual; Countries often get their constitutions wedged so they can't do official reform, and they fix them through institutional mission creep instead. For example, the current US, with its large federal government presided over by a powerful president, is pretty much exactly what its constitution was designed to prevent, and it wasn't made that way by official constitutional revisions. Japan's constitution forbids it from having an army, and the hurdles to changing that are too high for anybody to do more than talk about it, but they made a "self-defence force" instead, and the scope of "self-defence" gets a little bit wider every parliament.
That's how the EU will move as well; You see that with the ECB mysteriously discovering that it has the power to print money for countries that need it, but only if they stick to what it thinks are sensible budgetary limits. So like I say I reckon sooner or later the European Parliament will find a workaround for its Strasbourg annoyance, probably leaving some Westminster-like quaint tradition behind it.
I'd build lots of modern, well-serviced tower blocks in the cities (and stuff the skyline - decent affordable living is more important). The "everyone must have a house and garden" concept is not compatible with keeping the green areas that people like, and I don't see anything wrong with young people renting a nice flat - it's how I grew up in this building
http://www.edc.dk/Sag/?Pid=29100703
where I see that a 3-room flat is still on offer for £140,000, though the site is very close to shopping, transport and both urban and rural areas.
This is not a recent trend, of course. In the same that people around the office in open necked shirts and chinos look like slobs to me, presumably much the same was thought of those who turned up for work in only 2 pieces of a 3-piece suit, or without a hat, or in a button-down shirt.
Then, companies are owned by their shareholders if a shareholder wants to sell by what right should a politician tell them that they can't?
Do you fancy my bet of the other day, of (say) £10 a point either side of 10% for UKIP in 2015?
I.e. if they score less than 7% of the poll you owe me £30. If they score over 16% I owe you £60.
Just looking for a bit of fun really - maybe it's £5 per point away from 8%, for example, rather than my 10 and 10.
Or anyone else fancy some of that?
The UK with its successive Tory and Labour Governments has the worst of both worlds in my opinion -a high tax, high regulation economy, with a vast, bloated public sector, but with a neo-liberal laissez faire attitude toward the commanding heights of the economy passing out of UK control. It's like feeding someone to the size of Pavarotti then making them run the 110 meter hurdles. What UKIP appear to be suggesting is what any person with common sense and the well-being of the country at heart would suggest -reversing both these situations. Creating the conditions for growth, AND intervening on behalf of British companies when to do otherwise would be damaging to the national interest.