And another Brexit architect jumps ship.
This is quite funny in a twisted kind of way. A couple weeks ago (after the Ineos' Antwerp investment) he was talking in Antwerp about how labour cost, taxes, etc.... aren't the most defining factors when you think about investing.
It isn’t though Pete is it?
The infrastructure development funding is designed to improve the lives, and economic prosperity, of member states. If London had met these obligations then there would have been no need for the EU to step in and deliver what was sorely required.
Neither of us is under any illusion that had the need been greater in another member state then the money would have gone there.
It may have been U.K. money but it certainly hadn’t been put aside for the wee North Pete.
Won't pretend that I completely understand the situation in your neck of the woods (all sorts of weird things; like the pronunciation of h etc...), but I vaguely remember seeing a map in transport economics that highlighted the discrepancy in investment/infrastructure related to the voting pattern so I can see where you're coming from. A couple of state-reforms ago we had something called waffle-iron politics, a compromise solution to prevent unequal spending. Completely nonsensical off course. The Flemish part gets something, Walloon part gets something. Leading to all sorts of absurd situations like the construction of the biggest inland water lift in the world in Wallonia where there is no active industry. How we had fun.
Well quite. I think it is more of a problem of understanding what it does for us than anything else. Someone far more clued up would have to advise on that but if we forget about the trade deals negotiated by the EU on our behalf, then I know off the top of my head they had a lot to do with clearing up the state of our beaches. They also (eventually) sorted out the phone companies to stop ripping us off with roaming charges.
Not much is heard about the good stuff though and successive governments have been happy to blame anything on the EU to deflect any bad news off them. I'm not sure why we need a European court, especially one that overrides our courts and I know this upsets a lot of people but how much difference does it really make. How may decisions have been overturned? People who are already fed up of politicians are understandably not pleased with another layer of bureaucrats. But again are they draining the UK's money on expenses? There just isn't enough information given, so then it becomes open to interpretation, which is rarely a good thing.
In normal circumstances it just works and I think in general our European counterparts have a better understanding than us but they too have their moments and if French/Italian/Spanish companies start going bust due to a no deal Brexit then they would be quite right to ask the same questions you have put.
You really do mate. The regulations, directives etc... need a uniform interpretation (lots of reasons e.g: to ensure fair competition on the single market etc...). You also need a place to go when your own state fails (they don't correctly implement a piece of legislation causing you damage etc.../lots of examples) you, and so on... They've done some stellar work in the past. Said it before, keep saying it. Besides it's not like you easily get access; it's a last resort in most cases. There's even some form of liberty if domestic courts seek a preliminary ruling etc...
Regarding the second point. I've been consistently saying that there won't be a good (as perceived by those that promised you the promised land) deal for the U.K. For all sorts of reasons. No-deal impact is relatively limited, and only has a somewhat meaningful influence on a couple of countries. There also probably won't be a shock no deal. It will probably be a managed decline (slowly taking away things), during which countries in the single market can chip away at the most important U.K. sectors (if you read a Dutch newspaper you can already read all sorts of similar preparations/ same for other countries they've already identified the competitive advantages they will have in certain sectors and they'll slowly work on that). Will probably lead to a Brexit outcome that doesn't favour the vulnerable people.
www.theguardian.com
