French Election Result

Evilmags

The way the EU is behaving suggests the UK is a lot better off out of it. Holland, France and Austria already have serioulsy well supported facist parties and Germany is essentially taking control of the whole deal. 30% of people who bothered to vote in the UK would not vote for Le Penn, Wilders or anything close to that extreme and dumb. People trying to draw any parallel whatsoever between Brexit and Le Penn are utter thoughtless morons more concerened with how people percieve their virtue and right-on image than anything related to reality. Farage is an absolute pussycat compared to Le Penn. The FN are a bunch of Vichy apologist wankstains. Their history is long and nasty. 

As for city business moving to Luxembourg, GET A FCKING GRIP!!! HAve you ever been there, Jesus H Christ, a less suitable place for doing business does not exist. Unless the EU want's to change it's entire legal code finance will stay in London. Lawyers mike like Napoleonic code, as the cases drag on a lot longer and the fees are much higher. Business hates it. Fine for dumping cash and avoiding tax, crap as hell for doing anything.

Fretwired

ToneControl said:

I keep telling you all, it will be a hard breakfast

The EU cannot lose face
The next tory govt cannot hand over loads of cash, when one of the main points was to stop giving the EU cash
Therefore we default to WTO tariffs, and look to have perfectly normal trading arrangements with the EU - along with the other 3 non-EU G7 countries

No it won't. Read the links I posted above. Even Junker is singing a different tune.

The Euro would crash and EU would suffer. Their own economists say this .. as I've always stated we won't be leaving. We'll just get a different membership package which can be spun depending on your viewpoint.

exocet

Evilmags said:

As for city business moving to Luxembourg, GET A FCKING GRIP!!! HAve you ever been there, Jesus H Christ, a less suitable place for doing business does not exist. 

I go there about twice a year, have done so for about 20 years and have seen huge growth in professional services over there. Many of the well known global law firms that I deal with in UK have established a sizeable presence there within the past 5 years. It can't be that  sclerotic to do business there else large firms wouldn't bother? Can't just be for hiding dodgy money either, you don't need office space that holds a few thousand staff to do that, a simple brass plaque fulfils that requirement?

Fretwired

exocet said:

Evilmags said:

As for city business moving to Luxembourg, GET A FCKING GRIP!!! HAve you ever been there, Jesus H Christ, a less suitable place for doing business does not exist. 

I go there about twice a year, have done so for about 20 years and have seen huge growth in professional services over there. Many of the well known global law firms that I deal with in UK have established a sizeable presence there within the past 5 years. It can't be that  sclerotic to do business there else large firms wouldn't bother? Can't just be for hiding dodgy money either, you don't need office space that holds a few thousand staff to do that, a simple brass plaque fulfils that requirement?

Banks don't want to go there - my neighbour is a City banker and she thinks Dublin will do well along with Frankfurt as a besides being the location of the central bank its where the power is .. the fear for France and the rest of the EU is the City of London decamps to Frankfurt as Germany would essentially become the economic powerhouse of Europe which will drive the EU's agenda. Hence Macron wanting to put Paris on the map. In reality France needs the UK and needs the City of London to survive - if Macron had the balls he could push for EU reform that kept the UK in the EU. It would be a bold move ... May might go for it.

Evilmags

exocet said:

Evilmags said:

As for city business moving to Luxembourg, GET A FCKING GRIP!!! HAve you ever been there, Jesus H Christ, a less suitable place for doing business does not exist. 

I go there about twice a year, have done so for about 20 years and have seen huge growth in professional services over there. Many of the well known global law firms that I deal with in UK have established a sizeable presence there within the past 5 years. It can't be that  sclerotic to do business there else large firms wouldn't bother? Can't just be for hiding dodgy money either, you don't need office space that holds a few thousand staff to do that, a simple brass plaque fulfils that requirement?

It has half a million population. Way too small to be a major centre of global finance. The argument is despertaley poor. The City has a daily turnover of 1.85 trillion US. Luxembourg manages in total 950 billion. London has over 7 times that. Luxembour has enormous advantages over most continental centres granted, but has no where near the depth of London. It is also a deeply awful place to live, making it vey unlikely that 200,000 people will move their soon (likewise Frankfurt)

exocet

Evilmags said:

exocet said:

Evilmags said:

As for city business moving to Luxembourg, GET A FCKING GRIP!!! HAve you ever been there, Jesus H Christ, a less suitable place for doing business does not exist. 

I go there about twice a year, have done so for about 20 years and have seen huge growth in professional services over there. Many of the well known global law firms that I deal with in UK have established a sizeable presence there within the past 5 years. It can't be that  sclerotic to do business there else large firms wouldn't bother? Can't just be for hiding dodgy money either, you don't need office space that holds a few thousand staff to do that, a simple brass plaque fulfils that requirement?

It has half a million population. Way too small to be a major centre of global finance. The argument is despertaley poor. The City has a daily turnover of 1.85 trillion US. Luxembourg manages in total 950 billion. London has over 7 times that. Luxembour has enormous advantages over most continental centres granted, but has no where near the depth of London. It is also a deeply awful place to live, making it vey unlikely that 200,000 people will move their soon (likewise Frankfurt)

Native population is too small, but the skilled labour commutes there either daily from France, Germany and Belgium or weekly from UK. Compared to say Dublin, it has way more potential. I would agree that living there is not attractive to the masses but they don't appear to struggle to attract a workforce. They simply ratchet up the salaries until it becomes attractive. I can recall the early days of the Euro when it was nose diving against $ and £. Finance workers were given a 20% pay rise to an already attractive salary. Since then, it has grown at an exponential rate. It's obviously not London, but it could easily take 30,000 finance jobs.

It also has a music scene that far exceeds what it you'd think it would. Pretty much every global act will pass through. I think it's something to do with their taxation of events. I was told that providing that a European tour was booked through Luxembourg, that tour revenues are taxed there at a favourable rate. All the act has to do is appear there once to qualify. I saw Iron Maiden play there a few years back in a large agricultural field...very bizarre.

Teetonetal

The issue with the french result us that macron could well do more harm then good. It's not inconceivable that he will be a total lame duck president, will achieve nothing and in 4 years time le pen will have an even bigger platform to work from unless on of the main parties can get their act together.

exocet

Teetonetal said:

The issue with the french result us that macron could well do more harm then good. It's not inconceivable that he will be a total lame duck president, will achieve nothing and in 4 years time le pen will have an even bigger platform to work from unless on of the main parties can get their act together.

That's the view of Farage. He said after the first round  that Le Pen wouldn't  win this time around but would in 2021.

ToneControl

Fretwired said:

ToneControl said:

I keep telling you all, it will be a hard breakfast

The EU cannot lose face
The next tory govt cannot hand over loads of cash, when one of the main points was to stop giving the EU cash
Therefore we default to WTO tariffs, and look to have perfectly normal trading arrangements with the EU - along with the other 3 non-EU G7 countries

No it won't. Read the links I posted above. Even Junker is singing a different tune.

The Euro would crash and EU would suffer. Their own economists say this .. as I've always stated we won't be leaving. We'll just get a different membership package which can be spun depending on your viewpoint.

thanks for the links, the FT paywall stopped me reading this one:
Guy Verhofstadt - 7 May 2017
Link to article: https://www.ft.com/content/2494db66-31ae-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

yes, those articles sound positive
I'm personally pessimistic that the EU can reach a constructive Brexit agreement given the way that different interests, opinions and vetoes each member state hold

You're assuming that the EU would not do something to harm member states, just to further the interests of the EU as a political union. To that end, I'd point to the way the EU handled Greece, etc. Those countries have been trashed, and sacrificed to support the grand objective.

I would not be surprised in another membership package were offered, but why would the tories accept it?

ToneControl

exocet said:

Evilmags said:

exocet said:

Evilmags said:

As for city business moving to Luxembourg, GET A FCKING GRIP!!! HAve you ever been there, Jesus H Christ, a less suitable place for doing business does not exist. 

I go there about twice a year, have done so for about 20 years and have seen huge growth in professional services over there. Many of the well known global law firms that I deal with in UK have established a sizeable presence there within the past 5 years. It can't be that  sclerotic to do business there else large firms wouldn't bother? Can't just be for hiding dodgy money either, you don't need office space that holds a few thousand staff to do that, a simple brass plaque fulfils that requirement?

It has half a million population. Way too small to be a major centre of global finance. The argument is despertaley poor. The City has a daily turnover of 1.85 trillion US. Luxembourg manages in total 950 billion. London has over 7 times that. Luxembour has enormous advantages over most continental centres granted, but has no where near the depth of London. It is also a deeply awful place to live, making it vey unlikely that 200,000 people will move their soon (likewise Frankfurt)

Native population is too small, but the skilled labour commutes there either daily from France, Germany and Belgium or weekly from UK. Compared to say Dublin, it has way more potential. I would agree that living there is not attractive to the masses but they don't appear to struggle to attract a workforce. They simply ratchet up the salaries until it becomes attractive. I can recall the early days of the Euro when it was nose diving against $ and £. Finance workers were given a 20% pay rise to an already attractive salary. Since then, it has grown at an exponential rate. It's obviously not London, but it could easily take 30,000 finance jobs.

It also has a music scene that far exceeds what it you'd think it would. Pretty much every global act will pass through. I think it's something to do with their taxation of events. I was told that providing that a European tour was booked through Luxembourg, that tour revenues are taxed there at a favourable rate. All the act has to do is appear there once to qualify. I saw Iron Maiden play there a few years back in a large agricultural field...very bizarre.

Manchester is currently (loosely) considered a twin city by San Francisco: it is also large, has a very busy nightlife, cultural centre, universities, IT happening, good atmosphere. However, SF has the world leaders in IT . So far there's no sign of any company or anyone moving to Manchester.

Why would any large financial institution just up sticks and move to another country?
Such a move would have a large risk of destroying the business - the disruption would be massive, and they'd probably lose at least half their unreplaceable experts
Have you ever seen the kind of analysis that goes on before a trivial change in a company's operating model?
The London banks would need a brass plaque and a few staff somewhere in the EU, nothing more.

ICBM

ToneControl said:

You're assuming that the EU would not do something to harm member states, just to further the interests of the EU as a political union. To that end, I'd point to the way the EU handled Greece, etc. Those countries have been trashed, and sacrificed to support the grand objective.

I'm not sure it's that political... it may be more simply because the EU - especially Germany - can't face writing off the ridiculous amount of money they effectively lent to Greece with no prospect of it ever being paid back. The German electorate wouldn't be happy with that idea, although in the end it's the only way out of the problem no matter how much they try to shunt it down the road.

The real question over Brexit is whether the other countries - and their electorates - will accept the loss of the British money in return for telling us to royally fuck off, or whether they will be forced to negotiate to retain some of it. My guess is that their electorates will want their governments to do the former regardless of the consequences.

mellowsun

Fretwired said:

as I've always stated we won't be leaving. We'll just get a different membership package which can be spun depending on your viewpoint.

A membership package without freedom of movement and ECJ? The EU would not agree to this, and the Tories will not accept ECJ and freedom of movement. 

Your different membership package would be a realistic outcome under Labour or the Lib Dems. But previous Labour voting regions are turning Tory precisely because they expect May to take a tough line and deliver the hard Brexit they want, which primarily involves curtailing freedom of movement and an end to 'interference' via the ECJ.

exocet

ToneControl said:

exocet said:

Evilmags said:

exocet said:

Evilmags said:

As for city business moving to Luxembourg, GET A FCKING GRIP!!! HAve you ever been there, Jesus H Christ, a less suitable place for doing business does not exist. 

I go there about twice a year, have done so for about 20 years and have seen huge growth in professional services over there. Many of the well known global law firms that I deal with in UK have established a sizeable presence there within the past 5 years. It can't be that  sclerotic to do business there else large firms wouldn't bother? Can't just be for hiding dodgy money either, you don't need office space that holds a few thousand staff to do that, a simple brass plaque fulfils that requirement?

It has half a million population. Way too small to be a major centre of global finance. The argument is despertaley poor. The City has a daily turnover of 1.85 trillion US. Luxembourg manages in total 950 billion. London has over 7 times that. Luxembour has enormous advantages over most continental centres granted, but has no where near the depth of London. It is also a deeply awful place to live, making it vey unlikely that 200,000 people will move their soon (likewise Frankfurt)

Native population is too small, but the skilled labour commutes there either daily from France, Germany and Belgium or weekly from UK. Compared to say Dublin, it has way more potential. I would agree that living there is not attractive to the masses but they don't appear to struggle to attract a workforce. They simply ratchet up the salaries until it becomes attractive. I can recall the early days of the Euro when it was nose diving against $ and £. Finance workers were given a 20% pay rise to an already attractive salary. Since then, it has grown at an exponential rate. It's obviously not London, but it could easily take 30,000 finance jobs.

It also has a music scene that far exceeds what it you'd think it would. Pretty much every global act will pass through. I think it's something to do with their taxation of events. I was told that providing that a European tour was booked through Luxembourg, that tour revenues are taxed there at a favourable rate. All the act has to do is appear there once to qualify. I saw Iron Maiden play there a few years back in a large agricultural field...very bizarre.

Manchester is currently (loosely) considered a twin city by San Francisco: it is also large, has a very busy nightlife, cultural centre, universities, IT happening, good atmosphere. However, SF has the world leaders in IT . So far there's no sign of any company or anyone moving to Manchester.

Why would any large financial institution just up sticks and move to another country?
Such a move would have a large risk of destroying the business - the disruption would be massive, and they'd probably lose at least half their unreplaceable experts
Have you ever seen the kind of analysis that goes on before a trivial change in a company's operating model?
The London banks would need a brass plaque and a few staff somewhere in the EU, nothing more.

From what I have seen, the financial and legal companies are already there so it's not a question of banks in London "upping sticks",  more a case of scaling down some functions in UK and scaling up elsewhere.  The U.S banks appear to have a sizeable presence, friends of mine have worked in most of them over the past 20 years. I'm only commenting on what I have witnessed over that time, the development of the financial and legal services sector in Luxembourg has been quite astonishing, more successful than Manchester i'd guess?

To be clear here, i'm speculating that approximately 30,000 jobs are lost in Financial Services in London and 30,000 jobs are created elsewhere (possibly Luxembourg). Over time, London will develop and change, it always has done.

Fretwired

mellowsun said:

Fretwired said:

as I've always stated we won't be leaving. We'll just get a different membership package which can be spun depending on your viewpoint.

A membership package without freedom of movement and ECJ? The EU would not agree to this, and the Tories will not accept ECJ and freedom of movement. 

Your different membership package would be a realistic outcome under Labour or the Lib Dems. But previous Labour voting regions are turning Tory precisely because they expect May to take a tough line and deliver the hard Brexit they want, which primarily involves curtailing freedom of movement and an end to 'interference' via the ECJ.

Freedom of movement - forget what May says about 100,000 immigrants. She's never got close and never will. She has an election to win and is targeting UKIP and Labour voters who want Brexit. Macon is worried about immigration - he was interviewed on the BBC and said Le Pen had raised an issue that won't go away. The UK will need workers so a deal could be done for free movement of labour - other countries would like this (Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands) as it was what was originally conceived. You can go anywhere to work, but not to sit on your arse and claim benefits. Students will be able to come no matter what.

The ECJ will still be the court that rules on UK/EU disputes and anything to do with EU citizens. May can huff and puff but that will be non-negotiable.

Fretwired

@ToneControl ; .. here you go ..

We can deliver a Brexit deal that works for all

Despite media reports to the contrary and widespread briefing about an ill-fated dinner held between Theresa May, UK prime minister, and Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, I believe that a Brexit deal remains more likely than unlikely. There is more that unites the two sides than separates them and, regardless of what is said in the build-up to negotiations, a no-deal scenario would be a disaster for all.

Yes, one of the early challenges will be to find an agreement on the rights of EU citizens in the UK and vice versa. I remain hopeful that this could be agreed in the coming months, but delivering certainty will require a more honest discussion of the complexities at stake. A glance at the commission’s draft negotiating directive makes it clear that this issue will not be solved in a couple of ministerial meetings after the UK general election in June.

Both sides will need a precise and comprehensive agreement that provides citizens with genuine and permanent guarantees. The rights at stake do not just relate to residency, but also include access to healthcare, social security and guarantees regarding non-discrimination legislation. All of these rights, some acquired over decades, will need a mutually agreed enforcement mechanism, as will the divorce agreement more generally.

These issues will not necessarily be easy or quick to resolve, but they are not insurmountable. The EU has put its negotiating demands on the table. We do not know yet what the position of the incoming British government will be, nor what the UK’s future immigration system will look like. Thus, the list of uncertainties is at risk of remaining lengthy. It is also important that, as the European Parliament has requested, EU negotiators propose a form of citizenship for UK citizens who want to maintain their link to the EU after Brexit.

The debate about a financial settlement is likely to be complex and heated. The EU will not seek to punish the UK or demand one more euro than is due. As Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, has made clear: Brexit will be punishment enough. Yet, it is only fair that the UK agrees to pay its share of outstanding legal and budgetary commitments and liabilities. It would be wrong for EU taxpayers to be asked to pay Britain’s bar bill. A financial agreement should be in the UK’s reputational interest too, as it seeks to find a new role for itself in the world.

The third priority for the European Parliament in the first phase of negotiations is working out a solution to protect the Good Friday Agreement, in all its parts, and to avoid the re-introduction of a divisive hard border on the island of Ireland. This may ultimately require a comprehensive political solution, possibly even a special status for Northern Ireland. Many Irish citizens residing in Northern Ireland will continue to enjoy rights as EU passport holders, but how will their rights, including the right to vote in European elections, be safeguarded in practice?

It is unlikely that the European Parliament will agree to start discussions about a future relationship, unless a rock-solid arrangement addressing these issues is in sight, which is effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive.

As the European Parliament has proposed, the EU and the UK should aim to achieve a future association agreement, which is ambitious and strong. This should be a positive partnership, which goes beyond trade, to include security and defence co-operation. Mrs May has made clear Britain is leaving the EU but it is not leaving the continent of Europe. Nevertheless, as with any complicated divorce, preliminary discussions about a future partnership can only start when there is clarity about how the existing relationship is dissolved.

Soon, the phoney war will be over. I am confident the gulf between the EU and the UK government can be bridged, but achieving this will require cool heads, a dose of reality, a dash of common sense and an acknowledgment that a failure to reach a deal would not be in the long-term political or economic interests of either side.

Guy Verhofstadt
Lead Brexit negotiator for the European Parliament
May 7, 2017
Financial Times

ToneControl

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

You're assuming that the EU would not do something to harm member states, just to further the interests of the EU as a political union. To that end, I'd point to the way the EU handled Greece, etc. Those countries have been trashed, and sacrificed to support the grand objective.

I'm not sure it's that political... it may be more simply because the EU - especially Germany - can't face writing off the ridiculous amount of money they effectively lent to Greece with no prospect of it ever being paid back. The German electorate wouldn't be happy with that idea, although in the end it's the only way out of the problem no matter how much they try to shunt it down the road.

The real question over Brexit is whether the other countries - and their electorates - will accept the loss of the British money in return for telling us to royally fuck off, or whether they will be forced to negotiate to retain some of it. My guess is that their electorates will want their governments to do the former regardless of the consequences.

As I understand it, the German state, etc bailed out the banks that lent in Euros to keep the Euro going, i.e. to further the EU integration ( since single currency must lead to integration or disaster)

which governments of influential EU states have you seen approach the EU in the way their electorates feel appropriate?

ToneControl

Fretwired said:

@ToneControl ; .. here you go ..

We can deliver a Brexit deal that works for all

Despite media reports to the contrary and widespread briefing about an ill-fated dinner held between Theresa May, UK prime minister, and Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, I believe that a Brexit deal remains more likely than unlikely. There is more that unites the two sides than separates them and, regardless of what is said in the build-up to negotiations, a no-deal scenario would be a disaster for all.

Yes, one of the early challenges will be to find an agreement on the rights of EU citizens in the UK and vice versa. I remain hopeful that this could be agreed in the coming months, but delivering certainty will require a more honest discussion of the complexities at stake. A glance at the commission’s draft negotiating directive makes it clear that this issue will not be solved in a couple of ministerial meetings after the UK general election in June.

Both sides will need a precise and comprehensive agreement that provides citizens with genuine and permanent guarantees. The rights at stake do not just relate to residency, but also include access to healthcare, social security and guarantees regarding non-discrimination legislation. All of these rights, some acquired over decades, will need a mutually agreed enforcement mechanism, as will the divorce agreement more generally.

These issues will not necessarily be easy or quick to resolve, but they are not insurmountable. The EU has put its negotiating demands on the table. We do not know yet what the position of the incoming British government will be, nor what the UK’s future immigration system will look like. Thus, the list of uncertainties is at risk of remaining lengthy. It is also important that, as the European Parliament has requested, EU negotiators propose a form of citizenship for UK citizens who want to maintain their link to the EU after Brexit.

The debate about a financial settlement is likely to be complex and heated. The EU will not seek to punish the UK or demand one more euro than is due. As Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, has made clear: Brexit will be punishment enough. Yet, it is only fair that the UK agrees to pay its share of outstanding legal and budgetary commitments and liabilities. It would be wrong for EU taxpayers to be asked to pay Britain’s bar bill. A financial agreement should be in the UK’s reputational interest too, as it seeks to find a new role for itself in the world.

The third priority for the European Parliament in the first phase of negotiations is working out a solution to protect the Good Friday Agreement, in all its parts, and to avoid the re-introduction of a divisive hard border on the island of Ireland. This may ultimately require a comprehensive political solution, possibly even a special status for Northern Ireland. Many Irish citizens residing in Northern Ireland will continue to enjoy rights as EU passport holders, but how will their rights, including the right to vote in European elections, be safeguarded in practice?

It is unlikely that the European Parliament will agree to start discussions about a future relationship, unless a rock-solid arrangement addressing these issues is in sight, which is effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive.

As the European Parliament has proposed, the EU and the UK should aim to achieve a future association agreement, which is ambitious and strong. This should be a positive partnership, which goes beyond trade, to include security and defence co-operation. Mrs May has made clear Britain is leaving the EU but it is not leaving the continent of Europe. Nevertheless, as with any complicated divorce, preliminary discussions about a future partnership can only start when there is clarity about how the existing relationship is dissolved.

Soon, the phoney war will be over. I am confident the gulf between the EU and the UK government can be bridged, but achieving this will require cool heads, a dose of reality, a dash of common sense and an acknowledgment that a failure to reach a deal would not be in the long-term political or economic interests of either side.

Guy Verhofstadt
Lead Brexit negotiator for the European Parliament
May 7, 2017
Financial Times

sounds good
How will he stop Drunker sabotaging his work?

ToneControl

exocet said:

ToneControl said:

Manchester is currently (loosely) considered a twin city by San Francisco: it is also large, has a very busy nightlife, cultural centre, universities, IT happening, good atmosphere. However, SF has the world leaders in IT . So far there's no sign of any company or anyone moving to Manchester.

Why would any large financial institution just up sticks and move to another country?
Such a move would have a large risk of destroying the business - the disruption would be massive, and they'd probably lose at least half their unreplaceable experts
Have you ever seen the kind of analysis that goes on before a trivial change in a company's operating model?
The London banks would need a brass plaque and a few staff somewhere in the EU, nothing more.

From what I have seen, the financial and legal companies are already there so it's not a question of banks in London "upping sticks",  more a case of scaling down some functions in UK and scaling up elsewhere.  The U.S banks appear to have a sizeable presence, friends of mine have worked in most of them over the past 20 years. I'm only commenting on what I have witnessed over that time, the development of the financial and legal services sector in Luxembourg has been quite astonishing, more successful than Manchester i'd guess?

To be clear here, i'm speculating that approximately 30,000 jobs are lost in Financial Services in London and 30,000 jobs are created elsewhere (possibly Luxembourg). Over time, London will develop and change, it always has done.

I expect a few financial jobs to move, less than 10%
probably 5% max

In comparison the EU destroyed 90% of the medical trials jobs here, and almost all the fishery jobs

ICBM

ToneControl said:

As I understand it, the German state, etc bailed out the banks that lent in Euros to keep the Euro going, i.e. to further the EU integration ( since single currency must lead to integration or disaster)

Exactly. But if they'd actually had furthering the political union uppermost in their minds, they would write off the Greek debt and put it down to the price you have to pay for integrating weak economies with strong ones - which is what happens within nation states where prosperous areas support weak ones. (Then probably be more careful about lending the Greeks quite so much in the future…) So it's about money, not politics - or the politics of keeping the German people on side.

ToneControl said:

which governments of influential EU states have you seen approach the EU in the way their electorates feel appropriate?

The UK? Constantly causing trouble over nothing and being the awkward member of the club that wants everything its own way...



Germany, actually - for the same reason. They've had twenty years of selling German products to the Greeks and others despite their inability to really pay for them, and now they're broadly supporting the German government in its attempts to kick the can further down the road.

The French too - they get a lot out of the EU, and simply ignore the bits they don't like, in typical Gallic fashion. They've just heavily voted for a pro-EU president rather than an anti-EU one, that should say a lot.

Clarky

I think the biggest issue is that there are two problems to solve
one is political and the other is economic..
and these two problems are at odds with each other for both the UK and the EU
the solution to one is fuck off, the solution to the other is let's be nice