Home Economics Easyjet And The Vileness Of The European Union

Easyjet And The Vileness Of The European Union

Author

Comments

It is, of course, possible to think that less war in Europe would be a good idea although don’t propose that to anyone who has just met a Parisian. So, the idea that there should be n organisation aiming at less war in Europe, like the EU says it is, seems fair enough.

Then we get to see what it is that the EU actually does:

EasyJet is preparing to strip British and other shareholders of their voting rights to avoid breaching strict EU ownership rules.

Brussels’ rules dictate that airlines operating in the European bloc must be majority-owned by European Union investors – but at present only 47pc of its stock is owned by backers in the bloc.

If you fly people in and out of the EU you can be owned by anyone. But if you fly people within it then you must be that 50% EU owned.

Why?

Well, the people who run EU airlines think that if those nasty Yanks came over then they’d, the local, all go bust. Because the Yanks would provide better, cheaper, airline services than the EU types can. Therefore EU types must be protected at the expense of EU consumers.

And that’s it. It is to protect the producers at the expense of consumers.

Which is, of course, vile, yet it’s the motivating factor for the EU itself. People must be taxed for eating Argentinian beef because it’s nice and nice and cheap. Cane sugar must be taxed because it is cheaper than the chemically identical beet sugar produced by EU farmers. The entire economic structure is a zollverein. That is, while it has free trade – with regulation and oh aren’t there regulations – internally the aim is to protect inefficient domestic producers from those nasty foreigners. The people who suffer from this being the average EU citizen.

Thank God we’re leaving, eh?

SUPPORT US WITH A SUBSCRIPTION?

3 COMMENTS

  1. “EasyJet is preparing to strip British and other shareholders of their voting rights to avoid breaching strict EU ownership rules.”

    …by simply buying their shares off them? Or by stealing their property – those shareholding voting rights.

  2. “If you fly people in and out of the EU you can be owned by anyone. But if you fly people within it then you must be that 50% EU owned.”

    Because that is only what the Americans themselves have long demanded. – They have always insisted that internal American airline operators be effectively US owned – Richard Branson tried for a long time to set up an internal, US version of a low cost airline, as he eventually did in Australia with Virgin Blue, but was constantly stymied by American regulators. He did this partly because he got on famously with Herb Kelleher, who founded Southwest Airlines and who was the man who effectively invented that style of airline operation with his business partner Lamar Muse. Branson contemplated merging their operations but gave up in the end because there was basically no point in letting other people make money off of his company’s corporate image, no matter how much it was founded upon a good personal relationship.

    The Americans don’t let you buy their airlines. Nor do they let you in Asia. You can’t buy a controlling share in Emirates and you’ve taken leave of your senses to try that with any airline in China. Ryanair observantly keeps itself diligently and obediently “Irish.” Airlines are not really an industry in a meaningful sense.

    “And that’s it. It is to protect the producers at the expense of consumers. Which is, of course, vile, yet it’s the motivating factor for the EU itself. People must be taxed for eating Argentinian beef because it’s nice and nice and cheap. ”

    Cobblers. If something, a product or commodity, is created in sub-standard conditions, or is being actively and maliciously dumped, gratis, with the underlying motive of trashing your own capacity for production, what then? It’s not competition, it’s cheating. “We,” whoever “we” may be, briefly get access to this “cheap” stuff, but good luck affording any of it in the long term if you don’t have a job to pay for it.

  3. @ ASM
    Argentinian beef is free-range, generally better conditions for the bulls than on EU cattle-raising farms. I am not a fan of Argentina but the pampas gives it a natural advantage in the production of beef. The Argentines are not “dumping” beef – the definition of dumping is selling at below average cost (to get rid of surplus production at a bit above marginal cost) – they are exporting beef because that is the principal commodity where they have a competitive advantage.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

expunct

in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

American Hyperconsumerism Is Killing Fewer People!

This report does not say what the Guardian headline writers think it does: Three Americans create enough carbon emissions to kill one person, study finds The...

Contracts Often Lag New Revenue Streams

I've been - vaguely and not with any great interest - anticipating a story like this: Scarlett Johansson sues Walt Disney over Marvel’s Black Widow...

Richard Murphy Rediscovers Monetarism

We have a delightful example of how Richard Murphy simply doesn't understand the basic nuts and bolts of the economics he wants to impose...

Vox Is Missing The Point About Having A Constitution

Not that we should be all that surprised by this from the progressives at Vox. No government- well, no one not controlled by...

So Let’s Have An Elitist Technocracy Instead!

There's been a certain amount - OK, a lot - of squealing in the US about how democracy is the ultimate value and we...

Recent comments