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

Biden’s $15 Minimum Wage Is Going To Be A Disaster

The effects of this rise in the Federal minimum wage to $15 are going to be slow in arriving, this is true. That's what...

Seriously Folks, Tech Company Taxation Is A Problem That’s Solved Already

It would be interesting if the pages of our national newspapers were less than four years out of date. Well, obviously, they're allowed to...

These Musicians’ Visas – This Is What The EU Imposes On Everyone

There's much complaining and wailing about the manner in which musicians and other luvvies no longer get to tour the remnant EU without having...

If The Vaccine’s Worth $32 Trillion Then Why Are We Whining About The Pharma Companies?

The existence of - prompted by the idea that it is subsequently used - a covid vaccine has value. You know, nice to be...

Those Brexit Lies, Daniel Lambert And The Wine Imports

Daniel Lambert is a wine importer who is more than a little pissed off at the new bureaucracy surrounding the importation of wine from...

Recent comments