Brexit Referendum Superthread

Fratton Fred

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Macron hasn't said he's going to drop border security, simply that he'd consider trying to get out of the Le Touquet treaty, which permits UK border checkpoints on French territory and visa versa. If the treaty is abandoned, it simply goes back to the old way of doing things, i.e. border control is when you arrive in the UK (or France if going the other way).

I don't think he has even said that, only that he wants to renegotiate it, which lets face it, is an attempt to pinch a few votes from Le Pen.

There seems to be a belief that scrapping the agreements, will suddenly see thousands of refugees marching through the tunnel, which simply isn't going to happen. Those who can afford tickets may get through, but if they can afford tickets, why walk to Calais and risk life and limb jumping on a lorry, when they could probably get a Ryanair flight cheaper than a train ticket?

Chips Lovell

He did say renegotiate alright, but added that he wanted the part where the British border starts in Calais "back on the table", indicating he may look to scrap that aspect.

It's important to bear in mind that people are jumping on lorries not because they can't raise the price of a train or plane ticket, but because they think they're more likely to successfully cross the border. You can have a train ticket but at present still be turned away on French soil.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't think he has even said that, only that he wants to renegotiate it, which lets face it, is an attempt to pinch a few votes from Le Pen.

Macron doesn't need those, as Bob24 IMO correctly put to me (after I surmised the same as you at the time) in the "Next French President" thread.

What Macron does need however, and I daresay critically so, is to stake his pro-EU credentials and puff his pro-EU chest with the other EU26 as the newly-elected head of one of the EU core pillars, very early after his election.

Binning the part of the Le Touquet agreement allowing UK customs control on French soil does that (even though, bilateral as they are, they don't have much to do with the EU) to an extent, because it helps hinder a 'successful' Brexit, at little to no cost to France but procuring plenty of political capital in Brussels , not to mention French northern voter satisfaction.

Fratton Fred

So it's all about penalising Britain, despite the adverse effects to international travel?

What do the Belgians think if this, as I presume they will want a say?

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So it's all about penalising Britain, despite the adverse effects to international travel?

What do the Belgians think if this, as I presume they will want a say?

No, it's about doing what's best for the EU. All the EU national parliaments will have to ratify an UK-EU deal so everyone will have a say.

Chips Lovell

I doubt it's about penalising Britain. I think with the return of a hard border between the two countries, France has little incentive to retain Le Touquet as is.

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No, it's about doing what's best for the EU. All the EU national parliaments will have to ratify an UK-EU deal so everyone will have a say.

is ending juxtaposed border controls best for the eu? it will mean new border controls in French and Belgian train stations for starters, which will only delay international transport and add costs to a French rail company and French hauliers and companies who regularly use the crossing.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I doubt it's about penalising Britain. I think with the return of a hard border between the two countries, France has little incentive to retain Le Touquet as is.

If the French got nothing out of the agreement, they wouldn't have signed up for it. If they walk away, then they end up with 100% of the responsibility for the camps that remain and those that fail to jump on a lorry.

Chips Lovell

Well they did sign it in the context of both being EU members and prior to the current migrant crisis. Very different circumstances to now and there will be some debate about whether recent developments mean the cons now outweigh the pros for the French.

If it is a miscalculation and the French do end up worse off, then Britain has nothing to worry about.

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

is ending juxtaposed border controls best for the eu? it will mean new border controls in French and Belgian train stations for starters, which will only delay international transport and add costs to a French rail company and French hauliers and companies who regularly use the crossing.

If the French got nothing out of the agreement, they wouldn't have signed up for it. If they walk away, then they end up with 100% of the responsibility for the camps that remain and those that fail to jump on a lorry.

Presumably this was to help facilitate Britain taking in some of the migrants which has barely happened. I'm not surprised that the French want to renegotiate it.

Professor Moriarty

Consider this.

How many borders does mainland UK have with those countries to whom they export most of their goods? Answer: 0. Thus they are very dependent on the chunnel and ports in France.

How many borders does France have with countries to whom it exports most of its goods? Answer: 5. Thus they are far less dependent on the chunnel and British ports.

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Presumably this was to help facilitate Britain taking in some of the migrants which has barely happened. I'm not surprised that the French want to renegotiate it.

it was initially to close Sangatte I believe, which meant the UK taking in 2000 refugees. That was supposed to be the end of it though, Chirac and Blair didn't see the refugee camps as being an ongoing thing.

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Consider this.

How many borders does mainland UK have with those countries to whom they export most of their goods? Answer: 0. Thus they are very dependent on the chunnel and ports in France.

How many borders does France have with countries to whom it exports most of its goods? Answer: 5. Thus they are far less dependent on the chunnel and British ports.

I'd have thought most of it goes Felixstowe to Antwerp

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it was initially to close Sangatte I believe, which meant the UK taking in 2000 refugees. That was supposed to be the end of it though, Chirac and Blair didn't see the refugee camps as being an ongoing thing.

Unfortunately, that turned out to be the case. The situation has, since then changed dramatically while the UK has not yet taken in the 20,000 refugees David Cameron said it would.

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Unfortunately, that turned out to be the case. The situation has, since then changed dramatically while the UK has not yet taken in the 20,000 refugees David Cameron said it would.

the UK could do more, but I thought those 20,000 weren't from those already in Europe, so it wouldn't make any difference to the camps in Calais.

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'd have thought most of it goes Felixstowe to Antwerp

£44 billion worth of exports (30% of exports to the EU) goes through the chunnel alone, never mind Calais.

Water John

That's a long tailback. Hardly get out of London.

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

£44 billion worth of exports (30% of exports to the EU) goes through the chunnel alone, never mind Calais.

the uk exports £240Bn to the eu, so £44Bn is only 18%. Calais would be a lot less I would imagine.

nearly half of the UK's container traffic goes out of Felixstowe, 25% of which would go direct to Rotterdam or Antwerp.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

That's a long tailback. Hardly get out of London.

Chunnel traffic: 2900 freight trains. 1,400,000 trucks. 2,600,000 coaches and cars.

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the uk exports £240Bn to the eu, so £44Bn is only 18%. Calais would be a lot less I would imagine.

nearly half of the UK's container traffic goes out of Felixstowe, 25% of which would go direct to Rotterdam or Antwerp.

Not according to Ernest & Young's report on the Channel Tunnel (worth browsing through) The figures are for 2014. A direct quote:

"EY analysis based on a survey of Channel Tunnel freight customers estimates that the total value of exports transported through the Tunnel in 2014 was £43.6bn7. This represents 30% of the total value of UK exports to EU countries."

Water John

Maybe a stupid question, but was that exports going into Europe, excluding us, which is a different direction?

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Not according to Ernest & Young's report on the Channel Tunnel (worth browsing through) The figures are for 2014. A direct quote:

"EY analysis based on a survey of Channel Tunnel freight customers estimates that the total value of exports transported through the Tunnel in 2014 was £43.6bn7. This represents 30% of the total value of UK exports to EU countries."

Jesus, is this even worth arguing? The tunnel is important, no one would have spent billions building it if it wasn't. Its worth noting that the French paid for half of it as well, so they obviously see some value in it.

it isn't the only access in and out of the UK though. The North East send cars out through the port in Tyne, 42% of containers go out through Felixstowe, Southampton has a huge container facility as well.

I would hazard a guess and say that those EY figures are for goods only, not total exports because total exports are around £240Bn,

steddyeddy

Euratam, Europe's nuclear energy commission said that Brexit will bring severe disruption to the UK's nuclear energy generation.

Is there anyone still saying the UK will be better off post Brexit?

https://www.ft.com/content/b87adb38-2e51-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Jesus, is this even worth arguing? The tunnel is important, no one would have spent billions building it if it wasn't. Its worth noting that the French paid for half of it as well, so they obviously see some value in it.

it isn't the only access in and out of the UK though. The North East send cars out through the port in Tyne, 42% of containers go out through Felixstowe, Southampton has a huge container facility as well.

I would hazard a guess and say that those EY figures are for goods only, not total exports because total exports are around £240Bn,

Whether or which, my point remains. Britain needs access to continental Europe far more than continental Europe needs access to Britain. Of course, in a Mexican standoff on trade, everyone loses but Britain would suffer much more. Thus, in that context alone, Britain is negotiating from a weaker position.

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Jesus, is this even worth arguing? The tunnel is important, no one would have spent billions building it if it wasn't. Its worth noting that the French paid for half of it as well, so they obviously see some value in it.

it isn't the only access in and out of the UK though. The North East send cars out through the port in Tyne, 42% of containers go out through Felixstowe, Southampton has a huge container facility as well.

I would hazard a guess and say that those EY figures are for goods only, not total exports because total exports are around £240Bn,

I am wondering how much you know about the financing of the construction of the Channel tunnel. It was, at the outset, privately financed, because Thatcher refused to finance it but had no objection to it being privately financed, and the French shareholders got wiped out in a debt restructuring. No one argues that there is value in the tunnel but it was delivered a year late, cost more than double to build than initially planned, and its financing set up was highly complex - overly so given the ensuing difficulties which probably added to its woes in terms of trying to refinance and rescue the company at points. .

It is, however, key infrastructure. In an ideal world it would have been built with public funds. However, there is no way Thatcher would have paid for it. It is notable also that by the time the tunnel came into operation, the French had high speed rail connections to it, but the British did not, and did not have it for quite some time. As a metaphor for interest in key infrastructure projects linking the UK to the continent it was quite impressive to travel on it in the early days: struggling through UK commuter belt at about 100KMH only to speed up to 300kmh almost immediately after coming out the other side.

As such, it is unsafe to say the British paid for half and the French paid for half. The financing was complex and a mess. Truth is, the tunnel was important and Britain still didn't want to pay for it anyway. But they haven't changed you know, Fred. HS 2 is taking ages, and as for the additional runway at Heathrow...The vision that got the tunnel built was not in the British government at the time because they did not really care. Ultimately it didn't matter because they got dragged in when the company got into serious trouble. But I suspect a lot of that could have been avoided if they had financed it up front without what was a complex private structure. It only started making a profit a couple of years ago and is still massively debt ridden. The concession to operate it was extended by 10 years to enable the to make enough money to pay off the debts at some stage.

As an additional note, there is still plenty of freight capacity and AFAIK DB was due to start running freight through it last year as well. Of course, a slow down in the UK may cause problems there and I don't know at this point whether that actually started.

Anyway the point which I think someone was trying to make to you was that you were woefully under estimating the proportion by value of UK exports which went out via the tunnel.

Fratton Fred

Calina wrote: »

I am wondering how much you know about the financing of the construction of the Channel tunnel. It was, at the outset, privately financed, because Thatcher refused to finance it but had no objection to it being privately financed, and the French shareholders got wiped out in a debt restructuring. No one argues that there is value in the tunnel but it was delivered a year late, cost more than double to build than initially planned, and its financing set up was highly complex - overly so given the ensuing difficulties which probably added to its woes in terms of trying to refinance and rescue the company at points. .

It is, however, key infrastructure. In an ideal world it would have been built with public funds. However, there is no way Thatcher would have paid for it. It is notable also that by the time the tunnel came into operation, the French had high speed rail connections to it, but the British did not, and did not have it for quite some time. As a metaphor for interest in key infrastructure projects linking the UK to the continent it was quite impressive to travel on it in the early days: struggling through UK commuter belt at about 100KMH only to speed up to 300kmh almost immediately after coming out the other side.

As such, it is unsafe to say the British paid for half and the French paid for half. The financing was complex and a mess. Truth is, the tunnel was important and Britain still didn't want to pay for it anyway. But they haven't changed you know, Fred. HS 2 is taking ages, and as for the additional runway at Heathrow...The vision that got the tunnel built was not in the British government at the time because they did not really care. Ultimately it didn't matter because they got dragged in when the company got into serious trouble. But I suspect a lot of that could have been avoided if they had financed it up front without what was a complex private structure. It only started making a profit a couple of years ago and is still massively debt ridden. The concession to operate it was extended by 10 years to enable the to make enough money to pay off the debts at some stage.

As an additional note, there is still plenty of freight capacity and AFAIK DB was due to start running freight through it last year as well. Of course, a slow down in the UK may cause problems there and I don't know at this point whether that actually started.

Anyway the point which I think someone was trying to make to you was that you were woefully under estimating the proportion by value of UK exports which went out via the tunnel.

nice lecture.

It tells us a lot more about you than it does about the matter in hand though.

steddyeddy

I suspect there will be a huge rethinking of Brexit following May's meeting with Junker.

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

nice lecture.

It tells us a lot more about you than it does about the matter in hand though.

Stop sniping. If this is all you have to add then don't.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So it's all about penalising Britain, despite the adverse effects to international travel?

France didn't vote to "take back control" of its borders, Britain did.

Considering the straightfowardly-predictable extent of disruption to international travel associated with Brexit (free movement, CTA, OpenSkies <...> ), the UK can't have been that bothered about disruption to international travel, surely? Or must have thaught it was acceptable collateral damage for regaining their 'lost' sovereignty?

....or is it a case that this whole Brexit lark wasn't really thought through, much, to begin with? :pac:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What do the Belgians think if this, as I presume they will want a say?

They have xray machines for outgoing UK-bound cars as well. Certainly in Zeebrugge (overnight ferry to Hull). I guess they'll not be far behind Macron. Very practical and European-minded, Belgians are.

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

France didn't vote to "take back control" of its borders, Britain did.

did it? I thought it was about fishing quotas

ambro25 wrote: »

Considering the straightfowardly-predictable extent of disruption to international travel associated with Brexit (free movement, CTA, OpenSkies <...> ), the UK can't have been that bothered about disruption to international travel, surely? Or must have thaught it was acceptable collateral damage for regaining their 'lost' sovereignty?

....or is it a case that this whole Brexit lark wasn't really thought through, much, to begin with? :pac:

I think we all know that.

ambro25 wrote: »

They have xray machines for outgoing UK-bound cars as well. Certainly in Zeebrugge (overnight ferry to Hull). I guess they'll not be far behind Macron. Very practical and European-minded, Belgians are.

I was thinking more about the immigration halls that will need to be built at Midi station.

ambro25

Between your inelegant one-liner to Calina earlier, and now the above, can I just ask: are you drunk, or otherwise impaired all of a sudden?

Because your replies lately make about as much sense as treacle.

Let me know when it's safe to resume normal service.