Brexit discussion thread II

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

Currently, the notional UK employer of the notional UK worker in the UK, to supply the <EU28> demand for <good/service>, competes on a level playing field with the notional <EU27> employer of the notional <EU27> worker in the <EU27> country.

Post-Brexit, the notional UK employer of the notional UK worker in the UK, to supply the <EU28> demand for <good/service>, still competes with the notional <EU27> employer of the notional <EU27> worker in the <EU27> country, but not a level playing field anymore: the UK cost base is impacted by additional tariffs, customs processing, regulatory compliance checks, other NTBs, <etc.>, because the UK is not in the club anymore, and so now subjected to them like everybody else outside the club.

Meanwhile, the cost base of the notional <EU27> competitors remains unchanged, so the notional <EU27> competitors all gain a cost advantage over the notional UK employer. Through doing nothing, which is bonus for them :pac:

Before or after Brexit, the notional UK employer of the notional UK worker in the UK, still competes with notional <non-EU> employers of notional <non-EU> workers outside the EU of course. Only now, the UK employer does not enjoy the 'protective' relief from the EU tariffs, customs processing, regulatory compliance checks, other NTBs <etc.>, and so competes with them on a more level playing field (more level for the notional <non-EU> employers).

All things (overall procedural costs of goods entering the EU27) being equal, the UK employer must align his cost base on those of his non-EU competitors (FTA'd ones or not, depending on what relationship the UK gets with the EU).

That means either trimming profitability levels, and/or driving down labour costs (and other overheads), and/or increasing productivity (bearing in mind the UK starts from a red lantern position compared to many <EU27> employers, never mind the <non-EU> ones). Guess which?

I wonder if Foxconn are scouting in the UK yet? :pac:

So a worker in Ireland competes on the same level playing field with a worker in Poland?

Tell me, why did Dell up sticks and move manufacturing to Lodz?

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So a worker in Ireland competes on the same level playing field with a worker in Poland?

Of course they do: that's exactly what the freedom of movement of workers permits throughout the EU. Your Irish worker is perfectly at liberty to go work in Poland, if the job and pay is better there; and reciprocally.

But I note what looks like sleight-of-hand in your reply: you will have noted of course, that I referred to their respective employers in my post, competing against each other within the SM to meet EU28 demand; not to the workers themselves. So, er, what gives?

With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps I should have qualified the level playing field in my post as a regulatory playing field (which is what the EU achieves with the SM indeed, for any EU-based business), since -but of course- the labour cost differentiator constituted by local living standards is always at play, both within and outside the EU.

All the same, we can now take from your reply, that you do understand that labour cost differentiator constituted by local living standards perfectly well, and therefore that there is no reason to doubt that you understand its effect on price competition both within and from outside of the EU equally well.

That provides a useful context in which to appreciate your earlier replies to Jim2007's point (that a worker in the Brexited UK will compete with a worker in e.g. China, rather than Poland, hence expected drop in UK worker remuneration):

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Welcome to free market economics.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You do know competitive bidding has nothing to do with the eu, Brexit or anything else, don't you?

don't you think? :pac:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Tell me, why did Dell up sticks and move manufacturing to Lodz?

For the exact same reason UK car assemblers will eventually move jobs to Slovakia; Airbus UK will eventually move manufacturing to [Toulouse/elsewhere intra-EU]; Square Mile banks will eventually move/repatriate Euro trading jobs to [Dublin/Paris/Frankfurt]; and services exporters the length and breadth of the UK are opening EU subsidiaries and creating EU jobs instead of UK jobs: to service the EU Single Market at least cost.

The only alternative available to UK exporters to the EU, to remain price-competitive in view of these new exporting costs, is to absorb these new exporting costs either into their profit margin or into their UK labour costs (Jim2007's point), or a combination of both. I asked you "guess which?", and I take this opportunity to ask you again

sondagefaux

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So a worker in Ireland competes on the same level playing field with a worker in Poland?

Tell me, why did Dell up sticks and move manufacturing to Lodz?

Countries that want to maintain high wages for workers need high-value, high productivity sectors, not assembly plants putting parts together.

The Dell plant was no longer viable just like Irish car assembly plants weren't viable after Ireland joined the EEC and the exemptions that initially protected them expired. Ford closed down its Cork car assembly plant in 1984.

Infamously, the government of Charlie Haughey in the same period of the early 1980s paid the wages of workers at the Talbot car assembly plant in Co. Dublin, although even having the state pay its workers' wages (hardly a sustainable economic model) didn't stop the plant from eventually closing.

A typical example was the Talbot car workers dispute in 1981. Talbot wished to close its assembly plant in Santry, north Dublin. Haughey, desperate not to have a messy dispute on his constituency doorstep on the eve of an election, simply guaranteed the workers that the State - i.e. everyone else in Ireland - would pay their salaries!

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/the-higher-he-rose-the-lower-he-stooped-1.250756

Apart from the massive hit to the economy (and thus employment and wages) caused by the self-inflicted damage caused by allowing a stupid property bubble to inflate and burst, Ireland has coped very will with the addition of new member states to the EU and wages have increased in Ireland since 2004 when 10 new members, including Poland joined, while unemployment fell until the bloody stupid property bubble burst.

The property bubble in Ireland wasn't caused by new member states joining.

And the fallout from the property bubble bursting wasn't caused by new member states joining.

If there had been no property bubble, Irish employment rates and wages could have held up since 2004 without interruption.

Cumulative wage growth in Poland since it joined the EU has been over 30%:

https://tradingeconomics.com/poland/wage-growth

The chart shows wages increasing in every period over the past 10 years, albeit much more slowly in some periods than in others (eg. look at how fast wages increased in Poland in 2007 and 2008 compared to after 2008).

Per capita GDP in Poland increased from $11322.05 in 2007 to $15,048.98 in 2016. That's an overall increase of about 33% in 10 years despite the global economic crash that slowed growth between 2009 and 2016.

The more realistic measure of Irish wealth (GNI*) now being trialled by the Central Stastics Office put the overall size of the Irish economy at €189.2 billion, or €39,732 per capita (equivalent to $45,767).

Since it joined the EU Poland has gone from being about one-fifth as wealthy as Ireland was in 2004 to about one-third as wealthy as Ireland was in 2016.

The rate at which it's converging on north-western Europe is much faster than the rate at which Ireland converged on the rest of north-western Europe after it joined the EEC.

For now, Poland has some competitive advantages when it comes to labour and others costs. But those advantages are being eroded.

Eventually there will be convergence between Polish (and other cheaper EU countries) and western European wage levels as there was with Irish and western European wage levels.

Despite the cost advantages that the cheaper EU countries have over Ireland, it hasn't stopped Ireland from being the favourite choice of country for foreign investment into the EU:

Ireland is the leading onshore European Union (EU) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) white-listed location for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), and 2015 was a record year for FDI into Ireland.

Ireland was identified as the number one destination for U.S. foreign direct investment in a 2014 report commissioned by the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland.

The Irish economy is enjoying a period of renewed growth. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose by 5.2 percent in 2014 and by an estimated 6 percent last year. The biggest driver of Ireland’s economic success is FDI. As the most globalized country in the western world, Ireland’s export industry is thriving, which is not surprising given some of the following independent analysis:

– “In the top five best countries to do business” – Forbes Magazine 2014;

– “Number one in the world for investment incentives” – IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2014;

– “Best place to invest in Western Europe” – Site Selection magazine 2014;

– “World’s most globalised country” – KOF – Globalisation List 2015;

– “In the top 10 most innovative countries in the world” – (2015 Global Innovations Index (GII));and

– “World leader in attracting high value FDI projects” – IBM Global Locations Trends 2015.

The figures speak for themselves:

U.S .companies have invested €240bn in FDI in Ireland;
130,000 people are employed in U.S. companies in Ireland. Those companies have invested more than $277bn in Ireland since 1990;
U.S. companies in Ireland export over $80bn in goods and services annually (4 times more than US Companies in China);
US FDI in Ireland increased by 42 percent in the first nine months of 2014 to $37bn. During the same period, total investment to Europe fell 19 percent to $115 billion;
Research & Development (R&D) outlay by U.S. affiliates in Ireland more than doubled between 2000 and 2012 from $465 million to $1.5 billion; and
U.S. assets in Ireland total $1.2tn.

https://leman.ie/ireland-the-number-one-destination-for-foreign-direct-investment/

Ireland attracted 4.3% of all FDI (foreign direct investment) into the EU in 2015*, even though it has less than 1% of the EU's total population, only represents 1.7% of the total EU economy and despite the fact that three other EU countries (Cyprus - 12.5%, Bulgaria - 10%, Hungary - 9%) have corporation tax rates equal to or lower than Ireland's corporation tax rate (source: https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/tax-rates-online/corporate-tax-rates-table.html).

*

Foreign companies are continuing to flock to Ireland despite the twin shocks of Brexit and a €13bn adverse tax ruling against technology giant Apple last year.

The country, which has been a magnet for US technology and pharmaceutical companies for nearly three decades, saw a record 99 new investments in 2016 that helped to create jobs at the fastest rate for 15 years, according to figures from IDA Ireland, the inward investment agency.

...

But there had been a “significant volume of specific queries” from UK, US and Asian companies to IDA Ireland after the Brexit referendum, the agency said on Tuesday.

Companies were making “detailed due diligence of a small number of locations within Europe” to ensure they had continued access to the European single market, and “Ireland is among those locations”, it said.

...

The data show Ireland attracted 4.3 per cent of all FDI coming into the EU in 2015 although it represents just 1.7 per cent of the EU economy.

https://www.ft.com/content/06fe175e-d1c6-11e6-9341-7393bb2e1b51?mhq5j=e1

Summary: Poland and other EU countries have cost advantages compared to Ireland. As they grow increasingly wealthy, these cost advantages are being eroded. Despite the current cost advantages other EU countries have over Ireland, it remains the number one recipient of US foreign direct investment (FDI) out of all the EU countries and attracts over four times as much FDI per capita than the EU average.

Zubeneschamali

ambro25 wrote: »

The only alternative available to UK exporters to the EU, to remain price-competitive in view of these new exporting costs, is to absorb these new exporting costs either into their profit margin or into their UK labour costs

Thanks to the UK staying out of the Euro, some of this will happen automatically via currency movements.

Sterling has weakened considerably against the Euro, so labour in the UK is cheaper now (in Euros) than it was. Today's "UK in a Changing Europe" remoaner report predicts a further 10-15% fall in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

sondagefaux

If cheaper labour was the deciding factor in all cases how come Ireland gets such a disproportionate share of FDI within the EU?

And how come the countries around the world with the cheapest labour costs (presumably mostly in sub-Saharan Africa) don't have the lowest unemployment rates?

It's almost as if cheap labour is only one factor when companies make decisions about where to locate.

There's little point in being able to pay your workers less if you can't sell the products made by those workers into one of your largest markets.

An Ciarraioch

Ironically, after the UK spent the last few years calling for freedom of movement restrictions, Britons are facing the first threats:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/20/britons-living-in-europe-could-lose-right-to-live-in-another-eu-country

sondagefaux

Sports Direct, a major UK retailer, has seen a near 60% fall in underlying profits mainly as a result of higher import costs due to the fall in the value of Sterling as a result of the Brexit referendum vote.

Sports Direct has reported a near-60% drop in annual profits but insisted it is still on track to become the “Selfridges of sport”.

Underlying profits before tax at the sportswear chain slumped by 58.7% from £275.2m to £113.7m in the year to the end of April. The retailer also announced it has appointed a finance director for the first time since 2013.

The company’s billionaire founder and chief executive, Mike Ashley, blamed the fall in profits on the pound’s decline against the dollar, which he said had a “significant impact”.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/20/sports-direct-weak-pound-profits-mike-ashley

Sports Direct is notorious for the poor wages it pays employees and the poor working conditions it makes them endure.

MPs have accused one of Europe's biggest retailers of not treating its workers like humans.

A report by the Business, Innovation and Skills committee states Sports Direct founder Mike Ashley must be held accountable for company failings.

Evidence suggested Sports Direct's working practices were similar to those of a Victorian workhouse, one MP said.

In response, Sports Direct said in a statement that its policy is to treat all people "with dignity and respect".

It comes after Mr Ashley recently told MPs the firm was being investigated over staff being paid below the minimum wage.

Union officials told MPs that in one case an employee had given birth in a toilet at the company's warehouse base in Shirebrook, Derbyshire, because she feared losing her job if she called in sick.

Allegations also surfaced of some workers being promised permanent contracts in exchange for sexual favours.

Committee chairman Iain Wright said evidence heard by MPs last month suggested Sports Direct's working practices "are closer to that of a Victorian workhouse than that of a modern, reputable High Street retailer".

"It's seems incredible that Mike Ashley, who visits the warehouse at least once a week, was unaware of these appalling practices," Mr Wright said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-36855374

The UK parliament's report into working conditions at Sports Direct:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmbis/219/219.pdf

I wonder what methods Sports Direct will use to try to regain profitability?

Cut wages and conditions for ordinary workers or cut management salaries and bonuses?

Or will the founder and senior managers just carry on living it up?



http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/04/sports-directs-mike-ashley-had-12-pints-before-vomiting-in-fireplace-during-meeting-6753231/

sondagefaux

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Ironically, after the UK spent the last few years calling for freedom of movement restrictions, Britons are facing the first threats:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/20/britons-living-in-europe-could-lose-right-to-live-in-another-eu-country

The EU is hardly going to permit freedom of movement for British citizens unless the rights they're granted are reciprocated by the UK for citizens of EU countries.

A majority of respondents to this survey said they would be satisfied with freedom of movement if the UK was allowed to restrict benefit payments to new arrivals.



As of now, the UK restricts benefit payments to new arrivals for the first three months (no Jobseekers, no rent payments, no non-emergency NHS treatment) and the deal Cameron got the EU to agree to before the referendum would have allowed the UK to impose restrictions in in-work subsidies to people on low incomes (known as Working Tax Credit/Child Tax Credit) and on child benefit payments.

In addition, existing EU law permits the UK to remove other EU nationals after three months if they haven't found a job/started a course of study in a recognised establishment and can't otherwise support themselves and their dependants.

Basically, a majority of British people are in favour of remaining in the Single Market (or even remaining in the EU) and are willing to accept freedom of movement (with some restrictions) to permit this:

Britons would rather see a Brexit based on compromise which retains access to the single market and keeps freedom of movement than see a hardline departure from the European Union without a deal with Brussels, according to new research. Such is the level of concern about the damage to the economy that could be caused by a so-called “hard Brexit”, which could see the UK revert to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) system of tariffs, that voters would prefer to abandon the process and remain in the European Union than see such a scenario. “The British public are sophisticated enough to understand that they can’t ‘have their cake and eat it’ and will need to make and accept compromises to reach a deal.”

The comprehensive study by King’s College London, Cambridge University and think-tank RAND Europe found that rather than making curbing inward European Union migration to the UK the main goal of Brexit, Britons want primacy to be given to striking trade deals both with the EU and other countries. The findings suggests that Britons do not agree with Prime Minister Theresa May’s insistence that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal” and are willing to surrender a degree of sovereignty in return for the most favourable trading conditions.

Nearly two thirds of people want a deal which maintains close ties with Brussels, including an acceptance of some EU legislation and a need to continue contributing to the Brussels budget. The single most popular model, backed by nearly 40 per cent of voters, is for Brexit to result in a “Norway-style” relationship with Brussels from 2019 onwards.

Public services
The study, based on a new methodology which asks people to choose between different Brexit scenarios and priorities, found in particular that Britons, including those who voted Leave, are not fixated with halting migration. Instead they are concerned about managing its impact on public services, for example by restricting access only to non-UK citizens who have jobs. The authors of the study said it found that Britons were pragmatic and recognised a need to compromise to reach a deal with Brussels. David Howarth, professor of law and public policy at Cambridge University, said: “The public’s ranking of a Norway-style deal above remaining in the EU is not surprising in the light of the referendum result. But the public’s ranking of remaining in the EU above crashing out with no deal into WTO terms should worry those who claim that the referendum and the general election give a mandate for Brexit at any price.”

Norwegian model
The survey of nearly 1,000 voters found that 37 per cent of Britons favoured an arrangement which retained membership of the single market but involved leaving the customs union, meaning the UK could strike its own trade deals outside the EU. Such a model would closely resemble Norway’s relationship with Brussels. A further 22 per cent favoured an even closer relationship, with the EU retaining the power to legislate in areas such as employment and the environment. Only a quarter of people prefer a “full sovereignty” option with Britain making all its own laws. Jonathan Grant, professor of public policy at King’s College London, said: “Our research clearly shows that the British people do not wish to head over a cliff edge and leave the EU on WTO rules – they want a proper deal. “The British public are sophisticated enough to understand that they can’t ‘have their cake and eat it’ and will need to make and accept compromises to reach a deal.”

Immigration
The study found that when it comes to control of immigration, Britons are primarily motivated by a desire to manage access to public services, with a majority favouring an arrangement whereby the use of healthcare or education is restricted to those with jobs and their dependents. It is accepted that the same arrangement should apply to Britons in the EU. The disparity between university-educated Britons and those without degrees, which saw 57 per cent of those with degrees vote for Remain in the referendum, was also reflected in the survey. Those with degrees are least likely to favour a Brexit which will allow the UK to make all its own laws and prefer to see Britain remain subject to EU laws in areas such as trade, employment, the environment and consumer protection. Those with a lower level of education have the opposite view, preferring Britain to have direct control over all legislation.

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/britons-rather-stay-european-union-crash-hard-brexit-study/

Fratton Fred

sondagefaux wrote: »

Countries that want to maintain high wages for workers need high-value, high productivity sectors, not assembly plants putting parts together.

The Dell plant was no longer viable just like Irish car assembly plants weren't viable after Ireland joined the EEC and the exemptions that initially protected them expired. Ford closed down its Cork car assembly plant in 1984.

Infamously, the government of Charlie Haughey in the same period of the early 1980s paid the wages of workers at the Talbot car assembly plant in Co. Dublin, although even having the state pay its workers' wages (hardly a sustainable economic model) didn't stop the plant from eventually closing.



https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/the-higher-he-rose-the-lower-he-stooped-1.250756

Apart from the massive hit to the economy (and thus employment and wages) caused by the self-inflicted damage caused by allowing a stupid property bubble to inflate and burst, Ireland has coped very will with the addition of new member states to the EU and wages have increased in Ireland since 2004 when 10 new members, including Poland joined, while unemployment fell until the bloody stupid property bubble burst.

The property bubble in Ireland wasn't caused by new member states joining.

And the fallout from the property bubble bursting wasn't caused by new member states joining.

If there had been no property bubble, Irish employment rates and wages could have held up since 2004 without interruption.

Cumulative wage growth in Poland since it joined the EU has been over 30%:

https://tradingeconomics.com/poland/wage-growth

The chart shows wages increasing in every period over the past 10 years, albeit much more slowly in some periods than in others (eg. look at how fast wages increased in Poland in 2007 and 2008 compared to after 2008).

Per capita GDP in Poland increased from $11322.05 in 2007 to $15,048.98 in 2016. That's an overall increase of about 33% in 10 years despite the global economic crash that slowed growth between 2009 and 2016.

The more realistic measure of Irish wealth (GNI*) now being trialled by the Central Stastics Office put the overall size of the Irish economy at €189.2 billion, or €39,732 per capita (equivalent to $45,767).

Since it joined the EU Poland has gone from being about one-fifth as wealthy as Ireland was in 2004 to about one-third as wealthy as Ireland was in 2016.

The rate at which it's converging on north-western Europe is much faster than the rate at which Ireland converged on the rest of north-western Europe after it joined the EEC.

For now, Poland has some competitive advantages when it comes to labour and others costs. But those advantages are being eroded.

Eventually there will be convergence between Polish (and other cheaper EU countries) and western European wage levels as there was with Irish and western European wage levels.

Despite the cost advantages that the cheaper EU countries have over Ireland, it hasn't stopped Ireland from being the favourite choice of country for foreign investment into the EU:



https://leman.ie/ireland-the-number-one-destination-for-foreign-direct-investment/

Ireland attracted 4.3% of all FDI (foreign direct investment) into the EU in 2015*, even though it has less than 1% of the EU's total population, only represents 1.7% of the total EU economy and despite the fact that three other EU countries (Cyprus - 12.5%, Bulgaria - 10%, Hungary - 9%) have corporation tax rates equal to or lower than Ireland's corporation tax rate (source: https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/tax-rates-online/corporate-tax-rates-table.html).

*


https://www.ft.com/content/06fe175e-d1c6-11e6-9341-7393bb2e1b51?mhq5j=e1

Summary: Poland and other EU countries have cost advantages compared to Ireland. As they grow increasingly wealthy, these cost advantages are being eroded. Despite the current cost advantages other EU countries have over Ireland, it remains the number one recipient of US foreign direct investment (FDI) out of all the EU countries and attracts over four times as much FDI per capita than the EU average.

So what are you claiming, that Ireland has some sort of hugely productive workforce and that attracts us companies, it maybe it's that famous Irish hospitality they come looking for?

Or maybe it's just the numerous loopholes in Irish law that allows them to greatly reduce their European tax liability?

listermint

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So what are you claiming, that Ireland has some sort of hugely productive workforce and that attracts us companies, it maybe it's that famous Irish hospitality they come looking for?

Or maybe it's just the numerous loopholes in Irish law that allows them to greatly reduce their European tax liability?

Plenty of other countries have the same loopholes. So I guess it is the hospitality, the culture the ease of operation.

Or maybe it's a combination of all of the above. Would you not agree.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

The only alternative available to UK exporters to the EU, to remain price-competitive in view of these new exporting costs, is to absorb these new exporting costs either into their profit margin or into their UK labour costs

Thanks to the UK staying out of the Euro, some of this will happen automatically via currency movements.

Sterling has weakened considerably against the Euro, so labour in the UK is cheaper now (in Euros) than it was. Today's "UK in a Changing Europe" remoaner report predicts a further 10-15% fall in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

So the average Briton is already financially worse off and this could worsen further?

Brexit will have to be an astonishingly success to compensate for such losses.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

The only alternative available to UK exporters to the EU, to remain price-competitive in view of these new exporting costs, is to absorb these new exporting costs either into their profit margin or into their UK labour costs

Thanks to the UK staying out of the Euro, some of this will happen automatically via currency movements.

Sterling has weakened considerably against the Euro, so labour in the UK is cheaper now (in Euros) than it was. Today's "UK in a Changing Europe" remoaner report predicts a further 10-15% fall in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

So the average Briton is already financially worse off and this could worsen further?

Brexit will have to be an astonishingly success to compensate for such losses.

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

So the average Briton is already financially worse off and this could worsen further?

Brexit will have to be an astonishingly success to compensate for such losses.

The Brexit camp have stated openly that there will be a price to pay, but it will be worth it to get back control and sovereignty. They do not even pretend that the growth lost will ever be made back.

The only disagreement is how big the losses will be. The UK government pre-referendum said a hard brexit would cost 6% of GDP. I think they were very optimistic.

Inquitus

Interesting report on the cost of "No Deal"

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Cost-of-No-Deal-The-UK-in-a-Changing-Europe.pdf

BlitzKrieg

all that talk of joining EFTA and we leave out a key detail

EFTA has to be unanimous in all its decisions, including accepting new members.

there have been mixed messages from the current members if they'd accept the uk or not. Iceland seems in favour but norway has bounced back and forth. And I cant seem to find any comment from Lichtenstein or Switzerland.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

View wrote: »

So the average Briton is already financially worse off and this could worsen further?

Brexit will have to be an astonishingly success to compensate for such losses.

The Brexit camp have stated openly that there will be a price to pay, but it will be worth it to get back control and sovereignty. They do not even pretend that the growth lost will ever be made back.

That's not what they said to the British public during the referendum.

Then it was more a case of "Leave EU" and suddenly everyone is better off. The reality is likely to be "Leave EU" and everyone is worse off apart from the politicians who hold Ministerial office as a result of their pro-Brexit stance.

ambro25

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

all that talk of joining EFTA and we leave out a key detail

EFTA has to be unanimous in all its decisions, including accepting new members.

there have been mixed messages from the current members if they'd accept the uk or not. Iceland seems in favour but norway has bounced back and forth. And I cant seem to find any comment from Lichtenstein or Switzerland.

Personally, I doubt that the EFTA members would agree to the UK joining within the Article 50 timescale, for eminently pragmatic reasons: the UK is, quite simply, too politically unsound and fragmented, to constitute a reliable partner.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

Personally, I doubt that the EFTA members would agree to the UK joining within the Article 50 timescale, for eminently pragmatic reasons: the UK is, quite simply, too politically unsound and fragmented, to constitute a reliable partner.

It's also much bigger than the other EFTA members both in terms of population and economically.

Capt'n Midnight

ambro25 wrote: »

Personally, I doubt that the EFTA members would agree to the UK joining within the Article 50 timescale, for eminently pragmatic reasons: the UK is, quite simply, too politically unsound and fragmented, to constitute a reliable partner.

It's going to be hard to get consensus when the UK doesn't seem to know what it wants yet. The two party flip/flop FPTP system won't help either.

http://www.efta.int/faq

The EFTA Council is the highest governing body of EFTA, where the four EFTA States – Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland – meet at ambassadorial or ministerial level. Each Member State is represented and decisions are taken by consensus.

Also the UK has a much larger population and GDP, and the whole Brexit thing is to take back control, so they won't be happy with a situation where a country with a population of less than 40,000 would have the same rights they have.

sondagefaux

ambro25 wrote: »

Personally, I doubt that the EFTA members would agree to the UK joining within the Article 50 timescale, for eminently pragmatic reasons: the UK is, quite simply, too politically unsound and fragmented, to constitute a reliable partner.

It's not possible for the UK to join EFTA while it remains a member of the EU.

It could make informal approaches to the EFTA members (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland) and, if they're unanimously agreeable to the UK joining (EFTA decisions are taken unanimously), preparations could be made to ensure the UK joins EFTA as soon as possible after it leaves the EU.

However, membership of EFTA is not the same as membership of the European Economic Area.

Three out of four members of EFTA (Iceland, Norway & Liechtenstein) are parties to the EEA Agreement, Switzerland can become party but chose not to and instead its relationships with the EU are governed by a set of bilateral EU-Switzerland treaties.

Even if the UK was allowed to join EFTA, it would have to get the agreement of the other EEA Agreement parties (i.e. the 27 remaining EU states plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland) and accept all the responsibilities of EEA membership, including freedom of movement, to become a party to the EEA Agreement.

I've seen it argued that the UK could remain a party to the EEA Agreement because Article 127 of the Agreement requires parties to give 12 months notice before withdrawing.

However, Article 126 says that the Parties to the EEA Agreement are Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and those territories to which the European Community (now European Union) treaties apply.

Once the UK leaves the EU, its treaties will no longer apply to the UK's territories (this is stated explicitly in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union) and therefore the EEA Agreement will no longer be a contracting party to the EEA Agreement, rendering the Article 127 obligation null and void as regards the UK.

Basically, the UK is a party to the EEA Agreeement as a result of its membership of the EU and it cannot be party to the EEA Agreement once it leaves the EU unless the other parties to the EEA Agreement unanimously agree to change the Agreement to allow for continued UK membership - so much for 'taking back control'.

The text of the EEA Agreement is here:

http://www.efta.int/Legal-Text/EEA-Agreement-1327

The main text has to be read in conjunction with the Protocols and Annexes for you to get a full picture of its legal implications.

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's going to be hard to get consensus when the UK doesn't seem to know what it wants yet. The two party flip/flop FPTP system won't help either.

Good evening!

It's worth pointing out that the bolded statement is a myth.

In January the Prime Minister laid out the direction of travel in her Lancaster House speech.

In March the Government published a white paper explaining the type of relationship Britain wants after Brexit.

In March the Prime Minister explained the desired aims of the Government in the Article 50 letter.

It isn't true to say that the UK doesn't know what it wants.

Some people seem to be of the opinion that if David Davis doesn't publish every detail publicly that Britain doesn't know what it wants.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. You don't send 90 odd negotiators to Brussels with nothing to say.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

sondagefaux

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So what are you claiming, that Ireland has some sort of hugely productive workforce and that attracts us companies, it maybe it's that famous Irish hospitality they come looking for?

Yes to the first part, no to the second. :P

Irish workers in multi-national companies based in Ireland are actually among the most productive in the EU:

The strength of Ireland’s Manufacturing sector productivity growth is also evident, with growth averaging 4.3 per cent over 2001-2014. As highlighted by the OECD, average labour productivity of large manufacturing firms is significantly higher in Ireland, reflecting in large part the high intellectual property content of output, typically provided by multinational firms. Growth in the sector was also relatively strong in Denmark where it
increased by 3.2 per cent. In Ireland’s case the performance of the ICT sector is particularly striking. This reflects the increasing presence of ICT multinationals producing high value added services in Ireland in recent years. The average annual growth in ICT gross value added per hour worked in Ireland was 15 per cent over the period 2001-2014, compared with rates of 6.4 per cent, 1.9 per cent and 2.8 per cent in Denmark, the UK and Euro area respectively

http://www.competitiveness.ie/Publications/2016/NCC-Benchmarking-Irelands-Productivity-2004-2014-report.pdf

Growth in Irish productivity has been reasonably strong in the past 10 years or so:

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/productivity

Ireland is the sixth most competitive country in the world in global competitive rankings:

Ireland ranks in sixth place in the IMD world competitiveness rankings, its second highest ever placing.

The survey of 63 countries, compiled by the IMD business school in Lausanne, Switzerland, linked Ireland’s rise in the rankings to the State’s recent economic performance; the ongoing level of inward investment and what it described as a high level of business efficiency.

The 2017 edition of the IMD survey, which is acknowledged as one of the most reputable barometers of international competitiveness, put Hong Kong on top again with Switzerland and Singapore in second and third.

The US, the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Luxembourg, Sweden and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) completed this year’s top 10.

Each country’s ranking is based on an analysis of over 260 criteria derived from four principal factors: economic performance, government efficiency, business efficiency and infrastructure. A survey of some 6,250 business executives was also taken into account.

Ireland’s highest position in the rankings, achieved in 2000, was fifth. However, it fell to 24th position in 2011, only months after being forced into an international bailout. Since then it has been steadily rising in the rankings.
Ireland again scored strongly in the economic performance category, coming third overall when it came to the performance of the domestic economy, which has been the fastest growing economy in Europe for the past three years. It was also ranked third overall for attracting international investment.

Ireland topped the international rankings when it came to business productivity and efficiency; and was third in terms of positive business attitudes.

However, it came down the list in the categories of employment, which includes labour market flexibility, infrastructure and access to finance, the latter being a perennial problem for businesses here since the banking crash.

The survey also listed a number of significant challenges facing Ireland, including Brexit, further international currency volatility and a possible slowdown in global growth. It also cited risks associated with a tightening of ECB monetary policy and future investment in infrastructure.

From a list of 15 attractiveness indicators, respondents in the IMD’s executive survey also scored the various countries. In Ireland’s case, high educational achievement and tax competitiveness were seen as the main draws while access to finance, competency of government, and quality of corporate governance were viewed as the least attractive traits.

For the first time, IMD published a separate report ranking the digital competitiveness of countries, which put Ireland in a modest 21st place, which may be linked to the poor level of broadband in non-urban areas.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-moves-to-sixth-place-in-global-competitiveness-rankings-1.3103043

Ireland had the fifth highest output per capita in the world in 2014:

http://www.competitiveness.ie/Publications/2016/NCC-Benchmarking-Irelands-Productivity-2004-2014-report.pdf

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or maybe it's just the numerous loopholes in Irish law that allows them to greatly reduce their European tax liability?

A 12.5% corporation tax rate is obviously very attractive. Although Cyprus also has a 12.5% corporation tax rate, Bulgaria has a 10% rate and Hungary has a 9% rate.

All are in the EU and have the same level of participation in the Single Market as Ireland does.

Cyprus also uses the euro in case that's a factor for any company.

Despite this, Ireland is far more attractive as a destination for FDI than any of those countries, especially US FDI but also FDI from other countries, and still attracts a far larger share of FDI coming into the EU than either the size of its economy or its population relative to the total size of the EU's population/economy.

As for the loopholes you mention, they were closed by Michael Noonan at the last budget and, as we've already seen, the European Commission has ruled that the deal offered to Apple by the Revenue Commissioners violated EU state aid law.

Despite the ruling (which the ECJ will ultimately decide on), FDI into Ireland increased significantly in 2015 and looks set to continue at a high level for the next couple of years.

sondagefaux

Worth reading in full.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86544

Two weeks ago, on 6 July, Michel Barnier gave a speech in Brussels, addressing the issue of Brexit. We reported it the following day, but it was largely ignored by the media.

"For a third country", Barnier said, "one hundred percent of imports of live animals and products of animal origin … are and would remain subject to EU border controls". To this, he then added: "Moreover, before these products can be exported from a third country to the European Union, the sanitary and phytosanitary conditions for these exports to take place would have to be established".

On 29 March 2019, the UK in relation to the EU becomes a third country and, says Barnier: "One sees clearly, to speak frankly, the constraints that this entails for the agri-food industry". And one does indeed see "clearly" the constraints this entails. Specifically, these constraints are Regulation (EU) 2017/625 and, in respect of animals and products of animal origin, Regulation (EU) 2016/429.

According to Article 229 of Regulation (EU) 2016/429, no animals and products of animal origin may be admitted into the Union from a third county unless that country is officially listed as one permitted to export to the EU. Similar provisions apply to foods of plant origin although we do not yet know what rules will apply as they are under revision.

Country listing, though, is not automatic. Those who want to be vastly entertained can find the criteria set out in Article 230 of 2016/429. This cross-refers to Article 266 and, if I have understood this correctly, six months must elapse between the Commission approving a listing and it taking effect.

Clearly, the UK is not currently on the third country list. It cannot be, because it is a member of the European Union. Nor will it be when we leave the EU, or for some months thereafter.

Because of this (and the restrictions on other foods), I was confidently able to assert on 18 July that: "As near as can be certain, on exit day – 29 March 2019 – UK exports of food to EU member states are going to stop". I added: "This is not a matter for negotiation and nor can it be avoided. It is an inevitable consequence of the UK leaving the Single Market and becoming a 'third country'".

What I was actually doing was putting clothes on Barnier's statement. The effect of what he was saying is exactly that which I assert openly – that from exit day and some time thereafter, there are going to be no food exports to the EU. And for the foreseeable future, exports are going to be heavily restricted.

Now, if you don't accept that, then we're no longer talking rational politics. It can only be that you do not believe M. Barnier, in which event we're dealing with belief systems. You must believe that the EU's chief negotiator is bluffing and that the EU will not apply its own law to the UK when it becomes a third country.

But, if this is really the case, as one commenter asks: "why are we not hearing from the likes of Asda or Tesco?". Possibly though, because these supermarket companies are mainly importers, they are not the ones we should expect to hear from. However, we should certainly have heard from the likes of the NFU, the Food and Drink Federation and the trade bodies representing the meat industry.

Yet, in a strange vacuum of information, organisations such as the NFU have made no mention of crucial issues such as the need for inspections at the point of entry. The best I can find is a powerpoint presentation from Alan Matthews, Professor Emeritus of European Agricultural Policy, Trinity College Dublin.

Headed: "Implications of Brexit for the UK and EU meat sectors", this was delivered to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Meat Export Conference, on 29 June 2017. And if it truly represents meat industry (and farming) thinking on Brexit, they are in very serious trouble.

On one of his slides, Matthews asserts that "we want to avoid or minimise … inspection and sampling at Border Inspection Posts", whence on another he states that it is: "Highly desirable to have a series of Mutual Recognition Agreements attached to [a Free Trade Agreement] to allow for equivalence and mutual recognition of inspection procedures".

It is certainly possible to reduce inspection and sampling but, on the basis of EU law, it cannot be avoided altogether. And even if inspection is minimised, the goods must be presented to a Border Control Post (to use the updated terminology) for document checks and the issue of a Common Veterinary Entry Document (CVED) – see also Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004.

As regards mutual recognition of inspection procedures, as the Canadians are finding, there is no such thing. The exporting country either has to adopt EU procedures in full, or the goods will not be admitted. And, while there is provision in EU law for pre-export controls to be carried out by third countries, these are normally confined to specific checks, such as the determination of aflatoxin levels in groundnuts.

In actuality, seeking approval from the Commission for pre-export controls might be a way out – although widescale application would be an unprecedented concession. But, again, approval cannot be given automatically. Formal applications must be made for all the categories of product for which approval is sought, and the Commission must carry out extensive investigations to ensure that the condition set out in EU law are satisfied.

Should this be an option, then one would expect the relevant trade bodies to be pushing for precisely this sort of thing to be included in the Article 50 settlement. But, on this, there has been total silence, with no indication that the industry is even aware of this possibility.

Looking at this in the broader context, this very much gels with the observation of Karen Briggs at KPMG that businesses are "in denial" over Brexit, with some refusing to acknowledge the "significant risks" that will accompany the UK's departure from the EU.

murphaph

It's not a myth solo.

The Lancaster House speech was vague.

"We want the closest relationship with the EU as possible" or whatever is useless language.

Now it's crunch time. The UK must state exactly what it wants in concrete terms,not waffle. They are leaving. They need to say what they want over and above being a 3rd country like Morocco or Ukraine.

It's not up to the EU to suggest a path forthe UK.

sondagefaux

murphaph wrote: »

Now it's crunch time. The UK must state exactly what it wants in concrete terms,not waffle. They are leaving. They need to say what they want over and above being a 3rd country like Morocco or Ukraine.

Or Elbonia:

Everyone has access to the single market. If I'm a dildo producer in Elbonia I can export to the EU but I must pay a tariff and go through the third country customs channels. Because Elbonia does not have a preferential trade agreement with the EU it has a low score on the EU database so a container is 100% likely to be stopped at the docks while goods are sent away for formaldehyde testing at the expense of the producer. Meanwhile the container is taking us space incurring a thumping daily fee for every day it is held - which can be anywhere up to two weeks depending on the workload of labs. Ten times more expensive than tariffs. This is why non-tariff barriers are the greater threat to UK trade.

http://howtobeacompletebastard.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/brexit-corbyns-issue-illiteracy.html

Incidentally, both Morocco and Ukraine have quite comprehensive trade deals with the EU.

murphaph wrote: »

It's not up to the EU to suggest a path forthe UK.

True, although the EU is dropping pretty heavy hints:

Alex Davies‏ @GMCC_Alex
Oh come on. Could they make this more obvious? They are literally putting the solution on the table, and our side is wriggling to avoid it.

Nick Gutteridge‏
@nick_gutteridge
V interesting from Barnier when asked what other country accepts jurisdiction of foreign court over its citizens: Cites Norway & EFTA court.

https://twitter.com/GMCC_Alex/status/888006098350997504

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

It's not a myth solo.

The Lancaster House speech was vague.

"We want the closest relationship with the EU as possible" or whatever is useless language.

Now it's crunch time. The UK must state exactly what it wants in concrete terms,not waffle. They are leaving. They need to say what they want over and above being a 3rd country like Morocco or Ukraine.

It's not up to the EU to suggest a path forthe UK.

Good evening!

What do you think the negotiators are doing?

The Department for Exiting the EU have been working on their plan for some time now. Just because you don't know every detail doesn't mean:
A) the UK doesn't know what it wants
Or that the UK doesn't have a negotiating strategy.

I think it was wise for the UK to refuse to bring calculations for the bill. The second you do that you declare a minimum. It doesn't mean the Government doesn't have them but the EU presenting their estimates and the negotiators challenging them is a much better technique.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nate--IRL--

Want details Solo? An Open and transparent process from the EU. A concise breakdown of this weeks talks and each sides positions...........

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/joint-technical-note-eu-uk-positions-citizens-rights-after-second-round-negotiations-0_en

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/negotiating-documents-article-50-negotiations-united-kingdom_en

Nate

solodeogloria

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Want details Solo? An Open and transparent process from the EU. A concise breakdown of this weeks talks and each sides positions...........

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/joint-technical-note-eu-uk-positions-citizens-rights-after-second-round-negotiations-0_en

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/negotiating-documents-article-50-negotiations-united-kingdom_en

Nate

Good evening!

The UK Government posted the citizens rights comparison on gov.uk today also to be fair along with a lot of other content.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nate--IRL--

That's a useful link - much obliged.

Nate

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

What do you think the negotiators are doing?

Panicking.

Sorry but you can't seem to see the sh1tstorm coming. Read the posts above...it will be compulsory to send all animal derived food products through an EU customs post when exporting into the EU. France has 2 tiny ones at Least Havre and Dunkirk. They'd need to start expanding them now to be ready for no deal day (you do advocate no deal in some circumstances) but I don't think they've even considered this stuff.... France will be in no hurry to build and staff these posts either.

As for the Maybot taking 3 weeks holidays...

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

In January the Prime Minister laid out the direction of travel in her Lancaster House speech.

In March the Government published a white paper explaining the type of relationship Britain wants after Brexit.

In March the Prime Minister explained the desired aims of the Government in the Article 50 letter.

It isn't true to say that the UK doesn't know what it wants.

Some people seem to be of the opinion that if David Davis doesn't publish every detail publicly that Britain doesn't know what it wants.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. You don't send 90 odd negotiators to Brussels with nothing to say.

the UK is still at the Red/White/Blue "we want to have our cake and eat it" aspirational stage


In fact the House of Lords EU committee even suggest that cake could even come in different flavours when it comes to immigration.
Scots 'could have different Brexit deal'


Finally Liam Fox is starting to get it.

It could take a further two years for Britain to fully leave the EU and start negotiating new trade deals with other countries, Liam Fox has said.

The international trade secretary told the BBC there could be a two-year "implementation phase" after the UK officially left the EU, in March 2019.

Whether he truly understands that the Brexit clock in inexorably counting down is a different matter.

http://news.sky.com/story/how-long-until-britain-leaves-the-eu-live-countdown-10817397
617 Days 01 Hours 46 Mins to get a deal


BTW You said "Direction of travel" , not the mode of travel, not which road to take, nor the destination , and most certainly no timetable or how much you are prepared to pay for the tickets.

The EU have said http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40662740

Mr Barnier said: "We require this clarification on the financial settlement, on citizens' rights, on Ireland - with the two key points of the common travel area and the Good Friday Agreement - and the other separation issues where this week's experience has quite simply shown we make better progress where our respective positions are clear."

ie. so far the UK has been as clear as mud. All this stuff was already on the agenda. It took the EU27 60 seconds to agree on this. Documents are on the EU website.

Junkyard Tom

Anyone else thinking Brexit isn't going to happen? Maybe some sort of Fakexit? (fake-exit)

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The UK Government posted the citizens rights comparison on gov.uk today also to be fair along with a lot of other content.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Another slice of cake.

the UK wants it's citizens in the EU to have rights they aren't sharing
Current family members
UK wants - Residents above will fall within the scope of the WA as an independent right holder

Criminality commited post exit
UK wants - Expulsion for post-exit
actvity assessed under UK immigraton rules
I may be mistaken but the UK has strict immigration rules for criminals.
- cherry picking

Voting rights
EU says - this arises from EU citzenship rights
(not a difficult concept that non-EU citizens have less rights)**
UK says - UK wants to protect existng
rights of UK/EU citzens to
vote and/or stand in local
electons in their host state in
the WA - yummy yummy cake

Further movement rights
EU says - UK natonals in scope of WA
only have protected rights in
the state(s) in which they
have residence rights on exit
day
UK wants - UK natonals in scope should
be able to change their place
of residence within EU27 as
per Directve 2004/38
WTF ?- so the UK wants free movement within the EU for non-EU citizens ?
really ?




**the fly in the ointment is thatIrish EU citizens can't vote outside the EU.
So about 300,000 Irish citizens living there could be disenfranchised by UK exit
the other side of the coin is the suggestion that Irish citizens could be allowed vote in EU elections abroad. This gets interesting when you consider that this could apply to 1.8m people up north and about 6m overall in the UK with the grandparent rule.

Fratton Fred

sondagefaux wrote: »

Yes to the first part, no to the second. :P

Irish workers in multi-national companies based in Ireland are actually among the most productive in the EU:



http://www.competitiveness.ie/Publications/2016/NCC-Benchmarking-Irelands-Productivity-2004-2014-report.pdf

Growth in Irish productivity has been reasonably strong in the past 10 years or so:

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/productivity

Ireland is the sixth most competitive country in the world in global competitive rankings:



https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-moves-to-sixth-place-in-global-competitiveness-rankings-1.3103043

Ireland had the fifth highest output per capita in the world in 2014:

http://www.competitiveness.ie/Publications/2016/NCC-Benchmarking-Irelands-Productivity-2004-2014-report.pdf



A 12.5% corporation tax rate is obviously very attractive. Although Cyprus also has a 12.5% corporation tax rate, Bulgaria has a 10% rate and Hungary has a 9% rate.

All are in the EU and have the same level of participation in the Single Market as Ireland does.

Cyprus also uses the euro in case that's a factor for any company.

Despite this, Ireland is far more attractive as a destination for FDI than any of those countries, especially US FDI but also FDI from other countries, and still attracts a far larger share of FDI coming into the EU than either the size of its economy or its population relative to the total size of the EU's population/economy.

As for the loopholes you mention, they were closed by Michael Noonan at the last budget and, as we've already seen, the European Commission has ruled that the deal offered to Apple by the Revenue Commissioners violated EU state aid law.

Despite the ruling (which the ECJ will ultimately decide on), FDI into Ireland increased significantly in 2015 and looks set to continue at a high level for the next couple of years.

Go read about the Dutch Irish sandwich and post again.

The headline rate of tax is irrelevant, it's the loopholes that matter.

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Anyone else thinking Brexit isn't going to happen? Maybe some sort of Fakexit? (fake-exit)

I'm on holiday at the moment with a number of people that work in the City and that seems to be the general consensus.

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Anyone else thinking Brexit isn't going to happen? Maybe some sort of Fakexit? (fake-exit)

I think the clock will run down and businesses will start to panic, heaping pressure on the government to ask for a Norway deal. No deal is simply not an option for the UK no matter how many times U Turn May says so.

Water John

Business is already putting on the pressure. They see the fingers in the ears, saying la la la around them.

Hammond's view beginning to prevail, slowly.

Junkyard Tom

murphaph wrote: »

I think the clock will run down and businesses will start to panic, heaping pressure on the government to ask for a Norway deal. No deal is simply not an option for the UK no matter how many times U Turn May says so.

Maybe as B-day gets closer the markets/businesses will panic and the British will seek a ten year freeze-frame allowing more young people to join the electorate and older folks to pop thier clogs?

Does anyone know if they have to be out within the two year time-frame or is there flexibility on that?

Nate--IRL--

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Maybe as B-day gets closer the markets/businesses will panic and the British will seek a ten year freeze-frame allowing more young people to join the electorate and older folks to pop thier clogs?

Does anyone know if they have to be out within the two year time-frame or is there flexibility on that?

Talks about such flexibility come after, Financial settlement, Ireland, and residential rights are pretty much done.

It may be that they achieve agreement on a 5 year EEA type deal. However, current progress doesn't make me optimistic.

Nate

Capt'n Midnight

murphaph wrote: »

I think the clock will run down and businesses will start to panic, heaping pressure on the government to ask for a Norway deal. No deal is simply not an option for the UK no matter how many times U Turn May says so.

Norway exports food , raw materials and energy to the EU and imports manufactured goods. So very little conflict of interest. The UK by comparison imports/exports roughly the same for most of the major categories.

Norway pays the EU about the same as the UK per capita.

For that they get
- an opt out on fishing or some such , which may make sense for primary producers but would be just bat-guano insane for a country that imports food and raw materials

Norwegians
- Have NO say on EU laws or rules
- Have NO passporting rights for services

- MUST accept the ECJ
- MUST accept EU tariffs and trade deals with third parties.
- MUST accept free movement of people and services etc.


So a Norway deal means handing over the Veto and other voting rights. About the only beneficiaries would be the foreign companies that own half of the UK's fishing quota. The NHS won't be getting a slice of €350m per week because there won't be any savings.

Capt'n Midnight

BTW the UK has other problems. Not directly related to Brexit, unless you consider the economic slowdown or the attitude of the Tories to those who benefit most from EU health and safety regs.


this sort of stuff divides attention , can't focus on Brexit when you are playing Whack-a-Mole with the consequences of Tory deregulation and cost cutting. Stuff like this makes the UK less attractive to foreign workers or investment.



The emergency services are being run down.
If only there was a Magic Money Tree.

I've posted before about how the NHS is short staffed , how applications for nursing at uni fallen drastically and how foreign staff aren't applying in the same numbers they used to.

The police force is suffering similar problems
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40665733

Crime in England and Wales has seen its largest annual rise in a decade, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The total number of crimes reported to and recorded by the police rose by 10% between April 2016 and March 2017 to almost five million.

Violent crime was up by 18%, robbery by 16% and sex offences by 14%.

The figures come as Home Office data shows the number of police officers is the lowest since 1985.

cba looking up the recent link about Police trying to rehire retired detectives because so many have gone, it's just a drip-drip of bad statistics

Junkyard Tom

It's a tried-and-tested formula. Cut funding for public services/infrastructure, claim public ownership is failing the people, sell-off public assets to their friends in the private sector.

View

solodeogloria wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's going to be hard to get consensus when the UK doesn't seem to know what it wants yet. The two party flip/flop FPTP system won't help either.

Good evening!

It's worth pointing out that the bolded statement is a myth.

In January the Prime Minister laid out the direction of travel in her Lancaster House speech.

In March the Government published a white paper explaining the type of relationship Britain wants after Brexit.

In March the Prime Minister explained the desired aims of the Government in the Article 50 letter.

It isn't true to say that the UK doesn't know what it wants.

Some people seem to be of the opinion that if David Davis doesn't publish every detail publicly that Britain doesn't know what it wants.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. You don't send 90 odd negotiators to Brussels with nothing to say.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Those are really bad examples since, if you actually read the white paper, it is full of stuff like:
1) we want nothing to do with the EU,
2) currently in area A (e.g. Policing), the EU does a, b, c & d,
3) we like that so we want a new agreement that allows us to keep doing a, b, c & d,
4) it then moves onto area B, C etc and repeats steps 2 & 3 - covering basically every area that the EU deals with,
5) it then adds a kicker that even though all that has been under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, the UK won't accept it at all, thus meaning that the UK side of the deal would offer inferior legal procedures to the EU side.

In short the demand is that the EU spend inordinate amounts of time & taxpayers money to replicate the EU Treaties in a new agreement or agreements.

All of which raises the obvious point namely why should the EU do this? If this was "objectionable" in the EU Treaties then it should still be "objectionable" in a new agreement outside the EU Treaties. There is no point in the EU wasting time & money in engaging in such theatrics.

Capt'n Midnight

more drip-drip bad news for the Brexit point of view

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/citi-confirms-dublin-expansion-on-the-back-of-brexit-1.3161384

US banking group Citigroup confirmed to staff on Thursday that it plans to extend its operations in Dublin, where it employs about 2,500 people, as the US banking giant prepares itself for the fallout from Brexit.
...
Banks, insurers and asset management firms were given a deadline of last Friday to file their contingency plans with the Bank of England.

Capt'n Midnight

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's a tried-and-tested formula. Cut funding for public services/infrastructure, claim public ownership is failing the people, sell-off public assets to their friends in the private sector.

+1

what's even worse is that they've been talking to US private health care companies :mad:

again this is making the UK less attractive to the sort of foreign workers they need

Capt'n Midnight

View wrote: »

In short the demand is that the EU spend inordinate amounts of time & taxpayers money to replicate the EU Treaties in a new agreement or agreements.

All of which raises the obvious point namely why should the EU do this? If this was "objectionable" in the EU Treaties then it should still be "objectionable" in a new agreement outside the EU Treaties. There is no point in the EU wasting time & money in engaging in such theatrics.

Pretty much.


The EU position is to keep the existing EU laws in place. This means of course a UK citizen will be treated as an Extracomunitario, ie. non-EU national, once they leave. Unless there is a better deal.

The UK position is of course "is maith liom cáca milis"

Peregrinus

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Maybe as B-day gets closer the markets/businesses will panic and the British will seek a ten year freeze-frame allowing more young people to join the electorate and older folks to pop thier clogs?

Does anyone know if they have to be out within the two year time-frame or is there flexibility on that?

The two-year time frame can be extended with the unanimous agreement of all member states.

There generally is little appetite in the Union for indefinitely prolonged Brexit negotiations; they're only prepared to devote so much time and effort to the UK. And, just as uncertainty about the future is a problem for the UK, it's a problem for the EU (albeit not such a big problem, since the UK matters less to the EU than the EU matters to the UK).

So I really don't see unanimimous agreement to extending the 2-year deadline by more than a few months, and even that will only be forthcoming if a deal is all-but-done, and there's general confidence that another couple of months will enable the final details to be sorted out.

If what the UK realises it needs is an interim position which is less than full Brexit, and from which they can eventually return (suitably chastened) to full membership, indefinite extension of the 2-year period is not the way to go. Rather, they should have an exit deal with provides for a prolonged transitional period involving, say, EEA/EFTA membership for the UK.

Calina

EFTA membership is not the gift of the EU to give the UK.

Peregrinus

Calina wrote: »

EFTA membership is not the gift of the EU to give the UK.

No, of course not. But that wouldn't stop the UK pursuing EFTA membership as part of a transition-that-might-turn-into-readmission, and if existing EFTA members found that unappealing (and I could see why) then the UK could look for a relationship with the EU analogous to that which the EFTA members enjoy.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, in short. But you and I are discussing different ways to skin a cat that, as matters stand, the UK doesn't want skinned at all. Some kind of graceful, gradual way of burying Brexit might very well be in what you and I consider to be the UK's best interests, but if the UK were disposed to act in its best interests we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place, would we?

Jim2007

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, of course not. But that wouldn't stop the UK pursuing EFTA membership as part of a transition-that-might-turn-into-readmission, and if existing EFTA members found that unappealing (and I could see why) then the UK could look for a relationship with the EU analogous to that which the EFTA members enjoy.

Norway has already expressed concerns....