Brexit discussion thread II

sondagefaux

If you're British, you should be crapping yourself right now.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86553

sondagefaux

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This, definitely.

The UK has stated several times it will honour it's commitments, tell us what these are and we can discuss the figure.

The eu seems to be putting the onus on the UK to state what this is, which indicates to me that they haven't got a clue.

The British don't have a clue? Agreed.

Read it and weep*.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86553


*with real tears if you're British, with laughter if you're not...

sondagefaux

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Tweet by Ian Paisley Jnr:



How delusional is this guy and the DUP?

1. He's salivating at the thought of a 'very hard border' which will harm business in the north, particularly agribusiness, and threatens to unravel peace process.

2. He's calling for almost 90% of the Irish people who support being in the EU to 'wise up'.

He forgot to add:

3. Ireland will rejoin the UK

4. He wakes up and wonders why there's a sticky mess all over his Union Jack underpants...

ancapailldorcha

sondagefaux wrote: »

If you're British, you should be crapping yourself right now.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86553

Please don't just dump links here.

sondagefaux wrote: »

*with real tears if you're British, with laughter if you're not...

Less of the crap please.

sondagefaux

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not quite as straightforward as that. Because this situation has never arisen before, there are no established rules for apportioning the assets and liablities of the Union when a member state leaves. Rules and principles have to be established, and I find it surprising that Fred thinks the right way forward is for the Union to decide what the rules are and then notify the UK of what it's obligations under those rules will be. The rules themselves are a matter for negotiation between the Union and the UK.

Brussels did put a position paper on this to the UK some weeks about, but hasn't made it public. The UK hasn't made a formal response yet, and the divergent comments from the likes of Johnson, Hammond and Davis may suggest that the Cabinet has yet to agree a position. (Or they could be a deliberate strategy to explain a tactical delay in responding; see below.)

The EU position paper proposes a methodology for computing the U.K.’s financial entitlements and obligations, but there's a tacit agreement on both sides that they won't - at least publicly - mention any figure yet. Only when the principles to apply have been agreed will they work out what figure will be yielded by the application of those principles. (Which is not to say that each side isn't calculating for themselves what figure would be yielded by various possible approaches, of course. But at least publicly the approach is to decide what is the right, fair, just, etc way to approach this and then see what figure results, rather than to pick a figure and then work out some rules that will produce that figure.)

As noted, the UK has yet to respond formally to the EU's position paper, either by commenting on the methodology proposed in that paper or by suggesting an alternative methodology themselves (which is something Barnier has invited them to do). In Brussels they think that the UK's reticence on this point is a deliberate negotiating tactic - one that they are countering by pointing out that this is one of the points on which there must be "substantial progress" before the Brexit talks can turn to other issues so, really, it's past time that the UK responded to the position paper that we sent, oh, five or six weeks ago now.

The figures being bandied about in the press - 65 billion, 80 billion, 100 billion - seem eye-wateringly large, but in terms of the UK's long-term interests this is a second-order issue. Whether the UK does well, badly or terribly out of Brexit does not depend on the amount of the exit settlement, but on the future trading arrangements between the UK and the EU, the UK and the EEA, and the UK and the rest of the world. In so far as there's a trade-off for the UK between a lower exit bill and freer trade with the EU, they should go for the freer trade, every time, hands down. And the EU knows this.

Also, and more importantly, the EU is so concerned about the British lack of preparation and attention to detail that they don't want to mention a figure in case it gives the UK an excuse to walk away from negotiations that the UK is already floundering in.

As Michel Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator has said, the chances of him assessing in October that sufficient progress has been made on the initial issues to allow for progress to talks on the future relationship between the UK and the EU are receding.

But that is only the half of it. We are seeing from other reports that the UK team simply isn't delivering the goods.

An EU source complains that the UK is not providing enough position papers, something that is evident from the lack of material posted on the government's website and the lack of substance in ministerial speeches.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, we see media reports Michel Barnier telling member state representatives that the negotiations are faltering and the UK government's hopes autumn talks on trade are increasingly likely to be dashed.

And this, Barnier says, is because the government had been unable to provide sufficient clarity on its positions during the last week's contact sessions.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86553

sondagefaux

The first time since the recession that the number of new company formations in the UK has fallen.

The first two-quarters of 2017 has the UK on track to experience its first dip in new company incorporations since 2008’s great recession.

Since 2009-10, the number of new startups has increased every year, rising between 6% and 15% annually. But that trend seems to be ending. Q1 2017 saw the establishment of 170,143 new businesses. Still a substantial amount – but a 1.13% decline from 2016’s first quarter, which saw 172,096.

And now, fresh data from Companies House reveals the downward trend has continued into Q2. The decline in Q2 has been even more pronounced: this year’s second quarter saw a 152,411 new companies incorporated, a 12% decrease on the same period in the previous year.

Q1and Q2, according to the data, has been the most popular time of year to incorporate a new business.

The dip forms part of a broader decline in British small business confidence noted by The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB). The FSB’s latest Small Business Index saw “business confidence drop for the first time since wake of EU referendum”. What optimism remained, the report noted, was imbalanced across regions and sectors.

Scottish small businesses, in particular, were pessimistic about the future. In terms of sector, the retail and wholesale trade was particularly rattled, the FSB noting a 9% decline in confidence from the Q1 report.

Commenting on the FSB report, Nina Skero, the managing economist at the Centre for Economics and Business Research, noted “a new squeeze on household incomes” thanks to “inflation pushed up by the sustained weakness of sterling”.

“Employee earnings growth is struggling to pick up, meaning that the rising cost of living in the UK is curbing the ability of households to purchase more discretionary goods and services,” says Skero. “Already, this appears to be having a notable material negative impact on the consumer side of the UK economy. Official figures showed the first decline in retail sales in three years in Q1 2017.”

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/articles/uk-experiences-first-startup-slump-since-2008-recession.655/

It's in line with other economic indicators showing a generalised slowing down of the UK economy as Brexit-induced inflation has started to bite and reduce overall UK consumer spending.

Along with the uncertainty created for the financial services sector, the airline sector, the manufacturing sector, the agri-industry sector, the referendum vote has had a major negative influence on the UK's economy.

Nody

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is either a and border or a sea border - one or the other (or both).

The solution for people is to provide everyone in the UK with ID cards, linked back to their NI number, and to their passport or residency status document. This would feed into their employment status, with employers to verify entitlements. After all they still want visa free tourists.

With goods it gets tricky. No-one (outside the DUP) wants a hard border on the island of Ireland.

A special status would be needed for NI just to cater for the agriculture in NI. Perhaps the UK could pay into the EU Agri fund to compensate for the cost of NI agri exports into Ireland, which would be cheaper than the cost of a hard border on the island of Ireland.

The problem is NI would need to be held to EU standards (see Chlorinated washed chicken or what ever other standards that UK would drop/lower) or the border needs to be there anyway and that brings up the question of who'll monitor that and how on UK/NI borders/airports. If not you'd risk the horse meat incident happening over and over again as NI is used as a free low check control into EU from UK for lower standard foods etc.

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

The problem is NI would need to be held to EU standards (see Chlorinated washed chicken or what ever other standards that UK would drop/lower) or the border needs to be there anyway and that brings up the question of who'll monitor that and how on UK/NI borders/airports. If not you'd risk the horse meat incident happening over and over again as NI is used as a free low check control into EU from UK for lower standard foods etc.

I realise that there would be some problems requiring significant surveillance but a lot less that a hard border. Major smuggling would be harder across the sea water than across a ditch.

Agriculture is a major factor in this because of the common agriculture policy regime, and that is before the chlorinated chicken rears its ugly head.

sondagefaux

Basically you're arguing for Northern Ireland to somehow remain in the EU.

I genuinely can't see that happening, unless Brexit is called off altogether, or unless there's a united Ireland.

Here's yet more evidence of how unprepared and complacent the British are.

Britain’s Home Office, the government department responsible for border control and immigration, has admitted it has not consulted any external experts on the effect of Brexit on the Irish Border.

The Border, and the wider implications for the Republic of Britain’s exit from the European Union, is one of the three points of negotiation between the EU and UK government (the others are free movement of people and the amount of money Britain will owe the union after the divorce).

Each needs to be settled before the EU will entertain negotiating a trade deal with the UK outside the union.

Despite the border being a key issue in negotiations, the Home Office has not sought any advice from experts on the potential impact of Brexit on Irish citizens living in Britain or Northern Ireland.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/home-office-s-lack-of-action-on-post-brexit-border-is-shocking-1.3169069

I suppose we should be shocked but at this stage nothing about the incompetence of the British is even mildly surprising.

steddyeddy

Nody wrote: »

The problem is NI would need to be held to EU standards (see Chlorinated washed chicken or what ever other standards that UK would drop/lower) or the border needs to be there anyway and that brings up the question of who'll monitor that and how on UK/NI borders/airports. If not you'd risk the horse meat incident happening over and over again as NI is used as a free low check control into EU from UK for lower standard foods etc.

I can't see how farmers in the North will compete EU subsidised farmers in the South. I suspect that's the biggest of their worries.

sondagefaux

steddyeddy wrote: »

I can't see how farmers in the North will compete EU subsidised farmers in the South. I suspect that's the biggest of their worries.

The EU imposes quite high tariffs on imports of foods to the EU, unless it exempts countries which are very poor from any import duties on any goods except arms and ammunition (see the Everything But Arms Initiative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_but_Arms), or unless it has negotiated low or no tariffs on food from countries it has free trade agreements with.

Combined with the non-tariff barriers, the main ones are related to food safety (I've outlined these in previous posts on this thread), the loss of subsidies and tariffs will make NI-produced food very difficult to sell in the EU. There may still be room for a small number of specialist food producers to sell into the EU but without a comprehensive EU-UK trade deal, most UK farmers will either be reliant on the domestic market or will have to seek markets outside the EU.

The latter will be difficult since many countries around the world are very protective of their agricultural sectors and impose high tariffs on food imports except when they have trade deals with other countries.

The short-term future for UK farming is supplying the domestic market.

Given that the UK imports much of its food, farmers who switch to foods that are currently imported into the UK might be able to compete but only where they have clear cost and quality advantages.

sondagefaux

Yet another own goal caused by the vote in favour of leaving the EU.



I wonder if it there would be a vote to Leave if another referendum were held today?

As far as I can see, the claimed-for advantages of leaving the EU are melting away like snow in the sunshine and the disadvantages are becoming more apparent with increasing frequency.

Sam Russell

sondagefaux wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

I realise that there would be some problems requiring significant surveillance but a lot less that a hard border. Major smuggling would be harder across the sea water than across a ditch.

Agriculture is a major factor in this because of the common agriculture policy regime, and that is before the chlorinated chicken rears its ugly head.

Basically you're arguing for Northern Ireland to somehow remain in the EU.

Well, yes and no.

If the UK continued to pay NI farmers as if they were still in the UK, and paid into the CAP an amount equivalent to the tariffs chargeable on NI exports of food to the republic, and controlled 'imports' of food products from GB to NI, then the border would not need to be policed from an EU perspective for agricultural products. NI would still be subject to EU rules re veterinary stuff etc.

Other goods could be controlled by electronic techy stuff.

Might work.

Jaggo

sondagefaux wrote: »

If you're British, you should be crapping yourself right now.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86553

The guy who writes this is a really knowledgeable brexiteer. I have read a lot of his stuff and the more I read, the less I understand his reasoning for leaving the EU.

I tend to read his articles (eg. the chlorinated chickens one) and end up more supportive of the EU then I was originally.

Anita Blow

Have to laugh at the idiocy of Ian Paisley Jr & DUP as if they are a party of importance in all of this process. He said today that it is "the south of Ireland" which will suffer if there is a hard border, but anyone with sense knows that this is patently untrue. Economically a hard border would have minimal effect on the republic. The bulk of our UK trade is with Britain. NI accounts for <2% of our exports yet we account for nearly 50% of their exports and the bulk of their agriculture industry is dependent on us for either selling or processing.
One can believe that Britain will come out of this process without a huge amount of damage, but NI will be ruined by this process.

Junkyard Tom

Anita Blow wrote: »

Have to laugh at the idiocy of Ian Paisley Jr & DUP as if they are a party of importance in all of this process.

And his is the party that campaigned for Brexit to underscore thier 'Britishness' never imagining that leave would 'win' (they were aware of documents warning them of potentially dire economic consequences).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaaoFLhQmpo

Since then they've realised the potential damage that Brexit could cause and instead of trying to mitigate it have seized on the CON's weak position to try to lash the northeast to HMS Britannia, cross-border/EU trade, and peace process, bedamned. Let's see how the British press react to Ireland's 'your problem Britain' approach to a land border.

Panrich

Anita Blow wrote: »

Have to laugh at the idiocy of Ian Paisley Jr & DUP as if they are a party of importance in all of this process. He said today that it is "the south of Ireland" which will suffer if there is a hard border, but anyone with sense knows that this is patently untrue. Economically a hard border would have minimal effect on the republic. The bulk of our UK trade is with Britain. NI accounts for <2% of our exports yet we account for nearly 50% of their exports and the bulk of their agriculture industry is dependent on us for either selling or processing.
One can believe that Britain will come out of this process without a huge amount of damage, but NI will be ruined by this process.

The worry here is what will happen if/when the 'peace dividend' disappears. The troubles are not so long ago and some people will be looking to fill the political and economic vacuum with a return to militant sectarianism. There are danger signs that both sides of the extreme can latch onto. A push for a hard border will agitate nationalists while any talk of closer ties with Dublin and a cutting of strings to the UK will do the same for the loyalists.

steddyeddy

Fair play to Leo Varadkar for giving the UK an injection of much needed realism. The bits in bold are exactly what we need from Irish politicians now. From the BBC.

The Irish government will not design a border for Brexiteers, Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar has said.
He said his government did not want to see any kind of economic border on the island of Ireland when the UK leaves the European Union.
Mr Varadker said he hoped unionists would not respond angrily to his position.
"It is the British and the Brexiteers who are leaving, so if anyone should be angry it's us quite frankly," he added.
Earlier, Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney denied a newspaper report that suggested the Irish government preferred a "sea border" solution with checks at ports rather than the Irish border.
The Times report suggested Mr Varadkar wanted customs and immigration checks at ports, rather than any checks along the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

But Mr Coveney told Irish national broadcaster, RTÉ: "There is no proposal that is suggesting that there be a border in the Irish Sea,"
He said the onus was on the UK to "come up with imaginative and if necessary unique solutions" to avoiding a so-called hard border.
Mr Coveney said a political solution was required, rather than a technical fix, which has been suggested by Brexit Secretary David Davis.
Mr Davis has proposed using measures like surveillance cameras to allow free movement between the north and south of the island.
The foreign minister added that the Irish government will not support proposals that result in checkpoints along the Irish border.

Addressing reporters on Friday afternoon, the Taoiseach, Mr Varadkar, said both he and Mr Coveney were on the same page on the issue.
But the taoiseach added that if the British government wanted technological solutions to the border, that was up to them.
Mr Varadkar said the Irish government would not do that work for them.
The Irish border is one of the key issues that needs to be resolved by the UK and the EU before talks begin on a new trade deal.

sondagefaux

Jaggo wrote: »

The guy who writes this is a really knowledgeable brexiteer. I have read a lot of his stuff and the more I read, the less I understand his reasoning for leaving the EU.

I tend to read his articles (eg. the chlorinated chickens one) and end up more supportive of the EU then I was originally.

I'm of a similar opinion.

He really knows his stuff, knows EU law and relevant international law inside out, thinks Brexit is going to be a disaster because of the way it's being handled by the British and yet is still in favour of it going ahead.

I think his ideas about a gradual transition for the UK away from EU membership towards a much looser arrangement are pie in the sky.

They rely far too much on the EU and its member states deciding to fundamentally transform the organisation in line with his thinking and rely far too much on some degree of common sense appearing in the British body politic.

sondagefaux

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, yes and no.

If the UK continued to pay NI farmers as if they were still in the UK, and paid into the CAP an amount equivalent to the tariffs chargeable on NI exports of food to the republic, and controlled 'imports' of food products from GB to NI, then the border would not need to be policed from an EU perspective for agricultural products. NI would still be subject to EU rules re veterinary stuff etc.

That would require an amendment to the EU treaties as they're not set up to cope with that type of arrangement.

I sincerely doubt that any other EU states want a non-EU state with a border with an EU state to enjoy this type of arrangement.

There would always be a risk that food and other goods produced elsewhere in the UK, or imported into the UK from other countries, could end up in Northern Ireland ready to be exported across the border to the EU.

There would have to be very intensive controls between Britain and Northern Ireland to avoid unacceptable products from entering Northern Ireland from where they could easily enter the EU in the absence of border controls between north and south.

Can you imagine the fuss if US produced chicken entered the EU because it was imported into England, sent across to Northern Ireland, then sent across the border?

http://www.poultryworld.net/Meat/Articles/2017/7/American-chicken-is-incompatible-with-European-farming-164846E/

Sam Russell wrote: »

Other goods could be controlled by electronic techy stuff.

I'm sorry, but as Leo Varadkar (and Simon Coveney) makes clear, there isn't going to be any co-operation in that respect from Ireland.

The UK broke this, the UK can fix it - now official Irish government policy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/defiant-varadkar-tells-british-we-won-t-design-brexit-border-for-you-1.3170014

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/coveney-says-there-is-no-proposal-for-irish-sea-border-1.3169885

Jaggo

sondagefaux wrote: »

I'm of a similar opinion.
He really knows his stuff, knows EU law and relevant international law inside out, thinks Brexit is going to be a disaster because of the way it's being handled by the British and yet is still in favour of it going ahead.

I love his commentry on the single market, this is the conclusion:
"Conclusions:
What is evident from the narrative offered in this Monograph is that the Single Market is a complex and sophisticated creation. It is far more than a set of trading rules or concessions of the type that are seen in free trade agreements, whether basic or comprehensive. It would not be wrong to describe it as the most complex and sophisticated trading agreement ever attempted, with depths which defy easy description". He comes across as an admirer really.

He follows up with the view that leaving will just mean the bulk of the regulation will be imported anyway, but without the benefits of access to the Single Market.

Capt'n Midnight

The UK has a lot of work to do, and no evidence they've started it yet.

Govt will not design border for Brexiteers, says Varadkar UK will have to develop a system and get our approval. And since we don't want an economic border that approval won't be easy.

If the UK aren't planning for and constructing any new structures needed for Brexit they are leaving it bit late.
Work on Dublin Airport immigration unit to begin The new immigration unit is expected to take ten months to complete and will be under the direction of An Garda Síochána.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I feel remarkably alone today as I've heard on the grapevine that my friend Fratton Fred is on an extended involuntary holiday from the Politics forum.

But alas, it's a new day, and here's another Brexit roundup!

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not quite as straightforward as that. Because this situation has never arisen before, there are no established rules for apportioning the assets and liablities of the Union when a member state leaves. Rules and principles have to be established, and I find it surprising that Fred thinks the right way forward is for the Union to decide what the rules are and then notify the UK of what it's obligations under those rules will be. The rules themselves are a matter for negotiation between the Union and the UK.

Brussels did put a position paper on this to the UK some weeks about, but hasn't made it public. The UK hasn't made a formal response yet, and the divergent comments from the likes of Johnson, Hammond and Davis may suggest that the Cabinet has yet to agree a position. (Or they could be a deliberate strategy to explain a tactical delay in responding; see below.)

The EU position paper proposes a methodology for computing the U.K.’s financial entitlements and obligations, but there's a tacit agreement on both sides that they won't - at least publicly - mention any figure yet. Only when the principles to apply have been agreed will they work out what figure will be yielded by the application of those principles. (Which is not to say that each side isn't calculating for themselves what figure would be yielded by various possible approaches, of course. But at least publicly the approach is to decide what is the right, fair, just, etc way to approach this and then see what figure results, rather than to pick a figure and then work out some rules that will produce that figure.)

As noted, the UK has yet to respond formally to the EU's position paper, either by commenting on the methodology proposed in that paper or by suggesting an alternative methodology themselves (which is something Barnier has invited them to do). In Brussels they think that the UK's reticence on this point is a deliberate negotiating tactic - one that they are countering by pointing out that this is one of the points on which there must be "substantial progress" before the Brexit talks can turn to other issues so, really, it's past time that the UK responded to the position paper that we sent, oh, five or six weeks ago now.

The figures being bandied about in the press - 65 billion, 80 billion, 100 billion - seem eye-wateringly large, but in terms of the UK's long-term interests this is a second-order issue. Whether the UK does well, badly or terribly out of Brexit does not depend on the amount of the exit settlement, but on the future trading arrangements between the UK and the EU, the UK and the EEA, and the UK and the rest of the world. In so far as there's a trade-off for the UK between a lower exit bill and freer trade with the EU, they should go for the freer trade, every time, hands down. And the EU knows this.

It's worth pointing out a number of things here:

Firstly - it is as straight forward as this. If you can come up with a proposed methodology for calculating the liabilities that the UK has to pay to the European Union, then of course you can propose a calculation. This is the European Union's responsibility if they're arguing that the UK is liable to pay them a large sum of money.

Secondly - You claim this is a negotiating strategy of Britain and it is. The European Commission are playing games also. It isn't reasonable to argue that the UK is hindering "sufficient progress" if the European Commission won't provide a proposed calculation. It's obviously in the interests of the European Union not to provide a figure so that it can be open ended. Equally, it's obviously in Britain's interests not to provide a figure or a methodology so that they do not provide the European Union with a minimum amount. The catch is that if Britain provides a figure then Brussels is going to regard that as a minimum and move up, and if the European Union provides a figure then the UK is going to regard that as a maximum and work it down. That is a much better negotiating strategy for the UK.

Thirdly - The figure isn't a second order issue. Another trade off is that an extortionate bill could be justification for the UK to walk. I'd argue that there shouldn't be any payment at all until the European Commission become clear on trade terms. As they've said themselves, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The idea that Britain will accept a deal which ultimately harms it's interests is simply wrong. Britain has a strong hand particularly in respect to the financial settlement, the EU really needs it. The UK should use that to get the best trading relationship possible.

Finally - there are 3 more sets of talks before the summit in October. The British have a highly qualified team under Olly Robbins. They know what they're doing. It's time to stay calm.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This is how unprepared the UK is. The only way this could be called a "new" setback is if they ignored all the comments and history here about how important the existing status of the border is. We've looked into the other proposal and looks like they won't work. Has the UK done any real work on the border other than handwaving ?

And if they are that complacent about a major Brexit issue how are they dealing with the rest ?

BTW a hard border would impose hardship on the north and make a border poll more likely and sooner rather than later.

Discussions on the border were bound to be complex because of the order by which the European Commission have insisted that they should be dealt with.

The issue cannot be concluded until the European Commission is willing to discuss trade terms with the UK. David Davis was clear about this before the negotiations began. The UK is clear that it intends to leave the single market and the customs union, and that oversight of the ECJ is a no no. All three are a hindrance to satisfying the concerns from the referendum.

The openness of the border depends on how open the trade terms are. The British want an open border despite Varadkar's unhelpful faux outrage. Ireland should put pressure on the European Commission because it's clearly in Ireland's interests to do so. "Creative solutions" require flexibility. There's a strange assumption that flexibility should only extend to what the UK is seeking.

As for what work the UK has done on the border, it's the same oft-repeated fallacy cropping it's head on this thread again. Just because the UK has not published it's planning or research publicly does not mean that it hasn't done anything, or indeed that it doesn't have a strategy in respect to the Irish border. Negotiating through the media isn't the right way to handle a negotiation of this scale.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It has nothing to do with Trump, that's a relatively recent development, although the recent deployment of 4000 US troops to Poland would indicate the US is still pretty involved. Oh and security goes waaay further than planes and submarines by the way, intelligence sharing is a huge part of security in Europe.

So maybe you can tell me, what can an eu defence union offer that NATO can't?

Talk of NATO being "untrustworthy" is vacuous. The UK has deployed hundreds of troops in Eastern Europe, most recently in Estonia to deter Russian aggression. The UK is committed to security in Europe. The UK puts its money where its mouth is on European defence. This is yet another reason why a good relationship with the UK is in the EU's interest.

It's bizarre that instead of using an existing broad global alliance, the EU sees closing itself off from the wider world as a good thing. Of course the only answer Euro-federalism has is "more integration" and less control for EU member states to decide what's best for themselves. Or perhaps there will be different levels of integration in a "multi-speed union". This is why the vague "ever closer union" doesn't make tangible sense in every day reality.

In my line of work we're encouraged to think that the simplest solutions to solving a problem work best. If it's too clunky - refactor. It'll be more maintainable. The sensible solution is of course less integration and less clutter and to do the things that member states are willing to agree on well.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

Youve referenced your line of work on a number of occasions, now you mention refactoring as a part of the thinking process.

Therefore it begs to question why you believe destruction of decades of work is better than as you say in your words refractor.

I doubt this is something you would deploy in your own work environment you would be laughed out of meetings. And not something that would have been dreamt up in uni.

Clearly this hole thing is the cause and result of people who don't think, are not trained and have a misshapen thought process.

Its a real head scratcher on paper and as you say not one you would crumple up the sheets on.

Jaggo

Jaggo wrote: »

The guy who writes this is a really knowledgeable brexiteer. I have read a lot of his stuff and the more I read, the less I understand his reasoning for leaving the EU.

I tend to read his articles (eg. the chlorinated chickens one) and end up more supportive of the EU then I was originally.

I read his Flexcit pamphlet at the time, and watched him in front of the Treasury Select committee.

His Flexcit idea was actually along the lines of taking the EU apart, and replacing it with almost exactly the same thing, but at the level of the UN, i.e global.

It is likely that his views on the EU and Brexit et al are not commonplace at all.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - it is as straight forward as this. If you can come up with a proposed methodology for calculating the liabilities that the UK has to pay to the European Union, then of course you can propose a calculation. This is the European Union's responsibility if they're arguing that the UK is liable to pay them a large sum of money.

The countdown has begun. If the UK doesn't do a deal they are out.

Thirdly - The figure isn't a second order issue. Another trade off is that an extortionate bill could be justification for the UK to walk.

May wants out of the ECJ , everything else is collateral damage.

Discussions on the border were bound to be complex because of the order by which the European Commission have insisted that they should be dealt with.

It couldn't come as a surprise given the billions the EU has invested in NI and the fact that it's the only land border with the EU since Gibraltar was thrown under a bus by the UK.

The issue cannot be concluded until the European Commission is willing to discuss trade terms with the UK. David Davis was clear about this before the negotiations began. The UK is clear that it intends to leave the single market and the customs union, and that oversight of the ECJ is a no no. All three are a hindrance to satisfying the concerns from the referendum.

The third is a show stopper. Given all three it's impossible to see how the UK can keep in transition to 2022. The announcement that EU citizens would have to apply to visit the UK afterwards isn't going to win friends on the EU side.

The openness of the border depends on how open the trade terms are. The British want an open border despite Varadkar's unhelpful faux outrage. Ireland should put pressure on the European Commission because it's clearly in Ireland's interests to do so. "Creative solutions" require flexibility. There's a strange assumption that flexibility should only extend to what the UK is seeking.

The creative solution that works for everyone except the DUP is to stick the border offshore.

Another creative solution is for us to crank up the printing presses and churn out 1.8 million passports.

The UK won't have a working customs solution in place. This is based on current delays in the latest UK customs software update which wasn't due to arrive until after Brexit and now the goalposts are moving all over the gaff. .

As for what work the UK has done on the border, it's the same oft-repeated fallacy cropping it's head on this thread again. Just because the UK has not published it's planning or research publicly does not mean that it hasn't done anything, or indeed that it doesn't have a strategy in respect to the Irish border. Negotiating through the media isn't the right way to handle a negotiation of this scale.

The lack of UK preparation is a constant theme amongst all commentators even those on the inside track like UK diplomats and civil servants.

If it's a hard border then they need to be issuing tenders very soon. The North is not like Norway/Sweden.

It's bizarre that instead of using an existing broad global alliance, the EU sees closing itself off from the wider world as a good thing

This is why the EU jumped in and got a trade deal with Japan when Trump nixed the TPP.

Just for one minute imagine the EU leans on it's trade partners to hider a UK trade deal with those partners. It's a sobering thought as the EU has deals with just about every economy that matters.

The sensible solution is of course less integration and less clutter and to do the things that member states are willing to agree on well.

27 states took less than 60 seconds to agree on the EU side of the Brexit negotiations. We still haven't had a realistic response from the UK side.

PeadarCo

solodeogloria wrote:

As for what work the UK has done on the border, it's the same oft-repeated fallacy cropping it's head on this thread again. Just because the UK has not published it's planning or research publicly does not mean that it hasn't done anything, or indeed that it doesn't have a strategy in respect to the Irish border. Negotiating through the media isn't the right way to handle a negotiation of this scale.

The UK has a year at most to get a basic outline deal done. Everyone will need time to implement whatevers decided. Most companies will have their decisions on what do well in advance of the official deadline. The number of companies moving staff and business out of the UK will only increase if the current situation continues. You also have to factor in the time it will take to ratify any agreement in the 27 EU members.

While I agree that discussing the nitty gritty of any deal in public is a bad idea it is important that everyone on the outside the tent understands the aims of the UK. The current UK approach hasn't really gone beyond we want all the good bits without the bad bits. That isn't realistic and doesn't help anyone who does business or works for UK based companies.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

In my line of work we're encouraged to think that the simplest solutions to solving a problem work best. If it's too clunky - refactor. It'll be more maintainable. The sensible solution is of course less integration and less clutter and to do the things that member states are willing to agree on well.

Well hopefully at work you provide solutions that people need! But the 27 states and their citizens want a more integrated EU, that is why the treat provisions were originally approved, that is the way the majority voted in the parliamentary elections, it why Junker is head of the commission.

So we'll pass on your simple solution since it does not fit the requirements.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - it is as straight forward as this. If you can come up with a proposed methodology for calculating the liabilities that the UK has to pay to the European Union, then of course you can propose a calculation. This is the European Union's responsibility if they're arguing that the UK is liable to pay them a large sum of money.

Reread what I wrote. The Union has come up with a methodology, and has put it to the UK. The UK hasn't responded. Sure, given the data you could apply the methodology to the data and come up with a figure, but what would be the point of that when the methodology hasn't been agreed? And what would be the value of it? And what is to stop the UK doing it themselves, if they are that desparate to know what the figure is? And why are they so desparately keen to know the figure when, as I pointed out, both sides think it best not to discuss this in terms of figures at this stage, but to agree the methodology?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - You claim this is a negotiating strategy of Britain and it is. The European Commission are playing games also. It isn't reasonable to argue that the UK is hindering "sufficient progress" if the European Commission won't provide a proposed calculation. It's obviously in the interests of the European Union not to provide a figure so that it can be open ended. Equally, it's obviously in Britain's interests not to provide a figure or a methodology so that they do not provide the European Union with a minimum amount. The catch is that if Britain provides a figure then Brussels is going to regard that as a minimum and move up, and if the European Union provides a figure then the UK is going to regard that as a maximum and work it down. That is a much better negotiating strategy for the UK.

It suits both sides that figures aren't discussed at this point, which is why neither side has come up with a figure, and neither is criticising the other for not coming up with a figure. Once a concrete figure is put by either side and the other side responds to it (inevitably, by rejecting it and proposing a different figure) then each side has a simple public position from which it is now embarrassing to move. And yet (at least) one of them has to move if there is to be an agreement, and they both want an agreement. So the tactic of discussing methodologies, not figures, works for both of them.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Thirdly - The figure isn't a second order issue. Another trade off is that an extortionate bill could be justification for the UK to walk. I'd argue that there shouldn't be any payment at all until the European Commission become clear on trade terms. As they've said themselves, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The idea that Britain will accept a deal which ultimately harms it's interests is simply wrong. Britain has a strong hand particularly in respect to the financial settlement, the EU really needs it. The UK should use that to get the best trading relationship possible.

Britain simply walking away with no deal ultimately harms its interests, pretty seriously. They should accept any deal that gives them a better outcome than simply walking away but, obviously, they'd like a deal which is better - a lot better - than "not quite so bad as no deal at all". And, in terms of how much good a deal with do the UK, the long-term trading relationship with the Union is vastly, vastly more significant than whether the exit bill is 60 bn or 95 bn or some figure in between. Whereas, for the Union, the exit bill is (relatively) more signicant (as in, trade is still the more important item for them, but not so vastly more important as it is for the UK).

The game theorists, looking at this from outside, would say that the optimal deal, taking both parties interests into account, would have a relatively high exit bill, and relatively good access to the market for the UK. This is better for both sides than a deal which involves a relatiively low exit fee (or none at all) and poor terms, or no preferential terms at all, for the UK's trade.

If neither side is talking figures at this point - and they aren't - that's because each side judges that getting specific, in public, on the figures is not a tactic which will help it to get the deal it wants.

The demand that the Union specify a figure and put it on the table is being advanced by (a) people who haven't thought about this clearly, or (b) hard Brexiters who for reasons which are either ideological or simply delusional think the best outcome for the UK is no deal, or an offer of a deal so poor that the UK must reject it.

murphaph

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well hopefully at work you provide solutions that people need! But the 27 states and their citizens want a more integrated EU, that is why the treat provisions were originally approved, that is the way the majority voted in the parliamentary elections, it why Junker is head of the commission.

So we'll pass on your simple solution since it does not fit the requirements.

Indeed. For many union citizens we want and appreciate more integration.

I own property in Ireland and Germany. I live and work in Germany and make and receive payments to my German bank accounts. I used to need separate Irish bank accounts to receive standing orders or tax refunds or whatever, or to pay the property tax. I can do all that through one German bank now (paying no fees with that bank, which offers far superior service to any Irish bank I ever banked with).

I also appreciate that I could recently travel to another EU country and use my phone's data allowance like I was at home.

The EU provides these superficial benefits that make my life easier. "Sovereignty" be damned.

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

The EU provides these superficial benefits that make my life easier. "Sovereignty" be damned.

Ironically the country that shouts the most about this is the country that has the least! They are happy to live with not written constitution, a hereditary head of state, no elected upper house, and a PM who can avoid parliamentary oversight by using the Queen's prerogative. On top of this we know for a fact based on details released under the freedom of information act that both the Queen and Prince Charles have in the not too distant past interfered with the operations of parliament.... And yet they claim the EU is undemocratic!

I don't think in practical terms the we have lost all that much in terms of Sovereignty at the end of the day. Most of the decision made in the EU are ones we'd go along with in any case and in fact lent our support either at the council of ministers or in the EU parliament. It will be very interesting to see just which laws the UK end up throwing out in the coming years, my guess is very few because most are require for a modern day economy.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Here's another roundup for you

listermint wrote: »

Youve referenced your line of work on a number of occasions, now you mention refactoring as a part of the thinking process.

Therefore it begs to question why you believe destruction of decades of work is better than as you say in your words refractor.

I doubt this is something you would deploy in your own work environment you would be laughed out of meetings. And not something that would have been dreamt up in uni.

Clearly this hole thing is the cause and result of people who don't think, are not trained and have a misshapen thought process.

Its a real head scratcher on paper and as you say not one you would crumple up the sheets on.

Actually, another approach is rewriting. Rewrites are what you do when the problem becomes so obstinate and ingrained that it isn't easy to refactor. You can take aspects of learning with you from the old mess. Rewrites do need to provide business value though, because they are more time consuming and therefore expensive.

In this case the European Union are unwilling to reform. This was my initial hope, and I had hoped that David Cameron would get more concessions from Brussels in early 2016. I do not believe this is possible now, and I think the UK leaving is the best option.

This is why the UK is pursuing a looser relationship with the European Union on the basis of free trade and security cooperation rather than pursuing further political union. If this is done well, it will be a rewrite with huge business value. If that's the outcome, then yes, I'd definitely rip the existing arrangement up because the new one would be much better.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not that strange considering the balance of power loes with the EU. There will be customs checks but for several reasons, the onus is on the UK to be creative. Not least because of the economic threat a trade barrier would impose on the North.

The UK are very clear that they want the border open. That cannot be stated clearly enough. The only obstacle is the European Commission and what it will accept.

It seems like some are simply incapable of seeing that there are two parties in the negotiations. Therefore there are two accountable parties. The idea that the European Union is some kind of immovable rock that shouldn't be willing to contribute to the "creative solutions" it advocates is tripe.

PeadarCo wrote: »

The UK has a year at most to get a basic outline deal done. Everyone will need time to implement whatevers decided. Most companies will have their decisions on what do well in advance of the official deadline. The number of companies moving staff and business out of the UK will only increase if the current situation continues. You also have to factor in the time it will take to ratify any agreement in the 27 EU members.

While I agree that discussing the nitty gritty of any deal in public is a bad idea it is important that everyone on the outside the tent understands the aims of the UK. The current UK approach hasn't really gone beyond we want all the good bits without the bad bits. That isn't realistic and doesn't help anyone who does business or works for UK based companies.

I think the direction of travel is that a basic transition needs to be hammered out soon while the ins and outs of the final arrangements are concluded.

The border cannot be agreed finally until the trading arrangements are concluded. I suspect the transition period will be similar to the status quo. This takes us to 2022.

The aims of the UK government are very clear. A third country trade deal outside of the single market and the customs union.

Everyone knew that there would be some cost to Brexit, that was made clear in the referendum campaign, but to rush into yet another sub-standard arrangement isn't the way to go about it.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The countdown has begun. If the UK doesn't do a deal they are out.

The UK is out anyway, that's what people voted for. The European Commission say that the UK owes them money - it logically follows that they should issue the figure that they believe they are owed.

Peregrinus - I still think the best negotiating strategy for the UK in respect to the exit bill is to negotiate down what the EU bring to the table. I don't see why it should be the UK's obligation to tell Brussels how much it's willing to pay up front as The Guardian seems to suggest Barnier wanted. I don't think a high bill (€100bn or above) is in the UK's interests at all and I don't think it will be agreed to. It's simple logic that the EU should be the ones to put a figure on the table and for this to be discussed. I don't care if you want to put me into a category, but my view is still valid.

There are several consequences for the rest of the European Union if they can't do a deal. I've mentioned quite a lot of them already in the last few posts from accessing key debt and equity markets, to security cooperation to continued funding for EU projects after Brexit. Britain has a very good hand. There's no need for panicking, that's what they want.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

May wants out of the ECJ , everything else is collateral damage.

There are options without ECJ oversight, as I've mentioned. Canada has gone for a joint arbitration model in CETA. There's no reason why that can't work with the current arrangement. The UK are right to say no to being subject to a court that is biased to one party in an agreement. Equal representation will be required in any arbitration agreement. That's very reasonable.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It couldn't come as a surprise given the billions the EU has invested in NI and the fact that it's the only land border with the EU since Gibraltar was thrown under a bus by the UK.

Firstly - Gibraltar hasn't been "thrown under a bus". It will be discussed in the negotiations.

Secondly - on "EU funding" for Northern Ireland. Talking about "EU funding" when the UK is a huge net contributor is a massive fallacy.

From Full Fact:

In 2016 the UK government paid £13.1 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4.5 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £8.6 billion.

The UK will be able to use all of the money it sends to Brussels today to deal with priorities like Northern Ireland when it is returned to Westminster. The UK doesn't need the EU nannying over how it spends it's own money. This is one of the reasons why we had a Leave vote in the referendum.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The third is a show stopper. Given all three it's impossible to see how the UK can keep in transition to 2022. The announcement that EU citizens would have to apply to visit the UK afterwards isn't going to win friends on the EU side.

I've got no issue with letting pending court cases go through the ECJ or accepting some compromise on transition terms.

I'm speaking of the end state. After any implementation period is over, the UK cannot be subject to the ECJ at all. If you are subject to a European court, and subject to European law, you might as well be in the European Union.

As for visa waivers you've not cited your source, but the European Union planned to have one of these for British citizens. Personally I've got no issue with these, they should be very light touch.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The creative solution that works for everyone except the DUP is to stick the border offshore.

Another creative solution is for us to crank up the printing presses and churn out 1.8 million passports.

The UK won't have a working customs solution in place. This is based on current delays in the latest UK customs software update which wasn't due to arrive until after Brexit and now the goalposts are moving all over the gaff. .

The lack of UK preparation is a constant theme amongst all commentators even those on the inside track like UK diplomats and civil servants.

If it's a hard border then they need to be issuing tenders very soon. The North is not like Norway/Sweden.

The UK aren't seeking a hard border. There's no point implying it is something that the UK is asking for.

The best policy is to stay calm, and to discuss it rationally. If the European Union are willing to give open trade terms to the UK after Brexit then the border can be open.

This is why I say that it depends on the European Commission's stance in the negotiations.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This is why the EU jumped in and got a trade deal with Japan when Trump nixed the TPP.

Just for one minute imagine the EU leans on it's trade partners to hider a UK trade deal with those partners. It's a sobering thought as the EU has deals with just about every economy that matters.

27 states took less than 60 seconds to agree on the EU side of the Brexit negotiations. We still haven't had a realistic response from the UK side.

The Japanese trade deal still has to be finalised and it's also pretty keen to wrap things up with the UK. You are speaking about trade rather than military alliances which is what I was talking about in the post that you quoted, but let's go with the digression anyway. The fanciful scenario of the EU "leaning" on it's trade partners, would be nothing more than bully boy behavior threatening to pull out of trade agreements. I can't see what else would prevent other countries wanting to do deals with the UK. I'll need to buy some pig spotting binoculars before that happens.

As for a "realistic response". I presume when you say "realistic" that you mean that the UK hasn't capitulated to every single demand that the European Commission have set. It is a negotiation - there's going to be asymetry between positions until an outcome is agreed. The UK need to push the door as wide as they can.

Of course they haven't capitulated to every single demand. I think compromising where you can is the right thing to do, but the European Commission still haven't understood that the UK are looking for a third country deal and that leaving the single market, customs union and ECJ oversight are red lines.

I was only half joking when I said that posters on this forum would have handed Jean Claude Juncker the crown jewels and the keys to Buckingham Palace by now. After all that would be "realistic" wouldn't it?

The UK needs to push hard at the start of the negotiations. It's got a very strong hand to play and a very strong negotiating team under Olly Robbins.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well hopefully at work you provide solutions that people need! But the 27 states and their citizens want a more integrated EU, that is why the treat provisions were originally approved, that is the way the majority voted in the parliamentary elections, it why Junker is head of the commission.

So we'll pass on your simple solution since it does not fit the requirements.

I'd love to know how you're seeing 27 countries looking for the same level of integration. That's obviously not true given the "multispeed union" push. However, I agree that this is an aside.

What's far more interesting is that you're living in a non-EU country which is about to submit to the European Court of Justice after refusing to implement a referendum dealing with freedom of movement in 2014. If you want to find a perfect example of how the European Union is anti-democratic, just look to it's recent dealings with Switzerland. This is why the UK needs to be very firm and say no.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

The status of the border is absolutely not something the British can wash their hands of.

It is they who are leaving.

They signed the GFA with Ireland.

They need to come up with the solutions now because they are changing the terms under which the GFA was signed (common membership of the EU).

The very clear position of the EU with respect to external borders, especially with respect to controls on food imports was known by the UK before opting to leave.

Remember, the UK benefits from this strict food safety regime right now. If an importer brings something into Bulgaria it will be inspected according to EU safety standards and should it end up in London on your dinner plate you can assume it's safe to eat.

We have no idea what UK food safety rules will look like post Brexit. We do not want hormones in our food supply but this may be the price for the UK consumer of a UK USA trade deal. We are indeed going to be forced to somehow control food imports across the border as standards in the UK diverge.

But the UK knew this. NI and the GFA will just be more collateral damage. Gibraltar is fooked and you know it Solo. It was thrown under the bus early on as no deal the UK agrees will apply to Gibraltar.

I wonder though, at what point will you admit that Brexit was a bad idea and that actually the bulk of EU regulations are quite sensible and help rather than hinder the daily lives of millions of people. I would still like to hear of some regulations you actually have a problem with, rather than the whole "sovereignty" thing.

listermint

murphaph wrote: »

The status of the border is absolutely not something the British can wash their hands of.

It is they who are leaving.

They signed the GFA with Ireland.

They need to come up with the solutions now because they are changing the terms under which the GFA was signed (common membership of the EU).

The very clear position of the EU with respect to external borders, especially with respect to controls on food imports was known by the UK before opting to leave.

Remember, the UK benefits from this strict food safety regime right now. If an importer brings something into Bulgaria it will be inspected according to EU safety standards and should it end up in London on your dinner plate you can assume it's safe to eat.

We have no idea what UK food safety rules will look like post Brexit. We do not want hormones in our food supply but this may be the price for the UK consumer of a UK USA trade deal. We are indeed going to be forced to somehow control food imports across the border as standards in the UK diverge.

But the UK knew this. NI and the GFA will just be more collateral damage. Gibraltar is fooked and you know it Solo. It was thrown under the bus early on as no deal the UK agrees will apply to Gibraltar.

I wonder though, at what point will you admit that Brexit was a bad idea and that actually the bulk of EU regulations are quite sensible and help rather than hinder the daily lives of millions of people. I would still like to hear of some regulations you actually have a problem with, rather than the whole "sovereignty" thing.

I'm also interested in the specifics outside of this nonsense of sovereignty which has been disprove disproven time and time again.

Perplexing as it is an Irish man would have any aspirations of UK sovereignty in some lust for imperial times

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - Gibraltar hasn't been "thrown under a bus". It will be discussed in the negotiations.

Secondly - on "EU funding" for Northern Ireland. Talking about "EU funding" when the UK is a huge net contributor is a massive fallacy.

From Full Fact:

The UK will be able to use all of the money it sends to Brussels today to deal with priorities like Northern Ireland when it is returned to Westminster. The UK doesn't need the EU nannying over how it spends it's own money. This is one of the reasons why we had a Leave vote in the referendum.

In Gibraltar 96% voted remain. They will be out unless there is a trade deal and at the very least Spain will expect concessions .

UK sending the money saved from EU to the regions ?
I've already posted that about €80Bn is earmarked for London and HS2 to London, while regional transport has been pushed back. No more EU means no more EU funding for roads. AFAIK the only EU funding replacement commitment is for farming of £3Bn , but this has already come with strings.

It's not just the North, there's also Scotland, and Wales and Cornwall and England outside the home counties that stand to see funding cut. But luckily the UK has a magic money tree.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36054645

Between 2000 and 2014, £888m was invested in Cornwall from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF). The money has financed infrastructure projects, airports, universities, road widening schemes, superfast broadband and local businesses.

Another £486m has been earmarked between 2014 and 2020.

https://www.businesscornwall.co.uk/news-by-industry/public-sector-news-categories/2017/02/council-shock-at-growth-deal-announcement/

The Council has expressed its disappointment that Cornwall is set to receive just £18 million in Growth Deal investment over the next three years, despite being one of the poorest parts of the UK.

Actually it's £18.03m so not quite as bad as it sounds

FrancieBrady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - on "EU funding" for Northern Ireland. Talking about "EU funding" when the UK is a huge net contributor is a massive fallacy.

From Full Fact:

The UK will be able to use all of the money it sends to Brussels today to deal with priorities like Northern Ireland when it is returned to Westminster. The UK doesn't need the EU nannying over how it spends it's own money. This is one of the reasons why we had a Leave vote in the referendum.

The IMF must be getting nervous.:D Because Britain went to hell in a handcart 'spending it's own money' before it sought the haven of the EEC.

Water John

Watching the ceremony at Ypres, this evening, I just don't understand where Brexiteers come from.

Junkyard Tom

Here's a video that underscores the absurdity of Brexit considering Britain was fairly instrumental in the design of the EU and was aware of the benefits it bestowed upon Britain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgu6pFz5oxA

Capt'n Midnight

This NT Times article it's depressing reading, sums up a lot of the bad news about how unprepared the UK is for life outside the EU. And there's a lot of bad news in it.

In a nutshell the UK needs immigrants to do the jobs UK workers won't do or aren't skilled to do and needs foreign investment for key industries.

Nothing new in the tone, just more specifics. This is scary.
Nine of Northern Europe’s 10 poorest regions — including West Wales, Cornwall and Lancashire — are in Britain. (the 9th poorest is in Belgium)

This bit though might explain Brexiteers
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/opinion/dunkirk-christopher-nolan-brexit.html?smid=fb-share

The paradox is summed up by two women I interviewed recently. Both were single mothers living on benefits they denounced as far too low. Both had voted for Brexit. Both believed there were too many foreigners here. And both were scandalized when I asked whether they would take vacant jobs in cafes or shops.

“They’re immigrants’ jobs,” one said.

BKtje

That's a great video, thank you for posting it.

First Up

Water John wrote:

Watching the ceremony at Ypres, this evening, I just don't understand where Brexiteers come from.

Short memories.

LeinsterDub

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In a nutshell the UK needs immigrants to do the jobs UK workers won't do or aren't skilled to do and needs foreign investment for key industries.

And to fund its pension pot http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/12/brexit-migration-cuts-could-push-state-pension-age/

Water John

Liam Fox disagreeing with 3 year transition. WTF do they want?

LeinsterDub

Water John wrote: »

Liam Fox disagreeing with 3 year transition. WTF do they want?

They'll let us know as soon as they've figured that out themselves

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

They'll let us know as soon as they've figured that out themselves

I've rarely seen such competition for deckchairs on the Titanic

Water John

Seems Boris, is not on the brink of quitting Cabinet.

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nothing new in the tone, just more specifics. This is scary.
Nine of Northern Europe’s 10 poorest regions — including West Wales, Cornwall and Lancashire — are in Britain. (the 9th poorest is in Belgium)

Measuring an areas wealth by using average GDP is incredibly flawed.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Measuring an areas wealth by using average GDP is incredibly flawed.

In fairness Fred all of those areas were badly in need of investment. In a lot of those cases the EU kept the place afloat. I think that's the point cap was making.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness Fred all of those areas were badly in need of investment. In a lot of those cases the EU kept the place afloat. I think that's the point cap was making.

Yes and no, some of those areas struggle, others don't.

But using GDP figures just aren't indicative of an areas wealth.

One of the largest companies in Ireland is called Round Island One, but most people have never heard of it because it employs a handful of people (if that). Picking that company up an moving it to Stoke isn't going to suddenly make the people of Stoke rich.

Why do you think a tax haven like Luxembourg is second on the list of wealthiest places?

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes and no, some of those areas struggle, others don't.

But using GDP figures just aren't indicative of an areas wealth.

One of the largest companies in Ireland is called Round Island One, but most people have never heard of it because it employs a handful of people (if that). Picking that company up an moving it to Stoke isn't going to suddenly make the people of Stoke rich.

Why do you think a tax haven like Luxembourg is second on the list of wealthiest places?

Well I'll take your word for it. The key message here is that these areas, heavily subsidised by EU money are going to be in trouble in March 2019.