Brexit discussion thread II

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The eu needs reform, it needs to be more accountable (what is the travel policy, for example, do they really need to fly business class when none of their flights are for more than two hours?) and personally i would much rather see the UK inside the eu driving reform, but then it just wouldn't be a team player, would it?

Seriously, the underlined bit is incorrect. Certainly point to point capital flights are sub two hours in some cases but quite a few routes from Brussels back to the capitals of Europe are over two hours and many people flying on behalf of the EU are not actually point to point between AN EU capital and Brussels. So to state none of the flights are for more than two hours is demonstrated ignorance. IIRC the EU has sent people to the Ukraine, people work on the EU's behalf in the US, and of course, not every single person travelling to Brussels is from whatever the handiest city to Brussels is in a given member state. The flight from Athens to Brussels, for example, is more than 3 hours and no one would sensibly assume that all travel is within the EU. Trade agreements tend to be with countries outside the EU and the discussions aren't always in the EU - the locations can be shared from time to time between countries.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

or to put it another way, the same arrangements that the other 170 countries in the world currently have.

There is a whole big world out there outside of the eu

This again is not attached to reality. Because of things like FTA agreements of which there are circa 57 I think, the other 170 countries don't all have the same arrangements. This is true also for things like immigration policy and visa requirements which are actually the business of the member states where non-EU countries are involved.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

or to put another way, the UK is the eu's biggest export customer.

There are 120 plus countries which the EU can grow trade with if it loses the UK, to be honest not including the ones it has trade agreements with already. After all, that's UK logic about losses from leaving the EU, isn't it? Loads of other countries to trade with.

Maybe not North Korea at the moment but still...

__________________

On the recurrence of this concept of punishment, it seems to me that a lot of people seem to think that anything negative that happens to the UK as a result of Brexit is punishment. This is incorrect. Anything negative which happens to the UK has a result of Brexit is a consequence of choosing to leave the EU, a British decision, not an EU decision.

In no world is it the case that the UK will have better trading conditions with the EU than it had as a member of the EU. People screaming about being punished by the EU need to understand this. It is pretty much the way you don't have electricity any more if someone cuts the line into your house. You're not punished, it is just a fact of life that if the line has been cut, there is no more electricity.

Calina

Peter Flynt wrote: »

To this extent it is most unlikely that Brexit will occur, or if it does reach March 2019 without collapsing, the terms of the final deal will go to a referendum and will be comprehensively defeated with the UK staying in the EU. I expect this to happen before the end of 2018 or very early 2019.

As matters stand, unless there is some discussion on the withdrawal of the Article 50 notification and the EU is prepared to accept this, your scenario will not happen because in the referendum, the options will be deal or crash out with no deal. The current legal status is that the UK leaves in March 2019 deal or no deal. Rejecting the deal all other things remaining equal still results in Brexit.

The UK has fought court cases on the premise that Article 50 cannot be reversed. What is known is the period can be extended but it requires unanimous support from the other members. It worries me deeply that the asssumption at present is that the referendum will be between accepting the deal or staying in the EU because legally that cannot be put on the table at all barring a withdrawal of article 50.

joeysoap

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've only got an Irish passport because I'm Irish. I also question the relevance of this question.

EDIT: can you please tell us why you asked this question?



Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Thank you for your reply and Fratton Fred also.


I was curious to know if either of you remained EU citizens after Brexit. Nothing else

Peter Flynt

Calina wrote: »

As matters stand, unless there is some discussion on the withdrawal of the Article 50 notification and the EU is prepared to accept this, your scenario will not happen because in the referendum, the options will be deal or crash out with no deal. The current legal status is that the UK leaves in March 2019 deal or no deal. Rejecting the deal all other things remaining equal still results in Brexit.

The UK has fought court cases on the premise that Article 50 cannot be reversed. What is known is the period can be extended but it requires unanimous support from the other members. It worries me deeply that the asssumption at present is that the referendum will be between accepting the deal or staying in the EU because legally that cannot be put on the table at all barring a withdrawal of article 50.

All true and agreed with.

However if the UK choose to change its mind the EU would accommodate this as 'where there's a will there's a way'. . either through treaty changes or other mechanistic legal changes.

It would be national humiliation for the UK but I couldn't see it dragging on further.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

remembering of course, that a french veto could mean the hardest of Brexits and the hardest of borders.

I think varadkar is much more realistic about Brexit than any Tory politician. In other words we'll prepare the best we can but I imagine the UK (particularly the North) will be devastated by Brexit.

Fratton Fred

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The EU could bring brexit to an end tomorrow by making one simple announcement . . . That citizens of the UK will not be allowed access to the European Union from March 2019 until a comprehensive agreement is in place, which coud take years.

ouoch. You might ant to ask a few of the posters on here how they would feel about that one.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Look, the British government themselves are not taking Brexit seriously. This is the most serious situation for the UK since WW2 and they're all on holidays for the month. They're spending more time negotiating among themselves than with the EU after wasting 9 months of negotiating time by not issuing article 50. There is also NO PLAN and May, Fox & Davis haven't a clue what they're doing. . . not my words but the words of the Chief of Staff at the Depeartment for Exiting the EU, James Chapman, who tweeted this information this morning. Davis has even been accused of only putting in three day working weeks FFS whlst Fox has a job title but no job as UK cannot legally initiate trade deals with other countries until brexit occurs.

As time goes on the pressure will just become intense and it'll all go belly up with tory resignations and splits

the current government has been left with a heap of **** they are trying to sort out. There is no precedent for this, it is completely uncharted territory.

Peter Flynt

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the current government has been left with a heap of **** they are trying to sort out. There is no precedent for this, it is completely uncharted territory.

A heap of **** of their own creation.

The politicians be working 16 hour days.
Instead they're on holidays for an entire month. Davis, when he is at "work", puts in a three day week.

Remarkably blasé considering the "uncharted territory" you refer to . . . As the countdown clock keeps ticking away.

Calina

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The EU could bring brexit to an end tomorrow by making one simple announcement . . . That citizens of the UK will not be allowed access to the European Union from March 2019 until a comprehensive agreement is in place, which coud take years.

Strictly speaking, immigration and visa policy remains with the member states so I think this would require a council decision. Not saying it's impossible but I really can't see it being either simple or likely.

In any case, I think it would be a deeply unfair policy and the EU has already made it clear in negotiations that they have a citizens focus largely absent from the UK efforts at present.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Brexit would collapse overnight.

Look, the British government themselves are not taking Brexit seriously. This is the most serious situation for the UK since WW2 and they're all on holidays for the month. They're spending more time negotiating among themselves than with the EU after wasting 9 months by not issuing article 50. There is also NO PLAN and May, Fox & Davis haven't a clue what they're doing. . . not my words but the words of the former Chief of Staff at the Department for Exiting the EU, James Chapman, who tweeted this information this morning. Davis has even been accused of only putting in three day working weeks FFS whlst Fox has a job title but no job as UK cannot legally initiate trade deals with other countries until brexit occurs.

As time goes on the pressure will just become intense and it'll all go belly up with tory resignations and splits

I'm inclined not to try and predict the future in too much detail - after all, David Cameron promised to implement the people's decision because he assumed they would vote to stay in the EU.

But.

The UK Independent suggests there are about 50 reports lying around government departments regarding the impact of Brexit on various sectors which the government does not under any circumstances want to publish as it could damage the UK's negotiating position. This actually strikes me as reasonable because on the face of it, the UK's position is weak and weakening. I would not be surprised were the EU to make a reasonable guess at the contents of those reports, but what is important about them is that civil servants are doing work at least in the UK. And it is civil servants who in general do the most part of practical work of any government.

I remain uncertain that Brexit will happen. But whether it does or not, one of the key issues is that politically, the UK is very deeply divided and increasingly polarised. Regardless of the outcome, this needs to be addressed by the political class in the country. Otherwise ultimately, the UK is likely to break apart.

Fratton Fred

Calina wrote: »

Seriously, the underlined bit is incorrect. Certainly point to point capital flights are sub two hours in some cases but quite a few routes from Brussels back to the capitals of Europe are over two hours and many people flying on behalf of the EU are not actually point to point between AN EU capital and Brussels. So to state none of the flights are for more than two hours is demonstrated ignorance. IIRC the EU has sent people to the Ukraine, people work on the EU's behalf in the US, and of course, not every single person travelling to Brussels is from whatever the handiest city to Brussels is in a given member state. The flight from Athens to Brussels, for example, is more than 3 hours and no one would sensibly assume that all travel is within the EU. Trade agreements tend to be with countries outside the EU and the discussions aren't always in the EU - the locations can be shared from time to time between countries.

oh come on, that is splitting hairs to the nth degree. The vast majority of the travel they do is to and from Brussels and Strasbourg (Bizarrely)

Calina wrote: »

This again is not attached to reality. Because of things like FTA agreements of which there are circa 57 I think, the other 170 countries don't all have the same arrangements. This is true also for things like immigration policy and visa requirements which are actually the business of the member states where non-EU countries are involved.

Again, you are splitting hairs.

Calina wrote: »

There are 120 plus countries which the EU can grow trade with if it loses the UK, to be honest not including the ones it has trade agreements with already. After all, that's UK logic about losses from leaving the EU, isn't it? Loads of other countries to trade with.

true, but it takes the eu an excessively long time to negotiate trade deals, because a deal that benefits Germany or France, may not benefit Belgium, so it gets ripped up and started again.

the eu's best bet is to protect what it currently has, whilst tring to gain new deals

Calina wrote: »

Maybe not North Korea at the moment but still...

but still what?

__________________

Calina wrote: »

On the recurrence of this concept of punishment, it seems to me that a lot of people seem to think that anything negative that happens to the UK as a result of Brexit is punishment. This is incorrect. Anything negative which happens to the UK has a result of Brexit is a consequence of choosing to leave the EU, a British decision, not an EU decision.

In no world is it the case that the UK will have better trading conditions with the EU than it had as a member of the EU. People screaming about being punished by the EU need to understand this. It is pretty much the way you don't have electricity any more if someone cuts the line into your house. You're not punished, it is just a fact of life that if the line has been cut, there is no more electricity.

Who is claiming this?

It is the same old double speak again. People calling for the UK to be punished with punitive tariffs or whatever and then trying to make out people are complaining about this?

Punitive measures against the UK are in no one;s best interests.

jm08

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The interests of the UK and the EU aren't necessarily different. The eu is slowly declining in terms of overall global GDP and is still recovering from a rather nasty recession. The last thing it needs is to stop trading with its largest export market.

Its just signed deals with South Korea, Japan & Canada which should address that. Now that the UK won't be blocking the deal with India, I'd expect that to come on stream fairly quickly.

So the UK is going to starve now?

The UK probably won't starve, but food will get more expensive.

On traditional foods produced in the UK, this is where it stands:

Pork (produces 55% of its own pork)
Beef - 75%
Lamb - 92%
Poultry - 74%
Butter - 75%
Yogurt - 75%
Cheese - 55%

Milk (powdered milk) is at 200% (which it exports the excess).

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the current government has been left with a heap of **** they are trying to sort out. There is no precedent for this, it is completely uncharted territory.

While I agree there is no precedent for this, I have to say that I don't think the last May government or the current one is handling it in a remotely rational manner. This saddens me because with some pragmatism and less sword waving and talking about cake and eating it, article 50 notification could have been delayed while the UK got a policy together and negotiations might have been more effective. As it is, it still seems to me that the UK is winging it. That does not really augur well.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are people on here calling for the UK to be punished

Where?

Peter Flynt

jm08 wrote: »

On traditional foods produced in the UK, this is where it stands:

Pork (produces 55% of its own pork)
Beef - 75%
Lamb - 92%
Poultry - 74%
Butter - 75%
Yogurt - 75%
Cheese - 55%

Milk (powdered milk) is at 200% (which it exports the excess).

Those figures would look good on, say, the side of a bus.

Fratton Fred

joeysoap wrote: »

Thank you for your reply and Fratton Fred also.


I was curious to know if either of you remained EU citizens after Brexit. Nothing else

I am still undecided on this. I have the luxury of being able to fairly easily avail of Irish citizenship if needed, but I don't think it will. An irish passport may be handy for skipping queues at airports though.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

A heap of **** of their own creation.

The politicians be working 16 hour days.
Instead they're on holidays for an entire month. Davis, when he is at "work", puts in a three day week.

Remarkably blasé considering the "uncharted territory" you refer to . . . As the countdown clock keeps ticking away.

As Calina says below, the real work of any government is done by the civil servants and they won't be away for a month. Considering the past twelve months Theresa May has had, I can't blame her for clearing off for a few weeks, she must be exhausted.

Calina wrote: »

I'm inclined not to try and predict the future in too much detail - after all, David Cameron promised to implement the people's decision because he assumed they would vote to stay in the EU.

But.

The UK Independent suggests there are about 50 reports lying around government departments regarding the impact of Brexit on various sectors which the government does not under any circumstances want to publish as it could damage the UK's negotiating position. This actually strikes me as reasonable because on the face of it, the UK's position is weak and weakening. I would not be surprised were the EU to make a reasonable guess at the contents of those reports, but what is important about them is that civil servants are doing work at least in the UK. And it is civil servants who in general do the most part of practical work of any government.

I remain uncertain that Brexit will happen. But whether it does or not, one of the key issues is that politically, the UK is very deeply divided and increasingly polarised. Regardless of the outcome, this needs to be addressed by the political class in the country. Otherwise ultimately, the UK is likely to break apart.

this is so so true.

Sam Russell

Let me try an analogy that is not club based.

Let us imagine a Very Large Multi-National with a subsidiary in the UK. The Uk management want to do a management buy-out. After all, it is a good business, and should do well.

1. The two outfits have to agree a price - but first to decide a basis for the buy-out price. Afterall, is the VLMN

2. They need access to markets - will the current v. large multinational allow them to use their other subsidiaries and agents for sales? Perhaps, but what is in it for the LMN?

3. What about designs, patents and other IP, like trade marks?

4. How does the UK outfit do product development, product certification? Will they be allowed to use the parent company for any back-office services? Can they continue to sell products made by other divisions of the VLMN? And on what terms? Will they get credit? Can they afford it as they will have to build the whole lot from scratch?

5. Will they try to compete with their previous owner, and will that be permitted?

Oh dear, it appears a lot more complicated that it appeared at first.

For example SAAB were part of GM and were to be sold off, but the deal collapsed because GM would not licence patents for the continued manufacture of SAAB models, even though those patents were originally SAAB patents, transferred to GM after GM took over SAAB. SAAB no longer exists as a motor manufacturer and it was just shut down.

GM are currently selling Opel to Peugot-Citoen. We will see how that works out.

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

ouoch. You might ant to ask a few of the posters on here how they would feel about that one.

But that is what is about to happen. If they don't sort out an agreement, UK citizens will have to be treated as third country citizens requiring visas. There is not visa free travel program that they fit into.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the current government has been left with a heap of **** they are trying to sort out.

Not at all the current government is the problem. Rather than provide leadership they have concentrated on pandering to the polls, with the result that everyone of them is heading off in different directions.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

Let me try an analogy that is not club based.

Let us imagine a Very Large Multi-National with a subsidiary in the UK. The Uk management want to do a management buy-out. After all, it is a good business, and should do well.

1. The two outfits have to agree a price - but first to decide a basis for the buy-out price. Afterall, is the VLMN

2. They need access to markets - will the current v. large multinational allow them to use their other subsidiaries and agents for sales? Perhaps, but what is in it for the LMN?

3. What about designs, patents and other IP, like trade marks?

4. How does the UK outfit do product development, product certification? Will they be allowed to use the parent company for any back-office services? Can they continue to sell products made by other divisions of the VLMN? And on what terms? Will they get credit? Can they afford it as they will have to build the whole lot from scratch?

5. Will they try to compete with their previous owner, and will that be permitted?

Oh dear, it appears a lot more complicated that it appeared at first.

For example SAAB were part of GM and were to be sold off, but the deal collapsed because GM would not licence patents for the continued manufacture of SAAB models, even though those patents were originally SAAB patents, transferred to GM after GM took over SAAB. SAAB no longer exists as a motor manufacturer and it was just shut down.

GM are currently selling Opel to Peugot-Citoen. We will see how that works out.

analogy to what, this isn't a management buy out?

Unless you are saying that the eu owns its member states?

Fratton Fred

Jim2007 wrote: »

But that is what is about to happen. If they don't sort out an agreement, UK citizens will have to be treated as third country citizens requiring visas. There is not visa free travel program that they fit into.

and irish citizens in the UK will be treated the same, which is why I asked how several posters on here would feel about that.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Not at all the current government is the problem. Rather than provide leadership they have concentrated on pandering to the polls, with the result that everyone of them is heading off in different directions.

the problem is that the country is very divided at the moment. Even the main opposition party (who people seem to think are the saviors from all this) have no idea what to do because they are too scared of alienating their support.

solodeogloria

Jim2007 wrote: »

But that is what is about to happen. If they don't sort out an agreement, UK citizens will have to be treated as third country citizens requiring visas. There is not visa free travel program that they fit into.

Not at all the current government is the problem. Rather than provide leadership they have concentrated on pandering to the polls, with the result that everyone of them is heading off in different directions.

Good afternoon!

Firstly it isn't true that there isn't a visa free travel scheme the UK won't fall into. The UK are already scheduled to be a part of a visa free waiver. It's like the American one. You apply expressing your intent to enter for up to 90 days. It costs €5. The UK will fall into the visa free travel scheme the EU will set up in 2020. There's no point in this fearmongering.

We don't need to lie about British people requiring visas. It's also not true that Irish people will require visas. The CTA will be maintained. The UK are clear on this and will be publishing this tomorrow. Irish people will also keep free movement into the UK.

Secondly - everyone needs to calm down. It's delusional to think that Brexit will result in anything other than a typical fudged deal. It won't be everything the UK wants or everything Europe wants.

This idea of a punitive Brexit is only a perverse obsession that some posters have on this thread.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peter Flynt

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As Calina says below, the real work of any government is done by the civil servants and they won't be away for a month. Considering the past twelve months Theresa May has had, I can't blame her for clearing off for a few weeks, she must be exhausted.

Wrong.

But ah, poor Theresa. She's only the PM after all.

The idea that the politicians can put their feet up and let their minions do all the work is facile.

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is the same old double speak again. People calling for the UK to be punished with punitive tariffs or whatever and then trying to make out people are complaining about this?

I'm not aware of anyone calling for the UK to be punished. That is unless point out the logical consequence of BREXIT is an issue for you.

Davis etc al, have already pointed out that in their application for WTO membership they are proposing to take over the same agreements as they had as an EU member But there is not indication that the other 120 member will accept it. Indeed both India and Australia have already indicated that the expect freer access to the UK labour market as part of any trade deal, so that is already a departure.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Punitive measures against the UK are in no one;s best interests.

I hear that statement often, as if it was self evident, but it is not. Competition is tight for air carries and having one or two excluded would not necessarily be a bad thing for the those remaining. Likewise in the old days we talked about percentage profits in the wealth management sector, these days we talk base points. Preventing UK firms from pasporting service wouldn't find much opposition among the other European players. In general the term it is true, but when it comes down to individual sectors not so much.

Fratton Fred

Jim2007 wrote: »

I'm not aware of anyone calling for the UK to be punished. That is unless point out the logical consequence of BREXIT is an issue for you.

not if that were the case, but it isn't.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Davis etc al, have already pointed out that in their application for WTO membership they are proposing to take over the same agreements as they had as an EU member But there is not indication that the other 120 member will accept it. Indeed both India and Australia have already indicated that the expect freer access to the UK labour market as part of any trade deal, so that is already a departure.

joining the WTO isn't a trade deal though and India can't stop it on its own.

Why would a third of the world not want the UK to join the WTO?

Jim2007 wrote: »

I hear that statement often, as if it was self evident, but it is not. Competition is tight for air carries and having one or two excluded would not necessarily be a bad thing for the those remaining. Likewise in the old days we talked about percentage profits in the wealth management sector, these days we talk base points. Preventing UK firms from pasporting service wouldn't find much opposition among the other European players. In general the term it is true, but when it comes down to individual sectors not so much.

do individual sectors get to negotiate on behalf of the eu?

steddyeddy

Leaving the EU and not being given full benefits of being in the EU can't be seen as punishment.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly it isn't true that there isn't a visa free travel scheme the UK won't fall into. The UK are already scheduled to be a part of ESTA which is a visa free waiver. It's like the American one. You apply expressing your intent to enter for up to 90 days. It costs €5. The UK will fall into ESTA in 2020. There's no point in this fearmongering.

The UK is not a member of Schengen or will it be able to avail of the EU/EEA/CH travel rights. As it currently there is no visa free agreement that UK citizens can avail of to enter either Schengen or the EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The CTA will be maintained. The UK are clear on this and will be publishing this tomorrow. Irish people will also keep free movement into the UK.

The CTA was accepted under a protocol to the treaty, as an agreement between two member states. Just because the UK wants it to continue does not mean the the EU will accept it. Whether that will stand or not will in the end come down to the border agreement.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - everyone needs to calm down. It's delusional to think that Brexit will result in anything other than a typical fudged deal. It won't be everything the UK wants or everything Europe wants.

You see that it the typical British attitude that some how it will work out.... that No really means I'm open to persuasion.... But the thing is that when Europeans say No, they really mean No.

Fratton Fred

Jim2007 wrote: »

You see that it the typical British attitude that some how it will work out.... that No really means I'm open to persuasion.... But the thing is that when Europeans say No, they really mean No.

so the British aren't European now?

They obviously mean no, unless the eu tells them to vote again, in which case they meant yes

oscarBravo

I'm mildly amused at the Express-esque huffing over business class travel.

An anecdote for you: several years ago I worked for a multinational that used to offer business class travel as standard when going abroad for meetings. It was decreed from on high that this was wasteful and unnecessary, and that all travel was to be economy class from then on.

The net result? Travel costs went up. There was enough travel happening that we had been able to negotiate rates for business class that brought the prices down to within a few percent of economy class, while still offering the flexibility to amend tickets at short notice. Having to stay an extra night is not at all unusual, which meant having to buy a brand new economy class ticket at a few hours' notice - and I'm sure everyone knows what that costs.

Fratton Fred

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm mildly amused at the Express-esque huffing over business class travel.

An anecdote for you: several years ago I worked for a multinational that used to offer business class travel as standard when going abroad for meetings. It was decreed from on high that this was wasteful and unnecessary, and that all travel was to be economy class from then on.

The net result? Travel costs went up. There was enough travel happening that we had been able to negotiate rates for business class that brought the prices down to within a few percent of economy class, while still offering the flexibility to amend tickets at short notice. Having to stay an extra night is not at all unusual, which meant having to buy a brand new economy class ticket at a few hours' notice - and I'm sure everyone knows what that costs.

I know you don't like any critcism at all of the eu, but you have to admit, it is extremely wasteful.

even the most die hard europhile must cringe when it sees the eu packing up everything, sticking it all in to lorries and trotting off to Strasbourg.

steddyeddy

We don't need club analogies. We can use reality. Britain's economy didn't take off until becoming a member of the common market. Britain's economy benefited hugely from tariff free access to this market and passporting rights to services.

Now for some reason the UK (well England and Wales) have voted to leave this single market. This will mean they will have control over their borders at the expense of tariff free trade with the EU. Judging by Guy Verhofstadt's comments on cherry picking they will also lose passporting rights. The UK already enjoyed a special status within the EU as it kept the pound. I can't see them being granted special status out of the EU.

The areas in the UK (Northern Ireland and parts of England) will lose access to EU grants. The farmers (some of whom voted for this) will lose their grants and tariffs will be placed on their goods, services in the UK (thought to make up 60-80% of the UK's economy) will likely lose access to passporting rights in other countries and the UK will be leaving several regulatory bodies (and vice versa) such as the European Medicines Agency.

This is all choice. The reason why this is happening is because of a power play within the Tory party, a series of lies about the EU and a vote that delivered what is happening now.

This is not punishment. It's not punishment because loosing access to the perks of being in a single market was self imposed. The single market seeks to benefit its member states. In order to be a member you have to make some concessions like freedom of movement ect. The UK doesn't want to make this and doesn't get the perks.

If that explanation starved you of your analogy fix then here's one for you. The UK describing loss of EU perks upon leaving the single market as punishment is analogous to Ireland's lack of access to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ASEAN as punishment.

Water John

Fratton, it's one of the prices of peace and harmony in Europe and so, value for money, even if daft.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know you don't like any critcism at all of the eu, but you have to admit, it is extremely wasteful.

even the most die hard europhile must cringe when it sees the eu packing up everything, sticking it all in to lorries and trotting off to Strasbourg.

The EU is in need of change. No doubt about it but it won't improve by offering rosy terms to a member state that chooses to leave. Also the UK should have stayed and tried to influence change.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know you don't like any critcism at all of the eu, but you have to admit, it is extremely wasteful.

even the most die hard europhile must cringe when it sees the eu packing up everything, sticking it all in to lorries and trotting off to Strasbourg.

Of course the Strasbourg shuffle is wasteful, but so is devolution in the UK....could just as easily rule everything from Westminster much more economically, but the natives wouldn't have it. Same goes for the French. We will hopefully see some sense prevail however and gently ease the role away from Strasbourg similar to how Germany eased the role of capital away from Bonn (hint: there's still loads of federal ministries in Bonn)

There is certainly waste in the EU but it costs like 1% of European GDP. It's surprisingly good value. People seem to think half their taxes are being spent on bureaucrats in Brussels.

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/myths/myths_en.cfm

Water John

We have lots of quangos attached to the GFA. It goes with the territory of trying to let everyone have a stake. Politics and treaties are messy by their nature. It's the price of peace and democracy.

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know you don't like any critcism at all of the eu, but you have to admit, it is extremely wasteful.

Do you have any proof of this at all?

swampgas

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know you don't like any critcism at all of the eu, but you have to admit, it is extremely wasteful.

even the most die hard europhile must cringe when it sees the eu packing up everything, sticking it all in to lorries and trotting off to Strasbourg.

It's a drop in the ocean in the context of the overall budgets involved. I would prefer if the Strasbourg / Brussels flip flop were eliminated, but it's not worth scrapping the EU or leaving the EU in protest.

You could say that funding the British Royal Family is extremely wasteful, yet it persists.

ancapailldorcha

swampgas wrote: »

You could say that funding the British Royal Family is extremely wasteful, yet it persists.

As much as I detest the Royals, they contribute more than they take.

steddyeddy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As much as I detest the Royals, they contribute more than they take.

Is that the Royals or the palace and the regalia?

ancapailldorcha

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is that the Royals or the palace and the regalia?

I'm not sure but the Royals are a huge part of the British brand. Buckingham Palace is always mobbed with tourists. If it's a net loss, I'd expect it to be very small.

steddyeddy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not sure but the Royals are a huge part of the British brand. Buckingham Palace is always mobbed with tourists. If it's a net loss, I'd expect it to be very small.

In fairness it's the business of the British I suppose. I have no problem with them.

Calina

steddyeddy wrote: »

The EU is in need of change. No doubt about it but it won't improve by offering rosy terms to a member state that chooses to leave. Also the UK should have stayed and tried to influence change.

The EU is always in need of change and is always evolving. This is so blatantly obvious that the screams about how it needs change are tedious. The organisation is a lot different now to what it was when it was founded, and what it was as new members came in, as new treaties were signed and as new legislative provisions arrive on stream.

It has never been stagnant and it has always been changing.

Calina

On the question of the royal family - and I really don't understand the attachment countries with monarchies have - there is an element of knowing the cost of stuff but not necessarily the value of it.

EU membership is a bit like that in some respects - the question no one is really answering clearly is how much better off the UK will be outside the EU although the economic modellers are implying that it wouldn't be and IIRC at least one Brexit supporter suggested that the UK might reach parity to now in about 30 years after Brexit.

But YMMV. Economic systems are not completely logical being peopled by humans which are not completely logical either.

jm08

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know you don't like any critcism at all of the eu, but you have to admit, it is extremely wasteful.

even the most die hard europhile must cringe when it sees the eu packing up everything, sticking it all in to lorries and trotting off to Strasbourg.

In comparison to the British Civil Service though, it seems to be relatively efficient. Something like 46,000 EU employees (this includes organisations like Medicines Board (1K), Court of Justice (2K), European Parliament (7K), Commission (24K) etc.

British Civil service Employs 418,343 (this excludes NHS Staff, Police, Army etc) and lets not forget that 33% of people in NI are public servants!

jm08

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness it's the business of the British I suppose. I have no problem with them.

I don't really have a problem with them either - the Queen is grand, but it is a democratic deficit that the people don't elect their Head of State who can't get involved in the politics. If thats the case, what is the point of the queen being the head of state.

I'd imagine if Ireland voted no in an advisory capacity for Ireland to leave the EU, all of our most recent Presidents would have probably questioned it by at least putting it to the Council of State (which if in a UK context would have included Tony Blair as a former Prime Minister) before letting the Right Wing Tories run away with it.

Fratton Fred

Water John wrote: »

Fratton, it's one of the prices of peace and harmony in Europe and so, value for money, even if daft.

paying for fuel is one of the costs of having a car, that doesn't mean i don't carehow much i pay. I will still avoid a petrol station that is over charging.

murphaph wrote: »

Of course the Strasbourg shuffle is wasteful, but so is devolution in the UK....could just as easily rule everything from Westminster much more economically, but the natives wouldn't have it. Same goes for the French. We will hopefully see some sense prevail however and gently ease the role away from Strasbourg similar to how Germany eased the role of capital away from Bonn (hint: there's still loads of federal ministries in Bonn)

There is certainly waste in the EU but it costs like 1% of European GDP. It's surprisingly good value. People seem to think half their taxes are being spent on bureaucrats in Brussels.

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/myths/myths_en.cfm

€100m that is pissed away that could be better spent elsewhere?

percentages are very handy things to use when you want to hide real figures. Who cares if it is onl a small percentage, it is still a lot of money.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Do you have any proof of this at all?

Strasbourg?

But you tell me of you think this is a fair remuneration package

http://en.euabc.com/word/814

COMMISSIONERS
The basic salary of a Commissioner is € 20 666 per month. This is 12,5 % more than the highest civil servant in the EU. The five Vice-Presidents each earn 25 % more, this is € 22 963 in monthly basic salary. The President receives 38 % more, this is € 25,351 per month. Figures are from 1 July 2010.
The salaries are NOT taxed in their member states. Instead, a low tax is paid to the EU.

The salaries are multiplied by 1.15 to include a residence allowance at 15 % of the salaries. Commissioners also receive a family allowance, € 171 plus 2% of the basic salary and an entertainment allowance of € 607 per month. The Vice Presidents receive € 911 per month and the President € 1 418.
For each child they receive € 373 and an additional education allowance, € 253.

When a Commissioner starts in office, he/she receives two month extra pay. When leaving they receive one extra month salary plus a transitional allowance for 3 years. This amount is between 40 and 65 % of their last basic salary, depending on how many years they have served as Commissioners. After 5 year a Commissioner, receive 55 % of their salary for the first 3 years.
Commissioners receive a daily allowance when they are travelling. They have 5 % more than the highest civil servants do.

Former Commissioners receive a pension from the age of 65, also with the low EU tax. The pension is calculated as 4.275 % of the basic salary for each year up to a maximum of 70 % of the final basic salary. The pension can be paid from the age of 60 with a reduction to 70 %.

Commissioners can have their EU pensions paid in addition to all national pensions. A pensioned Commissioner with a national pension as a MP or/and a MEP, a pension as minister and a private pension from a private job can accumulate all pensions with no reductions.

Former Commissioners will therefore have net pensions much higher than the national prime ministers will. On the other hand, both salaries and pensions for Commissioners are lower than what is paid for the leaders of many banks and private companies. Here we don’t judge on what is reasonable – we only bring the facts to the public so that voters can judge on salaries for their public servants.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not sure but the Royals are a huge part of the British brand. Buckingham Palace is always mobbed with tourists. If it's a net loss, I'd expect it to be very small.

if it was a large loss, it would still be less than the cost of having a president and holding elections every four or five years, especially when you consider it is a purely ceremonial job.

solodeogloria

jm08 wrote: »

I'd imagine if Ireland voted no in an advisory capacity for Ireland to leave the EU, all of our most recent Presidents would have probably questioned it by at least putting it to the Council of State (which if in a UK context would have included Tony Blair as a former Prime Minister) before letting the Right Wing Tories run away with it.

Good evening!

The more I read this thread the more bejoggled I am at the extent to which democracy and the people's verdict is despised.

You're seriously suggesting that you would want a ceremonial head of state to veto the result of a referendum because you don't like the result? That's the only real reason.

It is also incredible that people think that spending €100mn to move to Strasbourg is a good price to keep France happy.

The more and more I read the more and more I'm sure that the UK should leave the EU. I really don't believe the extreme fearmongering either. The UK has every opportunity to be successful post-Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fratton Fred

jm08 wrote: »

In comparison to the British Civil Service though, it seems to be relatively efficient. Something like 46,000 EU employees (this includes organisations like Medicines Board (1K), Court of Justice (2K), European Parliament (7K), Commission (24K) etc.

British Civil service Employs 418,343 (this excludes NHS Staff, Police, Army etc) and lets not forget that 33% of people in NI are public servants!

bit of a difference between what the eu do and running a country though, don't you agree?

jm08 wrote: »

I don't really have a problem with them either - the Queen is grand, but it is a democratic deficit that the people don't elect their Head of State who can't get involved in the politics. If thats the case, what is the point of the queen being the head of state.

I'd imagine if Ireland voted no in an advisory capacity for Ireland to leave the EU, all of our most recent Presidents would have probably questioned it by at least putting it to the Council of State (which if in a UK context would have included Tony Blair as a former Prime Minister) before letting the Right Wing Tories run away with it.

so ignoring a referendum result is a sign of democracy working?

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Strasbourg?

But you tell me of you think this is a fair remuneration package

http://en.euabc.com/word/814

Seems like a drop in the ocean for an entity with a yearly budget of several billion. That's a very weak basis for your argument.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

The more and more I read the more and more I'm sure that the UK should leave the EU. I really don't believe the extreme fearmongering either. The UK has every opportunity to be successful post-Brexit.

Then why even wait until 2019? Why not go now without the EU holding your hand for a few years?

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

The more I read this thread the more bejoggled I am at the extent to which democracy and the people's verdict is despised.

Do you have any qualms at all about how the Leave campaign was conducted? Were the NHS bus, scaremongering about Syrian refugees, lies about the EU all fine with you? I don't mention the Remain side because it lost.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The more and more I read the more and more I'm sure that the UK should leave the EU. I really don't believe the extreme fearmongering either. The UK has every opportunity to be successful post-Brexit.

I've yet to see a single reason to be positive about it.

murphaph

And now the former Brussels correspondent from the number 2 publication on that list is the Foreign Secretary. What a shambles a once great country has become :-(

Huh? What happened to the myth list.

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Strasbourg?

But you tell me of you think this is a fair remuneration package

http://en.euabc.com/word/814

For the level of responsibility and the impact of the work they do, yes I think that's a fair remuneration package for them. It might even be low given what corresponding packages for senior managers in large private companies can be.

The current commission has some very able people - of the few I've happened across in conferences, Andrus Ansip and Maros Sefkovic in particular stand out. Most of the people who wind up as Commissioners tend to have a lot of experience either diplomatic or political and are well capable of covering their briefs in an international organisation efficiently. They also get grilled by the European Parliament before their appointment is confirmed by the way and those hearings are in public. Worth a look for people who want to actually be informed.