Brexit discussion thread II

ambro25

I just finished my diagonal read of the intellectual property one.

There's much bread-and-butter stuff which is common ground and non-contentious (e.g. maintaining priority rights), but nothing whatsoever about rights of representation (reciprocal or otherwise, and which unsurprisingly is not good news for us in the UK), and a lot of EU statutory demands, which won't be easy to implement, never mind on a year and a half timescale.

It cannot possibly be done by simply "rolling" EU IP law about e.g. GIs or EU unregistered design right into UK IP statutes. There are very fundamental incompatibilities in definitions, terms and more between the UK and the EU versions, in other cases EU aspects which simply don't exist in UK law (e.g. trademark seniority, GIs), which would simply wipe out the UK's body of practice and case law overnight, not to mention the impossibility of scaling up the UKIPO within that time frame to cope with the associated [new] procedures. It would make just about every piece of professional advice I've ever given on UK designs in the past decade redundant.

We knew solving the IP aspects of Brexit was going to be a headache. But reading this, I'll confess I didn't think it was going to take such head-lopping proportions. What a mess.

murphaph

demfad wrote: »

Excellent thread on twitter by (suprisingly) Brexiter Pete North about what happens in case of hard disorderly Brexit:
https://twitter.com/PeteNorth303/status/904708989912567808



Now consider what would happen in Ireland's case. The above would apply to ALL our trade with the UK NOT just hard border issues.

A lot of the talk has been about the UK holding a gun to their own head and threatening the EU. Like a mini playing chicken with a juggernaut. The juggernaut wont be happy with the crash but the mini will be written off.

But while the entire EU will easily survive a hard Brexit: the above scenario seems to suggest that Ireland would also be written off by hard disorderly Brexit.

I am starting to wonder if the British are not gambling that when it comes to the crunch the EU will be forced to compromise to save its member state Ireland.

The image should be of the UK holding a gun to Ireland's head ......or holding Ireland and a grenade threatening to take us both out....you get the picture...hostage situation.

I think the EU will assist us in other ways with investment in infrastructure etc. to help offset the damage caused by the UK's withdrawal. I believe there is an extraordinary amount of good will towards Ireland in Brussels (despite the tax stuff). I don't expect the EU to put the whole single market on the line for us however, and I agree with that.

Chips Lovell

13 per cent of our trade is with the UK. Some of that will go and food is likely to be hardest hit. Indeed some has already gone because of weak sterling. Trade won't stop completely though. The UK is only 60 percent self-sufficient in food. Which means it will have to continue to import food from somewhere.

View

Here's what Barnier had to say about the border issue today (according to the Guardian):

What I see in the UK’s paper on Ireland and Northern Ireland worries me.

The UK wants the EU to suspend the application of its laws, its customs union, and its single market at what will be a new external border of the EU.

And the UK wants to use Ireland as a kind of test case for the future EU-UK customs relations.

This will not happen.

Creativity and flexibility cannot be at the expense of the integrity of the single market and the customs union.

This would not be fair for Ireland and it would not be fair for the European Union.

blanch152

demfad wrote: »

Now consider what would happen in Ireland's case. The above would apply to ALL our trade with the UK NOT just hard border issues.

A lot of the talk has been about the UK holding a gun to their own head and threatening the EU. Like a mini playing chicken with a juggernaut. The juggernaut wont be happy with the crash but the mini will be written off.

But while the entire EU will easily survive a hard Brexit: the above scenario seems to suggest that Ireland would also be written off by hard disorderly Brexit.

I am starting to wonder if the British are not gambling that when it comes to the crunch the EU will be forced to compromise to save its member state Ireland.

The image should be of the UK holding a gun to Ireland's head ......or holding Ireland and a grenade threatening to take us both out....you get the picture...hostage situation.

Ireland will have 26 sympathetic fellow EU members who will be anxious to ensure that the EU works without the UK, so we will get practical help from them.

The UK will be on its own.

demfad

murphaph wrote: »

I think the EU will assist us in other ways with investment in infrastructure etc. to help offset the damage caused by the UK's withdrawal. I believe there is an extraordinary amount of good will towards Ireland in Brussels (despite the tax stuff). I don't expect the EU to put the whole single market on the line for us however, and I agree with that.

Agreed. But specifically in the case of a disorderly hard Brexit (UK walkout) the situation deteriorates greatly for us:

The UK would not have their own customs and regulatory regime it is currently keyed into EU systems and institutions. This would mean long delays on inbound goods to the UK and a complete freeze on exports clogging up ports and borders. There are currently no customs checks on the Irish border. How would trade and movements of people be checked?
Testing labs and customs offices no longer recognised or authorised. That would mean goods not being able to enter the EU (Ireland) from the UK at all.
This does not include the hit from new tariffs under WTO rules which would be one of the main hits of an orderly hard Brexit.

murphaph

I said it before some posts back but if the UK leaves in a disorderly way and customs posts are thrown up overnight, essentially destroying the land bridge to the continent, I would expect massive assistance from our EU partners, chartering ferries and aircraft if it comes to that. The rest of the EU knows we did not ask for Brexit and know we are committed members of our European Union. It would be the modern equivalent of the Berlin Airlift.

We'd still suffer but we have to stay the course and not chain ourselves to the sinking ship HMS May.

oppenheimer1

blanch152 wrote: »

Ireland will have 26 sympathetic fellow EU members who will be anxious to ensure that the EU works without the UK, so we will get practical help from them.

The UK will be on its own.

Other states will only act in the interest of Ireland if it's also in their own interest. While there is lots of goodwill towards Ireland, that is cheap. If Ireland requires assistance in a meaningful way, it way have to make deeper concessions perhaps on tax, refugees, shengen or on any of the other opt outs it has.

marcus001

We need to understand the impact of a no deal Brexit deal to the UK.
We live in a "computer says no" world. If I go for a mortgage and a database says I'm no good, then that is the last word on it. Trade systems work the same way. Either a transaction is legal and permitted - or it is not. If the UK is wiped from the EU databases then we do not qualify for preferential trade measures. We don't exist.
UK is no longer part of the EU open skies agreement so landing slots are cancelled. Months of scheduling disrupted. We are subject to all the rules applicable to a third country with no formal relations. - Like we just dropped out of the sky.
None of the systems pertaining to "frictionless trade" will have a UK entry in the databases.
We won't even have our own customs and regulatory regime. All of it is keyed to EU systems and institutions.Testing labs and customs offices no longer recognised or authorised. The system simply stops working.
There are those who say this is not insurmountable but what do we do while we sort this all
Once you break a supply chain, EU business will look elsewhere for suppliers and they won't be back in a hurry. It functions on trust.
It will take us years just to design and roll out the replacement software and systems.
But supposing there are workarounds as Tories continue to assert. Ok, let's entertain that for a
This is the same government that has taken 15 months to learn the difference between the single market and the customs union.
And they STILL can't get the basic definitions right. Our MPs don't have the first concept of how customs systems work.
You think they will cope? Even the people who are supposed to know have only half a clue.
Rebuilding the system will require all new facilities built from scratch. We are looking at years
Oh and let's not even get into obscure things like mutual recognition of driving licences and qualifications. What fun that will be!
In short, everything fails, all at once, in ways our government is incapable of adequately responding. Operation Enduring Cluster****.
It would be bad news even if we had a Rolls Royce government. But we don't. We have David Davis - and he's the competent one!
But never you mind. That Rees-Mogg fellow will sort it all out. After all, he has a posh accent so he must be clever. True story!
Addendum - note that this is without even making mention of tariffs!

wow

It's almost as if the EU is a stifling bureaucracy.

murphaph

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Other states will only act in the interest of Ireland if it's also in their own interest. While there is lots of goodwill towards Ireland, that is cheap. If Ireland requires assistance in a meaningful way, it way have to make deeper concessions perhaps on tax, refugees, shengen or on any of the other opt outs it has.

I don't necessarily agree. It seems the EU is prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ireland over the border. This is an almost impossible thing to solve, yet the EU has insisted that it must be solved before trade talks can begin. That is a demonstration of how much good will there is for us.

oppenheimer1

murphaph wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree. It seems the EU is prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ireland over the border. This is an almost impossible thing to solve, yet the EU has insisted that it must be solved before trade talks can begin. That is a demonstration of how much good will there is for us.

It would appear so on the face of it. But when you look at the experience within the EU, the track record of turning goodwill into concrete actions had been lacking. We only need look at the debt crisis or the refugee crisis to see the lack of solidarity in the union.

While this is different, and the EU may wish to prove a point to the UK and others, it is naive to expect the EU to shield Ireland if we don't bring anything to the table.

Samaris

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It would appear so on the face of it. But when you look at the experience within the EU, the track record of turning goodwill into concrete actions had been lacking. We only need look at the debt crisis or the refugee crisis to see the lack of solidarity in the union.

While this is different, and the EU may wish to prove a point to the UK and others, it is naive to expect the EU to shield Ireland if we don't bring anything to the table.

Not entirely, and I'm not so sure that the track record is as bad as you reckon. Considering all the aid that Ireland has received with various projects from the EU for a start.

But it is absolutely in the EU's interests to stand by a member country about something this important to us (not least because of past issues at the border) and to the EU (for trade/issues with smuggling/well...borders). The fastest way to damage the goodwill for the European project within the 27 countries (which took a wee bump due to Britain's actions) is to screw over a member state for the sake of one that's leaving as obnoxiously as possible.

jm08

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Other states will only act in the interest of Ireland if it's also in their own interest. While there is lots of goodwill towards Ireland, that is cheap. If Ireland requires assistance in a meaningful way, it way have to make deeper concessions perhaps on tax, refugees, shengen or on any of the other opt outs it has.

From what I read, most other countries in the EU are not particularly pushed one way about the UK leaving the EU. I don't think joining Shengen would be a big issue for Ireland - we're only in it because of the UK and I don't think we have any issues with taking refugees except that we are very slow to do it. As for the tax, why would they want to further disadvantage Ireland by harmonising tax, though as the only English speaking country now in the EU, maybe that might not be such a bad thing if Ireland was forced to increase its corporate tax rate by the EU! When the EU (France really) didn't manage to get Ireland to make tax concessions for the bailout, they are not going to manage it over Brexit.

oppenheimer1

Samaris wrote: »

Not entirely, and I'm not so sure that the track record is as bad as you reckon. Considering all the aid that Ireland has received with various projects from the EU for a start.

But it is absolutely in the EU's interests to stand by a member country about something this important to us (not least because of past issues at the border) and to the EU (for trade/issues with smuggling/well...borders). The fastest way to damage the goodwill for the European project within the 27 countries (which took a wee bump due to Britain's actions) is to screw over a member state for the sake of one that's leaving as obnoxiously as possible.

The various aid projects were essentially bribes to ensure the safe passage of the referendums, I'm thinking in particular here of the money from Maastricht. The point is of course, that Ireland has to bring something to the table when it wants something.

If Ireland wants extra support as a consequence of dealing with Brexit, it will have to offer something. It might get it cheaply but it won't get it free, it's naive to think otherwise.

Samaris

Er, source? Is that the Maastricht treaty, or is this one of the Lisbon/Nice issues?

But bear in mind that what's good for Ireland in this case is good for the EU. It is a "EU land border" with a non-EU country as well as the Irish border with the UK. And given how annoyed many EU state leaders are with the whole Brexit thing (as really, all of them have other things to be focusing on), I see no reason for the EU to damage itself to make things worse for itself as a whole. There is absolutely no sense in siding with the UK over the Irish border or otherwise acting up on it. We can see that it's important to the EU as a whole being as it's one of the things that has to be agreed on before EU-UK negotiations can get to the juicy trade bits.

jm08

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The various aid projects were essentially bribes to ensure the safe passage of the referendums, I'm thinking in particular here of the money from Maastricht. The point is of course, that Ireland has to bring something to the table when it wants something.

If Ireland wants extra support as a consequence of dealing with Brexit, it will have to offer something. It might get it cheaply but it won't get it free, it's naive to think otherwise.

The biggest support package of all was the 8 bn that Kohl arranged as a thank you for Ireland's support of the reunification of Germany in 1992.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/helmut-kohl-was-forever-grateful-for-irish-support-during-eu-presidency-1.3122977

demfad

marcus001 wrote: »

wow

It's almost as if the EU is a stifling bureaucracy.

You've got cart before horse: The problems that the UK will face are because they are leaving the EU. The fact that a truck can drive from Glasgow to Naples now without a customs or regulatory check is because they are in the EU.

Think of it like this: If Alabama seceded from the United States abruptly it would also have no regulatory bodies or customs posts or WTO quotas etc etc. It's goods would not be able to be quality assured and therefore exported and so on. Would the resultant clusterfeck of problems that Alabama experienced be due to the US being a stifling bureaucracy?

Sam Russell

demfad wrote: »

You've got cart before horse: The problems that the UK will face are because they are leaving the EU. The fact that a truck can drive from Glasgow to Naples now without a customs or regulatory check is because they are in the EU.

Think of it like this: If Alabama seceded from the United States abruptly it would also have no regulatory bodies or customs posts or WTO quotas etc etc. It's goods would not be able to be quality assured and therefore exported and so on. Would the resultant clusterfeck of problems that Alabama experienced be due to the US being a stifling bureaucracy?

To expand on that, the EU has a team of bureaucrats working on every issue within its competence. If the UK wants to continue to deal with the EU, it will need to duplicate every one of those teams for every issue it needs to address. For example, they do not need to deal with wine, but car emissions or truck emissions will need to be certified by either the EU or by a mirror UK quango.

Now will the UK be able to duplicate all those agencies at lower cost than their current EU contributions?

Also, the current Customs and Border Force are inadequate for current work. So how will they cope at less cost - or at all?

They will need a team of trade negotiators, spread across the world to tie down all those trade agreements, India, Australia, Japan, Canada, Brazil, and of course USA.

Now refusing jurisdiction of the ECJ and ECtHR will bring further problems in the attempt to mirror EU regulations. Good luck with that.

The problems of Brexit are not even starting yet.

Beechwoodspark

When I see Davis I think rabbit in the headlights.

ancapailldorcha

marcus001 wrote: »

wow

It's almost as if the EU is a stifling bureaucracy.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

When I see Davis I think rabbit in the headlights.

Please read the charter before posting again. This is a forum for serious discussion, not one liners and crude insults.

steddyeddy

It's emerged that the Home office suppressed 9 studies which rubbished the idea that immigration pushes down wages. So we're in the realm of denying research now. It's not just the papers lying.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-immigration-studies-suppress-uk-workers-wages-jobs-vince-cable-prime-minister-liberal-a7932001.html

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so in your opinion, which is th more straightforward. The UK severing all ties with the EIB, which requires repayment of UK government equity by the EIB and settlement of loans in the UK, plus the EIB then having to decide how to divt up its remaining shares and the potential of affecting its credit rating and therefore ability to secure low interst loans.

Of do they agree to come up with a strucutre that keeps the UK an active member of the EIB?

But Brexit means Brexit. It means the UK will be leaving all European Union institutions, so the UK will be leaving the EU's investment bank. It really doesn't matter what I or you think, it is what Theresa May and her team thinks and they think the UK should leave everything EU. I guess until we see a deal done we should assume that the default position for the UK government is to leave everything EU, because that is the only sure thing that a Brexit vote means. People want to be severed from the EU in all its guises.

View

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The various aid projects were essentially bribes to ensure the safe passage of the referendums,

This is a load of nonsense. Were this the case, the EC countries could have skipped providing us with aid in the 73-87 period, and could have suspended (or watered down) any aid to us as soon as we passed a referendum (e.g. 87-92 or 92-97).

Moreover it would certainly have been cheaper to let us crash out of the ECs or EU then to attempt to keep giving us sweeteners to pass referenda - which are referenda that we choose to hold, not ones that the EU are asking us to hold (since they don't ultimately care which procedure we use to ratify treaties).

Fratton Fred

Enzokk wrote: »

But Brexit means Brexit. It means the UK will be leaving all European Union institutions, so the UK will be leaving the EU's investment bank. It really doesn't matter what I or you think, it is what Theresa May and her team thinks and they think the UK should leave everything EU. I guess until we see a deal done we should assume that the default position for the UK government is to leave everything EU, because that is the only sure thing that a Brexit vote means. People want to be severed from the EU in all its guises.

This particular conversation started because Davis mentioned remaining in the EIB.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

Now will the UK be able to duplicate all those agencies at lower cost than their current EU contributions?

No.

It helps if you don't shoot yourself in the foot. The UK decided to raise £185m by taxing contractors more using IR35.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/04/80_per_cent_of_it_projects_in_the_public_sector_delayed_due_to_ir35_says_report/

Of 405 IT freelancers surveyed by Contractor Calculator, 79 per cent said the projects they have been working on were delayed as a result of contractors leaving.
...
But a recent Register analysis of the Infrastructure Projects Authority's annual report found that one-quarter of big government IT programmes are already at risk.

Some of these include HMRC's £220m tax digitisation for business plans; the Home Office's £341m Digital Services at the Border programme; and a raft of Ministry of Justice programmes, including £380m electronic monitoring.

some nice comments
"To prevent tax avoidance, the government screwed contractors. Contractors have left. Now big consultancies will get the work. Big consultancies use overseas contractors to do the work."


Thing about offshore contractors is they don't have any skin in the game. Locals have a vested interest in big project they will rely on. And possibly even pride.

One of the reasons why the Saturn V got to the moon was that everyone involved was committed to the project. In comparison the SLS is the latest in a long line of launch vehicles designed to use old Space Shuttle boosters, tanks and engines. Earlier incarnations even used Saturn V 2nd stage engines. I can't see the SLS ever becoming the workhorse the Saturn V was as everyone involved knows it's pork barrelling.


Somehow I just can't see foreign contractors killing themselves working on UK systems when there's the threat of deportation if they can't find alternative work at the end of the project.

steddyeddy

It turns out the DUP's Ian Paisley junior has been accussed off accepting bribes worth 100k from Sr Lanka, a country he wanted the UK to do a trade deal with. Needless to say if true this could put his Brexit campaign in a different light.

I think Frankie Boyle summed it up by saying "it says a lot about British culture that they complain about the DUP, a party that exists because they insist on a part of Ireland being in the UK".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/07/mp-100k-gifts-brexit-trade-deal/

Junkyard Tom

steddyeddy wrote: »

It turns out the DUP's Ian Paisley junior has been accussed off accepting bribes worth 100k from Sr Lanka, a country he wanted the UK to do a trade deal with.

He'll describe it as 'hospitality' and a separate 'consultancy interest' that's nothing to do with the fact that he has the ear of Tory suits.

It appears the CONs are taking a beating in the local by-elections held yesterday (7-9-17) too. The toxic alliance of the CONs/DUP will reap dividends for their opposition.

RDM_83 again

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's emerged that the Home office suppressed 9 studies which rubbished the idea that immigration pushes down wages. So we're in the realm of denying research now. It's not just the papers lying.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-immigration-studies-suppress-uk-workers-wages-jobs-vince-cable-prime-minister-liberal-a7932001.html

I am a bit dubious of this, the lib Dems haven't been in government for a while now, why come out with it now.
I would also wonder how these studies square with the fact that real wages in the UK in many sectors haven't grown as much at all as they should have, I mean that's a constant source of complaint from the left too right, something seems off there?

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so in your opinion, which is th more straightforward. The UK severing all ties with the EIB, which requires repayment of UK government equity by the EIB and settlement of loans in the UK, plus the EIB then having to decide how to divt up its remaining shares and the potential of affecting its credit rating and therefore ability to secure low interst loans.

Of do they agree to come up with a strucutre that keeps the UK an active member of the EIB?

The truth is that neither is particularly straightforward.

I think we need to start by disentangling two things; the UK as a member/shareholder of the Bank, and whether the Bank will lend to UK projects.

They are separate things; the Bank already lends to projects in countries outside the EU, so the UK doesn’t have to remain a member in order for UK projects to access funding from the EIB. If what the UK is concerned about is accessing EIB funding, retaining membership isn’t necessary, but also won’t necessarily achieve that. What the UK would need to do is to negotiate a lending mandate which will be appropriate for/favourable to UK-based projects after Brexit. And they will have to accept that that mandate will be based on EU policies and EU objectives. And (unless the bank's role, mandate, objectives are changed) this will be true whether or not the UK are members of the Bank.

Separately, do they wish to be members of the Bank? What’s in that for the UK? As noted, it requires an amendment to the Bank’s constitution, and if the UK seeks an amendment which not only allows them to remain as members but also seeks a change to the bank’s role, mandate, etc to reflect the fact that with post-Brexit UK as a member it is no longer “the Bank of the European Union”, that’s obviously a huge deal, and not at all straightforward. Yet I can see no reason why the UK would wish to be a member of the Bank without changes of this kind. If the UK has expressed an interest in remaining a member, the inference is that they would hope to use the membership negotiations and/or their position as a member to influence matters to improve the position of UK borrowers and prospective borrowers, post-Brexit, relative to what they would be if the Bank's mandate and objectives remain as they are.

You mention the credit rating issue. Currently the EIB’s long-term debt holds AAA credit rating from S&P; this is the same credit rating as Germany has, and rather better than the UK’s AA rating. The same is true when we look at the Fitch ratings. From Moody, the Bank gets Aaa, the same as Germany, whereas the UK only gets Aa1. What this suggests to me is that the market attach more weight to German membership of the bank than to UK membership. That’s not to say that UK withdrawal would have no effect on the Bank’s credit rating, but my guess is that it would be modest. Certainly the current expectation of imminent UK withdrawal hasn’t had any perceptible effect on the Bank’s rating, which you’d think it would if the markets saw the UK’s membership as underpinning the Bank’s creditworthiness.

So, from a credit/cost of funds point of view, all other things being equal the EIB might prefer the UK to remain a member, but it’s not a showstopper and if it came with a price, such as the Bank’s role, mandate and relationship with the EU being rejigged to accommodate UK priorities, I think the EIB and the EU-27 would be leery. Whereas if it doesn’t come with that price, I can’t see why the UK would be interested. All of which means that the issue is not straightforward.

What would be straightforward is this; an amendment to the Bank’s charter to allow the UK to continue as a member, but with no change to the Bank’s mandate, objectives, role, governance, lending strategies or lending policies. But I cannot for the life of me think why the UK would find that attractive. Can you?

Zubeneschamali

Sam Russell wrote: »

For example, they do not need to deal with wine

Oh yes they do:

http://www.englishwineproducers.co.uk/

Zubeneschamali

RDM_83 again wrote: »

something seems off there?

Rich bosses pay workers too little and CEOs too much. Workers complain. Rich bosses buy newspapers, and have the papers blame immigrants and the EU for bad pay.

Workers vote for Brexit, taking themselves out of EU social protections and leaving themselves at the mercy of the Tories who are also bought by the rich.

Now bosses say they are competing with China and India instead of France and Germany, so they must pay workers even less, so there is more for themselves and their Tory pets' golden castle moat duck islands.

Sam Russell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh yes they do:

http://www.englishwineproducers.co.uk/

The Swiss drink their own wine, so the UK can drink their own too. They hardly produce enough to stock one branch of Sainsbury or Tesco supermarkets. I have never seen it on sale locally here.

Thomas__

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

something seems off there?

Rich bosses pay workers too little and CEOs too much. Workers complain. Rich bosses buy newspapers, and have the papers blame immigrants and the EU for bad pay.

Workers vote for Brexit, taking themselves out of EU social protections and leaving themselves at the mercy of the Tories who are also bought by the rich.

Now bosses say they are competing with China and India instead of France and Germany, so they must pay workers even less, so there is more for themselves and their Tory pets' golden castle moat duck islands.

That´s all the perfect summary of Brexit and the fools that voted for it.

robindch

marcus001 wrote: »

It's almost as if the EU is a stifling bureaucracy.

As demfad has already pointed out, you have got this exactly the wrong way around.

The EU is essentially a club which, for over forty years in the case of the UK and Ireland, has been creating facilities of one kind or another for most things of common interest.

On the back of a campaign of sustained deceit concerning the nature of the club and the nature of these facilities, the UK electorate voted narrowly to leave this club and make friends elsewhere.

That's fine, the UK can do that. However, it can't continue to take advantage of all the club's facilities if it's not a member of the club any more - that's what "leaving a club" means.

I hope you find this useful.

Thomas__

Sam Russell wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh yes they do:

http://www.englishwineproducers.co.uk/

The Swiss drink their own wine, so the UK can drink their own too.  They hardly produce enough to stock one branch of Sainsbury or Tesco supermarkets.  I have never seen it on sale locally here.

I didn´t even know that they had one. Always thought the climate is not fit for growing one.

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

The truth is that neither is particularly straightforward.

I think we need to start by disentangling two things; the UK as a member/shareholder of the Bank, and whether the Bank will lend to UK projects.

They are separate things; the Bank already lends to projects in countries outside the EU, so the UK doesn’t have to remain a member in order for UK projects to access funding from the EIB. If what the UK is concerned about is accessing EIB funding, retaining membership isn’t necessary, but also won’t necessarily achieve that. What the UK would need to do is to negotiate a lending mandate which will be appropriate for/favourable to UK-based projects after Brexit. And they will have to accept that that mandate will be based on EU policies and EU objectives. And (unless the bank's role, mandate, objectives are changed) this will be true whether or not the UK are members of the Bank.

Separately, do they wish to be members of the Bank? What’s in that for the UK? As noted, it requires an amendment to the Bank’s constitution, and if the UK seeks an amendment which not only allows them to remain as members but also seeks a change to the bank’s role, mandate, etc to reflect the fact that with post-Brexit UK as a member it is no longer “the Bank of the European Union”, that’s obviously a huge deal, and not at all straightforward. Yet I can see no reason why the UK would wish to be a member of the Bank without changes of this kind. If the UK has expressed an interest in remaining a member, the inference is that they would hope to use the membership negotiations and/or their position as a member to influence matters to improve the position of UK borrowers and prospective borrowers, post-Brexit, relative to what they would be if the Bank's mandate and objectives remain as they are.

You mention the credit rating issue. Currently the EIB’s long-term debt holds AAA credit rating from S&P; this is the same credit rating as Germany has, and rather better than the UK’s AA rating. The same is true when we look at the Fitch ratings. From Moody, the Bank gets Aaa, the same as Germany, whereas the UK only gets Aa1. What this suggests to me is that the market attach more weight to German membership of the bank than to UK membership. That’s not to say that UK withdrawal would have no effect on the Bank’s credit rating, but my guess is that it would be modest. Certainly the current expectation of imminent UK withdrawal hasn’t had any perceptible effect on the Bank’s rating, which you’d think it would if the markets saw the UK’s membership as underpinning the Bank’s creditworthiness.

So, from a credit/cost of funds point of view, all other things being equal the EIB might prefer the UK to remain a member, but it’s not a showstopper and if it came with a price, such as the Bank’s role, mandate and relationship with the EU being rejigged to accommodate UK priorities, I think the EIB and the EU-27 would be leery. Whereas if it doesn’t come with that price, I can’t see why the UK would be interested. All of which means that the issue is not straightforward.

What would be straightforward is this; an amendment to the Bank’s charter to allow the UK to continue as a member, but with no change to the Bank’s mandate, objectives, role, governance, lending strategies or lending policies. But I cannot for the life of me think why the UK would find that attractive. Can you?

The Bank's charter would only affect the UK if they want to borrow from it, so in theory it should only affect the projects the funds are being used for, would it not?

Anyway, getting back to the original point of this particular strand of the thread, my point was that the statement by David Davis that the UK may wish to remain in the EIB, isn't as bat**** crazy as originally claimed. The activities of the EIB could almost be ringfenced from the discussion if this is agreed at an early stage. It will also make sorting out the Brexit bill a lot easier.

It may not be ideal for everyone involved, but from a pragmatic point of view, it could very well make sense.

LeinsterDub

Sam Russell wrote: »

.For example, they do not need to deal with wine, but car emissions or truck emissions will need to be certified by either the EU or by a mirror UK quango.

Minor point but the UK actually does product wine and unless they intend not to export it's an other duplication. I'm sure there are plenty of other minor industries that the UK will now need to duplicate oversight for. I wonder have they considered how much value that industry has before they decide to abandon it's export market ?

Zubeneschamali

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Swiss drink their own wine, so the UK can drink their own too.

Well sure, but they still need to set up a separate quango to regulate wine to make sure UK consumers are not drinking antifreeze.

Peregrinus

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I would also wonder how these studies square with the fact that real wages in the UK in many sectors haven't grown as much at all as they should have, I mean that's a constant source of complaint from the left too right, something seems off there?

You don't think depressed consumer demand attributable to prolonged austerity policies might have anything to do with it at all?

Real wages are not falling because those dusky foreigners are taking all the jobs. The UK is pretty much at full employment, and most of those who are unemployed are in that position not because they cannot find jobs due to competition from the DFs, but rather because they face challenges of their own - illness, disablity, social disadvantage, a prison record, single parenthood.

In times of full employment, you normally expect real wage to rise. So why aren't they? Partly because British labour productivity is poor, which generally reflects under-investment, and partly because (in recent times) inflation is rising, which is of course largely attributable to the declining pound. It's also because wage inequality in the UK is high, and getting higher - what real wage growth there has been in the UK has been for workers earning above the median.

So, a complex of problems and issues, then, and not easy to solve. Particularly not easy to solve without upsetting some of the core supports of the Tory party. On the whole, much easier to blame the dusky foreigners.

LeinsterDub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well sure, but they still need to set up a separate quango to regulate wine to make sure UK consumers are not drinking antifreeze.

I think like a lot of these issues the UK think they can just say sure we will just follow the EU standards in this industry, that a single quango for the 'Implementation of EU standards in fringe industries' will work.

Now of course this won't work unless the quango is EU controlled , operated and run and even then it still won't work as the UK wine producer could be using unfair (in the EU sense) employment practices or the water might not be up to EU standards.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Bank's charter would only affect the UK if they want to borrow from it, so in theory it should only affect the projects the funds are being used for, would it not?

Yes. My point is that, as the charter stands at present, once the UK leaves the EU, the criteria that the EIB uses to evaluate loans outside the EU would likely result in very few UK projects receiving funding. Which may be fine if the UK has no interest in UK projects being able to access funding from the EIB. But, if that's the case, that brings me to my main point:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Anyway, getting back to the original point of this particular strand of the thread, my point was that the statement by David Davis that the UK may wish to remain in the EIB, isn't as bat**** crazy as originally claimed. The activities of the EIB could almost be ringfenced from the discussion if this is agreed at an early stage. It will also make sorting out the Brexit bill a lot easier.

It may not be ideal for everyone involved, but from a pragmatic point of view, it could very well make sense.

I'm not sure why it makes sense from the UK's point of view. Assuming the charter, policy, etc of the EIB is not changed, why would the UK want to commit a large amount of capital to maintaining its membership? The EIB doesn't pay dividends or distribute profits to its members. Members maintain their investments in it because they are obliged to as members of the EU, which obviously won't apply to the UK post-Brexit, and because they want to support the Bank's rule of representing the interests of EU members, implementing EU policy and contributing to EU policy objectives. And why, as a non-member, would the UK want to do any of these things?

Maybe I'm a bit slow, but I genuinely don't see why Davis thinks that continued UK membership would be a good idea. Has he said anything about this? Is this just one of his thought bubbles? Is it an attempt to soften Brexit by sneaking in a continued role for Britain in funding and implementing EU policies hoping that nobody on the Tory Right notices? Is it just an attempt to narrow the scope of the negotiations by arbitrarily chopping bits off in the hope of reducing the scale of the project so that it can be completed by March '19?

The media are reporting that Davis wants continued access to EIB funding, and this strongly suggests that the reason for wanting continued membership of the EIB is to influence the bank in its attitude to lending to UK projects. That means a significant shift in the Bank's current reason for living so, no, that's not just a sensible pragmatic ring-fencing of purely technical issues. It's quite fundamental.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Maybe I'm a bit slow, but I genuinely don't see why Davis thinks that continued UK membership would be a good idea.

Perhaps he has figured out that it will cost a sh!tload of money to disentangle the UK from the EIB?

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well sure, but they still need to set up a separate quango to regulate wine to make sure UK consumers are not drinking antifreeze.

Or, you could just let them drink antifreeze.

More seriously, this is one area where the UK probably doesn't need a huge amount of regulation. Countries that produce wine have an interest in maintaining standards and they have their own regulatory regimes. The great bulk of the wine consumed in the UK comes from the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Chile and the USA (in that order). The amount of wine that comes from UK producers, and is regulated only in the UK, is tiny - well under 1% of total consumption. It's unlikely that consumer safety would be imperilled by the UK choosing to rely entirely on regulation in the producer countries.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps he has figured out that it will cost a sh!tload of money to disentangle the UK from the EIB?

It will cost the EIB a sh!tload of money and, indirectly, the other member states, who will likely be asked to contribute further capital to replace the capital repaid to the UK. The UK can expect to nett about EUR 10 billion from the exercise.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or, you could just let them drink antifreeze.

More seriously, this is one area where the UK probably doesn't need a huge amount of regulation. Countries that produce wine have an interest in maintaining standards and they have their own regulatory regimes. The great bulk of the wine consumed in the UK comes from the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Chile and the USA (in that order). The amount of wine that comes from UK producers, and is regulated only in the UK, is tiny - well under 1% of total consumption. It's unlikely that consumer safety would be imperilled by the UK choosing to rely entirely on regulation in the producer countries.

This is why the GI (geographical origins) aspect of the EU's IP position paper is important: with those couched into (protected by/enforceable under) UK law, there is no need for a new UK quango or agency, just let Trading Standards and the Courts enforce the GI characteristics against 'chancer' UK producers/importers.

That's the principle, though. The practice (particularly, and to begin with, 'how to' couch) is likely to be another story alright.

View

Peregrinus wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps he has figured out that it will cost a sh!tload of money to disentangle the UK from the EIB?

It will cost the EIB a sh!tload of money and, indirectly, the other member states, who will likely be asked to contribute further capital to replace the capital repaid to the UK. The UK can expect to nett about EUR 10 billion from the exercise.

Like many other Brexit tall tales that would appear - surprise, surprise! - not to be true:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-eib/britain-may-have-big-brexit-bill-to-settle-with-eu-investment-bank-idUKKBN16T259

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

It will cost the EIB a sh!tload of money and, indirectly, the other member states, who will likely be asked to contribute further capital to replace the capital repaid to the UK. The UK can expect to nett about EUR 10 billion from the exercise.

Actually the other way around; as per earlier post:

jm08 wrote: »

Here is a reference to it (though not the one I initially came across).

But Britain is also liable to cover its portion of the bank’s debt, which amounts to 469 billion euros, EIB President Werner Hoyer said in a hearing at the economic affairs committee of the European Parliament.
“Britain has 16 percent of the shares and probably will want to have a countervalue of these shares when they leave. On the other hand, we also have contingency liabilities of (half a trillion) euros in which the United Kingdom participates with 16 percent,” Hoyer told lawmakers.
If the 16.1 percentage rate was simply applied to the liabilities, Britain would end up with a 75.5 billion euro tab, from which its share of the bank’s capital should be deducted, leaving a 65.3 billion euros bill with the EIB.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-eib/britain-may-have-big-brexit-bill-to-settle-with-eu-investment-bank-idUKKBN16T259

Which would explain why he'd like to stay in simply to not have to pony up the 65.3 billion on top of the exit bill being discussed.

Peregrinus

View wrote: »

Like many other Brexit tall tales that would appear - surprise, surprise! - not to be true:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-eib/britain-may-have-big-brexit-bill-to-settle-with-eu-investment-bank-idUKKBN16T259

I'm not convinced. As reported in your link, Hoyer's analysis treats the UK has have a proportionate share of the Bank's liabilities, but ignores any similar proportionate share of the bank's assets. That doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.

View

Regarding the EIB, it should be pointed out that the legal "foundations" for it are the EU Treaties (specifically art 318 TFEU & Annex 5).

It is therefore clear that for any country to be a member of the EIB, it must be an EU member and accept in full EU law.

To quote from the EIB's statute:

Statute of the European Investment Bank
(Version dated 1 July 2013)

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
DESIRING to lay down the Statute of the European Investment Bank provided for in Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

HAVE AGREED upon the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Article 1
The European Investment Bank established by Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter called the ‘Bank’) is hereby constituted; it shall perform its functions and carry on its activities in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties and of this Statute.

Article 2
The task of the Bank shall be that defined in Article 309 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Article 3
In accordance with Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Bank’s members shall be the Member States.

....

Therefore the suggestion that the UK can continue as an EIB member is crazy, it would be akin to suggesting that the people of (the Republic of) Ireland should be able to return MPs to Westminster decades after us leaving the UK.

blanch152

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or, you could just let them drink antifreeze.

More seriously, this is one area where the UK probably doesn't need a huge amount of regulation. Countries that produce wine have an interest in maintaining standards and they have their own regulatory regimes. The great bulk of the wine consumed in the UK comes from the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Chile and the USA (in that order). The amount of wine that comes from UK producers, and is regulated only in the UK, is tiny - well under 1% of total consumption. It's unlikely that consumer safety would be imperilled by the UK choosing to rely entirely on regulation in the producer countries.

Interesting, but let us say that a vineyard in France produces wine that is not up to EU standards (too much antifreeze:)) but is still drinkable. What is to stop that French vineyard exporting that sub-standard wine to the UK post-Brexit? The UK isn't monitoring it and so long as the wine doesn't go on EU shelves, the EU doesn't care. Am I missing something?