Brexit discussion thread II

Sam Russell

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, I agree.

But, when you drive around Ireland, the positives of being in the eu are very obvious. You have to look a lot harder in the UK to find these.

The result of the Wales EU referendum was held in an EU provided building.

Most projects funded by the EU are not publicly acknowledged by big signs, but by little hidden ones out of sight.

Most of the regional aid was done in poor regions, like Scotland and NI (who voted to remain), and other places that voted to leave like Wales, Cornwall, North East England, Northwest England - places that got lots of help. Agriculture was a big winner from the EU as well. Of course it was the big farmers who got the big bucks.

That is the hand outs, but free trade was a definite help to the UK economy which benefited most people. Before the EU, the British economy was a basket case. Britain was described as the 'sick man of Europe'. Balance of payments and poor productivity were a constant problem in the 60s and 70s, causing devaluations in 1948, 1967, floating the pound in 1978, and crashing out on the snake in 1992.

Not a good history. However, they should do better in the future with taking back control.

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The eu has stated that it won't accept brass plate companies, are you suggesting the UK does?

LOL

How many tax havens are crown dependencies ?

And without the UK's veto most will probably get added to the EU Blacklist in the wake of the Panama Papers.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, I agree.

But, when you drive around Ireland, the positives of being in the eu are very obvious. You have to look a lot harder in the UK to find these.

Completely disagree. Those who have even the smallest knowledge of history will know that the UK was nearly bankrupt prior to joining the single market.

Charles Babbage

murphaph wrote: »

WTO terms is much more of a disaster for the service oriented UK economy than the EU27. The UK needs a deal.

You would imagine that a variety of business interests are saying that, repeatedly and increasingly loudly, to conservative MPs. Let's hope they are listened to.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Completely disagree. Those who have even the smallest knowledge of history will know that the UK was nearly bankrupt prior to joining the single market.

Unfortunately, a lot of UK voters haven't the smallest knowledge of history and any media they come into contact with will only give them a distorted view.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

Completely disagree. Those who have even the smallest knowledge of history will know that the UK was nearly bankrupt prior to joining the single market.

Yes, indeed.

Proof of ever it were needed as to why socialism simply doesn't work.

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL

How many tax havens are crown dependencies ?

And without the UK's veto most will probably get added to the EU Blacklist in the wake of the Panama Papers.

I would have thought the eu would sort out its own tax havens first.

Of course, now Ireland will have to face the eu on its own.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/tax-harmonisation-is-back-on-eu-s-agenda-but-ireland-is-alone-1.2841042

FrancieBrady

Liam Fox clueless on the Sunday Politics, can you really be unaware of what your Foreign Secretary said?
Labour shadow not inspiring confidence either.

DaniilKharms

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, indeed.

Proof of ever it were needed as to why socialism simply doesn't work.

Lol.

Many things caused Britain to have to be bailed out by the IMF, but socialism isn't one of them.

Government spending and socialism are not synonymous.

Fratton Fred

DaniilKharms wrote: »

Lol.

Many things caused Britain to have to be bailed out by the IMF, but socialism isn't one of them.

Government spending and socialism are not synonymous.

OK, so it wasn't the three day week forced on the UK by the miners strike then?

I look forward to the Corbynistas who have just been talking about the British not knowing their history, explaining this one to me.

The UK's recovery owed more to Margaret Thatcher than it did the eu, but hey, I'm sure history can be rewritten and twisted to suit certain agendas, it's what certain posters on here are good at.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OK, so it wasn't the three day week forced on the UK by the miners strike then?

That happened after the UK's accession to the EEC.

More to the point, the way you frame the question presupposes that the miners' strike was the fault of socialism. In any enterprise, a strike could the the responisibility of the trade unions, or it could be the responsibility of the management, or (in the real world) responsibility may often be shared. Starting out by assuming that it must be the responsibility of "socialists" is very convenient if your trying to bolster a belief that "socialism simply doesn't work", but it's not a very persuasive argument from the point of view of someone who doesn't start out by assuming the conclusion.

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

The result of the Wales EU referendum was held in an EU provided building.

Most projects funded by the EU are not publicly acknowledged by big signs, but by little hidden ones out of sight.

Good morning,

Yes and no. At the end of the day if Britain didn't send the amount of money it does to Brussels this shortfall could be spent itself on British priorities or handed directly to the devolved governments in Cardiff, Holyrood and Stormont.

This is where the Leave campaign were correct to say that the money that they give to the EU as a gross is money they lose control of. The UK doesn't need the EU to redistribute their own money for them. As a net contributor to the EU it is entirely a moot point to talk of EU funding. It is British money being distributed by the EU.

The UK doesn't need a technocratic entity to decide how it's own money should be spent.

Edit:

Lemming wrote: »

Fred, the answer is in front of you. No deal IS a bad deal.

As a point of note, no deal would be the most undesirable of bad deals possible.

I disagree. A highly punitive deal could be worse than no deal. The European Union has the​ choice of agreeing a mutually beneficial deal or a highly punitive one.

If it is the latter then WTO terms could well be better.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

That happened after the UK's accession to the EEC.

as did the IMF bail out. But I'm not the one claiming that people should learn their history and thank the eu for saving he UK's economy.

Peregrinus wrote: »

More to the point, the way you frame the question presupposes that the miners' strike was the fault of socialism. In any enterprise, a strike could the the responisibility of the trade unions, or it could be the responsibility of the management, or (in the real world) responsibility may often be shared. Starting out by assuming that it must be the responsibility of "socialists" is very convenient if your trying to bolster a belief that "socialism simply doesn't work", but it's not a very persuasive argument from the point of view of someone who doesn't start out by assuming the conclusion.

Trade unions, their greed and the beliefs of their socialist leaders were very much responsible for the three day week. You wrap it up in statements like "that isn't true socialism" etc, but to the majority of Brits, that is what socialism means. Being held to ransom by trade unions.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

as did the IMF bail out. But I'm not the one claiming that people should learn their history and thank the eu for saving he UK's economy.



Trade unions, their greed and the beliefs of their socialist leaders were very much responsible for the three day week. You wrap it up in statements like "that isn't true socialism" etc, but to the majority of Brits, that is what socialism means. Being held to ransom by trade unions.

Again, Fred, you're being a bit selective. Perhaps a majority of Brits would also link socialism to, say, the introduction of the National Health Service?

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK doesn't need a technocratic entity to decide how it's own money should be spent.

Edit:

I disagree. A highly punitive deal could be worse than no deal. The European Union has the​ choice of agreeing a mutually beneficial deal or a highly punitive one.

If it is the latter then WTO terms could well be better.

The UK record isn't great when you look at deprived areas in need of funding though. Maybe they need a outside body to spend their money as sometimes politicians don't do the right thing?

What in your opinion is a highly punitive deal? As I understand it the worst deal is WTO terms, right? So a bad deal will be better than WTO terms, right? Or am I missing something here?

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, Fred, you're being a bit selective. Perhaps a majority of Brits would also link socialism to, say, the introduction of the National Health Service?

Maybe, maybe not.

The reality though, is that Jeremy Corbyn reminds too many people of the brand of socialism the UK had in the 70s and 80s. That's why he is just not electable to a lot of people over the age of 45.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not.

The reality though, is that Jeremy Corbyn reminds too many people of the brand of socialism the UK had in the 70s and 80s. That's why he is just not electable to a lot of people over the age of 45.

Anyone who was politically aware at the time of the three-day week is now at least in their 60s. I know the over-60s vote a higher rate than other age cohorts but, still, they're a minority (and a declining minority) of the electorate.

I think the "Corbyn is unelectable" media narrative (that, oddly enough, we are being subjected to rather less of nowadays) is not based on parallels between Corbyn/Corbynite policies and the events of the 1960s/early 70s, but on parallels between Corbyn on the one hand and Michael Foot and the fairly hapless Labour Party of the late 80s/early 90s. That's a time that a much larger proportion of voters will remember, and it's a time that will loom large in the collective mind of the cohort of the well-paid white men in their 50s who determine the editorial policy of, and right the opinion pieces in, the mainstream British media. But, even so, to a signifant cohort of the voters it's ancient history, just as much as the three-day week. The signficant political events that a clear majority will remember are the Blair victory of '97, the Iraq War, the GFC.

As the last election has just shown, the "Corbyn is unelectable" narrative did not capture the public imagination in quite the way that was glibly assumed. If we look at this coldly, in the light of the evidence, Corbyn is eminently electable. Labour under Corbyn got 40% of the vote in the recent election; this is Labour's highest score since 2001; Labour has won elections with a lower percentage than that in the past. If the Tories are returned to office at the next election, it will be the fourth election in a row where that has happened, a feat they have not achieved since 1992 (and that, I think, is the only time any party has ever achieved it). The odds are against any incumbent government winning a fourth successive election. Be honest; do the Tories look to you, right now, like a party shaping up to pull off such a feat? Obviously a lot can happen in the next five years, but a lot of what will happen, in terms of the reality of Brexit versus the Brexiter rhetoric, is unlikely to make it easier for the government to retain power.

As of right now, a fourth Tory government looks a lot more like wishful thinking
than cold, hard analysis.

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

Anyone who was politically aware at the time of the three-day week is now at least in their 60s. I know the over-60s vote a higher rate than other age cohorts but, still, they're a minority (and a declining minority) of the electorate.

I think the "Corbyn is unelectable" media narrative (that, oddly enough, we are being subjected to rather less of nowadays) is not based on parallels between Corbyn/Corbynite policies and the events of the 1960s/early 70s, but on parallels between Corbyn on the one hand and Michael Foot and the fairly hapless Labour Party of the late 80s/early 90s. That's a time that a much larger proportion of voters will remember, and it's a time that will loom large in the collective mind of the cohort of the well-paid white men in their 50s who determine the editorial policy of, and right the opinion pieces in, the mainstream British media. But, even so, to a signifant cohort of the voters it's ancient history, just as much as the three-day week. The signficant political events that a clear majority will remember are the Blair victory of '97, the Iraq War, the GFC.

As the last election has just shown, the "Corbyn is unelectable" narrative did not capture the public imagination in quite the way that was glibly assumed. If we look at this coldly, in the light of the evidence, Corbyn is eminently electable. Labour under Corbyn got 40% of the vote in the recent election; this is Labour's highest score since 2001; Labour has won elections with a lower percentage than that in the past. If the Tories are returned to office at the next election, it will be the fourth election in a row where that has happened, a feat they have not achieved since 1992 (and that, I think, is the only time any party has ever achieved it). The odds are against any incumbent government winning a fourth successive election. Be honest; do the Tories look to you, right now, like a party shaping up to pull off such a feat? Obviously a lot can happen in the next five years, but a lot of what will happen, in terms of the reality of Brexit versus the Brexiter rhetoric, is unlikely to make it easier for the government to retain power.

As of right now, a fourth Tory government looks a lot more like wishful thinking
than cold, hard analysis.

I can remember very well playing board games with my parents by candle light, because the power was turned off at specific times during the day and night. I may not have been politically aware, but it doesn't take much to link early experiences and the politics behind those experiences.

I can also remember very very well not being able to move a photo copier without an electrician (because it has a plug and only electricians were allowed to unplug things) two labourers (becasue the weight of a photo copier demanded that two labourers were used, despite the thing being on wheels) and a shop steward to make sure the electrician didn't lift or push anything and the labourers didn't unplug anything.

That is why the UK economy was a basket case and productivity was ridiculously low. That wasn't changed by the eu, that was changed by Thatcher breaking the iron grip the unions had on the country.

Peregrinus

With due respect to your experience, Fred, I think the proportion of the electorate whose attitude to the current Labour leadership is determined by their memory of childhood board games is probably fairly small. We've just seen a Corbyn-led Labour party win 40% of the vote in a general election, which is unquestionably a degree of support with which elections can be won, and have been in the past, so I think the evidence tends to favour my view of the matter.

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Bad deal is not a defined term, is it, so it can mean anything.

Well, no - we are talking about possible deals here, and there is a range. At one end, the UK give up on Brexit and stay in the EU, nothing changes. At the other end, the UK exits with no deal and reverts to WTO terms and basic rules for visas and immigration.

Any possible deal will be somewhere in between the two - there is no "bad deal" that is in the possible range that is worse than no deal.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

The UK record isn't great when you look at deprived areas in need of funding though. Maybe they need a outside body to spend their money as sometimes politicians don't do the right thing?

What in your opinion is a highly punitive deal? As I understand it the worst deal is WTO terms, right? So a bad deal will be better than WTO terms, right? Or am I missing something here?

Good evening!

I don't think Britain does any worse than a lot of other European states. I don't believe that the EU is needed to make effective spending decisions that can and should be made locally.

A highly restrictive deal in terms of trading arrangements with a large payout to the European Union and continued oversight of the ECJ would be a very bad deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

If "bad deal" means "one which the UK would reject" then, yes, a "bad deal" must be a proposed deal which would leave the UK worse off than it would be if it had no deal, and was trading with the EU on WTO terms.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

If "bad deal" means "one which the UK would reject" then, yes, a "bad deal" must be a proposed deal which would leave the UK worse off than it would be if it had no deal, and was trading with the EU on WTO terms.

But this is silly. If a house is being auctioned with a reserve of 80K, why is the seller going around saying he will not sell at all unless bids are over 50K? That isn't even in the range of bids anyone might make.

WTO terms are the absolute floor. A deal that is worse than that will never make it to the talks, just as an auction bid below the reserve will be dismissed.

ambro25

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no - we are talking about possible deals here, and there is a range. At one end, the UK give up on Brexit and stay in the EU, nothing changes. At the other end, the UK exits with no deal and reverts to WTO terms and basic rules for visas and immigration.

Any possible deal will be somewhere in between the two - there is no "bad deal" that is in the possible range that is worse than no deal.

With respect, 'nothing changes' if the UK does not Brexit, is a bit presumptuous: I can't imagine the EU(27) not exacting their pound of flesh as consideration for trap-door'ing the Article 50 notification.

Whether it's the rebate, and/or this, that and the other opt-out, is open for debate...but I genuinely don't believe that, when the EU keeps saying to Westminster that 'the door is still open to backtrack', it's without strings attached. And crashing out on WTO terms would still be worse for the UK than surrendering some of those.

DaniilKharms

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OK, so it wasn't the three day week forced on the UK by the miners strike then?

I look forward to the Corbynistas who have just been talking about the British not knowing their history, explaining this one to me.

The UK's recovery owed more to Margaret Thatcher than it did the eu, but hey, I'm sure history can be rewritten and twisted to suit certain agendas, it's what certain posters on here are good at.

Strikes aren't the same thing as socialism.

What do you think socialism means?

DaniilKharms

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I can remember very well playing board games with my parents by candle light, because the power was turned off at specific times during the day and night. I may not have been politically aware, but it doesn't take much to link early experiences and the politics behind those experiences.

I can also remember very very well not being able to move a photo copier without an electrician (because it has a plug and only electricians were allowed to unplug things) two labourers (becasue the weight of a photo copier demanded that two labourers were used, despite the thing being on wheels) and a shop steward to make sure the electrician didn't lift or push anything and the labourers didn't unplug anything.

That is why the UK economy was a basket case and productivity was ridiculously low. That wasn't changed by the eu, that was changed by Thatcher breaking the iron grip the unions had on the country.

Again, none of that has anything to do with socialism.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

With respect, 'nothing changes' if the UK does not Brexit, is a bit presumptuous: I can't imagine the EU(27) not exacting their pound of flesh as consideration for trap-door'ing the Article 50 notification.

Whether it's the rebate, and/or this, that and the other opt-out, is open for debate...but I genuinely don't believe that, when the EU keeps saying to Westminster that 'the door is still open to backtrack', it's without strings attached. And crashing out on WTO terms would still be worse for the UK than surrendering some of those.

Something which easily gets forgotten among the remain side among which I count myself is that Britain contributes quite a lot to the EU. There is the financial cost we never stop hearing about. Then there are the military and intelligence contributions along the liberal counterbalance to any big state visions of the Germans (I think we're safe with Macron there though for now). It also runs a sizeable current account deficit with the EU and provides hundreds of thousands of EU migrants with work each year.

I honestly think that if the government decided to backtrack, the EU would happily burn that letter and act like Article 50 was never invoked. Nobody wants Brexit in Brussels and nearly as many people in the UK as those who voted for it don't want it either.

mickoneill31

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But this is silly. If a house is being auctioned with a reserve of 80K, why is the seller going around saying he will not sell at all unless bids are over 50K? That isn't even in the range of bids anyone might make.

WTO terms are the absolute floor. A deal that is worse than that will never make it to the talks, just as an auction bid below the reserve will be dismissed.

I think the "punitive" actions that people mention fall into this daft category too.
As in, the EU will go out of its way to punish the UK. The EU isn't going to do the UK any favours which aren't in the best interest of the EU. But why would they?

If I was a negotiator for the EU now I'd be out to get the best possible deal for the EU. If that screws the UK that wouldn't be my problem unless it impacts the EU. If it benefits the UK, great but that's not the EUs priority.

If the EU went out of their way to to punish the UK then they may not be getting the best deal for the EU. So why do it? I would like to think that the negotiators are a bit above choosing a crappy deal just because it would hurt the UK. Their criteria should only be "is this the best deal for Europe?". If the UK is negatively impacted then it's up to the UK negotiators to counter it. Their primary criteria should be "is this the best deal for the UK?". Both will have to meet somewhere between both requirements. Either side trying to point score or punish the other is childish.

swampgas

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I honestly think that if the government decided to backtrack, the EU would happily burn that letter and act like Article 50 was never invoked. Nobody wants Brexit in Brussels and nearly as many people in the UK as those who voted for it don't want it either.

That's debatable - I think it's mostly true, but the longer the negotations go on, and the more UK companies jump ship to EU-27 countries (like Easyjet just recently) the more motivation there will be among some of the EU countries to add conditions to any cancellation of Brexit.

The UK government is playing with fire if it thinks it can just change its mind at the last minute and keep the status quo.

DaniilKharms

I personally think the EU would demand the UK lose it's special rebate if it tried to back out of Art 50., and I'd HOPE it would make the UK pay for the cost of all of the work done on Brexit by the EU, which is currently being paid for by all of us.

Zubeneschamali

swampgas wrote: »

The UK government is playing with fire if it thinks it can just change its mind at the last minute and keep the status quo.

The UK government thinks nothing of the sort - they are divided between people who want to give the EU two fingers on the way out the door, and people who want to set Britain on fire and sink it into the Atlantic while playing Rule Britannia.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Something which easily gets forgotten among the remain side among which I count myself is that Britain contributes quite a lot to the EU. <...>

I fear it's not so much the amount or level of contribution from the UK which gets forgotten by remainers (or others), but more the socio-economic synergy which it sustains and 'symbolises' (if you will): were it not for its membership of the EU, the UK would not have the economic activity to provide that level of contribution.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I honestly think that if the government decided to backtrack, the EU would happily burn that letter and act like Article 50 was never invoked. Nobody wants Brexit in Brussels and nearly as many people in the UK as those who voted for it don't want it either.

Whilst I would be willing to concede that this outcome may well be the 'net' end result...I still don't believe that it would be fully 'for free': I very much doubt that Macron (on the one hand) and the Visegrad lot (on the other) would give the UK political class a free pass, after the last 18+ months. Particularly when UK politics have become so durably polarised, and Brexiteers gained enough of a power foothold, that the potential for a Brexit referendum bis would still exist for years.

For instance, I'm pretty sure that Macron is hell-bent on grabbing as much of the City business as he can, no matter what, with a long-term view of that activity helping offset a portion of France's public debt mountain, in the same way those services in the UK have for No.11.

Whilst I was -and to an extent still am- loathe to see harm visited on the UK socio-economic fabric, particularly insofar as the 48% and all those who had no say in the matter (British emigrants, pre-voting age youths) are concerned...I genuinely think the UK won't be on a footing to upkeep a good relationship with the EU -whether still inside it or outside of it- until and unless it has been made to take its anti-populist medicine by the big wide world, in particular the US, China and India. A smaller does of anti-populist medicine by the EU instead, would be a blessing by comparison.

LeinsterDub

https://www.ft.com/content/047dd0f2-3fba-11e7-82b6-896b95f30f58

Interesting read.

Mr Soraa, who co-founded Coast Seafood in 1994, says the tariffs hold back the Norwegian industry. There is little work done on processing fish in Norway other than for domestic consumption. Instead, Norwegian companies often buy businesses elsewhere in the EU so that they can get around the high taxes.

This is what the hardest brexit would mean except economy wide. British companies producing the lowest taxable product for export only to add value in the EU. Resulting in both a loss of jobs and taxes.

ancapailldorcha

swampgas wrote: »

That's debatable - I think it's mostly true, but the longer the negotations go on, and the more UK companies jump ship to EU-27 countries (like Easyjet just recently) the more motivation there will be among some of the EU countries to add conditions to any cancellation of Brexit.

The UK government is playing with fire if it thinks it can just change its mind at the last minute and keep the status quo.

There is an issue with companies leaving alright but I would stand by my point. The UK government is so far showing no sign of changing its mind rendering the idea moot, for now at least.

ambro25 wrote: »

I fear it's not so much the amount or level of contribution from the UK which gets forgotten by remainers (or others), but more the socio-economic synergy which it sustains and 'symbolises' (if you will): were it not for its membership of the EU, the UK would not have the economic activity to provide that level of contribution.
Whilst I would be willing to concede that this outcome may well be the 'net' end result...I still don't believe that it would be fully 'for free': I very much doubt that Macron (on the one hand) and the Visegrad lot (on the other) would give the UK political class a free pass, after the last 18+ months. Particularly when UK politics have become so durably polarised, and Brexiteers gained enough of a power foothold, that the potential for a Brexit referendum bis would still exist for years.

But the UK is a net contributor. Without this contribution, EU coffers will shrink unless the shortfall is made up another way. The Visegrad group need the UK to export people to unless they fancy seeing their social welfare bills inflated. Macron, I'm not so sure though. He seems to be fairly in line with much of UK political opinion, ie free markets, liberal social policies, curbing the state, etc.. I'd say he'd like to keep the UK as an ideological ally if possible.

ambro25 wrote: »

For instance, I'm pretty sure that Macron is hell-bent on grabbing as much of the City business as he can, no matter what, with a long-term view of that activity helping offset a portion of France's public debt mountain, in the same way those services in the UK have for No.11.

This I'll concede. He's quite keen on attracting talent and firms to France and doing a good job so far it seems.

ambro25 wrote: »

Whilst I was -and to an extent still am- loathe to see harm visited on the UK socio-economic fabric, particularly insofar as the 48% and all those who had no say in the matter (British emigrants, pre-voting age youths) are concerned...I genuinely think the UK won't be on a footing to upkeep a good relationship with the EU -whether still inside it or outside of it- until and unless it has been made to take its anti-populist medicine by the big wide world, in particular the US, China and India. A smaller does of anti-populist medicine by the EU instead, would be a blessing by comparison.

I completely agree. You can't insult someone for decades and then expect warmth and friendship from them and that's before the EU's own interests enter the equation. The only way back I see is the election of a Macron-style figure in the UK as PM which is impossible in the short time. Nick Clegg, given his trade expertise, pan-European heritage, intelligence and multi-lingualism would have been ideal if not for the tuition fees mess for which he's still paying the price.

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.ft.com/content/047dd0f2-3fba-11e7-82b6-896b95f30f58

Interesting read.


This is what the hardest brexit would mean except economy wide. British companies producing the lowest taxable product for export only to add value in the EU. Resulting in both a loss of jobs and taxes.

The contrary this has helped the UK, Since the single market, the defunct UK car industry has been re-invigorated by foreign companies (Toyota, Nissan, Honda, BMW) have invested heavily to build cars in the UK so that more cars are now produced within the UK at a level above that of the 1970s. This has been made possible by the ease of importing (or exporting) components on a free basis with no customs or tariffs or even paperwork allowing for JIT schedules to work.

Leaving the single market will stop this, and leaving the customs union will stop it all together. I would think that the result would be the existing production will shift to just local demand, and assembly plants will have to get used to short production runs and quick model changes on the assembly lines. This will increase costs. There will also be longer lives for models - like product lifetimes, say, going from 4 years to 6 or even 8 years.

Tariffs will destroy the domestic car industry and possibly other industries. They might have to re-open the mines and the shipyards.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But the UK is a net contributor. Without this contribution, EU coffers will shrink unless the shortfall is made up another way.

Absolutely, and no disagreement there.

My point was that the UK could not have become -and importantly, stayed- that net contributor, for so long, had it not merged its socio-economic fabric so well and deep into, and within, the EU's generally. Hence my use of the term 'synergy' (or should I have used 'symbiosis'? depends what angle you appraise the relationship from, I suppose).

And the UK will remain a net contributor, but on a smaller scale of course: the EU will be facing a budgetary hole, sure...but then, don't forget that the EU also gets to name its price for the UK's continuing access to the SM. And I'm not talking about the divorce bill here

Personally, I don't believe the UK-related budgetary hole is going to be that large, nor that much of a problem for the EU27. Neither will the UK's divorce bill (a sizeable part of which, relating to EU pensions as it does, is likely to be a long-term commitment but with expectedly a consistently low annual level: it's the same kind of false debate when people holler about aggregate national debt levels in the trillions, without factoring in the terms/due dates, which make it affordable really).

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Visegrad group need the UK to export people to unless they fancy seeing their social welfare bills inflated.

A fair point, although the ONS stats are starting to show flattening of the trend. It wouldn't take much for the UK to clearly reverse it - and fully within the EU strictures, at that!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Macron, I'm not so sure though. He seems to be fairly in line with much of UK political opinion, ie free markets, liberal social policies, curbing the state, etc.. I'd say he'd like to keep the UK as an ideological ally if possible.

After last weekend's love-in with Trump, I'm thinking that Macron's France is looking to replace the UK as the special relationship counterpart, and erstwhile FDI landing zone, within the EU. Macron strikes me as plenty opportunistic and mercenary that way.

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

For instance, I'm pretty sure that Macron is hell-bent on grabbing as much of the City business as he can, no matter what, with a long-term view of that activity helping offset a portion of France's public debt mountain, in the same way those services in the UK have for No.11

Having relatives that are both Jewish and work in the square mile, they know a number of French finance workers and in particular, French Jewish finance workers (or hedge fund managers to be more precise) and the prospect of moving back to Paris is something that really doesn't appeal to then at the moment.

There is a reason why London is one if France's most populous cities and that isn't just because Hollande taxed the bejaysus out of high earners. They generally feel a lot safer in the UK.

They accept that fate may force them to move, but Paris is fairly low on their list of preferred places at the moment.

If Macron wants to entice the finance world to France, he has a lot to do.

Professor Moriarty

A very simple and rough calculation of what losing Britain's net contribution will mean for the EU:

Pop of EU: 510 million
Pop of UK: 65 million
Pop of EU-UK: 455 million

£8,000,000,000/455,000,000=17

Pop of Ireland: 5 million

5,000,000x17=£85,000,000 pa. Or €97 million.

Not a staggering blow.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

I wouldn't say "more" I would say "different". Canada exports more goods therefore it is going to seek a deal which is primarily for goods. Britain is different. But it is a similar sort of deal albeit more weighted on services than goods.

There is a very good reason why third party countries to not get services deals - jurisdiction. It is not possible to have thirty country institutions operating in a financial market where they are not subject to the jurisdiction. There would be no way to control them and protect consumers. This is why it has not happened in the past.

Jim2007

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A very simple and rough calculation of what losing Britain's net contribution will mean for the EU:

Pop of EU: 510 million
Pop of UK: 65 million
Pop of EU-UK: 455 million

£8,000,000,000/455,000,000=17

Pop of Ireland: 5 million

5,000,000x17=£85,000,000 pa. Or €97 million.

Not a staggering blow.

As I have pointed out before an adjustment of a couple of base points on the EU's take of the VAT revenue would cover it and consumers would not even notice it.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

Absolutely, and no disagreement there.

My point was that the UK could not have become -and importantly, stayed- that net contributor, for so long, had it not merged its socio-economic fabric so well and deep into, and within, the EU's generally. Hence my use of the term 'synergy' (or should I have used 'symbiosis'? depends what angle you appraise the relationship from, I suppose).

Oh, absolutely. I firmly believe that exploiting the single market is the main reason why the UK is one of the world's wealthiest nations.

ambro25 wrote: »

And the UK will remain a net contributor, but on a smaller scale of course: the EU will be facing a budgetary hole, sure...but then, don't forget that the EU also gets to name its price for the UK's continuing access to the SM. And I'm not talking about the divorce bill here

You're assuming that the UK wishes to remain a member of the single market. I think that this would be the best course of action but continuing under the jurisdiction of the ECJ as well as accepting the full burden of EU regulation and paying for the privilege may make this politically unfeasible.

ambro25 wrote: »

Personally, I don't believe the UK-related budgetary hole is going to be that large, nor that much of a problem for the EU27. Neither will the UK's divorce bill (a sizeable part of which, relating to EU pensions as it does, is likely to be a long-term commitment but with expectedly a consistently low annual level: it's the same kind of false debate when people holler about aggregate national debt levels in the trillions, without factoring in the terms/due dates, which make it affordable really).

You're right, it probably won't be that large but it's not something that can just be brushed aside given that so many states are net beneficiaries of EU membership.

ambro25 wrote: »

A fair point, although the ONS stats are starting to show flattening of the trend. It wouldn't take much for the UK to clearly reverse it - and fully within the EU strictures, at that!

How do you mean? The EU isn't going to compromise on the four freedoms.

ambro25 wrote: »

After last weekend's love-in with Trump, I'm thinking that Macron's France is looking to replace the UK as the special relationship counterpart, and erstwhile FDI landing zone, within the EU. Macron strikes me as plenty opportunistic and mercenary that way.

Hmm... I certainly see the ambition but the UK shares stronger cultural links with the US. There are other elements in play such as language and culture. I fully applaud his opportunism but it's a bit early to say how much fruit it will yield given the nature of the other half of that relationship.

Water John

Again, proof that the UK Govn't is shockingly unprepared and don't know which road their on. This is from UK Business;

http://uk.businessinsider.com/british-businesses-aghast-at-the-governments-approach-to-brexit-2017-7?r=US&IR=T

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're assuming that the UK wishes to remain a member of the single market.

Not quite: I'm assuming they'll want to maintain a privileged level of access to it

That shall come with a price tag. So suggests the EU's annual invoice to the EFTA 4.

BIG EDIT (with apologies ), as I posted the following elsewhere and which is relevant to the above, to an extent:

Here's one illustration of how thin this red line can be. Since the referendum, the government has confirmed that it still intends to join a new Unified Patent Court that is being set up by EU member states, even though the new court will regard ECJ decisions as legally binding and refer its own legal questions to the ECJ.

source (BBC article about CJEU today)

Now, I mentioned this very issue before on here (in one of the earlier Brexit-themed threads before the referendum - plus maybe a couple times since), so it's interesting to see the BBC mentioning it independently as an example.

It's exactly this sort of self-contradicting double-speak by the government which has been burning, and continues to burn (ever deeper and faster) business confidence at both ends in the UK: it is legally impossible for the UK to be a member of the UPCA, if it Brexits from the EU cleanly from ECJ. Simple as.

So why is the government still making official statements, 12 months past the referendum and all the Brexit means Brexit hoo-raah, to the effect that it wants into the UPCA?

It makes no sense whatsoever, unless (i) the government has (long had-) no intention to Brexit clean from the ECJ anyway (and in that respect, I still wonder what May told Ghosn way back when...), or (ii) the government is so disjointed and dysfunctional that the right hand has no earthly f clue what the left is doing, and reciprocally.

Whenever you hear Brit airlines moaning about Open Skies, Brit big pharma moaning about the EMA, Brit doctors moaning about isotopes and EURATOM, JIT-based assembling manufacturers moaning about customs procedures...it's all exactly the same issue: all are facing respective real-life problems and constraints arising out of the legal and technical consequences of Brexiting, all have a same need to plan and implement replacements/alternatives early enough to avoid a cliff-edge disruption (in an ideal world, to achieve a seamless transition) but, from the government whose responsibility and job it is to deliver a stable enough new context ('relationship') for the said planning...nothing but rethoric and, whenever the rethoric tank gets empty, static.

So, joining this thematically with my original post: we can't know what is in May's and the Brexiteer's heads, but what we know factually, is that the UK still wants to sign up to an ECJ-subjected international agreement establishing a new jurisdiction for European patents (-which, for the avoidance of doubt, have nothing to do with the EU: the EU angle is solely in respect of the new (UP-)Court system, to help bring about a single court system to litigate pan-European infringement; not the patents themselves which remain wholly administered under the European Patent Convention (an international agreement which is its own jurisdiction, think e.gh. ECHR as another exampkle), until they become either national patents (whence subjected to national law) or a 'Unitary' (EU) patent (whence subjected to UPCA, with the ECJ in its typical role of referee in case of legal interpretation dispute).

That new jurisdiction is very material to the continuing good functioning of the SM where relevant patented goods (and services as patented methods) are concerned. That new jurisdiction concerns only participating member states (currently all EU, bar the UK once Brexited) that are party to the UPCA. That jurisdiction has running costs (Courts, judges, <etc.>). If the UK wants into it (still, somehow), it shall have to put its hand in its pocket.

One isolated example for sure but, I'm very confident, not the only one by very far.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How do you mean? The EU isn't going to compromise on the four freedoms.

I mean, through the UK reversing its ultra-friendly come-ye-all economic opportunism of the past 2 decades or so, with implementing EU-compatible social policies aimed at discouraging economic migration.

Such measures have been long been rolled out in the Netherlands, Spain, France, Germany <...> without much of a pip or squeak from Brussels.

There's never been any reason for the UK not to mirror them for pacifying public opinion and neutering UKIP and their like...other than big business' lobbying, that is.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Hmm... I certainly see the ambition but the UK shares stronger cultural links with the US. There are other elements in play such as language and culture. I fully applaud his opportunism but it's a bit early to say how much fruit it will yield given the nature of the other half of that relationship.

Agreed (which is why I called it as "looking to replace": these things take time)

ancapailldorcha

Excellent post.

ambro25 wrote: »

One isolated example for sure but, I'm very confident, not the only one by very far.
I mean, through the UK reversing its ultra-friendly come-ye-all economic opportunism of the past 2 decades or so, with implementing EU-compatible social policies aimed at discouraging economic migration.

Such measures have been long been rolled out in the Netherlands, Spain, France, Germany <...> without much of a pip or squeak from Brussels.

There's never been any reason for the UK not to mirror them for pacifying public opinion and neutering UKIP and their like...other than big business' lobbying, that is.

Could you elaborate on this please? What specific policies are you referring to? I feel like I am missing something obvious.

Fratton Fred

Jim2007 wrote: »

As I have pointed out before an adjustment of a couple of base points on the EU's take of the VAT revenue would cover it and consumers would not even notice it.

Maybe not, but no one likes more taxes. it is a very public admission that the eu is worse off than before without the UK. Do eu countries, or more importantly, eu governments want to be so obvious in how much the eu costs each person?

murphaph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Excellent post.



Could you elaborate on this please? What specific policies are you referring to? I feel like I am missing something obvious.

I think ambro is referring to the fact that the likes of Germany will send a jobless Brit (or Paddy or Pierre) packing if they attempt to draw benefits for longer than 3 months after arriving and that up to the 5 year mark they do not have permanent residency and can be removed from Germany (etc.) to their EU! country of origin if they become a burden on the host nation. Only after 5 years can EU nationals remain even if they are a burden on the host nation.

The EU rules have been in place for years. You can move to country x, transferring your benefits from country y (most likely your home country) for up to 3 months, after which time country y can cut you off and country x can ask you to prove means to support yourself or remove you.

The UK simply never bothered enforcing these EU! rules to prevent benefits tourism by EU nationals (but in reality I suspect the levels of benefits tourism are quite low with the vast majority of EU migrants coming to the UK to actually work and pay tax).

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Excellent post.



Could you elaborate on this please? What specific policies are you referring to? I feel like I am missing something obvious.

Germany brought in different laws to restrict welfare for non-German EU citizens. You will now have to have worked in Germany for five years before getting the same welfare rights as Germans. There are other restrictions such as if you haven't worked for more than a year, you will only be entitled to the most basic welfare and only for six months. The ECJ rejected a challenge to the new law.

Edit: As in previous post!

mickoneill31

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it is a very public admission that the eu is worse off than before without the UK.

Is anybody at all saying the opposite? What's wrong with admitting it?

ambro25

murphaph wrote: »

I think ambro is referring to the fact that the likes of Germany will send a jobless Brit (or Paddy or Pierre) packing if they attempt to draw benefits for longer than 3 months after arriving and that up to the 5 year mark they do not have permanent residency and can be removed from Germany (etc.) to their EU! country of origin if they become a burden on the host nation. Only after 5 years can EU nationals remain even if they are a burden on the host nation.

The EU rules have been in place for years. You can move to country x, transferring your benefits from country y (most likely your home country) for up to 3 months, after which time country y can cut you off and country x can ask you to prove means to support yourself or remove you.

The UK simply never bothered enforcing these EU! rules to prevent benefits tourism by EU nationals (but in reality I suspect the levels of benefits tourism are quite low with the vast majority of EU migrants coming to the UK to actually work and pay tax).

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Germany brought in different laws to restrict welfare for non-German EU citizens. You will now have to have worked in Germany for five years before getting the same welfare rights as Germans. There are other restrictions such as if you haven't worked for more than a year, you will only be entitled to the most basic welfare and only for six months. The ECJ rejected a challenge to the new law.

Edit: As in previous post!

I was indeed, and thank you both for volunteering your respective answers in the meantime - that is exactly what I was referring to.

The UK only started mirroring some of the above very late in the day (late 2013, early 2014 if memory serves, when they dusted off and ramped up the Habitual Residence Test criteria/EDIT: my memory served me right), and I have my doubts about its effectiveness, considering the enduring inability of the UK to coordinate social and health services and their provisions, no doubt assisted by the continuing absence of ID cards and a central ID register (-or the like).

Lest we forget, the UK also held back (just like Ireland) on the EE immigration brakes when the EE states acceded. Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands <etc.> didn't, some managed to keep the brakes on until 2014 (!)

All that said, and for the sake of balance, I'm not forgetting some of the pro-immigration measures also in use in the afore-mentioned EU countries: for instance, I never knew anything about the Dutch income tax-free incentive for newcoming high-skilled types, until a recruiter mentioned it a few months ago as we were discussing a role in Amsterdam. I'm not sure if this targets only EU types, or if it is practiced for non-EU immigrants just the same...but I'd have been an EU immigrant, and the talk was of 30+% of gross income, 100% tax free under the measure.

So. EU-compatible immigration policies dissuading "benefit tourism" and promoting high-skilled immigration. Readily available to the UK, without Brexiting

Sam Russell

ambro25 wrote: »

So. EU-compatible immigration policies dissuading "benefit tourism" and promoting high-skilled immigration. Readily available to the UK, without Brexiting

Much the same goes for reclaiming from other EU states for medical expenses incurred by the NHS for EU nationals under the E111 scheme. This arises because the NHS does not have a good billing system and would rather treat everyone for free than introduce one.

For example, if I avail of my E111 in Spain or France, they will charge back to the HSE my charges, but the UK does not generally bother.

The UK could have played the EU rules to much greater effect than they have done, and it would have reduced the anti-EU sentiment.

(The E111 has been renamed as the European Health Insurance Card - but the same thing - do not go abroad within the EU without it - it is free to get and can be got online easily)

ambro25

Sam Russell wrote: »

Much the same goes for reclaiming from other EU states for medical expenses incurred by the NHS for EU nationals under the E111 scheme. This arises because the NHS does not have a good billing system and would rather treat everyone for free than introduce one.

I'm in the UK, and very familiar with this one

There's tons more, as both missed and wilfully disregard opportunities, where this and the immigration policies mentioned earlier come from. No part of them lie at the feet of Brussels howsoever.

But as always, it's easier to blame Brussels and dem furreiners (especially dem furreiners, after a particularly grave economico-financial crisis: plus ça change), than acknowledge and then do something about one's governing ineptitude.

And in the UK, that's as true of the Conservatives, as of Labour.