Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

RobMc59

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, other countries will have to spend money on staff to facilitate worse trading conditions than existed before.

Tbh,I hope the EU sticks to its guns and the UK is forced to either comply with EU standards or face the consequences.

briany

Do you think that when Conservative voters went for Johnson's oven-ready deal last December, they did so with the knowledge that the Conservatives would threaten to walk out of FTA talks no sooner than they'd begun?

reslfj

Spook_ie wrote: »

Unfortunate that this biggest, most successful single market can't even agree with itself! The EU is an experimental failure as a cohesive political force because at the end of the budget everyone is after what they can get and **** the rest of Europe

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2020/0220/1116511-eu-budget-analysis/

Budget negotiations must be difficult and all parties must experience - in real confrontations - that the final result, when it arrives, is the best achievable.
This takes time and it must take time so each members hard fight can be seen at home and will in the end help sell the result domestically.

The 'lost' UK net contribution of €10bn/yr or €60-75bn in the next MFF period is a large sum, but nevertheless only about 6.5% of the proposed EU budget (without any new UK contributions to the EU budget e.g. for services to the UK like Erasmus, EURATOM, Europol, Schengen data etc.)
€10bn/yr is very little compared to the EU27 GNI of €15-16000bn/yr.

But the missing UK Brexit payment is an argument easy to explain to voters without much knowledge of national economy or the EU budget.
But it is peanuts money in the larger perspective. It doesn't change anything in the overall economy in Europe - neither inside nor outside the EU.

The CAP payout has been substantially lowered over the latest 20 years.
Farmers must, however, necessarily realise that we do not long term support farms for the sake of the farmers, but only to ensure we always produce enough food ourselves for our basic survival.
We do support less economically viable farms - in far away areas, on islands, in mountainous regions - partly with the CAP, but this is more regional than farm support.

I personal don't understand why the 'frugal four' (AT, DK, NL and SE) plus Germany can't agree to some increase in the MFF in order to better support FRONTEX and what follows from people moving due to overpopulation, change in climate and war.

Lars

MrMusician18

reslfj wrote: »

Budget negotiations must be difficult and all parties must experience - in real confrontations - that the final result, when it arrives, is the best achievable.
This takes time and it must take time so each members hard fight can be seen at home and will in the end help sell the result domestically.

The 'lost' UK net contribution of €10bn/yr or €60-75bn in the next MFF period is a large sum, but nevertheless only about 6.5% of the proposed EU budget (without any new UK contributions to the EU budget e.g. for services to the UK like Erasmus, EURATOM, Europol, Schengen data etc.)
€10bn/yr is very little compared to the EU27 GNI of €15-16000bn/yr.

But the missing UK Brexit payment is an argument easy to explain to voters without much knowledge of national economy or the EU budget.
But it is peanuts money in the larger perspective. It doesn't change anything in the overall economy in Europe - neither inside nor outside the EU.

The CAP payout has been substantially lowered over the latest 20 years.
Farmers must, however, necessarily realise that we do not long term support farms for the sake of the farmers, but only to ensure we always produce enough food ourselves for our basic survival.
We do support less economically viable farms - in far away areas, on islands, in mountainous regions - partly with the CAP, but this is more regional than farm support.

I personal don't understand why the 'frugal four' (AT, DK, NL and SE) plus Germany can't agree to some increase in the MFF in order to better support FRONTEX and what follows from people moving due to overpopulation, change in climate and war.

Lars

The reason they don't frame it that way if because there is nothing to be won domestically by doing that.

correct horse battery staple

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

theres hooplas over budgets in most democracies including ours, i suppose you prefer that the budged is dictated by a single figure? that does rather nicely solve the problem aye

Not directly.. Just by replacing your chancellor's advisors with ones you pick.

reslfj

RobMc59 wrote: »

Does this cost for employing extra border staff also apply to EU countries as they will need to increase their staff?

Yes, to a degree - but much depends on the EU27 member state. FR and NL has already increased staff in anticipation of Brexit (but very far from 50000)

Many EU states already have much customs processing at external borders, while the UK gets much of its current 3. country import via ports in NL, BE (even ports in DK, DE, and FR) and then via the Single Market into UK ports or via lorries to Dover, other ferry crossings, or using the Eurotunnel.

It is much easier to hire and educate for a limited increase in 3.country trade e.g in Rotterdam, than when almost all trade changes from SM trade to full 3. country trade.

Ireland will likely use the new Ro-Ro ferry routes to FR, BE, NL, and ES and more sealed TIR type lorries when using the GB 'land-bridge' - I think.
It seems uncertain how the ferry routes GB <-> island of Ireland will be after the end of the transition?
Holyhead is e.g. by some believed to lack the needed land area for full customs processing.

Lars

RobMc59

reslfj wrote: »

Yes, to a degree - but much depends on the EU27 member state. FR and NL has already increased staff in anticipation of Brexit (but very far from 50000)

Many EU states already have much customs processing at external borders, while the UK gets much of its current 3. country import via ports in NL, BE (even ports in DK, DE, and FR) and then via the Single Market into UK ports or via lorries to Dover, other ferry crossings, or using the Eurotunnel.

It is much easier to hire and educate for a limited increase in 3.country trade e.g in Rotterdam, than when almost all trade changes from SM trade to full 3. country trade.

Ireland will likely use the new Ro-Ro ferry routes to FR, BE, NL, and ES and more sealed TIR type lorries when using the GB 'land-bridge' - I think.
It seems uncertain how the ferry routes GB <-> island of Ireland will be after the end of the transition?
Holyhead is e.g. by some believed to lack the needed land area for full customs processing.

Lars

I did notice signposts on the A55 approach to Holyhead for a lorrypark last week which I didn't see in November,I assume they are for customs purposes.

Nody

reslfj wrote: »

Budget negotiations must be difficult and all parties must experience - in real confrontations - that the final result, when it arrives, is the best achievable.
This takes time and it must take time so each members hard fight can be seen at home and will in the end help sell the result domestically.

The 'lost' UK net contribution of €10bn/yr or €60-75bn in the next MFF period is a large sum, but nevertheless only about 6.5% of the proposed EU budget (without any new UK contributions to the EU budget e.g. for services to the UK like Erasmus, EURATOM, Europol, Schengen data etc.)
€10bn/yr is very little compared to the EU27 GNI of €15-16000bn/yr.

But the missing UK Brexit payment is an argument easy to explain to voters without much knowledge of national economy or the EU budget.
But it is peanuts money in the larger perspective. It doesn't change anything in the overall economy in Europe - neither inside nor outside the EU.

The CAP payout has been substantially lowered over the latest 20 years.
Farmers must, however, necessarily realise that we do not long term support farms for the sake of the farmers, but only to ensure we always produce enough food ourselves for our basic survival.
We do support less economically viable farms - in far away areas, on islands, in mountainous regions - partly with the CAP, but this is more regional than farm support.

I personal don't understand why the 'frugal four' (AT, DK, NL and SE) plus Germany can't agree to some increase in the MFF in order to better support FRONTEX and what follows from people moving due to overpopulation, change in climate and war.

Lars

Oh I don't know; increase in CAP payments, increase in budget size and cutting the parts they care about (money for research and science) while asking the countries who already pay the most to double or triple their contributions? Nope, can't see why they would object. How about instead we pretend we're adults at the table and adjust our expenses to the money we have instead of increasing our expenses on outdated areas of wellfare and focus on laying the foundation for the future?

reslfj

Nody wrote: »

Oh I don't know; increase in CAP payments,
...
cutting the parts they care about (money for research and science)
...
instead of increasing our expenses on outdated areas of welfare and focus on laying the foundation for the future?

The EU commission has suggested a decrease on the CAP of about 14% and I believe also recommended that part of the reduced CAP budget should be used for supporting something more 'green'.

Eastern Europe has now had 16 1/2 years with the CAP money and should soon be able to live with much less farm subsidies. Besides Poland is in a kind of 'bad standing' (attack on the courts and judges ...). A little financial squeeze there would not be such a bad thing in the eyes of many EU governments.
We should, however, also realise that rural Poland especially east of Warsaw feel left behind and is a large part of the voters behind the present PL government.
Poland and Ukraine had about the same GDP/person in 1990, while Poland now has about 3 times the GDP/person of Ukraine

Macron in France is the real problem when a reduced CAP budget is suggested, as he has many other large and badly needed restructuring projects. It is important for all of Europe, that France gets its longer term economic outlook back on track.

Support for science and research should be increased, but getting money from other more traditional areas will be much easier I believe, when a little new budget money can be added too.

Frontex and payments outside the external borders are new activities which has broad support at least in AT, DK and now also in SE.
Erdogan has just today reminded Greece, Bulgaria, and everyone else - "money talks" or Syrians refugees talks.

Lars

fash

Spook_ie wrote: »

Unfortunate that this biggest, most successful single market can't even agree with itself! The EU is an experimental failure as a cohesive political force because at the end of the budget everyone is after what they can get and **** the rest of Europe

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2020/0220/1116511-eu-budget-analysis/

And yet it has for every single budget up to date - many far more contentious than this one. Every meaningful group decision involves the appropriate level of debate before a decision/agreement is made - whether a union negotiating with a company or two political parties negotiating whether to enter government together . One would have to be particularly dim not to realise that.

RobMc59

murphaph wrote: »

UK has effectively zero unemployment. Anyone on the dole who isn't just between jobs right now is probably next to unemployable!

These customs officials will be made up of people leaving the private sector mostly. If it was possible to create wealth this way governments would just make up a bunch of jobs like this all the time.

Can you supply a link to where you`re getting your figures for UK unemployment from as all information I can find is along these lines:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment

moon2

RobMc59 wrote: »

Can you supply a link to where you`re getting your figures for UK unemployment from as all information I can find is along these lines:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment

That is a fairly accurate figure for unemployment, as reported by the UK.

It's possible the OP mixed up "full employment" and "zero unemployment". The UK economy is considered to have full employment currently due to the low reported unemployment rate.

I believe there's a bit of debate over the truthfulness of the claim as full employment is usually followed by increasing wages as demand for experienced staff exceeds availability in the unemployed pool. This secondary indicator hasn't materialise yet.

murphaph

RobMc59 wrote: »

Can you supply a link to where you`re getting your figures for UK unemployment from as all information I can find is along these lines:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment

Anything under 5% is considered full employment. There will always be a small group of people between jobs.

Enzokk

I find it a little sinister that the story about Johnson and his partner getting engaged and expecting a child was kept quiet for so long. I guess they finally decided to use the story to try and bury the news about the resignation of the senior civil servant and his attacks on the government. Good story to try and make it disappear.

I wonder how many other stories they have lined up and ready to go before they run out. That says a lot about the type of government the EU will be dealing with and how they plan to use information to their benefit.

serfboard

Enzokk wrote: »

I find it a little sinister that the story about Johnson and his partner getting engaged and expecting a child was kept quiet for so long. I guess they finally decided to use the story to try and bury the news about the resignation of the senior civil servant and his attacks on the government.

That's exactly what I thought about this bun-in-the-oven-ready story

An Ciarraioch

The UK-US trade agreement objectives have been published, and perhaps the biggest surprise is that British exports would only be boosted by £3 billion. Worth noting that figure is exactly what Ireland exports to the US in one month - even if most of that figure is arguably repatriations by multinationals:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/liz-truss-kick-starts-uk-us-trade-talks?utm_source=30ab36bc-7e2b-4a87-b8b6-2dba0dfd8498&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate

serfboard

This is great:

FSB research shows that the United States is the number one individual country that UK small businesses are looking to as they consider where to trade

By the way, anyone have any idea what it is that they are hoping to sell to the Americans?

Spook_ie

reslfj wrote: »

Budget negotiations must be difficult and all parties must experience - in real confrontations - that the final result, when it arrives, is the best achievable.
<snipped>

Lars

Best achievable for who?, the EU or just a compromise because each and every country DOESN'T want a budget for the EU but a budget that suits themselves as much as possible.

The EU is a failed/failing political experiment.

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

Best achievable for who?, the EU or just a compromise because each and every country DOESN'T want a budget for the EU but a budget that suits themselves as much as possible.

The EU is a failed/failing political experiment.

"just a compromise"? That is what negotiations are.

BonnieSituation

Spook_ie wrote: »

Best achievable for who?, the EU or just a compromise because each and every country DOESN'T want a budget for the EU but a budget that suits themselves as much as possible.

The EU is a failed/failing political experiment.

And the UK is a paragon of success?

What's failed/failing exactly wrt the EU?

moon2

Spook_ie wrote: »

Best achievable for who?, the EU or just a compromise because each and every country DOESN'T want a budget for the EU but a budget that suits themselves as much as possible.

The EU is a failed/failing political experiment.

Your post starts with a position of "I don't understand what going on, here are some questions I'd like answers to to clarify things" and end with a definitive "The EU is a failed experiment".

In order to draw your conclusion you must have a deep understanding of the EU, but your post is asking for explanations of how the budget negotiations work. How can you be so certain of your conclusion if you don't understand the topic in question?

Sam Russell

Spook_ie wrote: »

Best achievable for who?, the EU or just a compromise because each and every country DOESN'T want a budget for the EU but a budget that suits themselves as much as possible.

The EU is a failed/failing political experiment.

The budget negotiations are normal, and each of the EU27 wants the best for their own citizens. This is an internal family affair. When it is fully negotiated, with compromises and fudges, it will be back to cohesion and united action. There is no failure in this whatsoever.

However, the UK/EU negotiations are a different matter entirely. No single country will step out of line once the instructions are given to Barnier. Any backsliding by the UK will result in a response from the EU that will attempt to dissuade the UK from that line. The level of such dissuasion might have no bounds.

The EU is anything but a failed entity. For a failed entity, look no further than Westminster.

fash

Spook_ie wrote: »

Best achievable for who?, the EU or just a compromise because each and every country DOESN'T want a budget for the EU but a budget that suits themselves as much as possible.
.

Do unions and companies negotiating want an agreement that best suits themselves?
If you don't believe in an agreement that best suits yourself- can I buy your house?

The EU is a failed/failing political experiment.

Not as failed/failing as the UK - or the USSR/Russia nor as dysfunctional as the US.

ambro25

Spook_ie wrote: »

Best achievable for who?, the EU or just a compromise because each and every country DOESN'T want a budget for the EU but a budget that suits themselves as much as possible.

The collective of 27 member states.

The same as with every EU budget negotiation before this latest instance, ever since the advent of the European supranational club (including in its pre-'EU' guises).

It's really not that difficult a concept to understand, including for people who don't even have a passing familiarity with what the EU is and hiw it works.

Spook_ie wrote: »

The EU is a failed/failing political experiment.

That might be a fashionable dog whistle to parrot within your social (media) circle. It really doesn't cut it in this thread. If you want to be taken seriously, that is.

Nody

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/liz-truss-kick-starts-uk-us-trade-talks?utm_source=30ab36bc-7e2b-4a87-b8b6-2dba0dfd8498&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate

Did anyone notice the NHS point?

Rigorously protect the UK’s freedom to provide public services, such as the National Health Service, in the national interest. The NHS is not for sale and the Government is committed to the guiding principles of the NHS – that it is universal and free at the point of use.

Hence NHS can be sold out but as long as it remains free (i.e. the state pays for private services) it meets the guidelines. Expect to see increased number of tenders swooped up by American companies as NHS has to put out things for tender than do it themselves.

And while I know this is UK's goals this one simply makes me roll around on the floor laughing; talk about a show stopper for any trade deal.

Throughout the terms of the agreement, ensure high standards and protections for British consumers and workers, and build on our existing international obligations. This will include upholding the UK’s high domestic standards on food safety and animal welfare.

Sure; you'll bully USA to only ship the goods meeting your domestic standard in animal wellfare as a requirement for the deal; that's only happening if UK lowers their standards to US standards or drop it with the excuse to use to leverage into the third point (which I think is the plan; "Oh but the buyers can choose what they want we're simply giving them options to lower their food cost"):

Increase UK GDP by opening up opportunities for British businesses and investors, and facilitating greater choice and lower prices for British producers and consumers.

Sure; chlorinated chicken or hormone beef may not be sold retail day 1 but you can be sure the businesses will low to lower their cost base in anything prepacked without mentioning the change in their sourcing of meat etc.

gooch2k9

BBC reporting a US-UK deal will see a GDP rise of between 0.07% and 0.16%. I'm no trade expert, and I know we're dealing in trillions here but these numbers just don't seem worth all the heartache of the last few years. Not for the general populace anyway.

Spook_ie

moon2 wrote: »

Your post starts with a position of "I don't understand what going on, here are some questions I'd like answers to to clarify things" and end with a definitive "The EU is a failed experiment".

In order to draw your conclusion you must have a deep understanding of the EU, but your post is asking for explanations of how the budget negotiations work. How can you be so certain of your conclusion if you don't understand the topic in question?

No, actually my post starts with a question aimed at Resljf, followed by a categorical statement that each country comprising the EU is out to get what it can for itself, not what it can do for the EU.

This is then followed by a summation that because of this the EU is a failed/failing experiment.

moritz1234

A benefit in trade of just £3.4 Billion - this is just peanuts.
Proves that the USA - UK Trade deal is purely symbolic and will be milked to the hilt.

Frank Bullitt

Enzokk wrote: »

This is not 100% Brexit related, but Priti Patel is facing calls to resign after the most senior civil servant resigned and in an move that never happens went public as to his reasons why.

Priti Patel’s future in doubt after senior Home Office civil servant resigns



He rejected the settlement offer provided by the government, which would have included a NDA and possibly a peerage as well, to take the government to court for unfair dismissal. This will mean discovery of documents, possibly related to her firing in the last cabinet by May for speaking to a foreign government behind the backs of No.10 at the time. That was brushed aside quietly at the time when she resigned as well.

So who knew bringing someone who was let go because on incompetence would still be incompetent just a short while later? If only there were signs that Johnson and Cummings could see? Or did they know and thought she was the blunt instrument to take on the civil servants?

As for the relation to Brexit, it is pretty much acknowledged that the UK's civil service is highly regarded around the world, but undermining the senior people in the civil service and attacking those working in it, via the press and personally, will surely lead to a deterioration of this prized possession during a time they will need it most.



I have been thinking lately about the likes of Laura Kuenssberg and Robert Peston and their use of the sources from No.10 without any pause for thought. They have used the excuse that they are not there to determine what is news or not, they are just there to report the story. But that for me is a abdication of their duties as political editors. They aren't merely line reporters sent to get quotes but rose to their positions due to, I would hope, a talent to spot what is important and what isn't. Hiding behind the excuse that they are only relaying news means they actually agree with how the Sun and others reported on Hillsborough. That was also just relaying what was told to reporters from those with ulterior motives without a pause on whether it was true or not. The reporter who wrote the initial story did his job but it was the editor who decided to print it as fact. These 2 have that same power and they are, whether deliberate or not, deciding to push those narratives out there and treat it as the truth. For someone earning more than £250K per year and who is comfortably in the top 1% of earners in the UK, that is just unfathomable to hide behind the excuses they do.

Twitter bio of Kuenssberg, "I know it's fashionable, but even in 2019 there is nothing big or clever about shooting the messenger"

Well, looks like she is under investigation now.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1234516006875389953

Leroy42

The UK US-UK trade plan shows a net loss of 30,000 jobs if No tariffs are achieved! So a very modest (immaterial really) expected increase in GDP of around 1% over 15 years, and jobs being lost as a result!!

This is their big 'weapon' to scare the EU? Good god, and its based on the uK getting what they want, since Liz Truss has already stated that if they don't they will walk away with No Deal.