Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Henryq.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I personally think the mood music has changed somewhat, so hopeful of some sort of a deal. Obviously hoping this to lessen the effect of No Deal on Ireland.

Anyway, I presume deal or not, the UK will be a Third Country come 1.1 2021.

I get the feeling from UK fora that a deal will mean free movement and nothing will change and all that. Huh? It is Trade only surely.

Free Movement but no Free Trade

That's the EU plan and force another referendum on the UK I reckon

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

Yes and an EU certified laboratory or similar depending on the goods. This can be in a non EU country if EU recognizes the quality of their process and certification.

That's the theory yes.

There are certain rules around such support to qualify; how and to whom it's paid out etc. and a route to report it and say it's not for arbitration. That's the sticking point more than anything apparently; who and how can they arbitrate and what fines can be imposed. If we take the WTO court for example a country gets the right to retaliate for X million in tariffs on any goods; UK wants this to be only in the same category as the goods themselves.

So, say they subsidise candle making at their only candle factory, and they undercut the EU candle makers, putting them under severe pressure, surely the obvious react by the EU would be to put the squeeze on, say blue cheese and Scotch Whiskey, in order to grab their attention. Retaliating against UK candles will hardly light the interest of the Sec of State for trade, but she likes blue cheese.

Again, trying to reduce the effect of the EU in matters that the EU should not accept. The EU needs to require the ability to move fast on any LPF abuse, and punitively. Look at how fast Trump was able to act against the UK on Airbus, and they have a 'Special Relationship' with the UK.

I think the EU should say - talking is over - sign here or go your way (or words to that effect).

RobMc59

Sam Russell wrote: »

So, say they subsidise candle making at their only candle factory, and they undercut the EU candle makers, putting them under severe pressure, surely the obvious react by the EU would be to put the squeeze on, say blue cheese and Scotch Whiskey, in order to grab their attention. Retaliating against UK candles will hardly light the interest of the Sec of State for trade, but she likes blue cheese.

Again, trying to reduce the effect of the EU in matters that the EU should not accept. The EU needs to require the ability to move fast on any LPF abuse, and punitively. Look at how fast Trump was able to act against the UK on Airbus, and they have a 'Special Relationship' with the UK.

I think the EU should say - talking is over - sign here or go your way (or words to that effect).

Since when was the UK solely responsible for what Airbus/EU got up to and were quite righty reprimanded for by the WTO?

ElJeffe

10000maniacs wrote: »

I really can't see there being any deal. I can't see any way over Macron. The French fishermen are willing and capable of bringing the Euro-ports to a standstill, and that's what the French are good at. Mass protest.

There will be no deal. A lot of people just wishful thinking.

Also talk of the EU forcing another referendum is just nuts.

joe40

Henryq. wrote: »

Like Norway needed a deal

https://youtu.be/ruEy1uvtH40

I love looking back at these from pre referendum days. How are these guys not been brought up on this nonsense.
Their credibility should be shot at this stage.

Imreoir2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

It seems both sides have largely agreed over the LPF principles, and are now largely haggling over the arbitration mechanism:

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/1214/1184260-brexit-talks-eu-uk/

Hard to believe that they would then promptly collapse everything if only fish was outstanding?

Getting text on paper between negotiators is one thing, the political leadership being willing to sign is another. There is precious little time for a deal to be agreed, all it takes is one compromise to big to swallow for the whole thing to stall.

That the process continues suggests that there is a deal to be struck, but the clock is ticking. It's only a few days before at least a shot no-deal period becomes unavoidable.

Firblog

Hurrache wrote: »

It's easily found. Ireland didn't pay off the UK early as the UK would have triggered a £200 million early closure clause.

For an Irishman you're displaying a bit of an inferiority complex and self loathing when it comes to dealing with the UK.

Where have I exhibited self loathing??



As is usual on here, anyone saying anything that is remotely questioning of the EU is either


1. Uneducated in the benefits of EU
2. Racist
3. Little Englander or when not English 3(b). Self loathing Irishman
4. Right wing facist.

Imreoir2

Firblog wrote: »

Where have I exhibited self loathing??



As is usual on here, anyone saying anything that is remotely questioning of the EU is either


1. Uneducated in the benefits of EU
2. Racist
3. Little Englander or when not English 3(b). Self loathing Irishman
4. Right wing facist.

Instead of trying to play the victem, why don't you address the points that you have raised only to be proven wrong on.

Several times now you 'questioning of the EU' has been shown up to be based on faulty information.

It's like playing wackamole with you, one claim thrown out after another, and when you are shown to be wrong again you move onto the next without even acknologing your mistakes.

tanko

joe40 wrote: »

https://youtu.be/ruEy1uvtH40

I love looking back at these from pre referendum days. How are these guys not been brought up on this nonsense.
Their credibility should be shot at this stage.

A study into the role of the BBC in the whole Brexit mess would be interesting, they're no better than Fox News.
Contrast the way Andrew Marr sucked up to Farage and indulged his lies with the way he harangued Ed Milliband the other day.

The way in which people in the UK have been brainwashed by the crooked MSM really is mind boggling.

Hurrache

Firblog wrote: »

Where have I exhibited self loathing??



As is usual on here, anyone saying anything that is remotely questioning of the EU is either


1. Uneducated in the benefits of EU
2. Racist
3. Little Englander or when not English 3(b). Self loathing Irishman
4. Right wing facist.

The context was the UK loan to government, which you didn't seem to be fully briefed on, and nothing to do with the EU. It was your leaping to the defence of the UK without the full facts that lead to the issue here.

Professor Moriarty

tanko wrote: »

A study into the role of the BBC in the whole Brexit mess would be interesting, they're no better than Fox News.
Contrast the way Andrew Marr sucked up to Farage and indulged his lies with the way he harangued Ed Milliband the other day.

The way in which people in the UK have been brainwashed by the crooked MSM really is mind boggling.

Newsnight tore into Brexit and Brexiteers for the past four years. At times, their Remain bias was blatantly obvious.

Firblog

Fionn1952 wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-14256280

The UK cut interest from 5.8% to 3.5%, after the Eurozone banks cut their interest rates from 5.5% to the same ballpark. It was entirely accurate to state that when the loans were issued, and Germany was, 'raping' Ireland with 5.5% interest rates, Britain (historically known for always having Irish interest at heart....) were charging a higher interest rate of 5.8%. It is also true that the UK refused Ireland's offer of early repayment to continue the substantial interest payments they were receiving (as was entirely their right, but let's not pretend it was an altruistic move).

It is entirely dishonest to compare the UK rate after it was reduced to the Eurozone rate before it was reduced.

I've read your link (thanks) and it does contradict my memory of reading the .25% ok. I'm not that much of a raincoat on the matter to record where I read that, and it was 10 years ago...



But can you explain my link where they reduced their margin to .18% in March 2011? or toa rate about 1%? Far below the 3.5% you say.. Some one of the links is wrong?



Also I never ever said that UK were loaning that money with altruistic motives; and anything I've ever read bout the loans at the time George Osborne said that loaning the money was in the interest of the UK, made no bones about it.


Here is a quote from Osbourne Re the reduction in interest rates at the time - found with a bit of a search this evening.



In a statement this evening, Osborne said he welcomed yesterday’s decision to cut the interest rate on Ireland’s EFSF loans by around 2 per cent – which in turn allows the UK to reduce its own interest rate for its bilateral segment.
“I’ve been arguing for some time that the interest rates charged for Eurozone loans were too high,” Reuters quoted his statement as saying.
“I’m pleased, therefore, that they have now reduced those rates. That enables Britain to cut its rate on its loan to Ireland, whilst ensuring all of the benefit goes to Ireland and not to higher interest rates paid to euro area governments.”


Here is a link to Fine Gael piece on the issue of interest rates at the time. Again from a bit of a trawl around the internet.


So it seems that UK was obliged to charge rates comparable to what the IMF,EFSF & EFSM where charging, and were only able to reduce those rate when the others did.

Professor Moriarty

Firblog wrote: »

I've read your link (thanks) and it does contradict my memory of reading the .25% ok. I'm not that much of a raincoat on the matter to record where I read that, and it was 10 years ago...



But can you explain my link where they reduced their margin to .18% in March 2011? or toa rate about 1%? Far below the 3.5% you say.. Some one of the links is wrong?



Also I never ever said that UK were loaning that money with altruistic motives; and anything I've ever read bout the loans at the time George Osborne said that loaning the money was in the interest of the UK, made no bones about it.


Here is a quote from Osbourne Re the reduction in interest rates at the time - found with a bit of a search this evening.



In a statement this evening, Osborne said he welcomed yesterday’s decision to cut the interest rate on Ireland’s EFSF loans by around 2 per cent – which in turn allows the UK to reduce its own interest rate for its bilateral segment.
“I’ve been arguing for some time that the interest rates charged for Eurozone loans were too high,” Reuters quoted his statement as saying.
“I’m pleased, therefore, that they have now reduced those rates. That enables Britain to cut its rate on its loan to Ireland, whilst ensuring all of the benefit goes to Ireland and not to higher interest rates paid to euro area governments.”


Here is a link to Fine Gael piece on the issue of interest rates at the time. Again from a bit of a trawl around the internet.


So it seems that UK was obliged to charge rates comparable to what the IMF,EFSF & EFSM where charging, and were only able to reduce those rate when the others did.

So what did you mean when you said this?

"Yes being outside with the begging bowl, so different from us being inside with one - remember when UK bunged us 5bn at very low interest rates while our great Eurozone (German) partners raped us with 6% interest on the loans they gave us? Good times."

bobmalooka

Firblog wrote: »

I've read your link (thanks) and it does contradict my memory of reading the .25% ok. I'm not that much of a raincoat on the matter to record where I read that, and it was 10 years ago...



But can you explain my link where they reduced their margin to .18% in March 2011? or toa rate about 1%? Far below the 3.5% you say.. Some one of the links is wrong?



Also I never ever said that UK were loaning that money with altruistic motives; and anything I've ever read bout the loans at the time George Osborne said that loaning the money was in the interest of the UK, made no bones about it.


Here is a quote from Osbourne Re the reduction in interest rates at the time - found with a bit of a search this evening.



In a statement this evening, Osborne said he welcomed yesterday’s decision to cut the interest rate on Ireland’s EFSF loans by around 2 per cent – which in turn allows the UK to reduce its own interest rate for its bilateral segment.
“I’ve been arguing for some time that the interest rates charged for Eurozone loans were too high,” Reuters quoted his statement as saying.
“I’m pleased, therefore, that they have now reduced those rates. That enables Britain to cut its rate on its loan to Ireland, whilst ensuring all of the benefit goes to Ireland and not to higher interest rates paid to euro area governments.”


Here is a link to Fine Gael piece on the issue of interest rates at the time. Again from a bit of a trawl around the internet.


So it seems that UK was obliged to charge rates comparable to what the IMF,EFSF & EFSM where charging, and were only able to reduce those rate when the others did.

Is this the long way of saying that your original statement was nonsense and any subsequent conclusions predicated on the details within that statement are objectively wrong?

ambro25

Sounds like it's just got 2 minutes past too late: the 4 biggest MEP groups (EPP, S&D, Renew and Greens) have reportedly agreed no ratification to take place in 2020. That means either a short period of no deal, or a technical prolongation of the transition period. No deal is better than a bad deal - the irony!

Anyone who follows ciaran the euro courier (@donnyc1975) on Twitter will already know what's what as regards logistics. But it's particularly grim reading tonight.

It's positively raining anecdotal reports of no further orders getting taken on the Continent and/or by hauliers for UK delivery, and no further truck slots for love or (a ton of-) money until sometime in January.

Professor Moriarty

ambro25 wrote: »

Sounds like it's just got 2 minutes past too late, the 4 biggest MEP groups (EPP, S&D, Renew and Greens) have reportedly agreed no ratification to take place in 2020. That means either short period of no deal, or technical prolongation of transition.

Anyone who follows ciaran the euro courier (@donnyc1975) on Twitter will already know what's what as regards logistics. But it's particularly grim reading tonight.

It's positively raining anecdotal reports of no further orders getting taken on the Continent and/or by hauliers for UK delivery, and no further truck slots for love or (a ton of-) money.

Well done Boris Johnson. He'll take a deal at the eleventh hour, having first destroyed the economy by waiting too long. Churchillian.

johnnyskeleton

ambro25 wrote: »

Sounds like it's just got 2 minutes past too late: the 4 biggest MEP groups (EPP, S&D, Renew and Greens) have reportedly agreed no ratification to take place in 2020. That means either a short period of no deal, or a technical prolongation of the transition period. No deal is better than a bad deal - the irony!

Or provisional application of the trade deal pending formal sign off, by way of Council Decision, which is the most likely course of action I suspect

Firblog

bobmalooka wrote: »

Is this the long way of saying that your original statement was nonsense and any subsequent conclusions predicated on the details within that statement are objectively wrong?

Not at all, all I am saying is that I cannot find the source to back up my .25% above base claim,I have posted a link where the uk charged us .18% above base only a little over a year later; if that was related to the same loan I'm unsure, as the UK were involved in a couple of loans / bailouts to us at the time it is difficult to track down what interest rates were being charged on what loans.


My conclusion when I made that post was that we were overcharged intrest for the loans we received from our good friends in the Eurozone, the rate we were charged by the UK does not change that.



Do you believe that we were charged a fair rate by the EFSF and the EFSM at the time?

Firblog

Hurrache wrote: »

The context was the UK loan to government, which you didn't seem to be fully briefed on, and nothing to do with the EU. It was your leaping to the defence of the UK without the full facts that lead to the issue here.

I think you have mis-read a couple of posts or something; I brought up the issue of the UK charging less in interest on their loan than we were charged by our eurozone partners (hands up here I have been unable to find my source for the .25% above base rate claim) but if they charged the rate claimed by some of 5.8%, it was still lower.



I didn't leap to their defense in any way, they seem to be doing very well on their own.

reslfj

Henryq. wrote: »

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

...
Anyway, I presume deal or not, the UK will be a Third Country come 1.1 2021.

I get the feeling from UK fora that a deal will mean free movement and nothing will change and all that. Huh? It is Trade only surely.

Free Movement but no Free Trade

That's the EU plan and force another referendum on the UK I reckon

FoM as an EU concept has little to do with traveling across borders. For ordinary people their, in casu, UK passports enables travel to a vast number of countries including the EU27 countries.
In Schengen states you can stay no longer then 90 days out of every 180 days as a 'traveller'. But you can freely travel in all the Schengen states within the 90 days period(s).

This will not change after January 1. except you will likely need the Schengen visa wavier - the ETIAS - in addition to your passport from sometime late in 2022 (expected price €6-7 for 2-3 years) and you will still be allowed to stay for 90 out of 180 days.


FoM is an EU/SM name for 4 freedoms:

• Freedom to move and sell goods across EU internal borders without any border procedures (special rules for animals)
• Freedom to sell services in all EU member states incl professional recognition.
• Freedom to invest across EU member states.
• Freedom to work and if you work you can also stay (over 90 days) in any EU/EEA/CH state (or if you are rich/pensioner without working too).

It is very unproductive in an EU context to talk about Free Movement as if it's about travel - it isn't.

The EU-UK potential deal now negotiated is only about no tariffs, no trade quotas and the UK accepting EU's standards/rules for goods exported into the EU, plus a lot of non trade issues

No services allowed (except possible some financial services for a shorter period)
No free movement of capital.
No free right to stay or work for UK citizens without a national permission in each individual EU27 member state (except for UK citizens already staying/working within EU27)

Lars

PS! Banks may unilaterally get permission to do some specific business operations in the EU for a shorter period after January 1.

Spanish Eyes

Ah I think it's all coming to an end now and Johnson knows it, as do his ERG fanatics also..

At the end of the day people want to live, not support an ideology.

They have left EU anyway now. So it is all down to trade. Hope it works out. FKN shame it took four years but that's exceptionalism for you.

Irony is the Non EU line at passport control is usually shorter in the holiday destinations within EU. lol.

Charles Babbage

Freedom to move and sell goods across EU internal borders without any border procedures (special rules for animals)
Freedom to sell services in all EU member states incl professional recognition

However, these overlap with business travel. British citizens will not longer be able to go to trade shows and other trips where they perform professional duties, without a visa.

bobmalooka

Firblog wrote: »

Not at all, all I am saying is that I cannot find the source to back up my .25% above base claim,I have posted a link where the uk charged us .18% above base only a little over a year later; if that was related to the same loan I'm unsure, as the UK were involved in a couple of loans / bailouts to us at the time it is difficult to track down what interest rates were being charged on what loans.


My conclusion when I made that post was that we were overcharged intrest for the loans we received from our good friends in the Eurozone, the rate we were charged by the UK does not change that.



Do you believe that we were charged a fair rate by the EFSF and the EFSM?

“Yes being outside with the begging bowl, so different from us being inside with one - remember when UK bunged us 5bn at very low interest rates while our great Eurozone (German) partners raped us with 6% interest on the loans they gave us? Good times."

The comparison to UK was the basis of your original claim - it’s there in black and white.

It’s starting to look like you are not capable of being objective.

The UK charged us more, the UK also attached a punitive clause in order to prevent early repayment.

You selected the UK as the benchmark and you selected the example. Based on the criteria you selected, you can only conclude that the EU are the preferred the partner.

Firblog

bobmalooka wrote: »

The UK charged us more, the UK also attached a punitive clause in order to prevent early repayment.

Please post link to interest rate the uk charged us, then a link to what rates we were charged for loans from the EFSF and the EFSM, I've no problem admitting when I'm mistaken, I hope you're the same.

bobmalooka wrote: »

Y Based on the criteria you selected, you can only conclude that the EU are the preferred the partner.

I have no idea what you mean there.

bobmalooka

Firblog wrote: »

Please post link to interest rate the uk charged us, then a link to what rates we were charged for loans from the EFSF and the EFSM, I've no problem admitting when I'm mistaken, I hope you're the same.



I have no idea what you mean there.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/ireland-business-blog-with-lisa-ocarroll/2011/may/18/ireland-bailout-terms-interest-rate

Guardian have rates on this article - you’ll note the troika weighted average being (marginally) lower than UK.

I’d be delighted to see the links that led you to believe the UK charged us low rates while you simultaneously held the belief that German rates ‘raped’ us.

Spanish Eyes

Quieten down. There will be a Trade Deal soon.

UK will be a Third Country, no getting away from that. But it is their problem.

Firblog

You when are you going to admit you were mistaken?

The article you linked to gave the rate charged by the ESFM @ 6.1% and the UK @ 5.9% your own source contradicts your assertion that the "UK charged us more"

Here is a link contradicting the 5.9% rate you source claims, with the following rates.

Under the original structure of the UK deal, repayments were calculated by adding 2.29pc to a formula known as the sterling seven-and-a-half-year swap rate -- meaning an interest rate of 4.5pc.

The new formula will be based on the average yield on UK government debt in the six months before a loan is made, plus the 0.18pc charge.

Last night the 'yield' or interest on 10-year UK bonds was 1.68pc and an additional 0.18pc would mean Ireland could borrow from the UK at less than 2pc.

That last drop in rates to 2% was at a time we were paying about 3.5% to the EFSM and EFSF - to be fair I believe at that stage both those funds were only charging interest slightly above the cost to them of borrowing the money.

Anyways good night for now, hope anyone posting querying my views / asking for links etc can contain themselves until tomorrow to perhaps get a response. Hope I can sleep now and not be awake all night thinking of zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

bobmalooka

Firblog wrote: »

You when are you going to admit you were mistaken?

The article you linked to gave the rate charged by the ESFM @ 6.1% and the UK @ 5.9% your own source contradicts your assertion that the "UK charged us more"

That’s certainly true if you isolate 1 strand of the troika, that would be silly though because - as the name suggests - there 3.
The weighted average is lower.

Here is a link contradicting the 5.9% rate you source claims, with the following rates.

Under the original structure of the UK deal, repayments were calculated by adding 2.29pc to a formula known as the sterling seven-and-a-half-year swap rate -- meaning an interest rate of 4.5pc.

Does that link have the rates from the EU bodies? Or are you picking and choosing from different sources to suit your own argument?

The new formula will be based on the average yield on UK government debt in the six months before a loan is made, plus the 0.18pc charge.

Last night the 'yield' or interest on 10-year UK bonds was 1.68pc and an additional 0.18pc would mean Ireland could borrow from the UK at less than 2pc.

That last drop in rates to 2% was at a time we were paying about 3.5% to the EFSM and EFSF - to be fair I believe at that stage both those funds were only charging interest slightly above the cost to them of borrowing the money.

See above - how did you form the opinion 1 was low and the other was ‘rape’?

My source shows a marginal difference in the rates.

A Dub in Glasgo

Many people on newspaper comments in the UK describe the UK loan as a bung or a bail-out to Ireland and Ireland should get down on both knees to thank the UK. Very few have any understanding whatsoever that the UK banking insustry was heavily exposed in Ireland and the UK loaned Ireland money at commercial interest rates with punitive clauses to deter early repayment. How that can ever be described as a bail out or bung is beyond me.

I suppose my mortgage company bailed me out on my house loan!

bobmalooka

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Many people on newspaper comments in the UK describe the UK loan as a bung or a bail-out to Ireland and Ireland should get down on both knees to thank the UK. Very few have any understanding whatsoever that the UK banking insustry was heavily exposed in Ireland and the UK loaned Ireland money at commercial interest rates with punitive clauses to deter early repayment. How that can ever be described as a bail out or bung is beyond me.

I suppose my mortgage company bailed me out on my house loan!

Wait until you meet people who describe similar terms from EU institutions as Rape terms while at the same time asserting that the UK terms were a bung.

These aren’t serious people, and their bluster is finally colliding with reality.