Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Hurrache

Yeah, the more money you have, the easier it is. Things like cabotage apparently will apply to touring bands, the transport they bring with them can only have 2 stops so they'd have to use EU companies, having paperwork for each item of equipment and instrument, lots of things like they I'm sure they didn't expect.

ancapailldorcha

Don't dump outrageous tabloid headlines and links here please. Posts removed.

peter kern

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Fair point. However, I think the primary reason that many countries stay in the EU is global/economic power. If either of those dwindled, they would most definitely consider leaving the EU as many of their citizens do not see it as a peace project.

well it has dwindled on both accounts not just one with the uk leaving, and i guess its the other way round , people see if you leave you lose much more .

ancapailldorcha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Big stadium rock bands will suffer a minor inconvenience, or rather their management staff will. So from Daltreys point of view it probably wont make any difference.

But for the gigging musician who makes 4/500 all in for a gig, they are already running on a shoestring when expenses are taken out of it, and if they have to spend more money and time organising their transit and employment visas, it wont be worth it

Ie, signficiant change with no real loss to the large incumbents. Brexit in a nutshell really.

peter kern wrote: »

well it has dwindled on both accounts not just one with the uk leaving, and i guess its the other way round , people see if you leave you lose much more .

It's changed because the world has changed. When people go on about globalisation and how bad the EU is, leaving the EU isn't going to prevent the usual jostling for advantage any more than leaving your door unlocked will end burglaries.

Professor Moriarty

peter kern wrote: »

well it has dwindled on both accounts not just one with the uk leaving, and i guess its the other way round , people see if you leave you lose much more .

Well, using Ireland as an example, if we were to leave the EU we would become an insignificant little country with no global clout whatsoever and our economy would take a deep and permanent hammering. Apart from that, we'd be grand.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The EU is fundamentally a peace project and an attempt to manage and fairly balance globalism. Brexit is just a way of forcing the negatives of globalism down the throats of people who are struggling because of either being taken advantage of by the government or being abandoned by successive governments.

The EU was always a peace project above all else.

It saw peace coming as the result of economic stability and the absence of poverty and deprivation. The scenes following WW II of hoards of the dejected and the dispossessed pushing their few personal items in front of them in barrows and prams while they go they know not where to find safety and protection from what they have left, in the belief that where ever they went, it would be better than where they were.

The politicians in those war torn states agreed 'Never again shall we allow this in Europe - whatever it takes'. The UK stood aside. And to be fair, apart from a few bumps in the road, the EEC/EU have achieved that, and are continuing to strive for better. Allowing the Eastern European countries to join before they were really ready proves this.

They started the The European Coal and Steel Community so that the economy of the coal producing areas could feed the steel producing industries and bring economic growth. This led to the EEC and then to the EU. The emphasis is/was always on Community and equality between member states.

You can see this in the 'Anything but arms' protocol with third world/developing countries allowing tariff free imports into the EU.

Members who are in there for the free money will realise it is cold out there if you could be a member but choose not to be. They will stay, come what may.

bob mcbob

It seems that Farage realises just how stupid his supporters are and has decided to make some money.

https://subscribe.fortuneandfreedom.com/X983WCSP/g-be?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIq5KUmO2s7gIV0zLTCh3LqwIOEAEYASAAEgI0CPD_BwE

At least he recognises that Britain now is just England and Wales

View

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just on the tarrifs, the Scottish Whisky one is great for Irish Whiskey:

https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2020/12/irish-whiskey-sales-forecast-to-exceed-scotch-by-2030/

Whiskey distilleries tend to be in rural locations (but not always) and are labour intensive. Im sorry to say this of our Scottish buddies, but their disadvantage is our gain. I should stress that it isnt just the tarrifs that are at play, the Irish Whiskey industry is really hitting the premium and super premium market in the US and Irish Distilleries are really knocking it out of the park marketing-wise.

Also interesting to observe that one of the more intellectual reasons for Brexit was that the EU would insist on tarrifs that suit some countries e.g. garlic for France and Spain, but the UK produces very little garlic so shouldnt have to have those tarrifs. I wonder what the SNP think about their pride and glory industry being the victim because the predominantly English steel and airplane manufacturers are being protected by the UK!

The irony of this is that it was Irish whiskey, not Scottish whisky, that was the global whiskey/whiskey leader up to around a hundred years ago. Irish whiskey lost its position due to a combination of independence, which effected financial investment in the industry here from London; tariffs, due to DeValera’s economic war with the U.K. which hindered access to the UK’s global Empire; and prohibition in the US, which disrupted all exports to it.

CelticRambler

bob mcbob wrote: »

It seems that Farage realises just how stupid his supporters are and has decided to make some money.

Strong echoes of Trump University and MAGA merchandising, there ... :rolleyes:

Retr0gamer

View wrote: »

The irony of this is that it was Irish whiskey, not Scottish whisky, that was the global whiskey/whiskey leader up to around a hundred years ago. Irish whiskey lost its position due to a combination of independence, which effected financial investment in the industry here from London; tariffs, due to DeValera’s economic war with the U.K. which hindered access to the UK’s global Empire; and prohibition in the US, which disrupted all exports to it.

I heard it was prohibition first then World War 2. Irish whiskey couldn't be sold to america and they got a taste for moonshine bourbon and then scotch during WW2.

All from the Jameson distillery tour

View

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, using Ireland as an example, if we were to leave the EU we would become an insignificant little country with no global clout whatsoever and our economy would take a deep and permanent hammering. Apart from that, we'd be grand.

I believe that the cynical view of such matters is that if the countries of Europe do not hang together then we will all hang separately.

Professor Moriarty

View wrote: »

I believe that the cynical view of such matters is that if the countries of Europe do not hang together then we will all hang separately.

Exactly. Nobody I know considers the EU to be a peace project. It's all about the economy and society. Certainly, in countries such as Hungary, it's just the economy today.

Hurrache

It's not at the EU that these people should be handing in letters and protesting at, they should take a spin down to the British embassy.
https://twitter.com/paulcolgan/status/1352206057578369027

CelticRambler

Hurrache wrote: »

It's not at the EU that these people should be handing in letters and protesting at, they should take a spin down to the British embassy.

This is one of those frustrating news snippets - big on optics and very light on detail! What are they complaining about? And what are they looking for? As has been reported elsewhere, their continental peers have said "fck Brexit" and opted out of cross-Channel journeys (or hiked their prices enormously) because British businesses don't know what they're doing, or can't comply with the barriers erected by the British government.

So who are these guys? Irish drivers that want the EU to be nice to incompetent British businesses or an incompetent British government? Or are they British drivers who don't realise that Ireland is a sovereign state, independent of the UK and part of an economic bloc that the UK chose to leave? Or are they representatives of Irish companies who didn't do anything to Brexit-proof their supply lines and are only now realising (or not, by the looks of it) how stupid that was?

As you say, if their own business model is heavily dependent on GB-Ireland transport, they should really be parked up outside the British Embassy encouraging the lads in there to speak to their masters over in London.

yagan

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Exactly. Nobody I know considers the EU to be a peace project. It's all about the economy and society. Certainly, in countries such as Hungary, it's just the economy today.

That's why Biden identifying rebuilding the middle classes in the USA will actually do more to counter home grown terrorism.

The UK unfortunately is still mentally stuck with an imperialist view of Europe.

peter kern

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Exactly. Nobody I know considers the EU to be a peace project. It's all about the economy and society. Certainly, in countries such as Hungary, it's just the economy today.

for eu countries that share a border with russia peace is still a consideration.

Professor Moriarty

peter kern wrote: »

for eu countries that share a border with russia peace is still a consideration.

They look more to NATO than the EU.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

This does seem like an extraordinarily stupid row to pick.

Couple of points:

1. Tim Barrow is no longer the UK Ambassador to the EU. The post is currently vacant. Barrow was appointed as a full rank ambassador with effect from Brexit day (31 January 2020); immediately prior to that he was Permanent Representative to the EU, the title the UK gave to the head of its diplomatic mission to the EU while it was a member state. It remains to be seen what title/status the UK will confer on Barrow's successor as head of mission. Barrow may turn out to be not the first, but the only, Ambassador ever accredited by the UK to the EU.

2. The US under Trump did the same thing in 2017, downgrading their treatment of the EU ambassador to the US. But they reversed that decision in 2019, and began treating him as a full ambassador again. They offered no explanation either for the downgrading or for the reversal.

3. It also seems to be trolling Brexiters, who argued that the UK had to leave the UK to recover its sovereignty, since being a member state involved ceding sovereignty to the Union. But you can't really argue that the member states of the Union are not sovereign and that the Union is also not sovereign.

That all sounds totally reasonable.

However, the UK has been demanding that each side treat each other as Sovereign equals since Brexit started so it seems a much to then demote the EU to be less sovereign.

Lemming

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Big stadium rock bands will suffer a minor inconvenience, or rather their management staff will. So from Daltreys point of view it probably wont make any difference.

Hurrache wrote: »

Yeah, the more money you have, the easier it is. Things like cabotage apparently will apply to touring bands, the transport they bring with them can only have 2 stops so they'd have to use EU companies, having paperwork for each item of equipment and instrument, lots of things like they I'm sure they didn't expect.

This will cost big acts a lot more than anyone (including themselves) will realise. It will of course inflict considerably worse pain upon any artists that are not already well established and/or not-shy for cash flow. People are only considering musicians themselves and their instruments in all of this; you've got the bands technicians and then stage crew on top of that; it's an iceberg of logistics beneath what a punter may see on stage.

A band may spent a day or two in any given location, but for the big acts their staff + equipment may be on site for several days; to include trucks (so drivers + licences/insurance), stages to be physically assembled/disassembled, sound & lighting crew + everything that goes with that, pyrotechnics crew plus explosives licences, etc. etc. etc. etc. And then more etc. on top of that. Major European tours for a big band cost a lot of money already; adding the logistical paperwork (and costs) on top of that, potentially per-country for some of it (e.g. explosives certifications) is mind boggling. Some bands will even have two sets of equipment + staff; one of which is sent ahead to the next venue, and rinse repeat.

Rodger Daltrey is sadly ignorant in this and is being played like a useful fool by Brexiteers

Donald Trump

Lemming wrote: »

This will cost big acts a lot more than anyone (including themselves) will realise. It will of course inflict considerably worse pain upon any artists that are not already well established and/or not-shy for cash flow. People are only considering musicians themselves and their instruments in all of this; you've got the bands technicians and then stage crew on top of that; it's an iceberg of logistics beneath what a punter may see on stage.

A band may spent a day or two in any given location, but for the big acts their staff + equipment may be on site for several days; to include trucks (so drivers + licences/insurance), stages to be physically assembled/disassembled, sound & lighting crew + everything that goes with that, pyrotechnics crew plus explosives licences, etc. etc. etc. etc. And then more etc. on top of that. Major European tours for a big band cost a lot of money already; adding the logistical paperwork (and costs) on top of that, potentially per-country for some of it (e.g. explosives certifications) is mind boggling. Some bands will even have two sets of equipment + staff; one of which is sent ahead to the next venue, and rinse repeat.

Rodger Daltrey is sadly ignorant in this and is being played like a useful fool by Brexiteers

One would imagine that they would have to pay import/customs duty on all their equipment as well (refundable when they bring it back out)

Donald Trump

I have a separate question.

What happens if the EU does not ratify the treaty "as is"? Suppose they want a few more clarifications/corrections?

All bets off?

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

However, the UK has been demanding that each side treat each other as Sovereign equals since Brexit started so it seems a much to then demote the EU to be less sovereign.

I disagree they have been demanding their sovereignty be considered as more important than anyone elses so this is far from surprising.


Its just classic english exceptionalism though.

schmoo2k

Lemming wrote: »

This will cost big acts a lot more than anyone (including themselves) will realise. It will of course inflict considerably worse pain upon any artists that are not already well established and/or not-shy for cash flow. People are only considering musicians themselves and their instruments in all of this; you've got the bands technicians and then stage crew on top of that; it's an iceberg of logistics beneath what a punter may see on stage.

A band may spent a day or two in any given location, but for the big acts their staff + equipment may be on site for several days; to include trucks (so drivers + licences/insurance), stages to be physically assembled/disassembled, sound & lighting crew + everything that goes with that, pyrotechnics crew plus explosives licences, etc. etc. etc. etc. And then more etc. on top of that. Major European tours for a big band cost a lot of money already; adding the logistical paperwork (and costs) on top of that, potentially per-country for some of it (e.g. explosives certifications) is mind boggling. Some bands will even have two sets of equipment + staff; one of which is sent ahead to the next venue, and rinse repeat.

Rodger Daltrey is sadly ignorant in this and is being played like a useful fool by Brexiteers

I would assume US Artists have a different (better) agreement with the EU?

Leroy42

Lemming wrote: »

This will cost big acts a lot more than anyone (including themselves) will realise. It will of course inflict considerably worse pain upon any artists that are not already well established and/or not-shy for cash flow. People are only considering musicians themselves and their instruments in all of this; you've got the bands technicians and then stage crew on top of that; it's an iceberg of logistics beneath what a punter may see on stage.

A band may spent a day or two in any given location, but for the big acts their staff + equipment may be on site for several days; to include trucks (so drivers + licences/insurance), stages to be physically assembled/disassembled, sound & lighting crew + everything that goes with that, pyrotechnics crew plus explosives licences, etc. etc. etc. etc. And then more etc. on top of that. Major European tours for a big band cost a lot of money already; adding the logistical paperwork (and costs) on top of that, potentially per-country for some of it (e.g. explosives certifications) is mind boggling. Some bands will even have two sets of equipment + staff; one of which is sent ahead to the next venue, and rinse repeat.

Rodger Daltrey is sadly ignorant in this and is being played like a useful fool by Brexiteers

How is this any different than touring anywhere else? I get it that things have changed, but surely visas cannot be the reason why music will stop!

Sounds to me that the industry is, all of a sudden, worried about the little guy but because it will add some extra costs and work for the big guys.

The problem, of course, comes with the fact that who then gets to be considered an artist for a visa waiver? Will it be like footballers, where you need to have reached certain sales or recognition? Or anyone with a triangle and pair of spoons will effectively have FOM granted for themselves and any 'crew'?

Is it just paid work, or does busking on the beach in Torremolinos count?

CelticRambler

Donald Trump wrote: »

One would imagine that they would have to pay import/customs duty on all their equipment as well (refundable when they bring it back out)

Not exactly. That's what the carnet system is for: you list everything you're bringing with you (everything - every drumstick, every spare guitar string, every XLR cable ... ); you present your carnet and van to customs where the list is checked; you do your gigs; and you head home. Before you get your exit visa stamp, customs check all your stuff against the import declaration and ask you to explain any discrepancies. Depending on your answers and what side of the bed the customs officer got out of that morning, you may or may not have to pay duties on the stuff that's gone missing.

Of course you've got the whole working visa side of things to sort out before you pack the van in the first place, and need to remember what day it is to be sure of getting out before your visa period expires (too many "after midnight" gigs can play havoc with your perception of time ... )

Aaaand then there's the whole merchandising side of the business, because that's not meant to be included in your carnet. Your CDs may or may not be subject to performing rights declarations, your t-shirts will be subject to rules of origin, your pin-badges too ...

What old timers like Roger Daltry forget/don't realise/choose to ignore is just how much bigger and more business-like the music business has become since his hey-day. Unless you're traipsing around the Continent solo with a battered guitar or a set of pan pipes or gigging at the back end of a valley in the Auvergne for an audience of 137 humans and three dogs, touring isn't anything like it was back in last century.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

How is this any different than touring anywhere else? I get it that things have changed, but surely visas cannot be the reason why music will stop!

Civilised (and even not-so-civilised) countries have time-limited reciprocal recognition agreements in place. That's what the EU wanted from the UK. The UK said no.

To clarify: this isn't purely Brexit related - the UK had already aggressively tightened up on foreign artists performing in the UK. One "world music" festival had to cancel itself a few years ago because, quelle surprise, "world music" artists tend to come from, eh, other parts of the world. They had so many visa requests refused for obscure indigenous African and Asian artists that they couldn't justify proceeding with the event. (Sorry, can't remember the finer details of time and name right now, but it was a Big Deal in the niche circles I move in )

Edit: an overview of the previous new-state-of-play for foreign artists in the UK (2018 article): What the Womad visa fiasco tells us about live music in Brexit Britain (Womad USA was previously cancelled for visa reasons, so very definitely yes, visas can be the sole reason for stopping the music.

ArmaniJeanss

Leroy42 wrote: »

How is this any different than touring anywhere else? I get it that things have changed, but surely visas cannot be the reason why music will stop!

The sheer volume of comparatively small countries with individual visa and work permit requirements I guess.
It's different to touring say the US or Australia where one piece of paperwork covers everything.

tubercolossus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Are the two things really all that separate? The EUs key insight is that you dont create peace with nice words and good intentions, but by ensuring economic integration and political cooperstion you make war unattractive to the point of vanishing

Free movement ensuring healthy populations of migrants in each other's respective countries too. It's a disincentive to invade a neighbouring country if there are a couple of million of your own citizens living there.

Nody

schmoo2k wrote: »

I would assume US Artists have a different (better) agreement with the EU?

EU offers 90 days as default in their FTAs; so pretty much every country in the world with a FTA has a better deal for their artists atm compared to UK.

tubercolossus

CelticRambler wrote: »

Civilised (and even not-so-civilised) countries have time-limited reciprocal recognition agreements in place. That's what the EU wanted from the UK. The UK said no.

The EU offered the UK. It's their standard arrangement, but the UK turned it down because it smacked of FOM to them somehow.