Brexit discussion thread II

First Up · 19-07-2017 07:21AM

Bushmanpm wrote:

I'm grown up enough to take the facts and form my own opinion. Sadly, others can't by the looks of it.

You dismissed the report (hahahahaha etc.) on the basis of who reported it.

It is clear how you form your opinions.

murphaph · 19-07-2017 07:22AM

Calina wrote: »

Given that the UK appears to be operating under the illusion that any deal that gives them less than what they have in benefits now with none of the costs or responsibilities is punitive, then I fear the UK is on a loser.

Indeed. They simply don't get it that club membership brings certain benefits (eg rights to sell services across borders, something no current FTA allows in such scope) but expect to retain these benefits post exit by negotiating a "special" deal. The problem is, normal WTO rules hurt the EU (excluding Ireland) far less than the UK and a normal FTA like CETA also hurts the EU far less again. The UK is the side that need accommodation for their service sector.

solodeogloria · 19-07-2017 07:24AM

Calina wrote: »

Given that the UK appears to be operating under the illusion that any deal that gives them less than what they have in benefits now with none of the costs or responsibilities is punitive, then I fear the UK is on a loser.

Good morning!

That's not true. That's why I refer to CETA. A third country deal may be more restrictive than today in respect to trade but it would still ensure that the vast majority can continue.

Then the UK can maximise other trading relationships it has with other countries.

A highly restrictive deal with a huge payment (over €100bn) and continued free movement wouldn't be worth it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 19-07-2017 07:37AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Yes, it is a worst case scenario.

However the EU needs to be clear that the UK won't accept any deal under the sun, especially a punitive one. If it becomes clear that the EU isn't even going to engage with the UK position then a walk out at the least is necessary. The UK would take a hit but it is capable of doing so. If the EU took that stance I would definitely say that the UK should stay out.

I'm still of the view that is nonsense considering the reports of British and European negotiators discussing both Northern Ireland and the financial settlement at length at the start of this week.

The European Commission also defended Davis' leaving early saying that chief negotiators are not expected to be there all the time.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

Given that the UK appears to be operating under the illusion that any deal that gives them less than what they have in benefits now with none of the costs or responsibilities is punitive, then I fear the UK is on a loser.

No, no, no. At this stage in the negotiations both sides are just jockeying for position, bidding high because they know they will have to compromise in order to get a deal, and they want to stake out positions which are so advantageous to themselves that they can compromise, give ground, yield a little, and still end up in a somewhat favourable position. This is all standard negotiating stuff.

"Punitive" is a vague concept which the UK is invoking to give itself room to compromise. By signalling that they won't accept a "punitive" deal, they are impliedly stating that there is a "non-punitive" space within which they can deal. ("Yes, we compromised on A, B and C to make a deal, but we did that because the EU's demand that we compromise on those areas wasn't punitive.")

And one of the strengths of a term like "punitive" here is that it's pretty non-specific. Saying that "we won't accept a punitive deal" doesn't really tie the UK down very much as to which deals they can accept and which they can't. There aren't any hostages to fortune in there. If the UK said, e.g., "we won't accept a deal that doesn't include zero tariffs", that actually would be a line in the sand that it would be difficult or embarrassing to walk away from. "Punitive" doesn't carry any baggage like that.

As the negotiations proceed, expect the UK side to say "punitive" a lot less, and indeed to talk less about what deal they don't want, and more about what they do. Expect terms like "just", "fair", "reasonable", "mutually beneficial" and so forth to feature more and more. But also terms that indicate that the UK hasn't been a pushover - "hard-fought", "tough", etc.

The EU side is also positioning itself, but it has less need to position itself in precisely this way. The truth is that the EU has the much better bargaining position; it holds all the cards, and the UK needs a deal here much more than the EU does. Both sides know this. It's in the UK's interest to accept any reasonable deal that the EU is willing to offer. What the EU needs to do is to make acceptance politically feasible for the UK. Hence they start out by painting the UK as unprepared, unrealistic, etc, etc. As negotiations proceed expect them to admit to being more and more impressed by the UK's attitude, toughness, surprising realism, positive and creative approach, etc, etc. This enables the UK negotiators to present themselves as having gained ground for the UK in the negotiations, which makes the final deal easier to sell in the UK. If you don't hear these noises coming from the EU side in the next few months, that means the negotiations really aren't going well.

As for Davis not hanging around for the nitty-gritty of the negotiations, that's fine at this early stage. The daily grind is not his job. He and Barnier are the people to whom the front-line negotiating teams report back, and to whom they will go when they want direction, or decisions on matters of principle, or when they have identified seemingly intractable problems. To be useful in breaking logjams, Davis and Barnier need to be not part of the logjam in the first place.

Zubeneschamali · 19-07-2017 07:45AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

A highly restrictive deal with a huge payment (over €100bn) and continued free movement wouldn't be worth it.

This is money which the UK government agrees it owes. You don't know how it will be calculated, but you already have a number in your head which is too much?

Is this how you treat restaurant bills? Or only when Boris is at dinner?

Peregrinus · 19-07-2017 07:50AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

A highly restrictive deal with a huge payment (over €100bn) and continued free movement wouldn't be worth it.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is money which the UK government agrees it owes. You don't know how it will be calculated, but you already have a number in your head which is too much?

Is this how you treat restaurant bills? Or only when Boris is at dinner?

No, no. Read more carefully, Zub. What Solo says is unacceptable is the combination of highly restrictive trade, a large exit bill and continued free movement. What that signals is that these things can be traded off against one another; if the EU can offer low trade restrictions, then the UK can talk flexibly about the exit bill and/or some degree of free movement.

Zubeneschamali · 19-07-2017 07:55AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, no. Read more carefully, Zub. What Solo says is unacceptable is the combination of highly restrictive trade, a large exit bill and continued free movement.

Sure, but what I am pointing out that the "large" size of the bill is neither here not there. They agree that they owe money. Solo has no idea how that bill will be calculated.

But apparently, it better not be over €100bn?

Perhaps you are suggesting that the Brexiteers have signalled that €100bn is unacceptable because they believe the real figure will be €60bn-ish, and this is just huffing and puffing? So that they can claim a win when the real bill arrives?

Peregrinus · 19-07-2017 08:06AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps you are suggesting that the Brexiteers have signalled that €100bn is unacceptable because they believe the real figure will be €60bn-ish, and this is just huffing and puffing? So that they can claim a win when the real bill arrives?

This. Lots of fairly casually-estimated figures have been bandied about, and from memory €100bn is towards the top of the range. On the assumption that the top-of-the-range figures (and the bottom-of-the-range figures) will have come from people staking out negotiating positions from which they expect to move, all that "we won't pay €100bn!" means is "we expect you to move from your initial position so that we can deal with you".

The bottom line here that both sides want a deal. Neither wants a deal at any price, but they do want a deal. And both sides know that there's plenty of middle ground where, in economic terms at least, there are possible deals which are better for both sides than no deal would be. Therefore, if both sides are sensible and rational and act on purely material considerations, there will be a deal.

The problem is, of course, that there are emotional and symbolic and political considerations on both sides, as well as the purely economic ones, and those are the considerations which could stymie a deal if not handled with care and respect on both sides. If, say, May draws a firm line and says that there can be no role for the European Court of Justice in any aspect of UK/EU relations (and, NB, she hasn't said this) that could be a real problem. (That's just an example. I'm not saying that such a problem can only arise from the UK side.) Both sides will want to avoid this too, but it's not always easy to avoid.

My prediction is that if talks break down and there is no deal, it won't be over economic issues, but over a symbolic/political issue like this.

Enzokk · 19-07-2017 08:40AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem is, of course, that there are emotional and symbolic and political considerations on both sides, as well as the purely economic ones, and those are the considerations which could stymie a deal if not handled with care and respect on both sides. If, say, May draws a firm line and says that there can be no role for the European Court of Justice in any aspect of UK/EU relations (and, NB, she hasn't said this) that could be a real problem. (That's just an example. I'm not saying that such a problem can only arise from the UK side.) Both sides will want to avoid this too, but it's not always easy to avoid.

My prediction is that if talks break down and there is no deal, it won't be over economic issues, but over a symbolic/political issue like this.

Well the talk from Theresa May has been about taking back control from the EU regarding immigration and not being in a situation where the ECJ has any jurisdiction. This surely means where the ECJ makes judgments where the UK is involved and it is a red line?

Theresa May wrote:

She added: "Let me be clear: We are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice."

Now this was said before the recent election but I am not sure if her stance has changed, especially as she is being known now for u-turning on almost every policy. Do you think she will want to be seen u-turning on another?

Brexit: PM Theresa May says UK will 'make own decisions on immigration'

Peregrinus · 19-07-2017 08:55AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Well the talk from Theresa May has been about taking back control from the EU regarding immigration and not being in a situation where the ECJ has any jurisdiction. This surely means where the ECJ makes judgments where the UK is involved and it is a red line?

I think you'll find that it's at best a red dotted line; there will be gaps.

For instance, the UK (for good reasons, in the UK's interest) wants to continue to participate in the European Patent Office system. But that system involves disputes over patents being resolved, ultimately, by the ECJ, and nobody imagines for an instant the UK can participate in the system but be allowed to exempt itself from, or ignore, patent rulings from the ECJ. And, if you think about it, that would be a wildly unreasonable thing for the UK to demand, or to expect to get.

So we move very quickly from a position where the UK says "we won't be bound by the ECJ" to one where it says "we won't be bound by the ECJ, except in relation to questions of European Patent Law". But once you've admitted one "except", there's obviously scope for others, and soon we're negotiating about where the ECJ will have a jurisdiction that applies to the UK, and where it won't.

Enzokk wrote: »

Now this was said before the recent election but I am not sure if her stance has changed, especially as she is being known now for u-turning on almost every policy. Do you think she will want to be seen u-turning on another?

Obviously, she'd rather present this kind of thing as not a U-turn, but flexible and creative negotiation in Britain's interests.

What she wants to do is state a strong (but, when read carefully, not absolutist) position so as to win elections/command the support of the neanderthal right of her own party, and then display confidence, flexiblity and other political virtues in negotiating from that position to some more nuanced position to secure a deal in the UK's best interests.

Clearly, the line between that and "U-turn!" is a fairly blurred one and is more a matter of presentation and spin than of substance. And if we've learned anything in recent weeks it's that presentation and spin are not May's strong suit. So this is a balancing act which, in the end, she may not pull off successfully.

Enzokk · 19-07-2017 09:08AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you'll find that it's at best a red dotted line; there will be gaps.

For instance, the UK (for good reasons, in the UK's interest) wants to continue to participate in the European Patent Office system. But that system involves disputes over patents being resolved, ultimately, by the ECJ, and nobody imagines for an instant the UK can participate in the system but be allowed to exempt itself from, or ignore, patent rulings from the ECJ. And, if you think about it, that would be a wildly unreasonable thing for the UK to demand, or to expect to get.

So we move very quickly from a position where the UK says "we won't be bound by the ECJ" to one where it says "we won't be bound by the ECJ, except in relation to questions of European Patent Law". But once you've admitted one "except", there's obviously scope for others, and soon we're negotiating about where the ECJ will have a jurisdiction that applies to the UK, and where it won't.

I think we can agree that the mentions of leaving the ECJ jurisdiction was hasty from the PM. Maybe she didn't understand what it would involve practically?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously, she'd rather present this kind of thing as not a U-turn, but flexible and creative negotiation in Britain's interests.

What she wants to do is state a strong (but, when read carefully, not absolutist) position so as to win elections/command the support of the neanderthal right of her own party, and then display confidence, flexiblity and other political virtues in negotiating from that position to some more nuanced position to secure a deal in the UK's best interests.

Clearly, the line between that and "U-turn!" is a fairly blurred one and is more a matter of presentation and spin than of substance. And if we've learned anything in recent weeks it's that presentation and spin are not May's strong suit. So this is a balancing act which, in the end, she may not pull off successfully.

She has given up the chance not to make it seem like a u-turn though. She is the one that said she wants to leave the ECJ jurisdiction. No-one forced her to state this in such a forceful manner. David Cameron was very good as sounding authoritative when he declared he will go to the EU to get a better deal for the UK before the referendum when every man and his dog knew it was just showboating and he would try to spin what he came back with as the reason to back remain. He couldn't sell it to the newspapers, and in turn the public.

Theresa May is no David Cameron. I think she has zero chance of spinning anything of as not u-turning after what she has proclaimed before. That is the problem with trying to appear strong, or in her case "bloody difficult". She will now have to be difficult to not look weak, even if it harms the country. And you know once she shows weakness others will be queuing up waiting to feast on her political corpse, like wild dogs eating their prey alive after catching it.

solodeogloria · 19-07-2017 09:12AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, no. Read more carefully, Zub. What Solo says is unacceptable is the combination of highly restrictive trade, a large exit bill and continued free movement. What that signals is that these things can be traded off against one another; if the EU can offer low trade restrictions, then the UK can talk flexibly about the exit bill and/or some degree of free movement.

Good morning!

Kind of - anything over €100bn would be unacceptable in any case. I think it should only be paid once trade terms become clear under the nothing is agreed until everything is agreed principle.

Freedom of movement must be restricted. I think a relatively light touch restriction on low wage labour would suffice to ensure that there isn't an undercutting of labour in certain sectors. Something similar to the proposed but never implemented Tier 3 visa would suffice with a broader more liberal visa for highly skilled workers which would ensure free movement subject to employment.

I think both of those are reasonable positions that address the underlying concerns of the referendum. I want the UK to be an open, global and progressive country after Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina · 19-07-2017 09:16AM

Anyone Irish in the UK stating that FOM must be restricted is being hypocritical. Worth noting that the position of Irish people in the UK is disimproved by May's current offer for post Brexit rights.

solodeogloria · 19-07-2017 09:19AM

Calina wrote: »

Anyone Irish in the UK stating that FOM must be restricted is being hypocritical. Worth noting that the position of Irish people in the UK is disimproved by May's current offer for post Brexit rights.

Good morning!

Firstly - no it isn't hypocritical to think that the Government should respond to people's concerns. Carte blanche free movement has caused an oversupply of labour in certain areas.

Secondly - what rights have been diminished? In the position paper it seems like the CTA and it's provisions still stand.

I'm happy to be subject to any immigration rules that apply.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25 · 19-07-2017 09:31AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

For instance, the UK (for good reasons, in the UK's interest) wants to continue to participate in the European Patent Office system. But that system involves disputes over patents being resolved, ultimately, by the ECJ, and nobody imagines for an instant the UK can participate in the system but be allowed to exempt itself from, or ignore, patent rulings from the ECJ. And, if you think about it, that would be a wildly unreasonable thing for the UK to demand, or to expect to get.

Some precisions just for clarification, Peregrinus: the European Patent System never had anything to do with the EU, and still won't have anything to do with the EU.

It is borne from the European Patent Convention (establishing the European Patent Office in Munich, The Hague and Berlin) and is its own jurisdiction, just like (e.g.) the ECHR (establishing the ECtHR in Strasbourg) and the GATT (establishing the WTO in Geneva) are.

The UPCA (the new agreement which the UK wants into) is setting up its own Courts (1 in Paris, STEM subject-matters; 1 in London (...for now anyway), biology/biotech subject-matter), but will recognise the primacy of EU law and, at that, more as a fudge to finally bring the whole thing about (patent rights owners have been waiting 40 years for a pan-European patent litigation system!) than by design: the ECJ's role in that context, will be solely to resolve matters of interpretation and -in so doing- harmonize case law to ensure it conforms with this primacy principle. The ECJ will not be deciding patent disputes as such, but ensure that legal interpretation (in a patent dispute context) by the UPC Courts remains compliant with (more fundamental-) market-harmonizing EU legislation.

The UPC Courts will be deciding these disputes, and the bulk of case law which the UPC Courts shall inherit on day one, is that of the European Patent Office (Boards of Appeal and Enlarged Boards of Appeal decisions since 1973).

The UPC Courts will (only-) refer question of legislative interpretation to the ECJ if, as and when needed, in the exact same manner higher courts the length and breadth of the EU have done for decades.

And there's the irony and fallacy of May's proclamations, in one: the ECJ doesn't make EU law, it never has, it just interprets it. The EU Parliament makes EU law, together with the Commission.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So we move very quickly from a position where the UK says "we won't be bound by the ECJ" to one where it says "we won't be bound by the ECJ, except in relation to questions of European Patent Law". But once you've admitted one "except", there's obviously scope for others, and soon we're negotiating about where the ECJ will have a jurisdiction that applies to the UK, and where it won't.

In full agreement with that, and Enzokk's comment about May's hastiness.

Hers was typical of the politician's ever-shorter attention span to details (which matter rather a lot to something like Brexit) the higher office they reach, hand-in-hand with her deep-seated hatred of, I'd say, more the ECtHR (the irony!) than the CJEU as such.

Calina · 19-07-2017 09:36AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

Anyone Irish in the UK stating that FOM must be restricted is being hypocritical. Worth noting that the position of Irish people in the UK is disimproved by May's current offer for post Brexit rights.

Good morning!

Firstly - no it isn't hypocritical to think that the Government should respond to people's concerns. Carte blanche free movement has caused an oversupply of labour in certain areas.

Secondly - what rights have been diminished? In the position paper it seems like the CTA and it's provisions still stand.

I'm happy to be subject to any immigration rules that apply.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First read here.

https://twitter.com/SimonFRCox/status/881425032106450944

In summary the rights of your family to join you are limited under current offer - this you enjoy as an EU citizen and not as the CTA exists. Your right not to be deported except in certain cases also comes into play. Also note that these can be changed at the discretion of the UK government. They did this with Commonwealth citizens in the 1960s AFAIK. Here is some background on that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Immigrants_Act_1962

ambro25 · 19-07-2017 09:41AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm happy to be subject to any immigration rules that apply.

You must be rather invested in the UK then, for you to forego your acquired rights with such abandonment.

Speaking of diminished rights, I hear the Dutch (and all other EU nationals not permitted to maintain a double nationality) intending to continue residing in the UK are in a bit of a pickle: for the time being, it's either gamble on May's offer retrograding their rights and with wholly uncertain consequences in years to come, or take the British nationality and surrender their own.

Chips Lovell · 19-07-2017 09:53AM

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).

Further evidence of this emerged in parliament yesterday:

A Home Office minister has refused to say whether the British government has ever made use of EU-wide immigration rules that allow people to be expelled from a country if they are not working or actively seeking employment.

Lady Susan Williams admitted that the UK’s interpretation of the European directive governing the free movement of workers was “more than generous” in comparison with other European countries.

She suggested that her department did not hold data that would allow it to know whether European immigrants in the UK had secured jobs or not.

LeinsterDub · 19-07-2017 10:06AM

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/18/eu-talks-divided-over-britains-brexit-divorce-bill-mooted-at-66bn

has improved after the British government admitted last week it had debts to the EU. A statement to parliament on Thursday that the UK has financial “obligations” from its EU membership helped defuse a potentially toxic row that was brewing, after the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, said Brussels should “go whistle” for the money.

An other flip flop. Maybe the EU can whistle rule britannia as a concession?

Zubeneschamali · 19-07-2017 10:29AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

anything over €100bn would be unacceptable in any case.

Why? Because Boris said so?

The UK government have already acknowledged that they have commitments and will not walk away from them. We have not yet seen how the bill will be calculated.

Saying, before the bill is presented, that €100bn is "unacceptable" is silly. It's like drinking all evening in the bar, and then yelling that the tab had better not be over £100 or else.

First Up · 19-07-2017 10:38AM

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Saying, before the bill is presented, that â‚¬100bn is "unacceptable" is silly. It's like drinking all evening in the bar, and then yelling that the tab had better not be over Â£100 or else.

Well seeing as Brexit is like amputating your foot because of an ingrown toenail, is it any surprise that they don't want to pay the surgeon - while complaining they can't wiggle their toes?

Fratton Fred · 19-07-2017 11:50AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is money which the UK government agrees it owes. You don't know how it will be calculated, but you already have a number in your head which is too much?

Is this how you treat restaurant bills? Or only when Boris is at dinner?

Neither party has agreed to anything yet and neither party has so much as mentioned a figure, so this us all moot at the moment.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-divorce-bill/

God knows how they will establish this, just think how complex leaving the EIB will be.

Thomas__ · 19-07-2017 02:23PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

anything over €100bn would be unacceptable in any case.

Why? Because Boris said so?

The UK government have already acknowledged that they have commitments and will not walk away from them. We have not yet seen how the bill will be calculated.

Saying, before the bill is presented, that €100bn is "unacceptable" is silly. It's like drinking all evening in the bar, and then yelling that the tab had better not be over £100 or else.

That´s the way the many of the Brexiteers think and talk, or in case of the poster you were replying to, write. Those people prove by themselves that they are the most unreliable and narrowminded no-one can really negotiate with. This is and will be the reason for why the UK walks out of the EU with no deal in her hands. But they won´t get away without paying their commitments. I can imagine that when court rules fail (in case there will be one and the Brexiteers simply going to ignore the verdict) there might be sanctions following from the EU towards the ex-EU-UK to make them pay one way or another.

The only way that can save the Brits from disaster is for them to get a new GE and vote for another govt. Otherwise, the Brits will be exposed as unreliable on the whole international stage and any other non-EU country considering to make deals with them will certainly think twice before they even go into negotiations. Such behaviour damages the international reputation that hard that it will be very difficult to restore trust in the Brits anymore. It´d be very stupid of them, less to talk about the selfishness mind of the Brexiteers.

Since this BrexitRef, hardly one week goes by in which the Brexiteers don´t come up with one sillyness that tops the foregone one. I really never had thought that I were to witness such a decline in selfrespect and reliabilty by any UK govt. It´s really astonishing what is going on since and one negative perceptions follows the other. It also exposed the sheer madness of these Brexit people.

solodeogloria · 19-07-2017 05:44PM

Calina wrote: »

First read here.
https://twitter.com/SimonFRCox/status/881425032106450944

In summary the rights of your family to join you are limited under current offer - this you enjoy as an EU citizen and not as the CTA exists. Your right not to be deported except in certain cases also comes into play. Also note that these can be changed at the discretion of the UK government. They did this with Commonwealth citizens in the 1960s AFAIK. Here is some background on that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Immigrants_Act_1962

Good evening!

A few things. British citizens also have to apply for marriage visas for non-EU partners. I see no reason. Why this shouldn't be the same for everyone living in the UK. Tying up a discrepancy isn't the same thing as wholesale removing the rights of Irish people.

I appreciate that the British government can change the law. I believe this is highly unlikely given the constitutional status of Northern Ireland in British politics but I'm willing to be subject to all UK legislation in respect to immigration.

The final legislation will be subject to international law so the idea of the UK wholesale refusing to abide by the agreement is lessened. If they do that the entire agreement should lapse.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Jim2007 · 19-07-2017 06:15PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

For example, a coffee shop in Cork might get a 20% discount off the local dairy because they use 50 litres of milk per day. Apple may also buy milk off the local dairy, but despite them being the biggest company on the planet, only buy 10 litres of milk per day, so the dairy only gives them a 5% discount.

The thing is that there is more than one dairy and that sale is 48% of your turn over. Competing on price is never a good option for a European country because the cost structure is an issue - the worker will take the hit.

An Ciarraioch · 19-07-2017 07:01PM

2016: 65,000 UK applications for Irish passports

2017: Over 100,000 UK applications up to June 30th:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/19/irish-passport-rush-demand-jumps-50-per-cent-since-brexit-vote

Fratton Fred · 19-07-2017 07:34PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

The thing is that there is more than one dairy and that sale is 48% of your turn over. Competing on price is never a good option for a European country because the cost structure is an issue - the worker will take the hit.

Welcome to free market economics.

Capt'n Midnight · 20-07-2017 12:33AM

Good thing there's a magic money tree to pay for all the extra costs after Brexit.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40658774

Six million men and women will have to wait a year longer than they expected to get their state pension, the government has announced.

The rise in the pension age to 68 will now be phased in between 2037 and 2039, rather than from 2044 as was originally proposed.

Those affected are currently between the ages of 39 and 47.
...

Anyone younger than 39 will have to wait for future announcements to learn what their precise pension age will be.

But credit card surcharges are to be banned.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40648641

Jim2007 · 20-07-2017 12:39AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Welcome to free market economics.

Given your starting point and example I guess we can now conclude that you accept it will not go well for the average worker who voted for BREXIT after all!

Thomas__ · 20-07-2017 07:20AM

Jim2007 wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Welcome to free market economics.

Given your starting point and example I guess we can now conclude that you accept it will not go well for the average worker who voted for BREXIT after all!

That´s already clear to everyone except the Brexiteers. In another example, in the USA some of the average workers who voted for Trump are already realising what disservice they´ve done to themselves by voting for him. I´d expect the same see to happen among some average workers who voted for Brexit.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments