Brexit discussion thread II

oppenheimer1 · 07-09-2017 06:05PM

murphaph wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree. It seems the EU is prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ireland over the border. This is an almost impossible thing to solve, yet the EU has insisted that it must be solved before trade talks can begin. That is a demonstration of how much good will there is for us.

It would appear so on the face of it. But when you look at the experience within the EU, the track record of turning goodwill into concrete actions had been lacking. We only need look at the debt crisis or the refugee crisis to see the lack of solidarity in the union.

While this is different, and the EU may wish to prove a point to the UK and others, it is naive to expect the EU to shield Ireland if we don't bring anything to the table.

Samaris · 07-09-2017 06:16PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It would appear so on the face of it. But when you look at the experience within the EU, the track record of turning goodwill into concrete actions had been lacking. We only need look at the debt crisis or the refugee crisis to see the lack of solidarity in the union.

While this is different, and the EU may wish to prove a point to the UK and others, it is naive to expect the EU to shield Ireland if we don't bring anything to the table.

Not entirely, and I'm not so sure that the track record is as bad as you reckon. Considering all the aid that Ireland has received with various projects from the EU for a start.

But it is absolutely in the EU's interests to stand by a member country about something this important to us (not least because of past issues at the border) and to the EU (for trade/issues with smuggling/well...borders). The fastest way to damage the goodwill for the European project within the 27 countries (which took a wee bump due to Britain's actions) is to screw over a member state for the sake of one that's leaving as obnoxiously as possible.

jm08 · 07-09-2017 06:38PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Other states will only act in the interest of Ireland if it's also in their own interest. While there is lots of goodwill towards Ireland, that is cheap. If Ireland requires assistance in a meaningful way, it way have to make deeper concessions perhaps on tax, refugees, shengen or on any of the other opt outs it has.

From what I read, most other countries in the EU are not particularly pushed one way about the UK leaving the EU. I don't think joining Shengen would be a big issue for Ireland - we're only in it because of the UK and I don't think we have any issues with taking refugees except that we are very slow to do it. As for the tax, why would they want to further disadvantage Ireland by harmonising tax, though as the only English speaking country now in the EU, maybe that might not be such a bad thing if Ireland was forced to increase its corporate tax rate by the EU! When the EU (France really) didn't manage to get Ireland to make tax concessions for the bailout, they are not going to manage it over Brexit.

oppenheimer1 · 07-09-2017 06:39PM

Samaris wrote: »

Not entirely, and I'm not so sure that the track record is as bad as you reckon. Considering all the aid that Ireland has received with various projects from the EU for a start.

But it is absolutely in the EU's interests to stand by a member country about something this important to us (not least because of past issues at the border) and to the EU (for trade/issues with smuggling/well...borders). The fastest way to damage the goodwill for the European project within the 27 countries (which took a wee bump due to Britain's actions) is to screw over a member state for the sake of one that's leaving as obnoxiously as possible.

The various aid projects were essentially bribes to ensure the safe passage of the referendums, I'm thinking in particular here of the money from Maastricht. The point is of course, that Ireland has to bring something to the table when it wants something.

If Ireland wants extra support as a consequence of dealing with Brexit, it will have to offer something. It might get it cheaply but it won't get it free, it's naive to think otherwise.

Samaris · 07-09-2017 06:45PM

Er, source? Is that the Maastricht treaty, or is this one of the Lisbon/Nice issues?

But bear in mind that what's good for Ireland in this case is good for the EU. It is a "EU land border" with a non-EU country as well as the Irish border with the UK. And given how annoyed many EU state leaders are with the whole Brexit thing (as really, all of them have other things to be focusing on), I see no reason for the EU to damage itself to make things worse for itself as a whole. There is absolutely no sense in siding with the UK over the Irish border or otherwise acting up on it. We can see that it's important to the EU as a whole being as it's one of the things that has to be agreed on before EU-UK negotiations can get to the juicy trade bits.

jm08 · 07-09-2017 06:46PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The various aid projects were essentially bribes to ensure the safe passage of the referendums, I'm thinking in particular here of the money from Maastricht. The point is of course, that Ireland has to bring something to the table when it wants something.

If Ireland wants extra support as a consequence of dealing with Brexit, it will have to offer something. It might get it cheaply but it won't get it free, it's naive to think otherwise.

The biggest support package of all was the 8 bn that Kohl arranged as a thank you for Ireland's support of the reunification of Germany in 1992.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/helmut-kohl-was-forever-grateful-for-irish-support-during-eu-presidency-1.3122977

demfad · 07-09-2017 06:48PM

marcus001 wrote: »

wow

It's almost as if the EU is a stifling bureaucracy.

You've got cart before horse: The problems that the UK will face are because they are leaving the EU. The fact that a truck can drive from Glasgow to Naples now without a customs or regulatory check is because they are in the EU.

Think of it like this: If Alabama seceded from the United States abruptly it would also have no regulatory bodies or customs posts or WTO quotas etc etc. It's goods would not be able to be quality assured and therefore exported and so on. Would the resultant clusterfeck of problems that Alabama experienced be due to the US being a stifling bureaucracy?

Sam Russell · 07-09-2017 07:17PM

demfad wrote: »

You've got cart before horse: The problems that the UK will face are because they are leaving the EU. The fact that a truck can drive from Glasgow to Naples now without a customs or regulatory check is because they are in the EU.

Think of it like this: If Alabama seceded from the United States abruptly it would also have no regulatory bodies or customs posts or WTO quotas etc etc. It's goods would not be able to be quality assured and therefore exported and so on. Would the resultant clusterfeck of problems that Alabama experienced be due to the US being a stifling bureaucracy?

To expand on that, the EU has a team of bureaucrats working on every issue within its competence. If the UK wants to continue to deal with the EU, it will need to duplicate every one of those teams for every issue it needs to address. For example, they do not need to deal with wine, but car emissions or truck emissions will need to be certified by either the EU or by a mirror UK quango.

Now will the UK be able to duplicate all those agencies at lower cost than their current EU contributions?

Also, the current Customs and Border Force are inadequate for current work. So how will they cope at less cost - or at all?

They will need a team of trade negotiators, spread across the world to tie down all those trade agreements, India, Australia, Japan, Canada, Brazil, and of course USA.

Now refusing jurisdiction of the ECJ and ECtHR will bring further problems in the attempt to mirror EU regulations. Good luck with that.

The problems of Brexit are not even starting yet.

Beechwoodspark · 07-09-2017 07:17PM

When I see Davis I think rabbit in the headlights.

ancapailldorcha · 07-09-2017 07:24PM

marcus001 wrote: »

wow

It's almost as if the EU is a stifling bureaucracy.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

When I see Davis I think rabbit in the headlights.

Please read the charter before posting again. This is a forum for serious discussion, not one liners and crude insults.

steddyeddy · 07-09-2017 08:17PM

It's emerged that the Home office suppressed 9 studies which rubbished the idea that immigration pushes down wages. So we're in the realm of denying research now. It's not just the papers lying.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-immigration-studies-suppress-uk-workers-wages-jobs-vince-cable-prime-minister-liberal-a7932001.html

Enzokk · 07-09-2017 08:45PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so in your opinion, which is th more straightforward. The UK severing all ties with the EIB, which requires repayment of UK government equity by the EIB and settlement of loans in the UK, plus the EIB then having to decide how to divt up its remaining shares and the potential of affecting its credit rating and therefore ability to secure low interst loans.

Of do they agree to come up with a strucutre that keeps the UK an active member of the EIB?

But Brexit means Brexit. It means the UK will be leaving all European Union institutions, so the UK will be leaving the EU's investment bank. It really doesn't matter what I or you think, it is what Theresa May and her team thinks and they think the UK should leave everything EU. I guess until we see a deal done we should assume that the default position for the UK government is to leave everything EU, because that is the only sure thing that a Brexit vote means. People want to be severed from the EU in all its guises.

View · 07-09-2017 08:47PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The various aid projects were essentially bribes to ensure the safe passage of the referendums,

This is a load of nonsense. Were this the case, the EC countries could have skipped providing us with aid in the 73-87 period, and could have suspended (or watered down) any aid to us as soon as we passed a referendum (e.g. 87-92 or 92-97).

Moreover it would certainly have been cheaper to let us crash out of the ECs or EU then to attempt to keep giving us sweeteners to pass referenda - which are referenda that we choose to hold, not ones that the EU are asking us to hold (since they don't ultimately care which procedure we use to ratify treaties).

Fratton Fred · 07-09-2017 09:05PM

Enzokk wrote: »

But Brexit means Brexit. It means the UK will be leaving all European Union institutions, so the UK will be leaving the EU's investment bank. It really doesn't matter what I or you think, it is what Theresa May and her team thinks and they think the UK should leave everything EU. I guess until we see a deal done we should assume that the default position for the UK government is to leave everything EU, because that is the only sure thing that a Brexit vote means. People want to be severed from the EU in all its guises.

This particular conversation started because Davis mentioned remaining in the EIB.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-09-2017 09:43PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Now will the UK be able to duplicate all those agencies at lower cost than their current EU contributions?

No.

It helps if you don't shoot yourself in the foot. The UK decided to raise £185m by taxing contractors more using IR35.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/04/80_per_cent_of_it_projects_in_the_public_sector_delayed_due_to_ir35_says_report/

Of 405 IT freelancers surveyed by Contractor Calculator, 79 per cent said the projects they have been working on were delayed as a result of contractors leaving.
...
But a recent Register analysis of the Infrastructure Projects Authority's annual report found that one-quarter of big government IT programmes are already at risk.

Some of these include HMRC's £220m tax digitisation for business plans; the Home Office's £341m Digital Services at the Border programme; and a raft of Ministry of Justice programmes, including £380m electronic monitoring.

some nice comments
"To prevent tax avoidance, the government screwed contractors. Contractors have left. Now big consultancies will get the work. Big consultancies use overseas contractors to do the work."

Thing about offshore contractors is they don't have any skin in the game. Locals have a vested interest in big project they will rely on. And possibly even pride.

One of the reasons why the Saturn V got to the moon was that everyone involved was committed to the project. In comparison the SLS is the latest in a long line of launch vehicles designed to use old Space Shuttle boosters, tanks and engines. Earlier incarnations even used Saturn V 2nd stage engines. I can't see the SLS ever becoming the workhorse the Saturn V was as everyone involved knows it's pork barrelling.

Somehow I just can't see foreign contractors killing themselves working on UK systems when there's the threat of deportation if they can't find alternative work at the end of the project.

steddyeddy · 07-09-2017 11:26PM

It turns out the DUP's Ian Paisley junior has been accussed off accepting bribes worth 100k from Sr Lanka, a country he wanted the UK to do a trade deal with. Needless to say if true this could put his Brexit campaign in a different light.

I think Frankie Boyle summed it up by saying "it says a lot about British culture that they complain about the DUP, a party that exists because they insist on a part of Ireland being in the UK".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/07/mp-100k-gifts-brexit-trade-deal/

Junkyard Tom · 08-09-2017 12:35AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

It turns out the DUP's Ian Paisley junior has been accussed off accepting bribes worth 100k from Sr Lanka, a country he wanted the UK to do a trade deal with.

He'll describe it as 'hospitality' and a separate 'consultancy interest' that's nothing to do with the fact that he has the ear of Tory suits.

It appears the CONs are taking a beating in the local by-elections held yesterday (7-9-17) too. The toxic alliance of the CONs/DUP will reap dividends for their opposition.

RDM_83 again · 08-09-2017 02:30AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's emerged that the Home office suppressed 9 studies which rubbished the idea that immigration pushes down wages. So we're in the realm of denying research now. It's not just the papers lying.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-immigration-studies-suppress-uk-workers-wages-jobs-vince-cable-prime-minister-liberal-a7932001.html

I am a bit dubious of this, the lib Dems haven't been in government for a while now, why come out with it now.
I would also wonder how these studies square with the fact that real wages in the UK in many sectors haven't grown as much at all as they should have, I mean that's a constant source of complaint from the left too right, something seems off there?

Peregrinus · 08-09-2017 03:03AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so in your opinion, which is th more straightforward. The UK severing all ties with the EIB, which requires repayment of UK government equity by the EIB and settlement of loans in the UK, plus the EIB then having to decide how to divt up its remaining shares and the potential of affecting its credit rating and therefore ability to secure low interst loans.

Of do they agree to come up with a strucutre that keeps the UK an active member of the EIB?

The truth is that neither is particularly straightforward.

I think we need to start by disentangling two things; the UK as a member/shareholder of the Bank, and whether the Bank will lend to UK projects.

They are separate things; the Bank already lends to projects in countries outside the EU, so the UK doesn’t have to remain a member in order for UK projects to access funding from the EIB. If what the UK is concerned about is accessing EIB funding, retaining membership isn’t necessary, but also won’t necessarily achieve that. What the UK would need to do is to negotiate a lending mandate which will be appropriate for/favourable to UK-based projects after Brexit. And they will have to accept that that mandate will be based on EU policies and EU objectives. And (unless the bank's role, mandate, objectives are changed) this will be true whether or not the UK are members of the Bank.

Separately, do they wish to be members of the Bank? What’s in that for the UK? As noted, it requires an amendment to the Bank’s constitution, and if the UK seeks an amendment which not only allows them to remain as members but also seeks a change to the bank’s role, mandate, etc to reflect the fact that with post-Brexit UK as a member it is no longer “the Bank of the European Union”, that’s obviously a huge deal, and not at all straightforward. Yet I can see no reason why the UK would wish to be a member of the Bank without changes of this kind. If the UK has expressed an interest in remaining a member, the inference is that they would hope to use the membership negotiations and/or their position as a member to influence matters to improve the position of UK borrowers and prospective borrowers, post-Brexit, relative to what they would be if the Bank's mandate and objectives remain as they are.

You mention the credit rating issue. Currently the EIB’s long-term debt holds AAA credit rating from S&P; this is the same credit rating as Germany has, and rather better than the UK’s AA rating. The same is true when we look at the Fitch ratings. From Moody, the Bank gets Aaa, the same as Germany, whereas the UK only gets Aa1. What this suggests to me is that the market attach more weight to German membership of the bank than to UK membership. That’s not to say that UK withdrawal would have no effect on the Bank’s credit rating, but my guess is that it would be modest. Certainly the current expectation of imminent UK withdrawal hasn’t had any perceptible effect on the Bank’s rating, which you’d think it would if the markets saw the UK’s membership as underpinning the Bank’s creditworthiness.

So, from a credit/cost of funds point of view, all other things being equal the EIB might prefer the UK to remain a member, but it’s not a showstopper and if it came with a price, such as the Bank’s role, mandate and relationship with the EU being rejigged to accommodate UK priorities, I think the EIB and the EU-27 would be leery. Whereas if it doesn’t come with that price, I can’t see why the UK would be interested. All of which means that the issue is not straightforward.

What would be straightforward is this; an amendment to the Bank’s charter to allow the UK to continue as a member, but with no change to the Bank’s mandate, objectives, role, governance, lending strategies or lending policies. But I cannot for the life of me think why the UK would find that attractive. Can you?

Zubeneschamali · 08-09-2017 09:06AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

For example, they do not need to deal with wine

Oh yes they do:

http://www.englishwineproducers.co.uk/

Zubeneschamali · 08-09-2017 09:15AM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

something seems off there?

Rich bosses pay workers too little and CEOs too much. Workers complain. Rich bosses buy newspapers, and have the papers blame immigrants and the EU for bad pay.

Workers vote for Brexit, taking themselves out of EU social protections and leaving themselves at the mercy of the Tories who are also bought by the rich.

Now bosses say they are competing with China and India instead of France and Germany, so they must pay workers even less, so there is more for themselves and their Tory pets' golden castle moat duck islands.

Sam Russell · 08-09-2017 09:17AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh yes they do:

http://www.englishwineproducers.co.uk/

The Swiss drink their own wine, so the UK can drink their own too. They hardly produce enough to stock one branch of Sainsbury or Tesco supermarkets. I have never seen it on sale locally here.

Thomas__ · 08-09-2017 09:19AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

something seems off there?

Rich bosses pay workers too little and CEOs too much. Workers complain. Rich bosses buy newspapers, and have the papers blame immigrants and the EU for bad pay.

Workers vote for Brexit, taking themselves out of EU social protections and leaving themselves at the mercy of the Tories who are also bought by the rich.

Now bosses say they are competing with China and India instead of France and Germany, so they must pay workers even less, so there is more for themselves and their Tory pets' golden castle moat duck islands.

That´s all the perfect summary of Brexit and the fools that voted for it.

robindch · 08-09-2017 09:20AM

marcus001 wrote: »

It's almost as if the EU is a stifling bureaucracy.

As demfad has already pointed out, you have got this exactly the wrong way around.

The EU is essentially a club which, for over forty years in the case of the UK and Ireland, has been creating facilities of one kind or another for most things of common interest.

On the back of a campaign of sustained deceit concerning the nature of the club and the nature of these facilities, the UK electorate voted narrowly to leave this club and make friends elsewhere.

That's fine, the UK can do that. However, it can't continue to take advantage of all the club's facilities if it's not a member of the club any more - that's what "leaving a club" means.

I hope you find this useful.

Thomas__ · 08-09-2017 09:21AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh yes they do:

http://www.englishwineproducers.co.uk/

The Swiss drink their own wine, so the UK can drink their own too. They hardly produce enough to stock one branch of Sainsbury or Tesco supermarkets. I have never seen it on sale locally here.

I didn´t even know that they had one. Always thought the climate is not fit for growing one.

Fratton Fred · 08-09-2017 09:27AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The truth is that neither is particularly straightforward.

I think we need to start by disentangling two things; the UK as a member/shareholder of the Bank, and whether the Bank will lend to UK projects.

They are separate things; the Bank already lends to projects in countries outside the EU, so the UK doesn’t have to remain a member in order for UK projects to access funding from the EIB. If what the UK is concerned about is accessing EIB funding, retaining membership isn’t necessary, but also won’t necessarily achieve that. What the UK would need to do is to negotiate a lending mandate which will be appropriate for/favourable to UK-based projects after Brexit. And they will have to accept that that mandate will be based on EU policies and EU objectives. And (unless the bank's role, mandate, objectives are changed) this will be true whether or not the UK are members of the Bank.

Separately, do they wish to be members of the Bank? What’s in that for the UK? As noted, it requires an amendment to the Bank’s constitution, and if the UK seeks an amendment which not only allows them to remain as members but also seeks a change to the bank’s role, mandate, etc to reflect the fact that with post-Brexit UK as a member it is no longer “the Bank of the European Union”, that’s obviously a huge deal, and not at all straightforward. Yet I can see no reason why the UK would wish to be a member of the Bank without changes of this kind. If the UK has expressed an interest in remaining a member, the inference is that they would hope to use the membership negotiations and/or their position as a member to influence matters to improve the position of UK borrowers and prospective borrowers, post-Brexit, relative to what they would be if the Bank's mandate and objectives remain as they are.

You mention the credit rating issue. Currently the EIB’s long-term debt holds AAA credit rating from S&P; this is the same credit rating as Germany has, and rather better than the UK’s AA rating. The same is true when we look at the Fitch ratings. From Moody, the Bank gets Aaa, the same as Germany, whereas the UK only gets Aa1. What this suggests to me is that the market attach more weight to German membership of the bank than to UK membership. That’s not to say that UK withdrawal would have no effect on the Bank’s credit rating, but my guess is that it would be modest. Certainly the current expectation of imminent UK withdrawal hasn’t had any perceptible effect on the Bank’s rating, which you’d think it would if the markets saw the UK’s membership as underpinning the Bank’s creditworthiness.

So, from a credit/cost of funds point of view, all other things being equal the EIB might prefer the UK to remain a member, but it’s not a showstopper and if it came with a price, such as the Bank’s role, mandate and relationship with the EU being rejigged to accommodate UK priorities, I think the EIB and the EU-27 would be leery. Whereas if it doesn’t come with that price, I can’t see why the UK would be interested. All of which means that the issue is not straightforward.

What would be straightforward is this; an amendment to the Bank’s charter to allow the UK to continue as a member, but with no change to the Bank’s mandate, objectives, role, governance, lending strategies or lending policies. But I cannot for the life of me think why the UK would find that attractive. Can you?

The Bank's charter would only affect the UK if they want to borrow from it, so in theory it should only affect the projects the funds are being used for, would it not?

Anyway, getting back to the original point of this particular strand of the thread, my point was that the statement by David Davis that the UK may wish to remain in the EIB, isn't as bat**** crazy as originally claimed. The activities of the EIB could almost be ringfenced from the discussion if this is agreed at an early stage. It will also make sorting out the Brexit bill a lot easier.

It may not be ideal for everyone involved, but from a pragmatic point of view, it could very well make sense.

LeinsterDub · 08-09-2017 09:28AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

.For example, they do not need to deal with wine, but car emissions or truck emissions will need to be certified by either the EU or by a mirror UK quango.

Minor point but the UK actually does product wine and unless they intend not to export it's an other duplication. I'm sure there are plenty of other minor industries that the UK will now need to duplicate oversight for. I wonder have they considered how much value that industry has before they decide to abandon it's export market ?

Zubeneschamali · 08-09-2017 09:31AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Swiss drink their own wine, so the UK can drink their own too.

Well sure, but they still need to set up a separate quango to regulate wine to make sure UK consumers are not drinking antifreeze.

Peregrinus · 08-09-2017 09:35AM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I would also wonder how these studies square with the fact that real wages in the UK in many sectors haven't grown as much at all as they should have, I mean that's a constant source of complaint from the left too right, something seems off there?

You don't think depressed consumer demand attributable to prolonged austerity policies might have anything to do with it at all?

Real wages are not falling because those dusky foreigners are taking all the jobs. The UK is pretty much at full employment, and most of those who are unemployed are in that position not because they cannot find jobs due to competition from the DFs, but rather because they face challenges of their own - illness, disablity, social disadvantage, a prison record, single parenthood.

In times of full employment, you normally expect real wage to rise. So why aren't they? Partly because British labour productivity is poor, which generally reflects under-investment, and partly because (in recent times) inflation is rising, which is of course largely attributable to the declining pound. It's also because wage inequality in the UK is high, and getting higher - what real wage growth there has been in the UK has been for workers earning above the median.

So, a complex of problems and issues, then, and not easy to solve. Particularly not easy to solve without upsetting some of the core supports of the Tory party. On the whole, much easier to blame the dusky foreigners.

LeinsterDub · 08-09-2017 09:51AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well sure, but they still need to set up a separate quango to regulate wine to make sure UK consumers are not drinking antifreeze.

I think like a lot of these issues the UK think they can just say sure we will just follow the EU standards in this industry, that a single quango for the 'Implementation of EU standards in fringe industries' will work.

Now of course this won't work unless the quango is EU controlled , operated and run and even then it still won't work as the UK wine producer could be using unfair (in the EU sense) employment practices or the water might not be up to EU standards.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments