MBSnr wrote: » From Digital Spy forums Rolls-Royce mulls European move as Brexit deal worries growhttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/04/23/rolls-royce-mulls-european-move-brexit-deal-worries-grow/
ambro25 wrote: » The UK economy was never going to fall off a cliff in June 2016, no more than it will fall off a cliff come April 2019 come-what-may (and that includes an accidental hard Brexit). But the U.K. economy began to suffer the proverbial death of a thousand cuts on June 2016. Decisions to shelve investment, withdrawn projects, delocalised R&D, slowed recruitment, restriction of tenders, erosion of personal/commercial goodwill overseas...it’s a long, long list of pernicious and mostly indirect variables, all with their own little weight within the whole that comprises the UK’s socio-economic drive/momentum. Their cumulative effect will not be felt at street level for a good year or two yet, but kid yourself not, they are all under way, have been awhile now. And that effect will still be felt, even if the U.K. was to somehow reverse Brexit before this time next year. Again, it’s an issue of momentum, gathered from lost opportunities over a non-trivial period of time.
Leroy42 wrote: » Granted, yet unemployment is down, wages are going up. There was talk of massive recession if Brexit was voted for, this never happened and two years later (whilst I entirely agree that the markets are banking on a soft Brexit) people on the street are not seeing the doomsday that was portrayed. Given that, and the fact that many seemed to regard experts as worth nothing (helped in no small part by few of the experts seeing the crash in 2008) to be taken seriously, it is any wonder that the UK as a whole continues on this view that Brexit is a best a small effect and certainly a risk worth paying.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » From the article: "...as the EU aviation authority will hold the right to certify they are safe to fly in the event of a hard Brexit." This is an example of what Pascal Lamy (former Head of WTO and ex-Eu Trade Commisioner) is emphasising repeatedly. It's not the tariffs that will catch Britain, it's the regulations.
This shows how much power we have given away and lost so much independence. There should be a UK aviation safety authority, time we set one up and maybe set up a commonwealth aviation authority.
I think though that it will be another example of the storm in a teacup about customs processing. After the dire warnings of turning the M20 into a lorry park, it turns out that the computerised customs processing systems are not under the control of the EU or its agencies - it's all under the purview of the WTO. The EU therefore has no power to interfere with the systems themselves - it only has the power to sabotage them via bureaucratic intransigence. I bet you that in due course we'll discover that the EU agency in question is subject to global agencies anyway, and that regulatory equivalence has the technical capacity to replace the existing arrangements. Once again though, the EU will probably try to torpedo such a move - but that's politics, it's not the collapse of operational systems requiring huge investment to replicate.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Financial Times: Hiring tumbles at UK fund houses as Brexit plans kick inFund managers have cut the rate at which they are hiring in London by as much as half since the UK voted to leave the EU in June 2016.
ambro25 wrote: » <...> The local fin market specialist headhunters I’ve spoken to, joke about shifting entire offices’worth of applicants over, rather than individuals :pac:
However, people were still prioritising essential spending over luxuries, with the retail and casual dining sectors facing "unprecedented challenges".
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Barnier fairly hard-hitting tonight, effectively saying the ball's in the UK court:http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-18-3511_en.htm
But we believe that our future economic relationship should go even further. Let me mention four points. 1- First, in our future partnership we would like ambitious provisions on the movement of people, including related areas such as coordination of social security and the recognition of professional qualifications. 2- Secondly, in addition to trade, we offer a socio-economic cooperation.For instance, we propose an air transport agreement, combined with aviation safety and security agreements. The UK could also participate in certain EU programmes, for instance in the field of research and innovation, where participation of third countries is allowed. That said, it would be on a different financial and legal base than today.
When the UK leaves the EU, VAT liabilities will have to be assessed by customs officials at borders unless some new arrangement is in place. ... It warned that would pose "particular problems at the border on the island of Ireland".
An auctioneer has suggested that land prices around the border could be on the rise after Brexit.
Before the EU we had the "Brain Drain". Then we were in the EU and now a lot of our researchers could go to the mainland and work on projects that we benefited from because we were in the EU. Now we're leaving the EU and it's back to the Brain Drain. The new National Anthem needs to be a slightly modified version of the one in The Producers: "Don't be stupid, be a smartie! Come and join the Nasty Party." ...and the little old ladies lose all their savings.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Brexit has shafted the UK's space sector, lord warns science minister and this comment is golden
An ESA insider told The Register "the fact the UK is leaving shows that something is not entirely right with the EU and that the EU needs some level of reform".
Peregrinus wrote: » Topgear on Dave wrote: » It will be quite amusing if Charles is not confirmed as head of the commonwealth after the Queen. He will be. "Head of the Commonwealth" is a title with no powers or functions attached. The Commonwealth as an organisation can function perfectly well without a "Head". The only point of having a "Head" is to give the British monarch a role in the Commonwealth; the title was introduced when India became a republic, and for the first time the Commonwealth included a member which did not have the British monarch as head of state. Being "Head" of the Commonwealth gives the Queen a connection to each member state which doesn't depend on her being Queen of it. If the British monarch isn't the Head of the Commonwealth, there is literally no point at all to having a Head. So the choice isn't so much "should it be the British monarch or someone else?" but "should the Commonwealth have a head or not?"
Topgear on Dave wrote: » It will be quite amusing if Charles is not confirmed as head of the commonwealth after the Queen.
Thomas__. wrote: » I'd call it chairman (or chairwoman) than or president of that organisation would do as well.
Leroy42 wrote: » Its value lies in the same value that the royals have themselves. They don't have any actual power, but they ensure deference and thus respect and thus an acceptance by the populace that Britain still retains a role in the country.
Leroy42 wrote: » It is purely symbolic, but even at that it is important that even symbolically Britain is still the head of the Commonwealth. Its a passive form of control
Peregrinus wrote: » Leroy42 wrote: » Its value lies in the same value that the royals have themselves. They don't have any actual power, but they ensure deference and thus respect and thus an acceptance by the populace that Britain still retains a role in the country. Nonononono! The title/role was created in recognition of the fact that Britain and its monarchy doesn't have a role in most Commonwealth countries. Up until 1950, the British monarch was also monarch in each of the Commonwealth countries. This was seen as an essential aspect of Commonwealth membership. So, when Ireland became a republic, in 1949, that was recognised as taking us outside the Commonwealth. (In practice, of course, we had ceased to participate in Commonwealth affairs years before that.) But India wanted to become a republic, and yet remain in the Commonwealth, and the UK was keen to facilitate that, since in those days it still cherished hopes that the Commonwealth would function as a basis for military co-operation, and it valued the Indian Army. So they came up with the idea ath the British monarch need have no role in Commonwealth member countries, but would symbolise the free association between Commonwealth countries - i.e. it would have a symbolic role in a country's external relations. Leroy42 wrote: » It is purely symbolic, but even at that it is important that even symbolically Britain is still the head of the Commonwealth. Its a passive form of control Well, nitpick no. 1, it's not Britain that is head of the Commonwealth; it's Elizabeth. And that's not a title which is attached to the fact that she is queen of the UK, any more than it is attached to the fact that she is Queen of, say, St. Vincent and the Grenadines. It's a role that was conferred on her personally by the Commonwealth Heads of Government. And, nitpick no. 2, if it's a form of control at all, it doesn't control very much. The Commonwealth as an international organisation is pretty marginal. For many years now its most important function has been organising a big sports carnival where white folks who aren't American can hope to win medals. Brexiters, to drag this discussion back to what this thread is supposed to be about, have hopes of giving the Commonwealth a new significance; turning it into a free trade block on terms that will favour the UK. of all the many delusions that Brexiters cherish, this is one of the most delusional.
Leroy42 wrote: » Peregrinus, you are of course correct in pretty much everything that you said. But you are dealing in the 'facts' of the matter not the spirit. There is no 'need' for the monarchy in the UK, certainly no need for other countries to continue to have it as their head. But it provides the UK with a great diplomatic reach, far beyond what other countries have.The commonwealth is not a useful organisation at the present time, largely because it didn't provide Britain with anything useful, certainly not anything that the EU etc could not offer. That is why, suddenly, the Commonwealth is being talked about more in the UK. It is not because the UK think any better of the organisation but rather it is something they think they can use to reduce the loss if the EU. Having the queen, or Prince Charles as the head, lets everyone know who is at the top of the pile. While it carries no actual power, it symbolises that the UK is the dominant member of the club, that the world still centres and looks to the UK.
Thomas__. wrote: » I think that one must go back in time to the UK's pre-EEC period, when the CoN had the function of the common market for Import and Export of goods, like back in the old days of the BE when the UK was feeding herself with the imports from her colonies, just a bit different after one colony after another was released into Independence. I would presume that this was one of the reasons for the UK govt to apply for EEC Membership which was rejected for a couple of times by France, namely De Gaulle. The UK was offered Membership when the first steps were taken to consitute the forerunner of the EEC, but Attlee declined and the first application for Membership in the EEC was in the 1960s. The UK was nearly desperate then to get into the EEC. Finally they came into the EEC together with the Republic of Ireland in 1973. The dismantling of the BE in those decades runs parallel to the efforts the UK has taken to become a member of the EEC and it was always for economical reasons, nothing else. Hence the ambivalence of many UK govts before and since being a member.
Thomas__. wrote: » I think that one must go back in time to the UK's pre-EEC period, when the CoN had the function of the common market for Import and Export of goods, like back in the old days of the BE when the UK was feeding herself with the imports from her colonies, just a bit different after one colony after another was released into Independence.
Sam Russell wrote: » Thomas__. wrote: » I think that one must go back in time to the UK's pre-EEC period, when the CoN had the function of the common market for Import and Export of goods, like back in the old days of the BE when the UK was feeding herself with the imports from her colonies, just a bit different after one colony after another was released into Independence. I would presume that this was one of the reasons for the UK govt to apply for EEC Membership which was rejected for a couple of times by France, namely De Gaulle. The UK was offered Membership when the first steps were taken to consitute the forerunner of the EEC, but Attlee declined and the first application for Membership in the EEC was in the 1960s. The UK was nearly desperate then to get into the EEC. Finally they came into the EEC together with the Republic of Ireland in 1973. The dismantling of the BE in those decades runs parallel to the efforts the UK has taken to become a member of the EEC and it was always for economical reasons, nothing else. Hence the ambivalence of many UK govts before and since being a member. I think one should realise how much WW II cost the UK and the British Empire. The Americans backed the British against the 3rd Reich, but only the supply of arms, food, etc on a strict cash basis - nothing was given away. After the war came the reckoning and the humiliation of the Bretton Woods Agreement that set up the IMF and the IBRD that passed control of the international monetary system to the Americans and the role of Sterling as a reserve currency ended - or it did following the devaluation of GBP from $4.03 to $2.80. Because of the devaluation, British exports got less value in dollar terms and so found it difficult to repay their debts to the US. They found they did not have the funds to invest in manufacturing and that the world no longer wanted inferior products that their outdated factories were producing. The loss of India was a huge blow and left the British economy struggling, leading to another devaluation in Nov 1967 - "the pound in your pocket ... etc." despite severe currency exchange restrictions that continued until 1979. It was joining the EEC that began to refloat the British economy, and the 'Big Bang' (of 1986) removal of many restrictive practices and other oversight restrictions applied to the City of London that lead to the rise of the CoL to become the power house it is. The membership of the EU was very important, and leaving the EU might see its demise. We will see. The British Empire has seen the sun set, and only exists in the deluded minds of Brexiteers. The Commonwealth might also have ceased to exist in any meaningful economic sense. Australia and NZ are closely working with their neighbours. Canada has a FTA with the EU so that ship has sailed for the UK. India wants unfettered immigration into the UK so we will see how far that gets - so what is left? Only the Crown Dependency tax havens in the Carribean and the English Channel. Perhaps Trump might off a diet of chlorinated chicken and some GMO food supplements.
Deleted User wrote: » Thomas__. wrote: » I think that one must go back in time to the UK's pre-EEC period, when the CoN had the function of the common market for Import and Export of goods, like back in the old days of the BE when the UK was feeding herself with the imports from her colonies, just a bit different after one colony after another was released into Independence. Did the common wealth ever really function like that?The empire dictated trade terms (as brexiters believe the EU is doing now) for its own benefit. As countries broke free one priority was to negotiate trade on their own terms. All the other large members of the commonwealth exercise independent trade policies - they haven't been waiting around for the last fourty years waiting for the UK to comeback and take charge and to recreate a single market that never really existed.
Leroy42 wrote: » Now I see that the Express is running the headline that they want to get rid of the House of Lords for the cheek of voting against Brexit. Now, I have no love of the structure, but Brexit has openly called into question Judges, the House of Lords, MP's right to voice dissent, NI part of the UK and there are probably more that I cannot recall right at the minute. In addition, Brexit is very likely to increase the changes of Scotland looking for another ref in the near future. For people that claim that it is all about the UK and taking back control, it seems almost like they are willing to blow the whole thing up on the altar of Brexit.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c998303aa0fcfcedb419267ab426bd5.svg)
