Another new Brexit thread

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

so back to the main point even if there is a cost the eu will not be able to unilaterally change the amount during the contract, like they were able to change our contributions when we were members of the eu

incidentally , Will we charge the eu for access to our market if you think the eu are going to charge us for accessing their market ?

No - we will pay the EU for access in any deal.

It comes down to a question of value for money. The EU membership cost was sub 2% of our govt expense and it was good value. The cost of a limited deal will be less but its going to be very poor value. We wont get access to any of the institutions so when you factor in the cost to replicate them and add the cost of trade bureaucracy it will likely cost us more and we get less out of it. The idea that leaving the EU works as a cost saving is farcical to be honest it will cost us possibly twice as much to replicate everything we received as a member and to instigate the changes required to leave. Isolating ourselves from the EU will cost us £bns.

 

[BobKowalski]

Latest "Are You Ready" for Brexit. 62 advice notes from Data-Exchange to Fireworks which will impact on British firms.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/european-...ership/getting-ready-end-transition-period_en

 

[Vic]

Good grief. I have a day of phone conferences and come back to find there are actually some things of substance to talk about. Let's start with this, as I'm genuinely thinking there might be a bit of a timewarp going on.

Seems like the EU is starting to face up to the fact that May and Robbins are no longer to be relied upon to just rubber-stamp the EU's preferred outcomes.

News this week of movement from the EU in key areas:

"EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has said Brussels is prepared to grant the City of London access to European markets post-Brexit.

New documents released by the House of Lords EU committee show that Barnier recently told the group that Brussels was “ready to grant equivalence”...…."

and:

"Barnier also suggested there was room to manoeuvre on the EU’s request that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is involved in governing any UK-EU trade deal – a demand that has been ruled out by Boris Johnson.

In regards to the ECJ, Barnier said: “I do not imagine that it would not be possible to find some creative solution to deal with these issues.

“We are open to being creative so that we keep various sides happy.”....."

https://www.cityam.com/brexit-miche...to-grant-city-of-london-access-to-eu-markets/

There are also several reports out speaking of the EU's increasing recognition that it must move to the UK's position on fishing.

I know that it will disappoint some that the UK is making positive progress - make me wonder what is causing Barnier to shift so much ground and make concessions?
​

Perhaps it was simply because it was always true that:

"We will not see movement from the EU unless and until they are faced with the prospect of a viable walk-away option – and the political will to use it”

I've struggled to pin down which Lords committee and what Barnier actually said (or wrote) but this was on 23 June. We've now passed the deadline for an extension and he then said something different: https://www.cityam.com/barnier-confirms-uk-has-not-completed-brexit-equivalence-assessments/

So is City am (and others) reporting (two weeks late) an opportunity we had two weeks ago, but lost a week later?

 

[BobKowalski]

35 page EU communication on state of play. Summary from the Guardian.

’In a document warning businesses to prepare for the end of the Brexit transition period, the EU executive said many changes were “inevitable” even if the two sides reached an agreement by the end of the year.

’The choices made by the United Kingdom’s government on the future relationship and on not extending the transition period mean that these inevitable disruptions will occur as of 1 January 2021 and risk compounding the pressure that businesses are already under due to the COVID-19 outbreak.’

It also underscores that Brussels has no intention of phasing in border controls, an approach favoured by the British government. From 1 January 2021, customs officers in EU member states are expected to carry out full controls, which are “likely to lead to increased administrative burdens for businesses and longer delivery times in logistical supply chains,” the commission said. These controls will apply even if the EU and UK are successful in agreeing a trade deal that sets tariffs at zero, with no limits on quantities of exports and imports.

As Barnier has long trailed, British financial firms in the City of London will lose the “passports” that allow them to sell services in the rest of the union.

As well as losing their right to live, work and travel freely in the 27-country zone, British nationals will also face “thorough checks” at the border and cannot stay for more than 90 days in any 180-day period.

Travellers will no longer be assured protection under EU passenger rights law that guarantees some compensation, nor will they have sure access to reduced roaming rates, while cats, dogs and other domestic animals will be stripped of the EU pet passport.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/inf...ommunication_from_commission_to_inst_en_0.pdf

 

[Vic]

I fully accept my role as one of the - as described by @Psychedelic Casual - sad cunts - because I post on this thread regularly. Perhaps it is just myself as a sad **** on the Leave side and 3 or 4 obvious sad cunts on the Remain side.

I humbly suggest though that at least I am able to look in the mirror and accept @Psychedelic Casual 's opinion - I doubt the others have.

I also suggest that I am indeed capable of proper discussion and debate - but have gotten into the habit of indulging myself in dropping to the level that seems appropriate to deal with the SCs on the other side.

Having obeyed moderation instruction/request I have put the main boring Remainers on ignore - again I bet those Remainers will not have shown the same respect to that request - and I also bet that they have not stopped with the snide comments.

Anyway - re substance - and benefits, I repeat this post:

No response - other than cheap / snide comments - to this query from any Remainer

Those looking for benefits should consider the 'benefit' of not being subject to the crippling costs to the UK that the MFF would have imposed. And also, the subsequent controls by the EU over the UK's capability to manage its own response to the pandemic - or even access the necessary funds we would have had to give up to the EU to fund the largesse of their choice.

I responded. Twice.

I didn't avoid it. After one of your bloviation posts I responded.

"It's the economy, stupid." And then:
Whatever the MFF, whatever Covid loans/grants are made, the cost to the UK would be less than the lost GDP from leaving (even with a deal). But you'd know that from reading the Treasury's forecasts.

Don't tell us you've got Remainers on Ignore and then complain that you never see any replies!

 

[Vic]

And the UK have had that call for more funds from the EU - I cannot believe how the demand in October 2015 went largely unreported by the pro-EU government.


Going forward the Uk could only benefit from EU membership by being a failing economy - if we get to a lower level than other members we might eventually get some money coming our way


Well wouldn't that be a positive outcome of EU membership!!

But we were successful as members of the EU - paying more because of the benefits of EU membership to our economy.

 

[Vic]

35 page EU communication on state of play. Summary from the Guardian.

’In a document warning businesses to prepare for the end of the Brexit transition period, the EU executive said many changes were “inevitable” even if the two sides reached an agreement by the end of the year.

’The choices made by the United Kingdom’s government on the future relationship and on not extending the transition period mean that these inevitable disruptions will occur as of 1 January 2021 and risk compounding the pressure that businesses are already under due to the COVID-19 outbreak.’

It also underscores that Brussels has no intention of phasing in border controls, an approach favoured by the British government. From 1 January 2021, customs officers in EU member states are expected to carry out full controls, which are “likely to lead to increased administrative burdens for businesses and longer delivery times in logistical supply chains,” the commission said. These controls will apply even if the EU and UK are successful in agreeing a trade deal that sets tariffs at zero, with no limits on quantities of exports and imports.

As Barnier has long trailed, British financial firms in the City of London will lose the “passports” that allow them to sell services in the rest of the union.

As well as losing their right to live, work and travel freely in the 27-country zone, British nationals will also face “thorough checks” at the border and cannot stay for more than 90 days in any 180-day period.

Travellers will no longer be assured protection under EU passenger rights law that guarantees some compensation, nor will they have sure access to reduced roaming rates, while cats, dogs and other domestic animals will be stripped of the EU pet passport.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/inf...ommunication_from_commission_to_inst_en_0.pdf

Pet passport, you say? I think this MP should be our piss-taking equivalent of Pret Woman.
https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18523119.beckenham-mp-bob-stewart-calls-pet-passport-extension/

 

[blueish swede]

I wonder if anyone other than Leavers will comment on the benefit to Germany and France from that (and similar) transactions ?

Well France and Germany payed a significant part of the UK Correction - money the UK takes from other countries- In 2014 the correction was over 6 billion Euro and France paid 1,5 billion of that to the UK. So their first thought was probably "tough shit".

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Well France and Germany payed a significant part of the UK Correction - money the UK takes from other countries- In 2014 the correction was over 6 billion Euro and France paid 1,5 billion of that to the UK. So their first thought was probably "tough shit".

Quite. Despite a lot of the economic arguments against brexit being quite compelling, it's hard to get past the overall picture of around four nations (including France and Germany) being net spenders that underwrite the entire expansionist project at tremendous cost. If the EU were just honest about this and said it was a price we have to pay for a stable continent and the projection of soft power into the former Soviet bloc I'd probably see the value. They don't make this (actually quite reasonable) case because in doing so they would be admitting their federalist agenda.

 

[bluethrunthru]

 

[mcfc1632]

Quite. Despite a lot of the economic arguments against brexit being quite compelling, it's hard to get past the overall picture of around four nations (including France and Germany) being net spenders that underwrite the entire expansionist project at tremendous cost. If the EU were just honest about this and said it was a price we have to pay for a stable continent and the projection of soft power into the former Soviet bloc I'd probably see the value. They don't make this (actually quite reasonable) case because in doing so they would be admitting their federalist agenda.

Fuck me that is a brilliant explanation

Every Remainer must reply to agree surely?

 

[Metal Biker]

Quite. Despite a lot of the economic arguments against brexit being quite compelling, it's hard to get past the overall picture of around four nations (including France and Germany) being net spenders that underwrite the entire expansionist project at tremendous cost. If the EU were just honest about this and said it was a price we have to pay for a stable continent and the projection of soft power into the former Soviet bloc I'd probably see the value. They don't make this (actually quite reasonable) case because in doing so they would be admitting their federalist agenda.

Well, damn!

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Here’s a novel idea can’t all the eu countries just fuck the EU off and have a free trade arrangement across the whole of Europe with some managers and administrators in the centre paid to ensure it works.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Here’s a novel idea can’t all the eu countries just fuck the EU off and have a free trade arrangement across the whole of Europe with some managers and administrators in the centre paid to ensure it works.

what would be the rules and regs of trading? Who appoints the manager and how do you keep them independent? How do you stop on of the 28 countries and/or countries from outside the trading bloc undermining your currency? How do you prevent and outside nation - ie anyone anywhere in the world from France to Vanuatu flooding our country with cheap goods terminally damaging a specific sector of our economy? Just a few simple things you might like to consider....

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

what would be the rules and regs of trading? Who appoints the manager and how do you keep them independent? How do you stop on of the 28 countries and/or countries from outside the trading bloc undermining your currency? How do you prevent and outside nation - ie anyone anywhere in the world from France to Vanuatu flooding our country with cheap goods terminally damaging a specific sector of our economy? Just a few simple things you might like to consider....

that’s the managers job. Remember the EEC that’s what it was about - trade - between european nations

you should go to cheetham hill plenty of cheap goods.

boohoo says hi.

 

[bluethrunthru]

that’s the managers job. Remember the EEC that’s what it was about - trade - between european nations

you should go to cheetham hill plenty of cheap goods.

boohoo says hi.

so if say 27 nations felt they would be happier clubbing together to become an aligned group negotiating combined trade arrangements with the rest of the world whilst still trading with us still - if that was of their own free will they could do that ....right?

 

[BlueHammer85]

Perhaps it was simply because it was always true that:

"We will not see movement from the EU unless and until they are faced with the prospect of a viable walk-away option – and the political will to use it”

You have been trolling us with this nauseating quote for 3 years now, the EU still haven’t moved.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

You have been trolling us with this nauseating quote for 3 years now, the EU still haven’t moved.

Tbf there's been no reason to. We were agreeing to everything they said until recently.

 

[BobKowalski]

Quite. Despite a lot of the economic arguments against brexit being quite compelling, it's hard to get past the overall picture of around four nations (including France and Germany) being net spenders that underwrite the entire expansionist project at tremendous cost. If the EU were just honest about this and said it was a price we have to pay for a stable continent and the projection of soft power into the former Soviet bloc I'd probably see the value. They don't make this (actually quite reasonable) case because in doing so they would be admitting their federalist agenda.

’The European Union was set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in the Second World War and to promote peace, the well-being of its citizens, and offer freedom, security and justice without internal borders.’

Four fucking years and you guys still don't have a fucking clue.

 

[BobKowalski]

Here’s a novel idea can’t all the eu countries just fuck the EU off and have a free trade arrangement across the whole of Europe with some managers and administrators in the centre paid to ensure it works.

There’s an idea. We could call it the ’Union of Europe’.

Fuck’s sake.