Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 242.6K All Categories
- 22 >> Start Here <<
- 12 New Members
- 8 FAQs
- 87K Gear
- 39.6K Guitar
- 3.4K Acoustics
- 1.3K Bass
- 14.7K Amps
- 17.3K FX
- 281 Digital & Modelling
- 766 Other Instruments
- 8.3K Making & Modding
- 422 Gear Reviews
- 107 Guitar Reviews
- 73 Amp Reviews
- 119 FX Reviews
- 87 Other Reviews
- 750 Made in the UK
- 975 Theory
- 1.9K Technique
- 2.1K Live
- 3.2K Studio & Recording
- 2.1K Making Music
- 221 Events
- 15 Guitar Show 2018
- 835 Plug My Stuff
- 105.6K Classifieds
- 41.3K Guitars £
- 2.8K Acoustics £
- 140 LH Guitars £
- 903 Basses £
- 10.6K Parts £
- 18.4K Amps £
- 34.2K FX £
- 2.8K Studio & Rec £
- 6.1K Misc £
- 465 Personnel
- 54.9K Chat
- 36.7K Off Topic
- 1.1K Tributes
- 6.6K Music
In this Discussion
Become a Subscriber!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Michel Barnier
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
The BBC were at it on last night's news. The EU gives the UK £XXX - no it doesn't. The EU returns some of our money. When we leave we will have spare cash to continue with UK projects that had 'EU cash' - paying for those is fair. The UK government has already offered billions to remain in the EU science group.
The EU stance is bonkers. Poor negotiating. Had I been Barnier and co I'd have given the UK a list of things that would no longer be funded and move straight onto trade. He's opening gambit could then have been "Free market access costs 100 billion Euros a year" or whatever ...
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
The EU would obviously prefer the UK to honour the commitments it has already made, as if the UK walks away from these obligations the remaining 27 countries will have to pay what the UK promised to. They had no say at all in the UK deciding to leave, but someone has to step up and show some responsibility.
The Brexit process itself is also going to generate costs. Ports and airports will need to increase their capacity for immigration and customs, for example. Nobody is starting to build any of this yet, because no-one has agreed to pay for it. The EU27 keep hearing from the UK that they are going to have to not only fork out for the UK's budget commitments, but also dig deeper into their pockets to build the infrastructure that the UK leaving the single market and customs union will need to function smoothly.
The EU's position paper for the financial settlement makes no mention of amounts, it's just a list of all the things that someone is going to have to pay for. It also lists where the UK has money to be returned, e.g. the paid-in capital at the ECB. The EU has asked for a response detailing what obligations the UK believes should be honoured, and hasn't had one.
The position of the UK right now, including ministerial statements contesting any legal grounds for payment and suggestions that we won't pay anything amounts to a declaration to the EU27 that they will have to pay the full costs of Brexit (I get echoes of "the Mexicans will pay for the wall!")
As for the ongoing costs of the UK leaving the single market, that's already accepted bu the EU. Brexit is a total non-topic in the German leadership debates because there's just nothing to discuss. The UK wants out of the single market, all that's left is the negotiation over who pays for the outstanding costs of that decision.
The EU don't have any grounds for urgency in discussing trade. I'm sure they are likely to initiate negotiations over a trade agreement, but there is no reason to expect that this will be complete (or even barely started) by 2019. The UK, by it's own choice will have third country status. We know what that means as we've been a member of the EU implementing the EUs custom and immigration requirements for third countries for decades. We have made it crystal clear that we are leaving the single market, leaving the customs union, will not recognise any authority of the ECJ and pursue an independent regulatory framework. I'd expect that in 5 to 10 years we should expect an agreement even broader in scope than CETA, but that's still a long way from single market status. I also expect the amount of goodwill that the EU shows in negotiating an agreement to have a direct relation to how much they've had to pay for our flounce.
The fantasy that the EU can or will allow single market benefits to a third country that rejects the single market's regulatory framework and refuses to acknowledge it's agencies of enforcement and arbitration is totally batshit mental. The EU and Barnier keep telling us over and over that it is not possible and won't happen. The benefits of the single market and customs union arise from the shared regulatory framework and the agreement of everyone to abide by agreed rules. We're declaring that we won't share the regulatory framework because it's of more importance to us to create our own, and we won't follow the shared rules because we will only follow ones that we make up for ourselves. There is no magic trade negotiation of any significant or meaningful scope. From the EU's perspective there's some tying up of loose ends, all of which are of lesser importance than the 4 key areas currently being negotiated.
To say that we should pay for expansion of EU ports and airports because we are leaving is "totally batshit mental." And TM was clear way back in January that we would be leaving the single market wasn't she? So who is pushing the fantasy that we could stay in the single market? But that doesn't mean there cannot be a trade agreement. The EU has actually managed to make them in the past with other countries who, quelle surprise, don't have to kotow to the ECJ.
If I was on the British side, my first aim would be to get the EU to be "realistic", rather than this ludicrous approach they are taking in trying to "educate" the UK.
David Davis should sit tight and wait for the cracks to emerge. If I were Davis I'd make a counter offer with costs covering defence and security. Without GCHQ the EU is basically blind. I bet the PM has a pretty good idea what's going on in the EU as if she has any sense GCHQ and MI6 are spying on them.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
It depends upon the terms of the lease - giving notice according to the T&Cs is not defaulting and 2 years notice is plenty.
Sure the UK has significant trade with the EU, a lot of which stems from EU, US or Asian companies choosing the UK as a base for EU wide access. If Nissan parts getting stuck in customs causes problems that the UK can't pay to resolve, the EU would simply suggest building a Nissan plant in the EU. Nissan would move as that's the only sensible commercial decision. Same for every foreign company.
The more problematic trade between the UK and EU is in the short term, the greater the benefits to the EU in the medium to long term, as multinational companies decamp to the larger market where the flows of supply chains and finished goods are smoother.
While potentially that *should* open opportunities for domestic producers to fill the gaps, such as seeing a renewal of a domestic car industry, in reality that assumes a significant supply of capital looking to make productive investment because that would be the best thing for the medium to long term. Unfortunately I think the likelier outcome would be for the UK to focus on alleviating short term pain through further liberalisation of capital markets (the 'offshore' option). This is the path we've been following for decades now, becoming the best place in the world for capital to seek short term gains at the expense of long term productive investment.
Personally I think it's those policy choices that have been the real cause of the stagnation of the UK outside of the effects of the City which ex stockbroking shysters have blamed on the EU/foreigners. But the UK's adherence to catering to the wishes of big capital runs deep, baked into our constitution (the City, Channel Islands and Caribbean crown dependencies all have exemptions from parliamentary oversight and regulation, with key aspects of their various constitutions entirely the remit of the Crown).
Ultimately though It'll all be decided by time and exponentials. It's easy for leavers to say a hit to the UK growth rate is a price worth paying for 'sovereignty' or 'fewer immigrants' or whatever floats their boats, but with UK growth currently half the EU's 2.5% p/a the doubling time is just 60 years. That's one lifetime to see the wealth and standard of living of the EU be twice that of the UK. There's only so long that folks can look over a border at neighbours twice as well off as themselves because of ideological difference without them saying screw sovereignty, let's have some of that good life.
I've yet to see any credible suggestions of what's going to drive UK growth post Brexit. The foreign minister promises we'll be saved by the exports of Yorkshire pudding to Samoa or some equivalent nonsense but it's all crap. Trade deals can't save a country that doesn't build stuff, and we've got no hope of matching Germany or Asia on that front. We've done well recently out of leveraging historical ties with the US and Hong Kong (combined with our flexible approach to dirty money and risky finance) with our single market membership, acting as a gateway to the EU, but we're shooting that horse. Sure we can make 'more' trade deals as a gateway to the UK than we could make as a gateway to a continent, but they ain't going to match the value.
But you've got real belief in a plan that I've not comprehended. What is it that's going to make us rich? What will we do that will make us grow faster than our neighbours?
The UK has no obligation to contribute to the EU benevolent fund after we leave.
Of course, they may be some kind of a fudge implemented, whereby we extend leaving 'til 2020, in which case everything would fall into place - who knows?
I'm not sure your analogy is useful
Is this German MEP Lying?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/19/eus-brexit-chiefs-want-punish-britain-stop-countries-leaving/
or this German MD:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/a-view-from-germany/
What incentive is there for the tories to agree to a massive punitive payment without a legal basis?
Maybe you've not worked with budgets, but that means either you cut off the funding that those agencies and initiatives were told they'd get (i.e. stop paying people) or honour the budget commitments. It's the second that's certain to happen. If the UK doesn't pay what it agreed to in 2014 the EU27 will make up the shortfall because they are serious enough to realise that reputation, and the perception of honouring commitments made even if that commitment costs, is invaluable to international diplomacy, whether with other countries or business.
If the UK is serious about welching on international commitments it made just 3 years ago no-one will stop us. Not least because we would no longer recognise the authority of any court to stop us (even if the ECJ ruled we should pay, we could ignore it as no longer binding). But if we do, we shouldn't put much weight on a rosy future of international agreements because we'd have pissed away our reputation for keeping our word.
Quick question to the "don't pay" crowd... Is there anyone - country or business - who we shouldn't leave on the hook for money we agreed to pay if we can get away without paying it?
whereas the previous 9 years of UK growth was massively higher than the EU zone:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eurozone-gdp-growth-rate-uk-second-quarter-2017-eurostat-ons-eu-brexit-a7870811.html
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2017/08/01/13/eurozone.jpg
So 3 months of the EU doing better after 9 years of the UK doing better extrapolates to the EU being twice as rich in 60 years?
Do you really believe that?
and no one in the EU will care about queues of trucks at Calais?
wake up, the UK has a massive trade deficit with the EU, the EU needs to sent massive exports to the UK. However, you assert that none of them will care if this is obstructed? Really?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/dunkirk-brexit/536106/
As for your growth comments, the UK has grown faster than practically every major economy in the EU since the 80's, and even recent forcasts expect that to continue over the next 10/20 years regardless of Brexit.
Like I said, I can't see any credible plan to make up for losing this gift horse. We're abandoning a unique global advantage of history and geography in favour of... please tell me! - because now we're levelling the playing field by shooting ourselves in the foot I can't see how we expect to win the race.
Goods in transit have been paid for already - that's why they're in transit. It's the goods that don't get ordered and never end up in trucks that might cause concern. 25% of EU exports to the UK are the automotive industry, mainly from Germany, whose car companies have around 100 production facilities in the UK, which are here because until now it's been commercially advantageous. They could all move to the EU and that would be pretty zero sum - the EU would benefit and the UK lose. Same with the Italian car industry. After automotive, it's machinery and white goods (some of which is again supply chains for manufacture, which can all relocate), then foodstuffs. Do we have a plan to grow more food, or are we more likely to struggle to maintain the amount we currently grow because we won't allow migrant workers?
You assume that multinationals that have picked the UK as a production base in the single market are a permanent advantage that we have over the EU, rather than a precarious benefit we have because of the EU, and that's dangerous. You're treating it like it's a plan rather than a risk. It isn't a plan.
it makes me think of a company the makes bastard blue eye shadow for Essix girls... lol..
but you feel we are impostors, and that this success was all courtesy of the EU of course, even though only one EU state has a larger economy
our GDP growth (I assume that's what you mean) has been lower than the EU's for 3 months out of the previous 15 since the vote, but for you that is conclusive evidence that the UK is doomed.
In fact, our growth has been higher for at least 9 years, but don't let that spoil your inferiority complex