Brexit White Paper published: Broad strokes, light on detail The UK government has published its long-awaited white paper on negotiating a withdrawal from the European Union. Number 10's 77-page paper [PDF] mixes a list of desired outcomes in business and technology with the government's existing statements on national plans. The paper is light on detail but big on statements and broad …
"a list of desired outcomes"
A worthless wishlist that will be devastated by reality.
What is also needed is a detailed cost benefit analysis of various Brexit options, so the least-worst can be picked. This is usually included with a whitepaper, but oddly enough seems to have been excluded from this one...
Probably because a cost-benefit analysis is impossible. We don't have the tools or the ability to predict what's going to happen - particularly as we've no idea what negotiations are going to come up with. We don't even know who the French, Dutch and German governments we'll be dealing with will be run by. Well it's still a pretty safe bet that Merkel will win in Germany, but the coalition partner could be quite important too.
Tariffs in most areas aren't particularly important. It's paperwork, delays and possibly bureaucratic bloody-mindedness that's more of a worry.
Also, rightly or wrongly, the government are determined to try and keep as much of their powder dry for the negotiations as possible. With the big stick of the referendum result behind them, I suspect that will allow them to get through Parliament with minimum concessions.
Leaving the EU: £60 billion up front.
Pen-y-gors,
That's not a totally unreasonable figure. Well apart from the upfront bit, which is just silly. Entirely depending on how you measure it of course - and whether the people making the comments are just stirring the shit.
We put about £14-£15bn into the EU. We get some back, so our net contribution is about £10bn at the moment. It's going up, because our economy is growing faster due to not being in the clusterfuck that is the Eurozone. The figures are also pretty volatile. But if you ignore rebate and payments back to the UK that puts our contribution at near £20bn. We're in the EU for the next 2 years, so that means we could be said to be paying in £40bn. The current EU spending budget goes on to 2020 - they've allocated a lot of that already and there'll be a massive hole in it if we pull out - so you could argue for us bunging in an another year's contribution the year we leave.
Now if you were being an arsehole, you could call that a £60bn leaving fee. If you were being sensible, and trying to make a construction agreement, you could call that a £10bn contribution to tide the budget over for the year we leave, given we already agreed the budget when we were members. I'd actually offer to pay that final year of the budget at the beginning of the negotiations, to win some goodwill. We'll hopefully be in a transition period in that year, after A50 triggering plus 2 years, so it seems pretty reasonable to me.
Otherwise there'll be a horrible bunfight and emergency budget cuts or cash demands on the other governments. That will anger everyone, and makes us unpopular.
There's also pensions for EU staff. But there's not going to be much of that. We've only been in since the 70s, and the Commission is pretty small by the standards of some of our government departments.
Presumably we'll want so stay in some programs, if they'll let us. And so will keep paying for that.
it's also in our national interests that Eastern Europe does well. It's why we pushed to get them in the EU in the first place. So we should probably offer a billion or 2 a year in continuing contribution to the structural funds, in exchange for some of the goodies we want. We're also the largest contributor to the European Infrastructure Bank and one of the largest to the EBRD and so we should offer to continue that support.
We're also one of the largest users of Europol. But we contribute a third to a half of the intel that goes into their database. We should therefore offer to keep helping there. We also put our troops into Eastern Europe to help defend them. That ought to be worth some goodwill.
So there are things to talk about, and we have things to offer. We also have things we want. But boy is it complicated!
I also think there's a balance. Mostly we should play nice. But I don't see why we should have to accept attacks from major European leaders like Hollande, while meekly saying we're very sorry our stupid voters decided to leave, please don't punish us though we deserve it! We are not worthy! We need a good balance of humility, while still recognising our own strengths. And with goodwill, we can get a sensible deal.
£60Bn is a serious understatement. The sort of tariff costs you are looking at:
(source: The Independent)
Anyone see 'May Of The Dead' offering even a 1% pay rise above inflation, or even mentioning it? Thought not. There are not enough lampposts in London to express my disgust for every politician in the UK right now. In Liam Fox's case I am right up there with repealing the Hunting With Dogs Act against Fox right now though.
macjules,
If the EU impose tariffs on imports from the UK, they pay those costs, not us. If we impose tariffs on their goods coming into the UK, that's what we pay. Though obviously it goes to the government.
Like Trump talking about taxing Mexian imports to pay for his wall. That means the US consumers will pay for it in increased prices.
You are correct though. Tariffs are bad for trade, and international trade makes us all richer. We trade a lot with the EU and so both sides benefit from that large amount of trade. Therefore we should be able to do a deal. They've just done a deal with Canada, another with South Korea, are finalising one with Japan. Why not us? Our regulatory scheme already matches and it would hurt both sides not to. Are they going to penalise their own economies to have a hissy-fit with us?
Well they might. They did it to Greece. But we're bigger, more powerful and more important than Greece. The pain will hurt more, and be more immediate. They still might.
However tariffs aren't as important as people say. We're talking a cost of a couple of percent of GDP. That means we might be 2% poorer for a few years, until the hissy-fit wears off and we do a trade deal when the politicians whose pride was hurt are out of office. Most of our exports to the EU are services, and they mostly don't come under the single market, because our partners didn't want to help us to export to them, even though we'd opened our goods markets that they had an advantage in. Services don't generally attract tariffs.
Anyway, the £60bn is nothing to do with tariffs. That's the figure a few people have bandied about as our cost to the EU for programs we've agreed to pay for but haven't yet happened, plus pensions for EU staff, MEPs and such - and whatever other sundry costs they can come up with. I've seen no breakdown, so suspect it's a fantasy figure designed to cause trouble.
One school of thought is to use it as a negotiating stick to beat us with. Refuse to negotiate on anything else until we've agreed an amount, while the Article 50 clock ticks down - and we're pushed closer and closer to a disorderly exit. It's possible they'll try that, but it looks pretty childish to me.
"If the EU impose tariffs on imports from the UK, they pay those costs, not us."
Which then makes our exports less competitive so there are fewer of them. Fewer exports means less work. Less work means less jobs. Unless you still think the pink unicorns are going to come along with their pixie dust and make us all so rich we won't need anyone to work.
Doctor Syntax,
Over time (a huge caveat there) theoretically (an even bigger caveat) level of exports shouldn't impact number of jobs in an economy. It will impact what jobs people do, the level of productivity and how rich everyone is.
But the EU has free trade agreements with lots of countries - there's no reason not to have one with the UK, who have already got an economy integrated with theirs and have very similar regulations. You can of course argue that's a reason to stay in the EU - but politically that's unlikely to be possible, so you do the best you can.
But there are ways round it. So for example you could use the tariffs you levy to subsidise your exporters to make up for the loss caused by EU tariffs. There are rules about this, but there are ways round them.
For example Germany has lots of green taxes on energy. But they almost all fall on the domestic electricity consumer so that business can get its leccy nice and cheap and keep on exporting. The Germans also spend lots on technical engineering education (something we should have been doing for years), and have a banking system (Landesbanks) specifically set up to give cheap loans to their middle sized companies to encourage exports. Of course the Landesbanken are all bust, so the the system ain't perfect...
Services DO have tariffs, and even prohibitions put on them.
They are generally nos taxed because tax avoidance/breaking of rules. I used to do it for international projects, and I guess/think/maybe remember you also work in that line of work.
Our main offer is banking. And if they are mean they can teake that out of us with a tolbin tax... and while I seriously doubt they would go and do it, they can pressure us A LOT with that, as we dont have that much competitive advantage.
Aitor 1,
One of the reasons I voted out was the Tobin Tax. Given that various of our European "partners" were already trying to impose one on us by the back door in order to basically tax the City's profits for their gain. Sometimes the EU works like that, a majority can be put together to do something that only damages one or two countries - whose voters then get fucked because nobody else has much skin in the game - and they only have the power to depose their own government who'd already voted against it.
Hence the anti hedge fund regulations that sent a bunch of money from the City to Singapore, Hong Kong and New York but cost the rest of the EU almost nothing. What did they gain from this? Nothing but a bit of now forgotten cheap publicity. It was done as a sop to the baying hordes after the banking crisis (that basically didn't involve the hedge funds), but punishing the banks publically was too difficult. And it was done because it only really hurt London.
Anyway the Tobin tax got dropped because the Commission's own research showed it would shrink the overall size of the economy by about 10 times as much as the revenue it raised. Plus if they imposed it on sales of government bonds, it might re-start the Eurozone debt crisis, and if they didn't it wouldn't raise much cash.
they pay those costs
If we buy from UK. Because UK's products and services will be more expensive, they will be less attractive if attractive at all.
Why not us?
Because it is not EU interest. UK should get the worse treatment to convince other countries leaving is a bad idea
Because it is not EU interest. UK should get the worse treatment to convince other countries leaving is a bad idea
Hmmmm. Well I guess you can try it. I'm sure it'll work as well as ignoring the growing waves of Euroscepticism, and the fact that almost all the referenda on the Constitution (then Lisbon Treaty) and Maastricht were lost. Except the ones that were re-run of course.
I'm sure nothing can go wrong with a democracy choosing to ignore the voters.
Hmmm Italy's 3 main opposition parties are now all in favour of a referendum on leaving the Euro, the Front National are leading the polls in the presidential election, the UK has just voted to leave. Euroscepticism is at an all time high, even in core countries like France and the Netherlands.
In punishing the UK there will be costs you understand. The EU have the ability to cause us a lot of economic pain, but can they do it without pushing Italy back into recession? Because the Euro cannot survive another recession.
As well as being immoral, it would be a catastrophically stupid policy. Rather like what was done to Greece in 2015.
the least-worst can be picked
It's a negotiation, no one gets to "pick" anything, and it would be plain stupid for either the government or the EU to publish details of their final acceptable positions. It would be like going into a poker game saying you expect to play 4 aces, but if pushed you would be OK with a full house.
> It would be like going into a poker game
I'm getting really tired of people who think this is some sort of card game.
Our EU partners probably have a better idea of our 'hand' than we do. It's childish to pretend we can somehow conceal our position, until the last moment, and then spring a surprise on them.
>I'm getting really tired of people who think this is some sort of card game.
I think the analogy is useful, only that as you note, the players know what cards each player has, just that they don't know which ones will be played or when they will be played.
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the real reason for the secrecy is to try and keep those not in the game (ie. the UK electorate) in the dark. I think if we really knew the cards May was holding and thus planning to play we would be a lot less complacent...
It's childish to pretend we can somehow conceal our position, until the last moment, and then spring a surprise on them.
That would be a pretty stupid way to play cards. You win by evaluating your opponent's hand and skills, and pressing only in the places where your calculation shows you have an advantage.
What planet is Mayhem on? Frictionless trade but not being in a customs union? How is having a 10 mile queue of lorries at Dover 'frictionless'?
Telecomms: we can either play by the EU's rules (capping roaming charges etc), despite not haaving any say in setting the rules or we can go and play in our own playpen. How is that an improvement?
Roll on 2019 when the whole stupid thing gets dumped, along with May and her crazy friends.
Roll on 2019 when the whole stupid thing gets dumped, along with May and her crazy friends.
I bloody wish. This nonsense is happening regardless. 494 votes in favour 114 against? You couldn't find 114 MP's who actually wanted to do this before the referendum, but here we are and suddenly everyone's determined to stick it out regardless of the consequences.
"MPs serve the people, not the other way around."
Which is why there should be a general election before anything gets decided, invoked or even kicked into the long grass. It's a disgrace that a governing party under suspicion of electoral fraud, led by a Prime Minister with no mandate, is being allowed to make long-term political decisions that affect the whole country and possibly the union itself.
Excuse me... the referendum was held. The people voted. The MPs are supposed to represent the people so the vote in parliament might have been mandated by a bizarre bunch of clowns but actually the vote in parliament HAD to pass in order to recognise the vote from the people. The people voted OUT so OUT is the correct behaviour. The idea that somehow we can decide something as a nation and some small number of people in parliament could over turn it would create a democratic crisis which could even grow to a civil war (we had one before when one guy decided to ignore the will of parliament ... even though that one was even less representative than the current one).
Now you may or may not like the decision of your countrymen, you have three choices... one: grab a TARDIS and go back and do some sensible arguing for your cause (don't use threats that are easily countered but real facts), two: put up with it, make the most of it, see the opportunity, three: emigrate to europe where other countries are staying in (at least for the time being).
"The MPs are supposed to represent the people so the vote in parliament might have been mandated by a bizarre bunch of clowns but actually the vote in parliament HAD to pass in order to recognise the vote from the people."
I expect my MP to do his best for his constituency. He has not done this. He has voted with the herd.
There is no compulsion whatsoever on MPs to be bound by an advisory vote.
a Prime Minister with no mandate
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how the UK parliamentary system works. The PM's mandate comes from being invited by HM the Queen to form a government. She can invite anyone she wants, it's just custom that the leader of the largest party gets asked first. Prime Ministers are not elected, not do they even need to be elected MPs. The fact that May wasn't party leader during an election is totally irrelevant, she has as much of a mandate as any other PM.
allowed to make long-term political decisions that affect the whole country
Sorry pal, the decision was made by the country, not the government. You may remember that Theresa May campaigned for the opposite outcome. She's just implementing the decsion she was given, as she should.
You may remember that Theresa May campaigned for the opposite outcome.
Err no, but I remember being told by the media that TM was pro-remain, only I never saw any reports of her actually campaigning for Remain or Leave.
She's just implementing the decsion she was given, as she should.
Yes, she is just implementing the decision she was given, however the decision she is implementing was made by those in the Conservative party holding her strings...
I've seen little evidence of independent thought or any real leadership qualities; throughout her politicial career todate, hence why I see her as an administrator - good at actioning the decisions of others. If Labour actually had someone who was a leader as their leader, TM would be struggling. It is a real shame or blessing (depending on your viewpoint) that Nicola Sturgeon isn't an MP as she would certainly be running rings around TM, even more than she is presently...
MPs serve the people, not the other way around.
I wonder then why it is that despite an overwhelming victory for remain in this constituency, my constituency MP decided not to vote that way?
I wonder further why it is that we're going to undergo a colossal constitutional change based off an informational referendum won by a margin of victory of only 2%
Possibly neither the opinion of their constituents nor their own good conscious is actually driving this one.
Referenda are not binding, because nothing is in the constituion. No Parliament can bind another. Futures Parliaments can always change the rules.
However, that isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for a result you don't like. And it's foolish to keep repeating it.
Yes, the referdum was adisory. And close. But politically it cannot be ignored. The results of ignoring it would be politically disastrous. Are we to tell the electorate that democracy no longer matters? What happens when the next referendum happens. Because there will be one, if this one is ignored. And there'll be political chaos in the meantime. I suppose UKIP would do well out of it though.
Anyway due to the joys of first past the post electoral systems, although only 52% of us voted leave, something like 68% of our Parliamentary constituencies had a leave majority. UKIP and the Conservatives got 50% of the vote between them at the last election - and the Conservatives are now consistently polling over 40%, with UKIP around about 12%.
This referendum cannot be ignored.
Could you persuade a majority to join the EEA or EFTA and keep full free movement? Polling suggests that 50% favour immigration controls and 50% favour more trade. So that's little help. Bugger! May could try for that, but I don't think she could hold the Conservative Party together on it.
I feel sorry for Labour. They've got the top 10 leave constituencies in the UK, and the top 10 remain ones in England too! Try squaring that circle! Their MPs and party members massively favour remain, as do their voters. But their seat distribution is nearly 70% leave.
Of course if they'd not spend the last 20 years calling anyone who talked about immigration controls a racist, and anyone who had serious doubts about the EU a swivel-eyed loon, we might not be in this position...
BTW just in case no one else is here from Forest Heath District Council (Conservative btw...)
A few years ago it was decided by the council that car parking charges would be imposed in Newmarket
The people of Newmarket and the traders all objected
The council offered a referendum
The council then stated they would ignore the referendum
The council then set it up but failed to tell anyone in FHDC area when and where
The local paper was tipped off by a council employee and published a very late special edition to let people know
The referendum was held over the whole district, not just the town affected (so including the tax payers who in theory benefit from the income from the parking charges)
The result was 97% against the charges
Newmarket now has car parks with charges imposed, double yellow lines on streets that never needed any before, expensive residents parking permits and a pretty near empty town centre.
However, for the politicians nothing actually changed, the people still put the same councillors back in power that ignored them.
the people still put the same councillors back in power that ignored them.
More fool them.
How many of the people who objected to the parking charges stood for council election on a "no charges" platform? Or did they, as usual, assume that it was up to "somebody else"to 'do something" ?
@I aint Spartacus
Yep, the advisory referendum had a small majority in favour of leave.
We elect MPs to represent us and make detailed decisions on our behalf, and considering the best interests of their constituents.
The correct process should have been a very lengthy and detailed review of all the options by parliamentary committees, civil servants and 'experts', evaluating the likely cost and benefits, and then, bearing in mind that a small majority want to leave the EU (without giving any particular reasons), Parliament should decide what is best for the present and future citizens of the UK, and should vote accordingly. If the best option is to leave the EU and negotiate a new agreement then fine. But if the effect of leaving the EU is national economic suicide then our representatives should have the guts to decide to stay, and continue to work within the EU to improve the aspects that some people seem to be concerned about.
At the very least all parties concerned should accept that the whole referendum was an appallingly ill-thought-out cockup by Cameron, who by now should be rotting in a gibbet on Tower Bridge, with the government calling a re-run with a proper set of options and sub-questions (e.g. do you hate foreigners) on the ballot paper, and that would allow a proper informed debate and subsequent decision making. As it is we have a government who have stated that Leaving is a bad idea, seemingly hell-bent on cutting the national throat anyway.
At the very least all parties concerned should accept that the whole referendum was an appallingly ill-thought-out cockup
I'm sorry but you're wrong. The Referendum was a sign that democracy worked.
I'll admit the campaign was awful, full of bollocks, quite a few outright lies on both sides and not terribly well organised.
But the point is that a minority of people were always unhappy with the EU. And had to lump it when we joined. They lost the referendum, which was belatedly held. That number grew. The ERM and Maastricht treaties being one of the causes. Obviously a lot of the Conservative Party, but there was always a big chunk of Labour support who were also quite anti - they were just better at party discipline and mostly kept quiet.
Then we had the Constitution / Lisbon Treaty farago. We should have had a referendum then, given how unpopular that was, and that an almost identical treaty had gone down to defeat in a couple of referenda already. That, along with growing levels of immigration was a big no-no for a lot more people.
The Referendum Party, that had been a rounding error in the 90s, had spawned UKIP. Which got over 20% at 2 Euro elections, and was polling pretty healthily in general elections too.
So Cameron promised a referendum. You may claim that this was pure cynicism, and party management. I suspect that's unfair, at least partly. But it doesn't matter. Democracy worked. More-and-more people were becoming Eurosceptic, so 2 of our parties offered a Euro-referendum as a policy. Between them, they got over 50% of the vote. We had a referendum.
To prove that this referendum was in fact what people wanted, a majority voted for leave.
So to argue we shouldn't have held it is utterly ludicrous. As I said, it was democracy working. People wanted a referendum and got one. Cameron thought that he could get some concessions (which to be fair to him were a lot better than many claimed), then hold a campaign and say leaving's too risky - then put the issue to bed. Everyone's had a vote, the EU is now mandated for another generation.
If it weren't for the Eurozone crisis, I'd imagine we'd be staying in. But then there's still a good chance the Eurozone will destroy the EU anyway, along with causing another horrible global recession.
"We should have had a referendum then [Lisbon], given how unpopular that was, and that an almost identical treaty had gone down to defeat in a couple of referenda already."
That I agree with. That and Maastricht should have required ratification by referenda across the entire EU - and needing a significant majority for a change to take place.
I agree that the democratic deficit this has left has been at least partly responsible for the present mess. But to quote Sir Humphrey, "If you must do this damn stupid thing don't do it in this damn stupid way.".
>I'm sorry but you're wrong. The Referendum was a sign that democracy worked.
The answer is of course 42.
Unfortunately nobody really understood the question.
And then you get some "psychopathic politician" hell bent on revenge against those he felt had snubbed his brilliance.
https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/on-the-referendum-21-branching-histories-of-the-2016-referendum-and-the-frogs-before-the-storm-2/
A weak press who merely repeated press statements as 'facts' and queried nothing, and a public who had to google 'what is the EU' the day after, really doesn't make for a sound, honest, and wide ranging debate to produce a rational decision.
And that's 'democracy'. Hmmmm. I'd call it a lot of things, but barely that.
There may be good reasons to have a referendum. But I can't think of any right now.
Just lucky I live in Europe and can apply for a passport before the lunatics finish trashing the asylum. I feel sorry for the young, and all those abandoned, ignored, and pilloried, but sadly I am sincerely glad I don't have to live in the UK any more.
Proud to be a citizen of the world and Europe.
"I'm sorry but you're wrong. The Referendum was a sign that democracy worked."
I, living in Europe for "too long" and likely to be much more directly affected by what happens than many British citizens was denied the ability to even participate. So you can take your "democracy" bullshit and shove it up your ass. That's just a lie that the likes of the Mail keep repeating so you don't have to think too hard about what is really going on.
> I'm sorry but you're wrong. The Referendum was a sign that democracy worked.
> I'll admit the campaign was awful, full of bollocks, quite a few outright lies on both sides
> and not terribly well organised.
The referendum is not an example of democracy in action. Democracy requires informed consent. How is this possible, when details (I use the term lightly) about plans for leaving are being released months after the referendum by an unelected Prime Minister, at the head of a party whose manifesto pledge was to stay in the EU.
Neither side was informed, because those arguing for change were not in power to enact that change. So nothing that they said was meaningful, nor could they be held account for. As Gove said "350 million, nothing I can do about that".
David Cameron has an awful lot to answer for. And for those who voted leave; they will come to learn the foolishness of giving a bunch of politicians a blank cheque.
Phil Lord,
Of course we didn't know what we were voting for. How could we? We don't know what the EU27 will agree to when we leave, hence we can't now what we'll get. That's why the referendum had to be on the broad principle.
A referendum on the deal we get on leaving would also be ideal. But the Article 50 system is set up not to work that way, so we're stuck with what we've got.
We couldn't actually know what we voted for staying in either. With qualified majority voting, anything can happen. And we have even less democratic control of that. If we don't like what May's government are doing, we can get rid of them. The EU doesn't give us that power.
"Of course we didn't know what we were voting for. How could we? We don't know what the EU27 will agree to when we leave, hence we can't now what we'll get. That's why the referendum had to be on the broad principle."
This is untrue. Of course, we could not know the exact details, but we could have had a clearer idea of the position that we thought we should take. If that was not possible, then why bother with a white paper now, since it cannot possible say anything of substance. Likewise, we could have been in a position to hold those who argued to leave to account if what they promised was wrong.
Referendums and the campaigns associated with them do not have to be fatuous, and lacking in detail. The Scottish referendum, for example, was not.
"If we don't like what May's government are doing, we can get rid of them. The EU doesn't give us that power."
This argument does not make sense. I cannot get rid of May's government. I live in a part of the country which have pretty much never voted for a Conservative government, but they have been regularly inflicted upon us. Likewise, in the EU, our ability to change things was limited by what everyone else wanted, although, as events show, and the white paper says, we always retained sovereignty.
After, we leave the EU, we will of course, be in exactly the same boat. These trade deals that Theresa May is keen on -- this is where the UK agrees not to do something, in exchange for trade, and appoints an external body to arbitrate in case of dispute. Rather like the EU, but without any necessary semblance of transparency or democracy.
The referendum remains (pun!) a low point in our democratic process. Let's hope we can recover some self-respect during the rest of this process. So far, the debate seems to resolve around a small clique telling us that they have a unique ability to determine the will of the people, so I am not optimistic.
The Scottish referendum White Paper was a pathetic joke. At least May's is a basically admitted cynical ploy designed to get the bill through on the information she's already given out, and no more. For which she's given her reason.
The SNP paper said that everything would be fluffy and kittens, that the EU would let Scotland stay in without even having to leave, or fast-track them in if not, that the rest of the UK would share the currency with them - no strings attached and that oil prices would of course remain above $100 a barrel basically forever.
In other words It was wishful thinking bollocks.
To be fair, the issues are massively complex and depended just as much on goodwill in negotiations. For example a huge chunk of the Scottish economy is also financial services, much of it trading with England. Yet there was little discussion of "passporting" - where a hostile rUK government could easily have forced large chunks of the financial industry to repatriate to England. Unlike the EU that would also be a credible threat, a London does have the infrastructure to absorb it, in a way that Frankfurt and Paris simply don't.
So I agree that in a mythcial perfect world all referenda should be conducted with weighty independently generated tomes of wise impartial advice, covering all the angles. But in the real world, I doubt it's possible.
I don't think the Bank of England deliberately forecast economic doom in order to subvert democracy and force the recalcitrant plebs to vote as ordered.
I do believe they were part of a policy elite that are as subject to groupthink and faulty assumptions as anyone else. Hence they got it so badly wrong.
Equally much of the top business and policy bods thought it would be a disaster if we didn't join the Euro. When in fact William Hague was 100% right (maybe for the only time in his political career) when he said that joining the Euro was like entering a burning building with no exits.
>We couldn't actually know what we voted for staying in either. With qualified majority voting, anything can happen.
That's another piece of nonsense, Spart. QMV only applies to a narrow range of mainly-unimportant decisions. None of the things that the Leave campaign insisted were just around the corner (77M Turks, an EU Army) could happen under QMV.
strum,
I disagree. A referendum is fine on a limited constitutional question. I admit they're not perfect, but no form of democracy is. They've been used by dictators, but so has everything else. Including normal democratic elections.
In the normal political process, no major party had supported leaving the EU in 30 years. And yet regularly 30% of the population have wanted to leave in polls, since at least Maastricht. And as the referendum proved, it's now 52%. So normal democracy had also failed. The referendum was the way to square that circle. Democracy is sadly a messy business.
On your other post, QMV applies to a lot. Like voting to destroy the Greek banking system, in probably breach of the treaties, by the ECB. That was done on a majority - as Greece obviously wouldn't have voted for it.
Hhe hedge fund regs were done on QMV. The Tobin Tax was being done under "enhanced cooperation" though that was possibly going to get shot down by the European Court, as it mainly penalised us, who weren't joining. But I've little trust in the ECJ. After all, they brought a holiday entitlement into UK saw under health and safety regs, when we'd got a specific opt-out in written into the Maastricht Treaty only about 3 years before. Not that I object to the policy, but the court overruled the Treaties in order to advance the federalist political agenda - because it's basically a Toytown court that usually does.
I agree with you on Turkey and the army obviously. Turkey joining was our bloody policy in the first place, like enlargement into Eastern Europe - and was done for execllent diplomatic reasons. But France had promised a referendum on Turkish entry, which meant it would never happen. And we have a veto on the army idea. But there are plenty of important areas that are under QMV.
>The Referendum was a sign that democracy worked.
Sorry, no. I've agreed with most of your comments, notSpart, but this one is nonsense.
I am old enough to remember when most of the world was ruled by one form of dictator or another - and every one of them used referendums to give their tyranny some spurious justification.
A referendum =/= democracy. It reduces a complex issue to a single question ( a single question which isn't democratically posed). It allows press barons and demagogues to lie in favour of their wishes (loudest arsehole wins). It binds future legislators against resolving any of the many problems that arise. Worst of all, it gives succour to the lowest, meanest denizens of our community - who would otherwise be too ashamed to speak.
MPs serve the people, not the other way around.
Unfortunately that's not the case and it's this that the brexit vote was often used as a protest vote about, with appalling consequences (economic and xenophobic). Many MPs have now openly stated that it's their number one priority to tow the party line, with representing their constituents as a dim issue somewhere in there but not very important to them.
It's an "interesting" situation, where the vile hate mongers in the press (i.e. the daily mail) are shouting that 114 MPs "went against the will of the people" (and therefore should be persecuted by the Mail) whereas looking at the statistics what should have happened is that 51% of the MPs voted in favour of exit while 49% voted to remain. However given the actual numbers involved the reality is different even from this...
Only 72% (33.48m) of the brexit vote eligable electorate (~46.5m) voted (13.02m didn't vote) with a further 0.7m that were not permitted to vote as they were living overseas (despite being eligable for elections). Of those that were permited to vote 51.9% (17.38m) voted leave, 48.1% (16.1m) voted remain. So the totals become:
Leave: 17.38m (36.8%)
Remain: 16.1m (34.1%)
Not permitted: 0.7m (1.5%)
Abstain: 13.02m (27.6%)
There are 650 MPs, therefore the split should have been approximately (compounded rounding issues and all that):
Leave: 239
Remain: 221
Not permitted to vote: 10
Abstain: 180
This is very, very different from the vile statement that "114 MPs are not following the will of the people" that the hate mongers of the daily mail are pushing.
Disclaimer: I've probably got some of the above maths wrong, we don't live in a proportional representative government system and opinions can change, but this is a very different turn out even with a few errors taken into consideration.
While Nicola Sturgeon is often portrayed by the press (especially the likes of the Daily Mail) that she's not a very nice person, it can't be argued that she's not standing up for Scotland, that voted in favour of the EU, and is therefore representing Scotland appropriately on this front. For this the Daily Mail is branding her and her fellow Scottish MPs as "enemies of the people".
The majority of MPs were voted into their position on a smaller % of the eligible voters in their area. And one of my all time biggest gripes is that MPs do what they are told by their whips rather than what their constituents want (my MP is a horrendous culprit here, a disaster as an MP). We were offered a chance to change it but project fear mk1 saw that off with lies and bull.
And Sturgeon is an outright nutter and even more antiEnglish than most of her fellow countrymen, she even gets driven round in a Volvo because above everything else it isn't made by us unspeakables south of the border.
However you cut it though, the people spoke and the result in parliament HAD to be to obey the people. Anything else would have been a disaster.
"There are 650 MPs, therefore the split should have been approximately"
Complete bollocks. We have a first past the post constituency based electoral system. If MPs refuse to tow the line of their party (most of the votes they received being for their party not them) they should at least represent the views of their constituents.
That leaves you with this list of labour twats who voted against their party and their constituents.
Graham Allen – Nottingham North – 64% Leave
Mary Creagh – Wakefield – 62% Leave
Paul Farrelly – Newcastle-under-Lyme – 62% Leave
Chris Bryant – Rhondda – 61% Leave
Ann Clwyd – Cynon Valley – 57% Leave
Tom Brake – Carshalton and Wallington – 56% Leave
Eilidh Whiteford – Banff and Buchanan – 54% Leave
Alan Whitehead – Southampton Test – 51% Leave
All of them should resign or be sacked or whatever it takes to trigger by-elections in their constituencies.
Oh and Diane Abbot because her health problems are obviously incompatible with her job.
494 votes in favour 114 against? You couldn't find 114 MP's who actually wanted to do this before the referendum,
Well the most striking thing about the vote, was the way the Conservatives voted, namely: 319 for, with 1 against.
It would seem we suddenly have rather a lot of sheep as Conservative MP's. In the past to get something like this through would have required a three line whip, a whole bunch of bribes and a vote of confidence in the government to bring the majority into line. But even then there would be a sizable number who would ignore such inducements and still vote against the government/party line. So why did so many Conservative MP's decided to ditch their principles and meekly do what May told them to do?
>>Roll on 2019 when the whole stupid thing gets dumped, along with May and her crazy friends.
The next General Election is 2020, then 2025 (without votes of no confidence). Expect at least two major parties to have manifesto pledges to rejoin the EU, and I doubt they will be stupid enough to hold another referendum if they win.
My current prediction is to rejoin in about 10 years, but losing the £, veto and various other bits we have now. That would make pulling out again a hell of a lot harder.
We don't want to be in the customs union but we want frictionless trade in some special way.
We don't want to be in the single market, but we want access to it for free, but if not we'll take our ball home and it doesn't matter anyway.
We don't want skilled migrants but some unskilled ones can come and pick potatoes a month from now if the company sponsors a special visa.
The white paper is an economic suicide note. To what aim? Preserve some halcyon 50's ideal that never was?
Moving to the EFTA and use it as a wedge for a two speed Europe would have been a smart move. This is just crap.
"The white paper is an economic suicide note. To what aim? Preserve some halcyon 50's ideal that never was?"
... a halcyon 50's ideal that only ever existed in Enid Blyton novels*, while in real life rationing didn't end until 4 July 1954 ...
* Which I loved as a kid, especially The Famous Five series. Up until the day when I realised that each and every one of them has the same plot. Still, good times...
>The Famous Five series. Up until the day when I realised that each and every one of them has the same plot. Still, good times...
My objection was the geology. They were always finding tunnels and potholes that were always perfectly dry. They never had to wade through waist deep freezing water or have it continually dripping from the roof down their neck
How can it be otherwise? I don't think the EU27 know what they want yet, so how can we?
There's supposedly an embargo on pre-negotiations with the UK. How successful that is being, behind closed doors, I've no idea. I've not seen anything leak.
May has been pretty clear since her conference speech that immigration is one of the big issues. The Europeans have been totally clear that they won't allow Single Market membership without it. But some of them are saying that even having a free trade agreement such as Canada has just been given (without free movement) is unacceptable cherry picking - and others seem perfectly happy with that as the basis of the deal. With elections in France, Germany and the Netherlands in the next few months, and the Italian government not all that stable, we've no idea who we're negotiating with, what they want and how much they're willing to deliberately accept some pain in order to punish us. We probably won't fully know that for another year.
They have the middle two bars the wrong way around.
I mean, it's only an official white-paper regarding the largest single change to UK law in the last 40 years. Let's not worry about getting it right, eh?
I wonder what other wonderful details will turn out to be "Mistakes"?
The budget for the NHS perhaps?
Thats only MPs. Teachers get even more, the rest of somewhat less... except for those who SHOULD be building the police cars, fire engines, army lorries, army uniforms, airforce planes, navy engines, navy planes, steel for the ships, aluminium for the planes, council lorries, council vans, heads of states cars (yes you Scottish bitch we noticed you use a swedish car so you dont need to buy anything from the English), writing the tax software, building our missiles, writing the airtraffic software etc etc etc those people are unemployed and get 52 weeks paid leave a year.
In fairness to Frau May, she could say that the UK would strike a trade deal with Mars and we'd get all the worlds resources of oil and precious metals as well as giving everyone an 8 day week and it'd be fine.
Why? Because all she cares about is getting the go ahead to trigger Article 50 by March, and the MP's need to agree to let her do it based on this white paper. So it's doing what it needs to do, but to the people who have some common sense left it's obvious that there is no plan and no one knows what they're doing.
The MP's voting for this will be free of all fallout in later years regardless of what happens. They're pensioned off on a lovely pension, will walk in to high paying jobs on civvy street. It's us mugs YET AGAIN who will suffer from poor planning and poorer execution.
We've got to trigger Article 50 soon. We made this decision by referendum in June - and the Europeans are getting pissed off at us waiting. If we wait later than March, it'll really piss them off. If we trigger it on the last Council meeting in March that'll also really piss them off, as it's the celebrations of the anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. That would be seen as piss taking.
The European Parliament don't want us in much longer, as they're holding elections in May in 2 years time, and don't want to have another batch of UK MEPs joining up, only in time to leave a few months later.
In summary, the EU have been patient while we got our shit a bit more sorted out. But I think things could get really quite nasty if we keep on stalling. As public opinion has barely moved on the Brexit question, it's pointless running a referendum again. And I'd argue that on a binary constitutional question like this, a referendum is superior to a general election, where you've got to decide on other issues too.
As for no plan, that's a very tired meme now. May said, in essence, exactly the same at the Tory conference as she's said in every speech and interview since. It was always clear that she'd be seeking to leave the Single Market and Customs Union - because that's the logic of the position she's taken and what the EU27 say they'll accept. Why waste 2 years (and any goodwill and political capital) figthing for immigration controls inside the Single Market, which they've told us we can't have.
If we stay in the Single Market, how long until another referendum on getting out of it, as the political classes were seen to be ignoring the referendum result. You may not agree with that, but May's interpretation (along with the polls) is that we have to have immigration controls to satisfy the electorate.
As for any idea of totally ignoring the referendum result, that would be foolish, immoral and electorally disastrous.
BUT WE DIDN'T VOTE TO LEAVE THE SINGLE MARKET!!!!! You're on about tired memes yet you say this?!
People voted to leave the EU. They didn't want the EU dictating what shaped cucumbers they should have in their shops. But they will still want to go to Spain, they will still want to get hold of Axe from Lidl for the money they're on now. They don't want to pay more.
Anyway, we have to go with Article 50. That much is obvious, and only the complete idiot is still demanding we don't leave the EU. I'm one of those who wanted to stay, but I'm accepting we need to leave. But only if we get a good deal.
Put it this way. You and your wife are splitting up, you both have to leave the house. Your house is worth £400,000. Your mistress is demanding you move in with her and pronto. Your wife tells you that if you sell the house for £100,000 and you take on all her debts etc and the divorce can be finalised.
You would not agree to that. So why let this country be set down the river on a bonfire?
Unfortunately, you're still in denial.
You say you're "accepting we need to leave. But only if we get a good deal."
It's been made very clear - and if either party in the referendum had been honest, they would have told you about it beforehand - that you need to commit to leaving, before you know what sort of a deal you get. You may not want to buy the pig in a poke, but that's the pig's packaging and all you get to do is take it or leave it.
In retrospect this seems like quite an unfair condition in the Treaty of Lisbon, but since the whole idea was to deter people from using it, I don't think there's much chance of getting it renegotiated now.
The EU and the single market are tied together, leave the EU and you leave the single market, if people didn't know that then blame the remain campaign for not spelling it out. In theory there is an option to rejoin single market only but that is not realistic.
Any deal that puts Britain first is a good one, but given our civil service would sell the country to the devil if they could the chance of that is zero. We will end up with the same situation as now, no continental country imports anything of ours and our government falls over itself to buy foreign instead of British for everything it possible can.
>>"The EU and the single market are tied together, leave the EU and you leave the single market, if people didn't know that then blame the remain campaign for not spelling it out. In theory there is an option to rejoin single market only but that is not realistic."
Shouldn't it have been the job of the Leave campaign to point out that it meant leaving the single market. FWIW I believe the Remain side did point that out, but Leave insisted we would be staying in the SM (or at least most of the leaders did).
The leave campaign were busy dropping Norway (EEA), Switzerland (EFTA), and "single market" into the narrative. To pretend otherwise is just a blatant lie and rewriting history of the
So anyone who voted leave on that premise is now being used as a useful idiot by Mayhem & Co to push her agenda of burning the country down to save the Conservative party.
No, we really didn't vote to leave the single market. The referendum was on the EU. There are many options:
We could easily transition into the EEA. That means none of the EU's political nonsense and continued membership of the single market and customs union. Also we get out of the CAP and possibly Common Fisheries Policy.
But the downsides are much less say in EU regulations (though we get our seat back on the international standards committees so can work on some stuff "upstream" of the EU. Also we continue with free movement and large payments into the EU budget. Plus, being in the customs union, means we can't make our own free trade deals.
Or we could go looser still, and go the EFTA Switzerland route. More limited Single Market access, negotiated on a sector-by-sector basis. But that web of agreements have taken decades to build up, and bits are controversial in Switzerland, so I don't think the EU would offer that option to us.
The other option is the Turkish one. Which is membership of the customs union in large sectors of the economy, but Turkey have also no say in regulations and have to accept the EU's trade agreements.
The Turkey deal is up for renegotiation next year, and the EU also have problems with countries like Ukraine that will not be allowed to join in the foreseable future, but it would be good to influence, and try to keep stable. The same is basically true of Turkey - they'll not be allowed to join but we want to keep some of the leverage we've had to nudge them towards democracy. So if there was anyone with vision within the EU leadership they'd be creating a sort of associate block of countries with broadly free trade and rules to facilitate easier movement which would make the whole region richer, more integrated and increase the EU countries' influence. And the UK could be slotted into that structure somehow. Looks like that won't happen though. That's not even the vision to try to fix the Euro crisis - let alone indulge in complex geo-politics.
Hence we'll get a much harder Brexit, and may even struggle to get a free trade deal. On balance I voted leave expecting the Norway/EEA option (well actually expecting to lose), but I don't think that's politically acceptable, hence I don't see that May has any choice.
The only plan is to open up our eyes and realise there are other people out there who might be willing to buy some stuff we make and sell it to them.
We could also decide that the police need to buy British built police cars and that politicians need to drive British built cars, the army need to have British built lorries (even if that means setting up a new factory), the tax man needs to run British written software on British computers etc etc etc. If we just halted the governments spending on overseas products (including the spending done via overseas aid which is cash everyone else uses to buy from our competitors) and we spent that money internally we would have full employment, no room for the new factories needed and strong industries able to compete world wide.
The Germans do it, the French do it, the Italians do it... Trump is doing it... Spend UK tax payers money in the UK and stop spending it in Munich.
So where's the plan to replace the lost market?
Well in light of the Supreme Court verdict etc. concerning the Crown Prerogative, I suggest currently leaving the EEA/Single Market isn't on May's priority to do list...
The referendum was explicitly about leaving the EU, not the Single Market. (Yes people can shout all they want, but sorry the only thing that matters at the end of the day is what was written on the ballot paper.)
The court case agreed that because invoking Article 50 impacted UK law over which Parliament was sovereign and not the executive, only Parliament could give the authority, hence why the recent bill. Now the bill was very simply and clearly worded, limiting it to only invoking Article 50.
All fine and dandy, however, the EEA is separate to the EU and hence the bill does not give the government the authority to leave the EEA. But it's a trade deal so that isn't necessary - I hear people shouting, but as we know it isn't because in-order to become members of the EEA/Single Market nations have to make changes to their domestic law.
So for example as part of our EEA membership, we had to allow for the free movement of 'workers'.
As part of our EU membership, we had to allow for the free movement of 'people'.
Thus to leave the Single Market, May is going to have to present a bill to Parliament... But going further, if you've read any of the blogs written over the years by well informed people, who were campaigning for the UK to leave the EU before last year's referendum, their clear implication was that only the British people could make the decision and thus using their (ie. Leaver's) logic, May will need to hold a second referendum concerning whether the UK remains or leaves the EEA...
This one is certain to run and run - best stock up on popcorn before it becomes prohibitively expensive...
We've got to trigger Article 50 soon. We made this decision by referendum in June - and the Europeans are getting pissed off at us waiting.
That's only part of May's self-imposed deadline. She has to be seen to do something positive (in her mind) before the campaigning for the local elections starts in April, else she risks more of the Tory vote snuggling up to those cuddly UKIP people. Last year she knew she could let the A50 estimate drift from January to February, and then finally to March, but she can't afford to let it go any further.
When I consider the number of times other countries have voted against something the EU wants in a referendum only to be forced to hold a second referendum after a few months my prediction is that May will trigger article 50, there will be some negotiations, they will come back with the worst possible situation for the UK (we will pay a fortune and have to obey all EU regs to trade but have no say in anything as an outsider... oh, situation as it is now...) or they will claim that the EU will reform a couple of things (they won't) and by staying we will have a say (as we dont now we wont then) and offer it as referendum number 2 ... go out on the basis of the negotiation or stay in... and hey presto the EU will win, we will stay in, we will get less than no say (as we now have no teeth at all) and the fees will carry on rising massively leading to even more new taxes and higher VAT...
Just a prediction
Couldn't we just subcontract the negotiations to Capita? Given how effectively they run rings around our Whitehall negotiators, they would have the ideal skill set to obtain an optimal Brexit deal (for themselves; there is, after all, 350 million a week available for consultancy fees). I suggest we'd still get a better outcome than the cat spat of Whitehall vs Eurocrat negotiations, if not the schadenfreude-laden entertainment factor.
The most despicable thing about this is not the biggest political, whole society affecting change in a generation is being made by a PM with no elected mandate.
It's why it's happening.
To keep the Conservative party together.
To stop supporters going to UKIP
Because the Home Office could not do their f**king job over decades.
The only criticism you will see in many British newspapers is that 2 years is too long and the Brexit needs to be harder.
The PM has a perfectly good mandate. She's head of the majority party, which campaigned at the last election on an EU referendum. The voters voted out, and so she's moving towards out.
There's an argument for having another referendum on whether we should leave totally or join EEA/EFTA.
There is a problem with doing that. Whatever changes we want to make we have to agree with the other side.
One of the big problems is that the governments of the EU are becoming really anti-referendum. In some senses, they have a point. It's a good blackmail tool: "give me a better deal or the people will vote it down". Thus we're not going to be allowed a referendum on whatever deal is agreed. It'll be take-it-or-leave it. Hence even Parliament won't get that much of a say.
In another sense they're totally and disastrously wrong. They know that people are becoming increasingly Eurosceptic and vote down treaty changes (hence now EU deals desperately try to avoid treaty changes). But they don't try to fix the cause, just the symptom. Have no referenda, and hope for the best. So when the Greek government in 2012 wanted a referendum on the bail-out the PM was forced to resign by a threat of immediately removing banking support. He'd have won that, and then the Greek voters would have been signed up to the bail-out program. Also, all governments find it too easy to blame the EU for stuff they voted for there, and they should try to defend the EU more. But then the EU also needs to be more responsive. And most of all, it must fix the Eurozone, and deal with the hideous levels of unemployment the Euro causes. It'll always be under dire threat until that is dealt with.
In my opinion this is the major problem with the EU. Sometimes it works and acts like a giant democracy, and that's how it sees itself. But sometimes it acts like a bunch of governments negotiating international treaties. And that's fundamentally incompatible with democracy, as it's all about secret deals and uncomfortable trade-offs. But the EU is both. And because making the deals is so hard, long and uncomfortable, it's bloody impossible to change them. So if one part of the EU is suffering badly, they can bring down their own government, but that government doesn't have the leverage to change overall EU policy. And so people become angry and feel disenfranchised.
In my opinion this is the major problem with the EU. Sometimes it works and acts like a giant democracy, and that's how it sees itself.
But most times it sees itself as the replacement for the old USSR. An unelected politburo, accounts that have never passes audit, government by diktat (something a lot of the left lovvies are up in arms about when Trump does the same thing), ignoring the electorate, forcing an artificial currency on most nations regardless if they could afford it or not and so on.
No one was ever forced to join the Euro. Countries like UK and Denmark didn't.
The biggest issue of the Euro is country that didn't meet the requirements to join (i.e. Italy, Greece, Spain) were admitted anyway because they *fully wanted* (including most of their citizens) - it looked a nice posh club back then - and it was "impossible" to leave out one of the EU founders (Italy) and the "cradle of western democracy and philosophy" (Greece), and once they were in, leaving out others looked impolite...
Unluckily, more or less the same countries are now putting the Euro at risk because they never resolved the big failures in their economies.
>An unelected politburo, accounts that have never passes audit, government by diktat
Three lies in a row. Is this a record? Probably not.
Arguably, the EU is more democratic than Westminster/Whitehall. (And the EU accounts have passed audit, every year since (I think) 2004.
That's not what she said when Gordon Brown was in the same position.
Indeed. It was bollocks then, and it's bollocks now that Labour are saying it.
About half the 20th Century PMs have been appointed not elected. Many went on to win an election afterwards.
So spake John Smith the 19th:
To keep the Conservative party together.
To stop supporters going to UKIP
May can try keep the Conservative party together all she likes. It won't help her.
May desperately wants to be seen as the rightful successor to Thatcher. The problem is that public opinions of Thatcher are extraordinarily polarising.
Millions of Labour supporters despised Thatcher with vehement intensity since the miners strike, which was acceptable, to Thatcher, because they would never have voted anything but Labour anyway. The approach to Brexit risks a similar turning point in popularity for May, only this time many Tory voters will be alienated too.
The Conservative Party is doomed.
The price of food should go down. If we leave the Common Agricultual Policy everyone will be richer except farmers. We've always paid far more into the EU to subsidise their farmers than ours got back anyway, that was why Thatcher got the rebate in the first place. So we'll have to divert a chunk of that saving to ours, or risk catastrophic damage to the industry.
But the other part of the CAP is pretty big trade barriers, which has the effect of forcing up food prices, making everyone except farmers poorer. Since there are a lot more of them in France, and their votes are important, this has never changed much.
Oddly we import a whole load of New Zealand lamb, and export a bunch of our lamb to the EU. Perhaps if we eat more of ours we can offset the damage to trade?
This is one of the big areas of uncertainty, and could do lots of harm to our farming industry and also the Irish - so hopefully we can sort something out in the way of a transition agreement to make it less painful, even if we can't manage free trade.
On imports of EU goods though, we can set whatever tariffs we want. So even if they won't take our sausages, we could still allow theirs in tariff free if we chose.
Baguettes are baked here already. We've got the recipe and everything. They're not so much smuggled, as used for smuggling. You can get a small bottle of booze in one when taking illicint booze in your picnic to events where they search you.
Although last time I did the hidden booze in picnic trick, my 8 year old niece grabbed the bag out of my hand and got through security without a bag search. So my rum disguised as sandwiches and thermos of mulled wine got through fine.
If the sugar trade becomes free-er, as Tate and Lyle (a US-owned importer of sugar from cane to refine) would like then the price of sugar (which people keep telling us we should cut back on) should drop.
And removal of the quota system means
1) EU and world oversupply can be sold into UK
2) no guaranteed amount to be grown for British farmers - currently 50% of British "need"
Which probably means a severe drop in beet grown, and/or the price farmers get. The biggest - probably those in East Anglia and Lincoln - survive, rest have to forgo. That takes out a root crop from British farm rotation schemes.
So do we subsidise sugar beet growing, or do we encourage (subsidize) an alternative root crop?
So do we subsidise sugar beet growing, or do we encourage (subsidize) an alternative root crop?
Well this gets us on to the real question: do we really want a farming industry in the UK?
Fom the way some go on, they think the UK doesn't need a farming industry, a manufacturing sector or a financial sector and yet will still be able to pay its way in the world and import more than it exports...
The price of food should go down. If we leave the Common Agricultural Policy ...
Err probably not...
Remember CAP (broadly) subsidisies production, to enable farmers to sell at 'competitive' market prices. So remove the subsidy and farmer would have to pass on their full production costs in their market prices, so prices would increase.
Also we shouldn't overlook reality, namely the EU supplies circa 27% of our food (with fruit & veg and meat being the two largest food groups by value); so some of that CAP money going to 'French' farmers is being returned to us in the form of lower prices...
Now the simpletons will just say that we can import from somewhere else, blindly assuming that other (non-EU) like-for-like sources exist and that these will be cheaper - simply because they are non-EU and the UK being free of the EU's extensive portfolio of largely tariff-free trade agreements, to cut it's own deals ...
So I expect the UK government, despite all the rhetoric, will not be too keen to impose tariffs on food imports from the EU, thus I expect like-for-like food prices to be largely unchanged, only being impacted by exchange rates. However, expect dubious stuff from other less well-regulated sources to appear on supermarket shelves...
"Remember CAP (broadly) subsidisies production, to enable farmers to sell at 'competitive' market prices."
So they can charge market rates because they are paid more than market rates. Surely the cheaper option is to just pay market rates. If they cant produce at market rates then we either pay more than we need to to buy 'british' or just buy the product at the actual price from someone else.
"Now the simpletons will just say that we can import from somewhere else, blindly assuming that other (non-EU) like-for-like sources exist and that these will be cheaper"
Which we can. Otherwise the import tariffs we are forced to apply to anyone outside the cartel wouldnt exist. The tariffs being to protect production within the cartel from those who can produce it cheaper.
"So I expect the UK government, despite all the rhetoric, will not be too keen to impose tariffs on food imports from the EU, thus I expect like-for-like food prices to be largely unchanged, only being impacted by exchange rates. However, expect dubious stuff from other less well-regulated sources to appear on supermarket shelves"
Good. More choice. I am sure visitors from the EU will be confused when we sell jam made with products on on the regulatory 'approved to be called jam' list but I am more confused why they think that kind of regulation is important or necessary.
Roland6,
You've forgotten the other half of the CAP. It obviously subsidises production. It also used to subsidise massive overproduction that we then dumped on world markets and destroyed African economies, but we've stopped that and moved some of the subsidy into the environment.
But the tariffs and quotas on imports also artificially raised the price of food coming into the EU. Thus it also raised the going rate for food. As obviously our producers not subject to the tariff don't have to sell at their cost of production plus profit, they can sell at just below what their imported competition can sell at.
Thus European food costs are much higher than elsewhere.
People often forget that the EU isn't just a free trade zone. It's a customs union with trade barriers put up against the rest of the world, but mitigated with lots of free trade agreements. It's a hybrid of the protetionist instincts of say France and the free trade instincts of the UK or an exporter like Germany. This tension has existed in EU trade policy for decades. it's why France and Germany support the single market in goods, helping their trade surplus with us, and but have resisted the free market in capital and services, which would assist our already large trade surplus with them in that area.
As for your point about tariffs on imports, that's a choice we can make.
As others have said though, we're going to need to carefully think how we subsidise our farmers. The big wheat businesses may not need anything more than subsidised insurance against bad harvests. I believe the cheese industry would suffer hugely if we can't get a free trade deal. I'd forgotten about sugarbeet - so that'll be more fun for the civil service. Other EU countries will also suffer though, so there's hope of common sense, and a deal, breaking out. The French farming lobby gets listened to seriously in France, or it blocks the motorways with its tractors.
The difference between the UK and a lot of Europe is that in a lot of Europe farming is a part time occupation, with lots of people doing it in addition to their regular jobs.
In the UK that seems to be confined to BBC presenters.
Much of the is incorrect.
- We cannot set "any tariffs we want" - see the "Most Favoured Nation" WTO rule.
- Tariffs can be set significantly lower on imported produce though, which means that UK farmers will need to lower their domestic prices to compete - hmm
- UK farmers will completely LOSE the EU market, as the EU tariffs (they'll also be forced to set them by WTO rules) will make UK goods totally uncompetitive. Yes, we may eventually get a trade deal, but it will be far too late to help.
There are also disadvantages to being in the EU, amazingly enough.
Oddly most political arguments have two sides. You can better argue your case when you've attempted to get some vague understanding of the other side's position. Also, if you call them stupid, they're oddly unlikely to listen to anything else you have to say.
Tariffs are, as you say, bad for trade. And not generally a great idea. Though the EU has lots of them stopping us trading with the rest of the world - with which by the way we have a trade surplus.
But then the Euro is an even worse idea for business. The Greek economy is 30% smaller than it was in 2008, and has been in recession for 8 years! With over 20% unemployment and no end of the pain in sight. Italy's economy is smaller than it was when it entered the Euro, nearly 20 years ago.
Finland is still in recession, even though Sweden (non Euro) got out of it 5 years ago. And they got through the dot.com recession at about the same speed.
Obviously we're not in the Euro. But before the crisis nearly 60% of our exports were to the EU. Now it's down to 42%. That's also pretty bad for business.
The Italian downfall has nothing to with the EU or Euro, nor Greece. Without them, Italy would have been in a far worse shape - and probably would have been already gone bankrupt. Greece too.
Italian issues are entirely Italian. Italian debt grew from 50% to 100% of GDP *before* the Euro (in the period 1980-1991, just before most of the political leaders went under trial for corruption...). That debt was just used to corrupt and buy political consensus, with no benefit for the economy, which was (and is) instead used as a cash cow - especially the North - to find the money to sustain that debt level and the expenses to ensure consensus for politicians. Which means low wages, high taxes, little investments, high unemployment. Right now, instead of cutting expenses (after three "spending reviews" that identified many areas of big waste), the government if needed will increase fuel taxes instead (already among the highest...).
Greece made something alike but after entering the Euro - creating a debt it couldn't sustain - with no real benefit for its economy. Thinking someone else would have paid it...
Tariffs are not the issue here. The UK at present has relatively few tariffs.
The issue is regulation. At present any product made in the UK is capable of being exported to a 500 million person market on our doorstep with no extra checks delays or costs.
By leaving the union, we lose that capability. We could mirror the regulations but without agreement we will still be liable to checks as we cross the trading zone border. This will make the UK a less attractive place to build things.
I doubt if we will find another trading deal with that level of access
But before the crisis nearly 60% of our exports were to the EU. Now it's down to 42%. That's also pretty bad for business.
But...but...surely this shows we are trading more with the rest of the world, just as the Brexiteers want? Please don't tell me they're wrong about it not being possible to trade outside the EU effectively!
The other interpretation of those percentages, of course, is that they reflect currency values rather than volume of trade. That makes it a bit of a bastard that the currency of trade is the Euro, yet I notice that the other major currency of trade (the one they want us to shift to, presumably) is the dollar, and that exchange rate, too, has gone down the pan since the Brexit vote. In any case, this argument all depends on where you draw the baseline.
The problem is we know the EU want these things and Japan don't want our cars, when theirs are better, the Canadians don't need our Grain, when they've just done a deal with the EU to get theirs cheap, the Aussies don't want our wine as theirs is better, Trump wants everyone to buy American and our beef is more expensive, and most of the hobbits were British anyway.
The issue is that although the original referendum was mandated and asked for it was badly Planned and executed and no-one thought leave would win, so they did no planning for it.
There were 5 options for the UK's relationship with the EU
1. Stay as we are
-part of the system with a seat at the table and try to fix it from within.
2. drop to EEA/EFTA status like Norway and Iceland
-lose the seat at the table, but still have most of the regulations and access to the common market
3.Make many bilateral agreements (like switzerland)
-agree to most laws, but individually negotiated deals on specific items
4.Single Customs Agreement like Canada/Turkey
-takes forever to work out, will include some responsibilities, not subject to EU Law.
5.WTO trade rules - Similar to African nations / China
-Tariffs, trade, equivalency, and a whole load of issues dealing with EU
Now the EU is a great idea, executed badly, but looking at the options, IMHO, option 1 is the best choice
But...but...surely this shows we are trading more with the rest of the world, just as the Brexiteers want?
Well if you look at the monetary numbers, it gets worse. That drop from 60% to 42% is not fully reflected, namely by value the UK's exports to the EU have remained very stable, we've just massively increased our non-EU exports!
That drop from 60% to 42% is not fully reflected, namely by value the UK's exports to the EU have remained very stable, we've just massively increased our non-EU exports!
This is because most of the Eurozone has been in Depression since 2010. Which is because they're in a pisspoorly constructed single currency system which amplifies asymetric economic shocks with no correction mechanism. This is also because German economic orthodoxy calls for suppressing internal demand and exporting as the cure, rather than shifting resources from the richer areas of the currency zone to the poorer (as all sensible single currencies do). This is why Southern Europe is operating at hidesous levels of continuing unemployment that will eventually bring down their governments (if that hasn't happened already), and why their youth unemployment is often well over 25%!
This has caused their economies to stop growing for nearly a decade, while the rest of the world grew, and so our exports to them have not grown along with the rest of the world.
This makes me quite angry. It is the worst economic policy fuckup in democratically run economies since the 1930s - and unlike the Great Depression was entirely self-inflicted!. Despite much advice to the contrary from economists.
One of the reasons our recovery from the great recession wasn't quicker, and the world recovery too, is that the Eurozone has sat and stagnated for 8 years, doing nothing substantial to fix its problems.
>30% smaller than it was in 2008
Perhaps because something rather dramatic happened then?
We keep forgetting that we had a major financial catastrophe back then - comparable in many respects with the Great Depression of the 30s. That produced some unfortunate political developments, too.
strum,
I don't forget the Great Depression. France suffered more than Britain because they stayed on the gold standard until it caused a massive crisis that brought down the government - whereas we came off. In this case, the Euro is the gold standard. It's just you can't leave it without destroying your economy. And staying destroys your economy. It needs to be fixed with common debt / common umemployment insurance / cash transfers, working banking union, the ECB doing its fucking job as lender of last resort and enforcement of all the rules (including the excessive trade surplus rules, that Germany has broken for the last 7 years).
But Greece has suffered a deeper and longer depression than either Germany or the USA did. We're supposed to have learnt from history. Obviously the original reason was Greek corruption and msigovernment. But the Troika prediction for the 2012 bailout was a recession costing Greece 8% of GDP in year one and 3% in year two. And government spending cuts of 25%. So that's already vicious levels of contraction and the largest government cuts in peacetime history. Of any democracy.
Actually the economy shrank 13% and 8% the second year! So what did the Troika do, having fucked up so egregiously? They called for more cuts in the third year, and the fourth and the fifth and still are!
They're not going to get their money back. They're just torturing the Greek electorate until either their governmental system completely collapses or they voluntarily leave the Euro. At which point they'll have to default.
Oh and to mention the past again. In 1950 Greece wrote off Germany's debts. Not many years after the Germans had killed 5% of their population, bankrupted them, and in leaving their country gifted it a vicious civil war. This was done becuase it was seen as wrong to cripple Germany with decades of unpayable debt after the 1920s experience. How generous Germany have been in return...
As someone who is about to be pressganged as negotiating fodder in the upcoming May's "Great British Fuck Off" vs EU bloody foreigners grudge match (I live in Spain), I'm going to stick my oar in here.
What May's mayhem brigade write or say is irrelevant from their viewpoint and is done only to cover what the history books write. The keypoint is that whatever is agreed is of no consequence because what the Tories want is this damp and wet Singapore scenario.
This will all end in tears because the EU is run by about a billion civil servants who do jack until all the paperwork is in order. Drives you nuts, but taking a step back from them will only increase the paperwork and cost.
The other key point no one seems to realise is that even with zero tarrifs, there is a hell of a difference between selling widgets to the EU and Merc (for example) selling a luxury brand to the UK. Businesses need to buy at a price point, consumers want to buy come whatever. This leaves Perkins Widgets of Scunthorpe up shit creek whereas Merc will just carry on as normal.
Also no one buys anything in the EU (business or consumers) unless it is stamped, has the correct documentation and legal approvals (administred by the billion civil servants). It's a nightmare, but it's the only game in town if you want to deal here.
To give you an idea of the difference, why do you think all those African blokes were camped at Calais and trying to get into the "UK?" Well, it wasn't for the good food and welcomming neighbours, it was because you can't even join a gym in the EU without your identity number and without the correct paperwork you cannot rent someplace, buy a car, in fact pretty much anything except buy food.
This is what May's madmen are about to put you through, all to appeal to the readers of the Daily Zennerfoab, dribbling in their soup, whilst holding tight their walking sticks incase there are any loose Romanians in the vicinity.
rant over
Pip pip!
The White Paper was meant to be shallow and lacking detail. It's a bit like the Brexit Bill only being 2 clauses long. This is an exercise in doing what they must to get Article 50 agreed by Parliament, not in outlining the government's negotiating position.
Right or wrong, May has publicly said she's going to share as little detail as possible, and that's what she's doing. If there was stronger opposition she might be forced to reveal more. Or equally, she might deliberately lose in Parliament, in order to trigger a general election on the subject, in order to give her a stronger mandate.
The last polling I saw suggested that although if the referendum was held again it would give the same result (few people have changed their minds on leave/stay), Only 26% of voters actually want another referendum and nearly 70% of the electorate think we should leave the EU due to the referendum result. So unless something goes catastrophically wrong, I'd say May will have the ability to get most of what she wants through Parliament.
A slightly more intelligent set of comments here than say on the BBC, but still many living in Cloud Cuckoo land.
Some observations:
1) The EU won't CHOOSE to impose tariffs. It will HAVE to due the WTO most favoured nation rule. Given that ANY trade agreement requires some kind of body to adjudicate on it, and given that the UK has insisted that the EC J will NOT have jurisdiction, we're talking about not only agreeing a deal, but also an enforcement mechanism, requiring unanimous approval from every EU region/nation, and all within 2 years. NOT A CHANCE!
2) If tariffs exist, then on some products it will affect UK shoppers, although on IMPORTS, the money will go into the UK govt kitty, so it's not all bad news. The PROBLEM though is that our exports will be that much less competitive. We export few things to Europe that do not have competing products. We also need to import materials for most things that we then export, so we're combining having sales margins cut by the tariffs, with higher production costs. A weaker pound helps a little, but overall, our exporters will be far less competitive within the EU. The overall effect of this is to markedly increase our Trade Deficit with the EU.
3) The chief Brexit Economist stated that Brexit would result in the death of UK manufacturing. He didn't seem to think this was entirely a bad thing - I couldn't work out HOW he came to this conclusion. Suffice to say that I don't think many of those blue-collar workers who voted for Brexit, read this small print. It's a fact of course that UK manufacturing has been in steady decline since the invention of the shipping container. It's far cheaper to make stuff in countries with a far lower cost of living, and few environmental regulations. Brexit has merely sped things up. I'm sure those made redundant will find solace knowing this.
4) Finally, to all those dicks, whining about "the will of the people", and politicians exist to serve. NO THEY DON'T. They are there to represent the best interests of the people and that SHOULD mean doing things that their voters don't agree with if their voters are being particularly stupid. If politicians were meant to merely represent the wishes of the people, then we could dispense with them all together and have everything decided by polls. And if you think that that sounds like a good idea, how about we take the same approach next time you are in a hospital eh and have your treatment decided by asking 100 random unqualified people what they think?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
