Johnson tends to lie because he's never on top of his brief, can't shut up and can't be bothered to put in any work. Gove is far worse as he is studied in the poison he pours in the ear.
Re: The Brexit Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:19 pm
by I like neeps
Johnson wears a fish tie to troll the EU despite caving in fish. This country is utterly unserious.
Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 10:28 am
Michael Gove seem to be making the argument that making it difficult to trade with Europe means our companies are better prepared to trade with the rest of the world.
I saw that haha. He also said that now we're out of the EU we can finally tackle inequality. Which is to my point above. Facts don't matter.
But they are only going to be "bumpy moments"
There will be "bumpy moments" for UK businesses and travellers as they get to grips with new EU rules, says government minister Michael Gove.
If anyone has studied the document could they please let me know which bits I should be very angry about Thanks in advance
That nice Mr Gove has a record as long as his arm for telling huge porkie pies and the blonde slug is even worse
This is a good thread. Essentially there's not much to be happy about. We control our laws but as Brexiteer Mr Gove indirectly said on Radio 4 there's not really anywhere to go on that.
It's a bad deal, the EU got what they wanted. The text is very close to the EU's opening position.
I saw that haha. He also said that now we're out of the EU we can finally tackle inequality. Which is to my point above. Facts don't matter.
But they are only going to be "bumpy moments"
There will be "bumpy moments" for UK businesses and travellers as they get to grips with new EU rules, says government minister Michael Gove.
If anyone has studied the document could they please let me know which bits I should be very angry about Thanks in advance
That nice Mr Gove has a record as long as his arm for telling huge porkie pies and the blonde slug is even worse
This is a good thread. Essentially there's not much to be happy about. We control our laws but as Brexiteer Mr Gove indirectly said on Radio 4 there's not really anywhere to go on that.
It's a bad deal, the EU got what they wanted. The text is very close to the EU's opening position.
Thanks. That's quite a sobering read. Particularly as the arseholes and their press cheerleaders are telling us that it is a huge victory
The bottom line is that, as soon as you look at this deal through the lens of the rights it provides, it's very thin. It falls even below the standard of recent EU FTAs.
This is really disappointing to see, but I fear it is a reflection of the politics of this negotiation.
Very thin gruel indeed
Re: The Brexit Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2020 4:57 pm
by Sandstorm
The Shit Deal I called it weeks ago.
Re: The Brexit Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2020 6:24 pm
by fishfoodie
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 4:57 pm
The Shit Deal I called it weeks ago.
and as we've all said, the fish thing was bullshit; the details of the quotas in the deal show that; the UK gains fractionally, & nothing like the promised numbers. Meanwhile services; you know, 80% of the UK economy, get nothing ......
The only purpose for the pretense of fish being a red line, was to provide a reason for not signing off on the deal until the last moment, & when Parliament wasn't in session, so they could get the spin out there before any MPs got to read the text, & ask questions. The chaos in Dover probably provided a stimulus to sign off a couple of days early, rather than waiting till the 28th, which would have been the last realistic date.
Now the bumblecunt has delivered this deal, he can resign in the Spring, & blame the consequences on his successor.
Re: The Brexit Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2020 6:31 pm
by I like neeps
DUP voting against the deal. Not that it matters because the deal will pass. Wonder how many Conservative and Unionist MPs will be happy with that Irish sea border.
Re: The Brexit Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:07 pm
by Ymx
Effects of various industries aside, in pure monetary terms what is the net difference in “in v out” in this trade agreement form? (What’s the number on the bus?)
Re: The Brexit Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:14 pm
by fishfoodie
Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:07 pm
Effects of various industries aside, in pure monetary terms what is the net difference in “in v out” in this trade agreement form? (What’s the number on the bus?)
I'd say that'll take years to determine; there a lot of imponderables.
The UK customs systems aren't even working yet; so how does a business calculate how much all those forms will cost to fill ?
Right now the UK has a fraction of the haulier permits they wanted; so I doubt businesses know exactly how much it will cost to get their good to the continent ?
UK professionals don't now have their qualifications recognized in the EU, so how much of their business in the EU will now disappear, or will have to be transferred to EU locations, & performed by EU nationals ?
Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:07 pm
Effects of various industries aside, in pure monetary terms what is the net difference in “in v out” in this trade agreement form? (What’s the number on the bus?)
I'd say that'll take years to determine; there a lot of imponderables.
The UK customs systems aren't even working yet; so how does a business calculate how much all those forms will cost to fill ?
Right now the UK has a fraction of the haulier permits they wanted; so I doubt businesses know exactly how much it will cost to get their good to the continent ?
UK professionals don't now have their qualifications recognized in the EU, so how much of their business in the EU will now disappear, or will have to be transferred to EU locations, & performed by EU nationals ?
I think most of those are what I was meaning as industry costs.
So those aside, and just for govt cashflow is it purely that we cease paying the EU membership (how much net)? Or are there somehow monetary arrangements ongoingly? Transition periods? And what is the divorce bill?
Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:07 pm
Effects of various industries aside, in pure monetary terms what is the net difference in “in v out” in this trade agreement form? (What’s the number on the bus?)
I'd say that'll take years to determine; there a lot of imponderables.
The UK customs systems aren't even working yet; so how does a business calculate how much all those forms will cost to fill ?
Right now the UK has a fraction of the haulier permits they wanted; so I doubt businesses know exactly how much it will cost to get their good to the continent ?
UK professionals don't now have their qualifications recognized in the EU, so how much of their business in the EU will now disappear, or will have to be transferred to EU locations, & performed by EU nationals ?
I think most of those are what I was meaning as industry costs.
So those aside, is it purely that we cease paying the EU membership (how much net)? Or are there somehow monetary arrangements ongoingly? Transition periods? And what is the divorce bill?
I think the divorce bill ended up at about £40bn to be paid between now and about 2060. Sod all in the grand scheme of things.
Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:07 pm
Effects of various industries aside, in pure monetary terms what is the net difference in “in v out” in this trade agreement form? (What’s the number on the bus?)
I'd say that'll take years to determine; there a lot of imponderables.
The UK customs systems aren't even working yet; so how does a business calculate how much all those forms will cost to fill ?
Right now the UK has a fraction of the haulier permits they wanted; so I doubt businesses know exactly how much it will cost to get their good to the continent ?
UK professionals don't now have their qualifications recognized in the EU, so how much of their business in the EU will now disappear, or will have to be transferred to EU locations, & performed by EU nationals ?
I think most of those are what I was meaning as industry costs.
So those aside, and just for govt cashflow is it purely that we cease paying the EU membership (how much net)? Or are there somehow monetary arrangements ongoingly? Transition periods? And what is the divorce bill?
Yeah but the Industry costs will ultimately become the consumers costs, unless the industry operates with enough margin that it's prepared to eat the difference.
Re: The Brexit Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:27 pm
by Ymx
Oh yes absolutely, not dismissing those at all.
But I was just asking about this component and the numbers, and timelines if anyone knows them.
I see the divorce bill part from above post is £40m, thanks.
Re: The Brexit Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:49 pm
by GogLais
Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:27 pm
Oh yes absolutely, not dismissing those at all.
But I was just asking about this component and the numbers, and timelines if anyone knows them.
I see the divorce bill part from above post is £40m, thanks.
Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:27 pm
Oh yes absolutely, not dismissing those at all.
But I was just asking about this component and the numbers, and timelines if anyone knows them.
I see the divorce bill part from above post is £40m, thanks.
Billion!
Careful with the £40B. That was what was initially for the Mar19 exit, and included the full membership fees for the Dec20 transition period end, approx £18B or so. It also included amounts for programmes the UK would continue to participate in for the next EU budget period, eg Horizon and Copernicus, which Bojo later scrapped from Withdrawal Agreement. (Horizkn later re-engaged on)
The vast majority of other liabilities will materialize and be settled by 2026 as relevant projects funding finish. It is materially only the pensions that the UK will continue funding into after that.
There were also other costs not factored into the quoted £40B settlement, eg the time/value lost on Britain's paid capitalisation of the EIB, circa £3B in 2016, which will only be paid back over several decades.
As far as I know the vast majority of all these obligations and assets are done in Euros, so UK is at significant FX exposure if the £ deteriorates further. The £40B analysis was done at a time when the £ was like 1.22 to the EUR if I recall, so can already tack on 5-10% for the £18B annual fees.
Re: The Brexit Thread
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2020 5:07 pm
by Lobby
It seems the fishing numbers won’t the only thing that was out of date in the Brexit agreement:
References to decades-old computer software are included in the new Brexit agreement, including a description of Netscape Communicator and Mozilla Mail as being "modern" services.
Experts believe officials must have copied and pasted chunks of text from old legislation into the document.
The references are on page 921 of the trade deal, in a section on encryption technology. It also recommends using systems that are now vulnerable to cyber-attacks.
The text cites "modern e-mail software packages including Outlook, Mozilla Mail as well as Netscape Communicator 4.x."
Lobby wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 5:07 pm
It seems the fishing numbers won’t the only thing that was out of date in the Brexit agreement:
References to decades-old computer software are included in the new Brexit agreement, including a description of Netscape Communicator and Mozilla Mail as being "modern" services.
Experts believe officials must have copied and pasted chunks of text from old legislation into the document.
The references are on page 921 of the trade deal, in a section on encryption technology. It also recommends using systems that are now vulnerable to cyber-attacks.
The text cites "modern e-mail software packages including Outlook, Mozilla Mail as well as Netscape Communicator 4.x."
The UK is, therefore, open to sanction for divergences between its laws and EU laws when a bigger difference within the EU between member state laws would not be sufficient to allow EU action to protect its own internal market.
This is the world we are now in.
It is one in which the UK might have sovereignty but actually less autonomy (arguably in some circumstances less than member states).
The UK is, therefore, open to sanction for divergences between its laws and EU laws when a bigger difference within the EU between member state laws would not be sufficient to allow EU action to protect its own internal market.
This is the world we are now in.
It is one in which the UK might have sovereignty but actually less autonomy (arguably in some circumstances less than member states).
The UK is, therefore, open to sanction for divergences between its laws and EU laws when a bigger difference within the EU between member state laws would not be sufficient to allow EU action to protect its own internal market.
This is the world we are now in.
It is one in which the UK might have sovereignty but actually less autonomy (arguably in some circumstances less than member states).
If you leave the club, you’re outside in the cold looking in at the other nations enjoying roast dinner.
Remainders told ‘em this repeatedly.
And as you say it's not just the club that can now decide to retaliate if they think you're trying to gain an advantage.
Lets say the scenario someone suggested earlier came to pass; & the Government decided to effectively nationalize & subsidize an aircraft manufacturer, to keep some of those jobs afloat. It wouldn't just be a case of the EU retaliating, with tariffs; it would also be anyone else who sees an opportunity to improve the position of their native aircraft industries, against a state subsidized competitor.
If the UK was in the EU; then other Nations might pause, & consider the consequences, because they wouldn't want to risk tariffs on something else, important, that they export to the EU, & didn't want to get into an escalating series of tariffs.
If you leave the club, you’re outside in the cold looking in at the other nations enjoying roast dinner.
Remainders told ‘em this repeatedly.
And as you say it's not just the club that can now decide to retaliate if they think you're trying to gain an advantage.
Lets say the scenario someone suggested earlier came to pass; & the Government decided to effectively nationalize & subsidize an aircraft manufacturer, to keep some of those jobs afloat. It wouldn't just be a case of the EU retaliating, with tariffs; it would also be anyone else who sees an opportunity to improve the position of their native aircraft industries, against a state subsidized competitor.
If the UK was in the EU; then other Nations might pause, & consider the consequences, because they wouldn't want to risk tariffs on something else, important, that they export to the EU, & didn't want to get into an escalating series of tariffs.
Yeah, but that would just mean we would need to subsidise/nationalise things internal to us.
Our energy maybe, broadband, water, railway etc.
That wouldn’t impact trade (at least not in a demonstrable way to the arbitration panel) and therefore wouldn’t trigger sanctions.
I think the torries will potentially “invest” rather than subsidise in companies trading externally, for example, that satellite firm they bought a controlling share in last year.
Cheer up guys; any change = opportunity; let’s grab it.
Re: The Brexit Thread
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 12:02 am
by Sandstorm
The only industry UK does better than anyone else is banking and you can bet the farm the EU is looking to end that pronto. 33% of UK taxes come from that golden goose and it’s going to drop. A lot.
If you leave the club, you’re outside in the cold looking in at the other nations enjoying roast dinner.
Remainders told ‘em this repeatedly.
And as you say it's not just the club that can now decide to retaliate if they think you're trying to gain an advantage.
Lets say the scenario someone suggested earlier came to pass; & the Government decided to effectively nationalize & subsidize an aircraft manufacturer, to keep some of those jobs afloat. It wouldn't just be a case of the EU retaliating, with tariffs; it would also be anyone else who sees an opportunity to improve the position of their native aircraft industries, against a state subsidized competitor.
If the UK was in the EU; then other Nations might pause, & consider the consequences, because they wouldn't want to risk tariffs on something else, important, that they export to the EU, & didn't want to get into an escalating series of tariffs.
Yeah, but that would just mean we would need to subsidise/nationalise things internal to us.
Our energy maybe, broadband, water, railway etc.
That wouldn’t impact trade (at least not in a demonstrable way to the arbitration panel) and therefore wouldn’t trigger sanctions.
I think the torries will potentially “invest” rather than subsidise in companies trading externally, for example, that satellite firm they bought a controlling share in last year.
Cheer up guys; any change = opportunity; let’s grab it.
There's no such thing as, 'internal', anymore.
Look at your own list; Energy; the UK still wants to be part of the EU Energy market, & export & import energy when it suits the UK. Doesn't EDF have a significant position in the UK energy market ?
Railway; where do the railways buy their rolling stock from ?; the market for locos is global; if you decide to buy them from a national manufacturer, regardless of their competition; then you are putting your fingers on the the scales of competition, & you can expect the competition to be pissed.
Broadband; as a service you have a number of providers who are International, & if someone like BT is also selling broadband in the EU, they could be using their, unfair, monopoly position in the UK to subsidize their operations in the EU.
Companies have spent the last 40 odd years creating economies of scale, & trying to build a business that spawned across the whole EU, so they could get the best of all those Nations; & now the UK is expecting to stand up on January 1st, with no legacy of those decisions .... not going to happen !
I think the torries will potentially “invest” rather than subsidise in companies trading externally, for example, that satellite firm they bought a controlling share in last year.
Cheer up guys; any change = opportunity; let’s grab it.
Are invest and bought synonymous with pissed up the wall? And where is the money for investment going to come from, or put another way are you Corbyn?
And as you say it's not just the club that can now decide to retaliate if they think you're trying to gain an advantage.
Lets say the scenario someone suggested earlier came to pass; & the Government decided to effectively nationalize & subsidize an aircraft manufacturer, to keep some of those jobs afloat. It wouldn't just be a case of the EU retaliating, with tariffs; it would also be anyone else who sees an opportunity to improve the position of their native aircraft industries, against a state subsidized competitor.
If the UK was in the EU; then other Nations might pause, & consider the consequences, because they wouldn't want to risk tariffs on something else, important, that they export to the EU, & didn't want to get into an escalating series of tariffs.
Yeah, but that would just mean we would need to subsidise/nationalise things internal to us.
Our energy maybe, broadband, water, railway etc.
That wouldn’t impact trade (at least not in a demonstrable way to the arbitration panel) and therefore wouldn’t trigger sanctions.
I think the torries will potentially “invest” rather than subsidise in companies trading externally, for example, that satellite firm they bought a controlling share in last year.
Cheer up guys; any change = opportunity; let’s grab it.
There's no such thing as, 'internal', anymore.
Look at your own list; Energy; the UK still wants to be part of the EU Energy market, & export & import energy when it suits the UK. Doesn't EDF have a significant position in the UK energy market ?
Railway; where do the railways buy their rolling stock from ?; the market for locos is global; if you decide to buy them from a national manufacturer, regardless of their competition; then you are putting your fingers on the the scales of competition, & you can expect the competition to be pissed.
Broadband; as a service you have a number of providers who are International, & if someone like BT is also selling broadband in the EU, they could be using their, unfair, monopoly position in the UK to subsidize their operations in the EU.
Companies have spent the last 40 odd years creating economies of scale, & trying to build a business that spawned across the whole EU, so they could get the best of all those Nations; & now the UK is expecting to stand up on January 1st, with no legacy of those decisions .... not going to happen !
We’ll see.
Two points - firstly, for us to incur tariffs, there has to be a material impact on trade. Demonstrated and proven to the arbitration panel. Procurement laws and practices can be done in a way that has reasonable terms for keeping things local to reduce carbon blah, blah,blah. So rolling stock can feasibly be procured locally without breaching the treaty. Repeated fir turbines or nuclear reactors etc.
Secondly, I’m not saying we have to nationalise the like of energy or broadband in the traditional sense. We could do it using the investment strategy used on that satellite firm I mentioned. Or introduce greater innovation tax breaks etc.
There are lots of levers (excuse the pun) that can be explored and pulled more quickly as we don’t have to pass everything through the eu.
We’re at the beginning of a global energy, data and tech revolution. I’m just saying, I find dynamism in this phase of a development cycle a good thing. Being out of the eu increases dynamism for me.
I think the torries will potentially “invest” rather than subsidise in companies trading externally, for example, that satellite firm they bought a controlling share in last year.
Cheer up guys; any change = opportunity; let’s grab it.
Are invest and bought synonymous with pissed up the wall? And where is the money for investment going to come from, or put another way are you Corbyn?
Ha! I got accused of being a bimbo multi the other day, so to be compared tonCorbyn now has just made me chuckle.
I’m not an economist (suspect many of you would say that’s bloody obvious due to my utter cluelessness) but there are always investors looking to invest. For government, it could be in the firm of tax breaks to encourage institutional investment or proper government investment in exchange for shares.
Yes, I suspect borrowing would be involved, but to be honest, I’m not thinking of the practicalities. My point was more on the principle at this stage - i.e we can invest/nationalise, in a ways that won’t necessarily cause treaty problems. If I’m right, then I suspect we’ll find money from somewhere.
Re: The Brexit Thread
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:25 am
by eldanielfire
C69 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 4:21 pm
Feck you, you European bastards and stick your Super state up your star flagged arse.
Yeah, but that would just mean we would need to subsidise/nationalise things internal to us.
Our energy maybe, broadband, water, railway etc.
That wouldn’t impact trade (at least not in a demonstrable way to the arbitration panel) and therefore wouldn’t trigger sanctions.
I think the torries will potentially “invest” rather than subsidise in companies trading externally, for example, that satellite firm they bought a controlling share in last year.
Cheer up guys; any change = opportunity; let’s grab it.
There's no such thing as, 'internal', anymore.
Look at your own list; Energy; the UK still wants to be part of the EU Energy market, & export & import energy when it suits the UK. Doesn't EDF have a significant position in the UK energy market ?
Railway; where do the railways buy their rolling stock from ?; the market for locos is global; if you decide to buy them from a national manufacturer, regardless of their competition; then you are putting your fingers on the the scales of competition, & you can expect the competition to be pissed.
Broadband; as a service you have a number of providers who are International, & if someone like BT is also selling broadband in the EU, they could be using their, unfair, monopoly position in the UK to subsidize their operations in the EU.
Companies have spent the last 40 odd years creating economies of scale, & trying to build a business that spawned across the whole EU, so they could get the best of all those Nations; & now the UK is expecting to stand up on January 1st, with no legacy of those decisions .... not going to happen !
We’ll see.
Two points - firstly, for us to incur tariffs, there has to be a material impact on trade. Demonstrated and proven to the arbitration panel. Procurement laws and practices can be done in a way that has reasonable terms for keeping things local to reduce carbon blah, blah,blah. So rolling stock can feasibly be procured locally without breaching the treaty. Repeated fir turbines or nuclear reactors etc.
Secondly, I’m not saying we have to nationalise the like of energy or broadband in the traditional sense. We could do it using the investment strategy used on that satellite firm I mentioned. Or introduce greater innovation tax breaks etc.
There are lots of levers (excuse the pun) that can be explored and pulled more quickly as we don’t have to pass everything through the eu.
We’re at the beginning of a global energy, data and tech revolution. I’m just saying, I find dynamism in this phase of a development cycle a good thing. Being out of the eu increases dynamism for me.
The UK doesn't produce enough electricity to power itself and has to import from France and the Netherlands. If we're not in the energy market, the lights go out.
I think the torries will potentially “invest” rather than subsidise in companies trading externally, for example, that satellite firm they bought a controlling share in last year.
Cheer up guys; any change = opportunity; let’s grab it.
Are invest and bought synonymous with pissed up the wall? And where is the money for investment going to come from, or put another way are you Corbyn?
Ha! I got accused of being a bimbo multi the other day, so to be compared tonCorbyn now has just made me chuckle.
I’m not an economist (suspect many of you would say that’s bloody obvious due to my utter cluelessness) but there are always investors looking to invest. For government, it could be in the firm of tax breaks to encourage institutional investment or proper government investment in exchange for shares.
Yes, I suspect borrowing would be involved, but to be honest, I’m not thinking of the practicalities. My point was more on the principle at this stage - i.e we can invest/nationalise, in a ways that won’t necessarily cause treaty problems. If I’m right, then I suspect we’ll find money from somewhere.
Several of the current cabinet are doing good impressions of Corbyn, that combination of splurging money they don't have allied to incompetence, so he's left a strong legacy. And of course we can invest in other ways but we could have done that whilst in the EU on the off chance anyone thinks infrastructure, education and the like are useful to business, clearly as a country we don't think they're especially useful, we try to do just enough to get by - but whatever that's not really something that Brexit changes
We might though still face trade problems, yes people might not technically be able to respond with tariffs without incurring retaliation, but that still leaves the wide world of non tariff barriers which are much harder to address. And we are now on the outside looking in, not on the inside being a major player in what those non tariff barriers are.
If you leave the club, you’re outside in the cold looking in at the other nations enjoying roast dinner.
Remainders told ‘em this repeatedly.
And as you say it's not just the club that can now decide to retaliate if they think you're trying to gain an advantage.
Lets say the scenario someone suggested earlier came to pass; & the Government decided to effectively nationalize & subsidize an aircraft manufacturer, to keep some of those jobs afloat. It wouldn't just be a case of the EU retaliating, with tariffs; it would also be anyone else who sees an opportunity to improve the position of their native aircraft industries, against a state subsidized competitor.
If the UK was in the EU; then other Nations might pause, & consider the consequences, because they wouldn't want to risk tariffs on something else, important, that they export to the EU, & didn't want to get into an escalating series of tariffs.
Yeah, but that would just mean we would need to subsidise/nationalise things internal to us.
Our energy maybe, broadband, water, railway etc.
That wouldn’t impact trade (at least not in a demonstrable way to the arbitration panel) and therefore wouldn’t trigger sanctions.
I think the torries will potentially “invest” rather than subsidise in companies trading externally, for example, that satellite firm they bought a controlling share in last year.
Cheer up guys; any change = opportunity; let’s grab it.
As Sandstorm says we can't do that. In any case all our rollover trade deals and even WTO terms also have strict state aid (investment) clauses.
The problem is this change = less opportunity. Right now we've lost numerous concrete rights and actual economic opportunity all for the tangible benefit of "sovereignty" which hasn't provided us anything. And if you listen to Brexit architect Michael Gove isn't going to provide us with anything we couldn't already have done anyway.
Here's a good wee explainer of why this deal is considerably worse than EU membership. From a Brexiteer no less:
Re: The Brexit Thread
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 9:51 am
by Sandstorm
Not the first farmer who voted for Brexit and now is fucked.
Re: The Brexit Thread
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 9:51 am
by ScarfaceClaw
That same brexiter was in UKIP pro-brexit interviews spouting off about the unicorns, the sunny lands and presumably less foreigners. It’s the people who work for him that I’m more sorry for. He was one of those selling brexit to people. He can’t claim ignorance now.
Re: The Brexit Thread
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 10:00 am
by SaintK
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 9:51 am
Not the first farmer who voted for Brexit and now is fucked.
Look at your own list; Energy; the UK still wants to be part of the EU Energy market, & export & import energy when it suits the UK. Doesn't EDF have a significant position in the UK energy market ?
Railway; where do the railways buy their rolling stock from ?; the market for locos is global; if you decide to buy them from a national manufacturer, regardless of their competition; then you are putting your fingers on the the scales of competition, & you can expect the competition to be pissed.
Broadband; as a service you have a number of providers who are International, & if someone like BT is also selling broadband in the EU, they could be using their, unfair, monopoly position in the UK to subsidize their operations in the EU.
Companies have spent the last 40 odd years creating economies of scale, & trying to build a business that spawned across the whole EU, so they could get the best of all those Nations; & now the UK is expecting to stand up on January 1st, with no legacy of those decisions .... not going to happen !
We’ll see.
Two points - firstly, for us to incur tariffs, there has to be a material impact on trade. Demonstrated and proven to the arbitration panel. Procurement laws and practices can be done in a way that has reasonable terms for keeping things local to reduce carbon blah, blah,blah. So rolling stock can feasibly be procured locally without breaching the treaty. Repeated fir turbines or nuclear reactors etc.
Secondly, I’m not saying we have to nationalise the like of energy or broadband in the traditional sense. We could do it using the investment strategy used on that satellite firm I mentioned. Or introduce greater innovation tax breaks etc.
There are lots of levers (excuse the pun) that can be explored and pulled more quickly as we don’t have to pass everything through the eu.
We’re at the beginning of a global energy, data and tech revolution. I’m just saying, I find dynamism in this phase of a development cycle a good thing. Being out of the eu increases dynamism for me.
The UK doesn't produce enough electricity to power itself and has to import from France and the Netherlands. If we're not in the energy market, the lights go out.
And as you say it's not just the club that can now decide to retaliate if they think you're trying to gain an advantage.
Lets say the scenario someone suggested earlier came to pass; & the Government decided to effectively nationalize & subsidize an aircraft manufacturer, to keep some of those jobs afloat. It wouldn't just be a case of the EU retaliating, with tariffs; it would also be anyone else who sees an opportunity to improve the position of their native aircraft industries, against a state subsidized competitor.
If the UK was in the EU; then other Nations might pause, & consider the consequences, because they wouldn't want to risk tariffs on something else, important, that they export to the EU, & didn't want to get into an escalating series of tariffs.
Yeah, but that would just mean we would need to subsidise/nationalise things internal to us.
Our energy maybe, broadband, water, railway etc.
That wouldn’t impact trade (at least not in a demonstrable way to the arbitration panel) and therefore wouldn’t trigger sanctions.
I think the torries will potentially “invest” rather than subsidise in companies trading externally, for example, that satellite firm they bought a controlling share in last year.
Cheer up guys; any change = opportunity; let’s grab it.
As Sandstorm says we can't do that. In any case all our rollover trade deals and even WTO terms also have strict state aid (investment) clauses.
The problem is this change = less opportunity. Right now we've lost numerous concrete rights and actual economic opportunity all for the tangible benefit of "sovereignty" which hasn't provided us anything. And if you listen to Brexit architect Michael Gove isn't going to provide us with anything we couldn't already have done anyway.
Here's a good wee explainer of why this deal is considerably worse than EU membership. From a Brexiteer no less:
I completely get it - I’m sure there are plenty of businesses in the same situation. They’ll need to innovate or fold.
I know I’m coming across as being a bit simplistic here, and I know in the short term - even into the medium term, things will be tough. But I do also believe that necessity is the mother of invention and change does equal opportunity.
That guy will need to do things differently to survive. It may even be a better business for it. Or he’ll find a new market, or he’ll use electric eels to solve the energy crisis
The critical thing I’m trying to get across is; what is the point of crying over spilt milk? It’s done. The one thing we all agree on is that the old deal we had will never be on the table ever again.
Moaning about it all, only ever leads to more pain, not less.
Better to change the mindset, see the myriad opportunities out there and move forward.
