Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 02-28-2019, 12:58 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Sorry, I didn’t think I needed to detail it out. Your request was:



Paraphrasing, the Leave campaign claimed they would successfully lead the UK out of the EU. They won the referendum. Parliament passed the Withdrawal Act. Those are both successes for the Leave campaign. The UK hasn’t left the EU yet, but it’s arguably likely to happen and inarguably possible. So that claim has survived and is deliverable.
Weak. They're little more than requirements of the act of leaving the EU. None of the advantages they claimed would be waiting for us have, or will, materialise.



Quote:
Other deliverable claims are that, post-Brexit, the UK will stop paying a membership fee to the EU, and the UK will be less subject to EU bureaucracy.

In so doing we'll be outright and become less efficient by having to duplicate all that EU bureaucracy. It's a false economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Because two of the planks in the Leave platform were based on efficiency. The UK sends money to the EU, and a portion of that money is allocated to EU sponsored projects in the UK. UK projects hoping to receive grants apply to both the relevant UK office and EU office. Making a single application would be more efficient, and UK evaluators should be better at assessing UK based grant requests than EU evaluators.



The EU as an entity is not known for cost efficiency. The movement of the EU parliament between Brussels and Strasbourg is a glaring inefficiency. Brexit would mean that the UK would no longer be paying for such EU cost inefficiencies.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/e...and-strasbourg



The contra to these arguments is that several EU agencies that deliver services across the EU provide better and more cost efficient services than 27 or 28 individual country-based agencies could. I acknowledge that buying into services from these agencies is a win-win scenario that as a whole outweighs the EU inefficiencies.

The EU's reputation for inefficiency is highly overblown. It is slow, perhaps, but what it tends to do is comprehensive; its trade deals tend to be more detailed, and it conducts more of them simultaneously, compared to, say the US. Regulations may take years, but in doing it resolves disputes between 28 Member States and bends over backwards to respect regional peculiarities. Yes, the Strasbourg/Luxembourg migration of the Parliament is fucking stupid, but it's a testament to the utter hollowness of claims of the EU being some superstate empire.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #152  
Old 02-28-2019, 06:42 AM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners
What I havenít seen is competent detailed analysis that 634,751 people had their minds changed from Remain to Leave because the Leave side overspent on advertising. Care to provide that analysis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
You want data on how many people in the UK still support Brexit?

If only there some sort of process for getting that sort of information...
I'm asking how many referendum voters who were predisposed to vote Remain changed their minds during the last 10-15% of the referendum campaign and voted Leave based on Leave advertising. Feel free to do a detailed analysis and provide an estimate. Please show your work.
  #153  
Old 02-28-2019, 06:52 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Because two of the planks in the Leave platform were based on efficiency. The UK sends money to the EU, and a portion of that money is allocated to EU sponsored projects in the UK. UK projects hoping to receive grants apply to both the relevant UK office and EU office. Making a single application would be more efficient, and UK evaluators should be better at assessing UK based grant requests than EU evaluators.
Those are different grants. Part of the money involved has at one point been in a single bag, but it has then been distributed to different ones (some managed at the higher level, some locally); also, some of the local grants are from money which never traveled to Brussels.

Might as well complain about why I can't just use my mother's CC's to pay for my spending. After all, her pension comes from my taxes.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 02-28-2019 at 06:54 AM.
  #154  
Old 02-28-2019, 09:13 AM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Those are different grants. Part of the money involved has at one point been in a single bag, but it has then been distributed to different ones (some managed at the higher level, some locally); also, some of the local grants are from money which never traveled to Brussels.

Might as well complain about why I can't just use my mother's CC's to pay for my spending. After all, her pension comes from my taxes.
Quote:
Those are different grants.
Agreed. Here's a better analogy.

System 1. I have 10 pounds. You want me to donate 1 pound to you. You ask me nicely. I decide whether or not to give you that pound.

System 2. I have 10 pounds I give 5 pounds to your mother. She keeps 1 pound as an administrative fee. You ask each of us nicely for 1 pound. We each decide if we want to give you 1 pound, and then try to coordinate between us that we both haven't given you a pound.

I prefer System 1, thanks.
  #155  
Old 02-28-2019, 09:17 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,212
Nope.

System 1. I have 10 pounds. You want me to donate 1 pound to you. Since I have grants for "buying food" and you're buying food, you ask me for a 1 pound grant. I decide whether to give you that pound or not.


System 2. I have 10 pounds. I give 5 pounds to your mother. You would like to get some pounds to buy food for your kids. Since I have grants for "buying food" and you're buying food, you ask me for a 1 pound grant, which I grant or not. Your mother happens to have different grants, for feeding her grandchildren. Since you're feeding her grandchildren, you ask her for 1 pound, which she grants or not. The two pounds are given for different reasons even though they involve the same meal: you can get both.
  #156  
Old 02-28-2019, 10:27 AM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
But why would the EU agree to a longer extension, a longer period of uncertainty? Their interests would seem to be better served by getting it all over with, now, in whatever manner.
Itís about money.
1) The UK has agreed a £39 billion divorce payment with the EU. That money is legislated for in the Withdrawal Agreement. Itís uncertain if it will be paid if thereís a hard exit with no withdrawal agreement.

2) Depending on the terms and length of the extension, the EU could ask the UK to continue making membership payments. (If anyone has more insight on this, please provide it. This is something Iíve heard in conversation, but not read in detail.)

3) A hard no-deal exit hurts both sides. Per-capita, the pain will be more intense for the UK. However, the pain in the EU will be concentrated in points, some of which will respond by screaming loudly. French farmers, Spanish beach resorts, and Greek islands are three groups among several that would be severely hurt by a disastrous Brexit.
  #157  
Old 02-28-2019, 10:29 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,212
You're severely overestimating the value of British tourism for Spain and severely underestimating the troubles caused if Iberia and vueling can't fly thanks to y'all.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #158  
Old 02-28-2019, 10:47 AM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Nope.

System 1. I have 10 pounds. You want me to donate 1 pound to you. Since I have grants for "buying food" and you're buying food, you ask me for a 1 pound grant. I decide whether to give you that pound or not.


System 2. I have 10 pounds. I give 5 pounds to your mother. You would like to get some pounds to buy food for your kids. Since I have grants for "buying food" and you're buying food, you ask me for a 1 pound grant, which I grant or not. Your mother happens to have different grants, for feeding her grandchildren. Since you're feeding her grandchildren, you ask her for 1 pound, which she grants or not. The two pounds are given for different reasons even though they involve the same meal: you can get both.
In both of our examples, in System 1 the entity that started with the 10 pounds retains control of the 10 pounds. The Leave argument is that this is a good thing.

Likewise, in both of our examples, in System 2 the requestor has to make two separate requests, which both have to be considered. Thatís why System 2 is less efficient.

In your example, in System 2, when I received 2 pounds, thatís a good thing me, but a bad thing for the guy down the line who missed out and got nothing. Thatís a misallocation of resources, which is also inefficient.
  #159  
Old 02-28-2019, 11:01 AM
JacobSwan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Epping, UK
Posts: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Itís about money.
1) The UK has agreed a £39 billion divorce payment with the EU. That money is legislated for in the Withdrawal Agreement. Itís uncertain if it will be paid if thereís a hard exit with no withdrawal agreement.

2) Depending on the terms and length of the extension, the EU could ask the UK to continue making membership payments. (If anyone has more insight on this, please provide it. This is something Iíve heard in conversation, but not read in detail.)

3) A hard no-deal exit hurts both sides. Per-capita, the pain will be more intense for the UK. However, the pain in the EU will be concentrated in points, some of which will respond by screaming loudly. French farmers, Spanish beach resorts, and Greek islands are three groups among several that would be severely hurt by a disastrous Brexit.
The divorce bill covers things like pensions and funding of projects we had agreed to contribute towards. If we extend for say 2 years and make membership payments during that time, the divorce bill should go down. A good negotiator would be able to argue the point such that we end up not much worse off once EU payments back to the uk are considered. It's a shame we don't appear to have any!
  #160  
Old 02-28-2019, 11:06 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
In both of our examples, in System 1 the entity that started with the 10 pounds retains control of the 10 pounds. The Leave argument is that this is a good thing.

Likewise, in both of our examples, in System 2 the requestor has to make two separate requests, which both have to be considered. Thatís why System 2 is less efficient.

In your example, in System 2, when I received 2 pounds, thatís a good thing me, but a bad thing for the guy down the line who missed out and got nothing. Thatís a misallocation of resources, which is also inefficient.
This is one of those "If I can balance my chequebook, the government can balance the budget" arguments based on gross oversimplification. It ignores several levels of complexity and excludes the rather substantial benefits the UK gains from EU membership in order to inaccurately portray the EU as a mere conduit for monetary reallocation, an argument the Leave campaign made repeatedly.

But if you prefer your simple analogy, in System 1 you can keep your ten pounds but every time you go shopping you have to pay an extra 50p to park, whereas under System 2 you got free parking. Are you still getting a better deal?
  #161  
Old 02-28-2019, 11:56 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobSwan View Post
The divorce bill covers things like pensions and funding of projects we had agreed to contribute towards. If we extend for say 2 years and make membership payments during that time, the divorce bill should go down. A good negotiator would be able to argue the point such that we end up not much worse off once EU payments back to the uk are considered. It's a shame we don't appear to have any!


If we extend our time in the EU for another two years, then we are still benefiting from it and our bill will increase, not decrease.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #162  
Old 02-28-2019, 12:37 PM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
This is one of those "If I can balance my chequebook, the government can balance the budget" arguments based on gross oversimplification. It ignores several levels of complexity and excludes the rather substantial benefits the UK gains from EU membership in order to inaccurately portray the EU as a mere conduit for monetary reallocation, an argument the Leave campaign made repeatedly.
Agreed. In the posts I've made on this analogy, and the related posts before it, I was focusing only on monetary reallocation.

Quote:
But if you prefer your simple analogy, in System 1 you can keep your ten pounds but every time you go shopping you have to pay an extra 50p to park, whereas under System 2 you got free parking. Are you still getting a better deal?
Well in my System 2, I was paying Nava's mother 1 pound, so yes.
  #163  
Old 02-28-2019, 06:59 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobSwan View Post
The divorce bill covers things like pensions and funding of projects we had agreed to contribute towards. If we extend for say 2 years and make membership payments during that time, the divorce bill should go down. A good negotiator would be able to argue the point such that we end up not much worse off once EU payments back to the uk are considered. It's a shame we don't appear to have any!
Other way round. A substantial compoment of the divorce bill is the UK making payments which it had already committed to make, up to the end of the current budgetary cycle. (The EU operates a 7-year budgetary cycle.) The EU view is that, the UK having committed to make these payments, and other parties having made there own arrangements and commitments in reliance on that, the UK is bound to make them, even if it chooses to leave the EU part-way through the cycle. The Brexiter view is, naturally, that the UK is not bound to make them. The UK government concedes that the EU view is correct.

The problem is sidestepped by a withdrawal agreement which provides for a transitional period up to the end of 2020 in which the UK continues to participate in, and benefit from, EU programmes. the end of 2020 is the end of the 7-year budget cycle for which the UK is already committed. So, transition to the end of 2020 makes it easier for Brexiters to swallow the need to pay the largest component of the divorce payment.

But if Brexit (or transition) is deferred beyond the end of 2020, then the UK will be participating in EU programmes during at least a part of the next budgetary cycle, and will obviously have to make budget contributions for that period. That;s not allowed for in the current calculations of the divorce payment. So in that scenario the UK will have to pay the currently-calcuated divorce payment, plus more, to cover participation post-2020.

Last edited by UDS; 02-28-2019 at 07:00 PM.
  #164  
Old 02-28-2019, 07:06 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
But why would the EU agree to a longer extension, a longer period of uncertainty? Their interests would seem to be better served by getting it all over with, now, in whatever manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Itís about money.
1) The UK has agreed a £39 billion divorce payment with the EU. That money is legislated for in the Withdrawal Agreement. Itís uncertain if it will be paid if thereís a hard exit with no withdrawal agreement.

2) Depending on the terms and length of the extension, the EU could ask the UK to continue making membership payments. (If anyone has more insight on this, please provide it. This is something Iíve heard in conversation, but not read in detail.)

3) A hard no-deal exit hurts both sides. Per-capita, the pain will be more intense for the UK. However, the pain in the EU will be concentrated in points, some of which will respond by screaming loudly. French farmers, Spanish beach resorts, and Greek islands are three groups among several that would be severely hurt by a disastrous Brexit.
On the EU side, it's not really about money. Or, at any rate, not about budgetary contributions by the UK. For at least some in the UK this is a huge and problematic factor, but on the EU side they see budgetary contributions or the lack of them as a consequence that will fall out from whatever decision is made about Brexit, but not as a consideration which should drive them. They'd done their sums; even if the Uk defaults on the contributions it has already committed to, that's a manageable problem, financially. The problemw would not be the financial impact, but the catatstrophic effect on UK-EU relations.

The reason the EU would grant an extension is that it wants to avoid a no-deal Brexit, but budgetary concerns are not a huge factor in that desire. The reason might be willing to would grant a long, but not a short, extension is that it might judge that a short extension chantges nothing, does not create any reasonable prospect of avoiding a no-deal Brexit, given where the UK is at right now, but that a longer extension might.
  #165  
Old 03-01-2019, 04:57 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Well in my System 2, I was paying Nava's mother 1 pound, so yes.
Depends how often you go shopping, no?
  #166  
Old 03-01-2019, 06:23 AM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Depends how often you go shopping, no?
No. At least not in my analogy. Frankly I don't know where you're going with this. What are you analogising your parking fees to, that will be a set charge for the EU, but a recurring charge for the UK?
  #167  
Old 03-04-2019, 04:20 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,010
Bribery, a beginners guide.

So, you want to solve a political impasse by shovelling government money into the constituencies of your opponents so they'll break with their party and vote the way you want? Of course you do! It's a long and storied political tradition, and admirably simple to boot. There are just a couple of rules to follow if you want this strategy to come off:

1) Plausible deniability. Everyone knows it's a bribe, but you need to give people enough cover that they can accept it without looking nakedly corrupt.
2) Make it a bribe worth taking. I mean sure, you don't want to hand over more than you have to, but the point of a bribe is to get people to do something they don't want to do, so it has to be big enough to overcome their objections. Being seen taking an enormous bribe is one thing. Publicly taking peanuts to sell your party and consituents out is quite another.
3) Make it conditional. It's no good just handing the cash over. Quid pro quo is the name of the game.

In related news, Theresa May has floated a £1.6bn funding boost for northern towns (most of which voted Leave, most of which have Labour MPs). No-one thinks this is anything other than a bribe for votes for the Withdrawal Deal. Broken down by region and town, this is less money than these places have seen cut in funding over the past 9 years. Leading Labour Leave MPs have already come out to call it derisory. And it's already been made clear that this funding will be going ahead in any case. The net result is that it actually makes it harder for the targeted MPs to vote with the government, because it will look like they're pointlessly selling out for peanuts.

All in all, it's typical of the deft touch that we've come to associate with any negotiations May has a hand in.
  #168  
Old 03-04-2019, 09:31 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358
It's a smidgen of what the EU invests in deprived areas. It's a sign of things to come post Brexit. Another 'We-told-you-so' for Remain...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #169  
Old 03-06-2019, 07:48 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358
Just got told this by a farmer friend:

Quote:
Yup. We’re farming...and, quite frankly, we’re ****ed. 700 ewes due to lamb in 3 weeks scanned 197%. DEFRA currently drawing up plans to slaughter them all as no market post Brexit. Anxiety? Aye. Desolate? That too.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #170  
Old 03-06-2019, 05:08 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
Just got told this by a farmer friend:




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I googled "DEFRA", but...."scanned 197%"?
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #171  
Old 03-06-2019, 06:03 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
I googled "DEFRA", but...."scanned 197%"?
Just under two lambs per ewe, I guess.
  #172  
Old 03-06-2019, 06:13 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,782
22 days to go, and no-one has a clue what the relationship between the UK and EU is going to be
next month.

This is a colossal failure of responsible UK governance. An insane, unforgivable one.
  #173  
Old 03-06-2019, 07:12 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
22 days to go, and no-one has a clue what the relationship between the UK and EU is going to be
next month.

This is a colossal failure of responsible UK governance. An insane, unforgivable one.
Nobody knows what the relationship between the UK and the rest of the world is going to be. There are goods already on the seas between the UK and China and Japan, and we do not know whether they will face tariffs on arrival in the destination country and, if so, at what rate. Soon this will be true of goods being traded with countries closer and closer to the UK. British businesses trying to order parts or supplies from other countries are having increasing difficulty getting their orders accepted, because the suppliers do not know what terms and taxes will apply to the sale. Investment in the UK has slumped because of uncertainty over the business climate; consumer sales are still holding up, but partly because consumers are stockpiling. Etc, etc.
  #174  
Old 03-07-2019, 10:39 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
Nobody knows what the relationship between the UK and the rest of the world is going to be. There are goods already on the seas between the UK and China and Japan, and we do not know whether they will face tariffs on arrival in the destination country and, if so, at what rate. Soon this will be true of goods being traded with countries closer and closer to the UK. British businesses trying to order parts or supplies from other countries are having increasing difficulty getting their orders accepted, because the suppliers do not know what terms and taxes will apply to the sale. Investment in the UK has slumped because of uncertainty over the business climate; consumer sales are still holding up, but partly because consumers are stockpiling. Etc, etc.
Aside from what people may think about Brexit as a general concept, one of the most dispiriting things about the past 3 years has been the consistent demonstration that politics as practiced in Britain doesn't merely fail to produce competence in its elected officials, it actually seems to select for incompetence.

The implications and consequences of the backstop were realised and widely discussed within days of the agreement being reached in Dec 2017. But for over a year we have collectively indulged any amount of evasion, wilful ignorance, wishful thinking, triviality and general refusal to face facts and make decisions on the part of MPs, Cabinet and PM. There isn't a technological solution. There's no "managed new deal". There's no "Article 24 trade agreement". There's no magic way to be both outside the CU and SM and simultaneously inside.

If British politics rewarded grown-up politics and politicians who could a) understand and b) publicly acknowledge the reality of the position we were in, we'd have spent the past year deciding what we wanted to compromise on, and how far. But, as practiced, the rewards are to those who either don't understand the situation, or who are prepared to act as if they don't.

This isn't just a problem of a PM, or Cabinet, or MPs, or Opposition. This is about party members who lap up obvious bullshit from obvious bullshitters thus giving them a power-base, voters who don't or can't make their voices heard outside elections, media who can't or don't produce fact-based interrogations of politicians and experts, and can't or don't distinguish between experts and blowhards.

But the real crunch point is, if your political system isn't producing people who can grapple with serious problems and come up with serious solutions, how can it solve that very problem?
  #175  
Old 03-07-2019, 12:28 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post

If British politics rewarded grown-up politics and politicians who could a) understand and b) publicly acknowledge the reality of the position we were in, we'd have spent the past year deciding what we wanted to compromise on, and how far. But, as practiced, the rewards are to those who either don't understand the situation, or who are prepared to act as if they don't.
That's not specific to British politics. Electors don't want to hear that there's no solution to a perceived problem. They're always rewarding politicians who tell them that there's a simple solution that won't hurt them at all (and for bonus point will hurt some other unworthy group). You need to have a lot of political capital to be able to acknowledge unpleasant truths and stay in power, on top of having those other qualities you mention (like actually understanding that truth is unpleasant, which isn't a given, indeed). Or the situation has to be so dire that nobody can delude himself anymore.

If we had higher expectations, for instance viewed lying politicians in the same way we view corrupt ones (and I can imagine a hypothetical society where such expectations exist and where showing that a politician deliberately misled electors would be career-ending) such situations wouldn't occur. But I'm not aware of any country where this is true currently.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #176  
Old 03-07-2019, 03:29 PM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
This is about party members who lap up obvious bullshit from obvious bullshitters thus giving them a power-base, voters who don't or can't make their voices heard outside elections, media who can't or don't produce fact-based interrogations of politicians and experts, and can't or don't distinguish between experts and blowhards.
As an American, this sounds awfully familiar....
  #177  
Old 03-08-2019, 02:01 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
22 days to go, and no-one has a clue what the relationship between the UK and EU is going to be
next month.

This is a colossal failure of responsible UK governance. An insane, unforgivable one.
And even if this agreement squeaks through, it is only an agreement to start two years of talks to define and fill out the details of the longterm relationship.
  #178  
Old 03-08-2019, 02:56 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358
At this stage, it's pretty clear May's Deal will only pass under duress. I can't see it surviving a month.
  #179  
Old 03-08-2019, 03:16 AM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
At this stage, it's pretty clear May's Deal will only pass under duress. I can't see it surviving a month.
any form of Brexit will pass only under duress.

If May's deal passes, the WA becomes an internationally binding treaty, and the consequences of repudiating that are much more severe than the consequences of not entering into it in the first place. So the considerations which induce the UK to enter into the deal will operate even more strongly to induce the UK to observe the deal.

Of course, the deal only runs to the end of 2020 (unless a mutual decision is made in mid 202o to extend it). But this again increase the incentive to respect it for the agreed duration; even if you think it's working out badly for you, the cost of letting it lapse in a relatively short time is much less severe than the cost of breaching it immediately, so there's an inducement to sweat it out.

Far more likely that May's government will collapse than that the deal will be repudiated, IMO.
  #180  
Old 03-08-2019, 03:57 AM
filmstar-en is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 943
The votes will be cast for second votes on Mays deal. Then a vote on leaving with No Deal.

Both are likely to be rejected. We will know for sure in a week. In which case there will be an extension of Article 50. For how long?

May will try to make it short, try to negotiate and get some sort of concession out of the EU to get more support within her party...

....then rinse and repeat?

There are some elections coming up in the EU on May 23rd. If the UK is still in the EU at that time, it could get quite bizarre.

Some politicians are calling for a years delay to Brexit. This sound sensible. I really don't see that a couple of months would be enough. I guess the voting numbers might provide some indication as to how much progress May has made persuading her own party to back her.



What amazes me is the power of the executive in the UK. We have had several times when a PM has made a very bad decision that has gotten the country into a lot of trouble. Eden and the Suez crisis - a humiliating disaster. Tony Blair managed to manipulate the system to take the UK to war in Iraq. A terrible error of judgement which sours the memory of his time in office.

Here again we have May, another PM, this time driving the country off an economic cliff to appease the Brexit faction. Yet the Cabinet system seems to invest this power, despite there being very few politicians who actually think that this will be anything but a disaster. Decisions are made by the PM and her small coterie of advisors and senior cabinet ministers.

I suspect various members of the Cabinet will break ranks, resign or split, if she does not get enough votes this time. They know that their careers depend on how their position shifts over the next week or so. There are not many principled politicians around, most see their loyalty and position within a party to be more important than the interests of the country. Careerism is the curse of our age.
  #181  
Old 03-08-2019, 05:45 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,358
I can't see a short extension flying unless there's a clear plan for resolving this once and for all in the duration. Given experience, I'd be somewhat skeptical.
  #182  
Old 03-08-2019, 05:57 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmstar-en View Post
The votes will be cast for second votes on Mays deal. Then a vote on leaving with No Deal.

Both are likely to be rejected. We will know for sure in a week. In which case there will be an extension of Article 50. For how long?
Is the EU agreement to this extension more or less guaranteed?

Because I'm not terribly convinced so far that the UK is likely to have found a solution in three months, six months or one year.....
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 03-08-2019 at 05:59 AM.
  #183  
Old 03-08-2019, 06:48 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
If British politics rewarded grown-up politics and politicians who could a) understand and b) publicly acknowledge the reality of the position we were in, we'd have spent the past year deciding what we wanted to compromise on, and how far. But, as practiced, the rewards are to those who either don't understand the situation, or who are prepared to act as if they don't.

This isn't just a problem of a PM, or Cabinet, or MPs, or Opposition. This is about party members who lap up obvious bullshit from obvious bullshitters thus giving them a power-base, voters who don't or can't make their voices heard outside elections, media who can't or don't produce fact-based interrogations of politicians and experts, and can't or don't distinguish between experts and blowhards.

But the real crunch point is, if your political system isn't producing people who can grapple with serious problems and come up with serious solutions, how can it solve that very problem?
There is some truth to what you're saying, but I think it's more misleading than on point.

Britain actually has a pretty robust media that regularly asks tough questions. And, while british politicians are experts at dodging questions, there's far less scope for outright lying than in other countries that may come to mind.

So what went wrong?
Well firstly I am not a big believer in referendums (referenda?) -- often only a minority of people know very much about an issue and the rest are voting on passion. But particularly a referendum where the choices are "status quo" and "something else" is a bad idea, and I hope the UK has been a good example for the rest of the world in this respect.

The actual handling of Brexit has been godawful, nobody could contest that. But that's not in itself a failure of the political system, if we're saying democracy works as long as the public are aware of what's happening, and can express their displeasure at the ballot box...then democracy is still working. Everyone knows the current crop of politicians are particularly shit, and it's an open goal for either party to reform, or for even a third party to gain momentum, ahead of the next election. It's just a shame the country will be circling the drain by then.
  #184  
Old 03-08-2019, 08:42 AM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Is the EU agreement to this extension more or less guaranteed?

Because I'm not terribly convinced so far that the UK is likely to have found a solution in three months, six months or one year.....
I donít think the EU granting, and the UK accepting, an extension is guaranteed. From what I recall, the EU leadership said they were open to extending the withdrawal date, but they wanted to know what the UK governmentís plan was for the extended time period. If the UK governmentís plan is more of the same, the EU leadership could very well decline (unlikely, but possible), demand some kind of concession such as if no backstop agreement is reached, the UK will stay in the customs union (semi-likely), or demand that the UK extend the withdrawal date, possibly to July 2021 (semi-likely). Would parliament accept a counterproposal after rejecting Mayís Brexit plan? Who knows?
  #185  
Old 03-08-2019, 09:57 AM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Is the EU agreement to this extension more or less guaranteed?

Because I'm not terribly convinced so far that the UK is likely to have found a solution in three months, six months or one year.....
UK needs to ask for an extension for some reason (general election, second referendum, change in what it's asking for). Just asking for an extension for a few months because they don't know what they're doing doesn't "count".

Also the EU has said extending for 2 years is preferable to a few months.

In the UK side, the ERG doesn't want to extend. This may not change a ton, because May would have to find support from outside the ERG whether she's trying to extend or get any realistic deal through parliament.
  #186  
Old 03-08-2019, 07:39 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,233
Here is a Washington Post article by the always impressive Anne Applebaum concerning one Arron Banks. He sounds like an interesting fellow. Venal, but interesting.

Are his machinations getting much air time in the UK? Or, like in the US, are they just lost in the rising ocean of malfeasance?

Is it likely to be the case, as Applebaum suggests, that a post-Brexit UK (and thus any UK-EU trade) would be exempt from the strict financial regulation that the EU enforces on its members?

Last edited by KarlGauss; 03-08-2019 at 07:40 PM.
  #187  
Old 03-09-2019, 04:17 AM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Here is a Washington Post article by the always impressive Anne Applebaum concerning one Arron Banks. He sounds like an interesting fellow. Venal, but interesting.

Are his machinations getting much air time in the UK? Or, like in the US, are they just lost in the rising ocean of malfeasance?
Just speaking for myself, Iím aware of Arron Banks and the issues with the Leave.eu campaign, and he does seem quite shady, but I havenít noticed any front-page scandals involving him. Maybe a Guardian or Observer reader would have seen headlines about him.

Also, it should be noted that the main Leave campaign was Vote Leave. Leave.eu was a related, somewhat affiliated campaign, but it was one of several. Itís main notoriety was that Nigel Farage was a supporter, and that they were fined by the Electoral Commission after the referendum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Is it likely to be the case, as Applebaum suggests, that a post-Brexit UK (and thus any UK-EU trade) would be exempt from the strict financial regulation that the EU enforces on its members?
Thatís a tricky question, especially for a concise answer. The main financial regulatory body in the UK is the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). I think the general sentiment is that itís on par with the EUís European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) or the USís Security and Exchanges Commission (SEC). Post Brexit, the FCA is expected to maintain its current regulatory stances, and to continue working with ESMA. So the short answer to the question is ďNoĒ.

The issue with the UK, though, is that it is seen as a safe haven for billionaires from around the world. The owner of Chelsea Football Club, Roman Abramovich, is a Russian oligarch who moved many of his billions to Britain before buying the team, and still has ties to the Russian government and industrial interests. Also, just today, The Telegraph has reported about Nirav Modi, an Indian billionaire accused of fraud living in London. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...a158433_static (paywalled)
These billionaires conduct business throughout the world, and the FCA only regulates the business they conduct in the UK, which is most likely legal. Furthermore, their overseas earnings are most likely funnelled to overseas accounts. British crown dependencies such as Guernsey, and British Overseas Territories, such as the Cayman Islands are often where these overseas accounts are located, and there are close ties between offshore financial centres (OFCís) and British-based wealth management firms. There is a movement within Parliament to force the OFCís to be more transparent, and that movement has been delayed by Brexit. http://bernews.com/2019/01/british-m...isters-delays/ And itís certainly probable that firms that do business with OFCís will lobby to maintain the status quo and oppose reform.

Moving on to analyse Anne Applebaumís statement ďIf Brexit was the creation, in part, of this new world of offshore money and political influence campaigns, Brexit may well ensure that it continues unrestricted.Ē Thereís a basis for it as a conspiracy theory. However, that theory ignores the fact that anti-EU sentiment in the UK has been around for decades. It ignores the fact that the UK parliament was debating OFC transparency independent of the EU. And it ignores the fact that other EU members, specifically France, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, have similar relationships with OFCís as the UK. So as a theory, it makes a nice soundbite, but it doesnít hold up to scrutiny.
  #188  
Old 03-09-2019, 02:32 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
But if you prefer your simple analogy, in System 1 you can keep your ten pounds but every time you go shopping you have to pay an extra 50p to park, whereas under System 2 you got free parking. Are you still getting a better deal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Well in my System 2, I was paying Nava's mother 1 pound, so yes.
Does your pantry have enough storage space to make it likely you can get all of your shopping needs met with fewer than three trips?
  #189  
Old 03-09-2019, 02:50 PM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
The issue with the UK, though, is that it is seen as a safe haven for billionaires from around the world. The owner of Chelsea Football Club, Roman Abramovich, is a Russian oligarch who moved many of his billions to Britain before buying the team, and still has ties to the Russian government and industrial interests. Also, just today, The Telegraph has reported about Nirav Modi, an Indian billionaire accused of fraud living in London. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...a158433_static (paywalled)
These billionaires conduct business throughout the world, and the FCA only regulates the business they conduct in the UK, which is most likely legal. Furthermore, their overseas earnings are most likely funnelled to overseas accounts. British crown dependencies such as Guernsey, and British Overseas Territories, such as the Cayman Islands are often where these overseas accounts are located, and there are close ties between offshore financial centres (OFC’s) and British-based wealth management firms.
Spaniards who pay attention to the news have learned where Jersey and Guernsey are located thanks to being used as tax havens by several of our politicians; one of the items that's been in our news for the last couple of weeks is an agreement to try and keep Gibraltar from being even more of a laundromat than it already is. The general reputation of those areas which are "not officially UK but under UK sovereignity" is good if you have money to launder, shitty if you're the people chasing that money.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 03-09-2019 at 02:52 PM.
  #190  
Old 03-09-2019, 03:01 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
I googled "DEFRA", but...."scanned 197%"?
Maybe 197% of what they'll be able to profitably sell without access to the EU market.
  #191  
Old 03-10-2019, 03:52 AM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Spaniards who pay attention to the news have learned where Jersey and Guernsey are located thanks to being used as tax havens by several of our politicians; one of the items that's been in our news for the last couple of weeks is an agreement to try and keep Gibraltar from being even more of a laundromat than it already is. The general reputation of those areas which are "not officially UK but under UK sovereignity" is good if you have money to launder, shitty if you're the people chasing that money.
So Andorra is no longer the Spanish tax haven of choice?
  #192  
Old 03-10-2019, 04:11 AM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Maybe 197% of what they'll be able to profitably sell without access to the EU market.
I'm pretty sure Baron Greenback nailed it in post #171. During lambing season, farmers hire mobile ultrasound units to come around and see how many fetuses each ewe has inside her. It helps with planning and farmers with the barn area to do so will bring ewes with triplets inside as their pregnancy is higher risk. Youtube "Countryfile" if you're interested.

Or, if you're making a joke about export sales of lamb falling by half, my guess is the government would step in with some kind of intervention, probably in the form of a temporary subsidy resulting in lamb being cheaper at the supermarket.
  #193  
Old 03-10-2019, 04:37 AM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Does your pantry have enough storage space to make it likely you can get all of your shopping needs met with fewer than three trips?
To try and turn this into a real question, do I think the UK government has enough administrative capacity to handle funding requests that, post-Brexit, formerly went to the EU, but now are going to the UK government? Yes. As noted previously, most grant requestors send applications to both the UK and EU governments. So any UK increase in the amount of work processing grants should be modest, and would be distributed across the several separate agencies that consider grants.
  #194  
Old 03-10-2019, 08:33 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Or, if you're making a joke about export sales of lamb falling by half, my guess is the government would step in with some kind of intervention, probably in the form of a temporary subsidy resulting in lamb being cheaper at the supermarket.
Why only temporary?
  #195  
Old 03-11-2019, 02:01 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Is the EU agreement to this extension more or less guaranteed?

Because I'm not terribly convinced so far that the UK is likely to have found a solution in three months, six months or one year.....
And the ironic thing is that the solution is standing there in plain sight, like a mountain rising from the middle of a plain (i.e. revoking the Article 50 declaration). The snag is that itís been painted pink and had a SEP field erected around it.
  #196  
Old 03-12-2019, 02:23 AM
Sandwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 439

The end of the beginning


So, Mrs May has brought back some fudge from Brussels. Will this be enough to get her withdrawal agreement through Parliament? Maybe, or maybe not. Whatever, it is now decision time, and this phase of the nightmare is drawing to a close.

The ERG hate the proposed withdrawal agreement, since they rightly see it tying the UK to the EU forever. Not just or even mainly because of the ĎIrish backstopí / Ulster issues, but because they see that public opinion has drifted around to an overwhelming majority valuing the benefits of EU membership. For example, the farmers who mainly voted leave but insist on maintaining the EU barriers to cheap imports, frictionless access to EU markets and subsidies at EU levels. Unless they get to have their cake and eat it, which they wonít, they will have to accept staying in.

The withdrawal agreementís transitional period gives us another couple of years of excruciating debate to reinforce the message that we donít actually want to give up any of the benefits of membership, and that the leaversí leaders in Parliament canít deliver any of the promised benefits of Brexit. If the public is horrified by our performance in negotiations so far, just wait until they have to watch us against the Americans, Chinese and Japanese. Though I suspect the most humiliating lessons will come from the negotiations with the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders - whom many leavers seem to expect to agree to revert to an agricultural and raw materials based economy so that we can rebuild our manufacturing industry as the workshop of the world as well as the supplier of all commercial services. And most importantly, negotiations with the EU must continue, with the UK in an even weaker position!

So, ultimately the transitional period would be extended indefinitely, or the UK would rejoin. Iím happy either way. Perhaps ironically, I donít care if the UK is represented in EU decision making, though I do believe that the UK has made a generally positive contribution to EU legislation which many of our European friends would be sad to lose. Maybe Germany would ultimately reject BRINO and insist that we return to being full members?! If we did rejoin, Iíd be happy to join the Schenghen zone, adopt the euro, give up our opt-outs on social legislation and transfer sovereignty in Gibraltar to Spain. This whole sad sorry mess could easily result in leavers losing more of the things they care passionately about, and which remainers are relatively unconcerned about. Perhaps that was inevitable. Remainers will be happy enough provided we effectively retain all our individual rights as EU citizens, and that business remains within the Single Market.

Of course there are other options. Remain means remain, and if we revoke Article 50 before the end of the A50 period, then we keep all our current ĎEU+++í terms. That should tempt some (former) leavers.

Or, there is still time to crash out with no agreement. Some MPs are arguing for that. They must presumably believe their own rhetoric that in the short term it wonít be too bad, and in the long term even advantageous. I donít see it myself, and we will find out very soon if we go down that path. Which after all remains the default outcome unless MPs seize control of the process.

There is a lot of talk about a second referendum. Iím not seeing it myself. Like crashing out, it gives MPs only a few days to avoid taking responsibility. Iíll believe a referendum is likely when Mr Corbyn stands up and states unequivocally what referendum outcome he personally will be campaigning for.

We live in very interesting times!

#brexitmeansbrexit, #takingbackcontrol, #theyneedusmorethanweneedthem, #weholdallthecards, #strongandstable
  #197  
Old 03-12-2019, 02:29 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
So Andorra is no longer the Spanish tax haven of choice?
Tax haven and money laundering place are different things.

Getting Andorra residency is what's needed to use the "tax haven" feature. It's actually legal if you do manage to follow the correct steps, and used mainly by people who by the very nature of their jobs are very likely to spend less than 182 days in any given country during any given year (athletes, musicians). It is not possible to simultaneously follow the requirements for Andorran residency (required to file taxes in Andorra) and Spanish residency (required to hold office in Spain).

Money laundering is something for which Andorra is used, but not by itself. The Pujols for example had money in at least Andorra (very convenient from Barcelona), Guernsey and Luxembourg.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 03-12-2019 at 02:34 AM.
  #198  
Old 03-12-2019, 02:35 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,212
ETA: the original confusion between tax haven and money laundering spot was actually mine.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #199  
Old 03-12-2019, 06:21 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandwich View Post
So, ultimately the transitional period would be extended indefinitely, or the UK would rejoin. Iím happy either way. Perhaps ironically, I donít care if the UK is represented in EU decision making, though I do believe that the UK has made a generally positive contribution to EU legislation which many of our European friends would be sad to lose.
Yes, a lot of the "We don't want the EU telling us what to do!" crowd seem unaware that in many, many areas the UK has been the driving force behind EU legislation. In financial services, for example, over 90% (IIRC) of EU regulation mirrors what the UK were already doing because most of it came from the UK.
  #200  
Old 03-12-2019, 07:05 AM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 440
Well Geoffrey Cox is no longer on Theresa May's Christmas card list.

UK Attorney General Cox published his legal advice on the addendums to the withdrawal agreement earlier this morning.
https://assets.publishing.service.go..._co..___2_.pdf (PDF)
Quote:
19. However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement.
The DUP and some hardline Brexiteers were drifting towards voting yes for the agreement. I'm pretty sure they've just returned to their prior positions.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017