So Brexit now needs parliamentary approval?

[Rallyman]

you don't think there is enough fat to cut their budgets? Spread over 27 nations you are talking need millions, not billions. The EU will tighten it's belt, and there may be savings in losing the English translators etc.[/quote

 

no I don't think there is enough fat to cut their budgets a lot of the member have a basket case economy and relies on eu hand outs , Greece is bust never going to pay back the loans, Italy ,Portugal to name a few Spain's economy is in a very poor state

8 billion will be very missed add in the cost of the refugee crisis which is a total mess I just can't see it lasting in its present set up , all for trading with each other and fair movement of people but in its current form it's doomed for failure.

[newjez]

you don't think there is enough fat to cut their budgets? Spread over 27 nations you are talking need millions, not billions. The EU will tighten it's belt, and there may be savings in losing the English translators etc.[/quote

 

no I don't think there is enough fat to cut their budgets a lot of the member have a basket case economy and relies on eu hand outs , Greece is bust never going to pay back the loans, Italy ,Portugal to name a few Spain's economy is in a very poor state

8 billion will be very missed add in the cost of the refugee crisis which is a total mess I just can't see it lasting in its present set up , all for trading with each other and fair movement of people but in its current form it's doomed for failure.

I think you are confusing the euro, which has been a financial nightmare, with 9 million pounds, which in EU terms is a drop in the ocean. They'll just drop the studies on goat masterbating and buttercup cultivation. It won't be missed.

[Rallyman]

I think you are confusing the euro, which has been a financial nightmare, with 9 million pounds, which in EU terms is a drop in the ocean. They'll just drop the studies on goat masterbating and buttercup cultivation. It won't be missed.

 

 

Oh that's ok then problem solved ,all good from now on

[Gbye grey sky]

you don't think there is enough fat to cut their budgets? Spread over 27 nations you are talking need millions, not billions. The EU will tighten it's belt, and there may be savings in losing the English translators etc.[/quote

 

no I don't think there is enough fat to cut their budgets a lot of the member have a basket case economy and relies on eu hand outs , Greece is bust never going to pay back the loans, Italy ,Portugal to name a few Spain's economy is in a very poor state

8 billion will be very missed add in the cost of the refugee crisis which is a total mess I just can't see it lasting in its present set up , all for trading with each other and fair movement of people but in its current form it's doomed for failure.

 

I agree that the EU will miss the UK financial contribution (assuming a hard Brexit). They will get some back through tariffs on UK goods but they will have to trim spending for sure. It is not the biggest issue though that the EU will have to come to terms with. The rise of the far right - emboldened by their success in gaining working class support both sides of the Atlantic - must rank as the biggest threat both to the EU and to European stability and peace.

[newjez]

 

 

Oh that's ok then problem solved ,all good from now on

all the way through this the brexit lovers have been saying be positive, let the experts handle it, blah blah blah.

 

This time that actually means something.

 

There are much more important things to worry about. 9 billion is not going to make a not of difference to Greece, Italy and German banks.

 

Nine billion is just a small reduction in the housekeeping budget. Of course they will want us to pay for the next five years while they adjust the budget, as we have made long term commitments. But adjust they will.

[newjez]

 

I agree that the EU will miss the UK financial contribution (assuming a hard Brexit). They will get some back through tariffs on UK goods but they will have to trim spending for sure. It is not the biggest issue though that the EU will have to come to terms with. The rise of the far right - emboldened by their success in gaining working class support both sides of the Atlantic - must rank as the biggest threat both to the EU and to European stability and peace.

not to mention Russia, the health of European banks, the existence of the euro... Edited December 18, 2016 by newjez

[Rallyman]

all the way through this the brexit lovers have been saying be positive, let the experts handle it, blah blah blah.

 

This time that actually means something.

 

There are much more important things to worry about. 9 billion is not going to make a not of difference to Greece, Italy and German banks.

 

Nine billion is just a small reduction in the housekeeping budget. Of course they will want us to pay for the next five years while they adjust the budget, as we have made long term commitments. But adjust they will.

 

 

 

Sorry but but don't agree with you it's going to impact the EU budget ,it is a serious amount of money , the reason it won't affect the eu banks is that it's so messed up and are in that much debt it will never get paid off,

if you were to put that kind of e tra money into the U.K. Economy year on year it would make a huge difference, I am well aware this will never happen though.

As stated before in its current set up its totally stuffed ,it needs a radical overhaul, and I do t agree that it was just immigration the main reason to leave ,people have had enough of MPs not listening to what we want and why more radical groups are coming through.

 

you only have to look at expenses some of these MPs claim it's a insult to the average hard working family.

Its certainly going to be a bumpy ride the next few years in Europe

[newjez]

Well done then

 

http://m.firstpost.com/india/india-overtakes-united-kingdom-economy-ranks-fifth-in-the-world-3167686.html

[Perthbum]

Well done then

 

http://m.firstpost.com/india/india-overtakes-united-kingdom-economy-ranks-fifth-in-the-world-3167686.html

Ha dto happen eventually as India grows....wow the UK being such a tiny weeny country is 7th in the wholee world....

[BacktoDemocracy]

Ha dto happen eventually as India grows....wow the UK being such a tiny weeny country is 7th in the wholee world....

Yes but the UK's economy is very heavily dependent on the financial services sector, internal sales and external investment in the property market, predominantly London , our productivity is poor in comparison with our European neighbours.

Our economy will be badly affected if financial services relocate, it will affect the amount of money in the economy internally and will have knock on effects on the other two, we are not investing enough into infrastructure, nor into R&D.

[Ken]

we are not investing enough into infrastructure, nor into R&D.

 

Mostly because the government sector has never been able to grasp the difference between spending and investment. If instructed to cut spending the typical government department keeps spending the same and cuts investment instead. If instructed to increase investment they just reclassify some of their spending as "investment". Trump may be an idiot but his plans to bring in business people to run US government departments made do wonders.

[BacktoDemocracy]

Mostly because the government sector has never been able to grasp the difference between spending and investment. If instructed to cut spending the typical government department keeps spending the same and cuts investment instead. If instructed to increase investment they just reclassify some of their spending as "investment". Trump may be an idiot but his plans to bring in business people to run US government departments made do wonders.

 

You mean the difference PFI has made to the NHS and the education sector and which Trump is intending to use for his infrastructure building the public sector here is now stuck with buildings and equipment not fit for purpose which they will be paying for over a 30 year period when they will be left with worthless assets that they will either have to pay to demolish or radically refurbish, this is one of the reasons the NHS is so strapped for cash because of these PFI deals that were dreamed up to keep investment off the public books and because the private sector was so much better at building to a price, but it was their price and then they screwed the public sector for as much rent as they could for the following 30 years.

The private sector has only one thing in mind build cheap and extract maximum profit, they are allowed to build without any oversight and to the lowest possible standards.

[newjez]

You mean the difference PFI has made to the NHS and the education sector and which Trump is intending to use for his infrastructure building the public sector here is now stuck with buildings and equipment not fit for purpose which they will be paying for over a 30 year period when they will be left with worthless assets that they will either have to pay to demolish or radically refurbish, this is one of the reasons the NHS is so strapped for cash because of these PFI deals that were dreamed up to keep investment off the public books and because the private sector was so much better at building to a price, but it was their price and then they screwed the public sector for as much rent as they could for the following 30 years.

The private sector has only one thing in mind build cheap and extract maximum profit, they are allowed to build without any oversight and to the lowest possible standards.

there is a difference between business people being the government, and business people fleecing the government. I'm assuming it's less likely business people will be fleeced by business people.

[BacktoDemocracy]

there is a difference between business people being the government, and business people fleecing the government. I'm assuming it's less likely business people will be fleeced by business people.

 

Ever thought that business people in govt might collude with other business to maximise profit for both of them, that was why govt was supposed to operate separated from business so as to ensure value for money but now big business is in charge of both sides and has no interest in anything other than maximising profit, the recent prison riot was at a privatised prison which won the contract at a price which could only be made profitable by reducing staffing levels and quality and now the public prisons have to deal with very radicalised prisoners.

[Gbye grey sky]

there is a difference between business people being the government, and business people fleecing the government. I'm assuming it's less likely business people will be fleeced by business people.

 

The notion that private sector equals better management and greater efficiency started in the 1980s just will not go away. The prime savings (efficiencies) made by the private sector is by cutting the pay and conditions of the people who perform the tasks. They are also cleverer at accounting. This is partly offset by far greater rewards for those at the top of the pyramid.

 

In each instance the public sector has to try to monitor and regulate the private sector because their primary motivating force (ie. greed) almost always gets the better of them. I have been in both public and private sector and each have massive flaws but simply imagining that a business approach to providing a country's infrastructure and public services as a panacea has been debunked after 30+ years of trying it.

[newjez]

The notion that private sector equals better management and greater efficiency started in the 1980s just will not go away. The prime savings (efficiencies) made by the private sector is by cutting the pay and conditions of the people who perform the tasks. They are also cleverer at accounting. This is partly offset by far greater rewards for those at the top of the pyramid.

 

In each instance the public sector has to try to monitor and regulate the private sector because their primary motivating force (ie. greed) almost always gets the better of them. I have been in both public and private sector and each have massive flaws but simply imagining that a business approach to providing a country's infrastructure and public services as a panacea has been debunked after 30+ years of trying it.

I do tend to agree. There's not much difference between government and large corporations.

[BacktoDemocracy]

I do tend to agree. There's not much difference between government and large corporations.

 

But govt tries to ensure that public money is spent on things that benefit the people, the private sector simply wants to maximise profit regardless of quality and worth.

[Gbye grey sky]

But govt tries to ensure that public money is spent on things that benefit the people, the private sector simply wants to maximise profit regardless of quality and worth.

 

When a private company is providing a service paid for by the end user (or making/selling a product) the interests of the business and customer share a common interest as the business needs to keep the customer happy or it makes no sales. It is more about providing value for money and generating a return from that.

 

When the private sector provides a service for the government its primary function (as defined by government) is to cut the costs of providing said service. Improving the end user experience is largely irrelevant and that end user cannot take their business elsewhere. Private sector doctrine just doesn't have much synergy with public service especially if the goal is to appear to provide the service for less.

[BacktoDemocracy]

When a private company is providing a service paid for by the end user (or making/selling a product) the interests of the business and customer share a common interest as the business needs to keep the customer happy or it makes no sales. It is more about providing value for money and generating a return from that.

 

When the private sector provides a service for the government its primary function (as defined by government) is to cut the costs of providing said service. Improving the end user experience is largely irrelevant and that end user cannot take their business elsewhere. Private sector doctrine just doesn't have much synergy with public service especially if the goal is to appear to provide the service for less.

A very relevant example of the confusion that happens when govt gets involved with big business is the appalling mess of Southern Rail, they have the contract where they are paid a fixed fee to run their franchise and simply hand their takings to the govt, they have been running a p*ss poor service since being awarded the franchise, insufficient trains cancelled services, disputes with staff and now trying to make staffing changes which have led to strikes, all the time being obdurate about negotiating whilst bringing a large slice of the SE's economy to a standstill, funnily enough they simply do not care as they still get paid 'BY THE GOVT', who also seem to be refusing to intervene in a dispute which is impacting the economy.

 

Now is this the govt encouraging private industry to have a conflict with the unions in order to break one of the few unions with industrial clout and allow it to introduce legislation preventing legal strikes on the railways, as they say Chris Grayling has form as a right wing, swivel eyed loony, head banger, it remains to be seen.

 

This is a slippery slope where govt and big businesses aims are made to coalesce and the function of govt to act in the interest of the country and its citizens as sanctimonious Theresa May keeps on assuring us with yet another treacly load of platitudes this morning, it's stomach churning. Then we have the prize incompetent Pixie in Chief Corbyn appearing with an equally useless load of platitudes, he simply doesn't get it, he's supposed to be attacking the Tories not stroking their b*lls for them.

Edited December 24, 2016 by BacktoDemocracy

[newjez]

I love this

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/03/uk-will-create-400000-jobs-quits-customs-union-part-brexit-talks/

 

There is no better way to emphasise people's lack of understanding on the EU than asking them their views on the customs union. Even better if you throw in Turkey. Seriously, you could not make this stuff up. The fact that all these guys still have no idea what they are talking about at this late stage astounds me. That we have a political class which continues to display their utter ignorance does not bode well. It's shameful. These people need to stop talking, start reading and learn. I swear the average Joe in the street is much better informed about the workings of the EU and Brexit than our average journalist or politician. Shameful.

[BacktoDemocracy]

I love this

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/03/uk-will-create-400000-jobs-quits-customs-union-part-brexit-talks/

 

There is no better way to emphasise people's lack of understanding on the EU than asking them their views on the customs union. Even better if you throw in Turkey. Seriously, you could not make this stuff up. The fact that all these guys still have no idea what they are talking about at this late stage astounds me. That we have a political class which continues to display their utter ignorance does not bode well. It's shameful. These people need to stop talking, start reading and learn. I swear the average Joe in the street is much better informed about the workings of the EU and Brexit than our average journalist or politician. Shameful.

 

Why do you think our ambassador to the EU has resigned, he has no intention of having to sit through any more embarrassments at meetings with these idiots as his supposed bosses nor have his name associated with whatever silliness is propose.

 

400,000 new jobs from 8 new trade deals, do they realise how long 8 new trade deals will take to negotiate.

[Gbye grey sky]

Britain a "beacon for free trade" sounds like an impressive rallying cry but, like pure socialism, free trade is really just a utopian dream. Every country wants to benefit from a trade deal so every deal requires huge give and take. That is why they take years to negotiate and ratify.

 

Under a Trump Presidency free trade will be massively unwound as the US actions will create knock-on effects and this could even usher in a new era of rampant protectionism across the world.

 

Against this backdrop pinning all hopes on free trade seems very optimistic. However I think the UK is in a corner with this and will have to leave the customs union and take the risk.

 

Given that life in the EU was so unbearable in Britain it is worth rolling the dice.......no?

[newjez]

Britain a "beacon for free trade" sounds like an impressive rallying cry but, like pure socialism, free trade is really just a utopian dream. Every country wants to benefit from a trade deal so every deal requires huge give and take. That is why they take years to negotiate and ratify.

 

Under a Trump Presidency free trade will be massively unwound as the US actions will create knock-on effects and this could even usher in a new era of rampant protectionism across the world.

 

Against this backdrop pinning all hopes on free trade seems very optimistic. However I think the UK is in a corner with this and will have to leave the customs union and take the risk.

 

Given that life in the EU was so unbearable in Britain it is worth rolling the dice.......no?

I really don't think you can leave the EU and remain in the EU customs union. To say that Turkey is in the EU customs union is laughable. Turkey has a customs union with the EU. It is not in the EU customs union. Turkey can negotiate free trade deals with whoever it wants. To have access to the single market does not imply member ship of the EU customs union. You can be in the eea/efta and not be in the EU customs union, and negotiate free trade deals. You don't have to trash the economy to leave the EU.

 

There is a good article here on custom's unions

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=80999

Edited January 4, 2017 by newjez

[Gbye grey sky]

I really don't think you can leave the EU and remain in the EU customs union. To say that Turkey is in the EU customs union is laughable. Turkey has a customs union with the EU. It is not in the EU customs union. Turkey can negotiate free trade deals with whoever it wants. To have access to the single market does not imply member ship of the EU customs union. You can be in the eea/efta and not be in the EU customs union, and negotiate free trade deals. You don't have to trash the economy to leave the EU.

 

There is a good article here on custom's unions

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=80999

 

Very enlightening. My own very limited knowledge caused me to wonder how the UK could remain a member of the customs union when leaving the EU. It is apparent that the whole debate on this is nothing other than a smokescreen. Perhaps playing up its importance will be a key element of May attempting to demonstrate that ties are being cut more than they actually are.

[Graemsay]

Modern economics believes international trade operates under the gravity model, namely the amount of trade between two countries is proportional to the size of their markets and distance. It holds up well under empirical scrutiny.

 

The other observation is that borders slow trade due to non-tariff barriers. There are two main issues: Customs checks slow down the transport of goods, and technical standards ensure that a widget manufactured in Burnley is interchangeable with one from Bavaria, without having to undergo independent tests. In combination, these make it easier to sell between EU countries.

 

In fact, an awful lot of the red tape from Brussels is there to enact standards that all EU members adhere to.

 

Paul Nightingale, who got into a Twitter spat with Douglas Carswell over the Sun, Moon and tides, wrote a piece explaining all this in simple terms.

 

So being outside of the Single Market, even with tariff free access, is going to cause an impediment to trade with Europe. Being a rich market of 440 million people, that's going to hurt the balance of payments.

 

A free trade deal with China or India isn't going to offset this. They might be bigger markets, but the distance from the UK will reduce the amount of benefit that.

 

And that's assuming it's not completely one sided. The agreement between the Chinese and Swiss gives the former immediate tariff free access, whilst the latter has to wait fifteen years!

 

Lastly, I want to make a point about Change Britain's figures. They have a projected benefit of £24 billion in event of a Clean Brexit. The UK's GDP is just under £2 trillion, making it worth about a 1% advantage. I find a lot of politicians to use big numbers as a kind of rhetoric, but they fail to put them in context.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Graemsay