Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
ceptimus said:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-bid-for-a-share-of-eus-150-billion-in-assets-post-brexit-2017-2

Did the EU ever agree that the UK was entitled to a share of the assets it has paid towards over its years of membership? The assets include buildings, but also wine, fine art, and financial investments. Last I heard was that the EU was still insisting that all liabilities belonged to member countries (and former member countries) but that all assets belonged to the EU itself.
Click to expand...

Oh, wow! A potential kickback of €20 billion against €61 billion divorce bill. That won't go far in the grand scheme of things.

And, to return to the usual golf club analogy, ex-members don't get to demand a refund on past dues, even if they partly paid for an extension of the club house.
 
Information Analyst said:
Oh, wow! A potential kickback of €20 billion against €61 billion divorce bill. That won't go far in the grand scheme of things.

And, to return to the usual golf club analogy, ex-members don't get to demand a refund on past dues, even if they partly paid for an extension of the club house.
Click to expand...
I understand our crack team of negotiators in the simplest negotiation of all time have agreed a net figure so it does or doesn't include wine lakes but whatever. That is the final amount (or the final formula anyway).

I suspect they just looked at future liabilities both sides had already signed up to as opposed to unwinding the past* on both sides.

*One thing I notice on my EU travels is that the EU flag is often seen on the continent. All funded projects have a "funded by the EU" sign. We so rarely see that in the UK, it came as a shock when I took a detour off my usual route and spotted one near my office. It is the only one I recall ever seeing in the North East despite the fact that the European Structural Investment Fund alone sponsors projects in the areas to the tune of £73m a year. I dare say we receive other EU monies on top of that but there is so rarely a public acknowledgement. Probably contributed to the vote when people don't see the money is being spent on them.
 
Information Analyst said:
Oh, wow! A potential kickback of €20 billion against €61 billion divorce bill. That won't go far in the grand scheme of things.

And, to return to the usual golf club analogy, ex-members don't get to demand a refund on past dues, even if they partly paid for an extension of the club house.
Click to expand...

Yeah !

For all I know, the locker that I bought and paid for in full (the changing room was being extended into what used to be the trolley storage and members were asked to buy a locker, which would exempt them from the annual locker fee) a mere mumbletymumble years ago is likely being used by someone else now just because I haven't been a member for more than 25 years :mad:

Harrumph !

I demand immediate delivery of said knackered old locker immediately !

Lothian said:
I understand our crack team of negotiators in the simplest negotiation of all time have agreed a net figure so it does or doesn't include wine lakes but whatever. That is the final amount (or the final formula anyway).

I suspect they just looked at future liabilities both sides had already signed up to as opposed to unwinding the past* on both sides.

*One thing I notice on my EU travels is that the EU flag is often seen on the continent. All funded projects have a "funded by the EU" sign. We so rarely see that in the UK, it came as a shock when I took a detour off my usual route and spotted one near my office. It is the only one I recall ever seeing in the North East despite the fact that the European Structural Investment Fund alone sponsors projects in the areas to the tune of £73m a year. I dare say we receive other EU monies on top of that but there is so rarely a public acknowledgement. Probably contributed to the vote when people don't see the money is being spent on them.
Click to expand...

I've seen a few here in Wales but IMO opinion it goes back to government of whatever hue going back 30+ years blaming the EU for any unpopular policies (whether or not the EU was a factor at all) and taking full credit for anything popular that comes out of the EU.

If it's a popular local scheme then the local politicians want to take full credit, if it's a bit of a boondoggle then blame Brussels (except in Wales, NI and Scotland where Westminster is blamed who then blame the EU).
 
Lothian said:
I dare say we receive other EU monies on top of that but there is so rarely a public acknowledgement.
Click to expand...

EU grant funding requires recipients to acknowledge the source of funds on almost everything public, and that is checked during grant audits. ;)
 
When are we going to get clear of this stupid club analogy? Ex members of a golf club are not expected to pay any money to the club.
 
No, but, as mentioned, they are expected to pay any outstanding bills and they are not allowed to keep using only the bits they like for less money.
 
Lothian said:
I understand our crack team of negotiators in the simplest negotiation of all time have agreed a net figure so it does or doesn't include wine lakes but whatever. That is the final amount (or the final formula anyway).

I suspect they just looked at future liabilities both sides had already signed up to as opposed to unwinding the past* on both sides.

*One thing I notice on my EU travels is that the EU flag is often seen on the continent. All funded projects have a "funded by the EU" sign. We so rarely see that in the UK, it came as a shock when I took a detour off my usual route and spotted one near my office. It is the only one I recall ever seeing in the North East despite the fact that the European Structural Investment Fund alone sponsors projects in the areas to the tune of £73m a year. I dare say we receive other EU monies on top of that but there is so rarely a public acknowledgement. Probably contributed to the vote when people don't see the money is being spent on them.
Click to expand...

I've seen a lot of them around Manchester - and also when visiting my Brother in Wales, as well as in the West Coast of Scotland
 
ceptimus said:
Tariffs are nearly always import tariffs charged by the importing states - so if the EU imposes a tariff on goods it imports from the UK, that, by itself, doesn't cost UK companies anything. Of course, it would be likely to have an impact on their export volumes as some of their former EU customers would choose to swap to buying things from other sources rather than pay the increased prices because of the tariffs.

If the UK retaliates by also charging import tariffs then that means that UK customers and companies have to pay more money for any goods coming from the EU. That extra money flows to HMRC (UK government) who could then choose to spend it on subsidies somewhat negating the extra costs, though in reality they would be more likely to spend it on the usual government spending departments - defence or similar - or use it to reduce taxes below what they otherwise might be.
Click to expand...

Tariff wars are so easy to win....
 
Some may think that this is a bit of a stretch to include in a Brexit thread, but I think it directly relates:

The UK will have to significantly increase defence spending if it is to maintain influence with Washington and Nato allies, MPs have warned.

A Commons Defence Committee report says the defence budget should rise from 2% of GDP (£40bn) to 3% (£60bn).

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson has reportedly demanded an extra £20bn for his department.
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44609494

It looks like there's an expectation that there's a magic money tree. IMO we're having to buy influence with the US and NATO allies because we'll no longer have the benefit of being part of the EU and hence benefit from their political, economic and diplomatic clout.

The extra £20bn a year sounds like an awful lot more than the EU contributions and it also sounds to me like we're proposing to engage in rearming. Someone in another thread (I'm sorry I forget which though it was likely in US Politics) pointed out that if you're spending all of this money on the military - it's a shame if all the kit just sits around gathering dust. I think increased military spending inevitably results in increased military adventures.

I'm also worried about phrases like.....

The report recommends increasing the defence budget to 3% of GDP but says a rise to 2.5% would "comfortably fill the 'black hole' in the existing MoD budget".

It argued that without such investment the UK armed forces' usefulness to the US would be diminished.
Click to expand...

I thought that the UK armed forces were for our benefit, not to be useful to the US and certainly not when the US seems to be having a bit of a democratic shortage at the moment.

IMO "austerity" was one of the drivers of discontent behind some people's Leave vote. Immigrants were being blamed for cuts to local services, shortages in the NHS and so on, when in fact it was down to the government's austerity programme (which was poorly handled because of all the grief it caused and yet didn't manage to be austere).

As soon as the Leave vote came in, the purse strings have been loosened like crazy and tens of billions have been found down the back of the national sofa. I find tales of "a gift of billions to the NHS" particularly hard to swallow when:

  • This government's policy of austerity was repsonsible for the shortages
  • This government's approach to Brexit is exacerbating the NHS's staffing issues
  • The "gift" is going to come from raising taxation levels
  • Raising taxation levels to better fund the NHS was pooh-poohed by the Conservatives when the Labour party and LibDems proposed in the last election

I still contend that my post that has enraged MikeG so much that he put it in his signature is gradually coming about...
 
More Brexit good news:

Investment in Britain's car industry has fallen by half, according to figures from the motoring sector.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders (SMMT) said that Brexit uncertainty was "thwarting" decisions by major car companies to put more money into UK factories.

In the first six months of 2017, investment in new models and factory improvements stood at £647.4m.

This year, the figure had fallen to £347.3m for the same period.

The SMMT said this was lowest figure since the financial crisis.
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44609003

No doubt the magic money tree will plug the gap :rolleyes:
 
We need to rearm. Challenger two is worn out, there are plans fora major interim refurb while a replacement is developed.
Warriors are worn out they need a replacement as do the CVRT family (Scimitar and such, they have been on the go since the 70s)

This is partly covered by the introduction of the 'Boxer' family but that won't include the new tanks and Infantry Fighting Vehicles.

Another cost is the re-engineering of the type 45 destroyers, They need all new generating plant to fix the problems they have had with power losses, that involves cutting holes in the hull side and replacing the whole generator plant. These problems were known about when they were taken in to service from BAE and various fixes have been tried without success. When systems are stressed in combat exercises the ships completely lose power and they are dead in the water while things are restarted.
It has been identified as inadequate generating capacity and faults in the switching.

There are also big problems with the latest frigate. It has been signed off but has bad workmanship faults that need to be corrected. Contractors have skimped on a lot of the electrical fittings and one of the boat cranes had been secured with some of the bolts broken and their heads glued in to place to look finished. Also welding cracks in some of the hull plating.
It has gone back to BAE fore corrective work.

It all costs money. There are big voices demanding that work on future ships is taken from the Clyde and brought back to Portsmouth.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
We need to rearm. Challenger two is worn out, there are plans fora major interim refurb while a replacement is developed.
Warriors are worn out they need a replacement as do the CVRT family (Scimitar and such, they have been on the go since the 70s)

This is partly covered by the introduction of the 'Boxer' family but that won't include the new tanks and Infantry Fighting Vehicles.

Another cost is the re-engineering of the type 45 destroyers, They need all new generating plant to fix the problems they have had with power losses, that involves cutting holes in the hull side and replacing the whole generator plant. These problems were known about when they were taken in to service from BAE and various fixes have been tried without success. When systems are stressed in combat exercises the ships completely lose power and they are dead in the water while things are restarted.
It has been identified as inadequate generating capacity and faults in the switching.

There are also big problems with the latest frigate. It has been signed off but has bad workmanship faults that need to be corrected. Contractors have skimped on a lot of the electrical fittings and one of the boat cranes had been secured with some of the bolts broken and their heads glued in to place to look finished. Also welding cracks in some of the hull plating.
It has gone back to BAE fore corrective work.

It all costs money. There are big voices demanding that work on future ships is taken from the Clyde and brought back to Portsmouth.
Click to expand...

Does more money fix all of this. Were the issues with the type 45 destroyers caused by penny pinching in the design stage or was this an engineering issue ?

Does a 50% increase in expenditure in GDP terms (higher in absolute terms) result in equipment which is better suited for use or does it instead result in even more elaborate and innovative weapons systems with the predicable cost overruns and shakedown issues ?
 
Ferrovial are moving out of the UK - blaming Brexit.....


Ferrovial, the Spanish manager of Heathrow airport, has said that it will be moving its international holding company out of Britain because of Brexit.

The move will keep the business under European Union legislation after the United Kingdom leaves the bloc, a spokesman for the firm said.
Click to expand...

I have not linked to the story as it's in the BBC Live news feed....
 
Lothian said:
One thing I notice on my EU travels is that the EU flag is often seen on the continent. All funded projects have a "funded by the EU" sign. We so rarely see that in the UK, it came as a shock when I took a detour off my usual route and spotted one near my office. It is the only one I recall ever seeing in the North East despite the fact that the European Structural Investment Fund alone sponsors projects in the areas to the tune of £73m a year. I dare say we receive other EU monies on top of that but there is so rarely a public acknowledgement. Probably contributed to the vote when people don't see the money is being spent on them.
Click to expand...

That exactly mirrors my experience. We know the EU funds or co-funds various infrastructure and other projects in the UK, yet there seems to be a remarkable reluctance to publicly acknowledge their involvement in the way that is often visible in other EU countries.

Somewhat ironically, I recently had to point out to a pro-Leave poster on Quora,who thought that Brexit was a perfect impetus for the government to invest in supporting new and innovative businesses, that only last November the EU had invested £6m for precisely that purpose in the very Brexit-voting area they lived.
 
Foreign secretary Boris Johnson doing his usual excellent job the BBC reports:

Boris Johnson has refused to deny claims he used an expletive when asked about business concerns about Brexit.

The foreign secretary is reported to have used the swear word at a diplomatic gathering last week.

Asked about this in the Commons, he said he may have "expressed scepticism about some of the views of those who profess to speak up for business".
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44618154

It's not so far out of character for the Foreign Secretary to be both undiplomatic and rather disdainful towards "tradesmen".

Asked about corporate concerns over a so-called hard Brexit, at an event for EU diplomats in London last week, Mr Johnson is reported to have replied "**** business".

Mr Johnson, who was reportedly speaking at the time to Rudolf Huygelen, Belgium's ambassador to the EU, was also overheard saying he and others would fight Theresa May's soft Brexit "and win".
Click to expand...

It looks like Boris is determined to have a diamond hard Brexit and damn the consequences (despite repeatedly promising the softest of soft Brexits during the camapaign).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom