Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

[Michel H]

Can you explain your reasoning here? How does the fact that the EU can impose tariffs lead you to that conclusion?

What I find objectionable is that the EU demands payment, in order to get a free trade agreement, while this free trade agreement costs nothing to the EU, and is even excellent and necessary for its own economy. I believe this is a totally absurd situation. The EU is in a position of strength, with its huge market of more than 500 million consumers, and it is trying to use this position of strength to extract money from its trading partners, in order for them to secure a tariff-free relationship. Norway is an example of this, and a very fine and clear explanation is given by the Financial Times:

Norway pays about €890m each year to a variety of EU programmes and countries — equivalent to €166 per person — as part of a 1994 deal that secures full single market access via the European Economic Area.

According to the fact-checking charity Full Fact, Norway’s payments to the EU are about two-thirds of what the UK pays per person, before money comes back from Brussels.

About half the money goes to specific EU projects Norway participates in, such as the Horizon 2020 research plan and the educational programme Erasmus.

More strikingly, about €390m each year goes to projects in the EU’s 15 poorest countries — predominantly in central and eastern Europe — to reduce social and economic disparities.

(link: https://www.ft.com/content/5d2ffe8e-fd40-11e7-a492-2c9be7f3120a )

It seems to me that the near-expulsion of Britain from the Galileo satellite project (Galileo is the European satellite navigation system, similar to the American GPS) by Europe, just because the EU "doesn't like" Brexit, and therefore wants to "punish" Britain, is also objectionable (link: https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-to-galileo-satellite-programme-after-brexit ).

The European policy regarding Europol is perhaps also objectionable, the same kind of "punishment logic" might be at work here.

 

[quadraginta]

According to Anthony "Ant" Middleton Adventurer and Channel 4 television presenter.

"A ‘no deal’ for our country would actually be a blessing in disguise. It would force us into hardship and suffering which would unite & bring us together, bringing back British values of loyalty and a sense of community! Extreme change is needed!"

That's a remarkably thorough disguise.

A wolf in wolf's clothing?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

What I find objectionable is that the EU demands payment, in order to get a free trade agreement, while this free trade agreement costs nothing to the EU, and is even excellent and necessary for its own economy. I believe this is a totally absurd situation. The EU is in a position of strength, with its huge market of more than 500 million consumers, and it is trying to use this position of strength to extract money from its trading partners, in order for them to secure a tariff-free relationship. Norway is an example of this, and a very fine and clear explanation is given by the Financial Times:

(link: https://www.ft.com/content/5d2ffe8e-fd40-11e7-a492-2c9be7f3120a )

It seems to me that the near-expulsion of Britain from the Galileo satellite project (Galileo is the European satellite navigation system, similar to the American GPS) by Europe, just because the EU "doesn't like" Brexit, and therefore wants to "punish" Britain, is also objectionable (link: https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-to-galileo-satellite-programme-after-brexit ).

The European policy regarding Europol is perhaps also objectionable, the same kind of "punishment logic" might be at work here.

You seem to have some difficulty with the concept of a group of countries cooperating to mutual benefit not giving that benefit to countries not part of the group.

 

[Michel H]

You seem to have some difficulty with the concept of a group of countries cooperating to mutual benefit not giving that benefit to countries not part of the group.

I am against inflicting unnecessary human suffering, and creating new human-made crises, that nobody needs, when the whole world should unite to combat climate change. I believe in the importance of altruism and idealism, of fighting selfishness, not just when you are attending Mass on Sunday morning (if you are a Christian), but also in real life, on every day of the week.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I am against inflicting unnecessary human suffering, and creating new human-made crises, that nobody needs, when the whole world should unite to combat climate change. I believe in the importance of altruism and idealism, of fighting selfishness, not just when you are attending Mass on Sunday morning (if you are a Christian), but also in real life, on every day of the week.

That's fine and all, but it's not the EU causing this crisis.
All the UK has to do is rescind article 50 and there is no problem.

But if they are going to separate themselves from the EU, then all the benefits of being part of the EU disappear as well.

You may claim that is 'imposing fines', but it's actually giving the UK what they want, treatment as a non-member state.
But I see you clearly fall into the camp that claims the UK is allowed to have it's cake and eat it too.

 

[Michel H]

That's fine and all, but it's not the EU causing this crisis.
All the UK has to do is rescind article 50 and there is no problem.

But if they are going to separate themselves from the EU, then all the benefits of being part of the EU disappear as well.

You may claim that is 'imposing fines', but it's actually giving the UK what they want, treatment as a non-member state.
But I see you clearly fall into the camp that claims the UK is allowed to have it's cake and eat it too.

I agree with you, that it would probably be better that the UK finally decides to remain in the EU, perhaps after a second referendum, the "final say" one, but they have the right to leave if this is really what they want.

Also, if, after leaving the Union, Britain wants to participate on some important European research project, for example on synthetic fuels, batteries, or advanced, fourth generation nuclear reactors, I hope they will be welcome to join, and I would find it normal that they contribute financially, like other countries. But I don't think they should be required to pay enormous amounts of money, just for free trade. In my opinion, using an "ethical approach", this should be granted free of charge (and with a smile). When you do that, you may avoid a major catastrophe, which is important.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

What I find objectionable is that the EU demands payment, in order to get a free trade agreement, while this free trade agreement costs nothing to the EU, and is even excellent and necessary for its own economy. I believe this is a totally absurd situation. The EU is in a position of strength, with its huge market of more than 500 million consumers, and it is trying to use this position of strength to extract money from its trading partners, in order for them to secure a tariff-free relationship.

Can you be clear on how this supports your conclusion? What makes an "economic terror organization"?

I'm also interested in where you get your information from. As others have pointed out, you are seriously misinformed about trade politics and the EU. Your distorted perceptions are definitely not the result of reading the FT or the Guardian. Is there some blog that supplies your opinions?

 

[Amazer]

I agree with you, that it would probably be better that the UK finally decides to remain in the EU, perhaps after a second referendum, the "final say" one, but they have the right to leave if this is really what they want.

And they do have this right... they could leave right now if that is what they wanted.

Also, if, after leaving the Union, Britain wants to participate on some important European research project, for example on synthetic fuels, batteries, or advanced, fourth generation nuclear reactors, I hope they will be welcome to join, and I would find it normal that they contribute financially, like other countries. But I don't think they should be required to pay enormous amounts of money, just for free trade. In my opinion, using an "ethical approach", this should be granted free of charge (and with a smile). When you do that, you may avoid a major catastrophe, which is important.

A free trade agreement would be free of charge... just like Japan and Canada arent't required to pay for the into the EU for their trade deals.

The problem is that the UK is looking for a 'plus' deal where they have frictionless trade with the single market. That level of access requires some trade-offs, like contributing to the budget, regulatory allignment, etc, etc.

It's really up to the UK to decide where they come down on this... honour the GFA and have frictionless trade with the single market AND pay a contribution to the EU or have a FTA that eases trade but isn't frictionless, ditch the GFA and installs a hard border between the UK and Ireland and move on... but they can't have all the benefits of the single market without any of the obligations.

 

[Michel H]

Can you be clear on how this supports your conclusion? What makes an "economic terror organization"?

I'm also interested in where you get your information from. As others have pointed out, you are seriously misinformed about trade politics and the EU. Your distorted perceptions are definitely not the result of reading the FT or the Guardian. Is there some blog that supplies your opinions?

What makes an "economic terror organization"?

To me, an "economic terror organization" (in this context) is a large economic power which threatens economic catastrophe if their trading partners "do not pay enough". This is actually racketeering and extorsion, exactly what the European Union is (perhaps) doing, in my opinion (it is doing other, more useful, things too, however).

I'm also interested in where you get your information from. As others have pointed out, you are seriously misinformed about trade politics and the EU. Your distorted perceptions are definitely not the result of reading the FT or the Guardian. Is there some blog that supplies your opinions?

My ideas are just my own, I am trying to use the best sources of factual information that I can find (I sometimes learn by reading posts on this forum too). I am not an economist, I have an engineering degree, and a Ph.D. degree in Physics from an American university.

 

[Vixen]

According to Anthony "Ant" Middleton Adventurer and Channel 4 television presenter.

"A ‘no deal’ for our country would actually be a blessing in disguise. It would force us into hardship and suffering which would unite & bring us together, bringing back British values of loyalty and a sense of community! Extreme change is needed!"

Yer, just like in 2008. Them wuz great times, eh?

 

[Michel H]

And they do have this right... they could leave right now if that is what they wanted.


A free trade agreement would be free of charge... just like Japan and Canada arent't required to pay for the into the EU for their trade deals.

The problem is that the UK is looking for a 'plus' deal where they have frictionless trade with the single market. That level of access requires some trade-offs, like contributing to the budget, regulatory allignment, etc, etc.

It's really up to the UK to decide where they come down on this... honour the GFA and have frictionless trade with the single market AND pay a contribution to the EU or have a FTA that eases trade but isn't frictionless, ditch the GFA and installs a hard border between the UK and Ireland and move on... but they can't have all the benefits of the single market without any of the obligations.

This is an interesting post, Amazer, I notice you seem to have some expertise on the economy and Brexit. Some explanations perhaps: FTA=Free Trade Agreement, GFA=Good Friday Agreement, an explanation on the difference between "free trade" and "frictionless trade" is given here: https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2018/10/28/frictionless-trade-is-not-the-same-as-free-trade/ .
There is perhaps a general tendency of too much interventionism from public authorities (customs posts and so on), which can complicate and slow things down.

 

[Vixen]

I agree with you, that it would probably be better that the UK finally decides to remain in the EU, perhaps after a second referendum, the "final say" one, but they have the right to leave if this is really what they want.

Also, if, after leaving the Union, Britain wants to participate on some important European research project, for example on synthetic fuels, batteries, or advanced, fourth generation nuclear reactors, I hope they will be welcome to join, and I would find it normal that they contribute financially, like other countries. But I don't think they should be required to pay enormous amounts of money, just for free trade. In my opinion, using an "ethical approach", this should be granted free of charge (and with a smile). When you do that, you may avoid a major catastrophe, which is important.

LOL. Juncker might look like a jolly avuncular type, albeit lecherous and touchy feely towards females (get your hand of our Prime Minister) but he is the son of an SS-Officer. Imagine if his dad had been on the winning side, the UK would be under the SS heel with gassings, executions and cremations going on daily. Not very altruistic or smiley, eh?

No, what's needed is a solid legal contract.

 

[dudalb]

I am against inflicting unnecessary human suffering, and creating new human-made crises, that nobody needs, when the whole world should unite to combat climate change. I believe in the importance of altruism and idealism, of fighting selfishness, not just when you are attending Mass on Sunday morning (if you are a Christian), but also in real life, on every day of the week.

Wow, that is a lot of nice souding but not very helpful in the real world platitudes.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

He's a businessman. Of course he moves his HQ to the most tax-efficient country he is allowed to. Being a politician doesn't mean you should dress in sack cloth, give away your wealth, or send your kids to the local sink school.

My sister's ex-father-in-law was head of ILEA years ago. He got flak in the press for sending his kids to public school.

Hating someone because of their class is just so...so...British.

It's not about hating someone about their class, and that is a lazy slur to throw around. It's about a politician making decisions to benefit himself and his business rather than the country and people he is supposed to be serving. Unless your sister's ex-father-in-law was harming the LEA schools in order to advantage his publicly schooled children there is no comparison.

 

[dudalb]

Think Mhairi Black MP nailed it today on Corbyn:

Everytime you hear somebody try to explain away a politicins's stupidity by saying "There are playing four dimension chess;it's part of a clever strategy" you can bet it's just a politician doing stupid things.
The UK is like the US in this regard:there seems to be a severe lack of leaderhip all across the political spectrum. I suspect this is because a lot of the best and the brightest for some years have not wanted to go into politics, preferring other endeavors.

 

[Information Analyst]

What I find objectionable is that the EU demands payment, in order to get a free trade agreement, while this free trade agreement costs nothing to the EU, and is even excellent and necessary for its own economy. I believe this is a totally absurd situation. The EU is in a position of strength, with its huge market of more than 500 million consumers, and it is trying to use this position of strength to extract money from its trading partners, in order for them to secure a tariff-free relationship. Norway is an example of this, and a very fine and clear explanation is given by the Financial Times:

Norway pays about €890m each year to a variety of EU programmes and countries — equivalent to €166 per person — as part of a 1994 deal that secures full single market access via the European Economic Area.

According to the fact-checking charity Full Fact, Norway’s payments to the EU are about two-thirds of what the UK pays per person, before money comes back from Brussels.

About half the money goes to specific EU projects Norway participates in, such as the Horizon 2020 research plan and the educational programme Erasmus.

More strikingly, about €390m each year goes to projects in the EU’s 15 poorest countries — predominantly in central and eastern Europe — to reduce social and economic disparities.

(link: https://www.ft.com/content/5d2ffe8e-fd40-11e7-a492-2c9be7f3120a )

It seems to me that the near-expulsion of Britain from the Galileo satellite project (Galileo is the European satellite navigation system, similar to the American GPS) by Europe, just because the EU "doesn't like" Brexit, and therefore wants to "punish" Britain, is also objectionable (link: https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-to-galileo-satellite-programme-after-brexit ).

The European policy regarding Europol is perhaps also objectionable, the same kind of "punishment logic" might be at work here.

Why the mock surprise? EU member countries pay in, get access to the free market, and benefits back, although the poorer ones get more of the latter than the richer ones. If a non-member gets access to the free market, why should they not have to throw something into the pot in return? Although the above leaves around €155m unaccounted for, it still sounds like Norway is getting a pretty good deal.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

LOL. Juncker might look like a jolly avuncular type, albeit lecherous and touchy feely towards females (get your hand of our Prime Minister) but he is the son of an SS-Officer. Imagine if his dad had been on the winning side, the UK would be under the SS heel with gassings, executions and cremations going on daily. Not very altruistic or smiley, eh?

No, what's needed is a solid legal contract.

Sins of the Father, eh? Classy.

Born in 1924 to a working class family, Mr Juncker’s father Joseph, a steel worker and a Christian trade unionist, was forcibly conscripted into the German Wehrmacht army during the War.

In 1942 over 10,000 Luxembourgers were forced to serve in the German army, prompting a nationwide general strike that was brutally crushed by the tiny Grand Duchy’s Nazi occupiers.

The wounds are still raw. In 1997, the Luxembourg leader wept in the margins of an EU summit with Ukraine recalling how his father was wounded fighting in Odessa under duress as a forced conscript in a Nazi army that he loathed.

Over 2,800 of the forced conscripts from Luxembourg died, a history that reinforces Mr Juncker’s mission to keep a reunified Germany bound to France within European structures, such as the euro.

Last month, his father, aged 90, who is frail and living in nursing home, wept when a radio station reported on The Sun newspaper’s allegation that he was the Juncker family’s “Nazi link”, an episode that has hardened his son’s hostility to British opposition to his appointment.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10967125/How-Nazi-slurs-and-Tory-euroscepticism-turned-Jean-Claude-Juncker-against-Britain.html

 

[fagin]

LOL. Juncker might look like a jolly avuncular type, albeit lecherous and touchy feely towards females (get your hand of our Prime Minister) but he is the son of an SS-Officer. Imagine if his dad had been on the winning side, the UK would be under the SS heel with gassings, executions and cremations going on daily. Not very altruistic or smiley, eh?

No, what's needed is a solid legal contract.

The sins of the father?

Seriously?

Ninja'd again. Wake up fingers.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

LOL. Juncker might look like a jolly avuncular type, albeit lecherous and touchy feely towards females (get your hand of our Prime Minister) but he is the son of an SS-Officer. Imagine if his dad had been on the winning side, the UK would be under the SS heel with gassings, executions and cremations going on daily. Not very altruistic or smiley, eh?

No, what's needed is a solid legal contract.

Jesus. Juncker's dad was a forced conscript in the war. Just shows you the extent of the propaganda doing the rounds.

 

[Vixen]

Sins of the Father, eh? Classy.




https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10967125/How-Nazi-slurs-and-Tory-euroscepticism-turned-Jean-Claude-Juncker-against-Britain.html

Oh please. You don't get to be an officer unless you've shown loyalty and commitment to your cause. My brothers were British army officers. They had to pass out at Sandhurst first, after studying for exams and achieving the entry requirements of a relevant university degree (electronics or whatever it was). All armed forces personnel have to swear an allegiance to the crown.

I am all for everybody in Europe uniting together in peace and love. However, we should never forget the fallen who gave their lives in WWI and WWII (and it wasn't Juncker's dad who is the grand old age of 90 or more).