Brexit: Now What? Part III

[ceptimus]

His words apply wonderfully to the Maarstricht agreement he committed us to.

 

[Amazer]

His words apply wonderfully to the Maarstricht agreement he committed us to.

Assuming for the moment that the above is true... Is that enough reason to engage in that same behaviour when it concerns Brexit? Or would it be prudent to learn from past mistakes and try to do better?

 

[ceptimus]

Economic forecasts, especially macroeconomic ones, have been shown, up to now, to be completely unreliable. Don't take my word for it - go do your own research.

So the continued reliance on such forecasts by remain enthusiasts is irrational. Macroeconomic forecasters are no better than dowsers.

 

[Aepervius]

His words apply wonderfully to the Maarstricht agreement he committed us to.

UK was in the tatter back in 1972 when it was welcomed in the EU. You MAY be pretending that the UK would have been better off outside without evidence (the fact the economy of the UK was not that good in 1972 belies that) , but what you cannot say is that UK from 1972 is better off economically than UK today.

So be glad that you had that commitment. IMO we should have followed De Gaulle's advice and asked you to stay outside : he viewed UK as perturbator, which would never integrate itself in UK, and would sabotage it from inside. Man oh man how right was that man in retrospect.

 

[Aepervius]

Economic forecasts, especially macroeconomic ones, have been shown, up to now, to be completely unreliable. Don't take my word for it - go do your own research.

So the continued reliance on such forecasts by remain enthusiasts is irrational. Macroeconomic forecasters are no better than dowsers.

My own economical forecast research yield that actually, we are better off with them than acting at random without them.

Funny that.

 

[Aber]

There are 2 issues here one is that EU funding is retrospective and at the end of any year the last quarter is still to be reported. The second is that the UK government has signed the guarantees for all the match funding for the majority of programmes already entered into. So an example is University R&D which is funded at approx 50% from EU funding and 50% from match or in country funding. However all the guarantees for programmes up to 2020 were agreed per project as any funding package was passed. There may also be the possibility of in country Companies and Charities and NGOs suing the U.K. Government if they lose their agreed funding from the EU as a result of Brexit and face bankruptcy. Some of this funding is up to 70% for innovation commercialisation and can be as high as 2.5 million per company involved. We have not seen the last of court judgements here. To understand the spend properly you need to audit in 4 year cycles. So from. 2016-2020.

That is NOT what most of the EU claim is about.

See here for more analysis:

http://www.cer.org.uk/publications/archive/policy-brief/2017/%E2%82%AC60-billion-brexit-bill-how-disentangle-britain-eu-budget

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

His words apply wonderfully to the Maarstricht agreement he committed us to.

Really? Because the quality of life in the UK has risen quite a bit since the Maastricht Treaty was signed. I wonder if we will be able to say the same in a couple of decades about Brexit?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Economic forecasts, especially macroeconomic ones, have been shown, up to now, to be completely unreliable. Don't take my word for it - go do your own research.

So the continued reliance on such forecasts by remain enthusiasts is irrational. Macroeconomic forecasters are no better than dowsers.

So any forecasts which say Brexit are good are just as faulty. Therefore we can't make an economic case either way. So the case for Brexit is? Other than racism and xenophobia that is?

 

[MCel58]

That is NOT what most of the EU claim is about.

See here for more analysis:

http://www.cer.org.uk/publications/archive/policy-brief/2017/%E2%82%AC60-billion-brexit-bill-how-disentangle-britain-eu-budget

Actually it is exactly what it is about, it is the guaranteees to the structural funds which consist of both our existing commitments throughout the EU including the Uk for funds such as Erasmus, ERDF, ESF, Horizon 2020, the SME instruments, CAP, Fisheries, European Patent Office, REACH compliance, joint agency approaches, infrastructure projects plus hundreds of other payments like pensions for Nigel Farage and other MEPs, UK EU staff payments, and various other payments that we gave guarantees for in 2015 when we signed the agreement for the 2016-2020 funding cycle.

 

[Greebo]

From today's GUARNAID regarding BMW minis:-

The German carmaker is likely to hold talks with the British government before making a decision but is concerned about the prospect of the UK leaving the single market and being charged tariffs on imports and exports.

 

[The Don]

The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) doesn't want Brexit if there's no trade deal:

Brexit should be delayed if no trade deal can be struck with the EU by the end of the two-year negotiating process, business leaders have said.

The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) also wants businesses to continue to be allowed to recruit skilled and low-skilled EU workers after the UK leaves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39111813

Brexit is making a lot of businesses very nervous. There are a few importers who manufacture outside the UK (like Dyson) who stand to benefit but the upside for the vast majority of UK businesses is difficult to determine.

 

[ceptimus]

Really? Because the quality of life in the UK has risen quite a bit since the Maastricht Treaty was signed. I wonder if we will be able to say the same in a couple of decades about Brexit?

Name some countries not at war where the quality of life hasn't risen since the Maastricht Treaty was signed.

It's hard to think of any but you might include Greece and Portugal. If the quality of life has gotten worse there, most would argue it's because they are members of the EU and were foolish enough to adopt the Euro currency.

 

[ceptimus]

So any forecasts which say Brexit are good are just as faulty. Therefore we can't make an economic case either way. So the case for Brexit is? Other than racism and xenophobia that is?

Once again with the racist slurs.

If all macroeconomic forecasts are useless then the rational option is to base policy not on forecasts but on actual known facts. So you can look at facts like the UK being forced to have asymmetric immigration polices for EU and non-EU countries, and the known net costs of EU membership. Then you base your decisions on those facts. This is what the British people did, and therefore took the decision for Britain to leave the EU.

 

[3point14]

The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) doesn't want Brexit if there's no trade deal:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39111813

Brexit is making a lot of businesses very nervous. There are a few importers who manufacture outside the UK (like Dyson) who stand to benefit but the upside for the vast majority of UK businesses is difficult to determine.

This contributes to my, 'we'll all be spending euros by the end of the decade' speculation.

 

[The Don]

This contributes to my, 'well all be spending euros by the end of the decade' speculation.

Speculate away, but IMO it won't happen, and certainly not that quickly. Having left the EU there's no appetite for rejoining.

 

[ceptimus]

Also this :

John Major attacks government over approach to Brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...or-attacks-government-over-approach-to-brexit


Exactly.

1992 John Major: "The UK leaving the ERM will cause us to suffer for years" (He'd taken us into the ERM, of course).

The UK then left the ERM and enjoyed fifteen years of sustained growth.

Now twenty five years later, he's said the same thing about leaving the EU. Why should we take any notice of his opinion?

 

[The Don]

1992 John Major: "The UK leaving the ERM will cause us to suffer for years" (He'd taken us into the ERM, of course).

The UK then left the ERM and enjoyed fifteen years of sustained growth.

Now twenty five years later, he's said the same thing about leaving the EU. Why should we take any notice of his opinion?

Got a source for that quote ?

 

[catsmate]

But this is making Dublin very happy.....

Not universally, property prices are bad enough.

 

[catsmate]

I doubt the undoubted benefits of corporations moving to Dublin would outweigh the downsides for Ireland. Having a peaceful and prosperous North is in their interests

Meh, that'll be the UK's problem for a long time to come. They'll have to keep pumping in the money to keep Norn Iron pacified.

 

[Aber]

Actually it is exactly what it is about, it is the guaranteees to the structural funds which consist of both our existing commitments throughout the EU including the Uk for funds such as Erasmus, ERDF, ESF, Horizon 2020, the SME instruments, CAP, Fisheries, European Patent Office, REACH compliance, joint agency approaches, infrastructure projects plus hundreds of other payments like pensions for Nigel Farage and other MEPs, UK EU staff payments, and various other payments that we gave guarantees for in 2015 when we signed the agreement for the 2016-2020 funding cycle.

Did you read the linked document?

Half the likely EU claim is for:

Reste à liquider (RAL)
Roughly translated as “yet to be paid”, the reste à liquider is essentially a €241 billion bill that has ballooned since 2000 as the EU has piled on projects to its schedule of works and investment. While that €241 billion must be paid by all member-states of the EU, it represents the biggest portion of the Brexit charge.

It effectively arises from political divisions over the EU budget, which mean the EU systematically commits to more spending projects than its member-states are willing to pay for in a given year. This is managed through a forked accounting method. Inspired by a bygone French bookkeeping technique, the EU adopted a system of budgeting that splits its accounts into ‘commitments’ (basically appropriations to spend money for a specific purpose or project) and payments (to actually execute those commitments).

The EU’s long-term budget sets ceilings for both annual commitments and payments. But crucially, the annual commitment ceiling is almost always bigger than payments. That leaves a (usually increasing) overhang of unpaid commitments. So in a typical budget year, the EU can be paying for the implementation of commitments first registered in the EU’s annual budget anywhere from one and 20 years previously.

This is completely separate from the 2016-2020 budget cycle.