Brexit: Now What? Part IV

[Information Analyst]

Okay so how stable would an England/Wales only UK be politically and economically?

It would have 88.7% of the current UK population, and currently generates 91.1% of the tax revenues, but receives 86.5% of government spending. That would suggest that it would actually be slightly better off.

 

[Craig B]

It would have 88.7% of the current UK population, and currently generates 91.1% of the tax revenues, but receives 86.5% of government spending. That would suggest that it would actually be slightly better off.

Maybe. But corporations are taxed at the point where their registered HQ is situated, and that tends to be in London, which is in England. Transfer of that tax point to the other countries, where that would occur, might outweigh the beneficial effect you have observed.

 

[Craig B]

I'm not sure that it's just a matter of the total amount spent by the Leave campaign but I guess we'll find out when the electoral commission makes its report. As I understand it, the issues relate to the way in which spending was allegedly channelled to an allegedly separate organisation to get around total spending limits on the Leave campaign.

That indeed appears to be the issue.

 

[The Don]

Everything's fine, we now have a post-Brexit economic plan (even though we have no idea what form Brexit will take):

The government's plan to boost UK industry ahead of the country leaving the EU is due to be launched later.

The industrial strategy is aimed at lifting growth, which official forecasts suggest will slow due to the UK's poor productivity performance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42131742

So what does this mean ? More government subsidy for large corporations.

Here's the idiot's guide to how it's supposed to work.

Pick an industry that the UK is already good at and needs investment.

Chuck in a bit of government money, cluster the right institutions around it, commit to provide the skills base and give them somewhere to try their new stuff.

So Brexiteers, people who were unhappy about sending so much money to an allegedly undemocratic and unaccountable institution, are instead going to give the money to corporations who really are undemocratic and unaccountable (at least as far as the wider population are concerned).

The magic money tree is really working well these days.

 

[ddt]

That indeed appears to be the issue.

That article mainly deals with the Dark Sith Lord Cummings who led the Vote Leave campaign. This BBC article has some more details:

The row centres around Darren Grimes, at the time a fashion student at the University of Brighton, who set up a group called BeLeave, to give young pro-Brexit campaigners a voice during last year's referendum.

As a registered campaigner, he was allowed to spend up to £700,000. He initially spent very little but in the 10 days leading up to the 23 June vote he ran up a £675,315 bill with AggregateIQ Data, a Canadian marketing firm that specialises in political campaigns.

ETA: the official statement from the Electoral Commission.


Money to clear the bill was not given to Mr Grimes but sent directly to Aggregate IQ by Vote Leave, which separately spent £2.7m with the same firm, more than a third of its £6.8m budget.

Those facts put into question whether fashion student Grimes actually ran a truly separate campaign, or was merely a puppet of Vote Leave to be able to receive an additional £700,000 of public funds.

 

[jimbob]

Everything's fine, we now have a post-Brexit economic plan (even though we have no idea what form Brexit will take):



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42131742

So what does this mean ? More government subsidy for large corporations.



So Brexiteers, people who were unhappy about sending so much money to an allegedly undemocratic and unaccountable institution, are instead going to give the money to corporations who really are undemocratic and unaccountable (at least as far as the wider population are concerned).

The magic money tree is really working well these days.

If it is a good idea now, why wasn't the Conservative government (in power now for 7 years) doing this before?

There seems to be nothing that EU membership would preclude. It's certainly in line with Lib Dem ideas.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, that's not the issue. The EU 28 has an agreement with Australia that it can sell for example 1000 tons of lamb al reduced or no tariffs. They can sell this all in the UK market if they wish... or to any other country in the EU if necessary. The EU and the UK are proposing to split this quota. As an example, 100 tons for the UK and 900 for the EU27. Australia argues, not completely without merrit, that this places an undue burden on their exports.

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

Why would either need to split the quota? They can set their own quotas surely?

 

[ddt]

If it is a good idea now, why wasn't the Conservative government (in power now for 7 years) doing this before?

There seems to be nothing that EU membership would preclude. It's certainly in line with Lib Dem ideas.

The EU does (rightly, IMHO) puts constraints on how governments can bribe corporations to open a new plant in their country. Also, I think that such bribes run counter to a liberal laissez-faire approach.

I wouldn't be surprised, though, if Merck will decide to open their new research facility closer to the regulatory agency.

 

[Craig B]

That article mainly deals with the Dark Sith Lord Cummings who led the Vote Leave campaign. This BBC article has some more details:

Those facts put into question whether fashion student Grimes actually ran a truly separate campaign, or was merely a puppet of Vote Leave to be able to receive an additional £700,000 of public funds.

Is the issue about public funds, or about the limits on spending money donated privately? In elections there are spending limits, regardless of the source of the money.

 

[Nessie]

What you take to be reasonable has lead you to a false conclusion. That is evidence that you should reevaluate your standards of reasonableness.
I think your standards of reasonableness have been distorted by the alt reality of the british press.

My so called false conclusion was a rule had been introduced to stop British cities competing for City of Culture. I then found that was wrong and accepted my mistake.

I do think that it is reasonable the cities cannot take part anymore. The UK is leaving the EU and so it is not unreasonable they cannot take part in an EU event. I also think it is sad that has happened and would prefer they could still take part.

Your claim my mistake and standards is because of the British press is farcical.

 

[Nessie]

In fairness, though, that money and/or effort never ensured actually winning. I would think, though, that those cities could re-purpose their bids for the existing UK City of Culture. It's really just like Commonwealth cities pitching for both the Commonwealth and Olympic Games, which I'm pretty sure has happened.

That may happen and the work involved in getting a City of Culture is not wasted of the city does not get the title. Near where I live there has been a lot of tidying up and regeneration as part of such a bid. Even if the bid fails, we will be left with a much nicer looking town centre.

 

[Darat]

Why would either need to split the quota? They can set their own quotas surely?

I think the answer is no. As I've understood it these quotas are ones agreed with/via the WTO resulting in imports that don't have to carry the standard tariffs. The idea is if at the moment the EU has a deal that lets us import 100 units tariff free, the idea after the UK leaves the EU that the quota will be split so we (the UK) can import 10 units and the EU 90 units.

BUT there is a lot of muttering that this will probably be challenged via the WTO, and countries want to avoid that as it can take a long time to resolve and may result in worse quotas over all.

My major concern is given the USA's attitude to post-Brexit trade with the EU and their publicly stated "America First" policy I think it will be challenged by the current USA administration.

 

[Roofgardener]

When this was announced last week, I heard representatives of the various candidate cities bemoaning the decision on the Radio. They all said how this had come as a bolt out of the blue.

Well, I'm sorry.. but... shouldn't it have been OBVIOUS that their candidacy would be annulled the instant that the UK triggered Article 50 ? As others here have pointed out; the criteria for candidateship is very clear.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I think the answer is no. As I've understood it these quotas are ones agreed with/via the WTO resulting in imports that don't have to carry the standard tariffs. The idea is if at the moment the EU has a deal that lets us import 100 units tariff free, the idea after the UK leaves the EU that the quota will be split so we (the UK) can import 10 units and the EU 90 units.

BUT there is a lot of muttering that this will probably be challenged via the WTO, and countries want to avoid that as it can take a long time to resolve and may result in worse quotas over all.

My major concern is given the USA's attitude to post-Brexit trade with the EU and their publicly stated "America First" policy I think it will be challenged by the current USA administration.

Add in the UK sheep farmers who don't want any increase in Australian or New Zealand imports and it's going to be fun. Do the government support our farmers or allow more from foreign producers to get the wonderful trade deals they are promising?

 

[Roofgardener]

Add in the UK sheep farmers who don't want any increase in Australian or New Zealand imports and it's going to be fun. Do the government support our farmers or allow more from foreign producers to get the wonderful trade deals they are promising?

Currently, the vast majority of our sheep exports are to the EU. (something like 95%). If we have to operate under WTO, then we WOULD have to pay tarifs on those exports, potentiall making them less desirable on the continent, and hence reducing sales.

However, it ALSO means that we can set our OWN tarifs on IMPORTS of sheep. In turn, this could make domestically grown sheep cheaper than New Zealand lamb.

Except.. then we have the reduction in the value of the pound vs the Euro, which makes imports more expensive, and exports cheaper, which muddies the water.

 

[Nessie]

When this was announced last week, I heard representatives of the various candidate cities bemoaning the decision on the Radio. They all said how this had come as a bolt out of the blue.

Well, I'm sorry.. but... shouldn't it have been OBVIOUS that their candidacy would be annulled the instant that the UK triggered Article 50 ? As others here have pointed out; the criteria for candidateship is very clear.

There is no rule specifically about the eligibility of countries leaving the EU. The UK branch of the City of Culture and the Foreign Office then misinformed the cities all would be fine (according to the Dundee rep interviewed on the Radio).

So there were reasons why it was not as OBVIOUS as you think. But, the cities should have double checked, as the UK government cannot be trusted on the EU, as it has made so many claims that have turned out to be wrong.

 

[The Don]

Currently, the vast majority of our sheep exports are to the EU. (something like 95%). If we have to operate under WTO, then we WOULD have to pay tarifs on those exports, potentiall making them less desirable on the continent, and hence reducing sales.

Definitely less desirable on the continent.

However, it ALSO means that we can set our OWN tarifs on IMPORTS of sheep. In turn, this could make domestically grown sheep cheaper than New Zealand lamb.

Liam Fox has assured us that mere seconds after Brexit is done, 40 countries and trade organisations would sign up to free trade agreements with the UK. The idea of high tariffs on imported lamb seems to run counter to this.

In any case it'll be the consumers who end up paying when imported lamb gets more expensive. It would be yet another case of the tail wagging the dog, 99% of the population enduring increased prices - during a time when we'll likely be experiencing an economic downturn - to protect the incomes of the 1% of the population engaged in agriculture.

Except.. then we have the reduction in the value of the pound vs the Euro, which makes imports more expensive, and exports cheaper, which muddies the water.

Oh great, more good news for the consumer

 

[Roofgardener]

There is no rule specifically about the eligibility of countries leaving the EU. The UK branch of the City of Culture and the Foreign Office then misinformed the cities all would be fine (according to the Dundee rep interviewed on the Radio).

So there were reasons why it was not as OBVIOUS as you think. But, the cities should have double checked, as the UK government cannot be trusted on the EU, as it has made so many claims that have turned out to be wrong.

There may not be a rule specifically about the eligibility of countries leaving the EU. However, there ARE very clear rules about who IS eligable, and the UK doesn't fall into any of those categories. And I think the Dundee rep was wrong, or confused, or misrepresenting the situation. I havn't heard ANY of the other reps taking this line ?

 

[Roofgardener]

Liam Fox has assured us that mere seconds after Brexit is done, 40 countries and trade organisations would sign up to free trade agreements with the UK. .........

Oh absolutely. We'll need to issue numbered tickets and set up crush barriers !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOVD-m8urJU

 

[Nessie]

There may not be a rule specifically about the eligibility of countries leaving the EU. However, there ARE very clear rules about who IS eligable, and the UK doesn't fall into any of those categories. And I think the Dundee rep was wrong, or confused, or misrepresenting the situation. I havn't heard ANY of the other reps taking this line ?

I have no reason to doubt he believed the bid for Dundee was still OK, after taking advice from the UK part of the process. He just expressed disappointment at not being included. I do not see how he misrepresented anything.