The broad sunlit uplands of next March. Yeah, really. .

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Have you seen the airline prices to Madrid for the final? Within minutes went up from £150 to £1500 that day.

That’s the extra environmental charge to make passengers carbon neutral for the flight!

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Rudernst

Europe is not laughing, we were horrified, now a little sad, but life goes on.

What the Brits fail to grasp:
The EU was 27 member states and will be 26.
Many of these have very little commercial interaction with UK and could not care less if UK is an EU member or not !!
In fact, some of these countries are quite aware of the fact that the shift in EU voting rights following the Brexit works in their interest. To spell it out: Brexit is quite fine by them.

The countries that do profit from trade with UK, have not enough votes to swing this.

Germany was - behind the scenes - UKs strongest ally in the inter-EU discussions (because we had the most to lose). But - even in this thread - Germany got a lot of flak (remember the Nazi/war allusions even here in this thread). Well, really really clever to let rip against Your logical and most powerful ally and **** them off.

THESE are the reasons why the EU can take such a hard stance in the negotiations. 26 European states are more unified on the Brexit issue than the British people. THAT is quite fascinating. Governments representing more than 400 million Europeans can agree on something. One governement and one parliament representing 65 million Brits can not agree on much. Food for thought, isnt it ?

The UK economy accounts for roughly 15 % of the EU BIP.
Not nice to lose that, but not a desaster either.
Most of the damage of losing UK trade will be felt in Germany, and we are acutely aware of this, but currently we can afford this, there is 0 unemployment at the moment, who cares if we get one year of zero growth (this is how small the Brexit effect will be in Germany, who is the worst affected)
Again this is the reason why EU stands so unified.
Apart from Germany, nobody will really suffer

One can argue that the timing of Brexit is very bad for the UK position, in times of relative prosperity one can afford to loose a little business.
Would have been different before a crisis background where there was nothing to lose.

UK, on the other hand, does half of its trade with EU.
and UK will have to shoulder any loss of that alone, whereas in the EU it gets diluted amoug 26.

This is, why all talk of "they need us more that we need them" is plain wrong and delusional.
The UK negotiating position always was very bad (one against many).
UK managed to make it far worse than i imagined, but thats another story.

Following THIS thread here has made ME a staunch Brexiteer.
A nation as divided as the UK is on the issue of EU membership has no place in the union and no benefit to offer.
For a while Brexit was unthinkble but Europeans are starting to realise that things will never to back to the status quo ante anyway with UK, not in this generation, so Brexit is inevitable.

Seeing how divided the British are, my preferred option is a no deal Brexit.

RuE

I think you need to re run your numbers. The UK is a net contributor so even if Rumania can do without the trade it can't do without the money.

[bauble]

Thank you Rudolph, for your contribution, it is a most interesting alternative view from 'the other side' so to speak.
I am sure that most 'Leavers' have no personal animosity towards Germany, and would/will be more that happy to trade with you, however, it is not in the National character' of the ENGLISH to be ruled by unelected foreigners such as Juncker et al. As a nation we prefer to make our own rules, and our own mistakes. A free trade area is one thing, but a European Super State, is just too much power in the wrong hands.

I sincerely hope that no one on this forum would deliberately cause you offence, and as far as I am concerned you will always be welcome on Historics.

Alles Gute,

Bauble

[Gerard C]

What could be the reason why we've been told that the UK contribution will affect business here, specially agriculture? We've been talking about that on the forum and mainly bad organisation/ low efficiency structures/ laziness were pointed.
As Peter says, there will be several effects to the Brexit, business wise and money wise. I guess euro politicians are trying to hyde this from the public. At the moment.

[Rudernst]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I think you need to re run your numbers. The UK is a net contributor so even if Rumania can do without the trade it can't do without the money.

no need to run the numbers

yes, UK is a net contributor
that will be lost
in the end the Germans will have to make up most the shortfall
we are quite aware of that
not nice, but we have a balanced budget for years now
so not the end of the world either

the ones that take the money out will continue to do so
the pockets that foot that bill will change
that is all
from their point of view

In fact one less vote on the payers side (Brexit) could mean that the political balance shifts more towards the takers than the payers

RuE

[Rudernst]

Originally Posted by Gerard C

What could be the reason why we've been told that the UK contribution will affect business here, specially agriculture? We've been talking about that on the forum and mainly bad organisation/ low efficiency structures/ laziness were pointed.
As Peter says, there will be several effects to the Brexit, business wise and money wise. I guess euro politicians are trying to hyde this from the public. At the moment.

In the EU agrarian policy is one of the original and prime fields of EU activity.
EU farms are heavyly subsidised (including UK farms), the cost used to be funded by the consumers through high prices (less so by governments).
EU was commited, for historical reasons to make sure that farmers make enough money
Overall the subsidy level has come down a lot, not by EU choice but because of GATT rulings (the most important one brought forward by Thailand).
But still, farmers in EU enjoy a high level of protection and EU generated income. EU has just switched from regulated prices to a sort of pension system.
Should UK go completely free trade (unlikely, in my opinion, but would fascinating to see what happens) the UK farms will suffer extremely severely, because then the cheapest farming in the world will export to UK and ruin price level. NZ sheep farming can then make its impact on UK farms, and guess who has lower production cost.
Why anybody connected with UK farming has voted leave is beyond me.
(I trade professionally in sugar and feedstuff and grain products, so know what I am talking about.)

That is the greatness of the EU trade deals that we managed to get free trade access everywhere for industrial goods and even food exports and still could protect our farmers, just because the common market is so important.
No way that UK alone can do better deals than that.

Take cars, for instance:
export cars from EU to US, 2,5 % duty
export cars from US to EU 10 % duty
and still the US only have limted access to EU agrarian markes (soybeans can get in, for instance) but the access is limited in many ways, so EU farm production is protected
does not get any better that that
Trump has a point there, its not quite fair

or, going back to my example:
if UK wants to export Ranger Rovers to NZ, than You might have open Your market for NZ farm products (including lamb cutlets) whether one wants that, or not. At least this is how I would negotiate, were I on the NZ side.
This will mean that industrial interest in UK will fight the countryside, and the city dwellers will want cheaper food and be pro free trade and farming would suffer as a result.
Look into late 19th century political debate in Britain, You have been there before, exactly this conflict.

RuE

[Peter Mallett]

Ah you mean the corn laws? They were discredited as you know. Actually what you are espousing is protectionism and I believe the EU commissioners have already said they don't want to revert to protectionism.

Originally Posted by Daily Telegraph 09 May 2019

Brussels has warned against a “lapse into protectionism” as it downgraded growth for the eurozone and the outlook for the global economy darkened.

[Rudernst]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Ah you mean the corn laws? They were discredited as you know. Actually what you are espousing is protectionism and I believe the EU commissioners have already said they don't want to revert to protectionism.

yes, I was referring to the corn laws
which were good and bad, depending on where one stood
half (!) of the farms in East Anglia were given up and deserted at the end of the 19th century, after the corn laws were abolished, mainly due to extremely cheap corn and grain from the midwest of the USA
on the other hand, hunger and famine came to an end when they were abolished, for the nation as a whole good, for the farmers very bad

which is why I dont get why a UK farmer could vote Brexit
especially not when the terms were unclear

As to the EU position on protectionism
its is actually quite cynical
EU claims they dont want protectionism (when is suits them)
but they only open their own markets as far as they absolutely have to
but then everybody else plays the same game

dont get me wrong, personally, I am pro free trade, I am a trader, the more the better

but Peter; I was not writing about the EU. The EU position is clear and defined and works (mostly)
I was referring to post Brexit UK, You as a nation will make your own deals
and before doing this will have to decide, whom to favor.
farmers ? city dwellers ? industry ?
but yes, my advice to UK would be to think deep and hard how to protect your farmers post Brexit.
Completely free trade would kill a large part of your farming or change them beyond recognition.
UK would be one of the very very few completely open markets with buying power, expect to get swamped by the lowest cost producer worldwide
and it would be people like who would do this.


RuE

[Gerard C]

Thanks for your answers Rudernst. In France, the last governments were relying on foreign money instead of studying an in-depth reform. We have many farmers struggling for some Euros at the end of the month. Sometimes they are virtually bankrupt. Nothing to see with the Brexit. Absolutely nothing. It will shed light on some middle age habits.

[The Fat Clerk]

The Postman's just been (1730 is early for round here) and delivered my Postal Voting form for the Euro Election later in the month, I'm expected to elect somebody to something I and the majority voted to leave - am I going mad or what?
I took great delight in writing Leave means Leave across it, and will post it in the morning.
Begs the question how much is this farce costing?

[gary396]

Originally Posted by The Fat Clerk

The Postman's just been (1730 is early for round here) and delivered my Postal Voting form for the Euro Election later in the month, I'm expected to elect somebody to something I and the majority voted to leave - am I going mad or what?
I took great delight in writing Leave means Leave across it, and will post it in the morning.
Begs the question how much is this farce costing?

In 2014 the EU elections cost £108M in the UK apparently. The quoted figure doing the rounds for this year is around £150M.

[Lancsbreaker]

Probably around £7 per person voting........


I suspect the Brexit party will get a high percentage of the votes....


I saw the first programme of the Brexit : behind the scenes, last night and it confirmed my view of the cynicism with which it was conducted by the EU, and of course the incompetence of the UK negotiating stance. We seemed to just accept any EU ruling about what we could do - which was crazy. Even before opening negotiations with EU we should have been discussing trade deals with our other main trading partners - despite EU protests. After all, what were they going to do - throw us out?

[Mike Bell]

I know not Brexit related and unlikely to affect any tenthers travelling in Europe, but latest on Gilets Jaunes protests....

France - Yellow Vests' Protests - Major Cities
Location: Nationwide
Date: May 11
Impact: Increased security, localized disruptions; possible clashes

Summary
Activists affiliated with the "Yellow Vests" ( Gilets Jaunes ) anti-government protest campaign plan to demonstrate in cities across France, May 11. Paris is likely to see the largest demonstrations; participants will gather in various locations throughout the city. Rallies have already been confirmed at Place Jussieu from 1130 and Place de la Republique from 1400.

Protests will also take place in other cities nationwide with varying levels of participation, though there are fewer well-publicized events than in previous weeks. The following protest locations are either confirmed or possible based on having been previous sites or having garnered significant support on social media:

Confirmed
Lyon: Place Bellecour at 1200
Nantes: Miroir d'eau at 1030
Toulouse: Allees Jean Jaures at 1400

Likely
Bordeaux: Place de la Bourse around 1300
Marseille: Old Port around 1300

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I think you need to re run your numbers. The UK is a net contributor so even if Rumania can do without the trade it can't do without the money.

Similarly to the loss in trade, the contribution "loss" is shared across all the countries.

UK's 9 Billion, divided by 26 countries is under a third of a billion per country, which even Malta could probably afford but given it will be more equitably shared won't be a problem.

[Peter Mallett]

Then why do they need £39Bn?

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Rudernst

Look into late 19th century political debate in Britain, You have been there before, exactly this conflict.
RuE

Or ask Bauble he probably remembers it...

[AndrewCherry]

They don't "need" £39Bn, it's £39Bn we'd already agreed to pay as part of long term commitments, so it's expected to be paid if we're going to be a country that can be trusted. We can definitely refuse to pay it, and refuse to abide by agreements full stop - but I wouldn't expect it to do our ability to do all these amazing trade deals we keep hearing about much good - people don't tend to be that keen on agreements with people who probably won't stick to them.

The £39Bn thing, like much of the rest of this crap, is a tragic example of people not really getting the relative expenditure that large nations spend on things. The amount of money we contribute to EU funding is NOT MUCH. The amount we're expected to pay (the £39Bn) is NOT MUCH. Yes, it's a lot to an individual, but for a wealthy nation, these things are not the terrifying figures that populist rabble-rousers have made them out to be.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Then why do they need £39Bn?

The 39 Bn exit payment is to support projects etc. that the UK has already committed to.

If it does not materialise then they will have whip round and the projects will continue, but the UK might find it rather hard to negotiate any beneficial deals for the future.

Those who suggest that not paying your dues is a good negotiating technique are being rather deceitful (and in some cases apparently rather more worried about the effect of forthcoming money laundering rules on their personal fortune).

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by AndrewCherry

They don't "need" £39Bn, it's £39Bn we'd already agreed to pay as part of long term commitments, so it's expected to be paid if we're going to be a country that can be trusted. We can definitely refuse to pay it, and refuse to abide by agreements full stop - but I wouldn't expect it to do our ability to do all these amazing trade deals we keep hearing about much good - people don't tend to be that keen on agreements with people who probably won't stick to them.

The £39Bn thing, like much of the rest of this crap, is a tragic example of people not really getting the relative expenditure that large nations spend on things. The amount of money we contribute to EU funding is NOT MUCH. The amount we're expected to pay (the £39Bn) is NOT MUCH. Yes, it's a lot to an individual, but for a wealthy nation, these things are not the terrifying figures that populist rabble-rousers have made them out to be.

You beat me to it.
Yes, if the UK is such an important global power then it is peanuts and per person is insignificant (as the EU membership "cost" always has been).

[Peter Mallett]

My sincere apologies for appearing to be ignorant of the financial impact that £39Bn would have on any economy. Thank you for correcting my ignorance.

Now, since that sum of money is of no consequence then it seems a bit churlish for the EU to seek it from the UK, don't you agree? In reality, the agreement to pay future commitments was made after the exit vote as a sop to the EU in the expectation (naive as it was) that it would assist in the future negotiations.

I don't blame the EU for its approach since it is a very European thing to act all hurt when something doesn't go your way. The current furore about Erdogan re running the Istanbul vote is a good example of how the EU behaves with double standards. They are accusing Erdogan of duplicity and yet ignore the fact that the EU did the very same thing to Denmark and Ireland.

I have no time for Erdogan by the way and actually agree that this is just gerrymandering.

[PeterMorley]

Meanwhile I'm wondering how people are feeling about having to vote for the "unelected" EU??

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Now, since that sum of money is of no consequence then it seems a bit churlish for the EU to seek it from the UK, don't you agree? In reality, the agreement to pay future commitments was made after the exit vote as a sop to the EU in the expectation (naive as it was) that it would assist in the future negotiations.

The necessity to pay such an amount was well known before the start of the process - it's part of the withdrawal process (e.g. article 50).

Even the amount was known by the time the referendum was held - 50 Bn euros was the rough estimate, only PM TM suggested 100 Bn and then claimed to have halved it!

[Peter Mallett]

Actually this link helps, but note, it also says there may be reductions available.

https://qz.com/1134703/brexit-divorc...e-eu-to-leave/

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Actually this link helps, but note, it also says there may be reductions available.

https://qz.com/1134703/brexit-divorc...e-eu-to-leave/

It looks like one of the few things that the UK Brexit negotiating team actually agreed was the amount that the UK owes - that article appears to have been written before they got round to calculating the exact amount?

The amount is presumably going down daily as the projects near completion, some of them will no doubt be finished by the time the UK gets round to leaving!

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

It looks like one of the few things that the UK Brexit negotiating team actually agreed was the amount that the UK owes - that article appears to have been written before they got round to calculating the exact amount?

Agreed it is rather old.

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

The amount is presumably going down daily as the projects near completion, some of them will no doubt be finished by the time the UK gets round to leaving!

Could be, but I doubt anyone in the negotiating team would think of that.