EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is the latest example why there is no point in bothering to directly respond: a zealot who only repeats himself and never, ever bothers to learn.

If anything, the ranting is getting worse.

~:smoking:

Yeah, I think I am done responding unless I get a direct response that addresses..you know...what I said.


If the UK (or whatever is left of it in a few years) is to be allowed back in, they will definitely be forced to adopt the Euro. So they will lose not only their "sovereignty", but also control of their monetary policy. So Brexit may have been a French/German plot all along... :inquisitive:

I'm still very under-educated on all the unique perks the UK held within the EU. But I would imagine a re-negotiation into the Union would still have leverage on both sides. The EU bringing the UK back into the organization alone would be a strong indicator that the org is flexible and enduring and, most of all, better suited in the world economy than what individual sovereignty can bring. If the opportunity is there, the EU would need to be careful not to press too hard and lose the option.

Wikipedia has a brief article on UK opt outs which seems to be:
* UK retained control over immigration.
* UK retained control over monetary policy.
* UK retained control over labor laws
* UK retained control over criminal laws.

The question in such a hypothetical would be, how desperate is the UK to enter back in. I doubt even under the worst circumstances that the UK would give on all four to re-enter but if given the choice, let's say pick one and align with the EU on the other three... which one would they pick?

[Pannonian]

This is the latest example why there is no point in bothering to directly respond: a zealot who only repeats himself and never, ever bothers to learn.

If anything, the ranting is getting worse.

~:smoking:

Is there anything to be learned from this?

Lorries queue for miles along M20 in Kent as Brexit trade deal deadline draws near (https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/brexit-lorries-queue-miles-along-m20-motorway-kent-chaos-transition-period/)


Lorries have once again been pictured queuing for miles along the M20 motorway in Kent with long delays leading up to the end of the Brexit transition period.

Four days of congestion have riddled the county's roads due to the sheer weight of traffic and freight trying to make its way into Europe.

From 1 January, those leaving Britain for France will face stricter checks at ports and will need their passports stamping as the Brexit transition period expires at midnight on 31 December.

These measures have prompted concern over delays at the border and have already caused chaos for the towns of Dover, Folkestone and Hythe as businesses rush to stockpile goods in fear of a No Deal Brexit.

Do the queues get shorter if Remoaners are less zealous about their beliefs?

[Pannonian]

If the UK (or whatever is left of it in a few years) is to be allowed back in, they will definitely be forced to adopt the Euro. So they will lose not only their "sovereignty", but also control of their monetary policy. So Brexit may have been a French/German plot all along... :inquisitive:

More significantly, for any new member to be allowed in, every other member needs its government to vote to allow them in. Any failure by any one member means overall failure. That's sovereignty for you. If Malta decides that the UK needs to be taught a lesson, it can wield this effective veto to block any UK application, it has the power to do so.

[Gilrandir]

Wikipedia has a brief article on UK opt outs which seems to be:
* UK retained control over immigration.
* UK retained control over monetary policy.
* UK retained control over labor laws
* UK retained control over criminal laws.

The question in such a hypothetical would be, how desperate is the UK to enter back in. I doubt even under the worst circumstances that the UK would give on all four to re-enter but if given the choice, let's say pick one and align with the EU on the other three... which one would they pick?

Being in control doesn't spell being adequate to handle. No evil EU interfered into the UK fighting COVID, yet the government totally botched the initial steps of the pandemic spread prevention.

[Pannonian]

Being in control doesn't spell being adequate to handle. No evil EU interfered into the UK fighting COVID, yet the government totally botched the initial steps of the pandemic spread prevention.

There's overlap between Brexit and the UK government's handling of Covid. The key issue obstructing any agreement between the EU and the UK is the latter's freedom to subsidise its industries however it sees fit.

The New York Times has put into writing something that's already well known here; the UK government has put a staggering amount of funding into Covid-related businesses that under normal circumstances wouldn't come close to passing scrutiny. 22bn funding for PPE and other Covid-related businesses, 11bn of them in businesses that are run by friends and family of Tory MPs, businesses that have no track record in what they were being paid for, or businesses that have a track record of incompetence, human rights violations, etc.

Brexit is basically a carte blanche for the Tories to enrich friends and family and those who will do them favours.

[Greyblades]

I mean, the UK could be a powerhouse again if managed correctly. Plenty of other European states do fine outside the EU, the EFTA is still around. Rory, Frun and well every other UK poster besides you are hoping for a better economic future because the potential is there for smart reforms and a more dynamic/responsive state. Problem is, I just don't see that potential being unlocked by the current government.

Maybe the other UK posters know more about what the Tory party is actually planning on doing to reform internal markets cause we seem to be stuck on the issue of trade balances which is only one aspect of a nation's economy.

In short: internal mismanagement by UK politicians will erode the sovereignty argument as people begin to feel like they would rather just have the higher standard of living.

I think a major factor going forward will be that much of the UK's population has been primed to interpret hardship as being caused by sabotage from pro EU MPs; another reason to thank Theresa May for being so blatant in her Quisiling-ing.

[edyzmedieval]

The odds of a no-deal Brexit are particularly solid right now.

And regardless what you think of the EU and UK, that's not a good deal for anyone.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The odds of a no-deal Brexit are particularly solid right now.

And regardless what you think of the EU and UK, that's not a good deal for anyone.

True. But with all the folderol, I wonder if it might not be better to simply take the hit and move forward. Hanging on tenterhooks cannot be pleasant.

[Greyblades]

No, it f-ing hasnt. Four f-ing years of it.

And they will blame us for the repurcussions of thier own f-ing stubborness.

[Pannonian]

No, it f-ing hasnt. Four f-ing years of it.

And they will blame us for the repurcussions of thier own f-ing stubborness.

So the results of Leaving will be the fault of the Remainers. And thus the blame-spreading begins. Anyway, there shouldn't be blame, should there? You said it was all going to be a riproaring success, so youse should be queueing up to take credit for the brilliant success that Brexit will be.

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article18823586.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_Boris-Johnson-speaks-at-the-launch-of-the-Vote-Leave-bus-campaign.jpg

[Pannonian]

There's overlap between Brexit and the UK government's handling of Covid. The key issue obstructing any agreement between the EU and the UK is the latter's freedom to subsidise its industries however it sees fit.

The New York Times has put into writing something that's already well known here; the UK government has put a staggering amount of funding into Covid-related businesses that under normal circumstances wouldn't come close to passing scrutiny. 22bn funding for PPE and other Covid-related businesses, 11bn of them in businesses that are run by friends and family of Tory MPs, businesses that have no track record in what they were being paid for, or businesses that have a track record of incompetence, human rights violations, etc.

Brexit is basically a carte blanche for the Tories to enrich friends and family and those who will do them favours.

Andy Wigmore is best known for his work with Brexit, having been director of communications for Leave.EU, and having met with Trump and Russian agents on supposedly diplomatic missions, the former contravening the bounds of his role as Belize's trade ambassador and thus resulting in him being fired as the same. With such a background, he is clearly the right man to run a Covid-testing business in the UK. Despite living in Switzerland. Was this part of the 11bn the New York Times accounted for, I wonder.

Brexit is a way by which UK tax money can be directed to Brexit supporters without the restrictions pesky EU-wide laws impose.

[rory_20_uk]

Brexit is a way by which UK tax money can be directed to Brexit supporters without the restrictions pesky EU-wide laws impose.

Hilarious!

Romania.
Bulgaria.
Hungry.
Greece.

All VASTLY more corrupt than Iceland and Norway for example which somehow survive outside of the EU. Probably both are third world hell holes of course.

Being in the EU doesn't prevent corruption, and leaving it won't cause it - all the corruption you mention has occurred whilst we are in the EU.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Being in the EU doesn't prevent corruption, and leaving it won't cause it - all the corruption you mention has occurred whilst we are in the EU.

Maybe? I read that the EU recently passed a bill that allows the union to suspend agricultural subsidies to members who are undermining the rule of law as a way of reigning in Poland and Hungary.

Also, after the Greek bailouts (I am not an economist) my impression was that Greece has been making progress to a more stable fiscal foundation. 2016-2019 budgets were year over year growing surpluses (2020 will kill that cause of COVID), spending per % of GDP is slowly declining and unemployment has been on the decline since 2013.

Also feels like it needs to be pointed out that the 3 out of 4 countries mentioned were behind the Iron Curtain and Greece had more years of political strife in the 20th century than not. I'm not gonna do alternate history here on 'what if' these countries never had Western European institutions guiding them after the collapse, but intuitively it seems plausible that the EU has promoted good elements over bad.

[Pannonian]

In an exclusive interview with Nigel Farage on LBC, Stanley Johnson declared his support for Brexit.

Stanley Johnson, father of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, has declared his support for leaving the European Union after backing Remain in the Referendum campaign.

In an exclusive interview with LBC presenter and Brexit Party leader, Nigel Farage, Mr Johnson said he believes that his son will be able to deliver his promises on Brexit.

He said: "I'm pretty confident he will, in fact I'm more than confident, I put money on it.

"When he says no ifs and buts, I think he means it. Everything I can see leads me to believe that he is as solid as a rock on his commitment that Britain will come out on the 31st October."

"This message will get across to our European colleagues, snd I think we will see a bit change in their view."

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nigel-farage/i-am-a-leaver-stanley-johnson-switches-sides-in-br/




The father of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Thursday he was in the process of applying for a French passport to maintain his ties with the European Union after Brexit.

Stanley Johnson, a former member of the European Parliament who voted Remain in Britain’s 2016 referendum, told RTL radio he wanted to become a French citizen because of strong family links to France.

“If I understand it correctly, I am French. My mother was born in France, her mother was totally French as was her grandfather. So for me it is about reclaiming what I already have. And that makes me very happy,” said the 80-year-old Johnson, who was speaking in French.

“I will always be a European, that’s for sure. One cannot tell the British people: you are not Europeans. Having a tie with the European Union is important,” he added.

British PM Johnson's father applying for French citizenship (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-johnson-father-idUSKBN2950VV)

[rory_20_uk]

Maybe? I read that the EU recently passed a bill that allows the union to suspend agricultural subsidies to members who are undermining the rule of law as a way of reigning in Poland and Hungary.

Also, after the Greek bailouts (I am not an economist) my impression was that Greece has been making progress to a more stable fiscal foundation. 2016-2019 budgets were year over year growing surpluses (2020 will kill that cause of COVID), spending per % of GDP is slowly declining and unemployment has been on the decline since 2013.

Also feels like it needs to be pointed out that the 3 out of 4 countries mentioned were behind the Iron Curtain and Greece had more years of political strife in the 20th century than not. I'm not gonna do alternate history here on 'what if' these countries never had Western European institutions guiding them after the collapse, but intuitively it seems plausible that the EU has promoted good elements over bad.

Greece was let in having used Goldman Sachs to fix their debt. Everyone was aware but they were allowed in having missed every target. And equally missing the spending deficit is more a usual occurance than meeting it.

Given how getting sanctions requires everyone bar one country to vote that Poland and Hungry are together means they can ensure no meaningful censure is applied.

Greece might be doing better - as long as the bar is so low as to what they did on first joining. Which is economic oversight by the EU. Although that wasn't something that the EU was to do until they suddenly had the power to. Probably because there was no mechanism for massive EU debt purchases until they decided they could. Mission creep bit by bit.

~:smoking:

[edyzmedieval]

It's over. Finally.

Brexit has finally happened.

*collective sigh of relief from both EU-Remain and UK-Brexiteers*

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's over. Finally.

Brexit has finally happened.

*collective sigh of relief from both EU-Remain and UK-Brexiteers*

A now the thread is tired and in need of a nap maybe?

[Furunculus]

Morning all, what's new?

back three weeks later for a look...

... nothing.

[Furunculus]

Maybe? I read that the EU recently passed a bill that allows the union to suspend agricultural subsidies to members who are undermining the rule of law as a way of reigning in Poland and Hungary.

i can't find the quote - but i read from a central-european political commentator that the reformulation of the rule-of-law/payments bill renders it essentially toothless, in referening such a specific set of activity that it essentially doesn't touch the ambitions of fidesz/pis in any useful way.

[Pannonian]

Bwahahaha. Leave.EU has relocated from the UK to Ireland so as to stay within the EU.

[rory_20_uk]

Bwahahaha. Leave.EU has relocated from the UK to Ireland so as to stay within the EU.

It's the only way to keep the .EU domain since the EU has (in a totally not petty way) revoked all holders who aren't in the EU.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Greece was let in having used Goldman Sachs to fix their debt. Everyone was aware but they were allowed in having missed every target. And equally missing the spending deficit is more a usual occurance than meeting it.

Given how getting sanctions requires everyone bar one country to vote that Poland and Hungry are together means they can ensure no meaningful censure is applied.

Greece might be doing better - as long as the bar is so low as to what they did on first joining. Which is economic oversight by the EU. Although that wasn't something that the EU was to do until they suddenly had the power to. Probably because there was no mechanism for massive EU debt purchases until they decided they could. Mission creep bit by bit.

~:smoking:

Rory, if you have the time I would like to get this discussion to get further into the weeds. The timeline from my brief research seems to be contrary to your portrayal. Greece was admitted into the EEC well back in the 1980s when it was still a fledgling, corrupt Democracy just out of the junta, I don't think anyone was looking the other way as far as the near future of Greek financials. When the EU single market was established along with the Euro, Greece was not permitted to join the Euro for exactly those concerns. The question is, from 1999 to 2001 (which is when Greece cooked its books to join the Euro in 2001) can you show me evidence, news articles, that seems to indicate there was skepticism at the time regarding Greece's improving financial reports?

It wasn't until 2004 that Athens began admitting the financial troubles. To me, your argument could hold water during the 5 year period between 2004 and 2009 when the EU now had concrete evidence from the 2004 audit that Greece had lied to them, unless you can show otherwise that the financial fraud was an 'open secret' prior to that. However, with that being said you as a European (well, now just British as of Jan 1st) could perhaps shed some insight on the following:

* What was the better option for the EU to react to the Greek 2004 audit: Removal from the Euro, removal from the entire EU apparatus including the single market, both?
* What could the EU have done in 2004 to make course corrections for Greece, keeping in mind that is still pre-Lisbon treaty. Now, I have absolutely no knowledge of the differences between the European Central Bank authority pre and post Lisbon so again you may have to indulge me in what exactly they could have done at the time. To me, Lisbon seemed to be in part influenced by the 2004 audit to give the central bank and the European Commission more centralized power to coordinate monetary and financial relief programs. The fact that the Great Recession began in 2007 right as Lisbon was ratified seems to be the most tragic timing which prevented the EU from doing more before Greece's financials completely fell apart.


i can't find the quote - but i read from a central-european political commentator that the reformulation of the rule-of-law/payments bill renders it essentially toothless, in referening such a specific set of activity that it essentially doesn't touch the ambitions of fidesz/pis in any useful way.

"under the plan, the EU will not be able to implement sanctions nor withhold funding before 2022 and that’s only if the bloc's highest court, the European Court of Justice, also rules against Poland or Hungary. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/pascaledavies/2020/12/13/eu-rule-of-law-compromise-reveals-major-shift-in-how-bloc-handles-crises/?sh=9ef1c4fa3396)"

Wikipedia tells me out of the 27 justices on the ECJ, only three come from either Hungary or Poland. So Poland and Hungary have bought themselves another two years, but after that are you concerned that the ECJ will not be aggressive against their illiberal practices?


It's the only way to keep the .EU domain since the EU has (in a totally not petty way) revoked all holders who aren't in the EU.

~:smoking:

Come on Rory, is this fair? I don't quite understand why following the implications of Brexit to the fullest extent of the law is considered 'petty'. If an organization is no longer in the EU, a domain exception would cause market confusion. People might be thinking they are dealing with EU based companies, following EU rules and standards based on the domain of the website they are interacting with. So what is the pettiness here?

[Furunculus]

"under the plan, the EU will not be able to implement sanctions nor withhold funding before 2022 and that’s only if the bloc's highest court, the European Court of Justice, also rules against Poland or Hungary. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/pascaledavies/2020/12/13/eu-rule-of-law-compromise-reveals-major-shift-in-how-bloc-handles-crises/?sh=9ef1c4fa3396)"

Wikipedia tells me out of the 27 justices on the ECJ, only three come from either Hungary or Poland. So Poland and Hungary have bought themselves another two years, but after that are you concerned that the ECJ will not be aggressive against their illiberal practices?


Yes, I found that one too but it was not what i was referring to.

I think I have tracked it down now (from a different source) using enhanced google fu:

Basically - rule of law provision now applies only to the misuse of EU funds and no longer - as people might imagine - to the constitutional 'irregularities' that lead to calls for the rule of law provisions in the first place.

What people think it means:
https://euobserver.com/political/148801

EU justice commissioner Didier Reynders on Monday argued for an "effective" link between respect for rule law and the disbursement of EU funds - as complex negotiations drag on among EU leaders on the bloc's long-term budget and recovery.

https://euobserver.com/institutional/149967

Negotiators from the European Parliament and the German EU presidency on Thursday (5 November) clinched an agreement on a mechanism that for the first time allows suspending or cutting EU funds if a member state breaches the rule of law.

What it actually means:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20201211IPR93622/parliament-approves-the-rule-of-law-conditionality-for-access-to-eu-funds

Under the new regulation, EU budget payments can be withheld from countries in which established breaches of the rule of law compromise management of the EU funds. At the same time, the EU is ensuring that final beneficiaries do not end up paying the bill.

https://eucrim.eu/news/compromise-making-eu-budget-conditional-rule-law-respect/

The deal deletes the Commission’s approach that “generalised deficiencies” as regards the rule of law in a given Member State may trigger preventive measures. Instead, it is now foreseen that appropriate measures can be taken if it is established that breaches of the principles of the rule of law in a Member State affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the EU budget or the protection of the financial interests of the EU “in a sufficiently direct way”.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/all/news/eu-institutions-strike-deal-on-rule-of-law-mechanism/

The MEPs did not manage to convince member state negotiators to instead require a country to have to build a qualified majority coalition to block the Commission’s decision... Moreover, MEPs succeeded in expanding the scope of the mechanism from the previous proposal that applies only where rule of law problems already “affect in a sufficiently direct way the sound financial management of the EU budget” to include breaches that “seriously risk” affecting EU money.

Some eastern european think-tanker I follow highlighted the discrepancy in early December - but it hasn't been reported on in any useful way.

The Polish/Hungarian gov'ts are of course laughing - because they just want to have the money, not misuse it. They're more concerned about interference in their in [domestic] constitutional affairs, and here the teeth have been pulled.

[Pannonian]

The Polish/Hungarian gov'ts are of course laughing - because they just want to have the money, not misuse it. They're more concerned about interference in their in [domestic] constitutional affairs, and here the teeth have been pulled.

Why would the EU's teeth being pulled be a bad thing?

[Furunculus]

Is this question ironic?
Not sure if this is intended for me (as I have expressed no value judgement on this statement), or, if perhaps the question is more metaphysical (in that we must presume the collective will of the polish/hungarian populace as evidenced through the action of their gov'ts)...

[rory_20_uk]

Rory, if you have the time I would like to get this discussion to get further into the weeds. The timeline from my brief research seems to be contrary to your portrayal. Greece was admitted into the EEC well back in the 1980s when it was still a fledgling, corrupt Democracy just out of the junta, I don't think anyone was looking the other way as far as the near future of Greek financials. When the EU single market was established along with the Euro, Greece was not permitted to join the Euro for exactly those concerns. The question is, from 1999 to 2001 (which is when Greece cooked its books to join the Euro in 2001) can you show me evidence, news articles, that seems to indicate there was skepticism at the time regarding Greece's improving financial reports?

It wasn't until 2004 that Athens began admitting the financial troubles. To me, your argument could hold water during the 5 year period between 2004 and 2009 when the EU now had concrete evidence from the 2004 audit that Greece had lied to them, unless you can show otherwise that the financial fraud was an 'open secret' prior to that. However, with that being said you as a European (well, now just British as of Jan 1st) could perhaps shed some insight on the following:

* What was the better option for the EU to react to the Greek 2004 audit: Removal from the Euro, removal from the entire EU apparatus including the single market, both?
* What could the EU have done in 2004 to make course corrections for Greece, keeping in mind that is still pre-Lisbon treaty. Now, I have absolutely no knowledge of the differences between the European Central Bank authority pre and post Lisbon so again you may have to indulge me in what exactly they could have done at the time. To me, Lisbon seemed to be in part influenced by the 2004 audit to give the central bank and the European Commission more centralized power to coordinate monetary and financial relief programs. The fact that the Great Recession began in 2007 right as Lisbon was ratified seems to be the most tragic timing which prevented the EU from doing more before Greece's financials completely fell apart.

I'll do my best.

First off the EEC. A pure trading block. In the same way a shop is not at risk from potential customers, admitting countries with poor credit history is not itself an issue. So let them in by all means... But perhaps don't let them pay on credit.
The EU is like two companies merging. You need to know them inside out.

Let's start with Greece's history of their currency... they've had many, many, MANY issues before. Almost to the degree one could say it was wilful ignorance to let them in, and a political decision rather than one based on economics... although no one seemed to view asking the citizens of the EU what they thought.

24237

Regarding "open secret". Apart from the word "secret" I'd agree with you - Link (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16834815.) - with ministers loudly decrying the mess things were in with government owned industries. The only redeeming thing is that everyone was sinning.

The key facet here is how there was a large difference in borrowing costs in the drachma compared to the Euro / Deuchmark. Greece had tried for years to join the EU to help stabilise the mess their economy had been in throughout the 80's Link (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/070115/understanding-downfall-greeces-economy.asp)- so even if the numbers look OK, this should have been thoroughly audited how this turnaround happened.

Greece's financials had been falling apart since they left the Ottoman Empire. It was one catastrophe after another fuelled by mismanagement and tax evasion on a grand scale. They sort of managed by devaluing their currency from time to time and everyone knew they were a basket case - hence why borrowing costs were so high.

What was the EU to do after they wilfully believed what was an obvious lie? If we pretend for a second that the EU is based on sound economics they'd remove them from the EU. If it is a political construct then this is an opportunity! Another reason for more EU institutions, oversight of countries and another small step to being a supra state. So no real surprises there then. And soon afterwards another treaty that was created to ensure that no voters need be bothered with their opinion.



Come on Rory, is this fair? I don't quite understand why following the implications of Brexit to the fullest extent of the law is considered 'petty'. If an organization is no longer in the EU, a domain exception would cause market confusion. People might be thinking they are dealing with EU based companies, following EU rules and standards based on the domain of the website they are interacting with. So what is the pettiness here?

First off, owning an .eu website does not in any way imply EU standards any more than any other domain implies standards - by these rules it would be fine to have the website hosted there and the businesses elsewhere. And what other places on the planet enforce this? I can't find any - certainly not .com or .co.uk - here I do know that companies need to have their address and incorporation number on the website, regardless of the domain. It is not that enforcing the law that is petty, is that they've got this law in the first place.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Is this question ironic?
Not sure if this is intended for me (as I have expressed no value judgement on this statement), or, if perhaps the question is more metaphysical (in that we must presume the collective will of the polish/hungarian populace as evidenced through the action of their gov'ts)...

I've seen the argument posted that any infringement of sovereignty is a bad thing, even if it's overwhelmingly in our favour, and that the theoretical restoration of complete sovereignty was why we left the EU. Then you are arguing here that the EU is in a bad state because it does not override Polish and Hungarian sovereignty sufficiently with enforceable rules.

[Furunculus]

I've seen the argument posted that any infringement of sovereignty is a bad thing, even if it's overwhelmingly in our favour, and that the theoretical restoration of complete sovereignty was why we left the EU. Then you are arguing here that the EU is in a bad state because it does not override Polish and Hungarian sovereignty sufficiently with enforceable rules.

That is in fact not an argument I made - as my detailed and meticulous expansion on the limitations of the rule-of-law provision (that it no longer does what people think it does), included zero value judgements on matter itself.

[Montmorency]

Under .us nexus requirements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us), .us domains may be registered only by the following qualified entities:

Any United States citizen or resident,
Any United States entity, such as organizations or corporations,
Any foreign entity or organization with a bona fide presence in the United States
To ensure that these requirements are met, GoDaddy frequently conducts "spot checks" on registrant information.

To prevent anonymous registrations that do not meet these requirements, in 2005 the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ruled that registrants of .us domains may not secure private domain name registration via anonymizing proxies, and that their contact information must be made public.[23] Registrants are required to provide complete contact information without omissions.[24]


According to .EU registry policy (https://www.namecheap.com/support/knowledgebase/article.aspx/247/36/eu-domain-registration-requirements/), the following persons are eligible to register .EU domain names:

A Union citizen, independently of their place of residence
A natural person who is not a Union citizen and who is a resident of a Member State
An undertaking that is established in the Union
An organization that is established in the Union, without prejudice to the application of national law

:coffeenews:

I'll never understand these emotional hangups about the EU.



EDIT: Unrelatedly, here's a document that I haven't looked at but might be of interest: "Mind the values gap: The social and economic values of MPs, party members and voters (https://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Mind-the-values-gap.pdf)"

[Crandar]

That was very interesting! It pretty much destroyed the myth that Labour lost the last elections, because Corbyn too left-wing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'll do my best.

First off the EEC. A pure trading block. In the same way a shop is not at risk from potential customers, admitting countries with poor credit history is not itself an issue. So let them in by all means... But perhaps don't let them pay on credit.
The EU is like two companies merging. You need to know them inside out.

Let's start with Greece's history of their currency... they've had many, many, MANY issues before. Almost to the degree one could say it was wilful ignorance to let them in, and a political decision rather than one based on economics... although no one seemed to view asking the citizens of the EU what they thought.

24237

Regarding "open secret". Apart from the word "secret" I'd agree with you - Link (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16834815.) - with ministers loudly decrying the mess things were in with government owned industries. The only redeeming thing is that everyone was sinning.

The key facet here is how there was a large difference in borrowing costs in the drachma compared to the Euro / Deuchmark. Greece had tried for years to join the EU to help stabilise the mess their economy had been in throughout the 80's Link (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/070115/understanding-downfall-greeces-economy.asp)- so even if the numbers look OK, this should have been thoroughly audited how this turnaround happened.

Greece's financials had been falling apart since they left the Ottoman Empire. It was one catastrophe after another fuelled by mismanagement and tax evasion on a grand scale. They sort of managed by devaluing their currency from time to time and everyone knew they were a basket case - hence why borrowing costs were so high.

What was the EU to do after they wilfully believed what was an obvious lie? If we pretend for a second that the EU is based on sound economics they'd remove them from the EU. If it is a political construct then this is an opportunity! Another reason for more EU institutions, oversight of countries and another small step to being a supra state. So no real surprises there then. And soon afterwards another treaty that was created to ensure that no voters need be bothered with their opinion.

Very interesting and definitely something to make me think twice on EU's legacy. Quick question on the bold section. In the same manner that Greece's financial future was known, how could the UK not see the EU as anything but a supra-national political organization at its very outset in 1992? Many of the arguments I see from the anti position (against EU policies/orgs) are phrased as "well if the EU was truly an economic union and not a political union..." Was it not clear what the EU was going to be in 1992? In 2007? Now we are 13 years from Lisbon and the separation has finally happened with much anguish over separating the tangled mess of interwoven economic and political treaties. If sovereignty is valued above else (and it clearly is to the frustration of Pann), why the fuck did you all stay so long in it or even join to begin with?

[Pannonian]

Very interesting and definitely something to make me think twice on EU's legacy. Quick question on the bold section. In the same manner that Greece's financial future was known, how could the UK not see the EU as anything but a supra-national political organization at its very outset in 1992? Many of the arguments I see from the anti position (against EU policies/orgs) are phrased as "well if the EU was truly an economic union and not a political union..." Was it not clear what the EU was going to be in 1992? In 2007? Now we are 13 years from Lisbon and the separation has finally happened with much anguish over separating the tangled mess of interwoven economic and political treaties. If sovereignty is valued above else (and it clearly is to the frustration of Pann), why the fuck did you all stay so long in it or even join to begin with?

Not all those who voted Leave voted for sovereignty above all else. Fishermen voted for a bigger share of the catch in British waters, but the deal which Boris Johnson has been praised for getting threw that away to get it across the finishing line, and now they're complaining that the government sold them out. Also, our leaving the economic union has made it practically impossible to sell the catch that they do have, resulting in the last catches rotting in the docks instead of being sold. The cases being highlighted so far have pointed to the increased paperwork making it impractical to get the extremely perishable goods to the desired market in time (one Leave-voting woman, boasting beforehand that she'd spent 40k to prepare her company for Brexit, complained that her 50k load had to be written off for this reason). On top of that, EU-based hauliers who form a large proportion of our logistics system, have decided that the UK leg is not worth the hassle (due to our leaving the economic union and incurring huge amounts of paperwork and other bureaucracy).

Our ports are currently operating at something like 20% of their normal capacity. Is this due to covid? Not necessarily, as the traffic on the Ireland-France direct route have doubled or tripled. There is traffic, but it's bypassing Britain. Supermarkets have expressed concern that their stockpiles, made in preparation for Brexit, are emptying at an unsustainable rate (NB. in contrast they were clear last year that there were adequate stocks). Newspapers have been showing empty shelves again, but this time it's not due to user panic, but due to decreasing stocks.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not all those who voted Leave voted for sovereignty above all else.

This is your first sentence but your following example about fish is about the desire of British fisherman to gain full control of British fish stock and the harvesting thereof. You phrase it as a economic desire, but the means to achieve it is clearly through sovereignty and breaking away from EU agreements. I think there is confusion regarding the arguments, as it seems many of these economic situations you talk about are primarily in relation to the removal of checks or limitations imposed by EU rules. So it is still a sovereignty issue at its core, but people always phrase things in the immediate economic benefit. 'I get to catch more fish' is really, 'EU can't tell me where and how much to fish'.

[Pannonian]

This is your first sentence but your following example about fish is about the desire of British fisherman to gain full control of British fish stock and the harvesting thereof. You phrase it as a economic desire, but the means to achieve it is clearly through sovereignty and breaking away from EU agreements. I think there is confusion regarding the arguments, as it seems many of these economic situations you talk about are primarily in relation to the removal of checks or limitations imposed by EU rules. So it is still a sovereignty issue at its core, but people always phrase things in the immediate economic benefit. 'I get to catch more fish' is really, 'EU can't tell me where and how much to fish'.

They want more money. That it's economic can be seen in their complaining about being unable to sell the catches that they are making. If it's purely about sovereignty, then as Jacob Rees Mogg calls it, we now have happier fish due to our now uncompromised sovereignty. Except they can't get the catch to the buyers in the EU, and people in the UK aren't interested in what they catch.

'I voted out for my grandchildren!' Businesswoman says £40,000 Brexit hit is worth it (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1183363/brexit-news-no-deal-boris-johnson-wales-fisheries-nerys-edwards-syren-shellfish)

Family-run business risks losing £50,000 worth of shellfish after Brexit delays at French border (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/brexit-fishing-pembrokeshire-narberth-export-19622485)

Same person.

Another person in the business.

Brexit red tape could make our export business unviable, says shellfish boss (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/brexit-fishing-wales-scallops-news-19607839)

[a completely inoffensive name]

They want more money. That it's economic can be seen in their complaining about being unable to sell the catches that they are making. If it's purely about sovereignty, then as Jacob Rees Mogg calls it, we now have happier fish due to our now uncompromised sovereignty. Except they can't get the catch to the buyers in the EU, and people in the UK aren't interested in what they catch.

'I voted out for my grandchildren!' Businesswoman says £40,000 Brexit hit is worth it (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1183363/brexit-news-no-deal-boris-johnson-wales-fisheries-nerys-edwards-syren-shellfish)

Family-run business risks losing £50,000 worth of shellfish after Brexit delays at French border (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/brexit-fishing-pembrokeshire-narberth-export-19622485)

Same person.

Another person in the business.

Brexit red tape could make our export business unviable, says shellfish boss (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/brexit-fishing-wales-scallops-news-19607839)


Pan this is directly from your second link:


She added: “I knew when I voted Leave that it would directly affect my business, both my businesses - the farming and the shellfish.
“But I also believe that I am not the important person here.
“The whole nation is important so for the greater good is why I voted out.
“And for my grandchildren and their future, that’s why I voted out.”

[Pannonian]

Pan this is directly from your second link:

That quote is from 2019. Here are some quotes from 2021.

"The powers that be should have been able to give us guidance," she said.
"We've had no opportunity to practice. Not even a week to practice and implement these new rules.
"I'm exhausted and ready to jack it in. I can't keep up with the stress of this again.
"I can't do this again next week, I need a break."
"We're a tiny little Welsh company, its family run - we're fourth generation running it. We can't afford to take the hit."

Here's another in the fishing industry, regretting voting Leave and losing his market. (https://twitter.com/HackedOffHugh/status/1343890893745565696)

"Be careful what you wish for. I thought we were going to get a global market. This is going to be a new opportunity. But it hasn't turned out like this. I would have never voted for Brexit if I knew we were going to lose our job."

[a completely inoffensive name]

That quote is from 2019. Here are some quotes from 2021.

"The powers that be should have been able to give us guidance," she said.
"We've had no opportunity to practice. Not even a week to practice and implement these new rules.
"I'm exhausted and ready to jack it in. I can't keep up with the stress of this again.
"I can't do this again next week, I need a break."
"We're a tiny little Welsh company, its family run - we're fourth generation running it. We can't afford to take the hit."

Here's another in the fishing industry, regretting voting Leave and losing his market. (https://twitter.com/HackedOffHugh/status/1343890893745565696)

"Be careful what you wish for. I thought we were going to get a global market. This is going to be a new opportunity. But it hasn't turned out like this. I would have never voted for Brexit if I knew we were going to lose our job."

Well that's just sad. I'm not sure how any business owner could go into Brexit thinking that leaving a common market was going to reduce documentation and obstacles to selling.
Again, I have to ask you the same question I just asked Rory, when you joined the EU in 1992...what did you think you were getting yourself into?

[Furunculus]

We weren't joining, we we're on a rollercoaster with a bunch of other people.
the situation is quite different.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We weren't joining, we we're on a rollercoaster with a bunch of other people.
the situation is quite different.

Not sure I understand.

[Pannonian]

Well that's just sad. I'm not sure how any business owner could go into Brexit thinking that leaving a common market was going to reduce documentation and obstacles to selling.
Again, I have to ask you the same question I just asked Rory, when you joined the EU in 1992...what did you think you were getting yourself into?

It used to be called the EEC (European Economic Community). By the time I was old enough to vote, it was the EC (European Community). There were some additional political and fiscal union measures introduced from 1992 onwards, but the UK was largely excepted from them. During the Labour government, we signed up to some of these measures, largely relating to workers' rights. Most of the additional integration that we experienced in the UK were to do with the common market, which we were one of the principal drivers of. Most of the additional measures like the common currency, Schengen and so on, didn't apply to us. The only additional political union thing that I can think of that we took part in was electing MEPs to the EU parliament. Which we didn't take seriously, as seen in the success of UKIP despite their MEPs doing sweet FA in the EU parliament except vowing to take all the money they were entitled to whilst doing none of the work.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It used to be called the EEC (European Economic Community). By the time I was old enough to vote, it was the EC (European Community). There were some additional political and fiscal union measures introduced from 1992 onwards, but the UK was largely excepted from them. During the Labour government, we signed up to some of these measures, largely relating to workers' rights. Most of the additional integration that we experienced in the UK were to do with the common market, which we were one of the principal drivers of. Most of the additional measures like the common currency, Schengen and so on, didn't apply to us. The only additional political union thing that I can think of that we took part in was electing MEPs to the EU parliament. Which we didn't take seriously, as seen in the success of UKIP despite their MEPs doing sweet FA in the EU parliament except vowing to take all the money they were entitled to whilst doing none of the work.

I get the history and I get that you negotiated to be mostly exempt from many of the provisions but the Maastricht Treaty explicitly states: "resolved to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" [...] "further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration".

So when Frun in the past on this forum demeans the ongoing process of "integration", again, it seems pretty clear the direction that the EU was going in from 1992. Yet here we are 28 years later and everyone is mad about too much EU control?
Did the UK expect special treatment and exceptions in perpetuity, did it believe that it would always hold a single member veto over future reforms, tell me how EU integration is in anyway not something that the UK implicitly agreed to by staying within the EU system for the past 30 years.

I guess my complaint is that the Brexiteers pushed the subject now and not in 1992 and the question of how much does the UK plan to integrate themselves was kicked down the road until the choice became absolute economic upheaval or acceptance of a future Federalized Europe.

[Pannonian]

I get the history and I get that you negotiated to be mostly exempt from many of the provisions but the Maastricht Treaty explicitly states: "resolved to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" [...] "further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration".

So when Frun in the past on this forum demeans the ongoing process of "integration", again, it seems pretty clear the direction that the EU was going in from 1992. Yet here we are 28 years later and everyone is mad about too much EU control?
Did the UK expect special treatment and exceptions in perpetuity, did it believe that it would always hold a single member veto over future reforms, tell me how EU integration is in anyway not something that the UK implicitly agreed to by staying within the EU system for the past 30 years.

I guess my complaint is that the Brexiteers pushed the subject now and not in 1992 and the question of how much does the UK plan to integrate themselves was kicked down the road until the choice became absolute economic upheaval or acceptance of a future Federalized Europe.

My feeling, probably shared by all UK governments until Cameron made the referendum a manifesto promise to try and neutralise UKIP's threat to the Tories, was that the other European countries can engage in as much union as they want while we engaged at our own pace. We're not the only country with exceptions. Ireland has some, as does Denmark. The biggest markers of this ever increasing union were the common currency and Schengen. Both of which we were exempt from. Ireland isn't in Schengen, while Denmark doesn't use the euro. Why is it our business if the other countries want a currency and travel union?

[Montmorency]

So it is still a sovereignty issue at its core, but people always phrase things in the immediate economic benefit. 'I get to catch more fish' is really, 'EU can't tell me where and how much to fish'.

In other words, a matter of identity. The abstract issue of sovereignty, to the extent the UK ever gave any up, has historically weighed on few minds.


I get the history and I get that you negotiated to be mostly exempt from many of the provisions but the Maastricht Treaty explicitly states: "resolved to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" [...] "further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration".

So when Frun in the past on this forum demeans the ongoing process of "integration", again, it seems pretty clear the direction that the EU was going in from 1992. Yet here we are 28 years later and everyone is mad about too much EU control?
Did the UK expect special treatment and exceptions in perpetuity, did it believe that it would always hold a single member veto over future reforms, tell me how EU integration is in anyway not something that the UK implicitly agreed to by staying within the EU system for the past 30 years.

Only a handful of elite bureaucrats and ivory-tower philosophers ever had grand roadmaps for the EU, likely none viable. Furunc is getting at that ad-hoc nature of the existing institutions when he calls it a rollercoaster, but the metaphor doesn't succeed overall because anyone can see the defined track - start and end - of a rollercoaster.


the choice became absolute economic upheaval or acceptance of a future Federalized Europe.

Has the choice been made elsewhere? Maybe in 2100 at this rate...

[Pannonian]

In other words, a matter of identity. The abstract issue of sovereignty, to the extent the UK ever gave any up, has historically weighed on few minds.

Only a handful of elite bureaucrats and ivory-tower philosophers ever had grand roadmaps for the EU, likely none viable. Furunc is getting at that ad-hoc nature of the existing institutions when he calls it a rollercoaster, but the metaphor doesn't succeed overall because anyone can see the defined track - start and end - of a rollercoaster.

Has the choice been made elsewhere? Maybe in 2100 at this rate...

Before the referendum became a thing, the common travel area (Schengen) and the common currency were the usual Eurosceptic arguments as to why we were threatened by ever increasing union. Both of which we were exempt from, and both of which only involved countries which wanted to be involved. Every time other countries engaged in more multilateral activities which we didn't want to be involved in, it was painted as a threat to our independence because they were doing things without us. The more opt outs we negotiated, the more our independence was threatened because the other countries were going off and doing their own thing without us.

[Furunculus]

"when you joined the EU in 1992...what did you think you were getting yourself into?"

Not sure I understand.

As Pannonian explained, it wasn't something that we joined - from which there is an obvious branch in history where we could have said:
"Oh, you know what, I don't think I fancy that after all."

Ever closer union is a continual inevitable process, not a moment.
And we were already sat on the porch of our house as it serenely drifts down the valley on the mudslide.

I always maintain that the moment it should have been obvious we were headed somewhere we didn't want to go was when Blair surrendered the opt-out Major negotiated on the Social Chapter.
From where what was principally an economic vehicle for external collaboration and cooperation, into something that was deeply intertwined with the organisation of society via internal regulations.
But, it was done after 14 years of divisive Tory government when the party was tired and discredited, and we were all dewy eyed at the joys of Nu Labour 'Cool Britannia'...
And of course, after we buckled the Social Chapter was disolved throughout Lisbon Constitution, making it essentially impossible to pick out the elements of social organisation (hereafter termed: domestic governance), from the rest of the EU.

[Furunculus]

So when Frun in the past on this forum demeans the ongoing process of "integration", again, it seems pretty clear the direction that the EU was going in from 1992. Yet here we are 28 years later and everyone is mad about too much EU control?
Did the UK expect special treatment and exceptions in perpetuity, did it believe that it would always hold a single member veto over future reforms, tell me how EU integration is in anyway not something that the UK implicitly agreed to by staying within the EU system for the past 30 years.

Again, Pannonian was giving a reasonable description of of what was animating 'brexiteers' in their public discourse with a largely disinterested populace.
But not really illuminating the problem:

a) In the EEC everything worked on Veto, and the project was shallow - and thus little threat.
b) After Mastrict we started to see the adoption of Qualified Majority Voting - but we were content to build blocking coalitions.
c) Then the Euro arrived and this is a fundamental threat to domestic governance, but we were outside.
d) Then 2007 and three things went wrong with the plan for blocking coalitions:
1. Financial Crisis brought areas of fundamental economic importance into the remit of the EU via the Eurozone - Bailout veto
2. The eurozone made it known that it intented to caucus Eurozone voting on economic matters - inc tools in #1 above
3. The post-Lisbon vote-weight changes diluted UK power in the parliament
e) So Cameron said; "look here, let's talk about how we're going to keep the UK getting entangled in the mechanisms you need to fix your flakey currency union?"
1. And the result was: "yes, you can have an exemption from ever-closer-union, but it will only be available for you. no-one else!"

The result:
Britain looking at how diminished was its ability to build blocking coalitions - then wondered how interested like-minded nations would be in joining them when they would not benefit - as the same understanding on being exempt from the integrating pressure did not apply to them.

[Crandar]

It's not about sovereignty or identity, it's about the economy. People may phrase it in a different way, but financial worries always lie beneath the surface. Even that Brexit lady admitted so in her 2019 interview. She may have said that she expected some difficulties in the beginning, but she hoped for a brighter future for her grandchildren. As far as I see it, what she means is that the adjustment will be costly, but the long-term benefits will eventually outweigh the disadvantages. That's why the deindustrialised north and Wales voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, but London and large urban centers that have transitioned successfully into a service-orientated economy supported Bremain.

Wales is in fact an interesting case. Brexit crushed the opposition there, especially in rural areas. Since the region is actually the recipient of EU's most generous packages, many journalists interpreted their stance as an example of tribalism surpassing the economy, but the reality is more nuanced. After all, the populations of immigrants or British citizens with immigrant background is one of the smallest in the Kingdom. In reality, many blame the EU for wage stagnation, deindustrialisation and unemployment. Even though it's largely Brussels that keeps these communities from being depopulated altogether, many still blame the EU for starting the troubles in the first place. On the contrary, Cardiff, a prosperous city with a vibrant university and service-orientated economy stood behind Bremain.

Patrick Cockburn (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/brexit-far-right-wales-cardiff-immigration-nationalism-deal-eu-economy-a8776811.html) wrote a nice piece about that.

[Greyblades]

Another year, another month, another day, another drawn breath and with it yet another "brexit wasnt about what it was about" post.

[Gilrandir]

Another year, another month, another day, another drawn breath and with it yet another "brexit wasnt about what it was about" post.

Another year, another month, another day, another drawn breath and with it yet another post discussing what has been a faut accompli for ages.

[Pannonian]

Another year, another month, another day, another drawn breath and with it yet another "brexit wasnt about what it was about" post.

"Be careful what you wish for. I thought we were going to get a global market. This is going to be a new opportunity. But it hasn't turned out like this. I would have never voted for Brexit if I knew we were going to lose our job."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Pan' you have consistently stood for the UK remaining in the EU.

You have consistently asserted that the pols advocating leave misrepresented/wishfully thought/misunderstood/and in some cases outright lied (with support).

You continue to assert your belief that the majority and minority opinions rendered during the leave/stay vote have reversed and that leave is now in the minority (and some statistics support this).

Can we PLEASE stipulate all of these as "givens" from you now? It's coming across as a rather repetitive "see I told ya so" kind of thing now.


Moving forward:

Is there the political will to reverse the decision and go back to the EU?

If not, then what steps are/should be taken to make the transition to a new living arrangement?

[Pannonian]

Pan' you have consistently stood for the UK remaining in the EU.

You have consistently asserted that the pols advocating leave misrepresented/wishfully thought/misunderstood/and in some cases outright lied (with support).

You continue to assert your belief that the majority and minority opinions rendered during the leave/stay vote have reversed and that leave is now in the minority (and some statistics support this).

Can we PLEASE stipulate all of these as "givens" from you now? It's coming across as a rather repetitive "see I told ya so" kind of thing now.


Moving forward:

Is there the political will to reverse the decision and go back to the EU?

If not, then what steps are/should be taken to make the transition to a new living arrangement?

Answer to your first question: no.
Answer to your second question: The government has been putting forward proposals to remove regulations (as Furunculus has been intimating), and Boris Johnson has personally appealed to industry leaders for ideas on what regulations to next remove. OTOH, industry frontliners have been saying that it's the separation from the customs union and single market that is the practical problem. So what is the way forward, when those doing the reporting and those doing the planning are of completely different perspectives?

And about the list of assertions that you say that I'm making: I've never said that Leave are now in the minority. I have little confidence that it is so, and zero confidence that it is so to any significant degree. But it is never not current news to point out that Leave lied and continue to lie. As you've seen on your side of the water with your version of the Tufton lot, democracy does not work when one side lies with impunity and are allowed to do so without check.

[a completely inoffensive name]

My feeling, probably shared by all UK governments until Cameron made the referendum a manifesto promise to try and neutralise UKIP's threat to the Tories, was that the other European countries can engage in as much union as they want while we engaged at our own pace. We're not the only country with exceptions. Ireland has some, as does Denmark. The biggest markers of this ever increasing union were the common currency and Schengen. Both of which we were exempt from. Ireland isn't in Schengen, while Denmark doesn't use the euro. Why is it our business if the other countries want a currency and travel union?

Because such union might become mandatory to participate in the trade union at the insistence of those other countries at some future date?


In other words, a matter of identity. The abstract issue of sovereignty, to the extent the UK ever gave any up, has historically weighed on few minds.
Only a handful of elite bureaucrats and ivory-tower philosophers ever had grand roadmaps for the EU, likely none viable. Furunc is getting at that ad-hoc nature of the existing institutions when he calls it a rollercoaster, but the metaphor doesn't succeed overall because anyone can see the defined track - start and end - of a rollercoaster.

The idea of a supra-national organization that prevented European countries from practicing nationalistic protectionism only weighed on a few minds post-WW2?



"when you joined the EU in 1992...what did you think you were getting yourself into?"

As Pannonian explained, it wasn't something that we joined - from which there is an obvious branch in history where we could have said:
"Oh, you know what, I don't think I fancy that after all."

Ever closer union is a continual inevitable process, not a moment.
And we were already sat on the porch of our house as it serenely drifts down the valley on the mudslide.

I always maintain that the moment it should have been obvious we were headed somewhere we didn't want to go was when Blair surrendered the opt-out Major negotiated on the Social Chapter.
From where what was principally an economic vehicle for external collaboration and cooperation, into something that was deeply intertwined with the organisation of society via internal regulations.
But, it was done after 14 years of divisive Tory government when the party was tired and discredited, and we were all dewy eyed at the joys of Nu Labour 'Cool Britannia'...
And of course, after we buckled the Social Chapter was disolved throughout Lisbon Constitution, making it essentially impossible to pick out the elements of social organisation (hereafter termed: domestic governance), from the rest of the EU.

You could very well be right (what do I know), but I'm not sure how I feel about the inability of UK politicians to recognize the slide for where it was going. If we take governments in general to be enterprises that naturally expand in scope and authority as time goes on, than by its nature a supra-national organization would seem to imply certain future structures...


Again, Pannonian was giving a reasonable description of of what was animating 'brexiteers' in their public discourse with a largely disinterested populace.
But not really illuminating the problem:

a) In the EEC everything worked on Veto, and the project was shallow - and thus little threat.
b) After Mastrict we started to see the adoption of Qualified Majority Voting - but we were content to build blocking coalitions.
c) Then the Euro arrived and this is a fundamental threat to domestic governance, but we were outside.
d) Then 2007 and three things went wrong with the plan for blocking coalitions:
1. Financial Crisis brought areas of fundamental economic importance into the remit of the EU via the Eurozone - Bailout veto
2. The eurozone made it known that it intented to caucus Eurozone voting on economic matters - inc tools in #1 above
3. The post-Lisbon vote-weight changes diluted UK power in the parliament
e) So Cameron said; "look here, let's talk about how we're going to keep the UK getting entangled in the mechanisms you need to fix your flakey currency union?"
1. And the result was: "yes, you can have an exemption from ever-closer-union, but it will only be available for you. no-one else!"

The result:
Britain looking at how diminished was its ability to build blocking coalitions - then wondered how interested like-minded nations would be in joining them when they would not benefit - as the same understanding on being exempt from the integrating pressure did not apply to them.

Now that you broke it down like this, it makes a lot more sense, thank you. Follow up on the bold, was that anticipated and discussed in the House when Lisbon Treaty was being ratified?
I'm really trying to learn more about this topic since as an outsider it seems like such a mess (guess I know how you all feel on US elections). Here is something else I don't understand:

Lisbon passed under Gordon Brown, he refused to have a referendum on the issue for reasons that I don't understand. Cameron pushed for the referendum and made it a promise for the 2010 elections which Conservatives won.
But my understanding is that Cameron assumed such a referendum to leave the EU would fail and would quiet down the anti-EU faction in the Conservative Party. If that was the assumption, then at the time it would have strengthened Brown's position to move for a referendum that (assuming yes wins) supported the Labour Position of ratifying the treaty for greater EU integration.

So did Brown not think the EU question would have turned out in favor of pro-EU support? If so, why did he push forward on ratifying Lisbon. I'm so lost on what the motivators are here.

[Furunculus]

too my knowledge the bold text was not discussed as part of any live political debate which had salience with public news broadcasting.
**i say this as an utter outsider with no privileged knowledge - merely a political person deeply enthused by the europe question for the last twenty years**
but the vote weight changes were made for good reason, to rejig the parliament numbers in light of the huge expansion of national membership...
... so they were a 'problem' in their own right, but they were only a significant problem because of our desire to sit outside the structures of power (when taken with the other two factors listed above).

cameron backed down from a referendum on lisbon becuase it was a done deal - signed and sealed by Gordon in the years before the Tory's got into power. it would have been performative grievance mongering, not a useful pursuit in the effecting change with democratic power.
that gordon spent about fifteen minutes at the signing ceremony - grimacing all the time - should tell you everything you need to know about the the crowning glory of fifteen years of work to transfer power from the states to the EU.
cameron did promise a referendum on future 'significant' transfers of sovereignty, and this was duly signed into law. then the 2011 bailout veto crisis arrived, bringing to fruition the three bullet points of the apocalypse listed above.
this of course led to cameron promising a referendum on the eu itself if they got back into power - which they didn't expect to do (presuming coalition hagglings would see the death of that manifesto promise).
rofl's
i supported cameron's renegotiation - and wanted him to succeed.

[Pannonian]

Because such union might become mandatory to participate in the trade union at the insistence of those other countries at some future date?



The idea of a supra-national organization that prevented European countries from practicing nationalistic protectionism only weighed on a few minds post-WW2?




You could very well be right (what do I know), but I'm not sure how I feel about the inability of UK politicians to recognize the slide for where it was going. If we take governments in general to be enterprises that naturally expand in scope and authority as time goes on, than by its nature a supra-national organization would seem to imply certain future structures...



Now that you broke it down like this, it makes a lot more sense, thank you. Follow up on the bold, was that anticipated and discussed in the House when Lisbon Treaty was being ratified?
I'm really trying to learn more about this topic since as an outsider it seems like such a mess (guess I know how you all feel on US elections). Here is something else I don't understand:

Lisbon passed under Gordon Brown, he refused to have a referendum on the issue for reasons that I don't understand. Cameron pushed for the referendum and made it a promise for the 2010 elections which Conservatives won.
But my understanding is that Cameron assumed such a referendum to leave the EU would fail and would quiet down the anti-EU faction in the Conservative Party. If that was the assumption, then at the time it would have strengthened Brown's position to move for a referendum that (assuming yes wins) supported the Labour Position of ratifying the treaty for greater EU integration.

So did Brown not think the EU question would have turned out in favor of pro-EU support? If so, why did he push forward on ratifying Lisbon. I'm so lost on what the motivators are here.

Have a look at this (https://qz.com/1725402/only-5-percent-of-brits-cared-about-the-eu-before-brexit/) for some perspective on how important it was to get the Treaty of Lisbon ratified by the UK public. Polls by Mori, probably the most reliable general polling company out there. Until 2016, the percentage of UK people who deemed EU membership an important issue was generally in single figures, with a couple of months in the low 10s. As recently as January 2016 (the year of the referendum), only 1% of the UK public deemed EU membership to be the most important issue.

What was deemed an important issue, was immigration. Consistently polling in the 30s and one of the top 2 number one issues (another being the health service). In January 2016, immigration was the top issue according to 46% of Britons, the health service according to 38% of Britons, EU membership according to 1%. Between then and the referendum, you had posters from Leave like this.

https://storage.googleapis.com/cdn.thelondoneconomic.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/5a95a2df-turkey-.jpg


Vote Leave said: “Since the birthrate in Turkey is so high, we can expect to see an additional million people added to the UK population from Turkey alone within eight years.

“This will not only increase the strain on Britain’s public services, but it will also create a number of threats to UK security. Crime is far higher in Turkey than the UK. Gun ownership is also more widespread. Because of the EU’s free movement laws, the government will not be able to exclude Turkish criminals from entering the UK.”

Thus folding immigration and the NHS, the top two issues according to the British public, into the Brexit debate. It was a lie, of course. Turkey is nowhere near joining the EU, and even if it applied, every single EU member could veto it should they so wish. In fact, overall, EU migrants to the UK make a net contribution to the economy, both being more liable to pay taxes to the state and being less liable to claim benefits of any kind, including NHS burden. But Leave, as was their wont, lied on pretty much everything to get the vote over the line, and once they'd reached their goal, redefined the debate away from immigration and the NHS and claimed it was all about sovereignty. If you want to see for yourself, here (https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/issues-index-archive) are the Mori archives. Here's OpenDemocracy's report (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/truly-project-hate-third-scandal-of-official-vote-leave-campaign-headed-by-/) on the Leave campaign and their use of anti-immigration adverts.


Cummings himself writes: ‘Would we have won without immigration? No’, and confirms that the key argument was: ‘Vote Leave to take back control of immigration policy. If we stay there will be more new countries like Turkey joining and you won’t get a vote. Cameron says he wants to “pave the road” from Turkey to here. That’s dangerous. If we leave we can have democratic control and a system like Australia’s. It’s safer to take back control.’ He adds, ‘It is true that we did not do much on immigration before the 10 week official campaign. That is because ... we did not need to. It was far more important to plant other seeds and recruit support that would have been put off if we had focused early on immigration. Immigration was a baseball bat that just needed picking up at the right time and in the right way.’

[Greyblades]

"Be careful what you wish for. I thought we were going to get a global market. This is going to be a new opportunity. But it hasn't turned out like this. I would have never voted for Brexit if I knew we were going to lose our job."

I lost my job because the world decided to shut down over a flu, noone asked me if we should; they just did it.

There is not a linguist alive who can adequately express how miniscule a shit I give that other people regret the one meaningful choice we were given in our lives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I lost my job because the world decided to shut down over a flu, noone asked me if we should; they just did it.

Sorry to hear that. I don't know anything about UK welfare but I hope you get some sort of credit or cash equivalent to the amount you can claim to have lost due to COVID. In the US we do it mainly through UI (unemployment insurance).
Last time you talked shop you mentioned being on zero-hour contract, we don't have those here but I hope you can at least extrapolate an annual salary to claim based on pre-COVID work schedule.

[Furunculus]

Thus folding immigration and the NHS, the top two issues according to the British public, into the Brexit debate. It was a lie, of course. Turkey is nowhere near joining the EU, and even if it applied, every single EU member could veto it should they so wish. In fact, overall, EU migrants to the UK make a net contribution to the economy, both being more liable to pay taxes to the state and being less liable to claim benefits of any kind, including NHS burden. But Leave, as was their wont, lied on pretty much everything to get the vote over the line, and once they'd reached their goal, redefined the debate away from immigration and the NHS and claimed it was all about sovereignty. If you want to see for yourself, here (https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/issues-index-archive) are the Mori archives. Here's OpenDemocracy's report (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/truly-project-hate-third-scandal-of-official-vote-leave-campaign-headed-by-/) on the Leave campaign and their use of anti-immigration adverts.
That is not an opinion I share.
The Ashcroft referendum exit polls would bear out my opinion on the importance of 'sovereignty':
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

In pollster terms the EU had what is termed as 'low salience' prior to the referendum build up. Which doesn't speak to how much they like/dislike the EU, just how high up the pecking order of concerns it is.

---------------------------

separately - the deficiency of the euro:

https://reaction.life/why-is-the-euro-and-the-eu-allowed-to-cost-almost-anything/

[Pannonian]

The UK government is advising UK companies wanting to trade with the EU to set up in the EU, as the problems are financially insurmountable with the deal the UK government has signed. This advice is supported by the testimony of a number of people/business owners who were formerly vocal advocates of Brexit, but who say that they are no longer viable under the present regime, with the problems deriving from no longer being part of the customs union/single market (moreso the latter). One of these people being a fish marketer and Brexit Party candidate who was enthusiastic about Brexit as recently as December, but who now says, 3 weeks into Brexit, that her business and the industry will not survive.

[rory_20_uk]

The UK government is advising UK companies wanting to trade with the EU to set up in the EU, as the problems are financially insurmountable with the deal the UK government has signed. This advice is supported by the testimony of a number of people/business owners who were formerly vocal advocates of Brexit, but who say that they are no longer viable under the present regime, with the problems deriving from no longer being part of the customs union/single market (moreso the latter). One of these people being a fish marketer and Brexit Party candidate who was enthusiastic about Brexit as recently as December, but who now says, 3 weeks into Brexit, that her business and the industry will not survive.

When in an election are there not cases of voter regret? But voters often seem to expect to get what they want rather than what is realistic - the EU was never going to give frictionless trade since this is basically the main thing they offer to accept entry into their cartel - pay the protection money and they won't damage your trade.

The EU are also upset that their diplomat isn't being treated equally to other sovereign states by the UK... Although they aren't a sovereign state. Definitely not...

~:smoking:

[Crandar]

A nice summary (https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/brexit-industry-begins-to-realise-what-going-over-a-cliff-edge-feels-like/) of several businesses and sectors of the economy that face difficulties in transitioning into the new situation. The video interview with the fisherman is also useful in exploring the deeper reasons behind Brexit. The repented Brexiteer keeps mentioning independence and alludes to sovereignty, but his concerns are primarily financial. Apart from the 350 millions bus, he seems to have believed that an exit from the EU would grant him greater access to fishing grounds and a privileged position in trade with European customers. As the cheese merchant had said, it was about the future of his children and grand-children. Also, Chris Grey's blog (https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2021/) is offering regular insights over Brexit, its narrative and impact.

[rory_20_uk]

The EU is now unhappy with how they ordered vaccine late and want to be given supplies for other countries. Apparently for the UK not to give it is the UK starting a war over the issue.

Sovereignty - such a useful thing.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The EU is now unhappy with how they ordered vaccine late and want to be given supplies for other countries. Apparently for the UK not to give it is the UK starting a war over the issue.

Sovereignty - such a useful thing.

~:smoking:

How is this a matter of sovereignty?

[rory_20_uk]

How is this a matter of sovereignty?

The EU has the power to withhold Pfizer vaccines to the UK from the EU. If the EU wants to get hold of the UK vaccines it will have to open a court case in the UK and argue that "best efforts" somehow mean their supply is more important than the UK.

I imagine that if we were still in the Blessed EU we first off might not have immunised anyone with the AZ vaccine yet since the EMA has only just approved but there might not even be the AZ vaccine; the doses we would have been given would also have been determined by the EU.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Laughing my breasts off at the NI art16 move by the EU:

“#fbpe understands and supports The Commission at this difficult time.” :sweatdrop:

What is sauce for goose...

[Pannonian]

The EU has the power to withhold Pfizer vaccines to the UK from the EU. If the EU wants to get hold of the UK vaccines it will have to open a court case in the UK and argue that "best efforts" somehow mean their supply is more important than the UK.

I imagine that if we were still in the Blessed EU we first off might not have immunised anyone with the AZ vaccine yet since the EMA has only just approved but there might not even be the AZ vaccine; the doses we would have been given would also have been determined by the EU.

~:smoking:

Didn't each country have the freedom to act as they wished? AFAIK the EU batch ordered a number of different vaccines, but each individual country could do whatever they saw fit on top of that.

[rory_20_uk]

The EU took a lot longer to negotiate with companies - hence why they had an agreement 3 months after the UK.

And no, Germany bought doses outside of the EU system: Link (https://www.theweek.co.uk/951628/germany-buy-30-million-vaccine-jabs-outside-eu-scheme) - not something that the EU seems to mention often. Why was this? Because Germany wanted more doses than the EU thought they should get, and wanted them faster.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Disclosure: I judge purely-materialist models of political behavior to have weak explanatory power, both in history and in recent world trends. Theories that accommodate status threat and relative deprivation/gratification account for observed correlations of demography and class (hint: it's not the lower classes) behind phenomena like Brexit. The advantage is of course that facts on the ground get woven together as a product of interactive socioeconomic factors (which can't actually be cleanly severed). There is after all little reason in principle why social conservatism would be synonymous with a self-reported belief that Brexit would either bring economic advantages or be worth any economic disadvantages... Not that, to be clear, almost any Brexiter claimed that economic motivations, which being a prominent preserve of Remainers, were their decisive factor.


I don't really understand the vaccine thing. As far as I can tell, despite all or most manufacturers having had a rought start of it, the bottleneck is not any lack of vaccine stock but the distribution to and by local health providers; certainly such is the case in the US. Germany's top-up doesn't appear to have ushered it upward in the ranking of vaccination rates (they're average among the EU-27). I have some dim appreciation for why every country seems to have applied for vastly more doses than is strictly apportionable by population, but widening that pipeline won't on its own facilitate inoculation. The EU is scheduled to receive hundreds of millions of doses next month anyway...




The idea of a supra-national organization that prevented European countries from practicing nationalistic protectionism only weighed on a few minds post-WW2?


Yes: "elites'."

By the way, I found the quote I was looking for.
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/symbols/europe-day/schuman-declaration_en


"World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it."
"Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity."
"The pooling of coal and steel production... will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims."

Most human beings were not actively cogitating the mechanisms of world peace, let alone their relationship to sovereignty. Not in 1945, not in 1815, not in 1648, not today.


I lost my job because the world decided to shut down over a flu, noone asked me if we should; they just did it.

There is not a linguist alive who can adequately express how miniscule a shit I give that other people regret the one meaningful choice we were given in our lives.

If Greyblades were making this comment from a place of ideological anarchism I would have marginally more respect for it, but he certainly isn't an anarchist. In fact, it's kind of enraging that in the very same breath he implicitly accepts the consensual legitimacy of the party, government, and institutions that have delivered Brexit, while lapsing on this very consensual legitimacy when it comes to something he doesn't enjoy as much (yet is more fundamental to the role and nature of the state in its relationship to the polity).

While as a leftist I believe everyone should be helped, this is the kind of mentality that riles me: 'Fuck You, I Got Mine.' It's not about you dude.


Sorry to hear that. I don't know anything about UK welfare but I hope you get some sort of credit or cash equivalent to the amount you can claim to have lost due to COVID. In the US we do it mainly through UI (unemployment insurance).
Last time you talked shop you mentioned being on zero-hour contract, we don't have those here but I hope you can at least extrapolate an annual salary to claim based on pre-COVID work schedule.

We don't need a name for such contracts in the US because we have "independent contractors" - of whom, a quick search shows, there are proportionally more of than zero-hour workers in the UK.

UK, please let Labor do something about this very blatant slippery slope.


That is not an opinion I share.
The Ashcroft referendum exit polls would bear out my opinion on the importance of 'sovereignty':
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

In pollster terms the EU had what is termed as 'low salience' prior to the referendum build up. Which doesn't speak to how much they like/dislike the EU, just how high up the pecking order of concerns it is.

"Little England" indeed.

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Q30-by-LR-768x685.jpg

The poll implies that people who agree with sovereignty claims around Brexit are extremely likely to agree with Brexit, but that said agreement is significantly less relevant to driving decisions on Brexit compared to all the other popular justifications. :blush:

Striking how most respondents claimed to have come to a decision in 2016. They could be lying or mistaken of course, but this is less likely with (formerly) low salience issues. Paired with this at the end it's staggering:


More than three quarters (77%) of those who voted to remain thought “the decision we make in the referendum could have disastrous consequences for us as a country if we get it wrong”. More than two thirds (69%) of leavers, by contrast, thought the decision “might make us a bit better or worse off as a country, but there probably isn’t much in it either way”.



separately - the deficiency of the euro:

https://reaction.life/why-is-the-euro-and-the-eu-allowed-to-cost-almost-anything/


The real issue is not whether there exist joint institutions, policies and procedures. The essential issue is to what extent they correspond to a stable and wide-spread will of member state populations to abandon present nation states.

As is well known, the centralization of power has been tried numerous times before in Europe and so far with less than sterling results. If this time the goal is to achieve unity through peaceful means it is, arguably, necessary to ensure explicit popular support for important unifying measures. Secrecy, misinformation or pressure could, at some time, become a focus for popular resistance to the very idea of a union.

While I agree in principle with the latter, I must have said at least once over the years that the greatest obstacle before EU integration is that almost any given European country is and almost always has been centrifugally fractious. If European countries are constantly disintegrating (as has long been observed in the so-called Third World) then how could those countries, individually, design to univocality for empowering a unitary government of higher order? Pretty much any deficiency of the EU is factually a deficiency of its constituent parts. Admittedly more so the large countries, in proportion to their size...

That's why I don't take as credible the typical assumption among both friends and foes that the EU is on a rapid or continuous path toward integration or federalization. For such a thing to become available (hypothetically edging on security cooperation and sporadic fiscal transfers ain't it), it would not be by a deepening of the current equilibrium but by either a radically top-down or radically bottom-up process. In the top-down process, either EU institutional actors overwhelm fragile member states to consolidate power, or the member governments durably unify on a much more pro-EU agenda than they ever have. I can't imagine either of those are forthcoming. In the bottom-up process, the general publics of fragile or failing European states would have to decisively reject their national establishments and appeal to the EU to fulfill the traditional functions of the state. Could happen after a generation of global turmoil, but just as conceivable are some worse outcomes. So - expect further trundling.

[Furunculus]

purely as anecdote, rather than a response:

on english-british identity - i seem to be an oddity in that i have a wholly british identity.
on making decisions in 2016 - this was in fact true for me for while i have been a 20-year sceptic I wanted Cameron to succeed, and was tipped over to the other side when belgium ensured that an exclusion to ever close union must apply only to britain. whether that too is an oddity i have no answer.

[rory_20_uk]

The UK left the EU. What waited with irrelevance, food shortages and so on and so forth. Because without the EU, what could the UK be?

The whole point of the EU is that how collective action is more useful than unilateral action. Not just collective action of course, but functions centralised as collective action would have been the EEC - but how many jobs could such an organisation support? Preventing wars was what NATO was created for - armed forces that were integrated and used to working together more than apart and has worked pretty well in the main.

Then the pandemic happened. And the UK didn't join in with the EU. If it had joined all would have been fine. All countries banned from talking to the pharma companies and only the EU in charge. The concept of "better" and "worse" is irrelevant if all are together. But the UK did decide to go alone and hence why the EU had a slower process in getting a licence and slower in getting the contract . In essence adding an additional level of failure rather than helping. Unsurprisingly, people are wondering why on earth they have the EU if in their time of need it hasn't helped.

And to truly show that the gloves are off they decide to invoke Article 16 - an event of such massive hubris that it managed to unite even the DUP and Sein Fein in speaking against it - along with many in the countries of Europe who aren't buying the narrative that this is all the perfidious British / AZ's fault or that the contract says they should get product before those who purchased it before them when it patently doesn't.

The EU is currently having a spat with the UK on whether their ambassadors are for a sovereign power or not. Although they are not a country their argument is that they have a foreign policy and a diplomatic policy they should be treated as a country.

So those in the EU appear always to be looking for ways to further unify but in this case they have been let down by their own incompetence. The Financial crisis enabled the ECB to take powers that had hitherto been viewed as impossible and here was the time to take a control over health systems - at least in terms of the emergencies. But currently besides having a spat with an anachronistic irrelevance (the UK) over a vaccine that Macron (and to a lesser degree the Germans) have dismissed as ineffective especially in the elderly there's little evidence of success. In essence, as rapid as their competence allows which is very, very slow. If they had been more discerning with who was admitted this might have integrated more easily.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

We don't need a name for such contracts in the US because we have "independent contractors" - of whom, a quick search shows, there are proportionally more of than zero-hour workers in the UK.

UK, please let Labor do something about this very blatant slippery slope.


I think there is a difference between independent contractors in US vs zero-hour contracts in UK. The latter you are still considered an employee, I.C.'s in the US lose a lot of legal benefits that employees otherwise enjoy. Also, if we were really going into the weeds, I think in the U.S. you can be an I.C. operating through a one person LLC under your name, and LLC's have a bunch of benefits of their own. I know of a few people who did this, but never asked them about it in depth on how it worked and if it was better than being a direct employee.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Separately, if the UK ever did decide to backtrack on Brexit how feasible would it be to move to a Norway type relationship from the current agreements?

[Pannonian]

Separately, if the UK ever did decide to backtrack on Brexit how feasible would it be to move to a Norway type relationship from the current agreements?

From everything that's happened so far, the EU has been ever ready to accommodate any move towards arrangements that already exist for others. All the friction has come from the UK side, together with lack of trust from their willingness to ignore previously made promises. The problem is all the promises made on the UK side to the UK electorate, along with all the anti-European rhetoric. The UK government has made it politically impossible, on the UK side, to reach any accommodation with the EU. All it can do is toodle along and blame everything on the EU.

See the fishing industry for example. Leave has made all kinds of promises which cannot be fulfilled. So they've switched from the fishing industry will benefit to it's the EU's fault the fishing industry will die. Oh, and buy British fish.

[rory_20_uk]

From everything that's happened so far, the EU has been ever ready to accommodate any move towards arrangements that already exist for others. All the friction has come from the UK side, together with lack of trust from their willingness to ignore previously made promises. The problem is all the promises made on the UK side to the UK electorate, along with all the anti-European rhetoric. The UK government has made it politically impossible, on the UK side, to reach any accommodation with the EU. All it can do is toodle along and blame everything on the EU.

See the fishing industry for example. Leave has made all kinds of promises which cannot be fulfilled. So they've switched from the fishing industry will benefit to it's the EU's fault the fishing industry will die. Oh, and buy British fish.

Always good to read some free EU propaganda.

I run a scheme that if people give me 5% of their wealth annually they get into a special club. Currently no one has joined the scheme, but I remain willing for anyone to join with these preset terms with open arms. All the friction has come from others and frankly lack of trust and willingness...

Previously made promises... such as triggering Article 16? No? Ah yes that was the EU... Oh, just other unnamed, ones.

The rhetoric was, if anything, anti-EU, not anti-European. I know you find it difficult to delineate the two. Are you not going to rehash the xenophobia trope? Or is the UK giving the path to citizenship to those from Hong Kong whilst countries in the EU are openly xenophobic it's best to have a "1984" moment with that one?

For example, the fishing industry. The EU demanded increased access to UK territorial waters for a period of years else they would not agree to any facet of the deal. The UK did try to prevent this, but the EU would not shift since that would have restricted their fishing industry; the EU has also suddenly decided that catches of seafood now can not be moved to EU countries for processing as has been the case for several years and have to be processed locally in facilities that do not currently exist, meaning that the seafood can not now be imported - could they have signalled this would be the case 4 years ago thus helping prevent problems? Who is to say. Have standards in the UK suddenly changed? Well, no and in fact their are agreements that the UK can't easily unilaterally do so if they wanted to... Almost like they are trying to benefit their own fishermen...

All together now! "Four feet good! Two feet bad! Four feet good! Two feet better!"

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Separately, if the UK ever did decide to backtrack on Brexit how feasible would it be to move to a Norway type relationship from the current agreements?

The UK is rapidly tieing itself in a web of international agreements that will make it politically non-trivial to try and rejoin:

"What, you want us to leave CTTP!?!?"

The more the merrier...

[a completely inoffensive name]

The UK is rapidly tieing itself in a web of international agreements that will make it politically non-trivial to try and rejoin:

"What, you want us to leave CTTP!?!?"

The more the merrier...
Is Norway model considered rejoining?

Anyway, I was hoping to get another question in and not have it get absolutely derailed. I'll try one more time:

Jake Tapper seems to have triggered quite a conversation on twitter about the UK usage of 'government' vs 'Parliament' with a tweet about OFCOM investigating Piers Morgan comments on Harry and Markle.
See relevant thread here: https://twitter.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1369446963977011207

I want to make sure I am speaking the same language as British people about UK politics. What exactly does it mean for an institution to be part of the 'government' and if an organization is established by 'Parliament' why does that not necessarily make it a 'government' organization, this specific case is regarding OFCOM.

[Furunculus]

"Is Norway model considered rejoining?"

Speaking personally - in principle, no.
In practice, it would leave several strategic service industries at the mercy of eu regulation, which given they are nascent tech-related industries would be a disaster given the EU's penchant for the 'precautionary principle' model.
Financial Services, Biotech, AI, Data, GMO, etc.

This was the heart of the Chequers plan, to separate goods from services.
The former being full alignment - which would be fine - with the latter regulated in the UK.

"Cake'ism!" you might say...?
But the easy reply would be to point out that in the most of the above the UK is the enormously dominant partner, and it would be frankly inappropriate to let a minor third party with a reflexive distrust for the 'demonstrable harm' model to be our regulator in these fields.
And that is before you factor in that some of them are strategic industries with which the UK wields power and influence.

But, alas, it was "tres unacceptable", and so here we are. While this attitude remains Norway is off the table.

I can't speak to the constitutional niceties of your second question.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In practice, it would leave several strategic service industries at the mercy of eu regulation, which given they are nascent tech-related industries would be a disaster given the EU's penchant for the 'precautionary principle' model.
Financial Services, Biotech, AI, Data, GMO, etc.

This was the heart of the Chequers plan, to separate goods from services.
The former being full alignment - which would be fine - with the latter regulated in the UK.

"Cake'ism!" you might say...?
But the easy reply would be to point out that in the most of the above the UK is the enormously dominant partner, and it would be frankly inappropriate to let a minor third party with a reflexive distrust for the 'demonstrable harm' model to be our regulator in these fields.
And that is before you factor in that some of them are strategic industries with which the UK wields power and influence.

But, alas, it was "tres unacceptable", and so here we are. While this attitude remains Norway is off the table.

Appreciate the answer, is this in essence the Tory case on how Brexit can/will re-invigorate the British economy? Because like you said, if the UK tacks towards demonstrable harm while the EU continues to regulate on precautionary principle, the idea is that those types of services would prefer to migrate to the UK?

To be honest that seems like a reasonable strategy, it's been so long why exactly did the Chequers plan fail? My impression is that May could not get the hard-core Brexiteers in the party on board for such a plan. I don't remember what Labours position on Chequers was. Other sources I see say that the EU rejected it because it did not want to give on its 'four freedoms'. I can start to see why so many blame the EU for the negotiating failure, although on the other hand I don't see why the EU had any obligation to minimize the pain if it wishes to prevent other states from separating.

[Pannonian]

Appreciate the answer, is this in essence the Tory case on how Brexit can/will re-invigorate the British economy? Because like you said, if the UK tacks towards demonstrable harm while the EU continues to regulate on precautionary principle, the idea is that those types of services would prefer to migrate to the UK?

To be honest that seems like a reasonable strategy, it's been so long why exactly did the Chequers plan fail? My impression is that May could not get the hard-core Brexiteers in the party on board for such a plan. I don't remember what Labours position on Chequers was. Other sources I see say that the EU rejected it because it did not want to give on its 'four freedoms'. I can start to see why so many blame the EU for the negotiating failure, although on the other hand I don't see why the EU had any obligation to minimize the pain if it wishes to prevent other states from separating.

The counter to that is that the UK government has asked industry figures which regulations they would look to cut, and their answer is none, because there's a reason why the regulations are there, and it's not due to EU bossiness. Yeah, the theory Furunculus talks about has been put in practice, and those who know most about the practicals don't want divergence from EU regulations, even without the legal necessity to follow these regulations.

[Furunculus]

Appreciate the answer, is this in essence the Tory case on how Brexit can/will re-invigorate the British economy? Because like you said, if the UK tacks towards demonstrable harm while the EU continues to regulate on precautionary principle, the idea is that those types of services would prefer to migrate to the UK?

To be fair, it is more of a philosophical bent than a political ideology:
Precautionary Principle is about harm reduction - and appeals to the progressive-left as a social view that is more centered on the collective is willing to accept curtailment of free-action in order to achieve good.
Demonstrable Harm is more about minimising infringements on private activity - and appeals to the conservative right as a social view that is more centered on the individual is unwilling to accept unnecessary curtailment.

The argument here, is that the EU tends to fear new technologies, and it hampers its ability to thrive in the growth industries that will generate wealth when building diesel cars has gone the way of detroit?
How many Unicorns does the EU have?
How much investment in AI happens in the EU?
How much biotech?
Is MIFID2 deemed a travesty of beurocratic intervention in financial services?
Is the nascent Data industry (that feeds all the above) damaged by GDPR?
What happens to industries like fracking and GMO?
Where is the university base to lead in these new industries?

The counter to Pannonian's intervention is that it is not the state of the regulatory base of today that is of particular concern, but where it will go tomorrow.
As mentioned previously, the UK has spent the last third of a century walling itself off from the new competences of eu governance and so, naturally, we were have less and less influence on how they should be regulated.

[Furunculus]

UK may never get equivalence deal say Fin-Serv sector - and they seem ok with that:

https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/brexit-equivalence-deal-for-city-is-now-so-unachievable-its-silly-to-bother-20210315

I do not detect fear from our young thrusters of the sq mile.

[edyzmedieval]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/eu-britain-vaccine-curb-export/2021/03/24/99e87324-8bea-11eb-a33e-da28941cb9ac_story.html

Getting nicer and nicer by the day, the relationship between UK and the EU. Squabbling over vaccines is only going to benefit everyone, right?

[Pannonian]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/eu-britain-vaccine-curb-export/2021/03/24/99e87324-8bea-11eb-a33e-da28941cb9ac_story.html

Getting nicer and nicer by the day, the relationship between UK and the EU. Squabbling over vaccines is only going to benefit everyone, right?

Paywalled. Got a free source?

[Xantan]

Paywalled. Got a free source?

Odd, we can access it here over in Europe. But I guess if you read too many it gets paywalled?


BERLIN — The European Commission introduced new limits on coronavirus vaccine exports Wednesday in a move that could widen the rift between the European Union and its former member state Britain.

Although the revised rules do not constitute an outright ban, they will make reciprocity, a country’s epidemiological situation and its vaccination rate key criteria for export approval.

Expected to be in place for at least six weeks, the curbs could have a particularly strong effect on Britain, which has received more than 10 million doses from plants inside the E.U. — more than any other non-E.U. destination — but has exported no vaccine back to the bloc. Britain now has one of Europe's lowest daily case numbers per capita, and it has at least partially vaccinated more than 40 percent of its population, compared with just 9 percent in Germany and France.

E.U. denies vaccine nationalism charge, accuses U.S. and U.K. of not sharing

As it lags behind Britain and the United States in its vaccination campaign, the E.U. has experienced growing anger from its citizens and a resurgence of the virus that has forced new shutdowns. Officials lay much of the blame with British-Swedish vaccine manufacturer AstraZeneca for failing to meet its production targets.

AD

The path out of the pandemic is also being viewed as a critical post-Brexit test, pitting the 27-nation bloc’s communal approach against its former member’s go-it-alone model.

Britain's departure meant it could negotiate is own vaccine deals without having to worry about unity or equity. It did not spend as long as the E.U. did negotiating prices or sorting through liability questions.

E.U. officials have defended their approach, saying it ensured that member countries were not competing with one another and that poorer countries in the bloc were not left behind.

Officials have also cited the bloc's commitment to supplying other countries with doses produced within its territory, while Britain and the United States have not made such a pledge. Whereas more than 64 million doses had been distributed across E.U. member states and associated countries by the middle of this month, at least 41 million were exported outside the E.U.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Pan' is part of Europe. Sort of. A little exited but yet not.

[Furunculus]

i am genuinely entertained that my niche obsession with precautionary-principle vs demonstrable-harm has now become mainstream.

**sobs to himself - "I'm not a wierdo any longer!"**

[Papewaio]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/eu-britain-vaccine-curb-export/2021/03/24/99e87324-8bea-11eb-a33e-da28941cb9ac_story.html

Getting nicer and nicer by the day, the relationship between UK and the EU. Squabbling over vaccines is only going to benefit everyone, right?

Like Italy and the EU Commission blocking 250,000 vaccines going to Australia...

[rory_20_uk]

You might have noticed the EU has dropped their pretence of breaking a contract and moving to a playground "our fair share" approach.

Controlling the borders of countries unilaterally? That is another precident towards acting like a state.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

latest news is that a crack italian carabinieri unit has smashed into a GSK facility holding meningitis jabs for the US, looking for stashed covid jabs being mendaciously profiteered away from honest european citizens.

[Montmorency]

i am genuinely entertained that my niche obsession with precautionary-principle vs demonstrable-harm has now become mainstream.

**sobs to himself - "I'm not a wierdo any longer!"**

Ironically, your presentation of Brexit was as an issue of especially vigorous application of the precautionary principle. :shifty:

[Papewaio]

latest news is that the crack italian carabinieri unit has smashed into a GSK facility holding meningitis jabs for the US, looking for stashed covid jabs being mendaciously profiteered away from honest european citizens.

I thought you were joking. So private property is being searched because government believes that anything produced or in transit through their country is theirs.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I thought you were joking. So private property is being searched because government believes that anything produced or in transit through their country is theirs.

Eminent domain and/or expropriation says the government can do so if it is deemed to be in the public interest. How advisable such an approach may be is another thing entirely.

[Furunculus]

Ironically, your presentation of Brexit was as an issue of especially vigorous application of the precautionary principle. :shifty:

do elaborate?

[Montmorency]

do elaborate?

I shouldn't have to.


We've all been pointing this out for years.

The exemption from ever-closer-union failed in finding a tactical compromise that had no bearing on the strategic problem. An exemption from ever closer union doesn’t achieve anything useful in this context.
Britain’s ability to maintain its ‘special status’ has changed. Originally it depended on the power of veto. With the arrival of QMV it has depended on its ability to gather a blocking minority of euro outs. With the Lisbon vote-weight changes that came into effect in 2014 the eurozone nations alone have a qualified majority, and that matters because the ECB will caucus a ‘consensus’ opinion of its members. So the last great gambit was the renegotiation, at the end of which Belgium et-al insisted that the exemption from ever-closer-union must apply only to Britain.

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/PDFs/EBAsafeguards.pdf

To give an example of what this problem looks like in practice:



In short, we face a serious (future) problem whereby a integrated economic union of eurozone states begin to caucus decisions against the policy consensus of the EBU, the consequence of which would be that Britain ceased to be a sovereign nation. Once we cease to be a sovereign nation we instead become a sanjak, such as Greece was under the ottomans and is again today under the troika.

Though for my part on the philosophies themselves:

1. Recourse to "demonstrable harm" standards has routinely generated demonstrable harm.
2. People don't actually invoke or apply abstract principles of "demonstrable harm" as against "precautionary principle" - it's just not a thing. The only question is what harms any given actor or stakeholder weighs as tolerable or not, and what they are prepared to do or capable of having done about the matter.

[Furunculus]

I believe you are over-thinking this.

[Pannonian]

The head of Wetherspoons is the latest Brexit supporter to call for easier access to EU labour.

[Furunculus]

i wonder if he, like many, voted to leave because he viewed the EU as a v. poor form of governance.

i mean, it shouldn't really come as a surprise in these hallowed intellectual halls, as I at least have spent years pointing out that I am pro-immigration in principle, not fussed about FoM in practice, and rejected EU membership for completely separate and meticulously detailed reasons.

and yet... somehow, the debate always drifts back to nasty racist leavers.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

i wonder if he, like many, voted to leave because he viewed the EU as a v. poor form of governance.

i mean, it shouldn't really come as a surprise in these hallowed intellectual halls, as I at least have spent years pointing out that I am pro-immigration in principle, not fussed about FoM in practice, and rejected EU membership for completely separate and meticulously detailed reasons.

and yet... somehow, the debate always drifts back to nasty racist leavers.

That is because, however many conservatives like myself and you may oppose a policy or treaty or regulation for logical reasons stemming from our ideology and values, there is another wedge of nativist xenophobes who oppose those policies because they hate/fear/need to feel superior to persons of color. Sadly, that wedge of persons is too numerous by far.

That has been one of my personal "learning moments" over the past 5 or so years. The reactionary fringe is not, as I had supposed, a tiny strident minority. While still a minority, there are far more such than is healthy in my polity, and I suspect that the same obtains for you lot.

[rory_20_uk]

There are definitely racists or Xenophobes in the UK. As there definitely are in the rest of Europe. I am sure many Remainers are also equally racist and / or Xenophobic - after all the whole EU project has mainly drawn a line with White / Good allowed in and Anything Else / Bad being the order of the day. As long as the vast majority is white then it is a non issue and the EU can continue to pay money to keep people overseas.

Or indeed the other overlooked facet of non-whites who are often Xenophobes, as yes, being a nasty bigoted person is something that is a quality that can be held by all mankind.

Stories such as an employer wanting the Government to increase the number of work visas cling to something untrue and smugly view it as an "aha!" moment as opposed to they might have missed the point in the first place.

Nothing seems to have been made of people from Hong Kong offered passports, or Afghan interpreters who will also be offered the right to remain. But it is oh so much easier to just repeat "Brexiteers are racists" than acknowledge there might be other causes.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

There are definitely racists or Xenophobes in the UK. As there definitely are in the rest of Europe. I am sure many Remainers are also equally racist and / or Xenophobic - after all the whole EU project has mainly drawn a line with White / Good allowed in and Anything Else / Bad being the order of the day. As long as the vast majority is white then it is a non issue and the EU can continue to pay money to keep people overseas.

Or indeed the other overlooked facet of non-whites who are often Xenophobes, as yes, being a nasty bigoted person is something that is a quality that can be held by all mankind.

Stories such as an employer wanting the Government to increase the number of work visas cling to something untrue and smugly view it as an "aha!" moment as opposed to they might have missed the point in the first place.

Nothing seems to have been made of people from Hong Kong offered passports, or Afghan interpreters who will also be offered the right to remain. But it is oh so much easier to just repeat "Brexiteers are racists" than acknowledge there might be other causes.

~:smoking:

The question I was implying was, if the guy wants the conditions within the EU that much, why did he campaign to get us out of it? It was Furunculus who raised racism as the issue, when the issue I was highlighting was the stupidity of shooting himself in the foot, then wondering why it was bleeding.

[rory_20_uk]

The question I was implying was, if the guy wants the conditions within the EU that much, why did he campaign to get us out of it? It was Furunculus who raised racism as the issue, when the issue I was highlighting was the stupidity of shooting himself in the foot, then wondering why it was bleeding.

Yes, I get that.

I can't read his mind. Perhaps even though he looses out on workers are more difficult for his business, personally he wanted out for other reasons. I've worked for companies I've hated because I need the money more than I need to uphold my principles. Perhaps he's rich enough that he's the luxury of the other way around.

~:smoking:

[Xantan]

Isn't this convenient... and a serious double standard?

U.K. Pushes for Finance Exemption From Global Taxation Deal

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-08/u-k-pushes-for-city-of-london-exemption-from-global-tax-deal


U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer is pressing for the City of London to be exempt from a plan by global leaders to make multinationals pay more tax to the countries where they operate.

Finance ministers from the Group of Seven advanced economies struck a historic deal last weekend that could force the world’s biggest companies to pay a minimum corporate tax rate of 15%.

Chancellor is expected to make the case that financial services, including global banks with head offices in London, should be exempt from the plan when talks move to the G-20 next month.

[Furunculus]

Isn't this convenient... and a serious double standard?

U.K. Pushes for Finance Exemption From Global Taxation Deal

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-08/u-k-pushes-for-city-of-london-exemption-from-global-tax-deal

A justification I have seen elsewhere:


"There are 2 key proposed changes, (i) tax should be paid where the customers are based, as opposed to where value is created (i.e. Amazon argues their value is concentrated in the US and lower tax jurisdictions like Ireland where their patents and servers are held/based, rather than where their warehouses are based as these are "low value" assets for an intangible business like theirs); (ii) every jurisdiction should levy a minimum tax so places like the Cayman Islands can't set their tax rate at 0 (i.e. tax havens).

These are sensible solutions for a world where increasingly intangible businesses can very easily move their assets (since they are no longer fixed like a factory) to lower tax jurisdictions, and force countries to reduce tax rates in order to lure their business in.

The second of these two principles is not appropriate for Financial Services (FS), and by this I mean asset management and banking, where the core of their business is intermediary. And this is the one they are seeking an exemption from (to be more accurate, the exemption is for the funds, not for the firms themselves, see below).

For example, if your work pays you £100 which you then invest for retirement saving, which will likely be serviced by a FS firm to invest in a fund which invests in a diversified portfolio of assets, with the intention of the value of the £100 increasing over time such that when you are older you can draw on this for retirement, the introduction of the second principle would render this business impossible due to tax leakage, and subject the income to multiple levels of taxation which is unjust.

To follow this, when your work pays £100, you have already paid taxes on this (PAYE and national insurance), you give this say to Hargreaves Lansdown to invest into a fund, currently that fund is likely based in a nil tax jurisdiction or is able to obtain a special deal with places like Luxembourg or Ireland to have nil tax such that the fund itself (an intermediary like a bank account) is not subject to tax. Let's say the money is invested in a UK business, the investment is successful and in one year the £100 becomes £150, again the increase of the £50 is post tax because the UK business would have already paid corporation tax. The fund is then able to return the full £150 back to you on which you will be paying tax on the £50 (capital gains, dividend, interest, whatever the form of the return might be).

If however the location in which the fund is based now also levies a tax (minimum tax rate principle), then your money will be taxed twice, as the fund will now have to pay tax on the £50 return before you receive the return. Even worse if your money is diversified through multiple funds as certain investments (e.g. real property) requires actual presence in the country where the assets are held, the return may be subject to multiple layers of taxation such that when the money eventually goes back to you a large chunk would be taken as tax.

It would be like if you put money in a bank, not only you have to pay tax on the interest the bank now also has to pay tax on your interest. If this was the case you'd start to question why a bank is necessary, maybe you just put your money under the bed since at a bank any return is being absorbed through taxes, this would have a damaging impact on the allocation of investment, alternatively it may force the FS firms to take even greater risk in the hope of higher returns to attract customers.

Hence the exemption request, and is not just the UK this is something most of the countries involved in the discussion agree on."

[Furunculus]

Why Brexit?

To regulate business and society based on "demonstrable-harm" rather than the "precautionary-principle".

Or, as the TIGGR report puts it "The Proportionality Principle:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/15/post-brexit-britain-should-light-bonfire-eu-red-tape-fuel-economic/

From the report:

"Our proposed new ‘ Proportionality Principle ’, is absolutely central to the new framework we are proposing:by making regulation proportionate to both the scale of the risk being mitigated, and the capacity of the organisation being regulated, we believe this new UK framework will boost both UK economic competitiveness and UK regulatory leadership."

"46.It is not just the code-based approach that had an insidious effect on the UK’s regulation. The way the ‘Precautionary Principle’ has been applied by the EU hasmeant some innovations have been stifled due to an excessive caution that is often disproportionate to the associated risk."

"63.A central driving force, with a clear lead Minister and appropriate Cabinet oversight, will be needed to overhaul the regulatory landscape and ensure that an agile regulatory strategy is adhered to. 64.Some of these functions already exist. The National Economic and Recovery Taskforce (NERT) Cabinet sub-committee on Better Regulation (BRC) was set up in early 2021 to drive growth across the economy by placing competition and innovation at the heart of regulatory decision making. But the UK does not yet have a clear regulatory strategy; it should develop one as soon as possible. Proportionality in implementation: a framework based on risk and outcomes not “tick-box” compliance"

"65.The ‘Proportionality Principle’ is absolutely vital to the new framework we are proposing. One of the longstanding issues with traditional regulation is that it has a disproportionate negative impact on smaller businesses (and creative ‘third sectors’ like social enterprise). 66.Our proposed proportionality principle is designed to operate in two key ways: a.Risk: ensuring the design and implementation of regulations, including their cost, is proportionate with the level of risk. b.Reaching the right outcome: regulation should be based on outcomes rather than assessing mechanistic “tick-box” compliance with rules. Remediation and penalties where a bad outcome (such as a harmful data breach) occurs should be proportionate to the harm caused as well as the size and ability to pay of the business involved"

"1.4.Mandate a new “Proportionality Principle” at the heart of all UK regulation."

[Pannonian]

Why Brexit?

To regulate business and society based on "demonstrable-harm" rather than the "precautionary-principle".

Or, as the TIGGR report puts it "The Proportionality Principle:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/15/post-brexit-britain-should-light-bonfire-eu-red-tape-fuel-economic/

From the report:

What concrete examples of this theorising are there?

Meanwhile, here's (https://www.rspca.org.uk/-/news-government-to-keep-promises-on-trade-commission-ahead-of-australia-deal) a concrete example of deregulation meaning that products with lower standards than we deem acceptable have now been allowed in. And if you don't like the RSPCA as a source, here's (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-11/british-australian-food-standard-differences-causing-angst/100205024) the Australian perspective.

[Furunculus]

Biotech/Medicines
AgriSci/GM
Energy/Fracking
AI/Data https://www.itpro.co.uk/policy-legislation/data-protection/359915/government-to-consider-gutting-gdpr-rules
Finance/Fin-tech https://www.ft.com/content/ed2d0a61-a056-470d-8597-082310b4beb9?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6


All tech growth industries of the future that the EU seems to fear, and thus suffocate in regulation based on the precautionary principle.

[Pannonian]

Biotech/Medicines
AgriSci/GM
Energy/Fracking
AI/Data https://www.itpro.co.uk/policy-legislation/data-protection/359915/government-to-consider-gutting-gdpr-rules
Finance/Fin-tech https://www.ft.com/content/ed2d0a61-a056-470d-8597-082310b4beb9?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6


All tech growth industries of the future that the EU seems to fear, and thus suffocate in regulation based on the precautionary principle.

Why have much of the financial industry moved to the EU if what the industry really wants is what an extra-EU Britain offers them?

[Furunculus]

Why have much of the financial industry moved to the EU if what the industry really wants is what an extra-EU Britain offers them?

They haven't.

[Pannonian]

They haven't.

Bankers quit London as Brexit relocations to EU step up (https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/bankers-quit-london-brexit-relocations-eu-step-up-2021-05-12/)


LONDON/PARIS, May 12 (Reuters) - Investment banks are shifting more rainmakers out of London to financial centres across the European Union, accelerating the pace of moves after the pandemic and uncertainty over Britain’s access to the bloc slowed relocations.

Morgan Stanley (MS.N), Barclays (BARC.L) and Goldman Sachs (GS.N) are among those moving senior bankers, according to sources at the lenders, as European regulators push banks to better staff their EU offices and travel restrictions ease. Local hiring has also increased.

Nearly half of finance firms have moved jobs to the EU after Brexit (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nearly-half-of-finance-firms-have-moved-jobs-to-the-eu-after-brexit-njcd7m5vt)


Almost 8,000 jobs in the financial sector have moved abroad because of Brexit, a report suggests.

EY, the professional services company, said another 100 jobs have been relocated since October, taking the total to 7,600. It found that 43 per cent of businesses in the sector have moved or plan to move some of their operations or staff to the European Union.

EY has been monitoring public statements made by 222 of the largest financial services firms, including investment banks, brokerages, wealth and asset managers, retail banks, private equity houses, insurers and insurance brokers, and financial technology businesses.

[Furunculus]

"Why have much of the financial industry moved to the EU if what the industry really wants is what an extra-EU Britain offers them?"

Quite literally; they haven't.

The New Financial report has to be requested:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/11/europe-has-absolutely-no-chance-overthrowing-city-london/


Not so the New Financial survey. It boils everything down to brass tacks and focuses on the only thing that really matters: financial activity. And it shows that London is so far ahead of the likes of Frankfurt, Paris, Dublin, Amsterdam and Luxembourg that it can’t even see them in its rearview mirror. Nothing short of a biblical cataclysm will alter the top rankings between now and next year or, indeed, for a generation...

The index analyses 65 countries on more than 40 metrics so as to capture the relative scale of activity in each market. The US is easily the biggest financial centre in the world with a score of 84 out of 100 but the UK’s overall score of 35 out of 100 makes it by far the largest financial centre in Europe, roughly three times bigger than its nearest rivals France (13) and Germany (12)...

I got the researchers to crunch some additional numbers for me and they found that if the UK was still in the EU, it would have a 42pc share of all financial activity in the bloc. In nine out of 21 sectors, it hosts twice as much activity as the whole of the EU27 put together!...

So, do the New Financial rankings, the eternal craftiness of bankers and the increasing desperation of EU watchdogs mean that the warnings about a Brexit exodus from the City were wide of the mark and we can all relax?

Well, yes and no. “If the UK lost 10pc of all of its international activity (a huge and very unlikely “if”) it would still be many times bigger than any EU financial centre and would therefore retain the kind of conglomeration effect that attracts so many businesses,” says William Wright of New Financial. “That said, the loss of 10pc of activity would still mean a big hit to the Treasury’s tax receipts...

Some activity has already gone. Most trading of EU securities has relocated (Amsterdam has been the big beneficiary of this) and non-UK banks have moved more than £700bn in assets out of the country. New Financial believes more will go. None of this is fatal, but the constant drip-drip-drip of business leaking out of the UK is far from ideal.

In other words, just because the City’s position as the preeminent financial centre is pretty much impregnable doesn’t mean that the UK doesn’t have plenty to lose. Complacency has already been costly.

New Financial’s survey measures the change in activity since 2016 which also presents a mixed picture. Domestic activity in the UK has basically flatlined since the referendum. Over the same time it has grown 14pc in the EU and 16pc globally. That said, international activity grew faster in the UK than in EU27 (19pc vs 14pc) but lost market share to financial centres in Asia (international activity increased in both Hong Kong and Singapore by more than 50pc)...

I have a copy of the report if you would like quotes?

[Furunculus]

From the report:

"A steady state?
Probably the best way to measure London and
the UK as a financial centre and to see how its
position has or hasn’t changed since 2016 is to
look at metrics of international financial activity –
those sectors where market participants have
more choice over where to locate and conduct
their business.
Fig.19 shows the change across 20 metrics of
international financial activity in the UK since
2016. Overall, the UK has performed much
better than in domestic financial activity metrics.
Its global share of international activity has
declined but only slightly: international activity in
the UK has grown by 19% since 2016 compared
to 21% globally (and would have performed
better were it not for the depreciation of
sterling since the Brexit referendum).
International activity in the UK has grown at a
faster rate than the global average in 10 of the
total 20 metrics we analysed. Overall activity has
grown in 15 metrics since 2016, and in 13
metrics the growth in activity has been well
above 10% compared to just five domestic
metrics.
The UK recorded its highest growth in foreign
ESG bonds issuance and interest rate derivatives.
Other sectors where growth has been
particularly strong include private equity
fundraising, foreign exchange spot and
derivatives trading, foreign IPOs, and clearing.
However, international activity in the UK has
shrunk in five metrics: the value of financial
services exports, foreign corporate bond
issuance, foreign bank assets, foreign equity
trading and the number of foreign companies
listed in London. It is too early to assess the full
impact of Brexit, but the decline in these five
sectors is concerning and we know that in some
sectors (foreign equity trading, exports and bank
assets) the UK’s lead has already been dented by
Brexit. Other sectors that are exposed and will
most likely see an impact once the dust of Brexit
settles down include FDI in financial services,
derivatives trading, clearing, and investment
funds"
A broader view
The combination of factors of the wider
environment and metrics of financial activity
gives a broader picture on the performance of
different financial centres around the world
(although we think this ranking is the least useful
of any in this report). Fig.21 shows the average
score for each country taking into account all 60
metrics of domestic financial activity,
international financial activity, and the wider
environment.
The rankings confirm the dominance of the US
and the UK as the top two financial centres in
the world and the extent of their lead compared
to other countries. The US is by far the top
financial centre. Its score of 82 is nearly double
that of the UK and more than double the scores
for China, Japan and Hong Kong.
The UK ranks second in the world and is well
ahead of other European countries. Its score of
46 is nearly 60% higher than Luxembourg, two
thirds bigger than that of Germany and France,
and roughly double that of the Netherlands and
Switzerland.
The performance of big European economies is
mixed. On the one hand Germany (7th), France
(8th) and the Netherlands (11th) perform
relatively well. On the other hand, Spain (18th)
and Italy (25th) are further down, towards the
middle of the table and their overall scores are
lower than smaller European economies such as
Switzerland, Ireland, and Denmark.
Four of the top 10 financial centres are in Asia:
China is third overall, just ahead of Japan and
Hong Kong, with Singapore in 9th place. China’s
high score in domestic activity (driven largely by
its huge banking system) partially offsets its low
scores in international financial activity and wider
environment. With the exception of China, the
rest of the world’s largest developing economies
perform poorly: Russia, Brazil and India are all
towards the bottom of the rankings, due to low
levels of international activity and poor
performance in metrics of the wider
environment.
24938

Ooh, another day, another report. This time EY:

https://www.ey.com/en_uk/financial-services/why-the-uk-is-likely-to-remain-europes-leading-fs-investment-hub

The UK continues unchallenged as Europe’s top location for financial services (FS) investment and is expected to keep outperforming the rest of Europe post-pandemic.
In brief

Foreign direct investment (FDI) in financial services fell across Europe by 23% in 2020 as COVID-19 impacted business confidence and travel.
The UK attracted 56 financial services FDI projects in 2020; still the highest in Europe but 43 projects lower than in 2019.
Investor sentiment on the future of UK FS is positive; the UK remains the most attractive European country and London the leading city for such investment.

It was with a degree of apprehension - post-Brexit deal and 15 months on from the first pandemic lockdown - that I reviewed the data from EY’s latest UK Attractiveness Survey for financial services, which combines analysis of 2020 foreign direct investment into the UK and a global investor sentiment survey conducted in Spring 2021.


The positive, headline news is that the UK has maintained its position as the most attractive destination in Europe for FS FDI - a position it has held since EY started tracking FDI levels and market attractiveness over 20 years ago. Although the country’s position has been particularly challenged over the last few years, it has remained the continent’s most established financial services ecosystem throughout, and investor sentiment suggests this will continue.

Overall, across Europe, FS FDI fell by almost a quarter as the pandemic impacted business confidence and travel. The UK market mirrors this picture and also saw a decline (albeit more dramatic at 43%), from 99 global projects to 56 last year, which is the largest year-on-year fall this decade. Other leading markets including Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Ireland similarly saw drops in FS FDI last year, with one outlier - France’s FDI activity increased, placing it in second position and narrowing the gap with the UK market.

In 2019, the UK recorded more than double the FS projects of the then second placed country, Germany. However, in 2020, whilst the gap has widened with Germany, FS projects into France increased by almost a third, overtaking Germany for second place, and meaning the UK’s lead over France is now a much more modest 14%.

But even though the UK’s lead has narrowed in 2020, this is quite possibly just a short-term response to pandemic-related business disruption and the completion of the Brexit deal. We shouldn’t forget that the year after the UK’s vote to leave the European Union, UK financial services FDI projects fell by 26%, before bouncing back to a record high of 112 projects the following year. Investment has now levelled off for many markets that saw a ‘Brexit uplift,’ with just France sustaining strong FDI in 2020.
The UK market is well-positioned for continued growth in FS FDI

Whilst the FDI data evidences past year performance, there is good news as we look ahead. Our survey shows that global investor sentiment for UK FS has increased. Half of global FS investors said they plan to establish or extend operations in the UK over the next year. This is a sharp increase from 10% in September and higher than the 45% in April last year. As an important indicator of future investment, these sentiment survey results suggest the UK is looking to a strong future and will continue to outperform the rest of Europe in attracting post-pandemic financial services investment.

24940

[Montmorency]

"Demonstrable harm" has as a practical matter been a generational corporate giveaway leading, with grim un-irony, to demonstrable harm. Endless offloaded externalities. As I have said before, the "precautionary principle" doesn't exist except as a rhetorical device against which communal thieves can detract from all concrete, well-founded, prudential measures that are known or expected to limit industry-specific and case-specific harms (but also limit the ceiling of profit-taking).

The Sordid Reality of Demonstrable Harm

https://i.imgur.com/PZ9joQU.png

What assurance do we have that the "Proportionality Principle" isn't just a cynical rebranding by the same sociopaths? Why should we trust them?

[Furunculus]

does sound like you'll be hard to please, either way.

i don't imagine this will reassure you:

https://www.iainduncansmith.org.uk/sites/www.iainduncansmith.org.uk/files/2021-06/FINAL%20TIGRR%20REPORT.pdf

[Montmorency]

does sound like you'll be hard to please, either way.

i don't imagine this will reassure you:

https://www.iainduncansmith.org.uk/sites/www.iainduncansmith.org.uk/files/2021-06/FINAL%20TIGRR%20REPORT.pdf


The mere principles outlined in this sort of consultant language are rarely objectionable in themselves - who could possibly derogate "proportionality," right? But how would the authors' printed philosophy, in their own practical vision, deal with such myriad examples as J&J and asbestos (https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/), polymers in food product plastic packaging (https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/9/11/17614540/plastic-food-containers-contamination-health-risks), and commodity extraction versus bankruptcy for profit (https://grist.org/accountability/oil-gas-bankruptcy-fieldwood-energy-petroshare/)?

Or the current national headline of the condominium management that was aware of fatal structural flaws in one of its buildings, but waited so long to organize repairs that the building collapsed with dramatic loss of life and property (Miami Surfside collapse). The city was aware too - did they lack will or authority to kick developers' asses into gear?

According to "demonstrable harm" in the real world, the companies get to run rampant while telling us to 'get f****d', and then when injured parties or the government try to collect on the demonstrated harm, the companies and their principals evade most or all account and leave us double f****d.

The bottom line is that risk-taking actors must carry the burden of proof that they are not operating in a deleterious fashion, with robust monitoring of their operations to ensure compliance on concrete regulations and known risk factors, and liability attendant to violation of the public good and trust (with the caveat that the first priority is preventing and mitigating harm more than adjudicating over it after the fact, as necessary as such backstops (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund) may be). They must have this burden and oversight because we know exactly the price of allowing otherwise. Do you have an idea of how the Proportionality Principle would achieve alignment of corporate incentives with the public good in practice? Or how would it change policymaking from the status quo?

Here's a gesture at the underlying conflict from the linked oil bankruptcy article:


Looking at it only at the tail end ignores the whole chain of events that created that situation and the risks that were compounded

One of my own guiding principles would be rapid expropriation of prime assets and strict nullification of limited liability for persons with ownership or management stakes whenever a company is found to flout clear-cut and longstanding regulatory and fiduciary obligations, but as I said carrots are preferable to sticks. Stakeholders should want to keep the bearers of their investment disciplined; then the market can decide how it wants to price risk.

[Furunculus]

All very reasonable I suppose, but, my issue here is more that you appear to deeply mistrust [all] regulatory models, the precautionary principle as much as anything else.
Which would suggest you recognize a deeper problem than any regulatory model can really address - perhaps the fundamental problem of profit directing economic activity?
In which case no model will satisfy, as none of them are deemed capable of mitigating deleterious affects in the face of the overriding principle driving the investment.
Is that a fair summary?
--------------
In other news:
UK gets its 100th Unicorn.
More than the rest of the EU combined, and amusingly enough in AI (where europe as a whole is a bit-part player besides the US, China and Israel):

https://twitter.com/CityAM/status/1409183809057210375

[Furunculus]

EUrope's Fin-Tech problem:-

A poor venue for decision making - indecisive, lowest-common-denominator solutions, risk averse:
https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/25/dear-eu-its-time-to-get-a-grip/ (written by a blistering lefty)

What this looks like in practice:
2495024951249522495324954249552495624957

[Furunculus]

the precautionary principle in action:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/eu-vaccine-passport-excludes-5m-britons-given-indian-made-astrazeneca/

[Montmorency]

All very reasonable I suppose, but, my issue here is more that you appear to deeply mistrust [all] regulatory models, the precautionary principle as much as anything else.
Which would suggest you recognize a deeper problem than any regulatory model can really address - perhaps the fundamental problem of profit directing economic activity?
In which case no model will satisfy, as none of them are deemed capable of mitigating deleterious affects in the face of the overriding principle driving the investment.
Is that a fair summary?
--------------
In other news:
UK gets its 100th Unicorn.
More than the rest of the EU combined, and amusingly enough in AI (where europe as a whole is a bit-part player besides the US, China and Israel):

https://twitter.com/CityAM/status/1409183809057210375

That's incomplete - my concerns are much more grounded and concrete. There are specific things governments and laws can do to restrain worst practices and negative externalities, which to some extent does require the humans behind the institutional actors to have some interest and expertise in accomplishing the task. I'm simply not convinced that "proportionality principle" will improve what needs improvement, that it isn't another buzzword stalking horse, a pleasing cover for practices that are in continuity of at-least-implicit opposition to the above, as has often been the case in the corporate world, down the line from "free labor and free markets" to "responsible stakeholders" and "sustainable capitalism."


the precautionary principle in action:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/eu-vaccine-passport-excludes-5m-britons-given-indian-made-astrazeneca/

Haven't I already explained that labeling any precaution as constitutive of a "precautionary principle" places every person as a follower of such a principle? And the EMA isn't even following precautions, 'just' Eurocentrism:


There is no suggestion that the Indian manufactured doses are in any way substandard. The EMA has not authorised the vaccine only because the Indian manufacturers have not yet sought a licence for the product in Europe, as the SII intend to predominantly supply low and middle income countries.

British travellers face a similar issue in the United States where no version of the AstraZeneca shot has yet been licensed.

For example, vaccine certificates were a requirement for entry to a Bruce Springsteen show on Broadway in New York last month – but only shots approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were accepted.

(Note that no vaccines are approved by the FDA, AFAIK all vaccines distributed in the USA up to now have only held "emergency use authorization.")

But anyway:


But only vaccines approved by the EMA are included, though individual member states are free to accept other vaccines if they choose.

[...]

An analysis by former BA strategy chief Robert Boyle suggests that more than 20 amber countries including France, Italy and Austria are on track to join the UK’s green list and open to British holidaymakers this month.

The 22 nations – primarily in Europe – all meet the threshold for inclusion on the Government’s quarantine-free green list, according to the analysis. All have infection rates below 20 cases per 100,000 of the population, far lower than current rates in Britain.

Incoherent on-and-off travel restrictions are truly one of those ridiculous and arbitrary measures that almost every country seems to have engaged in. Either shut it all down or obtain extensive assurances with every traveler (preferable, though it's even better - at this stage of the pandemic - just to ban non-vaccinated travelers outright); heuristics to the national or regional level lack spatial and temporal resolution even when rationally formulated.

Tangentially, I have to admit I was mal-persuaded by all the takes late last year and early this one that vaccine passports were too difficult and discriminatory to reliably implement, so we shouldn't pursue them - actually, they're very straightforward!!!

The disease of Fucking Stupid in the world is right up there with greed and sadism as prime threats to human survival.

[Furunculus]

Haven't I already explained that labeling any precaution as constitutive of a "precautionary principle" places every person as a follower of such a principle? And the EMA isn't even following precautions, 'just' Eurocentrism:


Yes, and that actually is a further criticism I have of the precautionary principle; that it allows a veneer of respectability for what would otherwise be understood as v-poor decision making. Whether that is naked self-interest, low sectarian politics, lack of moral courage, etc.

[Pannonian]

Nando's announcing closures due to supply chain issues resulting from Brexit. Sector chiefs dismiss covid-related issues being the principal cause, stating firmly that EU workers in servicing and in the supply chain are no longer available, with that being the principal cause.


The food supply crisis which has seen Nando’s outlets across Britain closed up could see more restaurants shut in the weeks ahead, industry bosses have warned.

Sector chiefs told The Independent Brexit was to blame for the nation’s supply chain woes – as the industry struggles to cope with production workers returning home to the EU and a drastic lack of lorry drivers able to come to the UK.

Nick Allen, chief executive at the British Meat Processors Association, said the sector was struggling to get many product lines out to supermarkets and restaurants – with the UK’s meat production workforce down by up to 20 per cent.

“The supply problems are coming from the underlying labour problems happening since Brexit … It’s certainly Brexit-related, but it’s also the immigration decisions our politicians are making since Brexit,” Mr Allen told The Independent.

He added: “Nando’s is the tip of the iceberg. I think we’re going to see more and more [closures]. Some people are still trying to open up their restaurants – but they’re struggling to get staff and struggling for deliveries.”

Richard Griffiths, chief executive of the British Poultry Council, blamed Brexit for worker shortages in poultry production and the knock-on impact on supply. “The labour crisis is a Brexit issue,” Mr Griffiths said on Thursday.

[rory_20_uk]

Definitely Brexit, nothing else... Link (https://www.contractoruk.com/news/0015112ir35_reform_fuelling_100000_hgv_driver_shortage.html) The poorly implemented IR35 farce has finally hit the Real World as opposed to just annoying people such as myself which is creating an artificial shortage of staff that reside in the UK.

People not coming from the EU, or elsewhere? Definitely Brexit. Pandemic? No, everything bad is due to Brexit!

And lets take a moment to reflect that apparently so far the greatest issue we've had due to Brexit (apart from much earlier access to the Vaccine) has been a chain restaurant has run out of chicken.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Hah. Even that arch Eurosceptic, John Redwood (one of the bastards John Major referred to, and the bloke who challenged Major), has admitted that in the reality of Brexit, the benefits are more theoretical than actual. The UK has the theoretical freedom to reduce VAT on fuel, but is choosing not to do so. And meanwhile, Spain, who are inside the EU, are reducing VAT on fuel.