UK forum members, BREXIT?

[Brumby]

I'm going to miss that brakeman, though.

Makes me wonder ...

Is there another member of the EU that has the ability to be the 'brakeman'?

If not, does the EU have any inherent safety mechanisms to keep the hierarchy accountable and under 'control'?  (I only ask because there have been several comments about self-serving leadership.)


It would seem that what happens to the UK after exiting the EU is just as interesting a question as to what happens to the EU.

[Ice-Tea]

/*snip*/  (I only ask because there have been several comments about self-serving leadership.)

This is just generic politics trashing. On whatever political topic (actually, if you read the comments section in online news, this goes for all topics), you will see comments claiming politicians are only there to fill their pockets. Which may be true or not but most of the time it is hardly relevant to the discussion. If you take a look at the budgets concerned, the salary package of the politicians concerned hardly matters. It's just a populist jab.

[G7PSK]

Why is the EU so anxious to get us to invoke article 50? Personally I agree - the sooner the better. But it seems odd to me that the EU don't want to string this one out for as long as possible though. It's a lot of lucre to be giving up.

A guess: Getting rid of the UK means getting rid of the brakeman who slows down the ever-increasing-union train.

As for the UK's pecuniary contributions to the EU coffers - what is the net contribution actually? How much will the EU system actually lose when the money flow from the EU coffers to the UK also stops?

I'm going to miss that brakeman, though.

Somewhere in the region of £100 to £150 million short fall per week for the EU for the UK potentially the same amount will remain as to whether the same research will be funded to the same amount or research will be pointed in other directions remains to be seen. I expect that people drawing hockey stick graphs of the relationship between weather patterns and and the increase in LBGT clubs will get less funding though.

[Zero999]

In addition if there's no agreement then it's WTO rules.
I wonder if the EU Canada agreement includes free movement of people. 

Lol. I can't see that happening. The EU just wants to link free trade with free movement for the UK and any other European state who is thinking about leaving.

The UK government should stop dithering. Activate article 50. Concentrate on negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world, with the the EU being at the bottom of the list. Then when we finally leave, we'll be in a stronger position to negotiate a better deal.

Also, let's no forget Russia. The EU would not like the UK to lift sanctions against Russia, which could be a useful bargaining chip in our negotiations with the EU.

[Tepe]

Also, let's no forget Russia. The EU would not like the UK to lift sanctions against Russia, which could be a useful bargaining chip in our negotiations with the EU.

I am not so sure of that. The sanctions don't appear to be Germany's cup of tea.

[Wytnucls]

In addition if there's no agreement then it's WTO rules.
I wonder if the EU Canada agreement includes free movement of people. 

Lol. I can't see that happening. The EU just wants to link free trade with free movement for the UK and any other European state who is thinking about leaving.

The UK government should stop dithering. Activate article 50. Concentrate on negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world, with the the EU being at the bottom of the list. Then when we finally leave, we'll be in a stronger position to negotiate a better deal.

Also, let's no forget Russia. The EU would not like the UK to lift sanctions against Russia, which could be a useful bargaining chip in our negotiations with the EU.

You've got that the wrong way round:

The U.K. is the EU’s most vocal critic of Russia’s 2014 annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and was instrumental in the decision to levy sanctions against the country’s financials, energy and defense sectors two years ago.
Several EU countries, including Austria and Hungary, have expressed interest in lifting, or at least softening, sanctions, as they can no longer afford to miss out on trade with Russia. Countries that have faced difficulty offsetting lost trade opportunities are Finland, Poland and the Baltic states—Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. The French parliament recently adopted a resolution to urge Brussels to drop all sanctions. Italy’s Upper House of Parliament, meanwhile, approved a resolution opposing any automatic renewal of sanctions.

Britain’s exclusion from any future policy decision-making, then, could help Moscow’s chances to renegotiate terms.

[Wytnucls]

In addition if there's no agreement then it's WTO rules.
I wonder if the EU Canada agreement includes free movement of people. 

Lol. I can't see that happening. The EU just wants to link free trade with free movement for the UK and any other European state who is thinking about leaving.

The UK government should stop dithering. Activate article 50. Concentrate on negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world, with the the EU being at the bottom of the list. Then when we finally leave, we'll be in a stronger position to negotiate a better deal.

Also, let's no forget Russia. The EU would not like the UK to lift sanctions against Russia, which could be a useful bargaining chip in our negotiations with the EU.

There is urgency in negotiating a new trade deal with Europe as the breath of regulations to cover is immense, to such an extend that two years may not be enough time to process everything. The two year deadline will likely be pushed back. The EU is also the UK biggest market (50%). There is no point in snubbing your best trade partner.

[kaz911]

Here is a couple of EU stories that illustrates the issues Denmark and other high wage EU countries have

By law if a public project is (in Denmark) valued at more than GBP 50.000(ish) (DKK 500.000) it has to go for an EU bid round. So everyone in the EU can bid on it. That might be office supplies or whole building works. By law the Public office HAVE to select the cheapest offer with no regard to quality as long as builders "promise" to follow the specifications.

Well that has meant in recent times that most things in Denmark is built by Eastern European building companies. Mostly Polish but also from other former eastern European origins.

And unfortunately that is like hiring the Mafia to build for you. Despite all kinds of safeguards for material choice, labor rights and so on and so forth - most buildings done have to be partly redone 2-3 times. The builders are often not educated as builders - so huge blunders are made. Materials are "changed" without permission to cheaper or copy or scrap versions. Workers are on paper PAID the official amount - but are then FORCED by their "foremen" to hand anywhere from 25 to 95% of their wages to their bosses in cash. They are very apt at "conning" the system and when to many lights shine on the company - they close it - and start a new one. Their bosses then abuse the Danish befits system by "randomly" laying off staff so they can claim government benefits for a short period - while they still work full time. And the bosses steal the benefits as well.

So the one thing they are great at - is gaming the system to the limits. They plan it fully - have multiple "empty" companies setup and vetted for bidding on EU projects - and when heat under one company gets to much - they just close it and move all staff to the next ready company they have set up - and let the old one collapse - and thereby they do not have to pay for the warranty issues on the buildings they just finished. And the "warranty" fixes for the poor quality quite often exceed the entire price of the whole project!

And it happens not only in building sites. Anything from office cleaning to transport is the same. One recent raid by tax/police discovered a whole house full of Polish cleaners with all paperwork in order on paper - but in reality the "business manager" took each employee down to the cash machine after each payday and emptied the accounts and only gave the staff "pocket money" - which meant the cleaning staff spent all their time they should be cleaning - cleaning out (stealing) from lockers and computers to make money. That was the price the staff had to "pay" to get a job - and then the staff relied on Danish benefits for children, sick pay etc to be paid out in Poland as their "real" salaries while the bosses kept the majority. So in reality the PERFECT way to "whitewash" money and generate huge amounts of cash.

I'm not saying Polish people in general are con artists - but they are abused a lot by "Mafia" bosses from Poland. If you find the right Polish workers they are usually better than Brit's and work harder.

But EU rules has made a mockery of how bidding/tenders are done in the public space. But you have to hire Polish people on an individual basis and not through a "Mafia" operated Eastern European company.
 
Poland and the other former Eastern European countries was not ready for EU and EU was not ready for them. 

Sorry if I have offended anyone by the above - but I could continue for hours with examples - many of which the Government and Politicians are trying to keep "hidden" out of fear of backlash from EU.

And I do love Poland btw - I lived in Warsaw for 2 years right after the wall came down - and the first McDonald's opened in Warsaw with 7 km queue - and geeks met at the computer market on Saturday and they sold pirate copies of software and hacked satellite receivers in the open and what ever else western they could get their hands on after having been on USSR wait-lists for years just to get a new car or a new fridge. They had plenty of cash (zloty) after not being able to buy things for so many years - so it was Klondike!

[Zero999]

You've got that the wrong way round:

The U.K. is the EU’s most vocal critic of Russia’s 2014 annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and was instrumental in the decision to levy sanctions against the country’s financials, energy and defense sectors two years ago.
Several EU countries, including Austria and Hungary, have expressed interest in lifting, or at least softening, sanctions, as they can no longer afford to miss out on trade with Russia. Countries that have faced difficulty offsetting lost trade opportunities are Finland, Poland and the Baltic states—Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. The French parliament recently adopted a resolution to urge Brussels to drop all sanctions. Italy’s Upper House of Parliament, meanwhile, approved a resolution opposing any automatic renewal of sanctions.

Britain’s exclusion from any future policy decision-making, then, could help Moscow’s chances to renegotiate terms.

I didn't realise that was the case. I can assure you that whilst that may have been the view of the our government at the time, not everyone in the UK believes sanctions against Russia were a good idea: the harmed the UK economy and didn't change Putin's behaviour. Now we're leaving the EU we should certainly reconsider our relationship with the rest of the work, including some of the less popular countries with the west.

In addition if there's no agreement then it's WTO rules.
I wonder if the EU Canada agreement includes free movement of people. 

Lol. I can't see that happening. The EU just wants to link free trade with free movement for the UK and any other European state who is thinking about leaving.

The UK government should stop dithering. Activate article 50. Concentrate on negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world, with the the EU being at the bottom of the list. Then when we finally leave, we'll be in a stronger position to negotiate a better deal.

Also, let's no forget Russia. The EU would not like the UK to lift sanctions against Russia, which could be a useful bargaining chip in our negotiations with the EU.

There is urgency in negotiating a new trade deal with Europe as the breath of regulations to cover is immense, to such an extend that two years may not be enough time to process everything. The two year deadline will likely be pushed back. The EU is also the UK biggest market (50%). There is no point in snubbing your best trade partner.

I'm not saying we should not negotiate with EU, just that now we're leaving, it no longer needs to be our number 1 trading partner.
Before the UK joined, EU we did a lot of trade with Australia, Canada, Singapore, India etc. which was suppressed when we joined and getting this back should be the number 1 priority.

Some claim that it could take a long time to establish trade agreements with other countries, based on how long it's taken for the EU to negotiate with non-European states but the UK has the advantage that such arrangements don't need to be agreed by all EU states.

[Tepe]

Before the UK joined, EU we did a lot of trade with Australia, Canada, Singapore, India etc. which was suppressed when we joined and getting this back should be the number 1 priority.

43 years have passed. That's a lot of water under the bridge.

Some claim that it could take a long time to establish trade agreements with other countries, based on how long it's taken for the EU to negotiate with non-European states but the UK has the advantage that such arrangements don't need to be agreed by all EU states.

I think that is a very valid point. The disadvantage of course being that the UK might get worse arrangements than it would with the full weight of the EU behind it.

[rch]

In addition if there's no agreement then it's WTO rules.
I wonder if the EU Canada agreement includes free movement of people. 

Lol. I can't see that happening. The EU just wants to link free trade with free movement for the UK and any other European state who is thinking about leaving.

A common misunderstanding in the UK.   Like "Cameron should have negotiated harder on immigration".   The point is, like it or not (and you obviously don't),  free movement is a fundamental part of the nature of the EU.   It is not just a business arrangement, it is an attempt to bring the people of Europe together, and to equalise opportunities.   So refusing to sacrifice freedom of movement is not a choice, it is an existential necessity for the EU.

[dannyf]

The EU just wants to link free trade with free movement for the UK

There is plenty of evidence to show that EU is wrong on that. Free movement makes sense when you have a (relatively) homogeneous culture / political system. To me, the push for free movement today is more ideology / political than anything else.

[rch]

The EU just wants to link free trade with free movement for the UK

There is plenty of evidence to show that EU is wrong on that. Free movement makes sense when you have a (relatively) homogeneous culture / political system. To me, the push for free movement today is more ideology / political than anything else.

True, but it is a fundamental part of the ideology, and raison d'être, of the EU, without which it cannot exist.  You are either with us or against us on this.  No compromise is possible.  I fully realise this may mean support for the EU in some European countries is in the minority.

[Zero999]

In addition if there's no agreement then it's WTO rules.
I wonder if the EU Canada agreement includes free movement of people. 

Lol. I can't see that happening. The EU just wants to link free trade with free movement for the UK and any other European state who is thinking about leaving.

A common misunderstanding in the UK.   Like "Cameron should have negotiated harder on immigration".   The point is, like it or not (and you obviously don't),  free movement is a fundamental part of the nature of the EU.   It is not just a business arrangement, it is an attempt to bring the people of Europe together, and to equalise opportunities.   So refusing to sacrifice freedom of movement is not a choice, it is an existential necessity for the EU.

Well you obviously don't know me. Although I can see the disadvantages of free movement, I ultimately see it as a good thing and personally would like it to continue, even when we leave the EU. However it's clear that one of the main reasons why people voted to leave (I voted to remain) was over concerns over immigration, so our leaders need to negotiate with the EU on free movement.

I have not seen the details of any trade deals with the US and Canada but I highly doubt free movement will be one of the conditions and if it is, then it would explain why they'll ultimately fail. Can you seriously see the US and Canadian governments agreeing to free movement and open boarders with all of the EU member states?

If the EU can establish trade agreements with other states which do not involve free movement, then why can't the EU do the same with the UK? The only reason I can see is because the UK is in Europe and will be a former EU state which will make it politically unpopular with other EU countries but so will not establishing any kind of trade deal.

[rch]

In addition if there's no agreement then it's WTO rules.
I wonder if the EU Canada agreement includes free movement of people. 

Lol. I can't see that happening. The EU just wants to link free trade with free movement for the UK and any other European state who is thinking about leaving.

A common misunderstanding in the UK.   Like "Cameron should have negotiated harder on immigration".   The point is, like it or not (and you obviously don't),  free movement is a fundamental part of the nature of the EU.   It is not just a business arrangement, it is an attempt to bring the people of Europe together, and to equalise opportunities.   So refusing to sacrifice freedom of movement is not a choice, it is an existential necessity for the EU.

Well you obviously don't know me. Although I can see the disadvantages of free movement, I ultimately see it as a good thing and personally would like it to continue, even when we leave the EU. However it's clear that one of the main reasons why people voted to leave (I voted to remain) was over concerns over immigration, so our leaders need to negotiate with the EU on free movement.

I have not seen the details of any trade deals with the US and Canada but I highly doubt free movement will be one of the conditions and if it is, then it would explain why they'll ultimately fail. Can you seriously see the US and Canadian governments agreeing to free movement and open boarders with all of the EU member states?

If the EU can establish trade agreements with other states which do not involve free movement, then why can't the EU do the same with the UK? The only reason I can see is because the UK is in Europe and will be a former EU state which will make it politically unpopular with other EU countries but so will not establishing any kind of trade deal.

I am sure they will negotiate a trade deal, it just won't be free, customs free and paper free like it is *within* the single market.  It will no doubt favour the particular strong wishes of each side in each sector as befits negotiations between different parties rather than the mutual support of members of the same  community.  None-the-less it will be fair to both parties because neither is of much greater strength.  Which is more than can be said for TTIP.

[apis]

In addition if there's no agreement then it's WTO rules.
I wonder if the EU Canada agreement includes free movement of people. 

Lol. I can't see that happening. The EU just wants to link free trade with free movement for the UK and any other European state who is thinking about leaving.

The UK government should stop dithering. Activate article 50. Concentrate on negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world, with the the EU being at the bottom of the list. Then when we finally leave, we'll be in a stronger position to negotiate a better deal.

Also, let's no forget Russia. The EU would not like the UK to lift sanctions against Russia, which could be a useful bargaining chip in our negotiations with the EU.

There is urgency in negotiating a new trade deal with Europe as the breath of regulations to cover is immense, to such an extend that two years may not be enough time to process everything. The two year deadline will likely be pushed back. The EU is also the UK biggest market (50%). There is no point in snubbing your best trade partner.

To put things in perspective: for EU that means about 10% of total trade, which is why the UK will be lower priority than the US and China, etc. That's what Obama meant by "back of the queue": the US will also prioritize the EU since the UK are so small in comparison. The UK may have to try to negotiate other deals first but not because it's advantageous. EU can't give the UK any special treatment, not out of spite but because we can't afford to send the message to other nationalist that blackmailing the EU will be rewarded. So sorry, but the UK will have be treated like any other "third country".

[apis]

Why is the EU so anxious to get us to invoke article 50? Personally I agree - the sooner the better. But it seems odd to me that the EU don't want to string this one out for as long as possible though. It's a lot of lucre to be giving up.

That is small potatoes compared to the cost of everyone living in uncertainty. It's not just big scale economics, it's thousands of lives that are directly affected. Another example are all the Brits living in Europe, they probably wonder if they will have to move back to Britain now. Applications for Swedish citizenship by British who live here went up by more than 600% after the referendum. The same for eu-migrants living in the UK. Until the British government decide what to do they are living in limbo.

The European Union has never been primarily about money, it's a peace project. That's why free movement is non-negotiable.

From the EU perspective there is no upside to the current situation. The EU leadership probably want to make it clear to everyone they are doing what they can to move things along as quickly and smoothly as possible. And while it's regrettable that the UK citizens voted leave, it would seem undemocratic if the UK government decides to stay now anyway. That would only reduce the democratic legitimacy of EU, at least in Britain, so it's not in EU's interest either.

[Kjelt]

You think the UK is a big contributor? Well lets see the figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union  EU-28 contributions (2014)
UK contributed  14072 million and got 6984 million back so net 7088 million with a population of 63,2 million people that is 112€ a person you contributed.
Germany 29413 million and got 11485 million back so net 17928 million with a population of 81,8 million people that is 219€ a person Germany contributed, almost double.

And even Holland contributed 8373 million and got 2014 million back so net 6359 million with a population of 17 million people that is 374€ a person we contributed, more than triple.

So in that aspect we pay per person three time more than the oh so mighty british umpire. Go brew some decent beer and you might have a good export product 

[apis]

I found this earlier: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036097.stm and it says the UK is 7:th largest net contributor per person. Also shows how large the UK rebate is.

[Kjelt]

Well we just have to close the faucet a bit more for those countries that only consume.
Both EU and UK will survive, so lets watch this political soap or Kings drama if you wish in the UK unravel further, the first has already fallen. 

[dannyf]

The economics part of the fallout is interesting but not nearly as interesting as the geopolitical part of it.

An EU without the UK is considerably weakened militarily. Merkel had suggested an EU self-sufficient defense by 2025 - 2030. I think that's mostly impossible now.

That means NATO will continue to exist as the defense umbrella for Europe into the foreseeable future.

So a brexit is bad for Russia - quite counter-intuitive.

How a President Trump or a President Clinton handles that would be quite interesting.

[Brumby]

You think the UK is a big contributor? Well lets see the figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union  EU-28 contributions (2014)
UK contributed  14072 million and got 6984 million back so net 7088 million with a population of 63,2 million people that is 112€ a person you contributed.
Germany 29413 million and got 11485 million back so net 17928 million with a population of 81,8 million people that is 219€ a person Germany contributed, almost double.

And even Holland contributed 8373 million and got 2014 million back so net 6359 million with a population of 17 million people that is 374€ a person we contributed, more than triple.

So in that aspect we pay per person three time more than the oh so mighty british umpire. Go brew some decent beer and you might have a good export product 

Even down under we know Germany is known as a major financial contributor - but your example 'per person' is irrelevant on the balance sheet.  It doesn't matter if the population of any country is 1,000,000 or 100,000,000, when a country's contribution is withdrawn, the whole amount goes.  So, from your figures, if you take out the UK, the rest of the EU has a net drop of 7088 million on the balance sheet.

That's not a drop in the ocean.

[apis]

The economics part of the fallout is interesting but not nearly as interesting as the geopolitical part of it.

An EU without the UK is considerably weakened militarily. Merkel had suggested an EU self-sufficient defense by 2025 - 2030. I think that's mostly impossible now.

That means NATO will continue to exist as the defense umbrella for Europe into the foreseeable future.

So a brexit is bad for Russia - quite counter-intuitive.

How a President Trump or a President Clinton handles that would be quite interesting.

There aren't any plans for a common EU defence force yet, as far as I know. There's only Nato and the UK is probably not planing on leaving Nato as well. Not that it would make any difference, because there is no real threat to Nato nor EU, even without the US and UK:

[nctnico]

the rest of the EU has a net drop of 7088 million on the balance sheet.

No, a lot of money also flows back from the EU.

[Kjelt]

That's not a drop in the ocean.

It gonna be less because now the UK has a lot of EU projects and contracts that are stopping.
Airbus projects and such EU wide contracts are going to be given to the EU countries in the near future or some other deals have to be made ofcourse.
What the biggest problem was is that the UK contributed much less than they normally would have since they had lots of discounts and special treatments, look at the url that apis posted and look at the Percentage of income statistics, the UK is last. And still they were complaining and blocking stuff in Brussels, well that is now over. So yeah it is not the best outcome but I think in the long end it is better for the EU that only countries participate that 100% want to contribute and participate instead of continuously blocking progress.
And I think that a lot of politicians in the UK that blamed the EU the last years for everything that did not went well in the country have to find a new excuse