Brexit: give me a positive effect... VII

[eternumviti]

Unsustainably so and doesn't deal with the need for a market for that fish - which in the main is not our own. Absolutely no point in an oversized fishing fleet with no market, or one you are determined to make less available - perhaps if you spent less time bemoaning the EU and got more Brexiteers to actually eat the stuff it might help.

But as I said, you complain that others have fixed views yet you remain unshakably certain. Access to our waters and a large potential consumer base were what we brought to party - your memory is pretty selective about our position as your recollection of our economic positionin the 70s is.

You're quite handy at misrepresenting what I've said. When did I call for an oversized fishing fleet? I simply said that as the UK owns the relevant waters, then it should control them. That will in practice mean that the UK grants, rolls over or buys back in quotas. It also means that the UK can continue to reverse the environmental carnage that was wrought by the awful CFP.

What do you think my recollection of the economy in the 1970s is?

 

[eternumviti]

Yeah bring it on, as a smaller entity I'm sure they will fold pretty quickly and give us a better 'bespoke' deal. Jeeze.

Oh for Christ's sake, you are just determinedly contrarian. The two countries will in due course draw up a bilateral FTA that suits the specific needs of the two countries. You know this.

 

[SteveS1]

What do you think my recollection of the economy in the 1970s is?

Going well until the mid seventies, then ruined by joining those leeches in the EEC. Recovery being slowed into the eighties would have been much faster without Europe holding us back. Just a guess.

 

[SteveS1]

you are just determinedly contrarian.

Irony alert.

 

[eternumviti]

Going well until the mid seventies, then ruined by joining those leeches in the EEC. Recovery being slowed into the eighties would have been much faster without Europe holding us back. Just a guess.

Ah, right. Just a guess.

 

[SteveS1]

Ah, right. Just a guess.

Anyway, chin up. COVID will provide plenty of cover going forward and that new deal with the EU can be toasted soon - I would definitely want you to provide the Wine and Truss to bring the Stilton and not the other way round. On second thoughts, perhaps you better bring the cheese too.

 

[Brian]

Gawd! Some amusing posts here from the gang.

Just settling down with a cuppa, having admired my hedge cutting yesterday from the kitchen window while it was brewing...

Well it’s not ridiculous, so you didn’t get the point.

Sorry, but where is ‘na na ni na na’ at the end?

In a nutshell, we disagree. Maybe you can explain why an economic comparison of regions in one country, say London/Dewsbury, is valid against an economic comparison of nations, say Germany/Italy?

Are you thinking Donald Rumsfeldt?

There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know.

Keep chipping away from you keyboard if it makes you feel better.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55031443

Yes !!!! Plucky Britain, jam and cheese powerhouse of the world economy is throwing off the shackles of EU oppression. Take that remainiac doubters !!

Details, details.

What is a Remainiac doubter?

What do you think “keep trading under EU terms means”?

But why does the UK want to roll over any EU deal. We’ve been told the EU deal limit the UK and promised that we will get even better deals going forward. Your heroes, IDS, Hannah, Boris, Gove etc all told us that even WTO terms were better than what we had..

I don’t understand what’s going on here. Could it be, maybe, that someone lied to us?

An attempt at sarcasm gone wrong.

Oh, dear.

The rollover is to retain the status quo whilst the UK and Canada negotiate a new, bespoke deal over the next two or three years.

You do know this.

No, he doesn’t.

Irony alert.

Crikey!

 

[Colin L]

Stick to the hedge cutting..

 

[tuga]

You're quite handy at misrepresenting what I've said. When did I call for an oversized fishing fleet? I simply said that as the UK owns the relevant waters, then it should control them. That will in practice mean that the UK grants, rolls over or buys back in quotas. It also means that the UK can continue to reverse the environmental carnage that was wrought by the awful CFP.

By adopting a Trump-style UK First approach I would expect less, not more, environmental protection. F.e. selling fishing rights to a US or perhaps Chinese fleet stationed in the UK. For mon£y.
Taking back control?

What do you think my recollection of the economy in the 1970s is?

This?

 

[Colin L]

Colin L, what are your thoughts on American cultural and economic imperialism?

Ooohhh! A leading question... Just like like child exploitation, rape, murder, war, genocide and far right-wing politicians, I'm broadly against it (in a limited and specific way ).

 

[Brian]

Stick to the hedge cutting..

Well, I have a fair bit to do but I’ll manage to allocate time for your posts. Sorry if that disappoints.

...

This?

Good album.

 

[TheDecameron]

A guard dog of brexit needs four functioning limbs.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Which serves just as easily to describe the EU, if not more so. At least the UK has charge of its own monetary policy, which cannot be said of Italy, Spain, Portugal, France or Germany, with their widely out of sync economies.

Yes the UK does control its monetary policy. On the subject of our of sync economies, let's compare London with ANY other part of the UK. Same economy in Putney, Dewsbury, Merthyr Tydfil and Arbroath? Not really. Still, we're in control aren't we? Course we are.

Eh? What on earth does this have to do with anything? You’re comparing those towns with national economies. Laughable.

Sorry, but where is ‘na na ni na na’ at the end?

In a nutshell, we disagree. Maybe you can explain why an economic comparison of regions in one country, say London/Dewsbury, is valid against an economic comparison of nations, say Germany/Italy?

Na na ni na na would be childish, Brian, and I try not to do that. I was, however, deliberately responding in exactly the same tone and style you'd used, so if you found it annoying...

Similarly, as you didn't elaborate on why you hadn't missed the point, I felt no need to elaborate on why I maintain you had. But, since you ask, I'll take a stab at it, in good faith:

Much is made, by EV and others, about the mismatch between economies in the Eurozone, so the system works to the benefit of one party, and the detriment of another. (This overlooks the fact that we're not in the Eurozone, but is used as an illustrative example of how the EU fails to take all its members along with it, so it's valid, within its limits). The corollary is that, outside the EU, we're not going to be subject to a hegemony where one party or bloc calls the shots in its own interests, heedless of the interests of another party whose interests are not aligned. This is EV's point about 'widely out of sync economies'.

Steve's point is that within the UK we also have 'widely out of sync economies' and that London calls the shots, often to the detriment of towns such as those he mentions. His point as I read it, is that if you're going to criticise the EU, you need to acknowledge that the same situation pertains domestically, and leaving the EU doesn't fix that. (It doesn't even offer a mechanism to fix it that wasn't always there anyway).

So criticising the EU and ignoring the domestic iniquities is at best applying a double standard, and arguably disingenuous because we could always have put our own house in order anyway.

 

[tuga]

Much is made, by EV and others, about the mismatch between economies in the Eurozone, so the system works to the benefit of one party, and the detriment of another.

Since you've mentioned unfairness, this may be of interest:


In 1985, the year before it joined the EC, Portugal's GDP was 27.12 billion USD.
In 1991 it was 89.23 billion USD.
In 1996 it was 122.6 billion USD.
In 2006 it was 208.6 billion USD.
In 2018 it was 240.7 billion USD.

In 1985, the year before it joined the EC, Greece's GDP was 47.82 billion USD.
In 1991 it was 105.1 billion USD.
In 1996 it was 145.9 billion USD.
In 2006 it was 273.3 billion USD.
In 2018 it was 218 billion USD.


Portugal, through 16 national programmes, benefits from ESIF funding of EUR 25.9 billion. This represents an average of 2 480 euro per person from the EU budget over the period 2014-2020. This page includes visualizations on the planning and implementation of the finances available, the EU payments to Portugal and achievements at country level. You can explore further the ESI Funds programmes of the country in the "Programmes" section, where we list also the relevant Interreg programmes for Portugal.

Country Budget for 2014-2020:
Total - €33 209 744 213
EU - €25 859 662 524
Portugal - €7 350 081 689

https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/countries/PT



Greece, through 20 national programmes, benefits from ESIF funding of EUR 21.4 billion. This represents an average of 1 959 euro per person from the EU budget over the period 2014-2020. This page includes visualizations on the planning and implementation of the finances available, the EU payments to Greece and achievements at country level. You can explore further the ESI Funds programmes of the country in the "Programmes" section, where we list also the relevant Interreg programmes for Greece.

Country Budget for 2014-2020:
Total - €26 268 968 390
EU - €21 379 270 956
Greece - €4 889 697 434

https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/countries/GR



Ireland, through 5 national programmes, benefits from ESIF funding of EUR 3.4 billion. This represents an average of 729 euro per person from the EU budget over the period 2014-2020. This page includes visualizations on the planning and implementation of the finances available, the EU payments to Ireland and achievements at country level. You can explore further the ESI Funds programmes of the country in the "Programmes" section, where we list also the relevant Interreg programmes for Ireland.

Country Budget for 2014-2020:
Total - €6 140 079 189
EU - €3 361 627 975
Ireland - €2 778 451 214

https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/countries/IE



United Kingdom, through 17 national programmes, benefits from ESIF funding of EUR 16.5 billion. This represents an average of 256 euro per person from the EU budget over the period 2014-2020. This page includes visualizations on the planning and implementation of the finances available, the EU payments to the United Kingdom and achievements at country level. You can explore further the ESI Funds programmes of the country in the "Programmes" section, where we list also the relevant Interreg programmes for the United Kingdom.
After 31 January 2020, the adopted ESIF programmes will continue to be implemented and EU budget commitments respected in line with the Withdrawal Agreement. This platform will continue to present data on the financial execution and achievements of the programmes involving the UK until their closure.

Country Budget for 2014-2020:
Total - €26 469 948 263
EU - €16 398 253 539
UK - €10 071 694 724

https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/countries/UK

 

[TheDecameron]

Since you've mentioned unfairness, this may be of interest:


In 1985, the year before it joined the EC, Portugal's GDP was 27.12 billion USD.
In 1991 it was 89.23 billion USD.
In 1996 it was 122.6 billion USD.
In 2006 it was 208.6 billion USD.
In 2018 it was 240.7 billion USD.


Portugal, through 16 national programmes, benefits from ESIF funding of EUR 25.9 billion. This represents an average of 2 480 euro per person from the EU budget over the period 2014-2020. This page includes visualizations on the planning and implementation of the finances available, the EU payments to Portugal and achievements at country level. You can explore further the ESI Funds programmes of the country in the "Programmes" section, where we list also the relevant Interreg programmes for Portugal.

Country Budget for 2014-2020:
Total - €33 209 744 213
EU - €25 859 662 524
Portugal - €7 350 081 689

https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/countries/PT



Greece, through 20 national programmes, benefits from ESIF funding of EUR 21.4 billion. This represents an average of 1 959 euro per person from the EU budget over the period 2014-2020. This page includes visualizations on the planning and implementation of the finances available, the EU payments to Greece and achievements at country level. You can explore further the ESI Funds programmes of the country in the "Programmes" section, where we list also the relevant Interreg programmes for Greece.

Country Budget for 2014-2020:
Total - €26 268 968 390
EU - €21 379 270 956
Greece - €4 889 697 434

https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/countries/GR



Ireland, through 5 national programmes, benefits from ESIF funding of EUR 3.4 billion. This represents an average of 729 euro per person from the EU budget over the period 2014-2020. This page includes visualizations on the planning and implementation of the finances available, the EU payments to Ireland and achievements at country level. You can explore further the ESI Funds programmes of the country in the "Programmes" section, where we list also the relevant Interreg programmes for Ireland.

Country Budget for 2014-2020:
Total - €6 140 079 189
EU - €3 361 627 975
Ireland - €2 778 451 214

https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/countries/IE



United Kingdom, through 17 national programmes, benefits from ESIF funding of EUR 16.5 billion. This represents an average of 256 euro per person from the EU budget over the period 2014-2020. This page includes visualizations on the planning and implementation of the finances available, the EU payments to the United Kingdom and achievements at country level. You can explore further the ESI Funds programmes of the country in the "Programmes" section, where we list also the relevant Interreg programmes for the United Kingdom.
After 31 January 2020, the adopted ESIF programmes will continue to be implemented and EU budget commitments respected in line with the Withdrawal Agreement. This platform will continue to present data on the financial execution and achievements of the programmes involving the UK until their closure.

Country Budget for 2014-2020:
Total - €26 469 948 263
EU - €16 398 253 539
UK - €10 071 694 724

https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/countries/UK

Successive Tory governments didn’t have to bother “levelling up”- they could leave that to EU regional assistance. Much of the transport infrastructure in the highlands of Scotland- challenging civil engineering including bridges,viaducts and hundreds of miles of upgraded roads, came from EU funds.

 

[eternumviti]

It is entirely disingenuous to try to compare regional imbalances within a nation state which is subject to a single fiscal policy with a large and extremely economically and culturally diverse grouping of nation states that have their own individual fiscal regimes, yet have been shoehorned into the straightjacket of a single currency as a piece of political expedience.

The imbalances built into the Euro significantly advantage the northern states at the expense particularly of the Med fringe, and even to some degree of France. Cohesion funds can only go so far towards rebalancing that iniquity. They do not, for example, provide employment for millions of youngsters across the Med fringe. Emptying entire regions of their young to work in the manufacturing and export sectors in the north might well be argued as placing capital ahead of people, who merely become commodities.

The only way the Euro is ultimately going to work properly, rather than as now lurching from one existential crisis to another, is for the EU Commission to take over full charge of tax-raising and fiscal policy, evolve a a full transfer union, and turn the national governments into regional councils. This, of course, has always been and remains the objective of EMU. It will be interesting to watch from the sidelines as Von der Leyen or one of her successors tries to sell that to the German Constitutional Court, and to Europe's proudly diverse electorates.

Successive Tory governments didn’t have to bother “levelling up”- they could leave that to EU regional assistance. Much of the transport infrastructure in the highlands of Scotland- challenging civil engineering including bridges,viaducts and hundreds of miles of upgraded roads, came from EU funds.

No, it didn't, it ultimately came from UK taxpayer funds allocated back by the EU.

The current government is committed to 'levelling up' as a matter of policy. If they fail to do so, they will be sacked in 2024, and the incoming government will commit to doing the same thing.

 

[zarniwoop]

Successive Tory governments didn’t have to bother “levelling up”- they could leave that to EU regional assistance. Much of the transport infrastructure in the highlands of Scotland- challenging civil engineering including bridges,viaducts and hundreds of miles of upgraded roads, came from EU funds.

One of the reasons offered for Brexit is to get control over our money, so instead of giving it to the EU and getting some back in local grants, the UK Govt can decide for us where the money is spent. I'm sure that given the choice between road repairs in Shetland and a lucrative backhander to old Spotty Bumsworthy from Eton days this lot will do the right thing.

 

[tuga]

It is entirely disingenuous to try to compare regional imbalances within a nation state which is subject to a single fiscal policy with a large and extremely economically and culturally diverse grouping of nation states that have their own individual fiscal regimes, yet have been shoehorned into the straightjacket of a single currency as a piece of political expedience.

The imbalances built into the Euro significantly advantage the northern states at the expense particularly of the Med fringe, and even to some degree of France. Cohesion funds can only go so far towards rebalancing that iniquity. They do not, for example, provide employment for millions of youngsters across the Med fringe. Emptying entire regions of their young to work in the manufacturing and export sectors in the north might well be argued as placing capital ahead of people, who merely become commodities.

Can you back that up with some numbers?

How much of the problem is down to national governments' policies?

 

[Brian]

Na na ni na na would be childish, Brian, and I try not to do that. I was, however, deliberately responding in exactly the same tone and style you'd used, so if you found it annoying...

Similarly, as you didn't elaborate on why you hadn't missed the point, I felt no need to elaborate on why I maintain you had. But, since you ask, I'll take a stab at it, in good faith:

Much is made, by EV and others, about the mismatch between economies in the Eurozone, so the system works to the benefit of one party, and the detriment of another. (This overlooks the fact that we're not in the Eurozone, but is used as an illustrative example of how the EU fails to take all its members along with it, so it's valid, within its limits). The corollary is that, outside the EU, we're not going to be subject to a hegemony where one party or bloc calls the shots in its own interests, heedless of the interests of another party whose interests are not aligned. This is EV's point about 'widely out of sync economies'.

Steve's point is that within the UK we also have 'widely out of sync economies' and that London calls the shots, often to the detriment of towns such as those he mentions. His point as I read it, is that if you're going to criticise the EU, you need to acknowledge that the same situation pertains domestically, and leaving the EU doesn't fix that. (It doesn't even offer a mechanism to fix it that wasn't always there anyway).

So criticising the EU and ignoring the domestic iniquities is at best applying a double standard, and arguably disingenuous because we could always have put our own house in order anyway.

Which is exactly how I understood his point. I did begin to write something earlier but sadly I anticipated a moving of the goalposts so I scrapped it. Whether you or anybody else believes me isn’t something I’m bothered about.

What is of interest is why you think I didn’t understand something because I disagree with his point and now with you.

By the way, there was no real ‘tone’ to my post. I replied to a post and you then dived in to patronise me by telling me I missed the point.

 

[wacko]

If the EU/Euro is such a bad deal, particularly for Mediterranean fringe, how come no country wants to leave ?
When tourists descend on Greece they pay in Euro not devalued drachma as 20 years ago.