Some basics on the current EU deal situation

I thought the following article was not a bad place to start if one does not have great in depth knowledge of the current “deal” with EU exit and all its implications.

OK, screamingly obvious, the Telegraph is a Tory paper, but at least there are a few basics here that can bury the argument going around that he came away with absolutely nothing?!

Is the photo upload facility also gremlin struck Robert?

Seems to me that there is definitely a gremlin in the works as I was not advised by e-mail of your response, but rather had to come and seek it out for myself.

Robert, I have just looked and am as puzzled as you. John and I responded to it, but I certainly did not delete it because the question was perfectly reasonable. By the way, my response is just that, a response not a rebuttal since you asked a question and did not make a statement I would have been able to dispute.

A question please.

So why is it that my most recent comment of last night is not shown on this page, and yet the rebuttal replies are shown ? Is there a biased gremlin in the works perhaps ?

I wouldn’t pay too much attention to a fund manager Robert. Most of them are outperformed over time by simple indices. I note this one has succeeded by taking a long term view as well. So, from his perspective a bull or bear market is only just part of the cycle whereas for the CEOs of BT, M&S and Vodafone, who are actually running businesses, a long term horizon isn’t really much use. They need investment today and in the short and medium term. I think they are correct and Brexit will negatively impact foreign direct investment in the UK. What would be the reason to invest significantly in a market of only 60M people when there are much larger markets on offer.

Anyway, Brexit could be a bonanza for savvy hedge fund mangers while being a disaster for normal people in the companies they are selling short. I also note that Mr. Woodford has just set up his own firm, he must be delighted with the free BBC advertising he just received :slight_smile:

The economics are contentious. Firstly, there are too many myths about money going into the EU. It is nothing like £55 million a day, more like £35m. Still a lot of money. £18m of that goes back in grants and subsidies leaving £17m a day. In national money terms that is peanuts. As far as the ECB printing money, well at the last count for 2015 UK government debt (national debt) amounted to £1.56 trillion or 81.58% of total GDP as a result of which the UK is short f money, so the exchequer via the treasury has millions of pounds printed every day. The UK is in enormous debts, proportionately several times higher than the EU alone. If they wanted to stand alone then the IMF would need to support the UK, they are reluctant and could easily say only limited support. The farmers' subsidy is far more complicated than so-called 'farm gate' funding. In fact large parts of the money is used for joint agricultural and research programmes which, if the EU did not carry out as a shared programme, would be done by nations alone who would then largely need to rely on the private sector. In fact, no European country can afford that which would knock it on into the hands of the large corporations, which ironically may well happen if the TTIP is signed, but the bill could theoretically be higher because whilst the countries would not pay for the benefits of that research and development the farmers would need to. Do not be mislead by the 'made in France' label on what looks like everything because in fact there is far more moving between countries than appears obvious. The UK, for example, produces large amounts of bovine semen for artificial insemination of dairy cattle which is used in 16 of the 28 countries at present. That trade would continue in the hands of corporations but at higher prices since then there would be no common costs and payments, but what each large concern could charge. National herds without exchanges between them would become far too inbred to remain fertile and numbers of cattle born would go down, all dairy produce become far more expensive. The population sizes and use of milk products exceeds national capabilities. The budget naturally contributes to that. Then there are cereal crop matters such as improving wheat grain outputs for the large populations' needs, along with the fertilisers, pesticides and all else. Milk and flour are two of the basic needs, so that must be. Then crops such as potatoes, carrots and other roots highly susceptible to blights... on and on. When the actual products of the joint research and development goes to farmers, they receive grants to enable them to use what they are being partly given but on the other hand may need to but from Monsanto and so on, hence the payment to pay for those things. That is already too little for small farmers everywhere, which is why they are going broke.

I lived in a farming community in East Anglia for many years and saw the farms go broke, to be bought up by large corporations. In fact my neighbour, although with acres and acres of wheat and oil seed rape was mainly dependent on breeding polo ponies. Without subsidies and the open market he would have gone broke long ago. The EU even helped him export the ponies to the USA, Canada and so on. Alone he would have gone bust. He is still going but he large Palladian farmhouse, 'The Hall' as it is named, and its grounds were sold off to subsidise his subsidies. He had 'inherited' being parish chairman from his father, but one meeting resigned. He was confronted with possible bankruptcy and there is a stupid old law that forbids a bankrupt serving as a councillor (ironically one can be MP, MEP or even president of the USA). The only 'victim' willing to step in was me. I then saw how a chair received notifications of bankruptcy proceedings that were put up on the village notice board. Five of eight councillors were farmers, none wanted to chair because of the ever present threat.

Look at farming through those eyes and what you find is not the shoving around of money and a heap of bureaucracy anti-EU forces present it as but the very things that maintain the farming community (by the skin of their teeth) through not only the money they receive but the scientific benefits within the EU and all the rest of it. Take that away and many more farms will go to the wall with large concerns scooping up the best and the rest going to waste as here in France.

As for investment funds, they don't dare talk down any economy because they want people to pass money through their hands into investments they recommend and manage. If any of them said the UK could go broke the immediate capital flight would drag the entire fund management sector down. No matter what Woodford says, why are are Goldman Sachs as the world's largest investment brokers saying the UK would be in serious trouble? Financially, as a global US corporation they can survive perfectly well without the UK, so have no need to warn as they do. Which one does one listen to?

That is the problem with people in England, they wait to be asked. Then they politely go away and grumble to themselves, again politely. The farmers must have smelled bad manure, so as to speak, when the referendum was promised. Now one has 'moaned' I guess others will pop up, but too little, too late.

Exactly, Brian. So why isn't the NFU making itself heard? They'd be squirting liquid manure over the gates into Downing Street if they were French.

Terry. I saw a letter from somebody in Suffolk in the Times. He wrote as a farmer about lack of consultation with people who are often dependent on EU support. His plaintiff was that the government should have talked to such people as farmers before making this decision but will have to bear responsibility if the UK comes out and they lose the subsidies which are the only way some of them survive, particularly dairy farmers like him. So, I guess we can conclude they will be affected as you say. The UK government making up the shortfall? I just saw a flock of migratory pigs fly by my window as I wrote that...

Many have expressed anxiety about their status in the event of Brexit. The following may be reassuring :

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 contains articles based on “acquired rights” which individuals build up and hold despite any future changes to treaties. Under this, EU countries would be prevented from deporting migrants who entered legally under the old system. Equally, Britain would be prevented from deporting EU citizens.

“Acquired rights” were acknowledged when Greenland withdrew from the European Economic Community. Greenland citizens living in other parts of the EU retained their right to continue living there, with all the residential and legal rights that implied.

Has anyone got a view on how Brexit will affect UK farmers? Presumably all EU subsidies will be withdrawn immediately and as that's the only thing keeping a lot of farmers afloat, here as well as in the UK, I would have thought that a lot of UK farmers would be in deep trouble. If that's the case, why aren't the farmers kicking up a fuss. Or are they expecting Cameron to find the money? What will be the effect on food prices in the UK?

I would guess Brian that Frankfurt and the Dublin Financial Services Centre are rubbing their hands in anticipation.I also read recently that the Frankfurt and London Stock Exchanges are trying merge again, with Frankfurt being larger shareholder. I remember visiting my old company’s UK HQ on Southbank during the financial crisis and London, my birthplace and a city I love, was like a ghost town. Even the taxi drivers were depressed and worried. If the City is hit hard through Brexit the impact on London wil be severe. Which only makes the clown Johnson’s stance all the more reckless IMO.

Interesting John. US and German banks have said they will leave for several years but deniers will not have it. The untold harm that will cause cannot be denied but these people seem committed to economic and financial suicide. It is much the same as industrial concerns that have said they will go. Hands over ears, shouting 'I can't hear. I can't hear' seems to be their way of coping with that.

A recent poll showed Euroscepticism increasing in Scotland. My nose smelled a rat. The rat was twofold, the sampling was in a very socially privileged area where support for the governing party and in 2014 against independence was high. The other one was that the particular agency that carries out a lot of national polls receives a lot of government funding and that those who like this lot's work include several Brexiters. So I looked for a couple of other smaller, but less likely to be biased polls and found there that there is no real change and that a sizeable enough majority are pro-EU. As the Scottish Parliament has said through Nicola Sturgeon, that could precipitate a new independence referendum and they have the powers to do that themselves. The fact that almost none of the 2014 vows have been kept and the budgets for what is still being negotiated have been reduced has had an effect on attitudes, thus Scotland could very easily be lost. The icing on the cake was that this referendum at short notice is at the same time as campaigning for the parliamentary elections in both Northern Ireland and Scotland and both asked for it to be at a later date in order not to disturb their political processes, something that was neither responded to in words or actions. Do England (dragging a reluctant Wales with them) really wish to go it alone?

And when the banks leave David, even the City and home counties will feel the pinch. I found the following interesting

You never said a truer word Frances. It will also be a smaller rock when the Scots leave.

For the facts of the matter go here or here

Take a look at this chart of rail fares for journeys of similar length:

Of course only one of the countries has a denationalised rail system. We know which one. Each country has received an EU subsidy for those services, the UK had €5.1 billion in 2014. If the UK leaves the EU then the subsidies are gone. That is just one of the more practical issues. There are also grants and subsidies for roads and other transport, so ferry crossings would no longer get them too. The airfares deal is preferential pricing to keep flights within the EU cheaper, including parts of longer journeys where there are stopovers or flight changes at EU airports that are maintained lower than the rest of the journey.

They would all go up for the UK to maintain them. Just that alone makes such things as commuting a worse deal, let alone travel out of the UK.

I can understand how a small nation like the UK doesn't want to be bossed around like the big guys and I detest the bullying of NZ by the US but I don't think Brits realise how very lucky you are to have the benefits of EU membership. If you can't get a job in the UK or if you want to retire somewhere more 'exotic' you can just up and go and stay permanently if you wish. A large part of the world is your oyster. YOu have choice, choice and choice and you can put down your roots wherever you want.

If you think it will be better to just sit on your little rock with no access to anything else anywhere, fine. If you think you have all you will ever need there, fine. You can enjoy your own internal problems in privacy. With all the s**t in the world I can see it might fleetingly be tempting but the world has moved on. You didn't care about your commonwealth - it's a sham thanks to you, and now that commonwealth doesn't care about you. You have made yourselves irrelevant and there's no going back. If you brexit you will have much less than you do now.

As one who knows how limiting life can be sitting on a bunch of rocks in the sea with no access to anything I assure you, you might now like it, especially when you have experienced a bit of 'freedom'.