adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,989 
Likes: 5,131
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 21, 2020 7:13:44 GMT
Both articles are based on this impact assessment published by HMRC. The £15bn figure (first article) can be found in that document: HMRC therefore estimates that the static total ongoing administrative burden on UK-EU trade is £15 billion (updated to reflect 2017 data) a year. The £7bn figure (second article) can also be found there: The latest static estimate for the annual administrative burden on UK businesses from additional import and export declarations is £7.5 billion (updated to reflect 2017 data)So it wasn't "reigned in", they're just two different figures referring to slightly different things. The smaller one for UK businesses only and the larger one is for both UK and EU businesses. "Project fear" = I can't be bothered to read and understand the numbers. I understand numbers reasonably well. The £15bn is the combined cost estimate for both the UK and EU (at least until the inevitable easements come into play). Of which £7.5bn is the estimate for the UK's costs. Half the total. Even I can follow that. So why compare this total 'EU-plus-UK' cost against the UK's membership saving, as you have? "The total cost of the additional red tape is very likely to exceed the EU membership fee" may well be true but so what? The FT later reigning back to half the figure (the UK's costs) makes more sense as a metric worth considering. The £15bn belongs in the scaremongering bucket. Except you forget one minor detail. UK goods and services have now become unilaterally more expensive to EU27 buyers than ones from rivals, because of those costs. So if we still want to make those sales, we have to absorb those costs. But, since the net UK membership is the relevant cost, and that's about £9bn/year, even the £7.5bn figure shows how ridiculously expensive mitigating the downsides of brexit are compared to the costs... And, yes, there are also plenty of intangible benefits - and, from the Brexiteer angle, disbenefits - of membership... But I'm sure we can agree that presenting brexit as a cost-benefit, and saying the saving is a benefit of leaving, is at best inaccurate and at worst massively disingenuous, right...? We have friends in the village who are staunchly brexity, despite their daughter living and working in Germany and being married to a German. The argument they always trot out as being the killer "never-mind-all-that-how-can-you-possibly-argue-against-THIS?"...? The cost of moving the EU parliament between Strasbourg and Brussels. £100m/year, split across the entire EU... Which means the UK's share is about £12m, allocated by population. 18p/head/year. Does that movement make sense? No. Does that movement predate the UK joining, by two decades? Yes. Is the cost utterly trivial in the grand scheme of things...? Yes.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,989
Likes: 5,131
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 21, 2020 7:17:18 GMT
It's unfortunate that very little of this factual, rational debate entered the mainstream media back in 2016, so that people were fully and properly informed. I remember hunting around at the time and it was difficult to sort the good from the scaremongering. It was almost all out there at the time... it was just shouted down as "project fear". A phrase that was used in this thread as recently as yesterday teatime... p2pindependentforum.com/post/407422
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Oct 21, 2020 7:53:08 GMT
I think the tone of the debate here, at least recently, has been pretty good. Overwhelming evidence in one direction doesn't mean it isn't a fair discussion, just as you won't find many people here who disagree that 2+2 = 4.
I think with it actually having technically happened, much of the real sting has been lost to the debate. One of the worst aspects to the last 4 years has been the uncertainty of whether it was even going to happen at all. There's now more resignation and a genuine desire to know what the H is going to happen now than a will to fight.
As the Government would no doubt prefer, the vast majority of people are very keen to just move on and totally ignore it as far as is possible. I think that's a good thing, as hopefully the passage of time will improve the social fabric from this appalling episode.
The problem of course becomes if there are very real tangible problems that occur that are quite patently because of Brexit in the coming months/years. From the recent tone of rags like the DT (as with the article mentioned last night) I'm not quite so convinced that they'll be as staunchly supportive.
I think it's proving quite a difficult balancing act for such media outlets to simultaneously portray BJ + chums as utter reckless incompetents in dealing with a pandemic, unable to negotiate even within their own country, whilst simultaneously being robust and intelligent with the EU.
Especially given that there's almost nothing to trumpet at all - some Japanese cheese purchases? Keeping the Ivory Coast onside? Difficult sells..
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,989
Likes: 5,131
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 21, 2020 8:17:53 GMT
I think with it actually having technically happened, much of the real sting has been lost to the debate. One of the worst aspects to the last 4 years has been the uncertainty of whether it was even going to happen at all. There's now more resignation and a genuine desire to know what the H is going to happen now than a will to fight. As the Government would no doubt prefer, the vast majority of people are very keen to just move on and totally ignore it as far as is possible. Yes, resigned acceptance... The UK actually left the UK at the end of March. We cannot go back on that without going through the full rejoining procedure - including just one member being able to veto us. We seem to be determined to maximise the number of likely candidates for that... The negotiation of a deal is in the hands of the government, and nobody outside can influence it. The unilateral extension deadline passed at the end of June. Extension now would also require unilateral agreement amongst the 27 members. We are where we are - and there is only one person alive who can change that. I wish I shared that optimism. This will replace "Thatcher" as the major political bogeyman for decades. They will be portrayed as being Everybody Else's Fault. Sabotaging Remainers. Intransigent Europeans. Internal Fifth Columnists. And, when I say, "they will be", I mean of course "they already are and have been for years". BJ Piffle has already squandered his internal political capital. He is a dead man walking. Surely even he must realise this...
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Oct 21, 2020 10:19:36 GMT
Apparently many Brits deeply concerned about "cultural hijacking" are now saddened that the UK can no longer play a full part in critical EU debates. |
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Oct 21, 2020 10:23:14 GMT
Both articles are based on this impact assessment published by HMRC. The £15bn figure (first article) can be found in that document: HMRC therefore estimates that the static total ongoing administrative burden on UK-EU trade is £15 billion (updated to reflect 2017 data) a year. The £7bn figure (second article) can also be found there: The latest static estimate for the annual administrative burden on UK businesses from additional import and export declarations is £7.5 billion (updated to reflect 2017 data)So it wasn't "reigned in", they're just two different figures referring to slightly different things. The smaller one for UK businesses only and the larger one is for both UK and EU businesses. "Project fear" = I can't be bothered to read and understand the numbers. I understand numbers reasonably well. The £15bn is the combined cost estimate for both the UK and EU (at least until the inevitable easements come into play). Of which £7.5bn is the estimate for the UK's costs. Half the total. Even I can follow that. So why compare this total 'EU-plus-UK' cost against the UK's membership saving, as you have? "The total cost of the additional red tape is very likely to exceed the EU membership fee" may well be true but so what? The FT later reigning back to half the figure (the UK's costs) makes more sense as a metric worth considering. The £15bn belongs in the scaremongering bucket. You (finally) make a valid point when you say £7.5bn is the right figure to compare to the EU membership fee. Still £7.5bn is just for businesses, it doesn't include other red tape costs for the government. And it's definitely no "small fry" compared to EU membership like you initially suggested. Yet somehow you keep saying the FT "reigned back to half the figure" despite acknowledging the two figures mean different things, and call "scaremongering" official data from the British tax authority.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 21, 2020 11:18:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 21, 2020 19:07:39 GMT
I understand numbers reasonably well. The £15bn is the combined cost estimate for both the UK and EU (at least until the inevitable easements come into play). Of which £7.5bn is the estimate for the UK's costs. Half the total. Even I can follow that. So why compare this total 'EU-plus-UK' cost against the UK's membership saving, as you have? "The total cost of the additional red tape is very likely to exceed the EU membership fee" may well be true but so what? The FT later reigning back to half the figure (the UK's costs) makes more sense as a metric worth considering. The £15bn belongs in the scaremongering bucket. You (finally) make a valid point when you say £7.5bn is the right figure to compare to the EU membership fee. Still £7.5bn is just for businesses, it doesn't include other red tape costs for the government. And it's definitely no "small fry" compared to EU membership like you initially suggested. Yet somehow you keep saying the FT "reigned back to half the figure" despite acknowledging the two figures mean different things, and call "scaremongering" official data from the British tax authority. I never dismissed £7.5bn as small fry! I dismissed one company's £500 monthly contribution towards that as small fry, at face value. That qualifier shouldn't be ignored, but I accept it was an inappropriate comment. We're looking here at the worst case scenario, no deal exit, post-temporary easements. Feel free to shoot me down, but I imagine in the months to follow, and once the system is bedded-in, there would be a great deal of emphasis on reducing the level of red tape and the associated costs, with surely both trading partners having something to gain from that? Neither side will want their trade being impacted, so both would have a vested interest in finding shortcuts, economies of scale, etc, to pare back this burden as far as possible, no? Incidentally, it seems some academics/economists don't accept HMRC's estimates, arguing they overestimate by up to 10-fold. A couple of years old, but I'm not qualified to assess how valid it remains today. I guess time will tell.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,989
Likes: 5,131
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 21, 2020 21:06:18 GMT
We're looking here at the worst case scenario, no deal exit That was the "worst case", denied to the hilt, four and a half years ago. Right now, it's the most likely option. With 71 days to go.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Oct 23, 2020 8:47:57 GMT
I'm starting to notice more news articles on the logistics impact. e.g. this from the Times about small traders, covered also by Paul Lewis (moneybox) for those who don't have a subscription/other means. This type of stuff is all too low impact I think to ever be described as 'project fear', not least because it's already happening. Yet, it all just adds up doesn't it? Each little snippet can all be individually dismissed as trivial, but we don't dismiss incremental progress in society as not worthwhile, so why should we not care about things piece-by-piece becoming a little bit more poo? |
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,034
Likes: 4,433
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 23, 2020 10:58:12 GMT
I see the EU team are in town to continue with Brexit talks. Suggestions are that they may have found common ground on state subsidies, but fishing remains a major stumbling block.
Never quite understood fishing. It's a tiny part of the economy, with a vocal scottish contingent urging that Boris doesn't let EU fishermen into our waters. That's the same scottish fisherman that would have to give up access if their desire for independence ever came to fruition
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,989
Likes: 5,131
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 24, 2020 10:44:49 GMT
I see the EU team are in town to continue with Brexit talks. Suggestions are that they may have found common ground on state subsidies, but fishing remains a major stumbling block. They've probably pointed out to the UK that not only were the UK not taking advantage of all the state subsidy they could have as EU members, but the post-Brexit UK-Japan trade deal is even more restrictive on state subsidy. Nobody ever seems to mention that leaving the common fisheries would massively restrict the waters available to UK-based fishermen... 
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,618
Likes: 6,432
|
Post by registerme on Oct 24, 2020 10:58:06 GMT
Or the fact that fishing makes up something like 0.2% of GDP, and the financial services sector 7%.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,034
Likes: 4,433
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 24, 2020 11:03:38 GMT
Or the fact that fishing makes up something like 0.2% of GDP, and the financial services sector 7%. I thought financial services were excluded from any Brexit deal
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,618
Likes: 6,432
|
Post by registerme on Oct 24, 2020 12:02:39 GMT
Or the fact that fishing makes up something like 0.2% of GDP, and the financial services sector 7%. I thought financial services were excluded from any Brexit deal Essentially, yes. As a result of Brexit (rather than any trade deal per se) financial services firms are losing passporting etc with the EU so there will be more difficulty selling products and services into the EU. People and assets (and therefore tax revenues) are already moving out of London / the UK. So we jeopardise some proportion of 7% of our GDP (don't have the numbers to hand) to "take back control of our fish" (which we may not be able to sell into the EU on a tariff free basis). Which is worth some proportion (don't have the numbers to hand) of 0.2% of our GDP. I'm not convinced that's a good trade.
|
|
