Brexit (Old)

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

Why? Not because we have more trade but because we will have friction and tariffs in the trade that we used to have that was open and free and because the rest already will have the trade with the bloc that used to involve us, less us after our departure.

It's not free now, it's never been free. It cost us that magical figure that escapes me £360billion or so minus the rebate.

In fact some things will be much cheaper from around the world as we can decide what tariffs to but on other goods and not the EU tariffs.

After March 2019 we're telling the rest of the world: "we're here, come get us". We are not putting an "open for business" sign up, we are putting a "open for pillaging" sign up and that we are here for the spoils.

what's going to be pillaged?

They will comfortably be able to take an 80 billion a year hit...easily. More fool us if we think that they will care about that. They'll make it up in other ways (at our expense) like fees / currency charges / service changes and so on.

and we'll be free to buy elsewhere.

We are never ever going to win this battle, ever.

you sound like a battered wife in an abusive relationship.

If we decide to levy no tariffs to nations outside the EU, it would be a great thing...you know why?

Because it will put all the dead wood who all voted to leave, out of business. What is the point in bitching about EU member states undercutting us, only to have the rest of the world outside Europe, come eat our lunch???

We will get to decide what tariffs, to whom and how much instead of being told what to do.

I have to keep asking...what new trade deals?? The US is a 20 trillion dollar economy, and in the midst of the 2020 Presidential campaign there will be zero appetite for a trade deal.

Trump will wish to fleece the UK but no way does it get through the Senate, which it needs to.

Britain will not come out of this better off - the US is going to rip the UK into pieces, which it still cannot while the UK is still a part of the EU. (The largest trading bloc in the world).

Trump managed to get past Rexit eventually this year and his new negotiator / diplomat in chief is being outdone by Kim Jong Un. Brexit would be a step too far - because if he were to be outdone by this group in the cabinet then he should resign as President. It is one thing to be outdone by North Korea but by May? The Japanese would tell him to go out honorably at that point.

If Trump wins re-elect / gets through past 2021 or so and there is a transition period short enough then I suppose the UK could present itself (in the mating sense) to the US and allow Cornyn / Pence etc to get even more out of Britain before 2024 - I guess that everyone will learn the hard way in the end.

Trump is chomping at the bit here, so it Manuchin / Kudlow / Ross etc. They are just from within the cabinet. Cornyn and co want a go in the Senate...God knows what the House make all of this, too.

Do you really want to save your pride only to be cannibalized by a nation with almost 10 times the economy???

ramblings

---------- Post added at 13:03 ---------- Previous post was at 13:01 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

Nice I wish I had the time to do the research that would allow be to write a "weapons grade" post like this.

Weapons grade? ramblings of a madman/woman

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

They are corrupt because the European Court of Auditors have found regularly that billions of Euros have not been paid in accordance with rules.

At least the EU Commission is holding Poland to account for its slide to the old ways.

Interestingly, I was looking at the audit numbers earlier. Here's the latest 'in brief' report - https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECAD...ef-2016-EN.pdf . The error rate was 3.1% in 2016 which is above the 2% threshold. It is going in the right direction though;

2016 - 3.1%
2015 - 3.8%
2016 - 4.4%

Direct payments and administration are below the material threshold at 1.3% while reimbursements are at 4.8%. This is partly why the EU anti fraud agency is busy! Unfortunately, the biggest fraud so far was by the UK at €2.7bn...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

In 9 months we will be out - we will have left the CU (or so May keeps saying) so how about we wait and see? At that point, you will not need to be convinced of anything - the proof will be right there to see.

Exactly.

We will have the ability to trade, but whether or not other nations are reciprocal to it I have no idea.

You have no idea? trade is very simple, someone has something sell, someone has money to buy. As ass the sellers terms and the buyers terms are met they will trade. I believe it has been going on for many thousands of years now.

You have to keep remembering, nobody is going to be forced to trade with us, if they chose to, that is on them. If they don't, that is their call too, ultimately.

Not sure what that point is?

I am one of the few remainers that is looking forward to the consequences of leaving. The nationalists / small leave folks will be a brilliant guinea pig in the experiment ; if things don't work out, it will hurt them. They will be the poor that are hurt. I will be just fine, either way. Corporations will be fine. They will just leave the UK. The rich will be fine, they will just live like normal. It is the poor leave folks that will suffer.

I know this sounds horrible but when this all goes tits up do you think that it will be the likes of me / Daily Mail columnists / JRM and co that suffer?

We will all be fine ; it is the poor who voted to remain that I feel dreadful for.

And the evidence for this is, please see your first statement, you don't know - until it happens.

Originally Posted by Damien

No he is talking about how the Polish government is interfering with the independence of their own courts.

That has nothing to do with the EU. It sticks it’s nose in to things which should not concern them. This is how unbearably the EU are bureaucratic and they have become.

[Carth]

Can I ask . . at what age do 'Judges' retire in the UK?

and what would you think is a 'reasonable' age for someone in that profession to retire, those making decisions that affect many things.

Just curious given some posts on here regarding the 'elderly' as 'past it'

Originally Posted by Pierre

You have no idea? trade is very simple, someone has something sell, someone has money to buy. As ass the sellers terms and the buyers terms are met they will trade. I believe it has been going on for many thousands of years now.

Trade agreements are not that simple though which is why they take so long to create. The bigger the parties involved the more complicated it gets. It's not just a case of 'we'll sell you Scotch, in return we'll buy Levi jeans' although that gets incredibly difficult as different industries within the respective nations jockey for protections e.t.c. It's also demanding political action from the governments involved. So maybe we want to ensure 'Scotch' is a protected term and want legal assurances from the other nation that their government will take action against anyone within their country from using that term for their own, non-Scottish, whisky makers. Maybe a nation wants copyright laws toughened, almost certainly regulations need to be changed and so on.

It's all very well saying 'I have something to sell, you have money to buy it' but we're dealing with billions of pounds worth of goods moving back and forth between different regulatory and legal environments. Especially when governments don't want their citizens buying from foreign rivals but simultaneously want to protect the right of their businesses to sell to foreign governments.

[Pierre]

It is obvious, and has been for sometime, that the EU do not want a bespoke deal.

They want us to remain in the CU and or the SM and therefore shackled to the ECJ.

Neither of which are compatible with the result of the referendum.

It doesn't matter what max-fac - or max-fcuk we come up with, they wont agree to it.

So we should prepare for the no-deal because that is what is going to happen, and it's not because of any particular failing of the UK government, it is because the EU do not, cannot, and will not give us a decent bespoke deal.

Junckers himself said at the very beginning "brexit cannot be a success"

If we want to make brexit a success it will have to be despite the EU, it will be hard work and difficult, but it shows you the vindictiveness of the institution and our former European partners.

I voted remain, but this whole period post referendum has ended up turning me into an ardent leaver. If there was another referendum I would now vote leave. I would suggest there are many others like me.

---------- Post added at 13:21 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Trade agreements are not that simple though which is why they take so long to create.

You don't need trade agreements though, which why the WTO is there.

We don't have a trade agreement with China, yet our market is flooded with Chinese goods

Originally Posted by Pierre

So we should prepare for the no-deal because that is what is going to happen, and it's not because of any particular failing of the UK government, it is because the EU do not, cannot, and will not give us a decent bespoke deal.

We haven't prepared for no deal though and time is running out and we haven't made it clear what 'bespoke' deal to ask for. We have had vague intents but nothing concrete. We don't even have an answer of it it's more of a closer relationship or just a trade agreement. We're 'apparently' deciding that on Friday, less than a year from Brexit Day.

You don't need trade agreements though, which why the WTO is there.

We don't have a trade agreement with China, yet our market is flooded with Chinese goods

You don't need one to buy good or sells goods no but we can do that now with these countries. What we're doing here is losing the ability to sell into the EU with no tariffs and the same legal/regulatory environment. One of the arguments of Brexit would be that we can arrange such things with other countries instead, it wasn't let's add WTO tariffs to the EU too.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Interestingly, I was looking at the audit numbers earlier. Here's the latest 'in brief' report - https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECAD...ef-2016-EN.pdf . The error rate was 3.1% in 2016 which is above the 2% threshold. It is going in the right direction though;

2016 - 3.1%
2015 - 3.8%
2016 - 4.4%

Direct payments and administration are below the material threshold at 1.3% while reimbursements are at 4.8%. This is partly why the EU anti fraud agency is busy! Unfortunately, the biggest fraud so far was by the UK at €2.7bn...

First of all, the 3.1% you mentioned still runs into over €1 billion.

Second, the alleged UK fraud you mentioned, is not part of the audit report that you referenced. In any case the UK government rejects the allegation and its methodology as reported in https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-br...-idUKKCN1GK2CG

Third, on methodology, the Audit Court took 1,000 transaction samples out of the millions across the EU directorate. They then extrapolated the 1.3% across the total spend to provide their gross estimate of error. Apart from the 1,000 transactions being of questionable statistical significance for this type of investigation, I don't see where they've paid attention to where fraud or error is likely to be more easily committed. Their sampling method is questionable and I'm cynical enough to say contrived to show a benign trend.

---------- Post added at 14:51 ---------- Previous post was at 13:55 ----------

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Interestingly, I was looking at the audit numbers earlier. Here's the latest 'in brief' report - https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECAD...ef-2016-EN.pdf .The error rate was 3.1% in 2016 which is above the 2% threshold. It is going in the right direction though;

2016 - 3.1%
2015 - 3.8%
2016 - 4.4%

Direct payments and administration are below the material threshold at 1.3% while reimbursements are at 4.8%. This is partly why the EU anti fraud agency is busy! Unfortunately, the biggest fraud so far was by the UK at €2.7bn...

Btw the referendum was in 2016 and working backwards for decades, the error rate even using their skewed method was inexcusable.

I'm ashamed for you that you accused the UK of committing a €2.7 billion fraud. The EU is making the accusation and our guvmin is refuting that allegation.

I really do want remainers to try and make our exit work rather than keep on about how much better it will be to stay in the EU. Respect the Referendum result, please.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

First of all, the 3.1% you mentioned still runs into over €1 billion.

Second, the alleged UK fraud you mentioned, is not part of the audit report that you referenced. In any case the UK government rejects the allegation and its methodology as reported in https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-br...-idUKKCN1GK2CG

Third, on methodology, the Audit Court took 1,000 transaction samples out of the millions across the EU directorate. They then extrapolated the 1.3% across the total spend to provide their gross estimate of error. Apart from the 1,000 transactions being of questionable statistical significance for this type of investigation, I don't see where they've paid attention to where fraud or error is likely to be more easily committed. Their sampling method is questionable and I'm cynical enough to say contrived to show a benign trend.

---------- Post added at 14:51 ---------- Previous post was at 13:55 ----------



Btw the referendum was in 2016 and working backwards for decades, the error rate even using their skewed method was inexcusable.

I'm ashamed for you that you accused the UK of committing a €2.7 billion fraud. The EU is making the accusation and our guvmin is refuting that allegation.

I really do want remainers to try and make our exit work rather than keep on about how much better it will be to stay in the EU. Respect the Referendum result, please.

Fair enough, I am not an accountant (my experience of audits are quality system ones) and assumed that financial audits take samples and extrapolate from that (much like quality audits) rather than going line by line through the whole account book.

Of course, if the auditing methodology is incorrect, then any conclusions including "They are corrupt because the European Court of Auditors have found regularly that billions of Euros have not been paid in accordance with rules" cannot be factually correct either.

I didn't accuse the UK of committing fraud BTW, OLAF did this. However, the government is quibbling on the value, not the facts. I am concerned that, if this is true, then the trust for a new trading agreement is somewhat eroded.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Fair enough, I am not an accountant (my experience of audits are quality system ones) and assumed that financial audits take samples and extrapolate from that (much like quality audits) rather than going line by line through the whole account book.[SEPH]: The audit methodology can be found at https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECAD..._MANUAL_EN.pdf and for sample size in §2.25.. Long story short on that one, the base for the threshold % (they chose 1,000 samples for audit) is usually total expenditure; so how they arrive at an exact number such as 1,000 on "Entitlement & Administrative Payments" of €63.3 billion is somewhat opaque - especially as the total number of transactions is not stated in your link. The Audit Rules state that they usually take 2% of the total population. This would be €1.3 billion and 1,000 samples would average §1.3 million each. Without knowing what the actual average payment is, it is somewhat opaque as to the validity of the 1,000 samples

<SNIP>

I didn't accuse the UK of committing fraud BTW, OLAF did this. However, the government is quibbling on the value, not the facts. I am concerned that, if this is true, then the trust for a new trading agreement is somewhat eroded.
[SEPH]: Well, your actual words were was issued as a statement of fact: "Unfortunately, the biggest fraud so far was by the UK at €2.7bn".

I also think it is clutching at straw to say that "the level of trust for a new trading agreement is somewhat eroded". If we remained in the EU, wouldn't that erosion of trust remain? Your point seems to me to be self-defeating.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's not free now, it's never been free. It cost us that magical figure that escapes me £360billion or so minus the rebate.

In fact some things will be much cheaper from around the world as we can decide what tariffs to but on other goods and not the EU tariffs.

what's going to be pillaged?

and we'll be free to buy elsewhere.

you sound like a battered wife in an abusive relationship.



We will get to decide what tariffs, to whom and how much instead of being told what to do.

ramblings

---------- Post added at 13:03 ---------- Previous post was at 13:01 ----------



Weapons grade? ramblings of a madman/woman

In the spirit of Mrs May's compromise at all costs approach to negotiation can we refer to them as weapons grade ramblings

---------- Post added at 17:46 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Trade agreements are not that simple though which is why they take so long to create. The bigger the parties involved the more complicated it gets. It's not just a case of 'we'll sell you Scotch, in return we'll buy Levi jeans' although that gets incredibly difficult as different industries within the respective nations jockey for protections e.t.c. It's also demanding political action from the governments involved. So maybe we want to ensure 'Scotch' is a protected term and want legal assurances from the other nation that their government will take action against anyone within their country from using that term for their own, non-Scottish, whisky makers. Maybe a nation wants copyright laws toughened, almost certainly regulations need to be changed and so on.

It's all very well saying 'I have something to sell, you have money to buy it' but we're dealing with billions of pounds worth of goods moving back and forth between different regulatory and legal environments. Especially when governments don't want their citizens buying from foreign rivals but simultaneously want to protect the right of their businesses to sell to foreign governments.

Not to mention the supply chain which will get messed with, the obvious solution to me would be to remove us from the chain, the consequences of which will be devastating for a lot of homes I'd imagine

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Fair enough, I am not an accountant (my experience of audits are quality system ones) and assumed that financial audits take samples and extrapolate from that (much like quality audits) rather than going line by line through the whole account book.[SEPH]: The audit methodology can be found at https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECAD..._MANUAL_EN.pdf and for sample size in §2.25.. Long story short on that one, the base for the threshold % (they chose 1,000 samples for audit) is usually total expenditure; so how they arrive at an exact number such as 1,000 on "Entitlement & Administrative Payments" of €63.3 billion is somewhat opaque - especially as the total number of transactions is not stated in your link. The Audit Rules state that they usually take 2% of the total population. This would be €1.3 billion and 1,000 samples would average §1.3 million each. Without knowing what the actual average payment is, it is somewhat opaque as to the validity of the 1,000 samples

<SNIP>

I didn't accuse the UK of committing fraud BTW, OLAF did this. However, the government is quibbling on the value, not the facts. I am concerned that, if this is true, then the trust for a new trading agreement is somewhat eroded.
[SEPH]: Well, your actual words were was issued as a statement of fact: "Unfortunately, the biggest fraud so far was by the UK at €2.7bn".

I also think it is clutching at straw to say that "the level of trust for a new trading agreement is somewhat eroded". If we remained in the EU, wouldn't that erosion of trust remain? Your point seems to me to be self-defeating.

First, a solid doffing of the cap for the research, thanks for bringing links, it's always appreciated!!

As I said, I am not a finance person, I'm a scientist so I guess I took this at face value. Is the methodology used different from that used elsewhere, i.e. commercial auditing or other governmental audits? I had a brief look and it seems sampling is used a lot but I am not familiar with what is good practive.

On the trust issue, as a member of the EU, we have a mutually agreed remedy for disputes in the ECJ. We of course don't want any of that going forward so along with a trade deal, there is going to be a strong remedial/governance system going forward, especially if there is evidence or suspicion of wrongdoing by one party beforehand.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

First, a solid doffing of the cap for the research, thanks for bringing links, it's always appreciated!! [SEPH]: Cheers.

As I said, I am not a finance person, I'm a scientist so I guess I took this at face value. Is the methodology used different from that used elsewhere, i.e. commercial auditing or other governmental audits? I had a brief look and it seems sampling is used a lot but I am not familiar with what is good practice. [SEPH]: The bit I'm questioning mainly, is the sampling. In human studies, context is everything. If you needed to do a survey of, say, Christianity in major UK cities, you'd ensure that your sample represented that context. Then 1,000 random people in that context, would have statistical significance. When you are auditing EU expenditure, some areas are more prone to irregularity than others and for something as serious as this, you'd want to have proper weighting before making an across the board extrapolation. I'm saying that the statistical basis they've used is inadequate and in any case opaque to context.

On the trust issue, as a member of the EU, we have a mutually agreed remedy for disputes in the ECJ. We of course don't want any of that going forward so along with a trade deal, there is going to be a strong remedial/governance system going forward, especially if there is evidence or suspicion of wrongdoing by one party beforehand. [SEPH]: The EC is chasing money from other countries on the same customs basis. I see your point, that Brexit somewhat hinders the recoverability of any due sum. I wish they were as diligent in pursuing Germany for consistently breaking the 3% surplus rule.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

First, a solid doffing of the cap for the research, thanks for bringing links, it's always appreciated!!

As I said, I am not a finance person, I'm a scientist so I guess I took this at face value. Is the methodology used different from that used elsewhere, i.e. commercial auditing or other governmental audits? I had a brief look and it seems sampling is used a lot but I am not familiar with what is good practive.

On the trust issue, as a member of the EU, we have a mutually agreed remedy for disputes in the ECJ. We of course don't want any of that going forward so along with a trade deal, there is going to be a strong remedial/governance system going forward, especially if there is evidence or suspicion of wrongdoing by one party beforehand.

There is sampling in audits of companies and organisations as you obviously can't check everything. You're looking for differences to previous years, have issues from previous years been rectified, differences to similar organisations, anything unusual and obviously there's a degree of proportionality so you focus on large amounts and high risk areas. If your organisation did 20% of its business with Nigeria and 30% with Germany, for example, you may look more at the Nigerian transactions as the country is a higher risk country.
There's a good fact-checking article on the EU accounts here https://fullfact.org/europe/did-audi...ign-eu-budget/