How is Great Britain looking from abroad?

[longwayoff]

I've seen various remarks that other countries are confused by our current situation, although surely Ukraine's running it close. Any comments from outside UK mumsnetters?

"A decision to vote for a no-deal Brexit is like the Titanic voting for the iceberg to get out of the way" This sums it up well, I think.

On a serious note, I'm well and truly worried as a no deal brexit will affect both mine and dh's industries.

Having said that, sometimes a downturn in an economy can be good.

I have been shocked at times at both the arrogance and ignorance shown by some politicians (I know they/you are not all like that)

Any chance you could get a move on with it as we are slightly sick of it ?

@MissConductUS - I see your point about the border though. The simple answer would be to only import chicken from the US that meets organic and EU standards.

Except that would require a trade deal.

I can't read all that article unfortunately, it's behind a paywall for me. My fear would be that the UK might have to accept some foodstuffs that don't meet EU standards in order to get a trade deal. The phrase "we need them more than they need us" springs to mind. The US have been trying to force hormone treated beef into EU markets for years and have even taken the EU to the WTO over it but EU so far has refused to entertain the idea.

euobserver.com/economic/142719

Also, as doIreallyneedto points out, they wouldn't have the luxury of refusing on WTO only terms if I am not mistaken. You can't pick and choose like that.

The best way for people to prove they're not racist morons, @ScreamingLadySutch is to put forward intelligent, reasoned arguments, to do the work of preparing for Brexit rather than just mouthing slogans and jeering (talking about the Tory politicians here, not average voters) and to distance themselves emphatically from xenophobic parties like UKIP, the BNP and the DUP. Haven't seen much willingness on behalf of Leavers / Tories to do any of the above.

Yes, @Clavinova, agriculture is one of the areas that the EU heavily regulates. That's because most farmers in the EU benefit from CAP subsidies and gaining access to CAP requires adherence to EU guidelines. Note, I say guidelines. There are different classifications of regulations in the EU. Some are just guidelines relating to what should ideally happen (e.g. the cliché about banana guidelines that so many anti-EU types like to trot out), some are regulations with a lot of wiggle room that can be implemented with flexibility according to the national context, some can be implemented with wiggle room depending on regional context and some are, yes, hard regulations that require compliance to be in line with CAP.

Regulatory burden is always worthy of review to ensure that it does not stifle growth but in the case of agriculture, which as I'm sure you will know is a subsidised, protected economic sector across all of the EU, including the UK, regulation is necessary and inherent to the sector. Food supply is a matter of national safety and security both on health concerns (e.g. the UK regulatory mess that led to the BSE scandal) and self-sufficiency grounds. The UK is already exempt from a range of agricultural regulations because UK farmers receive less CAP subsidies than other EU countries - because Margaret Thatcher negotiated a reduction in the UK payment to the EU because agriculture was not viewed as being as important to the UK economy as it is in other EU member states like Ireland, France or Spain and CAP payments were not as high to the UK as in other net contributor countries.

Background to the UK rebate negotiated by Thatcher in 1984

You know it's bad when Americans are shaking their heads sadly.

Brexshitisntit

ECJ, this one amongst others: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mep-expenses-details-eu-european-parliament-court-edited-a8553731.html

Growth and stability pact: We can't be fined as we are not in the EZ, but we can be reprimanded. We are on a 'convergence programme' and here is the link to the latest report: ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/economic-performance-and-forecasts/economic-performance-country/united-kingdom/fiscal-surveillance-united-kingdom_en

Non legislative changes: things that used to be in the national competencies, like tax,
ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-6590013_en
From a DT article:

The next revelation, directly targeting domestic tax policy, appeared over Christmas. The UK Government position had always been that under the EU law-making system, while the Commission alone may propose legislation, the Council (representing Member States) would retain national vetoes. This has been gradually abolished since 2000, however, to be replaced by Qualified Majority Voting (QMV), the veto remaining only for (most) tax issues. Now a consultation released by the Commission just before Christmas tells us that the EU’s main law-making body intends to scrap this last bastion of the national veto.

The proposal describes how the Commission Work Programme for 2019 will “streamline” decision-making, for “more efficient” tax law, by “removing the need for unanimous agreement by all countries”. The rationale is that with “no effective Single Market in taxation”, this contribution to President Juncker’s “Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic Change” will “give renewed momentum to the EU”.

As a non-legislative initiative, the change will not need the approval of the other EU institutions; given that Treaty change is not required, approval from all Member State governments will also not be necessary.'

I think these things do negatively impact the UK, as we are being asked to put our trust and governance into the hands of an opaque and secretive supra national organisation that is hell bent on removing national competencies under the acquis.

Trade:disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.civitas.org.uk%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fmythandparadox.pdf%3ATw02u-41gM6tGNOzpclSDAcvvcg&cuid=4644602

disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcivitas.org.uk%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fitsquiteoktowalkaway.pdf%3Ax-aL0orqE6NiIyTPhx1LOhBubsg&cuid=4644602

may be of interest and differ from the figures you are using.

We provided monies to Ireland and Portugal in 2010/11. We do have an agreement in place to not have to contribute again, but in a crisis, would that hold up?

Oversight of our finances under the growth and stability pact is ceding control of our finances is it not? If you read the previously linked documents, the austerity from HMG is driven by the EU not wanting HMG spending growth to go above 1.8% and to cut departmental spending, and to hike taxes. if oversight of our budget, and the ability to censure the UK, is not ceding control what is? It's like having the bank manager saying that you cannot use your card and limiting you to x amount per week. It's not dishonest scaremongering...it's true.

ECJ :It is free to govern as it wishes on national issues and UK has EU influence over EU laws via the EU institutions. If EU rules have supremacy over UK national laws, which they do, then EU laws trump ours, and are thus ruled on by the ECJ. See also previous comments on the national competencies being eroded under the Lisbon treaty and becoming EU competencies under the acquis. No national veto, moves to QMV, where we are outvoted means no say. Furthermore, the Commission makes the law, and the EP rubberstamps it. The UK then brings it into law.

You might find this interesting as MN gets a mention at the end
capx.co/the-eus-censorious-copyright-directive-will-create-two-internets/?omhide=true&utm_source=CapX+briefing&utm_campaign=f36f06f8e5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_07_17_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5017135a0-f36f06f8e5-241827657

Sorry for the length of the post. I do have deep misgivings about the EU and where it it going. What may seem like small things can amount to a whole lot more when you dig deeper. I do understand why some people want to stay in, but I could not vote for that as I fundamentally disagree with the notion that we could reform it from the inside. A loose grouping of trading states I could live with. A supranational organisation (that has no real reason to be in existence if you think about it) I cannot live with.

You know it's bad when Americans are shaking their heads sadly.

As DS is off at Uni, I do have a room to rent in NY if it gets really dire. You must like cats. I'll stick to organic chicken, I promise.

@scaryteacher We provided monies to Ireland and Portugal in 2010/11. We do have an agreement in place to not have to contribute again, but in a crisis, would that hold up?

This annoyed me at the time and it still annoys me. The UK media made out as if they kindly handed Ireland a packet of money out of the goodness of their hearts. Please state full facts. The UK provided Ireland with a bailout loan as it was in the UK’s national interest that Ireland maintained a successful economy and a stable banking system. Your financial system is closely linked to ours, many UK businesses who traded with Ireland benefited indirectly also. It was not forced by the EU and it was not some act of altruism, you have benefited by it. As of 2017, the interest payment alone was close to £360 million.

I also wanted to remind people that we can now apply for settled status without the £60 fee (albeit refundable).

www.gov.uk/settled-status-eu-citizens-families

I have a friend from the Netherlands who often sends me messages with just a load of laughing faces on...they're laughing at us

@missconductUS This guy is the one with the links to trade “Democratic Congressman Richard Neal is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee which will oversee any future trade deal between the UK and the US.

He said he has expressed his concerns about a hard border to the US Trade Representative, the official who advises the US president on trade deals.”

He was apparently involved in the original Good Friday agreement.

(e.g. the cliché about banana guidelines that so many anti-EU types like to trot out)

Actually - the EU almost admit to this one on their website.

Is Brussels really meddling in what our beloved bananas should look like?

Answer - Yes & No.

The regulation states that bananas must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature.

www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1333/2011 of 19 December 2011 laying down marketing standards for bananas, rules on the verification of compliance with those marketing standards and requirements for notifications in the banana sector.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 565/2013 of 18 June 2013 amending Regulations (EC) No 1731/2006, (EC) No 273/2008, (EC) No 566/2008, (EC) No 867/2008, (EC) No 606/2009, and Implementing Regulations (EU) No 543/2011 and (EU) No 1333/2011 as regards the notification obligations within the common organisation of agricultural markets and repealing Regulation (EC) No 491/2007

I didn't say that the EU is not regulating banana standards. I'm referring to the way that this is cited as an example of 'EU interference' or 'bureaucracy gorn mad'. All countries benefit from regulations on quality standards for food. That regulation was reported in the British media as the EU 'banning wonky bananas' like they're a bunch of loons trying to micromanage British people's lives.

In fact, it's just a food standard regulation that can be applied to imported produce (most bananas in the EU are imported from third countries) to standardize trading across the common market. Not evil and fascist - just basic food quality regulations, same as the UK would have to set out for its food importers even without the EU.

Hi @screamingladtsutch

The huge issue with your post is your blatant attempt to mask your thoughts on Brexit under the guise of being an economist. You did not provide a reasoned and unbiased summary and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Just a few points.

1. You showed a one sided view of the concept of sovereignty - an excerpt showing a different view:

This tension between economic integration and political cooperation is fuelled by a powerful belief that there is an inherent trade-off between EU membership and the ability of countries to exercise sovereignty. In this way of thinking, if citizens want to be able to exert more control over their destinies, they have to loosen the EU’s political structures. But this belief is wrong.
It is wrong because it conflates independence with sovereignty.
True sovereignty is reflected not in the power of making laws – as a legal definition would have it – but in the ability to control outcomes and respond to the fundamental needs of the people: what John Locke defines as their “peace, safety, and public good”. The ability to make independent decisions does not guarantee countries such control. In other words, independence does not guarantee sovereignty.
Countries that are completely shut off from the global economy, to take an extreme but instructive example, are independent but not sovereign in any meaningful sense – often relying on external food aid to feed their people. Yet being connected through globalisation also increases the vulnerability of individual countries in many ways.
They are more exposed to financial spillovers and to the aggressive trade policies of foreign states, while increased competition makes it harder for states to coordinate with one another to enforce regulations and set standards so as to achieve their social goals. This restricts their control over domestic economic conditions.

1. You focus on some aspects of EU that make the case for Brexit stronger (anti EU) and ignore others such as the forthcoming anti tax avoidance framework (pro EU)

1. Im afraid throughout my undergraduate, MA and PhD I did not come across courses on ‘immigrants needing a reason to risk getting a boat’ regarding average incomes - what course did you learn that fact in?

That's because most farmers in the EU benefit from CAP subsidies and gaining access to CAP requires adherence to EU guidelines.

The Institute for Government:
Why is EU agriculture policy controversial in the UK?

The UK gets much less from the CAP than it contributes.

But the CAP has also been criticised for encouraging farming practices that damage the environment. One indicator of the degree of environmental damage is the dramatic decline in farmland birds in recent decades.

The CAP benefits large landowners just for owning more land.
EU protectionism on agriculture has been criticised for the costs it imposes on consumers through higher food prices and the costs it imposes on developing countries by making it difficult for them to compete with EU farmers.
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/common-agricultural-policy

The Common Agricultural Policy is iniquitous and inefficient.Now, with Brexit, we can be fairer and more productive.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/17/the-common-agricultural-policy-is-iniquitous-and-inefficient-now/

In France as well;
In his impassioned Sorbonne speech on closer European integration in September, Macron said it was high time to review “without taboos” whether the Common Agricultural Policy was still fit for purpose, saying he was not convinced it was.
While touching the CAP was a long-standing French taboo, farmers found the system horribly bureaucratic and unsatisfactory, he said.

www.politico.eu/article/france-agricultural-subsidies-emmanuel-macron-offers-ray-of-light-in-brexit-gloom/

I just keep wondering how in Gods name you won two world wars...

What?? You mean CAP is bureaucratic and inefficient @Clavinova?? Who knew government subsidy programmes could have problems like that...

What's the point of your post? It's widely acknowledged that there are problems with CAP. That's why the UK negotiated its rebate back in 1984 because the programme was less beneficial to the UK than it was to other EU countries, as I already said in my original post.

So there are problems with EU programmes and they're not perfect - surely they have to be a darn sight better than the utter mess that the UK is proving itself to be right now, having had 3 years to set up a framework for Brexit and failed to do so.

honeyman, the Americans and Russians helped out . Make of that what you will.

@honeyman - I just keep wondering how in Gods name you won two world wars...

I think things were going pretty poorly until the Americans got involved......

It looks like you shit in your hands and then clapped.

Being honest, Britain is the biggest joke the world over and it is STILL not ending. Seriously almost 3 years and no decision has been made? JOKE of a nation. My sympathies are with the remainers who don't deserve this.

nionEile
What's the point of your post?
It's perfectly obvious to me.

It's widely acknowledged that there are problems with CAP.
You didn't mention any problems in your previous post.

I think things were going pretty poorly until the Americans got involved......

I was going to point that out, but decided it would be better for someone else to do so first.

@AnnaSteen, It's a fairly obscure point of American politics, but congress has little influence on trade deals. The executive branch negotiates them through the US Trade Representative, then congress gets an up or down vote. They can't adjust the deal to their liking. It would be impossible to conclude an agreement that way. So congress people who oppose a deal over a single issue (like the border) will get overruled by everyone who will benefit from the deal, like businesses and trade unions.

@Clavinova

You didn't mention any problems in your previous post.

That's because my post wasn't about the problems with CAP. It was about the regulatory framework that governs the agricultural sector in the EU and why the UK has a different experience of that framework due to the fact that it does not get as much CAP money as other EU countries due to the rebate negotiated by Thatcher in the 80s.

You then respond by saying 'CAP Is terrible and has a lot of problem'.

Yes. We know. No-one said it didn't. What's your point? CAP is tough to implement and a burden sometimes so therefore the entire framework of the EU is terrible? Absolutely no-one likes CAP. Every farmer moans endlessly about it while at the same time faithfully filling out the paperwork for their subsidy every year. Same as farmers in the US who moan about government interference while enjoying juicy corn subsidies every year. Why do you think Brexit UK would be better at regulating and managing its farm sector? Because the UK managed the BSE outbreak so well back in the early 90s*?

God, this thread is depressing. It has done nothing to alleviate my suspicions that Brexit folks are fundamentally irrational people who want out of the EU because Forriners Are Bad. Little Englanders, the lot of you.

• Note: this is sarcasm