The reaction to last week is evolving and we will have to wait a while for the public to digest. In the meantime there has been some development on polls on the subject: This poll on a second referendum once details are known has shifted from neck and neck at 46% to 50% in favour vs 34% against. At the same time 58% either disapprove or strongly disapprove of a £50Bn Brexit bill. And this poll on 1st December before the phase one agreement shows a clear combined majority for the SM/CU. That's to say Soft Brexit of staying in the SM/CU plus remain in the EU.
This is important because some maintain that it was clear in the referendum that voting leave was a vote to leave the SM/CU. Andrew Marr went so far as to show clips from both campaigns stating this. However many can also remember the leave campaign refusing to specify what the Brexit deal might be and NOT ruling out a Norway style deal. The underlying data is very clear on the recent polls: 10% of remainers believe in a hard Brexit! Whilst 25% of both Remain and Leave believe in a soft Brexit. So there is less support for staying in the EU but a clear majority backing a Norway style deal.
Not all leavers believe in a hard Brexit. What is noticeable is that amongst C2DE voters there is a larger support for Hard Brexit but this is still less than 45%. So whatever Davis might say in the few days since phase one was agreed, we are moving further and further away from June 2016 and closer to the final outcome. And this may actually enjoy popular support?
Edit: Should add that 58% of Conservative voters believe in a hard Brexit as opposed to 36% supporting Soft Brexit or abort the process. Ironic as that is the exact opposite of national opinion at this point!
Thanks for this.
My question is, what would be the point of staying in the SM/CU if we leave?
In such a situation, we are better off not leaving.
We have to leave the EU to comply as a second referendum on leave / remain will be incredibly destructive. And if we delay leaving there will be MEP elections in May 2019 - which will not go down well - one can imagine Farage...
To decide the three options of Hard Brexit, Norway option and Remain, the obvious way to decide is a three way vote - but that chance has gone.
Having had the vote in 2016, advisory or not, the government now has to engineer the style of Brexit, i.e., a choice between hard and soft. Should they choose soft then people might take the same view that you do and say "we are better off not leaving". But we are not in that place today - it simply isn't an option. But int might be in the future?
There is no point in crunching the numbers ourselves, nor whinging about how unfair it all is. For it is what it is. In 2018 we will see what the EU27 offer as an interim deal and what comes later but if not the EEA then it won't amount to much.
The words ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ are very emotive and are consciously being used in the media with ‘soft’ being portrayed as the easier, nicer option, whereas ‘hard’ is used to denote difficulty and problems, one to avoid with all that the word ‘hard’ connotates.
The options are more sensibly defined as ‘Canada+’, ‘Norway’ option, or Remain.
Doesn't matter what we call them. Some still maintain that the referendum was was debated on clear lines as per your labels. Those people tend to be the ones who wanted to leave everything. And deliver it within six months!
These people are still looking to lobby and disrupt without any reference to the consequences for the economy nor the Irish border. Plus they tend to distort the reality about the EU political economy.
My relief on Friday was that we at least have a two year transition deal so no cliff edge in March 2019. That makes a big difference and the nation should now be able to address this matter in a sober fashion through 2018 without the Brexiloons bouncing up and down!
There are lobbyists and loons on all sides, exit, remain and EU ... so I am equally happy that we should now be able to take this forward rationally and transparently.
But don’t write off the lobbyists and loons ... they will still do their utmost to disrupt.
There is a very good debate to be had moving forward and positive benefits can be obtained ... perhaps the process should be delegated to Charlton Life ... in the main, and on this particular thread, we have handled it rather well
I think it is abundantly clear that most of the loons in this debate are on the exit side.
Who are the loons on the remain side ?
The people who think the EU is democratic despite even its biggest European fans, like Macron saying it is not. The people who think 17m voters can be ignored without damaging our democracy .and the people who think that the EU can continue for much longer without becoming a federal state or collapsing. Not loony but certainly delusional
It is an interesting read, largely discussing political positions and machinations regarding Ireland and brexit, and unsurprisingly mentions the border. However once the smoke of statementing has cleared there remains the everyday practicalities to deal with in regard to the border.
A border between Mexico and the USA does not seem to be able to work with the kind of technological ideas suggested above, and failing all else the best idea the president can come up with is a wall. I don't know if small businesses along the Mexico/USA border are exempt, or if electronic invoicing or tracking chips are in place, yet when push comes to shove a wall is what they want to end up with. Of course Ireland isn't Mexico, but the principle of having two different systems with a line between them remains in both examples, and practical solutions are hard to find.
To darn right. I don't expect the Mexicans to be blowing anyone up as soon as a single brick is cemented into place.
indeed, the UK is a bit late to the new silk roads, in comparison
Actually, this is not correct. The UK (or, at least, London) has a big financial role to play in the latest ... and biggest ... ‘silk road’ initiative, ‘One Belt, One Road’ (OBOR)
Furthermore, many UK companies are getting involved in developing new trade networks and expanding old ones.
In addition, many of our law firms and consultancy firms will have a large role to play.
The Chinese ambassador to London, Liu Xiaoming, certainly agrees, saying: “Britain is a country of global influence and can be an important partner for China in OBOR. Britain has many strengths and unique advantages that could give it a head start in OBOR co-operation.“
Gu Xueming, President, Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, MOFCOM said, ‘The United Kingdom was the first developed country to support the Belt and Road Initiative and the first to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank as a founding member. China and the UK have been continuously elevating the level of bilateral relations by taking the Belt and Road as an opportunity.’
Many articles on this, but you may find the below interesting:
I absolutely take your point about London's involvement, given scale of the plans it would be surprising if it wasn't. The scale of investment being talked about makes it one of the biggest financial commitments I'm aware of, outside military (including space programmes), and, naturally, where finance leads other services will follow.
My understanding was that the land-based routes went through Central Asia to Central and Eastern Europe and Turkey, while other routes concentrate in South Asia (notably Pakistan), Africa and the Middle East. If I remember correctly, the Port of Piraeus is now owned by the Chinese, so it seems likely it will act as an entrepot.
My point was more that the overland trade with Germany has been operational for a few years before the first train to the UK.
The issue, for me, is whether the UK can be as successful working with the Chinese with their trade strategy outside the EU as they could within it. An awful lot will depend on the trading arrangements the UK will have with others.
It is a tremendous opportunity, but if I can see it, so can others, and other countries may offer more attractive options as hubs for these silk roads (for example, India and Iran are discussing a joint venture for a port/transport hub in the Persian Gulf, to seek to bypass the Pakistani offering).
The reaction to last week is evolving and we will have to wait a while for the public to digest. In the meantime there has been some development on polls on the subject: This poll on a second referendum once details are known has shifted from neck and neck at 46% to 50% in favour vs 34% against. At the same time 58% either disapprove or strongly disapprove of a £50Bn Brexit bill. And this poll on 1st December before the phase one agreement shows a clear combined majority for the SM/CU. That's to say Soft Brexit of staying in the SM/CU plus remain in the EU.
This is important because some maintain that it was clear in the referendum that voting leave was a vote to leave the SM/CU. Andrew Marr went so far as to show clips from both campaigns stating this. However many can also remember the leave campaign refusing to specify what the Brexit deal might be and NOT ruling out a Norway style deal. The underlying data is very clear on the recent polls: 10% of remainers believe in a hard Brexit! Whilst 25% of both Remain and Leave believe in a soft Brexit. So there is less support for staying in the EU but a clear majority backing a Norway style deal.
Not all leavers believe in a hard Brexit. What is noticeable is that amongst C2DE voters there is a larger support for Hard Brexit but this is still less than 45%. So whatever Davis might say in the few days since phase one was agreed, we are moving further and further away from June 2016 and closer to the final outcome. And this may actually enjoy popular support?
Edit: Should add that 58% of Conservative voters believe in a hard Brexit as opposed to 36% supporting Soft Brexit or abort the process. Ironic as that is the exact opposite of national opinion at this point!
Thanks for this.
My question is, what would be the point of staying in the SM/CU if we leave?
In such a situation, we are better off not leaving.
We have to leave the EU to comply as a second referendum on leave / remain will be incredibly destructive. And if we delay leaving there will be MEP elections in May 2019 - which will not go down well - one can imagine Farage...
To decide the three options of Hard Brexit, Norway option and Remain, the obvious way to decide is a three way vote - but that chance has gone.
Having had the vote in 2016, advisory or not, the government now has to engineer the style of Brexit, i.e., a choice between hard and soft. Should they choose soft then people might take the same view that you do and say "we are better off not leaving". But we are not in that place today - it simply isn't an option. But int might be in the future?
There is no point in crunching the numbers ourselves, nor whinging about how unfair it all is. For it is what it is. In 2018 we will see what the EU27 offer as an interim deal and what comes later but if not the EEA then it won't amount to much.
The words ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ are very emotive and are consciously being used in the media with ‘soft’ being portrayed as the easier, nicer option, whereas ‘hard’ is used to denote difficulty and problems, one to avoid with all that the word ‘hard’ connotates.
The options are more sensibly defined as ‘Canada+’, ‘Norway’ option, or Remain.
Doesn't matter what we call them. Some still maintain that the referendum was was debated on clear lines as per your labels. Those people tend to be the ones who wanted to leave everything. And deliver it within six months!
These people are still looking to lobby and disrupt without any reference to the consequences for the economy nor the Irish border. Plus they tend to distort the reality about the EU political economy.
My relief on Friday was that we at least have a two year transition deal so no cliff edge in March 2019. That makes a big difference and the nation should now be able to address this matter in a sober fashion through 2018 without the Brexiloons bouncing up and down!
There are lobbyists and loons on all sides, exit, remain and EU ... so I am equally happy that we should now be able to take this forward rationally and transparently.
But don’t write off the lobbyists and loons ... they will still do their utmost to disrupt.
There is a very good debate to be had moving forward and positive benefits can be obtained ... perhaps the process should be delegated to Charlton Life ... in the main, and on this particular thread, we have handled it rather well
I think it is abundantly clear that most of the loons in this debate are on the exit side.
It is an interesting read, largely discussing political positions and machinations regarding Ireland and brexit, and unsurprisingly mentions the border. However once the smoke of statementing has cleared there remains the everyday practicalities to deal with in regard to the border.
A border between Mexico and the USA does not seem to be able to work with the kind of technological ideas suggested above, and failing all else the best idea the president can come up with is a wall. I don't know if small businesses along the Mexico/USA border are exempt, or if electronic invoicing or tracking chips are in place, yet when push comes to shove a wall is what they want to end up with. Of course Ireland isn't Mexico, but the principle of having two different systems with a line between them remains in both examples, and practical solutions are hard to find.
To darn right. I don't expect the Mexicans to be blowing anyone up as soon as a single brick is cemented into place.
You are aware of people like the Zetas, etc., running private narco-terrorist military operations along the US-Mexico border I presume.
They are, in many ways, far better trained, equipped and funded than Irish terrorists ever were, and, with the exception of a few of the psychos (often more visible on the Loyalist side - Shankill Butchers, anyone?), infinitely nastier.
There's every reason that, just like dissident Republican terrorists, if they believed it suited their aims, they would do just that.
@NornIrishAddick are you saying that without armed guards at the border the UK will be exporting it’s poisoned food and exploding Luvabella dolls to Ireland. Can the UK not be trusted to protect its own citizens? Is the EU the only body in the World that knows how to regulate?
You may be confusing the propensity of the EU to regulate, with the objective of creating a barrier to trade, with effective and proportionate regulation in the interests of consumers.
You may be confusing the expertise in producing regulations and its sheer volume, with effective and proportionate regulation in the interests of consumers.
Faithful supporters of the EU unable to see any defects think the more regulations you have the safer you are. Didn’t stop horse meat infiltrating the whole EU food chain did it.
Sneering comment in one of the Irish press articles implying UK Brexit voters can’t wait to import chlorinated chicken. As if chlorinated chicken is a danger to health compared to the salmonella contaminated carcasses sold in the EU as matter of course.
Which country has better animal welfare standards than the UK anywhere else in the EU? Answer - none, only Switzerland and Austria match the U.K.
Why would the EU want to impose tariffs on UK agricultural produce from the UK, some of the best quality available anywhere in Europe.
Why would the EU deny its citizens enjoying UK produce? To protect health or its trade barriers?
The EU wouldn't deny it's citizens the glory of deep fried Mars bars or Pontefract cakes, but might have a tariff on them. Same might work the other way for Bratwurst or Goulash. In those scenarios you have a hard border.
It is an interesting read, largely discussing political positions and machinations regarding Ireland and brexit, and unsurprisingly mentions the border. However once the smoke of statementing has cleared there remains the everyday practicalities to deal with in regard to the border.
A border between Mexico and the USA does not seem to be able to work with the kind of technological ideas suggested above, and failing all else the best idea the president can come up with is a wall. I don't know if small businesses along the Mexico/USA border are exempt, or if electronic invoicing or tracking chips are in place, yet when push comes to shove a wall is what they want to end up with. Of course Ireland isn't Mexico, but the principle of having two different systems with a line between them remains in both examples, and practical solutions are hard to find.
To darn right. I don't expect the Mexicans to be blowing anyone up as soon as a single brick is cemented into place.
No, with the cartels' propensity for violence they really don't need or want that excuse.
Inflation hitting over 1% above real wage growth as pound flounders thanks to these flapping berks trying to take us out of the EU. Did we suddenly forget we are an economy heavily reliant on imported goods?
I think Britain could survive Brexit if we had a bunch of competent politicians with coherent policies but this has been proven not to be the case.
The useless fools who campaigned for it are a bunch of shameless chances who don't have a constructive idea in their head. This whole process has gone beyond a farce and I feel embarrassed at what a joke we are becoming.
I accept there are many flaws with the EU but if you are going to withdraw from it you at least have to have some plans in place but amazingly this escaped our politicians.
@NornIrishAddick are you saying that without armed guards at the border the UK will be exporting it’s poisoned food and exploding Luvabella dolls to Ireland. Can the UK not be trusted to protect its own citizens? Is the EU the only body in the World that knows how to regulate?
You may be confusing the propensity of the EU to regulate, with the objective of creating a barrier to trade, with effective and proportionate regulation in the interests of consumers.
You may be confusing the expertise in producing regulations and its sheer volume, with effective and proportionate regulation in the interests of consumers.
Faithful supporters of the EU unable to see any defects think the more regulations you have the safer you are. Didn’t stop horse meat infiltrating the whole EU food chain did it.
Sneering comment in one of the Irish press articles implying UK Brexit voters can’t wait to import chlorinated chicken. As if chlorinated chicken is a danger to health compared to the salmonella contaminated carcasses sold in the EU as matter of course.
Which country has better animal welfare standards than the UK anywhere else in the EU? Answer - none, only Switzerland and Austria match the U.K.
Why would the EU want to impose tariffs on UK agricultural produce from the UK, some of the best quality available anywhere in Europe.
Why would the EU deny its citizens enjoying UK produce? To protect health or its trade barriers?
To protect its own food producers and ensure its citizens benefit from a sustainable and profitable and humane agricultural industry. And quite right too!
After Brexit, if we don't continue to protect our farmers from cheap food imports, in 20 years we won't have an agricultural industry and will be completely at the mercy of foreign food producers.
@NornIrishAddick are you saying that without armed guards at the border the UK will be exporting it’s poisoned food and exploding Luvabella dolls to Ireland. Can the UK not be trusted to protect its own citizens? Is the EU the only body in the World that knows how to regulate?
You may be confusing the propensity of the EU to regulate, with the objective of creating a barrier to trade, with effective and proportionate regulation in the interests of consumers.
You may be confusing the expertise in producing regulations and its sheer volume, with effective and proportionate regulation in the interests of consumers.
Faithful supporters of the EU unable to see any defects think the more regulations you have the safer you are. Didn’t stop horse meat infiltrating the whole EU food chain did it.
Sneering comment in one of the Irish press articles implying UK Brexit voters can’t wait to import chlorinated chicken. As if chlorinated chicken is a danger to health compared to the salmonella contaminated carcasses sold in the EU as matter of course.
Which country has better animal welfare standards than the UK anywhere else in the EU? Answer - none, only Switzerland and Austria match the U.K.
Why would the EU want to impose tariffs on UK agricultural produce from the UK, some of the best quality available anywhere in Europe.
Why would the EU deny its citizens enjoying UK produce? To protect health or its trade barriers?
To protect its own food producers and ensure its citizens benefit from a sustainable and profitable and humane agricultural industry. And quite right too!
After Brexit, if we don't continue to protect our farmers from cheap food imports, in 20 years we won't have an agricultural industry and will be completely at the mercy of foreign food producers.
No way would that happen with our forward thinking politicians.
@NornIrishAddick are you saying that without armed guards at the border the UK will be exporting it’s poisoned food and exploding Luvabella dolls to Ireland. Can the UK not be trusted to protect its own citizens? Is the EU the only body in the World that knows how to regulate?
You may be confusing the propensity of the EU to regulate, with the objective of creating a barrier to trade, with effective and proportionate regulation in the interests of consumers.
You may be confusing the expertise in producing regulations and its sheer volume, with effective and proportionate regulation in the interests of consumers.
Faithful supporters of the EU unable to see any defects think the more regulations you have the safer you are. Didn’t stop horse meat infiltrating the whole EU food chain did it.
Sneering comment in one of the Irish press articles implying UK Brexit voters can’t wait to import chlorinated chicken. As if chlorinated chicken is a danger to health compared to the salmonella contaminated carcasses sold in the EU as matter of course.
Which country has better animal welfare standards than the UK anywhere else in the EU? Answer - none, only Switzerland and Austria match the U.K.
Why would the EU want to impose tariffs on UK agricultural produce from the UK, some of the best quality available anywhere in Europe.
Why would the EU deny its citizens enjoying UK produce? To protect health or its trade barriers?
I'm happy to reassure you that I am not at all confused about the EU and its ability to regulate, and even about whether regulations work.
For what it is worth, I believe that the more regulations you have, requiring higher quality, better standards, etc. for foodstuffs and other goods will make consumers safer. Not because of the individual regulations exist, because, just like laws, the existence of regulations do not, in themselves, improve safety. The sad truth is, that in any system, some will seek to take advantage - but a detailed regulatory system makes it more difficult.
However, the EU regulatory framework, combined with appropriate inspection and controls (including those at the external customs border, which seek to control imports, has vastly improved both quality and safety of products and produce all of us use and consume over the course of the last four decades.
The CE mark for electrical equipment can, of course be faked, but the requirement that manufacturers worldwide ensure that their products comply with EU standards has, in the vast majority of cases led to a significant improvement in the quality and safety of such products.
In terms of food quality, much of the rest of the world is coming to accept the EU model (including Protected Designation of Origin, Protected Geographical Indication and Traditional Specialties Guaranteed) rather than that of the USA.
The EU makes stringent efforts to reduce and, as much as is possible, eliminate salmonella from the food chain (and they have done a remarkably good job). Because the EU approach is considered to be effective, other countries are following suit. The thing about salmonella is that, no matter where in the world poultry is farmed, some level of salmonells will exist (including eggs).
I have a preference for chicken that is farmed in a way that seeks to reduce infections in live poultry, rather than to have lesser standards and the chicken carcasses then washed with a chlorinated solution. But each to their own, you may believe it adds a certain piquancy to the meat.
And, yes, UK animal welfare standards are excellent, but they have been improved, over time, by the changes to EU standards - and, here is the thing, one of the key elements to making the kind of animal welfare standards that we want possible has been the agricultural subsidies provided by the EU. If we were in a Patrick Minford-esque free market for agricultural produce, the vast majority of UK livestock farmers could not afford to have the kind of standards that we would all like to see (there is only so much demand for niche produce, which may explain why it is niche).
You may well ask whether the UK can be trusted to protect its own citizens in a post Brexit world, because, unless there is a dramatic increase in capacity, it may be obliged to simply adopt the regulatory standards of the EU (though, as the UK has been sitting on the naughty step of late, following an investigation by OLAF, there may be questions about its current ability to police its own border controls efficiently).
The EU will, if need be, impose tariffs on UK agricultural produce, notwithstanding its quality, because that is the way that trade operates in the real (WTO) world, maybe...
Whichever way you voted, is David Davis the sort of diplomatic and committed negotiating genius you would want carving out a deal which underlines (or undermines) the future economic prospects of the country?
He is so breath-takingly incompetent and astonishingly unaware of his failings that he probably doesn't notice the harm his off-the-cuff comments create.
He has hit such a ridiculously harmful level of blind incompetence that the EU are now writing amendments to accommodate amd mitigate each of his outbursts.
On David Davis latest fuck up, from Stephen Bush this morning.
Nail on head! Ever since Article 50 was invoked Farage and the Brexiloons became irrelevant for we are leaving. May and Davis need to steer the boat and they really shouldn't be contradicting the lighthouse keepers. The lighthouse isn't going to move!
If the UK is on the naughty step for fraud investigations @NornIrishAddick then Romania must be locked away in the under-stairs cupboard. Looked up what it was all about.
Investigations into the use of EU funds managed in whole or in part at national or regional level concluded in 2016
Romania 21 Poland 16 Hungary 13 Bulgaria 11 Greece 9 Italy 8 Slovakia 8 Czech Republic 5 Portugal 5 Croatia 4 Netherlands 4 The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 4 France 3 Lithuania 3 Germany 2 Sri Lanka 2 United Kingdom 2
Seems the EU has a problem with fraud across the EU in public sector procurement:
"Ask any OLAF investigator and they would tell you that a large part of their caseload relates to allegations of fraud in public procurement. Thorough document verifications and meticulous on-the-spot checks made by OLAF have revealed several underlying issues that make this particular area more prone to fraudulent activities. For instance, some of the applicable national public procurement laws, ordinances or decisions are complicated and written in a manner that is unclear and difficult to apply even by the contracting authorities. Moreover, some authorities lack the administrative capacity and expertise to implement the rules in a coherent and consistent way, while in certain cases, members of the evaluation committees are insufficiently qualified, especially when appraising complex infrastructure tender proposals. Furthermore, when audits, controls and checks are conducted by the regulatory authorities, they are sometimes carried out in a superficial or inadequate manner"
Just more evidence of EU regulations being too convoluted to be practical or for anyone to understand, let alone ensure compliance. Solution - hire more investigators for the net contributing states to pay for. Not really a solution because the stolen money isn't recovered, just an expensive way of finding where the holes in the bucket were drilled
They receive assistance from the EU budget for their 'Development' strategy.
'Assistance from the EU Budget is managed by the European Commission (EC), through the EU Delegation to Sri Lanka and Maldives in Colombo. Based on the EU Development Cooperation instrument (DCI) and in line with government priorities, Multiannual Indicative Programmes (MIPs) are drafted in consultation with the relevant national entities and formally agreed with the Government. MIPs are implemented through Annual Action Programmes (AAPs) and subsequently through Financing Agreements signed between Government and the EU, which set out the technical aspects and implementation modalities of specific actions.
The current MIP defined EU interventions in one focal sector – integrated rural development. In addition to receiving bilateral assistance, Sri Lanka is the recipient of EU funds under regional programmes for Asia, in particular Aid for Uprooted People, as well as thematic programmes such as Non-State Actors, CSO-LAs, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace.'
They receive assistance from the EU budget for their 'Development' strategy.
'Assistance from the EU Budget is managed by the European Commission (EC), through the EU Delegation to Sri Lanka and Maldives in Colombo. Based on the EU Development Cooperation instrument (DCI) and in line with government priorities, Multiannual Indicative Programmes (MIPs) are drafted in consultation with the relevant national entities and formally agreed with the Government. MIPs are implemented through Annual Action Programmes (AAPs) and subsequently through Financing Agreements signed between Government and the EU, which set out the technical aspects and implementation modalities of specific actions.
The current MIP defined EU interventions in one focal sector – integrated rural development. In addition to receiving bilateral assistance, Sri Lanka is the recipient of EU funds under regional programmes for Asia, in particular Aid for Uprooted People, as well as thematic programmes such as Non-State Actors, CSO-LAs, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace.'
Excellent. I hope they get an increase in line with inflation plus 10%
They receive assistance from the EU budget for their 'Development' strategy.
'Assistance from the EU Budget is managed by the European Commission (EC), through the EU Delegation to Sri Lanka and Maldives in Colombo. Based on the EU Development Cooperation instrument (DCI) and in line with government priorities, Multiannual Indicative Programmes (MIPs) are drafted in consultation with the relevant national entities and formally agreed with the Government. MIPs are implemented through Annual Action Programmes (AAPs) and subsequently through Financing Agreements signed between Government and the EU, which set out the technical aspects and implementation modalities of specific actions.
The current MIP defined EU interventions in one focal sector – integrated rural development. In addition to receiving bilateral assistance, Sri Lanka is the recipient of EU funds under regional programmes for Asia, in particular Aid for Uprooted People, as well as thematic programmes such as Non-State Actors, CSO-LAs, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace.'
Excellent. I hope they get an increase in line with inflation plus 10%
Plus 10% of the money they misspent or of the initial sum given
They receive assistance from the EU budget for their 'Development' strategy.
'Assistance from the EU Budget is managed by the European Commission (EC), through the EU Delegation to Sri Lanka and Maldives in Colombo. Based on the EU Development Cooperation instrument (DCI) and in line with government priorities, Multiannual Indicative Programmes (MIPs) are drafted in consultation with the relevant national entities and formally agreed with the Government. MIPs are implemented through Annual Action Programmes (AAPs) and subsequently through Financing Agreements signed between Government and the EU, which set out the technical aspects and implementation modalities of specific actions.
The current MIP defined EU interventions in one focal sector – integrated rural development. In addition to receiving bilateral assistance, Sri Lanka is the recipient of EU funds under regional programmes for Asia, in particular Aid for Uprooted People, as well as thematic programmes such as Non-State Actors, CSO-LAs, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace.'
Excellent. I hope they get an increase in line with inflation plus 10%
Plus 10% of the money they misspent or of the initial sum given
Both I reckon. Maybe they will build a stadium for West Ham to play in out of the money.
If the UK is on the naughty step for fraud investigations @NornIrishAddick then Romania must be locked away in the under-stairs cupboard. Looked up what it was all about.
Investigations into the use of EU funds managed in whole or in part at national or regional level concluded in 2016
Romania 21 Poland 16 Hungary 13 Bulgaria 11 Greece 9 Italy 8 Slovakia 8 Czech Republic 5 Portugal 5 Croatia 4 Netherlands 4 The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 4 France 3 Lithuania 3 Germany 2 Sri Lanka 2 United Kingdom 2
Seems the EU has a problem with fraud across the EU in public sector procurement:
"Ask any OLAF investigator and they would tell you that a large part of their caseload relates to allegations of fraud in public procurement. Thorough document verifications and meticulous on-the-spot checks made by OLAF have revealed several underlying issues that make this particular area more prone to fraudulent activities. For instance, some of the applicable national public procurement laws, ordinances or decisions are complicated and written in a manner that is unclear and difficult to apply even by the contracting authorities. Moreover, some authorities lack the administrative capacity and expertise to implement the rules in a coherent and consistent way, while in certain cases, members of the evaluation committees are insufficiently qualified, especially when appraising complex infrastructure tender proposals. Furthermore, when audits, controls and checks are conducted by the regulatory authorities, they are sometimes carried out in a superficial or inadequate manner"
Just more evidence of EU regulations being too convoluted to be practical or for anyone to understand, let alone ensure compliance. Solution - hire more investigators for the net contributing states to pay for. Not really a solution because the stolen money isn't recovered, just an expensive way of finding where the holes in the bucket were drilled
And this differs from national rules, regulations and laws in what respect?
In fact, the wording you have provided is clear, it's not the EU rules and regulations that are the problem.
Every country in the world, and every multinational/supranational organisation or body will have problems with fraud.
The fact that OLAF are investigating potential fraud and going after wrongdoers is a) a good thing (because heaven forbid that there would ever be a country that might let those who have committed fraud off easily) and b) represents the fact that, sadly, some will seek to defraud others, no matter what the political milieu.
You could equally read the list of investigations as an example of how well the EU works, because the EU is about more than simple economic cooperation, it is partly about bringing all member states up together to the same levels of, in this case good governance (in general, the longer a country is a member, the fewer investigations are required for potential fraud, unless you're Sri Lanka).
Comments
Not loony but certainly delusional
My understanding was that the land-based routes went through Central Asia to Central and Eastern Europe and Turkey, while other routes concentrate in South Asia (notably Pakistan), Africa and the Middle East. If I remember correctly, the Port of Piraeus is now owned by the Chinese, so it seems likely it will act as an entrepot.
My point was more that the overland trade with Germany has been operational for a few years before the first train to the UK.
The issue, for me, is whether the UK can be as successful working with the Chinese with their trade strategy outside the EU as they could within it. An awful lot will depend on the trading arrangements the UK will have with others.
It is a tremendous opportunity, but if I can see it, so can others, and other countries may offer more attractive options as hubs for these silk roads (for example, India and Iran are discussing a joint venture for a port/transport hub in the Persian Gulf, to seek to bypass the Pakistani offering).
They are, in many ways, far better trained, equipped and funded than Irish terrorists ever were, and, with the exception of a few of the psychos (often more visible on the Loyalist side - Shankill Butchers, anyone?), infinitely nastier.
There's every reason that, just like dissident Republican terrorists, if they believed it suited their aims, they would do just that.
You may be confusing the propensity of the EU to regulate, with the objective of creating a barrier to trade, with effective and proportionate regulation in the interests of consumers.
You may be confusing the expertise in producing regulations and its sheer volume, with effective and proportionate regulation in the interests of consumers.
Faithful supporters of the EU unable to see any defects think the more regulations you have the safer you are. Didn’t stop horse meat infiltrating the whole EU food chain did it.
Sneering comment in one of the Irish press articles implying UK Brexit voters can’t wait to import chlorinated chicken. As if chlorinated chicken is a danger to health compared to the salmonella contaminated carcasses sold in the EU as matter of course.
Which country has better animal welfare standards than the UK anywhere else in the EU? Answer - none, only Switzerland and Austria match the U.K.
Why would the EU want to impose tariffs on UK agricultural produce from the UK, some of the best quality available anywhere in Europe.
Why would the EU deny its citizens enjoying UK produce? To protect health or its trade barriers?
Same might work the other way for Bratwurst or Goulash. In those scenarios you have a hard border.
The useless fools who campaigned for it are a bunch of shameless chances who don't have a constructive idea in their head. This whole process has gone beyond a farce and I feel embarrassed at what a joke we are becoming.
I accept there are many flaws with the EU but if you are going to withdraw from it you at least have to have some plans in place but amazingly this escaped our politicians.
After Brexit, if we don't continue to protect our farmers from cheap food imports, in 20 years we won't have an agricultural industry and will be completely at the mercy of foreign food producers.
For what it is worth, I believe that the more regulations you have, requiring higher quality, better standards, etc. for foodstuffs and other goods will make consumers safer. Not because of the individual regulations exist, because, just like laws, the existence of regulations do not, in themselves, improve safety. The sad truth is, that in any system, some will seek to take advantage - but a detailed regulatory system makes it more difficult.
However, the EU regulatory framework, combined with appropriate inspection and controls (including those at the external customs border, which seek to control imports, has vastly improved both quality and safety of products and produce all of us use and consume over the course of the last four decades.
The CE mark for electrical equipment can, of course be faked, but the requirement that manufacturers worldwide ensure that their products comply with EU standards has, in the vast majority of cases led to a significant improvement in the quality and safety of such products.
In terms of food quality, much of the rest of the world is coming to accept the EU model (including Protected Designation of Origin, Protected Geographical Indication and Traditional Specialties Guaranteed) rather than that of the USA.
The EU makes stringent efforts to reduce and, as much as is possible, eliminate salmonella from the food chain (and they have done a remarkably good job). Because the EU approach is considered to be effective, other countries are following suit. The thing about salmonella is that, no matter where in the world poultry is farmed, some level of salmonells will exist (including eggs).
I have a preference for chicken that is farmed in a way that seeks to reduce infections in live poultry, rather than to have lesser standards and the chicken carcasses then washed with a chlorinated solution. But each to their own, you may believe it adds a certain piquancy to the meat.
And, yes, UK animal welfare standards are excellent, but they have been improved, over time, by the changes to EU standards - and, here is the thing, one of the key elements to making the kind of animal welfare standards that we want possible has been the agricultural subsidies provided by the EU. If we were in a Patrick Minford-esque free market for agricultural produce, the vast majority of UK livestock farmers could not afford to have the kind of standards that we would all like to see (there is only so much demand for niche produce, which may explain why it is niche).
You may well ask whether the UK can be trusted to protect its own citizens in a post Brexit world, because, unless there is a dramatic increase in capacity, it may be obliged to simply adopt the regulatory standards of the EU (though, as the UK has been sitting on the naughty step of late, following an investigation by OLAF, there may be questions about its current ability to police its own border controls efficiently).
The EU will, if need be, impose tariffs on UK agricultural produce, notwithstanding its quality, because that is the way that trade operates in the real (WTO) world, maybe...
He is so breath-takingly incompetent and astonishingly unaware of his failings that he probably doesn't notice the harm his off-the-cuff comments create.
He has hit such a ridiculously harmful level of blind incompetence that the EU are now writing amendments to accommodate amd mitigate each of his outbursts.
I'm beginning to think that David Davis is doing almost as much harm as Brexit itself.
Brexit is finally coming good
May and Davis need to steer the boat and they really shouldn't be contradicting the lighthouse keepers. The lighthouse isn't going to move!
Or the bread, cheese, milk, chocolate, jams and other bits that are listed multiple times?
Investigations into the use of EU funds managed in whole or in part at national or regional level concluded in 2016
Romania 21
Poland 16
Hungary 13
Bulgaria 11
Greece 9
Italy 8
Slovakia 8
Czech Republic 5
Portugal 5
Croatia 4
Netherlands 4
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 4
France 3
Lithuania 3
Germany 2
Sri Lanka 2
United Kingdom 2
Seems the EU has a problem with fraud across the EU in public sector procurement:
"Ask any OLAF investigator and they would tell you that a large part of their caseload relates to allegations of fraud in public procurement. Thorough document verifications and meticulous on-the-spot checks made by OLAF have revealed several underlying issues that make this particular area more prone to fraudulent activities. For instance, some of the applicable national public procurement laws, ordinances or decisions are complicated and written in a manner that is unclear and difficult to apply even by the contracting authorities. Moreover, some authorities lack the administrative capacity and expertise to implement the rules in a coherent and consistent way, while in certain cases, members of the evaluation committees are insufficiently qualified, especially when appraising complex infrastructure tender proposals. Furthermore, when audits, controls and checks are conducted by the regulatory authorities, they are sometimes carried out in a superficial or inadequate manner"
Just more evidence of EU regulations being too convoluted to be practical or for anyone to understand, let alone ensure compliance. Solution - hire more investigators for the net contributing states to pay for. Not really a solution because the stolen money isn't recovered, just an expensive way of finding where the holes in the bucket were drilled
'Assistance from the EU Budget is managed by the European Commission (EC), through the EU Delegation to Sri Lanka and Maldives in Colombo. Based on the EU Development Cooperation instrument (DCI) and in line with government priorities, Multiannual Indicative Programmes (MIPs) are drafted in consultation with the relevant national entities and formally agreed with the Government. MIPs are implemented through Annual Action Programmes (AAPs) and subsequently through Financing Agreements signed between Government and the EU, which set out the technical aspects and implementation modalities of specific actions.
The current MIP defined EU interventions in one focal sector – integrated rural development. In addition to receiving bilateral assistance, Sri Lanka is the recipient of EU funds under regional programmes for Asia, in particular Aid for Uprooted People, as well as thematic programmes such as Non-State Actors, CSO-LAs, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace.'
Maybe they will build a stadium for West Ham to play in out of the money.
In fact, the wording you have provided is clear, it's not the EU rules and regulations that are the problem.
Every country in the world, and every multinational/supranational organisation or body will have problems with fraud.
The fact that OLAF are investigating potential fraud and going after wrongdoers is a) a good thing (because heaven forbid that there would ever be a country that might let those who have committed fraud off easily) and b) represents the fact that, sadly, some will seek to defraud others, no matter what the political milieu.
You could equally read the list of investigations as an example of how well the EU works, because the EU is about more than simple economic cooperation, it is partly about bringing all member states up together to the same levels of, in this case good governance (in general, the longer a country is a member, the fewer investigations are required for potential fraud, unless you're Sri Lanka).