Brexit 2020+

@polite, the paragraph you quoted proves my point so what on earth are you talking about? There is no rule ignoring, everything I’ve described is about following the rules, it’s “we’ll have to take the euro” people that have to ignore the rules.

“Everybody here speaks English. Like businesses all over the world.“

Not much of an advantage then.

Edit: The rules are clear, Northwind, I’m confused by your attitude to them, and so would be the European Commission/parliament. New members have to sign up the Euro simple as. All the exceptions are derogations for existing members.

New members have to sign up the Euro simple as. All the exceptions are derogations for existing members.

This.

It bears repeating.

And this will be the barrier to rejoin, I am afraid. I’m no economist, but I know it was a huge advantage for the UK to retain sterling whilst having full access to EU markets.

It just puts the insanity/stupidity of Brexit into an even starker light.

Sigh.

SE had leverage

I don’t think they needed leverage, they just read the rules at the time. Joining the Euro was mandatory if and when they met the criteria. One criterion was being in the ERM for 3 years. Since joining it was optional, they didn’t, and so never met that criterion.

The “another big economy” thing doesn’t really work because increased intra-EU trade and EU trade with the rest of the world (+6%) replaced the trade lost with the UK (-2%)

It’s not an either/or, if it ever comes to it. The EU can have both that growth it’s achieved and that brought by having the UK on board. Academic anyway – it’ll take at least 20 years to achieve the necessary cross party support and complete negotiations with the EU.

Sign up for the euro

isn’t exactly the same as implementing the euro thou 🙂

In 20 years time adopting the euro(or its more common name euro-pound or ‘the pound’ as the locals call it in that time)might be the new blue passports.

It’s still early days post Brexit, plenty more fun ahead and plenty of time for new players to emerge.(out of the generation too young to vote but 80% keen to rejoin)

You’ve missed the point, Del, some of that EU growth came at the expense of the UK: Rest of World companies giving up on the UK as a base and creating/transfering structures in/to the EU thus creating EU growth.  Financial services growth in Paris and Francfort has been at the expense of London, chemical and car production increases in the EU have been at the expense of the UK. Far from increasing trade oportunites with the rest of the world Brexit has limited them as companies give priority to a big free trade zone over a small island.

<minor edits for readability>

Edukator
Free Member

Edit: The rules are clear, Northwind, I’m confused by your attitude to them, and so would be the European Commission/parliament. New members have to sign up the Euro simple as. All the exceptions are derogations for existing members.

I’ve explained it as clearly as I can but I’ll give it a final attempt. It’s not confusing and doesn’t confuse anyone that understands the rules- and understanding the rules is something the EU is hot on.

Probably most important is your mention of exceptions so I’ll just handle that first- that’s a key misunderstanding. (or often misrepresentation tbf, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt) We don’t require an exception, and wouldn’t get it if we asked. We had one, now Denmark has the only one and there won’t be another in this version of the eu. Sweden does not have one, has formally declared that they’re not taking the euro anyway, and the EU happily accepts that, quote, “it is for the Swedish people to decide”. Hungary and Poland and Czechia and Romania don’t have one and it makes no difference. Forget about exceptions, except just please bear in mind that if you’re talking about exceptions then the rules aren’t as clear to you as you thought they were.

It’s all just the maastricht treaty and its descendents in action- it’s not a loophole as someone suggested, it’s a fundamental part of how the system works and is supposed to work, and how the non-converging nations are kept out of the euro. It doesn’t differentiate whether you want it or you don’t. Bulgaria are currently the ONLY non-euro nation that’s actually making any meaningful move towards the euro, but the same rules that allow everyone else to stay out, are keeping them out.

As of right now, the UK would fail to meet the inflation requirements, we’d have an excessive deficit, we’re not in ERM2 (and I suspect don’t meet the criteria for that either), our long term interest rate is too high, and I’d assume we’d not meet the legal compliance requirements. Some of these you can’t even start to fix til you’re in convergence ie til after you join the EU. In other words if we were to magically rejoin tomorrow, we’d be the least or second least compliant nation in the EU, and further from being allowed to adopt it than nations that joined 2 decades ago.

It’s bizarre to me that people can mention Croatia in this light and not understand the example they’ve set, as in this thread. Joining the EU is hard- harder now than ever I suspect. It’s a thing you work at for years, in their case a full decade. Nobody had done it for 8 years before them. The challenges Croatia faced to join, and the challenges Bulgaria are currently facing, prove all that. And yet people still think it’s a thing you can get made to do

But in case that’s not persuasive… Denmark has the one exemption and hopefully for them it was cheap. Sweden of course joined after Maastricht, commited to the euro just as we’d have to, said no, and it’s fine. But if Sweden’s perfect example isn’t enough (some people say “it was a long time ago”, as if a precedent that’s stood without the slightest challenge from anyone for 20 years is somehow a bad thing) here is literally everyone else.

Czechia joined in 2004, and their official position currently is that joining the euro is “off the table”. They openly make no attempt to converge, only 18% of their population wants it, all of the major political parties are against it. The only reason it doesn’t get mentioned more is that Sweden’s referendum makes it a better example.

Hungary effectively abandoned convergence in 2011 and is nowhere near their own intentionally-high internal target for even beginning to work on it again. The minimal work they did on it before that is now obsolete, so they’re on day 0 and staying there.

(aside, but both Czechia and Hungary joined Euro-Plus while openly saying on the record that they would not actually make any attempt to meet some of the commitments of Euro-Plus, and that was accepted because while Euro-Plus required the nations to commit to certain standards and alignments, it does not require them to actually do anything about it. Sound familiar?)

Romania’s policy at all times seems to be that they will join the euro in 8 years despite never really doing anything about it, and has been since they joined in 2007.

Poland abandoned convergence pretty much immediately, talked about restarting the process in about 2007, and then binned it entirely at the financial crisis.

Bulgaria OTOH wants to join but can’t.

TLDR of the 7, none are allowed to join. 6 are openly not making any attempt to join, none of those 6 has any prospect of joining this decade even if that changes- but only one has an exemption, everyone else is exactly as committed as we’d be. We’d be the 7th, and even if we were rabidly pro-euro we’d be as far from joining as any of them.

Northwind has it, all the others have signed up but there is no compulsion to meet the criteria be admitted. I suspect that if we were to be made an exception and required to sign up and meet the criteria there would be some of those who have made no effort who would be nervous and would probably veto the proposals for UK. Amazingly we still have some friends within the block.

Ah, my minor edits for readability completely ****ed the formatting, I’m not good at this. Luckily it’s now too late for me to edit it again and make it worse, sorry for the italics

So all except the exceptions have signed up as I said.

Britain has lots of friends in the block, on some points all of the members of the block, that doesn’t mean they want the UK back in.

No-one has come up with anything concrete that the EU has to gain from Britain rejoining since I asked the question. Molgrips raised some prestige points I’m not contesting but in terms of economic benefit the EU is doing better without the UK on the points I’ve raised.

So only 18% of Czechs want the Euro, I’d love to see a Europe wide poll on people in favour of Britain rejoining.

It’s not that there’s any negative feeling towards the UK, people still visit in millions, the UK’s stance on Ukraine is appreciated, it’s just that Britain being out of the EU suits a lot of people and I’d love to see a poll. There’s no point having all these UK polls following sentiment in the UK without taking an interest in European sentiment.

No-one has come up with anything concrete that the EU has to gain from Britain rejoining since I asked the question.

1. the 6th largest economy in the world joining the bloc,
2. the most powerful military in europe joining the bloc,
3. unfettered access to some of the best academic institutions on the planet,
4. access to some of the cheapest English speaking professional labour in the G20,
5. 64m (rather wealthy) people to sell goods to without trade barriers,

This was just off the top of my head.  Do you honestly believe that if the EU were given guarantees that any future decision on membership were subject to a super majority vote that they would say no?

You’ve missed the point, Del, some of that EU growth came at the expense of the UK:

I haven’t old chap. I take your point and I’m well aware that certain areas of the EU economy benefit from our absence, but we’re still a very large economy, at least for the moment, and there’s money to be made both ways if we’re involved. But as I say – academic.

None of those are concrete reasons to want the UK back in the EU, Daffy. The USA can trump all of those and no European don’t want the USA in Europe either because it would be of no advantage to Europeans, in fact it waould be a nightmare.

The UK left the EU to indulge in social and economic dumping because the high standards were considered a constraint. Human rights, working conditions, food standards… . We’re doing just fine without a country with that agenda.

I really think the EU would say no to the UK if there were a vote tomorrow.

1/ it’s not the size of the economy that matters, it’s whether it’s prepared to accept a level playing field and European values, over its membership period Britain demonstrated it was not.

2/ That military power was abused by Blair to invade Iraq against the will of EU members.

3/ The ranking systems are biased which is hardly surprising given the organisations that publish them. English language organisations rank English universities highly. Objectively the British undergraduate system is lightweight and dreadful value for money. Check out the Chinese universities and how their ranking systems rank ROW universities.

4/ Cheap because of the race to the bottom. As for English-speaking, I hadn’t noticed that holding China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Vietnam… back. Or any other nation for that matter. Those who need English learn it, I’ve been a part of that.

5/ I’ve already pointed out how those trade barriers are increasing EU trade with rest of world trade and Brits will buy BMWs regardless of trade barriers. The EU doesn’t need Britain as a member to benefit from having it as a neighbour. Far better to keep the often troublesome little country at arms length.

The “they need us just as much as we need them” mantra has failed the last two-year test dismally. Britian really did need the EU but the EU is doing swingingly without the UK.

Well, I liked both Daffy and Ed’s posts… both are full of truths.

The UK has much to offer, but needs to change before it is accepted back into the EU. With the right changes, it could be made to work, but much of the change needs to happen before we even start any moves to being inside rather than outside. We need to prove we can be a good external partner before other countries, especially France, will accept us as an internal partner. And that applies to being allowed to operate in the SM and/or CU, never mind some form of membership of the EU.

The “they need us just as much as we need them” mantra has failed the last two-year test dismally.

No-one this thread has said that.

I know Molgrips, that’s why I didn’t put it in a block quote (now they’re working again).

It’s in quotes because it was so widely quoted, for example:

https://news.sky.com/story/europe-really-doesnt-need-us-as-much-as-we-need-them-11462776

It’s a few years old but that Sky article has held up well.

Back to the tiny morsels of Brexit Benefits…

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cptpp-brexit-benefits-trade-uk-b2379742.html

Discovered a nice Brexit bonus on our recent ferry journey.  Remember the days when your phone asked you if you wanted to connect to the ships maritime network and told you the extortionate prices you would be charged if you agreed to connect?

Now your phone connects automatically and you find out after the fact that despite not using your phone on the crossing you’ve been charged £20.

I’m sorry, but most of what you wrote is either biased or just plain wrong.

Professional labour in the US is almost double what it is on the UK.  And the US and EU will never agree on standards.

Iraq 2001 – really?  That’s the reason why the EU wouldn’t want the UK as part of its military force?  Balderdash.

No, we didn’t leave for those reasons.  Those might be what the Torys have trotted out to ”Make Brexit Work”, but it’s not what the electorate voted for, they wanted control of borders and law and it was proven by Remain that Eu standards didn’t really affect UK goods to a detrimental degree.  That’s one argument that Remain won.

I’m not talking about rankings, I’m talking about research quality, IP and Startups.  Per capita the UK is level with the US and that’s impressive given we only really woke up to IP (outside of biomedical) about 10 years ago.

Our policies for labour goods and environment are still almost identical to the EU. The US, China aren’t.  There’s no race to the bottom.

As for trade, that’s a dumb argument. You’re conflating goods with brand and numbers with distance.  64m people on your doorstep with limited shipping costs vs XXX much further away.  Sure, the EU doesn’t need us and no one except you is saying/implying they do.  But there’s a significant difference between need and want.

Your posts are often very dismissive of the UK and it’s people.  Brexit was a tragic mistake, peddled with lies and false promises, badly refuted by a poorly led, often complacent Remain campaign.  Reducing us to “Iraq 2001” and a “troublesome little country” that deserve what we voted for is trite.  The undertone of your comments betrays a seeming dislike of the UK and it’s people.  “Iraq, troublesome, race to the bottom, human rights, working standards” All your words.

Do I believe we’ll rejoin? Yes.

Do I believe it’ll be soon? No.

It’s in quotes because it was so widely quoted, for example:

Yes, by Brexiteers.  Almost everyone on this thread is as pro-EU as you, Ed 🙂

I honestly think the political win factor alone would have the EU voting to let us back in. The UK crawling to the poorer members who could dictate terms to a former world power would be too delicious to pass up on, I reckon.

The undertone of your comments betrays a seeming dislike of the UK and it’s people

Just the people running the show and those who are prepared to go along with them.

Check out my hundreds of remain posts on the original Brexit thread, the fact checking of Jamballayas nonsense, the reflections on the dangerous nature of the people leading the leave campaign. It’s all still there.

BUT now that Britain’s gone, I, as a European don’t want to welcome current Britain back, because the people running whethr Labour or Conservative would poison EU politics and drag it down just as they are poisoning their own nation safe in the knowledge they can **** off to some tax haven with impunity.

And, Daffy, take a trip around Europe sometime and have good look around you as you go, because your post smacks of a very British superiority complex. There are good universities, prestigious resarch centres and productive industries all over Europe – with well paid people living in afordable housing in welfare states with affordable education.. . We don’t want to join a race to the bottom.

The whole of Europe (UK included) and indeed the West is lagging, the Chinese university population is about half the UK’s total population and they’re inovating – just look at where all the crap you buy comes from. Brexit is a detail of history in world terms and a minor distraction even in European terms. A little Island that was never really into the project having a temper tantrum and biting off its nose to spite its face. Would you count on Britian when planning Europe’s future in the World?

The EU has adapted to Britain becoming a third country, multi-national companies are adapting.

I agued against, I denounced the remain voting Brexit apologists and even when it happened I called for a rapid reversal.

Two years on and all the local companies that might have suffered have weathered the storm, they’ve adapted and they’re prospering in Europe and the world. The status quo seems fine and  there are still no rational reasons on this thread for having Britain back beyond prestige and the superiority complex; you need us.

*Shrugs*

I must say overall I agree with Edukator – what in it for the EU?  We have been nothing but trouble to them.  They have just moved on without us and have no appetite to see a troublemaker return

We have been nothing but trouble to them.

I think the reason they gave us so many concessions was that they wanted us to be part of it. They knew it would make them stronger.

Would you count on Britian when planning Europe’s future in the World?

That’s not really the same thing.  They obviously can’t count on Britain doing anything right now.

And, Daffy, take a trip around Europe sometime and have good look around you as you go, because your post smacks of a very British superiority complex.

Again, your (heavy) bias (you said it yourself – “I don’t want to welcome current Britain back”) have led to unwarranted assumptions.  You know nothing about me.  I have research projects and PhD students emplaced at Erlangen, TUM, TUH, Delft, ICAM, IRT SE, DLR and Onera along with Imperial, City, QMUL, Southampton, Leeds and Cranfield.

My job is about identifying, evaluating and sponsoring/fostering emergent research and technology.  Whether that be in the US, the EU, APAC or the UK.  My comments on academic institutions and their technology development capabilities are correct.  The UKs research framework is second to none for emergent research.  It lacks the funding of the US or H2020 in totality, but delivers high impact with huge flexibility primarily because it’s NOT significantly reliant on large EU funding mechanisms such as H2020, Clean Skies, ESA, etc.

Trust me, there is NO British exceptionalism from me, I have chronic imposter syndrome and feel superior to no one.

My current team is British, Italian, Spanish, French, German, Indian  and Portuguese.

They have just moved on without us and have no appetite to see a troublemaker return

Basically this. And still many can’t/won’t face it.

And, FWIW, if the UK does rejoin – on whose terms do we think will it be?

The second the EU hear any moaning or exceptionalism it will be take it or leave it time. And rightly so.

I’ve had numerous gammons ‘predict’ that France will leave, Italy will leave, blah blah.

Sure there are sizeable sections of those electorates that are anti-EU, but they will never leave. Hungary and Poland will not leave. They know how much being in benefits them. Their nativist governments also know the benefit of having the EU as a bogeyman to campaign ‘against’ along populist lines.

No one else will be stupid enough to actually leave, though. That title will remain, indisputably, the UK’s.

And, FWIW, if the UK does rejoin – on whose terms do we think will it be?

Easy, the EU’s.

Keep up the good work, Daffy, I now know a litle more about you. 😉

But you need to be a little more humble and realistic about the place of UK research in the world. There are many rankings, here’s are a couple, the highest UK institutions is Oxford in 30th place and Cambridge in 8th; well below their Chinese, European and US counterparts.

https://www.scimagoir.com/rankings.php

The Top 10 Research Institutions Wide World

You claim that in “emergent research” whatever that is compared to “research” the UK is second to none – a few examples of its achievments to demonstrate that? And how they are at least as significant as what is happening elsewhere in the world.

You’ll forgive my scepticism but I’ve listened to “world beating”, “best in the world”, ‘highest standards in the world” from various people in the UK for years and it now results in me rolling eyes and shaking my head.

Google is failing me in my quest to support your claims of being second to none.

As for being better off without EU funding mechanisms, that’s great, more for Europe if you don’t need it.

Perhaps we can have an STW brainstorming session on where innovation in different fields is coming from. When I Googled “world beating research” the Oxford Covid vaccine that killed a forum member’s partner came up – old vaccine technology and not a word of the RNA Pfizer and Moderna vaccines that really were world beating and innovative (Germany and the US).

One thing I do know about you is that you’ve taken on board the issues and are acting on a personal level on climatic change. I’m a geologist, have a read of my contributions to climatic change threads since the hack; IMO applying techonologies is just as important as developing them. Check out how Spain (thankfully with a hung parliament this morning) is applying technologies:

Spain’s solar salt opens door to 24-7 clean electricity

the Oxford Covid vaccine that killed a forum member’s partner came up

Wait, what?

You’ll excuse me for highlighting this, but I was not aware there was incontrovertible evidence of the Oxford vaccine having killed someone.

For my benefit – any links to where that is documented? Or perhaps a legal case surrounded the death?

FWIW Personal interest angle, I know someone involved with the vaccine.

During the test phase one brazilian death was attributed to the vaccine and in the initial use of the vaccine in the UK 30 cases of blood clotting of which 7 were fatal were attributed to the vaccine, Mrmonkfinger. There are hundreds of press reports stating that if you use your browser.

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210403-seven-deaths-in-uk-among-astrazeneca-vaccine-recipients-after-blood-clots

The disease itself was much more likely to kill you though so vaccination was still a very good idea. If you remember many countiries limited the Astra/Oxford vaccine to older members of of the population because it was mainly younger females that suffered blood clotting following vaccination.

I haven’t used teh word “incontrovetible”, you have. As for legal proceedings, you’ve added a factor there so put your investigativbe journalist hat on and off you go banging on doors.

Emergent research is research that’s not highly derivative – truly novel research, reliant on fundamental math or cross discipline application of methods.  Homogenisation techniques applied to transient systems.  SoS for study of human psychology, etc.  It’s highly risky and may require retasking in the first year.

Let’s take the journal Nature as an example.  Nature is probably THE preeminent journal for science – it’s the one that most academics who study science, engineering or math would love to be published in.  Whilst it’s true that China and the US publish the most research, once you normalise by GDP, the UK is actually second only to Switzerland.  Heck, even if you do it by GDP/Capita, we’re second.

https://www.nature.com/nature-index/country-outputs/generate/all/global

I didn’t say we’re better off without it, just that we’re not as reliant on it.  We have UKRI, EPSRC, ATI, ESRC, DSTL, RAE and others, all of which require MUCH less effort and reporting to get a project rolling and are much more flexible on IP.  It’s much easier (and cheaper) to run a PhD in the UK than in France and Germany as a PhD in the latter must be employed by the sponsoring company, whereas in the UK, they’re an employee of the university.  This allows us to not have to battle headcount reductions or changing circumstances where the research and skills are no longer required upon completion of the project.

The other part of the UKs system that is of value is the relationship between universities (and their research) and startrups and spinouts.  UCL, ICL, QMUL all have substantial technology spinouts.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1275209/top-cities-for-startups-worldwide/

Again, if you filter that by Size, Oxford does very well for itself.

Even your own first link – filter by Universities, the UK has 5 universities in the top 25.  The rest of Europe has and only 3 in the top 50 and none in the top 25.

China’s place is heavily skewed as so much is government funded and lacks detail in publications, they’re now also almost impossible to partner with on science, materials or AI, so not really comparable.

Just to be clear – I think general sentiment in Europe is against the UK re-joining, but I’d be willing to bet that at a higher level, it might be more welcome, especially outside of France and Germany.

In addition to the points I made earlier, €22bn of funding from the UK and likely without the (€7-9bn) rebate isn’t exactly small potatoes.  So with guarantees about future membership exit requirements, it might be possible, but not in the foreseeable future.  I’d think we’d need a changing of the political guard to see all the old Tories no longer having a direct say in government.

I’d think we’d need a changing of the political guard to see all the old Tories no longer having a direct say in government.

Are you iincluding Starmer Streeting Cooper etc in that?  Because until labour stop being brexiteers and start telling the truth about brexit there is no chance of return.  Being pro europe needs to be the default position for both labour and tory before we are allowed back

I gave two links so as not to cherry pick, Daffy. And I’ll remind you of Anglo-Saxon bias. Then there’s the publish or die pressure in academia that particularly present anong direct university funded researchers. Some of the best sponsored employee research never gets published. I published in the Journal of Environmental while at Welsh Water but my best research never got beyond internal reports – probably because it cast one of the sponsors in a very bad light.

I worked out that I was pissing into the wind and that lobbies, vested interests, corrupt directors, money… would always trump pure science. Going and working on a campsite and enjoying life was preferable to making myself miserable coping with my own organisation’s agenda and fighting corrupt scientists working for the enemy – at the time the CEGB, the refiners and the 60 million polluters of which I was one.

We did some good work, much was duplicated by others with similar projects (another major probem with reaserch IMO – far to much duplication/multiplication – it all goes around in circles sometimes not advancing at all). it ends up with not seeing the wood for the trees. Climatic change diners have exploited this very well.

https://books.google.fr/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341&dq=this+tends+to+make+the+air+a+more+effective+blanket+for+the+earth&source=bl&ots=QvdH-SgFLl&sig=WiPUNOIzM6udOSTBm2VXzRQB9K8&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

P341, March 2012, a month before the Titanic sank.

In my honest opinion reseach the world over is in a mess and in the hands of people unlikely to use the proceeds of the research in the best interests of humanity. That goes for the EU and UK.

I’m out of UK research and life’s better: there’s a 50m open air pool at 28°C fueled by the local waste incinerator just up the road, some great MTB trails I don’t need a car to get to, mountains to ski/walk up and down. The world hasn’t suffered, no-one was listening anyhow.

OK, let’s assume the UK’s research sector is great. So what? Why does that matter to the average EU politician or voter, who are just as thick as our own?

To go a step further: let’s assume there are economic synergies to the UK joining the EU again. Does that matter? Is it enough to persuade every EU member state to devote more time and money to having the EU negotiate all this stuff with the UK and Ireland again? Or do they have bigger fish to fry?

Because until labour stop being brexiteers and start telling the truth about brexit there is no chance of return.

It’ll happen, just not now.

What – stop being brexiteers?

They never were.  They are just using mealy mouthed language to get votes. It’s what politicians have always done and it’s necessary.  Politicians are whores for votes, that’s inherent in any democratic* system.  When people want rejoin to be on the table, it will be.

By the way, not being able to process when people don’t say what they mean is a common autistic trait. Just saying 🙂

* before we start another tedious whine about what democracy means – in this context it is not a synonym for good, just or perfect, it means a system where candidates need votes to gain power.

Wishful thinking Molgrips

He does not use weasel words on this.  He has made his and labours position clear.  NO SM, NO FOM, no CU ever.  NO rapprochement with the EU – just “make brexit work”    Thats a full on hard brexit position with added gaslighting

Labour are a brexit party.  thats a simple fact

Edit – I do understand why he has taken this stance.  I believe it to be wrong but I understand why he did it.