Idiot is idiot

According to the FT this morning the UK might agree to pay billions a year to keep the City of London, but not the rest of the UK in the EU Single Market.

Chunter, chunter, why does the City have such power etc.

What the FT actually says is:

But in a move likely to upset many Conservative Eurosceptics, Mrs May has not ruled out making future payments to the EU to secure privileged access to the single market. Finance is among the sectors most likely to benefit in any deal that recognised the “equivalence” of regulatory regimes.

On Friday, she assured Japanese carmaker Nissan that trading conditions for its Sunderland car plant would not change after Brexit, in the first suggestion that the government could pick favoured sectors to shield from the impact of leaving the EU.

Several senior ministers have told the Financial Times that the cabinet is considering how Britain could carry on paying billions of pounds into the EU budget. “We would have to be careful how we explained it,” said one minister. “But Theresa has been very careful not to rule it out.” Another senior Tory said: “With Theresa, you have to listen carefully to the silences.”

They do not say that only The City would still be in the Single Market. Rather, they just make the standard point that everyone already understands.

If there is continued membership of the Single Market then there will have to be budget contributions. Simply because that’s the way the Single Market works. Norway and Switzerland both pay into the EU budget. That’s just what happens.

It’s absolutely fuck all to do with the City remaining in and the rest of the economy not.

Three thoughts. First, as ever the City proves itself a state within a state. But in that case, why not separate deals as well for Scotland and Northern Ireland who also voted to Remain?

Second, who pays for this? And how? There is no way the City should receive a UK wide subsidy.

Third, why the City alone when it is the one part of the economy that needs to shrink if any form of rebalancing is to take place?

Bluntly, the City’s self interest and financial power apart, is there any logic at all to this suggestion?

Thought, let alone three, would be useful here. But then idiot it idiot is oh so surprising, isn’t it?

24 thoughts on “Idiot is idiot”

  1. I don’t think Norway and other EFTA members of EEA pay into the EU budget. They pay to support the EFTA institutions, and contribute to various shared programmes, but not to the EU itself.

  2. Contributing to the shared programmes effectively is paying into the EU budget, cash being fungible and all that.

    http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financial-contribution/

    “The EEA EFTA states normally fund their participation in EU programmes and agencies by an amount corresponding to the relative size of their GDP compared to the GDP of the whole EEA (proportionality factor). The EEA EFTA states participation is hence on equal footing with EU member states.”

  3. Timmy will never find another writing gig with rubbish like this. He’s misspelled ‘cunt’ twice in the title alone.

  4. Am I reading this correctly? The UK would be allowed to pay the EU to be forced to pay higher prices on imports?

    “assured Japanese carmaker Nissan trading conditions would not change”
    I didn’t know Mrs May had a crystal ball. Tell me next week’s lottery numbers, that will be much easier.

  5. This “pay to access our single market” is a great idea. I suspect it might catch on: think of the $$s the US could make by forcing anyone shipping stuff to the US to deal separately with each of the 50 or so US states instead of abiding by rules that are common to the whole US.

  6. Well you do have to grok the irony. Britain leaves the EU then asks to buy back into the EU by the back door so that some of its economy can get some of the benefits of membership and share some of the regulations without having a say in what those regulations are. The Great Repeal is nothing of the sort. That kind of thing. Even as a remoaner I can see why the hard brexiteers are getting harder.

    May said out loud some time ago that Brexit will be on the City’s terms. Time will tell if that is still the case.

  7. “Contributing to the shared programmes effectively is paying into the EU budget, cash being fungible and all that.”

    Not really, depending I suppose on the programme. I meant it’s similar to any shared international programme. CERN might be a non-EU example. The money is paid into the budget for Erasmus or Horizon2020, etc. to be used by those programmes. It isn’t generally available to support the Commission, ECJ, Euro, “Parliament” or for general EU money-laundering.

    Of course, the EU might and probably would (since they need the cash) insist on a different regime for the UK even in EFTA/EEA, because it’s been a big net contributor for so long, and what sort of decent protection racket would the EU be if it didn’t stoop to that behaviour as a matter of course?

  8. “The UK would be allowed to pay the EU to be forced to pay higher prices on imports?”

    That would only be true if the UK stupidly stayed in the EU’s Customs Union not the EEA’s SIngle Market. Norway is in the latter not the former. I don’t think staying in either is now likely.

  9. TTG: Thank goodness you were here to give Tim an example to correct his spelling around.

    Urine Trouble– Your Euro-trash pals have said hard Brexit or nothing. Fine with me.

    Altho’ if I was doing the deal it would have to include the roundup and forced deportation of Remainiac traitors such as yourself.

  10. “There is no way the City should receive a UK wide subsidy.”

    Maybe it could come out of the gigantic sums of money the poeple who work there pay in taxes?

  11. Well you do have to grok the irony. Britain leaves the EU then asks to buy back into the EU by the back door so that some of its economy can get some of the benefits of membership and share some of the regulations without having a say in what those regulations are. The Great Repeal is nothing of the sort. That kind of thing. Even as a remoaner I can see why the hard brexiteers are getting harder.

    You forgot regaining control of our borders, our courts and parliament. Getting all that, and trade, is a bargain for a billion or so quid.

    I haven’t even counted the tasty schadenfreude of suicidal Remainers as a benefit.

  12. Bloke in North Dorset

    Whilst I would prefer a harder Brexit and more free trade with the rest of the world I’ll settle for paying to get some axis to the single market as a first step.

    The key for me is that laws and regulations passed in Brussels don’t miss out the middle man and end up going straight to laws of the land. Politicians can sign up to them if they think they are in our national interest, but they need to justify themselves rather than hiding behind the fig leaf of “the big boys in Brussels made me do it “.

  13. It’s interesting that the way to rebalance an economy is apparently to shrink the large parts to fit the undersized ones.

    I’m no economist, but wouldn’t it be better to grow the others to match the big one?

  14. Eur In Trouble Now,

    > Contributing to the shared programmes effectively is paying into the EU budget, cash being fungible and all that.

    The membership fees for the EU and EEA and EFTA are different amounts.

    Buying a Fiat 500 effectively is buying a Ferrari, cash being fungible and all that.

  15. There is no way the City should receive a UK wide subsidy.

    The UK receives a huge subsidy from the City, so why not?

    Less glibly, people commute to the City — my ridiculous journey is not that unusual, nor anywhere near the worst people undertake. Almost no-one who works in the City lives there; a hell of a lot of us don’t live in Greater London; loads don’t even live in the South-East. So any talk of “the City” and “the rest of the UK” as if they’re entirely separate groups of people is fucking stupid. I pay council tax and road tax in Northern Ireland; even my income tax is collected and paid by a Northern Irish firm, and there’s some Barnet-type government accounting going on that designates a portion of that to be sent to Stormont accordingly. One of the many advantages of private health insurance is that, the NHS being devolved, it’s pretty-much impossible for me to get treatment from it in London, where I spend most of my time. (I tried once, and Kafka wrote a book about it.) The tax base is more complicated than such ridiculous dualistic analyses imply.

    And I would note too that discussion of the massive subsidy paid by the City to the rest of the UK tends to underestimate it, as it concentrates on taxation, while of course the City is also subsidising the rest of the country by giving salaries to its employees who take that money and spend it elsewhere.

  16. BiG:
    What Rob said +1, or rather + 10.
    If we end up having to make a contribution (and I hope we don’t), that will be a decision of our sovereign Parliament – not a demand for tribute money by a disguised franco-German empire (which is almost entirely German than French now).

    Urine Trouble:
    If you get your prostate removed, you’ll ejaculate into your own bladder – which will save a lot of irritation.

    Sq2:
    The UK receives a huge subsidy from the City, so why not?
    Exactly. If such subsidy is not prohibited by WTO rules (or something I am ignorant of), then it would be cheaper and better to subsidise industries exporting across EU tariff barriers (on a unit+ basis?) than for the UK to sign up to some costly and sovereignty-restricting ‘deal’.

  17. @ Squander 2
    Good on yer, kid
    The number living in the City has gone up in your lifetime. Forty years ago less than 1% of City workers lived in the City of London – in order to be one of them I paid more than one-third of my gross salary (so more half my net) in rent & service charge. I reckoned it was well worth it (commuting was even worse in the seventies).
    One might add that the industry for which London is most famous (after Gin, now relocated outside the City)) is insurance for which Europe excluding the UK makes up 14% (so presumably the EU-27 makes up less than 10%) of Lloyd’s £26.7bn premium income, whille the USA & Canada make up 47%. Lloyd’s generates several £billion per annum both of tax revenue and of trade surplus for the UK which will be only marginally affected by Brexit. At the worst the moaners could claim that the banking part of the City would be getting a subsidy from the insurers.

  18. Nonsense. It’s equivalence OR passporting, not both.

    The latter requires the single market, the former does not.

  19. Sq2:

    I’m not sure if you think you’re contradicting me? I never said they (Norway) pay the same membership fees. But that they have to chip in for access to the Single Market is undeniable. Heck, they’re even surprisingly open about the shakedown:

    “The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement includes a goal to reduce social and economic disparities in the European Economic Area. Thus, the EEA EFTA States Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway have contributed to European cohesion efforts through various financial mechanisms since the EEA Agreement entered into force in 1994.

    For the period 2014 – 2021, Norway’s annual contribution to 15 beneficiary (sic) states through the current EEA and Norway Grants scheme will be 391 million euro.”

    So Norwegian cash goes to pay for roads in Poland. They avoid saying they’re paying for the Brussels-Strasbourg travelling circus directly, but that’s an accounting fiction (hence fungibility).

    Then as CHF says they pay for programme access, on a GDP-weighted basis. Norway being minted, they’re definitely net contributors.

    Theo:

    Thanks for your helpful tip. Although I’m not sure why the mere statement of facts ires you so. Running low on Marmite maybe?

  20. There are actual facts and there are “facts” as conveyed by traitors .

    The glee with which you embrace your bogus continental tyranny-sucking friends tends to enrage. Always the case when reading the meanderings of tyranny-sucking fools and wrongdoers. On a par with listening to the deliberate embrace of wickedness contained in a broadcast by Lord Haw-Haw. Indeed “EU calling” might be a much more apt and improved cognomen for your future deceits and disloyaltys to the cause of freedom.

    In final regard to William Joyce some time spent contemplating that unworthy’s fate might also prove salutary for you .

  21. Urine Trouble
    ‘Facts’? We’ve had 40+ years of lies. Divorce will be painful, but ultimately for the best. Now, FOYC.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *