Legitimate grievances and a brown guy on TV

brown

A lot of us in the Remain camp (and a lot of Leavers to be honest) have spent a lot of time trying to convince ourselves that the Brexit vote (and everything else) has an economic justification in its core.

People are marginalised by globalisation, capitalism, neoliberalism, whateveryouwannacallitism. They are ‘left behind’. They are unrepresented by normal politics and turn to the extremes. They wanted to ‘stick it to the man’, to express their dissatisfaction. This is why they voted for Brexit, why they support Trump, why they vote for neonazis across Europe.

While this is a wonderful explanation, in keeping with our Marxist methodological frameworks, it is sadly not true. Also, it is inconveniently passing the blame for all this mess back on us, university profs, the metropolitan elite, normal politics, the 1% (etc etc).

We know how to blame (and deal with) neoliberalism, austerity, unemployment and the rest. We do not know how to deal with bigotry and racism. We do not know what to make of this alliance of the rancid rich with the racist poor, of the snooty Londoners and provincial bigots. We are at a loss. We are also responsible. Read this great piece by @zackbeauchamp in VOX, and you won’t be able to pretend anymore either.

Why are we responsible you say? Because we found ourselves appeasing the bigots, of saying things like: Immigration is a legitimate grievance.

It is not. Do you hear me? Immigration is not a legitimate grievance.

I can prove it.

I can prove it on the systemic level by showing you rims of statistics that prove migration to be a net benefit to the UK, to Europe, to USA, to everyone.

I can prove it on the personal level too.

Next time a cousin comes along who says ‘You know they do have a point on immigration’, do not accept it. Question him. We have gone along with this lie for so long, we handed the referendum on a platter to the likes of Farage.

Ask people: Why is immigration a problem for YOU? What have YOU experienced that makes immigration a legitimate problem?

Try it and you will discover a surprising thing. They have read a lot of headlines from Nazi-like rags like the Daily Express. They have heard other people complain. They have seen once a brown person on TV.

Enough of that. Enough of the bigotry and racism. Enough with the pretense that this is somehow legitimate. Did you miss a council house to an Afghan? Did you lose your job to a Pole? Where you handicapped by a Greek doctor? Did you have to wait at A&E while they pulled a knife out of a foreigner? Do people speak foreign languages in the bus? Do you see a lot of headlines about all those 70 million Turks on their way here?

No Sir, immigration is a fiction. Other people are supposedly affected and you are scared. You are a fat, tatooed English-man in Manchester, scared of brown people on TV. This is why you voted for Brexit. And we let you do it. Well done to you, now you can vote for Andy and complete the circle.

The left lost this game because it abandoned its core principles and internationalism. You have now Labour MPs talking about ‘restrictions’, taking about reducing immigrants, talking about ‘legitimate concerns’. Talking the UKIP talk. To hell with them.

You are scared of foreign people on TV enough to cut your own legs off via this idiocy of Brexit? You deserve what will happen to you, but do not expect me to cry along about your legitimate grievances. The time has come to make a stand. Yes, you are all racists.

enoch-powell

@iGlinavos

What would be worse than Labour losing the next election?

corbyn-poster

What would be worse than Labour losing the next election?

The answer to the above question is: Labour winning the next election.

I am no friend of the Tories, the right, Brexiteers. But I can tell you one thing, observing recent history teaches us that when the likes of Corbyn and his team take power, bad things happen.

The obvious parallel with Corbyn’s Labour Party is Greece’s Syriza. The hard left that we thought extinct is alive and kicking. Not only that, but in dire circumstances, like the Greek crisis, or the Brexit coming rupture, it is capable of taking power.

Why should we fear Corbyn and his brand of reactionary, resurrected hard left? Again, Greece is a good example. While the left says the right things and pretends to want the right things, it is both incapable of delivery on its promises and more often than not dishonest.

Behind the facade of interest for the common man often hide people hungry for power. Not only are they hungry for power and privilege, they are so sure of their own ‘goodness’, they will stop at nothing in taking for themselves what they think they are owed. Add to this a belief that the system is corrupt, that the traditional elite is illegitimate and the usual Marxist mumbo jumbo and you have the perfect mix: A group of people who will wreck havoc on the very people they claim to represent.

Tsipras and his comrades in Greece have demolished the western, modern character of the state (there was one, albeit flawed) in their year and a half in power. They have stolen and pillaged with the belief that they are better than anyone that came before them, purer, newer, more correct. When faced with the consequences of their hypocrisy they replied: The others have been doing this for 40 years, it is our turn.

To add insult to injury, they are incompetent even in their piracy. There is corruption and dodgy dealing everywhere, but there is a difference in level, extent and (if you want) finesse. There is a difference between an overweight gourmet and an obese glutton. I am not trying to excuse the ill-takings of previous administrations here. I am trying to show that the hard left does the same, more of it, worse of it, with less attempt at hiding it. It steals and robs and gloats about its moral superiority. Oh, and it cannot govern on a very basic level. It is staffed by people who are rabid ideologues, yet incompetent in administration. See Varoufakis as a great example.

Greece’s Syriza left is an abomination. Further more, it is undemocratic. We learned in practice what was predictable in theory, that people who disdain the institutions of the state, that see everything in terms of conspiracies and plots, have little respect for democracy itself. Ask Minister of Propaganda Pappas.

Corbyn’s ground-up, ‘movement’-led operation is staffed by people of the same mentality. Agitators cannot govern. They do not even want to, most of the time. Hopefully they do not get the chance.

The reaction of supporters of Corbyn’s win has shown what they are made of. There is a lot of the familiar, we won, you shut up attitude you get from the victorious Leavers (people of similar mind-frames). You do not want this newly energized mob coming anywhere near Downing Street.

What should the PLP do? It should defect to the LibDems and help build an anti-Brexit (or in any case anti hard-Brexit) coalition of centrists. What should sensible center left voters do? They should quit Labour and also join forces with the LibDems in opposing any plans for a catastrophic hard Brexit. Everything else can wait. The future of the Labour Party is irrelevant. The future of the country matters to all.

@iGlinavos

 

CJEU opens door to legal challenges to Euro-rescues in key decision

laiki

A key reason for the inability of claimants to successfully challenge programme conditionality and the resulting austerity inherent in euro-area rescue deals, has been the barrier between the actions of EU institutions and the international bodies that carried out the bailouts. The recent decision of the CJEU in Ledra Advertising breaks down that barrier with unpredictable consequences.

Full case-note is available here, email i.glinavos@westminster.ac.uk for comments

verablog

@iGlinavos

An evil plan would have been better than this

idiots-in-charge

When we (by this I mean fellow Remainers) tried to reflect on Brexit post the fateful referendum on 23 June, we assumed that Brexit was part of an evil plan.

Such evil plan consisted of a Thatcherite take-over under the guise of a far-right coup. We did not think for a second that Boris really wanted out of the EU, or that May was really that keen to rain fire on the economy just to appease UKIPers. We thought this is all a rouse, a clever way to gain power and finish the Thatcherite revolution that Blair ameliorated, and Cameron distorted through the self-imposed pain of austerity, while keeping the state living (albeit at a barely capable level).

Boris, May and the rest of the gang (we though) is out for a final push in the deregulatory, privatising revolution that will establish Britain as the new Reaganite America, the Land of Opportunity for the rich, corporates, foreign dudes with deep pockets.

We were wrong.

The reality it seems is far worse than a Thatcherite revolution. It could even be worse than a far-right takeover by the likes of that scumbag Farage.

The reality is this: Incompetence, lack of vision, lack of plan, lack of intelligence, coupled with utter bollocklessness.

This is it ladies and gentlemen. The famous Brexit government of Mrs May lacks all of the above and is unlikely to grow the necessary bits within a relevant timeframe.

What has the victorious Brexit government actually done after it took over from yellow dog Cameron? It has celebrated the Olympic successes (well deserved). It has gotten into arguments about secondary schools (less well deserved) and has given speeches. Lots of speeches. Brexit means, eh Brexit, in case you missed that one. It has not actually done anything pointing towards what Brexit will be like, when it will happen and how the economy, society and foreign policy will reallign as a result.

For a government that demonstrates this distinct lack of bollocks, a lot of it has appeared in public pronouncements. Sadly, Fox and Davis seem to understand little, and know less of what is involved and what they are doing. May in the meantime is being disgraced in international fora as the obvious realities (to everyone but 52% the electorate) hit home.

No discussions with Europe prior to Article 50 activation

No trade deals with Europeans before discussions are completed

No trade deals with anyone else before a trade deal with Europe

No buffers or interim arrangements while this goes down

The only thing in plentiful evidence is damage control. The Bank of England is trying to keep the economy breathing. The government is promising everyone money (without explaining how it will find it) to plug gaps that will emerge after the end of European supports. Projects are announced and promises made. This smells a little like Tsipras of Greece. Listen to May explaining how everything will turn out ok, and then listen to Tsipras’ speech yesterday in Thessaloniki. No cigar for spotting the commonalities.

Meanwhile, back in the City of London Financials are packing their bags. Why you ask? Because they are not stupid. Banks and financial institutions are not going to stick around to see whether this band of jokers will manage to maintain their EU passports (financial ones) in two years time. They will do two things (trust me on this): 1) They will relocate the bulk of their business to European capitals to be sure that there is no disruption in their business. 2) They will keep a presence in London from which to run international business in a ZERO-TAX environment, which the government will need to institute as a sweetener to keep everyone from fleeing as the excrement hits the fan post Article 50 activation (which cannot be delayed post 2017). It is a win-win for the industry. It is a sorry deal for Britain.

Also, the Europeans are not stupid either. Brexit presents them with a golden opportunity to snatch resources, business and human capital. You will see not only preferential conditions offered to the financial industry to relocate, but also incentives for businesses and staff to set up in Europe. For example look at universities. We have been losing market share (international students) to European institutions teaching in English for a while now. Brexit gives a unique opportunity to institutions to expand their English business-focused programmes and there is a strong incentive for well respected staff from the UK to relocate to Europe. And they will, in droves.

Brexit was a crap idea even before everyone realised the entire thesis for it was lies, mistakes and racism. The total utter lack of ability to make Brexit happen is even worse than the stupid idea to begin with. Even if you were positively inclined towards leaving the EU, for whatever reason, before this summer, you ought to have realised now what it really means. If you are still a staunch Brexiteer, I am sorry to pass judgment on you, but you are an idiot. Further, you are an idiot that deserves what will happen to you.

An evil plan would have been better than  this.

pinky-and-brain

@iGlinavos

Brexit and Prospects for Trade

hajo_cartoon_brexit

Nick Clegg, the ex-Lib Dem leader and former deputy-PM published this briefing paper recently that explains very well why the Brexit dream of trade deals is and will remain a dream. The paper was drafted with help of independent experts and is co-authored by Peter Sutherland, the founding Director-General of the World Trade Organisation. I am reproducing the report here in full as it needs to have the widest possible dissemination.

After you read it, think this: If the one remaining supposed benefit of Brexit (trade with the world) is fantasy, what is the reason for still going ahead with it?

WHAT DOES BREXIT MEAN FOR THE UK’S TRADING RELATIONSHIPS?

Introduction

Membership of the EU governs the trading relationships that we have with the rest of the world. Since long before the evolution of the Single Market in the 1990s, members of the EU have also been members of the European Union Customs Union. The Customs Union has two elements. First, it ensures there are no customs checks on goods crossing internal EU borders. Second, it means that all of its members adopt a ‘Common External Tariff’, charging the same rates of import duties on goods which are imported from countries outside the EU. This rule is designed to avoid third country goods entering the market and circulating freely having avoided the tariff rules set by the Union as a whole. The Customs Union also means that EU member states negotiate trade agreements collectively, through the EU institutions, rather than negotiating their own bilateral trade agreements with third countries. The advantage of this arrangement is that the EU negotiates as a bloc of 500 million consumers, and can use access to this vast market as leverage to secure better trading terms than could be delivered by any individual member state.

How is EU trade with the rest of the world organised?

The UK is currently party to more than 50 Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). While the EU itself remains our largest trading partner (accounting for 44% of UK exports in 2014), EU trade deals with third countries cover significant UK trading partners, including Switzerland, South Korea, and Canada (under ratification), as well as several Commonwealth countries and important emerging markets like Vietnam and Colombia. These agreements give British businesses preferential access to foreign markets while allowing reciprocal access to our market (i.e. waiving all or most of the duties normally required under the Common External Tariff and removing some non-tariff barriers). There are negotiations in progress with a further 67 countries, including the US, Japan and India. In addition to FTAs, which primarily aim to reduce tariff barriers, the EU has a large number of other trade-related agreements that address specific non-tariff barriers. For example, Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) with third countries allow goods to be inspected and declared in conformity with Single Market rules by approved bodies before they are exported to the EU. This saves time and expense as shipments do not need to be impounded and checked at the EU border. MRAs are in place with many countries which do not have a full FTA with the EU, including China, the US and Australia. Other types of agreement include sector-specific deals (for example covering aviation and airlines’ rights to fly between the EU and third countries), and Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), which grant preferential access to a number of developing economies – mainly former colonies of EU member states. When the UK leaves the EU, it will cease to be a party to these agreements. Only 15% of UK total trade is currently with countries that are neither members of the EU nor covered by an EU trade agreement which is either in force or under negotiation.

How is the government likely to proceed?

Our membership of the Customs Union is part and parcel of our membership of the EU; when we leave the EU we will leave the Customs Union. Given the consistency with which the Leave campaign argued for the freedom to strike our own trade deals, it seems unlikely that the government would seek to strike a deal with the EU which preserved our membership of the Customs Union, even if this was politically possible. At the time of writing, however, the government would not confirm one way or the other. Assuming that we leave the Customs Union when we leave the EU, the government will then presumably seek to strike an FTA with the EU, and to open trade talks with third countries as quickly as possible. Brexit Ministers have presented this as a relatively straightforward process. David Davis has asserted that within 2 years the UK will be able to negotiate a free trade area “massively larger than the EU”, including deals with China and the US. This scenario is almost certainly impossible. A number of unavoidable steps will need to be taken before the UK is in a position to strike its own trade deals, and these steps will take several years to complete. The reasons for this are explored below.

What needs to happen before the UK can negotiate its own trade deals?

The UK has traded as part of the EU for more than 40 years. As a consequence our laws are completely intertwined with the EU’s, we have virtually no trade negotiators of our own, and any potential trading partners are going to approach talks with a good deal of caution, at least in the short term. Each of the following steps needs to be completed before any new non-EU trade deal can be struck:

1. Confirmation that the UK will not seek to remain in the Customs Union Remaining in the Customs Union would avoid the need for an FTA with the EU, but would also prevent the UK from negotiating FTAs with other countries. Future trading partners will want confirmation that we are indeed free to negotiate our own trade deals before they commit to negotiations. To date, the government has not confirmed its position, and so prospective trade partners remain in the dark. It should be noted that leaving the Customs Union will impose significant extra burdens on British exporters (see below).

2. Agreement with the EU on opening talks Members of the EU Customs Union are not able to enter into their own discussions with third countries about bilateral trade agreements. Technically, the other 27 members of the EU will need to agree to the UK opening informal talks. While this is unlikely to be a stumbling block to the opening of discussions, the UK will not be able to conclude any agreement with a third country while it remains part of the Customs Union.

3. Clarity about the UK relationship with the EU 2 Any third country considering whether to enter into a new trade deal with the UK will most likely want to wait until there is clarity about the UK’s trading relationship with the EU. If the UK decides to seek to retain its membership of the Single Market (either in total through membership of the European Economic Area (EEA), or through a bespoke agreement for specific sectors), then third countries would most likely want to see the terms of any deal, including arrangements for onward re-export of goods to the EU, before developing their own position. Similarly, if we leave the Single Market and negotiate an FTA with the EU, then the nature of this FTA will materially change the calculations that any third country makes about signing a bilateral deal with the UK. Potential trading partners are therefore likely to choose to wait and see what emerges from these talks before committing to negotiations. This question is also vital for foreign investors because onward access to the rest of the European market is one of the central attractions for any business looking to invest in the UK. If we are going to be outside the Single Market, the value of preferential access to the UK’s market to a prospective investor will be diminished.

4. UK ‘schedules of commitments’ to be agreed at the World Trade Organisation The last step which the UK will need to take before it can open meaningful negotiations with third countries is to establish ‘schedules of commitments’ at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). These set out the default duties that will apply to imports into the UK of goods and services. The UK is a WTO member, but as a member of the EU we have been part of the EU’s Common External Tariff for 40 years. In order to trade independently we will need to notify the rest of the world of our maximum import tariffs for merchandise, and other commitments for services, for every category of goods and services. These ‘most favoured nation’ (MFN) terms apply to any country with which we don’t have a bespoke trade agreement of a kind permitted under WTO rules. Until the point at which the UK leaves the EU Customs Union it will be bound by the Common External Tariff and cannot establish its own commitments at the WTO. Once we are free to do so at the end of the article 50 talks, the UK may attempt to expedite the WTO process by simply replicating the existing EU schedule of commitments, rather than starting with a blank sheet of paper. However, this is unlikely to be plain sailing. The UK’s schedule of commitments has to be adopted by consensus among the 164 members of the WTO. Some WTO members may try to secure better access to the UK market than they were able to secure when the UK was part of the much larger EU bloc. Or they may choose to block on wholly unrelated grounds as a means to exert political or economic pressure on the UK. Even if the UK can agree its terms with the other WTO members, there may be domestic roadblocks to overcome. Freed from the Common External Tariff, various UK interest groups may want to challenge the UK’s existing MFN rates. For example, there may be sectors where the EU currently charges a zero tariff on imports where protectionist interests in the UK may want to increase the tariff. Or there may be sectors where the EU currently applies relatively high tariffs, for example on food products, where businesses and consumer groups in the UK may want to make imports cheaper. For example, Tate and Lyle have made it clear that they want to see lower import duties on cane sugar. The whole question of tariffs on agricultural imports will be connected to decisions on the new agricultural policy which the UK government will have to take in partnership with the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh administrations. Tariffs on beef, for example, which are currently very high, will both be highly contentious domestically and of significant interest to many EU and third countries who will want to see them lowered.

Agreeing an FTA with the EU

If the UK leaves the Customs Union and does not attempt to re-join the EEA, then a UKEU FTA is the next logical step. An FTA would seek to abolish or minimise tariff barriers, ease non-tariff barriers, and provide whatever preferential access proved negotiable to some areas of the Single Market. It should be noted that it is not possible to pick off individual member states and sign FTAs (for example with Germany, our biggest trading partner). As members of the EU Customs Union they are prohibited from signing bilateral deals. Some MPs who favour a quick unilateral Brexit have suggested that we could avoid the need to sign an FTA by simply dropping our own tariffs on imports from the EU to zero, and challenge the EU to reciprocate. This would not work, for three reasons:

– First, in the absence of a comprehensive FTA the EU is legally obliged under WTO rules to apply the Common External Tariff to the UK, resulting in immediate tariffs on goods ranging from 10% in the case of cars, to 12% for clothes, 21% for beer and spirits, and 29% for chocolate and other confectionary.

– Secondly, WTO ‘most favoured nation’ rules dictate that if we drop tariffs on EU imports to zero we will be obliged to do the same for every other country in the world. That would at a stroke undermine any prospect of securing favourable FTAs with third countries, as we would already have unilaterally removed our tariffs and would find countries unwilling to offer reciprocal tariff reductions – we would have squandered our negotiating capital.

– Finally, such a move would do nothing to address the non-tariff barriers which are harmonised for countries inside the Single Market, or the right to provide services, which will become a far more significant concern for British businesses once we leave the EU.

Any agreement on the UK’s future relationship with the EU will take time to negotiate. Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström has said that trade negotiations will be treated as separate from the article 50 process. The logic of this is that we will have to wait for 2 years for the end of the article 50 process and actually leave the EU before there can be a formal FTA negotiation; though in practice, and with EU goodwill, these discussions may be able to run in parallel to some degree. Once talks do begin we can expect them to last for several years. It is sometimes suggested that the EU’s Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada (CETA) offers a model that the UK might follow. There are at least four reasons to question this:

– First, the sheer time it would take. The Canada-EU negotiation was launched in 2007. Nine years later, the agreement has still to take effect.

– Second, CETA grants only limited freedom of services, with hundreds of pages devoted to Canadian and EU ‘carve outs’ from general liberalisation commitments. Yet the UK is heavily dependent on service exports – and especially financial services.

– Third, it would introduce all sorts of new red tape on British businesses, from ‘rules of origin’ requirements to intrusive customs checks (see below).

– Fourth, the tariff reductions it achieves are limited. Under CETA, Canadian exporters will face tariffs and other restrictions on scores of food and farm products. It will still face EU quotas on beef, for example, the elimination of which had been Canada’s single biggest negotiating objective.

An FTA would have to be agreed by all 27 member states, and it is extremely unlikely that every single country will give the UK an easy ride in the negotiations. While Leave campaigners have claimed that the UK is in a commanding position due to its overall trade deficit with the EU (in other words “they need us more than we need them”), in reality much of this trade deficit is accounted for by Germany. Many other member states buy more from the UK than they sell to us. The balance of negotiating leverage would be dictated by the fact that we represent only some 17% of total EU trade, while they represent about 44% of ours. Another time-consuming aspect of an FTA is the negotiations that will have to take place with domestic UK stakeholders, who will have diverse and often conflicting views and needs.

Finally, it is important to note that an EU FTA has to be ratified by the Westminster parliament, and more significantly by the parliaments of all 27 EU member states and by the European Parliament. This introduces further significant scope for delay. For all of these reasons it is probable that an EU FTA will take several years to put in place post-Brexit, stretching the time horizon for a new deal well into the 2020s, and introducing a protracted period of uncertainty for business. In the meantime, unless there is some interim arrangement for tariff-free access, the UK will need to impose tariffs on imports from the EU, for the reasons set out above. To do otherwise would squander any chance of negotiating meaningful FTAs with other countries, and would hamstring our own talks with the EU. This will raise the cost of imports from the EU, which will be borne by British consumers. According to some studies, the impact on UK food prices alone could be as much as 8%. It may be tempting to imagine that there is a way around these problems by putting in place a simple, ‘quick and dirty’ FTA covering essential sectors and leaving others for future negotiations. But this is not possible: the WTO rules require any FTA to be ‘comprehensive’, covering “substantially all” the trade between the transacting parties. It the deal failed to meet this threshold it would be ruled illegal and both EU and UK would revert to their MFN tariffs.

What are the pros and cons of leaving the EU Customs Union and signing an FTA with the EU?

Once the various obstacles explored here are overcome, the UK would have the ability to negotiate new trade deals with third countries which would not otherwise have been available as a member of the EU, and without having to balance our negotiating asks with those of other EU countries. However, the freedom which this implies is less than it might seem:

– On leaving the Customs Union, we will immediately lose access to FTAs which give UK business preferential access to more than 50 markets. Open Europe estimate that these trade deals mean that an additional 14% of UK trade on top of our trade with the EU takes place on preferential terms.

– We will also lose MRAs with 3rd countries (including major trading partners like the US) which allow products to be imported having been certified as being in conformity with EU rules and regulations. Assuming we leave the Single Market and continue to maintain similar regulatory frameworks, these agreements will need to be renegotiated in order to avoid the creation of non-tariff barriers for importers.

– Outside the Customs Union, all goods exported to and imported from the EU will need to be declared to the customs authorities. This will introduce delays, extra paperwork and costs for British businesses, including customs checks, value declarations, inspection certification, and advance cargo declarations. It will also make continental businesses less willing to include UK-produced goods in their supply chains.

– If we sign an FTA with the EU, or seek to adopt a Norway-style relationship, then British exporters will also have to comply with complex ‘rules of origin’. These rules require UK exporters to obtain proof of origin certificates from their national customs authorities to guarantee that the product (or an agreed percentage of the product) originates in the UK. Under an FTA, goods have to be shown to come from the country in question in order to benefit from the preferential tariffs agreed under the FTA, and to prevent third country imports from being passed off as domestic products. These rules are not applied to countries inside the EU Customs Union. The economic impact of rules of origin has been estimated to increase trade costs by between 4% and 15%. The impact would be particularly pronounced on companies with highly integrated cross-border supply chains like the British aerospace and automobile industries.

– Leaving the EU Customs Union will require the introduction of new customs controls (a “hard border”) between Northern Ireland and the Republic, in order to prevent goods from crossing the border in contravention of customs checks.

– Perhaps most importantly, the FTAs that the UK manages to negotiate once outside the EU will lack an advantage that the UK had as a member of the EU. Negotiating as part of a market of 500 million consumers gave us far greater leverage than we will ever have as a market of 65 million consumers. This is simply matter of arithmetic: third countries will find our market relatively less appealing and so will make fewer concessions in negotiations than they would do if we offered a larger market for their products. It is highly unlikely that we would be able to negotiate equivalent access to that which we currently enjoy as a member of the EU, let alone to improve on it.

Sequencing issues and the ‘WTO Option’

The process of arriving at an FTA with the EU is, as we have set out above, not straightforward. The 2-year time window provide by the Article 50 process is completely inadequate for the scale of the task, and unless the deadline can be extended or an interim arrangement can be put in place it seems inevitable that there will be a hiatus between the point at which we formally leave the EU and the point at which an EU FTA comes into force. It may be that a temporary interim arrangement which prolongs our membership of the Single Market and/or Customs Union could be sought, pending the conclusion of a comprehensive FTA. It is not clear whether such a deal would be politically achievable or legally compatible with article 50. Even if it was, there is still the danger that talks would collapse, or that the terms of any agreement would fail to be agreed by the EU-27. Any of these scenarios would see the UK leave the EU without any form of agreement in place. In these circumstances the UK would have to rely solely on to its basic schedule of commitments as agreed in the WTO (see above). This is fraught with dangers: we would face immediate tariffs on our exports to the EU, bureaucratic customs checks, loss of passporting rights for services, and substantial non-tariff barriers on goods and services, including the prospect of trying to certify our exports as being in conformity with EU rules without any recognised approved UK certification authority. It is, for example, hard to see how any significant animal and animal product exports to the continent could continue given that imports to the EU have to pass through designated Border Inspection Posts, of which there are precisely none on the other side of the Channel. This is a £1.5bn export trade which would disappear overnight. And the wider £18bn food and drink export industry would be hit by significant tariffs which would inevitably damage sales on the continent. For these reasons, the Treasury estimated the cost to UK economy of the ‘WTO option’ as 7.5% of GDP after 15 years.

The conclusion is that there is no viable ‘WTO only’ solution. An interim trade deal therefore has to be in place at the point at which the 2-year Article 50 time limit expires.

For the reasons set out above and in Brexit Challenge #1, we believe that an interim deal based on the EEA / Norway approach, which would preserve our membership of the Single Market while allowing us to strike our own trade deals outside the EU Customs Union, would be the least bad option. Even the ‘Norway option’ carries serious downsides though: a major loss of sovereignty as we are cut out of the setting of Single Market rules, coupled with the introduction of new bureaucratic burdens for British exporters who will have to comply with complex ‘rules of origin’ to show where every element of their products was manufactured. However, there are no obviously better choices on offer.

The questions that need to be answered 1. Is it government policy that the UK will leave the EU Customs Union? 2. Is it the government’s intention to seek membership of the Single Market?  3. Will the government come clean about the increase in red tape which awaits exporters who want to continue selling their goods into the EU post-Brexit? 4. How will the UK negotiate new WTO schedules of commitments in a reasonable timescale, given that this will require consensus of all WTO members, some of whom are likely to object? 5. How long does the government expect it will take to negotiate a Free Trade Agreement with the EU? Does it believe it can be achieved in the 2-year time frame of the article 50 negotiations? 6. What is the government’s plan to prevent a highly damaging hiatus between the end of the article 50 process and the commencement of an EU FTA? 7. What will the government do to protect UK interests against the risk that ratification of the EU FTA is blocked by EU Member States? 8. Will the government confirm its determination to avoid the so-called ‘WTO option’, given its unworkability and the Treasury’s estimate that it would reduce GDP by some 7.5%? 9. How will the government address the fact that third countries cannot enter into meaningful negotiations with the UK until the UK’s future relationship with the EU is clear and its WTO schedule of concessions agreed? What will happen to UK export markets during the hiatus in between? 10.What is the government’s estimate of the increase in food prices that would result from applying EU tariff levels to imports from the EU and losing access to preferential food imports under EU agreements with third countries? 11. Does the government intend to pursue an interim agreement which preserves the UK’s access to the Single Market while a comprehensive FTA is negotiated? 12.How many external trade negotiators and consultants does the government intend to recruit over the next two years, and at what projected cost?

________

reproduced by @iGlinavos

How to incarcerate the nation’s media owners for 60 hours

adeies ktirio

One way to get rid of a tiresome free press is to instigate a great big purge following a (conveniently incompetent) failed coup. Another, perhaps less dramatic way, is to shut down media outlets that the government dislikes under some pretext, like broadcast licencing. While Turkey went for option a, Greece, having a less ambitious (or perhaps competent) leadership group is going for option b. Greece indeed has a unique ability to take international standards and mutate them onto 1960s style farcical episodes in political manipulation. The latest example of modernisation through a somersault back through history is the saga of TV licences.

Greece’s radio and TV broadcasting domain was never under secure legal footing, since non-state controlled media started springing up. The first ones were city run radio stations (by non-administration aligned local governments in 1987). These were followed by the land re-transmission of international satellite channels. Nationwide private channels launched in 1989 after the law was changed to allow their operation. There was never a public auction of broadcast licences and pretty much everyone in the early 1990s attempted to launch a TV channel at least on a local level. Most only broadcast back then (and even now) very old National Geographic documentaries, leading to my long held aversion to penguins.

Syriza, in its Stalinist fervor to ‘clean’ up the ‘systemic’ ‘corrupt’ ‘oligarchic’ media, that also happen not to support it, commissioned a ‘study’ from the University of Florence that decided exactly what the commissioner wanted to hear. That the Greek media market could only support 4 nationwide TV channels on top of the (lots of) ERT-run state ones that no-one of course watches. I do have to admit though that we watched quite a few (bad) French movies on ERT2 over our holiday. Now, one would say that what the market can hold is determined by the market itself, not the government. One could also say that private TV stations are businesses, if their creditors want to pull the plug they can do so. It is not up to the government to decide their financial viability. One also has not met “Propagandaminister” Pappas.

Mr Pappas engineered the organisation of an auction for these 4 licences which will reduce the number of national private television stations from seven to four. Existing broadcasters who don’t win a license are required to go off the air within three months, the government has said. The government is running itself the auction, despite the constitutionally mandated role of an independent (currently defunct) National Broadcasting Commission in such matters. But the constitutionality of the auction is not the only problem. The way in which the auction is conducted is farcical. One is used to closed bids in these types of processes and to strict confidentiality. After all the idea is to maximise revenue for the state. While however the bids are normally submitted through a process of sealed envelopes or online in a staged process, the Greek auction is taking place by locking up under police guard in a disused government building the media executives bidding for licences and their entire support staff for days! As the Washington Post reports, gathered in a government building in the Greek capital, executives from eight companies started the auction early Tuesday, with offers beginning at €3 million ($3,341,250) and increasing in increments of €500,000.

Apart from this being very funny to watch for a government with a deep hatred of ‘non-party’ media and journalists, it is highly irregular. The whole process in fact reeks of illegality and is almost certain to be demolished in court actions. While the 60 hour show was going on, the doors of the building were plastered with interim injunctions requested by the participants in the process against each other, and everyone outside against the government and the participants in various combinations. The Conseil d’Etat is also in the process of deciding on a challenge to the constitutionality of the process.

Lets summarise what is wrong with this. First of all, who gets national broadcast licences cannot be determined by the government in a democratic state (especially one as political, vindictive and disrespectful of the free press as this one). Secondly, the constitution requires that a process is followed, and the government itself says that additional thematic and regional licences will be determined by a different process involving the independent regulator. So why not this auction? You will find not a single lawyer who agrees with the process. It is simply unconstitutional for government to decide the number of licences. Thirdly, no opposition party agrees with this process. The chief opposition says they will repeal the law and the auction as soon as they come into power. Fourth, none of the participants agree with the process, and all have complained in courts already trying to block it. Fifth, technology and market reality has nothing to do with the 4 licences limit. Sixth, the only criterion being the money offered is nonsensical for a public tender process on broadcast media. If money is the only thing that matters porn channels could get all 4 licences. That would be fun, but not necessarily in the public interest. Seventh, all participants are on an equal footing, new entrants to the media field alongside those with 27 years of investment and experience. This cannot be right, especially when the plan is to shutter the stations that fail to obtain a licence at the cost of hundreds of jobs, never mind the irreversible blow to freedom of the press.

I was opposed to the move of Samaras to close ERT in 2013 in a show of force and commitment to austerity policies. I had said at the time that black screens in the place of stations people grew up with is not a hallmark of a democratic state. Imagine the opposite situation created by Syriza now, black screens in the place of the private channels who sprung up in 1989 to defend and establish a free press. I am sorry to say that 2016 is way worse than 2013 both in terms of symbolism and in content. After all, we never watched ERT, while we all watch SKAI, MEGA and the rest of them.

mega-channel-logo-old

@iGlinavos

You may find this offensive 

Warning: You may find the following offensive, so if you are the type to take offense easily, press back on your browser now.


OK,  you are still here. Good stuff. This post is about religion and our attitudes to it and how you can dislike Islamic dress codes for women without being a fascist.

First let’s get some things straight. I am an atheist. I deeply believe that all religious belief is misguided and false. I understand the psychological reasons for such beliefs, their sociological, anthropological and political meaning. This does not make them true in my view. I also view most expressions of religious beliefs,  especially as regards dress and diet, as personal preferences, not otherwordly imperatives.

However, I am not Richard Dawkins and I will not try and convince you of the error of your ways (not in this post anyway). What I want to do here is to discuss the burkini ban.

I think French cities that banned the burkini have not expressed well their desire to protect the values of the Republic. A ban was not a very good idea, plus it was sloppily defended in court.

Yet I dislike the burkini and similar rules that affect women. Why do I dislike them?

I believe that things like dress codes and acceptance of religious based preferences are leaking out of the religious domain into general culture creating an environment of self censorship that threatens the secular basis of western society.

Let me try and explain this. In our effort not to offend and accommodate other’s preferences we refrain from doing certain things. This is only normal in polite society. When I have friends who do not eat pork, I will serve something else. When I am dining with vegans I will keep the chicken nuggets safe in the freezer.

Should I also advise my daughters to dress discreetly in the tube so as not to ‘offend’? Should I encourage my supermarket to stock only halal meat to ease complexity in supply chains? 

Of course not, you will say. This is silly scaremongering by the right wing tabloids. No one is going to force us to eat halal chickens or avoid miniskirts in the tube. Alright, I agree.

But the idea of the burkini still makes me uncomfortable. Why do women wear it? OK,  anyone can wear whatever they want on the beach.  Sure. But why this? Is it an expression of religious belief? An outward expression of religion is contrary to the constitution in France. As such the burkini is like the burka or massive crosses on the chest and would be banned in public places.

If it is not an expression of belief why do women chose to wear it? Is it to be modest? What does that mean? Does it mean not to excite the men? In that case it is a form of self censorship that is demeaning for women.

Should pretty girls dress modestly so that lonely young boys do not get impure thoughts and need a change of sheets in the morning?  We do not give a damn what the boys do or think, is the answer.

But giving a coating of religion to the self censorship makes such capitulation somehow defensible? I think not.

I think a healthy secular modern society needs to confront preferences even when they come dressed up as religion. The burkini ban may be a rough way to start a discussion, but it’s a start.

@iGlinavos