How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
Digga said:
Yes, you're right. IIRC was £500k from 2010 to 2014.
That's part and parcel of the issue; major capital projects for SMEs need time to develop. A small firm spending (as little as) £10k plus might be looking at decisions over a number of years before they pull the trigger. Shifting allowances up and down like a w
e's drawers is nonsense - a perfect example of short-termism.
It has been even more random than that, since 2008 it has gone from £50k to £100k, then down to £25k, then up to £250k, then £500k and then down to £200k.That's part and parcel of the issue; major capital projects for SMEs need time to develop. A small firm spending (as little as) £10k plus might be looking at decisions over a number of years before they pull the trigger. Shifting allowances up and down like a w
e's drawers is nonsense - a perfect example of short-termism.The £200k is apparently "permanent" or at least it is until they randomly decide to change it.
wisbech said:
An SME that needs to be incentivised to focus on productivity probably isn’t going to be much good at the productivity focus if it is just tax accounting driven....
It's cash flow. By definition, very, very few SMEs have sufficient cash for expansion.It's not always straightforward, and hard to explain to someone who's not 'been there': https://youtu.be/JNa-KLhUfU4?t=1m31s
This productivity issue would be helped if there were some better analysis. At the moment we get a number...
"The UK amount of happiness is 3.5, it should be 5! Be 1.5 more happy!"
Which sectors are performing badly, which regions? Is this low paid manual work, or precision manufacture? Do hipsters stroking their beards in Shoreditch count as negative? It this an issue of education, skills, poor equipment, lack of automation?
It's hard not to suspect that the same people calling for us to preserve low grade heavy steel workers and hand picked organic olives are the same ones who then complain about low productivity.
"The UK amount of happiness is 3.5, it should be 5! Be 1.5 more happy!"
Which sectors are performing badly, which regions? Is this low paid manual work, or precision manufacture? Do hipsters stroking their beards in Shoreditch count as negative? It this an issue of education, skills, poor equipment, lack of automation?
It's hard not to suspect that the same people calling for us to preserve low grade heavy steel workers and hand picked organic olives are the same ones who then complain about low productivity.
Tuna said:
It this an issue of education, skills, poor equipment, lack of automation?
Part of it is simply that we work longer hours than for example France, which obviously reduces productivity per hour. The remainder seems to be lack of capital investment (hence the pressure for increased allowances) and according to some authorities the fact that it's difficult for potential staff to move to wherever they can make the best use of their skills.Education is related to productivity, but mainly at the 3 Rs level. From then on there are diminishing returns.
Tuna said:
This productivity issue would be helped if there were some better analysis. At the moment we get a number...
"The UK amount of happiness is 3.5, it should be 5! Be 1.5 more happy!"
Which sectors are performing badly, which regions? Is this low paid manual work, or precision manufacture? Do hipsters stroking their beards in Shoreditch count as negative? It this an issue of education, skills, poor equipment, lack of automation?
It's hard not to suspect that the same people calling for us to preserve low grade heavy steel workers and hand picked organic olives are the same ones who then complain about low productivity.
Exactly this. "The UK amount of happiness is 3.5, it should be 5! Be 1.5 more happy!"
Which sectors are performing badly, which regions? Is this low paid manual work, or precision manufacture? Do hipsters stroking their beards in Shoreditch count as negative? It this an issue of education, skills, poor equipment, lack of automation?
It's hard not to suspect that the same people calling for us to preserve low grade heavy steel workers and hand picked organic olives are the same ones who then complain about low productivity.
Labour's moaning about productivity is literally hilarious. As though Corbers would make anything more efficient!
Mrr T said:
That puts me in mind of this.
Mrr T said:
RTE article said:
In a meeting with the Cypriot Minister for Foreign Affairs Ioannis Kasoulides, the Irish ambassador was told that "the UK must do more on the financial settlement - it's a matter of trust".
The Irish embassy in Slovakia reported that government ministers there were insistent that the financial settlement issue was "very important", and that EU citizens in the UK must have their rights protected, not just for four years "but for 40 years".
Genuine questions: Is the EU position that it is a matter of trust we should agree the financial settlement before commencing trade talks? In other words, are they expecting us to hand over billions on the premise that we should trust them that they will do a decent trade deal? The Irish embassy in Slovakia reported that government ministers there were insistent that the financial settlement issue was "very important", and that EU citizens in the UK must have their rights protected, not just for four years "but for 40 years".
I note the importance of securing the position EU citizens located in the UK (I agree with this) - but is the EU position that UK citizens in the EU should not be similarly protected?
andymadmak said:
Mrr T said:
RTE article said:
In a meeting with the Cypriot Minister for Foreign Affairs Ioannis Kasoulides, the Irish ambassador was told that "the UK must do more on the financial settlement - it's a matter of trust".
The Irish embassy in Slovakia reported that government ministers there were insistent that the financial settlement issue was "very important", and that EU citizens in the UK must have their rights protected, not just for four years "but for 40 years".
Genuine questions: Is the EU position that it is a matter of trust we should agree the financial settlement before commencing trade talks? In other words, are they expecting us to hand over billions on the premise that we should trust them that they will do a decent trade deal? The Irish embassy in Slovakia reported that government ministers there were insistent that the financial settlement issue was "very important", and that EU citizens in the UK must have their rights protected, not just for four years "but for 40 years".
I note the importance of securing the position EU citizens located in the UK (I agree with this) - but is the EU position that UK citizens in the EU should not be similarly protected?
I'm sure a few posters on here will set them straight.
andymadmak said:
Genuine questions: Is the EU position that it is a matter of trust we should agree the financial settlement before commencing trade talks? In other words, are they expecting us to hand over billions on the premise that we should trust them that they will do a decent trade deal?
I note the importance of securing the position EU citizens located in the UK (I agree with this) - but is the EU position that UK citizens in the EU should not be similarly protected?
We are not buying a trade deal.I note the importance of securing the position EU citizens located in the UK (I agree with this) - but is the EU position that UK citizens in the EU should not be similarly protected?
PurpleMoonlight said:
andymadmak said:
Genuine questions: Is the EU position that it is a matter of trust we should agree the financial settlement before commencing trade talks? In other words, are they expecting us to hand over billions on the premise that we should trust them that they will do a decent trade deal?
I note the importance of securing the position EU citizens located in the UK (I agree with this) - but is the EU position that UK citizens in the EU should not be similarly protected?
We are not buying a trade deal.I note the importance of securing the position EU citizens located in the UK (I agree with this) - but is the EU position that UK citizens in the EU should not be similarly protected?
After 40 years, this should not be a conflict. If it is, why should the UK bother paying anything beyond its minimal legal obligations (whatever they may be) until it can be assured that a sensible deal is going to be on the table? If the UK citizen rights in the EU are going to be trashed, why bother to negotiate about EU citizens rights in the UK?
andymadmak said:
Mrr T said:
RTE article said:
In a meeting with the Cypriot Minister for Foreign Affairs Ioannis Kasoulides, the Irish ambassador was told that "the UK must do more on the financial settlement - it's a matter of trust".
The Irish embassy in Slovakia reported that government ministers there were insistent that the financial settlement issue was "very important", and that EU citizens in the UK must have their rights protected, not just for four years "but for 40 years".
Genuine questions: Is the EU position that it is a matter of trust we should agree the financial settlement before commencing trade talks? In other words, are they expecting us to hand over billions on the premise that we should trust them that they will do a decent trade deal? The Irish embassy in Slovakia reported that government ministers there were insistent that the financial settlement issue was "very important", and that EU citizens in the UK must have their rights protected, not just for four years "but for 40 years".
I note the importance of securing the position EU citizens located in the UK (I agree with this) - but is the EU position that UK citizens in the EU should not be similarly protected?
1. That’s how the rEU want to conduct the negotiations. This was agreed by the Council. So the UK either lumps it or walks away and see if the Council will make changes.
2. The rEU has already offered similar protections to UK citizens in the rEU. The only open issue on the topic is the rEU is still insisting on ECJ jurisdiction.
PurpleMoonlight said:
sidicks said:
So we should only pay our minimum legal obligations as part of the ‘divorce’ bill?
What is the value of those legal obligation, less the value of our share of the assets?
The payment will be decided politically.What is the value of those legal obligation, less the value of our share of the assets?
Don't know. Don't care.
Thats literally the only thing that will happen. We will never see a breakdown, never know exactly what its for, just write a stonking great cheque.
PurpleMoonlight said:
sidicks said:
So we should only pay our minimum legal obligations as part of the ‘divorce’ bill?
What is the value of those legal obligation, less the value of our share of the assets?
The payment will be decided politically.What is the value of those legal obligation, less the value of our share of the assets?
Don't know. Don't care.
p1stonhead said:
Exactly. All of these people saying 'how much is our share of the assets!?' are just delusional. May will take a knee and pony up the cash to get things moving or she wont (she will).
Thats literally the only thing that will happen. We will never see a breakdown, never know exactly what its for, just write a stonking great cheque.
Why would we pay any more than our minimum legal obligation?Thats literally the only thing that will happen. We will never see a breakdown, never know exactly what its for, just write a stonking great cheque.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff