that didn't happen and here we are,
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
It was originally a constitution. When the EU realised that it would fail various constitutions it renamed the constitution a treaty (not requiring constitutions) and pushed it through.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567804/Giscard-EU-Treaty-is-the-constitution-rewritten.html
which the Irish govt had to ratify - could have used their Veto. The EU were a little underhand here I admit but it does appear to be shifting the blame from a national govt to the EU.
I hold both the Irish and the British governments of the time liable too, but our own governments are unable to create laws that bind future governments in domestic law.
By colluding with the EU we bind our future governments and leave Brexit as the only alternative.
but we did collude - so DTA's response was valid
"All of which I believe we would have a veto on. So as long as we don't want It, it doesn't happen"
if the Veto is removed then that is another question but its not the case presently.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
As I said to r-u-s-x I think round 2 will confirm one way or the other.
We are yet to officially sign off on the divorce bill. The EU are likely to try and insist upon that before proceeding, if we are smart we will not.
It shouldnt take long to see where things are heading.
But this is the point - what preferential treatment?
We want out. It is in the best interest of all we continue to trade. The EU already trades with countries as far afield as North American and Asia.
Where is the preferential treatment?
Put it this way, if we never joined, but traded the whole time, would it be an issue now?
And my response was to show that the EU has a clear history of bending around awkward things like democracy when it gets in the way of their agenda.
If we have a veto on the suggestions as presented, I have no doubt whatsoever that they will be presented in a manner that avoids the veto - just like the "Treaty" avoided the legal need for referendums.
The EU will give us a Trade deal and have always said they will - we want Canada +++ which would then be preferential. When I am talking about a trade deal its on this basis that we are able to continue to offer services (financial) throughout Europe as this is our goal.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
All they've said is they want us to use an existing model, rather than have a bespoke one. But the Ukrainian model already sets a precedence of single market access including services, with no FOM or binds on RoW trade.
I kind of get you point but the Treaty did not avoid Government ratification though - and at the point where any veto powers are removed would be the time to refute DTAs comment that "if we don't want it to happen it wont happen"
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
I certainly hope thats where we end up - but it doesnt explain us getting preferential treatment. And it doesnt explain the idea others will follow suit, or would benefit from doing so.
That is the whole point Ive been trying to get to.
As GB says, there is already a deal in place thats the same as what we would want (*yet to look into myself), or as you say Canada is a close proxy to what we would want. There are already existing relationships close to/the same as what we would like.
The only difference is we are leaving the club to take up that position.
These options are already there, and nobody else has gone for them. Why? Because its of no benefit. If we take it, that doesnt change.
The EU works by restricting certain things to within the group they believe this benefits all their members. They want to trade with other nations and have already said they will offer this to the UK freely. These other nations would have wanted more access but an agreement could not have been reached. The UK want additional elements currently only open to the members of the EU to which the EU don't want to give up this is the preferential part.
I have given a few reasons why others would wish to follow, you may not agree that others will follow suit but this is the position the EU negotiators have said they will go into negotiations with so our opinion is a little moot.
Canada is not a close proxy as it does not involve services which is the key thing we require so far the EU have kept this within the Bloc. Reading up on the Ukraine there is an agreement but no deal has currently been signed as the Ukraine must achieve a number of political goals. As far as I can see the DCFTA deals that have been agreed are a step towards membership - Also it appears we would be closely bound to EU law which leave the tricky question for Brexiters and Soverignty http://www.independent.co.uk/news/l...it-deal-no-one-is-talking-about-a7895861.html
What we want does not exist and has never been offered by the EU, we want more than others are getting and so far the EU have not been willing to offer this.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
It seems we want a combination of existing deals. I really dont see that as preferential, nor do I see even a bespoke deal as such so long as it is mutually beneficial - which of course it would need to be to even go through.
I think the whole notion of us getting preferred treatment and others following is a nonsense, to be quite honest, though I do agree our opinions really are moot.
I think the whole notion of us getting preferred treatment and others following is a nonsense, to be quite honest, though I do agree our opinions really are moot.
The plan for taxation has been made clear. Article 116 of the Lisbon "Treaty" allows the EU to turn a unanimous voting issue into a majority one if it feels there is a market distortion.
They are planning to use Luxembourg (and possibly Ireland) as the gap into which they insert the Article 116 crowbar. Once the power to veto taxation is removed there will be nothing but a majority vote standing in the way of harmonised taxation.
As for the EU army, again, public statements have made it clear that the EU intends to continually skirt the line of what would require a unanimous vote. It's not hard (especially given their form) to imagine a gradual growth of powers over 10 years to the point where the only thing that remains on a unanimous vote is whether to cal the EU Army an EU army or just call it a collaboration of forces under single control.
I can't find more recent data, but in 2013 our trade deficit with the EU in financial services was £16B. Let's go big on that, assume incredible growth since then and call it £20B now. Let's assume a really, really hefty tariff on those services of 20% - 20% will never happen but let's just play the silly game as the EU appear to be so fond of doing. That means the top end cost of tariffs (assume we can't avoid them and Lloyds tell me we can) will be £4B.
Last time I checked, UK GDP was well over £1.9T. So that means that the net cost of tariffs on financial services to the EU will be a whopping 0.2% of our GDP. That's assuming we're not able to brass plate our way in or gain any increase in exports of services to other countries around the world.
Agreed, it defiantly does allow a change but it all relies on the complicity of the national government so I maintain that they should be getting the majority of the ire.
I am sure there are in depth studies into the impact that will back up or refute your numbers, but with regards to negotiations it certainly appears to me that we are desperately pushing for a bespoke deal including services while the EU are offering a Trade deal. I would hope a real impact study is there somewhere and would explain our propensity to bend over.
When May and Corbyn were arguing about PFI, or PF2, PS2 or XBOX One or whatever they call this bullsh1t financing now, May's defence was "well *gurn* it was Labour who signed 1/3rd of the contracts."
Yeah, Blair's Labour. Here's what Corbyn was saying when we had Blair's government:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo010717/halltext/10717h02.htm
Jeremy Corbyn, 17 Jul 2001 :
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. A report by Professor Allyson Pollock compares the cost of repayments for several hospitals, pre and post PFI: for Norfolk and Norwich hospital, it was 0.7 per cent. pre PFI and 18.9 per cent. post PFI, for Swindon and Marlborough trust, it was 3.3 per cent. and 14.3 per cent. respectively, and for Calderdale Healthcare, 3 per cent. and 11.3 per cent., and so forth.
I welcome the debate, because it gives us a chance to challenge the ethos that the use of PFI finance in public services is the manna from heaven, money from GHod-knows-where that will give us the shining new building on the hill. A good, new hospital can be built, apparently at no cost, under PFI. However, the reality is that we are storing up an enormous charge for future generations; if there is a problem in financing those hospitals, the first call, the absolute priority of the debtors, is the private finance, not the patients.
Either projects are financed by the public sector in the normal, traditional, cheaper and more secure way, or the vultures of private enterprise banks are brought in—a rip-off at public expense—and given an absolute guarantee of income.
It is time that those promoting PFI realised that public attitudes have changed. I was brought up on a diet of publicity that told me that public investment in industry and anything that was publicly owned and publicly run was intrinsically dangerous, probably imported from the Soviet Union and a threat to freedom, health and democracy. I remember the campaign, "Say no to nationalisation". Those who are even older than I am will remember Mr. Cube.
On a cold morning in March, I was outside Euston station in the company of the general secretaries of RMT, ASLEF and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association—very nice people, fine folk—handing out leaflets saying, "Bring back the track. Take Railtrack into public ownership". The leaflets pointed out that Railtrack had been given away to its shareholders by the Conservative Government at much less than the capital value of the land it owned, never mind all the infrastructure. Is that a rip-off or what? We were collecting signatures from people who wanted Railtrack to be brought back into public ownership. That is nationalisation if you like—a word that people do not like to use these days. There was a queue across the concourse to sign the petition and the staff asked us if there was anything we could do about it. I told them there was nothing I could do about it because people wanted to sign the petition to secure the jobs of staff and to ensure that Railtrack was properly run. We must think again about the ethos of privatisation.
__________________________
And then this morning in the news:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...oot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office
Taxpayers will be forced to hand over nearly £200bn to contractors under private finance deals for at least 25 years, according to a report by Whitehall’s spending watchdog.
In the wake of the collapse of public service provider Carillion, the National Audit Office found little evidence that government investment in more than 700 existing public-private projects has delivered financial benefits.
The cost of privately financing public projects can be 40% higher than relying solely upon government money, auditors found.
They also disclosed that the government has a £35m equity stake in one of Carillion’s major projects – public money that is now at risk.
There are currently 716 operational private finance deals with a capital value of around £60bn, the report said.
Annual charges for these deals amounted to £10.3bn in 2016-17. Even if no new deals are entered into, future charges that continue until the 2040s amount to £199bn, it said – money that could finance the entire NHS for 20 months.
The findings come hours after Theresa May claimed the government was merely a “customer” of Carillion, which collapsed on Monday following involvement in dozens of major public projects.
The prime minister also told the House of Commons that the government could claw back some of the bonuses that have been paid to Carillion’s executives, such as £1.5m dished out in 2016 to the former chief executive Richard Howson.
Employees on most private sector contracts held by the failed construction company will continue to be paid, it emerged on Wednesday, as the government urged banks to deal “swiftly and sympathetically” with small firms caught up in the crisis.
Unions reported cases of workers being laid off across the country as a number of construction projects were stopped, with no certainty over when work would restart.
Following publication of Thursday’s report, Meg Hillier – the chair of the public accounts committee, launched a scathing critique of the private finance deals.
“After 25 years of PFI, there is still little evidence that it delivers enough benefit to offset the additional costs of borrowing money privately,” she said. “Many local bodies are now shackled to inflexible PFI contracts that are exorbitantly expensive to change.
“I am concerned that [the] treasury has relaunched PFI under new branding, without doing anything about most of its underlying problems. We need more investment in our schools and hospitals but if we get the contracts wrong, taxpayers pay the price,” she said.
Auditors examined PFI deals drawn up over 25 years under Tory and Labour governments, as well PF2, introduced as improved public-private financing deals set up under David Cameron’s premiership.
They did not comment on the merits of the PFI and PF2 systems, which raised funds to build schools, hospitals and roads in return for regular payments.
But the report found that overall cash spending on private finance deals is higher than publicly financed alternatives.
An analysis of costs for building one group of schools “found costs are around 40% higher than the costs of a project financed by government borrowing,” auditors said.
Whitehall has no means of measuring whether PFIs are value for money, the report said. “There is still a lack of data available on the benefits of private finance procurement.”
Under PF2, the government will gain a smaller proportion of profit if deals are refinanced – a cut from 50% of gains to 33% – which could cost taxpayers millions of pounds.
This was done, the report said, to keep PF2 projects off the balance sheet. “HM treasury acknowledges that these changes could have a moderate negative impact on [value for money],” the report said.
The report examined six PF2 deals to finance schools and hospitals. It disclosed that the then chancellor George Osborne considered bringing historic PFI debt on to the government’s books in 2012, but rejected this, partly because of a risk to the UK’s AAA credit rating.
Months later, Britain’s rating was downgraded to AA1 following an economic slump.
The report, which was written before the collapse of Carillion, said the government has a equity stake in the delayed £350m Midland Metropolitan Hospital in Smethwick. “The government holds 10% of the equity and Carillion, the primary contractor, holds the other 50%.”
Research by auditors found that private investors who charge public bodies for insurance on each project, have not passed on 15 years of lower insurance costs.
“Public bodies are paying more for insurance than the actual cost, providing a gain to [private] investors,” it said.
The report also reveals that bringing the largest PFI deals back in to public ownership would cost more than £2bn with other costs on top – on average an additional 23% on top of the outstanding debt of these deals.
Labour and the unions have called for an end to risky public-private deals. Jeremy Corbyn said: “These corporations need to be shown the door. We need our public services provided by public employees with a public service ethos and a strong public oversight.”
Rehana Azam, the national secretary of the GMB union said the report showed PFI to be “a catastrophic waste of taxpayers’ money”.
She added: “Carillion is just the latest example of how bad things go wrong when public services are left in the hand of profit-hungry companies.”
A government spokesman said vital infrastructure projects like roads, schools and hospitals are paid for by PFI and PF2, stimulating the economy and creating jobs.
“We have reformed how we manage PFI contracts, and through PF2 have created a model which improves transparency and offers better value for money,” he said.
“Taxpayer money is protected through PFI and PF2 as the risks of construction and long-term maintenance of a project are transferred to the private sector.”
Yeah, Blair's Labour. Here's what Corbyn was saying when we had Blair's government:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo010717/halltext/10717h02.htm
Jeremy Corbyn, 17 Jul 2001 :
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. A report by Professor Allyson Pollock compares the cost of repayments for several hospitals, pre and post PFI: for Norfolk and Norwich hospital, it was 0.7 per cent. pre PFI and 18.9 per cent. post PFI, for Swindon and Marlborough trust, it was 3.3 per cent. and 14.3 per cent. respectively, and for Calderdale Healthcare, 3 per cent. and 11.3 per cent., and so forth.
I welcome the debate, because it gives us a chance to challenge the ethos that the use of PFI finance in public services is the manna from heaven, money from GHod-knows-where that will give us the shining new building on the hill. A good, new hospital can be built, apparently at no cost, under PFI. However, the reality is that we are storing up an enormous charge for future generations; if there is a problem in financing those hospitals, the first call, the absolute priority of the debtors, is the private finance, not the patients.
Either projects are financed by the public sector in the normal, traditional, cheaper and more secure way, or the vultures of private enterprise banks are brought in—a rip-off at public expense—and given an absolute guarantee of income.
It is time that those promoting PFI realised that public attitudes have changed. I was brought up on a diet of publicity that told me that public investment in industry and anything that was publicly owned and publicly run was intrinsically dangerous, probably imported from the Soviet Union and a threat to freedom, health and democracy. I remember the campaign, "Say no to nationalisation". Those who are even older than I am will remember Mr. Cube.
On a cold morning in March, I was outside Euston station in the company of the general secretaries of RMT, ASLEF and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association—very nice people, fine folk—handing out leaflets saying, "Bring back the track. Take Railtrack into public ownership". The leaflets pointed out that Railtrack had been given away to its shareholders by the Conservative Government at much less than the capital value of the land it owned, never mind all the infrastructure. Is that a rip-off or what? We were collecting signatures from people who wanted Railtrack to be brought back into public ownership. That is nationalisation if you like—a word that people do not like to use these days. There was a queue across the concourse to sign the petition and the staff asked us if there was anything we could do about it. I told them there was nothing I could do about it because people wanted to sign the petition to secure the jobs of staff and to ensure that Railtrack was properly run. We must think again about the ethos of privatisation.
__________________________
And then this morning in the news:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...oot-200bn-bill-for-pfi-contracts-audit-office
Taxpayers will be forced to hand over nearly £200bn to contractors under private finance deals for at least 25 years, according to a report by Whitehall’s spending watchdog.
In the wake of the collapse of public service provider Carillion, the National Audit Office found little evidence that government investment in more than 700 existing public-private projects has delivered financial benefits.
The cost of privately financing public projects can be 40% higher than relying solely upon government money, auditors found.
They also disclosed that the government has a £35m equity stake in one of Carillion’s major projects – public money that is now at risk.
There are currently 716 operational private finance deals with a capital value of around £60bn, the report said.
Annual charges for these deals amounted to £10.3bn in 2016-17. Even if no new deals are entered into, future charges that continue until the 2040s amount to £199bn, it said – money that could finance the entire NHS for 20 months.
The findings come hours after Theresa May claimed the government was merely a “customer” of Carillion, which collapsed on Monday following involvement in dozens of major public projects.
The prime minister also told the House of Commons that the government could claw back some of the bonuses that have been paid to Carillion’s executives, such as £1.5m dished out in 2016 to the former chief executive Richard Howson.
Employees on most private sector contracts held by the failed construction company will continue to be paid, it emerged on Wednesday, as the government urged banks to deal “swiftly and sympathetically” with small firms caught up in the crisis.
Unions reported cases of workers being laid off across the country as a number of construction projects were stopped, with no certainty over when work would restart.
Following publication of Thursday’s report, Meg Hillier – the chair of the public accounts committee, launched a scathing critique of the private finance deals.
“After 25 years of PFI, there is still little evidence that it delivers enough benefit to offset the additional costs of borrowing money privately,” she said. “Many local bodies are now shackled to inflexible PFI contracts that are exorbitantly expensive to change.
“I am concerned that [the] treasury has relaunched PFI under new branding, without doing anything about most of its underlying problems. We need more investment in our schools and hospitals but if we get the contracts wrong, taxpayers pay the price,” she said.
Auditors examined PFI deals drawn up over 25 years under Tory and Labour governments, as well PF2, introduced as improved public-private financing deals set up under David Cameron’s premiership.
They did not comment on the merits of the PFI and PF2 systems, which raised funds to build schools, hospitals and roads in return for regular payments.
But the report found that overall cash spending on private finance deals is higher than publicly financed alternatives.
An analysis of costs for building one group of schools “found costs are around 40% higher than the costs of a project financed by government borrowing,” auditors said.
Whitehall has no means of measuring whether PFIs are value for money, the report said. “There is still a lack of data available on the benefits of private finance procurement.”
Under PF2, the government will gain a smaller proportion of profit if deals are refinanced – a cut from 50% of gains to 33% – which could cost taxpayers millions of pounds.
This was done, the report said, to keep PF2 projects off the balance sheet. “HM treasury acknowledges that these changes could have a moderate negative impact on [value for money],” the report said.
The report examined six PF2 deals to finance schools and hospitals. It disclosed that the then chancellor George Osborne considered bringing historic PFI debt on to the government’s books in 2012, but rejected this, partly because of a risk to the UK’s AAA credit rating.
Months later, Britain’s rating was downgraded to AA1 following an economic slump.
The report, which was written before the collapse of Carillion, said the government has a equity stake in the delayed £350m Midland Metropolitan Hospital in Smethwick. “The government holds 10% of the equity and Carillion, the primary contractor, holds the other 50%.”
Research by auditors found that private investors who charge public bodies for insurance on each project, have not passed on 15 years of lower insurance costs.
“Public bodies are paying more for insurance than the actual cost, providing a gain to [private] investors,” it said.
The report also reveals that bringing the largest PFI deals back in to public ownership would cost more than £2bn with other costs on top – on average an additional 23% on top of the outstanding debt of these deals.
Labour and the unions have called for an end to risky public-private deals. Jeremy Corbyn said: “These corporations need to be shown the door. We need our public services provided by public employees with a public service ethos and a strong public oversight.”
Rehana Azam, the national secretary of the GMB union said the report showed PFI to be “a catastrophic waste of taxpayers’ money”.
She added: “Carillion is just the latest example of how bad things go wrong when public services are left in the hand of profit-hungry companies.”
A government spokesman said vital infrastructure projects like roads, schools and hospitals are paid for by PFI and PF2, stimulating the economy and creating jobs.
“We have reformed how we manage PFI contracts, and through PF2 have created a model which improves transparency and offers better value for money,” he said.
“Taxpayer money is protected through PFI and PF2 as the risks of construction and long-term maintenance of a project are transferred to the private sector.”
Not with 116. That's specifically what the article is designed to avoid.
A mere majority of other EU members would and could wipe their veto out.
SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
They tried. Time ticked on. It was a choice of hard WTO Brexit or play by EU rules. This was never going to be a negotiation, what made you think it would be? The best negotiator in the world would not have broken the very simple deadlock.
Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app