Lies,damned lies...

The latest maverick speech by B Johnson has renewed the focus on the internal Tory leadership struggles (because he did not 'authorise' the speech,and excited liberals think it is a way of reining in T May from making a really Remainy speech about the EU this week). It has also revived the Great Lie Hoohah. Johnson still claims we will not have to pay a sum amounting to £350m a week - the thing that stings Remainers most of all. The Guardian today mostly went with the leadership challenge issue

Various denunciations of the speech have ensued, with the usual internal stuff enhanced by including one from a statistician (wow!):

In a letter to to the foreign secretary, Norgrove [' the head of the UK Statistics Authority',] slapped down the use of the £350m figure, arguing: “This confuses gross and net contributions. It also assumes that payments currently made to the UK by the EU, including, for example, for the support of agriculture and scientific research, will not be paid by the UK government when we leave.”... It added: “It is a clear misuse of official statistics.”

Same old same old then. An opinion piece by the inevitable M. D'Ancona further rubbishes Johnson as a yesterday's man and mentions the Great Lie issue:

the fact [is] that the UK’s net payment to Brussels is much less (the excellent Full Fact site estimates that the actual figure is around £250m).

A mere £250m then! Peanuts. The 'excellent Full Fact site' is good though, and actually goes on with this:

In 2016 the UK government paid £13.1 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4.5 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £8.6 billion.
Each year the UK gets an instant discount on its contributions to the EU—the ‘rebate’—worth almost £4 billion last year. Without it the UK would have been liable for £17 billion in contributions...

The Treasury and ONS both publish figures on the subject, but they're slightly different. The ONS also publishes other figures on contributions to EU institutions which don't include all our payments or receipts, which complicates matters....

We can be pretty sure about how much cash we put in, but it’s far harder to be sure about how much, if anything, comes back in economic benefits....The £156 million figure [a report in the Independent, apparently] is calculated after the rebate has been applied and after the ‘public sector receipts’ for that year have been subtracted. The £350 million accounted for neither of these things....Using these newer figures the amount we sent to the EU, after the rebate but before any money spent in the UK [NB accordingto EU policy, not UK policy] is counted, is £234 million per week. 

Incidentally, there is also an interesting graph showing trends over time: 

 

There is no discussion of the upward trend -- no doubt it is partly due at least to new memebers joining, all of whom have been net recipients? 

Back to days of wind and piss

The UK has released 5 'position papers' and another in draft form was leaked to el Grunadi on immigration policy in advance of the great debate on the  Reform Bill going on in Parliament.There are some really straw-clutching hopes that various Remainers will scupper the bill, advanced inevitably by the increasingly desperate-to-be-loved Nick Watt of Newsnight, a man who has schoolboy conjuring tricks that no-one wants to see.

The BBC seemed to have a plethora of 'why we should be worried' stories ,mostly relating to yesterday's news about a tighter immigration policy. An amazing spokesperson for the leisure and tourism business on Newsnight managed to argue both that the industry will be terminally scuppered if they can't get cheap labour with excess skills (like languages), and that her industry was innovative,dynamic, and an increasing source of interesting work for British people. 

Meanwhile the Guridan reveals to day that one of the major employers for EU nationals is -- domestic households [in my print edition -- couldn't find it on the web] . So it's a threat to cheap strawberries AND cheap domestic servants. God -- the horror!

The contents of the draft immigration papers seem pretty mild really, not really dissimilar to provisions for non-EU countries, and the Graun has to beef it all up with stories of symbolically hurt EU nationals promising to leave. The mild tone is repeated today in the EU's own position papers obtained by the Rudigan. Point one, 'likely to inflame Brexiters' is that the brand names of European produce be preserved -- French burgundy, Greek feta cheese and the like. How ghastly if we bought inauthentic alternatives by mistake!

Other tough demands include: 'Ensuring that any goods in transit on Brexit day would be subject to the jurisdiction of the European court of justice...A warning to the government that it must guarantee EU data protection standards on classified EU documents...Asking [sic] Britain not to discriminate against EU companies which are carrying out state-funded infrastructure projects'

The most problematic is the Irish border issue -- 'Brussels intends to say the UK should shoulder responsibility for the border'. As it has been a central issue in British politics now and then for about 250 years and has spawned really nasty violence, this is surely something that requires no EU nudging. Was the EU remotely interested before?

The impression I got was that the heat had gone from the issue, despite the routine exchange of insults about unrealistic thinking. The Graun and the BBC seem to have borrowed tabloid strategies to up their readership by repeating these pointless insults to 'inflame' the public.

In general, the mood seems more businesslike:

The plans had a mixed reception in Brussels. One source said there was anger and real frustration that the UK is going for a “hardcore domestic immigration policy”.
But many did not share this view. One usually outspoken politician, who closely follows Brexit, declined to comment, deeming the issue “a matter for the UK as a third [non-EU] country”. The issue came up at an internal meeting in the European parliament, where “there was a general sense that it was the UK’s sovereign decision to put in place a migration policy”, a source said.

Capitalism opts for business as usual -- quelle surprise!

Movin' up the Rankin'

More signs of Garitidian promise with a really quite good article by J Rankin on the disputes between the UK and EU  delegates in the discussions about the 'divorce bill'. The two positions are laid out succinctly:

Tensions boiled over in Brussels as the EU accused Britain of failing to reveal its hand on the financial settlement. UK officials hit back at the EU, saying some claims for money had no legal basis.... [a UK source said] “The UK has made it clear that it finds the EU position paper on the money unsatisfactory and nobody would sign a cheque on the basis of the commission’s paper,” said a source familiar with the UK’s position. “It is also clear that they have an issue with the current view around town that ‘serious’ means agreeing with the commission. The UK doesn’t agree with it.”

OK, tensions 'boiling over' is a bit dramatic for the continued willy waving,  but it is a good sound article. It would be good to hear exactly what the dispute about the legality of the claims amounts to but that might be excessive for a short article and Guardianistas might not get to the end, at least without constant references to emotions.

More please. 

PS. She seems rather less prominent these days (October), alas

My dear! Spam!! Tinned peaches!!

A favourite theme in the Garudian today, and another contribution to the great mystery of what luvvies want to remain for exactly.

It's an old concern though -- the poor luvs won't have nice fresh fruit and veg all the year round at reasonable prices thanks to European labour being ripped off.

This piece leads with the worst possibilities: 

Hello spam and tinned peaches: is Britain facing a Brexit food crisis?

The British foodie revolution of the last few decades was made possible by the wealth of exotic produce from the EU. Is the country now sleepwalking into food insecurity – or are predictions of catastrophe as overhyped as the millennium bug?

Well, I think we should be told -- and we are, relying on things like the price of --yes -- strawberries:

Today, we eat two-and-a-half times more strawberries and raspberries than in 1996, mostly homegrown. Without EU labour, we would be forced to import from Dutch and Belgian strawberry-growers or Portuguese raspberry-farmers, sending the price of a punnet soaring by an estimated 50%, and making the elusive five-a-day target even more distant for many.

 And 

When bad Spanish weather caused a shortage of courgettes and lettuce last February, many saw it as a taste of the homegrown disruption to come.

Dear God no! Not courgettes and lettuce too! It will be fish as well as veg since 

most of the oily fish and shellfish caught in British waters are exported to the continent, while we would almost certainly continue to import white fish from non-EU countries such as Iceland and Norway....But snobbery about traditional working-class seaside staples plays a part, too, as does ignorance over how to treat the delicacies that are shipped off to the continent.

Some ambiguity if not downright confusion with fish then. The article is fairly well balanced overall, though, even noting that

A rediscovery of locally sourced produce could compensate for economic harm elsewhere, while at the same time reducing food miles and perhaps addressing the sometimes appalling labour standards that have marred the industry at home and abroad.

But -- the very culture is threatened,dears:

“In the long run, you might see the arrival of a different sort of food culture: served by automated picking and packing and much more mechanised manufacturing,” says Ian Wright of the Food and Drink Federation. “It’s difficult to believe all of that can be done and retain the food culture we currently have.”...“Churchillian romantics who see Brexit as an opportunity to relive imperial or wartime days go silent if the culinary era of tinned peaches and spam is mentioned,” says Tim Lang, a professor of food policy at City university. “It was Europeanisation which coincided with – and, arguably, facilitated – the flowering of modern UK culinary culture.”

Smug BBC git N Watts once slyly confided in E Davis on Newsnight his hope that mechanization will solve the problem AND punish all those stroppy Leavers in rural areas, but

Some hope that robots will provide a solution to Brexit-induced labour shortages on farms, but Newenham is sceptical. “We are still at least 10 years away from a reliable robotic harvesting system,” he says.

We might end up with this:

[Brexit] could make wages here go ridiculous, and everything has to be passed on.

Heaven forbid!!

Guardian separates news and comment!!

My old print edition contained two headlines on Brexit both of which show distinct promise for the future of Graun journalism. Both show that views are quotes from EU persons, not just 'news' as before:

Barnier voices concern over pace of Brexit talks

(replaced with EU's Brexit negotiator tells UK to speed up and 'get serious' on the web version). The print article is nearly good at outlining the different positions too, although the web version stresses EU views rather more.

The second headline is a bit more sly (in the old-fashioned sense) reporting that 

Brexit threatens existing trade accords with US, warn MPs

(on  page 12 -- and it doesn't seem to have made it to the web). At least the 'news' is a (vaguely attributed) quote again, although it is not until you get to the second para that you realize that it comes from the infamous lobby group Open Britain (which says it 'will fight against the hard, destructive and potentially chaotic Brexit path the Government has chosen') -- so not really news then.

The opinion piece is by C Grant of the Centre for European Reform,  'an independent think-tank that is dedicated to promoting a reform agenda within the European Union' according to the Guardian. The Centre's own website says it is 'a think-tank devoted to making the European Union work better and strengthening its role in the world. The CER is pro-European but not uncritical' which makes is rather less independent perhaps: its list of corporate donors is also interesting as a comment on its 'independence'.

The Grant piece concludes with the shock news for Grudianistas that the absence of a deal 'would be bad for the EU (it would get no British money)'.The article also estimates the British annual bill at 'roughly' £10bn or 'roughly' £192 million a week, presumably net, and a couple of billion larger than earlier estimates in another blog -- but what's £2bn a year between friends?

Spelling it out even more clearly for Remainers who think the whole debate is about 'European culture', there would be a serious 'hole' in the EU budget, without continued UK payment until 2019--20, while continuing the payments would be 'a great relief to the European Commission...Many [governments] will find it hard to compromise on money: Brexit means that net contributors will have to pay more into the EU budget, and net recipients are likely to receive less'  

Grant sees this inability to compromise as a reason for obduracy over continuing EU demands for loot, still described absurdly as the 'divorce bill'. For the UK though it must be a Big bargaining chip! Big! as D Trump might say.

PS More encouraging signs today (30th) from the same journalist -- J Rankin. Not only are D Davis's criticisms of the inflexibility of the EU position quoted, they even lead the (small) article -- properly attributed to DD.

Disaster for Brexit as EU continues to use its own laws

New policy papers from the UK Government are appearing this week, to the mixed feelings of Remainers. They are unhappy because the papers seem to demonstrate that the UK really is leaving, despite constant hopes of second referendums and the like. On the other hand, there are always straws to clutch  and triumphant 'told you sos' as actual policies seem to differ from campaign promises (surprise!). As usual, there is a complete refusal or inability to see any difference between 'position papers' and actual final policy on the part of the EU -- what they say simply IS what will happen.

El Guradion led my early printed edition with the news that the  'European court of justice would influence UK law after Brexit' because there will be 'a range of options for resolving future disputes between Britain and the EU – over the rules of any new trade deal, for example – some of which are likely to involve European judges, or the application of ECJ case law'. ECJ law will obviously cover the EU side of things and they will want compliance with UK law -- whether they get it unamended and how much will be open to negotiation I assume will follow. Nothing really to see here then... Thank goodness the headline writer helps us to bring it home:

Theresa May accused of U-turn over EU court’s role after Brexit  

Accused by Remainer MPs that is -- how newsworthy. The actual copy is more moderated as usual:

Wednesday’s paper is likely to point to precedents for international dispute resolution that do not involve a direct role for the Luxembourg court, including disputes between Switzerland and the EU, which are settled through a series of joint committees – though the EU is unhappy with that arrangement, and would like a more judicial approach.

Further attempts to point out the implications for those who might otherwise be uninterested follows in a shorter story inside. As an example of the constant 'banging on' we were promised, we were warned that  'Parents in the UK would find it “much more difficult” to recover abducted children [ie abducted to EU countries?] if Britain fails to persuade the EU to continue legal cooperation after Brexit, according to government officials detailing their latest plans'. Loads of 'ifs' as usual and a nice pretty abstract case for Guardian mums and dads to worry about. Would a nasty EU, still in a fit of pique, really refuse to cooperate in cases of abducted children? How this might compare to cases involving abduction to other countries is not discussed.

After the 'human interest' stuff, the article goes on to make the more general point that 'The (UK position paper) also confirmed that a reciprocal deal would involve foreign judges being able to exert authority over British citizens, despite Theresa May’s past insistence that Brexit would exclude Britain from the rulings of foreign judges'  No reservations or nuances here compared to the longer piece.

The link takes us to another longer story (a different version to the first one) about cross-border cases:

In the latest in a series of policy papers that seek to blur the edges of hard Brexit, the government argues that for the smooth settlement of cross-border disputes it is necessary that foreign judgments sometimes apply to individuals and businesses in the UK...A judgment obtained in one country can be recognised and enforced in another,” said a government source speaking anonymously before the paper’s publication on Tuesday...But the distinction may prove a narrow one for individuals [who?] who could yet find themselves subject to the rulings of judges in France or Germany long after Britain has left the EU.'

Again, hardly news. Isn't this a good thing for the Guaridian though, especially as the Insitute of Directors, no less,

has welcomed the push from government to ensure that the forthcoming paper not only addresses ongoing civil and commercial disputes for businesses operating across the EU but also lays out principles for future judicial cooperation between both sides.

 

 

Guardian manages to hit side of bus

The size of the UK payment to the EU is back in the news with EU leaks of the size of the 'divorce bill' ( sometimes posing as 'news' as usual). 'Moderates' have explained that £36m or whatever is only reasonable since that is more or less what the UK would be paying anyway, especially if there is a transition period. But that has highlighted the vexed issue of the size of the annual payment again.

The careful path between the issues is charted by the Guardian. It is news because the Government has decided to publish its Brexit policy. Apart from that it is all the usual stuff, with 'textual shifters' providing readers with the right steer:

Businesses have long been pressing for more clarity on the UK’s proposals for replacing the customs union, which allows easy transfer of goods across the borders of EU member states. [of course it also blocks easy transfer for the rest of the world]


The Irish taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, said last week that rather than pressing the EU for special status for Northern Ireland post-Brexit, it would be better if the entire UK remained inside a customs union with Europe.[no doubt he thinks lots of other things would also be  better for Northern Ireland -- like unification?]

Then on to the issue of finance.
 

Günther Oettinger, the EU’s budget commissioner, told Germany’s Bild newspaper in remarks published on Monday that Britain would remain bound by some previous commitments and would “therefore have to transfer funds to Brussels at least until 2020”.

The Treasury still forecasts payments to the EU until 2020 of a totalling [sic]  £31bn, although it said there were no assumptions about whether they would continue. These include a contribution of £9.9bn next year, £10.5bn in £2019 and £10.4bn in 2020.

The Treasury figures also showed the UK’s budget contribution to the EU has fallen to £8.1bn, its lowest level for five years. The sum is the equivalent to £156m a week, which is less than half the £350m a week that was promised by the Vote Leave campaign. The UK’s gross contribution without factoring in its rebate or payments from EU institutions was about £16.9bn, which still only [!!] amounted to £325m a week.

Horribly close to the figure on the side of the bus after all then, even for the lowest payment for 5 years. ? Quick! We need another textual shifter to reassure our readers...

Chuka Umunna, a Labour MP and supporter of Open Britain, said it showed “you shouldn’t believe everything you read on the side of a bus or that you hear from Boris Johnson’s mouth”.