Gransnet forums

News & politics

Unintended consequences of brexit

(1000 Posts)
varian Wed 09-May-18 18:40:33

An executive at Airbus says that work on the Galileo sat-nav system will have to be moved out of the UK if the company wins a key contract. Galileo has become something of a political football in Brexit talks. The EU says it would have to stop the UK from accessing the encrypted part of the network when it leaves next year.

Colin Paynter, the company's UK managing director, said that EU rules required Airbus to transfer all work to its factories in France and Germany. Mr Paynter was speaking at a Commons committee hearing on Exiting the European Union on Wednesday.

The system was conceived to give Europe its own satellite-navigation capability - independent of US GPS - for use in telecommunications, commercial applications, by emergency services and the military. Airbus is currently bidding for the renewal of a contract covering the Galileo ground control segment - potentially worth about 200 million euros. This work is currently run out of Portsmouth.

About 100 people are currently employed by Airbus on these services. Most would likely have to move to where the work is, but it's possible some could be reallocated to other projects.

"One of the conditions in that bid documentation from the European Space Agency is that all work has to be led by an EU-based company by March '19," Mr Paynter told the committee. Effectively that means that for Airbus to bid and win that work, we will effectively novate (move) all of the work from the UK to our factories in France and Germany on day one of that contract."

Welshwife Wed 09-May-18 18:47:55

The thing I wondered when I read the report earlier today was what will happen to the U.K. military if there is no agreement with European military?
The USA are intending to switch off the GPS system for the military which is another reason Galileo was being developed.

mostlyharmless Wed 09-May-18 19:52:02

Peace in Europe for seventy years would have seemed an impossible aim in the late 1940s. It was probably the most important reason for the founding of the EU. We’ve had Peace for so long it’s just taken for granted now.

^The European Union isn't just about economics and trade, and never was.

It’s about peace, and a community of nations of our continent working together for the benefit and protection of its citizens.

We are now rebuffing our allies in Europe, telling them by our actions and words that the precious, remarkable and successful post-war project to find peace and security on our continent isn't as important to us as it is to them^
From Reasons2Remain

yggdrasil Wed 09-May-18 20:41:05

And now we are having to stand with Europe rather than the USA because of the danger to world peace caused by Trump.

There was an item on Channel 4 News about fundamentalist evangelist groups who are genuinely looking forward to total war in the Middle East the destruction of Jerusalem, and the second coming of Christ.
These are all Trump supporters, and expect him to bring it about.

GillT57 Wed 09-May-18 21:14:26

This is like living in some dystopian nightmare. We are turning our backs on Europe, risking thousands of jobs, our security and for what? A bloody blue passport? Meanwhile the maniacal Trump, with absolutely no experience of office, of diplomacy, of how the world works in fact, has decided to endanger precarious peace chiefly because Obama signed the agreement. He is a fantasist and a liar, and is very dangerous. If this was a drama series, I would stop watching it as I would consider it too far fetched. Two stupid arrogant men have the power to put my family's future careers, future and safety at risk. David Cameron, who has just walked away from the havoc he wreaked by calling an ill considered referendum that asked a question that very few were qualified to answer, properly, and Trump who is so stupid that his own Father gave him the capital for a business because nobody would employ the idiot. And idiot he is, you have to be a special kind of stupid to go broke running a casino.
But, no doubt someone will come along, and tell me it will all be ok, 'the people have spoken' and it is 'the will of the people' that we are left, with no satnav system, reliant on the whim of the stupid one in The White House. Still, I am sure that the Airbus staff will be thrilled to have their blue passports.

MaizieD Wed 09-May-18 22:07:56

But it's going to be fine because we're going to develop our own GPS system... hmm

I don't think the NHS is going to see much of that £350 million per week...

mostlyharmless Wed 09-May-18 22:10:43

If we even have an NHS in the future......

Deedaa Wed 09-May-18 22:17:05

There are so many unintended consequences particularly when it comes to science and medicine. None of our "negotiators" seem to have a clue about the implications.

Welshwife Wed 09-May-18 22:22:16

They do not want to listen to the people working in the various field either.

grumppa Wed 09-May-18 22:23:42

The NHS is a victim of its own success in that we are living longer. The solution lies not in playing around with taxation but in excluding from the NHS everyone over the age of 70. The rich will pay through the nose for private treatment while the rest of us wither away. This will be welcomed by our children and our children's children as we will cease to be a burden on the state and on them.

This may sound a bit Swiftian (Irish famine - eat the babies) but Stalin and Mao would have approved - a brave new world costing only a few million expendable lives.

MaizieD Wed 09-May-18 22:31:16

but Stalin and Mao would have approved

Interesting that you cite two communist leaders when it is the far right who are enabling your scenario hmm

GillT57 Wed 09-May-18 22:35:41

grumppa I thought it was Malthus?

mostlyharmless Wed 09-May-18 22:39:15

And introduce Assisted dying.
Fewer pensions to pay, no bed blockers, children inherit sooner (if we have anything to leave).
Win, Win!

MaizieD Thu 10-May-18 19:21:38

The government has just published the report of the House of Lords EU Committee on food prices and availability post Brexit.

Its conclusions will be no surprise to Remainers

If an agreement cannot be negotiated, Brexit is likely to result in an average tariff on food imports of 22%. While this would not equate to a 22% increase in food prices for consumers, there can be no doubt that prices paid at the checkout would rise. To counteract this the Government could cut tariffs on all food imports, EU and non-EU, but this would pose a serious risk of undermining UK food producers who could not compete on price.

At least as significant as tariffs are the non-tariff barriers that may result from Brexit. The Government remains confident that it can secure an agreement that would allow ‘frictionless’ imports of food from the EU to continue, but it is unclear how that would be possible outside of the customs union. Any such agreement would be likely to require the UK to mirror all EU standards and regulations; a condition the UK Government may find politically difficult to accept. If no agreement is reached, and food imports from the EU are subject to the same customs and border checks as non-EU imports, the UK does not have the staff, IT systems or physical infrastructure to meet that increased demand. Any resulting delays could choke the UK’s ports and threaten the availability of some food products for UK consumers. The Government’s proposed alternative is to allow EU imports through with no, or very few, checks: this raises safety concerns as well as questions over how customs charges would be processed.

As well as securing a deal with the EU that will allow continued tariff-free, frictionless imports of food, the Government must also secure agreements with the non-EU countries from which the UK currently imports food as part of EU trade agreements. 40 such agreements are currently in place, covering 56 countries and accounting for more than 11% of UK food imports. The Government’s belief that most can be simply and easily ‘rolled over’ is not shared by those who have given evidence to previous EU Committee inquiries.

This contrast between Government confidence and industry concerns is striking, and reflects the tone of the evidence to this inquiry more broadly. The Government may not be worried about the potential for Brexit to impact on the price and availability of food, but the representatives of the food and farming industry, importers, port authorities and consumer organisations were vocal in their concerns.

EU food imports cannot easily be replaced by either producing more in the UK or importing more from non-EU countries. UK self-sufficiency has been declining for the past 30 years, and reversing that would require financial incentives, investment in new technology and skills, and continued access to the EU workforce (at least in the short term). It would also take time and, given the restrictions of landscape and climate, there are some foods that could not be grown here. We heard no evidence that non-EU imports could increase significantly; 20% of the UK’s food already comes from outside the EU and there do not seem to be many other likely sources of supply.

varian Thu 10-May-18 19:27:50

This is very alarming and in sharp contrast to the repeated assertion by JRM and the other extreme brexiteers that post-brexit food prices will come down, benefiting poor folk most!

Some poor folk might well have believed them and voted to leave because of that. I wonder how bad it would have to get for a lot of them to realise they were cruelly deceived.

Allygran1 Thu 10-May-18 20:18:43

Unintended consequences of Brexit. We have not Brexited yet so how do you know what the unintended consequences are?

Allygran1 Thu 10-May-18 20:33:22
These four economist in favour of free Trade have produced a book: Alternative Brexit Economic Analysis
There are many pro Brexit economist these are just four:
Roger Bootle, Julian Jessop (his father taught me Economics and introduced me to Das Capital amongst other things) Dr Gerard Lyons and Pressor Patrick Minford.
It is a good read and offers a balance to the discussion.

mostlyharmless Thu 10-May-18 20:59:48

I just can’t see why Rees-Mogg and others think food will be cheaper post Brexit. All that “fresh” food on expensive, time consuming journeys from Commonwealth countries on the other side of the world, from America with its very dubious food treatments and environmental practices etc.
How much more convenient is a quick ferry ride from the Netherlands, or France.

Allygran1 Thu 10-May-18 21:14:22

The reason it is cheap is a concern to British farmers and the NFU: Article below:The NFU has previously complained that the differences in standards are unfair to UK farmers, for example claiming that half of the pork market went overseas when sow pens and tethering were banned.

However the scale of the problem has been revealed by a Guardian analysis of the most recent full-trade figures available, for 2007. It found that:

• More than half of bacon sold in the UK comes from the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Italy, where farmers can keep sows in smaller pens and for longer periods.

• 43% of other pork products come from Denmark, Germany the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, where the same poorer conditions on pig farms are allowed.

• One quarter of poultry sold in the UK comes from seven European countries and Brazil, which allow higher stocking of chickens and do not force farmers to use more comfortable dry bedding.

• 3% of beef is imported from Brazil, where practices including hot branding, castration and dehorning of cattle can be carried out without anaesthetic. Products from those major importers accounted for about one quarter of all meat sold, by weight, in the UK that year. Total imports of pork, poultry, beef and veal made up one third of all meat sales, and it is likely that some of the remaining imports came from smaller trading countries also with lower standards.

Concerns have also been raised about imports of lamb and mutton from Australia, where mulesing – cutting away the woolly skin around the buttocks to prevent pests breeding – is common.

So it would seem that standards in the EU are not all that they might be. Hence the cheap food.

GillT57 Thu 10-May-18 21:33:46

I don't understand why food would be cheaper out of Europe, other than the possible abolition of tarrifs? I understand there is also a theoretical problem with Scotland and Wales post Brexit. As I understand it, farming subsidies are devolved, and Gove has stated that there will be no replacement for the EU subsidies received by English farmers. This could potentially lead to Scottish and Welsh dairy farmers, for example, undercutting English dairy farmers as their respective assemblies will be able to subsidise them.

GillT57 Thu 10-May-18 21:40:53

It is for the welfare reasons that you state Allygran, that I only buy pork produced locally to where I live. I do not know why welfare standards are not common to other countries within EU. I never buy meat produced outside of UK but appreciate i am fortunate to be able to do so. For this reason I am very uneasy about importation of any foods from USA where the food production standards are so low that EU prohibits most imports from there.

Allygran1 Thu 10-May-18 22:30:09

Like you GillT57 I buy my meat from a local farm shop it's more expensive but we know where it comes from. The shop deals only with local poultry producers and what he doesn't produce himself he buys from other local producers.

It strikes me reading about the conditions in the EU that our farmers have been disadvantaged and so have we as consumers for a very long time. Importing food from the USA is something I will need to check not sure about their standards. The Eu I think but I will check prohibit imports from America because of tariffs rather than standards of production. But I will get some details and come back.

We have to be cautious. I am shocked at what I have read about the food coming in from the EU or should I say EEA.
Like you we are fortunate to be able to have access to British produced and killed, meat and poultry, but the majority don't.

Allygran1 Thu 10-May-18 23:38:38

It seems that cheap food supplied through supermarkets is largely produced with the assistance of hormones( a wide range) plus antibiotics.

The Government is seeking to establish the food source and the amounts of these drugs used to rear animals and poultry and even farmed fish like salmon.

At the moment it is a voluntary disclosure with targets set for reduction. As yet these supermarkets have not disclosed:
Tesco, Sainsbury's, Morrisons, Lidl and Aldi do not at present publish data on antibiotic use.

Lidl said: "We are committed to meeting sector targets and fully support the disclosure of antibiotic usage, however we believe that it is important to support suppliers through the development of a centralised, industry-wide approach."

Morrisons said it was "open-minded" about publishing data.

Tesco said it had a comprehensive plan to reduce antibiotic use, "including measuring and publishing progress against our commitments".

The British Retail Consortium, which represents the big supermarkets, said all its members advocated the responsible use of antibiotics and were working to reduce usage without any detrimental effect on animal welfare.

It's director of food policy, Andrew Opie, said: "All our members are collaborating with their suppliers to determine what data is available and the best way to communicate progress."

On the USA food ban it seems from what I have read that as with meat, poultry and some farmed fish supplied to us from the EU through these well known outlets above, the USA meat, poultry and farmed fish is reared using the same drugs. This is the source of the ban.

However, it seems that this might be an out of the frying pan and into the fire job. Status quo, all large producers of meat, poultry and farmed fish do the same thing. It seems it's just the amounts of the stuff that varies.

I don't think Brexit will change anything at all here, unless we put controls on imports that we can't do now with the EU.
That might have to be done. We are stuck with the rubbish coming from the EU. It makes you wonder why obesity is a's growth hormones in the burgers and it seems everything else....oooh

I should say Marks and Spencers have disclosed, although it is now known what is in their meat,etc It helps not one jot it is still there.

GillT57 Fri 11-May-18 09:27:15

I think you will find Allygran that the EU does not permit the importation of certain meat products from USA due to things such as the notorious chlorine washed chicken, these processes are not permitted with in the EU. But whether or not we can personally afford to buy from reputable sources is not the issue here. I buy very little meat anyway. My concern, and of many, is just where our food will be coming from after leaving the EU. We are by no stretch of the imagination able to produce all we need, and despite Chris Grayling's much mocked assurances that we will just up our production and grow everything we need, this issue has to be faced. If by some means we were able to grow everything we do need ( turnip anyone?), then just who is going to pick it out of the fields and get it to the supermarkets? There are already reports of farmers' concerns about getting this year's soft fruits picked and packed, does anyone here fancy going out in November, with a sharp knife to cut cauliflowers? If the farmers have difficulties getting EU temporary staff to pick strawberries in June, they have no chance in November! I think too many people are putting their fingers in their ears, singing la la la and not listening to what is starting to be said.

GillT57 Fri 11-May-18 09:31:26

“A customs union [with the EU] is absolutely vital,” she said, pointing out what farmers have to lose from EU trade, which accounts for 40% of lamb, 80% of dairy and 75% of the UK’s wheat and barley exports. from current president of NFU.

This is from the farmers' point of view, not just from us as the consumer. Where will they replace these markets? 80% of dairy?

This discussion thread has reached a 1000 message limit, and so cannot accept new messages.
Start a new discussion