Post-Brexit Thread

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Too many people are like stoke brokers who make money regardless of the outcome. Lawyers are getting paid by both sides and have self interest to making things as complex and drawn out as they possibly can. And so whatever the outcome of the vote was they would win. Politicians more concerned with themselves than those they represent.

Common sense would say we exit the political union and become part of a free trade body. Sure there are a few niceties to sort out. But the lawyers have ensured that nothing can be that simple and there are loads of steps to take and limits and so forth. And who wins?

The reasons things get so complex is that the whole is trying to join together such varying entities that there are layers upon layers of rules and regulations to protect interests and sensibilities across a wide area with various exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions ad infinitum. And again who wins?

Can you imagine what it'd be like without any lawyers though

[Ignitionnet]

If you believe Liam Fox and his nonsense he saw fit to spout to the WTO it'll all be fine.

“We have our own schedules that we currently share with the rest of the EU. These set out our national commitments in the international trading system.”

Nonsense. Schedules set out tariff and subsidy arrangements. We have no schedule of our own as we're inside the EU's customs union. We would have to propose a provisional schedule of tariffs and subsidies and any WTO member could object.

Fox and the rest of the Brexit trio are fixated and obsessed with the idea of hard Brexit, and to hell with the downsides and details.

Clearly they've been drinking in the Lawyers for Britain experts' unbiased advice.

Perhaps not quite completely believing it as he also said:

“The UK will continue to uphold these commitments when we leave the European Union.”

“There will be no legal vacuum.”

Stealing another's words:

This is potentially revealing. I say potentially because it's possible Fox simply has no idea what he's talking about and everything he says must be discounted.

The quickest and easiest way for us to write up some provisional schedules is to exactly replicate all the arrangements we have under the EU. That means that tariffs stay the same, the tariff rate quotas are worked out on the basis of the last three years’ trade flows and subsidies stay the same. This is invariably what we’ll do, because it’s the only way not to get into all sorts of complex wrangling with all the other member states.

But note what that means: Nothing changes. All that talk of taking back control during the referendum was illusionary. We will keep things exactly as they are, because that’s the only way to make the journey from the single market to WTO rules even vaguely doable. We're not taking back control. We are desperately trying to make a massive and perilous change in our economic arrangements without triggering huge job losses. And that means that we will copy whatever our EU arrangements were and paste them onto the WTO schedules.

But even that approach, which betrays all the rhetoric of the Brexit campaign, doesn't solve all the problems. Take rules against steel dumping, which protect our workers from competition from China. We’re obviously going to want to maintain those but the Chinese aren’t going to be having any of it. They’ll fight us on it, demanding that we demonstrate domestic injury and unfair trade. And at the moment we can’t fight back, because we don’t have an investigating authority capable of dealing with trade remedy measures. So even in this cheeriest of all possible worlds, we’ve got some major problems on our hands.

Although the comment about the lack of a legal vacuum makes you wonder.

Fox is wrong here. It’s not that there’ll be a legal vacuum in the future. There’s a legal vacuum now. There are no WTO rules on what we’d be doing if we revert to their system.

There are rules on becoming a member, but we already are. There are rules on modifying a schedule, but we don’t have one. That’s why the WTO’s lawyers are bickering over what our status is and how to proceed.

This is ridiculous. We need solid negotiations, with an ambitious plan tempered by pragmatism. All these guys have offered so far is the exact same thing they offered during the referendum campaign: dogmatism.

In between that you have Boris Johnson, having suddenly changed his mind about hordes of Turks invading the UK having joined the EU regardless of our objections (we had a hard veto that had absolutely no mechanism to be worked around) insisting that the UK would support Turkey's accession to the EU. This after the ongoing, brutal crackdown on freedom of the press, any objection to Erdogan's rule and basic civil liberties.

For those few people who hadn't yet grasped that Boris is a weak, vapid hypocrite with little moral code or principle obsessed with his own career and nothing else this should make it abundantly clear.

This is not good for Britain, regardless of whether you are a 'Brexiteer' or a 'Remoaner'. How did we end up with politics going so low that the most important constitutional change in recent history is in the hands of these three, while the opposition are torn between trying to emulate UKIP and trying to emulate the Socialist Workers' Party?

This has been a general rant against the abysmal quality of the politicians we have representing us and the lies they were happy to tell to try and convince us to vote as they wanted us to for their own self-interest. They'll still have their subsidised Westminster bar and expenses, as always if things go boobies up it'll be the poor who suffer first.

---------- Post added at 14:08 ---------- Previous post was at 13:40 ----------

Unsure if people can read it as it's behind a paywall but this is interesting.

https://www.ft.com/content/5763950a-...#axzz4LTssqwly

Acknowledgement that the EU can and should be improved, along with a plan to do it.

Sarkozy vows to offer UK exit from Brexit if he wins French poll

Former president plans revised EU treaty that could persuade Britain to remain in bloc

Nicolas Sarkozy would offer Britain a chance to reverse its Brexit vote by negotiating a new treaty for the bloc with Germany immediately after winning back the French presidency next year, he said on Tuesday

Speaking to business leaders in Paris, the former French president said that if elected, he would fly to Berlin with a draft of new EU treaty the day after the second ballot of the presidential election to secure the support of German chancellor Angela Merkel. On May 8, the day after, he would travel to London.

“I would tell the British, you’ve gone out, but we have a new treaty on the table so you have an opportunity to vote again,” Mr Sarkozy said. “But this time not on the old Europe, on the new Europe. Do you want to stay? If yes, so much the better. Because I can’t accept to lose Europe’s second-largest economy while we are negotiating with Turkey over its EU membership. And if it’s no, then it’s a real no. You’re in or you’re out.”

I'd take issue with the idea that "no change" means the promise we will "take back control" will inevitably be broken.

Brexit is an event leading to a continuing state as a nation outside the EU. There is an unlimited amount of time during which things can change and control reasserted. Insisting that a promise has been broken just because there aren't radical changes on day one is absurd, not to mention a gross distortion of what any leading leave campaigner actually said in the run up to the vote.

We don't need to rush to do anything. We're not going to. On the event of Brexit we will re-assert sovereignty over our affairs, and changes can follow after that at whatever rate circumstances require.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'd take issue with the idea that "no change" means the promise we will "take back control" will inevitably be broken.

Brexit is an event leading to a continuing state as a nation outside the EU. There is an unlimited amount of time during which things can change and control reasserted. Insisting that a promise has been broken just because there aren't radical changes on day one is absurd, not to mention a gross distortion of what any leading leave campaigner actually said in the run up to the vote.

We don't need to rush to do anything. We're not going to. On the event of Brexit we will re-assert sovereignty over our affairs, and changes can follow after that at whatever rate circumstances require.

Yup.

[Mr K]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37504966

Liam Fox, he's such a cloth head, why would anyone let him anywhere near Govt.? Apart from the inept damage he causes, he'll knife his boss in the back at the first opportunity. Most incompetent self seeking minister ever. If he's allowed anywhere near Brexit negotiations this country will be damaged forever.

[Ignitionnet]

With the prospect of a 'hard' Brexit the car companies are looking a little less relaxed.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-aut...KCN11Z1YQ?il=0

Nissan wants Britain to pledge compensation for any tax barriers resulting from its decision to leave the European Union, or the Japanese automaker could scrap a potential new investment in the country's biggest car plant, its CEO said on Thursday.

Carlos Ghosn's remarks indicate growing concern among global carmakers that Britain could be heading towards a so-called 'hard Brexit', which would leave them paying tariffs to export UK-assembled cars to EU markets.

We can't simply pay them with any reciprocal tariffs, that's disallowed under WTO rules.

Nissan, especially, are probably feeling pretty butthurt. They were invited and persuaded here by Thatcher in the 80s.







Be good to see them, and the rest of us, getting some clarity on what HMG have in mind.

They've already told you. Brexit means Brexit.

[papa smurf]

yea but yea but yea but .....

[Ramrod]

Theresa May takes axe to EU laws

Theresa May will on Sunday announce she will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act in a move that will formally begin the process of making Britain’s Parliament sovereign once again.

Addressing the Conservative Party Conference for the first time as leader, Mrs May will declare that her government will begin work to end the legislation that gives European Union law supremacy in Britain.

In its place, a new “Great Repeal Bill” will be introduced in Parliament as early as next year to put power for the nation’s laws back into the hands of MPs and peers.
“We will introduce, in the next Queen’s Speech, a Great Repeal Bill that will remove the European Communities Act from the statute book. That was the act that took us into the European Union.

“This marks the first stage in the UK becoming a sovereign and independent country once again. It will return power and authority to the elected institutions of our county. It means that the authority of EU law in Britain will end.”

It seems all EU Law will become UK Law and then any parts they want to get rid of entirely will be done on a case-by-case basis. I am not sure of the actual legal work/consequences in that, I actually thought the way it worked was EU law does become UK Law anyway but I guess not. Lawyers will probably have some fun though.

---------- Post added at 23:12 ---------- Previous post was at 23:08 ----------

I do worry about the emerging political consensus for a hard-Brexit though. We really shouldn't rush it and leave without any idea of what the deal is going to be. Some in the Tory Party put together a recommendation that we simply offer trade on the same terms we have now with the EU, sans-free movement, and say take it or leave it.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Damien

It seems all EU Law will become UK Law and then any parts they want to get rid of entirely will be done on a case-by-case basis. I am not sure of the actual legal work/consequences in that, I actually thought the way it worked was EU law does become UK Law anyway but I guess not. Lawyers will probably have some fun though.

---------- Post added at 23:12 ---------- Previous post was at 23:08 ----------

I do worry about the emerging political consensus for a hard-Brexit though. We really shouldn't rush it and leave without any idea of what the deal is going to be. Some in the Tory Party put together a recommendation that we simply offer trade on the same terms we have now with the EU, sans-free movement, and say take it or leave it.

Do you also not worry about the calibre of people in charge on deciding what will turn out to be a critical point in our country's history?

The country voted for Brexit and the "C" team is in charge of the process ..

Originally Posted by Damien

It seems all EU Law will become UK Law and then any parts they want to get rid of entirely will be done on a case-by-case basis. I am not sure of the actual legal work/consequences in that, I actually thought the way it worked was EU law does become UK Law anyway but I guess not. Lawyers will probably have some fun though.

---------- Post added at 23:12 ---------- Previous post was at 23:08 ----------

I do worry about the emerging political consensus for a hard-Brexit though. We really shouldn't rush it and leave without any idea of what the deal is going to be. Some in the Tory Party put together a recommendation that we simply offer trade on the same terms we have now with the EU, sans-free movement, and say take it or leave it.

I think EU law is given effect in the UK via statutory instruments and the like. These can be given effect with relatively little effort by parliament. The 1972 Act would be the enabling Act giving authority for that to happen. If the 1972 Act is repealed, a whole lot of what is already effectively UK law, by virtue of being EU law that has been given effect here, would suddenly have no substance.

This Great Repeal Act would have to state that everything introduced due to EU law up to a certain date is to continue, so that it all continues to have the necessary legal basis in the absence of the European Communities Act. The repeal act would replace the EC act as the "enabling" act to allow them to continue.

At least I think that's how it works.

Originally Posted by Damien

It seems all EU Law will become UK Law and then any parts they want to get rid of entirely will be done on a case-by-case basis. I am not sure of the actual legal work/consequences in that, I actually thought the way it worked was EU law does become UK Law anyway but I guess not. Lawyers will probably have some fun though.

---------- Post added at 23:12 ---------- Previous post was at 23:08 ----------

I do worry about the emerging political consensus for a hard-Brexit though. We really shouldn't rush it and leave without any idea of what the deal is going to be. Some in the Tory Party put together a recommendation that we simply offer trade on the same terms we have now with the EU, sans-free movement, and say take it or leave it.

Basically i think it means that the ECJ will no longer be the final court ,full supremacy will be returned to parliament.It won't take effect untill we leave anyway so it doesn't mean a 'hard Brexit' and it just removes the need to introduce a raft of new legislation to replace EU legislation in a short space of time .It's not actualy that big an announcement we had to repeal it at some time anyway

Originally Posted by Chris

I think EU law is given effect in the UK via statutory instruments and the like. These can be given effect with relatively little effort by parliament. The 1972 Act would be the enabling Act giving authority for that to happen. If the 1972 Act is repealed, a whole lot of what is already effectively UK law, by virtue of being EU law that has been given effect here, would suddenly have no substance.

This Great Repeal Act would have to state that everything introduced due to EU law up to a certain date is to continue, so that it all continues to have the necessary legal basis in the absence of the European Communities Act. The repeal act would replace the EC act as the "enabling" act to allow them to continue.

At least I think that's how it works.

Fair enough. Seems like the logical way to do it.

In other news Article 50 to be invoked by March of next year. Curbing free movement to take priority over single market access.