Brexit and the Consequences

[timsk]

Hi Atilla,

This bit still sounds like we will not be able to have total control imo.

Why? Once we leave, the U.K. will be able to pass it's own legislation and not be beholden to Brussels. It's absolutely right that all existing EU laws are passported into U.K. law for the time being and then we can change them as and when we want - if we want. Clearly, a great many laws are perfectly okay as they are and won't need to be amended at all. The key point is that we will have the power to do whatever is in the best interests of the U.K. and her citizens. At the moment, that power is in the hands of the top brass in Brussels and it's as plain as day they don't care two hoots about the U.K. and her citizens.

One to look out for here and this would be a MEGA embarrassment is what happens if the EU changes one those laws we've drafted into UK law. Will Parliament then in order to keep in step with EU change that same law in the UK? Think about it 1000s of laws, regulations and directives. That'll not be funny at all. It'll be one big mega constitutional joke.

I don't see a problem at all. We'll just be another country, i.e. one among the massive majority of countries around the world who are not in the EU. Ergo, we'll just be in the same boat as them - and they don't appear to have any problems.

Lot's of work and bed time reading for the lawyers then. They always make money.

Well, this is true, no denying it. But knowing the lawyers will have a field day is hardly a reason for not going ahead with Brexit. All (sensible) Brexiteers acknowledge there will be some bumps along the road to freedom and, inevitably, there will be one or two undesirable consequences of leaving the EU. This is one of them: it can't be helped. But it's a price well worth paying.
Tim.

 

[Atilla]

Hi Atilla,

Why? Once we leave, the U.K. will be able to pass it's own legislation and not be beholden to Brussels. It's absolutely right that all existing EU laws are passported into U.K. law for the time being and then we can change them as and when we want - if we want. Clearly, a great many laws are perfectly okay as they are and won't need to be amended at all. The key point is that we will have the power to do whatever is in the best interests of the U.K. and her citizens. At the moment, that power is in the hands of the top brass in Brussels and it's as plain as day they don't care two hoots about the U.K. and her citizens.


I don't see a problem at all. We'll just be another country, i.e. one among the massive majority of countries around the world who are not in the EU. Ergo, we'll just be in the same boat as them - and they don't appear to have any problems.


Well, this is true, no denying it. But knowing the lawyers will have a field day is hardly a reason for not going ahead with Brexit. All (sensible) Brexiteers acknowledge there will be some bumps along the road to freedom and, inevitably, there will be one or two undesirable consequences of leaving the EU. This is one of them: it can't be helped. But it's a price well worth paying.
Tim.

You seem to have ignored the small print - subject to international treaty obligations.

Listen very carefully. When EVER any international bilateral agreement is signed that agreement supersedes domestic law. So Domestic law becomes subject to Bilateral Agreement when ever it needs recourse to the other party.

eg: This is why US diplomats with D on the number plate park anywhere they want in London and **** on traffic warden's parking bills and refuse to pay City of London figures in excess of £200m +. So you can take your domestic local law to US Embassy or the highest British court in the land and see what you come back with. 😉

What you are proposing is much of the same but at a much higher level of complexity.

Do - you - understand - this - point? ( Said with a condescending accent :cheesy: )

It is counter to what the Faragagas of the land have promised you.

 

[tomorton]

I can't see the EU taking an ultra-hard line with the UK, such that it makes it very costly for us to trade with them. Firstly that would be very bad business, trade being a two-way transaction.

But more importantly the EU is an ultra-long term project aimed at a united European state. The economic advantages of a free trade area agreement has all along had only one purpose - to make all the potential member states feel more prosperous if they join than if they stay out, enabling national politicians to argue convincingly for membership.

Once the UK leaves the EU, the EU sees the UK as a potential new member state. Their long-term aim will be re-admission. That will just be pushed further off into the future and made much more difficult if they subject us to such harsh economic conditions that we have to re-locate trade to other countries and cut political links with the EU.

The US of E has been the publicly stated objective since the European Coal & Steel Community. But beyond that, the US of E project was first floated by Napoleon and became only stronger after his deposition. It became a force in continental politics during the 1830's-40's and has not disappeared since.

Do not make the mistake of thinking the EU will leave us alone after Brexit.

 

[timsk]

. . . Do - you - understand - this - point? ( Said with a condescending accent :cheesy: )

I understand what you're saying Atilla - but I don't accept it, just as you don't accept mine that it is better to have control of one's own destiny than to abdicate said control to a third party who doesn't care a damn what you want. That's got sweet FA to do with international treaty obligations.

Do - you - understand - this - point? ( Said with a condescending accent :cheesy: )
Tim.

 

[Atilla]

I understand what you're saying Atilla - but I don't accept it, just as you don't accept mine that it is better to have control of one's own destiny than to abdicate said control to a third party who doesn't care a damn what you want. That's got sweet FA to do with international treaty obligations.

Do - you - understand - this - point? ( Said with a condescending accent :cheesy: )
Tim.

I do understand your point yes.

However, you don't have the choice of acceptance. If you're talking about a bilateral deal with anyone there is compromise involved.

This has everything to do with international treaty obligations. So now we have a dispute what do we do? 🙂

 

[cantagril]

Bigger mess than what?

People have no idea how big but you do so don't keep it in old boy do tell.

Better out than in as Brexiters like to say so much 😉

Not so much of the old please! Infirm, inebriate and infrequently lucid but I'm still in my prime and would make excellent leadership material on both sides of the House.

As to the mess: I can't give you precise details of mass or weight but what I meant was that CV was right in saying that there is a perception that the mess is all this side of the wet bit. The EU was never a monolith and any pretensions to that status look ridiculous these days. There are enormous strains within the so called "union" and Brexit provides a welcome diversion from internal problems, or rather their own mess.

 

[counter_violent]

The only person I see point scoring CV is you! No facts or numbers just full of SBites. OPEC is a walk in the park compared to Brexit.

Brexit's Repeal Bill, No Longer 'Great' But Vital: QuickTake Q&A

Take back control you say? Doesn't sound like it. 🙄



The Repeal Bill being introduced by U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May -- downgraded from The “Great” Repeal Bill -- will be seen as a milestone in Britain’s ongoing departure from the European Union. But many months of work -- and no shortage of additional legislating -- are still ahead before Brexit is a reality. And it will not be as straightforward as the prime minister imagined when she announced it in October last year.

1. What will the Repeal Bill do?

It will repeal the European Communities Act of 1972, which gave effect and priority to EU law in the U.K. It signifies that the British are taking control of their legal destiny. At the same time, the bill will graft EU statutes into British law books, maintaining the status quo.

2. What does that accomplish?

The two-year time frame for Brexit makes it impossible to replace all EU law with new domestic legislation. The hope is that by adopting EU laws for now, the U.K. will reassure companies and investors that nothing will change precipitously during the Brexit process, “maximising certainty for individuals and businesses,” May’s office said in a briefing. Future governments will then be able to “amend, repeal and improve any law it chooses,” subject to international treaty obligations, May has said. This bit still sounds like we will not be able to have total control imo.


3. How many laws are we talking about?

The Brexit Department estimates that the government will need to pass 800 to 1,000 statutory instruments to correct EU law after Brexit. There are 5,155 regulations and 899 directives among almost 19,000 pieces of EU-related legislation currently in force, according to the House of Commons library. EU regulations, which automatically become law in member states, will cease to apply upon repeal of the European Communities Act. Directives are catalysts for home-grown laws, implemented and enforced by member states as they see fit.

One to look out for here and this would be a MEGA embarrassment is what happens if the EU changes one those laws we've drafted into UK law. Will Parliament then in order to keep in step with EU change that same law in the UK? Think about it 1000s of laws, regulations and directives. That'll not be funny at all. It'll be one big mega constitutional joke.

4. Isn’t that a lot?

Yes, and the number was a bone of contention during the referendum, prompting the Leave campaign’s successful slogan offering voters the chance to “take back control." The House of Commons library estimates that 13.2 percent of U.K. laws enacted between 1993 and 2004 were related to the EU. As a result the repeal will be one of the largest legislative projects ever undertaken in Britain.

5. Will EU laws be copied exactly into U.K. law?

Rupert Harrison, who advised former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, called the exercise the "Great Copy and Paste Bill" when it was first announced. But in sections where EU legislation refers to European regulatory bodies, British ministers must change the wording and identify appropriate U.K. bodies to take on those roles. Lot's of work and bed time reading for the lawyers then. They always make money.

6. So how will the government accommodate that?

The government plans to award ministers the ability -- sometimes known as Henry VIII powers after the Tudor monarch -- to change laws without consulting Parliament. May’s office says these powers will be time-limited.

7. Will Parliament put up with that?

This is where things could get sticky. Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn said before the election that his Labour Party is “not going to sit there and hand over powers to this government" to "override democracy and just set down a series of diktats on what’s going to happen in the future.” With the Scottish National Party in no mood to facilitate Brexit, and May relying on votes from Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists, a small rebellion by her fellow Conservatives could upend this part of the plan.

8. What happens when the U.K. and EU have different rules?

For many companies that trade with the EU, it may prove easiest to comply with EU regulations in order to allow their goods to be sold across the bloc.
9. Are some rules viewed as off-limits to changes?

May has promised to build on EU protections for working people, which include paid holidays, health and safety at work and maternity leave. “Let me be absolutely clear: existing workers’ legal rights will continue to be guaranteed in law -- and they will be guaranteed as long as I am prime minister,” May said in October. Her phrasing was seen as significant, as it wouldn’t bind her successor to follow her pledge.


Has anyone seen or heard from Faragaga boyo? Man with big gob, big heart and a big head 😉

Just about everyone is falling in line now with the govt position re Brexit. Brexit has already happened when article 50 was triggered. Deal or no deal, we are leaving. That is the time limited default position. Comprende !

Look what has happened to all the spoilers.

SNP decimated at election inc Salmond and Robertson out.
Clegg out, because his views are way out of line with the voters and their interests.
Farron clung on with massive reduced majority, down to 770 votes but cost him the leadership, his incoherant views being the cause.
Soubry's majority down to 800 in a safe Tory seat, as she is seen to be undermining the will of the people.

What of the other spoilers.
Blair
Hezza
Major
Mandy

Well, they don't seem able to command a hearing and will quickly fade into oblivion.

Do us all a favour Atilla and get on the right page 🙂

 

[Splitlink]

I understand what you're saying Atilla - but I don't accept it, just as you don't accept mine that it is better to have control of one's own destiny than to abdicate said control to a third party who doesn't care a damn what you want. That's got sweet FA to do with international treaty obligations.

Do - you - understand - this - point? ( Said with a condescending accent :cheesy: )
Tim.

Tim, what makes you believe that Boris or Nigel give damn about what you want?

I've been around a long time and I know that previous governments have gone to war and put us in uniform to fight it, if they did not have a big enough army of professionals. Come home a cripple and they pin a medal on your chest.

Bless the Queen, she's done her duty, no doubt abot it, but that does not make me a monarchist. Someone is going to make a great deal of money out of Brexit, that's why it is happening. Patriotism? Mmm!

 

[barjon]

?........Deal or no deal, we are leaving. .........🙂

Yup, that's because you lot are like a load of lemmings leaping over the cliff edge in a surge of mindless enthusiasm. 😆

 

[barjon]

Not so much of the old please! Infirm, inebriate and infrequently lucid but I'm still in my prime and would make excellent leadership material on both sides of the House.

As to the mess: I can't give you precise details of mass or weight but what I meant was that CV was right in saying that there is a perception that the mess is all this side of the wet bit. The EU was never a monolith and any pretensions to that status look ridiculous these days. There are enormous strains within the so called "union" and Brexit provides a welcome diversion from internal problems, or rather their own mess.

Yes, there are enormous strains as there has been throughout European history. Fortunately, the recourse is no longer going to war - thanks to the union.

 

[counter_violent]

Yup, that's because you lot are like a load of lemmings leaping over the cliff edge in a surge of mindless enthusiasm. 😆

Gone are the days where people like me will put up with being told what is best for us. It is quite clear that there is no hiding place these days for out of touch elites, who's ultimate aim is to rise to the top and lord it over everyone else.

What we are looking for is a bit more patriotism, self belief, control and accountability within the UK.
As stated previously, our own politicians have had an easy ride giving away power, taking no responsibility for the mess and hiding behind the equally useless EU machine.

 

[cantagril]

Yes, there are enormous strains as there has been throughout European history. Fortunately, the recourse is no longer going to war - thanks to the union.

Absolutely - that is precisely why it was set up in the first place...but I fully understand why people want to leave it in it's current form. Understanding is not agreement.

 

[tomorton]

........thanks to the union.

You can't seriously mean it was the EU that stopped Europe fighting amongst itself since WW2?

If one primary factor was at work, I would have said it was capitalism. We all want to do business with each other.

The EU helps this but that's not its main purpose. The threat of Soviet invasion has also prompted European solidarity, but NATO has been the stronger uniting force there.

 

[barjon]

You can't seriously mean it was the EU that stopped Europe fighting amongst itself since WW2?

If one primary factor was at work, I would have said it was capitalism. We all want to do business with each other.

The EU helps this but that's not its main purpose. The threat of Soviet invasion has also prompted European solidarity, but NATO has been the stronger uniting force there.

I think the coming together was a major contributor, yes.

 

[barjon]

Gone are the days where people like me will put up with being told what is best for us. It is quite clear that there is no hiding place these days for out of touch elites, who's ultimate aim is to rise to the top and lord it over everyone else.

What we are looking for is a bit more patriotism, self belief, control and accountability within the UK.
As stated previously, our own politicians have had an easy ride giving away power, taking no responsibility for the mess and hiding behind the equally useless EU machine.

Those days will be a long time going, cv.

 

[tomorton]

I think the coming together was a major contributor, yes.

That's a triumph for leftist propaganda.

 

[Atilla]

You can't seriously mean it was the EU that stopped Europe fighting amongst itself since WW2?

If one primary factor was at work, I would have said it was capitalism. We all want to do business with each other.

The EU helps this but that's not its main purpose. The threat of Soviet invasion has also prompted European solidarity, but NATO has been the stronger uniting force there.

The biggest factor and reason was to stop Germany building her military machine by having an agreement with France being the main controlling factor. Hence, the European Coal and Steel union.

Trade and economic union followed later.

 

[cantagril]

You can't seriously mean it was the EU that stopped Europe fighting amongst itself since WW2?

If one primary factor was at work, I would have said it was capitalism. We all want to do business with each other.

The EU helps this but that's not its main purpose. The threat of Soviet invasion has also prompted European solidarity, but NATO has been the stronger uniting force there.

Attila beat me to it but the EU is a direct descendant of the European Coal and Steel Community established in 1951 (which incidentally was the same year that SHAPE was set up in Paris to counter the Russky threat) it was then incorporated in / became the EEC in 1967. All good capitalism 🙂

The EU has turned into a very different beast

 

[timsk]

Tim, what makes you believe that Boris or Nigel give damn about what you want?

Because Split', unlike the 'metropolitan elite' in Brussels, Boris & Co are democratically elected, accountable and can (and often are) removed when they **** up. This pretty much ensures they more than give a damn about what we want. And when they try and take us for granted - the electorate have a way of reminding them who's really the boss. Ask Mrs. May - she's just learnt this very lesson the hard way.
Tim.

 

[tomorton]

The biggest factor and reason was to stop Germany building her military machine by having an agreement with France being the main controlling factor. Hence, the European Coal and Steel union.

Trade and economic union followed later.

The purpose of the ESCC was always only a precursor to wider economic union, which has always only been a precursor to political unification.

A by-product of this would be the loss of national sovereignties such that no government would be able to declare war on another, since only one government would exist.

I suppose a good way to avoid war is to surrender before it can start.