Brexit Referendum Superthread

Bit cynical

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The EEA is basically EU membership minus a few of the positives, ie business as usual for most of the country. It would be the best option IMO as it technically satisfies the remit of the referendum but there'll be uproar from the Brexiteers over it. I can't see it getting through parliament either and that's if the Tories allow it to get that far.

There are some brexiteers who favour continued EEA membership. It is similar to EU membership in some respects without some of the positives, as you say, but also without some of the negatives. It is much closer to the sort of trading bloc that many brexiteers want.

An Ciarraioch

Interesting article in one of the Scottish papers - a European Parliament committee report suggests that Scotland and NI could remain in the EU, pending constitutional referenda on their status. Of course, there may be an element of Brussels sparring with London, but the "reverse Greenland" seems to be back on the agenda!

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/15182289.Scotland_could_remain_in_EU_after_Brexit_says_report__as_May_prepares_to_trigger_Article_50/#comments-anchor

Sam Russell

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interesting article in one of the Scottish papers - a European Parliament committee report suggests that Scotland and NI could remain in the EU, pending constitutional referenda on their status. Of course, there may be an element of Brussels sparring with London, but the "reverse Greenland" seems to be back on the agenda!

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/15182289.Scotland_could_remain_in_EU_after_Brexit_says_report__as_May_prepares_to_trigger_Article_50/#comments-anchor

It is interesting to me that the Tories (in particular) appear to think that Scotland, NI, and Wales all need 'devolved government' but England does not. More so, the Mid Lothian Question arises because of this.

Also, the English MPs consider if such a devolved government (for England) was to be set up, it should be at Westminster, with those self selected English MPs being the members of such a devolved institution. I would think that should a devolved institution be set up, it should be based in Manchester. It should also be totally independent of Westminster, as are the other devolved institutions.

Another example of Tory arrogance.

ancapailldorcha

Bit cynical wrote: »

There are some brexiteers who favour continued EEA membership. It is similar to EU membership in some respects without some of the positives, as you say, but also without some of the negatives. It is much closer to the sort of trading bloc that many brexiteers want.

Which of the negatives are omitted?

Bit cynical

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Which of the negatives are omitted?

Well an increased financial contribution compared to full EU membership. More EU legislation applying compared to full membership (though admittedly less control over that legislation). "Emergency brake" on immigration possible in the EEA unlike full membership. Ability to do independent trade deals under EEA but not EU.

ancapailldorcha

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well an increased financial contribution compared to full EU membership. More EU legislation applying compared to full membership (though admittedly less control over that legislation). "Emergency brake" on immigration possible in the EEA unlike full membership. Ability to do independent trade deals under EEA but not EU.

Fair response. But a few points:

1. The UK currently enjoys a rebate on the amount it pays to the EU which was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher. This will likely be lost upon Brexit.
2. The emergency brake can't be used to achieve the conservative party's goal of reducing immigration to "Tens of thousands".

What do you mean when you say that more EU legislation would apply to an EEA state than an EU member state?

prinzeugen

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interesting article in one of the Scottish papers - a European Parliament committee report suggests that Scotland and NI could remain in the EU, pending constitutional referenda on their status. Of course, there may be an element of Brussels sparring with London, but the "reverse Greenland" seems to be back on the agenda!

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/15182289.Scotland_could_remain_in_EU_after_Brexit_says_report__as_May_prepares_to_trigger_Article_50/#comments-anchor

It cannot and will not happen. The EU has said this again and again.

Any part of the UK that becomes independent WILL need to apply to join the EU.

There is no automatic right to remain.

The European Parliament committee-commissioned report pointed out that Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man had separate arrangements with the EU. The territories, which are British dependencies, are not in the EU, but have access to the Customs Union.

Manx is an independent state that is not part of the UK,EU or UN but is recognized as being an independent state by all three. It still uses the 1000+ year old system of government to elect its parliament.

The Manx government can do what it wants, when it wants without the UK giving the OK.

Its also worth noting that some French colonies in far off parts of the world use the Euro and are EU members.

French Guiana in South America for example uses the Euro and is in effect part of the EU.

If French Guiana have a independence referendum, should they be allowed to remain in the EU?? They are EU members after all.

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

It cannot and will not happen. The EU has said this again and again.

Any part of the UK that becomes independent WILL need to apply to join the EU.

There is no automatic right to remain . . .

This is a different suggestion. The suggestion is that Scotland and NI, while still part of the UK, could remain within the EU while England and Wales leave.

There is a precedent; the Danish Realm consists of Denmark proper, the Faroe Island and Greenland, all united under a single crown and governed by a single constitution. Greenland and the Faroes are represented in the Danish Parliament, but also have their own legislatures with extensive powers of self-rule. Is this beginning to look familiar?

Right. Denmark proper and Greenland joined the EU in 1973, at the same time as the UK and Ireland, but the Faroe Islands did not. Following a referendum, Greenland left in 1982, leaving only Denmark proper in the Union, which is the state of affairs that prevails today.

The point is, with a unitary kingdom you can have different countries with powers of self-government, and it's possible for some countries to be in the EU and others not. Thus, claims that it's impossible for Scotland tor remain in the Union if it leaves the UK are not really on point here; what matters is that it is possible for Scotland to remain in the EU as long as it remains part of the UK, even if England and Wales leave. We know this is possible for constituent countries of the UK, because that's precisely the state of affairs that prevails for constituent countries of the Danish Realm.

What stands in the way at the moment is that the UK government has set it's face against it; May has stated flatly that this is not on the table.

But that's maybe a position she would wish to reconsider, since it gives an awful lot of ammunition to the Scottish Nationalists. There are two groups of people who will be pissed off by May's stance; those who wish to stay in the EU and are now being told that this is impossible if they remain in the UK, and those who may have no strong feelings about remaining in the EU, but don't see why the Scots shouldn't be allowed to decide, for Scotland, whether Scotland should remain in the EU. If the Danes can let the Greenlanders and the Faroese decide this for themselves, why cannot the English let the Scots decide this for themselves?

If there is to be another indyref, May's stance here looks like an very unfortunate one. On the other hand, if she reverses her stance, doesn't she take a lot of steam out of the indyref #2 campaign?

Igotadose

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

T
I don't think a GE is an option for at least a year or so because negotiating Brexit alone will be a Herculean task.

Question - won't there also be an enormous amount of regulatory work to do, to replace/modify the EU regs that are being jettisoned? I recall some statement about everything coming back to the UK once out of the EU. Well, they'll still need to inspect vegetables and confirm safety of electrical equipment. Won't that be a massive headache?

Nody

Igotadose wrote: »

Question - won't there also be an enormous amount of regulatory work to do, to replace/modify the EU regs that are being jettisoned? I recall some statement about everything coming back to the UK once out of the EU. Well, they'll still need to inspect vegetables and confirm safety of electrical equipment. Won't that be a massive headache?

Not only that but the current legislation refer to EU departments & set standards which UK need to set up to verify the quality/standard. Last number I recall was in the 40s on the number of departments UK have to set up to simply meet their own laws in terms of referencing standards etc. I've not seen any work started on setting that up, confirming the standards, roles and responsibilities etc. Expect the exit to be a disaster on UK local legislation and implementation level in this area alone if nothing else short of getting an deal with EU to keep running it for X years period to smooth things out (which May has stated she does not want).

murphaph

Nody wrote: »

Not only that but the current legislation refer to EU departments & set standards which UK need to set up to verify the quality/standard. Last number I recall was in the 40s on the number of departments UK have to set up to simply meet their own laws in terms of referencing standards etc. I've not seen any work started on setting that up, confirming the standards, roles and responsibilities etc. Expect the exit to be a disaster on UK local legislation and implementation level in this area alone if nothing else short of getting an deal with EU to keep running it for X years period to smooth things out (which May has stated she does not want).

When you start to analyse it for more than the time it takes to read a Daily Mail headline, the EU and its pooling of resources starts to look like good value compared to each country replicating all this boring but crucial stuff at national level.

I think this whole folly will end up being more expensive even before lost trade is factored in.

Peregrinus

Igotadose wrote: »

Question - won't there also be an enormous amount of regulatory work to do, to replace/modify the EU regs that are being jettisoned? I recall some statement about everything coming back to the UK once out of the EU. Well, they'll still need to inspect vegetables and confirm safety of electrical equipment. Won't that be a massive headache?

They already inspect vegetables and confirm the safety of electrical equipment and so forth. If, as a result of Brexit, the UK reverts to being a simple hunter-gatherer society, the need for this will disappear. But if that doesn't happen, well, the UK already has all the vegetable inspectors and electrical inspectors that would be needed.

As of now, they inspect against standards set by the EU. Once Brexit happens, the UK can set its own standards. In the short to medium term, they'll continue to inspect against the EU standards, because they won't have any of their own. But they'll be free to adopt some of their own - when they get around to drawing them up.

The Great Repeal Bill, expected to be published shortly, will say this. "We're leaving the EU, but EU laws mostly continue to apply in the UK unless and until we get around to changing them."

This raises its own questions. E.g. if, six months after Brexit, the EU changes the electrical safety standards (say), will the UK automatically use the updated standard, or will it continue to apply the now-obsolete one that was in force on Brexit day? If, after Brexit day, an EU rule or regulation is considered in a court case, and the ECJ hands down a ruling about what it means or how it works, will that rulling bind the UK authorities who are continuing to implement the rule or regulation? If an EU rule or regulation continued in force post-Brexit in the UK provides for some matter to be dealt with by an EU agency or court, who will deal with that matter if and when it arises in the UK? And so forth.

The other question is how the UK is going to handle the enormous task of reviewing, confirming, updating and replacing the vast body of EU law that will be continued by the Great Repeal Bill. There's a proposal that there will be an expedited process for handling this which will allow Ministers to amend or replace laws that would normally be amended or replaced by Parliament. The suggestion is that Parliamentary time is limited, and there's such a vast body of legislation involved, that it simply won't be practical for Parliament to do it. But the obvious counter-argument is that Brexit is supposed to increase democracy, not give Ministers ever-wider and more sweeping powers to write laws that are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

And what's the role of the devolved Parliaments in all of this? If power is being "taken back" from Brussels, is it being taken back to Westminster, or to Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff? Expect a stand-up row on that one; Brexit has already caused a lot of irritation on the part of the devolved Parliaments and governments, especially in Scotland.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

As of now, they inspect against standards set by the EU. Once Brexit happens, the UK can set its own standards. In the short to medium term, they'll continue to inspect against the EU standards, because they won't have any of their own. But they'll be free to adopt some of their own - when they get around to drawing them up.

Which would be grand if the UK was a self-contained supplier and consumer with no international responsibilities. But it isn't; thousands of UK companies import components from the EU (and elsewhere) and export both components and finished goods to the EU (and elsewhere.) Those supply chains operate to mutually recognised and accepted standards. If the UK moves outside them, they lose their link in the chain.

For the moment, the UK plans to continue to use EU standards, until it gets round to devising their own. The chances are that the UK won't change many, for the reasons described above. However if the EU decides to change a standard or otherwise amend regulation about something, then the UK has a dilemma. Does it follow suit to keep its place in the international supply chain or does it defiantly go its own way (as in "taking back control") and thereby exclude itself from the market?

Well over half of UK manufactured exports go to the EU, so Ms May & Co better have a good answer.

Lemming

First Up wrote: »

Well over half of UK manufactured exports go to the EU, so Ms May & Co better have a good answer.

But May has already given the answer; it's a blue white and red answer. Full of cake. And no, you can't have the list of ingredients because May is never to be questioned or challenged.

First Up

Lemming wrote:

But May has already given the answer; it's a blue white and red answer. Full of cake. And no, you can't have the list of ingredients because May is never to be questioned or challenged.

Looking more like s black and blue Brexit at the moment.

Peregrinus

There's nothing to stop UK manufacturers who are in supply chains that stretch to the EU from manufacturing to EU-compliant specs, regardless of whether they are required to by UK law. And in fact a large chunk of British industry would do precisely this. They'd manufacture to the higher of UK and EU standards.

There would only be a problem if UK and EU standards were inconsistent or contradictory. And for reasons which are obvious the UK would be very slow to introduce any standard which effectively prevented UK manufacturers from complying with EU standards, so this shouldn't arise very often.

The downside would be that UK manufacturers would have to pay to get their produce inspected and certified to EU standards, since the UK government would no longer be providing this service. Plus, UK industry would lose the capacity to influence or shape EU standards, since the UK would no longer be represented in the institutions and processes from which EU legislation emerges.

Effectively, for a significant chunk of British industry, Brexit means (a) they still have to comply with relevant EU law, but (b) they have to pay to do so, and (c) they no longer have any influence over it.

That's not a great deal, to be honest.

catbear

A figure that struck me was that 95% of vets in the UK meat industry are EU trained, the UK vets prefer to avoid that work.

So post brexit at the first sign of standards slipping their beef exports could face the same restrictions as Brazilian and Argentine beef and certifiable Irish beef produced to EU standards will be the winner.

djpbarry

murphaph wrote: »

When you start to analyse it for more than the time it takes to read a Daily Mail headline, the EU and its pooling of resources starts to look like good value compared to each country replicating all this boring but crucial stuff at national level.

I think this whole folly will end up being more expensive even before lost trade is factored in.

There's an article on the BBC website today outlining the colossal task facing the British civil service in dealing with the implications of Brexit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-39261204

Professor Moriarty

Pascal Lemy (former head of the WTO) said that regulations, no tariffs, were going to be Britain's biggest problem. Even the Torygraph agrees:

Britain will still be subject to up to 19,000 EU rules and regulations after it leaves the European Union, officials have claimed amid concerns the UK lacks the expertise to introduce new regulatory bodies within two years.

The UK will remain under the remit of some EU agencies after Brexit because it will not have enough time to start up new agencies "from scratch", officials told the Financial Times.

The CBI has suggested that the UK will need to set up domestic versions of as many as 34 EU regulatory agencies covering areas such as agriculture, energy, transport and communications.

Bit cynical

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Fair response. But a few points:

1. The UK currently enjoys a rebate on the amount it pays to the EU which was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher. This will likely be lost upon Brexit.
2. The emergency brake can't be used to achieve the conservative party's goal of reducing immigration to "Tens of thousands".

What do you mean when you say that more EU legislation would apply to an EEA state than an EU member state?

I agree that the rebate will be lost if the UK transitions to EEA only membership. It may be the case that there are no overall savings.

With regard to the emergency brake, yes some Tories and Ukip members may not be happy with it but that was not what I was asked. It is a power that is gained for the member state under the EEA but not the EU.

On the last point, sorry I meant that there's a reduced legislative burden under EEA compared with full EU membership.

oppenheimer1

catbear wrote: »

A figure that struck me was that 95% of vets in the UK meat industry are EU trained, the UK vets prefer to avoid that work.

So post brexit at the first sign of standards slipping their beef exports could face the same restrictions as Brazilian and Argentine beef and certifiable Irish beef produced to EU standards will be the winner.

That is certainly possible, if not probable. You have to remember that the French insisted on a ban on British beef exports due to BSE ostensibly on public health grounds - but was just a protectionist measure.

We will likely see the same restrictions again. Unfortunately for Irish agriculture, the UK may reciprocate.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

There's nothing to stop UK manufacturers who are in supply chains that stretch to the EU from manufacturing to EU-compliant specs, regardless of whether they are required to by UK law. And in fact a large chunk of British industry would do precisely this. They'd manufacture to the higher of UK and EU standards.

Of course any UK company selling into the EU will have to comply with EU standards. The UK has virtually no scope to introduce more "business friendly" standards as this would exclude them from EU markets.

Similarly any international company thinking of setting up in the UK will need to be sure that any UK sub suppliers are meeting the necessary standards.

The whole thing is just another Brexit delusion.

ancapailldorcha

Bit cynical wrote: »

I agree that the rebate will be lost if the UK transitions to EEA only membership. It may be the case that there are no overall savings.

I think's it's going to be lost no matter what happens save for not going for Brexit at all.

Bit cynical wrote: »

With regard to the emergency brake, yes some Tories and Ukip members may not be happy with it but that was not what I was asked. It is a power that is gained for the member state under the EEA but not the EU.

Fair enough. I misunderstood.

Bit cynical wrote: »

On the last point, sorry I meant that there's a reduced legislative burden under EEA compared with full EU membership.

If you're referring to Swiss banks being exempt from EU regulation on services, they pay for this by losing their access to the single market and have to operate in London to circumvent this.

Bit cynical

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If you're referring to Swiss banks being exempt from EU regulation on services, they pay for this by losing their access to the single market and have to operate in London to circumvent this.

I'm not referring to any particular sector. I'm saying that the overall legislative load in terms of the number of pieces of legislation is reduced under the EEA compared to the EU. The downside, of course, is that say over that reduced amount of legislation is gone; countries more or less have to accept what is sent.

oppenheimer1

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's nothing to stop UK manufacturers who are in supply chains that stretch to the EU from manufacturing to EU-compliant specs, regardless of whether they are required to by UK law. And in fact a large chunk of British industry would do precisely this. They'd manufacture to the higher of UK and EU standards.

There would only be a problem if UK and EU standards were inconsistent or contradictory. And for reasons which are obvious the UK would be very slow to introduce any standard which effectively prevented UK manufacturers from complying with EU standards, so this shouldn't arise very often.

The downside would be that UK manufacturers would have to pay to get their produce inspected and certified to EU standards, since the UK government would no longer be providing this service. Plus, UK industry would lose the capacity to influence or shape EU standards, since the UK would no longer be represented in the institutions and processes from which EU legislation emerges.

Effectively, for a significant chunk of British industry, Brexit means (a) they still have to comply with relevant EU law, but (b) they have to pay to do so, and (c) they no longer have any influence over it.

That's not a great deal, to be honest.

Product technical standards are not the same as quality standards. Oftentimes there are many different ways of designing something that achieves the same outcome - and for example, I'll take something that has not been standardised across Europe - the electric plug. While one can argue the pros and cons of the different standards, no one can say which one is better or a "higher standard".

The future issue will be for manufacturing will be for things like this - where Europe does things one way and the UK does it another. Manufacturers will then have to manufacture to two different standards in order to sell into both the UK and European markets. In future you may hear of "equivalence" in standards - where Euro and British standards are different but considered to have the same outcomes in terms of safety etc.

An Ciarraioch

The European Parliament plans to veto any Brexit deal that sanctions tomorrow's proposed cut-off date on new immigration conditions from the EU to the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/28/meps-veto-brexit-early-cut-off-date-european-parliament-freedom-movement

blanch152

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's nothing to stop UK manufacturers who are in supply chains that stretch to the EU from manufacturing to EU-compliant specs, regardless of whether they are required to by UK law. And in fact a large chunk of British industry would do precisely this. They'd manufacture to the higher of UK and EU standards.

There would only be a problem if UK and EU standards were inconsistent or contradictory. And for reasons which are obvious the UK would be very slow to introduce any standard which effectively prevented UK manufacturers from complying with EU standards, so this shouldn't arise very often.

The downside would be that UK manufacturers would have to pay to get their produce inspected and certified to EU standards, since the UK government would no longer be providing this service. Plus, UK industry would lose the capacity to influence or shape EU standards, since the UK would no longer be represented in the institutions and processes from which EU legislation emerges.

Effectively, for a significant chunk of British industry, Brexit means (a) they still have to comply with relevant EU law, but (b) they have to pay to do so, and (c) they no longer have any influence over it.

That's not a great deal, to be honest.

Very true, but even more of a problem is that because the UK won't be involved in influencing relevant EU law, UK industry won't get a timely heads-up about what is coming down the line, and consequently will have a shorter timeframe to prepare for change, which usually comes at a cost.

Havockk

A number of pro-Brexit MP's walked out of a select committee meeting today because the reports presented were 'Too gloomy.' Just what are these politicians doing? I become more convinced each day that they have no idea what they are in fact doing and just blunder from one day to the next merrily ignoring all warning signs.

FrancieBrady

Havockk wrote: »

A number of pro-Brexit MP's walked out of a select committee meeting today because the reports presented were 'Too gloomy.' Just what are these politicians doing? I become more convinced each day that they have no idea what they are in fact doing and just blunder from one day to the next merrily ignoring all warning signs.

Have you a link? Amazing if true.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have you a link? Amazing if true.

Here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39417715