Brexit discussion thread II

Nody

The US commerce secretary for trade has been kind enough to remind us all what a trade deal with the USA would involve for UK:

But he did suggest there would be problems if the UK chose to keep the current EU ban on genetically modified food and chlorinated chicken.

His trip to the UK had allowed him to “address with the UK some concerns we have that they may be tempted to include (provisions) in their agreement with the European Commission (EC) that could be problems for a subsequent FTA (Free Trade Agreement) with the US”

ambro25

Nody wrote: »

The US commerce secretary for trade has been kind enough to remind us all what a trade deal with the USA would involve for UK:

Wealthier people in the UK should still able to maintain a good life hygiene (more free time and disposable income for sporting activities) and to buy quality foods, though. So at least the gene pool should (eventually) benefit :pac:

Nody

ambro25 wrote: »

Wealthier people in the UK should still able to maintain a good life hygiene (more free time and disposable income for sporting activities) and to buy quality foods, though. So at least the gene pool should (eventually) benefit :pac:

Until you remember Trump is wealthy

Seriously though the larger problem would not even be GM food etc. but the simple fact UK farmers would never be able to compete and be knocked out. That would leave no middle ground food but only the locally crafted yada yada and American/world imports

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!
Expanding trade with the US and China alone in the coming decade after Brexit would be extremely beneficial to Britain. Those two countries alone make up about half of what the UK trades with the whole of the EU. Expanding this £100bn worth of trade with a more beneficial trading arrangement would create jobs in Britain. That's before we start talking about others. Yet some posters claim that I've not highlighted opportunities from Brexit when I clearly have.

Reason and logic suggests that the best arrangement for the UK as a whole is to preserve as much trade with the EU27 as possible whilst gaining and utilising the freedom to sign trade deals to trade with other countries on more liberal terms.

Like Ireland, a significant proportion of US/Chinese trade and investment relates to membership of the SM. Your first error is to assume that the particular trade and investment already in place would stay in place: it clearly would not. To get more trade with the US and China the UK would need to deregulate and drop it's standards. This locks large parts of its economy out of trade with the SM. You don't address this.

For me personally I think £36bn net is probably the right amount after the ~£10bn European Investment Bank taken into account. It is a trade off, and the money argument is a bargaining chip. There's no way that the UK won't use it for that purpose.

The UK should pay what it signed up to and promised to pay. That's what Barnier suggested and that's what May implied in her Florence speech.
Back tracking on this will not result in anything but the cliff edge drawing nearer.

I'm not as pessimistic. I think we'll see movement in December on both sides. I still think the prophesies of doom are the irrational side of the Brexit debate. On the face of it at this juncture, Britain is holding up remarkably well in comparison to the projections of project fear, and I suspect it will continue to do so.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Why bother...

demfad

A question debated here often is the compatibility of Brexit with the Good Friday Agreement. Well the principle barriers on both sides of the border have given their verdict: Not compatible.

Paul McGarry SC, chairman of The Bar of Ireland, and Liam McCollum QC, chairman of The Bar of Northern Ireland, made the remarks at the Annual Bar Conference in London, The Brief reports.

The pair were speaking alongside four other UK legal figures in a panel discussion examining “Brexit and the Bar”.

Mr McGarry told conference delegates that “the Good Friday Agreement and Brexit are incompatible for a number of reasons”.

He said one was the guarantee on free movement in the Good Friday Agreement, which was not compatible with the imposition of a post-Brexit border; another the entitlement of people born in Northern Ireland to Irish citizenship, which would mean a direct route to EU citizenship.

Mr McCollum described it as “an insoluble an issue as you could possibly imagine”, and agreed Brexit would “undermine” the Agreement.

He pointed out that the Agreement could not be amended and would therefore have to be renegotiated.

Igotadose

demfad wrote: »

A question debated here often is the compatibility of Brexit with the Good Friday Agreement. Well the principle barriers on both sides of the border have given their verdict: Not compatible.

IANAL. IMO it's kind of hard to put a ton of stock in these statements as there's nothing clear yet on Brexit. Still, it's pretty scary if they're right. Renegotiating the GFA isn't going to happen, or if they make renegotiation of the GFA an 'entry criteria' to final Brexit, it's not going to happen anytime soon. Like, years. Maybe.

solodeogloria

demfad wrote: »

Like Ireland, a significant proportion of US/Chinese trade and investment relates to membership of the SM. Your first error is to assume that the particular trade and investment already in place would stay in place: it clearly would not. To get more trade with the US and China the UK would need to deregulate and drop it's standards. This locks large parts of its economy out of trade with the SM. You don't address this.

Good afternoon!

I don't deny that the UK should aim for as good a trading relationship as possible and that this has some benefit for US and Chinese businesses.

Similarly a liberalisation of tariff and non-tariff barriers for American and Chinese goods and services into Britain would be beneficial to them, likewise a liberalisation of British goods and services into China and America would increase British output into these countries and would create jobs.

Membership of the single market and customs union prevents the second opportunity. The best outcome from my perspective is a good FTA with the EU and a liberalisation of trading terms with the rest of the world.

demfad wrote: »

The UK should pay what it signed up to and promised to pay. That's what Barnier suggested and that's what May implied in her Florence speech.
Back tracking on this will not result in anything but the cliff edge drawing nearer.

As I said in the part of my post that you didn't quote I've said that this figure is disputed. The way to ease the British position is to concede on trading terms and transitional arrangements.

It is a negotiation, it will be used as a trade-off.

demfad wrote: »

Why bother...

Project Fear was wrong during the referendum and if these prophesies of doom are predicated on speculative scenarios that aren't certain then it is wise to take them all with a lot of salt.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

demfad

Igotadose wrote: »

IANAL. IMO it's kind of hard to put a ton of stock in these statements as there's nothing clear yet on Brexit. Still, it's pretty scary if they're right. Renegotiating the GFA isn't going to happen, or if they make renegotiation of the GFA an 'entry criteria' to final Brexit, it's not going to happen anytime soon. Like, years. Maybe.

I guess it assumes the Tory red lines: out of Customs Union and Single Market.

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!
I don't deny that the UK should aim for as good a trading relationship as possible and that this has some benefit for US and Chinese businesses.

Similarly a liberalisation of tariff and non-tariff barriers for American and Chinese goods and services into Britain would be beneficial to them, likewise a liberalisation of British goods and services into China and America would increase British output into these countries and would create jobs.

Membership of the single market and customs union prevents the second opportunity. The best outcome from my perspective is a good FTA with the EU and a liberalisation of trading terms with the rest of the world.

Can you address the points I made please:

1. that you CANT reduce regulations as the US wants while having deep access to the SM
2. That current investment from US and other external to EU countries is heavily dependent on the UKs acess to single market

As I said in the part of my post that you didn't quote I've said that this figure is disputed. The way to ease the British position is to concede on trading terms and transitional arrangements.

It is a negotiation, it will be used as a trade-off.

It is NOT an even negotiation. The UK is out of time. It either pays the £60 billion or it may lose trillions by allowing its economy to slide off the cliff. The UK put itself in this weak position by triggering article 50 and the 2 year countdown to the cliffedge, before knowing what they were doing.

Project Fear was wrong during the referendum and if these prophesies of doom are predicated on speculative scenarios that aren't certain then it is wise to take them all with a lot of salt.

The UK will leave in March 2019 is this a speculative scenario?
No, good. We know this and we know the EU parliament will make final decision on the deal. If there is no money there will be no deal.

Then each of the scenarios for exit:

Norway, Switzerland, FTA, No deal. The effects of these can be evaluated pretty accurately.
The EU has already done this for the UK-EU trade.

The UK was forced to release it's 58 impact reports: due out today. Only problem is, Davis admitted they aren't extensive, there aren't detailed, they are just a shoddy rehash and gathering of other docs including the informationless whitepaper.

I wouldnt take the EUs assessment with a pinch of salt. But definately take the UKs, if they produce anything to assess.

ancapailldorcha

demfad wrote: »

I wouldnt take the EUs assessment with a pinch of salt. But definately take the UKs, if they produce anything to assess.

They have. They're just not saying anything because they know it's a disaster in waiting and it looks like we'll be waiting for a while yet.

First Up

demfad wrote: »

Can you address the points I made please:

1. that you CANT reduce regulations as the US wants while having deep access to the SM

This is exactly why there will be a border of some sort between NI and ROI.

The UK intends (well it has no choice) to allow US goods into its market under different - less restricitive - terms than does the EU in return for what it hopes will be better access to the US market. The UK will be required to do the same in negotiating its trade "deals" with China, India, Japan and the rest of the planet. The UK Govt. desperately needs to show some trade benefits from Brexit so they will offer virtually anything to such countries to be able to show that being outside the EU is "better".

Unless NI is excluded from that, or unless traffic between NI and ROI is supervised/controlled, this island could provide an "unapproved road" of sorts and serve as a back-door to the EU for the US, China and the rest for the stuff that Britain allows in under terms outside those agreed between the EU and those countries.

That will not be allowed happen but I have no doubt that some British politicians (and maybe public servants) think that the GFA and the delicacy of the Irish situation will offer them this window of opportunity. They are greviously mistaken about that, as is been made very clear to Mr Davis and his team. You never know, it might even sink in to some delusional posters here.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They have. They're just not saying anything because they know it's a disaster in waiting and it looks like we'll be waiting for a while yet.

That there aren't "58 documents to release" is at least partially a lie.

Partially, because even though there may well be a 'single' aggregate document (and the Tories are clearly playing semantics, buying time to doctor whilst they compile 58 distinct docs out of the existing research/unique document), the research was definitely collated by sector: I took part in the assessment about the UK legal & professional services.

I can even tell you the date (07 July 2017), time (15:30) and the outfit (Freshwater UK independent communications consultancy) commissioned for the task, to whom we spoke, from my company diary. It was a 35 minutes call.

So there must be sectoral summaries at least, which should be disclosable by the deadline (pending the full fat stuff).

Unless they're even more incompetent than we're led to believe (and that would be reaching downright stupefying levels of incompetence).

That it is Steve Baker who gave lip service to the Commons deadline, does not surprise me one bit. I sure hope that twonk gets the book thrown at him for contempt of Parliament (hey, I can dream, right?)

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They have. They're just not saying anything because they know it's a disaster in waiting and it looks like we'll be waiting for a while yet.

Labour has demanded for weeks the release of the papers, which detail the potential impact of Brexit across various parts of the economy, prompting speculation ministers are reluctant because of the gloomy assessments they contained.

I don't think they are likely to be gloomy at all, gloomy sounds sort of dull and depressing.

These reports will be much worse than that.

blanch152

demfad wrote: »

A question debated here often is the compatibility of Brexit with the Good Friday Agreement. Well the principle barriers on both sides of the border have given their verdict: Not compatible.

I have to say that they are scaremongering.

Citizenship is granted by individual countries not under EU law. So, Brexit has zero effect on the citizenship laws of Ireland.

The CTA predates the EU and so long as Ireland is outside Schengen, free movement isn't an issue. However, the right to health services, social security etc. may be an issue, but that is a wider issue with a greater impact on British ex-pats in Spain.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

That there aren't "58 documents to release" is at least partially a lie.

Partially, because even though there may well be a 'single' aggregate document (and the Tories are clearly playing semantics, buying time to doctor whilst they compile 58 distinct docs out of the existing research/unique document), the research was definitely collated by sector: I took part in the assessment about the UK legal & professional services.

I can even tell you the date (07 July 2017), time (15:30) and the outfit (Freshwater UK independent communications consultancy) commissioned for the task, to whom we spoke, from my company diary. It was a 35 minutes call.

So there must be sectoral summaries at least, which should be disclosable by the deadline (pending the full fat stuff).

Unless they're even more incompetent than we're led to believe (and that would be reaching downright stupefying levels of incompetence).

That it is Steve Baker who gave lip service to the Commons deadline, does not surprise me one bit. I sure hope that twonk gets the book thrown at him for contempt of Parliament (hey, I can dream, right?)

That's pretty mad. I suppose you are quite constrained about what you can say here. I'm quite interested to know how it went.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Labour has demanded for weeks the release of the papers, which detail the potential impact of Brexit across various parts of the economy, prompting speculation ministers are reluctant because of the gloomy assessments they contained.

I don't think they are likely to be gloomy at all, gloomy sounds sort of dull and depressing.

These reports will be much worse than that.

I did say disaster . I was precise in my choice of rhetoric.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's pretty mad. I suppose you are quite constrained about what you can say here. I'm quite interested to know how it went.

There isn't much we said during that call, that I hadn't already posted on here and other forums, and which hadn't been public knowledge since before the referendum (note the date):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbqx2neOIcs

(by the way, there is still nothing by way of updates or answers, to any of the unknowns, conjectures and scenarios raised in the above May 2016 conference; and that is not a metaphor, an allegory or rethoric: I really mean, n-o-t-h-i-n-g...<tic-toc-tic-toc>)

Like or loathe him, as Richard North has long explained, Brexit is a legal process above all else.

Now the law is a very vast concept, and I only practice a very niche aspect/portion of it.

But that aspect/portion of it is highly technical (and here, I mean "technical" in terms of domestic law, rules, procedures, timescales and interrelationship and interdependence of same with foreign and supranational (incl.EU) law, rules, rules, timescales; not "technical" as in the subject-matter of patents).

So although not an expert in the field of international treaty law (in the sense of the TEU, TFEU, Vienna Convention, etc.), I benefit from more than a passing understanding of the legal implications of the various Brexit scenarios and the legal consequences of these implications (because for all the various aspects and niches of 'Law' in general, general principles (of relevance, of application, of interpretation, of cessation, etc.) transcend them just the same). Unsurprisingly, nowhere more so than in our very niche line of work.

As for the rest, an international business-focused higher education background and about 3 decades spent in business in the private sector (the last 2 approx. interacting generally at boardroom level), always in an exporting context or another, provides me with enough grounding (and cynicism) to appreciate the practical implications.

The call did not go down well: the researcher was quite clearly fishing for positives, more so than an objective assessment of the ins and outs...and we had none to give her (bar a few suggestions to try and cushion the UK profession; protectionist suggestions, I regret to say...but needs must).

Calina

Out of interest, ambro25, did you get a sense that the researcher had a reasonable knowledge of the sector or was it...less focussed than that as a conversation?

ambro25

Calina wrote: »

Out of interest, ambro25, did you get a sense that the researcher had a reasonable knowledge of the sector or was it...less focussed than that as a conversation?

The researcher was your standard PR/comms type working to a script. Intelligent and sounding it, but clearly unfamiliar with the sector and IP legal practice in particular.

We had a bit of a job getting her to understand the conditionality of our rights of representation in the EU upon the UK's (full) EU membership, and the consequences for EU trade marks' owners of leaving the scope of the EUTMR (the UK 'portion' of the rights goes 'pooof!', absent a deal with transitional provisions), both pretty fundamental issues to the UK IP sector (and British rights owners of course) arising solely out of 'Brexit'.

I pitched up about the Irish situation (same as EU: kicked off the registers, no more Irish-bound work), but we essentially 'gave up' on that, and on the exact same issues for Community designs <made significantly worse by the legal test of 'novelty' that is fundamental for those>, we could hear the eyes glazing over

So it certainly sounded as if she hadn't talked to any other IP firms before us, nor been briefed about the issues raised in the video which I linked above. She started getting a bit 'insistent' about positives ("but can you think of any positives for your industry?", "but do you think your firm will eventually be better off?" <etc>.) about 20 mins into the call.

I guess we must have come across too gloomy for her brief..sorry, taste.

But then, we didn't have an EU office (I was still deep in research about 'how to do it' and which, unlike leasing a warehouse and buying an off-the-shelf S.à.r.l., is really no regulatory picnic for our 'game'), so talking about the expected (and unavoidable, short of not Brexiting at all) consequences of Brexit on our business was hardly an uplifting topic.

Call me Al

Reading your post Ambro I'm struck, not by the fact that your company was consulted, as part of an industry-wide approach for input on brexit, but rather that data and information of this type hasn't been compiled in advance of the actual referendum taking place.

Surely comprehensive information like this should've been presented in parliament before any mp could definitively say what way they felt their party and constituents should have voted.

Eta maybe that comes under the "expert " category, and sure we know what some on the brexit side thought of experts.

ambro25

Call me Al wrote: »

Reading your post Ambro I'm struck, not by the fact that your company was consulted, as part of an industry-wide approach for input on brexit, but rather that data and information of this type hasn't been compiled in advance of the actual referendum taking place.

Surely comprehensive information like this should've been presented in parliament before any mp could definitively say what way they felt their party and constituents should have voted.

Certainly...if the referendum had been 'meant' as a meaningful popular consultation, thought-through and with campaigns informed by fact and rigorously monitored by the Electoral Commission.

But then, the referendum wasn't that. By a country mile. It was a knee-jerk single party-issue political gamble, which was supposed to return a "remain" result.

And it was an advisory referendum in any case: I long believed the (clear explicit, unambiguous - couched in plain black on white Statutory paper) advisory character of it, was a failsafe Cameron & supporters deliberately built into it, and that in case of an (accidental) leave majority <against all expectations right until the actual referendum> Cameron -before he stood down on the morning of the result- then May once she got into No.10, would acknowledge the result, point to its advisory character and then do the politician thing in the national interest (i.e. promise to 'act' on the result, in the same way politicians have always 'learned the lessons' and promise to act/do better/solve issues). Instead, the centrists and the opposition blinked for too long, and so the hardline Brexiteers invaded the political void and ran riot - and still are.

But well. We are where we are, as they say. Or rather, they are where they are. Even though an EU immigrant, I'm voting in the referendum after all. With my feet.

Capt'n Midnight

See if you can spot the difference .

Eurozone retail sales boosted by clothing and food

Eurostat, the European Union's statistics office, said retail sales in the region rose 0.7% month-on-month and 3.7% year-on-year.
...
The European Central Bank in September raised its eurozone economic growth forecast for the year to 2.2%, the fastest pace in 10 years.

Retailers hit by worst non-food sales growth on record

Non-food sales rose by just 0.2% in the year to October,
...
Total retail sales, including food, rose just 0.2% last month, compared with 2.4% last year. On a like-for-like basis, which excludes new store openings, sales were down 1%.
...

Mr Martin said that retailers will be hoping that consumers are saving up for Black Friday, the post-Thanksgiving shopping bonanza in the US which has become a key date for retailers in the UK.

This year it falls on 24 November, two days after the Budget.

Judging by all the stuff I've posted about people dipping into their savings I wouldn't count on the bottom half of the population spending their way out of recession.

Calina

ambro25 wrote: »

The researcher was your standard PR/comms type working to a script. Intelligent and sounding it, but clearly unfamiliar with the sector and IP legal practice in particular.

I was afraid of that. Normally I'd have expected a decent sectoral analysis to be driven by people who sort of had a clue what they were talking about. In your case, by someone who at the very minimum had a law degree and who at least could speak the language as it were.

You might normally ask, well, why did they bother, even fishing for good news but...logic has been sadly lacking. I saw someone take Johnson apart over comments he made about some biotech sector in which it was being made clear by the scientist concerned that there just wasn't enough information about the structure that might lead to success in the area - it was genetics related. Not my area of expertise, as indeed IP law isn't, but in those cases I tend to defer to the people who know what they are talking about rather than those who don't.

Call me Al wrote: »

Reading your post Ambro I'm struck, not by the fact that your company was consulted, as part of an industry-wide approach for input on brexit, but rather that data and information of this type hasn't been compiled in advance of the actual referendum taking place.

Surely comprehensive information like this should've been presented in parliament before any mp could definitively say what way they felt their party and constituents should have voted.

Eta maybe that comes under the "expert " category, and sure we know what some on the brexit side thought of experts.

Tragically, Cameron gave orders that no contingency planning should take place with the result that the only part of government apparatus in the UK that didn't look like a rabbit caught in the headlights was the Scottish Parliament who at least sounded competent at the time. Westminster was shellshocked.

But I agree - this is the sort of stuff you figure out before putting it before a referendum or a parliamentary vote. The tragic thing for me is that at least one parliamentary committee did sterling work questioning Vote Leave campaigners 2 months before the referendum but the effect would appear to have been limited. Some info here and there was a video flying around too of the hearing which was depressing at the time and is really, just sad now.

ambro25

Calina wrote: »

I was afraid of that. Normally I'd have expected a decent sectoral analysis to be driven by people who sort of had a clue what they were talking about. In your case, by someone who at the very minimum had a law degree and who at least could speak the language as it were.

You might normally ask, well, why did they bother, even fishing for good news but...logic has been sadly lacking. I saw someone take Johnson apart over comments he made about some biotech sector in which it was being made clear by the scientist concerned that there just wasn't enough information about the structure that might lead to success in the area - it was genetics related. Not my area of expertise, as indeed IP law isn't, but in those cases I tend to defer to the people who know what they are talking about rather than those who don't.

The problem Calina, is that going by noises coming from our profession in the UK, even those "people who know" seem to have bought into the "it'll be grand" approach (or are simply reaching advanced stages of denial in the face of continuing -and arguable worsening- uncertainty), as there is talk of maintaining UK professionals already on the EU register post-Brexit (borne from 'the EU office needs us to stay on there, as much as we need to keep representation rights' type of thinking - seriously). It's nonsensical as the following explains, which is all the more puzzling and maddening (borderline despairing) for it to come from the profession.

Now I'm not privy to much insider info, and so not privy to their line of thoughts (or whatever barrister opinion/advice they might have got this latest notion from). But what I do know, is that that there is no legal possibility whatsoever of maintaining UK professionals on the EU register post-Brexit without a new (updating) EU Regulation (or a relevant clause in the UK-EU withdrawal agreement...if there is one) in the field, because the definitive text (relevant Article of the EUTMR), current on the matter, is as follows (salient bits highlighted):

Article 119 (EUTMR)

General principles of representation

1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, no person shall be compelled to be represented before the Office.

2. Without prejudice to the second sentence of paragraph 3 of this Article, natural or legal persons having neither their domicile nor their principal place of business or a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the European Economic Area shall be represented before the Office in accordance with Article 120(1) in all proceedings provided for by this Regulation, other than the filing of an application for an EU trade mark.

3. Natural or legal persons having their domicile or principal place of business or a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the European Economic Area may be represented before the Office by an employee. An employee of a legal person to which this paragraph applies may also represent other legal persons which have economic connections with the first legal person, even if those other legal persons have neither their domicile nor their principal place of business nor a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment within the European Economic Area. Employees who represent persons, within the meaning of this paragraph, shall, at the request of the Office or, where appropriate, of the party to the proceedings, file with it a signed authorisation for insertion in the files.

4. Where there is more than one applicant or more than one third party acting in common, a common representative shall be appointed.

Article 120 (EUTMR)

Professional representatives

1. Representation of natural or legal persons before the Office may only be undertaken by:

(a) a legal practitioner qualified in one of the Member States of the European Economic Area and having his place of business within the European Economic Area, to the extent that he is entitled, within the said Member State, to act as a representative in trade mark matters;

(b) professional representatives whose names appear on the list maintained for this purpose by the Office.

Representatives acting before the Office shall, at the request of the Office or, where appropriate, of the other party to the proceedings, file with it a signed authorisation for insertion on the files.

2. Any natural person who fulfils the following conditions may be entered on the list of professional representatives:

(a) being a national of one of the Member States of the European Economic Area;

(b) having his place of business or employment in the European Economic Area;

(c) being entitled to represent natural or legal persons in trade mark matters before the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property or before the central industrial property office of a Member State of the European Economic Area. Where, in the State concerned, the entitlement is not conditional upon the requirement of special professional qualifications, persons applying to be entered on the list who act in trade mark matters before the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property or those central industrial property offices shall have habitually so acted for at least five years. However, persons whose professional qualification to represent natural or legal persons in trade mark matters before the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property or those central industrial property offices is officially recognised in accordance with the regulations laid down by the State concerned shall not be required to have exercised the profession.

Nothing whatsoever in there allowing for the maintenance of people in the UK who fail to meet the Article 120 (legal) tests after Brexit whatsoever. So that's new EU amending legislation required, which the EU Commission must propose and the EU Parliament must vote through (within the next 500 days tops...after the past 504 days, I'm sorely tempted to ask, why the f would they? :pac:)

Absent such new provisions updating/modifying the relevance and scope of the condition in Article 120 (1) and the cumulative conditions in Article 120 (2) (a), (b) and (c) above, whether for maintaining current UK-based attorneys and/or allowing new ones to come on-board post-Brexit, then on <actual> Brexit day:

(i) UK nationals attorneys, whether in the UK or not, cease to fulfil the conditions of Article 120 entirely, i.e. (1)(a) to be legal practitioners 'qualified in one of the Member States of the European Economic Area' (regardless of where their place of business is in the EEA), and (2)(a) to be EEA nationals, (b) to have their place of business or employment in the EEA (if in the UK) and, with regard to (c), the UKIPO ceases to be 'the central industrial property office of a Member State of the European Economic Area' (since the UK is out). Full and comprehensive fail of all legal tests.

(ii) EU27-qualified attorney in the UK might still fulfil clause 120 (2)(a), but likewise cease to meet conditions 120 (1)(a) place of business no longer in the EEA and 120 (2) (b) and (c). Enough of a fail to be no better than their UK colleagues.

Whereby the entire UK-based profession gets kicked off the EUIPO register in short order, as well as UK-only qualified attorneys practicing at the EU office from anywhere else in the EU27 (you can trust the EU27 professions to make the right noises to clear up the UK competition from the EU Register quick-smart).

Whence the UK profession can't undertake representation in EU trade mark matters for (US, Chinese, Japanese, <etc.> 'the world minus the EEA') clients anymore under Article 119. And UK applicants for EU trade marks/UK owners thereof must now use an EU27 representative instead of a domestic/local one.

That's domestically-produced services exported out of the UK for good money, vanished overnight through a 100%-effective NTB.

Simple as. And guaranteed (take-it-to-the-bank-guaranteed) in case of either no deal, or deal which does not include the relevant updating bits of legislation.

And then they want us to be cheerful about Brexit to a f*** intern fishing on orders for positive spin PR material? :mad:

Leonard Hofstadter

Just talking to a Polish housemate of mine, who only yesterday decided he's moving back to Poland for good at Christmas.

No prizes for guessing why he's leaving, he's worried that he won't be able to stay after Brexit as he won't be there the full five years when Britain has left the EU.

steddyeddy

ambro25 wrote: »

The problem Calina, is that going by noises coming from our profession in the UK, even those "people who know" seem to have bought into the "it'll be grand" approach (or are simply reaching advanced stages of denial in the face of continuing -and arguable worsening- uncertainty), as there is talk of maintaining UK professionals already on the EU register post-Brexit (borne from 'the EU office needs us to stay on there, as much as we need to keep representation rights' type of thinking - seriously). It's nonsensical as the following explains, which is all the more puzzling and maddening (borderline despairing) for it to come from the profession.

Now I'm not privy to much insider info, and so not privy to their line of thoughts (or whatever barrister opinion/advice they might have got this latest notion from). But what I do know, is that that there is no legal possibility whatsoever of maintaining UK professionals on the EU register post-Brexit without a new (updating) EU Regulation (or a relevant clause in the UK-EU withdrawal agreement...if there is one) in the field, because the definitive text (relevant Article of the EUTMR), current on the matter, is as follows (salient bits highlighted):
Nothing whatsoever in there allowing for the maintenance of people in the UK who fail to meet the Article 120 (legal) tests after Brexit whatsoever. So that's new EU amending legislation required, which the EU Commission must propose and the EU Parliament must vote through (within the next 500 days tops...after the past 504 days, I'm sorely tempted to ask, why the f would they? :pac:)

Absent such new provisions updating/modifying the relevance and scope of the condition in Article 120 (1) and the cumulative conditions in Article 120 (2) (a), (b) and (c) above, whether for maintaining current UK-based attorneys and/or allowing new ones to come on-board post-Brexit, then on <actual> Brexit day:

(i) UK nationals attorneys, whether in the UK or not, cease to fulfil the conditions of Article 120 entirely, i.e. (1)(a) to be legal practitioners 'qualified in one of the Member States of the European Economic Area' (regardless of where their place of business is in the EEA), and (2)(a) to be EEA nationals, (b) to have their place of business or employment in the EEA (if in the UK) and, with regard to (c), the UKIPO ceases to be 'the central industrial property office of a Member State of the European Economic Area' (since the UK is out). Full and comprehensive fail of all legal tests.

(ii) EU27-qualified attorney in the UK might still fulfil clause 120 (2)(a), but likewise cease to meet conditions 120 (1)(a) place of business no longer in the EEA and 120 (2) (b) and (c). Enough of a fail to be no better than their UK colleagues.

Whereby the entire UK-based profession gets kicked off the EUIPO register in short order, as well as UK-only qualified attorneys practicing at the EU office from anywhere else in the EU27 (you can trust the EU27 professions to make the right noises to clear up the UK competition from the EU Register quick-smart).

Whence the UK profession can't undertake representation in EU trade mark matters for (US, Chinese, Japanese, <etc.> 'the world minus the EEA') clients anymore under Article 119. And UK applicants for EU trade marks/UK owners thereof must now use an EU27 representative instead of a domestic/local one.

That's domestically-produced services exported out of the UK for good money, vanished overnight through a 100%-effective NTB.

Simple as. And guaranteed (take-it-to-the-bank-guaranteed) in case of either no deal, or deal which does not include the relevant updating bits of legislation.

And then they want us to be cheerful about Brexit to a f*** intern fishing on orders for positive spin PR material? :mad:

A very cogent arguement detailing the denial I see here in England on a daily basis. Even remainers seem resigned to a "it will be bad, but grand in the end" mindset.

Gerry T

Do many think the UK will back out. I've a gut feeling that as things unfold during q1 next yr that public opinion will change. Also parliament may vote against it, but not sure if that's binding.
How would the EU react, while irl would benefit if they stay IMO mainland Europe would prefer them gone. But could the EU ignore a withdrawal of A50?

Gerrup Outta Dat!

It only took 30 days for this thread to succumb to Godwin's Law. Nice to see reasoned discourse. The UK shot themselves in the foot in so many ways. Most notably, this will inevitably lead to a United Ireland.

Cookie_Monster

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

Most notably, this will inevitably lead to a United Ireland.

How? It'll only make the division even more stark. A fully hard land based border will be required to control agricultural imports into the EU, the reality of this is becoming more and more stark.

I, for one, don't see a united Ireland remotely appealing in any way as a "get around" for the above.

Rain Ascending

Gerry T wrote: »

Do many think the UK will back out.

Not a hope. Both of the main political parties have nearly completely accepted that they have to implement the referendum decision. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any desire to construct a new narrative around EU membership, one that would have to rewrite the self-image the UK has of itself, particularly in England.

What might come in play is the nature of the Brexit. Let's assume that the no-deal scenario doesn't come to pass.

It's hard to see Conservatives re-drawing their red lines: ending freedom of movement, freedom to draw up new trade agreements, no ECJ oversight -- so that implies in the best case, a CETA-type deal, outside the Single Market and the customs union. However, the Conservative government looks weaker by the day and it would be hard to bet that they'll still be in power in six months.

Labour might conceivably do a deal to stay in the Single Market and customs union. The key red line for Labour would be freedom of movement. New trade deals are not a priority for their base and the ECJ is really an esoteric topic that could be sold as a May obsession dating back to her days as Home Secretary. If a political fudge is possible on immigration then membership of the Single Market and customs union might be a runner if the economy/employment looks to be under serious threat.

It's still a long shot, however.

Nody

Gerry T wrote: »

Do many think the UK will back out. I've a gut feeling that as things unfold during q1 next yr that public opinion will change. Also parliament may vote against it, but not sure if that's binding.
How would the EU react, while irl would benefit if they stay IMO mainland Europe would prefer them gone. But could the EU ignore a withdrawal of A50?

You got the narrative the wrong way; there is currently no way for A50 to be withdrawn no matter what UK does or vote for except if all of EU decides to do a bit of under the table rule bending while whistling that it's not happening. Once A50 is triggered the country leaves after 2 years; the only exception is if all EU countries agree an extension and that's no matter how ready the leaving country is or is not or if they hold another vote in any form on the topic as those 2 years are fixed by law; the only allowed change in the duration is to shorten it on request of the leaving country.

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

Once A50 is triggered the country leaves after 2 years;

Yes, but all the EU countries would agree to extend A50 like a shot, and would even agree to have it withdrawn if the UK came to their senses.

The brunt of the damage will fall on the UK, but there will be plenty to spread around other countries, especially Ireland. Why volunteer for that?

mickoneill31

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, but all the EU countries would agree to extend A50 like a shot, and would even agree to have it withdrawn if the UK came to their senses.

The brunt of the damage will fall on the UK, but there will be plenty to spread around other countries, especially Ireland. Why volunteer for that?

Not all countries. The eastern ones don't have much to do with the UK. They'd probably withdraw A50, but why do it for free?
And it's not as if the UK has been fostering good relations with the EU over the last couple of years. Many people are tired of them by now and just want to move on.

flatty

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Gerry T wrote: »

Do many think the UK will back out.

Not a hope. Both of the main political parties have nearly completely accepted that they have to implement the referendum decision. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any desire to construct a new narrative around EU membership, one that would have to rewrite the self-image the UK has of itself, particularly in England.

What might come in play is the nature of the Brexit. Let's assume that the no-deal scenario doesn't come to pass.

It's hard to see Conservatives re-drawing their red lines: ending freedom of movement, freedom to draw up new trade agreements, no ECJ oversight -- so that implies in the best case, a CETA-type deal, outside the Single Market and the customs union. However, the Conservative government looks weaker by the day and it would be hard to bet that they'll still be in power in six months.

Labour might conceivably do a deal to stay in the Single Market and customs union. The key red line for Labour would be freedom of movement. New trade deals are not a priority for their base and the ECJ is really an esoteric topic that could be sold as a May obsession dating back to her days as Home Secretary. If a political fudge is possible on immigration then membership of the Single Market and customs union might be a runner if the economy/employment looks to be under serious threat.

It's still a long shot, however.

I'd agree this is the most likely of the optimistic scenarios.
The major stumbling block is May's determination to cling to power at all costs. A political commentator mentioned just this the other night, that she is barnacle like, and shows no sign of going anywhere, and will appease whomever it takes to avoid a leadership challenge or a GE. The government have shown their contempt for the public by refusing to release the impact studies, so I don't think even a significant change in the prevailing wind would influence them to row back on article 50.
We have appointed people to sell our business.

First Up

mickoneill31 wrote:

Not all countries. The eastern ones don't have much to do with the UK. They'd probably withdraw A50, but why do it for free?

Not much trade but a lot of immigrants.

Christy42

The EU does not want yhe UK to leave but they are better prepared than the UK. Better rip the band aid off than let it fester for most of the UK I reckon. Let people figure out what the new layout is and adapt instead of more years of guessing.

mickoneill31

First Up wrote: »

Not much trade but a lot of immigrants.

The UK has taken 127k EU migrants in the last year. Spread over 27 countries thats not a huge number from some countries. Added to the fact that migrants from the EU typically go to contribute they're probably people that the other countries don't want to lose.

Gerrup Outta Dat!

Does anyone think it’ll lead to an Irish referendum to leave?

I don’t trust the intelligence of the Irish voter. Most would probably vote to leave the EU.

They should never give us a vote on it.

Nody

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

Does anyone think it’ll lead to an Irish referendum to leave?

Don't see any party beyond the usual lunatic fringes supporting such an idea; esp. if a hard brexit has happened.

murphaph

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

Does anyone think it’ll lead to an Irish referendum to leave?

I don’t trust the intelligence of the Irish voter. Most would probably vote to leave the EU.

They should never give us a vote on it.

I trust us more than the UK electorate but we haven't been poisoned by decades of half truths and out and out lies about the EU by our press. I believe if a referendum was held tomorrow it would be at least 80% remain. I'd fly home myself to vote in that one!

steddyeddy

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

Does anyone think it’ll lead to an Irish referendum to leave?

I don’t trust the intelligence of the Irish voter. Most would probably vote to leave the EU.

They should never give us a vote on it.

We don't have the same amount of dribble in our daily media seeking to blame the EU for our problems.

A recent poll suggests 88% of Irish people are happy to stay in the EU.

First Up

mickoneill31 wrote:

The UK has taken 127k EU migrants in the last year. Spread over 27 countries thats not a huge number from some countries. Added to the fact that migrants from the EU typically go to contribute they're probably people that the other countries don't want to lose.

3.6 million in total. It is widely spread but Poland wouldn't want a million returning immigrants, nor Romania its 300,000.

If the UK were to ask for A50 to be rescinded, I doubt any member state would stop it, although there might be some rubbing of its nose in the dirt on the way.

A much bigger issue is what would need to happen in UK politics for it to reach that situation. It would need a seismic upheaval in the system. Neither the Tories or Labour would emerge intact and there would be a lot of collateral damage.

Its not impossible but the landscape surrounding it could look very different.

whatstherush

Brexit cognitive dissonance No. 5129
https://twitter.com/peter_tl/status/927838989691899904

File under: What the fúck did you think would happen

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

3.6 million in total. It is widely spread but Poland wouldn't want a million returning immigrants, nor Romania its 300,000.

If the UK were to ask for A50 to be rescinded, I doubt any member state would stop it, although there might be some rubbing of its nose in the dirt on the way.

A much bigger issue is what would need to happen in UK politics for it to reach that situation. It would need a seismic upheaval in the system. Neither the Tories or Labour would emerge intact and there would be a lot of collateral damage.

Its not impossible but the landscape surrounding it could look very different.

I think the minimum required by the EU27 would be for the UK to pay for the financial loss to the EU for the administrative costs of negotiating the A50 fiasco. I would put it north on a billion Euro. They might also insist that the UK joins the Euro within a definite number of years.

Blowfish

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

I don’t trust the intelligence of the Irish voter.

Neither do I, but what I would trust how deeply ingrained in the Irish 'psyche' the history between Ireland and the UK is. Outside the EU, Ireland would essentially become a small island dominated/influenced heavily by the larger one beside it. I can't see Irish voters wanting that.

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the minimum required by the EU27 would be for the UK to pay for the financial loss to the EU for the administrative costs of negotiating the A50 fiasco. I would put it north on a billion Euro. They might also insist that the UK joins the Euro within a definite number of years.

Good morning!

I don't know why you think that scenarios like these are even tenable in the UK. There's pretty much no likelihood that the UK will stay or rejoin the EU in the near future.

This is why the political discourse in the UK is about leaving the EU in the best way possible rather than staying. That was settled on June 23rd.

Sure, there are significant changes and adjustments required as a result of Brexit but there's no reason to think that Britain can't make these adjustments and be a successful nation outside of the EU. There's zero evidence to suggest that the UK stands to lose trillions as one of the more melodramatic posters suggested without citation. There's also plenty of opportunities.

That's why letting the negotiators do their job without resorting to spurious and speculative horror stories is the best option.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

I think the minimum required by the EU27 would be for the UK to pay for the financial loss to the EU for the administrative costs of negotiating the A50 fiasco. I would put it north on a billion Euro. They might also insist that the UK joins the Euro within a definite number of years.

Yes, some rubbling of its nose in it but the Euro might be a step too far.

But who knows; it would a humbled - indeed humiliated - UK that asked and who know the shape of the goverment or alliance of fractured parties that commands a majority for it.

Nody

First Up wrote: »

Yes, some rubbling of its nose in it but the Euro might be a step too far.

But who knows; it would a humbled - indeed humiliated - UK that asked and who know the shape of the goverment or alliance of fractured parties that commands a majority for it.

Sorry but I have to agree with Solo here; I don't see any realistic scenario where UK will go back on Brexit or rejoining in the short term. If the Lib Dems had made a huge swing there might have been a possibility but between Tories and Labour not a chance in hell.

mickoneill31

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but I have to agree with Solo here; I don't see any realistic scenario where UK will go back on Brexit or rejoining in the short term. If the Lib Dems had made a huge swing there might have been a possibility but between Tories and Labour not a chance in hell.

A hard no deal would do it i think.

Nody

mickoneill31 wrote: »

A hard no deal would do it i think.

Not really because what you'd need would be a new GE because Tories will never decide to abandon Brexit (and it happens automatically so need active decision by government to change foot) and then somehow have Corbyn to change opinion and heal the Labour party to one view on EU and get enough votes to turn things around. In short; not happening. Keep in mind most UK politicians are on the happy pill and think that a hard brexit would be ok because they would trade on WTO terms. The fact that UK does not today trade with any country in the world on WTO terms is lost on them because that is to much information for them to cope with nor the fact that there are no WTO trade terms to start with but only WTO frameworks to help create FTA and bi/multilateral agreements for trade.

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

Not really because what you'd need would be a new GE because Tories will never decide to abandon Brexit (and it happens automatically so need active decision by government to change foot) and then somehow have Corbyn to change opinion and heal the Labour party to one view on EU and get enough votes to turn things around. In short; not happening.

I would see a scenario where in the doomed outcome of the dumping out of the EU with no negotiated settlement - say in a years time - a rebellion by Tory MPs possibly led by Scottish Tories brings down the current shambles of a Gov and a general election results in a Labour Gov with Lib Dem/SNP support. They could then go to the EU27 and ask for a five year extension to A50. A few years into that term, ask for a EU-lite but (nod-wink) really mean full EU membership, with some kind of sweetener.

However that is unlikely unless the doomsday scenario of airline and atomic energy shutdowns and other predicted disasters becomes a certain result of a crash out.

I still think stupidity will win out - as in Grimsby.