Brexit discussion thread II

Calina

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Tie those powers to May's long-standing drive to get out from under the International Courts, and protections for a UK citizen from their Government could be severely weakened after Brexit.

They have already been severely damaged by cuts to legal aid amongst other things.

Fratton Fred

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Tie those powers to May's long-standing drive to get out from under the International Courts, and protections for a UK citizen from their Government could be severely weakened after Brexit.

TM wants to leave the ICJ and ICC?

are you sure about that?

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

TM wants to leave the ICJ and ICC?

are you sure about that?

The CJEU and the ECtHR certainly answer the plain definition of "International Courts".

As for the ICJ and ICC, cut her some slack: she's only just starting!

demfad

This act removes the checks and balances to authoritanarianism by sidelining parliament and allowing Ministers unprecedented powers to enact and change laws without parliamentary approval. Clause 9 actually allows a minister to modify the repeal act itself.

As a low tax low regulation hard Brexit would encourage the dismantling of society by corporations, the potential for authoritarians in the pocket of these powerful (US and UK) corporations and US style 'think tanks' to rise to power is greatly increased, as would be his ability to remove the remaining checks and balances to his power.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/09/12/this-is-the-just-the-start-of-the-brexit-attack-on-democracy

Of particular concern are clauses seven, eight, nine and 17, which effectively turn ministers into mini-parliaments, able to change law at will or, as the bill puts it, enact regulations which "may make any provision that could be made by an Act of parliament". Clause nine includes the ability to amend the withdrawal bill itself in this manner, meaning that any of its safeguards against improper use can themselves be magicked out of existence by ministerial fiat.

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

The CJEU and the ECtHR certainly answer the plain definition of "International Courts".

As for the ICJ and ICC, cut her some slack: she's only just starting!

so european courts then, not international ones.

Human rights must be in tatters outside of europe without those courst being able to protect people.:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

This act removes the checks and balances to authoritanarianism by sidelining parliament and allowing Ministers unprecedented powers to enact and change laws without parliamentary approval. Clause 9 actually allows a minister to modify the repeal act itself.

As a low tax low regulation hard Brexit would encourage the dismantling of society by corporations, the potential for authoritarians in the pocket of these powerful (US and UK) corporations and US style 'think tanks' to rise to power is greatly increased, as would be his ability to remove the remaining checks and balances to his power.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/09/12/this-is-the-just-the-start-of-the-brexit-attack-on-democracy

is there anything in there that stops these laws being amended or abolished at a later stage, or major amendments to the Human Rights Act without Parliamentary approval?

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so european courts then, not international ones.

Human rights must be in tatters outside of europe without those courst being able to protect people.:rolleyes:

I was going to reply and invite you consider e.g. the current human rights plight of Rohingyas, but then that would only invite opprobrium from the moderating team, moreover without progressing this Brexit debate much, considering where you're trying to drag it with the above.

But I don't ever report posts, because I believe in the intelligence of the thread readership, whereby it is better for the evidence of posters' thoughts and behaviour to remain plain on here and in the clear.

Just so you know my mindset here. toodeloo

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

I was going to reply and invite you consider e.g. the current HR plight of Rohingyas, but then that would only invite opprobrium from the moderating team, moreover without progressing this Brexit debate much, considering where you're trying to drag it with the above.

But I don't ever report posts, because I believe in the intelligence of the thread readership, whereby it is better for the evidence of posters' thoughts and behaviour to remain plain on here and in the clear.

Just so you know my mindset here. toodeloo

drag it how?

A poster clearly stated that the UK will be leaving international courts. It was a post that was written for dramatic effect and was not factually correct.

The UK is leaving the eu, not the Council of Europe, so it will still be bound by the ECHR (which if course you knew anyway) and (unless you know otherwise) the UK has no plans to change its stance on the Un declaration of Human rights.

So this talk of workers in the UK suddenly becoming chattels to major corporations and tyranical tory masters is all a bit daft, is it not?

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

drag it how?

A poster clearly stated that the UK will be leaving international courts. It was a post that was written for dramatic effect and was not factually correct.

The UK is leaving the eu, not the Council of Europe, so it will still be bound by the ECHR (which if course you knew anyway) and (unless you know otherwise) the UK has no plans to change its stance on the Un declaration of Human rights.

So this talk of workers in the UK suddenly becoming chattels to major corporations and tyranical tory masters is all a bit daft, is it not?

I'm missing the explanation as to why European courts are not international courts. Can you clarify that please?

oppenheimer1

Interesting data out of the UK this morning. Inflation is now pushing ahead of wage growth again so real incomes are now falling. I wonder how many people voted to make themselves poorer?

It looks like the UK is going to get caught in an wage growth trap, where interest rates will have to rise to moderate inflation but such moves will increase loan repayment to already heavily indebted households.

The interest rate rise will help the pound stabilise though giving needed respite to our exporters.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

drag it how?

A poster clearly stated that the UK will be leaving international courts. It was a post that was written for dramatic effect and was not factually correct.

An "international court" is, by definition, the law arbiter in the new supranational jurisdiction established by an international agreement.

The TEU is an international agreement, from which Ms May and consorts are currently busying trying to extricate the UK.

The ECHR is another international agreement, about which Ms May has long publicly confessed her aim to extricate the UK from.

How are the CJEU and the ECtHR not "international courts"?

Zubeneschamali's post made perfect sense, semantically. You're just trying to make an argument for the sake of it.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So this talk of workers in the UK suddenly becoming chattels to major corporations and tyranical tory masters is all a bit daft, is it not?

Not in the least, since the hardline Leavers' end game is clear as a nose on a face. But I don't intend to stay over and find out regardless, so more power to British workers, major corporations, tyrannical tory masters, tyrannical socialist masters, entitled this-that-and the other: they're all welcome to fight over whatever's left when the negotiating dust eventually settles.

The only thing which would surprise me, is if the little people don't end up shat on from a great height when that time eventually comes. Because, going by historical records, that just wouldn't be the British way.

jm08

Fratton Fred wrote: »

drag it how?

A poster clearly stated that the UK will be leaving international courts. It was a post that was written for dramatic effect and was not factually correct.

The UK is leaving the eu, not the Council of Europe, so it will still be bound by the ECHR (which if course you knew anyway) and (unless you know otherwise) the UK has no plans to change its stance on the Un declaration of Human rights.

So this talk of workers in the UK suddenly becoming chattels to major corporations and tyranical tory masters is all a bit daft, is it not?

May did have plans to leave ECHR:

UK must leave European convention on human rights, says Theresa May

“The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights,” she [May] said.

“So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so european courts then, not international ones.

So Europe is a single nation, and the UK is currently part of it?

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

is there anything in there that stops these laws being amended or abolished at a later stage, or major amendments to the Human Rights Act without Parliamentary approval?

Here is the Bill and here is a guide how to read it.

Clause 7(4): "Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament"
Clause 8(2): "Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament"
Clause 9(2) "Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act)."

Section 8 in full:

8 Complying with international obligations
(1) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the
Minister considers appropriate to prevent or remedy any breach, arising from
the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, of the international
obligations of the United Kingdom.
(2) Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act
of Parliament.
(3) But regulations under this section may not—
(a) make retrospective provision,
(b) create a relevant criminal offence,
(c) be made to implement the withdrawal agreement, or
(d) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any
subordinate legislation made under it.
(4) No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of
two years beginning with exit day.

But any of these safeguards can be wiped out or dissapeared by a minister using article 9(2) without parliamentary approval.

There's your answer, the Human Rights Act (and any law) can be amended, abolished etc. without parliamentary approval.


This is from Mark Elliott. One of the UK’s leading experts on constitutional law and is legal adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution.

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/09/07/article-for-prospect-magazine-on-the-repeal-bill/

the Bill, in its present form, is profoundly problematic in legal and constitutional terms. It is an affront to parliamentary sovereignty. It eviscerates the separation of powers principle. And it risks destabilising the UK’s increasingly fragile territorial constitution.

Edit: To understand the dangers of this Bill ask yourself: What would someone like Donald Trump do with it? Or (more pertinently with Brexit) what would the people behind Donald Trump like to see done with this Bill?

Fratton Fred

Calina wrote: »

I'm missing the explanation as to why European courts are not international courts. Can you clarify that please?

They are. The Poster was being deliberately dramatic (admittedly, that is the general theme of this thread, take a point and over dramatise it to the extreme).

The UK is leaving the EU. There are no plans to leave any other courts or conventions or otherwise. The UK is not leaving the council of europe and will therefore still be subject to the European Human Rights convention.

Correct?

ambro25 wrote: »

An "international court" is, by definition, the law arbiter in the new supranational jurisdiction established by an international agreement.

The TEU is an international agreement, from which Ms May and consorts are currently busying trying to extricate the UK.

The ECHR is another international agreement, about which Ms May has long publicly confessed her aim to extricate the UK from.

How are the CJEU and the ECtHR not "international courts"?

Zubeneschamali's post made perfect sense, semantically. You're just trying to make an argument for the sake of it.
Not in the least, since the hardline Leavers' end game is clear as a nose on a face. But I don't intend to stay over and find out regardless, so more power to British workers, major corporations, tyrannical tory masters, tyrannical socialist masters, entitled this-that-and the other: they're all welcome to fight over whatever's left when the negotiating dust eventually settles.

The only thing which would surprise me, is if the little people don't end up shat on from a great height when that time eventually comes. Because, going by historical records, that just wouldn't be the British way.

nice little dig at the end there. Well done sir. I know you don't like people disagreeing with you, but there is really no need to play dirty. :rolleyes:

The UK is not amending its own Human rights act, correct? the UK is not leaving the council of europe, correct? The UK is not changing its political system and becoming a dictatorship, correct?

This is just more of the same echo chamber stuff about the UK turning in to some sort of North Korea. The UK is a democracy, it elects representatives that can change laws. If a government introduces legislation the people don't like, they get voted out.

I really do worry that people are not able to see this.

jm08 wrote: »

May did have plans to leave ECHR:

UK must leave European convention on human rights, says Theresa May

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum

you are confusing plans with aspirations.

the UK will not be leaving the Council of Europe this parliament. What happens for the next one is any one's guess. I don't think anyone really wants to think about that at the moment, the prospects are still to frightening to think about.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

But any of these safeguards can be wiped out or dissapeared by a minister using article 9(2) without parliamentary approval.

There's your answer, the Human Rights Act (and any law) can be amended, abolished etc. without parliamentary approval.

Edit: To understand the dangers of this Bill ask yourself: What would someone like Donald Trump do with it? Or (more pertinently with Brexit) what would the people behind Donald Trump like to see done with this Bill?

Did you not read your own links?

Clause 9(3) that you claim can amend of wipe out any of the safeguards, specifically states this:

9 Implementing the withdrawal agreement
-
-
-
(3) But regulations under this section may not—
(a) impose or increase taxation,
(b) make retrospective provision,
(c) create a relevant criminal offence, or
(d) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any
subordinate legislation made under it.
(4) No regulations may be made under this section after exit day.

So the Human rights act is ring fenced. It can not be changed.

jm08

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you are confusing plans with aspirations.

the UK will not be leaving the Council of Europe this parliament. What happens for the next one is any one's guess. I don't think anyone really wants to think about that at the moment, the prospects are still to frightening to think about.

Whats that meant to mean? No one should be shocked if the UK leaves the Council of Europe.

Fratton Fred

jm08 wrote: »

Whats that meant to mean? No one should be shocked if the UK leaves the Council of Europe.

what is it meant to mean? it means that the UK isn't pulling out of the Council of Europe during this parliament.

That position may or may not change after that date, but after that date, the decision will be put before parliament by whoever is the government of the day.

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Did you not read your own links?

Clause 9(3) that you claim can amend of wipe out any of the safeguards, specifically states this:



So the Human rights act is ring fenced. It can not be changed.

demfad wrote: »

Clause 9(2) "Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act)."

Clause 9 (2) means that there is no ring fencing as the Act (any part of it) can be modified without an act of parliament.

For example Clause 9(3) and 9 (4) or any other clause can be removed by the minister without consent of parliament.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

Clause 9 (2) means that there is no ring fencing as the Act (any part of it) can be modified without an act of parliament.

For example Clause 9(3) and 9 (4) or any other clause can be removed by the minister without consent of parliament.

no they can't, because section 9(3) specifically states:

(3) But regulations under this section may not—
(a) impose or increase taxation,
(b) make retrospective provision,
(c) create a relevant criminal offence, or
(d) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any
subordinate legislation made under it.

I get where you are coming from, it is poor drafting, but I would hazard s guess and say that if a minister deleted those clauses, they
Would be doing so to amend those issues and this would be overturned by a court

blanch152

demfad wrote: »

Edit: To understand the dangers of this Bill ask yourself: What would someone like Donald Trump do with it? Or (more pertinently with Brexit) what would the people behind Donald Trump like to see done with this Bill?

Not only that, with the five year fixed-term parliaments, plenty of time for such a government to eliminate all opposition.

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would hazard s guess and say that if a minister deleted those clauses, they would be doing so to amend those issues and this would be overturned by a court

If people are reduced to hazarding guesses about how the legislation might prevent the PM from running roughshod over Parliament, perhaps an amendment might be in order.

oscarBravo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I get where you are coming from, it is poor drafting, but I would hazard s guess and say that if a minister deleted those clauses, they
Would be doing so to amend those issues and this would be overturned by a court

Overturned on what basis? Such an action wouldn't be illegal or unconstitutional, would it?

Fratton Fred

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If people are reduced to hazarding guesses about how the legislation might prevent the PM from running roughshod over Parliament, perhaps an amendment might be in order.

Which is probably why 157 amendments have been tabled, I guess.

Fratton Fred

oscarBravo wrote: »

Overturned on what basis? Such an action wouldn't be illegal or unconstitutional, would it?

So, what's the solution then? A shed load of legislation has to go uniquely in to the various different legal systems in the uk. There's lots of people throwing their hands in the air and predicting that th UK is about to experience its own night of the long knives, but there aren't many alternatives being thrown around.

It's the first reading, it has a long way to go before becoming law.

oppenheimer1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no they can't, because section 9(3) specifically states:



I get where you are coming from, it is poor drafting, but I would hazard s guess and say that if a minister deleted those clauses, they
Would be doing so to amend those issues and this would be overturned by a court

It's a key section of the legislation. It's not poor drafting, open ends like this are intentional. This bill, least we forget has been in the world for over a year.

The UK courts uphold the laws passed by the Parliament so the courts will be powerless if certain provisions are amended in order to change other legislation.

Things are starting to get interesting now as the data out today so the UK population is now getting poorer since the vote. Lots of pressures seem to be building

Fratton Fred

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It's a key section of the legislation. It's not poor drafting, open ends like this are intentional. This bill, least we forget has been in the world for over a year.

the white paper has, the actual wording is fairly recent.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The UK courts uphold the laws passed by the Parliament so the courts will be powerless if certain provisions are amended in order to change other legislation.

The courts will interpret the laws passed, not blindly uphold them. They also work on the basis that no one is above the law, so if a minister changes the bill by deleting the restrictions contained within, the Supreme Court could conceivably consider that to be illegal as they are doing so purely to amend etc tax, human rights etc etc. It is also very clear in the original legislation what the purpose is and changing or deleting those clauses is clearly against the purpose. In fact, one of the governments problems could be that the bill is so vague, a lot of what it does could be open to challenge through the courts.

steddyeddy

A letter to the Irish Times today. Criticising Brexit is now anti-British. I guess all remainers must be anti-British so.

Sir. – Your newspaper’s strongly anti-British stance serves only to muddy the waters.

Try to accept that the British people have voted democratically to leave the EU and that, Sir, is exactly what we will do. Respect the will of the British people and offer a lead to all people of goodwill to help minimise the fallout. – Yours, etc,

DAVID E ELLIS,

Swindon,

England.

View

Fratton Fred wrote: »

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It's a key section of the legislation. It's not poor drafting, open ends like this are intentional. This bill, least we forget has been in the world for over a year.

the white paper has, the actual wording is fairly recent.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The UK courts uphold the laws passed by the Parliament so the courts will be powerless if certain provisions are amended in order to change other legislation.

The courts will interpret the laws passed, not blindly uphold them. They also work on the basis that no one is above the law, so if a minister changes the bill by deleting the restrictions contained within, the Supreme Court could conceivably consider that to be illegal as they are doing so purely to amend etc tax, human rights etc etc. It is also very clear in the original legislation what the purpose is and changing or deleting those clauses is clearly against the purpose. In fact, one of the governments problems could be that the bill is so vague, a lot of what it does could be open to challenge through the courts.

If Parliament grants a Minister to make such amendments at will, then it would clearly be the sovereign wish of Parliament that the Minister has such power. The courts would have to accept that under the "Parliament is sovereign" principle.

It would require a constitutional revolution for them to suddenly decide to throw that principle out in favour of a "Parliament is sovereign but not in this case because the Minister is using the powers that Parliament granted him/her in an area we don't like" principle.

murphaph

Slowly but surely Brexit is becoming all consuming. Parliament will have little time to do anything else for the next number of years. That's terrible for the UK people really.

Panrich

I don't see much succour here for proponents of Brexit. There is still a false belief among many Brexiteers that the German car industry will come to their rescue.

http://news.sky.com/story/germany-plans-for-worst-case-scenario-brexit-11032175

murphaph

That message has been sent loud and clear for months now but yes, it's still failing to get through to far too many in the UK who are in for a big shock when they fall over the cliff's edge. Ireland will need to hold on tight too of course.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

That message has been sent loud and clear for months now but yes, Irish still failing to get through to far too many in the UK who are in for a big shock when they fall over the cliff's edge. Ireland will need to hold on tight too of course.

The difference being that we have something to hold on to.

demfad

murphaph wrote: »

That message has been sent loud and clear for months now but yes, it's still failing to get through to far too many in the UK who are in for a big shock when they fall over the cliff's edge. Ireland will need to hold on tight too of course.

Ireland is perceived as the weak link by the UK. So a hard Brexit holds a gun to Ireland's head as well as the UK's. If maximising damage to Ireland helps the UKs position it is clear that it will happen. If and when it does they will offer us (and others) a generous bilateral deal to pull us from the EU herd.
(Worringly on many fronts, The RW/Russian axis are spreading the Ire-exit theme on SM, US funded climate denial groups are up etc. they are preparing for this).

Enda Kennys shocking facilitation of Theresa May's absolute BS on the border should be pointed out. He knew there was no solution to this with a hard Brexit. She played him. If the Taoiseach had been a strong critic of the indefensible we might, might be in a better place now.

murphaph

demfad wrote: »

Ireland is perceived as the weak link by the UK. So a hard Brexit holds a gun to Ireland's head as well as the UK's. If maximising damage to Ireland helps the UKs position it is clear that it will happen. If and when it does they will offer us (and others) a generous bilateral deal to pull us from the EU herd.
(Worringly on many fronts, The RW/Russian axis are spreading the Ire-exit theme on SM, US funded climate denial groups are up etc. they are preparing for this).

Enda Kennys shocking facilitation of Theresa May's absolute BS on the border should be pointed out. He knew there was no solution to this with a hard Brexit. She played him. If the Taoiseach had been a strong critic of the indefensible we might, might be in a better place now.

Sounds quite plausible. Mr. Putin played the US and UK electorates like a fiddle. I hope we are all now aware of the sinister ways in which the ex KGB man can try to steer the agenda. People might not think he'd care about Ireland but that is wrong. His goal is to weaken the EU and that can only happen one country at a time.

Spread the word to those less media savvy!

blanch152

demfad wrote: »

Ireland is perceived as the weak link by the UK. So a hard Brexit holds a gun to Ireland's head as well as the UK's. If maximising damage to Ireland helps the UKs position it is clear that it will happen. If and when it does they will offer us (and others) a generous bilateral deal to pull us from the EU herd.
(Worringly on many fronts, The RW/Russian axis are spreading the Ire-exit theme on SM, US funded climate denial groups are up etc. they are preparing for this).

Enda Kennys shocking facilitation of Theresa May's absolute BS on the border should be pointed out. He knew there was no solution to this with a hard Brexit. She played him. If the Taoiseach had been a strong critic of the indefensible we might, might be in a better place now.

In a hard Brexit, Ireland will be damaged, but as many others have said, not as much as the UK.

The EU will want to ensure that they don't lose Ireland as well, so considerable assistance both financial (costs of border, new infrastructure for direct trading with the Continent etc.) and non-financial (Medicines Agency, allow our low-cost corporate tax regime to continue).

The key to Ireland surviving a hard Brexit is to be flexible. Some domestic industries and services will be damaged - food exports, UK multiples etc. - but there will be oppportunities in financial services and other areas which we will have to move fast to take advantage of. Hopefully, it will just be a short-term shock but a long-term benefit.

Water John

I think the strategic plan of Ire Inc to maximise the influence with the EU and to which they devoted considerable time and resources, is the one that will pay maximum dividend for us.
Let the EU front up for us. They have a much bigger stick.

Professor Moriarty

murphaph wrote: »

Sounds quite plausible. Mr. Putin played the US and UK electorates like a fiddle. I hope we are all now aware of the sinister ways in which the ex KGB man can try to steer the agenda. People might not think he'd care about Ireland but that is wrong. His goal is to weaken the EU and that can only happen one country at a time.

Spread the word to those less media savvy!

I dunno. I don't think there is enough existing eurosceptism to be built on. This poll from Feb 2017 shows that Irish people are very pro-European. From the article:

• 90% of those interviewed agreed with the freedom of movement of persons and ability to work anywhere within the EU member states, while 81% had a positive view on immigration for other EU member states.
• 55% of Irish have a positive image of the EU, which is the highest in any member state, and 20 points above the average.
• 67% of Irish interviewed would be against an "Irexit" from the EU, while 25% would be pro.

Interestingly, the survey showed a correlation between levels of education and distrust in the EU, with data showing that the more education someone had, the more likely they were to be pro-European Union. In this context, it must be noted that we are very educated compared to the OECD average.

85% of Irish people are in favour of economic and monetary union, including the euro (surprisingly, the EU average is 70%). Also, the clusterfúck that Brexit is creating for Britain since February can only have increased support for Ireland remaining in the EU since the poll was taken.

murphaph

Agreed that it would take a herculean effort by Putin but we still need to remain vigilant.

Some interesting speeches in the European Parliament today. The state of the union address by Juncker focused on reform of the institutions.

They have already forgotten Brexit. It's a side show now for the EU. The priority now is to strengthen the 27. The UK will be really out in the cold in a couple of years.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Agreed that it would take a herculean effort by Putin but we still need to remain vigilant.

Some interesting speeches in the European Parliament today. The state of the union address by Juncker focused on reform of the institutions.

They have already forgotten Brexit. It's a side show now for the EU. The priority now is to strengthen the 27. The UK will be really out in the cold in a couple of years.

Good morning!

I don't get why this is a problem. The UK voted to leave. That's the outcome they want. I don't think the British people mind too much if the UK isn't a preoccupation in Brussels. This is the way it should be. The British people voted out.

I'm much much more interested in the technical details of Brexit than poster after poster prophesying armageddon with no basis for it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty

murphaph wrote: »

Agreed that it would take a herculean effort by Putin but we still need to remain vigilant.

Some interesting speeches in the European Parliament today. The state of the union address by Juncker focused on reform of the institutions.

They have already forgotten Brexit. It's a side show now for the EU. The priority now is to strengthen the 27. The UK will be really out in the cold in a couple of years.

Yeah. He was very circumspect (despite being heckled by Farage) and the tone seems to be about moving on without Britain. Of course, this will be ignored by the British press who still portray the EU as being terrified by Brexit. The reality is that it has already been factored into future plans.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't get why this is a problem. The UK voted to leave. That's the outcome they want. I don't think the British people mind too much if the UK isn't a preoccupation in Brussels. This is the way it should be. The British people voted out.

I'm much much more interested in the technical details of Brexit than poster after poster prophesying armageddon with no basis for it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Interesting to hear how well-advanced the trade deals with Mexico and Mercosur are and that Australia and New Zealand are next. How are the UK getting on with theirs?

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't get why this is a problem. The UK voted to leave. That's the outcome they want. I don't think the British people mind too much if the UK isn't a preoccupation in Brussels. This is the way it should be. The British people voted out.

I'm much much more interested in the technical details of Brexit than poster after poster prophesying armageddon with no basis for it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK needs a deal. The EU can survive on WTO rules without one.

Let's not pretend it's a negotiation of equals. The fact London is now pushing for weekly negotiations shows that desperation is setting in.

The UK fatally miscalculated the relative positions of all parties. There will be no Knight in shining BMW armour coming to the rescue of the UK. The obvious reality that the UK needs the single market much more than the EU27 needs the UK market is undeniable.

Professor Moriarty

blanch152 wrote: »

Interesting to hear how well-advanced the trade deals with Mexico and Mercosur are and that Australia and New Zealand are next. How are the UK getting on with theirs?

The recent trip to Japan didn't go very well for May. From the BBC's report (note that the University Prof has an unfortunate name as the Boards filter highlights):

"Japanese companies are getting frustrated with the lack of answers from Mrs May on a concrete position vis a vis EU access," Seijiro Take****a, from the University of Shizuoka, tells me.
"Mrs May can't answer that yet. And because she's not giving any concrete measures, that is exacerbating the worries of Japanese companies."
Privately, some in Tokyo's business circles are saying that Japanese companies based in the UK are already looking for alternative sites in Europe for their headquarters and manufacturing sites.

And:

Compound that with the fact that the focus for the Japanese is completing the "cars for cheese" trade deal they hammered out with the EU in July, and you can see why this trip may not go all that well for Mrs May.
"The EU is a much larger economy, and the reason why so many Japanese companies were in the UK in the first place was to get access to the EU market," says Mr Take****a.

And:

The EU-Japan deal is a priority for Tokyo.
It took four years and 18 rounds of negotiations, and it still needs to be ironed out, so "Japan will be distracted for now with that, and with the conclusion of the TPP-11 [Trans-Pacific Partnership] deal in Sydney", says Deborah Elms, from the Asian Trade Centre.

All of this ever before Britain has begun its own trade negotiations. Rinse and repeat globally.

LeinsterDub

demfad wrote: »

Ireland is perceived as the weak link by the UK. So a hard Brexit holds a gun to Ireland's head as well as the UK's. If maximising damage to Ireland helps the UKs position it is clear that it will happen. If and when it does they will offer us (and others) a generous bilateral deal to pull us from the EU herd

I don't think the EU members can accept bilateral deals. Can they?

oppenheimer1

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't get why this is a problem. The UK voted to leave. That's the outcome they want. I don't think the British people mind too much if the UK isn't a preoccupation in Brussels. This is the way it should be. The British people voted out.

I'm much much more interested in the technical details of Brexit than poster after poster prophesying armageddon with no basis for it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You must not read the Brexit press. The Telegraph and in particular it's comments section obsess over Brexit and it's potential "catastrophic" effects on the European economy.

Junkers speech, although didn't make much reference to Brexit, completely riled them for some reason.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm much much more interested in the technical details of Brexit than poster after poster prophesying armageddon with no basis for it.

Those be the "technical details" which Davis and his team have so far proven incapable of coming up with, and the responsibility for which (at least insofar as Northern Ireland is concerned) the EU placed solely at their feet a week ago?

By the evidence of media reports for the past 15 months [and politicians' (so much Brits as EU ones) well-known penchant for leaving anything and everything to the last second, never less typified for the British side than by their steadfast reliance on the "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" mantra), you're likely to be waiting another 18 months I'm afraid.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I don't think the EU members can accept bilateral deals. Can they?

They can, if the subject-matter of such deals lie outside the scope of the TEU/TFEU and associated EU competences, or if such bilateral deals are "made compatible with" the TEU/TFEU and associated EU competences. For instance, FR and the UK concluded the bilateral Le Touquet Agreement long after both were EU Member States.

Equally however, anything bilateral between the UK and an EU/EFTA/EEA/CU Member State involving a core EU competency, such as trade or movement of persons, is deffo not going to fly with Brussels.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm much much more interested in the technical details of Brexit than poster after poster prophesying armageddon with no basis for it.

The problem with discussing the technical details of Brexit is that there aren't any yet.

It is impossible to tell from the UKs contradictory goals which ones they are really going to aim for when the posturing stops and the real negotiations actually start.

blanch152

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I don't think the EU members can accept bilateral deals. Can they?

No, there is no possibility of Ireland doing a bilateral deal with the UK. That is why there is a difficulty with the Good Friday Agreement. It was only possible within a common EU framework. By leaving the EU, the UK are reversing aspects of the GFA which are now unimplementable.

Thankfully, times have changed and the republican nuts who might want to start some aggro won't be tolerated.

murphaph wrote: »

The UK needs a deal. The EU can survive on WTO rules without one.

Let's not pretend it's a negotiation of equals. The fact London is now pushing for weekly negotiations shows that desperation is setting in.

The UK fatally miscalculated the relative positions of all parties. There will be no Knight in shining BMW armour coming to the rescue of the UK. The obvious reality that the UK needs the single market much more than the EU27 needs the UK market is undeniable.

This is pretty much it. Juncker was sending a message to the UK with his statement. By showing that there was a push to finalise Mexico and Mercosur trade deals and commence new ones with Australia and New Zealand, he was showing the UK that the EU is moving to insulate itself from any Brexit economic shock.

The silence on UK trade deals means that they are heading for a cliff. The third quarter economic results from the UK will be interesting.

listermint

blanch152 wrote: »

No, there is no possibility of Ireland doing a bilateral deal with the UK. That is why there is a difficulty with the Good Friday Agreement. It was only possible within a common EU framework. By leaving the EU, the UK are reversing aspects of the GFA which are now unimplementable.

Thankfully, times have changed and the republican nuts who might want to start some aggro won't be tolerated.






This is pretty much it. Juncker was sending a message to the UK with his statement. By showing that there was a push to finalise Mexico and Mercosur trade deals and commence new ones with Australia and New Zealand, he was showing the UK that the EU is moving to insulate itself from any Brexit economic shock.

The silence on UK trade deals means that they are heading for a cliff. The third quarter economic results from the UK will be interesting.

Was listening to Newstalk the other day and with reference to AppleGreen who have substantial british interests (Fuel forecourts) They were very much indicating in Q1 Q2 as to how there was no negative impact at all, But they are now stating that this has been a significant reduction in performance across all of their entities and this is just menial items like coffee and chocolate bars at the petrol station. - usually the first things to go are small luxuries when people are tightening the belts.

Expect more, I think retail is going to have a tough Christmas in the UK this year.