Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Folkstonian

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The European Medicines Agency closed up their Canary Wharf HQ on Friday after 24 years in London. That's 900 jobs to be relocated or re-staffed, not to mention knock-on effects as pharma companies re-allocate their regulatory-facing staff, some of whom will no longer be able to legally operate in the UK from April.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/26/european-medicines-agency-closes-london-office-with-loss-of-900-jobs-brexit

The Guardian seems to be the only UK paper to have covered it. Maybe the scale of it doesn't register over there. In Ireland, I'd expect those kinds of job losses would be widely reported.

It was reported before the referendum that in the event of a leave vote, EU agencies located in Britain would obviously move to a nation still in Europe. I’m not sure it’s even worth debate. It was an acknowledged and accepted consequence and people apparently saw it as one worth shouldering.

Presumably Britain will need a similar regulatory body now, so the British staff members will be fast tracked into it, or will move into the Netherlands to stay working for the EU instead of us. Either way, good luck to them and hopefully the disruption to their day to day life isn’t too much.

Calina

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The European Medicines Agency closed up their Canary Wharf HQ on Friday after 24 years in London. That's 900 jobs to be relocated or re-staffed, not to mention knock-on effects as pharma companies re-allocate their regulatory-facing staff, some of whom will no longer be able to legally operate in the UK from April.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/26/european-medicines-agency-closes-london-office-with-loss-of-900-jobs-brexit

The Guardian seems to be the only UK paper to have covered it. Maybe the scale of it doesn't register over there. In Ireland, I'd expect those kinds of job losses would be widely reported.

Sad part is Lisa O Carroll who wrote that piece didn't notice it till a day later either.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1089103307422031873

sandbelter

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The crash of '08.... I mean, I'd be hesitant to apportion too much blame to the government given how global it was. Only countries without heavily service-based economies like Australia and Germany escaped relatively unscathed.

Australia is ten years behind.....and is starting it's Irish style property crash at the moment.

You can follow it here: https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/

Australia actually copied Ireland's bank guarantee but because of the combination of the commodity boom and a floating currency didn't end at the IMF's door, sometimes it is just luck.

murphaph

Folkstonian wrote: »

Scotland voted in a nationalist government, which in turn requested a referendum on independence. Which was then freely, fairly, and peacefully contested. And lost.

I don't care what the Scots do but was it really fair, when a major argument presented by Cameron and the Conservatives was that voting Yes would mean leaving the EU to an uncertain future while voting No would mean remaining in the EU.

Imreoir2

otnomart wrote: »

"May is now planning to seek legally enforceable commitments from Brussels resurrecting paragraph 50 of the original backstop agreement"
"Paragraph 50 guarantees that the U.K. will ensure that no new regulatory barriers will develop between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, “unless, consistent with the 1998 [Good Friday] Agreement, [and] the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland.”
Source: Politico https://www.politico.eu/article/mays-brexit-assault-will-target-backstops-threat-to-peace-dup-theresa-may-good-friday-agreement/

If Mrs May wants to hand Sinn Féin a veto on future UK divergence from EU rules, then I would say we should all wish her well and try to hold a straight face.

LuckyLloyd

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The European Medicines Agency closed up their Canary Wharf HQ on Friday after 24 years in London. That's 900 jobs to be relocated or re-staffed, not to mention knock-on effects as pharma companies re-allocate their regulatory-facing staff, some of whom will no longer be able to legally operate in the UK from April.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/26/european-medicines-agency-closes-london-office-with-loss-of-900-jobs-brexit

The Guardian seems to be the only UK paper to have covered it. Maybe the scale of it doesn't register over there. In Ireland, I'd expect those kinds of job losses would be widely reported.

If you search google news with the text 'European Medicines Agency Leaves London' the extent to which it *isn't* news - Guardian aside - is quite shocking indeed.

Calina

Folkstonian wrote: »

It was reported before the referendum that in the event of a leave vote, EU agencies located in Britain would obviously move to a nation still in Europe. I’m not sure it’s even worth debate. It was an acknowledged and accepted consequence and people apparently saw it as one worth shouldering.

Presumably Britain will need a similar regulatory body now, so the British staff members will be fast tracked into it, or will move into the Netherlands to stay working for the EU instead of us. Either way, good luck to them and hopefully the disruption to their day to day life isn’t too much.

This...demonstrates a lack of informedness. The fact that EBA and EMA would have to leave was dismissed as Project Fear and the then Brexit secretary stated there was no reason for them to leave and of course they would be a subject for negotiation.

The UK has an organisation known as the MHRA whose work load will have to be ramped up. But pharmas will be prioritising EU regulatory requirements ahead of UK ones.

LuckyLloyd

Folkstonian wrote: »

It was reported before the referendum that in the event of a leave vote, EU agencies located in Britain would obviously move to a nation still in Europe. I’m not sure it’s even worth debate. It was an acknowledged and accepted consequence and people apparently saw it as one worth shouldering.

The easy ability of Brexiteers to rewrite history over what people voted for is extremely dangerous. The above is completely wrong - David Davis's previous comments on the matter were linked here last week. It was painted by Brexiteers as a matter of "negotiation".

Folkstonian

Calina wrote: »

This...demonstrates a lack of informedness. The fact that EBA and EMA would have to leave was dismissed as Project Fear and the then Brexit secretary stated there was no reason for them to leave and of course they would be a subject for negotiation.

The UK has an organisation known as the MHRA whose work load will have to be ramped up. But pharmas will be prioritising EU regulatory requirements ahead of UK ones.

Few people, on either side of the debate, believed Davies when he said EU agencies might stay in Britain should it vote to leave.

British employees, I assume, will either move to continue working for the EU, or find work very swiftly in the Department of Health should they prefer not to leave London

CrabRevolution

The EMA situation represents Brexit in a microcosm really.

- It was pointed out in advance of the referendum that it would be an unavoidable problem.
-It was either ignored or waved away by the brexiteers.
-After the referendum when brexit slammed onto reality and the EU said it would be relocating the EMA we got the standard guff from the UK that "it will be part of negotiations" "there's no reason why we can't keep it after leaving the EU"
-The EU stuck to their entirely reasonable position signalled well in advance and relocated it anyway.

10000maniacs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The crash of '08.... I mean, I'd be hesitant to apportion too much blame to the government given how global it was. Only countries without heavily service-based economies like Australia and Germany escaped relatively unscathed.

I kind of disagree here.
It was the lack of adequate governmental macro-prudential policies which failed to mitigate the excessive credit growth and subsequent housing boom.
It was Fianna Fail who were responsible for the inadequate policies relating to banking supervision, public finances and the loss of competitiveness.
And it didn't help that the likes of Bertie telling everyone to commit suicide when cornered over the overheating economy.
Or McCreevy saying "if I have it, Ill spend it, If I don't, I won't."
They transferred the tax burden to assets, property in particular, and talked up the property market at every turn, encouraging people to buy, buy, buy. Fianna Fail generated an economy based on consumption and called it growth, and they dealt in macro-economic statistics to obscure the uneven and precarious nature of this ‘expansion’.
Fianna Fail ensured we would have a very hard landing when the world crash happened.

Folkstonian

[PHP][/PHP]

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The easy ability of Brexiteers to rewrite history over what people voted for is extremely dangerous. The above is completely wrong - David Davis's previous comments on the matter were linked here last week. It was painted by Brexiteers as a matter of "negotiation".

Cut the melodrama. ‘Dangerous’ it is not. ‘Revision’ it is not.

People were told in a thick booklet delivered by Cameron’s government to every household in the U.K. that leaving the EU would mean an inevitable loss of access to a wide range of European agencies, including agencies based in Britain.

David Davies has always been regarded as a figure of comedy.

Enzokk

Okay, seems like the UK Government plan is to tell the EU that they will have to reopen the negotiations again. Unsurprisingly the EU has ruled this out. So it seems that once again Theresa May has her plans ruled out before she even presents it to the EU. Just like Chequers where her plan was ruled out before she even had the chance to prepare for her meetings with the EU.

Guardian Politics Live


Update at 11h57:

Brexit withdrawal deal will have to be changed, No 10 tells EU
I’m just back from the lobby briefing, and Number 10 is now explicitly saying that the EU will have to agree to changes to the Brexit deal. This is not much more than a statement of the obvious, and it was implicit in what Theresa May said in her Commons statement last week following the defeat of her deal, but on that occasion May was careful to avoid anything that sounded like an ultimatum to the EU. Now Number 10 is saying directly that the deal will have to be changed.

Number 10 has said the withdrawal deal will have to change. In a message that makes an attempt to renegotiate the deal with the EU, at least to some extent, the prime minister’s spokesman told journalists:
We reached an agreement with the European Union in relation to the withdrawal agreement and the future partnership. That was put to a vote of MPs, and MPs rejected that deal, including the withdrawal agreement, by 230 votes. The prime minister is absolutely committed to leaving the EU with a deal, but clearly if we are to obtain parliamentary support for that deal, some changes will have to be made.

Then at 12h31,

EU says withdrawal agreement 'not open for renegotiation', as No 10 says deal must change
The European commission hold a daily press briefing which takes place at the same time as Downing Street’s. And, just as Number 10 was saying that the withdrawal deal would have to change (although not necessarily the text of the withdrawal agreement - see 11.57am), Brussels said it was the withdrawal agreement would not be reopened. Margaritis Schinas, the commission’s spokesman, told journalists:

We have a unanimous EU27 position on the withdrawal agreement which reflects the common EU position. This withdrawal agreement has been agreed with the UK government, it is endorsed by leaders and is not open for renegotiation.

Asked if that position would change if MPs vote to demand changes to the Irish backstop, Schinas said:

The only thing I have to say is that we shall wait for the result of the vote of the Commons tomorrow. Then we will wait for the government to tell us what are the next steps. That’s how it’s going to work.

Professor Moriarty

Folkstonian wrote: »

Cut the melodrama. ‘Dangerous’ it is not. ‘Revision’ it is not.

People were told in a thick booklet delivered by Cameron’s government to every household in the U.K. that leaving the EU would mean an inevitable loss of access to a wide range of European agencies, including agencies based in Britain.

David Davies has always been regarded as a figure of comedy.

Interesting that the British government sent "a figure of comedy" to negotiate its withdrawal from the EU. Why would they do such a thing?

downcow

I find it ironic that were sf not abstaining from Stormont then Stormont would be able to make the remain case very strongly. And if they were not abstaining from WM then the dup power would be completely removed.

Ironic, but I’m glad 😂

LuckyLloyd

10000maniacs wrote: »

I kind of disagree here.
It was the lack of adequate governmental macro-prudential policies which failed to mitigate the excessive credit growth and subsequent housing boom.
It was Fianna Fail who were responsible for the inadequate policies relating to banking supervision, public finances and the loss of competitiveness.
And it didn't help that the likes of Bertie telling everyone to commit suicide when cornered over the overheating economy.
Or McCreevy saying "if I have it, Ill spend it, If I don't, I won't."
They transferred the tax burden to assets, property in particular, and talked up the property market at every turn, encouraging people to buy, buy, buy. Fianna Fail generated an economy based on consumption and called it growth, and they dealt in macro-economic statistics to obscure the uneven and precarious nature of this ‘expansion’.
Fianna Fail ensured we would have a very hard landing when the world crash happened.

There is a risk in off topic posting in responding to the above, but it does tie back to Brexit in a way.

If you go back and look at FG / Labour manifestos for the 1997 / 2002 / 2007 general elections you will see that they never advocated changes to financial regulation, property market practice or significant budgetary braking and overall they were not arguing for counter cyclical economic policy in any way shape or form. Their focus was on health failings, how money was spent, general governmental competence.

FF were holding the bag, but had FG or Labour happened to be there they would have done more or less the same thing. In particular, after the mid to late nineties it was all over in terms of approaches to developers and the path the economy had set off upon. The decisions made in the later part of the boom period are almost entirely immaterial. There was no appetite in 2005 for the type of serious economic / financial sector conversations that would have been necessary to assuage the disaster of 2008. And no leading politicians were advocating it. The academic / media voices starting to point out problems didn't emerge until late 2006, and were slow receiving significant platforms.

Similarly with regards to Brexit, the Conservatives are going to end up holding the bag here for policies and a general approach supported by large sections of the main opposition party. Labour advocated a continuation of Brexit in 2017 and focussed (reasonably) their election campaign on the effects of austerity on British society. There is certainly more divergence between the Labour front bench and Theresa May on how to approach Brexit as compared to FF / FG in the mid 2000's on economic policy - but there is again zero appetite in Labour as a whole for the type of strident anti Brexit policy that the nation requires.

I think opposition parties get away with absolute murder when major disasters occur in democracies. That they wouldn't have done it much differently (or at all differently in many cases) is so glibly glossed over it's outrageous.

Folkstonian

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Interesting that the British government sent "a figure of comedy" to negotiate its withdrawal from the EU. Why would they do such a thing?

Ineptitude amongst the current custodians of the great offices of state? I presume you are looking for disagreement from me on thst front, but you won’t get it.

I’m fairly sure back home my parents will still have the government’s booklet delivered prior to the referendum filed away somewhere.

Somewhat interestingly, that booklet actually stated (or warned, depending on perspective) that voting to leave would see Britain leave the single market, customs union, defence partnerships and a host of European agencies.

funkey_monkey

WTO rules out need for Hard Border - Nov 2018

So, if the WTO states there is no need for a hard border (until someone else complains about it) how likely is it that another nation would lodge a complaint and how long would it take to resolve?
I'm assuming that there would only be a financial penalty and not an 'order' to erect some type of border checks.

LuckyLloyd

Folkstonian wrote: »

[PHP][/PHP]

Cut the melodrama. ‘Dangerous’ it is not. ‘Revision’ it is not.

People were told in a thick booklet delivered by Cameron’s government to every household in the U.K. that leaving the EU would mean an inevitable loss of access to a wide range of European agencies, including agencies based in Britain.

David Davies has always been regarded as a figure of comedy.

It is both of those things I'm afraid. You may be able to get away with such nonsense elsewhere, but you'll be taken to account here.

And people were sold a fiction that the content of that booklet - or any other projection or implication delivered from a government or expert source - was all "Project Fear" and to be ignored. David Davis has received oodles of column inches and tv time since the outset of the referendum campaign being treated respectfully as a serious politician. As he might be as government minister charged with delivering Brexit itself. He may be a figure of comedy or ridicule here and among serious commentators, but in the platform he occupied his statements unfortunately carried weight.

Andrew Neil of all people cornered JRM on the point of 'people knew that voting for Brexit meant leaving the SM and CU' holding an actual Vote Leave manifesto that didn't mention any such thing (the likes of Daniel Hannon MEP were indeed on BBC in the days after the referendum arguing they would stay within it). JRM's response was a mealy mouthed 'oh well, manifestos change all the time and there were many groups advocating leave'. Is he also a "figure of comedy"? He might be to me, but would you seriously argue at this point that he has not occupied a significant platform over the past 18 months?

This stuff is important, for it cuts to the heart of the death cycle British parliamentary politics finds itself trapped in currently. It is proving far too easy for voices to argue No Deal as the "true" Brexit people voted for, and the denouncements of a second referendum or fundamental change of course depend on a thousand tiny lies about what was discussed or known about Brexit in reality before people voted on an open ended question. You may say that you're sick of it all, and just want an ending - even if it is a disorderly exit - but the continued manipulation of facts and history offers a terrible disservice to those about to be acutely affected by it.

AtomicHorror

Folkstonian wrote: »

It was reported before the referendum that in the event of a leave vote, EU agencies located in Britain would obviously move to a nation still in Europe. I’m not sure it’s even worth debate. It was an acknowledged and accepted consequence and people apparently saw it as one worth shouldering.

Odd, I remember that concern being mostly dismissed, with vague suggestions that an EEA style arrangement (but not EEA) would probably allow for EMA and EBA to stay in London. In the run-up to the referendum, that sort of reply seemed to be sufficient to deflect the matter.

Anyway, beside the point. It happened on Friday. That is news for the 900 staff, thousands of dependents and the wider pharma industry, and it is news that has been carefully ignored.

Folkstonian wrote: »

Presumably Britain will need a similar regulatory body now, so the British staff members will be fast tracked into it, or will move into the Netherlands to stay working for the EU instead of us. Either way, good luck to them and hopefully the disruption to their day to day life isn’t too much.

Weird suggestion. Why would the UK need it's own EU regulator? It has MHRA to handle local functions, they'll just need to take back the approvals process. They won't be recruiting 900 new staff for that. The point about EU QPPVs, regulatory and PV departments wanting to co-locate with EMA still stands. Future investment will also take a hit.

lawred2

funkey_monkey wrote: »

WTO rules out need for Hard Border - Nov 2018

So, if the WTO states there is no need for a hard border (until someone else complains about it) how likely is it that another nation would lodge a complaint and how long would it take to resolve?
I'm assuming that there would only be a financial penalty and not an 'order' to erect some type of border checks.

Another article with a headline which doesn't really check out with the content

One expert warned that it would fall either to the UK or EU - not the WTO - to set up border checks in order to protect the integrity of their internal markets from illegal activity and divergent trade rules.

This has always been the case - saying that the WTO won't actually seek to enforce borders is not the same as saying that hard borders won't be needed "in order to protect the integrity of their internal markets from illegal activity and divergent trade rules"

trellheim

I find it ironic that were sf not abstaining from Stormont then Stormont would be able to make the remain case very strongly. And if they were not abstaining from WM then the dup power would be completely removed.

Huge inaccuracies here. Even if SF had voted with the opposition in the recent Government No-Confidence motion, it would not have changed the result. I am not addressing the other points as I wish to remain on-topic.

prawnsambo

Folkstonian wrote: »

Ineptitude amongst the current custodians of the great offices of state? I presume you are looking for disagreement from me on thst front, but you won’t get it.

I’m fairly sure back home my parents will still have the government’s booklet delivered prior to the referendum filed away somewhere.

Somewhat interestingly, that booklet actually stated (or warned, depending on perspective) that voting to leave would see Britain leave the single market, customs union, defence partnerships and a host of European agencies.

If it's this booklet, then it doesn't say that. It says merely that:

No other country has managed to secure significant access to the Single Market, without having to:

• follow EU rules over which they have no real say
• pay into the EU
• accept EU citizens living and working in their country

No mention of the Customs Union at all.

johnnyskeleton

downcow wrote: »

Not that i want to defend the dupers. I think you’ll find that it’s because of Sinn Fein and their abstentionist policy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

What has the Sinn Fein abstentionist in London have to do with the assembly in Belfast ? Nothing I think you'll find.

downcow wrote: »

I was answering a point where dup were being blamed for not representing the remain position in Westminster

downcow wrote: »

I find it ironic that were sf not abstaining from Stormont then Stormont would be able to make the remain case very strongly. And if they were not abstaining from WM then the dup power would be completely removed.

Mod note:

Please stop trolling. You are welcome to raise any relevant point you wish to make, but it must be based on correct facts. Repeating that SF are abstaining from Stormont when you already accepted that they were not is not an acceptable standard of posting.

AtomicHorror

Folkstonian wrote: »

Few people, on either side of the debate, believed Davies when he said EU agencies might stay in Britain should it vote to leave.

How few? Ten? A thousand? One million? What's a "few" in your world?

Folkstonian wrote: »

British employees, I assume, will either move to continue working for the EU, or find work very swiftly in the Department of Health should they prefer not to leave London

A bold statement, given that the regulatory sector of Pharma will contract overall. The EMA staff who stay will be competing with ex-industry people for whatever jobs MHRA add, which will naturally not be on the scale of EMA, or anywhere close.

Akrasia

Folkstonian wrote: »

[PHP][/PHP]

Cut the melodrama. ‘Dangerous’ it is not. ‘Revision’ it is not.

People were told in a thick booklet delivered by Cameron’s government to every household in the U.K. that leaving the EU would mean an inevitable loss of access to a wide range of European agencies, including agencies based in Britain.

David Davies has always been regarded as a figure of comedy.

David Davis was a member of Theresa May's Cabinet as the Brexit Secretary for 2 years until July 2018.

He might be a 'figure of comedy' but he was hardly some insignificant bit player that should have been ignored.

Enzokk

Folkstonian wrote: »

Ineptitude amongst the current custodians of the great offices of state? I presume you are looking for disagreement from me on thst front, but you won’t get it.

I’m fairly sure back home my parents will still have the government’s booklet delivered prior to the referendum filed away somewhere.

Somewhat interestingly, that booklet actually stated (or warned, depending on perspective) that voting to leave would see Britain leave the single market, customs union, defence partnerships and a host of European agencies.

Wait, everybody from the leave side told voters not to believe Cameron and his fear mongering. That is when Project Fear was shouted by all and sundry, now you want to tell people that they should have believed the people you told them to ignore?

This is probably one of the most ridiculous statements out there regarding Brexit. This is almost as ridiculous as telling the EU that there will be technology to easily negate the need for a border so there is no need for the backstop. Have I missed it that we have somehow ended up in the movie Idiocracy?

Call me Al

Folkstonian wrote: »

[PHP][/PHP]

Cut the melodrama. ‘Dangerous’ it is not. ‘Revision’ it is not.

People were told in a thick booklet delivered by Cameron’s government to every household in the U.K. that leaving the EU would mean an inevitable loss of access to a wide range of European agencies, including agencies based in Britain.

David Davies has always been regarded as a figure of comedy.

You appear to be talking about two different people (Davis/Davies).
Although both Brexiteers, so agreed quite likely their gravitas is questionable.

Nody

funkey_monkey wrote: »

WTO rules out need for Hard Border - Nov 2018

So, if the WTO states there is no need for a hard border (until someone else complains about it) how likely is it that another nation would lodge a complaint and how long would it take to resolve?
I'm assuming that there would only be a financial penalty and not an 'order' to erect some type of border checks.

That's nothing new though; if UK wants zero controls on all imports they can have it. The problem is UK wants full control at every border BUT the NI border which is the issue that no one in the UK wants to talk about.

As for how long a complaint would take; seeing how there are 20ish already on UK's proposed tariff schedules I'd expect to see a complaint with in a week or two to pop up once out and normal WTO case like this I'd guess two to five years to resolve. The penalty will be financial (i.e. counter tariffs) to offset the loss for the duration with an order to ensure fair treatment for all countries at all borders.

Russman

Enzokk wrote: »

Okay, seems like the UK Government plan is to tell the EU that they will have to reopen the negotiations again. Unsurprisingly the EU has ruled this out. So it seems that once again Theresa May has her plans ruled out before she even presents it to the EU. Just like Chequers where her plan was ruled out before she even had the chance to prepare for her meetings with the EU.

Guardian Politics Live


Update at 11h57:


Then at 12h31,

Its the likes of this that I think makes a no-deal crash out pretty much nailed on at this point. The numbers for May just don't stack up, no matter which way she goes. Why, oh why she won't move on a different red line than the backstop, is beyond me. A bit like the old joke about a carrier group demanding a lighthouse change its course to get out of its way - its just not going to happen.
I guess her only hope is to try wait them out until 28th March and hope her deal is a bit less worse than the alternative.