Early indications show UK favouring 'hard Brexit', says expert The UK will trigger Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, triggering the formal two-year Brexit negotiation process, by the end of March 2017, the prime minister has announced. The government also intends to publish a 'Great Repeal Bill' which, once given effect, will remove the 1972 European Communities Act from the UK statute …
She was running false colors in the Remain campaign throughout as she is in favor of exiting everything - including the Human Rights convention. And she is going through with it. Prepare for that one too - it will be sneaked through as a part of the "Great Repeal" Bill.
I've said it before and I'll say it again in for the example of Abbu Hamsa 'The Hook', the UCHR were a right royal pain in the bum and cost the tax payer a bucket load of coin protecting a previously convicted criminal and courts had documented video and audio proof of his guilt.
Let the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights fight for his rights if you're worried he won't be treated well.
"I've said it before and i will say it again, why do you need human rights, if you're not doing anything wrong?"
As someone else has pointed out , even Russian has signed the convention yet happily abuses human rights time and again. The convention is nothing more than ink on a page. True authority ultimately lies with whoever controls the courts and military.
I've said it before and i will say it again, why do you need human rights, if you're not doing anything wrong?
Read a history book, you fucking dolt, and you'll find out why we have the European Convention on Human Rights, incidentally largely written by British lawyers.
If you need some more guidance, the bit you should be looking at is the bit right after the Weimar Republic...
"... why we have the European Convention on Human Rights"
Yup. And even if the UK left the ECHR it would still be bound by UN conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Though in NL Mr Wilders is now agitating for NL to leave the UN too, I gather.)
"She was running false colors in the Remain campaign throughout as she is in favor of exiting everything - including the Human Rights convention."
Whilst I agree with the first statement the ECHR is a separate entity and whatever she may be in favour of it's not as easily disposed of as you seem to think.
"Opting out" the Human Rights Convention is particularly worrying, even Russia is a signatory.
The cases that end up being tried under these regulations don't tend to be about some hapless squaddie making the wrong decision in the heat of battle, but about abuse and mistreatment of unarmed and helpless prisoners or outright torture and denial of basic human rights (Remember this legislation came about in the wake of Nazism and the practices of the SS and Gestapo ).
"Opting out" is a seriously bad idea.
"including the Human Rights convention. And she is going through with it. Prepare for that one too - it will be sneaked through as a part of the "Great Repeal" Bill."
Good, fuck the human rights convention. A gravy train for legal parasites to make a killing preventing murderers and rapists being deported and allowing criminals to sue the police on spurious grounds. Go ahead mod me down, I'm not alone in my opinion.
There's no general prohibition in our Human Rights Act on the deportation of foreign nationals. If the Government decides that a citizen from another country, with limited ties to the UK, should no longer be allowed to stay and can safely be sent back, nothing in our HRA prevents this. However, under international human rights law, the absolute prohibition on torture does prevent countries from sending people anywhere where they will be tortured. But this is entirely logical. If we abhor torture, we must also abhor its outsourcing. If governments were only prohibited from torturing their own citizens, but permitted to send people to places of torture, there'd be little distinction between deportation and extraordinary rendition. Even before the introduction of our HRA, the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights prevented the UK from deporting people to places of torture.
Depending on the facts, a person’s right to a family life, as protected by Article 8, may also be interfered with in some cases if deported. But Article 8 is a qualified right, and can be overruled. As such, Home Office policy considers all the facts, including the reason for the deportation (i.e. whether a serious offence has been committed); the length of time the person has been in the UK; and whether the person has, for example, young children born in the UK, or a British spouse. This is the type of balancing exercise the Home Office would carry out regardless of our Human Rights Act, but it has provided greater transparency, accountability and oversight of Home Office decisions.
While the Home Secretary, Theresa May, has claimed that 'thousands' of people use Article 8 to stay in Britain every year, the number of deportations prevented is actually very small. In 2011, for example, 1,888 appeals were made against such deportation - only 185 of those were allowed on Article 8 grounds (less than 10 per cent of total appeals, and less than 5 per cent of total deportations).
Stop reading the Daily Mail.
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/human-rights-act-mythbuster
"the victim always seems to come second with regards to human rights"
That's the crux of it. It seems that way, but how many human rights cases have you read? You've probably only heard about the ones that ended up in the news, and the ones in the news are featured because they are in some way unusual. For example, a case where it seems that the victim is coming second is much more likely to be reported, especially by an entity like the Daily Mail who have a readership which wants to be told that the ECHR is bad.
As just one example where the ECHR has made your life better; the UK police are not allowed to keep your DNA on file forever if you've not been charged with a crime.
"As just one example where the ECHR has made your life better; the UK police are not allowed to keep your DNA on file forever if you've not been charged with a crime."
No that does not make my life better, it has no impact on me at all as far as I can tell.
"No boltar, I don't have a dog in the Brexit fight, but I like to think that my vision extends beyond the tip of my own nose. Your's doesn't seem to do so."
Well for a start it was a somewhat tongue in cheek post which you obviously didn't pick up on , probably because your head is so clearly up your own backside you couldn't see it, but secondly the remain camp seems to be nothing but endless whinging millenials crying about their poor ickle futures. The hilarious irony being that if Generation Snowflake wasn't so fucking lazy and useless there wouldn't be so many foreign nationals in the UK doing their jobs for them and this whole Brexit thing would never have happened!
"the UK police are not allowed to keep your DNA on file forever"
Alas the articles below do not exactly give one much confidence that the rules are being followed, either in spirit or letter:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/05/home_office_settlements/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/15/british_police_broke_law_illegal_biometrics_investigate_crimes/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/11/home_office_warned_over_police_facial_recognition_abuses/
I can actually see some value to the public in the police being allowed to keep some data, subject to appropriate rules (not necessarily the ones currently in place) and oversight, but if even they are prepared to break the law then there's not really much left to have faith in.
"Good, fuck the human rights convention. A gravy train for legal parasites to make a killing preventing murderers and rapists being deported and allowing criminals to sue the police on spurious grounds. Go ahead mod me down, I'm not alone in my opinion."
Indeed you are not alone, which just proves that more than one person has no idea what they are ranting about!
Plenty of ECHR judgements which are very much in the public interest including challenges on sexuality and employment, military equipment to protect troops. Unlawful retention of DNA data etc.etc.
Not every human rights case is listed in the Daily Mail and most of those that are tend to be misreported!
Notwithstanding that one of the fathers of modern human rights law was Winston Churchill, who, I suspect has a little more gravitas than you do Bolfar!
"Notwithstanding that one of the fathers of modern human rights law was Winston Churchill, who, I suspect has a little more gravitas than you do Bolfar!"
Winston Churchill was also somewhat racist particularly towards indians. He often got it wrong. So whats your point exactly?
Go ahead mod me down, I'm not alone in my opinion.
Yes, other people who share you opinion are idiots too. Next time, before you start ranting against the ECHR, maybe you should actually read it. It is (in summary) actually quite short, and contains none of the nonsense you just spouted.
She was running false colours in the Remain campaign throughout
Of course... remember, everyone thought Remain was going to be the majority vote, it was a career decision, not a conscience decision on her part, her right-wing police state dreams belief in British sovereignty was aired in a foo-pah early in the campaign (you know the one, about staying in the EU but leaving the ECHR).
...we need a 'witch' logo (or at least a 'Sea Devil' logo) in these times...in the meantime, have a Paris one as a cheer up. (If you are wondering whyI don't know what people see in her either).
It's gone from January/February (according to Donald Tusk's account of conversations with Theresa May) to March in a couple of weeks. At this point given how things keep on changing the only meaningful thing will be the actual act of invoking article 50.
Anything else just amounts to meaningless words that seem to change on an almost daily basis.
"It's gone from January/February (according to Donald Tusk's account of conversations with Theresa May) to March in a couple of weeks"
If I remember it right Tusk assumed and it was politely explained that it was his opinion not quite reflecting the will of the gov. Since only the gov can invoke article 50 Tusk was wrong no matter how they wish it to start on their schedule.
"Since only the gov can invoke article 50 ..." From which truism it does not follow that the Government can do it without the consent of Parliament, because Parliament might well fail to pass the Great Repeal Bill, being as how most MPs know that actually implementing Brexit would destroy the economy. (You may have noticed that the Tory conference has almost destroyed the £ already.) So three things: sign the petition, write to your MP, and tell all your friends to do the same.
@ Yes Me
"So three things: sign the petition, write to your MP, and tell all your friends to do the same."
No thanks. When the population doesnt matter any more how do we consider that a good thing? How can it be considered good that politicians can ignore the people to take drastic and country damaging action? The gov is unaccountable enough already as Blair was free to launch 2 wars by just convincing the few with his lies. Now we have the situation of an absolute promise to carry out the will of the people on a promise made for the last few elections back to Blair but avoided as the people would answer it wrong. If we ignore the vote we might as well call ourselves the People's Democratic Republic of the UK.
Really love that title the 'Great Repeal Bill' , will they have it read aloud from Parliament by an ancestor of William Pitt the Younger (broadcast live by the BBC with the announcer using his respectful "State Occasion" voice) whilst Beefeaters at the Tower ceremonially destroy crates of bratwurst and French wine, whilst the assembled masses shout "Huzzah!!"?
I hear the Royal navy will shortly be ordering some new dreadnoughts and gunboats to patrol the English Channel and keep those ghastly foreigners out.
I wake every day hoping I'll wake up in hospital with a kindly psychiatrist saying "Well, that was one hell of a delusion you had there wasn't it?", but sadly so far the nightmare continues...
From what I can tell there may be debate, but the laws will be able to be repealed through the use of statutory instruments, which is basically a government minister signing it off without the need for a commons vote.
So we will have taken back control only to give it all up to a government minister.
So potentially goodbye working time directive, Environmental controls et al without even a vote in parliament
"intellectual giants Davis, Fox and Johnson."
There's some body of thought that these esteemed gentlemen have been appointed to those positions on the basis of "you caused this, now make it work" and their failure will be able to be used as a good reason to not Brexit after all.
If that's the case then I would expect comrade Theresa to keep saying that Brexit will happen right up to the day when she says its not practical without losing all access to europe and offers another referendum on whether people really want this madness.
Given that Pitt the Younger has been dead for over a couple of hundred years it's going to be hard finding a living ancestor to do that.
Why?
Evidence would seem to suggest that he may have been homosexual, or asexual, but it's not unfeasible that he had children with someone.
Ancestors go back more than one generation. After all, I'm a living ancestor of all my great-great-great-great-great-grandparents.
Given that Pitt the Younger has been dead for over a couple of hundred years it's going to be hard finding a living ancestor to do that.
"Ancestors go back more than one generation. After all, I'm a living ancestor descendant of all my great-great-great-great-great-grandparents."
FTFY - and now you know the why of the witty comment.
After all, I'm a living ancestor of all my great-great-great-great-great-grandparents.
Can I have a go in your time machine then? I'm thinking of dropping Amber Rudd off in a Jewish community in Germany circa 1936 for a couple of years, so she can see first hand the logical conclusion of the sort of dangerous nonsense she has been spouting.
"Given that Pitt the Younger has been dead for over a couple of hundred years it's going to be hard finding a living ancestor to do that."
Given that the UK Royal family claims Royal ancestry dating back before Alfred the Great I am sure someone in the Tory Party is up to the task.
Do you fact check every humorous throw away comment?
> Why would we want to change this exactly, Mrs. May? EU food labeling law is probably the best in the world.
For one thing, we need to make sure we start calling them Freedom Fries!
Don't worry guys, when Article 50 is triggered and we somehow all fail to become millionaires, all us TRUE brits will know that it's entirely the fault of the immigrants and those who oldthink unbellyfeel IngSoc Brexit and we'll be able to have a referendum on starting The Reclamation.
>Why would we want to change this exactly, Mrs. May?
She didn't say we would, merely that we could.
But, yes, with great power comes great responsibility. We won't be able to rely (if we ever did) on someone else in Europe holding the governing bodies to account.
Where is this clamour from the nation to return to pounds and ounces?
From the ones who REALLY VOTED for this. Which is not the under 50 generation.
Pity they are not obliged to shoulder it too. I would like to see exactly how they will fare without Polish nurses to change their nappies and German surgeons to change their hip joints while they are under an anesthetic administered by a Romanian anesthesiologist.
It will be the under 50 generation shouldering _ALL_ of it, while they enjoy continuous attention of the politicos who care only about the ones who votes, not about the overall future of the nation.
"From the ones who REALLY VOTED for this. Which is not the under 50 generation."
That comes across as rather silly. Certainly a larger percentage of older people probably voted exit and a larger percentage of younger voted remain but it's not that clear cut. Even worst is this dammed line "a clear majority voted for exit" - I'd say a small majority - its the rest of us feeling sorry ( for the moment)
"Silly or not, the numbers are clear."
Do you have a ref. to that ?? AFAIK there is no hard evidence for % by population only for turnout and certainly no hard statistics that I've seen.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-did-different-demographic-groups-vote-eu-referendum.
AFAIK no-one has strong evidence only conjecture and anecdote. In any case there seems to be no evidence that the vast majority of each age group voted as you suggested
"Pity it will not be these numbers shouldering the burden of the ensuing clusterf*** once all the European doctors on the NHS leave."
Jeremy CHunt has announced a big increase in training for new Doctors. Unfortunately, this is not in answer to the likely exodus of EU nationals from the NHS, but to address the the current shortage of doctors. This is the looming shortage that was talked about 7 or 8 years ago. Now it's arrived, he's starting to do something about it. It's a shame they didn't do something 7 or 8 years ago because then they'd now be qualified and trained and ready to go. So when the EU nationals leave the NHS to go home, we can expect a new announcement that we'll train more doctors then, and no sooner.
"and a larger percentage of younger voted remain"
IIRC, the younger demographic was the least likely to have bothered to vote in the first place. As an over 50 myself, I wish more of them had turned out and voted to stay. It would have only taken a few 1000 of them to swing it, but the lazy gits couldn't be arsed.
I upset quite a few relatives who were ardent out voters and all in 70s by calling them coffin dodgers leaving the country in a mess for the young people.
And what did it matter for them as when it was all gone through they would either be too old to care or 6 feet under?
They mentioned general elections. I said so we vote every 5 years if we are part of the EU or not?
Then the ONE major thing to keep us in is being ignored, City of London
"Any change in labelling law to accommodate de-metrification will probably be Monsanto-friendly."
Not to worry. Monsanto is being bought by Bayer right now.
My local market never stopped selling in pounds. Unlike the 'metric martyrs' (AKA illiterates & cretins), they read the regulations, sought advice, bought dual standard scales then promptly added the lb prices below the metric ones and carried on as normal.
Today it's still possible to buy in metric or imperial but few do it. The new measure is 'the bowl' and doesn't get weighed at all!
This post has been deleted by its author
"I do wonder if the real reason behind the desire to leave the EU is that the EU is gradually clamping down on interesting means of tax avoidance."
That may turn out to be a result, but I highly doubt it was a cause. Pretty much everyone in government was pretty certain the vote would be to stay. Even the leave campaign were speechless when they won.
>EU food labelling law is probably the best in the world
Being an omnivore I do like to eat meat but don't like to watch it shrink to a quarter of it's original size thanks to the EU allowing a degree of water injection or added water, a practice the EU should have banned outright. I don't mind paying more but I don't like being ripped off.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, again!
Remember the thread on Cheddar cheese?, Over forty percent is manufactured outside the UK but can be labeled made in the UK because it was packaged here and The British Cheese Board will agree too!
So I would agree with Mays decision and furthermore would like an additional label on food to show how green it is.
If the carbon footprint for a particular item was very high and the footprint for the same quality similarly priced item from another supplier/grower was lower I would purchase the one that used less fuel to get here.
"but can be labeled made in the UK because it was packaged here "
Ah, but similar things happen with Italian olive oil (most of which is produced in Bulgaria, Romania or northern Africa) and used to happen in the UK even before it joined the EU.
Amazing how quick politicos will jump on that bandwagon if they think it will help them. If it were a poll, the referendum would have been practically within the margin of error and 28% didn't vote.
There is a case for reducing immigration but it shouldn't mean the nasty party has a licence to hop into their time machine and travel back 200 years when it comes to everything.
- Reducing opportunity with grammar schools.
- Implying the UK are doing foreign doctors a favour by letting them work when it's the UK that desperately needs them.
- Making companies inform the government about which of their employees are foreign. Government should know that already.
- Pulling out of human rights.
- Not taking in refugees*.
- An overall discourse which foments xenophobia.
* Don't confuse this word with other words.
- Making companies inform the government about which of their employees are foreign. Government should know that already.
- Pulling out of human rights.
Parts of what they're saying read almost word for word out of Mein Kampf.
Godwin.
"
"Oh come on. Corbyn's socialism is only 100 years old."
Downvoted for not knowing the date of the Communist Manifesto (1848). It's nearer 166 years.
"
Downvoted for not knowing that it was illegal to be a "socialist" in Communist Russia, and hence Communism and Socialism are not comparable.
"Downvoted for not knowing that it was illegal to be a "socialist" in Communist Russia, and hence Communism and Socialism are not comparable."
And what, pray, has the Russian version of communism got to do with the British Labour Party? Nothing. And the old dead Red guy is buried at Golders Green, not in Moscow. (I believe the Russian embassy lays a wreath there every year but that's about it.)
However - before downvoting you need to get a clue yourself. What does USSR/CCCP stand for? Oh, it only stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Right there in the name. Bit of a giveaway that. One would have thought that an expert like yourself might even have known it.
For the three people still interested in Communist theology, the Soviet Union was officially regarded as a socialist state. Socialism was the stage that human social evolution had to go through before becoming truly Communist. The Communist Party was supposed to consist of people who had reached the state of true Communism, who would educate and inspire the merely socialist workers to become communists themselves. This stuff is pretty well documented, you know.
The Soviet Union did not allow socialist parties because that would be a backward step as they would deflect the workers from setting their goals on true Communism.
Disclaimer: I'm not a communist, I'm not a member of the Labour Party, my original post was simply stating a literal fact, which is that socialism dates back a lot more than 100 years.
"Socialism was the stage that human social evolution had to go through before becoming truly Communist."
And socialism itself was (and is) a post-capitalist, post-scarcity societal structure. It's not something that you could layer on a mostly agrarian subsistance society and have a hope of actually achieving, even at gunpoint.
The USSR was a command economy with a military structure. Whatever kind of society it was, it most definitely wasn't communism as Marx or Engels envisaged it, in the same way that "democratic people's republics" usually bear no relationship to any of those three words.
"to have the freedom to make our own decisions on a whole host of different matters, from how we label our food to the way in which we choose to control immigration,"
I think the government may quickly find that in a global economy there is far less freedom than they would like to think. The main difference will be the loss of any influence on many of those rules
Also, when she says we are going, once more, to have the freedom to make our own decisions, "we" means herself and her parliamentary colleagues, not "us". Just wait for the decisions on fracking and London airport expansion. Oh, hang on, news just in...
"... in a global economy there is far less freedom than they would like to think."
Hear, hear!
I get the impression that nowadays politicians have very little real-world experience (as businesspeople, engineers, etc.) and are quite unaware of how the world works, and how much they/we can influence it. Do they ever talk with real people, or only with their equally disconnected colleagues?
"I think the government may quickly find that in a global economy there is far less freedom than they would like to think. The main difference will be the loss of any influence on many of those rules"
I think the government by and large knows that. But now they have to pander to that slim majority of June voters who didn't, probably still don't and will eventually find out the hard way.
It's looking pretty much like May is the puppet of what I always thought of as the Nasty wing of the Conservatives: Redwood, Howard, Lawson et al. People with "something of the night" about them. The only thing to look forward to now is a bit of schadenfreude (sorry, immigrant word) as the Little Englanders whingeing about how they never benefited from Europe discover that their Brexit Dividend is going to be a good old fashioned dose of Tebbit Toryism: get on your bikes and take up those fruit picking jobs!
Regarding that "hard" Brexit, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor seem to have some very different ideas.
Schadenfreude indeed.
"May also used her speech to confirm that it was "up to the government … and the government alone" to invoke Article 50 and begin the Brexit process, ruling out the need for the agreement of the House of Commons and the House of Lords."
I distinctly seem to remember that Leavers wanted to repatriate sovereignty to Westminster (and presumably the devolved assemblies/parliament). But now she (sprung upon the country by internal party politics) is proposing to bypass Parliament when it comes to what it probably the most important event in the country's history for decades. To me, that doesn't compute. I thought Parliament was sovereign, not the government.
According to classic Diceyan constitutional theory, in the UK, Parliament (the legislature) is sovereign, and is bound by no one, not even itself. The government (the executive) puts the will of Parliament into effect. This includes the Crown, except for certain areas of prerogative held over from when the term meant what it said. There has been a withdrawal from the classical theory that has been accelerating since Thatcher's clusterfuck of a government, which May seems to be using as an early prototype for her regime, in which Parliament is a hindrance to the will of the executive. (Note:I'm not absolving Blair, who simply followed the Thatcher playroom to the letter. ) Who would have thought I'd miss Cameron?
in all the years of debate ive heard 2 realistic sensible things that are downsides 2 leaving.
1) free movement (of us) in europe - EU may decide UK people never get a work permit - incredibly unlikely though (but easy to understand). Free movement of them over here - if we want people in to pick strawberries - or to do heart surgery for the NHS - WE LET THEM . simple. u dont need to be in the EU to let people visit your country.
2) Trade Tarriffs - not so easy to understand.
I believe the principle is that most Govs in the world are opposed to free trade and will slap a huge tax on foreigners trying to hoik their goods in that country. for some reason. Possibly they puthese tarrifs on to protect their own industry if its not as competitive as johhny foreigner.
Hence countries have to play nice and make deals with each other.
So whats the default situation for a new country on the block with no friends?
Free trade till your target country decides its bad?
depends on the country?
even more basic question - whats the current deal with varuios contries?
what if an american company wants to sell us something? like ipad?
OH NO - THEYRE NOT IN EURPORE - NOOOOOO . WERE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!
wait , no , i fancy an ipad . oh look i bought one
was there a tarrif?
No "Remainer" has ever given an example of "When country X sells item Y to country Z" they incurr a tarrif of N currencys"
I'm sure these things exist but if the remainers had publiced som examples it a bit more instead of all the grim brothers fairy tales about armageddon - they might have won.
Free movement of people:-
I am biased as during the great financial crisis of 2008 I found myself with no contract and almost no new contracts coming up in the UK.Got a call about a role in Amsterdam on a Monday, phone interview on the Tuesday flew out for a face to face interview on the Thursday and started work the Monday following. All nice and easy, with no freedom of movement I would have been stuffed.
Tariffs:-
Are not the worst hing in the world, the thing is we also have a customs union this is why we can't currently have a free trade agreement with countries outside the EU. A simple example is garlic, Garlic from outside the EU is subject to a 9.6% import duty, so if I import garlic into the UK I can export it to the rest of the EU with a minimal amount of paperwork. Norway has a free trade deal with the EU, however its import duty for garlic is 0% so if you want to export garlic from Norway to the EU there is far more paperwork involved as the duty depends on where the garlic originated. If you grow garlic for export the duty is 0% if you import form outside the EU and reexport then the duty is 9.6%.
Generally I will be okay as either it will all be great beer will be a pound a pint and everyone will own a British made car. Or it will go to shit at which point I will hopefully have finished my Master degree so will qualifier for either an EU blue Card/Emigration to New Zealand/Australia/Canada.
Prst. V.Jeltz You can have a trawl through UK import tarriffs and codes and red tape here:
https://www.gov.uk/trade-tariff/a-z-index/a
The WTO has something to do with it too, quite frankly it all seems a bit of a nightmare, those are the rates we charge for imports, no country on earth will let us charge for imports and not return the favour for our exports, so the governments of country X and Y will more or less both get their cut, it just means it will cost you more when you buy stuff.
Also if Europe were to decide British holiday makers needed a visa to enter Europe on holiday you'd have to pay for that too, but those nice Europeans would never do something like that to us just to be arsey.
I imagine somewhere in the bowels of the Spanish government someone is planning how to leverage this to get Gibraltar back.
1b) Ability of European academics to work at our universities and corporations.
3) Subsidies to science, agriculture, renewable etc... and ability to participate in pan-European projects.
4) Inward investment in places our politicians don't give a shit about.
5) Outward Investment in poorer European countries so they develop into a market which wants to buy our goods and services and the standard of life becomes good enough that they don't want to live here.
6) Efficiency savings from maintaining a single negotiating team (I saw a figure that we'll be paying £65 million/year to fund trade negotiators) and the ability to negotiate better trade deal as a single block.
7) Efficiency savings from at having to do customs paperwork when we sell stuff to Europe. And having a single set of pan-European standards rather than 27 different ones.
8) Probably a bunch more things I've missed off. Before the referendum, I thought the EU was probably a bad deal. Since the referendum I've come to realise how great a deal it is.
And your understanding of (2) is naive. The EU and the rest of the world will have to put tariffs on the product we sell them. I don't think we're obliged to slap tariffs on anything we import if we don't want too, although it would be suicide, since it would give us no bargaining power. (And even without tariffs, prices will rise anyway due to the drop in sterling.) And if I follow things correctly, the EU or any other country can't cut us a special deal; they have to treat us like everybody else unless the rest of the WTO agrees.
Here's the import duties on iPhones the average global is 2.3%. And according to FullFact "In 2013, the EU’s trade weighted average...tariff was 2.3% for non-agricultural products. This is an average figure and tariffs on some individual products are much higher....The EU tariff on cars, for example, is 10%." That 10% figure has been bandied about often enough. And tariffs can be much more complicated than 10% on everything: it might be 4% on the first 10,000 tons and 15% on everything after that. (Apparently the situation with chickens.)
> 1b) Ability of European academics to work at our universities and corporations.
> 3) Subsidies to science, agriculture, renewable etc... and ability to participate in pan-European projects.
Uncertainty about those has already resulted in enough stuff going titsup that I probably won't have a UK job by the middle of 2017.
On the other hand, I'm skilled and experienced enough that I've already been getting offers to go and sort out stuff in outer bumfuckistan for £UNGODLY_AMOUNTS and come back in a decade.
By then the property bubble will probably have collapsed and I'll be able to afford a house, but more likely I'll brush up on my romance languages and park up on a french coastal village somewhere.
"The EU tariff on cars, for example, is 10%."
Which is why Sunderland voting overwhelmingly to leave never made sense. Not only was most of the money coming into the area EU-sourced, Nissan now has no choice but to shut up shop.
"No, you can't keep your massive regional subsidies. You're going to get fucked because you voted for it. Lube up and bend over"
As we are not part of the Schengen area of mainlaind Europe we currently rely on EU membership for Visa free travel within Schengen.
My colleagues from outside the EU (Australia, South Africa, India) have to purchase a Schengen visa to travel in Europe, currently France is the best value and once you have had a couple they will give you a longer duration one. Costs about £80 a pop!
Once we leave the EU and have 'taken control' of our borders we will be subject to Schengen rules and will need to get a visa unless a deal on that is done.
As for work, that will require work visa's for each country!
Less paperwork if we leave apparently, and £350 million a week to spend on roast beef, warm sturdy ale and the NHS!
Problem is .... WTO tarif rules don't cover financial services.
2 years after she triggers article 50 and no bank in London has any more right to trade in Europe than a bank in China or New York does. Think all those banks are going to stay in London for the weather and scenery ?
However much you hate bankers they are a big chunk of the UK's earnings
Trade tariffs are also influenced by perceived fairness in production and competition. Directly subsidise your producers more than your target country: tariff increased, indirectly subsidise them with poor working rights for employees: tariff increased. It's the underlying basis for the 4 freedoms, letting movement eliminate unfair competition.
The tories will find themselves seriously constrained on their usual behaviours if they really wants free trade.
"Think all those banks are going to stay in London for the weather and scenery ?"
Do you think they're going to stay anyway?
Financial groups can't stand uncertainty. They've been moving their shit out of the UK since June and they're not going to stop now even if Theresa says it was all a bad joke and it's all off.
"It would be "some time" before it became clear which UK goods and services, if any, would benefit from any such trade deal, and the terms on which they would do so, Lougher said."
Because any such trade deal is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the EU negotiators to permit us to have such a deal.
If they don't feel like being generous (and why should they?) and we don't have anything to offer in return (and the Brexit people have emphasised repeatedly that we are not going to give ground on anything) then we are out of luck and up the creek.
> If they don't feel like being generous (and why should they?) and we don't have anything to offer in return (and the Brexit people have emphasised repeatedly that we are not going to give ground on anything) then we are out of luck and up the creek.
It's far worse than that.
Once article 50 is triggered, the EU negotiators could simply shut up shop, padlock the doors and walk away for 2 years.
At the end of 2 years, the UK would be out with NO deals and NO concessions and NO desire on the part of the EU to play nice.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if some elements in the EU decide that's the best way forward, to make it clear what will happen to any other countries wanting to pull this stunt.
From all appearances, Theresa May is essentially the female incarnation of Donald Trump. Her policies and speeches reflect the same infusion of anti-immigrant, xenophobic, banter as Mr. Trump. She makes the same bold claims about improving trade deals to favour Britain while closing off certain trade or flow of workers, just like Trump does when he says he will slap all sorts of huge taxes on foreign made products and stop immigration, all while magically improving external markets for USA products and services. This is all total fantasy.
The UK may, over a very, very long time somehow emerge OK from all this, like when the UK is one of the few remaining bits of land that is cool and wet enough to raise crops after global warming has decimated most other arable regions. But, even then, the hordes will just come take it from you all, whether you have Theresa's newest fleet of nuke-equipped subs or whatever. The bottom line is clear: the UK is committing economic suicide in order to make a last-stand against inevitable immigration and globalization. Likewise with Trump and his followers.
"the UK is committing economic suicide in order to make a last-stand against inevitable immigration and globalization."
Not the slightest bit of irony in the UK being the largest single driver of both of those items over the last 300 years, of course.
Is it possible that the UK could quick BREXIT, then Parliament could move to quickly re-join?
In theory yes, politically no.
Doesn't the majority of UK citizens now believe it was a mistake
No, they don't as it happens. The predicted economic collapse having failed to appear on cue has if anything strengthened resolve and the medium term predictions are being treated with a contempt they don't deserve.
In fact at least one remainer of my acquaintance has said rather loudly that if it came to a second referendum he'd vote out not because he's changed his mind but because he believes in democracy. I doubt he's alone.
Doesn't the majority of UK citizens now believe it was a mistake, that they were misled?
No idea, and we won't know unless we ask them, put it to a vote.
If leavers were confident the country still wanted to brexit they would have no hesitation in having that voted on, proving conclusively that brexit is what people still want.
But they are completely opposed to that. Go figure.
"we won't know unless we ask them, put it to a vote."
No, that doesn't work. We'll only know when brexit happens and we all find out what the consequences are after enough years pass. Whatever happens half(ish) of the population is wrong and will never accept that without experiencing it. (It's not impossible everyone is wrong and in/out is irrelevant - just unlikely)
If I get another vote, I'll be voting the English & Welsh out regardless. I'll also be voting for breakup of GB if given the chance.
@ Jason Bloomberg
"No idea, and we won't know unless we ask them, put it to a vote."
Thats a good idea. We could have a referendum and ask for the peoples opinion and then when they have voted we do that. Hmm. We have had a vote and the people have given their opinion and we were told it would be carried out. Are you saying we should keep voting until we get the right answer?
"If leavers were confident the country still wanted to brexit they would have no hesitation in having that voted on, proving conclusively that brexit is what people still want."
If remainers were so certain we wanted to be part of the EU we would have had a referendum long ago. Except the likelihood of a remain vote was unlikely until more recently, the Stockholm syndrome problem combined with people without any other experience (or clue) was setting the course. I assume thats how North Koreans got so used to their way of life. They have to vote the right way too.
We have had a vote and the people have given their opinion and we were told it would be carried out.
Actually it was an advisory vote. But let's take it that, yes, people made their desire to leave perfectly clear.
So we are leaving. That seems an inevitability. But we didn't ask what form our leaving should take, we don't know what form the electorate would prefer.
You mention North Korea. I am saying give people a vote. You seem to be the one against that.
@ Jason Bloomberg
"Actually it was an advisory vote. But let's take it that, yes, people made their desire to leave perfectly clear."
It is interesting how a result can be re-framed to suit a purpose. Such as it being the result which will be carried out immediately and so on until we voted wrong. Now it is advisory. I wonder if you would still say that if we voted remain.
"So we are leaving. That seems an inevitability. But we didn't ask what form our leaving should take, we don't know what form the electorate would prefer."
Of course those who vote remain want us to remain with a leave label on it at the most. I do pitty those who see the leave vote as a xenophobic problem as there are also plenty of leave voters who want a more global outlook. Imagine if the remain voters who care about trade and other countries were to side with those leave voters, maybe the EU could see some value in that. Instead of being trapped in an insular EU we could expand our view including the EU if they so wish.
"You mention North Korea. I am saying give people a vote. You seem to be the one against that."
Kim also gives people the vote. Of course they are expected to vote the right way under threat of X,Y and Z. Also you argue you are for a vote, but your against following through with the vote. The terms were set by a zealot remainer so if your not happy with the vote it is the problem with the terms and campaigns of the remain. And their threats which have a bit less bite than NK's.
Complex products like cars are made from parts and materials from all over the place.
At the moment a car made in Sunderland is source from the UK, EU and outside the EU.
Input taxes are straight forward, VAT in the UK and EU is paid at source, outside the EU gets tariffed at import and thats it. Build the car and sell in the UK or in the EU and no further tariffs and just collect VAT from the buyer.
Exit the EU system and it will make a huge difference where the parts came from and the tariff on cars exported will be complex to calculate and constantly changing as alternate sources are used.
...you only need to look at the statements about Brexit made by Philip Hammond, before Brexit, and after he was made Chancellor
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/03/philip-hammond-said-brexit-would-make-us-poorer-does-he-think-we/
This is one of the supposedly sensible politicians. Can you believe a single word any of them say?
Yes, yes, perhaps I knew this before, but perhaps I didn't have the correct level of contempt for them.
Once, politicians might have seen it their job to try to help the people see what was best. Now, the politicians modify what they say and think in order to seem popular to a population whose minds have been turned to mush by decades of the most abysmal journalism masquerading as the 'truth' in our popular press.
Philip knows which way his bread is buttered. He hasn't got a flying **** how bad Brexit will be, but hey, he's CHANCELLOR, and if it all goes pear-shaped, it's those LAZY companies not GETTING MORE BUSINESS to replace that which he and his party have bulldozed into the english channel.
Thank you, Boltar, and Philip Hammond for standing forward to demonstrate just how deep the rot has set in.
At least we've "got our country back". F***.
Sign the petition, write to your MP, and tell all your friends to do the same.
How about these three things:-
The majority has voted to leave, there isn't going to be another referendum, get over it.
Or these three things:-
You can either try make a success of it, carry on whinging forever, or emigrate to your beloved Europe.
"The majority has voted to leave, there isn't going to be another referendum, get over it."
There doesn't need to be another referendum ! - if the terms on offer are too disadvantageous ( they will be !) Parliament can decide not to proceed. Article 50 starts the process it doesn't end it.
A small majority have voted to leave for all sorts of reasons without any clear idea of all the consequences and misled in many ways by the leaders of the campaign to exit. To have unsatisfactory terms accepted on the strength of a terrible referendum that will be 2+ years in the past would be an abdication of the sovereignty of Parliament
(65+ year old)
Once Article 50 is triggered there are only two outcomes, we leave with a deal in place, or we leave without one.
If there was any possibility of the UK parliament voting to stay if it didn't like the deal, what sort of deal do you think Europe would offer? They'd offer even less than the sod all they are promising out of spite at the moment.
"Once Article 50 is triggered there are only two outcomes, we leave with a deal in place, or we leave without one."
The third option seems to be to retract Article 50
“there is nothing in Article 50 itself one way or another; it does not say
that you can retract or, once invoked, that you cannot retract. So it is left
to the lawyers to have those enjoyable disputes to sort it out.”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldconst/44/44.pdf
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/13804.htm#_idTextAnchor008
So it's probably down to the lawyers.
This post has been deleted by its author
...not because it is easy, but because it is Hard Brexit; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our voters and politicians, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win ... AT ALL COSTS. And therefore we have ordered new nuclear submarines already, to remind everyone what a great power we once used to be - and we fear we'd lose that respect being part of the EU.
and have no plan, I seem to recall being told by no less than our previous Prime Minister and Chancellor that there would be a risk of WW3, an emergency budget and a host of other bad things if the country voted to leave. Oh, and that he'd be staying on regardless. Currently the IMF has revised its estimate of doom to acknowledge that at present we're doing rather well, although as with all matters economic that is subject to change for many reasons, not all of which relate to Brexit. If the £ has gone down, then it was overvalued anyway, as some stage a correction would have ensued, and if that £249 48" LED TC in Sainsbury's goes up by 10%, is that really the end of the world? Our goods may be cheaper elsewhere (and one of my roles relates to export finance, the country exports to many places outside the EU that don't levy tariffs in the way that the EU might.) which then helps our manufacturers and any services we provide remotely, simply as the customer pays less for them.
Also it wasn't a general election, therefore there was no "manifesto" to use as a plan. It was a simple choice on a single subject. The fact that the then government and many other parties failed to plan contingencies for the result that we got means that now a bit of thought is required, and that takes time.
If there was a further vote in parliament, or even a 2nd referendum on the terms negotiated and the vote was "don't accept this", then what? We cant stay in, after all we voted to leave, but if we leave with no terms settled then things could be very much more chaotic, and I suspect some commentators would welcome this as they would feel vindicated, apportioning all blame to the decision to leave rather than the sabotaging of the process. A decision has been mandated to our politicians and they have to get on with it to the best of their ability without having the rug pulled out from underneath them. It is not like shopping in Tesco where if the other half rings even when you have reached the checkout and says "I've changed my mind about the pineapple chunks" you can decline to purchase them, with this process once you start making commitments it goes both ways and to then be forced to dither and prevaricate, in effect letting either 650 odd (some very) parliamentarians or special interest groups or even millions of voters then pick over the details is simply infeasible from a practical standpoint. You'd get even less of the stability that people are concerned about.
Lastly, for those complaining that 48% voted to stay and are being "let down" or whatever, we elect governments on an even lower "majority" than 52% under the system we have. Several times in my voting lifetime it has been for a government that I personally didn't favour but I don't recall being offered "another go" in case more like me wanted to try and change the result in the cold light of reality the next morning.
Its not perfect but unless someone can propose and get accepted a better system, its what we have. Lets try to make it work, Regardless of my own concerns I am hoping that TM will make a decent job of this and get something that works for the country, and hopefully also for our trading partners, both inside and outside Europe. And lets us travel, and the like. Of course if the EU wants to "punish" us (rather than just deny us the benefits of membership, which is understandable) collectively for the result of a democratic choice then is it really a place you want to visit or do business with?
I can see a few moving from the UK, and even some UK based setting up satellite factories in the EU.
My UK designed and built car includes parts from all over the world, technology from other countries too.
The company has already said exiting the EU will harm it, despite it moving to be a premium manufacturer. (mine is not a premium one).
Oh and just had a look, new factory in Slovakia
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
