Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Arakhor]

You say that as if it's somehow a ridiculous premise. Again, if Scotland votes to leave the UK would it therefore have to revert to the laws as they stood in the 17th century? Leaving a political union is about a bit more than repealing laws.

Well, one of the prevailing themes in the Brexit debate was EU bureaucracy. If we keep all our EU-enforced laws and still keep all the EU trade regulations when we deal with Europe, precisely what sovereignty have we gained? The freedom to cut corporation tax rather than fund the NHS, presumably.

 

[EnglishEdward]

for some sectors the EU market is actually pretty closed to countries outside the economic area.

Please advise me which are these sectors?

 

[innonimatu]

If we keep all our EU-enforced laws and still keep all the EU trade regulations when we deal with Europe, precisely what sovereignty have we gained?

Obviously they won't be EU-enforced any more. Which will give the UK one essential ability of any sovereign state, and I believe also essential for any democracy: the ability to repeal any one of them at any time, exclusively through the (democratic) processes of the UK.

Countries that are bound to the EU lack the ability to repel any of the acquis communitaire on their own. That alone completely undermines democracy at the national level: it's either submit to all the laws already in force on leave if you have a majority wanting to change one but other EU nations block it.

This is not just a detail, mind you. This is at the hearth of the problem of lack of democratic control intrinsic to the EU.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Yes, yes it will.

In fact, every law or provision which is mentioning EU legislation will have to be combed through and considered, or if not, UK law will end up being 40 years out of touch with reality, and Parliament will have to play a lot of catch up.

Of course, all laws about internal matters can be left as is, but everything interacting with the EU or with other entities which previously interacted with the UK through the EU, must be looked at.

How about a hypothetical example of a bank in the UK which is handling pension savings for a company in Austria? Perhaps they have a 8-year contract about it, with several clauses about reparations if one of them withdraws from the deal. Maybe the pensions are invested in long-term instruments which can't be sold within the next five years.

What will they do when the UK leaves? Who will cover the costs of ending this deal? Will any of the withdrawal clauses be invoked, so should any of them pay for damages? Should the bank dump the assets at any price so they can return the pension money the company invested with them? If not, who covers the extra costs of transferring the final returns back into the EU in five years time? Should the bank and the company deal with this themselves? Should the UK government and the EU help? How?

Or another hypothetical example: A UK company which makes a special type of heat treated material for a German car factory. Their product is advanced, but not unique, so they do have competition in France. They got the contract because they were marginally cheaper for the customer, which matters with the big volume they are trading. The contract is for 10 years, with an option of renewal, so the UK company has invested in a bigger production line to be able to deliver more products and make more profits.

What happens to them when the UK leaves? Obviously the German company can switch suppliers and go with the French company if the UK one is too expensive after tariffs, but that assumes that the French company has the available capacity, or will have it in time. Good manufacturers have very tiny stockpiles of parts these days, and rely on a continuous flow of parts from their suppliers. Who covers the costs if the UK company can't deliver for a few days, because a problem in customs? And if the UK company loses business in the EU because their marginal cost becomes higher than their competitors inside the EU, what will they do with the expanded capacity? Will the UK government cover their losses for their investment?

"Minor tidying up" doesn't even begin to cover all the questions and dilemmas which arises with the UK leaving. It is fully legal and fully possible of course, but it's going to be a lot of work, and you still have no plans!

Just two years to negotiate about everything and solve all the problems sounds certifiably utopian.

Well I am pleased you are identifying real issues arising from Brexit rather
than the persistent sour grapes negativity from other Remainers.


But in neither of your two examples are the parties to the contracts
governments or the EU Commission; so there is no requirement for
the UK government or EU government to negotiate on this.


I am not an expert on pensions or heat resistant materials and
without sight of the contracts or even knowing what the governing
law is for each of them, I could only comment in the most general terms.


For long time contracts, facts (externalities) frequently change.
These may be new taxes, changes in eligibility for taxes, changes
to taxation rates or fluctuations in currency exchange e.g. pound sterling.

The contracting parties typically either provide specifically for examples of
such in the contract clauses, or have an inbuilt contract change variation
procedure that can address the issues. Failing that a healthy relationship
management can agree changes or even, if required, termination.

It has been known for over a year that the UK was very likely to have a
referendum for which there was a substantial possibility of a leave vote.

I.e. the lawyers have had plenty of time to think of this.

Although I would hope for exit on 1st April 2017, I have little confidence
in the UK politicians having the competence sorting it out in that time.

There is therefore probably at least a further year or two for the parties to
find a solution.


Considering the heat resistance material for cars.

First of all the EU might adopt the policy not to impose a customs tariff
or Secondly if it does apply that might only apply to goods provided under
contracts placed after a specific date e.g. 23 June 2015. Thirdly it might
apply only to orders placed after a certain date or Fourthly only to goods delivered
after a certain date or Fifthly only to invoices submitted after a certain date.

The EU has at least five choices that it can make unilaterally.

The UK can simply mirror that.


But assuming worst case, EU tariffs are to apply; the question is was the
order price placed for the UK factory door (in which case the German company
would be liable) or placed for delivery to the German factory (in which case
the UK company would likely be liable). In either instance the fall in the pound
is such that it would absorb some of the duty. If the French manufacturer
has not got the capacity, the German carmaker would likely leave the business
with the UK company. If the French manufacturer has the capacity, the German
car maker would likely threaten to invoke a break provision and require the UK
company to demonstrate that it could still provide best value for money.

If the UK company loses the business, it might look to other companies in the UK
or outside the EU to purchase its heat resistant material. After all if the EU puts
a tax on UK components, the UK may put an equivalent tax on EU components so
there would be UK car making companies similarly looking for duty free components.

There is no reason why the UK government should compensate the company.
My reasoning is that the impact of a modest duty is, apart from some clerk filling
in an online form somewhere, no different from a foreign exchange fluctuation.

I suspect there may be a few instances where the Bank of England may be
encouraging banks to provide overdraft facilities for circumstances arising from exit.

For instance a UK body in receipt of a grant for scientific research may find that while
the UK government may be prepared in principle to take over funding it, there would
likely be a due diligence delay during which cash flow might become critical.


Considering the Austrian company pension savings at the UK bank.

Unless the EU courts rule that merely by dint of a UK exit, the contract becomes
unlawful, perhaps under some rule that states that Austrian pension funds can only place
saving with Austrian or EU banks, and that is retrospectively applied to money already
passed over to the care of the bank, I imagine the existing contract would continue.

But if the Austrian company wish to continue the arrangement with further funds,
then the UK bank would likely have to create a wholly owned and guaranteed
subsidiary in an EU member state such as Austria (that would comply with EU rules
on accounting, pay EU taxes etc), that the further contract would be placed with.


Yes, there are indeed many such incidences similar to your two examples, but the Brexit
process between UK and EU governments can not, and should not try to, solve them all.

 

[Arakhor]

Obviously they won't be EU-enforced any more. Which will give the UK one essential ability of any sovereign state, and I believe also essential for any democracy: the ability to repeal any one of them at any time, exclusively through the (democratic) processes of the UK.

Obviously, but then it becomes a matter for Parliament to repeal the legislation as or if they see fit, which will certainly not be as simple as Edward is making out. But then it's not as if the Tories don't have the people's best interests at heart, right? Right?

Well I am pleased you are identifying real issues arising from Brexit rather than the persistent sour grapes negativity from other Remainers.

Real issues. Sour grapes. Right. World War II was a slight disagreement too.

 

[sherbz]

My plan for Brexit:

Scrap winter fuel allowance
Freeze pensions
Scrap free bus passes

Collective punishment is the only way forward. Old people were shielded from austerity and it was the young who paid. And old people also benefited from the likes of university grants, cheap housing, the welfare state and free health care. They were the ones who voted for this, so they can pay for it. They have had things their own way for far too long because young people dont vote. And its not good enough to say that its their own fault.

 

[innonimatu]

Collective punishment is the only way forward. Old people were shielded from austerity and it was the young who paid. And old people also benefited from the likes of university grants, cheap housing, the welfare state and free health care. They were the ones who voted for this, so they can pay for it. They have had things their own way for far too long because young people dont vote. And its not good enough to say that its their own fault.

"Old people" paid for everything back in their time, you idiot!

Actual resources are not hoarded for decades, from one generation to the next: the vast majority of what is consumed today must be produced today, or near enough in time. They staffed those free universities, they built those houses, they supported that welfare state with their contributions when it was first created. The old people were the ones who kept that Britain working after WW2 and until Thatcher & Blair...

If there are no tuition-free universities now, if there are not enough houses, if you fear for the future of the welfare state now, it is because people now are not willing to do those things. Not the "old people" who already retired, just as it wasn't the "old people" back in their time who labored to give them all those things. The young people today are the ones who are not building cheap houses, working at free public universities, or paying for welfare (of forcing those who have the money to pay). It is your generation that has taken over and took up the creed of individualism and screw everyone else. No more society, only individuals... And your posts here are a prime example of how ingrained that belief has become with some "young people" today.

 

[Lexicus]

If there are no tuition-free universities now, if there are not enough houses, if you fear for the future of the welfare state now, it is because people now are not willing to do those things. Not the "old people" who already retired, just as it wasn't the "old people" back in their time who labored to give them all those things. The young people today are the ones who are not building cheap houses, working at free public universities, or paying for welfare (of forcing those who have the money to pay). It is your generation that has taken over and took up the creed of individualism and screw everyone else. No more society, only individuals... And your posts here are a prime example of how ingrained that belief has become with some "young people" today.

Yeah because clearly young people are the ones making these decisions

 

[innonimatu]

It is not a conflict of generations, it is a class conflict. If you believe, and behave, as if it were a conflict of generations you'll be playing into the hands of those who want to divide and rule...

 

[Yeekim]

"Repeal of UK Legislation implementing European Legislation Act, December 2016"


"Following the vote by the United Kingdom electorate to Leave the European Union on 23 June 2016; the following statutes:

aaaaaa
bbbbbb
ccccccc

zzzzzzz.

are repealed.

Such repeal shall take effect from the end of 1st April 2017.

Signed

[ ]

Queen Elizabeth the Second.



There you go. Simple!

Funny thing is, to avoid complete chaos, they'll almost certainly be forced to do the exact opposite.

 

[Lexicus]

It is not a conflict of generations, it is a class conflict. If you believe, and behave, as if it were a conflict of generations you'll be playing into the hands of those who want to divide and rule...

As far as I can tell you're the one who believes it's a generational conflict, since you asserted that

young people today are the ones who are not building cheap houses, working at free public universities, or paying for welfare (of forcing those who have the money to pay)

And

It is your generation that has taken over and took up the creed of individualism and screw everyone else.

I got the whole class conflict thing down pat, thanks very much.

 

[EnglishEdward]

My plan for Brexit:

Scrap winter fuel allowance

Global warming is rendering this obsolete.


Freeze pensions

Pensions will almost certainly be cut not frozen. Gordon Brown's triple lock pension
is unaffordable. If George Osborne had any guts, he would have stopped it in 2010.
Brexit is a convenient excuse for George, but the balanced budget by 2020 target,
now abandoned, was never achievable without both tax rises and expenditure cuts.


Scrap free bus passes

Do you really want us old oldies with Parkinson's trembling, Alzheimer's disease,
declining eye sight etc driving along at 20 mph in 30 mph zone clogging the roads?

Or perhaps you youngies will chauffeur us about for a pittance.

Collective punishment is the only way forward.

Fascist, but I am not scared by people who mostly cannot even get to the polling booth.

Old people were shielded from austerity and it was the young who paid.

Actually it was the working population who paid; some young; some middle aged.

And old people also benefited from the likes of university grants, cheap housing, the welfare state and free health care.

Student loans are mostly unemployment benefit on the never never.

It is amazing how many students have not worked that out.

I will agree that the young are properly right stiffed in the housing market.
The problem here is that 1/3 or more of MPs are landlords and doing nicely.

Last time I checked, the welfare state and free health care still existed.

They were the ones who voted for this, so they can pay for it. They have had things their own way for far too long because young people dont vote. And its not good enough to say that its their own fault.

I understand that only 1 in 3 of the 18-24 age group actually voted in the referendum.
2/3 disorganised, lazy, stupid or believed voting for Boaty McBoatface more important.
Sad thing is when us oldies are all just ashes that 1/3 will have to carry the other 2/3.


Yours (aged 60).

 

[EnglishEdward]

Funny thing is, to avoid complete chaos, they'll almost certainly be forced to do the exact opposite.

They will likely try to do the complete opposite (encompass everything), fail and have complete chaos.

In the end, they will be forced to downsize the activity.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Real issues. Sour grapes. Right. World War II was a slight disagreement too.

What does World War II have to do with Brexit?

 

[Arwon]

I understand that only 1 in 3 of the 18-24 age group actually voted in the referendum.
2/3 disorganised, lazy, stupid or believed voting for Boaty McBoatface more important.
Sad thing is when us oldies are all just ashes that 1/3 will have to carry the other 2/3.

This is inaccurate actually. Little nugget buried in this article about a survey of voters:

"After correcting for over-reporting [people always say they vote more than they do], we found that the likely turnout of 18- to 24-year-olds was 70% – just 2.5% below the national average – and 67% for 25- to 29-year-olds."

Seems there will never be any data on exactly who voted because they didn't collect voter IDs at the referendum. The 1/3rd figure doing the rounds was a *projection* from a prepoll, identifying the share of each age group who always votes in general elections (which you'd expect to be lower than who voted in the EU Referendum given most votes in a GE don't matter and total turnout is lower in those).

 

[Takhisis]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/06/boris-johnson-to-back-labour-motion-on-eu-migrants


Having the right to remain is one thing.

Having equal right to council housing, automatic state benefit
payments, second home ownership and work is quite another.

Well at least it's not 300 years of legislation and treaties eh. Imagine THAT.

309, actually. Ask Ms. Sturgeon.

(…)I think it has quite a lot to do with Scotland and Catalonia being further to the left than the country they're currently in, and with the fact that both would very much like to join the EU immediately upon seceding.(…)

It also has to do with historical grievances, promises and pacts not respected, linguicide and general disparagement of the local culture as a state policy, and more.

It's frankly hard not to be to the left of Rajoy/Cameron, now, is it?

What does World War II have to do with Brexit?

It has to do with the symbolic importance of Britain/England's finest hour and making the kingdom great again.

 

[Akka]

Scrap winter fuel allowance

Global warming is rendering this obsolete.

Too bad that global warming at the scale of the planet would actually end up with a stark cooling for Europe, potentially akin to a local ice age or so (due to the Gulf Stream "sinking", I'll let you Google it).

 

[Takhisis]

So winter is coming, Akka.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, one of the prevailing themes in the Brexit debate was EU bureaucracy. If we keep all our EU-enforced laws and still keep all the EU trade regulations when we deal with Europe, precisely what sovereignty have we gained? The freedom to cut corporation tax rather than fund the NHS, presumably.

I'm directly responding to the idea that suddenly repealing all EU laws, all at once, with no planning, would cause chaos. I'm pointing out that there's actually no necessity to do this and in fact is not the question that was asked in the referendum.

 

[Takhisis]

Isn't it? If the UK is no longer part of the EU, then European legislation stops applying, automatically.