Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Traitorfish]

"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.

See, you started well, but then you decided that everyone in the United Kingdom is either over seventy or under thirty? Somehow? And that the under thirties are making all- heck, most, any, major social policy decisions?

And it's not really clear where you're getting that from.

 

[Takhisis]

Oh, look, the UN have announced that the UK's existing austerity policies breach UN human rights obligations.

Read here for that, an increase in child pvoerty and a few more stories of nasty things that are being covered up by this convenient Brexit fallout.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Oh, look, the UN have announced that the UK's existing austerity policies breach UN human rights obligations.

Read here for that, an increase in child pvoerty and a few more stories of nasty things that are being covered up by this convenient Brexit fallout.

But corporations are people too
UK did want to have 0 deficits by 2020, but the brexit torpedoed that plan

 

[Lexicus]

0 deficit is such a stupid idea.

 

[Yeekim]

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.

Nah, I had something different in mind.
Some of the EU legislation - regulations namely (as opposed to directives) - was never transposed into UK legislation, because it had direct effect and was applicable by virtue of EU being part of UK.
There is clearly too much of it to manage in 2 years, so to avoid a huge legal vacuum post-Brexit, they'll probably have to do a complete opposite of what you drafted, namely declare ~12 000 EU regulations to be applicable in UK... to be then changed at their own pace over following decades. This is of course far from clean solution as well - as most of these regulations also refer to EU institutions, possibly delegating some powers to them, this is going to create chaos on somewhat smaller scale.

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

See above. Some of it would stop automatically, hence my reply to Edward - UK will most likely have to declare it applicable by itself.
Much (directives) would continue to apply because it has been transposed into UK law.
Lets not even get into international agreements where UK is part of by virtue of being part in EU, because that is getting awfully murky.

0 deficit is such a stupid idea.

Because loans should never be paid back?

 

[Kyriakos]

So, any chance that Gove-Starscream will be the new leader of the DeceptiCon party?

 

[r16]

there's this end result on the British participation in the invasion of Iraq which supposedly is surprising with its scathing tone against Blair and the lot . Supposedly widely expected to be a whitewash . Was its publication date fixed before the referandum ?

and that glorious politician Farage , who resigns from Party leadership but still maintains being an European MP . Is Boris Johnson so important or something that Farage apparently offers his own head or something ?

 

[Kyriakos]

I think Farage mostly quit due to the electoral law (FPTP) not being changed, and thus he likely wouldn't be himself in parliament even if Ukip got >10% in the next elections as well.

Not that he will be missed, yet his rise to prominence is another product of post 2003 crapEu

Btw, his party should change its name in the immediate future.

 

[Tahuti]

Because loans should never be paid back?

Paying back loans is not a moral obligation. It may however be a practical one, since you may get reposession on your *ss if you do not.

Btw, his party should change its name in the immediate future.

That won't be necessary!

 

[Mise]

Farage is surely a passionate supporter of the Alternative Vote and other such electoral reforms.

 

[Yeekim]

Paying back loans is not a moral obligation.

Pretty interesting morals youve got...

 

[innonimatu]

See, you started well, but then you decided that everyone in the United Kingdom is either over seventy or under thirty? Somehow? And that the under thirties are making all- heck, most, any, major social policy decisions?

And it's not really clear where you're getting that from.

I'm getting at the fact that these people blaming "the old" seemed to expect they'd be handed over an easy life on a platter. That's not how politics words: nothing is ever settled, it must be fought over. Again and again. It is their time to change things, instead of harping about how "old people" took everything from them (which is not true, I'll say again).

Worse, the "old people" they'd attack are the poorer among the old, the ones who actually need some welfare support. Not the wealthy shielded by a tax system that ceased to be progressive. All this really pisses me off.

 

[Silurian]

Nah, I had something different in mind.
Some of the EU legislation - regulations namely (as opposed to directives) - was never transposed into UK legislation, because it had direct effect and was applicable by virtue of EU being part of UK.
There is clearly too much of it to manage in 2 years, so to avoid a huge legal vacuum post-Brexit, they'll probably have to do a complete opposite of what you drafted, namely declare ~12 000 EU regulations to be applicable in UK... to be then changed at their own pace over following decades. This is of course far from clean solution as well - as most of these regulations also refer to EU institutions, possibly delegating some powers to them, this is going to create chaos on somewhat smaller scale.

See above. Some of it would stop automatically, hence my reply to Edward - UK will most likely have to declare it applicable by itself.
Much (directives) would continue to apply because it has been transposed into UK law.
Lets not even get into international agreements where UK is part of by virtue of being part in EU, because that is getting awfully murky.

The UK will have to pass a law, as you say, declaring 12000 EU regulations to be UK law.

EU regulations are being added, changed and removed all the time I wonder which date they will chose as the date for the definitive set of regulations. To date the UK has been party to drafting the regulations but I cannot see the rest of the EU taking the much notice of our views from now on.

Our exports to the EU will still have to apply to the current EU regulations after Brexit just as we have to apply current US regulations to exports to the USA. So for some years we will be applying old EU regulations domestically and new to a large part of our exports.

I would imagine that the “Deparment for the British Exit from the EU” and its minister will be given the powers that the regulations give to EU bodies. Obviously this shadow EU bureaucracy will have to be set up quickly so that it is up and running at the Brexit date.

 

[EnglishEdward]

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).

Arwon, Thank you! I am very relieved to be corrected.
Because the majority not voting is the death of democracy.

Nah, I had something different in mind.
Some of the EU legislation - regulations namely (as opposed to directives) - was never transposed into UK legislation, because it had direct effect and was applicable by virtue of EU being part of UK.
There is clearly too much of it to manage in 2 years, so to avoid a huge legal vacuum post-Brexit, they'll probably have to do a complete opposite of what you drafted, namely declare ~12 000 EU regulations to be applicable in UK... to be then changed at their own pace over following decades.

Yes, we would not want the UK sewage companies to revert to discharging
untreated sewage into the North Sea, and rebating the savings to their
shareholders, merely because the United Kingdom left the European Union.

This is of course far from clean solution as well - as most of these
regulations also refer to EU institutions, possibly delegating some powers to
them, this is going to create chaos on somewhat smaller scale.

Yes, there would be a lot of tidying up changing references to EU bodies to references
to the UK government department. Agriculture might be a particular case in point.

It is even possible that in the UK legislation declaring the supremacy of UK law over
EU law in the UK; provision might be made there for those EU regulations not
explicitly excluded in the supremacy act to remain active for a year or two; albeit
any obligations in them to make payments to the EU would no longer be applicable.

Much (directives) would continue to apply because it has been transposed into UK law.

Quite so.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The UK will have to pass a law, as you say, declaring 12000 EU regulations to be UK law.

I am not entirely sure that there are as many as 12,000 regulations currently
in force. I suspect that some may have expired and others amend others.

Has anyone seen a definitive list.?

 

[luiz]

Please advise me which are these sectors?

Agriculture is the most notorious one, but far from the only. The EU imposes some pretty hefty tariffs on a whole range of products, which is why so many countries negotiate bilateral deals.

The reason why Brazil never managed to negotiate a bilateral commercial deal with the EU is exactly the EU's reluctance to open up its agricultural market (in a bizarre way Brexit might actually benefit Brazil as now it can negotiate a treaty directly with the UK, which is not that concerned with protecting its agricultural sector.

But bottom line is the UK will have to negotiate a bilateral deal. Playing by standard WTO rules is completely out of the question given the depth of the commercial ties between the country and the block.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Agriculture is the most notorious one, but far from the only. The EU imposes some pretty hefty tariffs on a whole range of products, which is why so many countries negotiate bilateral deals.

The reason why Brazil never managed to negotiate a bilateral commercial deal with the EU is exactly the EU's reluctance to open up its agricultural market (in a bizarre way Brexit might actually benefit Brazil as now it can negotiate a treaty directly with the UK, which is not that concerned with protecting its agricultural sector.

Most of us in the UK are concerned with protecting our agricultural sector.

We are not all idiots who think we can convert it into golf courses and private
estates for the elite of the new world HQ, the Greater London empire.

We import 40% of our food, and we would be very happy to import that
from Brazil if better quality or cheaper than from France.

However I fear our government will listen more to the lobbyists, buying them
lunch, for a few companies who export a few obscure luxury UK foodstuffs.

 

[Arakhor]

So, any chance that Gove-Starscream will be the new leader of the DeceptiCon party?

No. We're now looking at Theresa May or Andrea Leadsom as our next Prime Minister obtained without a general election (because that's what we do in democracies, apparently).

 

[Silurian]

I am not entirely sure that there are as many as 12,000 regulations currently
in force. I suspect that some may have expired and others amend others.

Has anyone seen a definitive list.?

I'm not sure anyone does have a complete list!
The UK government will either have to produce a list of regulations it wants to adopt or just adopt them all without naming them. If the UK wants to cherry pick at this stage I do not see how it would be done before Brexit takes place.


https://fullfact.org/europe/two-thirds-uk-law-made-eu/

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/statistics/2015/legislative-acts-statistics.html

 

[FriendlyFire]

The reason why Brazil never managed to negotiate a bilateral commercial deal with the EU is exactly the EU's reluctance to open up its agricultural market (in a bizarre way Brexit might actually benefit Brazil as now it can negotiate a treaty directly with the UK, which is not that concerned with protecting its agricultural sector.

I doubt the UK will end its farm subsidies, protecting food security would probably be more important then ever now with climate change. Without subsidies the UK would be flooded with EU subsidized produce instead.

Given that the Rual population traditional conservative voters voted for Brexit, I dont see subsidies ending.