The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	Please don't patronise me. The UK monarch is symbolic, acting as a 'rubber stamp' for the wishes of parliament -- and by extension, the people..

Proving his point then! Did you bother to read the references posted??? The information available suggests the royals have on several occasions intervened in the process and although we don't have the details one can only hope it was in support of the constitution as opposed to personal preference.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	Forget the good people of Walloon, or other troublesome fragments. Senior ministers in the French and German governments have pretty much stated that there will be no 'free trade deal' i.e. no "soft Brexit".

Actually it does not matter what the French or German ministers say in this context because contrary to what you think neither of them have the power to grant a soft exit! The parliament of the Walloon on the other hand has the power to stop any deal other than EEA membership dead in it's tracks.

[marton]

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	This is hardly news. It's precisely why the UK government is moving towards the so-called "hard Brexit". Forget the good people of Walloon, or other troublesome fragments. Senior ministers in the French and German governments have pretty much stated that there will be no 'free trade deal' i.e. no "soft Brexit". It wouldn't be my ideal way to leave, because tariffs and quotas etc. will hurt us all in the short term (the EU collectively more than the UK), but if that's what the French and Germans are saying, we may as well accept it and go for the clean break.

"will hurt us all in the short term (the EU collectively more than the UK)" Not necessarily will the EU be hurt more, you forget that after Art. 50 is invoked the EU will have at least two years to seek alternative markets for their exports.

Whereas the UK is blocked from negotiating new free trade deals while still an EU member; if the UK tries to extend the two year period then they would be blocked for even longer.

[marton]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Actually it does not matter what the French or German ministers say in this context because contrary to what you think neither of them have the power to grant a soft exit! The parliament of the Walloon on the other hand has the power to stop any deal other than EEA membership dead in it's tracks.

Indeed that is why I object to people saying things like ""the EU" will react like...."

"The EU"is not a single decision maker; this is a gross and false over simplification, there are many different players who each have the power to block any deal.
As is proven by this Walloon decision.

Incidentally are you sure the Walloons could not block UK getting UK membership; Belgium is an EEA member.
See Article 128 2. of the EEA agreement.
I know you are usually correct on such points

Anyway UK is an EEA member via its EU membership.
So when UK leaves EU does it automatically lose its EEA membership? I assume Art. 217 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ceases to apply?

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	marton
	Incidentally are you sure the Walloons could not block UK getting UK membership; Belgium is an EEA member.

I said "other than", but EEA membership requires EFTA membership and it seems that Norway is not too happy with that.

Belgium is not an EEA member in it's own right, just as the UK is not. They both are EU states and by virtue of that have EEA access.

[marton]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	I said "other than", but EEA membership requires EFTA membership and it seems that Norway is not too happy with that. Belgium is not an EEA member in it's own right, just as the UK is not. They both are EU states and by virtue of that have EEA access.

True about EFTA.

Anyway from the EEA web site "The EEA Council takes political decisions leading to the amendment of the EEA Agreement, including the possible enlargement of the EEA. Decisions by the EEA Council are taken by consensus between the EU on the one hand and the three EEA EFTA States - Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway - on the other."

So EU has to agree and so presumably EU member states can block the deal.

[Jim2007]

[QUOTE=marton;2674648]"will hurt us all in the short term (the EU collectively more than the UK)" Not necessarily will the EU be hurt more, you forget that after Art. 50 is invoked the EU will have at least two years to seek alternative markets for their exports.

The Irish government already started on the 22nd of July!

	Quote:	marton
	Whereas the UK is blocked from negotiating new free trade deals while still an EU member; if the UK tries to extend the two year period then they would be blocked for even longer.

WTO membership takes on average 5 years to complete provided none of the other members object, that includes the EU and it's member states. But in the mean time the UK would be free to reach agreements with the 12 non member countries: Eritrea, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Nauru, North Korea, Palau, Palestine, San Marino, Somalia, South Sudan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan and Tuvalu.

Of course the idea of the UK being able to make whatever agreements it wishes on exit is nonsense since as a WTO member it would be required to honour the most favoured nation principle, that is unless it enters into a customs union with one of the members, in which case the union would take the place of the members as the EU does in the case of it's members!

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	marton
	So EU has to agree and so presumably EU member states can block the deal.

Most likely yes, but there is one very important difference, it would not require a treaty change, so no need for referenda etc.

[marton]

The government had estimated that the UK’s contribution to the EU budget in 2017 would be £7.1bn.

It is now believed that the UK will pay an extra £2bn to the EU in 2017 as a result of the plummeting pound. The amount the UK pays in any year is based on exchange rates on the last day in December of the previous year.

Peanuts, only 30% more; worth it for "Rule Britannia"

I expect they will raise the money by cutting the NHS budget? Only £38 Million per week? As soon as we leave the EU the NHS will be quids in

Source

[Pachyderm]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Proving his point then! Did you bother to read the references posted??? The information available suggests the royals have on several occasions intervened in the process and although we don't have the details one can only hope it was in support of the constitution as opposed to personal preference.

I absolutely did look at the references. The first, regarding the Aussie parliament and Gough Whitlam (or "Whit Goughlam" as Harold Wilson called him) is 10,000 words long for heaven's sake. If you're telling me you read it. I will believe you as I'm the trusting type. More to the point, it relates to an incident 41 years ago which has never been cleared up, as far as I'm aware, and involves the Australian constitution, not the UK parliament. Taking all those things together, I've got good reason not to take it seriously.

The second one, the Telegraph article, is quite mysterious. "At least 39 bills have been subject to Royal approval, with the senior royals using their power to consent or block new laws". Well, for one thing, all bills are theoretically subject to royal approval. Every parliamentary bill goes to the Queen for her signature. The bit about "senior royals using their power to consent or block new laws" is mischievous. They do indeed use their power to consent or block bills, but the decision is made by the government, and they rubber-stamp it. That's the only effective choice they have -- i.e. none at all. I've heard Tony Blair and other ex-PMs talking about the process, where the Queen asks the PM to summarise the new laws before signing. But this has always been described in a positive way -- that she takes an interest in what she's being asked to sign. A bit like we do, when a salesperson asks us to sign a contract. There's never been any hint that the monarch has ever said "No way am I signing this.'

What's intriguing about that Telegraph report is that it goes on to claim that "the power of veto has been used by Prince Charles on more than 12 government bills since 2005". I was so surprised by that that I tried to find what these 12 bills were, and why there was no public outcry. What I found was an almost identical article from The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/...als-veto-bills). I don't know which 'journalist' copied the other one, but the Guardian attaches a correction that the Telegraph omits:

"This article was amended on Tuesday 15 January 2013 because it stated that Prince Charles has used the veto on more than a dozen occasions when it should have said that he has been asked to consent to 20 pieces of legislation."

Something else the Guardian report has that the Telegraph mysteriously leaves out are these quotes. The first is from the Palace:

"It is a long established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers."

A spokesman for Prince Charles said: "In modern times, the prince of Wales has never refused to consent to any bill affecting Duchy of Cornwall interests, unless advised to do so by ministers. Every instance of the prince's consent having been sought and given to legislation is a matter of public record."

My bold text is important. Yes, the Queen and Charles apparently have vetoed some legislation -- but only when "advised" (i.e. instructed) to do so by government ministers.

[marton]

"The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers."
So the Queen does have the power to veto bills. It is claimed she has only done so after ministerial advice but this does not change the fact of her power.

[marton]

Carmakers’ suppliers at risk of being hit by Brexit tariffs
Suppliers to UK industry say uncertainty over trade agreements may force them to relocate overseas.

An example of the interconnectedness of the current supply chain is a fuel injector for diesel lorries manufactured by the US component maker Delphi.

This part uses steel from Europe which is machined in the UK before going to Germany for special heat treatment.

The injector is then assembled at Delphi’s UK plant in Stoneham, before being sold on to truckmakers based in Sweden, France or Germany.
Multiple tariffs and Customs delays would make this process very costly.

Source

Carmakers need to recoup the costs incurred by the recent fall in the British pound and prepare for a potential increase in import tariffs.

The UK’s automotive plants are highly integrated with mainland Europe, with up to 50% of components for some models assembled in the UK coming from Europe.

If a so-called ‘hard Brexit’ direction is taken, the car industry in the UK could be looking at World Trade Organisation (WTO) tariffs of 9.7% for vehicles and 3.8% for parts. It could also see the introduction of non-tariff trade barriers (like quotas) and a divergence of regulations.

Toyota UK, which exports 85% of its production from the UK, has said that UK production would be “very, very difficult” if tariffs and barriers were applied.

Ford does not want a hard Brexit, it imports 440,000 vehicles to the UK each year as well as parts for engine production.

JaguarLandRover has three assembly plants in the UK but it is also opening a plant in Slovakia in 2018.

“At plants in the EU there is a free capacity of around 500,000 units,” said Funda (PwC Consultant) . “So [some] OEMs such as BMW, Nissan or GM Europe could shift from the UK to the EU without investing in completely new facilities.

Source

[Medea Fleecestealer]

Wiki is your friend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Consent

Do not confuse Queen's/Prince's Consent with Royal Assent. Royal Assent is needed for all legislation.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	marton
	If a so-called ‘hard Brexit’ direction is taken, the car industry in the UK could be looking at World Trade Organisation (WTO) tariffs of 9.7% for vehicles and 3.8% for parts. It could also see the introduction of non-tariff trade barriers (like quotas) and a divergence of regulations.

But the U.K. is not a member of the WTO and membership is not like taking out a subscription at the local gym. According to the WTO website it takes on average 5 years to complete the process and all existing members must agreed. Furthermore it seems difficult to impossible for a non member to enter in to a trade agreement with a member and presumably attempting to do so would not further ones membership application!

It looks like we are looking at a period of possible up to seven years of uncertainty which is not good for business.

[Urs Max]

"The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers."
Hmm, and the royals are completely passive during the decision-finding phase? Not at all!

Plus, this raises a follow-on issue for those claiming the UK is a democracy:
In a democracy the people is the sovereign. Whether (semi-)direct or representative democracy that power is vested to parliament, whith the consequence that the other two powers ("Exekutive" [government and administration] and "Judikative"[prosecution and courts]) must follow its orders aka laws (within the limits of the constitution). In the UK however the parliaments' orders can be, and occasionally actually are, overridden not by the people but by the monarch. This clearly shows the hierarchy: The people are subjects. They are (more or less) represented by the parties but they don't get to issue actual orders. This also supports my surmise that a public vote can't be made legally binding even if parliament wanted to.

The above quote also answers Jim2007's question in #5859 who the sovereign is. Or to use the Queen's own words:
"In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament."
Taking into account that the last part leaves out a couple crucial details, including who elects PMs.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Pachyderm
	My bold text is important. Yes, the Queen and Charles apparently have vetoed some legislation -- but only when "advised" (i.e. instructed) to do so by government ministers.

So now that you have got that far do you realize what it means? It means that a bill having been approved by parliament can be vetoed by the Queen thus making a mockery of the idea of a sovereign parliament! It does not matter that she did it on the advice of the government because the bill could only have got that far if the government did not have the power in parliament to prevent it!

If in deed the idea of a sovereign parliament was being upheld the queen should have ignored the government and recognizing the right of the parliament to make laws on behalf of the people.

One of the pro exit arguments was to restore a sovereign parliament - the people we elect making our laws.

[Blueangel]

Some good little charts in The Economist...

	Quote:
	WHEN Michael Gove, as justice secretary, was campaigning for Vote Leave ahead of the European Union referendum on June 23rd, he claimed that the people of Britain had “had enough of experts”, referring to the long list of countries and organisations that had warned that Britain would be better off remaining in the EU. New analysis from the British Election Study, polling more than 10,000 voters, has found that Mr Gove was partially right, at least among his supporters. Those who voted to Leave typically preferred the wisdom of ordinary people to that of experts.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graph.../daily-chart-6

	Quote:
	The British Election Study, a long-running panel survey, asked voters in July whether they regretted their choice. Only 1% of Remainers did; another 1% of them were unsure. Among Leavers, 6% wished they had not voted the way they did, and a further 4% were in two minds.

	Quote:
	Some Britons are voting with their feet. The Irish foreign ministry reports that since the referendum passport applications in Britain have risen to double their level last year. An Irish passport will enable continued freedom of movement within the EU. Anyone with a parent or grandparent born on the island of Ireland (including Northern Ireland) is entitled to one. On that basis, upwards of 6m Britons are eligible—enough to double the number of Irish citizens. Remainers’ eyes may not be smiling, but some will yet have a twinkle in them.

http://www.economist.com/news/britai...brexit-bregret

[Medea Fleecestealer]

Honestly, does this woman live in cloud cuckoo land?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-...itics-37671236

The UK as a whole voted to leave the EU, that means the single market, freedom of movement and everything else. Or is she so desperate to ignore the will of the people of the UK that she'll keep coming up with crazy ideas.

Like it or not Scotland is part of the UK and she'll get no separate trade agreements with the EU. Only if Scotland leaves the UK and then there'll be a whole bunch of new problems for her to deal with. Good luck with that.

As for a second independence referendum that shouldn't be allowed to happen for at least 10-15 years. She can't keep trying to get the result she wants, just because the people of Scotland - who she claims to represent - didn't agree with her.

Quite remakable, as he says:

https://www.facebook.com/LBC/videos/10154363931116558/

... if and when it all goes *its up - it is of course the remain voters that will be responsible, klar?!

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Some good little charts in The Economist... http://www.economist.com/blogs/graph.../daily-chart-6 WHEN Michael Gove, as justice secretary, was campaigning for Vote Leave ahead of the European Union referendum on June 23rd, he claimed that the people of Britain had “had enough of experts”, referring to the long list of countries and organisations that had warned that Britain would be better off remaining in the EU. New analysis from the British Election Study, polling more than 10,000 voters, has found that Mr Gove was partially right, at least among his supporters. Those who voted to Leave typically preferred the wisdom of ordinary people to that of experts.]

I think thats one of the most important points. It was a campaign from Remain of those Experts telling the UK it would be 4500 quid a year worse off for every person until 2030, they said their would be 5% on income tax, they said it could start war in Europe, the list was endless of hysterical predictions of doom and terror. No wonder the man in the street didnt listen.

If they had focused on the positives of European membership instead of banging on about "The Witches Are Coming" people might have believed them a bit more.