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

[bowlie]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/o...in-europe.html

Of course Patrick Chappatte is Swiss ...

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	They never even attempted any austerity is the problem.

Mmmm Hmmmm...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...tizens-un-says

Now for a practical question. Is the new Deal allowing UK access to Euratom and Isotopes for cancer treatment? Any info gratefully received.

Steve Barclay the new Dominic Raab...

Stephen apparently - oh my who the **ck is Stephen? Glad to hear in these massively important last few months, we have someone of great political experience and stature at the helm - totally reassured now ( )

[Jim2007]

It seems the DUP are coming under pressure from their traditional supporters:

Farmers and businesses urge DUP to rethink opposition to Brexit deal

[marton]

	Quote:
	Now for a practical question. Is the new Deal allowing UK access to Euratom and Isotopes for cancer treatment? Any info gratefully received.

You have to read "Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and
the European Atomic Energy Community, as agreed at negotiators'
level on 14 November 2018. "

So far as I understand after the transition period the UK is on its own

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	By the time the factory is up & running China will have overtaken the EU & the UK won't figure in the EU no's. EU growth rates are very poor v China if you had not noticed.

It does not matter what the rate of growth in the EU or anywhere else for that matter, UK industry have failed dismally to take advantage of what was on offer to date. They have had exactly the same access to the EU trade deals etc as all the other states and yet are the only major EU economy not to produce a positive balance of trade in over 20 years! The idea that some how the EU trading block is holding UK back, while at the same time not hinder the other members from delivering positive balances of trade year on year does not ring true.

The EU has been a handy excuse for British industry to explain away their inability to compete on the world stage... but that excuse is rapidly disappearing. What will replace it? The British worker most likely because he is too expensive most likely....

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	It does not matter what the rate of growth in the EU or anywhere else for that matter, UK industry have failed dismally to take advantage of what was on offer to date. They have had exactly the same access to the EU trade deals etc as all the other states and yet are the only major EU economy not to produce a positive balance of trade in over 20 years! The idea that some how the EU trading block is holding UK back, while at the same time not hinder the other members from delivering positive balances of trade year on year does not ring true. The EU has been a handy excuse for British industry to explain away their inability to compete on the world stage... but that excuse is rapidly disappearing. What will replace it? The British worker most likely because he is too expensive most likely....

I am more worried about the pension deficits EU wide, who would want to share their savings with people who never saved in the first place.

UK workers need to add value not hit nails with a hammer, than can be done in China or possibly Ireland , no idea what to do with Wales....

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	How? She's just reaping now what she's sown. She wanted to be PM.

That's why I call her power-hungry.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Which is where we come to one of the biggest loads of BS that's been spouted ever since the referendum. "Where is BoJo? Where is Farage to lead us out of this mess?". Well it's very simple, Farage can't become PM because he's from another party. BoJo went for the job as PM but didn't get it.

Given his prominence and weight WRT Brexit, Farage could easily have struck some kind of deal with the Tories or changed party altogether. After all UKIP had become obsolete, it was a single-purpose vessel. And no, BoJo said he wouldn't run a few days after Cameron stepped down. Davis didn't run either btw, neither did Raab.

Frankly, if you ever saw someone appear as unprepared as Davis presented himself at the meetings, the parts that were published, you wouldn't have trusted him with mowing your frontyard.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	The biggest mistake however is not making serious preparations for no deal. It's an absolute fact in any negotiation that when someone is prepared to walk away from the table, you take them a lot more seriously.

You've just gotten the power of "no deal" demonstrated. None. Zilch. Nada.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	I am more worried about the pension deficits EU wide, who would want to share their savings with people who never saved in the first place. UK workers need to add value not hit nails with a hammer, than can be done in China or possibly Ireland , no idea what to do with Wales....

More BS, that has nothing to do with the UK's ability to build an export market.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	The EU has been a handy excuse for British industry to explain away their inability to compete on the world stage... but that excuse is rapidly disappearing. What will replace it? The British worker most likely because he is too expensive most likely....

Don't think this beating mule will be let go anytime soon.

If Brexit turns out to be the failure it looks like now, the Brexiteers will keep using the beating mule by saying "See? If only the EU hadn't been that stubborn we'd be just fine now. It's all the eurocrats' fault! We told you all the time!!!".

[marton]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	That's why I call her power-hungry. Given his prominence and weight WRT Brexit, Farage could easily have struck some kind of deal with the Tories or changed party altogether. After all UKIP had become obsolete, it was a single-purpose vessel. And no, BoJo said he wouldn't run a few days after Cameron stepped down. Davis didn't run either btw, neither did Raab. Frankly, if you ever saw someone appear as unprepared as Davis presented himself at the meetings, the parts that were published, you wouldn't have trusted him with mowing your frontyard. You've just gotten the power of "no deal" demonstrated. None. Zilch. Nada.

"BoJo said he wouldn't run a few days after Cameron stepped down" Bojo was skewered when his big mate and main supporter Michael Gove announced he would also run so splitting any vote and so making a Bojo bid impossible to succeed.

Now Michael Gove has said he will help May to sell this Brexit deal. He is the smartest and most Machiavellian of all the senior Tories. Exactly what his goal is?
He is currently Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which means he cannot be held to account for any Brexit disasters
His ambition is limitless....

Edit; the so called Brexiteer Liam Fox urged MPs to support the PM's draft Brexit agreement, saying a "deal was better than no deal". Where his ambition leads is also....

	Quote:	marton
	Now Michael Gove has said he will help May to sell this Brexit deal. He is the smartest and most Machiavellian of all the senior Tories. Exactly what his goal is? He is currently Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which means he cannot be held to account for any Brexit disasters His ambition is limitless....

Gove is a parody of himself. He'd bang the Remainer drum if it meant furthering his career. Zero loyalty and a total self-publicist.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	I am more worried about the pension deficits EU wide, who would want to share their savings with people who never saved in the first place.

...said the man who's been out of the UK so long that he isn't aware of the mandatory workplace pension scheme

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	...said the man who's been out of the UK so long that he isn't aware of the mandatory workplace pension scheme

The UK pension deficits are not the issue, anyway the amount paid into the workplace pension before April was a joke as you should know.
Clue start by looking at Greek & Italian pensions if you want to see why I am worried as the liabilities will end up being shared, good old socialism at its best.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	I am more worried about the pension deficits EU wide, who would want to share their savings with people who never saved in the first place...

You realise that the UK savings rate is worse than all EU countries bar 4? Even Italy are better.
https://data.oecd.org/natincome/saving-rate.htm
Same applies to gross savings btw

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	You realise that the UK savings rate is worse than all EU countries bar 4? Even Italy are better. https://data.oecd.org/natincome/saving-rate.htm Same applies to gross savings btw

Not talking about savings, just unfunded pension promises. Italy historically was the worst as they had 7 employed for every pensioner, they don't today. UK's liability for EU staff pensions exceeds 10 billion.

By 2050 Italy will have 63 pensioners for every 100 workers, almost double the amount today. Currently the Italian government spends 30% of its budget on pensions.

Were you like me, wondering where BoJo was hiding and what he was up to. Well apparently planning with his bestie, Farage, and daddy- be afraid, be very afraid

It's a jolly good thing this "deal" will never get through the vote.

The top 40 horrors lurking in the small print of Theresa May’s Brexit deal

This week, Theresa May’s government teetered on the point of collapse over her proposed Brexit deal. The withdrawal agreement between the UK and Brussels led to Dominic Raab and Esther McVey resigning in protest. However, May’s remaining ministers have since attempted to rally around her at least in the short term. Speaking on Friday, Liam Fox – the International Trade Secretary – gave a speech in which he declared ‘a deal is better than no deal’. This is rather different to May’s old claim that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’.

So, is Fox right? Mr S thought it best to let readers decide for themselves. In theory, Britain is leaving the EU on 29 March 2019. But the legal small print, published by Brussels, shows what this means. Parliament will be asked to ratify a deal which clearly admits that ‘all references to ‘Member States’ and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.’ (Article 7). So the UK will be bound by EU laws, at least during a transition period. But this ‘transition period’ can be be made to last forever (Article 132). And even if a successor deal is agreed, the UK will have signed away other rights for years to come.

Just in case readers don’t have the time to go through the lengthly document themselves, Steerpike has compiled a list of the top 40 horrors lurking in the small print of Theresa May’s Brexit deal:

In summary: The supposed ‘transition period’ could last forever (Article 132).

The transition period does not end on 31 December 2020. Instead, the date is blank, confined to this century (‘December 20XX’). So what we in fact get is: ‘transition’ of indefinite duration + extension indefinitely (by however many years we are willing to pay for) + all of those extra years from the ‘plus 8 years’ articles.

Should it end within two years, as May hopes, the UK has now signed up to clauses keeping us under certain rules for eight years. If we default on transition, we go in to the backstop with the Customs Union and, realistically, the single market. We can only leave the transition positively with a deal. But we sign away the money. So the EU has no need to give us a deal, and certainly no need to make the one they offered ‘better’ than the backstop. The European Court of Justice remains sovereign, as repeatedly stipulated. We have surrendered the rights we would have, under international law, to unilaterally walk away. What follows relates (in most part) for what is referred to as the transition period. But the language is consistent with the E.U. imagining that this will be the final deal.

The top 40 horrors:

From the offset, we should note that this is an EU text, not a UK or international text. This has one source. The Brexit agreement is written in Brussels.
May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6). Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately, excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7)
he European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court (Art. 86) both citizens and resident companies can use it.
The UK will remain under the jurisdiction of the ECJ until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).
The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2))
Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – perhaps the most dangerous provision of all. (Article 168) Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174)
“UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United Kingdom” No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.
The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the country joined the EU.
Problems with the EU’s definitions: 3.1. “Union law” is too widely defined. “United Kingdom national” – we should not have agreed the Lisbon Treaty definition. That is giving away our right to define our citizens. Definitions needed to include the term “goods” and the term “services” we are promised the deal will mean ONLY EU law in relation to ‘goods’ will apply. This is a non-defined term so far. This agreement also fails to define it.
The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their pensions, or tax any current ones on their salaries. The EU and its employees are immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
The UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101)
The pre-existing rights of EU citizens are to be extended to citizens of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. They will be pleased. (Article 33)
The EU’s stupidest law ever – the General Data Protection Regulation – is to be bound into UK law (Article 71 to 73). So much for escaping this madness.
The UK is obliged to establish a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – why does it need to be subject to continued monitoring? (Article 164). The Joint Committee will have subcommittees with jurisdiction over: (a) citizens’ rights; (b) “other separation provisions”; (c) Ireland/Northern Ireland; (d) Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; (e) Gibraltar; and (f) financial provisions. (Article 165)
The agreement will last as long as the country’s youngest baby lives. “the persons covered by this Part shall enjoy the rights provided for in the relevant Titles of this Part for their lifetime”. (Article 39).
The UK is shut out of all EU networks and databases for security – yet no such provision exists to shut the EU out of ours. (Article 8)
The UK will be tied to EU foreign policy, “bound by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union” but unable to influence such decisions. (Article 124)
All EU citizens must be given permanent right of residence after five years – but what counts as residence? This will be decided by the EU, rather than UK rules. (Articles 15-16)
Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy. (Article 34)
The UK agrees to spend taxpayers’ money telling everyone how wonderful the agreement is. (Article 37)
Art 40 defines Goods. It seems to includes Services and Agriculture. We may come to discover that actually ‘goods’ means everything.
Articles 40-49 practically mandate the UK’s ongoing membership of the Customs Union in all but name.
The UK will be charged to receive the data/information we need in order to comply with EU law. (Article 50)
The EU will continue to set rules for UK intellectual property law (Article 54 to 61)
The UK will effectively be bound by a non-disclosure agreement swearing us to secrecy regarding any EU developments we have paid to be part. This is not mutual. The EU is not bound by such measures. (Article 74)
The UK is bound by EU rules on procurement rules – which effectively forbids us from seeking better deals elsewhere. (Articles 75 to 78)
We give up all rights to any data the EU made with our money (Art. 103)
The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for (why on earth can’t they say now … oh yes, I remember, they’re bust) (Art. 144)
The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid. (Article 93)
Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally. (Articles 106-116)
The UK is forbidden from revealing anything the EU told us or tells us about the finer points of deal and its operation. (Article 105).
Any powers the UK parliament might have had to mitigate EU law are officially removed. (Article 128)
The UK shall be liable for any “outstanding commitments” after 2022 (Article 142(2) expressly mentions pensions, which gives you an idea as to who probably negotiated this). The amount owed will be calculated by the EU. (Articles 140-142)
The UK will be liable for future EU lending. As anyone familiar with the EU’s financials knows, this is not good. (Article143)
The UK will remain liable for capital projects approved by the European Investment Bank. (Article 150).
The UK will remain a ‘party’ (i.e. cough up money) for the European Development Fund. (Articles 152-154)
And the EU continues to calculate how much money the UK should pay it. So thank goodness Brussels does not have any accountancy issues.
The UK will remain bound (i.e coughing up money) to the European Union Emergency Trust Fund – which deals with irregular migration (i.e. refugees) and displaced persons heading to Europe. (Article 155)
The agreement will be policed by ‘the Authority’ – a new UK-based body with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’. (Article 159)
And, of course, the UK will agree to pay £40bn to receive all of these ‘privileges’. (Article 138)