Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[the gardener]

14 minutes ago, rollover said:

That make sense, it's the UK who is leaving, why someone else should pay for it.

Does every individual EU country get billed if they make the EU spend time doing something? How much was Belgium billed for delaying and nearly scuppering CETA? What's that? Nothing. Exactly. Which is how much the UK will be paying for EU time spent on Brexit.

If there was any legal basis to that claim it would be in Article 50. Guess what? It's not.

Lame.

 

 

[Confusion of VIs]

50 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

nI don't have an issue with this, it's small change in the great scheme of things.

Maybe not that little, I have seen an estimate of £290m just for the EMA. A lot of money to pay to lose 1,000 high quality jobs.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Confusion of VIs

[Mirror Mirror]

5 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

John Redwood was just being disingenuous, If we are instructed to pay by a UK or international court it makes no difference whether we have repealed to act or not. If you stop and think for a moment it is clear what nonsense this statement is, if true we could run up whatever liabilities we like change he law and hey presto they disappear.

 been officially updated since, as when they tried Davis and Hammond rejected the update - I will leave you to guess why.      

A bit like the Scottish debt in the event of a succesful independance referendum, you mean?

[rollover]

7 hours ago, Errol said:

Russian Embassy Trolls The UK: "Praise God It's Not Russia This Time"

Responding to yesterday's spat between the UK and Brussels, in which Prime Minister Theresa May "declared war" on Brussels in the words of the Guardian, where she urged voters to "let me fight for Britain", the notoriously sarcastic Russian embassy in the UK trolled its host nation in a tweet on Thursday morning, in which it referenced a Times front page article titled "Brussels is meddling in our election, warns May", to which it had a simply caption: "Praise god it's not Russia this time"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-04/russian-embassy-trolls-uk-prussia-god-its-not-russia-time

I am not convinced

 

Quote

 

Manchester is full of 'fat people' and women who 'don't mind when their stomachs hang down and won't fit into their jeans'

Russia's biggest newspaper declares in editorial rant

Russia's largest selling newspaper has accused Manchester of being a city of 'fat people' and 'debauchery' with gay-friendly attitudes that Moscow should avoid.

One Russian visitor is quoted saying: 'Their women are so fat, they look disgusting to their men. Daily Mail

 

 

[Untoward]

3 hours ago, pig said:

In a country where Brexit  Remain voting Boomers  basking in hpi gains and newspaper propaganda, BTL, funny money, liar loans, developer monopolies and speculative investors  have cut off the life prospects of an entire generation, and yet immigrants+EU are blamed by the self-same Brexit Remain freaks looking to retire into a world painted by lady-bird books.

 

Amended for accuracy. 

[ccc]

3 hours ago, Errol said:

Indeed. Once the art 50 period elapses we are no longer a member. Therefore none of the EU rules apply. 

That's how i see it. Others see differently. Which is up to them of course. 

What i cant get my head around is there are people on here who clearly want the UK to be hamstrung by the EU even after we leave. I don't get that attitude. Whatever side of the debate you are on.

3 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

 

First - good on you for reading it and making what effectively is the case contained in the House of Lords report.

However, international law is a spiders web lf agreements and treaties and the mainstream opinion is that the government would get caught up in other treaties if the tried to make the case that walking away from a treaty cancelled pre existing obligations.

I'm sure it can be very complex. However the fact we will have left once any potential legal case goes anywhere - is pretty important as far as i can see.

With no precedent and decades of funding the EU as one of the main contributors - I think our case would be incredibly strong. If it were ever decided where this case would even be heard.

I don't think it would even be in the EU's interest aside from making things tricky to put other nations off.

Anyway - this is all conjecture from both sides really. 

Edited May 4, 2017 by ccc

[thecrashingisles]

3 minutes ago, ccc said:

What i cant get my head around is there are people on here who clearly want the UK to be hamstrung by the EU even after we leave. I don't get that attitude. Whatever side of the debate you are on.

Assume the SNP had won the independence referendum.  I'm sure you'd be the first to say that if they think they can just ignore England in the future they were deluded.  Can't you see the parallel?

[cock-eyed octopus]

5 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Assume the SNP had won the independence referendum.  I'm sure you'd be the first to say that if they think they can just ignore England in the future they were deluded.  Can't you see the parallel?

Ignoring someone & being hamstrung by them are different things. Surely you know that?

 

[ccc]

4 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Assume the SNP had won the independence referendum.  I'm sure you'd be the first to say that if they think they can just ignore England in the future they were deluded.  Can't you see the parallel?

I wouldn't expect or want us to have to pay a 'bill' to leave. It's a very different situation though so you can't directly compare. Imo.

By all accounts Scotland has been a net receiver as part of the UK for many a year. Then again that's all up to who you believe. When it comes to the UK and the EU - i don't think anyone argues that point. 

But yes i would expect us to be in close contact with England for a number of reasons. I wouldn't want us to come under English law though.

Anyway Scotland voting for independence isn't something i expect to happen anytime soon. 

 

[thecrashingisles]

1 minute ago, ccc said:

But yes i would expect us to be in close contact with England for a number of reasons. I wouldn't want us to come under English law though.

Scottish law is already separate from English law, so any UK law would automatically carry over at the point of independence.  There'd be no need for a Great Repeal Bill or similar.

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, Mirror Mirror said:

A bit like the Scottish debt in the event of a succesful independance referendum, you mean?

No the Scots don't have debt because - it's legally the bank of England that holds the debt. For whatever reason we are letting the Scots run up their bill on our tab.

 

 

 

[slawek]

It is not going to be easy for banks. Having a guy in London booking trades with EU clients against the EU entity and back-to-back trades with the London entity won't work. They will have to move everything capital, traders, sales, risk management, IT etc. Since the UK market is very small and most of the banks are in London just to have access to the EU a big chunk of the City will go, tens of billions of pounds per year. 

Speech by Sabine Lautenschläger, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB 22/3

The worst case would certainly be a “hard Brexit”. In that scenario, the UK would become a “third country” from the viewpoint of the EU.As a result, UK banks might lose their European passport and, with it, access to the Single Market. This would affect many of the 40 UK banking groups that currently operate in the Single Market. They would then have to find another way in.

Most likely, they would seek to obtain a banking licence in an EU country to regain the passport.In the euro area, these licences are granted by the ECB. We obviously don’t care whether UK banks move to Frankfurt, Dublin, Paris or some other location in the euro area.What we care about are safe and sound banks.

We will therefore resist any supervisory or regulatory race to the bottom. Any bank that moves to the euro area will have to meet our standards – regardless of whether it comes from the UK or any other place.

Most importantly, we will not accept empty shell companies. All entities in the euro area must have adequate local risk management, sufficient local staff and operational independence. All that should be self-evident.

Banks which seek to permanently book all exposures back-to-back with another entity in London should change their plans. And so should banks that plan to book all exposures with a euro area entity while having their risk management somewhere else.

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, ccc said:

That's how i see it. Others see differently. Which is up to them of course. 

What i cant get my head around is there are people on here who clearly want the UK to be hamstrung by the EU even after we leave. I don't get that attitude. Whatever side of the debate you are on.

I'm sure it can be very complex. However the fact we will have left once any potential legal case goes anywhere - is pretty important as far as i can see.

With no precedent and decades of funding the EU as one of the main contributors - I think our case would be incredibly strong. If it were ever decided where this case would even be heard.

I don't think it would even be in the EU's interest aside from making things tricky to put other nations off.

Anyway - this is all conjecture from both sides really. 

I don't understand why you, and several others, keep presenting the world as you would like it to be rather than as it is. At some point reality will hit and then all the posts in the world won't make any difference to the outcome.

I doubt anyone of here (apart from maybe the odd Putin troll) actually wants the UK to be hamstrung. Wanting to understand how things are likely to play out, doesn't mean you are happy with the outcome.  

Yes, there is a chance we could get away without paying a bill, as the weight of legal opinion is not entirely against that, however as its less than a 50-50 chance and the cost of finding out (no deal) is far more than even the made up 100bn figure, we are not going down that no deal)route. Unless by accident, in which case we will have more to worry about than the exit bill.

Bottom of page 30 of the document below(posted by GrizzilyDave) gives the average of the forecasts of the impact of Brexit out to 2030, optimistic (we join the EEA, already ruled out by May) is we lose 34bn a year, pessimistic (No deal leave on WTO terms) 108bn a year.  

 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/595374/IPOL_STU(2017)595374_EN.pdf

That's a future I would like to avoid, but one I fear May's rhetoric is heading us towards.

 

 

[Riedquat]

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I don't understand why you, and several others, keep presenting the world as you would like it to be rather than as it is. At some point reality will hit and then all the posts in the world won't make any difference to the outcome.

I don't understand why you, and several others, keep presenting the world as it is (or at least as some claim it is) as the only possible world and everything will fall apart if you try to change it. The people you're having a go at see the world as it is very clearly, which is why they want it changed.

[slawek]

2 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I don't understand why you, and several others, keep presenting the world as you would like it to be rather than as it is. At some point reality will hit and then all the posts in the world won't make any difference to the outcome.

I doubt anyone of here (apart from maybe the odd Putin troll) actually wants the UK to be hamstrung. Wanting to understand how things are likely to play out, doesn't mean you are happy with the outcome.  

Yes, there is a chance we could get away without paying a bill, as the weight of legal opinion is not entirely against that, however as its less than a 50-50 chance and the cost of finding out (no deal) is far more than even the made up 100bn figure, we are not going down that no deal)route. Unless by accident, in which case we will have more to worry about than the exit bill.

Bottom of page 30 of the document below(posted by GrizzilyDave) gives the average of the forecasts of the impact of Brexit out to 2030, optimistic (we join the EEA, already ruled out by May) is we lose 34bn a year, pessimistic (No deal leave on WTO terms) 108bn a year.  

 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/595374/IPOL_STU(2017)595374_EN.pdf

That's a future I would like to avoid, but one I fear May's rhetoric is heading us towards.

Don't be too harsh to them. They are changing, just after the referendum the level of delusion was much higher, all those claims about world queuing to sign trade deals with the UK, German begging us to buy their cars, a world of opportunities waiting for us, just destroy everything and something great will be born magically. Now even May-bot is saying it is going to be tough, the reality is sinking in slowly.    

[GrizzlyDave]

23 minutes ago, slawek said:

It is not going to be easy for banks. Having a guy in London booking trades with EU clients against the EU entity and back-to-back trades with the London entity won't work. They will have to move everything capital, traders, sales, risk management, IT etc. Since the UK market is very small and most of the banks are in London just to have access to the EU a big chunk of the City will go, tens of billions of pounds per year. 

Speech by Sabine Lautenschläger, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB 22/3

The worst case would certainly be a “hard Brexit”. In that scenario, the UK would become a “third country” from the viewpoint of the EU.As a result, UK banks might lose their European passport and, with it, access to the Single Market. This would affect many of the 40 UK banking groups that currently operate in the Single Market. They would then have to find another way in.

Most likely, they would seek to obtain a banking licence in an EU country to regain the passport.In the euro area, these licences are granted by the ECB. We obviously don’t care whether UK banks move to Frankfurt, Dublin, Paris or some other location in the euro area.What we care about are safe and sound banks.

We will therefore resist any supervisory or regulatory race to the bottom. Any bank that moves to the euro area will have to meet our standards – regardless of whether it comes from the UK or any other place.

Most importantly, we will not accept empty shell companies. All entities in the euro area must have adequate local risk management, sufficient local staff and operational independence. All that should be self-evident.

Banks which seek to permanently book all exposures back-to-back with another entity in London should change their plans. And so should banks that plan to book all exposures with a euro area entity while having their risk management somewhere else.

10 years on we're still living with the monumental fook up by our banks. I don't care if we are poorer without them. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Confusion of VIs]

22 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I don't understand why you, and several others, keep presenting the world as it is (or at least as some claim it is) as the only possible world and everything will fall apart if you try to change it. The people you're having a go at see the world as it is very clearly, which is why they want it changed.

Well I never done that, I have always said the EU has to change or it will collapse.

I see Brexit as us giving up on trying to change the world and withdrawing into what many Leave voters imagine is our own safe space.

 

[Riedquat]

Just now, Confusion of VIs said:

Well I never done that, I have always said the EU has to change or it will collapse.

I see Brexit as us giving up on trying to change the world and withdrawing into what many Leave voters imagine is our own safe space.

Yet withdrawing isn't what Leave voters seem to want. Your posts suggest that you view them as naive, but more so than the idea that the EU will change, at least without having its hand forced by events such as Brexit? At any rate I suspect that it wouldn't have needed all that many people to have been convinced that that change was likely for the vote to have gone the other way.

[Bulltulip]

24 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Well I never done that, I have always said the EU has to change or it will collapse.

I see Brexit as us giving up on trying to change the world and withdrawing into what many Leave voters imagine is our own safe space.

 

I rather see Brexit as us giving up on trying to change the EU and instead expanding into what many Leave voters call the big wide world. You should try it some time.

I would also add that we are in no way giving up on Europe. I personally hope that Europe does prosper and if the people are happy with the EU then good luck to them. I'm not really much of a traveler but I can see no reason why I would not be able to enjoy holidays in Europe and once my children are off my hands maybe enjoy some work opportunities.

[Confusion of VIs]

15 minutes ago, Bulltulip said:

I rather see Brexit as us giving up on trying to change the EU and instead expanding into what many Leave voters call the big wide world. You should try it some time.

I would also add that we are in no way giving up on Europe. I personally hope that Europe does prosper and if the people are happy with the EU then good luck to them. I'm not really much of a traveler but I can see no reason why I would not be able to enjoy holidays in Europe and once my children are off my hands maybe enjoy some work opportunities.

Not sure how many Brexit voters see our future as expanding into the big wide world, the ones I have come across in real life want pretty much the opposite. On the other hand, I have spent a fair bit of my life working in the big wide world. 

I can see how the Brexit vision of an open global UK, as espoused by the likes of Daniel Hannan, could work but have yet to meet a Brexit voter who actually voted for anything like that.  

[slawek]

2 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

10 years on we're still living with the monumental fook up by our banks. I don't care if we are poorer without them. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

26 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I don't understand why you, and several others, keep presenting the world as it is (or at least as some claim it is) as the only possible world and everything will fall apart if you try to change it. The people you're having a go at see the world as it is very clearly, which is why they want it changed.

 You don't change the world by blowing it up. 

As for the EU the main reason why Leavers on this forum want a change is their view that the EU is something foreign, imposing its will on them. For me the EU is us, we are a part of it, it is up to us and people from other countries to decide how it works. This doesn't mean we get all we want. We need to learn how to work out compromises and accept that sometimes others will have different views. A common good should be our goal. Working together we can mutually benefit and have enough resources to solve our problems like globalisation, debt growth, inequality, ageing population, technological progress which makes low skilled workers redundant, environment protection etc. Turning back on the EU and harming ourselves with it doesn't make any sense unless you think you are "I'am alright Jack", which I hope we agree it is not the case.      

[XswampyX]

1 minute ago, slawek said:

 

 You don't change the world by blowing it up. 

As for the EU the main reason why Leavers on this forum want a change is their view that the EU is something foreign, imposing its will on them. For me the EU is us, we are a part of it, it is up to us and people from other countries to decide how it works. This doesn't mean we get all we want. We need to learn how to work out compromises and accept that sometimes others will have different views. A common good should be our goal. Working together we can mutually benefit and have enough resources to solve our problems like globalisation, debt growth, inequality, ageing population, technological progress which makes low skilled workers redundant, environment protection etc. Turning back on the EU and harming ourselves with it doesn't make any sense unless you think you are "I'am alright Jack", which I hope we agree it is not the case.      

Name one person that is "getting what they want?". What a load of f***** s***!

[South Lorne]

15 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

.....On the other hand, I have spent a fair bit of my life working in the big wide world. ...

 

...ohh..you have worked more than a mile from Westminster ..?...wow..eee..!.....or can you define your 'big wide world' a bit ....

[Confusion of VIs]

12 minutes ago, South Lorne said:

...ohh..you have worked more than a mile from Westminster ..?...wow..eee..!.....or can you define your 'big wide world' a bit ....

For what its worth, I have spent many years working in the big wide world including Munich, Prague, Warsaw, Washington DC, San Diego (all as an IT contractor), Brussels (EU), Lyon (Interpol), Munich (Siemens).  

 

[Sheeple Splinter]

10 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

Ergo, sometimes just taking what's on offer can benefit you.  Like taking the EU as it is and not always asking for special treatment.

Moved back to the EU rather than RoW trade I see...

Even Juncker accepts that the EU needs reform, although his scenarios are hardly creative. Turkey asked for, then received special treatment and numerous countries have opt-outs i.e. special treatments.