On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 08:17:31 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 08:25:47 on
Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:06:12 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 10:38:40 on
Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

I'll pick out a few of the worst howlers:

Legislation to remove EU competence (i.e. power) over UK affairs but
adopting current EU laws into
UK law so we can change, repeal or leave unchanged as required AFTER
we leave.

(1) Is that for EU Laws brought into force up to the day of exit, or
some other milestone. This isn't hypothetical, there's a huge Data
Protection shake-up due to be in force by May 2018. Which is just after
current predictions of Brexit. Assuming we do exit my April 2018, what
will the Data Protection law in the UK be in June 2018, given that if
it's the old law we won't be a "safe harbour" and many EU companies will
be in difficulty working through UK datacentres. Further to that, if we
brought the new law into force by March 2018 [there's no prohibition on
being early] what if there's a European Court ruling in 2020
'clarifying' what the law means, as has happened recently with the old
law and the so-called "Domestic Exemption"? Will we adopt the revised
law.

(2) What of the laws which provide for regulatory decisions to be made
by the EU equivalent of OFCOM[1], whatever the Monopolies Commission is
called this week, and so on? What if the laws have other pan-European
aspects, like the ones on Copyright and Patents.

[1] eg Will UK mobile phone companies have to abide by EU decisions on
roaming costs.

The government is putting this into the so-called Great Repeal Bill
being prepared by David Davis's department so I'm sure they will be
able to answer your questions.

The question was more for yourself, to make you think about the
complexities of the situation. I doubt if the Great Repeal Bill will go
into the level of detail above, for the hundreds of Directives which
will need considering.

Er, no.

Directives are instructions from EU to member states to legislate, so their provisions are already
law.

Regulations are laws brought in directly by EU bypassing national parliaments entirely. It is these
laws which will need to formally brought into UK law before we leave, otherwise laws would disappear
overnight. Afterwards laws can be reviewed in normal way.


Inform the EU we are leaving on a particular date and say we intend
to carry on trading with the EU
tariff-free as long as the other countries reciprocate.

You can inform until you are blue in the teeth. They can ignore us.

OK, so WTO/MFN trading then. German car workers who will lose their
jobs as a result won't be pleased.

The Brexit deal will not be crafted around the desires of thousands of
special interest groups within the 27 member states.

But if it were, you might find German car workers get more jobs building
cars for sale in Europe when Jaguar and Land Rover get priced out of the
market; or perhaps Jaguar and Land Rover will move their factories to
the mainland, again bringing more jobs.

UK's sales by value to other EU countries are far less than EU's sales to UK.

Some motor manufacturing has already relocated to Turkey with the help of EU grants. Thanks, EU.


EU governments are unlikely to refuse as adopting WTO/MFN rules would
damage their businesses far more than ours

That strategy's not working so well with UK & India.

New trade deals are being discussed now.

And the results may be known in ten years time.

Why ten years? Could be ten weeks or ten months.


(German businesses in particular are lobbying to maintain tariff-free
access to their
biggest market). We will no longer obliged to pay into the EU
budget, so that will save us about
£10 billion a year net,

Chicken feed compared to the financial benefits of the single market.

We will still be able to trade with EU as they will wish to carry on
trading with us. So the details will be negotiated, with WTO/MFN as
the fallback.

No-one is saying we won't able to trade, but the outcome (if we leave
the single market in any sense) will be tariffs and barriers which will
hurt us more than them.

No, quite the reverse. UK is EU's biggest market.


and FTAs with non-EU countries will give us access to cheaper imports.

After a decade of negotiations.

Rubbish, many countries want deals with us. Some have abandoned
attempts to get agreements with EU and are turning to UK instead.

Most of those are wishful thinking talked up by Brexiters. And the
timescale is considerable.

Switzerland has signed up trade deals with far more countries than the EU has, and UK is a bigger
opportunity for business than Switzerland is.


I do admit that many did vote divorce to become self-governing again.

I am old enough to remember politics before we went into the EC.
Contrary to the alarmist reports
of some, we had human rights, equal pay, maternity pay etc. We had a
health service (the NHS came
into existence when I was a few months old).

Yes, but a great deal of today's consumer/employee protection has been
added on top of that rather low base by the EU.

No-one is saying we get rid of everything the EU introduced - some of
it undoubtedly UK policy. It just means that UK will be responsible in
the future.

It'll be interesting to see how Westminster deals with the workload,
when so much new legislation will have to be fought out locally hand-to-
hand, rather than rubber-stamping something from Brussels.

We managed before 1973.


our own regional policy (no need for regions to lobby in Brussels
against each other for a small slice of the money we pay into the EU)

It's far easier to get that sort of money from the EU than from
Westminster.

But Westminster will have more money (see above).

But more difficult to extract money from. EU grants are a bit like
applying for a mortgage, you have to present a financial case and tick
all the boxes. The money then arrive relatively painlessly. In
Westminster they'll also be asking you "why exactly do you need four
bedrooms and what's wrong with your current house".

So put pressure on MPs. If they don't deal with it, chuck them out. That's democratic
accountability.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:58:30 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:


Which is why they ennoble people like Lord Winston (FMedSci FRSA FRCP
FRCOG FREng).

Isn't he the one who suggested charging patients to see their doctor?

In message , at 09:10:00 on
Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

The question was more for yourself, to make you think about the
complexities of the situation. I doubt if the Great Repeal Bill will go
into the level of detail above, for the hundreds of Directives which
will need considering.

Er, no.

Directives are instructions from EU to member states to legislate, so their provisions are already
law.

But rely on ECJ caselaw. Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or
will we (can we even) continue to rely upon it?

Regulations are laws brought in directly by EU bypassing national parliaments entirely. It is these
laws which will need to formally brought into UK law before we leave, otherwise laws would disappear
overnight. Afterwards laws can be reviewed in normal way.

Will the Regulations be redrafted in UK-speak (the way transpositions of
Directives are), or what?

New trade deals are being discussed now.

And the results may be known in ten years time.

Why ten years? Could be ten weeks or ten months.

It takes that long to work out the detail.

No-one is saying we won't able to trade, but the outcome (if we leave
the single market in any sense) will be tariffs and barriers which will
hurt us more than them.

No, quite the reverse. UK is EU's biggest market.

Are you suggesting some kind of apparatus where the UK's import and
export tariffs are revenue neutral? It's hard to make quotas neutral.

Switzerland has signed up trade deals with far more countries than the EU has, and UK is a bigger
opportunity for business than Switzerland is.

And how long did it take them? Also note that the Swiss GDP is a quarter
of the UK's which makes the stakes lower, and thus easier to negotiate.

I do admit that many did vote divorce to become self-governing again.

I am old enough to remember politics before we went into the EC.
Contrary to the alarmist reports
of some, we had human rights, equal pay, maternity pay etc. We had a
health service (the NHS came
into existence when I was a few months old).

Yes, but a great deal of today's consumer/employee protection has been
added on top of that rather low base by the EU.

No-one is saying we get rid of everything the EU introduced - some of
it undoubtedly UK policy. It just means that UK will be responsible in
the future.

It'll be interesting to see how Westminster deals with the workload,
when so much new legislation will have to be fought out locally hand-to-
hand, rather than rubber-stamping something from Brussels.

We managed before 1973.

The world has become far more complicated.

our own regional policy (no need for regions to lobby in Brussels
against each other for a small slice of the money we pay into the EU)

It's far easier to get that sort of money from the EU than from
Westminster.

But Westminster will have more money (see above).

But more difficult to extract money from. EU grants are a bit like
applying for a mortgage, you have to present a financial case and tick
all the boxes. The money then arrive relatively painlessly. In
Westminster they'll also be asking you "why exactly do you need four
bedrooms and what's wrong with your current house".

So put pressure on MPs.

They don't make these decisions. Ministers and their unelected civil
servants do.

If they don't deal with it, chuck them out.

How do you do that?

That's democratic accountability.

The man in the street won't have much visibility of the EU grants issue.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:11:36 on
Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

Which is why they ennoble people like Lord Winston (FMedSci FRSA FRCP
FRCOG FREng).

Isn't he the one who suggested charging patients to see their doctor?

I have no idea. His expertise is medical rather than financial.
--
Roland Perry

wrote in message news
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:19:29 -0000
"tim..." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
And I honestly don't what the calls for a referendum on the result of
the
negotiations is trying to achieve. If that referendum votes "no" we'll
be
exiting (because that's inevitable) with a blank sheet of paper as an
agreement.

The people asking for it are Remoaners who seem to think that the
alternative option will be "staying in"

Isn't it the Libdems calling for it? Its the kind of moronic thing they'd
do
but of course its coupled with the general remoaner attitude that somehow
the
votes of those who voted Brexit are worth less than their own because they
delude themselves into thinking that Brexiters are either stupid and/or
ill
informed, didn't really know what they were doing and that only they, The
Remainers (cue angelic choir), have the gift of True Sight. Of course this
naive dismissive arrogance common to the liberal elite and student
activists
is why we got Brexit and Trump just won.

I particularly love one of the favourite Remaoner arguments for remaining
in
the EU - "If we'd stayed in we could have changed it". Yes, because we've
had
so much success doing that in the last 40 years haven't we.

And what's more, if we back out now, having actually voted to leave our
chances of shaping the EU along the lines that we prefer in the future will
be reduced to a big fat zero.

The EU autocrats, who have so far backed off from the most extreme of their
measures because they were worried that it might "encourage" the Brits will
leave will say to themselves "they are more scared of leaving than we are of
them doing so" so we can do whatever we like and they'll remain members
regardless.

For us, the worst of all worlds. by a mile, IMHO

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:19:29 on Fri, 11 Nov 2016,
tim... remarked:

And I honestly don't
know
what the calls for a referendum on the result of the negotiations is
trying to achieve. If that referendum votes "no" we'll be exiting
(because that's inevitable) with a blank sheet of paper as an agreement.

The people asking for it are Remoaners who seem to think that the
alternative option will be "staying in"

If it's as simple as that, they have truly lost the plot.

You're preaching to the converted here, matey

It's Messrs Smith, Benn and Farron you need to be talking to.

I think, perhaps, you have some closer links to them than any of the rest of
us.

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:10:00 on
Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

The question was more for yourself, to make you think about the
complexities of the situation. I doubt if the Great Repeal Bill will go
into the level of detail above, for the hundreds of Directives which
will need considering.

Er, no.

Directives are instructions from EU to member states to legislate, so
their provisions are already
law.

But rely on ECJ caselaw.

There is no such thing

Not in the sense that the result of the case is itself a law.

What a ruling in the ECJ does is require the noncompliance to be amended in
the country's underlying law

once that is done the result of the case is now irrelevant


Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or will we (can we even) continue
to rely upon it?


we will be "stuck" with our interpretation the day that we leave.

If someone doesn't like that they will have to ask our courts to adjudicate.
That adjudication might be different from the ECJ's because only the law as
written will be considered, not the original directive's intention.

what's so wrong with that?

tim

On 12/11/2016 10:38, tim... wrote:

wrote in message news
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:19:29 -0000
"tim..." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
And I honestly don't what the calls for a referendum on the result
of the
negotiations is trying to achieve. If that referendum votes "no"
we'll be
exiting (because that's inevitable) with a blank sheet of paper as an
agreement.

The people asking for it are Remoaners who seem to think that the
alternative option will be "staying in"

Isn't it the Libdems calling for it? Its the kind of moronic thing
they'd do
but of course its coupled with the general remoaner attitude that
somehow the
votes of those who voted Brexit are worth less than their own because
they
delude themselves into thinking that Brexiters are either stupid
and/or ill
informed, didn't really know what they were doing and that only they, The
Remainers (cue angelic choir), have the gift of True Sight. Of course
this
naive dismissive arrogance common to the liberal elite and student
activists
is why we got Brexit and Trump just won.

I particularly love one of the favourite Remaoner arguments for
remaining in
the EU - "If we'd stayed in we could have changed it". Yes, because
we've had
so much success doing that in the last 40 years haven't we.

And what's more, if we back out now, having actually voted to leave our
chances of shaping the EU along the lines that we prefer in the future
will be reduced to a big fat zero.

Wrong, it's a big fat zero by leaving.


The EU autocrats, who have so far backed off from the most extreme of
their measures because they were worried that it might "encourage" the
Brits will leave will say to themselves "they are more scared of leaving
than we are of them doing so" so we can do whatever we like and they'll
remain members regardless.

For us, the worst of all worlds. by a mile, IMHO


More scare-mongering.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

"Optimist" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:58:30 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:


Which is why they ennoble people like Lord Winston (FMedSci FRSA FRCP
FRCOG FREng).

Isn't he the one who suggested charging patients to see their doctor?

I don't have a problem with charging people to see the doctor

Where I have a problem is with the British "way" of doing these things,
which is to exempt every Tom, Dick or Harry from every disadvantaged
demographic without first realising that there is a strong correlation
between the set of people who "abuse" the use of the health system and these
exempted demographics. You just end up with a system where the responsible
people subsidise the irresponsible (even more than they do now).

Other countries, of which I am aware, that charge people for health visits
charge everybody, no exceptions (with a maximum fee per year to avoid
disadvantaging people with chronic conditions)

tim

In message , at 10:53:30 on Sat, 12 Nov
2016, tim... remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:10:00
on Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

The question was more for yourself, to make you think about the
complexities of the situation. I doubt if the Great Repeal Bill will go
into the level of detail above, for the hundreds of Directives which
will need considering.

Er, no.

Directives are instructions from EU to member states to legislate, so
their provisions are already
law.

But rely on ECJ caselaw.

There is no such thing

Not in the sense that the result of the case is itself a law.

What a ruling in the ECJ does is require the noncompliance to be
amended in the country's underlying law

once that is done the result of the case is now irrelevant

That's all nonsense. Take a recent example (and in workers rights too, a
topic discussed earlier) where the ECJ ruled that if mobile worker
travelled home-client1 - - - clientN-home that the first and last
journeys counted as work. That doesn't change either the rule or the
local transposition, it simply changes the definition of "work".

Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or will we (can we even)
continue to rely upon it?

we will be "stuck" with our interpretation the day that we leave.

If someone doesn't like that they will have to ask our courts to
adjudicate. That adjudication might be different from the ECJ's
because only the law as written will be considered, not the original
directive's intention.

what's so wrong with that?

Because when rulings like the above come out, we will get increasingly
out of step with the EU. Which will matter if the law in question about
trade.

So for example, if we automatically adopt the Status Quo of banning the
trade in "abnormally curved" bananas and the expression "abnormally
curved" gets an ECJ ruling changing its interpretation, we could end up
in a very messy situation trying to (re)export green[1] bananas to the
EU.

[1] It only applies to green ones.
--
Roland Perry