Post-Brexit Thread

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Cue Gary Lineker's shameful Brexit joke:

the last laugh delivered posthumously

[1andrew1]

Queen’s frustration with May over Brexit secrecy
The Queen was left “disappointed” with Theresa May after the prime minister declined to share plans for Brexit during her first stay at Balmoral, The Times has learnt.
Mrs May stuck to her “Brexit means Brexit” line during the visit to Scotland in September rather than giving a private briefing on how she intended to negotiate Britain’s way out of the European Union, according to a source close to the monarch. The prime minister’s failure to go beyond her public remarks during the stay meant that the Queen’s relationship with her 13th prime minister did not get off to an ideal start, the account suggests.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ne...recy-kxv3wwkj7

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Cue Gary Lineker's shameful Brexit joke:

Gary said: “The ambassador to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers, has announced a Brexit deal could take 10 years.

“That’s not fair, most of the people who voted for it will be dead by then.”

How nice. I wonder if the dumbo-eared presenter's cruel remark might include his own parents?

[Osem]

I'm just wondering when's Osborne going to explain to us all why that immediate emergency budget (with those huge tax rises for us ordinary folks) he stated would be necessary as a result of the economic armageddon certain to follow a Brexit vote hasn't yet been required. Maybe he's too busy making gazillions talking finance on the gravy train lecture circuit to find the time for us mere pawns...

Anyway it's a good job enough of either chose not to believe him or put a higher value on life outside the EU than he banked on.

---------- Post added at 10:58 ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Kursk

How nice. I wonder if the dumbo-eared presenter's cruel remark might include his own parents?

Well I suppose it's ok to be cruel to some folks whilst portraying yourself as a saint to others you claim are the victims of it? Maybe the latter helps vastly overpaid 'celebrities' like him feel better about all that wealth they've acquired, including those fine folk who continuing preaching generosity to the rest of us whilst doing their utmost to minimise the amount of tax they pay into the common pot. How's about that for true hypocrisy?

[1andrew1]

Good factual summary on where we stand with Brexit six months after the referendum. Conclusion seems to be that so far it's all been about process and not substance and that a note of realism is creeping in.

http://www.economist.com/news/britai...ance-2017-will

---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 ----------


https://www.facebook.com/veryBrexitp...type=3&theater

[Ramrod]

Why Leave voters are my heroes of 2016

....the CNN/ComRes poll published on Monday. It found that 47 per cent of British adults would vote Leave if the EU referendum was held today, and 45 per cent would vote Remain (eight per cent said they didn’t know how they’d vote).
Leavers haven’t budged. Regrexit is a myth. Even after months of being branded as idiots, libelled as racists, and charged with bringing about a hike in hate crime and possibly the end of decent politics as we knew it, Leavers remain devoted to their choice, convinced of their cause. Such steadfastness in the face of months of intense verbal persecution is moving, and inspiring.
Let me tell you about the bit in this week’s CNN/ComRes poll that really got me: 17 per cent of those who think their personal finances will worsen as a result of Brexit say they would still vote Leave. In short, they put their belief in how to make Britain a better, more democratic nation above their own economic comfort.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Why Leave voters are my heroes of 2016

Cheers Ramrod, Merry Christmas to you and thank you for your Sanity !

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Good factual summary on where we stand with Brexit six months after the referendum. Conclusion seems to be that so far it's all been about process and not substance and that a note of realism is creeping in.

http://www.economist.com/news/britai...ance-2017-will

---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 ----------


https://www.facebook.com/veryBrexitp...type=3&theater

Yes, process is important, given the determination EU bureaucrats, some politicians and others have to try and trip us up.

To me, what we have to negotiate can be summarised as:

1. Ability of EU countries to trade with Britain (and vice versa) free of tariff restrictions. This needs to be signed off without fettering Britain in terms of who it can trade with outside the EU (and without an EU requirement to apply tariffs to such trade).

2. Continued co-operation on security issues.

3. Mutual co-operation regarding repatriation of criminals who have served their sentences and the handing over of criminals to face trial.

4. Agreement on how Britain extracates itself from EU laws.

5. Agreement on permitting EU nationals currently residing in Britain and vice versa to stay and the abolition of the EU requirement for free movement of people into our country.

6. Transitional arrangements to ensure a smooth transfer in the interests of both the EU and UK.

7. Agreement on any remaining financial obligations on both sides, including how grants are dealt with.

These are the main areas to be negotiated and none of this should be news to anyone, and so I don't understand why some are saying that the Government needs to be clear on this.

Of course, it would not be surprising if the EU bureaucrats continued their campaign of penalising Britain for daring to leave, and so if it became clear we were getting nowhere fast, we should tell them that we are leaving without any agreements on these matters and apply WTO rules.

It is pretty simple really, although of course the practical detail of each issue to be negotiated will probably be quite difficult and so getting Parliament's approval in advance of negotiations is not a viable proposition. A vote in Parliament should be done at the end of the negotiations, not at the beginning.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

These are the main areas to be negotiated and none of this should be news to anyone, and so I don't understand why some are saying that the Government needs to be clear on this.

I fully appreciate that it all seems a bit distant but here's just one of the many issues that businesses need clarification on. Google the article headline to read the full article. Can the UK set up 34 industry regulators in two years? Who pays for the extra costs involved?

Business faces ‘confusion’ over post-Brexit regulation, CBI warns
Businesses in Britain face “confusion and uncertainty” over the post-Brexit regulatory regime with the UK having to maintain or copy the work of no fewer than 34 European regulators, the CBI employers’ group has warned.

With sectors from life sciences to medicine to financial services under the auspices of EU watchdogs, Theresa May, prime minister, must decide whether to extricate the UK from all of those bodies after leaving the bloc.

Questioned on the issue in the Commons on Monday, Mrs May said no decision had been made and the Brexit department was studying all of the regulators before making a decision: “We need to look with great care and consideration at the wide range of our relationships with Europe,” she replied.

Yet staying under the auspices of any European regulator would leave Britain under the influence of the European Court of Justice — breaching a Brexit “red line” set by the prime minister herself in her speech to the Conservative party conference this autumn. “We are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice,” she said.

Replicating work currently performed by EU agencies by setting up UK equivalents would come at a “huge cost” to taxpayers, said Pat McFadden, a senior Labour MP. “It would be sensible to approach these European agencies on a case-by-case basis. But the issue of the ECJ is a problem that the prime minister has created for herself by making this a red line.

The aerospace and aviation sectors, which contributed £52bn to UK GDP last year, are deeply concerned at the prospect that Britain will pull out of the EASA, which sets rules for certification of everything from aircraft and their components to flight training schools. Recreating a domestic regulatory system in the UK would be expensive and take years, say executives.
https://www.ft.com/content/7dc9a004-...9-9445cac8966f

---------- Post added at 17:44 ---------- Previous post was at 17:38 ----------

Good article.
Brexit facts to get you through that awkward Christmas dinner
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ristmas-dinner

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I fully appreciate that it all seems a bit distant but here's just one of the many issues that businesses need clarification on. Google the article headline to read the full article. Can the UK set up 34 industry regulators in two years? Who pays for the extra costs involved?

Business faces ‘confusion’ over post-Brexit regulation, CBI warns
Businesses in Britain face “confusion and uncertainty” over the post-Brexit regulatory regime with the UK having to maintain or copy the work of no fewer than 34 European regulators, the CBI employers’ group has warned.

With sectors from life sciences to medicine to financial services under the auspices of EU watchdogs, Theresa May, prime minister, must decide whether to extricate the UK from all of those bodies after leaving the bloc.

Questioned on the issue in the Commons on Monday, Mrs May said no decision had been made and the Brexit department was studying all of the regulators before making a decision: “We need to look with great care and consideration at the wide range of our relationships with Europe,” she replied.

Yet staying under the auspices of any European regulator would leave Britain under the influence of the European Court of Justice — breaching a Brexit “red line” set by the prime minister herself in her speech to the Conservative party conference this autumn. “We are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice,” she said.

Replicating work currently performed by EU agencies by setting up UK equivalents would come at a “huge cost” to taxpayers, said Pat McFadden, a senior Labour MP. “It would be sensible to approach these European agencies on a case-by-case basis. But the issue of the ECJ is a problem that the prime minister has created for herself by making this a red line.

The aerospace and aviation sectors, which contributed £52bn to UK GDP last year, are deeply concerned at the prospect that Britain will pull out of the EASA, which sets rules for certification of everything from aircraft and their components to flight training schools. Recreating a domestic regulatory system in the UK would be expensive and take years, say executives.
https://www.ft.com/content/7dc9a004-...9-9445cac8966f

But surely, Theresa May cannot give certainty when what we want has to be negotiated. It's nonsense to expect the UK to go in with its size nines, making a huge set of demands without them pushing back on things that are dear to them. We can only set out the areas of discussion, not the detail, at this stage.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

---------- Post added at 17:44 ---------- Previous post was at 17:38 ----------

[/COLOR]Good article.
Brexit facts to get you through that awkward Christmas dinner
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ristmas-dinner

there won't be any awkwardness as no remoaners are invited to sit around the table as its a winner winner xmas dinner .

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But surely, Theresa May cannot give certainty when what we want has to be negotiated. It's nonsense to expect the UK to go in with its size nines, making a huge set of demands without them pushing back on things that are dear to them. We can only set out the areas of discussion, not the detail, at this stage.

She said at the party conference that she doesn't want to be covered by the European Courts of Justice so surely she can state that she doesn't want UK companies to be overseen by EU institutions as ECJ governance is a necessity of that happening and start to create the 34 UK regulators.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

there won't be any awkwardness as no remoaners are invited to sit around the table as its a winner winner xmas dinner .

Sounds like my kind of dinner. But as for the Brexit facts, which have been published in, The Guardian, a venomously anti-brexit paper, think I would have more fun reading a book, which explains why paint takes so long to dry.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The aerospace and aviation sectors, which contributed £52bn to UK GDP last year, are deeply concerned at the prospect that Britain will pull out of the EASA, which sets rules for certification of everything from aircraft and their components to flight training schools. Recreating a domestic regulatory system in the UK would be expensive and take years, say executives.
https://www.ft.com/content/7dc9a004-...9-9445cac8966f[COLOR="Silver"]

Oh dear, That's the end of the Airbus 360 until France find another wing & engine maufacturer.

The rest of British Industry will have to wait for the required regulatory bodies to be set up before exports can resume.

It is good to know that any regulatory body we set up will superseed the requirements of those of any country we decide to export to.

What a load of typical remoaner nonsense!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Oh dear, That's the end of the Airbus 360 until France find another wing & engine maufacturer.

The rest of British Industry will have to wait for the required regulatory bodies to be set up before exports can resume.

It is good to know that any regulatory body we set up will superseed the requirements of those of any country we decide to export to.

What a load of typical remoaner nonsense!

They're just people trying to earn an honest crust and plan for a post-Brexit environment in the UK. Surely you should be applauding their post-Brexit forward-thinking as oppose to swatting them away like a fly?