Unintended consequences of brexit

As for bullying, Rees Mogg nd his gang of extreme Brexiteers are doing. really good job of it. Other senior Tories and many more have come out today and told Mogg and co to ‘shut up’ and pipe down their extreme arrogance.

Fennel here are some more A.A. Milne, Winnie quotes. For no other reason than they might make us laugh:

“If the person you are talking to does not appear to be listening, be patient. It may simply be that he has a small piece of fluff in this ear.”

“You can't stay in your corner of the Forest waiting for others to come to you. You have to go to them sometimes.”

“My spelling is Wobbly. It’s good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places.”

On not losing sight of what's important
Piglet: “How do you spell love?”
Pooh: “You don’t spell it, you feel it.”

‘Supposing a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?’ said Piglet.
‘Supposing it didn’t,’ said Pooh after careful thought.

‘Always remember, you’re braver than you believe, stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think.’

Thanks for reminding me of Winnie, we have got the set of books out again, lovely!

Saying Mr nd Mrs Average’s life will more or less remain the same is either naive in the extreme, totally disingenuous, or .....?!?

Mr and Mrs Average do, sadly suffer from cancer and other illnesses that require EU (and Swiss) drugs, EU joint research. They buy many fruit, veg, and other goods which come from EU, as well as many other products. They quite like going on a family holiday once a year, to the EU or beyond, they use energy, like gas, electrics, motorways, etc, we have sold to EU countries and beyond, and a massive percentage of their jobs depend on a EU supply chain, etc,etc.

Thanks for that MaizeD, red tape is tedious enough at the best of times, I expect we will have situations where deals we be lost at the last minute , because a paragraph in a legislation hasn’t been adhered to properly , looking on the bright side new jobs in deciphering legislation may be a available !

let’s face it for Mr & Mrs Average, life will be much the same

I think that 'life will be much the same' only if we negotiate a Norway style agreement. Which is, of course, Brexit In Name Only' but without us having much input into EU decisions yet still having to pay in. If we crash out without any agreement the consequences will be horrific for all but the vulture capitalists who are looking to make a killing from our economic collapse.

For consequences I suggest that you read some of Richard North's blog posts. I will point out once again that he has been anti-EU practically ever since we joined the EEC and has researched the subject pretty thoroughly over the past 40 years.

Try this one:

"without an incredibly complex operation to ensure that every tiniest detail of this legal framework is replaced, in ways not just acceptable to the EU but compliant with international law, much of British aviation will simply come to a halt ". Even our right to fly in any international airspace is governed by a mass of international agreements to which we are only party as members of the EU.

www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86918

And the whole archive of woe:

www.eureferendum.com/archive.aspx

Having reread both outlooks on the Airbus scenario post Brexit, the only fact that is well -factual -is that they just don’t know, no one knows , at best it’s calculated predictions,at worst it’s - pin the tail on the donkey.
It only further confirms to me that it is madness to act on a Vote which had an extremely close outcome ,taken on a wave of emotion, discontent, assumptions,lies, prejudices etc etc.Yes it’s too late , yes we are a democracy,yes we have to accept the consequences, but please let’s not kid ourselves that we are entering a land of milk & honey. let’s face it for Mr & Mrs Average, life will be much the same ,but with far less opportunities for their offspring, as always the top end of society will be ok those at the other end will not be any better off , & those somewhere in the middle will muddle through . An expensive journey to find that for the vast majority life will be much the same ie winners, losers, & the just about OKs,

"How much legislation comes from Europe"
I was wondering about the new road speed restrictions. France is enforcing a similar law with similar opposition.

The minute a country enters into a trade agreement with another country it surrenders some of its sovereignty. The 'rules' of the the agreement are arrived at by negotiation and mutual agreement and usually involve both sides accepting compromises which might not be entirely to their liking. In the case of dispute there has to be an arbitrator. This is the function of the ECJ, if member states break the 'rules' which they have signed up to as members of the EU (and have been instrumental in making subsequent ones by virtue of their membership) the ECJ considers the evidence, makes a judgement and proposes a penalty.

The WTO has its equivalent so leaving the EU does not absolve the UK from having to observe rules of trade. It just answers to a different arbitrator.

for a greater part of your list, POGS I could possibly refer you to this House Of commons Library research paper:

How much legislation comes from Europe?

For me these passages from the summary (which may be all you care to read) are quite telling:

It is difficult to differentiate between EU-induced and nationally induced changes to the law. Governments might have intended to implement legislation in areas in which the EU decides to act, or have legislated in anticipation of the adoption of an EU law. These do not then show up as EU-based, even though they might have been EU influenced. In addition, if calculations focus on politically defined sectors, they may vary over time and across Member States. What is meant by ‘economics’ in one State, for example, may differ from what is called ‘economics’ in another.

Figures don’t give an insight into relative importance or salience of EU or national legislative acts. For example, the UK’s European Communities (Finance) Act 2001 to adopt the Council Decision on the EU’s system of own resources was more significant in terms of its impact than, for example, the Olympic Symbol etc (Protection) Act 1995. Figures don’t give information on how EU laws affect the daily lives of citizens or businesses - the relative material impact. For example, the ‘working time directive’ is arguably of far greater significance to the working population of the Member States than, for example, the Commission Regulation on “the classification of padded waistcoats in the Combined Nomenclature”.

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP10-62/RP10-62.pdf

And to this EU summary of The Balance of Competences Review in the United Kingdom, 2012-2014

(which I have linked to because it is clear, appears to be objective and is comprehensive, not because it is an EU production)

www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/573915/EPRS_BRI(2016)573915_EN.pdf

At least one commentary on the report concludes: It felt the review showed no convincing case for transferring competences back from the EU to the UK in any of the policy areas considered.

As this was the Senior European Experts group, a body consisting largely of retired high-ranking British diplomats and civil servants, it may be regarded as either highly suspect or worthy of respect, depending on your view of expertise and experience at international level.

With regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights I would say that I see nothing wrong in the the explicit codification of rights for the avoidance of doubt and that as we are already signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, a much earlier initiative which the UK was instrumental in driving, and which is entirely separate from the EU, I really cannot get particularly excercised in any way by the EU having one as well.

I'd note that the two are frequently confused and that even our PM didn't seem to recognise that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) are two completely different and distinct entities and the the ECHR has nothing at all to do with the EU, when she declared early in her premiership that we were going to withdraw from the ECHR. Haven't heard much about that of late. One hopes she quickly realised her error. To withdraw from the ECHR would indeed paint the UK in a dreadful light.

yygdrasil

" And we, and all the other countries, have always had the power to make our own laws within our countries . It is known as 'subsidiarity'. EU Law only comes into play when more than one country is involved".

I keep hearing the argument you put forward such as 'We have always had the power to make ourlaws' and for 2 years I have asked in that case what are:-

EU Regulations
EU Directives
Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg
Charter of Fundamental Rights
European Commmuniuties Act 1972
Primary Law
Secondary Law
Supplementary Law

Yes we can and do make some of our own laws but the EU is a dominant partner that does not allow sovereign nations to make / decide their governance in it's entirety, hence sovereignty is somewhat of a term but not a full bloiwn practice.

What do those who keep saying " We, and all the other countries, have always had the power to make our own laws " think the Repeal Bill

The only bullying here is from the Brexiteers in the cabinet, JRM, Fox et al,

No matter how many times that is said Mostly people cannot believe it and prefer to believe that the U.K. is being bullied - that way if it all goes badly they have someone to blame - instead of the voters,

Lots of paranoia on this thread. The EU is a rule based system. They are not bullies - they are just applying the rules. Rules which were formulated and agreed by the U.K.!

Some cannot see the EU for what it has actually become and what it further aspires to be!?
Thankfully now there is an open door for us to escape.

We have always had a major impact on the EU. Many of the laws and regulations were started by the UK, for the UK's benefit, and agreed with by the other 27 because they were good. Only when UKIP got itself so many MEPs and played silly buggers with the system, did things begin to go wrong.
And we, and all the other countries, have always had the power to make our own laws within our countries. It is known as 'subsidiarity'. EU Law only comes into play when more than one country is involved.

Ally - thankyou for your gracious apology. And kind offer to simplify any replies to me.
“When you are a Bear/Gran of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.”

Sorry for Bridget, it should of course read Bridgeit.

MargaretX

"I don't find the EU bullying- they have their rules, they are written down and backed up by law and the Leave Brits can't expect them to ignore them."

The point is MargaretX that the EU is only bullying when challenged. If EEA country's are just going along with what is doled out, in laws, tariff controls, freedom of movement, customs union etc, then the trap is not seen. Try to challenge or change the system, then all sort's of levers are used, to prevent change, or even the ability to leave. Switzerland. is an example of an EFTA country so dependent on the single market that it if afraid of rejecting certain aspects of freedom of movement, which it's people largely desire, because bilateral agreements will be lost. It's like being tied in with the small print for ever. You will have seen the post's about what is going on there.

It seems that in this so called benevolent EU societies, all is well until challenged, then benevolence turns to malevolence . As we are now seeing in our dealings with the EU and the subversive propaganda, stalling and general manipulation of our exit to mould it into a different form of remaining a satellite of the EU. One can reasonably assume that any deal with the EU will have a hook clause that get's you later.

Can you imagine having to negotiate with these eurocrats, rather than condemn our negotiators we should be praising them and supporting them with every ounce of our being. They deserve all our support.

Jura2 I have to agree with your recognition that the EU is more than rude, that their behaviour is as you say the "reality" of dealing with the EU.

MaizieD "I wanted to explore nellie's understanding of what DC had asked for and obtained in view of her assertion that the EU was 'rude and dismissive to D.C.'."

Why would you want to do that Maizie? If as you say, you you knew what Cameron had asked the EU for. What is this? You are testing another posters "understanding"!! That is such arrogance.

The EU was "rude and dismissive to DC" as nigglynellie put it. Had they treated our PM with more respect, and not dismissed most of his efforts in the categories of policy shown in the previous cut and paste I posted, he would not have gone to the referendum, which he promised if he failed to influence the EU in those area's of concern to the British people, they (the EU) ignored him and us and we are now leaving the EU.

It seems that the EU is a law unto itself. Once in no one can get out in an amicable way. Switzerland is being held over a barrel. Extreme political allegiance in Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Italy. With Italy stating that they will disobey EU directives if they do not conform to the best interests of Italy.
Greece is Bankrupt, virtually. The EU is putting every obstacle in the way of the British exit. How much of a mess do you need to see in the EU before admitting that there is a problem with the EU system.

Fennel, I am also so sorry that your short concentration span makes long post's difficult for you. If and when I respond to any post of your's I will respond in short sentences. Please accept my apology for not recognising your difficulty.

Fennel, I should just also say thank you for pointing out my error. That was so kind of you. I am sure you meant your correction to be genuinely helpful.

We all came from Africa initially...

With regard to freedom of movement I've been looking at the Schengen Area and visas.

According to their website:

The United Kingdom, which joined the European Union on 1973, will be leaving on March 29, 2019 after its citizens voted pro such decision on June 2016. Starting from 1st January 2020, British citizens will probably be subject to the European Travel Information and Authorization System, just as the third-country citizens that are now permitted to enter the EU visa-free and stay for up to three months within a period of 180 days.

(I like the 'probably'. )

www.schengenvisainfo.com/eu-to-increase-schengen-visa-price-due-to-brexit/

The page for the European Travel Information and Authorization System has this to say:

Citizens of these countries are allowed to go into countries in the Schengen Zone for business or travel purposes for up to 90 days. During these 90 days, these visitors are not allowed to work or study, but can engage in business and tourism activities.

This is a trifle vague as it fails to explain what counts as 'business' and what counts as 'work' but I'm wondering what implications it has for UK citizens whose work frequently takes them in and out of the Schengen Area; workers such as lorry drivers, couriers and people undertaking repair and maintenance contracts on products supplied by UK businesses (such contracts very often being worth more to the product manufacturers than the initial sale price). I would be surprised if their work could be regarded as 'business trips'. would they have to apply for a Schengen visa, I wonder? This really looks like fun (and an awful lot of paperwork...)

www.schengenvisainfo.com/schengen-visa-application-requirements/

It is, of course, possible that 'work' means being employed in that country by a Schengen based company and that the examples I've cited count as 'business'.

Interesting, though...

So I suppose many Germans have Celtic DNA as have many EU citizens.
Yes, they had to come from somewhere MargaretX - so we are all a mixture.