Likely consequenses of brexit

Will you be allowed to keep it after Brexit, Petra?
(I am joking, I promise )

... though 'The Rock' would be great if you ever fancied a new career as a boxer

Ha, light dawns petra

varian Sat. 06.08
Well spotted !

I'm still in , fennel.

That a nice patriotic British gran should be pasting big chunks from a site funded by one of the countries that is hell bent on breaking up the EU and has strong links to the financing of some of the Leave campaigns...

pleased to say that my instincts were correct.

Your instincts, Bridgeit?

I sent you a PM MaizeD

Actually that should say ‘Not Pleased ‘

The Overton Window has moved so far that Brexit will be considered successful as long as it doesn't lead to one particular kind of dystopia. All the other kinds of dystopia will be considered a success.

plus.google.com/+AdeOshineye/posts/c1YmHQ63Cus

Well the effect leaving will have is unlikely to be the Utopia they many believe in.

Well the effect leaving will have is unlikely to be the Utopia that many people believe in.

A conciliatory announcement from Bernier. The proposition of the UK leaving without agreement seems to be having a positive effect on the attitude of the EU.

2nd August 2018

Op-ed by Michel Barnier, the European Commission's Chief Negotiator for the negotiations with the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on 29 March 2019. While we regretted the UK's departure, we respect its sovereign decision. Our task is now to organise the disentanglement of the UK from the EU's institutions and policies. And we also need to look towards the future.
After Brexit, the EU will remain a global player, with 440 million citizens, and one of the biggest world economies. The UK has been an EU member for 45 years. We share common values and have a number of common interests^^The UK, which is a member of the G7 and the UN Security Council, can be an important partner of the EU, economically and strategically. In the current geopolitical context, we have an interest not only to strengthen the EU's role in the world but to cooperate with the UK as a close partner.
How can we achieve a new partnership?
First, we need to make sure that the UK's exit is orderly. 80% of the Withdrawal Agreement is agreed. We will protect the rights of more than 4 million EU citizens living in the UK and British nationals in the EU. This was our first priority and a major point of vigilance for the European Parliament. The UK has also agreed to honour all its financial obligations undertaken as an EU member. A 21 month transition period will give businesses and administrations time to adapt, as the UK would stay in our Single Market and Customs Union until 31 December 2020.
However, 80% is not 100%. We still need to agree on important points, such as the protection of "geographical indications"^^This refers to the protection of local farm and food products like Scottish Whisky or Parmesan cheese, where EU protection has generated significant value for European farmers and producers. We need to find solutions for specific British territories, such as the UK's sovereign bases in Cyprus, and Gibraltar on which bilateral negotiations are ongoing between Spain and the UK.
The biggest risk caused by Brexit is on the island of Ireland. We need to make sure that Brexit does not create a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and that the Good Friday Agreement, which has brought peace and stability to Northern Ireland, will be protected. Today, the cooperation and exchanges between Ireland and Northern Ireland occur within the common framework of the EU. Since we will not know what the future relationship will bring by Autumn 2018, we need to have a "backstop" solution in the Withdrawal Agreement. The UK agrees with this, and both the EU and the UK have said that a better solution in the future relationship could replace the backstop. What the EU has proposed is that Northern Ireland remains in a common regulatory area for goods and customs with the rest of the EU. We are ready to improve the text of our proposal with the UK.
Secondly, we need to agree on the terms of our future relationship.
Let's be frank^: ^as the UK has decided to leave the Single Market, it can no longer be as close economically to the rest of the EU. The UK wants to leave our common regulatory area, where people, goods, services and capital move freely across national borders. These are the economic foundations on which the EU was built. And the European Council – the 27 Heads of State or government – as well as the European Parliament have often recalled that these economic foundations cannot be weakened.
The UK knows well the benefits of the Single Market. It has contributed to shaping our rules over the last 45 years. And yet, some UK proposals would undermine our Single Market which is one of the EU's biggest achievements. The UK wants to keep free movement of goods between us, but not of people and services. And it proposes to apply EU customs rules without being part of the EU's legal order. Thus, the UK wants to take back sovereignty and control of its own laws, which we respect, but it cannot ask the EU to lose control of its borders and laws.
But I remain confident that the negotiations can reach a good outcome. It is possible to respect EU principles and create a new and ambitious partnership. That is what the European Council has already proposed in March. The EU has offered a Free Trade Agreement with zero tariffs and no quantitative restrictions for goods. I^t proposed close customs and regulatory cooperation and access to public procurement markets, to name but a few examples^.
On security, the EU wants very close cooperation to protect our citizens and democratic societies. We should organise effective exchanges of intelligence and information and make sure our law enforcement bodies work together. We should cooperate to fight crime, money laundering and terrorist financing. We can cooperate on the exchange of DNA, fingerprints, or Passenger Name Records in aviation to better track and identify terrorists and criminals. We are also ready to discuss mechanisms for swift and effective extradition, guaranteeing procedural rights for suspects.
If the UK understands this, and if we quickly find solutions to the outstanding withdrawal issues, including the backstop for Ireland and Northern Ireland, I am sure we can build a future partnership between the EU and the United Kingdom that is unprecedented in scope and depth.

ec.europa.eu/commission/news/ambitious-partnership-uk-after-brexit-2018-aug-02_en

Jeremy Hunt warns chances of Brexit ‘no deal’ are increasing by the day

inews.co.uk/news/brexit/jeremy-hunt-warns-chances-of-brexit-no-deal-are-increasing-by-the-day/

A giant 13-mile "lorry park" on the M20 could last for years if there is a no-deal Brexit, a council has warned.

An assessment by Dover council has expressed concern over how ports would cope with the potential situation. The document is critical of the slow pace of work on a "temporary" scheme, named Operation Brock, and said "there does not appear to be a Plan B".

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-45021133

Varian what do you think 'no deal' is?

Bernier does not agree with Jeremy Hunt on "no deal".

He said:
f the UK understands this, and if we quickly find solutions to the outstanding withdrawal issues, including the backstop for Ireland and Northern Ireland, I am sure we can build a future partnership between the EU and the United Kingdom that is unprecedented in scope and depth.

The UK is prepared for a 'no deal' with the EU. That has to be the ultimate negotiation chip.

Leaving the EU without a deal poses a very real threat to scientific progress, damaging innovation and the economy, the NHS, and our overall future. UK science has little or nothing to gain from Brexit but plenty to lose.

The Royal Society welcomed the government’s recent commitment to an “unparalleled partnership” on research and innovation, but the clock is ticking to March 2019 and scientists are worried that when the chips are down and the negotiations tense, science will be sacrificed in the name of ideology. The lack of a deal on science will have serious consequences.

First and foremost will be our ability to collaborate with and attract the best scientists from throughout the EU. Research is international and ideas flow freely around the world – just like the scientists behind them. One in six of our academic staff are from the EU and there is little clarity about what would happen to them under a no-deal scenario.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-no-deal-science-the-royal-society-venki-ramakrishnan-a8471326.html

BRITISH scientists have lashed out at the EU's new £86billion research programme, warning Brussels they "will not cooperate" if the bloc does does scale down on a major Brexit snub.
By LATIFA YEDROUDJ
PUBLISHED: 10:23, Fri, Jun 1, 2018 | UPDATED: 11:51, Fri, Jun 1, 2018
UK's top researchers have attacked the EU after officials rejected Theresa May's appeal for a special Brexit deal on science and research collaborations.

Professor Michael Loretto, metallurgy scientist from University of Birmingham declared Britain's scientists will refuse to work with Brussels for a less than favourable policy in the scheme, known as Horizon 2020, insisting the new programme will inevitably put the EU in a "worse off position".

He said: "The UK is the strongest scientific nation in Europe and if an agreement is unfavourable, then we will have no deal."

"If we do not get a deal that is favourable, then we will not cooperate on our part.

"Less access to science collaborations will have a worse impact on the EU than the UK - it puts them in a worse off position.

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/967987/Brexit-latest-UK-science-EU-news-Horizon-2020

It seems that our Scientists are not pleased with the EU.

Leading British scientists, including two Nobel prize winners, have backed The Independent’s call for a referendum on the final Brexit deal, as the number of people signing the Final Say petition surged past 500,000.

With the prospect of a no-deal Brexit looming, the scientists have joined a variety of politicians and organisations in supporting the case for a public decision on the final deal.

Sir Paul Nurse, the Nobel prize winning geneticist; Sir Fraser Stoddart, a Nobel winning chemist; astronomer royal Lord Martin Rees; and renowned microbiologist Dame Anne Glover are among those backing the campaign.

“I am very concerned about what happens to research – not just science but research in its broadest sense – if we leave with a chaotic Brexit, with a no-deal scenario,” said Dame Anne, the president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

Sir Paul Nurse, director of the Francis Crick Institute, agreed that a second vote on the terms of the deal is now necessary.

“It’s essential – we know there was misinformation and that people didn’t understand the complexity,” he said.

“We send the [European] Commission X and we get back from the Commission X plus Y ... it is the only part of the EU budget where we as a country make a profit.

“The estimates are that it’s in excess of £500m a year and it may be as much as £1bn.”
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/final-say-scientists-brexit-referendum-peoples-vote-eu-paul-nurse-anne-glover-fraser-stoddart-a8473151.html

The UK is prepared for a 'no deal' with the EU. That has to be the ultimate negotiation chip.

It's got to be the most bizarre negotiating chip ever, then. We hold a gun to our heads and say 'If you don't agree a deal with us we'll shoot ourselves'

This is what 'No deal' looks like:

(I'll remind you, yet again, that Richard North has been campaigning to leave the EU since the 70s and has a very thorough and extensively researched knowledge of the EU, WTO etc. His words are not to be sneered at)

Start

With the prospect of a "no deal" exit from the EU being taken more seriously, we are starting to see a number of newspapers attempting to predict what the UK would look like in the event of us "crashing out" of the EU.

With the best will in the world, though, there are too many variables to anticipate, which remove any certainty. The precise outcome will depend on the assumptions made, the degree to which known factors are accounted for, and then the mitigation - both pre-emptive and reactive – undertaken by government, business and even individuals.

As far as variables go, there is probably no more volatile a situation than our food supply, with the more lurid commentators suggesting that we could run out of food within days (or certainly weeks), with the very real prospect of rationing to avoid starvation.

Yet, in this one area, mitigation is a practical proposition. Furthermore, given the destructive effect food shortages would have on the maintenance of law and order – with food riots, looting and civil disobedience – it is my view that the government would take any and every effective measure it could to ensure that food supplies are maintained (even if costs of some commodities do increase).

Largely, as we see from this article in the Telegraph - where James Rothwell writes a rather lame "explainer" headed: "What does a 'no deal Brexit' mean - and how would it affect the daily life of Britons?" – the media doesn't have a clue.

Here, Rothwell actually errs on the side of suggesting rather vague "magic wand" solutions, having noted that Mrs May says voters "should feel reassured", as the government plans to stockpile food.

On the basis that the government is set to hire an extra 1,000 customs officers to deal with extra checks, he argues that, "if large numbers of staff are hired, alternative supply chains are put in place and any outstanding legal issues are addressed - all in time for March 2019 - then the adverse effects could be mitigated".

However, no one with any sense is going to accept that the government (or even commercial enterprises) will be able to stockpile food, other than for a few very basic commodities. And nor is rationing a workable idea. There simply isn't time to set up a scheme, and nor would it be possible – barring the imposition of draconian emergency powers – to exercise sufficient control over the food chain to make it work.

Furthermore, no amount of UK border staff are going to make any difference. As I have pointed out so many times – latterly endorsed by the Road Haulage Association – the problems will arise in the continental ports, over which we have no direct control.

Looking at possible scenarios – which is not at all difficult, as we know most of the operating parameters and how they will be affected by Brexit – we can be fairly well assured that, if we control (i.e., limit) the amount of goods presented to ports for clearance in EU Member States, then the flow of imported food will be unaffected. Health checks in the UK can be waived (temporarily at least), invoking the WTO national security exemption (Article XX1 (b)(iii)).

The price we will have to pay for this is a massive reduction of goods exported to EU Member States – which may be to an extent mitigated by stockpiling goods on the continent (and in non-EU states) to keep customers supplied after Brexit.

But bearing in mind that the export of live animals and products of animal origin to EU Member States will be prohibited in the event of a "no deal" Brexit, we can expect a glut of certain commodities as they find their way onto the domestic market, and even a price crash. This dynamic will, however, drive many producers out of business, leading to shortages in the longer term.

If there is any likelihood of food shortages, the most probable cause will be panic buying. This has the capability of stripping supermarket shelves bare, even when there are no actual shortages. The government may need to impose emergency limits on the amounts of specific commodities any one individual can buy, and even make hoarding them a criminal offence.

In the absence of government action, the supermarkets may voluntarily impose their own limits, which could have the effect of damping down demand.

There is then the matter of medicines, where some pundits are also suggesting that shortages may occur. In this sector, though, stockpiling is a realistic proposition. Perversely, EU Member States are at greater risk, as medicines produced under the control of UK establishments (even if they are manufactured in EU Member States) may not be authorised for sale in any of the EU states.

Of all the headline issues that may become apparent, post Brexit, is aviation. Once we drop out of European Common Aviation Area (ECAA) and the aviation safety acquis, administered by EASA, the effects on UK aviation will be widespread and profound.

Rothwell, for the Telegraph relies on the view of chancellor Philip Hammond, who said: "It is theoretically conceivable in a no-deal scenario that there will be no air traffic moving between the UK and EU on 29 March 2019. But I don't think anybody seriously believes that is where we will get to".

For my part, it is extremely difficult to see how the legal issues in civil aviation can be resolved without intensive negotiations and a complex raft of agreements. In the event of a "no deal" Brexit, therefore, some disruption is inevitable and the odds favour a complete shut-down, even if only for a matter of days while emergency agreements are stitched together – allowing limited UK services.

The approach to aviation, however, typifies the way many pundits handle a "no deal" Brexit. Many of the consequences are so extreme that disbelief sets in. As with Hammond, the view is taken that because they are so extreme, they cannot be allowed to happen and therefore, that they won't happen.

Nevertheless, I think we must prepare for the likelihood that the export of motor vehicles will cease. Even where manufacturers have been able to transfer type approvals to EU Member State regulators, production supervision arrangements will not be in place, rendering existing approvals invalid.

The same goes for any civil aviation products, including finished aircraft and assemblies such as Airbus wings and aircraft engines. One cannot simply offshore the regulatory approval here, because controls are embedded right throughout the design and manufacturing processes.

Across the board, the export of many manufactured goods will cease. This will apply where they require third party certification from "notified bodies" and have relied on certificates from UK bodies. These will no longer be valid. Chemicals which lack REACH approval will also be excluded from the European market.

Live animal export will, of course, be prohibited, but this will probably also apply to the movement of pet animals without quarantine, and the transport of racehorses direct to France and Ireland, without veterinary control and supervision. Also on the sporting front, Formula 1 racing will be badly affected.

Recently, we have learned that a substantial amount of recyclable domestic refuse is exported to EU Member States, particularly Poland. This will no longer be possible.

Once we get into this sort of detail though, the legacy media is nowhere to be seen. Their journalists lack the capability (or the motivation) to offer anything other than the most superficial of pictures.

The closest I've seen recently is oddly enough in the The Telegraph, where Jeremy Warner reports under the heading: "Let's be honest about a no-deal Brexit; it has nothing to offer but blood, toil, sweat and tears".

Denying that there problems related to a "no deal" Brexit is, he writes, "verging on the delusional". And although Warner's grasp of the detail is sketchy – as is understanding of the legal background to the application of non-tariff barriers, he does at least recognise that the EU makes it plain that Britain becomes a third country from the moment it exits.

Without some form of dispensation, he writes (not appreciating that this is not possible in a "no deal" scenario), he warns that "all those myriad tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade immediately kick in". And although he thinks this "may be legalistic and irrational", this "is the law. There is almost no business that takes place outside a legal framework of this sort".

One example he offers is selling medical equipment in the EU, which requires a certificate – or Conformité Européene marking – to show required standards are met. These certificates, he notes, are pretty much automatic for EU members, and as it happens are substantially written here in the UK for the EU as a whole, but would cease to be valid for UK suppliers when Britain becomes a third country. UK certification authorities will no longer be recognised.

Even if the UK said it planned to remain fully compliant with the EU, including ECJ rulings on such matters, the EU could "if it wished to play hardball" either refuse such certificates or subject British medical equipment to vigorous border controls to ensure compliance".

Wrongly, Warner asserts that "some countries – Switzerland, Australia and Turkey – enjoy mutual recognition with the EU on medical equipment standards" - which is not the case. The man is confusing recognition of standards with recognition of conformity assessment. He is right, though, is saying that such recognition, "by definition" requires a deal to be struck.

As to the WTO, so long as the EU can show it no more discriminates against the UK than any other third country, it would be within the rules. This, says Warner, will be easy enough in all the high value-added trade the UK does with the EU.

Here, he hasn't quite got it. The man does not seem to understand that the EU is obliged to impose these controls, in order to avoid discriminating against other third countries. Thus, he wrongly sees the EU approach as "vindictive, economically irrational and self-harming", even if he acknowledges that the EU "shows no sign of giving way" without fully understanding why.

To raise these points is not to succumb to Project Fear, Warner concludes – in a flash of honesty that is rare in the Telegraph. But what no newspaper (or broadcast media) has yet to do is fully confront the consequences.

Obviously, the government will do everything it can to take the high-profile issues off the front pages. But what they will not be able to avoid is the torrent of news about business shut-downs and job losses. With the loss of access also to the EU's trade deals, we are effectively looking at the collapse of the UK's export trade.

An unresolved, "no deal" scenario could, by the end of next year, have unemployment running into millions. This will be partially disguised by EU immigrants returning home but, while the government may be partially successful in keeping the queues of lorries off the roads, it will have less success in concealing the size of the dole queues.

That will be the ultimate "no deal" penalty and one which could be with us for a very long time.

End

www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86956

Comments are interesting, too, coming as they do from a mix of Leavers and Remainers. But there are lots of them and it takes a while to plough through them

I don't usually approve of long posts MaizieD but I think everyone should read this. It is utterly horrifying.No doubt it will be dismissed by some as "project fear" but we should remember that Richard North is both an expert on trade and a long-term Leave campaigner.

I don't usually approve of them, either, varian but they seem to be the fashion these days and, although you can't be sure that people will read them, you know that some people just won't open links..

I'm really surprised that there has been no effort made by Leavers to refute Dr North's scenario.

Another long article, this one from Gavin Esler.

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/gavin-esler-changed-my-mind-on-brexit-1-5644402

Again, I don't expect the Leavers to read or digest but it is full of good facts and arguments for Remainers.

ATM I am most angry with the Labour Party. They are the only ones with enough numerical clout in Parliament to stop this Brexit disaster, which will, inevitably have dire consequences for the average Labour voter, (e.g. the loss of worker's rights), while the better off Tories will find ways to profit from the debacle. The Liberals, SNP and some Tory remainers would support a Labour motion giving them a majority in the house.

As for the DUP shoring up the Tories, when they represent a province which firmly voted to remain and stands to suffer most post Brexit - words fail me. The difference is that the DUP are 'doing what it says on the tin' whereas the Labour Party are fence sitting, arguing endlessly among themselves and totally failing to do what it says on their tin i.e. stand up for workers rights and represent the poor and disadvantaged in Society.