[Politics] Brexit

[Pretty pink fairy]

Oh dear, back to the war on foreigners again

just like the Italy and the Hungary
regards
DR

 

[Baldseagull]

I blame Labour for losing control of our borders. Our services would be in a much better state.

Maybe, or maybe they would be worse without the tax inputs from migrant workers.

 

[pastafarian]

Do you think Brits in the EU should have had a say though, even if they have not taken part in General Elections for more than 15 years? Even 97 year old ones who will probably be dead by the time Brexit happens?

In the referendum, no, as Parliament debated and voted on the issue of who could vote in the referendum during the process of the Referendum Bill.
The franchise to be used in the referendum was the parliamentary franchise. It was noted that those who had chosen to use EU freedom of movement rules to live in the EU for over 15 years as well as non national EU citizens here would probably vote in the majority to retain that status quo. It was further noted that if parliament decided to change the existing parliamentary franchise to accommodate these people in a one off vote via an amendment it would forever open parliament up to accusations that it deliberately changed the existing franchise to fix the outcome of the vote…….on that principle alone I would agree with parliament that it would have been wrong to change the existing franchise for the referendum.
There is also the strong argument that changing the existing parliamentary franchise in such a way should be an issue debated and voted on as new future separate parliamentary legislation (as it is now with gov backing) and not as part of the referendum bill.
The tories via conservativesabroad have been pushing to scrap the 15 year rule for a while and have votes for life for expats instead, labour not keen. Not sure the opposition will be able to stop it really. But who knows.
Incidentally. the amendments to change the franchise were quite rightly defeated.
This referendum voting issue was sorted by parliamentary process 3 years ago chap…….time to move on.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I know you've been acting like you know better than everyone on NSC for some years now but now you know more about business than the head of one of Britain's largest business groups.

Wrong person, the ones claiming absolute certainty/they always know best are all on your side of the fence. Putting aside your assumption one spokesman speaks for the entirity of Uk business I wonder how hard he lobbied the UK government and the EU to try and stop TTIP ...

 

[pastafarian]

July 2, 2018
Busting the Remain-inspired myths about trade on WTO terms


Written by
Professor David Collins

Among the most vividly distressing of the post-Brexit images we have been exposed to by the Remain-dominated media is that of the mile-long queue of lorries at Dover, effectively shut out from the EU’s market because of its incompatible regulations and time-consuming inspections.

That British products will somehow be subjected to a battery of new rules and tests on Brexit Day, delaying or even prohibiting their entry into the EU, ignores the rights the UK is entitled to as a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which it will re-join as an independent member following its departure from the EU next year.

The EU is also a member of the WTO, as are most countries in the world, meaning that it is bound by the WTO’s rules. Several of these render the infamous lorry-queue scenario highly implausible.

First, the WTO’s Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), dealing with food-related products, provides that WTO Members must ensure that regulations and inspection procedures must be applied only to the extent necessary to protect health and cannot be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. If there is no risk from British foods today while we are still in the EU, then there is no risk the day after we leave, as long as the products themselves do not change
.
Furthermore, WTO Members must ensure that their food regulations do not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail, including between their own territory and that of other Members. Since the UK does not intend to implement a wholesale change to its regulatory standards immediately after Brexit, the EU cannot treat products from the UK differently than they did before Brexit.

Second, with regards to safety standards for all other types of goods – like furniture or kettles – the WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement likewise states that technical regulations shall not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, such as consumer safety, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create. Moreover, conformity assessment procedures should not be prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade.

This means that product safety testing procedures cannot be more burdensome or be applied more strictly than is necessary to give the importing Member adequate confidence that products conform with the applicable technical regulations or standards. This means that the EU cannot impose regulatory barriers on UK goods without justification after Brexit as long as product and safety standards between the two jurisdictions remain aligned.

If the UK seeks to modify its own regulatory procedures regarding health and safety of products going forward – perhaps with a view to eliminating some of the laws that have made the EU uncompetitive – the EU may at that point be entitled to request additional testing or inspection at the border. However, the TBT Agreement provides that under such circumstances, WTO Members shall give positive consideration to accepting as equivalent technical regulations of other Members, even if these regulations differ from their own, provided they are satisfied that these regulations adequately fulfil the objectives of their own regulations.

In other words, a potential new UK regulatory scheme would effectively need to ignore consumer safety in order for any additional testing procedures at the EU border to be allowed under WTO law. It is unlikely that this will occur in the near future, if ever. Even if it were to happen, such conformity assessment procedures would still need to be no more burdensome than necessary.

Lastly, on the formalities of customs procedures at the border, the WTO’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) recognises the need for minimising the incidence and complexity of import and export formalities (for both tariff and non-tariff barriers) and for decreasing and simplifying import and export documentation requirements.

This is further enshrined in the new Trade Facilitation Agreement, which obliges WTO members to minimise customs formalities through technology, including many of the features discussed in relation to the maximum facilitation strategy for the Northern Ireland frontier. The new UK-EU border must adhere to this high standard of frictionless transit precisely for the purpose of avoiding long delays caused by needless red tape of the kind we have been told to fear.

Contrary to what many doomsayers may wish the public to believe, UK goods will not suddenly become hazardous to the health and safety of EU consumers the day after Brexit. There is no way that the EU could get away with placing additional arbitrary restrictions on goods imported from the UK after Brexit, either with respect to the content of the regulations, the testing procedures or customs formalities. New UK-EU non-tariff barriers would be illegal under WTO rules immediately after exit, even in a no-deal scenario.

More here…………
https://brexitcentral.com/busting-remain-inspired-myths-trade-wto-terms/

David Collins is a Professor of International Economic Law at City, University of London

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I noticed you are not using the phrase "respect the result of free and fair elections" lately, is that because you now recognise that with one side having channeled funds through the DUP and other smaller campaigners, and breaking the rules on spending, that the word fair is a little difficult to stick with?

All true Brits/patriotic democrats respect the results of free and fair elections knowing they should be enacted.

'Fair' ... you should do a tour with your comedy routine

 

[ManOfSussex]

July 2, 2018
Busting the Remain-inspired myths about trade on WTO terms


Written by
Professor David Collins

Among the most vividly distressing of the post-Brexit images we have been exposed to by the Remain-dominated media is that of the mile-long queue of lorries at Dover, effectively shut out from the EU’s market because of its incompatible regulations and time-consuming inspections.

That British products will somehow be subjected to a battery of new rules and tests on Brexit Day, delaying or even prohibiting their entry into the EU, ignores the rights the UK is entitled to as a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which it will re-join as an independent member following its departure from the EU next year.

The EU is also a member of the WTO, as are most countries in the world, meaning that it is bound by the WTO’s rules. Several of these render the infamous lorry-queue scenario highly implausible.

First, the WTO’s Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), dealing with food-related products, provides that WTO Members must ensure that regulations and inspection procedures must be applied only to the extent necessary to protect health and cannot be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. If there is no risk from British foods today while we are still in the EU, then there is no risk the day after we leave, as long as the products themselves do not change
.
Furthermore, WTO Members must ensure that their food regulations do not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail, including between their own territory and that of other Members. Since the UK does not intend to implement a wholesale change to its regulatory standards immediately after Brexit, the EU cannot treat products from the UK differently than they did before Brexit.

Second, with regards to safety standards for all other types of goods – like furniture or kettles – the WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement likewise states that technical regulations shall not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, such as consumer safety, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create. Moreover, conformity assessment procedures should not be prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade.

This means that product safety testing procedures cannot be more burdensome or be applied more strictly than is necessary to give the importing Member adequate confidence that products conform with the applicable technical regulations or standards. This means that the EU cannot impose regulatory barriers on UK goods without justification after Brexit as long as product and safety standards between the two jurisdictions remain aligned.

If the UK seeks to modify its own regulatory procedures regarding health and safety of products going forward – perhaps with a view to eliminating some of the laws that have made the EU uncompetitive – the EU may at that point be entitled to request additional testing or inspection at the border. However, the TBT Agreement provides that under such circumstances, WTO Members shall give positive consideration to accepting as equivalent technical regulations of other Members, even if these regulations differ from their own, provided they are satisfied that these regulations adequately fulfil the objectives of their own regulations.

In other words, a potential new UK regulatory scheme would effectively need to ignore consumer safety in order for any additional testing procedures at the EU border to be allowed under WTO law. It is unlikely that this will occur in the near future, if ever. Even if it were to happen, such conformity assessment procedures would still need to be no more burdensome than necessary.

Lastly, on the formalities of customs procedures at the border, the WTO’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) recognises the need for minimising the incidence and complexity of import and export formalities (for both tariff and non-tariff barriers) and for decreasing and simplifying import and export documentation requirements.

This is further enshrined in the new Trade Facilitation Agreement, which obliges WTO members to minimise customs formalities through technology, including many of the features discussed in relation to the maximum facilitation strategy for the Northern Ireland frontier. The new UK-EU border must adhere to this high standard of frictionless transit precisely for the purpose of avoiding long delays caused by needless red tape of the kind we have been told to fear.

Contrary to what many doomsayers may wish the public to believe, UK goods will not suddenly become hazardous to the health and safety of EU consumers the day after Brexit. There is no way that the EU could get away with placing additional arbitrary restrictions on goods imported from the UK after Brexit, either with respect to the content of the regulations, the testing procedures or customs formalities. New UK-EU non-tariff barriers would be illegal under WTO rules immediately after exit, even in a no-deal scenario.

More here…………
https://brexitcentral.com/busting-remain-inspired-myths-trade-wto-terms/

David Collins is a Professor of International Economic Law at City, University of London

Why are there 20 minute delays on lorries and cameras and infrastructure for checks etc on The Swiss/French and Norwegian/Swedish borders? Does Professor David Collins know something they don't?

 

[pastafarian]

Why are there 20 minute delays on lorries and cameras and infrastructure for checks etc on The Swiss/French and Norwegian/Swedish borders? Does Professor David Collins know something they don't?

Give him a call and ask, im sure he would appreciate your expertise

 

[Baldseagull]

In the referendum, no, as Parliament debated and voted on the issue of who could vote in the referendum during the process of the Referendum Bill.
The franchise to be used in the referendum was the parliamentary franchise. It was noted that those who had chosen to use EU freedom of movement rules to live in the EU for over 15 years as well as non national EU citizens here would probably vote in the majority to retain that status quo. It was further noted that if parliament decided to change the existing parliamentary franchise to accommodate these people in a one off vote via an amendment it would forever open parliament up to accusations that it deliberately changed the existing franchise to fix the outcome of the vote…….on that principle alone I would agree with parliament that it would have been wrong to change the existing franchise for the referendum.
There is also the strong argument that changing the existing parliamentary franchise in such a way should be an issue debated and voted on as new future separate parliamentary legislation (as it is now with gov backing) and not as part of the referendum bill.
The tories via conservativesabroad have been pushing to scrap the 15 year rule for a while and have votes for life for expats instead, labour not keen. Not sure the opposition will be able to stop it really. But who knows.
Incidentally. the amendments to change the franchise were quite rightly defeated.
This referendum voting issue was sorted by parliamentary process 3 years ago chap…….time to move on.

Fair comment, as you say though, it will be put to parliament soon that this 15 year rule be scrapped, it may be gone when we have the second one. The prospect though of the European Court of Justice telling the UK that it denied rights of citizens to vote and that the referendum should be run again is somewhat delightful, I imagine Farage may explode if that happened.
Some EU citizens did vote in the referendum, mainly Irish, commonwealth citizens residing here also had the vote, and with the idea that we would be more open to further Commonwealth immigration, if we could control the EU migration, there was perhaps a bias for commonwealth citizens to vote leave.
I understand why Labour would object to those overseas for 15 years having a vote in a GE, it would not be their demographic largely, but as many of these people are paying taxes to HMRC on their pensions, I would hope they can concede that fair is fair, and not object.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Give him a call and ask, im sure he would appreciate your expertise

I'm sure the Swiss and Norwegian's would as well as Turkey. It's a right hassle at the Eastern docks at Dover for non-EU lorries too - they get held up by 20 minutes too. If only they read articles on Brexitcentral.com - they'd save themselves a fortune and spare all those unnecessary delays.

 

[Ernest]

Looks like the head banging loons are on manoeuvres tonight

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Looks like the head banging loons are on manoeuvres tonight

About time you gave us a who's ahead in the polls update Ernie ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

 

[pastafarian]

I'm sure the Swiss and Norwegian's would as well as Turkey. It's a right hassle at the Eastern docks at Dover for non-EU lorries too - they get held up by 20 minutes too. If only they read articles on Brexitcentral.com - they'd save themselves a fortune and spare all those unnecessary delays.

This must be the difference between normal people and class warriors like you with a chip on their shoulder.
Normal people can read an article no matter what publication its in, and judge the article according to its content.
You attack the wider publication as a way of attacking the article.
What a bubble you must live in.

 

[Baldseagull]

All true Brits/patriotic democrats respect the results of free and fair elections knowing they should be enacted.

'Fair' ... you should do a tour with your comedy routine

Those numbers might be alternative facts. If it is upheld that Vote Leave broke the rules set out by the Electoral Commission, what would you call it, fair, or cheating?

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Looks like the head banging loons are on manoeuvres tonight

Yes - the Brexiteers in the Cabinet are meeting in Boris's office this evening. Tomorrow could be very lively.

 

[ManOfSussex]

This must be the difference between normal people and class warriors like you with a chip on their shoulder.
Normal people can read an article no matter what publication its in, and judge the article according to its content.
You attack the wider publication as a way of attacking the article.
What a bubble you must live in.

Normal people don't wear red trousers like you do. I'm just pointing out that the Norwegians, Swiss, Turks and Port of Dover could stop what they're doing currently and just do what someone in an article on a pro-Brexit website says. I'm surprised they haven't already to be honest. Is Brexit Central as much fun for you as Country Squire magazine incidentally?

 

[vegster]

Looks like the head banging loons are on manoeuvres tonight

It's ok, Mrs May has said that " the Country is coming together and uniting.... "

 

[nicko31]

Looks like the head banging loons are on manoeuvres tonight

They're all gathered round the radio listening to the Nigel Farage show for ideas

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Those numbers might be alternative facts. If it is upheld that Vote Leave broke the rules set out by the Electoral Commission, what would you call it, fair, or cheating?

Alternative facts .. from the electoral commission?

If it's upheld and deemed a breach of the rules I look forward to both sides being judged on the same criteria.

https://order-order.com/2018/07/04/remain-campaign-used-spending-tactics-vote-leave-far-worse/

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

I really can't see how May can keep the show on the road. The Brexiteers have parked their tanks on her lawn, backbench Leaver cheerleaders have been ramping up the pressure and if rumours are correct one or more of the Big Brexit Beasts could be storming out of tomorrow's meeting. If they move collectively then she'll have no Cabinet left. To keep the whole thing together she'd have to come up with a masterpiece of fudge...…...but then that's going to be the basis for our negotiation with an EU which has run out of patience. She is between a rock and a hard place.


In short: something's got to give. Perhaps she'll just phone in sick………….