The Brexit Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s a matter of financial passport, the banks operating in EU must be based in EU countries - which excludes London.
I thought being in the single market was the reason for the passport? That is possible without being in the EU (and I suspect what the end fudge to save the UK economy will involve).
Sorta. If I'm not mistaken it would just be a case of amending the MiFID II text. Minor tweak & could be easily done regardless of single market (not really connected).

The issue here is whether the EU will allow it. Such a tweak would be seen as another attempt to have you cake and eat it too. From an EU perspective they can just leave the UK to flounder on this topic and then the financial services will move into EU territory on their own.

No idea how the UK thinks they're going to save that...maybe the EU will be kind and offer an equivalency arrangement. It's another case of WTF were you guys thinking...
 
Have you read post 972, it’s a bit more of a problem than the integration of EU Regulations into UK law.
No doubt. There's way more to it than the **** the Brexiteers and Remoaners were throwing about prior to the referendum. Like I said, we won't really know the full extent until after we've left.
 
An amendment is never simple in the EU. It would take around 2 years, and one of the steps is necessarily to be blocked by an organ or a country as it’s not a decision benefiting the EU but an exiting member.

The U.K. would have to trade something massive in exchange for it to happen.

It would require:

1. Commission proposal
2. Approval of the European Council
3. EESC and European Parliament recommandations
4. Review of the recommendations and incorporation or rejection of such
5. Vote of the Parliament
6. Update of the rules by ESMA

I skipped the preliminary phase of national and EU impact studies which can also be lengthy.

From what I read, in addition of the MIFID, these directives apply to passporting in financial services as well (so probably have to be amended):

Capital Requirements Directive (2013/36/EU);
Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC);
Insurance Mediation Directive (2002/92/EC);
Undertaking Collective Investment Scheme Directive (85/611/EEC);
Payment Services Directive (2007/64/EC);
Second Electronic Money Directive (2009/110/EC); and
Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (2011/61/EU).
 
Last edited:
No doubt. There's way more to it than the **** the Brexiteers and Remoaners were throwing about prior to the referendum. Like I said, we won't really know the full extent until after we've left.

What do you think of the idea that upon leaving the EU, all EU law remains binding on the UK and all ECJ decisions are still generally binding on the UK courts?

Good idea or bad idea?
 
Last edited:
Of course they do - which is an excellent reason for leaving, by the way. What is that they hate so much about a country deciding its own destiny? :crylaugh:

United States of Europe - the entire concept makes me :sick:.

EU's Brexit chiefs want to 'punish' Britain to stop other countries leaving, senior German MEP claims.

A senior German MEP has warned that two of the EU’s top Brexit chiefs want to “punish” Britain to stop other countries trying to leave the bloc.

Hans-Olaf Henkel, the vice chairman of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, urged the UK “not to listen” to Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, and Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s Brexit coordinator.

It comes as EU and UK officials engage in a third day of talks in Brussels as the two sides seek to hammer out the terms of Britain’s divorce deal.

Mr Henkel raised specific concerns about the UK Government’s plan to withdraw from the Euratom nuclear regulator which critics fear could make it difficult for Britain to access radioactive material for medical treatments post-Brexit.

Mr Henkel, who also serves as the vice chairman of the EU’s Industry, Research and Energy Committee, said many in Europe would welcome a U-turn on that decision.

But he said Mr Barnier and Mr Verhofstadt simply want to “make a mess” of the negotiations in order to discourage other nations from leaving the EU.

Writing in The Times, Mr Henkel said: “If the UK government comes back and says it would like the UK to stay in Euratom, I would say great and so would most of my colleagues.

“As they consider this matter, I would urge them not to listen to Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament's Brexit co-ordinator, or even Michel Barnier, Europe's chief negotiator, who I am afraid want to make a mess out of this whole unhappy situation.”
Mr Henkel said Mr Verhofstadt is an “ambitious politician who wants to achieve a United States of Europe” and “punish the British, full stop”.

“My impression is that Mr Barnier wants to do the same,” he said.

Also good to see Davis re-iterating that the UK courts will be the supreme law of the land going forward. The EU, as predicted, are really be about thick this - deliberately I might. The Remoaner media like to portray the EU negotiators as the 'intelligent/clever/organised' ones and the British ones as hopelessly incompetent but all I'm seeing is the intransigence of the EU.

IT COULD NOT BE MORE OBVIOUS - READ THE SLOGAN OF THE LEAVE CAMPAIGN - 'TAKE BACK CONTROL'!!!

Britain's "trustworthy" courts should protect the rights of European Union citizens living in the UK after Brexit, David Davis has insisted.

The Brexit Secretary rejected calls for the rights of 3 million EU citizens living in Britain to be overseen by the European Court of Justice.

Speaking in Prague after talks with the Czech foreign minister Lubomír Zaorálek, he said that the EU "moral imperative" to reach a quick deal.

Questioned on whether the UK Government was willing to compromise over the role of the European Court of Justice, he said: "We are intent that this should be put in an act in of parliament enforced by British courts ... and most importantly backed up by a treaty."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...rts-should-protect-rights-eu-citizens-living/
 
Last edited:
Of course they do - which is an excellent reason for leaving, by the way. What is that they hate so much about a country deciding its own destiny? :crylaugh:

United States of Europe - the entire concept makes me :sick:.

EU's Brexit chiefs want to 'punish' Britain to stop other countries leaving, senior German MEP claims.



Also good to see Davis re-iterating that the UK courts will be the supreme law of the land going forward. The EU, as predicted, are really be about thick this - deliberately I might. The Remoaner media like to portray the EU negotiators as the 'intelligent/clever/organised' ones and the British ones as hopelessly incompetent but all I'm seeing is the intransigence of the EU.

IT COULD NOT BE MORE OBVIOUS - READ THE SLOGAN OF THE LEAVE CAMPAIGN - 'TAKE BACK CONTROL'!!!



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...rts-should-protect-rights-eu-citizens-living/

It’s exactly the other way around.

UK wants to leave Euratom as it is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

The EU has never forced or tried to force U.K. to leave Euratom.

https://www.ft.com/content/4cd8a146-3039-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

Why would the EU not be intransigent ? Your decision to leave, your mess to sort. Easy as that.
 
It’s exactly the other way around.

UK wants to leave Euratom as it is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

The EU has never forced or tried to force U.K. to leave Euratom.

https://www.ft.com/content/4cd8a146-3039-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

Why would the EU not be intransigent ? Your decision to leave, your mess to sort. Easy as that.

The EU want EU citizens living in the UK to be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. What a laugh. So when the USA-UK sign a free trade deal, does the US Supreme Court get involved in decisions about US citizens in the UK? NO!

Why the EU is making such a big ho-ha about this complete non-issue is unfortunately a sign of things to come from the EU side. Why are you so suspicious about UK courts? :rolleyes:. You know, the English basically invented an entire legal system all its own, which many of the former colonies still use to this day (obviously in a modified format).

Move on to other issues.
 
And also some good economic news:

A hat-trick of #DespiteBrexit good news today, as three major employers strengthen their commitment to Brexit Britain. EasyJet has announced its largest ever intake of new cabin crew, recruiting an enormous 1,200 extra staff. More than half of that number will be based at London Gatwick. EasyJet became notorious for its sky-high levels of Remain rhetoric before the EU referendum; chief executive Carolyn McCall said Brexit “would not be good at all” for the airline. Good for those extra staff, though…

From the skies to the roads: BMW have announced that the new electric model of the iconic Mini will be manufactured in the UK, not in Germany. The car will be built at the firm’s Cowley plant, near Oxford. Business Secretary Greg Clark said the move was a sign that the UK is now “the go-to place in the world for the next generation of vehicles“. BMW were involved in a letter from car industry executives ‘leaked’ to the Guardian which claimed:

“For BMW Group, more than half of Minis built and virtually all the engines and components made in the UK are exported to the EU, with over 150,000 new cars and many hundreds of thousands of parts imported from Europe each year. Tariff barriers would mean higher costs and higher prices and we cannot assume that the UK would be granted free trade with Europe from outside the EU.”

But now BMW is building its new Mini in Britain…

Amazon, meanwhile, is undertaking a massive expansion of its UK headquarters. The online retailing giant says it will take up the entire 15 floors of a newly constructed building near the City. The firm had planned to only occupy 11; now 450 new staff will work there. Doug Gurr of Amazon UK said:

“The U.K. is a fantastic place to find talent and we feel good about building a global R&D center here. We’re very confident we’ll be able to recruit everyone we need.”
In a staggeringly self-contradictory sentence, Bloomberg reports:

“Amazon is expanding its space in the new building, which features a roof garden and surrounded by new cafes and restaurants, amid nervousness in the property market created by uncertainty over the nature of the U.K.’s divorce from the EU.”
Three more reasons to believe in Brexit Britain…

https://order-order.com/
 
The EU want EU citizens living in the UK to be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. What a laugh. So when the USA-UK sign a free trade deal, does the US Supreme Court get involved in decisions about US citizens in the UK? NO!

Why the EU is making such a big ho-ha about this complete non-issue is unfortunately a sign of things to come from the EU side. Why are you so suspicious about UK courts? :rolleyes:. You know, the English basically invented an entire legal system all its own, which many of the former colonies still use to this day (obviously in a modified format).

Move on to other issues.

The EU already said a month ago this is totally negotiable and May herself proposed the ICJ instead.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/82...CJ-Europe-Brussels-European-Union-Theresa-May

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...firms-migration-controls-as-key-aim-of-brexit

The point is that EU citizens should be left in a situation that keeps in the same situation post Brexit than they were pre Brexit.

British laws and courts could decide to change their rights at any point in time (retirement, healthcare rights, taxes and other matters that governments tend to change often), hence the need for a treaty stating their rights on the long term and an impartial court.

A new trade agreement (US UK for example sake), does not change anything to the situation of the US citizens living in U.K compared to their situation pre treaty. Unlike the Brexit for EU citizens.

You really seem to not understand the complexities.
 
I think the Act is written by a room of chimpanzees.

It all sounds so authoritative.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0005/18005.pdf

(a) the Supreme Court is not bound by any retained EU case law,
(b) the High Court of Justiciary is not bound by any retained EU case law
when—
(i) sitting as a court of appeal otherwise than in relation to a compatibility issue (within the meaning given by section 5 288ZA(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995) or a devolution issue (within the meaning given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998), or
(ii) sitting on a reference under section 123(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, and 10
(c) no court or tribunal is bound by any retained domestic case law that it would not otherwise be bound by.
(5) In deciding whether to depart from any retained EU case law, the Supreme Court or the High Court of Justiciary must apply the same test as it would apply in deciding whether to depart from its own case law.

So section 5 needs to be read with the Supreme Court rules which say:

Can the European Court of Human Rights or the Court of Justice of the European Union overrule the UKSC?

No. However, when making decisions, the UKSC must give effect to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as contained in the Human Rights Act 1998.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/faqs.html

And guess what the Act says about the HRA 1998?

But regulations under this section may not—
(a) impose or increase taxation,
(b) make retrospective provision,
(c) create a relevant criminal offence, 10
(d) be made to implement the withdrawal agreement,
(e) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it,

So the UKSC will still be bound by the HRA which includes the provisions of the ECHR?

Someone hasn’t thought that one out properly...

Oh, and just for the people like Chris

Guess what?

Saving for EU-derived domestic legislation

EU-derived domestic legislation, as it has effect in domestic law immediately before exit day, continues to have effect in domestic law on and after exit day.

Incorporation of direct EU legislation
Direct EU legislation, so far as operative immediately before exit day, forms part of domestic law on and after exit day.

So every one of those EU laws, directives and regulations will still be law in the UK after a Brexit happens.
 
Liam Fox wants UK to import chlorinated chickens as part of Brexit free trade deal with US

Britain could be forced to accept chlorine-washed chickens as part of its post-Brexit trade deal with the US, under plans being pushed by International Trade Secretary Liam Fox.

Chlorinated chicken is currently banned from import under EU rules, along with the use of growth hormones in beef farming, the spraying of pig carcasses with lactic acid and the sale of unlabelled genetically modified food.

Europe has opposed the use of chemical cleaning due both to safety concerns and the fears that they could lead to laxer hygiene practices elsewhere in the supply chain.

However, the dropping of these rules is set to be part of future trade talks between the US and UK. The American Farming Association has previously insisted that Britain must come into line with the US.

Fox is reportedly in favour of dropping the rules despite disagreement with other members of Theresa May’s Cabinet, including the Environment Secretary Michael Gove.

Who knew freedom tasted like chlorinated chicken.
 
Depressing reading, and showing just how thick the right wing of the Tories/UKIP and their even more dumb supporters are...



http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...heresa-may-worse-anyone-guessed-a7858586.html

Pretty much sums up how I see Brexit.

So much was not considered by the leave campaigners and voters. So much ignorance for a fanciful belief in independence?

The Euratom fiasco aside, an issue within my industry (very similar to the Euratom issue) is what will happen to the whole CE marking process? An integral part of the whole Health and Safety aspect of all products and services.

No one knows for sure how this will work, who will run it and who will do any form of certification post Brexit. Without a CE marking system in place products made in the UK will not be able to be sold in the EU.

By voting for exit, the UK has now forfeited a substantial proportion of its influence over how those measures will be developed in the future, but the legislation will remain in place in Europe and UK companies will have to abide by it if they wish to continue to sell into the single market.

Is the view of the Conformance Ltd, UK's leading independent specialist in CE marking and product compliance.

How all these types of issues will be resolved within a 2 year time frame, while simultaneous free trade negotiations are made is going to be severely challenging. Especially since a few months in, there is still no plan in place, no substantive strategy in place and far too much baseless rhetoric and posturing.
 
Pretty much sums up how I see Brexit.

So much was not considered by the leave campaigners and voters.

I actually don’t think a segment of leave campaigners have the intellect to have made a detailed consideration, the entire rationale was “Brexit will stop all the brown people and Eastern Europeans coming to Britain!” That’s why the idiot Farage’s scare posters worked so well.

Of course, there are also more dangerous groupings behind Brexit like the industrialists and press barons like Rupert Murdoch that want to get the UK out of EU jurisdiction for their own reasons...
 
I actually don’t think a segment of leave campaigners have the intellect to have made a detailed consideration, the entire rationale was “Brexit will stop all the brown people and Eastern Europeans coming to Britain!” That’s why the idiot Farage’s scare posters worked so well.

Of course, there are also more dangerous groupings behind Brexit like the industrialists and press barons like Rupert Murdoch that want to get the UK out of EU jurisdiction for their own reasons...

Exactly. I agree. I know its "elitist" to be in agreement, but the new order of things is to ignore the experts. Its seen as a sign of pride and independence to ignore the advice of expert opinion.
 
I actually don’t think a segment of leave campaigners have the intellect to have made a detailed consideration, the entire rationale was “Brexit will stop all the brown people and Eastern Europeans coming to Britain!” That’s why the idiot Farage’s scare posters worked so well.

Of course, there are also more dangerous groupings behind Brexit like the industrialists and press barons like Rupert Murdoch that want to get the UK out of EU jurisdiction for their own reasons...
What about pro-leave people that simply want a proper chance at self determination? Listing all the various regulatory bodies or agreements that the UK will no longer belong to isn't exactly a negative to them, leaving all that behind is precisely the point ...
 
What about pro-leave people that simply want a proper chance at self determination? Listing all the various regulatory bodies or agreements that the UK will no longer belong to isn't exactly a negative to them, leaving all that behind is precisely the point ...

Which is understandable if there is something in place to fill the vacuum. Currently there is nothing and there seems to be little or no plan to develop something.

But what is often also glossed over, is for example the CE marking process.

The UK will still have to abide by it post Brexit. Prior to Brexit, the UK could influence how this process was done and so forth. After Brexit it has absolutely no say in how it should work, it must just abide by it.

That sounds like a loss of determination and influence to me.
 
What about pro-leave people that simply want a proper chance at self determination? Listing all the various regulatory bodies or agreements that the UK will no longer belong to isn't exactly a negative to them, leaving all that behind is precisely the point ...

Even if they don’t have the regulatory bodies of the EU, they will still have to comply and have the same regulations than the EU to manufacture and export to the EU.

It doesn’t change anything, except that it will be more expensive for UK.

If they want full self determination, they will have to stop exporting to EU because all products exported must comply with EU rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X