Brexit: give me a positive effect... XIII

[eternumviti]

No it's not. For one, that wasn't the premise only in your revisionist terms and secondly it ignores the very real fall out here, which is then conveniently ignored. You could try instead of joining the deflectors, but no. You really have gone downhill.

Steve, I'm afraid it is. The EU is kinda fundamental to the entire issue of Brexit. Brexit wouldn't have happened it the country had nothing to Brexit from. Ergo, the reasons for Brexit are intimately tied up with the EU.

There's always been this ugly smugness about this thread. It only has one subject on a matter of very considerable complexity.

Voting to leave the EU was always about balancing the substantial commercial and personal advantages (for those in a position to enjoy them) with the submission to the philosophies and dogmas of a fundamentally deeply anti-democratic, and, in an increasing number of respects, a morally corrupted imperial subterfuge, to which participants are compelled to be hostages of the latter to the fortunes of the former.

It's always been a hard call, now more than ever.

 

[SteveS1]

Steve, I'm afraid it is. The EU is kinda fundamental to the entire issue of Brexit. Brexit wouldn't have happened it the country had nothing to Brexit from. Ergo, the reasons for Brexit are intimately tied up with the EU.

There's always been this ugly smugness about this thread. It only has one subject on a matter of very considerable complexity.

Voting to leave the EU was always about balancing the substantial commercial and personal advantages (for those in a position to enjoy them) with the submission to the philosophies and dogmas of a fundamentally deeply anti-democratic, and, in an increasing number of respects, a morally corrupted imperial subterfuge, to which participants are compelled to be hostages of the latter to the fortunes of the former.

It's always been a hard call, now more than ever.

Utterly unconvincing, the case for leaving the EU was basically made on a specious concept of taking back control the UK never lost and more poisonously, that leaving the EU would reduce immigration and make the UK immune from migration. Nothing much was advanced on any other subject by Brexiteers, the messages were kept simple for the audience they sought to attract. People like yourself just happily took a ride on the back of it, any smugness has been all yours.

Now we are treated to your revisionist claptrap that seeks to deflect from the entirely predictable and hugely damaging consequences.

 

[eternumviti]

Utterly unconvincing, the case for leaving the EU was basically made on a specious concept of taking back control the UK never lost and more poisonously, that leaving the EU would reduce immigration and make the UK immune from migration. Nothing much was advanced on any other subject by Brexiteers, the messages were kept simple for the audience they sought to attract. People like yourself just happily took a ride on the back of it, any smugness has been all yours.

Now we are treated to your revisionist claptrap that seeks to defect from the entirely predictable and hugely damaging consequences.

I wasn't talking about 'the case for leaving' as expounded by the leave campaign, I'm talking about my own reasons for voting to leave. Nothing revisionist about that at all. My internal debate has every right to move. That's what debate is about, internal or external.

 

[eternumviti]

Incidentally, you mention yet again 'control that the UK never lost'. The Aquis Communautaire, the accumulated body (powers that the EU acquires, it never returns) of EU law, runs to some 40,000 legal acts, 15,000 ECJ verdicts and 60,000 International standards by which all members are bound in perpetuity. These represent 'control' which has passed, irrevocably in regard of member states, to the EU institutions.

Returning to my original point, these matters are inseparable from any debate on Brexit, because Brexit is not something that exists in isolation from its raison d'etre, the EU.

 

[eternumviti]

One other thing, can you point me to exactly where you stated that the NIP, as interpreted on the ground by the EC, would break the GFA. And could you show me exactly where you said that the EU would ban outright imports of live shellfish from the UK. Perhaps you could show me where you demonstrated that the EU would no longer accept electronic import/export submissions, but revert to paper and (black) ink.

You may have done some or all of these things, and I had forgotten or missed them, in which case I shall be humbled. I think I do recall you discussing vast lorry parks, and queues on the M20 leading back to the M25. Or was it Birmingham?

 

[stevec67]

If you begin with the premise that the greatest advantage of leaving the European Union is to have left the European Union, any discussion regarding the European Union is relevant to the advantages, or the disadvantages, of Brexit.

So, basically, the benefit of sawing off one of your feet is that you now have one fewer feet, so any discussion regarding feet is relevant. You've seen off one of your feet, well done, your sock budget will halve.

 

[eternumviti]

So, basically, the benefit of sawing off one of your feet is that you now have one fewer feet, so any discussion regarding feet is relevant. You've seen off one of your feet, well done, your sock budget will halve.

Yes, we've already had that quip, I think as recently as yesterday. But welcome back.

 

[TheDecameron]

So, basically, the benefit of sawing off one of your feet is that you now have one fewer feet, so any discussion regarding feet is relevant. You've seen off one of your feet, well done, your sock budget will halve.

“Brexit- it needn’t be as painful as you might think”. Singing the OBON song and watching patriotic outings by the Prime Minister can distract you from the symptoms,

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Incidentally, you mention yet again 'control that the UK never lost'. The Aquis Communautaire, the accumulated body (powers that the EU acquires, it never returns) of EU law, runs to some 40,000 legal acts, 15,000 ECJ verdicts and 60,000 International standards by which all members are bound in perpetuity. These represent 'control' which has passed, irrevocably in regard of member states, to the EU institutions.

Returning to my original point, these matters are inseparable from any debate on Brexit, because Brexit is not something that exists in isolation from its raison d'etre, the EU.

I take issue with the ‘all members are bound in perpetuity’ bit, which is somewhat hyperbolic. It’s no different, really, to lawmaking in the U.K. And when laws change, and old laws are repealed, any ECJ verdicts based on the old law are no longer determinative. So provided there is a viable mechanism for making new law and repealing old law, the system is well able to cope with changing times and circumstances. And nobody is bound ‘in perpetuity’ to rulings of the ECJ. Indeed, sometimes it is a difficult ECJ ruling that triggers the move to change the law. As it should.

 

[TheDecameron]

I take issue with the ‘all members are bound in perpetuity’ bit, which is somewhat hyperbolic. It’s no different, really, to lawmaking in the U.K. And when laws change, and old laws are repealed, any ECJ verdicts based on the old law are no longer determinative. So provided there is a viable mechanism for making new law and repealing old law, the system is well able to cope with changing times and circumstances. And nobody is bound ‘in perpetuity’ to rulings of the ECJ. Indeed, sometimes it is a difficult ECJ ruling that triggers the move to change the law. As it should.

Meanwhile in Britain, Boris and unelected bureaucrat ‘Lord’ Frost rule by decree-

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/06/16/ruling-by-decree-boris-johnson-and-his-henry-viii-powers/


Ministers are using Brexit to give themselves sweeping powers to bypass the need for future parliamentary legislation to create new criminal offences and limit the powers of the courts, a new report by peers has revealed.

An analysis of current Brexit legislation passing through Parliament by the House of Lords Constitution Committee reveals it is peppered with Henry VIII clauses – handing ministers significant latitude to change the law without having to spend time passing fresh legislation.

 

[wulbert]

So....did someone eventually post a positive effect? Help me out here.

All I can find is:

1) We will be eternally ruled by Eton toffs (who despise working people and are busy dismantling democracy), not nasty foreigners.
2) There will be less processed food, because there will be less food.
3) Our laws can now be made up, on the hoof, by the "World King" of Great Britain ( sorry N.I.you don't matter). No need for a Parliament or any public debate/democracy. Saves time and "red tape".

Are there more positives?

 

[eternumviti]

I take issue with the ‘all members are bound in perpetuity’ bit, which is somewhat hyperbolic. It’s no different, really, to lawmaking in the U.K. And when laws change, and old laws are repealed, any ECJ verdicts based on the old law are no longer determinative. So provided there is a viable mechanism for making new law and repealing old law, the system is well able to cope with changing times and circumstances. And nobody is bound ‘in perpetuity’ to rulings of the ECJ. Indeed, sometimes it is a difficult ECJ ruling that triggers the move to change the law. As it should.

OK, ECJ case law is of course an ever evolving thing, just like (but different from) UK laws. I did have the figures for the numbers of laws that have been passed onto the Aquis, and those that remain active. The former is eye watering, the latter vast. Nobody knows the exact numbers because so much legislation overlaps. But even a glance at, to take a topical example, the NIP, reveals the reach of EU legislation. The protocol runs to something like 16 pages, the annexes, a long list of EU laws to which the protocol refers, is 46 pages long.

EU law is fundamentally distinct from sovereign UK law in that the UK voter has the opportunity to vote into power, and to sanction at the ballot box, those who make it.

Meanwhile in Britain, Boris and unelected bureaucrat ‘Lord’ Frost rule by decree-

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/06/16/ruling-by-decree-boris-johnson-and-his-henry-viii-powers/


Ministers are using Brexit to give themselves sweeping powers to bypass the need for future parliamentary legislation to create new criminal offences and limit the powers of the courts, a new report by peers has revealed.

An analysis of current Brexit legislation passing through Parliament by the House of Lords Constitution Committee reveals it is peppered with Henry VIII clauses – handing ministers significant latitude to change the law without having to spend time passing fresh legislation.

Excellent, it looks as though the HoL is doing its job of scrutinising and holding to account the executive. Bravo! Perhaps we oughtn't be in quite such a rush to abolish it.

Our parliamentary system is far from perfect, but it generally does its job quite well.

Henry VIII clauses are essentially Statutory Instruments, secondary legislation that amends primary legislation without having to be scrutinised by Parliament, and thus are essentially exactly the same as the system by which thousands upon thousands of Direct Effect EU laws were passed onto the UK statute book over the 50 years of our membership.

 

[-alan-]

Voting to leave the EU was always about balancing the substantial commercial and personal advantages (for those in a position to enjoy them) with the submission to the philosophies and dogmas of a fundamentally deeply anti-democratic, and, in an increasing number of respects, a morally corrupted imperial subterfuge, to which participants are compelled to be hostages of the latter to the fortunes of the former.

I do genuinely like that phrasing.

I can't help but note mind you that the founding fathers of the Republic in Ireland (and also perhaps those in the other larger colony a little further to the West) would have said something remarkably similar about rule from Westminster..

 

[SteveS1]

One other thing, can you point me to exactly where you stated that the NIP, as interpreted on the ground by the EC, would break the GFA. And could you show me exactly where you said that the EU would ban outright imports of live shellfish from the UK.

Emotive twisting of facts as usual from you, what next - forced by the Germans?

From the UK Gov website....

"Shellfish such as oysters, mussels, clams, cockles and scallops (live bivalve molluscs) are generally harvested from waters that are either classified as Class A or Class B.

Class A waters means that it has been harvested from waters that are of good quality and they can be exported to the EU without being cleaned/purified, while Class B waters means that the shellfish aren’t ready for human consumption before being purified. Exporters have previously exported class B shellfish to the EU where they were purified.

Now that the UK is classed as a third country, the EU Commission have voiced concerns about the trade in uncleaned live bivalve molluscs, harvested from Class B waters. The Government is in touch with the Commission to raise the issue and find an appropriate solution.

Shellfish harvested from Class A waters, or that have been cleaned and are ready for human consumption, can continue to be exported to the EU."

Remind me, which third countries are not require to purify shellfish from Class B waters? Class A is unaffected and the delay is pure UK dogma over signing up to an agreement.

Perhaps you could show me where you demonstrated that the EU would no longer accept electronic import/export submissions, but revert to paper and (black) ink.

This wouldn't be because the technical claims and ambitions have not been realised would it? Oh wait.....another example of Johnson blagging away our lack of preparation and signing something he claimed he hadn't. You really do scrape the barrel to justify Johnson (dup)ing the public don't you? See what I did there? Anyway, your favourite electronic solution.....all it needs is for the UK to deliver it's solution. What could possibly go wrong?

“The key thing about the Protocol is that it’s not a completed article – it’s still a work in progress,” he says. “It’s a bit like when you get a new pair of shoes: you have to wear them in for a while.”

Practically, that means tempering expectations about the speed at which technology can solve the problems raised by the Protocol. The IT and surveillance systems required to process customs declarations more efficiently will take months, if not years, to bed in. Others, like audited movement systems, already exist on the frontier between Sweden and Norway. While trade associations including Logistics UK advocate for such a framework as a way of reducing the burden of checks on hauliers, it is important to remember that the context for its deployment in Scandinavia was entirely different.

The thing with Sweden and Norway is that you have this huge border, but trucks are only allowed to transit ten roads,” explains Leheny. Additionally, “Norway is part of the European Economic Area. So, it is very closely aligned to the European Union anyway.”

The ability of the UK government to deliver on such a system remains in doubt. Its track record for border technology innovation is lacking. In March, the Home Office was condemned by a parliamentary committee for the ‘staggering cost’ involved in upgrading its ‘Digital Services at the Border’ programme for monitoring the flow of people, estimating that only one in 15 border staff were trained in its use so far.

https://techmonitor.ai/policy/geopolitics/technology-meant-to-solve-northern-irish-border

You may have done some or all of these things, and I had forgotten or missed them, in which case I shall be humbled. I think I do recall you discussing vast lorry parks, and queues on the M20 leading back to the M25. Or was it Birmingham?

Do you think the movement of lorries has been at all helped by a massive reduction in the need for them? I'm glad they can cope with less than half of previous levels and no holiday traffic. Jesus. Coming soon, food shortages have boosted allotment take up, public weight loss bonanza.

 

[SteveS1]

OK, ECJ case law is of course an ever evolving thing, just like (but different) UK laws. I did have the figures for the numbers of laws that have been passed onto the Aquis, and those that remain active. The former is eye watering, the latter vast. Nobody knows the exact numbers because so much legislation overlaps. But even a glance at, to take a topical example, the NIP, reveals the reach of EU legislation. The protocol runs to something like 16 pages, the annexes, a long list of EU laws to which the protocol refers, is 46 pages long.

EU law is fundamentally distinct from sovereign UK law in that the UK voter has the opportunity to vote into power, and to sanction at the ballot box, those who make it.

You could almost be forgiven for wondering how the UK coped under ECJ here's how.........

"The UK rarely ends up in the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and when it does it wins its cases more often than most European Union (EU) member states, a new report finds.

Who’s afraid of the ECJ?, published today by the independent Institute for Government (IfG), charts the UK’s experience at the ECJ compared to the 14 other longest standing members of the EU.

The UK won around a quarter of all the cases against it in the last 14 years: the highest success rate of any country that joined the EU before 2004 and the third-highest success rate of any country in the EU now.

Since 2003 the European Commission has opened over 750 complaints against the UK for failing to follow or apply EU law. The UK resolved 668 of these complaints before even reaching the court through negotiation and informal dispute resolution. In the end, the Commission decided to refer only 83 of these cases to the European Court.

Environmental issues are those most likely to see the UK end up at the European Court, the paper reveals, because such cases are often costly to resolve. For example, the UK has repeatedly been taken to court for failing to implement a 1991 directive on the management of urban waste water because water treatment plants are expensive to provide."

Great, now we are free to carry on polluting rivers, well done.

https://www.instituteforgovernment....analysis-shows-uk-rarely-taken-european-court

 

[eternumviti]

I do genuinely like that phrasing.

I can't help but note mind you that the founding fathers of the Republic in Ireland (and also perhaps those in the other larger colony a little further to the West) would have said something remarkably similar about rule from Westminster..

Sure, and what did they do about it?

 

[Colin Barron]

Meanwhile in Britain, Boris and unelected bureaucrat ‘Lord’ Frost rule by decree-

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/06/16/ruling-by-decree-boris-johnson-and-his-henry-viii-powers/


Ministers are using Brexit to give themselves sweeping powers to bypass the need for future parliamentary legislation to create new criminal offences and limit the powers of the courts, a new report by peers has revealed.

An analysis of current Brexit legislation passing through Parliament by the House of Lords Constitution Committee reveals it is peppered with Henry VIII clauses – handing ministers significant latitude to change the law without having to spend time passing fresh legislation.

The UK does have the opportunity to sack Boris (and David) in 2024. The 2016 opportunity to sack the EU was probably a never to be repeated option because of further integration.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

OK, ECJ case law is of course an ever evolving thing, just like (but different from) UK laws. I did have the figures for the numbers of laws that have been passed onto the Aquis, and those that remain active. The former is eye watering, the latter vast. Nobody knows the exact numbers because so much legislation overlaps. But even a glance at, to take a topical example, the NIP, reveals the reach of EU legislation. The protocol runs to something like 16 pages, the annexes, a long list of EU laws to which the protocol refers, is 46 pages long.

EU law is fundamentally distinct from sovereign UK law in that the UK voter has the opportunity to vote into power, and to sanction at the ballot box, those who make it.

I haven’t been able to quickly find the equivalent number for the UK, but given every year around 2000-odd new statutory instruments find their way onto our statute books, and there are still laws in force from over a century ago, I’d be surprised if our domestic numbers aren’t similarly vast.

As to the last point, also just regurgitated by Colin, it’s looking distinctly tired these days, isn’t it. We have easily the worst government of my lifetime, blatantly corrupt, devoid of any ethics, and almost entirely lacking in competence. Yet all the polling indicates they’d get re-elected. To be blunt, repeating that old UKIP trope is getting insulting now.

 

[TheDecameron]

You could be forgiven for thinking we never left. It’s time instead to face up to the consequences and deal with them.

 

[Colin Barron]

I haven’t been able to quickly find the equivalent number for the UK, but given every year around 2000-odd new statutory instruments find their way onto our statute books, and there are still laws in force from over a century ago, I’d be surprised if our domestic numbers aren’t similarly vast.

As to the last point, also just regurgitated by Colin, it’s looking distinctly tired these days, isn’t it. We have easily the worst government of my lifetime, blatantly corrupt, devoid of any ethics, and almost entirely lacking in competence. Yet all the polling indicates they’d get re-elected. To be blunt, repeating that old UKIP trope is getting insulting now.

What has Tory popularity got to do with Ukip, Nigel and the Brexit party who are now history. All three made a contribution to our escape from the decks of EU Titanic but the only place they get a mention nowadays is on this thread, by rejoiners.