Brexit New Deal/Legal Changes - Risk Still Remains

[GloverK]

But have you considered that there is a risk of thermal shock and cardiac arrest? Many people die from cold water shock swimming every year. Particularly the older and less fit and able. It's fine to say "it won't happen to me" but what evidence have you got to say that it's safe to do so?

As for the united states of europe - I might not agree with continuing political union and a federal EU superstate, but it isn't the worst case on offer here. Have you not stopped to think that this spineless bunch of MuPpetS so poorly negotiating our brexit will be the same lot who will run in desperation for a trade deal with uncle Sam? Have openly said that is a priority? Uncle Sam is not one for giving anything away unless it suits the US agenda. So with Brexit we'll either end up a vassall state of the EU or a vassall state of the US. Don't tell me we won't, we won't have a (practicable) choice and it'll be hunting season for the big and powerful nations. We'll be caught with our trousers down and we'll end up screwed by one of them. Given the choice I'd rather the EU. At least their worker rights and food laws are worth having. But the tories will salivate at the prospects of US employment law and privatising the NHS to US firms and that will be that. I am most depressed at the prospect.

Agreed. All in all I don't think Brexit was a good choice.

[Saracen999]

Does the UN define 'Racial Prejudice'? Because, while the comments appear to reflect significant prejudice, the poster does not appear to be in a position to discriminate. When it comes to laws protecting employment, the statutes must necessarily be broad. That doesn't mean we are racist because we joke about the French.

IIRC, no it doesn't. I'm also pretty sure UK law doesn't.

But the quote I referenced referred to discriminating against, not prejuduce

As I understand the logic behind that distinction, prejucice is what you think or believe whereas discrimination is what you do.

So ....,how does a legal system take action against what people think?

And perhaps even more importantly, why should it take action against what people believe?

But where it draws the line is when someone discriminates against someone else based on race, etc. In other words, an individual can legally be as racist as they wish in their head, but it becomes a legal issue when their actions negatively affect someone else and that decision was based on race.

So, if I were seeking to employ someone, I can pick the person I like based on experience, personality, perceived ability to do the job with no problem, even if I pick someone from my own racial group but I cannot (legally) pick because of race.

And that, of course, ties in with my point about immigration.

My issue is not with race of immigrants, but simply with the scale of immigration, per year.

Even if we, as a country, could define who we accept as an immigrant, on a non-racial basis of course, two things inherently follow :-

1) Each immigrant will bring things we need, skills, etc. So, it's a good thing for us that they come, and presumably for them or they wouldn't. AND

2) Each immigrant puts an extra load on infrastructure and service provision here.


Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, there are exactly two issues with immigration :-

- first, does it present a net benefit, or not?

- second, can we adequately increase infrastructuew and service provision to cope?

The answer to the first is complex, because it's not just about what is normally measured when trying to answer that, which is direct monetary benefits/costs, i.e. tax revenue versus benefit oayments, for instance, but also, ties in with the infrastructure/service provision issue in that increasing those has a direct and significant cost, AND cannot be done quickly, i.e. building roads, building houses, training doctods, teachers, etc.

Nowhere in the immigration debate is it a simple question. For instance, it's not just about the impact on this country. It's often said (quite rightly) that our NHS would collapse without immigrant staff, and that we have large numbers of, yes, Eastern European doctors and nurses, but also large numbers of those from India and surrounding areas, Phillipines, etc.

But how often does anyone ask what effect our raiding of qualified staff those those countries, almost all of whom are far poorer than us, have on medical provision to citizens of those countries? Don't they have a right to have adequate provision of services, too?

Mass immigration here, especially when (as it does) it significantly improves our service provision also denudes those poorer countries of their own provision.

You could even look at it as a form of 21st Century colonial exploitation. But rarely dies it get mentioned. It's just seen as a right to use our national wealth to strip countries of staff THEY paid to train.

Another complication is that some immigrants come here to work in the NHS but some, many even, are just here for jobs and a better life. And nobody can blame them for that. But when it comes to the cost/benefit question, how do you compare an ICU nurse or oncology surgeon, to a plumbet or accounts clerk? Yet, both put the same load on services, need houses to live in and schools for their kids, etc.

And again, how do you compare a permsnent migrant doctor with, for example, seasonal workers be they agricultural or tourist sector? The debate never gets that granular as to try to break down cost/benefit that way.

But .... when we have levels of overall immigration that put an extra loading on infrastructure and service provision, which it does, and we either cannot or at least have not adequately expanded that infrastructure, then it will (and has) contributed to reduced levels and standards?

Immigration is not the only cause of population expansion, but in recent years (last couple of decades) it has been a very large part, taking us from a rekatively stable 56-57m several decades ago to, what, 65m and predicted to hit 70m, especially if we keep running at a net 300-350k per year. That adds 1m every three-ish years, and 3m+ every decade.


So we basically have a binary choice :-


1) Reduce overall net immigration to a level our current ability to provide infrastructure and service provusion at,

OR

2) Dramatically increase our effort and spend on providing the necessary indrastructure and services.

The problem, and it's why I support immigration being controlled by UK not EU politicians, is I don't see ANY serious chance of either doing option 1). I'm not convinced they'll get to grips with 2) either, but it is at least easier to do, and can be done much quicker.

[Ttaskmaster]

as I have compared it in the past to being caught on the windows sill of a girls room... no shirt and one shoe missing.. lets drop to the road, pull our pants on and walk home.

What?
Have the British people learned nothing from their culture??!!

It'd be far better if we climbed back in through the window, gave that girl the farewell snog of the century, walked tall past whoever had walked in on us, and left via the door while loudly proclaiming, "She’s got a tongue like an electric eel and she likes the taste of a man’s tonsils.... WHUFF!!”

That, fellow countrymen, is how you Brexit!

[Saracen999]

But apparently, not how our PM TM Brexits.

[Saracen999]

Still, the plot thickens with Tusk suggesting a short extension is possible provided the Withdrawal deal is approved by Parliament first.

Which plays perfectly into May's strategy - run the clock down then use fear of 'no deal' (or no Brexit) to force MPs, moost of whom whether remainer or Brexiter agree that, and probably only that, her deal is a really bad deal.

Then, of course, the French are implying they'll veto even that short extension, even if the result is a no-deal exit.

And short of a deal, whatever it is, I still haven't seen anyone credibly explain how they propose to stop us exiting on time, given that it's a law and an expression of what Parliament wants doesn't stop it.

It's starting to get interesting and, by the way, is what many were saying months ago, which is that whatever happens will happen right close to the wire .... and we're getting pretty close.

[Ttaskmaster]

moost of whom whether remainer or Brexiter agree that, and probably only that, her deal is a really bad deal.

When last I translated the Pollutician into Taskyspeak, the deal was basically that we continue paying Europe loads of money and abiding by every single stupid law they come up with, but give up every benefit we currently have... is that about right?

Then, of course, the French are implying they'll veto even that short extension, even if the result is a no-deal exit.

And suddenly I'm rooting for lots of French things!!

[Galant]

Heard a commentator today suggesting that when Macron spoke up saying he would veto any short extension, the aim could well be to back May into even more of a corner to force to to find a way to cancel Article 50 and eventually cancel Brexit.

[stevie lee]

When last I translated the Pollutician into Taskyspeak, the deal was basically that we continue paying Europe loads of money and abiding by every single stupid law they come up with, but give up every benefit we currently have... is that about right?


And suddenly I'm rooting for lots of French things!!

anyone want a confused_stevie_speak?

the way I thought of this deal was that yes we leave EU on 29th march, then next 2 years or so we use existing EU trading rules until we can work out the ones we want to use afterwards. everything that's in the TMdeal could be renegotiated, just the main point of the irish border was tricky.
the bits corbyns waffling on about 'Norway style/custom union/and so on' all those options are for the next stage after the withdrawal, just go no deal or TM deal then do the votes for what style trading we want.

if everyone had agreed to do joint withdrawal and trade talks at the same time, then corbyns right to argue about Norway unions, but the thing they're voting on isn't the trade its just the withdrawal.
that's why im wondering why they're arguing about stuff that isn't even relevant to the thing they're voting on.. all these arguments should be next month.

that's just my confused thoughts on this, I may be wrong about it but that's the way my brain works and it makes sense to me

[Galant]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...ood-for-europe

[Saracen999]

When last I translated the Pollutician into Taskyspeak, the deal was basically that we continue paying Europe loads of money and abiding by every single stupid law they come up with, but give up every benefit we currently have... is that about right?

....

That might be a smidge on the simplistic side, but as a precis of some 500+ pages .... it's pretty close. Which is why it's pretty unpopular with both Brexiter and Remainer MPs .... though they dislike it for different reasons.


Currently (Thursdsy midday) noises from Brussels suggest that the French may have backed off on vetoing (thoughvonly time will tell) but that Brussels may well insist on May 23rd, .... unless the UK participates in EU elections.

There is a legal problem, which is that ALL EU citizens have a right to vote on their representation, and that EU citizens vote in the constituency in which they reside at election date.

So .... if an extension goes past voting day, EU citizens resident in the UK won't get their vote unless the UK participates in EU elections, thereby denying them their vote and potentially setting up a series of ECJ challenges as to the constitutionality of the election results which MIGHT end up with all 27 states having to re-run the election.

However, if the UK does take part in EU elections, well, firstly, it's horribly embarrassint for the government and our Glorious MayBot. But secondly and most seriously, the representatives duly elected will cease being MEPs when we leave, presumably (in the short extension scenario) on June 30th, at which point EU citizens resident here will, once again, find themselves without representation which .... ECJ challenges, blah, blah, blah .... again.

So .... it'll be interesting to see what the EU is prepared to agree to, even assuming Macron (or, let's face it, anybody else) doesn't just block it altogether.


All of which, of course, is very likely to be utterly academic as any such offer appears to be conditional on Parliament agreeing to that abortion of a deal which, given MayBot's little tantrum yesterday calling MPs out for blocking her desl, seems to have offended even some that voted for it last time into declaring they'll vote against if it comes back next week.


And THAT, frankly, was the point at which I really saw red .... and no, it wasn't Corbyn.

It's those ('scuse me for not being able to use the word, but it ends in "hole") MP's that's were prepared to vote for it, and indeed did last time, now are changing their minds because their delicate little egos are feeling bruised, and they're offended at a perceived slight.

After all, it's not like it's a vote that's absolutely central to the future of the entire fripping country for the next 50 years or more.

Oh wait ..... yes it is.


Any, and I mean any MP, that has the sheer audicity to let their bruised ego, their overpuffed vanity, affect their judgement on any significant vote, let alone such a hugely critical one, has no right to be an MP.

You morons are supposed to be voting for the good of the country, not in a fit of pique at a speech.

You're in Parliament, FFS, not a kindergarten playground, so damn well grow up and act your age before we, the people that put you there, start looking for sturdy tree branches and short bits of rope.

[Galant]

...You're in Parliament, FFS, not a kindergarten playground, so damn well grow up and act your age before we, the people that put you there, start looking for sturdy tree branches and short bits of rope.

But will they find any that meet EU standards?

[Saracen999]

But will they find any that meet EU standards?

Provided they work adequately, don't care ...

Besides, as we'll hopefully be out by then ....

[TooNice]

Is the limbo equally bad to EU business as it is to the UK?

[Saracen999]

Is the limbo equally bad to EU business as it is to the UK?

Hard to say. Opinions vary depending on who you ask, but IMHO, there's a bigger issue than that.

I think we can assume it's negative, at least in the short term, for both.

Therefore it is in the best interests of both to work, as rapidly as possible, on normalising relations. And at that point, a lot will depend on what, if any, goodwill remains at a political level, and whether politicians can and do act on it. They could put a lot of things in place pretty quickly, but that doesn't mean they will.

[TooNice]

Hard to say. Opinions vary depending on who you ask, but IMHO, there's a bigger issue than that.

I think we can assume it's negative, at least in the short term, for both.

Therefore it is in the best interests of both to work, as rapidly as possible, on normalising relations. And at that point, a lot will depend on what, if any, goodwill remains at a political level, and whether politicians can and do act on it. They could put a lot of things in place pretty quickly, but that doesn't mean they will.

I am just a bit curious. May asked for an extension till end of June, while Tusk seem offered (though subject to approval of the other EU countries) till late May.

From a purely academic perspective (I do not believe this has a chance of occurring), what would happen if the EU they were to turn around and say "Alright, from our perspective you are nowhere close to breaking the deadlock. So how about you take an extension until June 30th 2022 so that you do not have to come back and ask for another extension in two month's time, get your politics sorted, and come back when your parliament has decided what it wants. In the mean time, it's back to business as usual, we have our own things to deal with".

(An extension doesn't mean that it has to happen on the final day, but any time within the deadline right?)

[Saracen999]

As I understand it, an extension defines leaving day, just like the current day was defined by the "2 year"clause in Art.50, and any extension would be done under the "extension" provision of Art,50 so, presumably, would operate in the same way.

On a practical level, any extension requires unanimous agreement of ALL member states. That includes us. So we (the PM, in first instance) could simply say "No thanks. Too long".

At a political level, having argued about Brexit for 2 years, I'm rather of the opinion that if we extended for another 3 years, we'd actually get 2 years 51 weeks of the same arguments all over again, followed by a panic resulting in "How about 2025 .... or the far side of never?"

i.e. what would it achieve?

I said some time ago I thought the UK public was split into 3 or 4 groups :-

- Brexiter and not about to change mind,
- Remainer, and not about to change mind,
- Oh for pities sake just faffing get on with it will you, and
- Brex.... oh, hell, no <insert fingers firmly in ears> LA LA LALALA LA LA, HO HUM, LA LA ... you still talking about it?


I don't see much of anything changing the minds of the first two, amd the last two are beyond caring, providing we get it done .... preferably silently.

It's contentious as hell. Probably always will be. So I can't personally see 2025 changing. that.



One caveat to that .... assuming we leave on < whatever date>, about 10 years later we'll have a pretty good idea of how damaging it was, or wasn't. That might change some minds. Maybe.