Brexit Referendum Superthread

Calina

LeinsterDub wrote: »

whatstherush wrote: »

Interesting side issue, euro atom withdrawal was included in A50 letter.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/884361927505444864

euro atom isn't part of the EU so it's inclusion in the A50 letter is irrelevant. If they want to stay in euro atom they can just say so no?

The issue is a lack of clarity in the UK regarding the courts. EURATOM is subject to ECJ which May marked as a red line issue inbthe Lancaster House speech. Problem is the European court she lost high profile cases in was the European Court of Human Rights which is not an EU body.

The Euratom issue has been known about before the Article 50 notification which was before the recent election and loss of her two SPADs. There was a lot of discussion about the decision in science and med circles at the time. If Euratom decision is being rolled back then cop on is slowly starting to arrive in London. Slowly.

My guess is both the ECJ and Euratom messes slowly starting to clean up are linked with radically altered communications lines in Downing Street.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

The commission has already stated that "brass plate" operations will not be accepted. The actual leg work will need to be done in the regulating country.

In my Barclaycard example it is being regulated by British authorities as passporting allows this. If passporting goes, all these sorts of services need to be operated out of the EU.

Interesting that the commission doesn't want Brass Plate operations, when the president of the eu commission pretty much based his entire country's economy on it.:rolleyes:

But anyway, who said anything about Brass Plate operations, Royal Bank Of Scotland, HSBC, Barclays, Bank of Scotland etc could just invoice through one of their subsidiaries. Many of which would already be subject to the local regulators anyway. I fail to see how this is any sort of issue at all.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Interesting that the commission doesn't want Brass Plate operations, when the president of the eu commission pretty much based his entire country's economy on it.:rolleyes:

But anyway, who said anything about Brass Plate operations, Royal Bank Of Scotland, HSBC, Barclays, Bank of Scotland etc could just invoice through one of their subsidiaries. Many of which would already be subject to the local regulators anyway. I fail to see how this is any sort of issue at all.

In the Barclaycard example I gave there is just an office in Germany. The regulation is done in London as is quite clear from the website.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

<....>

What I think will be interesting, is whether or not "Services" are performed in the country where the person actually providing the service is based, or wether it is performed where the invoicing is carried out.

That very much depends on the regulatory regime (harmonised or not) in place in the EU Member State of the service's client, in respect of the invoiced service.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Does the Bank of America analyst provide the service in to Germany from their London office, or is it performed from (for example) the Luxembourg office, where the invoicing comes from?

So long as the UK is still within the EU, this distinction doesn't matter, but for tax accounting purposes.

Once the UK is out, your mileage will vary according to any existing (or yet to be devised and implemented) NTB applying to (<insert type>) services procured from third party countries, which the London office shall face from that point forward.

By way of Real Life example, I'll refer you to e.g. the 100% NTB which we, working in IP in the UK, face with the EUIPO in respect of European trademarks and designs come Brexit day.

And the 100% NTB which some, qualified in the RoI but practicing from the UK (and on the RoI Register of patent and/or trademark agents by virtue of EEA place of business), also face with the Irish Patents Office in respect of Irish patents, trademarks and designs come Brexit day.

It'll be a brave practitioner who tries the brass-plating game. One who's unlikely to be able to secure professional indemnity insurance, put it that way.

CrabRevolution

While it could certainly open up new markets and trade, I can't help but think the EU are dodging a bullet by avoiding the UK's example of rushing into a trade deal with Trump's America. Considering everything he's said about trade deals so far has been negative, and all his promises concern vengeful, punitive new trade deals that will be unashamedly biased in favour of the US.

In one sense there's nothing wrong with it if Trump reckons he's accountable only to Americans, and to his credit he's being transparent, saying right from the outset what his intentions are. But at the same I don't see why anyone in the UK would be excited of the prospect of rushing to trade under those conditions. Why would you be happy to start working with a country which has no intentions of a fair and equal deal, and which has explicitly stated that everything they do will put American priorities first?

It seems a bit of clutching at straws to be honest. Far from the domino effect predicted in places of populist anti-EU governments sweeping into power across the world and giving the UK an easy ride, Trump is pretty much the only leader favourable to Brexit, so they have to cosy up to him.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Interesting that the commission doesn't want Brass Plate operations, when the president of the eu commission pretty much based his entire country's economy on it.:rolleyes:

But anyway, who said anything about Brass Plate operations, Royal Bank Of Scotland, HSBC, Barclays, Bank of Scotland etc could just invoice through one of their subsidiaries. Many of which would already be subject to the local regulators anyway. I fail to see how this is any sort of issue at all.

Invoicing random business lines without substantive operations behind it is brass plating.
Regulators would probably want to see management, oversight, funding, contracting etc. being undertaken locally to be satisfied that it isn't a brass plaque operation.

Not everything would have to be performed locally but issuing an invoice wouldn't be enough.

Zubeneschamali

CrabRevolution wrote: »

the EU are dodging a bullet by avoiding the UK's example of rushing into a trade deal with Trump's America.

Trump will be out of office before any trade deal between the UK and USA is negotiated.

LeinsterDub

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/10/brexit-pm-making-plans-to-replicate-membership-of-atomic-energy-group-euratom

Nine Tory MPs signalled that they could line up with Labour and the Liberal Democrats on the issue, making it difficult for May to secure a parliamentary majority.

May's parliamentary nightmare in a nutshell. Nearly every issue will have at least 8 or 9 MPs looking to protect their local industries/interests and if she buys off these rebel 8 or 9 a other 8 or 9 who want the hardest brexit will thrown their toys out of the pram

BlitzKrieg

Euroatom is a weird one though because they didnt have to leave it to leave the EU, its not part of the EU.

Water John

I suppose it has Euro in the name and that is enough to give hard brexiteers a fit.

LeinsterDub

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Euroatom is a weird one though because they didnt have to leave it to leave the EU, its not part of the EU.

May says she did

Membership of Euratom is inextricably linked with membership of the European Union.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jul/10/brexit-theresa-may-could-remain-subject-to-ecj-during-transitional-period-after-brexit-says-damian-green-politics-live


No idea why this is the case/ she thinks this is the case

BlitzKrieg

Water John wrote: »

I suppose it has Euro in the name and that is enough to give hard brexiteers a fit.

No matter I found the reason. While separate to the EU, issues of dispute within euratom are resolved in the European courts of justice according to the treaty.


Which is a red flag for the UK.

Water John

So now is the UK, going to say it is no longer part of the European continent but wants be a continent, all of it's own?

LeinsterDub

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

No matter I found the reason. While separate to the EU, issues of dispute within euratom are resolved in the European courts of justice according to the treaty.


Which is a red flag for the UK.

We know the ECJ is a red flag but May said they had to leave. Not they chose to leave and it appears they want some kind of associated membership now.

View

recedite wrote: »

View wrote: »

No it is not. "Third countries" - non-EU ones in this case - have to be treated in accordance with WTO rules.

The EU can't decide that one third country gets some sort of "free pass" so that it can skip the paperwork that other third countries must comply with. Doing so would clearly be discriminatory against the other third countries and a clear violation of WTO rules.

If you mean WTO tariffs, those are only the default tariffs; to be used in the absence of a trade agreement.

No I was referring to the basic WTO principle that if two or more countries do not have an FTA with a given country, then their exports to that country must be subject to the same tariffs and also the same non-tariff barriers under WTO rules.

In other words. If non-EU whisky from Canada, the USA & Japan areive at the EU border, they must all be subject to a tariff of x% and an identical y pages of paperwork to import their whisky. Under WTO rules. the EU can't require the Japanese to produce 2y pages of paperwork and charge them a tariff of 2x while charging the Canadians & Americans less.

That means, in the absence of a post-Brexit Trade agreement, that the EU MUST treat Scottish whisky the same as the above whiskies and that means x% tariff and y pages of paperwork on day 1 after Brexit. This isn't an optional extra under WTO rules, and the EU isn't going to breach WTO rules because Brexiters don't want to face up to WTO rules.

Can't remember the ballot I marked saying anything whatsoever about the ECJ.

steddyeddy

Dublin is now top choice for financial services leaving Britain post Brexit.

https://www.ft.com/content/5e4d9c7c-6579-11e7-9a66-93fb352ba1fe

RDM_83 again

Sam Russell wrote: »

They are not alone in criminal activity and riding rough-shod over customers.

In 1999, GM had to pay $4.9 billion for a petrol tank failure.


So American companies also break the rules, and cause unnecessary deaths.

And this is relevant how? My point is that I can objectively state that German car companies have been seriously criminally dishonest in the past and so I don't trust their public statements now, how does dishonesty from American companies change that.
Its like saying I should trust a dodgy British builders quotes because there is also dodgy Polish builders

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

If they saw the ability to punitively add tariffs to individual EU states, who would be next? Ireland perhaps?

That is why the EU is stronger when acting in unison.

Nate

Agreed the EU is stronger acting in unison but as I have pointed out unity is in reality very low within the EU at the minute, Brexit and Trumps have given a gloss of unity however so far this unity has not required any real cost.
For example would it be in Irelands interests to antagonize the united states in defense of German interests at a time when those same interests are putting one of the pillars of the Irish economy in jeopardy.
Why would the Eastern states stand up for Germany (and France) when those countries are leading calls to sanction them.
Why would Greece protect wealthy Germans after years of German led austerity.
Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania all have been ignored in relation to visa issues that the EU was mandated to deal with (by 2016 AFAIK) why would they take a hit when their own interests clearly aren't as important.
Why would the Eastern states which are very aware of their reliance on the USA for security antagonize a German that has no capability of offering the same protection and has acted in a manner showing no solidarity with their interests RE Nord-Stream 2 (and as important embedded figure such as Donald Tusk has objected to this so this isn't a reactionary view point)

This is why the its important to look at the way those tariffs would only affect Germany in a significant way.

Just because I am not circle jerking over a damaging Brexit and how great the EU is doesn't mean I supported Brexit (I actually voted remain).

There is plenty of people that are very much pro-European from all sides of the political spectrum that don't see the EU as being unified.
Heres a decent article from today raising some of the major points.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/08/europe-mojo-back-old-problems-haunt-continent

wes

Brexit legal challenger Gina Miller felt 'violated' when Viscount offered bounty to anyone who would run her over


Pretty appalling attitude from an aristocratic Brexiter, and it really goes to show that people with a lot of money can be pretty damn racist, and utterly vile. Everyone liked to point the finger at the poor, while given the craven upper classes a free pass for there hatred. The man openly offered 5000 pounds to run iver Gina Miller for daring to have a different opinion to him.

The rest of his comments shows the clear motivation of some Brexiters.

RDM_83 again

^^^

Any good non Independent.co.uk links to the story, its tragic how far a previously top quality publication has fallen.

prinzeugen

wes wrote: »

Brexit legal challenger Gina Miller felt 'violated' when Viscount offered bounty to anyone who would run her over


Pretty appalling attitude from an aristocratic Brexiter, and it really goes to show that people with a lot of money can be pretty damn racist, and utterly vile. Everyone liked to point the finger at the poor, while given the craven upper classes a free pass for there hatred. The man openly offered 5000 pounds to run iver Gina Miller for daring to have a different opinion to him.

The rest of his comments shows the clear motivation of some Brexiters.

So when are we going to see the pro Corbyn/pro EU folks prosecuted for the same??

Thousands of tweets out there that the posters could be done for.

Or does the the law only work one way?

Billy86

Lord St Davids, 50, of Knightsbridge, told Westminster Magistrates’ Court the posts were not “menacing” in nature.

He wrote on the social media site on 7 November 2016: “£5,000 for the first person to 'accidentally' run over this bloody troublesome first generation immigrant."

He then described Ms Miller as a "boat jumper" and added: "If this is what we should expect from immigrants, send them back to their stinking jungles."

Four days later he posted about "torturing Tony Blair, Hilary Clinton, ISIS, Dave (PM) the forgettable, Murdoch..... Oh and that hideous jumped up immigrant Gina Miller".

He also posted two comments in which he branded immigrants “monkeys”. In a post not directed towards Ms Miller, he wrote: “Please will someone smoke this ghastly insult to this country, why should I pay tax to feed these monkeys?

"A return to Planet of the Apes is not acceptable."

In a previous post he said: "I would vote for Trump if I could."

He talked about a "new crusade" and "collective register of Muslims" and added: "Makes the job a lot easier for our collective SIS [intelligence agencies] to track down non-conformists, and frankly, shoot them on the spot.

"The tyranny of Islam and it's ignorant (goat f******) brethren has to be destroyed."

What a charming piece of sh**.

Put the bit in bold to point out Gina Miller (had not heard of her until 10 minutes ago) was born in Guyana in 1965. Until 1966 Guyana was the colony 'British Guiana'. As per 1949's British Nationality Act, Gina Miller is a born British citizen. Love the irony in that from the 'Empire Strikes Back' crowd! :pac:

You can buy education, but you can't spend your way out of idiocy.

Junkyard Tom

prinzeugen wrote: »

So when are we going to see the pro Corbyn/pro EU folks prosecuted for the same??

Your 'question' is the exemplification of whataboutery.

This guy put a bounty on the head of another person whose perfectly legal views/actions he despised.

Do you think he deserves to be held to account for that?

Enzokk

RDM_83 again wrote: »

^^^

Any good non Independent.co.uk links to the story, its tragic how far a previously top quality publication has fallen.

Here is a Daily Mail link to the story. Is that a better link that will satisfy your views of the story?

ArmaniJeanss

RDM_83 again wrote: »

^^^

Any good non Independent.co.uk links to the story, its tragic how far a previously top quality publication has fallen.

Its a court report, not an opinion piece. Whilst the trial is on-going everything in a court report is going to be a factual account of what was said in court.

Cervantes2

A prominent Brexiteer MP Anne Marie Morris caught using racist language...
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40555639

seamus

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Euroatom is a weird one though because they didnt have to leave it to leave the EU, its not part of the EU.

No, but it's functionally governed by the EU. There were a load of co-operative communities like Euratom in Europe before Maastricht, when they were all then consolidated.

Euratom remained slightly outside of the EU because there was considerable disagreement about whether the EU should be using Atomic energy at all.

But many of the executive bodies that govern Euratom are now part of the EU. That's not to say that the UK had to leave, but it seems like they made the lazy decision rather than try to figure out how to make Euratom work without EU membership.

I don't think it's that big a deal in reality. Like Ireland, the UK has an enormous wind generation potential and nuclear generation hasn't been particularly worthwhile; a number of plants require ongoing subsidies to stay operative. Leaving Euratom will likely just speed up the pace of decommissioning of nuclear plants.

murphaph

seamus wrote: »

I don't think it's that big a deal in reality. Like Ireland, the UK has an enormous wind generation potential and nuclear generation hasn't been particularly worthwhile; a number of plants require ongoing subsidies to stay operative. Leaving Euratom will likely just speed up the pace of decommissioning of nuclear plants.

Unfortunately this goes way beyond nuclear power plants and even nuclear subs.

The UK needs to be under an inspected regime like Euratom to be able to import all sorts of radioactive materials such as specialist medical isotopes used in cancer treatment and in diagnostic imaging etc.

It has extremely far reaching consequences for medical and scientific applications.

LeinsterDub

seamus wrote: »

I don't think it's that big a deal in reality. Like Ireland, the UK has an enormous wind generation potential and nuclear generation hasn't been particularly worthwhile; a number of plants require ongoing subsidies to stay operative. Leaving Euratom will likely just speed up the pace of decommissioning of nuclear plants.

I'm a big fan of renewables and the progress being made is amazing but this is pie in the sky stuff. Going completely green/replacing nuclear is at least 30 years away and the UK apparently only has a 2 year stock pile of nuclear fuel so they need some agreement .

This statement is quite hyperbolic

Professor Roger Cashmore, the UKAEA chair, said that the situation was “a mess” and “alarming”, and told BuzzFeed News that by 2025 “you could be doing your writing by candlelight on a typewriter”.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/these-scientists-say-brexit-is-a-mess-for-british-nuclear?utm_term=.wi1eeDdQlB#.hyRQQVryj5

but it gives you an idea of what the impact could be. Not to mention medicine and research

steddyeddy

View wrote: »

No I was referring to the basic WTO principle that if two or more countries do not have an FTA with a given country, then their exports to that country must be subject to the same tariffs and also the same non-tariff barriers under WTO rules.

In other words. If non-EU whisky from Canada, the USA & Japan areive at the EU border, they must all be subject to a tariff of x% and an identical y pages of paperwork to import their whisky. Under WTO rules. the EU can't require the Japanese to produce 2y pages of paperwork and charge them a tariff of 2x while charging the Canadians & Americans less.

That means, in the absence of a post-Brexit Trade agreement, that the EU MUST treat Scottish whisky the same as the above whiskies and that means x% tariff and y pages of paperwork on day 1 after Brexit. This isn't an optional extra under WTO rules, and the EU isn't going to breach WTO rules because Brexiters don't want to face up to WTO rules.

Thanks for explaining that.