Brexit discussion thread II

Capt'n Midnight · 20-07-2017 11:35PM

BTW the UK has other problems. Not directly related to Brexit, unless you consider the economic slowdown or the attitude of the Tories to those who benefit most from EU health and safety regs.

this sort of stuff divides attention , can't focus on Brexit when you are playing Whack-a-Mole with the consequences of Tory deregulation and cost cutting. Stuff like this makes the UK less attractive to foreign workers or investment.

The emergency services are being run down.
If only there was a Magic Money Tree.

I've posted before about how the NHS is short staffed , how applications for nursing at uni fallen drastically and how foreign staff aren't applying in the same numbers they used to.

The police force is suffering similar problems
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40665733

Crime in England and Wales has seen its largest annual rise in a decade, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The total number of crimes reported to and recorded by the police rose by 10% between April 2016 and March 2017 to almost five million.

Violent crime was up by 18%, robbery by 16% and sex offences by 14%.

The figures come as Home Office data shows the number of police officers is the lowest since 1985.

cba looking up the recent link about Police trying to rehire retired detectives because so many have gone, it's just a drip-drip of bad statistics

Junkyard Tom · 20-07-2017 11:53PM

It's a tried-and-tested formula. Cut funding for public services/infrastructure, claim public ownership is failing the people, sell-off public assets to their friends in the private sector.

View · 20-07-2017 11:59PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's going to be hard to get consensus when the UK doesn't seem to know what it wants yet. The two party flip/flop FPTP system won't help either.

Good evening!

It's worth pointing out that the bolded statement is a myth.

In January the Prime Minister laid out the direction of travel in her Lancaster House speech.

In March the Government published a white paper explaining the type of relationship Britain wants after Brexit.

In March the Prime Minister explained the desired aims of the Government in the Article 50 letter.

It isn't true to say that the UK doesn't know what it wants.

Some people seem to be of the opinion that if David Davis doesn't publish every detail publicly that Britain doesn't know what it wants.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. You don't send 90 odd negotiators to Brussels with nothing to say.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Those are really bad examples since, if you actually read the white paper, it is full of stuff like:
1) we want nothing to do with the EU,
2) currently in area A (e.g. Policing), the EU does a, b, c & d,
3) we like that so we want a new agreement that allows us to keep doing a, b, c & d,
4) it then moves onto area B, C etc and repeats steps 2 & 3 - covering basically every area that the EU deals with,
5) it then adds a kicker that even though all that has been under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, the UK won't accept it at all, thus meaning that the UK side of the deal would offer inferior legal procedures to the EU side.

In short the demand is that the EU spend inordinate amounts of time & taxpayers money to replicate the EU Treaties in a new agreement or agreements.

All of which raises the obvious point namely why should the EU do this? If this was "objectionable" in the EU Treaties then it should still be "objectionable" in a new agreement outside the EU Treaties. There is no point in the EU wasting time & money in engaging in such theatrics.

Capt'n Midnight · 21-07-2017 12:01AM

more drip-drip bad news for the Brexit point of view

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/citi-confirms-dublin-expansion-on-the-back-of-brexit-1.3161384

US banking group Citigroup confirmed to staff on Thursday that it plans to extend its operations in Dublin, where it employs about 2,500 people, as the US banking giant prepares itself for the fallout from Brexit.
...
Banks, insurers and asset management firms were given a deadline of last Friday to file their contingency plans with the Bank of England.

Capt'n Midnight · 21-07-2017 12:04AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's a tried-and-tested formula. Cut funding for public services/infrastructure, claim public ownership is failing the people, sell-off public assets to their friends in the private sector.

+1

what's even worse is that they've been talking to US private health care companies :mad:

again this is making the UK less attractive to the sort of foreign workers they need

Capt'n Midnight · 21-07-2017 12:17AM

View wrote: »

In short the demand is that the EU spend inordinate amounts of time & taxpayers money to replicate the EU Treaties in a new agreement or agreements.

All of which raises the obvious point namely why should the EU do this? If this was "objectionable" in the EU Treaties then it should still be "objectionable" in a new agreement outside the EU Treaties. There is no point in the EU wasting time & money in engaging in such theatrics.

Pretty much.

The EU position is to keep the existing EU laws in place. This means of course a UK citizen will be treated as an Extracomunitario, ie. non-EU national, once they leave. Unless there is a better deal.

The UK position is of course "is maith liom cáca milis"

Peregrinus · 21-07-2017 04:17AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Maybe as B-day gets closer the markets/businesses will panic and the British will seek a ten year freeze-frame allowing more young people to join the electorate and older folks to pop thier clogs?

Does anyone know if they have to be out within the two year time-frame or is there flexibility on that?

The two-year time frame can be extended with the unanimous agreement of all member states.

There generally is little appetite in the Union for indefinitely prolonged Brexit negotiations; they're only prepared to devote so much time and effort to the UK. And, just as uncertainty about the future is a problem for the UK, it's a problem for the EU (albeit not such a big problem, since the UK matters less to the EU than the EU matters to the UK).

So I really don't see unanimimous agreement to extending the 2-year deadline by more than a few months, and even that will only be forthcoming if a deal is all-but-done, and there's general confidence that another couple of months will enable the final details to be sorted out.

If what the UK realises it needs is an interim position which is less than full Brexit, and from which they can eventually return (suitably chastened) to full membership, indefinite extension of the 2-year period is not the way to go. Rather, they should have an exit deal with provides for a prolonged transitional period involving, say, EEA/EFTA membership for the UK.

Calina · 21-07-2017 05:50AM

EFTA membership is not the gift of the EU to give the UK.

Peregrinus · 21-07-2017 06:10AM

Calina wrote: »

EFTA membership is not the gift of the EU to give the UK.

No, of course not. But that wouldn't stop the UK pursuing EFTA membership as part of a transition-that-might-turn-into-readmission, and if existing EFTA members found that unappealing (and I could see why) then the UK could look for a relationship with the EU analogous to that which the EFTA members enjoy.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, in short. But you and I are discussing different ways to skin a cat that, as matters stand, the UK doesn't want skinned at all. Some kind of graceful, gradual way of burying Brexit might very well be in what you and I consider to be the UK's best interests, but if the UK were disposed to act in its best interests we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place, would we?

Jim2007 · 21-07-2017 06:18AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, of course not. But that wouldn't stop the UK pursuing EFTA membership as part of a transition-that-might-turn-into-readmission, and if existing EFTA members found that unappealing (and I could see why) then the UK could look for a relationship with the EU analogous to that which the EFTA members enjoy.

Norway has already expressed concerns....

Peregrinus · 21-07-2017 06:26AM

Jim2007 wrote: »

Norway has already expressed concerns....

I know. But, hey, if you already have to reach agreement with 27 other countries, does adding a twenty-eighth or a twenty-ninth really make the problem that much more insoluble?

Thomas__ · 21-07-2017 06:57AM

Calina wrote: »

EFTA membership is not the gift of the EU to give the UK.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, of course not. But that wouldn't stop the UK pursuing EFTA membership as part of a transition-that-might-turn-into-readmission, and if existing EFTA members found that unappealing (and I could see why) then the UK could look for a relationship with the EU analogous to that which the EFTA members enjoy.

Norway has already expressed concerns....

Watching the way the UK govt is performing in this Brexit negotiations, it´s more clear to me that on some EFTA members like Norway the concerns will certainly outweight the considering of mutual benefits with the UK´s re-entry into EFTA. The Brits still have no real guidance and the lack of that and thus the Impression of unreliabilty of the UK govt leaves them in the mess they´ve put themselves in and makes the continuance of the negotiations more harder. I don´t think that EFTA member states have any "appetite" to put themselves in a likewise position the EU is in with the UK, let alone any interest at all.

The present perception of the UK govt in regards of membership in trade organisations is that of the UK´s isolationism and they can´t get any far by that attitude which is on clear display every time. It´s like someone who likes to have all the rights and benefits but refuses or shyes away from taking any obligations in return. Such things neither work nor are they agreeable.

Peregrinus · 21-07-2017 07:12AM

All of what Thomas_ said.

Plus, as a general principle you can expect existing, permanent members of any organisation to be resistant to admitting a new member who, by their own account, does not see long-term membership of the organisation as desirable, and intends to leave again. And this applies in spades with respect to the notion of the UK joining EFTA for a period, because the UK would, in terms of population, economic muscle, etc, vastly outweigh all the other members of EFTA taken together. Why would EFTA members want the UK to join EFTA for a few years, and then leave again?

solodeogloria · 21-07-2017 07:28AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Another slice of cake.

the UK wants it's citizens in the EU to have rights they aren't sharing
Current family members
UK wants - Residents above will fall within the scope of the WA as an independent right holder

Criminality commited post exit
UK wants - Expulsion for post-exit
actvity assessed under UK immigraton rules
I may be mistaken but the UK has strict immigration rules for criminals.
- cherry picking

Voting rights
EU says - this arises from EU citzenship rights
(not a difficult concept that non-EU citizens have less rights)**
UK says - UK wants to protect existng
rights of UK/EU citzens to
vote and/or stand in local
electons in their host state in
the WA - yummy yummy cake

Further movement rights
EU says - UK natonals in scope of WA
only have protected rights in
the state(s) in which they
have residence rights on exit
day
UK wants - UK natonals in scope should
be able to change their place
of residence within EU27 as
per Directve 2004/38
WTF ?- so the UK wants free movement within the EU for non-EU citizens ?
really ?

**the fly in the ointment is thatIrish EU citizens can't vote outside the EU.
So about 300,000 Irish citizens living there could be disenfranchised by UK exit
the other side of the coin is the suggestion that Irish citizens could be allowed vote in EU elections abroad. This gets interesting when you consider that this could apply to 1.8m people up north and about 6m overall in the UK with the grandparent rule.

Good morning!

Let's go through these.

On family rights - I agree with the UK government that EU citizens should have equal rights to British citizens. Meaning that if I want to bring a partner from another country I need to acknowledge that will be subject to a marriage visa. The situation that exists today where EU citizens have another right to British citizens isn't acceptable going forward.

Criminal expulsion post-Brexit - I 100% agree with this. This should exist as a condition of freedom of movement for all countries. The UK is right to make this an issue.

Voting rights will be a matter for the British government to legislate for. In the Great Repeal Bill, European Union law (including presumably for the rights of citizens) will be merged into the body of British legislation. Where do you see the desire for the British government to change this?

Further movement rights - I'm particularly not too bothered if a British citizen has to apply for a Schengen Visa after Brexit. I can see why they are pushing hard on it because when they arrived in the EU they had free movement. I think this is a price worth paying for Brexit.

EU elections - This is for a matter for the European Union to resolve. There's no reason why the British government should provide this. The UK will have left the EU. If the European Union wants to provide a postal vote or another provision that is for them to decide.

View - your point about EU treaties is null and void. The UK is leaving the EU, therefore it won't be subject to EU Treaty provisions. It's looking for a third country deal and obviously that will require a new set of paper. On security and intelligence sharing and policing the EU needs the UK and vice versa. I'm sure an arrangement will be made as a third country. I agree with Theresa May when she says the ECJ having oversight is a no, no. Barnier acknowledged yesterday that the end result may be a court of joint arbitration.

The UK have to push hard at this stage. I'm glad they are and I'm glad that the negotiators seem highly skilled and knowledgeable on the issues. Particularly Olly Robbins.

Edit - on passporting I'm surprised nobody has responded to my point about provisions for third countries in MiFID II.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria · 21-07-2017 07:51AM

murphaph wrote: »

Panicking.

Sorry but you can't seem to see the sh1tstorm coming. Read the posts above...it will be compulsory to send all animal derived food products through an EU customs post when exporting into the EU. France has 2 tiny ones at Least Havre and Dunkirk. They'd need to start expanding them now to be ready for no deal day (you do advocate no deal in some circumstances) but I don't think they've even considered this stuff.... France will be in no hurry to build and staff these posts either.

As for the Maybot taking 3 weeks holidays...

Good morning!

To the bolded claim. Only in the most extreme and imaginative circumstances from Professor Moriarty. In those circumstances I certainly would say sod off to the EU. I'm an advocate of a comprehensive third country free trade deal with a short transition.

Britain is over all a net importer of food and already has an export market in food to non-EU countries. In general it has a trade deficit with the EU. A no deal Brexit would be very bad for the EU. Even in respect to future EU funding it would be very messy to retrieve it in the event if no deal.

From what I've seen reported this week there is a serious engagement of the British position in Brussels. I think a deal is going to be struck with a transitional period.

The fear mongering on this thread does reach new heights on a daily basis.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up · 21-07-2017 07:57AM

Fratton Fred wrote:

The headline rate of tax is irrelevant, it's the loopholes that matter.

Every country has tax breaks that make the headline rate irrelevant. Ireland has been pointing this out for years when our low headline rate is brought up.

A "loophole" is where a company is able to manipulate its accounts to take advantage of different tax regimes as in the Apple case. Apple pays full tax on its operations in Ireland. The disputed amount relates to its operations elsewhere.

murphaph · 21-07-2017 08:05AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

View - your point about EU treaties is null and void. The UK is leaving the EU, therefore it won't be subject to EU Treaty provisions. It's looking for a third country deal and obviously that will require a new set of paper.

View is entirely correct. The UK wants far far more than a FTA like CETA. They want something that is almost like EU membership but without the ECJ as highest court. CETA doesn't mention anything about EHIC cards or anything like that! CETA barely mentions services. FTAs rarely if ever do, being concerned with goods. A traditional FTA is useless to the UK, being as it is dependent on service exports to the EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

On security and intelligence sharing and policing the EU needs the UK and vice versa. I'm sure an arrangement will be made as a third country. I agree with Theresa May when she says the ECJ having oversight is a no, no. Barnier acknowledged yesterday that the end result may be a court of joint arbitration.

This all costs money. This extra court to duplicate what the ECJ does already is just one thing that needs duplication. It's got to be asked by the EU side...is it actually worth bending over backwards to give the UK EU-lite membership?

Anyway, I don't see there being nearly enough time to get an FTA in place and so a transitional arrangement is a certainty, but I agree with other posters..there is nothing in it for EFTA members like Liechtenstein for the UK to join their ranks as a transitional arrangement to help ease the UK out of the EU. In fact those EFTA states might rightly take offence at even being asked to facilitate such a measure!

It's also far from certain that all 27 remaining EU states would allow them to continue their membership of the EU after March 2019. Some may actually be happy enough for the UK to crash out on WTO terms, not able to export so much as a beef burger to the EU without it going through a border inspection post (of which there are nowhere near enough nor will there be by 2019).

solodeogloria · 21-07-2017 08:17AM

Good morning,

The CETA court was worth paying for access to a market of 16 million. The UK market is a market of 65 million. I disagree with you when you say a deal for services isn't possible. In financial services there's provisions in MiFID II for it (a point you've not replied to). I don't see any good reason why a FTA can't be agreed on services.

There's no 'membership lite' about it. Policing cooperation and security sharing is something that's agreed bilaterally. It isn't EU membership in any sense.

On citizens both parties are interested in their citizens rights but again this isn't membership. Migration controls will be in place for all new migrants after the implementation period.

Also - I can't see how you're painting the UK offering reciprocal healthcare to those on EHIC as a negative. That's a big concession on their part to even be saying this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 21-07-2017 08:26AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

View - your point about EU treaties is null and void. The UK is leaving the EU, therefore it won't be subject to EU Treaty provisions. It's looking for a third country deal and obviously that will require a new set of paper. On security and intelligence sharing and policing the EU needs the UK and vice versa. I'm sure an arrangement will be made as a third country. I agree with Theresa May when she says the ECJ having oversight is a no, no. Barnier acknowledged yesterday that the end result may be a court of joint arbitration.

There's a real tension here that can't be ignored.

On the one hand, obviously both the UK and the EU-27 have a real interest in continued security/intelligence co-operation and information-sharing.

On the other hand, there's a serious issue of human rights protection here. May has made clear her impatience with the constraints imposed on the UK by its adherence to international human rights conventions, and has previously advocated withdrawing from international arrnagement in relation to this (like the European Court of Human Rights). She, or at any rate people around her, seem frequently to confuse the ECtHR and the ECJ, and the European Convention on Human Rights has in any case been incorporated into EU law and is enforced in EU matters by the ECJ. There's an obvious problem with the notion of the EU handing over information to the UK which might then be used in the UK to treat people (who may in some indeed be EU citizens) in ways which would be regarded as breach of their human rights in the EU, and which in the EU would find a remedy in the ECJ. Quite apart from anything else, you don't want to create a regime whereby an EU government which finds itself contstrained by EU human rights law from doing something can circumvent the restraint by passing information to the UK government and getting it to do that thing.

Hence, some degree of submission to the jurisdiction of the ECJ may be a necessary quid-pro-quo for continuation of the current degree of security and intelligence co-operation.

Thomas__ · 21-07-2017 08:55AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

All of what Thomas_ said.

Plus, as a general principle you can expect existing, permanent members of any organisation to be resistant to admitting a new member who, by their own account, does not see long-term membership of the organisation as desirable, and intends to leave again. And this applies in spades with respect to the notion of the UK joining EFTA for a period, because the UK would, in terms of population, economic muscle, etc, vastly outweigh all the other members of EFTA taken together. Why would EFTA members want the UK to join EFTA for a few years, and then leave again?

I´m sure that the EFTA members are watching the development of the UK-EU-Brexit-Negotiations very close and very critical in regards of the way the UK is performing herself. As it appears these days, the Brits are going to make things just worse for themselves and not better.

Calina · 21-07-2017 08:55AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Further movement rights - I'm particularly not too bothered if a British citizen has to apply for a Schengen Visa after Brexit. I can see why they are pushing hard on it because when they arrived in the EU they had free movement. I think this is a price worth paying for Brexit.

Very magnanimous of you to say that a price which won't apply to you is a price worth paying for Brexit to be paid by people who largely didn't want Brexit because they valued the right of Freedom of Movement.

murphaph · 21-07-2017 09:21AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The CETA court was worth paying for access to a market of 16 million. The UK market is a market of 65 million. I disagree with you when you say a deal for services isn't possible. In financial services there's provisions in MiFID II for it (a point you've not replied to). I don't see any good reason why a FTA can't be agreed on services.

Anything is technically possible but a standard "goods only" FTA with Canada took 7 years to agree. As this would be new territory, it's safe to assume it would not be completed any faster than that. The thing is, the UK wants to "opt-in" to far more than a FTA and its arbitration court. They want "frictionless border traffic" but that entails being in the ustoms union, which they don't want.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Also - I can't see how you're painting the UK offering reciprocal healthcare to those on EHIC as a negative. That's a big concession on their part to even be saying this.

It's hardly a concession! The Great British public want to retain the EHIC as health insurance for many (eg anyone with a pre-existing condition) is prohibitively expensive. The EHIC is a huge benefit to ordinary Brits, but it's another benefit of being in the club.

Enzokk · 21-07-2017 09:30AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The CETA court was worth paying for access to a market of 16 million. The UK market is a market of 65 million. I disagree with you when you say a deal for services isn't possible. In financial services there's provisions in MiFID II for it (a point you've not replied to). I don't see any good reason why a FTA can't be agreed on services.

There's no 'membership lite' about it. Policing cooperation and security sharing is something that's agreed bilaterally. It isn't EU membership in any sense.

On citizens both parties are interested in their citizens rights but again this isn't membership. Migration controls will be in place for all new migrants after the implementation period.

Also - I can't see how you're painting the UK offering reciprocal healthcare to those on EHIC as a negative. That's a big concession on their part to even be saying this.

How do you think MiFID ii will affect the UK after they leave the EU? Remember this is rules and regulations from the EU that third party countries has to follow to access markets of its member states. The same rules that the UK had a role in crafting, which they will not now any longer after March 2019. Surely regulation from the EU will use the ECJ in cases of dispute, will the UK accept this? From my quick reading MiFID II isn't comprehensive access to EU markets for third party countries as some access is not covered in full and you will then have to apply to each countries financial authority for access.

So how do you think this will affect the services industry that the UK proved the EU as you seem very bullish about it.

Zubeneschamali · 21-07-2017 09:39AM

Enzokk wrote: »

So how do you think this will affect the services industry that the UK proved the EU as you seem very bullish about it.

The UK wants it so Solo thinks they will get it.

Like the other ingredients of the impossible cake.

solodeogloria · 21-07-2017 09:52AM

Enzokk wrote: »

How do you think MiFID ii will affect the UK after they leave the EU? Remember this is rules and regulations from the EU that third party countries has to follow to access markets of its member states. The same rules that the UK had a role in crafting, which they will not now any longer after March 2019. Surely regulation from the EU will use the ECJ in cases of dispute, will the UK accept this? From my quick reading MiFID II isn't comprehensive access to EU markets for third party countries as some access is not covered in full and you will then have to apply to each countries financial authority for access.

So how do you think this will affect the services industry that the UK proved the EU as you seem very bullish about it.

Good morning!

My point is that in the MiFID II regulation there is scope for permitting a third country to passport into the single market provided there is regulatory equivalence. The UK will be fully equivalent as of January 3rd with MiFID II and will be fully equivalent on Brexit day.

The European Commission could deem somehow that the UK doesn't qualify but if it grants it to another third country with less equivalence the UK could take legal action against the EU.

I've explained this before on this thread. You can read more about the directive online. It is actually progresses transparency in pre-trade and post-trade activity and on request for quotes data amongst other things. A common strategy for dealing with third countries was lacking in the earlier directive.

There are two models in MiFID II for third countries - cross border (no branch - passporting is given if deemed compliant by the European Commission) and the branch model (approved by a member state and conducted through a member state)

Zubeneschamali - I'm pretty much in agreement that the UK will pay some price in Brexit and they won't have exactly the same privileges as today. The point is to retain as much as possible and to pursue a global Brexit. Initial discussions are beginning on Monday with the United States on trading arrangements.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk · 21-07-2017 10:17AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is that in the MiFID II regulation there is scope for permitting a third country to passport into the single market provided there is regulatory equivalence. The UK will be fully equivalent as of January 3rd with MiFID II and will be fully equivalent on Brexit day.

The European Commission could deem somehow that the UK doesn't qualify but if it grants it to another third country with less equivalence the UK could take legal action against the EU.

I've explained this before on this thread. You can read more about the directive online. It is actually progresses transparency in pre-trade and post-trade activity and on request for quotes data amongst other things. A common strategy for dealing with third countries was lacking in the earlier directive.

There are two models in MiFID II for third countries - cross border (no branch - passporting is given if deemed compliant by the European Commission) and the branch model (approved by a member state and conducted through a member state)

Zubeneschamali - I'm pretty much in agreement that the UK will pay some price in Brexit and they won't have exactly the same privileges as today. The point is to retain as much as possible and to pursue a global Brexit. Initial discussions are beginning on Monday with the United States on trading arrangements.

But they are rules and regulation set by the EU for access to their own markets, right? The rules are negotiated and written by the various parts of the EU, of which the UK was a part of. So some of the rules would be in there specifically because the UK wanted it. Why would the EU keep those regulations in there if the UK have left already? Why have regulations that govern the market that one member wanted when the said member is not there any longer?

But this ignores the main point, EU regulation that will have the ECJ behind it, right? I have no doubt that in the first few years there will be no problem as the UK will have the regulations implemented because they are part of the EU now, but what about 5 years time though?

I thought it was about taking back control, but they have no control over this, right? So will they submit themselves to the EU in this regard?

solodeogloria · 21-07-2017 10:26AM

Good morning!

I'm confused by what you mean. MiFID II is required in all member states by January 3rd.

I see no issue with the UK complying with EU regulations for trading with goods and services with the EU after Brexit in much the same way as I see no issues with complying with US regulations for trading in goods and services.

The UK won't have control over how the EU governs and regulates trade in goods and services. It will have a say in the terms of the free trade agreement.

None of this is earth shattering. The EU has absolute authority under anything that happens within the EU including business conducted in it. The UK will have ultimate sovereignty for what happens in the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 21-07-2017 10:32AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm confused by what you mean. MiFID II is required in all member states by January 3rd.

I see no issue with the UK complying with EU regulations for trading with goods and services with the EU after Brexit in much the same way as I see no issues with complying with US regulations for trading in goods and services.

The UK won't have control over how the EU governs and regulates trade in goods and services. It will have a say in the terms of the free trade agreement.

None of this is earth shattering. The EU has absolute authority under anything that happens within the EU including business conducted in it. The UK will have ultimate sovereignty for what happens in the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK has ultimate sovereignty over what happens in the UK, but to the extent the are committed to regulatory equivalence in order to maintain barrier-free access to the EU they won't really have control, will they? If they exercise their sovereignty in a way which causes the regulatory regimes to diverge, they'll lose access to the EU market.

In other words, if they want to maintain access to the UK market they have a choice between (a) keeping their regulatory regime aligned with EU requirements into which they do have an input, if they remain an EU member, or (b) keeping their regulatory regime aligned with EU requirements into which they don't have an input, as an EU non-member.

Anita Blow · 21-07-2017 11:53AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Go read about the Dutch Irish sandwich and post again.

The headline rate of tax is irrelevant, it's the loopholes that matter.

You're dead right. In fact pwc & the world bank compared headline tax rates VS the effective/actual tax rates (after all loopholes have been accounted for).
Ireland's effective tax rate was 12.4% which was remarkably close to our headline rate. In contrast, there's France whose headline rate of 33% was nearly 5x higher than it's effective corporate tax rate (7.4%), or Belgium whose headline rate is 34% but actual rate is 6.5%.
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/paying-taxes/pdf/pwc-paying-taxes-2015-high-resolution.pdf

Zubeneschamali · 21-07-2017 12:14PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I see no issue with the UK complying with EU regulations for trading with goods and services with the EU after Brexit

Theresa May does - the European Court system.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments