Brexit discussion thread II

Nody · 06-11-2017 10:24PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The worrying thing is his idea that the UK will go back on its promise to protect EU citizens and hasn't made progress on the bill. He states that this will likely delay talks in December.

The most scary bit is this:

If no agreement in Dec, next opportunity to kick-start talks is in March. That leaves *7 months* to agree deal. They can't, and won't.

No that is not the scary bit; the scary bit is EU puts the chance of a hard crash out at over 50% and also clearly stated (which May and most of UK appear to have missed) that if not every single cent is paid there will be no deal, no partial deal, no deal deal or anything else. So yea; start shorting the pound for April 2019...

Thargor · 06-11-2017 11:06PM

Looks like Northern Ireland will take a major hit anyway, the place is going to be a complete welfare state basket case after this, it already was but the figures involved will start to call attention to it in the rest of the UK.

steddyeddy · 06-11-2017 11:31PM

Thargor wrote: »

Looks like Northern Ireland will take a major hit anyway, the place is going to be a complete welfare state basket case after this, it already was but the figures involved will start to call attention to it in the rest of the UK.

NI is probrably seen as a price the Brexiters in the rest of the UK are willing to pay.

Junkyard Tom · 06-11-2017 11:32PM

Thargor wrote: »

Looks like Northern Ireland will take a major hit anyway, the place is going to be a complete welfare state basket case after this, it already was but the figures involved will start to call attention to it in the rest of the UK.

Indeed.

Leonard Hofstadter · 06-11-2017 11:34PM

Nody wrote: »

No that is not the scary bit; the scary bit is EU puts the chance of a hard crash out at over 50% and also clearly stated (which May and most of UK appear to have missed) that if not every single cent is paid there will be no deal, no partial deal, no deal deal or anything else. So yea; start shorting the pound for April 2019...

The other scary thing is how little the penny has dropped with the hardcore Brexiteers, people like Julia Hartley-Brewer are utterly delusional about how this thing is going to work and are basically advocating a 'no deal' unless the EU does what the UK wants, have a listen to the first four minutes of this YouTube video in particular, it's mind-blowing.

They actually think the UK will survive just fine without a trade deal - but in that case, why the hell are they so desperate to leave the EU so they can do free trade deals with the rest of the world? The contradiction is obvious (to me at least)!

Not an uncommon attitude amongst hardcore Brexiteers by the way - 'they need us more than we need them', 'we don't owe them a penny', 'they (the EU) are bluffing and will give us what we want' and all the other usual rabble rousing etc. Oh and there's a new one, apparently there's some group going to launch a legal challenge if the British Government agrees to pay €20 billion without any sort of a deal (despite the fact that the previous Government agreed to fund up to 2020).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTGweC0MM9Q&ab_channel=PoliticsUK

With this kind of logic I can't see how a deal will be done to be honest, we'd better get used to border crossings once more (and that will never last, if it didn't work in the 70s it's not going to work now either).

Nody · 06-11-2017 11:49PM

captainspeed wrote: »

The other scary thing is how little the penny has dropped with the hardcore Brexiteers, people like Julia Hartley-Brewer are utterly delusional about how this thing is going to work and are basically advocating a 'no deal' unless the EU does what the UK wants, have a listen to the first four minutes of this YouTube video in particular, it's mind-blowing.

They actually think the UK will survive just fine without a trade deal - but in that case, why the hell are they so desperate to leave the EU so they can do free trade deals with the rest of the world? The contradiction is obvious (to me at least)!

Not an uncommon attitude amongst hardcore Brexiteers by the way - 'they need us more than we need them', 'we don't owe them a penny', 'they (the EU) are bluffing and will give us what we want' and all the other usual rabble rousing etc. Oh and there's a new one, apparently there's some group going to launch a legal challenge if the British Government agrees to pay €20 billion without any sort of a deal (despite the fact that the previous Government agreed to fund up to 2020).

No they actually think EU will come running back crying and will make a deal, any deal, because of the sassy stiff upper lip of the British. The big question mark is how they will react once they realize that it will not happen and the consequences that will bring in general. I mean if nothing else they should fear for their political future once UK economy goes down but hey that's project fear talk.

solodeogloria · 07-11-2017 12:07AM

Good evening!

captainspeed wrote: »

They actually think the UK will survive just fine without a trade deal - but in that case, why the hell are they so desperate to leave the EU so they can do free trade deals with the rest of the world? The contradiction is obvious (to me at least)!

I think the vast majority of people in the UK want some form of a deal with the European Union at the time of writing.

The right to forge free trade deals with the rest of the world is also the right freedom to desire from Brexit. Expanding trade with the US and China alone in the coming decade after Brexit would be extremely beneficial to Britain. Those two countries alone make up about half of what the UK trades with the whole of the EU. Expanding this £100bn worth of trade with a more beneficial trading arrangement would create jobs in Britain. That's before we start talking about others. Yet some posters claim that I've not highlighted opportunities from Brexit when I clearly have.

Reason and logic suggests that the best arrangement for the UK as a whole is to preserve as much trade with the EU27 as possible whilst gaining and utilising the freedom to sign trade deals to trade with other countries on more liberal terms.

captainspeed wrote: »

Not an uncommon attitude amongst hardcore Brexiteers by the way - 'they need us more than we need them', 'we don't owe them a penny', 'they (the EU) are bluffing and will give us what we want' and all the other usual rabble rousing etc. Oh and there's a new one, apparently there's some group going to launch a legal challenge if the British Government agrees to pay €20 billion without any sort of a deal (despite the fact that the previous Government agreed to fund up to 2020).

Technically speaking the UK doesn't "owe" the EU anything. It isn't "owing". It's that the UK has pledged to give money to the EU. That is an obligation it should pay, but it isn't a debt and it is wrong to state that it is.

Now - the question is what exactly are the UK's obligations as a leaving member state. That is a matter under dispute between the UK and the EU at present. I personally expect movement on this as the EU clarifies what the future arrangement will look like. For me personally I think £36bn net is probably the right amount after the ~£10bn European Investment Bank taken into account. It is a trade off, and the money argument is a bargaining chip. There's no way that the UK won't use it for that purpose.

captainspeed wrote: »

With this kind of logic I can't see how a deal will be done to be honest, we'd better get used to border crossings once more (and that will never last, if it didn't work in the 70s it's not going to work now either).

I'm not as pessimistic. I think we'll see movement in December on both sides. I still think the prophesies of doom are the irrational side of the Brexit debate. On the face of it at this juncture, Britain is holding up remarkably well in comparison to the projections of project fear, and I suspect it will continue to do so.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight · 07-11-2017 12:57AM

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41887401

CBI president Paul Drechsler said about 10% of businesses had "started to reallocate employees, to replan their investments... by the end of the year that will be 25% and by March 60% of all firms will have made big decisions, which are their contingency plans to prepare for the unknown".

murphaph · 07-11-2017 07:06AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41887401

Yeah the unbelievable is slowly starting to become cold hard reality. The Tories really would sacrifice the UK economy on the Brexit altar. Business probably didn't really believe it could happen but the trickle will soon turn into a flood.

ambro25 · 07-11-2017 10:15AM

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah the unbelievable is slowly starting to become cold hard reality. The Tories really would sacrifice the UK economy on the Brexit altar. Business probably didn't really believe it could happen but the trickle will soon turn into a flood.

QFT, but I'd object (respectfully

) that the more realistically-minded and pragmatic business types (those who copped on early, that this was political exploitation of an ideological crusade, moreover made unstoppable by the UK political system and the make-up of the current opposition) (e.g. me

) have long believed that it could happen, if not by design then by accident, and set about implementing contingency plans when the EU refused to countenance May's promises in Florence (on the back of Davis' ensuing delivery failure).

That's exactly why, after May got onboard with her 3 Brexiteers, I wanted to set up an EU subsidiary early; but that ship sailed earlier this year when the firm decided to expand nationally instead (only 1 choice available out of the set of limited investment resources), since 'others' in the firm seemingly decided to believe the "it'll be grand" noises (which are legally groundless, absent a deal; and some 'cake and eating it' that deal would have to be) from our Chartered bodies about continuing rights of legal representation in the EU, and still believe that it will all work out. Good for them if it does, is all I'll say.

To hear some local clients plus a couple of business relations involved in such contingency planning for the past few months (all outside of London), it's turning into a flood RTFN. None of it is making the news unsurprisingly, but the fact is that I know 3 local manufacturing businesses ('finishing' really, as they import components and assemble locally) are running down UK stocks and quietly ferrying assets over to the EU opportunistically (ad hoc to complement 'normal' EU-bound loads) as I type this post.

I'm beginning to wonder (-marginally, but still) if, as a result of unfolding and cascading events, having planned our family and my job moves by Q1 2018, I've not accidentally left it a tad late. My notice isn't even in yet (awaiting signed contracts) :pac:

Nody · 07-11-2017 10:37AM

The US commerce secretary for trade has been kind enough to remind us all what a trade deal with the USA would involve for UK:

But he did suggest there would be problems if the UK chose to keep the current EU ban on genetically modified food and chlorinated chicken.

His trip to the UK had allowed him to “address with the UK some concerns we have that they may be tempted to include (provisions) in their agreement with the European Commission (EC) that could be problems for a subsequent FTA (Free Trade Agreement) with the US”

ambro25 · 07-11-2017 12:20PM

Nody wrote: »

The US commerce secretary for trade has been kind enough to remind us all what a trade deal with the USA would involve for UK:

Wealthier people in the UK should still able to maintain a good life hygiene (more free time and disposable income for sporting activities) and to buy quality foods, though. So at least the gene pool should (eventually) benefit :pac:

Nody · 07-11-2017 12:49PM

ambro25 wrote: »

Wealthier people in the UK should still able to maintain a good life hygiene (more free time and disposable income for sporting activities) and to buy quality foods, though. So at least the gene pool should (eventually) benefit :pac:

Until you remember Trump is wealthy

Seriously though the larger problem would not even be GM food etc. but the simple fact UK farmers would never be able to compete and be knocked out. That would leave no middle ground food but only the locally crafted yada yada and American/world imports

demfad · 07-11-2017 01:06PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!
Expanding trade with the US and China alone in the coming decade after Brexit would be extremely beneficial to Britain. Those two countries alone make up about half of what the UK trades with the whole of the EU. Expanding this £100bn worth of trade with a more beneficial trading arrangement would create jobs in Britain. That's before we start talking about others. Yet some posters claim that I've not highlighted opportunities from Brexit when I clearly have.

Reason and logic suggests that the best arrangement for the UK as a whole is to preserve as much trade with the EU27 as possible whilst gaining and utilising the freedom to sign trade deals to trade with other countries on more liberal terms.

Like Ireland, a significant proportion of US/Chinese trade and investment relates to membership of the SM. Your first error is to assume that the particular trade and investment already in place would stay in place: it clearly would not. To get more trade with the US and China the UK would need to deregulate and drop it's standards. This locks large parts of its economy out of trade with the SM. You don't address this.

For me personally I think £36bn net is probably the right amount after the ~£10bn European Investment Bank taken into account. It is a trade off, and the money argument is a bargaining chip. There's no way that the UK won't use it for that purpose.

The UK should pay what it signed up to and promised to pay. That's what Barnier suggested and that's what May implied in her Florence speech.
Back tracking on this will not result in anything but the cliff edge drawing nearer.

I'm not as pessimistic. I think we'll see movement in December on both sides. I still think the prophesies of doom are the irrational side of the Brexit debate. On the face of it at this juncture, Britain is holding up remarkably well in comparison to the projections of project fear, and I suspect it will continue to do so.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Why bother...

demfad · 07-11-2017 02:18PM

A question debated here often is the compatibility of Brexit with the Good Friday Agreement. Well the principle barriers on both sides of the border have given their verdict: Not compatible.

Paul McGarry SC, chairman of The Bar of Ireland, and Liam McCollum QC, chairman of The Bar of Northern Ireland, made the remarks at the Annual Bar Conference in London, The Brief reports.

The pair were speaking alongside four other UK legal figures in a panel discussion examining “Brexit and the Bar”.

Mr McGarry told conference delegates that “the Good Friday Agreement and Brexit are incompatible for a number of reasons”.

He said one was the guarantee on free movement in the Good Friday Agreement, which was not compatible with the imposition of a post-Brexit border; another the entitlement of people born in Northern Ireland to Irish citizenship, which would mean a direct route to EU citizenship.

Mr McCollum described it as “an insoluble an issue as you could possibly imagine”, and agreed Brexit would “undermine” the Agreement.

He pointed out that the Agreement could not be amended and would therefore have to be renegotiated.

Igotadose · 07-11-2017 02:44PM

demfad wrote: »

A question debated here often is the compatibility of Brexit with the Good Friday Agreement. Well the principle barriers on both sides of the border have given their verdict: Not compatible.

IANAL. IMO it's kind of hard to put a ton of stock in these statements as there's nothing clear yet on Brexit. Still, it's pretty scary if they're right. Renegotiating the GFA isn't going to happen, or if they make renegotiation of the GFA an 'entry criteria' to final Brexit, it's not going to happen anytime soon. Like, years. Maybe.

solodeogloria · 07-11-2017 02:56PM

demfad wrote: »

Like Ireland, a significant proportion of US/Chinese trade and investment relates to membership of the SM. Your first error is to assume that the particular trade and investment already in place would stay in place: it clearly would not. To get more trade with the US and China the UK would need to deregulate and drop it's standards. This locks large parts of its economy out of trade with the SM. You don't address this.

Good afternoon!

I don't deny that the UK should aim for as good a trading relationship as possible and that this has some benefit for US and Chinese businesses.

Similarly a liberalisation of tariff and non-tariff barriers for American and Chinese goods and services into Britain would be beneficial to them, likewise a liberalisation of British goods and services into China and America would increase British output into these countries and would create jobs.

Membership of the single market and customs union prevents the second opportunity. The best outcome from my perspective is a good FTA with the EU and a liberalisation of trading terms with the rest of the world.

demfad wrote: »

The UK should pay what it signed up to and promised to pay. That's what Barnier suggested and that's what May implied in her Florence speech.
Back tracking on this will not result in anything but the cliff edge drawing nearer.

As I said in the part of my post that you didn't quote I've said that this figure is disputed. The way to ease the British position is to concede on trading terms and transitional arrangements.

It is a negotiation, it will be used as a trade-off.

demfad wrote: »

Why bother...

Project Fear was wrong during the referendum and if these prophesies of doom are predicated on speculative scenarios that aren't certain then it is wise to take them all with a lot of salt.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

demfad · 07-11-2017 02:57PM

Igotadose wrote: »

IANAL. IMO it's kind of hard to put a ton of stock in these statements as there's nothing clear yet on Brexit. Still, it's pretty scary if they're right. Renegotiating the GFA isn't going to happen, or if they make renegotiation of the GFA an 'entry criteria' to final Brexit, it's not going to happen anytime soon. Like, years. Maybe.

I guess it assumes the Tory red lines: out of Customs Union and Single Market.

demfad · 07-11-2017 03:26PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!
I don't deny that the UK should aim for as good a trading relationship as possible and that this has some benefit for US and Chinese businesses.

Similarly a liberalisation of tariff and non-tariff barriers for American and Chinese goods and services into Britain would be beneficial to them, likewise a liberalisation of British goods and services into China and America would increase British output into these countries and would create jobs.

Membership of the single market and customs union prevents the second opportunity. The best outcome from my perspective is a good FTA with the EU and a liberalisation of trading terms with the rest of the world.

Can you address the points I made please:

that you CANT reduce regulations as the US wants while having deep access to the SM
That current investment from US and other external to EU countries is heavily dependent on the UKs acess to single market

As I said in the part of my post that you didn't quote I've said that this figure is disputed. The way to ease the British position is to concede on trading terms and transitional arrangements.

It is a negotiation, it will be used as a trade-off.

It is NOT an even negotiation. The UK is out of time. It either pays the £60 billion or it may lose trillions by allowing its economy to slide off the cliff. The UK put itself in this weak position by triggering article 50 and the 2 year countdown to the cliffedge, before knowing what they were doing.

Project Fear was wrong during the referendum and if these prophesies of doom are predicated on speculative scenarios that aren't certain then it is wise to take them all with a lot of salt.

The UK will leave in March 2019 is this a speculative scenario?
No, good. We know this and we know the EU parliament will make final decision on the deal. If there is no money there will be no deal.

Then each of the scenarios for exit:

Norway, Switzerland, FTA, No deal. The effects of these can be evaluated pretty accurately.
The EU has already done this for the UK-EU trade.

The UK was forced to release it's 58 impact reports: due out today. Only problem is, Davis admitted they aren't extensive, there aren't detailed, they are just a shoddy rehash and gathering of other docs including the informationless whitepaper.

I wouldnt take the EUs assessment with a pinch of salt. But definately take the UKs, if they produce anything to assess.

ancapailldorcha · 07-11-2017 03:59PM

demfad wrote: »

I wouldnt take the EUs assessment with a pinch of salt. But definately take the UKs, if they produce anything to assess.

They have. They're just not saying anything because they know it's a disaster in waiting and it looks like we'll be waiting for a while yet.

First Up · 07-11-2017 04:04PM

demfad wrote: »

Can you address the points I made please:
that you CANT reduce regulations as the US wants while having deep access to the SM

This is exactly why there will be a border of some sort between NI and ROI.

The UK intends (well it has no choice) to allow US goods into its market under different - less restricitive - terms than does the EU in return for what it hopes will be better access to the US market. The UK will be required to do the same in negotiating its trade "deals" with China, India, Japan and the rest of the planet. The UK Govt. desperately needs to show some trade benefits from Brexit so they will offer virtually anything to such countries to be able to show that being outside the EU is "better".

Unless NI is excluded from that, or unless traffic between NI and ROI is supervised/controlled, this island could provide an "unapproved road" of sorts and serve as a back-door to the EU for the US, China and the rest for the stuff that Britain allows in under terms outside those agreed between the EU and those countries.

That will not be allowed happen but I have no doubt that some British politicians (and maybe public servants) think that the GFA and the delicacy of the Irish situation will offer them this window of opportunity. They are greviously mistaken about that, as is been made very clear to Mr Davis and his team. You never know, it might even sink in to some delusional posters here.

ambro25 · 07-11-2017 05:12PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They have. They're just not saying anything because they know it's a disaster in waiting and it looks like we'll be waiting for a while yet.

That there aren't "58 documents to release" is at least partially a lie.

Partially, because even though there may well be a 'single' aggregate document (and the Tories are clearly playing semantics, buying time to doctor whilst they compile 58 distinct docs out of the existing research/unique document), the research was definitely collated by sector: I took part in the assessment about the UK legal & professional services.

I can even tell you the date (07 July 2017), time (15:30) and the outfit (Freshwater UK independent communications consultancy) commissioned for the task, to whom we spoke, from my company diary. It was a 35 minutes call.

So there must be sectoral summaries at least, which should be disclosable by the deadline (pending the full fat stuff).

Unless they're even more incompetent than we're led to believe (and that would be reaching downright stupefying levels of incompetence).

That it is Steve Baker who gave lip service to the Commons deadline, does not surprise me one bit. I sure hope that twonk gets the book thrown at him for contempt of Parliament (hey, I can dream, right?)

Zubeneschamali · 07-11-2017 05:19PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They have. They're just not saying anything because they know it's a disaster in waiting and it looks like we'll be waiting for a while yet.

Labour has demanded for weeks the release of the papers, which detail the potential impact of Brexit across various parts of the economy, prompting speculation ministers are reluctant because of the gloomy assessments they contained.

I don't think they are likely to be gloomy at all, gloomy sounds sort of dull and depressing.

These reports will be much worse than that.

blanch152 · 07-11-2017 05:20PM

demfad wrote: »

A question debated here often is the compatibility of Brexit with the Good Friday Agreement. Well the principle barriers on both sides of the border have given their verdict: Not compatible.

I have to say that they are scaremongering.

Citizenship is granted by individual countries not under EU law. So, Brexit has zero effect on the citizenship laws of Ireland.

The CTA predates the EU and so long as Ireland is outside Schengen, free movement isn't an issue. However, the right to health services, social security etc. may be an issue, but that is a wider issue with a greater impact on British ex-pats in Spain.

ancapailldorcha · 07-11-2017 05:21PM

ambro25 wrote: »

That there aren't "58 documents to release" is at least partially a lie.

Partially, because even though there may well be a 'single' aggregate document (and the Tories are clearly playing semantics, buying time to doctor whilst they compile 58 distinct docs out of the existing research/unique document), the research was definitely collated by sector: I took part in the assessment about the UK legal & professional services.

I can even tell you the date (07 July 2017), time (15:30) and the outfit (Freshwater UK independent communications consultancy) commissioned for the task, to whom we spoke, from my company diary. It was a 35 minutes call.

So there must be sectoral summaries at least, which should be disclosable by the deadline (pending the full fat stuff).

Unless they're even more incompetent than we're led to believe (and that would be reaching downright stupefying levels of incompetence).

That it is Steve Baker who gave lip service to the Commons deadline, does not surprise me one bit. I sure hope that twonk gets the book thrown at him for contempt of Parliament (hey, I can dream, right?)

That's pretty mad. I suppose you are quite constrained about what you can say here. I'm quite interested to know how it went.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Labour has demanded for weeks the release of the papers, which detail the potential impact of Brexit across various parts of the economy, prompting speculation ministers are reluctant because of the gloomy assessments they contained.

I don't think they are likely to be gloomy at all, gloomy sounds sort of dull and depressing.

These reports will be much worse than that.

I did say disaster

. I was precise in my choice of rhetoric.

ambro25 · 07-11-2017 06:03PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's pretty mad. I suppose you are quite constrained about what you can say here. I'm quite interested to know how it went.

There isn't much we said during that call, that I hadn't already posted on here and other forums, and which hadn't been public knowledge since before the referendum (note the date):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbqx2neOIcs

(by the way, there is still nothing by way of updates or answers, to any of the unknowns, conjectures and scenarios raised in the above May 2016 conference; and that is not a metaphor, an allegory or rethoric: I really mean, n-o-t-h-i-n-g...<tic-toc-tic-toc>)

Like or loathe him, as Richard North has long explained, Brexit is a legal process above all else.

Now the law is a very vast concept, and I only practice a very niche aspect/portion of it.

But that aspect/portion of it is highly technical (and here, I mean "technical" in terms of domestic law, rules, procedures, timescales and interrelationship and interdependence of same with foreign and supranational (incl.EU) law, rules, rules, timescales; not "technical" as in the subject-matter of patents).

So although not an expert in the field of international treaty law (in the sense of the TEU, TFEU, Vienna Convention, etc.), I benefit from more than a passing understanding of the legal implications of the various Brexit scenarios and the legal consequences of these implications (because for all the various aspects and niches of 'Law' in general, general principles (of relevance, of application, of interpretation, of cessation, etc.) transcend them just the same). Unsurprisingly, nowhere more so than in our very niche line of work.

As for the rest, an international business-focused higher education background and about 3 decades spent in business in the private sector (the last 2 approx. interacting generally at boardroom level), always in an exporting context or another, provides me with enough grounding (and cynicism) to appreciate the practical implications.

The call did not go down well: the researcher was quite clearly fishing for positives, more so than an objective assessment of the ins and outs...and we had none to give her (bar a few suggestions to try and cushion the UK profession; protectionist suggestions, I regret to say...but needs must).

Calina · 07-11-2017 06:12PM

Out of interest, ambro25, did you get a sense that the researcher had a reasonable knowledge of the sector or was it...less focussed than that as a conversation?

ambro25 · 07-11-2017 07:44PM

Calina wrote: »

Out of interest, ambro25, did you get a sense that the researcher had a reasonable knowledge of the sector or was it...less focussed than that as a conversation?

The researcher was your standard PR/comms type working to a script. Intelligent and sounding it, but clearly unfamiliar with the sector and IP legal practice in particular.

We had a bit of a job getting her to understand the conditionality of our rights of representation in the EU upon the UK's (full) EU membership, and the consequences for EU trade marks' owners of leaving the scope of the EUTMR (the UK 'portion' of the rights goes 'pooof!', absent a deal with transitional provisions), both pretty fundamental issues to the UK IP sector (and British rights owners of course) arising solely out of 'Brexit'.

I pitched up about the Irish situation (same as EU: kicked off the registers, no more Irish-bound work), but we essentially 'gave up' on that, and on the exact same issues for Community designs <made significantly worse by the legal test of 'novelty' that is fundamental for those>, we could hear the eyes glazing over

So it certainly sounded as if she hadn't talked to any other IP firms before us, nor been briefed about the issues raised in the video which I linked above. She started getting a bit 'insistent' about positives ("but can you think of any positives for your industry?", "but do you think your firm will eventually be better off?" <etc>.) about 20 mins into the call.

I guess we must have come across too gloomy for her brief..sorry, taste.

But then, we didn't have an EU office (I was still deep in research about 'how to do it' and which, unlike leasing a warehouse and buying an off-the-shelf S.à.r.l., is really no regulatory picnic for our 'game'), so talking about the expected (and unavoidable, short of not Brexiting at all) consequences of Brexit on our business was hardly an uplifting topic.

Call me Al · 07-11-2017 08:15PM

Reading your post Ambro I'm struck, not by the fact that your company was consulted, as part of an industry-wide approach for input on brexit, but rather that data and information of this type hasn't been compiled in advance of the actual referendum taking place.

Surely comprehensive information like this should've been presented in parliament before any mp could definitively say what way they felt their party and constituents should have voted.

Eta maybe that comes under the "expert " category, and sure we know what some on the brexit side thought of experts.

ambro25 · 07-11-2017 08:29PM

Call me Al wrote: »

Reading your post Ambro I'm struck, not by the fact that your company was consulted, as part of an industry-wide approach for input on brexit, but rather that data and information of this type hasn't been compiled in advance of the actual referendum taking place.

Surely comprehensive information like this should've been presented in parliament before any mp could definitively say what way they felt their party and constituents should have voted.

Certainly...if the referendum had been 'meant' as a meaningful popular consultation, thought-through and with campaigns informed by fact and rigorously monitored by the Electoral Commission.

But then, the referendum wasn't that. By a country mile. It was a knee-jerk single party-issue political gamble, which was supposed to return a "remain" result.

And it was an advisory referendum in any case: I long believed the (clear explicit, unambiguous - couched in plain black on white Statutory paper) advisory character of it, was a failsafe Cameron & supporters deliberately built into it, and that in case of an (accidental) leave majority <against all expectations right until the actual referendum> Cameron -before he stood down on the morning of the result- then May once she got into No.10, would acknowledge the result, point to its advisory character and then do the politician thing in the national interest (i.e. promise to 'act' on the result, in the same way politicians have always 'learned the lessons' and promise to act/do better/solve issues). Instead, the centrists and the opposition blinked for too long, and so the hardline Brexiteers invaded the political void and ran riot - and still are.

But well. We are where we are, as they say. Or rather, they are where they are. Even though an EU immigrant, I'm voting in the referendum after all. With my feet.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments