Merged Now What?

[Lothian]

The civil servants from the departments will come up with various policy options and associated options and impacts appraisals including full costings and then the Minister for the department will then ask them to work on those that the cabinet office agrees should be the policy way forward. It normally takes about 6 months to do just one of these and here it will be a huge amount of work in every department as there are major EU impacts in everything from small business loan guarantees to University course structures. I can't think of a department that will not have to spend a considerable amount of time working up numerous plans and I suspect that there may need to be a cross department mapping exercise to identify all the various parts of policy and related legislation that will be affected. This of course is not counting if a new act or a change of an existing act also needs parliamentary and House of Lords time. I really hope that the 18 departments decide to work together and do not get derailed by various pet policy initiatives of their Ministers, otherwise this could take a long number of years to get finished.

It is a tremendous amount of work. I saw someone naively criticise departments for not making plans given the close nature of the polls. A lot of work will not be done while Brexit takes over. That will have a noticeable effect on outputs, missed targets and a poorer service to the public. To do all that when it might not be necessary would be a criminal waste of public money. There have been huge cuts to the civil service. There is not the capacity to divert resources without something suffering.

Given the button is yet to be pressed there is no rush
Nothing can be done until the Government has a plan. Do we simply rewrite EU laws into the UK or is the plan to do something different? If so what? Civil servants can't make that decision.

 

[MCel58]

I have edited my original post to cover some of Lothian's points. Also remember that Civil servants cannot get involved in the politics, they are there to serve the minister to deliver the policies set out by cabinet and the Queen's speech. So given that until the referendum the policy was to remain in the EU the civil service could not have been used to come up with alternatives.

 

[CapelDodger]

No, I am talking about THR policy in the UK, which is basically straightjacketed by the EU TPD. We could have much better rules on smokeless tobacco products, all of which would serve as good alternatives to smokers which could cut smoking prevalence and smoking related disease in half.

Leaving half for future generations hooked on nicotine by the tobacco equivalent of alcopops. The more ambitious target is to get nicotine out of the picture, which is best achieved by preventing new recruitment. Nicotine has no valid role in society.

Vaping may help existing smokers, but they are lost souls where this is concerned. It enables them.

You put a lot of store in future generations' benefits from the costs of freedom we pay today by quitting the EU, but discount the effect on future generations of a new delivery-system for an addictive substance. You might want to give some thought to that. Try to ignore the monkey on your back while you do so.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

None of that scenario contained anything other than opinion:

"damage too large"....."taxes rise too much"......."costs too high"....."too time consuming".......

All matters of opinion, not fact.

No, I am talking about THR policy in the UK, which is basically straightjacketed by the EU TPD. We could have much better rules on smokeless tobacco products, all of which would serve as good alternatives to smokers which could cut smoking prevalence and smoking related disease in half.

Trust me, I know the THR issue very well and could write pages and pages of detail about it, and how and why it's a terrible piece of legislation on multiple fronts. That's not the point of this thread though.



That's not the point. My point is if they screwed the TPD up *this* badly then what else did they screw up, and what else might they screw up in the future?

The economy is hardly tanked either, it's in a sharp downturn sure, but we are barely 2 weeks past the referendum result and there's not going to be a settling down of things until we have a new PM and a plan to give financial markets more certainty.

I thought you were talking about snus as well though? It's prohibited from sake in the EU but it was banned by the uk too. Wasn't it Esther and that's life that campaigned against it?

 

[CapelDodger]

I have edited my original post to cover some of Lothian's points. Also remember that Civil servants cannot get involved in the politics, they are there to serve the minister to deliver the policies set out by cabinet and the Queen's speech. So given that until the referendum the policy was to remain in the EU the civil service could not have been used to come up with alternatives.

Absolutely.

That said, the Leave camp, which is hardly newborn, could have recruited qualified staff to come up with a substantial plan of their own. If they ever did try that they must have discovered there is no credible plan that actually presents a better arrangement than we already enjoy.

Which is to say, the "best" deal is probably "worse" than the status quo ante.

 

[CapelDodger]

I thought you were talking about snus as well though? It's prohibited from sake in the EU but it was banned by the uk too. Wasn't it Esther and that's life that campaigned against it?

Kind to the lungs, a bugger for mouth-cancer. That's something we know about in South Wales, where chewing-baccy is a tradition (you can't smoke underground, obviously). Until a few generations ago miners used to grow their own tobacco and cure it in molasses to make their chew.

A definite mouth-cancer hot-spot, as you'd expect.

 

[Darat]

It is a tremendous amount of work. I saw someone naively criticise departments for not making plans given the close nature of the polls. A lot of work will not be done while Brexit takes over. That will have a noticeable effect on outputs, missed targets and a poorer service to the public. To do all that when it might not be necessary would be a criminal waste of public money. There have been huge cuts to the civil service. There is not the capacity to divert resources without something suffering.

Given the button is yet to be pressed there is no rush
Nothing can be done until the Government has a plan. Do we simply rewrite EU laws into the UK or is the plan to do something different? If so what? Civil servants can't make that decision.

Many of the "EU" laws are enshrined in UK law, that's how the EU works. So many of the changes that many of the leave campaign wanted will require new legislation, which will require parliamentary time. I really can't see how this could be achieved in 5 years never mind 2 especially if we want good legislation.

 

[MikeG]

Many of the "EU" laws are enshrined in UK law, that's how the EU works. So many of the changes that many of the leave campaign wanted will require new legislation, which will require parliamentary time. I really can't see how this could be achieved in 5 years never mind 2 especially if we want good legislation.

I think I said on here a few days ago that one of the proposed solutions to this workload is a quick and simple bill to enshrine all EU regulations and directives etc into UK law, and the lawmakers can then spend the next 5 or more years unpicking the stuff we don't want. As I said then, enshrining EU rules into UK law en masse may not fit with the expectations of large numbers of Brexiteers.

 

[MikeG]

I have edited my original post to cover some of Lothian's points. Also remember that Civil servants cannot get involved in the politics, they are there to serve the minister to deliver the policies set out by cabinet and the Queen's speech. So given that until the referendum the policy was to remain in the EU the civil service could not have been used to come up with alternatives.

That simply isn't so. They often prepare discussion documents on events which may or may not happen. The Bank of England did it, for instance. It didn't have to be a mass of detailed planning: an outline of the various potential frameworks for a Brexit agreement would have been a good start.

 

[CapelDodger]

It is a tremendous amount of work. I saw someone naively criticise departments for not making plans given the close nature of the polls. A lot of work will not be done while Brexit takes over. That will have a noticeable effect on outputs, missed targets and a poorer service to the public. To do all that when it might not be necessary would be a criminal waste of public money. There have been huge cuts to the civil service. There is not the capacity to divert resources without something suffering.

Some kind of points system should sort that.

On the bright side this Tory government won't have the leisure to actively dismantle British society in pursuit of their peculiar ideological goals. Society may fall apart but at least it won't be demolished.

Given the button is yet to be pressed there is no rush

A frozen conflict, so to speak. It has been suggested that Art50 be delayed until after the French and German elections in 2017 so that we know who we're negotiating with. Another two years negotiation brings us up to the next General Election, and it would only be reasonable to delay matters again.

This is why the UK isn't going to leave the EU.

Nothing can be done until the Government has a plan.

Fortunately we don't really have a government so it's business as usual. Sort of. It'll soon seem usual, anyway.

Do we simply rewrite EU laws into the UK or is the plan to do something different? If so what? Civil servants can't make that decision.

If there was an easy way some smug KCMG would have told us about it.

 

[CapelDodger]

That simply isn't so. They often prepare discussion documents on events which may or may not happen. The Bank of England did it, for instance.

The Bank of England is not part of the Civil Service, and doesn't prepare "discussion documents" because wtf are they?

It didn't have to be a mass of detailed planning: an outline of the various potential frameworks for a Brexit agreement would have been a good start.

Nobody has the slightest clue what a "Brexit agreement" might constitute when there's no understanding of what might be agreeable. Is freedom of movement agreeable? If so, who says so? Is freedom of trade an absolute requirement? If so, who say so?

The Civil Service can't say so. They - and the BoE - can project certain scenarios, and one of those projections produced an emergency budget in the autumn as a result of guaranteed uncertainty in pretty much everything after an Exit vote. By even a sliver of a margin.

Of course now that the deficit reduction target has been jettisoned there's no pressing need to balance the books. Which must be a relief for a sitting Chancellor in a transitional government.

Osborne may come out of this whole debacle smugger than ever.

 

[Ambrosia]

Leaving half for future generations hooked on nicotine by the tobacco equivalent of alcopops. The more ambitious target is to get nicotine out of the picture, which is best achieved by preventing new recruitment. Nicotine has no valid role in society.

That sounds good, but then you'd need a world without potatoes and tomatoes. Like tobacco both plants belong to the genus nightshade, and contain small amounts of nicotine as a result.

It's not nicotine that's the problem healthwise, it's benign at small enough doses, it's the form of delivery.

Nicotine is a stimulant and has about as much use in modern society as does caffeine, which is widely used. We've had a generation of people villifying smoking (with good reason) but they often conflate nicotine with smoking and the two are not the same.

Vaping may help existing smokers, but they are lost souls where this is concerned. It enables them.

An average 20-a-day smoker that quits smoking before age 40 has approximately the same risks of smoking related disease after ~10 years smokefree* as a never smoker does. It's not just vaping, or just snus. It's the whole range of THR therapies. What works well for one smoker is less effective for a different smoker. Right now the options are cold turkey quit, NRT or Champix. NRT is shown to be completely ineffective by numerous studies. I think even homeopathy is more efficacious, it's that bad. Champix has horrific side effects.

Just telling kids to never start is not going to work and telling people they should just stop is about as helpful as telling obese people to just eat less and do more exercise.

~20% of UK adults smoke, most of them will suffer smoking related disease and this puts a huge strain on NHS resources. If there were basically cost free methods available right now (i.e. legalising and sensible regulation of already existing smoke free alternatives) we could halve smoking prevalence (using Swedens figures as a model) and presumably save 50% of the cost to the NHS in the longer term. It's win win, unless you're a tobacco company.
Except we can't, because TPD.

You put a lot of store in future generations' benefits from the costs of freedom we pay today by quitting the EU, but discount the effect on future generations of a new delivery-system for an addictive substance.

Nicotine is no more of an evil addictive substance than caffeine is. I can back this up with science if you're interested. Though probably best to take this to another thread.

*from memory, I'm away working and not at my main PC so can't pull up the link right now, happy to correct this figure later if it's wrong.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

You don't chew it, so it's cleaner to use (no spitting involved). There are other smaller differences but that's the main one.

But chewing tobacco remains on sale? It's only snus that is affected?

 

[MCel58]

That simply isn't so. They often prepare discussion documents on events which may or may not happen. The Bank of England did it, for instance. It didn't have to be a mass of detailed planning: an outline of the various potential frameworks for a Brexit agreement would have been a good start.

I agree that very often there are discussion documents but they do not have anything like the approach taken to get to a policy document and also they are only undertaken as a first step towards a potential policy direction as guided by the Minister and cabinet office. I don't think anyone should underestimate how detailed a job this is and as I said above will probably first involve a mapping exercise to see what parts of statute and policy actually are involved. Also, the Bank of England is not part of the civil service. I also agree that you could have an act to enshrine all EU legislation as of a certain date into UK law but that could get very tricky when it comes to unpicking it and putting all the new legislation through Parliament as the rule is that changes to statute must be done by new statute.

 

[SusanB-M1]

It does and as we know the more educated the more interested in politics the higher the proportion voted remain.

There is no doubt that some highly educated people with an interest in politics voted leave because they think it will be better for the country, however the explanation how it will be better has been largely hidden.

I wrote again to my MP asking for a link to where any exit plan could b read, but received another rather bland replywhich ignored that question.

The reasons for leave I have seen are mostly selfish. A farming friend argues the EU prevents him doing things that would make his life easier. Mike's African trading reason is another I consider selfish. He seems to accept it is as well.

And then there are those who blame immigration which as we know is a net contributor to the economy. These are certainly selfish reasons, possibly xenophobic as well.

I have seen some people claim that there will be a short recession then a prosperity that exceeds the status quo. However I have not seen anyone explain how it will happen and what trade relationships will need to be formed to produce it.

I imagine that as we go down the line the brexiters will try to make out that there was a really difficult economic choice to be made. Hopefully people won't forget what the experts said and who told us to ignore them.

Agree, as usual.

 

[MCel58]

In short THR (Tobacco Harm Reduction).
If the UK was not a member of the EU we could permit sales of snus and other products that are scientifically proven to reduce smoking and save a lot of unnecessary suffering for smokers, and their families. We could save a lot of future NHS spending.
In a nutshell that is why I voted to leave, and why I would vote Leave again if I knew then what I know now.

I decided to have a look at the makeup of the THR EU group and found it was made up not of EU officials but of the Dept. of Health officials from each member state. This means that the act was developed in line with the member states own Health policies and directed by the Dept. of Health Minister in those member states. I can find no suggestion that the UK argued for a different approach and in a number of areas actually appears to have submitted the research and the science.
It is therefore highly unlikely that the UK would make any changes in this area in the future as they were part of the group that determined this approach in the first place.
This also means that any person from a member state that was unhappy could have raised the issue with their own Minister for Health as it was their policy direction that the official was following in this case.

 

[McHrozni]

It was the underhanded and unscientific TPD (Tobacco Products Directive) that was forced through the European Parliament(EP) undemocratically.

That's a very bold statement, can you expand on it? How was it forced through the EP undemocratically? Did someone threaten the Euro MPs if they didn't vote for it or something like that?

McHrozni

 

[Lothian]

I think I said on here a few days ago that one of the proposed solutions to this workload is a quick and simple bill to enshrine all EU regulations and directives etc into UK law, and the lawmakers can then spend the next 5 or more years unpicking the stuff we don't want. As I said then, enshrining EU rules into UK law en masse may not fit with the expectations of large numbers of Brexiteers.

There are, I suspect, issues with that approach.
EU law is purposive, UK law is more literal. Interpretation will not be clear and may well be different if EU judgements no longer apply. At least lawyers will get rich!
Would direct effect apply where the UK has not enacted a Directive?
EU law is eternal. We would be bound by new interpretations with no input or means to clarify.
The choice to adopt a Directive is not simply up to us.
A lot of them are agreements with reciprocal requirements. We will not be part of those agreements. We can't unilaterally give ourselves rights in other EU countries.

 

[McHrozni]

I decided to have a look at the makeup of the THR EU group and found it was made up not of EU officials but of the Dept. of Health officials from each member state. This means that the act was developed in line with the member states own Health policies and directed by the Dept. of Health Minister in those member states. I can find no suggestion that the UK argued for a different approach and in a number of areas actually appears to have submitted the research and the science.
It is therefore highly unlikely that the UK would make any changes in this area in the future as they were part of the group that determined this approach in the first place.
This also means that any person from a member state that was unhappy could have raised the issue with their own Minister for Health as it was their policy direction that the official was following in this case.

It also means the act was passed through by democratically elected officials, not unelected bureaucrats as commonly asserted.

Every time an allegedly legitimate reason for Leave is given it's found that's it's either false, or made up entirely. In this case it's both: the law wouldn't be (much) different if UK would pass it itself, and it certainly wasn't forced on members in an undemocratic way. Leave supporters then pass not having a legitimate reason as proof the opposition won't accept one. It would be funny if it wasn't so harmful.

McHrozni

 

[Castro]

For information here is the debate in the House of Lords about TPD (Tobacco Products Directive) rules and vaping:


(I found it interesting as I finally successfully quit smoking with vaping three years ago ;-)