Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

[Wudang]

https://www.ft.com/content/58a4c534-f943-11e8-af46-2022a0b02a6c

David Allen Green in the FT.

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/58a4c534-f943-11e8-af46-2022a0b02a6c

...every expression of concern about the Irish backstop is an implicit admission that the UK is unlikely to have a relationship agreement to enter into by 2022 — indeed, it may not be ready for some years after that. Therefore, the supposed distinction between no-deal Brexit and the deal is to a large extent artificial: the real choice is between no deal now and no deal in 2022.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm still massively frustrated by the absolute lack of consideration for the fact that the referendum was flawed by illegal activity.

Why the whole of the media is still pretending it's valid is beyond me.

Because it is insulting to argue that position.

"I would have won except a significant portion of my supporters are stupid, stupid people who were swayed by just a little too much advertisement. These stupid people should not have seen those ads purchased with illegal expenditures."

 

[Wudang]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html

It is “very likely” that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford professor’s evidence to the High Court.

 

[Aber]

"The company which the Electoral Commission suspects may have been behind Britain's biggest political donation has no registered address - meaning it has failed to fulfil a key legal requirement - the BBC has found."

Reading the article it seems more like the BBC doesn't understand the requirements for registered offices:

It is a legal requirement for every company that is registered in the UK to provide a registered office address. This address is where organisations such as Companies House, HMRC and UK tax authorities will contact your company with important reminders and serve legal notices.

There is no requirement that the registered office has to be where you actually trade.

 

[BobTheCoward]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html

If I lived in the EU and read that, I would want the UK gone so they don't pollute the gene pool.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There is no requirement that the registered office has to be where you actually trade.

The article makes no suggestion that it has to be that. The article, rather, points out that occupants of the current registered address of the company denied that they were in any way associated with it, indicating that the current registered address is fraudulent. It also points out that the publicly available accounts of the organisation are not, in fact, publicly available, meaning thatthe company is in violation of the terms by which it qualifies for limited disclosure exemption. But I'm sure you could read all that perfectly clearly too.

Dave

 

[fagin]

If I lived in the EU and read that, I would want the UK gone so they don't pollute the gene pool.

???????????????????

How's Donald doing?

 

[Hellbound]

???????????????????

How's Donald doing?

Still going on like a floater in a public pool.

 

[Ambrosia]

You wanted to leave because of some imperfect legislation that happened to affect you personally but ignore the likely results of that vote that will affect millions.

What about the millions of people across Europe affected adversely by the TPD? Vaping did more to curb smoking prevalence across Europe than anything else has to date. Smoking prevalence in the UK has hovered around about 20% for many years. These figures from 2016 show that smoking prevalence has dropped to 15% while vaping now accounts for 5%.

NRT that's pushed by the pharma companies doesn't work very well, but they make lots of money selling it anyway. Smoking cessation products account for £2bn in annual sales.

My argument about this isn't about me. It's about helping smokers quit smoking either by switching to vaping before stopping, or just switching to vaping as a long term alternative.

Smoking is the root cause of something like 700,000 deaths annualy in the EU. We should have EU legislation that supports THR (Tobacco Harm Reduction) as much as possible. We should be able, for example, to buy Snus. Which is a Swedish smokeless tobacco. You can't. It's banned by a different EU directive everywhere except Sweden. (Sweden has a smoking rate of 5% compared to 15-20% for the rest of Europe)

If we had smoking laws in Europe like they do in Sweden it would save us all boatloads of money that the NHS spends on smoking related diseases and would allow more people to live longer.

But we can't have that, because pharma lobbyists.

This is just one directive, how much of the rest of EU legislation reflects the desires of lobbyists rather than the people of Europe?

Of course it will be at least a decade until it is resolved. We have been building the thing for decades and strengthening our links with Europe all the time. Does anyone but the clinically insane think that these things can be undone in a matter of months or worse that you can just walk away and not suffer the consequences?

I'm not suggesting it can be undone in months. I am suggesting that we should have been a lot further down the road by now than we are. It's been almost 2 and a half years.

If the best our politicians can manage is Mays deal, then they should hold their hands up and say "this is too difficult to work out, we either ought to Remain or have a hard No Deal exit" and hold another referendum.

We all know that if another referendum happened then Remain would win handily.

I think that the EU is badly flawed, but I think that remaining in it is much better than spending the next elevnty years arguing over it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Reading the article it seems more like the BBC doesn't understand the requirements for registered offices:

There is no requirement that the registered office has to be where you actually trade.

That doesn't make "has no registered address" okay.

Nor does it make "publicly available accounts" which aren't publicly available okay.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

If I lived in the EU and read that, I would want the UK gone so they don't pollute the gene pool.

So says someone living in a land so awash with political bribery that one can float coast-to-coast on a sea of cash. Citizens United: OMG, hang me from the tree of Liberty, too g-damn embarrassing.

***

Wondering out loud: Couldn't the Withdrawal Agreement go forward without the backstop and political agreements? That is, just the so-called withdrawal arrangements (WAs)? I understand there are quite a number of sticky items that really do need to be well-managed under deal or no-deal Brexit, and that these are spelled out in the WAs, such as what happens in pending contracts, court cases, etc., as well as the future of EU and UK citizens in each other's territories.

Or would the WAs kick in automatically even if there is a "no-deal" Brexit?

 

[Wudang]

If we had smoking laws in Europe like they do in Sweden it would save us all boatloads of money that the NHS spends on smoking related diseases and would allow more people to live longer.

And yet isn't Sweden in the EU?

But we can't have that, because pharma lobbyists.

This is just one directive, how much of the rest of EU legislation reflects the desires of lobbyists rather than the people of Europe?

And UK legislation is free from lobbyists?

I'm not suggesting it can be undone in months. I am suggesting that we should have been a lot further down the road by now than we are. It's been almost 2 and a half years.

If the best our politicians can manage is Mays deal, then they should hold their hands up and say "this is too difficult to work out, we either ought to Remain or have a hard No Deal exit" and hold another referendum.

We all know that if another referendum happened then Remain would win handily.

I think that the EU is badly flawed, but I think that remaining in it is much better than spending the next elevnty years arguing over it.

I agree the EU is flawed but our best bet is to try to stay in and fix it from within rather than sit on is borders as a supplicant. And the UK could do with a bit of fixing as well but that's for another thread.

 

[3point14]

What about the millions of people across Europe affected adversely by the TPD? Vaping did more to curb smoking prevalence across Europe than anything else has to date. Smoking prevalence in the UK has hovered around about 20% for many years. These figures from 2016 show that smoking prevalence has dropped to 15% while vaping now accounts for 5%.

NRT that's pushed by the pharma companies doesn't work very well, but they make lots of money selling it anyway. Smoking cessation products account for £2bn in annual sales.

My argument about this isn't about me. It's about helping smokers quit smoking either by switching to vaping before stopping, or just switching to vaping as a long term alternative.

Smoking is the root cause of something like 700,000 deaths annualy in the EU. We should have EU legislation that supports THR (Tobacco Harm Reduction) as much as possible. We should be able, for example, to buy Snus. Which is a Swedish smokeless tobacco. You can't. It's banned by a different EU directive everywhere except Sweden. (Sweden has a smoking rate of 5% compared to 15-20% for the rest of Europe)

If we had smoking laws in Europe like they do in Sweden it would save us all boatloads of money that the NHS spends on smoking related diseases and would allow more people to live longer.

But we can't have that, because pharma lobbyists.

The pharma lobbyists are in Brussels because that's where the legislation happens.

If the UK wasn't in the EU, you think the smoking companies would not send lobbyist to Westminster? Do you think that UK politicians are any less susceptible to lobbying than EU ones?


All you're doing is moving the problem and making the country poorer by doing so.

If you think lobbyists are simply an EU problem then you're somewhat misinformed.


This is quite a good example of why Brexit happened (well, that and the illegal activity and overspending), there's an uncritical acceptance that it's all Europe's fault.

Lobbying is a global problem. It certainly happens in the UK. Somehow, however, the blame for the problems caused by lobbying have been assigned a European origin, hence the above.



It really has been an excellent, what one might call 'character assassination' that the moral less British press have done on Europe.

And people with otherwise good critical thinking skills have swallowed it hook, line and sinker due to 40 years of unchallenged ********.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So says someone living in a land so awash with political bribery that one can float coast-to-coast on a sea of cash. Citizens United: OMG, hang me from the tree of Liberty, too g-damn embarrassing.

***

Wondering out loud: Couldn't the Withdrawal Agreement go forward without the backstop and political agreements? That is, just the so-called withdrawal arrangements (WAs)? I understand there are quite a number of sticky items that really do need to be well-managed under deal or no-deal Brexit, and that these are spelled out in the WAs, such as what happens in pending contracts, court cases, etc., as well as the future of EU and UK citizens in each other's territories.

Or would the WAs kick in automatically even if there is a "no-deal" Brexit?

Citizens United did not go far enough.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Sure, there will be plenty of space for 1½ million Scots Leavers in England after 15 million English Remainers move to Scotland.

Joking aside, due to circumstances beyond our control the wife and I are going to sell up and move Northwards, I'm arguing for the Scottish side of the border because of Brexit and it's likely long term consequences.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Joking aside, due to circumstances beyond our control the wife and I are going to sell up and move Northwards, I'm arguing for the Scottish side of the border because of Brexit and it's likely long term consequences.

And, joking sort-of aside, in the longer term my kids will probably qualify for future Scottish passports due to me.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I always thought the EU was protectionist and only played by WTO rules with regard to Trump tariffs. That's why I don't fully understand all this talk from Brexiteers that we conduct all our trade on WTO rules with the EU after Brexit. There is a bit of waffle about this in this recent newspaper article:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...trade-organisation-peter-lilley-a8668311.html

What the WTO does is lay down a baseline for trade between member states. However, no member trades on “WTO terms” alone. All 164 of them have negotiated better access to at least one market through some kind of bilateral agreement in addition to their WTO relationship.
This is because the WTO does not ensure the removal of all barriers to trade. Lord Lilley seems to give the impression he doesn’t understand this.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I always thought the EU was protectionist and only played by WTO rules with regard to Trump tariffs. That's why I don't fully understand all this talk from Brexiteers that we conduct all our trade on WTO rules with the EU after Brexit. There is a bit of waffle about this in this recent newspaper article:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...trade-organisation-peter-lilley-a8668311.html

Major world powers already have laundry lists of "disputes" to bring up and hamstring the UK in arbitration for decades. If Brexiteers thought Brussels was litigious, deliberative, and arcane, they've got a rude awakening coming.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So says someone living in a land so awash with political bribery that one can float coast-to-coast on a sea of cash. Citizens United: OMG, hang me from the tree of Liberty, too g-damn embarrassing.

***

Wondering out loud: Couldn't the Withdrawal Agreement go forward without the backstop and political agreements? That is, just the so-called withdrawal arrangements (WAs)? I understand there are quite a number of sticky items that really do need to be well-managed under deal or no-deal Brexit, and that these are spelled out in the WAs, such as what happens in pending contracts, court cases, etc., as well as the future of EU and UK citizens in each other's territories.

Or would the WAs kick in automatically even if there is a "no-deal" Brexit?

No the WA can't go ahead without the backstop because the backstop is how the problems with the UK withdrawal are resolved. Without the backstop there would need to be a border in Ireland and neither side want that.

And quite frankly if we can't come up with solutions to these issues we have no business withdrawing from anything until we can.

 

[Wudang]

As I posted before even LeaveHQ said that trading on WTO terms would be bad

One can say, unequivocally, that the UK could not survive as a trading nation by relying on the WTO Option. It would be an unmitigated disaster, and no responsible government should allow it. The option should be rejected.

http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?bl...uoPgSv6LHo9I-_z5AUtsTi-_WMeoR_7s9eTz74nTWYNpU