Brexit: Now What? Part III

[3point14]

I don't think that UKIP or the Daily Mail would complain about Sweden leaving the EU without paying an exit charge (that was the question you asked). To them it is always the EU that is in the wrong.

Really? They'd be happy for the UK to pick up their share of the financial shortfall?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Even those people working in the affected areas (in this case the wholesale banana trade) don't usually know about or implement the directions... The regulations cause honest traders waste time and money fretting over whether or not they are compliant - or just decide not to trade bananas at all because it's too much hassle.

This is what you said and what I am asking for an example of. Or just admit you made it up.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm not sure that your analogy works this way round, as surely it would be Romania leaving and getting all the money they'd been promised in future but not yet received?

No I said keeping all the money they had just been given.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't think that UKIP or the Daily Mail would complain about Sweden leaving the EU without paying an exit charge (that was the question you asked). To them it is always the EU that is in the wrong.

It's always foreigners that are wrong more accurately

 

[Aber]

Really? They'd be happy for the UK to pick up their share of the financial shortfall?

Which financial shortfall?

The EU seems to run a strange system, where there is an ongoing gap between EU commitments under spending programmes, and the agreed budget for payments in each year. This fudge has never been resolved but will be a core part of the negotiations with the UK.

 

[McHrozni]

I do wonder what Brexiteers make of this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/25/brexit-fintech-exodus-begins-london-eu-luxembourg



“I don’t know of a licensed fintech company in the UK that isn’t looking at options,” he said. “Everyone is thinking about it and anyone that is any size, that is employing more than 10 people, is active. The exodus is beginning. It will be more visible in 2018.”

(...)

“Ministers are in complete denial about the scale of the exodus. Independent estimates say a hard Brexit will cost the UK up to £200bn over the next 15 years”

200 billion pounds over 15 years amounts to about 250 million a week. That 350 million pounds a week is sure getting stretched thin.

Wait, I know, fact and/or expert opinion, so irrelevant, right?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I have a question about the parliamentary procedure in UK. With Brexit bill, it went something like this:

1. Bill is red and voted on, if it is passed amendments will be discussed.
2. Amendments are discussed and voted on. If they fail, the bill still passes unchanged.

What I find weird about this is that the opposition is not given the option of withdrawing their support for the bill if their favored amendments aren't passed.

Is this normal? Don?

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

I have a question about the parliamentary procedure in UK. With Brexit bill, it went something like this:

1. Bill is red and voted on, if it is passed amendments will be discussed.
2. Amendments are discussed and voted on. If they fail, the bill still passes unchanged.

What I find weird about this is that the opposition is not given the option of withdrawing their support for the bill if their favored amendments aren't passed.

Is this normal? Don?

McHrozni

I'm a little ashamed to say that I don't know.

 

[McHrozni]

I'm a little ashamed to say that I don't know.

Can you find out maybe? Pretty please?

McHrozni

 

[Klimax]

At least partial answer was given on page 10 of this thread:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39020260

in that article is image:
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/...tion/_94223180_brexit_bill_flow_v02_624gr.png

(Not hot linked intentionally)

It appears that answer is no.

 

[MCel58]

Which financial shortfall?

The EU seems to run a strange system, where there is an ongoing gap between EU commitments under spending programmes, and the agreed budget for payments in each year. This fudge has never been resolved but will be a core part of the negotiations with the UK.

There are 2 issues here one is that EU funding is retrospective and at the end of any year the last quarter is still to be reported. The second is that the UK government has signed the guarantees for all the match funding for the majority of programmes already entered into. So an example is University R&D which is funded at approx 50% from EU funding and 50% from match or in country funding. However all the guarantees for programmes up to 2020 were agreed per project as any funding package was passed. There may also be the possibility of in country Companies and Charities and NGOs suing the U.K. Government if they lose their agreed funding from the EU as a result of Brexit and face bankruptcy. Some of this funding is up to 70% for innovation commercialisation and can be as high as 2.5 million per company involved. We have not seen the last of court judgements here. To understand the spend properly you need to audit in 4 year cycles. So from. 2016-2020.

 

[McHrozni]

At least partial answer was given on page 10 of this thread:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39020260

in that article is image:
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/...tion/_94223180_brexit_bill_flow_v02_624gr.png

(Not hot linked intentionally)

It appears that answer is no.

The way I see it the answer is yes, at least as far as the House of Commons is concerned. There is a first and second reading and a vote, followed by possible amendments to the bill. If the amendments fail the bill goes through unamended.

Or were there two votes on the unamended bill, and the Traitor managed to give up two great chances to stop the calamity?

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The way I see it the answer is yes, at least as far as the House of Commons is concerned. There is a first and second reading and a vote, followed by possible amendments to the bill. If the amendments fail the bill goes through unamended.

Or were there two votes on the unamended bill, and the Traitor managed to give up two great chances to stop the calamity?

McHrozni

My understanding is that the first is right.

The first hurdle is getting the bill passed. At this stage the opposition can vote against it and send them homewards to think again and come back with something better.

If it gets past that then there is the opportunity to make amendments, if none of these pass then the Bill goes forward to the Lords who then have the option of sending it back too.

If the Lords make amendments then these need to go back to a Commons vote and nothing becomes law until the two houses agree.

Passing a bill in the hope of making amendments later seems to be a bit silly if that was the idea.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-parliaments-38854911
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rticle-50-committee-stage-house-of-commons-eu

Alex Salmond has been very vociferous at the way the amendments were dealt with.

 

[MCel58]

This little bit of legislation became active on the 1st February which allows the UK Government to deny residency to any EU Citizen in the UK who does not have comprehensive Health Insurance. This includes the non working partners of EU citizens earning and paying tax in the UK. Comprehensive Health Insurance is a real issue not just for EU citizens in the UK but for many UK citizens in the EU particularly pensioners as it is very expensive. See this briefing for more info
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/bri...campaign=briefing-legal-status-eu-citizens-uk

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This little bit of legislation became active on the 1st February which allows the UK Government to deny residency to any EU Citizen in the UK who does not have comprehensive Health Insurance. This includes the non working partners of EU citizens earning and paying tax in the UK. Comprehensive Health Insurance is a real issue not just for EU citizens in the UK but for many UK citizens in the EU particularly pensioners as it is very expensive. See this briefing for more info
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/bri...campaign=briefing-legal-status-eu-citizens-uk

Not surprising I guess, I did think that blowback from Remainers pointing out that the UK had powers it wasn't using with regards immigration would probably happen, although these kinds of moves have been ongoing for both EU and non-Eu immigrants for sometime as part of a general campaign of trying to see who can be the biggest dicks to immigrants which has been a key pastime of the government for years.

 

[McHrozni]

More facts from experts that can be safely ignored.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...et-jp-morgan-bank-uk-government-a7601261.html

The UK’s corporate tax regime already looks competitive both historically and internationally, further cuts are likely to prove more costly to the Chancellor than before, and the tax rate would, in theory, need to turn negative to combat the shock of an ultra-hard Brexit.

Subsidies for corporations instead of taxes to avoid an exodus. That's two more things for those 350 million a week to cover. Ceptimus, are you tallying how much has already been earmarked by any chance? How much is left?

McHrozni

 

[Castro]

An interesting article about John Major's view on Brexit: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...a-may-misleading-british-people-a7602651.html

...In an extraordinary intervention, Sir John cast doubt on the “enticing” promises being offered to voters and attacked Ms May and her ministers for saying nothing about massive Brexit costs – including a potential £60bn divorce bill – and major potential damage to the NHS and welfare...“If anyone genuinely believes that Europe will concede all we wish for and exact no price for doing so, then they are extraordinarily naive.” Sir John then turned his guns directly at Ms May’s Brexit White Paper for making no mention of the divorce bill for Britain – potentially up to £60bn –which EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier is pursuing. While Sir John said he finds the figure contentious, he went on: “The bill will be substantial. Billions, not millions, and very unpalatable. It will come as a nasty shock to voters who were not forewarned of this – even in the recent White Paper.”...

 

[dudalb]

More facts from experts that can be safely ignored.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...et-jp-morgan-bank-uk-government-a7601261.html

The UK’s corporate tax regime already looks competitive both historically and internationally, further cuts are likely to prove more costly to the Chancellor than before, and the tax rate would, in theory, need to turn negative to combat the shock of an ultra-hard Brexit.

Subsidies for corporations instead of taxes to avoid an exodus. That's two more things for those 350 million a week to cover. Ceptimus, are you tallying how much has already been earmarked by any chance? How much is left?

McHrozni

But this is making Dublin very happy.....

 

[jimbob]

But this is making DublinMoscow very happy.....

I doubt the undoubted benefits of corporations moving to Dublin would outweigh the downsides for Ireland. Having a peaceful and prosperous North is in their interests

 

[CapelDodger]

An interesting article about John Major's view on Brexit: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...a-may-misleading-british-people-a7602651.html

Also this :

John Major attacks government over approach to Brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...or-attacks-government-over-approach-to-brexit

“I have watched with growing concern as the British people have been led to expect a future that seems to be unreal and over-optimistic,” Major said, speaking at the Chatham House thinktank. “Obstacles are brushed aside as of no consequence, whilst opportunities are inflated beyond any reasonable expectation of delivery.”

Exactly.