[Merged]Brexit stuff

[DodgyAgent]

Not at all. The will of the people was to exit, there was no referendum on what the terms of exit are.

It seems that the terms are being made so difficult that Brexit will not be allowed to happen.

[meridian]

It seems that the terms are being made so difficult that Brexit will not be allowed to happen.

If you don't like the terms, you should have read them thoroughly before signing the contract.

[GB9]

Yes but it also means that European law and British law will be identical at the point of exit and hence the UK will automatically fulfill all conditions to gain access to the single market.

Hard Brexit will require changes to those laws, in particular the freedom of movement of EU citizens, and that requires a parliamentary majority.

No. We can simply say when we leave we won't recognise the ecj or allow freedom of movement.

The laws that will be kept initially are tampon vat and banana curvature. They can be repealed at a later date.

[GB9]

It seems that the terms are being made so difficult that Brexit will not be allowed to happen.

That's the idea.

The democratic solution would be A50, as that was the vote, then deal with what it looks like. What it looks like will depend on the EU as much as anything else.

[jamesbrown]

The EU has made it clear that if the UK respects the 4 freedoms they will have access to the single market. If the UK doesn't enact anything that contravene's that why would the EU not allow continued access ?

It's pretty clear if at the end of 2 years the UK wasn't enacting "Hard Brexit" that an interim agreement would be struck to continue as before, maybe with a few restrictions. The only certain thing about article 50 is that the UK won't formally be a member.

The repeal act in it's current form, formally taking over EU law into British law means the default is effectively "Soft Brexit".

No, the default is WTO. Even Labour have dismissed "no change" and, once we've left, the divergence occurs by default, regardless of any additional controls introduced by the UK. This will be a problem for equivalence, let alone passporting. You're in complete denial, not only about the constraints within which May is operating, but also about what the other member states want. None of the member states want an arrangement whereby nothing has changed except for formal membership. Indeed, several want clear evidence of a negative impact, which they believe (wrongly) will be largely contained to the UK. The EU is held together by little more than collective fear about the weakness of the Eurozone.

[BlasterBates]

No, the default is WTO. Even Labour have dismissed "no change" and, once we've left, the divergence occurs by default, regardless of any additional controls introduced by the UK. This will be a problem for equivalence, let alone passporting. You're in complete denial, not only about the constraints within which May is operating, but also about what the other member states want. None of the member states want an arrangement whereby nothing has changed except for formal membership. Indeed, several want clear evidence of a negative impact, which they believe (wrongly) will be largely contained to the UK. The EU is held together by little more than collective fear about the weakness of the Eurozone.

That is actually not true.

What they said was the UK can't "cherry pick" and that they're welcome to access to the single market provided that they agree to the rules. The "cherry picking" statement has never been left out of a statement either by the commission or any of the heads of state.

Obviously if the UK introduces restriction of freedom of movement then the UK goes to WTO rules. If they don't change anything they will almost certainly get access to the single market, though probably without passporting.

Agree with you though on the point of passporting that the UK will end up in a Soft Brexit worse off than it was before, with Hard Brexiteers "frothing at the mouth" and commentators such as Peter Hitchens pointing out, as he did a couple of weeks ago that we will still be defacto members of the EU.

[DodgyAgent]

If you don't like the terms, you should have read them thoroughly before signing the contract.

The terms are being made up to prevent the original decision from happening.

[darmstadt]

No. We can simply say when we leave we won't recognise the ecj or allow freedom of movement.

The laws that will be kept initially are tampon vat and banana curvature. They can be repealed at a later date.

Blimey, there are only 2 EU laws enshrined in UK law...I don't know what all the fuss was about...

[GB9]

Blimey, there are only 2 EU laws enshrined in UK law...I don't know what all the fuss was about...

But we don't like either of them.

[jamesbrown]

Obviously if the UK introduces restriction of freedom of movement then the UK goes to WTO rules.

Um.

Anyway, it doesn't even require that. Divergence is absolutely inevitable once the primacy of the ECJ is lost, and there's no scenario in which that primacy remains. This is precisely why the issue of equivalence in financial services is fraught (and equivalence is obviously a very narrow policy area).