Support NeoGAF

[oti]

Those new quotes from David Cameron are something else.

Torpedo your political career in less than 12 months, scarper off for some cushy job, still can't admit you played yourself.

Eh, history books will tear this guy apart. He will be the face of this tragedy. Let him have his delusions for now.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Sarcasm on my part aside, that is a legitimate talking point I've seen people use for why the EU should 'play nice' with the UK.

Comes back to that inflated sense of worth some British people have. Needs deflating and in the harshest way possible.

 

[joanot]

How can yall not see Miles' blatant sarcasm.

At this point I can´t distinguish between real opinions and sarcasm... my sarcasm detector is broken beyond repair.

 

[DarthMasta]

There's a huge difference between Catalonia and Scotland. The country that wants to block Catalonia's access is still in the EU, and actually can, while the country that wants to block Scotland's access is in a 2 year timer to lose that power.

Not that I expect the EU to accept an unilaterally "independent" Scotland to join, it's not the sort of thing nation states like to encourage, short of the UK/EU relationship breaking down so badly that the EU "justifies" it as escaping tyranny or some other excuse like that.

Other than that, who the hell knows, the door for change was opened, short of some intelligent guesses nobody knows what the final shape of the EU/UK relationship might be.

 

[Spaghetti]

Eh, history books will tear this guy apart. He will be the face of this tragedy. Let him have his delusions for now.

Can't wait for the Brexit movie where he's played by a pink balloon with a face drawn on it.

 

[Audioboxer]

A FORMER Scottish Labour candidate has defected to the SNP over the constitution on the same day Kezia Dugdale tried to advance her plan for a federal UK.

Immigration lawyer Jamie Kerr, a former vice-chair of Labour in Renfrewshire South and a Holyrood candidate in Shetland in 2011, jumped ship yesterday complaining he couldn’t stay in a party “that no longer speaks for Scotland”.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...er_constitution_as_Dugdale_pushes_federalism/

“The full effects on Northern Ireland, which currently faces the possible reintroduction of direct rule, remain to be seen,” she warned, writing in The Guardian.

“Similarly, there has been no serious attempt to engage with compromise proposals that would keep Scotland – which voted decisively to remain in Europe – inside the single market.

“The result is that we must now ensure that people in Scotland are given a choice between the hard Brexit deal now being negotiated, and independence.”

She added: “In Scotland alone, Brexit could cost the economy more than £11 billionn a year by 2030, and is predicted to lead to 80,000 job losses over the next decade. Those effects can be multiplied significantly for the UK as a whole.”

http://www.thenational.scot/news/15...e_a_referendum_on_independence_before_Brexit/

 

[autumnleaf]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...er_constitution_as_Dugdale_pushes_federalism/



http://www.thenational.scot/news/15...e_a_referendum_on_independence_before_Brexit/

Boo, hiss, doom & gloom naysayers. The UK will become a land of milk and honey just watch. I'm pretty sure the sun is a little brighter today already.

 

[PJV3]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...er_constitution_as_Dugdale_pushes_federalism/

I don't know why anyone left in Scottish labour doesn't just join the SNP, isn't it basically where most of the labour party voters went anyway.

There just isn't demand for a socialist unionist party anymore.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

When would UK be able to join EU again? How long would the process take?

Depends on a number of factors.

1) Political will to rejoin. Only parties currently campaigning with the intent of rejoining the EU are too small to see genuine prospects of being able to enact one. Even UKIP as the major driving force of the referendum last year only got it by bleeding enough support from the Tories to make them promise one to try and get that support back. There would need to be a similar occurrence in the Conservatives (not likely) or Labour (who currently care more for party membership than actual electability) for another referendum to be on the table. Since such would come up at a General Election and likely be enacted a year later - bare minimum four years from now, more likely only after a decade at least, to allow the consequences of Brexit to sink in, and make people regret their vote.

2) What precedent the EU want to set. We'll be the first country to leave since its actually been the EU and not the EEC, so there is some uncertainty there. It could be that the EU will want to be seen as forgiving and welcoming, and with much of British law going to be similar to EU law anyway as part of the Great Repeal Bill, less effort than the usual, decade long process will be necessary. On the other hand, Britain had a number of special exceptions that it may want back in rejoining, and that the EU wouldn't allow a second time around, and they will probably want to make the point that EU membership isn't a frivolous thing you can just decide not to be in for a few years. Thus that could lengthen things as actual negotiations occur, and some compromise has to be found - all the while the UK is in the weaker negotiating position because it will be the one desperate to get back in.

While I would like it to happen sooner much rather than later, I suspect our first real chance will be a couple decades from now. That is, when the largely pro-EU youth of today become more reliable as a voting bloc, and older, anti-EU voters die off. This is assuming that departure from the EU doesn't cause people to get comfortable with the result, shifting demographics away from voting to rejoin.

 

[CyclopsRock]

What are the chances that the Conservative government falls before Brexit negotiations are complete and a Labour government decides to just scrap everything and stay in the EU?

The Labour party that just voted to trigger A50 you mean? Not much, because aside from anything they would need to obtain a majority to become the government, a feat which has roughly no chance of happening due to everyone thinking they're absolute dog piss.

 

[Burai]

I'm not disputing that they can do that perfectly legally, but it still makes them come across fairly bad.

To who exactly? Not to the remaining EU27. They don't give a fuck that the Sun is unhappy.

To the UK? Who cares? The UK is leaving. There's no PR offensive to go on because the decision was made already. They were very clear before the referendum what the rules were. They said they wouldn't budge, and here they are not budging.

 

[TimmmV]

I know there is a contingent of the 'fuck you, got mine' wealthy crowd within government, but I still can't grasp how so many MPs gleefully sit there at PMQs guffawing and jeering at the SNP and the Lib Dems who dare to question this monumentally stupid and self-harming course of action. Like, do none of them have a shred of conscience or shame? Don't they want to leave the country a better and more prosperous place than when they found it? Are they really that delusional and blind to the facts that they think this will work out well for the UK, or do they really just not care?

Fuck, I really just wish there were more 'good guys' in parliament. Feels like I could count them on one hand at the moment.

I think part of that is because we have FPTP and 2 dominant parties who are supposed to hate each other - so when one party 'wins' they jeer at the other side who is losing. Don't think this would be happening in a proportional system where cooperating and actually listening to the other side is necessary.

Also, they're Tories, "fuck you got mine" kind of goes hand in hand with them.

There's a huge difference between Catalonia and Scotland. The country that wants to block Catalonia's access is still in the EU, and actually can, while the country that wants to block Scotland's access is in a 2 year timer to lose that power.

Imagine a future in like 30-40 years where England and Wales want to rejoin the EU, and are relying on Scotland to not veto the deal. Its mental that scenario is remotely plausible lol

 

[daviyoung]

To reasonable people. To others, they'll see it as the EU threatening the UK's security by not offering a good deal.

That's just you making stuff up by virtue of the possibility that someone, somewhere could interpret a table as a spoon.

 

[KingSnake]

I'm not disputing that they can do that perfectly legally, but it still makes them come across fairly bad.

To whom?

 

[Audioboxer]

I don't know why anyone left in Scottish labour doesn't just join the SNP, isn't it basically where most of the labour party voters went anyway.

There just isn't demand for a socialist unionist party anymore.

The Greens are pretty decent up here as well, but yeah, Labour are hemorrhaging just as bad as they are in England.

One thing I would welcome if we do go independent is Labour and Conservative parties that don't need to tow lines from their HQ in Westminster. It always seems like they're trying to put "UK politics" into "Scottish politics". Which is one reason I think Labour got nuked. Not to say either are wrong, it's just undeniable the ship has been sailing further away up here from what HQ in Westminster seem to want. Scotland's most definitely centre-left leaning (on average/by large) and many ideological ideas floating around in Labour/Conservative down South aren't gelling up here. Especially around Brexit, where even Labour were going on and on about immigration.

tl;dr maybe one day the SNP will actually have some better competition up here, which I and many others would welcome. Otherwise, we'll see more and more of "complaining he couldn't stay in a party "that no longer speaks for Scotland"."

 

[Xando]

Love how David Davis is on Sky News and says "it's a negotiation, we want to do it in a certain way" regarding dual negotiations

At the same time Hollande is on a call with Theresa May telling her it's not gonna happen

 

[Ravensmash]

I wish we had people who knew what they were doing..

 

[kmag]

The EU has produced a very detailed document on the estimated economic effects of Brexit. (basically looking at all the available models including the UK treasury, OCED and EU/Non EU sources)

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/595374/IPOL_STU(2017)595374_EN.pdf

well worth a read as it will inform the EU's commission and the EU's Parliaments understanding

Our main finding is that the available studies largely agree that Brexit will inflict losses on both sides. All studies agree that the losses will be considerably larger for the UK than for the EU27. Only in very pessimistic scenarios would the losses for the EU27 reach a significant size.
We find that the trade linkages between the EU27 and the UK are of a similar (but somewhat smaller) order of magnitude as trade between the EU and the US. This would suggest that the negative impact of Brexit on the EU27 might of a comparable size to the positive impact that TTIP might have had. We have not pursued this analogy any further (Annex 15 provides some pointers, though).
It is very difficult to determine which of the several different scenarios discussed above are still politically feasible after Prime Minister May ruled out the EEA. However, the available evidence suggest that the additional losses that would result from a bad or uncooperative outcome would be borne mostly by the UK.

 

[DarthMasta]

Love how David Davis is on Sky News and says "it's a negotiation, we want to do it in a certain way" regarding dual negotiations

What's that they say, "Takes two to tango"? Maybe the British government doesn't know that saying, all the stuff with Argentina probably still in mind... /s

 

[IdreamofHIME]

I don't know why anyone left in Scottish labour doesn't just join the SNP, isn't it basically where most of the labour party voters went anyway.

Because they don't believe in Indepence?

 

[Audioboxer]

Because they don't believe in Indepence?

True.

However, I think the general election showed either some Labour voters switched allegiance even if temporary, or they stayed at home. Hence the Labour red wedding in Scotland. 41 seats down to 1 seat I think it was lol.

 

[Camp Freddie]

Depends on a number of factors.

1) Political will to rejoin. Only parties currently campaigning with the intent of rejoining the EU are too small to see genuine prospects of being able to enact one. Even UKIP as the major driving force of the referendum last year only got it by bleeding enough support from the Tories to make them promise one to try and get that support back. There would need to be a similar occurrence in the Conservatives (not likely) or Labour (who currently care more for party membership than actual electability) for another referendum to be on the table. Since such would come up at a General Election and likely be enacted a year later - bare minimum four years from now, more likely only after a decade at least, to allow the consequences of Brexit to sink in, and make people regret their vote.

2) What precedent the EU want to set. We'll be the first country to leave since its actually been the EU and not the EEC, so there is some uncertainty there. It could be that the EU will want to be seen as forgiving and welcoming, and with much of British law going to be similar to EU law anyway as part of the Great Repeal Bill, less effort than the usual, decade long process will be necessary. On the other hand, Britain had a number of special exceptions that it may want back in rejoining, and that the EU wouldn't allow a second time around, and they will probably want to make the point that EU membership isn't a frivolous thing you can just decide not to be in for a few years. Thus that could lengthen things as actual negotiations occur, and some compromise has to be found - all the while the UK is in the weaker negotiating position because it will be the one desperate to get back in.

While I would like it to happen sooner much rather than later, I suspect our first real chance will be a couple decades from now. That is, when the largely pro-EU youth of today become more reliable as a voting bloc, and older, anti-EU voters die off. This is assuming that departure from the EU doesn't cause people to get comfortable with the result, shifting demographics away from voting to rejoin.

Yeah, I think the problem is political and public will. We won't be allowed to rejoin unless we can convince the EU that we won't re-leave when we don't get our way. We'd need to have a strong majority of both MPs and the public for re-joining, not just a 'temporary' mandate from the anti-May protest vote that might happen in 2025 (sorry, but the Tories are getting a landslide win in 2020 unless Boris Johnson gets drunk and pisses on the cenotaph or something).
I think the EU would insist we made a strong commitment to closer EU ties when rejoining, probably including joining the Euro and schengen.
I don't think the EU will accept any risk of a UK doing a hokey-cokey dance with the EU.

I hope we rejoin in my lifetime, for the sake of my children and any grandchildren - but I'll be an old man before it could happen.

 

[Carn82]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/30/brexit-divorce-terms-marriage

What is being negotiated between Britain and the European Union is not the end of a marriage. It’s a self-inflicted downgrade

 

[PJV3]

Because they don't believe in Indepence?

LOL, I gathered that but it's a pretty shitty existence politically.

 

[Xando]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/30/brexit-divorce-terms-marriage

I think this sums up Brexit delusions pretty well.

Especially this:

As Britain formally notifies the EU of its intention to leave it is essential for Brits and Europeans alike to be aware of what is about to start. Both sides tend to speak of a "divorce", while some British commentators compare the coming negotiations to a "game of chicken".
These figures of speech are deeply misleading as they feed into a narrative that the UK is still a world power able to shape the circumstances it finds itself in – if not to dictate its terms outright. To see how much this line of thought is still alive, consider how Britain spent the past nine months discussing whether it preferred a "soft" or a "hard" Brexit. The implication was that Britain had a choice – in truth the EU has made it clear from the outset that there are two options only: hard Brexit or no Brexit.

A divorce is between two equal partners. But the UK is to the EU what Belgium, Austria or Portugal are to Germany: an entity eight times as small. If the EU informs the UK that "no soft Brexit means no soft Brexit" then that is what it is.

For the same reason the analogy of a "game of chicken" for the coming negotiations should be cast aside. The UK and the EU may be driving at furious speed into one another, each expecting the other to swerve. But if the UK is a Mini then the EU is a truck.

Except that it is not, because this too is a misleading analogy. Angela Merkel runs the EU's most important and powerful country but she does not determine what happens in the EU, if only because Germany comprises a mere 20% of the EU economy and only 16% of its population. As much as the Brexiteers like to talk of a European superstate the fact is that no such thing exists. The European commission, the European parliament and the EU member states share power without a single overriding body or office to coordinate events or impose its will. To return to the "game of chicken" analogy: the EU truck has no driver.

 

[Joni]

I see the EP is taking their bad cop role to heart:Manfred Weber: ‘I don’t care’ about London any more

They can afford it. The European People's Party has no British representatives. It is literally the only country that has no one in the biggest European party.

 

[Audioboxer]

I believe in the independence of nations – Scotland included. But I believe just as strongly in the interdependence of nations – the need for countries to work together to tackle challenges and seize opportunities that few can do alone. That is why an independent Scotland would always seek to work closely with others, across the British Isles and beyond. So it is the fact that 29 March marks the point at which the UK starts to turn its back on almost half a century of close cooperation with its partners on the European mainland that makes it so dispiriting.

The kind of Europe we have today – one in which we can not only trade freely and without barriers, but in which people can live, work and do business without having to give a thought to visas, work permits and myriad other regulations – would have been unrecognisable when the UK joined the European club in 1973.

In particular, younger people take it as a given that they can crisscross the continent at will. The closing of that door of opportunity to any extent will come as a tremendous shock to many.

Similarly, there has been no serious attempt to engage with compromise proposals that would keep Scotland – which voted decisively to remain in Europe – inside the single market. The result is that we must now ensure that people in Scotland are given a choice between the hard Brexit deal now being negotiated, and independence.

Scotland's place in Europe was a central issue in the 2014 independence referendum. It was asserted by many in the "no" campaign that only a vote against independence would ensure Scotland's continued place in the EU. How desperately hollow those claims now ring today.

My purpose – as it has been since last June – is to seek discussion and compromise. The prime minister says now is not the time for an independence referendum; I agree with that. But the PM has also indicated that she believes the details of the final Brexit deal will be clear in around 18 months to two years from now, which is the timescale I have indicated would then be appropriate for people in Scotland to be given a choice on their future.

That choice when it comes – as it will – will be between an outward-looking vision of an independent Scotland taking its place in Europe and the wider world on the one hand, and on the other a inward-looking Britain that has, almost inexplicably, decided to retreat into post-imperial isolation.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...otland-prime-minister-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[Joni]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...otland-prime-minister-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw

She is well-spoken. It is kinda sad she doesn't lead a bigger nation because she is one of those politicians that actually could lead. Well, maybe there is a future for her as EU president if Scotland could join the EU. She fits the profile.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

David Davis (AKA fucking cunt-in-chief) is proposing the Great Repeal Bill which would give him and his mates power to fuck with UK laws using fast-track secondary legislation with impunity.

Cunts.

 

[Xando]

"British laws will finally be made in our british sovereign parliament*"

*By giving the goverment the power to change laws without asking parliament


White paper on great repeal bill:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../Great_repeal_bill_white_paper_accessible.pdf

 

[KingSnake]

"British laws will finally be made in our british sovereign parliament*"

*By giving the goverment the power to change laws without asking parliament


White paper on great repeal bill:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../Great_repeal_bill_white_paper_accessible.pdf

The only thing that would make this even funnier is if May would make a law about bananas.

 

[PJV3]

David Davis (AKA fucking cunt-in-chief) is proposing the Great Repeal Bill which would give him and his mates power to fuck with UK laws using fast-track secondary legislation with impunity.

Cunts.

It's always the libertarians that go power mad.

 

[Dorsal Axe]

What are the chances that the Conservative government falls before Brexit negotiations are complete and a Labour government decides to just scrap everything and stay in the EU?

Under Jeremy Corbyn? Zero. Zilch. Nada. He wants Brexit to happen more than most.

But should he be ousted and replaced with a pro-EU leader who is palatable to the public...then I suppose there is every possibility of it happening. Unlike everyone else, I don't personally think May is an automatic shoe-in for 2020. David Cameron was "unstoppable" after his 2015 victory...and, well, absolutely anything can happen.

But how the political landscape unfolds in the next few years is largely contingent on Corbyn's presence as Labour leader though. It's a smoother ride for May if he stays, but far rockier if he goes and is replaced with someone who actually puts up some opposition.

 

[phisheep]

This is a very good-natured debate in the Commons.

 

[ChryZ]

The effort it will take to sort out this mess, so many man-hours will be wasted, so much money will be burned in the process.

 

[jimbobsmells]

Comes back to that inflated sense of worth some British people have. Needs deflating and in the harshest way possible.

Oh God this is so true.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Under Jeremy Corbyn? Zero. Zilch. Nada. He wants Brexit to happen more than most.

But should he be ousted and replaced with a pro-EU leader who is palatable to the public...then I suppose there is every possibility of it happening. Unlike everyone else, I don't personally think May is an automatic shoe-in for 2020. David Cameron was "unstoppable" after his 2015 victory...and, well, absolutely anything can happen.

But how the political landscape unfolds in the next few years is largely contingent on Corbyn's presence as Labour leader though. It's a smoother ride for May if he stays, but far rockier if he goes and is replaced with someone who actually puts up some opposition.

I think they tried ousting him a couple of times now!

 

[Camp Freddie]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/great-repeal-bill-will-create-sweeping-powers-to-change-laws-after-brexit

[edit: I've just seen that the white paper is available. Maybe it addresses my points below]

Such control.

A lot of EU laws* (like, a really big lot) can't just be transferred into UK law because they defer authority to other EU regulatory bodies.
This gives us 3 options:

1) Mutually recognise decisions by those EU bodies. This doesn't really work, since the UK would no longer be able to request judgements from these EU bodies without some very clever negotiations - for which there is no time. Plus, mutual recognition is literally the opposite of 'taking back control'.

2) Create a parallel UK body to perform the role of the current EU body. e.g. our own pharmaceutical regulatory authority. This is possible and in some cases necessary, but it would require a vast expansion of our public sector... not happening with this government!

3) Burn them! A lot of laws will just be abandoned as unsupportable since they are too heavily reliant on the EU. It'll be done using the Henry VIII powers to dispose of them with little or no parliamentary oversight. Where absolutely necessary, we'll set up a sovereign UK agency that consist of a handful of civil servants rubber stamping UK versions of the judgements from EU bodies (kinda a mix of 1 and 2). This provides an illusion of control, but will be a disaster when UK citizens/businesses ask the rubber-stampers to make decisions on issues that only (or differently) affect the UK.

I think that a lot of things are going to be stuck in regulatory limbo as the EU laws can't apply, while the UK is unable to legislate on its own due to no relevant authority being available, or said authority being little more than a vacant address with a sign saying "under construction, come back soon!"

* Most of these "EU laws" are already UK laws because of the way that implementing EU directives works, though some EU regulations are applied directly.

 

[oti]

Really odd mood today. Everyone knew it was coming and yet, everyone I've met is sad.

 

[ss1]

Labour needs to be decimated at a General Election before any rebirth is possible.

 

[theaface]

Labour needs to be decimated at a General Election before any rebirth is possible.

You're probably right, but the thought of uncontested Tory rule until at least 2025 turns my stomach.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

The EU has produced a very detailed document on the estimated economic effects of Brexit. (basically looking at all the available models including the UK treasury, OCED and EU/Non EU sources)

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/595374/IPOL_STU(2017)595374_EN.pdf

well worth a read as it will inform the EU's commission and the EU's Parliaments understanding

The core question is: why should the EU compromise when we're the ones leaving?

Brexiteers see no sense here. It sucks that we have to go through with leaving to demonstrate how stupid the idea is, but at least it should prompt people to switch to parties that back rejoining.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/great-repeal-bill-will-create-sweeping-powers-to-change-laws-after-brexit

[edit: I've just seen that the white paper is available. Maybe it addresses my points below]

Such control.

A lot of EU laws* (like, a really big lot) can't just be transferred into UK law because they defer authority to other EU regulatory bodies.
This gives us 3 options:

1) Mutually recognise decisions by those EU bodies. This doesn't really work, since the UK would no longer be able to request judgements from these EU bodies without some very clever negotiations - for which there is no time. Plus, mutual recognition is literally the opposite of 'taking back control'.

2) Create a parallel UK body to perform the role of the current EU body. e.g. our own pharmaceutical regulatory authority. This is possible and in some cases necessary, but it would require a vast expansion of our public sector... not happening with this government!

3) Burn them! A lot of laws will just be abandoned as unsupportable since they are too heavily reliant on the EU. It'll be done using the Henry VIII powers to dispose of them with little or no parliamentary oversight. Where absolutely necessary, we'll set up a sovereign UK agency that consist of a handful of civil servants rubber stamping UK versions of the judgements from EU bodies (kinda a mix of 1 and 2). This provides an illusion of control, but will be a disaster when UK citizens/businesses ask the rubber-stampers to make decisions on issues that only (or differently) affect the UK.

I think that a lot of things are going to be stuck in regulatory limbo as the EU laws can't apply, while the UK is unable to legislate on its own due to no relevant authority being available, or said authority being little more than a vacant address with a sign saying "under construction, come back soon!"

* Most of these "EU laws" are already UK laws because of the way that implementing EU directives works, though some EU regulations are applied directly.

Sort of. The white paper broadly acknowledges that issues can arise where a direct translation of EU law into domestic law would leave certain laws functionally defunct. It only vaguely suggests that the government be permitted powers to fix laws or introduce secondary legislation to address these issues, but isn't at all case by case.

 

[phisheep]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/great-repeal-bill-will-create-sweeping-powers-to-change-laws-after-brexit

[edit: I've just seen that the white paper is available. Maybe it addresses my points below]

Such control.

A lot of EU laws* (like, a really big lot) can't just be transferred into UK law because they defer authority to other EU regulatory bodies.
This gives us 3 options:

1) Mutually recognise decisions by those EU bodies. This doesn't really work, since the UK would no longer be able to request judgements from these EU bodies without some very clever negotiations - for which there is no time. Plus, mutual recognition is literally the opposite of 'taking back control'.

2) Create a parallel UK body to perform the role of the current EU body. e.g. our own pharmaceutical regulatory authority. This is possible and in some cases necessary, but it would require a vast expansion of our public sector... not happening with this government!

3) Burn them! A lot of laws will just be abandoned as unsupportable since they are too heavily reliant on the EU. It'll be done using the Henry VIII powers to dispose of them with little or no parliamentary oversight. Where absolutely necessary, we'll set up a sovereign UK agency that consist of a handful of civil servants rubber stamping UK versions of the judgements from EU bodies (kinda a mix of 1 and 2). This provides an illusion of control, but will be a disaster when UK citizens/businesses ask the rubber-stampers to make decisions on issues that only (or differently) affect the UK.

I think that a lot of things are going to be stuck in regulatory limbo as the EU laws can't apply, while the UK is unable to legislate on its own due to no relevant authority being available, or said authority being little more than a vacant address with a sign saying "under construction, come back soon!"

* Most of these "EU laws" are already UK laws because of the way that implementing EU directives works, though some EU regulations are applied directly.

This has come up several times in the debate so far. The general thrust is that either there will be a new regulatory body or an expansion of the role of an existing one. There was also some brief mention of treaty arrangements but it was very brief.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

The core question is: why should the EU compromise when we're the ones leaving?

Brexiteers see no sense here. It sucks that we have to go through with leaving to demonstrate how stupid the idea is, but at least it should prompt people to switch to parties that back rejoining.

That would require a level of self reflection I don't believe the UK public at large is capable of.

If we don't come out of this with the general opinion being that everything is still terrible and it's all the EUs fault, I'll be surprised greatly.

 

[Bleepey]

Need a detective story here. I think Cameron pointed the gun, Farage & Johnson loaded it, the voting public pulled the trigger, all of us took the bullet and May has to pick up the pieces.

Yuk.

But you know, there's a lot of it that May can't really be blamed for. Not yet anyhow.

I'd say Cameron put the bullet in the chamber of the UK's head, Farage and aimed at the head and May pulled the trigger

 

[PJV3]

I'd say Cameron put the bullet in the chamber of the UK's head, Farage and aimed at the head and May pulled the trigger

I think May is the one who tells you to keep your chin up as she amputates your legs.

 

[nOoblet16]

I'd say Cameron put the bullet in the chamber of the UK's head, Farage and aimed at the head and May pulled the trigger

Eventhough it takes the voters out of the equation I'll agree, it's not really the voters fault that they got played by politicians. It's obvious that the general population is quite susceptible to being influenced by propaganda, scare tactics and with a bit of nationalism thrown into the mix. Most people wouldn't have spent as much time deciding their vote as a person writing a post here.

 

[Camp Freddie]

Sort of. The white paper broadly acknowledges that issues can arise where a direct translation of EU law into domestic law would leave certain laws functionally defunct. It only vaguely suggests that the government be permitted powers to fix laws or introduce secondary legislation to address these issues, but isn't at all case by case.

Ah yes, page 20 case study 2 seems to cover a lot of my concerns.
Also, on page 21:
"Government departments have been analysing the UK statute book and directly applicable EU law in their areas of responsibility to enable an assessment of the scale of the changes needed. It is clear that a very significant proportion of EU-derived law for which Government departments are responsible contains some provisions that will not function appropriately if EU law is simply preserved."
Ha ha ha (bold added by me).

The answer seems to be "We'll make our own regulator, with hookers and blackjack!" or "Who needs regulatory bodies anyway, we'll be fine"
They confirm on page 23 that secondary legislation (Henry VIII powers) will apply when shifting responsibility to UK regulators (or not). Interesting times indeed.

I hope my industry (chemicals, broadly speaking) is in a bubble where the EU regulatory bodies are huge, important and irreplaceable in the short term. Aside from the massive cost of expanding UK regulators to cover all the federalised EU stuff, there simply aren't enough trained, experienced UK staff.
Maybe most industries do not rely on the EU in this way.

 

[NekoFever]

Comes back to that inflated sense of worth some British people have. Needs deflating and in the harshest way possible.

Honestly, this is one of those things where I'd buy the short term pain for long term gain argument. This country needs its ego popped and, even if it's going to hurt, it would be for the best.