Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper? • Hacker News Board

Re: Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper?

#231

Post by moomin » Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

hacker_9 wrote: post #86

nkkollaw wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad. If anything because they'll have to rewrite thousands of laws and procedures that came from the EU times, and deal with the caos that that will cause. That only will cost so much money (and pain) that it would justify staying in the EU. Then, of course there are companies that have left and that will leave, highly-skilled workflow for London that will be harder to get, etc. They have to negotiate with the EU so…

Most of what you wrote is mis-information, for example it is written in the Repeal Bill [1] that all existing EU legislation will be copied across into domestic UK law to ensure a smooth transition on the day after Brexit. Trade wise, there will be bumps, but it is mutually beneficial to both us and the EU to keep trading as much as possible the same as it is now. The only benefactors from making trading more difficu…

That's hugely misleading. It's one of those things that sounds reasonable if you're not a lawyer, but a lawyer will have questions:

1) Will cases be decided according to the same principles as currently? (No, the bill specifically strikes out specific principles, including the animal rights one.) 2) What will the status of existing EU case law be? (Unclear.) 3) What will the status of post-exit EU case law be? (Unclear.)

In other words, it'll be similar, but different enough that it's going to cause problems.

Re: Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper?

#232

Post by tpm » Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

marrs wrote: post #230

tpm wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not illegal to 'sell your home made jam in your local charity shop' in many EU countries, so if it is in UK it has either nothing to do with the EU or is a rule misinterpreted by local legislation (which happens quite often). "EU legislation, which is largely corporatist, not individualist" sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But UK also wants to leave the jurisdiction of ECHR which is a very corporatist move.

I think you mean the ECJ. But either way, European courts aren't popular in the UK because they are able to override British law. Seems reasonable that the country that invented the concept of human rights might want to retain her jurisprudence. As for the homemade jam, see above.

Both ECJ and ECHR, but Theresa May has been fighting a long war against the ECHR: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-ca...

And given that many times ECHR was the court that sided with individuals against either corporations or states, it's really hard to frame this as supporting individual freedom.

Yes, European courts are able to override British courts and British law, because the UK agreed to that. That's the mysterious element of UK's relation to anything European: the UK agrees to some rules and then complains about the consequences.

As for homemade jam:

- what laws banning DIY? Are they UK laws? Are you sure it's the EU who mandated the precise letter of the law?

- Yes, the British have the HS2 to tender out to the whole EU (which it is still a part of you know), because that is actually a way to save money and decrease local connections between builders and politicians, also known as corruption. These are rules the UK has agreed to. But they don't have to build an inch of HS2 against their will, as the HS2 is not financed by Brussels and therefore they don't have the say.

- laws promoting 'green' energy are a mixed bag, I agree with that. But they are getting better, Euro 6 for example has hit diesel car manufacturers hard. And not everything is about cars.

Re: Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper?

#233

Post by ben_w » Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 10:59 PM UTC

kypro wrote: post #228

ben_w wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schengen area is an open border (+), UK-France is not. UK has the right to eject EU citizens who can’t support themselves, but lacks the beurocracy to identify such people. + and even that has exceptions, I was passport-checked going from Italy into France but not France to Italy, I assume because of the state of emergency from the attack a few years ago.

> Schengen area is an open border (+), UK-France is not. UK has the right to eject EU citizens who can’t support themselves, but lacks the beurocracy to identify such people. I understand this, but then the assumption is that this is a good immigration system. A nation shouldn't let anyone in who can get a job and support themselves. It's an awful immigration system which we have no control over and the majority of t…

> which we have no control over

The UK has the authority, just not the competence to use that authority. This is Westminster’s fault, not the EU’s.

> People who immigrate to the UK from the EU, or have family who did, vote very differently from native Brits

They’re not allowed to vote in general elections (or the Referendum) unless they’re Irish (or have multiple nationalities and the other is British, Irish, or Commonwealth): http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registr...

> It's almost like open borders isn't good for national security. Who'd of thought.

Poor argument. In feudal times, you needed your Lord’s permission to leave your village — if that was still true, virtually every terrorist attack from the time of the IRA (the original) onwards would have been impossible.

Re: Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper?

#234

Post by ljf » Sat, Jan 13, 2018, 2:18 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #182

ljf wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, here are two articles for those that are downvoting. Brexit: One in five EU doctors make plans to leave NHS because of withdrawal - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/brexit-nhs-doctors-... European nurses and midwives leaving UK in droves since Brexit vote - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/02/european-nur...

Here's a UK government report: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summ... And here's a link to the NHS Digital Workforce statistics: http://content.digital.nhs.uk/workforce One example file is here: http://content.digital.nhs.uk/media/23993/Leavers-by-age-and...

And more Fears of Brexit drain as more EU27 ambulance staff quit the NHS

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/13/nhs-ambulanc...

Re: Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper?

#235

Post by marrs » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 2:12 PM UTC

tpm wrote: post #232

marrs wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you mean the ECJ. But either way, European courts aren't popular in the UK because they are able to override British law. Seems reasonable that the country that invented the concept of human rights might want to retain her jurisprudence. As for the homemade jam, see above.

Both ECJ and ECHR, but Theresa May has been fighting a long war against the ECHR: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-ca... And given that many times ECHR was the court that sided with individuals against either corporations or states, it's really hard to frame this as supporting individual freedom. Yes, European courts are able to override British courts and British law, because the UK agreed t…

    ...but Theresa May has been fighting a long war against
    the ECHR

I'm not often on May's side but I was in that case. How we got ourselves into the position where we were unable to expel a man as dangerous to civil society as that is beyond me.

    Yes, European courts are able to override British courts
    and British law, because the UK agreed to that. That's the
    mysterious element of UK's relation to anything European:
    the UK agrees to some rules and then complains about the
    consequences.

It's not that mysterious. The establishment are very pro EU, the British people not so much.

    As for homemade jam:

    - what laws banning DIY? Are they UK laws? Are you sure
    it's the EU who mandated the precise letter of the law?

At this point I don't really care. I get a bit tired of these circular arguments. If this really is just some parliamentary conspiracy theory to blame the EU for its own inadequacies then fine, let's take away the excuse.

To bring the discussion back to sovereignty, we've never had a discussion in the UK about the issue with regard to the EU. I don't think you can deny that have ceded at least some sovereignty to the EU, otherwise we wouldn't have the institutions you have already mentioned. The question is: how do we feel about it? Do we think those institutions are better, worse or indifferent?

You can't just take a country into a new political landscape and expect everyone to be just fine with it.