They Continue To Walk Among Us ...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
The Brexit "deal" A Synopsis;
In case you, like Jeremy Corbym haven't managed to read the whole 600 pages, here's a run down, courtesy of Steerpike of the Spectator;
The top 40 horrors:
1.From the offset, we should note that this is an EU text, not a UK or international text. This has one source. The Brexit agreement is written in Brussels.
2.May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6). Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately, excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7)
3.The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court, governing the entire Agreement – Art. 4. stipulates that both citizens and resident companies can use it. Art 4.2 orders our courts to recognise this. “If the European Commission considers that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties or under Part Four of this Agreement before the end of the transition period, the European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union”. (Art. 87)
4.The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).
5.The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2))
6.Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – one of the most dangerous provisions. (Article 168). This cuts the UK off from International Law, something we’d never do with any foreign body. Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174)
7.“UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United Kingdom” No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.
8.The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the country joined the EU.
9.Several problems with the EU’s definitions: “Union law” is too widely defined and “United Kingdom national” is defined by the Lisbon Treaty: we should given away our right to define our citizens. The “goods” and the term “services” we are promised the deal are not defined – or, rather, will be defined however the EU wishes them to be. Thus far, this a non-defined term so far. This agreement fails to define it.
10.The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
11.Furthermore, the UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101)
12.The GDPR clause. The General Data Protection Regulation – the EU’s stupidest law ever? – is to be bound into UK law (Articles 71 to 73). There had been an expectation in some quarters that the UK could get out of it.
13.The UK establishes a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – if it was,
The top 40 horrors:
1.From the offset, we should note that this is an EU text, not a UK or international text. This has one source. The Brexit agreement is written in Brussels.
2.May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6). Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately, excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7)
3.The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court, governing the entire Agreement – Art. 4. stipulates that both citizens and resident companies can use it. Art 4.2 orders our courts to recognise this. “If the European Commission considers that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties or under Part Four of this Agreement before the end of the transition period, the European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union”. (Art. 87)
4.The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).
5.The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2))
6.Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – one of the most dangerous provisions. (Article 168). This cuts the UK off from International Law, something we’d never do with any foreign body. Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174)
7.“UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United Kingdom” No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.
8.The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the country joined the EU.
9.Several problems with the EU’s definitions: “Union law” is too widely defined and “United Kingdom national” is defined by the Lisbon Treaty: we should given away our right to define our citizens. The “goods” and the term “services” we are promised the deal are not defined – or, rather, will be defined however the EU wishes them to be. Thus far, this a non-defined term so far. This agreement fails to define it.
10.The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
11.Furthermore, the UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101)
12.The GDPR clause. The General Data Protection Regulation – the EU’s stupidest law ever? – is to be bound into UK law (Articles 71 to 73). There had been an expectation in some quarters that the UK could get out of it.
13.The UK establishes a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – if it was,
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This one ? https:/
One can register for access to three articles per week.
One can register for access to three articles per week.
I know very little about the ins and outs, cept to say when it voted in the so called referendum....we either wanted IN or OUT and the majority wanted out. Fair and democratic. So...WHY are these (keep to rules) applicable to getting out?
Why any RULES From the EU? Out and alone or in with the unelected kerrr...ap of the federal state of Europe? I don't understand, all I know is out and in and what that means in terms of staying or leaving ANY group or membership. Jeez..... Talk about stitched up or sold down the river.... This is crazy!
Why any RULES From the EU? Out and alone or in with the unelected kerrr...ap of the federal state of Europe? I don't understand, all I know is out and in and what that means in terms of staying or leaving ANY group or membership. Jeez..... Talk about stitched up or sold down the river.... This is crazy!
All I can say is it's quite an achievement to continue to insist that all this was easy, if only ... before disappearing into some incoherent idea or other that bears to resemblance to reality.
"So contrary to your previous claims, Britain can 'rip' itself away from the EU."
Sigh... We *could* do a lot of things. But we very transparently should do none of them. Leaving with no deal is a possibility, but would be a reckless and destructive decision that everyone sensible realises we should avoid.
"So contrary to your previous claims, Britain can 'rip' itself away from the EU."
Sigh... We *could* do a lot of things. But we very transparently should do none of them. Leaving with no deal is a possibility, but would be a reckless and destructive decision that everyone sensible realises we should avoid.
And which anyone sensible knows is what's left if we are ever able to get out, as this "deal" is worse.
Can't be that difficult to get this far when all it needs is to say, Yes, of course", to whatever the EU demanded, apart from the less important requirements that should be taken as read would be allowed anyway, and which one could pretend were great concessions won.
Can't be that difficult to get this far when all it needs is to say, Yes, of course", to whatever the EU demanded, apart from the less important requirements that should be taken as read would be allowed anyway, and which one could pretend were great concessions won.
hang on so are those points listed by khandro mostly applicable only during the "transition" period?
jim: " in the time available, and from the position we started -- there wasn't much better we could get. " - seriously jim? why? No deal is better than that! heck staying in is better than that! It seems we have allowed them to take the serious ssip.
jim: " in the time available, and from the position we started -- there wasn't much better we could get. " - seriously jim? why? No deal is better than that! heck staying in is better than that! It seems we have allowed them to take the serious ssip.
Jim it was relatively easy. The only reason it has not been is because the remainers have had a free hand in making it seem this difficult.
People who don’t want to do something and have a free hand will do whatever they can to get things changed to the way they want. Ergo Brexit thus far has been a farce and will continue to be so unless someone with the balls to do the right thing steps up. Some have but the others are just waiting for a while to see what happens.
Someone in the commons should read out Kandros post or the official side of it and see how many would back it then. As it is they bicker between themselves and the true state of things are relegated to not quite news.
People who don’t want to do something and have a free hand will do whatever they can to get things changed to the way they want. Ergo Brexit thus far has been a farce and will continue to be so unless someone with the balls to do the right thing steps up. Some have but the others are just waiting for a while to see what happens.
Someone in the commons should read out Kandros post or the official side of it and see how many would back it then. As it is they bicker between themselves and the true state of things are relegated to not quite news.
> those who voted for a real Brexit
Dreamers, you mean.
> BA for Cassa, what we have here is the result of getting a load of Vegans to design a BBQ
The BBQ was your "real Brexit" and the Vegans were the PM, David Cameron, a Remainer; the MPs, mostly Remainers; and the Civil Servants, even more in favour of Remain. And you voted for it.
It was obvious in advance that the outcome would be a clusterf*** (i.e. "a disastrously mishandled situation or undertaking") and that's exactly what it has been, still is and will continue to be. If you think any other then you're still a dreamer.
Dreamers, you mean.
> BA for Cassa, what we have here is the result of getting a load of Vegans to design a BBQ
The BBQ was your "real Brexit" and the Vegans were the PM, David Cameron, a Remainer; the MPs, mostly Remainers; and the Civil Servants, even more in favour of Remain. And you voted for it.
It was obvious in advance that the outcome would be a clusterf*** (i.e. "a disastrously mishandled situation or undertaking") and that's exactly what it has been, still is and will continue to be. If you think any other then you're still a dreamer.
According to this …
https:/
....Theresa May misunderstood Leave voters.
An understatement!
https:/
....Theresa May misunderstood Leave voters.
An understatement!
Latest Posts
Who Inherits If Children Are Adopted ?
Law4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Crosswords17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.