** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[Psamathe]

When I vote in a General Election I vote for a team with a few prominent individuals, one of whom will probably lead them. How involved did any of us feel with the election of any of the current top EU bods? Not at all is the only honest answer anyone can give. If none of you understand that feeling, all I can say is you are easily satisfied.

In a General Election you vote for a candidate in your constituency. The chosen person is one voice in Parliament. Even if you vote for the winning candidate in the winning party, you still have no choice over the PM or cabinet.
.....

And in the news today May is telling most Conservative MPs that they must vote for Heathrow expansion (exceptions like "The Boris Problem"). So how democratic is it when your elected representative is told to ignore constituents and do as instructed by May? Illustrates to me how even though we elect our MPs (through a very flawed electoral system), the whipping system turns it into an even less democratic governance.

Ian

[bovlomov]

And in the news today May is telling most Conservative MPs that they must vote for Heathrow expansion (exceptions like "The Boris Problem"). So how democratic is it when your elected representative is told to ignore constituents and do as instructed by May? Illustrates to me how even though we elect our MPs (through a very flawed electoral system), the whipping system turns it into an even less democratic governance.

It is especially annoying that many of the criticisms about the EU's democratic deficit are made by people who actively benefit from the UK's democratic deficit. Not only politicians, but press barons and editors. I'd respect their opinions about the EU a bit more if they applied the same standards to the UK.

(No slur on the case made by pwa or others here, who have their own criticisms of the way the UK operates)

[pwa]

And in the news today May is telling most Conservative MPs that they must vote for Heathrow expansion (exceptions like "The Boris Problem"). So how democratic is it when your elected representative is told to ignore constituents and do as instructed by May? Illustrates to me how even though we elect our MPs (through a very flawed electoral system), the whipping system turns it into an even less democratic governance.

It is especially annoying that many of the criticisms about the EU's democratic deficit are made by people who actively benefit from the UK's democratic deficit. Not only politicians, but press barons and editors. I'd respect their opinions about the EU a bit more if they applied the same standards to the UK.

(No slur on the case made by pwa or others here, who have their own criticisms of the way the UK operates)

That last comment received with thanks. Signing off on this for today because I don't want to go to bed with Brexit on my mind. But congrats everyone on very civilised discussion.

[stu1102]

The reality starts to bite;


An official Japanese government task force on Brexit, has collated views of big Japanese companies from car companies to banks and pharmaceutical companies that invest in the UK.

It has produced a 15-page list titled "Japan's message to the UK and the EU", detailing requirements from Brexit negotiations.
It lists the consequences if the requirements are not delivered.Half of Japanese investment in the EU comes to the UK including companies such as Nissan, Honda, Mitsubishi, Nomura and Daiwa.

"Japanese businesses with their European headquarters in the UK may decide to transfer their head-office function to Continental Europe if EU laws cease to be applicable in the UK after its withdrawal," the report concludes.

It says: "In light of the fact that a number of Japanese businesses, invited by the Government in some cases, have invested actively to the UK, which was seen to be a gateway to Europe, and have established value-chains across Europe, we strongly request that the UK will consider this fact seriously and respond in a responsible manner to minimise any harmful effects on these businesses."

"Brexit would make such products unable to meet the rules of origin as EU products, which means that Japanese companies operating in the EU would not be able to enjoy the benefit of the Free Trade Areas concluded by the EU," the report said.
It also calls on the UK to "maintain access to workers who are nationals of the UK or the EU", saying the European labour market could suffer "great turmoil" if EU nationals could not freely travel between and stay in the UK and continental Europe.
The Japanese government warns its banks will move their European HQs out of London if the Brexit negotiations fail to secure the financial services passport to operate in the EU.
"If Japanese financial institutions are unable to maintain the single passport obtained in the UK, they would face difficulties in their business operations in the EU and might have to acquire corporate status within the EU anew and obtain the passport again, or to relocate their operations from the UK to existing establishments in the EU," said the report.
This concern has already been noted by the Bank of England, but this is the strongest indication yet of other nations spelling out the implications of some types of Brexit.
Those impacts also will be felt in the pharmaceutical industry, says the report, which sees the location of the EU's European Medicines Agency in London as crucial to the UK's high tech research appeal.
"Many Japanese pharmaceutical companies are operating in London, due to the EMA's location in London.
"If the EMA were to transfer to other EU Member States, the appeal of London as an environment for the development of pharmaceuticals would be lost, which could possibly lead to a shift in the flow of R&D funds and personnel to Continental Europe.
"This could force Japanese companies to reconsider their business activities," says the report.

https://news.sky.com/story/japans-unpre ... t-10564585

[pete75]

The reality starts to bite;


An official Japanese government task force on Brexit, has collated views of big Japanese companies from car companies to banks and pharmaceutical companies that invest in the UK.

It has produced a 15-page list titled "Japan's message to the UK and the EU", detailing requirements from Brexit negotiations.
It lists the consequences if the requirements are not delivered.Half of Japanese investment in the EU comes to the UK including companies such as Nissan, Honda, Mitsubishi, Nomura and Daiwa.

"Japanese businesses with their European headquarters in the UK may decide to transfer their head-office function to Continental Europe if EU laws cease to be applicable in the UK after its withdrawal," the report concludes.

It says: "In light of the fact that a number of Japanese businesses, invited by the Government in some cases, have invested actively to the UK, which was seen to be a gateway to Europe, and have established value-chains across Europe, we strongly request that the UK will consider this fact seriously and respond in a responsible manner to minimise any harmful effects on these businesses."

"Brexit would make such products unable to meet the rules of origin as EU products, which means that Japanese companies operating in the EU would not be able to enjoy the benefit of the Free Trade Areas concluded by the EU," the report said.
It also calls on the UK to "maintain access to workers who are nationals of the UK or the EU", saying the European labour market could suffer "great turmoil" if EU nationals could not freely travel between and stay in the UK and continental Europe.
The Japanese government warns its banks will move their European HQs out of London if the Brexit negotiations fail to secure the financial services passport to operate in the EU.
"If Japanese financial institutions are unable to maintain the single passport obtained in the UK, they would face difficulties in their business operations in the EU and might have to acquire corporate status within the EU anew and obtain the passport again, or to relocate their operations from the UK to existing establishments in the EU," said the report.
This concern has already been noted by the Bank of England, but this is the strongest indication yet of other nations spelling out the implications of some types of Brexit.
Those impacts also will be felt in the pharmaceutical industry, says the report, which sees the location of the EU's European Medicines Agency in London as crucial to the UK's high tech research appeal.
"Many Japanese pharmaceutical companies are operating in London, due to the EMA's location in London.
"If the EMA were to transfer to other EU Member States, the appeal of London as an environment for the development of pharmaceuticals would be lost, which could possibly lead to a shift in the flow of R&D funds and personnel to Continental Europe.
"This could force Japanese companies to reconsider their business activities," says the report.

https://news.sky.com/story/japans-unpre ... t-10564585

It's already been decided that the EMA will move to Amsterdam in 2019.
The UK is not being expelled from the EU it has decided to leave. Therefore any ill effects resulting from that decision will be entirely the fault of the UK or rather those who voted to leave. They'll doubtless blame Europe though.

[Debs]

It's already been decided that the EMA will move to Amsterdam in 2019.
The UK is not being expelled from the EU it has decided to leave. Therefore any ill effects resulting from that decision will be entirely the fault of the UK or rather those who voted to leave. They'll doubtless blame Europe though.

But that's Partly incorrect, 'The UK' hasn't decided to leave the EU, this Tory government has, ...and any ill effects resulting from that decision will be entirely the fault of this Tory government.

[stu1102]

As I have indicated before..

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is making preparations to ensure that it can continue to deliver on its mission and protect public and animal health after the UK leaves the EU on 30 March 2019, the date currently set by the timeframe provided in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. One of the consequences of Brexit is that EMA will relocate to Amsterdam, the Netherlands, where it has to take up its operations on 30 March 2019 at the latest.

One of the direct consequences of this relocation in simple terms is that the UK will become a separate market for drug companies which means do they [the drug company] launch their new cancer drug in a market of the EU (approx. 440 million people I believe less the UK) or the new UK market 66 million people once we leave the EU


Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, Chairman of the MHRA, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has said that a concern he has about Brexit is that the UK could be at the “back of the queue” when it comes to access to new medicines: One of the biggest worries I have about Brexit and standing alone as a regulator is that we are only 3% of the world market for new drugs and if we are not careful we are going to be at the back of the queue. Japan, America and Europe will be at the front of the queue and we will be at the back.


Professor Sir Alasdair Breckenridge, former chairman of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). “The impact on the public will be that new drugs will be late in coming and we are just not going to get our hands on the huge range of new anticancer drugs, anti-inflammatories and monoclonal antibodies soon enough. Coupled with the fall in the value of sterling, these drugs are going to be more expensive when they do finally arrive. “Doctors are going to be at the sharp end dealing with patients, who are well read and know what is available, and healthcare is going to suffer. It is looking more like a glass half-empty state for the pharmaceutical and medical devices industry unless there is going to be some fancy footwork with a new regulatory system, https://www.prescriber.co.uk/wp-content ... it-lsw.pdf



While the UK has effectively kicked out a Medicines Agency please take a look at how the Dutch are receiving the 800 scientists, Doctors and research staff who are relocating to the Netherlands from EMA London to Amsterdam

https://thepienews.com/news/dutch-schoo ... -meetings/

[Psamathe]

..... 'The UK' hasn't decided to leave the EU, this Tory government has, ...and any ill effects resulting from that decision will be entirely the fault of this Tory government.

Although Labour seem to being pretty much "going along with the decision". Labour have an excellent opportunity to actually stand for something to improve things for the electorate and instead all Corbyn can focus on is getting rid of EU state aid rules. He seems to be overlooking that the economic hit will have a far more detrimental impact on UK workers than his longed for state aid.

Ian

[Debs]

..... 'The UK' hasn't decided to leave the EU, this Tory government has, ...and any ill effects resulting from that decision will be entirely the fault of this Tory government.

Although Labour seem to being pretty much "going along with the decision". Labour have an excellent opportunity to actually stand for something to improve things for the electorate and instead all Corbyn can focus on is getting rid of EU state aid rules. He seems to be overlooking that the economic hit will have a far more detrimental impact on UK workers than his longed for state aid.

Ian

Although Corbyn and many Leave supporters have made the undemocratic mistake of begrudgingly going along with the Tory Party decision to leave, the Labour Party are not in government or actually involved in The Cabinet of very right wing Tory ministers who have decided "we are going to Leave the EU" ...come what Maggie May, and drive Brexit blindly at full speed ahead as their vehicle [weapon] of choice that will enable them to create and inflict future Tory right wing political policies on the UK peoples, without all that EU red-tape; human rights, employment law, equality, etc getting in their way.

Corbyn should have sensibly confronted the new world order Brexit-Tory/UKIP government decision with total disagreement of leaving and with firm mandate of giving the UK people a "conformation referendum" to sanity check if the UK people really want to goose-step over the Brexit cliff - especially now as we have learned how bad things are going to be, and how appalling flawed the referendum was.

Imagine the House of Commons with an anti-Brexit collaboration of Labour, SNP, Lib-Dem - this ridiculous but dangerous right wing Tory/fascist cabinet wouldn't exist right now. Things would look far more promising. Also has to be remembered the Tories didn't actually win the last GE, they stole a billion pound of tax payers money to bribe the DUPs with, wot a stupid way to form a government

[roubaixtuesday]

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is making preparations to ensure that it can continue to deliver on its mission and protect public and animal health after the UK leaves the EU on 30 March 2019...

The idiocy of Brexit is richly illustrated by our casually rejecting an institution the rest of Europe was fighting over the right to home.

As far as I can ascertain it, the latest govt position is that we are now negotiating to join EMA as an associate or somesuch and are willing to pay. Though knowing what the govt position on anything Brexit-wise is a matter of guesswork and clairvoyance.

In other words, we'll still follow the same rules, but not get to influence what the rules are, not get the benefits of housing the headquarters and pay more than we used to for the privilege.

It would be hard to make up the total omnishambles we're engaged in.

[Psamathe]

..... 'The UK' hasn't decided to leave the EU, this Tory government has, ...and any ill effects resulting from that decision will be entirely the fault of this Tory government.

Although Labour seem to being pretty much "going along with the decision". Labour have an excellent opportunity to actually stand for something to improve things for the electorate and instead all Corbyn can focus on is getting rid of EU state aid rules. He seems to be overlooking that the economic hit will have a far more detrimental impact on UK workers than his longed for state aid.

Ian

Although Corbyn and many Leave supporters have made the undemocratic mistake of begrudgingly going along with the Tory Party decision to leave....

I don't know "the numbers" but I'd suspect that Corbyn coming out strongly for remaining in the EEA would be enough to defeat the Conservatives. Of course there would be a few Labour supporters of brexit who'd support the conservatives but I suspect far far more Conservative rebels and given the precarious state of May's (lack of) majority she'd be facing a big risk.

Ian

[pete75]

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is making preparations to ensure that it can continue to deliver on its mission and protect public and animal health after the UK leaves the EU on 30 March 2019...

The idiocy of Brexit is richly illustrated by our casually rejecting an institution the rest of Europe was fighting over the right to home.

As far as I can ascertain it, the latest govt position is that we are now negotiating to join EMA as an associate or somesuch and are willing to pay. Though knowing what the govt position on anything Brexit-wise is a matter of guesswork and clairvoyance.

In other words, we'll still follow the same rules, but not get to influence what the rules are, not get the benefits of housing the headquarters and pay more than we used to for the privilege.

It would be hard to make up the total omnishambles we're engaged in.

The EMA is staffed by experts. As was made clear during their campaign Brexiters have little regard for experts so most will probably regard the departure of 600 or so to Amsterdam as a good thing.

[Psamathe]

Another "bombshell"

How dangerous for the UK economy is the European Union’s latest advice to Continental firms?
...
When the EU did some 40 free trade deals with the likes of South Korea, Mexico and South Africa the agreements stipulated that any produce or manufactured good which passed between them tariff-free had to have genuinely originated in the two signatory countries or blocs.

This stipulation was necessary to prevent other countries essentially free-riding on the deal. For instance, a firm in a third country could export their goods to one of the two parties to the free trade agreement and then re-export goods to the other party without paying the applicable tariffs.

To prevent this happening the two countries in the deal impose “rules of origin” checks on imports. For the UK, while it’s in the EU, this is not a problem. Any UK goods pass through fine. Also, any UK components in EU goods are not a problem at all.
...
But with the UK out of the EU’s customs union the situation is potentially very different. Rules of origin specify that a certain proportion of a good has to have been made in the country or bloc to qualify. The proportion varies with the good in question, but it’s often around 50 per cent. For cars the requirement is 60 per cent.

If, after Brexit, an EU business has used components sourced in the UK, that could potentially push the proportion of the exported EU good under the threshold, meaning it would fail the rule of origin requirement and be forced to pay the standard tariff.

I'm sure this will have the supporters of brexit screaming "we're being bullied" and declaring how "we are better off without them ...". But it's just rules that we [UK] helped create and benefited from and we chose to put ourselves outside those rules. It's May (and her supporters of brexit) who have chosen to leave the Custome Union and thus put us (and our businesses) outside those rules - so to me it's no more than the EU pointing out the rules and making sure their home businesses are fully aware of the rules.

Ian

[Ben@Forest]

Can l hear an echo...?

[Psamathe]

Another "bombshell"

How dangerous for the UK economy is the European Union’s latest advice to Continental firms?
...
When the EU did some 40 free trade deals with the likes of South Korea, Mexico and South Africa the agreements stipulated that any produce or manufactured good which passed between them tariff-free had to have genuinely originated in the two signatory countries or blocs.

This stipulation was necessary to prevent other countries essentially free-riding on the deal. For instance, a firm in a third country could export their goods to one of the two parties to the free trade agreement and then re-export goods to the other party without paying the applicable tariffs.

To prevent this happening the two countries in the deal impose “rules of origin” checks on imports. For the UK, while it’s in the EU, this is not a problem. Any UK goods pass through fine. Also, any UK components in EU goods are not a problem at all.
...
But with the UK out of the EU’s customs union the situation is potentially very different. Rules of origin specify that a certain proportion of a good has to have been made in the country or bloc to qualify. The proportion varies with the good in question, but it’s often around 50 per cent. For cars the requirement is 60 per cent.

If, after Brexit, an EU business has used components sourced in the UK, that could potentially push the proportion of the exported EU good under the threshold, meaning it would fail the rule of origin requirement and be forced to pay the standard tariff.

I'm sure this will have the supporters of brexit screaming "we're being bullied" and declaring how "we are better off without them ...". But it's just rules that we [UK] helped create and benefited from and we chose to put ourselves outside those rules. It's May (and her supporters of brexit) who have chosen to leave the Custome Union and thus put us (and our businesses) outside those rules - so to me it's no more than the EU pointing out the rules and making sure their home businesses are fully aware of the rules.

Ian

And after that announcement/report, more revelations have emerged about what has already been happening within the EU

Brexit: EU car manufacturers already in talks about rejecting British-made parts, industry leader reveals

Worried EU car manufacturers are already in talks about rejecting British-made parts because of Brexit, an industry leader has revealed.

The growing fear was that “lots of jobs disappear” because of Theresa May’s vow to leave the existing customs union, the head of a component supplying firm said.

The threat arises because EU “rules of origin” state that at least 55 per cent of a product's parts must come from within the EU if it is to benefit from free trade deals across the world.
...
John Neill, chief executive officer of Unipart, which supplies car manufacturers with components and spare parts, warned it had long been telling ministers “clearly about these risks”.

“The reality is, if we can't count European parts as local content, then it is going to be very difficult for our car manufacturers to export to these markets where we already have free trade deals,” he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One programme.

And, asked if European car-makers were turning their backs on British firms, he replied: “Those discussions are being held continuously by the big global component manufacturers who are worried about investing in the UK because they feel there is so much uncertainty.”

Ian