Brexit process

[Potemkin Villager]

I would make a simple point, however, which is that competition empowers the consumer because the consumer can decide whose products or services to buy.

To me it is a load of nonsense. However, in a sense it is not worth arguing with as the people propounding this start with their conclusions rather than trying to develop conclusions from the facts.

[Mark]

You mean the building regulations that say I can't fit an electric shower? Or that if I have new windows someone has to drill holes in the frame to let air in? Or that all gas appliances can't be fitted with an idiot proof self sealing bayonet coupling so that anyone can terminate it [although we can send people into space and back], and you have to pay some jobsworth high priest who isn't really any more capable than you or me? Last year I dismantled my electric shower and replaced the weeping parts. We are still alive and clean. In my last house I repaired the crappy soldering on a crappy Potterton combi boiler. This morning I have enjoyed my self designed loudspeakers made the old school, non IT way, algebra and transfer functions. One day I might show you some home made inverters and my stash of pre chinese counterfeit MOSFETs - spares to keep them running and therefore me warm for a lifetime. Funny how the experts have just killed x00s of people in London a week ago. Hopefully some regulators will die of hypothermia when the power cuts arrive.

You may well be competent to do your own gas / electrical work.
However, 99% of the population aren't, so would choose to use a contractor. I'd say they'd be wise to use somebody with the appropriate accreditation (Gas Safe, NIC, Elecsa, Napit etc etc).
It also gives them some form of redress if things go wrong....

Are you saying that you'd prefer no Regulation or Accreditation ?
Being an 'Expert' these days seems to be a dirty word....

[Mark]

Why cant we make our own regulations on fire safety, building regulations, electrical safety and the like.

Despite a recent tragedy, the UK has a generally good safety record compared to many of our European neighbours.
Portable equipment should generally comply with international standards so as to facilitate trade.
Buildings don't move around so can be built to whatever requirements OUR authorities deem suitable.

UK fatalities from fire, from road accidents, and from electrical accidents are lower than in many other countries, per million of population.

We did before, and we will have to again post Brexit.
The concern is that repealing all the EU stuff and then developing our own will be a very time consuming and costly process.
Also, if the Tories are doing it, do we trust them to keep the same protections in place ?

You're right, in some areas we were world leaders before joining...., the EU basically adopted our Standards and rolled them out across the EU with a few minor tweaks... In other areas we were way behind (eg Environmental Regulation)...., remember, we used to be called the Dirty Man of Europe and our water/air quality was a disgrace. EU Regulations have forced us to spend to clean up to the standards in Germany, Scandinavia....

[fuzzy]

You may well be competent to do your own gas / electrical work.
However, 99% of the population aren't, so would choose to use a contractor. I'd say they'd be wise to use somebody with the appropriate accreditation (Gas Safe, NIC, Elecsa, Napit etc etc).
It also gives them some form of redress if things go wrong....

Are you saying that you'd prefer no Regulation or Accreditation ?
Being an 'Expert' these days seems to be a dirty word....

No I'm saying that most regulations beyond the minimum are there to make a deliberate restriction for a gravy train for those who lobby for it - lawyers, regulators, doctors, builders etc. I would like to think that most people on this board are preparing for a future when the jobsworth choice is not available.
My point was competent or not I/we are not allowed to do these things. This just about works in a world where the rich can pay, but when money is tight..Meanwhile the landlord is happy to follow all jobsworth rulings as his costs pass to jo public through taxes to pay higher housing benefits. It's a world created by our rulers.

When the American electrical code was updated for solar installations a few years ago, the author of that chapter in the NEC commented that he was not allowed by law to design and install his own PV system.

Here is some classic gush from a bottom feeder getting moist at the new restrictions - discuss:

http://www.voltimum.co.uk/articles/win- ... -situation

[johnhemming2]

No I'm saying that most regulations beyond the minimum are there to make a deliberate restriction for a gravy train for those who lobby for it - lawyers, regulators, doctors, builders etc.

The difficulty is defining the minimum.

I have sat on committees that decide on regulation (and also on de-regulation) there is lobbying that goes on some of which is more visible than other regulation. However, the UK is not that heavily regulated in many areas and it is clear that some regulated is needed for public protection.

I accept the argument that regulators at times lobby for more regulation in order to protect their jobs and give them more power. At times they get this, but not always (not even necessarily the majority of the time).

[emordnilap]

A trade agreement is something that is simply lobbied by multinationals and gov/city wonks for their benefit. Just like the endless red tape and tax law that work against the public and SMEs.

fuzzy, some (if not most) of this 'red tape' is there to protect the likes of you and I; (although not always people in tower blocks).

[Lord Beria3]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk ... gle-market

Different parliament, same split. Though Labour has recently been more united than at any point since Jeremy Corbyn became leader, its European schism resurfaced today. 49 MPs, including five shadow ministers (Ruth Cadbury, Rupa Huq, Andy Slaughter, Catherine West and Daniel Zeichner), defied the whip to vote for Chuka Umunna's Queen's Speech amendment backing Single Market and Customs Union membership (which was defeated by 322 votes to 101).

Corbyn confirms his support for Hard Brexit by sacking those shadow ministers who voted to remain in the single market.

[Potemkin Villager]

Different parliament, same split. Though Labour has recently been more united than at any point since Jeremy

Corbyn confirms his support for Hard Brexit by sacking those shadow ministers who voted to remain in the single market.

The peoples's flag is deepest red...........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGXOjm95WWo

[Little John]

This is EXACTLY what Corbyn needed to do!

YES!

[UndercoverElephant]

Excellent lecture by Vernon Bogdanor:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... ne-year-on

Reposted from Facebook:

There really is no such thing as a “Soft Brexit�.

Or to be more accurate, there is no such thing as a “Soft Brexit� that is both attainable (the EU might conceivably agree to it) and anyone in their right mind (including Leave voters) would actually want. Neither of the main British political parties have accepted this. Labour is currently offering something unattainable: access to the single market, but with control of immigration, all wrapped up in an overall deal that makes sense. Nice idea, but the EU won't go for it, because it would lead to an explosion of anti-EU movements in other EU countries – there is no way the EU are going to give us a deal that attractive, because it undermines the concept of the EU. Why accept the downsides of being a full member if you can get the upsides without those downsides? There is no “cake and eat it option� available. And the Tories? All they are currently offering is a totally incoherent mess. Labour can get away with offering the unattainable, because it is not in government, but the people who are actually supposed to be negotiating this deal cannot currently agree among themselves what it is that they are supposed to be aiming for. There is no consistent position about whether we should be inside the single market, or customs union, or what price we are willing to pay for these things. Neither is there any prospect of the Tories agreeing amongst themselves about this any time soon.

But even if we could get either the Labour Party or the Tories to agree among themselves about what we are aiming for, there is still no such thing as a “Soft Brexit� that is worth having. All the conceivable options are worse than both staying as a full member or leaving completely (i.e. “Hard Brexit�). The halfway-house options that fall into the “Soft Brexit� category are only suitable for nations hoping to become full members (e.g. Turkey) or small nations with very specific and unique requirements (e.g. Norway, Greenland). The only other model is the Swiss version, which involves a huge amount of bilateral treaties that take many years to negotiate, and at the end of the day the Swiss still have to accept free movement and most EU legislation with no influence over that legislation. Plus the EU probably wouldn't agree to a Swiss-style relationship with the UK anyway, because it takes far too much effort for a result that the EU doesn't really want.

If you the detailed, academic explanation of all this, then take a look at Vernon Bogdanor's recent lecture on it. He is a very well respected Professor of Political History, and here takes 60 minutes to go pretty much exactly what I have summarised above, in great detail and with all the relevant historical context. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... ne-year-on

I agree with almost everything he says, but I think he's overlooked something at the end. He explains that a “Hard Brexit� is actually considerably more workable/realistic than many people claim it to be. If we were to really go for it – to walk away from the EU completely and establish ourselves as a radically independent free-trading nation, there is scope for it to work. However, Bogdanor claims this is only possible if the UK lurches far to the economic right, implementing a radically Thatcherite-neoliberal model. I disagree, and believe Socialist Hard Brexit is possible, as explained here: http://www.politico.eu/article/how-a-so ... nd-europe/ Yes, free trading, but with some industries nationalised and with worker's rights protected.

The take-home is this: currently there is some sort of move towards a “compromise� position, where “Theresa May's Hard Brexit� is watered down by pro-EU tories, or Labour promises things that the EU will never agree to in a million years. It's all BULLSHIT. Not gonna happen. The further down that path we go, the more obvious it will become that we are heading in a direction absolutely nobody wants. It is impossible to predict how this will play out, because we have no idea when Theresa May will be forced out of her current post, or whether she'll be be replaced by a pro or anti EU Tory, nor do we know when there is going to be another election or what the result will be. And that is before we take into account the fact that what the EU wants, or is willing to agree to, is just as important as the UK end of things.

My best guess is that at some point in the next 18 months we are going to end up in such a complete and utter mess that the only way out is to call another referendum, which will Remain would almost certainly win. Another possibility is that the Tory party implodes and is forced to call a General Election, which the Tories would lose, followed by God Only Knows What, because I don't think Corbyn would have the votes in Parliament to get a Socialist Hard Brexit through.

Interesting times.

[Little John]

UE, you are in no position to claim with any authority that "Remain would almost certainly win" another referendum.

An extreme lack of capacity to have its cake and eat in terms of Brexit it will almost certainly provoke an extreme response in the UK population. But that reaction could go either way. It could lead to capitulation to the EU. Or it could lead to a complete and irrevocable rejection of it. There are too many variable in play to be able to say which way things will go. Variables which variously are:

levels of uncontrolled immigration to the EU over the coming months
Any economic deterioration in the EU or world economy
Political changes here in the UK

Additionally, my own gut instinct, for what little it is worth, is that there is now a hardening of the Leave mentality. Not a softening of it. Or, at least, certainly in my part of the country.

Whatever else is true, I would argue that if a hard Brexit happens, Remainers will be seriously pissed off but will, for the most part live, with it (albeit extremely begrudgingly) because of the referendum. If, however, capitulation to the EU happens and Brexit is cancelled, there will be bloodshed in this nation at some point. The reason being that the Brexit referendum was about far more than merely Brexit. It was about a whole section of the population who have been ignored and dismissed and left to rot for the last thirty five years and who, finally, found a democratic vehicle with which to kick back. If even that is denied to them, then they become that most dangerous of citizens. Ones with nothing left to lose.

All of this is about far more then mere economics.

[UndercoverElephant]

UE, you are in no position to claim with any authority that "Remain would almost certainly win" another referendum.

It is a guess. But let's assume for a moment that this guess is wrong. Let's imagine it is another straight in/out referendum and Leave wins again. That still leaves us with the problem that the people voting to leave are split between Thatcherites who want to see the UK turned into a deregulated offshore tax-haven where the working class are utterly shafted, and socialists who want the UK to become the leading light in a widespread western post-neoliberalist revolution. Two groups who are unlikely to agree with each other on anything at all but that they want th UK to leave the EU.

Which leaves us in a position where we cannot coherently negotiate with the EU, and/or cannot produce a majority government capable of governing the UK.

An extreme lack of capacity to have its cake and eat in terms of Brexit it will almost certainly provoke an extreme response in the UK population. But that reaction could go either way. It could lead to capitulation to the EU. Or it could lead to a complete and irrevocable rejection of it. There are too many variable in play to be able to say which way things will go. Variables which variously are:

levels of uncontrolled immigration to the EU over the coming months
Any economic deterioration in the EU or world economy
Political changes here in the UK

Additionally, my own gut instinct, for what little it is worth, is that there is now a hardening of the Leave mentality. Not a softening of it. Or, at least, certainly in my part of the country.

It may well be hardening among some parts of the electorate, but I don't think this changes anything I wrote in my opening post.

Whatever else is true, I would argue that if a hard Brexit happens, Remainers will be seriously pissed off but will, for the most part live, with it (albeit extremely begrudgingly) because of the referendum. If, however, capitulation to the EU happens and Brexit is cancelled, there will be bloodshed in this nation at some point. The reason being that the Brexit referendum was about far more than merely Brexit. It was about a whole section of the population who have been ignored and dismissed and left to rot for the last thirty five years and who, finally, found a democratic vehicle with which to kick back. If even that is denied to them, then they become that most dangerous of citizens. Ones with nothing left to lose.

All of this is about far more then mere economics.

I don't disagree with that either. Although it is even more complicated than that because that "whole section of the population" who have been left to rot includes large numbers of young people who are passionately supportive of the EU and who voted Labour at the election.

I would not be remotely surprised if a second referendum resulting in a Remain victory would be followed by widespread civil unrest. But I am not sure that would change anything either. I have no idea where it would ultimately lead. Maybe it is possible that we'd end up with a Corbyn-led revolution-ish thing where the EU grant us a decent trade deal without freedom of movement just to defuse the political bomb on its north-western border. Maybe.

[johnhemming2]

UE, you are in no position to claim with any authority that "Remain would almost certainly win" another referendum.

The evidence is that a referendum held today would result in a further leave victory.

[Little John]

The young people who voted Corbyn are to be welcomed in terms of becoming politically engaged. However, if Labour does everything it can to hold onto them, it will lose the working class UKIPers it managed to bring back into the fold.

So, the question Labour has to ask itself, when push comes to shove, is which of these two constituencies is electorally most important to it. I would say it is the latter because that is made up of a much larger and more electorally solid base because, amongst others things, it is age independent. That is to say, there are plenty of young voters in that latter constituency who voted Leave. The young people you refer to are largely aspirant-middle-class, urban salariats. So, they are certainly not the entirety of the young. Just a particular (well educated and vocal) portion of it. Namely, those who have recently obtained a degree and were fully expecting to become a part of the bourgeoisie but have been sorely disappointed. The kind of people who cheered Corbyn at Glastonbury in other words.

Meanwhile, there is a huge mass of less well educated (and less listened to) young people in towns and cities all across this country who were never part of that cultural group and who are, I would suggest, as likely, if not more likely to be in the Leave camp as in the Remain one.

[UndercoverElephant]

UE, you are in no position to claim with any authority that "Remain would almost certainly win" another referendum.

The evidence is that a referendum held today would result in a further leave victory.

OK, I am not sure I agree with that, but it is not impossible. If so, we are still left with an impasse, because the people who are voting leave tend to be either on the Thatcherite Right of British politics or the Corbynite Left, rather than anywhere near the centre. So they will be completely incapable of agreeing what sort of Brexit is required - and that goes for both the public and MPs.

There is a fundamental problem here in that the obvious way to resolve such a bitter division is to go for a compromise, but in this case the compromise solution ("soft brexit") is worse than either of the extremes.

My choices, in order of preference, are:

Socialist Hard Brexit
Remain
Soft Brexit
Thatcherite Hard Brexit