Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

The key factor being of course visiting vs. living. A lot of the "OMG Turks and Ukrainians are going to storm in" bollocks comes from not understanding this and being utterly ignorant of all those who have visa free travel rights:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Visa_policy_of_the_United_Kingdom.png

I still have it somewhere but some Brexit pamphlets not only raised spectre of Turkey but also in a lighter shade on a map (without addressing them) highlighted Iraq and Syria!

[Zanza]

Visa free travel and freedom of movement have nothing to do with each other. Not sure why people still conflate the two.

I wouldn't agree. They're not poles apart from each other. I think you can map things quite neatly on a continuum of:
Free movement
Visa free travel
Visa on arrival
E-visa (in practice, though theoretically not necessarily)
Regular visa obtained in advance
You shall not pass

The key factor being of course visiting vs. living. A lot of the "OMG Turks and Ukrainians are going to storm in" bollocks comes from not understanding this and being utterly ignorant of all those who have visa free travel rights:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Visa_policy_of_the_United_Kingdom.png

Freedom of movement is much more than visa free travel. It includes the right to reside, work without discrimination, participate in the social security system, have your dependents join you, participate in local and European (though not national) elections etc. It actually does not even necessitate visa free travel. Unlike visas it is not a privilege, but an individual right of EU citizens.

[Solmyr]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/10/no-deal-brexit-odds-dropped-dramatically-david-davis

Davis also made clear that the promised divorce bill, which is expected to be between £35bn and £39bn, would be paid only once a trading arrangement had been agreed.

"No deal means we won't be paying the money," Davis told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show.

Ahaha.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I watched Davis on the Andrew Marr program and also at the select committee for exiting the EU.

There is no way I would ever buy a used car from that man.

[garbon]

A bus just went down Oxford street with signs saying 'Bollocks to Brexit'.

[frunk]

There is now way I would ever buy a used car from that man.

This car costs £35bn unless we don't sign a contract, then we get it for free!

Sounds right.

[Josquius]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/10/no-deal-brexit-odds-dropped-dramatically-david-davis

Davis also made clear that the promised divorce bill, which is expected to be between £35bn and £39bn, would be paid only once a trading arrangement had been agreed.

"No deal means we won't be paying the money," Davis told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show.

Ahaha.

It's only blackmail when the EU does it!

[Josquius]

Good news

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42346192

The government has been narrowly defeated in a key vote on its Brexit bill after a rebellion by Tory MPs.
In a blow to Prime Minister Theresa May, MPs voted to give Parliament a legal guarantee of a vote on the final Brexit deal struck with Brussels.
The government had argued this would jeopardise its chances of delivering a smooth Brexit.
The amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill tabled by ex-Attorney General Dominic Grieve was backed by 309 to 305.

[Zanza]

Taking back control! It's good that parliament finally asserts its sovereignty.

[Zanza]

[...]

At the meeting on Monday there was support for the idea that the U.K. should make the most of the fact it starts off with all the same rules as the EU, and then selectively move away from some of those regulations, according to a person who was present.

[...]

It's not clear what the EU side might think of the proposal to gradually move away from full alignment as and when it suits the U.K. There's a risk Brussels would consider it the kind of "cherry-picking" approach that it has long rejected. Barnier said at the weekend there's "no way" negotiators would "mix up the various scenarios to create a specific one and accommodate their wishes."

If the EU says no, Cabinet tensions could re-emerge. May has made clear that controlling immigration and getting rid of European Court of Justice influence in the U.K. are red lines for her -- as they are for the most committed Brexit-backers. But the EU has said that access to the single market would require concessions on those points.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-18/may-s-key-ministers-are-said-to-move-toward-common-brexit-stance

What exactly does the UK offer to the EU if they already plan to diverge selectively in the future? A trade agreement where one side takes back control to change it at its whim in the future seems of little value.

[garbon]

Oh Britain.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/19/jails-exempt-smoking-ban-uk-supreme-court-rules

Smoking ban cannot be enforced in jails, UK supreme court rules

A prisoner suffering from poor health has lost his attempt to enforce the smoking ban in English and Welsh jails after the supreme court ruled that crown premises are effectively exempt from the enforcement of health regulations.

The unanimous judgment from the UK's highest court will prevent the inmate, Paul Black, from calling the NHS's smoke-free compliance line to report breaches of the ban.

Lady Hale, the president of the supreme court, said she was driven with "considerable reluctance" to conclude that when parliament passed the 2006 Health Act, prohibiting smoking in offices, bars and enclosed areas, it did not mean to extend it to government or crown sites.

The standard practice is that a statutory provision does not bind the crown unless legislation adopts words explicitly stating so or by what is known as "necessary implication".

"Had parliament intended part 1 of chapter 1 of the 2006 act to bind the crown, nothing would have been easier than to insert such a provision," Hale explained.

"The report of the health committee [at the time] does indicate that parliament was alive to the question of whether the smoking ban would bind the crown and aware of the case for further exemptions if the act were to do so.

"It might well be thought desirable, especially by and for civil servants and others working in or visiting government departments, if the smoking ban did bind the crown," she added. "But the legislation is quite workable without doing so."

Black, a non-smoker, is serving an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment at HMP Wymott. He has a number of health problems that are exacerbated by tobacco smoke and complained that the smoking ban was not being properly enforced in the common parts of the prison.

He issued proceedings for judicial review of the secretary of state's refusal to provide confidential and anonymous access to the NHS smoke-free compliance line to prisoners. This would have enabled prisoners to report breaches of the smoking ban to the local authority charged with enforcing it.

Black won his claim in the high court but lost at the court of appeal. The Ministry of Justice has so far phased in smoking bans in more than half of the 120 prisons in England and Wales.

"I am disappointed with the judgment," he said. "Throughout this case, I simply wished non-smoking prisoners and prison staff to have the same level of protection from the risks of second hand cigarette smoke as non-smokers living in the wider community."

Sean Humber, head of the prison law team at the law firm Leigh Day who represented Black, said: "Why shouldn't those living, working or visiting government properties be subject to the same laws, and indeed benefit from the same legal protections, as the rest of us?

"This judgment has far wider implications than simply the issue of smoking in prisons. It confirms that thousands of government properties, including, for example, courts and jobcentres, are not covered by the provisions of the Health Act prohibiting smoking in enclosed places. While many of these buildings even have signs saying it is against the law to smoke in them, these turn out to be incorrect."

[The Larch]

Wat.

[Tamas]

Wat.

With a bit of luck, Brexit will happen before this inmate's appeal reaches the European Court of Justice, and British freedom gets trampled upon.

[The Larch]

I find it baffling that in the UK official government establishments and premises (besides the military) can be exempted from fulfilling something as basic as health regulations unless it's explicitly mentioned. Oh well.

In a different topic, here's apparently a slide that Barnier, the EU's chief negotiation, showed last week on possible future trade scenarios for the UK according to the different red lines that May mentioned:

[The Larch]

Also, Barnier has excluded a possible special deal for the City (the Canada +++ scenario that David Davis floated).

UK cannot have a special deal for the City, says EU's Brexit negotiator
Exclusive: Michel Barnier's stark declaration quashes hopes for a bespoke trade deal to include financial services

Britain cannot have a special deal for the City of London, the European Union's chief Brexit negotiator has told the Guardian, dealing a blow to Theresa May's hopes of securing a bespoke trade agreement with the bloc.

Michel Barnier said it was unavoidable that British banks and financial firms would lose the passports that allow them to trade freely in the EU, as a result of any decision to quit the single market.

"There is no place [for financial services]. There is not a single trade agreement that is open to financial services. It doesn't exist." He said the outcome was a consequence of "the red lines that the British have chosen themselves. In leaving the single market, they lose the financial services passport."

The stark declaration quashes the hopes of the Brexit secretary, David Davis, for a unique trade deal that would include financial services. The Brexit secretary has called for a "Canada plus plus plus" deal with the EU, a reference to the free trade agreement struck between Ottawa and Brussels in 2016, but with the crucial addition of financial services.

In an exclusive interview with European newspapers, including the Guardian, Barnier gave examples of his own three pluses – judicial cooperation, defence and security and aviation.

The negotiator also said:

A trade deal could be agreed within a two-year transition period, but would have to be ratified by more than 35 national and regional parliaments.
The UK could not stop Brexit unilaterally, arguing that overturning the decision to leave would require the consent of 27 EU member states – a view at odds with one of the authors of article 50, Lord Kerr.
The UK must follow all rules and regulations of the EU during the transition period, including new laws passed after the UK has left.
The UK could negotiate trade agreements with the rest of the world during the transition, but they could not come into force.
He would not confirm British estimates that the final Brexit bill – the UK's outstanding obligations to the EU – would be no more than €45bn (£39bn).
Barnier was speaking three days after EU leaders agreed the UK had made enough progress on the Brexit divorce – citizens' rights, the Brexit financial settlement and the Irish border – to allow talks on the future.

He said the next key moment would be an EU summit in mid-March, when EU leaders are due to sign off guidelines that will lay out red lines and hopes for the future. "I hope very much that we will have a clear position from the British government by this time."

His tough warning on what the UK can expect from a future relationship comes on the eve of the first full cabinet discussion on Britain's future relationship with the EU. After a meeting with her Brexit "war cabinet" on Monday, government sources said they wanted a "bespoke and ambitious" trade deal.

British government sources claimed Davis would not allow the commission to "cherry-pick some sectors" in negotiations. They insisted the Brexit secretary would not allow services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy, to be separated from goods.

They also argued that ministers had been holding a series of meetings with individuals in each of the EU member states, and felt confident that a number of countries dependent on trade with Britain would be making the case internally for a close agreement.

In a move that will infuriate cabinet Eurosceptics, Barnier said the UK must accept all EU law, including new directives and regulations adopted after British ministers and MEPs are no longer part of the EU decision-making process. "The same rules for everyone – this is the spirit of the transition."

During the transition, the UK must accept the EU's "complete architecture", including the role of the European court of justice, free movement of people and the common fisheries policy. "It will be essentially the economic status quo," he said.

Any new trade deals the UK signs will not be able to come into force during the transition. EU officials think this is a theoretical point, because other countries will not be able to complete deals with the UK without knowing what London has agreed with the EU. "We have already had contacts with third countries and they want to know what will be the nature of the relationship between the EU and the UK," Barnier said.

He had "listened" to the British government's request for a two-year transition – a call backed up by Ireland's prime minister, Leo Varadkar, who recently argued the UK's transition should be limited to two years with no prospect of extension.

Barnier was speaking to seven newspapers at the same glass table where the Brexit secretary and his team were photographed without notes, facing an EU side with tidy piles of folders. On his desk was a red mug emblazoned with "keep calm and negotiate" – a phrase Barnier likes to use.

Outside the door was a British flag, left over from the frantic shuttle diplomacy of the last fortnight. Usually only the 27 other EU flags are on display, but the union jack is brought out when British negotiators come to Brussels.

Despite this courtesy, Barnier stressed the EU would not compromise in protecting its rule-making powers and guarding against competition from the UK through lower taxes or weaker standards.

If the British red lines remained the same, he said there would be consequences. "We will not accept from the other side, regulatory competition against social rights, against environmental rights, against consumer rights and against fiscal regulations ... Or against financial stability."

"We will not accept chlorinated chickens, nor other products that do not meet our food standards."

Barnier said British red lines on leaving the ECJ and ruling out free movement of people meant the only option was a free-trade agreement similar to one the EU agreed with Canada in 2016. Setting out a paper he had shown to EU leaders last Friday, he said the UK had made its own choice, but stressed these red lines had been laid down in May's speeches, not the negotiating table.

His words pour cold water over May's insistence that the EU and the UK could do "so much better" than the EU-Canada deal. British banks are also piling pressure on the government for "a far more ambitious deal" than the Canada model offers.

He said the UK's decision on the future relationship would determine how easily it was accepted by the rest of the EU, revealing for the first time that a UK-EU trade deal would require ratification by national and regional parliaments.

Under EU law, some treaties can be ratified by governments and the European parliament only, but deals that touch on national competences are deemed to require the approval of national and regional parliaments.

In a blow to remain campaigners, Barnier contends that the UK would be unable to revoke article 50 unilaterally – a view at odds with the veteran British diplomat Lord Kerr, who wrote the famous treaty text and insists the UK can withdraw its decision to leave up until the last moment of departure. Asked whether the UK could unilaterally revoke article 50, Barnier said: "The clock is ticking. No changes in the process can be unilateral, they must be collective."

Barnier said he very much regretted the British decision to leave the EU and recalled campaigning for Britain's membership of the European Economic Community in 1972 – when France held a referendum on new joiners.

Since his first public appearance as the EU's chief negotiator, he said he had always stressed "the decision would have consequences – human, social, economic, fiscal, financial, technical, judicial. I have always recommended that no one should underestimate them."