Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[mongers]

To be fair, the Leave side of the argument wasn't that our friends will give us a new deal after we leave because the world is based on friendships. It was much more about the UK strongarming the EU into a good deal due to the sheer awesomeness of the UK market and negotiation prowess.

And like many really big bells, fundamental faults mean it rings hollow.

[The Minsky Moment]

One of the reasons given for leaving was that the EU was slow, inefficient, and plagued with veto points when doing things like negotiating trade agreements.  So this shouldn't be a surprise to Leavers of all people.

[Zanza]

The Swiss parliament opted to more or less ignore a referendum that would have seen it booted from the Single Market.

[Swiss] Parliament voted to pass a compromise immigration law, marking a significant climbdown which the country hopes will allow it continued enhanced access to the EU's single market following a 2014 referendum vote to cap EU immigration.

In a standoff with close parallels to Britain's situation after the Brexit vote, Brussels had refused to budge from its stance that any attempt to restrict free movement by caps or quotas would automatically exclude Switzerland from the single market.

[...]

The new law, to which the EU is expected to respond formally next week, requires employers in sectors or regions with above-average unemployment to advertise vacancies at job centres and give locals priority before recruiting from abroad.

While there are exemptions, for example for family firms, companies that violate the law will face fines of up to 40,000 Swiss francs (£31,000).

However, to the fury of the populist, ultra-conservative SVP party, which backed the referendum, there is no mention of quotas – and cross-border commuters to Swiss jobs, plus EU residents in Switzerland, will be able to register with a Swiss job centre and get the same treatment as Swiss citizens.

The SVP, the largest party in parliament, accused the other parties of caving in to Brussels and abandoning Swiss sovereignty. Its MPs held up signs during the final vote saying "mass immigration continues" and warning that by dodging the requirements of the referendum, in which 50.3% of voters called for immigration caps, the law was an "unprecedented breach" of the country's constitution.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/16/switzerland-u-turn-quotas-on-eu-workers-immigration

[Archy]

So no Schwexit

[Syt]

[Zanza]

Theresa May indicates MPs will not be given vote on final Brexit deal

...

"It is my intention that parliament should have every opportunity to discuss, but I'm clear we deliver on the vote of the people."

Pushed by Tyrie, who asked again if he should take that as a no, May said: "I gave the answer I gave, chairman."

The clear decision by May to hint that there would be no final vote was attacked by Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians.

Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, told the Guardian: "It is a pretty extraordinary step given that MEPs are guaranteed a vote and they can vote the deal down. David Davis has repeatedly said there will be no less scrutiny in the British parliament than in the European parliament."

Starmer said that having no less scrutiny was a minimum demand from the Labour party and that required a vote, saying it was unacceptable that "MPs won't vote but MEPs will"

...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/20/theresa-may-indicates-mps-parliament-not-vote-final-brexit-deal#pt0-161605

#takebacksovereignty 

[Valmy]

It is not surprising that by descending into the pit of despair that is direct democracy, Britain has possibly caused serious damage to their constitutional structure.

Theresa May is now empowered to dictate Britain's position in leaving the EU without any checks? I mean surely even if there is no vote on it, the MPs can simply remove her from power if they don't like the terms though.

[crazy canuck]

It is not surprising that by descending into the pit of despair that is direct democracy, Britain has possibly caused serious damage to their constitutional structure.

Theresa May is now empowered to dictate Britain's position in leaving the EU without any checks? I mean surely even if there is no vote on it, the MPs can simply remove her from power if they don't like the terms though.

So much for Parliamentary Democracy.  Neil must be apoplectic

[garbon]

She finally takes a decisive stand...well at least for now.

edit: Oh wait, her 'clear decision' was to hint at her decision.

[Tamas]

She finally takes a decisive stand...well at least for now.

edit: Oh wait, her 'clear decision' was to hint at her decision.

Which part of the "red, white and blue Brexit" is not clear enough for you?! 

[Josquius]

May really is studying hard at the school of populist bullshit that got us into this mess isn't she.
Keep things vague and shiny and it'll all be OK...for you personally if not the country.

[Zanza]

https://www.ft.com/content/7dc9a004-c6c4-11e6-8f29-9445cac8966f

Businesses in Britain face "confusion and uncertainty" over the post-Brexit regulatory regime with the UK having to maintain or copy the work of no fewer than 34 European regulators, the CBI employers' group has warned.

With sectors from life sciences to medicine to financial services under the auspices of EU watchdogs, Theresa May, prime minister, must decide whether to extricate the UK from all of those bodies after leaving the bloc.

Questioned on the issue in the Commons on Monday, Mrs May said no decision had been made and the Brexit department was studying all of the regulators before making a decision: "We need to look with great care and consideration at the wide range of our relationships with Europe," she replied.

Yet staying under the auspices of any European regulator would leave Britain under the influence of the European Court of Justice — breaching a Brexit "red line" set by the prime minister herself in her speech to the Conservative party conference this autumn. "We are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice," she said.

[...]

Neither the British government nor the CBI is able to put a price tag on the cost of replicating European regulators in the UK to keep the rules for business as similar as possible. But ADS, the aerospace industry lobby group, has put an estimate of up to £400m over a decade just to copy the European Aviation Safety Agency, which regulates the industry.

The aerospace and aviation sectors, which contributed £52bn to UK GDP last year, are deeply concerned at the prospect that Britain will pull out of the EASA, which sets rules for certification of everything from aircraft and their components to flight training schools. Recreating a domestic regulatory system in the UK would be expensive and take years, say executives.

"The [UK's] Civil Aviation Authority has been run down considerably because many of the staff have gone to work at EASA," said Simon Whalley, external affairs director at the Royal Aeronautical Society. "That's where competence has been transferred." As the aviation and aerospace industries have to fund their own regulation, reversing that process would be "a considerable burden", he said.

[...]

"The EU organises . . . the multilateral agreements for the use of international airspace by UK airlines in and across Europe," he said.

"We would have to restart negotiations of bilaterals with all 36 countries that are members of the ECAA. We don't know what the new terms would be and how long this would take.

Just one example for the various regulatory topics the UK will have to address as part of their exit negotiations. And then you have to recreate the multitude of bilateral agreements that EASA has with every other airline regulator in the world...

[Zanza]

EU's highest court delivers blow to UK snooper's charter
Indiscriminate collection of emails is illegal, court rules in response to challenge originally brought by David Davis

"General and indiscriminate retention" of emails and electronic communications by governments is illegal, the EU's highest court has ruled, in a judgment that could trigger challenges against the UK's new Investigatory Powers Act – the so-called snooper's charter.

Only targeted interception of traffic and location data in order to combat serious crime is justified, according to a long-awaited decision by the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg.

The finding came in response to a legal challenge initially brought by the Brexit secretary, David Davis, when he was a backbench MP, and Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, over the legality of GCHQ's bulk interception of call records and online messages.

[...]

Before he became a minister under Theresa May, Davis travelled to Luxembourg this spring to hear the case at the ECJ. He argued that the British government was "treating the entire nation as suspects" by ignoring safeguards on retaining and accessing personal communications data.

Davis, one of the most vociferous critics of the state's powers to collect data on its citizens, withdrew from the case following his appointment to the cabinet as secretary of state for leaving the EU.

Awesome. The very first post-referendum judgment from the ECJ against the British government and it was triggered by the Brexit secretary himself.

[Tamas]

[Josquius]

I've just realised something.
Historically the big contest in British politics was between the upper class and the middle class. In this quite oddly the upper class tended to find common cause with the working class in order to counter the middle class.
Times have changed of course. Who the upper class is is very different today. Also the line between the lower middle class and the working class has become incredibly blurred.
Nonetheless...with brexit and subsequent events....it really does seem we have returned to this situation, with the upper class exploiting populism to use the non working class, squeezing the working and middle class in the middle.