To Brexit

[Winstonm]

That's difficult to say. I think that both sides of the Remain/Leave argument were fed misinformation and propaganda. I have now met intelligent people who voted Remain in 2016, who after three years of (as my husband says, please excuse the language) 'piddling about' would now vote Leave. And, there must be others who voted Leave who no doubt would now vote Remain.

 

Immigration was a big issue in 2016. Many people probably voted on that single issue, that's for sure. The other major issues probably came secondary in their consideration. I have an open mind about immigration because I worked in the National Health Service, and it would never be able to function without overseas workers, most who were excellent. However, on the flip side, many NHS services are now stretched to the limit due to extra people who have chosen to live in this country. I remember not so many years ago when you could get a general, not emergency, doctor's appointment within a couple of days. Now it is a couple of weeks wait in most major towns and cities. Social housing, too, now has incredibly long waiting lists, and many families are ending up in sub-standard housing, cheap hotels, or bed and breakfast establishments.

 

However, well before the 2016 referendum both my husband and myself had thought membership of the EU as 'surplus to requirements'. It has its good points, and it has its bad points, but as an organisation it makes sure it looks after 'its own' and doesn't take kindly to criticism. That's why we voted Leave.

 

I admit a great deal of ignorance of the situation. Still, I consider Farage and Bannon extremely poor sources for accurate information.

[johnu]

That's difficult to say. I think that both sides of the Remain/Leave argument were fed misinformation and propaganda. I have now met intelligent people who voted Remain in 2016, who after three years of (as my husband says, please excuse the language) 'piddling about' would now vote Leave. And, there must be others who voted Leave who no doubt would now vote Remain.

I only have a peripheral interest in the whole Brexit debacle, but I am mystified how the UK could have a binding popular vote on leaving the EU without knowing all the ramifications of leaving and having an agreement in place (or at least all the major points) before making a final decision.

[Lovera]

I only have a peripheral interest in the whole Brexit debacle, but I am mystified how the UK could have a popular vote on leaving the EU without knowing all the ramifications of leaving and having an agreement in place before making a final decision.

 

What are you saying was told also previuosly by Donald Tusk and you can see it in #12 here.

[Cyberyeti]

I only have a peripheral interest in the whole Brexit debacle, but I am mystified how the UK could have a binding popular vote on leaving the EU without knowing all the ramifications of leaving and having an agreement in place (or at least all the major points) before making a final decision.

 

It wasn't binding which has caused a tremendous amount of the problems we have now. David Cameron basically said in his document that was circulated to all homes in the UK that the referendum was once in a generation and the government pledged to implement the will of the people (never thinking we'd vote out) without passing the legislation that made the referendum binding. All referenda are advisory in the UK without passing legislation.

[Lovera]

It wasn't binding which has caused a tremendous amount of the problems we have now. David Cameron basically said in his document that was circulated to all homes in the UK that the referendum was once in a generation and the government pledged to implement the will of the people (never thinking we'd vote out) without passing the legislation that made the referendum binding. All referenda are advisory in the UK without passing legislation.

 

I too am of the opinion that D. Cameron called the referendum to keep faith with the promise to say so, considering that for his part nothing would have changed except to find a strong protest (however minority). And so it didn't happen. But, I believe, such a referendum that had as its object something to impact so deeply on the interests of a nation, needed an intense and objective campaign on the risks connected on one side as on the other (if to stay or if to go) for the purpose of full awareness of the choice and I am of the opinion that, in this case then, a more qualified and not a simple majority (=of 50% + 1) would have been necessary.

[Lovera]

"In this regard it is hardly necessary to recall that with the consultative referendum on the United Kingdom's permanence in the European Union of 23 June 2016, for the first time since the beginning of the European integration process, the willingness of a Member State to withdraw has emerged EU; in fact, it ended with a vote in favor of leaving (51.9%), against 48.1% (remain) who voted to stay in the Union. The vote showed a split between the nations of the United Kingdom, with England (73%) and Wales (71%) in favor of withdrawing from the EU and Scotland (67.2%) and Northern Ireland (62.6%) which they voted to stay. There are those who, with reference to the outcome of this referendum, spoke of the "most serious crisis in the English political-institutional system since 1688". So D. GALLIGAN, The Constitution in Crisis 2016, at the Conference held on December 8th 2016 at Wolfson College, Oxford, whose summary can be found online on the website of The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society; v. also in this sense F. BALANCE, Brexit: the most serious nationalist symptom of the crisis of freedom of movement of people in the EU, in Eticaeconomica.it; S. AMADEO, Question 1.1.1 Brexit, available online at https://moodle2.units.it/pluginfile.php/112979/mod_resource/content/1/Brexit_Treccani_def2.pdf;"

[Lovera]

For ultheriorly explain about #125 i have to report:"More specifically, the establishment of a "single customs territory" between the EU and the United Kingdom including trade in goods, with the exception of aquaculture and fishery products, and providing for a differentiated degree of regulatory alignment between the Northern Ireland and Great Britain, higher for the former than for the latter. The United Kingdom as a whole will, in fact, be solely required to impose the same duties on third countries and to apply the same EU customs regulations. (Cf. F. MARONGIU BUONAIUTI, F. VERGARA CAFFARELLI, La Brexit and the question of the Irish border, cit., Where it is further specified that: “with regard specifically to Ulster, full participation in the union is also envisaged customs law and the application of all those single market rules necessary to maintain the open border for goods)".

[Lovera]

FIRST PAGE

 

12 SEPTEMBER 2019 / 13:48 / ONE DAY AGO

 

Sassoli: Backstop must be part of the Brexit agreement

 

Reuters Staff

 

1 IN. OF READING

 

The President of the European Parliament David Sassoli during the meeting with the press held today in Brussels. REUTERS / Francois Lenoir

 

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The president of the European Parliament has said that the EU will not accept any Brexit agreement without the 'backstop' of Ireland, but is still willing to review an old proposal that would leave only Northern Ireland within the EU's orbit so as to maintain a border without barriers.

 

The European parliament must ratify any Brexit agreement to be officially approved by the EU, President David Sassoli said at a press conference, adding:

 

"I would like to highlight this point: the UK has not provided alternatives ... or at least something that was viable."

 

On the site www.reuters.it other Reuters news in Italian. The top news also on www.twitter.com/reuters_italia

 

 

--- Here the video of the Press Conference with David Sassoli:

[Lovera]

Since the situation seems to develop in an unexpected and interesting way, I try to complete what was said in the previous # 132: "Therefore, after a careful examination, the mentioned compromise solution adopted by the European and British negotiators appears to take up the aforementioned solution to the back-stop originally proposed by the European Commission in March 2018 and based on the substantial impossibility for the EU to delegate the implementation of its customs policy to a non-member State (*). Regardless of the more technical aspects of the Irish border issue, we are allowed to do a general consideration: although the EU has on several occasions declared itself confident on the possibility of reaching a "better agreement" on the Irish border during the transition period, having already achieved the result of the issue of the safeguard clause of the back-stop solution in the Draft Agreement, testifies to the undisputed compactness of the EU-27 and ensures a particular negotiating force against the United Kingdom (not satisfied with such a forecast) also in view of the negotiations on future reports(**)."

(*)=

While Ulster is fully integrated into the EU customs union and remains subject to the rules of the internal market, Great Britain remains tied to the EU by a not particularly favorable open customs agreement: trade flows from Northern Ireland to the Gran Brittany is free like those from Ulster to Ireland, and vice versa, but the same cannot be said for the region's imports from the rest of the United Kingdom. If, in fact, on the one hand the imposition of duties between Ulster and Great Britain is avoided, on the other hand the need to carry out customs checks is not eliminated.

 

(**)=

On this point it should be emphasized that the draft withdrawal agreement published by the European Commission on 28 February 2018 (see European Commission, Task Force for the Preparation and Conduct of Negotiations with the United Kingdom under Article 50 TEU, Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, document TF50 (2018) 35 - Commission to EU27, 19 March 2018) the draft of a Protocol on Ireland and Ireland of the North, which provided for the integration of Northern Ireland into the EU customs union, with joint customs controls between British and European customs agents, for goods entering from the rest of the world - rest of the United Kingdom included - and regulatory alignment between Ulster and the EU. In this way, due also to the already existing Common Travel Area between the United Kingdom and the Republic, any need for land customs between Ireland and Ulster would have fallen. According to the Commission proposal, therefore, Ulster, but not the rest of the United Kingdom, would have remained in the customs union and, in many respects, would also have continued to be part of the single European market.

 

[Lovera]

Could it then be the "old proposal", indicated by President D. Sassoli, the "Political declaration on future relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom"? In particular, with this EU and United Kingdom Declaration they recalled "their determination to replace" the safeguard clause of the back stop solution provided in the Draft Agreement (which, in the event of failure to reach further agreements, ensures the opening of the border after the end of the transitional period with restoration of the status quo for the Irish borders), "with a subsequent agreement providing for alternative provisions to ensure that no physical borders arise on the island of Ireland, on a permanent basis"(Cfr. " point 4 of Part II: Economic Parnership The compromise solution reached in the Draft Agreement provides for the stipulation of a customs agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom, called the "single customs territory", within which the "degree of regulatory alignment of the Northern Ireland to the EU is m "More than the rest of the country". In this sense v. F. MARONGIU BUONAIUTI, F. VERGARA CAFFARELLI, The Brexit and the question of the Irish border, in Federalismi.it, 18 December 2018, pp. 134. The proposals presented by the European and British delegations and mutually rejected until the aforementioned agreement, can be summarized as follows: as proposed by the EU, Northern Ireland should have been part of the customs territory of the Union, while the the rest of the United Kingdom would have been excluded. The British government, with regard to future relations with the EU, foresaw, instead, the creation of a free trade area with the Union, which included the whole country and a customs control mechanism that would allow the British customs to also carry out the customs functions of the EU, thus making further controls on direct trade flows between the UK and the EU superfluous).

[Lovera]

(to follow from the previous post) "The nodal point of the question has, therefore, pre-eminently political character beyond that economic and answers to the objective to avoid that a" rigid border "is recreated, with customs controls on persons and goods, between Ireland of the North and Republic of Ireland. (*) The parties, in fact, in order to safeguard the economic integration between the North and the South of the island, undertook to respect the peace agreements of 1988 (Good Friday Agreement) and to keep the Common Travel Area ..(..continuing the text, in order, in posts # 125,132,134)

(*) = It seems appropriate to state in this regard that the Draft Agreement provides that in the event of a future failure to reach an agreement on the Irish border, a customs union will be established between the United Kingdom and the European Union and that, consequently, between the two areas there will be no tariffs or duties, with the possibility for people and goods to continue to move freely in the "barely detectable" border line that separates the United Kingdom (which will no longer be an EU member state) and the Republic of Ireland. The Draft Agreement contains a second provision of particular importance whereby the agreement cannot be terminated except with the consent of both parties. In this way, on the one hand, the traffic of goods will be made simpler but, on the other hand, the United Kingdom will be potentially linked to the European customs area with obvious difficulty for the British government to negotiate trade agreements with third countries non-EU."

[Lovera]

https://www.theguard...-as-key-to-deal

This is the full interview:https://youtu.be/lrmyHHvN2Yk

[Lovera]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46393399

[FelicityR]

My husband and I were watching the truly chaotic scenes in the House of Commons on television tonight. What must the rest of the world think of our government, our MPs, our country as a whole? It was dreadful to see.

 

With foresight, if we had knew what divisions and ill-feeling the result of the Referendum would have caused in this country, we would have not voted at all. Many people on both the Remain and Leave sides must feel thoroughly let down by what has transpired.

 

This Referendum and its result has wasted over 3 years of government, probably billions of pounds in public funds, and caused so much hatred like nothing else I have ever seen. Yes, we had the Poll Tax Riots and the Miner's Strike, but this Brexit or non-Brexit has just involved about everyone on some level.

 

I go to a coffee shop and people are talking about it; my husband and I go out to lunch or for a drink and people are talking about it; and, not a day goes by when Brexit and its consequences are discussed in the news and in the national and online papers. Usually on a vitriolic level. Where have all the good manners gone?

 

Actually we don't really care what happens now, but for the sake of my children and grandchildren I hope that the men and women of power - we are mere pawns in this show - finally can find some solution to the crises that face our country and the world as a whole.

 

Brexit or staying in the EU is a mere distraction from the environmental damage that the human race is subjecting this planet to.

 

For the past few months I have been following the mainly peaceful protests of Extinction Rebellion, a group highlighting the destruction that humans have caused already to Earth. Brexit or staying in the EU isn't going to kill the human race, but if we carry on wreaking the environment as we are currently doing there won't be a planet to live on in a hundred years time.

 

Surely that should take priority over anything else, including Brexit.

[Cyberyeti]

https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/the-telegraph-snap-poll-september-2019/

 

This to me was interesting, look at the 4th bullet point in particular "Three in five of the British public agree that Parliament has had plenty of time to debate Brexit and we should just get on with leaving the EU (60%), including one third (35%) of 2016 Remain voters."

[shyams]

It is sad that UK and US (two great countries of the 19th and 20th century) have become so internally sundered that there are large swathes of people in each who don't recognise the other side.

 

Do we deserve "freedom" and "democracy"?

[Lovera]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49936352

[Lovera]

I think it's time to present the source from which I drew: it is the legal magazine "Freedom, Security, Justice" with a qualified editorial team on the subject (this is part of a 55-page pdf in Italian for which I made the translation of only one of the points in the summary): Index-Summary 2019, n. 1 Editorial The virtuous incidence of fundamental rights in completing the European area of ​​justice Angela Di Stasi p. 1 Essays and EU Articles Readmission Agreements as Tools for Fighting Irregular Migration: An Appraisal Twenty Years on from the Tampere European Council Eugenio Carli The impact on Brexit of the ruling of the EU Court of Justice of 10 December 2018 Maria Cristina Carta Governing Asylum with (or without) Solidarity? The Difficult Path of Relocation Schemes, Between Enforcement and Contestation Luisa Marin Data protection in the field of judicial and police cooperation in criminal matters in the light of directive (EU) 2016/680: fragmentation and uncertainties of application Gabriele Rugani and care at internal European territory: the English "case" of the small Alfie Evans Sabrina Vannuccini Informal agreements with third States on the management of migration flows: critical considerations with reference to the practice of the European Union and Italy Valentina Zambrano

https://documentclou...8a-b06f21a29e20

THE INCIDENCE ON THE BREXIT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE EU COURT OF JUSTICE OF 10 DECEMBER 2018 Maria Cristina Carta SUMMARY: 1. Premise: the EU Court of Justice legitimizes the unilateral revocation of the declaration of withdrawal from the EU and opens the way to the "no- Brexit ". - 2. The UK's differentiated participation regime in the European area of ​​Freedom, Security and Justice. - 3. The agreement reached with the Draft Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and the unresolved node of the back stop solution on the Irish border. - 4. Some reflections on the critical aspects of the May Government's action. - 5. The key points of the judgment of 10 December 2018: the "historic-evolutionary" interpretation of the art. 50 TEU provided by the EU Court of Justice. - 6. Concluding remarks: the Luxembourg Court granted a painless "way out" for the United Kingdom ?

(The point translated is great part of the n. 3)

[Lovera]

 



 

Euronews

 

Brexit: the last confrontation between Johnson, the allies and the opposition

 

Duration: 01:01 13 hours ago

 

Boris Johnson and his government must find an agreement not only with the European Union, but also in their home. They must convince allies and opponents in parliament that their proposals can work, starting with the unionists of Northern Ireland. Crucial to the continued existence of the government, they have serious concerns that Belfast is viewed differently from the rest of the United Kingdom in an agreement with the European Union. However, Brexit Minister Stephen Barclay flaunts optimism: "If we are given the opportunity to vote on an agreement and approve an agreement, we can move quickly. I am aware that the bill on the Withdrawal Agreement is a significant legislative act, but we are sure we can approve it by October 31 ". If Johnson loses the 10 votes of the DUP he can still convince some Labor MPs and other opposition deputies to give their support to any agreement agreed with the European Union. It will be a difficult vote, but in the last few there are those who start betting on a favorable vote.

https://www.msn.com/it-it/video/notizie/brexit-lultimo-confronto-tra-johnson-gli-alleati-e-lopposizione/vi-AAISOgX

[FelicityR]

I'm not a great fan of some of the articles from The New York Times, but this one raised my grey eyebrows.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/the-money-farmers-how-oligarchs-and-populists-milk-the-eu-for-millions/ar-AAJLg5h?ocid=spartandhp

 

Many people, including my own family, have questioned why I voted to Leave the EU. There were many reasons, but one of the strongest was the EU's Common Agricultural Policy.

 

Back in the 1980s I remember the wine lakes and butter mountains, and the bizarre funding of EU money to farmers to stop them growing crops on their land. It seems that the EU hasen't evolved and cut out the corruption in their systems.

 

I dislike Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party, but the sooner we rid ourselves of EU that also looks after the few at the expense of the many, the sooner we might be free as a country.

 

I'm not naïve to realise that there are many corrupt forces in the halls of power around the world, but when The New York Times publishes an article like this you have to question that the EU is surplus to requirements.

[Winstonm]

No Big Deal

 

A continent trembles, but what’s all the fuss?

Britain’s just Europe’s Hawaii. Discuss.

 

–Rick Mullin

[y66]

Quote of the day from For unionists in Northern Ireland, Brexit has backfired badly by Susan McKay at The Guardian:

 

Let’s just do that whole damned century over again but with a different ending. OK? Hands up. Anyone?

[fromageGB]

The sort of thing you would expect the Guardian to say, without looking. Try the Telegraph. Much more uplifting.

[shyams]

 

Caution: Full of swear-words and extreme language. Also, if one doesn't know (the satirical humour of) Jonathan Pie, one will miss some of the points he is making.

[Cyberyeti]

I'd be interested to hear a US take on this article.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/02/chlorinated-chicken-foods-us-trade-deal-uk-eu

 

My hope is that Boris will stand firm on this but I fear he won't