Current Affairs EU In or Out

[orchard]

It's pretty much a neo-liberal coup that's going to use the 'leave' vote as an excuse to remove what's left of our social infrastructure.
But hey, 17billion voted leave, get over it okay!

What I've been saying all along. The robbery of the millennium.

One day they will write about this.

How to steal a country and get the people not only vote for it but pay for it too.

 

[orchard]

Couldn't make this omnishambles up, Davis blows what's supposed to be his party's bluff --- shocked that EU prepares for a no deal eventuality...

FT:

David Davis has consulted lawyers over the EU’s preparations for a no-deal Brexit, claiming Brussels’ planning is harming British business and breaching the UK’s rights as a member state.

In a letter sent to Theresa May, UK prime minister, last month and seen by the Financial Times, the Brexit secretary pointed to EU “measures” that could jeopardise existing contracts or force British companies to decamp to the continent if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

Mr Davis said in the letter that he would ask the European Commission to revise its guidance to business so it highlights the potential for a future transition and trade deal.

But the demand drew accusations of hypocrisy from some British MPs, given that UK ministers have emphasised the extent of their own no-deal planning.

“The government is implicitly threatening a no-deal scenario,” said Pat McFadden, a Labour member of the Brexit select committee. “It should come as no surprise that the EU is also preparing for this possibility.”

Mr Davis said in his letter to Mrs May that the guidance from EU agencies sees the UK becoming a “third country” when it leaves the bloc in March 2019, without referring to the British government’s hopes of sealing a two-year transition period or trade deal.

Mr Davis said this treated the UK differently from other member states, even before it left the bloc, “in a way which is frequently damaging to UK interests”.

“The EU has adopted a number of measures that put agreements or contracts at risk of being terminated in the event of a ‘no deal’ scenario and/or would require UK companies to relocate to another member state,” Mr Davis said.

“The commission had issued similar unilateral statements on company law, civil justice and private international law, transport and the breeding, transportation and protection of live animals.”

The EU is unlikely to be open to revising its guidance to companies. Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, has repeatedly stressed that companies must prepare for the UK leaving the single market and customs union in 2019.

“On 29 March 2019 at midnight, the United Kingdom will cease to be a member state,” Mr Barnier said in November. “I don’t know if the whole truth has been explained to British businesses on the concrete consequences of Brexit.”

The UK government has insisted it would be prepared for a “no deal” Brexit if necessary. Philip Hammond, chancellor, set aside £3bn in last November’s Budget for preparations in the case of Britain leaving the EU without a deal.

“It seems extraordinary that the government is exercised about the EU preparing for a no deal scenario when it has set aside £3bn in its most recent Budget to do exactly the same thing,” said Mr McFadden.

Stephen Kinnock, another Labour MP, said the government was “naive” not to imagine that the EU would want to prepare for scenarios including a no-deal Brexit.

“The passive-aggressive tone of the letter demonstrates that the government doesn’t have a clue,” he said. “The relationship between the EU and UK does seem to be falling to pieces.”

An aide from the Department for Exiting the EU confirmed that the letter from Mr Davis to Mrs May was genuine.

“It’s clear there have been a number of instances where the commission, by treating the UK differently despite still being a member of the EU, have not acted in good faith,” the aide said. “It should be no surprise that if the commission attempt to stoke fears about worst-case scenarios. We will correct them and reassure our firms.”

Mr Davis wrote in his letter that the measures amounted to “potential breaches of the UK’s rights as a member” of the EU. He told the prime minister the government “cannot let these actions go unchallenged”.

However, Mr Davis added that he had sought legal advice from officials, only to be warned that any legal challenge would probably fail.

“Any legal action would also be high-risk politically and financially and may not conclude until after we exit,” he said.

While the EU is preparing its position to negotiate a “standstill” transition with the UK until 2021, negotiators in Brussels have stressed that businesses will have no “certainty” until a full withdrawal deal is agreed and ratified later this year or early next.

 

[orchard]

Nicola Sturgeon

@NicolaSturgeon
This letter is extraordinary. A govt intent on leaving EU & continually talking about prospect of ‘no deal’ moaning about EU preparing to treat UK as a non member and for the possibility of ‘no deal’. Unbelievable - or rather, increasingly believable from this inept UK governmenttwitter.com/pickardje/stat…
12:39 am - 9 Jan 2018

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Nicola Sturgeon

@NicolaSturgeon
This letter is extraordinary. A govt intent on leaving EU & continually talking about prospect of ‘no deal’ moaning about EU preparing to treat UK as a non member and for the possibility of ‘no deal’. Unbelievable - or rather, increasingly believable from this inept UK governmenttwitter.com/pickardje/stat…
12:39 am - 9 Jan 2018

In years to come this current government will be derided as the worst in the 100+ years of proper parliamentary democracy.

There's a small handful of right wing lunatics in the Tory party aching for a bygone era of 1950s England, cricket on the village green, the British Empire and the only foreigners allowed being those that serve as butlers in little white suits. In league with a couple of dodgy media bosses they've conned the uneducated working class into believing its all the fault of the EU - from bendy bananas to immigrants stealing their jobs and holding down their pay.

 

[tsubaki]

Couldn't make this omnishambles up, Davis blows what's supposed to be his party's bluff --- shocked that EU prepares for a no deal eventuality...

FT:

David Davis has consulted lawyers over the EU’s preparations for a no-deal Brexit, claiming Brussels’ planning is harming British business and breaching the UK’s rights as a member state.

In a letter sent to Theresa May, UK prime minister, last month and seen by the Financial Times, the Brexit secretary pointed to EU “measures” that could jeopardise existing contracts or force British companies to decamp to the continent if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

Mr Davis said in the letter that he would ask the European Commission to revise its guidance to business so it highlights the potential for a future transition and trade deal.

But the demand drew accusations of hypocrisy from some British MPs, given that UK ministers have emphasised the extent of their own no-deal planning.

“The government is implicitly threatening a no-deal scenario,” said Pat McFadden, a Labour member of the Brexit select committee. “It should come as no surprise that the EU is also preparing for this possibility.”

Mr Davis said in his letter to Mrs May that the guidance from EU agencies sees the UK becoming a “third country” when it leaves the bloc in March 2019, without referring to the British government’s hopes of sealing a two-year transition period or trade deal.

Mr Davis said this treated the UK differently from other member states, even before it left the bloc, “in a way which is frequently damaging to UK interests”.

“The EU has adopted a number of measures that put agreements or contracts at risk of being terminated in the event of a ‘no deal’ scenario and/or would require UK companies to relocate to another member state,” Mr Davis said.

“The commission had issued similar unilateral statements on company law, civil justice and private international law, transport and the breeding, transportation and protection of live animals.”

The EU is unlikely to be open to revising its guidance to companies. Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, has repeatedly stressed that companies must prepare for the UK leaving the single market and customs union in 2019.

“On 29 March 2019 at midnight, the United Kingdom will cease to be a member state,” Mr Barnier said in November. “I don’t know if the whole truth has been explained to British businesses on the concrete consequences of Brexit.”

The UK government has insisted it would be prepared for a “no deal” Brexit if necessary. Philip Hammond, chancellor, set aside £3bn in last November’s Budget for preparations in the case of Britain leaving the EU without a deal.

“It seems extraordinary that the government is exercised about the EU preparing for a no deal scenario when it has set aside £3bn in its most recent Budget to do exactly the same thing,” said Mr McFadden.

Stephen Kinnock, another Labour MP, said the government was “naive” not to imagine that the EU would want to prepare for scenarios including a no-deal Brexit.

“The passive-aggressive tone of the letter demonstrates that the government doesn’t have a clue,” he said. “The relationship between the EU and UK does seem to be falling to pieces.”

An aide from the Department for Exiting the EU confirmed that the letter from Mr Davis to Mrs May was genuine.

“It’s clear there have been a number of instances where the commission, by treating the UK differently despite still being a member of the EU, have not acted in good faith,” the aide said. “It should be no surprise that if the commission attempt to stoke fears about worst-case scenarios. We will correct them and reassure our firms.”

Mr Davis wrote in his letter that the measures amounted to “potential breaches of the UK’s rights as a member” of the EU. He told the prime minister the government “cannot let these actions go unchallenged”.

However, Mr Davis added that he had sought legal advice from officials, only to be warned that any legal challenge would probably fail.

“Any legal action would also be high-risk politically and financially and may not conclude until after we exit,” he said.

While the EU is preparing its position to negotiate a “standstill” transition with the UK until 2021, negotiators in Brussels have stressed that businesses will have no “certainty” until a full withdrawal deal is agreed and ratified later this year or early next.

It (the complaint about the EU discriminating) is laughable, but it should really be pointed out that the EU demand that they be able to cancel contracts without notice once the UK leaves is further evidence that they are almost as bad as the UK government is. If that was brought in for both sides, some French and German firms would lose billions - EDF alone is worth £8 billion.

 

[orchard]

I'm sure it's part of negotiating, we can hardly blame the eu for looking after its own interests whilst we drown in incompetence. Let's face it, i'm sure they are aware 'May' has been discussing trade with third parties, which will probably escalate soon enough.

It (the complaint about the EU discriminating) is laughable, but it should really be pointed out that the EU demand that they be able to cancel contracts without notice once the UK leaves is further evidence that they are almost as bad as the UK government is. If that was brought in for both sides, some French and German firms would lose billions - EDF alone is worth £8 billion.

 

[tsubaki]

I'm sure it's part of negotiating, we can hardly blame the eu for looking after its own interests whilst we drown in incompetence. Let's face it, i'm sure they are aware 'May' has been discussing trade with third parties, which will probably escalate soon enough.

Possibly, but its a fundamentally daft thing to negotiate over - they own / have contracts to run far more of our infrastructure than we own or operate of theirs. As I mentioned above EDF own at least 20% of our electricity generating capacity and are involved in the building of new nuclear plants where Osborne agreed to pay a very large guaranteed price for electricity years in advance. Deutsche Bahn operate numerous rail franchises and bus routes via its subsidiary Arriva, as do Keolis (as Govia, in partnership with Go-Ahead). Capgemini and Sodexo have loads of outsourcing contracts with various bits of national and local government.

If anything it is a case of the EU putting its own interests ahead of European (or specifically, French) businesses, rather than ahead of the UK.

 

[orchard]

Like you say, there's a solid case for mutual reciprocity of current contracts -- if we can't negotiate this, then?
Maybe we should have been organised before issuing our intent to leave? Maybe better people could have been appointed who valued some sort of eu-uk relationship in the future, rather than threatening gunboat diplomacy from the off?

Possibly, but its a fundamentally daft thing to negotiate over - they own / have contracts to run far more of our infrastructure than we own or operate of theirs. As I mentioned above EDF own at least 20% of our electricity generating capacity and are involved in the building of new nuclear plants where Osborne agreed to pay a very large guaranteed price for electricity years in advance. Deutsche Bahn operate numerous rail franchises and bus routes via its subsidiary Arriva, as do Keolis (as Govia, in partnership with Go-Ahead). Capgemini and Sodexo have loads of outsourcing contracts with various bits of national and local government.

If anything it is a case of the EU putting its own interests ahead of European (or specifically, French) businesses, rather than ahead of the UK.

 

[tsubaki]

Like you say, there's a solid case for mutual reciprocity of current contracts -- if we can't negotiate this, then?
Maybe we should have been organised before issuing our intent to leave? Maybe better people could have been appointed who valued some sort of eu-uk relationship in the future, rather than threatening gunboat diplomacy from the off?

That is what I don't understand though - that this apparently came from the EU side, not the pro-Brexit lot. It is a threat which damages them far more than it would ever damage us.

 

[orchard]

Strategically, we need the energy. They probably know 'may's' 'government' want to provoke a hard brexit.

That is what I don't understand though - that this apparently came from the EU side, not the pro-Brexit lot. It is a threat which damages them far more than it would ever damage us.

 

[tsubaki]

Strategically, we need the energy. They probably know 'may's' 'government' want to provoke a hard brexit.

We do, but its not as if the plants would fly over the Channel when we leave.

All that would happen is what once was EDF Ltd would be permanently split from the parent company, probably at a massive loss to them, and either nationalized or taken on by some domestic or non-EU concern. That nuclear deal would also go under and the French state would have to underwrite even more of EDF than it does now.

 

[orchard]

Brexit bill may have broken international environment law, says UN
Exclusive: compliance committee considers complaint alleging government breached Aarhus convention by not consulting public over withdrawal bill

Laura Laker

Tue 9 Jan ‘18 13.56 GMTLast modified on Tue 9 Jan ‘1813.58 GMT



The British government may have breached a major “environmental democracy” law by failing to consult the public when drawing up Brexit legislation.

A UN-backed committee has confirmed it is considering a complaint from Friends of the Earth that the government’s EU withdrawal bill breached the Aarhus convention, which requires public consultation on any new environmental law.

Most of the UK’s environmental laws derive from or interact with EU law, and Friends of the Earth (FoE) has raised concerns that the bill gives ministers “unique and wide-ranging powers” toamend or delete EU-derived environmental law without public consultation, if ministers consider it appropriate.

According to Defra, “over 1,100 core pieces of directly applicable EU legislation and national implementing legislation” fall within the department’s remit.

The “polluter pays” principle and theprecautionary principle could both be affected, as could the public’s ability to challenge changes to environmental laws.

William Rundle, lawyer for Friends of the Earth, said: “The government said Brexit was about taking back control, yet it has ignored the views of the UK people in taking it forwards. There has been no consultation on what the withdrawal billcould mean for the environment and environmental legal protections, or what is the best way forwards.

“The Aarhus convention requires effective consultation when new laws are being prepared that can significantly affect the environment, such as the EU withdrawal bill. This would have allowed environmental issues to be debated and understood, but also built democratic accountability and public confidence.

“The current approach by government in conducting Brexit fails to do this; they didn’t even try. Nobody thought Brexit would be easy, but the government cannot ignore its legal obligations, or the views of the people.”

According to the Aarhus convention’s three pillars, information relating to environmental legislation must be provided by public authorities “in a timely and transparent manner”, and the public must be allowed to participate in the development of new laws at an early stage of their preparation. The third pillar is public access to justice, should a party violate or fail to adhere to environmental law or the convention’s principles.

The government may have breached the convention in two ways, FoE says: by failing to set out a consistent legal framework to allow public participation in the preparation of new environmental legislation (article 3), and by not giving the public an opportunity to comment on the bill before it was presented to parliament to be made into law (article 8). FoE says the government failed to consult with the public, and by calling a snap election, any possible engagement with the bill’s white paper was prevented.

In a letter to Friends of the Earth, the Aarhus convention compliance committee says: “the committee has, on a preliminary basis, determined the communicant’s allegation concerning the preparation of the draft ‘great repeal bill’ and the alleged lack of a clear, transparent and consistent framework to implement article 8 … to be admissible”.

Michael Mason, associate professor at the London School of Economics, says the government remains legally bound by the Aarhus convention after withdrawal from the EU, and by abolishing laws relating to Aarhus provisions the UK would be in breach of the treaty.

He says: “The UK would not be able to cherry-pick provisions in the convention: the UK is either fully in or would have to pull out from the treaty. To stay in, the UK government will have to retain all EU-derived law implementing Aarhus obligations.

“A withdrawal from the Aarhus convention would be disastrous for UK environmental policy.”

A House of Lords report calls the EU withdrawal bill a “bill of the first order in terms of law-making powers being granted to ministers”. It says “this bill is expected to generate another 800 to 1,000 statutory instruments in the near future.”

The bill does not require that current environmental standards are maintained after Brexit, nor does it contain a general requirement that the public should be consulted on potentially significant changes to environmental legislation. It does not require ministers to replace the existing European commission complaints procedure on breaches of EU-derived environmental law, which is currently available to UK citizens free of charge. The UK government could still include a requirement for public consultation, however.

In February 2017, campaigners won a case against the Ministry of Justice over proposed changes to cost protection orders that could have made legal challenges to government over environmental issues toofinancially risky to pursue. A UN committee at the time criticised the government for failing to meet its legal obligations on access to justice under the Aarhus convention.

A government spokesperson said: “The purpose of the withdrawal bill is to provide a functioning statute book on the day we leave the EU – it is an essential bill in the national interest. While we can’t comment on proceedings, we believe we have complied with all of the relevant obligations in developing this crucial legislation and remain committed to maintaining the highest environmental standards. We will be submitting our full response in due course.”

The government now has until 5 June to provide its written response to the complaint. The committee will then decide whether the UK government is in breach of its obligations.

 

[orchard]

We do, but its not as if the plants would fly over the Channel when we leave.

All that would happen is what once was EDF Ltd would be permanently split from the parent company, probably at a massive loss to them, and either nationalized or taken on by some domestic or non-EU concern. That nuclear deal would also go under and the French state would have to underwrite even more of EDF than it does now.

It would be harsh both ways, but without knowing what caused them to go to such an extreme...it's a shame because it'll play into the corporate fascist's hands and they will make it their 'Falkland Islands'.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Brexit bill may have broken international environment law, says UN
Exclusive: compliance committee considers complaint alleging government breached Aarhus convention by not consulting public over withdrawal bill

Laura Laker

Tue 9 Jan ‘18 13.56 GMTLast modified on Tue 9 Jan ‘1813.58 GMT



The British government may have breached a major “environmental democracy” law by failing to consult the public when drawing up Brexit legislation.

A UN-backed committee has confirmed it is considering a complaint from Friends of the Earth that the government’s EU withdrawal bill breached the Aarhus convention, which requires public consultation on any new environmental law.

Most of the UK’s environmental laws derive from or interact with EU law, and Friends of the Earth (FoE) has raised concerns that the bill gives ministers “unique and wide-ranging powers” toamend or delete EU-derived environmental law without public consultation, if ministers consider it appropriate.

According to Defra, “over 1,100 core pieces of directly applicable EU legislation and national implementing legislation” fall within the department’s remit.

The “polluter pays” principle and theprecautionary principle could both be affected, as could the public’s ability to challenge changes to environmental laws.

William Rundle, lawyer for Friends of the Earth, said: “The government said Brexit was about taking back control, yet it has ignored the views of the UK people in taking it forwards. There has been no consultation on what the withdrawal billcould mean for the environment and environmental legal protections, or what is the best way forwards.

“The Aarhus convention requires effective consultation when new laws are being prepared that can significantly affect the environment, such as the EU withdrawal bill. This would have allowed environmental issues to be debated and understood, but also built democratic accountability and public confidence.

“The current approach by government in conducting Brexit fails to do this; they didn’t even try. Nobody thought Brexit would be easy, but the government cannot ignore its legal obligations, or the views of the people.”

According to the Aarhus convention’s three pillars, information relating to environmental legislation must be provided by public authorities “in a timely and transparent manner”, and the public must be allowed to participate in the development of new laws at an early stage of their preparation. The third pillar is public access to justice, should a party violate or fail to adhere to environmental law or the convention’s principles.

The government may have breached the convention in two ways, FoE says: by failing to set out a consistent legal framework to allow public participation in the preparation of new environmental legislation (article 3), and by not giving the public an opportunity to comment on the bill before it was presented to parliament to be made into law (article 8). FoE says the government failed to consult with the public, and by calling a snap election, any possible engagement with the bill’s white paper was prevented.

In a letter to Friends of the Earth, the Aarhus convention compliance committee says: “the committee has, on a preliminary basis, determined the communicant’s allegation concerning the preparation of the draft ‘great repeal bill’ and the alleged lack of a clear, transparent and consistent framework to implement article 8 … to be admissible”.

Michael Mason, associate professor at the London School of Economics, says the government remains legally bound by the Aarhus convention after withdrawal from the EU, and by abolishing laws relating to Aarhus provisions the UK would be in breach of the treaty.

He says: “The UK would not be able to cherry-pick provisions in the convention: the UK is either fully in or would have to pull out from the treaty. To stay in, the UK government will have to retain all EU-derived law implementing Aarhus obligations.

“A withdrawal from the Aarhus convention would be disastrous for UK environmental policy.”

A House of Lords report calls the EU withdrawal bill a “bill of the first order in terms of law-making powers being granted to ministers”. It says “this bill is expected to generate another 800 to 1,000 statutory instruments in the near future.”

The bill does not require that current environmental standards are maintained after Brexit, nor does it contain a general requirement that the public should be consulted on potentially significant changes to environmental legislation. It does not require ministers to replace the existing European commission complaints procedure on breaches of EU-derived environmental law, which is currently available to UK citizens free of charge. The UK government could still include a requirement for public consultation, however.

In February 2017, campaigners won a case against the Ministry of Justice over proposed changes to cost protection orders that could have made legal challenges to government over environmental issues toofinancially risky to pursue. A UN committee at the time criticised the government for failing to meet its legal obligations on access to justice under the Aarhus convention.

A government spokesperson said: “The purpose of the withdrawal bill is to provide a functioning statute book on the day we leave the EU – it is an essential bill in the national interest. While we can’t comment on proceedings, we believe we have complied with all of the relevant obligations in developing this crucial legislation and remain committed to maintaining the highest environmental standards. We will be submitting our full response in due course.”

The government now has until 5 June to provide its written response to the complaint. The committee will then decide whether the UK government is in breach of its obligations.

The people were consulted. They said OUT. I'm surprised FoE didn't hear about it? It covers every eventuality.

 

[orchard]

The people were consulted. They said OUT. I'm surprised FoE didn't hear about it? It covers every eventuality.

Filling in for Joey?