If we vote for Brexit what happens

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

From Politico daily Brexit briefing.

"The European Parliament’s trade committee has compiled the most comprehensive official analysis of Brexit’s impact on pending EU trade deals and new regulations so far. POLITICO got its hands on a copy"

The UK's exit seems to cause a little disruption.

CKhalvashi

Tromking wrote: »

Perhaps your view is understandably tainted by having originated from a country that spent a considerable time under the communist yoke. I bet the state officials back then loved a good ID card and possibly still do.
I`ve been asked for and been happy to produce various kinds of ID numerous times, however the thought of being compelled to produce an ID card that only exists to verify my status as a UK citizen (or otherwise) scares me.
You can see the subtle difference right?

Good to see this is being brought back to personal attacks.

Surely being compelled to produce any ID (as you openly admit you have been fine with in other situations) is against your principals then, even though you've just admitted you're fine with it?

I have stated before, and will state now again, I am a British citizen. Nothing else is relevant.

Ballard

gfplux wrote: »

I certainly think and know voters who saw Immigration as the main reason to vote out. However the other driver was the "daily interference from Brussels" in Britains daily life.
What that interference (bad) was as regulation (good) was one of many Reasons I voted remain.
However it might now dawn on people that this DAILY interference will take a lot of untangling.

People do sometimes quote this 'interference' as an issue but for the man in the street I don't think that it makes a great deal of difference. I personally think that Farage persuaded a heck of a lot of people that their daily lives were worse because of Brussels but other than free movement of people I'm not sure how it affects the average Joe.

setmefree2

gfplux wrote: »

From Politico daily Brexit briefing.

"The European Parliament’s trade committee has compiled the most comprehensive official analysis of Brexit’s impact on pending EU trade deals and new regulations so far. POLITICO got its hands on a copy"

It links to a 16 page document that those who post a lot about trade might wish to read. I skimmed it.

Here is the link http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/INTA.pdf?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=4acf57ef40-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_02_24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-4acf57ef40-190026745

Thanks for posting that link.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

I certainly think and know voters who saw Immigration as the main reason to vote out. However the other driver was the "daily interference from Brussels" in Britains daily life.
What that interference (bad) was as regulation (good) was one of many Reasons I voted remain.
However it might now dawn on people that this DAILY interference will take a lot of untangling.

But you no longer live in the UK and have stated you've no desire to return. Perhaps a vote purely based on residency alone would have given a far clearer mandate. If the outcome is positive for the UK then does it matter how it takes to untangle.

In RBS we have a loss making bank. With the sale of W&G cancelled. The EU has said that it will have to pay to transfer customers away. Totally bizarre thinking. Interference of the worst kind. All the expense of the man on the street.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Good to see this is being brought back to personal attacks.

Surely being compelled to produce any ID (as you openly admit you have been fine with in other situations) is against your principals then, even though you've just admitted you're fine with it?

I have stated before, and will state now again, I am a British citizen. Nothing else is relevant.

There is no personal attack here, you are being paranoid.
A trait sadly evidenced in numerous posts in the past.
Background IS relevant, whether you are a British Citizen or not.

Most British citizens of British descent rather than of say Eastern European as Tromking correctly stated have no experience of being required to produce identification "on-the-spot" as it were, unlike former citizens of previously communist (and especially Soviet bloc) countries.

An example?
Here in the UK if you have a car accident you are NOT by law required to immediately report this accident.

Legal Obligations under the Road Traffic Act

Under the Road Traffic Act, Section 170, Part VII Entitled Miscellaneous and General refers to Duties In Case of Accident.
In this portion, the Act calls for those involved to stop, report the accident and to produce documents.
It clearly states that it is the driver’s duty to STOP.
The failure to stop is of course considered an offence.
The driver is duty bound to report the accident. This can be done immediately if there are injuries present. Or it can be within 24 hours at a police station. This is a duty required of the driver.
Certain documents must be provided by the driver. This will include your license, registration and insurance documents. It is stressed that if you fail to produce documents, that is also an offense. But if you are able to produce documents within 5 days from the accident, then you will not be convicted.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/motoring-law/road-traffic-accident/


How about Russia then?
Even today, here is what the RAC says you should carry when driving in Russia:

When driving in Russia the following documents should be carried:

• Full, valid driving licence*.
• International Driving Permit.
• Proof of insurance/green card (third party or above).
• Proof of ID (passport).
• Proof of ownership (V5C certificate).
• Russian VISA/Transit.

http://www.rac.co.uk/drive/travel/country/russia/

So again, just to be clear; most British citizens of British descent have no experience of being required to produce identification "on-the-spot".
Most certainly not identification of nationality, place/country of birth etc.

Despite your disagreement you cannot deny that there are many countries where it is now or has recently been a statutory requirement to carry indentification which may include nationality and also place and/or country of birth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_identity_card_policies_by_country

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Meanwhile in Holland it looks like Dutch MP's have voted unanimously to hold a parliamentary enquiry into Holland's future with the Euro.

Dutch politicians voted unanimously for the move, which will examine all options for the euro, including whether it would be possible to withdraw from the euro and, if so, how, according to opposition MPs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/25/netherlands-holds-inquiry-whether-could-ditch-euro/

Also here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/netherlands-election-euro-idUSL8N1G95BX

It was prompted by concerns the ECB's ultra-low interest rates are hurting Dutch savers, especially pensioners, and doubts as to whether its bond purchasing programmes are legal ....

cogito

Beat me to it, Jock. The report won't be finished until after the Dutch elections by which time the parliament could have a very different look but it's something else for Juncker and his fellow fanatics to worry about.

Tromking

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Good to see this is being brought back to personal attacks.

Surely being compelled to produce any ID (as you openly admit you have been fine with in other situations) is against your principals then, even though you've just admitted you're fine with it?

I have stated before, and will state now again, I am a British citizen. Nothing else is relevant.

No personal attack was intended, just proffering the idea that we are all a product of our personal and family history.
You are failing to understand the nuanced difference between being required to produce a form of ID that you may or may not possess and everyone being required by law to be in possession of an ID card designed solely to prove your status as a citizen to officialdom.
Brexit if anything was an example that Brits often do not think as mainland Europeans do.

vivatifosi

gfplux wrote: »

From Politico daily Brexit briefing.

"The European Parliament’s trade committee has compiled the most comprehensive official analysis of Brexit’s impact on pending EU trade deals and new regulations so far. POLITICO got its hands on a copy"

It links to a 16 page document that those who post a lot about trade might wish to read. I skimmed it.

Here is the link http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/INTA.pdf?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=4acf57ef40-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_02_24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-4acf57ef40-190026745

That's a really interesting document, thanks gfplux. It's a useful read across the board, but a couple of the points that I found most interesting were:
1) that the EU's relation with Turkey is seen as a potential model for the UK's. It also refers elsewhere to different potential models such as EEA, EFTA, Customs Union.
2) it sees two stages - the withdrawal rules and the post exit rules.
3) TiSA and the UK's role in it is seen as significant. It sees the UK as having negotiating skill in this area and wanting to stay party to the talks. TiSA is the WTO's agreement on the trade in services.
4) Leading on from this, it talks about the UK's technical capacity and expertise on controlled items (eg missiles) and ability to indirectly influence the EU in this area after leaving.
5) I was interested to note the importance of agriculture to the EU's WTO relationships, and wondered how the UK pulling out of the CAP will affect the EU, as well as vice versa.

(This is my take on this from reading the document as a layperson. Please don't rely on the above and read it yourself if you are interested.)