To ask if those panicking about Brexit realise they've been had?

[Growingboys]

Honestly, it's pathetic.

This is Project Fear mark 2, spin designed to stop Brexit happening. Politicians and wonks hope that if they spread enough fear around, which is what all these ridiculous 'prepping' threads are, they will stop us leaving the EU.

Everybody needs to calm the fuck down, stop digging their underground food stores/adding some more tins to the Ocado order, and realise this is spin, pure and simple. The world will continue to turn, and food will continue to be on supermarket shelves, regardless of what happens with Brexit.

I am very sad at the lack of sense and backbone so many people are showing here, regardless of views on Brexit.

I'm off to have a gin and put my feet up. I might even eat something from my freezer tonight rather than save it for armageddon #dicingwithdeath

Two points: the ECHR and the EU are not the same thing. It is fair to say that it is union with the EU that provides the power to the ECHR and the incentive to co-operate, this is why EU membership is instrumental, nobody is confusing the two.

No.

The ECHR's power does not come from the EU. It is completely separate.

And loads and loads of people (including a lot of politicians and journalists who ought to know better, to say nothing of the general population who can perhaps be forgiven for not knowing) confuse the two. Constantly.

Why would a written constitution require direct democracy? Most representative democracies have constitutions. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I explained why in the very same block of text. The implication is obvious if you:

I know something about constitutions and constitutional reform and your post is mostly baffling

Easily said, but based on your opening question and the fact you find what I said baffling, I'm afraid I rather doubt this is true. I'm sorry if that sounds rude.

I didn't find your post "baffling", but I thought much of it was ill-informed. Sorry.

I am not glossing over the Commissions lack of democracy. The vast majority of civil services through out the democratic world are not elected. In fact electing a civil service would be a catastrophically bad idea.

Not glossing -the Commission is not elected nor should it be.

Again, I am baffled by your reference to an 'external entity' perhaps I missed a post somewhere. Proposal of legislation is restricted to the Commission due to the technical nature of the vast majority of EU legislation. Many constitutions restrict who proposes legislation this is not generally regarded as a democratic deficit.

The ECHR was written by... is entirely separate of the EU.

At no point did I say the ECHR was a branch of the EU, in fact I made the point they are distinct. I did suggest that membership of the political union provides much of the incentive to stay bound by it in the face of rights reform, and it would be foolish to claim otherwise.

Too many people on here reading opinion pieces rather than fact. Any news article or blog or political comment has an agenda. If you look carefully, and I admit it is not easy, but if you manage to find non-biased industry articles there isn't much to worry about. Read WTO website, read EMA, read HMRC. Being outside of the EU doesn't stop us trading with anyone, we don't need trade deals to trade. Recognise that the EU is a protectionist organisation just as much as the USA. Able to raise or lower tariffs when they want. UK has already advised WTO they will continue to use current EU tariff levels. The difference being we will collect our own import duties rather than hand over to the EU. These can be paid either by the importer or exporter, depending on terms of sale. Prices may go up, they may go down, but sterling will probably go down, so that will make our imports more expensive. Conversely we are likely to export more. I used to work in export, but many years ago, would love to hear from someone in the import/export business now with their views on what will happen post brexit. Surely it is just a case of updating paperwork, most of which is digital now anyway??

I didn't find your post "baffling", but I thought much of it was ill-informed. Sorry.

Oh dear. I'm always eager to learn, which parts of my post were ill-informed?

Many who want a written, reformed constitution would like to see this changed so that truly inalienable rights exist for British citizens, and that implementation itself requires direct democracy and some degree of serious reform

The text ImAIdoot.

The US has inalienable rights that are changed through a representative democracy requiring votes in both houses of Congress with more than a simple majority. Ireland does require a referendum for changes to the constitution this is a direct democracy.

So serious reform is needed but this can be done via a representative or a direct democracy.

You question my lack of knowledge when I was politely pointing out you are talking ill informed bollocks.

I did suggest that membership of the political union provides much of the incentive to stay bound by it in the face of rights reform, and it would be foolish to claim otherwise.

No, I think wanting to consider ourselves a civilised country which adheres to certain basic minimum standards in how it treats its people provides the incentive to stay bound by it, actually.

The requirement for EU accession states to be a party to it is simply a testament to the fact that it works, it has stood the test of time (it entered into force in 1953, before the Treaty of Rome between the six original members of what is now the EU), and that there is no need for the EU to reinvent the wheel by requiring member states to adhere to a separate set of international human rights standards when the ECHR already exists and is going a good job.

Oh dear. I'm always eager to learn, which parts of my post were ill-informed?

I did reply to your post, in quite some detail, explaining which parts I disagreed with.

Someone up thread asked:

can anyone give me an accurate figure on just how many treaties, agreements, arrangements and legal framework (such as the pharmaceutical regulatory framework mentioned above) are going to have to be torn up and re-created in British law, somehow, within the next 8 months? Anyone? Just a number?

759 treaties with 168 countries, just to get us back to where we are now.

www.ft.com/content/f1435a8e-372b-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e

We do need trade deals if we want free trade, ie trade not hampered by tariffs and non-tariff barriers (eg different regulatory standards causing products to be rejected by the recipient country).

The whole sell on Brexit was that we would free trade with many, many countries outside the EU. If we really just want to have tariff and barrier-heavy trade (causing us to trade at great inefficiency to ourselves and our ability to pay decent wages), we can do that with countries outside the EU right now. Why would we blow up our relationship with our existing free trade area to do that?

This is another example of how the story has changed. Brexit was meant to be easy, and we were going to keep our standard of living AND become a bigger world leader. Instead we're being told we can be less productive, have a lower standard of living, and have trouble sourcing essential medicines. Bit of a difference in two years, isn't it?

Getting the ECHR and ECJ mixed up is a typical brexitier error.

Having a final court of arbitration in the form of the ECJ is rather reassuring, look at how they ve pulled the UK up on air pollution or how they forced companies to including driver hours into the WTD, something our Supreme court cannot do and our government was'nt interested in.
ECJ has plenty of UK judges in it, so we ve good representation.

We ll lose this vital protection come next March, if anyone is relying on the Gov and companies to protect their rights, they ll be in for a rude awakening.

I did reply to your post, in quite some detail, explaining which parts I disagreed with.

I read your post of disagreement, yes. I didn't see any substantive points where I was actually wrong, and I'm not saying that to be bull-headed. I was hoping for a breakdown with some facts in it I can use to form a different, more informed opinion, as life is about doing this daily. I appreciate your input either way.

*I am not glossing over the Commissions lack of democracy. The vast majority of civil services through out the democratic world are not elected. In fact electing a civil service would be a catastrophically bad idea.

Not glossing -the Commission is not elected nor should it be.

Again, I am baffled by your reference to an 'external entity' perhaps I missed a post somewhere. Proposal of legislation is restricted to the Commission due to the technical nature of the vast majority of EU legislation. Many constitutions restrict who proposes legislation this is not generally regarded as a democratic deficit.*

Here's the thing: You've not disagreed on any fact I posted about the European Commission (the shadily named "external entity" therein) in response to a question, just whether you think it matters or not. It's fine that some people think it matters more/less than others, that's democracy, but I believe the facts of the matter don't change whatever importance you place on them.

The whole sell on Brexit was that we wouldfreetrade with many, many countries outside the EU.

Pure conjecture here, but I don't believe trade was a primary issue for the leave vote, and I don't believe fear of future economic privations was, either.

Could be wrong (I'm not psychic) but I think this makes sense given the way a campaign fought largely on this basis by Remain fell flat, and would explain our bewilderment that dire economic prognostications didn't swing the vote.

So I doubt it was the whole sell, I just don't see that people voted for Brexit to usher in a golden age of great trade agreements, even if I guess some people were thinking that way.

On the subject of medication, surely a great deal of medication that we take on prescription is made in India and Far East?

So your points are:

• that European Commission acts a civil service like the civil service in any democracy.
• the EU commissioners swear loyalty to the EU - in the same way any civil servant is loyal to the constitution they serve.
• constitutionally the commissioners propose legislation.

Those are your killer arguments? I was baffled because these aren't arguments against the EU these are statements of fact. It's like saying " grass is green"and then saying we should get rid of grass.

You state you dislike that the Commission is where legislation originates, a minor constitutional point and call this a constitutional deficit. In the face of the idiosyncrasies in the U.K. system that is bizarre and illogical.

You have failed to address the question about direct and representative democracy. A constitution does not require direct democracy - were you making some other point about this?

Sorry last post was addressed to ImAIdoot

"imagine, making pipes to 27 different standards so you can trade with 27 different countries"

there's the rub - to hit the largest market you build to EU standards - whether inside or outside of the market

I read your post of disagreement, yes. I didn't see any substantive points where I was actually wrong, and I'm not saying that to be bull-headed. I was hoping for a breakdown with some facts in it I can use to form a different, more informed opinion, as life is about doing this daily. I appreciate your input either way.

Well I think I thoroughly debunked your initial statement suggesting that our membership of the EU prevents us from reforming our electoral system or constitution, and I corrected you on the ECHR point.

The only point of yours which I thought had any merit was the point that after Brexit we may have more legislative freedom to insist on higher standards for things such as animal welfare. This may theoretically be true; but in practice, this is not how things are likely to go. Brexit is ultimately about giving the politicians who would rather have a race to the bottom an opportunity to have a bonfire of regulations.

And frankly, if (as is likely) a hard Brexit means we face spiralling food costs, we're not going to be in a position to insist on higher standards of animal welfare if this is going to cause costs to rise further or prevent us from doing trade deals which woulc allow us to import cheaper food from countries with lower standards such as the US.

It simply isn't going to be a priority.

"Surely it is just a case of updating paperwork, most of which is digital now anyway??"
Digital is much harder to change than getting new form stock designed and printed (or even getting a stamp made to use on each form)

• then you have to train the users of the forms. Sounds trivial but if you've ever been involved in this level of change in a large organisation you'll know it isnt. you are lucky to get contracts signed to even start work in 3 months!

Technology will not get us out of this mess.

UK has already advised WTO they will continue to use current EU tariff levels

It's not the tariff levels that's the issue - its the tariff rate quotas. A number of countries have already objected - Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Brazil for instance. UK is claiming a rectification to the current schedules, EU regards it as a modification of the schedules. Lots of negotiations ahead.

"Surely it is just a case of updating paperwork, most of which is digital now anyway??"

No. It is not simply a case of updating paperwork.

I used to work in export, but many years ago, would love to hear from someone in the import/export business now with their views on what will happen post brexit.
Surely it is just a case of updating paperwork, most of which is digital now anyway??

Before the single market, the customs clearance areas in Dover were nearly 1/3 of the port and the average import clearance time was three hours
T2 and C88 forms and the tariff are indeed all digital
but physical checks are essential to prevent smuggling (of goods and people)

Dover Harbour has reused all of the land that used to be customs clearance.
The Channel Tunnel was built without it.

In the years since the single market,came in, the EU has become one big manufacturing hub
the engine block of a BMW car crosses the channel four times before it gets fitted to the car.

If the UK leaves the single Market, all of that will grind to a shuddering halt immediately.

Technology cannot magically find the space to park 5,000 articulated lorries a day.

Ports that import from outside the EU will be less affected because they have HUGE storage areas.

I could cry at the ignorance shown by Brexiteers, both IRL and on this thread. I'm sure if we hadn't had decades of negative, bias rubbish, spouted by most of our press, and just a bit more of the facts ans the positive stuff that goes on, day in day out, TO KEEP OUR COUNTRY RUNNING SMOOTHLY, we would not be coming out.

It is absolute fucking madness that we are leaving and there are hundreds of thousands of issues which will take us decades to sort out.