• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM

Status
Not open for further replies.

Uzzy

Member
Looks like that whole 'keeping our negotiation position close to our chest' policy worked out well.

The EU's publishing their position papers for everyone to see, meanwhile we barely have positions on anything.
 
Looks like that whole 'keeping our negotiation position close to our chest' policy worked out well.

The EU's publishing their position papers for everyone to see, meanwhile we barely have positions on anything.

This annoys me no end, since the brexiteers continually complain about opaque decisions by Eurocrats. It's because they're too lazy to search the EU websites (unless they're typing in 'bananas' so they can claim the thousands of hits on EU-lex mean that there are thousands of laws about banana-curvature).

Just... no. The EU is incredibly transparent about publishing it's procedures and making it easy to find details on how to comply with their regulations. It's kind of a necessity when 28 nations need to find out what's going on.

It's the UK government (and to be fair, most other EU national governments) that like to do their deals in private and publish as little as possible in public.
 

Theonik

Member
This annoys me no end, since the brexiteers continually complain about opaque decisions by Eurocrats. It's because they're too lazy to search the EU websites (unless they're typing in 'bananas' so they can claim the thousands of hits on EU-lex mean that there are thousands of laws about banana-curvature).

Just... no. The EU is incredibly transparent about publishing it's procedures and making it easy to find details on how to comply with their regulations. It's kind of a necessity when 28 nations need to find out what's going on.

It's the UK government (and to be fair, most other EU national governments) that like to do their deals in private and publish as little as possible in public.
Come on that's actually not true. Hell before the Lisbon Treaty the EP had pretty much zero power and largely still does. Talk about EU transparency when the minutes of these meetings are published and the EU isn't partly run by its civil service. Having said that the UK system is also equally broken in its own ways. But to take EU PR as a sign of how well the EU works is pretty bizarre.
 

chadskin

Member
At least 30 Conservative MPs have indicated to their own Government that they will not accept leaving the European Union without an agreed deal.

Sky News has been told that the MPs informed whips that the economic impact of a "cliff-edge" Brexit, alongside the failure of the Conservatives to win a majority for its manifesto, should lead to a rethink of the position that "no deal is better than a bad deal".
One former minister told Sky News that "no deal is now dead", and anticipated a transition phase of five to 10 years inside the European Economic Area.
http://news.sky.com/story/no-brexit-deal-unacceptable-30-tory-mps-tell-number-10-10921780
 
Come on that's actually not true. Hell before the Lisbon Treaty the EP had pretty much zero power and largely still does. Talk about EU transparency when the minutes of these meetings are published and the EU isn't partly run by its civil service. Having said that the UK system is also equally broken in its own ways. But to take EU PR as a sign of how well the EU works is pretty bizarre.

I'm probably biased by my profession in regulatory affairs. The EU is run by civil servants, but it's quite easy to find the minutes of important meetings. Simply because the national civil services need regular meetings with EU civil servants and minutes are published to avoid mutual distrust.
It is transparent when contrasted with the utterly opaque minutes of UK government and civil service policy discussions. The only way to understand some UK civil service decisions is to get an off-the-record comment from a bureaucrat that is annoyed with policy group or ministerial decisions.
Likewise, the EU insists on publishing thousand-page detailed summaries of regulatory data from corporations, while national regulators will generally give a one page summary that says "we think this is okay", and claiming that further details are confidential.

I guess I'm saying the EU has a more transparent bureaucracy, but admitedly a much more powerful one.
 

Theonik

Member
I'm probably biased by my profession in regulatory affairs. The EU is run by civil servants, but it's quite easy to find the minutes of important meetings. Simply because the national civil services need regular meetings with EU civil servants and minutes are published to avoid mutual distrust.
It is transparent when contrasted with the utterly opaque minutes of UK government and civil service policy discussions. The only way to understand some UK civil service decisions is to get an off-the-record comment from a bureaucrat that is annoyed with policy group or ministerial decisions.
Likewise, the EU insists on publishing thousand-page detailed summaries of regulatory data from corporations, while national regulators will generally give a one page summary that says "we think this is okay", and claiming that further details are confidential.

I guess I'm saying the EU has a more transparent bureaucracy, but admitedly a much more powerful one.
But it's more a question of being fit for purpose or not. Less transparency in the UK civil service is a problem but not as big a problem that a less than transparent EU bureaucracy simply because they hold more power inevitably. There is also less public accountability despite transparency for that power still since one cannot vote these people out of power. Lisbon Treaty was a step in the right direction but the work is not yet done and this transitional stage has a lot of dangers as the EU has a lot more power now than originally envisaged.
 
What's the point?

That EU civil servants which are forced to make everything public are somehow worse than the national civil servants who don't have the same requirements?
 

Theonik

Member
What's the point?

That EU civil servants which are forced to make everything public are somehow worse than the national civil servants who don't have the same requirements?
Because a) Not everything is public and b) national civil servants don't have executive powers.
That leads to point b-2) There is a lot of EU power that is not divested to the EP and is still in the hands of the civil service and national government ministers that is completely non-transparent.
 

Theonik

Member
You are arguing that somehow is worse to have public access to most of the information than have access to none.
The argument is that both situations is bad but only one of the two has real power so is the only one that actually matters. The EU's bureaucracy was designed for an era when it didn't actually have any significant power.
 

Maledict

Member
Because a) Not everything is public and b) national civil servants don't have executive powers.
That leads to point b-2) There is a lot of EU power that is not divested to the EP and is still in the hands of the civil service and national government ministers that is completely non-transparent.

I think you should watch Yes Minister a bit... ;-). The UK is one of the most centralised western government in the world - the civil service has vast powers which in other countries are not controlled centrally. They tend to run rings round ministers, and even managed to beat Blair despite the ridiculous majority he won in 97 to stop a lot of his planned changes going through.

(He's written about that in detail, basically saying that the first four years of new labour were wasted because they didn't understand how strong the civil service was and how obstructive they could be).

As someone who works with them, id definitely argue the civil service is far worse. Way too powerful, no scrutiny, no accountability.
 

oti

Banned
Look at the comments
don't!

You think people like them will wake up one day and see how duuuuuuuuuuuuumb they were?

qGwVt883TPOin4hMEmI5mw.png
 

Theonik

Member
I think you should watch Yes Minister a bit... ;-). The UK is one of the most centralised western government in the world - the civil service has vast powers which in other countries are not controlled centrally. They tend to run rings round ministers, and even managed to beat Blair despite the ridiculous majority he won in 97 to stop a lot of his planned changes going through.

(He's written about that in detail, basically saying that the first four years of new labour were wasted because they didn't understand how strong the civil service was and how obstructive they could be).

As someone who works with them, id definitely argue the civil service is far worse. Way too powerful, no scrutiny, no accountability.
You are looking at it from the perspective of only having experienced one. The EU bureaucracy is very close to what you get in the UK but actually have power.

I mean you equally have many politicians from across several EU countries also express similar feelings about the EU bureaucracy. UK civil service is quite bad though but again the best they can do is be obstructionist, they don't have real executive authority and so can largely be circumvented.
 

Maledict

Member
You are looking at it from the perspective of only having experienced one. The EU bureaucracy is very close to what you get in the UK but actually have power.

I mean you equally have many politicians from across several EU countries also express similar feelings about the EU bureaucracy. UK civil service is quite bad though but again the best they can do is be obstructionist, they don't have real executive authority and so can largely be circumvented.

That's... literally not true. It is impossible to circumvent the civil service. Even Margaret Thatcher didn't do it (and again complained about heavily). And they often have exucutive authority.

I think you're looking at the theoretical model of the Uk civil service rather than the actual working methods it uses. Whitehall is one of the biggest problems this country has IMHO - so much power concentrated in a bureaucracy that has basically no oversight that can run rings round its ministers, who only last a few years at most.
 

TimmmV

Member
I think you should watch Yes Minister a bit... ;-). The UK is one of the most centralised western government in the world - the civil service has vast powers which in other countries are not controlled centrally. They tend to run rings round ministers, and even managed to beat Blair despite the ridiculous majority he won in 97 to stop a lot of his planned changes going through.

(He's written about that in detail, basically saying that the first four years of new labour were wasted because they didn't understand how strong the civil service was and how obstructive they could be).

As someone who works with them, id definitely argue the civil service is far worse. Way too powerful, no scrutiny, no accountability.

Where was it he wrote about that? His autobiography?

Would be interested to read about that
 

Theonik

Member
That's... literally not true. It is impossible to circumvent the civil service. Even Margaret Thatcher didn't do it (and again complained about heavily). And they often have exucutive authority.

I think you're looking at the theoretical model of the Uk civil service rather than the actual working methods it uses. Whitehall is one of the biggest problems this country has IMHO - so much power concentrated in a bureaucracy that has basically no oversight that can run rings round its ministers, who only last a few years at most.
Similarly, one is viewing the theoretical model of the EU structures not how they really are. In fact both bureaucracies use very similar tactics to get what they want! But the EU bureaucracy is broken by design and we should look at reforming it. Like I said earlier the Lisbon Treaty transferring more powers to EP was a good step but it also came with giving the EU more powers as well, and that is a problem.
 

Dougald

Member
Let's hope those consequences are that he has to increase the rates he pays to attract staff.
If brexit actually forces employers to improve pay and conditions then it's not all bad eh ?

I agree with you on things like construction, where companies have been neglecting training new staff for years in favour of cheap imported labour, but I can't see too many British people willing to pick strawberries
 
I agree with you on things like construction, where companies have been neglecting training new staff for years in favour of cheap imported labour, but I can't see too many British people willing to pick strawberries
There are worse jobs surely ? I will concede that actually ,seasonal fruit picking should be given a special status regarding immigration if a work permit scheme or something similar is introduced.
The fact that it's only a short window of employment makes recruitment much more difficult.
 

Dougald

Member
I wouldn't think it would be that bad of a job (if the pay was half decent), but I believe the prevailing attitude to fruit picking jobs for most people is that it's beneath them

Still it baffles me that farmers would vote to leave being as they're the beneficiaries here. It's not as if construction companies were campaigning for it
 

Zaph

Member
Let's hope those consequences are that he has to increase the rates he pays to attract staff.
If brexit actually forces employers to improve pay and conditions then it's not all bad eh ?

It just won't happen - farms already struggle with profitability and the British public just won't pay more for food.

That's the thing with Brexit, it's not going to be some higher wage utopia - we'll just rely on imports even more, jobs will simply disappear. The first thing our governement will do is rush to make shitty deals with the major cheap food and clothing exporters to keep the public happy.

A good example of this is the massive growth in household help. Most of my working and middle-class friends now all have regular cleaners and gardeners, and if the supply of migrant workers dries up, they're not going to replace them with a British person for £15-£20/h, they'll just go back to doing it themselves.
 
It just won't happen - farms already struggle with profitability and the British public just won't pay more for food.

That's the thing with Brexit, it's not going to be some higher wage utopia - we'll just rely on imports even more, jobs will simply disappear. The first thing our governement will do is rush to make shitty deals with the major cheap food and clothing exporters to keep the public happy.

A good example of this is the massive growth in household help. Most of my working and middle-class friends now all have regular cleaners and gardeners, and if the supply of migrant workers dries up, they're not going to replace them with a British person for £15-£20/h, they'll just go back to doing it themselves.
I agree it won't result in a high wage utopia, particularly among low earners . I just cannot accept that it won't give those employees a little more sway to get a bit extra if they are no longer so easily replaced.
The same employers that are huge supporters of FoM are the very same who scream from the rooftops of their ivory towers every time a higher minimum wage is suggested.
I don't want to go back to days where unions held business hostage and print workers earned more than a doctor , but the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction and with the private sector unions completely castrated ,market forces are the only way to increase pay.
 

Beefy

Member
The Government has been dealt a huge blow as the High Court ruled its benefit cap is unlawful and illegally discriminates against single parents with young children.

Conservative ministers are now likely to be forced to change or scrap one of their flagship welfare policies, which limits the total amount of benefits a household can receive to £23,000 a year in London and £20,000 elsewhere.

The ruling was made in response to a judicial review brought by four lone parent families who said the cap would have a severe and disproportionate impact on them.

200,000 children being made poorer through benefits cap

Ministers had attempted to have the case thrown out but were rejected by the court, which ruled earlier this year that the case must be heard as a matter of urgency. The Government said it was ”disappointed" with the latest ruling and will appeal against the decision.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7802286.html
 
At this point I have no sympathy

I do

For the hardworking foreigners pulling the weight in many industries in the UK and then they get treating like shit. Getting called "cheap workers" although in reality they are just plain the better workers. Vocational education in the UK is a joke compared to pretty much all countries in continental Europe.
 

Xando

Member
Theresa May Just Offered EU Leaders A Plan To Let EU Citizens Stay In The UK After Brexit
BRUSSELS – EU nationals will be allowed to remain in Britain after Brexit with guaranteed rights similar to those of UK citizens under plans outlined by prime minister Theresa May to the leaders of the other 27 member states over dinner on Thursday evening.

In the first substantive Brexit proposal from the UK government, May offered a new “UK settled status” for EU citizens who have resided in the UK for five years at a date to be specified between the triggering of Article 50 and Britain’s formal exit from the European Union. Any EU citizen in the UK for less than five years by that date will be allowed to stay until they have five years of residence to obtain the settled status.

The aim of the status will be treat EU citizens as if they were UK citizens for education, benefits, pensions, and healthcare rights.

At the dinner, May outlined the key principles of Britain’s offer to protect the rights of EU citizens living in the UK. These include:

A commitment that no EU citizen currently in the UK lawfully will be asked to leave the country at the point that the UK leaves the EU, and all EU citizens lawfully here at the point the UK leaves will have the opportunity to regularise their status to remain in the country. The prime minister told leaders that the UK does not want anyone here to have to leave, nor does it want families to be split up.

A specified cut off date that would fall within a window no earlier than date of the Article 50 notification letter [29 March 2017], and no later than the exit date [29 March 2019]. The specific date will subject of the Brexit negotiations, but May made clear that EU citizens currently in the UK will have their rights protected by EU law until the day Britain leaves the EU.

A grace period: the length of this period is still to be determined but expected to be up to two years - to allow people to regularise their status so to avoid a cliff edge. All EU citizens either in the UK today or arriving before Britain leaves the EU will have the opportunity to regularise their status under the new rules.

A streamlined administration: May signalled that the administration of this system would be as streamlined as possible using digital tools to register people in a light touch way. In effect, the UK is all but binning the current 85-page residency application process.


The prime minister said the proposal was contingent on reciprocity, but said her priority in setting out the principles was to provide reassurance and certainty to EU citizens as quickly as possible and that both sides should seek to agree terms early in the Brexit talks.

“The UK's position represents a fair and serious offer,'' May said. “One aimed at giving as much certainty as possible to citizens who have settled in the UK, building careers and lives, and contributing so much to our society.''
The government will publish a detailed paper with the proposals on Monday. The UK’s commitments to EU citizens would be enshrined in UK law, and would be enforceable by UK courts.

From May’s remarks alone it is not clear exactly how the UK proposal will match up to the full suite of rights, including the derived rights of family members, that are currently enjoyed by EU nationals residing in the UK as well as by Britons living elsewhere in the EU. It was also unclear whether reciprocal arrangements elsewhere in the EU could lead to Britons losing some of their existing rights, and how the proposal could affect individuals who fall between the cracks, for example if they were to leave the country or become jobless while working towards the five years needed to achieve the “UK settled status.”

The government is expected to provide detailed answers to some of these questions in next week’s plan.

The UK proposal comes after the European Commission’s Brexit task force published a paper outlining its position on how to guarantee the rights of EU citizens. It is aiming for all existing rights of EU citizens and their family members to be protected, and to agree a detailed plan to enable this. But the crux of this debate isn’t only about protecting all existing rights but how to guarantee them reciprocally in future too. The EU argues that there needs to be a mechanism to settle any disputes and protect citizens from possible changes in national legislation (in the UK or elsewhere in Europe). The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is one possible arbiter of any accord (and of the overall UK-EU exit deal).

“You wouldn’t have this guarantee just through UK courts,” an EU official told BuzzFeed News.

Having made ending the jurisdiction of the ECJ one of her primary objectives, May is in effect being asked to cross one of her red lines or to come up with an analogous mechanism. But there is no sign the prime minister is prepared to take such a step.
May made her remarks over dinner at the end of the first day of the European Council.

The EU leaders did not get into discussions with the prime minister over dinner. The focus of this week’s European Council is security and defence cooperation, trade policy, climate action, and migration, not Brexit.

Instead, they listened to what May had to say before moving on to have coffee without her and to discuss criteria to relocate the EU’s banking and medicines agencies from London.

"She was heard, but not given a reaction," a senior EU government official told BuzzFeed News.

The 27 have mandated the European Commission to negotiate Brexit on their behalf and do not want to open the door to any attempt by May to negotiate directly with the other leaders.


At a press conference earlier on Thursday, European Council president Donald Tusk said: "It must be clear that the European Council is not a forum for Brexit negotiations. We have our negotiators for this. Leaders will only take note of the negotiations."

During a bilateral meeting with Tusk earlier in the day, May is understood to have told the European Council president that she absolutely understood the principle but was glad to have the opportunity to sketch out her proposals to the other leaders before details were released next week.
More at the link
 

tuxfool

Banned
I do

For the hardworking foreigners pulling the weight in many industries in the UK and then they get treating like shit. Getting called "cheap workers" although in reality they are just plain the better workers. Vocational education in the UK is a joke compared to pretty much all countries in continental Europe.

Yup. Everything here is utterly correct, then there is the fact that the UK encourages too many people to go to university. Many of these people end up doing shit degrees that aren't worth the paper they're printed on, when they would be much better off going into a technical college.
 

Kyougar

Member
when the negotiation doesnt work like the UK think it would and near the 2 years are over, May will take the greece route and make a referendum on the question if the UK should accept the proposed deal.

cowardly not taking the blame for a bad deal.
 

Daffy Duck

Member
when the negotiation doesnt work like the UK think it would and near the 2 years are over, May will take the greece route and make a referendum on the question if the UK should accept the proposed deal.

cowardly not taking the blame for a bad deal.

I'd be very very surprised if she's the PM at that point.
 
when the negotiation doesnt work like the UK think it would and near the 2 years are over, May will take the greece route and make a referendum on the question if the UK should accept the proposed deal.

cowardly not taking the blame for a bad deal.

The EU would need to accept it to make that masterplan work.
 

Kyougar

Member
The EU would need to accept it to make that masterplan work.

in that scenario, EU is ready to make a deal with the UK (or in the UK tabloids, the EU is bullying them with a bad deal)
It is very unpopular with the citizens of the UK and May, or rather the then current MP, takes the populace to a vote.

In the current climate, the UK people would hack their own hands off, to spite the EU.
 
in that scenario, EU is ready to make a deal with the UK (or in the UK tabloids, the EU is bullying them with a bad deal)
It is very unpopular with the citizens of the UK and May, or rather the then current MP, takes the populace to a vote.

In the current climate, the UK people would hack their own hands off, to spite the EU.

The joke is that either the 2 years are over and UK is leaving the EU without an agreement or both sides agree to negotiated terms. The UK has no leverage at this point, so staying in the EU as a form of threat doesn't work here.
 
Yup. Everything here is utterly correct, then there is the fact that the UK encourages too many people to go to university. Many of these people end up doing shit degrees that aren't worth the paper they're printed on, when they would be much better off going into a technical college.

Support for retraining into other careers here is also an utter joke. Second degrees are unaffordable for everyone except rich people.
 

Zaph

Member
Support for retraining into other careers here is also an utter joke. Second degrees are unaffordable for everyone except rich people.

To add to that, it's a lot easier to obtain financial support (from student loans to bank accounts) for even a garbage degree, compared to something vocational, which would actually give you a better chance of eventually paying the money back. Whole system is fucked.
 
To add to that, it's a lot easier to obtain financial support (from student loans to bank accounts) for even a garbage degree, compared to something vocational, which would actually give you a better chance of eventually paying the money back. Whole system is fucked.

Vocational training is a lot harder to administer, though, and isn't typically just a problem of money. Firstly, there are plenty of vocational degree courses - nursing, midwifery, medicine etc - which are entirely aimed at getting people into a specific (or a small group of specific) jobs but are still degree - I assume it's not these that you're talking about. For things that are currently taught in apprenticeships, it's not just a case of money because the training relies on being conducted in a professional environment, and there are only so many effectively useless, potential liabilities you can have hanging about live electrical supplies before you're either endangering people or failing to actually get any work done. This is increasingly becoming even more difficult due to the contracted nature of large building sites, meaning that you have something of a rag-tag gang of employees throwing buildings up with little space (or continuity) for teaching kids.

Obviously this is centred around building, but a lot of manual jobs that people might be better off doing have a similar problem.
 

TimmmV

Member

Just saw that the3million aren't very happy with what May has offered here, as it uses the phrase "EU citizens in the UK lawfully". There point was basically around whether "lawfully" includes people getting private medical insurance or using the NHS - as it stands at the moment, the Home Office have been demanding that EU citizens have had private healthcare to qualify for permanent residency, which has been a huge point of contention for them, and looks like it will continue to do so

Given that, this doesn't seem like as good news as it seemed first reading it yesterday

edit:

Now Gisela Stuart is saying the referendum was ”abuse of democratic process"

Well, thanks for that Giesla....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom