User:Scarabocchio/sandbox-b

Giving evidence to [the Brexit select committee], Mr Davis insisted it was not possible to calculate the impact of the Brexit talks failing, adding: “I may be able to do so in about a year’s time.” Mr Davis...
* Said it was “probably right” that holidaying Britons will lose EHIC cards, which provide free or subsidised healthcare across the EU, but added: “I have not looked at that one.”
* Admitted he did not know the implications of leaving with no deal on the transfer of personal data, which is a crucial issue for the booming tech industry.
* Acknowledged UK producers of dairy and meat would face tariffs of up to 40 per cent under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules – “the numbers in agriculture are high”.
* Described the argument that the UK could walk away without paying a penny to the EU, if no deal is reached, as “interesting” – “a very good start in this exercise”.
* Said he expected Northern Ireland would end up with a “very light border, not a hard border” with the Republic.
* Said he “assumed” the "Open Skies" agreement – which has slashed airfares across the EU – will be lost, although he would fight for a successor.
* Confirmed financial services firms are poised to lose "passporting rights" to trade in the EU, saying: “I would expect that to be the case, that’s an area of uncertainty.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-david-davis-no-economic-impact-assess-uk-eu-leave-no-deal-select-committee-a7630626.html

The UK government’s full Brexit letter with FT correspondents’ notes and comments.
https://ig.ft.com/article-50-annotated/

The full text of the European Council’s draft guidance for Brexit negotiations. Click the highlighted passages in the text for analysis from FT’s Brussels bureau chief Alex Barker.
https://ig.ft.com/eu-brexit-guidelines-annotated/

This is a good moment to look back at the evolution of the EU’s position on Brexit, to trace how its side of the great matter has developed over the last year or so. This account is possible because the EU has not “played its cards close to it chest”, as the UK has sought to do. Instead, it has been open and transparent. And, as will be shown, it has also been methodical, firm and consistent; its stated views have also corresponded with its actions.
This openness, transparency, firmness, method, consistency and reliability offers, perhaps, a contrast to the erratic and secretive approach of Britain. Indeed, it is plain that the UK is now negotiating on terms set by the EU. Seeing how this stronger position has been fashioned and then enforced is both fascinating and instructive.
(subscription required)

There are perhaps at least three ways in which a “successful” Brexit could be sabotaged.
* Wasting time [create two new govt departments; hold general election]
* Lack of any grasp of issues and process
* Needlessly closing down options [unilateral decision to leave single market, customs union, ECJ]
There are no doubt further ways in which a successful Brexit can be sabotaged by a UK government: being needlessly confrontational and accusatory, failing to carry all the home nations and stoking unrealistic expectations in the media, for example.
It is hard to see how even committed Remainers could do more than the current government in sabotaging the UK’s prospect of a successful Brexit.
(subscription required)

How a ‘no deal’ will hit industry
* food and drink: “There would be short-term disruption to food supply and it would be significant. Nobody is saying the country goes hungry, but there would be massive disruption” Ian Wright, director-general, Food and Drink Federation
* Road hauliers: “We expect that movements will rapidly grind to a halt as vehicles back up waiting to be processed by customs authorities” Road Haulage Association spokesman
* Ports and airports: “Don’t let it happen. A cliff-edge scenario is entirely avoidable. It would be a colossal failure of leadership on all parties to the negotiation” John Holland Kaye, Heathrow airport chief executive
* Aviation: “There is not a legal mechanism in which the airlines can operate in a hard-Brexit-no-deal outcome” Michael O’Leary, Ryanair chief executive
* Chemicals: “It’s not the tariffs that would hurt . . . Technically, we would be excluded from the marketplace and that would be pretty catastrophic” Steve Elliott, chief executive of Chemicals Industry Association
* Automotive: “Our biggest fear is that . . . we fall off a cliff edge — no deal. This would undermine our competitiveness and our ability to attract the investment..” Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders
* Medicines (All medicines legally marketed in the EU must be licensed in a member state of the union. Well over a thousand medicines will need to have their licences moved from the UK before Brexit to ensure they can still be sold afterwards): “This is not like transferring a filing cabinet from one location to another . . . This will take time and investment” Virginia Acha, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry executive director
* Farming (Animal and food products can only be exported to the EU from a third country through registered border inspection posts. And northern France has only two: Le Havre and Dunkirk. These do not have the capacity to take the current flow of products from the UK): “We would see huge disruption in terms of cost and actually getting [products] there.” Tom Keen, National Farmers Union
* Nuclear: “The Royal College of Radiologists, like others in medicine and industry, is seriously concerned about continued access to these materials if we leave the Euratom treaty under Brexit” Nicola Strickland, President of The Royal College of Radiologists
(subscription required)

Prof Sir David Edward, a former judge at the European court of justice, said the government had made a mistake in making the ECJ a red line in Brexit negotiations. “Of course it was daft, frankly. The court of justice is not this big bogeyman. Why has Theresa May got this obsession in her head? Partly because she doesn’t know the difference between the court of human rights [a non-EU body] and the court of justice [of the European Union].”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/13/theresa-may-judge-european-court-justice-brexit-david-edward

A key decision over whether the UK remains inside Europol, which pools criminal intelligence and allows this to be shared between police and security forces across the EU, is seen by MPs as the crucial “first test” for the prime minister in Brexit negotiations.
Ministers must decide by the end of [2016] whether to accept a new, expanded remit for Europol, agreed by the 28 member states after the Paris and Brussels terror attacks. If they do, the UK police and intelligence services will continue to have full access to Europol databases and services. However, many Tory MPs will see the move as a “fudge” and a sign that the prime minister is backing away from a “hard Brexit”. Crucially, if the UK stays in Europol it will have to pay budget contributions to the EU and accept a role for the European Court of Justice in resolving disputes – two conditions unacceptable for hardcore Brexiters.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/22/anti-eu-dogma-nick-clegg-europol

The growing demands for the prime minister to face down anti-EU forces in the Tory party and make membership of bodies such as Europol, the EU’s criminal intelligence agency, a top priority, came amid fears that Brexit could leave the UK with inferior access to key European databases and deprive British police forces of vital tools in high-level, pan-European anti-terror probes.
The calls – from senior figures including Sir Hugh Orde, former chief constable of the police service of Northern Ireland and former head of Europol Max-Peter Ratzel – were reinforced on Saturday night by Dominic Grieve, the Tory chair of the Commons intelligence and security committee. Grieve said full participation, even if it meant accepting EU rules and judicial oversight for the European Court of Justice (ECJ), could not be more crucial.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/27/eu-theresa-may-combat-terror-brexit-europol

We examine whether Nick Clegg is right to claim Britain faces being locked out of the vast police information system.
The claim: Britain will be barred from a “fantastically useful” EU crime-fighting database as a result of Theresa May’s “extreme approach to Brexit”, Nick Clegg has said. Unless the UK is prepared to accept a role for the European court of justice, which governs data for the bloc, the UK will be locked out of the EU police database, the former Liberal Democrat leader argued.
The verdict: Nick Clegg was on solid ground in highlighting the Brexit risks to the UK’s participation in the EU police database.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/29/will-uk-lose-access-eu-crime-fighting-database-brexit

Euratom provides safeguarding inspections for all civilian nuclear facilities in the UK ... It is the legal owner of all nuclear material, and is the legal purchaser, certifier and guarantor of any nuclear materials and technologies that the UK purchases... This means that 21% of the UK’s electricity generation is based on our membership of Euratom. Our own regulating authorities are not equipped to take over all of Euratom’s safeguarding work in the UK, and any British scientist will tell you that their work depends on international collaboration that is facilitated by this treaty.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/feb/01/brexit-nuclear-eu-euratom-treaty-clare-moody

Ministers must avoid a “cliff edge” when the UK exits Euratom or face “major disruption to business across the whole nuclear fuel cycle”, the Nuclear Industry Association will warn the government on Wednesday. Dame Sue Ion, honorary president of the Nuclear Skills Academy and former chair of the Nuclear Innovation Research Advisory Board, said: “It’s absolutely real [the impact if alternatives are not in place]. It literally does mean you cannot move material or IP [intellectual property] or services or components or medical isotopes.”
She was echoed by Rupert Cowen, a senior nuclear energy lawyer at Prospect Law. “I don’t think they’re overstating the case,” he told the Guardian. Cowen was critical of officials in government who he called “ignorant” of the impact of leaving Euratom and who “think it’ll be alright on the night. It won’t.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/02/nuclear-industry-uk-brexit-euratom-hinkley-point-c-nia

A dozen Conservative MPs are pushing for the government to fight harder for the UK to stay in Euratom, which oversees the movement of nuclear materials across Europe. Bob Neill, a former Tory housing minister, warned the government against “cutting off your economic and scientific nose to spite your political face”.
Several Labour MPs accused May of having an inflexible approach to leaving Euratom because of her red line on not allowing membership of any body overseen legally by the European court of justice. Daniel Zeichner, MP for Cambridge, accused her of having a “fetish” about it. Paul Blomfield, a shadow Brexit minister, urged the government to note the “clear consensus” in the debate, adding: “If [May] doesn’t shift her position on Euratom, parliament will shift it for her.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/12/may-warned-not-to-cut-off-nose-to-spite-face-as-tories-revolt-over-euratom

Ryanair has warned it will have to halt flights from the UK for “weeks or months” if Theresa May does not seal an early bilateral Brexit deal on international aviation.
The open skies policy binds EU members to regulatory oversight by the European court of justice and to freedom of movement, two red lines for the UK government in Brexit talks.
Like all other airlines, Ryanair schedules aircraft 12 months in advance, which means it would need to know the probable regulatory regime by next March to ensure continuity.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/06/ryanair-uk-flights-brexit-deal-wto

* ++ add 3million here...
* Sue Wilson, a Briton who lives in Spain and who chairs the Bremain in Spain group, said one of the main concerns was that the UK’s offer did not accept a role for the European court of justice. “Theresa May is acting as though she is making the first move, and we should all be impressed and grateful at her generosity. The offer already made by the EU was far more generous, for both EU and UK citizens living abroad”
* Dave Spokes, a spokesman for the group Expat Citizen Rights in EU: “We find it bizarre that she expects the EU to reciprocate to her offer which falls short of their own. Does she expect the EU to water down its offer to match hers? .. We are not surprised that Mr Juncker has described Theresa May’s offer on citizens rights as ‘not sufficient’. This reflects our own assessment. It seems a very odd strategy for the UK to offer less support for citizens than that being offered by the EU. Should they not be encouraging the EU to give more?”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/23/eu-expats-condemn-theresa-may-pathetic-offer-on-brexit-rights