What Can I Give My Dog For Tooth Pain?
Animals & Nature0 min ago
David Davis Letter - 'no Deal' Preparations Damaging Uk Interests
10 Answers
David Davis has written a letter to May, warning of her preparations being made by the EU for a 'no deal' Brexit.
You can read the letter (signed by Davis personally) in full here:
https:/
In particular, Davis warns that 'the UK is being treated differently by EU institutions before we leave the EU and in a way which is frequently damaging for UK interests.' Specifically, he states that a number of contracts and arrangements are at risk of being terminated in a no-deal scenario and insists that DEXEu is mounting a legal challenge to these measures with a low chance of success.
Astute readers will, of course, recall that David Davis has stated on numerous occasions that the UK must consider walking away from negotiations without a deal, and therefore these measures are direct preparations for just such an outcome.
Does Mr. Davis understand the implications of Brexit? Should he really be complaining about this now? Does he have any right to complain or challenge the EU's behaviour considering it is a direct response to UK government statements?
You can read the letter (signed by Davis personally) in full here:
https:/
In particular, Davis warns that 'the UK is being treated differently by EU institutions before we leave the EU and in a way which is frequently damaging for UK interests.' Specifically, he states that a number of contracts and arrangements are at risk of being terminated in a no-deal scenario and insists that DEXEu is mounting a legal challenge to these measures with a low chance of success.
Astute readers will, of course, recall that David Davis has stated on numerous occasions that the UK must consider walking away from negotiations without a deal, and therefore these measures are direct preparations for just such an outcome.
Does Mr. Davis understand the implications of Brexit? Should he really be complaining about this now? Does he have any right to complain or challenge the EU's behaviour considering it is a direct response to UK government statements?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Probably looking after own career interests.
The EU aren't that daft, they know a No Deal scenario is a possibility, but think there is no indication that it is more than a bluff. Anything that convinces them of the truth of the situation might just wake them up to negotiating properly.
If anything was going to terminate in the event of a no-deal scenario then that would happen is there were preparations beforehand, or if there were not. At least any contractors considering termination can't pretend they didn't understand, and blame that on any foolish knee jerk reaction they might consider.
The EU aren't that daft, they know a No Deal scenario is a possibility, but think there is no indication that it is more than a bluff. Anything that convinces them of the truth of the situation might just wake them up to negotiating properly.
If anything was going to terminate in the event of a no-deal scenario then that would happen is there were preparations beforehand, or if there were not. At least any contractors considering termination can't pretend they didn't understand, and blame that on any foolish knee jerk reaction they might consider.
> David Davis has stated on numerous occasions that the UK must consider walking away from negotiations without a deal, and therefore these measures are direct preparations for just such an outcome
No deal is a better than a bad deal.
Except that, if no deal is better than a bad deal, then you wouldn't take the bad deal, you'd take no deal.
Which makes no deal literally the worst possible deal you could do.
I wish I could say it was surprising that DD is only just discovering what it entails ...
No deal is a better than a bad deal.
Except that, if no deal is better than a bad deal, then you wouldn't take the bad deal, you'd take no deal.
Which makes no deal literally the worst possible deal you could do.
I wish I could say it was surprising that DD is only just discovering what it entails ...
the problem is we have the VB in the mix, they want a bad deal so they can say na na nana na. The EU know that so they take advantage because the VB let them because they are on their side. Thus we should walk away and negotiate when we are already down the road a piece. We should hand the whole lot over to Lord Farage.
The FT has come out this morning with some more specific examples of what exactly Davis is concerned about:
//The EU is systematically warning UK companies of a regulatory chill after Brexit as it seeks to accelerate the private sector’s preparations for a no-deal UK exit, according to recent legal notices reviewed by the Financial Times.
Even as negotiators neared a breakthrough in Brexit divorce talks, EU regulators issued a flurry of “be prepared” memos to about 15 industries in November and December, ranging from drugmakers, seafarers and mineral water producers to hauliers and airlines that rely on UK operating licences.
The documents call on companies to be ready for the UK to become “a third country” on March 29 2019, with no automatic right to operate in the single market. They also warn that operating licences will automatically lapse after Brexit and that many groups may have to create EU entities for continuity of business.
...
Brussels urges some chemicals groups to apply for approvals for biocidal products, such as disinfectants, from within the remaining 27 EU states so that the process is not affected by Brexit. “Holders of product authorisations must be established within the union,” it notes. Drugmakers are urged to revise product information because any UK representatives mentioned will be “obsolete” after March 2019.
One notice is dedicated to the implications for mineral water sourced in the UK, which can no longer be automatically marketed in the EU because they are “extracted from the ground of a third country”.
Highlighting the breadth of legal issues covered, the commission uses a memo to outline the detailed implications for certificates for slaughtering of animals for fur — a practice outlawed in the UK since 2000.
Only one EU notice to trademark holders explicitly mentions that the EU is “trying to agree solutions for some of the issues that might arise”. But in that case the main problem is for the EU side: the memo notes that legal protections for products such as champagne and parmesan will lapse in the UK after Brexit.//
Among the memos that the FT cites (which I don't have time to read through myself) are the following:
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
//The EU is systematically warning UK companies of a regulatory chill after Brexit as it seeks to accelerate the private sector’s preparations for a no-deal UK exit, according to recent legal notices reviewed by the Financial Times.
Even as negotiators neared a breakthrough in Brexit divorce talks, EU regulators issued a flurry of “be prepared” memos to about 15 industries in November and December, ranging from drugmakers, seafarers and mineral water producers to hauliers and airlines that rely on UK operating licences.
The documents call on companies to be ready for the UK to become “a third country” on March 29 2019, with no automatic right to operate in the single market. They also warn that operating licences will automatically lapse after Brexit and that many groups may have to create EU entities for continuity of business.
...
Brussels urges some chemicals groups to apply for approvals for biocidal products, such as disinfectants, from within the remaining 27 EU states so that the process is not affected by Brexit. “Holders of product authorisations must be established within the union,” it notes. Drugmakers are urged to revise product information because any UK representatives mentioned will be “obsolete” after March 2019.
One notice is dedicated to the implications for mineral water sourced in the UK, which can no longer be automatically marketed in the EU because they are “extracted from the ground of a third country”.
Highlighting the breadth of legal issues covered, the commission uses a memo to outline the detailed implications for certificates for slaughtering of animals for fur — a practice outlawed in the UK since 2000.
Only one EU notice to trademark holders explicitly mentions that the EU is “trying to agree solutions for some of the issues that might arise”. But in that case the main problem is for the EU side: the memo notes that legal protections for products such as champagne and parmesan will lapse in the UK after Brexit.//
Among the memos that the FT cites (which I don't have time to read through myself) are the following:
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
1 to 10 of 10
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.