Direct Credit Authorisation Form 2013: Fill & Download for Free

Before details of the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) were made known on 14 Nov 2018, I was bemused to read that Boris, David Davis, Jacob Rees-Mogg and a gaggle of other Brexit PMs had already rejected it. It didn’t make sense: How can they have such a definitive opinion before knowing anything about the actual substance of the WA? It is like a child deciding he wants only one kind of dessert and no other dessert will do, which actually happened to me but it was forgivable when my son was under 5 years old. And he won’t do this now, because, well, he’s an adult now.Anyway, having done a speed-reading course years ago and can therefore read pretty fast, I decided to peruse the WA (585 pages), and following are some of the more salient points to me.For a start, it took longer than expected as the language is rather different/difficult. It is also divided into Articles which constantly refer to other Articles, and some of these are in yet other EU Acts. You can find it here: https://assets.publishing.servic...Overall, I would prefer a bunch of interesting formulas/calculations or at least some challenging tables of data (there are none at all). But there are some items that might be worrying (at least to me):Article 128 ( Institutional arrangements), Clause 4: “For the purposes of participation in the institutional arrangements laid down in Articles 282 and 283 TFEU and in Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European system of central banks and of the European Central Bank, with the exception of Article 21(2) of that Protocol, during the transition period, the Bank of England shall not be considered to be a national central bank of a Member State.”I will let that sink in slowly. During the next financial crisis, the EU will not come in to support the BoE, like they did during 2008/2009. How’s that for British exceptionalism? So everything is just fine as long as no financial crisis ever hits the UK again. Defend sterling in future? We can do it by ourselves much better than using the multi-trillion war chest available at the ECB/EIB. In short, it is not impossible that we can return to the 1960s when the World Bank/IMF refused to lend to the UK because we were such a friendless, bad credit risk.As for the rest, I cannot see anything in it that is too detrimental to the UK. Some might suggest it is BINO (Brexit In Name Only) but that is not true because Article 129 spells out the “Specific arrangements relating to the Union's external action” and in Clause 4 is the freedom dreamt of by avid Brexiteers: “Notwithstanding paragraph 3, during the transition period, the United Kingdom may negotiate, sign and ratify international agreements entered into in its own capacity in the areas of exclusive competence of the Union, provided those agreements do not enter into force or apply during the transition period, unless so authorised by the Union.”The liabilities the UK owes to the EU are defined in Articles 140–144, pretty dry reading but seemingly fair considering that the WA is just spelling out prior binding commitments already entered into by the UK.And there is an interesting Article 150 (Continued liability of the United Kingdom and reimbursement of the paid-in capital) which refers to an reimbursement from the EU in regard to the UK’s participation in the EIB.As for the Northern Ireland/Ireland border issue, this is covered in PROTOCOLS (PROTOCOL ON IRELAND/NORTHERN IRELAND) which has several clauses such as “RECALLING the Union's and the United Kingdom's intention to replace the backstop solution on Northern Ireland by a subsequent agreement that establishes alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing”. Plenty of time to implement border control ideas - in fact the text encourages it.But.But the real reason why Jacob Rees-Mogg, the ERG and many Brexiteers are outraged by the WA is hidden away in Annex 4 (TAXATION). In this Annex, in Article 1, clause 2 is this:In the context of the Union's and the United Kingdom's commitments set out in paragraph 1, the United Kingdom shall continue to apply provisions of its domestic law transposing the following provisions of Union law, as applicable at the end of the transition period:(a) Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC;& /en 355(b) Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market; and(c) Article 89 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/ECSub-clause (b) above refers precisely to the tax avoidance laws which many Tories plus the owners of the Sun, Daily Mail, The Times, Telegraph, etc, are dead against because it will display and unravel their unholy schemes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes to the UK. It may also disclose highly dubious schemes which would soon be illegal to hide. You should read 2016/1164 as it quite easy compared to the WA: Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practicesAnd therein is an answer of sorts. The WA is not really BINO, as claimed, the WA is fair and achieves the targets of Brexit, and Mrs May is not wrong when she says it’s the best deal possible for the country, if the aim is really to leave the EU.But please understand that no kind of deal can ever be the best deal for the tax dodgers either in the Tory party or sponsoring the Tory party if they are forced to pay their fair share of taxes. And that is why all Brexit plans are “bad” to such Brexiteers unless it is No Deal.I will put my hand up and admit that the last paragraph may be construed as an opinion but it is an opinion supported by the evidence spelt out earlier.Anyway, the best thing to do is read the WA yourself and not rely on the vituperations of tabloids, politicians, billionaires with sordid agendas, etc. Don’t even believe me. I urge you to make your own decision.Don’t be like this gentleman: Leave Voter Breaks Into Tears As He Apologises For Backing Brexit

Good question. If you read many of the other answers, one might be lulled into thinking that Brexit can somehow be a “good thing” but as usual the commentaries are effectively laments about how much better off the UK would be without the big, bad EU (and incidentally, how superb the UK is at everything the EU is not good at, which seems to be a lot).But to be fair, they may be right. All I know is simple stuff like What is the arithmetic of Brexit?, probably because that’s what I do for a living, and in the absence of factually quantifiable justifications or timescales for Brexit “benefits”, I prefer to stick with simple arithmetic. That’s mainly because arithmetic has been around 5,000 years or so, and the 2 1/2 years since the Brexit vote hasn’t exactly filled one with any confidence that Brexit can define anything which can make sense. Sad, but true, unless of course, one is delusional.In my youth, I took speed-reading lessons, mainly because my first language is not English and I thought then it might help fool people that I actually understand English properly. Anyway, as I prefer actual factual information, I decided to peruse the 585 pages of the Withdrawal Agreement (WA), which took longer than expected as the language is rather different/difficult. It is also divided into Articles which constantly refer to other Articles, and some of these are in yet other EU Acts. You can find it here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/756374/14_November_Draft_Agreement_on_the_Withdrawal_of_the_United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_from_the_European_Union.pdfOverall, I would prefer a bunch of interesting formulas/calculations or at least some challenging tables of data (there are none at all). But there are some items that might be worrying (at least to me):Article 128 ( Institutional arrangements), Clause 4: “For the purposes of participation in the institutional arrangements laid down in Articles 282 and 283 TFEU and in Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European system of central banks and of the European Central Bank, with the exception of Article 21(2) of that Protocol, during the transition period, the Bank of England shall not be considered to be a national central bank of a Member State.”I will let that sink in slowly. During the next financial crisis, the EU will not come in to support the BoE, like they did during 2008/2009. How’s that for British exceptionalism? So everything is just fine as long as no financial crisis ever hits the UK again. Defend sterling in future? We can do it by ourselves much better than using the multi-trillion war chest available at the ECB/EIB. In short, it is not impossible that we can return to the 1960s when the World Bank/IMF refused to lend to the UK because we were such a friendless, bad credit risk.As for the rest, I cannot see anything in it that is too detrimental to the UK. Some might suggest it is BINO but that is not true because Article 129 spells out the “Specific arrangements relating to the Union's external action” and in Clause 4 is the freedom dreamt of by avid Brexiteers: “Notwithstanding paragraph 3, during the transition period, the United Kingdom may negotiate, sign and ratify international agreements entered into in its own capacity in the areas of exclusive competence of the Union, provided those agreements do not enter into force or apply during the transition period, unless so authorised by the Union.”The liabilities the UK owes to the EU are defined in Articles 140–144, pretty dry reading but seemingly fair considering that the WA is just spelling out prior binding commitments already entered into by the UK.And there is an interesting Article 150 (Continued liability of the United Kingdom and reimbursement of the paid-in capital) which refers to an reimbursement from the EU in regard to the UK’s participation in the EIB.As for the Northern Ireland/Ireland border issue, this is covered in PROTOCOLS (PROTOCOL ON IRELAND/NORTHERN IRELAND) which has several clauses such as “RECALLING the Union's and the United Kingdom's intention to replace the backstop solution on Northern Ireland by a subsequent agreement that establishes alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing”. Plenty of time to implement border control ideas - in fact the text encourages it.But.But the real reason why Jacob Rees-Mogg, the ERG and many Brexiteers are outraged by the WA is hidden away in Annex 4 (TAXATION). In this Annex, in Article 1, clause 2 is this:In the context of the Union's and the United Kingdom's commitments set out in paragraph 1, the United Kingdom shall continue to apply provisions of its domestic law transposing the following provisions of Union law, as applicable at the end of the transition period:(a) Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC;& /en 355(b) Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market; and(c) Article 89 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/ECSub-clause (b) above refers precisely to the tax avoidance laws which many Tories plus the owners of the Sun, Daily Mail, The Times, Telegraph, etc, are dead against because it will display and unravel their unholy schemes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes to the UK. It may also disclose highly dubious schemes which would soon be illegal to hide. You should read 2016/1164 as it quite easy compared to the WA: Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practicesAnd therein is an answer of sorts. The WA is not really BINO, as claimed, the WA is fair and achieves the targets of Brexit, and Mrs May is not wrong when she says it’s the best deal possible for the country, if the aim is really to leave the EU.But please understand that no kind of deal can ever be the best deal for the tax dodgers either in the Tory party or sponsoring the Tory party if they are forced to pay their fair share of taxes. And that is why all Brexit plans are “bad” to such Brexiteers unless it is No Deal.I will put my hand up and admit that the last paragraph may be construed as an opinion but it is an opinion supported by the evidence spelt out earlier. My other comment is that I agree with the question: the WA is still not better than staying in the EU from a factually quantitative viewpoint (and in the absence of any quantifiable reasons for leaving).But the best thing to do is read the WA yourself and not rely on the words of suave Brexiteers, politicians, or even me. I urge you to make your own decision.Don’t be like this gentleman: Leave Voter Breaks Into Tears As He Apologises For Backing BrexitThanks for the A2A, Martin Williams

Question: What are the specific points in May's Brexit deal that are unacceptable to Brexiteers?Warning: TL;DRI have just read Peter Hawkins' concise answer to this question with interest. It also reflects much of the what the media is saying too, though it would have been nice if there were references to the actual Articles that explicitly support those points, especially the alleged £39 billion bill. Hence, most of those points are either assumed, implicit or inferred by other Articles.Before that, I have also read the Withdrawal Agreement (WA). I do admit that some of the legalese rolled the eyeballs a bit, particularly those Articles that referred to Articles in other EU Acts (and especially as English is not my first language). Anyway, here is my take on the WA: Why is "No Deal Brexit" the only acceptable option for some Brexiteers?But approaching the question from another angle, let’s look at the criteria for a “successful” Brexit that matched what people really voted for. From Oxford University’s People’s Stated Reasons for Voting Leave, the top 3 reasons are, in order of importance:EU immigrationPerception of preponderance of EU laws over UK lawsContribution to the EU budgetNo other reasons are significant.NOWHERE does it say that people voted Leave to quit the Single Market. This is a spin put on Brexit by the ERG and other rabidly Leave politicians after the event. And if you read the link to my answer above, NOWHERE was it ever suggested that people voted Leave to avoid the EU’s new anti-tax avoidance laws. And Northern Ireland was never even discussed by the Leave campaigns.So on top of the 3 REAL REASONS why people voted Leave, we now have to tack on the following additional requirements:4. Trade (Leaving the Single Market)5. Northern IrelandTherefore, there are now 5 requirements to meet the UK’s modified adopted position. There is actually a 6th requirement, the apparent desperate need for certain rich people to avoid 2016/1164, the EU anti-tax avoidance laws due to be enforced in 2019, but let’s leave that out of the discussion for the moment.So let’s have a factual look at what the WA actually says.1. EU immigration - COVEREDFor EU immigration, this is comprehensively covered in “RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS, CHAPTER 1, RIGHTS RELATED TO RESIDENCE, RESIDENCE DOCUMENTS, ARTICLES 13 to 18”. No more EU migrants without UK controls as per the Leave voters’ wishes. The UK can pick and choose where migrants can come from. There are some further Articles covering what happens during the Transition period but effectively unfettered EU migration is ended.2. Perception of preponderance of EU laws over UK laws - COVERED (mostly)The end of EU laws in the UK is replaced by a panel (with equal UK/EU members) to arbitrate in the event of disputes in “TITLE III, DISPUTE SETTLEMENT, ARTICLES 167 to 173”. As for decisions which cannot be ruled on by the Arbitration Panel, the Article 174 refers to the ECJ to decide the ruling. This is not unreasonable in my opinion because the EU is the larger party and the ECJ only comes in when the panel cannot made a ruling. In any case, this is analogous to the way the UK and UK companies has always treated commercial contracts and even BITs in the past where the jurisdiction is UK law over foreign counterparties’ local courts Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and ISDS | Trade Justice Movement3. Contribution to the EU budget - COVEREDThe end of the UK contributions is handled by “ARTICLE 138, Union law applicable after 31 December 2020 in relation to the United Kingdom's participation in the implementation of the Union programmes and activities committed under the MFF 2014-2020 or previous financial perspectives.” Additionally, Articles 140 to 144 spells out the outstanding liabilities already committed to by the UK (no numbers mentioned so the £39B amount often mentioned is only an estimate).So we might now agree that we have established that the 3 REAL REASONS for Brexit are covered by the WA. Therefore we can now look at the supplementary requirements which the people DID NOT VOTE FOR but were tacked on by politicians after the referendum.4. Trade (Leaving the Single Market) - COVEREDNow this is a doozy, because of the sheer complexity of preserving the EU’s Four Freedoms and somehow not unfairly crippling the UK (even though we wanted to leave). And the WA does deliver the manna demanded by arch-Brexiteers; this is in Article 129 which spells out the “Specific arrangements relating to the Union's external action” and in Clause 4 is the freedom dreamt of by avid Brexiteers: “Notwithstanding paragraph 3, during the transition period, the United Kingdom may negotiate, sign and ratify international agreements entered into in its own capacity in the areas of exclusive competence of the Union, provided those agreements do not enter into force or apply during the transition period, unless so authorised by the Union.”So as demanded by rabid Brexiteers, the UK can start negotiating Free Trade Agreements with anyone it likes after 29 March 2019 with the only proviso being that these new trade deals cannot commence before the end of the transition period in December 2020. As practically ALL trade deals take many years to negotiate/complete, this is not at all an onerous restriction.5. Northern Ireland - COVERED (mostly)The WA has a section, “PROTOCOLS (PROTOCOL ON IRELAND/NORTHERN IRELAND)” which has several clauses such as “RECALLING the Union's and the United Kingdom's intention to replace the backstop solution on Northern Ireland by a subsequent agreement that establishes alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing”. If you read the wording, it does seem to encourage such “alternative arrangements” to be implemented as soon as possible.It might sound onerous, but one can only recall the words of our ex-Foreign Secretary and other Brexiteers who say that it is just a simple matter of technology. If this is indeed the case, then the Northern Ireland backstop will be resolved once this new technology is installed. If this new technology does not exist, then we know who lied to us. This then covers most of the points raised by Peter Hawkins’ answer mentioned earlier.In light of the above, the WA delivers on the 3 REAL REASONS for Brexit, so Mrs May is wholly correct when she says that the document fulfills the requirements for Brexit. As for the supplementary reasons discovered after the vote, the WA also largely resolves both additional requirements.So the question is a good one: What specific points in the WA are so unacceptable to some Brexiteers? That’s because ordinary Leave voters now have everything they actually voted for, so one is right to be puzzled. One might say the supplementary requirements are inherent in the 3 REAL REASONS but that was never explained, nor understood by the people.At this point, I would like to suggest that our relationship with the EU could have been handled in a wholly different and positive manner, as follows:Immigration: Please refer to Britain doesn’t need to ‘take back control’ of immigration. We already have itEU laws: Education.EU contributions: Please refer to What is the arithmetic of Brexit? plus education.So what is so really unacceptable with the WA? Well, the real reason why Jacob Rees-Mogg, the ERG and many Brexiteers are outraged by the WA appears to be hidden away in Annex 4 (TAXATION). In this Annex, in Article 1, clause 2 is this:In the context of the Union's and the United Kingdom's commitments set out in paragraph 1, the United Kingdom shall continue to apply provisions of its domestic law transposing the following provisions of Union law, as applicable at the end of the transition period:(a) Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC;& /en 355(b) Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market; and(c) Article 89 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/ECSub-clause (b) above refers precisely to the tax avoidance laws which many Tories plus the owners of the Sun, Daily Mail, The Times, Telegraph, etc, are dead against because it will display and unravel their unholy schemes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes to the UK during the transition period. It may also disclose highly dubious schemes which would soon be illegal to hide. You should read 2016/1164 as it quite easy compared to the WA: Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practicesAnd therein is an answer of sorts. The WA is not really BINO (Brexit In Name Only), as claimed, the WA is fair and achieves the voters’ reasons for Brexit, and Mrs May is not wrong when she says it’s the best deal possible for the country, if the aim is really to leave the EU.But please understand that no kind of deal can ever be the best deal for the tax dodgers either in the Tory party or sponsoring the Tory party if they are forced to pay their fair share of taxes during the transition period. And that is why all Brexit plans are “bad” to such Brexiteers unless it is No Deal.I will put my hand up and admit that the last paragraph may be construed as an opinion but it is an opinion supported by the evidence spelt out earlier.Anyway, the best thing to do is read the WA yourself and not rely on the vituperations of tabloids, politicians, billionaires with sordid agendas, etc. Don’t even believe me. I urge you to make your own decision. The link is here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/756374/14_November_Draft_Agreement_on_the_Withdrawal_of_the_United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_from_the_European_Union.pdfDon’t be like this gentleman: Leave Voter Breaks Into Tears As He Apologises For Backing BrexitFOOTNOTE: On a slightly ironic note, I heard that Andrea Leadsom, Chris Grayling, Penny Mourdant, Michael Gove and Liam Fox will apparently be working over the next few days to make amendments to the 585-page WA.I am incredulous: WHY are they making this effort NOW instead of any other time during the last 2 1/2 years? Surely this mixed ability bunch of incompetent “Who Needs Experts?” windbags must know by now that it is too late to pretend to be experts. Brexit deal: take it or leave it, EU tells BritainFOOTNOTE 2: What if it was the other way around? The ultimate Brexit counterfactual