If anything because they'll have to rewrite thousands of
laws and procedures that came from the EU times, and deal
with the caos that that will cause.
I've never understood this argument. Surely all you have to do is write a law that says: in the absence of British law, default to EU legislation. That's the essence of the great repeal bill, is it not?
They have to negotiate with the EU so that they're not
completely cut out of commerce, with nothing to offer in
exchange and therefore no negotiating power.
Uhm, there is the little matter of the ~£60 billion shortfall that the EU has to find from somewhere.
It's old people in the country that have decided this,
based on their ignorance on the matter...
What makes you so sure that old people are more ignorant than young people? I think you'll find that it usually works the other way round.
I'm Italian, just talking based on what I've read and a
handful of friends who live in London
Take what you hear from London with a massive pinch of salt. The EU has done very well for Londoners, thank you very much, and they aren't very happy about the fact that the rest of the population of the UK have just made their comfortable futures a lot less certain.
Consequently, the rhetoric aimed at the other side comes with more than a little hyperbole.
I've never understood this argument. Surely all you have to do is write a law that says: in the absence of British law, default to EU legislation. That's the essence of the great repeal bill, is it not?
My understanding of one of the big issues with defaulting to EU law is that disputes under EU law are settled by the ECJ and EU regulatory bodies (which are governed by ECJ rulings). This is not suitable for post-Brexit Britain's red lines. Accommodating this requires revisiting and rewriting the law to use British equivalents and I suspect this is a more time consuming process than a simple find-replace job.
This is also why Theresa May plans to use the 'Henry VIII clauses'[1] which allows the Government to amend laws (in this case, the Great Repeal Bill) without further scrutiny from parliament. This is potentially problematic as those amendments can include pretty much anything.
You could argue that that would be a yearly shortfall over a number of years, is that what then comes out to 60 billion? Or are you talking about something else? Also there is the matter of the exit bill, which should offset part of that amount.
Law is not a functional programming language, in which we insert facts, turn a handle and get an answer. The law is essentially what you can successfully argue, bolstered by existing law and case history and all the rest of it.
"in the absence of British law, default to EU legislation" would by no means be any kind of clarity, and I would anticipate such a thing would give years and even decades of discussion and argument in the various legal forums and courts to interpret that in all the various permutations and possibilities.
Consequently, the rhetoric aimed at the other side comes with more than a little hyperbole.