INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1441 Post by Alan H » March 28th, 2017, 5:27 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1442 Post by Alan H » March 28th, 2017, 5:31 pm

Zeff wrote:Without a trade deal at all the UK relies on WTO rules. Pro-Brexiteers might argue that is better than EU membership, so I'm not sure lack of a deal will move us closer to the EU.
Aye, there's the rub. Where's the detailed, authoritative, evidence-based analysis of where we will be post-Brexit so we can decide whether it's something we want or not?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1443 Post by Alan H » March 28th, 2017, 5:39 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1444 Post by Alan H » March 28th, 2017, 7:48 pm

Triggering Article 50: A bleak and bitter day for our country
It is impossible to overstate the sheer stupidity and terrible danger of what has happened since last June. Political leadership and institutions have failed. A narrow vote for an undefined outcome on the back of a mendacious campaign has been fetishized as it being the ‘will of the people’ to pursue a policy favoured only by a narrow section of the political right. That policy is being pursued without any regard whatsoever for the cultural, economic, geo-political or strategic damage it is already causing and with reckless disregard for that which will follow. A combination of unexpected or accidental factors have coalesced so as to turn what was already a disaster into a catastrophe. It remains to be seen whether it will prove to be even worse than that.

It may be that even at this eleventh hour some sanity will prevail. There is a long way to go from triggering Article 50 to an actual exit – possibly longer than the two year period. If recent months have taught us anything it is that politics is more unpredictable than it has ever been. If, as I think is inevitable, the huge costs and dangers of Brexit become even more tangible it is just possible that public opinion will shift decisively. The danger is that these costs and dangers will be blamed on the EU, ‘remoaners’, the ‘liberal elite’ and so on, as indeed has already been the case. So it will be the job of those of us who can to keep reminding our fellow citizens that they arise from a decision taken by the British electorate on the basis of lies, distortions and misinformation. They can change their minds, and given how close the vote was it does not need too many people to do so for the prospects to be brighter than they seem on a bleak and bitter day for our country.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#1445 Post by Nick » March 28th, 2017, 8:14 pm

How about this for an idea? That we force the closure of Lidl and Aldi, unless they transfer their head offices and shareholding to the UK. Sound reasonable?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1446 Post by Alan H » March 28th, 2017, 8:37 pm

Nick wrote:How about this for an idea? That we force the closure of Lidl and Aldi, unless they transfer their head offices and shareholding to the UK. Sound reasonable?
:laughter:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#1447 Post by Nick » March 28th, 2017, 8:45 pm

Zeff wrote:"Agreeing on a comprehensive trade deal would be miraculous."
Indeed it would. But ask yourself why. To help you find an answer :wink: might I suggest it is because 1) the EU are determined to punish the UK for leaving the Project, and 2) that 27 nations will never be able to agree any terms to suit all of them, let alone the UK as well. Which is why there is no agreement with Japan, China, India or the USA. How do they manage?

Would we be better off with one? Certainly. Are we wiling to negotiate one? Certainly. What is stopping us doing so to ensure a smooth transit, to everyone's mutual advantage? You know the answer, don't you?
Without a trade deal at all the UK relies on WTO rules. Pro-Brexiteers might argue that is better than EU membership, so I'm not sure lack of a deal will move us closer to the EU.
Not quite sure what you re aiming at here, but there is no need to have the EU for us to be close to our neighbours.
The other problem is that despite my watching the £ fall from US$1.57 to US$1.26; despite the FT And the Economist reporting the value of the £ fell 10% in a few days and losing (Economist Magazine) about a sixth of its value due to Brexit, Brexiteers still see no problem.
Has it not occurred to you that the pound may have been over-valued? So we have a one-off shift of prices (which is more to do with the rise of the dollar anyway) but that represents a re-balancing towards exports. And a pound that is roughly the same value against the Euro as it was around 4 years ago. As with many indices, it is uncertainty which depresses valuations, rather than a definite loss to which an economy can adjust with some degree of certainty. I would also expect the Euro to increase in value relative to the pound because (no thanks the Brussels) the EU is eventually, at last, showing some signs of growth. So no, I don't see a problem. Well, no more of a problem than usual!
Let's hope Scots are more canny when it comes to Scoxit.
Canny Scots, trying to end free trade with England, which buys a huge proportion of their exports, and subsidises their economy by getting on for £2,000 per head. What would you recommend for them?
Richard Dawkins tweeted: "I opposed Scottish independence. But if I were Scottish today I’d want to leave the nasty little backwater that England is becoming." That's very strong language for him. I think 100% faith schools, Brexit and other bad UKGov decisions are getting to him at this point.
I'm with him on faith schools, and seeing the EU as allowing greater academic (and other) flows, is a respectable position to hold, but he isn't making an economic judgement here.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#1448 Post by Nick » March 28th, 2017, 8:46 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:How about this for an idea? That we force the closure of Lidl and Aldi, unless they transfer their head offices and shareholding to the UK. Sound reasonable?
:laughter:
You'll need to explain yourself rather more than that, Alan. Why do you feel that way?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1449 Post by Alan H » March 28th, 2017, 9:19 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:How about this for an idea? That we force the closure of Lidl and Aldi, unless they transfer their head offices and shareholding to the UK. Sound reasonable?
:laughter:
You'll need to explain yourself rather more than that, Alan. Why do you feel that way?
Sorry. I was just laughing at your joke.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#1450 Post by Nick » March 28th, 2017, 9:42 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote: :laughter:
You'll need to explain yourself rather more than that, Alan. Why do you feel that way?
Sorry. I was just laughing at your joke.
Oh. So you think it's a bad idea?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1451 Post by Alan H » March 28th, 2017, 10:15 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
You'll need to explain yourself rather more than that, Alan. Why do you feel that way?
Sorry. I was just laughing at your joke.
Oh. So you think it's a bad idea?
Why would you jump to that conclusion? Or were you being serious about somehow forcing Lidl and Aldi to close? Surely not?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#1452 Post by Nick » March 28th, 2017, 10:29 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Sorry. I was just laughing at your joke.
Oh. So you think it's a bad idea?
Why would you jump to that conclusion?
Just guessing. Was I right?
Or were you being serious about somehow forcing Lidl and Aldi to close? Surely not?
For some jurisdictions it would represent existing policy, so why not?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1453 Post by Alan H » March 28th, 2017, 10:34 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Oh. So you think it's a bad idea?
Why would you jump to that conclusion?
Just guessing. Was I right?
Why would you expect me to even have a view on something as bizarre as that?
Or were you being serious about somehow forcing Lidl and Aldi to close? Surely not?
For some jurisdictions it would represent existing policy, so why not?
OK, I'll entertain you a bit longer: what jurisdictions? But if one is not the UK, why the hell are you asking such a bizarre hypothetical question? And finally, what do you think it has to do with Brexit?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1454 Post by Alan H » March 28th, 2017, 11:55 pm

Front page of tomorrow's Guardian:
2017-03-28_23h53_55.png
2017-03-28_23h53_55.png (809.29 KiB) Viewed 952 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1455 Post by Alan H » March 29th, 2017, 1:52 pm

So, she's actually done it. Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50

Her letter is astonishing - a wish-list of aspirations, firmly embedded in cloud-cuckoo land. She has driven us over the Brexit cliff. She will go down in history - along with her predecessor, David 'call me Dave' Cameron - as the 'leader' that brought about the unnecessary destruction of the UK and launched us into an unnecessary and prolonged period of uncertainty for businesses and citizens, for no discernable benefit.

What a fucking disgusting shambles.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1456 Post by Alan H » March 29th, 2017, 1:53 pm

Theresa May's Brexit Fantasies Aren't Fooling Anybody
It’s astonishing how different the perception of Prime Minister Theresa May’s announcements about Britain’s Brexit are in the United Kingdom compared to the rest of the world, especially in the European Union.

While parts of the British press and public are excited about her vision of a ‘global Britain,' we here on the continent are shocked about May's government’s lack of a plan regarding the future of the relationship between the U.K. and the rest of Europe.

With positive words about being a sovereign leading nation, May has promised her electorate total daydreams. She has described free trade of goods and services with old and new allies, while full well knowing that bilateral trade agreements are almost impossible to achieve in these times — no matter what President Donald Trump promises her in Washington this week. Her E.U. partners will have no reasons to give the U.K. the pick of the benefits it enjoyed in the single market, which represents around 50% of the county's trade volume today.

May has said she wants to strongly co-operate with E.U. partners on security and foreign policy in order to better protect its citizens. But as former interior minister she should know best that leaving the E.U. will make it far harder for members to exchange information in the area of security and law enforcement, as mutual recognition in this area is only possible within the E.U. and on the basis of the European Courts jurisprudence.

The Prime Minister has also threatened the E.U. by announcing that the U.K. might opt to become a tax haven in order to hold and attract businesses, despite knowing that there’s already a strict legal framework laid out by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that hinders any state from doing this in such a way that it would become relevant for the E.U.

In addition, the Group of Twenty (G-20) is committed to intensifying its fight against tax dumping and the Eurozone countries already made clear that financial trade in Euro would be impossible outside the E.U.. To say the least, May’s attempt to convince global economic leaders of her ideas in Davos was not successful.

The only leader who embraces May in her desperation is Donald Trump, a politician who made clear that every U.S. policy decision from now on will put America first and whose first acts as president included carelessly cancelling a long-negotiated trade partnership with six other former Commonwealth member states.

For many businesses in Britain, it would be impossible to stay in the U.K., even if the government decided to subsidise its own economy on the cost of tax payers' money and social security system, as they’re already dependent on full access to the E.U. single market, including the free movement of workers. Even British researchers fear that Brexit will lead to the loss of important projects, and high profile personnel are expected to leave.

May’s Brexit speech on January and visit to Donald Trump symbolize her surrender to the backward-turned nationalist wing of her Tory party. She has to realize that the rest of the E.U. will never give up its core ideas and values in order to appease relations with defecting partners or to avoid short term losses.

Her proposals are a slap in the face of the 48% of Brits who voted Remain, as well as those Leave voters who hoped for a soft Brexit. All those who believed that leaving the E.U. would put them in a better position than staying in the E.U. should by now have realized that this will not be the case.

In this light, it is hard to imagine how May will convince the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland to get behind her plans. Instead of making her country more sovereign and global, May is making it smaller, and dependent on Trump's decisions. This may be the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom as we know it.

We are surprised and disappointed that May has decided to go ahead and build this dream world at the cost of the U.K. and the rest Europe, in order to survive a mess created by populists.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1457 Post by Alan H » March 29th, 2017, 4:47 pm

Nick wrote:To help you find an answer :wink: might I suggest it is because 1) the EU are determined to punish the UK for leaving the Project
The people of Britain should not be punished for Brexit – and the EU will make sure they aren't
The EU negotiating team has been clear: our intention is not to punish or sanction the British people in any way. This is why full transparency, openness in the negotiations and the role of the European Parliament will be so important. As talks proceed, the European Parliament will be fully involved and informed, as the withdrawal agreement will require our consent.

Guy Verhofstadt, former Prime Minister of Belgium, is President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the European Parliament's chief Brexit negotiator
Is he lying?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1458 Post by Alan H » March 29th, 2017, 10:46 pm

Another one well-worth reading: Everything you need to know about the Brexit nightmare that will follow Article 50
LONDON — Prime Minister Theresa May has now triggered Article 50 — the two-year process through which Britain will leave the European Union. As a result most experts now suggest we face some of the most nightmarish international negotiations seen since the Second World War. So what can we expect to happen next? Let's go through all the key questions.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1459 Post by Alan H » March 30th, 2017, 11:09 pm

The Great Repeal Bill white paper is not bad, but flimsy
Twelve days ago it was reported that a draft white paper for the Great Repeal Bill of “around 50 page long” was circulating in Whitehall. On Thursday it was published. The document is in fact 44 pages long, of which half a dozen are completely blank and four have only large blue rectangles. Of substance, there are about 18 pages. Nine months has been spent preparing this document, so that means an average of two pages a month.

This white paper is essentially a discussion document, scoping the problems in general terms and suggesting equally general workarounds. Some of these proposals are not bad (at least a first glance). There is a sensible suggestion of making the case law of the European Court of Justice binding as a matter of domestic law until the domestic courts (or legislators) change it.

But what has not been published is a draft bill and the government has confirmed that it does not intend to publish one for consultation. A general discussion white paper is one thing, but having concrete legislative proposals would be far more useful. There are two possible explanations for this omission. The first is that the government has a draft bill and has chosen not to publish it at this stage, even for consultation. The second is that the government still has no developed idea about how to translate the concepts in the white paper into statutory form. Neither position is ideal, when all this has to be in place in the next year or so.

There are indications in the Great Repeal Bill white paper that the government still does not have a grasp on the scale of the legislative work to be done. For example, it literally does not know how many EU laws are currently in force: paragraph 2.6 says “there is no single figure for how much EU law already forms part of UK law”. There is then a guesstimate based on a EUR-Lex database search done on Tuesday. (There is also an “Annex A” but no Annex B or so on, and the 10th mention of “Great Repeal Bill” gets inverted commas but not the ones before, for no reason.)

As I set out last week, there is little “great” about the upcoming bill and its primary purposes is not to repeal. Instead, it will be the greatest imposition of EU law into UK law one can imagine. It will also have to provide the legal basis for amending (and repealing) other legislation, through the so-called Henry VIII powers.

The government maintains that such powers would only be used for legislative pruning. No great issues of policy will be done through such delegated powers, we are told, only consequential and necessary amendments. Anything with political import, we are assured, will be done through dedicated legislation. We are not to worry our heads with such things.

But one problem with this approach is that one person’s technical amendment is another person’s policy shift – especially in areas such as environmental protection. Another issue is that the use of delegated powers can be challenged in court in a way primary legislation cannot be. What the government gains in convenience it loses in legal exposure. A third problem is that wide discretionary powers for Whitehall, even on supposedly technical matters, will mean a largely unaccountable power grab from Westminster.

Overall, this is not a white paper that inspires confidence that the last nine months have been spent well. It is, however, one which shows the government is alert to the broad problems it faces on the legislative front, if not any of the detailed ones.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1460 Post by animist » March 31st, 2017, 10:05 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:To help you find an answer :wink: might I suggest it is because 1) the EU are determined to punish the UK for leaving the Project
The people of Britain should not be punished for Brexit – and the EU will make sure they aren't
The EU negotiating team has been clear: our intention is not to punish or sanction the British people in any way. This is why full transparency, openness in the negotiations and the role of the European Parliament will be so important. As talks proceed, the European Parliament will be fully involved and informed, as the withdrawal agreement will require our consent.

Guy Verhofstadt, former Prime Minister of Belgium, is President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the European Parliament's chief Brexit negotiator
Is he lying?
I really don't think it matters whether a particular person in the EU is "lying", or FTM whether the EU will "punish" Britain for leaving. Punishment is not wrong in principle - we punish criminals for good reasons, since punishment is not necessarily pure retribution (or, in Nick language, "nastiness"); instead it is there to deter others from offending. Nick and other Brexiters gloat over the future demise of the EU, so why should this organisation not defend itself by "punishing" a country which has benefited from membership but which, for whatever reason, has decided to leave?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1461 Post by Alan H » March 31st, 2017, 11:35 am

EU tells UK: 'We will not punish you. Brexit is punishment enough'
The European Council President Donald Tusk has said the EU will not punish the UK, because Brexit is "punishment enough", as he released a set of draft guidelines defining the bloc's position on talks for the next two years.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply