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.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22002
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1881 Postby Alan H » July 4th, 2017, 3:38 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?

Zeff
Posts: 127
Joined: August 6th, 2016, 2:13 pm

Re: In or out?

#1882 Postby Zeff » July 4th, 2017, 3:50 pm

animist wrote:
Zeff wrote:A fresh [UK, not Eire] poll from Survation puts the result at 54 per cent for remaining if the referendum on membership of the EU took place today, versus 46 per cent voting to leave. That's a swing from the closely run result last year, when 51.9 per cent wanted to leave the EU and 48.1 per cent wanted to remain.
From the same source...
http://www.cityam.co...-term-interests
Given that Irish trade with the UK is worth €1.2bn per week, Brexit risks "massively damaging the economic relationship" between the two countries under the current EU customs system, [Ray Bassett] said. Industries that are at particular risk include Ireland's fishing industry and its thoroughbred horse industry.
"Therefore, given the circumstances, Irexit has to be the option for Ireland in a hard Brexit situation," Bassett* said.
Unquote. *Former Irish diplomat occasional political commentator and lecturer on Conflict resolution.

It is not just peace in Northern Ireland that is being questioned. The economy of the Republic of Ireland (ROI or Eire) will be harmed if the UK leaves the EU's Customs Union. For certain industries, the UK's access to the Single Market can be important too. It isn't impossible that Brexit (if it happens) will lead to Irexit.
Irexit may be an option but is it likely? http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-britai ... 2-Jul2016/

As usual, only time will tell.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/brexit-wipes-half-a-billion-euro-off-value-of-irish-exports-to-britain-1.2976438
"...the UK is the second largest single-country for Ireland’s goods and the largest for its services."

From what I've read food exports to the UK will be hardest hit and there could be customs delays (up to 4 hours per lorry) at the border into the UK and again at ports like Dover. That might hinder their post-Brexit trade with Belgium and the EU.

What might hurt Ireland more is if the EU decides to do something about Ireland's low corporation tax, apparently.

Brexit simply looks like a gamble we're bound to lose by betting on. There is also huge money being lost through Hinkley Point and HS2. I read in the Economist today that the fast-track to Rennes will be the last one. There simply doesn't seem to be the economic benefits assumed by cutting travelling times between big cities. The French love their TGV but it apparently isn't value for money. French railways seem better organised than ours.

Many seem to think Westminster government more efficient, cleaner and better than that of the EU. I've mentioned the EU government scandals but I think the HofLords needs to be abolished, the HofCommons needs to be reduced to under 500 MPs and, somehow, we need to attract intelligent, capable politicians into office. Our politicians do seem fairly representative of the public so perhaps the real problem is that the British are collectively stupid?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22002
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1883 Postby Alan H » July 4th, 2017, 4:43 pm

Zeff wrote:From what I've read food exports to the UK will be hardest hit and there could be customs delays (up to 4 hours per lorry) at the border into the UK and again at ports like Dover.
I think that is wildly wrong. A queue has two variables, it's length and the throughput of the system (in this case the customs posts). A queue will build up whenever the rate of lorries arriving exceeds the rate at which customs can deal with them. I suspect it doesn't currently take much to cause a four-hour queue at the moment: not customs hold ups but bad weather across the channel, an accident, etc). But with a bit of spare capacity (a spot of overtime perhaps) the backlog can be cleared. But what we're talking about if we leave the EU is on a different scale entirely. Who knows what political deal might be struck to minimise the problems, but it could well be that each and every lorry (I have seen a number for this, but can't remember - it must be thousands upon thousands a day) has to stop at the border and paperwork handed over and examined and duties paid. Unless and until the overall capacity of customs posts can be massively increased, lorries will queue up at an alarming rate. The delay may be OK for some goods, but perishable goods might be better off just not even trying.

Now, we already know the UK Border Agency is behind on a plan to implement a new computer system and that even that is grossly incapable of coping with expected volumes. Will there be some sleight of political hands that, temporarily at least, shoves the problem to one side? Maybe. But maybe not. And if there isn't, it will be chaos for both businesses and consumers in the UK - the EU not so much. But if we crash out early or without these very real and practical issued having been resolved, we could be in deeper shit. The Brexiteers are not one to come up with contingency plans. They just keep telling us about the unicorns and rainbows.

But even if the UK somehow manages to beat all previous records for implementing massive IT projects, what of the EU27? Will they be as keen to throw money into upgrading their systems and customs staff?

So, to get back to that 4-hour delay: that can only ever be temporary if the customs posts have a temporary blip in their throughput. Ian Dunt envisages a worst-case scenario in his book, Brexit: what the hell happens now. If we - and the EU - are not ready, he sees lorries backing up to London within a few days. Scaremongering? Who knows: the Brexiteers certainly haven't a plan for this and I don't recall this being mentioned on the referendum paper.
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: 22002
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1884 Postby Alan H » July 5th, 2017, 11:05 am

Brexit: Farmers will benefit from freedom of movement until Britain leaves EU, admits Tory minister
“Do you accept that hitting the target would do significant damage to British agriculture, other sectors of our economy and our public services (not least the NHS), which are dependent on workers from the EU?”

He told the Home Secretary: “Government policy remains committed to cutting net migration to levels that we all agree will be intensely damaging to businesses and public services alike. This Government has no mandate to leave the EU in a way which will destroy peoples’ livelihoods. So I urge you and the Prime Minister to be honest with the country and drop the target.”


Is that why people voted to leave last year? Maybe some did...
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?

Zeff
Posts: 127
Joined: August 6th, 2016, 2:13 pm

Re: In or out?

#1885 Postby Zeff » July 5th, 2017, 12:55 pm

Alan H wrote:
Zeff wrote:From what I've read food exports to the UK will be hardest hit and there could be customs delays (up to 4 hours per lorry) at the border into the UK and again at ports like Dover.
I think that is wildly wrong....
And then you go on to say delays may be due to having to hand over paperwork and increased volumes not being catered for - which is exactly what the source suggested would cause a delay of maybe four hours. Up to four hours was presumably an educated guess based on the what is known and what seems likely or possible.

Zeff
Posts: 127
Joined: August 6th, 2016, 2:13 pm

Re: In or out?

#1886 Postby Zeff » July 5th, 2017, 12:58 pm

Zeff wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Zeff wrote:From what I've read food exports to the UK will be hardest hit and there could be customs delays (up to 4 hours per lorry) at the border into the UK and again at ports like Dover.
I think that is wildly wrong....
And then you go on to say delays may be due to having to hand over paperwork and increased volumes not being catered for - which is exactly what the source suggested would cause a delay of maybe four hours. Up to four hours was presumably an educated guess based on the what is known and what seems likely or possible. You seem to warn that far longer queues and delays are probable but even an average of a few hours per truck could be significantly damaging.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22002
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1887 Postby Alan H » July 5th, 2017, 1:55 pm

Zeff wrote:
Zeff wrote:
Alan H wrote:I think that is wildly wrong....
And then you go on to say delays may be due to having to hand over paperwork and increased volumes not being catered for - which is exactly what the source suggested would cause a delay of maybe four hours. Up to four hours was presumably an educated guess based on the what is known and what seems likely or possible. You seem to warn that far longer queues and delays are probable but even an average of a few hours per truck could be significantly damaging.
No, that wasn't really my point. Queues are dynamic: a fixed four-hour wait means that the throughput is adequate for the arrival rate and that a small bit of extra resources would bring down the four-hour wait. My point was that unless the system can cope with the dramatic increase in the number of checks that will (barring some political fudging) be necessary, the queue will and cannot ever remain at four hours: it can only grow at a rate of the system throughput minus the arrival rate. This four-hour queue will get longer and longer and longer until two things happen: the throughput increases so that customs checks are conducted at the rate equivalent to the average new arrival time and secondly, that even more resources are temporarily ploughed in to get rid of the backlog. (Think of a queue on a motorway after an accident that restricts a lane) At present, there seems to be no indication that the UK's Border Agency will be able to cope with incoming traffic (and they may have a role to play in exports as well), and little expectation that the French (or whoever) will be up and running by 31 March 2019 to cope with each and every lorry heading for mainland Europe.
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: 22002
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1888 Postby Alan H » July 5th, 2017, 2:02 pm

UK productivity falls to pre-crisis level
The productivity of UK workers has dropped back to pre-financial crisis levels, according to official figures.

Hourly output fell 0.5% in the first three months of the year, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.

At the end of 2016, productivity returned to the level seen before the downturn, overturning years of decline which has weighed on wages.

But it has now slipped back again and is 0.4% below the peak recorded at the end of 2007, according to the ONS.

ONS head of productivity Philip Wales said: "UK labour productivity growth has struggled since the 2008 economic downturn, and the fall in the first quarter of 2017 brings to an end a recent run of quarters of positive growth."

It was the first quarterly fall in productivity since the end of 2015, according to the ONS.
Kamal Ahmed, BBC Economics editor

Today's productivity figures are bad to the point of shocking.

A fall of 0.5% in the first three months of the year takes the UK economy's ability to create wealth back below the level of 2007.

If an economy cannot create wealth efficiently, then the debates about government spending, public sector pay and austerity become all the harder.

If an economy cannot create wealth, then tax receipts - the mainstay of government income - weaken.
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: 22002
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1889 Postby Alan H » July 5th, 2017, 4:01 pm

This is where Britain currently stands with its Brexit deal. It's not good
When we look at the broader economy we see the stock market measured by the FTSE, measured in pounds, is up. But when the FTSE is measured against a basket of currencies, including the Australian and US dollars and the euro, we see the FTSE is down.

For most Britons earning money in pounds, spending in pounds and eventually retiring in Britain, the foreign currency impact is not immediately felt. But the pound is down around 20 per cent, making us all, on a global level, 20 per cent poorer.

The drop in the pound is pushing inflation up, as imported goods increase in price. Our GDP growth has gone from the strongest in Europe to the weakest in Europe – all in the year since the Brexit vote.

Things could get worse for Britain. Some banks and insurance companies are already relocating or planning to relocate. Will the overall impact on Britain of these businesses leaving or downsizing be small, medium or large? While we are not sure of the scale yet, we can say for sure that it will not be positive. There are no banks and insurance companies lining up to come to Britain, just those who talk about leaving.

There is a narrative in Brexit circles that lost business is OK because the UK can increase trade with the rest of the world, particularly the Commonwealth and especially Canada and Australia. But is this likely to be true?
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: 22002
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1890 Postby Alan H » July 5th, 2017, 4:28 pm

Skills gap to cost UK £90bn as Brexit piles on pressure
The UK’s skill gap could cost the UK’s economy £90bn a year by 2024, new research suggests.

There will be 21.8m people chasing low and intermediate-skilled jobs by the middle of next decade - a surplus of 8.1m – while there will be 4.2m highly skilled jobs that cannot be filled by the right candidate, according to the Learning and Work Institute.
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: 22002
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1891 Postby Alan H » July 5th, 2017, 6:00 pm

The best Brexit outcome we can hope for is not much change at all
How did you choose which way to vote in the Brexit referendum? It contained a host of complex, interconnected issues re-framed as a binary choice. A silly simplification that's symptomatic of so many problems in modern politics. Nevertheless, the choice was before us and we had to pick sides on the most important issue in a generation.

For many Britons it was a hard choice. The potential costs of leaving were clear and we've repeated and expounded on them at length on this site since the vote. On the other hand, there are few genuinely ardent Europhiles on these shores. Centuries of island isolationism has seen to that. And it's hard to get excited about a political project with so many clear and dangerous flaws. With its focus on free markets, the debacle of the Euro and its shabby treatment of debtor nations like Greece, the European Union makes itself a hard thing to love.

What swung it for me was a sudden, clear realisation about not what leaving might cost, but what it might gain us. Control, said the leave campaign, a return to good, old-fashioned British sovereignty. Fine words, calculated to grow the stout oak of patriotism in even the faintest of hearts, and hard to argue with. Yet there's no need to argue because, as with much of the leave campaign, the question is wrong. The real question is what we would do with all that good old-fashioned British sovereignty once we had it.


What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
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: 5935
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1892 Postby animist » July 6th, 2017, 10:04 am

Alan H wrote:
Zeff wrote:
Zeff wrote:And then you go on to say delays may be due to having to hand over paperwork and increased volumes not being catered for - which is exactly what the source suggested would cause a delay of maybe four hours. Up to four hours was presumably an educated guess based on the what is known and what seems likely or possible. You seem to warn that far longer queues and delays are probable but even an average of a few hours per truck could be significantly damaging.
No, that wasn't really my point. Queues are dynamic: a fixed four-hour wait means that the throughput is adequate for the arrival rate and that a small bit of extra resources would bring down the four-hour wait. My point was that unless the system can cope with the dramatic increase in the number of checks that will (barring some political fudging) be necessary, the queue will and cannot ever remain at four hours: it can only grow at a rate of the system throughput minus the arrival rate. This four-hour queue will get longer and longer and longer until two things happen: the throughput increases so that customs checks are conducted at the rate equivalent to the average new arrival time and secondly, that even more resources are temporarily ploughed in to get rid of the backlog. (Think of a queue on a motorway after an accident that restricts a lane) At present, there seems to be no indication that the UK's Border Agency will be able to cope with incoming traffic (and they may have a role to play in exports as well), and little expectation that the French (or whoever) will be up and running by 31 March 2019 to cope with each and every lorry heading for mainland Europe.
here is an article on this topic. I imagine that even our dumb politicians will wake up eventually and that there will be some "fudge" as you call it. I guess that on this, very immediate, Brexit problem the EU does have a strong interest in cooperation, so that a delay in "Independence Day" probably will be agreed. What after that? Will this finally kill the Leave campaign? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... perts-warn

Also, as Leave Campaign director Dominic Cummings now says that he no longer backs Brexit, here is another irony in the fiasco: http://citylegalservices.co.uk/theresa- ... lt-remove/

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5935
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1893 Postby animist » July 6th, 2017, 10:39 am

Alan H wrote:What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
well, we can enjoy cursing the filthy foreigners for making Britain go down the drain :)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22002
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1894 Postby Alan H » July 6th, 2017, 10:51 am

animist wrote:here is an article on this topic. I imagine that even our dumb politicians will wake up eventually and that there will be some "fudge" as you call it. I guess that on this, very immediate, Brexit problem the EU does have a strong interest in cooperation, so that a delay in "Independence Day" probably will be agreed. What after that? Will this finally kill the Leave campaign? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... perts-warn


Very interesting. It says Dover alone deals with 2.6 million trucks a year. Working 24/7/365, that's one passing through every five seconds. These currently get through without any checks: a five second delay to give even a cursory check would immediately halve the throughput (that's not quite right but probably close enough - and having to stop will greatly increase the problems). It has been suggested that verified and trusted companies could be let through using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), but that still requires a huge amount of infrastructure and there will be many that still have to be manually checked. Ah. Reading further down the article, it says the same.

It would be good to hear how Brexiters propose to resolve these rather practical problems that 'taking back control' has created. But I doubt they have anything concrete. Mind you, they have more than 21 months to get it all sorted...
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: 5935
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1895 Postby animist » July 6th, 2017, 11:00 am

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:here is an article on this topic. I imagine that even our dumb politicians will wake up eventually and that there will be some "fudge" as you call it. I guess that on this, very immediate, Brexit problem the EU does have a strong interest in cooperation, so that a delay in "Independence Day" probably will be agreed. What after that? Will this finally kill the Leave campaign? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... perts-warn


Very interesting. It says Dover alone deals with 2.6 million trucks a year. Working 24/7/365, that's one passing through every five seconds. These currently get through without any checks: a five second delay to give even a cursory check would immediately halve the throughput (that's not quite right but probably close enough - and having to stop will greatly increase the problems). It has been suggested that verified and trusted companies could be let through using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), but that still requires a huge amount of infrastructure and there will be many that still have to be manually checked. Ah. Reading further down the article, it says the same.

It would be good to hear how Brexiters propose to resolve these rather practical problems that 'taking back control' has created. But I doubt they have anything concrete. Mind you, they have more than 21 months to get it all sorted...
at least the people directly involved in this are talking about a solution https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-relea ... ad-haulage

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22002
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1896 Postby Alan H » July 6th, 2017, 11:11 am

Some Tweets on May's Red Line problems:

1. Some thoughts from the M. Barnier speech. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SP ... 922_en.htm
2. The speech does not provide any new "news" but it's clarity and stark messaging are noteworthy.
3. (As is, it's clear message to business to take action now.)
4. As many have argued, the logical conseq of the TM red-line approach is either no deal or at best a "mediocre" deal vs current situation.
5. Red-lines make a quasi SM / "frictionless" trade agreement is simply not possible. There shld be no debate about this point.
6. The interesting part of the speech is it's entirely sensible reliance on both the ref result and the TM red-lines >
7. > to lead logically to no SM or CU and then the consequences of that outcome given the EU's own red lines.
8. On that basis, I read the speech as framing the debate as a choice betw the red-line approach and "full" SM/CU membership.
9. This is a major problem for both Cons and Lab.
10. For the Cons, the much promised deep and comprehensive FTA is simply not achievable.
11. (We tend to forget that this objective is as well as the red-lines a core part of the Cons approach)
12. At the same time, the recent GE clearly rejected TM's ask for a strong Brexit approach / leadership mandate.
13. For Lab, their position leads ostensibly to a similar conclusion. Leaving SM = mediocre deal at best.
14. However, as previously argued, the Lab econ vs immig prioritisation may enable much more flexibility.
15. I expect the Cons to continue with their current red-line approach.
16. I don't see how the Cons can change course w/out TM resigning. And their fear of a JC govt seems to be the reddest line.
17. Equally, I expect Lab to continue with their "strategic ambiguity". Why change course when you don't have to? Yet.
18. But. Rest assured that a change is coming. No one currently has a democratic mandate for the shape of Brexit.
19. And the shape of Brexit is now what this is all about and that is a debate between the clean Brexiteers and SM advocates.
20. I see no chance of this debate concluding (and it shouldn't) w/out another GE or referendum. /ends
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: 5935
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1897 Postby animist » July 6th, 2017, 1:19 pm

Alan H wrote:It has been suggested that verified and trusted companies could be let through using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), but that still requires a huge amount of infrastructure and there will be many that still have to be manually checked.
wondering if this would create a mini-industry in fake truck markings?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22002
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1898 Postby Alan H » July 6th, 2017, 1:26 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:It has been suggested that verified and trusted companies could be let through using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), but that still requires a huge amount of infrastructure and there will be many that still have to be manually checked.
wondering if this would create a mini-industry in fake truck markings?
:laughter:

The possibilities for Britain's entrepreneurial spirit to take advantage of Brexit are endless!
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: 22002
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1899 Postby Alan H » July 6th, 2017, 1:35 pm

Well worth a read: The Brexit Bullshit Asymmetry Principle
This then is our Brexit Bullshit Asymmetry Principle*: that the amount of energy necessary to refute Brexit bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it. Or slightly differently in the words of Kenneth Armstrong:
The amount of human hours that are being wasted on Brexit. Just imagine what could be achieved if we used that time for something good.

When, I wonder, can we move on from this? There is no such thing as a good Brexit or a successful Brexit. So there is a moral imperative to criticise, to undermine, to analyse what is happening here. But damn it’s using a lot of the brain capacity of a bunch of smart people to do so.
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: 22002
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1900 Postby Alan H » July 6th, 2017, 5:41 pm

Were the Brexiteers expecting reality to be different? Brexit: EU chief negotiator demolishes key aim of Tory strategy by ruling out 'frictionless trade' with Europe
The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier has warned that it is impossible for the UK to have “frictionless trade” with Europe from outside of the single market.

Mr Barnier said that the full implications of leaving the EU appeared not to have been “fully understood” by British politicians.

Theresa May, Brexit Secretary David Davis and Chancellor Philip Hammond have all said they want to leave the single market while still having a customs arrangement that achieves “frictionless” borders.

The intervention from Mr Barnier will prove particularly difficult for Mr Davis, who is tomorrow hosting business leaders at an event to allay their fears that EU withdrawal will damage their ability to trade into Europe.

At a speech at the European Economic and Social Committee in Brussels, Mr Barnier said that after Brexit the UK will become “a third country” and that businesses should prepare for the uncertainty.

He said: “I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and keep all of its benefits – that is not possible.

“I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and build a customs union to achieve ‘frictionless trade’ – that is not possible.”

He said that Ms May’s negotiating position, including abolishing free movement, striking free trade deals and scrapping any role for the European Court of Justice (ECJ), implied the UK is leaving both the single market and the customs union.
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
Nick
Posts: 10821
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#1901 Postby Nick » July 6th, 2017, 10:05 pm

Only because he's a nasty spiteful bastard. Better to kick his arse than kiss it.


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest