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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2001 Postby Alan H » July 19th, 2017, 10:51 am

Latest post of the previous page:

In David Davis, Britain has a schoolboy in charge of the moon landings
The Brexit secretary is certainly stubborn when it comes to belief in his own abilities. He is also on a collision course with a wall of reality in Brussels. It is a stark fact that Britain’s prosperity and security depend on his technique for navigating that obstacle.
Viewed from Brussels, where there is a higher premium on command of boring detail, it is depressing to see the question of Britain’s European future yet again subsumed into a parochial Tory pissing contest. It is irritating too to Brexit realists in the cabinet, one of whom has urged May to slap down the testosterone-fuelled “donkeys” in government.
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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2002 Postby Alan H » July 19th, 2017, 10:58 am

Former UK-EU negotiator: May is handling Brexit in the 'absolute worst way' possible
Boris Johnson is a "rear-end of a pantomime horse" who is embarrassing Britain.

Brexit is "insanely complex" and it is "absurd" to say a free trade deal can be agreed in the two years allowed by Article 50.

For Bullock, though, it's not just a lack of strategy that is letting the government down. He has been "deeply shocked" by how ministers have approached Brexit process in general, he tells me, particularly the way in which he believes ministers are ignoring both the words of EU figures in Brussels and the advice of knowledgeable civil servants in London.
"When people like Merkel say that the four freedoms can't be divided, they are really not joking. It's in the EU treaties. They are the cornerstones of the project.

"There seems to have been this attitude [on the UK side] that the EU doesn't really mean it and then it'll be okay once we explain it to them. But, obviously, that is not the case."
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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2003 Postby Alan H » July 19th, 2017, 11:54 am

Home Office volunteers no data on EU migrants in work
A Home Office minister has refused to say whether the British government has ever made use of EU-wide immigration rules that allow people to be expelled from a country if they are not working or actively seeking employment.

Lady Susan Williams admitted that the UK’s interpretation of the European directive governing the free movement of workers was “more than generous” in comparison with other European countries.

She suggested that her department did not hold data that would allow it to know whether European immigrants in the UK had secured jobs or not.

The admissions came in the answers to two separate parliamentary questions on the issue from Labour peers, who are frustrated that the government blames the EU for its failure to hit the tens of thousands migration target.

Lord Richard Rosser asked the minister what Britain’s net migration figure would be if the government had chosen a stricter approach on immigration – in line with EU countries such as Belgium.
Williams said there was no data to prove whether EU nationals were seeking work or not – which would be needed to take action. “Therefore the government has not tried to predict the impact on migration figures in line with the hypothetical scenario described,” she said.

Rosser hit back, claiming the lack of information from the government “smacks of incompetence, at worst a cover up”. “Pulling numbers of out thin air is no way to manage fair and controlled immigration,” he said, describing the government as “frankly two-faced”.
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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2004 Postby Alan H » July 19th, 2017, 12:00 pm

It is time to call a halt to Brexit
From Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and others — Wednesday’s most read letter

Sir, We come from a broad range of sectors across our society — business, education, law, politics, public services, unions, non-governmental organisations and more. We see our society, economy and politics becoming ever more undermined due to the impact of Brexit. We recognise that a narrow majority voted to leave the EU but the disastrous consequences are becoming clearer every day. Even before the UK has left the EU, we face falling living standards, rising inflation, slowing growth and lower productivity.

Our international reputation has been seriously damaged, leaving the UK weak, with diminished influence, in an increasingly uncertain and unstable world. EU citizens who have made a huge social and economic contribution to our society have been left in profound uncertainty; many have already left, many more are considering leaving. UK citizens elsewhere in the EU are in an unacceptable limbo too.

In a democracy, it is always possible to think again and to choose a different direction. We need to think again about Brexit, to have a UK-wide debate about calling a halt to the process and changing our minds. The UK has been a major and influential actor in Europe and can be again. We need to have a debate about how to build a better, fairer, more equal society. Then we will be in a position to contribute to an EU-wide debate on creating a fairer, more equal Europe.

We call for a national debate on Brexit. We ask our fellow citizens, and our politicians, to think again. It is time to call a halt to 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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2005 Postby Alan H » July 19th, 2017, 1:16 pm

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit: London’s Economy ‘Beginning To Wobble’ Amid EU Worker Slump, Report Finds
London’s economy “is beginning to wobble” amid a slump in the numbers of EU workers coming to Britain after the Brexit vote, an influential think tank has found.

The Centre for London said evidence of an economic slowdown included deteriorating house prices and plummeting business confidence, coinciding with a drop in the numbers of Europeans registering to work.

Registrations for new national insurance numbers by foreign workers have dropped 15 per cent since this time last year, with a fall in EU migration accounting for three quarters of the fall, the think tank found.

Kat Hanna, research manager at Centre for London, told HuffPost UK: “We are starting to see the beginnings of the effect Brexit might be having.
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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2006 Postby Alan H » July 20th, 2017, 11:00 am

This is a useful read: The cost of no deal
So the possible outcomes are not as simple as, to coin a well-known phrase, “deal or no deal”. Indeed, it is possible to identify (at least) four broad scenarios, as follows:

• Smooth Brexit. All goes according to plan. We manage to have both the Article 50 and the trade deal signed, sealed and delivered by March 2019; with, where required, agreed transitional arrangements to ensure implementation is smooth.

• Transitional Brexit. The Article 50 deal is agreed. Discussions begin on a trade deal and are progressing well, or at least have not broken down; so both sides agree on transitional arrangements, or at least some sort of standstill provisions where little or nothing changes, in order to bridge the gap to a full deal.

• Cliff-edge Brexit. The Article 50 deal is agreed, but the trade discussions go nowhere: either they break down, or they have made little progress. So there is nothing to transition to. Meanwhile continuing the UK’s Single Market membership and/or free movement is unacceptable to one or both sides. So on March 29, 2019 the UK becomes a “third country”, with no special relationship of any kind with the EU. WTO rules will apply to the UK’s trade with the EU.

• Chaotic Brexit. There is no Article 50 agreement within the two year period, and no extension. The talks fail, because of disagreement over citizens’ rights, the role of the ECJ, money, or perhaps some other issue we haven’t yet focused on. On Brexit Day, the UK ceases to be a member of the EU – but, politically and legally, all the outstanding issues remain unresolved. Meanwhile, as in the case of a “cliff-edge” Brexit, the UK will become a third country with respect to the rest of the EU. There are two ways in which such a “chaotic Brexit”, might come about.

š A premature Brexit would see talks break down acrimoniously, and the UK deciding unilaterally to stop paying its EU contribution and end the supremacy of EU law in the UK with immediate effect. While unlikely, it is possible to see political dynamics conspiring to bring this kind of outcome about.

š A timed out Brexit, where the talks don’t completely break down, but no agreement is reached within the two year period, and there is no extension.
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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2007 Postby Alan H » July 20th, 2017, 11:25 am

The Tories announced this yesterday:

Screenshot from 2017-07-20.png
Screenshot from 2017-07-20.png (206.72 KiB) Viewed 88 times


And: Rip-off card charges to be outlawed
Rip-off card charges will be consigned to history, after Ministers act to end these unfair fees for millions of people across the country.


Wasn't that good of them? A good step to making it better an easier for the consumer. (Except, of course, prices could rise to compensate.)

Except, of course, the ban on credit/debit card charges comes from the implementation of an EU Directive, not the Tories. All the Tories did was to extend it to cover American Express and PayPal.
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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2008 Postby Alan H » July 20th, 2017, 12:03 pm

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Deutsche Bank Preparing for Hard Brexit, CEO Cryan Tells Employees
Deutsche Bank AG is preparing for a hard Brexit and will probably book the “vast majority” of its assets in Frankfurt, Chief Executive Officer John Cryan tells employees in a videotaped message.

“There’s an awful lot of detail to be ironed out and agreed; depending on what the rules and regulations turn out to be, we will try to minimize disruption for our clients and for our own people,” Cryan says in the video. “But inevitably roles will need to be either moved or at least added in Frankfurt.”
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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2009 Postby Alan H » July 20th, 2017, 1:58 pm

Liam Fox insists UK can 'survive' without post-Brexit free trade deal with the EU
He said: “We don’t want to have no deal, it is much better that we have a deal than no deal.

“We can of course survive with no deal and we have to go into a negotiation with those on the other side knowing that that’s what we think.

“Of course we want to come to a full and comprehensive deal with the European Union. Why? Because it is good for the people of Britain and it’s good for our economy, it’s good for the consumers and the workers of Europe and their economy.

“If you think about it the free trade agreement that we will have to come to with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history.

“We are already beginning with zero tariffs and we are already beginning at the point of maximal regulatory equivalence as it is called, in other words our rules and our laws are exactly the same.

“The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics.”


Extreme-Irony.gif
Extreme-Irony.gif (248.89 KiB) Viewed 82 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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2010 Postby Alan H » July 20th, 2017, 10:59 pm

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? US airlines warn no EU deal on flights could mean planes grounded
America's leading airlines are warning that flights could be grounded if the UK leaves the EU's Open Skies agreement without negotiating a new deal.

Nicholas Calio, president and chief executive of Airlines for America, told Sky News' Ian King Live programme: "Without that legal framework, we can't fly."

Some 85% of flights leaving the UK go to areas covered by treaties negotiated by the European Union.

That includes all of the EU member states as well as other European countries, the United States, Canada, and parts of the Middle East.

Mr Calio, whose members transport more than 90% of all US airline passenger and cargo traffic, has met Transport Secretary Chris Grayling as Airlines for America lobbies the Government to separate aviation from other issues being discussed with Brussels.

"Right now the EU is committed to making it one big negotiation, I think that's the stance that Great Britain has taken as well," he said.

"We don't believe we can afford to be part of one great big pot that needs to be stirred over the next 20 months."

The UK has the third largest aviation and aerospace economy in the world.

Almost three million passengers originating in the US every year transit through Heathrow Airport to the other 27 member states.

The industry is warning that without a new legal agreement between the UK and the EU flights will be suspended and people's holidays for summer 2019 will be cancelled.

Mr Calio warned: "Everybody flies now, it's like a public utility in many people's minds.

"It's there, they expect it, if it's not there they are going to be very unhappy."
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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2011 Postby Alan H » July 20th, 2017, 11:02 pm

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Ireland urges Britain to remain in Customs Union after Brexit
Ireland has ruled out electronic tagging on its border and urged the UK to remain in the EU's Customs Union to minimise the impact of Brexit on the Good Friday Agreement.

Dan Mulhall, Ireland's ambassador to the UK, told Sky News "a hardening of that border is going to create so many problems that it cannot be contemplated".

Mr Mulhall, who is taking up a new position as Ireland's chief diplomat to the US in August, said Britain should instead remain in the Customs Union and suggested the UK Government's position might shift as Brexit talks intensify.

Ireland, in tandem with its EU partners, is playing hardball on the creation of a new EU border on the island, insisting it will not accept a hard border, or even any technical post-Brexit border solution - such as electronic tagging - to allow free flow of trade across the 350-mile frontier.

EU officials suspect the UK might try to use such an arrangement in Ireland as a "Trojan horse" to roll-out electronic monitoring across the continent in order to achieve its goal of "frictionless trade" with key trading partners while also remaining outside the Customs Union.

Such an outcome for Britain would go against the European Commission's position that Brexit cannot be cost-free for the UK.
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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2012 Postby Alan H » July 20th, 2017, 11:32 pm

Cabinet accepts Brexit transition will mean years of free movement
The British cabinet has accepted that free movement of people for up to four years after Britain leaves the EU will be part of a Brexit transition deal, according to a senior source.

As the EU chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, underlined the need for clarity on the British side at the end of the latest round of exit negotiations, soft Brexiters in the cabinet are now confident they have achieved a consensus about an “off the shelf” transition deal.

The claim that a collective view has been reached comes after weeks of a brutal briefing war over competing visions of Brexit since the general election wiped out Theresa May’s majority, culminating in the prime minister’s admonition this week that there is “no such thing as an unsackable minister”, and sowing confusion in Brussels about the reliability of the British negotiating position.

But as David Davis concluded Brexit talks in Brussels on Thursday, the senior cabinet source told the Guardian that the mood has shifted significantly and that ministers now hoped to agree a deal as soon as possible to give certainty to British business.

“If you ask business when they want to see it agreed, they’d say tomorrow,” the source said, adding that such a deal could last between two and four years and could be expected to involve continued free movement of people. The source felt the most likely scenario was a deal lasting three years.

The scale of the challenge that remains in the Brexit negotiations was the focus for Barnier in a Brussels press conference alongside Davis.

He said Britain still needed to clarify its offer, including on the exit bill. “As I said very clearly to David, a clarification of the UK’s position is indispensable for us to negotiate and for us to make sufficient progress on this financial dossier, which is inseparable from the other withdrawal dossiers.”
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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2013 Postby Alan H » July 21st, 2017, 11:21 am

Brexit: Second round of talks fails to produce breakthrough on key disputes, says EU’s chief negotiator
The second round of the Brexit talks have failed to produce a breakthrough on key disputes with the UK, the EU’s chief negotiator has said.

Michel Barnier said the British Government was still failing to provide sufficient “convergence” on either the UK’s exit bill or the future rights of citizens.

Mr Barnier said the EU would not give way on its insistence that the rights of citizens should be guaranteed by the European Court of Justice – an apparent red line for the UK.

Warning there was a “fundamental divergence”, he told a Brussels press conference: “Citizens must be able to identify the legal certainty that they need for their day-to-day lives.”
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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2014 Postby Alan H » July 21st, 2017, 12:23 pm

Ben Bradshaw: Brexit will Not Happen!
Exeter Labour MP Ben Bradshaw said: “I’m going to make a bold prediction. Brexit won’t happen. There. I’ve said it.

“It’s what a lot of people are thinking and many hoping, but not saying, for fear of appearing “undemocratic”.

“Let me explain my reasoning for this prediction.

“I’ve always thought there was a good chance Brexit wouldn’t happen once the British people were faced with a terrible negotiation and an even worse deal. But the general election and its aftermath have brought that moment forward.

“Only now are we having the debate about what Brexit actually means and the different types of Brexit that we didn’t during the Referendum campaign and haven’t since because an imperious Prime Minister closed down all discussion with her meaningless mantra ‘Brexit means Brexit’.

“That Prime Minister has now lost her majority and with it her authority. The level and tone of public squabbling among her Ministers is unprecedented.

“This week Michael Gove’s ex advisor and head of the Leave campaign described the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, as ‘thick as mince, lazy as a toad and vain as Narcissus’.

“Soft Brexiter Cabinet Ministers hit back at Gove and Boris Johnson calling them ‘testosterone-fuelled donkeys’ and ‘safe seat kids’ who should ‘go back to being the juvenile scribblers they were before they entered politics’.

“This might be entertaining were it not so serious for the country. With a Cabinet at war with itself, how can it be expected to negotiate itself out of a paper bag, let alone conduct the most complicated, challenging, important talks this country has ever embarked on?

“What these Cabinet rows have exposed is the basic incompatibility of the Leave campaign’s two main groups. One want to reduce immigration, whatever the cost to our economy and the other want an ultra-free-market free trade Britain and aren’t bothered about immigration.

“Mrs May has no parliamentary majority for her extreme hard Brexit – outside the Customs Union and the Single Market.

“But as soon as she retreats from this and adopts a more sensible, softer Brexit, the Conservative Party will descend into civil war and, in all probability, split.

“The greatest danger is that the UK Government, riven with divisions, is incapable of negotiating anything, talks break down and we fall off the cliff edge. I can’t see that happening without Parliament intervening to stop what would be the worst of all possible outcomes. And what then?

“No hard Brexit, no soft Brexit, no chaotic cliff edge Brexit. And all the time the practical impact of Brexit hitting the public in lower living standards, less investment, more austerity and fewer jobs. Public opinion is already changing. Most now want to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union and most want a say on any final deal.

“The illusion of a pain-free Brexit that would stop free movement and payments to the EU while maintaining free trade is being shattered.

“If the British people are renowned for one thing – it’s their common sense. I can’t see them tolerating a course of action that will result in their own significant impoverishment.”
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: 5881
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2015 Postby animist » July 22nd, 2017, 11:24 am

good that Bradshaw is leading the way in daring to say what needs to be said.

The following paper from a law professor is some months old but remains a chilling foretaste of what could happen - in fact he sees little chance that it won't happen:
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-b ... -will-fail

"Is a temporary agreement bridging the gap between withdrawal and a new trade deal a realistic prospect? It is not, for legal reasons. Having the UK enter the EEA for a temporary period of time will require the UK and the EU concluding treaties with themselves and with all the members of the EEA. This would require ratification by all parties. Negotiating, signing and ratifying such an agreement cannot realistically be done within two years."


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ter-brexit

"An 81-year-old British retired antiques dealer who lives in Spain has said he fears his marriage to his Russian wife could be destroyed because Theresa May’s proposals for EU citizens will not cover his healthcare."

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2016 Postby Alan H » July 22nd, 2017, 11:48 am

These four short videos from the Cambridge Law Faculty are good: authoritative and informative.
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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2017 Postby Alan H » July 22nd, 2017, 4:18 pm

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Britons travelling to Europe offered just 88 euro cents for £1
British holidaymakers heading to Europe for this weekend’s big getaway are being offered what may be the worst ever foreign exchange rates at British airports – in one case, just 88 euro cents for every pound they hand over.

The 88 euro cents offered at Cardiff airport followed a difficult week for the pound on the foreign exchange markets, where sterling fell to its lowest level for eight months to €1.11.

Travellers flying out of Gatwick, Luton and Birmingham on Friday were all being offered less than a euro for each pound, unless they had pre-booked their currency.
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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2018 Postby Alan H » July 22nd, 2017, 8:21 pm

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit Could Have A "Catastrophic" Effect on Vital Drug Supplies For British Patients
A hard Brexit could harm patients by causing shipments of vital drugs to be delayed at borders, slow the introduction of new medicines to Britain, and make Britain a less attractive place to do clinical research, industry bodies have told BuzzFeed News.

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations warned that if Britain leaves the European Medicines Agency, the body that regulates medicines and pharmaceuticals in European Union countries, it could "endanger patient health".

A spokesperson for the EFPIA told BuzzFeed News that it is of "paramount importance" that the UK remains subject to the EMA, or signs a deal achieving "continuity".

"Britain could have its own regulatory mechanisms," he said, "but it is far from ideal, because it would impact on regulatory frameworks across Europe and make it much more difficult to get products from one side to the other without some sort of delay."
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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2019 Postby Alan H » July 23rd, 2017, 1:49 pm

The Conservative problem? They don't know what they want from Brexit
The government sees leaving the EU as an objective in of itself, which is one reason why it is bungling it.
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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2020 Postby Alan H » July 23rd, 2017, 5:31 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: 21852
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2021 Postby Alan H » July 23rd, 2017, 11:13 pm

We can’t prepare to leave Europe until we know where we’re going
Tick. Tock. We have now got to that scene in the Brexit movie where rivulets of sweat begin to drip down the faces of the crew. They have noticed that the clock is running down. It is nearly four months since Mrs May dispatched her letter telling the EU that Britain was leaving. Yet nothing has been agreed. The cabinet continues to quarrel about the ultimate shape of Brexit. The talks in Brussels are making little discernible progress in critical areas. Time is one of Britain’s worst enemies in this process – and the clock becomes a more deadly foe with each day that is wasted.

It never was credible that the many aspects of this country’s ties with its closest neighbours and most important trading partners could be renegotiated to the remorseless timetable that kicked in when Mrs May invoked article 50. Britain’s political and economic relationship with the EU is the product of more than four decades of intricate engagement.

To the apparent surprise of some of the politicians who willed our self-ejection from the EU, the relationship touches on everything from the secure transportation of radioactive waste, to airline flight paths, to the safety of medicines, to the regulation of data flows. The notion that such a deep and multidimensional relationship could be entirely recast in less than two years was always for the birds. “With one bound we will be free” competes against “have your cake and eat it” to be one of the cruellest deceptions peddled during the Brexit referendum.

If the past few months have served any purpose, it has been to educate members of the government in the perilous complexities of this enterprise. The insouciance with which the Outers sold Brexit is beginning to give way to a belated recognition of the scale of the enterprise and the calamitous consequences of botching it. David Davis, the lead negotiator for Britain, now tells people that the task makes “the Nasa moonshot look quite simple”. When I asked one official why the mood in government had shifted in recent weeks, he responded: “They have started to look into the abyss.”
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?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests