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
Nick
Posts: 10821
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

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

Latest post of the previous page:

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

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1902 Postby Alan H » July 6th, 2017, 10:17 pm

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

:hilarity: :laughter: :hilarity: :pointlaugh:

But seriously, 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
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1903 Postby Alan H » July 6th, 2017, 11:48 pm

It would be quite comical if it wasn't so serious: BBC would rather see Britain fail than Brexit succeed, suggests Liam Fox
he BBC would rather see Britain fail than Brexit succeed, Liam Fox has suggested.

The International Trade Secretary made the suggestion as he responded to a question from Nigel Evans, a Tory MP, who asked about the "negative" coverage of Brexit in the press.

MPs have become increasingly critical of the broadcaster since the referendum. In October last year Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, hit out at the corporation’s “infuriating” and “shamelessly anti-Brexit coverage”.

Dr Fox told the Commons: "It does appear that some elements of our media would rather see Britain fail than Brexit succeed.

"I cannot recall a single time in recent times when I have seen good economic news that the BBC did not describe as “despite Brexit”.

It comes after MPs from across the political spectrum called for new guidelines to ensure the broadcaster is "impartial."

A cross-party group —including Labour MP Kate Hoey, Tory backbencher Philip Davies and the DUP's Ian Paisley Jr — have held talks with the BBC's head of news James Harding.

A study in March found that just one in six contributors to the Radio 4 Today programme’s business news slot in the six months after referendum saw the result as positive for Britain.

Barry Sheerman,a Labour MP, responded to Dr Fox's comments, telling MPs: "This frontbench team must know that this silly attack on the BBC cannot be used as an excuse for policy.

"Can I tell him that the manufacturers I know, they have no confidence in this Secretary of State.

"He is living in cloud cuckoo land. They think he is not competent and they want his resignation."

The BBC said: “This was a meeting with a cross party group of MPs supporting Brexit.

“BBC News listens to and reflects all points of view and remains committed to covering developments in a fair and impartial manner.”
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: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1904 Postby Alan H » July 7th, 2017, 12:37 am

UK business leaders to call for indefinite delay in leaving single market
Business leaders are to demand that ministers agree an indefinite delay in Britain’s departure from the European single market and customs union to give more time for talks on a long-term trade deal.

In a dramatic escalation of the battle to soften the government’s Brexit strategy, groups representing thousands of UK employers aim to present a united front during a summit at Chevening country house hosted by the Brexit secretary, David Davis.

“This is a time to be realistic,” Carolyn Fairbairn, director general of the CBI, is due to say in a speech on Thursday outlining their demands. “Instead of a cliff edge, the UK needs a bridge to the new EU deal. Even with the greatest possible goodwill on both sides, it’s impossible to imagine the detail will be clear by the end of March 2019.”

Such a comprehensive transition phase would almost certainly require temporary adherence to EU rules on freedom of movement, accepting jurisdiction of the European court of justice and a ban on implementing trade deals elsewhere. But Brussels officials are likely to also demand an agreement in principle on the shape of the eventual EU trade deal, which could lead to such concessions becoming permanent.
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: 5928
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1905 Postby animist » July 7th, 2017, 9:23 am

Alan H wrote:It would be quite comical if it wasn't so serious: BBC would rather see Britain fail than Brexit succeed, suggests Liam Fox
he BBC would rather see Britain fail than Brexit succeed, Liam Fox has suggested.

The International Trade Secretary made the suggestion as he responded to a question from Nigel Evans, a Tory MP, who asked about the "negative" coverage of Brexit in the press.

MPs have become increasingly critical of the broadcaster since the referendum. In October last year Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, hit out at the corporation’s “infuriating” and “shamelessly anti-Brexit coverage”.

this bleat is common, at levels down to some of my Facebook friends. The obvious reason for what seems to be unduly adverse media comment about Brexit is simply that it is constantly creating problems, and that there are few if any pieces of good news about it; Fox himself seems to think it wonderful that he begun talks with the USA on a post-Brexit trade deal - wow!

Brexit is clearly undeliverable by 2019. Why not postpone NOW any possible leaving date for 2022, subject of course to the EU's agreement, and schedule a second and final referendum for a year before this? 2021 will anyway be five years after the original referendum, and five years is the lifetime of a Parliament

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1906 Postby Alan H » July 7th, 2017, 10:50 am

animist wrote:this bleat is common, at levels down to some of my Facebook friends. The obvious reason for what seems to be unduly adverse media comment about Brexit is simply that it is constantly creating problems, and that there are few if any pieces of good news about it; Fox himself seems to think it wonderful that he begun talks with the USA on a post-Brexit trade deal - wow!
Indeed. With the Tories, it's always someone else's fault...

Brexit is clearly undeliverable by 2019. Why not postpone NOW any possible leaving date for 2022, subject of course to the EU's agreement, and schedule a second and final referendum for a year before this? 2021 will anyway be five years after the original referendum, and five years is the lifetime of a Parliament
Or just be open and honest with the cavalier Brexiteers now: there is no upside to Brexit, no wins for Brexit so let's just give up the whole sorry idea now and get back to business. But the Tories have already damaged the UK's economy, businesses, research, investment, jobs, confidence, our reputation... even if we stop this nonsense tomorrow, they have still caused us unnecessary and entirely avoidable damage that will take years to recover from.
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: 5928
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1907 Postby animist » July 7th, 2017, 11:14 am

Alan H wrote:
Brexit is clearly undeliverable by 2019. Why not postpone NOW any possible leaving date for 2022, subject of course to the EU's agreement, and schedule a second and final referendum for a year before this? 2021 will anyway be five years after the original referendum, and five years is the lifetime of a Parliament
Or just be open and honest with the cavalier Brexiteers now: there is no upside to Brexit, no wins for Brexit so let's just give up the whole sorry idea now and get back to business. But the Tories have already damaged the UK's economy, businesses, research, investment, jobs, confidence, our reputation... even if we stop this nonsense tomorrow, they have still caused us unnecessary and entirely avoidable damage that will take years to recover from.
well obviously I agree with you, I was just trying to imagine some scenario which would be less provocative to the Leave louts. I am waiting for a politician to be brave enough to say that "the people" just got it wrong over the vote - I think I will be waiting some time, but it may happen. I suppose that the Greens get fairly near with this manifesto: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2017 ... it-speech/

"But the claim that the referendum produced an irreversible verdict is a sham. At a General Election, voters obviously have the right to revisit the choice of government that they made at a previous election. It would be ludicrous to suggest people couldn’t change their minds about which way to vote, as facts change, and experience becomes clearer".

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1908 Postby Alan H » July 7th, 2017, 12:01 pm

Continuing the Brexit comedy: The Dead Brexit Sketch
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: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1909 Postby Alan H » July 7th, 2017, 1:03 pm

A good summary of the shit the Brexiters have got us in to: 8 ways the UK is in trouble over Brexit
Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, gave a speech on Thursday morning setting straight some of the confused voices that he had heard from across the channel. The take home lessons: Barnier is well aware of the instability and weakness of the UK's position, and we should be under no illusions – Brexit is going to hurt. Here are some of the reasons why.
1. The UK has signalled its incompetence
2. Barnier, and others, have noticed this signal
3. Barnier is disdainful of Theresa May's approach
4. Frictionless trade will be impossible after Brexit
5. “No deal” maximises friction
6. The costs of “no deal” will be borne disproportionately by the UK
7. The EU27 is very united at the moment
8. Each of the EU27 will scrutinise the process
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: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1910 Postby Alan H » July 7th, 2017, 1:57 pm

The Friday email from Ian Dunt, editor of www.politics.co.uk is well worth signing up for. Today's editorial:
One of the most beneficial aspects of the election is that a degree of realism has been injected into the Brexit debate. A no-deal outcome, which was for a while there starting to look like the most likely one, has now been all-but ruled out, even if Brexit ministers still pay lip service to it. It's also understood pretty much across the board that any comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU will take a lot longer than the two years of Article 50 - especially once you lose the first three months to a pointless election and the final six to votes in Westminster and Brussels.

That's the context in which the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) made its move yesterday. Director-general Carolyn Fairbairn suggested that a transitional deal keeping the UK in the single market and customs union should be agreed early on and stay in place until a new arrangement with the EU is "in force".

This makes total sense. Businesses are suffering from the lack of certainty over negotiations. They know the final deal won't be done by March 2019. So they ultimately face two wrenching moments of change: one when the UK goes from EU membership to the transitional arrangement, and another when they go from the transitional arrangement to the final deal. And that's the best case scenario. If Britain changes its mind, or talks fall apart, it could be more severe. Many firms say they need more certainty by October, or they'll give up and start pulling out.

Most ministerial thinking about transition is full of demands for what it would entail and a limitation on how long it would last. One minister is apparently floating a 'two plus two' plan - two years of Article 50 followed by two years of transition. This is actually more damaging. The full deal is very unlikely to be finalised in two years. Canada's deal, which was predominantly on goods rather than services (much easier to negotiate) and broadly without hostile political overtones, took seven when you factor in the ratification process. So in reality this would mean three negotiations - one before transition, one for the second transition, and another for the final deal.

It is also extremely naive. You can't ask the EU to negotiate a transitional deal, for instance with a UK opt-out on free movement, and then ask it to negotiate a final deal. It's just not realistic. For transition to work it must be as close to our current situation as possible.

The best way to do transition is to change as little as possible. All Britain's responsibilities remain - including freedom of movement, paying into the EU budget and European Court of Justice (ECJ) jurisdiction - but so do its rights, meaning we wouldn't have to quickly try to set up an entire regulatory landscape out of nothing or replicate countless third party international agreements to an impossible timetable. You essentially keep everything as is until the final deal is sorted.

The main obstacle to this consists of Brexit headbangers in the UK, but the EU itself could come a strong second. It's official position paper says: "Any such transitional arrangements must be clearly defined, limited in time, and subject to effective enforcement mechanisms."

There's a reason they are quite bullish on it. The cliff-edge is more damaging to Britain than the EU, so to grant the gift of indefinite transition relieves pressure on the British negotiating team and reduces the EU's leverage. However, this is not yet a dead end. If the British team accept full EU responsibility during the period it would satisfy the first and third of those three requirements - clear definition and effective enforcement mechanisms through the ECJ. Plus it's worth remembering that while the cliff edge is worse for us than them, it isn't great for them either. A decent UK negotiating team should be able to secure this. Still, they won't be able to do it early. We can't talk transition until the divorce has been agreed, which will be by autumn, at the very earliest.

What's really encouraging about the CBI suggestion is the enthusiasm with which Labour seems to have embraced it. Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer said:

"Labour agree that we need an early commitment to ensure strong transitional arrangements, and that these should be on similar terms to those we currently enjoy. Without that commitment, and without a bridge to new trading arrangements with the EU, there will be growing uncertainty for businesses and investment decisions will be delayed."

Labour had already signed up to a transition in principle. The manifesto read:

"We will reject 'no deal' as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a 'cliff-edge' for the UK economy."

But there is a significantly more bullish and open tone here. The emphasis on "strong" transitional arrangements is particularly encouraging, as is the recognition that it is in the UK's interest for these to be "on similar terms to those we currently enjoy". Labour is supporting a transition which is as close to the current arrangement as possible and lasts until a future free trade deal comes into force. It clearly intends to push the government into accepting this as well. There are more than enough sympathetic Tory MPs to win that kind of vote in the Commons.

It's not the ideal scenario. It doesn't make single market membership indefinite or try to reverse Brexit or anything like that. It is still ultimately hard Brexit, even if it is much more sensibly pursued.

But there are big gains for critics of Brexit. Most importantly, it prevents a really catastrophic hit to the British economy. And it does something else too. It greatly expands the time in which Britain could change course. Who knows where the debate will be in 2021? It could very well be winnable by then. We would be out the EU, sure, but nothing practical would have changed. This pathway opens a range of possibilities, even if Brexit can't be stopped before March 2019.

Sometime while all this was going on, a reporter bothered to ask Theresa May about what she thought. It turns out she doesn't really do much thinking.

The prime minister was clearly on the same setting as she was during the election - nodding pointlessly, starting each answer with a restatement of things everyone knows to be true, proving incapable of intellectual or emotional engagement, issuing lame platitudes, insisting on things so stupid she must surely know they are false. An empty shell of a politician, functioning on autopilot.

"What I want to do is negotiate a new comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union," she said, "to have that negotiated within that two year timescale the treaty has set, and then as part of the ongoing relationship, of course we'll have an implementation period when that is put into place."

It's amazing to hear her still saying this stuff - still, for instance, pretending you can sort a full comprehensive trade agreement in two years, including ratification. The debate moves on but she stays there, like a crumbling statue, incapable of change, slowly falling apart. Has there ever been a more plainly irrelevant prime minister ? It is an embarrassing spectacle. One would pity her were it not for the damage she continues to do to this country's prospects and reputation.

Mercifully, the full mania of the last year has eroded slightly and the political debate is moving on without her. It would be better if she caught up, but the numbers are there in the Commons to act on it without her.
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: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1911 Postby Alan H » July 7th, 2017, 8:24 pm

Philip Hammond warns Theresa May it would be 'madness' not to seek closest possible ties with EU
Philip Hammond has put himself on a collision course with Theresa May over Brexit by saying it would be “madness” not to seek “the closest possible arrangement” with the EU.

The Chancellor, who flew to Hamburg with the Prime Minister for the G20 summit, suggested that leaving the EU was a “political argument” and left little doubt that he believes the “economic argument” favours staying in the EU.

And what's the 'closest possible arrangement' with the EU? The Ten Minute Brexit Deal
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: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1912 Postby Alan H » July 7th, 2017, 10:35 pm

Liam Fox in ‘cloud cuckoo land’ after attacks on media over Brexit reporting
Speaking in the House of Commons the International Trade Secretary said the BBC and other organisations preferred to see “Britain fail than see Brexit succeed”.

But veteran Labour MP and Europhile Barry Sheerman hit back calling the attack “silly “ and he even urged the minister to resign amid claims he had lost the confidence of manufacturers for “living in cloud cuckoo land” over Britain’s future.
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: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1913 Postby Alan H » July 8th, 2017, 11:24 pm

Brexit: Free trade deals will have limited benefits for UK, warns Philip Hammond
Philip Hammond has said the global trade deals promised by Theresa May after Brexit will make a limited difference to the British economy, exposing cabinet splits over the European Union.

Speaking at the G20 in Hamburg yesterday, Mr Hammond said the deals touted by Brexiteers as the answer to any hit from EU withdrawal “won’t make any particular difference” to the unusually large portion of Britain’s exports that come from services rather than physical goods.

The Chancellor is attending the summit with the Prime Minister who hours earlier hailed the deals that Mr Hammond’s cabinet colleague Liam Fox is seeking as central to her Brexit plans.
“Much of our trade with the world is service trade, where free trade agreements won’t make any particular difference.

“But clearly there is potential to expand our goods trade with the rest of the world. History teaches us, though, that this will be a process, it will not be a sudden change. We will have to negotiate agreements, those agreements will no doubt have implementation periods.

“Then of course if your business is in complex goods, consumer goods, intermediate products going into supply chains, you don’t just start selling on day one, you have to build the market. This is a process and it will take time.”


But what will businesses do meantime, you now, while they're building - to replace their current, local markets - brand new markets in foreign parts much, much further away than the EU is? How long can they survive without the SM and CU? What transitional deal will be needed - and in place - to give certainty, strength and stability?

Ah. Hammond asks:
Mr Hammond continued: “The thing that I remind my colleagues is that if we lose access to our European markets, that will be an instant effect, overnight, and to people who are looking to us to protect jobs, economic growth, living standards, they won’t thank us if we deliver them an instant hit with only a longer term, slowly building benefit to compensate. That’s the concern that we have to have in our minds.”
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: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1914 Postby Alan H » July 9th, 2017, 11:45 am

One by one, Brexit’s ‘salvations’ are seen to be illusor
It’s embarrassing now to go back over foreign secretary Johnson’s statements on Brexit, although nowhere near as embarrassing as being a citizen of a country where Johnson is the foreign secretary. The Brexit campaign was built on racism and outright lies.
Labour cannot even support without equivocation keeping Britain in the customs union. Bravery would bring the political benefit of splitting the Tory party, as Phillip Hammond and liberal Conservatives know that the bureaucracy leaving the customs union will impose will place an intolerable burden on business. Staying put would also bring the moral benefit of stopping the rebuilding of the border in Ireland. As Corbyn and John McDonnell convinced the gullible that they didn’t support the IRA but only wanted peace, they of all people should want to keep the Good Friday settlement working.

Maybe it’s just the summer weather, but I catch the scent of public attitudes shifting. But real change will require opposition politicians stepping forward and providing principled leadership. At present, there’s more chance of Godot apologising for keeping us waiting than that sight greeting us.
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: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1915 Postby Alan H » July 9th, 2017, 1:32 pm

Ministers dash business hopes of transitional Brexit deal
Senior ministers have rejected calls by British business leaders for the UK to stay in the EU customs union and single market for a lengthy period after Brexit, raising fears of a bumpy transition to a new trading relationship with Europe.

The CBI employers body raised the stakes on Thursday by proposing that Britain stay inside the EU’s internal market and its trading bloc until a new trade deal between London and Brussels was put “in force” — a process which could take many years and even last beyond a 2022 election.

But Philip Hammond, the chancellor, said on Friday that any transitional deal would not involve Britain remaining a member of either the customs union or single market, even though the government would do all it could to minimise “the shock” to business.

At the same time, Brexit secretary David Davis, meeting chief executives and business groups at Chevening House in Kent, dismissed the idea of Britain enjoying a transition deal that would leave it temporarily like Norway, which is not an EU member but is inside its economic and trading blocs.

According to attendees, Mr Davis told business leaders there would be a political backlash if it looked like Britain had not really left the EU and was engaged in an open-ended transition that continued current economic arrangements.

The rejection by the two ministers draw into sharp relief the political constraints operating on Theresa May, the prime minister, who is facing an increasingly difficult post-election struggle to balance demands from Brexit hardliners within her own party and a resurgent “soft Brexit” wing that is seeking to maximise as many economic ties to the EU as possible.
Related article
Ministers summon business to hammer out Brexit plan

Brexit secretary David Davis begins new era of private consultations with leading business figures

Staying in the EU’s customs union for a transition period would block Britain from striking its own trade agreements, something “hard Brexit” advocates want to begin quickly. Remaining in the single market would require Britain to continue to accept free movement of EU workers, ongoing payments into the EU budget and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

A final transition deal might yet involve some of those constraints — Mr Hammond is eyeing some kind of associate customs and single market agreement — but any of them could provoke a backlash from Tory Eurosceptics.

The Chevening meeting was the highest-profile Brexit meeting between government and business since last year’s EU referendum, with City leaders urging Mr Davis and other ministers to prioritise economic issues in their negotiations with Brussels.

Executives warned they were growing increasingly concerned about issues ranging from customs controls that might be needed once the UK leaves the EU, to the process of deciding regulatory regimes in time for Brexit.

Mr Hammond told reporters at the G20 summit in Hamburg that full membership of the EU’s economic structures was not on the table, even though the chancellor is leading the charge in cabinet for a “soft Brexit”.

Lower taxes pledged to attract financial services groups from London after Brexit

“My preference is that we negotiate a transitional structure which takes us outside of those memberships, but in the transition phase replicates as much as possible of the existing arrangements, so that the shock to business is minimised,” he said.

Mr Hammond told reporters that Britain would definitely leave the EU, but said it would be “madness not to seek to have the closest possible” relations with the rest of Europe after Brexit.

He also confirmed that he wanted to see proof that Britain had lined up lucrative trade deals with non-EU countries before severing the UK’s links with the customs union, which would require the introduction of border checks and possible tariffs with Europe.

“The thing I remind colleagues is that if we lose access to our European markets, that will be an instant effect, overnight,” he said.

“To people who are looking to us to protect jobs, economic growth, living standards, they won't thank us if we deliver them with an instant hit with only a longer term, slowly building benefit to compensate.”

Does anyone think that Davis, May, Johnson and Fox will have all those deals lined up to immediately take over when we lose access to EU markets? But even if they have them all in place, businesses still have to build their own markets around those deals, possibly in countries in which they have never before traded. Will the Government compensate for their dramatic and sudden loss of business?
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: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1916 Postby Alan H » July 9th, 2017, 2:56 pm

UK business group: Government has no ‘clear plan’ for Brexit
The President of the Confederation of British Industry Paul Dreschler said that business was “no wiser” about Brexit than a year ago.

By JOSHUA POSANER 7/9/17, 3:11 PM CET Updated 7/9/17, 3:13 PM CET

The U.K. government has no “clear plan” for Brexit and needs a “serious fact-based discussion about what the future looks like” outside the EU, Paul Drechsler, president of the Confederation of British Industry lobby group, said Sunday.

Speaking on Sky News’ Sophy Ridge on Sunday show, Drechsler said that although the U.K.’s exit date of March 29, 2019 was “firmly in the ground” the government should “continue to operate to the principles and rules that we apply today” until it can figure out how to transition to a new system.

“We are no wiser today than we were 12 months ago in terms of what conditions business will be able to plan on for the future,” said Drechsler, just days after the CBI’s Director General Carolyn Fairbairn made the argument for staying in the single market in a speech at the London School of Economics.

Prime Minister Theresa May had been clear that the U.K. would leave the single market and customs union, making traders wary of mile-long queues at ports and the prospects of an investment cliff-edge. Last week, the Engineering Employers’ Federation warned a “tipping point” could come in 2018 as companies tweak their investment plans for 2019.

On the subject of striking a free-trade deal with the U.S., Drechsler warned of rushing into a “bear hug” too quickly with one of the “best negotiating teams in the world” for trade deals. “A trade deal is a dog eat dog activity, it’s not a diplomatic activity,” said Drechsler.

One of the methods of project planning - particularly when there is a hard deadline - is to work back from that date to see what you have to do and the as-late-as-possible start dates for individual tasks. Looks like the Tories haven't done that either.
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: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1917 Postby Alan H » July 9th, 2017, 2:58 pm

As someone on Twitter said:
The Brexit referendum in a nutshell.

Q: What's your favourite colour?
A1: Green
A2: Not Green

52% voted for A2.
Did they all prefer blue?
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: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1918 Postby Alan H » July 9th, 2017, 4:35 pm

Sometimes it's difficult to tell the real news from the satire: Brexit saves UK from catastrophically lucrative EU free-trade deal with Japan
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: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1919 Postby Alan H » July 9th, 2017, 5:30 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: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1920 Postby Alan H » July 9th, 2017, 5:31 pm

If only there was some good news about how great things are going to be after Brexit. Just like we were promised.
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: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1921 Postby Alan H » July 9th, 2017, 5:34 pm

The guilty men of Brexit, Churchill, Boris Johnson, and the “bullseye of disaster”
The xenophobia during the EU referendum campaign was loathsome.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2016 referendum I considered publishing a special issue of the magazine in which, in a series of specially commissioned signed essays, we would indict the guilty men of Brexit. As I’ve said before, I am no ardent Brussels-phile but the referendum campaign had appalled us. David Cameron’s carelessness and insouciance in calling and leading such a wretched campaign and then walking away from the consequences of his actions disgusted us.

We despised the narcissism and game-playing of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, newspaper columnists masquerading as statesmen. The xenophobia of the right-wing press and Nigel Farage had been loathsome. The Remain campaign had been little better, from the fear-mongering of the Treasury to the lacklustre performance of Jeremy Corbyn.
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 3 guests