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: 21833
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1961 Postby Alan H » July 16th, 2017, 12:27 am

Latest post of the previous page:

GOD has spoken: Former civil service head warns Theresa May of Brexit chaos
In a warning over the scale of the challenge now facing the government, Lord O’Donnell, the former cabinet secretary, writes in the Observer that Britain is in for a “rough ride” unless cabinet ministers unite and back a long transition deal to soften the impact of Brexit.

“The EU has clear negotiating guidelines, while it appears that cabinet members haven’t yet finished negotiating with each other, never mind the EU,” the crossbench peer warns. He calls on ministers to “start being honest about the complexity of the challenge”.

“There is no chance all the details will be hammered out in 20 months,” he warns. “We will need a long transition phase and the time needed does not diminish by pretending that this phase is just about ‘implementing’ agreed policies as they will not all be agreed.”
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: 21833
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1962 Postby Alan H » July 16th, 2017, 12:35 am

The Observer view on how the tide is turning against deceitful and incompetent hard Brexiters
The country will not tolerate having so much put at risk for a few jingoistic illusions

What next from the lords of misrule, the Tory hard Brexiters who seem to be enjoying playing party political games with our futures while the world looks on bemused, if not baffled? Day after day, they stumble on, deaf to warnings on every side and blind to hard, objective facts – that delusions and jingoistic illusions do not a plan make. How did we get here? Is this the best Britain can do? The four Brexiters charged with plotting our political, economic and cultural future – Theresa May, Boris Johnson, David Davis, Liam Fox – cheered on by an undistinguished group of backbenchers, could hardly have had a less impressive three months since triggering article 50.

Barely a news cycle passes without another deflating blow to their hard Brexit fantasy. Here is a report by the non-partisan Office for Budget Responsibility, warning that public finances are in worse shape than before the 2008 financial crash. Rising debt, plummeting tax revenues and funding cuts loom, rendered more difficult by Brexit uncertainties. And here is the National Audit Office, the UK’s spending watchdog, predicting a “horror show” if Britain leaves the EU customs union without its own fit-for-purpose customs system in place.

Next come figures from Eurostat showing Britain at the bottom of the 28-nation EU growth league, performing worse even than Greece. Consumers already know the truth of rising prices in the shops, attributable to a devaluing pound. Wage earners already feel the pain of falling real incomes and eroding living standards. Then there’s the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, reporting declining house values and sales, a reversal of the natural order for generations of Britons who bank on property to bolster their financial security.

The Confederation of British Industry, not a body known for rabble-rousing, produces another cautionary tale. It is impossible, it says, that a credible trading relationship with the EU, from outside the single market, can be agreed by the deadline of March 2019. An open-ended transition is required. And no deal is not better than a bad deal. It’s worse than anything you can imagine. Then come two of Germany’s biggest industry organisations, including those supposedly all-powerful car makers, warning there will be no special treatment for Britain. Protecting the integrity of the 27-nation single market trumps concerns about falling exports. Pop goes another hard Brexit shibboleth.

But it isn’t just about how hard Brexit might affect Britain – it’s clear that it already has. See what Ucas says about foreign student applications: down by 25,000 or 4% year on year. The drop mirrors an even bigger decline in EU student applicants and in desperately needed foreign nurses. An NHS crippled by staff shortages? Higher fees for British university students? Japanese businesses moving to Europe? City jobs migrating to Frankfurt and Paris? A minimum wage economy spurned by our departing best and brightest? We are starting to get a glimpse of the hard Brexit future – it seems a very long way from the promise of £350m extra funding a week for the NHS.

Still, those responsible for these alternative facts of a year ago continue to treat the British public, and the European body politic, as fools. Not even the wake-up call of the election seems to have alerted them that they are being found out. No one more so than our foreign secretary. Boris Johnson, whose stock as a serious politician was never high, seems intent with each week to reduce it further. Last Wednesday, he said the EU can “go whistle” if it thinks Britain will pay for a divorce. But wait 24 hours and it transpires that the government has conceded it must agree a “fair settlement”. The EU is seeking upwards of €80bn. It is not in bargaining mood. Why should it be? It is adamant that cash must be forthcoming if tomorrow’s resumed negotiations in Brussels are to advance.

If our chief Brexiters are variously characterised by arrogance (Davis), weakness (May), buffoonery (Johnson) and irrelevance (Fox), then they are faced with a team led by the resolute and impressive Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator. In reply to Johnson’s juvenility, he said: “I am not hearing any whistling, just a clock ticking.” Barnier’s unflappable, intensely well-briefed, logical approach presents an uncomfortable contrast with the bar-stool bragging of David Davis. It is true that Brexit is not the only cause for worry over Britain’s future prosperity and security. Political uncertainty after last month’s inconclusive election is a factor. But for that, too, hard Brexiters must take the lion’s share of blame. May said the election was all about her Brexit agenda and demanded a national mandate. Instead, she was roundly rebuffed. Not that you’d notice.

Despite promises to change her ways, May shows little sign of grasping that the broader, consensual approach espoused by many in her party, and increasingly forcefully by Labour, is the only sensible way to go. Attempts to portray her bridge-burning, chaotic retreat from Europe as some kind of modern Dunkirk are fatuous. There is no armada of little ships this time around. No rescue is coming.

Remarks last week by Vince Cable, the incoming Liberal Democrat leader, expressing doubt that Brexit will ever actually happen, are not as fanciful as they might seem. The longer May sticks to her impractical, unbending and damaging course – rejecting the single market, the customs union, the European court of justice (ECJ), undiluted citizens rights and freedom of movement – the more likely it is that a Brexit deal in any shape or form will prove unobtainable. The closer the prospect that Britain will crash out of the EU without any agreement, the greater will be public and political resistance.

The Brexit polls are shifting. A big majority, eyeing the negative economic impact with deepening unease, favours a co-operative, cross-party approach. Confidence in May to get it right by herself has plunged since the election. There has been a slump in the proportion of people who believe the government is doing a good Brexit job – down from 40% in April to 22%, according to YouGov. Most people are resigned to Brexit (although the numbers favouring a second referendum on any final deal are rising). But the British instinct, as ever, is for fair-minded compromise. By rejecting compromise, May and the hard Tory Brexiters may ultimately ensure there is no Brexit at all. How deeply ironic that outcome would be.

Since the referendum turned hypothesis into impending fact, Brexit has become an extended lesson in home truths. It has turned into a self-examination and learning process, not only for the electorate, many of whom were misinformed or deliberately misled prior to last year’s referendum, but also for the British government and its institutions, the civil service and the political, business and media establishment as a whole. What is made clearer each day is a picture of incapacity, incompetence, self-deception, dishonesty, partisanship and harmful confusion. As Gus O’Donnell, former cabinet secretary and head of the civil service, writes in these pages today, the challenges are epic in scale and the work has not begun well.

Our European partners cry out with rising incredulity: what is it that Britain wants? What is crystal clear is what we in these columns have been saying for more than a year: there is no workable plan, no realistic, realisable vision and no way to deliver on the false dawns and fantasies conjured by the hard Brexiters. They have been making it up as they go along. Slowly but surely, they are being found out.

This is not to say that by March 2019, the country will not have come to a settled, collective view. As this learning process works its way through the national consciousness, it seems likely that the centre of gravity, in terms of public and political opinion, will come to rest on creating the closest possible relationship with Europe, compatible with the national interest, measured primarily in economic and human terms. Practically speaking, that could mean a Norway-style, European Economic Area-Efta deal, allowing access to the single market in return for broad acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction and freedom of movement principles.

Whatever the eventual outcome, it must and will not be that prescribed by May and the hard Brexiters. They need to understand one basic fact: the country will not tolerate its prosperity, its children’s futures and its standing in the world being continuously jeopardised by absurdly unrealistic negotiating positions, internal Tory party faction fights and the daily mounting evidence of blind incompetence. These people do a great disservice to Britain.
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: 21833
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1963 Postby Alan H » July 16th, 2017, 1:17 am

Former Tory MEP Struan Stevenson warns of Brexit farm 'meltdown
Writing to The Herald newspaper, Mr Stevenson, who stood down from the European Parliament in 2014, said: "Farmers and landowners, far from benefiting from new worldwide trade deals promised by the arch-Brexiters, will see their markets decline sharply as competition from cheap imports expands. Subsidies will disappear. Land values will collapse.

"Most farmers have thin margins, if they have any margins at all. The European Commission estimates that land prices would fall by 30% if farm subsidies were totally abolished in the UK and they would fall sharply if subsidies were reduced.

"For farmers who have taken out bank loans against the value of their land, a loss of value would be fatal."
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: 5879
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1964 Postby animist » July 16th, 2017, 10:10 am

thought I would redress the balance of posts here with a sort of pro-Brexit view from a non-Brit:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/a-v ... m-germany/

I will come back with some comments presently, as no doubt will Alan H!

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21833
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1965 Postby Alan H » July 16th, 2017, 12:50 pm

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit is now directly damaging business investment in Britain
Brexit is now directly affecting the investment decisions of British firms, according to a survey from the Confederation of British Industry.

Its survey of 357 businesses found over 40% of businesses said Brexit has affected their investment decisions. Of those, 98% said the impact has been negative.

The companies which reported Brexit had negatively influenced their investment decisions cited general uncertainty over the UK'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: 21833
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1966 Postby Alan H » July 16th, 2017, 1:53 pm

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Hard Brexit would deprive UK of vital intelligence and put national security at risk, parliamentary inquiry will warn
National security will be put at risk unless Theresa May aborts a hard Brexit that would starve Britain of vital intelligence information, a parliamentary inquiry will warn.

The Prime Minister will be told to drop her resistance to EU judges overseeing the cross-border flow of data or give a helping hand to terrorists and organised crime, The Independent has learned.

Britain must pursue a transitional deal on data-swapping or risk an immediate stop on Brexit departure day in March 2019, an all-party House of Lords committee will say.

Its hard-hitting report will suggest that this can only be achieved by conceding continuing oversight by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) – a red line for Ms May in the Brexit talks, so far.
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?

#1967 Postby Zeff » July 16th, 2017, 5:17 pm

Nick wrote:
Only because he's a nasty spiteful bastard. Better to kick his arse than kiss it.
Personal attacks don't help debate (or encourage humanism).

More to the point is that Mr Barnier is a federalist, quote:
[Barnier] has insisted that Britain will have to accept freedom of movement - "without exception or nuance" if it wants to retain access to the single market.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/27/who-is-michelbarnier-the-frenchman-in-charge-of-the-eus-brexit-n/(source)

The EU shouldn't wish to penalise the UK or any country for rejecting EU membership. The EU would be wrong to make trading or any other agreement less attractive to non-members simply to discourage other countries from exiting the EU. That wouldn't be fair to anyone, members or not and it wouldn't help the EU or promote a more united or successful EU. The EU is not Europe.

I do think some of Mr Barnier's comments represent why Brexiters may end up being right, in the end. The mistake some Remainers and pro-EU politicians make is in failing to recognise that it is for the EU to attract membership, not incumbent on European countries to join it. That principle should not be contradicted by any comment or action by anyone.

The freedom of movement question is particularly significant, I think. If it doesn't have to apply to non-European countries who have access to the single market then it shouldn't have to apply to any non-member. It shouldn't be a stumbling block to a trading agreement with the bloc.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21833
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1968 Postby Alan H » July 16th, 2017, 5:34 pm

Zeff wrote:The EU shouldn't wish to penalise the UK or any country for rejecting EU membership. The EU would be wrong to make trading or any other agreement less attractive to non-members simply to discourage other countries from exiting the EU. That wouldn't be fair to anyone, members or not and it wouldn't help the EU or promote a more united or successful EU. The EU is not Europe.
And several officials have consistently declared they are not out to penalise the UK.

The freedom of movement question is particularly significant, I think. If it doesn't have to apply to non-European countries who have access to the single market then it shouldn't have to apply to any non-member. It shouldn't be a stumbling block to a trading agreement with the bloc.
But the difference is that being in the SM is not the same as having access to it. The rules - as agreed by all member states, including the UK - are that full and unfettered access to the SM (by being part of it) requires FoM - that's a fundamental principle of the EU and their 'red line' - that is clear and has always been clear. Anything else is as agreed in whatever deal is eventually done, but it will always come with restrictions, costs, tariffs and be second best to actually being in the SM. What the Brexiters have never managed to grasp is whether the price of leaving the SM is one that is worth paying. That, partly, is because the negotiations have not been done, but their arrogance has always been that we will be telling the EU what access we want to their SM - and we're not going to be paying them very much (if anything) for the privilege of them giving us access. But if they have managed to grasp the fact that access will be less than we currently have, none have articulated it and certainly haven't explained what price they think we should all be paying for 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?

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

Re: In or out?

#1969 Postby Zeff » July 16th, 2017, 9:08 pm

Alan H wrote:
Zeff wrote:The EU shouldn't wish to penalise the UK or any country for rejecting EU membership. The EU would be wrong to make trading or any other agreement less attractive to non-members simply to discourage other countries from exiting the EU. That wouldn't be fair to anyone, members or not and it wouldn't help the EU or promote a more united or successful EU. The EU is not Europe.
And several officials have consistently declared they are not out to penalise the UK.
Everyone knows that, but that misses the point about accepting the principle that non-members shouldn't be treated any worse for refusing to accept Free Movement of People and I'm afraid I can't make it any clearer.

So we can expect to have access to the single market (without being part of the SM) as good as, say, Australia or the USA? (Assuming we can one day get a trade deal). From:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/797791/Australia-EU-free-trade-deal-Brexit-UK-Brexit-European-Union
Mr Collins told Sky News in Australia: "It’s important to remember that Europe as a whole remains Australia’s largest economic partner.
"Even with our North Eastern Asian partners, Europe remains by far our biggest investment partner."

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21833
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1970 Postby Alan H » July 16th, 2017, 10:59 pm

Zeff wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Zeff wrote:The EU shouldn't wish to penalise the UK or any country for rejecting EU membership. The EU would be wrong to make trading or any other agreement less attractive to non-members simply to discourage other countries from exiting the EU. That wouldn't be fair to anyone, members or not and it wouldn't help the EU or promote a more united or successful EU. The EU is not Europe.
And several officials have consistently declared they are not out to penalise the UK.
Everyone knows that, but that misses the point about accepting the principle that non-members shouldn't be treated any worse for refusing to accept Free Movement of People and I'm afraid I can't make it any clearer.
Sorry, Zeff, I'm afraid I'm just not getting your point, then. There is no onus on the EU to treat a third country in any particular way (it simply depends on what deal can be struck) - and I don't get your link between a third country and FoM: FoM with/in a third country surely doesn't make any sense? What am I missing here?

So we can expect to have access to the single market (without being part of the SM) as good as, say, Australia or the USA? (Assuming we can one day get a trade deal). From:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/797791/Australia-EU-free-trade-deal-Brexit-UK-Brexit-European-Union
Mr Collins told Sky News in Australia: "It’s important to remember that Europe as a whole remains Australia’s largest economic partner.
"Even with our North Eastern Asian partners, Europe remains by far our biggest investment partner."
Quite possibly, although whether the Brexiteers are up to negotiating that is still to be seen. But the point is that it can never be as good as being in the SM. And, because no one has yet defined the cost (in whatever terms), we cannot yet say whether the downgrading of this access is worth whatever it is we're supposed to be gaining by leaving the EU and the SM.

The UK's trade with the EU is more than double that with Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the USA combined, but the gravity effect of trade with distant countries shows that each doubling of distance with a trading partner halves trade between them. That shows the tremendous difficulties that will be encountered trying to make up for any lost EU trade by trading with those distant countries.
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: 21833
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1971 Postby Alan H » July 16th, 2017, 11:29 pm

Brexit and the coming food crisis: ‘If you can’t feed a country, you haven’t got a country’
Kay agrees. “We’ve worked with job centres and with ex-prisoners, but British people don’t want to do these jobs.” Instead, he says, he gets a steady supply of highly educated and motivated eastern Europeans, most of whom have some connection to farming because their families still have smallholdings. “We have a return rate of 76% each year,” he says, “which means we retain a skills base – 70% of our management arrived here as pickers and worked their way up the ranks.” He shows me a list of the 20 most important people in the company and it’s littered with Slavic surnames – 20 nationalities are represented on site.
Then he says: “What happens next?” It’s a good question. The truth is nobody knows, not the business leaders, not the diplomats and certainly not the politicians. The prime minister and her team have portrayed negotiations as a game of poker, used the language of hands unrevealed and bluffs, while failing to recognise that the analogy doesn’t work; poker is a winner-takes-all game and Britain cannot afford to lose everything.

The Brexit deal isn’t just about vague concepts of nationhood. It isn’t simply about international standing or the ebb and flow of trade.It’s about the lives of individual people like Protasovs and Iclodean, Yusein and Kolev; the ones prepared to do the back-breaking jobs British people are not. What’s more, this is not just their crisis, to be worked out in anguished letters home. It’s ours too. Because without them and the half a million seasonal workers like them, our very ability to feed ourselves, at a price we can all afford, is in peril. In the forthcoming Brexit negotiations that is what’s really at stake.
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: 21833
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1972 Postby Alan H » July 16th, 2017, 11:40 pm

How ‘no deal’ could bring Britain to a halt
Imagine the scenario. It has just turned midnight on 29 March 2019, and the Spirit of Britain ferry carrying a fleet of freight vehicles docks at the port of Calais. But instead of driving straight on to the motorway with no checks, the first lorry is stopped at a French customs post. For the driver and those behind him, it is not a happy experience.

The driver is now required to pay VAT on the goods in his truck, as well as import duties. Worse, the truck is carrying a consignment of lamb, and “food of animal origin” can only be imported into France from a non-EU country via a registered border inspection post. Calais is not one of these so after lengthy negotiations he is told to return home.

Back home, the skies are also quieter. As Britain has that day fallen out of the European open skies agreement and has not agreed access as a so-called third country, only domestic and non-EU flights can depart and land from British airports.

This is a scenario which would apply if the UK crashes out of the EU without a deal and on antagonistic terms with Brussels. It represents the worst case outcome in which the EU applies its standard rules to non-EU countries and does not agree to transitional arrangements to minimise disruption.

David Davis, the UK’s Brexit secretary, has expressed confidence that Britain will strike a deal with the EU which would provide a smooth path to new arrangements with Brussels rather than a disruptive change.

However, a no deal scenario would be disruptive because of the laws governing Britain’s relationship with the EU would cease immediately. “Calling it a legal vacuum would be underplaying where we would be,” says Malcolm Barr, economist at JPMorgan. “I think there would be a significant contraction in GDP.”

How a ‘no deal’ will hit industry — food and drink

"There would be massive disruption.” - Ian Wright, director-general, Food and Drink Federation © Bloomberg
Problem Supply chains are extremely efficient, enabling almost a third of food in UK supermarkets to be imported from the EU and on to the shelves within two days. Any import delays would lead to food shortages.

Industry comment “There would be short-term disruption to food supply and it would be significant. Nobody is saying the country goes hungry, but there would be massive disruption”
Ian Wright, director-general, Food and Drink Federation

Road hauliers
Problem Existing ports have insufficient facilities and staff to cope with the imposition of new customs inspections, duties, VAT collection and assessment of conformity of goods with EU regulations

Industry comment “We expect that movements will rapidly grind to a halt as vehicles back up waiting to be processed by customs authorities”
Road Haulage Association spokesman

Ports and airports
Problem A lack of facilities, staff and physical infrastructure to deal with onerous new customs checks causes delays and rapidly leads to queues and backlogs.

Industry comment “Don’t let it happen. A cliff-edge scenario is entirely avoidable. It would be a colossal failure of leadership on all parties to the negotiation”
John Holland Kaye, Heathrow airport chief executive

Aviation

A no deal scenario could see flights to the EU from the UK cease with immediate effect. © Bloomberg
Problem Air traffic requires agreements from the EU to land in their territories and Britain will have fallen out of the European Open Skies regime. It will also cease to be a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency controlling authorisation of third country operations. Flights to the EU cease.

Industry comment “There is not a legal mechanism in which the airlines can operate in a hard Brexit no deal outcome”
Michael O’Leary, Ryanair chief executive

Chemicals
Problem Exports and imports under the EU’s so-called Reach regulations, which cover most chemicals, would cease by law. These range from heavy industrial chemicals to the products that are ingredients in toothpaste and shampoo.

Industry comment “It’s not the tariffs that would hurt . . . Technically, we would be excluded from the marketplace and that would be pretty catastrophic”
Steve Elliott, chief executive of Chemicals Industry Association

Orchestras
Problem Orchestra tours to the EU, which are used to raise money to keep UK operations going, rely on the EU posted worker directive to ensure taxes and social security is not deducted from musicians fees abroad. This would cease immediately.

Industry comment ”If in March 2019 we leave the single market, the next day an orchestra can no longer apply to HMRC for an A1 certificate, so they would get social security deducted from the fee to the orchestra on a tour in Europe. A tour goes from breaking even to making a loss”
Mark Pemberton, director of the Association of British Orchestras

Automotive
Problem Tariffs and port delays plus the difficulties of chemicals imports undermine the just in time business models of UK automotive manufacturing.

Industry comment “Our biggest fear is that . . . we fall off a cliff edge — no deal. This would undermine our competitiveness and our ability to attract the investment that is critical to future growth”
Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders

Medicines

Medicines licensed in the UK would need to be re-licensed elsewhere in the EU following a no deal scenario in order to maintain sales in the single market. © Bloomberg
Problem All medicines legally marketed in the EU must be licensed in a member state of the union. Well over a thousand medicines will need to have their licences moved from the UK before Brexit to ensure they can still be sold afterwards.

Industry comment “This is not like transferring a filing cabinet from one location to another . . . This will take time and investment”
Virginia Acha, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry executive director

Farming
Problem Animal and food products can only be exported to the EU from a third country through registered border inspection posts. And northern France has only two: Le Havre and Dunkirk. These do not have the capacity to take the current flow of products from the UK which currently do not need checking.

Industry comment “We would see huge disruption in terms of cost and actually getting [products] there. It does work both ways . . . surpluses and shortages, good and bad for farmers”
Tom Keen, National Farmers Union

Nuclear
Problem The lack of international agreements between the UK and EU over regulation of the nuclear industry would prevent the export of nuclear fuel and medical radioactive isotopes used in cancer treatments. There currently fall under the remit of Euratom, the pan-European nuclear regulator.

Industry comment “The Royal College of Radiologists, like others in medicine and industry, is seriously concerned about continued access to these materials if we leave the Euratom treaty under Brexit”
Nicola Strickland, President of The Royal College of Radiologists
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: 5879
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1973 Postby animist » July 17th, 2017, 11:08 am

Alan H wrote:
Zeff wrote:
Alan H wrote:And several officials have consistently declared they are not out to penalise the UK.
Everyone knows that, but that misses the point about accepting the principle that non-members shouldn't be treated any worse for refusing to accept Free Movement of People and I'm afraid I can't make it any clearer.
Sorry, Zeff, I'm afraid I'm just not getting your point, then. There is no onus on the EU to treat a third country in any particular way (it simply depends on what deal can be struck) - and I don't get your link between a third country and FoM: FoM with/in a third country surely doesn't make any sense? What am I missing here?

maybe there are two things mixed up here. The first is the term "member" of the SM. Membership involves full access to the SM and full acceptance of the conditions of this full access, notably free movement of people, whereas countries like Canada do not have full access and presumably are not interested in free movement. The second thing which I think is bothering Zeff has been mentioned by Nick many times. It seems to be the fear that Britain would be penalised because, unlike a "third country" which has never been an EU member, it has dared to leave both the EU and the SM. Whether the EU will be deterring other countries from leaving by taking a tough stance with Britain I don't know. But even if it does, it is entitled to. Maybe the situation is a bit like banks offering new savers a better interest rate than their existing customers get; it is annoying but I'm not sure that it is unethical, and if Britain does leave completely, it will then be able to engage in a new relationship on the same terms as other new members. What it can't do is to withdraw from accepting the conditions of full access while demanding all or most of this access

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

Re: In or out?

#1974 Postby Zeff » July 17th, 2017, 11:34 am

I do understand the difference between the SM and access to it and agree Alan has done a great job on that.

animist wrote:...The second thing which I think is bothering Zeff has been mentioned by Nick many times. It seems to be the fear that Britain would be penalised because, unlike a "third country" which has never been an EU member, it has dared to leave both the EU and the SM. Whether the EU will be deterring other countries from leaving by taking a tough stance with Britain I don't know. But even if it does, it is entitled to. Maybe the situation is a bit like banks offering new savers a better interest rate than their existing customers get; it is annoying but I'm not sure that it is unethical, and if Britain does leave completely, it will then be able to engage in a new relationship on the same terms as other new members. What it can't do is to withdraw from accepting the conditions of full access while demanding all or most of this access
Yes, you are beginning to see the problem.

Yes the EU is entitled to treat us differently from any other European or non-European country but here is where we disagree. I don't think that is ethical and, further, I think it will damage both the EU and the UK. If Remainers and EU federalists can't see that, I am now for Brexit. I think the UK needs to reject FoM and take the consequences, even if it damages our economy in the short and medium terms. These are not people we want to be involved with beyond trade, security and other relationships established as strictly international agreements between the independent UK and the EU trading bloc.

Ironically, I am a federalist myself and want to see a united Europe with a single currency, but the federalists of the EU are going about it entirely the wrong way.

They ("They" being Pro-EU and particularly the Federalists) want an economic community with uniform rules and a single court system, but they don't want to wait for economic convergence. (Or, in the case of Greece, there are other political imperatives that drive a precipitant admittance to the EU).

They want a common currency, but they don't wait for the financial and political structures to be in place before introducing it.

They want political union, but not before there is a common language in the home throughout the proposed community (national) area.

If people want a united Europe or even a united EU, they must accept the principle that it is for the EU to attract members and not incumbent on any nation to join. Also people need self-determination, so they need the option of being an independent country and welcome to deal with the EU on the same terms as Australia, USA, Japan, or any other independent country - without fear of attempts to impose FoM or any such conditions on them. Most Brits don't want FoM and most EU politicians don't want to accept an ex-member rejecting it. The EU trying to impose it isn't just unethical, it is counter productive.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21833
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1975 Postby Alan H » July 17th, 2017, 12:10 pm

animist wrote:What it can't do is to withdraw from accepting the conditions of full access while demanding all or most of this access
Agree with what you say and this last sentence sums up the arrogance of the Brexiteers: all along we've been told we'll have full access on the same terms as we have now; but without the nasty FoM thingy; we'll have fantastic access and it won't cost us a penny; etc, etc. Not one of these things has ever been within the power of any Brexiteer to guarantee, yet we've been told with degrees of certainty ranging from 'would I lie to you' to cast iron guarantees. Yet we were never really told that what we might be able to get to replace all the benefits of EU membership were up in the air and highly dependent on things that were not within the control of the Brexiteers. We're now beginning to find out just how big a pile of shit they have dropped us in.
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: 21833
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1976 Postby Alan H » July 17th, 2017, 12:13 pm

Zeff wrote:I think the UK needs to reject FoM and take the consequences, even if it damages our economy in the short and medium terms.
How much damage is acceptable?
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: 21833
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1977 Postby Alan H » July 17th, 2017, 1:22 pm

Screenshot from 2017-07-17.png
Screenshot from 2017-07-17.png (1.09 MiB) Viewed 94 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?

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

Re: In or out?

#1978 Postby Zeff » July 17th, 2017, 6:40 pm

Alan H wrote:
Zeff wrote:I think the UK needs to reject FoM and take the consequences, even if it damages our economy in the short and medium terms.
How much damage is acceptable?
Like most questions, I think it 'depends'. It isn't really the case that there's "the" point. There are a number of points to consider.

If the EU wants to strongly insist on FoM to the extent that it helps the EU economy, that's consistent with the principle that it is for the EU to attract membership and not incumbent on other states not to "cherry pick", as they see it. IF the EU were to insist that no access to the SM were acceptable unless FoM were accepted by the UK, then I think loss of several percent of GDP should be the better choice.

People are watching to see if the EU plans to give the UK as good a deal as any non-European country, or whether there is insistence on the UK getting a worse deal to try to discourage other member states from exiting. No nation should get involved in an EU which doesn't accept the principle that the EU membership must be demonstrably beneficial on the whole. If a nation takes the view that it isn't, they shouldn't be penalised for leaving - whether there is any intention to penalise them or not. The aim should be to entice members not to leave and plan to entice them back if they do. That is necessary for the success of the EU, not just the success of non-EU nations.

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

Re: In or out?

#1979 Postby Zeff » July 17th, 2017, 6:43 pm

Alan H wrote:... all along we've been told we'll have full access on the same terms as we have now; but without the nasty FoM thingy...
Where's the source for that?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21833
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1980 Postby Alan H » July 17th, 2017, 7:47 pm

Zeff wrote:
Alan H wrote:... all along we've been told we'll have full access on the same terms as we have now; but without the nasty FoM thingy...
Where's the source for that?


So many Brexiters have said so many different, opposing and contradictory things that it's difficult to pin down. However, Daniel Hannan MEP, of Vote Leave said:
Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market Source


Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer:
Only a madman would actually leave the Market Source


Yet a founding principle of their campaign was to cut immigration by ending FoM.
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
coffee
Posts: 627
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: In or out?

#1981 Postby coffee » July 17th, 2017, 8:03 pm

Andrew Green: A soft Brexit would mean mass immigration – of over 100,000 people a year net until the late 2030s

http://www.conservativehome.com/platfor ... 2030s.html


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest