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: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3741 Postby Alan H » September 6th, 2018, 12:57 am

Latest post of the previous page:

TUC boss says ‘people deserve a say’ on UK's future relationship with the EU
TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady has told The Independent that “people deserve a say” on the UK’s future relations with the EU.

Speaking amid preparations for the 150th anniversary congress that starts in Manchester on Sunday, O’Grady went on: “I don’t think people have enough trust that Parliament alone can do the job.

“I don’t think they want to outsource that decision. Quite genuinely, I don’t want to pre-judge our own democracy, but I feel that appetite is growing.”

The TUC is due to discuss its official position, which O’Grady will give voice to, at the event.

However, the union movement is increasingly in favour of giving people a final say, putting Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn under pressure to shift his party's position.
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: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3742 Postby Alan H » September 6th, 2018, 7:11 pm

It's what the people voted for, isn't it? Government will have to make cuts if UK crashes out of EU with no deal, Philip Hammond admits
Philip Hammond has admitted telling ministers to prepare to make cuts if the UK crashes out of the EU with no agreement, after “Operation Yellowhammer” was revealed.

The chancellor said ministers would have no choice but to “refocus government priorities”, to head off the economic damage from a no-deal Brexit.

“In no deal circumstances, we would have to refocus government priorities so that government was concentrated on the circumstances that we found ourselves in,” he said.

The admission came after a secret Treasury document – entitled Operation Yellowhammer – was photographed, revealing the need for “internal reprioritisation” of departmental spending.

Mr Hammond has previously warned of a near-8 per cent hit to GDP from a no-deal Brexit, which would blow an £80bn hole in the public finances.

The concession opens up the prospect of austerity continuing into the next decade, despite growing pressure – including from some Tory MPs – to turn the spending taps back on.

It also threatens to reignite the Conservative party’s civil war over Brexit, after Mr Hammond was accused of a fresh “Project Fear” when he last warned against a no-deal departure.

And, if the UK does crash out with no agreement, it would appear to blow a hole in Theresa May’s much-disputed claim that a “Brexit dividend” can help deliver her promised £20bn boost to the NHS.

Mr Hammond’s comments came after the government was embarrassed by the latest example of someone – thought to be John Glen, a Treasury minister – being photographed carrying an internal document.
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: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3743 Postby Alan H » September 7th, 2018, 12:28 pm

We’ve fewer than 100 days left to fix Brexit
Time is running out for a broken parliament

The Chequers deal is dead-on-arrival in both Westminster and in Brussels. Boris Johnson is openly scorning the prime minister’s plan, while offering precisely zero details on an alternative. And Nick Boles has suggested the UK should jettison its current proposals for transition – which are themselves far from a done deal – in favour of an unattainable EEA transition.

In short, the UK is nowhere with Brexit. That would be bad enough the day after the vote to leave the EU – any sane vote would have been based on an actual exit plan – but we’re now two years on and the clock is ticking faster than the UK’s politicians appear to have realised.

As of this Thursday, there are just 204 days until March 29, 2019, the date on which the UK will automatically leave the EU – deal or no deal – barring major legal and political developments, plus the consent of EU governments.

In other words, time is running out, but is doing so far faster than this headline figure of 204 days suggests – especially when it comes to parliament, the only body that has the power to shape, oversee, or reverse Brexit.

Here’s how the numbers break down: parliament has only just returned after a long summer recess, and next week will take another month-long break for party conferences. A few weeks after that, parliament takes another week off, returns for six weeks or so, and then they take another holiday for Christmas.

Once we knock out parliament’s planned recesses, we also have to factor in that parliament barely sits on Fridays (the time is reserved for poorly-attended debates on backbench bills, with virtually no chance of passing). That leaves just 95 days in which parliament is sitting before the UK’s deadline to leave the EU.

If we’re thinking about what the end of the road looks like, we’re going to find out sooner than we’ve realised: we’re already in the last 100 days to fix Brexit, and we cannot devote all of those to tackling it, either.

The UK government has to pass its annual budget before the end of the year, in which the chancellor will have to set out the first hints of how he intends to provide a promised extra £20 billion for the NHS, and in which the government has pledged to set out the framework for its spending through until the next election.

At an absolute minimum, this will take four days of parliamentary time plus the time required to pass the actual finance bill. Any emergencies and political crises that come up between now and March will eat into this time, as will planned opposition debates and other events.

The UK has staggered its way through the Brexit process like an exhausted drunk – shouting out lengthy but impossible plans it has no means to follow-up on, and would make no attempt to if it were in its right mind.

The latest flurry of political headlines on Brexit suggests no-one has any plans to change the tone of the debate either. The government is still talking up a Chequers ‘deal’ that it knows cannot pass, and wouldn’t get agreed in Brussels in any case. Brexiteers continue to shout about no deal and WTO terms as if either meant anything and wouldn’t be devastating.

There are problems on the Remain side too: despite what we might hope, there is almost no chance that we can actually revoke Article 50 unilaterally, which would mean we would need clarity from the EU Commission and Council on what it would actually take to do so.

The government is currently led by someone who has publicly vowed not to hold a referendum on any final deal, with or without the option of reversing Brexit. At minimum this would require a Conservative leadership contest, which if not sewn up by MPs would take up to two months and would almost certainly be won by a Brexiteer.

It would also almost certainly need a second election, which would take seven weeks at the bare minimum. The time is running out to get any kind of Brexit deal, but we need to be real: the time to stop Brexit is running out even more rapidly.

Before we know it, the only thing we might have the time for is a catastrophic no-deal Brexit, with only the most extreme elements of it abated by short-term fringe deals.

As you read this, parliament has at most 95 sitting days to fix or stop Brexit. It will likely have less. There is at present almost nothing for it to do: the government likely won’t have any progress in talks until at least October, and possibly not even then.

A final reminder: those 95 days can’t be saved up and they can’t be moved. Forty-seven of them are this year, and just 48 are left in 2019. Any plan, whether to salvage Brexit, stop it, or to find some form of hard Brexit May thinks she can agree or pass, has to live within those limitations.

The first, the urgent, and the only question for us when – if – any side offers up some form of plan is: is this something that could actually be done in just 200 days of real time, and 100 days of parliamentary time? If not, then abandon it at once. We’ve already wasted almost all the time we had.
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: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3744 Postby Alan H » September 7th, 2018, 2:29 pm

Another journey round the Brexit loop
If the last few days runes are read the latest possibility is that it will be to ‘blind Brexit’ (how many more varieties of Brexit can there be?). As prefigured in my most recent post, this would be a Withdrawal Agreement accompanied by an extremely vague and brief statement of intention for the future relationship. Potentially, vague enough to encompass the ERG proposal, Chequers and, maybe, anything up to and including the single market and a customs union. Potentially, then, also vague enough to get voted through by MPs in the belief that their version of Brexit, or a version of Brexit they could live with, might be the ultimate outcome. If so, that opens up the singularly depressing prospect of spending the next few years going around the same old loop of the different models of Brexit.

The reason for that loop is quite simply stated: there is no way of undertaking Brexit – and certainly not hard Brexit, in its original meaning – which does not do a level of damage to the economy and also to the politics of Northern Ireland that no democratic government could get away with. Hence when the government try to find a relatively less economically damaging form of Brexit, proponents of hard Brexit revolt; when hard Brexiters push towards an FTA or even no deal, the economic damage implied causes pragmatic politicians and voters to recoil. It is that basic, irreconcilable contradiction which structures current the British politics of 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: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3745 Postby Alan H » September 8th, 2018, 12:59 am

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit news: EU’s chief negotiator REJECTS Theresa May’s plan for leaving Europe
The EU’s chief negotiator today rejected Theresa May’s plan for Brexit.

Michel Barnier said two points in the Prime Minister’s Chequers proposal were “not acceptable”.

He also said the future of the Irish border remained the “main obstacle” to a withdrawal agreement.

The comments made to MPs on Monday emerged yesterday in a translation of the meeting.

Asked by MP Hilary Benn whether the Chequers plan was “dead in the water”, Mr Barnier replied: “In the White Paper there are lots of positive things, lots of useful things. I did not just reject the White Paper outright.”

He said Brussels will not accept Mrs May’s proposals on customs or her suggestion the UK and EU could have a free trade area which excluded services. He said: “The proposals are not acceptable on customs and on the common rulebook for goods.”

TUC 150th anniversary: Boss Frances O'Grady speaks about zero hour contracts, low pay and the rise of the Just About Managing

On Mrs May’s suggestion that the UK could carry out customs checks for the EU, he said: “Your proposal does not seem workable to us.”

He told MPs he was “very concerned about Ireland” and that the suggestion put forward by some Brexiteers that the border could simply be kept open, was “too easy” because neither the EU or the UK could protect their consumers and businesses.

But he said that the EU was “open” to discussing other arrangements for Northern Ireland than the Brussels proposal for it to remain within the European customs area, which has been rejected by Mrs May.

Mr Barnier also rejected a suggestion by Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg that the “divorce bill” of around £40billion agreed by Mrs May represents a payment for a future trade deal and could be withheld.

He said: “That figure is settlement for the past. You want to leave the European Union. That is your decision, so we settle the accounts.”

Mr Benn’s “dead in the water” question referred to Labour MP Stephen Kinnock’s claims in a European Scrutiny committee hearing on Wednesday. “I can tell you absolutely, unequivocally, without a shadow of a doubt that Chequers is dead in the water,” the Labour committee member told Brexit secretary Dominic Raab.
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: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3746 Postby Alan H » September 8th, 2018, 4:57 pm

Only a legal miracle can save us from a disastrous Brexit – we need to delay the whole process n
As UK-EU negotiations recommence, it is still unclear whether we are to have a soft Brexit, a hard Brexit or something in between. Whatever it is, as matters stand, Brexit of any kind is likely to cause massive disruption to the UK – and not just in the areas we’ve already been told about.

The UK is party to at least 759 agreements with 168 non-EU “third countries” solely by virtue of its EU membership. These agreements cover more than just trade. They cover virtually every important aspect of the UK’s economic relations with third countries: regulatory cooperation, air travel or the movement of nuclear materials, to name a few. Without them, trade and travel between the UK and third countries becomes near impossible.

The difficulty is that with Brexit – in whatever form – the UK ceases formally to be a member of the EU and therefore ceases to be party to these agreements. So those arrangements we have with third countries around the globe, agreed by the EU, will simply disappear. Commerce between the UK and those non-EU countries we keep talking about having trade agreements with, will grind to an abrupt halt.

A responsible government, you’d have thought, would have prioritised putting in place parallel agreements with third countries to take effect after Brexit. Worryingly, however, there is very little evidence that anything has been done, which means we’re now facing a real prospect of chaos.
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: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3747 Postby Alan H » September 9th, 2018, 12:50 am

Brexit: Boris Johnson says May has 'wrapped suicide vest around UK constitution', prompting storm of Tory outrage
Theresa May’s Brexit strategy has put the UK constitution in a “suicide vest” and handed the detonator to Brussels’ chief negotiator Michel Barnier, Boris Johnson has claimed.

The former foreign secretary’s extraordinary comments provoked an immediate backlash from Tory critics in the latest sign of the bitter Conservative divide over Brexit and the future leadership of the party.
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: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3748 Postby Alan H » September 9th, 2018, 12:00 pm

You won't mind the army on the streets to keep order when us proles get a bit peckish will you, coffee? No-deal Brexit could lead to ‘real possibility’ of the military on the streets, leaked police document says
A no-deal Brexit could lead to the “real possibility” of police calling on the military to help with civil disorder, a leaked document claims.

Contingency plans are being drawn up by police chiefs if there is chaos on the streets due to shortages of goods, food and medicine,

The document prepared by the National Police Co-ordination Centre (NPoCC) warns of traffic queues at ports with “unprecedented and overwhelming” disruption to the road network.

Concerns around medical supplies could “feed civil disorder”, while a rise in the price of goods could also lead to “widespread protest”, the document obtained by the Sunday Times said.

The potential for a restricted supply of goods raised concerns of “widespread protest which could then escalate into disorder”.

It could also trigger a rise in non-Brexit-related acquisitive crime such as theft, officers fear.

The document, set to be considered by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) later this month, also sets out concerns of increased data costs, loss of warrant cards and queues at ports and docks around the country.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3749 Postby Alan H » September 9th, 2018, 10:42 pm

Of course the Tories will continue the same level of funding - or better - post-Brexit, won't they? Won't they, coffee?

What has the EU done for your area?
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: 6466
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3750 Postby animist » September 10th, 2018, 8:42 am

Brexit Day is now just 200 days away!

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3751 Postby Alan H » September 10th, 2018, 12:36 pm

animist wrote:Brexit Day is now just 200 days away!
That's 200 of our days but not really that many sitting days in Parliament.

The Tories better get a move on if they are ever going to actually produce a coherent, workable proposal to present to the EU that isn't ridiculed as soon as it's published. I'm still dying to know the delivery date for my unicorns and rainbows.
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: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3752 Postby Alan H » September 10th, 2018, 12:49 pm

This has only ever been about saving the Tory Party from self-destruction. I wish the fuck they'd just get on with it so we can all just get on with our lives. This slow-motion disaster movie has gone on long enough.

Tories face 'catastrophic' Brexit split as ex-minister warns 80 MPs could defy Theresa May
Theresa May faces a "catastrophic split" in the Conservative Party over Brexit , her former minister for Brexit declares today.

Hard Brexiteer Steve Baker issued the threat with just 200 days to go before Britain formally leaves the EU on 29 March 2019.


Along with Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg , Mr Baker is among right-wing MPs who want Mrs May to "chuck" the Brexit plan she drew up at Chequers.

The plan would keep the UK closely aligned with the EU in a new "free trade area" for goods.

But Mr Baker - who quit government over the plan - claimed Mrs May faces "a massive problem" at next month's Tory conference because her own members oppose it.

He warned 80 or more Tory MPs could be prepared to vote down the plan in the Commons.
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: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3753 Postby Alan H » September 11th, 2018, 2:22 pm

Bank of England chief Mark Carney to stay on through 'turbulent' Brexit, says Philip Hammond
Mr Hammond told MPs: "I can now announce to the House that I have been discussing with the Governor his ability to be able to serve a little longer in post in order to ensure continuity through what could be quite a turbulent period for our economy in the early summer of 2019.


'Turbulent period'?! We didn't vote for that, did we?
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: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3754 Postby Alan H » September 11th, 2018, 5:15 pm

No doubt rabid and loyal Brexiters will be salivating over Rees-Mogg's latest, but: The garbled nonsense of Jacob Rees-Mogg's new press release
Firstly, there is no "world trade deal". There is a WTO safety net which, among other things, bans discrimination in trading arrangements between countries unless they have a trade deal. Calling this arrangement a 'world trade deal' is the worst kind of misleading and cynical advertising-speak.

Second, WTO terms are not going to boost the UK's trade with Europe. There is no scenario painted by anyone on any side of the debate which would suggest this and there is certainly no reason to believe it on the basis of what is written here. It's the kind of thing you say when you have soared off into your own special land where the rules of causation do not apply. This sentence suggests the Economists for Free Trade are no longer in a fight against the EU, but against the basic concepts of language and meaning.
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: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3755 Postby Alan H » September 11th, 2018, 7:08 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
animist
Posts: 6466
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3756 Postby animist » September 12th, 2018, 11:41 am

Alan H wrote:The Tories still don't have a fucking clue: Barnier confronts Raab over discovery of Brexit no-deal letters to EU27

There is still talk of Irexit (ie exit from the EU of Ireland and/or? Italy) in some quarters - such as those that coffee relays. So much information and disinformation available everywhere today, and I can't help feeling that this empowers the delusion that the EU is going to split and break. Our own Nick was a prime exponent of this, but, after 2.25 years since the referendum, the indications are that Brexit has actually consolidated European identity and that Britain and Brexit are simply an infuriating nuisance

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3757 Postby Alan H » September 12th, 2018, 7:54 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? [urlhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/12/day-to-day-effects-of-no-deal-brexit-stressed-in-new-impact-papers]Day-to-day effects of no-deal Brexit stressed in new impact papers[/url]
The impact that a no-deal Brexit could have on driving licences, passports and phone bills will be spelled out by the government as ministers release a batch of papers on Thursday warning of the risks of crashing out of the European Union.

A sudden exit from the EU would mean that the mutual recognition of driving licences would automatically end, creating a headache for the 11,600 lorry drivers who cross the channel each day as well as car-driving tourists.

On passports, there have been warnings that Britons traveling abroad with less than six months to expiry could be stopped at the border of an EU member state, when they would previously have been let through.

Cross-border mobile phone bills could soar in the event of a no-deal Brexit if the phone companies pass on the costs of higher roaming and data charges that would follow if the UK crashes out of the EU.

Papers on driving licences, passports and phone bills are among the 30 or so technical notices that the government will release on Thursday, after the cabinet holds a special three-hour meeting to consider no-deal preparations in a discussion to be led by Brexit secretary, Dominic Raab.
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: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3758 Postby Alan H » September 14th, 2018, 1:22 pm

Anyone remember why we're doing this? 'The damage will be huge, the benefits illusory': Peer demolishes govt's Brexit trade plans
When this bill was debated in the House of Commons, the international trade secretary Liam Fox said "it is only about continuing what we have at the present time".

What then, we might ask, is the point of it?

Why are we expending huge amounts of time and energy? Why are we setting ourselves red lines for the negotiations that are proving impossible to reconcile with each other, and which threaten to scupper the chances of any exit deal at all; only with the hope of continuing what we have now? Surely such effort is only worthwhile if we end up with more trade than we had before?

Certainly the point isn't to honour the referendum result, since polls consistently show only two per cent of the public recall independent trade deals ever being mentioned in the course of the referendum campaign.

The fear must surely be that once again theological obsession is being allowed to take precedence over the economic wellbeing of our country.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3759 Postby Alan H » September 14th, 2018, 2:54 pm

No-deal Brexit could be as bad as 2008 financial crash, Carney says
The governor of the Bank of England has warned the cabinet that the impact of a no-deal Brexit could be as catastrophic as the financial crisis that crippled the UK economy a decade ago.

During a special cabinet meeting on Thursday to discuss preparations for the UK crashing out of the union, Mark Carney told Theresa May and her senior ministers of the potentially dire economic consequences of leaving on poor terms.

Cabinet sources said he painted a bleak economic picture of unemployment reaching double figures in percentage terms, house prices falling by 25-35% over three years, and transport links with the EU, including air travel and the Eurostar, stalling.

Several sources said Carney compared the outcome of a no-deal Brexit with the fallout from the 2008 financial crash.
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: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3760 Postby Alan H » September 14th, 2018, 3:20 pm

Send in the clowns
The ‘will they won’t they’ publish question, discussed in my previous post, was answered this week when the ERG decided not to release their detailed plan for Brexit, despite having promised – or threatened – throughout the summer to do so. The reasons, apparently, were that they could not agree on it and that the draft contained ideas of such barminess that widespread mockery was feared.

It is worth reflecting for a moment on just how extraordinary this is. Here we have a group of politicians who in some cases have been dreaming and scheming for Brexit for 25 years or longer. Yet now, over two years after the referendum and just weeks before finalisation of the Withdrawal Agreement, they still cannot agree what they think Brexit should mean or which they dare articulate in public. Even more absurd, despite this they persist with the claim that the 17.4 million who voted leave in 2016 knew exactly what they were voting for.
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: 23606
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3761 Postby Alan H » September 14th, 2018, 8:30 pm

Crash-out chaos is a decoy. Beware blind Brexit
Dominic Raab has a column in the Telegraph saying “we need not be afraid of a no-deal Brexit”, while also saying it would “not be a walk in the park” and warning, among other things, that “extra checks at the EU border would bring delays for business”. The government’s latest batch of 28 contingency plans, out today, will cover things such as mobile phone roaming changes (which the EU scrapped) and environmental standards.


Raab's walk in the park will be through lush green pastures with grazing unicorns, won't 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?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests