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. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#381 Post by animist » August 8th, 2016, 12:56 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Nick at least seems to have trouble about me using words like "uncertain" or "temporary". So I will try to spell out how I see the two types of uncertainty which I mentioned in connexion with Brexit and its repercussions. Ninny, look away if you don't like long unpoetic posts :smile:

UNCERTAINTY 1. The referendum outcome has had some negative repercussions on the UK economy and cultural links with other countries, but so far these are minor and may settle down. We are currently in a situation resembling the "Phoney War" which characterised the start of World War 2, since all that's happened is a referendum plus a new government (this analogy with WW2 was made by the Chatham House lecturer, and I strongly advise everyone to watch this lecture, posted by Gottard the other week). The rest of the world is uncertain about Brexit in a rather nebulous way, since it does not know what Britain will do and when. The Article 50 invocation has not happened, and TMQ (The May Queen) has said it will not happen till 2017, which is some way off; so we may for the rest of 2016 almost feel that things are getting back to normal. If TMQ delays further into next year (eg because of complications with Parliament) then people may start to hope that Article 50 may never actually be activated and normalcy will grow.

UNCERTAINTY 2. But let's assume that TMQ does invoke Article 50 in 2017 and that this act appears irreversible, so that we will be out of the EU by 2019. Let's also assume that she indicates that she wants a pretty clean break with the EU which means leaving the SIngle Market. Uncertainty 1 will now have ended, but IMO it will be replaced by a much more serious and focused uncertainty about Britain's future capacity to trade with the world. Again, please everyone, Nick especially, do watch the Chatham House lecture, which discusses with great clarity the complications of the Brexit process and the problems involved in reconstructing our trading relations with the EU and with the rest of the world. You should be scared, I am!

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#382 Post by Alan H » August 8th, 2016, 3:31 pm

David Allen Green: Brexit means Brexit — but in reality it’s a long time away

David has announced he's been commissioned by Oxford University Press to write a book on Brexit - could be an interesting read.
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?

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#383 Post by Gottard » August 8th, 2016, 4:27 pm

Alan H wrote:David Allen Green: Brexit means Brexit — but in reality it’s a long time away

David has announced he's been commissioned by Oxford University Press to write a book on Brexit - could be an interesting read.
Exactly; do not forget that Politics (politicians' skills) devise their craft according to 1st: their own interest, 2nd: the apparent interest of the Country. A political figure having strategic long-term vision conjugated with patriotism is a "one in a number of generations" bet.
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#384 Post by Alan H » August 10th, 2016, 3:58 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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#385 Post by Alan H » August 10th, 2016, 8:12 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?

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#386 Post by Gottard » August 11th, 2016, 6:53 am

http://www.votewatch.eu/blog/survey-results-how-does-brexit-impact-on-eu-initiatives-and-politicians/

I am surprised to read (in this survey) that the UK favours the annexation of Turkey within the EU; I thought the UK to be against, considering that this topic was a scare point of the leave campaign :question:
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#387 Post by Alan H » August 11th, 2016, 9:37 am

Gottard wrote:http://www.votewatch.eu/blog/survey-results-how-does-brexit-impact-on-eu-initiatives-and-politicians/

I am surprised to read (in this survey) that the UK favours the annexation of Turkey within the EU; I thought the UK to be against, considering that this topic was a scare point of the leave campaign :question:
I suspect it means the UK Government had been "the strongest supporter of the accession of this country to the EU." I doubt most Brits would have had much of a view on it pre-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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#388 Post by Alan H » August 11th, 2016, 10:35 pm

Economists have worked out how much Brexit could cost us
Leaving the EU could cost Britain a whopping £70 billion a year.

Or at least that is the theory put forward by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which has calculated the cost of leaving the single market.

Not being a member (which is a possible scenario) could see the UK lose out on an additional 4% of GDP by 2030, the IFS has said.

That 4% is equivalent of two years worth of growth, and equates to around £70 billion in today’s money – or £2,900 for each household.

It said that loss would outweigh the benefit of no longer paying in a net £9bn a year into the European Union budget.

The gloomy forecast comes after senior European politicians made it clear Britain can’t keep its membership of the single market unless its makes sizeable contribution to the EU budget and allows the free movement of EU workers.
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: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#389 Post by animist » August 12th, 2016, 10:05 am

Alan H wrote:The gloomy forecast comes after senior European politicians made it clear Britain can’t keep its membership of the single market unless its makes sizeable contribution to the EU budget and allows the free movement of EU workers.
the dear old Express of course calls this, a basic fact about the EU, "blackmail"
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... free-trade

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#390 Post by Alan H » August 12th, 2016, 8:25 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: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#391 Post by animist » August 13th, 2016, 10:36 am

so much for any chance that the new independent UK will adopt an enlightened attitude to the rest of the world - for instance, in low tariffs for goods from the poor countries :cross:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#392 Post by Alan H » August 14th, 2016, 6:17 pm

Looks like they can't even negotiate with themselves: Liam Fox tried to wrest control of Foreign Office duties from Boris Johnson
Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, made an attempted power grab on key areas of Boris Johnson’s Foreign Office, writing to his colleague and the prime minister, Theresa May, in an effort to wrest control of Britain’s overseas economic policy, a leaked letter has revealed.

Tensions have been escalating between the Foreign Office and Fox’s Department for International Trade, but the former defence secretary’s suggestion has apparently been given short shrift by No 10, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

Within a fortnight of arriving at the newly created department, Fox wrote to Johnson, copying in May, to ask for economic diplomacy – a key function of the Foreign Office – to become part of the remit of his department.

In the letter leaked to the Telegraph, Fox called for a “rational restructuring” of the departments and suggested that his take “clear leadership of the trade and investment agenda,” with Johnson leading on diplomacy and security, including oversight of the intelligence services.
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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#393 Post by Alan H » August 14th, 2016, 8:15 pm

Not so much all for one and one for all, the three Brexiteers are out for themselves
In Whitehall they have a phrase for it: “creative tension”. Perhaps that is what Theresa May had in mind when she put Brexit in the hands of Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and David Davis. Maybe she expected three of the biggest egos in politics to work together cooperatively to deliver success in a project of national, if not global importance. Possibly the force of their clashing intellects would create new, imaginative ideas.

Well, boys will be boys, and Theresa May probably should have known better. Far from freebasing ideas and channelling their energies into forging new trading relationships across the seas, Mr Johnson and Mr Fox, at any rate, seem embroiled in an old-fashioned turf war. Mr Fox, surely pushing his luck, has asked for the Foreign Office to be broken up, with a crude attempt to get “teacher”, Ms May, on his side. It appears not to have succeeded. From her mountain fastness in Switzerland, Ms May has ordered the boys to stop squabbling and get on with their homework.
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?

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#394 Post by Gottard » August 15th, 2016, 10:15 am

"three of the biggest egos in politics to work together cooperatively" hi hi :laughter: "the force of their clashing intellects would create new, imaginative ideas": the -possibly- only imaginative idea in my crystal sphere: to delay art 50 for long enough time to call a second referendum .... as national situation "may have substantially transmuted".
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#395 Post by animist » August 15th, 2016, 4:23 pm

Alan H wrote:Looks like they can't even negotiate with themselves: Liam Fox tried to wrest control of Foreign Office duties from Boris Johnson
Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, made an attempted power grab on key areas of Boris Johnson’s Foreign Office, writing to his colleague and the prime minister, Theresa May, in an effort to wrest control of Britain’s overseas economic policy, a leaked letter has revealed.

Tensions have been escalating between the Foreign Office and Fox’s Department for International Trade, but the former defence secretary’s suggestion has apparently been given short shrift by No 10, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

Within a fortnight of arriving at the newly created department, Fox wrote to Johnson, copying in May, to ask for economic diplomacy – a key function of the Foreign Office – to become part of the remit of his department.

In the letter leaked to the Telegraph, Fox called for a “rational restructuring” of the departments and suggested that his take “clear leadership of the trade and investment agenda,” with Johnson leading on diplomacy and security, including oversight of the intelligence services.
so our future is in the hands of these creeps. I have started dreaming about Brexit. In theory I am too old for the coming disaster to affect me much over things like jobs, but if it gets to the extent of a run on the banks, then it will. How can people be so stupid?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#396 Post by Alan H » August 15th, 2016, 4:33 pm

animist wrote:so our future is in the hands of these creeps. I have started dreaming about Brexit. In theory I am too old for the coming disaster to affect me much over things like jobs, but if it gets to the extent of a run on the banks, then it will. How can people be so stupid?
I think for much the same reason people believe in the likes of homeopathy: the science says it's utter nonsense but many still believe it works because they believe the marketing, hype and spin and sciency-sounding language and don't have the necessary critical thinking skills to analyse it properly.
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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#397 Post by Alan H » August 16th, 2016, 12:35 am

The English question
The sort of Englishness that is emerging, however, is far from clear. England is still slouching to some unknown Bethlehem, unsure of what is being born. For those people skeptical of nationalisms of any kind, there is certainly room for worry, if not outright fear. English nationalism has long had a nasty side and it is one that may yet emerge dominant from the shadows. For some it is already out, blinking wide-eyed and snarling in the post-referendum daylight. Since the Brexit vote there have been attacks across England, often targeting the large Polish population that currently makes its home in the United Kingdom.

The ire has extended well beyond those born elsewhere. This strain of English nationalism has ploughed the deep and familiar furrow of race-baiting, defining Englishness by skin colour, not by culture or place of birth. The English Defence League – a group who describe themselves as anti-Islamist activists – has marched and fought through English streets. English-born minorities have been singled out, alongside the Poles and other EU nationals, and told to ‘go home’, ignoring the fact they already live in the place of their birth. Hate crimes across England have surged in the wake of Brexit, which coursed like an electric shock through the country’s body politic. The murder of a pro-EU MP, Jo Cox, shows how ugly the forces unleashed by reckless pandering to the English right could be.

There have been warnings before. Former Conservative leader William Hague – hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to right-wing politics – once described English nationalism as ‘the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism that can arise within the United Kingdom’, realising that just as English nationalism made Britain, so it can unmake 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?

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#398 Post by Gottard » August 16th, 2016, 8:46 am

the Swiss radio news this morning mentioned that many UK residents in Germany (a figure of 70% of them was mentioned) have applied for a double nationality; this is possible under EU law. As the UK does not allow their citizens to have double nationality, it may happen that at expiration of two years –Art.50 date- those who have obtained German nationality will have their British nationality dropped.
Does the above seem consistent to you? If true, however, their pension matured in the UK should not suffer any loss, at least this is what I think.
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#399 Post by Alan H » August 16th, 2016, 9:41 am

Gottard wrote:the Swiss radio news this morning mentioned that many UK residents in Germany (a figure of 70% of them was mentioned) have applied for a double nationality; this is possible under EU law. As the UK does not allow their citizens to have double nationality, it may happen that at expiration of two years –Art.50 date- those who have obtained German nationality will have their British nationality dropped.
Does the above seem consistent to you? If true, however, their pension matured in the UK should not suffer any loss, at least this is what I think.
Not sure that's right. I'm sure I know several people who hold dual nationality. But surely if they did lose British nationality, they would lose their pension rights?
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?

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#400 Post by Gottard » August 16th, 2016, 3:00 pm

Alan H wrote:
Gottard wrote:the Swiss radio news this morning mentioned that many UK residents in Germany (a figure of 70% of them was mentioned) have applied for a double nationality; this is possible under EU law. As the UK does not allow their citizens to have double nationality, it may happen that at expiration of two years –Art.50 date- those who have obtained German nationality will have their British nationality dropped.
Does the above seem consistent to you? If true, however, their pension matured in the UK should not suffer any loss, at least this is what I think.
Not sure that's right. I'm sure I know several people who hold dual nationality. But surely if they did lose British nationality, they would lose their pension rights?
They should not lose pension rights, in principle. I worked in Switzerland (non EU) for some time and I do enjoy my part of pension.
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#401 Post by Alan H » August 16th, 2016, 7:42 pm

Canada's trade deal with EU a model for Brexit? Not quite, insiders say
It took hundreds of skilled negotiators, dozens of videoconferences and seemingly endless days in Brussels to produce the 1,600-page text. Some seven years after Canada and the EU began negotiating a trade deal, the future of the agreement remains shrouded in doubt.

But that hasn’t stopped the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or Ceta, as Canada’s deal with the EU is known, from being held up as the preferred model for Britain to follow in the wake of the Brexit vote.

David Davis, the new minister for Brexit, has called it the “perfect starting point for our discussions with the commission”. Earlier this year, Boris Johnson cited Canada and its trade deal as an example for the UK to follow, adding: “It’s a very, very bright future I see.”

Those close to the negotiations and others who have followed the development of the agreement paint a more nuanced picture. They point to the years of complex negotiations demanded by the deal and the persistent uncertainty that continues to dog its implementation – and they question whether the agreement’s framework is far-reaching enough to allow the UK to replicate its current level of access to the single market.

“How they think Ceta is the panacea, I’m confused,” said one senior Canadian government official who was deeply involved with the negotiations. “We still don’t get complete access to the EU market the way the Brits currently have as a member state. So I don’t understand this looking towards Ceta as the answer to Brexit when they will be taking a 43-year step backwards in terms of the current access they have to the European Union
.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

Post Reply