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
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

Latest post of the previous page:

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?

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

Re: In or out?

#402 Post by Gottard » August 17th, 2016, 7:37 am

http://www.dw.com/en/farage-sighted-at- ... newsletter

Farage 'sighted' at German embassy, London
A reported sighting of top Brexit advocate Nigel Farage queuing at Germany's embassy in London has triggered media scrutiny. The US portal "BuzzFeed" says Farage hung up when asked if he was seeking German citizenship.
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?

#403 Post by Alan H » August 17th, 2016, 9:33 am

Gottard wrote:http://www.dw.com/en/farage-sighted-at- ... newsletter

Farage 'sighted' at German embassy, London
A reported sighting of top Brexit advocate Nigel Farage queuing at Germany's embassy in London has triggered media scrutiny. The US portal "BuzzFeed" says Farage hung up when asked if he was seeking German citizenship.
As usual, the media have put many column-centimetres into this nonsense. Even if it's true, all it shows is Farage's hypocrisy - there really are more important things they should be investigating and reporting on.
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?

#404 Post by Gottard » August 17th, 2016, 4:02 pm

:scorepoint:
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

jdc
Posts: 516
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 9:03 pm

Re: In or out?

#405 Post by jdc » August 18th, 2016, 1:24 am

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?
You're right, it's not right. Possibly someone mixed up "citizen" and "subject"? https://www.gov.uk/dual-citizenship
Dual citizenship (also known as dual nationality) is allowed in the UK. This means you can be a British citizen and also a citizen of other countries.

You don’t need to apply for dual citizenship. You can apply for foreign citizenship and keep your British citizenship.
You can’t have dual citizenship if you’re a British subject or a British protected person unless you’re a British subject from the Republic of Ireland.
My Blog; Twitter.
Email: 325jdc325 (at) googlemail.com

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

Re: In or out?

#406 Post by Gottard » August 18th, 2016, 11:10 am

Gottard wrote: :scorepoint:
It is a tricky matter. Not in all Countries citizenship coincide with Nationality. Citizenship is often confused with residency which only means "permanent residence permit". To add confusion, some voting rights are conceded to permanent residents in some Countries. :puzzled:
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?

#407 Post by animist » August 20th, 2016, 12:53 pm


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

Re: In or out?

#408 Post by Alan H » August 22nd, 2016, 8:28 pm

The UK (well, maybe just England and Wales) would have to negotiate a new trade deal with all these countries - including the dark blue coloured EU:
2016-08-22_20h24_41.png
2016-08-22_20h24_41.png (1.42 MiB) Viewed 1733 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?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#409 Post by Nick » August 24th, 2016, 11:15 am

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... and-the-eu
That leaves the fourth explanation: the euro is more to blame than the policies and structures of individual countries. The euro was flawed at birth. Even the best policymakers the world has ever seen could not have made it work. The eurozone’s structure imposed the kind of rigidity associated with the gold standard. The single currency took away its members’ most important mechanism for adjustment – the exchange rate – and the eurozone circumscribed monetary and fiscal policy.

In response to asymmetric shocks and divergences in productivity, there would have to be adjustments in the real (inflation-adjusted) exchange rate, meaning that prices in the eurozone periphery would have to fall relative to Germany and northern Europe. But, with Germany adamant about inflation – its prices have been stagnant – the adjustment could be accomplished only through wrenching deflation elsewhere. Typically, this meant painful unemployment and weakening unions; the eurozone’s poorest countries, and especially the workers within them, bore the brunt of the adjustment burden. So the plan to spur convergence among eurozone countries failed miserably, with disparities between and within countries growing.

This system cannot and will not work in the long run: democratic politics ensures its failure. Only by changing the eurozone’s rules and institutions can the euro be made to work.
It's nice to have a Nobel-winning economist agree with me. :D

He (Stiglitz) proposes changes. The question remains, though. Which is most likely, that the EU makes the necessary changes, makes other changes which fail to address the issues, continuing the destruction of a whole generation, or falls apart anyway?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#410 Post by Nick » August 24th, 2016, 2:44 pm

Alan H wrote:The UK (well, maybe just England and Wales) would have to negotiate a new trade deal with all these countries - including the dark blue coloured EU:
2016-08-22_20h24_41.png
Not would, Alan, but will. Which is a good thing. And the EU has failed to negotiate trade deals with various major economies, so those countries should be excluded from the above map, shouldn't they? And if the EU decide to erect tariffs against Britain, not only will it hurt the EU too, but will demonstrate that they are not interested in free trade but in erecting job-destroying, poverty creating barriers.

And Scotland without England, now that North Sea oil is loss-making, would be a basket case.

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

Re: In or out?

#411 Post by Alan H » August 24th, 2016, 3:16 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:The UK (well, maybe just England and Wales) would have to negotiate a new trade deal with all these countries - including the dark blue coloured EU:
Not would, Alan, but will.
It's only 'will' if the UK does actually leave the EU.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

coffee
Posts: 1586
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: In or out?

#412 Post by coffee » August 24th, 2016, 10:14 pm

We won't trigger Article 50 until after 2017 – and that means Brexit may never happen at all

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bre ... 98736.html




12 reasons not to panic about Brexit – and why we probably won't leave the EU after all

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bre ... 78611.html

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#413 Post by Nick » August 25th, 2016, 12:04 am

Since they went on-line only, the Indy seem to have become independent of reason too....
No-one in Europe wants to punish Britain
Yeah, right. File in WPB.

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

Re: In or out?

#414 Post by animist » August 25th, 2016, 10:00 am

Nick wrote:Since they went on-line only, the Indy seem to have become independent of reason too....
No-one in Europe wants to punish Britain
Yeah, right. File in WPB.
I think it is about time that you got off this tack, which is unproveable (and anyway, if by "punishment" you mean deterring other countries from leaving, I'm not sure that is objectionable, more a bit of self-preservation on the EU's side). How about enlightening us on how you see Britain coping with Brexit, given that we would have just two years from triggering Article 50 to being out on our own, open to both foreign tariffs and cheap imports? And what if companies like Goldman Sachs, which has already said it is considering its position in this country in the event of Brexit, start moving their operations over to Frankfurt or elsewhere?

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

Re: In or out?

#415 Post by Alan H » August 25th, 2016, 10:23 am

animist wrote:
Nick wrote:Since they went on-line only, the Indy seem to have become independent of reason too....
No-one in Europe wants to punish Britain
Yeah, right. File in WPB.
I think it is about time that you got off this tack, which is unproveable (and anyway, if by "punishment" you mean deterring other countries from leaving, I'm not sure that is objectionable, more a bit of self-preservation on the EU's side). How about enlightening us on how you see Britain coping with Brexit, given that we would have just two years from triggering Article 50 to being out on our own, open to both foreign tariffs and cheap imports? And what if companies like Goldman Sachs, which has already said it is considering its position in this country in the event of Brexit, start moving their operations over to Frankfurt or elsewhere?
Perhaps we should have a thread to discuss the ins and outs of the various newspaper titles, their bias, poor journalism, the typeface they use and the whiteness of their paper?
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?

#416 Post by Alan H » August 25th, 2016, 12:34 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?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#417 Post by Nick » August 25th, 2016, 5:30 pm

animist wrote:I think it is about time that you got off this tack,
Ahem! Thanks for the advice, but that rather more for me to decide! :wink:
which is unproveable
There is plenty of evidence. Just what level of proof (either way) would satisfy you?
(and anyway, if by "punishment" you mean deterring other countries from leaving, I'm not sure that is objectionable, more a bit of self-preservation on the EU's side).
Well this is where we disagree. ISTM that the benefits of belonging to the EU ought to be enough to keep members in. If a member leaves, why should the EU do anything other than arrange the best deal they can with the ex-member? The problem for the EU, is that membership is not conclusively attractive enough for countries to consider that alternative arrangements would be preferable. In order to keep the EU together, the EU is deliberately making life difficult for the UK. Why, for example, are they refusing to consider what trading arrangements we might have in future, before we have left the EU? Just to be bloody minded to discourage others. I see no other explanation.

Let's try an analogy. We allow UK citizens to live overseas. We do not say "If you live overseas, you can't work in the UK any more". If we don't want to live under the same roof, why not be the best of neighbours?
How about enlightening us on how you see Britain coping with Brexit,
OK, I'll try, but in return, can you explain why the Euro has been a good thing for southern Europe?

Brexit is not going to be without difficulty. Not least because the EU seem determined to make it so! But international deals, especially those as complex as the EU, take a lot to untangle. There will be pluses and minuses. No-one is saying that there are no advantages being in the EU, nor that there are no advantages from being out. There will certainly be adjustments, but we can't know for certain exactly what they may be.
given that we would have just two years from triggering Article 50 to being out on our own,
Only if the EU enforces it. Which they will. Just to be difficult.
open to both foreign tariffs and cheap imports?
We would be under WTO rules. The EU has no agreements with major economies such as (IIRC) the USA and India, and restrictive tariffs against Australia, say. We should be able to agree trade deals with other countries without the need to take account of European restrictive practices and protectionism. As for foreign tariffs, we can play hardball with the EU, and with other countries we benefit from a lower value of the pound. Certainly there are dangers, especially to the City, but that is purely because the EU are making a power grab, not engaging in competition.
And what if companies like Goldman Sachs, which has already said it is considering its position in this country in the event of Brexit, start moving their operations over to Frankfurt or elsewhere?
That with rather confirm what I have said. The best place for them to be, because of talent and proximity to others, is London. The only reason that will change in the short term is if the EU deliberately puts obstructions in the way.

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

Re: In or out?

#418 Post by animist » August 25th, 2016, 10:33 pm

Nick wrote: well this is where we disagree. ISTM that the benefits of belonging to the EU ought to be enough to keep members in. If a member leaves, why should the EU do anything other than arrange the best deal they can with the ex-member? The problem for the EU, is that membership is not conclusively attractive enough for countries to consider that alternative arrangements would be preferable. In order to keep the EU together, the EU is deliberately making life difficult for the UK. Why, for example, are they refusing to consider what trading arrangements we might have in future, before we have left the EU? Just to be bloody minded to discourage others. I see no other explanation.
well, I can. I think that the EU stance is perfectly rational. Sort out one problem, then sort out another. What's wrong with that?
Nick wrote:
How about enlightening us on how you see Britain coping with Brexit,
OK, I'll try, but in return, can you explain why the Euro has been a good thing for southern Europe?
certainly not! For one thing, why should I? I am not aware that this forum operates on some bargaining basis, and much more important, I have no opinion on the euro and am glad that the UK did not join the Eurozone. You seem to be stuck on irrelevant issues to the big question facing Britain, ie of whether to leave the EU or not, and your obsessions do get a bit tedious

Nick wrote:Let's try an analogy. We allow UK citizens to live overseas. We do not say "If you live overseas, you can't work in the UK any more". If we don't want to live under the same roof, why not be the best of neighbours?
poor analogy which has absolutely nothing to do with the relationship between a club and one of its members; whyever would Britain penalise its expatriates in the way that you fantasise? You obviously don't read much that I say, because I have already dealt with this analogy (albeit on FB probably). If the UK wants to simply be a neighbour of the EU then it would demand nothing from it. But, in your own words, you seem to think that the EU is for some reason morally obliged to give Britain whatever it wants, basically - ie to negotiate some favourable trade deal with the EU while it is still in the process of leaving it!
Nick wrote: Brexit is not going to be without difficulty. Not least because the EU seem determined to make it so! But international deals, especially those as complex as the EU, take a lot to untangle. There will be pluses and minuses. No-one is saying that there are no advantages being in the EU, nor that there are no advantages from being out. There will certainly be adjustments, but we can't know for certain exactly what they may be..
Nick, this is kind of an answer which is actually no answer. Have you actually seen the Chatham House lecture, posted by Gottard a week or two ago, which dealt with the myriad problems of leaving the EU and establishing a new relationship? You are an economist, but your inability to grasp the problems facing us makes me despair of this country!

Nick wrote:
given that we would have just two years from triggering Article 50 to being out on our own,
Only if the EU enforces it. Which they will. Just to be difficult.
there you go again. How can you say such things? Apparently Article 50 was written by a couple of Brits in order to appease British dissatisfaction with the EU, and it was never actually meant to be used. Right. Now you are castigating the EU for enforcing, "just to be difficult", its own appeasement of the UK. Please read the previous posts in this thread, it is annoying for me if you can't be bothered to do this
Nick wrote:
open to both foreign tariffs and cheap imports?
We would be under WTO rules. The EU has no agreements with major economies such as (IIRC) the USA and India, and restrictive tariffs against Australia, say. We should be able to agree trade deals with other countries without the need to take account of European restrictive practices and protectionism. As for foreign tariffs, we can play hardball with the EU, and with other countries we benefit from a lower value of the pound. Certainly there are dangers, especially to the City, but that is purely because the EU are making a power grab, not engaging in competition.
I need to double check this, but I think that Britain would have to renegotiate its relationship with the WTO. Bur anyway, how are the various non-agreements of the EU with various countries relevant to what we are discussing? And I doubt that "we can play hardball with the EU" - you do seem to be aware that we are more dependent for our export trade on the EU than it is on us
Nick wrote:
And what if companies like Goldman Sachs, which has already said it is considering its position in this country in the event of Brexit, start moving their operations over to Frankfurt or elsewhere?
That with rather confirm what I have said. The best place for them to be, because of talent and proximity to others, is London. The only reason that will change in the short term is if the EU deliberately puts obstructions in the way.
you must have heard of the "financial passport" which allows finance companies within the EU to trade easily with other members? Well, I take it that if we leave the EU we will lose this. By all means correct me if you can over this!

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

Re: In or out?

#419 Post by animist » August 27th, 2016, 9:53 am

animist wrote:I need to double check this, but I think that Britain would have to renegotiate its relationship with the WTO.
I got this from the Chatham House lecture and will now re-post this lecture as it is so informative - I would like to hear Nick's reactions to it!
https://www.chathamhouse.org/event/chat ... mer-brexit
If you jump into the lecture at around 22.20 you will hear the lady lecturer's thoughts about relying on the WTO as a future trading basis for the UK

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

Re: In or out?

#420 Post by Alan H » August 28th, 2016, 12:17 am

Theresa May 'acting like Tudor monarch' by not giving MPs a Brexit vote
The Daily Telegraph reported that May had been told by government lawyers that she did not need parliamentary approval to trigger the procedure, but it is believed that the prime minister could face legal challenges over the decision.

The vast majority of MPs – up to 480 – and most peers in the House of Lords have supported remaining in the EU. Some reacted to the news with anger.

Owen Smith, who is challenging Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership of the Labour party, suggested May would avoid a parliamentary debate because there was not sufficient support for Brexit.

“Theresa May is clearly running scared from parliamentary scrutiny of her Brexit negotiations,” he said.

“She’s looked at the numbers and she knows she might not win a vote in parliament.

“She hasn’t set out what Brexit means and she doesn’t want to be held to account on vital issues such as stripping away workers’ rights and environmental safeguards.”
Our MP, the shadow international trade secretary, Barry Gardiner, said:
“The logic of saying the prime minister can trigger article 50 without first setting out to parliament the terms and basis upon which her government seeks to negotiate – indeed, without even indicating the red lines she will seek to protect – would be to diminish parliament and assume the arrogant powers of a Tudor monarch,” he said.

“Parliament cannot be sidelined from the greatest constitutional change our country has debated in 40 years.”
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?

#421 Post by animist » August 28th, 2016, 9:28 am

Alan H wrote:Theresa May 'acting like Tudor monarch' by not giving MPs a Brexit vote
The Daily Telegraph reported that May had been told by government lawyers that she did not need parliamentary approval to trigger the procedure, but it is believed that the prime minister could face legal challenges over the decision.
it's good to see MPs starting to assert themselves, but would they have the guts to actually deny the triggering of Article 50? The article is wrong to say that it's unclear whether the referendum result was meant to be binding: it was NOT meant to be binding, only advisory, but this was not apparent from either side in the referendum campaign. The author is also wrong to call Article 50 "legislation" - it isn't, and the Government's claim to be able to trigger it without parliamentary approval depends on the old concept of Royal Prerogative - how democratic is that? Anyway, Parliament at some stage will have to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act in order to complete the secession of Britain from the EU, so why all the fuss about excluding it now?

Post Reply