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?

#441 Post by animist » August 31st, 2016, 8:17 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... the-job-o/

"Brexit brainstorm" - a contradiction in terms! This article in the Telegraph indicates how Terri May is trying to dragoon (by issuing "marching orders") reluctant civil servants, despite the total conceptual chaos surrounding Brexit. But maybe the Civil Service will escape being frogmarched into all this timewasting. I am hoping that the legal case being prepared by law firm Mishcon de Reya, and due to be heard in the Supreme Court in October, will prevent the government from invoking Article 50 without parliamentary approval - then it's up to the MPs to earn their money by voting for what they believe in

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

Re: In or out?

#442 Post by Nick » September 1st, 2016, 11:41 am

animist wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... the-job-o/

"Brexit brainstorm" - a contradiction in terms! This article in the Telegraph indicates how Terri May is trying to dragoon (by issuing "marching orders") reluctant civil servants, despite the total conceptual chaos surrounding Brexit. But maybe the Civil Service will escape being frogmarched into all this timewasting. I am hoping that the legal case being prepared by law firm Mishcon de Reya, and due to be heard in the Supreme Court in October, will prevent the government from invoking Article 50 without parliamentary approval - then it's up to the MPs to earn their money by voting for what they believe in
Tangentially to this, Do you think that Labour MPs should vote for what they believe in, which is what they believe their constituents believe in, and seek to get rid of Corbyn?

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

Re: In or out?

#443 Post by animist » September 1st, 2016, 1:26 pm

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... the-job-o/

"Brexit brainstorm" - a contradiction in terms! This article in the Telegraph indicates how Terri May is trying to dragoon (by issuing "marching orders") reluctant civil servants, despite the total conceptual chaos surrounding Brexit. But maybe the Civil Service will escape being frogmarched into all this timewasting. I am hoping that the legal case being prepared by law firm Mishcon de Reya, and due to be heard in the Supreme Court in October, will prevent the government from invoking Article 50 without parliamentary approval - then it's up to the MPs to earn their money by voting for what they believe in
Tangentially to this, Do you think that Labour MPs should vote for what they believe in, which is what they believe their constituents believe in, and seek to get rid of Corbyn?
your question makes a huge assumption: that MPs believe in what their constituents believe in. Whyever should you assume this? Know ye not the thoughts of that famous and archetypal Tory philosopher Edmund Burke, who opined thus, in a 1776 speech the electors of Bristol:

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.

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

Re: In or out?

#444 Post by animist » September 1st, 2016, 1:27 pm

woops, I did it again. That is, posted anew rather than edited! OK, I will adapt to this error and ask everyone whether they heard the "fantastical" (good 18C century word) of our new lady and master, dominatrix Terri May, who yesterday opined that she would substantially reduce immigration to the UK, WHATEVER THE EFFECTS ON TRADE! Nick, you really should be paying attention to this - rather than kicking to oblivion the already-supine Labour Party. The UK is an open economy which depends on trade in goods and services, yet our new Tory PM has now abandoned all mention of the previous Tory regime's insistence about cutting our budget deficit and austerity - apparently all that matters, post referendum, is reducing our net migration deficit (or rather, surplus)

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

Re: In or out?

#445 Post by animist » September 2nd, 2016, 12:45 pm

animist wrote:
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
a further view on the WTO aspect, which indicates yet another headache for post-Brexit Britain
http://www.ictsd.org/opinion/nothing-si ... ost-brexit

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

Re: In or out?

#446 Post by Alan H » September 4th, 2016, 10:16 am

Japan's Unprecedented Warning To UK Over Brexit
"Japanese businesses with their European headquarters in the UK may decide to transfer their head-office function to Continental Europe if EU laws cease to be applicable in the UK after its withdrawal," the report concludes.

It says: "In light of the fact that a number of Japanese businesses, invited by the Government in some cases, have invested actively to the UK, which was seen to be a gateway to Europe, and have established value-chains across Europe, we strongly request that the UK will consider this fact seriously and respond in a responsible manner to minimise any harmful effects on these businesses."

The list is the most tangible account anywhere of what businesses are asking for from the Brexit negotiations.

It suggests Japanese car companies fear that they will be hit by a double whammy of trade tariffs.

There were fears of levies being imposed twice "once for auto parts imported from the EU and again for final products assembled in the UK to be exported to the EU - which would have a significant impact on their businesses.".
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?

#447 Post by Nick » September 4th, 2016, 12:22 pm

animist wrote:
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?
Well, for a start, they are interconnected. The nature of Brexit may change, depending on the sort of agreement the EU might contemplate.

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?[/quote]Do you mean can't or won't? If you can't then (even if it is tedious,) it would IMO, be a good thing if you understood! If the answer is "won't" then that is up to you, but it seems a little churlish, coming straight after a request for me to answer a question, which I did without waiting for reciprocation.
I am not aware that this forum operates on some bargaining basis
, sadly it is decreasingly based on much discussion at all.... :sad:
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
To my mind, the Euro is integral to whether we should leave the EU or not. Sorry to be tedious, but maybe that's just me.....

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).[/quote]That's a grumpy response, animist! It was just an analogy of the top of my head. I'll try to do better. And as I had only just come up with that analogy, (unless I've forgotten) I'm puzzled by your assertion to have "dealt with it".
If the UK wants to simply be a neighbour of the EU then it would demand nothing from it.
The UK wants to be a free-trading neighbour. The EU appears to be going out of its way to spite the UK, even though it will itself suffer as a consequence. To my mind, that demonstrates the nasty nature of the EU institutions.
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!
I dunno whether I would describe it as morally, but I do think the EU should seek to do the best for its own citizens, which includes having good trade relations with its neighbours.

(Maybe more later....)

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

Re: In or out?

#448 Post by Alan H » September 4th, 2016, 8:11 pm

Obama quashes prospect of fast-track Brexit UK-U.S. trade deal
Obama, who in April used a visit to London to tell Britain it would be at the back of the queue for a trade deal if it left the EU, met with May for the first time since she became prime minister to discuss Brexit and other global challenges.

He offered May reassurance that Britain's closest political, commercial and military ally would stand by her, but did not shrink away from his stance that Brexit was a mistake and that London would not be able to jump the queue to arrange a bilateral deal.

"It is absolutely true that I believed pre-Brexit vote, and continued to believe post-Brexit vote, that the world benefited enormously from the United Kingdom's participation in the EU," he said.

"First things first - the first task (for Britain) is going to be figuring out what Brexit means with respect to Europe, and our first task is making sure we get, first, TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) done and also that we move forward on the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) negotiations in which we've invested a lot of time and effort."

TTIP is a stalled U.S.-EU trade deal, while TPP is Obama's signature Asian trade deal.

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, meanwhile, said on Sunday his country and Britain were both very committed to having an early free trade agreement after Britain leaves 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?

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

Re: In or out?

#449 Post by Alan H » September 4th, 2016, 8:33 pm

Brexit is truly daunting: this is the biggest crisis I have known
Meanwhile, it is evident from its behaviour so far that the government is all over the place. But one thing is crystal clear: by making immigration the priority over membership of the single market, Theresa May is almost guaranteeing that, in order to offer sops to the Cerberus of burgeoning racism in this country, the economy will suffer.
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?

#450 Post by Alan H » September 5th, 2016, 10:22 am

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?

#451 Post by Nick » September 5th, 2016, 12:04 pm

Alan H wrote:Obama quashes prospect of fast-track Brexit UK-U.S. trade deal
Meh.

Obama will soon be gone. TTIP looks unlikely to happen any time soon. And we've got at least 2 years. So if...
we [the USA]will consult closely with her {mrs May] as she and her government move forward with Brexit negotiations to ensure that we don't see adverse effects in the trade and commercial relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom
... then I don't see anything abnormal to worry about.
Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, meanwhile, said on Sunday his country and Britain were both very committed to having an early free trade agreement after Britain leaves the European Union.

"They've got to put in place free trade agreements and we are enthusiastic and supportive; we're providing Britain with as much assistance as we can at a technical level,"
And what does Juncker say to that? He say we can't negotiate with Australia until we have left the EU. Well, sod off, Juncker. It has absolutely nothing to do with you. Nothing whatsoever. Cameron was right. You are just nasty, spiteful and poisonous.

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

Re: In or out?

#452 Post by Nick » September 5th, 2016, 12:06 pm

[quote="Alan H"]Brexit is truly daunting: this is the biggest crisis I have known[quote] Hmmm... 2008? Unemployment of 65% in parts of the EU? The future collapse of the EU....?

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

Re: In or out?

#453 Post by Alan H » September 5th, 2016, 12:52 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Brexit is truly daunting: this is the biggest crisis I have known
Hmmm... 2008? Unemployment of 65% in parts of the EU? The future collapse of the EU....?
65%? Citation required.
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?

#454 Post by Gottard » September 5th, 2016, 3:01 pm

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

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

Re: In or out?

#455 Post by Nick » September 5th, 2016, 5:09 pm

Alan H wrote:
65%? Citation required.
Greece, under 25's. Serious enough for you? Go and look up unemployment rates for the EU and let me know whether 10, 20 ,30 ,40 or 50% unemployment is fine and dandy.

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

Re: In or out?

#456 Post by Nick » September 5th, 2016, 5:10 pm

And merely demanding a citation doesn't really further the discussion much, does it?

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

Re: In or out?

#457 Post by Alan H » September 5th, 2016, 5:39 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
65%? Citation required.
Greece, under 25's. Serious enough for you? Go and look up unemployment rates for the EU and let me know whether 10, 20 ,30 ,40 or 50% unemployment is fine and dandy.
LOL! Unemployment in some streets in the north is 100%. But you made the claim 'Unemployment of 65% in parts of the EU?' If you meant that the rate of one age range in one country with particular difficulties is 65%*, why not make that clear? It's as low as 3.9% is other places, isn't it?


Oh. By the way. It's not 65% anyway.
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?

#458 Post by Alan H » September 5th, 2016, 5:42 pm

Nick wrote:And merely demanding a citation doesn't really further the discussion much, does it?
Don't you think we should base discussions on facts when they are available? Do you think objective claims such as your 65% figure should not be challenged?
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?

#459 Post by Nick » September 5th, 2016, 7:34 pm

Alan H wrote:Oh. By the way. It's not 65% anyway.
Citation needed. :D

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

Re: In or out?

#460 Post by Alan H » September 5th, 2016, 8:53 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Oh. By the way. It's not 65% anyway.
Citation needed. :D
No, no, no. You made the claim for 65%...
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?

#461 Post by Nick » September 5th, 2016, 9:23 pm

You have also made a claim. So citation "needed".

More interestingly, what level of unemployment do you think is acceptable to save the "European Project"?

Post Reply