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

Re: In or out?

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

Latest post of the previous page:

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"?

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

Re: In or out?

#462 Post by Alan H » September 5th, 2016, 10:40 pm

Nick wrote: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"?
This is silly, Nick. Can you or can you not substantiate your 65% figure?
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?

#463 Post by Nick » September 5th, 2016, 11:45 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote: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"?
This is silly, Nick. Can you or can you not substantiate your 65% figure?
Very silly, Alan, and not nearly as serious as millions of people being unemployed. How many millions is it worth to preserve the EU?

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

Re: In or out?

#464 Post by Alan H » September 6th, 2016, 12:30 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote: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"?
This is silly, Nick. Can you or can you not substantiate your 65% figure?
Very silly, Alan, and not nearly as serious as millions of people being unemployed. How many millions is it worth to preserve the EU?
Nick, if you unable or unwilling to substantiate your 65% figure, please just say so.

As Hitchens put it: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
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?

#465 Post by Nick » September 6th, 2016, 8:32 am

Alan H wrote:Nick, if you unable or unwilling to substantiate your 65% figure, please just say so.

As Hitchens put it: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
No need. You have already done your own research, so presumbly know the answer because of your (unsubstantiated) claim. But the question remains. What level of unemployment do you think is acceptable to defend the EU project?

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

Re: In or out?

#466 Post by Alan H » September 6th, 2016, 9:23 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Nick, if you unable or unwilling to substantiate your 65% figure, please just say so.

As Hitchens put it: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
No need. You have already done your own research, so presumbly know the answer because of your (unsubstantiated) claim. But the question remains. What level of unemployment do you think is acceptable to defend the EU project?
Can I suggest you reconsider where the burden of proof lies. Hint: it's not with me.
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?

#467 Post by Alan H » September 6th, 2016, 9:44 am

I expect we'll see many more non-statements of non-progress from David Davis, with Boris the buffoon on one side of him and the disgraced Liam Fox on the other: So Brexit means Brexit means Brexit. Is that it?
“Britain voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU,” he began. In Brexitworld a 52-48 vote is a total landslide. “So Brexit means Brexit means Britain leaving the EU.”
When Emily Thornberry was first appointed shadow minister for Brexit alongside her day job as shadow foreign secretary it looked as if the reason she had been made to double up was because Jeremy Corbyn hadn’t been able to find anyone else willing to do it. Now the duplication looks more like an act of genius. Why bother to have a separate shadow minister for a department that wasn’t likely to be doing very much for the foreseeable future?

“So far all we’ve learnt about Brexit is that the government is not going to introduce a points-based immigration system or give £350m per week to the NHS,” she observed. “Both of which were two of the key Vote Leave promises in the referendum campaign. The government has gone from gross negligence to rank incompetence. You’re making this up as you’re going along.”

Davis took this as a compliment. A sign that he was really getting to grips with the job and that progress was being made. Even if only by a process of elimination. “We’re definitely not going to have a point-based system because that is what the prime minister said yesterday,” he declared. “What we are going to have is a results-based system that might be even tougher.” There again, it might not. It was precisely to sort out these kinds of details that he would be consulting roundtables and beacons.
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?

#468 Post by Alan H » September 6th, 2016, 10:17 am

Theresa May rocked at G20 summit by triple warning of Brexit fallout
Earlier, Japan’s ambassador to London said firms that located in Britain because of its membership of the European single market would head for the exit if their profits were threatened by a less favourable trade deal.

Koji Tsuruoka said none wanted to pull out but went on: “Their duty is to produce profit ... All options are open to them
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?

#469 Post by Nick » September 6th, 2016, 2:38 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Nick, if you unable or unwilling to substantiate your 65% figure, please just say so.

As Hitchens put it: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
No need. You have already done your own research, so presumably know the answer because of your (unsubstantiated) claim. But the question remains. What level of unemployment do you think is acceptable to defend the EU project?
Can I suggest you reconsider where the burden of proof lies. Hint: it's not with me.
As you claim to know the answer, for the sake of expediency, let's take that as an estimate for now, (what is it, according to you?) and then have a stab at answering my question about what level of unemployment you think is acceptable to defend the EU project.

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

Re: In or out?

#470 Post by Alan H » September 6th, 2016, 2:46 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:No need. You have already done your own research, so presumably know the answer because of your (unsubstantiated) claim. But the question remains. What level of unemployment do you think is acceptable to defend the EU project?
Can I suggest you reconsider where the burden of proof lies. Hint: it's not with me.
As you claim to know the answer, for the sake of expediency, let's take that as an estimate for now, (what is it, according to you?) and then have a stab at answering my question about what level of unemployment you think is acceptable to defend the EU project.
If you were at all interested in expediency, why haven't you post a link to back up the figure you originally quoted? I can wait, but would it be safe to assume you are unable to?
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?

#471 Post by animist » September 6th, 2016, 4:50 pm

Nick wrote:
animist wrote: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.
actually no, they are not especially connected, that's the point, and if you watched the Chatham House lecture you will see that the two processes are regarded differently; one is the mechanics of separation, eg cessation of contributions, and this will take place whatever the post-Brexit relations are; the two types of agreement are even subject to different conditions of approval in the EU. I see what you mean, I think, since, yes, I suppose that Brexit may change as negotiations proceed, and in fact I think it is accepted that in practice some negotiation on the post-Brexit arrangements will begin within the two years after Article 50 is activated. The real problem, and what is putting the EU's backs up and making the UK into a laughing-stock, is that we do not know what we want, yet we insist that Brexit is Brexit. Do we want to stay in the Single Market or not? The UK has to decide what it wants and negotiate for this, surely.
Nick wrote:
I am not aware that this forum operates on some bargaining basis
, sadly it is decreasingly based on much discussion at all.... :sad:
so then, what are you and I doing?
Nick wrote:
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.....
right. Immigration was a main issue in the referendum, even though the Remain side tried to ignore it (foolishly IMO). And yes, I dare say that the problems of the eurozone have affected how much migration there has been to Britain. But this does not make the euro in itself a central issue, given that the UK is not and will never be a member of the zone. One of the concessions that Cameron did obtain earlier on was that Britain would not be liable to contribute to further bailouts of eurozone countries, so I imagine that if, somehow, the UK withdraws its bid to leave, the situation might be better than in the past, or at least no worse
Nick wrote:
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).
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".
actually I think I was referring to your analogy about neighbours when I said that I had dealt with it. OK, your new analogy: I have to repeat - whyever would Britain penalise its expatriates in the way that you fantasise? The analogy does not really help, and what is wrong with my analogy of a club?
Nick wrote:
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.
if the EU really wanted to be "nasty" to us then I suppose it could simply rule out any post-Brexit trade arrangement; it has not done so, and is, as I said just now, having to wait on Britain making up its mind about what it wants. Personally I wish the EU would be "nastier" than it is - lucky I'm not in charge!

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

Re: In or out?

#472 Post by Alan H » September 6th, 2016, 11:36 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?

#473 Post by animist » September 7th, 2016, 10:47 am

Alan H wrote:I expect we'll see many more non-statements of non-progress from David Davis, with Boris the buffoon on one side of him and the disgraced Liam Fox on the other: So Brexit means Brexit means Brexit. Is that it?
I love this part of the article :laughter: :

"Those on the leave side thought such things were minor niggles and what really mattered was sticking two fingers up to the Frogs and the Hun and returning sovereignty to parliament. Though not to the extent of giving parliament a vote on the details – should any ever emerge – of the Brexit negotiations reached as it might vote against it."

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

Re: In or out?

#474 Post by Alan H » September 7th, 2016, 1:05 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?

#475 Post by Alan H » September 8th, 2016, 11:56 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?

#476 Post by Alan H » September 9th, 2016, 10:13 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?

#477 Post by Alan H » September 10th, 2016, 10:49 am

Ah. The disgraced Liam Fox: 'Fat and lazy' Britain is ill-prepared to secure future outside EU, says Fox
In comments that appear at odds with May’s stated commitment to an active industrial policy, Fox also argued: “We must turn our backs on [those] that tell us: it’s OK, you can protect bits of your industry, bits of your economy and no one will notice. It is untrue.

“Protectionism has always ended in tears. We must be unreconstructed, unapologetic free traders.”

A Downing Street spokesman did not endorse Fox’s remarks, saying: “The principle behind our approach is to ensure British businesses can succeed in the world.”
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?

#478 Post by Gottard » September 10th, 2016, 3:56 pm

“The principle behind our approach is to ensure British businesses can succeed in the world.”
It depends; under WorldTradeAgreement products can indeed be traded freely, at a slightly higher price but closely related to the value of the Pound. Do you MP: squeeze the value of the £ to be competitive or rather support an overvalued currency? In the former case you are compelled to contain the economy to keep the £ down, in the latter you will export less ....willy-nilly.

Take heed from Switzerland today: by enjoying a swollen services' economy -Finance- and a 10% overvalued currency, the Secondary Industry is led to manufacture in low-cost countries to possibly be competitive, with the result of having lost blue-collar expertise. Having understood the negative side of this policy, they are now compressing the Finance business and alas, putting a substantial no. of white collars out of work.

Pained thought: in the end, I think that Brexit will be beneficial to both the UK and the EU. I see the UK overall policy approach more akin to the US while the EU follows more a Continental social dimension. Being free to pursue anyone's preferred routes, I am sure, will be beneficial to both parties.
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?

#479 Post by Alan H » September 11th, 2016, 11:30 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?

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

Re: In or out?

#480 Post by Alan H » September 11th, 2016, 11:37 am

The farce continues... Brexit camp abandons £350m-a-week NHS funding pledge
Anna Soubry, the pro-Remain Tory MP and former minister for small business, said it was outrageous that the Leave campaigners had “peddled that lie” during the campaign and were now quietly abandoning it.

The Remain camp argued all along that it was wrong to claim that the UK sent £350m a week to Brussels as this is the gross figure and does not take account of the large sums of money that come back in EU farm and other subsidies, including structural funds and education and research grants. The idea that so much extra money could be guaranteed for the NHS post-Brexit was also challenged as totally unrealistic.

Soubry, a leading light in Open Britain, the successor to the Remain campaign, added: “They should all hang their heads in shame. There were many people, particularly in less wealthy areas, who were convinced by Leave’s claim that if we left the EU we would be able to pour millions more into the NHS. The danger now is these people will become even more disillusioned with all politicians because this lot misled them.”
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?

#481 Post by Alan H » September 11th, 2016, 7:14 pm

This is what would actually happen if we implemented the Brexit economic plans suggested by politicians
The Independent’s Economics Editor takes us through the implications of leaving the single market, exiting the customs union, abandoning negotiations and introducing unilateral free trade – warning: it’s not pretty
Are the economic trade-offs involved in Brexit finally being acknowledged? In one limited sense, the answer is yes.

Politicians and commentators seem to be facing up to the reality that the UK will not be able to both impose curbs on the free movement of European citizens into Britain, and also enjoy continued membership of the single market.

The rest of Europe (for reasons of self-preservation) simply will not allow it. There will have to be a choice made by the UK.

Yet other trade-offs and the serious economic consequences arising from certain policy choices are still not being recognised.

Ministers and senior pro-Brexit figures have mooted and recommended various positions and courses of action in recent weeks. Yet they are not being required to defend the economic implications that would almost certainly flow from them. In short –- they’re getting away with it.

Here are some examples.
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