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?

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

Latest post of the previous page:

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?

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

Re: In or out?

#482 Post by Nick » September 12th, 2016, 11:15 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote: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?
This isn't a Phd viva, Alan. I don't keep detailed indices of everything I come across. So, as I've said, let's use yours, and then have stab at answering what is a much more important question. Or don't you want to face the fact that the EU is a major cause of unemployment (especially for youth) in Europe?

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

Re: In or out?

#483 Post by Nick » September 12th, 2016, 11:18 am

[quote+"animist"]
Nick wrote: sadly it is decreasingly based on much discussion at all.... :sad:
so then, what are you and I doing?[/quote]Yes, we are discussing these points, but where is anyone else....? :sad:

More later. Bit busy at the moment.... :)

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

Re: In or out?

#484 Post by animist » September 12th, 2016, 11:38 am

Nick wrote:[quote+"animist"]
Nick wrote: sadly it is decreasingly based on much discussion at all.... :sad:
so then, what are you and I doing?
Yes, we are discussing these points, but where is anyone else....? :sad:

More later. Bit busy at the moment.... :)[/quote]
um, Alan H is very much around, posting very perceptive articles on the problems of Brexit. How about you discussing his latest post, on the economic implications of the various Brexit proposals?

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

Re: In or out?

#485 Post by Nick » September 12th, 2016, 12:00 pm

There's only so much I can do, and my previous efforts haven't exactly been engaged with, have they? :sad:

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

Re: In or out?

#486 Post by Alan H » September 12th, 2016, 12:56 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote: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?
This isn't a Phd viva, Alan. I don't keep detailed indices of everything I come across. So, as I've said, let's use yours, and then have stab at answering what is a much more important question. Or don't you want to face the fact that the EU is a major cause of unemployment (especially for youth) in Europe?
Attempts to move the goal posts noted. The question is simple, Nick: you quoted 65% and you have failed to substantiate it. Sorry if being asked to back up your claims troubles you in some way.

But I'll ask no more about it and we can all take it with a pinch of salt or ignore it completely.
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?

#488 Post by Nick » September 12th, 2016, 4:15 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote: 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?
This isn't a Phd viva, Alan. I don't keep detailed indices of everything I come across. So, as I've said, let's use yours, and then have stab at answering what is a much more important question. Or don't you want to face the fact that the EU is a major cause of unemployment (especially for youth) in Europe?
Attempts to move the goal posts noted. The question is simple, Nick: you quoted 65% and you have failed to substantiate it. Sorry if being asked to back up your claims troubles you in some way.

But I'll ask no more about it and we can all take it with a pinch of salt or ignore it completely.
OK, let's.

We'll just take your figure. What is it?

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

Re: In or out?

#489 Post by Alan H » September 13th, 2016, 12:27 pm

HOUSE OF LORDS Select Committee on the Constitution: The invoking of Article 50
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION

54. The referendum result was clear. Parliament is now responsible for ensuring that the Government takes forward the complex process of negotiating the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union in a
manner that achieves the best possible outcome for the UK as a whole. The focus must now be on how Parliament and the Government will work together to that end.

55. That co-operation should start now. Parliament and the Government should, at this early stage, take the opportunity to establish their respective roles and how they will work together during the negotiation process. The constitutional roles of each—the Executive and the Legislature—must be respected, beginning with parliamentary involvement and assent for the invoking of Article 50.
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?

#490 Post by Alan H » September 13th, 2016, 2:11 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?

#491 Post by Alan H » September 13th, 2016, 4:16 pm

That's a bummer... UK will not have access to the EU market if it ends free movement, says Irish Prime Minister
'Let me tell you that around the European Council table, that is an issue that will not be given in on,' says the Irish Taoiseach
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?

#492 Post by animist » September 14th, 2016, 9:33 am

Alan H wrote:HOUSE OF LORDS Select Committee on the Constitution: The invoking of Article 50
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION

54. The referendum result was clear. Parliament is now responsible for ensuring that the Government takes forward the complex process of negotiating the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union in a
manner that achieves the best possible outcome for the UK as a whole. The focus must now be on how Parliament and the Government will work together to that end.

55. That co-operation should start now. Parliament and the Government should, at this early stage, take the opportunity to establish their respective roles and how they will work together during the negotiation process. The constitutional roles of each—the Executive and the Legislature—must be respected, beginning with parliamentary involvement and assent for the invoking of Article 50.
actually I don't find this very clear or reassuring. Its paragraph 54 seems to assume that Article 50 must be invoked and the only question is about making the best of withdrawal, yet paragraph 55's second sentence leaves open the possibility for Parliament NOT to grant its assent! Otherwise what is the purpose of going thru the rigmarole of getting this assent? Do you agree, Alan?

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

Re: In or out?

#493 Post by animist » September 14th, 2016, 9:35 am

animist wrote:
Nick wrote:There's only so much I can do, and my previous efforts haven't exactly been engaged with, have they? :sad:
what previous efforts? What I have been saying is that you seem only to want to talk about the defects of the EU and especially the eurozone, not about what Britain should do now. That is up to you of course, but I doubt many others here are interested in the tedious debate between you and Alan about statistics (or is it lack of? I am not following this!) of unemployment in the EU. I challenge you to respond properly to the article which I mentioned in my last post

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

Re: In or out?

#494 Post by Alan H » September 14th, 2016, 10:18 am

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:HOUSE OF LORDS Select Committee on the Constitution: The invoking of Article 50
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION

54. The referendum result was clear. Parliament is now responsible for ensuring that the Government takes forward the complex process of negotiating the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union in a
manner that achieves the best possible outcome for the UK as a whole. The focus must now be on how Parliament and the Government will work together to that end.

55. That co-operation should start now. Parliament and the Government should, at this early stage, take the opportunity to establish their respective roles and how they will work together during the negotiation process. The constitutional roles of each—the Executive and the Legislature—must be respected, beginning with parliamentary involvement and assent for the invoking of Article 50.
actually I don't find this very clear or reassuring. Its paragraph 54 seems to assume that Article 50 must be invoked and the only question is about making the best of withdrawal, yet paragraph 55's second sentence leaves open the possibility for Parliament NOT to grant its assent! Otherwise what is the purpose of going thru the rigmarole of getting this assent? Do you agree, Alan?
I've still to read the whole thing - maybe later today.
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?

#495 Post by Nick » September 14th, 2016, 10:19 am

animist wrote: What I have been saying is that you seem only to want to talk about the defects of the EU and especially the eurozone, not about what Britain should do now - up to you of course
To my mind, the defects of the EU, exemplified by the eurozone, are fundamental to whether or not we should continue to promote EU membership, hence my interest in it.

I'll try to address some of the other points (WIGABOT!) but ISTM that whatever we in the UK might propose, as David Walliams might say "The EU says no!". As well they might! I think there is a chance that the whole EU "project" may collapse. They are saying no, not because iit is anyones interest, even those of European citizens, but to defend the EU structure. The question is (OK, a question is..) should we turn a blind eye to the inadequacies, follies, errors and heavyhandedness of the EU, in return for some economic advantages? IMVHO, no! A parallel analogy (none of which you seem to like, but never mind!) might be "We should support faith schools because they turn out educated citizens". And just let them off the lies. Or should we approach matters in a different way?

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

Re: In or out?

#496 Post by Alan H » September 14th, 2016, 10:42 am

Parliament may be able to block full Brexit, admits David Davis
The minister warned the House of Lords to fall into line and pass legislation needed to make the UK's exit happen

David Davis has admitted the House of Lords could act to scupper full Brexit, but warned peers they would be “unwise” to try and prevent Britain being stripped of its EU membership.

The Brexit Secretary accepted new legislation would be needed to ensure a clean break from the EU, repealing directives and cementing autonomy from the European Court.

He then demanded that opposition Peers who outnumber the Tories in the upper house fall into line and pass the needed laws, stating that the Government has the biggest mandate in British history to take the UK out of the EU.

The attack came as both Mr Davis and Downing Street dismissed a Lords report demanding Parliament also have a say in triggering Article 50, which launches formal Brexit talks.

The minister was giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee when he was asked whether some legislation was needed to make Brexit happen.

He said: “There has to be some legislation, there is no doubt about that. There are various stages, firstly there’ll have to be some legislation to deal with the European Communities Act 1972 and all the consequential legislation that follows on from that.

“There may well have to be parliamentary ratification under the relevant 2010 legislation, the so-called ‘crag’ legislation, and that’s the absolute minimum I can see.”

Asked whether that meant we could not leave the EU without Parliament’s support he said: “We can leave, but what the legislation does is put in place directives and various other pieces of law which will still have effect if we didn’t [remove it].

“Whilst we would have taken a treaty change to remove ourselves, we would in that circumstance still be reporting back to the European Court in some respects.”

The Government is confident of passing relevant Brexit legislation through the Commons where it has a minority and the support of some Labour MPs.

But in the Lords where other peers outnumber the Tories, and some Conservatives have even indicated they are prepared to cause trouble, things could become more difficult.

The Commons can use the Parliament Act to ram legislation through the Lords regardless, but doing so risks legislation becoming redundant if ministers fail to leave enough parliamentary time for it in the session.

Mr Davis said: “The simple truth here is that what the Government is doing, is carrying out the biggest mandate that’s ever been given to a government by the British people.

“The largest number of people, nearly 17-and-a-half million people, with a majority of over one-and-a-quarter million I think. Had it been a general election between two parties called ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ the majority for leave would have been bigger than the majority Mr Blair had in 1997.

“So it’s a very, very, very clear mandate and I think the House of Lords would be quite unwise not to take that mandate seriously,” he added.

It comes after the House of Lords Constitution Committee said it would be “inappropriate” and “set a disturbing precedent” if the Government ploughed ahead with triggering Article 50 without explicit parliamentary approval.

A Downing Street spokesperson said, “we take a different view”, when asked about the report.

The spokesperson added: “The Government has set out clearly its position, which is - this is a decision for Government.”

Mr Davis said there was no need for a second referendum, an election or vote in Parliament before triggering Article 50 and denied that the result of the referendum was only advisory.

He added: “The is a matter for decision by the British people, the Government in its manifesto said it would respect the result of this referendum.”
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?

#497 Post by animist » September 14th, 2016, 11:15 am


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

Re: In or out?

#498 Post by Alan H » September 14th, 2016, 12:06 pm

David Davis's invitation to Brexit roundtable snubbed by retail bosses
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has been snubbed by UK retail bosses after he tried to call an industry meeting to discuss the pros and cons of exiting the EU.

Davis contacted retail chief executives last week to invite them to a roundtable planned for Thursday, but it is understood that no major industry bosses plan to attend.

One source said: “Chief executives were not willing or able to clear diaries for what looks like a tick-box exercise from the department. There is no substance to the agenda.”

One well-placed source said Davis’s office had issued a form asking attendees to list what they saw as the risks and opportunities of Brexit.

“The way it’s been run is a bit chaotic,” the source said. “It was short notice and that was a big reason why many chief execs couldn’t go.”

One source said Davis’s last-minute invites had been seen as rather rude in expecting bosses to change their plans quite quickly.

Another retail source said there needed to be more “groundwork” before it would be worth engaging on the issue at a chief executive level.

However, retailers are sending along public affairs executives or other more junior executives as they are keen to establish the government’s plans on issues such as labour movement and trade investment.

“We employ a lot of people from overseas who are currently resident in the UK and they have got a high level of anxiety about their future. Some clarity would be helpful,” one retail source said.

Another said: “We are interested in being part of the debate and the conversation.”

Davis and the Department for Exiting the European Union declined to comment on the meeting but last week the Brexit secretary issued a statement in the Commons saying he wanted to “build a national consensus around our negotiating position” by talking to “as many organisations, companies and institutions as possible – from the large PLCs to small business, from the devolved administrations through to councils, local government associations and the major metropolitan bodies”.

He also told a Lords select committee that it was going to take “some months” to analyse many of the industrial and commercial effects of Brexit.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#499 Post by Alan H » September 14th, 2016, 1:22 pm

Brexit negotiation details will be kept secret from Parliament, David Davis says
The Government will keep key details about Brexit negotiations secret from Parliament, the Cabinet minister in charge of leaving the European Union has warned.

David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, told parliamentarians on Monday afternoon that full transparency would not be in the country’s best interests.

“Clearly there is a need for Parliament to be informed without giving away our negotiating position. I may not be able to tell you everything, even in private hearings,” he told the House of Lords EU select committee.

The Government has refused to so far give details about what Brexit would entail or even give a definitive answer about when negotiations for leaving the EU would begin. Theresa May and those around her have consistently said they will not “give a running commentary” on Brexit and that “Brexit means 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?

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

Re: In or out?

#500 Post by Nick » September 14th, 2016, 3:25 pm

animist wrote:another lie is that the EU depends more on Britain for its export markets than vice versa. This is not true and shows the ignorance of most Brexiters - the EU may export more to us than we do to them, but the UK market is much smaller, relative to the total EU export market, than is the EU market in relation to Britain's total export market. This reflects the pretty obvious fact that the 27 countries of the EU form a much larger market than Britain does
I don't think that is quite what is claimed. Rather it is that the EU exports more to the UK than vice versa. If a 10% tariff were to be imposed by the EU, and the UK retaliated, we could, should we care to do so, pay the import duty for all our exporters. This, together with the lower pound, would suit British industry just fine...

Not suggesting this should happen, but then again, it is the EU which is threatening tariffs, so they should be warned.

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

Re: In or out?

#501 Post by Gottard » September 14th, 2016, 4:29 pm

In answer to AlanH: with reference to the phrase
“The largest number of people, nearly 17-and-a-half million people, with a majority of over one-and-a-quarter million I think. Had it been a general election between two parties called ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ the majority for leave would have been bigger than the majority Mr Blair had in 1997."

In my opinion Mr Davis misses to consider that there is a difference between a majority for home matters and one entailing foreign treaties, where a parliament vote is/should be mandatory.
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

Post Reply