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: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1721 Post by Alan H » June 10th, 2017, 12:06 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

May is unnecessarily putting peace at risk in two ways: by pushing for a hard Brexit that will necessitate a border between north and south and by her coalition of crackpots with the DUP: Election latest: Alastair Campbell slams Theresa May's 'sordid, dangerous distasteful deal' with DU
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: 6521
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1722 Post by animist » June 10th, 2017, 1:04 pm

Alan H wrote:May is unnecessarily putting peace at risk in two ways: by pushing for a hard Brexit that will necessitate a border between north and south and by her coalition of crackpots with the DUP: Election latest: Alastair Campbell slams Theresa May's 'sordid, dangerous distasteful deal' with DU
what is the alternative, though, that's the rub. The Lib Dems won't make any deal with the Tories, though maybe they should - if they are as principled as they claim over the national interest, this might be their chance to steer a weakened May away from Hard Brexit?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1723 Post by Alan H » June 10th, 2017, 1:27 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:May is unnecessarily putting peace at risk in two ways: by pushing for a hard Brexit that will necessitate a border between north and south and by her coalition of crackpots with the DUP: Election latest: Alastair Campbell slams Theresa May's 'sordid, dangerous distasteful deal' with DU
what is the alternative, though, that's the rub. The Lib Dems won't make any deal with the Tories, though maybe they should - if they are as principled as they claim over the national interest, this might be their chance to steer a weakened May away from Hard Brexit?
I don't think the LibDems should prop up the Tories: they got their fingers badly burned by the Toxic Tories last time and they must know that, whatever the Tories promise them in return, promised will be watered down or reneged on and all they'll do is aid and abet the Tories in their Master Plan that will destroy the UK. Doing that does not serve the national interest.
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: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1724 Post by Alan H » June 10th, 2017, 1:32 pm

Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill quit No 10 after election criticism.

That may not prevent a leadership challenge to May: she's being roundly criticised from all sides and it will be a good thing for the UK: it will expose all sorts of views the Toxic Tories have. Hopefully, gloves will be removed and a bloodbath will ensue. It will not be pretty, but it will be entertaining and ultimately, the UK is likely to benefit.
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: 6521
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1725 Post by animist » June 10th, 2017, 2:10 pm

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:May is unnecessarily putting peace at risk in two ways: by pushing for a hard Brexit that will necessitate a border between north and south and by her coalition of crackpots with the DUP: Election latest: Alastair Campbell slams Theresa May's 'sordid, dangerous distasteful deal' with DU
what is the alternative, though, that's the rub. The Lib Dems won't make any deal with the Tories, though maybe they should - if they are as principled as they claim over the national interest, this might be their chance to steer a weakened May away from Hard Brexit?
I don't think the LibDems should prop up the Tories: they got their fingers badly burned by the Toxic Tories last time and they must know that, whatever the Tories promise them in return, promised will be watered down or reneged on and all they'll do is aid and abet the Tories in their Master Plan that will destroy the UK. Doing that does not serve the national interest.
first, if the terms Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit mean anything, then Soft Brexit is staying in the Single Market. I don't see how this can be "watered down". Second, what is the alternative to some party "propping up" the Tories? Government must go on, and there just aren't the MPs for some sort of red, yellow and green arrangement, sadly

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1726 Post by Alan H » June 10th, 2017, 5:36 pm

animist wrote:first, if the terms Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit mean anything, then Soft Brexit is staying in the Single Market. I don't see how this can be "watered down".
But surely many Brexiters want out of the SM - that seems to be what many saw the EU as mostly being (how many of those that voted to leave had even heard of the Customs Union?). Staying in the SM is likely to anger many on the far right - the Blukip wing - because of all that entails: they want shot of the EU in all its manifestations.
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: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1727 Post by Alan H » June 10th, 2017, 5:38 pm

The election was supposed to clear the way for leaving the EU, but Theresa May’s failure has put Brexit in doubt
One of the reasons Theresa May decided to go for an early election was her anxiety over what would happen if she couldn't achieve her aims in the Brexit deal, or if she failed to get a deal at all.

She has promised Parliament a vote on the terms of our exit from the EU. She thought she could probably get those terms through the House of Commons. She had a working majority of 16, after all, plus a cushion of Labour Eurosceptics and the DUP. It was the House of Lords she was worried about.

The Lords had passed the Article 50 Bill, to start the formal procedure for leaving the EU, but it was not happy about it. Its members felt they had to accept the will of the people as expressed in the referendum, but Ms May was worried that when it came to the Brexit terms, a year and a half later, the mood would have changed.

The election was supposed to solve this problem. Not only would it guarantee the backing of the Commons – she would have a majority of Conservative MPs elected on her Brexit manifesto – but it would force the Lords to yield. The Salisbury Convention, agreed in 1945 by Lord Salisbury, the leader of the Conservatives in the Lords, is that the upper house will not oppose measures that were promised in a governing party’s manifesto. This was to get round the problem of a large Conservative majority in the Lords facing Clement Attlee’s government in the Commons, backed by a landslide democratic mandate.

But the Salisbury Convention supposes that the the governing party in the Commons has won a majority of seats on its manifesto. Theresa May failed to do so. That means not only will she – or her successor – find it harder to get the Brexit terms through the Commons, but that there is a real chance they will be opposed in the Lords.

Then what happens? No one knows. When May promised a vote in Parliament at the end of the Brexit process, she did not say what would happen if Parliament said no. But if it did, we might discover that triggering Article 50 was revocable after all. It would depend on the attitude of the other 27 EU member states. There is a provision in Article 50 for the negotiating period to be extended – if everyone agrees.

It may be that the EU 27 just want to get rid of us, in which case there is little point, but if they don’t and they see the prospect of a change of mind and a second referendum, then we could be in for more years of negotiations.

The consequence of our indecisive election result is greater than whether Theresa May stays or goes – and it is certainly greater than today’s departure of Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, her joint chiefs of staff. Presumably May rushed to Buckingham Palace yesterday – and made a speech in Downing Street in such haste she forgot to commiserate with defeated candidates – because she wanted to pre-empt any attempt by Tory MPs to oust her. But they will probably force her out sooner or later.

And whoever succeeds her will face the same problem: that they will have no mandate for whatever form of Brexit they are able to negotiate. The problems will come sooner than that, too: the Great Repeal Bill, to convert EU law into British law in preparation for departure, is about to start its passage. That could be difficult in the House of Lords.

One way round this is to call another election and win it decisively. The idea of re-running this election and hoping for a better result is not a prospect Boris Johnson, David Davis, Amber Rudd or Philip Hammond would find attractive.

If the Conservative Party does go down that route, though, it needs to learn three lessons. One, it must have a full leadership contest that puts the candidates through the fire of the hustings so that it chooses someone who actually likes campaigning. Two, the general election campaign should be shorter than seven weeks. Three, fiscal responsibility can go hang: the party will have to offer free money to students, and shouldn’t threaten to take away money from pensioners.

If there isn’t another election, I suspect an idea I heard from a Labour MP on Friday will get more of an airing. He wasn’t proposing a “government of national unity”, the kind of grand coalition of Conservative and Labour that was often proposed in the 1970s, the last time our politics seemed so deadlocked. But he was thinking aloud about party co-operation on Brexit and joint commission to oversee the negotiations and to try to secure a cross-party consensus for whatever came out of them.

I doubt that Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer, his shadow Brexit Secretary, would offer such a thing, or that a Conservative prime minister would accept it. And it would be, by definition, hard to find a consensus between people who want to leave the EU and those, such as the majority of the House of Lords, who want to stay.

But something has to give. I now wonder whether Britain really will leave the EU at midnight on 29 March 2019 after all.
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?

stevenw888
Posts: 694
Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm

Re: In or out?

#1728 Post by stevenw888 » June 10th, 2017, 11:31 pm

Great to see that those two arseholes resigned this afternoon (Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill). According to The Times, they persuaded May to call the election back in April, telling her that she would easily achieve a 100 majority. They were also the main architects of the manifesto. Of course they didn't resign of their own accord but were pushed to do so, after intervention of the chairman of the 1922 committee.
The only thing better than seeing their sacking is seeing Nicola Sturgeon discomforted. Let's see her call for a referendum now!
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1729 Post by Alan H » June 10th, 2017, 11:46 pm

stevenw888 wrote:Great to see that those two arseholes resigned this afternoon (Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill).
I suspect history will put them down as saviours of the UK...
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: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1730 Post by Alan H » June 11th, 2017, 12:33 am

Theresa May's coalition discussions with the DUP are not going well:

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: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1731 Post by Alan H » June 11th, 2017, 1:01 am

There’s a member of the living dead walking Downing Stree
No one won this election, but everyone can see who lost it. The country, which sensed hubris and punished it with humiliation, can see. Foreign leaders shake bewildered heads at the chaos inflicted on a Britain that was once renowned abroad for its stability. They can see. The world can see. Theresa May triggered an early election to secure a majority and a mandate – and she has got neither. She presented the country with an imperious demand for a blank cheque on Brexit and much else. The country declined to sign it. She chose to conduct this election as a referendum on her leadership – and was told no.

That the nation didn’t say yes to anyone else does not mitigate the devastation of that negative personal verdict on the Tory leader. During the campaign, she said that she would have lost the election if she lost six seats. She has lost 13. An election called with the naked purpose of crushing all opposition has instead demolished her own authority. This is the worst self-inflicted disaster to befall a prime minister since, well, since last summer, when David Cameron immolated himself with the Brexit referendum. Though they think themselves very unalike, each of those Tory leaders has been a variation on the theme of arrogance. Each made a cynical electoral wager that they complacently thought was a sure thing. Each lost and destroyed a premiership. This would not matter so much had they not also left their country adrift in an ocean of uncertainty.

The paradoxical twist is that the terminally wounded Mrs May will linger on at Number 10 for a while, sustained by life support provided by 10 Northern Irish MPs from the Democratic Unionists, a sectarian party for whom no one on the mainland UK has ever cast a vote. Tory MPs are boiling with rage at Mrs May for squandering what was supposed to be the unlosable election. “A horror show” is one of the more printable descriptions I have collected. Yet they will allow her to limp on a bit because they cannot yet see their way to a viable alternative. Once they do, she will be gone.
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: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1732 Post by Alan H » June 11th, 2017, 2:47 pm

All of this: Britain: The End of a Fantasy
The actual result of the referendum last year was narrow and ambiguous. Fifty-two percent of voters backed Brexit but we know that many of them did so because they were reassured by Boris Johnson’s promise that, when it came to Europe, Britain could “have its cake and eat it.” It could both leave the EU and continue to enjoy all the benefits of membership. Britons could still trade freely with the EU and would be free to live, work, and study in any EU country just as before. This is, of course, a childish fantasy, and it is unlikely that Johnson himself really believed a word of it. It was just part of the game, a smart line that might win a debate at the Oxford Union.
May demanded a mandate to negotiate—but negotiate what exactly? She literally could not say. All she could articulate were two slogans: “Brexit means Brexit” and “No deal is better than a bad deal.” The first collapses ideology into tautology. The second is a patent absurdity: with “no deal” there is no trade, the planes won’t fly and all the supply chains snap. To win an election, you need a convincing narrative but May herself doesn’t know what the Brexit story is.
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: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1733 Post by Alan H » June 11th, 2017, 8:22 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: 6521
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1734 Post by animist » June 11th, 2017, 9:03 pm

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:first, if the terms Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit mean anything, then Soft Brexit is staying in the Single Market. I don't see how this can be "watered down".
But surely many Brexiters want out of the SM - that seems to be what many saw the EU as mostly being (how many of those that voted to leave had even heard of the Customs Union?). Staying in the SM is likely to anger many on the far right - the Blukip wing - because of all that entails: they want shot of the EU in all its manifestations.
I think we are a bit at X purposes here, Alan. What bothers me more than this is that these terms are being bandied around in the media without being defined, and if we two Brexit junkies can't agree what is what then I doubt that the Great British Public knows what is what (and just thinks: "we gotta get on with it"). So I will repeat my own definitions: Soft Brexit means leaving the EU but not the Single Market; Hard Brexit means some agreement which leaves Britain outside the SM, but with some access to it, combined with control over free movement of labour; ultrahard Brexit means no deal and that Britain's trade is based on WTO rules. Agreed?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1735 Post by Alan H » June 11th, 2017, 11:05 pm

Agreed.
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: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1736 Post by Alan H » June 12th, 2017, 12:53 pm

The internecine war continues. meanwhile, the rest of us are being lined up as the casualties: EXCLUSIVE: Theresa May sidelined as Tory cabinet 'sensibles' plot soft 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: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1737 Post by Alan H » June 12th, 2017, 2:10 pm

EU nurse applicants drop by 96% since Brexit vote
There has been a sharp drop in the number of nurses registering to work in the UK since the EU referendum, figures suggest.

Last July, 1,304 nurses from the EU joined the Nursing and Midwifery Council register.

That compares with just 46 in April this year, a fall of 96%.
Screenshot from 2017-06-12.png
Screenshot from 2017-06-12.png (73.56 KiB) Viewed 1259 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?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1738 Post by Alan H » June 12th, 2017, 2:31 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: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1739 Post by Alan H » June 12th, 2017, 5:04 pm

May is the past for Tories now. And Amber Rudd looks like the future
The DUP is a gang of homophobes, creationists and enemies of gender equality. Has the prime minister no shame? And, if shame does not do the trick, what about political calculation? In the immediate aftermath of an election energised by young voters and an unexpected surge of optimism, the worst conceivable response is to stand shoulder to shoulder with a bunch of joyless reactionaries. As one seasoned Tory MP put it to me with admirable candour: “It will ensure we get obliterated at the next election”.
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?

stevenw888
Posts: 694
Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm

Re: In or out?

#1740 Post by stevenw888 » June 13th, 2017, 2:26 pm

Alan, I loved your Harry Enfield "Ulsterman" video clip, but the Independent has a slightly different take. It states that the DUP are actually 'nice' people - just misunderstood...
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/dup ... 87266.html
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1741 Post by Alan H » June 13th, 2017, 4:03 pm

Exactly: Verhofstadt says Brexit 'started as internal Tory party dispute'
The European Parliament's chief Brexit co-ordinator says the Tory government needs to realise leaving the EU affects the whole of the UK.

Guy Verhofstadt said he believes the move to quit the EU began as an internal dispute in the Conservative Party rather being about the UK leaving the bloc.

He said the UK Government now needs to work quickly if it wants to act in the interest of the whole country.

He told reporters: "I continue to believe... (Brexit) started, and it's still, an internal dispute in the Tory party.

"And it's time now to understand that it's not about the Tories leaving the European Union, it's about the UK leaving the European Union.

"And to take into account our positions (as fast as) possible so we can start these negotiations, because that's the will of the Europeans... the representatives of the European Union, to start (as fast) as possible these negotiations."

He told the news conference the position of the UK remained "unclear".

But he added that if the changed political make up of the UK Parliament meant that a softer Brexit was a possibility, the UK needed to understand there were some principles on which the EU would not bend.

He said: "It's unclear if the UK government will stick to the line that they have announced... or if they will change... taking into account the outcome of the election.

"As you know... from the side of the European Parliament, we have always welcomed a very close relationship in the future with the United Kingdom.
We need to take back control.
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