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?

#2101 Post by Alan H » August 4th, 2017, 9:26 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

RBS Says Government Starting to Worry About Post-Brexit London
Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc Chairman Howard Davies said banks’ dire warnings about Brexit are finally getting through to the British government.

“In recent weeks we have seen a much greater realization of the much greater disruptive impact of a disorderly Brexit,” Davies said Friday. “The fact that the Bank of England has asked people to share their contingency plans” means politicians “are now seeing there are potentially quite serious consequences for London, which could happen in a rapid and unplanned way if we don’t get some transition arrangements.”

Since Prime Minister Theresa May lost her majority in June, Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond has led a shift among May’s cabinet to a view that a potentially lengthy transition period to leave the European Union is crucial. While cabinet ministers have sometimes openly contradicted each other, Trade Secretary Liam Fox and Environment Secretary Michael Gove, who both campaigned for Brexit, have endorsed a stopgap.
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?

#2102 Post by Alan H » August 5th, 2017, 11:15 am

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? The Irish question in the Brexit negotiations will not be an easy one to answer
None of the permutations being openly discussed on all sides actually show much sign of being practical across a highly porous 350 mile border
The Brexiteers have a myriad of intractable problems they have to resolve, yet they are still driving the bus at break-neck speed towards the cliff edge...

ETA: I heard Owen Paterson discussing the Irish border issue on Radio 4 at lunchtime yesterday. He was insistent that customs problems could be resolved with technology and having trusted companies. After all, they cope with different corporation and VAT rates so coping with additional tariffs won't be a problem. What he refused to consider was not the legal trade in goods by reputable companies but how the border would generate a whole swathe of new businesses, not necessarily operating on the side of the law he might like... Utterly clueless.

And this, from that article, applies not just to the Irish border problem, but all other self-inflicted Brexit problems:
It may now be dawning on all the parties concerned that Brexit, in any form, and the current easy movement of people, goods and services between Ireland and the UK cannot be maintained. It is almost as if a room full of well-meaning people have all sat around a table and agreed that two and two must equal five – but of course no one is able to come up with a plan to mobilise the mathematical goodwill so that two and two don’t make four, which is universally condemned as a disastrous idea.
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?

#2103 Post by animist » August 5th, 2017, 11:38 am

more Brexit problems

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rade-dealm


One thing that is starting to bother me. Adonis and many others talk as though Britain can leave what he calls the decision-making centres of the EU while remaining in the SM and the CU. OTOH, Ian Dunt's book is written in a way which suggests that, if Britain wants this Soft Brexit, we have to actually apply to become a member of the EEA like Norway etc, and that this would take time (since obviously our status would change and we might hope for reduced contributions). Any ideas on the legal position? See pages 69-70 of Dunt's book

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

Re: In or out?

#2104 Post by Alan H » August 5th, 2017, 11:45 am

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? UK car industry facing an 'utterly demoralising' Brexit
Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), said: “A lot of people have spent the best part of decades turning round the industry, when you think back to how it was characterised in the 70s, 80s and into the 90s. It is very different now. It has had very difficult times and it is a cyclical industry, and there is a fear that that success could be put at jeopardy.”

He said investments could be curtailed and the industry – which was overwhelmingly in favour of remaining – was also facing a multi-million pound bill for planning for the consequences 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?

#2105 Post by Alan H » August 5th, 2017, 11:47 am

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? They say after Brexit there’ll be food rotting in the fields. It’s already started
n the wake of an ocean of writing linking Brexit to the zeitgeisty Dunkirk spirit, here’s one more martial metaphor. Self-evidently, this is the phoney war stage of the process. Negotiations have barely started; the prime minister is on holiday. Most importantly, the fragile tangle of threads that defines what passes for Britain’s economic wellbeing – that mixture of affordable essentials, freely available credit and dependable house prices which ensures no one gets too uppity about stagnating wages – just about remains intact. Meanwhile, ministers – and Labour politicians – talk about the fundamentals of leaving the European Union as if we can push Brussels in any direction we fancy and freely choose no end of measures to ease our passage out.

The recent noise about freedom of movement is a case in point. If the government has a coherent position, it seems to be that migration from the EU under current rules will end in 2019, but also carry on, with – according to the home secretary, anyway – the proviso that during an “implementation phase” of up to four years, people from the EU will simply have to add their names to a national register. Thus, a great human army which keeps so much of Britain’s economy ticking over will still be available, just as long as the right arrangements are put in place.

This is, of course, somewhat less than credible, as evidenced by a mounting crisis that has yet to turn critical but is bubbling away across the country. At the very least, we are fundamentally changing the basis on which people can live and work in the UK, swapping residence as a right for a much more uncertain system dependent on political caprice.

If you wanted to be more dramatic, you might say that the 2016 European referendum in effect put a huge neon sign over Britain, saying, “Foreigners not welcome”. And to make matters worse, the value of sterling is making coming here even less attractive.
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?

#2106 Post by Alan H » August 5th, 2017, 11:54 am

animist wrote:more Brexit problems

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rade-dealm


One thing that is starting to bother me. Adonis and many others talk as though Britain can leave what he calls the decision-making centres of the EU while remaining in the SM and the CU. OTOH, Ian Dunt's book is written in a way which suggests that, if Britain wants this Soft Brexit, we have to actually apply to become a member of the EEA like Norway etc, and that this would take time (since obviously our status would change and we might hope for reduced contributions). Any ideas on the legal position? See pages 69-70 of Dunt's book
Indeed. The last article I posted says:
Meanwhile, ministers – and Labour politicians – talk about the fundamentals of leaving the European Union as if we can push Brussels in any direction we fancy and freely choose no end of measures to ease our passage out.
It's always been the case that the Tories have talked about any number of 'solutions' they'd like to see, completely ignoring whether any of them are actually available (never mind what damage they'll do).

As for the legal position, I think we could apply to be a member of the EEA, but that would take time and it's hardly what was voted for... 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?

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

Re: In or out?

#2107 Post by Alan H » August 5th, 2017, 1:40 pm

Revealed: The 9 levels of Leaver expectations about Brexit
As the idiocy of Brexit grows ever clearer by the day, it seems that the expectations of Leavers grow ever more diminished. Inspired by a fantastically fun tweet by David Schneider, we’ve detailed how reality is making their Brexit utopia bleaker and bleaker. Let’s hope, for everyone’s sake, sanity prevails before level 6.



Level 1

Everything is going to be wonderful. We’ll be richer, the NHS will get £350m a week more money, we’ll go back to Imperial measurements and the streets will be permanently swathed in Union Jack bunting.


Level 2

We’re going to be richer eventually. It just might take a few years, that’s all. It will all be worth it in the end.


Level 3

I don’t care if we’re poorer. Money isn’t everything. As long as we have our sovereignty back. Oh and fishing rights, of course.


Level 4

I don’t care if we have to eat poisoned chickens. That’s the price you pay for being a global trading power. Chlorine can’t be that bad for you anyway. We use it to clean kitchens, for god’s sake.


Level 5

I don’t care if my family lose their jobs. Jobs aren’t everything. Sometimes you need to make sacrifices. Kids of today have no idea how hard it was for us.


Level 6

I don’t care if there are no functioning hospitals, farms, cafes, banks, air flights, social care, etc. Who needs society to function when you have sovereignty.


Level 7

I’m happy we now have the Hunger Games. It helps showcase the British bulldog spirit to the world.


Level 8

I’m happy we can only stay alive by eating our own young. At least we have sovereignty now. And only the Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, French and Spain get to fish in our waters.


Level 9

I’m happy we now live in a post-apocalyptic wasteland where only a handful of survivors live on in Boris Johnson’s basement. We’ve certainly shown those Eurocrats and know-it-all experts that we’re not cowed by Project Fear.
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?

#2108 Post by Alan H » August 5th, 2017, 2:36 pm

Is Britain’s ‘Brexit chaos’ a cunning ploy?
Not long ago, this blog asked in jest whether a government determined to undermine the Brexit process would do anything very different from what this government is doing. Now senior European politicians are asking if the disarray is also part of some Machiavellian scheme. If that were true, it would be worrying. But the truth is more worrying: the government looks as if it is in disarray because it is in disarray.

Yet the EU team in the Brexit negotiations do need to stay on their guard — not because the UK is pretending to be in disarray, but because the disarray may not last forever. It cannot be taken for granted that the UK will make a hash of Brexit. As well as producing Theresa May and Boris Johnson, the country produced Lord Cockfield (who devised and skilfully implemented the single market).

At some point in a crisis, one hopes at least, there will be somebody — William Slim-like — to come along and get a grip. One should never assume that Britain will always be led by donkeys. The question is whether any change can come in time.
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?

Cairsley
Posts: 28
Joined: July 4th, 2014, 2:25 am

Re: In or out?

#2109 Post by Cairsley » August 5th, 2017, 5:57 pm

It should be obvious to everybody by now that the United Kingdom can leave the European Union only with a deal worse than the one it currently has as a member of the European Union. That seems to be grounds enough for Parliament to do what it was elected to do, namely to govern for the common good of the nation and in this case to disregard the referendum result of last year, cancel the activation of Article 50 and reaffirm the United Kingdom's membership in the European Union. If some voters object, too bad. Theirs is not the responsibility of governing. Unfortunately, those in Parliament, whose responsibility it is to govern the nation, seem unable to recognize the basic, obvious, incontrovertible fact that the United Kingdom cannot come out of its negotiation with the European Union with as good a deal as it already has, and to act accordingly.

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

Re: In or out?

#2110 Post by Alan H » August 5th, 2017, 6:35 pm

Cairsley wrote:It should be obvious to everybody by now that the United Kingdom can leave the European Union only with a deal worse than the one it currently has as a member of the European Union. That seems to be grounds enough for Parliament to do what it was elected to do, namely to govern for the common good of the nation and in this case to disregard the referendum result of last year, cancel the activation of Article 50 and reaffirm the United Kingdom's membership in the European Union. If some voters object, too bad. Theirs is not the responsibility of governing. Unfortunately, those in Parliament, whose responsibility it is to govern the nation, seem unable to recognize the basic, obvious, incontrovertible fact that the United Kingdom cannot come out of its negotiation with the European Union with as good a deal as it already has, and to act accordingly.
Well said. Spot on.

Unfortunately, it seems that ideology is getting in the Government's way.
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?

#2111 Post by Alan H » August 5th, 2017, 8:57 pm

Theresa May and David Davis will have this covered, surely? Out of their own pocket if necessary... Top economists have calculated the impact of a soft or hard Brexit on every area of Wales
Wales could lose out by £1.1bn if Britain pursues a hard Brexit, top economists have forecast.

Economists from the London School of Economics have worked out the impact of both a soft and hard Brexit on every authority in UK.

Their research found that every local authority would be negatively affected under either scenario but concluded that the economic impact of leaving the single market and customs union would be around twice as severe as a milder 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?

#2112 Post by Alan H » August 6th, 2017, 12:44 am

Senator Neale Richmond: 'Ireland should ask for a second Brexit referendum'
WHEN THE PEOPLE of the United Kingdom went to the polls last year, they were faced with one clear option and one extremely unclear option. The clear option was the status quo: The UK would remain as a member of the European Union. The second option was to leave the EU.

What exactly that meant was at that time, and indeed still is, a complete mystery. Many on the Leave side painted Utopian visions of the UK being restored as a global power with the resurgence of the Empire and the ability to be free from the shackles of European bureaucracy, that has supposedly been holding the UK back since 1973.
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?

#2113 Post by Alan H » August 6th, 2017, 12:46 am

Majority of British public support free movement of citizens anywhere in the EU, new survey suggests
A majority of the British public support the free movement of citizens to live, work, study and do business anywhere in the EU, according to a new survey mapping public opinion across Europe.

It comes after a spokesman for Theresa May confirmed earlier this week that free movement would end when Britain formally leaves the EU in March 2019 – the deadline set for the conclusion of Brexit talks.

But the barometer of public opinion – commissioned by the EU Commission – appears to contradict the commonly held view that British people are not in favour of free movement.

The survey suggests that up to 70 per cent of those interviewed in the UK said they were for the statement: “The free movement of EU citizens who can live, work, study and do business anywhere in the EU”. Just 9 per cent replied “don’t know” while 21 per cent disagreed.
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?

#2114 Post by Alan H » August 6th, 2017, 1:14 am

Britain couldn’t leave the single market if it tried
So it is not a question of whether or not the government wants to stay in the single market and customs union after March 2019. It lacks the capacity to negotiate anything much else. The more a transition deal differs from the existing customs union and single market, the more unattainable it becomes.

We also need to be realistic about what lies beyond any transition deal. Negotiating new trade treaties with the EU and the other 75 countries will not be made much easier even by a significantly longer timescale. The EU has never negotiated a trade treaty in less than four years – and it is an institution that has all the negotiators we lack.
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?

#2115 Post by Alan H » August 6th, 2017, 12:32 pm

Britain will not have same access to single market after Brexit, top Tory in Brussels admits
The leader of Theresa May’s Conservatives in the European Parliament has admitted the UK will not have the same access to the single market after Brexit as it enjoys now.

Ashley Fox MEP said it is inevitable Britain will lose ground in exporting goods and services to the continent, admitting there are some “disadvantages” to quitting the bloc. Speaking to The Independent he also said he believed the EU was set to do everything in its power to ensure that the UK is not in a better position outside the union.

It comes as Theresa May is set to face a cross-party push from Tory and Labour MPs to ensure the UK remains in the single market during a transition to new trading arrangements, a move backed by British business.

Mr Fox said: “We will come to a deal with Europe that will not involve paying billions of pounds each year, it will involve a return of control of our borders to the UK. But it is unlikely that we will retain identical market access over all goods and services – I think that is inevitable.”
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?

#2116 Post by Alan H » August 6th, 2017, 2:20 pm

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Top nuclear physicist warns Theresa May her 'baffling' plan to leave EU agency risks UK's electric car revolution
The Prime Minister must ditch her “baffling” decision to leave the EU’s nuclear agency as it risks derailing the UK’s push to ban petrol and diesel cars, one of Britain’s leading nuclear physicists has warned.

Writing exclusively for The Independent, Professor Martin Freer said quitting Euratom will hit the UK’s nuclear-driven power supply, just as demand for electricity explodes due to a soaring number of battery-powered cars.

The award-winning academic said pulling out of the agency is “short-sighted, counterproductive and dangerous” as he implored the Prime Minister to rethink the move in favour of a “sensible position”.
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?

#2117 Post by Alan H » August 6th, 2017, 2:41 pm

Remind me again why we're leaving? This is what the single market and customs union actually are – and here’s what will happen to Brexit if we leave them
Some argue that staying in the single market does not respect the result of the referendum. Yet, it was Leave campaigners themselves who promised that we could leave the EU without economic damage because we’d stay in the single market
Others argue that staying in the single market does not respect the result of the referendum. Yet, it was Leave campaigners themselves who promised that we could leave the EU without economic damage because we’d stay in the single market:

“I’d vote to stay in the single market. I’m in favour of the single market,” said Boris Johnson.

“Only a madman would actually leave the [single] market,” said Owen Paterson.

“Increasingly, the Norway model looks best for the UK,” said Arron Banks.

“Absolutely no one is talking about threatening our place in the single market,” said Daniel Hannan.
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?

Zeff
Posts: 142
Joined: August 6th, 2016, 2:13 pm

Re: In or out?

#2118 Post by Zeff » August 6th, 2017, 3:41 pm

Cairsley wrote:It should be obvious to everybody by now that the United Kingdom can leave the European Union only with a deal worse than the one it currently has as a member of the European Union. That seems to be grounds enough for Parliament to do what it was elected to do, namely to govern for the common good of the nation and in this case to disregard the referendum result of last year, cancel the activation of Article 50 and reaffirm the United Kingdom's membership in the European Union. If some voters object, too bad. Theirs is not the responsibility of governing. Unfortunately, those in Parliament, whose responsibility it is to govern the nation, seem unable to recognize the basic, obvious, incontrovertible fact that the United Kingdom cannot come out of its negotiation with the European Union with as good a deal as it already has, and to act accordingly.
I think the referendum result cannot be so easily discounted. Most people rightfully accept the result of the EU referendum.

It is the responsibility of the government to take account of the result of the referendum once it has been called. To paraphrase Yes Prime Minister (the earlier, good series), "a responsible government doesn't call a referendum until it knows what the result will be". I would agree that one advisory referendum doesn't necessarily express "the" will of the British people. All the polls before the referendum indicated Remain would win, but what they didn't show was what a graph of polls in the Economist Magazine illustrated: that the trend was upwards for Brexit. Pro-Brexit happened to peak at the time of the referendum.

There is nothing to stop UKGov calling another referendum but it must make sense to most people to do that and the result must be respected - no excuses. Once the deal or lack of any deal is known in 2018, another referendum could be called on that, as I believe the LibDems suggest.

It seems to me that most people accept referenums may be used to settle such important questions. If governments wish to take "responsibility for governing" instead of settling such issues through referendums, they shouldn't call referendums. The government can decide to call a referendum or not, but it cannot simply discard the result as "too bad" for the majority of voters who contributed their votes. What you suggest could (and some would say should) lead to violence.

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

Re: In or out?

#2119 Post by Alan H » August 6th, 2017, 7:41 pm

Zeff wrote:
Cairsley wrote:It should be obvious to everybody by now that the United Kingdom can leave the European Union only with a deal worse than the one it currently has as a member of the European Union. That seems to be grounds enough for Parliament to do what it was elected to do, namely to govern for the common good of the nation and in this case to disregard the referendum result of last year, cancel the activation of Article 50 and reaffirm the United Kingdom's membership in the European Union. If some voters object, too bad. Theirs is not the responsibility of governing. Unfortunately, those in Parliament, whose responsibility it is to govern the nation, seem unable to recognize the basic, obvious, incontrovertible fact that the United Kingdom cannot come out of its negotiation with the European Union with as good a deal as it already has, and to act accordingly.
I think the referendum result cannot be so easily discounted. Most people rightfully accept the result of the EU referendum.
Accept the result as in there were more votes to leave than there was to remain, but, as I've said many times, it's difficult to accept it as a legitimate decision made by an informed public.
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?

#2120 Post by Alan H » August 6th, 2017, 7:42 pm

Still, at this dark hour, the right rewards failure
I don’t think Leave voters have begun to understand the consequences. May’s promise to bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European court of justice will tear up bilateral agreements governing everything from the regulation of nuclear industry to flights between Britain and the continent, while bringing chaos to British courts. If this government were serious, there would now be a frantic drive to establish new courts and arbitration panels to fill the gaps. There is no urgency. If it were serious, it would be able to quell the alarm of the Irish government about the dangers of a return of a hard border to the island of Ireland. It has nothing to say, just as it has nothing to say on every great issue Brexit raises except the position of EU migrants. If it were serious, it would now be recruiting trade negotiators who could cut deals with the rest of the world. As it is, ministers have confirmed only one senior appointment. If it were serious, our diplomats would look as if they could handle tough EU negotiators. As it is, the British team looks such a shower, Brussels bureaucrats think London must surely be setting a trap to lull them into a sense of false security.
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?

#2121 Post by animist » August 7th, 2017, 10:16 am

what a good sentence: "A day of judgment will come when gullible Labour supporters realise that the far left is more concerned with defending the power of tyrants in Venezuela than the jobs of British workers in the single market."

Post Reply