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?

#261 Post by Nick » July 7th, 2016, 11:37 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

animist wrote:oh OK, if that is what you're talking about, ie specialist contacts, then yes I dare say they will continue though they may well be hampered if the idiocy of Brexit does come to pass.
OK, good. It won't be as easy, but it won't be so tied to any future stupidity that the EU may venture into. Nor will it be seen as supportive of it. Scientists may be experts, but only in their own field.
That has nothing to do with a new order or with how Britain is to continue exporting its goods outside the Single Market, and I do wish you would actually address this central issue,
Your wish is my command (on this occasion, at least...)! Britain will continue to export its goods throughout the world, including to the Single Market (which is just 7% of the world's population). If you think common rules are so important, I take it you are fully in support of TTIP? :wink: More seriously, yes, it will be a disadvantage in some ways, but the Single Market is really just a customs union, seeking to penalise its competitors, and export unemployment. It is the EU who are threatening tariffs, but that is totally negated by the fall of sterling and the saving of £10-15 billion a year in fees. It is political interference by the EU which is impeding trade, and their refusal to discuss matters of mutual concern, not our exit. And as previously posted, I have doubts that we can just pull up the drawbridge against migrants. There will be real fallout from this, as the great unwashed get angrier. As the Duke of Wellington said, news is never as good or as bad as first reported.
Nick wrote:]I've never heard of a Labour MP who wasn't completely committed to the party, have you? They have all spent years climbing the greasy pole, in unglamorous ways. Are they really going to condemn their party to oblivion by being (as much of the electorate will see it) so undemocratic? Or are they just going to cave in to the thugs from Momentum? Difficult choice. Be selected and lose, or deselected and lose. Hmmm...
exactly, they lose either way; so, as you think that Labour has no future anyway, then why should its MPs not stick with their views?
Only because I think they will support their party first, while defending their pro-EU views, rather than leave. Let's see if we can remember this question when the next election comes! :D
Nick wrote:
animist wrote:The issue is surely big enough to make MPs, not just Labour, risk their seats.
From sheer pragmatism, I don't think so. Look at Mrs May, for instance. MP's can't change anything if they aren't elected. That's the difference between Parliament and the internet! :wink:
you miss the point again. No, MPs can't change anything once they are no longer MPs, but they may, while they still are MPs, be able to effect a huge change, ie the erosion and eventual abandonment of Brexit in the face of the problems it poses. What do you mean about Theresa May, BTW?
Mrs May believes that the best she can do, as a pro-EU politician, is to accept the result and work within it. She considers that a better way of pursuing her objectives than going down with the ship. There is no EU Party, is there? If there were, then yes, I would expect it to be a defining moment for their MP's, but not as party politics is currently constituted. I really don't think enough MP's will take your view to make any difference, but that is just an opinion. Again, we shall see soon enough! :)

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: In or out?

#262 Post by Tetenterre » July 8th, 2016, 12:53 pm

All of a sudden, Call-me-Dave doesn't seem so bad...
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

Graham R
Posts: 15030
Joined: April 6th, 2011, 10:33 pm

Re: In or out?

#263 Post by Graham R » July 8th, 2016, 1:58 pm

Nick wrote:
"Britain will continue to export it's goods throughout the world, including to the Single Market (which is just 7% of the world's population)."

A more relevant Single Market statistic that you could have quoted would have been World GDP percentage at 16.5%.
Relish the privilege of existence

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

Re: In or out?

#264 Post by animist » July 8th, 2016, 3:42 pm

Graham R wrote:Nick wrote:
"Britain will continue to export it's goods throughout the world, including to the Single Market (which is just 7% of the world's population)."

A more relevant Single Market statistic that you could have quoted would have been World GDP percentage at 16.5%.
yes indeed, and anyway, so what? Yes, Britain would still export to the EU but with more difficulty, and while effective devaluation of the pound would offset this it will also lead to higher import prices. The point that Brexiters seem to miss in their rosy view of the future outside the Single Market is that, while other markets may indeed be available, it would be time-consuming and uncertain for us to depend on this major effort to realign our trade. And the Great Unwashed really will then be screaming as their jobs go

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

Re: In or out?

#265 Post by animist » July 8th, 2016, 3:44 pm

Nick wrote: If you think common rules are so important, I take it you are fully in support of TTIP? :wink:
The fact that, Nick, you bring TTIP into this argument just shows that you don't understand the importance of stability in markets, but as you have mentioned it, no, I don't like the sound of it at all

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

Re: In or out?

#266 Post by animist » July 8th, 2016, 3:53 pm

Nick wrote:Mrs May believes that the best she can do, as a pro-EU politician, is to accept the result and work within it. She considers that a better way of pursuing her objectives than going down with the ship. There is no EU Party, is there? If there were, then yes, I would expect it to be a defining moment for their MP's, but not as party politics is currently constituted. I really don't think enough MP's will take your view to make any difference, but that is just an opinion. Again, we shall see soon enough! :)
I don't know what goes on in Ms May's mind, and I doubt that you do. If she wins, as I trust she will do, I would not be surprised if she wriggles out of Brexit eventually. Given that she supported Remain, it is unlikely that she would contemplate leaving the Single Market, but a Norway-style arrangement would presumably, though literally consistent with the referendum vote to leave the EU, not satisfy the leavers

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

Re: In or out?

#267 Post by Alan H » July 8th, 2016, 5:16 pm

Tetenterre wrote:All of a sudden, Call-me-Dave doesn't seem so bad...
Let's not be hasty...
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?

#268 Post by Alan H » July 8th, 2016, 9:29 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?

#269 Post by Alan H » July 9th, 2016, 11:30 pm

Austerity, not immigration, to blame for inequality underlying Brexit vote, argues Oxford professor
Austerity, rather than immigration, is the key factor that underlying Britain’s decision to leave the EU, a professor at the University of Oxford has argued.

Danny Dorling, Professor of Geography at the University, claims the fundamental reason for worsening health and declining living standards in the UK is the growing economic inequality and public spending cuts that have accompanied austerity, arguing immigration has been used as scapegoat for these issues.

Writing in the British Medical Journal he says: “Almost all other European countries tax more effectively, spend more on health, and do not tolerate our degree of economic inequality.

“To distract us from these national failings, we have been encouraged to blame immigration and the EU. That lie will now be exposed.”
Professor Dorling writes: "The UK has been systematically underfunding education and training, increasing student loans and debt, tolerating increasingly unaffordable housing, introducing insecure work contracts, and privatising the services the young will need in future."

"The UK has benefited greatly from the immigration of healthier than average young adults, educated at someone else’s expense; many of them work in our health, educational, social, and care services.

"Their arrival reduced heath inequalities and improved our overall health."

Professor Dorling notes that data released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on the day of the EU referendum, showed there had been 52,400 more deaths in the year to June 2015 compared with the year to June 2014 in the UK.

“These rises,” writes Professor Dorling, “followed the austerity policies enacted by the 2010 coalition government."
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?

#270 Post by Alan H » July 11th, 2016, 9:35 am

In full: The letter from 1,000 lawyers to David Cameron over EU Referendum
'We believe that in order to trigger Article 50, there must first be primary legislation'

More than 1,000 lawyers have signed a letter addressed to Prime Minister David Cameron saying the EU referendum result is merely “advisory” and not legally binding. Here it is in full:

TO THE PRIME MINISTER AND ALL MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

9 July 2016

Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament

Re: Brexit

We are all individual members of the Bars of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We are writing to propose a way forward which reconciles the legal, constitutional and political issues which arise following the Brexit referendum.

The result of the referendum must be acknowledged. Our legal opinion is that the referendum is advisory.

The European Referendum Act does not make it legally binding. We believe that in order to trigger Article 50, there must first be primary legislation. It is of the utmost importance that the legislative process is informed by an objective understanding as to the benefits, costs and risks of triggering Article 50.

The reasons for this include the following: There is evidence that the referendum result was influenced by misrepresentations of fact and promises that could not be delivered.

Since the result was only narrowly in favour of Brexit, it cannot be discounted that the misrepresentations and promises were a decisive or contributory factor in the result.

The parliamentary vote must not be similarly affected. The referendum did not set a threshold necessary to leave the EU, commonly adopted in polls of national importance, e.g. 60% of those voting or 40% of the electorate.

This is presumably because the result was only advisory. The outcome of the exit process will affect a generation of people who were not old enough to vote in the referendum.

The positions of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar require special consideration, since their populations did not vote to leave the EU.

The referendum did not concern the negotiating position of the UK following the triggering of Article 50, nor the possibility that no agreement could be reached within the stipulated two year period for negotiation, nor the emerging reality that the Article 50 negotiations will concern only the manner of exit from the EU and not future economic relationships.

All of these matters need to be fully explored and understood prior to the Parliamentary vote. The Parliamentary vote should take place with a greater understanding as to the economic consequences of Brexit, as businesses and investors in the UK start to react to the outcome of the referendum.

READ MORE
Cross-party group proposes reform to stop impending break-up of UK over Brexit
Theresa May would abandon Brexit if elected Prime Minister, Ukip donor Arron Banks claims
Brexit: Date set for first legal hearing to stop Article 50 being triggered by Prime Minister
For all of these reasons, it is proposed that the Government establishes, as a matter of urgency, a Royal Commission or an equivalent independent body to receive evidence and report, within a short, fixed timescale, on the benefits, costs and risks of triggering Article 50 to the UK as a whole, and to all of its constituent populations.

The Parliamentary vote should not take place until the Commission has reported. In view of the extremely serious constitutional, economic and legal importance of the vote either way, we believe that there should be a free vote in Parliament.

Yours sincerely

PHILIP KOLVIN QC

And 1053 others
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?

#271 Post by Alan H » July 11th, 2016, 10:24 am

A Brexit post-mortem: 17 takeaways for a fallen David Cameron
Spoiler alert: Brexiteers who now permit themselves to read only positive articles about the project to leave the European Union, should cease reading immediately.
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?

#272 Post by animist » July 11th, 2016, 1:27 pm

one issue which is increasingly talked about now, as in the letters from academics and lawyers which Alan has posted, is the status of the referendum itself. In fact, it was always advisory and not binding, as Remainers are now emphasising. I get the impression, however, that both sides in the campaign played this down for their own benefit as they saw it. The Remain side had an obvious interest in getting their supporters, who were often seen as passive and apathetic, out to vote, so they would want to present the referendum as being as important as possible, and in fact this meant playing down its non-mandatory nature. But in a sense the Leave side had much the same motive: they wanted their victory, if it came, to be validated by a high turnout. Well, we now know what happened: the turnout was indeed high and the Leave side won. The upshot is that, assuming Theresa May becomes PM and wants, for whatever reason, to in effect disregard the result, there be will howls of rage, and possible violence, from Brexiters who understandably will feel that they've been cheated on all sides. There may after all have to be a second referendum - but what will it be about?

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

Re: In or out?

#273 Post by Alan H » July 11th, 2016, 2:00 pm

My fear is now that because there is no protracted Tory leadership campaign (all hail Prime Minister May), Cameron may re-resign, this time with immediate effect rather than in a few months time, having presumably expected a membership ballot. We need the dealy in case may feels obliged to press the Article 50 button before the legal challenges have been heard and the full horror of Brexit dawns on the brexiteers.
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?

#274 Post by Nick » July 11th, 2016, 4:18 pm

All this would be much more persuasive if there were the faintest squeak out of Brussels that maybe, even just maybe, there is some chance of some movement from an all crushing crushing leviathan, which is intent on keeping millions out of work, of blocking third world development, of fostering the breakdown in civil society by restricting democracy. But no, they are going out of their way to punish ordinary citizens, pour encourage les autres. They would starve their own children to keep their appalling "Project" from crashing, as it seems it will.

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

Re: In or out?

#275 Post by Nick » July 11th, 2016, 4:20 pm

Alan H wrote:My fear is now that because there is no protracted Tory leadership campaign (all hail Prime Minister May), Cameron may re-resign, this time with immediate effect rather than in a few months time, having presumably expected a membership ballot. We need the dealy in case may feels obliged to press the Article 50 button before the legal challenges have been heard and the full horror of Brexit dawns on the brexiteers.
So when are we going to hear a legal challenge against "the end to austerity" as promised by the fairy-tale Left?

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

Re: In or out?

#276 Post by Alan H » July 11th, 2016, 4:58 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:My fear is now that because there is no protracted Tory leadership campaign (all hail Prime Minister May), Cameron may re-resign, this time with immediate effect rather than in a few months time, having presumably expected a membership ballot. We need the dealy in case may feels obliged to press the Article 50 button before the legal challenges have been heard and the full horror of Brexit dawns on the brexiteers.
So when are we going to hear a legal challenge against "the end to austerity" as promised by the fairy-tale Left?
:hilarity:
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?

#277 Post by Nick » July 11th, 2016, 6:15 pm

Alan H wrote:My fear is now that because there is no protracted Tory leadership campaign (all hail Prime Minister May), Cameron may re-resign, this time with immediate effect rather than in a few months time, having presumably expected a membership ballot. We need the dealy in case may feels obliged to press the Article 50 button before the legal challenges have been heard and the full horror of Brexit dawns on the brexiteers.
No sooner feared than done.

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

Re: In or out?

#278 Post by Alan H » July 11th, 2016, 6:17 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:My fear is now that because there is no protracted Tory leadership campaign (all hail Prime Minister May), Cameron may re-resign, this time with immediate effect rather than in a few months time, having presumably expected a membership ballot. We need the dealy in case may feels obliged to press the Article 50 button before the legal challenges have been heard and the full horror of Brexit dawns on the brexiteers.
No sooner feared than done.
Yep. Good riddance David 'call me Dave' Cameron. Welcome Theresa 'clueless' May.
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?

#279 Post by Alan H » July 11th, 2016, 6:28 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?

#280 Post by Alan H » July 11th, 2016, 9:39 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?

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

Re: In or out?

#281 Post by Nick » July 11th, 2016, 11:16 pm

It means that UK employment law will be decided by the UK government. Which seems fair enough to me.

Post Reply