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.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3861 Postby Alan H » November 10th, 2018, 6:03 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

I hope no one requires medicines to stay alive: Theresa May's government told leading medics UK can't rule out medicine shortages in a no-deal Brexit
Exclusive: The Brexit department said there could be medicine shortages in a no deal Brexit in an "alarming" meeting with pharmaceutical and medical industry representatives last month.

In the meeting, DExEU civil servants said some medicines might not be available to patients if Britain leaves the European Union without a deal in March.

The meeting took place two weeks before health organisations sent a letter to Theresa May's government expressing concern that the risk of medicine shortages in a no deal Brexit is "red."

Health Secretary Matt Hancock has asked private companies to help stockpile medicines.
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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3862 Postby Alan H » November 11th, 2018, 4:55 pm

A bad Brexit will not be as terrible as the Suez crisis. It will be far worse
Politics is often a case not of how you play the game, but how you place the blame. No one does this more assiduously and mendaciously than the Brexiters. Their game is approaching its climax and we can smell their fear that it is going to end very badly. This is why their fiercest energies are now directed to diverting culpability on to anyone’s shoulders but their own.

The person they have allotted to play the principal scapegoat is Theresa May. The prime minister will not be alone on their bogus charge list. They will finger others who supposedly sabotaged a beautiful idea, a cast that will include quisling civil servants, the treacherous Treasury, recalcitrant Remoaners, meddling judges and bullies in Brussels. They will all have roles in the self-exculpating blame game the Brexiters plan to play, but it is the prime minister who is being assigned the part of chief villain. Once, when she was foolishly following their script by painting herself into their “red lines”, they adored her. Now she will be Theresa the betrayer.
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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3863 Postby Alan H » November 11th, 2018, 6:53 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? No Deal Brexit: Army 'ready to help' if UK crashes out with no agreement
The Army is "ready to help" in a No Deal Brexit , the head of the Armed Forces declared today.

General Sir Nick Carter revealed military chiefs are "thinking hard" about how they can assist if ports and roads are blocked.

Troops have not yet been asked to help stockpile food and medicine, the Chief of the Defence Staff said.

But he confirmed the Armed Forces are making "sensible contingency plans" - adding: "We’re involved in thinking hard about what it might involve."
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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3864 Postby Alan H » November 12th, 2018, 10:59 am

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn;t it? May stares into Brexit abyss as domestic opposition mounts
Both sides need an agreement to keep trade flowing between the world’s biggest trading bloc and the fifth largest global economy. The other 27 members of the EU combined have about five times the economic might of Britain.

But May has struggled to untangle nearly 46 years of membership without damaging trade or upsetting the lawmakers who will ultimately decide the fate of any deal she can secure.

While May has for months faced fierce opposition from Brexit-supporting lawmakers, who say she has betrayed the referendum result by seeking such close ties with the EU, she is now facing increasing pressure from pro-Europeans too.
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
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: In or out?

#3865 Postby Tetenterre » November 15th, 2018, 9:18 am

Good riddance to another ultracrepidarian minister. (Yes, the one who hadn't realised that the Dover-Calais crossing is crucial to the UK economy):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46219495
Steve

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

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3866 Postby Alan H » November 15th, 2018, 11:26 am

Raab
McVey
Shailesh Vara

And it's still morning...
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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3867 Postby Alan H » November 15th, 2018, 12:57 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: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3868 Postby animist » November 15th, 2018, 3:39 pm

Alan H wrote:Raab
McVey
Shailesh Vara

And it's still morning...
there is also Suella Braverman, whose judicious response to a fellow-panellist on Question Time, when he pointed out a problem with Brexit, was "Stop talking Britain down"

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3869 Postby animist » November 15th, 2018, 10:12 pm


User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3870 Postby Alan H » November 15th, 2018, 10:16 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it?
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: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3871 Postby animist » November 16th, 2018, 9:42 am

Alan H wrote:This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it?
quite well, yes, since the chances of a second referendum now seem a lot brighter :D

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3872 Postby Alan H » November 16th, 2018, 11:22 am

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it?
quite well, yes, since the chances of a second referendum now seem a lot brighter :D

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only reason we need a referendum is that MPs have failed to do their job.
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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3873 Postby Alan H » November 18th, 2018, 12:56 pm

This nails the utter mess we're in and says what the only way out of it is: The Observer view on Brexit – the people must have a chance to give their verdict
Line by line, clause by clause, the reality of Brexit was finally committed to dry, unforgiving paper. Every page of the withdrawal agreement negotiated by Theresa May demolished the stubborn fantasy to which she has clung over the past two years: that there is barely a trade-off to make in leaving the EU, and that we could painlessly slide out of the world’s largest, deepest trading bloc. Every sentence brought into sharp focus the colossal cost of embracing the Brexiters’ delusion of “taking back control”, measured not just in lost billions but in the damage to be inflicted on British citizens, on sovereignty and influence.
The stakes have never been higher. Now, more than ever, we need our politicians to step up. No more ultra-nationalist fantasising; no more Tory denial and lies. No more Labour hedging of bets, and hiding behind the political sofa. Don’t run scared of the populists who say a referendum would polarise the nation. Don’t give up, to the detriment of those who can least afford further economic pain. Now is the time for political bravery and a realistic vision of a workable, sustainable, unifying future for this country. The Brexit tragedy is not inevitable. Now is the time to give us, the people, a say.
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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3874 Postby Alan H » November 18th, 2018, 1:07 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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3875 Postby Alan H » November 18th, 2018, 1:33 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit is now such a headache that the UK is 'uninvestable,' according to one of Wall Street's best respected research houses
Analysts at Bernstein, one of the best-respected research houses on Wall Street, believe that the UK's Brexit future is so unclear that the country is currently "uninvestable."

"With UK politics in the midst of Brexit turmoil what are investors meant to do?" — Bernstein's Inigo Fraser-Jenkins and his team asked in a note to clients.

The note comes after a chaotic four days of developments in Brexit, which has left a no deal outcome on the table and Prime Minister Theresa May teetering on the brink.
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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3876 Postby Alan H » November 19th, 2018, 12:53 am

Generations to come will not forgive us. It is time for a second referendum
Three times in my life, I have lived through momentous history.

In September 1939, I listened to a wall-mounted radio in our home in Swansea as Neville Chamberlain announced that we were at war with Germany. In May 1945, my parents took me to London for the first time, and booked a room in a hotel overlooking Piccadilly Circus. That night I watched the delirious crowds celebrate the end of the second world war.

Finally, I was in Berlin, in August 1961, wandering around the deserted eastern area of the city with my journalist’s press pass, when the Russians closed the wall. I found myself in a no man’s land in front of the Brandenburg Gate, with Russian submachine guns in front of me and German students singing Deutschland uber alles behind me.

The third week of November 2018 will live in my memory as another encounter with the history of our time. The government published a document reversing the political achievements of every Conservative prime minister for whom I have worked. The prime minister’s conviction is that it is in our national interest to do so. Two years ago she argued precisely the opposite.

That she has devoted great energy and stamina to her new-found cause is unquestioned. She is entitled to feel a bitter resentment at the treatment to which she has been subjected by the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party. A phone call to John Major would have forwarned her of the risk.

Within days of the referendum, I declared my determination that we should fight to reverse that decision. I also recommended that the responsibility for negotiating the new arrangements should be handed to people who believed in such a purpose, feeling that any other course would leave the Eurosceptics able to argue against any possible outcome with the claim that if they had been in charge, it would all have been so much better.

The three ministers in charge of our departure – Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox – had two years to use their persuasive powers to bring the Europeans round to their view. The outcome was inevitable. The EU was never going to change the rules of the club to serve the self-interest of a departing member. Slowly, despite all the bluster and the oversold claims, Mrs May did what prime ministers always do. To extract something from the wreckage, she called on the civil servants to get a grip. The three Brexit ministers had completely failed to chart a way forward and were now determined to get out from under their failures.

My lifelong commitment to close European relationships is founded in the origins of the European movement itself. It is about a framework of peace and democracy that has has worked and is worth preserving. I simply cannot accept a concept of an ever-closer Europe – whose decisions will profoundly affect every aspect of our lives – from which we will voluntarily exclude ourselves. Successive generations will never forgive us.

For many, the arguments are more self-centred, more entrenched in the soil of economic prosperity. I have no criticism of that, but I am dismayed by the delusions advanced in place of reality.

The City of London is a major asset. But the head offices are elsewhere
A significant component of British postwar industrial policy has been the investment here of major car manufacturing companies. I have played my part in these negotiations. They come here not in order to access the UK market, but the European market. There are virtually no British-owned car companies left. And the significant investment decisions are not taken in the UK, but in head offices around the world. If there are emerging markets open for business, those HQs will determine how to access them either by direct investment as they did here or by serving them from other existing plants closer to these markets. If we cut ourselves off or erect barriers to efficiency between ourselves and the European markets, they will diversify there.

We hear the same deluded claims about the success of the City. This success is undoubted, and is a major asset. But again the head offices are elsewhere. Opportunities overseas will be grabbed just as the opportunity to invest in London was grabbed. But the decisions will be taken in New York, Shanghai, Berlin and Paris. The involvements will be made in the new financial centres employing local nationals or managers from the investing country. Profits will similarly flow not to London but to the parent nation. This realpolitik analysis of much of the British economy is the background against which to judge the wildly optimistic claims for speedy and more generous trade deals. It was always fanciful to think that we could replicate this infrastructure in a way that was economically more effective. Particularly so against the other ingredient of Brexism – the policy that we will tell less prosperous economies than our own that only their most talented citizens, whose education has been paid for at home, have a change of coming here.

The government now faces uncomfortable choices. There is no rational argument that sees the Brexit deal passing through the Commons. Every day that it takes the government to recognise this increases the risk of no deal. I do not believe that the Commons will allow this devastating consequence to arise. Two things have to happen. A cross-party alliance has to vote for an alternative option – the most obvious is to put the issue back to the British people in a second referendum. The Europeans have to agree – and I think they would – to move the March 2019 deadline to allow time for this.

That is the real national interest. The electorate has changed and changes every day. Let them vote to stay.
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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3877 Postby Alan H » November 19th, 2018, 6:31 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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3878 Postby Alan H » November 22nd, 2018, 4:56 pm

The simple Brexit truth: this is the deal that the red lines deliver
It is a mess, but a mess made of the choices of each party, rather than devious civil servants. The only way to change the deal is to change the choices. Given these relate to issues like territorial integrity, post-conflict borders, independent trade policy and freedom of movement, this will not be easy to do. There is no easy alternate solution, and so far no realistic alternate solution at all, without changing the red lines.
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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3879 Postby Alan H » November 22nd, 2018, 6:33 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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3880 Postby Alan H » November 22nd, 2018, 8:33 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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3881 Postby Alan H » November 23rd, 2018, 10:49 am

Who knew? [urlhttps://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/dominic-raab-on-radio-4-today-programme-talking-brexit-1-5791873]Raab: ‘Staying in the EU is better than May’s Brexit plan’[/url]
Former Brexit secretary Dominic Raab has said staying in the EU would be preferable to exiting on Theresa May’s terms.

Asked if the PM’s deal was worse than remaining in the bloc, Raab told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I’m not going to advocate staying in the EU.

“But, if you just presented me terms, this deal or EU membership, because we would effectively be bound by the same rules but without the control or voice over them, yes, I think this would be even worse than that.”

Raab said the current agreement was unlikely to be passed by the Commons, and that ministers should contemplate leaving without one, saying: “We will, I think, inevitably see Parliament vote this deal down.

“And then I think some of those other alternatives will need to come into play.”

Anna Turley Labour MP for Redcar and leading supporter of the People’s Vote campaign said now all MPs are realising reality is not matching the Brexiteers’ promises.

She said: “Even Dominic Raab, the guy who negotiated this half-baked deal admits it isn’t as good as the one we’ve already got - inside the EU.

“Every MP, from whichever side they stand on Brexit must now ask themselves the same question about a deal which is a million miles from what was promised.

“And, if they can’t look constituents in the eye and say it is better than staying in the EU, they must do what is right for the country: vote against this withdrawal agreement and hand the final decision back to the British public through a People’s Vote.”
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?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests