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?

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

Latest post of the previous page:

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?

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

Re: In or out?

#3882 Postby Alan H » November 23rd, 2018, 11:07 am

Dominic Raab: Theresa May's deal worse than staying in EU
The former Brexit secretary Dominic Raab has conceded Theresa May’s Brexit deal would be “even worse” than staying in the EU.

The leading Brexiter, who dramatically quit the cabinet last week in protest over the withdrawal agreement negotiated by the prime minister, said he did not advocate staying in the EU but that May’s plan was an inferior option.

Asked on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme what he would do if he had to choose between May’s deal or no Brexit at all, Raab said: “Well, I don’t have to choose that. I’m sorry, I’m not going to give way to hypothetical scenarios. I’ll keep fighting for the best, most successful Brexit.”

Pressed further on whether he thought the deal would be worse than staying in the EU, he replied: “Well, I’m not going to advocate staying in the EU but if you just presented me terms, this deal or EU membership – we’d effectively be bound by the same rules without a control or voice over them – yes, I think this would be even worse than that.”
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?

#3883 Postby Alan H » November 23rd, 2018, 3:36 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?

#3884 Postby Alan H » November 24th, 2018, 5:01 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?

#3885 Postby Alan H » November 25th, 2018, 3:27 pm

A response to Theresa May's silly and downright insulting letter to the people she's supposed to represent:
Dear @theresa_may,

Thank you for your letter.

From the very first sentence to the very last, it is a tissue of revisionism, wilful misdirection, false equivalences, and downright lies.

You have a lot of bloody gall writing this to me.
#SacktheBrexitDeal
1/

That is, of course, assuming that you consider me, a UK Citizen living in the EU as qualifying as one of the addressees, one of your "nation", which I somewhat doubt.
2/

Evidence that you do has, I'm afraid to say, been scant, as has evidence that you consider EU citizens in the EU, or indeed any non UK citizen to be part of what you consider to be your nation. As I far as I am concerned though, they are. 3/

"The UK" did not vote to leave the EU. 52% of those who voted, or 37% of those who were eligible to vote did. Two of the four countries of the UK did not. EU Citizens in the UK were denied a vote, as were most UK citizens in the EU (despite your Party's earlier promises). 4/

Your apparently beloved "will of the people" (you might want to look up historical uses of this term) was not the will of the people Scotland or Northern Ireland, or, for that matter Gibraltar. 5/

It was not the will of the people most immediately impacted by this, who were deliberately and with malice aforethought denied an expression of their will. It was not the will of only a little under half of those who voted in the 2016 Referendum. 6/

You speak of your duty to "honour" the referendum result and secure a brighter future. The duty of the Prime Minister is indeed to act to secure a brighter future for the UK, by acting in it and its population's interest. You have not done that. 7/

For there to be a brighter future, which you identify as being your duty to provide, the Brexit deal would need to be better for the UK and the lives of its population than the one it has now. It is not, by any possible measure. 8/

And the referendum which you claim it is your duty to "honour", as if it were the solemn last wishes of a beloved relative, has now been shown beyond doubt to have been criminally conducted and manipulated, possibly with outside support from those hostile to the UK. 9/

This is, of course, in addition to individuals having to make their decision on the basis of outright, deliberate, proven lies being told to them by public figures who, at the time and since, have been holders of high office, including members of your Government.10/

We have, you'll note, only covered the first paragraph of your letter. The second one is no better, but I'll endeavour to deal with it more quickly. It is, in short, deeply insulting. 11/

You now, now, finally, after 2 years, bring up the interests of those who wish to remain in the EU. I genuinely do not know how you can bring yourself to. 12/

Since the day you took office, you have actively sought to ignore, belittle, undermine, brush-off, and insult both those who voted remain, and their views, concerns and advice. 13/

You and your Government have acted with and encouraged suspicion towards us. You have insulted us, calling us Citizens of Nowhere. You have dismissed advice and factual analysis by renowned experts and even your own government's departments on the grounds they are remainers. 14/

Don't start telling us now that this is in our interests. We know it is not. We have told you this, and explained why, and we have provided evidence it is not in our interests, or for that matter the interests of those who voted Leave. You have ignored us and our interests. 15/

We have control of our borders. It is impossible to enter the UK without having your passport checked, aside from across the NI/Ireland border, where checks will, thankfully, still not be made. 16/

Even excluding the EU, the UK has, rightly or wrongly, an immigration system based partly on where people come from. It is based on bilateral agreements between the UK and other countries, which the UK Government, and not the EU, have control of. 17/

Belarussian citizens do not have the same rights to enter and stay in the UK as, for example, Canadian citizens. This has nothing to do with the EU or Freedom of Movement. It is your Government's free choice. 18/

It is disingenuous and misleading to imply that ending Freedom of movement changes this, or allows it to be changed where it could not previously be. 19/

It is also disingenuous and misleading to frame the consequences of ending of Freedom of Movement solely as taking back control of borders. FoM is a reciprocal right, which UK citizens will also lose in the EU and EEA. 20/

You know this though, of course. It will have been in you briefing papers. It is in the TFEU. It is even on Wikipedia. Choose to frame it in this way shows little regard for either the rights of UK citizens, or for the need for them to be accurately and truthfully informed. 21/

I will not even go into the details of linking the (eventual) end of mandatory UK payments to the EU budget with being able to spend £394 million per week more on the NHS. You surely know this is a deliberate false connection. 22/

Not only has the Chancellor said that most of this will need to be funded from tax increases, but you could have made the decision to do it at any point. 23/

Every independent and credible analysis, including the Government's own, predicts a reduced tax take as a result of Brexit, reduced further by non-membership of the single market. This is crass, politics, intended to mislead. 24/

On taking back control of laws, it is extremely clear from the Withdrawal Agreement that, on every issue, the UK will face the stark choice between committing to aligning to EU rules, standards, and policies, or face damaging consequences. 25/

The choice between acquiescence and self-harm is not one of a person or country in control. It is a mere miasma of control. A false choice for a country that has backed itself into a corner. 26/

This was inevitable. it is not really your fault. It is a fact of Brexit. However, that you have not been honest with the population about this choice, and even now are not, reflects appallingly on the lack of regard you hold us in. 27/

UK will not be participate in any EU programmes, including those universally considered beneficial to the UK, unless the UK agrees to follow the rules of them, including unfettered access for EU institutions to those participating in them, & unless the EU decides to permit it.28/

We will pay the EU at least at-cost for our ability to do so, and we will have little-to no influence in shaping programmes essential to the prosperity of the UK in science, technology, education, the environment, and investment. 29/

As for whether the CAP or CFP do not work in our interests, the UKGov will need to replace the vast financial support from CAP to farmers, and it's likely that the essential market access the UK fish industry needs will only be available with continued EU access to UK waters. 30/

You claim that the deal also protects things we value. It does not. It is an outright lie that EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU will have their rights protected. 31/

EU citizens that are currently free to live and work without hindrance in the UK will have to pay for the privilege of applying to be permitted to continue to do so to a Home Office that has shown itself repeatedly to error-prone, and to deport first and question later. 32/

They will have their current right to leave and return to the UK, which is time-unlimited, limited. 33/

UK Citizens in the EU will also, in many cases, have to apply to be permitted to continue their lives as they are now, and will lose their current right to move freely between Member States 34/

(incidentally, we are all well aware that EU27 were well prepared to continue the right to FoM for UK Citizens currently in the EU in return for the UK agreeing to extend the right to return, and that you refused. Two lost rights for the price of one. 35/

It is abhorent that you would make these false claims having refused, along with you Cabinet Ministers, to even deign to meet the representatives of @The3Million & @BritishInEurope while the European Commission have been happy to meet both & others. For shame, Prime Minister. 36/

You and your ministers have repeatedly claimed that frictionless trade will be achieved. This is, as was always known, impossible outside of the Single Market and a Customs Union. Outside of a backstop, this deal rejects both. 37/

IA mere free Trade Area does not therefore protect the many jobs (skilled and unskilled, by the way, if you care) that rely on integrated supply chains. Any friction and delay is severely damaging, as companies, industry groups and experts have repeatedly informed you. 38/

Security cooperation will indeed continue, despite you having shown a moment of moral weakness by making a veiled threat to withdraw this in you Article 50 letter. It will however be harder and less effective in many ways. 39/

And in other things we value, the reach and influence of UK foreign policy will be severely weakened by the end of our participation as a decision maker in the CFSP. 40/

The UK's global influence has bee enormously amplified by this, as the EU's unified response to the Skripal case showed. This deal allows only for cooperation on such things as sanctions where the EU27 decides its interests, decided independently of the UK, coincide with ours.41/

Brexit, and the form of Brexit you have chosen, are directly against the expressed wishes of Scotland and the Scottish Government. Devolved Governments have been systematically ignored, undermined and kept out of this process. 42/

Even if you claim to know the interests of the the countries of the UK better than their own people and governments, your Government's own analysis shows that they will be economically damaged to a disproportionate degree by any Brexit, 43/

The same goes for the already worst-off regions of England. far from "working for them", this deal will harm the industries the most precarious rely on. And, as ever, the poorest in society will be harmed the most 44/

Whatever your letter of promise to Nissan said, if indeed you did actually write one, the future of huge employers such as them is at risk from this Brexit deal. 45

It is not a deal for a brighter future. While attempting to sign new trade deals, the actual economic value of which are minimal in comparison to our current deal with our largest single, and closest trade partner, we'll have to negotiate deals to replace the EU ones we lose. 46/

Brexit has sucked up political attention and the resources of Government like a black hole suck in light. The negotiations of our future relationship with the EU will continue for years, and will do the same. 47/

The Political Declaration leaves all but the top-line questions (and some of those) extremely open, including some of the most controversial questions of benefit versus control. 48/

We know that whatever the eventual outcome, it will weaken, not strengthen our economy. I know you already know this, as you made the same point rather eloquently and forcefully before the referendum, and all evidence since points towards that. 49/

The idea that this Government will now, suddenly, build a country that works for everyone after systematically harming and demeaning the poorest and most vulnerable in society as a matter of policy is barely credible. 50/

No more credible is the idea that the poorest communities that this and the previous government in which you were a minister have ignored and underfunded for years are going to share justly in prosperity, even were that prosperity not illusionary. 51/

Prime Minister, Brexit, and specifically you and your Government's approach to it, have been the most divisive issue in the UK in living memory. Continuing on this appalling, harming path will not bring it together. 52/

Those who you have othered, denigrated and ignored will not get behind your deal, and neither will the Parliament that you have so doggedly looked to undermine and circumvent at every stage. 53/

If reconciliation was truly your goal, you would not have pursued this damn silly thing in this damn silly way. If the 'Precious Union' was really a priority, you would not have demonstrated the case for Scottish Independence, which must surely come, so perfectly. 54/

Having worked for over a decade for the UK's interests in the EU, I will not support a deal that such as this that acts directly against the UK and its population's interests. 55/

Brexit may happen on the 29th of March, but it need not. You yourself have said in Parliament that the choices are this Deal, No Deal, or No Brexit. 56/

For the reasons I have given, I and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others will continue to work together with no regard for Party divides, and with every ounce of our beings, to ensure that the outcome is No Brexit. 57/

I do not expect you to read this reply to your letter. I gather listening is not your strong point. If it were, you would not have written your letter in the first place.

Yours Sincerely,

Steve Bullock.
58/58
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?

#3886 Postby Alan H » November 26th, 2018, 10:45 pm

It'll all be worth it, won't it? Won't it? Blue passports an' all: GDP to be 4% lower in the longer term than it would have been had the UK stayed in the EU, new NIESR report reveals
A new NIESR report out today estimates that if the government’s proposed Brexit deal is implemented, then GDP in the longer term will be around 4 per cent lower than it would have been had the UK stayed in the EU.

The report, ‘The Economic Effects of the Government’s proposed Brexit Deal’, focuses on how the government’s proposed Brexit deal is likely to affect the economy. Main points include:

If the government’s proposed Brexit deal is implemented, then GDP in the longer term will be around 4 per cent lower than it would have been had the UK stayed in the EU. This is roughly equivalent to losing the annual output of Wales or the output of the financial services industry in London. This is equivalent to a loss of 3 per cent in GDP per head, worth around £1,000 per person per annum to people in the UK.
If the UK were to stay in a customs union with the EU, or if the Irish backstop position was to be invoked, there would still be a hit to GDP per capita of 2 per cent.
Even if the deal is implemented, there will continue to be uncertainty about the precise shape of the future relationship beyond the transition period ending on 31 December 2020. Recent estimates, based on the UK’s performance relative to other similar economies, suggest that Brexit uncertainty has already reduced UK GDP by about 2 per cent relative to what it would have been if the UK had stayed in the EU. This uncertainty is a consequence of the 2016 referendum result.
The estimates presented represent the Institute’s considered view of the economic impact of the government’s proposed Brexit deal, but they are themselves uncertain as there is no historical precedent of a country leaving a major trading block such as the EU.
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?

#3887 Postby animist » November 27th, 2018, 11:21 am

it seems that our PM, despairing of getting her deal thru Parliament, somehow hopes that addressing "the nation" directly is going to get her some leverage with MPs - yes? Well, what is she hoping for? No number of replies, good or bad from her POV, is going to mean much. Why not do the job properly and call a referendum on the deal?

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

Re: In or out?

#3888 Postby Alan H » November 27th, 2018, 11:44 am

animist wrote:it seems that our PM, despairing of getting her deal thru Parliament, somehow hopes that addressing "the nation" directly is going to get her some leverage with MPs - yes? Well, what is she hoping for? No number of replies, good or bad from her POV, is going to mean much. Why not do the job properly and call a referendum on the deal?
The only reason we need a referendum is that MPs have not done their job properly!

I suspect her open letter PR stunt was to put indirect pressure on MPs just to give up and accept the catastrophe of a deal she's managed to negotiate - we need to watch out for yet more of "the people are getting fed up and want us to just get on with Brexit" rhetoric. There will a lot more of this in the coming days.
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?

#3889 Postby Alan H » November 27th, 2018, 1:45 pm

Falsehoods, Failures, Fibs & Fabrications
The 40 reasons to back the Brexit deal published by the Prime Minister to support her deal, are a frantic farrago of frequently fanciful falsehoods, failures, fibs or feeble fabrications.

They are listed below with my comments on each of them in red, explaining why this entire document is so disingenuous and should not be believed. Many of these issues I have raised and rebutted previously, and have linked to other articles where this is the case.
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?

#3890 Postby animist » November 27th, 2018, 7:02 pm


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

Re: In or out?

#3891 Postby Alan H » November 27th, 2018, 7:37 pm


But...but...but...
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?

#3892 Postby Alan H » November 27th, 2018, 8:19 pm

Oh dear, Theresa... all lies... NHS England: £394 million more a week?
Claim
The government will be putting more money into the NHS over the next five years, £394 million more a week.

Conclusion
Spending increases announced for NHS England’s budget mean that £20.5 billion more will be spent on it in 2023/24 than in 2018/19. That’s £394 million more a week by 2023/24. This money doesn’t cover all health spending.

Claim
No longer sending money to the EU means we will have money to spend on priorities like the NHS.

Conclusion
There is no guaranteed extra money to pay for increased NHS funding from stopping our payments to the EU budget. Other costs associated with Brexit are expected to outweigh the savings.

Claim
When the UK leaves the EU we won’t be sending vast amounts of money to the EU every year.

Conclusion
Our net contribution to the EU budget is typically £9-10 billion a year. We will no longer contribute to it from 2021 onwards, but other costs and economic effects associated with leaving are expected to more than offset that saving.
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?

#3893 Postby Alan H » November 28th, 2018, 12:42 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? UK significantly worse off under all Brexit scenarios - official forecast
The UK would be significantly worse off under all possible Brexit scenarios in 15 years’ time, according to a benchmark economic analysis produced by a range of government departments including the Treasury.

The keenly-anticipated document concludes that GDP would be 0.6% lower under the Chequers plan in 2035/36 – although that has been ditched after a revolt from the Tory right – and 7.7% lower in the event the UK crashes out with no deal.

Officials modelled every scenario across a range, comparing them in nominal terms. Under the worst case no-deal scenario, GDP would be 10.7% lower in 15 years’ time, assuming there is no longer any net migration into the UK from the EU and EEA after Brexit.

Remind me again why the Tories are hell-bent on destroying us?
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?

#3894 Postby Alan H » November 28th, 2018, 12:47 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit: UK economy to shrink and wages to fall under every scenario if it leaves EU, government analysis finds
Theresa May's Brexit plan will deliver a 3.9 per cent hit to GDP and workers’ wages will fall, according to the best estimate of government officials.

Every region of the country will be worse off in 15 years’ time, with London suffering the greatest damage, the analysis finds.

Real wages, after inflation, are expected to fall by 2.7 per cent – despite the claims of Brexiteers that cutting EU migration would allow pay to go up.

The analysis does not put a cash figure on the impact of a 3.9 per cent drop in GDP, but other independent experts have suggested it equates to around £100bn a year – or £1,000 a head.

Such a sum would dwarf the gain from ending the UK's current contribution to EU budgets, which are only around £10bn.

The study assumes some “non-tariff barriers” in a future trade deal with the EU – in an apparent admission that the prime minister’s dream of “frictionless trade” is dead.

The 3.9 per cent figure also new immigration controls result in net flows of workers with the EU. With current flows, the fall would be 2.1 per cent.

The long-term economic analysis also finds that borrowing could be pushed up by up to £26.6bn by 2035 under Ms May’s plans – and by as much as £119bn under a no-deal Brexit.

Remind me again why the Tories are hell-bent on destroying us?
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?

#3895 Postby Alan H » November 28th, 2018, 1:34 pm

Civil servants’ Brexit report comes with a large dose of reality
Buried in the assumptions of the Whitehall analysis released today is a quietly devastating verdict on Theresa May’s negotiation.

Even if Mrs May gets her plan though parliament next month, it suggests that civil servants are preparing in case she does not get what she wants from Europe in part two of the Brexit negotiations. It envisages partial failure by Mrs May or her successor to negotiate the detailed trade deal based on last weekend’s 26-page political declaration.

The purpose of the 83-page document released this morning is to give an indication — more than a guess but, as the document keeps making clear, less than a forecast — over what will happen next on Brexit under various plans, compared to the status quo of remaining and a no-deal baseline.

It compares what will happen in 15 years to the British economy under Mrs May’s proposed deal — “the modelled white paper”, EEA or single market-style deal which excludes a customs union, Canada-style deal and “modelled no-deal”. This was expected.

Then there is a fifth column, that was not anticipated, inelegantly labelled “Modelled white paper with 50 per cent ‘non tariff barrier’ sensitivity”.

Why is that there? Because the analysis assumes that Mrs May does not get the “frictionless” deal she put forward at Chequers and acknowledges, as the EU did last week, that key assumptions have not yet been accepted.

This would be a big failure: the entire point of her Chequers model was to ensure frictionless supply lines and protect jobs but Whitehall is explicitly contemplating that this does not work.

The introduction to the document makes it clear that Mrs May’s ambition of a “frictionless” deal — notably missing from the UK-EU political declaration — is just an aspiration, despite the word sticking in the government’s public rhetoric.

“The UK has put forward proposals that would enable frictionless trade to be achieved outside the customs union and single market. That is not something that is accepted by everyone in the EU, but the UK has the ability in the future negotiations to continue to work for its objective of achieving frictionless trade,” it says.

The document goes on to justify modelling a partial failure, assuming that the deal will be “including checks at or behind the border and other regulatory costs”. The white paper (Chequers) assumes 0 per cent barriers for UK-EU trade, and the government analysis feels the necessity to model 50 per cent of the additional barriers of a Canada-style deal.

In other words, officials have modelled what happens if Mrs May tries and fails to negotiate frictionless trade and the UK ends up with some checks on goods at the border, tests in factories and different regulatory regimes. Its mere presence is yet another inconvenience for Mrs May, and realism from the heart of Whitehall.
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?

#3896 Postby Alan H » November 28th, 2018, 2:48 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?

#3897 Postby Alan H » November 29th, 2018, 1:00 am

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?

#3898 Postby Alan H » November 30th, 2018, 8:12 am

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? London to lose €800bn to Frankfurt as banks prepare for Brexit
London will lose up to to €800bn (£700bn) in assets to rival financial hub Frankfurt by March 2019 as banks start to transfer business to the German city before Brexit day.

The lobby group Frankfurt Main Finance released the figure after it was confirmed that 30 banks and financial firms had chosen the city as the site of their new EU headquarters.

But with several banks – including JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley – planning to spread their operations across a number of cities including Dublin and Paris, the lobby group believes the number of firms committed to expanding or setting up offices in Frankfurt will be closer to 37.

Ultimately it will mean draining billions of pounds worth of assets from London to companies’ German operations within months.

“All in all, we expect a transfer of €750bn to €800bn in assets from London to Frankfurt, the majority of which will be transferred in the first quarter of 2019,” said Hubertus Väth, the managing director of Frankfurt Main Finance.
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?

#3899 Postby Alan H » November 30th, 2018, 8:37 pm

ALASTAIR CAMPBELL: Lie by lie, May’s deceit is exposed
There was something truly Trumpian in the prime minister’s ‘Letter to the Nation,’ the main points of which – “strong and stable”-like – she has repeated ad nauseam ever since the nation received it, and is now taking on a nationwide tour.

Trumpian not just in the grandiosity of the concept, or the overblown claims about the “brighter future” to which she says her ‘deal’ is going to lead us. But Trumpian above all in the half-truths, blatant misinformation and downright lies. For a vicar’s daughter, she is a bit cavalier when it comes to the “thou shalt not bear false witness” commandment.

Not for the first time in the Brexit debacle, Nicola Sturgeon was the leader who best captured what I felt about May. “I don’t say this lightly,” tweeted Scotland’s first minister, “but almost nothing in this desperate letter is true. This is a bad deal, driven by the PM’s
self-defeating red lines and continual pandering to the right of her own party. Parliament should reject it and back a better alternative – single market/customs union or #PeoplesVote.”

May wants us to believe that her deal delivers on the referendum, and provides clarity about our economic future. It does neither.
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?

#3900 Postby Alan H » December 1st, 2018, 11:23 am

The coming crisis
Thus the Prime Minister tours the country to garner the support of ‘the people’ for her deal – rather in the format of a General Election campaign - the idea apparently being that some stage-managed media events will lead to a mass campaign of letter-writing to MPs. But this can only underscore that the people are not actually getting a say, because Theresa May will not countenance another referendum. Why? Because the people have already spoken in 2016. So why do the tour? Because now the Brexit deal has been done, and must be explained to the public. But what is to be explained, unless people didn’t already know this in 2016? In which case, how can they have already spoken on it?
So I’m certainly not saying that my predictions are any more likely to be right than anyone else’s. But I am certain that if May’s deal is voted down then it is the terrain of political crisis to which we are heading, and it will make the ‘business as usual’ charade of this week’s news totally irrelevant.
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?

#3901 Postby Alan H » December 1st, 2018, 6:40 pm

Ah, the Brexit Bonus Bonanza... Brexit deal to cost up to £1,100 per person per year
Theresa May’s Brexit deal is likely to result in substantial long-term economic costs in a range of £700 to £1,100 per person each year compared with staying in the EU, according to the first detailed economic analysis.

Produced by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, an independent think-tank, the analysis shows the prime minister’s withdrawal agreement is less economically damaging than crashing out of the EU without a deal, but there would be a hit to national income from less trade, foreign investment, productivity and migration.

Even if Mrs May’s agreement is ratified by the UK parliament, the NIESR report said there was likely to be little scope for chancellor Philip Hammond’s promised Brexit “deal dividend” because of so much uncertainty over the eventual trading relationship between the UK and the EU.


http_%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.upp-prod-eu.s3.amazonaws.png
http_%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.upp-prod-eu.s3.amazonaws.png (30.79 KiB) Viewed 3164 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?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 10 guests