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: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2721 Post by Alan H » November 20th, 2017, 11:49 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Michel Barnier warns Theresa May the EU 'will not wait' for a new free trade deal with Britain
LONDON — Michel Barnier has warned UK government that the European Union "will not wait" for Britain to make its position clear on what sort of future free trade arrangement it wants with the bloc.

Speaking at the Centre for European Reform on Monday, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator said an ambitious free trade agreement (FTA) with Britain is "possible" but warned that Brussels had priorities other than the UK.

"The EU will, of course, be ready to offer its most ambitious FTA approach and a future partnership should not be limited to trade," Barnier said this morning.

"It should be based on our common values. We need to work together to protect the security of our citizens, to combat crime and terrorism, and logically we'll need to cooperate and foreign defence challenges.

"But in none of these fields will the EU wait for the UK. We must continue to advance. We will continue creating new free trade agreements in addition to the ones we already have with 60 countries.

"We will continue to work on our internal market and make it for digitalisation. We will step up our investment in research and innovation. And we'll continue to use the strength of the internal market to shape globalisation."

Barnier covered a range of issues relating to Britain's departure from the EU as Prime Minister Theresa May reportedly prepares a £40 billion financial settlement offer, which she hopes will break the deadlock in talks.

The EU's head Brexit co-ordinator said he "regrets" how the no-deal option comes up "so often" in UK debate, adding that a no deal Brexit "cannot be a positive outcome" for either side.

In a frank speech to an audience in Brussels, Barnier said "Brexit means Brexit everywhere," and confirmed that Britain will lose its financial passporting rights as part of its exit from the EU.

"The legal consequence of Brexit is that the UK financial service providers lose their EU passport. This passport allows them to offer their services to a market of 500 million consumers and 22 million business," Barnier said.

More than 5,400 British firms rely on passporting rights to business in the European Union, bringing in around £9 billion in revenue to Britain every year.

Barnier also urged the British side to propose a workable means of avoiding the return of a hard border to Northern Ireland.

"The UK said it will continue to apply EU laws on its territories — but not all rules. It's therefore unclear what rules will apply to Northern Ireland after Brexit and what UK is willing to commit to avoid a hard border.

"Those who wanted Brexit must offer solutions."

Barnier also reiterated the EU's desire to preserve the integrity of the single market and shot down suggestions that Britain could enjoy parts of membership without being a full participant.

"Those who say Britain can enjoy parts of the single market must stop this contradiction," he said.
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: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2722 Post by Alan H » November 20th, 2017, 11:54 am

Brexit bites: Housesholds take financial pummelling
A new economic study has revealed the average household is paying £404 a year extra due to price inflation.

At the same time the average worker has lost £448, the equivalent of one week’s pay, due to a stagnation in wage growth.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable said the report “nails the lie” that Brexit has not already hit the economy.

Dr Thomas Sampson, who co-authored the Centre for Economic Performance research, said: “Even before Brexit occurs, the increase in inflation caused by the Leave vote has already hurt UK households.

“Our results provide compelling evidence that, so far, UK households are paying an economic price for voting to leave the EU.”

Dr Sampson’s research revealed that the rise in inflation has been lowest for households in London while Scotland, Wales and especially Northern Ireland have been worst hit.

According to the report the largest inflationary effects have been on product groups with high import shares.

These include bread and cereals; milk, cheese and eggs; coffee, tea and cocoa; beer and wine; furniture and furnishings; and jewellery, clocks and watches.

The rise in food prices has led think tank the Food Foundation to raise concerns that “five-a-day” may become unaffordable for millions of Britons.

In a new report the foundation claimed that in a no deal Brexit scenario price rises would mean the poorest 10% of the population could spend half of their entire food and drink budget to meet current Government guidance for fruit and veg.

Anna Taylor, executive director of the Food Foundation, said: “The Government faces a clear choice to boost British harvests of fruit and veg or the NHS will reap the consequences.

“It is absolutely crucial that the Government grabs the bull by the horns before the Brexit boat sails.”

Sir Vince said: “This comprehensive study finally nails the lie that the Brexit process has not damaged the economy, and with it the living standards of every British citizen.

“The average household simply can’t afford to lose £404 a year at a time when many have not recovered from the financial crisis of almost a decade ago.

“But it didn’t have to be this way: if the Conservative government had responded by guaranteeing that Britain would remain in the single market and customs union, the pound would not have fallen so sharply and inflation would not have risen.

“That was not the fault of how people voted but how the Government responded to the vote, embarking on the most extreme and damaging version 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: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2723 Post by Alan H » November 20th, 2017, 12:08 pm

(£) David Davis request for RAF flight was blocked
David Davis fell out with his most senior civil servant after he blocked him from using a private RAF plane to travel around Europe for Brexit negotiations.

Mr Davis demanded the right to avoid commercial flights for foreign travel shortly after he was appointed. He had to appeal to No 10 after Oliver Robbins, his permanent secretary and the government’s chief Brexit negotiator, kept blocking his flight requests.

Mr Davis appealed to Mrs May’s chief of staff, who approved the expense after he said he would not do the trips unless he got his way. Since then he has repeatedly used RAF transport, which costs up to five times as much.

Details are in Fall Out by Tim Shipman, political editor of The Sunday Times,…
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2724 Post by Alan H » November 20th, 2017, 3:35 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Belief that customs system will be ready for Brexit ‘borders on insanity’
One of the world’s biggest logistics companies, whose clients include Rolls-Royce, Airbus and Primark, has said it is “bordering on insanity” to think new Brexit customs systems will be in place for 2019.

Leigh Pomlett, the executive director of CEVA Group, which specialises in road, air and ocean-going freight, said Downing Street and the Treasury did not understand how difficult it would be to have a system in place in 15 months’ time, when the UK leaves the EU.

“It is just the urgency of this that worries me. It takes me longer to negotiate a supply chain contract than we have here. Arguably, it is already too late,” he said.

CEVA employs 6,000 people in the UK and counts supermarkets, car manufacturers, food producers and pharmaceutical companies including GlaxoSmithKline among its clients.

Pomlett told the Freight Transport Association conference in Dublin on Monday that delays in Dover would lead to a “calamitous situation”. It is calculated that an increase of just two minutes in the average time it takes trucks to clear customs could cause 17-mile tailbacks in the port town.
The same nonsense about 17-mile queues but nevertheless.
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: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2725 Post by Alan H » November 20th, 2017, 4:48 pm

Tsk, tsk. Electoral Commission launches inquiry into leave campaign funding
The Electoral Commission has launched an investigation into Vote Leave, as well as a Eurosceptic veterans’ group and student campaigner, saying it has reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been committed.

The watchdog will investigate whether Vote Leave, which was the officially designated Brexit campaign during the referendum, broke campaign finance rules.

Bob Posner, the commission’s director of political finance and regulation, said there were legitimate questions over the funding of campaigners which “risks causing harm to voters’ confidence in the referendum”.

The campaign, run by political strategist Matthew Elliott and former special adviser Dominic Cummings, will be investigated alongside Veterans for Britain and student activist Darren Grimes, now the deputy editor of the Brexit Central website, where Elliott is now editor-at-large.
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: 6520
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2726 Post by animist » November 21st, 2017, 10:06 am

how pathetic that the Brexiters now try to exploit Germany's current and very temporary problem in creating a government for their own ends. "Germany doesn't even have a government!" they say. I seem to remember that some time ago it was "Belgium: ditto". Pathetic and shameful. Grow up Britain, you will never be a world power again, get over it

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2727 Post by Alan H » November 21st, 2017, 11:11 am

animist wrote:how pathetic that the Brexiters now try to exploit Germany's current and very temporary problem in creating a government for their own ends. "Germany doesn't even have a government!" they say. I seem to remember that some time ago it was "Belgium: ditto". Pathetic and shameful. Grow up Britain, you will never be a world power again, get over it
They are a bunch of kids who don't want to take any blame for the situation they themselves have caused and simply want to try to divert blame to others. Puerile.
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: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2728 Post by Alan H » November 21st, 2017, 12:01 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Carbon trading: The Brexit cliff edge starts on New Year's Day
Brexit begins in six weeks. I do not refer to the many companies that have started implementing their contingency plans, or the friends and colleagues who have packed their bags and left. This is about the first legal implication of Brexit, the first drop from the cliff edge. It takes place on January 1st, 2018, when the UK government loses its right to issue carbon dioxide emission permits. On New Year's Day, the first £400 million tumbles down the cliff.

The EU Emissions Trading System gives countries wriggle-room in meeting environmental targets. Instead of having to reduce their emissions at home, which is much more expensive, they are able to do so abroad. In 2014, a quarter of the UK target was met by reducing emissions in Poland, Romania, and other European countries. This system works well for a wealthy country like Britain. Leaving it is expected to cost us £70-140 million per week.
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: 6520
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2729 Post by animist » November 21st, 2017, 1:24 pm

I would ask Santa for this if he was not already fed up with me for going on about Brexit!

https://www.canburypress.com/canburypre ... -on-brexit

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2730 Post by Alan H » November 21st, 2017, 2:33 pm

animist wrote:I would ask Santa for this if he was not already fed up with me for going on about Brexit!

https://www.canburypress.com/canburypre ... -on-brexit
I was thinking about that too... Not sure the updates are really worth it - it'll all be quickly out of date anyway.
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: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2731 Post by Alan H » November 21st, 2017, 7:22 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? The loss of the European Medicines Agency due to Brexit could hinder access to life-saving drugs
The Dutch capital beat 18 other member states in an EU council vote to win the right to host the agency, as EU bodies begin to leave UK soil post-Brexit. This development carries serious consequences, and also highlights how damaging Brexit will be to the UK’s global standing.

These consequences are firstly economic. The relocation will lead to a loss of investment from pharmaceutical companies, who cite proximity to the agency as a key reason in choosing London for their EU bases. It will also mean losing the economic boost the EMA gives the London hospitality and service sectors (EMA activity currently generates demand for 350 hotels per night, five days a week in order to host its 40,000 visiting guest experts).

The relocation will also harm UK academia. With the EMA’s departure, London loses its status as the focal point for European medical research and technology, with all the positive impact this has brought in terms of collaboration with local universities and institutes. And there is also the human impact this decision will have. Some 900 staff who have built their homes and lives in our capital are now having to choose between relocating to another country, opting for an elaborate and impractical commuting arrangement, or finding another job.

To see this agency leave the UK, together with all the investment, jobs and soft power that its presence here supports, represents a wilful neglect of the government’s responsibility to grow our economy and maintain our global standing. This is a clear example of the government failing to secure a Brexit that safeguards jobs, moreover it gives a clear signal of the hard Brexit favoured by some at Theresa May’s cabinet table.
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: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2732 Post by Alan H » November 22nd, 2017, 12:38 am

It was all going to be easy. A dawdle, they told us. They'd all be queueing at our door... Tory Minister: 'No Guarantee' UK Will Keep Free Trade Deals With More Than 65 Countries After Brexit
The UK could lose free trade deals with countries such as Canada, Japan and South Korea after Brexit, a Government minister admitted today.

Greg Hands, a junior minister in the Department for International Trade, confirmed today there “isn’t a guarantee” the EU’s agreements with more than 65 countries can be copied over to the UK after March 2019.

Earlier this month, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox revealed that while his department had been in discussions with many of the countries who have a free trade deal with the EU, nothing has yet been formally agreed.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6520
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2733 Post by animist » November 22nd, 2017, 12:40 am

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:I would ask Santa for this if he was not already fed up with me for going on about Brexit!

https://www.canburypress.com/canburypre ... -on-brexit
I was thinking about that too... Not sure the updates are really worth it - it'll all be quickly out of date anyway.
yeh well anything is out of date pretty soon, such as tomorrow's newspapers. I think Ian is, if anyone, the hero of Brexit, not least in recognising that this stupid meme will afflict us indefinitely

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2734 Post by Alan H » November 22nd, 2017, 11:18 am

Did Vote Leave commit a crime over its funding? Democracy demands to know
If Vote Leave did commit a criminal offence – and the Good Law Project stands ready to bring a private criminal prosecution if the Electoral Commission will not – then parliament will have to work out how much it cares about the laws it enacted. The thing about an advisory referendum is that it is for parliament to decide what to do with the advice the electorate gives. It may be that parliament once was inclined to take the advice, but new facts may cause it to revisit its value.

Of course, parliament could have gone for a binding referendum, as it did with the vote on electoral reform. But a binding referendum would have come with much stronger safeguards, and a serious breach of spending limits might well have invalidated the result.

It’s not just about Brexit. The reason we have spending limits is because we want to live in a democracy, not a plutocracy. We want all the people to have the power, not just the rich ones. And the Electoral Commission’s job is to protect our democracy: to police those limits, carefully, sentiently, vigorously, without fear or favour.

If it doesn’t do that job, our democracy can’t function. It’s bad enough our democracy should be for sale. But it’s unforgivable for the Electoral Commission to bite the hand it lives to serve.

I am considering the matter with my legal team. But I am unlikely to accept the Electoral Commission’s request that we pull our high court challenge. Our democracy stands on the brink. We cannot afford any institutional failure by the Electoral Commission. I would rather place my trust in the law.
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: 6520
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2735 Post by animist » November 22nd, 2017, 12:10 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:I would ask Santa for this if he was not already fed up with me for going on about Brexit!

https://www.canburypress.com/canburypre ... -on-brexit
I was thinking about that too... Not sure the updates are really worth it - it'll all be quickly out of date anyway.
yeh well anything is out of date pretty soon, such as tomorrow's newspapers. I think Ian is, if anyone, the hero of Brexit, not least in recognising that this stupid meme will afflict us indefinitely
I overstated things in saying that Ian Dunt was the hero of Brexit. I think he is a hero as a Brexit documenter, but GIna Miller is surely the hero so far of this dreadful saga. Women are always especially vulnerable in any conflict, even a relatively peaceful one like Brexit, and Tory Remainer MP Anna Soubry is in the news as the victim, like Gina, of death threats. If you care about decent politics, please support these two women and anyone else who stands out against the mob rule which threatens Britain

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2736 Post by Alan H » November 22nd, 2017, 1:22 pm

So, Hammond has admitted Brexit will cost us - so far - £3 BILLION.
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: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2737 Post by Alan H » November 22nd, 2017, 1:40 pm

The Brexit effect:
Great graph from @resfoundation showing how growth forecasts have been hammered since the #Brexit vote
Screenshot from 2017-11-22.png
Screenshot from 2017-11-22.png (120.25 KiB) Viewed 574 times
I see no rainbows and unicorns.
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: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2738 Post by Alan H » November 22nd, 2017, 4:02 pm

No End in Sight to the Brexit Madness
he slow-motion self-immolation that is Brexit continues for the U.K. Speaking in Brussels on Monday, Michel Barnier, the senior European Union official in charge of negotiating the terms of Britain’s departure, confirmed that British banks were set to lose their so-called E.U. passport, which currently enables them to offer services throughout the twenty-eight nations in the bloc. “On financial services, U.K. voices suggest that Brexit does not mean Brexit,” Barnier said. “Brexit means Brexit, everywhere.”

As if to reinforce the point, a meeting of E.U. ministers on Monday confirmed that two big E.U. agencies that are currently headquartered in London, the European Banking Authority and the European Medicines Agency, would be moving to Paris and Amsterdam, respectively. “The twenty-seven will continue to deepen the work of those agencies, together,” Barnier said. “They will share the costs for running those agencies. Our businesses will benefit from their expertise. All of their work is firmly based on the E.U. treaties which the U.K. decided to leave.”

In the months after the Brexit vote, which took place almost a year and a half ago, “Leave” supporters used the fact that the U.K.’s economy continued to expand and create jobs to claim that the prophets of doom had been mistaken. But to those Britons who are willing to acknowledge reality, these latest developments were the latest confirmation that the consequences of the historic vote are now starting to be felt. “While not surprising, these moves mark the beginning of the jobs Brexodus,” Vince Cable, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and a prominent opponent of Brexit, said. “Large private-sector organizations are also considering moving to Europe, and we can expect many to do so over the next few years.”

To be sure, the country’s economy hasn’t collapsed. The gross domestic product is rising, and the unemployment rate has fallen to 4.3 per cent, its lowest level since 1975. But the rate of G.D.P. growth has fallen this year, and consumer-price inflation has risen because a fall in the value of the pound has made imported goods more expensive. This has hit living standards. Earlier this month, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, an independent think tank, estimated that Brexit has already cost each British household about six hundred pounds, which is roughly eight hundred dollars. “It is almost certain that the relative deterioration in the UK economy and the accompanying fall in living standards over the past year are a consequence of the vote by the British people to leave the European Union,” Garry Young, a senior economist at the institute, wrote.

If Theresa May’s government had presented a credible path to the prosperity that it claims will accompany Britain’s departure from the E.U., the economic slowdown could perhaps be written off as an inevitable and temporary transition cost. But, of course, no such credible path has been offered. Beset by internal divisions, ministerial departures, and the hangover from a disastrous general election that saw it reduced to a minority in the House of Commons, May’s government has stumbled along, making barely any progress in negotiating the terms of Brexit, which was originally pegged for March, 2019.

In September, May announced that Britain wanted to push Brexit back two years, until 2021, and said that it would abide by all the E.U. rules during the transition period. But, even after that concession, the negotiations with Brussels remained bogged down. At the end of last week, Donald Tusk, the E.U.’s President, said that, if Britain wanted talks to begin a new trade agreement that would preserve its access to the huge European market, it would have to make concessions in a number of areas, including the settlement of Britain’s financial obligations to the E.U.; the legal protections that would be afforded E.U. citizens living in the United Kingdom; and the future of the border between Northern Ireland, which is leaving the E.U., and the Republic of Ireland, which isn’t.

In his speech on Monday, Barnier, a former foreign minister of France, appeared to broaden the E.U.’s demands, strongly hinting that, if Britain wanted a favorable trade deal, it would have to abide by European regulations in many areas, even though it would no longer be a member of the Union. “The U.K. has chosen to leave the E.U.,” Barnier said. “Does it want to stay close to the European model or does it want to gradually move away from it? The U.K.’s reply to this question will be important and even decisive, because it will shape the discussion on our future partnership and shape also the conditions for ratification of that partnership in many national parliaments and obviously in the European parliament.”

Although Barnier’s language was polite, his meaning was clear: the E.U. will not countenance Britain trying to set itself up as a haven from regulation and taxes for international companies that want to do business in Europe but don’t like being subject to oversight from Brussels. And, indeed, that is precisely the scenario that some of May’s colleagues—including Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, and Michael Gove, the environment secretary—have in mind. In their vision, post-Brexit Britain would turn into a European version of Singapore or Hong Kong during the days of British colonial rule. “We may choose to remain identical to the EU or we may embrace a vision more aligned with pro-competitive regulation,” Johnson and Gove wrote, last week, in a letter to May. “Other countries must know this choice is in our hands, and they must know it on day one.”

To give them a bit of credit, May and Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seem to grasp that Johnson and Gove are pursuing a fantasy. They understand that the E.U. won’t allow Britain to both have its cake (access to the giant E.U. market) and eat it (freedom from E.U.-style regulation). They also recognize that if companies such as Honda and Nissan no longer have free access to and from Europe for the outputs and inputs of their British factories, they will have little choice but to relocate at least some of their facilities to the Continental mainland. The same goes for big international financial institutions, such as Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs.

So May and Hammond are still trying to pursue a so-called soft Brexit, which would preserve as much market access as possible. But, at every turn, they and their allies are being undermined and vilified by the Little Englanders and the conservative Fleet Street newspapers. Last week, the Daily Telegraph published photographs on its front page of fifteen Conservative M.P.s who have had the temerity to suggest that the parliament should have the right to sign off on the final Brexit deal. The paper labelled them “The Brexit mutineers.” Some of these M.P.s subsequently received threats.
“How can this be happening in a country known for its pragmatism?” the Oxford economist Simon Wren-Lewis asked in a blog post. How indeed? With opinion polls suggesting that most Britons, if given a chance, would now vote to remain in the E.U., a second referendum seems like a good idea. But the opposition Labour Party, for reasons of its own, has already committed to accepting the first Brexit vote. About the only people calling for a do-over are the Liberal Democrats, who have just twelve seats in the Commons, and a few figures who are even less popular, such as Tony Blair and Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman. (In a tweet last week, Blankfein said, “So much at stake, why not make sure consensus still there?”) The country is still in the grip of Brexit madness, and, sadly, there is no relief in sight.
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: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2739 Post by Alan H » November 22nd, 2017, 4:46 pm

Project Reality: Irish foreign minister: UK has "no credible answers" over future of border
"I think what maybe has changed is that people are beginning to realise that the Irish government, and the indeed the EU negotiating team, are insisting on credible answers in terms of how we are going to deal with the Irish border issues in the future in the context of Northern Ireland and Britain leaving the EU," he said.
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: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2740 Post by Alan H » November 22nd, 2017, 4:58 pm

Budget 2017: Brexit is the least of Philip Hammond's worries
When promises of investment in driverless cars are top of the Budget Bill, you know that the real issues, the fundamental failings of domestic politics that drove large swathes of the country to vote for change the first chance they got, remain unsolved.

It wasn’t a shortage of driverless cars that made the people of Sunderland, or Essex, or Yarmouth to turn out in justifiable anger to vote against politics-as-usual. Nor was it the abstract baloney of “sovereignty”.

It was austerity, the erosion of infrastructure, the queue for the GP, the zero hours contract, the prospect that their kids would have less of chance than they did.

Driverless cars? Seriously. In the great scheme of things, who gives a toss? Where was the chancellor’s fundamental fix for the things that matter fundamentally? Nowhere to be seen.

This was Philip Hammond’s blind eye Budget; one blind eye turned to the root causes of that domestic disquiet, and another blind eye turned to the clear indicators that we are deep into a global economic cycle that will soon turn bad and wreak havoc with the fantasy of bountiful Brexit Britain.

“We choose to run towards change!” the chancellor said at the start of his Budget speech. Fine, Phil. But if you’re running fast anywhere, especially towards a cliff edge, it helps if you keep your eyes wide open.
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: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2741 Post by Alan H » November 22nd, 2017, 5:06 pm

h/t @tetenterre
2017-11-22_17h05_36.png
2017-11-22_17h05_36.png (473.09 KiB) Viewed 1877 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?

Post Reply