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?

#3801 Postby Alan H » October 2nd, 2018, 11:10 am

Latest post of the previous page:

We won't compromise our principles to rescue the Tory party from Brexit, Guy Verhofstadt warns Theresa May
The European Parliament’s Brexit chief has warned Theresa May that the EU will not abandon its principles to “rescue” her party from a looming disaster of its own making.

Speaking to MEPs on Tuesday Guy Verhofstadt rejected Boris Johnson’s suggestion that talks should be extended, arguing that “enough mess has been created” by Brexit already.

“Let’s stop it,” he said, branding the actions of some Tories in recent weeks “insane”.

Mr Verhofstadt also rejected Sajid Javid’s proposals on immigration controls after Brexit, warning that “will never accept discrimination based on skills and nationality, as Mr Javid this morning proposed”.

He also criticised the Conservative party for being unable to come up with a common position on “the mess of Brexit” years after it had called the referendum.

“We will never undermine the principles of the European project to rescue a political party who is not even capable to find a common line on the mess of Brexit,” he finally told MEPs.
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?

#3802 Postby Alan H » October 2nd, 2018, 6:42 pm

This is the speech Theresa May should have the courage to give
When the prime minister addresses the Tory party conference, she should confront the Brexit fanatics in the interests of us all
...interests of us all... Ah. I see the flaw in Toynbee's plan...
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?

#3803 Postby Alan H » October 3rd, 2018, 1:44 pm

Anyone believe a word of this? Me neither. Theresa May declares 'austerity is over' after eight years of cuts and tax increases
Theresa May has declared the government's eight-year programme of austerity is "over" in her Conservative Party conference speech.

The prime minister said that after Brexit the government will boost investment in public services while continuing to reduce debt.

She said people should know that "their hard work has paid off".

She said the Conservatives but securing public finances "are not the limit of our ambition".

The announcement will be seen as a major shift in the Conservatives' approach after eight years of spending cuts and tax rises.

It will raise hopes of a significant increase in public spending during next years' Spending Review, along with potential tax cuts.

In a lengthy passage of her speech marked 'end of austerity", Ms May told the conference in Birmingham: "We are not just a party to clean up a mess, we are the party to steer a course to a better future.

"Sound finances are essential, but they are not the limit of our ambition.

"Because you made sacrifices, there are better days ahead.

"So, when we’ve secured a good Brexit deal for Britain, at the Spending Review next year we will set out our approach for the future."

She added: "Debt as a share of the economy will continue to go down, support for public services will go up.

"Because, a decade after the financial crash, people need to know that the austerity it led to is over and that their hard work has paid off."
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?

#3804 Postby Alan H » October 5th, 2018, 10:31 am

Brexiters misunderstand the European project
What happened to the confidence and ideals of the European dream? The EU was set up to protect freedom. It was the Soviet Union that stopped people leaving. The lesson from history is clear: if you turn the EU club into a prison, the desire to get out won’t diminish, it will grow . . . and we won’t be the only prisoner that will want to escape.” Thus did Jeremy Hunt address the Conservative party conference this week.

This is a breathtaking remark. It is breathtaking because it came from the foreign secretary, the person entrusted with managing the relations of the UK with foreigners; because negotiations with the EU, a particularly important and powerful group of foreigners, are coming to their moment of crisis; because it came from a politician with a reputation for sobriety; and because it came from a man who campaigned for Remain. It is breathtaking, above all, because the parallel Mr Hunt drew between the EU and Soviet Union was so stupid and offensive.

The Soviets sent tanks into East Berlin in 1953, Budapest in 1956 and Prague in 1968. The EU is hardly threatening the UK with similar brutality. It is merely stating that the proposals put forward by the British government for the withdrawal agreement, especially its “ Chequers plan”, will not work. This is not keeping the UK in a prison: this is negotiation. Disagreement with the UK’s proposals over withdrawal is just that: disagreement. The EU is right, too. The plan will not work.

In a serious country, a foreign secretary who made such a remark, at such a moment, about such important, friendly countries would be sacked. Let him follow Boris Johnson on to the backbenches. In a serious governing party, he would have been booed. But Mr Hunt said it because he believed that this sort of malevolent stupidity is popular in the Tory party. That is terrifying.

Behind the offensive remarks uttered by Mr Hunt lies a lack of the imagination needed to understand what the EU is. Yet that is a necessary condition for dealing with it sensibly, now or in future. For the people who currently lead it, the survival of the EU is an existential issue. Relations with a departing UK are, by comparison, relatively insignificant.

The great difference is that, in their bones, the English mostly lack fear. Most continentals do not. On the European mainland, only Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland survived the second world war unconquered. What was the sovereignty of the Netherlands worth in 1940? Four days. As an Irish minister told me after the Brexit referendum, first of all the EU is a peace project. But it is not built on fear alone. It is also built on hope — of a prosperous, integrated Europe able to speak up in the world.

It is legitimate to reject this project. Brexiters do. It is legitimate to believe the EU has over-reached. On monetary union, I agree. It is legitimate to believe the EU has under-reached. On defence, I also agree. But it is illegitimate for a sane person to despise the EU’s goals or hope that it will collapse into chaos.

Goals create structure. This is a peace project that works by embedding mutual relations in a framework of equally-applicable and legally-binding rules. The mutual trust necessary to make the EU work depends on this. The rules need to be clear and subject to an authoritative legal process. Once countries receive benefits without meeting obligations, the EU will disintegrate.

Chequers does not meet these requirements: it demands that the UK be outside the EU’s customs area for goods, in order to negotiate deals of its own, but also inside it, in order to get rid of EU customs and regulatory controls. The EU has red lines, too. It cannot accept such freeriding. The UK is not imprisoned; it is just not getting what it wants. Like it or not, the EU is also far more potent in these negotiations than the UK, because it is far bigger.

Chequers is itself a response to the difficulty in reaching agreement over Ireland. At the core of the EU is the idea that small countries should be protected from the big countries (and so the big from themselves). Preserving peace on the island of Ireland is more important to the EU than letting the UK’s customs area stay undivided. From its point of view, UK withdrawal created the problem, and so the UK must fix it.

I have no idea whether there will be a deal, whether parliament will pass it, or whether there will be a second vote. But, if zealots promote a “stab in the back” myth, according to which EU obduracy snatched a glorious Brexit from the British people, the legacy will be poisonous. Responsible politicians would not go anywhere near this. But Mr Hunt is not a cause of the derangement; he is a symptom
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?

#3805 Postby Alan H » October 5th, 2018, 1:52 pm

ANDREW ADONIS: May’s plan is for a funeral not a festival
“To at least half the nation, a 2022 festival would celebrate national self-immolation.”

I have rarely been so dismayed as at the Conservative party conference when a so-called mainstream Tory MP – the prime minister’s ‘envoy to Indonesia’ no less – refused to criticise Viktor Orban on the grounds that he had been “elected” and the “instruction of the British people” is for us to “keep out of the internal affairs of other countries”.

“But surely we can’t stand by while fascism takes over in Hungary, a fellow European democracy?” I suggested to Richard Graham, MP for Gloucester. “You don’t get it. We are leaving the European Union,” he replied.

The full horror dawned on me. We really are leaving Europe, not just the EU. Ringing in my ears was the famous– utterly relevant – dispute between Chamberlain and Churchill in 1938/9 on whether Czechoslovakia was “a far-away country of whom we know nothing” – or the bulwark of our defence and civilisation. That’s the bit on the map next to Hungary.

If Theresa May’s jamboree takes place in 2022, it will be a funeral not a festival. I was aged ’minus 12’ at the 1951 Festival of Britain, though I think of it every time I visit the magnificent Royal Festival Hall. The historian Kenneth Morgan writes that people “flocked to the South Bank to wander around the Dome of Discovery, gaze at the Skylon, and generally enjoy a festival of national celebration. Up and down the land, lesser festivals enlisted much civic and voluntary enthusiasm... A people curbed by years of total war and half-crushed by austerity and gloom, showed that it had not lost the capacity for enjoying itself. The Festival made a spectacular setting as a showpiece for the inventiveness and genius of British scientists and technologists”. I can’t conceive any part of this happening in 2022. By then, if Brexit goes ahead, scientists and technologists will be fearful of even returning to Britain lest their visas aren’t renewed and they can’t get back to San Francisco, Paris and Munich.

The 1951 festival celebrated the centenary of the 1851 Great Exhibition, which showcased Victorian Britain in all its pomp and glory. It celebrated national unity, survival and honour in defeating the worst European tyranny in history. To at least half the nation, a 2022 festival would celebrate national self-immolation. Worse still, and not fully appreciated in mainland Britain, is the centenary which this festival is intended to celebrate in 2022 – the century since the partition of Ireland and the creation of Northern Ireland.

This is why it is deliberately named the ‘Festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’ and scheduled for 2022, by agreement with Theresa May’s coalition partner Arlene Foster, leader of the DUP. 1922 is when the ‘Irish Free State’ broke away from the UK after a terrible civil war (think Easter Rising, mass executions, Black-and-Tans), while the six most ‘protestant’ counties of Ulster remained within the UK under a devolved government and parliament sitting in Stormont in Belfast.

The history of Northern Ireland is a battleground almost as bloody as the events it disputes. And the one thing we should not be doing is celebrating it. Maybe the right thing was done by Britain in 1922, maybe not. David Lloyd George, who did the partition deal in a coalition with the Tories, defended it as the best of a very bad job dating back to the rejection by the Conservative party of Gladstone’s 1886 bill which would have given ‘home rule’ to Ireland as a whole. This was followed by a revolt against any future home rule settlement by Ulster’s ‘orange’ movement, cynically and treacherously manipulated by Tory leaders from Lord Salisbury to Andrew Bonar Law.

Ulster’s Stormont regime was a one-party unionist state whose raison d’etre was to discriminate against Catholics and keep them down. This led ultimately to the civil rights protests of the 1960s and a collapse into violence and terrorism, which only ended in the 1990s, after a nightmarish 30 years of quasi-civil war and appalling bloodshed, thanks to enlightened statecraft by John Major, Tony Blair and post-de Valera governments in Dublin. I suspect May isn’t familiar with the sweep of Irish history. She has devoted less attention to Ireland than any modern prime minister. She hasn’t even done what I and others regard as her bounden duty – which was to camp out in Belfast until a power-sharing government was formed after the last Northern Ireland election. Instead, there has been no government or assembly in Belfast for nearly two years, and civil liberties and unrest are once again in an alarming state. But one thing May should do: cancel her ‘Festival of Partition’.

If in any doubt, she should read the speeches of Edward Carson, who led the insurrection against the Liberal government which paved the way for Northern Ireland. “Ulster will fight, Ulster will be right,” was the slogan. Never again. Brexit or no 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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3806 Postby Alan H » October 6th, 2018, 11:22 pm

‘Festival of Brexit Britain’ line-up revealed
A series of attractions have already been planned for the event, including these:

• No-flight simulator: Climb into a model cockpit and take your plane on a thrill-packed ride from the stand to the runway and back again when the required permits fail to come through.

• Lemming Leap: Climb 300 feet up a full-scale model of the White Cliffs of Dover (height verified by Russian tourists) and jump off, pausing to congratulate yourself for taking back control of your money, your borders and your laws while plunging to certain death.

• Boris Dancing: 
Learn how to perform the traditional steps while reciting colonialist poetry.

• Fruit Farmville: Don a VR headset and board the virtual bus to a computerised fruit farm, where you’ll spend the next 12 hours picking digital fruit. Incredibly lifelike (Ride duration: 1 day. No peeping).

• Britain’s Most Red-Faced Man Competition

• David Davis’ Chamber of Wilful Unpreparedness: Escape Room-type game in which you search a mock-up of DD’s DExEU office for his Brexit plan (Spoiler: There is no Brexit plan).

• The Windrush experience: A Pirates of the Caribbean-style ride, departing from Tilbury Docks to an undisclosed destination in the sun (Ride duration: 1 month. No round trips).

• Wheatfield runner: A super-naughty video game race in which you hide from the farmer through levels of increasingly sparse fields as the lack of EU subsidies begins to kick in.

• Culmination of the BBC Forager of the Year contest

• Embrace Oblivion roller coaster: Like the famous Alton Towers ride, this plummets from a great height rapidly downwards through a giant black hole in the ground. Unlike the famous Alton Towers ride, it then just keeps on going.

• The tunnel of Gove: I’m A Celebrity-style endurance test in which contestants crawl through a tube while bees, water voles, North Sea fish, free-range puppies and supermarket waste food are dropped on their heads.

• Empty supermarket sweep: In tribute to the late Dale Winton, a fun scamper past bare shelves to locate the country’s last croissant.
• Red Arrows display: Watch the skies get covered in an unintelligible criss-cross of red lines.

• Mechanical hormone-enhanced bull: Crazy farmer Liam Fox has given the traditional fairground mechanical bull an injection of steroids! The resultant G-force on your wild ride is enough to rip a man in two!

• Lifesize statue of Buckingham Palace, made out of Spam.

• Mario Kart, M20 edition: Nintendo tie-in. Choose your character, pick your crazy kart, rev your engines and sit in stationary traffic for several weeks.

• Whack-a-mole: And then eat it for dinner.

Drinks can be taken in Nigel Farage-themed pub, The Dog & Whistle (alcohol only, smoking compulsory). There will 
be a wide choice of catering options, as long as your choice happens to be Hog Roast.

The Festival of Brexit Britain is due to open in early 2021. So around winter 2027, then.
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?

#3807 Postby Alan H » October 10th, 2018, 10:30 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?

#3808 Postby Alan H » October 10th, 2018, 12:19 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?

#3809 Postby Alan H » October 10th, 2018, 3:17 pm

We voted for this, didn't we? Yes, planes could stop flying without Brexit deal, warns Whitehall chief
Britain’s most senior Whitehall watchdog raised new alarms over Brexit today — as Theresa May faced having to rely on Labour MPs to get a departure deal through the Commons.

A warning that planes between the UK and EU could be grounded was given to a Commons committee by Sir Amyas Morse, Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office.

He suggested that this could be a risk if talks collapse and Mrs May refuses to sign a £39 billion “divorce” settlement with Brussels.

He also raised concerns over the pace of Whitehall preparations for Brexit and the readiness of the civil service, and said MPs might have to sit in emergency sessions to rush through legislation.

His alert came as Labour MPs on both sides of the Brexit debate indicated they may throw a lifeline to Mrs May if she adopts a “soft” exit deal. The Standard spoke to MPs on the Remain and Leave wings of the party who believe dozens of backbenchers could abstain or vote for a deal negotiated by the Prime Minister, albeit for different reasons.

There are growing expectations among MPs and ministers that Mrs May is ready to give a major concession to the EU by agreeing a form of customs union in all but name — a prospect that would enrage Tory Brexiteers.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3810 Postby Alan H » October 10th, 2018, 3:36 pm

We voted for this, didn't we? Emergency workers being hired to handle post-Brexit disruption
A team of civil emergency workers are being recruited on salaries of up to £50,000 a year to help the country cope with any fallout from Brexit.

The government has posted adverts looking for resilience advisers to handle any “disruption” caused by the various permutations of Britain’s exit from the European Union next year. The specialists would be employed until June 2019 but “with the possibility of extension or permanency”.

The resilience and emergency division (Red) posts are billed as “exciting and challenging” and come with a £45,938 salary, rising to £50,006 in London.

Applicants are told Red helps communities across the UK to “respond to and recover from civil emergencies of all types”. The job advertisement, posted by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) calls for three resilience advisers for “EU exit readiness and response support to local preparedness”.

Key skills for the roles include being proficient in “strategic thinking” and communicating confidently and effectively with a range of audiences including ministers.

The advert said: “We have nine-month secondment opportunities (with the possibility of extension) to support MHCLG’s preparations for EU exit, both in the case of a no-deal or negotiated exit. These roles are to provide support to the local resilience community to develop, test and exercise plans for the mitigation of any disruption following our exit from 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
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3811 Postby Alan H » October 11th, 2018, 11:16 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
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3812 Postby animist » October 11th, 2018, 12:03 pm

he seems to retain the petty paranoia about the EU which marks his ilk - eg he thinks that getting their hands on the £39 billion is their main concern. BTW, when he then said "us caught" this was transcribed as "Earls Court" :laughter:

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

Re: In or out?

#3813 Postby Alan H » October 11th, 2018, 12:07 pm

animist wrote:
he seems to retain the petty paranoia about the EU which marks his ilk - eg he thinks that getting their hands on the £39 billion is their main concern. BTW, when he then said "us caught" this was transcribed as "Earls Court" :laughter:
I saw that but hadn't clue what he was on about. No change there then...

Apparently, this is a satirical website: Brexiters furious at EU for sticking to position they’ve been saying was non-negotiable for 26 months
Brexiters at the Conservative conference have today accused the EU of playing dirty tricks for maintaining a consistent negotiating position that hasn’t changed since it was announced in June 2016.

As negotiations enter their final stages, many who want to leave the EU insist Brussel’s Eurocrats are unfairly punishing the UK by saying precisely the same things they were saying two years ago,

Brexiter and backbench MP Simon Williams told us, “We have bent over backwards to try and offer them a deal that suits us, but they keep insisting that we can’t have the things we are asking for simply because they’ve always said we can’t have those things.

“Have they not listened to use say we want those things? Or heard us when we repeatedly told them that they need us more than we need them? Yet they continue to say their non-negotiable points are completely non-negotiable. No wonder they are a failing organisation.

“The British people will see that it’s outrageous for the EU to refuse us a deal that is good for Britain, just because it’s not very good for them. This is why we have to leave.

“How can you be part of an organisation that doesn’t bend to your every whim?”

An EU spokesperson told us, “Sigh…

“This again? Really? Look, it’s very simple. There are only so many ways to explain it. The integrity of the single market is paramount to us and the remaining EU members. You can’t have anything – literally nothing – that threatens that. So why keep asking for it?

“Honestly, it’s like repeatedly telling a toddler it can’t have ice-cream for breakfast, except the UK hasn’t shit itself in protest.
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?

#3814 Postby Alan H » October 12th, 2018, 12:08 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit news latest: No-deal could mean 'immediate and catastrophic' consequences for consumers, Which? warns
Immediate and catastrophic consequences could lie ahead for millions of consumers if Brexit deal is not reached, watchdog Which? has warned.

The Government’s preparations for a no-deal exit from the EU suggested a reduction in consumer rights and choice, as well as price hikes, the consumer group said.

Such price hikes would have a “direct and hard” impact in areas including travel, food and energy, it added.

The watchdog based its conclusions on its assessment of the Government's technical notices in preparation for the event of a no-deal Brexit, online forums and surveys.

Issuing a warning following the research, it said two in five people still did not understand the potential implications of a no-deal scenario.

In its report named Brexit no deal: a consumer catastrophe?, Which? said: "Our latest consumer research shows that most people are unprepared for what 'no deal' would mean in practice - and many do not understand how it would have multiple impacts across so many aspects of their daily lives.

"When the everyday repercussions and Government's plans on issues such as food and medical supplies were explained to people in our research, many people were shocked and questioned why they had not been made aware of the implications sooner."
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?

#3815 Postby Alan H » October 12th, 2018, 12:15 pm

Ian Dunt's Friday email:
We're approaching the endgame now. Work is taking place on the M26 to turn it into a lorry park in the event of no-deal. Theresa May is in the advanced stages of her final capitulation - on permanent customs union and single market membership - with a Cabinet that is likely to split before it accepts it.

If you thought the lies were bad already, they will only get worse from here on out. The EU will lie, May will lie, Labour will lie, and the European Research Group (ERG) Brexiters will lie most of all. They will all lie so that they can control the narrative. Countless foolish dreams are about to smash on the rocks and they will want to have the more convincing story about why it is happening.

If a deal is going to be passed, the EU will be engaged in a conspiracy of language with the prime minister. They will try to formulate what is happening in a way that means it can survive contact with the Conservative parliamentary party. They'll say, for instance, that the backstop proposal is finite until 'technological solutions' replace it. But they never will, because they do not exist. May will say that having the exact same tariff rate as the EU is a customs 'arrangement' or 'partnership' or something, but the reality is that it is membership of the customs union, albeit without the rights we used to enjoy of contributing to trade deal talks.

They will also talk of a 'common rule book', but this does not exist either. It is the EU's rulebook. The UK is merely promising to follow it. It is likely to do this on process as well as outcome. That is a massive handing over of day-to-day decision-making to the EU, where we will no longer have a voice in deciding what regulations to adopt or how they should be implemented.

The EU will probably be honest about the fact that the deal is not really a deal at all, but a base camp for future British concessions. May will certainly lie about this. She will say that goods and services can be separated in the single market. But they will not be. Brussels won't accept it. Paris and Berlin certainly won't. Her decision to sign up to process-and-outcome alignment on goods is just a precursor to signing up to it for services too. The deal will be done on the basis that the remorseless economic logic of trade will eventually drive the UK into full customs union and single market membership. All Brexit will achieve is to eradicate our voice at the continental level.

Meanwhile, Labour will mock both the deal and the state of the Tory party as it tears itself apart. But it would have faced precisely the same predicament in its place. Jeremy Corbyn's cowardly refrain that freedom of movement "will end" when the UK leaves the EU conceals the fact that it is his policy to leave the single market, rather than one imposed on him by the facts of Brexit itself.

Labour in power would have faced the same choice as the government - that staying in the single market would have meant retaining free movement. And that is a freedom they have been singularly unwilling to defend. They weren't as fussed by May's red line on the European Court of Justice, but had their own nonsense limitations on state aid. Ultimately, they'd be in a similar place. So every utterance of condemnation, every accusation of incompetence, is a brazen act of hypocrisy. Not only would they have found themselves in the same pickle, but by being so self-interested in their criticism they failed to push the government to a better course through responsible opposition.

But the greatest lies will all come from the ERG Tories. They have had two years to propose a credible plan for Brexit. They could not have asked for a more pliable media, or a more generous political culture, in which to issue their mewling tantrums. They were able to attack any compromise position without being asked what they would do in its place. They were able to constantly propose no-deal Brexit - or a 'world trade deal' as they laughably tried to brand it - without being interrogated about the damage it would do the UK. Rarely could any political campaign have been so steeped in attempts to mislead the public.

At no point has anything ever been their fault. Even when the aggressive time constraints of Article 50 dominated the Brexit process, they did not admit that it was lunacy to have triggered it, or that doing so without a plan amounted to a supreme act of patriotic irresponsibility. When their assurances that Britain could have full access to the single market but also an independent regulatory system were shown to be false, they blamed the EU for being inflexible. When they were forced to legally establish their promise about a frictionless border in Ireland, they said the Europeans were trying to turn us into a vassal state. When David Davis was defeated on every single battle he tried to wage with Michel Barnier, they blamed Remainers for failing to get behind the government. They're like a doomsday cult leader. Every apocalypse date which passes annihilation is simply recalculated to take place a few years in the future. No-one blinks an eye.

There was always someone else to blame for the demonstrable inadequacies of the actions they demanded we pursue. And now things are about to get much worse, so the lies will have to be ramped up.

If there is a deal, it will involve the UK becoming a sidecar to Brussels: entrenched in its regulatory and tariff system without a role in setting it. It is quite possible that, like the backstop limitation feint of hand, this situation will last forever.

That will create a bitter sense of disappointment and anger. Our immediate quality of life will be safeguarded, but the economic vitality of Britain will gradually seep away as more and more companies start basing themselves where the decisions are made. Britain will have lost its seat at the table and with it the role as bridge between the US and Europe, and as ringleader for liberal economic and social values on the continent.

Or there will be no deal, either in Brussels or back in the Commons. And then the outcomes become truly appalling. The patient has a heart attack rather than just bleeding out.

ERG Brexiters will blame Europe, they will blame Remainers, they will blame immigrants. We are facing a serious reduction in our material circumstances amid a throbbing right-wing populist soundtrack. That is an extraordinarily dangerous mix. In these scenarios, truth-telling becomes a radical act.

Previously tedious statements of fact become morally meaningful: the EU offers either single market membership or a standard free trade agreement and it was up to Britain to choose. The backstop was merely a legal expression of the Brexiters' oft-stated promise to make the Irish border frictionless. Totally borderless trade requires shared regulation.

There is nothing particularly interesting about these types of statements. They are the kind of thing you'd find in a GCSE textbook. But they constitute the political, legal and economic dynamics which explain the current situation and the difficulties we're about to face. If we do not ground the debate in them now, then those responsible will find far more dangerous terrain.
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?

#3816 Postby animist » October 12th, 2018, 5:15 pm

basically - remember how dear old Nick used to say the word quite often? - the EU are "intransigent" because they will not do what we demand. Of course, this is a common language device in disputes: "our" side is stong and stable whereas the other lot are intransigent

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

Re: In or out?

#3817 Postby Alan H » October 12th, 2018, 8:55 pm

animist wrote:
basically - remember how dear old Nick used to say the word quite often? - the EU are "intransigent" because they will not do what we demand. Of course, this is a common language device in disputes: "our" side is stong and stable whereas the other lot are intransigent
:hilarity:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3818 Postby Alan H » October 12th, 2018, 10:52 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Government advises certain companies to consider moving headquarters out of UK in no-deal Brexit
Certain companies based in Britain may want to consider moving their headquarters abroad in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to official UK government advice to businesses.

One advice paper titled “Structuring your business if there’s no Brexit deal” advises companies incorporated under EU corporate law that moving to a country that is still a member state may be better for their business.

So-called “societates Europaeae” – European companies – will not be able to operate in the UK and will have to either legally incorporate in another country or convert to a British-only plc.

EU-wide businesses that use the societas Europaea model include major international firms such as Airbus, Allianz, E.ON, SAP, and Schneider Electric.

The societas Europaea system was introduced in 2004 so that companies that operated across Europe could more easily do business across borders – easing operations like mergers.

The government says some of these businesses can convert into British public limited companies, but not all of them.
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?

#3819 Postby Alan H » October 13th, 2018, 12:45 am

That Brexit border just won't go away, will it? Ireland 'cannot accept' Brexit backstop time limit, Republic's deputy PM says
Ireland's deputy prime minister has warned the UK government his country "can't accept a time limit" on a Brexit backstop agreement aimed at preventing a hard border on the island of Ireland.

Simon Coveney, who is also Ireland's foreign minister, directly contradicted UK Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab's stance on a key part of the UK's withdrawal agreement.

As part of a divorce deal, the UK and EU are seeking a fallback agreement to avert a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, should a future EU-UK trade agreement not prevent this.

This could see either Northern Ireland or the whole UK effectively stay within the EU's customs union beyond Brexit day and the Brexit transition period.
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?

#3820 Postby animist » October 13th, 2018, 11:00 am

Alan H wrote:That Brexit border just won't go away, will it? Ireland 'cannot accept' Brexit backstop time limit, Republic's deputy PM says
TBH, squabbling over a time limit seems to me pointless, because Brexity things change so rapidly. What I am getting at is that, even if some future time limit over this or anything else were agreed now, the agreement could and is likely to be changed a few years down the line if circumstances change - which they of course will do so

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

Re: In or out?

#3821 Postby Alan H » October 13th, 2018, 5:31 pm

Brexit will be just fine. As long as you're not ill... Health department cannot guarantee 'supply of medicines' after Brexit, MPs warn
Vital drug shortages could become more likely when the UK quits the European Union, MPs are warning after health ministers were unable to give guarantees on how they would prevent fallout from a ”no deal” Brexit.

A report by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on medicines shortages last year found no evidence that the government was adequately prepared for similar disruption from leaving the EU.

The report said it was “worrying” that the Department “could not assure us of its plans to safeguard the supply of medicines after the UK has exited the European Union”.
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 5 guests