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.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3441 Postby Alan H » May 16th, 2018, 1:20 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Who knew? Theresa May's Brexit plans are 'undeliverable' warns former head of UK civil service
Exclusive: The government is "heading at full steam towards an undeliverable goal" in its attempt to implement Brexit by 2020, according to Lord Kerslake, the former head of the UK civil service.

Kerslake warned that civil servants were being hamstrung by ministerial indecision and unworkable customs plans.

"Talk privately to anyone involved [and] the thing they say is most difficult to handle has been the indecisiveness of the May government," he said.

He said the government would likely seek to extend the transition period to avoid an economic "cliff-edge."

Theresa May's government is "heading at full steam towards an undeliverable goal" in its attempt to implement her Brexit customs plans by 2020, the former head of the UK civil service has told Business Insider.

"We haven't sorted out a deliverable version of the 'end state' of Brexit because there isn't a deliverable version," Lord Kerslake, who headed the civil service between 2012 and 2014 during David Cameron's coalition government, told BI. "The deliverable version isn't acceptable to a significant chunk of Conservative MPs."

Kerslake warned that civil servants were being hamstrung by ministerial indecision and unworkable customs plans.

"The biggest single issue has been the inability of ministers to firm up what the policy is. Talk privately to anyone involved [and] the thing they say is most difficult to handle has been the indecisiveness of the May government. And I think it's greatly challenging for preparedness," 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
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#3442 Postby Nick » May 16th, 2018, 8:50 am

animist wrote:
Nick wrote: We had a vote, but were consistently outvoted and dragged in the wrong direction, so our influence was negated. And we can certainly see that the EU has made spectacular mistakes as a matter of policy. The EU has so far failed to agree a trade deal with either China or India; I don't see trade deals where before there were none to be a failure.
um yes, we had a vote, but so did the other 27 - it is something called democracy.
Indeed. But as we disagreed with the result, it was appropriate for us to say, thanks very much, but we'd rather not be part of your (failing) institution.

The EU has not done deals with China or India, and neither is the UK, even from a position of isolated desperation rather than rational choice, likely to do so
As the world's 5th biggest economy, and an international trading nation, we are hardly isolated or desperate. And let's see about future trade deals. I bet we'll have them with China and India before the EU does. Besides many others, with Commonwealth countries, for example, and who knows, maybe even the EU :wink:

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6410
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3443 Postby animist » May 16th, 2018, 9:25 am

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:
Nick wrote: We had a vote, but were consistently outvoted and dragged in the wrong direction, so our influence was negated. And we can certainly see that the EU has made spectacular mistakes as a matter of policy.
um yes, we had a vote, but so did the other 27 - it is something called democracy.
Indeed. But as we disagreed with the result, it was appropriate for us to say, thanks very much, but we'd rather not be part of your (failing) institution.
yes, I think the Leave vote had to be respected in some way - though in what way is the issue

Nick wrote:
The EU has not done deals with China or India, and neither is the UK, even from a position of isolated desperation rather than rational choice, likely to do so
As the world's 5th biggest economy, and an international trading nation, we are hardly isolated or desperate. And let's see about future trade deals. I bet we'll have them with China and India before the EU does. Besides many others, with Commonwealth countries, for example, and who knows, maybe even the EU :wink:
so you bet we will have one with China and India? You should read the reports on the very sketchy talks with these countries; they all want Britain to settle with the EU first, and India wants much freer migration arrangements - which would completely vitiate most Leave voters' intentions. The whole thing is crazy, can you not see that? I may have posted this already, but anyway: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 32411.html

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6410
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3444 Postby animist » May 16th, 2018, 9:30 am

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:
Nick wrote:Not really. It is claiming that regulation will have catastrophic effects, while ignoring the fact that such effects do not affect other international trade in that way, and making out that the only alternative is to stay in a customs union, instead of reforming or scrapping the regulations.
the article is not claiming anything,
Yes it is. It is claiming that food staples could disappear. I'd call that a warning of catastrophe.
the article reports warnings, that is all - whether these are OTT is a matter of opinion, as is what counts as staples

Nick wrote:
animist wrote: simply reporting verbatim what professionals are saying.
Pro's with an axe to grind.
you have axes on the brain! :laughter: Do you have evidence that these professionals are not impartial?

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:Look, just read what Keefe says - that the phytosanitary checks legally required on both sides of the border were a bigger challenge than the high-profile issue of customs checks that is currently dividing the cabinet; please note the word "legally".

And there we have it in a nut-shell. I am claiming that, as such checks do not need to be made at present- indeed would be banned because of the single market, you are saying that they must, must, must be imposed. Not because they are needed, but because of "the law". Then change the damn law! It is not needed!
so you demand that the whole system of phytosanitary checks be dismantled? You are entitled to your opinion, but as usual you have gone way beyond critiquing the accuracy of a particular article and onto your pet theme of degulatiion. Here is the Government advice to importers on this topic. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/plant-health-controls I assume that these checks are made on goods from outside the EU. I have no idea how important they are, but food hygiene scares are not uncommon. The point about the Single Market (I do not understand your reference to it) is that following common regulations over time creates, I assume, an atmosphere of trust, or else that the checks will have already been made for goods imported into another EU country and reexported to Britain

Nick wrote:I consider "staples disappearing from the shelves" to be OTT. Secondly, as above, most of the checks are unnecessary, and thirdly, I just love the delicious irony that a lefty should finally be waking up to the fact that sticking bureacracy in the way of markets is actually quite damaging! :wink: So next itme you advocate any such thing, I'll refer you back to this! :D
it is not bureaucracy which is damaging markets, but Brexit. But of course there is good and bad bureacracy, not an issue with me. Regulations properly conceived and applied are vital for markets which benefit both buyer and seller rather than allowing one to exploit the other

Nick wrote:Vast numbers!! If they are not a problem, then why will it be a problem if we do not adhere to them? If we want certain regulations, then our own elected government can put them in place, not have them imposed by a foreign power.
supply examples of serious problems caused by EU regulations. What a silly non sequitur to claim that if x is not a problem then ignoring x is not a problem either. White man speak with forked tongue! Last point: it is true that EU membership involves foreigners - as does memberhip of many other international organisations, so yes, let us get foreigners out of our lives :)

Nick wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not one should have concern for ones fellow Europeans. I do; it seems you don't. I find that very sad, but let's leave that there. But continuing to rely on imported labour cannot last. There's no reason to suppose we are immune to a recession. Who knows, we might have a disastrous government, like Corbyn's for example, and millions leave for booming Southern Europe. Taking all the tax contributions with them, leaving the old and dependent. We saw that in the 1970's. It could easily happen again. And ultimately, within the lifetime of teenagers today, world population itself will be falling.

As for other people bringing in Eurosceptic parties- just look at Italy.....

And yet, you continue to praise the EU's intransigence, even in the face of economic disaster! When it's the EU's rules which are responsible for the size and duration of the disaster. But you'd rather see those rules maintained, even at the expense of the wellbeing of their people. Who's the conservative here? You or me? :wink:
last point - me. Rest of the crap: you are in your comfort zone when you rant on about southern Europe, but you never answer my question about how Brexit will help these poorer EU members. There are at least two ways in which Brexit will make things worse. First is that, as you have mentioned yourself, Britain is a net contributor to the EU budget, so there will less money around the rump EU. Secondly, Britain is a brake on the federalisation project which you presumably deplore, so its exit will allow the federalists to get on with their business

Nick wrote:Certainly there are divisions within the Conservatives. But there is a total lack of any understanding in Labour. They haven't a scooby- just look at Dan Hannan's article. But, as I see it, it is the obstinacy and bloody-mindedness of the EU which it overwhelmingly to blame. They are out to damage us. Whatever we come up with they say "Non! Impossible!" How can we progress with partners like that? It will go to the wire, it always does, and we have to be prepared to walk away. The EU has huge amounts to lose from Brexit going badly. And bit by bit, some are beginning to realise it.
last point - evidence? Labour does now support a customs union, so you are out of date. The other ideas are dumb, so why should the EU go along with them?

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

Re: In or out?

#3445 Postby Nick » May 17th, 2018, 8:41 am

animist wrote:you have axes on the brain! :laughter:


But of course! :laughter:


(Busy now, more later...)

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6410
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3446 Postby animist » May 17th, 2018, 9:54 am

addressed to anyone who thinks that Britain can make an easy and lucrative trade deal with China post-Brexit. China has a long history of forced trade with the West, though its increased economic power is making it more confident, and possibly open to accepting Western imports. But at what cost? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44056634

Much more likely than a sort of David and Goliath relationship between Britain and China is Soft Brexit: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/05 ... oms-talk-a

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3447 Postby Alan H » May 18th, 2018, 1:32 pm

May the Farce be with you... Thought Brexit couldn’t get any more farcical? The story of the European patent court proves you wrong
This is the business end of Brexit, when all the contradictory promises and impossible dreams come face-to-face with legal reality. Usually we only notice this when it’s about trade, but the same is happening all over society, from security to rules around food recipes. This is the tawdry story of what the government did—and didn’t do—with patents, and why it is now stuck with a series of mutually incompatible promises which are about to collide headlong into one another.

It starts with Theresa May saying one thing and then proceeding to do exactly the opposite. In October 2016, she told the Conservative Party conference that Britain would leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Then, the next month, the government confirmed that in fact it would do the opposite. The first statement was made in the full glare of media attention at a key event in the political calendar. The second was made away from journalists, in a quiet announcement on a departmental website noticed by just a handful of lawyers and nerds.
The debacle says a lot about the Brexit process in general.

First, the prime minister makes public promises which her government then undoes on an almost simultaneous basis. Second, her administration is prepared to leave some of the most dynamic parts of British industry in a swamp of legal uncertainty for years on end. Third, continental standardisation systems are valuable, especially for modern services-based economies, and Britain will try to stay in them wherever possible, regardless of Brexit. Giving up a bit of control, it turns out, has its upsides.

Duplicity, inaction and confusion, amid a self-inflicted economic threat. It sounds like this is the Brexit debate in microcosm. But actually it’s more depressing than that. This is the better end of the Brexit spectrum. The government is ostensibly doing the right thing. The fact it has to do so very quietly, while ignoring existing legal reality, shows how badly our political climate has deteriorated.

I thought the Brexiters promised we'd be leaving the ECJ?
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: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3448 Postby Alan H » May 18th, 2018, 2:26 pm

Time is running out for tactical games
Who knows which of these is the case? It’s doubtful whether Theresa May herself does. This Brexit government not only has no pilot, it has no navigator and no map. The entire approach appears to be based on getting through, day to day and week to week, without the government falling apart. There is no strategy, just a series of tactics. Thus the latest development are not really developments at all, they are yet more of the endless, doomed attempts to deny the basic paradox I discussed in a recent post of enacting Brexit without the consequences of enacting Brexit. In that sense, the details of what the government is currently saying don’t really matter (and actually obscure the real issues and choices to be made).
In effect, the government are playing a game of chicken with three trains – the EU, and the two wings of the Tory Party – or, more accurately, they are forcing our entire country to play such a game. Those trains are now hurtling at high speed towards us, and it hard to see how we can avoid being hit by one or more of them, possibly simultaneously.

It need hardly be said that nothing remotely like this was what voters were told Brexit would mean.
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: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3449 Postby Alan H » May 18th, 2018, 3:48 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Red warnings for UK's post-Brexit nuclear safeguards
Britain risks missing a vital deadline for establishing full post-Brexit nuclear safeguards, according to Government documents obtained by Sky News.

Late delivery of an IT system and difficulty recruiting qualified inspectors are blamed in the leaked reports.

There are five "high level risks" Britain needs to address before Brexit, identified by the UK's Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR).

They were all categorised as "red" on a red, amber, green alert scale in an internal "Risk Register".

Problems include "late delivery or ineffective" new IT systems to track nuclear material.

Recruitment difficulties and a lack of training for inspectors are also cited, as are failures to arrange the "comprehensive handover" of hardware and equipment from the EU agency Euratom.

On top of the issues, concerns were also raised about long-term funding of the new nuclear regulator.
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: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3450 Postby Alan H » May 19th, 2018, 11:34 am

Delusions of National Power
Yet neither leader of our two main political parties allow themselves to see this inevitable implication of the Irish border. Delusion is at its most extreme in the case of Theresa May, who still thinks it is possible to conclude a deal with the EU that would keep the Brexiters in her party on board by appeasing them at every step. So we have the ludicrous situation where the UK cabinet is at loggerheads over which of two impossible plans they will put forward so they can be rejected by the EU. This isn't rearranging deck chairs on the titantic. It is having a full blown row over how the deck chairs should be arranged as the ship sinks.
The UK is therefore in a trap of its own making. It is obvious what has to happen in the end: the UK stays in the CU and SM either inside or outside the EU. But the leadership and perhaps a majority of MPs in the two main parties either cannot see that yet, or can see it but dare not take the steps to get us there. If Brexit is to survive despite always being a fantasy project it has to end with a whimper, but it could take many wasted years and much economic harm to get to that point. There is one way out that will spare politicians’ blushes and revitalise the economy, and that is to hold a referendum on the final deal where the economic costs of the deal are clearly spelt out.
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: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3451 Postby Alan H » May 19th, 2018, 11:41 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: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3452 Postby Alan H » May 20th, 2018, 12:07 pm

Dominic Cummings is the true cowardly face of the Brexiters
Dominic Cummings is just a troll. He may have trolled the whole country and changed the course of British history, but he’s still the man with an egg for a face, who screams everyone must be accountable for their actions – everyone except him.

MPs who want to question Cummings about the finances of his Vote Leave campaign are “grandstanding” fools spreading “fake news”. (A rich charge from an operator who told the populace that Brexit would deliver £350m-a-week to the NHS and the EU was about to admit Turkey and flood Britain with millions of jihad-inclined Muslims.) He seems as confident now as he was then. “It’s too late,” he says in effect. “We won and there’s nothing you little people can do about it.” Perhaps he’s right. In an age of Russian infowars and data harvesting, our defences against the manipulation of elections are as obsolete as black-and-white television.
In February, the pro-Remain group Best for Britain conducted private polling on what would persuade the public to accept a second referendum. A fall in living standards (and they’ve already fallen) made no difference: a majority would still say we’d had one referendum and that was enough. The NHS suffering (and it is suffering) produced a tie. But when the pollsters asked: “What if there was confirmation of cheating during the referendum campaign?”, 49% wanted a second vote and only 30% opposed. If the trolled public should realise it’s been cheated, the future will be up for grabs.
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: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3453 Postby Alan H » May 20th, 2018, 12:33 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? The EU tells Theresa May her Brexit border plan isn't good enough to secure a deal
Theresa May will propose to the European Union that Britain could stay in the customs union for years after Brexit to allow more time for finding a solution to the Irish border dilemma.

The "backstop" proposal is the prime minister's latest attempt to unlock Brexit talks ahead of the European Council summit next month.

However, Ireland's Leo Varadkar told May that Britain must also stay aligned with the single market for there to be no physical infrastructure on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

The EU also will not accept May's request that the backstop is time-limited, meaning Britain could be in EU institutions for decades, a Brussels source tells Business Insider.

EU Council President Donald Tusk supports Varadkar's position.
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: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3454 Postby Alan H » May 20th, 2018, 5:01 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Secret Brexit deal could threaten scotch whisky
A post-Brexit trade deal with the US could mean whiskey galore for the UK.

But while drinkers might be celebrating, this could be bad news for scotch whisky distillers who are being warned that their industry faces a glut of imports from US producers if trade barriers come down once the UK leaves the EU.

US trade groups want any trade deal signed between the two countries to drop current EU requirements relating to the ageing of whisky, something that would allow US manufacturers to promote their rival, younger products as whiskey (the spirit made by non-Scottish producers is spelled differently).

Discussions between the two countries over what can and cannot be included in a potential trade deal are being conducted in secrecy, according to transparency campaigners.
Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, said the whisky issue was the tip of a large iceberg.

“We’re always told that international trade deals will help us sell more whisky – but this latest information from the US trade representative shows a trade deal with the US could actually be a threat to this iconic drink. The US government don’t like our food standards, and they repeatedly tell us that abandoning these standards for imports is essential if they’re going to sign a deal. That means allowing food like chlorine washed chicken and hormone fed beef into our markets. But it could also mean changing the standard on the production of whisky and allowing iconic products like stilton to be made in the US.”

A spokeswoman for the Scotch Whisky Association said it would campaign for EU food standards to be applied to any trade deal with the US.

“According to EU legislation, whisky produced or sold in the EU is required to be matured for at least 3 years, and meet other well-established criteria,” the spokeswoman said. “We are opposed to the sale of any whisky in the UK that does not comply with the legal requirements for whisky under EU law.”

Dearden said that opinion polls suggested that the majority of people do not want a trade deal that lowers standards and called for discussions to be made more transparent. “We’re going to have to fight for a more democratic trade policy if we want to stop Liam Fox’s attempts to Americanise the UK economy.”
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: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3455 Postby Alan H » May 20th, 2018, 7:16 pm

Plan? What plan? It’s said Brexit is ‘not going to plan’. Did we ever have a plan?
The chaotic negotiations both within the Tory party and without means we need to consider an alternative: not leaving

Your correspondent is not as well up on social media as his wife and children, but I could not help noticing a slogan posted beneath a London traffic light the other day. It claimed to be from the Instagram project Notes to Strangers – new to me, I must confess – and confidently proclaimed: “Having a Plan B will make your Plan A unsuccessful”.

This was on yet another day when the press was full of reports about the chaos within Theresa May’s hapless government about the Brexit “negotiations” – negotiations that seem to be taking place mainly within her warring cabinet rather than with the rest of the EU. And – surprise, surprise – neither of the proposals supposedly being discussed is in any case considered remotely viable by most, indeed all, of the experts I have talked to.

But back to the traffic-light slogan. It is of course an absurd statement, if mildly amusing. And, goodness knows, don’t we need some light relief as an irresponsible government proceeds with its apparent mission to tear itself and the country apart? The situation is so potentially dire that I often meet intelligent people who just cannot face hearing about Brexit – a development which may have something to do with an apparent decline in the audience for the Today programme, which commentators like myself have to listen to, however annoying it is that the presenters confuse the referendum result, which happened, with Brexit, which has not and one hopes never will. Also, our much-loved BBC gives far too much scope to the likes of Mr Farage.

It is abundantly clear that this dreadful government does not have a Plan B, or even a Plan A that might be rendered unsuccessful by a Plan B. Last week there was even talk of a Plan C, which had already been dismissed by the Irish government.

Now, mention of Farage reminds me of one of the more intriguing recent statements from another member of the Dishonourable Company of Brexiters. Daniel Hannan, who, like Farage, draws a comfortable salary from the EU he wishes us to leave, is a veteran Leaver but managed to merit the newspaper headline “Brexiteer Hannan says leaving the EU not quite going to plan”.

As for the Irish border problem, I have yet to meet any serious person who thinks it is soluble
It wasn’t entirely clear whether my acquaintance Mr Hannan had Plan A or Plan B in mind. But, he tells us: “I had assumed that, by now, we’d have reached a broad national consensus around a moderate form of withdrawal that recognises the narrowness of the result.”

At least, unlike the prime minister and the cabinet Brexiters, he recognises that the referendum result was not an “overwhelming” vote to abandon a 45-year achievement in integrating our economy with the rest of Europe. Along with the majority of the Lords, and the more enlightened Tory and Labour MPs, Mr Hannan sees the advantages of access to the single market and the fallback position of Efta, the European Free Trade Association.

But why bother? The Brexiters, and those who have caved in to them, keep trying to cherry-pick advantages, such as involvement in the Galileo navigation system, which are threatened by Brexit. But, as the EU’s patient chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, says: “We are not kicking the UK out … The UK decided unilaterally and autonomously to withdraw from the EU. This implies leaving its programmes as well.”

The farce deepens. Recently the Department for International Trade had to appeal for funds from the Treasury. Why? Because it was cutting back on services that help our exports to tried and trusted markets in order to waste resources on trying to realise the trade secretary’s fantasy of new agreements elsewhere.

The dream of a wonderful trade deal with Trump’s America has been exposed in a study, entitled On The Rebound by Ed Balls and others for the Harvard Kennedy School. It concludes: “All things considered, both US and UK officials are doubtful that a meaningful deal can be reached.”

As for the Irish border problem, I have yet to meet any serious person who thinks it is soluble. The incompatibility of May’s “red lines” on the customs union and the single market while somehow preserving the status quo in Ireland was a theme of a high-powered discussion at the Irish embassy last week.

As Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the TUC, said to the audience: “Staying in the single market and customs union would protect jobs, rights and peace. If anyone’s got a better plan, then let’s hear it.”

No one has. We definitely need a Plan B, and it is the status quo. I am beginning to think that, however much – rightly or wrongly – they are fearful of a Corbyn government, the Tories are heading for the cliff. I just hope they don’t take the rest of us with them. Brexit is pointless.
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: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3456 Postby Alan H » May 22nd, 2018, 11:19 am

Brexit Deadlock
We publish today a comprehensive guide to the issues around the Customs Union or Customs Partnership as a means of unlocking the deadlock of the Brexit negotiation. It is the work of Dr. Andy Tarrant, a recognised expert on EU affairs.

It shows conclusively that:

* There is no Customs Partnership which will deliver the same benefits as staying in the Customs Union, even if the EU were prepared to accept such a Partnership.

* However, the Customs Union will not, on its own, deliver frictionless trade between the UK and the EU and therefore is neither good enough for British business nor a full answer to the Ireland question.

* Only membership of the Single Market or signing up to EEA comes close to genuine frictionless trade.

* Even that unless combined with a Customs Union would still have some friction attached.

* The ‘freedom’ to pursue trade deals is unlikely to result in any substantial benefit to Britain, involves very difficult choices, and in any event if it worked, would take a decade or more before any benefit was realised.

The Government now know this. So, they're again reverting to postponement rather than resolution of the Dilemma.
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: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3457 Postby Alan H » May 22nd, 2018, 11:39 am

The perfect British solution to a crisis: make sure the queues are orderly [see also: deckchairs; Titanic]: Road Haulage Update
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: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3458 Postby Alan H » May 22nd, 2018, 1:16 pm

But the Brexit Bonus will more than make up for this minor little hiccough, won't it? Brexit has cost each UK household £900, Bank of England governor Mark Carney says
Mark Carney has claimed the Brexit vote has left households £900 worse off, describing the sum as "a lot of money."

The governor of the Bank of England made his remarks while giving evidence of a committee of MPs, stating his belief that the effects of the EU referendum in June 2016 had lowered the UK's GDP by 2%.

Mr Carney has previously spoken of the damage inflicted on the economy by the referendum result, which saw prices surge on the back of a plunge in the value of the pound and business investment slow amid uncertainty on the path ahead.
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: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3459 Postby Alan H » May 22nd, 2018, 11:41 pm

I think these numbers are right. Which is it to be? The time for magical, airy-fairy, 'cake-and-eat-it', bespoke, as-yet-unthought-of, not-yet-written-down, imagined solutions has run out.

2018-05-22_23h38_20.png
2018-05-22_23h38_20.png (294.97 KiB) Viewed 564 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: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3460 Postby Alan H » May 23rd, 2018, 12:24 am

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it?

2018-05-23_00h23_48.png
2018-05-23_00h23_48.png (706.38 KiB) Viewed 563 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: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3461 Postby Alan H » May 23rd, 2018, 12:26 pm

The Van Driver Being Put Out Of Business By Brexit
This van driver gave a fascinating insight into how Brexit will affect business in Britain - leading some Brexiteers to admit they may have voted the wrong way.

Kieran told James O'Brien that his delivery company will go out of business almost immediately if Britain leaves the Customs Union.

He said that Brexit campaigners who say that frictionless borders are possible outside the Customs Union are liars, citing the huge amount of paperwork needed every time he delivers to Switzerland.

Speaking to LBC, he said: "I have a contract with Eurostar. Today, we were sent out in the early hours of the morning to Brussels. Load up and come home. We do that two or three times a week.

"No customs checks - all I have to do is list the goods on what's called a CNR form, an international delivery note.

"If we go outside the Customs Union, we need to do transit documents. They cost £75-£90 a pop. You have to go to Customs House in Dover to clear them. You have to park up.

"If you get sent down what's called a Route One, which I've had before, you're stuck there for six to seven hours waiting to clear them. On a quiet day, you can be out and clear in 45-50 minutes.

"If we were outside the Customs Union, all vehicles would have to do this."

The listener response to Kieran's call was huge.
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 3 guests