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: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3761 Postby Alan H » September 14th, 2018, 8:30 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Crash-out chaos is a decoy. Beware blind Brexit
Dominic Raab has a column in the Telegraph saying “we need not be afraid of a no-deal Brexit”, while also saying it would “not be a walk in the park” and warning, among other things, that “extra checks at the EU border would bring delays for business”. The government’s latest batch of 28 contingency plans, out today, will cover things such as mobile phone roaming changes (which the EU scrapped) and environmental standards.


Raab's walk in the park will be through lush green pastures with grazing unicorns, won't it?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3762 Postby Alan H » September 15th, 2018, 6:28 pm

With a Brexit deal in sight, Britain is entering a no man’s land
Nick Clegg
When is a deal a deal and no deal at the same time? In the Brexit negotiations. In fact, the way in which the talks between the UK and the EU were organised propels the process to one overwhelmingly likely outcome: an agreement on how to leave the EU, with no binding agreement on how to live outside the bloc. The former — as the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier made clear this week — is within touching distance. But the latter remains as distant as ever.

This straightforward fact appears to have been forgotten by those who used the summer to speculate about the perils of a “no-deal” outcome. The UK government has sought to dignify its hopelessly fudged Chequers plan by comparing it to the ructions of a no-deal Brexit. Ardent Conservative Brexiters, meanwhile, have sought to claim that no deal would be a perfectly manageable outcome.

Neither has admitted to the British people that under all scenarios, once a detailed plan for Britain’s departure from the EU is agreed, Britain will be floating outside the bloc without any legally agreed future. It will be similar to leaving a house and throwing away the keys, with no idea where to stay next. As this becomes more obvious, the growing dissent in parliament and the country will rise.

None of this should be a surprise. It is spelt out clearly in Article 50 of the EU treaties. The only legally binding component of any deal will be related to the “arrangements for its [the exiting state] withdrawal” (money, EU citizens rights and the Irish border) while the framework for the future relationship will be subject to a non-binding political statement. The latest wheeze in Brussels is to turn the latter into a “solemn declaration” — as if portentous language can make up for the lack of legal clarity.

Theresa May knew this from the outset. Her government did nothing to try to change the terms of the negotiation. Crucially, this interpretation of Article 50 remains the guiding instruction to Mr Barnier and his negotiating team. He has little incentive to engage in detail with Britain’s Chequers plan, or indeed any other rival version of the future. It is not his job. As far as he is concerned, he has been asked to arrange for an orderly and legally sound departure of the UK from the EU.

No wonder Mr Barnier tends to focus most on the first part of that task — especially the unresolved issue of the Northern Irish border — and remain aloof about the latter. When I recently suggested to one of the key EU negotiators that the political declaration was not worth the paper it is written on, they did not demur.

The British political and media establishment has always underestimated the centrality of law to the EU. As Europe’s only democracy without a written constitution, British decision makers assume that a smidgen of fudge and old fashioned muddling through will do the trick. But the EU has hard legal contours that are not susceptible to the kind of nudge and wink dealmaking of Westminster tea rooms.

This is the reason why — if unwittingly — Mr Barnier has become an ally of sorts to Jacob Rees-Mogg and other Brexit fundamentalists. They, too, simply want to see the UK leave the EU and regard any commitments about the future as a constraint on their hopes for a buccaneering Britain scouring the planet for new (if economically insignificant) trade deals.

More thoughtful European leaders are starting to discern the dangers of an unresolved Brexit in which Britain leaves the EU, but all the negotiation about the future is still left to do. French president Emmanuel Macron recently warned against the dangers of a “ blind Brexit ”. He is right to be worried. The prospect of Brexit weeping like a running sore for years to come will drain the EU of the political capital it needs to focus on other issues.

In other words, even as the warning signs flash about the dangers of an exit shorn of a detailed plan for the future, the Brexit conveyor belt continues to roll. It is too late to redesign the parameters of the talks and neither side possesses the will or the wherewithal to broker a better conclusion. It is testament to the frenzy unleashed by Brexit that Britain, home to one of the world’s greatest democracies, should now be on the verge of willingly entering into a legal and political no man’s land.

The onus on MPs to save the government — and the country — from itself becomes bigger by the day. If parliament chooses to act, it is still not too late to give the country more time to choose a better future.
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: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3763 Postby Alan H » September 17th, 2018, 12:14 pm

What do the 'no deal' notices tell us about Brexit and health?
One of the EU’s strengths is in its collective decision-making powers, used to devise common regulations. Of course, no regulatory system is perfect, but on leaving the EU, the UK loses many of the trade-improving, burden-easing, and practice-refining benefits that come with economies of scale.

And, for the health sector, there are no clear counter-advantages. The EU regulations are a product of the member states’ views; the UK’s voice has been heard and expert research has been considered to create them. Thus, as highlighted by the UK’s notices, there is no clear motivation to do anything other than copy and paste them. But, as the EU has stated unambiguously, the UK’s fundamental change in status to a third country means that this will by no means equate to continuity.
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: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3764 Postby Alan H » September 18th, 2018, 1:17 pm

Quite a good summary of the current Tory clusterfuck that is 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: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3765 Postby Alan H » September 18th, 2018, 1:21 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? BMW to shut Mini factory for a month after Brexit day - Sky sources
Car giant BMW will shut its main British manufacturing factory immediately after Brexit day next year for several weeks, because of the rising risk of a "no-deal" divorce, Sky News has learned.

The famous Mini plant in Oxford will not produce cars for at least a month from 29 March 2019, as the German giant activates the next stage of its no-deal contingency plans.

During the referendum campaign a number of high profile Leave campaigners claimed that a great deal was inevitable because BMW would lobby German Chancellor Angela Merkel for one.

David Davis, who later went on to become Brexit secretary, claimed in Febraury 2016 that: "Within minutes of a vote for Brexit CEO's would be knocking down Chancellor Merkel's door demanding access to the British market."
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: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3766 Postby Alan H » September 18th, 2018, 2:28 pm

Liars, every single last one of them:

screenshot-tweetdeck.twitter.com-2018.09.18-14-25-10.png
screenshot-tweetdeck.twitter.com-2018.09.18-14-25-10.png (971.94 KiB) Viewed 59 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: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3767 Postby Alan H » September 18th, 2018, 9:34 pm

Parliament has a ‘golden moment’ to halt Brexit before it’s too late
So this is the strategy I propose, along with many other parliamentarians and others who have been wrestling with these great issues and with whom I have been in a virtual committee of public safety in recent months.

First: Brexit can and must be stopped, democratically.

Second: this can and should be done by means of a people’s vote.

Third: it is the duty of all MPs who realise that Brexit is wrong to support the people’s vote and give their frank advice to their constituents on the right course to stay in the EU.

It is simple, straightforward, entirely achievable and I believe entirely legitimate. The question now is whether my colleagues in the House of Commons will seize their “golden moment” and act to give the people their say. History tells us that the consequences, should they fail, will be severe. As will be the judgment of history.
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: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3768 Postby Alan H » September 19th, 2018, 11:52 am

Rightwing thinktanks unveil radical plan for US-UK Brexit trade deal
The IFT/Cato Institute free trade deal recognises that its proposals are likely to be unpopular. “Health services would benefit from foreign competition, although we recognise any change to existing regulations would be extremely controversial,” it says.

It recommends testing the waters with foreign competition in education and legal services first.

The proposals are likely to meet fierce opposition from trade experts on the left. Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, said: “The measures supported in this paper represent a free trade utopia, entirely divorced from economic reality. The authors view good government as ‘getting out of the way’ of business, and letting profit drive every aspect of our society. If carried out, these policies would destroy huge swathes of our economy, including farming, and they would lay waste to public services.”
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: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3769 Postby Alan H » September 19th, 2018, 10:54 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? EU airports unable to cope with safety risks of 'no-deal' Brexit, leaked memo reveals
European airports have privately warned that a "no-deal" Brexit would cause "major disruption and heightened safety risks", Sky News has learned.

At least six million passengers on UK-originating flights transferring in the continent would have to group through extra security and screening before embarking on their second journey
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: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3770 Postby Alan H » September 20th, 2018, 12:00 pm

I bet Tories and Brexiters are wetting themselves at the prospect: Liam Fox is plotting to scrap EU food standards to win a Brexit trade deal with Trump
Exclusive: Liam Fox is planning to scrap EU food standards using controversial "Henry the 8th" powers, multiple sources have told Business Insider.

The UK trade secretary wants to use government powers to rewrite UK food standards in order to strike a post-Brexit trade deal with the Trump administration.

Sources claim Fox wants to alter food standards through the Trade Bill. A government spokesperson denied the bill would be used to lower standards.

Labour accuses Fox of risking putting UK "farmers and food producers out of business."

The UK will need to lower its food standards to sign a comprehensive trade deal with the US.


How about you, coffee?
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: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3771 Postby Alan H » September 20th, 2018, 10:33 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo for the Tories, isn't it? Theresa May's Salzburg humiliation confirms that a full blown political crisis is coming
Theresa May’s problem is that she is fundamentally a decent, functional human being. She is not struck down with the Messiah complex. She does not lie easily or well.

So when she stands on stage at a press conference, her teeth gnashing, her eyes wide and wild, as if everything has gone utterly terribly wrong and she hasn’t got the first clue what she is going to do about it, then you can be absolutely sure it’s because everything has indeed gone utterly terribly wrong, and she hasn’t got the first clue what she is going to do about it.

She had been humiliated, and then she was forced to humiliate herself. She had thought this informal summit of EU leaders in Salzburg would be the final breakthrough on an exit deal from the European Union.

But there has been no breakthrough. There is still a chasm of empty space between her red lines and the European Union’s. The question of the Irish border appears unresolvable.

Either Northern Ireland stays in the single market and the customs union, or the whole of the UK does, or there is no deal. None of these options are satisfactory for the UK.

It is for this reason that pundits and politicians have spent much of 2018 predicting a full blown political crisis in the United Kingdom this autumn. And when the prime minister is sweating profusely, tripping over her words and chewing on her own gums as if lost on the way back from the dance tent at Glastonbury at 4am, well, it’s not unfair to conclude that that is exactly what is coming.

Pass the :popcorn: will you, coffee?
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: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3772 Postby Alan H » September 21st, 2018, 10:51 am

Theresa May's Brexit train wreck hits the buffers of reality:

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: 6437
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3773 Postby animist » September 21st, 2018, 11:00 am

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/09 ... ot-serious

so even Ian Dunt maybe overestimates the importance which we Brits, even Remainers, attach to the question of how the rest of the EU views UK domestic politics. They are effing sick of Brexit (despite the career openings which it apparently gave to youngish members of the EU bureaucracy two long years ago).

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3774 Postby Alan H » September 21st, 2018, 6:37 pm

Theresa May asked the EU to explain why they rejected her Chequers deal; they obliged: Theresa May's 'tough and uncompromising' approach got her Chequers Brexit plan rejected, says EU
The president of the European Council has hit back at Theresa May after the Prime Minister kicked-off over the rejection of her Chequers Brexit plan and demanded more "respect" in talks.

In a statement released on Friday evening Donald Tusk blamed in part Ms May's conduct for the rejection of her proposals, warning that EU leaders had responded to a "tough and in fact uncompromising" stance by the PM in the run-up to a key summit in Salzburg.

He added that the British government had known the EU was going to reject the proposals "in every detail" for weeks.
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: 23405
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3775 Postby Alan H » Yesterday, 11:05 am

Salzburg: How a chronic misreading has brought Brexit to the brink
In the game of Jenga, competitors build a tower of identical wooden bricks, creating a new layer each time by deftly removing one block from below and placing it delicately on top.

The higher the tower rises, the more unstable it becomes, and the more skill is required to extract each new brick without bringing the whole structure down.

This aptly describes Theresa May’s Brexit strategy. Salzburg may well prove to be the clumsily extricated brick.
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: 6437
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3776 Postby animist » Yesterday, 12:12 pm

well, at least the implication, with only 188 days to go, that there will be no deal (or at least no general one - I imagine that EASA etc will be sorted out) does simplify a second referendum, were there to be one. That is because such a referendum will be, like the last one, binary. The problem about a new vote on a deal would be that there would be three options, which might well have necessitated not one but two votes


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests