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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3841 Postby Alan H » October 26th, 2018, 6:46 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

I suspect the jokes will write themselves. It's a shit job but someone will have to do it: Brexit Panic as Brits Run Out of Toilet Paper
There is palpable sense of panic slowly developing in London. Each Brit consumes 110 toilet rolls a year—two and half time the European average. The United Kingdom is Europe’s biggest importer of loo paper and it is said that only one day’s supply of toilet paper exists in stock. If Britain leaves the EU Customs Union and Single Market in five months’ time and the trucks transporting toilet paper are held up at Calais or Dover, British bottoms will have to be wiped with torn-up newspapers as in bygone days.

Some 1,300 trucks carrying goods from the continent arrive every day just for the giant German-owned low-cost supermarket chain Lidl. Airbus imports a million components on a just-in-time basis, as do all U.K. automobile manufacturers.

Britain’s economy is now completely integrated in terms of supply and transport into the rest of Europe. There are no more checks and controls on goods, people, toilet rolls, or components going between the continent and Britain than there are on goods or people moving from California to Oregon.

This sense of panic—the highways of Kent in southern England becoming parking lots for trucks with toilets and canteens, manufacturing firms told to stockpile food, medicine, or components, and Eurotunnel slowing to snail’s pace for the 4,500 trucks using it every day as each fills in customs forms—helps to persuade public opinion and MPs that a no-deal Brexit would be very bad indeed.
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: 6469
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3842 Postby animist » October 28th, 2018, 3:04 pm

I cannot vouch for the truth of this, but nothing should be a surprise about the B word:
https://www.facebook.com/PridesPurge/ph ... =3&theater

This could be promising: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... E799dtt5R0 If the choice were between any Government deal and staying in the EU then it would avoid the problem I mentioned of a multi-choice referendum, and the choice between these two alternatives is both the sensible one and not a simple rerun of the 2016 referendum

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3843 Postby Alan H » October 28th, 2018, 9:02 pm

It’s not defying voters, MPs, to try to make them think again on Brexit
Brexit’s potential to wreck their fragile economies is terrifying. A government assessment concluded that the GDP of the north-east would fall by 16% after a “no-deal” Brexit, by 11% if there is what the Brexit PR men cheerily call “Canada plus” and by 3.5% if Britain leaves in name only.
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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3844 Postby Alan H » October 30th, 2018, 11:38 am

This is a short, simplified piece showing the real implications of border customs checks. It would be good if there was something more realistic that explained things even better and how Brexit is going to absolutely screw us, but it's a start. It's what we voted for, isn'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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3845 Postby Alan H » October 31st, 2018, 11:01 am

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? No-deal Brexit would trigger lengthy UK recession, warns S&P
Britain’s economy will suffer rising unemployment and falling household incomes that would trigger a recession should Theresa May fail to secure a deal to prevent the UK crashing out of the European Union next year, according to analysis by the global rating agency Standard & Poor’s.

Property prices would slump and inflation would spike to more than 5% in a scenario that S&P said had become more likely in recent months following deadlock with Brussels over a post-Brexit deal.

In a warning that included a possible downgrade to the UK’s credit rating, which would bring with it an increase in the Treasury’s borrowing costs, S&P said it still expected both sides in the Brexit talks to come to an agreement before next March, when the UK is scheduled to leave the European Union.

But it warned that the chance of a “no-deal” Brexit had risen in recent months to such an extent that it needed to warn international investors about the potential challenges ahead.

The S&P report said:

Unemployment would rise from current all-time low of 4% to 7.4% by 2020 – a rate last seen in the aftermath of the financial crisis;
house prices would likely fall by 10% over two years;
household incomes would be £2,700 lower a year after leaving without a deal;
inflation would rise, peaking at 4.7% in mid-2019;
London office prices could fall by 20% over two to three years, similar to the decline following the 2008 financial crash.
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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3846 Postby Alan H » November 2nd, 2018, 7:21 pm

At what point does the Will Of The People become The Con Of The People? Brexit: The Movie producer charged with £500,000 fraud
A hedge fund executive who produced a feature-length Brexit film encouraging Britons to vote leave in the 2016 EU referendum has appeared in court charged with committing a fraud of more than £500,000.

David Shipley, 36, is alleged to have committed fraud by false representation by Photoshopping his wage slips to make it appear he was paid much more than he really was in order to secure a loan approval.

More than 2 million people watched Brexit: The Movie, which was released a month before the referendum and designed to “inspire as many people as possible to vote to leave the EU in the 23 June referendum”. The former Ukip leader Nigel Farage was among a clutch of Brexiters who attended the film’s premiere at the Leicester Square Odeon in London on 11 May 2016.

Shipley is also alleged to have committed a second count of fraud by abusing his position as managing partner of the hedge fund Spitfire Capital Advisors to cause the company to lose nearly £20,000.

Shipley, from Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire, pleaded not guilty to both of the charges at Westminster magistrates court on Friday. He was bailed to appear at Southwark crown court on 30 November.

Writing for the website ConservativeHome in 2017, Shipley said: “I don’t think that a day went by between 1 January and 23 June last year where I wasn’t thinking about how we could win the referendum vote for leave.

“As for many people who are involved in British politics, the EU referendum campaign dominated the first half of last year for me. Between producing Brexit: The Movie, working with a wide variety of leave groups to distribute it and pounding the streets, the campaign consumed all of my free time.”

We were conned by shysters, con men, spivs and other Tory and UKIP supporters.
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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3847 Postby Alan H » November 3rd, 2018, 9:39 pm

The Brexit Bonus is going to be so stupendous, so fantastic the Tories want to gag companies so they don't tell us about it... UK asks drug companies to sign no-deal Brexit gag clause
Drug companies advising the U.K. government on how to maintain medicine supplies after a no-deal Brexit have signed strict non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) barring them from revealing information on planned border arrangements and supply routes.

The government is being so secretive that information is only being provided to firms orally, or via hard copies of documents that must be returned at the end of meetings, according to a draft NDA document published by Department of Health and Social Care.

Firms consulted on no-deal arrangements are threatened with injunction if they breach the terms of the agreements.

The government has been in close contact with the pharmaceutical industry, which is stockpiling drugs to ensure British citizens still have access to vital medicines if supply routes are disrupted by delays at the border.
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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3848 Postby Alan H » November 3rd, 2018, 10:21 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn;'t it? Leo Varadkar: Brexit has undermined Good Friday agreement
Brexit has undermined the Good Friday agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland and has strained relations between Britain and Ireland, the Irish prime minister has said.

In an interview with RTÉ on Saturday morning, Leo Varadkar said Ireland was about to enter a difficult period because of the impact Brexit would have on the economy.

He indicated that a Brexit deal would give renewed impetus to parties in Northern Ireland to reach an agreement to restore devolved government in the region, 22 months after the Stormont assembly collapsed.

“Brexit has undermined the Good Friday agreement and is fraying the relationship between Britain and Ireland,” he told the Marian Finucane show. “Anything that pulls the communities apart in Northern Ireland undermines the Good Friday agreement, and anything that pulls Britain and Ireland apart undermines that relationship.”
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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3849 Postby Alan H » November 5th, 2018, 12:32 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Metropolitan police rush to set up no-deal Brexit 'safety net unit'
A “no deal safety net unit” is being rushed through by Scotland Yard at a cost of more than £2.4m after police chiefs warned the home secretary that losing EU tools would make it harder to track sex offenders and terrorist suspects, according to internal police documents.

The initial cost to the taxpayer was subsequently inflated by £250,000 to allow the new unit to rent an office near parliament after the Metropolitan police said it did not have the space given the large size of the team. Discussions are ongoing about the extent of the running costs to the taxpayer should the UK crash out in March.
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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3850 Postby Alan H » November 5th, 2018, 6:20 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Ireland cannot let UK decide when Brexit backstop ends, says Varadkar
Ireland’s prime minister has told Theresa May in a hastily arranged phone call that he cannot allow the UK to unilaterally decide when to terminate the Irish backstop, creating the possibility that Britain could be in a customs union with the EU for the long term.

Leo Varadkar’s office released a statement after May called him on Monday morning in which he said while Ireland was open to the possibility of “a review mechanism” for the backstop, the UK could not solely determine how to use it.

“The prime minister raised the possibility of a review mechanism for the backstop,” it said.

“The taoiseach [prime minister] indicated an openness to consider proposals for a review, provided that it was clear that the outcome of any such review could not involve a unilateral decision to end the backstop. He recalled the prior commitments made that the backstop must apply ‘unless and until’ alternative arrangements are agreed.”

Downing Street confirmed the call had taken place “to take stock of the progress being made in the negotiations”, and the two leaders had discussed the outstanding issues in the Brexit talks.

A No 10 spokesman said the British and Irish leaders had agreed the backstop would be “a temporary arrangement”, but May had emphasised that there would need to be “a mechanism through which the backstop could be brought to an end”.

The UK statement did not refer to the Irish position that the mechanism could not involve a unilateral decision to end the backstop.

May is under intense pressure from several members of her cabinet to secure a means by which any backstop agreements can be time limited and able to be terminated by the UK.

The subject is at the heart of the Brexit negotiations, but Varadkar’s remarks indicate there are limits to what Ireland, and by implication the EU, will sign up to.
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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3851 Postby Alan H » November 7th, 2018, 10:51 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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3852 Postby Alan H » November 7th, 2018, 9:56 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Former UK civil service chief backs a People's Vote to stop Brexit 'catastrophe'
Theresa May is urged to call a fresh Brexit referendum by the former head of the UK civil service.

"A combination of poor negotiations and poor choices have left us in an unenviable place, and that's why we've got to re-open this question, even at this late stage," Lord Kerslake, who led the civil service between 2012 and 2014, tells BI.

Kerslake said the option of a no-deal Brexit should be taken off the ballot paper in a second vote, because "pursuing a no-deal Brexit [...] when you know the damage it could do to ordinary people is frankly irresponsible."

Downing Street has repeatedly ruled out the prospect of a second referendum.
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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3853 Postby Alan H » November 7th, 2018, 10:32 pm

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

The Health Secretary @MattHancock says the Government is building refrigerator capacity for medicines in case there is a no-deal Brexit #Peston


Building fridge capacity to stock essential medicines after fucking Brexit...

Can we put the fucking Tories and UKIP in the freezer* and let grown-ups take over and sort this fucking mess out?

* thawing optional
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: 6469
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3854 Postby animist » November 8th, 2018, 9:47 am

Alan H wrote:This fucking Brexit thingy is all fucking going tickety-boo, isn't it? Watch

The Health Secretary @MattHancock says the Government is building refrigerator capacity for medicines in case there is a no-deal Brexit #Peston


Building fridge capacity to stock essential medicines after fucking Brexit...

Can we put the fucking Tories and UKIP in the freezer* and let grown-ups take over and sort this fucking mess out?

* thawing optional
+1

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3855 Postby Alan H » November 8th, 2018, 12:01 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Autumn 2018 Economic Forecast: sustained but less dynamic growth amid high uncertainty

screenshot-tweetdeck.twitter.com-2018.11.08-12-00-48.png
screenshot-tweetdeck.twitter.com-2018.11.08-12-00-48.png (41.07 KiB) Viewed 100 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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3856 Postby Alan H » November 8th, 2018, 7:17 pm

Following in David Davies's (rather small) footsteps: Brexit secretary Dominic Raab says he ‘hadn’t quite understood’ importance of Dover-Calais crossing
Dominic Raab has been ridiculed after saying he “hadn’t quite understood” the importance of cross-Channel trade to the UK economy.

The extraordinary admission came as the Brexit secretary also warned shoppers to expect less choice of goods if leaving the EU damages the trade route from France.

Speaking at an event for tech firms, Mr Raab said Theresa May was pursuing a future trade deal that recognised the “peculiar geographic economic entity” of the UK, as an island nation.

“I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing,” he said.

“And that is one of the reasons why we have wanted to make sure we have a specific and very proximate relationship with the EU, to ensure frictionless trade at the border.”

The comment drew scorn from scientist and broadcaster Brian Cox, who tweeted: “How could it possibly come as a surprise to Dominic Raab that our most important trade gateway is that which is closest geographically to our most important market?”

Nicky Morgan, the former Conservative cabinet minister who advocates a soft Brexit, tweeted simply: “Gulp’ #enoughsaid.”


Speaking of Davies:
Carry yourself with the confidence of David Davis telling #r4today how Brexit would have been different if he'd been in charge of negotiating it.

As someone replied:

screenshot-citizenofnowhere.slack.com-2018.11.08-19-16-19.png
screenshot-citizenofnowhere.slack.com-2018.11.08-19-16-19.png (704.6 KiB) Viewed 93 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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3857 Postby Alan H » November 9th, 2018, 7:00 pm

Ignorance and irresponsibility continue into the final days of the Brexit negotiations
The revelation that Dominic Raab had not until now “quite understood” the UK’s reliance on the Dover-Calais crossing for goods trade between the UK and the EU has attracted widespread criticism and understandable mockery. It is indeed shocking that the Cabinet Minister in charge of Brexit should only now grasp something so basic to his brief. Yet it is not surprising. It is part of a pattern of ignorance for which there is plenty of evidence – including Raab’s own bemusement (prior to his current role, but after years of campaigning for hard Brexit) that leaving the customs union would increase bureaucracy.

It would be wrong to single out Raab. Scratch the surface of just about any prominent Brexiter and the same kinds of ignorance are revealed. It’s perfectly understandable and reasonable that no one, on any side of the debate, has anything like a comprehensive knowledge of Brexit and its effects – it is just too huge and hydra-headed a phenomenon for that to be possible. But it’s not at all unreasonable to expect politicians – who, after all, have access to numerous resources, including the excellent House of Commons Library briefings – to understand the core, basic issues of what they argue for. Especially when that is so fundamental and total a shift in national history as Brexit.

That they do not have such an understanding has been revealed time and time again. Sometimes it is ludicrous, as with the revelation that convinced Brexiter MP Nadine Dorries was asking as recently as last January what a Customs Union was and, when it was explained, opined that as it sounded complicated that confirmed that Britain should leave. Or the belief of another Ultra, Andrew Bridgen, that English people are entitled to Irish passports. Or the mistaken claim, made by just about every pro-Brexit MP, but let’s take John Redwood as an example, that the UK currently conducts its non-EU trade on WTO terms. It would be possible to fill a book – and no doubt, one day, someone will – of such nonsenses.

At least Dorries, Bridgen and Redwood have never had any responsibility for delivery (though that isn’t to say they don’t influence it). Unlike David Davis who believed that post-Brexit the UK could negotiate trade deals with individual EU member states. That was a particularly egregious error given that one of the Brexiters’ most fervent complaints is that membership of the EU Common Commercial Policy precludes Britain, as a member state, from doing such deals.

Almost worse than outright ignorance is the lofty deployment – Rees-Mogg is a particular specialist - of supposedly technical arguments, almost invariably on the basis of semi-digested factoids, or half-truths, or selective quotations, or just plain errors. Examples include periodically recurring claims that ‘an EU Report’ has shown how there can be a soft border in Ireland (it’s not an EU Report and it doesn’t show that), or that there is a frictionless border between the USA and Canada, or Switzerland and France (there isn’t, in either case). Again, there's a book to be filled of similar examples.

To repeat, the fault here is not making errors – we all do that, myself certainly included – it is regurgitating them endlessly even when the errors are corrected. It should also be said that there are plenty on the Remain side who are guilty of the same thing, and that it is not confined to Tory politicians (Labour’s repeated claim that a Customs Union with the EU would solve the Irish border issue is an especially gross example, as is Jeremy Corbyn’s mistaken claim that it is impossible to be in the single market if not a member of the EU but that it is possible to ‘retain the benefits’). The difference, though, at least as regards remainers, is that the policy the UK is pursuing is that of the Brexit, so the onus is on Brexiters to get their facts right.

Of course there is nothing new in any of this – many of these points have been made before on this blog, and also by many other people apart from me. But they are worth repeating because we are now hurtling towards what is very possibly going to be the point of no return. It seems increasingly likely that there will be a Withdrawal Agreement within the next few days, and it is going to be put forward by politicians, some or most of whom are ignorant of basic facts, to be voted on by other politicians who are similarly ignorant. Even in these dog days of the negotiations, Brexiter Cabinet ministers – Raab, again, and Liam Fox – are talking of the Northern Ireland backstop as being something which could be time-limited or unilaterally revocable by the UK, neither of which can, by definition of a backstop, be true.

What is also important – and perhaps crucial to what has unfolded - is that the entire impetus for the Brexit project is predicated not just upon ignorance of, but an absolute refusal to engage with, the complex practicalities of Brexit. After all, it might have been expected that those who have schemed, dreamed and campaigned – sometimes for decades – for Brexit would be falling over themselves in a rapture to have the chance to put it into practice.

Not a bit of it. Those who support Brexit most strongly are far happier standing outside the delivery process rather than taking responsibility for it. That is clear in the way that Boris Johnson prefers to act as if he is still campaigning for Brexit rather than stay in the government delivering it, and why several other Brexiters – perhaps more principled than Johnson, although that is not to put them in a vanishingly small minority – such asSteve Baker prefer the pleasures of purity to the dull compromises of governing. It is most bizarrely evident in David Davis’ criticism today of the Government’s Brexit negotiating strategy: he was responsible for it until last summer.

So we have a strange and, to the best of my knowledge, unprecedented situation. A group of people who are passionate and uncompromising advocates of a fundamental economic and geo-political shift for a nation don’t actually know much about what it means in practice, and have very little interest in delivering it. It is political irresponsibility on a wanton, scandalous scale.

Ironically, though, it is just this ignorance and irresponsibility that is one of the things Theresa May will gamble on in what I suspect we will see next week: an attempt to play on the fact that her MPs don’t really grasp or care enough about the detail to get her deal through. If that’s right – and, if so, I’ll write about next week – that will be an even greater irresponsibility, as it will set the stage for years of political infighting, strategic drift and economic decline as the meaning and implications of her deal unfold and unwind.
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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3858 Postby Alan H » November 9th, 2018, 7:02 pm

By Jo Johnson MP, Minister for Transport and Minister for London: Why I cannot support the Government’s proposed Brexit deal
Brexit has divided the country. It has divided political parties. And it has divided families too. Although I voted Remain, I have desperately wanted the Government, in which I have been proud to serve, to make a success of Brexit: to reunite our country, our party and, yes, my family too. At times, I believed this was possible. That’s why I voted to start the Article 50 process and for two years have backed the Prime Minister in her efforts to secure the best deal for the country. But it has become increasingly clear to me that the Withdrawal Agreement, which is being finalised in Brussels and Whitehall even as I write, will be a terrible mistake.

Indeed, the choice being presented to the British people is no choice at all. The first option is the one the Government is proposing: an agreement that will leave our country economically weakened, with no say in the EU rules it must follow and years of uncertainty for business. The second option is a “no deal” Brexit that I know as a Transport Minister will inflict untold damage on our nation. To present the nation with a choice between two deeply unattractive outcomes, vassalage and chaos, is a failure of British statecraft on a scale unseen since the Suez crisis. My constituents in Orpington deserve better than this from their Government.

What is now being proposed won’t be anything like what was promised two years ago.
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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3859 Postby Alan H » November 9th, 2018, 7:24 pm

Minister Jo Johnson quits over Brexit and calls for new vote
Jo Johnson has quit as transport minister and called for the public to have a fresh say on Brexit.

The MP, who is Boris Johnson's brother, said the withdrawal deal being negotiated with the European Union "will be a terrible mistake".

Arguing Britain was "on the brink of the greatest crisis" since World War Two, he said what was on offer wasn't "anything like what was promised".

Downing Street thanked him for his work but ruled out another referendum.

Jo Johnson voted to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum while his brother Boris, who quit as foreign secretary in July, was a leading Brexiteer.
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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3860 Postby Alan H » November 10th, 2018, 11:30 am

The farce continues: Theresa May makes push for Brexit breakthrough in days
Theresa May has ordered her ministers to make a push for a Brexit deal this week, ordering her attorney-general Geoffrey Cox to prepare the legal fix that she hopes will finally unlock an agreement.

The prime minister told ministers to be ready to attend another cabinet meeting at the end of this week to approve an outline deal on Britain’s exit treaty, opening the way for a special European Council meeting in late November to sign it off.

Although Downing Street insisted there was “still a significant amount of work to do”, Mrs May told her cabinet she wanted a Brexit agreement in November so that she could seek the approval of MPs before Christmas.

“There were warnings about us having to work through Christmas and how we’d have to start activating “no deal” contingency plans if there wasn’t an agreement by the end of the month,” said one person briefed on Tuesday’s cabinet meeting.

In spite of unrest among Eurosceptic cabinet ministers, Mrs May wants to make a breakthrough in Brussels talks in the next 48 hours and to present the outline of a deal to the cabinet on Friday or possibly Saturday.

Mr Cox, a Brexit supporter, has been asked by Mrs May and Eurosceptic cabinet ministers to come up with a legal text to resolve the outstanding issue of the Irish backstop. Dominic Raab, Brexit secretary, is on standby to travel to Brussels.
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: 23622
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3861 Postby Alan H » November 10th, 2018, 6:03 pm

I hope no one requires medicines to stay alive: Theresa May's government told leading medics UK can't rule out medicine shortages in a no-deal Brexit
Exclusive: The Brexit department said there could be medicine shortages in a no deal Brexit in an "alarming" meeting with pharmaceutical and medical industry representatives last month.

In the meeting, DExEU civil servants said some medicines might not be available to patients if Britain leaves the European Union without a deal in March.

The meeting took place two weeks before health organisations sent a letter to Theresa May's government expressing concern that the risk of medicine shortages in a no deal Brexit is "red."

Health Secretary Matt Hancock has asked private companies to help stockpile medicines.
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 2 guests