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
animist
Posts: 5705
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#1621 Postby animist » May 12th, 2017, 2:34 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:It was definitely a stitch-up!
I don't think so, and I think in fact that the whole stupid saga supports the cockup view of history
Hanlon's Razor?
absolutely so. I did not know this one, so many thanks. It will come in useful when I start my new group on conspiracy theories at the local U3A!

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21296
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1622 Postby Alan H » May 12th, 2017, 2:45 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:I don't think so, and I think in fact that the whole stupid saga supports the cockup view of history
Hanlon's Razor?
absolutely so. I did not know this one, so many thanks. It will come in useful when I start my new group on conspiracy theories at the local U3A!
Ha! That's always a good one.
Alan Henness

What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Anyone? Hello? Hello?

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21296
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1623 Postby Alan H » May 12th, 2017, 7:37 pm

James Dyson - a leaver - discovers the benefit of an EU court to arbitrate trade disputes over EU product standards that he (currently) can have a say in writing but won't have in two years time: Sir James Dyson wins vacuum cleaners appeal at European Court
Alan Henness

What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Anyone? Hello? Hello?

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21296
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1624 Postby Alan H » May 16th, 2017, 3:07 pm

Brexit dishes up food safety dilemma for UK
Work of EU vets ensuring quality of global imports needs to be covered

From chicken coops in Chile to shrimp farms in Sri Lanka, EU inspectors and vets inspect the health and hygiene of livestock overseas, part of the bloc’s strict controls on produce imported for human consumption. Some 170 European Commission staff carry out up to 240 inspections each year in as many as 130 different countries.

The UK’s departure from the EU means that unless it reaches a deal to continue to work with Brussels it is likely to have to create its own unit of travelling inspectors to ensure the quality of food imports. Senior vets have warned that without liberal immigration rules, Britain may struggle to find enough qualified staff.

“We need to plan for the possibility of that scenario where we’re not able to share . . . the EU mechanisms. We would [be required] to do our own inspections. We know it’s work for us to do,” Professor Nigel Gibbens, the UK’s chief veterinary officer, told a British parliamentary committee in March.

The issue is one of several instances where the UK is set to take on bureaucratic work previously carried out at EU level.

Food inspection is a substantial task for the European Commission. Data from 2015 show that its vets and inspectors spent a combined 4,720 days on overseas visits. Another 150 staff provide back-office support.

“The work of the service is vital in relation to international trade in food, animals and plants as the audit results are a major factor in determining which non-EU countries can export to the EU,” said Paola Colombo, director for health and food audits at the commission.

The commission declined to say what the annual budget for its inspectors was, but overall spending on food safety reached more than €250m in 2015.

The extra workload means the UK will require scores of veterinary professionals working and travelling from 2019.

The British Veterinary Association said the UK would need a liberal immigration policy to ensure that there were enough government vets to match the demand. 

“The government will have to ensure that we have enough veterinary surgeons to undertake these essential roles,” said Gudrun Ravetz, president of the BVA. “Our current workforce of official veterinarians is heavily reliant on non-British EU vets and that is why the BVA has been lobbying hard for the government to guarantee the ongoing working rights of our EU colleagues in the UK.” 

Travelling vets check animals for disease and harmful levels of drugs, contaminants or pesticides, and ensure they are kept according to EU hygiene rules. Slaughterhouses are also monitored, and laboratory tests are carried out at the UK border. 

The EU often suggests improvements to conditions or working practices and in extreme cases can impose sanctions such as a trade ban if a country repeatedly flouts the rules.

Upcoming EU inspections this year include trips to check on poultry in Morocco, fish in Canada and Curaçao, and cows and pigs in Malaysia, Singapore and South Africa.

The UK Food Standards Agency declined to comment on whether it would be taking on the extra work from 2019, but told the Financial Times: “Food safety audit and assurance is being considered as part of wider work looking at potential audit and assurance arrangements after the UK leaves the EU.”
Alan Henness

What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Anyone? Hello? Hello?

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21296
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1625 Postby Alan H » May 17th, 2017, 5:05 pm

Hard Brexit 'will have catastrophic impact on UK', business chiefs told
A hard Brexit could have a "pretty catastrophic" impact on the UK, a senior academic has warned, as he called for the free movement of people to continue temporarily after the country has left the European Union.

Professor Anton Muscatelli, the principal and vice chancellor of Glasgow University, argued that there should be "some sort of single market solution, at the very least as a transition".
But all the rainbows and unicorns we were promised will make it all worthwhile, won't it?
Alan Henness

What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Anyone? Hello? Hello?

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21296
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1626 Postby Alan H » May 18th, 2017, 1:09 am

Tory Peer 'crosses the floor' to Lib Dems with Churchillian letter that could save Britain from the brink of this populist plague


2017-05-18_01h07_40.png
2017-05-18_01h07_40.png (186.75 KiB) Viewed 134 times


2017-05-18_01h06_55.png
2017-05-18_01h06_55.png (247.49 KiB) Viewed 134 times


2017-05-18_01h07_17.png
2017-05-18_01h07_17.png (199.29 KiB) Viewed 134 times
Alan Henness

What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Anyone? Hello? Hello?

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21296
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1627 Postby Alan H » May 18th, 2017, 5:15 pm

Exclusive: EU looks to build alternative to London for capital market - document
Brexit has forced the European Union to rethink its flagship capital markets union (CMU) project and urgently look for ways to create an alternative financial market to London, according to a draft EU document seen by Reuters on Wednesday.

London is the bloc's biggest financial market by far, but will be outside the EU from 2019, posing a challenge to the CMU project that had already begun to flag before last year's referendum in Britain.

"The CMU reform programme must be updated so that it can meet the challenge of creating a more autonomous capital market for the EU-27 economy," the document written by the European Commission says, referring to the remaining EU member states.

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May has said she wants a free trade agreement with the EU that would include financial services, but the document suggests the bloc wants instead to replicate London's financial industry as much as it can.
Alan Henness

What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Anyone? Hello? Hello?

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10804
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#1628 Postby Nick » May 18th, 2017, 11:11 pm

More pure spite from the EU. We have open agreement with the US. This is just a power grab.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21296
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1629 Postby Alan H » May 19th, 2017, 12:06 am

Nick wrote:More pure spite from the EU. We have open agreement with the US. This is just a power grab.
Why shouldn't they move? Why would they want the capital market for the EU in a third country?
Alan Henness

What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Anyone? Hello? Hello?

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10804
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#1630 Postby Nick » May 19th, 2017, 9:42 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:More pure spite from the EU. We have open agreement with the US. This is just a power grab.
Why shouldn't they move? Why would they want the capital market for the EU in a third country?

There's a distinction you are missing here, Alan. US firms operate in the UK within a "passporting" type of system. The EU are actively trying to block such a system for the UK, purely to grab business from the UK. It is not the companies which are causing the change. After all, we were told that business would desert London because we were not part of the Euro zone. Instead London became the centre for Euro trading. London has, for a couple of hundred years been the centre of capital markets for the world, not just the EU.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21296
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1631 Postby Alan H » May 19th, 2017, 10:07 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:More pure spite from the EU. We have open agreement with the US. This is just a power grab.
Why shouldn't they move? Why would they want the capital market for the EU in a third country?

There's a distinction you are missing here, Alan. US firms operate in the UK within a "passporting" type of system. The EU are actively trying to block such a system for the UK, purely to grab business from the UK. It is not the companies which are causing the change. After all, we were told that business would desert London because we were not part of the Euro zone. Instead London became the centre for Euro trading. London has, for a couple of hundred years been the centre of capital markets for the world, not just the EU.

Let me try again. I'm not asking about the USA or saying the EU couldn't have passporting rights with, say, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or whoever, but my question was: why would the EU want the capital market for the EU in a third country? Why bother with setting up a completely new passporting system when they don't have to?
Alan Henness

What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Anyone? Hello? Hello?

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10804
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#1632 Postby Nick » May 19th, 2017, 11:45 am

Alan H wrote:Let me try again. I'm not asking about the USA or saying the EU couldn't have passporting rights with, say, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or whoever, but my question was: why would the EU want the capital market for the EU in a third country? Why bother with setting up a completely new passporting system when they don't have to?

OK, then let me try again!

We keep on being told how wonderful the EU is for trade, because we should, as far as possible, remove barriers to trade. What we have here is a deliberate restraint of trade. The EU is not trying to expand trade, but to impede it, making it less efficient. They are deliberately, unnecessarily and vindictively putting new barriers in place. It's on a par with, say, banning BMW's not built in the UK.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21296
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1633 Postby Alan H » May 19th, 2017, 11:50 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Let me try again. I'm not asking about the USA or saying the EU couldn't have passporting rights with, say, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or whoever, but my question was: why would the EU want the capital market for the EU in a third country? Why bother with setting up a completely new passporting system when they don't have to?

OK, then let me try again!

We keep on being told how wonderful the EU is for trade, because we should, as far as possible, remove barriers to trade. What we have here is a deliberate restraint of trade. The EU is not trying to expand trade, but to impede it, making it less efficient. They are deliberately, unnecessarily and vindictively putting new barriers in place. It's on a par with, say, banning BMW's not built in the UK.

Goodness. Why should the EU prefer a market set up in a third country when it can have it set up within its own borders?
Alan Henness

What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Anyone? Hello? Hello?

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21296
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1634 Postby Alan H » May 19th, 2017, 1:44 pm

Friday email from Ian Dunt, editor at politics.co.uk: The immigration target which isn't meant to be reached:
David Cameron went into two general elections promising to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. It was a lie. He never had any policies to achieve the target. He didn't even try. He never had any intention of reaching it.

His former sidekick, George Osborne, all but admits as much now that he has been freed from the shackles of collective responsibility and instead writes editorials in the Evening Standard. You may remember that Osborne was not just the chancellor under Cameron but also the Tory's chief tactician. And yet he now brands the target he went into two general elections under as "politically rash and economically illiterate".

What's more, no-one else around the prime minister supports it either. "None of [the Cabinet's] senior members supports the pledge in private and all would be glad to see the back of something that has caused the Conservative Party such public grief."

The reason why is simple. It would be devastating to the UK if it ever hit the target. The Office of Budget Responsibility estimates that reducing net migration to 185,000 a year (it's currently at 273,000) would force the government to borrow another £6bn a year - almost three times the negative economic effect of higher inflation or falls in productivity growth. Reducing it all the way to the tens of thousands would cost somewhere in the tens of billions. Katerina Lisenkova of Strathclyde University, estimates that hitting the target would lower GDP per person by one per cent in the long term.

But even if this were not the case, the policy makes no sense on the basis that no government can guarantee it even if it wanted to. After all, using net migration as the target means you are relying on a certain number of Brits leaving the country. The fewer leaving, the greater the reduction of immigrants you require. All of this means that the policy basically encourages the government to make the UK an unpleasant place to live.

So it is economically damaging, impossible to guarantee and incentivises the government to make the country unpleasant. No wonder Theresa May chose to keep it alive in her manifesto this week.

As soon as the document was released, it started falling apart. A tragi-comic interview with defence secretary Michael Fallon on Newsnight last night saw him claim that it was not a policy but an "aim" or an "ambition". And of course the policy was completely without economic justification or elaboration. Fallon was unable to say how much it would cost the Treasury if he achieved it. This is Mickey Mouse economics, if Mickey Mouse was a sado-masochist.

It's quite clear from Fallon's answers that May's administration is doing the same thing as Cameron: publicising the aim without doing anything to achieve it. After all, the raise in financial charges on firms hiring foreign workers and plans to up the income benchmark for family visas won't achieve it. Although, to be fair, the economic catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit might. So perhaps there is a cunning plan behind all this.

However, there is one distinction between Cameron and May in this respect. Those who know her suggest she really does believe in this stuff. After all, this is the home secretary of the Go Home van. That therefore makes this a dangerous moment. As things stand, she doesn't appear to be foolish enough to try to hit the target. But if media pressure for her to do so grows, she might actually try to abide by her manifesto. And that would be far more damaging to this country that the breach of trust she has created by foolishly making this promise again.
Alan Henness

What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Anyone? Hello? Hello?

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10804
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#1635 Postby Nick » May 19th, 2017, 5:16 pm

Alan H wrote:
Goodness. Why should the EU prefer a market set up in a third country when it can have it set up within its own borders?


So you totally and comprehensively fail to understand the benefits of free trade, then, Alan. Just so long as we know. :sad2:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21296
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1636 Postby Alan H » May 19th, 2017, 5:44 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Goodness. Why should the EU prefer a market set up in a third country when it can have it set up within its own borders?


So you totally and comprehensively fail to understand the benefits of free trade, then, Alan. Just so long as we know. :sad2:
No, Nick.

The question is simple: why should the EU prefer a market set up in a third country when it can have it set up within its own borders?
Alan Henness

What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Anyone? Hello? Hello?

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21296
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1637 Postby Alan H » May 19th, 2017, 5:58 pm

German business leaders urge Tories to rethink plan to leave single market
German industrialists have warned that British hopes of their support in Brexit negotiations are misplaced and could backfire with dangerous consequences for international trade.

Business leaders in Europe’s biggest economy are instead calling on Conservatives to rethink their commitment to leaving the single market, even though the party has doubled down on this promise in its election manifesto.

David Davis and Boris Johnson have repeatedly cited likely pressure from German exporters, such as carmakers, as a reason for thinking they can persuade European negotiators to maintain free trade access after Britain leaves.

But the theory is increasingly rejected by those whose support they need most – scepticism relayed most forcefully by Steffen Kampeter, the chief executive of the German employers’ federation, on a trip to the UK this week.
Alan Henness

What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Anyone? Hello? Hello?

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21296
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1638 Postby Alan H » May 19th, 2017, 7:56 pm

Britain faces dire consequences if it fails to secure good Brexit deal: May
British Prime Minister Theresa May said on Thursday there would be dire consequences for Britain if it failed to get a good Brexit deal, and said the coming five years would be among the most challenging in our lifetime.

May made the remarks during a speech presenting her Conservative Party's policy pledges to voters ahead of a June 8 parliamentary election the party is widely expected to win.

"Make no mistake, the central challenge we face is negotiating the best deal for Britain in Europe," May said.

"If we fail, the consequences for Britain and for the economic security of ordinary working people will be dire. If we succeed, the opportunities ahead of us are great."

Still waiting to hear all about these fantastic opportunities we're all going to have.
Alan Henness

What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Anyone? Hello? Hello?

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21296
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#1639 Postby Alan H » May 19th, 2017, 11:08 pm

Exclusive - EU looks to build alternative to London for capital market: document
rexit has forced the European Union to rethink its flagship capital markets union (CMU) project and urgently look for ways to create an alternative financial market to London, according to a draft EU document seen by Reuters on Wednesday.

London is the bloc's biggest financial market by far, but will be outside the EU from 2019, posing a challenge to the CMU project that had already begun to flag before last year's referendum in Britain.

"The CMU reform programme must be updated so that it can meet the challenge of creating a more autonomous capital market for the EU-27 economy," the document written by the European Commission says, referring to the remaining EU member states.

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May has said she wants a free trade agreement with the EU that would include financial services, but the document suggests the bloc wants instead to replicate London's financial industry as much as it can.

The draft document, due to be discussed by the executive Commission on June 7 ahead of potential publication, said Brexit made it necessary to ensure that businesses remaining in the EU would have access to strong capital markets.

"This calls for stronger actions, more effective supervision and making sure that the benefits of the CMU are felt across the entire EU," it said.

"The City of London has traditionally pooled liquidity and provided risk management services for the rest of the EU. The departure of the UK from the single market reinforces the need and urgency of further developing and integrating EU capital markets."

A "deep re-engineering" of the financial system is necessary and this "implies finding ways to integrate sustainability into the EU's regulatory and financial policy framework", and to broaden the "geographical reach of capital markets".

Separately, the EU executive has already announced it will publish a draft law next month to tighten its grip on the clearing of euro-denominated securities, an activity which London currently dominates.

PROPOSALS

The draft document sets out a string of proposals to boost the bloc's capital market, especially in areas which London has dominated such as institutional investment, pensions, and stock market listings.

The Commission will propose in the third quarter to strengthen the powers of the EU's European Securities and Markets Authority - a step Britain had long opposed - in order to make the CMU more effective, the document added.

There may be an "EU Small Listed Companies Act" in the second quarter of next year to make the bloc a more attractive location for companies to go public, it said.

The Commission will propose a draft law to ease capital requirements on investment firms in the fourth quarter of 2017, and assess the case for granting licences and "passporting" rights to financial technology firms to operate across the EU, the document said.

The EU executive will also present measures to "support secondary markets" for non-performing or soured loans on the books of banks, blamed for holding them back from lending more to companies.

There may be a draft law too on making it easier to sell mutual and hedge funds products across borders.

The draft document follows a "mid-term" review of the CMU, a project that aims to encourage companies to raise more funds on markets and reduce the continent's heavy reliance on bank loans.

The document, which could be amended before publication, says a draft law to propose a pan-European personal pension product will be published by the end of June.

There will also be a draft law proposing an EU framework for covered bonds in the first quarter of next year.

Alan Henness

What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Anyone? Hello? Hello?

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10804
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#1640 Postby Nick » May 20th, 2017, 1:03 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:


So you totally and comprehensively fail to understand the benefits of free trade, then, Alan. Just so long as we know. :sad2:
No, Nick.

Yes, Alan! Yes, yes, yes!

The question is simple: why should the EU prefer a market set up in a third country when it can have it set up within its own borders?
The answer is equally simple. Because it is ultimately in their interests to do so. Comparative advantage and all that. Of course, being fundamentally protectionist, they have sought to destroy London's dominance before, but were stopped by law. Unsurprisingly, London continued to dominate. Now they are free to be protectionist by imposing protectionist law.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10804
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#1641 Postby Nick » May 20th, 2017, 1:09 am



There is no plan to leave single market; there is a plan to leave the EU. It is the EU which is forcing the UK to leave the single market, by refusing to allow the UK to remain in it without all the other impediments. And why? Because they are afraid of the UK having an advantage, which is an admission that the EU harms Europe as well as conferring some benefits.


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests