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
Cairsley
Posts: 25
Joined: July 4th, 2014, 2:25 am

Re: In or out?

#2141 Postby Cairsley » August 10th, 2017, 4:32 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Alan H wrote:Th referendum was simply advisory: the Tories chose to take it as being a mandate to go for the most extreme path to leave the EU.

The result of that referendum was a huge embarrassment to David Cameron and the Conservatives, whose internal divisions were only exacerbated by it. Had the Conservatives been more united, they might have seen the sense of acknowledging the result of the referendum, the narrowness of the majority by which it was won (a binding referendum usually has a higher minimum majority requirement than 50%), and the reckless campaign of misinformation and scaremongering that had been waged to tap into many people's frustrations and fears in order to sway the vote in the direction of leaving, and also the fact that the referendum was not binding on Parliament, and that therefore Parliament would have to deliberate further and decide on the nation's behalf whether to remain in the EU. But it seems that both sides of Parliament were in such disarray that no such firm and clear procedure was possible. All very unfortunate. Perhaps the only possibility of the UK yet avoiding the inevitable disadvantages of leaving the EU is a second referendum, given Parliament's apparent dysfunction and loss of credibility on this matter. Perhaps the voters will, if given this chance, consider more sober facts and less ranting, mendacious scaremongering and vote to remain in the EU.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21431
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2142 Postby Alan H » August 10th, 2017, 11:42 am

Cairsley wrote:
Alan H wrote:Th referendum was simply advisory: the Tories chose to take it as being a mandate to go for the most extreme path to leave the EU.

The result of that referendum was a huge embarrassment to David Cameron and the Conservatives, whose internal divisions were only exacerbated by it. Had the Conservatives been more united, they might have seen the sense of acknowledging the result of the referendum, the narrowness of the majority by which it was won (a binding referendum usually has a higher minimum majority requirement than 50%), and the reckless campaign of misinformation and scaremongering that had been waged to tap into many people's frustrations and fears in order to sway the vote in the direction of leaving, and also the fact that the referendum was not binding on Parliament, and that therefore Parliament would have to deliberate further and decide on the nation's behalf whether to remain in the EU. But it seems that both sides of Parliament were in such disarray that no such firm and clear procedure was possible. All very unfortunate. Perhaps the only possibility of the UK yet avoiding the inevitable disadvantages of leaving the EU is a second referendum, given Parliament's apparent dysfunction and loss of credibility on this matter. Perhaps the voters will, if given this chance, consider more sober facts and less ranting, mendacious scaremongering and vote to remain in the EU.

The whole point of Cameron's referendum was to settle the question within the Tory Party once and for all: it had little to do with anything else but him trying to assert his authority and to silence the Europhobes. He was a disaster before the referendum as well as after it: he left it wide open to the extremists in his party to take over and do what they wanted with the result. As a result of that, we have a crazy, stupid, idiotic, unnecessary, damaging, irresponsible, dividing Brexit looming. The general public cannot gain from this Tory mess - yet not all of them realise it yet.

Another referendum? The Tories didn't even want to give Parliament a say in any of this: they fought tooth and nail over even allowing Parliament a say in triggering Article 50 and even now, they only have the minimum of a say on any deal Davis manages to get (if any). It'll take a huge change to ever get another referendum but that will take time and a lot more damage will have been done by then: indeed, I think a lot more damage will have to be done before people realise the disaster for what it is. The Tories - even if they wanted to stop Brexit - are afraid of the backlash from Brexiters. You can just imagine the howls from the Daily Mail and the BluKIP end of the Tory party. Someone - I can't remember who - recently said there would be rioting on the streets if Brexit didn't happen. Those threats should not stop a Government taking the right action of course, but it may take a new referendum on the deal itself (if there even is one).before it's generally accepted that Brexit should not happen. After that, however, we should never hold another referendum ever again. They are too easily manipulated by the Tory-supporting media and lying politicians.
Alan Henness

There are two 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?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21431
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2143 Postby Alan H » August 10th, 2017, 2:09 pm

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? UK trade deficit widens as fall in sterling fails to improve export sales
Britain’s trade position with the rest of the world worsened in June as the sharp fall in the value of the pound since the Brexit vote failed to lift sales of UK-made goods abroad.

The trade in goods deficit widened unexpectedly to £12.7bn, from £11.3bn in May, as exports fell by 2.8% but imports rose by 1.6% according to the Office for National Statistics. It was the biggest deficit in nine months and much wider than economists’ forecasts of £11bn.

The figures are the latest sign that a weak pound is failing to boost exports, despite making British goods cheaper abroad. The pound is currently 13% lower against the dollar than it was on the day of the EU referendum, at $1.2988. It is down 15% against the euro, at €1.1093.

Weaker exports in June were driven by a 7.9% fall to countries outside the EU, while goods exported to EU member states rose by 2.7%.

“The UK is becoming more and not less dependent on the European Union, whatever the result of the referendum last year,” said Edward Hardy, economist at World First. “The numbers are a firm signal that the continent is still the place to be for selling overseas and making the most of the weaker pound.”
Alan Henness

There are two 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?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5763
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2144 Postby animist » August 10th, 2017, 2:34 pm

Alan H wrote:This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? [url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/10/uk-trade-deficit-widens-as-fall-in-sterling-fails-to-improve-export-sales]“The UK is becoming more and not less dependent on the European Union, whatever the result of the referendum last year,” said Edward Hardy, economist at World First. “The numbers are a firm signal that the continent is still the place to be for selling overseas and making the most of the weaker pound.”
:laughter: and of course the other factor is that devaluation makes imports more expensive; since many UK exports use imported materials, it's not surprising that export performance is not too brilliant

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5763
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2145 Postby animist » August 10th, 2017, 2:49 pm

Alan H wrote:It'll take a huge change to ever get another referendum but that will take time and a lot more damage will have been done by then: indeed, I think a lot more damage will have to be done before people realise the disaster for what it is. The Tories - even if they wanted to stop Brexit - are afraid of the backlash from Brexiters. You can just imagine the howls from the Daily Mail and the BluKIP end of the Tory party. Someone - I can't remember who - recently said there would be rioting on the streets if Brexit didn't happen.
of course, though, there may be riots against Brexit, and against the culprits who made it happen, eventually.

A couple of "whatifs". As Alan and Cairns imply, Cameron was morally though not legally obligated to "honour" the referendum result when it went against him, but in fact of course he did not even do this. Instead he resigned. Theresa May was in a sense not so obligated to honour the result (because she had not made the promise that Cameron had) and she could have played it canny by saying stuff like "Brexit means Brexit but you might get in stages and not before we are ready"; of course she did not do this and we know the result of her foolishness. One other whatif that's just occurring to me. I think that some time ago I mentioned here that I'd read a Eurosceptic commentator, quite a few years ago, saying that any country could simply leave the EU by ceasing to make contributions and by repealing the necessary legislation (ie the European Communities Act), so the question arises over whether Article 50 was really either necessary or useful. At any rate, May might have been better advised to postpone getting herself and us into the two-year constraint by instead doing these other things. As it is, ISTM very strange that we are already negotiating with the EU before getting the accompanying repeal legislation thru Parliament - eg what happens to the negotiations if the Tory government falls altogether and some coalition emerges which rejects Brexit, or at any rate Hard Brexit?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21431
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2146 Postby Alan H » August 10th, 2017, 3:19 pm

Animist

If you accept the premise we are still going to leave but it cannot be done in the remaining 18 months without inflicting severe damage, then David Allen Green offered a possible way out: rescind Article 50 but propose a new EU treaty in its place that would allow for a more controlled Brexit. That might be difficult to sell to the hardened Brexiter, but we should not be pandering to them in any way. It would have to be agreed by all EU states but so does any final agreement anyway. That at least gets rid of the ridiculous, arbitrary and impracticable two years of Article 50. (As an aside, it does raise an interesting question: if the Government actually had wanted to take the UK out of the EU but they had put more than a moment's thought into the two-year deadline of Article 50 and realised that was stupid, they could have sought to amend that and/or propose a new treaty that gave a more controlled exit before we set the wheels in motion. Cameron didn't think about it, of course. Ditto May.)

Anyway, I can't see that happening at the moment - not at least until much more damage has been done or can be seen to be an inevitable consequence of Brexit on its current trajectory - but there may be a place for it in the future.

The Tories may well be able to take us out by simply ceasing to pay and repealing the ECA but that would have even more dire consequences: businesses would be left in limbo and effectively unable to export to the EU and crashing out like that, giving the EU the finger, is hardly like to make them amenable to a nice juicy trade deal. The repercussions don't really bear thinking about.
Alan Henness

There are two 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?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21431
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2147 Postby Alan H » August 10th, 2017, 3:46 pm

The experts strike back! How economists are being proved right on Brexit
The only surprise is that it took so long for the consequences to materialise. It evidently took more time than expected for the implications to sink in – to understand that “Brexit means Brexit,” as May’s pithy tautology put it. It took time to realise that there would be no smooth break with the EU and that negotiations would not be wrapped up in two years. There might be no free-trade agreement, no passporting rights for British banks seeking to do business in the EU, and not even an agreement on landing rights for British aircraft on the continent.
Alan Henness

There are two 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?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21431
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2148 Postby Alan H » August 10th, 2017, 6:49 pm

This Brexit thing is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit: Scientist behind one of the century's most important discoveries set to leave UK over EU exit
Compared to schools and hospitals, which have clear and immediate benefits, the payback from investment in the tectonic business of scientific research is harder to quantify. “Science faces a huge political challenge right now,” says Prospect’s Ferns. “Long term projects are vulnerable. The only time this kind of work gets public recognition is when there is a crisis… But you can’t turn the tap on and off.”

To illustrate the point, Dame Rothwell points to the 2002 winners of the Nobel prize: a trio who became the first to fully sequence the genome of an organism, in this case, a tiny worm. The work took decades, without a clear end benefit, yet was eventually responsible for unraveling aspects of AIDS, arthritis and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s. “I always like to quote that story to politicians,” says Rothwell. “The work led to massive breakthroughs, but nobody could have predicted it.”

For Geim, the Brexit result and its threat to his research and development of graphene is sufficient that he is considering leaving both Britain and the EU. “Just a year ago I was completely settled here, and despite, as you can imagine, many offers from around the world—the best possible places—I turned everything down. Leaving was never even a consideration for me. But during the last few months that has changed… I can only imagine how many others are thinking the same. Singapore. China. There are many options. Maybe it is inevitable? Probably it is inevitable.”
Alan Henness

There are two 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?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21431
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2149 Postby Alan H » August 10th, 2017, 7:05 pm

Ireland’s Brexit border: a masterclass in fecklessness
David Hannay is a member of the House of Lords and former UK ambassador to the EU and UN.

When the British government’s archives on Brexit are opened to the public it is a fair bet that one of the most startling revelations will be the sheer fecklessness with which the Cameron and May governments drifted towards putting at serious risk the Good Friday Agreement which ended eighty years of tension over the division of the island of Ireland.

At that time, we will finally get some idea whether that drift was the consequence of mere ignorance and inattention, or whether, worse still, it was a deliberate gamble, a Panglossian punt that all would be for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

When you think of the blood and treasure that successive British governments devoted to maintaining the unity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the massive efforts that the governments of John Major and Tony Blair put into finding a peaceful solution to the period of troubles, it is hard to credit that attention deficit disorder took over so rapidly. But it did.

The Irish dimension was barely mentioned by the leading lights of the Leave campaign – indeed one of them was the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Theresa Villiers, whose duty it was to uphold the Good Friday Agreement. And when John Major and Tony Blair spoke out in warning they were treated as mere blasts from the past.

Well, now the chickens are coming home to roost; and the government seems at a loss to know what to do. It is all very well saying how important it is to maintain the Common Travel Area between the UK and Ireland, and to express a desire to avoid the return of hard border controls on trade in goods and services between the two parts of the island.

But in practical terms that does not take matters very far, particularly when Theresa May has ruled out, even before the Brexit negotiations had begun, the two most obvious ways of squaring the circle: remaining in the EU’s single market or its customs union; or both.

And what about the de-politicisation of law enforcement on the island of Ireland and the strengthening of the fight against terrorism which flowed from the network of EU Justice and Home Affairs legislation and which could all lapse in March 2019?

So far these are all unanswered questions, and they will not be easy to answer.

It is indeed the case that the Common Travel Area has existed for far longer than the EU’s freedom of movement. But it has never had to be applied by two states, one of which remains legally bound by that freedom of movement obligation and one of which seems hell bent on rejecting it.

It is true too that free trade existed between the UK and Ireland in the past; but that was when they were both outside what has now become the European Union.

As for cooperation over law enforcement, there was little enough of that at a time when any extradition could become a major political issue and when there was no European framework to wrap around it.

It really is high time that the government put on the negotiating table some practical solutions to these complex and sensitive issues which, however much goodwill there is in Brussels – and there is plenty on the Irish dimension of Brexit – cannot just be resolved by warm words and vague generalities.

It would be a tragedy if the recent remarkable improvement in the relations between the UK and Ireland were to become just another piece of collateral damage in the wake of last year’s referendum vote.
Alan Henness

There are two 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?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21431
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2150 Postby Alan H » August 11th, 2017, 11:55 am

Never again is still too soon: Conservatives will never win power again after Brexit 'disaster', former Tory government adviser says
The “disaster” of Brexit will destroy the Conservative Party’s chances of ever again winning power, former party adviser James Chapman has warned.

Leaving the EU will “take our economy off the cliff and make Black Wednesday look like a picnic”, he said – leading to angry voters wreaking their revenge on the Tories.

Mr Chapman, who was chief of staff to Brexit Secretary David Davis, also revealed that two Cabinet ministers had expressed interest in his call for a new political party to fight EU withdrawal.

“Two people in the Cabinet, a number of people who have been in Conservative Cabinets before now – better Cabinets I might say than the current one – and a number of Shadow Cabinet ministers have also been in touch,” he said.

“They are not saying they are going to quit their parties, but they are saying they understand there is an enormous gap in the centre now of British politics.”
Alan Henness

There are two 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?

Zeff
Posts: 122
Joined: August 6th, 2016, 2:13 pm

Re: In or out?

#2151 Postby Zeff » August 11th, 2017, 12:01 pm

I don't want to insert any confusion or doubt into the Brexit process :-) but can Article 50's activation be reversed?

There doesn't seem to be a definitive answer and the decision looks more likely to lie with the EU than with the UK.
According to this, the short answer is "probably", quote...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/can-article-50-be-reversed-after-uk-general-election-2017-6
The law is unclear, but there have been a few clues from legal authorities as to whether Article 50 reversible.
Most recently, a leaked European Parliament draft resolution has said that the UK will be able to revoke Article 50 before it expires if the rest of the EU agrees.
That sounds tough — the UK would need 27 other countries to vote to let us back in. But in the scenario of a new prime minister who favours Remain or a soft Brexit into the EEA, it would suit all parties just fine.
But the issue has not been settled in the UK courts or the European Court of Justice.
Unquote.

Elsewhere I read that it would only take one of the 27 countries to try to make reversal conditional on something (the abandonment of Britain's rebate, for example) and all possibility of reversal would be gone.

At least if a referendum were held late in 2018 on the 2019 deal, or lack of one, there is a possibility to 'Exit Brexit'. Yes, a lot of damage will have been done and a tiny minority might threaten violence, but the issue would still be 'in or out' for a more informed electorate.

(I think that Mr Cameron did the right thing by resigning. I personally wouldn't vote for Jeremy Corbyn under any circumstances after his remarks about Venezuela's Maduro. I never did really trust the guy. Curiously, the LibDem policies seem far more popular than the party).

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5763
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2152 Postby animist » August 11th, 2017, 3:31 pm

"never" is a long time, but the Brexit folly may well lead to the accession as prime minister of Jeremy Corbyn, something unthinkable previously

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5763
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2153 Postby animist » August 11th, 2017, 3:41 pm

Alan H wrote:The Tories may well be able to take us out by simply ceasing to pay and repealing the ECA but that would have even more dire consequences: businesses would be left in limbo and effectively unable to export to the EU and crashing out like that, giving the EU the finger, is hardly like to make them amenable to a nice juicy trade deal. The repercussions don't really bear thinking about.
I just repeated what the writer whom I mentioned said. In fact, in the absence of Article 50 or something similar (which probably was not around when he or she wrote) the writer probably viewed non-payment as a last resort for Britain to show the rest of the EU that it really did want to leave. But proceeding with the abolition of the ECA 1972 would not, AFAIK, have been especially precipitous, as we Brits could have made it clear that Brexit would only happen after this process was complete, and possibly a specified amount of time after completion

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21431
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2154 Postby Alan H » August 11th, 2017, 8:33 pm

Even on holiday, the government's Brexit mistakes continue
Readers of this blog can hardly fail to be aware that I regard Brexit as a national disaster. Even so, it is extraordinary that the government seem to take every opportunity to make things worse than they need to be. That applies most obviously to the big decisions such as insisting Brexit must mean hard Brexit including the ECJ red line, triggering Article 50 without proper preparation, and then wasting months with an election. But having made those decisions the government then, in smaller matters, continually makes foolish mistakes. With the holiday season in progress there have only been such small matters on display this week, but they are indicative of the wider mess the government are creating.

Item one. On Thursday the Prime Minister’s spokesman re-iterated that the Brexit timetable remains that stated by the PM in her Lancaster House speech. That is, that she envisages both exit and future trade terms to be agreed within the two year period ending in March 2019. But every serious person knows that this is impossible, and even most cabinet ministers have acknowledged it. For that matter, Theresa May herself appears to know it. So what conceivable purpose is served by pretending otherwise? Any halfway competent leader would be preparing both the general public and politicians – and especially those supportive of Brexit – for the fact that it is going to take longer, probably much longer, than this.

We are no longer in the Referendum campaign when Leave could make mendacious claims about how quick and easy the exit negotiations would be, even lying that they would be completed before triggering Article 50 (something legally impossible). Instead, for better or for worse, we are now in what is supposedly the governmental implementation of Brexit, and that can’t be done on the basis of fantasies. It is not as if May will be able to avoid facing up to the true timescale eventually so she would surely be politically wiser to do so sooner rather than later.

Item two. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister’s office announced a ‘charm offensive’ in which diplomats and officials will explain Britain’s Brexit strategy to, especially, the EU-27 countries. It hardly needs saying that this puts the rickety cart well ahead of a horse that should in kindness be sent to the glue factory. Britain scarcely has a Brexit strategy, as it is still under dispute within the cabinet. We have failed, unlike the EU, to produce detailed position papers for the negotiations we initiated, although these are apparently to be unveiled in September. The White Paper is “riddled with contradictions”, as this excellent article from Polly Ruth Polak explains in some detail, and on key issues such as the Irish border no meaningful proposals have been made at all, as Irish leader Leo Varadkar recently lamented.

But this is not the main deficiency with the supposed charm offensive. Rather, it reveals the continuing inability of the government to understand what the EU have repeatedly made clear which is that Brexit it not going to be a matter of bi-lateral discussions between the UK and each member state. The EU-27 will negotiate as a bloc. And whilst it might be said that the ‘charm offensive’ is an exercise in communication rather than an attempt at negotiation that is a line so thin as to be meaningless: if the aim is not to have an impact upon the negotiations in some way then it has no point anyway. In fact, it is an approach which was already tried in the ‘divide and rule’ pre-Article 50 period in an attempt to pre-empt the negotiations which the EU rightly said could not occur before the triggering letter. It did not succeed then and it will not succeed now: it is completely unrealistic to expect otherwise.

Item three. Also on Wednesday, Brexit Secretary David Davis addressed one of the many thorny issues in the exit negotiations, namely that of citizens’ rights. But he did so in the most bizarre manner, saying that the terms the EU is offering to British nationals living in EU-27 countries are unfair because they do not give those nationals freedom of movement rights across the EU-27, just residence rights in that country where they reside. The unfairness, he claimed, was that this did not meet the EU principle of reciprocity because EU-27 citizens residing in the UK would continue to have freedom of movement rights across the EU-27.

This seems almost wilfully to introduce an obvious misunderstanding into proceedings which are already complex. Since the UK is choosing to leave the EU (and moreover the single market) in part in order to exit freedom of movement rules it follows that British nationals will lose their freedom of movement rights. That is true for all British nationals whether resident in the UK or in an EU-27 country. However, no EU-27 country is leaving the EU and therefore no EU-27 citizen loses freedom of movement rights within the EU-27. Reciprocity does not and could not mean that British people in an EU-27 country have the same freedom of movement rights as citizens of EU-27 countries in the UK because the British loss of those rights is entailed by leaving the EU. The issue is the residency rights of the two groups.

If the argument is that British people should enjoy freedom of movement rights in the EU-27 because EU-27 people do then that is an argument for staying in the EU, or at least the single market. It seems that Davis has not grasped that, to coin a phrase, Brexit means Brexit. Or, alternatively, that he still thinks that ‘having our cake and eating it’ is possible, in the sense that, somehow, British people could continue to have freedom of movement rights across the EU-27 whereas EU-27 people would not have freedom of movement rights to Britain. That sentiment, in fact, was often expressed by Brexiters prior to the Referendum so it is not inconceivable that Davis shares it.

The thread that links these three announcements is that they illustrate and compound the way that the Brexit government is completely unrealistic and confused about the meaning of the Brexit they are enacting and the processes, both political and legal, through which it must be enacted. It is this which feeds the widespread view of Britain’s approach to Brexit being in chaos, with some in the EU apparently wondering if this is in fact a cunning negotiating plan rather than genuine chaos. But as the ever-acute David Allen Green has pointed out in his recent FT blog, “the government looks as if it is in disarray because it is in disarray”, making repeated “unforced errors” in its handling of Brexit.

But perhaps unforced errors is not quite the right term. Errors they certainly are, but they are driven by the underlying force of the Brexit ultras. First, of course, because they set us on this crazy path without any credible plan and on the basis of breath taking lies. But, second, because they continue to urge us to even greater follies – recent examples including Patrick Minford’s call for an exit with no deal at all, John Longworth’s call to walk away if there is no deal by early 2018 and Jacob Rees-Mogg’s denial that there is any payment needed to settle accounts. Such reckless, delusional, irresponsibility is what drives us ever closer to the edge of a very steep cliff.
Alan Henness

There are two 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?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21431
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2155 Postby Alan H » August 12th, 2017, 12:04 pm

Brexit: UK risks an international court case over Theresa May's plans for leaving EU single market, say experts
Britain risks a new Brexit fight in international courts if it tries to quit the EU’s single market without giving other countries official notice, The Independent can reveal.

Legal experts, including one who advised the Treasury, agree Theresa May will leave the UK open to legal action in The Hague if she pulls out of the European Economic Area (EEA) without formally telling its other members 12 months in advance, to avoid disrupting their trade.

The notice is demanded by an international agreement, but ministers do not intend to follow the process because, insiders believe, they want to avoid a Commons vote on staying in the EEA – and, therefore, the single market – that they might lose.

As well as the a court battle, experts warn the stigma from breaking the agreement could also make it harder for Britain to secure the trade deals it desperately needs to secure the economy after Brexit.

Pro-EU MPs hope the legal opinion will help persuade the Commons to force and win the vote on staying in the EEA planned for the autumn.

The Government has insisted EEA membership will end automatically with EU withdrawal but former Treasury legal adviser Charles Marquand, said: “A failure by the UK to give notice of its intention to leave would, I think, be a breach of the EEA Agreement, which is an international treaty.”
Of course, many Brexiters don't give one jot for the law.
Alan Henness

There are two 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?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5763
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2156 Postby animist » August 12th, 2017, 2:23 pm

proof, if it were needed, that a second referendum would be premature:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 89241.html

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21431
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2157 Postby Alan H » August 12th, 2017, 3:10 pm

animist wrote:proof, if it were needed, that a second referendum would be premature:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 89241.html
As far as I can tell, this Twitter thread explains why that survey doesn't say what some think it does.
Alan Henness

There are two 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?

Cairsley
Posts: 25
Joined: July 4th, 2014, 2:25 am

Re: In or out?

#2158 Postby Cairsley » August 12th, 2017, 4:28 pm

animist wrote:proof, if it were needed, that a second referendum would be premature:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 89241.html

I am at a loss for words. But it is the British people's choice. The best of British luck to them — they are going to need it.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21431
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2159 Postby Alan H » August 13th, 2017, 12:51 am

Tory Brexit policy is chaotic: the fightback against this stitch-up must begin at once
People say we must respect the referendum. We should. But democracy did not end on 23 June 2016. The referendum will be no excuse if the country is driven off a cliff. MPs are there to exercise judgment. Delegating to Theresa May and David Davis, never mind Boris Johnson and Liam Fox, the settlement of a workable alternative to EU membership is a delusion, not just an abdication.

Brexit is an unparalleled act of economic self-harm. But it was a big mistake to reduce the referendum to this question. The EU represents a vision of society and politics, not just economics. We need to fight on this ground too.
Alan Henness

There are two 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?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5763
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2160 Postby animist » August 13th, 2017, 11:07 am

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:proof, if it were needed, that a second referendum would be premature:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 89241.html
As far as I can tell, this Twitter thread explains why that survey doesn't say what some think it does.
yes, the percentages found for each alternative Brexit outcome (eg on EU migration) are not slices of a pie which add up to 100%. But the fact that 29% of Remain would "accept" that all EU migrants were expelled, if that were the outcome, seems to indicate that many Remain voters simply accept the referendum result as a done deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -to-remain
I can't make much sense of this. How can Britain leave the CU and SM yet behave as though we have not? Anyway, I trust the EU will squash yet another idiocy from the government

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21431
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2161 Postby Alan H » August 13th, 2017, 11:38 am

animist wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/13/hammond-and-fox-brexit-transition-would-not-be-way-to-remain
I can't make much sense of this. How can Britain leave the CU and SM yet behave as though we have not?
The 'Having Our Cake And Eating It" scenario. Yes, it's a complete mystery how anyone can think this is even possible. But I suppose it plays to a tranche of Brexiters who want to leave because of immigrants but feel they might lose out a bit so why not just choose whatever they from the menu...

Anyway, I trust the EU will squash yet another idiocy from the government
Whatever the outcome, it'll all be the EU's fault of course.
Alan Henness

There are two 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?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests