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
Nick
Posts: 10973
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#3061 Postby Nick » February 18th, 2018, 3:41 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

animist wrote:Nick, you are a nice person who maybe cannot understand that views do change over time, especially over the EU, and that things are not black and white. The EU is a strange, changing and complex creature which has aspects which repel both political extremes, I would say. I did not vote in the 1975 referendum (before your time, I know) because it seemed too much of a rich man's club, and Dunt, who is of course much younger than me, clearly has some of this feeling. This does not make either of us want to support a harebrained policy of detaching ourselves from a club which actually has gone out of its way to accommodate Britain.
Thanks for your kind remarks. :) But I agree that views change. When Cameron set out to reform the EU, I would have classified myself as a remainer. It was his inability to achieve the slightest reform in the face of EU intransegence which convinced me that the EU, as an institution was going rapidly in the wrong direction, such that we should leave.
[...]

I hope this explains why I do not see Dunt as any sort of hypocrite. Guido's jibe that Dunt is making a career from Brexit is typically self-serving and reflects the fact that he himself is doing just this. Difference is that Ian Dunt deals with the issues involves whereas Guido (Paul Staines) just likes to inflame his rather dim audience with ad hominem attacks on anyone who takes a sceptical stance on Brexit.

Fair enough, I wouldn't put Guido up as a major reason for deciding anything. I just thought it was interesting. Much the same as the politics site, or Private Eye. I just thought it was interesting. :)

More relevant would be a comment on my previous post.... :popcorn:

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6284
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3062 Postby animist » February 18th, 2018, 4:45 pm

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:
Nick wrote:And then there's this.

Hmmm...

interesting and indicative of his cleverness, I would say. BTW, like Dunt I am now, FWIW, a soft Brexiter since the vote went the way it did. Any problem?


Err... except, if I'm reading it right, Dunt has gonc from Leave to Remain...
as I say, interesting, just as I went from abstaining to active Remainer, though of course over a much longer period. Have you read Ian's excellently accessible book "Brexit, What the Hell Happens Now?"' which has been updated? IIRC Ian mentions there that Brexit could be a good thing in principle, and he has fairly recently on TV stated that he is not a fan of the EU; I guess also that his politics may have moderated in general over time, and to repeat, his view is the pragmatic one which is basically that Brexit could entail leaving the EU frying pan for the WTO fire. Anyway, this is flimflam - and please read his book. If you are trying to judge his view of the Policy Exchange article on the basis of ad hominem considerations like qualifications then I think that Ian is in better company than are his opponents; few economists take their rosy view of abstract economics applied to real world problems like Brexit. I am only just starting to look at their paper and doubt whether I will be able to add anything much to what Ian said - but I promise to try! How is your substantive review on Ian's column getting on?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3063 Postby Alan H » February 18th, 2018, 5:29 pm

'Let's take back control of our futures': Young campaigner Femi Oluwole's plan to overturn Brexit
Mr Oluwole appealed for older generations to think again for the sake of younger people, highlighting that three-quarters of under-25s voted remain.

“We’re simply a generation who want to take back control of their futures. If Brexit goes ahead, the issue definitely won’t go away because we’ll have a population who voted against 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: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3064 Postby Alan H » February 18th, 2018, 10:06 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit expected to lead the UK into recession within two years, investor survey says
56 percent of private equity executives and 57 percent of distressed debt investors said they expect a recession in the next two years.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned Wednesday that the U.K. needs to find ways to make its economy more efficient and that Brexit had already begun hurting the economy.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3065 Postby Alan H » February 19th, 2018, 4:40 pm

Lions or Unicorns? Theresa May and Boris Johnson’s speeches on the UK’s future relationship with the EU
Last week’s speeches on the UK’s future relationship with the EU by Theresa May and Boris Johnson give us an opportunity to compare the tone, demeanour and content of these two senior politicians. May’s tone was that of a head girl, while Johnson’s was that of a giggling schoolboy. Her demeanour was that of a village headmistress straightening the buntings at a school fair; his resembled a colonial governor who couldn’t even be bothered to build a railway. And as for content, she argued articulately for the UK to stay close to the EU, while he argued inarticulately to get as far away as possible.

Unlike the EU27, the UK has not yet engaged in the Brexit process in the form of tabling draft treaty texts. I think it would be useful to do that, so in Annex 1 to this blog post I have suggested a treaty text based on the content of Johnson’s speech, and in Annex 2 a draft treaty based on the content of the internal security part of May’s speech. But before delving into the legalese, let’s have a look at the content of each speech more broadly.
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: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3066 Postby Alan H » February 20th, 2018, 12:11 am

David Davis: Brexit will not plunge Britain into Mad Max dystopia
David Davis will tell business leaders in Austria that fears the Conservatives will plunge Britain into a “Mad Max-style world borrowed from dystopian fiction” after leaving the EU are unfounded.

The Brexit secretary will claim that Theresa May’s government wants to oversee a race to the top in global standards, listing workers’ rights, City regulation, animal welfare and the environment as areas for potential improvement.

So, the rhetoric has moved from 'it's all going to be rosy and there will be unicorns and rainbows for everyone' to 'well, we're not going to end up as a lawless wasteland, honest...'?
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: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3067 Postby Alan H » February 20th, 2018, 10:25 am

U.K. Has a Secret Plan to Hold Brexit Cash If EU Refuses to Trade
Prime Minister Theresa May’s team is eyeing up a contingency plan to hold back billions of pounds in Brexit payments, if the European Union refuses to give the U.K. the trade deal it wants.

Senior British officials have privately discussed the idea as a fall-back option that could be triggered if negotiations go wrong, three people familiar with the matter said.

The plan is not the U.K.’s preferred outcome, but some in May’s administration believe it could be necessary in case the EU tries to renege on a future commitment to a free-trade deal.

The proposal comes at a sensitive time, with British ministers seeking in public to build mutual trust with the EU rather than stoke suspicions. The U.K. is trying to persuade the bloc to cooperate on plans for an ambitious trade agreement, which will come into force after the split.

Chris Grey on Twitter:
This doesn't even begin to make sense, except as a further illustration of the way that the government have approached the negotiations as if UK were the aggrieved party, being forced to leave the EU rather than choosing to do so. (See: http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.co. ... n-was.html).

It firstly doesn't make sense because the financial settlement is a payment for already-existing obligations not for a future deal, something that Brexiters seem completely incapable of understanding.

It secondly doesn't make sense because the A50 process only allows for an exit deal, with, at best, political framework for the future rather than a signature ready trade deal. Duncan Smith (as quoted) is talking nonsense (no surprise, but why are Govt following his line?)

What on earth do the Govt think will happen to UK's reputation if they renege on what was agreed in phase 1? Never mind the morality of it, how do they think it plays out for all those wonderful new trade deals they think they're going to negotiate?

I don't think that Brexit is a good idea, to put it mildly - but even if I did, the completely cack-handed way that the government are going about it is beyond incompetent.
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: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3068 Postby Alan H » February 20th, 2018, 12:12 pm

Aviation cliff-edge: How Brexit is sabotaging a British success story
The usual civil service metaphor for Brexit is of a series of rocks. Each time you pick one up, all these horrible slimy things crawl out from under it - things you'd never have thought were remotely connected to Brexit. This is an article about the horrible slimy things under the rock named 'aviation'.

European aviation is fundamentally a British success story. It's one of the best pieces of evidence for how Britain made the single market work for its services economy and helped make life better for passengers all over the continent in the process. But that success is now a hostage of Brexit. If the hard Brexiters in Cabinet get their way, Britain will turn back the clock on the last 30 years of development.

This is how the system works. Aviation is governed by a series of treaties. The foundation text is the 1944 Chicago convention, which gave nation states sovereignty over their airspace. You can only fly to another country once you've signed an agreement with them. There's no WTO option or fallback system. You either sign a treaty or you're out in the cold.
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: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3069 Postby Alan H » February 20th, 2018, 12:14 pm

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: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3070 Postby Alan H » February 20th, 2018, 12:30 pm

Brexit 'will not change kind of country Britain is', vows David Davis
David Davis has insisted that Brexit “will not change the kind of country Britain is” as he sought to reassure a European business audience that future regulations would stay broadly aligned with EU rules.

In a speech that went even further than excerpts had suggested to downplay the prospect of slashing red tape after leaving, the UK Brexit secretary also emphasised the extent to which many EU rules had been created with British support and encouragement.

Tuesday’s speech, to business leaders in Vienna, may serve to inflame tensions ahead of a crucial all-day cabinet meeting at Chequers on Thursday, where other Brexit-supporting ministers are anxious to avoid watering down the aims of departure.

Davis acknowledged some symbolic changes were necessary as a result of the referendum, but he echoed recent remarks by the chancellor, Philip Hammond, by suggesting the impact on British society would be limited.
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
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: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3071 Postby Alan H » February 20th, 2018, 6:14 pm

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: 6284
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3072 Postby animist » February 21st, 2018, 9:57 am

animist wrote:If you are trying to judge his view of the Policy Exchange article on the basis of ad hominem considerations like qualifications then I think that Ian is in better company than are his opponents; few economists take their rosy view of abstract economics applied to real world problems like Brexit. I am only just starting to look at their paper and doubt whether I will be able to add anything much to what Ian said - but I promise to try!
Nick, one thing that strikes me after only a cursory read of the Policy Exchange article is that this idea of unilateral tariff reduction goes beyond even the hard Brexit of Liam Fox etc. If Britain simply removes its tariffs unilaterally then what is the need for Fox to attempt to make trade deals?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6284
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3073 Postby animist » February 21st, 2018, 1:01 pm

I do actually read interesting-looking pro-Brexit articles. and this was one: http://commentcentral.co.uk/brexit-the-obvious-errors/ The author accuses Theresa May (briefly, he does admittedly say) of Hegelianism, in other words, of a tendency to compromise. What might have been more interesting would have been his knowledge of the saying "Politics is the art of the compromise". He thinks he makes some great point by saying that if Remain had won the referendum there would be no question of Hard Remain or Soft Remain. No, of course not, since Britain would have just continued whatever course it might have taken if there had been no stupid referendum. He throws around all sorts of learned references but does not seem to understand elementary logic - when he says (I suppose in a sort of appeal to the Law of the Excluded Middle) that if two options (leaving the EU or remaining) are incompatible, then there is no middle way, which is true prima facie; but the crucial point is that he confuses contraries with contradictories here. We can leave the EU but remain in other bodies associated with it - eg the Single Market

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3074 Postby Alan H » February 21st, 2018, 5:56 pm

Glad I'm vegetarian... 'Dirty meat': Shocking hygiene failings discovered in US pig and chicken plants
Shocking hygiene failings have been discovered in some of the US’s biggest meat plants, as a new analysis reveals that as many as 15% (one in seven) of the US population suffers from foodborne illnesses annually.

A joint investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) and the Guardian found that hygiene incidents are at numbers that experts described as “deeply worrying”.

US campaigners are calling once again for the closure of a legal loophole that allows meat with salmonella to be sold in the human supply chain, and also warn about the industry’s push to speed up production in the country’s meat plants. And UK campaigners warn that the UK could be flooded with “dirty meat” if a US trade deal is signed post-Brexit.

The unpublished US- government records highlight numerous specific incidents including:

Diseased poultry meat that had been condemned found in containers used to hold edible food products;
Pig carcasses piling up on the factory floor after an equipment breakdown, leading to contamination with grease, blood and other filth;
Meat destined for the human food chain found riddled with faecal matter and abscesses filled with pus;
High-power hoses being used to clean dirty floors next to working production lines containing food products;
Factory floors flooded with dirty water after drains became blocked by meat parts and other debris;
Dirty chicken, soiled with faeces or having been dropped on the floor, being put back on to the production line after being rinsed with dilute chlorine.
All of the reported breaches resulted in immediate remedial action with no risk posed to consumers, according to the companies involved.
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: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3075 Postby Alan H » February 22nd, 2018, 1:12 am

The world is clear-eyed about Brexit, and knows it must be reversed
Liberal democracy has a fight on its hands in the 21st century. It has to maintain the place of rights, freedom, openness and coexistence in a world increasingly marked by nationalism, religious sectarianism, criminal greed and arms proliferation, all amid a changing global balance driven by the rise of Chinese power and the decline of American moral authority. We have to hang in there.

Brexit brings nothing at all to this long game. It only undermines it. Our foreign friends see this from their vantage points. We also need to see it from ours. For Britain to do its bit in the world, Brexit must be softened and eventually reversed. It may take time. But we are in a long game.
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: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3076 Postby Alan H » February 22nd, 2018, 9:48 am

Mount Brexit threatens to blow as May calls cabinet to Chequers
Tectonic plates are grinding ominously underneath a 16th-century manor house in Buckinghamshire. As Theresa May locks her cabinet away at Chequers on Thursday to agree an escape plan, the sharp uptick in seismic activity suggests Mount Brexit may be about to blow.

Every day brings a new tremor. First it was David Davis warning of “Mad Max dystopia” if colleagues light a bonfire of EU red tape. Then the proponents of this scorched earth approach fired back a “ransom note” of new demands. Now the optimistically-named Department for Exiting the EU has appeared to suggest it would rather remain in indefinite purgatory than commit to an end date for transition out of the bloc (for now).
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: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3077 Postby Alan H » February 22nd, 2018, 9:41 pm

New red Brexit bus is on tour… and the statistic on the side is VERY different
A new big red Brexit bus is on tour – and we’re reasonably confident Boris Johnson won’t be quite so keen on posing next to it. Instead of the notorious £350m a week NHS promise, the bus highlights the likely costs of a hard Brexit: £2,000 million a week. The crowd-funded ‘Is It Worth It’ bus is embarking on an eight-day, 1,700-mile journey – with the government’s own statistics on the cost of Brexit on the side.


Image
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: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3078 Postby Alan H » February 22nd, 2018, 9:45 pm

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: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3079 Postby Alan H » February 22nd, 2018, 11:46 pm

Vote Again on Brexit
Almost two years after the U.K. voted to quit the European Union, and barely more than a year before the actual exit is scheduled to happen, an all but leaderless Britain is fumbling its way to disaster. The country needs to find a way to change course. There should be a second referendum as soon as possible.

It was a huge error to call the first referendum, not least because the choice put before the country was so unclear. Nobody bothered to say what Brexit would actually mean. Acting on a mixture of no information and outright misinformation, a narrow majority of voters nonetheless chose to leave the EU. Nullifying that choice, misguided as it was, requires another popular vote -- this time, informed by what's been learned.

After two years of thinking about it, Prime Minister Theresa May's government is still split over what it wants -- and an upcoming series of speeches intended to lay out its vision is unlikely to help. Negotiating a tolerably successful Brexit might have been impossible in any case, but the protracted failure to set goals and develop a strategy for advancing them is making the worst possible Brexit ever more likely.

If Britain leaves the EU in March 2019 without even any transitional arrangements, its trade in goods and services -- not just with the EU but with much of the rest of the world -- will collapse into chaos. Disentangling the U.K. from its partnership with Europe is proving to be vastly more complex and difficult than Brexit supporters believed. And as the enormous short-term costs of an abrupt divorce come more clearly into view, the long-term goals that were supposed to justify them are ever more obscure.

Consider one small but especially sensitive part of the overall negotiation: the Irish dilemma. May has promised not to impose a hard border between Ireland, which will remain in the EU, and Northern Ireland, which is part of the U.K. What she hasn't said is how such a border, which could unsettle the peace the island has enjoyed for two decades, can be avoided. Last week, Foreign Minister Boris Johnson gave the first of those speeches intended to clarify Britain's position on life after Brexit -- and failed to so much as mention Northern Ireland.

To be sure, it's unlikely that May could reverse herself, propose a second referendum, and survive as leader of the Conservative Party. With so much at stake, she should recognize that this is a minor consideration. The Labour opposition, itself divided over Brexit, has also said the first vote must stand. That position also has to change. Remember, Remain supporters in both parties constitute a comfortable majority in parliament -- even as they insist that the previous referendum must be honored. On this surpassingly important issue, they need to come together across party lines and press for another vote.

Can it be taken for granted that a second referendum would in fact reverse the country's choice? Of course not. Opinion is wobbling but hasn't shifted decisively: The country remains split down the middle. But this is less surprising when you recall that so few of the country's politicians are calling on Britain to reconsider. Again, they should do their jobs -- and stand up for what they believe to be their voters' best interests.

One more thing might be needed to make the difference: the involvement of the European Union. Up to now, it has emphasized the difficulties Britain is bringing upon itself and made it clear that Europe isn't going to help Brexit sting less. That's fine -- but it ought now to join the debate in a more positive way, calling on Britain to change its mind. It should say, among other things, that if Britain acts promptly, the EU would make reversing the Brexit decision as straightforward as possible.

Extracting Britain from this mess of its own making won't be easy. A second referendum would certainly arouse furious protests, and quite possibly a political crisis, new elections, and all the dangers and uncertainties that go with that. Yet the alternative -- the chaotic Brexit toward which a rudderless Britain is now heading -- would be worse.
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: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3080 Postby Alan H » February 23rd, 2018, 12:30 am

UK unemployment rises at fastest rate in almost five years
The prospect of an interest rate rise before the summer has receded after the number of people out of work in Britain rose at the fastest rate in almost five years.

Fuelled by an increase in unemployment among young people under the age of 24, the number of jobless rose by 46,000 to stand at 1.47 million in the three months to December, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The rise in unemployment, which comes after it fell to levels not seen since the mid-1970s, pushed the jobless rate to 4.4% against City forecasts for the level to remain unchanged at 4.3%.

The worsening picture was emphasised by figures showing a slowdown in the creation of jobs, a fall in the number of hours worked and a dip in productivity growth.

The Bank of England said this month that the UK economy was beginning to overheat after a sharp rise in inflation and a tightening labour market. In its quarterly inflation report it said an interest rise was only months away if the rising demand for workers, which is reflected in the huge growth in vacancies, continued to force up pay growth.
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: 6284
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3081 Postby animist » February 23rd, 2018, 11:36 am


I don't think that a second referendum is a good idea, and it may not even be possible in the time available. The article acknowledges that any such vote may be for Leave, and this is a real possibility - so what then? Even if it went against Leave, the margin is very unlikely to be decisive. I wish that anti-Brexiters would get a bit realistic and push for pushing the dangerous side of Brexit into touch. If the fudge period, cleverly misnamed as the transition or implementation period, takes us into the new decade then the 2016 referendum will be very old news - and thus, using our sensible system of 5-year parliaments, it will genuinely be time for another bash at this problem. I probably said this lot of stuff already, but I am always worth listening to many times, comprende? I should of course be running the country, not to mention the other 27, but commitments like my local library's board games group, plus Zumba Gold and U3A, preclude this


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests