INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3021 Postby Alan H » February 10th, 2018, 12:03 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

MAY TO LEAD BRITAIN TO NO DEAL NIGHTMARE
As the government continues its slide to the right and the cabinet hasn't yet begun to negotiate seriously, internal communications indicate embattled Prime Minister Theresa May is to cave in to the demands of Brexiteers and lead Britain out of the EU on a no deal basis. Lords warn of political crisis.

A Westminster source has revealed concerns Theresa May is "due to capitulate to the demands of the hard-right Brexiteers and take the country out the EU with no deal, securing the worst case outcome as per the government's own, conservative, impact assessments."

According to the source, "internal communications indicate this is due to transpire shortly."

Read more at:https://www.byline.com/column/67/article/2045
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: 6356
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3022 Postby animist » February 10th, 2018, 12:13 pm

for coffee's benefit, an attempt at satire by the pro-Brexit grouping Brexit Central: http://brexitcentral.com/b:rexit-crisis ... e-juncker/

On a more serious level, here is an article from Brexit Central. It does IMO show that there are solutions to the seemingly intractable Irish border question - trouble is, they will be extremely demanding to put into action in the timeframe available and in the increasingly fractious setting of Brexit negotiations: http://brexitcentral.com/stop-doom-mong ... out-there/
"It’s time to stop doom-mongering over the Irish border – the solutions are already out there

The specific solutions proposed to “create a low-friction border for the movement of goods” by the report are:

A bilateral EU-UK agreement regulating an advanced Customs cooperation that avoids duplication and where UK and Irish Customs can undertake inspections on behalf of each other;
Mutual recognition of Authorized Economic Operators (AEO);
A Customs-to-Customs technical agreement on exchange of risk data;
Pre-registration of operators (AEO) and people (Commercial Travellers programme in combination with a Certified Taxable Person programme);
Identification system by the border;
A Single Window with one-stop-shop-elements;
A Unique Consignment reference number (UCR);
A simplified Customs declaration system (100% electronic) with re-use of export data for imports;
Mobile Control and Inspection Units;
Technical surveillance of border (CCTV, ANPR etc)"

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3023 Postby Alan H » February 11th, 2018, 2:26 am

Brexit: the impossible job? A guide to the roadblocks facing the PM
Another catalyst for a parliamentary revolt against hard Brexit could be the 3 May local elections, when the Tories are likely to be routed in London and other cities. Heavy losses will spell more trouble as Tory MPs would fear an emergency Brexit-induced general election. In the meantime, May needs to have finalised arrangements for the two-year transition with the EU in time for a 22 March EU summit. That now looks unlikely. Relations between EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier and Brexit secretary David Davis hit a new low on Friday. Barnier is rejecting UK demands – ones that May has been forced to table by hardline Brexiters – that the UK should be able to block EU laws during the transition. The idea of a country that has just chosen to leave the EU wanting access to all its markets after departing but also wanting the right to block the 27 members from changing their rules has not gone down well in Brussels. There are now fears that the talks on the next phase – the post transition “end state” – will have to be delayed, casting the whole timetable into doubt.
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: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3024 Postby Alan H » February 11th, 2018, 2:35 am

animist wrote:for coffee's benefit, an attempt at satire by the pro-Brexit grouping Brexit Central: http://brexitcentral.com/b:rexit-crisis ... e-juncker/

On a more serious level, here is an article from Brexit Central. It does IMO show that there are solutions to the seemingly intractable Irish border question - trouble is, they will be extremely demanding to put into action in the timeframe available and in the increasingly fractious setting of Brexit negotiations: http://brexitcentral.com/stop-doom-mong ... out-there/
"It’s time to stop doom-mongering over the Irish border – the solutions are already out there

The specific solutions proposed to “create a low-friction border for the movement of goods” by the report are:

A bilateral EU-UK agreement regulating an advanced Customs cooperation that avoids duplication and where UK and Irish Customs can undertake inspections on behalf of each other;
Mutual recognition of Authorized Economic Operators (AEO);
A Customs-to-Customs technical agreement on exchange of risk data;
Pre-registration of operators (AEO) and people (Commercial Travellers programme in combination with a Certified Taxable Person programme);
Identification system by the border;
A Single Window with one-stop-shop-elements;
A Unique Consignment reference number (UCR);
A simplified Customs declaration system (100% electronic) with re-use of export data for imports;
Mobile Control and Inspection Units;
Technical surveillance of border (CCTV, ANPR etc)"
I think there are probably lots of problems (if there weren't, why hasn't Davis proposed this?), but the main one I think is that it provides means for the good guys/gals to do business: many businesses will pay their taxes/VAT/duties/etc, some will try to dodge them and then there's the out-and-out crooks. What these proposals give are a few mobile units and some CCTV. There are 275 border crossings along 300 miles of border... There are only 137 land border crossings to the east of the EU.
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: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3025 Postby Alan H » February 11th, 2018, 11:55 am

May to set out 'Road to Brexit' in speech
LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Theresa May will make two speeches on Brexit in the coming weeks to provide more details setting out the country’s path to leaving the European Union.

Britain is hoping to seal a transition deal next month to smooth its exit from the EU, and reach agreement on a long-term trade agreement later this year. However, Brussels said last week a transition deal was not a certainty and that London needed to clarify what it wanted from the EU.

May’s government will aim to address that in a series of six speeches by the prime minister and other senior ministers in the next few weeks, which her office dubbed “The Road to Brexit”.

“Brexit is a defining moment in the history of our nation,” a source in May’s office said.

”As we move along the road to that future, we will set out more detail so people can see how this new relationship will benefit communities in every part of our country.”

May’s first speech, to be delivered at a conference in Munich next Saturday, will set out the security relationship Britain wants with the EU. She will deliver another setting out Britain’s future partnership, although a date for that has yet to be confirmed.

Foreign minister Boris Johnson, a leading Brexit advocate, will begin the ‘Road to Brexit’ series with a speech on Wednesday, described by May’s office as a “rallying cry to those on both sides of the Brexit debate.”

Brexit minister David Davis will outline how Britain’s businesses can maintain their global reputation after Brexit in an as yet unscheduled speech. Trade minister Liam Fox and cabinet minister David Lidington will also give speeches.

Chancellor Philip Hammond, seen as the most pro-EU member of May’s cabinet, will not give a speech.


Boris... "rallying cry to those on both sides of the Brexit debate." :hilarity: :pointlaugh: :pointlaugh:

But after May has given these details of her demands (not that they are likely to be practical or deliverable), perhaps we should have a vote on them to find out if we all like them?
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: 6356
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3026 Postby animist » February 11th, 2018, 12:27 pm

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:for coffee's benefit, an attempt at satire by the pro-Brexit grouping Brexit Central: http://brexitcentral.com/b:rexit-crisis ... e-juncker/

On a more serious level, here is an article from Brexit Central. It does IMO show that there are solutions to the seemingly intractable Irish border question - trouble is, they will be extremely demanding to put into action in the timeframe available and in the increasingly fractious setting of Brexit negotiations: http://brexitcentral.com/stop-doom-mong ... out-there/
"It’s time to stop doom-mongering over the Irish border – the solutions are already out there

The specific solutions proposed to “create a low-friction border for the movement of goods” by the report are:

A bilateral EU-UK agreement regulating an advanced Customs cooperation that avoids duplication and where UK and Irish Customs can undertake inspections on behalf of each other;
Mutual recognition of Authorized Economic Operators (AEO);
A Customs-to-Customs technical agreement on exchange of risk data;
Pre-registration of operators (AEO) and people (Commercial Travellers programme in combination with a Certified Taxable Person programme);
Identification system by the border;
A Single Window with one-stop-shop-elements;
A Unique Consignment reference number (UCR);
A simplified Customs declaration system (100% electronic) with re-use of export data for imports;
Mobile Control and Inspection Units;
Technical surveillance of border (CCTV, ANPR etc)"
I think there are probably lots of problems (if there weren't, why hasn't Davis proposed this?), but the main one I think is that it provides means for the good guys/gals to do business: many businesses will pay their taxes/VAT/duties/etc, some will try to dodge them and then there's the out-and-out crooks. What these proposals give are a few mobile units and some CCTV. There are 275 border crossings along 300 miles of border... There are only 137 land border crossings to the east of the EU.
I don't quite understand your first sentence - do you mean that there is a problem over the not-so-good guys and gals? What strikes me is that most of the suggestions would require a lot of cooperation between the two sides, which, given the current atmosphere of talks, does not seem likely

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3027 Postby Alan H » February 11th, 2018, 12:53 pm

animist wrote:I don't quite understand your first sentence - do you mean that there is a problem over the not-so-good guys and gals?
Yes. Unless you have a hard border it becomes a trust system - even one with some checks. The good guys will abide by the system but it leaves the border open to all sorts of smuggling.
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: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3028 Postby Alan H » February 11th, 2018, 3:10 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn;t it? Jacob Rees-Mogg Is a Nightmare for Britain's Bosses
Ardent Brexiteers such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Conservative Party leadership hopeful, might dismiss this as yet another burst of self-interest from the business class elite. Yet some fascinating new research from the University of Sussex's U.K. Trade Policy Observatory shows Walmsley is absolutely right to raise the alarm.

The report tries to model for the first time the potential impact of Brexit (in five possible guises from staying in Europe's single market to a no-deal departure) on Britain's individual manufacturing sectors. Under all scenarios, it's not a pretty picture for most industries. The chemicals and pharmaceuticals sector, of which Glaxo is a big part, is among the least fortunate. Look at this chart on exports:

Image

Remind me again why the Tories are doing this to us?
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: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3029 Postby Alan H » February 11th, 2018, 9:45 pm

LOSING control of our money, borders, laws and trade
Conclusion

As with many of the mantras of the Brexit ultras, their simplistic phrases belie the complicated truth. In international relations, contrary to their assertions, the UK cannot just make demands and expect the EU, or indeed the rest of the world, to give us exactly what we want. Any form of international agreement requires some nominal loss of sovereignty and compromise, but this is balanced with mutual benefits and agreed routes for appeal if either party breaks the rules.

To describe marriage as ‘losing control’ of your right to be single would be seen by most people to be silly. Agreeing a mortgage so that you can live in a home is not ‘losing control’ of your money. Respectfully taking off your shoes when visiting a friend’s house is not ‘losing control’ of your right to own footwear.

Framing cooperation as a loss of control is a populist rhetorical device that is starting to be exposed as such, as the government is finally having to face the hard reality of what Brexit really means – and how much we, as a country, actually stand to lose if we leave the EU.
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: 6356
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3030 Postby animist » February 12th, 2018, 1:22 pm


User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3031 Postby Alan H » February 12th, 2018, 5:34 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't?=http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/15985959.Honda_will_leave_the_UK_if_Government_fails_to_secure_access_to_EU_market/?ref=twtrec Honda will leave the UK if Government fails to secure access to EU market
HONDA and other Japanese firms will pull out of Britain if the Government fails to secure free access to the EU market, according to the country’s ambassador.

The car giant, which has a manufacturing plant in South Marston, was among firms that sent top executives to discuss Brexit at a Downing Street meeting.

The ambassador’s comments raised the prospect of thousands of jobs being lost if the Government fails to negotiate a frictionless trade deal.

Koji Tsuruoka was asked after Thursday’s meeting if companies would leave Britain if there was no agreement. He replied: "If there is no profitability of continuing operations in the UK - not Japanese only - then no private company can continue operations.

“It is as simple as that. This is all high stakes that all of us, I think, need to keep in mind."

Mr Tsuruoka said manufactures in particular “expected” free access to the EU market.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3032 Postby Alan H » February 13th, 2018, 4:57 pm

New from Prof Michael Dougan:

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: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3033 Postby Alan H » February 13th, 2018, 5:14 pm

Also: UK has ‘huge misunderstanding’ over post-Brexit customs: Senior MEP
“There is a huge misunderstanding,” said Hübner, who is an important voice in the Brexit debate as the European Parliament must approve the final withdrawal deal between the U.K. and the EU. “All the comments that we hear from politicians in the U.K. clearly show that there is no understanding between what it means to be in the customs union … or have a ‘sort of’ customs union, or customs partnership like Turkey.”

The U.K. has said that it wants to leave the EU’s customs union so that it can strike its own trade deals with other countries. But it has also stated that it wants to establish a new “highly streamlined customs arrangement,” which would continue some customs arrangements, or a “customs partnership” that “removes the need for a UK-EU customs border.”

Hübner, a Polish member of the conservative European People’s Party group, said Britain would run into considerable difficulties if it was anything less than a full member of the customs union, applying all its common external tariffs.

“The problem with the U.K. is that they’re so clear on what they don’t want and then not clear on what they really want,” she said on the sidelines of Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg last week.
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: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3034 Postby Alan H » February 14th, 2018, 3:28 pm

Who knew? Jean-Claude Juncker: Boris Johnson is talking 'total nonsense'
His comments came as he answered questions at a press conference in Brussels taking place as the foreign secretary made a high-profile speech on Brexit in London.

The Commission president was asked to respond to Mr Johnson's suggestions that he was trying to turn the EU into a federal superstate.

Mr Juncker replied: "Some in the British political society are against the truth, pretending that I am a stupid, stubborn federalist, that I am in favour of a European superstate.

"I am strictly against a European superstate. We are not the United States of America, we are the European Union, which is a rich body because we have these 27, or 28, nations.

"The European Union cannot be built against the European nations, so this is total nonsense."
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: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3035 Postby Alan H » February 14th, 2018, 6:27 pm

Boris digs himself in deeper as his usual tricks fall flat
It was the pathos rather than the hypocrisy that really struck home. The entertainer who used to sell out the O2 and now can’t even buy a gig as a warm-up act in front of a captive afternoon audience of retirement home residents. Boris Johnson tried all his familiar tricks. He smirked. He trotted out some bad gags. He spoke a bit of Latin. He went off on predictable riffs.

All things that had worked so well for him in the past but now fell completely flat. He was a man with only his own narcissism for company. And there’s no lonelier place than that. He coulda been a contender. He coulda been someone. Instead of the bum he now is.

This was the speech in which the foreign secretary was supposed to be making the positive case for Brexit. But like so much of what Boris does, the subtext was all about him. His need to justify his own decisions. His need to be taken seriously. His ambition. He spoke a lot about unity and bringing people together, but right at the end he couldn’t even bring himself to say he wouldn’t resign from the cabinet and launch his own leadership bid if Theresa May didn’t deliver his Brexit vision.
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: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3036 Postby Alan H » February 14th, 2018, 6:57 pm

Boris’s Brexit vision is an answer to a non-existent problem
And this, in the end, cuts to the guts of the problem with the Brexit case. On the one hand you have sunny optimists such as the Foreign Secretary forever shambling around the place remarking on how wonderful everything is; and on the other you have the thunderous pessimists such as Nigel Farage darkly warning that everything is actually terrible and Brexit is the only way to rescue Britain from its otherwise dystopian future. It is the difference between Brexit sunrise and Brexit sunset; the difference between a happy and liberating option and a grim and pessimistic necessity. Britain can be brilliant or Britain can be broken.

They can’t both be right. And so the Brexiteers switch – sometimes in the same damn speech – between one channel and the other. It might be lovely if Johnson’s vision of what the journalist David Rennie has called ‘Cutty Sark Britain’ was the dominant force behind Brexit but, you know, I’m just not sure it is. And neither whiff-whaffing pablum, nor dubious jokes about sex tourism from our preposterous Foreign Secretary can change that.


And here we have the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs making a joke about sex tourism to Thailand. God help us.
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: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3037 Postby Alan H » February 14th, 2018, 11:28 pm

The roadblock hard Brexiteers can’t drive around: Ireland
But there is one great question: Ireland. The Brexiteers avoid mentioning it, because Ireland is their roadblock. The border is marked by memories of British bad faith that have been gradually healing over 20 years of peace. What a strange irony if Ireland ends up saving us all from ourselves. The border conundrum can only be resolved by forcing May to abandon her contradictory red lines – no customs union, no single market, no European court of justice – and no hard border.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3038 Postby Alan H » February 15th, 2018, 7:59 am

Boris Johnson's speech: leadership ambitions without leadership qualities
Finally, if Johnson’s speech was both divisive and intellectually flawed it also failed to deliver on what is perhaps the most pressing leadership challenge of all at the present time. What are the concrete, practical details of how Brexit is to be achieved, even if it is to be a Brexit on Johnson’s preferred lines? On this, he had nothing whatsoever to say. Like every speech he gives it was long on rhetoric and devoid of practicalities, as if “confidence and self-belief” can substitute for pragmatic details. A campaign speech, not a speech for governance. It’s reported that this is also how he conducts himself in cabinet discussions. He has nothing to say on the practicalities because he knows nothing of the practicalities, and he knows nothing of the practicalities because he does not care about them. And he does not care about them because he cares about nothing - perhaps not even, in itself, Brexit – except his own naked ambition. An ambition which is not, it seems, even to lead, since leadership requires the hard effort of consensus-building and attention to detail, but the burning, narcissistic desire simply to be the leader.
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: 6356
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3039 Postby animist » February 15th, 2018, 10:50 am

Alan H wrote:New from Prof Michael Dougan:

I've now read so many Guido Fawkes nutters that even I instinctively want to react on seeing that Dougan is "Jean Monnet Professor". If any of them knew the Monnet name (he was the architect of the Common Market IIRC) they would say "So Dougan is in the employ of the EU, explains it all". :laughter:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3040 Postby Alan H » February 15th, 2018, 1:23 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:New from Prof Michael Dougan:

I've now read so many Guido Fawkes nutters that even I instinctively want to react on seeing that Dougan is "Jean Monnet Professor". If any of them knew the Monnet name (he was the architect of the Common Market IIRC) they would say "So Dougan is in the employ of the EU, explains it all". :laughter:
:laughter: They do like their ad homs, don't they?
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: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3041 Postby Alan H » February 15th, 2018, 10:16 pm

An answer is needed on Ireland
Theresa May’s government is notoriously vague over many aspects of Brexit. One area where it seems increasingly uncertain how to proceed is over Ireland and the need to avoid the re-emergence of a hard border.

On Wednesday, Boris Johnson gave a 45-minute speech in London in which he set out his latest upbeat vision for Brexit. The foreign secretary did not mention Ireland or the border question once.

Last week, Mrs May convened two “crunch” meetings of her top Brexit ministers to work out what the end state of the UK-EU relationship should be. A cabinet source said afterwards: “There was no breakthrough on Northern Ireland, more that they needed to think about it some more.”

In what seems an act of desperation, Mrs May has now reverted to consulting the Irish government over how an invisible border might be maintained. At Stormont this week, Mrs May and Ireland’s prime minister Leo Varadkar said they would work together on a new plan on how to achieve a frictionless Irish border. But Mr Varadkar warned that achieving this was still going to be the “tricky bit” in the Brexit talks.

Calling it the “tricky bit” is an understatement. A solution to the border issue still looks utterly intractable.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests