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

Re: In or out?

#2841 Postby Alan H » December 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Brexit: Government analysis published after long battle
Parliament’s Brexit committee has published 39 of the Government’s sectoral analyses on the impact of leaving the EU on the British economy.

The reports, which Brexit Secretary David Davis had previous said held “excruciating detail” of the departure’s effects, were immediately dismissed by MPs and campaigners as a “shoddy mess” with little detail.

The Committee obtained the documents, touted by Mr Davis, after using a longstanding power to demand government papers. Mr Davis later drew a distinction between impact assessments, which he said did not exist, and “sectoral analyses”, which are more limited in scope.

Labour MP Seema Malhotra, who sits on the committee, said the reports “fall far short of the impact analysis the government implied it was doing a year ago”.

“It remains unclear if these are the original reports or have been written in the last two months,” she added.
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?

#2842 Postby Alan H » December 22nd, 2017, 9:59 am

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit: David Davis running an ‘utterly disorganised’ department, with one in four posts unfilled
David Davis has been accused of running a Brexit department in a state of chaos, with 140 key posts unfilled as the UK enters the crucial second stage of negotiations with the EU, figures seen by The Independent show.

The vacancies led Labour to criticise the department as “utterly disorganised” and running an “underpowered” Brexit operation nine months on from triggering Article 50.

In total, there are 143 empty jobs, almost one in four of the posts at the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU), with economist, finance and project management jobs – as well as 81 policy roles – unfilled.

It comes after separate figures showed that the department is suffering from a high turnover of staff, with almost one in 10 moving on every three months – a turnover rate normally seen every 12 months in normally functioning Whitehall departments.

An astonishing 44 per cent of DExEU employees plan to leave within the next year, a civil service survey found, suggesting the recruitment crisis is set to worsen.

The picture has emerged as fears grow in Brussels that the Government’s stance on the “end state” it seeks for a final Brexit deal is a muddle, with the Cabinet only beginning to discuss its proposals this 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: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2843 Postby Alan H » December 22nd, 2017, 10:36 am

Even with a competent Government Brexit would be a disaster but this lot... Civil service reports on Brexit are criticised for padding and plagiarism
The threadbare state of government preparations for Brexit was exposed on Thursday as civil service reports once heralded for providing “excruciating detail” on the impact of leaving the EU were criticised for containing little more than padding, repetition and plagiarism.

Months of pressure for disclosure of the economic analysis culminated, several hours before the Christmas parliamentary recess, with the publication of most of the 850 pages recently provided to a Commons select committee by the Brexit secretary, David Davis.

Davis had previously claimed there was extensive Whitehall analysis of “about 50 cross-cutting sectors, [for] what is going to happen to them”. But when a Labour-led vote demanded these forecasts be released to MPs, the Brexit secretary said he had been misunderstood and told the committee no impact assessments existed, only analysis of each sector’s current dependency on the EU.

Nevertheless, the limited nature of the unredacted civil service reports that were finally made public on Thursday left many observers shocked. “There is little overarching analysis by the government, ” said Lord Jay, the former head of the Foreign Office who is now acting chair of the Lords Brexit committee. “No conclusions are drawn with regard to the UK’s future relationship with the EU.”

He accused the reports of being “inconsistent in approach and in the use of statistics”, with double-counting in some sectors, and redacted portions that had been taken from evidence given in other public hearings.

The Commons committee chairman, Hilary Benn, said he had held back sections that supposedly contained evidence presented in private to the government, but otherwise had been assured there was nothing in the documents that could compromise Britain’s negotiating position or be construed as market-sensitive or confidential.

Instead, the vast majority of the “analysis” proved to be rudimentary descriptions of Britain’s economic activity, including observations on its status as an island, the importance of farming to food production and the tendency for banks to be located where people live.
10 startling insights from the Brexit reports

“The food chain includes agriculture”
“The demand for air travel drives the demand for aircraft”
“In coastal communities fishing brings employment and economic activity”
“As an island nation, the UK has been dependent on the sea … throughout history”
“Banks are found all over the UK, largely in proportion to population”
“[Industry] is characterised by some very large firms … and a large number of small firms”
“Short crossing[s] tend to be favoured for time-critical cargoes”
“The higher education sector has different economic characteristics to manufacturing”
“Agricultural output is characterised by fluctuations due to weather”
“A well-known exchange is the London Stock Exchange, where companies obtain a listing for newly issued equities (eg UK company shares) and where those shares are subsequently traded.”
You gotta laugh at the Tories' sheer incompetence...
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?

#2844 Postby Alan H » December 23rd, 2017, 2:15 pm

EU dismisses May's claim blue passports are sovereignty statement
Britain could have chosen to have blue passports while remaining a member of the EU, the European parliament’s chief Brexit coordinator has said, dismissing Theresa May’s claim that the move is a victory for British sovereignty.

The government has said blue passports will mean enhanced freedom for Britons, but EU officials have said they could spell travel delays and extra paperwork because of diminished travel rights post-Brexit.

Guy Verhofstadt emphasised that there was no Brussels regulation stating that EU countries’ passports had to be a certain colour. There is a legally non-binding European council resolution from 1981 which recommends burgundy.
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?

#2845 Postby Alan H » December 24th, 2017, 11:28 am

Thatcher aide dismisses blue passports as a ‘nostalgic’ Brexit stunt
Margaret Thatcher’s key foreign policy adviser has mocked commentators rejoicing over the decision to change the colour of the British passport, describing it as nostalgia driven by ageing Eurosceptics.

Confirming it was Thatcher’s government who “chose” to ditch the blue passport in the 1980s – under no pressure from the European Union – Charles Powell said the clamour for the old-style travel document was “part of the nostalgia on which the predominantly elderly Brexit constituency thrives”.

May had sought to end a mostly fraught political year on a triumphant note by announcing the return of navy passports after Brexit, describing them an expression of “independence and sovereignty”. However, by Saturday morning, her move to change the colour of new passports in 2019 was being attacked by some as a PR stunt, as it became clear there is no Brussels legislation stating that EU countries’ passports had to be a certain colour.
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?

#2846 Postby Alan H » December 24th, 2017, 5:27 pm

Legal action to see whether UK could unilaterally stop Brexit gets go-ahead
A group of anti-Brexit Scottish members of parliament has been given the go-ahead to pursue legal action to establish whether the United Kingdom can unilaterally stop the process of leaving the EU, a Scottish court said on Friday
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?

#2847 Postby Alan H » December 26th, 2017, 10:16 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?

#2848 Postby Alan H » December 27th, 2017, 11:05 am

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? The 'Architect of Project Fear' thinks Brexit will have a 'limited' impact on the economy
"If the government relentlessly focuses on achievable outcomes in Brussels and pursues a sensible economic policy at home, it could yet keep any lasting damage from Brexit to a minimum. But that remains a pretty big ‘if’."


So, at best, if we had a competent Government, Brexit might not damage us too much...

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

Re: In or out?

#2849 Postby Alan H » December 29th, 2017, 6:30 pm

How are you pretending Brexit is still a good idea?
HOW well are you convincing yourself that Brexit is the greatest moment in British history? Take our test and find out.

How do you feel about being lied to by the Leave campaign?

A. Oh come on. ‘Let’s give our NHS £350 million’ was obviously just a completely vague campaign slogan.
B. Both sides told lies, so by some weird logic that makes lying fine.
C. The only people telling lies are the EU-SSR which wants to literally turn us into slave labourers building their butter mountains and wine lakes.

What is your reaction to predicted NHS labour shortages?

A. We’ll just get people from India and Africa, which is definitely what I had in mind when I voted to get rid of foreigners.
B. We’ll have an army of robot doctors like in The Empire Strikes Back.
C. People dying reduces overcrowding on public transport.

How do you feel about rising food prices?

A. We will just buy more from British producers, like all those mango farmers in Yorkshire.
B. Inflation will level off once everyone is extremely poor and all the food that was going up in price is rotting in lorries in Dover.
C. Why are we giving our hard-earned cash to bloody supermarkets in the first place when there are plenty of squirrels, wasps and pine cones to eat?

Do you think Britain has been weakened on the world stage?

A. No. Everyone fears us for being crazy, like Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon.
B. We’re only weaker compared to strong countries like Germany. If you compare us to places like Liechtenstein we’re really powerful.
C. No one will think we’re weak once Empire 2.0 rolls into action and our imperial atomic zeppelins rule the skies, bringing plunder from new colonies like Britmerica and Brexstralia.

Mostly As.

Oh dear. You’re struggling to convince yourself Brexit is a good idea. Try not reading anything except the Daily Express.

Mostly Bs.

You are doing a good job of deluding yourself. Just be careful not to listen to anyone who talks sense.

Mostly Cs.

Well done! You have completely convinced yourself Brexit is fantastic. Unfortunately you are insane.
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?

#2850 Postby Alan H » December 29th, 2017, 7:08 pm

In 2018 I Hope The Masks Drop And People See The Real Agenda Behind Brexit
As a transparency and ethics campaigner in the world of investments, charities and now politics, 2017 has been a year that has rocked my belief in the Britain I thought I lived in.

What I realised is that far from a free and fair society, our country and democracy is being hijacked, infiltrated by hostile foreign powers who are seeking to destabilise western societies. Then there are those with an illiberal democracy agenda denigrating various ‘others’ so through division they become dominant. Believers in this agenda view consumer protection, workers’ rights, human rights, the rule of law and environmental protection as non-essentials. They are only concerned with satisfying its customers, ‘the will of the people’. Surprisingly, illiberal democrats also do not seem to be overly concerned about economic growth. The view is as long as you give people choice to buy low cost products or food, who cares if they are safe? As long as the label says chlorinated chicken, it up to the public to choose. Crashing out of the EU will just create more opportunities for these individuals.

The things being smuggled in under the cover of Brexit will damage so much of what we hold dear in Britain. A cabal of tycoons would see their wealth and influence turbocharged, while the mass of the population would see their prosperity, their security and, ultimately, their liberty dwindle away. Then there are the media Billionaire Brexit cheerleaders – Murdoch, Desmond, Rothermere, the Barclay Brothers, who do not care about the public but about owning the politicians. They are the ones really taking control. Irrespective of social media, the referendum was still largely fought, and probably won, by campaigns in print and broadcast media.
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?

#2851 Postby Alan H » December 29th, 2017, 7:39 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Andrew Adonis quits as Theresa May's infrastructure tsar over Brexit
He resigned with a strongly worded letter accusing the prime minister of becoming the “voice of Ukip” and pursuing policies that he said would leave Britain in “splendid isolation”.
Splendid isolation and depressing desolation.
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?

#2852 Postby Alan H » December 29th, 2017, 7:56 pm

Adonis' resignation letter deserves to be read in full. And, apparently:
This version of my resignation letter is accurate, unlike the one briefed by No 10 earlier. More to come in The Times tomorrow
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?

#2853 Postby Alan H » December 30th, 2017, 10:59 am

A good summary of the fuck-ups the Tories have imposed on us so far and a look to the coming additional Tory fuck-ups: 2018: the year that Brexit gets real and the year for getting real about Brexit
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?

#2854 Postby Alan H » December 30th, 2017, 11:09 am

Tory peer and former deputy Prime Minister Michael Heseltine has suggested that a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn would be less damaging for the country than Brexit.
In the claims, which will surprise some within the Conservative Party, he said that although he believed a Labour government would be bad for the country, Brexit will have a long-term irreversible impact on Britain.

Speaking to the Limehouse podcast he also said that Labour could soon step up the fight against Brexit leaving the Conservatives “holding the baby” as public opinion turns against Britain leaving the European Union.

He said: “We have survived Labour governments before. Their damage tends to be short-term and capable of rectification. Brexit is not short-term and is not easily capable of rectification. There will be those who question whether the short-term pain justifies the avoidance of the long-term disaster.

“If you look at the polls there is probably a bigger majority against Brexit than the referendum secured but that, I think, will continue to happen and it will become more and more unpopular as people realise what it’s all about.”

He continued: “When that happens, the Labour party will move, and the present government will be left holding the baby. But then you have got to realise the present government is supported by large numbers of people as opposed to Brexit as I am. How long will they remain within the tribe and loyal to the party?”

Lord Heseltine added that he believed the vehicle for stopping Brexit could be through a second referendum or a vote within parliament.

“Personally I would rather parliament to do it either if this present parliament became hostile or because in an election the issue was rethought and a subsequent parliament did 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?

#2855 Postby Alan H » December 31st, 2017, 11:27 am

Even bravery won’t help the nightmare of Brexit’s new world
The short-term consequences of Brexit were exaggerated by George Osborne when he was still at the Treasury. The chancellor who was so proud of handing budget forecasts over to the independent Office for Budget Responsibility did not apply this discipline to forecasts of the referendum’s immediate impact. The result was that the Brexiters could claim that, with exception of the forecasts for the pound – a swift and large devaluation – the Treasury’s forecasts were misleading, and that the immediate damage was not as bad as the more excitable Remainers had predicted.

However, these effects occur with time lags, and the damage is beginning to show. The Bank of England has been refreshingly forthright on the prospective losses; so have the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

And Chris Giles, the economics editor of the Financial Times, has analysed the results of a series of independent studies. One of the main findings is that the referendum result has already cost the UK close to 1% of GDP, with consumer spending hit by the devaluation of the pound, and business investment by the lack of confidence caused by the prospect of Brexit and the government’s chaotic handling of the affair.

Curiously enough, the estimated hit to the economy already amounts to £350m a week, remarkably similar to the figure of so-called benefits to the NHS that were promised on the sides of the notorious Brexit bus.
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?

#2856 Postby Alan H » December 31st, 2017, 12:16 pm

Why Brexit is madness
And here’s the oddest thing. The UK government is negotiating to leave the EU, just so they can negotiate another arrangement with the EU to give us as much as possible of what we’ve already got, but on considerably inferior terms.
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?

#2857 Postby Alan H » December 31st, 2017, 12:25 pm

This Brexot thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Government slammed over ‘ridiculous’ plan to use Dad’s Army volunteers on borders
The Border Force carries out immigration and customs controls for people and goods entering the UK, and reports in the past have raised concerns over “poor” coverage of dozens of minor harbours and landing places.

A Home Office spokesman said: “Border Force is currently considering the potential benefits of a Border Force Special Volunteer force, and is in discussions with other law enforcement agencies such as local police to understand how they use volunteers in addition to their existing workforce.”
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?

#2858 Postby animist » December 31st, 2017, 5:04 pm

Alan H wrote:This Brexot thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Government slammed over ‘ridiculous’ plan to use Dad’s Army volunteers on borders
The Border Force carries out immigration and customs controls for people and goods entering the UK, and reports in the past have raised concerns over “poor” coverage of dozens of minor harbours and landing places.

A Home Office spokesman said: “Border Force is currently considering the potential benefits of a Border Force Special Volunteer force, and is in discussions with other law enforcement agencies such as local police to understand how they use volunteers in addition to their existing workforce.”

well indeed. "We need to take back control Let's use volunteers!"

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

Re: In or out?

#2859 Postby Alan H » December 31st, 2017, 7:33 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:This Brexot thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Government slammed over ‘ridiculous’ plan to use Dad’s Army volunteers on borders
The Border Force carries out immigration and customs controls for people and goods entering the UK, and reports in the past have raised concerns over “poor” coverage of dozens of minor harbours and landing places.

A Home Office spokesman said: “Border Force is currently considering the potential benefits of a Border Force Special Volunteer force, and is in discussions with other law enforcement agencies such as local police to understand how they use volunteers in addition to their existing workforce.”

well indeed. "We need to take back control Let's use volunteers!"
Cameron's Big Society finally bears fruit...
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?

#2860 Postby Alan H » January 1st, 2018, 4:23 pm

I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you... Ministers Cannot Name A Single Country That Asked UK For A Post-Brexit Trade Deal
Ministers steering the UK towards Brexit cannot point to a single country that has expressed an interest in striking a free trade deal.

With the second set of negotiations set to accelerate in 2018, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox will be stepping up efforts to find trade deals the UK can sign after Brexit in 2019.

But when challenged by Labour MP Stella Creasy over which foreign governments were queuing up to trade with the UK, his department floundered.

Greg Hands, Trade Minister, refused to list any country after Creasy’s Parliamentary Question, saying that “the UK has met with a wide range of countries to discuss various aspects of our trading relationship.”

Creasy, a leading supporter of the pro-single market campaign Open Britain, said: “The Prime Minister wants us to believe that the economic damage of leaving the EU will be made up by concluding trade deals around the world – but her own trade minister can’t point to a single country that has expressed an interest in a free trade deal with Britain.

“We all procrastinate from time to time, but Liam Fox is taking it to another level. It’s extraordinary that so little progress has been made eighteen months on since the referendum.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#2861 Postby Nick » January 2nd, 2018, 1:19 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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


1. To avoid continuing to move in the same disastrous direction that the EU is taking, economically, politically and democratically.

2. The damage is being inflicted by the EU as a deliberate policy. Not least to frighten the others. They don't have to but they
do. Sometimes a terrible price has to be paid. No doubt our GDP would have done nicely under nice Mr Hitler......

3. The enforcement of the prohibition of the ECB to act as lender of last resort, thus condemning entire countries to penury, and destroying the hopes of entire generations.


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest