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?

#2881 Postby Nick » January 3rd, 2018, 10:31 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Alan H wrote:No, not from the Onion: 'Cloud cuckoo land': UK government mocked over plans to join Pacific trade bloc after Brexit
Theresa May's government has been ridiculed over reports that it has held informal discussions about joining the Trans-Pacific trade group once it has left the European Union.

Liam Fox's Department for International Trade is developing a plan for Britain to join the group and become its only member state that borders neither the Pacific Ocean or South China Sea, the FT reports.

UK trade minister, Greg Hands, said that geographical distance between Britain and TPP members was not an issue.

"Nothing is excluded in all of this," Hands told the FT. "With these kind of plurilateral relationships, there doesn’t have to be any geographical restriction."


Someone posted this map to help:

DSkkPjkW0AA9u7U.jpg

So, Alan. Why should geographical limits apply?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22753
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2882 Postby Alan H » January 3rd, 2018, 10:47 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:Lol! No, you just tried to wrench discussion away from the points I raised!
In what reality was that? Please go back and re-read.
Lol! Rubbish! You have totally failed to address the issues I raised.
But no, Nick. You stated that Branson would be providing £1 billion of benefits to the NHS from a £1 billion contract. I queried why that left no ropom for any profit for him. Is he doing it for profit or for purely altruistic reasons, do you think?

As individuals, certainly, but is there really a "humanist" response to Brexit? Any more than there is a vegetarian reponse? Or are you now claiming a political perspective to being humanist? Insisting on a particular set of glasses? Ridiculous.
Bizarre. Perhaps you better explain what you think humanism is if not a concern for the wellbeing and welfare of your fellow human. That certainly does not implicitly mean you would be on any particular place on the political spectrum on any particular topic and I certainly have never said it did, have I, Nick?
That is the logical conclusion one draws form your posts.
Which posts?

Southern Europe has already had one, and the developing world continues to suffer from it, but you seem totally blind to it. So much for your "humanism".
WTF? Can you not see that what the flying fuck might have happened elsewhere has not one jot to do with the travails being inflicted on us by the Tories pushing an unnecessary Brexit on us?
That is exactly my point: what has been inflicted on our fellow humans is exactly the erm.. "flying fuck" it means to have regard for ones fellow man, which to my mind, is an important part of humanism. Substitute "black" for "Greek" and listen to yourself. As for "Tories" pushing anything, Brexit is the official policy of Labout too. As well as the wish of the British people, as shown in the referendum. Or are you no longer a democrat?
FFS Nick. The problems the Brexit is bringing on us have nothing to do with any problems elsewhere in Europe: the problems caused by Brexit are the problems caused by Brexit. Now, you have tried to argue that we need to leave because you don't like some/all of what the EU does and/or how it does it, but that has nothing, repeat NOTHING to do with the problems the Tories are causing us in their headlong rush to implement a Brexit that very few, other than the hardened Brexiter, voted for. The direction we are going in was not on the ballot paper and - unless you are blind - the stories and lies we were told are legion. Remember we were promised £350 million a week to the NHS? Even if the Tories deliver a Brexit of some sort, do you think this £350 million will ever materialise? When? It's what some voted for, wasn't it?


As a humanist I certainly have a view, but being a humanist does not mean I must be a Remainiac. To think it does is bizarre! IMO, rather the reverse is true. Splitter! :wink:
Another bizarre one. Who the fuck said you had to be a remainer if you were a humanist? Yet another silly straw man and a red herring, Nick.
Neither, just the logical conclusion to your posts.
Then your logic is fatally flawed.

Now, to get back to what I thought we were trying to discuss, what are the specific and tangible benefits of Brexit? If there are some, great! Let's hear about them and how they will affect us. If there are none that you can identify, please explain why the fuck we're doing this? You'll note I've had to ask that question on numerous occasions but still await a cogent answer.
I regard the avoidance of an even greater disaster as a benefit. If you don't, then that explains your continued dash headlong, despite warning signs left, right and centre. It's like the parachutist who's forgottn his parachute. Al the time he's falling through the air, he thinks "So far, so good!"
FFS Nick. Name the benefits. Just one specific and tangible benefit and stop this fucking nonsense of yours. How will you and I be better off outside 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: 22753
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2883 Postby Alan H » January 3rd, 2018, 10:52 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:No, not from the Onion: 'Cloud cuckoo land': UK government mocked over plans to join Pacific trade bloc after Brexit
Theresa May's government has been ridiculed over reports that it has held informal discussions about joining the Trans-Pacific trade group once it has left the European Union.

Liam Fox's Department for International Trade is developing a plan for Britain to join the group and become its only member state that borders neither the Pacific Ocean or South China Sea, the FT reports.

UK trade minister, Greg Hands, said that geographical distance between Britain and TPP members was not an issue.

"Nothing is excluded in all of this," Hands told the FT. "With these kind of plurilateral relationships, there doesn’t have to be any geographical restriction."


Someone posted this map to help:

DSkkPjkW0AA9u7U.jpg

So, Alan. Why should geographical limits apply?
FFS. Nick. Are you deliberately being obtuse? I mentioned no geographical limits: you are well aware of the distance effects of trade: £X million of trade with, say, Australia is not the same as £X million of trade with the EEA.
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?

#2884 Postby Nick » January 4th, 2018, 12:09 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:In what reality was that? Please go back and re-read.
Lol! Rubbish! You have totally failed to address the issues I raised.
But no, Nick. You stated that Branson would be providing £1 billion of benefits to the NHS from a £1 billion contract. I queried why that left no ropom for any profit for him. Is he doing it for profit or for purely altruistic reasons, do you think?
I was referring to this thread, not the other. But since you raised it, your question shows the gaping hole in your understanding (see? I can be patronising too, you know...! :wink: ) If Branson provides the same benefits for the same money, if he makes a profit, that would demonstrate that he is being more efficient, wouldn't it? The value is in the output, not the input.

Bizarre. Perhaps you better explain what you think humanism is if not a concern for the wellbeing and welfare of your fellow human. That certainly does not implicitly mean you would be on any particular place on the political spectrum on any particular topic and I certainly have never said it did, have I, Nick?
That is the logical conclusion one draws from your posts.
Which posts?
Just about all of them... :wink:

WTF? Can you not see that what the flying fuck might have happened elsewhere has not one jot to do with the travails being inflicted on us by the Tories pushing an unnecessary Brexit on us?
That is exactly my point: what has been inflicted on our fellow humans is exactly the erm.. "flying fuck" it means to have regard for ones fellow man, which to my mind, is an important part of humanism. Substitute "black" for "Greek" and listen to yourself. As for "Tories" pushing anything, Brexit is the official policy of Labout too. As well as the wish of the British people, as shown in the referendum. Or are you no longer a democrat?
FFS Nick. The problems the Brexit is bringing on us have nothing to do with any problems elsewhere in Europe: the problems caused by Brexit are the problems caused by Brexit. Now, you have tried to argue that we need to leave because you don't like some/all of what the EU does and/or how it does it, [/quote]I think that is always what I have argued since deciding we should leave. So what? Seems perfectly valid to me.

but that has nothing, repeat NOTHING to do with the problems the Tories are causing us in their headlong rush to implement a Brexit that very few, other than the hardened Brexiter, voted for.
And yet, you fail to acknowledge that the vote in Parliament was overwhelmingly to implement Article 50. Only 114 MP's voted against. Very few, eh? Can't you count..? That includes a huge chunk of Labour MP's, doesn't it? As for what sort of Brexit, that depends on Brussels, more than the UK, doesn't it? After all, we are supposedly weak and helples without them, aren't we?

The direction we are going in was not on the ballot paper
Please enlighten us! What should the referendum qustion hav stated?

and - unless you are blind - the stories and lies we were told are legion.
Not least the threat of immediate recession. And I am not responsible for other idiots, any more than you are.

Remember we were promised £350 million a week to the NHS?
Not by me.

Even if the Tories deliver a Brexit of some sort, do you think this £350 million will ever materialise? When? It's what some voted for, wasn't it?
NHS spending has already risen, in real terms, even before we leave. So why not? It's a political decision for the elected government. which at the moment is not Labour.

Another bizarre one. Who the fuck said you had to be a remainer if you were a humanist? Yet another silly straw man and a red herring, Nick.
Neither, just the logical conclusion to your posts.
Then your logic is fatally flawed.
:yahbooh:

Now, to get back to what I thought we were trying to discuss, what are the specific and tangible benefits of Brexit? If there are some, great! Let's hear about them and how they will affect us. If there are none that you can identify, please explain why the fuck we're doing this? You'll note I've had to ask that question on numerous occasions but still await a cogent answer.
I regard the avoidance of an even greater disaster as a benefit. If you don't, then that explains your continued dash headlong, despite warning signs left, right and centre. It's like the parachutist who's forgottn his parachute. Al the time he's falling through the air, he thinks "So far, so good!"
FFS Nick. Name the benefits. Just one specific and tangible benefit and stop this fucking nonsense of yours. How will you and I be better off outside the EU?[/quote]*Sigh* (Again) by getting off the train before it hits the buffers. As half of Europe would have been. Unlike you, I am not just a little Englander.... :D

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22753
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2885 Postby Alan H » January 4th, 2018, 12:19 am

Good grief, Nick. Just good grief.
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: 22753
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2886 Postby Alan H » January 4th, 2018, 11:57 am

I'll try a slightly different tack: about all you've said Nick so far is that the benefit of being out of the EU is that we won't be in it. I cannot discern anything more out of what you've said and I just do not understand why you seem to believe that is an adequate response. Maybe considering it this way might help:

Brexit takes away more than a few rights from us, such as freedom of movement. To many, that is a very valuable right although I suspect that many DM readers will not agree with that. There will also be huge changes in the way businesses work, how they will be able to do business with the EU, how the costs of doing that business will change. These are just some of the very tangible effects that Brexit will cause.

How are we to know whether the putative benefits of leaving the EU will be worth the loss of those rights and the disruption to businesses if we (still) don't know what those benefits are or even are likely to be? What specific and tangible benefits will accrue from Brexit?

How can anyone decide whether Brexit is a cause that should be supported?
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: 22753
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2887 Postby Alan H » January 4th, 2018, 8:15 pm

This is how Brexit can be stopped in 2018
For all these reasons, 2018 is the year Brexit could come off the rails, and the British public could opt for a different path, to stay and lead in Europe.

The Conservative Government is making a few bets right now. It is betting that Parliament will be scared into wanting any deal at all over no deal. It is betting that Tory rebels want a Conservative majority in the House of Commons more than they want to overcome Brexit. It is betting that ultimately the more extreme Brexiters want to deliver Brexit at any cost – even if that cost is a soft Brexit.

Each of these bets is likely to unravel over time. But the biggest bet of all is being placed on the unity and economic future of the UK, both of which are under huge threat.

British people are savvy, and I have no doubt that while the Government loses its head the wisdom of the people will continue to shift, and save us from the most calamitous, elite-made act of self-harm in modern political history.

2018 is the year Brexit can be stopped – if the will of the people so wishes.
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: 6286
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2888 Postby animist » January 5th, 2018, 7:14 pm

Alan H wrote:I'll try a slightly different tack: about all you've said Nick so far is that the benefit of being out of the EU is that we won't be in it
yes, that is how it seems to me; BTW, welcome back to this thread Nick :wink:. Trouble is that you tend to bring other considerations into your posts, eg the eurozone, despite the fact that you know that Britain is not in it; also, the fact that Leave did win the referendum. So yes, let's focus on your hunch that Britain must leave the EU before the latter collapses. What real evidence is there that collapse is likely? You often mention the rise of far right groups in some countries, but this is getting a bit old hat now and relates mainly to the sudden influx of Asian and African refugees in 2015. Even the eurozone seems to be doing reasonably well, and there seems to be no feeling of desperation among the 27. So, unless you can respond strongly to Alan's challenge to give positive reasons for Brexiting, your position seems to be that it is better for Britain to take lots of pretty obvious risks in order to escape a larger organisation which, for whatever reasons you have, you believe to be on the point of collapse. Not very convincing. And even if the EU was in real trouble, would a sudden attempt to escape be reasonable? It would be difficult for Britain to escape without suffering some of the fallout. Basically (and you are not the only person to constantly predict the EU's imminent collapse, or alternatively, imminent transformation into a totalitarian state) the commonsense response is that old proverb: cross your bridges when you come to them

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

Re: In or out?

#2889 Postby Nick » January 6th, 2018, 2:53 am

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:I'll try a slightly different tack: about all you've said Nick so far is that the benefit of being out of the EU is that we won't be in it
yes, that is how it seems to me; BTW, welcome back to this thread Nick :wink:.
Thanks, animist! How wise it is for me to return remains to be seen... :wink:

Trouble is that you tend to bring other considerations into your posts, eg the eurozone, despite the fact that you know that Britain is not in it;
Tat is because I believe such things to be extremely relevant, even though we are not in it. Any institution which cannot see that the devastation caused by their own policy is not one to be trusted. Secondly, their continued direction of travel towards a United States of Europe, which could easily lead to ultimata such as join or leave, besides all sorts of other nasties.

also, the fact that Leave did win the referendum.
..as well as a thumping majority in Parliament.

So yes, let's focus on your hunch that Britain must leave the EU before the latter collapses. What real evidence is there that collapse is likely?
Historically, empires have a habit of collapsing, (though a precise definition is hard to agree upon). Why should the EU be any different? I would also suggest that leaving lessens the likelihood of collapse, rather than just trying to escape such a collapse, which, as you say, would be pretty impossible to do. We have tried reform from within, and failed, with no prospect of any future success by this method. If you do what you've always done, you're gonna get what you've always had.

You often mention the rise of far right groups in some countries, but this is getting a bit old hat now and relates mainly to the sudden influx of Asian and African refugees in 2015.
Made worse by it, certainly, but I think it has more to do with a perception of democratic deficit, and the growing frustration that governments seem to be able to address people's concerns. I don't see that going away, especially where policies are likely to make matters worse, not better.

Even the eurozone seems to be doing reasonably well,
Hmmm... not really. Large parts are in deep doo-doo still.

and there seems to be no feeling of desperation among the 27.
Euroskepticism is stronger in some parts of the EU than it was in Britain at the time of the referendum. It's just that EU governments dare not hold a referendum, and the EU is doing its utmost to put the frighteners on.

So, unless you can respond strongly to Alan's challenge to give positive reasons for Brexiting, your position seems to be that it is better for Britain to take lots of pretty obvious risks in order to escape a larger organisation which, for whatever reasons you have, you believe to be on the point of collapse.
Not immediate collapse, no. Just the continuing imposition of bad policy, leading to eventual failure. Whether that leads to collapse or radical reform remains to be seen.

Not very convincing.
I'm convinced! :wink:

And even if the EU was in real trouble, would a sudden attempt to escape be reasonable?
You've only just finished explaining how our withdrawal won't be sudden! What is unreasonable is the EU's attitude to the prospect of our departure.

It would be difficult for Britain to escape without suffering some of the fallout.
true, especially given the reaction of the EU institutions.

Basically (and you are not the only person to constantly predict the EU's imminent collapse, or alternatively, imminent transformation into a totalitarian state) the commonsense response is that old proverb: cross your bridges when you come to them
As noted above, neither are imminent, nor have I ever said they are, but there is more than one proverb! When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging! That's real common sense! :wink:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22753
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2890 Postby Alan H » January 6th, 2018, 11:34 am

: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
animist
Posts: 6286
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2891 Postby animist » January 6th, 2018, 12:42 pm

Nick wrote: Secondly, their continued direction of travel towards a United States of Europe, which could easily lead to ultimata such as join or leave, besides all sorts of other nasties.
you are almost making my case for me here. Look, Britain and other countries have NOT been forced into the eurozone, and Britain has had other concessions and optouts; in fact Cameron did win a promise that we need not be part of any further integration. The EU is in fact already a two-tier institution, with several countries other than Britain outside the zone. You really have no warrant to talk of ultimata, therefore, since any pressure would be directed at a large proportion of EU members. And in the unlikely event of some such ultimatum, well, that would be the time to consider leaving, would it not? So let us cross our bridges (or, in this case, cut our bridges) when we come to them
Nick wrote:
also, the fact that Leave did win the referendum.
..as well as a thumping majority in Parliament.
well yeah, but only because these poor MPs who did not want hard Brexit but were in constituencies which voted Leave, or else simply thought that the Leave victory DID morally compel them to vote for Article 50, jumped in a very forced way. Look at, eg, Anna Soubry, who voted for Article 50 but who is nevertheless getting death threats because she later rebelled over ensuring that Parliament get a proper choice over any EU deal. Brexiters are often not very nice people, as I can attest after trying to communicate with them on the Guido Fawkes forum
Nick wrote:
So yes, let's focus on your hunch that Britain must leave the EU before the latter collapses. What real evidence is there that collapse is likely?
Historically, empires have a habit of collapsing, (though a precise definition is hard to agree upon). Why should the EU be any different? I would also suggest that leaving lessens the likelihood of collapse, rather than just trying to escape such a collapse, which, as you say, would be pretty impossible to do. We have tried reform from within, and failed, with no prospect of any future success by this method. If you do what you've always done, you're gonna get what you've always had.
FFS, the EU is not an empire in any meaningful sense in which Rome and the British did have empires based on force. You really should get on well with the Guido lot! International organisations these days are not empires in any real sense. Are the UN or Nato about to collapse? Whyever would our leaving actually LESSEN the chance of collapse? This is completely at odds with Brexiter arguments that if the EU allow Britain to escape unscathed then that will indeed bring about a sort of escalation of exodus. I do feel that you improvise arguments to suit the context
Nick wrote:
You often mention the rise of far right groups in some countries, but this is getting a bit old hat now and relates mainly to the sudden influx of Asian and African refugees in 2015.
Made worse by it, certainly, but I think it has more to do with a perception of democratic deficit, and the growing frustration that governments seem to be able to address people's concerns. I don't see that going away, especially where policies are likely to make matters worse, not better.
I dare say that the EU does have a democratic deficit, as does Britain itself. Not much of an argument, Nick
Nick wrote:
Even the eurozone seems to be doing reasonably well,
Hmmm... not really. Large parts are in deep doo-doo still.
Ok, big deal. We are not Greece or Portugal, are we?
Nick wrote:
and there seems to be no feeling of desperation among the 27.
Euroskepticism is stronger in some parts of the EU than it was in Britain at the time of the referendum. It's just that EU governments dare not hold a referendum, and the EU is doing its utmost to put the frighteners on.
All you can claim is that EU countries outside Britain have NOT held referenda on membership, not that they "dare not" do so. If there were so many Brits desperate to leave the EU then they would have voted Ukip in successive elections, would they not? But they did not. Cameron made a silly misjudgment in overestimating the Ukip threat (and of course in listening to the eurosceptics in his own party) and that is why we are in this mess
Nick wrote:
So, unless you can respond strongly to Alan's challenge to give positive reasons for Brexiting, your position seems to be that it is better for Britain to take lots of pretty obvious risks in order to escape a larger organisation which, for whatever reasons you have, you believe to be on the point of collapse.
Not immediate collapse, no. Just the continuing imposition of bad policy, leading to eventual failure. Whether that leads to collapse or radical reform remains to be seen.
omigod, Nick that is just SO weak
Nick wrote:
And even if the EU was in real trouble, would a sudden attempt to escape be reasonable?
You've only just finished explaining how our withdrawal won't be sudden! What is unreasonable is the EU's attitude to the prospect of our departure.
hang on, our withdrawal would be RELATIVELY sudden, that is all I meant. And the EU's attitude to it is not IMO unreasonable. But I don't want to pursue this line of blame argument, it really is not basic to the issue
Nick wrote:
It would be difficult for Britain to escape without suffering some of the fallout.
true, especially given the reaction of the EU institutions.
what? If anything, this strengthens the case against Brexit
Nick wrote:
Basically (and you are not the only person to constantly predict the EU's imminent collapse, or alternatively, imminent transformation into a totalitarian state) the commonsense response is that old proverb: cross your bridges when you come to them
As noted above, neither are imminent, nor have I ever said they are, but there is more than one proverb! When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging! That's real common sense! :wink:
not a good analogy. If you are in a hole with dangerously steep sides you do not try to get out, you consider the position and hope for help. And since you do not think the "hole" is imminent, do not imagine something which may well not occur!

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22753
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2892 Postby Alan H » January 6th, 2018, 11:15 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit to swallow £70m meant for developing cancer drugs, says GSK
Up to £70m will have to be diverted from developing new cancer drugs in order to prepare for the impact of Brexit, Britain’s biggest maker pharmaceuticals of has warned.

In a stark intervention over the extra costs being incurred, Phil Thomson, president of global affairs at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), made clear that something approaching the figure would have to be spent whatever the outcome of trade talks.

In evidence to the Commons health select committee, he said he would rather be spending the money on the company’s efforts to find new, life-saving cancer treatments.

He said the company estimated that 1,700 of its products would be directly affected by a chaotic Brexit, with new regulation processes, labs and approval systems costing “somewhere between £60m and £70m”.

“Even if we have a smooth and orderly Brexit process, and we work through with a new [free trade agreement] or a new arrangement, there are going to be costs of that magnitude anyway, but they will probably be more phased,” Thomson told the committee.

“We will probably be able to reallocate some of those costs elsewhere. It may not be as significant as the contingency plan, but the reality is that we are already going to have to spend some of that.
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: 6286
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2893 Postby animist » January 7th, 2018, 12:24 pm

Alan H wrote:This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? [url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/06/brexit-will-divert-70m-from-our-cancer-drug-making-capacity-glaxosmithkline?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other]Brexit to swallow £70m meant for developing cancer drugs, says GSK[/url
appalling news - what say you, Nick? I have just posted this onto the Euro Guido forum, and look forward to the reaction, if any, there :cross:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22753
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2894 Postby Alan H » January 7th, 2018, 1:04 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? [url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/06/brexit-will-divert-70m-from-our-cancer-drug-making-capacity-glaxosmithkline?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other]Brexit to swallow £70m meant for developing cancer drugs, says GSK[/url
appalling news - what say you, Nick? I have just posted this onto the Euro Guido forum, and look forward to the reaction, if any, there :cross:
No doubt just necessary and unavoidable collateral damage in the war against 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: 22753
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2895 Postby Alan H » January 7th, 2018, 4:38 pm

What is the point of a Britain that has simply lost its way?
FOR the Tory Prime Minister, her delusional right wing, and the dangerous fanatics driving Brexit, 2017 was a year in which the worst excesses of a broken government started to dismantle Britain’s reputation abroad, destroy the integrity and credibility of British politics and bitterly divide Britain as the madness of Brexit started to unravel.

The new year provides an opportunity to reflect on this Tory “annus horribilis” and renew our campaign to derail Brexit, end this collective act of national self-harm, and as a minimum position keep Britain in the single market and the customs union. Labour is key to delivering a new policy on the EU. It is by history and experience an internationalist party, a pro-European party, a party of partnership and cooperation, and a party committed to fighting economic nationalism, isolationism, racism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism. The party needs to rethink its position and withdraw its support for Brexit.

There are dangers ahead. British people must resist the invitation from the Tories to believe that Brexit is a done deal, that history is moving in one direction, that resistance to this madness is unpatriotic, and that leaders of Remain, are in some way treacherous and contemptuous of working people and Leave voters. Theresa May is asking us to give up the struggle against Brexit and rally around the flag! This strategy is designed to confuse, deceive, and distract. Brexit is unravelling, and desperation is taking over.

The Prime Minister no longer puts the interests of the people before the ambitions of the right-wing zealots in her party. In his book On Tyranny, Timothy Snyder describes this approach as the “politics of inevitability”, where the intention is to exclude from the minds of people any notion that Brexit isn’t going to happen and that there is no alternative to Brexit.

Using the same psychological warfare, this was the Thatcher strapline in the 1980s, TINA! (there is no alternative). There was never a case for Brexit but now even the Brexiteers’ cause is crumbling as panic sets in and the prospect of Britain still being in the single market and the customs union and the Tories being out of office, is daily, staring May in the face. Hard Brexit now looks foolish, menacing, and irresponsible. The public are being taken for fools.

Understandably, the Brexit debate has focused on trade, virtually to the exclusion of other important issues. But there are wider strategic, international and security issues that should have been integral to this debate. Britain is now a middling country on the world stage. Our post-war history suggests this is not the time to turn our back on Europe, to pursue an isolationist foreign policy or to seek a more intensified Anglosphere with the USA.

The unpredictability of Trump and the Republican Party – and their hostility to the EU – the imperialist ambitions of Russia, the growing strength of China and the tensions in the Middle East and Africa only serve to strengthen the case for a stronger EU with Britain working with our European allies to secure greater global security and solidarity.

Britain needs to remain part of progressive EU debates dealing with climate change, migration, terrorism, renewable energy, inequality, and economic growth. Instead we are distracted, and sidelined by Brexit and for how many years to come?

May has forfeited any right to speak for Britain. Europe is our future. Jeremy Corbyn must accept this and position Labour as the party of the single market and the customs union, which leaves us able to keep our relationship with the EU fluid and flexible.

The economy, employee protection, social rights, trade union rights and jobs are vital to winning over public opinion. Corbyn may have understandable concerns over the number of Labour voters who voted Brexit in the North of England. Their plight, however, must be viewed against the background of the fact the EU referendum had very little to do with Europe but was about the long-term decline of Britain, the unfair impact of Tory austerity, the deliberate exploitation of sentiment and nostalgia, and the delusional and extreme ideological views of the cheap patriots of Ukip and the right wing of the Tory party. They talk about love of country but do everything to destroy it.

The disconnected, the politically disillusioned, the left-behinds or the just about managing, will, like those who voted for Trump, gain nothing and suffer most. Trumpism and Brexism illustrate the ultimate contempt for working people. This is a challenge for Corbyn, but it also represents a separate set of problems that require a radical and progressive platform of economic and social measures that address the issues that mark the decline of Britain, the unequal distribution of economic benefits and the rise in inequality – a decline that will be massively and negatively impacted on by leaving the EU. Corbyn must distance himself from some on the far left who seek to mirror the extreme views of the Tory right by imagining a fortress Britain with a siege mentality economy, able to pursue socialism without the controls of the EU, the austerity of globalisation and the capitalist club they believe the European Council to be.

Westminster MPs, the trades unions, the Labour Party, other political parties, the pro-Europe Tory MPs, a majority, of British people, and the bulk of business and industry interests must be mobilised as a coalition of the willing, inspired to remain close to the EU, retaining membership of single market and the customs union and destroying any idea of a hard Brexit. This is a battle for Britain that can be won.

For Jeremy Corbyn, the spoils of victory could be significant. Defeat for the Tories on an issue of such importance, will hasten a General Election and enhance the prospects of a Labour Government or a coalition government.

The politics of 2018 will be significant for other, deeper reasons. Britain is awash with evidence that it has lost any real sense of purpose and commitment to anything that would restore credibility, solidarity, pride and heal some of the divisions that are now obvious and increasingly dangerous. There is no vision, no ideas for a different future, no antidote to all-embracing materialism, delusional thinking, exceptionalism, and an intensifying selfishness which dominates modern society. This raises questions.

What is the point of a Britain that has simply lost its way? Is any party or government at Westminster capable of imagining a different Britain? What then should Scotland think about a Britain, that is drifting away from sense and sensibilities, has no respect for difference, and refuses to acknowledge the idea of real or effective power being exercised by any of the nations that make up the UK?

Time is running out for Westminster to take seriously Scotland’s growing impatience and the fact that Scots could vote for a different future. Brexit is overshadowing everything, but this will change. There is every prospect that the Scotland question will be reignited, but this time the debate will not just be about nationality, identity, and history, but will embrace the state of Britain, its apparent ungovernability, its broken politics, incompetent government and a Britain where constitutional principles and an effective democracy are sacrificed on the altar of outdated institutions, 19th-century attitudes and tribal politics.

These issues go much deeper than ideas of right and left or public and private or state and market. Instead they address the fundamental issues of what kind of society do we want to live in, how is this to be achieved and what kind of politics can create, shape and sustain a more informed, enlightened and a fairer nation?

For Scotland what is the right thing to do? Is a radical constitutional shake up of Britain a serious option or is an independent Scotland now a more realistic alternative. Do we envision a society more like the Nordic countries, less like the USA, more modern, less like the 19th century, more about the common good, less about greed and looking the other way, and more about cooperation and coalitions and less first past the post and majority government?

These comparisons are endless and should seriously worry those who believe Scotland will remain a compliant and minor part of a failing Britain. This is also a wake-up call to those who are complacent about the collapse of constitutional credibility in Britain. Identity may no longer be the most important factor or the driving force shaping the politics of Scotland. Instead we have a crisis of identity in Britain which runs much deeper than the rejection of the EU.

Scotland voted to remain. This should never be overlooked as the Tories brush aside the legitimate concerns of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. There are powerful democratic arguments to justify continuing opposition to Brexit. But again, the Labour Party must be less nuanced in its approach, more honest in laying bare the state of Britain and much more direct in its presentation.

The language of Labour politics must deal with the fact that the right-wing press is protecting the Government, masking the Tory crisis, and promoting the demonisation of the EU. Forget the looming crisis of Brexit and concentrate on the World Cup in Russia, the royal wedding and, of course, enjoy your new blue passports. Is this just bread and circuses or is the title of Robert Peston’s new book more appropriate, “WTF” (is happening to Britain)! My comment in parenthesis.

Marx once famously said: “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” These sentiments capture the Tory approach to Brexit.

Sorry. I should have said this was Groucho, not Karl.
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: 22753
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2896 Postby Alan H » January 7th, 2018, 5:34 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit: More than 2,300 EU academics resign amid warning over UK university 'Brexodus'
More than 2,300 EU academics have resigned from British universities over the past year amid concerns over a “Brexodus” of top talent in higher education.

New figures show a 19 per cent increase in departures of European staff from universities last year compared to before the EU referendum, and a 10 per cent rise from some 2130 resignations in 2015-16.

Theresa May has urged EU citizens to stay in the UK after Britain leaves the bloc but prolonged uncertainty over post-Brexit rights has made some academics fearful for the future, critics warn.

It comes after a report from the British Academy warned that the UK’s world-leading university sector could be under threat due to prospective changes to immigration rules after Brexit, with subjects such as modern languages and economics facing the greatest threat.
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: 22753
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2897 Postby Alan H » January 7th, 2018, 8:08 pm

Brexit legislation to give Government sweeping powers to water down human rights and equalities laws, MPs warned
Sweeping powers to water down human rights and equalities laws would be handed to the Government by Brexit legislation to be debated this week, MPs have been warned.

Ministers are poised to grab the ability to rewrite the likes of the Equality Act and the Modern Slavery Act at the request of a foreign power, bypassing MPs, civil rights group Liberty said.

The Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Bill “presents a significant threat to rights” unless the Commons stands firm and requires it to be rewritten, it argued.

“It allows them to change laws that originated from the EU without consulting MPs or the public,” a spokesman said.

“This means they could unilaterally rewrite equalities protections and anti-trafficking laws at the behest of a foreign power who thinks our hard-won rights get in the way of importing and exporting goods.

“MPs must remove this power grab from the Bill or risk handing over our rights and our sovereignty to the highest international bidder.”

The legislation was the latest attempt by ministers to “undermine democracy and bypass parliamentary scrutiny of the Brexit process”, after the flagship EU (Withdrawal) Bill contained similar “Henry VIII” powers, the organisation said.
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?

#2898 Postby Nick » January 8th, 2018, 12:26 am

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? [url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/06/brexit-will-divert-70m-from-our-cancer-drug-making-capacity-glaxosmithkline?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other]Brexit to swallow £70m meant for developing cancer drugs, says GSK[/url
appalling news - what say you, Nick? I have just posted this onto the Euro Guido forum, and look forward to the reaction, if any, there :cross:

This is equialent to 0.25% of turnover, a sum smaller than the gain GSK has probably made from the decline of sterling, so meh, not really material. Meanwhile in other news, the ability of much of Europe to fund medical research has been severely damaged by the dramatic recession caused by the operation of the Euro. What do you say, animist? Or doesn't Johnny Foreigner count...?

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

Re: In or out?

#2899 Postby Nick » January 8th, 2018, 12:34 am

Alan H wrote:This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit: More than 2,300 EU academics resign amid warning over UK university 'Brexodus'
More than 2,300 EU academics have resigned from British universities over the past year amid concerns over a “Brexodus” of top talent in higher education.

New figures show a 19 per cent increase in departures of European staff from universities last year compared to before the EU referendum, and a 10 per cent rise from some 2130 resignations in 2015-16.

Theresa May has urged EU citizens to stay in the UK after Britain leaves the bloc but prolonged uncertainty over post-Brexit rights has made some academics fearful for the future, critics warn.

It comes after a report from the British Academy warned that the UK’s world-leading university sector could be under threat due to prospective changes to immigration rules after Brexit, with subjects such as modern languages and economics facing the greatest threat.
So maybe 390 extra academics have left Britain. Hmmm.... How much of that is just random, how much is because of the fall in the value of sterling? In other news, the number of foreign NHS staff since the referendum is up 3,000. Must be because of Brexit!!!

Meh.

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

Re: In or out?

#2900 Postby Nick » January 8th, 2018, 12:39 am

And cast your mind back to the last time we had a lefty government, which wasn't perfectly relaxed about people becoming stinking rich, but instead wanted to make the pips squeak, and we see a net outflow of people. More were leaving than entering the UK. even though we had just had a referendum confirming our membership of the EEC.

So that's a definite no for Corbyn, then, right...?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22753
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2901 Postby Alan H » January 8th, 2018, 12:54 am

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit: Companies to be charged VAT upfront on goods from Europe in 'disastrous' blow to businesses
More than 100,000 UK companies will be forced to pay VAT upfront after Brexit, under controversial government plans being debated by Parliament this week.

Changes outlined in one of the many Brexit-related bills would force companies to pay the levy on goods at the point they enter the UK, rather than after they are sold.

Business groups said the change would create severe problems for UK companies, including cashflow issues and additional bureaucracy.

At least 130,000 UK firms will be forced to pay upfront import VAT once Britain leaves the single market, under which import tariffs are not imposed on goods bought from other EU countries.

Currently, firms can register with HMRC for permission to import some goods from the EU free of VAT. They register the charge but the levy is added to the price of the product and paid by the customer.

Under the new system being planned, the Government said, “import VAT is charged on all imports from outside the UK”.

Businesses would then have to pay the tax upfront and claim it back at a later date, meaning they would be spending significant sums of money long before they recoup them in sales.

Industry groups said the change could create major problems for UK importers and retailers.
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 4 guests