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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2981 Postby Alan H » January 31st, 2018, 8:23 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Labour Tries to Force Release of U.K. Brexit Economic Study
The difference is that in November, the government argued that the analysis was high quality, only to be embarrassed when it appeared. This time, the government is arguing that the report shouldn’t be released because it’s unreliable.
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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2982 Postby Alan H » January 31st, 2018, 3:00 pm

Sketch: We've taken back control. Is someone going to take responsibility?
The longer Brexit goes on, the more it comes to resemble one of those weird Animal Channel documentaries about a guy who keeps a lion in his backyard but gets peculiarly angsty when you ask to count how many fingers his children have got.

Taking control of it is one thing. But at the end of twenty four hours when it has rampaged uncontrollable around Westminster perhaps like never before, the question of taking responsibility for it appears to be quite another.

The Brexit department thinks it wants it, but we've seen its numbers now and we know it can’t afford to keep it. The House of Lords has had a look at it and wants to give it back to the people, hoping this time it might see it for what it really is, and decide to destroy 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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2983 Postby Alan H » January 31st, 2018, 7:20 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Ryanair to put Brexit clause in summer 2019 tickets
Ryanair will put a 'Brexit clause' into all ticket purchase terms and coditions for summer 2019, in case a UK-EU deal on aviation is not agreed before the UK leaves the bloc.

The airline will warn all passengers that in the case of no deal, their tickets will not be valid. Customers will be refunded if this is the case, the airline said.

The EU-wide 'Open Skies' agreement currently covers flying rights to, from and within the EU, as well as between the US and UK. The deal allows EU airlines to fly to and from anywhere in the bloc. There is no backup option for this arrangement, which has been put in jeopardy by Brexit.

Airlines have said they need a bilateral replacement deal by October 2018 to be able to schedule flights beyond March 2019, when the UK will 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
Alan H
Posts: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2984 Postby Alan H » January 31st, 2018, 10:45 pm

EU rejects Brexit trade deal for UK financial services sector
Brussels negotiators say Europe would benefit from a smaller City of London

EU Brexit negotiators have set out a tough line on financial services, ruling out an ambitious trade deal for the lucrative sector and arguing that Europe would benefit from a smaller City of London, according to confidential discussions among the other 27 EU member states.

In a rebuff to the UK, which is seeking to put financial services at the heart of a trade deal with the bloc, an internal EU27 meeting this week concluded that future arrangements should be based on “equivalence” — the limited and revocable access given to third-country institutions — rather than a wide-ranging new pact.

At present, such provisions give financial groups from countries such as the US conditional access to the single market for some services.

“There was a strong commission message that there would be no special deal,” said an EU diplomat briefed on the discussions — a first attempt to thrash out the bloc’s position on the issue before negotiations with Britain start in March. “The UK is being told from the beginning what the situation is.”

Another EU diplomat said: “They are out of the internal market, that’s it. There can only be a much less ambitious agreement.”

Ensuring that financial services are not badly hit by Brexit is a top priority for the UK, since the sector is Britain’s biggest source of exports and tax revenue.

Theresa May’s government has also argued that if the City were damaged it would adversely affect financial stability and EU groups’ cost of financing, while contributing to the fragmentation of the sector.

But participants said that in the EU27 meeting the European Commission played down the risks of cutting off the City to EU businesses, saying that the financial sector was mobile enough to adapt.

They added that the commission maintained that a smaller City could benefit financial stability and the development of capital markets in the EU27, an argument that Spain also vocally supported.

The discussion focused on future relations after a transition period that Brussels intends to end by December 31 2020.

The commission negotiator also told the meeting that giving the City extensive market access could leave the EU more vulnerable in a crisis.

Brussels’ fear is that, in a financial emergency, UK regulators would prioritise continuity in companies’ UK operations over their activities in the EU27. This could lead to outflows of capital and liquidity or the withdrawal of vital services at a critical moment.

One senior diplomat said that the commission had underlined the importance of making sure that the EU did not lose “influence” over the UK financial sector, which could “have such a huge impact on the EU”.

While no country contradicted the approach of the commission, which is conducting the negotiations with the UK, the discussion highlighted differences between member states.

Germany, Sweden and Luxembourg cited the benefits of continuing co-operation with the UK, while France argued that the costs of a hard break would be limited and easy to contain.

Like the commission, Paris said there was a need to prevent the UK undercutting the bloc’s financial rules, and urged Brussels to encourage London-based companies to trigger relocation plans.

According to one person briefed on its thinking, the commission will send out notices warning a wide range of different financial groups to be prepared for Brexit and the lapse of the UK’s rights as an EU member.

These include banks and payment service providers, insurers, asset managers and brokerages, as well as auditors and credit-rating agencies.

Brussels has already prepared itself for Brexit by toughening its criteria for granting equivalence to systemically important non-EU financial centres, and the commission negotiator told the meeting that intensive talks would be needed with the UK on financial stability arrangements.

The commission official also said that the ball was in the UK’s court to set out ideas for how trade in financial services might operate after Brexit.

A UK government official said: “We are confident of negotiating a deep and special economic partnership that includes a good deal for financial services, and protects the City of London’s position as the world’s leading financial centre.

“We start from the unique position of regulatory alignment and trust in one another’s institutions. The UK’s financial services sector plays an essential role in the European economy and so it is in the interests of all parties to secure a deal.”
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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2985 Postby Alan H » February 1st, 2018, 2:20 pm

Theresa May starts another fight she will not finish
As ever, Theresa May has prioritised short term headlines over long term strategy. She simply will not learn. She is incapable of self-improvement. She is making all the same mistakes in the second phase of negotiation which she made in the first.

Speaking in China, the prime minister decided to start a fight with the EU over the terms of transition. She is going to resist demands that free movement continue during transition on the same terms that it did before.

"I'm clear there is a difference between those who came prior to us leaving and those who will come when they know the UK is leaving," she said. "What we're doing now is doing the job that the British people asked the government to do which is to deliver on Brexit. In doing that they did not vote for nothing to change when we come out of the EU."

May is going to lose this fight for three reasons. The first is the EU's built in advantage.

The UK does not have the infrastructure to act independently by March 2019. It does not have the customs checkpoints, or the roads on which they'll operate. It has not hired or trained the staff who'll man them, or created the management system under which they'll operate. It does not have the regulators in place to keep exporting goods and services to Europe. It does not have the capacity to handle nuclear material outside of Euratom. It does not have the bilateral agreements, with the EU or the US, to continue to fly to their territory. It would not have the regulators to certify medicines, for humans or animals.

The list goes on and on. There would be chaos in every sector. Transition is not really transition, any more than it was implementation. It is a time-buying exercise to avoid catastrophe while negotiations continue. The asymmetry of the infrastructure status quo has always been the key to the Brexit dynamic and that remains the case here. This is not a game of chicken May can win.

The second reason she will lose is that the transition deal only works if nothing has changed - a sentiment you would have thought she was sympathetic to given her difficulties during the election campaign. The basis upon which the EU is agreeing to transition is that of identical status, minus political influence. As soon as you make it bespoke, the entire purpose of the initiative falls apart. You might as well be negotiating the end state arrangements.

May's demand for differential treatment of EU migrants - divided by whether they arrived pre or post March 2019 - goes against the four freedoms. Not only is she trying to open up negotiations on an initiative specifically designed to avoid negotiation, but she is doing so on a core EU issue on which they have repeatedly made clear they will not be moved.

The third reason May will fail is because she cannot deliver her promise even if she secured it. The Home Office barely gets by as it is - partly as a result of her own inability to get it into a functioning state during her seven years as home secretary. Not a day goes by without it committing glaring and preventable errors.

It is in no position to set up a registration system, design a new work permit and benefit entitlement visa category, get it passed in parliament, train the staff to deliver it, and then implement it before March 2019. It is not going to happen.

So here we are once again, with Theresa May starting fights she cannot finish. Perhaps this time it will be different. Perhaps this time she will prove a tactical genius, steering a baffled and disunited EU into position so she can secure her stated policy aim, while simultaneously overseeing a massive technical project in a department famous for its incompetence and institutional inertia. Or perhaps it'll be the other thing.
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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2986 Postby Alan H » February 1st, 2018, 4:00 pm

In today's news, the Tories' 40-year internecine EU war continues unabated: The Tories are once again in turmoil as open warfare breaks out over Brexit - can Theresa May survive?
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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2987 Postby Alan H » February 2nd, 2018, 10:40 pm

Green Brexit is impossible to guarantee, EU is warned
Exclusive: Leaked paper from group representing Tory MEPs says it will be impossible to ensure current standards are kept in Britain or EU

The European Conservative and Reformist group which represents Conservative MEPs has has said Brexit will make it “impossible” to guarantee that current environmental standards can be maintained in Britain or the EU.

A leaked document seen by the Guardian also calls for “the closest possible working relationship” between the EU and UK after Brexit, and for a “no regression clause” in future British trade deals.

This would “limit any negative effects from deregulation,” says the paper, which was submitted to the European parliament’s Brexit environment steering group.

Some Conservative MEPs claimed not to have seen the report that was submitted.

The parliament’s Brexit coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, told the Guardian: “Suggestions that the UK might seek to lower environmental standards after Brexit are alarming and contradict the commitments made by prime minister May in her Florence speech.”

They also showed why a future deal “must contain precise and detailed safeguards, with robust sanctions, to ensure the maintenance of high standards and a level playing field,” he said.

The EU’s environmental laws are among its most popular, with polls showing that over 80% of Britons support the same levels of protection – or higher – after 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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2988 Postby Alan H » February 3rd, 2018, 1:02 am

Tory rebels launch bid to keep UK in customs union with EU
Two leading Conservative MPs have launched a bid to make Theresa May keep the UK in a customs union with the European Union, as the prime minister faces cabinet and party splits over the issue.

Anna Soubry, a former business minister, and Ken Clarke, the former chancellor, said they would try to get cross-party support for keeping the UK’s current customs arrangements with the EU, in a clear challenge to May’s authority.

They have a strong chance of causing an embarrassing government defeat if Jeremy Corbyn’s frontbench supports their amendments to two trade bills when they are debated in the House of Commons before the end of February.

It is understood Labour is not ruling out backing the Tory rebels, who already have the support of a number of pro-EU Labour backbenchers. Soubry said it was part of “building a Brexit consensus inside and outside parliament”.

May is facing growing pressure as she refuses to make clear whether she would support a permanent custom union relationship at the end of a transitional period in late 2020.

The issue has become a dividing line between supporters of a hard Brexit, who believe it would limit sovereignty and stop the UK striking deals with non-EU countries, and supporters of a soft Brexit, who want to keep Britain’s trading ties with the EU as close as possible.

A cabinet split became public open on Friday as it emerged the Treasury had been making the case privately for permanent membership of a customs union.

Liam Fox, the trade secretary, attempted to slap down the claim, saying the government was not considering such an arrangement as it would limit the UK’s ability to make trade deals with the rest of the world.

The Brexit-supporting cabinet ministers Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are also opposed to remaining in a customs union.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative backbencher and leader of the Eurosceptic European Research Group, said customs union membership was unacceptable to leading Brexit supporters and accused Philip Hammond, the chancellor, of undermining Britain’s departure from the EU.

Using the hashtag #TreasuryGate, he said that if Hammond was trying to keep the UK in a customs union then it was “a breach of collective responsibility”, and if it was officials then it was “against their duty to implement government policy”.

“The conclusion must be either the chancellor or his officials are deliberately trying to frustrate Brexit. Ultimately, ministers must take responsibility,” he said.

Speaking to Sky News on her trip to China, the prime minister would only say: “What I want to do is ensure that we have got the best possible trade arrangements with China and with other countries around the world once we have left the European Union.”

Senior Tory sources have told the Guardian that the prime minister initially appeared to be swayed by the Treasury’s proposals but had since backed away from them.

No 10 said on Friday that May had an open mind about the UK’s options for customs arrangements after Brexit. But an official spokesman also said Fox had been speaking for the government and May was sticking by her assertion in the Lancaster House speech last year that the UK did not intend to be bound by a common external tariff. This would appear to rule out being part of a customs union.

Labour is expected to firm up its views on the customs union at an upcoming “away day” meeting on Brexit policy. Its current position is that permanent membership of the customs union is a viable option, but it does not want to be overly tied down while EU negotiations on transition and future trade have barely begun.

Supporters of a soft Brexit believe Labour’s position will be crucial in creating a parliamentary majority for staying in the customs union, which could help solve the dilemma over trade across the Irish border and reduce bureaucratic checks on traded goods.

Chris Leslie, the former shadow chancellor who is backing the Soubry amendments, said there was a good chance the government would be defeated as he was “reasonably confident that the shadow cabinet and rest of the parliamentary Labour party” supported staying in the customs union.
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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2989 Postby Alan H » February 3rd, 2018, 4:09 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? industry
UK car production falls for first time since 2009 as Brexit fears hit sales
UK car production went into reverse last year for the first time since the depths of financial crisis in 2009, as Brexit fears took hold and consumers turned their backs on diesel vehicles.

A total of 1.67m cars rolled off UK production lines in 2017, down 3% compared with 2016 as demand for British-made cars dropped both at home and abroad, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).

The number was about 130,000 below the industry’s forecast, largely because of a near 10% fall in domestic buyers as cash-strapped households in Britain were increasingly reluctant to commit to major spending decisions. The SMMT also blamed “confusion” over the government’s policy on diesel.

The trade body warned 2018 was likely to be another tough year for the UK industry, which is facing the prospect of declining investment and zero growth in production volumes.

Companies including Toyota, Jaguar Land Rover, and McLaren last year committed to a total of £1.1bn in future investment in the UK, down 34% compared with the £1.66bn committed in 2016 and below the average over the past few years.

“A drop of that magnitude is a concern,” said Mike Hawes, chief executive of the SMMT, as he warned the government needed to provide “urgent clarity” on a transitional Brexit deal so that companies could press ahead with crucial spending decisions.
Providing the certainty businesses need, eh?
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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2990 Postby Alan H » February 3rd, 2018, 4:13 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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2991 Postby Alan H » February 3rd, 2018, 4:42 pm

Brexit ‘ultras’ are undermining the integrity of the Civil Service. The consequences could be grave
A pro-Brexit minister and MPs have accused the Civil Service of pursuing a ‘Remain’ agenda. Steve Bullock, a former civil servant, argues that the consequences of undermining civil servants in this way are potentially disastrous. By encouraging distrust in the impartiality of the Service – which has no right of reply – they increase the chances of sliding towards a system like that in the US, where civil servants are political appointees, or one where they can no longer speak truth to power.
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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2992 Postby Alan H » February 3rd, 2018, 6:48 pm

The Tories providing yet more certainty and clarity to businesses over Brexit: Unilever set to go Dutch amid uncertainty over EU
Fears that Unilever will pick Rotterdam over London as its main base were growing last night after the Anglo-Dutch company said that it expected to complete a review of its structure by the end of March.

The move would represent an embarrassing blow to Theresa May’s government as it struggles to present post-Brexit Britain as an ideal home for multinationals.

It was first mooted by Unilever, which is behind brands such as Marmite and Persil, last year as a defensive ploy to make itself less vulnerable to takeover after it fended off an unwelcome £115 billion bid from America’s Kraft Heinz. However, the decision now risks becoming highly politicised amid tensions between the UK and the EU over the Brexit negotiations.
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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2993 Postby Alan H » February 3rd, 2018, 8:24 pm

The Tories providing certainty and clarity to criminals over Brexit: Irish court refuses man's extradition because of 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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2994 Postby Alan H » February 4th, 2018, 10:39 am

Brexit to go ahead even if Government’s own analysis shows it will make Britain poorer, Theresa May suggests
Brexit will go ahead even if the Government’s own analysis shows it will make Britain poorer, Theresa May has suggested.

Interviewed before leaving China, at the close of her three-day trip, the Prime Minister vowed she would not be deflected even by stark forecasts of an economic price to be paid.

“It’s important, of course, that the Government looks at the analysis that is available,” she told ITV News.

“But, of course, it’s also important that the government does what the British people want us to do — the British people want us to leave the European Union and that is what we will be doing.”
More from the master of emptiness.
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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2995 Postby Alan H » February 4th, 2018, 12:55 pm

Amber Rudd hits back at Tory Brexiteers
Home Secretary Amber Rudd has hit back at Tory Brexiteers over attacks on the civil service and claims of disunity.

Ms Rudd said backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg was "wrong" to accuse the Treasury of "fiddling the figures" with forecasts showing the UK would be worse off outside the EU.

The leaked forecast that sparked the row was a cross-departmental "tool" to "help inform the debate", she said.

And she said ministers were more united over Brexit than critics claim.
Ahead of a week of key meetings, Theresa May is facing growing calls to set out in detail what she wants to secure - in particular how closely-bound the UK will be to the EU after it leaves.

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Bernard Jenkin, a Conservative MP who was a key Leave campaigner, accused the government of being "vague" and "divided" on the issue.
Nearly two years on and they still don't have a fucking clue.
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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2996 Postby Alan H » February 4th, 2018, 2:00 pm

Rest assured, when Brexit bombs, it won’t be the fault of the Tory righ
he right does not want British institutions to take back control from the EU. It wants to take control of British institutions. Understand its raging ambition and you will understand why self-proclaimed Conservatives are so anxious to destroy.

Patriots who shout about their love of country daily announce their hatred of every British principle that might constrain them. The rule of law and sovereignty of parliament? The Mail echoed every totalitarian movement since the Jacobins and denounced judges as “enemies of the people” for ruling that Brexit couldn’t be triggered without the approval of parliament. Academic freedom? A government whip demanded universities tell him what lecturers were teaching about Brexit. The right of MPs to follow their conscience? Liberal Tories received death threats after the Telegraph called them “mutineers” for not obeying orders and thinking for themselves. Now the civil service is having its ethics besmirched and neutrality threatened. Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Baker accused it of plotting to undermine Brexit by producing needlessly pessimistic forecasts. The lie was so demonstrably false even Baker had to apologise. Tellingly, Rees-Mogg did not. Unnervingly, he may be our next prime minister.
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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2997 Postby Alan H » February 4th, 2018, 9:27 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit Exposes U.K. to Worldwide Raid on Airbus Wing Production
Britain’s five-decade dominance of wing construction for Airbus SE jets is under threat from rival countries playing up the uncertainties surrounding Brexit to pitch for a share of the high-value, precision manufacturing work.

Airbus has been approached by at least seven governments looking to poach future wing production after the company raised concerns about Britain quitting the European Union, stirring fears at the planemaker’s U.K. unit that it may see an erosion of its leading role, according to people familiar with the matter.
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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2998 Postby Alan H » February 5th, 2018, 1:42 am

Seen on Twitter.. Brexit: who’s to blame for it not going well. Latest update.

2018-02-05_01h40_51.png
2018-02-05_01h40_51.png (152.27 KiB) Viewed 116 times
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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2999 Postby Alan H » February 5th, 2018, 12:15 pm

The Tory Party war continues unabated: Anger as Brexiteers branded 'SWIVEL-EYED' by Theresa May's energy minister Claire Perry
BREXITEERS who had the temerity to suggest the Government had “sold out” by agreeing to stump up £39bn for the Brexit divorce bill have been branded “swivel-eyed” by a minister.
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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3000 Postby Alan H » February 5th, 2018, 12:17 pm

Meanwhile: Could there be a new temporary customs union after Brexit?
The Government believes that there are two possible approaches to its future customs arrangements with the EU that will “facilitate the freest and most frictionless trade possible”, “encourage growth in trade”, and “mitigate to the greatest extent possible against any additional administrative burdens or delays”.

The first option, a “highly streamlined customs arrangement”, aims to improve customs processes at the border. The second option is a “new customs partnership with the EU” such that the need for a UK-EU customs border is removed completely.

It’s too early to say exactly what these options might mean in practice and how feasible a new form of partnership would be. In fact, as David Davis acknowledges, the lack of clarity in these proposals is intentional “constructive ambiguity”.
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: 22411
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3001 Postby Alan H » February 6th, 2018, 5:58 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? UK crops left to rot after drop in EU farm workers in Britain after Brexit referendum
British farmers have been forced to leave thousands of pounds worth of vegetables to rot in their fields, because of a drop in the number of farm workers from the European Union (EU).

James Orr, whose farm outside St Andrews produces potatoes, carrots, parsnips, broccoli, cauliflower, said his farm suffered a 15 per cent drop in the number of workers between August and November.

“We simply could not harvest everything, and as a result we left produce in the field to rot,” he told Scotland’s Sunday Herald newspaper.

Enough broccoli to feed 15,000 people for a year was wasted, he added. Mr Orr’s farm supplies more than 1,000 tones of the vegetable and he estimated he lost between £30,000 and £50,000.

The UK farming industry is heavily dependent on pickers from the EU, particularly those from eastern Europe. Britain’s low unemployment rate and the the seasonal nature of the work makes it difficult to attract domestic workers.

But the fall in the value of sterling against the Euro since the Brexit vote, means the UK has become less attractive to seasonal workers from Romania and Bulgaria.

Farmers also fear that a Brexit deal restricting freedom of movement could leave them with even fewer people to help harvest their crops.
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 1 guest