INFORMATION

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

In or out?

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

Re: In or out?

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

Latest post of the previous page:

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?

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

Re: In or out?

#3002 Postby Alan H » February 7th, 2018, 1:00 am

Brexit: We still have no idea what Britain actually wants, top Merkel ally says
The British Government has still provided “no clarification” about what it actually wants to get out of Brexit, leaving the EU with “no idea” about the sort of relationship it is aiming for, a top Brussels ally of Angela Merkel has warned.

Manfred Weber, the leader of the largest group of MEPs in the European Parliament, said the UK needed “to come out with concrete proposals very soon” and complained that while Theresa May was happy to rule things out, she would not say what she actually wanted.

But we know exactly what May wants: cake and the ability to eat 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: 22951
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3003 Postby Alan H » February 7th, 2018, 1:03 pm

Scotland’s population needs and migration policy: Discussion paper on evidence, policy and powers for the Scottish Parliament
11. The Scottish Government wants to see continued free movement of people from Europe, alongside a tailored approach for Scotland in relation to international migration. The case becomes more pressing and urgent if UK policy results in a hard Brexit that sees Scotland taken out of the European Single Market and Customs Union, and free movement of people ended or curtailed.

121. Migrants also contribute to economic growth, bringing new skills and perspectives to the labour market, raising productivity and increasing innovation. They play a vital role in our key sectors and public services. Scottish Government economic modelling shows that each EU citizen working in Scotland adds £34,400 to GDP on average, and contributes £10,400 in government revenue. New economic modelling in this paper shows the negative impact to Scotland's economic prospects as a consequence of reduced migration, and the potential economic gains if migration was sustained.

122. Just as importantly, migrants make a positive contribution to Scottish society. They help sustain communities in rural Scotland, and help ensure that Scotland is an open, modern European nation.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3004 Postby Alan H » February 7th, 2018, 1:46 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? (£) Brexit customs plan ‘impossible’, warns CBI
The CBI warned today that the government’s plans for post-Brexit customs arrangements are unworkable and costly for British business ahead of two days of cabinet meetings.

The organisation warned that both customs options being considered by government are flawed, with one meaning additional costs and delays, while the other “impossible” for small firms to manage.

This comes as Anna Soubry, the Tory backbencher and Remain campaigner, blasted Mrs May for bowing to hard Brexiteers over the customs union. The pro-EU MP told Theresa May to “sling out” arch-Brexiteers and threatened to quit the party. “If it comes to it, I am not going to stay in a party which has been taken

Remind me again why the Tories are doing this to us?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3005 Postby Alan H » February 7th, 2018, 2:13 pm

Brexit ultras v Tory realists: that’s the real battle
The ultras will not be satisfied with Brexit at the moment when the UK legally ceases to be an EU member. They long for the day when Britain’s relationship with the EU is so completely transformed, the bridges so charred and ruined, that the very memory of membership feels remote. That is why they are so very incensed by suggestions that the UK might form any kind of customs union with the EU. It isn’t just independent trade policy, but the spiritual purity of the project that hangs in the balance. Every thread must be cut.
The travesty is that this is happening in the name of democracy, to honour the sacred referendum result. The mandate from 2016 was to leave the EU, not to scorch the earth on which British governments have stood for a generation. The leave campaign promised many things, but obedience to the scriptures of Rees-Moggery was not among them. The battle now being waged for control of the Tory party is an offshoot of the referendum, but with a crucial difference. It is a campaign for power without even a pretence of wanting accountability. That is the point in every revolution where democracy gets left behind.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3006 Postby Alan H » February 7th, 2018, 5:31 pm

The impact of Brexit around the country:

2018-02-07_17h28_50.png
2018-02-07_17h28_50.png (140.12 KiB) Viewed 275 times


Remind me again why the fuck the Tories are doing this to us?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3007 Postby Alan H » February 8th, 2018, 12:13 am

Nick Clegg: The ‘soft Brexit’ dream is now dead – and Theresa May has done nothing to stop its demise
Take this from Dominic Raab, the Housing Minister, in the last few days: “I don’t think we’ll be in any form of customs union… at the same time we want frictionless trade with the EU.” These words betray either shameful mendacity or terrible ignorance. It cannot be said enough: the Brexit this Government is determined to impose on this country cannot under any circumstances avoid the introduction of extensive new barriers, costs and frictions to trade with our largest trading partners. There is something morbidly fascinating about the spectacle of Conservatives spouting the language of free-trade whilst overseeing the greatest retreat from open markets embarked upon by any party in the post-war period. And, boy, it will come as a shattering shock to UK businesses when they realise what this means in practice: new lorry parks near the Kent ports; new checks to work out which tariffs should apply to each product; phytosanitary and veterinary checks on livestock and agricultural products; according to the Institute for Government, every single trader exporting to the EU could end up having “to complete a Single Administrative Document (SAD) and an Entry Summary (ES). The SAD consists of eight parts with 54 boxes which must be completed and submitted for every declaration.”

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/opinion/nick-clegg- ... op-demise/
No wonder more and more Conservative MPs are starting to think what was once unthinkable: that they may feel compelled to vote against such a woeful Brexit deal. But they would be right to do so, for there is nothing remotely Conservative about this Government’s protectionist and bureaucratically intrusive approach to Brexit. This was the week when soft Brexit died. Conservative MPs must now find the courage to save the country from hard Brexit.

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/justi ... r-mankind/
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3008 Postby Alan H » February 8th, 2018, 10:43 am

The schism was caused by the Tories themselves and the deep divisions in the Tory Party were always there and, indeed, the whole reason for the referendum. Now the Tories have forced their internal divisions on everyone: Dominic Grieve warns of 'deep divisions' in Tory ranks over Brexit
The Conservative Party faces an "immense challenge" to repair the schism caused by Brexit, former attorney general Dominic Grieve has warned.

The former law officer, a ringleader of the rebels who inflicted Theresa May's first Commons defeat over her Brexit legislation, warned that political parties can "fall apart" if the ties of tribal loyalty break.

He acknowledged there were "deep divisions" within Tory ranks as a result of the European Union referendum.

Asked if the Conservative Party could survive, he told BBC's Newsnight: "I very much hope so.

"But I do recognise that there are deep divisions, there's no point in trying to pretend they don't exist."

Mr Grieve continued: "Ultimately political parties are held together not necessarily by people agreeing with each other on everything but by ties of loyalty and affection.

"Clearly there can come a point in a party's process where the ties of loyalty and affection get so stretched that it snaps.

"That's when a party starts to fall apart.

"The difficulty is we are a party which historically has been very pragmatic in its approach to problems and we have just introduced, by revolutionary means of a referendum, a deep, ideological division.

"For a pragmatic party to get over that and absorb the ideological division and then come together to deliver pragmatic government is clearly an immense challenge."

But he added that Labour was "equally divided" over its approach to 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
animist
Posts: 6356
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3009 Postby animist » February 8th, 2018, 10:54 am

Alan H wrote:This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? (£) Brexit customs plan ‘impossible’, warns CBI
The CBI warned today that the government’s plans for post-Brexit customs arrangements are unworkable and costly for British business ahead of two days of cabinet meetings.

The organisation warned that both customs options being considered by government are flawed, with one meaning additional costs and delays, while the other “impossible” for small firms to manage.

This comes as Anna Soubry, the Tory backbencher and Remain campaigner, blasted Mrs May for bowing to hard Brexiteers over the customs union. The pro-EU MP told Theresa May to “sling out” arch-Brexiteers and threatened to quit the party. “If it comes to it, I am not going to stay in a party which has been taken

Remind me again why the Tories are doing this to us?
I love playing the old Beatles song "No Reply" :laughter:

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

Re: In or out?

#3010 Postby Alan H » February 8th, 2018, 11:13 am

animist wrote:I love playing the old Beatles song "No Reply" :laughter:
:laughter:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3011 Postby Alan H » February 8th, 2018, 11:25 am

The government's refusal to commit to publishing a paper on the financial services industry after Brexit has been condemned by the Treasury Select Committee's chairwoman.
"Many firms will begin to activate their Brexit contingency plans at the end of March, but they're still none the wiser about the government's desired end-state for the sector.

"By publishing a position paper on financial services, the government could articulate a clear sense of direction and provide some much-needed clarity.

"Yet, as the economic secretary confirms, the government is refusing to publish such a paper for fear of undermining the UK's negotiating position.

"Nothing undermines a negotiating position more than not having one."
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3012 Postby Alan H » February 8th, 2018, 10:00 pm

Another pronouncement from the Government's 'You Couldn't Make This Shit Up' department: TECHNICAL NOTE: INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION
PERIOD
The UK will be leaving the EU in March 2019 and will no longer be a Member State from this time. However, the UK view is that the best approach would be for the parties to confirm that, for the duration of the implementation period, these agreements continue to apply to the UK and that the UK is to be treated in the same way as EU Member States for the purposes of
these agreements. This would be achieved by agreement of the parties to interpret relevant terms in these international agreements, such as “European Union” or “EU Member State”, to include the UK.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3013 Postby Alan H » February 8th, 2018, 10:02 pm

As a friend on Twitter put it:
UK - struggling to form a coherent position for its negotiations with 27 nations - decides its best strategy, up against a looming deadline, is to expand negotiations to 98 nations.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3014 Postby Alan H » February 9th, 2018, 12:15 am

Britain to world: please pretend we are not leaving EU
A “technical note” prepared by the British government calls on non-EU nations to treat the UK during its post-Brexit transition period after March 2019 as if it was still covered by more than 700 treaties Brussels has struck with third countries on everything from fishing rights to data sharing.

“To coin a phrase, they are going to tell the world that Brexit does not mean Brexit,” said one EU official.

Unless a deal is reached to keep the UK fully covered by such international agreements, Britain risks being bound by the obligations of the treaties during its post-Brexit transition period, without enjoying any of the benefits. The prospect is leading to a scramble in Whitehall to try and find a solution.

The paper published on Thursday represents an about-turn in the UK’s approach to the agreements, which it initially attempted to replicate with UK-only bilateral deal with the relevant countries.

Under the revised British plan, third-countries would agree to “interpret relevant terms in the international agreements, such as ‘European Union’ or ‘EU member state’ to include the UK”.

“This approach is underpinned by international law and practice,” the document said, adding that it “represents the simplest way of ensuring the continued application of these agreements” during the post-Brexit transition period, which is set to run until the end of 2020.

Sam Lowe, a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform, said the move marked a U-turn from previous British policy to renegotiate UK-only versions of the deals.

“It is not great for our credibility as a reliable negotiation partner,” he tweeted.

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, warned last month that there was no guarantee that the UK would be able to continue benefiting from the agreements once it left the EU. He said that was something in the gift of the 100-plus countries with whom Brussels had negotiated the agreements.

“Our partners around the world may have their own views on this,” he said.

The post-Brexit status of the international treaties has turned into one of the biggest headaches for the UK government as it navigates the complexities of its exit talks.

The unique nature of the transition period means Britain will remain bound by its obligations under EU law, including respect of international agreements, while at the same time non-EU countries will be under no pressure to grant Britain the rights it enjoyed as an EU member.

As the agreements are with so many different countries, renegotiating new UK-centric versions of them could be a logistical nightmare, especially as Britain faces restrictions on its rights to negotiate international deals while it remains an EU member.

The UK document emphasises the importance of the agreements to post-Brexit Britain, noting that they “cover a wide range of key policy areas” including “trade, nuclear co-operation and aviation”.

Some of the most vital agreements are those concerning air services. EU bilateral treaties in this field currently underpin the right of British aeroplanes to land in countries such as the US, Canada and Israel.

The British document said the proposal was a reflection of the “unique and time-limited nature” of the transition period, which would be based on “the existing structure of EU rules and regulations”.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3015 Postby Alan H » February 9th, 2018, 12:00 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Ministers admit almost 65 existing trade deals with non-EU countries are ‘at risk because of Brexit’
Ministers have admitted for the first time that about 65 existing trade deals with non-EU countries are at risk because of Brexit, it has been claimed.

The Government has previously argued the benefits will not be lost because those other countries have agreed to “roll over” the agreements when Britain leaves the EU.

But a new technical note has now revealed that the UK is seeking to be treated legally as a “member state” during the transition period – in order to maintain the trade deals.

The use of the phrase “member state” is certain to enrage hard Brexit supporters, who will fear it reveals that Britain will not truly have left the EU if Theresa May strikes her transition deal.

“To coin a phrase, they are going to tell the world that Brexit does not mean Brexit,” said one EU official who spoke to The Financial Times.

B..b..b..b..but 'Brexit means Brexit'. And in 'Brexit means Brexit', 'Brexit' means Brexit, 'means' means means and 'Brexit' means Brexit. Except when it doesn't.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3016 Postby Alan H » February 9th, 2018, 12:39 pm

B..b..b..but frictionless borders! Free trade! Cakes! Checks at Irish border 'unavoidable' after Brexit, warns Barnier
Brussels' chief Brexit negotiator also told reporters that agreement on a transitional deal after the UK leaves the bloc in March 2019 was "not a given".

After the latest round of Brexit talks between officials in Brussels, he said three "substantial" disagreements remain with the UK over plans for a transition period.

He added: "If these disagreements persist the transition is not a given."

On the issue of the Irish border he told reporters: "Any solution must be precise, clear and unambiguous."

He added: "It is important to tell the truth. A UK decision to leave the single market and to leave the customs union would make border checks unavoidable."
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3017 Postby Alan H » February 9th, 2018, 4:04 pm

EU's Barnier warns Britain post-Brexit transition 'not a given'
He said Britain rejects giving lifetime rights to EU citizens who arrive after Brexit but before 2021, demands mechanisms to avoid any new EU laws it dislikes, and opposes a clause to unilaterally suspend Britain’s access to the single market in case of disputes.

“Frankly, I am surprised by these disagreements,” he said. “In demanding the benefits of the single market, the customs union ... the United Kingdom should logically accept all the rules and obligations until the end of the transition.”

Barnier stressed the EU was waiting for London to explain what sort of future relationship it wanted with the EU and how to avoid border controls between the north and south of Ireland if it leaves the bloc’s customs union in the future, as Prime Minister Theresa May has said it will.

“The sooner the UK makes its choices, the better,” Barnier said. “A UK decision to leave the single market and leave the customs union would make border checks unavoidable.”

“We focus on solutions to avoid a hard border ... any solution must be precise, clear and unambiguous.”
I don't think May or Davis do "precise, clear and unambiguous".
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3018 Postby Alan H » February 10th, 2018, 12:23 am

Who'd have guessed? Brexit: Official document raises prospect of tampering with workers' rights to boost economy
Government officials have raised the prospect that hard-won workers’ rights could be reviewed by the Government after Brexit to boost Britain’s economy.

A Whitehall impact assessment singles out workers’ protections – such as preventing people from being forced to work too many hours – as an area that might be used for “maximising regulatory opportunities” after withdrawal.

MPs who have seen the document claimed it shows ministers are considering weakening employment rights post-Brexit – with one branding the paper an “absolute disgrace”.

Theresa May has consistently said she will not weaken worker rights after the UK quits the EU, and has even vowed to strengthen them, but she has failed to commit to maintaining specific protections to do with working hours.

MPs told The Independent the document refers to a review of the potential impact of amending or removing existing employment regulations.

The Government has faced intense questions over the Brexit assessment paper, which MPs can now view under strict conditions.

It has already been reported that the paper suggests the UK will be worse off after Brexit, even if the country secures free trade deals with the EU and other countries.

But MPs who have read it now claim that a part of the document in which officials explore areas for boosting the UK’s economy also contains a lengthy section on “maximising regulatory opportunities”.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6356
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3019 Postby animist » February 10th, 2018, 10:41 am

Alan H wrote:EU's Barnier warns Britain post-Brexit transition 'not a given'
He said Britain rejects giving lifetime rights to EU citizens who arrive after Brexit but before 2021, demands mechanisms to avoid any new EU laws it dislikes, and opposes a clause to unilaterally suspend Britain’s access to the single market in case of disputes.

“Frankly, I am surprised by these disagreements,” he said. “In demanding the benefits of the single market, the customs union ... the United Kingdom should logically accept all the rules and obligations until the end of the transition.”

Barnier stressed the EU was waiting for London to explain what sort of future relationship it wanted with the EU and how to avoid border controls between the north and south of Ireland if it leaves the bloc’s customs union in the future, as Prime Minister Theresa May has said it will.

“The sooner the UK makes its choices, the better,” Barnier said. “A UK decision to leave the single market and leave the customs union would make border checks unavoidable.”

“We focus on solutions to avoid a hard border ... any solution must be precise, clear and unambiguous.”
I don't think May or Davis do "precise, clear and unambiguous".
yet again Britain is trying to have its cake and eat it. We want a transition period, period, but on our terms

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

Re: In or out?

#3020 Postby Alan H » February 10th, 2018, 11:45 am

Fresh appeal to halt Brexit through the EU court
A GROUP of parliamentarians plans to lodge a legal appeal in an attempt to secure a European court ruling on Brexit.

The politicians believe the UK Parliament could unilaterally stop the UK leaving the EU if the final Brexit deal is deemed unacceptable by the Commons.

They want a definitive ruling from the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on whether the withdrawal process triggered under Article 50 can be halted by the UK on its own, without prior consent of the other 27 EU member states.

The group took its fight to the Court of Session in Edinburgh but on Tuesday Judge Lord Doherty turned down a bid to have a full hearing on whether to refer the question to the Luxembourg Court, ruling the issue is "hypothetical and academic", and that he is "not satisfied the application has a real prospect of success".

Now campaigners have announced plans to appeal against his ruling to the Inner House of the Court of Session.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

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

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

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

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

Read more at:https://www.byline.com/column/67/article/2045
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests