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. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3301 Post by Alan H » April 10th, 2018, 10:33 am

Latest post of the previous page:

May Hints at Softer Stance on EU Migration in Brexit Trade Talks
Prime Minister Theresa May said the U.K. would look at the issue of European migration as part of negotiations on a post-Brexit trade deal with the European Union, an indication she may be willing to consider special treatment for the bloc’s citizens.

May reiterated her aim for a comprehensive and ambitious trade deal with the EU after the divorce. “Obviously as part of that we will be looking at the issue of movement, but we will recognize that there will be EU citizens who will still want to work and study in the U.K. and U.K. citizens who will still want to work and study in the EU27,” she said.

The U.K. will be out of the single market, out of the EU’s freedom of movement rules, and setting its own regulations on immigration, she said at a press conference in Copenhagen.

Controlling immigration, and putting an end to free movement from EU countries, was one of the main issues in the Brexit referendum campaign in 2016. But May’s insistence on it is one of the obstacles that will prevent the U.K. from keeping its access to Europe’s single market after the split.

May says she wants a trade deal that’s more ambitious than any of the EU’s previous accords. But so far, the EU has said her aspirations aren’t feasible as they amount to cherry-picking the best bits of membership without accepting the responsibilities.

In the latest sign that May is still to be convinced of the merits of Brexit, the prime minister avoided answering a question on whether she has changed her mind on the split since campaigning for Remain in the referendum.
I thought we voted to end EU immigration?
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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3302 Post by Alan H » April 10th, 2018, 10:35 am

Britons Back Holding a Vote on May's Brexit Deal
Britons support holding a vote on the final Brexit deal secured by Prime Minister Theresa May, according to a YouGov poll for the pro-remain group Best for Britain.

Those saying the public should have the final say on whether to accept the Brexit deal or remain in the European Union exceeded opponents by 8 percentage points, according to the poll results released on Monday by the group, whose funders include billionaire investor George Soros. Respondents said they would opt to remain in the bloc if given a second referendum.

The survey results pose a dilemma for May, who in December was forced into conceding a vote on her Brexit deal to lawmakers following a rebellion by members of her own Conservative Party. But after previous polls showed there was no appetite for a second referendum on Brexit, she’s been able to fend off demands for a new vote amid tricky divorce talks with her EU counterparts.
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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3303 Post by Alan H » April 10th, 2018, 12:46 pm

Sorry, Brexiters. Banking on the Commonwealth is a joke
As the Commonwealth summit in London approaches, get ready to hear about the long list of good causes – from ending war and poverty to tackling climate change, and from spreading democracy to promoting gender equality – that the organisation champions. All of this is, indeed, laudable. But given the Commonwealth’s record in recent years, one would need a great deal of faith and a remarkably short memory to believe that the organisation really can make a significant contribution in any of these areas. What is surely beyond doubt is that the Commonwealth cannot rescue the UK from the grievous, self-inflicted wound of Brexit. And any suggestion that it can will only serve to rob the organisation of whatever last vestiges of credibility it still possesses.
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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3304 Post by Alan H » April 11th, 2018, 11:56 am

Benefits? What benefits? Cost of Brexit bonfire of EU rules vastly outweighs benefits, says CBI
The costs of diverging from European Union rules after Brexit "vastly outweigh" the benefits, the CBI has warned.

The employers' group said the EU's single market "is one of the most sophisticated systems of economic rules in existence" and warned "the job of untangling 40 years of economic and regulatory integration is a mammoth one and should not be underestimated".

"The stakes are high," it said in its report. "If negotiators get it wrong on rules, the consequences will be far-reaching."

The CBI, which represents 190,000 firms, consulted hundreds of businesses of all sizes - from architectural firms to zoos - to compile what it described as "an unparalleled evidence base" as Britain embarks on the colossal task of severing ties with Brussels.
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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3305 Post by Alan H » April 11th, 2018, 1:53 pm

I thought Theresa May was providing the certainty and clarity businesses needed? Airbus warns hard Brexit will cause business to 'grind to a halt’
Airbus has warned the UK government that it must provide a clearer vision of the country’s post-Brexit relationship with the European Union or risk a decline in investment in the aviation industry.

Writing in the Financial Times, Airbus chief executive Tom Enders called the lack of clarity on Brexit a situation that is “damaging and hard to bear”.

“A transition arrangement for the UK’s departure will be a positive step, once it is signed. But this is a temporary solution - it does not solve all the issues that need to be addressed," Mr Enders told the FT on Wednesday.

"We must have more clarity on the UK’s long-term relationships, not just for the next 20 months.”

The manufacturer's CEO called for the UK to remain within the EU aviation safety certification agency to ensure new planes gain the necessary rights to fly.
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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3306 Post by Alan H » April 11th, 2018, 2:46 pm

CAUTION: This route goes nowhere
"A price worth paying" is the Brexiteers' answer to everything. But, says MITCH BENN, they've yet to specify what it's worth paying for
“A PRICE WORTH PAYING!” the Brexiters cry, but again, they’ve still yet to specify what it’s worth paying for. Whenever we enumerate the deficits that Brexit will incur, they insist that the benefits will outweigh them, but never quite get around to explaining which benefits they’re talking about. Perish the thought that the only real ‘benefit’ would be ‘not having to deal with foreigners as much’, as a) that sounds a bit racist, and b) as discussed, if anything we’re going to have to spend a lot more time and energy dealing with foreign governments and entities than we currently do.

It’s a bit late in the day to expect logic from the Leavers. But it’s not too late to keep pointing this out. Resist.
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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3307 Post by Alan H » April 11th, 2018, 3:25 pm

What about that bonfire of EU regulations we were promised? British Business Tells May It Wants EU Rules After Brexit
British businesses overwhelmingly want to stick to European rules after Brexit, according to the most detailed sector-by-sector analysis of what companies need the U.K. to fight for in negotiations.

The Confederation of British Industry, which compiled the data, argues that the opportunities presented by breaking free from European Union regulations are vastly outweighed by the cost of losing access to Europe’s single market.

While shipping, agriculture and tourism could benefit from an overhaul of rules after Brexit, 18 of 23 industry and service sectors would be better off with regulations that largely remain the same as EU ones.

“The task of unpicking 40 years of economic and regulatory integration is complex and colossal,” CBI Director-General Carolyn Fairbairn said in a statement. “Put simply, for the majority of businesses, diverging from EU rules and regulations will make them less globally competitive, and so should only be done where the evidence is clear that the benefits outweigh the costs.”

The report from Britain’s biggest business lobby group lays bare the tightrope Prime Minister Theresa May is walking as she seeks to negotiate a Brexit deal that satisfies the pro-Brexit wing of her Conservative Party without damaging trade and investment.

She hopes to finalize a divorce deal with the EU in the Fall, though the details of the new, post-Brexit trading relationship probably won’t be finalized until after Britain leaves the bloc. With less than a year until exit day, what Brexit will mean is still unclear.
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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3308 Post by Alan H » April 11th, 2018, 5:16 pm

Michel Barnier says Britain must stay permanently bound to EU regulations after Brexit if it wants a trade deal
The EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier says a future trade deal should bind the UK to EU standards permanently.

Barnier was speaking to MEPs in a debate about the UK's environmental regulations after it leaves the bloc.

He warned that the EU would be "extremely vigilant" in policing any attempts for the UK to cut its rules and regulations in a bid to gain a competitive advantage.
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: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3309 Post by animist » April 13th, 2018, 8:56 pm

Alan H wrote:May Hints at Softer Stance on EU Migration in Brexit Trade Talks
Prime Minister Theresa May said the U.K. would look at the issue of European migration as part of negotiations on a post-Brexit trade deal with the European Union, an indication she may be willing to consider special treatment for the bloc’s citizens.

May reiterated her aim for a comprehensive and ambitious trade deal with the EU after the divorce. “Obviously as part of that we will be looking at the issue of movement, but we will recognize that there will be EU citizens who will still want to work and study in the U.K. and U.K. citizens who will still want to work and study in the EU27,” she said.

The U.K. will be out of the single market, out of the EU’s freedom of movement rules, and setting its own regulations on immigration, she said at a press conference in Copenhagen.

Controlling immigration, and putting an end to free movement from EU countries, was one of the main issues in the Brexit referendum campaign in 2016. But May’s insistence on it is one of the obstacles that will prevent the U.K. from keeping its access to Europe’s single market after the split.

May says she wants a trade deal that’s more ambitious than any of the EU’s previous accords. But so far, the EU has said her aspirations aren’t feasible as they amount to cherry-picking the best bits of membership without accepting the responsibilities.

In the latest sign that May is still to be convinced of the merits of Brexit, the prime minister avoided answering a question on whether she has changed her mind on the split since campaigning for Remain in the referendum.
I thought we voted to end EU immigration?
to be fair, I think the aim is to limit this and other immigration - but how? The answer may well be Brexit itself, if it is as bad as we expect :wink:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3310 Post by Alan H » April 13th, 2018, 10:31 pm

Vote Leave broke spending limits on industrial scale, says former staffer
A former Vote Leave staffer has become the third whistleblower to publicly accuse the EU referendum campaign of exceeding spending limits “on an industrial scale”.

In written evidence to the Electoral Commission seen by the Guardian, Mark Gettleson, a communications consultant, claims two of Theresa May’s political advisers were among the senior directors at Vote Leave involved in assisting the activities of a youth group, BeLeave, which was ostensibly a separate organisation. Vote Leave donated £625,000 to BeLeave which then spent the money on digital advertising in the last critical days before the vote.

The evidence forms part of the basis of a legal opinion submitted to the digital, culture, media and sport committee that argues that a series of electoral offences may have been committed by Vote Leave.

The submission says that the commission should investigate whether any such offences were committed with the “knowledge, assistance and agreement” of key figures in the campaign including Stephen Parkinson and Cleo Watson, who both now work for the prime minister, and its chief strategist, Dom Cummings.

Donations are legal if campaigns are genuinely separate. Gettleson has submitted correspondence, including emails to and from Parkinson and Watson, that appear to show they were directly involved in creating BeLeave’s campaign materials. Vote Leave has always maintained that it and BeLeave were separate entities and the Electoral Commission has already assessed the issue twice and found in favour of Vote Leave on both occasions. It has now reopened its investigation.
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: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3311 Post by animist » April 13th, 2018, 11:34 pm

Alan H wrote:Michel Barnier says Britain must stay permanently bound to EU regulations after Brexit if it wants a trade deal
The EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier says a future trade deal should bind the UK to EU standards permanently.

Barnier was speaking to MEPs in a debate about the UK's environmental regulations after it leaves the bloc.

He warned that the EU would be "extremely vigilant" in policing any attempts for the UK to cut its rules and regulations in a bid to gain a competitive advantage.
from a linked article on Trump and China:

"China is the UK's fifth-largest trading partner, and while it would appear highly unlikely that the UK government would agree to any bilateral deal with the US which would include sanctions against China, the situation goes to the heart of a problem Britain is likely to face as she attempts to forge new trade deals outside the EU. Brexiteers have promised that traditional allies like the US and Australia will line up to sign speedy trade deals with the UK, early indications suggest that Britain is being used as a test-case for hardline negotiations."

Exactly what we don't want

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3312 Post by Alan H » April 14th, 2018, 9:32 pm

Murky, murky, murky, isn't it? Leave.EU, Arron Banks and the new questions about referendum funding
The Information Commissioner’s Office is investigating Leave.EU and its donor Arron Banks over possible breaches of the Data Protection Act.

The ICO has issued “information notices” against both Leave.EU – the referendum campaign headed by Nigel Farage – and its director, Banks. The notices – requiring organisations to provide the ICO with specified information within a certain time period – were issued in the same week as the ICO conducted raids last month on Cambridge Analytica’s offices. The notices are both part of Operation Cederburg – the commissioner’s year-long investigation into the use of data in the EU referendum. Failure to comply is a criminal offence.

Banks – who was by far the biggest funder of Brexit, providing £8.4m in donations and loans – confirmed on Friday that both he personally and Leave.EU had received “information notices”. In an email on Friday, Banks said they were “responding to it’” He said the ICO’s action was not an “investigation” but “an information request”.

In a separate development, the Observer has obtained an invoice that Cambridge Analytica issued on 14 December 2015 for £41,500 for work it undertook on behalf of Ukip. The invoice says the payment is for “analysis of Ukip membership and survey data and creative product development”, and it is issued on behalf of Cambridge Analytica LLC, the American entity, from its office in Alexandria, Virginia. This is the first documentary evidence that Cambridge Analytica did conduct analytics work on behalf of one of the Leave campaigns in the period before the referendum.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3313 Post by Alan H » April 14th, 2018, 9:50 pm

Business gets vocal about Brexit
How much influence business has on what happens with Brexit now remains to be seen. There are potentially heavy penalties for individual firms speaking out: as long ago as 2014 Brexit Ultra John Redwood threatened punishment for firms which spoke in favour of EU membership, and there are risks of adverse press coverage and lost government contracts. Still, as the government slowly come to appreciate that the fantasies of the Brexit Ultras cannot be put into practice, some degree of sanity may prevail. There is an irony in that, by the way, since what we see happening is the mirror image of that now rarely-heard piece of Brexiter scripture that the ‘German car industry’ would pressure the EU into delivering a cake and eat it Brexit deal.

It may be such business pressure that is leading to rumours that Theresa May will, after all, seek a form of customs union with the EU (something both the CBI and IoD have lobbied for and which recently became Labour Party policy). It may be that something like what the CBI are setting out in ‘Smooth Operations’ comes to pass. And that could, indeed, mitigate a lot of the economic damage of Brexit. However, even if so, there is a real danger ahead if the efforts of the business lobby are successful. The danger is of drifting into a kind of de facto soft Brexit when it has never been clearly articulated or framed as such, and doesn’t sit within a defined framework such as EFTA. I think there are many people in business and beyond who expect something like this drift or fudge to occur, and in a way it would be a rather British, make do and mend, kind of Brexit if it did.
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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3314 Post by Alan H » April 14th, 2018, 11:58 pm

Jaguar Land Rover to cut 1,000 jobs due to Brexit 'headwinds'
Jaguar Land Rover is to cut 1,000 jobs in the West Midlands, blaming a slump in car sales due to uncertainty over Brexit and the future of diesel vehicles.

Britain’s biggest carmaker will cut 1,000 temporary contract workers at its plant in Solihull, which builds Range Rovers and the Land Rover Discovery SUV. The factory employs 10,000 workers, including 2,000 contract staff.

The company, which employs 40,000 people in the UK, will move some workers from its factory at nearby Castle Bromwich to fill gaps left by the cuts at Solihull. It is due to confirm the cuts, first reported by ITV News, and a reduction in output at Solihull as part of an update on production plans for its workforce on Monday.

The cuts are understood to have been triggered by a 26% drop in JLR sales in the UK in the first three months of 2018. Sales in Germany, Europe’s biggest car market, also slumped, dropping 32% in the same period. JLR sold a record 621,109 vehicles worldwide in 2017, up 6.5% from a year earlier. But while international sales boomed, UK sales fell 15.8% because of weakening consumer confidence.

The company is expected to say on Monday that customers are delaying buying new cars because of concerns about government policies on diesel cars. Consumer confidence in the UK had also been hit by uncertainty over 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: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3315 Post by animist » April 18th, 2018, 10:52 am

Britain is deservedly getting it in the neck from the EU over the WIndrush scandal, because our Home Office's incompetence casts doubt over the future of EU nationals here:

https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.co ... exit+Blog)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3316 Post by Alan H » April 18th, 2018, 11:33 am

animist wrote:Britain is deservedly getting it in the neck from the EU over the WIndrush scandal, because our Home Office's incompetence casts doubt over the future of EU nationals here:

https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.co ... exit+Blog)
+1
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?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#3317 Post by Nick » April 18th, 2018, 1:31 pm

animist wrote:Britain is deservedly getting it in the neck from the EU over the WIndrush scandal, because our Home Office's incompetence casts doubt over the future of EU nationals here:

https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.co ... exit+Blog)
Ah, yes, the Windrush Scandal. Now shown to be the fault of the last Labour Government, which decided to destroy the records. Which is, in any case, a wanton act of destruction, besides the personal crises caused. So, given that in addition Corbyn has failed to address anti-semitism in his party (why is Livingstone still in it?), their incoherent policy on Brexit (which we are leaving, but still having "a" customs union, an option not even on the table), as well as Corbyn misattributing a constituents medical problem to Windrush, how can anyone justify voting Labour?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3318 Post by Alan H » April 18th, 2018, 1:34 pm

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:Britain is deservedly getting it in the neck from the EU over the WIndrush scandal, because our Home Office's incompetence casts doubt over the future of EU nationals here:

https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.co ... exit+Blog)
Ah, yes, the Windrush Scandal. Now shown to be the fault of the last Labour Government, which decided to destroy the records. Which is, in any case, a wanton act of destruction, besides the personal crises caused. So, given that in addition Corbyn has failed to address anti-semitism in his party (why is Livingstone still in it?), their incoherent policy on Brexit (which we are leaving, but still having "a" customs union, an option not even on the table), as well as Corbyn misattributing a constituents medical problem to Windrush, how can anyone justify voting Labour?
:hilarity: :pointlaugh: :laughter:

All the usual old fallacies rolled into one post.
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?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#3319 Post by Nick » April 18th, 2018, 4:53 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
animist wrote:Britain is deservedly getting it in the neck from the EU over the WIndrush scandal, because our Home Office's incompetence casts doubt over the future of EU nationals here:

https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.co ... exit+Blog)
Ah, yes, the Windrush Scandal. Now shown to be the fault of the last Labour Government, which decided to destroy the records. Which is, in any case, a wanton act of destruction, besides the personal crises caused. So, given that in addition Corbyn has failed to address anti-semitism in his party (why is Livingstone still in it?), their incoherent policy on Brexit (which we are leaving, but still having "a" customs union, an option not even on the table), as well as Corbyn misattributing a constituents medical problem to Windrush, how can anyone justify voting Labour?
:hilarity: :pointlaugh: :laughter:

All the usual old fallacies rolled into one post.
Which of those is a fallacy, Alan?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3320 Post by Alan H » April 18th, 2018, 5:04 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Ah, yes, the Windrush Scandal. Now shown to be the fault of the last Labour Government, which decided to destroy the records. Which is, in any case, a wanton act of destruction, besides the personal crises caused. So, given that in addition Corbyn has failed to address anti-semitism in his party (why is Livingstone still in it?), their incoherent policy on Brexit (which we are leaving, but still having "a" customs union, an option not even on the table), as well as Corbyn misattributing a constituents medical problem to Windrush, how can anyone justify voting Labour?
:hilarity: :pointlaugh: :laughter:

All the usual old fallacies rolled into one post.
Which of those is a fallacy, Alan?
Fallacies, misdirections, irrelevancies, straw men...
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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3321 Post by Alan H » April 18th, 2018, 5:15 pm

Too high a price? The cost of Brexit – what the public thinks
New analysis lays bare the truth behind claims of a “Brexit dividend”: every possible scenario – including a “bespoke deal” – will leave Britain poorer and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds per week.

Polling commissioned by Global Future shows that voters, including those who backed Brexit, fear that leaving the EU will come at “too high a price”. When asked to choose one of four different Brexit options, even those who voted Leave in 2016 now support a deal that would most resemble being part of the EU, with continued membership of the Single Market and free movement of people.
2018-04-18_17h13_56.png
2018-04-18_17h13_56.png (28.82 KiB) Viewed 3223 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?

Post Reply