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?

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

Latest post of the previous page:

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 3221 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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3322 Post by Alan H » April 18th, 2018, 7:07 pm

screenshot-citizenofnowhere.slack.com-2018-04-18-19-06-12-845.png
screenshot-citizenofnowhere.slack.com-2018-04-18-19-06-12-845.png (751.22 KiB) Viewed 1790 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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3323 Post by Alan H » April 18th, 2018, 8:02 pm

Project Reality strikes again: Each Brexit scenario will leave Britain worse off, study finds
Each of the government’s four Brexit scenarios, including a bespoke deal, would leave Britain poorer and cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds each week, analysis has shown.

The study for the thinktank Global Future by Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics and public policy at King’s College, London, found that a bespoke deal, the government’s preferred option, would have a net negative fiscal impact of about £40bn a year.

Polling commissioned for study by Populus, which is run by David Cameron’s former strategy chief Andrew Cooper, found that voters, even those who backed Brexit, feared that leaving the European Union would come at “too high a price”.
screenshot-www.theguardian.com-2018-04-18-20-06-25-952.png
screenshot-www.theguardian.com-2018-04-18-20-06-25-952.png (81.43 KiB) Viewed 1783 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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3324 Post by Alan H » April 20th, 2018, 11:59 am

Rebel MPs are laying a trap to derail Brexit
Have you missed Brexit? After a mercifully long break, during which the political class went away for a lie-down, departure from the EU is back on the Westminster agenda with a bang.

The Brexit secretary David Davis is having his latest explosive row behind the scenes with Oliver Robbins, No 10’s lead civil servant on the EU. Both want control of the negotiations. Meanwhile, Robbins is pushing a plan to keep Britain in a de facto customs union, which Brexiteers fear will leave us as a rule-taker from Brussels. The prime minister’s view on this dispute is, as ever, all but impossible to discern.

Against that backdrop of Whitehall confusion, parliament is embarking on a crucial series of votes that will decide the fate of Brexit. The House of Lords, packed with Remainers, is inflicting various defeats aimed at diluting or even halting departure. In the Commons, a vote next month could, if it attracts sufficient support from rebel Tory MPs, order the government to keep Britain in a customs union.

It is tempting to think of all this as merely the legislative drudgery required to implement the result of the referendum. Brexit is happening, a deal will be done: the rest is noise. But to regard it in those relaxed terms would be a mistake. What results from the parliamentary interplay bubbling up this week will shape our constitutional, economic and foreign policy for a generation at least. On this rests the notion of Britain as a properly independent nation.

If the Commons machinations go awry, we will technically leave the EU next March but remain a rule-taker from the EU. Britain will have exited only to comply with all the rules set by others in perpetuity. For Leave voters, that would be a worse position than membership of the EU. “This is where they try to kill Brexit,” says a minister. The customs union is the murder weapon of choice.

The customs union simply enforces a common schedule of external tariffs across the EU on imports of goods (never services). Britain cannot stay inside it, as it is the legal basis of the entire EU. However, we could establish a new customs arrangement with the EU which, advocates say, would settle the question of the Irish border.

Brexiteers say this is not necessary, as technology and fudge can deal with the problems of smuggling and monitoring trade in livestock if there are different rules on either side of the border. They fear that a trap is being laid, and it is. A customs union, or something like it, could start out temporary but become permanent.

In that scenario, the idea of Britain doing its own trade deals would be stuffed. Worse, the EU would negotiate on our behalf and email us the results. The EU may see this as a way of keeping Britain in step with the rules of the single market, too.

This creeping deceit is what Tory rebels are committed to enforcing by voting with Labour. Ten have signed the amendment. Government whips are nervously running the numbers and it looks like being tight when a vote comes next month. There seem to be four Labour Eurosceptic rebels who would vote against a new customs union, and wild rumours of other “sleeper agent” Labour “Releavers” who will, when it comes to it, not vote to emasculate their country.

In No 10 the mandarin Robbins favours a complex system whereby Britain will collect the EU’s external tariffs and then pay rebates. “How would that even work? Massive shambles,” says a senior Tory. David Davis regards it as unworkable.

There is a school of thought that this confusion is all a cunning recipe cooked up by an enigmatic May to confuse the Commons and Brussels before delivering a much softer Brexit. I doubt it very much. The idea of an inscrutable and Machiavellian prime minister having it all plotted out should have perished along with the Tories’ majority in last year’s general election.

Twelve months on, the consequences of the current stasis in No 10 are potentially grave. If defeat and retreat transpire, Britain risks — via Remainer action, Brexiteer confusion and a deficit of leadership — ending up with a worse deal than Switzerland or Norway. Both are terrific economies but the former has a GDP one third the size of the UK and the latter, one ninth of the UK. They have negotiated arrangements but neither is in a customs union with the EU.

When about 80 per cent of the British economy is domestic, with the remainder divided between trade with the rest of the world and the EU, what serious country would opt for such an undesirable settlement? And then pay — pay! — £39 billion to the EU for the privilege.

It would be a ludicrous position for the sixth-largest economy in the world to land in. Britain is a permanent member of the UN security council and, with the US, of the leading intelligence network, the Five Eyes. It has world-beating universities and enviable capabilities in law, technology and finance.

What would be the reaction to a customs cave-in? Perhaps voter weariness will make pragmatic Britons shrug. They may be grateful that control over borders was returned and accept pleading from the government to do as the EU says. Or some may be very angry.

It may yet be avoided, if the votes are won by the government. However, if it loses, we could soon see Brexiteers asking for a second referendum to vote down a national humiliation inflicted by parliament.
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?

#3325 Post by Alan H » April 20th, 2018, 12:25 pm

Ian Dunt's Friday email:
The government is caught in a four-way pincer movement on the customs union, each part of which gains confidence from the resilience of the others. This week has seen all of them impinge on No.10's plans. Generally, it is emotionally unwise to be an optimistic critic of Brexit, but it feels as if we may now be reaching a crunch point on the issue. It's perfectly possible that the government is forced to back down.

The first part of the pincer movement is the Lords. This week peers voted for an amendment supporting continued membership of the customs union. It wasn't close. It went 348 to 225, a majority of 123. Every living former Cabinet secretary in the Lords voted against the government.

The amendment wouldn't force the government to stay in the customs union - it just demands a minister updates parliament in October on what it is doing to secure that aim. That made it broad enough to not seem particularly threatening. But the amendment forced a vote in the Commons and strengthened the resolve of those Tories who might be prepared to rebel against the government.

Downing Street is expected to try to hold that vote off until late May, in an attempt to reduce the potential for blue-on-blue combat until after the local elections. But it has been ambushed by the Commons Liaison Committee, which is made up of the Chairs of influential select committees. It decided to hold a backbench debate on the topic of 'customs and borders' next week.

It demanded that the government "include as an objective in negotiations on the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union the establishment of an effective customs union between the two territories". There would be a substantive vote at the end of the debate which would not have any immediate impact in law but would make it increasingly difficult for the government to continue on its current course.

The motion has cross party support. Labour now supports customs union membership as formal party policy, as do all other opposition parties apart from the DUP, whose own Brexit policy is deranged and unintelligible. Everything hinges on whether there are enough Tory moderates to support them. Conservative Nicky Morgan is backing it, as is Dominic Grieves, Bob Neill, and Sarah Wollaston. There will be others. This is part two of the pincer movement.

Part three is in Brussels, where Britain's lead in Brexit negotiations, Oliver Robbins, was having a dreadful time. One of the consequences of leaving the customs union and single market is a border in Ireland. The UK has a two-fold plan to avoid that. The first idea is to tag all items coming to the UK as to whether they are going to end up in the EU or not and then send on any customs differential. It is insane. The second is to set up as-yet unspecified technological solutions to erase the need for a border. It is impossible.

This was made clear to Robbins by Michel Barnier's number two, Sabine Weyand, over what the Telegraph described as a "systematic annihilation" of the plans. It's back to the drawing board. Except that drawing board has a trap underneath it, in the form of the backstop solution agreed to by the British government in previous rounds of negotiation. If their pie-in-the-sky solutions don't work, Northern Ireland must regularly align with the Republic of Ireland. That includes a customs union and something greater still - probably more akin to single market membership.

The fourth part of the pincer movement comes from the public, who, contrary to the standard 'will of the people' mantra bellowed out by the harder edges of Leave, seem singularly unimpressed with any Brexit proposal on offer. Polling by think tank Global Future this week showed they roughly align with the general public in their disdain for all models, from Norway, to Canada, to WTO.

It's not like there is a great public clamour for a movement to stay in the customs union. Realistically, most voters only have a hazy impression of what it is. But it is absurd to think that there is any public push to leave it either, whether that's from Leavers or the general public. Much as hard Brexiters have tried to associate their project with the votes of a very disparate group of voters, they have failed. They are struggling to use the 2016 referendum as cover for their broader political project. Increasingly, there is no 'will of the people' to fall back on. They keep citing it, but it becomes less convincing - and sounds more desperate - each time.

The old problem remains: if Theresa May backs down on a customs union, she faces rebellion from hard Brexiters in her own party. Her trade secretary, Liam Fox, would suddenly find there is no legal basis for his job and would presumably quit, or simply vanish by virtue of operational requirement. That would create a dangerous bruised ego on the backbenches. The presumption is also that the Jacob Rees-Moggs of the world would rebel and unseat her.

But who knows? Maybe that isn't true. The prize they yearn for so dearly - exiting the EU - is within sight. Maybe that alone would keep them on board as the manner in which it is done is chiselled away, leaving just the facade and none of the substance.

That is a judgement May might be about to make, because the range of forces amassed against her customs union plan look very formidable indeed.
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?

#3326 Post by Alan H » April 20th, 2018, 5:34 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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3327 Post by Alan H » April 20th, 2018, 7:31 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? The Guardian view on Brexit and the Irish border: alchemy fails again
heresa May’s desire to combine exit from the EU’s customs union with an invisible border in Northern Ireland is not in doubt. The issue is not how much the prime minister wants a solution but whether a solution exists. Without one, Mrs May’s entire Brexit strategy unravels.
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?

#3328 Post by animist » April 21st, 2018, 10:29 am

:hilarity: is Brexit destroying the average Briton's IQ or have we always been like this???

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

Re: In or out?

#3329 Post by Alan H » April 21st, 2018, 10:51 am

animist wrote:
:hilarity: is Brexit destroying the average Briton's IQ or have we always been like this???
The average Briton or the average Brexiter?
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?

#3330 Post by Alan H » April 21st, 2018, 11:22 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3331 Post by Alan H » April 22nd, 2018, 1:45 am

Arron Banks, the insurers and my strange data trail
Carole Cadwalladr just wanted to insure her car. Six months later, she found a mass of personal details held by a firm she had never contacted that is run by Leave.EU’s biggest donor, Arron Banks. How did it get there?
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?

#3332 Post by Alan H » April 22nd, 2018, 11:28 pm

Big Brexit Survey: Most voters think UK would benefit from staying in EU’s Single Market
A majority of the British public – including one in five Leave voters – believe the UK would be better off if the country remained in the European Single Market, a major national Brexit survey has found. The result suggests most voters disagree with both the Government and Labour over their policies to pull out. Overall 56 per cent said the UK would benefit from maintaining current arrangements, meaning frictionless trade and free movement of people across the continent. The vast online survey of almost 220,000 people also showed that just 18 per cent of people are happy with the Brexit negotiations so far.
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?

#3333 Post by animist » April 23rd, 2018, 10:04 am

Alan H wrote:So, 23 June: EU referendum: Cameron sets June date for UK voteShould we stay in or leave? Why and what are the implications?
at 56% in favour of staying in against 28%, that is a quite impressive 2-1 majority. But I wonder how many of the Leave voters in the 56% realised that staying in would mean continuing with open borders?

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

Re: In or out?

#3334 Post by Alan H » April 23rd, 2018, 6:01 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn;t it? May Suffers Fresh Brexit Defeat As Lords Vote To Keep EU Human Rights In British Law
heresa May has suffered a fresh Parliamentary defeat over Brexit after the House of Lords voted to keep the EU’s human rights charter in British law.

Peers voted by 316 votes to 245 for a cross-party amendment to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill that aims to retain the so-called Charter of Fundamental Rights even after the UK quits the bloc in 2019.

The amendment was led by independent crossbencher Lord Pannick, supported by an alliance of Labour former Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith, Lib Dem frontbencher Lady Ludford and the Tory former cabinet minister John Gummer.

Pannick said that the Government’s move to ditch the charter - which gives millions of EU citizens political, civil and economic rights - was “unprincipled and unjustified”.
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?

#3335 Post by Nick » April 24th, 2018, 1:20 am

[quote="Alan H"]Too high a price? The cost of Brexit – what the public thinks[quote]So on that basis, we can't afford Corbyn, can we...?

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

Re: In or out?

#3336 Post by Alan H » April 24th, 2018, 2:05 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Too high a price? The cost of Brexit – what the public thinks
So on that basis, we can't afford Corbyn, can we...?
:shrug:
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?

#3337 Post by Alan H » April 24th, 2018, 11:49 am

Lack of clarity on Brexit from Theresa May? Who'd have thought it... Britain is holding up Brexit talks with lack of clarity, Michel Barnier says
Talks on the future relationship between the EU and UK after Brexit are being held back because the UK side lacks “clarity” about what it wants, the bloc’s chief negotiator has suggested.

Discussions on the future relationship began last week after months of insistence from the UK but Michel Barnier said in a speech in Germany that final progress could only be made after more work was done by the British government.

In a speech to German business leaders in Hannover he called on the UK to “confirm” or “adapt” its red lines and said a political declaration could only be made “once we have more clarity from 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?

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

Re: In or out?

#3338 Post by Nick » April 24th, 2018, 11:53 am

Alan H wrote:Lack of clarity on Brexit from Theresa May? Who'd have thought it... Britain is holding up Brexit talks with lack of clarity, Michel Barnier says
Talks on the future relationship between the EU and UK after Brexit are being held back because the UK side lacks “clarity” about what it wants, the bloc’s chief negotiator has suggested.

Discussions on the future relationship began last week after months of insistence from the UK but Michel Barnier said in a speech in Germany that final progress could only be made after more work was done by the British government.

In a speech to German business leaders in Hannover he called on the UK to “confirm” or “adapt” its red lines and said a political declaration could only be made “once we have more clarity from the UK’.
Tells you everything you need to know about Barnier and the EU. Thank goodness we are leaving.

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

Re: In or out?

#3339 Post by Alan H » April 24th, 2018, 11:57 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Lack of clarity on Brexit from Theresa May? Who'd have thought it... Britain is holding up Brexit talks with lack of clarity, Michel Barnier says
Talks on the future relationship between the EU and UK after Brexit are being held back because the UK side lacks “clarity” about what it wants, the bloc’s chief negotiator has suggested.

Discussions on the future relationship began last week after months of insistence from the UK but Michel Barnier said in a speech in Germany that final progress could only be made after more work was done by the British government.

In a speech to German business leaders in Hannover he called on the UK to “confirm” or “adapt” its red lines and said a political declaration could only be made “once we have more clarity from the UK’.
Tells you everything you need to know about Barnier and the EU. Thank goodness we are leaving.
:hilarity: :pointlaugh: :hilarity: :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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3340 Post by Alan H » April 25th, 2018, 2:40 pm

The insanity of Brexit: Galileo: UK plan to launch rival to EU sat-nav system
Business Secretary Greg Clark is taking legal advice on whether the UK can reclaim the cash, according to the Financial Times.

He told BBC News: "The UK's preference is to remain in Galileo as part of a strong security partnership with Europe.

"If Galileo no longer meets our security requirements and UK industry cannot compete on a fair basis, it is logical to look at alternatives."

The row centres around whether the UK can continue to be trusted with the EU's most sensitive sensitive security information after Brexit.

The UK's armed forces were planning to use Galileo to supplement their use of the US GPS system, but press reports suggest they will now be blocked from doing so. The US retains the more accurate and robust GPS signals for its own armed forces.

Graham Turnock, chief executive of the UK Space Agency, said early feasibility work was under way into a UK system, which he said would cost a "lot less" than Galileo, thanks to work already done and "British know-how and ingenuity".

Asked by the BBC's Science Correspondent Jonathan Amos if it could be as much as £5bn, he said "tops".
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?

#3341 Post by Nick » April 25th, 2018, 4:30 pm

Alan H wrote:The insanity of Brexit: Galileo: UK plan to launch rival to EU sat-nav system
Of course, the fact that Switzerland and Norway are part of Galileo proves that the potential exclusion of the UK is nothing more than political spite. But what did you expect from the EU? Sense?

Post Reply