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: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3401 Post by Alan H » May 10th, 2018, 12:06 am

Latest post of the previous page:

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? The Northeast will be hit hardest if we stop trading with the EU – that's why we're demanding a new Brexit vote
No part of the UK has more at stake in the decision to leave the European Union than the Northeast of England.

Our region is an export powerhouse. Sixty per cent of our trade is with the EU. We make and sell goods that are in demand throughout the continent for their quality and value for money. All of that could be at risk if we quit the EU customs union and the single market and are lumbered with new customs barriers, charges and unnecessary red tape.

But the Northeast has been hit hard and neglected by the Tories for too long. We understand why so many people voted to leave the EU in 2016’s referendum: it was a great way of reminding a cosy London establishment that our region has been receiving a raw deal.
There is so much at stake here. Even the government’s own research says the Northeast’s economy will lose growth once we leave the EU, regardless of the deal. This will hit living standards of families throughout the region. A smaller economy will mean less money to invest in our hard pressed public services. Already the British economy has fallen from the top to the bottom of the European growth league.

And then there are other questions. Can we get the staff our NHS needs if we cut ourselves off from Europe? Will we still be able to compete in the key export markets or will businesses throughout the Northeast and those they employ lose out because new trade barriers have got in the way?
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: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3402 Post by animist » May 10th, 2018, 9:36 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Post-Brexit port checks could disrupt fresh food supplies, say freight bosses
Absolutely stunning stupidity from the Grauniad. But then, what did you expect...?
Nick, re our recent correspondence, you might get more satisfying responses from Alan if you avoided sarcastic and somewhat arrogant comments like this. Anyway, another job for you - what is actually wrong with the article?

coffee
Posts: 1523
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: In or out?

#3403 Post by coffee » May 10th, 2018, 11:01 am

animist wrote:
Nick, re our recent correspondence, you might get more satisfying responses from Alan if you avoided sarcastic and somewhat arrogant comments like this. Anyway, another job for you - what is actually wrong with the article?
It smell like project fear to me :smile:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3404 Post by Alan H » May 10th, 2018, 11:22 am

coffee wrote:
animist wrote:
Nick wrote:
Nick, re our recent correspondence, you might get more satisfying responses from Alan if you avoided sarcastic and somewhat arrogant comments like this. Anyway, another job for you - what is actually wrong with the article?
It smell like project fear to me :smile:
What does?
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?

coffee
Posts: 1523
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: In or out?

#3405 Post by coffee » May 10th, 2018, 11:28 am

This is project fear to me

>>Alan H wrote: Post-Brexit port checks could disrupt fresh food supplies, say freight bosses<<

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

Re: In or out?

#3406 Post by Nick » May 10th, 2018, 12:21 pm

animist wrote:
Nick, re our recent correspondence, you might get more satisfying responses from Alan if you avoided sarcastic and somewhat arrogant comments like this.
I might, but I doubt it.
Anyway, another job for you - what is actually wrong with the article?
As it's you asking... :)

Leaving aside speculation and special pleading, as well as blatant bias and from the Graun, there are several several. First of all, we import all sort of perishables from all over the place. Cut flowers are flown in from Africa, for example. And yet we are perfectly able to give our beloved fresh roses on Valentine's Day, even though, shock horror! Africa is not part of the EU.

Secondly, why should the UK suddenly distrust produce coming from the EU?

Thirdly, how about pointing out that so many of the hold-ups are entirely unnecessary, rather than explaining why the unnecessary rules will get in the way?

Finally, (my bold)
Food staples including lettuce, tomatoes and beef could be in short supply or even disappear from supermarket shelves
No they won't. Don't be so silly.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3407 Post by Alan H » May 10th, 2018, 12:23 pm

coffee wrote:This is project fear to me

>>Alan H wrote: Post-Brexit port checks could disrupt fresh food supplies, say freight bosses<<
Is it Project Fear, or Project reality, coffee? If you think it's the former, do you think there will be no delays at borders? In this case, is Eurotunnel wrong? If so, why?
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: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3408 Post by animist » May 10th, 2018, 1:00 pm

coffee wrote:
animist wrote:
Nick wrote:
Nick, re our recent correspondence, you might get more satisfying responses from Alan if you avoided sarcastic and somewhat arrogant comments like this. Anyway, another job for you - what is actually wrong with the article?
It smell like project fear to me :smile:
so that is your answer, coffee, that what is wrong with the article is that it smells like project fear. But coffee, we are two years past the referendum campaign, in which - and I do concede this - politicians like David Cameron and George Osborne did exaggerate the immediate effects of a Leave vote. So the name Project Fear did have some credence back then. But now look where we are. Two years on and supposedly on course for a Hard Brexit. We are no longer in a referendum campaign. But much more important, look again to see who it is that is issuing these warnings about delays at the customs. It is not politicians but the people who actually run our ports. However can they be accused of deliberate scaremongering? Please answer if you can

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3409 Post by Alan H » May 10th, 2018, 1:57 pm

animist wrote:
coffee wrote:
animist wrote:Nick, re our recent correspondence, you might get more satisfying responses from Alan if you avoided sarcastic and somewhat arrogant comments like this. Anyway, another job for you - what is actually wrong with the article?
It smell like project fear to me :smile:
so that is your answer, coffee, that what is wrong with the article is that it smells like project fear. But coffee, we are two years past the referendum campaign, in which - and I do concede this - politicians like David Cameron and George Osborne did exaggerate the immediate effects of a Leave vote. So the name Project Fear did have some credence back then. But now look where we are. Two years on and supposedly on course for a Hard Brexit. We are no longer in a referendum campaign. But much more important, look again to see who it is that is issuing these warnings about delays at the customs. It is not politicians but the people who actually run our ports. However can they be accused of deliberate scaremongering? Please answer if you can
And, just about every analysis - including all those by the Government - project that we will be worse off because of Brexit, regardless of how it's done. Is this Project Fear or Project Reality, coffee?
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: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3410 Post by Alan H » May 10th, 2018, 3:06 pm

Senior Brexiteer admits leaving EU is 'not working out'
Senior Brexiteer Dan Hannan has admitted that Brexit is "not working out" the way it was planned.

The Conservative MEP said Britain should seek an "Efta-type arrangement, à la Suisse" to protect trade with the EU.

Mr Hannan, writing on ConservativeHome, said he was often asked, "not working out the way you thought, is it?" He said: "To be fair, they've got a point."
Brexit was planned??? That comes as a shock. Why weren't we told?
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?

#3411 Post by Nick » May 10th, 2018, 4:40 pm

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:
coffee wrote:
It smell like project fear to me :smile:
so that is your answer, coffee, that what is wrong with the article is that it smells like project fear. But coffee, we are two years past the referendum campaign, in which - and I do concede this - politicians like David Cameron and George Osborne did exaggerate the immediate effects of a Leave vote. So the name Project Fear did have some credence back then. But now look where we are. Two years on and supposedly on course for a Hard Brexit. We are no longer in a referendum campaign. But much more important, look again to see who it is that is issuing these warnings about delays at the customs. It is not politicians but the people who actually run our ports. However can they be accused of deliberate scaremongering? Please answer if you can
And, just about every analysis - including all those by the Government - project that we will be worse off because of Brexit, regardless of how it's done. Is this Project Fear or Project Reality, coffee?
Doesn't it all rather depend on what you mean by "worse off"?

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

Re: In or out?

#3412 Post by Nick » May 10th, 2018, 5:13 pm

Alan H wrote:Senior Brexiteer admits leaving EU is 'not working out'
Senior Brexiteer Dan Hannan has admitted that Brexit is "not working out" the way it was planned.

The Conservative MEP said Britain should seek an "Efta-type arrangement, à la Suisse" to protect trade with the EU.

Mr Hannan, writing on ConservativeHome, said he was often asked, "not working out the way you thought, is it?" He said: "To be fair, they've got a point."
Brexit was planned??? That comes as a shock. Why weren't we told?
If you are going to quote Daniel Hannan, let see the whole thing....

Published: May 10, 2018

For partisan advantage, Labour demands a worst-of-all-worlds Brexit

By Daniel Hannan, MEP for South-East England, and a journalist, author and broadcaster. His most recent book is What Next: How to Get the Best from Brexit.


“Not working out the way you thought, Hannan, is it?” I am asked the question daily by angry Europhiles. And, to be fair, they’ve got a point. I had assumed that, by now, we’d have reached a broad national consensus around a moderate form of withdrawal that recognised the narrowness of the result – a Brexit that left intact a number of our existing arrangements, while allowing us to leave the aspects of the EU which all sides could agree were harmful, such as the agricultural and fisheries policies and the common external tariff.

Obviously, no one gets 100 per cent of what they want in a situation like this. I won’t, you won’t and, come to that, Theresa May won’t, because prime ministers must sometimes compromise, just like everyone else. Still, it seemed to me that the rough outlines of an eventual deal were clear on the morning of 24th June 2016. A 52-48 outcome pointed to some sort of association that stopped short of membership. Britain would keep most of the economic aspects of the EU while losing most of the political ones. A compromise would be found on immigration, perhaps allowing EU nationals to take up job offers in the UK without subsidies from the British taxpayer. Britain would stay in a number of EU programmes, paying its share of the bill, but would withdraw from the quasi-federal institutions in Brussels. We’d end up, very broadly, in an EFTA-type arrangement, à la Suisse.

I was prepared for some adjustments to be made to that model, but I was not prepared to end up with absolutely the most harmful outcome imaginable, namely leaving the Single Market while keeping the Customs Union. Boris Johnson is reported to have said, in private, that this would be worse than not leaving at all. If that’s what he thinks, he’s bang on. Giving Brussels 100 per cent control of our trade policy with zero per cent input would plainly leave us poorer and weaker than now.

Yet Labour is now in the bizarre position of demanding this worst-of-all-worlds outcome. “What we want to do is we want to remain in the Customs Union,” said Emily Thornberry on Tuesday, adopting, as she often does, the tone of a primary school teacher addressing six-year-olds. “We don’t want any faffing around with any of the nonsense that the Government is coming up with in relation to alternatives to the Customs Union.”

Labour is cynically pushing what it knows to be a terrible idea, not because it aims for a better Brexit, but because it sees a chance to discomfit the Government. Its leaders know perfectly well what is wrong with the Customs Union. Jeremy Corbyn spoke as recently as January about how it was “protectionist against developing countries”. Barry Gardiner, his trade spokesman, set out in terms why a customs union for a non-member wouldn’t work: it would, he correctly explained, mean that Britain would have to match all EU concessions vis-à-vis third countries, but those countries would be required to reciprocate only to the EU 27, not to Britain. Our home market, in other words, would become a bargaining chip for Brussels to use for the benefit of the 27.

So why the U-turn? Labour pretends that it can get some sort of customs union that gives Britain a say over the EU’s trade policy, but I don’t think it expects anyone to believe that. Its calculation, rather, is that all this is a bit technical, that no one cares about the details, and that the idea of staying in a customs union after leaving can therefore be portrayed as a half-way house.

There is, as I say, a strong case to be made for finding half-way houses, but the Customs Union isn’t one of them. Lord Hill, our former European Commissioner, says that he voted Remain because he wanted Britain to have a seat at the table and that, by his own logic, giving up that seat now means it would be absurd to continue to be bound EU trade policies over which we had no say. Put like that, it’s hard to argue.

It’s clear enough what Labour’s game is. It is focused on trying to defeat, or even bring down, the Government, and will back any Brexit proposal, however preposterous, that might advance that objective. Why, though, are some civil servants also pushing for a customs union, rather than for an EFTA-type arrangement?

Two reasons. First, like a lot of Remainers, they genuinely believe that the only real issue for Leavers was immigration, and so have drawn their red line there rather than on economics. Second, they woefully underestimate – or at least affect to underestimate – the potential of non-EU trade. A Whitehall report leaked in January claimed that the maximum benefit of non-EU trade deals would be equivalent to a gain of just 0.2 per cent of GDP, whereas leaving our current arrangements with the EU would reduce GDP by up to eight per cent. Those figures should strike you right away as fishy. When we do more trade with non-EU than EU markets, how can the gains and losses be so lopsided? The explanation is simple. The report did not consider the possibility of deep and comprehensive trade deals based on mutual recognition, such as the one between Australia and New Zealand. It assumed, for example, that a US-UK deal would simply be like our share of TTIP, the now abandoned US-EU deal. The idea that we could be more ambitious, providing for full reciprocity in services and professional qualifications, wasn’t considered.

And that, ultimately, is the problem. We are going about this process with no ambition. We are approaching Brexit defensively and regretfully, focused on the costs rather than the opportunities. The recovery of Britain’s self-rule is being treated as an exercise in damage-limitation, with officials determined to cling on to as much of the existing dispensation as possible.

“You broke it, you own it,” say some Remainers whenever anyone complains about the way things are developing. But we – we liberal Leavers – don’t own it. The process is largely owned, rather, by people who resent that it is happening at all. No, this isn’t how it’s supposed to be working out.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3413 Post by Alan H » May 10th, 2018, 7:45 pm

DUP faces heavy responsibility for Brexit position taken lightly
The DUP is now publicly panicking over Brexit.

Last week, as the British government’s plan for a customs partnership with Europe following Brexit fell apart and both houses of parliament voted to stay in the European Union customs union, the DUP reportedly informed Downing Street it would also back customs union membership if that was the price of preventing a so-called sea border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

DUP leader Arlene Foster repeated this in a television interview at the weekend. Her deputy Nigel Dodds, the party’s leader in the Commons, said much the same in a magazine interview two weeks ago.

Both stated they would prefer the UK to leave the customs union, with Dodds saying failure to do so would be “the worst of all worlds”.

However, both added their only red line was keeping Northern Ireland in lockstep with Britain, whatever Brexit’s outcome.

If this achieves nothing else it should debunk claims the DUP is seeking a hard Brexit for hardline unionist reasons.

According to this hypothesis, which enjoys some credence in republican circles, the DUP or leading elements within it see Brexit as a last chance to drive an economic and physical wedge along the Border before the inexorable forces of demography, reason and love unite us all in a 32-county paradise.
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: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3414 Post by animist » May 11th, 2018, 10:11 am

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:
Anyway, another job for you - what is actually wrong with the article?
As it's you asking... :) Leaving aside speculation and special pleading, as well as blatant bias and from the Graun, there are several several. First of all, we import all sort of perishables from all over the place. Cut flowers are flown in from Africa, for example. And yet we are perfectly able to give our beloved fresh roses on Valentine's Day, even though, shock horror! Africa is not part of the EU.
obviously the reports may have been written up tendentiously, but still, they are reports from the horse's mouth, so to speak, not speculation on the part of the paper. Why mention non-EU produce when the article was about EU produce? I assume that the gist of the expressed fears was that the delays currently operating in processing non-EU produce will, post-Brexit, apply to EU produce
Nick wrote: Secondly, why should the UK suddenly distrust produce coming from the EU?
it may not do so immediately, but the whole point of Brexit is that Britain is able to set its own standards and tariffs, is it not? Probably in fact this will not happen for the time being, so Brexit will not have happened and things will not descend into chaos. That seems to be the way things are going, with Britain "tied" to the EU for x number of years
Nick wrote: Thirdly, how about pointing out that so many of the hold-ups are entirely unnecessary, rather than explaining why the unnecessary rules will get in the way?
you may think they are unnecessary, but that is beside the point - they will still be operating

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3415 Post by Alan H » May 11th, 2018, 11:11 am

Tsk, tsk: Leave.EU fined £70,000 over breaches of electoral law
Leave.EU has been fined £70,000 and its chief executive has been referred to the Metropolitan police after the Electoral Commission found it had breached multiple counts of electoral law during the referendum to leave the European Union.

The investigation found that Leave.EU, which was co-founded by Arron Banks, unlawfully exceeded its statutory spending limit by at least 10% and delivered incomplete and inaccurate spending and transaction returns.

The group campaign chief, Liz Bilney, one of Banks’s closest associates, faces a police investigation. The commission said it had reasonable grounds to suspect she “knowingly or recklessly signed a false declaration accompanying the Leave.EU referendum spending return”.

Banks responded by accusing the commission of a “politically motivated attack on Brexit” and threatened to take legal action.

The commission said the “unlawful overspend” was at least £77,380 but may well have been considerably higher.
“Leave.EU exceeded its spending limit and failed to declare its funding and its spending correctly. These are serious offences. The level of fine we have imposed has been constrained by the cap on the commission’s fines.”
Banks said: “The Electoral Commission is a ‘Blairite swamp creation’ packed full of establishment ‘remoaners’ that couldn’t quite make it to the House of Lords.

“We view the Electoral Commission announcement as a politically motivated attack on Brexit and the 17.4 million people who defied the establishment to vote for an independent Britain.”

He added: “The EC went big game fishing and found a few ‘aged’ dead sardines on the beach. So much for the big conspiracy! What a shambles. We will see them in court.”
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: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3416 Post by Alan H » May 11th, 2018, 12:06 pm

Ian Dunt's Friday email:
Nothing is going on. You can leave the room of British politics without pausing it, go make a cup of tea, and it'll still be in the same place when you get back.

Theresa May has reached an impasse in the Cabinet. Idea one is staying in the customs union. She can't do that because the Brexiters will not accept it. Idea two is a customs partnership, which is either an invented system already rejected by the EU or a sneaky rebranding on customs union membership - no-one is quite sure, including probably herself. She can't do this because the Brexiters will not accept it either. Idea three is a so-called 'maximum facilitation' model, which is basically a fancy name for using smartphone apps to not check lorries at the border. She can't do that because Cabinet moderates and the EU won't accept it. She's stuck.

Nearly every day there is a newspaper report saying that May's team or some other minister have a new plan to move things along, and that new plan always involves delaying things. The latest wheeze is to have May divide the Cabinet into two groups - you'll remember this from school - and have them duke out the differences between the partnership and 'max-fac' systems. But of course this involves pointing out the problems with the models, which are legion, and that will invariably lead to her saying both need more work, which was itself what the government was saying last summer when it released its original position paper on the subject. And that then means she'll have to delay again. It's political purgatory.

Both sides of this fantasy-land debate have their own delaying tactics. Former May aide Nick Timothy, who supports the 'max-fac' model, is suggesting that they could perhaps extend the transition period to get it all set up. In truth, they'd need to extend it by about eight further years and join the single market if it was to have any chance of success, but that is a level of objective reality he is not yet ready for. Nevertheless, the fact hard Brexiters are starting to acknowledge what all experts are saying - that a two-year transition is clearly not enough time - is worth noting. Wherever you look, delay is the only inspiration.

Over in parliament, nothing is also happening. Commons leader Andrea Leadsom has given no timings for the return of the EU withdrawal bill from the Lords, or indeed any news on any of the other Brexit bills. The 14 Lords amendments aren't being brought to the Commons because the government is afraid it will lose. Plus it is quite hard to whip MPs into a position when the Cabinet cannot agree on one.

So Cabinet cannot reach a decision because it does not know what it is doing and parliament is not allowed to scrutinise legislation because the government cannot trust that it will do the right thing even though it doesn't know what that is. And all the while Brussels sits there waiting, as the Article 50 clock ticks remorselessly down.

We have all become slowly accustomed to this level of ideological and practical ineptitude. But in the future, historians will marvel at how the government was allowed to behave this way with comparatively little outrage, given the scale of the inadequacy.
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?

#3417 Post by Nick » May 11th, 2018, 2:07 pm

animist wrote:
Nick wrote:
animist wrote: As it's you asking... :) Leaving aside speculation and special pleading, as well as blatant bias and from the Graun, there are several several. First of all, we import all sort of perishables from all over the place. Cut flowers are flown in from Africa, for example. And yet we are perfectly able to give our beloved fresh roses on Valentine's Day, even though, shock horror! Africa is not part of the EU.
obviously the reports may have been written up tendentiously, but still, they are reports from the horse's mouth, so to speak, not speculation on the part of the paper.
Not really. It is claiming that regulation will have catastrophic effects, while ignoring the fact that such effects do not affect other international trade in that way, and making out that the only alternatie is to stay in a customs union, instead of reforming or scrapping the regulations.
Why mention non-EU produce when the article was about EU produce? I assume that the gist of the expressed fears was that the delays currently operating in processing non-EU produce will, post-Brexit, apply to EU produce
I mention non-EU produce to demonstate that their threats are OTT.
Nick wrote: Secondly, why should the UK suddenly distrust produce coming from the EU?
it may not do so immediately, but the whole point of Brexit is that Britain is able to set its own standards and tariffs, is it not? Probably in fact this will not happen for the time being, so Brexit will not have happened and things will not descend into chaos. That seems to be the way things are going, with Britain "tied" to the EU for x number of years
So we have an incentive to have due regard for other peoples regulations, just as we do with the US. We can decide that imports from the EU are just fine, because their regulations are good enough. When exporting to them, we can decide our production accordingly, can't we? We already export British cars with left-hand drive, for example. And where there is specific conflict between regulations, then we should be free to decide what we do about it, rather than just be a rule taker.
Nick wrote: Thirdly, how about pointing out that so many of the hold-ups are entirely unnecessary, rather than explaining why the unnecessary rules will get in the way?
you may think they are unnecessary, but that is beside the point - they will still be operating
They will only be operating if the Brexit talks end up saying that they must. Us free-market Brexiteers are saying that we should start from a presumption that we start from shared rules, so that no such extra impediments should be imposed. Brussels, however, has a different agenda, seeking to disadvantage the UK, even if it hurts their own people. Which is one reason we should leave!

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3418 Post by Alan H » May 11th, 2018, 6:03 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? The customs row reveals the fundamental paradox of Brexit politics
For weeks now, and with intensifying fury, the government have been bitterly split between two versions of what will succeed Britain’s membership of the Customs Union. It is a row that is beyond satire. Both versions (‘customs partnership’ and ‘maximum facilitation’) are impossible, resting upon technologies that do not currently exist and which could not be delivered in the necessary time frame even if they did. Both versions are markedly inferior to what they would replace. Both versions have already been rejected by the EU. Neither of them, even if they could be made to work and even if they could be agreed with the EU, would completely solve one of the main things they are supposed to solve – an Irish border with no physical infrastructure. And this, which is in any case but one aspect of a far larger set of issues that need to be resolved, is occurring almost two years since Britain voted to leave the EU, well over a year since Britain began the process of doing so, and less than six months before the terms of withdrawal need to be ready for ratification.

To call this situation absurd would be excessively generous. It is demented. But, strangely, in the perverse politics of Brexit it makes complete sense. To understand why, it’s necessary to understand the fundamental structural paradox built into those politics. It consists of two, irreconcilable, imperatives.

The first imperative is that Brexit, and specifically hard Brexit, must be done because it is the ‘Will of the People’ as interpreted by the high priests of the ERG and accepted as her duty by Theresa May. The second imperative is that which bears down upon all governments: they will be destroyed if they pursue policies which significantly damage the economic well-being of the country.
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: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3419 Post by Alan H » May 11th, 2018, 7:22 pm

Was it ever? Brexit is fast becoming a Tory no-win
Theresa May’s Brexit dilemma is becoming more acute. Last week, she failed to garner the support of the Brexit inner cabinet for a so-called ‘new customs partnership’ with the European Union. Even so, May can’t and won’t drop the idea. She’s convinced that it is critical for solving the Irish border issue, and thus unlocking a deal.

But the bad news for Mrs May is that opinion has hardened against her scheme (which would see the UK collecting tariff revenue for the EU even after Brexit). Boris Johnson has publicly attacked it as ‘crazy’ and in no way ‘taking back control’. Tellingly, Downing Street didn’t feel it could slap him down for this. Even those Eurosceptics with good personal relations with May, such as Iain Duncan Smith, are making it clear that they feel the new customs partnership would be a compromise too far. None of the six members of the Brexit inner cabinet who refused to back the scheme last week are likely to flip now — and anyway, No. 10 is keen to stress that this committee works by consensus, rather than by a simple majority.
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: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3420 Post by animist » May 11th, 2018, 9:21 pm

Nick wrote:
obviously the reports may have been written up tendentiously, but still, they are reports from the horse's mouth, so to speak, not speculation on the part of the paper.
Not really. It is claiming that regulation will have catastrophic effects, while ignoring the fact that such effects do not affect other international trade in that way, and making out that the only alternatie is to stay in a customs union, instead of reforming or scrapping the regulations.
the article is not claiming anything, simply reporting verbatim what professionals are saying. Look, just read what Keefe says - that the phytosanitary checks legally required on both sides of the border were a bigger challenge than the high-profile issue of customs checks that is currently dividing the cabinet; please note the word "legally".
Nick wrote:
Why mention non-EU produce when the article was about EU produce? I assume that the gist of the expressed fears was that the delays currently operating in processing non-EU produce will, post-Brexit, apply to EU produce
I mention non-EU produce to demonstate that their threats are OTT.
I think that the point you miss is that we are used to having to check produce from outside the EU, with attendant delays, but not stuff from the EU. I don't think that the warnings were OTT - mass starvation was not mentioned :)
Nick wrote:
it may not do so immediately, but the whole point of Brexit is that Britain is able to set its own standards and tariffs, is it not? Probably in fact this will not happen for the time being, so Brexit will not have happened and things will not descend into chaos. That seems to be the way things are going, with Britain "tied" to the EU for x number of years
So we have an incentive to have due regard for other peoples regulations, just as we do with the US. We can decide that imports from the EU are just fine, because their regulations are good enough. When exporting to them, we can decide our production accordingly, can't we? We already export British cars with left-hand drive, for example. And where there is specific conflict between regulations, then we should be free to decide what we do about it, rather than just be a rule taker.
I assume that what you mean is that there's a difference between producing for export according to the importer's laws and tastes, on the one hand, and having to produce goods for domestic consumption according to some regulation determined mainly by foreigners, on the other. Well yes, there is a difference. But how many EU directives and regulations have seriously been a problem for Britain?
Nick wrote:
you may think they are unnecessary, but that is beside the point - they will still be operating
They will only be operating if the Brexit talks end up saying that they must. Us free-market Brexiteers are saying that we should start from a presumption that we start from shared rules, so that no such extra impediments should be imposed. Brussels, however, has a different agenda, seeking to disadvantage the UK, even if it hurts their own people. Which is one reason we should leave!
terrible reason, as I have said umpteen times, to leave in some vague hope of improving the lot of other member countries' folks, who can at any time bring into power parties which want to leave the evil EU! I ignore your continued attempts at telepathy. But one thing I can telepathise about the EU: they will not abandon their established rules for Britain's convenience, and good for them

How about answering my comments about HM government, which, the articles posted by Alan (and actually some by coffee) show, clearly is shit scared of leaving the EU Customs Union. Even you must be able to see that the Tories' threshings around and divisions betray their lack of confidence in Brexit. Even the DUP now prefers a customs unon of some sort to the prospect of being divided from the rest of Britain. Brexit is pathetic

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3421 Post by Alan H » May 11th, 2018, 11:01 pm

Thread by @tony_nog: "1) An absolutely cracking exposure of @DanielJHannan and his foolishness. This is what happens when you spend your life campaigning […]" #Brexit

...and the article referred to: Daniel Hannan has noticed that Brexit isn’t going well. And he blames Remainers and the left
Not working out the way you thought, Hannan, is it?” I am asked the question daily by angry Europhiles. And, to be fair, they’ve got a point. I had assumed that, by now, we’d have reached a broad national consensus around a moderate form of withdrawal that recognised the narrowness of the result – a Brexit that left intact a number of our existing arrangements, while allowing us to leave the aspects of the EU which all sides could agree were harmful, such as the agricultural and fisheries policies and the common external tariff.

So begins Daniel Hannan’s latest brainfart over at Conservative Home. The article is mainly an excuse to kick the Labour party for pushing what the Tory MEP describes as the “worst-of-all-worlds outcome”, in which Britain would leave the single market but remain within the customs union. But the sight of Captain Brexit: The First Brexiteer suggesting that maybe things were not all going quite to plan has been novel enough to win coverage in the news pages of the Evening Standard, at least. (I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it’s just possible George Osborne doesn’t think very highly of Daniel Hannan either.)

Hannan has form for blaming the left for messes for which his own side is very obviously responsible – but just for kicks, let’s consider some other reasons why Brexit might not be going quite the way the liberal leavers had hoped.
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