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.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

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

Latest post of the previous page:

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?

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

Re: In or out?

#3342 Post by Alan H » April 25th, 2018, 5:28 pm

Nick wrote:
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?
:headbang: :headbang:
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?

#3343 Post by Alan H » April 25th, 2018, 6:33 pm

Plumbing the depths. For David Davis is this possible?
Detail and Davis are barely on nodding terms. Partly because leaving the EU is a great deal more complicated than he expected, but mainly because he’s hopelessly out of his depth. Davis has yet to be asked any question, no matter how straightforward, that doesn’t take him completely by surprise.

The Brexit secretary has also yet to attend a meeting for which he is fully prepared. At the start of his latest outing to update the Brexit select committee on his lack of progress, Davis spent the best part of 10 minutes explaining why he had to get away early as he had another meeting scheduled that he was already late for. As this was precisely the same excuse he had used at his last appearance, everyone on the committee was underwhelmed.

“I’m very busy,” Davis explained. Busy being busy with busy things. And always at least one meeting behind himself.

As it turned out, the committee had more than enough time to explore the depths of Davis’s knowledge. Largely because he knows so little. On almost every question the Brexit secretary’s stock answer is one of definite vagueness. A man with the utmost confidence in his own limitations.
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?

#3344 Post by Alan H » April 25th, 2018, 10:25 pm

David Davis is too busy for select committees, too busy for Brussels and frankly too busy for Brexit
As the Select Committee found out, ask the Brexit secretary an A or B question and you will get a 'yes'

Ever since David Davis was accused by former Vote Leave chief Dominic Cummings of being “lazy as a toad”, he has made a commendable effort to fill his day by stating how busy he is, in a manner not wholly dissimilar to a well-known Micky Flanagan comedy routine.

The newly can’t-stop-double-busy Brexit Secretary likes to tweet pictures of himself on his way to meetings everywhere from Lisbon to Latvia, at no point showing any awareness of the famous business rule that there is no surer sign of indolence than a man who offers his travel schedule as evidence of his own industry.

He also can no longer appear before the Brexit Select Committee without first stating how quickly he must leave it again. For the second time running, on Wednesday morning, events began with Davis telling them he could only spare them 90 minutes as he had better things to do with his time.

“Sorry Hilary, can’t stop, double busy, proper double busy, meeting at ten, breakfast at two, call at six, working lunch tonight. You know how it is. Proper double busy,” he may or may not have said.
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?

#3345 Post by Alan H » April 26th, 2018, 9:51 am

The EU “customs partnership” is one of the most half-baked ideas in economic history
Over the past week, the Prime Minister has confirmed that the UK will definitely leave the EU customs union, while a Downing Street spokesperson has reiterated that this is indeed government policy.

This naturally leads to the question of what leaving the customs union will mean in practice.

Last August, the government set out two options for the UK outside of the customs union. Neither received intense scrutiny at the time, but thankfully that has now changed.

Read more: Bouncing into a customs union would be a betrayal of Brexit

The first option was a highly streamlined arrangement based around technology, cooperation, and indeed reality (the fact that almost 98 per cent of container traffic is not physically inspected and is pre-cleared): it entailed removing any need for a hard border with the EU.

The second option was the proposed “customs partnership” with the EU, and it is this arrangement which is now under the spotlight, up for discussion at this week’s meeting of the cabinet’s Brexit sub-committee.

However, any discussion is a waste of time. It is one of the most half-baked ideas in economic history. It should never have seen the light of day. It should have been strangled at birth.

The idea behind the customs partnership is that British exports to the EU would be tariff-free, and that the UK would not be part of the EU’s Common External Tariff (CET). Being outside the customs union would then permit the UK to negotiate and sign trade agreements with other countries across the globe.

So far so good, you might say, but dig deeper, and the partnership proposal justifies Jacob Rees-Mogg’s description of it as “completely cretinous”. The proposal bears all the hallmarks of an EU-leaning Whitehall bureaucracy intent on trying to hoodwink ministers and the general public.

Essentially, the UK would mirror the EU’s requirements for imports from the rest of the world when their final destination was the EU.

Britain would be a border agent for the EU, collecting the CET on EU-destined goods at a UK border entry point, but operating its own post-Brexit WTO tariff schedule for goods destined for here. These goods would ultimately pay a UK tariff, while those destined onwards for the EU would pay the EU’s CET at the UK border.

You only need to think about this for a moment to realise that it is completely impractical. There would need to be a tracking mechanism to check that those goods with the UK as the stated destination weren’t being forwarded on to the EU without paying the CET. As yet, no such tracking technology exists. It is yet to be designed, built, and tested.

And the problems get worse.

EU customs procedures require all countries to operate all tariff and non-tariff procedures in the same way. Under the partnership proposal, the UK would not only be collecting the EU’s CET and enforcing its tariff rate quotas, alongside its own tariff schedule. It would also have to enforce the EU’s non-tariff rules as well.

UK officials would have to police both regimes. This is completely bonkers.

One suggested way around some of these problems is that UK-destined goods could also pay the CET on arrival, with exporters then claiming back the difference between the higher EU and lower UK tariffs.

But this is hardly evidence of the UK taking back control. Imagine Liam Fox telling an American or Australian trade negotiator that they would have to pay the CET and then claim back a refund.

The fact that Whitehall came up with such a plan is deeply disturbing and makes one fear what the officials might do next.
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?

#3346 Post by Alan H » April 26th, 2018, 11:49 am

UK car output slumps on poor demand
The number of cars made in the UK during March fell by 13.3% from a year earlier as both domestic and overseas demand for vehicles declined.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said poor weather had affected production.

But it said that double-digit falls in output for the both home market and exports were a "considerable concern".

The SMMT said the UK must stay in the customs union to ensure "frictionless trade".

The number of cars made for the UK fell by 17.7% in March from a year earlier, while production for markets overseas dropped by 11.9%.

Uncertainty over the UK's exit from the European Union, as well as higher taxes on diesel vehicles, has led to concerns over jobs and production in the UK's car sector.
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?

#3347 Post by animist » April 26th, 2018, 11:59 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
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?
:headbang: :headbang:
a couple of relevant differences. Norway and Switzerland are members of the Single Market, while Britain avows to leave it. More relevant still, neither of these countries, unlike Britain, has turned its back on Europe in a nativist referendum fostered by true Brit hatred of this institution (while the true Brit government is trying to maintain the benefits). Some grounds for spite on the EU's part, I would say; but grounds (ie motive) are not evidence of actual thinking. There is now clearly a well-deserved lack of trust, in such a sensitive area, on the part of the EU, of this country - just read what the EU says. What a tragedy

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

Re: In or out?

#3348 Post by Nick » April 26th, 2018, 3:22 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote: 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?
:headbang: :headbang:
a couple of relevant differences. Norway and Switzerland are members of the Single Market, while Britain avows to leave it. More relevant still, neither of these countries, unlike Britain, has turned its back on Europe in a nativist referendum fostered by true Brit hatred of this institution (while the true Brit government is trying to maintain the benefits).
Neither Norway nor Switzerland were ever really facing the EU, were they? Both have had referenda concerning further integration with the EU, and both rejected the EU. Switzerland also had a referendum which has led to the restriction of free movement. There is discussion in Norway about leaving the EEA and recent polls show around 70% against joining the EU. Why? For exactly the same reasons as the UK. So I don't see why the relationship should be any different.

Some grounds for spite on the EU's part, I would say;
The UK didn't show spite towards mainland Europe, though heaven knows we were provoked enough! Shame shame shame on the EU for even thinking of it! Grrr!!
but grounds (ie motive) are not evidence of actual thinking.
But actual actions and speeches demonstrate spite, don't they?
There is now clearly a well-deserved lack of trust, in such a sensitive area, on the part of the EU, of this country - just read what the EU says. What a tragedy
So the EU feels hurt. Time for it to pull up its big-boy pants and get on with life, instead of throwing its weight around like a playground bully. The UK feels it is being ruled from abroad. But the UK is not threatening to punish the EU, is it? A tragedy indeed.

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

Re: In or out?

#3349 Post by Alan H » April 26th, 2018, 7:48 pm

Brexit: Theresa May ‘pleading’ with EU for City access to single market, Michel Barnier says
Theresa May has been reduced to “pleading” with the EU to give British financial firms access to sell services into the single market after Brexit without having to follow European regulations, the EU’s chief negotiator has said.

Speaking in Sofia on Thursday Michel Barnier said Britain would face new border checks and disruption from leaving the bloc, and that the UK was more dependent on Europe for trade than vice-versa.

In a speech Mr Barnier rejected Theresa May’s call for continued trade in financial services between Britain and the EU “based on the UK and EU maintaining the same regulatory outcomes over time”.

“I can perfectly see the UK's logic and interest in pleading for a system of ‘mutual recognition’ and ‘reciprocal regulatory equivalence’,” Mr Barnier said at a finance conference in the Bulgarian capital. “This is, indeed, what the single market achieves!”

“‘Everything must change so that everything can stay the same’, to paraphrase Lampedusa. But this will not work. The UK has decided to withdraw from the Union. It wants to be sovereign and be able to set its own rulebook, to have its own supervision and enforcement system.

“In doing so, the UK will move away from EU rules. It will not accept common EU supervision and enforcement tools. These are precisely the essential building blocks of our post-crisis financial regulation. They ensure that the internal market can exist and function correctly.

‘Everything must change so that everything can stay the same’, to paraphrase Lampedusa. But this will not work.
Michel Barnier, EU chief Brexit negotiator
“The EU understands that the UK does not want to become a 'rule-taker'. But the UK also needs to understand that the EU cannot accept mutual market access without the common safeguards that underpin it.”

Mr Barnier added that relying on Britain to regulate services sold into EU markets was “not something that any country in the world would accept”. He described Brexit as “a lose-lose situation”, telling his audience: “I do not see added value in Brexit and so far, nobody has shown us any.”
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?

#3350 Post by Alan H » April 27th, 2018, 10:18 am

The Brexit Bonus? UK economic growth collapses to just 0.1% in first quarter of 2018, new figures show
It was well down on the 0.4 per cent expansion at the end of 2017 and the weakest quarterly growth rate recorded since 2012

The UK economy almost stalled in the first quarter of 2018 growing by just 0.1 per cent, the Office for National Statistics reported on Friday.

This was down from the 0.4 per cent expansion registered in the final quarter of 2017 and well below the 0.3 per cent City of London analysts had expected.

It was also the weakest quarterly growth rate since 2012.

The pound slumped in the wake of the data, dropping to $1.3804, down 0.8 per cent on the day, as traders bet against a May interest rate from the Bank of England due to the unexpected weakness of GDP.

The Bank had pencilled in a 0.3 per cent GDP expansion for Q1 in its most recent Inflation Report.

“The downside surprise in Q1’s GDP figures is probably the final nail in the coffin for the chance of an interest rate hike in May,” said Mark Hollingsworth of Capital Economics.

The UK was hit by severe bad weather in February and March, but the ONS said that snow disruption could not explain all the fall in growth.

Weakest since 2012

Image

The agency reported that services, which account for 80 per cent of the economy, grew by 0.3 per cent in the three months to March, a slowdown from the 0.4 per cent rate in the previous quarter.

However, it estimates that construction output, around 6 per cent of output, slumped by a massive 3.3 per cent.

Manufacturing output, around a tenth of the economy, eked out growth of 0.2 per cent, well down on the 1 per cent plus growth rates recorded by the sector in the second half of 2017.

The UK’s annual rate of growth in Q1 dropped to just 1.2 per cent, down from 1.4 per cent previously, and the weakest since the second quarter of 2012.
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?

#3351 Post by Alan H » April 27th, 2018, 12:42 pm

From Ian Dunt:
This morning's release of GDP figures served as a reminder of how fraught with chaos the Brexit process can be. The economy has slowed to a virtual standstill in the first three months of the year, performing far worse than Bank of England expectations.

Supporters of leaving the EU are trying to insist that any Brexit effect is in the past, but the argument is increasingly unconvincing, especially if you look at the distinction between construction and exports. Exports have performed quite well, due to a lower pound and a booming global economy, while construction, which takes place at home amid a perpetual lack of certainty, has performed very badly.

As we get into the Brexit endgame, the economy remains highly volatile. So far it has not performed so badly that it would fundamentally rejig the political assessments taking place in Westminster, but that may change in the months ahead, especially if there is any contraction.

It's a sign of how politically uncertain things are that many political journalists spent yesterday's Commons debate on the customs union watching carefully for individual Tory MPs to make critical arguments. With no party in overall control, Brexit votes are all knife-edge votes, with so much depending on the extent of Corbyn's support for the government and Tory moderates resistance to it.

It made for revealing viewing. Some Tory MPs who had not previously been expected to rebel against the government seemed to express hesitation, or even anger, at the direction of travel. Ed Vaizey, for instance, who previously had kept his nose dry, said: "If it is in the interests of our economy to be in a customs union, it should be able to do so without being accused of betraying Brexit."

Those Tory rebels who had previously stood against their party with reluctance now appeared livid and resolute. "We are behaving in the most extraordinary and blinded fashion as we blunder around ignoring the reality," the usually cautious Dominic Grieves said. "Unless we start injecting a note of realism into what we're doing [May] will fail, this House will fail and our country will be failed."

If you watched the Tory opposition yesterday you could just about see the numbers for the government to be defeated on the customs union amendment coming back from the Lords next month. But what then? The wording is pretty open, really just amounting to a minister needing to report back to parliament on efforts to establish a customs union. Will No.10 try to wriggle through it somehow, perhaps by rebranding their customs partnership? Or will that customs partnership idea - which is quite insane even on the most sympathetic possible reading - have already been killed off by hard Brexiters?
Will May even have to step down as a result of the vote? It is far from impossible. Or might she accept the vote, announce that the UK will stay in the customs union, and then be unseated by the hard Brexit advance guard in her party? Or perhaps the hard Brexiter rump will accept even this indignity as a price to pay for securing the ultimate aim of leaving the EU, and allow her to stay in place? Nothing is clear.

Remainers are prone to sudden emotional swings. They spend months in despair about the direction of travel and then suddenly engage in excessive optimism. But it's still hard to see how defeating the government on the customs union leads to change on the single market, let alone any notion of staying in the EU. After all, a Commons majority on the issue rests on the fact Corbyn adopted it as policy, thereby uniting the parliamentary Labour party with the exception, perhaps, of Kate Hoey, Frank Field and John Mann. Without that formal leadership support, it's not clear a vote can be won on the single market. And there is precious little sign Corbyn will shift on that issue. Even Keir Starmer doesn't seem up for it.

Meanwhile, Brexit supporters - and the much wider group of political commentators who've generally presumed it's a done deal - are showing their own form of excessive certainty. Quite how anyone has any confidence whatsoever about what is going on is remarkable and a tribute to unyielding optimism of the political class that they happen to be right about everything.

Most outcomes hinge on the motion on the withdrawal treaty which David Davis will present to the Commons this autumn. He confirmed this week that it would be open to amendments, something his department had previously tried to avoid. That alone fundamentally changes everything, opening up a possible legal mechanism for a referendum on the final terms.. That idea is currently quite unfashionable in Westminster, but it may become more popular on all sides as a least-bad option when the stark reality of the deal presents itself.

If there was a referendum, would there be three options - Remain, Deal Brexit and No-Deal Brexit? Or would there be two - Remain and Deal Brexit, or alternately Deal Brexit and No-Deal Brexit? These options would all make a huge difference to the outcome and the level of support another referendum could receive. The struggle to set the question would be as important as the answer.

Amendments also make it more likely the government can get it passed, because it allows for greater flexibility in handling objections. A little sugar coating, when it comes down to tight votes like this, may well prove crucial.

But even with amendments, the motion will have a hard time in the Commons given Labour will struggle to support it. If it was rejected, what happens then? Would the EU accept an extension to the Article 50 timetable? That requires consent from all 27 remaining member states. If they did accept it, would they be prepared to go back to the negotiating table? Would Britain crash out without a deal? Or would it lead to Remain?

The variables are extensive beyond belief. And yet somehow people still talk about this process as if it was a done deal, or as if it cannot ever happen, or like any given outcome is certain to pass. They are all wrong on every side. It is a period of chaos and unpredictability which there is no precedent for in recent British political history. It is fundamentally and irreducibly unpredictable. All you can really do is stare in horror at the uncertainty of it all. Anyone who seems confident is usually just expressing their own aspirations.

If you're a campaigner, there is a kind of reassurance to the chaos. No matter how confidently the people on the other side tell you to give up, they can be safely ignored. All eventualities are still perfectly viable.
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?

#3352 Post by Alan H » April 27th, 2018, 2:02 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit department fails to consult on technical solutions to Irish border
The Whitehall department in charge of Brexit has failed to approach a single external company to obtain ideas of how technology will help solve the Northern Irish border issue.

Brexit Secretary David Davis has repeatedly claimed that a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic can be avoided using new technology.

Just last month, Mr Davis stated that “a whole load of new technology” exists to prevent the need for physical checks and controls at the border.

Spider webs and magic

But in response to a freedom of information request submitted by i, officials at the Department for Exiting the European Union admitted the number of companies it had spoken to about such technology was “nil”.
Maybe they'll import French technology...
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?

#3353 Post by animist » April 27th, 2018, 5:17 pm

another Dunt piece on the Brexidiots in or near power: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/04 ... en-about-t

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

Re: In or out?

#3354 Post by Alan H » April 28th, 2018, 2:40 pm

Brexit and the corridors of power
This suggests that at least 17 Tory backbenchers might potentially defy the Government in substantive votes when they arise – and there may well be others, since there is no doubt that a greater number do not support, at least, Brexit in the hardline form that it is being pursued. Of course it remains an unanswered question how many of them will be willing to go the whole hog and defy the party whip on such votes.

Equally, the Government itself is in disarray, with reports of some Cabinet ministers pushing against any form of ‘customs partnership’ whilst others apparently favour staying in (sic) the customs unions. So who knows if the issue will be conceded before any vote occurs? It’s worth saying in passing that, although we are now inured to it, it really is quite extraordinary that, so far into the Brexit process it triggered, the Government is still not in agreement about the most basic features of what they want to do.
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?

#3355 Post by Alan H » April 28th, 2018, 10:45 pm

But...but...but... Brexit: Britain set to offer EU immigration deal 'very similar' to free movement
Britain is set to make an offer to the EU on future immigration which would see arrangements “very similar” to current free movement rules put in place after Brexit, The Independent has learned.

UK negotiators would like to put the proposal forward to coincide with a European Council summit in June, in a bid to break a deadlock in Brexit talks.

The plan would see a high level of access to the UK for EU citizens in the future, but would leave the British government power to halt it in certain circumstances.

But it is likely to enrage hardliners who would see anything even mildly like free movement as a betrayal of the 2016 referendum result – on Saturday cabinet minister David Davis, who has fought for a harder Brexit, was reported to be on the brink of resigning over the UK’s apparently softening position on EU withdrawal.

It comes as a leaked legal experts’ report commissioned by politicians in Belfast concluded it will be impossible to stop people coming into the UK at will anyway, if Theresa May stays true to her commitment to avoid a hard border with Ireland.
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?

#3356 Post by Alan H » April 29th, 2018, 1:10 am

David Davis excels in this government of all the talentless
I can only recall one hard lesson from Theresa May in the past year, when she said to the nation: “If we don’t get the negotiation right, your economic security and prosperity will be put at risk and the opportunities you seek for your families will simply not happen. If we do not stand up and get this negotiation right, we risk the secure and well-paid jobs we want for our children and our children’s children too.” And yet, in context, even this is not the moment of brutal candour it appears. May made these comments outside Downing Street in the course of a ludicrously aggressive diatribe against the EU, immediately after returning from Buckingham Palace to call her Darwin award-winning election.
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?

#3357 Post by Nick » April 29th, 2018, 9:04 am

animist wrote:another Dunt piece on the Brexidiots in or near power: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/04 ... en-about-t
Dear oh dear! Drivel! Complete Drivel! And you want me to read a whole book of his? :wink:

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3358 Post by animist » April 29th, 2018, 10:21 am

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:another Dunt piece on the Brexidiots in or near power: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/04 ... en-about-t
Dear oh dear! Drivel! Complete Drivel! And you want me to read a whole book of his? :wink:
please explain. Maybe you should read his book and write a rebuttal - I am not sure that anyone has done this, and you might get good money :wink:

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

Re: In or out?

#3359 Post by Alan H » April 29th, 2018, 12:32 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Business Department ‘operating in a parallel universe,’ warn MPs
MPs have voiced “grave concerns” over the complacency of the Department for Business in preparing for Brexit.

The department, headed by business secretary Greg Clark, is one of the parts of government most deeply affected by EU withdrawal, with responsibility for around one-fifth of the work streams requiring action.

But the chairwoman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, Meg Hillier, said it appeared to be “operating in a parallel universe where urgency is an abstract concept”.

With less than 12 months to go to Brexit day on March 29, 2019, the department had not begun procurement for at least 12 essential IT systems needed to replace EU databases for projects like the emissions trading scheme, the committee said in a report.

And it had made “virtually no attempt” to re-order existing priorities to free up time and staff for the massive job of ensuring a smooth Brexit.

The committee gave Clark a two-month deadline to confirm which programmes can be stopped, paused or slowed down to make way for Brexit priorities.

Branding the delay in starting work on new IT systems “extraordinary”, the cross-party group said it “doubted the realism” of the department’s plans and was “extremely sceptical” that they would be delivered on time.

The department was “relying too heavily” on the proposed 21-month transition period which would delay the introduction of new arrangements until 2021, said the report, which stressed that new systems may be needed as early as next March if talks fail.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) was given an extra £35 million by the Treasury for Brexit preparations in 2017/18 and has recruited 305 of the 350 additional staff it believes are needed.

But the committee said it was “concerned” that the new recruits “lack the required level of experience and expertise”.

Many of those hired are policy experts, leaving vital posts unfilled in areas like digital, where competition for specialist staff is fierce, the report warned.

It also repeated concerns about the government’s ability to get 1,000 pieces of secondary legislation – including 150 from BEIS – through parliament in time for Brexit.

And it criticised BEIS for a lack of transparency about the work it is undertaking.

Hillier said: “The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy appears to be operating in a parallel universe where urgency is an abstract concept with no bearing on the Brexit process.

“We have grave concerns about this apparent complacency, compounded by the lack of transparency on the department’s progress with what in some cases will be critical projects.”

Meanwhile, a separate report by the Institute of Economic Affairs think-tank and trade association Acita urged the government to take practical steps now to prepare for withdrawal from the EU’s customs union.

The report called for investment in infrastructure at borders to handle the expansion of customs controls, as well as additional resources for HM Revenue and Customs to support companies dealing with the new arrangements.

Self-assessment schemes should be introduced to limit the expected increase in customs declarations which HMRC will have to cope with, the report said.

A BEIS spokesman said since the report was written the department has received £185m of extra funding for Brexit preparation.
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?

#3360 Post by Alan H » April 30th, 2018, 12:39 pm

Something is rotten in the State: Amber Rudd’s resignation enhances the stench of decay around Theresa May’s government
The Prime Minister’s administration resembles a mortally wounded creature that deserves to be put out of its misery.
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?

#3361 Post by Alan H » April 30th, 2018, 1:56 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? EU firms shy away from Britain as Brexit looms
Andrew Varga’s customers are a loyal bunch. Or at least they have been. His Bristol-based company, Seetru, makes specialist safety valves for industrial machinery. Customers typically sign up for contracts lasting years, and do not switch suppliers lightly. So when his continental customers — which account for a third of sales — abruptly stopped giving Seetru any new business in the middle of last year, Varga was baffled.

The company investigated and found that the big German and Scandinavian manufacturers it supplies were happy with Seetru’s products and prices. However, with Britain’s exit from the EU looming, an obscure wrinkle in the international trade rules had scared them away from buying British.

“We suddenly caught Brexit blight, and it was happening for reasons totally beyond…
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