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?

#3181 Post by Alan H » March 13th, 2018, 11:53 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Time to turn Brexit speeches into treaties, Juncker tells May
Britain must "translate speeches into treaties" and come up with a detailed plan for its post-Brexit ties with the EU, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said Tuesday.

EU leaders have been pressing British Prime Minister Theresa May to clarify what she wants before they agree their position on the future economic partnership at a summit later this month.

A series of speeches by May have done little to satisfy Brussels, and Juncker warned it was particularly crucial for London to clarify its plans for the sensitive issue of the Irish border.

Addressing the European Parliament in Strasbourg ahead of a summit in Brussels next week, Juncker made a direct plea to the British leader for more detail.

"Prime Minister May, give us some more clarity on how the UK sees its future relation with the European Union," he said.

"As the clock counts down with one year to go, it is now time to translate speeches into treaties, to turn commitments into agreements, broad suggestions and wishes on the future relationship into specific workable solutions."

He said it was "especially important" that Britain comes up with concrete proposals for the border between British-ruled Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which is staying in the EU.

Both Britain and the EU have vowed to avoid the return of customs checks to the border and an interim deal in December left some flexibility on the issue, but an EU text putting the agreement into law has sparked a fresh row with London.

The draft EU text published last month says Northern Ireland must stay in a customs union with the rest of the bloc if no better way is found to avoid a hard Irish border -- which Britain rejects.

Juncker told MEPs the draft text simply translated the December accord into legal language and "should not come as a shock".

And the former Luxembourg PM warned London the EU institutions and member states stood squarely in support of Ireland on the issue.

"For us this is not an Irish issue, it is a European issue. It is all for one and one for all -- that is what it means to be part of this union," he said.

Britain hopes to begin talks on the future trading relationship with Brussels next month, and May set out her proposals for a new wide-ranging free trade agreement in a speech on March 2.

But EU Council President Donald Tusk warned last week that the Irish border issue must be solved before negotiations can move on to other issues.
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?

#3182 Post by Alan H » March 15th, 2018, 12:46 am

Does anyone think the disgraced former defence secretary, Dr Liam Fox will defend UK interests? No, me neither. These are the right-wing think tanks pushing for a worse deal than TTIP after Brexit – and their influence is frightening
With the demise of the toxic Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), you’d be forgiven for thinking we can all breathe easy, safe in the knowledge that our environment, food, public health, NHS and democratic sovereignty are no longer under threat.

Unfortunately, you’d be wrong.

If you thought TTIP was bad, a future UK-US trade deal could smuggle all those nasties back in, and probably with a larger chance of success.

We’re talking beef injected with growth hormones, chickens washed with chlorine and – most worrying of all – widespread use of antibiotics in agriculture, boosting bacterial resistance to drugs, an existential threat that is right up there with global warming and nuclear war.

Not to mention the threat to our democracy itself posed by the infamous Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS) whereby private companies can sue a government for loss of profits, effectively influencing legislation. And of course, nationalised industries like the NHS will be up for grabs again with the US seeking to prise it open and parcel it up for big business.

All these things, the US will be pushing for in any trade deal. And what protection do we have against them? The answer is worryingly little. Why? Because we have a Conservative government that is largely in sympathy with many of the US aims.

And lest there be any doubts about just how sympathetic the parts of Government tasked with negotiations are, we only have to look at the recently leaked documents from the Initiative for Free Trade (IFT). These detail plans for an “unprecedented” coalition of right-wing libertarian and hard-Brexit think tanks to hold “shadow trade talks” that will “hash out an ideal” US-UK trade deal.

This coalition includes groups like America’s Cato Institute, co-founded by billionaire oil magnate Charles Koch, which frequently lobbies against climate change legislation. On the UK side, you can count The Legatum Institute, a free-trade Brexiteer think tank that has recommended dropping the EU’s precautionary principle to boost trade– the very thing that protects us from all those chlorinated chickens and hormone-fed cows.
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?

#3183 Post by Nick » March 15th, 2018, 1:22 am

Meh. Speculation from a failing paper owned by a Russian oligarch..... :rolleyes:

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

Re: In or out?

#3184 Post by Alan H » March 15th, 2018, 1:34 am

Nick wrote:Meh. Speculation from a failing paper owned by a Russian oligarch..... :rolleyes:
:hilarity: :pointlaugh: :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
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3185 Post by animist » March 15th, 2018, 9:46 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:Meh. Speculation from a failing paper owned by a Russian oligarch..... :rolleyes:
:hilarity: :pointlaugh: :laughter:
silly ad hominem comment, Nick. Almost everything to do with Brexit is speculation by definition. Actually, I think the article if anything underplays the risk that isolated Britain, desperately looking out for trade deals to replace EU trade, will be a sitting duck.

This is an interview with the "oligarch" https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/ ... d-oligarch

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

Re: In or out?

#3186 Post by Alan H » March 15th, 2018, 11:16 am

animist wrote:Almost everything to do with Brexit is speculation by definition.
Except the promises about unicorns and rainbows and cutting immigration and the lush green pastures and the glorious sunshine all year round and the £350 million a week to the NHS, of course. They were firm promises, weren't they?
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?

#3187 Post by animist » March 15th, 2018, 11:50 am

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:Almost everything to do with Brexit is speculation by definition.
Except the promises about unicorns and rainbows and cutting immigration and the lush green pastures and the glorious sunshine all year round and the £350 million a week to the NHS, of course. They were firm promises, weren't they?
yes, and of course they may come true :wink:. Probably not of much interest to anyone else here (but that has never stopped me before) I have started a group devoted to (in the sense of focusing on) Brexit at my local (East Grinstead) U3A group

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

Re: In or out?

#3188 Post by Alan H » March 16th, 2018, 1:45 pm

Report: The UK is considering opening its borders and abandoning all customs checks after Brexit
The UK government is reportedly considering making Britain's borders completely open to the European Union after Brexit if it crashes out of negotiations with no deal in place.

Earlier this week it was reported the government had signed "many dozens" of non-disclosure agreements with firms which operate on Britain's borders, prohibiting them from disclosing how Brexit could impact cross-border trade.

The greatest fear for British industries which export to the EU is a no-deal Brexit. In that scenario, Britain would leave the single market and customs union with no UK-EU free trade deal in place, and default to WTO trading rules.

Experts have warned that this "hard" form of Brexit would unleash an array of costly tariff and non-tariff barriers on British businesses and lead to additional checks at Britain's borders.

However, one of the options Theresa May's government is weighing up for a no-deal scenario is a 'Throw Open the Borders option," Sky News reports on Friday.

This would involve Britain unilaterally deciding not to impose checks on the border and allow goods to continue moving into the country as freely as they do currently.

The idea would hinge on the unlikely event of France, Belgium and Ireland — the EU member states with channel crossings to Britain – refusing to impose strict EU law which states third countries must be subject to tariffs and standard checks.

"Disruption in Europe trying to get to Britain is just as much of a problem as disruption here," Christopher Snelling of the Freight Transport Association told Sky News.

"If we have massive queues at Calais of the goods we rely on coming in, then that's going to be disastrous and the EU is going to enforce the rules it has. It has to, that's the way it works."

Transport Secretary Chis Grayling last night insisted there will be no additional checks on Britain's border no matter what form Brexit takes.

"We will maintain a free-flowing border at Dover, we will not impose checks at the port, it is utterly unrealistic to do so," the Brexit-voting Conservative minister told audience members.

"We don't check lorries now, we're not going to be checking lorries in the future."

Grayling's claim put him at odds with the overwhelming majority of academics and industry leaders, who say international law means there will be at least some additional checks on Britain's borders after Brexit.

This is because leaving the customs union will end the universal tariff-free trade of goods and services between the UK and EU while leaving the single market will create new standard and compliance checks for goods crossing the border.

In response to Grayling, the European Parliament's vice president, Mairead McGuiness, asked Grayling: "So you're not leaving [the European Union]?"
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?

#3189 Post by Alan H » March 16th, 2018, 2:50 pm

EU diplomats tell May to back down over post-Brexit Irish border
Downing Street’s stance on the Irish border is under severe pressure with EU diplomats telling Theresa May she must back down over Northern Ireland’s place in the customs union and MPs warning that hopes of a technological solution to a hard border are unrealistic.

Ahead of three days of talks on the issue this weekend, EU officials said the British government would have to reconsider the possibility of Northern Ireland effectively staying in the customs union and single market, a position it has previously rejected.

The warning was echoed by the Northern Ireland affairs committee in Westminster, which published a report saying there was no evidence that a hi-tech alternative to a fortified border could be made to work in the time available.

Two years ago the then Northern Ireland secretary, James Brokenshire, told the Guardian that goods and services could be allowed to flow freely across the Irish border by using hi-tech checks at crossing points similar to toll booths.

This year the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, repeated this suggestion, saying the crossing the border would be as frictionless as travelling between two London boroughs.

But the members of the Northern Ireland affairs committee, comprising Conservative, Labour and Democratic Unionist (DUP) MPs, said the government had so far failed to find any technical means to avoid a hard border with customs checks, and there was “no evidence to suggest that right now an invisible border is possible”.
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?

#3190 Post by Nick » March 16th, 2018, 3:15 pm

It is just that sort of arrogant language which gets up the noses of Brexiteers. Who (TF) are EU diplomats to tell a sovereign nation to do anything? Especially in such patronising language! Sod off! (And that's being polite!)

Here's the thing (or, being Irish, the ting): it's the EU that is insisting on borders not the UK. After all, as we in the UK are perfectly happy to accept goods from the rest of the EU at present, why should that necessarily change? It's perfectly feasible to say, if it's OK by the EU, then it's OK for us, so we don't need to check anything. And, as for people, anyone can come to the UK as a tourist, can't they? We don't need a wall to keep people out. The controls (such as they are) which stop "furriners" migrating here are more to do with obtaining NI numbers and tax accounts, are they not?

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

Re: In or out?

#3191 Post by Alan H » March 16th, 2018, 3:25 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:EU diplomats tell May to back down over post-Brexit Irish border

It is just that sort of arrogant language which gets up the noses of Brexiteers. Who (TF) are EU diplomats to tell a sovereign nation to do anything? Especially in such patronising language! Sod off! (And that's being polite!)
: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
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3192 Post by animist » March 16th, 2018, 4:27 pm

Nick wrote:
It is just that sort of arrogant language which gets up the noses of Brexiteers. Who (TF) are EU diplomats to tell a sovereign nation to do anything? Especially in such patronising language! Sod off! (And that's being polite!)

Here's the thing (or, being Irish, the ting): it's the EU that is insisting on borders not the UK. After all, as we in the UK are perfectly happy to accept goods from the rest of the EU at present, why should that necessarily change? It's perfectly feasible to say, if it's OK by the EU, then it's OK for us, so we don't need to check anything. And, as for people, anyone can come to the UK as a tourist, can't they? We don't need a wall to keep people out. The controls (such as they are) which stop "furriners" migrating here are more to do with obtaining NI numbers and tax accounts, are they not?
your first sentence - must admit I like seeing Brexiters infuriated, it does not take much! And the EU is entitled to defend its customs arrangements, surely - obviously Britain can fume and ignore, but in that case, maybe, bang goes a good trade agreement. Second paragraph. The EU as you know is a customs union so OF COURSE it is insisting on maintaining customs checks with what will soon become a non-member country; I bet you that if it were another country which was exiting the EU and this caused complications, the Brits would be backing the EU. Surely the point is that, if Britain does leave, then it is likely not to follow EU tariffs and other arrangements like regulations; the process may be gradual, but after all, that (ie the freedom to diverge from EU decisions) is presumably one of the main reasons for leaving, isn't it? As for your comments on people movements, that is not the main issue as I understand it; Britain and Ireland will maintain the common travel zone, though Brexiters might fret about Ireland being used as a sneaky way to enter Britain for non-tourism reasons

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

Re: In or out?

#3193 Post by Alan H » March 16th, 2018, 5:37 pm

animist wrote:[the freedom to diverge from EU decisions] is presumably one of the main reasons for leaving, isn't it?
Who knows? There weren't tick boxes on the ballot paper for all the many different reasons, were 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?

#3194 Post by Alan H » March 16th, 2018, 7:03 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit Forensics: Playing chicken with the Channel Tunnel
Is part of the UK Government negotiating position to dare the EU to apply its own trade laws, while the UK unilaterally chooses not to apply its own and waves trade through, essentially unchecked?

Border operators and manufacturers are beginning to take this prospect seriously, even though neither side of the Brexit negotiation wants it.

For what it's worth, all believe that Europe would not reciprocate, and would apply legally necessary customs checks with the UK immediately.

The crippling effect of this on cross-border trade would surely mean that negotiations would start within months or weeks, I suggest. "Hours," says one key logistics operator.

It is frankly amazing to hear such things being contemplated, even privately. No wonder the Government is rather liberally handing out non-disclosure agreements.

Put simply though - something is amiss. The money is not being spent, the planning permissions are not being sought, nor the customs officers being trained, let alone shovels in the ground to build the new facilities inescapably required by the Government's decision to leave the single market and customs union.
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?

#3195 Post by Alan H » March 17th, 2018, 10:24 am

Brexit: Most Conservative voters who backed Theresa May in 2017 would favour second referendum
Most voters who backed Theresa May at the last election support a further referendum on her Brexit deal, a new poll has revealed.

The study of more than 1,400 Conservative voters who gave Ms May a mandate to pursue Brexit last June shows the majority favour a second national vote once the terms of our withdrawal are clear.

In London, where the Tories are bracing themselves for troubling local election results in May, a large majority of Tory voters from 2015 and 2017 backed a second referendum.

The illuminating data points to a Tory electorate wary of Brexit at all costs, who want a say over the terms of the agreement, which is expected to be finalised towards the end of 2018.

The figures will also give Ms May something to think about as she prepares to address her party’s spring conference in London following one of her strongest political weeks since the election.

The poll by Survation asked Conservative voters who turned out for Ms May in 2017 to what extent they would support a proposal for a referendum on whether to accept or reject the deal the Prime Minister strikes with Brussels.

A total of 42.7 per cent said they would support it, 19.5 per cent “strongly” and 23.2 per cent “somewhat”, meanwhile 34.6 per cent were against the idea, 23.2 per cent strongly and 11.4 per cent somewhat. Around 14.3 per cent were indifferent, while 9.1 per cent did not know.
One of May's strongest political weeks since the election? Why? What happened?
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?

#3196 Post by animist » March 17th, 2018, 10:43 am

Alan H wrote:This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit Forensics: Playing chicken with the Channel Tunnel
scary, especially since this is from Sky News and not from a commentator committed to remaining in the EU - but of course Nick is much more scared about the eurozone :laughter:

coffee
Posts: 1586
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: In or out?

#3197 Post by coffee » March 17th, 2018, 11:19 am

:laughter:

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

Re: In or out?

#3198 Post by animist » March 17th, 2018, 11:28 am

coffee wrote::laughter:
:laughter: meaning what? You must be capable of stringing together a sentence expressing an opinion? Ah no, now I get it. You are Vladimir Putin and I claim the prize for recognising you!

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

Re: In or out?

#3199 Post by Alan H » March 17th, 2018, 11:29 am

A preview of the geo-political costs of Brexit
That Britain doesn’t have a workable strategy for foreign policy post-Brexit is in any case not surprising considering who holds the post of Foreign Secretary. No one seriously thinks that Boris Johnson is the best person for the job. He has it solely and simply as an artefact of the domestic politics of Brexit, another small price we are already paying. There can surely never have been a less statesmanlike holder of this office and he is held in contempt in many foreign capitals, especially in European countries given his long record of mendacity about the EU going back to his time as a journalist. That can hardly be an asset when, as at present, the message he is carrying is a request to trust him in saying that there is strong evidence that Russia was responsible for the nerve agent attack.
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: 1586
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: In or out?

#3200 Post by coffee » March 17th, 2018, 11:37 am

>> :laughter: meaning what? You must be capable of stringing together a sentence expressing an opinion?<<
Your comment below is funny even though I am a leaver.

>> but of course Nick is much more scared about the eurozone :laughter:<<

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

Re: In or out?

#3201 Post by Alan H » March 17th, 2018, 11:50 am

Brexiteers said we would “get back control of our borders” after leaving the EU – but it appears that might not quite be the case.

Another lie the Brexiteers sold Britain
It now seems that Whitehall is floating the idea of not imposing border checks after Brexit if there is no agreement about customs arrangements.

This would solve the problem of tailbacks at crossings and the thorny issue of the Irish border of course – but it is hardly what the Leavers were telling us would occur in their Brexit Utopia.

Remainer campaigner MP Chuka Umunna said: “It is extraordinary that a government that says it aims to ‘take back control’ has admitted it is not even going to try to control the transfer of goods across our borders.

“This is another broken promise from the referendum, but it is the most serious yet.

“If it becomes a ‘third country’ outside the EU’s customs union, the UK will almost certainly be under legal obligations to mount customs checks at its border.”

What a mess.
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