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?

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

Latest post of the previous page:

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?

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

Re: In or out?

#3202 Post by animist » March 17th, 2018, 12:31 pm

indeed, but I would not call this a lie. Noone on either side of the referendum debate talked about the Irish border - this was almost 2 years ago! Maybe this will be the Brexit slayer, let's hope so. But yes, what an irony! "Taking back control of our borders" may founder on our inability to prevent a new and undesired border as a direct result of the Brexit project!

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

Re: In or out?

#3203 Post by Alan H » March 17th, 2018, 1:26 pm

animist wrote:Noone on either side of the referendum debate talked about the Irish border
“There would have to be border controls but not a prevention of genuine Irish from coming in across the border”

Lord Lawson, Vote Leave campaign, 10 April 2016
“I think that the land border we share with Ireland can be as free-flowing after a Brexit vote as it is today”

Theresa Villiers, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, 17 April 2016
“The fear in Dublin is that our border towns would become a backdoor into the UK. In that instance what sort of fortress would the Northern Ireland border have to become to close that backdoor?”

Phil Hogan, European Commissioner for Agriculture, 9 May 2016
Source: https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-referend ... sh-border/

It seems the Tories are as far away as ever from a) understanding the issues and b) coming up with a solution.
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?

#3204 Post by animist » March 17th, 2018, 3:38 pm

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:Noone on either side of the referendum debate talked about the Irish border
“There would have to be border controls but not a prevention of genuine Irish from coming in across the border”

Lord Lawson, Vote Leave campaign, 10 April 2016
“I think that the land border we share with Ireland can be as free-flowing after a Brexit vote as it is today”

Theresa Villiers, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, 17 April 2016
It seems the Tories are as far away as ever from a) understanding the issues and b) coming up with a solution.
so a few Leave people said contradictory things. They have not got far since then, have they? http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-m ... xit-2018-3

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

Re: In or out?

#3205 Post by Alan H » March 18th, 2018, 11:24 am

Call for delayed Brexit day and longer transition splits MPs
Before a crucial EU summit this week at which the prime minister hopes to secure at least an outline agreement on a transition period, the official report says “little progress” has been made on key issues including the future of the Irish border. It casts serious doubt on whether all details of a partnership between the EU and UK can be agreed by a deadline set for this autumn, to allow a deal to be put to the European and UK parliaments for approval before Brexit day on 29 March next year.

The committee says it may be necessary to extend the article 50 period beyond next March to ensure that discussions do not spill over into the transition phase.
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?

#3206 Post by Nick » March 18th, 2018, 1:41 pm

Alan H wrote:“The fear in Dublin is that our border towns would become a backdoor into the UK. In that instance what sort of fortress would the Northern Ireland border have to become to close that backdoor?”

Phil Hogan, European Commissioner for Agriculture, 9 May 2016
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? The truth is more likely the other way, it is the protectionist EU that will be putting up the barriers.

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

Re: In or out?

#3207 Post by Alan H » March 18th, 2018, 11:22 pm

Theresa May implored by MPs to postpone Brexit so she can make solid EU deal
MPs are telling Theresa May to postpone Brexit.

A report today by the influential Commons Brexit committee says the PM is running out of time to strike a deal with the EU.

It says she should consider extending Article 50, which triggered the countdown to Brexit.

The UK is due to leave the EU on March 29, 2019.

This has infuriated Brexiteer MPs on the committee, including Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Brexiteers have produced their own minority report saying there should be no delay.

'Brexodus' blamed as EU migration to Britain falls to lowest in five years

Britain needs to have a deal in place by the European Council summit in October.

Committee chairman Hilary Benn doubted agreement could be achieved on a range of complex issues in time.
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?

#3208 Post by Nick » March 19th, 2018, 11:47 am

animist wrote:
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!
He's just been taking classes at the Alan H School of Clarity..... :D

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

Re: In or out?

#3209 Post by Alan H » March 19th, 2018, 3:29 pm

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:
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!
He's just been taking classes at the Alan H School of Clarity..... :D
Goodness.
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: 1580
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: In or out?

#3210 Post by coffee » March 19th, 2018, 3:53 pm

>>He's just been taking classes at the Alan H School of Clarity..... :D<<
It is ok so long as it is free :smile:

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

Re: In or out?

#3211 Post by Alan H » March 19th, 2018, 8:17 pm

Background briefing: Seven Broken Promises on Transition
Since the referendum, the Government have made at least seven major promises about the transition period. Today’s draft agreement with the EU shows these promises have all now been broken, and that all transition does is move us from being a rule maker to a rule taker.

The seven promises that were made were:

A transition period will be about ‘implementing’ the future relationship, not negotiating it
The UK will not pay money to the EU after March 2019
The UK will not have to abide by EU rules during transition
The UK will ‘take back control’ of fisheries policy
Free movement will end in March 2019
The UK will have new trade deals ready to come into force on 29 March 2019
The implementation period would last for two years and should not be time limited
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?

#3212 Post by Alan H » March 20th, 2018, 3:02 pm

A Brexit withdrawal agreement in name only
Theresa May once promised that there would be a robust “red, white and blue Brexit”. We now have a limp green, yellow and white Brexit, where the UK has not in any meaningful way taken back control of anything. All the time and effort expended since the referendum has been to create a situation where most things will stay the same.
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?

#3213 Post by Nick » March 20th, 2018, 4:09 pm

Alan H wrote:A Brexit withdrawal agreement in name only
Theresa May once promised that there would be a robust “red, white and blue Brexit”. We now have a limp green, yellow and white Brexit, where the UK has not in any meaningful way taken back control of anything. All the time and effort expended since the referendum has been to create a situation where most things will stay the same.
Will that stop you complaining, then, Alan? :D

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

Re: In or out?

#3214 Post by Alan H » March 20th, 2018, 4:17 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:A Brexit withdrawal agreement in name only
Theresa May once promised that there would be a robust “red, white and blue Brexit”. We now have a limp green, yellow and white Brexit, where the UK has not in any meaningful way taken back control of anything. All the time and effort expended since the referendum has been to create a situation where most things will stay the same.
Will that stop you complaining, then, Alan? :D
Bizarre.
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?

#3215 Post by animist » March 20th, 2018, 4:36 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Will that stop you complaining, then, Alan? :D
Bizarre.
bizarre indeed. Whatever do you mean, Nick? Do you actually follow the grindingly slow negotiations about future negotiations?

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

Re: In or out?

#3216 Post by animist » March 21st, 2018, 10:35 am

so much for lower prices as a result of Brexit - they are outweighed by the increased costs we are already paying. This is the finding of the Institute for Fiscal Studies http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/03 ... sts-by-1-2

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

Re: In or out?

#3217 Post by Alan H » March 21st, 2018, 11:14 am

animist wrote:so much for lower prices as a result of Brexit - they are outweighed by the increased costs we are already paying. This is the finding of the Institute for Fiscal Studies http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/03 ... sts-by-1-2
Project Reality strikes again...
So here we have found a genuine saving. But because we had to narrow the areas so much, it doesn't add up to much. In fact, the authors expect it to lead to an overall price reduction of just 0.4%.

This is the horrible reality for the Global Britain lot. Tariffs are already quite low and anyway don’t apply much to the type of goods we consume. Plus we're likely to protect our domestic producers anyway, so only some items can be slashed.

This is really a sad little number, but it's all they've got. After all the other promises have been stripped away, the one remaining positive from Brexit is reduced prices from our independent trading status. And that will save shoppers about 0.4%. Stick that on the side of a bus.
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?

#3218 Post by Nick » March 21st, 2018, 11:59 am

animist wrote:so much for lower prices as a result of Brexit - they are outweighed by the increased costs we are already paying. This is the finding of the Institute for Fiscal Studies http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/03 ... sts-by-1-2
Moe confusion from Ian Dunt. :headbang: His economics is all over the place. :sad2:

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

Re: In or out?

#3219 Post by Alan H » March 21st, 2018, 12:05 pm

Supreme Court president voices concerns over Brexit bill wording
Giving evidence to the Constitution Committee, she said: "The current draft we find very unhelpful because in the first place it says we don't have to take account of Luxembourg jurisprudence, and then it says we may do so if we think it appropriate.

"We don't think 'appropriate' is the right sort of word to address to judges.

"We don't do things because they are appropriate, we look at things because they are relevant and helpful.

"But we don't want to be put in the position of appearing to make a political decision about what is and is not appropriate.
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?

#3220 Post by Alan H » March 21st, 2018, 2:46 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Spain refuses to back withdrawal deal over Gibraltar concerns
The hard-fought agreement between the UK and EU over a 21-month transition period after Brexit has been thrown into doubt after Spain refused to endorse the deal without further concessions over Gibraltar.

With days to go before the 27 EU leaders are expected to welcome the two sides coming together over a 129-page withdrawal agreement, including the terms of the transition, Madrid said it was withholding its support.

It is understood that Spain, which lays claim to the Rock, wants the legal text to be clearer that it has a veto on Gibraltar continuing to enjoy the benefits of the single market and the customs union.

While EU officials are confident they can persuade Spain to back the withdrawal agreement before a sign-off by leaders in Brussels on Friday, it would be a hammer blow if the full 27 member states were not able to endorse a deal in principle on the transition period, given the need to offer reassurance for British businesses.
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?

#3221 Post by animist » March 21st, 2018, 3:12 pm

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:so much for lower prices as a result of Brexit - they are outweighed by the increased costs we are already paying. This is the finding of the Institute for Fiscal Studies http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/03 ... sts-by-1-2
Moe confusion from Ian Dunt. :headbang: His economics is all over the place. :sad2:
ISTM he was only reporting the IFS paper; anyway please elaborate

Post Reply