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: 24048
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

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

Latest post of the previous page:

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?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24048
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3362 Post by Alan H » April 30th, 2018, 2:23 pm

Can't help but agree with what Amber Rudd's replacement, Sajid Javid, says here.
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: 6520
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3363 Post by animist » April 30th, 2018, 3:34 pm

Nick wrote:
animist wrote: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.
you make no sense at all. Whatever does your first sentence mean? Discussion is not action, and you should not argue from possibilities to realities like the dumb Brexit policy being pursued by people who know not much more than the hoi polloi - see Ian Dunt's recent blog, posted by me. Anyway, since I seem to have to repeat myself, the crucial difference is the other two are in the SM and Britain will soon not be
Nick wrote:
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!!
If you bothered to soil your hands by looking at Leaver forums like Guido Fawkes you would see a mass of spite and hatred which might bother even you. How were we provoked? We have been allowed several exemptions and concessions already. Anyway, give me some concrete examples of irrefutable "spite" emanating from the EU - and I do not count warnings that Britain will suffer by leaving the Single Market as "spite". Look, I don't know anything much about this Galileo project, and the EU may change its mind, since its own plans may be damaged by Britain's exclusion. I know you will not see it this way, but to me it is just one of the myriad ways in which Brexit is destroying what were mutually beneficial arrangements - and the EU is not responsible for Brexit.
Nick wrote:
but grounds (ie motive) are not evidence of actual thinking.
But actual actions and speeches demonstrate spite, don't they?
what I mean is that interpreting others' speech and behaviour is largely subjective and depends on one's own prejudices; thus you interpret every action or speech of EU ministers defending their own interests as bullying or spite, whereas I don't
Nick wrote:
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.
did you read the reason for this proposed exclusion? It expressed concern about the security aspects of parts of the Galileo project. And if you believe that the UK never threatens to punish the EU, what about Rees-Mogg's threat to ruin the Irish beef industry?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24048
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3364 Post by Alan H » April 30th, 2018, 7:16 pm

Meaningful vote as opposed to the Tories' 'meaningful vote' nonsense: May Suffers Huge Brexit Defeat As Lords Backs ‘Meaningful Vote’ On EU Deal
Theresa May has suffered her most damaging Brexit defeat so far after the House of Lords voted to give Parliament a say over the terms of any future EU deal.

Peers voted by 335 to 244 for a cross-party amendment to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill to ensure MPs get a ‘meaningful vote’ on the outcome of the Prime Minister’s talks with Brussels.

The hefty majority of 91 was powered by 19 Tory rebels - including Michael Heseltine, David Willetts and former Chief Whip James Arbuthnot - and 68 independent crossbenchers.

The amendment, tabled by former Tory Cabinet minister Lord Hailsham, allows Parliament to decided what course of action the Government should take in the event of a rejection of a draft withdrawal agreement or if no deal was agreed.

Backed by former diplomat Lord Hannay and Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the move is aimed at preventing May from presenting MPs with a ‘take it or leave it’ Brexit deal.

The amendment states that: “Her Majesty’s Government may implement a withdrawal agreement only if Parliament has approved the withdrawal agreement and any transitional measures agreed within or alongside it by an Act of Parliament”.

A powerful alliance of heavyweight names supported the move, which provides an even tougher lock on the PM’s powers than Dominic Grieve’s amendment passed in the Commons last year.

It will now go before the Commons next month, setting up a major Parliamentary showdown for May.
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: 24048
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3365 Post by Alan H » April 30th, 2018, 7:37 pm

Exclusive: The CBI warns Liam Fox's Brexit trade plans could bankrupt British companies
EXCLUSIVE: The CBI — Britain's biggest business group — warns Liam Fox's plan to "cut and paste" 40 free trade deals is near-impossible and could push Britain towards a "cliff-edge".

This week, BI reported the European Commission was "deeply concerned" about the UK trade department's lack of preparation for rolling over trade deals it enjoys as an EU member state.

Liam Fox believes these free trade deals can be carried over without any renegotiation.

However, in a major intervention, the CBI says there are "serious doubts" this can happen and warned that the trade department does not have the skills to renegotiate deals in time.

Senior British business figures have contacted BI to share their difficulties in working with the UK trade department.
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: 24048
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3366 Post by Alan H » May 1st, 2018, 8:35 am

Brexiters would have been much happier if they had lost
Thus the political and emotional charge of losing was, for remainers, incomparably greater than it would have been for leavers. Indeed, in a certain sense, losing would have kept leavers in their comfort zone of victimhood: ‘of course we have been done down by the global, liberal metropolitan elite’. Meanwhile, winning for remainers would have been no more than a passing pleasure, quickly forgotten as other issues took centre stage, whereas the leave victory ensured Brexit would be centre stage for years.

Beneath that lies a deeper issue. Leave was in essence a campaign movement; more specifically, a protest campaign. Thus for them winning the Referendum was an end point, as the Redwood quote above implies. Job done. What seems to have completely disconcerted them is that, in fact, it marked not the end but the beginning. The beginning of having to take responsibility for what they had won, the beginning of having to define what they had won, and the beginning of having to deliver on what they had won not just immediately but for years to come. All of that has proved impossible for them – as might be expected of a protest campaign, especially one that had not expected to win.

This has had extraordinary consequences. Most obviously, the total lack of any kind of idea about how to deliver Brexit in the sense of practical policies. Most ironically, the total dependence on people, especially in the Civil Service and business, who by and large think Brexit crazy, to find a way of doing so. But since what they want – especially in its hard form – is impossible to deliver without catastrophic damage they are able to stay in protest campaign mode, denouncing ‘the establishment’ for sabotaging Brexit, as if they were not, now, in charge.
It is small comfort that Brexiters will suffer the additional consequence of having to take responsibility for that; none at all, in fact, since they will certainly not do so, but will try to blame everyone but themselves for what they have inflicted on us. Few will feel sympathy for the fact that they would have been far happier had they lost.
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: 24048
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3367 Post by Alan H » May 1st, 2018, 8:45 am

I can find no grounds for optimism on the economy
In any other world there would be national soul searching. Britain’s economic growth rate over the past 12 months is half its average over the previous 25 years – and set to deteriorate further. Investment is stagnating. Mortgage approvals in March slumped by almost 21%. Car output for the domestic market has dropped in the same month by 13%, for export by 12%. These are dramatic numbers.

To drive the point home, on Friday we learned that in the first three months of the year, Britain grew at its slowest rate for five years. One comforting explanation is that the “beast from the east” hit construction. But dig a little deeper, and the cold snap also prompted a surge in demand for electricity and gas. As the Office for National Statistics observed, the weather alone explains little of the setback.

Output from manufacturing and services was just idling in January and February before an ominous gathering slide in many areas in March. This should be sounding alarm bells everywhere – it is plainly why Bank of England governor Mark Carney signalled that an interest rate rise slated for next month may be deferred, and why the pound was sold so aggressively after the news. If there had not been a world boom over the last two years, it is clear that the UK would be hovering on the brink of a recession; indeed, as the world economy falters in the months ahead, there is now a real prospect of just that.
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?

#3368 Post by Nick » May 1st, 2018, 10:29 am

animist wrote:
Nick wrote:
animist wrote: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.
you make no sense at all. Whatever does your first sentence mean?
No sense, animist? I was just referring to your post, "turning its back". My point being that it is difficult to turn ones back if you already have one's back facing in that way. Clumsy, maybe, but that was what I intended. :)
Discussion is not action,
It's an indication of movement in sentiment, though, which must preceded any action.
and you should not argue from possibilities to realities like the dumb Brexit policy being pursued by people who know not much more than the hoi polloi - see Ian Dunt's recent blog, posted by me.
There's idiocy in all sorts of areas, not least in some of Dunt's blogs! I'd recommend you don't base your views on his! :wink:
Anyway, since I seem to have to repeat myself, the crucial difference is the other two are in the SM and Britain will soon not be
..except that you said turning their back on Europe was more important... :wink: And to repeat myself too, the single market does not exist for services, some 80% or so of the economy, so is rather less relevant than you appear to be claiming.
Nick wrote:
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!!
If you bothered to soil your hands by looking at Leaver forums like Guido Fawkes you would see a mass of spite and hatred which might bother even you.[/quote]Oh, certainly, but they are not themselves negotiating Brexit, are they? Unlike Barnier, who is.
How were we provoked?
The invasion of Poland and other such provocations...
We have been allowed several exemptions and concessions already.
Tank goodness! Now why is the EU so determined not to allow anyone else to adopt such exemptions? It's a ratchet effect, it only goes one way. And given the seeming determination ( of Macron in particular) to push the Project even further, in spite of opposition throughout Europe, I wonder how long the UK would have been allowed to continue, and to resist further destructive integration.
Anyway, give me some concrete examples of irrefutable "spite" emanating from the EU - and I do not count warnings that Britain will suffer by leaving the Single Market as "spite".
Well I do! Other examples? Refusing to discuss anything before money, while threatening a "no deal" just because "the clock is ticking". How does that help anyone? Anyone at all?
Look, I don't know anything much about this Galileo project, and the EU may change its mind, since its own plans may be damaged by Britain's exclusion. I know you will not see it this way, but to me it is just one of the myriad ways in which Brexit is destroying what were mutually beneficial arrangements - and the EU is not responsible for Brexit.
Galileo didn't start out as an EU project, nor is there any reason why it should be so exclusive. If Russia and the USA can share the Space Station, then the UK can be part of Galileo. Let's hope the EU sees sense. I have my doubts, though...
Nick wrote:
but grounds (ie motive) are not evidence of actual thinking.
But actual actions and speeches demonstrate spite, don't they?
what I mean is that interpreting others' speech and behaviour is largely subjective and depends on one's own prejudices; thus you interpret every action or speech of EU ministers defending their own interests as bullying or spite, whereas I don't
That's it! EU ministers are defending the institutions of the EU, not the people of Europe! Just ask the Greeks!
Nick wrote:
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.
did you read the reason for this proposed exclusion? It expressed concern about the security aspects of parts of the Galileo project.
Clearly ridiculous. We are a mainstay of NATO and perhaps Europe's leading intelligence nation, and we share that with our allies. Leaving the EU won't suddenly mean we are any more (or less) untrustworthy.
And if you believe that the UK never threatens to punish the EU, what about Rees-Mogg's threat to ruin the Irish beef industry?
Well, IIRC, JR-M was explaining why tariffs would also hurt Ireland, in just the same way as Remoaners have threatened the ruin of British agricuture. But more crucially, JR-M is not part of the negotiations is he? Unlike Barnier and his ticking clock.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6520
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3369 Post by animist » May 1st, 2018, 2:43 pm

Nick wrote:
Discussion is not action,
It's an indication of movement in sentiment, though, which must preceded any action.
indications may be wrong and are always subjective, that's the rub
Nick wrote:
and you should not argue from possibilities to realities like the dumb Brexit policy being pursued by people who know not much more than the hoi polloi - see Ian Dunt's recent blog, posted by me.
There's idiocy in all sorts of areas, not least in some of Dunt's blogs! I'd recommend you don't base your views on his! :wink:
I await eagerly your demolition job
Nick wrote:
If you bothered to soil your hands by looking at Leaver forums like Guido Fawkes you would see a mass of spite and hatred which might bother even you.
Oh, certainly, but they are not themselves negotiating Brexit, are they? Unlike Barnier, who is.
no they are not, thank God (what would be interesting would be peek at any Continental equivalents of these yob forums. I suspect that we Brits, some of us anyway, are more obsessed with the rest of the EU than they are with us - who knows). But you have not demonstrated spite on the EU leaders' part as far as I can see
Nick wrote:
How were we provoked?
The invasion of Poland and other such provocations...
whatever are you talking about? 1939??
Nick wrote:
We have been allowed several exemptions and concessions already.
Tank goodness! Now why is the EU so determined not to allow anyone else to adopt such exemptions? It's a ratchet effect, it only goes one way. And given the seeming determination ( of Macron in particular) to push the Project even further, in spite of opposition throughout Europe, I wonder how long the UK would have been allowed to continue, and to resist further destructive integration.
oh dear, that sounds like the Guido site. Look, the EU cannot force countries to integrate if they do not want to
Nick wrote:
Anyway, give me some concrete examples of irrefutable "spite" emanating from the EU - and I do not count warnings that Britain will suffer by leaving the Single Market as "spite".
Well I do! Other examples? Refusing to discuss anything before money, while threatening a "no deal" just because "the clock is ticking". How does that help anyone? Anyone at all?
the clock is ticking, do you not get it? The Article 50 clock is one agreed in principle by Britain (and in fact devised by a Brit) and activated by Theresa May. The EU27 have nothing to do with the clock, but they reasonably feel they should remind the idiot leaders we have that there is a limit on all the poncing around that we are doing
Nick wrote:
Look, I don't know anything much about this Galileo project, and the EU may change its mind, since its own plans may be damaged by Britain's exclusion. I know you will not see it this way, but to me it is just one of the myriad ways in which Brexit is destroying what were mutually beneficial arrangements - and the EU is not responsible for Brexit.
Galileo didn't start out as an EU project, nor is there any reason why it should be so exclusive. If Russia and the USA can share the Space Station, then the UK can be part of Galileo. Let's hope the EU sees sense. I have my doubts, though...
ok, I don't know enough to push this
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote: But actual actions and speeches demonstrate spite, don't they?
what I mean is that interpreting others' speech and behaviour is largely subjective and depends on one's own prejudices; thus you interpret every action or speech of EU ministers defending their own interests as bullying or spite, whereas I don't
That's it! EU ministers are defending the institutions of the EU, not the people of Europe! Just ask the Greeks!
the Greeks and anyone else can leave, can they not? It is hardly for you to decide that the peoples of Europe's interests are not served by the EU
Nick wrote:
Nick wrote: 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.
did you read the reason for this proposed exclusion? It expressed concern about the security aspects of parts of the Galileo project.
Clearly ridiculous. We are a mainstay of NATO and perhaps Europe's leading intelligence nation, and we share that with our allies. Leaving the EU won't suddenly mean we are any more (or less) untrustworthy.
maybe not, maybe so. I think that Britain is less felt trustworthy from the European POV because of the way that Brexit is going - that perception may in fact not be rational, but it is understandable given the arrogance shown over here, eg by Bojo and Moggie
Nick wrote:
And if you believe that the UK never threatens to punish the EU, what about Rees-Mogg's threat to ruin the Irish beef industry?
Well, IIRC, JR-M was explaining why tariffs would also hurt Ireland, in just the same way as Remoaners have threatened the ruin of British agricuture. But more crucially, JR-M is not part of the negotiations is he? Unlike Barnier and his ticking clock.
to repeat, is his not his ticking clock, it is Britain's. Yes, Moggie's words could be intrerpreted as a mere statement of risk, as can all those of the EU which you find so bullying

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

Re: In or out?

#3370 Post by Nick » May 1st, 2018, 5:38 pm

animist wrote:
Nick wrote:
Discussion is not action,
It's an indication of movement in sentiment, though, which must preceded any action.
indications may be wrong and are always subjective, that's the rub
Of course, but is it really sensible to ignore sentiment, the rise of 5 Star, AFD, Trump etc., etc.?
Nick wrote:
and you should not argue from possibilities to realities like the dumb Brexit policy being pursued by people who know not much more than the hoi polloi - see Ian Dunt's recent blog, posted by me.
There's idiocy in all sorts of areas, not least in some of Dunt's blogs! I'd recommend you don't base your views on his! :wink:
I await eagerly your demolition job
WIGABOT! It's folk club tonight!/ :D
Nick wrote:
If you bothered to soil your hands by looking at Leaver forums like Guido Fawkes you would see a mass of spite and hatred which might bother even you.
Oh, certainly, but they are not themselves negotiating Brexit, are they? Unlike Barnier, who is.
no they are not, thank God (what would be interesting would be peek at any Continental equivalents of these yob forums. I suspect that we Brits, some of us anyway, are more obsessed with the rest of the EU than they are with us - who knows). But you have not demonstrated spite on the EU leaders' part as far as I can see
None so blind as those who will not see... :)
Nick wrote:
How were we provoked?
The invasion of Poland and other such provocations...
whatever are you talking about? 1939??
Indeed. And just look at the Versailles Treaty, largely the work of France, and against which Keynes warned at the time.
Nick wrote:
We have been allowed several exemptions and concessions already.
Thank goodness! Now why is the EU so determined not to allow anyone else to adopt such exemptions? It's a ratchet effect, it only goes one way. And given the seeming determination ( of Macron in particular) to push the Project even further, in spite of opposition throughout Europe, I wonder how long the UK would have been allowed to continue, and to resist further destructive integration.
oh dear, that sounds like the Guido site. Look, the EU cannot force countries to integrate if they do not want to
OK, let's put it this way. Suppose a country refuses further integration. The EU will draft a fresh treaty to enhance the "benefits" and then clobber the others by majority votes. Do you really think that won't happen? They haven't shown much magnanimity in defeat before, have they? Denmark, Ireland, France, Greece....?
Nick wrote:
Anyway, give me some concrete examples of irrefutable "spite" emanating from the EU - and I do not count warnings that Britain will suffer by leaving the Single Market as "spite".
Well I do! Other examples? Refusing to discuss anything before money, while threatening a "no deal" just because "the clock is ticking". How does that help anyone? Anyone at all?
the clock is ticking, do you not get it? The Article 50 clock is one agreed in principle by Britain (and in fact devised by a Brit) and activated by Theresa May. The EU27 have nothing to do with the clock, but they reasonably feel they should remind the idiot leaders we have that there is a limit on all the poncing around that we are doing.
Sure, the time is ticking, so don't waste months of it talking about money before talking about the economy! Grrr!! IMO, what should have happened, is for the EU to say "Sorry you want to leave. Obviously we want your departure to be as smooth as possible, for both parties, so let's not be strangled by an arbitrary time-limit which prevents proper consideration and transition". But they don't care a stuff. Not about us. And more seriously, not about their own citizens, either.
Nick wrote:
Look, I don't know anything much about this Galileo project, and the EU may change its mind, since its own plans may be damaged by Britain's exclusion. I know you will not see it this way, but to me it is just one of the myriad ways in which Brexit is destroying what were mutually beneficial arrangements - and the EU is not responsible for Brexit.
Galileo didn't start out as an EU project, nor is there any reason why it should be so exclusive. If Russia and the USA can share the Space Station, then the UK can be part of Galileo. Let's hope the EU sees sense. I have my doubts, though...
ok, I don't know enough to push this
Ok, we'll leave this alone, except to say that there is plenty of scope for co-operation without integration. Any agreement should suit the objective, not rigid structures which have already proved themselves to be flawed in so many ways.
Nick wrote:
what I mean is that interpreting others' speech and behaviour is largely subjective and depends on one's own prejudices; thus you interpret every action or speech of EU ministers defending their own interests as bullying or spite, whereas I don't
That's it! EU ministers are defending the institutions of the EU, not the people of Europe! Just ask the Greeks!
the Greeks and anyone else can leave, can they not? It is hardly for you to decide that the peoples of Europe's interests are not served by the EU.


As Varoufakis said in his book, ideally Greece would not have joined the Euro, but solving the problem within the Euro area would be preferable to leaving the EU. Not least because of the likely reaction of the EU to any such departure.
Nick wrote:
did you read the reason for this proposed exclusion? It expressed concern about the security aspects of parts of the Galileo project.
Clearly ridiculous. We are a mainstay of NATO and perhaps Europe's leading intelligence nation, and we share that with our allies. Leaving the EU won't suddenly mean we are any more (or less) untrustworthy.
maybe not, maybe so. I think that Britain is less felt trustworthy from the European POV because of the way that Brexit is going - that perception may in fact not be rational, but it is understandable given the arrogance shown over here, eg by Bojo and Moggie
Nonsense! Where have either of them said there should be no co-operation on such matters?
Nick wrote:
And if you believe that the UK never threatens to punish the EU, what about Rees-Mogg's threat to ruin the Irish beef industry?
Well, IIRC, JR-M was explaining why tariffs would also hurt Ireland, in just the same way as Remoaners have threatened the ruin of British agricuture. But more crucially, JR-M is not part of the negotiations is he? Unlike Barnier and his ticking clock.
to repeat, is his not his ticking clock, it is Britain's. Yes, Moggie's words could be intrerpreted as a mere statement of risk, as can all those of the EU which you find so bullying
See above re ticking clock. As is mine, must dash! :exit:

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6520
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3371 Post by animist » May 3rd, 2018, 10:17 am

Nick wrote:
Nick wrote: The invasion of Poland and other such provocations...
whatever are you talking about? 1939??
Indeed. And just look at the Versailles Treaty, largely the work of France, and against which Keynes warned at the time.
I am closing this conversation down for now - till you write something reasonable about Ian Dunt's blog. I would like to believe that this response of yours was humorous, but suspect that it is not and puts your other remarks into perspective. Why not mention, while you're at it, Hastings, the Hundred Years War (which the French won, despite Agincourt!), Napoleon and so on?

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

Re: In or out?

#3372 Post by Nick » May 3rd, 2018, 12:00 pm

From today's Times:
Brussels threatens to cut off cash for eastern autocrats

Bruno Waterfield, Brussels
May 3 2018, 12:01am,

Brussels will have powers to cut off cash to countries that fail a new “rule of law” test under the European Union’s first post-Brexit spending plan.

The European Commission’s €1.3 trillion budget for 2021-28, presented by Jean-Claude Juncker yesterday, attempts to fill the hole left in the EU’s coffers by Britain’s exit but risks deepening faultlines across the bloc over divisive issues including refugee quotas and judicial independence.

Mr Juncker, the commission president, anticipating such battles, as well as arguments about how to slice the Brussels pie, urged members to show solidarity in the months ahead. He insisted that the new budget represented an “opportunity to shape our future as a new, ambitious union of 27”.

However, the plan threatens to institutionalise already widening east-west divisions. Poland and Hungary have led protests at the demand that funding be made conditional on passing the new “rule of law” test.

The proposal, described as a “major innovation”, is designed to prevent former eastern bloc countries violating democratic freedoms, and force them to respect EU quotas of refugees, on pain of losing Brussels cash.


“The EU is a community based on the rule of law, which also means that independent courts at national and EU level are entrusted with watching over the respect of our jointly agreed rules and regulations, and of their implementation in all member states,” the proposal states.

If the commission identifies “generalised deficiencies in the rule of law”, following rulings in the EU courts or after criticism from human rights watchdogs such as the Council of Europe, it will be possible “to draw consequences for EU funding”.

The idea is backed strongly by France, Germany and the Netherlands but many eastern European governments resent being forced to accept a western European judicial model.

Mr Juncker insisted that no country was being singled out. “We are proposing a new mechanism that allows us to protect the budget from financial risks linked to general deficiencies in the state of rule of law,” he said.

Hungary and Poland, already in open rebellion and refusing to implement EU migrant quotas despite rulings by the European Court of Justice, are almost certainly in breach of the new requirement, meaning that both could veto the budget. “We will not accept arbitrary mechanisms that will make the funds a made-to-order instrument of political pressure,” Konrad Szymanski, Poland’s European affairs minister, said.

Poland is also involved in a row with the EU over reforms to its constitutional court. Separately, Romania has been warned over judicial reforms.

Another bone of contention is a planned 9.3 per cent increase in payments from all members over the next decade, a change likely to trigger revolt among northern European nations who say that they already pay more than their fair share. For Germany, the EU’s main budget contributor, the increase would mean payments of more than €10 billion a year.

A statement by Olaf Scholz, Germany’s finance minister, and Heiko Maas, the foreign minister, emphasised that the proposal needed to be fair. “The commission’s proposal would markedly increase Germany’s contribution to the budget,” they noted.

Stef Blok, the Dutch foreign minister, expressed reservations. “The present proposal is unacceptable for the Dutch government,” he said. “EU income is declining due to the departure of the United Kingdom. If income falls, we will need to spend less.”

Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister, agreed. “A smaller EU should mean a smaller budget,” he said.

Sebastian Kurz, the Austrian chancellor, conceded that while there were positive elements to the proposed budget it was not acceptable in its present form. “For us an acceptable solution is still a long way away,” he told reporters. He warned of hard and long negotiations to come.

His Austrian People’s Party faction in the European parliament struck a more positive tone, saying the proposal was a “step in the right direction and a suitable basis for tough negotiations”.

Mr Juncker insisted that there was “no massacre” in the cost savings identified, but few farmers would agree. Across the continent farmers were to suffer a 5 per cent reduction to their subsidies. That triggered anger in France, where the “drastic, massive and blind cut” was described as “simply unthinkable”.

Southern, central and eastern European countries will be hard hit by a 7 per cent cut to regional funding for poor areas. There was, however, good news for young people across Europe: included in the spending increases is a proposal for a €700 million fund to give teenagers a free Interrail train pass on their 18th birthday.

coffee
Posts: 1531
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: In or out?

#3373 Post by coffee » May 3rd, 2018, 12:08 pm

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6520
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3374 Post by animist » May 3rd, 2018, 1:29 pm

Nick wrote:From today's Times:
Brussels threatens to cut off cash for eastern autocrats
well done for standing up for democracy, EU! The surprise should not be that former Communist countries like Poland and Hungary are not as democratic as they should be but that they are so much more so than before membership of the EU

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

Re: In or out?

#3375 Post by Nick » May 3rd, 2018, 4:19 pm

animist wrote:
Nick wrote:From today's Times:
Brussels threatens to cut off cash for eastern autocrats
well done for standing up for democracy, EU! The surprise should not be that former Communist countries like Poland and Hungary are not as democratic as they should be but that they are so much more so than before membership of the EU
Hmmm... Eastern European countries decide democratically that they don't want thousands and thousands of immigrants, and are threatened by the EU. I see. That sort of democratic.

Furthermore the current EU regime is causing upset in both the donors and the donees. As well as France, which is both. Almost whatever happens, support for the EU seems likely to fall. Not good for the EU's future.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6520
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3376 Post by animist » May 3rd, 2018, 7:24 pm

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:
Nick wrote:From today's Times:
well done for standing up for democracy, EU! The surprise should not be that former Communist countries like Poland and Hungary are not as democratic as they should be but that they are so much more so than before membership of the EU
Hmmm... Eastern European countries decide democratically that they don't want thousands and thousands of immigrants, and are threatened by the EU. I see. That sort of democratic.

Furthermore the current EU regime is causing upset in both the donors and the donees. As well as France, which is both. Almost whatever happens, support for the EU seems likely to fall. Not good for the EU's future.
get on with the Dunt assignment :D

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

Re: In or out?

#3377 Post by Nick » May 4th, 2018, 10:02 am

animist wrote:get on with the Dunt assignment :D
B-b-b-but Sir!!

WhatassignmentohyesthatoneyeahbutnobutyeahI'vedoneitwellIwouldhavedoneexceptwewereinvadedbyaliensandinanycasethedogateit......innit.

Fine weather at last. Must do stuff, but later.... :)

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6520
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3378 Post by animist » May 4th, 2018, 8:43 pm

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:get on with the Dunt assignment :D
B-b-b-but Sir!!

WhatassignmentohyesthatoneyeahbutnobutyeahI'vedoneitwellIwouldhavedoneexceptwewereinvadedbyaliensandinanycasethedogateit......innit.

Fine weather at last. Must do stuff, but later.... :)
later, how much later??? Get your ass down to East Grinstead and my U3A Brexit Group. You will be a star, somewhat younger than the rest of us, a genuine and informed Brexiter :D :D

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24048
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3379 Post by Alan H » May 5th, 2018, 11:18 am

Post-Brexit port checks could disrupt fresh food supplies, say freight bosses
Food staples including lettuce, tomatoes and beef could be in short supply or even disappear from supermarket shelves after Brexit because of disruptive checks that will need to be conducted at ports, Eurotunnel and freight industry chiefs have said.

Scores of continental favourites that currently sail and rail through the French border – including oranges, lemons and avocados from Spain and fresh flowers from Holland – will be subject to phytosanitary checks in addition to customs checks after Brexit.

“Controls can take a few minutes to 48 hours if a laboratory test needs to be done,” John Keefe, the director of public affairs at Getlink, the new name for Eurotunnel Group, told the annual Multimodal logistics conference in Birmingham.

“Coming in through the Channel tunnel on an everyday basis are food, flowers … If the government turn round at the end of Brexit negotiations and say: ‘Sorry consumers, you will no longer be able to have fresh strawberries or fresh lettuce or fruits de mer from France, there is likely to be a strong reaction from consumers. If we go backwards from frictionless border, then we really have lost from Brexit.”

There will also have to be checks in Calais and other continental ports for British exports, meaning French diners may have to do without Scottish salmon or langoustines. Supplies of such foods from Scotland rotted on the roadside in 2015, the last time there were major delays in the ports.

Keefe said 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.
Unfortunately, this article, like many others, completely misunderstands the concept of queues and throughput.
Somehow we’ve got to get a few hours down to two minutes otherwise there will be a perpetual queue of 17 miles.
The queue doesn't magically stop at 17 miles or any other length: if the customs' posts can't (on average) deal with lorries at the same rate at which they are joining the back of the queue (on average), then the queue can only get longer, and longer...
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: 24048
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3380 Post by Alan H » May 5th, 2018, 1:06 pm

Fear and Loathing: How the Eurosceptics have blown the Brexit talks wide open
The victorious challenge against Theresa May by hardline eurosceptics this week is a decisive moment in the negotiations.

"This is an inflection point," says a source close to the British negotiating team. "This is no longer about technical solutions. It has become a matter of high politics."

The showdown with the European Research Group (ERG), led by arch-eurosceptic Jacob Rees-Mogg, also reveals some startling things: the first is that her so-called customs partnership would have kept Britain de facto in the customs union well beyond the two-year transition period.

The second is a manoeuvre by London to reinterpret the backstop solution for the Irish border contained within last December’s deal between the EU and UK.

Ostensibly, the group of 60-odd Tory eurosceptics laid down the gauntlet over the Prime Minister’s preferred solution to the Irish border dilemma.
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: 24048
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3381 Post by Alan H » May 5th, 2018, 8:22 pm

EU-wide information system threatened by Brexit used by UK 539 million times every year, police say
An EU-wide database that is used by British police 539 million times every year is among the “vital” tools against crime and terrorism that could be lost after Brexit, officials have warned.

Police and intelligence services told a parliamentary committee they are “hoping for the best but planning for the worst” outcome from a proposed UK-EU security treaty.

Although there is will to retain cooperation on both sides, there is no guarantee that Britain will retain its current levels of access to Europol, the European Arrest Warrant, Prüm Convention on DNA data and European Criminal Records Information Exchange System (ECRIS).
Just as well it was the Will of the People™.
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