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?

#3481 Post by Alan H » May 28th, 2018, 12:19 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

The Galileo space row shows the mess of Brexit in microcosm
We cannot leave the EU and retain all the rights we had as members, as the tussle over this vital satellite system shows

‘The government’s position is that the UK wants to retain its participation in Galileo, including access to classified data from the satellite system needed for security and defence.’ Photograph: Pierre Carril/ESA/PA
A row over the UK’s access to the Galileo project, the European satellite global-positioning system used both for civil and military purposes, is the latest tussle about what Brexit would mean for British science and technology. For all the familiar, rhetorical huffing and puffing, the dispute is another illustration of the myriad small-print complexities that need to be resolved if the UK departs from the EU.
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?

#3482 Post by Alan H » May 28th, 2018, 2:54 pm

Well, we did vote to leave it, didn't we? Boris Johnson launches fresh attack on customs union
Boris Johnson has stressed the need for the UK to come “fully out” of the EU customs union if the UK is to be a global trading nation.

Johnson said his recent trip to Latin America – during which he urged the prime minister to “get on with it” and take Britain out of the customs union “as fast as is reasonably possible” – made it clear that potential trading partners wanted the UK to leave the EU tariffs arrangement.

Writing in the Telegraph, Johnson said: “Now is our moment not to be less European – we can do a great free trade deal with the EU that will benefit both sides – but to be truly global again.”

He said it was time to create deals with the “dynamic countries” he had visited “but our Latin American partners are emphatic: if this is to work, we must come fully out of the EU customs union”. If the UK is to be a “valid trading partner, then we must take back control – as the PM has said – of our tariff schedules, and do deals that are unhindered and uncomplicated”.
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?

#3483 Post by animist » May 29th, 2018, 2:55 pm

would you believe it? A Brexit warning in the Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -ruin.html

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

Re: In or out?

#3484 Post by Alan H » May 30th, 2018, 6:08 pm

A thread on Twitter
.@theresa_may So you, through your spokesman, today hit back at the EU, noting that Brexit negotiations need to be approached "with the interests of citizens at heart". Let's take a moment to look at that: 1/
.@theresa_may This is you. Before you even became PM. Making clear @The3Million of us would be made part of the negotiations. People, their futures, made bargaining chips. By you. Nobody else.
Theresa May admits future of EU citizens living in the UK is uncertain
Theresa May has warned that the future of European Union citizens living inside the UK is uncertain and their status will be part of any Brexit negotiations.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 16971.html
2/
.@theresa_may This is you. Refusing three times in a row to guarantee the rights of us @The3Million were there to be no deal.
Theresa May Can’t Guarantee Rights Of EU Citizens If There’s No Brexit Deal
After being asked three times if EU citizens would be able to stay in the UK in a "no deal" outcome, Theresa May couldn't give an answer.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/ ... s-no-deal/
3/
.@theresa_may This is you. Pulling a publicity stunt about settled status. Let's be clear: it is a forced application process by the end of which we will have fewer rights than before. By the end of which some of us will have fallen through the cracks.
Theresa May writes to EU citizens in UK to reassure them over post-Brexit status
Prime minister will send email directly to 100,000 EU citizens saying: ‘I couldn’t be clearer: EU citizens lawfully in the UK will be able to stay’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-status
4/
.@theresa_may This is you. Advancing a Data Protection Bill that includes an immigration exemption. For anyone in an immigration procedure - because of settled status this will soon include us @The3Million - this means *no* data protection rights.
Data rules threaten 'last avenue' used in thousands of immigration cases
Home Office figures show there were almost 25,950 subject access requests for files in 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... tion-cases
5/
.@theresa_may This is you. Making money from those @BritishInEurope who have chosen to apply for citizenship of an EU27 country to secure their future - something many are doing at least partly because you have not helped them with anything.
Government hikes fees to renounce British citizenship after Brexit foreign nationality surge
The Home Office has hiked fees sharply for UK nationals to renounce their British nationality, following a Brexit surge in people adopting the citizenship of other European countries. Ministers were …
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 69706.html
6/
.@theresa_may This is you. Lying about citizens' rights. Yet again.
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Theresa May

@theresa_may
I made it clear that any deal guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living in the UK would be dependent on such an offer being reciprocated for our UK nationals in the remaining Member States - and that's exactly what we've achieved: https://www.facebook.com/notes/road-to- ... 625623654/

6:31 PM - Dec 19, 2017
739
544 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
7/
.@theresa_may This is you. Making sure our rights were not unilaterally agreed at the earliest opportunity.
Theresa May 'blocked' Cameron from offering EU citizens right to stay after Brexit
Theresa May blocked David Cameron's attempts to reassure EU citizens in the UK of their rights following last year's referendum, it has been reported.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-m ... xit-2017-6
8/
.@theresa_may This is you. One number: 704. That's the number of days millions of people have been living in limbo now. Because of all of your actions above. That's
16,896 hours
1,013,760 minutes
60,825,600 seconds
too many. Tomorrow it will be the number 705. etc. 9/
.@theresa_may And of course all of that is you before we even get to you robbing millions of Britons in the UK, millions of young people here, of their EU citizen rights. 10/
.@theresa_may So because of all of this, you really do not get to mention the words 'interests of citizens' and 'at heart' at the same time. There is no high horse here that you get to sit on. Only shame. For you. 11/11
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?

#3485 Post by Alan H » May 31st, 2018, 3:41 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? HOUSE OF LORDS European Union Committee 14th Report of Session 2017–19 HL Paper 129 Brexit: food prices and availability
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Tariffs

1. The Government hopes to negotiate a free trade agreement that would allow tariff-free imports of food from the EU to continue. If an agreement cannot be reached, however, the default position would be for World Trade Organization tariffs to apply. (Paragraph 18)

2. While estimates vary, if tariffs were imposed based on EU most-favourednation rates it seems highly probable that food prices for UK consumers would rise. (Paragraph 19)

3. We acknowledge the Minister’s argument that food prices are affected by a wide range of factors, and fluctuate frequently. But all this means is that price rises resulting from tariffs would be on top of increases that would have occurred anyway. We do not share the Minister’s view that these levels of price increases would be marginal for UK food consumers. (Paragraph 20)

4. A number of witnesses to this inquiry stressed the importance of maintaining tariff-free trade with the EU. Given the potential impact of tariffs on food imports for consumers, we endorse their view. (Paragraph 21)

5. Agreements negotiated by the EU have allowed the UK to benefit from lowtariff or tariff-free imports of food from non-EU countries. (Paragraph 33)

6. The UK Government is confident that the majority of these agreements can be easily ‘rolled over’ and the status quo maintained. This is not, however, a guaranteed outcome, either during any transition period or afterwards. If current arrangements are not maintained, it is likely that the sudden imposition of tariffs and loss of tariff rate quotas would affect the price and availability of food for UK consumers. (Paragraph 34)

7. The Government should urgently seek agreement from the relevant third countries that existing FTAs will continued to be honoured during the transition period. Determining which might continue to apply post-December 2020 (or post-March 2019 if no transition arrangement is agreed) and which will need to be renegotiated will then become the priority. (Paragraph 35)

Non-tariff barriers

8. The Government hopes to negotiate an agreement with the EU that will allow the ‘frictionless’ import of food to the UK to continue. This was a clear priority for witnesses and, given its importance to the UK’s food supply, we strongly support this objective. It is not, however, a guaranteed outcome. We note that there will only be 21 months to negotiate a FTA and that, at the time of writing, there is a significant gulf between the ‘red lines’ set out by the EU and the UK Government, which will need to be bridged to achieve frictionless trade. (Paragraph 59)

9. The Minister told us that if no agreement is reached, the UK could decide to minimise the impact of non-tariff barriers by placing very minimal checks on imports from the EU. We note, however, that the UK Government would at the very least be obliged to comply with WTO rules. To provide much needed clarity to the industry, we urge the Government to publish exactly what customs and border requirements it would put in place on EU food imports in that situation. (Paragraph 60)

10. While the extent of future non-tariff barriers is unknown, it seems unavoidable that in either a ‘deal’ or ‘no deal’ scenario Brexit will result in some additional border checks and documentation requirements for food imported from the EU to the UK. These will increase the time it takes for food to reach shop shelves and result in additional costs to businesses, which may be passed on to consumers through food price rises. (Paragraph 61)

11. Based on the evidence we have heard, we do not believe the UK’s ports and airports will be able to cope with the additional workload that new checks will create, and this will add significantly to the import timescales. Significant delays will disrupt the ‘Just-In-Time’ supply chains that food manufacturers and retailers depend on and could affect the availability of food. We urge the Government to conduct a thorough assessment of the additional staffing, infrastructure and IT requirements that differing levels of post-Brexit border and customs checks would require. (Paragraph 62)

12. In determining post-Brexit arrangements, the UK Government will need to balance the need to maintain easy access to EU food imports with the need to maintain food standards through adequate checks on imports. The Minister’s suggestion of minimal checks on EU imports appears at odds with the Government’s obligations under the WTO and its commitment to maintain food safety and animal welfare standards. (Paragraph 63)

13. Regardless of the customs and border arrangements that the UK puts in place for imports, EU countries exporting food to the UK will have additional checks and documentation to complete. It seems probable that the costs associated with this will affect the price of food in the UK. (Paragraph 68)

14. These additional checks will create resource requirements for border and customs agencies, and ports and airports, in EU countries. Just as a lack of capacity at UK entry points would result in delays and affect food availability, a lack of capacity at EU exit points would affect the price and availability of food in the UK. (Paragraph 69)

Increasing self-sufficiency

15. The UK is capable of producing more of its own food, so if post-Brexit tariff and non-tariff barriers were to make EU imports less competitive, domestic production might be stimulated. There are differing opinions, however, about the effect that this would have on food prices for consumers. (Paragraph 73)

16. We note that increasing domestic food production will require long-term investment decisions: it would not be possible to increase food production in time to meet any immediate availability challenges posed by Brexit. (Paragraph 75)

17. UK consumers have become accustomed to being able to buy a wide variety of foods all year round, and it will not be possible to meet this demand from purely domestic production. (Paragraph 77)

18. Lack of access to EU labour, post-Brexit, could lead to an increase in recruitment and overtime costs, or alternatively food producers could seek to attract additional domestic workers by paying higher wages. Such cost increases may have to be passed on to consumers, or else some businesses may cease to be viable, reducing the UK’s ability to produce its own food, with a potential knock-on effect upon availability for consumers. (Paragraph 88)

19. We reiterate the recommendation made in our report on Brexit: agriculture that the Government should ensure that the skills needed by the agricultural sector are recognised when assessing labour needs and access to non-UK labour after Brexit, and further recommend that this should be extended to consider the labour needs across the food supply chain. (Paragraph 89)

20. Long-term investment will be needed to maximise the potential for technology to reduce the number of staff required for UK food production. We welcome the Government’s recent announcement of additional funding for technological innovation in the agri-food sector, but reiterate the conclusion of our Brexit: agriculture report, that technology cannot reduce demand for EU labour in the short term. (Paragraph 90)

21. Increasing agricultural production will require financial incentives and investment. This could be a way of maintaining, or increasing, food availability post-Brexit, but the cost would have to be met by the UK taxpayer. (Paragraph 94)

22. UK food production is dependent on a variety of raw materials and supplies imported from the EU. As these imports will be affected by any post-Brexit tariff and non-tariff barriers, increasing the amount of food produced in the UK would not necessarily avoid these extra costs and disruptions (Paragraph 97)

Importing more food from non-EU countries

23. When it leaves the EU, the UK will be able to negotiate new trade agreements with non-EU countries. This could offer an alternative to EU imports, if these become more expensive or less available, and could result in cheaper food prices for consumers. (Paragraph 115)

24. Not all types of food currently imported from the EU, however, could be easily substituted like-for-like with non-EU imports. (Paragraph 116)

25. We have heard significant concerns from a range of organisations, during this inquiry and previous inquiries, that cheaper food imported from nonEU countries is likely to have been produced to lower animal welfare and food safety standards, and that it could undermine the competitiveness of UK producers. (Paragraph 117)

26. We welcome the Government’s commitment that animal welfare standards will be maintained. We reiterate the conclusion of our ‘Brexit: agriculture’ inquiry, however, that it will be difficult to reconcile this commitment with a desire to become a global leader in free trade. Ensuring food imports meet UK standards will require a rigorous inspection regime, and we call on the Government to detail what arrangements it will put in place to implement such a regime. (Paragraph 118)

27. We note that some witnesses, including the Minister, feel opportunities for new trade deals are limited. Given that, and given the Government’s commitment to ensuring imports meet UK standards, it seems unlikely that imports from outside the EU will have much effect on the price or availability of food. (Paragraph 119)

Food security for all

28. Food inequality already exists in the UK, but there is a risk that this inequality could increase following Brexit. (Paragraph 127)

29. Food security is critically important, but agreeing on the best way to provide food security raises tensions between the different priorities we have considered during this inquiry. As the UK prepares to leave the EU, it is unclear whether the Government’s goal is maintaining or even reducing food prices, or maintaining high animal welfare and food safety standards; protecting UK producers, or seeking new trade agreements with other countries. (Paragraph 128)

30. We agree with witnesses to this inquiry that the Government should produce, with some urgency, a comprehensive food strategy for the UK that sets a clear policy direction for ensuring the UK’s food security in a post-Brexit world. (Paragraph 129)
Remind me again why the fuck the Tories are doing this to us?
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?

#3486 Post by Alan H » May 31st, 2018, 6:23 pm

THis Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Lloyd's of London relocates staff from the City to Brussels in time for Brexit
Lloyd's of London today said its desire to be at the “heart of Europe” was behind its decision to move staff from the City to Brussels.

The specialist insurance market will shift some functions from London to the Belgian capital by January 2019 after being given permission to open a subsidiary.

Its departure is seen as the first major move by a City firm to continental Europe following the EU referendum.

Chairman Bruce Carnegie-Brown said they had chosen Brussels because it had proven to be “constructive” in helping Lloyd’s adapt to new regulations.

He told Radio 4’s Today programme: “The proximity to London was extremely helpful, having the trains as well as the planes… and we wanted to be at the heart of Europe, and it would be hard to argue that Brussels is anywhere other than at the heart of Europe.”

He said the move would give certainty to its customers. It is expected to move about 40 of its 600 UK-based jobs to Brussels.

A trio of senior Tories — Amber Rudd, Justine Greening and Damian Green — yesterday held talks with Theresa May in Downing Street calling for a “sensible Brexit”.
Anyone know anything about this 'sensible Brexit'?
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?

#3487 Post by Alan H » May 31st, 2018, 7:21 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Post-Brexit trade: business leaders tell May time is running out
Industrialists demand clarity and say trade must be as frictionless as with customs union

Leading European industrialists, including bosses from BP, Nestlé, E.ON and Royal Mail, have warned Theresa May that time is running out and said businesses want post-Brexit trade with the EU to be as frictionless as with a customs union.

At a private meeting in Downing Street with the prime minister and the Brexit secretary, David Davis, senior business figures from the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) warned that “uncertainty causes less investment”.

May has only committed to ensuring “trade at the UK-EU border should be as frictionless as possible”, a phrase repeated by a Downing Street spokesman after the meeting.

In a joint statement, the business leaders said they had expressed their concerns to May and warned there was an urgent need for clarity.

“The uninterrupted flow of goods is essential to both the EU and UK economies,” the statement said. “This must be frictionless as with a customs union. We need clarity and certainty, because time is running out. Uncertainty causes less investment.”
When May going to providing this long-promised certainty?
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?

#3488 Post by Alan H » May 31st, 2018, 7:55 pm

Does PM secretly hope to lose Commons’ customs vote?

I saw "Customs and Regulatory Alignment Period" on a screen behind politicians in a TV studio and assumed it'd been Photoshopped. It hasn't.

I can still hear the civil servant who thought that up laughing...
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?

#3489 Post by Alan H » May 31st, 2018, 10:35 pm

The seven deadly trade lies that Brexiteers tell us
Brexiteers like to tell us all that they are free traders. But, as with just about everything else in the echo chamber they’ve built for themselves, the claim fails to stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.

As the UK attempts to find a second-rate substitute for a trade relationship with 500 million people right on our doorstep, in the second stage of the Brexit negotiations, you’re likely to hear a lot of nonsense from the Outers on the subject. These are the biggest whoppers to watch out for:

1 The European Union is a “protectionist cartel”

This is the biggest lie of all. The EU has more Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) than the US, including with South Korea, Mexico (recently upgraded) and Canada, and one with Japan in the pipeline. As a result, the average tariff rates imposed by the EU are below 3%, lower than the US.

2 FTAs deliver free trade

Yes, they largely eliminate tariffs — but they do little to remove the non-tariff barriers which are much more important for rich countries, and do little to reduce barriers affecting services.

A Canada-style FTA with the EU will mean that car manufacturers will still be able to sell cars into the EU tariff-free. But only provided the car adheres to EU standards and the manufacturer builds a huge bureaucracy to handle the paperwork, and rebuilds its supply chains to deal with border delays and satisfy requirements on rules of origin.

Whether car manufacturers think the additional cost of all this leaves their UK operations profitable is another matter. But what is indisputable is that, outside the single market, a London-based bank which previously used EU “passporting” rights to provide services to EU clients will no longer be able to operate in the same way. That is why financial service firms are moving people and capital (and the tax receipts associated with them) to new subsidiaries in the EU.

3 We need new FTAs to trade with the world

Again, total nonsense. The lack of an FTA doesn’t stop German exporters trading very successfully with China, for instance. The fact that the UK’s goods exports to China are only a fifth of Germany’s is patently not down to the lack of an FTA.

4 Free movement of labour is not required for free trade

Of course it is. One only has to consider the case of lorry drivers working across the EU or people providing cross-border services to realise that the ability to work without hindrance across the EU’s single market is crucial.

5 You don’t need a common legal framework to have free trade

I’m afraid you do. The beating heart of the world’s only true multinational free-trade area, the EU’s single market, are its common regulatory and legal systems. Only through their existence has the EU been able to eliminate non-tariff barriers and to free up trade in both goods and services.

6 Distance no longer matters

Utter nonsense. There is a rock-solid statistical relationship that the degree of trade between countries is in large part determined by geographical proximity. There is a reason that the UK exports around four times more to Ireland than to India. And it’s got nothing to do with the lack of an FTA with India.

7 FTAs can make up for what we lose on leaving the EU

Free-trade agreements actually do very little to boost growth. Indeed, there is no scenario whereby any number of FTAs could ever make up for the economic damage caused by the UK leaving the customs union and single market. That is indisputable.

To paraphrase one of Britain’s most eminent economists, the so-called “free-trade” Brexiteers follow an ideology based on the economics of a first-year undergraduate who only listened to a third of his or her lectures.

Even the most feckless of undergraduates learns that free trade is good. But only those who listened to the other two-thirds of their lectures learned what free trade actually entails: removing non-tariff barriers to trade, particularly in services.

That is precisely what the EU’s single market, so enthusiastically championed by Margaret Thatcher, has delivered.

Reintroducing barriers to trade with the world’s largest single market (and the destination for almost half the UK’s exports) is not promoting free trade: quite the opposite.

Indeed, the Brexiteers’ favoured new customs arrangement with the EU would, HMRC estimates, cost businesses an additional £17 billion to £20 billion a year. Far from delivering free trade, the Brexiteers are actually leading the UK towards its most significant imposition of new barriers to trade since at least the war.

They really should have paid more attention in their lectures.
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?

#3490 Post by Alan H » June 1st, 2018, 1:02 pm

Ian Dunt's Friday email:
Eskimo languages supposedly have lots of words for snow. Brexit language should really develop more for the notion of wasting time. For over a month now, ministers have been locked behind closed doors, in ever more ludicrous 'war Cabinet' formations, trying to decide on whether they will pursue a 'customs partnership' or technological solutions - shortened to 'max-fac' - to the Irish border question.

There was never any point to this. Both ideas had been rejected by Europe - they would be rejected by any responsible economic operator - and were anyway completely impossible. But weeks were spent thrashing them out anyway, as the Article 50 clock ticked down. Now they have disappeared.

Today's edition of the Sun has a scoop, if you can call it that, on some new ideas from David Davis' department. The customs partnership idea is dead. It is "going nowhere" a senior figure has told the newspaper. That's not really surprising. Brussels thought it was risible, Remainers thought it was crazy, and Brexiters hated it too because they feared it was a Trojan Horse for full Customs Union membership (it wasn't).

Instead, there is a new idea for the so-called max-fac model, where technology will be thrown at the problem to make it go away. The new idea for the model is to kill it. Davis was "persuaded to abandon a technology-based solution to keep the Irish border open". This is branded "a major revision of the 'maximum facilitation' option". It's like a doctor leaving an operating theatre where someone has died and informing relatives that there has been a 'major revision' to their loved one.

"Max-fac doesn’t look like anything it used to for Northern Ireland now, because the technology has been stripped out," a Whitehall source told the newspaper. "But it doesn’t matter what we call it as long as it works, and we think it will." You could buy these ministers a biscuit and sell them a Mercedes, they'd be none the wiser.

So far, we have two dead unicorns. But fear not. A wizard has arrived to bring new ones to life.

Instead of the old models, Davis is apparently going to create a "double-hatted" regime of joint EU and UK regulation in Northern Ireland. In addition, there will be a ten-mile "buffer zone" to remove the need for a border.

What the first part means is anyone's guess. Different factories producing products to different specifications? Nutritional information printed in two different formats? Genetically modified crops simultaneously banned and not banned, in some sort of Schrodinger phantom zone? Perhaps the death and rebirth of the max-fac option has persuaded ministers that all of objective reality is a myth. All things can exist and not exist at the same time.

The idea of a buffer zone has marginally more sense to it. Some customs borders, like Norway-Sweden, use this, operating slightly into each other's jurisdictions as part of an intelligence-sharing approach. But they are in the same regulatory zone, by virtue of the single market membership Brexiters have rejected. And even here, after years of cooperation and shared regulation, there is still a border and lorries are still stopped.

Finally, even if all these points were not true, the plan would not be accepted by the DUP or the EU, because it still involves a border either in Ireland or in the Irish sea. Or perhaps both, given the weird nature of the proposal. So it doesn't actually do the thing it is supposed to do, even though its authors have broken the laws of causation, logic and language in order to create it. It is impossible and pointless, simultaneously. It's like dreaming up a new superhero to fight crime and giving him the power of sitting down.

So again, another week passes, the timetable shrinks a little further, and the signs of failure become ever-more obvious. It should be deeply alarming to see a government department release this kind of material. It indicates that they have run through the period of in-fighting and despair and are now simply desperate.
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?

#3491 Post by Alan H » June 1st, 2018, 2:36 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Trump’s shot across the bows at Brexit Britain
The tariffs have been introduced under rarely used and old trade legislation that invokes 'national security'. There is no way steel qualifies nowadays, and this is plainly an excuse for the Trump administration to play protectionism to its core supporters. Others can now cite national security as an excuse to hit back, and so on, bypassing established rules and procedures altogether.

More worryingly, using the same national security cloak, the US announced last month that it was investigating the application of 25% tariffs against imported automobiles and parts. Cue a proper klaxon this time. Cars are big business for Germany, among others, and also for the UK. According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the UK car industry employs 169,000 people directly, and 814,000 including components suppliers and broader support activities. It's a core, and highly efficient, part of our manufacturing and export base (12% of total exports and 15% of car exports go to the US).

For Brexit Britain, America's new trade policies are of the utmost significance. Not least to trade secretary Liam Fox, who said last year that new trade negotiations with the US would begin imminently. Yesterday, he confessed he was disappointed with the US steel action. Disappointed? He should have been fuming on our behalf.
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?

#3492 Post by Alan H » June 1st, 2018, 2:40 pm

Letter to Iain Duncan Smith from Andrew Adonis:
screenshot-www.facebook.com-2018-06-01-14-37-14-207.png
screenshot-www.facebook.com-2018-06-01-14-37-14-207.png (335.29 KiB) Viewed 1968 times
Do you think we should all 'find somewhere else to live' and leave the UK to the Brexiters?
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?

#3493 Post by Alan H » June 1st, 2018, 7:38 pm

Another Referendum
Nor does it cut much ice to argue that a further vote prior to actually leaving in March 2019 is impossible because the full future terms will not be known by that point. If that is given as a reason, it applies even more strongly to the 2016 Referendum, when far less was known about the possible contours of the future terms. If a vote now would be invalid without knowing the full terms, the vote then was all the more so. It is true that it would be far better to know the full future terms before voting. But that has been precluded by the government’s actions in starting the Article 50 process without ascertaining the public’s view on what exit terms they wanted to government to, at least, pursue on their behalf.
The more important objection is that it would leave a legacy of bitterness and betrayal, whatever the outcome, especially if, as seems highly likely, that outcome were again to be very close. But we all need to face up to the hard fact that the same is true however events now unfold. It arises as an inevitable consequence of the way the Referendum was set up, of the way the campaign was conducted and, perhaps more than anything else, of the way that the Government took such a narrow vote and interpreted it in so extreme a way, a way so contemptuous of the 48% who voted to stay in (and, for that matter, may of the 52% who voted to leave). If that hadn’t happened, many remainers would have been unreconciled to Brexit but would not, I believe, still be so implacably and intransigently opposed to it.
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?

#3494 Post by Alan H » June 2nd, 2018, 12:02 am

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?

#3495 Post by Alan H » June 2nd, 2018, 11:19 am

Has Davis dropped his barmy Thursday idea for solving the self-imposed Ireland border issue yet? Brexit: David Davis mocked for 'fantastical' plans for Northern Ireland 'buffer zone'
David Davis has been mocked for coming up with "fantastical" solutions to the Irish border row after it emerged the government is considering a "buffer zone" between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Pro-EU MPs accused the government of "making it up as they go along" as reports suggested the Brexit secretary was drawing up plans for a 10-mile area around the 310-mile border, under which local traders could operate under both UK and EU rules at the same time.

The Department for Exiting the EU (DexEU) declined to comment directly on the plans but confirmed that work was underway to refine post-Brexit customs options.

Ministers are under pressure to come up with a solution to the thorny issue of future customs arrangements on the island of Ireland amid fears that new infrastructure on the border could lead to a return to violence.

Theresa May's cabinet is split down the middle between the prime minister's preferred "customs partnership", where the UK would collect tariffs on behalf of the EU, and the Brexiteers favoured "maximum facilitation" solution, where technology is deployed to avoid border checks.

Both options have already been dismissed by Brussels and pressure is mounting on the government to agree a position before a crunch EU summit later this month.
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?

#3496 Post by Alan H » June 2nd, 2018, 11:22 am

But, no worries. She has another two weeks to solve her little problem. That'll be plenty of time for her top-notch, high-calibre ministers, won't it? Government gives Theresa May two weeks to solve Border issue
British prime minister Theresa May has two weeks to table written proposals on how to solve the Irish Border issue in order to avoid a Brexit crisis at a crucial EU summit later this month, the Government has said.

Tánaiste Simon Coveney says the European Union taskforce, led by Michel Barnier, must receive detailed proposals in writing from the British government within a fortnight.

This would allow time to debate and discuss the proposals ahead of the European Council meeting on June 28th and 29th. The Government has said substantial progress on the Border, including the so-called “backstop”, must be made by this summit.

“In the next two weeks, we need to see written proposals,” Mr Coveney told The Irish Times. “It needs to happen two weeks from the summit.”

Mr Coveney’s warning reflects increasing exasperation in Dublin and Brussels that no firm proposals have emerged from London, with just weeks until the summit.

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, Mr Coveney and other senior Ministers such as Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe have repeatedly told their UK counterparts that such proposals are needed soon.
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?

#3497 Post by Alan H » June 2nd, 2018, 1:59 pm

Thread by @GuitarMoog
The Logic of Brexit.

Leave a Free Trade Area to trade more freely

Leave trade agreements to get new trade agreements

Weaken influence to become stronger

Turn inward to be more global

Opt out by opting in

Welcome people by being hostile
1/
Avoid customs checks by leaving a Customs Union

Keep access to the single market by leaving the single market

Maintain an invisible border by installing infrastructure

Cut red tape by adding to it

Boost investment by creating uncertainty

2/
Boost jobs by reducing growth

Take responsibility by blaming others

Unite by creating divisions

Respect the Union by ignoring the wishes of its nations.

Enhance devolution by centralising power

3/
Protect Consumers by reducing standards

Help workers by removing guarantees of rights

Put people first by making them poorer

Save the NHS by driving doctors and nurses away

Bolster public services by reducing tax-take

4/
Keep the exact-same rights by removing some of them

Tackle environmental threats by leaving an environmental regulator

Ensure security by leaving security cooperation structures

Help farmers by stopping subsidies and making their markets harder to access

5/
Help research by making funding and cooperation harder

Guarantee peace by undermining the GFA

Save money by recreating the present at substantial cost

Bring clarity by creating confusion

6/
Replace reality with fantasy

Evidence with blind faith

Honesty with dishonesty

Policy with bullshit

Strategy with blagging

Possible with impossible

Leading with following

Richer with poorer

Sanity with insanity

The future with a non-existent past

7/7
(Abandon punctuation to save space)
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?

#3498 Post by animist » June 2nd, 2018, 3:12 pm

Alan H wrote:But, no worries. She has another two weeks to solve her little problem. That'll be plenty of time for her top-notch, high-calibre ministers, won't it? Government gives Theresa May two weeks to solve Border issue
sounds odd till you realise that it's the IRISH Government! So what happens if/when the Brits fail to meet the deadline?

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

Re: In or out?

#3499 Post by Alan H » June 3rd, 2018, 11:50 am

If only there was someone strong and stable who could give us the certainty we all need in this time of crisis... Government plays down Brexit 'armageddon' fears
The government has sought to play down the risks of a “no deal” Brexit after leaked advice from Whitehall warned of shortages of food, fuel and medication if Britain leaves without a deal.

Three scenarios drawn up in Whitehall and obtained by the Sunday Times – the worst referred to as “armageddon” – lay out the consequences should Britain walk away from the negotiating table.

“In the second scenario, not even the worst, the port of Dover will collapse on day one. The supermarkets of Cornwall and Scotland will run out of food within a couple of days, and hospitals will run out of medicines within two weeks,” a source told the Sunday Times.

Officials would have to charter planes to airlift medicines into the country, the plans suggest, and within a fortnight petrol would also be in short supply.

The government has suggested it would temporarily waive tariffs and border checks on goods entering Britain in the event of a no-deal scenario, in an effort to minimise disruption at borders. But the EU could still halt the flow of goods in the opposite direction.

Meanwhile, EU agreements on everything from medicines regulation to aviation govern key aspects of everyday life, and it has not yet been agreed whether, and how, Britain could continue to benefit from them as a “third country”.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

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

Re: In or out?

#3500 Post by Alan H » June 3rd, 2018, 12:30 pm

The case for a second Brexit referendum
My case is that the first referendum said we should leave without specifying how. In a second referendum, the government would in effect say – here’s the deal we have negotiated... do you approve? What could be more logical? What could be more natural?

Nothing except that Ms May has ruled out a second Brexit referendum. In February, in a typically muddled formulation, she told a conference: “We are leaving the EU and there is no question of a second referendum or going back and I think that’s important. People in the UK feel very strongly that if we take a decision, then governments should turn not round and say, no, you got that wrong.” But if anybody is going to say, “you got that wrong”, it wouldn’t be the government but rather the people saying to the prime minister that she got wrong the exit terms she negotiated. That is what Ms May doesn’t like about the notion of a second referendum.
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?

#3501 Post by animist » June 3rd, 2018, 1:01 pm

but surely the likelihood is that will not be any kind of deal in the next ten months. So a second referendum would AFTER Brexit (assuming that it happens in some way). And, even if there could be a referendum on a deal before Brexit, it would have to consider three rather than two options - not easy to see how this would be done

Post Reply