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?

#3241 Post by Alan H » March 25th, 2018, 7:36 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Police must investigate claims Vote Leave 'cheated' Brexit campaign spending rules, Labour and Lib Dems say
But Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, who was a leading figure in Vote Leave, posted on social media: “Vote Leave won fair and square – and legally. We are leaving the EU in a year and going global.”
Fortunately, it's not up to Johnson to decide.
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?

#3242 Post by Alan H » March 26th, 2018, 11:43 am

Strong and Stable. Providing clarity and stability: Transition deal offers no relief to City of London
The City of London is still planning for a “cliff-edge” Brexit after European regulators declined to offer any formal guarantees for how business can be conducted during the transition period.

The Bank of England will unilaterally clarify next week how banks and insurers should operate during the 21-month transition agreed on Friday by the European Council.

The bank is expected to give the transition agreement its “regulatory underpinning” by formally stating that firms can rely on it, even if it not yet legally finalised.

But no such statement is planned by counterparts in the EU, which decide whether to grant UK banks authorisation after Brexit. The authorities argue that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” and are insisting banks keep to a June deadline for submitting their new licence applications.

That leaves UK-headquartered institutions with the prospect of planning for a March 2019 departure.

With a year to go, some are now launching their contingency plans for the loss of the so-called EU passport, which allows them to be based and regulated in the UK but seamlessly sell their services cross-border.
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?

#3243 Post by Alan H » March 26th, 2018, 1:00 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? ‘No deal’ Brexit could cost UK retail industry £7.8bn in extra tariffs, new research shows
A ‘no deal’ hard Brexit could cost the UK retail industry £7.8bn in extra tariffs, new research shows.

The UK’s food and drink industry will be hit with higher tariffs more than any other sector should the UK fail to agree a trade deal with the European Union, with tariffs of up to 80 per cent on imported goods, according to analyst Retail Economics and law firm Squire Patton Boggs.

Almost three-quarters of the UK’s food and drinks imports are from the European Union, totalling £30bn in 2017.

Meat and dairy products could be hit with tariffs of up to 80 per cent, translating to £6bn of additional costs for businesses. Chocolates could be hit with tariffs of around 30 per cent.

The study warns that alterative non-EU sources of food and drink imports will be limited by high tariffs and other non-tariff related barriers.

Clothing and footwear retailers face the most disruption compared to all other non-food retailers, paying up to £1.1bn more for imports, according to the research.

Retail Economics say that a new immigration system after Brexit must ensure the UK retail industry has access to non-graduate EU citizens. Failure to meet demand for skilled workers could see UK retailers lose their competitive edge with a rise in recruitment costs.
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?

#3244 Post by Nick » March 26th, 2018, 1:15 pm

Alan H wrote:This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? ‘No deal’ Brexit could cost UK retail industry £7.8bn in extra tariffs, new research shows
A ‘no deal’ hard Brexit could cost the UK retail industry £7.8bn in extra tariffs, new research shows.
:hilarity: A truly spectacular example of the utter stupidity of which the Indy is capable! You do understand why, don't you, Alan?

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

Re: In or out?

#3245 Post by Nick » March 26th, 2018, 1:23 pm

Alan H wrote:Strong and Stable. Providing clarity and stability: Transition deal offers no relief to City of London
Yet another example of the EU machine being complete bastards, even though it will hit them too. And you wonder why we are leaving?

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

Re: In or out?

#3246 Post by Alan H » March 26th, 2018, 1:40 pm

If only there was some good news about all the rainbows and unicorns and lush green pastures and the £350 million a week for the NHS and the Glorious New British Empire we were all promised...
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?

#3247 Post by Alan H » March 26th, 2018, 1:55 pm

Another one bites the dust: Brexit official tasked with solving Irish border issue quits
David Davis’s Brexit department suffered a blow as the lead civil servant tasked with finding a solution for the Irish border quit after three months.

Simon Case is leaving his role to become Prince William’s private secretary. He is to be replaced by his deputy, Brendan Threlfall.

As director general Northern Ireland and Ireland in the Department for Exiting the EU, Case led a team of key officials working on what is arguably the most challenging issue facing the department.

Sources said he was leaving for the job in the royal household because it was a “brilliant opportunity”, adding there was no connection between his decision and continuing rows over Ireland’s border.

British officials were in Brussels on Monday for the start of six weeks of talks on Ireland, in anticipation of some resolution on the issue before the next European council summit in June.
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?

#3248 Post by Alan H » March 26th, 2018, 4:25 pm

Three top barristers conclude: 'Vote Leave committed crime on Brexit campaign'
Three top barristers have concluded there is a possible case for criminal prosecutions in the scandal over alleged cheating in the Brexit referendum, it is revealed today.

A 46-page legal opinion prepared by the trio has been handed to the Electoral Commission, which is already looking into allegations of rule-breaking, with a call to investigate whether the law was broken.

A whistleblower at the heart of the claims said it raised questions about whether the June 2016 referendum that voted narrowly for Brexit was “won fairly”.
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?

#3249 Post by Nick » March 26th, 2018, 6:55 pm

Paid for by whom....? Follow the money!!

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

Re: In or out?

#3250 Post by animist » March 26th, 2018, 7:04 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Strong and Stable. Providing clarity and stability: Transition deal offers no relief to City of London
Yet another example of the EU machine being complete bastards, even though it will hit them too. And you wonder why we are leaving?
yes, I do wonder why we are leaving. Even on your dubious premises, ie that the EU is a masochistic set of gangsters, a reasonable person would go with the flow :wink:

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

Re: In or out?

#3251 Post by animist » March 26th, 2018, 7:06 pm

Nick wrote:
Paid for by whom....? Follow the money!!
where?

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

Re: In or out?

#3252 Post by animist » March 26th, 2018, 7:08 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? ‘No deal’ Brexit could cost UK retail industry £7.8bn in extra tariffs, new research shows
A ‘no deal’ hard Brexit could cost the UK retail industry £7.8bn in extra tariffs, new research shows.
:hilarity: A truly spectacular example of the utter stupidity of which the Indy is capable! You do understand why, don't you, Alan?
go on, enlighten us. This is based on independent (not Independent) analysis. Having said that, I don't see why our IMPORTS from the EU would be subject to tariffs, though I do see that our EXPORTS to the EU would be. The article could be clearer on this

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

Re: In or out?

#3253 Post by Alan H » March 26th, 2018, 7:27 pm

I can't find it, but we had a post on The Sun's hilariously inept propaganda about the green pastures of a post-Brexit land of Poundland bargains to be had.

They have just published a 'correction':
screenshot-tweetdeck.twitter.com-2018-03-26-19-26-55-879.png
screenshot-tweetdeck.twitter.com-2018-03-26-19-26-55-879.png (634.08 KiB) Viewed 2309 times
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?

#3254 Post by Nick » March 26th, 2018, 8:08 pm

animist wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? ‘No deal’ Brexit could cost UK retail industry £7.8bn in extra tariffs, new research shows
:hilarity: A truly spectacular example of the utter stupidity of which the Indy is capable! You do understand why, don't you, Alan?
go on, enlighten us. This is based on independent (not Independent) analysis. Having said that, I don't see why our IMPORTS from the EU would be subject to tariffs, though I do see that our EXPORTS to the EU would be. The article could be clearer on this
Precisely, animist! Gold star! Go to the top of the class! :D And it was published by the Indy, wasn't it.

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

Re: In or out?

#3255 Post by animist » March 27th, 2018, 1:46 pm

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:
Nick wrote:
:hilarity: A truly spectacular example of the utter stupidity of which the Indy is capable! You do understand why, don't you, Alan?
go on, enlighten us. This is based on independent (not Independent) analysis. Having said that, I don't see why our IMPORTS from the EU would be subject to tariffs, though I do see that our EXPORTS to the EU would be. The article could be clearer on this
Precisely, animist! Gold star! Go to the top of the class! :D And it was published by the Indy, wasn't it.
yep, but here it is in another form, so don't blame the Indie https://www.cips.org/en-GB/supply-manag ... ail-costs/

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

Re: In or out?

#3256 Post by Nick » March 27th, 2018, 2:16 pm

animist wrote:
Nick wrote:
animist wrote:go on, enlighten us. This is based on independent (not Independent) analysis. Having said that, I don't see why our IMPORTS from the EU would be subject to tariffs, though I do see that our EXPORTS to the EU would be. The article could be clearer on this
Precisely, animist! Gold star! Go to the top of the class! :D And it was published by the Indy, wasn't it.
yep, but here it is in another form, so don't blame the Indie https://www.cips.org/en-GB/supply-manag ... ail-costs/
I appreciate that it wasn't written by the Indie, but they should have reported it for the tosh it is, shouldn't they? :) Not as another scare story. :rolleyes:

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

Re: In or out?

#3257 Post by Alan H » March 27th, 2018, 2:26 pm

BeLeave revelations taint the Brexit result. There must be another vote
The revelations over the weekend from the brave and principled former BeLeave treasurer Shahmir Sanni are devastating. His claim that £625,000 was donated by Vote Leave to his supposedly independent pro-Brexit referendum campaign organisation – and channelled to a digital services firm with links to the controversial Cambridge Analytica – if proven, flagrantly violated election rules as it was not a genuine donation.

Sanni stated, too, that BeLeave shared offices with Vote Leave – fronted by Tory MPs Boris Johnson and Michael Gove – which allegedly in practice offered advice and assistance to the group and helped it to decide where its cash would be spent. British electoral law forbids different campaign organisations acting in concert unless they have a shared cap on spending.

In what one can only assume was a state of panic, Theresa May’s press office swiftly put out a statement that among other things outed Sanni as a homosexual – a tactic that places his family at considerable personal risk due to his Pakistani heritage.

Tellingly, Gove did not respond directly to the allegations and the foreign secretary declined invitations to go on air to talk more fully on the subject, or take any supplementary questions – presumably on legal advice. Sanni has passed on his evidence to the Electoral Commission and the police.

Much depends now on the independence and courage of the commission and its chief executive, Claire Bassett. But, in the meantime, let us be clear about the point we have now reached: if the decision we took on 23 June 2016 to leave the European Union had been a verdict arrived at in a court of law, it would now be deemed questionable and a retrial would have to be ordered.
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?

#3258 Post by animist » March 27th, 2018, 4:31 pm

Nick wrote:
animist wrote:
Nick wrote: Precisely, animist! Gold star! Go to the top of the class! :D And it was published by the Indy, wasn't it.
yep, but here it is in another form, so don't blame the Indie https://www.cips.org/en-GB/supply-manag ... ail-costs/
I appreciate that it wasn't written by the Indie, but they should have reported it for the tosh it is, shouldn't they? :) Not as another scare story. :rolleyes:
I am not so sure that it is tosh or a scare. Read it more carefully. It may be that, under WTO rules in case of Ultrahard Brexit, Britain must impose the same tariffs on EU food and other imports as it does on those imports from elsewhere. Of course, this would be avoided by abolishing all these tariffs, as you want to do!

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

Re: In or out?

#3259 Post by Nick » March 28th, 2018, 11:30 am

animist wrote:
Nick wrote:
animist wrote:yep, but here it is in another form, so don't blame the Indie https://www.cips.org/en-GB/supply-manag ... ail-costs/
I appreciate that it wasn't written by the Indie, but they should have reported it for the tosh it is, shouldn't they? :) Not as another scare story. :rolleyes:
I am not so sure that it is tosh or a scare. Read it more carefully. It may be that, under WTO rules in case of Ultrahard Brexit, Britain must impose the same tariffs on EU food and other imports as it does on those imports from elsewhere. Of course, this would be avoided by abolishing all these tariffs, as you want to do!
Thanks for acknowledging that I want the abolition of tariffs. :) Now let's look at just one section.
Food retailers would face the toughest challenge, given that almost three quarters of what we eat is imported from the EU. Some tariffs on meat and dairy products would rise to more than 80% causing an inevitable surge in food inflation to hit families.
Meat and dairy is subject to tariffs of 80% under WTO rules! :supershock: Seriously? When you remember that one of the arguments levied against joining the EEC in the first place was the fact that we would no longer be able to import meat and dairy products from the Commonwealth (Australia and New Zealand in particular) as cheaply as before! Can it be true that since then, WTO rules, designed to lower tariffs, would have instead risen them so dramatically? And think on. The first thing any government would do is to agree, double quick, a tariff-free agreement for those imports with any country in the world. The EU, given that it already subsidises agriculture because it is more expensive to produce than the world price, would be raving nuts to cut off an export market as large as the UK.

Incidentally, there is also a school of thought that VAT should be extended to food anyway, with corresponding increases in benefits and reductions in taxes elsewhere, to reduce food waste and increase incentives. So with tariffs at 80% (hahahahaha!) the revenue would be huge! Think what tax cuts we could introduce!

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

Re: In or out?

#3260 Post by animist » March 28th, 2018, 12:30 pm

Nick wrote:
Food retailers would face the toughest challenge, given that almost three quarters of what we eat is imported from the EU. Some tariffs on meat and dairy products would rise to more than 80% causing an inevitable surge in food inflation to hit families.
Meat and dairy is subject to tariffs of 80% under WTO rules! :supershock: Seriously? When you remember that one of the arguments levied against joining the EEC in the first place was the fact that we would no longer be able to import meat and dairy products from the Commonwealth (Australia and New Zealand in particular) as cheaply as before! Can it be true that since then, WTO rules, designed to lower tariffs, would have instead risen them so dramatically? And think on. The first thing any government would do is to agree, double quick, a tariff-free agreement for those imports with any country in the world. The EU, given that it already subsidises agriculture because it is more expensive to produce than the world price, would be raving nuts to cut off an export market as large as the UK.

Incidentally, there is also a school of thought that VAT should be extended to food anyway, with corresponding increases in benefits and reductions in taxes elsewhere, to reduce food waste and increase incentives. So with tariffs at 80% (hahahahaha!) the revenue would be huge! Think what tax cuts we could introduce!
I am simply sticking to what I said earlier - and you will find this explained in Ian Dunt's book :wink: . WTO rules are there to prevent discrimination by a particular country in applying different levels of tariff to different exporters. So I am not claiming that the WTO imposes tariffs, far from it. BTW, I do find that checking different information sources does provide conflicting information over, eg, how much food comes from the EU vis-a-vis the rest of the world

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

Re: In or out?

#3261 Post by Nick » March 28th, 2018, 2:01 pm

animist wrote: BTW, I do find that checking different information sources does provide conflicting information over, eg, how much food comes from the EU vis-a-vis the rest of the world
Perhaps you might like to consult your "different information sources" for any evidence of an impending 80% tariff on meat and dairy! And no, I don't think Dunt can be taken as a relable source of much at all. ;)

BTW, did you catch up with the MV=PT thread? :)

Post Reply