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.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#541
Post
by Alan H » May 6th, 2018, 3:13 pm
Latest post of the previous page:
coffee wrote:UK-EU customs partnership 'still on table'
Former home secretary Amber Rudd - who resigned last Sunday over a deportations row - backed Mr Clark's comments.
Ms Rudd, a leading voice in the 2016 campaign to stay in the EU, tweeted that the business secretary was "quite right" to argue for a "Brexit that protects existing jobs and future investment".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44021119
-------------
UK-EU customs partnership sound good to Coffee so far, Coffee would back it. If it good for Amber Rudd, It is good for Coffee
But that's not what we voted for. Whatever happened to 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?
-
coffee
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm
#542
Post
by coffee » May 6th, 2018, 3:20 pm
Theresa May must stick to her guns and push for a customs partnership with the EU
The prime minister, desperate to keep both Tory factions on board, has repeatedly put off a decision on customs rather than resolve the fault line running through her party on it
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ed ... 38826.html
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#545
Post
by Alan H » May 6th, 2018, 9:32 pm
But we weren't told that, were we?
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?
-
animist
- Posts: 6522
- Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
#547
Post
by animist » May 7th, 2018, 10:00 am
since the EU has already rejected this concept of a customs partnership, this is all hot air and does not relate to any Brexit outcome - instead it is the Tory Party writhing around relentlessly in trying to keep the disparate factions together
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#548
Post
by Alan H » May 7th, 2018, 10:27 am
animist wrote:
since the EU has already rejected this concept of a customs partnership, this is all hot air and does not relate to any Brexit outcome - instead it is the Tory Party writhing around relentlessly in trying to keep the disparate factions together
Hopefully this is its death throes.
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?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#550
Post
by Alan H » May 7th, 2018, 10:56 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?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#552
Post
by Alan H » May 7th, 2018, 12:14 pm
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
coffee
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm
#553
Post
by coffee » May 7th, 2018, 5:48 pm
Revealed: Britain's £3 billion 'sat nav' system to rival EU's after Brexit
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... n-british/
-----------------
EU membership for UK ‘would soar to more than £22 BILLION if Brexit was cancelled’
BRITAIN’S annual payment to the EU would soar to more than £22billion if Brexit was cancelled, anti-Brussels campaigners said yesterday. New figures based on European Commission estimates for the next six-year EU budget published last week suggested an eye-watering hike in the country’s membership fee.
By MACER HALL
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... -cancelled
----------------
Even after Brexit, English will remain the language that holds the EU together
https://qz.com/1270508/even-after-brexi ... -together/
"While English will likely remain the EU’s lingua franca for the foreseeable future, the language could undergo some unusual changes once it’s no longer under the watchful eye of the British. Language experts note a slightly different variation of English—known as “Euro-English”—is already spoken within the EU. Without the British, Euro-English could finally be free to flourish."
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#554
Post
by Alan H » May 7th, 2018, 6:31 pm
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
coffee
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm
#555
Post
by coffee » May 8th, 2018, 10:50 am
British corporate profits reach all-time high
Jasper Jolly
Chief City reporter, mainly covering big banks, challengers, Brexit and economic
British firms’ profits rose to a record high in 2017 as a buoyant world economy boosted the UK’s multinational firms, according to data to be published today.
http://www.cityam.com/285372/british-co ... -time-high
-------------------
EU FURY: Rise of English language across bloc DESPITE Brexit infuriates France
FRANCE is venting its frustrations at the rise of the English language around European Union institutions despite the United Kingdom’s decision to quit the bloc.
By JOE BARNES, BRUSSELS CORRESPONDENT
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/95659 ... pean-Union
-
animist
- Posts: 6522
- Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
#556
Post
by animist » May 8th, 2018, 7:39 pm
hang on Alan, do you mean £12 million a week (= £3 billion over 5 years)? I would still like to know what the security problem is
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#557
Post
by Alan H » May 8th, 2018, 7:45 pm
animist wrote:hang on Alan, do you mean £12 million a week (= £3 billion over 5 years)? I would still like to know what the security problem is
That's what my calculator says! See the article on Galileo on t'other thread...
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
coffee
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm
#558
Post
by coffee » May 9th, 2018, 6:11 pm
For the situation that we are in, I think the uk should negotiate for A CUSTOMS UNION with the EU.
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#559
Post
by Alan H » May 9th, 2018, 6:29 pm
coffee wrote:For the situation that we are in, I think the uk should negotiate for A CUSTOMS UNION with the EU.
We already have one of those...
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?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#561
Post
by Alan H » May 9th, 2018, 7:14 pm
Why are they doing that, coffee?
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?