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?

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

Latest post of the previous page:

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?

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

Re: In or out?

#3382 Post by Alan H » May 5th, 2018, 8:57 pm

Brexit: Rebel Tories say they have enough MPs to push Theresa May into staying in single market – if Labour backs it
Rebel Tory MPs believe they now have sufficient support to force Theresa May into effectively keeping the UK in the single market.

Conservatives have told The Independent there would be enough of their party’s MPs to lock in full single market access after Brexit, as long as Labour also backs it.

But in a move set to enrage Labour politicians, Jeremy Corbyn’s front bench will on Tuesday refuse support for just such a proposal in the Lords – preventing it from being voted on in the Commons.

Mr Corbyn is now being warned he risks a major internal row and must explain to pro-EU party members why he is “throwing away a clear opportunity” to defeat Ms May’s plans to abandon the single market.
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?

#3383 Post by animist » May 6th, 2018, 10:05 am

Alan H wrote:Brexit: Rebel Tories say they have enough MPs to push Theresa May into staying in single market – if Labour backs it
Rebel Tory MPs believe they now have sufficient support to force Theresa May into effectively keeping the UK in the single market.

Conservatives have told The Independent there would be enough of their party’s MPs to lock in full single market access after Brexit, as long as Labour also backs it.

But in a move set to enrage Labour politicians, Jeremy Corbyn’s front bench will on Tuesday refuse support for just such a proposal in the Lords – preventing it from being voted on in the Commons.

Mr Corbyn is now being warned he risks a major internal row and must explain to pro-EU party members why he is “throwing away a clear opportunity” to defeat Ms May’s plans to abandon the single market.
Corbyn is an anachronism and a disaster

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

Re: In or out?

#3384 Post by Alan H » May 6th, 2018, 10:58 am

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:Brexit: Rebel Tories say they have enough MPs to push Theresa May into staying in single market – if Labour backs it
Rebel Tory MPs believe they now have sufficient support to force Theresa May into effectively keeping the UK in the single market.

Conservatives have told The Independent there would be enough of their party’s MPs to lock in full single market access after Brexit, as long as Labour also backs it.

But in a move set to enrage Labour politicians, Jeremy Corbyn’s front bench will on Tuesday refuse support for just such a proposal in the Lords – preventing it from being voted on in the Commons.

Mr Corbyn is now being warned he risks a major internal row and must explain to pro-EU party members why he is “throwing away a clear opportunity” to defeat Ms May’s plans to abandon the single market.
Corbyn is an anachronism and a disaster
Yup.
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?

#3385 Post by Alan H » May 6th, 2018, 1:54 pm

Hard Brexit will create more social anger than staying put
For the terrible prospect now, as the so called “negotiations” with our European partners proceed nowhere slowly, is that unless someone exercises serious leadership soon, there is quite possibly going to be an almighty political and social crisis.
I don't think there's any danger of that any time 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: 24048
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3386 Post by Alan H » May 6th, 2018, 4:03 pm

Business secretary sparks customs union battle
The move came as leading Tory Remainers came out in support of the proposed customs partnership.

But Brexiteer backbencher and chairman of the hard-line European Research Group Jacob Rees-Mogg said it would be “odd” for Theresa May to back a policy that effectively breached her commitment on leaving both the customs union and single market.

Clark said it could be a case of implementing a new customs arrangement “as soon as you can do”, as he highlighted the threat to potentially thousands of jobs of additional border checks.

He was backed by former home secretary Amber Rudd, who said Clark was right to argue the case “for a Brexit that protects existing jobs and future investment”.

However, influential backbencher and Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg warned the customs partnership model would effectively mean remaining in the European Union.

A decision on the government’s preferred customs option has been postponed after May’s Brexit war cabinet failed to reach agreement.

A number of cabinet ministers spoke out against the prime minister’s hybrid customs partnership model, which would see Britain collect tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods destined for the block, with firms potentially claiming back a rebate if products remained in the UK on a lower-tariff regime.

Clark was reportedly close to tears at the meeting as he urged colleagues to consider the potential job losses of a bad deal on customs.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
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?

#3387 Post by Alan H » May 6th, 2018, 6:45 pm

These 5 EU trade myths are Brexiter nonsense
Theresa May’s Brexit cabinet committee meets tomorrow to decide what kind of customs relationship the UK should have with the EU after we leave. Here are five myths about EU trade that her ministers should bear in mind.

Myth 1: Being in the EU has stopped the UK from trading outside the EU[/b]
In which case why is Germany China’s largest trading partner? EU rules don’t prevent any member state from trading outside the EU. That’s how France can do more trade with the US than the UK does. What holds Britain back are domestic issues like our low productivity, our lack of investment in skills and the fact that we don’t make enough of what the world wants to buy. “Global Britain” is a slogan, not a policy.

Myth 2: The UK already trades on World Trade Organisation terms with most countries[/b]
Wrong. Most of our trade is with the EU or with the 64 third countries that have trade agreements with it. The UK trades with just 24 countries on the basis of WTO rules alone.

Myth 3: Lots of non-EU countries want to sign a trade agreement with us[/b]
Maybe, but on their terms. The UK could negotiate its own trade agreements outside the EU, but how good would the terms of those agreements be? Also, would the resulting additional trade (if any) make up for the trade we will lose on leaving the EU?

Australia and New Zealand want a post-Brexit trade agreement with us but they also they want us to drop EU rules that protect our farmers from unfair competition and consumers from unsafe food. And they want more visas for their citizens.

The US is also keen on a trade agreement with the UK – but on its (unattractive) terms. It’s not about whether you can get a trade agreement, it’s whether that agreement is worth having that matters. And UK government figures show that even if we signed trade agreements with all these Commonwealth countries and the US, our GDP would grow by just 0.7% a year compared to the 5% annually we would lose from leaving the single market.

Myth 4: Being in a customs union solves most of the UK’s trade problems[/b]
No, because while leaving the customs union could cost us £25 billion a year through the reintroduction of tariffs and customs checks, losing access for our services and the return of regulatory barriers are even greater problems. Staying in a customs union is desirable because it would help to protect UK jobs, but it isn’t sufficient.

Leaving the EU Single Market means we lose access for our highly profitable services exports as well as our goods exports to a market of 500 million people and will no longer share a common set of trading rules we helped to write. Losing those advantages is so serious that it would be better to be in the single market as well as a customs union – or, even better, to stay in the EU.

Myth 5: High EU tariffs keep out products from poor countries[/b]
The Brexiteers falsely claim that the EU hurts the poorest countries with high tariffs. The world’s 49 poorest countries can export tariff free to the EU as part of the “anything but arms” initiative. The truth is that the EU is the most passionate and committed supporter of the world’s poorest. It provides them with tariff free access for their goods and despite opposition from Leave campaigners, remains the world’s largest aid donor.
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?

#3388 Post by Alan H » May 6th, 2018, 7:21 pm

Barnier: There’s no spirit of revenge in Brexit talks
He rejected DUP criticism of his handling of the talks but said only a Northern Ireland-specific solution to the border question will work.

The EU’s chief negotiator has visited the frontier three times and was acclaimed as a friend of Ireland by the Irish Government during a conference just a handful of miles south of the dividing line.

He said: “There is no spirit of revenge.

“I personally regret Brexit for many reasons and I am never aggressive.

“My door is open.”
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?

#3389 Post by animist » May 7th, 2018, 10:06 am

Alan H wrote:Hard Brexit will create more social anger than staying put
For the terrible prospect now, as the so called “negotiations” with our European partners proceed nowhere slowly, is that unless someone exercises serious leadership soon, there is quite possibly going to be an almighty political and social crisis.
I don't think there's any danger of that any time soon.
of what? Leadership or crisis? :wink:

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

Re: In or out?

#3390 Post by Alan H » May 7th, 2018, 10:26 am

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:Hard Brexit will create more social anger than staying put
For the terrible prospect now, as the so called “negotiations” with our European partners proceed nowhere slowly, is that unless someone exercises serious leadership soon, there is quite possibly going to be an almighty political and social crisis.
I don't think there's any danger of that any time soon.
of what? Leadership or crisis? :wink:
Ha! Leadership, of course. We've not had any for some time... if we had, we wouldn't be in this god awful mess.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

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

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

Re: In or out?

#3391 Post by Alan H » May 7th, 2018, 11:26 am

Long List of Little Things
The debate about Brexit has focussed on big decisions, such as trade and whether Britain should remain in the customs union.

But Brexit, if it goes ahead, will also throw up a very long list of little things with significant practical consequences for ordinary people in a remarkably wide number of areas and mostly things we didn’t know (or weren’t told about!) at the time of the referendum.

Click on the category headings for a summary of each ‘little thing’ or click on the individual links to find out in more detail.

Health

Increased waiting time for new medicines

Threat to supply and movement of radioactive isotopes for cancer treatment

One in five doctors from EEA countries already have plans to quit UK

Exacerbating the number of other unfilled posts in the NHS

If you have a prescribed medicine, the cost will go up

Reciprocal healthcare is not guaranteed

Holidays & Travel

Your driving license may not be valid outside the UK

You won’t be able to take your cat or dog on holiday so easily

Increased cost of holidays in Europe

European Health Insurance Card may no longer be valid when travelling or living in EU

Possible return of roaming charges

Queuing at road customs borders

Trips that cross over the 29th March 2018 deadline (or the end-of-transition date)

Extra cost of your passport

No access to pan-EU disability card

International Haulage

Shortfall of permits for UK Hauliers

Public health laboratories at ports will struggle to cope

Queues at Dover and Calais as “Operation Stack” becomes permanent

New paperwork for exports

Improved EU qualifications for bus and HGV drivers may impede UK drivers’ access to EU27

Agriculture & Food

Geographically protected products threatened

Farmers to take a bigger hit than thought through lost EU workers

Shortage of official abattoir vets

Australia is preparing to ask the UK to accept hormone-treated beef

Entertainment

One of Britain’s most successful orchestras leaves UK over Brexit

Film and TV faces serious consequences if freedom of movement for creatives is lost

Ofcom, on behalf of the EU, checks most broadcasting arriving from non-EU countries

British cinema under threat

Threat to rare species as our zoos fall out of EU-wide breeding programmes

UK residents to lose access to Netflix and other digital subscriptions when travelling in EU countries

National Gallery bid to save 16th century painting failed due to drop in value of sterling

Greece may ask for return of Parthenon sculptures

Performers working internationally face several challenges

Sport

Horse-racing faces barriers for horses moving between UK and Ireland and France

Sporting events less likely to be held in UK

Premier league could lose talent

Tougher decisions on UK sport than usual

Education

Academic subjects most threatened by Brexit

UK’s international science research reputation at risk

Technology

Losing right to use .eu domain names

UK based international broadcasters will have to fall back on pre-internet agreement

Products like iPads require a services deal with EU

Miscellaneous Little Things

Less cross-border legal cooperation

Security co-operation issues

Children of EU27 citizens born in to UK parents may not be able to claim UK citizenship

Serious concerns from architecture sector

Many things that already cost more

Supermarket prices go up

Product sizes reduced

Cost of bread rises

Cost of Christmas dinner up 18%

Easter Eggs could be more expensive – and stale

Laptops up £400

App prices on the rise

Toys to rocket up in price

Pints could go up by 15% if current trajectory continues

Wine lovers face triple whammy Brexit price rise, says UK trade body

Rail fares go up by 4% at the start of 2018

Cost of car repairs up 10% in the event of no deal
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?

#3392 Post by Alan H » May 7th, 2018, 1:27 pm

John Redwood ducks out of radio debate with young activist Femi Oluwole
Redwood was invited as a guest on to Andrew Castle’s LBC programme, along with the co-founder of Our Future, Our Choice, Femi Oluwole.

In a clip going viral on social media Oluwole is invited to give his take on possible customs partnerships, with the Remainer giving a passionate response on why Theresa May has yet to agree to any of the options on the table for Brexit.

Oluwole told the programme: “The reason they can’t decide is because their own experts say that every possible Brexit scenario would leave this country financially/economically worse off.

“Which means that right now, what they’re trying to do is something that they know will harm the country. That makes it official Tory policy to harm the country.

“So of course they can’t find a position, because there’s nothing that’s going to actually be acceptable to the British people.”

However, rather than respond to the point made by the young pro-Remain activist that all of the Tories’ options will harm the country, Redwood says he would prefer not to, explaining that a debate had not been mentioned in the invitation.

He tells Castle: “I wasn’t told we were having a debate, you asked me to do an interview on what the options are for our future trading agreement and I’m very happy to talk about that.”

Instead the MP went on to use the interview to knock the European Union - saying that it is working against the interests of their member states “in a sad way.”

He added: “Theresa May has consistently said that we will be leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market at the same time.”

Alastair Campbell tweeted: “Femi 10 Vulcan 0 -- the Brextremists just will not debate with people who know the facts, and stick to them.”
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?

#3393 Post by Alan H » May 7th, 2018, 2:46 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? May told Border problem could delay Brexit by up to five years
Britain will be unable to leave the European customs union before 2023 ministers have been told, meaning the delay could be exploited by Remainers to thwart Brexit.

In a briefing to the British Cabinet's Brexit sub-committee earlier this week, senior civil servants said highly complex new technology which will be needed to operate Britain's borders after Brexit may not be ready for another five years.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has asked officials to carry out more work on the two options being considered by the Government to replace the customs union: a customs partnership and a so-called "maximum facilitation" plan.

The disclosure was made despite claims yesterday by David Davis, the Brexit minister, who told MPs he was "100 per cent" sure Britain will have left the customs union by the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020.
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?

#3394 Post by Alan H » May 8th, 2018, 6:17 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?

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

Re: In or out?

#3395 Post by Alan H » May 8th, 2018, 7:06 pm

Bonkers Brexit... The UK’s plan to build a rival GPS is a bonkers Brexit scheme
In the 17th century, Galileo Galilei upset a lot of powerful people by demonstrating that the universe did not, in fact, revolve around them. Four hundred years later, the European Union satellite navigation system named after him is having the same effect.

This time it is the British government which has been knocked from its pedestal. With Brexit looming, EU officials in Brussels recently announced that the UK will no longer be eligible to bid for lucrative contracts to build the ground control systems and backup satellites for Galileo, the EU version of the US GPS. The UK will also be denied access to the encrypted Galileo signal intended for government users. British ministers were incandescent, threatening legal action to recover the €1.4 billion the UK has invested so far in Galileo.

Yesterday it emerged that prime minister Theresa May could go a step further: she wants the UK to explore building its own rival system. Galileo’s history suggests this is foolish.

From the outset, the EU’s satellite array found it hard to get off the ground. Lambasted as a political vanity project, it struggled to secure funding. The US opposed the idea of a competing satellite navigation system, particularly one that any civilian could use – perhaps to launch missiles at US targets. A compromise saw protocols added that would allow the US (and the EU) to block unencrypted civilian access to Galileo in crisis situations.

Late and over budget
The system finally switched on in late 2016, heavily delayed and costing more than triple the original budget of €3 billion. There are still four more satellites to launch before the system is completely operational, and a rash of technical problems has hit those already in orbit, including the failure of nine atomic clocks across five satellites.

So why would the UK want to start afresh with its own system? Claims that the country’s national security will be jeopardised by the EU’s obstinacy are overblown: as a NATO ally, the UK already has access to the encrypted GPS signal. It seems probable that the UK can reach a similar agreement with the EU over Galileo post-Brexit.

The reality is that the UK is probably more motivated by happenings on the ground than in orbit. The government’s own early projections estimated that Galileo would be worth £14.2 billion to the UK economy between 2013 and 2025, predominantly through satellite manufacture and the wider aerospace industry.

But with doubts circulating over the UK’s continued involvement in Galileo, aerospace firms are already relocating to mainland Europe and forming consortiums to bid for the next round of Galileo contracts. In its remaining months as an EU member, the UK can buy time by blocking any new procurements, but it will be fighting a losing battle. By the time an agreement for it to stay within Galileo is hammered out, it will be too late to coax these firms back. Suggesting that the UK’s own lucrative contracts are just around the corner appears to be a desperate tactic to stop them from leaving.
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?

#3396 Post by Alan H » May 8th, 2018, 11:37 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Shock defeat rounds off series of Brexit reverses in House of Lords
The Government has suffered an unexpected Brexit defeat in the Lords, rounding off a series of reverses in the upper chamber.

Peers backed retaining key aspects of the EU's single market through continued participation in the European Economic Area (EEA) by 245 votes to 218, a majority of 27.

It came in defiance of both the Government and Opposition frontbenches and followed earlier defeats on the Brexit date and participation in EU agencies.

The Government has suffered 14 defeats over its flagship EU Withdrawal Bill, with the latest reversals coming on the sixth and final day of the bill's report stage in the upper chamber.
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?

#3397 Post by Alan H » May 9th, 2018, 5:48 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Airbus space contract will move from UK to continent due to Brexit
A potential €200m contract between the European Space Agency and Airbus in Portsmouth will be moved to the continent because of Brexit, the managing director of Airbus said on Wednesday.

Airbus will move all the work for the ground control for the new EU satellite navigation system, Galileo, from the UK to France or Germany should it win the bid.

Colin Paynter, managing director of the Portsmouth based Airbus Defence and Space, told MPs that it was “committed” to this move as part of its bid for the contract, which it submitted on 24 April.

The decision is a response to the European Space Agency’s rule that it will only allow EU member states to be lead contractors on the Galileo work after 29 March 2019 when the UK is scheduled to leave the bloc.
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?

#3398 Post by animist » May 9th, 2018, 9:06 pm

Alan H wrote:This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Airbus space contract will move from UK to continent due to Brexit
A potential €200m contract between the European Space Agency and Airbus in Portsmouth will be moved to the continent because of Brexit, the managing director of Airbus said on Wednesday.

Airbus will move all the work for the ground control for the new EU satellite navigation system, Galileo, from the UK to France or Germany should it win the bid.

Colin Paynter, managing director of the Portsmouth based Airbus Defence and Space, told MPs that it was “committed” to this move as part of its bid for the contract, which it submitted on 24 April.

The decision is a response to the European Space Agency’s rule that it will only allow EU member states to be lead contractors on the Galileo work after 29 March 2019 when the UK is scheduled to leave the bloc.
good, good, good!!!

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

Re: In or out?

#3399 Post by Nick » May 9th, 2018, 10:15 pm

[quote="Alan H"]Post-Brexit port checks could disrupt fresh food supplies, say freight bosses[quote]
Absolutely stunning stupidity from the Grauniad. But then, what did you expect...?

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

Re: In or out?

#3400 Post by Alan H » May 9th, 2018, 10:22 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Post-Brexit port checks could disrupt fresh food supplies, say freight bosses
Absolutely stunning stupidity from the Grauniad. But then, what did you expect...?
:laughter:
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?

#3401 Post by Alan H » May 10th, 2018, 12:06 am

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? The Northeast will be hit hardest if we stop trading with the EU – that's why we're demanding a new Brexit vote
No part of the UK has more at stake in the decision to leave the European Union than the Northeast of England.

Our region is an export powerhouse. Sixty per cent of our trade is with the EU. We make and sell goods that are in demand throughout the continent for their quality and value for money. All of that could be at risk if we quit the EU customs union and the single market and are lumbered with new customs barriers, charges and unnecessary red tape.

But the Northeast has been hit hard and neglected by the Tories for too long. We understand why so many people voted to leave the EU in 2016’s referendum: it was a great way of reminding a cosy London establishment that our region has been receiving a raw deal.
There is so much at stake here. Even the government’s own research says the Northeast’s economy will lose growth once we leave the EU, regardless of the deal. This will hit living standards of families throughout the region. A smaller economy will mean less money to invest in our hard pressed public services. Already the British economy has fallen from the top to the bottom of the European growth league.

And then there are other questions. Can we get the staff our NHS needs if we cut ourselves off from Europe? Will we still be able to compete in the key export markets or will businesses throughout the Northeast and those they employ lose out because new trade barriers have got in the way?
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