Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 12:03 PM

Maybe. The kind of nationalism that sees immigration not as a leavening and enriching of a country but as thinning out of the purity of race is rising worryingly in both Europe and America (and of course has never ceased in China, Japan and the subcontinent).

And the thing is, because it's creeping in - at first as dog-whistle ideas and symbols (like the Aryan Nation hand signal in the US), and gradually becoming more overt, we think it's harmless. The kind of thing that's said quite commonly about Muslims is identical to what was said about Jews in the 1920s and 1930s; now that it's become acceptable to speak about Muslims like that, it's also becoming acceptable to speak about Jews in the same way.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 11:58 AM

Yes Jim. You should ignore him.

Just reminding you :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 07:25 AM

"I'm sure you welcome the sound of jackboots resounding in the streets of Europe especially a return of ULTA RIGHT Germany
Happy days are here again for some fundamentalists"
What an exceedingly stupid post.

Best ignored I think.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 07:08 AM

"I look forward to the coming collapse of it."
I'm sure you welcome the sound of jackboots resounding in the streets of Europe especially a return of ULTA RIGHT Germany
Happy days are here again for some fundamentalists
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 07:08 AM

"I look forward to the coming collapse of it."
I'm sure you welcome the sound of jackboots resounding in the streets of Europe especially a return of ULTA RIGHT Germany
Happy days are here again for some fundamentalists
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 06:33 AM

"The EU doesn't have to have "arguments".

Best tell that to the majority that voted for out!

The EU is worried the flood gates will open if we leave. The meddlesome bureaucrats morphed a simple trade organisation into a monolithic political entity that pays attention to no one.

I look forward to the coming collapse of it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 05:58 AM

What could reignite a war is a border that breaks the Belfast Agreement.

The EU doesn't have to have "arguments" - it's Britain that wants to leave this trading bloc; it's up to Britain to work out how to do so gracefully and while keeping its legal agreement on Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 05:39 AM

Not a question of blinking first; it's a question of Britain keeping its sworn word on the commitments of the Belfast Agreement.

Not so. The EU has no sensible argument so bring up the question of the Irish Border as a negotiating tool. In other words, with their intransigence they are quite happy to risk re igniting the troubles.

The sooner we leave the motley crew the better.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Thompson
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 05:21 AM

Not a question of blinking first; it's a question of Britain keeping its sworn word on the commitments of the Belfast Agreement.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 03:45 AM

Remaining has a year after year commitment coupled with eternal rules subjection.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 03:32 AM

I do not know the furure any more than anyone else, but a deal - or no deal - has an annual cost/benefit, stretching over decades. it would be foolish to ignore that and focus on a one-off payment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 03:25 AM

I can think of nealy 40 billion reasons why the EU will blink first!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Sep 18 - 03:18 AM

Labour wants to push ahead with Brexit

I don't envy any of the leaders given the current mess, but that Labour appears to think it would have a better chance than May to get a special deal with the EU just by picking different cherries is delusional.

I am no supporter of referendums in the UK system and fear that another, whatever the result, would bring years of division and possible violence. If the vote decided to cancel Brexit I am sure all those saying "we won, get over it" would suddenly find "the will of the people" didnt matter this time. Equally, if leave won, especially by another few percent margin, I would not expec4 all to be sweetness and light.

What is said at this Labour conference will, in my opinion, be critical. Including if the leadership says nothing.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 18 - 01:34 PM

You're welcome - thank yourself
Great article
May still throwing her toys out of the pram because Europe (27 countries) won't surrender to Britain's (1 country's) demands
Somebody needs to tell her the Empire's long dead
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Sep 18 - 12:07 PM

Thanks Jim.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 18 - 12:02 PM

Y'r 'tis
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 18 - 12:00 PM

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Sep 18 - 11:59 AM

I also see the pound has "plummetted" again!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Sep 18 - 11:52 AM

Today in the Guardian there is an article which clearly defines one of Terasa May dilemmas regarding the border in Ireland and the EU response to her.

Could someone please link to "Don't buy the Brexit hype"

As I said in an earlier post I do not envy her one jot. Rocks and hard places come to mind again.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Sep 18 - 04:50 PM

May in fight to save Chequers Brexit plan after Salzburg ambush.

Link as requested.

Both the Labour and Conservative conferences are set to be quite lively over the next few weeks.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Sep 18 - 03:49 PM

Oh dear, I do not envy Teresa May one jot.

Caught between several rocks and a hard place. Today's press suggesting that European leaders have no faith in the Chequers "Agreement" may be the final nail in her (I have to admit) valiant efforts to negotiate a deal.

Could some kind person please link to the Guardian article "May humiliated by Salzberg Ambush"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 12:28 PM

so I guess is just someone's additional thoughts to try to make it say something which is not actually there.

A cut'n'paste is painful on my phone, so I needed to wait until I had access to a more convenient machine. I find it marginally odd, Nigel, that you can see I quoted the sentence in the report after the one in the Guardian article without thinking it at least possible I had more of the report itself before I expressed that opinion, but hey ho, that's life.

Here is an extract from the actual paper produced by Daniel Hannan and co. I do not intend to discuss it further, but it is left to the reader to decide if anything in this suggests I am trying to "make it say something that is not there" about the risks to the NHS:


Summing up, the ideal FTA is one that removes all barriers to trade in goods and services, opens up all sectors of the economy to investment, and, ultimately, goes as far as possible to remove all administrative impediments to integration of the economies of the parties without encroaching on the sovereignty of governments to pass laws and regulate in the public interest in ways that do not discriminate against foreign goods, services, and companies.

In practical terms, that means that the ideal agreement will result in the following:
•Zero tariffs on all goods (agricultural commodities, primary industry resources, and manufacturing industry goods);
•Zero discriminatory nontariff barriers, which means no discrimination by either party in the content or exercise of the laws, regulations, or practices affecting the provision of services of either party, including no restrictions on the entry of businesspeople in the conduct of the provision of business services;
•Zero restrictions on competition for government procurement;
•Zero restrictions on foreign direct investment in the economy;
•Zero restrictions on cross-border data flow;
•Elimination to the fullest extent possible of impediments to expeditious customs clearance procedures for both imports and exports;
•Preclusion of the adoption of antidumping or safeguard measures between or among parties; and
•Strict prohibitions against the use of nontariff barriers, such as performance requirements, restrictions based on scientifically unsubstantiated public health and safety concerns, and restrictions based on national security concerns that fail to meet certain minimum standards.

What this means substantively is that, without the need to articulate exceptions and carve-outs, which are so common in other agreements, the U.S.-U.K. FTA can be shorter and simpler, and its provisions can be covered in fewer chapters



Equally, on getting rid of the precautionary principle, so that all additives etc can be put in food unless positively proven to be harmful:

Chapter 12. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

It is critical that measures to protect animal, human, or plant health are based on sound science and that the parties do not adopt measures that are disguised barriers to trade and competition. The purpose of this chapter is to afford appropriate protections and to impose disciplines on the parties to ensure that measures in this area are not corrupted toward impeding trade

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 09:52 AM

Brexit - The gift that keeps giving.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 08:58 AM

Yes, its good to have that quantified, it is something that many of us have been fairly sure of from personal experience, but here it is, hard statistics.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 08:49 AM

Here's a novel slant on things.

Migrant EU workers contribute more than British citizens

So, thanks to the brexiteers wanting to keep their little corner of England free from that foreign riff-raff, we lose key NHS workers and pay more tax for the privilege.

Thanks a bunch.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 08:26 AM

For anyone interested enough, my corrected link is to the Guardian article, which gives the link to the full think-tank paper in its first sentence.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 08:15 AM

I was responding to the article you identified.
The additional line adds little, as it is a consultation document only. Does it include that bit about all areas includes all government procurents and services, and rules out having protected services except in a few circumstances, like defence, as that is not included in your quote marks, so I guess is just someone's additional thoughts to try to make it say something which is not actually there.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 08:00 AM

The Guardian did not quote the following line to that from the full paper, nigel. It goes on "That said, we would envisage a swift, time-tabled implementation of recognision across all areas within 5 years." And all areas includes all government procurents and services, and rules out having protected services except in a few circumstances, like defence.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 07:27 AM

Well, for starters, your original attempt at a link mentioned opening the NHS to international competition.
The headline, and first paragraph (both by The Guardian) also mention it. (presumably why you used that line of attack)
The only allied comments I can find in the article:
The IFT/Cato Institute free trade deal recognises that its proposals are likely to be unpopular. “Health services would benefit from foreign competition, although we recognise any change to existing regulations would be extremely controversial,” it says.

It recommends testing the waters with foreign competition in education and legal services first.

This mentions competition for 'health services'. We already have private health services, which could, arguably, benefit from competition. This does not mention the NHS, and could just as easily relate to private hospitals/dental care/eye care.
It also makes clear that it would not be an automatic imposition, but they would have to 'test the waters' first.

So far that sounds like a reasonable set of parameters for discussion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 07:23 AM

That's a different question, Iains. I asked if you agreed with it or not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 07:18 AM

What a think tanks proposes and what actually happens in the real world is a totally different beastie. After all Corbyn wargamed a catastrophic drop in the value of the pound should he become PM.
Which of the two possible futures is the most likely?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 07:11 AM

Apologies to all. Here is the the link.

But as you are here, we can hope for a quick response from you on the article?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 07:06 AM

Unless there's a problem with my computer that's another link to a blank page.
Looking at the source code it shows (a href="")A radical blueprint (/a)
Angled brackets have been replaced with round brackets to make it visible.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 07:04 AM

A stunning link. It goes back to the top of the page. Should this be meaningful?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Sep 18 - 06:57 AM

A radical blueprint  for a free trade deal between the UK and the US that would see the NHS opened to foreign competition, a bonfire of consumer and environmental regulations and freedom of movement between the two countries for workers, is to be launched by prominent Brexiters.
....

 It would remove tariffs and throw out the precautionary principle that has guided much EU regulation on GM foods, chlorine-washed chicken, hormones in meat, pesticides and chemicals in cosmetics.

.....

The IFT/Cato Institute free trade deal recognises that its proposals are likely to be unpopular. “Health services would benefit from foreign competition, although we recognise any change to existing regulations would be extremely controversial,” it says.

=======

it will be interesting to see who, on this thread and in the ERG, endorses this, who opposes it and who prefers to 'cop out' in silence.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 18 - 07:32 PM

What a cop-out, Nigel. Can't think why you even bothered to mention it then.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Sep 18 - 06:32 PM

I've read the Jay Rayner link.
It is riddled with half-truths, and suppositions, and totally fails to make any points in an understandable way.
Presumably the 'Remainers' here find it intelligible because it reinforces their views, but it is a very poor article.

I'm not going to even try and critique it as it is beyond parody.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Sep 18 - 04:02 PM

Guido lies?
howsabout this then:

https://www.france24.com/en/20180914-chanel-moves-staff-global-hub-london

https://www.reuters.com/article/relx-results/update-1-relx-to-lose-the-dutch-half-of-its-anglo-dutch-identity-idUSL8N1Q52HT

I suppose in your view both France 24 and Reuters are lying, as guido cannot possibly be correct?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Sep 18 - 03:03 PM

Care to point out the factual errors in my links?
I can see you do not like the guy. Now demonstrate where he is lying.
I would imagine many parliamentarians gladly feed him titbits about the opposition. Again, demonstrate the flaws in his factual reporting on the links I provided.
Just because you do not like him does not automatically label him a liar. I personally think Corbyn is a scumbag, but that is a personal opinion,as yet not demonstrated to be a fact. Perhaps you can demonstrate otherwise?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 16 Sep 18 - 02:25 PM

I have no need, Iains to explain in detail the flaws in Staines' information and methodology. The guy is a scumbag of the first order. Not to be taken seriously.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 04:12 PM

Raggy you can refer to the original linked guido articles above
(From: Iains - PM
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 04:05 AM )

or you can put the non linked strings in google search and all will be revealed.
Guido, the BBC and Reuters, the news item is as stated.
The story is repeated in the financial times and to give a   little balance Inilever has finally decided to make its corporate headqarters in Rotterdam, rather than London.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 04:11 PM

Jay Rayner: Food and Brexit, as requested.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 02:48 PM

Iains, could you please provide a proper link.


PS was it you or Nigel who castigated steve for not being able to provide links?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 02:45 PM

"Paul Staines is morally bankrupt, as well as being an actual bankrupt. He also has four alcohol related convictions. "
That's jolly interesting! Now demonstrate where my links provided by him are factually in error.
You talk the talk, now walk the walk!

(Chanel chooses London for global office
BBC News · 1 day ago"
(RELX to lose the Dutch half of its Anglo-Dutch identity | Reuters
https://uk.reuters.com/...relx.../relx-to-lose-the-dutch-half-of-its-anglo-dutch-identity-i.)

Once again cannot kill the message so shoot the messenger instead. Wonderful!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 02:26 PM

There is an extremely enlightening article by Jay Raynor (not someone I would normal praise) in the Guardian today entitled "Brexit and Food" explaining our reliance on foods from Europe and beyond and the impact that Brexit will have on them.

I would suggest that if some kind person would link to it you should take the time to read it.

Frankly it is very disconcerting.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 12:31 PM

Paul Staines is morally bankrupt, as well as being an actual bankrupt. He also has four alcohol related convictions. Political porkies are his stock in trade, but not the only reasons not to give him any credibility. His only actual achievement is that he was once the Atari Asteroids UK champion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 09:28 AM

" pointless links to right-wing blogs and stuff."

Care to give a few examples of my links to right wing blogs and stuff? or are you trying to deny the facts displayed by certain blogs that you do not like? Perhaps you would care to demonstrate where my links to Guido show him telling porkies instead of telling it like it is?
Perhaps you could demonstrate where facts I clearly portray as facts are in error. Is pointing out the truth pointless? or is it more a case that it displays the hypocrisy of the far left. Perhaps the gnome would like to offer examples of the bile? or of posting above the line as a guest?


I await your clarification with interest!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 06:34 AM

"Still want that fortnight in Majorca?"

Probably not in view of the widespread protests against tourists in Spain that have made headlines recently. In another headline Spain is calling the tourists that were driven away "traitors"
Now where have I seen that logic before?
Headlines in the SUN
Mail
Express
Guardian
Telegraph
Independant
FoxNews.................

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 06:05 AM

"Our understandable focus on the Irish border tends to make us lose sight of how this and other overseas groups are affected."
Very noticeable here in Ireland and even more so in the North where the besieged DUP are now calling for direct rule from Britain - a thirty year backward step to the dark Ages
We've just been told that our Car Insurance Broker is no longer dealing with British Insurance companies
Havining lived here for twenty years Pat and I are now considering applying for Irish passports - no great problem with us, just an inconvenience.
I'm not sure how the other 1.22 million Brits living in Europe feel about it (if they are able to)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 06:01 AM

Iains is the silly bugger, Karen. He could not post for weeks because his account was suspended. He has been granted access again but is heading for expulsion if he continues. Not that it matters to him as he will continue to post his bile above the line as an anonymous guest when he gets kicked out again. Maybe it is better to have him in the tent pissing out than outside pissing in? :-)