jal123
Player Valuation: £40m
Will do Bruce, have a lovely weekend
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
Rebuttals, Brexiteers? Perhaps he's not considered the "unknown advantages"? Can any of you explain why he's wrong, and how any of this is actually going to make our lives better? Or alternately, acknowledge how much worse you're willing for things to get for all of us, for the sake of... what exactly? sovereignty???
Britain is incapable of managing Brexit and calamity will follow
https://www.ft.com/content/bf0025aa-6720-11e7-8526-7b38dcaef614
The UK once had a deserved reputation for pragmatic and stable politics. That will not survive the spectacular mess it is making of Brexit.
Remember what has happened. In an unnecessary referendum, a small majority chose an option they could not understand, because it had not been worked out. Thereupon, a new prime minister, with no knowledge of the complexities, adopted the hardest possible interpretation of the outcome. She triggered the exit process in March 2017, before shaping a detailed negotiating position. Some 70 days later, in an unnecessary election, she lost both her majority and her authority.
The Conservative party is so split over Brexit as to be no longer a coherent party of government. It is, as a result, questionable whether the compromises needed over money owed to the EU, rights of EU residents and the role of the European Court of Justice, could win approval in parliament. The Labour party will offer no relief: it wants another general election and is now about as split over Brexit as the Tories.
Meanwhile, Michel Barnier, the EU’s negotiator, patiently explains, as if to inattentive children, that “the clock is ticking”. In late March 2019, the UK will exit the EU. If businesses are to make sensible plans, they will need to know what is going to happen no later than a year from now. If the deal is to be ratified, it must be sealed by autumn 2018.
Moreover, as the EU has insisted, “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. Mr Barnier also argues that the UK must recognise that an exit deal will demand a substantial payment. This was in response to Boris Johnson, Britain’s foreign secretary, who remarked in parliament: “I think that the sums that I have seen . . . seem to me to be extortionate and I think ‘go whistle’ is an entirely appropriate expression.” If the UK sticks to this, there will certainly be no deal, be it a good one or a bad one.
The UK government has failed to prepare the ground for any of the necessary compromises. It could probably not do so, in any case, because a significant number of Brexiters fail to understand the weakness of the UK’s hand: damage to access to the EU market would, for example, be far worse for the UK than vice versa, because the EU’s economy is some five times bigger than Britain’s.
Worse, many Brexiters seem prepared for a “no deal”. But the UK would then, in the view of its most important economic partners, have defaulted on its legal obligations. The EU is a creature of law. Members would view such a violation of UK obligations as heinous.
Anybody who thinks EU members would then co-operate over vital British interests, such as the flow of goods or aviation, is dreaming. Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, has noted that the UK may be unable to process a vastly increased number of customs declarations after Brexit. But this underplays the risks. What will happen to the procedures on the other side?
The UK government is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It will find it almost impossible to agree and implement a sensible deal on the divorce, the nature of the longer-term trading arrangement and the transition in the time available. But it would be even more impossible to fail to do so. Who knows which will win? My guess is that “no deal” is now the more likely.
Sooner or later, markets will realise this, too. That could be destabilising for sterling and cause another spike in inflation. That would create a painful dilemma for the Bank of England. Jeremy Corbyn’s arrival as prime minister could also become more credible. How, after all this tomfoolery, could the Conservatives continue to claim the mantle of sober competence?
What would happen then? Many Remainers still hope that, as the economy becomes still worse, the polls showing a continued rough balance between Brexiters and Remainers, will break for the latter, so causing a big shift of opinion in parliament. I see no constitutional objection to a referendum on the terms of Brexit (or the absence of such terms). Referendums are merely a (dangerous) political tool. But politically another referendum would be dynamite, further aggravating the deep splits over the European issue.
The UK has become so ludicrous because the issue of the EU is so deeply felt by a significant part of the body politic. The Brexiters are the Jacobins of UK politics. Their ideological intensity has devastated the Conservative party and reduced British politics to its present shambles. There is, as a result, neither a comfortable exit from Brexit nor a plausible way of managing it smoothly.
Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. So it now is over Brexit.
Britain is incapable of managing Brexit and calamity will follow
https://www.ft.com/content/bf0025aa-6720-11e7-8526-7b38dcaef614
The UK once had a deserved reputation for pragmatic and stable politics. That will not survive the spectacular mess it is making of Brexit.
Remember what has happened. In an unnecessary referendum, a small majority chose an option they could not understand, because it had not been worked out. Thereupon, a new prime minister, with no knowledge of the complexities, adopted the hardest possible interpretation of the outcome. She triggered the exit process in March 2017, before shaping a detailed negotiating position. Some 70 days later, in an unnecessary election, she lost both her majority and her authority.
The Conservative party is so split over Brexit as to be no longer a coherent party of government. It is, as a result, questionable whether the compromises needed over money owed to the EU, rights of EU residents and the role of the European Court of Justice, could win approval in parliament. The Labour party will offer no relief: it wants another general election and is now about as split over Brexit as the Tories.
Meanwhile, Michel Barnier, the EU’s negotiator, patiently explains, as if to inattentive children, that “the clock is ticking”. In late March 2019, the UK will exit the EU. If businesses are to make sensible plans, they will need to know what is going to happen no later than a year from now. If the deal is to be ratified, it must be sealed by autumn 2018.
Moreover, as the EU has insisted, “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. Mr Barnier also argues that the UK must recognise that an exit deal will demand a substantial payment. This was in response to Boris Johnson, Britain’s foreign secretary, who remarked in parliament: “I think that the sums that I have seen . . . seem to me to be extortionate and I think ‘go whistle’ is an entirely appropriate expression.” If the UK sticks to this, there will certainly be no deal, be it a good one or a bad one.
The UK government has failed to prepare the ground for any of the necessary compromises. It could probably not do so, in any case, because a significant number of Brexiters fail to understand the weakness of the UK’s hand: damage to access to the EU market would, for example, be far worse for the UK than vice versa, because the EU’s economy is some five times bigger than Britain’s.
Worse, many Brexiters seem prepared for a “no deal”. But the UK would then, in the view of its most important economic partners, have defaulted on its legal obligations. The EU is a creature of law. Members would view such a violation of UK obligations as heinous.
Anybody who thinks EU members would then co-operate over vital British interests, such as the flow of goods or aviation, is dreaming. Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, has noted that the UK may be unable to process a vastly increased number of customs declarations after Brexit. But this underplays the risks. What will happen to the procedures on the other side?
The UK government is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It will find it almost impossible to agree and implement a sensible deal on the divorce, the nature of the longer-term trading arrangement and the transition in the time available. But it would be even more impossible to fail to do so. Who knows which will win? My guess is that “no deal” is now the more likely.
Sooner or later, markets will realise this, too. That could be destabilising for sterling and cause another spike in inflation. That would create a painful dilemma for the Bank of England. Jeremy Corbyn’s arrival as prime minister could also become more credible. How, after all this tomfoolery, could the Conservatives continue to claim the mantle of sober competence?
What would happen then? Many Remainers still hope that, as the economy becomes still worse, the polls showing a continued rough balance between Brexiters and Remainers, will break for the latter, so causing a big shift of opinion in parliament. I see no constitutional objection to a referendum on the terms of Brexit (or the absence of such terms). Referendums are merely a (dangerous) political tool. But politically another referendum would be dynamite, further aggravating the deep splits over the European issue.
The UK has become so ludicrous because the issue of the EU is so deeply felt by a significant part of the body politic. The Brexiters are the Jacobins of UK politics. Their ideological intensity has devastated the Conservative party and reduced British politics to its present shambles. There is, as a result, neither a comfortable exit from Brexit nor a plausible way of managing it smoothly.
Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. So it now is over Brexit.
Probably whistling whilst they do.
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
FT on the Repeal Bill:
“The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.” That is the first clause of the repeal bill, the government’s flagship piece of Brexit legislation that seeks to transpose EU law on to the UK statute book.The bill, formally known as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, is meant to provide certainty for individuals and businesses at the point that Britain leaves the EU.But the legislation is expected to have a tough passage through parliament as MPs and peers seek to amend it, and legal experts have highlighted areas that are likely to be bones of contention.Dealing with so-called deficienciesThe repeal bill incorporates the EU acquis on to the UK statute book, after which the government will have the opportunity to amend or scrap European laws as it sees fit.It is inevitable that parts of EU law will look odd. There will be references to EU regulators the UK will no longer recognise after Brexit, or mentions of rules, guidance and opinions that no longer apply to Britain.The repeal bill calls these “deficiencies”, and proposes handing ministers the power to “prevent, remedy or mitigate” any failure of retained EU law to “operate effectively”.How the bill defines operational effectiveness is likely to spark controversy, according to lawyers.The bill offers some definitions (“anything which has no practical application in relation to the UK . . . or is otherwise redundant or substantially redundant”) but says the list is not exhaustive. “The concept of what amounts to effective operation and deficiency are clearly going to come under great scrutiny as the legislation proceeds [through parliament],” says Daniel Greenberg, a former parliamentary counsel.
Henry VIII powers
Opposition parties are particularly wary of ministers using rights known as Henry VIII powers — which allow them to change laws with limited parliamentary scrutiny — to fix any deficiencies in EU law placed on to the UK statute book. The way the repeal bill approaches “deficiencies” potentially hands the government very broad powers over policy rather than limiting ministers to correcting legal flaws and loopholes, says Guy Lougher of Pinsent Masons.
A two-year limit
The bill attempts to deal with some of those concerns about Henry VIII powers by setting a time limit on their use of two years after Brexit takes effect, which is due to happen in March 2019.But that potentially creates its own problems, as it puts a time limit on getting every “deficiency” remedied — and there could be thousands.“The bill does the trick of providing continuity but that comes with the danger of gumming up the civil service, parliament and business having to focus on making technical tweaks when everyone’s resources should be devoted to running the country and running their businesses,” says Charles Clark, a partner at Linklaters.A recent Linklaters report on domesticating EU law recommended smoothing this process over.For example, the UK might choose to understand the functions of EU institutions and agencies as being those of the relevant UK minister or department without needing to make amendments to legislation.
The role of the European Court of Justice
Theresa May, the prime minister, has insisted on the ECJ having no jurisdiction over the UK after Brexit, and the repeal bill seems to come down on the side of her “hard Brexit” plans in this respect.A UK court is not bound by any decisions made by the ECJ after Brexit and cannot refer any matter to the Luxembourg-based court, says the bill.That conflicts with the European Commission view, set out in a recent position paper, that UK courts should be able to refer to the ECJ after Brexit on matters “relating to facts that occurred before the withdrawal date”.This is one of the issues that most alarms UK companies: when should UK courts stop referring cases to the ECJ? And if those cases are unresolved by the point of Brexit, will the ECJ still have the power to resolve them?Confusingly, the repeal bill says a UK court “need not have regard to anything done on or after exit day by the European Court . . . but may do so if it considers it appropriate”.
Is this our independence day?
The repeal bill starts off boldly but over the ensuing 60-plus pages there are moments of complexity that few people other than specialist lawyers are going to understand.“It is not exactly one of those documents where schoolchildren in the future will read it with awe, like the Declaration of the Rights of Man,” says Mr Clark.
“The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.” That is the first clause of the repeal bill, the government’s flagship piece of Brexit legislation that seeks to transpose EU law on to the UK statute book.The bill, formally known as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, is meant to provide certainty for individuals and businesses at the point that Britain leaves the EU.But the legislation is expected to have a tough passage through parliament as MPs and peers seek to amend it, and legal experts have highlighted areas that are likely to be bones of contention.Dealing with so-called deficienciesThe repeal bill incorporates the EU acquis on to the UK statute book, after which the government will have the opportunity to amend or scrap European laws as it sees fit.It is inevitable that parts of EU law will look odd. There will be references to EU regulators the UK will no longer recognise after Brexit, or mentions of rules, guidance and opinions that no longer apply to Britain.The repeal bill calls these “deficiencies”, and proposes handing ministers the power to “prevent, remedy or mitigate” any failure of retained EU law to “operate effectively”.How the bill defines operational effectiveness is likely to spark controversy, according to lawyers.The bill offers some definitions (“anything which has no practical application in relation to the UK . . . or is otherwise redundant or substantially redundant”) but says the list is not exhaustive. “The concept of what amounts to effective operation and deficiency are clearly going to come under great scrutiny as the legislation proceeds [through parliament],” says Daniel Greenberg, a former parliamentary counsel.
Henry VIII powers
Opposition parties are particularly wary of ministers using rights known as Henry VIII powers — which allow them to change laws with limited parliamentary scrutiny — to fix any deficiencies in EU law placed on to the UK statute book. The way the repeal bill approaches “deficiencies” potentially hands the government very broad powers over policy rather than limiting ministers to correcting legal flaws and loopholes, says Guy Lougher of Pinsent Masons.
A two-year limit
The bill attempts to deal with some of those concerns about Henry VIII powers by setting a time limit on their use of two years after Brexit takes effect, which is due to happen in March 2019.But that potentially creates its own problems, as it puts a time limit on getting every “deficiency” remedied — and there could be thousands.“The bill does the trick of providing continuity but that comes with the danger of gumming up the civil service, parliament and business having to focus on making technical tweaks when everyone’s resources should be devoted to running the country and running their businesses,” says Charles Clark, a partner at Linklaters.A recent Linklaters report on domesticating EU law recommended smoothing this process over.For example, the UK might choose to understand the functions of EU institutions and agencies as being those of the relevant UK minister or department without needing to make amendments to legislation.
The role of the European Court of Justice
Theresa May, the prime minister, has insisted on the ECJ having no jurisdiction over the UK after Brexit, and the repeal bill seems to come down on the side of her “hard Brexit” plans in this respect.A UK court is not bound by any decisions made by the ECJ after Brexit and cannot refer any matter to the Luxembourg-based court, says the bill.That conflicts with the European Commission view, set out in a recent position paper, that UK courts should be able to refer to the ECJ after Brexit on matters “relating to facts that occurred before the withdrawal date”.This is one of the issues that most alarms UK companies: when should UK courts stop referring cases to the ECJ? And if those cases are unresolved by the point of Brexit, will the ECJ still have the power to resolve them?Confusingly, the repeal bill says a UK court “need not have regard to anything done on or after exit day by the European Court . . . but may do so if it considers it appropriate”.
Is this our independence day?
The repeal bill starts off boldly but over the ensuing 60-plus pages there are moments of complexity that few people other than specialist lawyers are going to understand.“It is not exactly one of those documents where schoolchildren in the future will read it with awe, like the Declaration of the Rights of Man,” says Mr Clark.
What a state.
He's right imo. Brexit was sold as a ridiculously easy and straightforward thing, that we'd kick the EU into touch and regain the glory of empire with the click of a finger. It's the preserve of populists, and Corbyn does exactly the same because he's made his entire political life out of harping from the sidelines, so he's never actually had to implement anything at all. His ideas are pure pie in the sky.
Gouldy
Player Valuation: £1m
Agreed with you on the EU but disagree with you on Corbyn - I don't think they're that pie in the sky at all
I'm not sure they're viable at the best of times, but proposing to do what was in the Labour manifesto when both the civil service is stretched to breaking point by Brexit, and the economy is wracked with uncertainty for the same reasons is tantamount to madness.
Gouldy
Player Valuation: £1m
But we can't afford to put every other domestic issue on hold why we sort this Brexit mess out (which could take well up to 10 years and beyond) - for example, the NHS won't survive another 10 years at this current rate/under a Tory government. We need to increase home ownership rates. We need to help graduates get onto the housing ladder. The North needs to be revitalised.
The NHS was just voted the best health service in the world. There is barely a year goes by where it isn't proclaimed to be in crisis, but those proclamations are for political ends as much as anything.
Gouldy
Player Valuation: £1m
"Dr Mark Porter, leader of the doctors' union, the British Medical Association, said the fund's findings were "clear evidence that our much-maligned NHS is one of the top-performing healthcare systems in the world."
However, he warned that the service's achievements were now at risk. "We should not be complacent as we are facing pressures that are threatening the high-quality care that the Commonwealth Fund has rightly praised. A combination of rising patient demand, staff shortages and falling funding is undermining the very foundations of the NHS, as is the constant short-term interference from politicians of all colours."
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health
It isn't all peaches and cream
And I wouldn't suggest it is. Healthcare systems around the world face tremendous challenges due to an ageing population, a shift towards chronic diseases and a rapid pace of technological change, all whilst finances are squeezed. It is tough, no doubt about it, but to suggest that the service will die if xyz doesn't happen, or if Corbyn doesn't get into power, is incredible hyperbole.
- Status