homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Shake it all about: Brexit thread II (Page 7)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  64  65  66 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Assuming, of course, there are any Brexiteers who are not as thick as two short planks.

Well I voted Remain because Project Fear got to me, not out of any love for the EU and its rotten institutions. It doesn't make a person thick to dislike what Juncker and co stand for. Anyway, there have been items in the news this last week which make me feel more upbeat. First the WTO leader Roberto Azevedo has changed his tune somewhat. He now says ""I will be working hard - I will work very intensely to ensure that this transition is fast and is smooth." He also said, "Trade will not stop, it will continue and members negotiate the legal basis under which that trade is going to happen. But it doesn't mean that we'll have a vacuum or a disruption."

The reality is that he too was part of Project Fear, but he now sees that world trade isn't in the best of places, and doesn't want to make anything worse. Also a

report last week by Civitas shows that, under WTO tariffs, the UK would pay some £5.2 billion, wheras it would receive £12.9 billion. So in the event that the EU leaders don't come to their senses over this, they stand to lose more. This maths can't be wasted on leaders such as Mrs Merkel. Swedish businessman Johan Eliasch spoke to her last week, mentioning three proposals.

Regulatory equivalence for financial services, free movement of highly skilled individuals and the maintenance of tariff free trade. Although she was non-committal, she said, "If we're all sensible, we'll come to a sensible solution." In spite of the sabre rattling and posturing on both sides, there will be give and take, to the benefit of all the EU, not just the UK. When the EU leaders examine the size of the economic hit they'll take if post Brexit tariffs are applied, they will be willing to negotiate.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541

 - Posted      Profile for Rocinante   Email Rocinante   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've seen innumerable articles by brexiteers crowing about how much more Brexit will cost them than it will cost us. They all assume that import & export trade will continue at pre-referendum levels, which, after the tanking pound makes imports 30% more expensive and our exports 30% cheaper, is pure fantasy.

The purpose of tariffs is to control levels of trade, not to raise revenue. If we wanted trade to continue at previous levels we would have to find some mechanism for adjusting the tariffs - i.e., a trade agreement.

Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Assuming, of course, there are any Brexiteers who are not as thick as two short planks.

Well I voted Remain because Project Fear got to me, not out of any love for the EU and its rotten institutions. It doesn't make a person thick to dislike what Juncker and co stand for.
Just to be clear, I'm using "Brexiteer" for someone who campaigned for Brexit, rather than those who voted to Leave. Brexiteers are those who travelled around the country in a bus with a lie emblazoned down the side, who ran their own "Project Fear" by falsely claiming that a) immigration is a problem and b) leaving the EU would solve this non-problem, etc.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002

 - Posted      Profile for Ronald Binge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Assuming, of course, there are any Brexiteers who are not as thick as two short planks.

Well I voted Remain because Project Fear got to me, not out of any love for the EU and its rotten institutions. It doesn't make a person thick to dislike what Juncker and co stand for. Anyway, there have been items in the news this last week which make me feel more upbeat. First the WTO leader Roberto Azevedo has changed his tune somewhat. He now says ""I will be working hard - I will work very intensely to ensure that this transition is fast and is smooth." He also said, "Trade will not stop, it will continue and members negotiate the legal basis under which that trade is going to happen. But it doesn't mean that we'll have a vacuum or a disruption."

The reality is that he too was part of Project Fear, but he now sees that world trade isn't in the best of places, and doesn't want to make anything worse. Also a

report last week by Civitas shows that, under WTO tariffs, the UK would pay some £5.2 billion, wheras it would receive £12.9 billion. So in the event that the EU leaders don't come to their senses over this, they stand to lose more. This maths can't be wasted on leaders such as Mrs Merkel. Swedish businessman Johan Eliasch spoke to her last week, mentioning three proposals.

Regulatory equivalence for financial services, free movement of highly skilled individuals and the maintenance of tariff free trade. Although she was non-committal, she said, "If we're all sensible, we'll come to a sensible solution." In spite of the sabre rattling and posturing on both sides, there will be give and take, to the benefit of all the EU, not just the UK. When the EU leaders examine the size of the economic hit they'll take if post Brexit tariffs are applied, they will be willing to negotiate.

None of that assures me that my everyday life living five miles from the Northern Ireland border will be unaffected. [Mad]
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ronald B:
I would take your view and due the situation in the provinces and semi federal structure (and despite it being an idea of Nicola who I heartily dislike) I do think all the constituent nations should have needed a majority pace Belgium in the recent CETA negotiations.

We are where we are - and isn't that profound!

But one semi-reasonable point is that if Sweden-Norway can manage a much bigger border, why can't we?

OK so Swedes and Norwegians have a slightly more harmonious past relationship.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PaulTH,

Your optimistic economic predictions discount seriously the wider economic effects of brexit. We certainly do import more from the rest of the EU than we export to it, but you can't take that fact in isolation. We are so well integrated that the disruption to trade will very likely make everyone poorer, and nothing thst either party can do, short of tearing up the results of the referendum, is going to fix that. The non (direct) trade costs, (loss of the benefits of free movement of people, interference with research programmes, etc) almost certainly will dwarf the direct trade costs, whatever tariff agreements to which we do or do not come.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002

 - Posted      Profile for Ronald Binge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Ronald B:
I would take your view and due the situation in the provinces and semi federal structure (and despite it being an idea of Nicola who I heartily dislike) I do think all the constituent nations should have needed a majority pace Belgium in the recent CETA negotiations.

We are where we are - and isn't that profound!

But one semi-reasonable point is that if Sweden-Norway can manage a much bigger border, why can't we?

OK so Swedes and Norwegians have a slightly more harmonious past relationship.

Something will be bodged between the EU, the UK and the Republic of Ireland, no doubt. The hopelessly entwined nature of Britain and Ireland demands that, but I don't have fond memories of officious customs on the Irish side, and the administrative contortions pre-1992 my old employers had to go through to sell goods from the Republic to Northern Ireland.

--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)

Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:

But one semi-reasonable point is that if Sweden-Norway can manage a much bigger border, why can't we?

Sweden and Norway are both in Schengen, which simplifies some things. In terms of goods, the Sweden/Norway Sweden/Finland borders are handling by allowing customs police from either side of the border to inspect sites on the other side - given the history of Ireland and the UK, this may not be particularly acceptable to some communities.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002

 - Posted      Profile for Ronald Binge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:

But one semi-reasonable point is that if Sweden-Norway can manage a much bigger border, why can't we?

Sweden and Norway are both in Schengen, which simplifies some things. In terms of goods, the Sweden/Norway Sweden/Finland borders are handling by allowing customs police from either side of the border to inspect sites on the other side - given the history of Ireland and the UK, this may not be particularly acceptable to some communities.
It isn't communitarian to believe any impeding of a hitherto open border is nothing but a damn nuisance, at best.

--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)

Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:

It isn't communitarian to believe any impeding of a hitherto open border is nothing but a damn nuisance, at best.

I wasn't casting judgement necessarily; just indicating that solutions adopted elsewhere may not be acceptable in a specifically Irish context.

We are where we are, and some impeding of the border is on the cards - unless we stay within the Single Market or the EU - both of which seem unlikely.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:

There is a lot to said for requiring more than a simple majority of those voting to precipitate an irreversible change, but I wonder if that is in itself a majority opinion.

and we come back to the question of "what is an irreversible change" - you can make a reasonable case that although the Brexit question looked on the surface like a status quo / irreversible change decision, it was really a choice of two pretty irreversible paths.

Because having a "status quo" assumes that standing still is an option, and it often isn't.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Nissan deal, if it is that, continues to spread ripples. Most vivid quote is from Clegg, who has protested that it could cost billions to protect other companies. But this is all guesswork, since no-one knows if Nissan will be repeated with other firms, or even how exactly Nissan will be protected. Does the government even know this?

I think it will be raised in Parliament today, but we can expect more stone-walling. "We aim to secure the best trade deals for British companies, and we are not going to reveal ongoing negotiations, and we are certainly not going to discuss this with MPs, who the fuck do they think they are, we answer to the British people. "

I've heard that some of the Brexit comment threads in the tabloids are livid with May, seeing it as a betrayal of a pure and virgin and hard Brexit. Cue Mae West, a hard Brexit is good to find and hold on to.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

But this is all guesswork, since no-one knows if Nissan will be repeated with other firms, or even how exactly Nissan will be protected. Does the government even know this?

Maybe this was posted already, but Carlos Goshn is a shrewd chap who is sure to have the measure of May. He wouldn't have made the decision unless the guarantees he got were actually worth something.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

But this is all guesswork, since no-one knows if Nissan will be repeated with other firms, or even how exactly Nissan will be protected. Does the government even know this?

Maybe this was posted already, but Carlos Goshn is a shrewd chap who is sure to have the measure of May. He wouldn't have made the decision unless the guarantees he got were actually worth something.
I agree. It's inaccurate of me to ask if the govt knows, as they must have some scheme to protect Nissan, either financial, or maintaining the customs union, or the like. I suppose May is treading on eggshells, so as not to upset the Big Hairy Brexiteers, who want a white tight and right little country.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541

 - Posted      Profile for Rocinante   Email Rocinante   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Everyone's focussing on the financial guarantees that may or may not have been given, but AIUI Nissan's red lines for making further investment in GB were continuation of zero-tariff trade and freedom of movement. Therefore ISTM that the government must have promised those.

Something is being cooked up on the Single Market. I would not be surprised if the government asked for UK regions to be allowed to opt in or out of the single market, in exchange for ongoing contributions to the EU, and freedom of movement to those regions. Possibly industrial sectors (Automotive, finance) could make similar arrangements.

The UK already has some of the infrastructure to enable this. Scotland, Wales & NI, London and Bristol are partially self-governing. Other regions are about to be. There could be a series of local referenda on remaining in the single market, and people would have proper information this time around: You will no longer have to hear people speaking Polish in the high street (Oh, the hardship!) but that factory that employs 3,000 directly and 30,000 indirectly will likely close.

This would satisfy the slushy Brexiters because we would be "taking back control", it wouldn't satisfy the Brexit berserkers (Breserkers?), but nothing short of draining the channel and filling it with venomous scorpions would make them happy.

It would have the added attraction of allowing Scotland to effectively remain in the EU, thus taking the momentum out of further moves towards independence.

Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Everyone's focussing on the financial guarantees that may or may not have been given, but AIUI Nissan's red lines for making further investment in GB were continuation of zero-tariff trade and freedom of movement. Therefore ISTM that the government must have promised those.

Something is being cooked up on the Single Market. I would not be surprised if the government asked for UK regions to be allowed to opt in or out of the single market, in exchange for ongoing contributions to the EU, and freedom of movement to those regions.

As DaveW points out above, this is not in the power of the UK to give. Furthermore any such deal would have to be ratified by the EU27. Nissan will know this.

Finally, I don't think this could be coherent, which region would you see Sunderland falling into? If it is a region that allows free movement then the Brexiters of the North East aren't going to be particularly happy are they?

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Something is being cooked up on the Single Market. I would not be surprised if the government asked for UK regions to be allowed to opt in or out of the single market, in exchange for ongoing contributions to the EU, and freedom of movement to those regions. Possibly industrial sectors (Automotive, finance) could make similar arrangements.

The UK already has some of the infrastructure to enable this. Scotland, Wales & NI, London and Bristol are partially self-governing. Other regions are about to be. There could be a series of local referenda on remaining in the single market, and people would have proper information this time around: You will no longer have to hear people speaking Polish in the high street (Oh, the hardship!) but that factory that employs 3,000 directly and 30,000 indirectly will likely close.

This seems massively incorrect. How do you allow "freedom of movement" to just part of the UK? At the moment there is no existing "infrastructure" to prevent someone in Scotland from traveling to England. The only way to accomplish what you're suggesting is some kind of internal check of transit papers. So the argument seems to be that border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will be onerous and unpopular, but everyone is going to support border controls between Wales and England? (Or wherever you posit the dividing line between "free movement UK" and the rest of the UK to be.)

That seems wrong on a couple of levels.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So the argument seems to be that border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will be onerous and unpopular, but everyone is going to support border controls between Wales and England? (Or wherever you posit the dividing line between "free movement UK" and the rest of the UK to be.)

That seems wrong on a couple of levels.

Sure, it's wrong on a couple of levels. But on the other hand it means the rest of the country might be able to stop those damn cockneys moving in and driving up their house prices, so there may yet be support for it!

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Something is being cooked up on the Single Market. I would not be surprised if the government asked for UK regions to be allowed to opt in or out of the single market, in exchange for ongoing contributions to the EU, and freedom of movement to those regions. Possibly industrial sectors (Automotive, finance) could make similar arrangements.

The UK already has some of the infrastructure to enable this. Scotland, Wales & NI, London and Bristol are partially self-governing. Other regions are about to be. There could be a series of local referenda on remaining in the single market, and people would have proper information this time around: You will no longer have to hear people speaking Polish in the high street (Oh, the hardship!) but that factory that employs 3,000 directly and 30,000 indirectly will likely close.

This seems massively incorrect. How do you allow "freedom of movement" to just part of the UK? At the moment there is no existing "infrastructure" to prevent someone in Scotland from traveling to England. The only way to accomplish what you're suggesting is some kind of internal check of transit papers. So the argument seems to be that border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will be onerous and unpopular, but everyone is going to support border controls between Wales and England? (Or wherever you posit the dividing line between "free movement UK" and the rest of the UK to be.)

That seems wrong on a couple of levels.

Yes, I don't know who said what to whom, but I'd be willing to lay pretty good odds that it wasn't what Rocinante has suggested.

It's more plausible that they've threatened to impose reciprocal tariffs and offered to offset out of the difference in the event the EU won't play ball on tariff free access. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that's a great plan, but it's what I think the plan might be.

.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Yes, I don't know who said what to whom, but I'd be willing to lay pretty good odds that it wasn't what Rocinante has suggested.

It's more plausible that they've threatened to impose reciprocal tariffs and offered to offset out of the difference in the event the EU won't play ball on tariff free access. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that's a great plan, but it's what I think the plan might be.

Clegg seems to think that the Tories have promised some kind of financial inducement with Nissan, which would somehow allow the UK to continue with EU contributions for particular products.

The real issue is therefore what exactly Nissan would get if this odd arrangement was not able to be negotiated with the EU. Presumably some kind of compensation. It is highly unlikely that Nissan would have signed up without some kind of guarantee as far as I can see the situation.

The idea that some parts of the British mainland are in the single market and others are not isn't going to happen. Even Scotland seems trapped between a rock and a hard-place if it has to make a choice between a free-trade area with the EU or with the rUK.

I can maybe/possibly see some kind of new arrangement for Northern Ireland, possibly allowing the province to remain officially part of the UK but at more of an arms length so that it can retain links with the Republic. Geographically that seems to make more sense than trying to split up areas of England/Wales.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541

 - Posted      Profile for Rocinante   Email Rocinante   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Greg Clark has himself admitted that any financial compensation paid to Nissan would probably contravene WTO treaties - so having pissed off the EU, we'd piss off everyone else as well.

I don't think Nissan would have been happy without something pretty concrete on the single market. I know my proposal above would require a lot of bureaucracy - essentially, a system of regional work visas. But the apparatus to support it exists in embryonic form. There would have to be rapid devolution of these powers to the remaining English regions.

Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course, the odd thing about N. Ireland is that people there can become Irish citizens. I wonder if that means that they are therefore EU citizens, yet also, not EU citizens.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, the odd thing about N. Ireland is that people there can become Irish citizens. I wonder if that means that they are therefore EU citizens, yet also, not EU citizens.

To the best of my knowledge the EU is not a body that grants "citizenship", so no.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, the odd thing about N. Ireland is that people there can become Irish citizens. I wonder if that means that they are therefore EU citizens, yet also, not EU citizens.

To the best of my knowledge the EU is not a body that grants "citizenship", so no.
AIUI, to be a citizen of one of the EU's member states is also to be an EU citizen. So, a Northern Irish person who takes out Irish Citizenship will remain an EU citizen after Brexit but I will cease to be one. A number of people are currently seeking dual nationality for themselves or their children to retain the freedom to live or work across the EU including, somewhat ironically, Nigel Farage who had the foresight to marry a German before screwing the rest of us.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541

 - Posted      Profile for Rocinante   Email Rocinante   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is a ridiculous problem that Hameron has left us with. It will require an even more ridiculous solution to square the circle and "leave without leaving". I'd be interested to hear anyone else's ideas.

Of course, hard Brexit may be all that's politically possible or that the EU will give us, in which case any discussion of alternatives is entirely moot. But I do not for a moment believe that we can finesse hard Brexit by bribing companies to stay. That's for the birds.

Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It will probably require something like this:

S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S( S(S(0)) + S(0) )
= S( S( S(S(0)) + 0 ) )
= S(S(S(S(0))))

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541

 - Posted      Profile for Rocinante   Email Rocinante   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Looks as plausible as anything else I've seen.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

It's more plausible that they've threatened to impose reciprocal tariffs and offered to offset out of the difference in the event the EU won't play ball on tariff free access. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that's a great plan, but it's what I think the plan might be.

Well, offsetting payments of this kind would fall foul of WTO rules. The UK could stay out of the WTO but that would invoke a whole other world of pain.

Again, I want to challenge the background assumption in your post that the natural state of the world is tariff free trade and the EU is somehow violating some kind of natural law by 'imposing' tariffs and somehow refusing to 'play ball'.

The choices are; join the WTO, play by the rules of the WTO and be subject to the tariffs of the WTO; join a platform such as EFTA, play by the rules of the platform and enjoy the benefits of the platform; spend the time and effort necessary to draw up a trade agreement of your own.

[Again, I refer back to Ricardus' excellent post http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=019952;p=2#000099 ]

[ 31. October 2016, 18:42: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497

 - Posted      Profile for lowlands_boy   Email lowlands_boy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The government have lost a case in the High Court on whether or not they could use "royal prerogative" to invoke Article 50. The judgement means that it now must have parliamentary approval.

Not surprisingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been granted, and the government will do so.

Farage is foaming at the mouth on all available media outlets, with other sides also wetting themselves....

--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....

Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A victory for democracy, putting decisions about implementing Brexit into the hands of all our elected representatives. Which is where it should be, rather than in the hands of a few making decisions behind closed doors.

Ultimately, of course, it will make no difference - because any vote in Parliament will result in Article 50 being invoked. Too many of our MPs will just tow the "will of the people" line and vote for the government. The SNP may go for trying to get some concessions from the government, and vote against if they don't. Some of the more vocal pro-EU MPs will probably vote against. But, not enough to make any difference.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If you're right, to my mind this just underscores the detrimental role of the media in over-sensationalising issues, thus fuelling anxiety and drawing contrasts so sharply there is no sensible middle ground.

Scarcely was this news out than the BBC website is awash with articles on sterling jumping, a law drafter saying Article 50 wasn't watertight anyway, speculation about Remainers fighting a grassroots campaign, and so forth; in similar fashion to the treatment of the US election.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And the rabid right wing will now be growing hair on their chest, and saying that the will of the people is being denied. Hang on, I thought they wanted sovereignty - isn't it Parliament that is sovereign?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, the odd thing about N. Ireland is that people there can become Irish citizens. I wonder if that means that they are therefore EU citizens, yet also, not EU citizens.

To the best of my knowledge the EU is not a body that grants "citizenship", so no.
If you're a citizen of an EU country, you automatically have the same rights as a local within the EU. Which explains why some people in the UK are frantically checking their family history to see if there is a connection with an EU country that allows them apply for a passport.

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
The government have lost a case in the High Court on whether or not they could use "royal prerogative" to invoke Article 50. The judgement means that it now must have parliamentary approval.

Not surprisingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been granted, and the government will do so.

Farage is foaming at the mouth on all available media outlets, with other sides also wetting themselves....

If they lose the Supreme Court case, they could appeal to Europe. [Snigger]

Brexit will pass, but only with checks and balances and it will have to go through due process. Which could take awhile. I'm not seeing why there's such a big objection ... Surely taking back control means that the House is involved in these kind of decisions and is seen as an asset rather than a liability. We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Am I being unduly paranoid in detecting unpleasantly totalitarian overtones in the constant invocation of 'will of the British people' by the present Government?
On the other hand, if by any chance the Parliamentary vote was to go against the Government and an election was to be called, wouldn't it be likely to result in the formation of the most right-wing Government since 1832? Let's not throw our hats in the air too soon!

Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A victory for democracy, putting decisions about implementing Brexit into the hands of all our elected representatives. Which is where it should be, rather than in the hands of a few making decisions behind closed doors.

I can imagine those who passionately support Britain's membership of the EU being jubilant about this. The pound has already gone up by a cent against the dollar since the announcement. But it remains to be seen if it's a victory for democracy. Both in the 2015 Tory Party election manifesto, and in the leaflet which Cameron dropped through all our doors during the referendum campaign, it was made clear that the government would implement the decision of the referendum whatever the outcome. Quite right IMO. But parliament has an 80% pro Remain bias. It will now do what it can to delay and eventually eliminate Brexit in any meaningful way.

What the government should do in the new year, as it's too late this side of Christmas is to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011 and call a general election. I have advocated this all along. We know that the Lib Dems would enter such an election promising to keep us in the EU. UKIP will opt for a total divorce. The Tories and Labour will be forced to set out their stalls as to what they want to happen next. I don't trust the present parliament to honour the democratic will of the people. Let members face their own voters and find out what they want first. Then there's some hope that this will be a victory for democracy.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Am I being unduly paranoid in detecting unpleasantly totalitarian overtones in the constant invocation of 'will of the British people' by the present Government?

Not unduly paranoid at all, IMO.

quote:
On the other hand, if by any chance the Parliamentary vote was to go against the Government and an election was to be called, wouldn't it be likely to result in the formation of the most right-wing Government since 1832? Let's not throw our hats in the air too soon!
If there was another election called, I'm not sure that the rather uncertain "will of the people" over Brexit would be a strong factor. The total collapse of Labour probably would be, and that would favour the right by default. On the other hand, there is a large body of people who voted Remain, also a large number of people who voted Leave who are appalled at the racism and xenophobia demonstrated by the right, and a large number of young people who were unable to vote in June ... all of which might give a politically centralish candidate strong support - and, even return a large number of MPs who stand on an anti-Brexit platform. Such an election would be interesting, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that it would return a government even further to the right than the current bunch of wannabe-fascists.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497

 - Posted      Profile for lowlands_boy   Email lowlands_boy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Am I being unduly paranoid in detecting unpleasantly totalitarian overtones in the constant invocation of 'will of the British people' by the present Government?
On the other hand, if by any chance the Parliamentary vote was to go against the Government and an election was to be called, wouldn't it be likely to result in the formation of the most right-wing Government since 1832? Let's not throw our hats in the air too soon!

Well - it would either be the most right wing, or if Corbyn's Labour won, the most left wing for donkey's years.

Apparently Ladbrokes have odds of 2/1 that Article 50 doesn't happen before 2021 or at all. You can get the same odds on a 2017 general election.

I'm a Methodist though ;-)

--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....

Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497

 - Posted      Profile for lowlands_boy   Email lowlands_boy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A victory for democracy, putting decisions about implementing Brexit into the hands of all our elected representatives. Which is where it should be, rather than in the hands of a few making decisions behind closed doors.

I can imagine those who passionately support Britain's membership of the EU being jubilant about this. The pound has already gone up by a cent against the dollar since the announcement. But it remains to be seen if it's a victory for democracy. Both in the 2015 Tory Party election manifesto, and in the leaflet which Cameron dropped through all our doors during the referendum campaign, it was made clear that the government would implement the decision of the referendum whatever the outcome. Quite right IMO. But parliament has an 80% pro Remain bias. It will now do what it can to delay and eventually eliminate Brexit in any meaningful way.

What the government should do in the new year, as it's too late this side of Christmas is to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011 and call a general election. I have advocated this all along. We know that the Lib Dems would enter such an election promising to keep us in the EU. UKIP will opt for a total divorce. The Tories and Labour will be forced to set out their stalls as to what they want to happen next. I don't trust the present parliament to honour the democratic will of the people. Let members face their own voters and find out what they want first. Then there's some hope that this will be a victory for democracy.

The problem is, if you have a general election that's just based on the EU position, what do you do if you end up with another hung parliament? How would all those parties ever enter into a coalition?

There'd be so much arguing over what to do that Putin might decide to bring his aircraft carrier back from Syria and sail it down the Thames while the (non) government dither.

OK - the Putin bit it hyperbole, but it could be extremely unstable. At least as it stands we have a modicum of "normal" government with a parliament elected on other positions. Better the devil you know....

--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....

Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A victory for democracy, putting decisions about implementing Brexit into the hands of all our elected representatives. Which is where it should be, rather than in the hands of a few making decisions behind closed doors.

I can imagine those who passionately support Britain's membership of the EU being jubilant about this.
As a passionate supporter of Britain's membership of the EU, I wouldn't say I'm jubilant. Because, it's a very small step that will ultimately not change anything - it might slow things down a wee bit, though if the government decides not to go to the Supreme Court they could put a motion into the House, have a debate and vote and still invoke Article 50 at the end of March. I don't expect more than a handful of Tories to vote against the government, and there will be a sizeable number of Labour MPs who will also accept that "Brexit means Brexit". If the government decides to go to the Supreme Court, then they'll presumably have to wait for that decision before invoking Article 50. And if the ruling is still that it needs to go through the House then March may slip into May or June.

More interesting will be the courts decisions relating to the actual referendum. If the courts rule that some people were illegally denied a vote then all bets are off, and it would probably need a re-run of the referendum including those who were excluded in June. I predict a re-run would give a Remain result - I recently saw a study on demagraphics that showed that even if no-one changes their votes (including the choice not to vote) then within 5 years the result would swing to Remain simply by the number of young people turning 18 and the death of the elderly.

quote:
Both in the 2015 Tory Party election manifesto, and in the leaflet which Cameron dropped through all our doors during the referendum campaign, it was made clear that the government would implement the decision of the referendum whatever the outcome.
As a point of information, I never received this mythical leaflet from Cameron. But, that's not really relevant. The point is, that the manifesto commitment is what's going to result in most Tories voting to invoke Article 50 when it goes through the House. The Tory party can't be seen to back down on such a public commitment and to vote against the government - otherwise they're likely to end up in their own version of the mess Labour are in. And, heaven help us, that would mean a load of UKIP MPs next election (even leaving the EU is a better prospect than that).

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I haven't read the whole decision, but the snippets of the court's reasoning I've seen seem highly questionable.

EDIT: This looks to be the relevant page. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union/

[ 03. November 2016, 13:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
TurquoiseTastic

Fish of a different color
# 8978

 - Posted      Profile for TurquoiseTastic   Email TurquoiseTastic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.

Tubbs

Er... yes, we normally do?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.

Tubbs

Er... yes, we normally do?
Nope, wars are voted on. The UK is not officially in Syria is because Cameron couldn't get military action passed.

Just found out a point in my previous post was wrong. The court case won't go to Europe as European law isn't involved.

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.

Tubbs

Er... yes, we normally do?
well, the last couple of adventures, eg Syria, have been contingent on a vote, but yes you're right that this is a spectacularly new piece of precedent in the great scheme of things. Was it one of Gordon Brown's ideas? Telling any PM from Blair backwards that they couldn't go to war without a vote if they wanted to would have come as something of a surprise to them.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.

Tubbs

Er... yes, we normally do?
Nope, wars are voted on. The UK is not officially in Syria is because Cameron couldn't get military action passed.


See my cross post, wars are voted on *now* as a matter of course, but this is a very new development (as in last couple of years), not an age-old precedent.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having just read a bit more of the actual decision, I remain quite dubious about its correctness.

It seems to equate alterations to the law of the UK with the results of the application of the laws of (1)the EU or (2) other member states of the EU. And to my mind those are very different things. Changing the text of the law is not the same thing as triggering the application of the law of another country.

It's like saying that the UK loses the right to declare war on another country if that other country has a law that has bad consequences for citizens of enemy countries.

As TurquoiseTastic says, declaring war IS a prerogative power. Unless you've somehow done something to get rid of it. Otherwise, getting the blessing of Parliament is just that: a blessing. And a political move rather than a legally necessary one.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This article is a fairly clear statement that getting Parliamentary approval of fighting is a political convention.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.

Tubbs

Er... yes, we normally do?
Nope, wars are voted on. The UK is not officially in Syria is because Cameron couldn't get military action passed.


See my cross post, wars are voted on *now* as a matter of course, but this is a very new development (as in last couple of years), not an age-old precedent.
Thank you. Given all the fuss about who voted for Iraq recently, I assumed that it had always been so.

Frankly, it's a good precedent.

We elect people to run the country on our behalf so they should be all over Brexit. The idea that "taking back control" means that things are discussed and decided in secret by a small committee is just ... [brick wall] That's not saying I want a redo, just that I want the form of brexit to go through proper due process.

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Frankly, it's a good precedent.

Frankly, court cases aren't about good precedents. They're about legal requirements. I know you were talking about going to war just now, but how we got here was by comparing that to Brexit.

Whether it would be a good look for Parliament to be involved in triggering Brexit isn't the question right now. It's whether Parliament legally need to be involved.

And to my mind it's completely wrong in principle to say that Parliament ought automatically to be involved in "big decisions". Parliament is involved with changes to the law. Not decisions in general if they have significant consequences.

[ 03. November 2016, 14:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Having just read a bit more of the actual decision, I remain quite dubious about its correctness.

It seems to equate alterations to the law of the UK with the results of the application of the laws of (1)the EU or (2) other member states of the EU. And to my mind those are very different things. Changing the text of the law is not the same thing as triggering the application of the law of another country.

I'm not a legal expert, added to which I've not had time to read the court documents you linked to earlier (I'll have a look over them when I'm back home from work).

But, I thought the basic argument was that the UK joined (what became) the EU by an Act of Parliament. Therefore, leaving the EU will be to rescind that Act of Parliament. Scrubbing an Act from the books seems, to my lay eyes, the ultimate in "changing the text". The same would go for any other parts of UK law that derive from and rely on EU membership (if any such laws exist).

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  64  65  66 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools