Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Did I hear Bernard Jenkin saying "We don't want a border with Ireland, Ireland doesn't want a border - if there is a hard border it will be imposed by Europe"?

I did (albeit paraphrased)  - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09qb0g4#play   2:16:50

They still seem to be at the advance stage of having their cake and eating it.

On the subject of the net position on Brexit, bearing in mind the difference in knowledge now compared to 18 months ago, This short speech seems very apt:

https://www.facebook.com/PokeH...os/1996384930401790/

Innocent Bystander posted:

On the subject of the net position on Brexit, bearing in mind the difference in knowledge now compared to 18 months ago, This short speech seems very apt:

https://www.facebook.com/PokeH...os/1996384930401790/

I had a quick look at it just before starting to watch PMQ. Personally I find Pat Condell on YouTube much more my taste and amusement. I would be very surprised if any  or many on this site would agree and I certainly won't include a link just in case... ????

Hmack posted:

Resurrection posted:

 

I have taken the time to read your lengthy response to my comment. Your strongly held views that anyone who has taken responsibility for their life, paid their taxes and demanded littie of the State yet should cough up even more is one held by many Socialists, or at least Socialists to my eyes. The NHS is a hopeless , political basket case that needs complete restructuring including how it should be funded. My preferred model would be something similar to the French one. However, I have certainly not fully researched it.

As to me simply deriding the NHS, my wife was a MIdwife for over thirty years, continuing to practise well beyond her actual retirement age. She only gave up when she felt that thirteen hour shifts, often without even a tea break, were impairing her capability to practise safely even though she has huge reserves of stamina, much more than many women half her age. Still, if you are comfortable with your own wife or yourself, if you are female, being treated by staff who have not had a moment's break and are into their thirteenth working hour then so be it. 

Your American friend sees healthcare from a different perspective and it leaves you puzzled. I have no desire or love for the Ametican Medicare but it is what they know and understand. They think our NHS is substandard and almost third world and they are not far wrong. The continuation of maintaining the NHS as a political holy cow completely free to be abused by anyone arriving on its doorstep is, in my humble opinion, unsustainable. 

The implication of the second sentence in your first paragraph appears to be that 'altruism' is the domain of 'Socialists', and that 'altruism' is something to be derided rather than applauded. This is a point of view that I find very strange indeed. Do you have a similar antipathy towards charities? I suspect not, or at least I hope not.

Your wife, and many like her in the NHS, has very obviously been impacted by the continued underfunding and understaffing of the NHS over a number of years, and whilst I have a particular disdain for the current Government and its lack of respect of the NHS and those who work in it, I certainly do not excuse recent Labour Governments from blame in the running down of the NHS. I too have relatives working as Junior Doctors in the NHS and who too work ridiculously long shifts in Hospital departments that are dangerously understaffed.

You appear to have no desire for an American style Health Service where the disadvantaged with no hope of funding their personal medical insurance are left to fend for themselves, and I am very glad to hear it. You say that your preferred choice would be something along the lines of the French system, and I for one would have no problem with a system of this sort being looked at in this country. As I understand it, the French system is fairly similar to that operating in a number of European countries in that individuals (or organisations they work for) pay for the Health Service by means of ring-fenced contributions akin to our own National Insurance contributions. However, the simple fact is that our Health Service (whatever its structure) has to be adequately funded and staffed, and it is simply the case that the French system is significantly better funded and more appropriately staffed than our own NHS. The French system may provide more choice for individuals who require treatment, but the service itself still needs to be funded and staffed, and it is still the case in France that the better off contribute more to medical insurance than the less well off.

Finally I have to comment on your statement:

"The continuation of maintaining the NHS as a political holy cow completely free to be abused by anyone arriving on its doorstep is, in my humble opinion, unsustainable".   

When discussion of the possibility of Brexit first arose, I was struck by the assertion of many Brexiteers that their personal reasons for voting to leave were nothing to do with xenophobia or immigration. Just like in America, views that would once have been considered to be unhealthy at best or downright nasty at worst are becoming the norm. Whilst there are no doubt some 'Johnny Foreigners' who abuse the National Health Service system, this is a drop in the ocean compared to the funding and staffing problems now faced by the NHS.    

 

Why do you think I might have suggested that foreigners are the only people who abuse our health services? Wherever the abuse arises it should be confronted and stopped as it results in services being denied to more urgent cases.

fatcat posted:

I agree, you can’t label everybody who voted leave a racist.

But, from my personal experience, ALL the racists I know voted leave.

Define racist, and would all your known racists who voted Leave agree with your own personal judgment of them?

Resurrection posted:

Personally I find Pat Condell on YouTube much more my taste and amusement. 

What once was, sensibly, private is now made public.

Adam Meredith posted:

Resurrection posted:

Personally I find Pat Condell on YouTube much more my taste and amusement. 

 

What once was, sensibly, private is now made public.

Not sure exactly what you are alluding to but you’re big enough to go and take a look which was of course my objective. ????

Resurrection posted:

fatcat posted:

I agree, you can’t label everybody who voted leave a racist.

But, from my personal experience, ALL the racists I know voted leave.

Define racist, and would all your known racists who voted Leave agree with your own personal judgment of them?

Yes. They are openly racist and proud of it.

Resurrection posted:

Adam Meredith posted:

Resurrection posted:

Personally I find Pat Condell on YouTube much more my taste and amusement. 

 

What once was, sensibly, private is now made public.

Not sure exactly what you are alluding to but you’re big enough to go and take a look which was of course my objective. ????

Adam, that was not my complete response. There should have been another word after ‘enoigh’ But it was sadly removed by the moderator. However, it alludes to your own comment. ????

We seem to have had a bit of deflection into the NHS and altruism.

I haven't looked at the numbers for some time but I think these show that in terms of the total tax burden in the UK (expressed as a percentage of GDP) I think it has for many years stayed pretty much in the same place - from memory around 34% - regardless of the political party in government.  Of course, there's a choice about what it is spent on, but I think that there's general agreement that the best way to generate more revenue to spend, e.g. on improving public services or to fund tax cuts, is to grow the economy. That, I think, is the achilles heel of the Brexiteers because pretty much all the financial forecasts government, academic, international, are forecasting the UK's growth to fall or even reverse in the short to medium terms when the various exit options are modelled. Meanwhile the forecasts for growth within the EU are heading upwards.

Mogg saying he doesn't trust Treasury officials lacks credibility (as well as good manners) because the Brexit camp are failing miserably to come up with any competing and credible economic forecasts to support their argument. In my view this is because they know such forecasts would be shredded by respected and impartial bodies.  So the Brexiteers are continuing to ask the country to ignore the economic forecasts for the UK and to trust them that it will turn out ok. What bank would entertain such a plan should a business come to it seeking financial support?  It seems that we're being asked to put up with a highly damaging impact on the UK's economy as a price worth paying for pursuing an anti-EU ideology!  Surely there are enough MPs in the House of Commons who, when push comes to shove, will put the interests of the UK's economy above party interest and certainly ideology? This might not reverse the result of the referendum but it could mean BINO.

Resurrection posted:

 

 

Not sure exactly what you are alluding to but you’re big enough to go and take a look which was of course my objective. 

I was diverted to thoughts of how we often take a guilty, scatalogical delight in our own farts yet eschew and objurgate those of others. Condell is to your liking because his 'wind' is familiar. Not so for me.

If I'm going to be caught in a diving suit with right wing bore I prefer the entertainment value of the batshit crazy masters of the trade.

BINO non e acceptibile! Am watching Tosca from the ROH and getting into character. In fact sono Scarpia!

MDS posted:

We seem to have had a bit of deflection into the NHS and altruism.

I haven't looked at the numbers for some time but I think these show that in terms of the total tax burden in the UK (expressed as a percentage of GDP) I think it has for many years stayed pretty much in the same place - from memory around 34% - regardless of the political party in government.  Of course, there's a choice about what it is spent on, but I think that there's general agreement that the best way to generate more revenue to spend, e.g. on improving public services or to fund tax cuts, is to grow the economy. That, I think, is the achilles heel of the Brexiteers because pretty much all the financial forecasts government, academic, international, are forecasting the UK's growth to fall or even reverse in the short to medium terms when the various exit options are modelled. Meanwhile the forecasts for growth within the EU are heading upwards.

Mogg saying he doesn't trust Treasury officials lacks credibility (as well as good manners) because the Brexit camp are failing miserably to come up with any competing and credible economic forecasts to support their argument. In my view this is because they know such forecasts would be shredded by respected and impartial bodies.  So the Brexiteers are continuing to ask the country to ignore the economic forecasts for the UK and to trust them that it will turn out ok. What bank would entertain such a plan should a business come to it seeking financial support?  It seems that we're being asked to put up with a highly damaging impact on the UK's economy as a price worth paying for pursuing an anti-EU ideology!  Surely there are enough MPs in the House of Commons who, when push comes to shove, will put the interests of the UK's economy above party interest and certainly ideology? This might not reverse the result of the referendum but it could mean BINO.

 

       

Mike, I think you have summarised the situation quite succinctly.

Some more interesting stuff said today, starting with Barnier saying that a transitional period isn't a given and setting out where the UK is falling short.  No doubt this will have wound up the Brexiteers in the Conservative party and, given what he said about border checks between Ireland and NI, some politicians North and South of the border.  I suppose the response by Davis was to be expected.

However, while I'm a confirmed Remainer (or as Resurrection would no doubt prefer, a "Remoaner"), on this I think Barnier is ignoring a big and immovable issue.  While in political and legal terms he might be right i.e. if the 'deal' doesn't offer what the EU wants on nationality, precedence to EU courts etc which might mean the EU member states rejecting the deal and the Art 50 'clock' doesn't stop, theoretically and legally the UK leaves the EU on time and should be treated by the EU as a 'third country'.  This implies a lot like WTC tariffs.  But the point I think he is missing is the practical one.  For the EU to treat all trade with the UK as 'third country' it needs frontier controls and checks over that trade. My guess is that the ports and airports within the EU that handle the bulk of trade with the EU won't be remotely ready to facilitate such checks by the time the Art 50 period elapses. The facilities, systems, logistics etc needed to implement such controls will take years to put in place and that seems to me to justify a transition period regardless of any other issue . No legal or political imperative is going to overcome that practical difficulty.  

And the result will be that UK will lose the vast majority of export trade to the EU (this of course adding to the disoncentive of UK goods costing more in EU).

Bad in anyone’s book. And that is why many businessess are reconsidering whether to continue being based in UK. More loss.

i think Lord Lisvane’s point made in the video link I posted in my last email is very apt.

IB I'm not suggesting you are wrong, but regardless of how the balance of trade works out in the long term, in the short term everyone loses out if frontier checks between the EU and UK are imposed upon immediate exit because it would screw up the movement of hundreds of billions worth of trade, some of which simply moves through the UK in transit. The EU and its exporting and importing businesses would suffer greatly from this.  Barnier's posturing seems to ignore this.       

MDS posted:

IB I'm not suggesting you are wrong, but regardless of how the balance of trade works out in the long term, in the short term everyone loses out if frontier checks between the EU and UK are imposed upon immediate exit because it would screw up the movement of hundreds of billions worth of trade, some of which simply moves through the UK in transit. The EU and its exporting and importing businesses would suffer greatly from this.  Barnier's posturing seems to ignore this.       

The thing is, ladies and gentlemen, the arguments you are regurgitating are the ones that were or should have been made at the time of the Referendum. The nonsense that the EU might inhibit trade with the UK should be the final nail in the EU's coffin, but we already know that the Remoaners are blinkered if not blinded in their affiliation to the grand Kleptocracy.

Their, the EU's,  utter detachment from any form of economic reality should be self evident to any sentient human being with a "remaining"  firing neurone. The fact that they don't simply exemplifies the fact  that  everything about the EU is political at the expense of economically destroying the member states. Even the most ardent Remainer must by now recognise that fact.

You have a delightfully colourful way of expressing your arguments, Resurrection 

But........even if you were right about the 'detachment from economic reality' of the EU senior officials and political leaders, and I'm not saying you are,  big exporting/importing businesses in the rest of the EU are as hard-nosed as those in the UK and they would not put up with such chaos being imposed by such a deal. While the EU officials might be mostly immune to pressure from business, the political leaders in Germany, France etc etc most certainly aren't.    

MDS posted:

IB I'm not suggesting you are wrong, but regardless of how the balance of trade works out in the long term, in the short term everyone loses out if frontier checks between the EU and UK are imposed upon immediate exit because it would screw up the movement of hundreds of billions worth of trade, some of which simply moves through the UK in transit. The EU and its exporting and importing businesses would suffer greatly from this.  Barnier's posturing seems to ignore this.       

I think you’re over estimating the power and influence Barnier has.

He’s only a negotiator. He’s paid to implement the wishes of the remaining EU countries. I doubt very much they’ve discussed/agreed at the present time, what the UK need to give, in order to get a transition period which allows free trade.

If the discussion does come round to the immediate implementation of border controls, there a few EU big hitters that won’t let it happen.

He is, Fatcat, and I'm sure you are right. At the very least, I hope you are right. 

Resurrection posted:

the fact that they don't simply exemplifies the fact  that  everything about the EU is political at the expense of economically destroying the member states.

Isn’t that what the Tories are doing to the moment to the UK?

And you must admit they are giving the EU a masterclass on how it’s done.

MDS posted:

IB I'm not suggesting you are wrong, but regardless of how the balance of trade works out in the long term, in the short term everyone loses out if frontier checks between the EU and UK are imposed upon immediate exit because it would screw up the movement of hundreds of billions worth of trade, some of which simply moves through the UK in transit. The EU and its exporting and importing businesses would suffer greatly from this.  Barnier's posturing seems to ignore this.       

I see what you mean, however is there not the risk that EU will simply export a lot more to outside EU from its own ports, cutting out the UK middleman?

fatcat posted:

Resurrection posted:

the fact that they don't simply exemplifies the fact  that  everything about the EU is political at the expense of economically destroying the member states.

Isn’t that what the Tories are doing to the moment to the UK?

And you must admit they are giving the EU a masterclass on how it’s done.

I have absolutely no idea what the Tories are up to, and, by the way, neither do you. For me, the elimination of the waste of space that is the EU is my primary concern. Corbyn comes next....

MDS posted:

You have a delightfully colourful way of expressing your arguments, Resurrection 

<snip>

... but sadly that's all that's delightful, the substance is largely divorced from any justifiable critical analysis.

Innocent Bystander posted:

MDS posted:

IB I'm not suggesting you are wrong, but regardless of how the balance of trade works out in the long term, in the short term everyone loses out if frontier checks between the EU and UK are imposed upon immediate exit because it would screw up the movement of hundreds of billions worth of trade, some of which simply moves through the UK in transit. The EU and its exporting and importing businesses would suffer greatly from this.  Barnier's posturing seems to ignore this.       

I see what you mean, however is there not the risk that EU will simply export a lot more to outside EU from its own ports, cutting out the UK middleman?

Seriously IB, are you on the same planet. Most of what the UK exports passes through Rotterdam and will continue to do so post Brexit. Anything otherwise will be unacceptable to Holland as well as the UK. Inextricably  bound cones to mind, and that won't go away for a Bernie or U