Sorry to hear that IGM.

Just to be clear, freedom of movement of what? People or workers?

This is one of the issues with ECJ, given their creeping interpretation of the caselaw on this issue over time.

Which ECJ judgement as regards FoM do you have an issue with Ninfan? Or is it that rights of “people” more generally are addressed, rather than just “workers” specifically, that’s your issue? Is it pensioners, or children, or other non-working relatives that you feel should be excluded? Students?

So not the brexit one igm, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/17/rabid-vindictive-rage-remainers-now-borders-pathological/

Feels like it could have been taken from this thread in places. Just to be clear it is apparently not yet proven as false that 350mil goes to the nhs and we are just picking on borris

So not the brexit one igm, <span class=”skimlinks-unlinked”>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/17/rabid-vindictive-rage-remainers-now-borders-pathological</span>/

That’s Janet Daley. She’s trolling just to get ad click revenue. Sadly, I’ve fallen for it.

Ninfan has previous on not being able to distinguish the ECJ from the ECtHR.

As have many of those who lost but like to complain about it too much.

Still good to hear Verhofstadt being less bellicose and talking sense on Marr

trade deal – tick

transition – tick

fin services to be included – tick

progress…

Still not sure if this softening of the position as regards ECJ will outlive the next meeting with the Cabinet (or Dacre), but still promising…

http://www.atlantico.fr/pepites/securite-royaume-uni-continuera-respecter-competence-cour-justice-europeenne-annonce-theresa-may-3310590.html

Ninfan has previous on not being able to distinguish the ECJ from the ECtHR.

As have many of those who lost but like to complain about it too much.

By which you mean what, @teamhurtmore?

That May has said she wants her party to campaign on leaving ECHR? And that this would only be possible if we aren’t EU members (or in any kind of satellite agreement)?

Give us a clue, or better still, just quit the vague condescending quips.

@ninfan, do you want to help us understand your comment on “people” and the ECJ? Better than others putting words in your mouth for you. More interesting to hear from you, I suspect.

Well, Kelvin, various, though for a start I don’t think some of the conclusions in C-149/79, C-482/01, C-209/03 and C-68/69 were really compatible with the treaties, and were an attempt, not unusual in non-common law jurisdictions, to caveat the treaties and extend the protections offered, in order to create what the judges felt to be the right outcome rather than a true attempt at interpretation of the statutory language as written or the intent of those who drafted it.

Simple kelvin. Stop trying to make things complicated. It’s not just Brexshiteers who confuse the two bodies and their responsibilities. Those who “lost but cannot accept the result” do too. Often for deliberate effect.

Thanks Ninfan… Judges do interpret intention, it’s part of their roles. Sometime too widely, sometimes too narrowly… in the view of others. If an “England&Wales” judge made such interpretations too widely (in your view), would that still bother you?

Poor trolling THM. Just dull really.

😀

that old excuse

but if pretending that only one side mixed the ECJ and the ECHR up makes you feel better then carry on

Judges do interpret intention,

Thats my point, in these cases I believe their role went beyond interpreting either the plain language or intent.. For example looking at 149/79, their approach to A48(4) [now Article 45(4) TEU] the statutory wording “The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service.” is simple and clear, and the attempts to fetter this go far beyond what a British Court would be able to do, even if you were able to argue that the wording was ambiguous in order, for example, to rely on a Pepper V Hart argument.

The first time I’ve posted to this thread.

Here is a question – do you think Brexit could lead to civil war?

Some of my relatives are northern Irish and although The Troubles had a hugely sectarian motive, at root it was a conflict over the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.

Leave vs Remain is a debate over the constitutional status of Britain in relation to the EU. When I read certain Twitter feeds, it seems like the more aggressive voices are getting more aggressive on both sides. There is the idea that we are in a “non-violent civil war”, but how long can things remain like this given the vote was so split.

When I ask some relatives about The Troubles, they said there was a lot of tension in the build-up, but the fact that it turned militant, so quickly, surprised many people.

Here is a question – do you think Brexit could lead to civil war?

Define a civil war? Will NI turn to violence, if the GFA fails then the idiots on both sides will claim that the political approach has failed and the only option is back to the old ways.

On the mainland? I don’t think it will actually get to civil war, but it won’t be pretty. rioting etc. A lot of people voted in protest at being left behind, Brexit isn’t going to make their lives better, so what would be the next step?

Think 1980’s inner city riots for the last time the tories screwed up.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/18/farming-businesses-could-be-wiped-out-after-brexit-transition

Yet more good news from peoppe actually doing some work on the impact of brexit and before you all start a lot of farmers voted remain as they could see first hand what the eu does and how it helps them

The longer this Brexit debacle goes on the more I think a federal Europe has its attractions.

It will be a lot better than the feudal uk

Good job we are not going for WTO mike isn’t it? Good old Guardian trying to scare folk. Do people not learn that Projecting Fear doesn’t work?

You are however spot on re: Gove

Not really. When you look at Gove’s history whilst there is plenty to be said about him I dont think opportunistic is one of them beyond his attempt for power. For example for the EU he is pretty consistent on the matter. Seems to be partially driven, at least, with some idea the EU messed up his dads business.

Its the same with most other things. He really does seem to genuinely believe in that the problem is x and the solution is y. Unlike, for example, Boris.

So when he was lying live to Faisal Islam do you really think he actually believed the 100% BS he was spouting

in which case he is neither devious nor opportunistic just thick. Your choice

As usual THM you struggle to read what you dont want to see

Food prices could rise sharply and farming businesses could be wiped out at the end of a Brexittransition period, a House of Commons committee has warned.

The cross-party environment, food and rural affairs select committee said the timetable for concluding a new free trade deal with the EU by the end of 2020 was “extremely ambitious”.

I assume you think these are the children not the grown upsu

I predicted it would come to riots some time ago. Brexit and the EU are both great scapegoats for all the wrongs in the UK (probably erroneously in most cases but so what) and there’s plenty of blame to go round as the economic pain gets worse.

Actually mike rather than relying on the Guardians highly subjective reporting I read the actual briefing – ok first few pages instead – which avoids the accusation that you make. Try it. It will take some of the fear away.

 Our Report focused on the impact to different agri-food sectors of the UK having to trade under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, in the event that the UK and EU fail to reach a trade agreement.

Pain gets worse?!? Economy performing better than expected. Income inequality down. Jobs market buoyant. God knows what worse really means

still if people want to shit in their own back yards that’s their choice too

The Committee’s key recommendations and conclusions are:

• The EU is the UK’s most significant trading partner. Although the Government’s intention is to agree a comprehensive free trade agreement and customs agreement with the EU, there is no guarantee that this will occur. In the event that the UK leaves the EU without a free trade agreement, UK-EU trade will proceed under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. Reverting to WTO tariffs will have a significant impact upon agriculture as tariffs are higher for agricultural products than for other goods and services.

• We recommend that Defra publishes a sector-by-sector analysis of the impact of Brexit before the publication of the Agriculture Bill.

• The agricultural industry needs clarity as to the Government’s long-term vision and future support. We call for the publication of the Agriculture Bill as soon as possible.

• The Government needs to support British farming and agriculture in preparing for business post-Brexit. Defra should consider providing a fund to support our food producing industry to adapt effectively to the challenge ahead.

• The Government should consider what support can be offered to sectors where imports into the UK and exports out of the UK are roughly equal, such as the dairy industry, that can make us more self-sufficient. This would offer these sectors an opportunity to become more productive. It would give people the confidence to invest, keep food prices down and keep farmers in business.

• When establishing its own tariffs at the WTO, the Government must give careful consideration to the impact on the UK’s agricultural industry. High tariffs on imports would raise the cost for consumers while removing tariffs could lower the cost for consumers but have a devastating effect on the long-term future of the UK’s agricultural industry. Such a move could put many UK farmers out of business, which would be detrimental to the rural economy, and render the UK dependent on imported food.

• The Government has offered no clarity to the agricultural industry on its post-Brexit policy. The Government must offer this clarity and stability so that the industry has the confidence to invest and take advantage of the opportunities offered to the sector post-Brexit. We would like to see the Government offer policies that would stimulate home grown food production.

• The UK has an international reputation for high animal welfare, environmental and food standards. These must not be sacrificed on the altar of cheap imports. Doing so could undermine the premium British brand and might affect our ability to negotiate trade deals with other countries. We will hold the Secretary of State to his assurances that there will be no compromise on animal welfare, environmental and food standards.

• The Government must make it clear to industry how it intends to deal with potential regulatory divergence with the EU, and the mechanisms it will put in place to track divergence in the future.

• The Government must ensure that protected geographical indicators are retained in a similar form after the UK leaves the EU.

• It is imperative that the Government invest in IT systems to support a more efficient export certification process in order to minimise delays to trade.

• Non-British EU veterinary surgeons are critical to the UK veterinary workforce. The Government must set out how it intends to ensure working rights for non-British EU vets currently working in the UK and to support the veterinary workforce going forward to ensure that it can meet the needs of the UK’s food industry in the future.

• Delays at border inspection posts lead to increased costs, and are a threat to perishable goods. It is imperative that the Government sets out how it intends to ensure that the right IT systems and infrastructure are in place for the import and export of agricultural produce so that businesses can continue to trade smoothly with Europe, including the Republic of Ireland, and the rest of the world.

• The Government must start developing relationships at a high political level with potential trading partners in order to ensure that agreements are signed to the benefit of the UK. The Government must also investigate how it can utilise the expertise within the House of Lords and House of Commons in building relationships and representing the UK overseas.

• While we recognise the huge benefit that trade agreements could bring, these must not at the detriment of the UK’s reputation for high animal welfare, environmental and food standards. The UK Government must not allow imports that that have not been produced to the UK’s high standards.

• We recommend that the Government improve country of origin labelling following the UK’s departure from the EU. We also recommend that the Government introduce mandatory method of production labelling.

Tough crowd that lot….

Anyway page 9

5. While we acknowledge the Government’s aims, we recognise that the timetable for
withdrawal negotiations is tight, and concluding a free trade agreement (FTA) in the time
available may be extremely ambitious. If an FTA is not reached, World Trade Organisation
(WTO) rules would automatically apply to any trade between the UK and the EU.

Has anyone manged to say the chances of getting a FTA is anything better than 50/50? Do you think “Extremely ambitious” is something that has a good chance of happening?

In a very short amount of time a huge amount of work is needed in order to maintain anything close to a status quo, What increase of resources are being tasked to do this? What systems are being put in place? A list of conclusions that said progress was being made and significant contingency was in place would be reassuring. Unfortunately the vast majority of agriculture businesses are not big enough to dedicate a couple of people to planning and whiteboard fantasy sessions like the finance sector so it’s a a massive risk that needs a lot of help.

Verhofstsdt this morning

but keep the fear going in the meantime, more amusing to read than the reality

in which case he is neither devious nor opportunistic just thick. Your choice

I was addressing your claim of him being opportunistic. As for being a devious/liar or thick. Not necessarily. I am sure you in your deep research about what drove people to vote out would have have noticed that ideology can trump facts. Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance are powerful things.

I prefer simple language – I call it the Jeffery Archer syndrome

but stand by opportunistic –  and that’s being polite

Do you think “Extremely ambitious” is something that has a good chance of happening?

I think that’s perilously close to a Sir Humphrey-esque “courageous”

Joking apart dissonance I did ask certain connected people during the campaign about the factors behind what these people are thinking when they are deliberately lying as Gove did in the Islam interview.

I mentioned before that I also asked Ken Clarke and Chris Bryant why they didn’t directly challenge Alex Salmonds lies during the Indy referendum. Esp Clarke as an ex chancellor. He meekly explained that this was part of the US-inspired strategy that they were adopting. Total BS. Look how close the Scots came to falling for that crap. Fortunately their majority was more canny than the later one.

Project Fear did work. It just turned out a lot of people feared immigrants and Turkey joining more than being as they saw it 1% per annum poorer than they would have been.

Message from June 2016 – fear works.

I see Owen Patterson now saying that the Good Friday Agreement should be scrapped in case it gets in the way of Brexit.

There’s plenty of Tory brexiters who want WTO at any cost.

Just as with Cameron & Osborne + our media screaming about immigration being bad when they want to deflect blame for their own failings, this shit has consequences, that come back to bite is all.

but keep the fear going in the meantime

Hang on THM – are you saying you’re not afraid of what’s might happen?  You’re sure everything’s going to be fine?

That’s great, but how can we be?  We’ve got nothing other than your assurances, which you won’t back up.  Why should I not be worried?

At long last I’ve been able to find out how much our chocolate will go up by. 30%

Our smallest box at £5.50 will be £7.00

The largest at £40.00 will be £52.00.

A 1 metre square section of my shop that provides 10% of my turnover will be gone .

We are one of the chocolate companies largest accounts. If we stop doing them the importers are going to take a massive hit.

In the 80s on News At 10 they used to have a “how many  jobs have been  lost today” section.

They might be dusting that off next year.

Anyone that thinks WTO is a good thing can **** off.

Just as with Cameron & Osborne & May & Miliband & Corbyn & Clegg + our media screaming about immigration being bad when they want to deflect blame for their own failings, this shit has consequences, that come back to bite us all.

[ adjusted ]

When Labour came on strong with their anti immigration mug and tablet of stone… you knew the argument about immigration was lost. When Clegg started with the “good and bad immigrants” line in TV debates… you knew everyone was putting “concerns over immigration” before reality, for political gain. When Corbyn decides that EU immigrant labour is to blame for areas of higher unemployment and stagent wages…

…just conflate immigration with the EU (rather than our own governments’ decisions)…

…and job 80% done…

…stir in the notion that public sector spending can magically rise by not paying into the EU budget… job 90% done… everyone helped… including all the major players in the Remain campaign…

Message from June 2016 – fear works.

Yup. The exit campaign was pretty impressive it how it associated “project fear” with the remain campaign whilst busily stoke up as much fear as they could.

Never mind zippy, there will be cake for all and innovative jam for tea!

Well said kelvin. Kimbers trying to suggest that anti-immigration is a Tory thing is rather disingenuous. Jezza was equally categorical

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/07/jeremy-corbyn-wholesale-eu-immigration-has-destroyed-conditions-british%3famp

No I am not afraid mol. Of course, I would have preferred to remain a member of the EU. But we have chosen another path. But I am confident that we have a flexible economy that will adjust quicker than people believe – albeit it not completely as some will lose out for sure. So I am equally pleased that to date, the doomsday merchants have been proved wrong on pretty much everything other than £, inflation and the impact on real wages

Interesting THM.

I spoke to a friend at the weekend. He’s a lecturer in Economics at a top UK University (was lecturing at Oxford as well). His view was that UK will slowly do worst and worst and will be left behind by EU.

Remind us what you do so I can weight your views accordingly.

I believe that both are likely to deliver sub trend growth for some time – not least because of the levels of debt. We shall see how the EZ fares when the ECB stops stealing later this year. Growth may be expanding but the foundations remain very shaky and the folly of the € continues. Ask your friend about the impact of € strength on EZ net exports given the weaknesses in domestic demand across the region.

I don’t want to steal Jambas’ thunder but I am sure that he will be happy to provide the link to recent academic research that examines why economists have been so poor at forecasting the impact of Brexshit some far. He sent it to me this morning and I have only skim read it on the train. It’s interesting.

FWIW current models are poorly suited to the future that we face. But don’t expect an economics lecturer to agree. The overuse of maths has given my chosen subject a false sense of precision and integrity and most assumptions taught at undergrad level are flawed (IMO of course)