EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Husar]

Good news would be "UK drops special rebate in return for end of Brexit process to stay in EU, want to be good friends again."

The only thing I see here is that the Brexit talks are still not really going anywhere, just one guy involved thinks there are several possibilities that aren't really new or especially likely or good for Britain in any way.

[Fragony]

Good news would be a soft Brexit

[Husar]

Good news would be a soft Brexit

No.

[Pannonian]

Can't you see good news when you see it? You must be of Russian heritage with fatalism like that

I trust experts like the civil service, business organisations, and others with expertise in the relevant fields. None of them have anything good to say about Brexit. And now a Tory MP has told universities and other institutions to support Brexit or else. Well, something of the sort. He actually asked them which side they are on, hint hint.

[Fragony]

No.

All options left open we will see

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I trust experts like the civil service, business organisations, and others with expertise in the relevant fields. None of them have anything good to say about Brexit. And now a Tory MP has told universities and other institutions to support Brexit or else. Well, something of the sort. He actually asked them which side they are on, hint hint.

If your academics are anything like the bulk of my colleagues, that Tory MP will not enjoy the answer to his question.

[Pannonian]

All options left open we will see

Actually. no. May ruled out most of the components of soft Brexit before the talks started.

If your academics are anything like the bulk of my colleagues, that Tory MP will not enjoy the answer to his question.

Chris Patten (former Tory chairman credited with winning the 1992 election) couldn't believe his ears when he first heard of it, imagining it to be a Corbynite attempt to smear the Tory party. After double checking the veracity, he called it "Leninism"; the list would allow the government to identify opponents of Brexit, and you can work out the follow on from there.

[Pannonian]

As other academics joined the condemnation, it also emerged that Mr Heaton-Harris may have breached EU law with his attempts to find out what universities are teaching about Brexit.

A group of students studying for master’s degrees in Politics and the Political Economy of Europe at the London School of Economics (LSE) have written to the MP accusing him of violating the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which includes statements on academic freedom.

In a letter seen by The Independent, they say: “Since the United Kingdom is still a Member State of the EU, you are obliged as a working politician to respect and follow the European Union treaties. It is stated in Article 13 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights that ‘the arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected’.

“Your action by asking academics to provide information of the teaching and researching of Brexit issues is in breach of this article as you are inputting political pressure which undermines our ability as autonomous institutions, academics and students to exercise our right to freedom of education, which is increasing our academic vulnerability and legally breaching not only the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights bit also the UNESCO declaration of 1997 [on academic freedom].”

They add: “We sincerely hope that you will reconsider your action in monitoring university teaching in European Affairs, and will leave students and academics to express and exercise their right and freedom to education."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8017631.html

Thank goodness we shall be rid of such tyrannical EU laws when we leave, and sovereign British MPs will be free to sanction educational institutes that do not support Brexit as all good patriotic Britons should.

[Pannonian]

Britain extricating itself from the European Union will be “incomparably more complex” than the first moon landing, an academic study has found.

Roland Alter, a professor at Heilbronn University in Germany who specialises in risk assessment, said he had been inspired to carry out his analysis after comments by the Brexit secretary, David Davis, that he was “running a set of projects that make the Nasa moonshot look quite simple”.

But after analysing the two situations Alter said he concluded that Davis’s analogy “missed the point”. “Both project moonshot and project Brexit are in their own way extremely complex projects. The key difference is that the USA was aware of the complexity of its undertaking.”

The paper, to be published in the journal of the German Society for Project Management early next year, analyses the comparative complexity of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU and Nasa’s first moon landing using a risk assessment model developed by the Canadian government in 2007 to determine the risk and complexity of public sector projects.
...
The crucial difference between the two projects, according to Alter, was that the Nasa mission had a definable “landing zone”, namely the moon. In terms of complexity, its challenges had lain mainly in developing and applying new technologies.

“The situation in Great Britain is completely different in this respect,” his paper concludes. “The project was authorised by a referendum phrased in general terms and does not have a clearly defined ‘landing zone’.”

Alter, who previously worked as a strategist for Siemens, also teaches a course on catastrophically managed projects, which includes modules on Berlin’s much-delayed new airport, the over-budget Scottish parliament at Holyrood, Airbus’s ill-fated A400M Atlas aircraft and the Iraq war. “Brexit is not part of the course yet, but it’s a hot contender for the top spot,” Alter said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...academic-study

The City of London has warned that businesses will start activating Brexit contingency plans unless there is a transitional deal by the end of 2017, as Philip Hammond tried to calm fears that a final agreement may not be reached for another year.

Catherine McGuinness, the most senior policy official at the City of London Corporation – the local authority for the Square Mile – told the chancellor on Wednesday that time was running out a deal to ease the UK’s exit from the EU.

In a letter to Hammond before next month’s budget, McGuinness said the UK was facing a “historically defining moment” and warned that the timetable for business to prepare for transition was “tightening very rapidly”.

“We must have agreement with the EU on transition before the end of 2017,” she added.

Hammond was unable to guarantee that there would be any substantial progress on transitional arrangements with the EU by Christmas, a key demand of five major business lobby groups earlier this week.

But he moved to reassure businesses that the UK was seeking to pin down some principles of the Brexit transition period as soon as possible, after Theresa May signalled that signing off the final arrangements could take another year.

The prime minister delighted Eurosceptics when she told the Commons on Monday that there would be no transitional deal until the UK had settled its final relationship with the EU, which would not happen until next summer at the earliest and possibly not at all.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...hancellor-says

[Fragony]

What is it with people confusing the EU with Europe

[Pannonian]

What do the Brexiters think of the Tory MP who sent a letter to the vice chancellors of all the universities and colleges in the UK, asking for a list of lecturers who lecture about Brexit?

[Fragony]

What do the Brexiters think of the Tory MP who sent a letter to the vice chancellors of all the universities and colleges in the UK, asking for a list of lecturers who lecture about Brexit?

Crossing boundaries

[Pannonian]

"Czechoslovakia doesn't currently have a government."
David Davis, former Europe minister, currently Minister in charge of Brexit.

[Gilrandir]

"Czechoslovakia doesn't currently have a government."
David Davis, former Europe minister, currently Minister in charge of Brexit.

He is perfectly right. I don't see how this is wrong.

[Husar]

At least in Germany that is not true. We do not have a new coalition government, but that doesn't mean we are "ungoverned" in the sense that there is noone to decide about things anymore. Usually the president asks the old government to fulfill that function until a new government is formed. In other words, don't worry, there is an uninterrupted Merkel.

Do other countries just helplessly shut down for months?

[Pannonian]

At least in Germany that is not true. We do not have a new coalition government, but that doesn't mean we are "ungoverned" in the sense that there is noone to decide about things anymore. Usually the president asks the old government to fulfill that function until a new government is formed. In other words, don't worry, there is an uninterrupted Merkel.

Do other countries just helplessly shut down for months?

Aside from the fact that Czechoslovakia has not existed since 1993, the UK's civil service is supposed to carry government through any political hiatus. The problem is that the civil service has been telling the political taskmasters that they're demanding the impossible, but the politicians have continued to insist that the impossible is what the people want and will get, and there is no political will to find a solution within the realms of possibility. And by possible, I mean without utterly wrecking the UK's economy. This leaves one possible solution, which is the one the politicians are pushing for, which is to have the hardest, most self-destructive Brexit possible. Barnier has suggested the Canada model, but that's too accommodating for the drivers of Brexit, who want the no deal route and subsequent abrogation of all agreements related to the EU.

What kind of Brexit do the Brexiters here favour? Would no deal be acceptable?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What do the Brexiters think of the Tory MP who sent a letter to the vice chancellors of all the universities and colleges in the UK, asking for a list of lecturers who lecture about Brexit?

In my country, the Congress critter who attempted such a thing would be refused, politely at first and then insultingly if the effort continued. The effort would likely generate protests and media events wherein virtually all faculty and administration members -- including the conservatives like myself -- would decry the effort as contemptible and unconstitutional.

In England, you lack our written Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the tradition of freedom of speech is powerful and of long standing. I suspect a similar result would occur if the effort was taken seriously. I am not sure if the effort actually breaks laws laid down by act of Parliament. Though I thought that freedom of speech etc. had been promulgated by Parliament and not simply left up to the mos maiorum.


I am inclined toward the state as the key political unit and prefer limiting federal oversight or supra-state oversight and control. I am, therefore, inclined to favor Brexit despite the difficulties that will be engendered in the short term economically (which were horribly glossed over prior to the vote as you have noted). To be fair, I don't have to live under the result, so my opinion can remain more ideologically driven than practical with little cost to self. That might skew my being in favor, I will acknowledge.

[Pannonian]

In my country, the Congress critter who attempted such a thing would be refused, politely at first and then insultingly if the effort continued. The effort would likely generate protests and media events wherein virtually all faculty and administration members -- including the conservatives like myself -- would decry the effort as contemptible and unconstitutional.

In England, you lack our written Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the tradition of freedom of speech is powerful and of long standing. I suspect a similar result would occur if the effort was taken seriously. I am not sure if the effort actually breaks laws laid down by act of Parliament. Though I thought that freedom of speech etc. had been promulgated by Parliament and not simply left up to the mos maiorum.


I am inclined toward the state as the key political unit and prefer limiting federal oversight or supra-state oversight and control. I am, therefore, inclined to favor Brexit despite the difficulties that will be engendered in the short term economically (which were horribly glossed over prior to the vote as you have noted). To be fair, I don't have to live under the result, so my opinion can remain more ideologically driven than practical with little cost to self. That might skew my being in favor, I will acknowledge.

Talking of constitution and such, David Davis, the minister in charge, said earlier that Parliament will only get to vote after the UK had left. Which begs the question of what Parliament has to vote on if the act is already irreversibly done, and the further question of what point there is of a Parliament that exists only to rubber stamp the government's decision after the fact. The government driving Brexit is, in other words, removing the equivalent of your lawmakers, and replacing it with the equivalent of your Electoral College. And there is no equivalent of a Senate either, as the government has threatened the Lords with dissolution if they obstruct Brexit.

So, has the US ever had an executive that has sidelined the other branches like the current UK government has done?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Talking of constitution and such, David Davis, the minister in charge, said earlier that Parliament will only get to vote after the UK had left. Which begs the question of what Parliament has to vote on if the act is already irreversibly done, and the further question of what point there is of a Parliament that exists only to rubber stamp the government's decision after the fact. The government driving Brexit is, in other words, removing the equivalent of your lawmakers, and replacing it with the equivalent of your Electoral College. And there is no equivalent of a Senate either, as the government has threatened the Lords with dissolution if they obstruct Brexit.

So, has the US ever had an executive that has sidelined the other branches like the current UK government has done?

To some extent, that tendency is exactly what US conservatives decry. The POTUS is expected to generate the budget even though that is officially ascribed to the HoR by the Constitution; POTUS regularly concludes negotiated agreements with foreign governments without signing a treaty which must be reviewed and confirmed by the Senate; Presidential executive orders are used to trump state laws or alter policy, sometimes in direct contradiction of a duly passed law. Some degree of sidelining happens regardless, but we have been concentrating too much extra-constitution power in the Presidency for far too long. A current POTUS has all of the governance duties of a Prime Minister AND the PR duties of a British Monarch. Not enough hours in the day for either job really, much less both. To be fair, Congress often worsens this trend by abrogating power (and the attendant responsibility) to the Presidency. Recall their giving G.W. Bush to power to wage war as he saw fit without returning to Congress for approval during the stretch after 9-11-01.

Historically, Lincoln more or less ignored Congress during the ACW. He suspended habeus corpus by Presidential Order, then ignored the SCOTUS when they ruled he could not and that only Congress could. He used military forces to close down certain newspapers without providing evidence that they were spying for the enemy or actively seditious. The federal government imprisoned thousands for opposing the war, virtually none of them with due process of law. Congress, admittedly, after the departure of many during the secessions, was not a powerhouse.

[Pannonian]

To some extent, that tendency is exactly what US conservatives decry. The POTUS is expected to generate the budget even though that is officially ascribed to the HoR by the Constitution; POTUS regularly concludes negotiated agreements with foreign governments without signing a treaty which must be reviewed and confirmed by the Senate; Presidential executive orders are used to trump state laws or alter policy, sometimes in direct contradiction of a duly passed law. Some degree of sidelining happens regardless, but we have been concentrating too much extra-constitution power in the Presidency for far too long. A current POTUS has all of the governance duties of a Prime Minister AND the PR duties of a British Monarch. Not enough hours in the day for either job really, much less both. To be fair, Congress often worsens this trend by abrogating power (and the attendant responsibility) to the Presidency. Recall their giving G.W. Bush to power to wage war as he saw fit without returning to Congress for approval during the stretch after 9-11-01.

Historically, Lincoln more or less ignored Congress during the ACW. He suspended habeus corpus by Presidential Order, then ignored the SCOTUS when they ruled he could not and that only Congress could. He used military forces to close down certain newspapers without providing evidence that they were spying for the enemy or actively seditious. The federal government imprisoned thousands for opposing the war, virtually none of them with due process of law. Congress, admittedly, after the departure of many during the secessions, was not a powerhouse.

During peacetime?

[Montmorency]

During peacetime?

America doesn't do "peacetime".

[Furunculus]

And by possible, I mean without utterly wrecking the UK's economy.

What kind of Brexit do the Brexiters here favour? Would no deal be acceptable?

that is an interesting notion you have right there. any compelling evidence to justify that adamantine certainty?

1. Cameron's deal, but with the ever-closer-union exemption not limited to britain. #thanksbelgium
2. Norway, without the flanking social and environmental policies. #itsjustamarket
3. Ukraine DCFTA with compliance moved to efta, rather than direct ECJ jurisdiction. #notinterestedinfederalism
4. If none of this is possible, slash tax and regulation and suck the life out of Eurozone growth potential. #friendsorelse

In order of preference. ;)

[Pannonian]

that is an interesting notion you have right there. any compelling evidence to justify that adamantine certainty?

1. Cameron's deal, but with the ever-closer-union exemption not limited to britain. #thanksbelgium
2. Norway, without the flanking social and environmental policies. #itsjustamarket
3. Ukraine DCFTA with compliance moved to efta, rather than direct ECJ jurisdiction. #notinterestedinfederalism
4. If none of this is possible, slash tax and regulation and suck the life out of Eurozone growth potential. #friendsorelse

In order of preference. ;)

The first three being ruled out to varying degrees by May's red lines, and she's a moderate by Brexit standards, I have to ask you about the fourth. How does it benefit us? Or is it meant only to damage the Eurozone, and accompanying damage to us is an acceptable price to pay for hurting the Euros?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

America doesn't do "peacetime".

Sadly, not for the foreseeable future anyway. The War on Terror is something of a "tarbaby," even while individual successes continue.

[Pannonian]

Sadly, not for the foreseeable future anyway. The War on Terror is something of a "tarbaby," even while individual successes continue.

The current state isn't exactly war footing though. Civilians continue to live their lives as if nothing has changed while the professionals do their stuff on the other side of the world. War footing, the kind that generally sees an expansion of the executive's powers, is changing society to serve the purpose of war. Britain was the first to do it in WWII and did it more thoroughly than any other country, so that state of affairs is not alien to us. The current status is nowhere near that. Yet the current government, without even a Commons majority after an election it called, has attempted greater centralisation of powers than any other peacetime government that I know of.

[Pannonian]

In my country, the Congress critter who attempted such a thing would be refused, politely at first and then insultingly if the effort continued. The effort would likely generate protests and media events wherein virtually all faculty and administration members -- including the conservatives like myself -- would decry the effort as contemptible and unconstitutional.

In England, you lack our written Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the tradition of freedom of speech is powerful and of long standing. I suspect a similar result would occur if the effort was taken seriously. I am not sure if the effort actually breaks laws laid down by act of Parliament. Though I thought that freedom of speech etc. had been promulgated by Parliament and not simply left up to the mos maiorum.


I am inclined toward the state as the key political unit and prefer limiting federal oversight or supra-state oversight and control. I am, therefore, inclined to favor Brexit despite the difficulties that will be engendered in the short term economically (which were horribly glossed over prior to the vote as you have noted). To be fair, I don't have to live under the result, so my opinion can remain more ideologically driven than practical with little cost to self. That might skew my being in favor, I will acknowledge.

And now one of the biggest selling newspapers in the country has backed the MP.

Our Remainer universities: As an MP provokes a storm by asking what students are being taught about leaving the EU, the extent of anti-Brexit bias and the academics who push Remain propaganda are laid bare

[Montmorency]

The first three being ruled out to varying degrees by May's red lines, and she's a moderate by Brexit standards, I have to ask you about the fourth. How does it benefit us? Or is it meant only to damage the Eurozone, and accompanying damage to us is an acceptable price to pay for hurting the Euros?

Isn't it the "race to the bottom"? If you're dedicated enough to it, eventually you can get the textile sweatshops to relocate from Ho Chi Minh City to Birmingham.

War footing, the kind that generally sees an expansion of the executive's powers, is changing society to serve the purpose of war.

Oh, it's happened. The absence of rationing or drastic lifestyle changes is likely essential to the insidious creep.

[Pannonian]

Isn't it the "race to the bottom"? If you're dedicated enough to it, eventually you can get the textile sweatshops to relocate from Ho Chi Minh City to Birmingham.

Funnily enough, Hong Kong, that beacon of free market capitalism that was the last jewel in Britain's colonial crown, is currently undergoing something of an economic boom because of all the regulations the British left in place, requiring all goods and products to pass rigorous safety standards. This means everything that can be bought in Hong Kong is trustworthy as far as safety and health is concerned, and the Chinese market next door, or at least those wealthy enough to be able to shop there, flock to Hong Kong as they can't trust their own goods and produce.

A shining tribute to rigorous deregulation> Or at least common disregard of lax regulations.

[Furunculus]

The first three being ruled out to varying degrees by May's red lines, and she's a moderate by Brexit standards,

I have to ask you about the fourth. How does it benefit us? Or is it meant only to damage the Eurozone, and accompanying damage to us is an acceptable price to pay for hurting the Euros?

Nothing is off the table. We don't know where we're going to end up yet. It could be any one of the above, even including #1 with a lag into the 2020's.

The fourth isn't optimal, but it might be necessary depending on how much we need to be seen to be punished pour encourager les autres. Average GDP spend in the EUrozone is ~45%, with a generally higher tolerance for regulation. We're drifting down to ~40% of GDP, and could easily drop another five down to 35%, just like Canada, Australia, the US. Social and employment regulation could easily increment further down by a similar 'percentage'. Being the 'giant singapore of europe' doesn't mean actually mirroring singapore itself, just mirroring its relative position vis-a-vis other advanced east asian economies. Good regulation is good, I would never for a second dispute that. Having this disparity in tax and regulation would - other factors notwithstanding - boost GDP growth 1% over the trend norm (2.6% pre-brexit - 1.6% post brexit), and would happily accommodate the trade difficulty created by an intransigent EU. On the other hand; the eurozone has stagnating growth, despite negative interest rates, 55 billion euro's of QE/month, and still has 9% unemployment. This while they receive more than 50% of FDI via London, and yet they tell us they're willing to make trade in services harder (inc financial), well be my guest. That is very brave, Minister! I don't want this, but i'm willing to do it.I appreciate why a left-wing person might not be delighted at the prospect though...

[Pannonian]

Nothing is off the table. We don't know where we're going to end up yet. It could be any one of the above, even including #1 with a lag into the 2020's.

The fourth isn't optimal, but it might be necessary depending on how much we need to be seen to be punished pour encourager les autres. Average GDP spend in the EUrozone is ~45%, with a generally higher tolerance for regulation. We're drifting down to ~40% of GDP, and could easily drop another five down to 35%, just like Canada, Australia, the US. Social and employment regulation could easily increment further down by a similar 'percentage'. Being the 'giant singapore of europe' doesn't mean actually mirroring singapore itself, just mirroring its relative position vis-a-vis other advanced east asian economies. Good regulation is good, I would never for a second dispute that. Having this disparity in tax and regulation would - other factors notwithstanding - boost GDP growth 1% over the trend norm (2.6% pre-brexit - 1.6% post brexit), and would happily accommodate the trade difficulty created by an intransigent EU. On the other hand; the eurozone has stagnating growth, despite negative interest rates, 55 billion euro's of QE/month, and still has 9% unemployment. This while they receive more than 50% of FDI via London, and yet they tell us they're willing to make trade in services (inc finacnial harder), well be my guest. That is very brave, Minister! I don't want this, but i'm willing to do it.I appreciate why a left-wing person might not be delighted at the prospect though...

About the growth rate of 1.6%: were there any measures by the BofE over the last year to try and keep growth up, that won't be repeated? Also, what is the current inflation rate?