Comments on: Theresa May won the Chequers game – now Remainers must face reality

By: Holmeboy

Holmeboy — Fri, 20 Jul 2018 11:28:00 +0000

I expect us to rejoin the EU within 20 years.

The reason I believe this, is because I have never been convinced by the Brexiteers promise of a promised land outside of the EU, the economic case was always flimsy at best. We’ll go into this semi-detached status that the Chequers agreement proposes, and chug along with that for a decade or so, but throughout that time, there will be a pro-EU case made (just as there has long been a leave EU case made), and we will eventually move closer and rejoin, the problem will be that the terms won’t be as favourable (with all the opt outs etc) as we currently enjoy.

By: William MacDougall

William MacDougall — Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:24:00 +0000

Well first, I don’t see how membership could end this year, before the end of 2018, so I think you’re just commenting on my calling Chequers “generous”. It is indeed cherry-picking, i.e. a compromise, but it is very generous cherry picking in that it offers a lot more EU control of British laws than people thought they were voting for. And if rejected by the EU and the EU continues to insist on a backstop with a GFA violating Irish Sea border, then we are likely to leave without a deal: no ransom payment, no freedom of movement, no controls on the British side of the Irish border, and high tariffs on German cars and French cheese; do they want that? “Generous” or not, the EU would be well advised to take the Chequers offer, if it’s still on the table next week.

By: Red

Red — Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:11:00 +0000

From before the day of the referendum, the EU said the four freedom are indivisible and there cannot be “cherry picking”.

And what does the Chequers Paper offer ? Asking “frictionless access at the border”, “participation by the UK in those EU agencies that provide authorisations for goods in highly regulated sectors” and “a new Facilitated Customs Arrangement that would remove the need for customs checks” yet “Free movement of people will end as the UK leaves the EU”.

In other words, the UK want to cherry-pick some freedoms but not the fourth. That level of disregard of the other party’s core stance, spelled out again and again for more than two years is nothing near generous, it’s plain insulting.

By: ANGRY_MODERATE

ANGRY_MODERATE — Thu, 19 Jul 2018 00:37:00 +0000

Ermm, no. I don’t need to read anything because I first published research on this issue in 1989. Things have moved on since then, with more freedom to provide services than before. There has always been national opposition to allowing certain services to be provided, which is why there is a massive body of litigation in the CJEU on the matter. There remain some restrictions, but they are much less than before. There is no dilution: there is a pattern of slow improvement.

Therefore, I cannot concur with your comment. The institution is not clearly disintegrating, but the biggest problems concern the incompetent political design of the eurozone (against expert economic advice) and the far right governments that refuse to allow a common European asylum system (CEAS) to function properly, with appropriate distribution of refugees across the EU. This has now deteriorated to not even accepting the principles of the 1951 Refugee convention, in the case of Hungary. In reality, the fascist Orban is closer to the UK Tory party anyway — which has failed to treat refugees and immigrants with the rights and respect that they are entitled to.

By: 3aple

3aple — Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:28:00 +0000

May I suggest you read the EU’s own Four Freedoms, in particular, the actual wording regarding services. You will see that this much vaunted freedom is not, nor has been free in the EU. It has never been more than an aspiration. Is it entirely coincidental that this ‘Freedom’, which has never been fully pursued by the EU, would be most beneficial to the UK, which has an economy strongly reliant on services?

Yet here we have one of the EU’s fundamental “core principles of a political institution” already diluted. Do you think that might be why “that institution starts to disintegrate”?
.

By: ANGRY_MODERATE

ANGRY_MODERATE — Sun, 15 Jul 2018 11:23:00 +0000

Fair enough.

By: ANGRY_MODERATE

ANGRY_MODERATE — Sun, 15 Jul 2018 11:22:00 +0000

You are off your head. Your grasp of constitutional and legal issues is zero.

By: ANGRY_MODERATE

ANGRY_MODERATE — Sun, 15 Jul 2018 11:21:00 +0000

“Clear majority”? I advise you to take some lessons in arithmetic.

By: William MacDougall

William MacDougall — Sun, 15 Jul 2018 11:18:00 +0000

It would have been even clearer if the Government and EU had not misused government money and civil servants to campaign for remain, far more dubious behaviour.

By: Silverwhistle

Silverwhistle — Sun, 15 Jul 2018 11:03:00 +0000

A “clear majority” would not have been in margin-of-error territory, made all the more murky by the dubious behaviour, manipulations and funding behind the Leave campaign.

By: Silverwhistle

Silverwhistle — Sun, 15 Jul 2018 11:01:00 +0000

If you mean the opt-outs, we should not have had them to start with. I want to be a full member of the EU, the same as my friends on the Mainland. The so-called “favourable terms” are one of the reasons some people are saying “good riddance”. But I don’t want “special treatment”, just equality of treatment with the other members.

By: William MacDougall

William MacDougall — Sun, 15 Jul 2018 09:14:00 +0000

“Against our will”???? The largest number of Brits that has ever voted for anything voted to leave, a clear majority.

By: ANGRY_MODERATE

ANGRY_MODERATE — Sun, 15 Jul 2018 09:08:00 +0000

I agree, but the UK would doubtless not receive such favourable terms as it now has. The Brexit lobby has badly damaged the UK’s interests, regardless of whether we remain, exit permanently or eventually rejoin.

By: ANGRY_MODERATE

ANGRY_MODERATE — Sun, 15 Jul 2018 09:05:00 +0000

Is this a comedy act? — “the Government’s very generous Chequers White Paper”. It’s one of the funniest things I have read in some time.

By: ANGRY_MODERATE

ANGRY_MODERATE — Sun, 15 Jul 2018 09:03:00 +0000

The limitations of economists are rather too obvious in this article. The author appears to be unaware of the massive legal and political problems that May has failed to address — most notably those concerning free movement of goods and people. Free trade is not the same as a customs union and is not the same as the Single Market. Similarly, migration of workers is not the same as free movement and the right of settlement. No external country has ever been able to get the EU to weaken its resolve on these two issues, and logically this makes sense. Once you start diluting core principles of a political institution, that institution starts to disintegrate. The EU will not accept suicide as the Brits have done.

By: William MacDougall

William MacDougall — Sun, 15 Jul 2018 08:38:00 +0000

How do you imagine that membership of the EU could be ended before the end of 2018? Yes if the EU rejects the Government’s very generous Chequers White Paper or if Labour fails to support it then chances of a no deal exit become high, but in May 2019, not this year.

By: Silverwhistle

Silverwhistle — Sat, 14 Jul 2018 11:52:00 +0000

Why try to mitigate disaster? We should fight to rejoin if we are forced out against our will.

By: aldo

aldo — Sat, 14 Jul 2018 07:46:00 +0000

The idea in general terms might sound fine. But what are the conditions of that free market.? What about migration ? If Britain controls its frontiers and does not allow migrants, and at the same time it is allowed to negotiate with the whole world, then my first impression is that Brexisters won the game.