Brexit has certainly highlighted the quality and integrity of our Mps. But this whole ridiculous situation came about because people voted it into being.

Not that I blame all brexit voters. Most have spent decades being lied to. Others, and enough to have changed the vote, knew better and did it anyway.

It wouldn't be a big deal if it wasn't such an impossible prospect.

Chicken and egg.

The referendum was only possible because MPs voted to have it.

MPs were only able to vote for it because people voted for a Conservative government.

So, the position now taken by the British Government makes the Irish backstop impossible, going back on what was agreed in December.

Unless there is some change, the EU must be obliged to withdraw it's offer of a transition period, meaning the current trajectory is for hard brexit in March next year.

I wonder if the EU will do it. The capital flight alone might scare some sense into the Tories. But who knows?

Thankfully NI businesses have a degree of security now they have a guarantee that their will be no border in the Irish Sea. I know for my own buisiness and NI largest businesses a border in the Irish Sea would kill us. Well done JRM

 Knockagh wrote:
Thankfully NI businesses have a degree of security now they have a guarantee that their will be no border in the Irish Sea. I know for my own buisiness and NI largest businesses a border in the Irish Sea would kill us. Well done JRM

Except of course 55% of your trade from NI goes to the EU. 31% of that goes RoI. If you mean JRM has just crippled the region then, and being sarcastic, then yes you are correct.

Anyway it's all a bit of a moot point. After all there can never be a border in the Irish sea. That would require an impossible amount of infrastructure. In reality it means customs checks at either the NI ports or the English/Scottish/Welsh ports. If you put border controls at the ports in England, Scotland and Wales then you still meet the requirement as the border is in those countries. So hard borders there. It does, however, mean that the costs for leaving are only based on English, Welsh and Scottish soil which in the end, apart from the latter, voted for this calamity anyway.

The alternative is a hard border between NI/Eire which would fly in the face of Good Friday agreement. Though I'm fairly certain there are elements of the Tory hard right that wouldn't mind a good 'blowing up' once in a while. They can get their rifles out and then start hunting humans as a bit of a game.

Why the feth are they making this so difficult? EFTA. fething EFTA, it’s right there. I knew our politicians were gak but I couldn’t have imagined that they’d be this gak.

I would really love to know where on earth it mentions no hard border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland in the Good Friday Agreement. I know it says there will be a border in Ireland as long as the people still want it (and they do). It also says Northern Ireland will remain a full member of the UK. But it doesn’t say anywhere that there can’t be a customs border or specify what type of border there should be in Ireland.

Maybe you can tell me where it says this about the border.

The market in RoI is tiny compared to the UK. And any access to EU markets of course we want them but so does the rest of the UK. But we also want access to other markets.

 Knockagh wrote:
I would really love to know where on earth it mentions no hard border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland in the Good Friday Agreement. I know it says there will be a border in Ireland as long as the people still want it (and they do). It also says Northern Ireland will remain a full member of the UK. But it doesn’t say anywhere that there can’t be a customs border or specify what type of border there should be in Ireland.

Maybe you can tell me where it says this about the border.

The market in RoI is tiny compared to the UK. And any access to EU markets of course we want them but so does the rest of the UK. But we also want access to other markets.

But what it does state is about the rights of the individual. There's no specific clause that states a customs border can't be had. But it does say the rights of an individual have to be recognised and respected which includes place of residence, ethnic background and so forth. A hard border works against this is as it will discriminate against those that think their place of residence is Ireland and that is their nationality. It doesn't affect those that think they are British because they already live there and have the freedom to travel throughout Britain. As such s hard border discriminate against someone who perceives they are Irish and should be able to travel freely throughout.

21% of exports from NI go to Eire. That really isn't a tiny fraction of the market. About 50% of you trade goes to the UK. Another 10% goes to the rest of the EU. If you are happy to let that slide then fine, but there will be a huge cost both in terms of implementing new checks and less income to the region.

 Knockagh wrote:
I would really love to know where on earth it mentions no hard border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland in the Good Friday Agreement. I know it says there will be a border in Ireland as long as the people still want it (and they do). It also says Northern Ireland will remain a full member of the UK. But it doesn’t say anywhere that there can’t be a customs border or specify what type of border there should be in Ireland.

Maybe you can tell me where it says this about the border.

The market in RoI is tiny compared to the UK. And any access to EU markets of course we want them but so does the rest of the UK. But we also want access to other markets.

It doesn't as far as I can tell, but here's an expert opinion on the matter:

“Having a soft border was crucial because that meant the issue of identity was really removed from the table,” Jonathan Powell, the U.K.’s chief negotiator on the Good Friday Agreement, told me. “You could live in Northern Ireland all your life and be Irish (have an Irish passport, never notice there was a border), or you could be British, or you could be both. If you have a hard border and we go back to the concrete blocks on small roads and the border point crossings and all that, then the identity issue is reopened.”

Sauce: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/good-friday-agreement-20th-anniversary/557393/

Knockagh, are you seriously arguing "It's not explicitly spelled out in the GFA, therefore a hard border will be just fine"?

Because if it's "just" a customs border, allowing free movement of people, you just KNOW that within weeks the Daily Mail will be howling about "ILLEGALS COMING FROM SOUTHERN IRELAND VIA CAIRNRYAN TO TAKE ALL OUR JOBS" and then you're back to border checks of some description somewhere.

Actually, that's a point - it's ages since I got the ferry. Do you need any ID at the moment?

If we end up with a Hard Border, we will have Irish reunification much sooner than I expected. Unionists shooting themselves in the foot.

What a lot of whataboutery. Utter nonsense.
The agreement is built on the self determination on NI and the obligation of the minority community to respect that. The fact that the republican community have never lived up to that obigation is why we are having the fuss. They still won’t even say the words Northern Ireland never mind accept the will of the majority. Which is that we remain an integral part of the UK, regardless of what happens in any trade agreements.
Anyone can have an Irish passport so long as they have a grandparent from there. They could live in America, Germany or Timbuktu. You could be from China and complete a 5 year degree in Dublin and you can be a citizen.
Tony Blair, Jonathan Powell and the Labour Party gangster who added to agreements and made dirty little back room deals after the GFA with the IRA are the reason for much of the anger in the unionist community here. They behaved appallingly and have zero credibility.

No one wants a hard border. The EU are just using the RoI as a beating stick for the UK as are remainers. But there is a very real possibility of a border being forced on us across the sea. And this is the real threat a border against the wishes of the people if Northern Ireland.

So you are not at all worried about the huge increase in support for reunification?

Just to make the point that a hard border in the Irish Sea is entirely feasible. There are only three ferry ports in Northern Ireland to be concerned with, and I think only one airport handling freight.

 Da Boss wrote:
So you are not at all worried about the huge increase in support for reunification?

Not at all. Nationalism has risen and fallen in popularity within the RC community for ever. I think though they would run a mile from it over the loss of the NHS and many other British values and rights they currently enjoy.

Long term, and Irish history is always long term, one of the most interesting developments over the last decade has been the total collapse of the power in Ireland, north and south of the RC church. The church has always played a unifying role for nationalism and republicans. It will be interesting to see how that is maintained if that structure starts to disintegrate. Protestants have never had a unifying church and that’s one reason politically we differ so much. The GAA tries, fairly successfully in some areas to fill the same role in much the same way as the church. Who knows, but i definitely see the dynamic within the traditional RC/nationalist community changing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just to make the point that a hard border in the Irish Sea is entirely feasible. There are only three ferry ports in Northern Ireland to be concerned with, and I think only one airport handling freight.

Any border is feasible. Their might be 3 ports but there are 1000s of landing spots for small crafts. People cross the Irish Sea daily not using the 3 main ports. There are many many small ports the length of Scotland and NI. I live just outside Carrickfergus, boats come and go from Scotland and England all day.

The UK has more suitable small harbours and beaches for landing than nearly anywhere in Europe.

It has never been feasible to secure them all, but that doesn't matter. In terms of real international trade the important thing for customs is the freight transferring ports.

I'm a remainer in the mouth breathing brexit heartlands in the north. I am in the next town over from Hartlepool which has around 70% of it's population on benefits and every major building has a built with EU funding plaque on it.

I am looking forward to there shock when the rabid right wing Brexiters advise them there will no longer be any welfare state and depending on which loon is in charge they end up working the fields or in the poorhouse.

At this point I no longer give a gak I have moved my money into euros and I am in the process of clearing as much of my debt as I can, my job is secure although I am likely to lose my disability benefits given the Tory scum bags hate us useless eaters.

I am starting to stockpile water,food and other essentials such as medication. I am however now angry more than anything that my son's future has been fethed by the gulliable dumb feths who voted to turn us into a 3rd world right wing shithole.

Just so Moggy and his mates can avoid the new tax laws on the 1st April next year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Knockagh wrote:
What a lot of whataboutery. Utter nonsense.

No one wants a hard border. The EU are just using the RoI as a beating stick for the UK as are remainers. But there is a very real possibility of a border being forced on us across the sea. And this is the real threat a border against the wishes of the people if Northern Ireland.

Ahhh I see another follower of David "Mince" Davis version of reality sadly he is a fething moron who knows nothing about anything he speaks about. If we crash out Moggy style onto WTO terms then by there rules there has to be a hard border, other "benefits" of two include being required to privatise the NHS and other Tory wet dreams

If it’s only legitimate international trading that’s of concern then we don’t need any border structures but just an extra audit for companies that carry out exports.
But the small scale smuggling that continues even today still costs the treasury a small fortune. It’s estimated that IRA gangs operating along the border fuel smuggling cost the exchequer £350 million annually in lost revenue. Never mind the tonnes of toxic sludge that they dump along the border roads, the byproduct of their fuel washing. Apart from the very occasional police operation against these thugs they are largely left to operate freely. I know this is a small scale example but it involves small tight knit border communities who make a lot of money from this. It’s endemic within republicanism, only last year Michell ONeill the leader of Sinn Fein here had a family member convicted of border smuggling.

Just an interesting related story. In the 1920s up to the start of the troubles the old customs posts opened at 8am and closed at 5pm. Anytime before or after you just drove, walked or rode on through!

How Brexit has been allowed to occur is just appalling. It was entirely the life's work of a party who never had more that a single MP (stolen from the Tories), and now it's being forced through by a minority caucus in parliament.

But the fertile ground that exists for it is just a long tragic chain of events leading back to the 08 crash, which ultimately ruined Labour (that and the 'bigot' line). Since then we saw the Tories kill the Liberals in a Coalition, which went hand in hand with the rise in profile of the SNP thanks to the "IndyRef", so 2015's GE resulted in a massive evacuation of the English political centre, allowing both the Tories and Labour to lurch to harder positions.

I would see it as a natural evolution of shifting the overton window to the Right in the UK since Thatcher, followed by Blair. Cameron mostly bullied the disabled, but that stream of right wing nastiness was still there.

I am not sure I see a way out of this now - the Tories will be panicking at seeing polling that suggests UKIP is reviving at their expense as they lose moderates to Labour. Hard Brexit becomes a political necessity to keep the Tories in power, even though they know it is bad for the country in many cases. Just look at how weak the tory rebels have been with the threat of a GE.

Perhaps the crash that comes with a Hard Brexit will snap the UK out of it. But it could just as easily turn in on itself even more. It really is shocking.

Breaking news : Suspended Sex Pest right wing Labour MP resigns party to avoid investigation and being thrown out.

John Woodcock ex leader of the Friends of Israel and partner of Tory spectator editor. Leaves without consulting or advising local members and provides Mayhem with cover by ranting about Corbyn in resignation letter being a national security risk and a jew hating Nazi.

Entire party membership cheers as party swings massively from right to centre/left with this douche gone. Also saves us the cost of having to deal with the sex pest.

I remember when in the early days of the Corbyn thing, the Guardian was giving the likes of him and the other discredited sex pest tonnes of hagiographic coverage because they were rabidly anti Corbyn. Like that useless gobshite Jess Philips, and the other sex pest Simon Danczuk, remember him?

Mind you, Corbyn has been useless with regard to Brexit and seems pretty incoherent when it comes to stuff like NATO. He turned out to be a disappointment too.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In terms of real international trade the important thing for customs is the freight transferring ports.

Only whilst there's regulatory equivalence - and it's just a revenue issue.

Once you get stuff that's legal on one side and not the other, there's a lot of money to be made smuggling.

Herzlos wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In terms of real international trade the important thing for customs is the freight transferring ports.

Only whilst there's regulatory equivalence - and it's just a revenue issue.

Once you get stuff that's legal on one side and not the other, there's a lot of money to be made smuggling.

You'd be amazed the weird things you can smuggle and make money on too. I knew this one guy who'd jump the US/SNI border with loads of food, like bread, which wasn't taxed on one side, and sell it cheap on the other.

There has always been smuggling and there will always be smuggling, because there have always been things which are legal here and not there.

The point is to regulate legal trade.

No-one's going to "smuggle" a container of chlorinated chickens on a small trawler. They will bring it through a ferry port, and that is where it can be customs checked.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There has always been smuggling and there will always be smuggling, because there have always been things which are legal here and not there.

The point is to regulate legal trade.

No-one's going to "smuggle" a container of chlorinated chickens on a small trawler. They will bring it through a ferry port, and that is where it can be customs checked.

I wouldn't think someone would smuggle 800 loaves of bread in a truck, but they did.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/18/dairy-products-may-become-luxuries-after-uk-leaves-eu?CMP=share_btn_tw

Dairy products 'may become luxuries' after UK leaves EU
Reliance on EU butter, cheese and yoghurt means sharp price rises, says milk producer Arla

.. back to good old fashioned dripping it is then.

How would you police a hard border and it's 275 border crossings? You could bomb them again I suppose:great economically and for ensuring the safety of unionist border votes I'm sure.
Will we see a return to the amusing situation of having a shop halfway through the border, selling cigarettes in whichever side they can get a better deal on? When the border was as hard as steel, Slab and co were able to smuggle, why would now be Harder when they aren't wanted for terrorism? More to that point, how would any seamless infrastructure survive a slap of a South Armagh hurley? Leaving us with a policed border and the chatter of dissident armalites. That is if they're even the dissidents at that and not the majority of nationalists. There's a legal argument that it disenfranchises people of their Irish citizenships: will that go down well?

When the Ulster Covenant was signed, it was labelled the Ulster covenant. Not the "2/3rds of Ulster covenant." Republicans do not recognise the majority as being unionist. It is only a majority within the occupied six counties-a very slim majority at that. It is an artificial majority. The six counties were chosen as they were the furthest extent of territory unionism thought it could hold onto long term, despite two of them already wanting to be in the "south." If for example the people of a predominantly French area in London declared they wanted to secede to France in 100 years time it would be farcical, especially if they went around declaring how they wouldn't give a job to an englishman, shot a load of them, and refered to the place as London, even if it was a few streets of it!

As for being Northern Ireland? It's not even that. Donegal is the most northerly part of Ireland. If unionism had held onto the entirety of Ulaid, perhaps they may be considered as being Northern Ireland. Come to think of it, the unionists, Republicans and Brits call us the south half the time and we don't whinge about it. Unionism has rather tackily decided to slap the name Ulster onto everything it could, the RUC, UDR, UDA etc, despite having abandoned a third of it!

With the way May is handling things, I am seriously coming around to the idea of just stopping the current process altogether and starting over. Because it needs done right or not at all. I’m not an extremist, and I don’t believe in cutting off your nose to spite your face. The solution, EFTA, is sitting there staring them in the face and they are just too stupid to see it. I don’t regret my choice of vote but I do regret having it carried out by these fething numpties.

But...you knew it would be these numpties.

 Da krimson barun wrote:
But...you knew it would be these numpties.

What I had hoped was that within the space of two and a half years, the whole of Parliament could have quickly decided on efta and then spent that time preparing for it instead of all this fething around. Jesus Christ, me, typing here on this website, figured it out fairly quickly. Why can’t they, with all their supposed resources and expertise, do the same?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
With the way May is handling things, I am seriously coming around to the idea of just stopping the current process altogether and starting over. Because it needs done right or not at all. I’m not an extremist, and I don’t believe in cutting off your nose to spite your face. The solution, EFTA, is sitting there staring them in the face and they are just too stupid to see it. I don’t regret my choice of vote but I do regret having it carried out by these fething numpties.

I agree with you. The problem is there isn't time for a second referendum before next March.

The way to solve the problem is to have a general election, form a new government -- hopefully not Conservative, considering tbe pig's ear they've made of it all -- and let that new government rescind the Article 50.

This would give us time to restart the entire process with a second referendum. The second referendum could be much better framed, people would be more knowledgeable about everything, and if it resulted in another Leave vote, at least the government would not have to draw red lines and set an impossible hard deadline.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
With the way May is handling things, I am seriously coming around to the idea of just stopping the current process altogether and starting over. Because it needs done right or not at all. I’m not an extremist, and I don’t believe in cutting off your nose to spite your face. The solution, EFTA, is sitting there staring them in the face and they are just too stupid to see it. I don’t regret my choice of vote but I do regret having it carried out by these fething numpties.

I agree with you. The problem is there isn't time for a second referendum before next March.

The way to solve the problem is to have a general election, form a new government -- hopefully not Conservative, considering tbe pig's ear they've made of it all -- and let that new government rescind the Article 50.

This would give us time to restart the entire process with a second referendum. The second referendum could be much better framed, people would be more knowledgeable about everything, and if it resulted in another Leave vote, at least the government would not have to draw red lines and set an impossible hard deadline.

Yes, this. All of this.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
With the way May is handling things, I am seriously coming around to the idea of just stopping the current process altogether and starting over. Because it needs done right or not at all. I’m not an extremist, and I don’t believe in cutting off your nose to spite your face. The solution, EFTA, is sitting there staring them in the face and they are just too stupid to see it. I don’t regret my choice of vote but I do regret having it carried out by these fething numpties.

EFTA still has freedom of movement and ECJ though? Those are apparently the bits we want to drop.

I'm actually wondering if the Japan Economic Partnership is the better way to go; it has some provision for services, and only some duties.

We don't know what we want to drop.

The referendum question was too vague. "Leave the EU" allows all kinds of interpretations of what people were thinking of.

The Japan deal might be a target to aim for, though Japan and the EU are starting from very different positions to the UK and the EU, so it would need serious reverse engineering.

For example there is no land border for Japan to worry about.

Forget another General Election. If we end up with another hung parliament, and it's likely, we're back to square one.

I'm with Future War Cultist: a smooth, orderly Brexit, even if we have to wait 2-3 more years, is preferable to a car crash that lets Remain fill the vacuum.

It's EEA for me. Solves Ireland, it's a compromise that will satisfy most people, gets us out of CAP and CFP, and buys us some time to get our no deal preparations into place.

As for immigration, we apply the emergency brake, and if we face action against us, then we can tie them up for years with the lawyers.

Job done.

EEA as a staging post gets the DINLT nod of approval.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Forget another General Election. If we end up with another hung parliament, and it's likely, we're back to square one.

I'm not sure we've even left square one. I can't fathom how we could get further behind.

I'm with Future War Cultist: a smooth, orderly Brexit, even if we have to wait 2-3 more years, is preferable to a car crash that lets Remain fill the vacuum.

It's the best option. We really should withdraw A50 until we have some coherent plan for what we're going to try and do.

It's EEA for me. Solves Ireland, it's a compromise that will satisfy most people, gets us out of CAP and CFP, and buys us some time to get our no deal preparations into place.

But it still violates what seem to be thickest of the red lines; movement, trade deals, sending money to the EU and ECJ. It also assumes that "no deal" is the end goal.

As for immigration, we apply the emergency brake, and if we face action against us, then we can tie them up for years with the lawyers.

I guess. If we want to waste millions preventing something we need. We're also not going to have a friendly EU to negotiate a "no deal" with, if we're gakking them about on migration.

I mean, we could always use our existing powers to do something about immigration, or infrastructure.

May's red lines are changing on a daily basis. They are no longer credible and I wouldn't put any stock into them.

Not worth the paper they're written on.

I rarely give credit to the EU, but it's obvious why they didn't initially respond to May's white paper: they knew it would go down like the Titanic.

Brexy Bonus!

New report from London School of Economics warns of problems with dairy foods.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
May's red lines are changing on a daily basis. They are no longer credible and I wouldn't put any stock into them.

I'm not even talking about Mays, which are worthless. I'm talking about the Brexiteers red lines; they'll never agree to anything that allows movement of following EU rules.

I rarely give credit to the EU, but it's obvious why they didn't initially respond to May's white paper: they knew it would go down like the Titanic.

Because they rejected them last time round?

Ian Paisley Jnr MP for North Antrim has received a 30 day suspension. Mrs May will be down a vote for that period at least. His constituents could petition for a by election but that’s incredibly unlikely. The Paisley family once again proving they are among the vilest political leaches in the UK. A disgrace to unionism.

This the trade deal between the EU and Japan



Fox, Davis et al claim we can just bang something like this out with a wide variety of countries on an almost monthly basis.



look at this :

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/eu-japan-economic-partnership-agreement/eu-japan-in-your-town/

and go to the UK info

EU-Japan


Companies and jobs
8,408
The number of British companies that export to Japan.

89%
The share of British companies exporting to Japan that are small and medium-sized enterprises.

90,915
The number of jobs in the United Kingdom that EU exports to Japan help support.

€6.5 bn
The value of British exports to Japan.

€11.4 bn
The value of British imports from Japan.

All of this is threatened by Brexit and will have to be renegotiated.





meanwhile, following on from the trend of the Govt. claiming that EU directives are it's own ideas and policies



.. the UK government is now using EU funding to pay for its trade missions.

That's just another example of why the £350M Brexit Bus was such a disgraceful lie.

It's also part of why UK universities have got so twitchy about Brexit. Our universitiues get the lion's share of funding from the EU Future 2020 and other science international funding programmes, because they are so good.

EU rules won't allow that to continue once we've outside, though. As well as the loss of European staff.

 Knockagh wrote:
What a lot of whataboutery. Utter nonsense.
The agreement is built on the self determination on NI and the obligation of the minority community to respect that. The fact that the republican community have never lived up to that obigation is why we are having the fuss. They still won’t even say the words Northern Ireland never mind accept the will of the majority. Which is that we remain an integral part of the UK, regardless of what happens in any trade agreements.

That's not what it says at all. Every citizen of NI is allowed to determine for themselves as to whether they consider themselves Irish or British. All it says is that people must recognise that, at the time of the Good Friday agreement, the majority of people prefer to be considered British and that United Ireland must pass a referendum both by NI and Eire. It doesn't state they have to accept (only respect) it. It doesn't prevent people from trying to change people's views on it as the agreement also states that (summarised):-

Northern Ireland will be governed based on mutual respect and recognition of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly freedom of political thought, religion, place of residence and the rights of democratic government, peaceful constitutional change, absence of sectarianism and equal opportunity regardless of religion, politics, gender, race, disability, age, marital status, dependents or sexual orientation.

As such there has to be respect that some people still hold the view that NI is part of Eire (freedom of political thought). I would actually argue that your own views are in contravention of the Good Friday agreement as in your own words, you are not respecting that "they won't even say the words Northern Ireland...". That is their freedom of political thought prerogative. There also has to be a referendum on the issue if the SoS deems that that there is a majority in favour of a United Ireland. You can hardly call the last referendum 20 years ago as the "will of the majority" now (although the comparisons with what some people say about Wrexit is amusing).

Most treaties won't, and can't, put every possible scenario down in writing and hence are a set of principles. A hard border introduces a discriminatory selection process as the majority that will be affected are those that consider themselves Irish. Of course we could put hard borders between the UK / NI and NI / Eire. That at least would be less discriminatory.

Tony Blair, Jonathan Powell and the Labour Party gangster who added to agreements and made dirty little back room deals after the GFA with the IRA are the reason for much of the anger in the unionist community here. They behaved appallingly and have zero credibility.

Like? You can't just state something without evidence.

No one wants a hard border. The EU are just using the RoI as a beating stick for the UK as are remainers. But there is a very real possibility of a border being forced on us across the sea. And this is the real threat a border against the wishes of the people if Northern Ireland.

If there is no customs union then it has to be a hard border of some form. This is the problem. Even with free trade deals you still have a 'hard border'. Customs checks still have to be made to ensure that the goods comply with the agreement. Customs union means you have aligned rules and hence there is no risk that the goods don't meet the appropriate standards. Free trade just means there won't be any additional customs tax on the goods (noting VAT still is). Hence you still apply VAT at the point of entry. That means you have to have some border controls. At the moment the VAT is applied at the point of sale regardless of which state you are buying from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

It's also part of why UK universities have got so twitchy about Brexit. Our universitiues get the lion's share of funding from the EU Future 2020 and other science international funding programmes, because they are so good.

EU rules won't allow that to continue once we've outside, though. As well as the loss of European staff.

Non-EU countries can be associated members to the 2020 Horizons projects. However it usually costs and as ever you get better benefits from being inside the group (associated members usually have conditions attached).

I'm just going to stick this out there.
I really think that a no deal is going to happen.
I also think that it was the tory plan from the beginning.

EFTA rules would have worked form day one and would work now we could have spent the time trying to get a BETTER deal more opt outs/ins etc.
a done deal in months.

A hard brexit would have been much harder to achieve, as we have found out, but the government have literally done everything they can to NOT negotiate
calling an election, asking to run trade talks at the same time as the other negotiations when we didn't even have a trade negotiator at the time.
Proposing half baked ideas about the northern ireland border and how we should be allowed to have our cake and eat it.
I remember reading a quote from someone in the EU which said essentially
The british civil service always has a plan the fact that they don't scares me.
Hell look at the tory party now and the months preceding, fighting over plans the EU have already rejected!

We still don't even know what brexit is 2 years later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So a no deal brexit
It seems to make sense to me.
create a cliff edge by demanding we leave on a set date, then walk backwards towards it while we make shushing noises at everyone.

It solves the hard brexit issues.
I have seen nothing that indicates the majority of even brexiters want a hard brexit.
Lets face it the people of britain just will not except another 8,10 15? years MORE of austerity. And that is IF we get trade deals quickly.
How will they solve the northern ireland border? 2 years on we have no idea.
How will we solve the immigration problems? most of it is due to government policy, dumping them where it's cheap. Rees mogg and his lot
have said we will just have necessary immigration from ELSE WHERE. I'm sure that's what the brexiters voted for.
the list is endless really THAT is probably why we can't cobble together a deal.

It certainly explains a lot (I will come back to more a bit busy at the moment) starting with how may has survived, Its a suicide mission
It solves northern ireland, bye bye northern ireland you never voted tory, you were constant trouble and cost more then you brought in via tax.
Why did may demand an end date? why did she refuse to give parliament a meaningful vote? why did davis spend 4 hours negotiating this year?
why did davis a man who got everything he wanted not demand changes to the chequers proposal but just resign?
Him and boris are fleeing the catastrophe, they have enough time to snipe at the edges claiming they would have done it better.

@whirlwind r.e Jonathan Powell and Tony Blair.
*On the run letters.
*Sneaking in agreements to the St. Andrews agreements on an Irish Language act that was never agreed.

On the GFA respect is quite different from an aspiration to change the status quo, no one is arguing they can’t work towards whatever goal they desire, changing of articles 2&3 were sold to the unionist communities as a sign that republicans would respect the wishes of the majority in N.I.

Personally I never liked the GFA I voted no. I stand by that even though the party I belonged to voted yes and urged all its members to vote yes. I didn’t leave the party over it. It’s a repugnant agreement on so many levels. But the people voted for it and I have to live with it. Won’t stop me from arguing against it. But I will respect the laws it has brought into being.

You'd rather have returned to letting the IRA flatten Britain's economic sector, shoot Britain's soldiers and overcrowd Britain's prisons then give peace a chance? The GFA is perfect in that it satisifies absolutely nobody, is everything to anyone and is a jagged edge waiting to cut any Irish or British government that isn't careful with it. The fact that we had people threatening to kill Martin McGuinness with a homemafe rocket is proof that we didn't walk away with everything we wanted, the DUP refusing to sign showing the same for you.

I don't like the GFA either: mostly because we left the border poll authority in the hands of the SoS instead of some other system. Also the fact that we didn't get the ILA stuck in there, the lack of a peace and reconciliation commission, not getting that hard border legislation in just in case...an agreement both sides like is impossible, so one we both hate is the best solution possible.

Perhaps you missed it: I have already underlined exactly why we will never respect the "majority" in North Eastern Ireland except as a practical matter. We are after all defending the majority's decision to stay in the EU are we not? Perhaps unionism should have respected the majority when it put the DUP in power instead of the UUP? Even then unionism didn't win a majority vote share last assembly election.

 Knockagh wrote:
@whirlwind r.e Jonathan Powell and Tony Blair.
*On the run letters.
*Sneaking in agreements to the St. Andrews agreements on an Irish Language act that was never agreed.

'On the run letters' were never secret, badly implemented perhaps and the judge considering the issue noted there was systematic failures. However it didn't amount to an amnesty and that the information was available if people cared to look in the correct direction and monitored NI politics. It was noted that it wasn't advertised with a fanfare but then nothing poltically sensitive is. The idea that this was back room deals is a fallacy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-26359906

As for the Irish language act, barring I think it's a stupid reason for people to be complaining about. Lots of countries have two or more main languages and it works just fine - Canada for example. In fact I'd argue that children learning it have an advantage as the general view it gives people an ability to see things in different ways. However the DUP did agree that the uk government should implement an Irish language act. The DUP never agreed to implement it as it wasn't for them to place in the statutes book. The U.K. Government instead introduced a strategy on the Irish language. Hence DUP never agreed to put something on the books because it was never intended that they should do so. It again wasn't a secretive agreement, the DUP did sign up to the UK government implementing it. That the uk government didn't act on what it signed up to is a different issue.

On the GFA respect is quite different from an aspiration to change the status quo, no one is arguing they can’t work towards whatever goal they desire, changing of articles 2&3 were sold to the unionist communities as a sign that republicans would respect the wishes of the majority in N.I.

I'm not sure you are making any sense here. No one on the unionist side is forcing you to change an opinion and leave the uk. They are arguing a case just as SNP do on independence. If they win that argument then people will become pro unionist and that means a referendum will be held. I am hence not sure what you mean in that they are not respecting 'the majority'. In the end it is just a line on a map and people could call the island the "land of milk and potatoes" but no one is forcing you to call it that.

Personally I never liked the GFA I voted no. I stand by that even though the party I belonged to voted yes and urged all its members to vote yes. I didn’t leave the party over it. It’s a repugnant agreement on so many levels. But the people voted for it and I have to live with it. Won’t stop me from arguing against it. But I will respect the laws it has brought into being.

In what way is it repugnant?

The agreement institutionalised secteranism. It forces all parties to designate themselves as one camp or other or none. It requires all decisions to be passed by both secterian camps. It leaves us forever election after election running to tribal camps to make sure our side has the max vote. Therefore It has created the dominance of the two extremes and created a climate of fear.

The nature of the executive, forcing parties with completely different policies and manifestos to make joint decisions means no party can ever stand by their promises to the electorate. Which in turn means a party can promise anything in their electoral manifesto but even if they get into government they can’t be held accountable for failing to implement their commitments as it would have to be agreed by an opposing party. Those decisions that can be made by ministers without executive approval are in the odd position that they will almost certainly be reversed at the next election as the parties (who due to the designation of ministers) are guaranteed executive seats and they will choose that ministry just to reverse a decision. It’s a system that promotes stagnation and stalemate. Elected MLAs have virtually no authority as votes are just taken by ministers not by the elected assembly. At the time of the agreement it was assumed that the two moderate parties would continue to dominate the political landscape and it was assumed that they could get on. What wasn’t predicted was that the institutionalising of secterianism through the agreement would lead to the rise of the extremes and the further polarising of the electorate. Leaving aside the secterian nature of the parties they disagree massively in economic and social policies making stagnation in the assembly assured. It would be the equivalent of Labour and Conservative party making up cabinet and never having to bring their decisions before Parliament.

It freed onto our streets some of the most evil men and women who ever walked the planet and through the institutionalising of sectarianism and causing the rise of the extremes gave some of those evil people a position in government.

It creates a situation where the current minority community gets an equal say in government, but only while the majority wish to stay in the UK. If the majority swings the other way the new minority would have no equal say. They would be open to wholesale discrimination. A 50% plus one would abolish any of the protections for a minority community.

One thing everyone forgets is that at the time no one said the agreement was a permanent fixture it was supposed to be a sticking plaster to get us out of a hole. A short term interim agreement to move beyond violence and allow us to mature into a normal democracy. That’s how it was sold to everyone, who at the time yearned for peace above everything. My generation grew up thinking the troubles would never end. Desperate people will agree to anything. However once the extremes took over they realised that this worked in their favour it guaranteed them power, a place on the executive and as a by product has left NI more polarised and more secterian than at any time in my life

 Knockagh wrote:
The agreement institutionalised secteranism. It forces all parties to designate themselves as one camp or other or none. It requires all decisions to be passed by both secterian camps. It leaves us forever election after election running to tribal camps to make sure our side has the max vote. Therefore It has created the dominance of the two extremes and created a climate of fear.

I'm not sure what else you were expecting. That is no different from the rest of the UK where it is predominantly split into two factions. It is more reasonable where there is a relatively even split of views across the region as to how to go forward. You were never going to get a system that wasn't split into sectarian camps even if you tried to force a completely neutral system onto the situation. People still predominantly vote down religious lines. It will take generations to clear that out of the system. People's views will change over time as the troubles fade away - it will however be a hundred years, when politicians will become more driven by politics rather than "what happened in the past". It's not a perfect system by any means but it does allow all elements of the population to have their say. If you just had a parliamentary system like in the UK then you would just have the unionists dominating the agenda. The DUP would dominate, and to be honest massively favour their own supporters (one of the reasons for the collapse is for this reason). That would leave half the population continuously being shafted and you would never have any form of stable peace.

The nature of the executive, forcing parties with completely different policies and manifestos to make joint decisions means no party can ever stand by their promises to the electorate.

That is really for the electorate to control though. If they don't vote for people that make impossible promises then this won't happen. When the electorate have had enough then things will change.

It freed onto our streets some of the most evil men and women who ever walked the planet and through the institutionalising of sectarianism and causing the rise of the extremes gave some of those evil people a position in government.

If you want progress from violence then this is something you have to stomach I'm afraid. For the people on the other side they more then likely see them as "freedom fighters". Whether some are intrinsically evil is probably more questionable. Some are likely not to have acted in the same way if the world had turned out differently and didn't feel like they are being suppressed. Yes killing anyone is horrific, however when it comes to political causes then some leeway has to be given. The French resistance in WWII for example killed people, yet we don't generally claim these people were 'evil'. Indeed from a modern point of view how many people support the rebel alliance in star wars? It seems a bit daft, but in reality the Rebel Alliance were a political group using violence to change what they felt was an unjust system. Is Luke Skywalker evil from a political perspective. It's simply not as black and white as the way you are portraying it.

It creates a situation where the current minority community gets an equal say in government, but only while the majority wish to stay in the UK. If the majority swings the other way the new minority would have no equal say. They would be open to wholesale discrimination. A 50% plus one would abolish any of the protections for a minority community.

You've stated earlier that decisions have to be passed through both camps. I'm not sure this isn't just fearmongering that your faction might lose that majority in the future. It doesn't change what you have already noted in that both factions still get a say. You argument is effectively "while we have power, the minority have no discrimination under current rules. If that changes then those rules somehow change even though regardless of who has the majority those same rules apply). The GFA also utilises the ECHR as a backstop position. That in itself minimise s the risk of discrimination.

One thing everyone forgets is that at the time no one said the agreement was a permanent fixture it was supposed to be a sticking plaster to get us out of a hole. A short term interim agreement to move beyond violence and allow us to mature into a normal democracy. That’s how it was sold to everyone, who at the time yearned for peace above everything. My generation grew up thinking the troubles would never end. Desperate people will agree to anything. However once the extremes took over they realised that this worked in their favour it guaranteed them power, a place on the executive and as a by product has left NI more polarised and more secterian than at any time in my life

A plaster is there to help heal a wound. If the wound is a savage scar then it takes longer to heal and you need it on for longer. You won't see the end of that plaster because it is a huge wound. It is unlikely I will either. My niece / nephews may but I'm of the view that it won't truly heal until no-one is left alive that remembers any of their family talking about it. We are looking at a plaster for 150-200 years, not 10-20.

Only someone who’s experience of conflict is restricted to pushing plastic men round a table would dare to compare terrorists who bombed school buses, town centres, shot people for their religion with the French resistance fighters or cheapen victims by comparing scum to a fictional sc fi character. A foul analogy but I can let it go because it’s based on total ignorance.

https://news.sky.com/story/pharmacists-preparing-to-stockpile-medicines-and-medical-supplies-for-no-deal-brexit-11441089?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter

Pharmacists preparing to stockpile medicines and medical supplies for no-deal Brexit
Health experts are warning that leaving the European Medicines Agency could impact on the supply of drugs into the UK.

But this is fine, obviously.

 Knockagh wrote:
Only someone who’s experience of conflict is restricted to pushing plastic men round a table would dare to compare terrorists who bombed school buses, town centres, shot people for their religion with the French resistance fighters or cheapen victims by comparing scum to a fictional sc fi character. A foul analogy but I can let it go because it’s based on total ignorance.

You know this how? It's a point of perspective. If you become too narrow close, too blinded, about what has happened in the past then you can miss the benefits of, unfortunately, having to ignore that past for the betterment of the future. That's not to say those crimes are any worse or better because of what could happen. However you have to make a choice as to whether you accept the past and move on, or live in the past and risk continuing that same issue. It was a political debate to and to an extent almost a civil war. That never makes murdering other people acceptable. However from the other sides perspective they were fighting what they considered repression and to an extent occupation of another country. In that way it's not actually so far from the French resistance as they too were fighting against what they believed were an occupying force. Whether the UK is occupying NI is both a historical and political debate, but it does not move away from the fact that to some people the UK is indeed occupying another country.

I appreciate it is easier to dehumanise the people on the 'other side' as some sort of evil caricature but it doesn't get past the basic psychology that from the other side they are the righteous ones and that in effect you are dehumanised as being part of an occupying force. Both are wrong but the way to manage that is to ensure that dehumanisation of people by each side is whittled away. The best way to do that is to bring those people that were opposed to each other to the table. It is not a quick process and the scars will last several generations but they will heal over time. The alternative is that those people you demonise remain in the outskirts, reinforcing their view that they are being repressed and leaving them with the view that the only choice is to continue that form of violence.

So the question you have to ask yourself is that whether you would prefer the attempt to clean the slate and give everyone a brighter future, even though for some they get away with murder. Or would you prefer to get so strung up on the past that you allow it to repeat and recycle endlessly resulting in more deaths and maiming of innocent people. None of us can do anything about what happened in the past, but we can influence the future. Is it better to continue in the same vein as the past or try and find a new peaceful path even if does mean from your perspective that you have to deal with the devil? And likewise those on the other side from their perspective they also have to deal with the devil.

So yes I am quite happy to allow those that committed the atrocities to get away with it. Not because I like the idea, but because it simply means that the people of today and tomorrow have a much better chance of not having to deal with such atrocities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
https://news.sky.com/story/pharmacists-preparing-to-stockpile-medicines-and-medical-supplies-for-no-deal-brexit-11441089?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter

Pharmacists preparing to stockpile medicines and medical supplies for no-deal Brexit
Health experts are warning that leaving the European Medicines Agency could impact on the supply of drugs into the UK.

But this is fine, obviously.

It's not just this, the government are preparing 70 documents of advice for households and businesses in the case of no deal.

https://en.mogaznews.com/World-News/970198/Theresa-May-will-issue-70-papers-on-how-to-prepare-for-a-no-deal-Brexit.html

You wouldn't be doing this if that possiblilty was remote.

So I guess the advice will be:-

Stockpile medicine, food, water.
Keep a wind up radio on you at all times
Minimise the use of the car
Do not go outside for at least 48 hours.
On re-appearing from your vault...
Those exposed to Wrexit radiation (warning Daily Fail and Scum newspapers contain much of this) brains *may* degrade to mindless ghoul like mentality.
Ensure you know what your S.P.E.C.I.A.L. skills are and choose your perks wisely.
Those that haven't prepared may wish to take your stockpiles (also known as Raiders led by someone called JRM), be prepared to defend them and hide them in carefully concealed places.

No one charged for 9 out of 10 crimes.

Homicides increase for the 4th year running.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44884113

I'll spare people my usual rant on law and order. It gives me no satisfaction to be proved right. Again!

Country's going to the dogs

Let’s not lose site that the most extreme Brexiteers want us to crash out with no deal.

They’re disaster capitalists in waiting.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No one charged for 9 out of 10 crimes.

Homicides increase for the 4th year running.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44884113

I'll spare people my usual rant on law and order. It gives me no satisfaction to be proved right. Again!

Country's going to the dogs

We've probably got off pretty lightly given 10 years of austerity.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No one charged for 9 out of 10 crimes.

Homicides increase for the 4th year running.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44884113

I'll spare people my usual rant on law and order. It gives me no satisfaction to be proved right. Again!

Country's going to the dogs

This is what happens when you continually defund social support systems whilst simultaneously removing police funding.

Probably should vote for a different party *cough*

zerosignal wrote:


Probably should vote for a different party *cough*

No no no, DINLT hates the Tories, don't you know? He proved this by voting for a crisis and then give them the wheel to steer us through it.

 Riquende wrote:

zerosignal wrote:


Probably should vote for a different party *cough*

No no no, DINLT hates the Tories, don't you know? He proved this by voting for a crisis and then give them the wheel to steer us through it.

But not attached to the car mind you, which doesn't have any brakes or seat belts, barrelling down a 45% gradient with the only option being a cliff edge or a concrete wall.

However to point out that the car crash that is Wrexit will strongly encourage Scotland to vote for independence....

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No one charged for 9 out of 10 crimes.

Homicides increase for the 4th year running.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44884113

I'll spare people my usual rant on law and order. It gives me no satisfaction to be proved right. Again!

Country's going to the dogs

I have some issues with those homicide figures; 1) they show that although homicide is rising, it had previously reduced, so we’re still better off than we were a decade ago. 2) those appear to be absolute numbers, rather than per capita. Given that our population has grown by ~10%, if all other factors are equal, you would expect a 10% increase in the absolute number of homicides. From that graph it looks like ~770 in 2008. So if homicide rate was constant, we should be seeing ~847 homicides. We’re seeing ~700, which is actually an 18% reduction in homicide rates, when adjusted for population growth.

/scientific

I'm confused... so, Article 50 isn't happening and no Brexit of any form is happening?

Or is it that negotiating a "soft landing" isn't likely to happen and that the Brexit date is still happening???

I see one of Irish Taliban got himself suspended from the commons for 30 days for acidently taking a 50k bung.
His apology was a cringeworthy self justification of what he did.

In brexit news government spiv sir somthing somthing states that in case of no deal we are prepared as we have had years to plan for somthing like this but gave no details.

Can anyone say martial law/state of emergency this is turning into a full blown right wing coup. Depending on which law they subvert to do it we could get fun stuff like parliament being dissolved, rationing, curfews and the right to protest being stopped.

The most exciting version also has the rule of law being suspended and the police disbanded or reformed into a non judicial militia the country being divided up into personal fiefdoms with a unelected leader with unlimited power. Also all cat A,B prisoners are liquidated and some cat c any subversive or opposition are also to be rounded up and liquidated.

There's more but you get the idea and any one who thinks I am exaggerating or.whatever please bear in mind the authoritarian scum bags that make up the Tory Party such as May, Moggy, Rabbid,IDS and Pritti vacant. To these right wing nut jobs this is a wet dream come true.

I believe you exaggerate for effect, but there is a fundamental strand of truth in your arguments.

For many rich Brexiteers, the key problem with the EU is the relentless bearing down on off-shore tax havens.

 whembly wrote:
I'm confused... so, Article 50 isn't happening and no Brexit of any form is happening?

Or is it that negotiating a "soft landing" isn't likely to happen and that the Brexit date is still happening???

Article 50 has happened. Brexit is due to go ahead, deal or no deal, on March 29, 2019.

Negotiating a "soft landing" is indeed looking difficult. The UK refuses to deal with the Northern Irish border despite being asked for about 8 months now to either accept the EU's solution or come up with one itself. The solutions they have come up with either violate the conditions of the EU single market and customs union (whole UK backstop without agreeing to the conditions of the CU and SM and accepting 4 freedoms, known in the EU as "cakeism" or "cherry picking") or rely on magical future technology, or in the worst cases, pretending that the WTO does not exist.

So the British political and media classes have decided to sort of ignore Ireland, and have their own internal debate about what flavour cake they would like. They recently voted to remain part of a medicines agency for example that requires membership of the single market and customs union, while in the same evening voting to stay out of the customs union in all scenarios. No media outlet felt this needed to be discussed and of course no politicians commented on how ludicrous the whole thing was.

About a week ago the UK published a detailed white paper on what they want from their future relationship with the EU (which they do not get to discuss before the Irish issue is sorted), which they then rendered invalid in parliament before the EU had even had time to respond.

So the chance of a "No Deal" exit is increasing mostly due to denial of reality and incompetence on the British side. It is still to be hoped that it will be avoided, but the EU is stepping up preparations (hiring more customs officials etc) in any case.

I hope that if it comes down to it, the process could be extended if need be. The problem is we would need to negotiate a way to lock the UK out of the EU elections and deny them any right to have input into how the budget is spent, and somehow deal with their budget contribution. It would be politically and legally pretty fraught and difficult and the EU has good reasons not to allow the UK a say in those processes, especially given they have acted in bad faith at several points during this process so far.

SeanDrake wrote:
In brexit news government spiv sir somthing somthing states that in case of no deal we are prepared as we have had years to plan for somthing like this but gave no details.

Of course they didn't they don't have a plan it's just bluster, that would have required foresight which would have meant people might have guessed this was there plan all along.
Besides when did evidence ever matter to brexiters so they will probably get away with it.
everyone is just stockpiling but that would last an extra two weeks, a month?.
When it all comes down they will just blame the EU. Remember when davis basically begged the EU not to punish us, and i'm pretty sure i just heard andrea leadsom on C4 news
baisically say the EU needs to stop negotiating so hard and meet us half way.
What a joke, how did anyone think these people could get us ANYTHING. Even a 10X20 EU flag at this point looks beyond there abilities.


I don't think this has been mentioned yet.
https://www.thelocal.fr/20180505/britain-backs-french-plan-for-european-defence-force[url]
I cant find who will actually control or run it yet but it's separate from the EU.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and the DWP just got caught lying....again.
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2018/07/19/the-dwp-was-just-caught-red-handed-fiddling-benefit-sanctions-figures/[url]

The chickens are really coming home to roost now. I have read recently they may be the third biggest party in terms of
members in the UK, after labour (600,000 odd) and the SNP (130,000 odd)

The country is falling apart they need an escape route and one that breaks the bank to stop corbyn reversing everything
they have spent the last 8 years doing. Oh hello no deal brexit, whats that a good portion of the country will just accept
it? oh ok, and most tory voters would cut there legs of before voting corbyn? please do go on.....

 Da Boss wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm confused... so, Article 50 isn't happening and no Brexit of any form is happening?

Or is it that negotiating a "soft landing" isn't likely to happen and that the Brexit date is still happening???

Article 50 has happened. Brexit is due to go ahead, deal or no deal, on March 29, 2019.

Negotiating a "soft landing" is indeed looking difficult. The UK refuses to deal with the Northern Irish border despite being asked for about 8 months now to either accept the EU's solution or come up with one itself. The solutions they have come up with either violate the conditions of the EU single market and customs union (whole UK backstop without agreeing to the conditions of the CU and SM and accepting 4 freedoms, known in the EU as "cakeism" or "cherry picking") or rely on magical future technology, or in the worst cases, pretending that the WTO does not exist.

So the British political and media classes have decided to sort of ignore Ireland, and have their own internal debate about what flavour cake they would like. They recently voted to remain part of a medicines agency for example that requires membership of the single market and customs union, while in the same evening voting to stay out of the customs union in all scenarios. No media outlet felt this needed to be discussed and of course no politicians commented on how ludicrous the whole thing was.

About a week ago the UK published a detailed white paper on what they want from their future relationship with the EU (which they do not get to discuss before the Irish issue is sorted), which they then rendered invalid in parliament before the EU had even had time to respond.

So the chance of a "No Deal" exit is increasing mostly due to denial of reality and incompetence on the British side. It is still to be hoped that it will be avoided, but the EU is stepping up preparations (hiring more customs officials etc) in any case.

I hope that if it comes down to it, the process could be extended if need be. The problem is we would need to negotiate a way to lock the UK out of the EU elections and deny them any right to have input into how the budget is spent, and somehow deal with their budget contribution. It would be politically and legally pretty fraught and difficult and the EU has good reasons not to allow the UK a say in those processes, especially given they have acted in bad faith at several points during this process so far.

Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

So in other words:


If it ends up being a hard brexit with all the chaos, my sincere hope is for the US to set up favorable agreements with ya'll to soften the blow.... 'cuz... yikes, I feel for ya'll.

Furthermore, in the healthcare industry (where I work), I hope the government is relaxing regulations to ensure medications can be purchased outside of UK/EU. When hurricane Maria knocked around Puerto Rico, the US' supply of sterile fluids was compromised, as most US sterile fluids were made in PR (major tax haven). Where we once were able to purchase premixed fluids... for several months, the IV compounding staff had to make much of the typical premixed fluids by hand due to severe shortages.

That's just in the healthcare industry... I can only imagine some of the shortages ya'll may feel as you import quite a bit into your country.

whembly wrote:If it ends up being a hard brexit with all the chaos, my sincere hope is for the US to set up favorable agreements with ya'll to soften the blow.... 'cuz... yikes, I feel for ya'll.

That probably won't happen. While Trump thinks Brexit is totally a great idea (without any supporting arguments), he (or people working for his government) have also said things along the lines of "UK deals will be low priority due to impact/size of those potential deals" or even that they want to abuse UK's weakness to get favourable deals. There were also some vague (and non-binding) mentions of "deals" in general but it seems like Trump wants "we win, you lose" type of deals or nothing.

If you leave the EU you also lose the protection afforded by being part of a big and influential economic block and as a result other, similar economic blocks (USA, China) want to use that lack of protection to their own benefit. The US will probably try to set up favourable agreements but that will be favourable to the US and not the UK.

 whembly wrote:
I'm confused...

Congratulations, you've qualified for a job as an MP.

whembly: Well, in a Hard Brexit situation, the UK absolutely would need to make deals, and bloody fast. It is not independent in food and has not been for nearly a hundred years. It would not take long for food shortages to be a real issue.

Many people in the UK would object to a free trade deal with America where they felt their food standards were being lowered, or any deal which meant the American healthcare industry got a slice of the NHS. But these are likely to be conditions for a trade deal with the US, particularly under Trump who has complained about exactly these issues.

But if it comes to a Hard Brexit, there may not be much of a choice. Certainly if the UK lowers its standards for food and agricultural produce, it will be absolutely locked out of any customs union with the EU, and it will create huge problems on the border in Northern Ireland.

 Riquende wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm confused...

Congratulations, you've qualified for a job as an MP.

Okay... I just laughed out loud in my office.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
whembly: Well, in a Hard Brexit situation, the UK absolutely would need to make deals, and bloody fast. It is not independent in food and has not been for nearly a hundred years. It would not take long for food shortages to be a real issue.

Many people in the UK would object to a free trade deal with America where they felt their food standards were being lowered, or any deal which meant the American healthcare industry got a slice of the NHS. But these are likely to be conditions for a trade deal with the US, particularly under Trump who has complained about exactly these issues.

But if it comes to a Hard Brexit, there may not be much of a choice. Certainly if the UK lowers its standards for food and agricultural produce, it will be absolutely locked out of any customs union with the EU, and it will create huge problems on the border in Northern Ireland.

Why do you assume that you'd have to lower food/agricultural/medical standards? We keep our gak clean bruv!

You have hormone injected meat, chlorine washed meat, genetically modified crops and other products that are not legal in the EU.

So we're at a point where the things that have been agreed in the past as a basis for continuing the negotiation ("getting to phase 2" I think it was described as) are no longer agreed and the EU has to be "more flexible" on them. This is it then, pretty much the endgame, what a lot of people have suspected all along. We've switched tracks and are hurtling headlong to No Deal City now that the Tories believe enough of the populace will be hoodwinked into believing everything is the EU's fault. Another decade of belt tightening austerity whilst the country tears itself apart to be remade in the Conservative image. If DNILT thinks there's a crimewave now wait until levels of inequality are off the charts.

I think if I were the EU I'd just walk away from negotiations now, citing bad faith on the UK's part and telling them to let us know when they have an actual position to be stuck to. However I think under the terms of A50 they can't do that, and also it would fuel the "wah, bad EU not giving us the moon on a stick" narrative the 2020's will be go down in history for.

It does fit with the current right wing narrative of victimhood and identity politics;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/brexiteers-betrayal-britain-america

It means that no matter what, if Brexit fails it's because of remainers or the EU, and nothing to do with Brexiteers themselves, despite never presenting a plan or alternative apart from flouncing away like a stroppy teenage girl.

I read that article too. It rings very true when you listen to the moans about Fake News Media, the Dream of Brxit and all that kind of clobber.

The rest of us have got to get on with it and make Brexit as small a disaster as we can.

I have some hopes the EU will pull a last-minute mega-fudge compromise out of their bag. I have no hopes that our government will come to its senses.

I don't believe a referendum is possible before next March, though I think a general election resulting in a new government could easily happen if Corbyn pulls his finger out.

If this happens I hope the whole proces will be reset and proper time given to resolve everything.

So May appears to be about to rule out what she agreed to in December, meaning the transition deal is now off the table as well? I wonder if the EU will try and be patient with her or if they will take it off the table straight away. At this point I believe shock therapy might be the only way forward. This is mental.

Parliament is about to go into recess until early September.

That makes it impossible to a general election until November at the earliest.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I believe you exaggerate for effect, but there is a fundamental strand of truth in your arguments.

For many rich Brexiteers, the key problem with the EU is the relentless bearing down on off-shore tax havens.

Off shore tax havens?

What with Juncker, Cyprus, Luxemburg and Malta?


Never let it be said that the EU doesn't have a sense of humour.

 r_squared wrote:
It does fit with the current right wing narrative of victimhood and identity politics;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/brexiteers-betrayal-britain-america

It means that no matter what, if Brexit fails it's because of remainers or the EU, and nothing to do with Brexiteers themselves, despite never presenting a plan or alternative apart from flouncing away like a stroppy teenage girl.

I saw this on twitter this morning.

One of the great myths surrounding Brexit is the idea that Brexit is seemingly a Right-wing initiative.

It's not. If you know your British history, then back in the days of Britain pre-EEC, a significant rump of the Labour party (when it was actually Socialist) was opposed to EEC membership. Tony Benn being a famous example, and later on, Jeremy Corbyn being another example. Hell, even the SNP were originally opposed to EEC membership.


Harold Wilson, the Labour leader, and often prime Minister, had a huge battle on his hands trying to heal the divisions in his party over the EEC. Wilson's 'victory' should have served as a textbook example to another Prime Minister decades later, when he had a referendum on Europe, and a divided party to contend with.

I am, and have always been, on the Left all of my life from the minute I was able to vote. I am also opposed to the EU. The free movement of goods, capital and labour is not being done in the interests of the working man.

Since the days of the Coal and Steel Pact, the European project has always been a stich up between Europe's capitalist class. That Thatcher championed the single market , that the Tories took us into the EEC, and that the Tories supported it for 4 decades, is all the proof I've ever needed of its ultimate end goal.

To me, it's no accident that as Labour under first Kinnock, and then Blair, as it moved away from Socialism, and whole-heartedly embraced the European project. I say that in response to the inevitable cries of Liberals and the 'Left' being in favour of the EU.

So let's put to bed this bollocks that Brexit is somehow exclusively right-wing. It's not and it has never been, as Left-wingers like me is proof that it cuts across the political spectrum.

It's mostly about white English identity.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's mostly about white English identity.

I'm doubtful that for example Jeremy Corbyn is a Eurosceptic due to "white English identity".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's mostly about white English identity.

I think it's more complex than that when you consider that the bête noire of immigration, the Polish plumber, is also white.

And not English.

Of course there isn't one single reason behind Brexit thinking, any more than Jeremy Corbyn represents all Labuor Party members.

However the theme of white English identity is strong in the mix.

There is a minority of people opposed to immigration who are out and out racists. I don't deny that. We will always have those people.

But IMO, I think the vast majority of Britons are broadly welcoming of immigrants, but immigration is a problem for a number of reasons:

1. Government neglect of building more affordable housing and improved services. No surprise when you consider it was policy to bankroll the economy with rising house prices.

2. Immigration being weaponised by New Labour.

3. A failure to reassure areas of deprivation i.e the old industrial areas about immigration.

On point 3, if you have an immigrant doctor in one of those areas, nobody's going to argue against somebody that saves their lives and benefits their community. The problem was when you had 50 immigrants on minimum wage competing for minimum wage jobs against other locals who were on minimum wage. That obviously alarmed the locals and created this culture of Brexit.

I'm not sayng it's racism. Identity is a lot more complex than that.

However, the polling and post-referendum research found for instance, that areas of historically high immigration like Brixton, were more Remainy, while areas of recent high immigration like Hull, were more Leavy.

You will also note the much lower support for Leave in Scotland.

jouso wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
It does fit with the current right wing narrative of victimhood and identity politics;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/brexiteers-betrayal-britain-america

It means that no matter what, if Brexit fails it's because of remainers or the EU, and nothing to do with Brexiteers themselves, despite never presenting a plan or alternative apart from flouncing away like a stroppy teenage girl.

I saw this on twitter this morning.

For the record, there are a number of leavers with a credible plan. Me, for example. It’s just that we aren’t in a position to do anything about it.

If I had been PM, I would said right, let’s go EFTA. I would have put it through Parliament to legitimise it whilst at the same time talking to the other EFTA members to get them on side, whilst publicly explaining to everyone why it’s the way to square the circle. Once that’s all sorted, only then would I have triggered article 50.

With that, the next two years are spent working out the finer details with the EU whilst preparing for new custom arrangements with other countries. It would have been almost seemless.

Now, we would have lots of the benefits of the eu like the SM, but we’d be able to make our own trade deals with other countries whilst at the same time getting out of CAP and taking back responsibility for our fishing stocks. And for me personally, removing the threat of the euro over our heads.

And this is just for starters. Once the dust settles, us five members of EFTA could start lobbying for a better deal. Hell, we could make such a success of it that other reluctant eu members might join up in future.

This really doesn’t need to be as hard as May is making it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm not sayng it's racism. Identity is a lot more complex than that.

However, the polling and post-referendum research found for instance, that areas of historically high immigration like Brixton, were more Remainy, while areas of recent high immigration like Hull, were more Leavy.

You will also note the much lower support for Leave in Scotland.

Until recently, Scotland's population was in decline. The Great War disproportionately harmed Scotland. 25% of all men of fighting age in Glasgow for example, were killed or wounded in WW1.

Edinburgh, Dundee, and Aberdeen were the same. That is some of the highest casulties rates in the whole of the UK. The Highlands and Western isles also suffered badly from this. As a result, demographics were in decline, and hadn't properly recovered since the Highland Clerances of the 19th century, so it made a bad situation worse.

It's only since Devolution that that trend has been reversed. Scotland needs immigrants, and for 20 years, Edinburgh was telling London to push some our way from the SE of England.

Naturally, of course, it fell on deaf ears.

The majority of Scotland is pro-EU for this reason, but our fishing communities have been bitter opponents of the EU for years.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

jouso wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
It does fit with the current right wing narrative of victimhood and identity politics;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/brexiteers-betrayal-britain-america

It means that no matter what, if Brexit fails it's because of remainers or the EU, and nothing to do with Brexiteers themselves, despite never presenting a plan or alternative apart from flouncing away like a stroppy teenage girl.

I saw this on twitter this morning.

For the record, there are a number of leavers with a credible plan. Me, for example. It’s just that we aren’t in a position to do anything about it.

If I had been PM, I would said right, let’s go EFTA. I would have put it through Parliament to legitimise it whilst at the same time talking to the other EFTA members to get them on side, whilst publicly explaining to everyone why it’s the way to square the circle. Once that’s all sorted, only then would I have triggered article 50.

With that, the next two years are spent working out the finer details with the EU whilst preparing for new custom arrangements with other countries. It would have been almost seemless.

Now, we would have lots of the benefits of the eu like the SM, but we’d be able to make our own trade deals with other countries whilst at the same time getting out of CAP and taking back responsibility for our fishing stocks. And for me personally, removing the threat of the euro over our heads.

And this is just for starters. Once the dust settles, us five members of EFTA could start lobbying for a better deal. Hell, we could make such a success of it that other reluctant eu members might join up in future.

This really doesn’t need to be as hard as May is making it.

A sensible plan.

This is the key point: Brexit has never come up with a clear statement of what it wants.

The red lines are:

ECJ (leave jurisdiction of)
Freedom of movement (stop)
EU subscription fees (stop paying)
Customs union (stop being a member of)
Irish border (Don't let it be re-instated.)

Some of these are mutually exclusive (Irish Border versus Customs union and Freedom of movement.) That is the circle the government cannot square.

EFTA has attractions, but it doesn't get the UK out of the ECJ, or stop free movement, and it doesn't solve the Irish Border problem.

The only thing it solves is the desire to make independent trade deals by getting us out of the Customs Union.

On the plus side it solves the problem of not having free trade and movement with the EU, and let's us take advantage of new EU trade deals like Japan.

For a Remainer like me, EFTA is a lot less bad than the other alternatives, at least.

https://twitter.com/andreajenkyns/status/1019031594676387845

During these uncertain times, our great country is crying out for reassurance, and a positive post -Brexit vision. Let us all not lose sight of the belief; our greatest years do lie before us. Brexiteers please do keep the faith. #Brexit will happen.

... keep the faith ?

but it's not a cult.

For the record, there are a number of leavers with a credible plan. Me, for example. It’s just that we aren’t in a position to do anything about it.

If I had been PM, I would said right, let’s go EFTA. I would have put it through Parliament to legitimise it whilst at the same time talking to the other EFTA members to get them on side,

http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-davis-rules-out-eea-efta-brexit-2017-9

Brexit Secretary David Davis has ruled out staying in the European Economic Area or joining the European Free Trade Association after Brexit, calling them "in many ways, the worst of all outcomes."

During questions to the Department of Exiting the EU in the House of Commons, Davis said the government had given it "some considerable thought, maybe as an interim measure" but that it would not seek to join EFTA.

already rejected by both the Govt and the hard brexit mob.

meanwhile in the press :

on the left the mainland UK edition, on the right the Irish version's editorial








.. but but but it's the EU that's drowning our companies in red tape.

-- although you'll note the actual companies are very keen on staying in the EU.

still feth business eh ?

elsewhere in La la land
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1019881467776831488

“Fall off the cliff edge” is another fatuous phrase they use. There is no cliff edge. Planes will fly & lorries will move thru ports the day after we leave just as they did the day before. We'll carry on trading, travelling, investing in EU countries as we do in non EU countries

funny how the actual aviation and transport industries disagree though yeah ?

You run/own an airline. A $100m aircraft is on the runway with 200+ people on board. Both your and the airports lawyers say it can't enter EU airspace or land. The insurers say you're on your own and are not covered if anything goes wrong.

.. but don't worry as the MP for Woking -- which voted remain -- and failed would be Tory leader says that you're fine.

The country is now divided between people who think the boss of Airbus best understands what running Airbus involves and people who think people like Redwood know better.

The 7 stages of Brexit :

That strategy in full:
1. Project fear! It won’t happen.
2. It won’t happen.
3. It won’t happen.
4. It won’t happen.
5. Big boys came and made it happen. It’s not our fault.
6. We never said wouldn’t happen.
7. Its a price worth you paying.

https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1020224344729976832

How top Brexiteers are thinking about surviving Brexit. Mogg - invest in Ireland. Lord Ashcroft recommends Malta. Lord Lawson - French residency. Gove- become PM. Rupert Murdoch - doesn’t live here. These options probably not available to everyone ....

QFT.

One of the great myths surrounding Brexit is the idea that Brexit is seemingly a Right-wing initiative.

It's not

hence it's support from UKIP, the Tories and the right wing press.

Thank you DINLT.

I’m sure there’s some holes in it, but they’re probably nothing like the great big fething massive gaps that May’s plan has.

My view is that the EU is a centrist organisation that tries to stave off the excesses off both hard right and left. This has led it to be assailable from populist movements from both ends of the political spectrum.

Well, anyway.

The point is that EFTA membership seems to be an acceptable format for keen Leavers such as DINLT and Future War Cultist. It's acceptable to me as a Remainer. It probably could enjoy a majority in the country and in Parliament.

There needs to be a general election to conclusively kick out the current Conservative government which is dead set against EFTA.

How are we going to get it done?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

How are we going to get it done?

Maybe you should start to manifest in front of your parlament or something. Go in the streets. Force them to do it.

n/m please delete

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, anyway.

The point is that EFTA membership seems to be an acceptable format for keen Leavers such as DINLT and Future War Cultist. It's acceptable to me as a Remainer. It probably could enjoy a majority in the country and in Parliament.

There needs to be a general election to conclusively kick out the current Conservative government which is dead set against EFTA.

How are we going to get it done?

Bigger question there is rather than kick them out, who are you going to get into replace them? Corbyn? He's proved to be about as adept as May. Lib Dems? How are they sitting right now? Hell, I'd take the Green Party or Monster Raving Looney Party at this point.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, anyway.

The point is that EFTA membership seems to be an acceptable format for keen Leavers such as DINLT and Future War Cultist. It's acceptable to me as a Remainer. It probably could enjoy a majority in the country and in Parliament.

There needs to be a general election to conclusively kick out the current Conservative government which is dead set against EFTA.

How are we going to get it done?

Too many obstacles against another General election for at least 1 year.

1. Lack of cash for Labour and the SNP. I doubt if the Lib Dems are throwing piles of banknotes at each other either.

2. Fixed Term Parliament Act. We could end up with the ludicrous situation of the Government saying it had no confidence in itself.

3. Voter fatigue.

4. The Tories determination to hang on to the bitter end.

5. Parliamentary timetable.

6. Changing government on the eve of Brexit would be seen as Kamikaze by many.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, anyway.

The point is that EFTA membership seems to be an acceptable format for keen Leavers such as DINLT and Future War Cultist. It's acceptable to me as a Remainer. It probably could enjoy a majority in the country and in Parliament.

There needs to be a general election to conclusively kick out the current Conservative government which is dead set against EFTA.

How are we going to get it done?

Bigger question there is rather than kick them out, who are you going to get into replace them? Corbyn? He's proved to be about as adept as May. Lib Dems? How are they sitting right now? Hell, I'd take the Green Party or Monster Raving Looney Party at this point.

Lib Dems have 12 MPs out of 650. The Greens have 1 MP.

If you're looking for them to form a government, you've come to the wrong place.

Parliament closing until September means we're realistically not going to get a GE until after we're meant to have finalised our position with the EU.

But I almost suspect the Tory plan is to commit to something, trigger a GE and hope that Labour end off being the ones to carry the can. A few years of Labour government would very much be worth avoiding this gakstorm.

Herzlos wrote:
Parliament closing until September means we're realistically not going to get a GE until after we're meant to have finalised our position with the EU.

But I almost suspect the Tory plan is to commit to something, trigger a GE and hope that Labour end off being the ones to carry the can. A few years of Labour government would very much be worth avoiding this gakstorm.

But what if we get another hung Parliament? And that's quit feasible. Positions are entrenched and October and November are bad months for weather = lower turnout.

A general election might not solve anything.

A GE is not really practicable at this stage. You already held up negotiations with a farcical snap election (that really, really should have been done before Article 50 was triggered, for God's sake).

Having another one now before the deadline is just madness. It would dramatically increase the chances of No Deal. Do you think the political parties would engage in an honest discussion about reality with the electorate? Or would they just promise, along with a compliant media, pie in the sky nonsense solutions which will not be accepted by the EU?

I think it is still possible to prevent a No Deal, but we need to either extend or pause the negotiations, which requires a political solution to the question of the European elections and budget, or the UK needs to come to its bloody senses and put forward a proposal the EU can accept. If no such proposal exists, then it is No Deal, it seems.

It would dramatically increase the chances of No Deal.

Has it occurred you and everybody else, that there are those in the Tory party who would happily engineer an Autumn GE, just to bring about this situation?

It's not beyond the realms of possibility.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

jouso wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
It does fit with the current right wing narrative of victimhood and identity politics;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/brexiteers-betrayal-britain-america

It means that no matter what, if Brexit fails it's because of remainers or the EU, and nothing to do with Brexiteers themselves, despite never presenting a plan or alternative apart from flouncing away like a stroppy teenage girl.

I saw this on twitter this morning.

For the record, there are a number of leavers with a credible plan. Me, for example. It’s just that we aren’t in a position to do anything about it.

There were people like EFTA4Britain and a few other fringe groups who have been in this EFTA bandwagon the whole time, but allow me to ask you a question:

Do you think if the EFTA solution had been on the ticket the referendum would it have won? I don't think so.

So, the pro-EFTA groups trying to raise their collective head above the noise IMHO still should suffer guilt by association. It's only because they bundled themselves with the anti-EU, anti-immigration hard brexiteers that they can claim theirs is the lesser evil.

As a prominent Basque politician put it, some people shake the tree (these were the days when ETA was active) and others pick up the apples.

In this case the hard Brexiteers are shaking the tree, and pro-EFTA are now trying to pick the apples trying to look like the sensible option.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It would dramatically increase the chances of No Deal.

Has it occurred you and everybody else, that there are those in the Tory party who would happily engineer an Autumn GE, just to bring about this situation?

It's not beyond the realms of possibility.

It begins to look more and more like the Hard Brexiteers are trying to engineer a hard exit. And the Remainers and Soft Brexiteers in Parliament are absolutely useless at opposing them.

jouso wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

jouso wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
It does fit with the current right wing narrative of victimhood and identity politics;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/brexiteers-betrayal-britain-america

It means that no matter what, if Brexit fails it's because of remainers or the EU, and nothing to do with Brexiteers themselves, despite never presenting a plan or alternative apart from flouncing away like a stroppy teenage girl.

I saw this on twitter this morning.

For the record, there are a number of leavers with a credible plan. Me, for example. It’s just that we aren’t in a position to do anything about it.

There were people like EFTA4Britain and a few other fringe groups who have been in this EFTA bandwagon the whole time, but allow me to ask you a question:

Do you think if the EFTA solution had been on the ticket the referendum would it have won? I don't think so.

So, the pro-EFTA groups trying to raise their collective head above the noise IMHO still should suffer guilt by association. It's only because they bundled themselves with the anti-EU, anti-immigration hard brexiteers that they can claim theirs is the lesser evil.

As a prominent Basque politician put it, some people shake the tree (these were the days when ETA was active) and others pick up the apples.

In this case the hard Brexiteers are shaking the tree, and pro-EFTA are now trying to pick the apples trying to look like the sensible option.

It's no more less credible than Remain supporters who urged us to stay in the EU and reform it from within. As if that would ever happen.

David Cameron went to Brussels and asked for nothing. He got half of that.

You are aware that Cameron took the UK out of the central voting bloc, that he then had to negotiate with?

Would you be inclined to offer things to the bloke who had just made it harder for you?

 Da Boss wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It would dramatically increase the chances of No Deal.

Has it occurred you and everybody else, that there are those in the Tory party who would happily engineer an Autumn GE, just to bring about this situation?

It's not beyond the realms of possibility.

It begins to look more and more like the Hard Brexiteers are trying to engineer a hard exit. And the Remainers and Soft Brexiteers in Parliament are absolutely useless at opposing them.

Both sides are putting party before country. This benefits the hard right nut cases like JRM though. Tories are currently proppoed up by an elderly, white, english support that don't like foreigners, wish for the empire back and thought it was much better in the 50's. These mainly came from UKIP when their vote collapsed as the Tories lurched to the hard right of politics. The Tory party faithful also have these types in large numbers.

A leadership contest would likely see a hard right lunatic be put in power as PM. A soft Wrexit will likely see vast swathes of the hard right newUKIP supporters going back to UKIP. That would damn the Tory party.

The Tory remainers don't want to see Labour get in at any cost.

Hence the hard right side has an intrinsic advantage. They can keep peddling their nonsense and it won't affect either their PM aspirations and likely maintain the newUKIP nutcases support. The Remainers however can't rely ont hat support - if they rebel then they potentially lose both at least a partially remainer PM (despite the bigotry tendancies) and/or an election. Hence they tend to wobble at the important votes anf you get silly occurences like voting to stay in the European Medicines agreement, bu vote against a customs union which is necessary if you want to stay part of the European Medicines agreement.

@ jouso

I think if EFTA had been the option, the result would have been pretty much the same. For all we know, Leave’s share may have even increased, due to “reluctant” Remainers seeing that there’s another way. I do know some people who only voted to stay for the sake of simplicity rather than for any love for the EU. But this is all conjecture.

I sorely regret that dickheads like Davis and Boris are at the forefront though. They may reject EFTA but that’s only because they’re pandering to the extremists. I’ve been putting the EFTA idea to everyone I know and almost all of them are up for it. Even my Remainer brother and the guys I used to work with out on the bins (‘extreme’ brexiteers) are open to it.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ jouso

I think if EFTA had been the option, the result would have been pretty much the same. For all we know, Leave’s share may have even increased, due to “reluctant” Remainers seeing that there’s another way. I do know some people who only voted to stay for the sake of simplicity rather than for any love for the EU. But this is all conjecture.

Honestly I find it extremely difficult to galvanise an electorate the way Leave did by saying "we will still pay to the EU, very likely even more because the rebate will gone, we will still be bound by 90%+ of their rules and regulations, we will still have to accept EU migrants in exactly the same way and still probably will have to erect some sort of physical border in Ireland"

Not exactly evocative. EFTA is only getting a second look now because it's the least worse option after the government interpreted a pure binary "leave" as a mandate.

Gotta remember that Leave were promising to remain in the customs union and various other things before the referendum and were absolutely not promoting the hard Brexit that they are currently pursuing. And they wouldn’t have won the vote either without that.

I.E. they lied.

Leave lied about a lot of things and the government is still lying.

jouso wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ jouso

I think if EFTA had been the option, the result would have been pretty much the same. For all we know, Leave’s share may have even increased, due to “reluctant” Remainers seeing that there’s another way. I do know some people who only voted to stay for the sake of simplicity rather than for any love for the EU. But this is all conjecture.

Honestly I find it extremely difficult to galvanise an electorate the way Leave did by saying "we will still pay to the EU, very likely even more because the rebate will gone, we will still be bound by 90%+ of their rules and regulations, we will still have to accept EU migrants in exactly the same way and still probably will have to erect some sort of physical border in Ireland"

Not exactly evocative. EFTA is only getting a second look now because it's the least worse option after the government interpreted a pure binary "leave" as a mandate.

The other thing is that the more generalised negative vibe over EU immigrants has subsided and switched to people realising just how much of a contribution they add to society. Hence the UKIP scare tactics are unlikely to work again and are likely to be seen as what they are, racist and bigoted scaremongering.

On an aside. I see there government are trying to justify the use of children as spies. Now I generally disagree with DDavis, but he is right in saying this should never happen. You are putting children at risk that likely have little understanding of the consequences of what they are doing and what it might lead to.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/20/child-spies-used-only-when-very-necessary-says-downing-street

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-wont-budge-rent-12955434

Boris Johnson won't budge from his rent-free taxpayer-funded £20m mansion for WEEKS
Government says the former Foreign Secretary is being allowed to stay in the luxurious official residence for "a few weeks" while he continues to rake in rent on plush Islington pad

Boris Johnson has refused to budge from his £20million taxpayer-funded mansion, as Downing Street admitted he could still be there for “weeks”.

There is growing anger as he remains at the luxury official residence, despite resigning as Foreign Secretary 12 days ago.


The Tory MP was today spotted sheepishly leaving the mansion, with two large suitcases packed in an awaiting car for him.

But wife Marina Wheeler was understood to still be in the home today.

A No10 spokeswoman said: “He’s leaving within the next few weeks.”

Mr Johnson refused to answer questions on his living situation when confronted by the Mirror at the property.

Two taxpayer-funded, unmarked police cars with four staff waited for two hours at One Carlton Gardens in Central London as the MP readied himself.

Mr Johnson was whisked away in a Jaguar, with the suitcases in a 4x4 BMW.

He has raked in thousands from renting out a home just four miles away in Islington, North London, while he lived rent-free in the mansion.

Grenfell Tower survivor Aalya Moses, 57, who spent months cooped up in a hotel room as she awaited a new home after the blaze, hit out at the former Cabinet minister.

She said: “If he’s still living in there I think it’s disgusting, it’s outrageous.

....

It also emerged Mr Johnson may have enjoyed the grace-and-favour property without paying tax.

Ministers are usually expected to declare such accommodation as a taxable benefit on the department’s annual report, according to the Treasury.

Mr Johnson, who has lived there since being made Foreign Secretary two years ago, has not.

The Treasury said: “Government ministers occupying official residences by virtue of their jobs meet the statutory conditions for an exemption from a tax charge on the property itself.

“However, tax is charged on associated services, such as heating, lighting, repairs...

"The charge of the benefit limited to 10% of the net earnings from the ministerial salary (not including their parliamentary salary).”
HMRC declined to comment on individual cases.

The Foreign Office failed to respond to the Mirror for comment, and to confirm whether Mr Johnson had vacated Carlton Gardens.

The Foreign Office leases the mansion from the Crown Estate, which looks after the Queen’s properties. Officials paid £482,341 a year in rent on it in 2015.

If this has not gone up since then the Foreign Office is paying £1,321.48 a day for the property.


That means as of yesterday, the taxpayer had paid £14,536 for it since Mr Johnson quit over Brexit on July 9.

The Georgian mansion is considered the most plush of all the ministers’ grace-and-favour pads.

Well fair play to Boris for showing it is apparently possible to leave and somehow still maintain the same level of access one had before.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-44853389/tory-mp-anna-soubry-attacks-wealthy-brexiteers

damn straight.

Not in the least surprised about Johnson.

In other news, Barnier has done a De Gaulle on us with Non Non Non

and Mogg is predicting a no deal Brexit. He welcomes WTO terms.

Will be an interesting Autumn...

Anyone who welcomes WTO terms is a moron.

Barnier has stuck to the same position that has been held throughout, you cannot pick and choose what parts of the EU benefits you want. That the UK government still hasn't accepted that fact is ludicrous.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Anyone who welcomes WTO terms is a moron.

Barnier has stuck to the same position that has been held throughout, you cannot pick and choose what parts of the EU benefits you want. That the UK government still hasn't accepted that fact is ludicrous.

Well, it's irresistible force meets immovable object. I think we're crashing out unless the EFTA/EEA compromise is put on the table.

I would advise people to batten down the hatches.

..which is odd as we were told over and over again that this whole situation would be fine, easiest negotiations ever and we'll all be better off.





.. oh christ almighty

Yeah, we need to stop the process, clear out that dreck from the Cabinet and start over. They're the most idiotic incompetent cretins I’ve ever seen. They remind me of cowboy builders or something.

There was a simple way to begin the process of decoupling ourselves from the EU but no, they had to start doing it the stupid way and in the process completely humiliate the whole country in front of those smug Eurocrat bastards.

Yet it looks like we are stuck with the current "government" Right now I'm hoping that David Davis was right about something for a change and it wont be as bad as Mad Max

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Yeah, we need to stop the process, clear out that dreck from the Cabinet and start over. They're the most idiotic incompetent cretins I’ve ever seen. They remind me of cowboy builders or something.

There was a simple way to begin the process of decoupling ourselves from the EU but no, they had to start doing it the stupid way and in the process completely humiliate the whole country in front of those smug Eurocrat bastards.

Exactly.

Despite the compromise deal that we're supporting, we're still anti-EU through and through. Cut us open and we'll bleed Brexit.

We've had to be pragmatic though. We know that the Tories ain't up to it, if they ever were, and a chaotic crash could easily allow Remain to seize the day and reverse the whole process.

So we play the long game and remind ourselves that half a Brexit is better than no Brexit.

I've been wanting to leave the EEC/EU for decades. What's an extra 2-3 years...

Reds8n, thanks for posting that "Remain Indoors" picture. I went and found the videos. Amazing.

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Yet it looks like we are stuck with the current "government" Right now I'm hoping that David Davis was right about something for a change and it wont be as bad as Mad Max

Yes Davis was inadvertently correct it won't be like Mad Max........ but only because we won't have any petrol.

Although I can picture mad Moggy and Nanny on a tandem with a chainsaw brings a new meaning to "biker" gangs.

As for the bluster and bs from Brexiters I will put money down that by this time next year if we crashed out you will struggle to find more than a handful of brexit voters as suddenly they all voted remain.

There is no almost out of the EU at this stage were either in or were a 3rd world country.... thanks to Brexit voters hating straight bananas we get to live in a Banana Republic/Monarchy.

At this point our best hope if the Tory feth wits get there way is that were declared a failed state and the UN move in to save us.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Not in the least surprised about Johnson.

In other news, Barnier has done a De Gaulle on us with Non Non Non

and Mogg is predicting a no deal Brexit. He welcomes WTO terms.

Will be an interesting Autumn...

Well yeah. Looks like General de Gaulle was right all along about Britain.

https://www.ft.com/content/8f46b0d4-77b6-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475


Honda's UK plant

Proud managers describe 2m components “flowing like water” to the factory line every working day. Some orders from EU suppliers arrive within five to 24 hours; others, such as customised car seats, are summoned from local suppliers just 75 minutes before use. Not a minute is wasted. 

Honda now fears that the border checks that could be introduced as a result of Brexit will clog up the process. If Britain were to leave the customs union, Honda estimates European parts will take a minimum of two to three days to reach the plant, and possibly as long as nine days. Delivery times of finished cars may be just as unpredictable. 

To a car industry famed for its clockwork tempo, the potential delays pose an existential challenge. A warehouse capable of holding nine days’ worth of Honda stock would need to be roughly 300,000 sq m — one of the largest buildings on earth. Its floorspace would be equivalent to 42 football pitches, almost three times Amazon’s main US distribution centre. And its cost to operate would be as eye-catching as its proportions.

Yeah that'll happen won't it eh ?

https://www.ictsd.org/opinion/nothing-simple-about-uk-regaining-wto-status-post-brexit

A common assumption in the June 23 referendum debate is that after leaving the EU, the UK could “simply” operate as an ordinary WTO member. Eventually that’s true, but getting there would be far from simple.

Some experts believe that the adjustments would be little more than technical, and that any negotiations would be straightforward. They could be right. It would depend on whether the WTO’s membership is determined to accommodate the UK’s wishes.

But recent experience in the WTO suggests that is unlikely. A closer look at the details suggests some key issues could be politically contentious among the WTO’s members, currently 162 countries.

On top of that, recent negotiating experience suggests that willingness to accommodate each other’s interests quickly is a scarce commodity in the WTO and even a final agreement cannot be guaranteed.

If that is true, then post-Brexit, the UK can expect a long and rough ride.

Negotiating with diverse countries

To be clear, these negotiations would be about sorting out the UK’s legal status quo in the WTO. They would be separate from any free trade agreement such as with the US, EU or anyone else, although the complicated web of talks would feed into each other.

The UK is already a WTO member, but its membership terms are bundled with the EU’s. Re-establishing the UK’s WTO status in its own right means both the UK and the EU would negotiate simultaneously with the rest of the WTO’s members to extract their separate membership terms. Agreement on the UK’s terms is unlikely before those of the EU.

For its part, the UK would have to negotiate with the EU itself, the US, China, Russia, India, Brazil, and any trading nation or group of nations that matters, large or small, rich or poor. It would only take one objection to hold up the talks because the WTO operates by consensus, not voting, one reason why WTO negotiations take so long.

this being the same govt. that has to resort to underhand tactics and out and out lying when trying to get through one of it's own bills.

... can't wait for the debate on what colour our ration books will get to be.

https://twitter.com/TripeUK/status/1020392260180070402

During WWII, tripe was never rationed and was eaten widely. After rationing ended in the 1950s, there were those who rashly predicted it meant the end for tripe.
But we hung on in there. We never gave up. So, if there's post-Brexit rationing, remember - we're here for you.

..we laugh now...

All joking aside, there’s wasteland out the back of my flat. Not entirely sure who owns it, as the other buildings in the street have it as part of their back Gardens.

Might be time to speak with the residents association about getting it turned into a shared veg plot. And one can keep pigs and chickens with little fuss.

Will the post-Brexi public service announcements just consist of the BBC being forces to air nothing but The Good Life.

Or even better, a reboot starring Rees-Mogg in drag as Margot.

An open letter to Remain Dakka members

For at least 3 years, you have defended the EU and its institutions, believing that the key to Britain's future prosperity lay within the EU. On numerous occasions, you cited the difficulty of leaving EU institutions and procedures, built up over 4 decades of integration. You argued that the complexities of these things meant that crashing out overnight, or without even the barebones of a plan, would led to disaster and calamity. Despite disagreeing with these viewpoints, I have always respected Remain supporters for standing up for what they believed in.

I voted for Brexit, and I would not hesitate to vote for it again, for it is my belief that ultimately the British people should have the final say on the make up of the institutions that govern and regulate their daily lives.

None the less, I've always seen myself as pragmatic, and on the point of the complexity of leaving an institution for which we were a member for 4 decades, you as Remain voters were correct to highlight this obstacle, for which I apologise for naysaying you on this point.


Having recently undertaking to study the relationship we have with the EU in areas such as marine regulation, medicines, food, engineering supply chains, aviation, pesticides, herbicides, industrial chemicals, radioactive waste etc etc


I concede to Remain dakka members that it will take a lot of time and effort to unpick ourselves from them . However, the very complexity of this relationship only serves to convince me that the encroachment of the EU into so many areas is reason enough to vote Brexit, that and other arguments I have made about sovereignty, which I will not go into here.

Brexit remains my endpoint, but I love this country, and I love the people of this great island, and because of that, I do not wish to see fellow Dakka members suffer from any economic fallout

For these reasons, and given that 40 years of EU membership won't be undone over night, I have shifted to the EEA/EFTA position.

It will allow us a safe and phased withdrawal. It won't damage our economy, it would IMO, be an acceptable compromise to the vast majority of voters, it adheres to the spirit of the referendum, and most importantly, it buys us time to learn how to govern again, and draft a proper plan for a clean break a few years down the line.

It also presents us with the option of championing a better deal for EEA/EFTA with the other members, which would obviously improve the situation for Britain.

Naturally, of course, the die-hards on both sdes would not entertain this idea for a minute, but in the interests of defending our democratic traditions, we have a duty to respect the referendum result, and EFTA/EEA ticks many of the boxes, and satisfies most of the criteria of the referendum.

I have written to my MP concering the EEA/EFTA option, and I would urge others to do the ame. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Yours sincerly,

DINLT

I commend your ability to remain civil throughout some heated debates.

That said; I don't believe you're happy with the EEA; it's only a stepping stone to get to your brexit in a way you think won't be undone. Which is at least honest.

I've no doubt EEA will be a worse deal than current and will make a lot of people worse off over a long time.



I'm leaning towards WTO or staying in. WTO will give us the sharp reality shock we need to focus our efforts on what's best for the country and rejoicing. The main dilemma is how to prepare to survive those 6-12 months with rampaging prices, shortages and austerity like we've never seen in peace time.

I think that might be Moggs plan; to short the UK in order for mass buy outs before returning to the status quo massively more wealthy.

Herzlos wrote:
I commend your ability to remain civil throughout some heated debates.

That said; I don't believe you're happy with the EEA; it's only a stepping stone to get to your brexit in a way you think won't be undone. Which is at least honest.

I've no doubt EEA will be a worse deal than current and will make a lot of people worse off over a long time.



I'm leaning towards WTO or staying in. WTO will give us the sharp reality shock we need to focus our efforts on what's best for the country and rejoicing. The main dilemma is how to prepare to survive those 6-12 months with rampaging prices, shortages and austerity like we've never seen in peace time.

I think that might be Moggs plan; to short the UK in order for mass buy outs before returning to the status quo massively more wealthy.

Without a doubt, EFTA/EEA is a means to an end for me.

None the less, your last point about the WTO is exactly the danger I'm worried about. If we crash out hard, Remain can only win from that, and we get no Brexit and we're probably back in the EU.

The Tories are not up to the job - they are a wretched bunch who have ran this country into the ground.

A safe, controlled withdrawal, under the umbrella of EFTA/EEA, even if it takes a few more years, will always be preferable to going off the cliff, and handing the initiative back to Remain.

That is the conclusion I have come to. Half a Brexit is better than none.

Your letter was well appreciated DINLT.

I just look forward to the day when this is all over. I’ve lost friends and even family over this. Permanently too I imagine. In all circles too, including here. I won’t lie, sometimes I regret my vote. I sometimes regret how the idiots in charge are bungling it, and I regret the personal cost too. All that’s keeping me going is the thought that the next big financial crisis and the future EU army (it’s happening, regardless of what anyone claims) will vindicate my vote.

I believe there will be an EU army, which is sad, but I think it is needed.

For my part, I am sorry that you have suffered personally and lost friends over the vote. I think I would also probably fall out with people over it, but weirdly here with the distance and the fact that I see you guys posting on other stuff it is easier for me not to get personally mad at you.

I am annoyed because I think Brexit will impact my parents pretty heavily, and they haven't been having a quiet, stress free retirement for a variety of reasons. But there is still some hope that we might get a sensible resolution I suppose. And well do I know how it feels to regret a vote, having voted for the Green Party who when went into coalition with Fianna Fáil, eventually leading to their destruction after the financial crash.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Your letter was well appreciated DINLT.

I just look forward to the day when this is all over. I’ve lost friends and even family over this. Permanently too I imagine. In all circles too, including here. I won’t lie, sometimes I regret my vote. I sometimes regret how the idiots in charge are bungling it, and I regret the personal cost too. All that’s keeping me going is the thought that the next big financial crisis and the future EU army (it’s happening, regardless of what anyone claims) will vindicate my vote.

Thanks for the kind words.

The EFTA/EEA option is not perfect. It's not a magic wand that gives us 100% of what we want.

But it buys time to rebuild, and regroup, and most importantly, it solves a hell of a lot of problems and stops a disastrous crash that could let Remain sneak in through the back door.

We as a nation have forgotten have to govern, how to negotiate, how to stand on our own two feet, because those useless fethers in Westminster have outsourced governance to Brussels for decades.

But do we need the EEA for that, I'd we ever have an idea of what to so?

I mean, what's the end goal? Canada (there will be no +) or Japan? Why not just extend the transition and move to one of them?

I think you're idea of slowly sneaking out will fail; it's not a big leap from EEA to being back in, and wherever we go after EEA will still drive people back in.

I too echo the sentiments of just wanting this to be over, so we can get on with our lives and go back to complaining about politicians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also don't buy this idea that because the EU is hard to leave, is justification for leaving. It'd be hard for me to leave my wife and house but that doesn't make it a good idea.

We've benefited hugely from the closer integration, and integration is the way of the future. We're a long way past governance at the county, city or village state levels.

The end game? The end game is true free trade.

Research? Facts? I love 'em!

My limited research has only just scratched the surface but feth me, regulations are increasingly made at a global level: UN, UNECE, WTO, IPCC, WCO.

It's harmonization, it's common standards, regulations. It's detail baby.

Brussels? Feth Brussels, because Geneva and New York are the places to be. That's where the action is happening. Unknown, forgotten organisations make the rules, the EU adopts them and rebrands them as their own. Everything from car tyre standards and vehicle registration, to fishing and environmental rulings etc etc

Britain needs its seat at those tables and free from the EU we can be there as a member in our own right.

Brussels? It's yesterday's man. It's global standards now baby.

That's where the action is.

Right, so how's that going to work then? we're going to overhaul the WTO to be truly free, customless trade for all?

Herzlos wrote:
Right, so we're going to overhaul the WTO to be truly free, customless trade for all?

I keep getting logged out. Bah.

Anyway, I'm getting a bit carried away here. Of course the EU is a big player, but I am surprised at how much is decided at a global level these days away from Brussels. Very impressive stuff in many respects.

As for the WTO, obviously we can't change things unilaterally, but as an independent state, we can lobby hard with like minded nations to bring about change.

It's going to be a lot longer than 6-12 months.

It's going to be more like 10 years before the UK starts to recover to where we were in the early 2000s.

20 lost years.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
.

As for the WTO, obviously we can't change things unilaterally, but as an independent state, we can lobby hard with like minded nations to bring about change.

So the UK can't find enough like minded nations to change things in the EU (so the Leave narrative goes) but will somehow manage at the WTO?

That sounds like quite a tall order. Especially when economically the UK looks a lot more like other EU countries than anything else in the world.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Research? Facts? I love 'em!

Oh do go and pull the other one. You've spent the last two years doing every kind of mental gymnastics to ignore facts.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My limited research has only just scratched the surface but feth me, regulations are increasingly made at a global level: UN, UNECE, WTO, IPCC, WCO.

How much of that do you think the eu has a serious input into, as one of the major trading blocs in the world?

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's harmonization, it's common standards, regulations. It's detail baby.

So everything you hate about brexit. And detail? Lol, that's a first. I thought you only liked sensationalist headlines.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Brussels? Feth Brussels, because Geneva and New York are the places to be. That's where the action is happening. Unknown, forgotten organisations make the rules, the EU adopts them and rebrands them as their own. Everything from car tyre standards and vehicle registration, to fishing and environmental rulings etc etc

And you seriously,don't think the eu has a big say on these kinds of things? I thought you liked facts all of a sudden?

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:T
Britain needs its seat at those tables and free from the EU we can be there as a member in our own right.

And who will listen?

Christ, you complain about being at the table of 27 and not getting to eat your cake and have it. And now all of a sudden you,are dictating to the world? I guess that's what it's about. To Britain (and more specifically England to a large extent), a 'union' is great when Britain gets to dictate to everyone and push everyone else around, but the second you are one equal amongst many, and it's a bad thing. The world isn't like that, and you are in for one hell of a shock if you,think any different.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Brussels? It's yesterday's man. It's global standards now baby.
That's where the action is.

No, that's London that's yesterday's man. The world will care very little for little Britain after this.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As for the WTO, obviously we can't change things unilaterally, but as an independent state, we can lobby hard with like minded nations to bring about change.

Which has more ability to bring change - the eu, or some backwater off the edge of it? You do realise we will have problems actually negotiating our own position at the wto?

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
.

As for the WTO, obviously we can't change things unilaterally, but as an independent state, we can lobby hard with like minded nations to bring about change.

So the UK can't find enough like minded nations to change things in the EU (so the Leave narrative goes) but will somehow manage at the WTO?

That sounds like quite a tall order. Especially when economically the UK looks a lot more like other EU countries than anything else in the world.

Ahem!


We'll do business with ya.

But only on your terms.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
But only on your terms.

Erm... come again?

Nothing is stopping you from mirroring the EU agreements...and...we're not the only markets you can trade with either. Yes, ya'll will have to negotiate yourselfs, but you are in the driver seat.

 whembly wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
But only on your terms.

Erm... come again?

Nothing is stopping you from mirroring the EU agreements...and...we're not the only markets you can trade with either. Yes, ya'll will have to negotiate yourselfs, but you are in the driver seat.

What leverage will we have? We won't have the backup of 26 other economies, we'll be a reduced economy, what reason would a country going through a "these are all terrible deals" phase have to play softball with the UK in that position?

whembly wrote:We'll do business with ya.

None of the statements from the US government have in any way indicated that this would end with good (or acceptable) deals for the UK. The best bet for the UK is (no matter what type of Brexit it'll end up being) to make trade with the EU a thing that works. Those entities are right next to each other (just a tiny bit of water separates us) and need to work together.

That's that makes Brexit so infuriating. To use a wargaming comparison: Instead of working on improving what's already there the UK pushed all the minis off the table and now wants to design a whole new game from the ground up while keeping the old game going without interruptions (the one they just pushed off the table). In this the USA are like somebody shouting an hour later from the next room about their own game variation that barely looks like what the UK wants to play.

Interesting analogy.

The UK is like a 40k player who does not always win, and rather than discussing with the other players they moan about poorly written rules and how everything is so unfair.

The US is the warmahordes player shouting about how much fairer and better written their game is, who is then smashing anyone who comes to their table.

The UK Is like a 40K player who has entered a tournament, got upset about whatever blah blah and now wants his entry fee back if the tournament organisers -- of which he was one -- won't change all the rules to suit him.

So do the Brexiters banging on about wto understand what that actually means? I am pretty sure Moggy and his ilk do but IDNLT and the actual voters not so much.

There are a number of issues with WTO the main one is that were only technically members, we have to split our membership off from the EU and this has to be ratified by every member.
The US,China and Australia have all ready raised objections and that leaves another 125+ countries who also could object and it only takes 1 to stop any progress.

The next issue is if we leave the shelter of the EU's negotiated opt outs and restrictions as full WTO members then it's bye bye NHS. Any nationalised industry that has even a small privatised part has to open the rest for open tender.

This bit is why has the Tory right has such a hard on for WTO as it means that unlike normal after they have fethed up the country Labour cannot fix it ever.

 whembly wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
But only on your terms.

Erm... come again?

Nothing is stopping you from mirroring the EU agreements...and...we're not the only markets you can trade with either. Yes, ya'll will have to negotiate yourselfs, but you are in the driver seat.

That's not quite correct. A trade agreement is something that both parties must agree on. Ultimately the one with the largest buying power has the greatest say because the smaller country has less to offer. The advantage of being in the EU is that you get collective bargaining power. Yes we might not benefit from the element on oranges, but the same element benefits on apples does help us but not Malta. You also have the advantage of size. Our wine industry is tiny relatively and is unlikely to hold much value in the negotiations. Combine all the wine in the EU however and that is something where we can protect/expand the industry which we would also benefit from.

When you are smaller you can only bring less to the table. Therefore we can't bring oranges as possible part of the trade negotiation, something else has to be offered.

The protection the EU provides isn't just on trade. It also ensures a certain quality of product. For example food. In the UK chlorinated chicken is generally rejected as is hormone treated cattle for beef. To accept these practices means lowering out own standards otherwise our own industries can't compete. The EU provides a soft projection of these practices. They aren't perfect but the EU is one of the more environmentally aware instutions out there. Therefore they generally reject products that don't meet certain standards. The UK on its own can never project its own standards because we don't have the clout to agree this in any agreement. In effect we have to take standards (which our government is slowly waking up to).

My support for Brexit has not budged one inch

But I want it done properly, in a phased, safe manner, as a disastrous crash out can only benefit Remain.

Having looked at the papers, I will concede that Remain dakka members were right. It is complex, but that's to be expected after 40 years of membership and harmonization with the rest of the EU.

It's why I'm pragmatic now, because even if we had a competent government working round the clock day and night. it would still be a hard task.

Sadly, we have this shower of gak running the show.

None the less, there are two major issues that the die-hards on both sides won't face:

1. For Remain to want us back in the EU is fantasy politics. It ignores the 17.4 million and destroys our democracy with regard to the referendum. We're not going back.

2. For Brexit die-hards, the WTO option in March 2019 is also fantasy politics. As if 40 years would be undone over night with this gak storm leading the negotiations.

So if we phase things out, rebuild, gradually de-couple ourselves, and sound out other trade deals around the world in the process, we avoid the crash, slowly get to where we want to be, and stop Remain cashing in on a hard crash.


Sadly, what we have is May's white paper which will probably result in a cave in at the last minute, and widespread anger as we have BRINO

or

A hard crash as agitated by the Tory hard core and Remain sweep back to power and they get whiplash from the speed in which they pick up the phone to Brussels.

IMO, the compromise situation with EEA is the only game in town now. I would urge other Dakka members to adopt this and tell your friends and family about it.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

SeanDrake wrote:
So do the Brexiters banging on about wto understand what that actually means? I am pretty sure Moggy and his ilk do but IDNLT and the actual voters not so much.

There are a number of issues with WTO the main one is that were only technically members, we have to split our membership off from the EU and this has to be ratified by every member.
The US,China and Australia have all ready raised objections and that leaves another 125+ countries who also could object and it only takes 1 to stop any progress.

The next issue is if we leave the shelter of the EU's negotiated opt outs and restrictions as full WTO members then it's bye bye NHS. Any nationalised industry that has even a small privatised part has to open the rest for open tender.

This bit is why has the Tory right has such a hard on for WTO as it means that unlike normal after they have fethed up the country Labour cannot fix it ever.

It's why I've now shifted for the compromise EEA solution.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My support for Brexit has not budged one inch
.

There's a big piece missing in your analysis.

You are seemingly blaming all of the current woes in the implementation rather than look at the elephant in the room that is why leave for a worse deal (slightly worse is still worse) for no obvious benefit.

There are only shades of economic and social damage. At several levels.

It's not time to reassess the process of leaving, it's time to have a long hard look at exactly what made so many people think they would be better off outside the EU when it's so blindingly obvious it will not be the case, under any scenario.

What do people think about the issues with the Pairing system over the Brexit vote?

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My support for Brexit has not budged one inch
.

There's a big piece missing in your analysis.

You are seemingly blaming all of the current woes in the implementation rather than look at the elephant in the room that is why leave for a worse deal (slightly worse is still worse) for no obvious benefit.

There are only shades of economic and social damage. At several levels.

It's not time to reassess the process of leaving, it's time to have a long hard look at exactly what made so many people think they would be better off outside the EU when it's so blindingly obvious it will not be the case, under any scenario.

You guys were right to say that in or out of the EU, you have to follow somebody's rules on a global level, even if it were only basic WTO.

The nature of global trade, inter-linked systems, and modern comms, means that no man is an island. That's the reality.

It's also the reality that trading standards are getting decided elsewhere in Geneva and New York by various global bodies.

None the less, we know that most global growth in the next few decades is happening outside Europe, and rather than focus on purely the trade, the EU is more interested in the politics. If it had stuck with the common market and the trade, the EU wouldn't be in the mess it's in.

That is my long term goal for Brexit: proper trade on a global basis and not bogged down with this moribund, United States of Europe horsegak.

That is the Brexit prize if it's done properly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
What do people think about the issues with the Pairing system over the Brexit vote?

The pairing system should be scrapped. I've seen footage of that Lib Dem MP at a Trump protest.


If she could attend that, then there was no reason why she couldn't attend Parliament for the vote.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My support for Brexit has not budged one inch
.

There's a big piece missing in your analysis.

You are seemingly blaming all of the current woes in the implementation rather than look at the elephant in the room that is why leave for a worse deal (slightly worse is still worse) for no obvious benefit.

There are only shades of economic and social damage. At several levels.

It's not time to reassess the process of leaving, it's time to have a long hard look at exactly what made so many people think they would be better off outside the EU when it's so blindingly obvious it will not be the case, under any scenario.

You guys were right to say that in or out of the EU, you have to follow somebody's rules on a global level, even if it were only basic WTO.

The nature of global trade, inter-linked systems, and modern comms, means that no man is an island. That's the reality.

It's also the reality that trading standards are getting decided elsewhere in Geneva and New York by various global bodies.

None the less, we know that most global growth in the next few decades is happening outside Europe, and rather than focus on purely the trade, the EU is more interested in the politics. If it had stuck with the common market and the trade, the EU wouldn't be in the mess it's in.

That is my long term goal for Brexit: proper trade on a global basis and not bogged down with this moribund, United States of Europe horsegak.

That is the Brexit prize if it's done properly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
What do people think about the issues with the Pairing system over the Brexit vote?

The pairing system should be scrapped. I've seen footage of that Lib Dem MP at a Trump protest.


If she could attend that, then there was no reason why she couldn't attend Parliament for the vote.

Well if you saw the rally you would have saw she had her baby with her, however despite the way Boris and the rest act you are not able to bring a baby into the house of commons.

Also she is on maternity leave which is currently a legal right and although less likely to be after brexit currently we have not got that far.
Unless your one of those Brexiteers who feels woman should only stay at home and out of politics then I am unsure how you can feel that the pairing incident was anything other than a scummy attempt to subvert our democracy.

I mean I am sure as a supporter of sovrentea and the sanctity of parliament that you would not want to win in an undemocratic fashion with rules and laws being broken and our democracy being tarnished.......Oh hang on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously the amount of mental gymnastics and hypocrisy needed to be a Brexiteer has to have mental health implications.

I mean at some point the must be some sort of schism between reality as seen and understood by Brexiteers and actual reality.

I think you can see some cases in people like David "Mince" Davis and Kate "I should be in the DUP" Hooey. If you listen to Davis talk he seems to be completely unaware of what has happened over the last 2 years. When he speaks nothing he says actually matches up with reality.

I think May has started to come down with it she stood and gave a speech in front of the world in which she said no one could accept the EU's backstop position. That was despite the fact she had previously stood in front of the world and accepted the EU's backstop and in fact signed an agreement Las December.

Here's one example of what could be done after Brexit.

Recently, Marine Scotland, The University of Highlands and Islands, and the Scottish Fisheries Federation, discussed their future plans for our fishing waters, on the basis of us being free of the CFP.


With the bulk of our fishing waters back, the industry could grow, it would be environmentally sustainable, would help recover fish stocks, and the food standards would be amongst the highest, if not the highest in the world.


They were pushing for a complete boat to dining table strategy, with accountability every step of the way. And because of the high standards, the rug would be pulled from underneath the EU's feet.

The potential there is huge, but sadly, it will likely be bargained away in return for some vague promise on something else.

mental gymnastics

You're proposing a very simple question on a very complex set of circumstances

Boy, we sure are lucky no one tried to do something similar eh ?


https://www.ft.com/content/d615b792-8c1c-11e8-b18d-0181731a0340

Jacob Rees-Mogg’s fund house launches second Irish fund

with regards to the no deal option :

https://twitter.com/atatimelikethis/status/1020658628431368193

that all sounds great eh ?

When leave the EU we don't just lose access to that market, but we will also need to renegotiate 50 or so other trade deals just to maintain what we have.

https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-free-trade-deals-has-eu-done/?gclid=CjwKCAjws8vaBRBFEiwAQfhs-JmyXvSJSOqb5mHrtY-7CMIcBoJjX9vKCgshrCXgiBw4b8DXGfiQNRoCcOoQAvD_BwE

-- possibly having just told the Eu to do one with regards to the money we owe them -- which I think most people will agree doesn't really make us look like great people to try and make deals with.




what a time to be alive eh ?



https://twitter.com/DawnHFoster/status/1020936911194656768

I was told a senior Tory MP had also asked DeXEU if it was possible: to dynamite part of the white cliffs of Dover to allow more lorries through, and if underwater walls could act as borders for fishing.

we are fethed.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's one example of what could be done after Brexit.

Recently, Marine Scotland, The University of Highlands and Islands, and the Scottish Fisheries Federation, discussed their future plans for our fishing waters, on the basis of us being free of the CFP.


With the bulk of our fishing waters back, the industry could grow, it would be environmentally sustainable, would help recover fish stocks, and the food standards would be amongst the highest, if not the highest in the world.


They were pushing for a complete boat to dining table strategy, with accountability every step of the way. And because of the high standards, the rug would be pulled from underneath the EU's feet.

The potential there is huge, but sadly, it will likely be bargained away in return for some vague promise on something else.

You state that you would get the bulk of your fishing waters back, but does that take into account losing access to other fishing waters in return for that? And did they also take into account that the potential growth in the fishing industry may very well not compensate for the effects of the (hopefully no-deal) brexit in other sectors? And how many of those food standards will you have to drop when you try to get a FTA with, say, the US? And how exactly would you be pulling the rug from underneath the EU's feet? Just curious, because this kind of comes across like your own fantasy.

Perhaps more important is a question I have not seen answered anywhere: What does the UK have to offer in a trade agreement? What does the UK have to offer for other countries, that they can not get anywhere else for a cheaper price at the same quality?

On the other hand, any problems that the EU's special needs child may or may not have upon leaving are not really my concern, are they? Edit: fishing waters not fishing water. sigh.

Well, the uk is a fairly big market of what, 70 million people? Lot of money to be made there. We’re also apparently good at robotics and weapons if that’s your thing. Medicine too I think. Jaguar Land Rover make some of the best cars in the world, although it’s India who owns them. Mini, Vauxhall and Nissan manufacture here too. Part of our problem is focusing on services over manufacturing though. I’d always back the former over the latter.

FYI, this smug dismissive attitude towards the UK (what are you even good for?) is probably one reason why remain lost imo.

EDIT: I forgot Astin Martin and McClaren, and our contributions towards Formula 1 racing. We could, if we put our minds to it, become a major player in the world of film, if we’re not already there.

Future War Cultist, I think it's ironic that you and I are the compromise candidates now

We've looked at the reality, we've looked at the politics, the facts, and that's why we push we compromise deal.

We're being tactical we're playing the long game.

Britain as a country has forgotten how to govern, forgotten how to formulate a trade policy, because Brussels has been doing that for us for decades. It will take time to re-learn that skill.

And given that standards are increasingly being made at a global level these days, we can focus on the trade and not the politics of the EU.

Granted, it will take time to rebuild policies, institutions, new fishing and agriculture policy, after Brexit, but long term the goal is trade. That's the prize.

Let the EU tie themselves up in their USE project and let the rest of us get on with trading at the global level.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's going to be a lot longer than 6-12 months.

It's going to be more like 10 years before the UK starts to recover to where we were in the early 2000s.

20 lost years.

And it will never be as good as it could havn been. Uk goes weaker, eu gnts stronger. Strenght is in unity rather than isolation. More so when earth resources starts to run out. Solos like uk will be swallownd and crushed

Except all of those industries (with the probable exception of F1) will be ruined by leaving the EU. Car manufacturers are already making plans to leave. The whole car industry is based on a very slick just in time supply chain. Crashing out of the EU will wreck this. Manufacturing is going to be hit very hard and very fast by Brexit. Even in the best scenario companies will leave the UK and factories will close before we can make any trade deals.

 Cruxeh wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's one example of what could be done after Brexit.

Recently, Marine Scotland, The University of Highlands and Islands, and the Scottish Fisheries Federation, discussed their future plans for our fishing waters, on the basis of us being free of the CFP.


With the bulk of our fishing waters back, the industry could grow, it would be environmentally sustainable, would help recover fish stocks, and the food standards would be amongst the highest, if not the highest in the world.


They were pushing for a complete boat to dining table strategy, with accountability every step of the way. And because of the high standards, the rug would be pulled from underneath the EU's feet.

The potential there is huge, but sadly, it will likely be bargained away in return for some vague promise on something else.

You state that you would get the bulk of your fishing waters back, but does that take into account losing access to other fishing waters in return for that? And did they also take into account that the potential growth in the fishing industry may very well not compensate for the effects of the (hopefully no-deal) brexit in other sectors? And how many of those food standards will you have to drop when you try to get a FTA with, say, the US? And how exactly would you be pulling the rug from underneath the EU's feet? Just curious, because this kind of comes across like your own fantasy.

Perhaps more important is a question I have not seen answered anywhere: What does the UK have to offer in a trade agreement? What does the UK have to offer for other countries, that they can not get anywhere else for a cheaper price at the same quality?

On the other hand, any problems that the EU's special needs child may or may not have upon leaving are not really my concern, are they? Edit: fishing waters not fishing water. sigh.

Fish and chips is a national dish of the UK. The UK domestic market alone could keep fishing going as a viable industry.

80% of our GDP is from the financial sector and the Tories are not even attempting to conserve this even in the cakeist deal.

If we no deal the only financial companies staying will be the shady scum bags dealing in tax evasion and money laundering. What are the odds they will pay there tax do you think?

Remember folks that the day after we hard brexit the new EU tax evasion laws kick in. I am certain to that the unseemly rush by the vermin to start the brexit proceedings to achieve this was totally unrelated.

Honestly Brexit is not entirely a scam by Moggy and his mates so we cannot prove he deals illegally with Russia and so on and so forth. It was definitely done to benefit the plebs I mean commoners errr sorry little people.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Except all of those industries (with the probable exception of F1) will be ruined by leaving the EU. Car manufacturers are already making plans to leave. The whole car industry is based on a very slick just in time supply chain. Crashing out of the EU will wreck this. Manufacturing is going to be hit very hard and very fast by Brexit. Even in the best scenario companies will leave the UK and factories will close before we can make any trade deals.

That’s why I say go EFTA. Avoids that crash.

I just had a thought. In EFTA we assume control of our own customs policy. We could approach those countries who have tariffs on our products and see if we could get them lowers or removed. Suddenly we’re basically an eu state who’s more open to outside business. Companies across the EU or abroad might move here to get the best of both worlds.

Fishing is the 61st most successful industry in the UK even if they quadrupled there profits they would only jump to 54th.
Fishing is irrelavent to the UK economy but is a totem favoured by leading Brexiters.

Don't forget the brexit town of Grimsby is now looking for a brexit exemptions so the whole town avoids being unemployed. Personally I hope they get brexitered good and hard like they wanted.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


We've looked at the reality, we've looked at the politics, the facts.

pro -tip :

in future try doing this before voting on important issues.

It's much more effective than having reality crash into you 2 years or so after you've voted.

in other political news :

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/names-of-mps-suspected-of-wrongdoing-to-be-kept-secret-zqtxs7l5z

All complaints against MPs will be kept secret


MPs have voted in favour of allowing all complaints against them, including expense abuses, to be kept secret.

Investigations into MPs’ behaviour are routinely published on the website of the parliamentary commissioner for standards.

Ministers put forward a motion saying that these inquiries should no longer be made public as a matter of course, as they asked MPs to back a system designed to tackle bullying and harassment at Westminster.

The move was heavily criticised by a number of MPs, including Sir Kevin Barron, the Labour chairman of the standards committee, who warned that it would be seen as MPs “trying to cover up their wrongdoings”. He led an attempt to separate complaints about harassment from other allegations of wrongdoing, such as cheating on expenses, but it was blocked by MPs who voted it down by 79 to 22.

Andrea Leadsom, leader of the Commons, insisted that keeping allegations confidential was intended “to put the complainant at the very heart of the process by protecting their identity”.

Mrs Leadsom, who led a cross-party steering group on tackling inappropriate behaviour at Westminster, said that investigations could still be made public after they had concluded.

She said: “Today gives us a new start. Westminster has been rocked by allegations of bullying and harassment since last November but today we can demonstrate our determination to put our house in order and to ensure that in the future everyone will be treated with dignity and respect.”

Two MPs — Labour’s Jess Phillips and Caroline Lucas of the Green Party — rejected her explanation and told the House they suspected this position had been reached as part of a deal with the whips to ensure the wider plan was approved. The new complaints and sanctions procedure which has now been adopted introduces:

•A code of behaviour for MPs which requires them not to belittle staff, make personal comments or touch them inappropriately.

•An independent helpline for harassment and bullying.

•Compulsory training as a sanction for less serious incidents.

•Recall of MPs or expulsion of peers for serious incidents.

•Independent HR advice for staff and a staff handbook setting out where to turn for help.

The rules will apply to an estimated 15,000 people who work in parliament, including visitors and contractors, who could lose their passes if they do not comply. The code will cover MPs wherever they are, including their constituency offices and official visits.

Ms Phillips said earlier that she was “exhausted” by the stories she’d heard since the abuse and harassment scandal broke in parliament last October, noting: “I think I’m up to 50 complaints from a variety of people from different political parties about both members of parliament and others who work in and around politics as well.”

including expense abuses

what are the odds eh ?

elsewhere the govt. is defending and increasing the usage of... err..... child spies

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/20/child-spies-used-only-when-very-necessary-says-downing-street



.which TBH I didn't really even know was a thing we did anyway.

I guess some of that seems more like what people would think of as informants rather than spies per se .. but this does seem a bit morally dubious no ?

The EU is now a political construct. It's obvious it's moved away from the trade and the economics.

If Britain does it properly, it can be nimble and flexible enough to influence global standards at the top tables where it matters, and not be dragged down by 27 other competing interests all of which have their 3 man parliaments and various veto methods that bog everything down.

Britain can have a 21st century trading model and not the dark ages model of the EU.

If we're in EEA/EFTA we rally and lobby to put the trade back into trading, and there's enough like minded nations in the EU who are wary of further political integration. Get them on board and it's even easier.

That's the prize: better trading with a 21st century model. It will take time, I concede that, but it can be done.

@ DINLT

I find that quite ironic too.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The EU is now a political construct. It's obvious it's moved away from the trade and the economics.

from 1972 and 1975

To go back to the pairing for a moment, it is a rather old-fashioned but useful system that allows MPs to get some stuff done and not compromise their party's strength in the House.

For example, an MP on a fact-finding mission to New Zealand can pair with an MP remaining in the UK.

The reason why the pairing was broken was that the Tory Chief Whip was pretty scared of losing that vote, so he ordered the pairing to be dropped at the last minute with no courtesy call to the opposition or their MP.

This was a cynical ploy which is likely to come back to haunt the Tories in the future.

The only Brexit supporting financial expert and I use that term losely as he is an Ann Rynd fruitcake. States that all manufacturing in the UK will be wiped out by a hard Brexit and considers that a good thing.

There dream is singapore-upon-themes no tax, no employment laws and no environmental laws. A workforce rendered desperate enough to survive that we can compete with China and India.

Everything outside London becomes a giant sweatshop and it all gets a bit dystopian. If you don't think this is true look up Manford and Britania Unchained.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ DINLT

I find that quite ironic too.

Which is why I extend the hand of compromise to Remain supporters on this forum.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To go back to the pairing for a moment, it is a rather old-fashioned but useful system that allows MPs to get some stuff done and not compromise their party's strength in the House.

For example, an MP on a fact-finding mission to New Zealand can pair with an MP remaining in the UK.

The reason why the pairing was broken was that the Tory Chief Whip was pretty scared of losing that vote, so he ordered the pairing to be dropped at the last minute with no courtesy call to the opposition or their MP.

This was a cynical ploy which is likely to come back to haunt the Tories in the future.

In this day and age of smartphones and emails, if an MP is in New Zealand there should be electronic voting for them.

Parliament still thinks it's the 19th century. There's no need for the pairing system.

Ok while your extending your hand can you provided some actual benefits of Brexit even asumming it had all gone perfectly?

Please no Sovrentea or blue passport fantasies.


As for trade you are saying you want to improve trade by lea ing the largest trade block in the world?

Who exactly are you wanting to trade with that we all ready don't trade with?

If we hard brexit who exactly is going to want to trade with us given the loss.of.our manufacturing and financial service's base?

Please don't say the US what the have in mind is not so much trade as sodomy. Even in the anti trade EU our biggest trading partner is the US weird that but anyway we export much more than we import given Trumps current flawed understanding of trade this will enrage him leading to us getting fethed over the Brexit barrel.

Finally do any of the brexiters on here work in a sector likely to be effected by Brexit?

Do you have children or family that will be effected by Brexit for most of there lives?

Did you actually understand what you were voting for other than leave propaganda?

This is why I have little sympathy for the forthcoming storm of gak heading towards most Brexiteers if a no deal is achieved by the Tories.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To go back to the pairing for a moment, it is a rather old-fashioned but useful system that allows MPs to get some stuff done and not compromise their party's strength in the House.

For example, an MP on a fact-finding mission to New Zealand can pair with an MP remaining in the UK.

The reason why the pairing was broken was that the Tory Chief Whip was pretty scared of losing that vote, so he ordered the pairing to be dropped at the last minute with no courtesy call to the opposition or their MP.

This was a cynical ploy which is likely to come back to haunt the Tories in the future.

That was how I read it - Do other nations have similar systems?

Also does anyone know how relaible the system usually is?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


You guys were right to say that in or out of the EU, you have to follow somebody's rules on a global level, even if it were only basic WTO.

The nature of global trade, inter-linked systems, and modern comms, means that no man is an island. That's the reality.

It's also the reality that trading standards are getting decided elsewhere in Geneva and New York by various global bodies.

None the less, we know that most global growth in the next few decades is happening outside Europe, and rather than focus on purely the trade, the EU is more interested in the politics. If it had stuck with the common market and the trade, the EU wouldn't be in the mess it's in.

That is my long term goal for Brexit: proper trade on a global basis and not bogged down with this moribund, United States of Europe horsegak.

That is the Brexit prize if it's done properly.

I give you credit for changing your economic source from the likes of Legatum to the likes of Richard North.

It's an improvement, but still fall very, very short. It's true that a lot of standards are decided on those UN-derived global bodies but those standards almost invariably end up mirroring the likes of European and American standards. Once they're on the table the actual capability of exacting change is tiny, especially for a country like the UK with a diminishing industrial capacity.

And why would the UK want to set standards on screw sizes and airbag propellants? For a country the size of the UK it's much better to just be a rule taker and adapt quickly to proposed changes.

Pace at the WTO is so sluggish no significant change has happened for a good two decades now. That's why I had a bit of a chuckle when I read about the UK taking a prominent role there. It's... Just not happening.

What matters nowadays is whatever terms are agreed peer to peer. That's why trade deals have a section on standard recognition and a court to deal with these issues, because while it's true those international agencies are the default they don't go far enough, quickly enough.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cruxeh wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's one example of what could be done after Brexit.

Recently, Marine Scotland, The University of Highlands and Islands, and the Scottish Fisheries Federation, discussed their future plans for our fishing waters, on the basis of us being free of the CFP.


With the bulk of our fishing waters back, the industry could grow, it would be environmentally sustainable, would help recover fish stocks, and the food standards would be amongst the highest, if not the highest in the world.


They were pushing for a complete boat to dining table strategy, with accountability every step of the way. And because of the high standards, the rug would be pulled from underneath the EU's feet.

The potential there is huge, but sadly, it will likely be bargained away in return for some vague promise on something else.

You state that you would get the bulk of your fishing waters back, but does that take into account losing access to other fishing waters in return for that? And did they also take into account that the potential growth in the fishing industry may very well not compensate for the effects of the (hopefully no-deal) brexit in other sectors? And how many of those food standards will you have to drop when you try to get a FTA with, say, the US? And how exactly would you be pulling the rug from underneath the EU's feet? Just curious, because this kind of comes across like your own fantasy.

Not just that. What happens to all those British-owned vessels plying Moroccan, Angolan, Cape Verdean or Namibian waters?

They're there thanks to EU brokered deals

The problem with the pairing system is that its essentially a gentleman's agreement not an official set of rules. Parliament really needs an official system on the books for either pairing or proxy voting.

SeanDrake wrote:
Ok while your extending your hand can you provided some actual benefits of Brexit even asumming it had all gone perfectly?.

It is going perfectly. Result is just what was expected. It's when things don't go as expected thingsare sub-perfect

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


You guys were right to say that in or out of the EU, you have to follow somebody's rules on a global level, even if it were only basic WTO.

The nature of global trade, inter-linked systems, and modern comms, means that no man is an island. That's the reality.

It's also the reality that trading standards are getting decided elsewhere in Geneva and New York by various global bodies.

None the less, we know that most global growth in the next few decades is happening outside Europe, and rather than focus on purely the trade, the EU is more interested in the politics. If it had stuck with the common market and the trade, the EU wouldn't be in the mess it's in.

That is my long term goal for Brexit: proper trade on a global basis and not bogged down with this moribund, United States of Europe horsegak.

That is the Brexit prize if it's done properly.

I give you credit for changing your economic source from the likes of Legatum to the likes of Richard North.

It's an improvement, but still fall very, very short. It's true that a lot of standards are decided on those UN-derived global bodies but those standards almost invariably end up mirroring the likes of European and American standards. Once they're on the table the actual capability of exacting change is tiny, especially for a country like the UK with a diminishing industrial capacity.

And why would the UK want to set standards on screw sizes and airbag propellants? For a country the size of the UK it's much better to just be a rule taker and adapt quickly to proposed changes.

Pace at the WTO is so sluggish no significant change has happened for a good two decades now. That's why I had a bit of a chuckle when I read about the UK taking a prominent role there. It's... Just not happening.

What matters nowadays is whatever terms are agreed peer to peer. That's why trade deals have a section on standard recognition and a court to deal with these issues, because while it's true those international agencies are the default they don't go far enough, quickly enough.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cruxeh wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's one example of what could be done after Brexit.

Recently, Marine Scotland, The University of Highlands and Islands, and the Scottish Fisheries Federation, discussed their future plans for our fishing waters, on the basis of us being free of the CFP.


With the bulk of our fishing waters back, the industry could grow, it would be environmentally sustainable, would help recover fish stocks, and the food standards would be amongst the highest, if not the highest in the world.


They were pushing for a complete boat to dining table strategy, with accountability every step of the way. And because of the high standards, the rug would be pulled from underneath the EU's feet.

The potential there is huge, but sadly, it will likely be bargained away in return for some vague promise on something else.

You state that you would get the bulk of your fishing waters back, but does that take into account losing access to other fishing waters in return for that? And did they also take into account that the potential growth in the fishing industry may very well not compensate for the effects of the (hopefully no-deal) brexit in other sectors? And how many of those food standards will you have to drop when you try to get a FTA with, say, the US? And how exactly would you be pulling the rug from underneath the EU's feet? Just curious, because this kind of comes across like your own fantasy.

Not just that. What happens to all those British-owned vessels plying Moroccan, Angolan, Cape Verdean or Namibian waters?

They're there thanks to EU brokered deals

Look at the recent EU-Japan deal. No free movement there or ECJ oversight. Just old fashioned trading without the political union. No reason why Britain couldn't have something like that in the future.


The EU is 27 competing interests where every man and his dog has a veto. That doesn't make for fast or flexible trading fit for the 21st century.

The Canada deal was almost torpedoed by a regional parliament in Belgium.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Look at the recent EU-Japan deal. No free movement there or ECJ oversight. Just old fashioned trading without the political union. No reason why Britain couldn't have something like that in the future.


The EU is 27 competing interests where every man and his dog has a veto. That doesn't make for fast or flexible trading fit for the 21st century.

The Canada deal was almost torpedoed by a regional parliament in Belgium.

Again with the slogans. The Japan, Canadian or South Korean deals don't have any of that because they're limited in their scope.

If the UK was happy with just a Canada-style deal it could have been signed on the very first day of negotiations.

..maybe actual geography plays a role too.


taking back control.

..remember when this was project fear ?

still nevermind eh :

.. it's an oppurtunity, of course.

It's important to recognize we are where we are after two years, and however much we may want it, the clock is not going to be turned back.

reds8n, you've posted a lot of good diagrams and charts over the years, and it's appreciated, even when I disagreed with some of them.

With doomsday predictions on the horizon, a lot of Remain supporters probably feel vindicated, and I can sympathize with that view.

However, this is the reality we are facing:

1. The vote happened. Leave won. To reverse that, to ignore 17.4 million people, is fantasy politics. Not to mention the can of worms that would be opened.

2. To return to the EU, with all our opt outs and rebates, for the EU to hand back those agency jobs, for them to forgive and forget, it's never going to happen. It's fantasy politics, because there's too much water under the bridge.

3. Similarly, on my side, the idea we can crash out of 40 years of integration overnight, is complete bollocks. WTO is not a serious option.

So we adapt, we compromise, we EEA it in the short-term.

I would repeat my call to my fellow dakka members to contact their MPs and push the compromise situation.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


1. The vote happened. Leave won.

Illegally.

You accept the role and rule of law or not ?

The vote happened.

Indeed it did -- in 1975

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

But we can, apparently, have another vote at a later date but for some reason, despite the illegality of the campaign and the total crock that the leave side gave us this has to be the last one ever.

uh huh.

To return to the EU, with all our opt outs and rebates,

It's not returning, it's staying in.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

1. The vote happened. Leave won. To reverse that, to ignore 17.4 million people, is fantasy politics. Not to mention the can of worms that would be opened.

The leave campaign lied and broke the law repeatedly. The leave vote was not for anything in particular and it has since become clear that there were almost as many different versions of leave as voters. On to of all this the vote was very close, close enough in fact that “yes” being the leave option and “no” being the remain option could have made the difference. There is plenty of evidence to show that people’s choices are influenced in votes by going for the positive choice.

Having a second referendum on the final deal would be totally reasonable, and frankly the only democratic option. Had the original vote been clear and fair I would agree, but it was neither.

The only reason it has been dismissed is because May is in fear of a small number of extreme MPs, all of whole stand to gain from leaving the EU and have been working to ensure their business interests are protected, and a small number of right wing newspaper editors who have been shown time and again in having no interest in democracy l.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Except all of those industries (with the probable exception of F1) will be ruined by leaving the EU. Car manufacturers are already making plans to leave. The whole car industry is based on a very slick just in time supply chain. Crashing out of the EU will wreck this. Manufacturing is going to be hit very hard and very fast by Brexit. Even in the best scenario companies will leave the UK and factories will close before we can make any trade deals.

That’s why I say go EFTA. Avoids that crash.

I just had a thought. In EFTA we assume control of our own customs policy. We could approach those countries who have tariffs on our products and see if we could get them lowers or removed. Suddenly we’re basically an eu state who’s more open to outside business. Companies across the EU or abroad might move here to get the best of both worlds.

*BE* the haven for the EU companies. Make it so that ya'll are the Cayman Island of the EU and ya'll would rake in the business.

Things like that... contrast yourselves from the larger market to maximize your share. You do have opportunities to do some of these things.

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Except all of those industries (with the probable exception of F1) will be ruined by leaving the EU. Car manufacturers are already making plans to leave. The whole car industry is based on a very slick just in time supply chain. Crashing out of the EU will wreck this. Manufacturing is going to be hit very hard and very fast by Brexit. Even in the best scenario companies will leave the UK and factories will close before we can make any trade deals.

That’s why I say go EFTA. Avoids that crash.

I just had a thought. In EFTA we assume control of our own customs policy. We could approach those countries who have tariffs on our products and see if we could get them lowers or removed. Suddenly we’re basically an eu state who’s more open to outside business. Companies across the EU or abroad might move here to get the best of both worlds.

*BE* the haven for the EU companies. Make it so that ya'll are the Cayman Island of the EU and ya'll would rake in the business.

Things like that... contrast yourselves from the larger market to maximize your share. You do have opportunities to do some of these things.

There's a reason why all deregulated tax havens (or stopping just short of it) are tiny countries with a corresponding population.

What works for a population of 60K people doesn't really make ends meet for 60 million.

jouso wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Except all of those industries (with the probable exception of F1) will be ruined by leaving the EU. Car manufacturers are already making plans to leave. The whole car industry is based on a very slick just in time supply chain. Crashing out of the EU will wreck this. Manufacturing is going to be hit very hard and very fast by Brexit. Even in the best scenario companies will leave the UK and factories will close before we can make any trade deals.

That’s why I say go EFTA. Avoids that crash.

I just had a thought. In EFTA we assume control of our own customs policy. We could approach those countries who have tariffs on our products and see if we could get them lowers or removed. Suddenly we’re basically an eu state who’s more open to outside business. Companies across the EU or abroad might move here to get the best of both worlds.

*BE* the haven for the EU companies. Make it so that ya'll are the Cayman Island of the EU and ya'll would rake in the business.

Things like that... contrast yourselves from the larger market to maximize your share. You do have opportunities to do some of these things.

There's a reason why all deregulated tax havens (or stopping just short of it) are tiny countries with a corresponding population.

What works for a population of 60K people doesn't really make ends meet for 60 million.

Doesn't Ireland have some special tax law goodies that's different than the rest of the EU? Granted they're a country of ~5 million compared to Uk 60 million... but, my point was that ya'll have opportunity to be different (however slightly) that may entice other EU business to operate there.

 whembly wrote:

jouso wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Except all of those industries (with the probable exception of F1) will be ruined by leaving the EU. Car manufacturers are already making plans to leave. The whole car industry is based on a very slick just in time supply chain. Crashing out of the EU will wreck this. Manufacturing is going to be hit very hard and very fast by Brexit. Even in the best scenario companies will leave the UK and factories will close before we can make any trade deals.

That’s why I say go EFTA. Avoids that crash.

I just had a thought. In EFTA we assume control of our own customs policy. We could approach those countries who have tariffs on our products and see if we could get them lowers or removed. Suddenly we’re basically an eu state who’s more open to outside business. Companies across the EU or abroad might move here to get the best of both worlds.

*BE* the haven for the EU companies. Make it so that ya'll are the Cayman Island of the EU and ya'll would rake in the business.

Things like that... contrast yourselves from the larger market to maximize your share. You do have opportunities to do some of these things.

There's a reason why all deregulated tax havens (or stopping just short of it) are tiny countries with a corresponding population.

What works for a population of 60K people doesn't really make ends meet for 60 million.

Doesn't Ireland have some special tax law goodies that's different than the rest of the EU? Granted they're a country of ~5 million compared to Uk 60 million... but, my point was that ya'll have opportunity to be different (however slightly) that may entice other EU business to operate there.

Until Druncker’s commission intervened. Even though he did the exact same thing for his own Luxembourg. One rule for one and all that. Yet they have the cheek to now say that they respect Ireland’s sovereignty.

 whembly wrote:

jouso wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Except all of those industries (with the probable exception of F1) will be ruined by leaving the EU. Car manufacturers are already making plans to leave. The whole car industry is based on a very slick just in time supply chain. Crashing out of the EU will wreck this. Manufacturing is going to be hit very hard and very fast by Brexit. Even in the best scenario companies will leave the UK and factories will close before we can make any trade deals.

That’s why I say go EFTA. Avoids that crash.

I just had a thought. In EFTA we assume control of our own customs policy. We could approach those countries who have tariffs on our products and see if we could get them lowers or removed. Suddenly we’re basically an eu state who’s more open to outside business. Companies across the EU or abroad might move here to get the best of both worlds.

*BE* the haven for the EU companies. Make it so that ya'll are the Cayman Island of the EU and ya'll would rake in the business.

Things like that... contrast yourselves from the larger market to maximize your share. You do have opportunities to do some of these things.

There's a reason why all deregulated tax havens (or stopping just short of it) are tiny countries with a corresponding population.

What works for a population of 60K people doesn't really make ends meet for 60 million.

Doesn't Ireland have some special tax law goodies that's different than the rest of the EU? Granted they're a country of ~5 million compared to Uk 60 million... but, my point was that ya'll have opportunity to be different (however slightly) that may entice other EU business to operate there.

Tax law is not under the purview of the EU, although there is a political movement toward tax harmonization, it would mean that the treaties need to be renegotiated, which no one has any stomach for right now. Any EU country can currently set its tax laws however it wants. The UK actually dropped its corporation tax under George Osborne already. Ireland has lax enforcement and a very low rate of corporation tax, a sort of parasitic business model.

 whembly wrote:

jouso wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Except all of those industries (with the probable exception of F1) will be ruined by leaving the EU. Car manufacturers are already making plans to leave. The whole car industry is based on a very slick just in time supply chain. Crashing out of the EU will wreck this. Manufacturing is going to be hit very hard and very fast by Brexit. Even in the best scenario companies will leave the UK and factories will close before we can make any trade deals.

That’s why I say go EFTA. Avoids that crash.

I just had a thought. In EFTA we assume control of our own customs policy. We could approach those countries who have tariffs on our products and see if we could get them lowers or removed. Suddenly we’re basically an eu state who’s more open to outside business. Companies across the EU or abroad might move here to get the best of both worlds.

*BE* the haven for the EU companies. Make it so that ya'll are the Cayman Island of the EU and ya'll would rake in the business.

Things like that... contrast yourselves from the larger market to maximize your share. You do have opportunities to do some of these things.

There's a reason why all deregulated tax havens (or stopping just short of it) are tiny countries with a corresponding population.

What works for a population of 60K people doesn't really make ends meet for 60 million.

Doesn't Ireland have some special tax law goodies that's different than the rest of the EU? Granted they're a country of ~5 million compared to Uk 60 million... but, my point was that ya'll have opportunity to be different (however slightly) that may entice other EU business to operate there.

It did. Which was why Ireland was hit so hard by the economic downturn, and why countries (including the US) are scrabbling to stop the likes of Amazon, Apple, Google and Starbucks from keeping money overseas. Becoming a tax haven is not viable for anything but a tiny country that can encourage vast numbers of companies to hide wealth there, take a tiny percentage of tax and hen use that in good times and bad. It did not work well for Ireland. It would be terrible for the UK. There is a reason why there are no large tax havens.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

1. The vote happened. Leave won. To reverse that, to ignore 17.4 million people, is fantasy politics. Not to mention the can of worms that would be opened.

The leave campaign lied and broke the law repeatedly. The leave vote was not for anything in particular and it has since become clear that there were almost as many different versions of leave as voters. On to of all this the vote was very close, close enough in fact that “yes” being the leave option and “no” being the remain option could have made the difference. There is plenty of evidence to show that people’s choices are influenced in votes by going for the positive choice.

Having a second referendum on the final deal would be totally reasonable, and frankly the only democratic option. Had the original vote been clear and fair I would agree, but it was neither.

The only reason it has been dismissed is because May is in fear of a small number of extreme MPs, all of whole stand to gain from leaving the EU and have been working to ensure their business interests are protected, and a small number of right wing newspaper editors who have been shown time and again in having no interest in democracy l.

I agree with most of what you say, except for the bit about another referendum. feth that, just cancel Brexit. All this bollocks about "compromise" is exactly that, bollocks. The leave ideology has been measured against reality and been found to be dramatically wanting. The Leave campaign have also been proven to have acted illegally, and I would say that the only legitimate answer is to cancel the result. Leavers are then free to start their campain for a referendum again with a clean slate.

Brexit is, and always has been bollocks. The only real alternative is to ignore the "will of the people", rescind article 50 and try and repair some of the diplomatic damage we have caused with this ridiculous, ill- conceived rubbish.

I'm not even vaguely bothered about the political backlash from disenfranchised leavers. Most of them likely didn't vote before anyway so it's not like we'll miss their votes in the future.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 whembly wrote:

jouso wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Except all of those industries (with the probable exception of F1) will be ruined by leaving the EU. Car manufacturers are already making plans to leave. The whole car industry is based on a very slick just in time supply chain. Crashing out of the EU will wreck this. Manufacturing is going to be hit very hard and very fast by Brexit. Even in the best scenario companies will leave the UK and factories will close before we can make any trade deals.

That’s why I say go EFTA. Avoids that crash.

I just had a thought. In EFTA we assume control of our own customs policy. We could approach those countries who have tariffs on our products and see if we could get them lowers or removed. Suddenly we’re basically an eu state who’s more open to outside business. Companies across the EU or abroad might move here to get the best of both worlds.

*BE* the haven for the EU companies. Make it so that ya'll are the Cayman Island of the EU and ya'll would rake in the business.

Things like that... contrast yourselves from the larger market to maximize your share. You do have opportunities to do some of these things.

There's a reason why all deregulated tax havens (or stopping just short of it) are tiny countries with a corresponding population.

What works for a population of 60K people doesn't really make ends meet for 60 million.

Doesn't Ireland have some special tax law goodies that's different than the rest of the EU? Granted they're a country of ~5 million compared to Uk 60 million... but, my point was that ya'll have opportunity to be different (however slightly) that may entice other EU business to operate there.

Until Druncker’s commission intervened. Even though he did the exact same thing for his own Luxembourg. One rule for one and all that. Yet they have the cheek to now say that they respect Ireland’s sovereignty.

Ireland has the right to set their own tax policy, and indeed for a while they had the lowest corporate tax rate in the EU (I think now it's Hungary who is pursuing an Ireland-like policy of low corporate rate to attract foreign investment).

What they (they as in Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, etc.)cannot do is to cut sweetheart deals whereby a multinational company gets an effective tax rate of under 1%

Ireland can put a corporate tax rate of 1% tomorrow, as long as every company in Ireland benefits from it. Otherwise it's illegal state aid which not just forbidden by the EU, but also the WTO.

Aye. The recent problems stem from Irish officials looking the other way for big american multinationals like Apple. I am Irish, but I think we deserve a smack with regard to facilitating tax evasion by these huge parasitic companies. Our strategy on tax is beggar thy neighbour and is morally hard to defend. The problem is there is little imagination for a different approach in Ireland. We have few natural resources and a huge emigration problem, which was only stemmed by the fruits of this policy. Our political class have never come up with an alternate industrial strategy and we failed to develop our infrastructure during the boom years.

When the road finally runs out it is going to be rough.

 whembly wrote:

*BE* the haven for the EU companies. Make it so that ya'll are the Cayman Island of the EU and ya'll would rake in the business.

Things like that... contrast yourselves from the larger market to maximize your share. You do have opportunities to do some of these things.

That would be the Cayman Islands and other tax havens where the government cannot adequately support services for the local population and the cost of living is extremely high relative to the incomes of the local people in order to allow for those low tax rates.

 r_squared wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

1. The vote happened. Leave won. To reverse that, to ignore 17.4 million people, is fantasy politics. Not to mention the can of worms that would be opened.

The leave campaign lied and broke the law repeatedly. The leave vote was not for anything in particular and it has since become clear that there were almost as many different versions of leave as voters. On to of all this the vote was very close, close enough in fact that “yes” being the leave option and “no” being the remain option could have made the difference. There is plenty of evidence to show that people’s choices are influenced in votes by going for the positive choice.

Having a second referendum on the final deal would be totally reasonable, and frankly the only democratic option. Had the original vote been clear and fair I would agree, but it was neither.

The only reason it has been dismissed is because May is in fear of a small number of extreme MPs, all of whole stand to gain from leaving the EU and have been working to ensure their business interests are protected, and a small number of right wing newspaper editors who have been shown time and again in having no interest in democracy l.

I agree with most of what you say, except for the bit about another referendum. feth that, just cancel Brexit. All this bollocks about "compromise" is exactly that, bollocks. The leave ideology has been measured against reality and been found to be dramatically wanting. The Leave campaign have also been proven to have acted illegally, and I would say that the only legitimate answer is to cancel the result. Leavers are then free to start their campain for a referendum again with a clean slate.

Brexit is, and always has been bollocks. The only real alternative is to ignore the "will of the people", rescind article 50 and try and repair some of the diplomatic damage we have caused with this ridiculous, ill- conceived rubbish.

I'm not even vaguely bothered about the political backlash from disenfranchised leavers. Most of them likely didn't vote before anyway so it's not like we'll miss their votes in the future.

Exactly brexit is bollocks, that's why we have to call them out on it
The people do not want brexit as offered, by dismissing it you work to there tune I.E. it's not the will of the people.
Let them have a vote no deal brexit vs remain
and then laugh as it works out to 30 to 70
There is no majority (even in leave supporters) For a hard or no-deal brexit.

The've lost they know it, why do you think may said there will be no second referendum no matter what.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Beautiful, listen to jacob rees mogg dismiss all responsibility and basically say
we won't know if brexit has worked for 50 odd years.
stick that on a bus
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1020671636524191745/video/1
My favourite bit
0.21-0.23
Krishnan guru murphy- but your a man of honour and duty
Jacob rees mogg- SHAKES HEAD IN DISMISSIAL

There already distancing themselves from a no-deal brexit

Article 50 extension would need a second referendum or general election, say EU officials

Those undemocratic fethers!

Illegal referendum? Utter bollocks from start to finish.

The very idea is an affront to my collective dignity.

I say this to everybody: we've all lived through General Elections and at least 2 referendums, or 3 in my case.

Did we ever see an MP at our doors, or attend a town hall meeting, or be awed by politicians in the town square wooing the crowds with barnstorming rhetoric?

Feth no, no, and no again!

What did we get apart from some two bit leaflet through the door every 5 years, or a 5 minute party political broadcast from Plaid Cymru at 3am on Channel 4?

I'd bet every penny I have that 95% of the UK hadn't even heard of the Remain or Leave campaigns until they were in the news recently.

Those so called campaigns, fronted by staged managed PR events in the Westminster bubble, probaby have about as much impact on an election as does a canoe competing with an aircraft carrier.

Re-run a campaign on that?

For the record, the Electoral Commission needs beefed up, wrong doers need to be brought to book, but vote leave's influence on the referendum?

Making a Mount Everest out of a molehill here.

Vote Leave the official vehicle for the leave campaign had no influence on the referendum?

That's a bold strategy cotton.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Vote Leave the official vehicle for the leave campaign had no influence on the referendum?

That's a bold strategy cotton.

Show me the evidence.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Vote Leave the official vehicle for the leave campaign had no influence on the referendum?

That's a bold strategy cotton.

Show me the evidence.

If no one saw or was affected by illegal spending by the official leave campaign; why did they spend so much damn money?

They were endorsed by Farage as well, but I guess no one was influenced by him either?

Seriously? You are arguing campaning has no influence on a referendum? That the result would have been exactly the same with no campaign on either side?

Don’t be ridiculous. Leave spent more than they should have, and hid it. Leave told lie after lie. Not just things they reasonably believed but demonstrable lies. The margin was less than a 2% swing.

What the extra spending was used for was a late targeted social media campaign to get people out to vote who would not otherwise have voted. That could well have made the difference. This is such a huge impact on the country and the leave camp cheated. We should have another referendum with all of the facts. If it is so clear cut surely leave will now have more evidence to show and will win with no problems?

 Steve steveson wrote:
Seriously? You are arguing campaning has no influence on a referendum? That the result would have been exactly the same with no campaign on either side?

The modern political campaign involves locking a politician, usually Theresa May, in a barn in the middle of nowhere, in front of hand-picked party members for an audience, and a few select journalists, for some soft soap questions.

Exactly as what happened last year with May in Aberdeen.

Your saying the £350b bus was not seen by anyone? Your saying that there was no social media advertising? Your saying there was no advertising? If so leaves accounts need looking in to what the hell they spent £8million on.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Vote Leave the official vehicle for the leave campaign had no influence on the referendum?

That's a bold strategy cotton.

Show me the evidence.

If no one saw or was affected by illegal spending by the official leave campaign; why did they spend so much damn money?

I would not be surprised if they were using it as a front for laundering dirty money.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Your saying the £350b bus was not seen by anyone? Your saying that there was no social media advertising? Your saying there was no advertising? If so leaves accounts need looking in to what the hell they spent £8million on.

I can only speak for myself, but I was barely aware of the red bus until the morning of the vote.


Mind you, I was always voting Brexit anyway.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Vote Leave the official vehicle for the leave campaign had no influence on the referendum?

That's a bold strategy cotton.

Show me the evidence.

If no one saw or was affected by illegal spending by the official leave campaign; why did they spend so much damn money?

I would not be surprised if they were using it as a front for laundering dirty money.

Seriously? That’s your argument? We are on the edge of conspiracy theory now...