UK & EU Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Whirlwind**

Ketara wrote:
Errrr....I literally stated that these things are done on an as hoc case by case basis. Maybe it was. Maybe it was a targeted weed and the docket numbers were predetermined by series in 2009. Maybe nobody took a specific decision at all as regards things. No way to know, is the point.

Except of course that is not what, and I highlight, the later No. 10 statement said. You can be pretty sure that if the targeted weed had occurred on Labour's watch then they would have released chapter and verse showing this was the case. Instead you get the comment about that the Business Case was approved. On this they are likely to be correct. But there's either deliberate or lack of awareness of what that actually means. Approval of a business case to get rid of paper based documentation does not equal agreeing to destroy certain documents (for example that could mean recording things electronically). They are two different decisions processes. So we go back the original argument. May stated that the it was under the Labour government that the decision to destroy the documents was made. No it wasn't, the decision to go 'paperless' was decided in 2009. The decision to destroy the records was in 2010 under the Tory government. May lied to / misled parliament.

The comparison to historical archives is simply not apt due to the sensitivity regarding personal information. To put it into context they knew exactly what documents were destroyed and when even now 6 years later. That shows a huge amount of organisation because not only did they know what they were they have also kept records of what they did with them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
You could feed a family for a week with Whirlwind's word spaghetti.

Yeah apologies if it goes beyond three word titles. Sometimes the details really are important.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Future War Cultist wrote:
This was mentioned in the spectator recently. The theory basically goes that people are more open to immigration when it’s precieved to be controlled. That they feel more relaxed about the immigrants they see when it’s believed that they had to pass some sort of test to be here, rather than simply coming in unhindered.

That would be the basis of modern slavery though. We are happy for you to be here whilst we control you and tell you what you can and can't do, who you can and can't be etc.. Once we've finished with you out the door you can go.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Whirlwind wrote:
Yeah apologies if it goes beyond three word titles. Sometimes the details really are important.

Dude, you have a habit of saying the same thing three times or more. Sometimes within the same post.

Yes the details matter, but it wouldn't hurt to be a little more concise in your arguments.

**Ketara**

....... You're aware that historical archives are where all the government's documentation ends up if not destroyed, right? Even the personal data protected stuff? And that records are kept of docket serials destroyed, so that you can trace roughly what happened to them? But that such records usually make no note of why the documents were destroyed or at precisely what stage the decision to destroy a given batch was made? And that political officials usually have sweet fancy adams to do with any of it or any real knowledge of the actual process? Making it impossible for Labour to 'release chapter and verse'? Because it's a departmental concern?

For someone who clearly hadn't even heard the term 'targeted weeding' until I mentioned it, and evidently knows nothing about embargo periods or how government document storage functions, you are bizarrely insistent that you know the internal decision making process of the border agency well enough to insult the PM over it. I've never seen someone go to the wall like this over such a piffling concern.

**Kilkrazy**

What actually is proposed is an "Australian" style system in which a potential immigrant is judged on a number of criteria such as educational qualifications and wealth, and admitted to the country if they score highly enough.

This of course would not weed out immigration by relatives such as spouses and children, which are subject to human rights.

However we already have a system not wholly dissimilar to the "Australian" system, and it admits 150,000 to 200,000 non-EU citizens a year. It actually admits more non-EU citizens than the EU citizens who can't be kept out if they want to come here, whom Leavers are so worried about.

In view of the fact that the government has not been able to reduce non-EU immigration to 100,000 in the past 8 years, I don't see why anyone should think the government will be able to reduce non-EU immigration plus EU immigration to 100,000 in the next 10 years.

I'm also surprised that people are more happy to be less worried about the possibility of living next to a Frenchman or a Pole than they were less worried about living next to an Indian or a Jamaican.

**Whirlwind**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Whirlwind wrote:

Yes the details matter, but it wouldn't hurt to be a little more concise in your arguments.

Yeah it's called learn by rote. Only way to go when fingers get stuck in the ears and trying to repeat "aren't you being unkind to the Tories!"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
....... You're aware that historical archives are where all the government's documentation ends up if not destroyed, right? Even the personal data protected stuff?

Not these days for personal information. All personal information is given a 'destroy by date', however in this case it doesn't really apply because it precedes the current legislation. Failure to do this results in potentially large fines, even more so if the data is breached somehow. Ironically more than sending out military technical drawings.

And that records are kept of docket serials destroyed, so that you can trace roughly what happened to them? But that such records usually make no note of why the documents were destroyed or at precisely what stage the decision to destroy a given batch was made? And that political officials usually have sweet fancy adams to do with any of it or any real knowledge of the actual process? Making it impossible for Labour to 'release chapter and verse'? Because it's a departmental concern?

That's not really the issue. If May had turned round and said "this information was destroyed because it included personal information and data protection required us to destroy it after a certain date" then that would be perfectly fine. But she didn't. What she did was lie and mislead parliament in what she said. That is the issue I have. Now if it was some back bench person it would be less of an issue. But this is a person that was both in charge of the home office and is now PM. If she lies to parliament over, what is effectively a trifling point, then that means she effectively see parliament with contempt and raises the question as to what else she has misled them over. At that point democracy falls over because you can't have a rationale debate if the person effectively leading the country will lie at a drop of a hat to make their case.

At best perhaps she was covering her own behind because she had turned a blind eye to what was going on. However from my perspective that still makes someone a racist/bigot because they are comfortable to let that action continue. If she truly was opposed to those decisions then she would not have supported changing the legislation to make it harder for those that entered on parents passports 40-50 years ago to stay in the country and obtain medical treatment.

You are bizarrely insistent that you know the internal decision making process of the border agency well enough to insult the PM over it.

A business case is a business case, they don't really change because they are standard documents with the same principles. Not that they are generally very interesting documents mind. But I'm quite happy to oblige to point out the PMs (blatant) flaws.

And I'm a bit concerned that you are so dismissive of such a 'pfiffling' concern given the impacts on UK citizens it is having, but hey nothing we should need to bother ourselves about right?

**Da Boss**

It really is a bit of a "papers, please" attitude the Tories have constructed with their immigration policies. Seems pretty "un-British" to me.

**Kroem**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43835664

Former home secretary Alan Johnston has admitted the decision to destroy the mass of old paperwork in the cellar happened under his administration in 2009, think we can put to bed the conspiracy theories about May going down there with a shredder now!

There's probably a civil servant somewhere that's keeping his head down and hanging on to his final salary pension for dear life...

Now lets get back to Brexit news and evaluate whether Patrick Stuart can turn the tide!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:
It really is a bit of a "papers, please" attitude the Tories have constructed with their immigration policies. Seems pretty "un-British" to me.

Political parties only reflect the opinion trends of society, immigration is not very popular so you win elections by promising to do something about it and following through with that promise.

If you want to criticise Tory immigration policy, you can easily do so by saying that it hasn't been very effective at reducing or stopping immigration (legal and illegal)!

**Ketara**

Whirlwind wrote:

Not these days for personal information. All personal information is given a 'destroy by date', however in this case it doesn't really apply because it precedes the current legislation. Failure to do this results in potentially large fines, even more so if the data is breached somehow. Ironically more than sending out military technical drawings.

I showed your messages to a friend employed at the National Archives. He says you are wrong. He then went on to talk about embargo periods and document types.

I'd relay the finer detail and go through the rest of your post, but frankly? Given I was amazed you were quibbling over this in the first place, I blame myself for getting sucked into debating the 'piffling' point (which as we both know, refers to the precise decision and responsibility for destroying the cards themselves).

**Kilkrazy**

Kroem wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43835664

Former home secretary Alan Johnston has admitted the decision to destroy the mass of old paperwork in the cellar happened under his administration in 2009, think we can put to bed the conspiracy theories about May going down there with a shredder now!

There's probably a civil servant somewhere that's keeping his head down and hanging on to his final salary pension for dear life...

Now lets get back to Brexit news and evaluate whether Patrick Stuart can turn the tide!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:
It really is a bit of a "papers, please" attitude the Tories have constructed with their immigration policies. Seems pretty "un-British" to me.

Political parties only reflect the opinion trends of society, immigration is not very popular so you win elections by promising to do something about it and following through with that promise.

If you want to criticise Tory immigration policy, you can easily do so by saying that it hasn't been very effective at reducing or stopping immigration (legal and illegal)!

It is chicken and egg, or a vicious circle or some such analogy.

Political parties partly reflect public opinion, and public opinion is affected by the ways that political parties conduct themselves in opposition or in government.

For example, following the Enoch Powell rivers of blood speech, 50 years ago, there was an upsurge in anti-immigrant "hate" crimes, very similar to the upsurge that followed the EU Referendum result. In both cases, the "-ist" elements of the public felt their opinions to be validated by the race issue achieving such political prominence.

Given that Powell's predictions proved wrong, the problem in the past 10 years is that governments have pandered to the "-ist" element of society when they should instead have been emphasising the benefits of immigration, and the detriments of low immigration, and dealing a bit more sensitively with areas affected by high immigration.

E.g. Immigrants generate £ X billion of extra money in the UK economy.

Do you like chow mein? Chicken tikka? Northern soul music? They wouldn't exist without immigrants, so think what you would be losing...

But yeah, overall it's a failure of our political class to deal with the challenges.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Political parties partly reflect public opinion,

No they don't, otherwise we wouldn't be in this farcical situation of 52% of the British public wanting out of the EU, but 2/3rds of MPs, the Lords, civil service etc etc wanting to stay in!

Look at the British public's attitude to the death penalty and immigration, and compare that to what the red/blue/yellow Blairites in the commons think on those issues.

The British public and MPs have been miles apart since at least the 1990s.

Anyway, that's not want I wanted to originally post about.

The other day in the EU parliament, Macron was talking about getting the Balkans into the EU

The Balkans!!! Feth me!

I think my attitude to the Middle East is well known on these pages: stay the feth away from it, and I have a similar sentiment to the Balkans.

The extremist political and paramilitary groups from Serbia/Bosnia/Croatia, and the criminal gangs of Albania and Kosovo, makes Northern Ireland look like a minor scuffle at the Women's Institute.

Get involved with that? Never!

If the EU want to get bogged down with that, good luck to them. Count me out.

Thank God for Brexit.

**jouso**

Well, Slovenia has been in for a while. Croatia less so.

Besides massive improvement on both countries they've had to sort their still unsolved land and sea border issue which was a sore point in their relationship.

Serbia is taking strides towards compliance, but probably Bosnia will get there first.

It's a lovely place to live and do business with. Plenty of Brits there, too.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

jouso wrote:
Well, Slovenia has been in for a while. Croatia less so.

Besides massive improvement on both countries they've had to sort their still unsolved land and sea border issue which was a sore point in their relationship.

Serbia is taking strides towards compliance, but probably Bosnia will get there first.

It's a lovely place to live and do business with. Plenty of Brits there, too.

I don't doubt the beauty of those places, and I hope I'm not implying that everybody in the Balkans is a paramilitary or a Warlord on the run from The Hague and the UN or whatever.

but I'd like to direct my fellow dakka members to 2 points:

1. The recent news stories about journalists being murdered in Malta and Slovakia for investigating government corruption and links to organised crime

2. The vast quantities of important documents and data that passes between EU member states on a whole host of things.

Now, given the links of elements (not all) of the Serbian government to various crime gangs and assorted paramilitary nutters, and given the links between certain elements (not all) of the Albania government to some of the most ruthless and powerful crime gangs in Europe (the EU has criticised Albania in the past for this)

do we really want these nations to become EU members and potentially give crime gangs a gold mine of important data and sensitive documents?

Not me!

And there's the geopolitics of the EU clashing with Russia and Turkey in this region. It could be a gakstorm. It usually is in the Balkans if history has taught us anything.

If these nations cleaned up their acts and got their gak together, I'm sure they'd fit right into the EU, but Macron's full steam ahead approach is a tad premature in my book.

I'm glad we're out of it.

**Whirlwind**

Ketara wrote:

I showed your messages to a friend employed at the National Archives. He says you are wrong. He then went on to talk about embargo periods and document types.

I'm not sure this really helps. I pointed out these comments to a legal representative and concluded that your friends interpretation is incorrect when it comes to personal data. At this point I think we might be arguing about the semantics of legal interpretation and best practice in how that is enacted (apparently national archives don't follow it...

). From a legal perspective personal information should be dealt with in a different way.

I'd relay the finer detail and go through the rest of your post, but frankly? Given I was amazed you were quibbling over this in the first place, I blame myself for getting sucked into debating the 'piffling' point (which as we both know, refers to the precise decision and responsibility for destroying the cards themselves).

Strictly speaking that was because you pointed out that May had one over Corbyn where in reality she was lying when the actual decision to destroy the cards was under the Tory government not a Labour one. Albeit the business case to start clearing old paper records was taken earlier. So more it was defence of an original point rather than quibbling over it - else should we just stay silent as May is raised to sainthood on a false pretence?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

but I'd like to direct my fellow dakka members to 2 points:

1. The recent news stories about journalists being murdered in Malta and Slovakia for investigating government corruption and links to organised crime

2. The vast quantities of important documents and data that passes between EU member states on a whole host of things.

Now, given the links of elements (not all) of the Serbian government to various crime gangs and assorted paramilitary nutters, and given the links between certain elements (not all) of the Albania government to some of the most ruthless and powerful crime gangs in Europe (the EU has criticised Albania in the past for this).

There's corruption and exploitation of personal data everywhere (take Facebook for example, or how many in the UK get swindled each year because of information being sold). Perhaps the Lycamobile issue and donations, or the Jeremy Hunt's property discount. Picking out a few high profile examples from other countries is not a reasonable way of making an informed decision without comparing all the data. Otherwise anyone can pick and choose any element as 'evidence' of a flawed interpretation - the world is flat because I can see the horizon is horizontal etc.

I'm glad we're out of it.

The country will be regretting it though when it is isolated and more exposed to manipulation because we go form being part of that collective to a country on the outside that will be manipulated in the same way the countries you are pointing at are. Your argument is effectively "look at how vulnerable those countries outside the EU are - why should they be in the EU. This is why we should be outside the EU because...erh..we will be more vulnerable".

**reds8n**

Spoiler:

uh huh.

.. well that's certainly a take.

Love that that's from the Premium part of the site, that you have to pay extra to read.

lest we forget

Spoiler:

No doubt that was also caused by the EU and their pro-dinner ways.

or something.

It's a bit long but :

http://www.howardgoodall.co.uk/articles-press-etc/brexit-and-music-theme-and-variations

has some interesting points about Brexit and the creative arts

It’s important to note at this point that music is not a subsidiary, luxury, minor industry for the UK. We are the second biggest provider of music to the world after the USA. Music is of enormous benefit to us as a country. That is a fact, not an opinion. Nor is it special pleading. For a modern, developed country to deliberately, wilfully strangle one of its lead exporters is bordering on insane. Indeed, the Creative Industries as a whole are the fastest-growing sector in our economy, worth last year just under £100bn to our national coffers (to put that in context, in 2016 the NHS cost us £115bn). The Creative Industries Federation are deeply concerned about the knock-on effects of Brexit on this sector and have published their concerns accordingly: https://www.creativeindustriesfederation.com/newsletter-archive/brexit-report-impact-leaving-eu-uks-creative-industries

…as have the Musicians’ Union: https://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/Home/News/2018/Feb/Musicians-Union-Gives-Evidence-On-Free-Movement-f

….and my own professional composers’ body, BASCA https://basca.org.uk/2016/06/28/basca-reacts-brexit/

A little post-script to the use of my music and my working in the US as compared to my doing so in the EU: the US applies an at-source ‘withholding tax’ to any earnings I make there. Nice for the US economy. I am not then taxed a second time on that income in the UK (as far as I know!). However, if I work in France or Spain or the Czech Republic, 100% of the taxable part of that income goes to the UK exchequer to help our economy. When/If we leave the EU, withholding tax will undoubtedly be raised by EU member states since we will then be outside its harmonised tax regime, as a third party state. The UK exchequer loses out, again.

You’d imagine, perhaps, that being a professional composer might not be as severely affected by the end of Freedom of Movement within Europe as one would as a player, or as a highly-skilled video editor, sound engineer, or App developer. It’s true that the music itself will still be performed, in my case that means all over the world.

Anyone who’s ever been on holiday in Asia will have seen that copyright piracy is more or less endemic in these would-be vast markets for music and other creative forms. You can buy a DVD or a CD of more or less anything off the street, not to mention software programs or video games, and no-one is paying the creators of this work a cent for doing so. This includes, for example, the music that I write for the Mr Bean films, TV programmes and animated movies that have a massive audience all over the world. The laws that protect copyright-holders have during the past 40 years been harmonised across the EU and we as individuals, never mind individual countries, have unquantifiably more clout in negotiating with other territories as a unified group than on our own. It’s baffling why I even need to spell this out in the 21st century, as if there’s anyone left alive who doesn’t get this simple fact of the market place.

As it happens, European copyright laws have during my 40-year career as a professional composer been far more protective towards me and my fellow creators than our own UK government. That applies to the children of creators too. Thanks to our membership of the EU, in 1995, the UK’s old copyright term, life of the writer + 50 years, was increased to life of writer + 70 years.

The first giant wave of copyright piracy (let’s call it what it is – theft) was back in the day of cassette recorders. The music industry’s losses to cassette copying in the 1980s were seismic, even when compared to modern-day internet piracy. Creators’ organisations asked merely that there might be a small levy (15p I seem to remember was the figure proposed in the mid-80s) placed on the sale of every blank cassette to remunerate all the composers and musicians whose work was being ripped off by millions every day. The EU backed this request but the UK Tory government of the time, lobbied by the companies who were profiting from selling the cassettes and players, refused to grant the levy. The EU also responded to creators’ requests for the granting of so-called ‘Moral’ rights to writers, composers and copyright holders, so that, in an era where media were increasingly being transferred on, re-sold, syndicated and otherwise re-distributed, the original makers of a work would have to be acknowledged. Along with acknowledgement of someone’s contribution to a film, or record, or TV programme came a much greater likelihood that they would be remunerated as their work was shunted on down the line from enterprise to enterprise. Moral rights were therefore a good, fair idea and were also forward-thinking to the world of media distribution that is the norm in our new century. Guess what? The EU granted the rights and the Tory government in the UK took them away by satute (in 1988). Which, incidentally, rather refutes the Brexiteer trope that the EU ‘imposes’ its laws on our parliament.

...

I write books. I’ve written two on the history of music that – in their modest way – are best-sellers in their field (I know I’m not exactly JK Rowling or Dan Brown, but they have been translated into many languages and are still on sale throughout the world).

Why would Brexit affect these sales? Well, surprise surprise, the ramifications of our leaving the EU are likely to impact badly on British publishers for all sorts of reasons. I am guessing the average book-reader (and referendum voter) has been totally unaware of these issues. There’s a New York Times article about all this which summarises the problems:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/books/brexit-british-book-industry.html?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

It does not make easy reading. The nub of it is that the difference to an author when we are no longer inside the EU is the difference between earning about a £1 royalty from the sale of a hardback, and earning a 10p royalty from the same book. Quite a big difference. Nadine Dorries MP is an author herself. I wonder if she knows that the re-configuring of British books as ‘export’ to the EU rather than ‘home market’, or that the UK will have to fight off competition from the much bigger US publishing houses for the sale of English-language books in Europe, is one of the consequences of the Brexit she espouses?

and the EU and Mexico have made a new trade agreement.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-782_en.htm

**CREEEEEEEEED**

A clear example of overbearing EU bureaucracy.

Please do not attach non-wargaming related images to your posts.

Sorry, I keep forgetting. It was a joke involving space wolves for those who missed it.

**Witzkatz**

Anybody else reading the news about corruption investigation into some delegates inside the Council of Europe?
Apparently there is more and more evidence that a German CDU delegate by the name of Karin Strenz failed to declare conflicts of interest concerning her involvement in operations with EU election observers in Azerbaijan, having allegedly received some kind of compensation or funds from the local government in the past.

I'm sure this will make DINLT very happy

but - let's be clear here, corruption is not okay, not here and not elsewhere, so I'm very happy if they manage to throw the book at her. She has already failed multiple times to show up at hearings requested by a team of judges, so things might get interesting.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Unemployed mother living on State Benefits in a tax payer funded home far larger than her basic requirements is about to have her third child.

**Da Boss**

Witzkatz wrote:
Anybody else reading the news about corruption investigation into some delegates inside the Council of Europe?
Apparently there is more and more evidence that a German CDU delegate by the name of Karin Strenz failed to declare conflicts of interest concerning her involvement in operations with EU election observers in Azerbaijan, having allegedly received some kind of compensation or funds from the local government in the past.

I'm sure this will make DINLT very happy but - let's be clear here, corruption is not okay, not here and not elsewhere, so I'm very happy if they manage to throw the book at her. She has already failed multiple times to show up at hearings requested by a team of judges, so things might get interesting.

All EPP members are disgusting due to their support for Orban's antisemitic victory in Hungary. He should be ejected from the EPP for failure to respect democratic norms. They're scum. I can't wait til the next EU election to vote the lot of them out.

**Herzlos**

Witzkatz wrote:
Anybody else reading the news about corruption investigation into some delegates inside the Council of Europe?
Apparently there is more and more evidence that a German CDU delegate by the name of Karin Strenz failed to declare conflicts of interest concerning her involvement in operations with EU election observers in Azerbaijan, having allegedly received some kind of compensation or funds from the local government in the past.

According to some on here, it was probably the same sort of honest mistake as when Reese-Mogg forgot to declare some interests.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Unemployed mother living on State Benefits in a tax payer funded home far larger than her basic requirements is about to have her third child.

And? How big is the house? What's the problem?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Herzlos wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Unemployed mother living on State Benefits in a tax payer funded home far larger than her basic requirements is about to have her third child.
And? How big is the house? What's the problem?

Royal baby: Duchess of Cambridge in labour

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Well,well,well,well,well.

In news that doesn't surprise me in the least.

New report slams Project Fear's Brexit projections as pure horsegak:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/project-fears-brexit-predictions-were-wrong-by-£100-billion-new-report-says/ar-AAwbTH3?ocid=spartandhp

"It calls the Project Fear campaign, spearheaded by the former chancellor George Osborne, as a “giant error” and a “gross miscarriage of government”.

They were out to the tune of 100 billion pounds

Not exactly loose change down the back of the couch.

As I've said before to Remain supporters on these pages, you didn't lose the referendum because of UKIP, or Farage, or racist Leave voters or whatever. You lost because of the ineptitude of two smug and incompetent gits. One of whom is pictured in the article I linked to.

The man was a disgrace of a chancellor.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Witzkatz wrote:
Anybody else reading the news about corruption investigation into some delegates inside the Council of Europe?
Apparently there is more and more evidence that a German CDU delegate by the name of Karin Strenz failed to declare conflicts of interest concerning her involvement in operations with EU election observers in Azerbaijan, having allegedly received some kind of compensation or funds from the local government in the past.

I'm sure this will make DINLT very happy but - let's be clear here, corruption is not okay, not here and not elsewhere, so I'm very happy if they manage to throw the book at her. She has already failed multiple times to show up at hearings requested by a team of judges, so things might get interesting.

I'm happy, but I'm not happy if you know what I mean. Britain is not perfect, and I'm the first to admit it. We have crime and corruption in this country, and it makes me mad, but I don't like this narrative in the Remain supporting media that the UK is a cesspit of criminality, whilst the EU is this whiter than white paradise of progress.

I agree with you that corruption needs to be stamped out wherever it is, be it in the UK or be it in the EU or Germany.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

According to The Mirror, PM may quit if she loses the Brexit vote about leaving the customs union....

**Kilkrazy**

May is stubborn.

Ultimately the story of Brexit is the story of the Tory Party trying not to get ripped apart by its internal contradictions.

May is rumoured to be accelerating the vote to a "confidence vote", which if lost causes the fall of the government. This enables the party whips to put more pressure on the rebels to conform.

I doubt it will happen, but it would be very interesting if it did.

**Future War Cultist**

If we don’t leave the customs union then we don’t leave the eu. The whole thing will have been a complete waste of time and it’ll confirm my believe that your vote means jack gak if it’s inconvenient to the establishment.

**AlmightyWalrus**

"According to a study" when the study isn't even linked because it hasn't been released yet is dishonest beyond belief. It's a failure to understand the basics of methodology and how academic sciences work. That MSN article is completely worthless until we can actually see the study in question.

**Kilkrazy**

Future War Cultist wrote:
If we don’t leave the customs union then we don’t leave the eu. The whole thing will have been a complete waste of time and it’ll confirm my believe that your vote means jack gak if it’s inconvenient to the establishment.

Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but it doesn't cover all the range of goods and hopefully services that the UK wants to cover.

**jouso**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"According to a study" when the study isn't even linked because it hasn't been released yet is dishonest beyond belief. It's a failure to understand the basics of methodology and how academic sciences work. That MSN article is completely worthless until we can actually see the study in question.

Pretty much that. Economic forecasts for the most part give you an idea of trends. If the EU economies are doing better than expected (as they are) the UK benefits, even if it's now in the back of the wagon rather than leading it.

I wouldn't be surprised if that study is comparing the hard brexit scenario with a Brexit delayed for 2 years as it's the case now, though.

**Future War Cultist**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Future War Cultist wrote:
If we don’t leave the customs union then we don’t leave the eu. The whole thing will have been a complete waste of time and it’ll confirm my believe that your vote means jack gak if it’s inconvenient to the establishment.

Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but it doesn't cover all the range of goods and hopefully services that the UK wants to cover.

The Turkish option is not an option imo. It means following their rules without the illusion of having a say in them. The idea is to stand as an independent nation again, not as an even lower vassel state than we currently are.

**Kilkrazy**

It remains to be seen how much of a cake and eat it treaty the PM can pull off.

**Future War Cultist**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It remains to be seen how much of a cake and eat it treaty the PM can pull off.

May the remainer? Who’s literally fudged everything in her career up to this point? Don’t hold your breath.