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.

I just found out that three bishops from Iraq and Syria were denied short term visas to attend the consecration of a cathedral on the grounds that they might not return.

Sometimes I actually hate this county.

They should sneak in through the Channel Tunnel. The government wouldn't dare send them back then.

To avoid getting this getting bogged down to much I'll try and keep it short :-

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/conservatives-brexit-plan_uk_582ab63be4b09ac74c5369b0
"The Prime Minister’s over-riding objective has been to keep her party from repeating its history of splitting four times in the past 200 years over global trade - each time being out of power for 15-30 years. The public stance of Government is orientated primarily to its own supporters, with industry in particular being on the radarscreen".

If you hold that as a black mark against her, you should look into it more.

I would say the same about all and any who proposed the same thing. May is especially bad because whilst she is promoting a 'fairer more balanced Britain' by undertaking the electoral reform she is doing the opposite.

Economics. Highly debatable, and doubtless many people would hold whatever you'd rather she do against her just as strongly.

Their own impacts shows this. Even if you question the overall economic prediction, you have to question a policy that they think will make the worse off even more worse off
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/571529/Impact_on_households_distributional_analysis_to_accompany_Autumn_Statement_2016_web.pdf (Chart 1.H)

Grammar Schools:-

With regards to streaming the issue is that it makes less intelligent kids do worse, but the more intelligent ones do better, whereas when you mix them you achieve a more level overall grade (there's been a fair bit of sociological research done to produce that conclusion).

Meritocracy only works where you have an initial balanced playing field which you don't. Wealthier parents can afford both tuition and to live in areas with better primaries. Reserving a certain number of places for low income children is all well and good but you are throwing a bone to the poorest as a method to pacify the detractors. But in all likelihood the vast majority of places will go to the advantaged children because they have better education *not* because they are more intelligent.

Never mind the argument that trying to define a persons life options at the age of 11 is all sorts of wrong. Just like you can't predict a future premiership footballer at the age of 11, neither can you determine a persons intelligence at this age. Some may be almost about a year younger than others simply because of their date of birth and the start of the school year.

Planning to make children of illegal immigrants be given the bottom of the pile schooling

I dislike this. Deport them if you have to, that's right and fair, but depriving them whilst still in the country is inhumane. I'll acknowledge that one as a black mark.

I suspect that this one was dreamed up by an underling, I don't believe it was ever attributed to her. In her department? Yes. Stupid bloody thing? Yes. But most likely not her personally anymore than the passport fiasco was.

She personally cancelled the scheme, that means she was well aware that it was happening (pretty much from day 1). She was (still?) head of that department so even doing nothing meant she was giving it tacit approval (even if we don't have sight of the memo)

Illegal? So she broke the law, snatched people off the street under no existing law, and detained them? Please source.

It's called Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (particularly that the government can 'restrain' someone without a court order, which would illegal under Article 6 of the ECHR (that you have to be brought to trial in a reasonable time)

Removing without oversight webpages from the Internet.

Link?
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretary-we-must-work-together-to-defeat-terrorism

"Our Internet Referral Unit takes down terrorist-related content from the internet, and since February 2010 we have removed more than 90,000 pieces of material – currently removing around 1,000 pieces a week."
No courts/judges/oversight required!

I'll be honest, most of your list is pretty arbitrary and opinionated. It seems to rely on ignoring context and sticking responsibility for a lot of things personally (I mean, she needs to publicly denounce a newspaper or get a black mark? Hardly press freedom...) There's one or two in there I'd agree with, but it's far from being the sort of list one could compile on Osborne or Blair or Thatcher or indeed, being worth even half of the vitriol she attracts.

I disagree, but it's all a bit subjective; I'm not trying to make this a debate of who is worse. They aren't the people in control now. But yes I do think that not denouncing a paper (basically because it is a Tory supporter) for printing headlines saying UK citizens are "Enemies of the State" simply for doing the job they are employed to do (and which the government has employed them to do) is reprehensible. If a cleric at a mosque was handing out leaflets saying the same thing you can be assured that the police would be all over it. Freedom of the press is one thing, but you can still condemn it especially if it is only one step removed from effectively calling the people traitors of the country. If these are the 'British values' that May supports then I don't want anything to do with them. However the overall point was that it shows a considered and ongoing attack on the liberties we all currently take for granted. it might be little bits at a time, but that's still boiling us in the pan why croak 'happily'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stranger83 wrote:

Directly, it isn’t – but it is VERY clear to any government that the EU does NOT want the people to have a say

You mean other than through a directly elected parliament. Are we suggesting everyone should be able to have their own moment on a soap box?

Hell, the French General Election is essentially down to the ‘Not the EU’ National Front and ‘Anyone who is for the EU’. You could come out with a policy of clubbing baby seals to death and people there will still vote for you if you fit on the right side of their EU stance.

That is the problem with populist movements, they become about an issue that a finger is being pointed at to explain all the worlds ills whilst proposing a simple (and non-sensible simplistic solution). They are led be opportunists who see it as an opportunity to take control and put them in power for their benefit.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:


Jacob Rees-Mogg, the gift that keeps on giving.

Jacob Rees-Mogg said regulations that were “good enough for India” could be good enough for the UK – arguing that the UK could go “a very long way” to rolling back high EU standards.

What a wonderful man. Workhouse for all apart from the ridiculously rich so he can exploit his staff! - cue Oliver Twist scenes!

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I just found out that three bishops from Iraq and Syria were denied short term visas to attend the consecration of a cathedral on the grounds that they might not return.

Sometimes I actually hate this county.

Well, some good news for you - Parliament backed the motion to activate A50 in March by a mega majority.

Labour, as always, were a shambles! I may be wrong, but it seems that some Labour MPs voted aginst their own amendment

Another back bench crisis for Corbyn.

Point is, Parliament has agreed in principle to Brexit. The ball is rolling. Thay can't back down now - that would be electoral suicide.

And as a side note, the Supreme Court case has been rendered void - it's not worth a bucket of horsegak now, the rug has been pulled from underneath it.

Remainers in the media and other forums (not dakka) took great joy extolling the virtues of a sovereign parliament.

Well, Parliamentry sovereignty has just been flung back at them...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Labour, as always, were a shambles!

Really? Given that Labour managed to make an amendment that has now effectively forced the government to be transparent about its EU negotiating position it seems as though Labour got as good a deal as it was possible to get.

The Lib Dems have a bigger rebellion on their hands with half(ish) their MPs supporting and half(ish) opposing this bill.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

And as a side note, the Supreme Court case has been rendered void - it's not worth a bucket of horsegak now, the rug has been pulled from underneath it.

Not entirely, there is still the Scotland question.

wtf, am I understanding this right? Haven't kept up with the news much this week...

Parliament votes to hold a referendum and leave the decision to the people.

The racist oiks vote the wrong way, so Remainers launch a court case to demand Parliament gets to vote on Brexit.

So Theresa May pre-empts the court case and holds a vote?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Labour, as always, were a shambles!

Really? Given that Labour managed to make an amendment that has now effectively forced the government to be transparent about its EU negotiating position it seems as though Labour got as good a deal as it was possible to get.

The Lib Dems have a bigger rebellion on their hands with half(ish) their MPs supporting and half(ish) opposing this bill.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

And as a side note, the Supreme Court case has been rendered void - it's not worth a bucket of horsegak now, the rug has been pulled from underneath it.

Not entirely, there is still the Scotland question.

Labour think they've won because they got David Davis to promise to present a 'plan.'

Davis could scribble something on the back of a beer mat, and technically, that's a plan, because that's how vague the promise was.

When the Tories present a dozen pages of waffle, not worth the trees sacrificed for the paper, Labour as always will be up gak creek without a paddle.

That's how stupid Labour were these last 48hrs, but they're too busy celebrating this 'victory' too notice.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The racist oiks vote the wrong way, so Remainers launch a court case to demand Parliament gets to vote on Brexit.

Alternatively 'Call me Dave' completely fethed up the European Union Referendum Act 2015 by not making the vote binding and failing to account for the sheer volume of laws and treaties that are bound up with EU regulations and law. People, rather understandably, weren't happy with the Government's determination to push through article 50 with no thought to the actual law nor it's ramifications beyond the kind of gak that gets a certain kind of tabloid foaming at the mouth and ranting about immigrants.

Parliament should always have gotten a vote due to the open ended nature of the aforementioned act, its not as if parliament has the balls to actually block article 50 anyway (aside from the SNP of course ).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Davis could scribble something on the back of a beer mat, and technically, that's a plan, because that's how vague the promise was.

but that IS the plan......

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
wtf, am I understanding this right? Haven't kept up with the news much this week...

Parliament votes to hold a referendum and leave the decision to the people.

The racist oiks vote the wrong way, so Remainers launch a court case to demand Parliament gets to vote on Brexit.

So Theresa May pre-empts the court case and holds a vote?

Spoiler:

May has played a blinder on this. Not too hard when you consider the oposition has all the political acumen of a used tea bag

Labour are on the Brexit aeroplane, it's taking off, it' left the runway, it's slowly rising, but Labour have convinced themselves that they can stroll back to the duty-free section.

Well no.

Parliament votes to hold an advisory referendum not to leave the decision to the people, reserving it to Parliament.

The new unelected PM decides she's allowed to deprive citizens of rights granted to them by Act of Parliament without reference to Parliament. Some of said citizens object on the grounds that only Parliament can deprive citizens of rights granted to them by Parliament.

Theresa May doesn't pre-empt the court case because her new mini-bill doesn't pre-empt the court case.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I just found out that three bishops from Iraq and Syria were denied short term visas to attend the consecration of a cathedral on the grounds that they might not return.

Sometimes I actually hate this county.

Well, some good news for you - Parliament backed the motion to activate A50 in March by a mega majority.

Labour, as always, were a shambles! I may be wrong, but it seems that some Labour MPs voted aginst their own amendment

Another back bench crisis for Corbyn.

Point is, Parliament has agreed in principle to Brexit. The ball is rolling. Thay can't back down now - that would be electoral suicide.

And as a side note, the Supreme Court case has been rendered void - it's not worth a bucket of horsegak now, the rug has been pulled from underneath it.

Remainers in the media and other forums (not dakka) took great joy extolling the virtues of a sovereign parliament.

Well, Parliamentry sovereignty has just been flung back at them...

Not really. Parliament has voted to back the governments plan to start negotiations by the end of March. It has not given the government the authority to invoke Article 50 without putting it before parliament.

Also, this vote is not binding. So if MPs are shown the governments plan for Brexit and disagree that it is in the best interests of their constituents they can vote against a bill to enact article 50.

I'm trying to be happy about this development but I'm sure it's not the end of the matter.

Not really. Parliament has voted to back the governments plan to start negotiations by the end of March. It has not given the government the authority to invoke Article 50 without putting it before parliament.

The negotiations will not start until Article 50 has been invoked. Countless EU leaders have made that very clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well no.

Parliament votes to hold an advisory referendum not to leave the decision to the people, reserving it to Parliament.

The new unelected PM decides she's allowed to deprive citizens of rights granted to them by Act of Parliament without reference to Parliament. Some of said citizens object on the grounds that only Parliament can deprive citizens of rights granted to them by Parliament.

Theresa May doesn't pre-empt the court case because her new mini-bill doesn't pre-empt the court case.

David Cameron was "unelected" too.
So was Gordon Brown.
And Tony Blair.
And John Major.
And Margaret Thatcher...

We elect individual members of Parliament, not Prime Ministers.

That is democracy in action, for good or ill.

(A terrible system but not as bad as all of the others, etc.)

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Not really. Parliament has voted to back the governments plan to start negotiations by the end of March. It has not given the government the authority to invoke Article 50 without putting it before parliament.

The negotiations will not start until Article 50 has been invoked. Countless EU leaders have made that very clear.

And nothing in what has just been voted on binds MPs to vote to enact A50 if the plan that the government puts forward is woefully lacking or the government has failed to get to the required point to make negotiation possible even if A50 were enacted.

So if the government plan calls for 50 negotiators ready to go as soon as A50 is enacted but by the end of March the government only actually has 10 then MPs are not bound to enact A50 anyway as the government has already failed to keep to its own plan. Just as an example.

If MPs voted to back a plan to shut down all our non-renewable energy sources by New Years Day 2020 but then at the end of December 2019 there were no renewable power sources to replace them due to planning and construction issues, MPs would not be forced to shut down our power anyway. If the plan was not good enough, they can say so and oppose it and then it is up to the government to draw up a new plan which MPs can support before their self imposed deadline.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well no.

Parliament votes to hold an advisory referendum not to leave the decision to the people, reserving it to Parliament.

The new unelected PM decides she's allowed to deprive citizens of rights granted to them by Act of Parliament without reference to Parliament. Some of said citizens object on the grounds that only Parliament can deprive citizens of rights granted to them by Parliament.

Theresa May doesn't pre-empt the court case because her new mini-bill doesn't pre-empt the court case.

Legally, you are correct, but politically, and morally, you are wrong IMO.

Parliament can't jump up and down demanding sovereignty, give the green light to a referendum, pass a motion backing A50 in March, and then block it, because the British people will run them out of town.

Parliament has set a rod for its own back. It's like that scene in Blazing Saddles when the Sheriff puts a gun to his head and threatens to shoot himself if they don't let him go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I just found out that three bishops from Iraq and Syria were denied short term visas to attend the consecration of a cathedral on the grounds that they might not return.

Sometimes I actually hate this county.

Well, some good news for you - Parliament backed the motion to activate A50 in March by a mega majority.

Labour, as always, were a shambles! I may be wrong, but it seems that some Labour MPs voted aginst their own amendment

Another back bench crisis for Corbyn.

Point is, Parliament has agreed in principle to Brexit. The ball is rolling. Thay can't back down now - that would be electoral suicide.

And as a side note, the Supreme Court case has been rendered void - it's not worth a bucket of horsegak now, the rug has been pulled from underneath it.

Remainers in the media and other forums (not dakka) took great joy extolling the virtues of a sovereign parliament.

Well, Parliamentry sovereignty has just been flung back at them...

Not really. Parliament has voted to back the governments plan to start negotiations by the end of March. It has not given the government the authority to invoke Article 50 without putting it before parliament.

Also, this vote is not binding. So if MPs are shown the governments plan for Brexit and disagree that it is in the best interests of their constituents they can vote against a bill to enact article 50.

Again, I say that legally, you are right, but Parliament has de facto agreed to A50 being invoked in all but name.

Non-binding referenda, bills, acts, whatever the dakka you want to call it, will cut no ice with the British public. Parliament has agreed in principal to Brexit. Woe betide any MPs that backtrack.

Yes, they could vote against A50 by the end of March, but turkeys don't vote for Christmas. MPs know where their bread is buttered.

This took me completely by surprise, came home from work, no idea it had happened. I think I *accidentally* clicked on BBC news and there it was.

Had no idea this was even happening.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm trying to be happy about this development but I'm sure it's not the end of the matter.

Ignore the legal stuff and focus on the politics.

Parliament can play the non-binding card once, like some are trying to do with the referendum,

but to play it twice after voting heavily in favour of a motion supporting A50 in March?

Never going to happen, because the British public will think MPs are taking the out of them, and will run them out of the Commons come election time...

Labour are facing a three pronged attack from UKIP in the North, the Lib Dems eating their vote elsewhere, and the Tories who will smash them by pledging to Brexit, thus giving May a comfortable working majority, and giving us Brexit anyway.

Labour won't block brexit, not unless they want less than 200 MPs in the Commons...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Point is, Parliament has agreed in principle to Brexit. The ball is rolling. Thay can't back down now - that would be electoral suicide.

You don't think that will be the end of it do you? Even if we do leave there are going to be plenty of people wanting to get back in like myself even if it just for the sake of my niece and nephew. Give it ten years and as I pointed out previously enough old f**ts will have pegged it and enough young people will have got to 18 that we will be back to a majority supporting the EU. In the mean time I can refuse to buy from any companies that supported Brexit like Dyson and Tate & Lyle; buy my strawberries from French farmers and so on and encourage others to do the same. So an EUK party with slogans like

'Britain in the EU, making both great'
'Give back our civil liberties, UK to join the EU today'
'Parliamentary sovereignty is ruining the country. Help us EU're our only hope'

And as a side note, the Supreme Court case has been rendered void

I think you have missed the point about the whole case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Labour are facing a three pronged attack from UKIP in the North, the Lib Dems eating their vote elsewhere, and the Tories who will smash them by pledging to Brexit, thus giving May a comfortable working majority, and giving us Brexit anyway.

Labour won't block brexit, not unless they want less than 200 MPs in the Commons...

I think you are over estimating the number of people that support Labour and Brexit. According to this work it is less than 40%

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/why-did-people-vote-for-brexit_uk_5847d0dbe4b0bba967c1807c?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

They have much more to lose by voting for Brexit than against. It's the tories that are at greater risk there's still 40% of their vote that supports the EU. That could have major impacts on those marginal SE and W seats. At this point the most likely scenario at the next GE is a hung parliament and given the recent by election results the tories probably know this very well.

The one thing that does confuse me though is that 2% of UKIP supporters voted for staying in the EU, which makes me wonder if they know what they stand for?

You're assuming those young people won't have changed their minds in the meantime, and that the rest of the EU hasn't gone to gak by then. More countries are lining up to withdraw from the EU. The EU still has no solution for the migrant crisis. South European countries still have fragile economies, are up to their eyeballs in debt and remain shackled to the deadweight Euro that benefits Germany more than any other member state.

The writing is already on the wall for the EU.

@ Whirlwind

I doubt that the EU will last another ten years. I doubt it'll last until the end of the decade.

@ DINLT

Until article 50 is invoked I can't get excited.

I'm just trying to get my head around the thought process of "I hope a bunch of people in the other team die so I can get my way."

It's similar to "I hope the economies of every country in an entire continent crash horribly so that I know I'm right"

 Graphite wrote:
It's similar to "I hope the economies of every country in an entire continent crash horribly so that I know I'm right"

Thats a straw man. Where have I ever said that I want that to happen? Its simply what I think is going to happen, whether we stay in or leave the EU.

Paris negotiates with major UK based banks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38245646

Due to uncertainties over Brexit, various major banks are exploring their options for setting up operations in EU countries.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Graphite wrote:
It's similar to "I hope the economies of every country in an entire continent crash horribly so that I know I'm right"

Thats a straw man. Where have I ever said that I want that to happen? Its simply what I think is going to happen, whether we stay in or leave the EU.

I think he was responding to Compel, the post directly above his.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
I'm just trying to get my head around the thought process of "I hope a bunch of people in the other team die so I can get my way."

It's not so much as "hope", as reflecting on the reality that the older generations members, that voted leave, will not be around for the next round of voting.

Edit - moved on, pointless to bring back up


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Labour, as always, were a shambles!

Really? Given that Labour managed to make an amendment that has now effectively forced the government to be transparent about its EU negotiating position it seems as though Labour got as good a deal as it was possible to get.

The Lib Dems have a bigger rebellion on their hands with half(ish) their MPs supporting and half(ish) opposing this bill.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

And as a side note, the Supreme Court case has been rendered void - it's not worth a bucket of horsegak now, the rug has been pulled from underneath it.

Not entirely, there is still the Scotland question.

Labour think they've won because they got David Davis to promise to present a 'plan.'

Davis could scribble something on the back of a beer mat, and technically, that's a plan, because that's how vague the promise was.

When the Tories present a dozen pages of waffle, not worth the trees sacrificed for the paper, Labour as always will be up gak creek without a paddle.

That's how stupid Labour were these last 48hrs, but they're too busy celebrating this 'victory' too notice.

It's even worse - Davis agreed to provide 'enough of an outline of a plan'. No clarification of what 'enough' is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Point is, Parliament has agreed in principle to Brexit. The ball is rolling. Thay can't back down now - that would be electoral suicide.

You don't think that will be the end of it do you? Even if we do leave there are going to be plenty of people wanting to get back in like myself even if it just for the sake of my niece and nephew. Give it ten years and as I pointed out previously enough old f**ts will have pegged it and enough young people will have got to 18 that we will be back to a majority supporting the EU. In the mean time I can refuse to buy from any companies that supported Brexit like Dyson and Tate & Lyle; buy my strawberries from French farmers and so on and encourage others to do the same. So an EUK party with slogans like

'Britain in the EU, making both great'
'Give back our civil liberties, UK to join the EU today'
'Parliamentary sovereignty is ruining the country. Help us EU're our only hope'

And as a side note, the Supreme Court case has been rendered void

Give it ten years and most people will have forgotten that the UK was ever in the EU, once we start trading with the rest of the world again and our economy is the fastest growing in Europe people will wonder why we were ever in the EU in the first place.

Feel free to buy them French Strawberries at £4 a pack thanks to EU tarriffs, I'll get the nice ones from America that come in at £2, tarriff free thanks to new trade deals.

I remind you the EU has been around in some form for over 40 years, meaning anyone under 58 at the time of the referendum has been in the EU (or some version of it) for most of their lives - if anything the evidence points to the fact that as people get older they tend to start reviewing the EU in more detail and decide that actually it isn't the utopia they once thought it was (exactly what happened to me and most brexiter I know about), I therefore dispute your claim that just because I believe that as the older generation die off the younger generation will start to realise that the EU is a mess, and since our young won't grow up in the shackles of the EU it's likely that we won't even get that generation in 20 years time who start liking the EU then come to their senses as they get older.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Paris negotiates with major UK based banks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38245646

Due to uncertainties over Brexit, various major banks are exploring their options for setting up operations in EU countries.

This is a bit of a non story - of cause they were going to look into their options, then again having worked at a bank they are always looking into their options to see what is available. It's called Due Diligence it is usually a requirement of the board as part of their obligation to shareholders.

In other words, UK Banks are doing what they are supposed to do, shock horror!!!

Is Davis our generations Chamberlain?
Waving a piece of paper above his ahead which means nothing?

So looking at the french who are courting the banks, how likely is it that London will lose the banking sector to France if passporting is lost?

It's no secret that France wants the UKs banking sector, would it not be in Frances interests to veto everything that allows passporting just so the banks have to move?

@ Whirlwind

I haven't missed the point.

It's been obvious from day 1 that the people who brought the court case were trying their hardest to stall and delay the activation of Article 50.

They calculated that a ruling in their favour on parliamentary sovereignty would embolden the pro-Remain parliament to block Brexit. Their plan was fatally undermined by the fact that they overlooked how shambolic Labour are these days.

And as we know, yesterday's vote pulled the rug from right underneath their feet.

Even if the supreme court upholds the high court decision, nothing changes, and A50 is activated in March, anyway. Yesterday's vote was an agreement in principal to that.

Labour think they've won a 'victory' with their insistence on a plan, byt they'll probably get fobbed off with some vague promises on a few pages of A4.

The Remain side could try and push it onto the ECJ, but that would result in Europe having to rule on Britain and the EU. I'm sure leave voters would love that

The legal war is over. Nervous, Northern Labour MPs, looking over their shoulder at UKIP, mindful of what happened to Labour in Scotland, and their southern counterparts worried about a Lib Dem revival, won't rock the boat.

It's all politics and self-interest now...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Paris negotiates with major UK based banks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38245646

Due to uncertainties over Brexit, various major banks are exploring their options for setting up operations in EU countries.

Good riddance to them - I'll happily drive them to the airport, or St Pancras for the Eurostar, if that's their preferred option.

I'm well aware of the money banks bring to the UK, but I've read and listened to 8 years of British banks laundering drug money, deliberately driving small businesses into the ground (so they could buy them up cheaply for themselves) and of course, 8 years of billions of pounds being thrown at them...

Good riddance to these greedy




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Is Davis our generations Chamberlain?
Waving a piece of paper above his ahead which means nothing?

Cameron beat him to it when he came back from Brussels in January with his so called 'package of reforms.'

"He asked for nothing, he got half of that. "

Can't remember who said that quote in the papers, but it's one of my favourites from 2016.