Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It's already known that it can be repealed. So the EU would have no say in it. Plus, it's only an intention to leave, not actually leaving.

And it's not about saying 'we're staying after all', more about not blundering around blindfolded by a bunch of hard right nutters holding the Tory party to ransom.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
FFS repeal Article 50 until we know what we're doing.

Get this shower of shirts out of the way.

Another thing would EU stand for it. All that "we are going to leave, no we stay, no out, in" costs money. There's reason the time limit for negotiations was set to limited period extendable only if all EU members agree. The longer negotiations lag the longer it costs.

Not to mention if UK says "oh we stay" how anybody can really believe that...

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

In my brother's line of work he has previously been involved in corporate events for large banks etc. He has told repeated stories of how people attending these events completely assume the female staff are prostitutes, and will just openly ask them 'OK how much for the night then?' etc. Are really quite taken aback when they are turned down.

Its pretty mind boggling that people would just ask this of women at a public event. It just shows such a disconnect from 'normal' human interaction, on top of the likely fact that some at least are married.

I think this is more of a rich privilege than a male privilege thing. There’s something about these corporate type events where powerful wealthy people think they can do whatever they like. Ordinary people wouldn’t do that, or at least not a whole room of them doing it without comment, it’s something rich powerful men do because they think their power gives them the right to everything, especially the less well off. The women are product for them to sample. Sickening.

Funny. I could SWEAR students generally aren't rich but still have plenty of such behaviour. Guess I was worse financially as a student than I thought then.

I’ve never been to any event where the students attendees thought all the serving staff were prostitutes they could pay to take home. Sounds like no university of college I’ve experience of.

There’s a difference between chatting up the girl behind the bar, which is what students probably do, and assuming that female staff at an event have only been employed for you to sample before buying to take home. Which is what arrogant wealthy people tend to do, their money gives them the expectation that everything is for sale, and they have the right to have it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Logically, A50 can't be reversed, otherwise, every EU member would threaten to activate it in order to shake down Brussels for a better deal.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It's already known that it can be repealed. So the EU would have no say in it. Plus, it's only an intention to leave, not actually leaving.

And it's not about saying 'we're staying after all', more about not blundering around blindfolded by a bunch of hard right nutters holding the Tory party to ransom.

Let's not pretend it's a right-wing thing.

Every man and his dog knows that Corbyn voted for Brexit. It's only Labour party politics that's stopping him from jumping on stage and setting fire to an EU flag.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
FFS repeal Article 50 until we know what we're doing.

Get this shower of shirts out of the way.

Another thing would EU stand for it. All that "we are going to leave, no we stay, no out, in" costs money. There's reason the time limit for negotiations was set to limited period extendable only if all EU members agree. The longer negotiations lag the longer it costs.

Not to mention if UK says "oh we stay" how anybody can really believe that...

Logically, A50 can't be reversed, otherwise, every EU member would threaten to activate it in order to shake down Brussels for a better deal.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Logically, A50 can't be reversed, otherwise, every EU member would threaten to activate it in order to shake down Brussels for a better deal.

As has been shown, that is a threat without teeth. Threatening to get a worse deal if you don't get a better deal is not a strong position to take.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It's already known that it can be repealed. So the EU would have no say in it. Plus, it's only an intention to leave, not actually leaving.

And it's not about saying 'we're staying after all', more about not blundering around blindfolded by a bunch of hard right nutters holding the Tory party to ransom.

Let's not pretend it's a right-wing thing.

Every man and his dog knows that Corbyn voted for Brexit. It's only Labour party politics that's stopping him from jumping on stage and setting fire to an EU flag.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
FFS repeal Article 50 until we know what we're doing.

Get this shower of shirts out of the way.

Another thing would EU stand for it. All that "we are going to leave, no we stay, no out, in" costs money. There's reason the time limit for negotiations was set to limited period extendable only if all EU members agree. The longer negotiations lag the longer it costs.

Not to mention if UK says "oh we stay" how anybody can really believe that...

Logically, A50 can't be reversed, otherwise, every EU member would threaten to activate it in order to shake down Brussels for a better deal.

Didn't realise that Corbyn had May by the short and curlies, threatening to detonate the party unless she caves into their very specific, swivel eyed demands.

That's the hard-right I'm referring to.

A50 can be reversed/repealed. It's authors have said so.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Who knows better there?

Could it possibly be the people that wrote the Article itself?.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Who knows better there?

Could it possibly be the people that wrote the Article itself?.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Until it's been tested in a court of law, and a judge says otherwise I will maintain my stance that A50 is the red button.

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Until it's been tested in a court of law, and a judge says otherwise I will maintain my stance that A50 is the red button.

Which court? Because invoking A50 is merely a declaration of intent addressed to the EU.

If the EU wants to accept an "ok, this has been a mistake" explanation and roll back the whole thing it's their prerogative. And relevant EU voices are on record saying they would.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Until it's been tested in a court of law, and a judge says otherwise I will maintain my stance that A50 is the red button.

Which court? Because invoking A50 is merely a declaration of intent addressed to the EU.

If the EU wants to accept an "ok, this has been a mistake" explanation and roll back the whole thing it's their prerogative. And relevant EU voices are on record saying they would.

I have heard talk of the ECJ having to get involved in a possible repeal of A50.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of Brexit supporters are spltting blood on twitter over the EU's latest position

but it may surprise people to know that I don't blame the EU for protecting the EU's interests. I'd be doing the same.

It's our lame-duck, Remain suporting PM who i blame. Her heart was never in it.

As for security, I'm not too worried about what reds8n has posted about security. And the concept of an EU battlegroup is a nonsense for the majority of EU members which are also NATO members.

We're part of the 5 eyes, we're a NATO member, us and the French are the only EU members with nukes, and speaking off the French, all the heads of French security had a historic meeting with the heads of MI5 and MI6 the other day. I doubt if they were discussing the Bayeux tapestry.

Britain and the EU are not going to stop co-operating on security. If Germany has vital intel on a terror attack on the UK, or vice-versa, it will be shared. The political fall-out wuld be damaging if such intel were withheld.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's our lame-duck, Remain suporting PM who i blame. Her heart was never in it.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, Angela Merkel naughtily poked fun at Theresa May, in a secret briefing for journalists. Here's what transpired, according to those there.
Merkel said that when she asks Mrs May what she wants the shape of the UK's relationship with the EU to be, Mrs May says "make me an offer".
To which Mrs Merkel says, "but you're leaving - we don't have to make you an offer. Come on what do you want?
To which Mrs May replies "make me an offer".
And so, according to Mrs Merkel, the two find themselves trapped in a recurring loop of "what do you want?" and "make me an offer".
At its telling, the hacks laughed uproariously - though I am not sure this is so funny for the UK. Merkel and May’s comedy skit reflects a deep and uncomfortable truth for the government and country - which is that Theresa May and her cabinet haven’t yet decided what our future trading relationship with the EU should look like, because (to state the bloomin’ obvious) ministers are at loggerheads over this. But good news! The negotiations that matter start in earnest this week: not between the UK and Brussels, or even the UK and Germany, but between the erstwhile Remainers Hammond, Rudd and Clark on the one hand and the arch Brexiteers Gove and Johnson on the other.

The Government's Own Brexit Analysis Says The UK Will Be Worse Off In Every Scenario Outside The EU

The government's new analysis of the impact of Brexit says the UK would be worse off outside the European Union under every scenario modelled, BuzzFeed News can reveal.

The assessment, which is titled “EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing” and dated January 2018, looked at three of the most plausible Brexit scenarios based on existing EU arrangements.

Under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, UK growth would be 5% lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts, according to the analysis.

The "no deal" scenario, which would see the UK revert to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, would reduce growth by 8% over that period. The softest Brexit option of continued single-market access through membership of the European Economic Area would, in the longer term, still lower growth by 2%.

These calculations do not take into account any short-term hits to the economy from Brexit, such as the cost of adjusting the economy to new customs arrangements.

The assessment seen by BuzzFeed News is being kept tightly guarded inside government. It was prepared by officials across Whitehall for the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU), and is reportedly being presented to key ministers in one-to-one meetings this week ahead of discussion at the Brexit cabinet subcommittee next week.

Asked why the prime minister was not making the analysis public, a DExEU source told BuzzFeed News: "Because it's embarrassing."

Even though the analysis assumes that the UK will agree a trade deal with the US, roll over dozens of the EU’s current trade agreements, and consider loosening regulations after Brexit, there is no scenario that does not leave the country worse off.

Officials believe the methodology for the new assessment is better than that used for similar analyses before the referendum.

The January 2018 analysis looked only at existing EU arrangements, which means bespoke arrangements have yet to be modelled. Prime Minister Theresa May has repeatedly said she is seeking a "deep and special partnership with the EU".

The other main findings of the analysis include:

• Almost every sector of the economy included in the analysis would be negatively impacted in all three scenarios, with chemicals, clothing, manufacturing, food and drink, and cars and retail the hardest hit. The analysis found that only the agriculture sector under the WTO scenario would not be adversely affected.

• Every UK region would also be affected negatively in all the modelled scenarios, with the North East, the West Midlands, and Northern Ireland (before even considering the possibility of a hard border) facing the biggest falls in economic performance.

• There is a risk that London’s status as a financial centre could be severely eroded, with the possibilities available under an FTA not much different to those in the WTO option.

• On the plus side, the analysis assumes in all scenarios that a trade deal with the US will be concluded, and that it would benefit GDP by about 0.2% in the long term. Trade deals with other non-EU countries and blocs, such as China, India, Australia, the Gulf countries, and the nations of Southeast Asia would add, in total, a further 0.1% to 0.4% to GDP over the long term.

The government has found itself in repeated difficulty over the existence – or lack – of Brexit impact studies. Last year, the Brexit secretary David Davis suggested that dozens had been carried out “in excruciating detail”, but after a Commons vote forced the publication of these assessments, he told MPs he had been misunderstood and they did not exist after all. DExEU published a series of broad "sectoral analyses" instead.

The biggest negative impact comes from the UK’s decision to leave both the EU’s customs union and the single market – the issue at the heart of the Conservative Party’s ongoing internal strife over Brexit.

Leaving these arrangements creates what the analysis calls “non-tariff barriers” to trade, such as loss of market access in certain sectors and new customs and border checks and practices.

Some of these can be minimised if Britain were to remain in the single market via the EEA, and the impact can also be partly offset through domestic policy or trade deals with the US and others, but the losses cannot be eliminated altogether once the UK is outside the customs union.

This new analysis suggests that there could be opportunity for the UK in agreeing trade deals with non-EU countries and deregulating in areas such as the environment, product standards, and employment law.

However, the analysis also casts doubt on the idea that these benefits would be enough to mitigate the losses to the economy caused by leaving the single market and customs union. Moving away from the existing set of rules and standards would also make it harder to trade with the EU in the future, and would be politically controversial domestically.

This specific debate risks deepening the conflict inside the Tory party between those, such as chancellor Philip Hammond, who want to remain more closely aligned to the EU for years, and the hardline Brexiteers, led by backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg.

A government spokesperson told BuzzFeed News: “We have already set out that the government is undertaking a wide range of ongoing analysis in support of our EU exit negotiations and preparations.

"We have been clear that we are not prepared to provide a running commentary on any aspect of this ongoing internal work and that ministers have a duty not to publish anything that could risk exposing our negotiation position.”

A government source said: “As part of its preparations for leaving the European Union, officials from across Whitehall are undertaking a wide range of ongoing analysis.

"An early draft of this next stage of analysis has looked at different off-the-shelf arrangements that currently exist as well as other external estimates. It does not, however, set out or measure the details of our desired outcome – a new deep and special partnership with the EU – or predict the conclusions of the negotiations.

"It also contains a significant number of caveats and is hugely dependant on a wide range of assumptions which demonstrate that significantly more work needs to be carried out to make use of this analysis and draw out conclusions.”

Asked why the prime minister was not making the analysis public, a DExEU source told BuzzFeed News: "Because it's embarrassing."

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
There was an opportunity to make something of Brexit, but it needed a vision and determination, and May and her clowns are flushing it down the drain.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's better to have an impossible dream that spurs you to try, than nothing, which leads to drift and stagnation.

The government doesn't have a vision of anything ATM, except "Brexit is Brexit."

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That wouldn't necessarily be what happens, though.

The danger at the moment is that the UK is like a river boat drifting uncontrolled towards a dangerous weir.

What's important is to start the engine and decide to head for one bank or the other. If the course turns out to be the wrong one, at least you have got steerage way on, and can turn around. You can't if you just drift.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
There was an opportunity to make something of Brexit, but it needed a vision and determination, and May and her clowns are flushing it down the drain. Doesn’t help that people like Boris have just used the whole thing to try and advance their own career rather than do anything useful or competent. May is an incredibly weak PM, she inspires no confidence and seems a bit lost. When Ken Clarke described her as a ‘bloody difficult woman’ people thought we might have another Thatcher, someone hard as nails to get us through these times. But instead she’s faded away and is just bloody useless, she can’t even reshuffle her own cabinet without being bossed around. Frankly that bungled election with the ‘strong and stable’ claptrap and her cowardice at attending debates killed off her authority, she’s only still there because the rest are too cowardly to challenge her.

1. The #Brexit question has always been one of what sort of relationship we want with the EU if not actual membership. Brexiters bleat "we just want trade" failing to note that regulatory harmonisation is central to free movement of goods.

2. The minimum condition of entry into the EU marketplace is compliance. Any third country can do that but without the ability to self-certify goods for circulation in the market they are subject to full third country controls at the borders.

3. Members of the single market avoid those customs controls by way of having the ability to self certify goods. This is why the single market is more pertinent to free movement of goods than the customs union.

4. Our moronic politicians think that because customs union has the word customs in it that it pertains to the customs you pass through at the airports. >500 days since the referendum and this still hasn't sunk in.

5. But then free movement of goods alone is insufficient if you don't have mutual recognition of qualifications for inspectors and recognised "notified bodies" and licencing authorities. "tariff free access" doesn't even scratch the surface.

6. To cut a long thread short, there are more than three hundred areas of technical cooperation based on an elaborate system of rules built up over 40 years. If you are talking about scrapping it then you need something to replace it with.

7. As subsystems of the single market there are market surveillance systems to stop counterfeiting, food adulteration, fraud, anti-terror measures, anti-smuggling measures. Systems within systems.

8. Then there's the systems for air travel. Since we are leaving the single market we have of our own volition given up certain rights to operate within the EU ceding our market share and all the support industries.

9. And as we are seemingly leaving the EMA, drugs companies will have to re-certify their goods or shift production/research overseas. Unless of course we have some kind of agreement with mutual regulations and standards.

10. For just about every sector there is a regulatory system and if you want to participate in the market then you have to comply with its rules and pay toward the upkeep of those systems.

11. In this the EU is not at liberty to make exemptions and exceptions in that any concession for the UK is a weakening of the overall system which allows for the loopholes to be exploited. The same is true of trade.

12. Then when it comes to tinkering with tariff rates we bump into those dreaded rules of origin to ensure there is a level playing field. If you don't know what they are then look it up.

13. Since the UK does not want to pay toward the upkeep of collaborative regulatory systems or abide by the rules then it forfeits any of the privileges. Of our own volition we become a third country and are treated like any other country without an enhanced trade relationship

14. This isn't a problem for Canada because it is not part of any JIT European supply chains. Land borders do not affect Canada or Japan. Being that only a fraction of its trade is with Europe, it does not have the same needs.

15. The UK however, is integrated into European markets and has a land and sea border with the EU and therefore requires a higher level of customs cooperation and compatibility.

16. So as much as I would like to be out of the EU ASAP, it just ain't gonna happen. We need to decide what level of market participation we wish to retain, what governance and dispute resolution mechanisms we want and the shape of the future relationship.

17. I understand the sentiment of wanting to just sever the link but this is not something a responsible government should do. There are massive trade offs and a number of compromises and tough choices.

18. But this is why we need a transition so that we can prepare for the changes and have alternate systems in place. We need a means of sensibly diverging so that we do not create a legal no mans land where goods are no longer authorised for sale and operations suspended.

19. This is likely to take a number of years to complete and will have to be done in stages, not least because of the NI border which is ultimately going to dictate what the end relationship looks like.

20. And so, @JuliaHB1, you demanding that we leave immediately with no transition betrays not only your manifest ignorance but also your total negligence and dereliction of duty.

21. That we could be this far in and you still think its as simple as walking away and exposing the economy to the full shock of simultaneous regulatory separation shows just how little thought you've given it.

22. To pretend that none of this exists and is just the product of "remoaner" scaremongering is fundamentally dishonest thus you can expect to be treated with contempt. At this point your ignorance is wilful and a calculated insult.