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.

**Kilkrazy**

You are persistently questioning a sum of money which is small enough to be an rounding error and actually pays for something that has a use, while ignoring massively rampant mis-spending by a main leader of Brexit, who wants to be next PM.

If your primary concern is waste of public money, you are taking the wrong route to addressing it.

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I don't think the civics lesson on the structure of the EU makes any difference.

You're damn right it doesn't make any difference. All I see is elites selecting other elites.

The section on how laws are made in the EU should be broadcast to every man, woman, and child in Europe, because it exposes the EU parliament for the sham it is.

You'll note that in that diagram only the EU commission gets to generate an idea, but the Parliament only gets to debate, and NOT propose.

Any Parliament that can't propose its own legislation is not worthy of the name. It's a toy town Parliament, a talking shop, and good riddance to it.

That's not really true though because you are considering that these organisations are all working in isolation which they aren't really. An MEP can tap up someone to try and implement a law they believe is beneficial. just like they can in the UK parliament.

The diagram only shows the due process. The reason that the commission brings forward ideas is because each one consults with its own states the impacts of such a change. What is missing from the diagram is what happens in individual member states. They gather evidence of the impacts these changes have on each country to come to a consensus as to what works for all parties and what compromises are needed. The EU Parliament is not in a position to do such things because each MEP has no actual right of power over consultation in their member states.

At the top of the diagram it should be

X comes up with idea.
Each member of the commission then takes it back to their home country and consults with parliament/businesses/etc on the impacts (i.e. there is direct consultation with the countries democratically voted parliament).
Each member comes to a consensus on the idea based on the feedback from their parliament and consultations.
They then take that back to the commission. If they agree then it goes forward as per the diagram. If not it either gets amended or dropped. There is a lot more consultation with our own parliament before these ideas even get off the ground.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Mr Morden

The double parliaments is a joke. But it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the CAP. You can blame that on the French again. And then there’s all the embezzlement that goes on which is why the EU’s own auditors can never sign off on the accounts. Now in the interests of fairness I should point out that it’s people or even governments embezzling money off the EU. But for me that was another reason to leave. The whole thing is riddled with waste and fraud.

Do we have a citation for mass embezzlement going on in the EU or is it just I've read a few articles about bad eggs and making aspersions based on a few biased articles. The EU doesn't sign off it's accounts because it can't track exactly how individual states are spending the money they are allocated. Given that they have no jurisdiction to undertake audits on specific elements of individual member states finances expenditure that really isn't a surprise that money that might be distributed to 100's of charities (for example) is difficult to keep track of. If doesn't however mean the money is being fraudulently used.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Mr Morden

The double parliaments is a joke. But it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the CAP. You can blame that on the French again. And then there’s all the embezzlement that goes on which is why the EU’s own auditors can never sign off on the accounts. Now in the interests of fairness I should point out that it’s people or even governments embezzling money off the EU. But for me that was another reason to leave. The whole thing is riddled with waste and fraud.

I find it ironic that at one moment someone complains that we need to take back control of our laws because the EU make them and have no say on them. And then in the next breath complaining that an individual state can stop something happening because of their own interests and hence block changes (which would imply that we have full control of the laws we sign up to).....

**Techpriestsupport**

Question for British folks: I was told that the public vote on brexit was only a recommendation from the British people and one the government could choose to utterly ignore if it wished. Can someone biritish tell me is this is the case?

If so, is there any way the British public can vote on and pass anything the government must do and cannot ignore?

**Mario**

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Question for British folks: I was told that the public vote on brexit was only a recommendation from the British people and one the government could choose to utterly ignore if it wished. Can someone biritish tell me is this is the case?

If so, is there any way the British public can vote on and pass anything the government must do and cannot ignore?

From how I understand it (not British): Yes, the Brexit referendum was non-binding so it was more like a suggestion. Of course if the government were to ignore that then some of them might get problems when it comes to the next election (if their region were pro-Brexit and they voted against it). I think they could have gone with a binding referendum to force the government but it would also have benefited form much clearer wording in any case as the simplistic yes/no option they used leaves way too many issues unanswered. Even if the government follows the referendum's suggestion they have way too many unclassified issues. Somebody might be pro-Brexit but not at all cost (like a huge economic hit, loss if certain EU rights, or whatever)

**Jadenim**

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Question for British folks: I was told that the public vote on brexit was only a recommendation from the British people and one the government could choose to utterly ignore if it wished. Can someone biritish tell me is this is the case?

If so, is there any way the British public can vote on and pass anything the government must do and cannot ignore?

To your second point, essentially, no. As pointed out earlier, we don’t even get to elect our Prime Minister directly, we can only vote for our parliamentary representatives and then hope that they do vaguely what we want/expect them to.

For all the talk of whether it would have been better to have a legally binding referendum, I’m not sure it’s even possible under our constitutional arrangements.

**AdmiralHalsey**

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Question for British folks: I was told that the public vote on brexit was only a recommendation from the British people and one the government could choose to utterly ignore if it wished. Can someone biritish tell me is this is the case?

If so, is there any way the British public can vote on and pass anything the government must do and cannot ignore?

Correct. It was basically a massive opinion poll,

'Do you want to leave the EU?' Answer Y/N, to which 72% of the British public that could vote, voted, and of those 72% 52% voted to leave. [So a shade over 36% of the voting public.] It was very non binding, though it may have been politically unpopular to go against it. We'll never know.

The British public can vote in elections for it's MPs, and those MPs can be voted out of office. Some particularly unpopular prominent individuals lost their seats this way last election. But once a government is elected, the public has no influence till the next election [Once every five years, unless an early election is called.]

**Herzlos**

Or one of the elected MPs stands down, where a local election is triggered to determine a replacement.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I don't think the civics lesson on the structure of the EU makes any difference.

You're damn right it doesn't make any difference.

Which is a shame. How can you be taken seriously and be well informed about something if you refuse to be informed? You're essentially telling us that your problem with the eu is a perception that doesn't match reality.

**Kilkrazy**

In the UK, referenda are non-binding on Parliament because Parliament is sovereign. The way around this is for Parliament to pass an Act to create a binding referendum. This was not done for the EU referendum, so it was not binding on Parliament.

Once the immediate panic hit, Cameron resigned, and May turned up as Prime Minister after a short and barely contested election within the Conservative Party.

May for some reason known only to herself then announced a bunch of stuff about considering the referendum to be "the will of the people" and various "red lines" which defined the likely outcome of the Brexit negotiations for several years to come.

May then called a general election on the basis of wanting a better majority in Parliament to provide the strong and stable leadership needed to deliver the form of Brexit she had outlined.

She lost her majority.

And that is why the UK currently is rolling around the world stage like a clown car.

**Whirlwind**

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Question for British folks: I was told that the public vote on brexit was only a recommendation from the British people and one the government could choose to utterly ignore if it wished. Can someone biritish tell me is this is the case?

Yes the referendum wasn't binding on Parliament to enact. Our system is based on what is meant to be a representative democracy so that we vote for an individual member of parliament (MP) and they act on their constituents behalf. The Prime Minister (PM) is meant to be a first amongst equals in that they are meant to facilitate this process. In reality the PM sets the government and because things divide between parties effectively set the agenda. As such any individual MP can have more or less say depending on the government of the day and where that MP sits. The current Prime Minister is more likely to be considerate of her own constituents concerns that she is of 'Sheila' from the opposite party representing somewhere else. The referendum should be considered as advisory and it is up to the MPs how they enact this.

The frustration for many is that the vote was evenly split between for, against and didn't vote. So the reality is that the country is at best divided over the issue. However the UK Prime Minister currently is truly awful and terribly weak and instead of trying to balance both sides of the view is allowing the bigoted, far right elements, in it for themselves elements of her party to dictate the leaving terms even though this was never asked (and the reality is that those in parliament that wanted to leave have been shown to have lied through their back teeth to get what they want). Many will argue that the Tories got a new mandate in last years election but only managed to achieve this by bribing another niche Northern Ireland (even further right party) to vote on key issues with them. The reality is that only 40% of the population actually supported and voted for the incumbent party whereas 60% did not implying that that the approach they are taking isn't favoured by the majority of the population (and gets worse when considering the younger/more educated elements of the population). However our electoral system is hugely flawed in that voting proportion is rarely represented equally in parliament.

If so, is there any way the British public can vote on and pass anything the government must do and cannot ignore?

Not in this way no. Although if several million people turned up outside the PMs home and refused to move until a law was voted on then that might be a way. More usually changes happen because an individual or group would take an issue to court and that would result in new case law that the government would have to accept or introduce new legislation to change it

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Have your cake and eat it, and cherry picking, appears to be a contagious disease that has reached as far as Brussels, it would seem.

Leave the EU, but still allow the EU the same level of access to Britain's waters???/

The brass neck of these people never ceases to amaze me...

**Herzlos**

I'm not sure that's cherry picking.

**Disciple of Fate**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Have your cake and eat it, and cherry picking, appears to be a contagious disease that has reached as far as Brussels, it would seem.

Leave the EU, but still allow the EU the same level of access to Britain's waters???/

The brass neck of these people never ceases to amaze me...

Well if the UK asked nicely enough the EU might let them stay in exchange for that level of access, I don't remember them pushing the UK out

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Herzlos wrote:
I'm not sure that's cherry picking.

Ask yourself this: had the situation been reversed i.e the UK wanting a club perk, despite leaving the club, you don't think the Remain reaction would be a whole lot different?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Have your cake and eat it, and cherry picking, appears to be a contagious disease that has reached as far as Brussels, it would seem.

Leave the EU, but still allow the EU the same level of access to Britain's waters???/

The brass neck of these people never ceases to amaze me...

Well if the UK asked nicely enough the EU might let them stay in exchange for that level of access, I don't remember them pushing the UK out

It's been suggested that the UK might pay money to continue to access EU institutions such as Medicines, Euratom etc etc

If that comes to pass, then in the interests of fairness, the EU should stump up cash to Britain for access to our fishing grounds. Fair is fair.

**Kroem**

However our electoral system is hugely flawed in that voting proportion is rarely represented equally in parliament.

We had a referendum on proportional representation under the coalition and people didn't want it.
There's benefits to both ways but what I like about first past the post is that it take geography into account. People in the West Country or places like Cumbria would be completely drowned out by the big cities in PR.
Whilst in FptP you can might have 10 constituencies in the city and 1 in the country but at least we get some say!

The biggest problem I can see in our elective system atm is Labour blocking the election boundary reforms recommended by an independent commission because they know it will lose them MPs...

**A Town Called Malus**

Kroem wrote:
However our electoral system is hugely flawed in that voting proportion is rarely represented equally in parliament.

We had a referendum on proportional representation under the coalition and people didn't want it.

That wasn't on proportional representation. That was on Alternative Voting. They are not the same, despite the Tories attempts to claim as such. You could also look on that referendum as a foreshadowing of the EU referendum, where the Tories on the anti-AV campaign smeared the system with absolute bs with no regard for factual accuracy.

**Disciple of Fate**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Have your cake and eat it, and cherry picking, appears to be a contagious disease that has reached as far as Brussels, it would seem.

Leave the EU, but still allow the EU the same level of access to Britain's waters???/

The brass neck of these people never ceases to amaze me...

Well if the UK asked nicely enough the EU might let them stay in exchange for that level of access, I don't remember them pushing the UK out

It's been suggested that the UK might pay money to continue to access EU institutions such as Medicines, Euratom etc etc

If that comes to pass, then in the interests of fairness, the EU should stump up cash to Britain for access to our fishing grounds. Fair is fair.

Sure, fair is fair, the problem is that there isn't a lot of time left to work these things out, plus the UK might almost be paying the same amount as it is currently doing for its Eu contribution.

**A Town Called Malus**

I think the Euratom situation perfectly sums up the idiocy of those in Parliament pushing for brexit.

They are spending billions on a new nuclear reactor and have made promises regarding how much the companies running and part-financing it will be charging for the energy it produces but then they decide to leave the organisation whose membership is what allows us to buy nuclear material.

**Kroem**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Kroem wrote:
However our electoral system is hugely flawed in that voting proportion is rarely represented equally in parliament.

We had a referendum on proportional representation under the coalition and people didn't want it.

That wasn't on proportional representation. That was on Alternative Voting. They are not the same, despite the Tories attempts to claim as such.

Haha I had to look it up but you're absolutely right! The AV people didn't do a great job of getting their message across there did they...

**A Town Called Malus**

Kroem wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Kroem wrote:
However our electoral system is hugely flawed in that voting proportion is rarely represented equally in parliament.

We had a referendum on proportional representation under the coalition and people didn't want it.

That wasn't on proportional representation. That was on Alternative Voting. They are not the same, despite the Tories attempts to claim as such.

Haha I had to look it up but you're absolutely right! The AV people didn't do a great job of getting their message across there did they...

It wouldn't have helped. The Tories on the anti-AV side smeared it completely and utterly in so much bs it never stood a chance. Saying things like under AV someone who came in third could win and other misleading stupidity.

And it is understandable. The Tories didn't have anything to gain from it at that point. They had the right wing vote pretty well locked up whilst the left was fragmented into Labour, Green, Lib-Dem (prior to the student fees betrayal). So a switch to AV might have cost them seats as people voting for Greens as first choice wouldn't be putting Conservative 2nd or 3rd.

On the other hand, it would have given the Tories some protection from losing votes to UKIP, as UKIP would be unlikely to win seats and UKIP voters might put Conservative as the second choice, so the votes wouldn't be lost.

**Mr Morden**

Kilkrazy wrote:
You are persistently questioning a sum of money which is small enough to be an rounding error and actually pays for something that has a use, while ignoring massively rampant mis-spending by a main leader of Brexit, who wants to be next PM.

If your primary concern is waste of public money, you are taking the wrong route to addressing it.

Not just me but the MEPs - are they wrong to do so?

or is it that no one is allowed to question anything about the EU.

Yes the referendum wasn't binding on Parliament to enact. Our system is based on what is meant to be a representative democracy so that we vote for an individual member of parliament (MP) and they act on their constituents behalf. The Prime Minister (PM) is meant to be a first amongst equals in that they are meant to facilitate this process. In reality the PM sets the government and because things divide between parties effectively set the agenda. As such any individual MP can have more or less say depending on the government of the day and where that MP sits. The current Prime Minister is more likely to be considerate of her own constituents concerns that she is of 'Sheila' from the opposite party representing somewhere else. The referendum should be considered as advisory and it is up to the MPs how they enact this.

The frustration for many is that the vote was evenly split between for, against and didn't vote. So the reality is that the country is at best divided over the issue. However the UK Prime Minister currently is truly awful and terribly weak and instead of trying to balance both sides of the view is allowing the bigoted, far right elements, in it for themselves elements of her party to dictate the leaving terms even though this was never asked (and the reality is that those in parliament that wanted to leave have been shown to have lied through their back teeth to get what they want). Many will argue that the Tories got a new mandate in last years election but only managed to achieve this by bribing another niche Northern Ireland (even further right party) to vote on key issues with them. The reality is that only 40% of the population actually supported and voted for the incumbent party whereas 60% did not implying that that the approach they are taking isn't favoured by the majority of the population (and gets worse when considering the younger/more educated elements of the population). However our electoral system is hugely flawed in that voting proportion is rarely represented equally in parliament.

If they didn't vote and there was not a medical or similar reason - thats entirely their fault

I assme you feel that all of the following should not have passed assuming thant anyone who didn't vote was against it?

France — French Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1992, 20 September 1992, 51.0% in favour, turnout 69.7%
Ireland — a referendum to approve the Twenty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, 19 October 2002, 62.9% in favour, turnout 49.5%
Spain — Spanish European Constitution referendum, 2005, 20 February 2005, 81.8% in favour, turnout 41.8%
San Marino - Sammarinese referendum, 2013, 20 October 2013, 50.28% in favour, turnout 43.38%
Denmark — Danish Unified Patent Court membership referendum, 2014, 25 May 2014, 62.5% in favour, turnout 55.9%

**AlmightyWalrus**

Mr Morden wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
You are persistently questioning a sum of money which is small enough to be an rounding error and actually pays for something that has a use, while ignoring massively rampant mis-spending by a main leader of Brexit, who wants to be next PM.

If your primary concern is waste of public money, you are taking the wrong route to addressing it.

Not just me but the MEPs - are they wrong to do so?

or is it that no one is allowed to question anything about the EU.

You've obviously made up your mind already.

**Mr Morden**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
You are persistently questioning a sum of money which is small enough to be an rounding error and actually pays for something that has a use, while ignoring massively rampant mis-spending by a main leader of Brexit, who wants to be next PM.

If your primary concern is waste of public money, you are taking the wrong route to addressing it.

Not just me but the MEPs - are they wrong to do so?

or is it that no one is allowed to question anything about the EU.

You've obviously made up your mind already.

On this matter - I agree with the MEPs - I take you feel they are wrong and that the Twin Parliment is a suitable use of our money and their time?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Britain First leader’s both doing time.

18 weeks for the Racist Potato. 36 weeks for the Screeching Racist Potato.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Mr Morden wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
You are persistently questioning a sum of money which is small enough to be an rounding error and actually pays for something that has a use, while ignoring massively rampant mis-spending by a main leader of Brexit, who wants to be next PM.

If your primary concern is waste of public money, you are taking the wrong route to addressing it.

Not just me but the MEPs - are they wrong to do so?

or is it that no one is allowed to question anything about the EU.

You've obviously made up your mind already.

On this matter - I agree with the MEPs - I take you feel they are wrong and that the Twin Parliment is a suitable use of our money and their time?

I don't.

**r_squared**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Britain First leader’s both doing time.

18 weeks for the Racist Potato. 36 weeks for the Screeching Racist Potato.

It's great news, although the racist potato supporters will doubtless complain that their free speech is being curtailed, the thick grunts.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/07/britain-first-leaders-convicted-of-anti-muslim-hate-crimes

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Have your cake and eat it, and cherry picking, appears to be a contagious disease that has reached as far as Brussels, it would seem.

Leave the EU, but still allow the EU the same level of access to Britain's waters???/

The brass neck of these people never ceases to amaze me...

I think it is in exchange for a more comprehensive free trade agreement. It makes sense at a couple of levels:-

Firstly it is almost impossible to manage illegal fishing unless you militarise your coast guard (build a wall...

) and there would be so many shared close coastal waters (Mainland UK/EIRE, NI/EIRE, Northern Europe/UK) that it would be almost impossible to stop both deliberate and accidental excursions.

If we want free trade for food then that would include fish, so hence it's just an open market for the same goods.

Finally fish, being a much more sane species than humans don't care about arbitrary lines on a map and generally go where they please so it prevents mass camping at the boundary with huge nets which could be both an environmental and shipping lane issue.

For those that like to read past headlines, there is an interesting blog here on why Theresa May's aspirations are still problematic.

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/what-mutual-recognition-really-entails.html?ncid=newsletter-ukThe%20Waugh%20Zone%20070317

Also buried here is an interesting article:-

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-waugh-zone-wednesday-march-7-2018_uk_5a9fa7c2e4b0e9381c139030?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

After the PMQs hubbub has died down, MPs will be facing an important vote as Labour tries to change the law to reveal the source of a rather large, mysterious donation to the DUP during the 2016 EU referendum campaign. The £425,000 gift was mostly spent on advertising outside Northern Ireland to support the Vote Leave campaign. If the money had been given directly to Vote Leave, it would have had to be fully declared, but the Northern Irish loophole meant it was not. The Electoral Commission is looking into it and wants more transparency.
Ministers want to change the law but are refusing Labour demands to backdate it to include 2016. Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Smith says: “The Tories must explain why they are doing the DUP’s dirty work by helping them avoid publishing the source of the funds received in the EU Referendum.” The Opposition managed to stop the Government’s plans being nodded through on a Statutory instrument this week and a full vote will take place today. There’s a Tory three-line whip, but ministers have yet to fully explain why they are defying the Electoral Commission. One to keep an eye on.

£425k given to the DUP during the referendum that was then spent outside of NI....hmmm something fishy going on here!

**reds8n**

https://www.ft.com/content/d466cd3e-2158-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80

Euroclear, one of the world’s largest securities depositories, is to move its holding company from Britain, redrawing its corporate structure in preparation for the UK’s departure from the European Union.

The group will shift its domicile and tax residency to Brussels, its biggest centre of operations, later this year.

The move is the second part of a two-stage plan in reaction to Brexit after unveiling last month plans to build a securities settlement system for Ireland that did not rely on London.

Euroclear operates settlement houses that are critical to the daily functioning of global markets. It holds €28.6tn in assets, typically highly liquid instruments such as top-rated government bonds or cash, for investors to use for securities and derivatives trading.

It has been in business for 50 years and has historically been a UK plc and tax resident in Switzerland. Both will be based in Belgium next year. Euroclear will continue to operate a London subsidiary to serve the UK, one of its biggest markets.

“We want to redomicile the topco to the eurozone. It will be in Belgium as it’s where most of our business operations are. We are preparing to launch a transfer of arrangement sometime after the summer,” Lieve Mostrey, chief executive of Euroclear, told the Financial Times.

She described it as making sure Euroclear had got certainty over its legal environment. “For the type of company we are we feel more comfortable in the eurozone.”

holds €28.6tn in assets

When it was pointed out things like this would happen, there were the usual screeches about "project fear"

http://uk.businessinsider.com/philip-hammond-unique-brexit-deal-financial-services-speech-just-eu-reject-it-2018-3

[quoteChancellor Philip Hammond said on Wednesday that the UK would negotiate a "unique" Brexit agreement which includes financial services, just hours after EU negotiators rejected the possibility of such a deal.
"It is possible to include financial services within a trade deal but that it is very much in our mutual interest to do so," Hammond said.
Hammond's speech comes within hours of European Council president Donald Tusk saying such a deal was "out of the question".

........

"The EU itself pursued ambitious financial services co-operation in its proposals for TTIP – which it described as a partnership that would be: ‘more than a traditional free trade agreement'" Hammond said.

However, Labour pointed out that TTIP negotiations had ultimately collapsed.

"The Chancellor has shown his hand, and it is clear he is looking for a TTIP type deal as his blueprint," Labour's shadow chancellor John McDonnell said.

"Yet those negotiations took nearly four years and collapsed..."

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

well if they can afford umpteen billion to build HS2 and force people to sell them their homes/land to do so

surely they can do the same around dover creating whatever space they need for the giant customs carpark required to keep it running smoothly,

and they'll be able to spend all the extra money we'll be getting from interational trade with Bolivia, Vanuatu etc will easily pay for all the new customs officers needed to man it

it will be quicker, easier and more efficient than it is now,

honest,

really

well as long as there aren't any illegal immigrants on the lorries

**kronk**

Herzlos wrote:
What's the point of a 584ml bottle of champagne, where a 750ml bottle won't Do?

When I travel, my wife doesn't want a whole bottle of wine.

Putting a stopper on a nice bottle doesn't keep the bottle nice. It makes good wine into average and average wine into Yellow Tail.

Mr Morden wrote:

So its £15 million that could be better spent - what amount to you is worth bothering about? 50 million,

15 million British Pound Moneys wouldn't pave a city block. In the grand scheme of government spending, it's a meaningless spend.

**Whirlwind**

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

surely they can do the same around dover creating whatever space they need for the giant customs carpark required to keep it running smoothly,

and they'll be able to spend all the extra money we'll be getting from interational trade with Bolivia, Vanuatu etc will easily pay for all the new customs officers needed to man it

Not sure whether being sarcastic...? I think you are, I *hope* you are!