# The Brexit process



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2016)

Time for a new dedicated thread?

So we now have the first indication of the basic time-frame and a name for a proposed piece of legislation.



Feeling this could end up being quite a long thread?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 2, 2016)

It's nice that we have a time frame but still no fucking clue what will actually happen.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's nice that we have a time frame but still no fucking clue what will actually happen.


_"Brexit means Brexit"
_
Keep up!


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> _"Brexit means Brexit"
> _
> Keep up!


Just remind us what supercalifragilisticexpialidocious means?


----------



## toblerone3 (Oct 2, 2016)

probably hard Brexit then with NO second referendum on the deal and NO general election on the deal before 2020.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 2, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> probably hard Brexit then with NO second referendum on the deal and NO general election on the deal before 2020.



How could there be a second referendum? Say they got a specific deal and the referendum result was against it - what would happen then, another deal and another referendum? And another? Meanwhile the two year period has expired...


----------



## toblerone3 (Oct 2, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> How could there be a second referendum? Say they got a specific deal and the referendum result was against it - what would happen then, another deal and another referendum? And another? Meanwhile the two year period has expired...



Apply to rejoin the EU on the old terms.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> probably hard Brexit then with NO second referendum on the deal and NO general election on the deal before 2020.


What does this term 'hard brexit' that you use mean?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 2, 2016)

As brexit hasn't happened before, it has to be a bit "suck it and see" as to what the actual process is ..


----------



## toblerone3 (Oct 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What does this term 'hard brexit' that you use mean?



Well its only a 'probably' [hard Brexit] but there has no indication at all from EU leaders so far that maintaining access to the single market will be possible without accepting free movement of labour. Maybe they are just bluffing.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 2, 2016)

weltweit said:


> As brexit hasn't happened before, it has to be a bit "suck it and see" as to what the actual process is ..


Being unprecedented does not, of necessity, mean unplanned, formless or chaotic.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Being unprecedented does not, of necessity, mean unplanned, formless or chaotic.


One part that may be predictable is if there has to be a vote of the member states and if so under what terms.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 2, 2016)

weltweit said:


> As brexit hasn't happened before, it has to be a bit "suck it and see" as to what the actual process is ..



Precisely - there is no real guidance or precedent.

There is no reason to believe that any of it will necessarily be very ordered at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2016)

That's how we got to the moon.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2016)

weltweit said:


> One part that may be predictable is if there has to be a vote of the member states and if so under what terms.


A vote on what?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> A vote on what?


On whatever deal / arrangement the UK and EU negotiate together.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Precisely - there is no real guidance or precedent.
> 
> There is no reason to believe that any of it will necessarily be very ordered at all.



The first question is whether TM is actually in a position to trigger Article 50. There are various potential legal challenges in train and she also seems to want to do it before repealing the ECA, which the EU might not accept.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2016)

weltweit said:


> On whatever deal / arrangement the UK and EU negotiate together.


What's the vote?


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 2, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> Apply to rejoin the EU on the old terms.



So referendum #1 is "leave" and referendum #2 is "screw your deal" and the government should then attempt to rejoin the EU?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 2, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> How could there be a second referendum? Say they got a specific deal and the referendum result was against it - what would happen then, another deal and another referendum? And another? Meanwhile the two year period has expired...



There could be a second referendum post Article 50 if the Council of Ministers were to agree a special mechanism for it to happen. I'm not saying it's likely, but it would be possible if it looked like offering the best outcome from their point-of-view. I think the result would not be re-applying but calling off Brexit. At present, there is an official decision that Article 50 is irreversible, so this couldn't happen. But, in principle, they could change their minds, I think.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What's the vote?


I should imagine member states will be asked to approve the arrangement made by the executive.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 2, 2016)

> .. That final agreement, trade experts say, could take several years to negotiate, and will be subject to unanimous voting and national ratification by all 27 remaining EU states, leaving open the possibility of almost endless haggling by every member with something to ask of Britain – think, for example, of Spain and Gibraltar. ..


What will happen now timescale for article 50 has been revealed?


----------



## bemused (Oct 2, 2016)

Does this mean we only have two more years of interminable bore Iain Duncan Smith on the TV?


----------



## gosub (Oct 2, 2016)

March is a big mistake.  Of the three institutions we have to negotiate with, Tusk's term in the European Council finishes at the end of May, He may get relected, he may not.  But I haven't heard a single politician or professional pundit take it into account.


----------



## isvicthere? (Oct 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What does this term 'hard brexit' that you use mean?



I think it means tell Johnny Foreigner where he can stick his Single Market, and send those irksome immigrants back (apart from the majority of them who don't actually originate from the EU).


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 2, 2016)

weltweit said:


> What will happen now timescale for article 50 has been revealed?





That's not ironic. That's fitting, propitious, and apt. Ironic would be if Britain had demanded there be no official exit mechanism but then became the first to use it.

Fucking illiterate Guardian.


----------



## gosub (Oct 2, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What does this term 'hard brexit' that you use mean?



Falling back on the WTO arrangements that only Mongolia, Djibouti, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Madagascar put up with, with tarriff and non tarriff barriers between us and the EU, customs checks and the like making Just in Time and involvement in pan European manufacture like for cars, panes electronic equipment etc 'difficult' but lfewer immigrants innit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 2, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's nice that we have a time frame but still no fucking clue what will actually happen.


the arrogance of it. Reading downthread theres people saying 'no precedent to guide' and so on. So the fuck what? they should have had the legislators and twonks planning for exit from the moment Cameron promised a reff. Thumb up arses instead. Didn't see a loss as even possible.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 2, 2016)

danny la rouge said:


> View attachment 93314
> 
> That's not ironic. That's fitting, propitious, and apt. Ironic would be if Britain had demanded there be no official exit mechanism but then became the first to use it.
> 
> Fucking illiterate Guardian.


allanis irony


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Being unprecedented does not, of necessity, mean unplanned, formless or chaotic.



It should be the opposite. If something has never been done before it needs to be _more_ carefully planned not less.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 2, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> Well its only a 'probably' [hard Brexit] but there has no indication at all from EU leaders so far that maintaining access to the single market will be possible without accepting free movement of labour. Maybe they are just bluffing.



Bluffing is for when the other players can't see your cards. When everyone can see that you don't even have any cards it's just stuidity.


----------



## magneze (Oct 2, 2016)

It's interesting that effectively all EU laws will be transferred over to UK law when we leave. As opposed to the "bonfire of rights" that was definitely going to happen. Apparently.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 2, 2016)

magneze said:


> It's interesting that effectively all EU laws will be transferred over to UK law when we leave. As opposed to the "bonfire of rights" that was definitely going to happen. Apparently.



its almost as if all three campaigns were full of bollocks and bullshit or something


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 2, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> Well its only a 'probably' [hard Brexit] but there has no indication at all from EU leaders so far that maintaining access to the single market will be possible without accepting free movement of labour. Maybe they are just bluffing.



You are confusing _access _to the single market with _membership _of the single market. They are two entirely different things, and no one has suggested we won't have access as that would be absurd. The most likely outcome is that we get a trade deal similar to the one the Canadians have just signed with the EU.


----------



## gosub (Oct 2, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> You are confusing _access _to the single market with _membership _of the single market. They are two entirely different things, and no one has suggested we won't have access as that would be absurd. The most likely outcome is that we get a trade deal similar to the one the Canadians have just signed with the EU.


The one that took seven years and doesn't include financial passporting?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 2, 2016)

Make sure in the Brexit process, people say what they mean and mean what they say ..


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 2, 2016)

gosub said:


> The one that took seven years and doesn't include financial passporting?



Yes, but then we are not starting from the same position as Canada, are we? All current EU law is going to be automatically enshrined in UK law with the act that the government are proposing, so in principle there isn't much in the way of getting a deal done fairly promptly. Harmonisation of our markets has already happened; we are four fifths of the way there already.

The key variable acting as a potential road block here are the opinions of other EU member states as to what deal we should get. How that pans out remains to be seen.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 2, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The key variable acting as a potential road block here are the opinions of other EU member states as to what deal we should get. How that pans out remains to be seen.



Yes, there is that minor detail. Getting an agreement is, like to imply, going to be a doddle almost from start to finish. It's only the bit where the other parties to the agreement get to express their view that's going to be tricky.


----------



## Smangus (Oct 2, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The key variable acting as a potential road block here are the opinions of other EU member states as to what deal we should get. How that pans out remains to be seen.



Probably something along the lines of "Fuck those gobby arsey cunts!"


----------



## gosub (Oct 2, 2016)

Smangus said:


> Probably something along the lines of "Fuck those gobby arsey cunts!"


No, we do actually need a deal, we can't say that.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 2, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Yes, there is that minor detail. Getting an agreement is, like to imply, going to be a doddle almost from start to finish. It's only the bit where the other parties to the agreement get to express their view that's going to be tricky.



There are rational reasons for all involved to come to an agreement swiftly. I'm not panicking in the slightest myself.


----------



## Smangus (Oct 2, 2016)

gosub said:


> No, we do actually need a deal, we can't say that.



Yeah but how likely are we to get one in 2 years, that's not long In negotiation terms. I reckon we'll default to the worst setting anyhow after that time.


----------



## red & green (Oct 2, 2016)

The only deal uk will get is the one Eu give them - the Great Repeal bill is going to take along time cost a fortune and lead to parliament dealing with nothing else - trade deals take a minimum of 7 years to negotiate 

This is all about Tory party schisms nothing else


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 2, 2016)

red & green said:


> trade deals take a minimum of 7 years to negotiate



Bollocks.



> The Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) has crunched the numbers on how long it has taken the US to agree 20 bilateral trade deals.
> 
> The answer? One and a half years, on average. And more than three and a half years to get to the implementation stage.


----------



## red & green (Oct 2, 2016)

See 

Leaving the EU would mean renegotiating more than 100 trade agreements


----------



## Raheem (Oct 2, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> There are rational reasons for all involved to come to an agreement swiftly. I'm not panicking in the slightest myself.



It's rational to come to an agreement swiftly if you like what you're agreeing to. If not, the rational thing is to hold out.

But it isn't the speed we need worry about, IMO. There's a scenario where is takes 20 years, but the EU accommodates us and we just remain members until we're ready. Slow, but no harm done. Then there's a scenario where they drop us like a hot turd in 2019, because we're governed by amateurs. Because it's not clear how we are supposed to reach a domestic consensus as to what we actually want out of the negotiation, that's where our real worry is.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 2, 2016)

red & green said:


> See
> 
> Leaving the EU would mean renegotiating more than 100 trade agreements



See what? You made a patently false claim which your link does not substantiate.




			
				red & green said:
			
		

> trade deals take a *minimum *of 7 years to negotiate


----------



## red & green (Oct 2, 2016)

But regardless it contradicts yours


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 2, 2016)

Raheem said:


> It's rational to come to an agreement swiftly if you like what you're agreeing to. If not, the rational thing is to hold out.
> 
> But it isn't the speed we need worry about, IMO. There's a scenario where is takes 20 years, but the EU accommodates us and we just remain members until we're ready. Slow, but no harm done. Then there's a scenario where they drop us like a hot turd in 2019, because we're governed by amateurs. Because it's not clear how we are supposed to reach a domestic consensus as to what we actually want out of the negotiation, that's where our real worry is.



There's also a scenario where they declare war on us and mount an invasion via the channel tunnel. Some scenario's are less likely than others though.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 2, 2016)

red & green said:


> But regardless it contradicts yours



Or really? Where's it do that then? Besides, even if it does...



> _Pia Hüttl is an affiliate fellow at Bruegel. Prior to this, she worked as a Trainee in the Monetary Policy Stance Division of the European Central Bank, and as a Blue Book Stagiaire at the monetary policy, exchange rate policy of the euro area, ERM II and euro adoption Unit of DG ECFIN._
> 
> _Silvia Merler is an affiliate fellow at Bruegel.  Her main research interests include international macro and financial economics, central banking and EU institutions and policy making. Before joining Bruegel, she worked as an economic analyst in DG Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission (ECFIN)._



No bias there then.


----------



## red & green (Oct 2, 2016)

Bias or expertise? More likely to know the issues than the yanks


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 2, 2016)

red & green said:


> Bias or expertise? More likely to know the issues than the yanks



Absolutely bias. So what about your claim that trade negotiations take a _minimum _of 7 years? Where in your own (biased) article does it state that to be the case? Or were you just making shit up out of wishful thinking?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 2, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> See what? You made a patently false claim which your link does not substantiate.


Regardless of how quickly deals can be done, there is rather a lot of magical thinking going on here with the likes of Fox. Somehow, and he does not explain how, the UK is going to cut deals across the world that will be better than the deals the EU trading block can cut. I don't know how trade deals are made, but I see no reason why the UK is going to magically be able to make them better than the EU can. One thing I am pretty sure of is that Liam Fox is an idiot who doesn't have the first idea what he's doing.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 2, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> There's also a scenario where they declare war on us and mount an invasion via the channel tunnel. Some scenario's are less likely than others though.



Yes, but the least likely of all is that they sit down in Brussels and pass around a sheet of paper scribbled on by David Davies and everyone says "Yes, that all looks fine". There's a huge gap between what it would be in their interests to offer and what wouldn't be a disaster from our point-of-view. In some respects, our positions at present are completely illogical. We want closed borders so we can keep out foreigners, but we want open borders so as we don't get Troubles 2. Just for instance. How do we decide which we would prefer? And how can we get an agreement without deciding?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 2, 2016)

There is also the lie currently being peddled by Fox that, because the UK imports more from the EU than it exports to it, somehow that puts the UK in a strong position. The UK exports a far larger proportion of its total exports to the rest of the EU than the proportion of total exports that the exports to the UK represent for the rest of the EU. The idea that the UK has a strong hand here is patent bollocks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 2, 2016)

toblerone3 said:


> Well its only a 'probably' [hard Brexit] but there has no indication at all from EU leaders so far that maintaining access to the single market will be possible without accepting free movement of labour. Maybe they are just bluffing.


They didn't bluff with Switzerland. Flat-out rejected thus far a Swiss referendum result calling for an end to free movement of people. Another referendum won on a small majority - tiny bit over 50 per cent. And therein lie some of the problems with putting such things to referendums. An honest referendum would include some details of what results will mean - for instance, for Switzerland, what level of new tariffs will you accept in return for controlling immigration?


----------



## red & green (Oct 2, 2016)

http://www.economist.com/news/brita...de-deals-post-brexit-unfavourable-trade-winds


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 2, 2016)

That article makes the rather obvious point that a big trading block is in a stronger position wrt making trade deals than a smaller trading block. It's not merely magical thinking to think the UK can do better on its own. It's delusional thinking.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 2, 2016)

Hard Brexit. Soft Brexit.


----------



## red & green (Oct 2, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That article makes the rather obvious point that a big trading block is in a stronger position wrt making trade deals than a smaller trading block. It's not merely magical thinking to think the UK can do better on its own. It's delusional thinking.



Nothing wrong with an obvious point


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 2, 2016)

red & green said:


> http://www.economist.com/news/brita...de-deals-post-brexit-unfavourable-trade-winds



Are you going to admit that you were factually wrong to claim that trade deals take a minimum of 7 years to negotiate?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 2, 2016)

There is a basic contradiction here. If Brexit were being done to pursue a non-neoliberal course, that would be one thing. Fuck the trade deals - if they're not quite as good, we'll live with it. But it's not. It's being done by high-neo-liberal tories who have no intention of abandoning full-throttle capitalism. On their own terms, brexit makes no sense whatever.


----------



## gosub (Oct 2, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Yes, but then we are not starting from the same position as Canada, are we? All current EU law is going to be automatically enshrined in UK law with the act that the government are proposing, so in principle there isn't much in the way of getting a deal done fairly promptly. Harmonisation of our markets has already happened; we are four fifths of the way there already.
> 
> The key variable acting as a potential road block here are the opinions of other EU member states as to what deal we should get. How that pans out remains to be seen.


Then the deal you are looking at more closely resembles the Australia - EU deal, which took two years.(eta: conformity assesment followed by Mutual Recognition Agreement MRA)   Think the problem won't be EU member states, its who authorises what between Parliament, Commission, Council


----------



## free spirit (Oct 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is a basic contradiction here. If Brexit were being done to pursue a non-neoliberal course, that would be one thing. Fuck the trade deals - if they're not quite as good, we'll live with it. But it's not. It's being done by high-neo-liberal tories who have no intention of abandoning full-throttle capitalism. On their own terms, brexit makes no sense whatever.


The UK has a pretty unique take on neoliberalism though, one not shared across Europe. We (our politicians) don't give a toss who owns our biggest employers, our utilities, infrastructure companies etc.

The EU trade negotiators understood that a free trade deal with a country that doesn't have similar levels of environmental and social protections, workers rights etc would be a free trade deal in which the EU was the loser as the other country's companies would be operating with unfair competitive advantages and able to undercut EU companies while selling within the EU.

I fear that those now in charge of UK trade negotiations haven't figured out this pretty basic issue, and will end up selling the UK industry even further down the river in free trade deals with china, India etc. The free trade deals they've criticised the EU for taking too long to sign.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 3, 2016)

free spirit said:


> The UK has a pretty unique take on neoliberalism though, one not shared across Europe. We (our politicians) don't give a toss who owns our biggest employers, our utilities, infrastructure companies etc.
> 
> The EU trade negotiators understood that a free trade deal with a country that doesn't have similar levels of environmental and social protections, workers rights etc would be a free trade deal in which the EU was the loser as the other country's companies would be operating with unfair competitive advantages and able to undercut EU companies while selling within the EU.
> 
> I fear that those now in charge of UK trade negotiations haven't figured out this pretty basic issue, and will end up selling the UK industry even further down the river in free trade deals with china, India etc. The free trade deals they've criticised the EU for taking too long to sign.


Well yes, which is why, although all the eu regs will be in place at the start - just transferred to British law, which was always going to be the starting point - that is only a starting point. There are no guarantees what will be changed down the road.

The govt is in a bind. They appear to want to end free movement of people and keep the single market. Same bind the Swiss are in. In the end, keeping both is not their decision to make.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well yes, which is why, although all the eu regs will be in place at the start - just transferred to British law, which was always going to be the starting point - that is only a starting point. There are no guarantees what will be changed down the road.
> 
> The govt is in a bind. They appear to want to end free movement of people and keep the single market. Same bind the Swiss are in. In the end, keeping both is not their decision to make.


thing is, if they end up going for a hard brexit with access arrangements rather than membership of the common market, this would then mean that they're also able to dump regulations that they want to dump / need to dump to get a trade deal with China that doesn't disadvantage us.

If we retain full membership then that will only be on the basis that we also retain common environmental, social, work regulations.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 3, 2016)

When i understand about the whole brexit process is that nobody understands it. 

Its about unpicking and reforming a bureaucratic and legal mountain of legislation and trade relationships accumulated over 40 years in the face of resistance and/or passive unhelpfulness from the rest of EU and large and from powerful domestic interests. Not to mention the effect of sundry variables like the economy, share prices, exchange rates and energy prices.

Meanwhile you have political pressure from a large section of the right wing press and public opinion which seems to think that johnny foreigner should just do what hes told.  

And this process is all being masterminded by the three intellectual titans/rats-in-a-sack; Boris Johnson, David Davies and Liam Fox. 

So a big thankyou to the pig fucker - and good luck Theresa.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 3, 2016)

free spirit said:


> thing is, if they end up going for a hard brexit with access arrangements rather than membership of the common market, this would then mean that they're also able to dump regulations that they want to dump / need to dump to get a trade deal with China that doesn't disadvantage us.


Davis has already indicated what he wants - you conform to different standards depending on who you're selling to. He said this explicitly just after taking the ministerial job. That is a clear indication of a race to the bottom. Expect it to be accompanied by further cuts in corporation tax, which will probably be needed to attract businesses that would otherwise be put off by the UK not being in the EU.

The idea that most of this is good for business is highly questionable. The idea that any of it is good for employees is absurd.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 3, 2016)

not forgetting that if you are big enough HMRC will let you off the tax bill and in general terms subsidise all business though in work tax credits. Which the european union was quick to put the kybosh on.....oh wait they never did


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> not forgetting that if you are big enough HMRC will let you off the tax bill and in general terms subsidise all business though in work tax credits. Which the european union was quick to put the kybosh on.....oh wait they never did


Except that yes, there are mechanisms in the Eu to  stop such sharp practices. Hence Ireland being told to take taxes. 

Clearly it would be better if it did better enforcing its own rules. Same goes for lots of organisations. But entirely ineffective? No.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 3, 2016)

FT opinion piece.

By caving in to her RW, May has thrown away her Aces with nothing to show for it.



> _By announcing that she will start the formal negotiations for Britain to leave the EU by March 2017, the prime minister has walked into a trap. She has given away what little leverage Britain has in the negotiations — without receiving any of the assurances that she needs to achieve a successful outcome.
> The announcement of the decision about when the UK will trigger Article 50 — the process by which Britain gives formal notice that it intends to leave the EU — was made in a statesmanlike fashion. But the actual content of the decision is reckless and driven by politics, rather than Britain’s national interest._


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2016)

brogdale said:


> FT opinion piece.
> 
> By caving in to her RW, May has thrown away her Aces with nothing to show for it.
> 
> ​


She did that ages ago when she said the UK would pass on its presidency


----------



## brogdale (Oct 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> She did that ages ago when she said the UK would pass on its presidency


The first ace, maybe...but she's just pissed away the other 3.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2016)

brogdale said:


> The first ace, maybe...but she's just pissed away the other 3.


All over the place like an auld wino card sharp


----------



## bemused (Oct 4, 2016)

Not sure what else they can do, they have to start soon, I suspect the talks will be more pragmatic than some doom mongers predict.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2016)

brogdale said:


> FT opinion piece.
> 
> By caving in to her RW, May has thrown away her Aces with nothing to show for it.
> 
> ​


That's nonsense from them  - they know the weight UK capital and its role in global flows is the leverage. Not silly politics.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That's nonsense from them  - they know the weight UK capital and its role in global flows is the leverage. Not silly politics.


Indeed it is, but the fact remains that it is May's team actually sat at the 'poker table' on behalf of capital...and she appears to have compromised her poker face already.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Indeed it is, but the fact remains that it is May's team actually sat at the 'poker table' on behalf of capital...and she appears to have compromised her poker face already.


That stuff is just for the papers and news.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Indeed it is, but the fact remains that it is May's team actually sat at the 'poker table' on behalf of capital...and she appears to have compromised her poker face already.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That stuff is just for the papers and news.


Normally would agree, (a la Streeck), but with the Brexit process we will see two players, both attempting to privilege capital, but with different political agendas.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Normally would agree, (a la Streeck), but with the Brexit process we will see two players, both attempting to privilege capital, but with different political agendas.


Politics is but the tiny shriveled shadow cast by capital here. There are no real splits that politics reflect here - there is just _get on with it and do with at least disruption as possible, it'll all just be the same , so let's do it and sell it somehow, something about immigration._


----------



## brogdale (Oct 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Politics is but the tiny shriveled shadow cast by capital here. There are no real splits that politics reflect here - there is just _get on with it and do with at least disruption as possible, it'll all just be the same , so let's do it and sell it somehow, something about immigration._


Yes, but the tories have made the mistake of allowing (a form of) democracy into the process of the role of the consolidator state. The people have spoken and charged them with the challenge of delivering the political oxymoron of _nationalist neoliberalism. _So we have two political entities of capital faced with potential existential crisis if their variant fails. I do think there will be a 'poker game'.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yes, but the tories have made the mistake of allowing (a form of) democracy into the process of the role of the consolidator state. The people have spoken and charged them with the challenge of delivering the political oxymoron of _nationalist neoliberalism. _So we have two political entities of capital faced with potential existential crisis if their variant fails. I do think there will be a 'poker game'.


I hope that you're right - If one of these things dies it would be good.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I hope that you're right - If one of these things dies it would be good.


Or both.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 5, 2016)

So Rudd reveals _British jobs for British workers, (_Mk III), the proposal to _name & shame _with the publication of % indigenous employed and _throwing out the forrin doctors & students._ No wonder capital's shills have taken to the media to condemn these policy proposals.

Tories seem to be struggling to square the circle of _natio-liberalism._


----------



## bemused (Oct 5, 2016)

I don't really have a problem with the idea that employers should hire from within the UK first. I've worked on technology projects where 1000s of people were shipped in from India to do data transfer - I'm sure they could have found people already here to do that work.

I watched her speech and she appears to think if you make all these people homeless with no access to a bank account they'll leave. 

Given that almost half the legal migration from outside the EU are students and account for over 70,000 people I can't see how anyone will ever get to the 'tens of thousands' number.


----------



## CRI (Oct 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> So Rudd reveals _British jobs for British workers, (_Mk III), the proposal to _name & shame _with the publication of % indigenous employed and _throwing out the forrin doctors & students._ No wonder capital's shills have taken to the media to condemn these policy proposals.
> 
> Tories seem to be struggling to square the circle of _natio-liberalism._


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> So Rudd reveals _British jobs for British workers, (_Mk III), the proposal to _name & shame _with the publication of % indigenous employed and _throwing out the forrin doctors & students._ No wonder capital's shills have taken to the media to condemn these policy proposals.
> 
> Tories seem to be struggling to square the circle of _natio-liberalism._


this is at the same time as forcing shittier contracts on Jnr Doctors making it more likely that they'll go practise where the wages are higher, few years working private healthcare in the US kerching. Meanwhile the NHS creaks on


----------



## discokermit (Oct 5, 2016)

CRI said:


>


the pronouncements of a tory prime minister attacked by insulting the working class.


----------



## CRI (Oct 5, 2016)

discokermit said:


> the pronouncements of a tory prime minister attacked by insulting the working class.


Do lighten up.  Could have been any "native British" stereotype to make the point.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 5, 2016)

CRI said:


> Do lighten up.  Could have been any "native British" stereotype to make the point.


"Could have..."


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> So Rudd reveals _British jobs for British workers, (_Mk III), the proposal to _name & shame _with the publication of % indigenous employed and _throwing out the forrin doctors & students._ No wonder capital's shills have taken to the media to condemn these policy proposals.
> 
> Tories seem to be struggling to square the circle of _natio-liberalism._


At what point do we reach fascist minimum?


----------



## CRI (Oct 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> "Could have..."


Christ.

I get it.  So Brexit was the (white) working class sticking it to rich tossers, so it must be a good thing, yes, even if it means the Tories will now destroy what's left of workers' rights, the NHS, welfare, etc. Okay, right . . .


----------



## brogdale (Oct 5, 2016)

CRI said:


> Christ.
> 
> I get it.  So Brexit was the (white) working class sticking it to rich tossers, so it must be a good thing, yes, even if it means the Tories will now destroy what's left of workers' rights, the NHS, welfare, etc. Okay, right . . .


_Could have _been a City banker in a suit & bowler...but only working class people are thick enough to make a Telegraph joke work.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 5, 2016)

CRI said:


> Do lighten up.  Could have been any "native British" stereotype to make the point.


but it wasn't. 
second time i heard it today, both times making fun of stereotypical working people.
why do these things not make fun of the oxford graduate who made and announced the decision?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 5, 2016)

because the vote didn't go their way its now the w/c to blame for everything the tories do. And we haven't even begun leaving yet.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 6, 2016)

The options...as seen by the masters of the universe....


----------



## brogdale (Oct 6, 2016)

Telegraph story showing the rift between capitalists benefitting from neoliberal freedoms of movement and the nationalist party of capital.



> A business director scolded by the Home Secretary foremploying too many foreign workers has hit back by telling_The Telegraph_ he was forced to recruit Eastern Europeans because there were not enough homegrown candidates.


_Natio-'liberalism'._


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2016)

The _Bruegel proposal_? That has a certain ring to it .
 

Seems that whoever they are at least they've tried to come up with an idea of what might happen next.


----------



## newbie (Oct 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> The options...as seen by the masters of the universe....



Does that really delineate the parameters that May, Fox, Davis and Johnson have to operate within, are there any important proposals or options missing?


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Tories seem to be struggling to square the circle of _natio-liberalism._



Larry Summers is working on it...

Voters deserve responsible nationalism not reflex globalism — FT.com

_Reflex internationalism needs to give way to responsible nationalism or else we will only see more distressing referendums and populist demagogues contending for high office.

_
...haven't all the Far Eastern "tigers" been doing nationalist globalist capitalism from 1950's Japan onwards..."rhombus economics"...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> The options...as seen by the masters of the universe....



No idea what the 'Breugel proposal' (ah, Br - eu- gel, I see) is but it is interesting in the way it trades off restriction of borders with access to free markets - by removing the right to negotiate other trade deals. Taking back (a little bit of) control of borders in return for giving up any direct input into or control over the nature of trade deals. About the exact opposite of what Davis and Fox have been trumpeting. 

There will be a price exacted for restricting borders. If that is the price being demanded, it's sort of clever, because it takes all the wind out of the sails of the free-marketeer tory right who wanted brexit. Really, their logic ought to mean a deal far more like those of Norway or the Swiss - free or nearly free access in return for free movement of people but maintaining autonomy elsewhere. Don't want that? Well you lose your trade autonomy, then - you make deals with other countries only with EU permission, you're in that naughty corner with Turkey.


----------



## bemused (Oct 6, 2016)

I can't see how any deal that stops the UK signing trade deals outside the EU is going to fly?

Although it could be spun that is stops Liam Fox doing anything which I'm sure most of the country would be cool with.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 6, 2016)

bemused said:


> I can't see how any deal that stops the UK signing trade deals outside the EU is going to fly?.



But fly with who? If there's not going to be a second referendum, then it's surely just a matter of what the government feels is the best it can do.


----------



## bemused (Oct 6, 2016)

Raheem said:


> But fly with who? If there's not going to be a second referendum, then it's surely just a matter of what the government feels is the best it can do.



Because if you don't have full access to the free market or the ability to build trade deals outside the EU you're pretty screwed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

bemused said:


> Because if you don't have full access to the free market or the ability to build trade deals outside the EU you're pretty screwed.


No but the price for access to the free market without free movement of people (according to that HSBC thing, which is all I am going on)  would be basically locking yourself into EU trade deals, which presumably you'd also be party to. 

I could see that happening tbh. Who even knows what trade deals the UK has with the rest of the world? Who cares? I know fuckwit Fox cares, but who else? Very few people, and if the UK basically got the EU's trade deals, most businesses probably wouldn't care either (might be relieved, given that the UK's independent deals would likely be worse). 

The tories are tying themselves very firmly into the idea that 'brexit means brexit' means an end to free movement from the EU. If they have to bind themselves to the EU in a way that loses them sovereignty over something else that noone cares about, they might do it.


----------



## bemused (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No but the price for access to the free market without free movement of people (according to that HSBC thing, which is all I am going on)  would be basically locking yourself into EU trade deals, which presumably you'd also be party to.
> 
> I could see that happening tbh. Who even knows what trade deals the UK has with the rest of the world? Who cares? I know fuckwit Fox cares, but who else? Very few people, and if the UK basically got the EU's trade deals, most businesses probably wouldn't care either (might be relieved, given that the UK's independent deals would likely be worse).
> 
> The tories are tying themselves very firmly into the idea that 'brexit means brexit' means an end to free movement from the EU. If they have to bind themselves to the EU in a way that loses them sovereignty over something else that noone cares about, they might do it.



I don't see free market access without free movement, allowing it would strengthen calls from EU members to close their boarders. I can't see the UK taking free movement, now they make fudge it by allowing people with jobs to move but even that would probably be hard for the bigger EU partners to swallow.

Access to the free market or at least with low tariffs and free market deals with trading partners the EU don't have deals with would make the UK quite attractive for companies wanting to sell in the EU. It would seem rather silly to me if the UK removed that option from their tool bag.

Then again the whole process seems pretty fudged, although David Davis seems more sensible than Fox.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

bemused said:


> David Davis seems more sensible than Fox.


Talk about setting the bar low. 

Davis believes in this stuff - has done for years - and the reason he has the job is basically because he wrote a pamphlet days after the vote outlining how to do it. (For my sins I've read it.) He appears to be the only person to have thought to do this. But for all its sensible, considered language, the pamphlet relies on a leap of faith, and that leap of faith is that the UK can get better deals on its own than it could get within the EU. Looking more closely at it, the important bit is in one particular detail - that companies should be allowed to produce stuff according to different standards depending on where they are selling to. That's a signal of a race to the bottom, cracking deals with the likes of China or India that allow lower standards than the EU would allow. And the EU won't like that at all. Allowing restrictions on movement in return for not allowing Davis's plan makes sense for the EU, especially when those restrictions are likely to be relatively loose.

It's also important that they will be giving up something Norway and Switzerland have not given up. They won't be getting an end to free movement for free - they'll be getting it only in return for a significant loss of sovereignty in another area.


----------



## bemused (Oct 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Talk about setting the bar low.
> 
> Davis believes in this stuff - has done for years - and the reason he has the job is basically because he wrote a pamphlet days after the vote outlining how to do it. (For my sins I've read it.) He appears to be the only person to have thought to do this. But for all its sensible, considered language, the pamphlet relies on a leap of faith, and that leap of faith is that the UK can get better deals on its own than it could get within the EU. Looking more closely at it, the important bit is in one particular detail - that companies should be allowed to produce stuff according to different standards depending on where they are selling to. That's a signal of a race to the bottom, cracking deals with the likes of China or India that allow lower standards than the EU would allow. And the EU won't like that at all. Allowing restrictions on movement in return for not allowing Davis's plan makes sense for the EU, especially when those restrictions are likely to be relatively loose.



The UK becoming a trade hub between the EU and places like China does seem a larger concern to the EU than movement.


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 6, 2016)

These Tories are digging themselves an even deeper shit infested hole. The ref result is going very well so far.
More please!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2016)

pocketscience said:


> These Tories are digging themselves an even deeper shit infested hole. The ref result is going very well so far.
> More please!


The debates pre-vote were dominated by immigration, and now the brexit process has basically become all about immigration. 

I find the whole thing thoroughly depressing.


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 7, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The debates pre-vote were dominated by tories, and now the brexit process has basically become all about tories.


fify


littlebabyjesus said:


> I find the whole thing thoroughly depressing.


Chill & enjoy


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2016)

Enjoy what? 

Sorry, but the tories were always going to have a headfuck of conflicting interests wrt brexit. That they have chosen to lead with immigration as the sign of success in the process, and it wasn't immediately obvious that they would, is fucking depressing.


----------



## pocketscience (Oct 7, 2016)

Leading with it? I wish they were, coz they'd be in for a hiding for nothing. I reckon these are just signals sent to gather the reactions of their own tory right, and their Eu counterparts.

Fact is, immigration policy in the UK is still a metric kilometre to the left of where a lot of the other Eu national policies are today.
What Rudd's been saying is more in line with most of the current Eu nation policies than any Brexit strategy.
So, by getting in a huff about it, you play yourself in an offside position...


----------



## CRI (Oct 7, 2016)

_*LSE foreign academics told they will not be asked to advise on Brexit*_
_
Leading foreign academics from the LSE acting as expert advisers to the UK government were told they would not be asked to contribute to government work and analysis on Brexit because they are not British nationals. The news was met with outrage by many academics, while legal experts questioned whether it could be legal under anti-discrimination laws and senior politicians criticised it as bewildering._

Hey, but they're not English, or working class, possibly not white either, so who cares, right?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 7, 2016)

CRI said:


> _*LSE foreign academics told they will not be asked to advise on Brexit*_
> _
> Leading foreign academics from the LSE acting as expert advisers to the UK government were told they would not be asked to contribute to government work and analysis on Brexit because they are not British nationals. The news was met with outrage by many academics, while legal experts questioned whether it could be legal under anti-discrimination laws and senior politicians criticised it as bewildering._
> 
> Hey, but they're not English, or working class, possibly not white either, so who cares, right?



This is the thin end of the wedge, I reckon. Next it'll be ever having lived abroad. Or having passed A-level French.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2016)

CRI said:


> _*LSE foreign academics told they will not be asked to advise on Brexit*_
> _
> Leading foreign academics from the LSE acting as expert advisers to the UK government were told they would not be asked to contribute to government work and analysis on Brexit because they are not British nationals. The news was met with outrage by many academics, while legal experts questioned whether it could be legal under anti-discrimination laws and senior politicians criticised it as bewildering._
> 
> Hey, but they're not English, or working class, possibly not white either, so who cares, right?


What happened?


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 7, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> that leap of faith is that the UK can get better deals on its own than it could get within the EU.



based on the process being quicker in a 1:1 negotiation presumably rather than the glacial non-progress exhibited by the EU to-date .....and the not un-related factor that the assymetry in size makes countries more cautious about opening their markets to a huge bloc than to single trading partners...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2016)

> _Leading foreign academics from the LSE acting as expert advisers to the UK government were told they would not be asked to contribute to government work and analysis on Brexit because they are not British nationals_



People from the LSE with high level media contacts advising the neo-liberal govt were told they couldn't contribute to a neo-liberal project. Why? Conflict of interest? Being dirty foreigners?

Fucking race war.


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 7, 2016)

...so which headline is bollocks then...?


The U.K. Is Hiring Foreign Experts to Negotiate Life After Brexit


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> ...so which headline is bollocks then...?
> 
> 
> The U.K. Is Hiring Foreign Experts to Negotiate Life After Brexit


Guardian one obviously being as they're going down the toilet


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2016)

EXPERTS E


hot air baboon said:


> ...so which headline is bollocks then...?
> 
> 
> The U.K. Is Hiring Foreign Experts to Negotiate Life After Brexit


Whichever fits the febrile_ this is 1933_ lies. Note, their resistance this time consists of _running away._


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 7, 2016)

Some people in the LSE somewhere along the process have been told that they are out of it, explicitly because they are foreign, after a communique from the Foreign Office. There's been counterspin around this about it being a misunderstanding but the originators are pretty clear about where the issue came from, which hasn't been challenged.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Some people in the LSE somewhere along the process have been told that they are out of it, explicitly because they are foreign, after a communique from the Foreign Office. There's been counterspin around this about it being a misunderstanding but the originators are pretty clear about where the issue came from, which hasn't been challenged.


What's the basis for their removal though? Howling racism? Populism (to who?) Conflict of interest? These peoples views as regards things? 

This thing highlights how little say any one has or had over anything but nio, the story is posh neo-libs lose specific job advising posh domestic neo-libs.

The fist post on this even dares assume that academics means = great.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> based on the process being quicker in a 1:1 negotiation presumably rather than the glacial non-progress exhibited by the EU to-date .....and the not un-related factor that the assymetry in size makes countries more cautious about opening their markets to a huge bloc than to single trading partners...


The asymmetry in size puts the smaller group at a disadvantage in negotiations. It's naive to think the UK can act more strongly alone. Also, there are the 53 trade deals the EU has in place already. Rip those up, renegotiate - South Korea have already said that this will have to happen. And the deals with the likes of China will be struck in parallel with the EU, which is already in the process of negotiating a deal. Which deal will China see as the more important?

It's a total mess. Davis may come across as less of a clueless fool than Fox, but both of them are deluded.

And let's not forget what Davis wants here. He wants deals with countries outside the EU that allow lower standards than an EU deal would tolerate. He says so explicitly in the document that got him his current job. Lower manufacturing standards, environmental standards, health and safety standards. Whatever it takes to get the deal. These are hard-nosed right-wing free marketeer tories. And they're the ones pushing their agenda wrt business policy.


----------



## CRI (Oct 7, 2016)

Geez, only right wing media sources accepted around here now?  Ok, fill your boots.

*LSE vows to stand by foreign academics after Brexit ban

London School of Economics accuses Government of barring foreign academics from advising on Brexit

UK government bars foreign academics from Brexit work, LSE claims






*


----------



## CRI (Oct 7, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The asymmetry in size puts the smaller group at a disadvantage in negotiations. It's naive to think the UK can act more strongly alone. Also, there are the 53 trade deals the EU has in place already. Rip those up, renegotiate - South Korea have already said that this will have to happen. And the deals with the likes of China will be struck in parallel with the EU, which is already in the process of negotiating a deal. Which deal will China see as the more important?
> 
> It's a total mess. Davis may come across as less of a clueless fool than Fox, but both of them are deluded.
> 
> And let's not forget what Davis wants here. He wants deals with countries outside the EU that allow lower standards than an EU deal would tolerate. He says so explicitly in the document that got him his current job. Lower manufacturing standards, environmental standards, health and safety standards. Whatever it takes to get the deal. These are hard-nosed right-wing free marketeer tories. And they're the ones pushing their agenda wrt business policy.



We're fucked basically, in every orifice .


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2016)

Boo hoo. Best placed experts not listened to. What happened in that weird pre-2008 period? _Listen to what you're fucking told. _Don't challenge it.

Oh that's right, everyone was busy being a racist. (social attitudes survey back that up of course)


----------



## CRI (Oct 7, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Boo hoo. Best placed experts not listened to. What happened in that weird pre-2008 period? _Listen to what you're fucking told. _Don't challenge it.
> 
> Oh that's right, everyone was busy being a racist. (social attitudes survey back that up of course)


Sure, that nice Michael Gove said everyone was tired of listening to experts.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2016)

CRI said:


> Sure, that nice Michael Gove said everyone was tired of listening to experts.


Thank you.

What happened actually?  He was right. And you liberal's continued to conflate technical expertise with social views - with having the right views. Like 19th century throwbacks - science  = politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2016)

_Vote for us - the experts! _shouts CRI in an almost brain-killingly expert demonstration of how to _ just not get it._


----------



## Gromit (Oct 8, 2016)

Hard Brexit...

Negotiating position or is she serious?

I'm hoping the former which gives me some confidence that we just might not get completely fucked in the negotiations. We'll still lose out by leaving though. No way we'll get a better deal with Europe from outside of the EU than what we currently have.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2016)

It looks like LSE / FO story was some sort of a misunderstanding, Foreign office now categorically denying that they ever said anything of the sort. David Allen Green (@DavidAllenGreen) on Twitter


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2016)

bimble said:


> It looks like LSE / FO story was some sort of a misunderstanding, Foreign office now categorically denying that they ever said anything of the sort. David Allen Green (@DavidAllenGreen) on Twitter


And you believe them.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2016)

bimble said:


> It looks like LSE / FO story was some sort of a misunderstanding, Foreign office now categorically denying that they ever said anything of the sort. David Allen Green (@DavidAllenGreen) on Twitter


Nonsense. Only the tabloids lie and inflate to serve their posh writers/ownersa agenda.

Keep on doing that valuable advising to neo-liberal govts  LSE - we need you now more than ever.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> And you believe them.


I haven't got a clue what was said but it does look like the headlines were not accurate, nobody at LSE is actually going to be barred from joining in whatever discussions on the basis of what passport they hold.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2016)

bimble said:


> I haven't got a clue what was said but it does look like the headlines were not accurate, nobody at LSE is actually going to be barred from joining in whatever discussions on the basis of what passport they hold.


You mean a u-turn's been done behind closed doors


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2016)

Can anyone find that polling piece from about 10 years ago that found regular Guardian readers most likely to believe what it printed?


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> You mean a u-turn's been done behind closed doors


If you look at the link I posted above you'll see that this whole story was apparently based on a single telephone conversation and that if the FO were to try to actually implement the idea they'd have had big legal problems doing so.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 8, 2016)

You mean the darkened sky isn't falling as we frogmarch into the Fourth Reich? Well who'd a thunk it!


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> You mean the darkened sky isn't falling as we frogmarch into the Fourth Reich? Well who'd a thunk it!


I dunno. Doesnt feel much like we're striding unfettered towards the Sunny Uplands of A new dawn either tbh. It's a tough call.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 8, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Can anyone find that polling piece from about 10 years ago that found regular Guardian readers most likely to believe what it printed?


Not the poll but here's a puff piece with them congratulating themselves on being great and trustworthy.


ETA: Here's the old thread on the story
https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/guardian-most-trustworthy-newspaper.31800/#post-1148864, unfortunately the link to the actual polling data seems have got fucked.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 8, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> You mean the darkened sky isn't falling as we frogmarch into the Fourth Reich? Well who'd a thunk it!



This definitely isn't a government that wants to be seen having anything to do with foreigners, though some of the comparisons do seem a little overblown.


----------



## inva (Oct 8, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Not the poll but here's a puff piece with them congratulating themselves on being great and trustworthy.
> 
> 
> ETA: Here's the old thread on the story
> https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/guardian-most-trustworthy-newspaper.31800/#post-1148864, unfortunately the link to the actual polling data seems have got fucked.


if it helps I dug this pdf up which I think contains data from the poll (done for Press Gazette) referred to by the Guardian.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2016)

Yossarian said:


> This definitely isn't a government that wants to be seen having anything to do with foreigners, though some of the comparisons do seem a little overblown.


Shurely "England prevails"


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2016)

inva said:


> if it helps I dug this pdf up which I think contains data from the poll (done for Press Gazette) referred to by the Guardian.


Some great lost posters on that thread. Some twats too.


----------



## Russell Ballard (Oct 10, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is a basic contradiction here. If Brexit were being done to pursue a non-neoliberal course, that would be one thing. Fuck the trade deals - if they're not quite as good, we'll live with it. But it's not. It's being done by high-neo-liberal tories who have no intention of abandoning full-throttle capitalism. On their own terms, brexit makes no sense whatever.



This is quite true. Under the tories it is going to be full throttle backwards. I would not say fuck the trade deals though. They are very important as we are going to discover when we no longer have them. What really gets me about this is how it looks overseas. I speak to people all over the world as part of my job and I am sick and tired of having to explain that not everyone in Britain is a fucking idiot, quite the reverse. We have had decades of anti-European propaganda from an establishment looking for a scapegoat to cover their own failing and yet 48% voted the right way.

I was going to move to Spain but I am having more than a few second thoughts. It will be a lot harder to afford and also I am not sure if I want to have to explain all this on a face to face basis. I am very lucky that I look like a slav but the second I open my gob I am going to get that certain leper look. Plus I have to admit, if I were from another EU country with the sole exception of Ireland, it would be really really hard not to laugh at the British


----------



## brogdale (Oct 10, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is a basic contradiction here. If Brexit were being done to pursue a non-neoliberal course, that would be one thing. Fuck the trade deals - if they're not quite as good, we'll live with it. But it's not. It's being done by high-neo-liberal tories who have no intention of abandoning full-throttle capitalism. *On their own terms, brexit makes no sense whatever*.



I think your bolded part is in danger of mis-understanding and under-estimating the ideals that motivate the Atlanticist neoliberals that have driven the political process culminating in the Brexit vote. From the outset the public 'debate' around sovereignty etc. masked the real ideological differences between neoliberals. Between those who believed in georegionally differentiated delivery of neoliberal goals, (via FTAs etc.), and those with more 'Atlanticist', normative outlook who believe Neoliberalism is best effected by global free-trade unencumbered by regional unions. 

The ideological 'base' that lay below the froth of the Leave 'superstructure' always saw the undoing of the European political Union as a means to ushering in a new, purer period of neoliberal acceleration without the inconvenience of regionally differentiated patterns of regulation. To these forces Brexit makes complete sense.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 10, 2016)

Sovereignty ('taking back control of our laws') was the most popular reason cited by Out voters, yet the government seems to be making the loudest noises about immigration. Aren't the tories guilty more than anyone of assuming that Out voters were 'thick racists' then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Sovereignty ('taking back control of our laws') was the most popular reason cited by Out voters, yet the government seems to be making the loudest noises about immigration. Aren't the tories guilty more than anyone of assuming that Out voters were 'thick racists' then?


you mean they think they are just like them


----------



## brogdale (Oct 10, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Sovereignty ('taking back control of our laws') was the most popular reason cited by Out voters, yet the government seems to be making the loudest noises about immigration. Aren't the tories guilty more than anyone of assuming that Out voters were 'thick racists' then?


Already rowing back...


----------



## inva (Oct 10, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Sovereignty ('taking back control of our laws') was the most popular reason cited by Out voters, yet the government seems to be making the loudest noises about immigration. Aren't the tories guilty more than anyone of assuming that Out voters were 'thick racists' then?


No, not really more so. As guilty as others, yeah.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 10, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I think your bolded part is in danger of mis-understanding and under-estimating the ideals that motivate the Atlanticist neoliberals that have driven the political process culminating in the Brexit vote. From the outset the public 'debate' around sovereignty etc. masked the real ideological differences between neoliberals. Between those who believed in georegionally differentiated delivery of neoliberal goals, (via FTAs etc.), and those with more 'Atlanticist', normative outlook who believe Neoliberalism is best effected by global free-trade unencumbered by regional unions.
> 
> The ideological 'base' that lay below the froth of the Leave 'superstructure' always saw the undoing of the European political Union as a means to ushering in a new, purer period of neoliberal acceleration without the inconvenience of regionally differentiated patterns of regulation. To these forces Brexit makes complete sense.


Relatively small-scale example, but this is an insight into the way the Atlantacists view the world.



> _A Tory peer believes European Union (EU) pensions legislation will “fall away” when Brexit materialises and argues London has a bright future.
> 
> The main benefit of leaving the EU would be a financial one for DB schemes as "increasing material deficits further" through potential full funding requirements is "not really in line with UK thinking on the matter", he added._


​


----------



## Anju (Oct 10, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Sovereignty ('taking back control of our laws') was the most popular reason cited by Out voters, yet the government seems to be making the loudest noises about immigration. Aren't the tories guilty more than anyone of assuming that Out voters were 'thick racists' then?



I was wondering about this and have realised that when people were talking about sovereignty and being able to make our own laws they are referring to immigration laws.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> I was wondering about this and have realised that when people were talking about sovereignty and being able to make our own laws they are referring to immigration laws.



Some may have been. I wasn't.


----------



## Anju (Oct 10, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Some may have been. I wasn't.



Sorry, should have been clearer. Didn't mean to say everyone but if you ask people which laws they have a problem with most will not give any details. I take that to mean they are thinking about immigration but don't want to say so.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> Sorry, should have been clearer. Didn't mean to say everyone but if you ask people which laws they have a problem with most will not give any details. I take that to mean they are thinking about immigration but don't want to say so.


just off the top of my head...

local government finance act 1992
public order act 1986
terrorism act 2000
offences against the person act 1861
criminal justice and public order act 1994


----------



## Anju (Oct 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> just off the top of my head...
> 
> local government finance act 1992
> public order act 1986
> ...



I don't think Urban is exactly representative of the population as a whole.

I have no idea if the laws you quote are EU or UK laws and neither would most people. Theresa and myself both think it is safe to assume that the vast majority of leave voters are only  concerned with immigration law.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> I don't think Urban is exactly representative of the population as a whole.
> 
> I have no idea if the laws you quote are EU or UK laws and neither would most people. Theresa and myself both think it is safe to assume that the vast majority of leave voters are only  concerned with immigration law.


no, those are uk laws. even the 1861 one.


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> Theresa and myself both think it is safe to assume that the vast majority of leave voters are only  concerned with immigration law.



She definitely appears to be proceeding as if the question we were asked in the referendum was "Do you think there are too many foreigners coming over here?  Yes / NO"
I don't know how much of it is just posturing and bluff though.


----------



## Anju (Oct 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> no, those are uk laws. even the 1861 one.



OK, I was just giving my opinion on why the government is concentrating on immigration when many people gave sovereignty and EU laws as a reason for voting leave. To many the reason they were concerned with EU law was solely related to immigration.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> OK, I was just giving my opinion on why the government is concentrating on immigration when many people gave sovereignty and EU laws as a reason for voting leave. To many the reason they were concerned with EU law was solely related to immigration.


i'm sure there's lots of eu laws to which i would object if only i knew of them.


----------



## inva (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> Sorry, should have been clearer. Didn't mean to say everyone but if you ask people which laws they have a problem with most will not give any details. I take that to mean they are thinking about immigration but don't want to say so.


are you expecting them to reel off a list of laws?


----------



## Anju (Oct 10, 2016)

inva said:


> are you expecting them to reel off a list of laws?



I'm expecting people to know why they voted to leave the EU.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> I'm expecting people to know why they voted to leave the EU.


i'm sure that nearly four months on even the most inarticulate bonehead could have cobbled something together.


----------



## Anju (Oct 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm sure there's lots of eu laws to which i would object if only i knew of them.



I thought your objections to the EU were on a more fundamental level.


----------



## inva (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> I'm expecting people to know why they voted to leave the EU.


I'm sure they do know why. does that require being able to list specific laws when anyone asks? I know why I voted leave and I wouldn't be able to name any laws at all.


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2016)

The government doesn't know why you personally voted leave though inva , that seems to be the problem, they're just guessing, and they're apparently guessing that you did it because foreigners.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> I thought your objections to the EU were on a more fundamental level.


yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> I'm expecting people to know why they voted to leave the EU.


They do. Your post conflates what the current govt is doing with those reasons. You don't offer anything why this is the case being you just "working it out". Despite loads of posts from you asserting this is the the case in the week after the vote.


----------



## Anju (Oct 10, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm sure that nearly four months on even the most inarticulate bonehead could have cobbled something together.



You would think so. I accepted a Facebook friend request from an ex colleague who it turns out is a  UKIP supporter. Yesterday he posted something saying he did not care what the consequences of brexit are as we can now make our own laws. He also posted 'euro 1.09 GOOD' he seems to be happy just to be in a position to stop immigration. Much as it is interesting to read the posts of him and his friends I probably can't take much more.


----------



## inva (Oct 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> The government doesn't know why you personally voted leave though inva , that seems to be the problem, they're just guessing, and they're apparently guessing that you did it because foreigners.


you mean they don't read my letters?


----------



## Anju (Oct 10, 2016)

inva said:


> I'm sure they do know why. does that require being able to list specific laws when anyone asks? I know why I voted leave and I wouldn't be able to name any laws at all.



If people say they voted leave so we could regain our sovereignty and the ability to male our own laws I would expect them to have some idea of what they meant.


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> If people say they voted leave so we could regain our sovereignty and the ability to male our own laws I would expect them to have some idea of what they meant.


I think for some people it might be something to do with straight bananas and all that.
Not about any specific law but the general idea of those Eurocrats meddling in our affairs. Back when Johnson was a journalist I think he wrote about this sort of thing a lot, how we've had enough of being dictated to by unelected foreign red tape mongers etc. Some business owners expect to benefit from the lifting of certain EU regulations I think also.


----------



## inva (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> If people say they voted leave so we could regain our sovereignty and the ability to male our own laws I would expect them to have some idea of what they meant.


well it seems fairly straightforward to me. I would interpret it as meaning for example not being subject to EU laws, not being part of a deeply undemocratic and top-down kind of institution. More broadly I think there's a widespread feeling of dispossession, being ignored, powerlessness that, in the present climate, gets expressed as (or lumped in with) 'sovereignty'. These are the sorts of impressions I have got from hearing what people say about it. Obviously I can't speak for whoever you've been talking to.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> OK, I was just giving my opinion on why the government is concentrating on immigration when many people gave sovereignty and EU laws as a reason for voting leave. To many the reason they were concerned with EU law was solely related to immigration.


I have a suspicion that the government may just possibly not give two shits what leave voters' reasons were, and will instead concentrate on using the result to promote the aspects of their policy they can best tie to it.


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I have a suspicion that the government may just possibly not give two shits what leave voters' reasons were, and will instead concentrate on using the result to promote the aspects of their policy they can best tie to it.



I don't see how the focus on immigration control is actually any good for the traditional interests of the tories though, its bad for business, isn't it?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> I don't see how the focus on immigration control is actually any good for the traditional interests of the tories though, its bad for business, isn't it?


Immigration control (and associated anti-immigrant sentiment) is great for business. It means you create an underclass of workers who have fewer rights, and helps disrupt working class solidarity.

ETA: let's not even start about how it distracts from the effects of government policy either


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Immigration control (and associated anti-immigrant sentiment) is great for business. It means you create an underclass of workers who have fewer rights, and helps disrupt working class solidarity.


How so?
I thought an unregulated pool of workers from all over the world would be best for business, best for driving down wages and creating division through competition ?
The vast majority of tory MPs were pro-remain, weren't they.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> How so?
> I thought an unregulated pool of workers from all over the world would be best for business, best for driving down wages and creating division through competition ?
> The vast majority of tory MPs were pro-remain, weren't they.



Factors at play here imo

1) Divide and rule, nativist consciousness vs class consciousness
2) The possibility of a US style situation in which illegal immigration becomes common place, normalised and institutionalised to an extent would mean that it would be easier to exploit the labour of illegal workers than it would be people from other EU member states who have the same or similar recourse to law that British workers do, at least in theory.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> If people say they voted leave so we could regain our sovereignty and the ability to male our own laws I would expect them to have some idea of what they meant.


Can you spot the two different groups in your recent posts?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 10, 2016)

bimble said:


> The government doesn't know why you personally voted leave though inva , that seems to be the problem, they're just guessing, and they're apparently guessing that you did it because foreigners.


A few of them seem to think the vote was to leave the single market for goods and services.


----------



## Anju (Oct 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> They do. Your post conflates what the current govt is doing with those reasons. You don't offer anything why this is the case being you just "working it out". Despite loads of posts from you asserting this is the the case in the week after the vote.



Yes, that is what I believed after the vote, as well as predicting a big shift to the right. I think I was correct. Someone posted a survey that showed about 50% of people opposed iimmigration. I would suggest that this means about 2% of voters did not consider immigration when making their decision. 

I was accusing people of being wrong to ignore the fact that they were voting with racists when they voted leave, and that it was wrong not to make it clear that they were separate to them.  By continuing to claim that the majority of leave voters were motivated largely by underlying xenophobic sentiment is doing nothing to help address this.  

As you pointed out this was my position immediately after the vote and it looks to me like myself, along with a lot of other people were correct.


----------



## Anju (Oct 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Can you spot the two different groups in your recent posts?



I can see people posting here lnow. I lnow why I voted as I did. Everyone knows why they voted as they did, though not all are comfortable enough to say.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2016)

_I was correct all along. Esp the bit where i just said i said that i didn't think that all along. And where i conflate the govt and voters. But i was always right and everything that might happen or that i - or anyne else - says or does proves it._


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> I can see people posting here lnow. I lnow why I voted as I did. Everyone knows why they voted as they did, though not all are comfortable enough to say.


Can you spot the two groups in your posts?


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> I would suggest that this means about 2% of voters did not consider immigration when making their decision.
> 
> I was accusing people of being wrong to ignore the fact that they were voting with racists when they voted leave, and that it was wrong not to make it clear that they were separate to them. .



In the miniscule world of this website I think leave voters did make that clear, that they were voting leave for their own reasons.

Your estimate of 2% seems reasonable / generous to me so it should come as no surprise to anyone that the current administration is trying as hard as it can to charm the anti-immigrant majority.


----------



## inva (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> Yes, that is what I believed after the vote, as well as predicting a big shift to the right. I think I was correct. Someone posted a survey that showed about 50% of people opposed iimmigration. I would suggest that this means about 2% of voters did not consider immigration when making their decision.
> 
> I was accusing people of being wrong to ignore the fact that they were voting with racists when they voted leave, and that it was wrong not to make it clear that they were separate to them.  By continuing to claim that the majority of leave voters were motivated largely by underlying xenophobic sentiment is doing nothing to help address this.
> 
> As you pointed out this was my position immediately after the vote and it looks to me like myself, along with a lot of other people were correct.


in spite of the referendum result, the spirit of the EU remains strong (link):



			
				politico.eu said:
			
		

> In a rare display of European consensus on migration, the EU launched a joint force Thursday to police the borders of the Schengen zone in response to leaders’ calls for stricter controls of the bloc’s external frontiers.





> Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, hosting the event on the border with Turkey, said Europe had certainly not become a fortress, but “a yard with a broken fence” which the new patrols would try to repair.





> European Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos jokingly referred to the man in charge of the European Border and Coast Guard (EBCG), Fabrice Leggeri, as a “five-star general.” Unlike its predecessor Frontex, which relied on staff loaned by EU member countries, Leggeri’s new force will have its own robust financial resources and personnel.





> The biggest contributors to the border guard are Germany, France, Italy and Spain. Non-EU countries Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, which have signed up to Schengen, are also going to contribute, unlike the U.K. which opted out of Schengen.





> Avramopoulos urged member countries to uphold their commitments, as some governments need to “think, behave and act in a more European way when it comes to migration policy.”


----------



## Anju (Oct 10, 2016)

inva said:


> well it seems fairly straightforward to me. I would interpret it as meaning for example not being subject to EU laws, not being part of a deeply undemocratic and top-down kind of institution. More broadly I think there's a widespread feeling of dispossession, being ignored, powerlessness that, in the present climate, gets expressed as (or lumped in with) 'sovereignty'. These are the sorts of impressions I have got from hearing what people say about it. Obviously I can't speak for whoever you've been talking to.



I think when you look at attitudes to immigration it is reasonable to assume immigration was a major factor, so the EU immigration laws are what they are concerned with. 

I gueas we will see when reaction to the Tory conference is looked at.


----------



## Anju (Oct 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Can you spot the two groups in your posts?



No, but am happy for you to enlighten me.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> No, but am happy for you to enlighten me.


You can't spot the two groups that you're talking about in your own post?


----------



## Anju (Oct 10, 2016)

inva said:


> in spite of the referendum result, the spirit of the EU remains strong (link):



This is a different issue. They are looking at external borders.


----------



## Anju (Oct 10, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You can't spot the two groups that you're talking about in your own post?



Maybe I am misunderstanding you. 

There are people who had a reason and are happy to voice it and people who had a reason but feel uncomfortable about it. 

Will check back later when I have eaten to see if you have made your view clearer.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2016)

Oh ffs the voters and the govt. Jesus christ. This is what you posted about. Literally.


----------



## inva (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> This is a different issue. They are looking at external borders.


a different issue to what? what is the EU that you support?


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 10, 2016)

Anju said:


> I was wondering about this and have realised that when people were talking about sovereignty and being able to make our own laws they are referring to immigration laws.


Excellent that you can see into the minds of 17 millions people.



Anju said:


> This is a different issue. They are looking at external borders.


Ah must be OK then. Obviously the lovely anti-racism of the EU doesn't apply to those external migrants.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 10, 2016)

inva said:


> what is the EU that you support?



This is pretty much the one question I want all remain voters to answer. Just as many Leavers had no clear picture of what leaving the EU would look like, many Remain voters had no realistic picture of what the EU actually is or will become.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 10, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> This is pretty much the one question I want all remain voters to answer. Just as many Leavers had no clear picture of what leaving the EU would look like, many Remain voters had no realistic picture of what the EU actually is or will become.



It wasn't a vote about what the EU is or what you would like it to be. Really, it was just a question about what the disadvantages and advantages of the UK being in the EU look like side by side. Anyone who put "downfall of global capitalism" in their "advantages" column is a fool.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 10, 2016)

Raheem said:


> It wasn't a vote about what the EU is or what you would like it to be. Really, it was just a question about what the disadvantages and advantages of the UK being in the EU look like side by side. Anyone who put "downfall of global capitalism" in their "advantages" column is a fool.



Not sure of anyone who said that. Actually am sure - absolutely no one. One thing is for sure though, anyone that put "protecting workers rights" in their advantages column for staying in the EU was a mug of the highest order.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 10, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Not sure of anyone who said that. Actually am sure - absolutely no one. One thing is for sure though, anyone that put "protecting workers rights" in their advantages column for staying in the EU was a mug of the highest order.



I know a few people who still think that. They're fools, of course.

Anyway, can you briefly explain how you think leaving the EU will result in improved workers' rights?


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Immigration control (and associated anti-immigrant sentiment) is great for business. It means you create an underclass of workers who have fewer rights, and helps disrupt working class solidarity.


ItWillNeverWork is this right then?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

Raheem said:


> can you briefly explain how you think leaving the EU will result in improved workers' rights?



It won't. Collective action by organised labour will, and the outcome of any such struggle is a function of the power balance between labour and capital at any given point in time. My view is that by centralising and institutionalising the power of capital into a continent-wide political block such as the EU, the relative power of labour will in the long run be diminished.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

bimble said:


> ItWillNeverWork is this right then?



No. The removal of equal rights creates a class of people with fewer rights. This could happen both inside the EU and outside the EU - through direct policy, market forces, or both.


----------



## paolo (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> It won't. Collective action by organised labour will, and the outcome of any such struggle is a function of the power balance between labour and capital at any given point in time. My view is that by centralising and institutionalising the power of capital into a continent-wide political block such as the EU, the relative power of labour will in the long run be diminished.



Do you mean in the UK?

That staying in the EU would worsen our employment rights? But with Brexit they will be better?

(This is measurable. We'll be able to compare our rights, vs. EU, over time. You think ours will improve, in comparison? Really?)


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

paolo said:


> Do you mean in the UK?
> 
> That staying in the EU would worsen our employment rights? But with Brexit they will be better?
> 
> (This is measurable. We'll be able to compare our rights, vs. EU, over time. You think ours will improve, in comparison? Really?)



You don't get it. Genuine rights are not granted from on high, they are won from below. An EU that throws you a scrap now and again will starve you into submission when it pleases, as it has done with many countries already. This is about a latent power that is free to 'protect' you when it wishes, and perfectly willing to crush you when it opts to assert its dominance. You won't win against the EU. Ever. You _might _win against a weaker domestic force.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 11, 2016)

paolo said:


> (This is measurable. We'll be able to compare our rights, vs. EU, over time. You think ours will improve, in comparison? Really?)


no it isn't.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2016)

two hundred and more years of labour struggle in britain, rights and workplace representation people actually died for. Long before there was an EU. I get this impression that some think the EU was what brought workers rights to brit worker. It was not. Nor has it ever been a keen defender of these rights except in tokenism forms


----------



## paolo (Oct 11, 2016)

I'm not asking the question ideologically, or historically. I'm asking about the now.

Do you think employment rights will improve?

(You may do - that's fine. None of us can really know until five or ten years from now.)


----------



## paolo (Oct 11, 2016)

discokermit said:


> no it isn't.



Employment rights aren't measurable? Or have I misunderstood?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

paolo said:


> I'm not asking the question ideologically, or historically. I'm asking about the now.
> 
> Do you think employment rights will improve?
> 
> (You may do - that's fine. None of us can really know until five or ten years from now.)



Impossible to say. In the immediate term I think the attacks will continue. I trust in the labour struggle though. I don't trust in the EU.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2016)

paolo said:


> I'm not asking the question ideologically, or historically. I'm asking about the now.
> 
> Do you think employment rights will improve?
> 
> (You may do - that's fine. None of us can really know until five or ten years from now.)


I have no crystal ball but what I do know is that the rights won were secured without the EU and were (and continue to be) eroded under the EU without any protest from the EU.


----------



## paolo (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> In the immediate term I think the attacks will continue.



There's two current power positions for the UK. The EU, and the Tories. The EU are gone soon.

On the current polling for Labour, under this utterly shit first past the post system (which isn't Labour's fault, or Corbyn's, or the Morning Star or my Mums anarchist mums brigade), the tories are a walk-in next time.

That's where we are. It's utterly shit, we'll agree on that I'm sure.

But does booting the EU get us any further to fairness?


----------



## discokermit (Oct 11, 2016)

paolo said:


> Employment rights aren't measurable? Or have I misunderstood?


the eu without britain will not be the eu with britain.


----------



## paolo (Oct 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> ... and were (and continue to be) eroded under the EU without any protest from the EU.



Maybe I'm being too easily led - any examples?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2016)

t


paolo said:


> Maybe I'm being too easily led - any examples?




look at the anti union bill. They want to effectively kill strike action by counting abstentions as no votes. No EU there. They want to cut even further the amount of time a rep is allowed to spend on union business in the workplace. They long ago made it all postal, further hampering working people with bullshit beaurocracy . No EU. Where was the EU when morcambe bay saw 21 undocumented cockle pickers die? Its not a vehicle for inclusive internationalist ideals about working class rights. Its a vehicle for transnational capital to do us all over.


----------



## paolo (Oct 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> t
> 
> look at the anti union bill. They want to effectively kill strike action by counting abstentions as no votes. No EU there. They want to cut even further the amount of time a rep is allowed to spend on union business in the workplace. They long ago made it all postal, further hampering working people with bullshit beaurocracy . No EU. Where was the EU when morcambe bay saw 21 undocumented cockle pickers die? Its not a vehicle for inclusive internationalist ideals about working class rights. Its a vehicle for transnational capital to do us all over.



You've got my ears. Fill me in. Who is "they" in the above?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2016)

paolo said:


> You've got my ears. Fill me in. Who is "they" in the above?


tories- hold on let me see if I can find a link to something relevant- quick google:
Trade Union Act 2016 — UK Parliament

the thing is the EU doesn't hold these things back at all, never did. I can understand why some might think so but after Greece how can it be any plainer what it is and what it is for?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2016)

Trade Union Act 2016


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> tories



The very same tories that were most keen on remaining too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The very same tories that were most keen on remaining too.


this is the thing, an illusory belief that the pro-eu tories were somehow held back by the project rather than being enthusiastic complicit partners in it. Why wouldn't they be?


----------



## paolo (Oct 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> tories- hold on let me see if I can find a link to something relevant- quick google:
> Trade Union Act 2016 — UK Parliament
> 
> the thing is the EU doesn't hold these things back at all, never did. I can understand why some might think so but after Greece how can it be any plainer what it is and what it is for?



There's holding back - which perhaps I alluded to, and in hindsight that was bad claim. I think my argument, maybe, is that it's a good compromise, vs. Tories alone. I'd say that the EU 'middle' is left of our government. Not left enough, and for sure a capitalist focussed institution, but still less so than our own rulers.

My own area of research - pre brexit - was rail. I got as far as getting in touch with a house of Lords cross-bench committee who were supervising the tories implementation of EU rail policy. Hell, they even replied when I asked about parliament not responding the Lords committee questions.

I worked through the EU documents, then the UK implementation.

It wasn't what I expected. "We" had gone far far beyond whatever the EU stipulated for privatisation. Decades ago. The EU still allows a fully integrated national network - like Deutsche Bahn. No reason we couldn't have a national railway like Germany does. But "we" have rinsed the free market thing to death. Maybe it's not that the EU is our saviour, is that it's not actually relevant right now, it can't make things better, because our own government is free to make it worse. And we think it'll be better to let them carry on.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2016)

again, there's the idea that by being a unified trading bloc no tarriffs and other shitty practises that could lead to beggar-thy-nieghbour practises. Then when greece had the temerity to elect a party commited to restructuring debt to allieviate the devestating social effects of EU imposed austerity they forced a run on the banks on them. Its madness.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2016)

paolo said:


> And we think it'll be better to let them carry on.


fights we can and have had and won. Kids don't do factory work anymore, they go to school as they should. I could go on, NHS etc etc.  Point is what has been won and is under constant attack is not EU mandated nor does the EU protect our limited gains. Its a club not a union


----------



## Smangus (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> It won't. Collective action by organised labour will, and the outcome of any such struggle is a function of the power balance between labour and capital at any given point in time. My view is that by centralising and institutionalising the power of capital into a continent-wide political block such as the EU, the relative power of labour will in the long run be diminished.


Tbh I don't see this happening outside the eu with the unions so devoid of clout, apart from a couple of obvious exceptions. Not to say it would happen in the eu either though.


----------



## andysays (Oct 11, 2016)

paolo said:


> Do you mean in the UK?
> 
> That staying in the EU would worsen our employment rights? But with Brexit they will be better?
> 
> (This is measurable. We'll be able to compare our rights, vs. EU, over time. You think ours will improve, in comparison? Really?)



It's not just about "employment rights" though, is it? It's about the economic and political power of *both* sides, employers and employed, capital and labour, however you choose to categorise it.

Any genuine analysis needs to be a little more sophisticated that simply saying this group of workers have these employment rights, that group have those, therefore we can demonstrate which group is better off (and of course it all depends on what these groups actually *do*, it's not something static which exists above and independent of that).


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> You don't get it. Genuine rights are not granted from on high, they are won from below. .


Absolutely vital point


----------



## newbie (Oct 11, 2016)

andysays said:


> It's not just about "employment rights" though, is it? It's about the economic and political power of *both* sides, employers and employed, capital and labour, however you choose to categorise it.
> 
> Any genuine analysis needs to be a little more sophisticated that simply saying this group of workers have these employment rights, that group have those, therefore we can demonstrate which group is better off (and of course it all depends on what these groups actually *do*, it's not something static which exists above and independent of that).


If the case for improving the lot of the British worker relies on what the opposing sides actually do, then presumably there's some cause to think the w/c can benefit at the expense of capital.   Apart from reduced competition for jobs picking lettuces or gutting fish, what are the grounds for optimism?


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 11, 2016)

paolo said:


> There's two current power positions for the UK. The EU, and the Tories. The EU are gone soon.
> 
> On the current polling for Labour, under this utterly shit first past the post system (which isn't Labour's fault, or Corbyn's, or the Morning Star or my Mums anarchist mums brigade), the tories are a walk-in next time.


As itwillneverwork has pointed out the Conservative Party (as a party) supported remaining, but even ignoring that simply reducing everything down to _the Tories_ is nonsense. Capital and labour (small "l") are the forces to consider.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 11, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> As itwillneverwork has pointed out the Conservative Party (as a party) supported remaining, but even ignoring that simply reducing everything down to _the Tories_ is nonsense. Capital and labour (small "l") are the forces to consider.


Correct, but the factional fracture within the party of capital does reflect differing & competing capitalist views wrt the most efficient delivery of the neoliberal agenda; via regional super-states or the 'Atlanticist', globalised free-for-all.


----------



## paolo (Oct 11, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> As itwillneverwork has pointed out the Conservative Party (as a party) supported remaining, but even ignoring that simply reducing everything down to _the Tories_ is nonsense. Capital and labour (small "l") are the forces to consider.



It didn't split neatly across party lines. Or at all.

I live in Lambeth. Barring the outlier of Gibralter, Lambeth was the number one remain constituency. We're a solid Labour borough, with an increasing Green vote.

Reducing things down to Tories isn't nonsense. It's the reality of where the vote is going right now. They're 17 points clear right now, in this awful system we have. Even worse, it's just a handful of them who are determining our exit relationship. The broader base of MPs have no vote in it now. None.

So no, it's not reduced down to the tories, it's reduced down to four of them. And this is a victory? Really?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 11, 2016)

paolo said:


> It didn't split neatly across party lines. Or at all.
> 
> I live in Lambeth. Barring the outlier of Gibralter, Lambeth was the number one remain constituency. We're a solid Labour borough, with an increasing Green vote.
> 
> ...



60-odd % labour supporters voted remain. 60-odd % tory voters voted leave. The vote was split in many pretty complex ways - across political views, class, race, geography. 

Also, the conservative party (as a party) didn't take a view on the referendum. It was split. 

One known thing was that a vote to leave would be handing a tory government the task of shaping the exit, as is happening now. I agree with you on that - it seems foolish in the extreme for anyone other than a tory to see that as a win.


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

A lot of people here seem to have voted without any concrete idea of what might actually happen in the UK post EU, and some don't care as regardless of whether it was good or bad its existence is wrong. If you voted leave you voted with EDL, Farrage, Johnson, Gove, Murdoch etc. It was always going to be them in power if we voted leave.  If your political views meant siding with those people I think you should at least have an idea of what can be done to reduce the harm that they will inevitably inflict upon us. Hoping that life will become so shitty that the people unite and rise up seems a bit naive. Look at trends on Google, Facebook, instagram and tell me if you think change driven by the majority is on the way. 

I voted remain because I like the idea of being part of a group of nations that have a governing body that is not so influenced by the desire to be re-elected. I was worried about the UK economy losing access to the single market.  I like the fact that my wife refused to sign the opt out on working time regulations. I liked being aligned with countries that have policies which encourage social justice, environmental management, workers rights, and yes I know not all EU countries are perfect in this regard. Our government has set off on a tangent to these places and we are now in a much less pleasant club than the EU. I like rhat the EU threatened to kick out Austria if their far right party gained power.  I like that some of the Eastern European people I know came here with dodgy views on non white people but have completely changed their thinking and pass this back to their friends and family.  I am happy that some of the money we paid to the EU has gone towards developing poorer EU countries. The EU might even have been responsible for saving the NHS when France blocked TTIP.

I don't like where we are headed now and I voted remain because this is what I envisaged post EU Britain would be like. 

I think we can equate Britain to BHS. Once a successful country but in slow decline with leaders, business and political, that just kept taking their money. No attempt to restructure. Why bother when you can increase the percentage taken and maintain your wealth.  We have just voted for the Philip Green takeover and this country is going to be systematically asset stripped. Labour are still fighting amongst themselves, May has gambled on taking a xenophobic stance, with hints at a bit of spending to grab the foreigner fearing element on the left.  It seems to be working.


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 11, 2016)

Greece isn't being asset stripped ?


----------



## inva (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> A lot of people here seem to have voted without any concrete idea of what might actually happen in the UK post EU, and some don't care as regardless of whether it was good or bad its existence is wrong. If you voted leave you voted with EDL, Farrage, Johnson, Gove, Murdoch etc. It was always going to be them in power if we voted leave.  If your political views meant siding with those people I think you should at least have an idea of what can be done to reduce the harm that they will inevitably inflict upon us. Hoping that life will become so shitty that the people unite and rise up seems a bit naive. Look at trends on Google, Facebook, instagram and tell me if you think change driven by the majority is on the way.
> 
> I voted remain because I like the idea of being part of a group of nations that have a governing body that is not so influenced by the desire to be re-elected. I was worried about the UK economy losing access to the single market.  I like the fact that my wife refused to sign the opt out on working time regulations. I liked being aligned with countries that have policies which encourage social justice, environmental management, workers rights, and yes I know not all EU countries are perfect in this regard. Our government has set off on a tangent to these places and we are now in a much less pleasant club than the EU. I like rhat the EU threatened to kick out Austria if their far right party gained power.  I like that some of the Eastern European people I know came here with dodgy views on non white people but have completely changed their thinking and pass this back to their friends and family.  I am happy that some of the money we paid to the EU has gone towards developing poorer EU countries. The EU might even have been responsible for saving the NHS when France blocked TTIP.
> 
> ...


thousands and thousands have died trying to cross the EU borders and the EU commissioner makes his little joke as if they have appointed a general to defend it, as if the dead are the casualties of an invading army. Is that the nice EU that the nice people voted for?

Was it the EU of Cameron's 'deal' and the continuation/expansion of policies towards creating a 'hostile environment' for immigrants? Or the EU of attacking the remnants of social democracy - its savagery towards Greece?

What and who do your political views mean siding with?

Across Europe the left is disoriented and outmanoeuvred by an energised and growing right, inside and outside of the EU. If you think a remain vote could have done anything more than briefly papered over the cracks then you're badly mistaken. The 'success' that you apparently regard as tied to the EU is not one shared by huge numbers of people and the left was in no position to exploit either result. What is the solution to that? You seem to have no faith whatsoever in the ability of ordinary people to resist, as if politics is purely something done to us by the 'government'. If that is so then it was a hopeless case even if the result had been different.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 11, 2016)

inva said:


> You seem to have no faith whatsoever in the ability of ordinary people to resist, as if politics is purely something done to us by the 'government'..


Not sure that's really fair. The assumption among many on this thread is that resisting the EU is impossible whereas resisting Westminster might not be. I don't see any particular reason for this, particularly given the growing need for international cooperation. I might just as easily accuse you of a lack of faith in internationalism. How does the UK leaving the EU help Greece? It doesn't, and there was zero chance of what happened to Greece happening to the UK as the UK is not in the euro.


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 11, 2016)

there was also zero chance of Greece not being asset stripped just because they were in the EU


----------



## paolo (Oct 11, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> Greece isn't being asset stripped ?



Greece would have an independent fiscal policy if it hadn't joined the Euro. It's a currency & central banking issue. I'm not saying what has happened there is right or fair. For ordinary people, who didn't make that decision, it's a travesty. But it *is* a currency thing, not an EU thing.


----------



## inva (Oct 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure that's really fair. The assumption among many on this thread is that resisting the EU is impossible whereas resisting Westminster might not be. I don't see any particular reason for this, particularly given the growing need for international cooperation. I might just as easily accuse you of a lack of faith in internationalism. How does the UK leaving the EU help Greece? It doesn't, and there was zero chance of what happened to Greece happening to the UK as the UK is not in the euro.


the EU nationalist bloc has nothing to do with internationalism, so it would be a strange accusation.

I didn't suggest what happened to Greece might happen to the UK. Yeah the EU tries to shield the big capital of the likes of UK, Germany, France (and globally) through unleashing destruction on others, great.

Anju has repeatedly accused leave voters of lining up with the Tories, the far right, what is he/she or other remain supporters lining up with? That's the point.


----------



## paolo (Oct 11, 2016)

Lining up with the majority of trade unions? Or are they all part of the conspiracy too, now?


----------



## inva (Oct 11, 2016)

paolo said:


> Lining up with the majority of trade unions? Or are they all part of the conspiracy too, now?


I'm a conspiracy theorist because I am arguing against Anju's view that casting a vote one way or the other in the referendum in itself means lining up with the far right/whatever?

weird.


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

inva said:


> thousands and thousands have died trying to cross the EU borders and the EU commissioner makes his little joke as if they have appointed a general to defend it, as if the dead are the casualties of an invading army. Is that the nice EU that the nice people voted for?
> 
> Was it the EU of Cameron's 'deal' and the continuation/expansion of policies towards creating a 'hostile environment' for immigrants? Or the EU of attacking the remnants of social democracy - its savagery towards Greece?
> 
> ...



I'm a bit short on political views. The referendum was the first time I have ever voted.

I side with people I hope are similar to myself. I don't mean colour, religion, gender, sexuality, or politics but people who I believe are going to share my values.

People are viewing the EU solely as a political/economic institution. The EU might not have legislated against laws attacking workers rights but are not to blame for policies our government wants to impose. It would not be possible to legislate against individual laws in separate countries. There are people in every EU country that I would feel a connection to, and there are countries where the population is more active in terms of standing up for themselves. We probably had a better chance of fighting for workers rights, social justice and refugee rights inside the EU with the help of fellow Europeans.


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

inva said:


> I'm a conspiracy theorist because I am arguing against Anju's view that casting a vote one way or the other in the referendum in itself means lining up with the far right/whatever?
> 
> weird.



I am not saying that your views are aligned with the Tories or far right but that you voted with them and so helped put us in the hands of the first government that I have been fearful of, rather than just opposed or indifferent to in my 47 years


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> Look at trends on Google, Facebook, instagram and tell me if you think change driven by the majority is on the way.


When I look at the Daily Mail I do get the feeling that change driven by the majority (of their commentators) is on the way.
Henry for instance, wrote in from Spain this morning:


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

bimble said:


> When I look at the Daily Mail I do get the feeling that change driven by the majority (of their commentators) is on the way.
> Henry for instance, wrote in from Spain this morning:
> View attachment 93797



Yet again I should have been more specific. I meant the kind of positive change people here hope for.

From Spain. Ffs.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> Yet again I should have been more specific. I meant the kind of positive change people here hope for


I know you meant that.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

bimble said:


> When I look at the Daily Mail I do get the feeling that change driven by the majority (of their commentators) is on the way.
> Henry for instance, wrote in from Spain this morning:
> View attachment 93797



That's got to be a spoof!


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> That's got to be a spoof!



Possibly not. My parents live in Spain and have met loads of English people who moan about immigration in the UK.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 11, 2016)

I must admit to having previously trolled DM comments to see how many green or red votes I could get for a one liner.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> Possibly not. My parents live in Spain and have met loads of English people who moan about immigration in the UK.



The mind boggles. It really does. Do they not have any sense of irony? The moaners, not your folks, obviously.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 11, 2016)

How will the UK leaving the EU make any difference to Greece?. Doesn't it mean any government we elect won't have a say either?


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> The mind boggles. It really does. Do they not have any sense of irony? The moaners, not your folks, obviously.



They had heard this quite a lot over the years but since the referendum it has increased. My sister lives there as well and has cut off a few friends, real life and online, over the past few months.


----------



## sealion (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> I am not saying that your views are aligned with the Tories or far right but that you voted with them and so helped put us in the hands of the first government that I have been fearful of, rather than just opposed or indifferent to in my 47 years


Not even Thatchers Reign ?


----------



## inva (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> I am not saying that your views are aligned with the Tories or far right but that you voted with them and so helped put us in the hands of the first government that I have been fearful of, rather than just opposed or indifferent to in my 47 years


well you said "siding with", which is what I was arguing against in what you quoted. Still I'm glad you're not saying my views are aligned with the far right, that's something isn't it? 

And I'm sorry you're fearful now, you're certainly not alone there. That said, we already had a government I had reason to be afraid of, one that attacked my living standards and made threats to take away my entire income. Many others had reasons to be fearful too - do you remember the threatening text messages and anti immigrant signs driven around on vans, or the many other vicious policies they had?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> They had heard this quite a lot over the years but since the referendum it has increased. My sister lives there as well and has cut off a few friends, real life and online, over the past few months.



Awful. I'd been tempted at one stage to move to the Canaries but that kind of attitude would put me right off.


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

Sea Lion said:


> Not even Thatchers Reign ?



I was only 10 when she was elected and I went down the warehouse party, blues dance, raver, squat party route once I was old enough to vote.  Even with hindsight this lot seem more sinister


----------



## sealion (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> Even with hindsight this lot seem more sinister


Only time will tell i guess.


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

inva said:


> well you said "siding with", which is what I was arguing against in what you quoted. Still I'm glad you're not saying my views are aligned with the far right, that's something isn't it?
> 
> And I'm sorry you're fearful now, you're certainly not alone there. That said, we already had a government I had reason to be afraid of, one that attacked my living standards and made threats to take away my entire income. Many others had reasons to be fearful too - do you remember the threatening text messages and anti immigrant signs driven around on vans, or the many other vicious policies they had?



Yes I remember the vans and who it was that thought they were a good idea. 

If it is the attacks on benefits and care for disabled people that affect you I understand why you would fear our government.  The EU does have a stance on disability and although they could do more at least they propose things that make it easier for people to go about their day to day activities. Unfortunately having the money, aids, help to use accessible transport, buildings and services in down to our government. 

I just hope we find a way to stop what May and here little group are trying to do.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> If you voted leave you voted with EDL, Farrage, Johnson, Gove, Murdoch etc.



No I fucking didn't. I didn't vote _with _anyone. I voted _for _what I believe in. I'm sure there were a few mass murderers and nonces that voted remain, but I wouldn't go accusing you of siding with them. What an idiotic statement to make.



> It was always going to be them in power if we voted leave.



The EDL are in power now? Get a grip of yourself will you.


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> No I fucking didn't. I didn't vote _with _anyone. I voted _for _what I believe in. I'm sure there were a few mass murderers and nonces that voted remain, but I wouldn't go accusing you of siding with them. What an idiotic statement to make.
> 
> 
> 
> The EDL are in power now? Get a grip of yourself will you.



Are you saying your vote was counted separately into the worthy brexit pile. It was not an option poll, the result was always going to have consequences and the people taking power were the ones who would decide the actions taken. 

The EDL may not be in power but their supporters are being courted by those in power now.  The rhetoric is harmful and the policies when they come will inflict a lot of damage on people and attitudes.

I am not saying this is what you wanted but I wonder what you expected to happen.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> No I fucking didn't. I didn't vote _with _anyone. I voted _for _what I believe in. I'm sure there were a few mass murderers and nonces that voted remain, but I wouldn't go accusing you of siding with them. What an idiotic statement to make.


Do you disagree that they're stronger as a result of the vote that you cast?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Do you disagree that they're stronger as a result of the vote that you cast?



Yes


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Yes


That's nuts, it was obviously a win for them, look at the rhetoric that came out of the Tory party conference.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> Are you saying your vote was counted separately into the worthy brexit pile.



My vote was my vote. Full stop. I could quite as easily berate you for not voting leave, and as such ceding the nature of Brexit to the right. Why did you do this Anju? Why did you enable the right by voting remain? Do you see how ridiculous this 'guilty by association' argument is?



> It was not an option poll, the result was always going to have consequences and the people taking power were the ones who would decide the actions taken.
> 
> The EDL may not be in power but their supporters are being courted by those in power now.  The rhetoric is harmful and the policies when they come will inflict a lot of damage on people and attitudes.
> 
> I am not saying this is what you wanted but I wonder what you expected to happen.



What I expected was a 12 seat majority for the tories, and the labour party to use that fact to be a somewhat effective opposition. Unfortunately it seems that the wreckers on the right wing of Labour will not allow that to happen - wreckers who by and large voted remain and would like to ignore the referendum result.

So I guess that's two counts on which you and your political allies have enabled the right. One, by not having the guts to vote on principle rather than misguided tribalism, and two, by voting with people who are gifting the tories a  lead in the opinion polls through their splitting of the labour party. You remainers have a lot to answer for.

Do you see how ridiculous this 'guilty by association' argument is?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> That's nuts, it was obviously a win for them, look at the rhetoric that came out of the Tory party conference.



Ooooh 'rhetoric'. Who cares about rhetoric. What matters is objective power relations, not words. You act like no agency exists inside people to fight any challenge to their rights.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> So I guess that's two counts on which you and your political allies have enabled the right. One, by not having the guts to vote on principle rather than misguided tribalism, and two, by voting with people who are gifting the tories a  lead in the opinion polls through their splitting of the labour party. You remainers have a lot to answer for.


(I'm aware you're being sarcastic for effect here but) there were no great principles on offer in this referendum. None.


----------



## Reno (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Yes


It was absolutely clear that the main impetus behind the referendum vote was xenophobia and racism, that if we leave the single union anybody who knows a little bit about business predicted that the economy would tank and by taking the power from EU you've handed all of it to the most loathsome incarnation of the Tories yet. Well done, you !


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> (I'm aware you're being sarcastic for effect here but) there were no great principles on offer in this referendum. None.



You're correct, I'm being sarcastic. There were certainly principles though. Not in either of the campaigns leading up to the vote, but I didn't pay attention to any of that anyway. My opinion was formed even before a referendum was announced.

Anyway, I've got to dash, so can't continue the conversation until later.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

Reno said:


> It was absolutely clear that the main impetus behind the referendum vote was xenophobia and racism, that if we leave the single union anybody who knows a little bit about business predicted that the economy would tank and by taking the power from EU you've handed all of it to the most loathsome incarnation of the Tories yet. Well done you !



get fucked


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> You're correct, I'm being sarcastic. There were certainly principles though. Not in either of the campaigns leading up to the vote, but I didn't pay attention to any of that anyway. My opinion was formed even before a referendum was announced.
> 
> Anyway, I've got to dash, so can't continue the conversation until later.


ok, laters then. But I don't agree about principles - I'm not talking about the campaigns, but rather the actual question posed on the ballot paper. UK stays in the EU or not (crucially, with no indication of what 'not' might actually mean)? There are lots of questions I'd like to be asked, but that ain't one of them.


----------



## Reno (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> get fucked


I'm in the process of getting out of this fucked country after three decades here, thanks to twats like you. Another foreigner down, which should make the cunts you aligned yourself with very happy !


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> My vote was my vote. Full stop. I could quite as easily berate you for not voting leave, and as such ceding the nature of Brexit to the right. Why did you do this Anju? Why did you enable the right by voting remain? Do you see how ridiculous this 'guilty by association' argument is?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't have any political allies, or in fact any allies. 

There was always going to be a shift to the right if leave won.

At worst if remain won things would have carried on as they are.  It might even have been that the worst elements in the Tory party were marginalised.  At best people might have started taking more interest in politics and the EU and got involved, making positive change more achievable.

Either way people who voted remain are not responsible for any of the outcome of the vote.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> There was always going to be a shift to the right if leave won.


That was my judgement as well. And absent any principles at stake, such a pragmatic judgement had to be my guide. Not that 'remain' would have solved anything - that wasn't on offer either.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Ooooh 'rhetoric'. Who cares about rhetoric. What matters is objective power relations, not words. You act like no agency exists inside people to fight any challenge to their rights.


Where to start with this, rhetoric and 'words' are what politicians and others use to distribute their ideas so yeah, they are important.

How have objective power relations been changed by giving the right a victory btw?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

Reno said:


> I'm in the process of getting out of this fucked country after three decades here, thanks to twats like you. Another foreigner down, which should make the cunts you aligned yourself with very happy !



Practically no Britishness in me. I'll be staying though, and quite happily too. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> At worst if remain won things would have carried on as they are.



This is precisely what I disagree with. This is the assumption that causes us to come to different conclusions.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> How have objective power relations been changed by giving the right a victory btw?



They haven't on a domestic level. That was my point. On an EU wide level, once we leave the EU they won't be able to push us into further political integration with their neoliberal project though.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> They haven't on a domestic level. That was my point. On an EU wide level, once we leave the EU they won't be able to push us into further political integration with their neoliberal project though.


The UK has been quite able to do that by itself, and the brexiters will want even more of the same so it will change.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> The UK has been quite able to do that by itself, and the brexiters will want even more of the same so it will change.



We're just going round in circles now, so I'll just say it one more time. I don't care what 'the brexiters' want. I care about what it is possible for them to do, and what is possible in response. Positive change can only occur through a struggle that extends through time in a process that involves a back-and-forth, but remainers believe that the EU removes the necessity for that struggle - that we can now sit back on our laurels because of the warm cuddly embrace of a continent-wide progressive liberalism that exists only in their imagination. This is dangerous; it makes the loss of our rights over time almost inevitable.

History tells a completely different story though. As DotCommunist said earlier, we have had centuries of winning rights before the EU even existed. That can continue. The pro-EU argument is well-intentioned but fundamentally mistaken because it is short-sighted. This short-sightedness sees only surface features such as the paper-thin rights falsely promised by the institutions in Brussels. The EU is a sheep in wolf's clothing. With the tories we know our enemy.


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> This is precisely what I disagree with. This is the assumption that causes us to come to different conclusions.



I suppose it doesn't matter now why we come to different conclusions.  We have potentially the most unpleasant government I have seen in this country and bigoted people thinking they have a mandate to express their views through action.  



If their stance gets them public support and Labour continue to feud and fight I think we are looking at a very bleak future.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> I suppose it doesn't matter now why we come to different conclusions.  We have potentially the most unpleasant government I have seen in this country and bigoted people thinking they have a mandate to express their views through action.
> 
> 
> 
> If their stance gets them public support and Labour continue to feud and fight I think we are looking at a very bleak future.


doesn't matter, we were looking at a very bleak future on 22/6/2016 and we're looking at a slightly bleaker future now.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> We're just going round in circles now, so I'll just say it one more time. I don't care what 'the brexiters' want. I care about what it is possible for them to do, and what is possible in response. Positive change can only occur through a struggle that extends through time in a process that involves a back-and-forth, but remainers believe that the EU removes the necessity for that struggle - that we can now sit back on our laurels because of the warm cuddly embrace of a continent-wide progressive liberalism that exists only in their imagination. This is dangerous; it makes the loss of our rights over time almost inevitable.
> 
> History tells a completely different story though. As DotCommunist said earlier, we have had centuries of winning rights before the EU even existed. That can continue. The pro-EU argument is well-intentioned but fundamentally mistaken because it is short-sighted. This short-sightedness sees only surface features such as the paper-thin rights falsely promised by the institutions in Brussels. The EU is a sheep in wolf's clothing. With the tories we know our enemy.


Yes, the 'rights' issue is a complete red-herring. The super-state is just a collation of bourgeois states, and has only ever conceded 'rights' to labour out of fear. The challenge that Brexit presents for the left is whether the potential to confront neoliberal hegemony is greater outside of the regional grouping.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> I suppose it doesn't matter now why we come to different conclusions



I think it matters very much. If we don't understand _why _we disagree then we can never overcome our differences to work together. I'm sure we can agree that this is something that is needed now more than ever.



> We have potentially the most unpleasant government I have seen in this country and bigoted people thinking they have a mandate to express their views through action.



I really don't see this. Aside from the comments by that Amber Rudd person, which were backtracked upon in a panic by the government within hours, I simply do not see any sign of this. Governments with a rock solid mandate do not backtrack. The right wing is weaker than you realise.



> If their stance gets them public support and Labour continue to feud and fight I think we are looking at a very bleak future.



Labour feuds are something that I don't think anyone can hope to resolve. Despair in this area is justified. Personally I think mass deselection is the only way to end this now. Let the Blairites form their own version of the libdems. Not sure that's even possible within the rules and procedures of the labour party though, or that Corbyn has the guts to do it if it was possible.

The only point I'd make here is that direct struggle on the ground has historically been more influential in knocking the politicians into shape than just hoping a government will offer up a worthwhile platform ready made. Even now we see how the tories are beginning to abandon parts of the austerity economics (such as the ridiculous idea of aiming for a surplus) in response to the obvious disenchantment and anger that has emerged in recent years.

The emergence of an anti-austerity opposition has had a positive impact even if Corbyn's lot are not in government. Shifting the Overton Window I think the political science bods call it. The emergence of a movement that pushes for progressive Brexit would achieve the same. That requires accepting that Brexit is going to happen though, and that we have the power to shape it.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2016)

You definitely voted to lose £66 billion a year, May tells Britain


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> doesn't matter, we were looking at a very bleak future on 22/6/2016 and we're looking at a slightly bleaker future now.



Maybe slightly bleaker but also possibly much bleaker.  Not the most enticing choice but I would prefer minimum bleakness


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> Maybe slightly bleaker but also possibly much bleaker.  Not the most enticing choice but I would prefer minimum bleakness


yeh. but you won't get minimum bleakness with the global situation as it is and with global warming.


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I think it matters very much. If we don't understand _why _we disagree then we can never overcome our differences to work together. I'm sure we can agree that this is something that is needed now more than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, backing down a bit on austerity is good but I feel this is just a tactic to grab a bit of support from the left.

When your PM is telling the country that if you are a citizen of the world you are a citizen of nowhere just as you are losing EU citizenship I feel it is time to worry.


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. but you won't get minimum bleakness with the global situation as it is and with global warming.



I have a.horrible feeling that one of the lovely Tories was claiming one of the benefits of leaving the EU was that we won't have to adhere to their environmental policies.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> I have a.horrible feeling that one of the lovely Tories was claiming one of the benefits of leaving the EU was that we won't have to adhere to their environmental policies.


doesn't greatly matter which policies we adhere to, we're still fucked.


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> doesn't reatly matter which policies we adhere to, we're still fucked.



I was trying to be optimistic about that. Norway setting a date for the banning of petrol cars, Sweden running out of rubbish, plastic eating bacteria, solar desalination, wider public acceptance of what is happening.  We may be heading to some sort of semi apocalyptic future but I would like the journey to be set for minimum bleak.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> I was trying to be optimistic about that. Norway setting a date for the banning of petrol cars, Sweden running out of rubbish, plastic eating bacteria, solar desalination, wider public acceptance of what is happening.  We may be heading to some sort of semi apocalyptic future but I would like the journey to be set for minimum bleak.


yeh. i don't think you'll like minimum bleak.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> We may be heading to some sort of *semi* apocalyptic future but I would like the journey to be set for minimum bleak.


 Just semi apocalyptic? That will please nobody.


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. i don't think you'll like minimum bleak.



Don't worry there is now a plan for Britain that will boost exports.

Spend tens of millions from the aid budget on a new royal yacht Britannia, Tory MPs tell Government

The whole thing just gets more and more ridiculous and will amuse me through the bleakness


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2016)

somehow there always seems to be enough money to spunk on the parasites floating gin palace


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> somehow there always seems to be enough money to spunk on the parasites floating gin palace


you're missing the beauty of the scheme which is that the parasites' yacht gets scuppered in the southern ocean and those parasites not drowned are eaten by giant squid


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> somehow there always seems to be enough money to spunk on the parasites floating gin palace



It is unbelievable that there are 100 MPs who think that having a queen on a yacht is a good economic plan.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 11, 2016)

paolo said:


> It didn't split neatly across party lines. Or at all.
> 
> I live in Lambeth. Barring the outlier of Gibralter, Lambeth was the number one remain constituency. We're a solid Labour borough, with an increasing Green vote.
> 
> ...


My politics is more than anti-Toryism, if your's isn't well then fine but we aren't fighting the same fight then.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 11, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> Greece isn't being asset stripped ?


They deserve it according to Anju



paolo said:


> Lining up with the majority of trade unions? Or are they all part of the conspiracy too, now?


The most radical, the most effective trade unions, the ones that consistently win things for their members were for leaving.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> It is unbelievable that there are 100 MPs who think that having a queen on a yacht is a good economic plan.


it is a good way to sail her into the south atlantic and make her swim from south georgia to the falklands.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> They deserve it according to Anju


he's a little ray of sunshine.


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> he's a little ray of sunshine.



Happy you have noticed.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 11, 2016)

I hesitate to post this because I know that it'll bring a load of the usual boring pricks around moaning, but the difference here really is the difference between liberalism and a class-based perspective. For some this doesn't go any further than opposing the Tories (we need to stop them! Help us EU) and thus supporting Labour. For me that's nonsense, this is about capital and labour. This is a fundamental political difference  and precisely why liberalism isn't aligned with socialism/communism/anarchism.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> I hesitate to post this because I know that it'll bring a load of the usual boring pricks around moaning, but the difference really is the difference between liberalism and a class-based perspective. For some this doesn't go any further than opposing the Tories (*we need to stop them!* Help us EU) and Labour. For me that's nonsense this is about capital and labour, this is a fundamental difference and precisely why liberalism isn't aligned with socialism/communism/anarchism.


its exactly the argument I was sold 'but the tories!' and its the same argument wheeled out every five years by Labour doorsteppers.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 11, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> They deserve it according to Anju



Is this true, Anju?


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Is this true, Anju?





Anju said:


> Another helpful reply. Carry on blaming the EU for all of the problems in Greece.  Regardless of whether they were in the EU they would be in trouble now. Non EU countries were also affected by the financial crisis.  The Greek government was, and still is, corrupt. If Greece was not in the EU what would they have done?  If you were advising them what would your advice have been.





Anju said:


> I would support any move to help Greece
> Trouble is you are missing out the Greek government. Nobody chose Greece at random and said lets screw them over. Their government has to shoulder some responsibility. I don't think you can just blame the EU and banks did not impose the loans on Greece. I would favour just extending rhe loans at interest, negative if need be, rates that kept the total to be repaid the same as if it was repaid on time. I recently finished paying off a loan at £20 per month after I lost my job 15 years ago and got into a bit of trouble.  Couple this with increased EU funding for infrastructure, education and business.
> 
> Not sure if that is feasible but to simply write off the loans of one country is risky.





Anju said:


> Yes what happened / is happening in Greece is terrible. It is nice to see someone at least considering that the government and elites of Greece should take some responsibility.. I remember Greeks being the original oligarchs / billionaire super yacht owning world travelers.  The government were terribly corrupt. Business tax inspectors would demand money and just keep it or maybe hand over a portion to the government. Many people seem to only blame the EU.


see the discussion in this thread


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Is this true, Anju?



If showing sympathy for the people and blaming their government and elite for the problems then yes. I think suggesting extending the loans is a reasonable solution.  
I don't really know what all the milestones were but I don't think Greece should have agreed to mass privatisation.  Sorting out their tax system seems essential.


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> see the discussion in this thread



Wow, didn't realise I had upset you so much. It looks a bit weird you looking up my old posts and  putting them here.  Very Donald Trump


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> Wow, didn't realise I had upset you so much. It looks a bit weird you looking up my old posts and  putting them here.  Very Donald Trump


Oh dear


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 11, 2016)

Anju said:


> Wow, didn't realise I had upset you so much. It looks a bit weird you looking up my old posts and  putting them here.  Very Donald Trump


Yeah, how dare I remember what you said four months ago. That's right I'm just like misogynistic racist. You apologised to BA yet or do you still insist he's a racist too? Prick.


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Yeah, how dare I remember what you said four months ago. That's right I'm just like misogynistic racist. You apologised to BA yet or do you still insist he's a racist too? Prick.



This is one of those things where someone gets all defensive because they fucked up. Why not just forgive yourself for helping install TM and her team.  

As you can remember what someone you don't know said on an internet message board 4 months ago I would also suggest you pop out and get a life.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 11, 2016)

And there it is again, all remain voters love the Tories (as well as being thick racists). Liberalism at it's finest.


----------



## Anju (Oct 11, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> And there it is again, all remain voters love the Tories (as well as being thick racists). Liberalism at it's finest.



This is so sad.  I have said nothing rude to you yet you feel the need to be rude to me, to drag up old posts that while they are saying things you disagree with are not calling for anything other than for the Greek establishment to be held to account. 

In the context of today's posts what made you angry and what was the purpose of falsly saying I had posted that the Greeks deserved it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 11, 2016)

I'm not angry I just think you're a dishonest prick. From virtually your first post on U75 you've been smearing Leave voters as thick, Tory-supporting racists, including specifically calling one long-term poster a violent racist, something that you still haven't retracted or apologised for. If you don't think that's rude then you're even more of an idiot than I thought.

On Greece, your posts on the thread I linked to quite clearly indicate that you do think the Greeks deserved the austerity imposed on them. Oh no doubt you're dreadfully sorry that people are being pushed into poverty and dying early but "they" do have to take _responsibility_.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 11, 2016)

Ascribing widespread racist motivation for the leave vote is truly to tilt at windmills. The electorate were never offered any indication of why our domestic party of capital had to resort to a referendum, or anything other than the most superficial of political interpretations of the options given. The choice presented between supra-nationalism and nationalism gave no clue of the real tory divisions that precipitated the move to direct democracy. 

The only real choice on offer in the referendum was between 2 different preferences for the effective progress of neoliberal trends; via the regional super-state or through global, free-trade. As such there was no anti-capitalist position for the left to take, merely the chance to choose which option might, potentially be most disruptive to capital.

To view this through the prism of domestic party politics is to miss the meta-narrative of the division within capital about the best route to effect domination over labour.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 11, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Ascribing widespread racist motivation for the leave vote is truly to tilt at windmills. The electorate were never offered any indication of why our domestic party of capital had to resort to a referendum, or anything other than the most superficial of political interpretations of the options given. The choice presented between supra-nationalism and nationalism gave no clue of the real tory divisions that precipitated the move to direct democracy.
> 
> The only real choice on offer in the referendum was between 2 different preferences for the effective progress of neoliberal trends; via the regional super-state or through global, free-trade. As such there was no anti-capitalist position for the left to take, merely the chance to choose which option might, potentially be most disruptive to capital.
> 
> To view this through the prism of domestic party politics is to miss the meta-narrative of the division within capital about the best route to effect domination over labour.



This is fine as a personal analysis, but to most leave voters you may as well be talking Mandarin. Most leave voters voted to reduce immigration, and most held generally right-wing views, which is not tilting at anything. It's supported by polling data.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 11, 2016)

Raheem said:


> This is fine as a personal analysis, but to most leave voters you may as well be talking Mandarin. Most leave voters voted to reduce immigration, and most held generally right-wing views, which is not tilting at anything. It's supported by polling data.


Well, yes...but then I wasn't attempting to talk to 'most leave voters', merely those people posting in this thread. And yes, many leave voters did think they were being offered the chance to reduce (control) immigration because that's what they were promised.


----------



## magneze (Oct 12, 2016)

Raheem said:


> This is fine as a personal analysis, but to most leave voters you may as well be talking Mandarin. Most leave voters voted to reduce immigration, and most held generally right-wing views, which is not tilting at anything. It's supported by polling data.


Care to link to that data? The Ashcroft polling data didn't have immigration as the top reason.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 12, 2016)

We need to negotiate a better deal with the euromillions lottery when we leave. 

We give millions to them every year but we always seem to get back less than we give. 

I gave them £10 last night and only got £7.20 back. 

#Lexit


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2016)

this is really good as a sane dispassionate attempt to analyse where we're at at the moment
The four tensions of Brexit


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

Anju said:


> Why not just forgive yourself for helping install TM and her team.


so what you're saying is you are disappointed david cameron and his team are not still with us.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 13, 2016)

Stinger.



Shame the markets have closed for the day.


----------



## Anju (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> so what you're saying is you are disappointed david cameron and his team are not still with us.



What I'm saying is that voting leave was always going to result in a more right wing government.  If you voted leave then your vote, regardless of intention, helped install these people in power.

Not sure what harm it is supposed to do to capitalism, which seems a popular reason here for voting leave but although it is going to make life harder for a lot of people I can't see any rising up of the working class on the horizon. 

If people really cared about workers rights they could be doing something to help empower people rather than destroy their economic prospects.  I have seen not one campaign helping people understand their rights and how to fight for them, or anything similar   As far as most ordinary people in this country are concerned there is little they can do to improve their situation and anyone who claims to be concerned with workers rights should be starting there. Claiming that Britain leaving the EU gives a fighting chance against capitalism ignores the fact that most people are not interested in or are unaware of 'the fight'.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 14, 2016)

Anju said:


> What I'm saying is that voting leave was always going to result in a more right wing government.  If you voted leave then your vote, regardless of intention, helped install these people in power.



Can you explain how a Remain vote would have left us with a not right-wing government?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Can you explain how a Remain vote would have left us with a not right-wing government?


Anju didn't say that. They said 'more r/w'. So they don't have to explain that.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 14, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Anju didn't say that. They said 'more r/w'. So they don't have to explain that.



I suppose you are right, although I think that whether or not the current government is to the right of the previous one is up for debate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I suppose you are right, although I think that whether or not the current government is to the right of the previous one is up for debate.


yep, I think that's open to debate too. But there is virtually nobody on these boards who cheerleads the EU and thinks things were fine pre-brexit vote. For most, like me, a vote to remain was one to be done with a clothes peg on the nose because the alternative was even worse.


----------



## Anju (Oct 14, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I suppose you are right, although I think that whether or not the current government is to the right of the previous one is up for debate.



Further right or not they are going to cause way more damage.  What happens if they rush through some dodgy version of TTIP, hailing it as a beneficial trade deal and then remain in power at the next GE.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

Anju said:


> What I'm saying is that voting leave was always going to result in a more right wing government.  If you voted leave then your vote, regardless of intention, helped install these people in power.
> 
> Not sure what harm it is supposed to do to capitalism, which seems a popular reason here for voting leave but although it is going to make life harder for a lot of people I can't see any rising up of the working class on the horizon.
> 
> If people really cared about workers rights they could be doing something to help empower people rather than destroy their economic prospects.  I have seen not one campaign helping people understand their rights and how to fight for them, or anything similar   As far as most ordinary people in this country are concerned there is little they can do to improve their situation and anyone who claims to be concerned with workers rights should be starting there. Claiming that Britain leaving the EU gives a fighting chance against capitalism ignores the fact that most people are not interested in or are unaware of 'the fight'.


These people were already in power


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

Anju said:


> Further right or not they are going to cause way more damage.  What happens if they rush through some dodgy version of TTIP, hailing it as a beneficial trade deal and then remain in power at the next GE.


Do you really think that possible by 2020 that tm can deliver brexit and ttip?


----------



## Anju (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> These people were already in power



They were in government but not in power. The referendum was equivalent to a GE but Tory v Tory.


----------



## Anju (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Do you really think that possible by 2020 that tm can deliver brexit and ttip?



They have to deliver  something and a trade deal with the US is top of their list.  I doubt they are opposed to opening up our public services to America so a trade deal would not be difficult to sort out.  The template is already there.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 14, 2016)

Anju said:


> Further right or not they are going to cause way more damage.  What happens if they rush through some dodgy version of TTIP, hailing it as a beneficial trade deal and then remain in power at the next GE.



Then at a subsequent election a different government can be elected to scrap that deal. It's called democracy. Problem with the EU is that there exists no realistic way in which such laws can be changed. TTIP under the EU would be just as bad, but with no way of getting rid of it. You've just highlighted _exactly _why being outside the EU is better for workers rights and social democracy in the long run. It gives us a fighting chance at least.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

Anju said:


> They were in government but not in power. The referendum was equivalent to a GE but Tory v Tory.


 the tory party won the general election last year. They were in power on 22/6/16 and indeed on 14/10/16


----------



## Anju (Oct 14, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Then at a subsequent election a different government can be elected to scrap that deal. It's called democracy. Problem with the EU is that there exists no realistic way in which such laws can be changed. TTIP under the EU would be just as bad, but with no way of getting rid of it. You've just highlighted _exactly _why being outside the EU is better for workers rights and social democracy in the long run. It gives us a fighting chance at least.



I thought France had rejected TTIP.  

If TM and her team do a similar deal there will be protection for  companies who win contracts and we will be sued in commercial courts if we try and cancel anything. Unfortunately reality wins over democracy in most cases.


----------



## Anju (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> the tory party won the general election last year. They were in power on 22/6/16 and indeed on 14/10/16



Of course. I am talking about who are in a position of power within the party.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 14, 2016)

TTIP was and is dead within the EU.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> TTIP was and is dead within the EU.


Yeh but a bit of scaremongering good for the soul


----------



## Raheem (Oct 14, 2016)

Post-Brexit, I think it may be optimistic to suppose that foreign companies getting their hands on chunks of our health and education sectors is necessarily going to need the authorisation of a trade deal.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 14, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> TTIP was and is dead within the EU.



You don't seem to get it. Once these things are in place at an EU level that's it. The road maybe bumpy getting there, but the neoliberals will find a way because they are the ones in charge. Believe me, there _will _be a version of TTIP that will get forced on the people of Europe, and you won't be able to change it. But trusting the words of those well-meaning technocrats behind closed doors is apparently good enough for you.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 14, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> You don't seem to get it. Once these things are in place at an EU level that's it. The road maybe bumpy getting there, but the neoliberals will find a way because they are the ones in charge. Believe me, there _will _be a version of TTIP that will get forced on the people of Europe, and you won't be able to change it. But trusting the words of those well-meaning technocrats behind closed doors is apparently good enough for you.


Actually that was an argument against the idea that it is an issue at all, but if you want to mix it up: the idea that it is somehow easier to affect policy on these supra-national treaties on a national level, in a smaller group, isolated from others who have the same concerns, is junk. This has completely not worked so far; the UK has economic policy far to the right and far more damaging than anything mandated by the EC. We would be _far less_ able to influence political decisions on  UK TTIP than an EC TTIP purely because of isolation from others campaigning on the same issue. In fact, if it _had_ been negotiated on a state-by-state basis, I suspect it might have gone through.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 14, 2016)

Anju said:


> Further right or not they are going to cause way more damage.  What happens if they rush through some dodgy version of TTIP, hailing it as a beneficial trade deal and then remain in power at the next GE.


You mean like the EU is currently trying to do


> Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, said “emotions and confusion” around the CETA and the parallel transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP) with the US were “fuel for Eurosceptics and radicals”.
> 
> One senior EU diplomat said: “It is not just about EU-Canada, it is about the future of EU trade policy.”





> Fredrik Erixon, the director of the European Centre for International Political Economy, said: “What we are witnessing is a degrading of the authority of the EU to do a lot of things in these areas [trade and commercial policy].”
> 
> Allowing parliaments to ratify the agreement was “an extraordinary decision”, he said. “It is setting a precedent and having a profoundly undermining effect on EU trade policy, because few countries in the world will want to do trade negotiations with us in the future.”


The current stalling of TTIP is precisely because national Govs have had to accomodate anti-EU feeling, if it had been left to the EU itself it would still be on track.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 14, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> The current stalling of TTIP is precisely because national Govs have had to accomodate anti-EU feeling, if it had been left to the EU itself it would still be on track.



I don't think this is true. what has stalled (and, quite right, not yet actually stopped) TTIP negotiations is specifically anti-TTIP feeling among people who are otherwise in favour of the EU. It's a bridge too far.

But, for argument's sake, what point would be proven if that were not the case? That the EU is incapable of responding to public sentiment? That we should all raise a glass to the Le Pens?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 14, 2016)

(mispost)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 14, 2016)

It isn't true. There's been an EU-wide rejection of it, with people collaborating across national borders. That's what's stopped it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 14, 2016)

Raheem said:


> I don't think this is true. what has stalled (and, quite right, not yet actually stopped) TTIP negotiations is specifically anti-TTIP feeling among people who are otherwise in favour of the EU. It's a bridge too far.
> 
> But, for argument's sake, what point would be proven if that were not the case? That the EU is incapable of responding to public sentiment? That we should all raise a glass to the Le Pens?


Have you read the link I posted the EU is still pushing for TTIP, the quote from Erixon above shows exactly why the EU is the bosses best friend, he's arguing to remove any role for national governments so that the EU can impose trade agreements.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> You mean like the EU is currently trying to do
> 
> The current stalling of TTIP is precisely because national Govs have had to accomodate anti-EU feeling, if it had been left to the EU itself it would still be on track.


What does 'left to the EU' mean in this particular instance? The EU's power to act comes from consensus between the national governments. I think possibly Mr Tusk and Mr Erixon are rather talking up an idea that doesn't really exist - that there exists a power structure in the EU in which policy is driven onto governments by the EU's various politicians. They don't have that much power.


----------



## Anju (Oct 14, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> You mean like the EU is currently trying to do
> 
> The current stalling of TTIP is precisely because national Govs have had to accomodate anti-EU feeling, if it had been left to the EU itself it would still be on track.



There are a lot of countries with good health care in the EU and want to protect it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Have you read the link I posted the EU is still pushing for TTIP, the quote from Erixon above shows exactly why the EU is the bosses best friend, he's arguing to remove any role for national governments so that the EU can impose trade agreements.


Erixon is some think-tank bod. Why ought we to give a shit what he is arguing or to think that this is what the EU is going to become.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 14, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Have you read the link I posted the EU is still pushing for TTIP, the quote from Erixon above shows exactly why the EU is the bosses best friend, he's arguing to remove any role for national governments so that the EU can impose trade agreements.



I asked my question first, and you're dodging it.

It may be that, if the EU consisted of four unaccountable bureaucrats sharing an office in Brussels, it may well have already signed TTIP. But the fact is that it doesn't which is why it hasn't. If Frdrik Ericson, whoever he happens to be, is in favour of TTIP, that may well make him a dick. But he doesn't even speak on behalf of the EU.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 14, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What does 'left to the EU' mean in this particular instance? The EU's power to act comes from consensus between the national governments. I think possibly Mr Tusk and Mr Erixon are rather talking up an idea that doesn't really exist - that there exists a power structure in the EU in which policy is driven onto governments by the EU's various politicians. They don't have that much power.


So the EU didn't force austerity on Greece? There wasn't a non-elected EU supported government government in Italy?  


littlebabyjesus said:


> Erixon is some think-tank bod. Why ought we to give a shit what he is arguing or to think that this is what the EU is going to become.


Because he's gives a window into the views of the EU government, think-tanks aren't politically neutral.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

Raheem said:


> I asked my question first, and you're dodging it.
> 
> It may well be that, if the EU consisted of four unaccountable bureaucrats sharing an office in Brussels, it may well have already signed TTIP. But the fact is that it doesn't which is why it hasn't. If Frdrik Ericson, whoever he happens to be, is in favour of TTIP, that may well make him a dick. *But he doesn't even speak on behalf of the EU*.


I looked him up. He's an economist who runs a think tank. He may very well have the ear of important people, I don't know. But he has no power at all and speaks on behalf of nobody except his think tank.


----------



## Anju (Oct 14, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> You mean like the EU is currently trying to do
> 
> The current stalling of TTIP is precisely because national Govs have had to accomodate anti-EU feeling, if it had been left to the EU itself it would still be on track.



There may be a lot of countries that want to maintain control of their public services in the EU who oppose/d TTIP.  I I don't think a deal with America on those terms will get through.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> So the EU didn't force austerity on Greece? There wasn't a non-elected EU supported government government in Italy? .


What was done to Greece was done, ultimately, with the consent of several heads of governments, most notably Angela Merkel, who could have stopped it if she had so wished. And yes, the EU's financial institutions did force austerity on Greece, using the mechanism of debt, just as the IMF and other financial institutions have done. But not without the consent of the creditor governments. The eurozone and the sovereignty ceded by the member states of the eurozone to the central bank are something of a separate problem.


----------



## Combustible (Oct 15, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This has completely not worked so far; the UK has economic policy far to the right and far more damaging than anything mandated by the EC。


I simply don't think this is true. As bad as UK austerity was, the mandating of a lack of budget deficit is significantly more extreme then UK policy. And even though Osborne claimed he had planned to eliminate the deficit this is not the same as requiring national governments to pass laws outlawing unbalanced budgets, as required by the fiscal compact.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2016)

Combustible said:


> I simply don't think this is true. As bad as UK austerity was, the mandating of a lack of budget deficit is significantly more extreme then UK policy. And even though Osborne claimed he had planned to eliminate the deficit this is not the same as requiring national governments to pass laws outlawing unbalanced budgets, as required by the fiscal compact.


Yes, there's a great deal of difference between using the notion of 'balanced budgets' as a political tool with which to reduce and privatise the state, and actually legislating for such. The tories' constituency of the City & financialised capital wanted no such thing to actually come to pass ; their lifeblood is debt farming on a gigantic scale.
I think this is another key reason why the Atlanticists (Brexiteers) worked to undermine the European project.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What was done to Greece was done, ultimately, with the consent of several heads of governments, most notably Angela Merkel, who could have stopped it if she had so wished. And yes, the EU's financial institutions did force austerity on Greece, using the mechanism of debt, just as the IMF and other financial institutions have done. But not without the consent of the creditor governments. The eurozone and the sovereignty ceded by the member states of the eurozone to the central bank are something of a separate problem.



I'm not denying that national governments should't also be held to account, just that it's pathetic to deny the EU has been and continues to be an a force for neo-liberalism. And that one way that capital has used the EU is by employing it as a means by which to weaken democratic accountability. Of course national governments can, and do, do this without the EU (see creation of central banks, outsourcing political control to technocrats etc) but to pretend that the EU hasn't/isn't been used in this way is nonsense. 

You said that there weren't any cheerleaders for the EU on U75, well that depends how you define cheerleader, there are those that have denied that the EU is a neo-liberal institution or have explicitly opposed starting from a place that identifies the EU as such.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I looked him up. He's an economist who runs a think tank. He may very well have the ear of important people, I don't know. But he has no power at all and speaks on behalf of nobody except his think tank.


Influence is a form of power


----------



## Raheem (Oct 15, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> You said that there weren't any cheerleaders for the EU on U75, well that depends how you define cheerleader, there are those that have denied that the EU is a neo-liberal institution or have explicitly opposed starting from a place that identifies the EU as such.



Clearly, the EU is a neoliberal club, but I do think it's wrong-headed to the think of Brexit in simplistic terms of supporting or not supporting neoliberalism. As well as being an economic ideology, it is also, in effect, a set of material facts, and you can't escape with a simple click of the fingers. The consequences of Brexit will be good or bad depending or whether you prefer the softer neoliberalism of the EU (which is not just smoke and mirrors - you only have to compare the situation of the poor in the US to their counterparts in the UK or Germany) or the unavoidable alternative of making the most of economic isolation by deregulating and privatising to keep ourselves afloat (if that even turns out to be enough).

The only realistic path to progress in the West is for countries to elect left-wing governments of one kind or another, at the same time, in order to modify the mechanisms of global trade and policy. Standing in the corner is not the same as leaving the building.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 15, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Clearly, the EU is a neoliberal club, but I do think it's wrong-headed to the think of Brexit in simplistic terms of supporting or not supporting neoliberalism.


Good job I didn't do that then it isn't it.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Clearly, the EU is a neoliberal club, but I do think it's wrong-headed to the think of Brexit in simplistic terms of supporting or not supporting neoliberalism. As well as being an economic ideology, it is also, in effect, a set of material facts, and you can't escape with a simple click of the fingers. The consequences of Brexit will be good or bad depending or whether you prefer the softer neoliberalism of the EU (which is not just smoke and mirrors - you only have to compare the situation of the poor in the US to their counterparts in the UK or Germany) or the unavoidable alternative of making the most of economic isolation by deregulating and privatising to keep ourselves afloat (if that even turns out to be enough).
> 
> The only realistic path to progress in the West is for countries to elect left-wing governments of one kind or another, at the same time, in order to modify the mechanisms of global trade and policy. Standing in the corner is not the same as leaving the building.


I don't think the ideologues behind 'Leave' necessarily regarded the super-state as a "softer" form of neoliberalism, merely an inefficient, bureaucratic, burdensome and overly prescriptive mode of effecting the neoliberal agenda.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 15, 2016)

Raheem said:


> the unavoidable alternative of making the most of economic isolation by deregulating and privatising to keep ourselves afloat (if that even turns out to be enough).



What do you mean by 'keep us afloat', and how would privatising/deregulating achieve this?



> The only realistic path to progress in the West is for countries to elect left-wing governments of one kind or another, at the same time, in order to modify the mechanisms of global trade and policy.



That's realistic?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 15, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> You don't seem to get it. Once these things are in place at an EU level that's it. The road maybe bumpy getting there, but the neoliberals will find a way because they are the ones in charge. Believe me, there _will _be a version of TTIP that will get forced on the people of Europe, and you won't be able to change it. But trusting the words of those well-meaning technocrats behind closed doors is apparently good enough for you.


The MAI was defeated in the late 90s, and sure they keep trying to get it implemented via other routes, but as yet 20 years on they've not succeeded - TTIP and associated treaties was their latest attempt.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 15, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> What do you mean by 'keep us afloat', and how would privatising/deregulating achieve this?



Economically, rather than literally, obvs. Privatisations, deregulation and tax incentives are obvious ways of providing economic stimulus. If we're in a situation where we need economic stimulus, given a newfound liberation from any external control, then I think that's inevitably what will happen.



> That's realistic?



Not by next Tuesday, no. But what is it that you think is more realistic?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 18, 2016)

This looks likely...I like " We would have to be careful how we explained it"
Or its a lie to placate the markets - though truth would come out at some point so I cant see how that would help


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2016)

Everything is going to be fine.  Andrea as-a-mum Leadsome, our Environment Secretary , has a plan.


----------



## inva (Oct 19, 2016)

and fruitcakes


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 19, 2016)

British tea?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 19, 2016)

I can just see the queen aboard the royal yacht  passing around a plate of biscuits to  assorted plutocrats and despots in the hope of securing those fantastic trade deals we've been told about. "one heartily recommends the jammy dodgers - they're by crawfords - and currently Tesco's  has a 'buy one get one free' offer. More tea Mr Mugabe?"


----------



## hipipol (Oct 23, 2016)

LONDON Britain will have tariff-free trade with the European Union after it leaves the bloc as it is in both sides interests to do so, transport minister Chris Grayling said on Sunday
In EU's interests to give Britain tariff-free trade post-Brexit - minister
Fantasist exposes the collective delusion of the currently ruling but non descript crowd of "Yesterdays Imperialists" - ie the cabinet
Wondering when they will go for the "everyone's interest" to restart "traditional" trades like slavery and opium trading
"The Empire is Lost Madam PM"
"Fuck that, full steam ahead" quoth Le May- (Good mate of Bomber Harris, went on to slaughter 100ks in Japan, using Bomber H's methods)
cant tell any o these peeps apart anymore......


----------



## keybored (Oct 23, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> British tea?


I think it's grown in Scotland somewhere, but it's something silly like £10 for a teabag.


----------



## Anju (Oct 23, 2016)

Seems realistic.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 24, 2016)

(((free trade agreements)))


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 24, 2016)

(((the city)))


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 24, 2016)




----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 24, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> (((free trade agreements)))


Curse you Walloons!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Curse you Walloons!


En francais s'il vous plait


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 24, 2016)

Oh look this professor's an advisor to the IMF, what a surprise.


----------



## isvicthere? (Oct 24, 2016)

Not looking good.

Brexit: leading banks set to pull out of UK early next year


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 24, 2016)

isvicthere? said:


> Not looking good.
> 
> Brexit: leading banks set to pull out of UK early next year



Good. Someone else can have that particular timebomb sitting in their laps.


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork Can you imagine any scenario which would cause you (in say 5 or 10 years time) to think that brexit was not a good thing after all?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> ItWillNeverWork Can you imagine any scenario which would cause you (in say 5 or 10 years time) to think that brexit was not a good thing after all?



This is a no-brainer, Bimble. Banking is one of the UK's biggest exports. Ergo, if we get to a level where we're exporting actual banks, lock stock and barrel, that's got to be a good thing for the economy, right?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> Everything is going to be fine.  Andrea as-a-mum Leadsome, our Environment Secretary , has a plan.
> View attachment 94095


I'm struggling here, is that a parody or what she actually said?

I seem to have lost the ability to be able to work this stuff out, some of the stuff that's being said / happening is so far fetched that the parodies look real and the reality looks like parody.


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2016)

free spirit said:


> I'm struggling here, is that a parody or what she actually said?
> 
> I seem to have lost the ability to be able to work this stuff out, some of the stuff that's being said / happening is so far fetched that the parodies look real and the reality looks like parody.


I know, it's very confusing. Hope this helps:
Sneering at 'Brexit biscuits' shows contempt for a vital British industry and ignorance of basic economics


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2016)

free spirit said:


> I'm struggling here, is that a parody or what she actually said?
> 
> I seem to have lost the ability to be able to work this stuff out, some of the stuff that's being said / happening is so far fetched that the parodies look real and the reality looks like parody.


there is no parody here


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> ItWillNeverWork Can you imagine any scenario which would cause you (in say 5 or 10 years time) to think that brexit was not a good thing after all?



If someone could convince me that Brexit had done more damage than good, then sure. How could anyone possibly prove a counterfactual though? There are so many things looming that will cause the economy to turn to shit in the next 5-10 years that it will be impossible to figure out what was the cause of what. All any of us can do is make a judgement based on our perception here and now of what poses the greatest risk. We just differ in our opinions about where the risks lie.

Can you imagine any scenario which would cause you to think that brexit _was _a good thing after all?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> If someone could convince me that Brexit had done more damage than good, then sure. How could anyone possibly prove a counterfactual though? There are so many things looming that will cause the economy to turn to shit in the next 5-10 years that it will be impossible to figure out what was the cause of what. All any of us can do is make a judgement based on our perception here and now of what poses the greatest risk. We just differ in our opinions about where the risks lie.
> 
> Can you imagine any scenario which would cause you to think that brexit _was _a good thing after all?


Quite; the referendum offered no exit from the forces propelling neoliberalism.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 24, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> If someone could convince me that Brexit had done more damage than good, then sure.


That's easy. The damage is, at this moment in time at least, self-evident, so the question is simple: what good has it done?


ItWillNeverWork said:


> There are so many things looming that will cause the economy to turn to shit in the next 5-10 years that it will be impossible to figure out what was the cause of what.


This is nonsense, now and in the longer term. You could stab yourself several times and say, hey, it's impossible to tell which one of these injuries will kill me. Sadly it doesn't make any one of them a good idea.

As I said pre-Brexit, there is a fair chance that both the EU and the current economic consensus will naturally collapse in some form before very long. If you suspect that the club you are a member of is going to go through a painful dissolution, but you haven't the power to unilaterally bring that to an early, managed conclusion yourself, you have a few options. The wiser ones involve preparing for it, insuring yourself against the risks and positioning yourself to take advantage of the aftermath. Pretty much the worst, dumbest option is to prematurely flounce out, piss off the other members, take a kicking, and then arrive, unprepared and bruised, influence toast, at exactly the same juncture anyway. And that's where we're headed.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 24, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Can you imagine any scenario which would cause you to think that brexit _was _a good thing after all?


And yes, personally, various.

The obvious would be if we were ultimately able to both globally signal a rejection of neoliberalism and take effective, successful charge of our own destiny outside of that pattern - demonstrating the feasibility of an alternative model of politics and/or economics.

Another would be bringing down the EU in its current form whilst forming alliances with its current members and populations - reforming an alliance with our neighbours on new terms.

Another, limited success would be domestic, unseating our own government and institutions and taking the opportunity to install something new, regardless of what happens internationally. Ditto changing the mainstream opinion to something more progressive and ambitious than before.

Let's see, how many of those have happened or are happening?


----------



## agricola (Oct 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> As I said pre-Brexit, there is a fair chance that both the EU and the current economic consensus will naturally collapse in some form before very long. If you suspect that the club you are a member of is going to go through a painful dissolution, but you haven't the power to unilaterally bring that to an early, managed conclusion yourself, you have a few options. The wiser ones involve preparing for it, insuring yourself against the risks and positioning yourself to take advantage of the aftermath. Pretty much the worst, dumbest option is to prematurely flounce out, piss off the other members, take a kicking, and then arrive, unprepared and bruised, influence toast, at exactly the same juncture anyway. And that's where we're headed.



I am not sure that is that correct, to be honest.  Getting out before the thing breaks up badly would only ever be a good thing, and the idea that we had influence over there surely went up in smoke when Dave got (and was offered) precisely nothing out of his renegotiation attempts.  Us leaving has been on the cards for years, given our semi-detached position, and indeed it may actually stabilize the situation in the EU.

The thing that is causing the problem, especially economically, is not Brexit but rather the Government either not having an idea of how to implement it or (more likely) the Government attempting to ignore the referendum by trying to create such a negative state of affairs that it would be able to overturn the result.  If they had taken the steps that were suggested (by Corbyn and others) and implemented Article 50 the day after the vote, we would probably be in a far better situation than we are now because there would be some certainty and a framework in place.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 24, 2016)

agricola said:


> I am not sure that is that correct, to be honest.  Getting out before the thing breaks up badly would only ever be a good thing, and the idea that we had influence over there surely went up in smoke when Dave got (and was offered) precisely nothing out of his renegotiation attempts.  Us leaving has been on the cards for years, given our semi-detached position, and indeed it may actually stabilize the situation in the EU.


Not being in the single currency was a pretty good insulator. Our weak influence is a product of long term disengagement, but not necessarily an active negative - it becomes hard to negotiate within the structure of the EU but doesn't necessarily mean an equal lack of influence over its successor. Having chosen isolationism probably does, however, and more besides.



agricola said:


> The thing that is causing the problem, especially economically, is not Brexit but rather the Government either not having an idea of how to implement it or (more likely) the Government attempting to ignore the referendum by trying to create such a negative state of affairs that it would be able to overturn the result.  If they had taken the steps that were suggested (by Corbyn and others) and implemented Article 50 the day after the vote, we would probably be in a far better situation than we are now because there would be some certainty and a framework in place.


It's not either/or. Uncertainty is certainly doing some of the economic damage, but the possibility of 'hard Brexit' itself is responsible for most of it. Remain was originally priced in prior to the vote, then soft/nominal exit, and now who knows what horrors are in store?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2016)

agricola said:


> If they had taken the steps that were suggested (by Corbyn and others) and implemented Article 50 the day after the vote, we would probably be in a far better situation than we are now because there would be some certainty and a framework in place.


There would be some certainty, but a framework? I don't see that there would be any framework. Nobody knows how to do it, not the UK govt, not anyone in the EU. This was never supposed to happen. 

I'm not disagreeing about what they should have done. I think an immediate triggering of A50 would almost certainly have led to a 'soft brexit' - out of practical necessity to get the thing done.


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Can you imagine any scenario which would cause you to think that brexit _was _a good thing after all?


Yep. And I'd very much like to be wrong, seeing as apparently brexit (whatever it means) is happening. 
Here's one:
If in 5 or 10 years this country drops down the rankings of income inequality, so that we're no longer the most unequal country in Europe, then maybe leaving the EU would have been a good move which led to some of the underlying causes being addressed.  So if the amount of wealth held by the top 10% drops below what it is now basically by whatever measure. 
Report finds that Britain's wages are the most unequal in Europe


----------



## free spirit (Oct 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> I know, it's very confusing. Hope this helps:
> Sneering at 'Brexit biscuits' shows contempt for a vital British industry and ignorance of basic economics


hmm, so low skilled low wage manufacturing with imported ingredients by largely multinational companies who suck the profits offshore is going to be the key to brexit survival is it?

fucking clueless muppets.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yep. And I'd very much like to be wrong, seeing as apparently brexit (whatever it means) is happening.
> Here's one:
> If in 5 or 10 years this country drops down the rankings of income inequality, so that we're no longer the most unequal country in Europe, then maybe leaving the EU would have been a good move which led to some of the underlying causes being addressed.  So if the amount of wealth held by the top 10% drops below what it is now basically by whatever measure.
> Report finds that Britain's wages are the most unequal in Europe


I'd love it if this happened. Unfortunately my fear is that the opposite will happen - inequality will continue to worsen. Membership of the EU is not an underlying cause of the UK's growing inequality.


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2016)

free spirit said:


> hmm, so low skilled low wage manufacturing with imported ingredients by largely multinational companies who suck the profits offshore is going to be the key to brexit survival is it?
> 
> fucking clueless muppets.


You're showing contempt for a vital British Industry.


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd love it if this happened. Unfortunately my fear is that the opposite will happen - inequality will continue to worsen. Membership of the EU is not an underlying cause of the UK's growing inequality.


Exactly. But that inequality a big cause of the leave vote, I think. So there might be a chance now to address that massive issue instead of talking about biscuits and immigration but I am not hopeful.


----------



## agricola (Oct 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Not being in the single currency was a pretty good insulator. Our weak influence is a product of long term disengagement, but not necessarily an active negative - it becomes hard to negotiate within the structure of the EU but doesn't necessarily mean an equal lack of influence over its successor. Having chosen isolationism probably does, however, and more besides.



We haven't chosen isolationism, though.  Brexit is something that was always likely because it is hard to see how further integration (or at least further integration of the kind needed to solve many of the EU's issues) would ever have been acceptable here; if anything it happening now (rather than ten or fifteen years down the line) is probably better for the EU.



mauvais said:


> It's not either/or. Uncertainty is certainly doing some of the economic damage, but the possibility of 'hard Brexit' itself is responsible for most of it. Remain was originally priced in prior to the vote, then soft/nominal exit, and now who knows what horrors are in store?



I am not sure that it is; 'hard Brexit' seems to be a chimera thought up by the defeated at the top of the Remain camp, and the big firms who funded their campaign.  If the Government actually got on with negotiations, it would probably be quite easy to get terms that satisfied everyone (and weren't that much different to what we had as distant members of the EU).


----------



## mauvais (Oct 24, 2016)

agricola said:


> I am not sure that it is; 'hard Brexit' seems to be a chimera thought up by the defeated at the top of the Remain camp, and the big firms who funded their campaign.  If the Government actually got on with negotiations, it would probably be quite easy to get terms that satisfied everyone (and weren't that much different to what we had as distant members of the EU).


That's what I thought would happen, but the message seems to be - to the extent that there is anything coherent at all - that access to the single market, freedom of movement etc is unlikely. On the Brexit spectrum that is 'hard', not an invention. If you can demonstrate that this is just a case of too much Guardian, then great, but it's not just me - that's what the markets are reacting to most, the probability of that, not the uncertainty of it.


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2016)

I think it's still possible that it's all just a charade and a bluff and in a few months she might point at the economic situation and announce that what's important now is stability, lets put this whole thing on hold till we've sorted out the economy etc. She was a remainer after all, and she's not an idiot presumably, so why would she go out of her way to piss the EU off so much before negotiations even begin - it's all very strange.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> I think it's still possible that it's all just a charade and a bluff and in a few months she might point at the economic situation and announce that what's important now is stability, lets put this whole thing on hold till we've sorted out the economy etc. She was a remainer after all, and she's not an idiot presumably, so why would she go out of her way to piss the EU off so much before negotiations even begin - it's all very strange.


If she's not an idiot she has a peculiar way of proving it


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 24, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


>



Thou shalt have no other gods before me


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 24, 2016)

isvicthere? said:


> Not looking good.
> 
> Brexit: leading banks set to pull out of UK early next year



Non EU nations like Switerland known for their paucity of banking services of course.


----------



## gosub (Oct 24, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Curse you Walloons!



Actually, on an Andrew Neil thing a couple of months back, they were discussing TTIP, and one of the guests pointed out most the US companies have Canadian subsidiaries that they would use as a work around should TTIP falter.... Being Belgian, and speaking French these farmers are cursed enough as it is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Non EU nations like Switerland known for their paucity of banking services of course.


The Swiss have access to the sm


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 24, 2016)

As will we when all the bullshit stops flying.


----------



## gosub (Oct 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> ItWillNeverWork Can you imagine any scenario which would cause you (in say 5 or 10 years time) to think that brexit was not a good thing after all?



Thats a tough one, there are variants of Brexit that could well prove a disaster for the UK, but if the alternative is to discount June's plebiscite, that's a further catastrophe in terms of democratic accountability - for the entire continent.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> The Swiss have access to the sm


And are currently embroiled in an on-going dispute over it following a referendum calling for an end to free movement of people. The Swiss are in a mess with the EU as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2016)

gosub said:


> Thats a tough one, there are variants of Brexit that could well prove a disaster for the UK, but if the alternative is to discount June's plebiscite, that's a further catastrophe in terms of democratic accountability - for the entire continent.


You must return the question surely?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And are currently embroiled in an on-going dispute over it following a referendum calling for an end to free movement of people. The Swiss are in a mess with the EU as well.


yes. we've discussed that here before.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> Exactly. But that inequality a big cause of the leave vote, I think. So there might be a chance now to address that massive issue instead of talking about biscuits and immigration but I am not hopeful.


Unfortunately I think that, since there's no way all immigration will be stopped, there's endless room for quibbling about immigration and refugee policy. It's the distraction that will never go away, in or out of the EU. Just look at the fuss about a handful of young people being brought over from the Calais camp. Total effect on the UK of letting in a few dozen or even a few hundred refugees? Fuck all. Number of column inches? Nearly infinite.


----------



## isvicthere? (Oct 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Non EU nations like Switerland known for their paucity of banking services of course.



Yes, and the few they do have are lining up to relocate because Switzerland is planning to give up its access to the Single Market.


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2016)

isvicthere? said:


> Yes, and the few they do have are lining up to relocate because Switzerland is planning to give up its access to the Single Market.


They're probably going to have another referendum there aren't they, that goes "do you want to restrict immigration at the cost of  leaving the single market yes or no".
Which might clarify things.
"A petition calling for a second referendum that would allow voters to make an explicit choice between imposing immigration controls on EU citizens and maintaining Switzerland’s special trade deal with the bloc has gathered enough signatures to trigger a new plebiscite."
Swiss blink first in EU standoff with striking similarities to UK predicament
But the Swiss are used to referendums they have loads.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 24, 2016)

So May has promised 2 HoC debates on Brexit...neither concluding with any vote. Wonder why that is?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> They're probably going to have another referendum there aren't they, that goes "do you want to restrict immigration at the cost of  leaving the single market yes or no".
> Which might clarify things.
> "A petition calling for a second referendum that would allow voters to make an explicit choice between imposing immigration controls on EU citizens and maintaining Switzerland’s special trade deal with the bloc has gathered enough signatures to trigger a new plebiscite."
> Swiss blink first in EU standoff with striking similarities to UK predicament
> But the Swiss are used to referendums they have loads.


The swiss are above all apathetic about referendums. Turn-out mostly around 40 percent or less, then result becomes legally binding - in this case on irrc 50.3 % of 40 % turnout.


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The swiss are above all apathetic about referendums. Turn-out mostly around 40 percent or less, then result becomes legally binding - in this case on irrc 50.3 % of 40 % turnout.


I think if this referendum says  'do you want to a) restrict immigration or b) stay in the single market',  the turnout would be quite a lot higher than usual, because so much at stake.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> I think if this referendum says  'do you want to a) restrict immigration or b) stay in the single market',  the turnout would be quite a lot higher than usual, because so much at stake.


You'd hope so. The stupider ref results have come from really low turnouts -minaret ban eg - a motivated, funded and organised minority can do damage in such situations.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 24, 2016)

Maybe a bilateral UK-Swiss superpower is what's needed here. Switzerland is kind of like a mini-EU all by itself anyway. But instead of beaches, they have nazi gold.


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2016)

Also, they've got the chocolate we've got the digestives, together we could conquer the world.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 24, 2016)

Andorra just called, they want a piece of the action. They also want to know if anybody wants to buy some cigarettes.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> I think it's still possible that it's all just a charade and a bluff and in a few months she might point at the economic situation and announce that what's important now is stability, lets put this whole thing on hold till we've sorted out the economy etc. She was a remainer after all, and she's not an idiot presumably, so why would she go out of her way to piss the EU off so much before negotiations even begin - it's all very strange.



TM not being an idiot might be a bold presumption. She's educated, but that's a slightly different matter.

There's no plan and she's being led by the nose by the Tory Eurosceptics, so that it doesn't look likely she'll be concluding any Brexit negotiations. Assuming she does trigger Art 50, the EU27 will either hold out as long as it takes to get someone else to talk to or they'll just pull up the drawbridge in 2019. That's my prediction.


----------



## Anju (Oct 25, 2016)

bimble said:


> I think if this referendum says  'do you want to a) restrict immigration or b) stay in the single market',  the turnout would be quite a lot higher than usual, because so much at stake.



This is the second survey in the last few days to show May has judged public opinion correctly, that Immigration was and is the defining concern of  brexit supporters. The other one was an Observer poll. 

I know people make an argument that remain voters might be anti immigration but the figures match the referendum  result too closely for that to be considered realistic.

Brexit Bulletin: Britons Care More About Immigration Than Trade


----------



## mauvais (Oct 25, 2016)

It's a stupid question, comparing a supposedly tangible, negative thing with some ill defined future possibility.

What would you like to have, this £20 note or something blah to do with future economic prosperity blah?


----------



## bimble (Oct 25, 2016)

mauvais said:


> It's a stupid question, comparing a supposedly tangible, negative thing with some ill defined future possibility.
> 
> What would you like to have, this £20 note or something blah to do with future economic prosperity blah?


If less foreigners = a £20 note but yeah I agree, nobody can see the European Single Market . Does this mean the referendum was a stupid question too though?


----------



## mauvais (Oct 25, 2016)

bimble said:


> If less foreigners = a £20 note but yeah I agree, nobody can see the European Single Market .


Everyone's been beaten over the head with the message that immigration is bad, immigration is here, immigration has gone too far. No fucking wonder that people prioritise that over something in the future that even the politicians and their watchers can't seem to fathom the exact value of.

The only thing clear to me is that the idiots are winning, not one side or the other, just the idiots.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2016)

lol



'Private' talks with the _great vampire squid_.


----------



## bimble (Oct 27, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> If someone could convince me that Brexit had done more damage than good, then sure. How could anyone possibly prove a counterfactual though? There are so many things looming that will cause the economy to turn to shit in the next 5-10 years that it will be impossible to figure out what was the cause of what. All any of us can do is make a judgement based on our perception here and now of what poses the greatest risk. We just differ in our opinions about where the risks lie.
> 
> Can you imagine any scenario which would cause you to think that brexit _was _a good thing after all?



Here's a yougov poll which asked leave voters pretty much the same question - what if anything would cause you to feel that brexit had been a bad thing after all.
The results show that the majority of leave voters don't believe there will be any negative consequences at all, fewer than 10% think this is likely.
But even so,  if it turns out that the price of the weekly shop goes up, or unemployment rises, it would be enough to change the result of the referendum.
YouGov |  What would make Leave voters change their mind about Brexit?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2016)

So, did Nissan panic May into some knee-jerk corporate welfare, and/or has she signalled (inadvertently?) her negotiation objectives?



> _Th[is] suggests No 10 is seeking a free trade relationship similar to the single market and customs union. At the same time, Theresa May has said she wants greater immigration controls and freedom from the oversight of the European court of justice; *a combination of aims that Brussels politicians have repeatedly said is unachievable*_


----------



## J Ed (Oct 30, 2016)

bimble said:


> Here's a yougov poll which asked leave voters pretty much the same question - what if anything would cause you to feel that brexit had been a bad thing after all.
> The results show that the majority of leave voters don't believe there will be any negative consequences at all, fewer than 10% think this is likely.
> But even so,  if it turns out that the price of the weekly shop goes up, or unemployment rises, it would be enough to change the result of the referendum.
> YouGov |  What would make Leave voters change their mind about Brexit?



You've misread it, fewer than 10% believe there there will be any negative consequences apart from the two laid out - economy worsening, food bill going up. I still find some of those results surprising.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> How could anyone possibly prove a counterfactual though?


econometrics. See e.g. "railroads and American economic growth"


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 30, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> econometrics.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2016)

J Ed said:


> You've misread it, fewer than 10% believe there there will be any negative consequences apart from the two laid out - economy worsening, food bill going up. I still find some of those results surprising.


Fewer than 20% would consider changing their opinion if those negative things happen. That's pretty surprising to me. _Brexit fucks up the economy and makes me worse off? Still voting for it. _The response to an increase in unemployment (just 1 in 5 would consider changing their minds) is particularly ironic given that immigration was such a big issue for so many brexit voters. British dole queue for British people... Strikes me as not just a fuck you to the establishment. It's a fuck you to anybody who isn't _me_. That's very fucked up.


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Strikes me as not just a fuck you to the establishment. It's a fuck you to anybody who isn't _me_. That's very fucked up.


or maybe just a fuck it, coming from the possibly mistaken feeling that things can't get any worse.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2016)

bimble said:


> or maybe just a fuck it, coming from the possibly mistaken feeling that things can;t get any worse.


There are measurables in there - the massive difference in expectations between leave voters and remain voters as to the damage brexit might do to the economy. One or other group is going to be shown to be right. Where does that leave the decision? If most of those who voted out turn out to have been wrong about the effect of brexit on the UK economy, who is held responsible for the damage? That's one of the inherent contradictions of the situation as it is now - _brexit must happen _even if it causes various kinds of damage to the UK, even if those doing it don't think it's the right thing to do, even if most of those who voted for it were mistaken or unrealistic in their beliefs about what it would actually mean. We have this one poll, fixed in time, that must be obeyed no matter what.


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2016)

Yes, seems that way to me too. I've made loads of stupid choices in my life but most of them have mainly just effected me, and some were eventually reversible when I realised my mistake. this is different.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 30, 2016)

affect. I've nailed down where this comes from, people have taken on the language of effects from special effects and so forth. Simple one is: the weather affects me. Effect as doing affect as done to. Thats before we get into 'he affects the air of a prince' and affectation usages


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 30, 2016)

Pickman's model has lost out on the U75 2016 pendant award


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2016)

that was really helpful actually, quite affective.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 30, 2016)

I've been getting annoyed by the US english usage of 'bias' recently also. A news outlet can be biased. It cannot be bias. The bias is the thing the outlet is biased toward. And don't get me started on 'addicting' WHICH ISN'T A REAL WORD. The word is addictive


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 30, 2016)




----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I've been getting annoyed by the US english usage of 'bias' recently also. A news outlet can be biased. It cannot be bias. The bias is the thing the outlet is biased toward. And don't get me started on 'addicting' WHICH ISN'T A REAL WORD. The word is addictive


Used as a noun, bias can be demonstrated by the output of a biased news outlet.


----------



## isvicthere? (Oct 30, 2016)

I read an article (will post later when not on phone) that if the referendum had been on a constituency basis, the 51.9% brexit vote would have secured 61% of the parliamentary seats. This is why MPs, 74% of whom were remain, are being more terse than might be expected on opposing the catastrophe of a 'hard' brexit. They're cautious, because they fear for their seat in the next election. So, not only does it show up yet again how terribly wrong the fptp system is, but it could see us sleepwalking into deep, terminal decline.

In the words of Billy Bragg: the Third World is just around the corner.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 30, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Used as a noun, bias can be demonstrated by the output of a biased news outlet.


its ugly languange regardless. See also protest as a transitive verb. I know man was not made for the sabbath but the sabbath made for man but it grates.

'fox news is bias'

does not sit right with me.


----------



## JimW (Oct 30, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its ugly languange regardless. See also protest as a transitive verb. I know man was not made for the sabbath but the sabbath made for man but it grates.
> 
> 'fox news is bias'
> 
> does not sit right with me.


If the context was the question "What is bias in the media anyway?" you might allow it but otherwise you're right. They've buglarised the language


----------



## Duncan2 (Oct 30, 2016)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Pickman's model has lost out on the U75 2016 pendant award


Mr Bishie hopig other pendants will break cover


----------



## JimW (Oct 30, 2016)

Duncan2 said:


> Mr Bishie hopig other pendants will break cover


Can't just leave that pendant hanging there.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2016)

JimW said:


> If the context was the question "What is bias in the media anyway?" you might allow it but otherwise you're right. They've buglarised the language


I think that a sentence along the lines of..."_Fox news had shown bias in its coverage of..." _has always been fine.


----------



## JimW (Oct 30, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I think that a sentence along the lines of..."_Fox news had shown bias in its coverage of..." _has always been fine.


True, but I was trying to conjure a context where "Fox new _is_ bias" or similar might be OK, which it might just be in a direct answer to the question I posed. Pendants hang tough!


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Oct 30, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I've been getting annoyed by the US english usage of 'bias' recently also. A news outlet can be biased. It cannot be bias. The bias is the thing the outlet is biased toward. And don't get me started on 'addicting' WHICH ISN'T A REAL WORD. The word is addictive



And when the fuck did "ouster" become acceptable


----------



## isvicthere? (Oct 30, 2016)

Here's a link to that article I mention in post 438.

Most MPs are terrified of opposing Brexit because the constituency vote for Leave is far greater than the national vote


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 30, 2016)

isvicthere? said:


> Here's a link to that article I mention in post 438.
> 
> Most MPs are terrified of opposing Brexit because the constituency vote for Leave is far greater than the national vote


Assuming for the minute that this is true why is it a bad thing? MPs are supposed (ha ha) to represent their constituents.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 30, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Assuming for the minute that this is true why is it a bad thing? MPs are supposed (ha ha) to represent their constituents.


The referendum result is not a mandate for any particular form of brexit. Specifically, it is not at all a mandate for a 'hard' brexit with the ending of free movement of people. Given that 48 percent voted in a way that implicitly endorsed continuing free movement of people, even if a majority of those who voted leave want some kind of hard brexit, if only 10 percent of leave voters oppose versions of 'hard brexit', that gives a majority against hard brexit. 

The worry is that opposition to various forms of brexit is being silenced because only a majority view within just 52 percent of voters is being listened to, even though it is actually still a minority view. The 'we are the 48 percent' types miss this, I think. They miss that they have allies among the 52 percent, enough allies to make the views they have in common regarding the kinds of things that should not happen with brexit majority views.


----------



## gosub (Oct 30, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There are measurables in there - the massive difference in expectations between leave voters and remain voters as to the damage brexit might do to the economy. One or other group is going to be shown to be right. Where does that leave the decision? If most of those who voted out turn out to have been wrong about the effect of brexit on the UK economy, who is held responsible for the damage? That's one of the inherent contradictions of the situation as it is now - _brexit must happen _even if it causes various kinds of damage to the UK, even if those doing it don't think it's the right thing to do, even if most of those who voted for it were mistaken or unrealistic in their beliefs about what it would actually mean. We have this one poll, fixed in time, that must be obeyed no matter what.






			
				Benjamin Franklin said:
			
		

> Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2016)

brogdale said:


> So, did Nissan panic May into some knee-jerk corporate welfare, and/or has she signalled (inadvertently?) her negotiation objectives?


I was talking with someone this weekend who's convinced that this Nissan thing is one sign amongst others (they also reckon theres massive backroom infighting amongst the tory cabinet who are predominantly in favour of no brexit) that hard brexit is not going to happen, and the reality will be softer than soft, and slowly softened over the course of time to deflate the balloon gently. This person who reckons this does have his ear to the ground somewhat but god knows how much truth there is in that. Its all speculation ultimately, but the Nissan thing is pretty mysterious and the so called confession of the reality of it today didnt really tell us anything.

Not sure if its worth posting this post ,considering its so fact-free, but I found it interesting as Ive become convinced by the narrative of hard brexit thats being presented of late - it could well be massively watered down yet ,and just being presented right now to appease at this point in time. Certainly we now know Mays true feelings on it...(thanks to the Goldman Sachs recording)


----------



## agricola (Oct 30, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I was talking with someone this weekend who's convinced that this Nissan thing is one sign amongst others (they also reckon theres massive backroom infighting amongst the tory cabinet who are predominantly in favour of no brexit) that hard brexit is not going to happen, and the reality will be softer than soft, and slowly softened over the course of time to deflate the balloon gently. This person who reckons this does have his ear to the ground somewhat but god knows how much truth there is in that. Its all speculation ultimately, but the Nissan thing is pretty mysterious and the so called confession of the reality of it today didnt really tell us anything.
> 
> Not sure if its worth posting this post ,considering its so fact-free, but I found it interesting as Ive become convinced by the narrative of hard brexit thats being presented of late - it could well be massively watered down yet ,and just being presented right now to appease at this point in time. Certainly we now know Mays true feelings on it...(thanks to the Goldman Sachs recording)



The deal we will probably end up with will be quite close to what went before; probably the only difference will be that EU workers coming here will probably have more protection than they had previously.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 31, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> And when the fuck did "ouster" become acceptable



1531, according to the Chambers Dictionary of Etymology.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 31, 2016)

agricola said:


> The deal we will probably end up with will be quite close to what went before; probably the only difference will be that EU workers coming here will probably have more protection than they had previously.



Yes, as night follows day, the whole thing is likely to end up with the UK's relationship to the EU largely the same. But the question is how long that will take and where we will go in the meantime.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 31, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The referendum result is not a mandate for any particular form of brexit. Specifically, it is not at all a mandate for a 'hard' brexit with the ending of free movement of people. Given that 48 percent voted in a way that implicitly endorsed continuing free movement of people, even if a majority of those who voted leave want some kind of hard brexit, if only 10 percent of leave voters oppose versions of 'hard brexit', that gives a majority against hard brexit.


I'm not talking about "hard brexit", whatever that means, I post I quoted simply mentioned "opposing brexit". 

The background to that HP article is the same liberal anti-democratic bullshit that's been flying around the last year, that essentially "we" require guardians to protect us from the people. It's disgusting crap and shows exactly why liberalism is the enemy of every socialist.


----------



## isvicthere? (Oct 31, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Assuming for the minute that this is true why is it a bad thing? MPs are supposed (ha ha) to represent their constituents.



Well, it clearly illustrates the corruption of the fptp system, in which a very narrow majority translates into getting on for two thirds of the seats.


----------



## andysays (Oct 31, 2016)

isvicthere? said:


> Well, it clearly illustrates the corruption of the fptp system, in which a very narrow majority translates into getting on for two thirds of the seats.



Not sure that it "shows" any such thing.

You seem to be confusing a GE, where voters choose the candidate who best (supposedly) represents them over the whole range of possible issues, with a referendum where they choose between two either/or options on one particular issue.

There's no reason why the results of one should map on to the results of the other, whichever method of voting (FPTP, PR, etc) is used in a GE.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 31, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm not talking about "hard brexit", whatever that means, I post I quoted simply mentioned "opposing brexit".
> 
> The background to that HP article is the same liberal anti-democratic bullshit that's been flying around the last year, that essentially "we" require guardians to protect us from the people. It's disgusting crap and shows exactly why liberalism is the enemy of every socialist.


If you oppose brexit why not continue saying so? I don't stop opposing a govt just cos it was elected.  If what you most oppose is hard brexit then building an alliance against that is what's now important. But if you think the whole thing is misguided and don't say so and why because you're afraid of a kicking, well that's the kind of thinking that gave us new labour.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 31, 2016)

isvicthere? said:


> Well, it clearly illustrates the corruption of the fptp system, in which a very narrow majority translates into getting on for two thirds of the seats.


Apart from that is hasn't resulted in any such thing. You are railing about how a possible scenario, that may never happen, is terribly anti-democratic while completely ignoring the fact that at the current time there's an overwhelming majority of MPs who support the EU despite the wishes of the electorate.


----------



## gosub (Oct 31, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Yes, as night follows day, the whole thing is likely to end up with the UK's relationship to the EU largely the same. But the question is how long that will take and where we will go in the meantime.



Disagree.  Yes the EFTA position is pretty much where we would have ended up as a result of 5 President's report, but...this way we are doing it more on are terms and makes it more likely that other states may follow, which positively impacts on the viability of the position.  If we end their on our lonesome its the right place to futher manage our departure.

ETA: If you think of thing as like Noughts and Crosses, what the referendum result has given us over the Associate Membership we were headed for anyway, is now we go first rather than second.  EFTA is the centre square.


----------



## isvicthere? (Oct 31, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Apart from that is hasn't resulted in any such thing. You are railing about how a possible scenario, that may never happen, is terribly anti-democratic while completely ignoring the fact that at the current time there's an overwhelming majority of MPs who support the EU despite the wishes of the electorate.



"Railing"! Not sure I've ever done that.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2016)

I bet this woman voted leave!


----------



## ska invita (Nov 3, 2016)

Anyone fancy a punt on what the verdict from the High Court will be today? My money is on that triggering article 50 will have to be voted on by parliament. I say that as the Referendum was nonbinding and all law changes are normally voted on by parliament.
If so there'll be a close vote in parliament which Brexiters should win youd expect....though anything can happen really.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 3, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Anyone fancy a punt on what the verdict from the High Court will be today? My money is on that triggering article 50 will have to be voted on by parliament. I say that as the Referendum was nonbinding and all law changes are normally voted on by parliament.
> If so there'll be a close vote in parliament which Brexiters should win youd expect....though anything can happen really.


For comedy value, let's hope your hunch is right.


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

Brexit: High Court judges to give legal verdict



> ...Some of the leading figures in the legal world are involved in the historic case, *which is expected to be appealed against to the Supreme Court whatever the verdict*...


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Nov 3, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Anyone fancy a punt on what the verdict from the High Court will be today? My money is on that triggering article 50 will have to be voted on by parliament. I say that as the Referendum was nonbinding and all law changes are normally voted on by parliament.
> If so there'll be a close vote in parliament which Brexiters should win youd expect....though anything can happen really.


At one point the LCJ said he was "baffled" by the Government's argument... so that's what I'm hoping too. But really have no idea!


----------



## brogdale (Nov 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> Brexit: High Court judges to give legal verdict


Then ECJ?


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Then ECJ?



I was wondering about that too - that really would have some comedy value - but apparently not


> The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the supreme court in all matters under English and Welsh law, Northern Ireland law and Scottish civil law. *It is the court of last resort and the highest appellate court in the United Kingdom*


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Nov 3, 2016)

I thought it could technically go from the supreme court to the ECJ? Might be wrong...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

Article 50 author Lord Kerr says Brexit not inevitable - BBC News



> The Scottish cross-bench peer who wrote Article 50 - the procedure by which the UK would leave the EU - believed it was "not irrevocable".
> 
> In a BBC interview, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard said the UK could choose to stay in the EU even after exit negotiations had begun.
> 
> He has also renewed calls for either parliament or the public to be given a chance to stop Brexit.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 3, 2016)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> I thought it could technically go from the supreme court to the ECJ? Might be wrong...



ECJ only deals with matters under the jurisdiction of European law. (I think)


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> ECJ only deals with matters under the jurisdiction of European law. (I think)



According to this, it's even more specific than that


> It is the responsibility of the Court of Justice to ensure that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of the Treaties of the European Union and of the provisions laid down by the competent Community institutions



but only time will tell...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2016)

It can go to the ECJ if the judges in a supreme court appeal decide to refer it there for clarification - as the key thing would be what article 50 means by each countries constitutional arrangement - i.e it's eu law.. But consensus seems to be that this is not likely.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2016)

Govt loses.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2016)

Further appeal with legislation ball set rolling now i expect.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Govt loses.


lol


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It can go to the ECJ if the judges in a supreme court appeal decide to refer it there for clarification - as the key thing would be what article 50 means by each countries constitutional arrangement - i.e it's eu law.. But consensus seems to be that this is not likely.



Have you got a source where I can read more?


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Nov 3, 2016)

my colleague is in court right now - gov't lost! pissing myself.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> Have you got a source where I can read more?


Here.


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

Cheers


----------



## Flavour (Nov 3, 2016)

cue all the fucking remainers on facebook getting all excited and talking about victories for democracy


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

Hoorah for democracy!


----------



## mauvais (Nov 3, 2016)

Brexit means brexcuse me one moment...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 3, 2016)

Flavour said:


> cue all the fucking remainers on facebook getting all excited and talking about victories for democracy


Any defeat for the tories is worth enjoying.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2016)

I bet the hedge fund managers and coalition of extremely wealthy ex-pats behind this weren't that bothered about the operation of govt prerogative when it was being used to tear down communities, attack social spending and bolster tax-avoidance etc to their personal benefit. But who knows eh?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I bet the investment bankers and coalition of extremely wealthy ex-pats behind this weren't that bothered about the operation of govt prerogative when it was being used to tear down communities, attack social spending and bolster tax-avoidance etc to their personal benefit. But who knows eh?




Such a fucking cynic


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

Any cunt MP who votes against the 'will of the people' must surely have his or her head spiked up on a bridge. Fuck, I'd even chip in for the Garden Bridge so we have somewhere new to do it.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I bet the investment bankers and coalition of extremely wealthy ex-pats behind this weren't that bothered about the operation of govt prerogative when it was being used to tear down communities, attack social spending and bolster tax-avoidance etc to their personal benefit. But who knows eh?


But for MPs...


----------



## ffsear (Nov 3, 2016)

fucked if i'm ever voting for anything again.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 3, 2016)

There are few countries that look as utterly incompetent on the world stage time and time again.


----------



## 8den (Nov 3, 2016)

Would it be peak Brexit if the leave campaign successfully challenges the High Court decision in Europe?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Any cunt MP who votes against the 'will of the people' must surely have his or her head spiked up on a bridge. Fuck, I'd even chip in for the Garden Bridge so we have somewhere new to do it.


I expect it will come to a vote (appeals, if any, will fail).
All eyes on the tories... Good reason to believe there are enough of them who  really don't want Brexit, no matter what they say in public. Id expect sicknotes a plenty on the day of the vote.

Would it be a free vote or whipped, I wonder? Does that whipping really make much of a difference?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

This is an attempt by the govt to use the royal prerogative to bypass parliament, something govts are able to do a great deal in the UK system, giving the prime minister of the day huge powers. But they're trying to have things both ways - we must be allowed to do this without parliamentary scrutiny because referendum, but oh, we're not doing it until the end of next March, because narrow political calculation. If the govt is so worried about the referendum mandate, why did they not trigger a50 immediately? Why are they waiting the best part of a year to do it?


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2016)




----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I expect it will come to a vote (appeals, if any, will fail).
> All eyes on the tories... Good reason to believe there are enough of them who  really don't want Brexit, no matter what they say in public. Id expect sicknotes a plenty on the day of the vote.
> 
> Would it be a free vote or whipped, I wonder? Does that whipping really make much of a difference?




Whipping makes all the difference, a three line whip and you must come in and vote the right way even if in a coma, failure to do so means losing the whip = booted out of the party.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Whipping makes all the difference, a three line whip and you must come in and vote the right way even if in a coma, failure to do so means losing the whip = booted out of the party.



Pretty meaningless in the Lords though.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Whipping makes all the difference, a three line whip and you must come in and vote the right way even if in a coma, failure to do so means losing the whip = booted out of the party.


If you defy the whip are you guaranteed the boot? I feel like people do defy it, and I can't remember a case of someone getting booted? Maybe I'm not paying attention


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> the Lords are Pretty meaningless though.



corrected for you


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

ska invita said:


> If you defy the whip are you guaranteed the boot? I feel like people do defy it, and I can't remember a case of someone getting booted? Maybe I'm not paying attention


It's a potential mess. I don't see how they can whip it, tbh. Many tory MPs (and labour for that matter) can legitimately say that they are personally opposed to brexit, and have a record showing as much, that so is the majority in their constituency, and that they campaigned in the last election on that basis.

Also, if they are presented with anything more sophisticated than 'in/out, yes/no', they can legitimately say that it is their job to scrutinise that and then be held accountable for their decision after that scrutiny. That's what a parliament is supposed to be for.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

ska invita said:


> If you defy the whip are you guaranteed the boot?


no


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Pretty meaningless in the Lords though.


the new unhappy lords


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

ska invita said:


> If you defy the whip are you guaranteed the boot? I feel like people do defy it, and I can't remember a case of someone getting booted? Maybe I'm not paying attention



A bunch of labour MPs defied one the other day in a dig at Corbyn more than anything, nothing happened.

Back in the real world, yes it is likely you'd be out of the party and for a chinless wonder like Jeremy Hunt, for example, that would mean losing your seat at the next election. So most won't go near that except on a point of massive principal that they can't back out of.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2016)

Clappers - a question for (some of) you:

Do you imagine that you'd argue the same way about the supremacy of parliament if say the referendum was on the taking of the railways into public ownership - same result (yes winning) and same 75% opposed in parliament. If you answer yes, that it's up to the (opposed)  parliament to decide, then fair enough, you're arguing on the principle you say you are. If no, then not. You're just cheering political top-down moves to block an action that you don't personally support.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

bimble said:


> View attachment 94793


right. so the vote was in june. we are now in november. and now, and only now, as ukip prepare to shuffle off this mortal coil, does nf emerge from his beery haze and notice that all is not well in the garden of brexit.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 3, 2016)

bimble said:


> View attachment 94793


 
Only 51.9% will be angry and on the streets nige and I think the 48.1% of pro EU urban elites will likely be better tooled up to crush the uprising. A scorched earth policy of everywhere above the M25 will the likely result


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Clappers - a question for (some of) you:
> 
> Do you imagine that you'd argue the same way about the supremacy of parliament if say the referendum was on the taking of the railways into public ownership - same result (yes winning) and same 75% opposed parliament. If you answer yes, that it's up to the (opposed) parliament to decide, then fair enough, you're arguing on the principle you say you are. If no, then not. You're just cheering political top-down moves to block an action that you don't personally support.


it seems to me that parliament had to be involved in this process and the moves to bypass it were, in constitutional terms (as far as that ever applies) illegitimate. by trying to bypass parliament, the government were in effect suggesting a rough ride might be had and it might be impossible to get through. in a way this attempt to bypass them may encourage those opposed to departure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> Only 51.9% will be angry and on the streets nige and I think the 48.1% of pro EU urban elites will likely be better tooled up to crush the uprising. A scorched earth policy of everywhere above the M25 will the likely result


just burn down cliff richard's saddamite palace to encourage the others.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Hoorah for democracy!


isn't democracy grand


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a potential mess. I don't see how they can whip it, tbh. Many tory MPs (and labour for that matter) can legitimately say that they are personally opposed to brexit, and have a record showing as much, that so is the majority in their constituency, and that they campaigned in the last election on that basis.
> 
> Also, if they are presented with anything more sophisticated than 'in/out, yes/no', they can legitimately say that it is their job to scrutinise that and then be held accountable for their decision after that scrutiny. That's what a parliament is supposed to be for.




The question needs to be: "Do you support the result of the referendum: YES/NO ?" Through the no door lies the guillotine.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Clappers - a question for (some of) you:
> 
> Do you imagine that you'd argue the same way about the supremacy of parliament if say the referendum was on the taking of the railways into public ownership - same result (yes winning) and same 75% opposed parliament. If you answer yes, that it's up to the (opposed) parliament to decide, then fair enough, you're arguing on the principle you say you are. If no, then not. You're just cheering political top-down moves to block an action that you don't personally support.


I'm not exactly a 'clapper', but I've argued that the exercise by govt of the royal prerogative is a dangerous, bad thing for years. And in this case, they're being pretty disingenuous in their reasoning. It must happen, but it must happen at the time of our choosing, not immediately or even nearly immediately. Why end of next March? Why not last month or the month before that, or next week?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The question needs to be: "Do you support the result of the referendum: YES/NO ?" Through the no door lies the guillotine.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The question needs to be: "Do you support the result of the referendum: YES/NO ?" Through the no door lies the guillotine.


Sadly the only guillotining  that's going to take place is the procedural motion to limit debate time in the commons.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not exactly a 'clapper',


more of a croaker


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not exactly a 'clapper', but I've argued that the exercise by govt of the royal prerogative is a dangerous, bad thing for years. And in this case, they're being pretty disingenuous in their reasoning. It must happen, but it must happen at the time of our choosing, not immediately or even nearly immediately. Why end of next March? Why not last month or the month before that, or next week?


So is that a yes or a no?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You're just cheering political top-down moves to block an action that you don't personally support.


Unashamedly so. The whole thing is a sorry mess that's been a clusterfuck from the very start. Nothing left to do but laugh now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> So is that a yes or a no?


it's a load of auld cant


----------



## sihhi (Nov 3, 2016)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Unashamedly so. The whole thing is a sorry mess that's been a clusterfuck from the very start. Nothing left to do but laugh now.



Our working class has nothing to gain from either side.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

sihhi said:


> Our working class has nothing to gain from either side.


not even entertainment


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 3, 2016)

BTW, there is already a booking at the supreme court for this. its as if the government had an idea the challenge would succeed


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> BTW, there is already a booking at the supreme court for this. its as if the government had an idea the challenge would succeed


That was the supreme court doing that, not the govt.


----------



## chilango (Nov 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Clappers - a question for (some of) you:
> 
> Do you imagine that you'd argue the same way about the supremacy of parliament if say the referendum was on the taking of the railways into public ownership - same result (yes winning) and same 75% opposed in parliament. If you answer yes, that it's up to the (opposed)  parliament to decide, then fair enough, you're arguing on the principle you say you are. If no, then not. You're just cheering political top-down moves to block an action that you don't personally support.



I'm cheering this move because anything that sticks the failure of parliamentary democracy right in people's faces is a good thing imho


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 3, 2016)

Why oh why oh why cant we have a proper leader like Putin who would not bother with all this legal flip flopping and just sort the problem out. He has some supporters on here for his no nonsense approach .


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Clappers - a question for (some of) you:
> 
> Do you imagine that you'd argue the same way about the supremacy of parliament if say the referendum was on the taking of the railways into public ownership - same result (yes winning) and same 75% opposed in parliament. If you answer yes, that it's up to the (opposed)  parliament to decide, then fair enough, you're arguing on the principle you say you are. If no, then not. You're just cheering political top-down moves to block an action that you don't personally support.



This is about ends and means, so it's not a straightforward question.

For argument's sake, though, assuming i have unswerving respect for democracy and the rule of law, I'm never going to want anything to be achieved that requires the Prime Minister to exceed their powers.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> Why oh why oh why cant we have a proper leader like Putin who would not bother with all this legal flip flopping and just sort the problem out. He has some supporters on here for his no nonsense approach .





Why oh why oh why can't we just ask the people what they want and when they answer, just do it without crying in to our baguettes?


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> Only 51.9% will be angry and on the streets nige and I think the 48.1% of pro EU urban elites will likely be better tooled up to crush the uprising. A scorched earth policy of everywhere above the M25 will the likely result


Unsurprising poll results from poll a couple of weeks ago
 
YouGov |  Decision on Article 50 should rest with PM, not Parliament, says public


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> So is that a yes or a no?


I don't necessarily support a system of policy-making by referendum. I wouldn't necessarily want there to be a referendum on nationalising the railways. If the govt wants to do it, they should go ahead and try to do it. If this system were extended to include specific policies such as nationalising stuff, the system itself would need to be changed (to something more like what there is in Switzerland), making your question rather meaningless. 

But as a general principle, I see no reason not to oppose and continue to oppose things voted for by referendum. Plenty of objectionable stuff has been voted through in Switzerland that I would most certainly oppose if I lived there. On balance, I don't think the Swiss system, where a question like nationalising railways might be put to a referendum, is a well-functioning one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't necessarily support a system of policy-making by referendum. I wouldn't necessarily want there to be a referendum on nationalising the railways. If the govt wants to do it, they should go ahead and try to do it. If this system were extended to include specific policies such as nationalising stuff, the system itself would need to be changed (to something more like what there is in Switzerland), making your question rather meaningless.
> 
> But as a general principle, I see no reason not to oppose and continue to oppose things voted for by referendum. Plenty of objectionable stuff has been voted through in Switzerland that I would most certainly oppose if I lived there. On balance, I don't think the Swiss system, where a question like nationalising railways might be put to a referendum, is a well-functioning one.


other objectionable referenda include the 1938 plebiscite on union between germany and austria


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

bimble said:


> Unsurprising poll results from poll a couple of weeks ago
> View attachment 94795
> YouGov |  Decision on Article 50 should rest with PM, not Parliament, says public


A prime minister who wasn't the prime minister who called the referendum, of course. This is not a situation where the sitting leader can point to a referendum as support for them and what they are trying to do. This referendum is no such thing for May. There are lots of contradictions.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 3, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> A scorched earth policy of everywhere above the M25 will the likely result


Business as usual then


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a potential mess. *I don't see how they can whip it*, tbh. Many tory MPs (and labour for that matter) can legitimately say that they are personally opposed to brexit, and have a record showing as much, that so is the majority in their constituency, and that they campaigned in the last election on that basis.


Of course they can




littlebabyjesus said:


> Also, if they are presented with anything more sophisticated than 'in/out, yes/no', they can legitimately say that it is their job to scrutinise that and then be held accountable for their decision after that scrutiny. *That's what a parliament is supposed to be for*.



...even if it means over-riding the decision arrived at by the whole electorate at the referendum held to decide the issue 

But in fact you're quite right. in a strictly legal/constitutional sense, the electorate have no authority to decide on this or any other issue. Parliament is and remains sovereign, and no one should forget it.


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

chilango said:


> I'm cheering this move because anything that sticks the failure of parliamentary democracy right in people's faces is a good thing imho



And this sort of demonstration of that failure/contradiction is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for when I argued and voted for Leave.

Whether we can gain further from it all remains to be seen


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> ...even if it means over-riding the decision arrived at by the whole electorate at the referendum held to decide the issue .


Well that's one of the contradictions, isn't it? The referendum voted 'out', but with no detail about how it would happen or the consequences of the various options. Whichever particular version of brexit the govt comes up with, it would not be democratic for them to be able to force it through using the referendum as justification.


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2016)

(from the DM comments, of which there are many)


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

Flavour said:


> cue all the fucking remainers on facebook getting all excited and talking about victories for democracy



It is a victory for democracy, representative democracy anyway. Some leaver are going to feel its Putney 1647 again, but quite happy myself.  One of the biggest problems with the EU was the way National governments used it as a tool to circumvent parliamentary scrutiny. 

Means though, we will probably have a General Election very soon.  Think the headache will be the Lords and that will have to be reformed too.  Just had some pro government pillock saying they need all sorts of rulings from the Supreme Court to avoid constitutional crisis.....NO that would be a constitutional crisis..Leadership and solutions need to now  come from Parliament, not the judges.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> But in fact you're quite right. in a strictly legal/constitutional sense, the electorate have no authority to decide on this or any other issue. Parliament is and remains sovereign, and no one should forget it.



The referendum was always consultative. But I imagine the court challenge, and the subsequent Parliamentary process, will merely increase the widespread perception that the interests of the political class are diametrically opposed to theirs.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 3, 2016)

I doubt if Labour would put up enough opposition to stop it anyway.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 3, 2016)

gosub said:


> It is a victory for democracy, representative democracy anyway.



Amazing to see those with avowedly progressive politics holding this view. Would you always support the right of Parliamentary sovereignty over the people?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The referendum was always consultative. But I imagine the court challenge, and the subsequent Parliamentary process, will merely increase the widespread perception that the interests of the political class are diametrically opposed to theirs.


yeh. but the interests of the political, or ruling, class are of course diametrically opposed to theirs and the ruling class trick is to make other classes associate themselves with the interests of the ruling, or political, class.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> I doubt if Labour would put up enough opposition to stop it anyway.



They should be whipped to abstain and let the Tories scratch each other's eyes out.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 3, 2016)

Did anyone ever figure out what kind of variation there might be between the vote and a constituency-based FPTP version?

For bonus Brexit points, what the boundary changes do to that


----------



## hot air baboon (Nov 3, 2016)

...suddenly I don't give a shit about Trump & Clinton...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 3, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Amazing to see those with avowedly progressive politics holding this view. Would you always support the right of Parliamentary sovereignty over the people?


And the 48% who voted for?. It's not what you call a massive majority, is it?


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 3, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> And the 48% who voted for?. It's not what you call a massive majority, is it?


It's a pretty big majority.


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well that's one of the contradictions, isn't it? *The referendum voted 'out', but with no detail about how it would happen or the consequences of the various options*. Whichever particular version of brexit the govt comes up with, it would not be democratic for them to be able to force it through using the referendum as justification.



That's all a referendum (any referendum) can be. You could have attempted to argue that parliament (or even the electorate) have some input into the content and/or result of the negotiations*, but it's ridiculous to argue against taking the first actual step towards exit (ie invoking Art 50) on the basis that it wouldn't be democratic.

The country voted to leave the European Union *in a referendum* *approved by Act of Parliament*. If parliament now votes against even starting the process of leaving, it won't be a victory for any sort of democracy, more a demonstration that what purports to be a democracy is closer to an elective dictatorship.

*of course, the EU's own rules don't allow for that, but that's another example of the anti-democratic nature of the EU


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 3, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> It's a pretty big majority.


A 4% difference?. If it was the other way do you think the brexiters would just accept it?.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> It's a pretty big majority.



Close enough, though, so you might reasonably think it could have been different if the vote had been a week earlier or a week later, or if 16-17 year-olds, longtime expats etc had been allowed to vote. It's the luck of the draw as much as the will of people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> A 4% difference?. If it was the other way do you think the brexiters would just accept it?.


Yes, largely. It would have been a vote of 'no change', so there would have been none of these problems.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> It's a pretty big majority.


only if you don't know what a majority looks like


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2016)

The legal argument that was used to get this result was that May "unlawfully intended to by-pass parliamentary scrutiny while taking irreversible steps to remove statutory rights granted to UK citizens under the European Communities Act 1972, which made EU law part of UK law" .  So the ruling was made purportedly to protect citizens rights? What a tangled web.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, largely. It would have been a vote of 'no change', so there would have been none of these problems.


yeh cos that was what the likes of farage said at the time  you're flopping all over the place.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

bimble said:


> The legal argument that was used to get this result was that May "unlawfully intended to by-pass parliamentary scrutiny while taking irreversible steps to remove statutory rights granted to UK citizens under the European Communities Act 1972, which made EU law part of UK law" .  So the ruling was made purportedly to protect citizens rights? What a tangled web.


no, the ruling was apparently consistent with the law. if it has the effect of protecting people's rights it is a happy coincidence.


----------



## hot air baboon (Nov 3, 2016)

bimble said:


> ....steps to remove statutory rights granted to UK citizens under the European Communities Act 1972, which made EU law part of UK law...




...they were going to do a mass data-dump of all the extant EU law into British law on D Day + 1 weren't they...


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

this is going to drag on longer than an american election.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> That's all a referendum (any referendum) can be.


This isn't really true. In the Swiss system, rather specific issues get put to the vote - the establishment of a minimum citizen's wage, for instance, for which the exact level of the proposed wage was presented in the referendum.


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Amazing to see those with avowedly progressive politics holding this view. Would you always support the right of Parliamentary sovereignty over the people?



I'm not sure the Progressive wing of Urban would claim me as one of their own.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 3, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Close enough, though, so you might reasonably think it could have been different if the vote had been a week earlier or a week later, or if 16-17 year-olds, longtime expats etc had been allowed to vote. It's the luck of the draw as much as the will of people.


Well if you accept this then I guess there is no pointing ever putting anything to a vote.

If you put things to a vote then you have to accept that the result isn't always going to coincide with your personal opinion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> Well if you accept this then I guess there is no pointing ever putting anything to a vote.
> 
> If you put things to a vote then you have to accept that the result isn't always going to coincide with your personal opinion.


can you give an example of when the result of a vote has coincided with your personal opinion?


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> can you give an example of when the result of a vote has coincided with your personal opinion?


people who I've voted for in elections have sometimes got elected. Not that I necessarily agree with 100% of what they stood for, but the election was just for them to get in, and they did get in. I'm not sure if that's what you mean?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 3, 2016)

for fucks sake

Tory MP calls for BBC 1 to mark Brexit with national anthem at the end of each day

"
Conservative MP is calling for BBC 1 to restore the tradition of playing the national anthem at the end of each day’s programmes, in honour of Brexit. 
Andrew Rosindell, the MP for Romford, said the BBC should be "unashamedly British" and celebrate the UK's exit from the EU with a clear statement that "Britain is back." 
He has tabled an early day motion this morning calling for the anthem to be played before the switch over to BBC News 24. 
It is the Tory MP's second attempt to restore the practice in Parliament, since it was scrapped in 1997. "

severed head on a stick front runner right there


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> can you give an example of when the result of a vote has coincided with your personal opinion?




1997 GE, voted spunking cock, went home and had a wank.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 3, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Close enough, though, so you might reasonably think it could have been different if the vote had been a week earlier or a week later, or if 16-17 year-olds, longtime expats etc had been allowed to vote. It's the luck of the draw as much as the will of people.



I'm not sure about that, but the Hedge Fund Manager and her supporters who bought the case clearly agree.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> people who I've voted for in elections have sometimes got elected. Not that I necessarily agree with 100% of what they stood for, but the election was just for them to get in, and they did get in. I'm not sure if that's what you mean?


so it has almost coincided but not quite


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I'm not sure about that, but the Hedge Fund Manager and her supporters who bought the case clearly agree.



Think they will get Article 50 through the Commons, the Lords however....


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model you've lost me


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This isn't really true. In the Swiss system, rather specific issues get put to the vote - the establishment of a minimum citizen's wage, for instance, for which the exact level of the proposed wage was presented in the referendum.



But not, as you claimed, any chance to comment on the detail other than straight yes/no or, even more ridiculously, the consequences of the decision. How is it possible to predict exactly what the consequences of any decision might be, in one year, five years, fifty years?

Again, it's the EU rules themselves which mean that whoever makes the decision to leave, parliament, the whole electorate or some other group/body, Article 50 has to be invoked before any formal negotiations begin, and once it's invoked, there's no provision for uninvoking it, so it's impossible for anyone to know in any detail what they're voting for and Stay/Leave was all the choice could ever be given as.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> It's a pretty big majority.


Add in those who didn't vote and it's anything but an overwhelming mandate for Brexit.  The whole referendum was insane.


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> Pickman's model you've lost me


Our elected representatives aren't going to ignore the outcome of a plebiscite.  Lords aren't there to enact the will of the people.


eta opps.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> Well if you accept this then I guess there is no pointing ever putting anything to a vote.
> 
> If you put things to a vote then you have to accept that the result isn't always going to coincide with your personal opinion.



True, although, in this particular case, I didn't put anything to a vote.

But the point raised above what about the size of the referendum result and, objectively, it wasn't a thumping victory.

Exactly how egregious it would be to not respect the result is related to the size of the margin of victory, surely?


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> Add in those who didn't vote and it's anything but an overwhelming mandate for Brexit.  The whole referendum was insane.


I agree with the second part... but not the first. It is just the nature of voting that people can choose not to vote.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> but the* Hedge Fund Manager *and her supporters


ha! had to be didn't it


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> I agree with the second part... but not the first. It is just the nature of voting that people can choose not to vote.


Or the complete lack of informed debate leading up to the vote. No wonder some people had no idea what voting 'leave' would actually mean to their lives. In fact, no one actually knows even now.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> ha! had to be didn't it



Gina Miller, look her up, right Bobby Dazzler. Her husband (another hedge fund cunt) said of his last divorce that it would have been cheaper to run his ex-wife over than pay her what's owed.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> Add in those who didn't vote and it's anything but an overwhelming mandate for Brexit.  The whole referendum was insane.



Presumably those who didn't vote, like those who don't vote in union elections, are happy to go along with the majority?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

as for those quibbling over wether 4% is a thumping margin- on turnout its a lot of people. Turnout higher than most GE's.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> Or the complete lack of informed debate leading up to the vote. No wonder some people had no idea what voting 'leave' would actually mean to their lives. In fact, no one actually knows even now.


And you could say the same for "remain".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> Add in those who didn't vote and it's anything but an overwhelming mandate for Brexit.  The whole referendum was insane.


The turnout was pretty high as these things go. Compare and contrast with Switzerland, which voted irrc 50.3%-49.7% to end free movement of people from the EU with a 40% turnout. Just one registered voter in five voted for it. 

They're on course for a constitutional crisis over that one, which is again one of the contradictions of referendums - what are you prepared to give up in order to end free movement? That wasn't put in the referendum question, but it goes to the heart of any negotiation to make that referendum result happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Gina Miller, look her up, right Bobby Dazzler. Her husband (another hedge fund cunt) said of his last divorce that it would have been cheaper to run his ex-wife over than pay her what's owed.


Half of their  joint work now seems to be managing philanthropy as a tax-avoidance strategy. Oddly enough they direct a lot of this bountifulesque stuff to the  Margaret Thatcher Infirmary.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> as for those quibbling over wether 4% is a thumping margin- on turnout its a lot of people. Turnout higher than most GE's.


basically it is a big enough margin to make arguing about whether it is enough look like sour losing, rather than a reasonable point.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> And you could say the same for "remain".


Yes. And that's why the fucking thing should never have happened in the way that it did. How can you ask people to vote on their future when no one's bothered to offer anything approaching a rational analysis of what impact the decision will have on their lives?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Half of their  joint work now seems to be managing philanthropy as a tax-avoidance strategy. Oddly enough they direct a lot of this bountifulesque stuff to the  Margaret Thatcher Infirmary.



Yeah saw that and felt quite ill. Not ill enough to be admitted, thank fuck.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Gina Miller, look her up, right Bobby Dazzler. Her husband (another hedge fund cunt) said of his last divorce that it would have been cheaper to run his ex-wife over than pay her what's owed.



Both cunts are major supporters of Thatcher's institute as well.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> How can you ask people to vote on their future when no one's bothered to offer anything approaching a rational analysis of what impact the decision will have on their lives?




We ask everyone to do that every 5 years.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> We ask everyone to do that every 5 years.


Nice _bon mot_ but that's not really comparable, is it?


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> We ask everyone to do that every 5 years.



And, naturally, we spend the intervening time deriding anyone who doesn't support the government in everything it does as "sore losers".


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

I see the groan is going through a state-the-bleedin-obvious moment


> It also risks driving an even bigger wedge between leavers and remainers, particularly since the leavers are likely to interpret this as one more desperate attempt by the Metropolitan liberal elite to thwart the will of the people (a suspicion that is going to shape the thinking of a lot of MPs)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> Nice _bon mot_ but that's not really comparable, is it?



So you if you voted Labour at the last GE you did so for the farrago that is the current Labour party, yeah? Cos that was on the table?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> We ask everyone to do that every 5 years.


Different kind of thing though. That's a vote intended to create a parliament and give it a set period in which to make a bunch of decisions, after which, they have to come back and defend those decisions in order to win another mandate. Those making the decisions are, theoretically at least, held accountable for the consequences of those decisions.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Different kind of thing though. That's a vote intended to create a parliament and give it a set period in which to make a bunch of decisions, after which, they have to come back and defend those decisions in order to win another mandate. Those making the decisions are, theoretically at least, held accountable for the consequences of those decisions.



That wasn't what was being asked. ed stated that you can't ask people to vote unless they know upfront what the affect of that vote will be on their lives.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 3, 2016)

Raheem said:


> And, naturally, we spend the intervening time deriding anyone who doesn't support the government in everything it does as "sore losers".


No, "sore losers" would be those who spent the intervening time questioning whether the winning party did actually win the election.

Do whatever you want, support or oppose whatever you want, but you've got to accept that "leave" won the referendum.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> No, "sore losers" would be those who spent the intervening time questioning whether the winning party did actually win the election.



So, that's pretty much no-one.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> That wasn't what was being asked. ed stated that you can't ask people to vote unless they know upfront what the affect of that vote will be on their lives.


The principle is that you can 'boot them out' after five years if you think you've made a mistake. There's no such provision in this referendum. It is a different kind of thing, and I think ed has a point. We knew what 'remain' meant - basically, as you were, carry on. But 'leave'? What did that mean? What does it mean now? There was no proposed course of action by which to judge the effects on your life. And virtually everything said on the issue by both sides of the official campaigns was lies.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We knew what 'remain' meant - basically, as you were, carry on.


I'm not sure this is true.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> I'm not sure this is true.


It was the 'no change' option.

I'm not going to quibble over the result of the referendum, but the campaigns and level of debate, from both sides, were dismal. And we have people like Johnson and Fox now in govt directing brexit and not being held to account for the particular bunch of lies they told, with no real democratic option to call them on it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2016)

I think that a big part of what drove the leave vote was precisely _not knowing what remain meant _given the massive changes that were slyly and undemocratically introduced after the first referendum - effectively turning a limited economic semi-union into an attempted political union with no popular participation or democratic input. A lot of people did not think remain meant remain as status quo - because they had the example of the past.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But 'leave'? What did that mean? What does it mean now?



It means leave.

No longer be a member of the European Union.

OK?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 3, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> for fucks sake
> 
> Tory MP calls for BBC 1 to mark Brexit with national anthem at the end of each day
> 
> ...


Friend of mine was unlucky enough to go through sec. school with this clown; said he was genuinely limited.


----------



## hot air baboon (Nov 3, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> I'm not sure this is true.



...neither do I ..infact its the heart of the whole campaign...do you want your mystery-tour coach-driver to be someone you can dump at the next service station if they start weaving all over the road and going the wrong way up an exit or someone locked inside a bullet-proof pilot's cabin...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It means leave.
> 
> No longer be a member of the European Union.
> 
> OK?


Unless you represent a globalised, manufacturing corporation; then you can be assured that Brexit does not mean Brexit. Costly, but true.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It was the 'no change' option.
> 
> I'm not going to quibble over the result of the referendum, but the campaigns and level of debate, from both sides, were dismal. And we have people like Johnson and Fox now in govt directing brexit and not being held to account for the particular bunch of lies they told, with no real democratic option to call them on it.


yeh. you won't quibble with the result of the referendum but you will quibble over the position of people like johnson and fox. you won't quibble over the major issue but you will quibble over the minor one. that's you all over.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

rutabowa said:


> I'm not sure this is true.


you are right to be suspicious of lbj's verity.


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It means leave.
> 
> No longer be a member of the European Union.
> 
> OK?


Ye but what if it also means an 10% increase on your weekly food cost and a rise in unemployment. If that had been on the ballot as a necessary cost of achieving 'sovereignty' maybe the result would have been different.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

bimble said:


> Ye but what if it also means an 10% increase on your weekly food cost and a rise in unemployment. If that had been on the ballot as a necessary cost of achieving 'sovereignty' maybe the result would have been different.


i suspect more people voted leave on the basis of immigration and money for the nhs than voted leave for the sovereignty


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

bimble said:


> Ye but what if it also means an 10% increase on your weekly food cost and a rise in unemployment. If that had been on the ballot as a necessary cost of achieving 'sovereignty' maybe the result would have been different.




They couldn't put that on the ballot as they did not know if that would happen. 

Follow your line; "Would you like to vote to remain in the EU and for Britain to become the next Greece?" - they didn't put that on the ballot either: cos no one knows the future.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So you if you voted Labour at the last GE you did so for the farrago that is the current Labour party, yeah? Cos that was on the table?


OK. So you think it's exactly the same thing. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree then.


----------



## pocketscience (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, largely. It would have been a vote of 'no change', so there would have been none of these problems.


"no change" was, and never will be on the cards.
It's been made clear for a while now by the powers within the Eu, that they plan to push forward with greater fiscal & social union, citing it as the only fix available of the growing divide between richer northern and the poorer southern countries.
Not being in the Euro (& schengen etc), the UK has been a constant thorn in the Eu side when trying to progress with with further union, and it was this that forced Cameron to call the referendum.

If remain had been the majority of the referendum vote, your 'no change' would really have meant that the Eu would be able to force the UK into making a blunt choice - to either adopt the Euro and relinquish its budgeting to Brussels or being shut out of Eu policy decision making.



littlebabyjesus said:


> Well that's one of the contradictions, isn't it? The referendum voted 'out', but with no detail about how it would happen or the consequences of the various options. Whichever particular version of brexit the govt comes up with, it would not be democratic for them to be able to force it through using the referendum as justification.


By the same token,the above mentioned scenarios weren't highlighted either. If they'd have made it clear that a remain vote would amount to a very strong possibility that the UK would be accelerated into full Eu integration, including adopting the Euro, how do you think that would have impacted on the result?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

so if this does go to vote in parliament eventually after much to-ing and fro-ing and legal fees, fair to say that any MP in a 50%+ constituency who votes remain will be out on their ear come 2020

btw the mail article contains the word 'fury'. Predictable writing they have


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So you if you voted Labour at the last GE you did so for the farrago that is the current Labour party, yeah? Cos that was on the table?


a vote for labour is so often a vote for hope over experience.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> so if this does go to vote in parliament eventually after much to-ing and fro-ing and legal fees, fair to say that any MP in a 50%+ who votes remain will be out on their ear come 2020
> 
> btw the mail article contains the word 'fury'. Predictable writing they have


it's all automated, the mail. "fury"  "the model (and you won't believe the underwear she's wearing)" "backlash" it's all just journalism by numbers


----------



## ffsear (Nov 3, 2016)




----------



## brogdale (Nov 3, 2016)

At this juncture it's important not to lose sight of the fact that the referendum was not presented to the electorate because the Government suddenly wanted to know what they thought.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 3, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

ffsear said:


>


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


>



not sure why the 'ex-olympic fencer' is in there.


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> so if this does go to vote in parliament eventually after much to-ing and fro-ing and legal fees, fair to say that any MP in a 50%+ constituency who votes remain will be out on their ear come 2020
> 
> btw the mail article contains the word 'fury'. Predictable writing they have



Think the election will be a lot sooner than that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

ffsear said:


>


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> not sure why the 'ex-olympic fencer' is in there.


Because most of the mails readership will be foaming at the mouth that a gay will be making important decisions. 

Even the mail has run pieces on how disastrous leaving the EU would be. .  . I think they even ran a story the very next day.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> not sure why the 'ex-olympic fencer' is in there.


Olympic athletes, bit suspicious, you never know what funny ideas they might pick up with all that going abroad.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Because most of the mails readership will be foaming at the mouth that a gay will be making important decisions.
> 
> Even the mail has run pieces on how disastrous leaving the EU would be. .  . I think they even ran a story the very next day.


yeh. but is there some ground-swell of hatred towards former olympick athletes i'm missing?


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Amazing to see those with avowedly progressive politics holding this view. Would you always support the right of Parliamentary sovereignty over the people?



If the Supreme Court decides that sovereignty rests between it and the executive...I will be taking to the streets.


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 3, 2016)

is they anyway the current Tory party can blame the last labour goverment for this ruling


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Because most of the mails readership will be foaming at the mouth that a gay will be making important decisions.



'Openly' gay remember. Flaunting it. Their dog whistle shit is so transparent.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> is they anyway the current Tory party can blame the last labour goverment for this ruling


Nick Cohen has already banged out 2000 words blaming corbyn for everything.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

pocketscience said:


> "n
> If they'd have made it clear that a remain vote would amount to a very strong possibility that the UK would be accelerated into full Eu integration, including adopting the Euro, how do you think that would have impacted on the result?


There was zero chance of this happening - the UK already had a semi-detached membership and there was no political will to change that. As it happens, I think the appropriate time to have had a referendum on the direction of the EU was with the Maastricht treaty. But the UK doesn't have a constitutional requirement for a vote to change the constitution - rather, referendums are used as political footballs (which in this case, Cameron deflected into his own goal).

But strictly speaking this was a 'no change' position simply because if remain had won, there would have been nothing to do to fulfill the will of the referendum. Absolutely nothing. What future direction the UK takes in the EU then remains entirely up for debate, and if the numbers had been reversed, it would have been foolish to ignore the nearly half the electorate that wanted out - it would have been in no way a mandate for closer integration. I want the EU to change radically - the argument for doing that would not have been closed down by a narrow remain victory. If anything, a narrow victory would have opened it up - the EU isn't good enough, it needs to be changed, and this is how we propose to do it...


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

Maybe he's an Olympic fencer as in he sold one to the Russians.


----------



## Anju (Nov 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> 'Openly' gay remember. Flaunting it. Their dog whistle shit is so transparent.



Compounded  by the mention of fencing, so not just flaunting it but doing so in a graceful yet aggressively thrusting manner.


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Here.



That's an interesting article, not just in how it deals with the question of if this issue will go to the ECJ, but also because of the argument there that Article 50 is reversible.

I've been assuming that it isn't, but if it is there is at least the possibility of invoking A50 now, having the negotiations and then putting the known results of those negotiations to another referendum.

And that in turn further undercuts the argument that for the government to invoke A50 without consulting parliament would be undemocratic, because there would* still be an opportunity to vote once we actually know the terms we'd be leaving under.

*or at least there could; whether there would is another question, I guess


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There was zero chance of this happening - the UK already had a semi-detached membership


oh don't talk such nonsense.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> That's an interesting article, not just in how it deals with the question of if this issue will go to the ECJ, but also because of the argument there that Article 50 is reversible.
> 
> I've been assuming that it isn't, but if it is there is at least the possibility of invoking A50 now, having the negotiations and then putting the known results of those negotiations to another referendum.
> 
> ...



My understanding is that, while there's a legal argument that a50 is reversible, in practical terms the word of the Council of Ministers is law, and at the moment they say it isn't. Perhaps at some point they will see it as a good idea to change their minds, but I don't think they will do it just out of sympathy with Theresa May's predicament.


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> That's an interesting article, not just in how it deals with the question of if this issue will go to the ECJ, but also because of the argument there that Article 50 is reversible.
> 
> I've been assuming that it isn't, but if it is there is at least the possibility of invoking A50 now, having the negotiations and then putting the known results of those negotiations to another referendum.
> 
> ...



you need unanimity to reverse it, that would have to achieved whilst carry out negotiations in bad faith to the manner outlined in the procedure. .... Theoretically possible, but unrealistic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Raheem said:


> My understanding is that, while there's a legal argument that a50 is reversible, in practical terms the word of the Council of Ministers is law, and at the moment they say it isn't. Perhaps at some point they will see it as a good idea to change their minds, but I don't think they will do it just out of sympathy with Theresa May's predicament.


being as it hasn't been invoked yet the matter's moot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

gosub said:


> you need unanimity to reverse it, that would have to achieved whilst carry out negotiations in bad faith to the manner outlined in the procedure. .... Theoretically possible, but unrealistic.


If there were the will to do it, it could be done. I would have thought the one it was politically unrealistic for would be May and May's govt. Invoking a50 then asking to revoke the invocation would surely bring down the govt.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> being as it hasn't been invoked yet the matter's moot.



How so?


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 3, 2016)

whats the good points of leaving the EU again...


is the NHS getting anymore money?

Is May going to build a wall around Great Ingerland?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Raheem said:


> How so?


article 50 hasn't been invoked. as matters stand it cannot be invoked save by parliament. when it is invoked then we can argue about its reversability.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> whats the good points of leaving the EU again...
> 
> 
> is the NHS getting anymore money?
> ...


nigel farage retires from public life


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> article 50 hasn't been invoked. as matters stand it cannot be invoked save by parliament. when it is invoked then we can argue about its reversability.


We can argue about it now, thanks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We can argue about it now, thanks.


no, you can't. but put something up anyway, for the lols.


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> whats the good points of leaving the EU again...



From here?

That we stay one step ahead of the rigged deck of "Associate membership" as outlined in the 5 President's report.  Oh and we keep the Establishment accountable to the public rather than the other way round.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> nigel farage retires from public life


I wish he would retire from life, full stop. He's now hinting at "huge public anger" if Brexit blocked. 
Nigel Farage hints at public revolution if parliament stops Brexit


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

gosub said:


> From here?
> 
> That we stay one step ahead of the rigged deck of "Associate membership" as outlined in the 5 President's report.  Oh and we keep the Establishment accountable to the public rather than the other way round.


Whatever the end-point of this process is, it will in effect be a version of 'associate membership'.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> article 50 hasn't been invoked. as matters stand it cannot be invoked save by parliament. when it is invoked then we can argue about its reversability.



If TM could get a statement from the other 27 that A50 is reversible, then she would probably have no difficulty getting a vote through parliament to trigger it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Raheem said:


> If TM could get a statement from the other 27 that A50 is reversible, then she would probably have no difficulty getting a vote through parliament to trigger it.


yeh. but then why would you? why bother going through a great big negotiation if you're likely to maintain the status quo ante?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Whatever the end-point of this process is, it will in effect be a version of 'associate membership'.


well spotted. this point has been made _ad nauseam_ over the past few months.


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Whatever the end-point of this process is, it will in effect be a version of 'associate membership'.



I think so too.   The difference is on EU time frame they would most likely close down routes for Associate to build their own ties/trade deals, and less likely other member states not wedded to federalization to follow- the more that do, the more viable it is as an option


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> well spotted. this point has been made _ad nauseam_ over the past few months.


Maybe here, got lost in the mainstream.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

gosub said:


> Maybe here, got lost in the mainstream.


point was first made months ago and has resurfaced regularly since.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. but then why would you? why bother going through a great big negotiation if you're likely to maintain the status quo ante?



Because you like being Prime Minister and you're short of other options. Plus A50 can be reversible without it actually being reversed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Because you like being Prime Minister and you're short of other options.


yeh. but you'd alienate every other eu country if you put them through that and then said 'after all that i've changed my mind'


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> point was first made months ago and has resurfaced regularly since.


Longer than that, Spinelli report was a couple of years ago. BUT ITS NOT THE MAINSTREAM OF THE DEBATE (should be)


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

Raheem said:


> If TM could get a statement from the other 27 that A50 is reversible, then she would probably have no difficulty getting a vote through parliament to trigger it.



The question is ultimately a legal one not a political one (although it clearly has political consequences) and it would be for the ECJ to decide, just as the courts are currently trying to decide if the UK govt has the power to invoke A50 without reference to parliament

They haven't yet been asked to decide, and they won't be as a result of the current case which was ruled on today in the High Court and now looks like it will go to the Supreme Court, but they may well be if/when the issue becomes crucial



> The point of EU law that has been identified as potentially requiring a reference to the CJEU is the question of whether an Article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the Member State making it before it leaves the EU. Article 50 is silent on the question, and it is hard to see that it could be regarded as “acte clair”. (For what it is worth, my view is that such a notification is reversible by the Member State concerned: the silence of Article 50 on the point is not a reliable basis for arguing the contrary, and it would, in my view, be an extraordinary result, in a Union founded on democratic values and with the aim of sharing a peaceful future – see the preamble to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – for a Member State that had democratically changed its mind on the question of leaving the EU then to be forced out against its will. That view is shared by a number of commentators including Sir David Edward KCMG, a former Judge of the CJEU.)



I'm not saying that position is definitively right, but I'm inclined to treat it more seriously than what you and gosub reckon, TBH


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

gosub said:


> I think so too.   The difference is on EU time frame they would most likely close down routes for Associate to build their own ties/trade deals, and less likely other member states not wedded to federalization to follow- the more that do, the more viable it is as an option


We'll see how things go. At the moment, the govt's first reaction to the referendum has been that it is a mandate for border controls - and that it is on this that brexit will be judged*. If that's the case, the EU will exact a price for it - one that has been proposed is locking the UK in to all EU trade deals as the price of single-market membership with some limited border controls. If that happens, it will very certainly be an 'associate member' status. Given what I've read of the intentions of Davis, Fox, and others, I think it would be no bad thing at all for the UK to have no control over its own trade deals. But who knows what the govt will consider 'brexit means brexit' to mean in a year's time?

*one of the most depressing aspects of the fall-out from the referendum has been the way that UKIP's agenda has been forced to the fore, their interpretation of what the vote means carrying more weight than any other. And based on narrow electoral self-interest (not at all 'respecting the will of the people'), the tories, who called the referendum in large part out of fear of losing voters to UKIP, are going along with this. Tory policy is now dominated by those tories who were pro-brexit, ie the right wing of this right wing party. All too predictable, and predicted, before the vote.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> Yes. And that's why the fucking thing should never have happened in the way that it did. How can you ask people to vote on their future when no one's bothered to offer anything approaching a rational analysis of what impact the decision will have on their lives?


As if people anywhere generally vote for anything on a primarily rational basis.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

gosub said:


> Longer than that, Spinelli report was a couple of years ago. BUT ITS NOT THE MAINSTREAM OF THE DEBATE (should be)


it was first made HERE months ago, and has resurfaced HERE frequently enough.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. but you'd alienate every other eu country if you put them through that and then said 'after all that i've changed my mind'



I think it's a bit late to worry about that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Raheem said:


> I think it's a bit late to worry about that.


yeh. after the initial alienation would come the greater and more lasting alienation.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 3, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> As if people anywhere generally vote for anything on a primarily rational basis.



It's all emotive, knee jerk, self serving then?


----------



## Jurrihahay (Nov 3, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> It's all emotive, knee jerk, self serving then?


Did I say it was all anything?


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> The question is ultimately a legal one not a political one (although it clearly has political consequences) and it would be for the ECJ to decide, just as the courts are currently trying to decide if the UK govt has the power to invoke A50 without reference to parliament.



My understanding is that the ECJ can't accept cases against a Council decision and can't overrule the Council. If that's wrong, then I'm wrong.


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


>



spot the difference. Wonder what happened, did the editor suddenly have an attack of conscience or did they receive threats from people who know how to fence.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 3, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Did I say it was all anything?



That's a no, then.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Nov 3, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> That's a no, then.


What's  a no?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

bimble said:


> spot the difference. Wonder what happened, did the editor suddenly have an attack of conscience or did they receive threats from people who know how to fence.
> 
> View attachment 94824


I wonder how many times a day a Mail sub-ed has to check a journos near unconscious homophobia. 'George, you aren't allowed to say that these days'


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. but then why would you? why bother going through a great big negotiation if you're likely to maintain the status quo ante?



Because, if you're Theresa May, you've been forced into it by the result of a referendum called by your predecessor as PM which went against what you personally wanted, and you think the best way to get out of that situation is to invoke A50, hype up expectations of what Brexit will mean, go through negotiations which produce far less and then say that you will put it to a second referendum which you expect will reverse the result of the first.

I agree it doesn't make much sense, but neither did Cameron's original decision.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 3, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> What's  a no?



Sigh. I'll take the bait. Why do people vote, in your opinion? Why shouldn't they have rational reasons for voting?


----------



## Jurrihahay (Nov 3, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Sigh. I'll take the bait. Why do people vote, in your opinion? Why shouldn't they have rational reasons for voting?


Why do you keep insisting that I've said things I haven't?


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

Raheem said:


> My understanding is that the ECJ can't accept cases against a Council decision and can't overrule the Council. If that's wrong, then I'm wrong.



I don't claim to know, I'm just going on what I read in that article BA linked to


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> Because, if you're Theresa May, you've been forced into it by the result of a referendum called by your predecessor as PM which *went against what you personally wanted*, and you think the best way to get out of that situation is to invoke A50, hype up expectations of what Brexit will mean, go through negotiations which produce far less and then say that you will put it to a second referendum which you expect will reverse the result of the first.
> 
> I agree it doesn't make much sense, but neither did Cameron's original decision.


I think May is absolutely delighted about this result. It made her Prime Minister, after all.


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think May is absolutely delighted about this result. It made her Prime Minister, after all.



No, I think you'll find it was the Tory leadership election (including Andrea whatsit dropping out at the final hurdle) that did that


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> No, I think you'll find it was the Tory leadership election (including Andrea whatsit dropping out at the final hurdle) that did that


No pre-planning by May as she hedged her bets during the referendum campaign then? The leave vote made Cameron's position untenable, which was easily foreseeable, meaning a leadership contest, for which May was very nicely placed. That wasn't an accident.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No pre-planning by May as she hedged her bets during the referendum campaign then? The leave vote made Cameron's position untenable, which was easily foreseeable, meaning a leadership contest, for which May was very nicely placed. That wasn't an accident.


these people are power addicts after all. I predicted her coronation btw. But what a time to take the big chair. Alls chaos


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No pre-planning by May as she hedged her bets during the referendum campaign then? The leave vote made Cameron's position untenable, which was easily foreseeable, meaning a leadership contest, for which May was very nicely placed. That wasn't an accident.



I wonder if I'm the only one who finds it bizarre that you've gone in a few hours from saying that the result of the referendum is somehow meaningless or invalid because its consequences couldn't be precisely known, to simplistically making the assertion that TM became the PM as a direct consequence of the Brexit vote as if nothing else that happened between those two events is in any way relevant.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> these people are power addicts after all. I predicted her coronation btw. But what a time to take the big chair. Alls chaos


I think it does her Machiavellian skills a disservice to think she's stumbled into the PMship by accident. All very clever - a disloyal brexiter will have to explain what they meant in the campaign, to unpick each of the lies they told. No way such a person could aspire to be leader. Low-key, stick to the brief loyal minister, though? More or less invisible during the campaign? You don't even need a plan at first, just an assurance that you'll do brexit.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. but is there some ground-swell of hatred towards former olympick athletes i'm missing?


Maybe it's laughable that Olympian jocks could get involved in politics . . . . . I'm looking at you Sebastian.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> I wonder if I'm the only one who finds it bizarre that you've gone in a few hours from saying that the result of the referendum is somehow meaningless or invalid because its consequences couldn't be precisely known, to simplistically making the assertion that TM became the PM as a direct consequence of the Brexit vote as if nothing else that happened between those two events is in any way relevant.


I didn't say the first bit, but yes, I do think the evidence points to the idea that May had a pre-vote plan for how to position herself in the event of a leave vote, one that would put her in the position to be PM, while leaving her safe in her current job with a remain vote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Maybe it's laughable that Olympian jocks could get involved in politics . . . . . I'm looking at you Sebastian.


never mind sebastian, what about menzies campbell?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 3, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Why do you keep insisting that I've said things I haven't?



So, you can't or won't elaborate on your original statement. Fair enough.


----------



## Jurrihahay (Nov 3, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> So, you can't or won't elaborate on your original statement. Fair enough.


Does it really need elaborating on when it's already clear that in one short sentence I suggested that people generally are no more 'rational' about this issue than about most others?

You then started implying that I'd also said what you apparently want me to have said.


----------



## ffsear (Nov 3, 2016)

Its all about the next general election now i should imagine. The Tories will overwhelming vote for brexit and keep the voters they have taken from Labour and the Libdems at the next GE.

Torries want to look like the saviours of democracy! Smart move


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 3, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Does it really need elaborating on when it's already clear that in one short sentence I suggested that people generally are no more 'rational' about this issue than about most others.
> 
> You then started implying that I'd also said what you apparently want me to have said.



You've done this before; generalise about people, "most" people etc.

"As if people anywhere generally vote for anything on a primarily rational basis." This statement implies that people don't vote rationally. So I suggested some other reasons (negative ones) to see if you would elaborate. But you just want to do your usual thing.

On an emotive level; I'll freely admit that the Brexit outcome upset me. And I made sweeping generalisations immediately after. For which I was rightly pulled up on. I'm still not happy with it (for personal reasons - rational life changing reasons - which I won't go into here) but I take on board; the result came about because people felt strongly about the referendum and I reckon there were plenty of rational, balanced reasons why voters voted the way they did.

Do you believe that voters are, by and large, irrational? That's what I was hoping to find out.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

ffsear said:


> Its all about the next general election now i should imagine. The Tories will overwhelming vote for brexit and keep the voters they have taken from Labour and the Libdems at the next GE.
> 
> Torries want to look like the saviours of democracy! Smart move


a conundrum for some of the maquis and their fellow travellers- back brexit to spite corbyn or back remain and piss of their constituents?


----------



## ffsear (Nov 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> a conundrum for some of the maquis and their fellow travellers- back brexit to spite corbyn or back remain and piss of their constituents?



And meanwhile no one notices as the tarmac gets laid at Heathrow!


----------



## Jurrihahay (Nov 3, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> You've done this before; generalise about people, "most" people etc.
> 
> "As if people anywhere generally vote for anything on a primarily rational basis." This statement implies that people don't vote rationally. So I suggested some other reasons (negative ones) to see if you would elaborate. But you just want to do your usual thing.
> 
> ...


Obviously, most people are motivated, in voting as in much else, by a mixture of psychological factors, of which rationality is probably not the most prominent. (Is the word obviously still allowed?)

Where, though, is it written down that it's forbidden to generalise about anything? How can anybody, in the increasingly complex, largely senseless world we are forced to exist in, not generalise about most things most of the time? In my experience this is what most people do, whether they realise they're doing it or not. And, hey-it's OK (man.) You'd probably become neurotic if you didn't. And those 'rational, life changing reasons' of yours-half of them are bound to turn out to be imaginary, or, if you could bring yourself to some honest self-examination, self-serving and espoused mainly for the effect. This is hardly unique to you.


----------



## Combustible (Nov 3, 2016)

Decision hurts Labour and Corbyn far more than the Tories, whatever they do will piss off a big chunk of Labour voters.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

Combustible said:


> Decision hurts Labour and Corbyn far more than the Tories, whatever they do will piss off a big chunk of Labour voters.



plenty of w/c areas with tory MP's. Places who went 60% out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Combustible said:


> Decision hurts Labour and Corbyn far more than the Tories, whatever they do will piss off a big chunk of Labour voters.


yeh, nice to see you jumping on the bash corbyn bandwagon


----------



## teqniq (Nov 3, 2016)

James O Brien has delivered his devastating verdict on the Brexit High Court ruling


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 3, 2016)

Jurrihahay said:


> Obviously, most people are motivated, in voting as in much else, by a mixture of psychological factors, of which rationality is probably not the most prominent. (Is the word obviously still allowed?)
> 
> Where, though, is it written down that it's forbidden to generalise about anything? How can anybody, in the increasingly complex, largely senseless world we are forced to exist in, not generalise about most things most of the time? In my experience this is what most people do, whether they realise they're doing it or not. And, hey-it's OK (man.) You'd probably become neurotic if you didn't. And those 'rational, life changing reasons' of yours-half of them are bound to turn out to be imaginary, or, if you could bring yourself to some honest self-examination, self-serving and espoused mainly for the effect. This is hardly unique to you.



Thank you for the elaboration. I suppose it depends where in the world you find yourself & under what set of circumstances. South Africa, emerging out of the apartheid era. The break up of the soviet union etc. Chile, post Pinochet. All those places. As for my own situation; it is what it is. It's probably a mix of survival and selfishness. And I guess that in itself, holds the rational and irrational factors.


----------



## Combustible (Nov 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> plenty of w/c areas with tory MP's. Places who went 60% out.



Yes I know, I mean the Tories in parliament can vote to trigger article 50 without too many problems. Most Tory voters support doing so and it is not trying to overturn the election result. Labour on the other hand if they vote to trigger article 50 or abstain will piss off a lot of the remainers who vote Labour but want to overturn the result.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

teqniq said:


> James O Brien has delivered his devastating verdict on the Brexit High Court ruling



He can go back to Ampleforth and take that platinum spoon out of his mouth where it's been since he was a nipper and shove it right up his arse, tbf.

Public school, Chiswick dwelling media cunt that he is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Combustible said:


> Yes I know, I mean the Tories in parliament can vote to trigger article 50 without too many problems. Most Tory voters support doing so and it is not trying to overturn the election result. Labour on the other hand if they vote to trigger article 50 or abstain will piss off a lot of the remainers who vote Labour but want to overturn the result.


you seem to be conflating 'elections', which see people voted into offices, with 'referendums' where a question is put to the people and no one is voted in.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He can go back to Ampleforth and take that platinum spoon out of his mouth where it's been since he was a nipper and shove it right up his arse, tbf.
> 
> Public school, Chiswick dwelling media cunt that he is.



I take it you don't like him then?  Nevertheless I thought it was interesting.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

Combustible said:


> Yes I know, I mean the Tories in parliament can vote to trigger article 50 without too many problems. Most Tory voters support doing so and it is not trying to overturn the election result. Labour on the other hand if they vote to trigger article 50 or abstain will piss off a lot of the remainers who vote Labour but want to overturn the result.


A politician's way out of that would be to vote according to the way your constituents voted in the referendum, saying that this is 'your job'. The effect would be a vote to trigger a50 because most constituencies had a leave majority. But yes, there is a constitutional contradiction here, basically. There is not necessarily any good answer to that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He can go back to Ampleforth and take that platinum spoon out of his mouth where it's been since he was a nipper and shove it right up his arse, tbf.
> 
> Public school, Chiswick dwelling media cunt that he is.


just calling people thick again

He's right to excoriate the pols for not having a clue wtf they are doing but we can all throw that stone.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

teqniq said:


> I take it you don't like him then?  Nevertheless I thought it was interesting.




He's very firmly of the opinion that the proles are too stupid to be trusted with the vote. 

He's also quite dim, and very much where he is cos his adoptive parents paid for his privilege.


----------



## Combustible (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you seem to be conflating 'elections', which see people voted into offices, with 'referendums' where a question is put to the people and no one is voted in.



I don't know what on earth you are on about, but quite simply there are a large chunk of remain voters who want parliament to prevent the UK leaving the EU, despite the vote for leave in the referendum. Not many of these people vote Tory, quite a few vote Labour. Therefore many of these people will be quite annoyed if the Labour party doesn't vote against triggering article 50. On the other hand if Labour do vote against triggering article 50 then it will annoy an awful lot of other Labour voters and will be seen quite correctly as an attempt to prevent the implementation of the referendum result.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Combustible said:


> Yes I know, I mean the Tories in parliament can vote to trigger article 50 without too many problems. Most Tory voters support doing so and it is not trying to overturn the election result. Labour on the other hand if they vote to trigger article 50 or abstain will piss off a lot of the remainers who vote Labour but want to overturn the result.


what the bloody fuck are you talking about?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Combustible said:


> I don't know what on earth you are on about


no. you wouldn't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> what the bloody fuck are you talking about?


ffs it was clear they meant the referendum. Leave it alone.


----------



## Combustible (Nov 3, 2016)

Oh right I typed election instead of referendum, well my mistake.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ffs it was clear they meant the referendum. Leave it alone.


once again you have nothing to add to what's been said


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

i see the pound's apparently surged because of the judgement. although other places have it due to the bank of england doing nothing to interest rates.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Combustible said:


> I don't know what on earth you are on about, but quite simply there are a large chunk of remain voters who want parliament to prevent the UK leaving the EU, despite the vote for leave in the referendum. Not many of these people vote Tory, quite a few vote Labour. Therefore many of these people will be quite annoyed if the Labour party doesn't vote against triggering article 50. On the other hand if Labour do vote against triggering article 50 then it will annoy an awful lot of other Labour voters and will be seen quite correctly as an attempt to prevent the implementation of the referendum result.


in the last election, 11.33m people voted tory, 9.35m people voted labour. so either all the tories voted leave and some labour people did too, or people didn't vote leave or remain along 'tribal' party political lines. things are, i suggest, more complex than you make out.


----------



## 8den (Nov 3, 2016)

The Mail have completely lost it today.



Yup apparently being a gay former olympian means you're biased against Brexit. I'm looking forward to the next Mail rant about "Junkie benefit scroungers, so called Olympians, get round the world trips at the taxpayers expense and get free gold for running in a field!"


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

8den said:


> The Mail have completely lost it today.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup apparently being a gay former olympian means you're biased against Brexit. I'm looking forward to the next Mail rant about "Junkie benefit scroungers, so called Olympians, get round the world trips at the taxpayers expense and get free gold for running in a field!"



yeh and then later on they removed the bit about the gay fencer, as bimble posted a couple of pages back The Brexit process


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2016)

They've changed it yet again! Now with "activist" as the main slur.


----------



## 8den (Nov 3, 2016)

bimble said:


> They've changed it yet again! Now with "activist" as the main slur.
> 
> View attachment 94844



We shouldn't have unelected Judges decide how Brexit is done! Thats what May's govt is for....


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

They should change it again to "High Court trio who blocked Brexit are ... well, just look at this one."


----------



## Ray Purchase (Nov 3, 2016)

Gosh, Raheem is that you?


----------



## 8den (Nov 3, 2016)

Everyone remember how the death of Jo Cox was by a madman and not a act of political extremism?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

8den said:


> Everyone remember how the death of Jo Cox was by a madman and not a act of political extremism?



i'm surprised it's taken so long for people to start tweeting about how she should die and that.


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2016)

Dm comments today are more fascinating than usual. People are calling for revolution on there. The top rated comment says 'democracy in this country is an illusion', followed by one saying "Don't nobble us Brexitiers. Get it done or you have nearly 18 million problems that will come looking for answers."


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 3, 2016)

wait for Ferrage to rewrite parts of the "rivers of blood speech"


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> wait for Ferrage to rewrite parts of the "rivers of blood speech"


I'd be very surprised if Farage has ever read any Virgil


----------



## agricola (Nov 3, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> wait for Ferrage to rewrite parts of the "rivers of blood speech"



He will probably be too busy thanking those judges; this decision (and the inevitable scenes in Parliament that will follow) will probably save UKIP from the well-deserved oblivion it was about to face.


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

agricola said:


> He will probably be too busy thanking those judges; this decision (and the inevitable scenes in Parliament that will follow) will probably save UKIP from the well-deserved oblivion it was about to face.



How very dare these judges scupper UKIP's plan ...


----------



## captainmission (Nov 3, 2016)

Not sure what all the fuss is about. All Theresa May needs to do, and I'm not making this up, is go to the European court of human rights and say she has a pet cat.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

8den said:


> Everyone remember how the death of Jo Cox was by a madman and not a act of political extremism?





She should be hanged, not hung. Hung is what you did to your washing.

What's happening to this country when our morons can't even manage simple grammar?


----------



## 8den (Nov 3, 2016)

Brexiters are also up in arms about how Gina is wealth foreigner interfering with the British political process.


South American model who says Brexit vote made her 'physically sick'




 is interfering with their democratic process.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

Ray Purchase said:


> Gosh, Raheem is that you?



I'm not sure how to interpret you. Are you asking if I'm a High Court judge? Or are you surprised because you didn't have me down as the sort who would comment on the appearance of a senior lawyer?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Raheem said:


> I'm not sure how to interpret you. Are you asking if I'm a High Court judge? Or are you surprised because you didn't have me down as the sort who would comment on the appearance of a senior lawyer?


He's just a twat passing through


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> He's just a twat passing through


Think they might have meant Raheem Kassam, who I suspect may right now be regretting his decision to stand down from the ukip leadership competition.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

bimble said:


> Think they might have meant Raheem Kassam, who I suspect may right now be regretting his decision to stand down from the ukip leadership competition.


Another twat passing through


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

8den said:


> We shouldn't have unelected Judges decide how Brexit is done! Thats what May's govt is for....



Referendum's are a very blunt instrument.  Fuck Godwin's law - that is exactly the way Hitler carried on, the executive overriding the nuances of democratic processes using referendums.

There are two very disturbing schools of thought at the moment; that one and the other that would disregard the plebicite.  Interesting tightrope walk ahead.


----------



## 8den (Nov 3, 2016)

gosub said:


> Referendum's are a very blunt instrument.  Fuck Godwin's law - that is exactly the way Hitler carried on, the executive overriding the nuances of democratic processes using referendums.
> 
> There are two very disturbing schools of thought at the moment; that one and the other that would disregard the plebicite.  Interesting tightrope walk ahead.



Particularly because immediately after the referendum it became clear that the side proposing the referendum couldn't even decide what exactly they wanted or expected to get.


----------



## Duncan2 (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Another twat passing through


I suppose its too much to hope that Cameron will shoot himself?


----------



## andysays (Nov 3, 2016)

gosub said:


> Referendum's are a very blunt instrument.  Fuck Godwin's law - that is exactly the way Hitler carried on, the executive overriding the nuances of democratic processes using referendums.
> 
> There are two very disturbing schools of thought at the moment; that one and the other that would disregard the plebicite.  Interesting tightrope walk ahead.





8den said:


> Particularly because immediately after the referendum it became clear that the side proposing the referendum couldn't even decide what exactly they wanted or expected to get.



Both of you seem to have forgotten, in your apparent wish to dismiss the result of the ref and presumably the opinions of all those who voted to Leave, that it was the then Prime Minister David Cameron, with the support of an Act of Parliament, who attempted to override the nuances of democratic processes by proposing a referendum.

Unfortunately for him, he failed...


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> Unfortunately for him, he failed...



He definitely succeeded.


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

andysays said:


> Both of you seem to have forgotten, in your apparent wish to dismiss the result of the ref and presumably the opinions of all those who voted to Leave, that it was the then Prime Minister David Cameron, with the support of an Act of Parliament, who attempted to override the nuances of democratic processes by proposing a referendum.
> 
> Unfortunately for him, he failed...



I have no wish to dismiss the result of the referendum, as I tried to say in post you quoted.  They are equally dangerous and disturbing.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 3, 2016)

8den said:


> The Mail have completely lost it today.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup apparently being a gay former olympian means you're biased against Brexit. I'm looking forward to the next Mail rant about "Junkie benefit scroungers, so called Olympians, get round the world trips at the taxpayers expense and get free gold for running in a field!"




Is the Olympic fencing supposed to make the homosexuality even more of a bad thing or something?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is the Olympic fencing supposed to make the homosexuality even more of a bad thing or something?


besmirching the honour of the ancient olympiad tradition by having gay sex. Which totally never happened in ancient greece


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 3, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Amazing to see those with avowedly progressive politics holding this view. Would you always support the right of Parliamentary sovereignty over the people?



But our democracy is nothing so crude as giving power to the people, we elect our representative precisely so they can hold back the baying mob.




			
				Toynbee said:
			
		

> Stifling all experts just for being experts, intimidating even the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, is a bullying demagoguery that paralyses many who should speak out. A non-binding referendum, voted on amid a thicket of utterly cynical lies and promises, cannot be a tombstone block to the judgment of MPs on this vital matter of national interest. It’s not anti-democratic to try to stop what so many other countries see as an incomprehensible act of economic suicide.


I mean some of these people even want to criticise an unelected technocrat who's job it is to implement the policies that have done so much damage!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Duncan2 said:


> I suppose its too much to hope that Cameron will shoot himself?


He'd miss


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> I mean some of these people even want to criticise an unelected technocrat who's job it is to implement the policies that have done so much damage!


Theresa May isn't somebody like that though, she's the anointed one who can be trusted to singlehandedly put the Will Of The People into action.


----------



## pocketscience (Nov 3, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There was zero chance of this happening - the UK already had a semi-detached membership and there was no political will to change that.But strictly speaking this was a 'no change' position simply because if remain had won, there would have been nothing to do to fulfill the will of the referendum. Absolutely nothing.


For sure there was no will to change that In UK politics. The UK had the privilege to be able to gloat about it's monetary independence from the side in its semi-detached position, but that constellation was coming under a growing attack from the Eu after the onset of the Euro/ Greece crisis. Euroland and the Euro accession countries had already agreed to press on with federalisation without the UK at the table. A remain vote would have handed the Eu a last opportunity to force the UK to make a choice - join the federal union or be perpetually sidelined. Making no choice (i.e 'no change') is choosing being perpetually sidelined!



littlebabyjesus said:


> I want the EU to change radically -


The Eu _will_ change radically, over time, but the point is the UK would never have had a say in how.



littlebabyjesus said:


> the argument for doing that would not have been closed down by a narrow remain victory. If anything, a narrow victory would have opened it up - the EU isn't good enough, it needs to be changed, and this is how we propose to do it...


You're in unicorn territory now.
Why on earth do you think anyone in the Eu would want to listen to the UKs recommendations for change, when they've already got their sleeves rolled up and getting on with implementing a federal union - one that the UK has no interest in.
In fact we were already there in 2012 and got told to fuck off.
I think you've completely underestimated how much the UK 'semi-detached status pisses-off the average die-hard European today. The only Europeans that do respect it are mobilising anti Eu populist parties in their own counties a la UKIP.

I may have asked you this up-thread already: Would you be willing for the UK to dump sterling and adopt the Euro if it meant we could stay in the Eu?
How much of a European are you prepared to be?
All in it a little bit together?


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2016)

Probably been posted but here you go:


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> Probably been posted but here you go:





Yeah we've already had the privileged twat tell us proles how stupid we all are.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 3, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is the Olympic fencing supposed to make the homosexuality even more of a bad thing or something?



Quite a lot of thrusting while dressed as a spermatazoon, maybe? I got nothin' really


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 3, 2016)

Lol the absolute bitter seethe from the Brexit clowns over what will be a formality has been a pure joy.

I hope they dont murder someone else as the right wing press stirs up their hatred. The Lexiters mates are pretty nasty.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Lol the absolute bitter seethe from the Brexit clowns over what will be a formality has been a pure joy.
> 
> I hope they dont murder someone else as the right wing press stirs up their hatred. The Lexiters mates are pretty nasty.


you were laughing at 'lefto elites' gettin it wrong on here when the result came in and only swung otherwise when you saw an opportunity to have a mock. Very revealing slip that was. Quite funny really, how quickly you scrabbled back to this position you hold now. Almost as if you couldn't really give a shit.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> you were laughing at 'lefto elites' gettin it wrong on here when the result came in


That would have been some trick. I was no where near a computer for many days.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 3, 2016)

This 'reform the EU from within' is the stuff of fantasy. _The superstate is not for turning_.

Mind you I'm just a thicko or a racist or both it seems for voting left leave as a pro-worker, anti-capital socialist whom opposes all forms of neoliberalism. Still, the liberals will be always right.

(still battling with whether to post regularly on urban again tbh. Its not whether someone voted remain or leave in a referendum where both official camps fought on pro-capital/neoliberal grounds. Its the sneering that left the bad taste I can't get out of my mouth)


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> That would have been some trick. I was no where near a computer for many days.


the initial result. You crowed about lefto elites getting stiffed by the vote and then when you saw how riven everyone here and elsewhere was you tacked into a different wind. They say the hansom cabs can turn on a sixpence, praps you can to. That terrible pragmatism.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Its the sneering that left the bad taste I can't get out of my mouth


well it exposed quite neatly the divide between liberals and socialists didn't it. Liberals are on the left when it suits and rabidly otherwise if they think it would affect them personally


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 3, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the initial result. You crowed about lefto elites getting stiffed by the vote and then when you saw how riven everyone here and elsewhere was you tacked into a different wind. They say the hansom cabs can turn on a sixpence, praps you can to. That terrible pragmatism.


What?
About the only comments I made were to slate the arrogant twats at the Glastonbury Leftfields (days later) and their Northern Racists tropes, that and I am sure I suggested that the result was down to a failure to engage with people properly by the political class. 

But hey whatever you say I said, must be true. 

Its Urban!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

wriggle wriggle

you thought you had a chance to droolingly give it large about politicos and then realised you'd misdjuged and so beep-beep back that truck up

Nothing is true and everything is real. It's feralhadleys head!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> What?
> About the only comments I made were to slate the arrogant twats at the Glastonbury Leftfields (days later) and their Northern Racists tropes, that and I am sure I suggested that the result was down to a failure to engage with people properly by the political class.
> 
> But hey whatever you say I said, must be true.
> ...


And conversely everything you say must be a lie


----------



## inva (Nov 3, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> (still battling with whether to post regularly on urban again tbh. Its not whether someone voted remain or leave in a referendum where both official camps fought on pro-capital/neoliberal grounds. Its the sneering that left the bad taste I can't get out of my mouth)


i hope you do. I liked your posts about the referendum


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

inva said:


> i hope you do. I liked your posts about the referendum


That shows a nice spirit


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah we've already had the privileged twat tell us proles how stupid we all are.


Which bit of his speech is factually inaccurate?


----------



## pocketscience (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> Which bit of his speech is factually inaccurate?


That everyone who voted for brexit is a banana


----------



## Wilf (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> Which bit of his speech is factually inaccurate?


I don't know about accurate, but he hasn't got much of a 'will of the people' vibe going on, has he?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I don't know about accurate, but he hasn't got much of a 'will of the people' vibe going on, has he?


Where are narodnaya volya when you want them?


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2016)

pocketscience said:


> That everyone who voted for brexit is a banana


That isn't what he says though is it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

the best bit about that article referring to his phone in is how he had previously despaired about the idiocy of someone pro-brexit phoning in. Because you never get that shit working for LBC right? Cogent and intelligent analysis have long been a staple of radio phone ins in la-la land


----------



## pocketscience (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> That isn't what he says though is it?


Not to the word no, but it's what he alluded to.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2016)

pocketscience said:


> Not to the word no, but it's what he alluded to.


No it's not. But whatever.

This amused me: 



> Chief figures from the Brexit campaign are angry Parliament will be given a vote on Article 50 - despite having long-argued in favour of parliamentary sovereignty.
> 
> They raged at a High Court ruling today that said Theresa May had to consult Parliament before formally withdrawing Britain from the EU.
> 
> Politicians who spent months promising Brits they could “take back control” of their laws and sovereignty argued fiercely that elected Westminster officials should be denied the chance to debate the biggest political shake-up in modern politics.



6 Brexiters Who Suddenly Think Parliamentary Sovereignty Is A Bad Thing After Article 50 Ruling | Huffington Post


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> Probably been posted but here you go:



Thanks for that a link to a useful reference, that kind came in handy on Facebook dealing with a mate citing 52%as not being enough will of the people..Over 60% of our elected representatives represent leave voters on a turn out higher than a general election


How do you like them apples?


----------



## pocketscience (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> No it's not. But whatever.



Yes it is:


> The radio host's has a message for Leave voters after the High Court's Brexit ruling: 'If you think you voted in possession of truth, honesty and facts then you're a banana'


Besides that it is factually incorrect - that any leave voter could possibly be a banana, the bloke generally comes across as a condescending, churlish, sanctimonious knob.


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 3, 2016)

pocketscience said:


> Besides that it is factually incorrect - that any leave voter could possibly be a banana,


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2016)

Some pesky facts: 



> The Lord Chief Justice of England has stopped the UK’s Prime Minister from trying to overturn the result of the Civil War. That war, from 1642 to 1646 and which left one in 10 Englishmen dead in muddy fields, established the sovereignty of Parliament, which Theresa May’s Attorney General sought to circumvent by using an arcane power called the Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50.
> 
> As he should have known, this power cannot be used to repeal an existing law; the 1972 Statute by which Parliament took us into the Common Market can only be repealed by Parliament itself. If the Government can be so woefully ignorant of our constitutional history, perhaps it is time to adopt a written constitution to serve as a reminder.
> 
> The Attorney General was forced in court to concede that the EU referendum was merely advisory – it placed no obligation whatever on the government to accept and act upon the very close result in which only 37 per cent of eligible voters wanted to leave, against 35 per cent of remainers and 28 per cent who did not bother to vote (perhaps because they believed, as opinion polls had indicated, that remain would carry the day).


If you think the High Court is interfering in democracy, then you don’t understand how Britain works


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 4, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> This 'reform the EU from within' is the stuff of fantasy. _The superstate is not for turning_.



Point of faith? What about the mere state of 60-odd million people? Is that for turning? How? How is it more of a fantasy to think of a Europe-wide solidarity against neoliberalism than to think of one that is UK-wide? I see the UK as further down the road than many other countries that never had thatcher or blair. Resistance to EU things needs to grow, points of solidarity need to be grown - solidarity between Walloon farmers and British farmers anybody? I'd like to see the possibility. The 'superstate' opens up possibilities for alliances that otherwise could not exist - otherwise it's just the UK superstate that can be opposed, and only by those within the UK. 


stethoscope said:


> You're in unicorn territory now.
> Why on earth do you think anyone in the Eu would want to listen to the UKs recommendations for change, when they've already got their sleeves rolled up and getting on with implementing a federal union - one that the UK has no interest in.
> In fact we were already there in 2012 and got told to fuck off.


This is a misunderstanding of my position. It is not the UK against others. There is no top-down, vertically aligned UK national interest that I at all give a fuck about. In fact the UK govt has in past years been at the forefront of some of the worst things the EU has done. It is not 'the UK's' recommendation. It is the recommendation of people across the EU building movements, which will be opposed in most cases by their govts (anything this tory govt recommends re the EU, I'm likely to oppose). That said, there are good UK-based movements for good that will be neutralised by Brexit - CIWF, for instance, which has led the way in the move to ban caged hens in the EU. International engagement through the EU has produced results. The CIWF is a practical example. Withdraw to do what? To achieve what? You think Westminster can be taken down"? That's the stuff of fantasy.


----------



## Leftwinger1992 (Nov 4, 2016)

I think the High Court have made the correct ruling. I believe it's absolutely right that parliament should be consulted on the terms of such an important decision as leaving the EU.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 4, 2016)

its not about whats right or wrong, or what anyones opinion is as to what should happen, or what theyd like to happen, its about what the law says the correct procedure is. The high court judges have just read up on what the law says, and from my armchair its what you'd expect to be the case. we knew the referendum wasnt binding, as everyone went on about it for weeks.

 which is why i find it weird the Tories are bothering to appeal it... it would create a constitutional crisis (or at least a shitstorm) if it was overturned on appeal, wouldnt it? If the law can so blatanly be read in opposite ways then theres a serious problem with the law.

i dont expect it will be overturned...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 4, 2016)

ska invita said:


> its not about whats right or wrong, or what anyones opinion is as to what should happen, or what theyd like to happen, its about what the law says the correct procedure is. The high court judges have just read up on what the law says, and from my armchair its what you'd expect to be the case. we knew the referendum wasnt binding, as everyone went on about it for weeks.
> 
> which is why i find it weird the Tories are bothering to appeal it... it would create a constitutional crisis (or at least a shitstorm) if it was overturned on appeal, wouldnt it? If the law can so blatanly be read in opposite ways then theres a serious problem with the law.
> 
> i dont expect it will be overturned...


Regardless of what you think about brexit, this ruling has set a limit to executive power. Anyone thinking this is a bad thing has seriously lost sight of what is important here.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 4, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> (still battling with whether to post regularly on urban again tbh. Its not whether someone voted remain or leave in a referendum where both official camps fought on pro-capital/neoliberal grounds. Its the sneering that left the bad taste I can't get out of my mouth)





inva said:


> i hope you do. I liked your posts about the referendum


Likewise


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 4, 2016)

ska invita said:


> its not about whats right or wrong, or what anyones opinion is as to what should happen, or what theyd like to happen, *its about what the law says the correct procedure is*. The high court judges have just read up on what the law says, and from my armchair its what you'd expect to be the case. we knew the referendum wasnt binding, as everyone went on about it for weeks.



You really have become a libdem haven't you, 'we'll I'd like to support this wildcat strike but _the law_ says you haven't used to correct procedure'.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 4, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> You really have become a libdem haven't you, 'we'll I'd like to support this wildcat strike but _the law_ says you haven't used to correct procedure'.


bizarre comparison


----------



## Ray Purchase (Nov 4, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> You really have become a libdem haven't you, 'we'll I'd like to support this wildcat strike but _the law_ says you haven't used to correct procedure'.



That's right. Just as angry workers should ignore the law, so should Tory prime ministers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 4, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> You really have become a libdem haven't you, 'we'll I'd like to support this wildcat strike but _the law_ says you haven't used to correct procedure'.


The _government_ is in the role of the strikers in your analogy. The. Government. As with all your analogies recently, this one does not work. 

Where power is held matters here. Stop ignoring that and making really stupid analogies to strikes.


----------



## Ray Purchase (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Another twat passing through



Thank you for the welcome big fella.


----------



## Ray Purchase (Nov 4, 2016)

Raheem said:


> I'm not sure how to interpret you. Are you asking if I'm a High Court judge? Or are you surprised because you didn't have me down as the sort who would comment on the appearance of a senior lawyer?



I was just wondering if you were THE Raheem.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 4, 2016)

Ray Purchase said:


> That's right. Just as angry workers should ignore the law, so should Tory prime ministers.


We can use the law as a tool without believing it to be some sort of neutral foundation that determines what is right and wrong. 

Ska's post made the law the _only_ criteria that matters, whether we think the result of this case is good or bad should be based on it's results for labour.


----------



## Ray Purchase (Nov 4, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> We can the law as a tool without believing it to be some sort of neutral foundation that determines what is right and wrong. Ska's post made the law the only criteria that matters not what is best for labour.



It seems to me my good man or woman, that making this government adhere to the law, at all times is in the interests of the toiling classes.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 4, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> We can use the law as a tool without believing it to be some sort of neutral foundation that determines what is right and wrong.
> 
> Ska's post made the law the _only_ criteria that matters, whether we think the result of this case is good or bad should be based on it's results for labour.


My post was in response to Leftwinger who painted a picture of judges sitting down with a cup of tea wondering "what would be best". Which buys in to the Daily Mail's 'activist judge' slur.  Which I dont believe.

Anyhow, if youd rather Tory Prime Ministers had unchecked executive power "because its best for labour" you crack on with that dream


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 4, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> We can use the law as a tool without believing it to be some sort of neutral foundation that determines what is right and wrong.
> 
> Ska's post made the law the _only_ criteria that matters, whether we think the result of this case is good or bad should be based on it's results for labour.


Not true. Because the organ he was demanding should obey the law was the government.  That's just a basic appeal against fascism.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 4, 2016)

ska invita said:


> My post was in response to Leftwinger who painted a picture of judges sitting down with a cup of tea wondering "what would be best". Which buys in to the Daily Mail's 'activist judge' slur.  Which I dont believe.


OK but your post said something far wider (my emphasis)


> its not about whats right or wrong, or what *anyones opinion* is as to what should happen, or what theyd like to happen,





ska invita said:


> Anyhow, if youd rather Tory Prime Ministers had unchecked executive power "because its best for labour" you crack on with that dream


Yeah that's exactly what I've been arguing.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 4, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not true. Because the organ he was demanding should obey the law was the government.  That's just a basic appeal against fascism.


So the overthrowing of the Dilma government was a good thing? If (in a parallel universe) a Corbyn gov. decides to renationalise the railways/banks/whatever and it's found to be illegal under EU law that's a good thing? Private businesses using the law to force governments to allow fracking or genetically modified crops these are just appeals against fascism?

Of course most of the time it's going to be the other way round and the desired outcome is that the government is forced to comply with the law but that's because the outcome is beneficial not because the law is something that should be obeyed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Ray Purchase said:


> Thank you for the welcome big fella.


Yes, you're the toast of london


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2016)

ska invita said:


> the Daily Mail's 'activist judge' slur.  Which I dont believe.
> Anyhow, if youd rather Tory Prime Ministers had unchecked executive power "because its best for labour" you crack on with that dream


After all their confusion yesterday as to how to describe those judges it seems the DM have settled on this to go to print with, nice and succinct;


----------



## chilango (Nov 4, 2016)

Can people not see that this (if Brexit collapses under Parliamentary scrutiny) is the worst of both worlds?

a) We stay in the EU.

b) UKIP and nationalist populism is fuelled greater than if we'd left.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> After all their confusion yesterday as to how to describe those judges it seems the DM have settled on this to go to print with, nice and succinct;
> View attachment 94887


What's the map like?


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> What's the map like?


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 4, 2016)

I am so pleased to see those bastions of justice, the Sun and the Daily Mail supporting the law and constitution.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 4, 2016)

editor said:


> Which bit of his speech is factually inaccurate?



Where did I say he was factually inaccurate?

Just one example will do.

Or are you building a Guy for tomorrow night?


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2016)

meanwhile, in the Express..


----------



## chilango (Nov 4, 2016)

editor said:


> Probably been posted but here you go:




An awful lot of bombast for essentially quoting a short paragraph from an old book.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 4, 2016)

It doesn't mean we stay in the EU, it just means May doesn't get to unilaterally decide on all the terms of exit.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 4, 2016)

captainmission said:


> Not sure what all the fuss is about. All Theresa May needs to do, and I'm not making this up, is go to the European court of human rights and say she has a pet cat.


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> meanwhile, in the Express..
> View attachment 94892



Sounds like the Express believes it was the driving force behind Brexit.



> There is a battle to be won. A battle that must be won. Six years ago this month the Daily Express launched its historic crusade to get Britain out of the EU.
> 
> We will not rest until that aim has been achieved and Brexit has been delivered. We know that you, our loyal readers, will be with us every step of the way.
> 
> Your country needs you more than ever because we must leave the EU. Rise up people of Britain and fight, fight, fight.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 4, 2016)

gosub said:


> Over 60% of our elected representatives represent leave voters on a turn out higher than a general election



This is an artefact of consituency boundaries and not an ethical point. All 'our' MPs represent both leave and remain voters, and the latter have the same rights to representation in parliament as the former.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2016)

wow. crusade, your country needs you, rise up, it's like jingoism bingo.

But that last bit, "fight, fight, fight" it sort of lacks gravitas, that's playground talk.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Nov 4, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> This 'reform the EU from within' is the stuff of fantasy. _The superstate is not for turning_.
> 
> Mind you I'm just a thicko or a racist or both it seems for voting left leave as a pro-worker, anti-capital socialist whom opposes all forms of neoliberalism. Still, the liberals will be always right.
> 
> (still battling with whether to post regularly on urban again tbh. Its not whether someone voted remain or leave in a referendum where both official camps fought on pro-capital/neoliberal grounds. Its the sneering that left the bad taste I can't get out of my mouth)


STAY. This lurker enjoys reading your stuff.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2016)

incitement to riot in a winter month, what are they thinking. Far to cold for it


----------



## ChrisD (Nov 4, 2016)

I presume the referendum results have been analysed on a constituency by constituency basis?  IF each MP voted according to their local  referendum result what would the House of Commons vote look like?  (fortunetly MP's don't always vote according to the majority of constituents otherwise we'd still have capital punishment and anti gay laws.)


----------



## pocketscience (Nov 4, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> This is an artefact of consituency boundaries and not an ethical point. All 'our' MPs represent both leave and remain voters, and the latter have the same rights to representation in parliament as the former.


There is an ethical point to this...it offers the oppertunity for an mp to unethically vote in parliment based on his\ her personal preference, which potentially goes against the majority of their constituents preferences shown in the 'democratic' referendum.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2016)

pocketscience said:


> There is an ethical point to this...it offers the oppertunity for an mp to unethically vote in parliment based on his\ her personal preference, which potentially goes against the majority of their constituents preferences shown in the 'democratic' referendum.


What about the ethical point where they vote against their own judgement just in order to try to keep their seats? Or is that just their job, I don't know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> What about the ethical point where they vote against their own judgement just in order to try to keep their seats? Or is that just their job, I don't know.


fuck knows how you'd deal with people being delegates and mandated to vote in certain ways.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

pocketscience said:


> There is an ethical point to this...it offers the oppertunity for an mp to unethically vote in parliment based on his\ her personal preference, which potentially goes against the majority of their constituents preferences shown in the 'democratic' referendum.


yeh. but the thing is that the pernicious influence of 'party' gets in the way of mps being truly representative. how many mps come from the constituency they purport to represent? how many of them owe their place in parliament more to cabal than constituents?


----------



## pocketscience (Nov 4, 2016)

ChrisD said:


> I presume the referendum results have been analysed on a constituency by constituency basis?  IF each MP voted according to their local  referendum result what would the House of Commons vote look like?  (*fortunetly MP's don't always vote according to the majority of constituents otherwise we'd still have capital punishment and anti gay laws.)*


What happened there then?


bimble said:


> What about the ethical point where they vote against their own judgement just in order to try to keep their seats? Or is that just their job, I don't know.


I think the key words here are represent and democracy. The UK runs on a democratic majority rule principle, therefore I'd expect that representing the democratic majority would be the mp's only ethical choice


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

ChrisD said:


> I presume the referendum results have been analysed on a constituency by constituency basis?  IF each MP voted according to their local  referendum result what would the House of Commons vote look like?  (fortunetly MP's don't always vote according to the majority of constituents otherwise we'd still have capital punishment and anti gay laws.)


yeh but given the laws we've had, e.g. the local government finance act 1988, the local government finance act 1992, the criminal justice and public order act 1994, the education act 1994, the terrorism act 2000, perhaps they should listen to what their constituents think more carefully.

and what about iraq? do you think mps should have listened to their constituents over that little debacle?


----------



## chilango (Nov 4, 2016)

kabbes said:


> It doesn't mean we stay in the EU, it just means May doesn't get to unilaterally decide on all the terms of exit.



Wait and see what happens.


----------



## chilango (Nov 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> incitement to riot in a winter month, what are they thinking. Far to cold for it



Could be an illustration of global warming though?

(((proper winters)))


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2016)

kabbes said:


> It doesn't mean we stay in the EU, it just means May doesn't get to unilaterally decide on all the terms of exit.



May was never going to get to unilaterally decide on all the terms of exit, those terms will be decided through negotiation with the remaining 27 member states.

It now looks like Parliament will get some input on the UK govt's starting position in the negotiations, but no one should assume that the finally agreed terms will bear much resemblance to the starting position.

(it's also arguable that by opening the UK's negotiating position up to view before the negotiations start, they'll be weakening their ability to negotiate)

It makes far more sense, IMO, that Parliament should have to have final approval on any final deal, rather than whether to start the negotiating process at all, so this argument over process is likely to run for some time...


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 4, 2016)

kabbes said:


> It doesn't mean we stay in the EU, it just means May doesn't get to unilaterally decide on all the terms of exit.


No but more than a few have already said that MP should be block any attempt to leave. Toynbee, the LibDems, some Labourites, some on here.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Nov 4, 2016)

kabbes said:


> It doesn't mean we stay in the EU, it just means May doesn't get to unilaterally decide on all the terms of exit.


How will Parliament be able to influence the terms after triggering article 50? A debate prior to triggering it surely wouldn't be binding in anyway. As far as that vote goes it's surely going to come down to whether the MP wishes to respect the referendum vote or not.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Nov 4, 2016)

Or what Andysays just said as he put it better


----------



## pocketscience (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. but the thing is that the pernicious influence of 'party' gets in the way of mps being truly representative. how many mps come from the constituency they purport to represent? how many of them owe their place in parliament more to cabal than constituents?



Sure, that's the beauty of this. This time it'll be so glaringly obvious, and for once it won't just a 'fringe' of the electorate , but a democratic majoriy (that includes all segments of society ranging from trade-unionists to the daily mail wielding grandma, all breathing down their necks.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2016)

(the sun front page)


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

pocketscience said:


> Sure, that's the beauty of this. This time it'll be so glaringly obvious, and for once it won't just a 'fringe' of the electorate , but a democratic majoriy (that includes all segments of society ranging from trade-unionists to the daily mail wielding grandma, all breathing down their necks.


yes. but is it a majority? on the one hand you have a plurality of votes pointing in one direction, and on the other you have at least two of the constituent parts of the united kingdom - scotland and northern ireland - pointing to remain. then you have people talking about how we need to find out more about article 50 before moving ahead with it. tbh i wouldn't be surprised if a referendum on the same question conducted today resulted in a 50.1/49.9 split. no matter what happens about half the country will be unhappy. and i wouldn't be at all surprised if we saw another dead mp within a year.


----------



## chilango (Nov 4, 2016)

If enough MPs "believe" that they "need" to block Brexit "in the national interest", "for economic growth" etc. etc. i.e if capital puts the squeeze on them, then _of course_ they'll vote to block it.

They'll, reasonably enough, be banking on the belief that none of the people that voted for Brexit will actually do anything to enforce that decision should Parliament block it.

Interesting times could get a whole lot more interesting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> View attachment 94896
> (the sun front page)


isn't guyana a former british colony?


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> isn't guyana a former british colony?


Yeah and i think she's just old enough to have been born when it still was.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2016)

chilango said:


> _of course_ they'll vote to block it.


even if that will clearly lead to losing their 60k a year position come tnext GE? Self interest must come to the fore here, surely. Its not like the majority of them have principles that aren't bought n sold


----------



## chilango (Nov 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> even if that will clearly lead to losing their 60k a year position come tnext GE? Self interest must come to the fore here, surely. Its not like the majority of them have principles that aren't bought n sold



I'm sure they'll reckon that not everyone who voted out in the referendum will vote (either at all or tactically on Brexit) in a GE. There's probably some data that would lend credibility to such a view.

They have a record of focussing on the handful of swing, centre ground, voters.

Of course they might wrong. But I dont think it's unlikely that they'd think like this.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2016)

kabbes said:


> It doesn't mean we stay in the EU, it just means May doesn't get to unilaterally decide on all the terms of exit.



The ruling is about _triggering _article 50 - who can do it essentially. It does not concern the _content _of any negotiations post-triggering. It doesn't give MPs any extra say in the latter - and it certainly doesn't offer any route to increased popular  participation. The idea she


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2016)

chilango said:


> If enough MPs "believe" that they "need" to block Brexit "in the national interest", "for economic growth" etc. etc. i.e if capital puts the squeeze on them, then _of course_ they'll vote to block it.
> 
> They'll, reasonably enough, be banking on the belief that none of the people that voted for Brexit will actually do anything to enforce that decision should Parliament block it.
> 
> Interesting times could get a whole lot more interesting.


I can certainly envisage capital lobbying for a form of Leave that doesn't affect their trading arrangements.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> isn't guyana a former british colony?





bimble said:


> Yeah and i think she's just old enough to have been born when it still was.



For 10 bonus points, name the former British MP (now dead) who was born in Guyana


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The ruling is about _triggering _article 50 - who can di it essentially. It does not concern the _content _of any negotiations post-triggering. It doesn't give MPs any extra say in the latter - and it certainly doesn't offer any route to increased popular  participation. The idea she


Though the ruling doesn't concern the content of the negotiation, by insisting that debate precedes triggering, it opens up the prospect of amendments that could affect the outcome of the negotiating position.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 4, 2016)

chilango said:


> I'm sure they'll reckon that not everyone who voted out in the referendum will vote (either at all or tactically on Brexit) in a GE. There's probably some data that would lend credibility to such a view.
> 
> They have a record of focussing on the handful of swing, centre ground, voters.
> 
> Of course they might wrong. But I dont think it's unlikely that they'd think like this.


I think you're bang on the money. There's a plenty that will be looking for any opportunity to block any exit. Or _modify_ it into some leave in words only.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

andysays said:


> For 10 bonus points, name the former British MP (now dead) who was born in Guyana


bernie grant. met him once. see my book, 'brushes with greatness', for more details.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Though the ruling doesn't concern the content of the negotiation, by insisting that debate precedes triggering, it opens up the prospect of amendments that could affect the outcome of the negotiating position.


and even the outcome of the negotiations


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2016)

chilango said:


> If enough MPs "believe" that they "need" to block Brexit "in the national interest", "for economic growth" etc. etc. i.e if capital puts the squeeze on them, then _of course_ they'll vote to block it.
> 
> They'll, reasonably enough, be banking on the belief that none of the people that voted for Brexit will actually do anything to enforce that decision should Parliament block it.
> 
> Interesting times could get a whole lot more interesting.


They'll need to depose their party leader(s then - maybe even form a new well funded pro-remain party. Given that almost the entirety of capital across all sectors, all institutions of the state, the rich, the powerful, the liberals, the elite - everyone but a majority of the population -  supports this position it cannot be entirely dismissed as a possibility. I don't think anything like that will happen though. If the appeal loses there will be a crappy shitty debate in the commons and we'll all abandon our own powers  - with many anarchists to the fore it appears - to the state and capital in a pathetic democratic spectacle. Then an aggressively whipped vote will trigger article 50.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The ruling is about _triggering _article 50 - who can di it essentially. It does not concern the _content _of any negotiations post-triggering. It doesn't give MPs any extra say in the latter - and it certainly doesn't offer any route to increased popular  participation. The idea she



It's also interesting (for certain limited values of interesting, obvs) that the judgement yesterday seems to be on this basis



> the three judges looking at the case found there was no constitutional convention of the royal prerogative - powers used by ministers - being used in legislation relating to the EU. They added that *triggering Article 50 would fundamentally change UK people's rights* - and that the government cannot change or do away with rights under UK law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so.



That suggests that their view is that people's rights are changed when Art50 is triggered, not (or not only) when the final deal is agreed, which in turn suggests (contrary to the opinion you posted above) that Art50 isn't reversible.

There is still at least the possibility that this will all have be decided in Luxembourg after all


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> isn't guyana a former british colony?




So was Australia.

And America.

So Murdoch's covered


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So was Australia.
> 
> And America.
> 
> So Murdoch's covered


covered in shit


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Though the ruling doesn't concern the content of the negotiation, by insisting that debate precedes triggering, it opens up the prospect of amendments that could affect the outcome of the negotiating position.


Parliamentary debates don't mean a single thing in the the negotiating room. Is the negotiating team or May's cabinet really unaware of the positions of the MPs today? What woulkd an amendment on a simple vote to trigger look like anyway?

God this is so demoralising - all this guff about democracy and rights, and MPs and the law.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> God this is so demoralising - all this guff about democracy and rights, and MPs and the law.


They're all that stands between us and fascism!


----------



## chilango (Nov 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> They'll need to depose their party leader(s then - maybe even form a new well funded pro-remain party. Given that almost the entirety of capital across all sectors, all institutions of the state, the rich, the powerful, the liberals, the elite - everyone but a majority of the population -  supports this position it cannot be entirely dismissed as a possibility. I don't think anything like that will happen though. If the appeal loses there will be a crappy shitty debate in the commons and we'll all abandon our own powers  - with many anarchists to the fore it appears - to the state and capital in a pathetic democratic spectacle. Then an aggressively whipped vote will trigger article 50.



Yeah I don't  know if it will happen.

...but, as I've said for some time, if the politicians feel the need to ignore the referendum outcome they can and will, and get away with it too.

All this shenanigans just adds extra smoke and mirrors.


----------



## chilango (Nov 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Parliamentary debates don't mean a single thing in the the negotiating room. Is the negotiating team or May's cabinet really unaware of the positions of the MPs today? What woulkd an amendment on a simple vote to trigger look like anyway?
> 
> God this is so demoralising - all this guff about democracy and rights, and MPs and the law.



It's okay, there's a "progressive alliance " being formed. Hadn't you heard?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2016)

if the lib dems re-coalesce as the party of remain which they want to do then I'm blaming every innie


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Parliamentary debates don't mean a single thing in the the negotiating room. Is the negotiating team or May's cabinet really unaware of the positions of the MPs today? What woulkd an amendment on a simple vote to trigger look like anyway?
> 
> God this is so demoralising - all this guff about democracy and rights, and MPs and the law.


Agreed, but May's parliamentary position is vulnerable to rebellion/opposition. In order to get the simple consent for trigger she may be exposed to leverage that extracts concessions regarding the following process.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2016)

andysays said:


> It's also interesting (for certain limited values of interesting, obvs) that the judgement yesterday seems to be on this basis
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What opinion i posted about reversibility?

The ruling doesn't appear to have been on those grounds that you quote - and if it is will be overturned in the supreme court because it's clear that any loss of rights - specifically the right to EU citizenship, the basis for the case - doesn't start with the triggering of article 50 but at the completion of the process. The actual basis appeared to simply be that the crown has no right to use prerogative powers to alter domestic law.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2016)

Yossarian said:


> Sounds like the Express believes it was the driving force behind Brexit.


what would they have done if Di was alive and voted remain?


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2016)

Some people - on twitter- are already firing off letters to their local MPs, saying 'remember your duty to your constituents who overwhelmingly voted remain' (lambeth and streatham for instance).


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> what would they have done if Di was alive and voted remain?


Snowmageddon story.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What opinion i posted about reversibility?



The article that you posted yesterday in answer to my question about the ECJ included the author's opinion on reversibility. I wasn't trying to suggest it was your opinion, so apologies if it came across that way.



> The ruling doesn't appear to have been on those grounds that you quote - and if it is will be overturned in the supreme court because it's clear that any loss of rights - specifically the right to EU citizenship, the basis for the case - doesn't start with the triggering of article 50 but at the completion of the process. The actual basis appeared to simply be that the crown has no right to use prerogative powers to alter domestic law.



I haven't read the full ruling (and I'm not a lawyer, obviosly) I'm just going on my understanding of what the BBC are saying, which could well be wrong


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 4, 2016)

andysays said:


> It makes far more sense, IMO, that Parliament should have to have final approval on any final deal...




And parliament says NO. Then what?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> meanwhile, in the Express..
> View attachment 94892



Nothing like a bit of patriotic hyperbole. Always good to invoke the racist, mass murdering, anti striking bastard.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> Some people - on twitter- are already firing off letters to their local MPs, saying 'remember your duty to your constituents who overwhelmingly voted remain' (lambeth and streatham for instance).


perhaps they should be firing off letters and not tweets.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2016)

I bet Hollobone is having apoplectic fits over this malarky  so at least some good comes out of it all


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And parliament says NO. Then what?



Then we stay in the EU and all the MPs who voted to stay attempt to explain that to their constituents at the next GE (or possibly we get kicked out of the EU with no proper agreement, because it's decided that once A50 is triggered there's no going back).

I should probably have said "makes sense within the logic of absolute parliamentary sovereignty" which is not necessarily the logic which you or I or many of the electorate share.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Mind you I'm just a thicko or a racist or both it seems for voting left leave as a pro-worker, anti-capital socialist whom opposes all forms of neoliberalism. Still, the liberals will be always right.
> 
> (still battling with whether to post regularly on urban again tbh. Its not whether someone voted remain or leave in a referendum where both official camps fought on pro-capital/neoliberal grounds. Its the sneering that left the bad taste I can't get out of my mouth)



The sneering does leave a bad taste but that's been a staple on urban for years. The Brexit result (which I personally detest) has only intensified the infighting here.


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> what would they have done if Di was alive and voted remain?



"Queen of SHARTS - Di Revealed as Remainiac"


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 4, 2016)

pocketscience said:


> There is an ethical point to this...it offers the oppertunity for an mp to unethically vote in parliment based on his\ her personal preference...



So just the same as every other parliamentary vote then.


----------



## pocketscience (Nov 4, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> So just the same as every other parliamentary vote then.


No, not at all. The difference this time is you have the result of the constituents choice to the binary q before the parlimantary vote.

You'd have a point if there was a parlimentay vote on the results of a general election... But that would be rediculous wouldnt it


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2016)

YouGov |  On the five stages of grief, many Remain voters are stuck in denial


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 4, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And parliament says NO. Then what?



Parliament isn't going to say no. Ethics don't enter into it, there simply aren't enough MP's willing to commit career suicide. The idea of the labour party voting en masse against brexit is laughable, they won't even vote for their own leader's policies.


----------



## pocketscience (Nov 4, 2016)

One thing's for sure; if parliament does vote against triggering A50, we're never likely to see a referendum in a the UK again.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 4, 2016)

In my mind this ruling changes nothing...there'll be a lot of hot air in parliament, May and Davis will have to squirm their way through it, and a50 will be triggered as it would've been...but:


andysays said:


> It makes far more sense, IMO, that Parliament should have to have final approval on any final deal, rather than whether to start the negotiating process at all, so this argument over process is likely to run for some time...


...thats an interesting point I hadn't considered. I expect there'll be people looking into making that happen. But even if it does I can't see it getting to a point where the deal would be blocked by a majority of MPs. Though 3 years is a long time in politics. Even so, I doubt it very much.

On another note it would be nice to see these 3 judges take some of the right wing rags to court for defamation. I expect they might know a good lawyer or two.That would definitely add to the entertainment.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2016)

Something that's just struck me while reading about this Tory MP resigning. All sides (apart from a few minority views) taking formal positions are now sons and daughters of a horrible Enoch Powell/Tony benn lash up. The outs oppose the EU on bennite grounds of its inherent economic nature or the powelite grounds of its thievery of national sovereignty. The ins have suddenly found a formerly rather quiet voice on the grounds of parliamentary supremacy that benn and Powell were the leading voices of last century.


----------



## sihhi (Nov 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Something that's just struck me while reading about this Tory MP resigning. All sides (apart from a few minority views) taking formal positions are now sons and daughters of a horrible Enoch Powell/Tony benn lash up. The outs oppose the EU on bennite grounds of its inherent economic nature or the powelite grounds of its thievery of national sovereignty. The ins have suddenly found a formerly rather quiet voice on the grounds of parliamentary supremacy that benn and Powell were the leading voices of last century.



Both sides -- protectionist-nationalist and liberalist-internationalist -- crush these ideas "democracy", "people", "living standards" into dust.

No surprise "parliamentary sovereignty" is in there aswell as is "national sovereignty".


----------



## existentialist (Nov 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> View attachment 94901
> YouGov |  On the five stages of grief, many Remain voters are stuck in denial


This is a bit bollocks, as anyone who's studied (or taught) the Kübler-Ross model knows full well that it's not some linear transition from state to state, neatly and in order.


----------



## sihhi (Nov 4, 2016)

The language of "coups" and "counter-coups" is back in fashion too not been around since the 1970s or 1930s.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Something that's just struck me while reading about this Tory MP resigning. All sides (apart from a few minority views) taking formal positions are now sons and daughters of a horrible Enoch Powell/Tony benn lash up. The outs oppose the EU on bennite grounds of its inherent economic nature or the powelite grounds of its thievery of national sovereignty. The ins have suddenly found a formerly rather quiet voice on the grounds of parliamentary supremacy that benn and Powell were the leading voices of last century.


And, in passing, that was part of what was wrong Benn(ism). Not just that he was an actual pal of Powell, nor even his Parliamentary Cretinism, but that he had a particularly unthinking version of Parliamentary Cretinism.


----------



## ChrisD (Nov 4, 2016)

pocketscience said:


> What happened there then?
> 
> my understanding is that when capital punishment was repealed the majorty of voters were in favour of retention....
> 
> Anyone seen analysis of how many constituencies voted for Brexit?  are the referendum results available on each constituency?   I'm not advocating either way just interested in that figure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

pocketscience said:


> One thing's for sure; if parliament does vote against triggering A50, we're never likely to see a referendum in a the UK again.


i hardly think we're likely to see one again anyway as the last one wasn't a resounding advert for the plebiscite.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2016)

In one respect, Theresa May's position is now extremely strong. If she gets backed into a corner she can just call a general election. The Labour Party has died, the referendum didn't lead to an economic meltdown and she runs on a 'will of the people' ticket, gets an increased majority (though for the moment she's said she won't call an election).  _In theory at least_ it could also give her more room for manoeuvre in Parliament. She could use the debate she's now forced to have to manipulate a soft brexit and the access to the single market she still (presumably) wants.  I don't think she'll do this though as it would reopen the civil war in her party. She was quite happy to keep quiet in the referendum and has established her prime ministership in letting it happen, largely leaving it to David Davis.  Brexit means Brexit is now who she is.

Sometimes things take an unexpected turn, but nothing is likely to be different as a result of the court ruling.  The key problem the remainers in parliament have Is that they _may_ actually have a chance to propose soft brexit amendments - I don't think it's clear what the format of the debate/vote will be yet -  but that's not a good look. To their constituents it will look very much like an attempt to overturn the referendum.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 4, 2016)

Again with the early general election thing.


----------



## chilango (Nov 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


> To their constituents it will look very much like an attempt to overturn the referendum.



Which will play well to many of the swing labour/lib/tory remainers in key seats in middle England.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2016)

I don't think she will call a general election. She knows she'll almost certainly win a brexit vote in the commons and the mechanics of calling an early election are convoluted. She could certainly _taunt Corbyn_, asking him to support suspending the fixed parliament act, which would put him on the spot to say the least.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2016)

chilango said:


> Which will play well to many of the swing labour/lib/tory remainers in key seats in middle England.


There would certainly be some interesting sub-plots in an election, the main one being ukip and whether it was to get its mojo back on a 'defend brexit' ticket (which Theresa May would be seeking to play herself, to the point of successfully arguing there's now no need to vote ukip).  Might well lead to the Tories winning seats in the midlands and north.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2016)

As I've said I don't think there will be an election. However there's an irony: in the past Labour often wanted to maximise Tory divisions over Europe to manipulate a confidence vote to get a general election (in the Major years). Nowadays, the Tories would have nothing to fear from a Euro focused election and would probably use it to crush Labour back to the stone age.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I don't think she will call a general election. She knows she'll almost certainly win a brexit vote in the commons and the mechanics of calling an early election are convoluted. She could certainly _taunt Corbyn_, asking him to support suspending the fixed parliament act, which would put him on the spot to say the least.



i don't think she needs his support actually - my understanding (ha!) of the Act is that if she were to resign the government, and the palace were to look around for another government who could command a majority in the HoC - and, of course, not find one in the two weeks available - then a GE can be called. (happy to be corrected!).

yougov poll out yesterday btw - Tories on 41%, Labour on 27%. more interesting is that May is on 47% as 'best PM', with Corbyn storming ahead in the credibility stakes with a mighty and unassailable 16%...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2016)

andysays said:


> The article that you posted yesterday in answer to my question about the ECJ included the author's opinion on reversibility. I wasn't trying to suggest it was your opinion, so apologies if it came across that way.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the full ruling (and I'm not a lawyer, obviosly) I'm just going on my understanding of what the BBC are saying, which could well be wrong


To go back to this last bit, this is certainly how it was presented by the investment manager heading up the court case:



> “This case is about process, not politics. [We are] pleased to have played our part in helping form a debate on whether the rights conferred on U.K. citizens through parliament legislation 44 years ago could be casually snuffed out by the executive without parliament or our elected representatives and without proper prior consultation about the government’s intentions for Brexit.”



Reading the full judgment i really can't see it.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2016)

kebabking said:


> i don't think she needs his support actually - my understanding (ha!) of the Act is that if she were to resign the government, and the palace were to look around for another government who could command a majority in the HoC - and, of course, not find one in the two weeks available - then a GE can be called. (happy to be corrected!).
> 
> yougov poll out yesterday btw - Tories on 41%, Labour on 27%. more interesting is that May is on 47% as 'best PM', with Corbyn storming ahead in the credibility stakes with a mighty and unassailable 16%...


Cheers, I was trying to remember what circumstances there were other than suspending the Act.  Remembered there was the no-confidence motion, but forgot that.  Theresa May might be pissed off with the court decision, but she's still in a very strong position.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Cheers, I was trying to remember what circumstances there were other than suspending the Act.  Remembered there was the no-confidence motion, but forgot that.  Theresa May might be pissed off with the court decision, but she's still in a very strong position.


pity she's so weak then


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Again with the early general election thing.



I want a rolled up copy of the fixed term act to hit people with


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> To go back to this last bit, this is certainly how it was presented by the investment manager heading up the court case:
> 
> Reading the full judgment i really can't see it.



I haven't read the full judgement, but I have now found a summary by the same author that you linked to yesterday. I'm going to have to read through it a few times before I can get my head around it though...


----------



## kebabking (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> pity she's so weak then



its Schrodingers Kitten Heels.

she's weak because she has a tiny minority thats getting smaller and a PCP thats getting ideas above its station, on the other hand she's strong because of her poll ratings, media image, simple message (yeah, i know..) and Corbyns/Labours ratings.

if she were able to bring about a GE - and to be strictly fair, having a majority of 8 comes quite close to the mechanisms within the FTPA for triggering an election - she's unassailable. current polling suggests a 100+ majority, and no doubt whatsoever about what she'd have a mandate for, so Tory MP's throwing their toys out of the pram would be on a hiding to nothing...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

kebabking said:


> its Schrodingers Kitten Heels.
> 
> she's weak because she has a tiny minority thats getting smaller and a PCP thats getting ideas above its station, on the other hand she's strong because of her poll ratings, media image, simple message (yeah, i know..) and Corbyns/Labours ratings.
> 
> if she were able to bring about a GE - and to be strictly fair, having a majority of 8 comes quite close to the mechanisms within the FTPA for triggering an election - she's unassailable. current polling suggests a 100+ majority, and no doubt whatsoever about what she'd have a mandate for, so Tory MP's throwing their toys out of the pram would be on a hiding to nothing...


no, she's weak because she has no principles and people are starting to realise this.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2016)




----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 4, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So was Australia.
> 
> And America.



And Palestine oops!


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2016)

In the Lincolnshire seat, the Tories are going to have to put up a very pro-Leave candidate to see off UKIP aren't they?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2016)

Once more into the fray Mr Nigel - this time. _This time._


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Once more into the fray Mr Nigel - this time. _This time._



Said he wasn't going to stand again until 2020 though


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Once more into the fray Mr Nigel - this time. _This time._



Evans has already thrown her hat in.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Said he wasn't going to stand again until 2020 though


He says a lot of things. I read him saying 2019 earlier today as well.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Said he wasn't going to stand again until 2020 though


Does anyone actually believe anything he says though?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Des anyone actually believe anything he says though?


you can't even believe him when he says he'll get you a pint


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 4, 2016)

If Parliament votes against Article 50, Operation Beacon will begin immediately to enforce Brexit

A rallying call for mass protests should things not go exit friendly.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 4, 2016)

Oh dearie me.


----------



## hot air baboon (Nov 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Said he wasn't going to stand again until 2020 though



...I'll await his announcement about 9 o'clock this evening then...


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 4, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> If Parliament votes against Article 50, Operation Beacon will begin immediately to enforce Brexit
> 
> A rallying call for mass protests should things not go exit friendly.



They're calling themselves the "Democratic Party?" With the hashtag #DemocraticParty??

I like how the "Revolution" and "Direct Action" tabs on that page lead straight to the same page, with its call for "protests outside local Government buildings within the parameters of the law," "a massive surge of letters to MPs," and targeting remain MPs on Facebook and Twitter.


----------



## andysays (Nov 4, 2016)

> if Parliament votes against Article 50, we will ignore the sovereignty of Parliament and revert to the only law that matters: Article 61 of Magna Carta which has never been repealed, it is our true sovereign law



This will go well


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2016)

Yossarian said:


> They're calling themselves the "Democratic Party?" With the hashtag #DemocraticParty??


You'd think they'd have other, more pressing, matters on their mind tbh.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 4, 2016)

my dad is readying his cheap chinese air rifle for the battle to come. if you are outside a ten foot radius of his intended targets, watch your eyes.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 4, 2016)

I like the use of operationbeacon - harks back to the defence of the nation by stout yeomen and village militias


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> I like the use of operationbeacon - harks back to the defence of the nation by stout yeomen and village militias


I suspect we're dealing with other village types here.


----------



## gosub (Nov 4, 2016)

That


not-bono-ever said:


> If Parliament votes against Article 50, Operation Beacon will begin immediately to enforce Brexit
> 
> A rallying call for mass protests should things not go exit friendly.


Any idea who this shower are ? I notice the usually Magna Carta did she die in vain bolllocks, Freeman of the Land types?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

gosub said:


> That
> 
> Any idea who this shower are ? I notice the usually Magna Carta did she die in vain bolllocks, Freeman of the Land types?


i think they'll turn out to be a cabal of arsonists using the cover of brexit to wreak mayhem up and down the land, setting mps' homes on fire etc.


----------



## gosub (Nov 4, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> I like the use of operationbeacon - harks back to the defence of the nation by stout yeomen and village militias



If it polarises down to Blair, Toynbee on one side and Boris, Farage on the other.  Going to be a lot of Clubman.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 4, 2016)

it was only registered in September and the contact details are hidden on whois


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

gosub said:


> That
> 
> Any idea who this shower are ? I notice the usually Magna Carta did she die in vain bolllocks, Freeman of the Land types?


from the comments:


fucking loopy


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 4, 2016)

Constitution of the Democratic Party of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

ah fuck, they already have a constitution

they refer to themselves as DP - DP is more commonly known in pr0n circles as the unsavoury act of Double Penetration.

_"10. Party members will be allowed to report any alleged misconduct by other party members by submitting a written complaint to the National Organiser. In turn, the National Organiser will keep the Chairman appraised of all complaints and the resolution outcome. The decision of the party Chairman will be final in all complaints and internal disciplinary matters.
11. The DP will not accept membership applications from applicants with a proven history of involvement with Islamist or neo-Nazi organisations."_

Grasses welcome but no Nazis. Definitely no Nazis. A curiously specifc term to use.

My money is on some offshoot of BNP// fash - they are obviously not new to this and reveal nothing about themselves. ergo fash


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2016)

Going to the shop to stock up on tinned fish and candles.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> View attachment 94938



It's not going very well then


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 4, 2016)

I am sure an urban shock brigade of cycling vegetarian remainers will sort this blockade out sharpish


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It's not going very well then


R5 just said the 23 (northbound) is blocked.
Maybe they're starting there and then working clockwise around the capital?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2016)

Lights just flickered!
Just saying.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

brogdale said:


> R5 just said the 23 (northbound) is blocked.
> Maybe they're starting there and then working clockwise around the capital?


the 23? a23? m23? b23?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Lights just flickered!
> Just saying.


they're coming to get you


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> the 23? a23? m23? b23?


If it's the "a" we could be talking about the Merstham militia?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 4, 2016)

.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> from the comments:
> 
> View attachment 94935
> fucking loopy




4 times he saw you. FOUR


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> Caroline Stephens's CV, Stroud, MP candidate, UK Independence Party (UKIP)  - Democracy Club CVs
> 
> Der Fuhrer


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 4, 2016)

"Caroline Stephens (nee Hollas) was born in Bradford, West Yorkshire but has family links to Nottinghamshire dating back to the pre-Norman era, where her Anglo-Saxon ancestors held a seat in the county for centuries. Caroline wants to return to her ancestral roots by representing the people of Ashfield & Eastwood in Parliament. "

pre norman - now theres the bloodline we all want to have.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> .


i don't believe it


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2016)

Is this real? At the bottom it says that the Democratic Party is brought to you by the people who made the VoteLeave campaign. 

 

Brexit | Democratic Party


----------



## gosub (Nov 4, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> "Caroline Stephens (nee Hollas) was born in Bradford, West Yorkshire but has family links to Nottinghamshire dating back to the pre-Norman era, where her Anglo-Saxon ancestors held a seat in the county for centuries. Caroline wants to return to her ancestral roots by representing the people of Ashfield & Eastwood in Parliament. "
> 
> pre norman - now theres the bloodline we all want to have.


bloody blow ins.

Cymru am byth!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

gosub said:


> bloody blow ins.
> 
> Cymru am byth!


erin go bragh


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 4, 2016)

so - looks like we are gearing up for a really shit civil war between swivel eyed kipper types on one side and some  cleggy blair metropolitan liberal borg on the other.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> so - looks like we are gearing up for a really shit civil war between swivel eyed kipper types on one side and some  cleggy blair metropolitan liberal borg on the other.


*sets up deckchair, orders in pizza*


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2016)

Angry people

US sports anchor Gina Miller abused in Brexit mix up - BBC News

_A US sports presenter has been flooded with online abuse after being mistaken for Brexit campaigner Gina Miller.

Texas-based Gina Miller was initially bemused to be branded a traitor who had "ruined our democracy".

She said she received several hundreds of messages, including death threats, adding: "It was absolutely vitriolic"._


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> so - looks like we are gearing up for a really shit civil war between swivel eyed kipper types on one side and some  cleggy blair metropolitan liberal borg on the other.



I want to know where urban stands.

Actually, forget it, I don't...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I want to know where urban stands.
> 
> Actually, forget it, I don't...


Agin.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2016)

Brexit: UK's negotiators "do not know what they are doing" - BBC News


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 4, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I want to know where urban stands.
> 
> Actually, forget it, I don't...



we wait till they fight each other to a standstill - then seize power and get those people's tribunials rocking.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2016)

Biscuit means biscuit.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Brexit: UK's negotiators "do not know what they are doing" - BBC News



How could they?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Brexit: UK's negotiators "do not know what they are doing" - BBC News

No fucking surprise there, the clewless wankers


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2016)

In fact, if they did know what they were doing then they would be undermining democracy, it hasn't really been decided what they should be doing.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> In fact, if they did know what they were doing then they would be undermining democracy, it hasn't really been decided what they should be doing.



Clueless Irish minister accuses others of not having a clue shocker.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> How could they?


They don't know how to fucking negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag let alone the European union


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Clueless Irish minister accuses others of not having a clue shocker.



Why is she clueless? Apart from being in FG, obviously?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Clueless Irish minister accuses others of not having a clue shocker.


Yeh. but out of the mouths of fine gael wankstains emerges, occasionally, the truth


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> In fact, if they did know what they were doing then they would be undermining democracy, it hasn't really been decided what they should be doing.


I've tried using this line at work, but all that happens is that nobody ever makes a proper decision until the last minute, it's a really stupid one, and you get blamed for it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 4, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Why is she clueless? Apart from being in FG, obviously?



Her complaint is that people haven't a clue about that which the could not possibly have a clue about. Reckon she's been sniffing glue.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Her complaint is that people haven't a clue about that which the could not possibly have a clue about. Reckon she's been sniffing glue.



Ok, hmm. So, you've established the politicians don't have a clue. Do you think that all those who voted in a favour to leave were clued up?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2016)

the double penetration party seem like the sort of wankers who would be too busy burnishing the shield of st george to actually venture forth onto the field of battle. Very fotler. It is the unhappy lot of us lexiters to trudge wearily next to a clown car pointing at it and going 'these cunts are clueless' while nobody listens *violins*


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2016)

Maybe though, to be serious for a moment, this is the time when it would be really important for lexiters to somehow if possible get heard, to compete with the brass band of frothing hatemongering noise which is defining what brexit means even more now that it did even during the shitty campaigns. No idea how obviously but violins won't do it.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> Maybe though, to be serious for a moment, this is the time when it would be really important for lexiters to somehow if possible get heard, to compete with the brass band of frothing hatemongering noise which is defining what brexit means even more now that it did even during the shitty campaigns. No idea how obviously but violins won't do it.


 
We can't be heard for all the liberal noise - as even evidenced on this forum.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> Maybe though, to be serious for a moment, this is the time when it would be really important for lexiters to somehow if possible get heard, to compete with the brass band of frothing hatemongering noise which is defining what brexit means even more now that it did even during the shitty campaigns. No idea how obviously but violins won't do it.


That's the problem though, in the referendum there were good solid lexit reasons for voting out, but there never was anything other than a nominal lexit campaign.  There still isn't.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That's the problem though, in the referendum there were good solid lexit reasons for voting out, but there never was anything other than a nominal lexit campaign.  There still isn't.


Yeah. Total donations/ funding for 'all registered leave campaigners' was £8.2m
(slightly higher than the remain campaigners £7.5m). Not much of that was lexit money i'd guess.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2016)

Billy 'I am always wrong' Bragg backed staying. In between burning kids skateboards and rimming the queen.

but no, three campaigns, not one of them gave attention to a socialist case for exit. Because now socialism begins and ends with c-byn and the labour party *wanking gesture*


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yeah. Total donations/ funding for 'all registered leave campaigners' was £8.2m
> (slightly higher than the remain campaigners £7.5m). Not much of that was lexit money i'd guess.


Was anyone a registered lexit campaigner?


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Was anyone a registered lexit campaigner?


Registered? I don't know. One of the donors was 'Trade Unionists against the European Union', there must have been other people like that, but don't know about registered.


----------



## inva (Nov 4, 2016)

the left (or whatever tiny fragments of it supported a leave vote) is in no position to define or even influence the exit. I think what it should be doing is hearing what amounted to another warning over its irrelevance and political isolation. we should be admitting that it is madness to cling to institutions such as the EU (or the courts) to give us an illusion of significance and to hold back the 'reactionary hordes'. time and time again the left has had the opportunity to re evaluate the situation and our politics and maybe to re engage with working class people and each time the opportunity is spurned and the gulf seems to widen. and that's across leave and remain. I voted out but I've got no fantasy of a lexit - it'll be an anti working class exit just as remain was to be.

but I did feel cause for optimism from quite a number of conversations I had with people and some of the stuff on tv etc during the campaign. tbh if a progressive working class politics is to return to the stage I doubt I'd be looking towards the left for it.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2016)

inva said:


> the left (or whatever tiny fragments of it supported a leave vote) is in no position to define or even influence the exit. I think what it should be doing is hearing what amounted to another warning over its irrelevance and political isolation. we should be admitting that it is madness to cling to institutions such as the EU (or the courts) to give us an illusion of significance and to hold back the 'reactionary hordes'. time and time again the left has had the opportunity to re evaluate the situation and our politics and maybe to re engage with working class people and each time the opportunity is spurned and the gulf seems to widen. and that's across leave and remain. I voted out but I've got no fantasy of a lexit - it'll be an anti working class exit just as remain was to be.
> 
> but I did feel cause for optimism from quite a number of conversations I had with people and some of the stuff on tv etc during the campaign. tbh if a progressive working class politics is to return to the stage I doubt I'd be looking towards the left for it.



What or who would you be looking towards for it?


----------



## inva (Nov 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> What or who would you be looking towards for it?


the working class


----------



## gosub (Nov 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> Registered? I don't know. One of the donors was 'Trade Unionists against the European Union', there must have been other people like that, but don't know about registered.



They actually put out some really good material, actually had a local tory chairman clamouring for their leaflets.


----------



## gosub (Nov 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> Maybe though, to be serious for a moment, this is the time when it would be really important for lexiters to somehow if possible get heard, to compete with the brass band of frothing hatemongering noise which is defining what brexit means even more now that it did even during the shitty campaigns. No idea how obviously but violins won't do it.


Think you have to wait til after art 50 done,  that removes one set of morons from the equation.   And it will be signed, and those investing in blocking will be diminished currency.  Then is the time to counter  the other morons, and from what I can hear at the other end of the bar they really are morons. Parliamentary scrutiny is a MUST


----------



## Ray Purchase (Nov 5, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes, you're the toast of london



Sadly those heady days are long gone old chum.


----------



## Leftwinger1992 (Nov 5, 2016)

Some of the front pages headlines in yesterday's anti-EU press are bordering on hysterical. The Daily Mail has described these judges as "enemies of the people" while the Daily Express ran with the headline "We must get out of the EU" and accused the judges of blocking Brexit. This is simply not true as the judges are just implying the law. After all, we live in a country where the rule of law and parliament are two of the most important staples of our democracy, yet some of those advocating Brexit would rather both are bypassed and trigger article 50 in secret. That is fundamentally undemocratic and unconstitutional. Ironically by appealing the High Court ruling, it will be the government who slow down the process of Brexit.	  After all, we do live in a parliamentary democracy and surely that is how things are supposed to work?																																																							   Yes, a small majority of the British people voted out, but what about the 48% who voted remain? That is 16 million people and the considerable majority of Scottish people who wanted to stay in the EU. Do they not count? This was a result that was closer than the Scottish referendum and I think Theresa May should ensure a deal is secured that will best benefit the whole of Britain. To do this, I feel parliament must be consulted.  Let's remember, it was May herself who has talked about a Britain that works for everyone. There is scant evidence to support that statement to date.


----------



## gosub (Nov 5, 2016)

Leftwinger1992 said:


> Some of the front pages headlines in yesterday's anti-EU press are bordering on hysterical. The Daily Mail has described these judges as "enemies of the people" while the Daily Express ran with the headline "We must get out of the EU" and accused the judges of blocking Brexit. This is simply not true as the judges are just implying the law. After all, we live in a country where the rule of law and parliament are two of the most important staples of our democracy, yet some of those advocating Brexit would rather both are bypassed and trigger article 50 in secret. That is fundamentally undemocratic and unconstitutional. Ironically by appealing the High Court ruling, it will be the government who slow down the process of Brexit.	  After all, we do live in a parliamentary democracy and surely that is how things are supposed to work?																																																							   Yes, a small majority of the British people voted out, but what about the 48% who voted remain? That is 16 million people and the considerable majority of Scottish people who wanted to stay in the EU. Do they not count? This was a result that was closer than the Scottish referendum and I think Theresa May should ensure a deal is secured that will best benefit the whole of Britain. To do this, I feel parliament must be consulted.  Let's remember,eie it was May herself who has talked about a Britain that works for everyone. There is scant evidence to support that statement to date.



Without disagreeing, the new found respect of remainers for Parliamentary scrutiny is saccharine.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2016)

Any day now surely the people behind that Democratic Party website with its Operation Beacon, and the editorial team of the DM , will be handed 4 year sentences just like those young men were when they posted stuff on facebook inciting people to riot back in 2011


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2016)

PM urged to calm the backlash against Brexit ruling


> The prime minister has been asked by some senior MPs to "make clear" that the independence of the judiciary is a part of British democracy. Conservative MP Dominic Grieve said the criticisms over the High Court judges' decision were "horrifying" and reminded him of "Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe"


----------



## Poi E (Nov 5, 2016)

gosub said:


> Without disagreeing, the new found respect of remainers for Parliamentary scrutiny is saccharine.



Ahh, the sovereignty line. I'd forgotten that the ballot paper said "do you want a return to full U.K. parliamentary sovereignty, doffing your cap to Lords and being a subject of your Queen."


----------



## magneze (Nov 5, 2016)

Poi E said:


> Ahh, the sovereignty line. I'd forgotten that the ballot paper said "do you want a return to full U.K. parliamentary sovereignty, doffing your cap to Lords and being a subject of your Queen."


Yes, referendums on them next please?


----------



## Poi E (Nov 5, 2016)

magneze said:


> Yes, referendums on them next please?



Hahahahah. Did you not see the popularity of Downton Abbey? The country is in thrall to a return to coal scuttles and obeisance. You know, the good old days of rickets and pleurisy.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

Shut up and love legal judgments. And the legal system.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2016)

Poi E said:


> Hahahahah. Did you not see the popularity of Downton Abbey? The country is in thrall to a return to coal scuttles and obeisance. You know, the good old days of rickets and pleurisy.


I have seen people with rickets and people with pleurisy recently


----------



## magneze (Nov 5, 2016)

Poi E said:


> Hahahahah. Did you not see the popularity of Downton Abbey? The country is in thrall to a return to coal scuttles and obeisance. You know, the good old days of rickets and pleurisy.


I was trying to think of a response, but this post is too asinine, frankly.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 5, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I have seen people with rickets and people with pleurisy recently



Indeed.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 5, 2016)

magneze said:


> I was trying to think of a response, but this post is too asinine, frankly.



Just don't share the sense of optimism at the results of the Tory right shoring up its votes. It's as if people actually thought the referendum was about leaving or remaining in the EU.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2016)

Poi E said:


> Ahh, the sovereignty line. I'd forgotten that the ballot paper said "do you want a return to full U.K. parliamentary sovereignty, doffing your cap to Lords and being a subject of your Queen."


When in the past 64 years haven't we been subjects of the Queen?


----------



## chilango (Nov 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Shut up and love legal judgments. And the legal system.



....democracy, the constitution...parliament, judges, the queen...bleurgh.


----------



## chilango (Nov 5, 2016)

There's now a deluge of "you don't understand how democracy works" type sneering pouring out of liberal m/c remainer types.

Nice.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 5, 2016)

It's fucking grim isn't it. This is why no strong left case could even be made during the referendum. This liberal and reactionary shit that constantly passes itself off now as some sort of overwhelming voice of 'progresive left' is now ubiquitous in any attempted radical analysis. Ugh.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 5, 2016)

chilango said:


> There's now a deluge of "you don't understand how democracy works" type sneering pouring out of liberal m/c remainer types.
> 
> Nice.



You would think that the experience of, you know, the Leave vote would get people to at least change their tone


----------



## inva (Nov 5, 2016)

J Ed said:


> You would think that the experience of, you know, the Leave vote would get people to at least change their tone


wasn't the referendum result a triumph for the worldview of an island of reason and progressiveness in a sea of mindless reaction?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2016)

chilango said:


> ....democracy, the constitution...parliament, judges, the queen...bleurgh.


Quite, but there is the upside of seeing both sides of the tory civil war 'explain' these matters to each other. We've reached an interesting point when a former vermin Attorney General goes full-on Godwin's on MSM.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2016)

Guardian says that today Corbyn will make a speech saying “Thursday’s high court decision underlines the necessity that the prime minister brings the government’s negotiating terms for Brexit to parliament without delay.Labour accepts and respects the decision of the British people to leave the EU. But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament about the government’s plans.” 
If so that'll basically be a statement in support of the ruling isn't it.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2016)

bimble said:


> Guardian says that today Corbyn will make a speech saying “Thursday’s high court decision underlines the necessity that the prime minister brings the government’s negotiating terms for Brexit to parliament without delay.Labour accepts and respects the decision of the British people to leave the EU. But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament about the government’s plans.”
> If so that'll basically be a statement in support of the ruling isn't it.


Would be bizarre if his/their position wrt the ruling were anything other than accepting.


----------



## chilango (Nov 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Quite, but there is the upside of seeing both sides of the tory civil war 'explain' these matters to each other. We've reached an interesting point when a former vermin Attorney General goes full-on Godwin's on MSM.



Was he the one going on about the  _Völkischer_ _Beobachter_ on Radio 5?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 5, 2016)

Its notable that the biggest political issue in the country, one of fundamental importance and with huge potential repercussions cuts right across party lines. It has dvided the population almsot down the middle and provoking acrimony and rage all over. 
But Labour is sidelined -  can't politically position itself as the champion of "remain", despite the fact that most of it membership are very much remainers. -The tories are riven - with large chunks of its mps and grandees opposed to brexit - whilst its members are rabid outers.
meanwhile The lib dems and the gaurdian stand ready to save the country form itself via facebook.


----------



## chilango (Nov 5, 2016)

...admittedly there is some scant entertainment to be drawn from seeing echoes of Berlusconi's "Commie Judges" rants replayed here.

...but it's all a bit of a sideshow isn't it?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2016)

chilango said:


> Was he the one going on about the  _Völkischer_ _Beobachter_ on Radio 5?


Yep.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Its notable that the biggest political issue in the country, one of fundamental importance and with huge potential repercussions cuts right across party lines. Labour is sidelined -  can't politically position itself as the champion of "remain", despite the fact that most of it membership are very much remainers. -The tories are riven - with large chunks of its mps and grandees opposed to brexit - whilst its members are rabid outers.


It's talk like this that will shake Dwyer from his slumbers to come and dispense his no left/right trope again!


----------



## gosub (Nov 5, 2016)

Poi E said:


> Ahh, the sovereignty line. I'd forgotten that the ballot paper said "do you want a return to full U.K. parliamentary sovereignty, doffing your cap to Lords and being a subject of your Queen."


I think we on route for a two for one deal, out and with a reformed House of Lords 


or it further polarises down the lines of two forms of fascism and lurches towards becoming ungovernable.


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Would be bizarre if his/their position wrt the ruling were anything other than accepting.



Exactly. The ruling wasn't ever about whether the will of the people expressed by the electorate in the referendum has to be followed - both sides and the judges agree that the ref was only advisory/consultative and has no legal weight.

The ruling was about whether the government can make significant decisions like the one to invoke Art50 on its own by decree, or whether it has to consult Parliament.

I'm unable to get too worked up about the three judges' utterly predictable decision to re-affirm parliamentary soveriegnty.


----------



## gosub (Nov 5, 2016)

andysays said:


> Exactly. The ruling wasn't ever about whether the will of the people expressed by the electorate in the referendum has to be followed - both sides and the judges agree that the ref was only advisory/consultative and has no legal weight.
> 
> The ruling was about whether the government can make significant decisions like the one to invoke Art50 on its own by decree, or whether it has to consult Parliament.
> 
> I'm unable to get too worked up about the three judges' utterly predictable decision to re-affirm parliamentary soveriegnty.


I can get very worked up if its overturned though.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2016)

gosub said:


> I can get very worked up if its overturned though.


If it were it would still be 'the law of the land'.


----------



## andysays (Nov 5, 2016)

gosub said:


> I can get very worked up if its overturned though.



The legal ruling won't be overturned on the basis of the rejection of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, you can be sure of that.


----------



## gosub (Nov 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> If it were it would still be 'the law of the land'.



That sovereignty rests where the Executive and Supreme Court says it does (i.e. with them) and democratic scruitiny can go whistle - fuck that.


Using referendums the way May is trying to, is why they are now banned in Germany.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 5, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> But Labour is sidelined -  can't politically position itself as the champion of "remain", despite the fact that most of it membership are very much remainers. -The tories are riven


That's not my experience, as this Indie article also highlights:
Over half of Labour’s 'Leave' voters now say they would vote for other parties in a general election




			
				Indie said:
			
		

> More than half of Labour's supporters who voted to leave the European Union would now back other parties at a general election, according to a new poll.
> 
> Just 48% of Labour voters at last year's election who support Brexit will continue to support the party, the YouGov poll for The Times found.






			
				Indie said:
			
		

> Fellow Labour MP John Mann also said many Labour MPs' “shock” at the EU referendum result could be linked to a disconnect with working class voters.
> 
> Writing for Politics Home, Mr Mann said: “Any mathematician can quickly work out that in fact Labour areas were the strongest to vote Leave, and any well-organised party, sampling ballot boxes, will know that in Labour areas it was the Tory voters who tended to vote Remain and it was large blocks of Labour trade unionists who voted Leave.”


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2016)

gosub said:


> That sovereignty rests where the Executive and Supreme Court says it does (i.e. with them) and democratic scruitiny can go whistle - fuck that.
> 
> 
> Using referendums the way May is trying to, is why they are now banned in Germany.


Elective dictatorship is as elective dictatorship does.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2016)

The blockade of London has begun and it appears targeted to hit the remaniacs where it hurts. My local Tesco's, just now, where the croissants and baguettes usually are:


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 5, 2016)

Jesus.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2016)

If it's not even ok to take the piss out of 'Operation Beacon' for fear of being called a sneering liberal then i think we're properly fucked.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 5, 2016)

bimble said:


> If it's not even ok to take the piss out of 'Operation Beacon' for fear of being called a sneering liberal then i think we're properly fucked.



Just post something constructive. An analysis even. Not this constant vacuous shit.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Shut up and love legal judgments. And the legal system.


Fucking pathetic that posters that supposedly call themselves socialists are going along with this line.

I mean whatever your feelings about the referendum vote you don't have to grovel to the bloody shits that your supposed to be fighting against.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Fucking pathetic that posters that supposedly call themselves socialists are going along with this line.


Liberals gonna liberal


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2016)

bimble said:


> If it's not even ok to take the piss out of 'Operation Beacon' for fear of being called a sneering liberal then i think we're properly fucked.


Seems to me it's a bit late for you to start worrying about being called a liberal, sneering or otherwise


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2016)

bimble said:


> The blockade of London has begun and it appears targeted to hit the remaniacs where it hurts. My local Tesco's, just now, where the croissants and baguettes usually are:
> View attachment 94977


Other shops are available


----------



## chilango (Nov 5, 2016)

It is useful though, I guess, to further clarify the political and practical distinction between liberals and us*.

*meaning those of us I guess using more of a class based perspective. Regardless of what label we put on it, or not.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 5, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> That's not my experience, as this Indie article also highlights:
> Over half of Labour’s 'Leave' voters now say they would vote for other parties in a general election



I was referring to labour members - not voters. they are overwhelmingly remain. I have seen quite a few corbynites dismayed that labour is not leading to charge to vote against triggering article 50.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> I was referring to labour members - not voters. they are overwhelmingly remain. I have seen quite a few corbynites dismayed that labour is not leading to charge to vote against triggering article 50.


That's another internal front. And those members count less than those voters in labour's long term. Which is why Corbyn should have said he supported leaving the EU.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2016)

Is there a class based perspective on the Democratic Party and Operation Beacon ?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 5, 2016)

not sure about this "early election" talk either. FTPA is a bit of big hurdle for that - i think the briefings to journos on this front may be deliberately designed to pressure labour not to rock the aritcle 50 boat if they dont want to face a GE anytime soon.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> not sure about this "early election" talk either. FTPA is a bit of big hurdle for that - i think it may be deliberately designed to pressure labour not to rock the aritcle 50 boat if they dont want to face a GE anytime soon.


Quite. She's not going to be able to pull it off without Labour.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 5, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> I was referring to labour members - not voters. they are overwhelmingly remain. I have seen quite a few corbynites dismayed that labour is not leading to charge to vote against triggering article 50.



Yes, I realised that after I posted. Have you got any stats for Labour members (as opposed voters) that backed remain/leave? Be useful to see that breakdown. Apols if its already been posted previously.

That said, Labour membership has fundamentally shifted over 20-30 years, from mainly left wing and working class, to liberal centre and centre-right middle class, as Labour has itself  moved rightwards and economically liberal. So, not sure really on that front it tells us much tbh.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 5, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> not sure about this "early election" talk either. FTPA is a bit of big hurdle for that - i think the briefings to journos on this front may be deliberately designed to pressure labour not to rock the aritcle 50 boat if they dont want to face a GE anytime soon.


Well the Sleaford by-election isn't going to change anything ultimately, a Tory is going to get re-elected. Richmond is a little harder to call but I think Goldsmith will be returned, and while officially an independent, we all know he'll be a Tory in all but name. Despite the Guardian floating a reduced majority and so early election line I don't see it happening.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 5, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Yes, I realised that after I posted. Have you got any stats for Labour members (as opposed voters) that backed remain/leave? Be useful to see that breakdown. Apols if its already been posted previously.


From memory ~70% of Labour members backed remain.

EDIT: Actually that's wrong I think, it was 70% of Labour voters (however you define that) that backed remain. (63% according to this article, though they don't say how they define a labour voter)

And 90% of Labour members backed remain according to YouGov polling.


----------



## gosub (Nov 5, 2016)




----------



## stethoscope (Nov 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That's another internal front. And those members count less than those voters in labour's long term. Which is why Corbyn should have said he supported leaving the EU.



Yep, and this is why Labour are still nowhere on this. Corbyn might have used the opportunity to offer an alternative vision of exit, with strong pro-working class, socialist reasons as to why do so and re-connecting with Labour voters especially working class ones (lapsed members). Which we know of course he won't because the party is strongly composed of liberals and the economic right (those that actually wield the power and voice in the PLP) now that he'd be ousted. But in terms of long-term re-connecting with Labour voters/CLP level.


----------



## chilango (Nov 5, 2016)

bimble said:


> Is there a class based perspective on the Democratic Party and Operation Beacon ?



There's a class based perspective on Brexit. That's what matters.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2016)

It says here that at the labour party conference in September they voted yes to a motion that says they believe the door should be kept open for a second referendum on leaving the EU once the terms of exit are more defined etc. That idea, of another referendum, is not at all popular amongst the general public far as I know, so it would suggest that members are very predominantly remain.
Labour conference backs motion on holding second EU referendum


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 5, 2016)

90% see my edit above


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 5, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> 90% see my edit above



Ta. Which just shows for me the huge gulf between traditional Labour voters (and especially of those working class Labour) and where Labour is positioned and has been for years. And regardless of whether people voted remain or leave.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2016)

Meanwhile, between 60 and 70 % of Tory party members voted leave ?
Party members have swung slightly to Remain – but Leave still retains an overwhelming lead | Conservative Home


----------



## chilango (Nov 5, 2016)

Sorry, double post.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 5, 2016)

With regard to the tabloids reaction to the judge's decision this I feel needs to be shared far and wide:


----------



## chilango (Nov 5, 2016)

What?


----------



## seventh bullet (Nov 5, 2016)

At least he isn't laughing at 'chavs' today.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 5, 2016)

Oh please. I don't think I have ever laughed at 'chavs'.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2016)

I'm really curious to find out if other people are also surprised by the estimated 70% or so of Tory party members voting leave. Seems to me to complicate the received narrative.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 5, 2016)

chilango said:


> What?


British newspapers react to judges' Brexit ruling: 'Enemies of the people'







The pro-Brexit newspapers have finally lost touch with reality

So I would contend that the publications in the linked articles and in the graphic above act as a vehicle for forming opinion amongst their readership. Their tax affairs alone are enough to realise that they don't really particularly have the interests of the people of the UK at heart. So who are the real 'enemies of the people'?


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 5, 2016)

Thank heavens for the liberal 'progressive' Indie for pointing it all out then. We'd never know otherwise. Am I on urban anymore or some shit social media site?


----------



## teqniq (Nov 5, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Thank heavens for the liberal 'progressive' Indie for pointing it all out then. We'd never know otherwise. Am I on urban anymore or some shit social media site?


Most of the popular media publications have an agenda. I certainly don't agree with everything that the two I've linked to above have to say about a lot of stuff. The relentless campaign agains Corbyn as carried out by both of them being the most recent example. That doesn't make them wrong in this particular instance though.


----------



## inva (Nov 5, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Most of the popular media publications have an agenda. I certainly don't agree with everything that the two I've linked to above have to say about a lot of stuff. The relentless campaign agains Corbyn as carried out by both of them being the most recent example. That doesn't make them wrong in this particular instance though.


in the case of this fight between liberal & conservative factions of the right both sides are wrong


----------



## teqniq (Nov 5, 2016)

inva said:


> in the case of this fight between liberal & conservative factions of the right both sides are wrong


I think i see what you mean but would you care to elaborate?


----------



## chilango (Nov 5, 2016)

teqniq said:


> British newspapers react to judges' Brexit ruling: 'Enemies of the people'
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm happy enough with them being described as "enemies of the people", but then I wasn't unhappy seeing the judiciary described thus either.

However I would take serious issue with the term "illiberal elite" and the idea that they're "fuelling fascism".


----------



## Anju (Nov 5, 2016)

It will be interesting to see how much happens on 23rd November.  Looks like brexit supporters want a march in London but also for people UK wide to do their own thing.  Only a couple of thousand interested but a lot of time before 23rd.



Study mapping referendum demographics to GE vote.  If correct we are truly screwed.  

Anti-Brexit parties would win 150 fewer seats than pro-Leave parties at a general election, analysis suggests

Not sure where the positives are. 

Tories victorious and quite  possibly in a position to gain a much bigger majority in parliament.

"Working class" votes going to the Tories and UKIP.  

Hateful rhetoric escalating to the point where I fear violence is going to erupt and some of it will be directed against people.  

Those on the left who may have had decent reasons  for voting leave continue to sit back and make vague statements about the working class rescuing the situation but with no clue as to how this could be achieved.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 5, 2016)

Oh yeah, its for us left leavers to do something - those of us with little power politically. Perhaps you could hold Labour to account on this, whilst I suspect carry on voting for them regardless.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 5, 2016)

chilango said:


> I'm happy enough with them being described as "enemies of the people", but then I wasn't unhappy seeing the judiciary described thus either.
> 
> However I would take serious issue with the term "illiberal elite" and the idea that they're "fuelling fascism".


Yup ok fair point. I have edited the graphic (it wasn't mine in the first place). Leave people to draw their own conclusions.


----------



## chilango (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> It will be interesting to see how much happens on 23rd November.  Looks like brexit supporters want a march in London but also for people UK wide to do their own thing.  Only a couple of thousand interested but a lot of time before 23rd.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't think anybody is "making vague statements about the working class rescuing the situation."

Rather that, just perhaps, we don't have any real interest in this situation being rescued...


----------



## inva (Nov 5, 2016)

teqniq said:


> I think i see what you mean but would you care to elaborate?


sure. I have no sympathy with the agenda behind anti elite posturing of pro brexit press or the law & order and 'mob rule' rhetoric of the liberal press


----------



## ska invita (Nov 5, 2016)

chilango said:


> ....democracy, the constitution...parliament, judges, the queen...bleurgh.


This is a thread about the Brexit Process...it was always going to be about these things, and will inevitably continue to be so.
Good time to be a constitutional lawyer


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

ska invita said:


> This is a thread about the Brexit Process...it was always going to be about these things, and will inevitably continue to be so.
> Good time to be a constitutional lawyer


Does this have to make everyone a lawyer? Isn't the whole point not to be a fucking lawyer?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2016)

chilango said:


> There's a class based perspective on Brexit. That's what matters.


I agree, but I also think the moment has passed. If there was a time for a working class (lexit) voice it was during the referendum. It was always going to be difficult establishing that alongside the other groups calling for brexit, most of which were nationalistic or even racist - ukip, tory right etc.  Where we are now is going to play out as a harrumphing conversation about sovereignty and the constitution, with staggering levels of hypocrisy on both sides.  But underneath all that is really the weakness of organised working class politics.  Labour under corbyn didn't managed to deliver either a working class voice or politics around Brexit.  I suspect he was probably being honest when he said he'd reached a remain conclusion and saw that as in the best interests of 'working people' or somesuch, but that was all still a universe away from engaging with the real alienation working class voters felt towards the whole political class.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I agree, but I also think the moment has passed. If there was a time for a working class (lexit) voice it was during the referendum. It was always going to be difficult establishing that alongside the other groups calling for brexit, most of which were nationalistic or even racist - ukip, tory right etc.  Where we are now is going to play out as a harrumphing conversation about sovereignty and the constitution, with staggering levels of hypocrisy on both sides.  But underneath all that is really the weakness of organised working class politics.  Labour under corbyn didn't managed to deliver either a working class voice or politics around Brexit.  I suspect he was probably being honest when he said he'd reached a remain conclusion and saw that as in the best interests of 'working people' or somesuch, but that was all still a universe away from engaging with the real alienation working class voters felt towards the whole political class.


It was the left remainers that snuffed that voice out - not the right leavers. The rest i don't disagree with.


----------



## Anju (Nov 5, 2016)

chilango said:


> I don't think anybody is "making vague statements about the working class rescuing the situation."
> 
> Rather that, just perhaps, we don't have any real interest in this situation being rescued...



But that means accepting a more extreme Tory government potentially with an increased majority, escalating of hateful rhetoric in the media and on social media, as well as  leaving people totally at  the mercy of a type of capitalism devoid of any notion of  reciprocal benefit.

The 'establishment' have even managed to engineer anti establishment sentiment that benefits them. They are winning.

Relying on things becoming so desperate that people rise up and demand a better deal seems a bit fanciful. 

This is  the type of thing the working class are facing now.  International business controlling workers in multiple countries. We will be fighting each other not those in control.

Meet Coople: The 'gig-economy' app that's like Uber for short-term staffing


----------



## chilango (Nov 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It was the left remainers that snuffed that voice out - not the right leavers. The rest i don't disagree with.



I don't think the voice was snuffed out.

It was never strong enough. Sadly, I don't think more than a handful of people were ever really making a serious "lexit" case.

But had it been, I'm sure both right leavers and left remainders would indeed have done their best to shut it up.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> *It was the left remainers that snuffed that voice out* - not the right leavers. The rest i don't disagree with.


 I agree, even on urban you could see that process happening. The left reminers established themselves as the 'progressive voice', stressed workers protection, defined free movement as a workers issue, all embodied in the EU etc.  I think though the lexit argument never had a sufficient organisational base to insert itself into the debate. Part of that was the right's dominance in the official Brexit movement, but also the weakness of lexit as a significant working class movement.


----------



## chilango (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> Relying on things becoming so desperate that people rise up and demand a better deal seems a bit fanciful.



I'm not.

That's not what I meant.


----------



## Anju (Nov 5, 2016)

chilango said:


> I'm not.
> 
> That's not what I meant.



OK. If  you feel inclined  to explain I would be interested to  know what you did mean.


----------



## chilango (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> OK. If  you feel inclined  to explain I would be interested to  know what you did mean.



I meant more that we have no interest in rescuing the EU (or Brexit frankly, or parliamentary prerogative or judicial reputation or any of the shit that the talking heads are getting worked up over).

None of the options on the table are in our benefit.


----------



## isvicthere? (Nov 5, 2016)

chilango said:


> I meant more that we have no interest in rescuing the EU (or Brexit frankly, or parliamentary prerogative or judicial reputation or any of the shit that the talking heads are getting worked up over).
> 
> None of the options on the table are in our benefit.



Indeed, the hot button issues are whether England and Scotland should wear poppies next Friday, and BBC1 reintroducing the national anthem at the end of transmission.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 5, 2016)

I bet this woman voted leave!


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 5, 2016)

An example of precisely what some of us have been talking about.


----------



## Anju (Nov 5, 2016)

chilango said:


> I meant more that we have no interest in rescuing the EU (or Brexit frankly, or parliamentary prerogative or judicial reputation or any of the shit that the talking heads are getting worked up over).
> 
> None of the options on the table are in our benefit.



Thanks.

That is fair enough but I am not concerned with institutions. They will exist in one form or another whatever the political situation is. I was more concerned with the impact  on ordinary  people and that is directly affected by who is in charge of whichever institutions exist.

If you look at the framework Thatcher set up and the seemingly irreversible  damage that has done over the years and then look at the situation we are in now, the power brexit has given our current government. They are using different criteria to manipulate people but the end result will be the same, irreversible damage to the few things we have left that make life bearable. All done in the name of and supported by British people.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> If you look at the framework Thatcher set up and the seemingly irreversible  damage that has done over the years and then look at the situation we are in now, the power brexit has given our current government. They are using different criteria to manipulate people but the end result will be the same, irreversible damage to the few things we have left that make life bearable. All done in the name of and supported by British people.



And carried on by successive Labour governments too. Ironically, some of the core principles of today's EU: of improving markets, making them more competitive, opening them up to privatisation, and intervention to reform member labour markets, the EU is actually continuing Thatcher's neoliberal vision. Hence my comment earlier in the thread - _the superstate is not for turning_.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2016)

This is what Corbyn did today, called for transparency in the brexit negotiations. Can't help feeling this could be a great moment for him to do a bit more but not sure what. 
Jeremy Corbyn calls for more transparency over Brexit plan - BBC News


----------



## ska invita (Nov 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Does this have to make everyone a lawyer? Isn't the whole point not to be a fucking lawyer?



its moments like brexit that all of a sudden i find myself learning how parliament works...not something ive ever been taught.
i tuned into Daily Politics yesterday for the first time in a long time to see what was being said and what i did find interesting was the number of people who could speak the constitutional talk and had strong contradictory opinions about all this.

In a way its one of those areas that divides normal people away from the political elite - the mechanisms of power too specialist and complicated for the layperson. In response to that my attitude is to want to engage with it, learn about it, understand it better, have a better understanding of where the mechanisms are in the state for exerting undemocratic power, and so on. like i said, inevitably on this thread about Process thats what much of that chat is going to be about.


bimble said:


> Is Jeremy Corbyn busy on his allotment or something? The government is in turmoil, people are calling for civil war, hatred being whipped up enthusiastically on all sides, might be a good time to get involved even if it is the weekend.


i think he was in Colombia yesterday (ETA; he met with the Colombian president, probably not in Colombia - go that wrong) ... agree though...he has a tendency of ignoring the news cycle.


----------



## Anju (Nov 5, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> And carried on by successive Labour governments too. Ironically, some of the core principles of today's EU: of improving markets, making them more competitive, opening them up to privatisation, and intervention to reform member labour markets, the EU is actually continuing Thatcher's neoliberal vision. Hence my comment earlier in the thread - _the superstate is not for turning_.



The EU also wants member states to achieve economic parity, has member states with some of the fairest societies in the world and is aware  of its neoliberal status.  I have never seen anything from our governments of recent years explicitly mentioning neo liberalism but the EU does address this and acknowledge the  problems of neoliberal economics and globalization.

I do see some of the negative aspects of the EU but if your view is that the EU is bad and unchangeable you should be working towards achieving a  situation that is better. At the moment left leavers seem happy to tag along with the  entirely shitty deal we are getting now, hoping it will somehow morph into something closer to  their vision. To use a phrase I hate, not going to happen.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2016)

ska invita you got me before i edited to appear slightly more reasoned and informed.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> The EU also wants member states to achieve economic parity, has member states with some of the fairest societies in the world and is aware  of its neoliberal status.  I have never seen anything from our governments of recent years explicitly mentioning neo liberalism but the EU does address this and acknowledge the  problems of neoliberal economics and globalization..



Where?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

It says it's bad whilst doing it. 

I like it saying its bad.

You're a racist.


----------



## Anju (Nov 5, 2016)

bimble said:


> This is what Corbyn did today, called for transparency in the brexit negotiations. Can't help feeling this could be a great moment for him to do a bit more but not sure what.
> Jeremy Corbyn calls for more transparency over Brexit plan - BBC News



Lots  of people now seem to be looking to Keir Starmer for hope.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> Lots  of people now seem to be looking to Keir Starmer for hope.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 5, 2016)

bimble said:


> ska invita you got me before i edited to appear slightly more reasoned and informed.


 nevermind eh.
anyhow labour are properly screwed over Brexit. One thing the debate in the house (if it happens) will show up in detail, speaker by speaker, is just how screwed labour are! What are they going to push for on something that has divided labour voters down the middle? Lose-lose situation by their calculations at this stage. 
No wonder Corbyn is reduced to muttering vague phrases from a distance...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> Lots  of people now seem to be looking to Keir Starmer for hope.


Nope.


----------



## hot air baboon (Nov 5, 2016)

Paul Mason: How the left should respond to Brexit

interesting read - its all quite simple apparently - just come up with a platform that can win back voters who have defected both to the the Greens _*AND *_UKIP whilst :

_...staying inside the single market, while seeking a deal on free movement...._


----------



## Anju (Nov 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Where?



I just had a look but can't find the document I was reading. It was an EU paper on the effects of 2008 crash and how globalisation and neoliberal economics had been initial cause and reason  for the scope and speed of collapse.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> I just had a look but can't find the document I was reading. It was an EU paper on the effects of 2008 crash and how globalisation and neoliberal economics had been initial cause and reason  for the scope and speed of collapse.


That's great then. Thanks. Obviously this is the EU's policy then. Something is. Or something. That you saw.


----------



## Anju (Nov 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Nope.



Not saying  that is good or bad but it is what is happening.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> Not saying  that is good or bad but it is what is happening.


I'm not saying it's good or bad, merely ludicrous. Hope of what, exactly?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> Lots  of people now seem to be looking to Keir Starmer for hope.


had to google him,(Labour’s Brexit spokesman) but supposedly he's Britains Last Remaining Hope Keir Starmer: Britain’s last Remaining hope
""
In the most comprehensive explanation of his position on Brexit to date, Starmer told POLITICO that Britain’s membership of the single market will have to “lapse,” that Labour will push for “the fullest possible” tariff-free access to European markets, and that any new deal with Brussels will require Westminster to have some control over who comes to work in the U.K.

Setting a course at odds with his leader, Starmer argued that immigration has been too high and said Labour must support “some change to the way freedom of movement rules operate” as part of the Brexit negotiations.

Starmer is also open to the U.K. leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice — the prime minister’s core demand — as long as another body is established to settle disputes between Britain and the EU.

In all, it suggests Labour is flexible on the practicalities of Brexit, but only within certain red lines, which the party is not prepared to cross. “If she’s out, out, out then there’s no compromise,” Starmer insisted. A total, clean break from the EU, its single market and customs union is not acceptable to him. If May does not compromise, Starmer said he sees no possibility of consensus."


----------



## Anju (Nov 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That's great then. Thanks. Obviously this is the EU's policy then. Something is. Or something. That you saw.




http://statewatch.org/news/2015/mar/ep-study-cris-fr.pdf


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> http://statewatch.org/news/2015/mar/ep-study-cris-fr.pdf


What is this you've linked to - and why?


----------



## Anju (Nov 5, 2016)

ska invita said:


> had to google him,(Labour’s Brexit spokesman) but supposedly he's Britains Last Remaining Hope Keir Starmer: Britain’s last Remaining hope
> ""
> In the most comprehensive explanation of his position on Brexit to date, Starmer told POLITICO that Britain’s membership of the single market will have to “lapse,” that Labour will push for “the fullest possible” tariff-free access to European markets, and that any new deal with Brussels will require Westminster to have some control over who comes to work in the U.K.
> 
> ...



I also had to Google him.

I only became aware  of his existence after seeing him mentioned  in some Facebook posts as a possible future leader.


----------



## Anju (Nov 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What is this you've linked to - and why?



It is the document I mentioned.  I found it for you as you seemed disappointed that I only provided a short description.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> It is the document I mentioned.  I found it for you as you seemed disappointed that I only provided a short description.


That's not from the eu. It's from a pretty anti eu group.


----------



## Anju (Nov 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That's not from the eu. It's from a pretty anti eu group.



Try going off more than the link address. 

I am just making the point that the EU is a better place to be than an isolated UK with a Tory  government, no viable opposition and the possibility  of a snap election that could give us a Tory and UKIP dominated parliament.  All backed up by a shameless right wing media.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> Try going off more than the link address.
> 
> I am just making the point that the EU is a better place to be than an isolated UK with a Tory  government, no viable opposition and the possibility  of a snap election that could give us a Tory and UKIP dominated parliament.  All backed up by a shameless right wing media.


Borish johnson nailed on as PM.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> Paul Mason: How the left should respond to Brexit
> 
> interesting read - its all quite simple apparently - just come up with a platform that can win back voters who have defected both to the the Greens _*AND *_UKIP whilst :
> 
> _...staying inside the single market, while seeking a deal on free movement...._


That had a very _commentariat_ feel about it.  Class flits in and out as some kind of floating, changing thing, that bits of the elite might want to ally with.  Owen Jones on weak steroids.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> Try going off more than the link address.
> 
> I am just making the point that the EU is a better place to be than an isolated UK with a Tory  government, no viable opposition and the possibility  of a snap election that could give us a Tory and UKIP dominated parliament.  All backed up by a shameless right wing media.


The document, where does it say what you said it does?


----------



## Anju (Nov 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Borish johnson nailed on as PM.



For that we would need someone to make a reply version to 'things  can only get better' for him to walk out of no. 10 to when making his inaugural  speech.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

Wilf said:


> That had a very _commentariat_ feel about it.  Class flits in and out as some kind of floating, changing thing, that bits of the elite might want to ally with.  Owen Jones on weak steroids.


Class is gone in mason's view. It existed through unions and rep bodies. It doesn't do that now. It doesn't exist any more.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> For that we would need someone to make a reply version to 'things  can only get better' for him to walk out of no. 10 to when making his inaugural  speech.


Or a list of remain cocks were were sure this was the 100% outcome.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Or a list of remain cocks were were sure this was the 100% outcome.


That a 100% long list.


----------



## Anju (Nov 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> The document, where does it say what you said it does?



I don't remember. It is 200 odd pages long and I skimmed about 150 pages.  The only thing I came away thinking was that at least neoliberal globalist economics was being discussed as potentially problematic.

I guess this is  not something that will make you reconsider you position. I just think it is evidence that the EU might be a safer place for people in Britain than under, and we will be under, the stewardship of TM and her little gang.


----------



## Anju (Nov 5, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Or a list of remain cocks were were sure this was the 100% outcome.



Only the names have changed. Murdoch must like May.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 5, 2016)

ska invita said:


> This is a thread about the Brexit Process...it was always going to be about these things, and will inevitably continue to be so.
> Good time to be a constitutional lawyer


You can talk about such things (and how they might be used in the playing of the the situation) without going dreamy-eyed overt them. There's plenty of discussion/analysis of electoral politics on here by people that would quite gladly see 90+% of the HoC hanged.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> http://statewatch.org/news/2015/mar/ep-study-cris-fr.pdf


The term liberalism doesn't appear in the document and the only time 'globalisation' is used is on an into of p18 and in reference titles. 

This is the first bullet point in the summary of recommendations


> General recommendations are aimed at ensuring that spending cuts are based on detailed evaluation of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and added value of public expenditure, while the European Parliament is invited to continue insisting on the establishment of clear, transparent and binding rules of procedure for the interaction between the institutions within the Troika.


So a general acceptance of spending cuts


----------



## brogdale (Nov 5, 2016)

Anju said:


> I just think it is evidence that the EU might be a safer place for people in Britain than under, and we will be under, the stewardship of TM and her little gang.


Which is all very well and good if you believe that the institutions claiming to be running things are actually doing that.


----------



## gosub (Nov 5, 2016)

No ‘blank cheque’ over triggering Article 50, top Labour and Lib Dem peers tell Theresa May



(edited.  Linked to directly rather than through 3rd party)


----------



## Poi E (Nov 5, 2016)

gosub said:


> http://flip.it/EImyMY



Reform of the HoL suddenly goes up the agenda.


----------



## gosub (Nov 5, 2016)

Poi E said:


> Reform of the HoL suddenly goes up the agenda.


Not before time, needs sorting.  The sort term work around is same as a century ago threat of 1000 Lords overnight, even got a WMD version  Lord Farage of Pub anyone..?


----------



## gosub (Nov 6, 2016)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/06/why-the-brexit-judges-were-right-article-50


----------



## coley (Nov 6, 2016)

Anju said:


> I don't remember. It is 200 odd pages long and I skimmed about 150 pages.  The only thing I came away thinking was that at least neoliberal globalist economics was being discussed as potentially problematic.
> 
> I guess this is  not something that will make you reconsider you position. I just think it is evidence that the EU might be a safer place for people in Britain than under, and we will be under, the stewardship of TM and her little gang.



"The '*four* freedoms' of the *European Union* are the freedom of movement of goods, people, services and capital over borders"

Aye, have a serious good look at it, the EU, the ultimate neoliberal/ right wing 'wet dream' 

The 'freedom' to import cheap labour, the freedom to import 'materials' produced by labour not considered economically worthy of 'being here'
'Corporate  and Capital tax evasion' an increasingly unelected legislative apparatus? I could go on a length but better  minds than mine have raised these points time and time again.


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 6, 2016)

coley said:


> The 'freedom' to import cheap labour, the freedom to import 'materials' produced by labour not considered economically worthy of 'being here'
> 'Corporate  and Capital tax evasion' an increasingly unelected legislative apparatus? I could go on a length but better  minds than mine have raised these points time and time again.



sounds like a Tory Manifesto and with the latest public vote we can enjoy thous fuckers for another 10 years...


nothing in the 6 months has offered an alternative


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 6, 2016)

chilango said:


> I don't think the voice was snuffed out.
> 
> It was never strong enough. Sadly, I don't think more than a handful of people were ever really making a serious "lexit" case.
> 
> But had it been, I'm sure both right leavers and left remainders would indeed have done their best to shut it up.



It wasn't the strongest voice, but I saw the Lexit case made on here and elsewhere very convincingly. I was definitely a lot more anti-EU at the end of the campaign than at the start of it.

But what I didn't see a strong argument for was how exactly how a Brexit negotiated for and implemented by the Conservative Party could be a Lexit or something any better than how things are now - I don't see how that could even be possible, it's like expecting food to pass through someone's digestive system and out their rectum and not be shit.

A big part of the Lexit argument seemed to be "let's get rid of the EU's neoliberalism now and then deal with it in the UK" - but how is that going to happen any time soon with an electorate that saw 5 years of austerity etc. under a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition and decided to give the Conservatives a majority? It's like the Australian referendum on the monarchy - a lot of people voted to keep it not because they loved the Queen, but because they had no faith in any change delivered by the government of the time being an improvement.

All that I could see happening with a Brexit win was things carrying on much the same as they were before, but with Conservative policies becoming more entrenched, society becoming that little bit shittier in general, and a lot of working class people losing their jobs or being pushed into poverty by the economy going downhill.

Britain is almost certainly going to leave the EU - and it might even be for the best, sooner or later - but having the process taken out of the hands of Theresa May and her cronies and filtered through Parliament, the judiciary, etc. is probably going to be a good thing, even for Lexiters.


----------



## gosub (Nov 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> Guardian says that today Corbyn will make a speech saying “Thursday’s high court decision underlines the necessity that the prime minister brings the government’s negotiating terms for Brexit to parliament without delay.Labour accepts and respects the decision of the British people to leave the EU. But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament about the government’s plans.”
> If so that'll basically be a statement in support of the ruling isn't it.


Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit ultimatum to Theresa May


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2016)

Interesting. So he's saying it's vital the UK retains access to the single market and makes no mention of free movement / immigration.
Not clear to me what  "Pledges on Britain picking up the tab for any EU capital investment lost by Brexit" might actually mean.
The independant translates this into "Labour could block brexit" headline and the DM goes with "I will only accept Brexit on MY terms says Corbyn".


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2016)

> *Jeremy Corbyn: Labour will block article 50 if demands not met*


Which kind of implies that he's under the impression that Labour (as a unified Parliamentary party!) could effect such an outcome.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Which kind of implies that he's under the impression that Labour (as a unified Parliamentary party!) could effect such an outcome.



Quite - what realistically does he think that he and Labour can do in that regard?! Besides we all know that Labour will demand 'some concessions' and then still support whatever capital wants.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Quite - what realistically does he think that he and Labour can do in that regard?! Besides we all know that Labour will demand 'some concessions' and then still support whatever capital wants.


Yep, May knows she's got 172 who will do her bidding just to cast Corbyn as the anti-(Brexit)-christ.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 6, 2016)

labour are fucked whatever they do though. to try and block brexit would leave them wide open for a UKIP assault in their heartlands. If they support brexit half of their mps, most of their membership and big chunk of their voters will go ape. Which leaves trying to ride both horses at once as the only politically viable option - but its still a really shit option.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2016)

What's he saying all this for then, if it is an impossibility or likely all round disaster for him to actually act on it, is it to please the labour membership ? Confused.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 6, 2016)

Farage continues to shit stir for all he's worth.

An angry Nigel Farage is urging Brexiters to 'get even' after legal judgment


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Which kind of implies that he's under the impression that Labour (as a unified Parliamentary party!) could effect such an outcome.



In typical Guardian stylee, the headline exaggerates/distorts what the story below it actually says


> The opposition will join forces with Conservative remain supporters and other parties to block article 50 if the prime minister does not guarantee access to the single market, the Labour leader told the Sunday Mirror.



I'm not a Corbyn/Labour supporter, but even if the idea that they can influence the negotiating terms in this way is a bit fanciful, the logic of Corbyn's position surely suggests he trys something along these lines.

The only other realistic option would be to admit that he and the party he leads are an impotent irrelevance on this issue at this point, and however true this might be, he's hardly likely to come out and say it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Farage continues to shit stir for all he's worth.
> 
> An angry Nigel Farage is urging Brexiters to 'get even' after legal judgment


ugh:


> "This is about creating legal certainty and actually, everyone in the country should be my biggest fan because I've used my own money and a few of us we have used our own money to create legal certainty for Mrs May to move ahead."


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2016)

If 'guaranteed access to the single market' means that free movement has to continue then it kind of looks like Corbyn's just done the Tory party a massive favour, positioning himself so as to draw all the ire of people who voted out because of their feelings about immigration control.
eg)


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Which kind of implies that he's under the impression that Labour (as a unified Parliamentary party!) could effect such an outcome.


I think that as the population have spoken, that *any* MP that votes against their constituents wishes should be voted out at the next general election.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 6, 2016)

andysays said:


> I'm not a Corbyn/Labour supporter, but even if the idea that they can influence the negotiating terms in this way is a bit fanciful, the logic of Corbyn's position surely suggests he trys something along these lines.



I'm not sure why you think this is fanciful. If Labour or another party were to propose an amendment forcing the government to prioritise membership of the single market in negotiations, is seems like simple HoC maths that it would probably pass. It would also cause big internal problems for the Tories. Corbyn doesn't get the full force of the blame if May is forced to pull her punches over it - she would have let it happen.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 6, 2016)

Looks like whatever Corbyn was mooting has been quashed anyway...



			
				Grauniad said:
			
		

> Labour will not block the triggering of article 50, the formal process for leaving the European Union, and will instead seek to put pressure on Theresa May to bring more detailed negotiating terms to the House of Commons, Jeremy Corbyn’s allies have said.
> 
> The Labour leader appeared to suggest in an interview with the Sunday Mirror that his party would be prepared to vote against the government invoking article 50 unless Theresa May signed up to his Brexit “red lines”, including pressing for full access to the EU single market and safeguarding workers’ rights.
> 
> ...


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2016)

Raheem said:


> I'm not sure why you think this is fanciful. If Labour or another party were to propose an amendment forcing the government to prioritise membership of the single market in negotiations, is seems like simple HoC maths that it would probably pass. It would also cause big internal problems for the Tories. Corbyn doesn't get the full force of the blame if May is forced to pull her punches over it - she would have let it happen.



I didn't say it *was* fanciful, I said *even if *the idea that they can influence the negotiating terms in this way is a bit fanciful, but if you think it seems like simple HoC maths that a Labour (or any) amendment of the type you propose would probably pass, I for one would be interested to see some argument and some figures to back that up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2016)

bimble said:


> If 'guaranteed access to the single market' means that free movement has to continue then it kind of looks like Corbyn's just done the Tory party a massive favour, positioning himself so as to draw all the ire of people who voted out because of their feelings about immigration control.
> eg)  View attachment 95047


This is the biggest danger at the moment, imo, that the UKIP version of what 'brexit means brexit' means will drive negotiations - anything that doesn't end free movement of people and goods across the EU (particularly people) is not true brexit. Neither of these things was on the ballot paper. Neither is a necessary condition of leaving the EU. One or other is probably something a majority of brexit voters do want, but that doesn't make it a majority opinion among everyone.


----------



## Anju (Nov 6, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> The term liberalism doesn't appear in the document and the only time 'globalisation' is used is on an into of p18 and in reference titles.
> 
> This is the first bullet point in the summary of recommendations
> So a general acceptance of spending cuts



Sorry, wrong doc. I have looked this morning but can't find the one I referred  to.


----------



## Anju (Nov 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Which is all very well and good if you believe that the institutions claiming to be running things are actually doing that.



True, but if you look at how easily Nissan managed  to get strong enough assurances from the government on their post brexit position to OK new investment it looks like we will be more susceptible  to being manipulated by corporations.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2016)

Anju said:


> True, but if you look at how easily Nissan managed  to get strong enough assurances from the government on their post brexit position to OK new investment it looks like we will be more susceptible  to being manipulated by corporations.


more susceptible than...


----------



## Anju (Nov 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> more susceptible than...



Than the EU.  Two meetings over a couple of weeks was all it took for Nissan to get assurances that they would not suffer any additional costs or admin.  Seems like a good indication  of how the brexit process will be handled. Politicians and business making deals on how to divide what will almost inevitably  be a smaller pie.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 6, 2016)

Anju said:


> Than the EU.  Two meetings over a couple of weeks was all it took for Nissan to get assurances that they would not suffer any additional costs or admin.  Seems like a good indication  of how the brexit process will be handled. Politicians and business making deals on how to divide what will almost inevitably  be a smaller pie.



I wouldn't read too much into the Nissan deal without knowing what it is they got. It might have been our balls on a plate for all eternity. But they might not have been serious about upping sticks. It wouldn't really have made sense pre-Brexit. In which case, they were just being opportunistic, and may have settled for much less.

Your main point is right in principle, though. The main effect of Brexit would be to make the UK significantly less able to resist the demands of capital.


----------



## pocketscience (Nov 6, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Your main point is right in principle, though. The main effect of Brexit would be to make the UK significantly less able to resist the demands of capital.


Like Greece is...?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2016)

Anju said:


> Than the EU.  Two meetings over a couple of weeks was all it took for Nissan to get assurances that they would not suffer any additional costs or admin.  Seems like a good indication  of how the brexit process will be handled. Politicians and business making deals on how to divide what will almost inevitably  be a smaller pie.


no, do you mean there has been an increase in the susceptibility of the government to corporations?


----------



## Raheem (Nov 6, 2016)

pocketscience said:


> Like Greece is...?



No, like Greece would be, not that the two situations are all that comparable.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> labour are fucked whatever they do though. to try and block brexit would leave them wide open for a UKIP assault in their heartlands. If they support brexit half of their mps, most of their membership and big chunk of their voters will go ape. Which leaves trying to ride both horses at once as the only politically viable option - but its still a really shit option.


An option effected through the leader and deputy leader offering diametrically opposed interpretations of the party's policy. Kind of genius.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> no, do you mean there has been an increase in the susceptibility of the government to corporations?


As the current government is generally pro-corporate this is hard to judge. However I'd say that brexit, or the threat thereof, definitely means that this government is _freer_ to be susceptible.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 6, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> As the current government is generally pro-corporate this is hard to judge. However I'd say that brexit, or the threat thereof, definitely means that this government is _freer_ to be susceptible.


I think that's the reasoning behind global capital's assault on supra-national groupings; they (the globalised, financialised corporations) can exert their hegemony over 'sovereign' nation states without the inconvenience or impediment arising from another, bigger level of governance. It isn't for no reason that Trump keeps on about Brexit; it's all of a piece with his anti-NAFTA narrative. Capital wants to fully let rip now and the corporatists have seen their moment.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I think that's the reasoning behind global capital's assault on supra-national groupings; they (the globalised, financialised corporations) can exert their hegemony over 'sovereign' nation states without the inconvenience or impediment arising from another, bigger level of governance. It isn't for no reason that Trump keeps on about Brexit; it's all of a piece with his anti-NAFTA narrative. Capital wants to fully let rip now.


It reflects the assault on unions on a more micro scale. Collective bargaining is dangerous when it's your opponents doing it. Many aspects of the EU have proved to be frustrating to the interests of both local and multinational capitalists, despite the overall "pro-business" thrust.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the biggest danger at the moment, imo, that the UKIP version of what 'brexit means brexit' means will drive negotiations - anything that doesn't end free movement of people and goods across the EU (particularly people) is not true brexit. Neither of these things was on the ballot paper. Neither is a necessary condition of leaving the EU. One or other is probably something a majority of brexit voters do want, but that doesn't make it a majority opinion among everyone.


Yep. That's the talk that May is talking, claiming that putting an end to free movement is the number one priority, presumably because that's what she thinks leave voters most want to hear.

"The prime minister also made clear that she would not compromise over the issue of immigration, which she saw as a red line when it came to her “end goals” in Brexit negotiations.
“I think the people spoke on 23 June and I think it was an important aspect that underpinned people’s approach to that was a concern they had about control of movement of people from the EU into the UK. I believe it is important for the UK government to deliver on that.”
Theresa May defends newspapers over attacks on article 50 judges


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 6, 2016)

May has had a distinct racist agenda for a while, way before the referendum.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It reflects the assault on unions on a more micro scale. Collective bargaining is dangerous when it's your opponents doing it. Many aspects of the EU have proved to be frustrating to the interests of both local and multinational capitalists, despite the overall "pro-business" thrust.


The time it takes for the EU to make trade deals is surely an example of that. The boast of Johnson, Fox, Davis and others that the UK will be able to strike deals quickly is not a good thing. It's a very dangerous and bad thing.


----------



## Anju (Nov 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> no, do you mean there has been an increase in the susceptibility of the government to corporations?



Yes and have more opportunities to make mutually  beneficial deals if not subject to EU law / scrutiny.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I think that's the reasoning behind global capital's assault on supra-national groupings; they (the globalised, financialised corporations) can exert their hegemony over 'sovereign' nation states without the inconvenience or impediment arising from another, bigger level of governance. It isn't for no reason that Trump keeps on about Brexit; it's all of a piece with his anti-NAFTA narrative. Capital wants to fully let rip now and the corporatists have seen their moment.



More-or-less agree, except capital doesn't have "reasoning". What you're talking about is the logic of some wealthy individuals.


----------



## 03gills (Nov 7, 2016)

Russell Ballard said:


> I speak to people all over the world as part of my job and I am sick and tired of having to explain that not everyone in Britain is a fucking idiot, quite the reverse. We have had decades of anti-European propaganda from an establishment looking for a scapegoat to cover their own failing and yet *48% voted the right way*.




Oh, fuck off.


----------



## salem (Nov 7, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the biggest danger at the moment, imo, that the UKIP version of what 'brexit means brexit' means will drive negotiations - anything that doesn't end free movement of people and goods across the EU (particularly people) is not true brexit. Neither of these things was on the ballot paper. Neither is a necessary condition of leaving the EU. One or other is probably something a majority of brexit voters do want, but that doesn't make it a majority opinion among everyone.


This x 100. It's scary how quickly 'hard brexit' has become the face of negotiations when brexit won by a fairly small margin. 

You'd only need a small number of those who voted leave (3-4%) to want to remain in the single market and the whole mandate for 'hard brexit' is on it's arse. It just has no credibility beyond the fact that some members of the 'leave' camp will whinge forever more if they don't get their closed borders at any cost.


----------



## gosub (Nov 7, 2016)

salem said:


> This x 100. It's scary how quickly 'hard brexit' has become the face of negotiations when brexit won by a fairly small margin.
> 
> You'd only need a small number of those who voted leave (3-4%) to want to remain in the single market and the whole mandate for 'hard brexit' is on it's arse. It just has no credibility beyond the fact that some members of the 'leave' camp will whinge forever more if they don't get their closed borders at any cost.


Can you bolt on thems that prioritised things like democratic accountability, who look on aghast whilst an unelected PM thinks that would unacceptably tie her hands, and Farage calls for 100,000 to march on London to back her up.  Ta.


----------



## gosub (Nov 7, 2016)




----------



## Leftwinger1992 (Nov 7, 2016)

This may have already been posted, but I thought I'd share what I feel is an excellent Observer editorial on the high court ruling on Brexit and parliament. I completely agree with it. The Observer view on the high court ruling on Brexit and parliament | Observer editorial


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 7, 2016)

May is pushing it through the courts and hoping like hell it gets bogged down in parliament to buy herself time to get a negotiating position sorted. 

Large amounts of research and reading needed to work out what the huge legal implications will be across the country. 

Like pulling a sickie to miss an exam to get more swot time.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 8, 2016)

Anju said:


> True, but if you look at how easily Nissan managed  to get strong enough assurances from the government on their post brexit position to OK new investment it looks like we will be more susceptible  to being manipulated by corporations.



Yup. Renault N were just testing the waters to see how much the government would bend over in the light of Brexit. Car plants can be shipped abroad pronto, so sticking a few billion into new robotics and tooling doesn't mean you have to hang around. Nissan will make a cool assessment of tariffs, incentives, relative labour productivity and go from there. Heck, the government probably hasn't even considered that in the future fewer people will be needed to assemble the same number of cars, so it's more like an investment in modernisation for Renault N than securing jobs in the NE.


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2016)

.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 8, 2016)

Poi E said:


> Yup. Renault N were just testing the waters to see how much the government would bend over in the light of Brexit. Car plants can be shipped abroad pronto, so sticking a few billion into new robotics and tooling doesn't mean you have to hang around. Nissan will make a cool assessment of tariffs, incentives, relative labour productivity and go from there. Heck, the government probably hasn't even considered that in the future fewer people will be needed to assemble the same number of cars, so it's more like an investment in modernisation for Renault N than securing jobs in the NE.


Plant investment is static for at least a generation of car - it's not just tooling but training and the rest. Skilled humans are still a key component in building a car. Piss about with that and you risk quality.

However pretty much any mass production car you can think of seeing on British roads is made in the EU (as well as elsewhere for other markets), with a few Japanese exceptions. This is because of punitive import tariffs. The UK government has to have promised Nissan that they'll cover any such costs for N years if any tariffs are put in place.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 8, 2016)

Ford's small car move to lower labour countries is only going to take 2-3 years and not all to existing facilities. Plant is moved quickly these days.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 8, 2016)

Can't say I'm particularly surprised.

Government refuses to guarantee workers' rights after Brexit



> The Government has cast yet more uncertainty over whether workers will lose key employment rights after Brexit – including rules that protect employees during the takeover of British firms by foreign companies.
> 
> Ministers this week refused to say whether the Acquired Rights Directive 2001/23/EC would be incorporated into British law after Britain leaves the bloc. The EU directive requires that companies bought out by other firms safeguard jobs of the workers in the taken over firm during takeovers.
> 
> The directive is particularly relevant because foreign firms can now get knock-down price bargains on British companies because of the newly weak value of the Pound....


----------



## Poi E (Nov 8, 2016)

Was on a call with our external counsel last week on exactly this matter. TUPE/acquired rights will go.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 8, 2016)

European Parliament considers plan to let individual Brits opt-in to keep their EU citizenship


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2016)

teqniq said:


> European Parliament considers plan to let individual Brits opt-in to keep their EU citizenship


"Jayne Adye, director of the Get Britain Out campaign described the proposal as divisive and said it was “totally unacceptable” for British people to retain the advantages of EU membership. This is an outrage. . "


----------



## andysays (Nov 8, 2016)

teqniq said:


> European Parliament considers plan to let individual Brits opt-in to keep their EU citizenship



This bit is good


> Brexit campaigners in Britain reacted with anger to the idea, arguing that it would discriminate against Leave voters and that it was “an outrage”.





> Jayne Adye, director of the Get Britain Out campaign described the proposal as divisive and said it was “totally unacceptable” for British people to retain the advantages of EU membership. “This is an outrage. The EU is now attempting to divide the great British public at the exact moment we need unity. 17.4 million people voted to Leave the EU on 23 June and as a result the UK as a whole will get Brexit,” she said.





> “Brexit means laws which impact the people of the UK will be created by accountable politicians in Westminster. It is totally unacceptable for certain citizens in the UK to subject themselves to laws which are created by politicians who are not accountable the British people as a whole. Discriminating against people based on their political views shows there are no depths the EU will not sink to.”


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 8, 2016)

teqniq said:


> European Parliament considers plan to let individual Brits opt-in to keep their EU citizenship



Just read that. I'm sure the amendment will get shot down in flames.



> Jayne Adye, director of the Get Britain Out campaign described the proposal as divisive and said it was “totally unacceptable” for British people to retain the advantages of EU membership.
> 
> “This is an outrage. The EU is now attempting to divide the great British public at the exact moment we need unity. 17.4 million people voted to Leave the EU on 23 June and as a result the UK as a whole will get Brexit,” she said.



Is it an outrage? It's a suggestion, put forth by one MEP. I think some people just like being outraged. Even when they've already won, they're outraged.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 8, 2016)

I like the bit about 'accountable politicians in westminster' when team brexit is currently losing its shit over a court decision which states that accountable politicians in westminster must be given a say in triggering article 50.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 8, 2016)

And now, for balance, we'll be talking to a swivel-eyed lunatic who voted remain...


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2016)

I'm outraged at her outrageous outrage.


----------



## Duncan2 (Nov 8, 2016)

teqniq said:


> European Parliament considers plan to let individual Brits opt-in to keep their EU citizenship


I think we are having our legs pulled there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2016)

Duncan2 said:


> I think we are having our legs pulled there.


in luxembourg they celebrate their equivalent of april fools day in november


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 8, 2016)

En France, le Beaujolais Nouveau vient d'arriver...


----------



## andysays (Nov 11, 2016)

Some MPs 'ready to vote against triggering Brexit'


> Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said his party would oppose it, unless they were promised a second referendum on the UK's Brexit deal with EU leaders.





> Several Labour MPs are also willing to vote against it, despite the Labour Party pledging not to do so... ...
> For Labour, shadow minister Catherine West, former leadership contender Owen Smith and south London MP Helen Hayes all made clear they were prepared to vote against Article 50 - which begins formal exit negotiations with the EU - if amendments were not accepted.





> Former Labour minister David Lammy and shadow transport minister Daniel Zeichner have said they would oppose Article 50. Opposition whip Thangam Debbonaire said she would also vote against it, if a vote were held imminently.





> The SNP's 54 MPs may join them. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said they will not vote for anything that undermines the will of the Scottish people, and has previously said they will vote against a bill to write EU provisions into British law to prepare for Brexit.





> The SDLP's three MPs will also oppose the measure.



Doesn't look as if there's enough votes there to actually block A50, but it's illuminating that most of them are to oppose on any terms, contrary to the result of the referendum.

And I suspect many/most of those named come from Remain-supporting constituencies, so don't need to worry about the potential of being voted out at the next GE.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 11, 2016)

Why would & should they support it against the wishes of their constituents?

Or do you think their constituents place more value in respecting the national democratic will than their own interests? I doubt it. Democracy's an awkward thing of late.


----------



## andysays (Nov 11, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Why would & should they support it against the wishes of their constituents?
> 
> Or do you think their constituents place more value in respecting the national democratic will than their own interests? I doubt it. Democracy's an awkward thing of late.



I'm not saying that they "should" do anything in particular.

But if significant numbers of MPs attempt to simply block the triggering of A50, that is likely to increase the feeling among many of those who voted for Brexit that the political elite are trying to avoid putting the wishes of the whole electorate into practice, and the political benefit from that is likely to go mostly to UKIP rather than any of the parties the blockers represent.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 11, 2016)

Yeah, probably - certainly has its national political risks. Unless something else has changed the climate by then. As a local and direct political risk for each MP it's low though, whereas the reverse is not necessarily welcome.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 11, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Democracy's an awkward thing of late.



repdem always was an awkward thing.
Anything specifically constructed to 'firewall' the actual wishes of the masses was bound to be riddled with contradiction...


> _Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. _*Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion*_._
> Burke 1774


----------



## mauvais (Nov 11, 2016)

brogdale said:


> repdem always was an awkward thing.
> Anything specifically constructed to 'firewall' the actual wishes of the masses was bound to be riddled with contradiction...


No doubt. But one of the responses to Brexit amongst the pro-Brexit left (and elsewhere, obviously) is that we must not betray the democratic mandate. Which is reasonable in terms of both the machinery of politics, and in a carefully framed context of what Brexit is about.

However it all becomes very awkward very quickly when another democratic exercise gives birth to, say, legitimising misogyny and sexual assault. I can't imagine that's a flavour of democratic will that those same proponents are _quite_ so keen to see prevail, and yet it presents the same problems if you don't. Fun times that we live in.


----------



## andysays (Nov 11, 2016)

mauvais said:


> No doubt. But one of the responses to Brexit amongst the pro-Brexit left (and elsewhere, obviously) is that we must not betray the democratic mandate. Which is reasonable in terms of both the machinery of politics, and in a carefully framed context of what Brexit is about.
> 
> However *it all becomes very awkward very quickly when another democratic exercise gives birth to, say, legitimising misogyny and sexual assault*. I can't imagine that's a flavour of democratic will that those same proponents are _quite_ so keen to see prevail, and yet it presents the same problems if you don't. Fun times that we live in.



In the unlikely event that a referendum proposing such a thing is 

held 

successful
then I'm sure we can discuss its implications.

In the meantime it's a bit of a red herring to throw into the current discussion.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 11, 2016)

andysays said:


> In the unlikely event that a referendum proposing such a thing is
> 
> held
> 
> ...


Which flavour of objection is this? That no such thing has happened anywhere, that it didn't represent what's claimed, or that it was conveniently outside the box of the democracy you hold sacred?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2016)

mauvais said:


> No doubt. But one of the responses to Brexit amongst the pro-Brexit left (and elsewhere, obviously) is that we must not betray the democratic mandate. Which is reasonable in terms of both the machinery of politics, and in a carefully framed context of what Brexit is about.
> 
> However it all becomes very awkward very quickly when another democratic exercise gives birth to, say, legitimising misogyny and sexual assault. I can't imagine that's a flavour of democratic will that those same proponents are _quite_ so keen to see prevail, and yet it presents the same problems if you don't. Fun times that we live in.


What happens if/when the view expressed one year differs from the view expressed the next?


----------



## andysays (Nov 11, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Which flavour of objection is this? That no such thing has happened anywhere, that it didn't represent what's claimed, or that it was conveniently outside the box of the democracy you hold sacred?



My objection is mostly to your glib association of democracy with legitimising misogyny and sexual assault. Perhaps I just don't hold the majority of people in the contempt which that association suggests that you do.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 11, 2016)

andysays said:


> My objection is mostly to your glib association of democracy with legitimising misogyny and sexual assault. Perhaps I just don't hold the majority of people in the contempt which your suggestion suggests that you do.


Did the voters not specifically choose to elect a known misogynist? How direct a referendum do you need it to be? And what levels of contempt and empathy for that are respectively permitted and due, in your opinion?

I don't think this is particularly useful or broadly politically relevant, by the way. I just feel suddenly inclined to poke at the boundaries that some people's pro-Brexit 'sanctity of democracy' argument operates within. I can't imagine it stretches all that far. One might wonder if it stops at winning.


----------



## andysays (Nov 11, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Did the voters not specifically choose to elect a known misogynist? How direct a referendum do you need it to be? And what levels of contempt and empathy for that are respectively permitted and due, in your opinion?
> 
> *I don't think this is particularly useful or broadly politically relevant, by the way. I just feel suddenly inclined to poke at the boundaries that some people's pro-Brexit 'sanctity of democracy' argument operates within*. I can't imagine it stretches all that far. One might wonder if it stops at winning.



You're the one who chose to take the discussion along this bizarre route, not me.

And neither have I said anything about the "sanctity of democracy" in relation to the Brexit referendum or anything else. 

I'm merely pointing out that the decision by various MPs to vote against any implementation of A50 has potential consequences contrary to what what of those MPs would claim to want, suggesting that they still haven't woken up to actual political realities.

If you really want to discuss the so-called sanctity of democracy or even the supposed democratic legitimising of misogyny and sexual assault, maybe you should find a more appropriate thread to do it on, or even start one for that specific purpose. 

Or you could just avoid bringing that shit up here in response to a post which had precisely fuck all to do with it.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 11, 2016)

If you want to be national about it rather than constituency based then the Scottish and NI MPs definitely have a mandate to vote against A50, since their respective countries' electorates both voted against Brexit.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 11, 2016)

Interesting to read in the Granuiad today about the government potentially running arguments around an article 50 notification being revocable:

Article 50 could be reversed, government may argue in Brexit case

Para 10 of the High Court decision makes clear that it was common ground between the parties that notification is irrevocable.  Consequently this element has not been tested in court.

The point turns on whether an article 50 notification automatically entails the loss of rights (the decision adopts a rough distinction between three varieties of right at paras 58-61 which is worth a look to understand a bit more about the technical details) granted by an Act of Parliament (ECA 1972).

If the article 50 notification is irrevocable then it will necessarily entail the automatic loss ECA 1972 rights.  

If the article 50 notification is revocable it will not necessarily entail the automatic loss of the ECA 1972 rights.

In the former situation, an article 50 notification made by the Royal prerogative would be illegal as it would involve the automatic loss of rights granted by Parliament without the government having a Parliamentary mandate to do so.

In the latter, the revocability of the notification and the corresponding prospect of the maintenance of the rights granted may allow May to march on unhindered with her March timetable without substantively consulting parliament or the people at large.

However, and this is purely my own speculation, a smooth acceptance of that new position would require the Supreme Court to be content with making a finding on a point of pure EU law (the revocability of an article 50 notification) in a situation where the relevant treaty provision is totally silent.  

Reading article 50 again, it is very difficult to see how you could construct an argument in favour of a revocable article 50 notification from the text itself.

Then, more widely, allowing for revocable article 50 notifications would strike at the heart of the ability of the EU to maintain its own integrity _and _ability to do day-to-day business - for instance, it would open up the prospect of any MS, presumably then in thrall to its own variety of popular euroscepticism, tabling a revocable article 50 notification when the MS wanted a better deal for itself (which is really the kind of ideal place that May wants to get us to - if she could somehow transform the referendum result into a brilliant negotiating tactic for improved membership terms that would be ideal).

So if the government were to run that argument, it increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court would need to seek a preliminary reference decision from the ECJ to move the case forward, with all the political, legal and constitutional consequences that that would entail.


----------



## gosub (Nov 11, 2016)

If it uses that arguement in the Supreme court.  This government will fall.


----------



## andysays (Nov 11, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Interesting to read in the Granuiad today about the government potentially running arguments around an article 50 notification being revocable...



Much of that was discussed on this very thread in the immediate aftermath of the original high court decision.

Feel free to look back and see what's already been said, including some fully informed and qualified opinion, which I certainly wouldn't claim to be.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 11, 2016)

andysays said:


> Much of that was discussed on this very thread in the immediate aftermath of the original high court decision.
> 
> Feel free to look back and see what's already been said, including some fully informed and qualified opinion, which I certainly wouldn't claim to be.



Is there any need for that?

Your passive-agressiveness is limited to saying that other people talked about that on another occasion...

So what?

It shouldn't be discussed now?


----------



## Diamond (Nov 11, 2016)

And... a quick search reveals that no-one on this thread has mentioned the ECJ preliminary reference procedure before I brought it in to the discussion above.

That alone is remarkable given that we have already spend 38 pages discussing Brexit process and suggests that I might be introducing new things...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2016)

Diamond said:


> And... a quick search reveals that no-one on this thread has mentioned the ECJ preliminary reference procedure before I brought it in to the discussion above.
> 
> That alone is remarkable given that we have already spend 38 pages discussing Brexit process and suggests that I might be introducing new things...


And your point is?


----------



## gosub (Nov 11, 2016)

Royal Navy has nuclear submarines.  Belgium doesn't.   Another new thing to introduce to the debate....  Largely irrelevant.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> And your point is?



That we might have three phases of involving the ECJ in the case, each with their own implications, namely:

(i) a preliminary reference by the Supreme Court to the ECJ seeking a ruling on the irrevocability/revocability of an article 50 notification under EU law;
(ii) the application of that preliminary reference ruling of the ECJ by the Supreme Court to the instant case; and
(iii) the prospect of an appeal of that application by the one of the parties to the ECJ for a final ruling.

And then, on top of that, and/or running parallel, there might be HRA actions trundling on alongside.


----------



## andysays (Nov 12, 2016)

Diamond said:


> And... a quick search reveals that no-one on this thread has mentioned the ECJ...



Obviously your search was a little too quick. Started here on page 16


brogdale said:


> Then ECJ?



Then took in discussion of some actual legal opinion, found here if you can't be bothered to read the whole thread and want to catch up

Could the Article 50 litigation result in a reference to the European Court of Justice?

High Court rules that Government cannot invoke Article 50 under the Royal Prerogative


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2016)

andysays said:


> Obviously your search was a little too quick. Started here on page 16
> 
> 
> Then took in discussion of some actual legal opinion, found here if you can't be bothered to read the whole thread and want to catch up
> ...


----------



## mauvais (Nov 12, 2016)

Not that I want to prop up Diamond or anything, but those are two different matters - issuance vs revocation. More to it than that, and certainly some relationship, but distinctly different.

Edit: actually the two combined did get discussed of sorts, way later in the thread


----------



## gosub (Nov 12, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Not that I want to prop up Diamond or anything, but those are two different matters - issuance vs revocation. More to it than that, and certainly some relationship, but distinctly different.


But its  i^2=-1 stuff.  If government lawyers argue that in court, then "good faith" goes out the window in terms of the negotiation - and it turns into make the deal as shit as possible for the leaver so they crack. Plus the government's entire political argument that "they don't want to weaken their negotiating position" flies out the window.  They will have done just that and not even in a sovereign parliament.   An election would follow in short order.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 12, 2016)

Oh sure, it's only of any value in blocking the government.


----------



## not a trot (Nov 12, 2016)

Let's face it people. It's a huge shit sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite


----------



## brogdale (Nov 12, 2016)

not a trot said:


> Let's face it people. It's a huge shit sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite


All?
Not Nissan...or any other corp. extracting 'assurance' from the state.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 12, 2016)

andysays said:


> Obviously your search was a little too quick. Started here on page 16
> 
> 
> Then took in discussion of some actual legal opinion, found here if you can't be bothered to read the whole thread and want to catch up
> ...



Why do you keep on quoting me selectively?

It's a pathetic form of trolling isn't it, to turn this sentence:



> And... a quick search reveals that no-one on this thread has mentioned the ECJ preliminary reference procedure before I brought it in to the discussion above.



...into this...



> And... a quick search reveals that no-one on this thread has mentioned the ECJ...



The largest part of my post is about the *ECJ preliminary reference procedure* - not the ECJ alone - the ECJ preliminary reference procedure

Why do you do that? Why do you cut up my words so that they are misrepresented?

Is it because you simply don't understand the difference between the broad subject of the ECJ and the very narrow subject of the ECJ preliminary reference procedure?

No-one had mentioned this before in the thread and if it comes into play, as it looks like it almost certainly will do upon appeal the Supreme Court, it is worth going through in detail as each stage will have its own nuances which may well be intimately woven into our Brexit politics over the coming months.  Consequently it is worth considering - the *ECJ preliminary reference procedure*, that is


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2016)

not a trot said:


> Let's face it people. It's a huge shit sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite


No change there then


----------



## andysays (Nov 13, 2016)




----------



## gosub (Nov 14, 2016)

Germany named as possible post-Brexit ally for Ireland


----------



## brogdale (Nov 14, 2016)

Things seem to be crowding in a little on May at the moment; Murdoch's clearly not impressed with progress...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 15, 2016)

Potentially, more bad news for May; a simple act not enough?


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 15, 2016)

Just how the UK should attempt a Brexit is a very hard thing even for euro-skeptic Tories to agree on.

Firstly they evidently didn't really know what they were letting themselves in for. They didn't understand the Constitutional Law implications or the insane complexity of trade deals.

Secondly there's a wide variety of opinion some wanting a tight relationship with the Single Market; the softest of soft Brexits. Others wanting as little to do with bloody Brussels as possible. Business friendly Tories in safe seats mostly see lots of immigration as a good thing just as they do low tariff trade. Those quivering in fear of UKIP and a _Enoch was right_ party base may veer towards protectionism. Some do seem to have been under the impression the best of both worlds was possible due to mighty British clout only to find that squeezed into the Article 50 waste disposal unit. Any deal being done being hostage to gaining a near consensus between a bunch of countries with varying interests led by folk who often are as ill prepared as the three Brexiteers.

Thirdly conditions change. Trump may well mean a possible dreamed of cosy relationship with the US perhaps via Farage or having the US barge to the front of the log jam in trade talks and get very nasty with _Singapore On Thames_'s great hope Beijing. He might even pull the plug on NATO leaving Europeans scrambling for alternatives. Merkel and other important players might also disappear during the process.

And finally as the EU countries won't talk to the UK about what might be acceptable Article 50 terms May is in the dark as to what hand she might successfully play. It's hard to come out of this without the appearance of losing your shirt at least initially.


----------



## andysays (Nov 15, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Potentially, more bad news for May; a simple act not enough?



Doesn't look like the government are too concerned and will be seeking to get something very simple through with the minimum of fuss

Government 'prepares three-line Brexit bill'


> The government has prepared a short three-line bill to begin the Brexit process - so Theresa May can meet her March deadline, it is understood. Sources say they believe the legislation is so tightly drawn it will be difficult for critical MPs to amend. Ministers have drawn up the legislation in case they lose their appeal to the Supreme Court - which would force them to consult Parliament.


Still serious questions about if this will work


----------



## andysays (Nov 15, 2016)

Will the Supreme Court have to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the EU in Miller?: further thoughts



> There has been much excitement generated by the possibility that, in order to resolve the _Miller _case, the Supreme Court might have to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the EU (“ECJ”)...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2016)

andysays said:


> Doesn't look like the government are too concerned and will be seeking to get something very simple through with the minimum of fuss
> 
> Government 'prepares three-line Brexit bill'
> 
> Still serious questions about if this will work


come on you filibusters


----------



## ska invita (Nov 16, 2016)

interesting if true
Angela Merkel suggests she is willing to compromise on free movement in the wake of Brexit

and also "Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, suggested he is open to rejoining the Conservative Party in a bid to hold the party to account over Brexit." (lol)


----------



## gosub (Nov 16, 2016)

ska invita said:


> interesting if true
> Angela Merkel suggests she is willing to compromise on free movement in the wake of Brexit
> 
> and also "Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, suggested he is open to rejoining the Conservative Party in a bid to hold the party to account over Brexit." (lol)


As the Irish Times said, it won't be the Germans that are the problem.   Any shut down of borders, particularly in the wake of the migration crisis in the Med, will impact most on Med countries.  Any deal that the likes of Farage would like, would make harder these countries call for the rest of the EU to share the burden.


----------



## bimble (Nov 16, 2016)

Boris Johnson's diplomacy will save the day:

"“He basically said: ‘I don’t want free movement of people but I want the single market,’” he told Bloomberg. “I said: ‘No way.’ He said: ‘You’ll sell less prosecco.’ I said: ‘OK, you’ll sell less fish and chips, but I’ll sell less prosecco to one country and you’ll sell less to 27 countries.’ Putting things on this level is a bit insulting.”
European ministers ridicule Boris Johnson after prosecco claim


----------



## gosub (Nov 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> Boris Johnson's diplomacy will save the day:
> 
> "“He basically said: ‘I don’t want free movement of people but I want the single market,’” he told Bloomberg. “I said: ‘No way.’ He said: ‘You’ll sell less prosecco.’ I said: ‘OK, you’ll sell less fish and chips, but I’ll sell less prosecco to one country and you’ll sell less to 27 countries.’ Putting things on this level is a bit insulting.”
> European ministers ridicule Boris Johnson after prosecco claim



Actually have just heard the bloke on the radio, he sounds like a pillock.  We ARE there second largest export market for wine and we drink a fuck of a lot of prosecco http://italianwinecentral.com/italian-wine-exports-by-destination/ Is there even an export market for fish and chips? (Straight fish yes but thats a different thing).  Ain't Mr Calenda's job to think about the other 27 nations


----------



## Raheem (Nov 16, 2016)

gosub said:


> Actually have just heard the bloke on the radio, he sounds like a pillock.  We ARE there second largest export market for wine and we drink a fuck of a lot of prosecco http://italianwinecentral.com/italian-wine-exports-by-destination/ Is there even an export market for fish and chips? (Straight fish yes but thats a different thing).  Ain't Mr Calenda's job to think about the other 27 nations



I didn't hear what you heard, so maybe the guy is a pillock, I have no idea.

However, I think you're missing the point. It's not that fish and chips might somehow cancel prosecco, but that Johnson's attitude appears pathetic and worrying, and that a nonsense proposition merits a nonsense response. The idea that the integrity of the EU can be trumped by reminding Johnny Foreigner that he exports to us was a tidy bit of bullshit for the referendum campaign, but it doesn't relate very well to the reality of the situation we are now in. We're told that there's no plan, which is one thing, but what we have here suggests that our most senior diplomat hasn't actually spent much time thinking about the implications of Brexit since he thought "oh fuck" just after the result.


----------



## gosub (Nov 17, 2016)

Raheem said:


> I didn't hear what you heard, so maybe the guy is a pillock, I have no idea.
> 
> However, I think you're missing the point. It's not that fish and chips might somehow cancel prosecco, but that Johnson's attitude appears pathetic and worrying, and that a nonsense proposition merits a nonsense response. The idea that the integrity of the EU can be trumped by reminding Johnny Foreigner that he exports to us was a tidy bit of bullshit for the referendum campaign, but it doesn't relate very well to the reality of the situation we are now in. We're told that there's no plan, which is one thing, but what we have here suggests that our most senior diplomat hasn't actually spent much time thinking about the implications of Brexit since he thought "oh fuck" just after the result.



No, do have my concerns on plan, but what you have here is Boris painting detail and being confronted with a bloke doing symbolism.   I had my worries about whether we had the quality of UK politician to see us through this.  What is only just occurring to me is our counter parts are equally dumbed down. Dijsselbloem yesterday didn't know the likes of Norway ain't in customs union,  mind you we've got the BBC's finest spouting bullshit about not being able to do trade deals if you are in a customs union, Turkey anyone?


----------



## Raheem (Nov 17, 2016)

gosub said:


> No, do have my concerns on plan, but what you have here is Boris painting detail and being confronted with a bloke doing symbolism.   I had my worries about whether we had the quality of UK politician to see us through this.  What is only just occurring to me is our counter parts are equally dumbed down. Dijsselbloem yesterday didn't know the likes of Norway ain't in customs union,  mind you we've got the BBC's finest spouting bullshit about not being able to do trade deals if you are in a customs union, Turkey anyone?



From the account we have, Johnson (please don't call him Boris!) was not "painting detail". It was his opening gambit. Stupid on multiple levels.


----------



## gosub (Nov 17, 2016)

Raheem said:


> From the account we have, Johnson (please don't call him Boris!) was not "painting detail". It was his opening gambit. Stupid on multiple levels.


It is a detail (badly painted, Germany is Italy's largest wine export market, UK 2nd), who the fuck  is exporting fish and chips?  And he went public.  There's a lot more reason for Italians to be urked by Calenda than the set back to Just Eat


----------



## Raheem (Nov 17, 2016)

gosub said:


> It is a detail (badly painted, Germany is Italy's largest wine export market, UK 2nd), who the fuck  is exporting fish and chips?  And he went public.  There's a lot more reason for Italians to be urked by Calenda than the set back to Just Eat



You're still not getting it. Reminding Italy about wine exports is tantamount to talking gibberish because (a) they've already thought about that and (b) it's not high on their list of concerns over Brexit. It's not really anything to do with the game we're in. You may as well talk about fish and chips, or DVDs of Ground Force, or upper-class morons, or any of our other meaningless exports.


----------



## gosub (Nov 17, 2016)

Raheem said:


> You're still not getting it. Reminding Italy about wine exports is tantamount to talking gibberish because (a) they've already thought about that and (b) it's not high on their list of concerns over Brexit. It's not really anything to do with the game we're in. You may as well talk about fish and chips, or DVDs of Ground Force, or upper-class morons, or any of our other meaningless exports.


They are, according to the Irish, one of the ones more driven by movement of people. I get that.  But its this minister being blasee with his own countries industry rather than Boris fucking up.  


Exports aren't meaningless.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 17, 2016)

everyone knows chips are shit if you don't eat them straight away


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2016)

Boris Johnson is just saying we can have our prosecco & drink it too, just as he kept saying during the campaign. That's what people want to hear but doesn't mean it's actually possible.


I still don't think proper brexiting is really going to happen, don't think the government will sacrifice free trade in order to stop EU citizens from coming here to work, if that ends up being the choice.
http://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-conte...s-paper-9-What-do-voters-want-from-Brexit.pdf


----------



## gosub (Nov 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> Boris Johnson is just saying we can have our prosecco & drink it too, just as he kept saying during the campaign. That's what people want to hear but doesn't mean it's actually possible.
> 
> View attachment 95622
> I still don't think proper brexiting is really going to happen, don't think the government will sacrifice free trade in order to stop EU citizens from coming here to work, if that ends up being the choice.
> http://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-conte...s-paper-9-What-do-voters-want-from-Brexit.pdf



I think he might accidentally break the EUropean Union.   Ho Hum.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 18, 2016)

Scottish and Welsh governments can intervene on Brexit, Supreme Court rules


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 18, 2016)

Priceless, couldnt make it up etc.

Anger after Daily Express confuses Ireland and Northern Ireland on Brexit tea caddy - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2016)

Anger after


----------



## andysays (Nov 19, 2016)

Drop Brexit case appeal, senior Tories urge May


> Theresa May should abandon an appeal against the court ruling that means MPs must vote on the UK leaving the EU, leading Conservatives say. Sir Oliver Letwin, former head of the government's Brexit preparations, and two former law officers said the case should not go to the Supreme Court. Instead, they want ministers to bring a bill to Parliament to start the process of Brexit as soon as possible.





> The MPs voiced their concerns after the Supreme Court decided on Friday that the Scottish and Welsh governments should have a say at the appeal hearing in December. Former minister Sir Oliver, who oversaw a "Brexit Unit" in the Cabinet Office after the referendum, told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme that the Supreme Court hearing could see ministers' powers outside Parliament curbed.





> He added that one of the advantages of bringing a "fast and tightly timetabled and constrained bill" to Parliament, giving the government the ability to trigger Brexit without any constraints on its negotiating power, was that *it avoided "any risk of the Supreme Court deciding to accord the devolved administrations some rights or even some veto powers"* over triggering Article 50.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 19, 2016)

Fucking uppity jocks and taffs. Why can't they be more like Arlene Foster?


----------



## 03gills (Nov 19, 2016)

Fucking hell Tim.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 19, 2016)

Poi E said:


> Fucking uppity jocks and taffs. Why can't they be more like Arlene Foster?


That's the start of the Krav Maga _Leaping Kishke_ move.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2016)

why is she going to martial arts captain birdseye


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 19, 2016)

On Mainly Macro The folly of triggering Article 50

Well the UK will have to do it but simply winging it with no consensus even among the Three Brexiteers about what the desired end state is would be a bungle too far even for a wealthy country like the UK.  

A50 was set up to be a two year trap where the exiting country is at a severe disadvantage. That's fair enough; welching on contracts often carries penalties. This is something that needed to clearly expressed to voters to set expectations of no quick departure. If Dave had triggered it as promised immediately when the vote went Leave the UK would be in a panicking mess as it was clearly completely unprepared. Clearly the country needed time to figure out its priorities and lay in the Civil Service manpower. Ideally this would have been expressed in a detailed white paper that was refined before any referendum was held. But that's more the way the careful Scots do things. The excitable English prefer blithering forward preferably behind an Etonian in a confidently vague fug.

The constraints in fact may be simply that the remaining EU countries in a short time simply won't be able to agree to anything but a very disorderly hard Brexit and it'll take the best part of a decade to repair the UK-Europe trade relationships. With a protectionist Trump likely to be rocking the globalised boat at the same time this is looking even more difficult.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 21, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Mainly Macro The folly of triggering Article 50
> 
> Well the UK will have to do it but simply winging it with no consensus even among the Three Brexiteers about what the desired end state is would be a bungle too far even for a wealthy country like the UK.
> 
> ...



Careful Scots!

What nonsense - they didn't even know what currency that they would be using at day 0!


----------



## brogdale (Nov 22, 2016)

Them faces.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Them faces.




Not negotiable? Seriously? Do they simply not care about what it's going to do to prosecco sales?


----------



## Santino (Nov 22, 2016)

They'll be denied access to our innovative jams.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 22, 2016)

tbf we do a good line in sarcasm, we just need to monetise it better


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 22, 2016)

think of it, article 50 is merely the decree nisi. This shits going to drag on for ages and germany will get the kids


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 22, 2016)

Soon we'll get to the bit where the Rump UK joins the USA and Oceania is founded. After all, we have always been at war with Eurasia.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Them faces.




Looks like a police interview room. "Listen Dave, we can do brexit the hard way or the easy way ... now why dont you tell us what you were doing on June 23rd .."


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Them faces.



the man at the end of the table is cia agent and sometime director saul berenson


----------



## gosub (Nov 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> the man at the end of the table is cia agent and sometime director saul berenson




That s Inigo Montoya 




Spoiler



Prepare to die!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 22, 2016)

gosub said:


> As the Irish Times said, it won't be the Germans that are the problem.   Any shut down of borders, particularly in the wake of the migration crisis in the Med, will impact most on Med countries.  Any deal that the likes of Farage would like, would make harder these countries call for the rest of the EU to share the burden.



Poland may also be less than thrilled, with the interests of over half a million UK based citizens to think about.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Nov 23, 2016)

On VoxEU Globalisation and Brexit


> ...
> *Import competition and attitudes towards immigration*
> We have not found evidence that higher levels of immigration are significantly related to higher support for Leave. And yet, dissatisfaction with immigration has been identified as one of the most important self-reported reasons for voters supporting the Leave option (Ipsos MORI 2016, Lord Ashcroft 2016). How can we reconcile these pieces of evidence? In our individual-level data, we find evidence that negative attitudes towards immigration are themselves determined by stronger exposure to Chinese imports, more than by the extent of immigration in the region of residence. Overall, regardless of the self-reported reasons for voting Leave, concerns with immigration might be better understood as a scapegoat for a malaise that has more structural economic origins. These are related to large scale economic transformations that inflict disproportionate losses on some sectors of society.
> 
> ...


Well it's a theory.

This would be a bit ironic as the Three Brexiteers appear mad keen on a brave new world of free trade beyond the somewhat protectionist EU and flooding UK markets with cheap goods. Just as Trump rides in by winning Rust Belt swing states that are convinced that sort of thing is a pointed headed global conspiracy to utterly shaft the white lower orders. It has occurred to me the flyover Red Necks may be a step ahead.


----------



## not a trot (Nov 24, 2016)

Theresa May has given a shock Brexit post to Mauricio Pochettino. She noted how he was able to get Spurs out of Europe in just two months.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 26, 2016)

What experience does David Davis have negotiating things?

Is he a slick effective negotiator?

What is the evidence that he is good at this?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2016)

weltweit said:


> What experience does David Davis have negotiating things?
> 
> Is he a slick effective negotiator?
> 
> What is the evidence that he is good at this?


At what?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2016)

I'll be honest; I'm not sure that I properly understood all of this...but it might be worth reading for those with a bit more expertise of the law?

LRB · Frederick Wilmot-Smith · Who speaks for the state?


> _Should the executive be permitted to take advantage of our legislative framework to exercise a quasi-legislative function? There is no easy answer to that question. One way to read the High Court’s decision is as an entrenchment of parliamentary powers, hard won from the Crown and justified by principles of representative democracy. In light of the executive’s failure to defend the judiciary in the aftermath of the decision, their incoherent proposals for leaving the EU, and broader concerns about the democratic legitimacy of Parliament, no one should feel entirely sanguine if the government’s appeal succeeds_.


----------



## gosub (Nov 26, 2016)




----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2016)

Saw Antony Sher's Lear at the Barbican this afternoon, (from the £9 seats comrades), and he seemed to take particular delight in delivering these lines, after Gloucester's eyes have been put out...his pause implied that it gets a good audience response every performance.


> *Get thee glass eyes,
> And like a scurvy politician seem
> To see the things thou dost not. *
> (Lear, Act 4 Scene 5)


----------



## Winot (Nov 27, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Saw Antony Sher's Lear at the Barbican this afternoon, (from the £9 seats comrades), and he seemed to take particular delight in delivering these lines, after Gloucester's eyes have been put out...his pause implied that it gets a good audience response every performance.
> ​



I'm seeing Glenda Jackson play Lear this week. Her delivery of those lines will be interesting given her history.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2016)

Winot said:


> I'm seeing Glenda Jackson play Lear this week. Her delivery of those lines will be interesting given her history.


Yep.
Obviously won't be Glenda, but Gloucester's "'_*Tis the time’s plague when madmen lead the blind." *_also created a little audience reaction.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2016)

FWIW, today's snapped Downing St. notes transcribed...







> _Won’t provide more detail. We think… be offered single market. Our criteria are clear – more open the better._
> 
> _Manufacturing relatively straightforward_
> 
> ...


----------



## Diamond (Nov 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> FWIW, today's snapped Downing St. notes transcribed...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Source?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Source?


It's in the Mail; I won't link FORs.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> It's in the Mail; I won't link FORs.



No sign of it after quite a few mins searching - are you sure that's legit?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2016)

Diamond said:


> No sign of it after quite a few mins searching - are you sure that's legit?


Here you go.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Here you go.



Ta - odd that very few others seem to have picked up on this so far.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2016)

Diamond said:


> No sign of it after quite a few mins searching - are you sure that's legit?


Maybe they don't think - after quite a few minutes of searching - that it's legit?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 28, 2016)

i get banned once a week from the mail comments section but did not see this before todays ban


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> i get banned once a week from the mail comments section but did not see this before todays ban


Only been up an hour.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 28, 2016)

Really surprised that that's not a much, much bigger story - first proper insight into the pre-negotiations etc


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2016)

So it's Davis' thoughts.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 29, 2016)

If it was any different from the gist of the notes then we might have cause for suprise. The description is of things much as we would expect them to be. It's almost as if this was done delibrately, for a laff even? It just seems too obvious. Perhaps this is the form the 'running commentary' will take?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 29, 2016)

Winot said:


> I'm seeing Glenda Jackson play Lear this week. Her delivery of those lines will be interesting given her history.


I've seen it, those lines provoked a few sniggers.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 29, 2016)

The Kippers and more rabid patriotic lot are calling is a false flag or whatevs today ( I am not up to speed on the lasts conspiracy termionology).


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2016)

I can see the Tory's going for, remain in the single market (but allowed to have separate trade agreements outside Europe) and the free movement of labour (not the free movement of people). Not sure they'd get it but it would be a great result for them if they did. The line would be, its great for business, jobs and the economy while limiting immigration/migration. Tory Governments until 2030


----------



## Raheem (Nov 29, 2016)

1%er said:


> I can see the Tory's going for, remain in the single market (but allowed to have separate trade agreements outside Europe) and the free movement of labour (not the free movement of people). Not sure they'd get it but it would be a great result for them if they did. The line would be, its great for business, jobs and the economy while limiting immigration/migration. Tory Governments until 2030



That would probably go down well, but I think they may as well ask for the Italian Alps in a gift-box.


----------



## gosub (Nov 29, 2016)

Raheem said:


> That would probably go down well, but I think they may as well ask for the Italian Alps in a gift-box.


where would we put them?


----------



## Raheem (Nov 29, 2016)

gosub said:


> where would we put them?



In the loft, with the intention of putting them on eBay but never getting round to it.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2016)

Raheem said:


> That would probably go down well, but I think they may as well ask for the Italian Alps in a gift-box.


Aren't the Italian Alps up for sale, I heard they need the money to bailout the banks over there


----------



## 03gills (Nov 29, 2016)

A lot of people voted leave because they were fed up of being ignored by elitists who think they know better, so our solution? Find a way to redefine what leaving the E.U means so that we don't actually have to leave the E.U, but in a way so that the plebs won't realise.

Don't you get it? Doesn't anyone get it? People see condescending shit like this on their FB timeline or hear it from friends & wait till the privacy of the ballot box to say 'fuck you', & then don't tell the pollsters or their mates what they did because it's more fun to watch everyone scratch their head after the result.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 30, 2016)

03gills said:


> Don't you get it? Doesn't anyone get it? People see condescending shit like this on their FB timeline or hear it from friends & wait till the privacy of the ballot box to say 'fuck you', & then don't tell the pollsters or their mates what they did because it's more fun to watch everyone scratch their head after the result.



Where did you find out that this is what happened?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 30, 2016)

03gills said:


> A lot of people voted leave because they were fed up of being ignored by elitists who think they know better, so our solution? Find a way to redefine what leaving the E.U means so that we don't actually have to leave the E.U, but in a way so that the plebs won't realise.
> 
> Don't you get it? Doesn't anyone get it? People see condescending shit like this on their FB timeline or hear it from friends & wait till the privacy of the ballot box to say 'fuck you', & then don't tell the pollsters or their mates what they did because it's more fun to watch everyone scratch their head after the result.


When asked "should there be more or less immigration?", 83% in a recent poll said "less". But when asked "how much are you willing to see your personal pay reduce to have less immigration?", the overwhelming majority say "nothing".

So people's attitudes are a lot more nuanced than "out, whatever the cost".


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 30, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Really surprised that that's not a much, much bigger story - first proper insight into the pre-negotiations etc


On the contrary IMO. Hushed tones about the elephant in the room - hugely neglectful cluelessnss, is to be expected from the disinfo matrix masquerading as "news" media.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 1, 2016)

Workers to pay for capital's reduced trading costs.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 1, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Workers to pay for capital's reduced trading costs.



No-one has access to the single market without paying. This is just more "no plan".


----------



## brogdale (Dec 1, 2016)

Raheem said:


> No-one has access to the single market without paying. This is just more "no plan".


As long as its <£350M/week...bargain, obviously.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 1, 2016)

brogdale said:


> As long as its >£350M/week...bargain, obviously.


Don't you mean <£350M/wk ?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 1, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Don't you mean <£350M/wk ?


Yes; my (mathsy) bad.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 1, 2016)

brogdale said:


> As long as its >£350M/week...bargain, obviously.



How much is another question. But in terms of what he was asked, what else could he have said? That, actually, it should be them paying us?

Some people seem to have got quite excited about this, but the reality is it tells us absolutely nothing, except that anything is possible.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 1, 2016)

Raheem said:


> How much is another question. But in terms of what he was asked, what else could he have said? That, actually, it should be them paying us?
> 
> Some people seem to have got quite excited about this, but the reality is it tells us absolutely nothing, except that anything is possible.


The political significance being that "possible" includes the very opposite of what many thought they were voting for.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 1, 2016)

brogdale said:


> The political significance being that "possible" includes the very opposite of what many thought they were voting for.



Some. But it's nothing new that the government is saying it would like access to the single market. if they were saying they would be willing to accept free movement of people, that would be new.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 1, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Some. But it's nothing new that the government is saying it would like access to the single market. if they were saying they would be willing to accept free movement of people, that would be new.


I expect that we could try to quantify the 'some'/'many' with polling or some such, but I reckon significant numbers of Leave voters would have cited not paying "£350M" to Brussels as a fairly significant motivation.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 1, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I expect that we could try to quantify the 'some'/'many' with polling or some such, but I reckon significant numbers of Leave voters would have cited not paying "£350M" to Brussels as a fairly significant motivation.



Yes, it may disillusion some or many people. But it doesn't reveal anything new about what the government thinks it is playing at.


----------



## gosub (Dec 1, 2016)

Raheem said:


> No-one has access to the single market without paying. This is just more "no plan".



Actually EFTA does, none of payments EFTA countries make are to do with access


----------



## Raheem (Dec 1, 2016)

gosub said:


> Actually EFTA does, none of payments EFTA countries make are to do with access



No-one's payments come with a receipt with "for access" written on it. They're just part of an overall package. But if you one day decide you're not going to pay any more, you would lose your access.


----------



## hot air baboon (Dec 1, 2016)

Raheem said:


> That, actually, it should be them paying us?



...if we just default to WTO rules then  - given our massive & seemingly structural - trade deficit with EU that's exactly what would happen isn't it....


...and not just in goods as is commonly believed apparently :

_I was looking at UK-German trade data and found something that surprised me. Germany is not only exporting more goods to the UK, which we knew; it also has a surplus in services, including finance, according to the Federal Statistics Office. UK services exports to Germany were €24bn in 2015, while the UK imported services of €41bn from Germany._
_
Subscribe to read_


----------



## Raheem (Dec 1, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> ...if we just default to WTO rules then  - given our massive & seemingly structural - trade deficit with EU that's exactly what would happen isn't it....



Yes, although "them" would really be the end consumer, so it would be us paying us, through regressive taxation.

Or, more simply put, it's importers that are responsible for paying the duties, not exporters (i.e. WTO rules would mean the UK taxing British importers and Germany etc taxing German etc importers).


----------



## gosub (Dec 1, 2016)

Raheem said:


> No-one's payments come with a receipt with "for access" written on it. They're just part of an overall package. But if you one day decide you're not going to pay any more, you would lose your access.



they pay a disclosed amount to be part of specific schemes like the Science and Erasmus and things and that is all the EU get.  EFTA in addition spends money directly on assisting the poorer European states - (which we would be obliged to do if we joined EFTA) but thats got fuck all to do with the Single Market or the EU


----------



## gosub (Dec 1, 2016)

Raheem said:


> How much is another question. But in terms of what he was asked, what else could he have said? That, actually, it should be them paying us?
> 
> Some people seem to have got quite excited about this, but the reality is it tells us absolutely nothing, except that anything is possible.



Apart from under WTO rules, as a regional body the EU can impose tariff barriers in a way that would be illegal for a single country to do


----------



## CRI (Dec 1, 2016)

*David Davis: UK may pay for access to EU single market*


----------



## Yossarian (Dec 1, 2016)

CRI said:


> *David Davis: UK may pay for access to EU single market*



These clowns are going to have signed Britain up for the Euro by the time negotiations finish.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 1, 2016)

gosub said:


> they pay a disclosed amount to be part of specific schemes like the Science and Erasmus and things and that is all the EU get.  EFTA in addition spends money directly on assisting the poorer European states - (which we would be obliged to do if we joined EFTA) but thats got fuck all to do with the Single Market or the EU



No, it hasn't. It's a condition of their single market access, set out in the EEA Agreement.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 2, 2016)

Just a thought this morning - is it worth having a thread on emergent Brexit factions?

This is clearly going to be a process on a scale and timetable that was not anticipated by most prior to the referendum.  I'd suggest, in fact, that we are looking at a generational struggle with the crisis point lasting around 5 years at the lower end of the spectrum with many more years at the higher end.

So within that, I think we can already start to map out emergent factions around Brexit.  At either end of the spectrum you have the hard Brexiteers and the hard remainers but then across the rest there are some interesting groups starting to coalesce.

Maybe it's a bit early but just a thought.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 2, 2016)

There is also a very important variety of constitutional failure going on too that is worth dwelling on.

This failure is the result of a clash between a single issue democratic referendum on the one hand and our system of representative parliamentary democracy on the other.

Both are varieties of democracy, however when they are run alongside each other in a larger constitutional system it leads to problems.

Put simply, MPs feel obliged to vote in favour of any government sponsored article 50 bill given the referendum result, despite the fact that their duty as an MP is to represent all of their constituents, including a huge proportion of remainers in most cases.

Consequently the referendum result is compounded in a way that it shouldn't be - there is the fact of the result, which is advisory, and then separately there is the fact that MPs feel that the result of the referendum somehow trumps their duty to their constituents regardless of how those constituents may have voted.

It is a variety of this idea that it is undemocratic to ignore the 48% minority referendum vote, however because it triggers specific constitutional concerns around representation within our system it has greater weight.


----------



## Supine (Dec 2, 2016)

I'd say mp's should vote with their hearts, or at least with the views of their constituency. If they vote purely based on the overall result they are representing nobody properly.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 2, 2016)

Supine said:


> I'd say mp's should vote with their hearts, or at least with the views of their constituency. If they vote purely based on the overall result they are representing nobody properly.



Fair enough, but for some MPs, their hearts may be telling them that they should vote to realise the outcome of the referendum, regardless of their own personal view (even if it might be only a small subset of them).


----------



## Diamond (Dec 2, 2016)

Interesting new development to the a50 issue.

The applicants in the N.Ireland litigation, which has now been appealed to the Supreme Court as well and separate from but alongside the _Miller_ litigation, have directly raised the issue of the revocability of a50 and argued that a preliminary reference to the ECJ will be required on that point:

The Northern Ireland Appellants’ Case


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2016)

with every day that passes the activation of article fifty seems more unlikely


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> with every day that passes the activation of article fifty seems more unlikely


Perhaps at the end of the negotiating process it will turn out that the new agreements are in fact the same as the old ones and so it would just be a waste of taxpayer's money to trigger Article 50. And we know the Tories hate wasting taxpayer's money on red tape. But we'd definitely still have left Europe. Oh yes.


----------



## Duncan2 (Dec 2, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> with every day that passes the activation of article fifty seems more unlikely


Totally agree.Immediately after the result I would have thought it impossible that we would stay in anyway but as someone else said it now seems likely that the EU will fall apart before we leave it.If it could be definitively proved that wages would be lower for the jams going forward if they wish to insist on an end to freedom of movement that would be a good thing.Currently a great many people,probably most,don't believe it.


----------



## gosub (Dec 2, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Interesting new development to the a50 issue.
> 
> The applicants in the N.Ireland litigation, which has now been appealed to the Supreme Court as well and separate from but alongside the _Miller_ litigation, have directly raised the issue of the revocability of a50 and argued that a preliminary reference to the ECJ will be required on that point:
> 
> The Northern Ireland Appellants’ Case



You had me worried for a minute.  Would be the case if HMG were using potential revoke as their argument, (which they are not)
.  I share their understanding that requires it both sides to revoke, and any clarification would have to be done at ECJ. So HMG will avoid, and rightly so. Any negotiations that took place under the cloud of revoke would be how big a shit sandwich can we make this, rather than good faith.



Still think the initial judgement were the right ones. But the case for a Federal UK is becoming overwhelming (though I'll let somebody else work out how, part of an overdue HoL overhaul I'd guess)


----------



## Dom Traynor (Dec 2, 2016)

brogdale said:


> FWIW, today's snapped Downing St. notes transcribed...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can just make out something about quiet bat people?


----------



## Poi E (Dec 4, 2016)

gosub said:


> But the case for a Federal UK is becoming overwhelming (though I'll let somebody else work out how, part of an overdue HoL overhaul I'd guess)



An impossibility. The smaller constituent members would need to give consent without the overweening presence of a dominant nation wielding the reins of power. The whole edifice of a kingdom built for colonial appropriation firstly needs to come down.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2016)

Poi E said:


> An impossibility. The smaller constituent members would need to give consent without the overweening presence of a dominant nation wielding the reins of power. The whole edifice of a kingdom built for colonial appropriation firstly needs to come down.


How was it built for colonial appropriation? and when?


----------



## Poi E (Dec 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> How was it built for colonial appropriation? and when?



Scottish ruling class fucked up their first go at colonialism and looked to the old hands at the job. bish bosh bash acts of union and they were off, kilts and rooinekkes on tour.


----------



## andysays (Dec 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> How was it built for colonial appropriation? and when?



Off the top of my head, the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 might be a place to start.

Plenty more colonial appropriation since then, of course (and possibly before, if someone wants to argue it)


----------



## Poi E (Dec 4, 2016)

Some Welsh went to Patagonia but most stayed at home digging coal.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 4, 2016)

Supine said:


> I'd say mp's should vote with their hearts, or at least with the views of their constituency. If they vote purely based on the overall result they are representing nobody properly.


This is a serious business not a reality TV show. 

MPs should vote only after a sober consideration of likely outcomes of policy taking fully on board the advice of knowledgable Civil Servants. They should then advocate for what they believe is best for country even if it gets them sacked. And that should be tested robustly in open deliberation in Parliament. It's this way because far too easy to make really stupid mistakes that will lastingly damage the country. Often what results really won't track with the shifts of the popular will.

A lot of necessary public policy will not be popular. The death penalty is a good example. It was widely supported by UK voters and repealed long before that was a popular idea. In 2015 support for death penalty drops below 50% for the first time so public acceptance really trailed that amongst MPs by decades. Public instincts are often not to look to the tests of the future but to run back towards a gilded past forgetting it was actually pretty shitty. 

Representative democracy is based on the idea it's more practical to delegate to a reasonably well informed body of elected representatives in making political decisions. Politics is complex and voters can't really be expected to be alert to the consequences of their inclinations that often are emotive. MP's should not sheepishly follow the generally instincts of their constituents just take note of the popular mood and consider their reelection prospects.

Sometimes it falls flat. Guiding ideology can lead politicians towards perverse positions and sometimes they are just a bit lazy and prone to BS like the rest of us. Most MPs on both sides of the Brexit debate it's now clear had little idea about how the EU functioned, what the Single Market is and even the Civil Servants advising them had little real experience in trade agreements. But now it's their job to make the best fist they can of that for the UK.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2016)

andysays said:


> Off the top of my head, the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 might be a place to start.
> 
> Plenty more colonial appropriation since then, of course (and possibly before, if someone wants to argue it)


Not so sure tbh as I would have thought eg the declaration of England as an empire might be a better starting point, not to mention the Irish experience.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 4, 2016)

On Bloomberg Forget About Cherrypicking Your Brexit, Irish Leader Warns U.K.

Enda reckons Article 50 in two years is very unlikely.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 4, 2016)

In The Daily Mirror Theresa May demands end to Brexit leaks in stern memo... and the memo gets leaked

It's getting like John Major and "The Bastards".


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 4, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Bloomberg Forget About Cherrypicking Your Brexit, Irish Leader Warns U.K.
> 
> Enda reckons Article 50 in two years is very unlikely.




The Irish guv now? After Malta's PM saying exactly the same thing last week? Big hitters indeed.

There's only one EU leader who matters and she's got a lot more shit to worry about than Brexit.


----------



## Santino (Dec 4, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There's only one EU leader who matters and she's got a lot more shit to worry about than Brexit.


Prince Harry's girlfriend?


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 5, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The Irish guv now? After Malta's PM saying exactly the same thing last week? Big hitters indeed.
> 
> There's only one EU leader who matters and she's got a lot more shit to worry about than Brexit.


The RoI government is one of few ones that is actually consistently friendly towards the UK in the whole Brexit thing. Unlike the big boys if it goes badly Dublin is fucked.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 5, 2016)

Anyone else watching the Supreme Court proceedings?

It's surprisingly clear and easy to follow.  With a bit of pre-reading (the first decision here - Miller & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) (03 November 2016)) it should be accessible to all.

Fascinating period just now as Eadie is making the government's case.

The questioning from Lord Carnworth in particular is rather uncomfortable for the government - pointing out that there is zero guidance on the proposed Great Repeal Bill as to Parliament's role in Brexit.  This line of reasoning drives toward a conclusion where the government doesn't just lose but loses very severely, with the court setting out a detailed Brexit process, potentially taking many years.


----------



## gosub (Dec 6, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Anyone else watching the Supreme Court proceedings?
> 
> It's surprisingly clear and easy to follow.  With a bit of pre-reading (the first decision here - Miller & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) (03 November 2016)) it should be accessible to all.
> 
> ...


Interesting,   as things stand, on that argument, if they lose I wouldn't blame them for going to the ECJ...Act50 is a EUropean Council thing.   It would be in the interests of the governments of EUrope to reach reciprocal agreement not to use EUropean citizens as pawns before potentially a EUropean court could decide if its citizens rights trump European government's right to rescind them.


----------



## Yossarian (Dec 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The Irish guv now? After Malta's PM saying exactly the same thing last week? Big hitters indeed.
> 
> There's only one EU leader who matters and she's got a lot more shit to worry about than Brexit.



If the UK wants an extension of the negotiating period after the 2 years following Article 50 are up, it's going to have to get the approval of Ireland and Malta - and Estonia, Luxembourg, etc...


----------



## gosub (Dec 6, 2016)

Yossarian said:


> If the UK wants an extension of the negotiating period after the 2 years following Article 50 are up, it's going to have to get the approval of Ireland and Malta - and Estonia, Luxembourg, etc...



Agreeing an extension would have to be unanimous, and if going round down that route should be doing it now as a condition of triggering...if not you want the quick and dirty EFTA transitional holding position


----------



## Winot (Dec 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> Interesting,   as things stand, on that argument, if they lose I wouldn't blame them for going to the ECJ...Act50 is a EUropean Council thing.   It would be in the interests of the governments of EUrope to reach reciprocal agreement not to use EUropean citizens as pawns before potentially a EUropean court could decide if its citizens rights trump European government's right to rescind them.



Apparently you can only refer a point to the ECJ (now called the CJEU) while the case is ongoing. Once a judgment's been handed down it's too late (afaik it's not a court of appeal, more like a place to refer difficult issues to help the lower court to reach a decision).


----------



## brogdale (Dec 6, 2016)

Not a good morning for May, with Barnier & Merkel giving it both barrels and the goons in the Supreme Court looking far from convincing.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 6, 2016)

Winot said:


> Apparently you can only refer a point to the ECJ (now called the CJEU) while the case is ongoing. Once a judgment's been handed down it's too late (afaik it's not a court of appeal, more like a place to refer difficult issues to help the lower court to reach a decision).



The case will be stayed while the preliminary reference is dealt with.

The CJEU is, of course, a court that EU citizens can assert their rights in so, in that sense, it can be a forum for both standalone and appellate litigation.

The preliminary reference procedure is used to try and create certainty while taking into account the fundamental EU principle of subsidiarity.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 6, 2016)

However - key point is that, much to my dismay and disappointment, nobody seems to be mentioning a preliminary reference at this point.

That may change if the question of a50 notification revocability, which looks like a question of purely EU law, is raised.

But the focus for the moment is squarely on domestic law re: prerogative powers v parliamentary scrutiny and approval.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 6, 2016)

On the preliminary reference point:

Richard Lang: The Article 50 Litigation and the Court of Justice: Why the Supreme Court Must Refer

I am genuinely astonished that there seems to be zero noise around this - it would be politically explosive for the Supreme Court to appear to defer to the CJEU on a point of law that could be determinative of Brexit!


----------



## flypanam (Dec 6, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> The RoI government is one of few ones that is actually consistently friendly towards the UK in the whole Brexit thing. Unlike the big boys if it goes badly Dublin is fucked.



In more ways than one, stay in the EU Europe will fuck with Ireland's 'No need for tax, mate' regime, if it leaves the EU there will be war especially in the rural areas, farmers are very much attached to their EU payments as most Irish farms are small.


----------



## gosub (Dec 6, 2016)

Diamond said:


> However - key point is that, much to my dismay and disappointment, nobody seems to be mentioning a preliminary reference at this point.
> 
> That may change if the question of a50 notification revocability, which looks like a question of purely EU law, is raised.
> 
> But the focus for the moment is squarely on domestic law re: prerogative powers v parliamentary scrutiny and approval.


Miller accepts irrevocability of Art 50. NI case is more correct on the technical but it is in documentation as an aside rather than an arguement. Neither are going down that route.
(Is irrovocable in sense of not being able to be unilaterally undone.)


----------



## gosub (Dec 6, 2016)

flypanam said:


> In more ways than one, stay in the EU Europe will fuck with Ireland's 'No need for tax, mate' regime, if it leaves the EU there will be war especially in the rural areas, farmers are very much attached to their EU payments as most Irish farms are small.


and very well fenced


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Not a good morning for May, with Barnier & Merkel giving it both barrels and the goons in the Supreme Court looking far from convincing.



Yeah but May's replied that we're gonna have a red, white and blue Brexit.

So probably a French one.


----------



## Yossarian (Dec 6, 2016)

I think she means she wants Britain to become the 51st state of the USA. Or to go totally the other way and sign deals with Cuba and North Korea.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 6, 2016)

Yossarian said:


> I think she means she wants Britain to become the 51st state of the USA. Or to go totally the other way and sign deals with Cuba and North Korea.



She can't mean us, cos Scotland's doing the off and we'll have no blue, so yeah, probably Cuba.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 6, 2016)

Diamond said:


> That may change if the question of a50 notification revocability, which looks like a question of purely EU law, is raised.l.


I think there's a lot of hot air being expelled about a50 revocability. If there is the political will to allow it to be revoked, it can be revoked - some clause in some law somewhere can be interpreted in such a way as to allow it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She can't mean us, cos Scotland's doing the off and we'll have no blue, so yeah, probably Cuba.


Red and White? Poland, surely.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Red and White? Poland, surely.



Greenland, Britain's future is in your hands gloves.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> Miller accepts irrevocability of Art 50. NI case is more correct on the technical but it is in documentation as an aside rather than an arguement. Neither are going down that route.
> (Is irrovocable in sense of not being able to be unilaterally undone.)



That does not necessarily mean that the issue is not justiciable, nor does it mean that the court is somehow barred from seeking submissions on that point on its own initiative, however my expectation was that this would most likely be introduced by one of the interveners from the devolved governments.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think there's a lot of hot air being expelled about a50 revocability. If there is the political will to allow it to be revoked, it can be revoked - some clause in some law somewhere can be interpreted in such a way as to allow it.



But the overriding point here is that the Supreme Court is under a duty to seek a preliminary reference to the CJEU on a matter of EU law, which to my mind a50 revocability clearly is given that it concerns the interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty.

However your point about political will is also a good one.

There is a curious tension there between this drive toward creating certainty in the application of EU law within a supra-national jurisdiction (which goes to a key Brexiteer argument around sovereignty) and the fact of the matter that the only thing that keeps the whole show on the road is intergovernmental political will as developed through international treaties.


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 6, 2016)

It's certainly interesting times thats for sure


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 6, 2016)

veerrry interesting.


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 6, 2016)

unheimlich interessant


----------



## Dr. Furface (Dec 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah but May's replied that we're gonna have a red, white and blue Brexit.
> 
> So probably a French one.


Yeah and I'm dreaming of a White Christmas!


----------



## Diamond (Dec 6, 2016)

And then there are the devolution issues...


----------



## Diamond (Dec 6, 2016)

Said to be very influential article here by Lord Millett in the Supreme Court Yearbook on the _Miller _litigation that cogently sets out a view that supports the government's arguments:

https://www.ukscy.org.uk/wp-content...-2016-7-The-UK-Supreme-Court-Yearbook-190.pdf


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 6, 2016)

flypanam said:


> In more ways than one, stay in the EU Europe will fuck with Ireland's 'No need for tax, mate' regime, if it leaves the EU there will be war especially in the rural areas, farmers are very much attached to their EU payments as most Irish farms are small.


Well with both Trump and May talking about slashing Corporate Tax that the RoI tax haven policies might not be much use. 

Not to mention there's fuck all chance of getting out of the Euro without roaring inflation and losing your shirt. Mark Blythe was predicting the Euro might well outlast the EU as it exists at the moment.


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah but May's replied that we're gonna have a red, white and blue Brexit.
> 
> So probably a French one.



The new RWB Union:


----------



## brogdale (Dec 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah but May's replied that we're gonna have a red, white and blue Brexit.
> 
> So probably a French one.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 6, 2016)

Pannick now up for Miller


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 6, 2016)

Yossarian said:


> If the UK wants an extension of the negotiating period after the 2 years following Article 50 are up, it's going to have to get the approval of Ireland and Malta - and Estonia, Luxembourg, etc...


Yes, just negotiating an extension could take a fair chunk of two years while the UK grovels to 30+ different actors involved in A50.

Let's face it the whole time limited A50 thing was structured to favour the remaining EU countries. When you welch on a complex contract in business the exit clauses are often like that. You just have to suck it up and take it. They are going to play hardball to get the best deal for them and they are in competition with each other. It'll just get more belligerent on their side the shakier the EU looks. The results unlikely to coincide that much with British interests even if half a dozen big EU countries would like it to. 

In The Guardian UK will have under 18 months to reach deal, says EU Brexit broker


> ...
> “Time will be very short,” he said in Brussels, pointing out that at the beginning of the formal two-year article 50 exit process the European council would need time to define its stance and at the end the council, the European parliament and the UK government would all have to approve the deal.
> 
> “It’s clear that the actual negotiation period will be shorter than two years,” he said. “All in all, there will be less than 18 months. If, as Theresa May has said, we receive notification by the end of March, it is safe to say the negotiations could start a few weeks later and article 50 agreement would have to be reached by October 2018.”
> ...


The bum's rush.

Well that's only the European Commission’s chief Brexit broker so the Council can ultimately tell him to sod off but that might be realistic as the initial entry and exit phases of the A50 process probably take at least a few months. 

18 months is a short time for a major bureaucratic activity involving hundreds of people. In my experience just signing off a set of formal documents with 30 or so parties does not happen quickly. I used to allow at least a month at the end of a project and that nearly always slid forward. Getting the thing properly scoped and with buy in from sponsors took months before getting down to the nitty gritty.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 6, 2016)

And there will be plenty of EU countries looking to get movement from the UK on other issues before they will support an overall agreement. Will Spain miss the chance to push the Gibraltar question for example?


----------



## gosub (Dec 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah but May's replied that we're gonna have a red, white and blue Brexit.
> 
> So probably a French one.



 she, yet again,isn't actually telling us anything. Why do journalists bother reporting it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> she, yet again,isn't actually telling us anything. Why do journalists bother reporting it.



Cos they are lazy fuckers who are terrible at their jobs, would be my guess.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 6, 2016)

I never got involved with the original brexit discussions on here as I couldn't be arsed my argue/verbalise my mechanistic concerns of how the fucking fuck this scheme was supposed to play out. What a fucking mess .


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 6, 2016)

Think of it all as a great unleashing creative chaos. Bit like the Arab Spring but run by a bunch of twits with a critical mass of emboldened stupidity.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 6, 2016)

Maybe entitled stupidity is more appropriate.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 6, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Maybe entitled stupidity is more appropriate.


One follows the other.


----------



## gosub (Dec 6, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> Think of it all as a great unleashing creative chaos. Bit like the Arab Spring but run by a bunch of twits with a critical mass of emboldened stupidity.



We have a Golgafrichan B-Ark government.  Six months of deliberation over Brexit ...and they've worked oout what the colour scheme should be  straight out of Restaurant at the end of the universe.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 6, 2016)

On Mainly Macro The OBR and the impact of Brexit


> ...
> The Treasury analysis of Brexit assumed that this lower trade intensity would also reduce productivity. The OBR do not include this effect, calling it too uncertain. This is a slightly surprising judgement. To see this, look at this piece by Maurice Obstfeld, chief economist at the IMF. Here is a quote:
> 
> “Empirical research supports Ricardo’s fundamental insight that trade fosters productivity [by increasing efficiency through comparative advantage]. But the productivity and growth benefits of trade go far beyond Ricardo’s insight. With trade, competition from abroad forces domestic producers to raise their game. Trade also offers a wider variety of intermediate production inputs firms can use to produce at lower cost. Finally, exporters can learn better techniques through their engagement in foreign markets, and are forced to compete for customers by raising efficiency and upgrading product quality (for example, Dabla-Norris and Duval, 2016).”​...


Experts, they haven't gone away you know.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 6, 2016)

Dunno why anyone's concerned, in the nearly 6 months since the vote the government has come up with plans detailed enough to take up a whole side of A4.


----------



## gosub (Dec 6, 2016)

Govt to reveal Brexit plan before EU exit begins

clearly they were just waiting on Theresa May to OK the stationary colours.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Dunno why anyone's concerned, in the nearly 6 months since the vote the government has come up with plans detailed enough to take up a whole side of A4.
> 
> View attachment 96665


That's almost a 20 slide PowerPoint deck once you add the obligatory pictures of people pointing at things etc. I could knock that up in the lunch break. We've invaded countries based on less.

Adding some animation for "Having our cake and eating it!" would be most amusing.






Unfortunately the EU folk seem to be more like this chap:


----------



## marty21 (Dec 6, 2016)

I have got involved in rows with a fair few kippers on line elsewhere   they insist that Brexit is hard Brexit, and that is the Brexit they voted for   and they get the right hump when I say that they voted to Brexit but the government will decide what sort of Brexit they will get and there is fuck all they can do about that. That sums it up doesn't it?


----------



## andysays (Dec 6, 2016)

Diamond said:


> But *the overriding point here is that the Supreme Court is under a duty to seek a preliminary reference to the CJEU on a matter of EU law,* which to my mind a50 revocability clearly is given that it concerns the interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty.
> 
> However your point about political will is also a good one.
> 
> There is a curious tension there between this drive toward creating certainty in the application of EU law within a supra-national jurisdiction (which goes to a key Brexiteer argument around sovereignty) and the fact of the matter that the only thing that keeps the whole show on the road is intergovernmental political will as developed through international treaties.



But only if it's a point which is relevant to the specific case in front of it.

I haven't been following the past couple of days' events, so I'm not fully up to speed yet, but from the original case in the High Court, neither party was making the question of revocability an issue (maybe things have changed in the past couple of days).

The question may need to be resolved at some point, and if so the CJEU will be the place the resolution will have to happen, but I'm not sure there's any necessity to refer it on for the purpose of the current case. Indeed part of the government's strategy in all this may be deliberately to avoid having it go to the CJEU at this stage and for the revocability question to remain unanswered for now.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 6, 2016)

marty21 said:


> I have got involved in rows with a fair few kippers on line elsewhere   they insist that Brexit is hard Brexit, and that is the Brexit they voted for   and they get the right hump when I say that they voted to Brexit but the government will decide what sort of Brexit they will get and there is fuck all they can do about that. That sums it up doesn't it?


Pretty much, except that the Government will 'decide' upon whatever course financial capital permits.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 6, 2016)

andysays said:


> But only if it's a point which is relevant to the specific case in front of it.
> 
> I haven't been following the past couple of days' events, so I'm not fully up to speed yet, but from the original case in the High Court, neither party was making the question of revocability an issue (maybe things have changed in the past couple of days).
> 
> The question may need to be resolved at some point, and if so the CJEU will be the place the resolution will have to happen, but I'm not sure there's any necessity to refer it on for the purpose of the current case. Indeed part of the government's strategy in all this may be deliberately to avoid having it go to the CJEU at this stage and for the revocability question to remain unanswered for now.


What's happening in Commons tomorrow is probably more important atm.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 7, 2016)

On VoxEU How Spain should negotiate Brexit: Preserving a tangled web


> ...
> However, Spain has been adopting a low profile in the international arena for many years now, and its Europeanism suggests that it is highly unlikely to deviate from the position taken by France and Germany, and will thus demand that the Commission leads and the Parliament has a say in the negotiations, once Article 50 is invoked. Spain will likely be a disciplined soldier on the European side, and demand that access to the Single Market continues to require a commitment to all four freedoms, and most notably to freedom of movement of people inside the Union.
> 
> A potential stumbling block is Gibraltar. Everything we have heard from the Spanish government up till now suggests that it is unlikely any deal in which Gibraltar retains access in any form to the EU will be reached that does not involve joint (Spanish and British) sovereignty over the peninsula.
> ...


My bold, not so much a hard Brexit as likely a very messy one in which the EU27 fail to agree on a whole range of issues.


----------



## andysays (Dec 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> What's happening in Commons tomorrow is probably more important atm.



Agreed.

The legal machinations are merely an interesting (to some of us) sideshow. It's in the political arena (the Commons and wider) that the important stuff is happening.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 7, 2016)

marty21 said:


> I have got involved in rows with a fair few kippers on line elsewhere   they insist that Brexit is hard Brexit, and that is the Brexit they voted for   and they get the right hump when I say that they voted to Brexit but the government will decide what sort of Brexit they will get and there is fuck all they can do about that. That sums it up doesn't it?


 
Irrespective of my views on the In/Out vote itself, this macho shit coming from the increasingly shrill vocal exit camp on a hard brexit is worrying and seems to exhibit a total lack of understanding of how these things work out in the real world


----------



## marty21 (Dec 7, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> Irrespective of my views on the In/Out vote itself, this macho shit coming from the increasingly shrill vocal exit camp on a hard brexit is worrying and seems to exhibit a total lack of understanding of how things work out these in the real world


aye! And they refer to minsters making various announcements during the campaign which means they will get what they want - it is a curiously child-like version of politics


----------



## teqniq (Dec 7, 2016)

Entitled scumbag in entitled scumbag shokka.

Britain could slash environmental and safety standards 'a very long way' after Brexit, Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg says


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 7, 2016)

marty21 said:


> aye! And they refer to minsters making various announcements during the campaign which means they will get what they want - it is a curiously child-like version of politics


It did work though. Leave appealed to a patriotic sense of exaggerated self worth and innate entitlement. It was out eagerly running with scissors whereas Remain was just a naggy Aunty seeing risks everywhere.

Just like Mr Trump's "curiously child-like" vocabulary and schoolyard bully tactics trampled mainstream opponents. Perhaps conventional politicians have been over estimating the real mental age of the electorate. Like stuffy broadsheet compared to an effective tabloid newspaper. In the infantile télé poubelle age Joe Public is easily tired by experts and just wants some promises of highly sugared goodies with a sexy sidebar of shame.


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 7, 2016)

I've taken to stopping reading as soon as any news item says the word "could", good filter.


----------



## 2hats (Dec 7, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> red, white and blue Brexit.


Symbolically the outcome of the process: blood, surrender and bruising?
(edit: might as well get them in the right order).


----------



## marty21 (Dec 7, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> It did work though. Leave appealed to a patriotic sense of exaggerated self worth and innate entitlement. It was out eagerly running with scissors whereas Remain was just a naggy Aunty seeing risks everywhere.
> 
> Just like Mr Trump's "curiously child-like" vocabulary and schoolyard bully tactics trampled mainstream opponents. Perhaps conventional politicians have been over estimating the real mental age of the electorate. Like stuffy broadsheet compared to an effective tabloid newspaper. In the infantile télé poubelle age Joe Public is easily tired by experts and just wants some promises of highly sugared goodies with a sexy sidebar of shame.


remain was a shit campaign - basically it was a load of fear stuff , the passionate ones were lib Dems and they were fucked by their collaboration with the Tories


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 7, 2016)

marty21 said:


> remain was a shit campaign - basically it was a load of fear stuff , the passionate ones were lib Dems and they were fucked by their collaboration with the Tories


Well it was a rerun of the Scottish secession referendum. Dave's Project Fear worked there and also shafted Labour. But then Scots are mostly a careful, calculating people so unlike the hot blooded English.


----------



## andysays (Dec 7, 2016)

MPs back government's Brexit timetable


> MPs have voted to back the government's plan to start formal talks on Brexit by the end of March next year. They also supported a Labour motion calling for Parliament to "properly scrutinise" the government in its proposals for leaving the EU. The votes followed a compromise between Labour and the Conservatives, who had argued over the questions to be put. *The House of Commons' decisions are not binding on ministers*



Not quite sure what that last bit means


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 7, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> Well it was a rerun of the Scottish secession referendum. Dave's Project Fear worked there and also shafted Labour. But then Scots are mostly a careful, calculating people so unlike the hot blooded English.


Did it work? Or did it just not fail quite badly enough for the vote to be lost? 

My suspicion is that the projects fear for Scottish Indie and Brexit both lost votes.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 7, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did it work? Or did it just not fail quite badly enough for the vote to be lost?
> 
> My suspicion is that the projects fear for Scottish Indie and Brexit both lost votes.


Undeniably shafted Labour in both cases.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 7, 2016)

andysays said:


> MPs back government's Brexit timetable
> 
> 
> Not quite sure what that last bit means



I think it means that the HoC has agreed to back HMG, but HMG hasn't agreed to anything.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 7, 2016)

Continuing shambles then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 7, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> Undeniably shafted Labour in both cases.


Unfortunately I think Labour shafted themselves in both cases. 

Scotland, they should have made a separate case for the union and had nothing to do with the Tories' case. It would have been straightforward to do. 

Over Brexit, imo the case they made, to do with worker rights, the environment, etc, was the correct one, they just arguably didn't make it forcefully enough. Too early to say who has been shafted by the brexit referendum.


----------



## coley (Dec 8, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> Think of it all as a great unleashing creative chaos. Bit like the Arab Spring but run by a bunch of twits with a critical mass of emboldened stupidity.



A fair summation of the EU commission, playing 'hardball' at this stage isn't going to do any party any favours in the long run.
In fact it's playing into the hands of the tiny band of 'racist little Englanders' who despite the protestations of the remainders,  had little real impact on the referendum.
But the efforts of some in the commissions negotiating team, who are clearly out to damage the UK as much as possible in the exit process, a desire jointly, to capture as much of our exports as possible ( mainly the financial sector) and to scare off any other countries who might consider following us out, will give the hardliners here in the UK a lot more support.
We are leaving, anybody with a grain of common knows an amicable divorce is always the best option.
Brussels needs to think about the bairns-


----------



## brogdale (Dec 8, 2016)

So those voting against the Conservative amendment to the Labour motion, to call on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31st March 2017 included:-

1 Tory (Ken Clarke)
Caroline Lucas
23 Labour MPs (
Rushanara Ali
Graham Allen
Ben Bradshaw
Ann Coffey
Neil Coyle
Stella Creasy
Geraint Davies
Jim Dowd
Louise Ellman
Chris Evans
Paul Farrelly
Mike Gapes
Helen Hayes
Meg Hillier
Peter Kyle
David Lammy
Chris Leslie
Ian Murray
Barry Sheerman
Tulip Siddiq
Angela Smith
Catherine West
Daniel Zeichner

6 of the 9 LDs
3 PC MPs
3 SDLP MPs
52 (+2 Indep) SNP MPs
Total = 91.


----------



## Quark (Dec 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> So those voting against the Conservative amendment to the Labour motion, to call on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31st March 2017 included:-
> 
> 1 Tory (Ken Clarke)
> Caroline Lucas
> ...



Is all this meaning anything?

The law in the UK will decide the date of the submission of A50. 
The Commission will  decide the timing of the negotiations and the 27 remaining countries in the EU will ultimately terms and conditions of leaving.

The UK will be left with whatever they can.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 8, 2016)

Quark said:


> Is all this meaning anything?
> 
> The law in the UK will decide the date of the submission of A50.
> The Commission will  decide the timing of the negotiations and the 27 remaining countries in the EU will ultimately terms and conditions of leaving.
> ...


It 'means something' to the extent that it is up to the leaving state to determine when A50 is invoked.


----------



## andysays (Dec 8, 2016)

Quark said:


> Is all this meaning anything?
> 
> The law in the UK will decide the date of the submission of A50.
> The Commission will  decide the timing of the negotiations and the 27 remaining countries in the EU will ultimately terms and conditions of leaving.
> ...



If nothing else, it means brogdale has 91 names for his list


----------



## Quark (Dec 8, 2016)

brogdale

Well yes but this constant banging on about March will happen only when all the legal tangles are sorted in the UK.  I have a feeling there will be a lot of untangling to do.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 8, 2016)

andysays said:


> If nothing else, it means brogdale has 91 names for his list
> 
> View attachment 96793


As an abstainer, I've already been told I'm included on a number of other member's lists!


----------



## andysays (Dec 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> As an abstainer, I've already been told I'm included on a number of other member's lists!



*Everybody* is on someone's list


----------



## kabbes (Dec 8, 2016)

andysays said:


> *Everybody* is on someone's list


----------



## gosub (Dec 8, 2016)

andysays said:


> If nothing else, it means brogdale has 91 names for his list



Only a few of them have given themselves a headache with regards their constituency : %= estimated %Leave Voters


CON
Ken Clarke Rushcliffe 41.3%

GREEN
Caroline Lucus Brighton Pavillion 25.7%

LABOUR
Rushanara Ali  Bethnal Greenand Bow 30.9%
*Graham Allen Nottingham North 57.3%*
Ben Bradshaw Exeter 44.7%
Ann Coffey Stockport 48.1%
Neil Coyle Bermondsey & Old Southwark 27.0%
Stella Creasy Walthamstow 36.4%
Geraint Davies Swansea West 42.7%
Jim Dowd Lewisham West 34.4%
Louise Ellman Liverpool Riverside 26.9%
*Chris Evans Islwyn 58.9%
Paul Farrelly Newcastle Under Lyme 61.7%*
Mike Gapes Ilford South 43.9%
Helen Hayes Dulwich and West Norwood 22.1%
Meg Hillier  Hackney South 22.2%
Peter Kyle Hove 33.9%
David Lammy  Tottenham 33.4%
Chris Leslie Nottingham East 42.8%
Ian Murray Edinburgh South 23.6%
*Barry Sheerman Huddersfield 51.1%*
Tulip Siddiq Hampstead and Kilburn 23.5%
*Angela Smith  Penistone 61.3%*
Catherine West Hornsey and Wood Green 18.5%
Daniel Zeichner  Cambridge 26.4%

LID DEM
Alistair Carmichael Orkney and Shetland 40.3%
Nick Clegg Sheffield Hallam 35.9%
Tim Farron Westmorland and Lonsdale 47.5%
Mark Williams Cerdigion 45.4%

PC
*Janathon Edwards Carmarthen East 53.8%*
Liz Saville Roberts Dwyfor Merionndd 48.3%
Hywel Williams Arfon 34.9%

SNP constituences all <50%


----------



## brogdale (Dec 8, 2016)

gosub said:


> Only a few of them have given themselves a headache with regards their constituency : %= estimated %Leave Voters
> 
> 
> CON
> ...


That's not all of them, though.


----------



## gosub (Dec 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> That's not all of them, though.


  I just spent 20 mins going through that list YOU put up, then finding the names of the PC and Lib Dems and doing them.   If there is more, and they ain't Scots or N Irish I'm blaming YOU


----------



## brogdale (Dec 8, 2016)

gosub said:


> I just spent 20 mins going through that list YOU put up, then finding the names of the PC and Lib Dems and doing them.   If there is more, and they ain't Scots or N Irish I'm blaming YOU


Well, you left out my MP Tom Brake.


----------



## gosub (Dec 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Well, you left out my MP Tom Brake.


Not on the list according to Guido ( I also cross referenced )


----------



## brogdale (Dec 8, 2016)

gosub said:


> Not on the list according to Guido ( I also cross referenced )


Brake (const. 54% L) was a Noes teller.


----------



## gosub (Dec 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Brake (const. 54% L) was a Noes teller.


So vote not counted. Oh and Cashalton is estimated at 56.3%


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 8, 2016)

coley said:


> A fair summation of the EU commission, playing 'hardball' at this stage isn't going to do any party any favours in the long run.
> In fact it's playing into the hands of the tiny band of 'racist little Englanders' who despite the protestations of the remainders,  had little real impact on the referendum.
> But the efforts of some in the commissions negotiating team, who are clearly out to damage the UK as much as possible in the exit process, a desire jointly, to capture as much of our exports as possible ( mainly the financial sector) and to scare off any other countries who might consider following us out, will give the hardliners here in the UK a lot more support.
> We are leaving, anybody with a grain of common knows an amicable divorce is always the best option.
> Brussels needs to think about the bairns-


The Commission is just a bunch of very sackable suits. It's the Council you want to worry about i.e member states. They do seem to be leaning towards hardball particularly the French. Poor old Greece ended up in a similar position facing actually powerful, rather angry foreign ministers after over playing their hand. The clever,clever, three Brexiteers rubbing everyone up the wrong way really are not helping. I also wouldn't count on the arrival of jingoistically nationalistic replacement governments as being at all helpful.


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 8, 2016)

Finally the Dangerous Dogs Act finds a useful purpose.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 9, 2016)

EU negotiators to offer every Brit the chance to remain an EU citizen after Brexit


----------



## hot air baboon (Dec 9, 2016)

...are they going to send them an income tax return to do every year then...?


----------



## andysays (Dec 9, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> EU negotiators to offer every Brit the chance to remain an EU citizen after Brexit





> Depending on the approach taken by EU negotiators, the idea would likely be subject to approval by the British government.



In other words, this looks like part of the pre-negotiating jockeying-for-position etc, just as much as any of the recent statements by the May govt and everyone else.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 9, 2016)

The British government is, I tentatively predict, going to reject this associate citizenship idea out of hand. Not least because it will doubtless come with a caveat that May and pals cannot be seen to accept, such as a high level of ongoing contributions to the EU budget and/or similar rights for EU citizens.


----------



## gosub (Dec 9, 2016)

Mr Tusk must be pissed off. The EUropean Council has to appoint someone to be in charge of the negotiations from a European side once we trigger Art 50, in the meantime both Mr Verhofstadt  and Mr Barnier pretend its them.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 9, 2016)

andysays said:


> In other words, this looks like part of the pre-negotiating jockeying-for-position etc, just as much as any of the recent statements by the May govt and everyone else.


I wonder if the Guardian might offer EU 'citizenship' as a prize in some sort of blind-dating/short-story sort of competition?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 9, 2016)

gosub said:


> Mr Tusk must be pissed off. The EUropean Council has to appoint someone to be in charge of the negotiations from a European side once we trigger Art 50, in the meantime both Mr Verhofstadt  and Mr Barnier pretend its them.


Yeh

Only verhofstadt is the European parliament's brexit guy. he isn't pretending to be the EU council wallah. nor is Barnier, who is the EU commission's chief negotiator.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 10, 2016)

Who exactly are these people? The graunid keeps posting pictures of them in any Brexit related story







They have a very vague twitter account

Movement for Justice (@followMFJ) on Twitter


----------



## gosub (Dec 10, 2016)

Irish courts to be asked to intervene in Brexit legal process


----------



## andysays (Dec 10, 2016)

gosub said:


> Irish courts to be asked to intervene in Brexit legal process



This, as I believe the saying goes, will go well...


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 10, 2016)

gosub said:


> Irish courts to be asked to intervene in Brexit legal process



Fair enough. It's about time Ireland played a stronger role in the UK's affairs


----------



## gosub (Dec 10, 2016)

andysays said:


> This, as I believe the saying goes, will go well...


Well they will knock it up to the ECJ coz its beyond their scope.  ECJ might have some interesting ideas about ALL parties, but will find that if ALL parties want to rescind it can be rescinded.. Leave will still happen  (that bit of the divorce where one/both sides act like nightmare to stop break up.......doesn't really work) BUT helps provide evidence for those unhappy with end arrangement to take case to UN court that dealings weren't done in good faith.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 10, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> EU negotiators to offer every Brit the chance to remain an EU citizen after Brexit



'Tis an odd one, we are EU citizens and will be stripped of that citizenship when the UK leaves the EU. Can see potential law lols in sueing both the UK government and the EU over this outrage.


Hashtag: clusterfuck


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 11, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Who exactly are these people? The graunid keeps posting pictures of them in any Brexit related story
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Movement for justice campaigns primarily against immigration detention and they're pretty damn good at it. I wasn't aware they had any particular position on brexit, I suspect these are just a handful of windmill-tilters who have chosen to put MFJ on their banners.


----------



## gosub (Dec 11, 2016)

Theresa May faces new Brexit legal challenge 


And another one...,as much as I have always thought Single Market was the right thing at this stage, not sure I get this one  Miller (rightly) proved that Parliament is Sovereign so to limit its scope to exactly one prescribed option would be a fucked up definition of sovereignty,  and to say that the idea of leaving the Single market wasn't outlined  - you had to carefully read the government literature to understand that it was even an option and it was one both IN and OUT glossed over.

Hislop on HIGNFY called the Miller case "jobs for the boys", he was wrong on that one but these subsequent cases are frivolous at best


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 15, 2016)

Heard this on the radio so I dont know who said this - In response to warnings that a deal with the EU would take "over a decade" some tory minister said "nonsense" citing as evidence that the US recently arranged a trade deal with jordon in just 4 months. 

That will be the same Jordon whose GDP is ranked about 80th in the world and whos economy is 100 time smaller than the UK's. 

Beyond satire.


----------



## red & green (Dec 15, 2016)

David Davis at the select committee this week - what a buffoon


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 19, 2016)

On SwissInfo How an issue of immigration turned into one of unemployment


> ...
> The new conditions should improve the job-finding chances of unemployed Swiss. More concretely, if unemployment in a certain sector or region reaches a certain level, employers must do everything to tap the local labour force, for example by advertising jobs at regional job centres, before recruiting outside Switzerland.
> 
> In addition, employers will be forced to invite job centre-approved applicants to an interview, and then inform the job centre of the result, although they wouldn’t have to explain their decision.
> ...


In 2014 the Swiss voted to reimpose EU immigrations quotas though what that meant like Brexit was open to interpretation. Then some months later against a permanent pretty high immigration quota. Unlike in the UK the former decision is constitutionally binding; Berne had to act on it within three years. The latter vote was a strong signal that Berne should not do anything daft that would bugger the economy. Now all it seems to be resulting in is this rather modest measure linked to unemployment levels. 

Swiss native unemployment is below what most countries regard as a baseline level despite a very generous benefits system and a Swiss aversion to the sort of skilled manual jobs they once liked. Employers often do show preferences to natives but would circumvent this measure as they always used to by doing some extra interviews and passing the raised hiring costs onto employees.

I doubt the vastly more emotive British Brexit will end up in such a damp squib but this is an example of a marginally majoritarian populist impulse getting lost in weeds after turning out to be really, really complicated. 

Of course the Swiss can have another referendum if someone raises a 100K signature petition. The _People Having Spoken_ really doesn't mean everybody should just accept the result and shut the fuck up on such matters in Switzerland. They'd think that rather potty.


----------



## hot air baboon (Dec 19, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Heard this on the radio so I dont know who said this - In response to warnings that a deal with the EU would take "over a decade" some tory minister said "nonsense" citing as evidence that the US recently arranged a trade deal with jordon in just 4 months.



...the Australian High Commissioner was on the Sunday Brillo Show yesterday saying the US-Australia free trade deal was negotiated in 17 months or thereabouts tbf...


----------



## CrabbedOne (Dec 19, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Heard this on the radio so I dont know who said this - In response to warnings that a deal with the EU would take "over a decade" some tory minister said "nonsense" citing as evidence that the US recently arranged a trade deal with jordon in just 4 months.
> 
> That will be the same Jordon whose GDP is ranked about 80th in the world and whos economy is 100 time smaller than the UK's.
> 
> Beyond satire.


Jordan's also economically dependant on US aid. Bent over and spreading them is going to be the basic negotiating position. And it's a monarchy not 27 contrary democracies. 

It was one thing gilding the Brexit lily in order to swing a Leave vote; that's just cynical politics. The persistence in delusion on its complexities isn't even funny anymore. These people have about as much competence to carry this mammoth legislative task out as tarmac a driveway. At least a team of passing Tinkers would make a show of knowing what they are up to.


----------



## gosub (Dec 19, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> Jordan's also economically dependant on US aid. Bent over and spreading them is going to be the basic negotiating position. And it's a monarchy not 27 contrary democracies.
> 
> It was one thing gilding the Brexit lily in order to swing a Leave vote; that's just cynical politics. The persistence in delusion on its complexities isn't even funny anymore. These people have about as much competence to carry this mammoth legislative task out as tarmac a driveway. At least a team of passing Tinkers would make a show of knowing what they are up to.




Fear Not! The HoC library have provided some homework so our elected representatives can get up to speed over the holiday.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7840/CBP-7840.pdf

I have a bad feeling about this.


----------



## gosub (Dec 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh
> 
> Only verhofstadt is the European parliament's brexit guy. he isn't pretending to be the EU council wallah. nor is Barnier, who is the EU commission's chief negotiator.


Tusk is being bounced.


----------



## gosub (Dec 22, 2016)

EU's 38 national and regional parliaments to get post-Brexit trade deal veto


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 23, 2016)

gosub said:


> EU's 38 national and regional parliaments to get post-Brexit trade deal veto



 a piffling matter. The Uk post-brexit deal will sale through the digestive system of  the not-at-all complex, EU multi member negotiation process and into the toilet bowl of international trade like an otter slipping off a bank. not.


----------



## gosub (Dec 23, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> a piffling matter. The Uk post-brexit deal will sale through the digestive system of  the not-at-all complex, EU multi member negotiation process and into the toilet bowl of international trade like an otter slipping of a bank. not.



Or side step the lot of them with combination of preloading leave agreement (to be agreed by straight majority of EUropean Parliament and QMV of EUropean Council) and joining EFTA (to be agreed by the four members of EFTA)


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 28, 2016)

> *Think-tank seeks BBC apology after Brexit vote 'compared to crucifixion of Jesus'*


----------



## gosub (Dec 28, 2016)

Had to check the context, cos could see some tie ins.  As it is, was crass, and the sort of thinking that lead to the crucifixion in the first place.  Jesus himself according to the heavily edited texts we have now, was dis-interested in Geo-politics.


(A bunch of Jews who found what he was saying was not to their likely, told the overarching Roman Empire that he was actively undermining it and should be dealt with.)


----------



## gosub (Dec 28, 2016)

In reality though, not being religious, I'd probably have gone with :groups on all sides boyed up with nothing more than fanatical belief; refusing to find common ground.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 28, 2016)

Googled it here. Just sounds like the usual brexit-denier speak to me & brexiteers trying to make capital out of it. It should be taken in that context same as John Lennon's off the cuff "Beatles more popular than Jesus" remark causing similar faux outrage.


----------



## 2hats (Jan 3, 2017)

Ivan Rogers (UK ambassador to the EU) has resigned.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 3, 2017)

2hats said:


> Ivan Rogers (UK ambassador to the EU) has resigned.



Hmmm...all is not well in the state of Mayhem...


> 3m ago13:16
> 
> On the World at One* George Parker*, the Financial Times’ political editor, says the departure of Sir Ivan Rogers came as a surprise to Downing Street. Rogers felt the honest advice he gave to London was not being well received, and tensions were growing, Parker says. He says in Number 10 the view was that Rogers was too “eeyorish” and too pessimistic. Number 10 wanted someone more positive about Brexit, says Parker.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jan 3, 2017)

His email to staff is an interesting read (outside the Times paywall)

In full: Sir Ivan Rogers’ resignation email to staff



> As I have argued consistently at every level since June, many opportunities for the UK in the future will derive from the mere fact of having left and being free to take a different path. But others will depend entirely on the precise shape of deals we can negotiate in the years ahead.* Contrary to the beliefs of some*, free trade does not just happen when it is not thwarted by authorities: increasing market access to other markets and consumer choice in our own, depends on the deals, multilateral, plurilateral and bilateral that we strike, and the terms that we agree. I shall advise my successor to continue to make these points.



Oof.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 3, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> His email to staff is an interesting read (outside the Times paywall)
> 
> In full: Sir Ivan Rogers’ resignation email to staff
> 
> ...


and...


> For my part, I hope that in my day-to-day dealings with you I have demonstrated the values which I have always espoused as a public servant. *I hope you will continue to challenge ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking and that you will never be afraid to speak the truth to those in power*. *I hope that you will support each other in those difficult moments where you have to deliver messages that are disagreeable to those who need to hear them. I hope that you will continue to be interested in the views of others, even where you disagree with them, and in understanding why others act and think in the way that they do.* I hope that you will always provide the best advice and counsel you can to the politicians that our people have elected, and be proud of the essential role we play in the service of a great democracy.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 3, 2017)

...and they're starting to tear into each again...


----------



## gosub (Jan 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


> ...and they're starting to tear into each again...




"We do not yet know what the Government will set as negotiating objectives for the UK’s relationship with the EU after exit. There is much we will not know until later this year about the political shape of the EU itself, and who the political protagonists in any negotiation with the UK will be." 

  Sounds more like Number 10 hasn't got any ideas (other than the colour scheme)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 4, 2017)

Been reading that May will soon 'trigger the Brexit process'.

But it never explains how it's done. How does she 'trigger'?

Does she push a big red button?  Bang a large gong hanging in Westminster Abbey? Smash a magnum of champagne over the prow of the Cutty Sark?

The papers haven't been explaining it well.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 4, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Been reading that May will soon 'trigger the Brexit process'.
> 
> But it never explains how it's done. How does she 'trigger'?
> 
> ...



By 'trigger the brexit process' they mean sign article 50.


----------



## gosub (Jan 4, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Been reading that May will soon 'trigger the Brexit process'.
> 
> But it never explains how it's done. How does she 'trigger'?
> 
> ...



A written letter, addressed to the European Council stating :"I the Prime Minister, acting on behalf of the UK do hearby invoke Artictle 50 of the Treaty of EUropean Union"


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2017)

Eddie speaks...



sp.


----------



## Supine (Jan 4, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Eddie speaks...
> 
> 
> 
> sp.




Idiot speaks is more like it


----------



## gosub (Jan 4, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Eddie speaks...
> 
> 
> 
> sp.





All future negotiations to be carried out via megaphone from Dover


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2017)

gosub said:


> All future negotiations to be carried out via megaphone from Dover


Gunboat (12 miles out)?


----------



## gosub (Jan 4, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Gunboat (12 miles out)?



STILL TOO CLOSE!


----------



## existentialist (Jan 4, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Eddie speaks...
> 
> 
> 
> sp.



Yes, because the person we need to go into bat for us needs to be someone without the first clue as to how the EU operates 

Maybe Nigel Farage would have been a better choice - after all, not only is he a UKIP MEP, but he gains *thousands* from the EU in salary and expenses payments...


----------



## Raheem (Jan 5, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Eddie speaks...
> 
> 
> 
> sp.




If he was being honest, he'd have prefaced this with "Having Googled his name, I can see that senior Tories are saying...".


----------



## treelover (Jan 5, 2017)

> *Ditching EU free movement is a political necessity, says Vince Cable *
> 
> Former business secretary departs from Lib Dem position to argue that public opinion is behind post-Brexit immigration controls
> 
> Ditching EU free movement is a political necessity, says Vince Cable



Bit surprised by this, 'I'm not with Nick'..


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 6, 2017)

Sorry, I'm not sure I can comment much further on Brexit.

Clive off of Facebook just told me that treason is VERY serious, and that's following on from Harriet insisting that I WILL be held to account.

I'm very worried. I don't want to be put on trial and exemecuted in Clive or Harriet's heads, or the heads of any brave brexit civil war soldier.

I hope you understand. Have any other people here been brought to their senses by a Clive or a Harriet?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 6, 2017)

treelover said:


> Bit surprised by this, 'I'm not with Nick'..



There's just not enough votes in not pandering to fear, hatred, resentment and lies these days. I'm only suprised that the bloke dares to even show his face in public after losing us £1,000,000,000 through jaw-dropping gullibility, but standards are pretty low at the mo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2017)

gosub said:


> A written letter, addressed to the European Council stating :"I the Prime Minister, acting on behalf of the UK do hearby invoke Artictle 50 of the Treaty of EUropean Union"


I'm going to send them that and see what happens


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm going to send them that and see what happens


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 8, 2017)

Theresa today reiterated that she definately has a plan, a special plan , a clever plan, that no one else knows about, not even the cleverest people in thr world and she will unveil it soon.

So thats confirmed then, they are making this up as they go along


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 8, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Eddie speaks...
> 
> 
> 
> sp.





I am a bit slow. I never realised that Nuttall is Eddie Hitler. fucking hell


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 8, 2017)

Listening to rte radio 1 at the moment.  Interesting discussion on the possible reunification of Ireland on foot of Brexit...


----------



## 2hats (Jan 8, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I am a bit slow. I never realised that Nuttall is Eddie Hitler. fucking hell


Hive mind way ahead:


----------



## gosub (Jan 8, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Theresa today reiterated that she definately has a plan, a special plan , a clever plan, that no one else knows about, not even the cleverest people in thr world and she will unveil it soon.
> 
> So thats confirmed then, they are making this up as they go along



"sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast brexit."


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 8, 2017)

Theresa May: "I'm not looking at the means to the end but the outcome, I'm looking for the outcome -a really good ambitious trade deal with EU.."

Translate: 6 and a half months and I've still no plan or clue what to do, at the end of it I'd like what we already have"

Vacuous means vacuous


----------



## gosub (Jan 8, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Theresa May: "I'm not looking at the means to the end but the outcome, I'm looking for the outcome -a really good ambitious trade deal with EU.."
> 
> Translate: 6 and a half months and I've still no plan or clue what to do, *at the end of it I'd like what we already have*"
> 
> Vacuous means vacuous



Quite the opposite,an immigration lead Brexit and the economy better brace itself for a bump.

Think there will be as much political turmoil in 2017 as there was in 2016.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 8, 2017)

gosub said:


> Quite the opposite,an immigration lead Brexit and the economy better brace itself for a bump.
> 
> Think there will be as much political turmoil in 2017 as there was in 2016.


Only as much?


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2017)

May says it is wrong to claim hard Brexit is inevitable
This is what Theresa May said about not accepting that she is heading for a so-called hard Brexit. (See 12.02pm.) She was responding to a question from the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn.

Dunn said, in the light of what she had said early about not saying anything new yesterday (see 11.57am), either the markets were getting their interpretation of her Brexit stance wrong or she was getting it wrong. Which one was it?

May replied:

Well, I’m tempted to say the people who are getting it wrong are those who print things saying I’m talking about a hard Brexit, [that] it’s absolutely inevitable it’s a hard Brexit. I don’t accept the terms hard or soft Brexit. What we are doing is going to get an ambitious, good, the best possible deal for the United Kingdom in terms of trading with, and operating within, the single European market. But it will be a new relationship because we won’t be members of the EU any longer. We will be outside the European Union, and therefore we will be negotiating a new relationship across not just trading but other areas with the European Union.





________________________________________________________________
so 24hrs later and its a business freindly EFTA/EEA brexit...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 9, 2017)

Markets calling May's bluff.
FT summing up their scepticism.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2017)

hostile terms I'd suggest. Greece as an example of if you stay but elect wrongly, UK as an example of what happens when you want to go.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 9, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Markets calling May's bluff.
> FT summing up their scepticism.
> 
> View attachment 98520


It looks like the FT is comparing May to the Iron Chicken rather than the Iron Lady she aspires to be.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 9, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> hostile terms I'd suggest. Greece as an example of if you stay but elect wrongly, UK as an example of what happens when you want to go.



On the one hand, no we're not going to get to have our cake and eat it. But, when the time comes, we'll probably get better bail-out terms than Greece did.


----------



## treelover (Jan 9, 2017)

> Jeremy Corbyn: UK can be better off out of the EU
> 
> First speech of 2017 will make clear that Labour is not wedded to free movement and supports ‘repatriating powers’ from Brussels




Corbyn accepting Brexit and loss of freedom of movement?

may be Guardian spin.


----------



## gosub (Jan 10, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn accepting Brexit and loss of freedom of movement?
> 
> may be Guardian spin.



Access to single market, May is saying within Single Market (well on weekdays, at weekends the immigrants obviously have to go home)


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 10, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn accepting Brexit and loss of freedom of movement?
> 
> may be Guardian spin.



Certainly not total spin.

_"Corbyn will use his first speech of 2017 to claim that Britain can be better off outside the EU and insist that* the Labour party has no principled objection to ending the free movement of European workers in the UK."

*_
This is a backward step for a basic freedom of the working class, and it has Corbyn's name on it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Certainly not total spin.
> 
> _"Corbyn will use his first speech of 2017 to claim that Britain can be better off outside the EU and insist that* the Labour party has no principled objection to ending the free movement of European workers in the UK."
> 
> ...


Yeh but treelover is well-known for being credulous


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2017)

treelover said:


> Corbyn accepting Brexit and loss of freedom of movement?
> 
> may be Guardian spin.


Yeh right.

Perhaps you might like to post in 2017 after engaging brain


----------



## gosub (Jan 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh but treelover is well-known for being credulous



That, in conjunction with the post quoted makes no sense at all.. but whats new


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2017)

gosub said:


> That, in conjunction with the post quoted makes no sense at all.. but whats new


But that is the post quoted so fuck knows what clever point you think you're making. The post quoted in conjunction with the post quoted makes no sense? Past your bedtime perhaps.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2017)

gosub said:


> That, in conjunction with the post quoted makes no sense at all.. but whats new


Anyway treelover is credulous, believing anything as long as it's loonery like the guardian printing fake news emanating from labour hq


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 11, 2017)

Here's another Brexit oddity: If, as we are told, A50 is to be invoked soon then the process will be overseen by a Conservative government. People supporting Brexit are thus placing implicit trust about our long term future in the party that has dominated UK politics for centuries. And they call themselves "anti establishment". Trusting the tories is about as pro-establishment as thinkable.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Here's another Brexit oddity: If, as we are told, A50 is to be invoked soon then the process will be overseen by a Conservative government. People supporting Brexit are thus placing implicit trust about our long term future in the party that has dominated UK politics for century. And they call themselves "anti establishment". Trusting the tories is about as pro-establishment as thinkable.


Labour (for what they are worth) and Liberals have also been players in the electoral politics of the last hundred years. Trust none.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 11, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> Labour (for what they are worth) and Liberals have also been players in the electoral politics of the last hundred years. Trust none.



Apols, I meant to say centuries. going to edit. Tories are the overwhelming establishment party. Anyone supporting invoking A50 must be trusting them a great deal. So anyone describing this as "anti establishment" is a sap / dupe at best.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 11, 2017)

Two times a loser.



> Cabinet ministers have privately conceded that they are very likely to lose a landmark legal case on Brexit in the supreme court and have drawn up at least two versions of a bill that could be tabled after the ruling.
> 
> Sources have told the Guardian that senior government figures are convinced seven of the 11 judges will uphold the high court’s demand that Theresa May secure the consent of MPs and peers before triggering article 50.


----------



## Poi E (Jan 11, 2017)

So technocrats obsessed with process rather than outcomes. Why they wasted time on appealing I'll never know, as the judgment is likely to have obiter unfavorable to any future government's application of the royal prerogative.


----------



## gosub (Jan 11, 2017)

Poi E said:


> So technocrats obsessed with process rather than outcomes. Why they wasted time on appealing I'll never know, as the judgment is likely to have obiter unfavorable to any future government's application of the royal prerogative.



With regards the judgement : the lower court decision is enough to add precedent when dealing with royal prerogative.  But it is rather alarming the ones arguing for the do-it-all-in-one-go  bespoke deal (at record speed, by a team with no experience) would put us in situation where everybody would have under 6 months to adapt /adopt to whatever the technocrats compromise on before the guillotine falls at the end of the 2 year Art 50 period


----------



## Poi E (Jan 11, 2017)

Sure, but the Supreme Court will, I am sure, go further with potential restrictions on the application of the RP, aside from whatever can be inferred from the ratio of the lower court. I would wager Crown counsel advised "leave it the fuck alone".


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jan 16, 2017)

On Bloomberg Sterling Options Signal More Turmoil as May Speech, Ruling Loom


> ...
> “Even if the pound recovers somewhat in London, it seems as though the realities of a hard Brexit are still not fully priced in,” said Sean Callow, senior strategist at Westpac Banking Corp. in Sydney. “It is difficult to make the case for the pound to avoid testing, probably breaking, the ‘flash crash’ lows in coming weeks.”
> 
> The pound fell as much as 1.6 percent on Monday to $1.1986, the weakest level since Oct. 7 when it slid to $1.1841, the least since 1985. Sterling was 1 percent down at $1.2065 as of 11:14 a.m. in London.
> ...


I can remember the good old days when the UK just had "yeehaw" as a Middle East policy.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2017)

Favoured Rexit meme is now "_*Clean *_*Brexit".
*
Maybe _Andrexit?_


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 17, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Favoured Rexit meme is now "_*Clean *_*Brexit".
> *
> Maybe _Andrexit?_


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jan 17, 2017)

We are yet to have a fully erect Brexit.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 17, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> We are yet to have a fully erect Brexit.


I dont know, looks like a cock up to me*





*someone had to


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jan 17, 2017)

I favour a semi myself.


----------



## gosub (Jan 17, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Favoured Rexit meme is now "_*Clean *_*Brexit".
> *
> Maybe _Andrexit?_



A Clean Brexit would be anything but.  Effectively a reboot in midflight (yes that does happen)


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 17, 2017)

So hard one it is then.....

hold on tight


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Favoured Rexit meme is now "_*Clean *_*Brexit".
> *
> Maybe _Andrexit?_


just wrecksit


----------



## Wilf (Jan 17, 2017)

David Cameron, eh? Hiding in the potting shed for the last 6 months in case Gerald and Margery from the local Conservative Association walk past and berate him for putting up the cost of their annual trip to Tenerife. All political careers end in failure.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 17, 2017)

Vote Tory get Ukip.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Vote Tory get Ukip.


i can't believe it's not farage


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 17, 2017)

Cant see there is any sensible reason for any Labour voter in Scotland to vote against independence.

Wonder what Nissan think now.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 17, 2017)

Wilf said:


> David Cameron, eh? Hiding in the potting shed for the last 6 months in case Gerald and Margery from the local Conservative Association walk past and berate him for putting up the cost of their annual trip to Tenerife. All political careers end in failure.



Somehow I don't think you'll find many residents of Chipping Norton holidaying in Tenerife.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Somehow I don't think you'll find many residents of Chipping Norton holidaying in Tenerife.


It was Lanza, and no...you're right.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 17, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Cant see there is any sensible reason for any Labour voter in Scotland to vote against independence.
> 
> Wonder what Nissan think now.



Nissan won't give a fuck, they've been brought off.  They're on a win win.  Only problem is now everyone else will want the same deal..........


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> just wrecksit




wreckshit


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> wreckshit


Fuckshitup as they say in sweden


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 17, 2017)

brogdale said:


> It was Lanza, and no...you're right.



Neither Tenerife nor Lanzarote are in the EU


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jan 17, 2017)

Brex... shit they've really elected Trump!!!


----------



## Raheem (Jan 17, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Neither Tenerife nor Lanzarote are in the EU



Maybe Google that.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Neither Tenerife nor Lanzarote are in the EU


Last time I checked, all of the _Islas Canarias_ are Spanish and EU.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jan 17, 2017)

On Bloomberg May Sets Out Brexit Vision With Vow to Quit EU Single Market


> ...
> Laying out the government’s Brexit plans with 12 core objectives, May said that she was confident a deal can be reached with the European Union once the trigger to leave is pulled by the end of March. She called for a “phased approach” to implementing the new rules to ensure Brexit is “smooth.”
> 
> May offered a series of other aims for the coming talks:
> ...


And that did Sterling some good.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 17, 2017)

May opposes the basic human freedom of movement because at root she is anti-human and anti-freedom.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> May opposes the basic human freedom of movement because at root she is anti-human and anti-freedom.


Love to see her flee the country and have the French turn her back with a gallick shrug


----------



## 03gills (Jan 17, 2017)

SMH at 'but people didn't vote to leave the single market' when i would argue that _*this is exactly what they fucking voted for you shitstaple*_.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2017)

> Theresa May has said the UK "cannot possibly" remain within the European single market, as staying in it would mean "not leaving the EU at all"



So there are no countries which are within the EEA but outside the EU? That's a logical impossibility is it?

I had long suspected that Theresa May was actually quite clever. I'm now increasingly coming to think that she's just another complete idiot, but one with just enough sense to STFU most of the time. Her ascendancy to power may not have been the result of some brilliant long-game strategy after all, in fact she may have become PM almost entirely by accident. And now she's perfectly placed to do the one thing she's ever seemed to genuinely care about: get rid of immigrants, even if it's by reducing the country to such a backward shitheap that they all leave voluntarily.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 17, 2017)

Trump trashing NATO must be an absolute windfall for May I guess.  The one trump card (sorry) the negotiating team will have is security and thanks to our ridiculously overblown defence budget its something the UK can bring to the table (compared to other EU countries).  Trump potentially pulling the NATO rug from under the EU states will be concentrating some minds I reckon.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 17, 2017)

03gills said:


> SMH at 'but people didn't vote to leave the single market' when i would argue that _*this is exactly what they fucking voted for you shitstaple*_.



Leave promised a load of nebulous shit, including yes we'd leave the single market and no we wouldn't.



Remain promised a load of crap as well but lost so I suppose it all balances out


----------



## Raheem (Jan 17, 2017)

03gills said:


> SMH at 'but people didn't vote to leave the single market' when i would argue that _*this is exactly what they fucking voted for you shitstaple*_.



I agree that they did, but they don't appear to think they did, according to polling.

UK voters want single market access and immigration controls, poll finds


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jan 17, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Last time I checked, all of the _Islas Canarias_ are Spanish and EU.



They are, but not in the common VAT area, which occasionally really annoys people (eg me, that one time) who hope to bring back loads of cheap baccy.


----------



## rubbershoes (Jan 17, 2017)

03gills said:


> SMH at 'but people didn't vote to leave the single market' when i would argue that _*this is exactly what they fucking voted for you shitstaple*_.




Some did . Some didn't.  

My MIL voted out as she wanted things to be like they were when she was  younger.  No thought either way about the single market or customs union.  It was just nostalgia  for a simpler world .  

That, and not liking foreigners


----------



## free spirit (Jan 17, 2017)

03gills said:


> SMH at 'but people didn't vote to leave the single market' when i would argue that _*this is exactly what they fucking voted for you shitstaple*_.


That was the logical conclusion of what would happen if we left the EU and wanted to stop free movement of people, but most of the main leave campaigners at one point or another told people during the campaign that Brexit didn't have to mean leaving the single market (aka the having their cake and eating it option).

I had enough arguments with leave voters on this point at the time to be sure there were a fair few who actually believed them. Whether they still have voted to leave anyway I don't know, but I'd be surprised if there weren't more than 2% of the population who were swayed by this often repeated line by the leave campaigners.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 17, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Last time I checked, all of the _Islas Canarias_ are Spanish and EU.



Well, yeah, but not fully in. Don't rely on an EHIC card to fix you when you get ills.


----------



## gosub (Jan 17, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> So there are no countries which are within the EEA but outside the EU? That's a logical impossibility is it?
> 
> I had long suspected that Theresa May was actually quite clever. I'm now increasingly coming to think that she's just another complete idiot, but one with just enough sense to STFU most of the time. Her ascendancy to power may not have been the result of some brilliant long-game strategy after all, in fact she may have become PM almost entirely by accident. And now she's perfectly placed to do the one thing she's ever seemed to genuinely care about: get rid of immigrants, even if it's by reducing the country to such a backward shitheap that they all leave voluntarily.









oh and she said she wants rights for EU nationals settled asap, couple of member states don't, while you are on a "get rid of immigrants tip"


----------



## gosub (Jan 17, 2017)

03gills said:


> SMH at 'but people didn't vote to leave the single market' when i would argue that _*this is exactly what they fucking voted for you shitstaple*_.



I voted out but didn't vote to leave Single Market at this stage, coz a two year transition is nuts - she appears to have got some movement on that


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 17, 2017)




----------



## marty21 (Jan 17, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Favoured Rexit meme is now "_*Clean *_*Brexit".
> *
> Maybe _Andrexit?_


I want a absolutely filthy Brexit


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2017)

marty21 said:


> I want a absolutely filthy Brexit


Pot noodle filthy?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2017)

Ranbay said:


>


she's always pushed out on her own as no one else ever wants anything to do with her.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Well, yeah, but not fully in. Don't rely on an EHIC card to fix you when you get ills.


Who told you that?


----------



## free spirit (Jan 17, 2017)

marty21 said:


> I want a absolutely filthy Brexit


I'm sure there'll be plenty of shit hitting the fan soon enough


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2017)

free spirit said:


> I'm sure there'll be plenty of shit hitting the fan soon enough


the cook, the thief, his wife and her brexiteer


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 17, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Who told you that?



My step mother who had to be medi-vacced from Fuerteventura to Malaga at her expense as they wouldn't treat her there.

She's a forrin tho.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jan 17, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Bloomberg May Sets Out Brexit Vision With Vow to Quit EU Single Market
> And that did Sterling some good.


Not really. What happened was her speech was "leaked" (i.e. on purpose) well in advance, which led to a drop in sterling, giving the currency a chance to recover a little by the time of her speech, meaning journos could say "look! the currency has gone up after her speech!" when in fact the opposite is true if you look over the past few days.

The pound is now worth less than a Euro in some places:


> Moneycorp bureaux de change at Gatwick airport are charging £102.69 for €100 — valuing each pound at just 97.4 euro cents.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2017)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Not really. What happened was her speech was "leaked" (i.e. on purpose) well in advance, which led to a drop in sterling, giving the currency a chance to recover a little by the time of her speech, meaning journos could say "look! the currency has gone up after her speech!" when in fact the opposite is true if you look over the past few days.
> 
> The pound is now worth less than a Euro in some places:


if only brexit meant news was reported after it had happened instead of us being told someone's going to say something, listening to them saying it and then another day wasted being told what they've said.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> My step mother who had to be medi-vacced from Fuerteventura to Malaga at her expense as they wouldn't treat her there.
> 
> *She's a forrin tho.*


We all will be soon enough.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 17, 2017)

Are we a small big country or a big small country ?.

Who is asking ?


May can think big all she likes. Britain’s about to find out just how small it is | Rafael Behr


----------



## paolo (Jan 18, 2017)

Any lexit opinion on the pros/cons of May's statement?

Does it move forward the lexit proposition?


----------



## Sprocket. (Jan 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> the cook, the thief, his wife and her brexiteer



If Greenaway films are are being used as a analogy, perhaps Drowning by Numbers is closer to the possible outcome?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2017)

paolo said:


> Any lexit opinion on the pros/cons of May's statement?
> 
> Does it move forward the lexit proposition?


in the absence of any other answers....

my understanding of the lexit position is that leaving changes the legal framework and limits of the state, so that in the fullness of time trade unions, left parties, and workers in general might better be able to reform the system to our advantage.

when i looked yesterday no2eu are very happy over on Facebook, and another long time anti eu campaigner I know is convinced we have hit peak neoliberalism, and a new dawn beckons. I guess the harder the brexit, the better, from a lexit perspective...

which all seems very long term, which is probably the right way of approaching such big changes.

in the short term though, all the momentum is with the right, both here and abroad, and it's hard to imagine anything other than all decisions going against workers.

When we argued about this ahead of the vote the argument was, We will fight them on the beaches. My feeling was, we're going to get a beating.

I guess so far nothing has happened that is unexpected... In fact if anything it's going through smoother than it might have. So I can't see any reason why any lexit case is in any way undermined.

still so many variables to play out though. We haven't actually left yet. I'm really curious what the Snp are going to do next, and what the mood of the Scottish people is to this.

in terms of rights the immediate casualties are migrants, present and future. But migrants were always the punch bag in brexit, and seemed to be regarded as collateral damage in lexit. So no surprises there.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 18, 2017)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Not really. What happened was her speech was "leaked" (i.e. on purpose) well in advance, which led to a drop in sterling, giving the currency a chance to recover a little by the time of her speech, meaning journos could say "look! the currency has gone up after her speech!" when in fact the opposite is true if you look over the past few days.
> 
> The pound is now worth less than a Euro in some places:



I'm starting to get the impression that Theresa May is only in this to make some money on the side through currency speculation.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 18, 2017)

ska invita said:


> I'm really curious what the Snp are going to do next, and what the mood of the Scottish people is to this.


Me too. The SNP are focussing for the time being on "protecting Scotland's place in the single market", and although they are a minority administration in Holyrood, the Scottish Parliament has voted in support of that general position.  So the Scottish Parliament (not just the SNP) is at odds with May on that.

What that means Sturgeon will do next is open to question. Here's her statement about May's speech:

‪ 

The problem the SNP has is that although a majority of people in Scotland did vote to Remain, that does not translate into a Yes for independence vote. Furthermore there is no general appetite for an indyref2 in the near future. 

I suppose if dismay over May's negotiations grows that might change. But honestly, how closely are people following that?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2017)

I read that theres no chance of SNP going ahead with indyref2 unless all the polling suggests they have a good chance of winning it.  If people in Scotland arent following this, and arent yet annoyed about it, then i expect the SNP to go on an immediate campaign footing for the next couple of years and talk down Brexit/talk up Independence with a passion. I do think theres a genuine case to say that Scotland would be particularly hard hit by a hard brexit


----------



## brogdale (Jan 18, 2017)

Speaking from a position of (English) ignorance here ....it strikes me that a couple of factors that might start to swing opinion in Scotland would be if, to spite May, the EU overcame Spanish objections/fears and started to make more positive overtures towards Scottish accession. And if city finance capital showed signs of flight/interest in an EU/Scottish location?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 18, 2017)

ska invita said:


> I read that theres no chance of SNP going ahead with indyref2 unless all the polling suggests they have a good chance of winning it.  If people in Scotland arent following this, and arent yet annoyed about it, then i expect the SNP to go on an immediate campaign footing for the next couple of years and talk down Brexit/talk up Independence with a passion. I do think theres a genuine case to say that Scotland would be particularly hard hit by a hard brexit


Well, what _is_ there to follow closely?  May's speech yesterday didn't tell us anything we couldn't already have guessed, and what it does tell us is extremely limited in scope.  The general public are not dweebs like us, weighing up this phrase and that.  

How do we judge public opinion now anyway?  Have we worked out what it was that pollsters were getting wrong?  I don't know (and I read blogs by pollsters!).  

I think you're right, though, I think Sturgeon is trying to build a cohesive consensus against the Downing Street negotiating position.  Insofar as she's carried the Scottish parliament with her on the single market, she seems to have made some ground on that.  However, the Scottish media establishment is extremely Unionist.  It has been running hard on talk of indyref2, something I think she didn't want to do. We're not at a stage yet where the Remain majority has turned into a Yes majority.  Will we get there?  Maybe, but at the moment Sturgeon isn't pushing the point.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 18, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Speaking from a position of (English) ignorance here ....it strikes me that a couple of factors that might start to swing opinion in Scotland would be if, to spite May, the EU overcame Spanish objections/fears and started to make more positive overtures towards Scottish accession. And if city finance capital showed signs of flight/interest in an EU/Scottish location?


True, but the signals from EU negotiators so far seem to offer little hope for a differing Scottish settlement.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 18, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> True, but the signals from EU negotiators so far seem to offer little hope for a differing Scottish settlement.


Yep, but if push came to shove, I bet they'd all so subtly hint at it in negotiations with's May's team. Possibly a negotiating position if May cut up nasty about access to the city?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 18, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Yep, but if push came to shove, I bet they'd all so subtly hint at it in negotiations with's May's team. Possibly a negotiating position if May cut up nasty about access to the city?


Again, I think it's a strong possibility that this has already happened in private. It's a good card in their hand. But then they already have a very strong hand anyway.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 18, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Again, I think it's a strong possibility that this has already happened in private. It's a good card in their hand. But then they already have a very strong hand anyway.


It would be so easy for them to destabilise the Conservative & Unionist party with one hint of this.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2017)

Scottish independence combined with Scotland staying in the EU could be disastrous for London*.  For all the talk of relocating the financial centre of Europe to Paris or Cologne (etc.), there is a basic problem that the British workers in the City of London do not want to live in France or Germany, and it is far from clear that the specialist expertise needed by those companies would be found locally in those economies.  British workers, however, would be far more amenable to moving to Edinburgh (in many cases would even welcome it).  It would be simplicity itself for a financial institution to simply switch to Scotland to stay in the EU and take all its workforce -- who basically _are_ the company -- with it.  If Scotland stays part of the UK, I can see London remaining as a if not _the_ major hub for many financial industries.  If it secedes, however, I can see it being gutted.

*Obviously, I don't mean "London" the city or social environment, I strictly mean its economic churn.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 18, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Scottish independence combined with Scotland staying in the EU could be disastrous for London*.  For all the talk of relocating the financial centre of Europe to Paris or Cologne (etc.), there is a basic problem that the British workers in the City of London do not want to live in France or Germany, and it is far from clear that the specialist expertise needed by those companies would be found locally in those economies.  British workers, however, would be far more amenable to moving to Edinburgh (in many cases would even welcome it).  It would be simplicity itself for a financial institution to simply switch to Scotland to stay in the EU and take all its workforce -- who basically _are_ the company -- with it.  If Scotland stays part of the UK, I can see London remaining as a if not _the_ major hub for many financial industries.  If it secedes, however, I can see it being gutted.
> 
> *Obviously, I don't mean "London" the city or social environment, I strictly mean its economic churn.


But the obvious problem for the nationalists is the order of those events. As per their constitutions, the EU or EFTA require that any applicant entity is a "state". 
So any attempt at independence must, by definition, precede accession and represent something of a leap into the unknown...or at least an interregnum indistinguishable from the status of rUK.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2017)

brogdale said:


> But the obvious problem for the nationalists is the order of those events. As per their constitutions, the EU or EFTA require that any applicant entity is a "state".
> So any attempt at independence must, by definition, precede accession and represent something of a leap into the unknown...or at least an interregnum indistinguishable from the status of rUK.


This is true, so the benefits* to Scotland would not necessarily be immediate.  But if Scotland wanted to accede from the UK and join the EU, it seems likely that they could have achieved this in ten years.  That's not that long, in the grand scheme of things.  In fifteen years, they could transfer the seat of financial power from London to Edinburgh, if they are so minded.

(This is assuming they can't persuade England to do it the other way round, so that it is England that leaves the UK and hence the EU, not Scotland.  But that assumption seems pretty safe.)

*Again, assuming that having a large financial sector in your economy is actually a benefit


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 18, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Scottish independence combined with Scotland staying in the EU could be disastrous for London*.  For all the talk of relocating the financial centre of Europe to Paris or Cologne (etc.), there is a basic problem that the British workers in the City of London do not want to live in France or Germany, and it is far from clear that the specialist expertise needed by those companies would be found locally in those economies.  British workers, however, would be far more amenable to moving to Edinburgh (in many cases would even welcome it).  It would be simplicity itself for a financial institution to simply switch to Scotland to stay in the EU and take all its workforce -- who basically _are_ the company -- with it.  If Scotland stays part of the UK, I can see London remaining as a if not _the_ major hub for many financial industries.  If it secedes, however, I can see it being gutted.
> 
> *Obviously, I don't mean "London" the city or social environment, I strictly mean its economic churn.


It seemed to me early on that Sturgeon was signalling to the City (by which I mean the financial institutions of London) that they wouldn't have to move many if any jobs, just brass plaques.  That seemed to me her clear early message to Finance.  And if so, it seemed a smart one from her point of view.

We don't know the content of the private messages Finance will have been getting from the EU side, but we can be very sure they'll be well appraised.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 18, 2017)

brogdale said:


> But the obvious problem for the nationalists is the order of those events. As per their constitutions, the EU or EFTA require that any applicant entity is a "state".
> So any attempt at independence must, by definition, precede accession and represent something of a leap into the unknown...or at least an interregnum indistinguishable from the status of rUK.


If it came to Scotland staying in the UK and the Single Market (though not necessarily the EU), then there is an argument that Scotland is currently a member (and has not voted to leave).  So you're right: the order of events is going to be crucial on how Sturgeon plays her hand.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 18, 2017)

Yossarian said:


> I'm starting to get the impression that Theresa May is only in this to make some money on the side through currency speculation.


 
It may be coincidence that he husband does indeed work for an investment house


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 18, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> It seemed to me early on that Sturgeon was signalling to the City (by which I mean the financial institutions of London) that they wouldn't have to move many if any jobs, just brass plaques.  That seemed to me her clear early message to Finance.  And if so, it seemed a smart one from her point of view.
> 
> We don't know the content of the private messages Finance will have been getting from the EU side, but we can be very sure they'll be well appraised.


 
Was just going to post this same sentiment. Hypothetically - if you are City based , You don't necessarily have to decamp the entire workforce wholescale to a newly recognised Scotland EU member to gain the advantages of EU access, Should Scotchland go down that route, I am sure they would be able to streamline the onboarding process for punters.


----------



## mod (Jan 18, 2017)

Can someone please explain to me what would happen if parliament were to reject the governments Brexit plans in the vote?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2017)

mod said:


> Can someone please explain to me what would happen if parliament were to reject the governments Brexit plans in the vote?


No one knows the answer to that.
I think the vote - which Labour think they won the right to- is one based on bluff...who would dare to reject it after two years negotiations?
It would create a lot of problems, thats for sure.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2017)

ska invita said:


> No one knows the answer to that.
> I think the vote - which Labour think they won the right to- is one based on bluff...who would dare to reject it after two years negotiations?


One of my fears here is that we're effectively reaching a position of 'no opposition'. The Tories will be negotiating as a de facto govt of national unity.


----------



## Supine (Jan 18, 2017)

mod said:


> Can someone please explain to me what would happen if parliament were to reject the governments Brexit plans in the vote?



Not sure who, but some Tory yesterday said they could vote on the deal, but not on the concept of leaving which is defo going to happen. So a bit of a pointless vote really.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 18, 2017)

mod said:


> Can someone please explain to me what would happen if parliament were to reject the governments Brexit plans in the vote?



Unless there were some sort of co-ordination with the 27 to put the process on hold, I think there would just be no deal. Perhaps they would go back to negotiations and then return to Parliament with a revised deal or, at the end of the two years, we would just end up leaving without a deal.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 18, 2017)

I think the MP's would fear a backlash - i.e. lose their seats - if they dared to go contra to the general vote results in their constituency- even if the ultimate package presented is miles away from what was presented during the campaign. It will go through, in whatever form it eventually takes I think. We are out, whatever. The deal itself is the only moot left


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One of my fears here is that we're effectively reaching a position of 'no opposition'. The Tories will be negotiating as a de facto govt of national unity.


Certainly on the implementation of Brexit that is the case - though there will be the chance to let off some hot air in parliament, its ultimately in the Tories hands. Though its not as if Labour has any meaningful disagreements. Keir Starmer basically agrees with what May set out, and even takes some credit for it - though he reckons her position is not Hard Brexit - bit confusing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One of my fears here is that we're effectively reaching a position of 'no opposition'. The Tories will be negotiating as a de facto govt of national unity.


yeh cos the snp have never said anything about that part of the country being vehemently opposed to exit. 

the tories will be negotiating as a government but by no means a government of national unity. i would be surprised by so crass a statement if it had come from someone else.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Certainly on the implementation of Brexit that is the case - though there will be the chance to let off some hot air in parliament, its ultimately in the Tories hands. Though its not as if Labour has any meaningful disagreements. Keir Starmer basically agrees with what May set out, and even takes some credit for it - though he reckons her position is not Hard Brexit - bit confusing.


Isn't that the point, though. They have no meaningful disagreements because they don't want to be seen to be anti-Brexit, and they have now accepted the tory line that last year's vote equals a demand to limit immigration. UKIP really have won on all counts at the moment. It's like a sick genius that they've managed, whether by luck or design, to manipulate the democratic processes in such a way that a minority opinion is forced upon everyone.


----------



## mod (Jan 18, 2017)

I honestly reckon if we had another referendum tomorrow the vote would be 60/40 remain.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2017)

mod said:


> I honestly reckon if we had another referendum tomorrow the vote would be 60/40 remain.


yeh everyone's pissed off with it


----------



## bimble (Jan 18, 2017)

Not everyone's pissed off. The daily mail and its commenters are in a frenzy of adulation for Theresa May right now, rolling around at her feet in ecstasy.




Reminded me of this prescient piece The Daily Mail takes power


----------



## kebabking (Jan 18, 2017)

mod said:


> Can someone please explain to me what would happen if parliament were to reject the governments Brexit plans in the vote?



theoretically the two year negotiation period can be prolonged if the 28 member states want it to be prolonged - my understanding is that there is some quibble over whether the EU commission and the EU Parliament also get a say, taking it to 30 parties, all of whom must agree - however the electoral cycle here, and the mood music we've been hearing from the EU structures and the other member states suggest that the likelyhood of that occuring is limited in the extreme.

so, _theoretically_ the UK and EU could spend 18 months hammering out a deal which parliament then rejects and the UK government then goes back to the EU with a flea in its ear and says 'sorry, this won't swing, can we talk again...', but firstly theres no reason to suggest that the EU countries will be remotely interested in a second negotiation of terms, and secondly the above time constraint makes that a practical impossibility.

you have to consider, first and above all, that A50 was deliberately designed to make leaving as unattractive, and risky as possible for the leaving state, and to ensure that as many cards as possible were held by the remaining states. there are a number of reasons why, in the UK's situation, thats not nearly as true as some commentators think it is, but the process was not designed to be constructive and helpful.

the time contraint - the two years that really just about 18 months - means that on the two year aniversary of A50 being triggered the leaving state just 'falls out' of the EU. leaving the EU often gets presented as being like a divorce, and in many ways it is, but with a divorce you aren't divorced until the Judge says you're divorced, whereas with A50, you leave the EU on the date specified and it doesn't matter if the arrangements are 70% agreed or 100% agreed but not passed into EU law, you cease to be a member at 23.59.59 on the 2nd anniversary of submitting A50.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 18, 2017)

.+


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2017)

mod said:


> I honestly reckon if we had another referendum tomorrow the vote would be 60/40 remain.


actually i heard the opposite, that polling has moved towards leave - for what polls are worth - cant remember where i heard that though. Hang on let me google.
This poll suggests exactly the same result Brexit poll: Six months on, Brits stand by EU decision - CNN.com


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 18, 2017)

Wasn't it just last week that Sturgeon said that if May went for a 'soft-Brexit' she would refrain from calling for indyref2 for at least a couple of years? Leaving May with fuck all to lose by totally ignoring Scotland.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 18, 2017)

bimble said:


> Not everyone's pissed off.


The majority of people in the uk are pleased, you'd expect. Though its a bit of a honeymoon period - its all cake and eat it talk at the moment - the negative realities are yet to kick in. And they will come. The test will be five years from now.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jan 18, 2017)

In The Guardian Boris Johnson to France: no WW2-style punishment beatings over Brexit


> ...
> In an extraordinary outburst at a foreign policy conference in Delhi, Johnson said: “If Hollande wants to administer punishment beatings to anybody who seeks to escape [the EU], in the manner of some world war two movie, I don’t think that is the way forward. It’s not in the interests of our friends and partners.”
> ...


The man has a genius for careful diplomacy.

Brexit in the mind of Boris.


----------



## mod (Jan 18, 2017)

kebabking said:


> theoretically the two year negotiation period can be prolonged if the 28 member states want it to be prolonged - my understanding is that there is some quibble over whether the EU commission and the EU Parliament also get a say, taking it to 30 parties, all of whom must agree - however the electoral cycle here, and the mood music we've been hearing from the EU structures and the other member states suggest that the likelyhood of that occuring is limited in the extreme.
> 
> so, _theoretically_ the UK and EU could spend 18 months hammering out a deal which parliament then rejects and the UK government then goes back to the EU with a flea in its ear and says 'sorry, this won't swing, can we talk again...', but firstly theres no reason to suggest that the EU countries will be remotely interested in a second negotiation of terms, and secondly the above time constraint makes that a practical impossibility.
> 
> ...



What a fucking mess. 

I think we should have a civil war.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2017)

mod said:


> What a fucking mess.
> 
> I think we should have a civil war.


kick off 3 pm on sat?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 18, 2017)

mod said:


> What a fucking mess.
> 
> I think we should have a civil war.



no ambition. we should have a war with France - nothing nurtures wider European good naturedness than an opportunity to kick the French.


----------



## Raheem (Jan 18, 2017)

kebabking said:


> no ambition. we should have a war with France - nothing nurtures wider European good naturedness than an opportunity to kick the French.



Well, we've both got nuclear weapons, so it could solve the Brexit conundrum.

In all seriousness, though, don't share this idea with Boris Johnson.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 18, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Well, we've both got nuclear weapons, so it could solve the Brexit conundrum.
> 
> In all seriousness, though, don't share this idea with Boris Johnson.



Boris Johnson doesn't lack ambition - and ours are better, i mean obviously ours would better anyway, as they're ours and not the Frenchists', but as an actual point of fact ours are better. the French have more, but ours are better.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jan 18, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Boris Johnson doesn't lack ambition - and ours are better, i mean obviously ours would better anyway, as they're ours and not the Frenchists', but as an actual point of fact ours are better. the French have more, but ours are better.


A war of some kind would be good cover for this mess. But never pick on somebody your own size. We could join Trump and Putin in turning a suitably puny Balt into a huge golf facility/brothel catering to specialist needs and money laundering.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 18, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> A war of some kind would be good cover for this mess. But never pick on somebody your own size. We could join Trump and Putin in turning a suitably puny Balt into a huge golf facility/brothel catering to specialist needs and money laundering.



Dwarf porn and funny money you say? hmmm....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> A war of some kind would be good cover for this mess. But never pick on somebody your own size. We could join Trump and Putin in turning a suitably puny Balt into a huge golf facility/brothel catering to specialist needs and money laundering.


perhaps some sort of baltic exchange


----------



## 03gills (Jan 21, 2017)

I'd argue that stating we're coming out of all existing arrangements is the best possible open negotiating position. When it comes to deciding whether that means we leave the single market, remain would clearly have been for staying so it follows that leave would more than likely mean leaving it, likewise the customs union - this is not some shocking betrayal of the Brexit vote. The Tory Manifesto is irrelevant, and manifesto promises have an unfortunate habit of meaning nothing anyway, not that that is a good thing, see Lib Dems on tuition fees.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 22, 2017)

Labour to reject Great Repeal Bill if it lets ministers dump rights


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2017)

Eyes down....here we go...the 'enemies of the people' are about to speak...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2017)

3 minutes late


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 24, 2017)

8-3


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2017)

8 : 3
Large majority!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2017)

Devolved legislatures do not need to be consulted.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2017)

Broadly as expected


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2017)

so may puts forward something to the house, MPs vote on it- whipped or no? going to be akward if MPs in largely leave constituencies are being told they must vote remain.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Broadly as expected


Yep; May must be pleased with the devolved legislatures decision.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> so may puts forward something to the house, MPs vote on it- whipped or no? going to be akward if MPs in largely leave constituencies are being told they must vote remain.


All about the amendments, now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> so may puts forward something to the house, MPs vote on it- whipped or no? going to be akward if MPs in largely leave constituencies are being told they must vote remain.


Whose going to tell them to do that beyond the 8 lib-dems?


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 24, 2017)

Commons shouldnt be a problem -too many Labour mps with leave constituencies and any amendments with spending consequences wont make the order paper.Some labour mps may get constituency backlash -eg liz kendall,ben bradshaw,chris leslie.

Lords could be a problem -no consequences for them other than abolition if they dont vote for article 50.

Sturgeon ,the nationalists/uup in NI ,labour and pc in wales need a rethink.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Whose going to tell them to do that beyond the 8 lib-dems?


seem to remember labour saying something about opposing if x wasn't fufilled. All I can find now is demands to be in on the process, scrutiny etc. 

anyways


> It is one of the most beautiful things about our country that just one individual, so long as he or she has the law on their side, can take on the most powerful institutions or people in the land and win.



no mention of legal costs eh gina?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2017)

> Alex Salmond, the Scottish National party’s foreign affairs spokesman, says the SNP will table 50 “serious and substantive” amendments to the UK government’s article 50 bill *including a demand that Theresa May gets agreement from all three devolved governments before she triggers article 50.*


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


>


This is in line with the clash in ideology here.

We always knew that the British constitutional position assumed two things:

1. That Parliament (or rather, the Crown-in-Parliament) is where sovereignty resides. That's why there has to be a vote in parliament.

2. That power devolved is power retained. The devolved parliaments are therefore not sovereign.   

That's two things that the SNP object to. First, they (like me and many on these boards) think that sovereignty ought to reside in the people. (How far the SNP would follow that logic through is another matter).

Second, and following on from the first, they obviously see the 'expressed will' of the Scottish electorate as something other than a subset of the expressed will of the British electorate. Or they wouldn't be the SNP.

So Salmond has to demand that. And May's response will very probably form part of the SNP building its case for a second independence referendum. Indeed, if May handles it badly, the SNP might well be successful in building a consensus for indyref2. Their main target here will be opinion in the Scottish chattering classes, who were and are steeped in the Claim of Right ideology.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> So Salmond has to demand that. And May's response will very probably form part of the SNP building its case for a second independence referendum. Indeed, if May handles it badly, the SNP might well be successful in building a consensus for indyref2. Their main target here will be opinion in the Scottish chattering classes, who were and are steeped in the Claim of Right ideology.


An argument I can think of against that would be that the brexit referendum included all regions of the UK. The inherent imbalances of the current constitutional set-up mean that, if the devolved parliaments were given a say in this, there would then be a clear democratic deficit for the English.


----------



## gosub (Jan 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> All about the amendments, now.



would really like Mrs May to clarify what she means by "about".   Not expecting much though after her misusing "within" for a couple of months.


----------



## 03gills (Jan 24, 2017)

As someone who voted leave, I understand the upcoming vote is a formality & it's good that May can't just run roughshod over parliament, but I doubt the establishments motivation behind the legal challenge is entirely virtuous, because If we ended up with a Corbyn led coalition & it started voting in a way that same establishment disagreed with, I suspect their commitment to the 'sovereignty of parliament' would be quickly forgotten. 

Don't get me wrong, the way some of these people have been demonised by sections of the media is bang out of order, & I'm genuinely not trying to do that here, just playing devils advocate. 

Look, I just don't trust the fucking establishment. Period.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 24, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> An argument I can think of against that would be that the brexit referendum included all regions of the UK.


Well, that _is_ the Unionist case.  That it was a UK-wide referendum.  And the overall result was Leave.


> The inherent imbalances of the current constitutional set-up mean that, if the devolved parliaments were given a say in this, there would then be a clear democratic deficit for the English.


  The argument the SNP is putting (and please, readers, note that I am not the SNP.  I know some of you have trouble with this), is that Scottish voters voted Remain.  They have no quibble with the English electorate's Leave vote.  But they submit that May is not listening to the Remain majority in Scotland, and point out that the ruling does not say that Westminster _should not_ seek a legislative consent motion with Holyrood, just that they weren't _compelled_ to.  (Which we knew).  They think differing settlements for different parts of the UK is possible.  They're right.  What there isn't is _political will_ for this from May.  And they know this too.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 24, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> 1. That Parliament (or rather, the Crown-in-Parliament) is where sovereignty resides. That's why there has to be a vote in parliament.



..I thought it was just that the referendum legislation ( as voted on & passed by the sovereign parliament ) failed to make it legally water-tight that the referendum result delegated to the unwashed masses was "binding" - which they _*DID*_ do with the AV referendum...this strikes me as a sneaky little trap-door built in to be used in case of the "wrong" result &/or very poor scrutiny of the small print by Brexit MP's....


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 24, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> ..I thought it was just that the referendum legislation ( as voted on & passed by the sovereign parliament ) failed to make it legally water-tight that the referendum result delegated to the unwashed masses was "binding" - which they _*DID*_ do with the AV referendum...this strikes me as a sneaky little trap-door built in to be used in case of the "wrong" result &/or very poor scrutiny of the small print by Brexit MP's....


It may well have been sneaky in intent.  But that doesn't contradict the point. To quote Erskine May: [Parliament] "has itself the sole constitutional right of establishing and altering the laws and government of the empire".  The Parliament _could_ have made legislation saying that the result of the referendum, in event of a Leave majority, triggered article 50 on this or that date, or when this or that requirements were met, but, as you rightly say, it did not.  But it was in Parliament's competence to do or not to do.  Because that's where sovereignty resides.  (And please note, readers, I'm not applauding this state of affairs, merely describing it).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, that _is_ the Unionist case.  That it was a UK-wide referendum.  And the overall result was Leave.
> The argument the SNP is putting (and please, readers, note that I am not the SNP.  I know some of you have trouble with this), is that Scottish voters voted Remain.  They have no quibble with the English electorate's Leave vote.  But they submit that May is not listening to the Remain majority in Scotland, and point out that the ruling does not say that Westminster _should not_ seek a legislative consent motion with Holyrood, just that they weren't _compelled_ to.  (Which we knew).  They think differing settlements for different parts of the UK is possible.  They're right.  What there isn't is _political will_ for this from May.  And they know this too.



Didn't mean to imply that you were advocating the position. I'm not advocating the unionist case either. Thing is that both cases contain contradictions. They have to - the contradictions are built into the set-up.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 24, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Didn't mean to imply that you were advocating the position. I'm not advocating the unionist case either. Thing is that both cases contain contradictions. They have to - the contradictions are built into the set-up.


This is the "instability" of asymmetric devolution that I was keen on pointing out a while back. Can it be weathered? Perhaps. But if mishandled (if May misjudges Scottish civil society's tolerance for Brexit, for example), then we might well have another indyref on our hands.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Commons shouldnt be a problem -too many Labour mps with leave constituencies and any amendments with spending consequences wont make the order paper.Some labour mps may get constituency backlash -eg liz kendall,ben bradshaw,chris leslie.



I'm in Chris Leslie's consituency and IIRC it voted leave, albeit narrowly.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 24, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> so may puts forward something to the house, MPs vote on it- whipped or no? going to be akward if MPs in largely leave constituencies are being told they must vote remain.





SpookyFrank said:


> I'm in Chris Leslie's consituency and IIRC it voted leave, albeit narrowly.



They were three ,and there are others inc tories like clarke who may well vote against triggering article 50.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 24, 2017)

Isnt it now more about the amendments (conditions) rather than voting for or against the triggering itself?


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 24, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> This is the "instability" of asymmetric devolution that I was keen on pointing out a while back. Can it be weathered? Perhaps. But if mishandled (if May misjudges Scottish civil society's tolerance for Brexit, for example), then we might well have another indyref on our hands.



Big pressure on Sturgeon to go for it late next year -well thats Salmonds view allegedly before brexit is fully negotiated and becomes a fait accompli-all in they call it in poker.

Scotland voted 55-45 against independence (very high turnout)which suggests devo max is a shoe in if it ever gets on a ballot paper.

Scotland voted 62-38 to Remain.

They like the status quo up there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> An argument I can think of against that would be that the brexit referendum included all regions of the UK. The inherent imbalances of the current constitutional set-up mean that, if the devolved parliaments were given a say in this, there would then be a clear democratic deficit for the English.


there is a clear democratic deficit for the english already: scottish parliament, welsh assembly, northern ireland legislative assembly: but no english equivalent.

if you think we live in a democracy, anyway.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 24, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> They like the status quo up there.


I don't.

"Devo max" would have won had it been on the last ballot paper, certainly.  But now there's a large number of people who don't trust the proponents of that position.  A fully federal UK would be a more stable option, but it isn't on the cards.

Currently Scottish civil society (the soft institutions shoring up the state: the media, the churches, the trade unions, academia etc) is predominantly Unionist.  But they're all also Remainers.  The SNP need them in order to create a consensus for indyref2.  Enough of them may be swayed enough if May plays it wrong.  Let's see how they respond to Davis' Bill next week.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 25, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> I don't.
> 
> "Devo max" would have won had it been on the last ballot paper, certainly.  But now there's a large number of people who don't trust the proponents of that position.  A fully federal UK would be a more stable option, but it isn't on the cards.
> 
> Currently Scottish civil society (the soft institutions shoring up the state: the media, the churches, the trade unions, academia etc) is predominantly Unionist.  But they're all also Remainers.  The SNP need them in order to create a consensus for indyref2.  Enough of them may be swayed enough if May plays it wrong.  Let's see how they respond to Davis' Bill next week.




Federal uk could emerge as the solution if another referendum fails,the proposed constitutional convention jells and labour becomes the biggest party at westminster,say about 2030.Or 2020 if one of sadiqs buses takes aim outside the commons.


----------



## newbie (Jan 25, 2017)

So parliament is sovereign just like the Leave campaign demanded, and executive power is further constrained.  That'll reverberate for centuries to come. 

Meanwhile across the water the same argument is up and running,


> Weber told the Guardian: “At the end, the European parliament is the parliament of consent. There are only two parliaments that will say yes: the British and the European parliament. That is why we are in the same position as the British parliament in that colleagues are asking for their positions to be taken on board in the negotiations.
> 
> “We are already in a good dialogue with Jean-Claude Juncker on this … We, the European parliament, think that in the next two years we have to be informed and updated on the state of play and that means  parliament has to sit on the table as negotiations are going on. That is our expectation.


EU parliament will be 'very difficult' in Brexit talks, says leading MEP
Not bystanders trickle fed with PR by their executive until it's too late but directly involved in the negotiations. Why aren't the various select committees of the British parliament demanding to sit 'on' the table?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2017)

newbie said:


> That'll reverberate for centuries to come.


you have much greater faith in the longevity of the united kingdom than i


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2017)

newbie said:


> So parliament is sovereign just like the Leave campaign demanded, and executive power is further constrained.  That'll reverberate for centuries to come.
> 
> Meanwhile across the water the same argument is up and running,
> 
> ...


because they're sitting on the fence


----------



## newbie (Jan 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> you have much greater faith in the longevity of the united kingdom than i


a point that could have been made any time since the c17 or so.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2017)

newbie said:


> a point that could have been made any time since the c17 or so.


yeh. well it has changed hasn't it. it's not how it was in 1922 when a bloody great chunk of it departed.


----------



## newbie (Jan 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. well it has changed hasn't it. it's not how it was in 1922 when a bloody great chunk of it departed.


of course it's changed, it changed yesterday.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2017)

newbie said:


> of course it's changed, it changed yesterday.


yeh. but what i am driving at is that england scotland wales and the province of northern ireland will at some future date, and not necessarily centuries hence, cease to exist as the polity we know now, in terms of its being one state on the island of great britain, just as we no longer see the heptarchy in england.


----------



## newbie (Jan 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. but what i am driving at is that england scotland wales and the province of northern ireland will at some future date, and not necessarily centuries hence, cease to exist as the polity we know now, in terms of its being one state on the island of great britain, just as we no longer see the heptarchy in england.


oic. in a discussion about the relationship between the executive and parliament you silently introduced the relationship between the various constituent administrations and expected me to somehow know what you were on about.  But yes, you're undoubtedly right, as ever.  

Back on track, when do you anticipate that the relationship between parliament, executive and juduciary will change so much that yesterdays decision will cease to have effect?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2017)

newbie said:


> oic. in a discussion about the relationship between the executive and parliament you silently introduced the relationship between the various constituent administrations and expected me to somehow know what you were on about.  But yes, you're undoubtedly right, as ever.
> 
> Back on track, when do you anticipate that the relationship between parliament, executive and juduciary will change so much that yesterdays decision will cease to have effect?


a week or two


----------



## newbie (Jan 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> a week or two





please keep me informed, just in case I miss it.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 25, 2017)

I wonder what the chances of tory civil war are, and when the main battles will be fought? At what point  in the process would they strike? There must still be a majority of Tories and business people in general who want full single market access.

I've read people saying that May's speach wasn't the hard brexit signal it appeared, more  setting out a bargaining position...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2017)

ska invita said:


> I wonder what the chances of tory civil war are, and when the main battles will be fought? At what point  in the process would they strike? There must still be a majority of Tories and business people in general who want full single market access.
> 
> I've read people saying that May's speach wasn't the hard brexit signal it appeared, more  setting out a bargaining position...


They shall meet for battle in Barnet and any survivors will be drowned in ponds


----------



## 03gills (Jan 25, 2017)

The reaction on JC's FB page from some of his ''supporters'' is genuinely making me question what being on the left means. Take this for example: 





> ''*I don't understand why people keep saying we need to respect the result of the referendum* when the referendum was held under circumstances that were anything but respectable; lying, deception, emotional blackmail, all contributing to a poisonous and divisive campaign.''



Just think about the emboldened bit for a second. I know people are upset over the referendum but this sort of attitude is downright dangerous. What's even sadder is that comment has over 2,000 upvotes 

I feel sorry for Corbyn to be honest. He's (rightfully) saying he will respect the outcome of said perfectly simple and democractic vote and there are wall to wall tossers on his FB feed slating him for it. I mean what the fuck do they want him to do? Pull a fast one over the British electorate & ignore the results of the referendum? That'll go down like a fart in a lift.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2017)

Corbyn issues 3-line whip to vote for the A50 Bill....cue queues of Labour MPs saying they'll rebel.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Corbyn issues 3-line whip to vote for the A50 Bill....cue queues of Labour MPs saying they'll rebel.


lets see which of those in strong leave seats hate corbyn more than they like the cushty job.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 26, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> lets see which of those in strong leave seats hate corbyn more than they like the cushty job.


Ellman, Bradshaw & Lewis (?), so far....


----------



## 2hats (Jan 26, 2017)

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

A BILL TO Confer power on the Prime Minister to notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 26, 2017)

03gills said:


> The reaction on JC's FB page from some of his ''supporters'' is genuinely making me question what being on the left means. Take this for example:
> 
> Just think about the emboldened bit for a second. I know people are upset over the referendum but this sort of attitude is downright dangerous. What's even sadder is that comment has over 2,000 upvotes
> 
> I feel sorry for Corbyn to be honest. He's (rightfully) saying he will respect the outcome of said perfectly simple and democractic vote and there are wall to wall tossers on his FB feed slating him for it. I mean what the fuck do they want him to do? Pull a fast one over the British electorate & ignore the results of the referendum? That'll go down like a fart in a lift.


The problem with the bill being that it's a complete blank cheque, with no requirement for the Prime Minister to have to return to the commons for a vote to approve the eventual terms of the withdrawal.

IIRC we're pretty much the only EU country that doesn't have this requirement as a standard part of their constitution, so not putting anything about this into this legislation basically means that May could sign us out of the EU on whatever terms she likes without any further need for parliamentary approval. Which doesn't seem very democratic to me.


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 28, 2017)

Dont like Brexit ?

Lets march.


Anti-Brexit campaigners aim to stage UK's biggest protest march


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 28, 2017)




----------



## Old Spark (Jan 28, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


>


Its lunchtime !


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 28, 2017)

Research - *Research Professional News

fuck you Euratom and fuck your nuclears.We dont need no experts no more for our patriotic british atoms


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 29, 2017)

Looks like a second scottish referendum next year -snp will think  its now or never,tories think scots will bottle it again and put it to rest for the next 100 years.Jeremy has the convention .

Assuming a similar turnout (my guess is it will be lower) sturgeon needs 200000 voters to switch sides.

Heed Scots' voice on Brexit, Nicola Sturgeon tells Theresa May


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 30, 2017)

Article 50 to pass without amendment as Tory rebels are satisfied with the White Paper commitment-reports.Encourages Labour remainers to rebel against the whip of course.Over to the Lords where there can be unlimited amendments(in the Commons which amendments are taken is up to the Deputy Speaker Lindsay Hoyle .


Brexit bill set to pass without amendment as Tory rebels back off


----------



## Old Spark (Jan 31, 2017)

Sturgeon gives May deadline -snp spring conferece could fire starting gun on second referendum.

Nicola Sturgeon gives Theresa May deadline for Brexit compromise

Latest poll has scots at same point as first referendum.,46 Yes 54 No

UK Polling Report

Who will blink first -will May allow a second referendum.?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 1, 2017)




----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2017)

498 : 114 for A50

estimated 47 Lab rebels.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Sturgeon gives May deadline -snp spring conferece could fire starting gun on second referendum.
> 
> Nicola Sturgeon gives Theresa May deadline for Brexit compromise
> 
> ...


Not looking promising for Yes. But on the other hand, that that's the starting point. Last time Yes started much lower. (John Curtice put support for independence at somewhere between 32 and 38% when virtual pistol fired in 2012 Q&A: Scottish independence row - BBC News).


----------



## gosub (Feb 1, 2017)

brogdale said:


> 498 : 114 for A50
> 
> estimated 47 Lab rebels.



As long as nobody did anything stupid like giver the government a blank check .... 498 -329(tory)=169


----------



## gosub (Feb 2, 2017)

Brexit White Paper


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> Brexit White Paper



Someone pulled an all-nighter on that - the document was created at 04:26 this morning.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 2, 2017)

White paper says or implies we are out of the customs union too.

Priority sectors -city,city,city,cars,city,city ,city.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 2, 2017)

Migration...

"However, in the last decade or so, we have seen record levels of long term net migration in the UK,13 and that sheer volume has given rise to public concern about pressure on public services, like schools and our infrastructure, especially housing, as well as placing downward pressure on wages for people on the lowest incomes."

Them migrants are to blame for the health service, housing and schooling crisis.

oh fuck off may you shitbag


----------



## gosub (Feb 2, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> White paper says or implies we are out of the customs union too.
> 
> Priority sectors -city,city,city,cars,city,city ,city.


Iceberg for the sector I know (aviation) got addressed.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2017)

WTF are you remoaniacs whinging about?


----------



## teqniq (Feb 2, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Migration...
> 
> "However, in the last decade or so, we have seen record levels of long term net migration in the UK,13 and that sheer volume has given rise to public concern about pressure on public services, like schools and our infrastructure, especially housing, as well as placing downward pressure on wages for people on the lowest incomes."
> 
> ...


Divide and rule as per usual.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 2, 2017)

Last nights vote-abstentions Lab 11,Tory 6,Libdem 2,Snp.2.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2017)

brogdale said:


> WTF are you remoaniacs whinging about?


and you believe him


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> and you believe him



Apologies, I forgot the  or  or  to indicate an attempt at ironic humour.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 2, 2017)

brogdale said:


> WTF are you remoaniacs whinging about?



The uk or england ?.

What better than Waterloo,1966,Falklands -that kind of thing.

Or Norway away,Dunkirk,Charge of the light brigade,Basra,Helmand, sort of thing.

Its all in the mind you know.

Karma man


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> The uk or england ?.
> 
> What better than Waterloo,1966,Falklands -that kind of thing.
> 
> ...


at the moment we're looking at better than munich - the air disaster or the capitulation to hitler, i leave that up to you.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> at the moment we're looking at better than munich - the air disaster or the capitulation to hitler, i leave that up to you.


The best days, the bestest days...it'll be beautiful.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2017)

brogdale said:


> The best days, the bestest days...it'll be beautiful.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2017)




----------



## Old Spark (Feb 2, 2017)

Well monkey has left uncertainty and doubt ,will rooster help.?

Only with leadership .Mrs just give me nine months to make up my mind is underwhelming.

But it looks like macron has a chance,wilders is beyond the pale -no main party will touch him even if he tops the poll and schulz is gaining ground.

Just need to avoid another crash if trump goes bananas.

Its karma man


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Well monkey has left uncertainty and doubt ,will rooster help.?
> 
> Only with leadership .Mrs just give me nine months to make up my mind is underwhelming.
> 
> ...


'spoons?


----------



## Kesher (Feb 3, 2017)

brogdale said:


>




The Daily  Mail using Churchill : https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/files/docs/body/winston_churchill_en.pdf


----------



## ska invita (Feb 3, 2017)

this new legal precedent challenge, which asks for parliament to vote on leaving the single market could well be successful.... The logic of it is totally sound...i can't see a constitutional argument against it.

that would be an interesting vote if it happens
Campaigners launch fresh Brexit legal challenge over single market


----------



## Ranbay (Feb 3, 2017)

ska invita said:


> this new legal precedent challenge, which asks for parliament to vote on leaving the single market could well be successful.... The logic of it is totally sound...i can't see a constitutional argument against it.
> 
> that would be an interesting vote if it happens
> Campaigners launch fresh Brexit legal challenge over single market



New Brexit legal challenge: Government wins case over single market vote


----------



## gosub (Feb 3, 2017)

Kesher said:


> The Daily  Mail using Churchill : https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/files/docs/body/winston_churchill_en.pdf



He wanted the rest of Europe to be in a United States , but thought our destiny lay with the Commonwealth. So I  your


Explains why the European Coal and Steel Community was formed while he was PM, with the UK  NOT in it.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 3, 2017)

There may be trouble ahead .....Merkel tells May a thing or two.

Angela Merkel warns Theresa May over slashing taxes to undercut the EU


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 3, 2017)

ska invita said:


> this new legal precedent challenge, which asks for parliament to vote on leaving the single market could well be successful.... The logic of it is totally sound...i can't see a constitutional argument against it.
> 
> that would be an interesting vote if it happens
> Campaigners launch fresh Brexit legal challenge over single market



Challenge led by _British Influence_


> British Influence, one of whose founders was the Labour peer Peter Mandelson, is launching its legal challenge against the government department headed by David Davis. Lord Mandelson is no longer involved with the group.


Thank goodness for investment bankers and dodgy neo-liberal politicians, where would be be without them.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 3, 2017)

Well Crabbs finished in the Tory party I suppose and his majority is below 5000.Bet No 10 love this.

Brexiters face rude awakening on immigration, says ex-minister


----------



## ska invita (Feb 3, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Challenge led by British Influence
> 
> Thank goodness for investment bankers and dodgy neo-liberal politicians, where would be be without them.


it is very weird that a constitutional question seems only to get an answer if someone rich enough can afford to 'ask' it.


----------



## Kesher (Feb 3, 2017)

gosub said:


> He wanted the rest of Europe to be in a United States , but thought our destiny lay with the Commonwealth. So I  your
> 
> 
> Explains why the European Coal and Steel Community was formed while he was PM, with the UK  NOT in it.



Wasn't it Churchill who in 1940 proposed the Declaration of Union between Great Britain and France, stating: _"The two governments declare that France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union. The constitution of the Union will provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic policies. Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain; every British subject will become a citizen of France." 
_
So I  your   to my


----------



## gosub (Feb 3, 2017)

Kesher said:


> Wasn't it Churchill who in 1940 proposed the Declaration of Union between Great Britain and France, stating: _"The two governments declare that France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union. The constitution of the Union will provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic policies. Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain; every British subject will become a citizen of France."
> _
> So I  your   to my


As an emergency war measure that never went anywhere.  Royal Navy was sinking the French Navy while at harbour a couple of months later
Halfarsed rewriting of history - FAIL.


----------



## gosub (Feb 4, 2017)

gosub said:


> As an emergency war measure that never went anywhere.  Royal Navy was sinking the French Navy while at harbour a couple of months later
> Halfarsed rewriting of history - FAIL.



Churchill's actual United States of Europe speech for those in any any doubt who has Dunning-Kruger'd here.


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 4, 2017)

Singapore strategy drafted and ready to go maybe

Exclusive: Britain to draft laws slashing tax to show EU leaders they are serious about threat to become 'new Singapore'


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Singapore strategy drafted and ready to go maybe
> 
> Exclusive: Britain to draft laws slashing tax to show EU leaders they are serious about threat to become 'new Singapore'


Trail balloons going up like blimps in the blitz.


----------



## gosub (Feb 4, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Trail balloons going up like blimps in the blitz.


Or they are looking for positions they can trade away.  If they get tax harmonisation through the next treaty,  and the Irish customs headache ain't sorted,  Eire has problems


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 4, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Singapore strategy drafted and ready to go maybe
> 
> Exclusive: Britain to draft laws slashing tax to show EU leaders they are serious about threat to become 'new Singapore'



Only way Brexit Britain will become the new Singapore is by bringing back hanging and flogging.


----------



## gosub (Feb 4, 2017)

Yossarian said:


> Only way Brexit Britain will become the new Singapore is by bringing back hanging and flogging.


Now TB is back a spitting law ain't a bad idea


----------



## Raheem (Feb 4, 2017)

gosub said:


> He wanted the rest of Europe to be in a United States , but thought our destiny lay with the Commonwealth. So I  your
> 
> 
> Explains why the European Coal and Steel Community was formed while he was PM, with the UK  NOT in it.



Not really. Churchill most definitely wanted the UK in, but he wasn't able make it happen, mainly because of De Gaulle. The stuff about our future lying with the Commonwealth (I actually think he said it lay with the US, btw - it was in the middle of decolonisation) was just about not admitting his personal defeat.


----------



## gosub (Feb 5, 2017)

That would be the de Gualle that wasn't in office until three years after Churchill was last PM


----------



## Raheem (Feb 5, 2017)

gosub said:


> That would be the de Gualle that wasn't in office until three years after Churchill was last PM



OK, you got me. That aside, though, the story's true.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 5, 2017)

Trump and Brexit are being used as battering rams for fascism. And as the hoardes charge through the gates it is less the left who stand with jaws agape, but the centrists.The soft right are even more ignorant. Aquiessence is everywhere, including on the soft left.

It is the left, specifically dedicated anti-fascists, who analysed and warned of the nature of the "alt" right and the influence of far-right thinking in Brexit/UKIP circles, thinking and rhetoric that are actively promoted by the mainstream press.

It is the mainstream who endlessly promoted UKIP as "anti establishment", fete Le Pen and describe Richard Spencer as "fashionable".

The left have a habit of beating ourselves up which the right never seem to bother with, perhaps that should tell us something.

In fact, we have the analysis and the programs to offer solutions to the masses and avoid some of the possible horrors ahead. Sure, we lack proper access to the mainstream arena of "debate" which tends to be disgusting and stupid, and there are too many self doubters and factionalists in our ranks.

But in broad terms we should have more confidence and dignity in how we present our case, because people need to hear it now more than ever with liberals shown to be clueless, and the right to be a mix of pawns, appeasers and happy facilitators of the "f" word.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2017)

Mirror doing its best to talk up a tory 'rebellion' over an amendment to provide for Parliamentary say so over the eventual deal.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 5, 2017)

Talking of Tory rebellion, i was playing through in my head what might happen if that new court case does lead to a parliamentary vote on leaving the common market...how would Lab MPs vote? And how would Tories vote?
I expect on the whole Lab MPs would vote to stay in the market - I think thats Corbyns official position right? Though Im sure there would be more than a couple of ripples...

I think it would be the trigger for all out war in the Tory ranks...I think it would be a lot more than two dozen (mentioned in the mirror article above) that would vote to stay in


----------



## sunnysidedown (Feb 5, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> we have the analysis and the programs to offer solutions _*to*_ the masses



a freudian slip i suspect...


----------



## gosub (Feb 5, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Talking of Tory rebellion, i was playing through in my head what might happen if that new court case does lead to a parliamentary vote on leaving the common market...how would Lab MPs vote? And how would Tories vote?
> I expect on the whole Lab MPs would vote to stay in the market - I think thats Corbyns official position right? Though Im sure there would be more than a couple of ripples...
> 
> I think it would be the trigger for all out war in the Tory ranks...I think it would be a lot more than two dozen (mentioned in the mirror article above) that would vote to stay in


Case was dismissed


----------



## ska invita (Feb 5, 2017)

gosub said:


> Case was dismissed


on what grounds?

okay, ive looked it up - its basically postponed - the case can only be considered once the govenrment says "we are leaving the common market"
Brexit legal challenge: High Court throws out new case over single market vote for MPs

Once it does the case will be heard.... i reckon the odds are on for a ruling to go in favour of a vote


----------



## Supine (Feb 6, 2017)

Yossarian said:


> Only way Brexit Britain will become the new Singapore is by bringing back hanging and flogging.



About time we had another referendum. They work so well!!!


----------



## Raheem (Feb 6, 2017)

ska invita said:


> on what grounds?
> 
> okay, ive looked it up - its basically postponed - the case can only be considered once the govenrment says "we are leaving the common market"
> Brexit legal challenge: High Court throws out new case over single market vote for MPs
> ...



But once Article 50 is triggered, staying in or leaving the single market is no longer a purely domestic decision.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 6, 2017)

Raheem said:


> But once Article 50 is triggered, staying in or leaving the single market is no longer a purely domestic decision.


True...the more I think about it the more complex I can see this going . The EU want the UK to remain in the market, but that isn't really the issue in terms of procedure.

The current government plan is: Trigger A50>>>Negotiate>>>Run it by parliament, who should ratify or risk us crashing out>>>The End

With this new challenge, when would it be allowed to be heard? I guess only once negotiations are over and leaving the single market is formally proposed.
That would already be near the end of the two year, post A50 trigger window.

Lets say that the government, after two years of talking negotiate a deal which means leaving the single market...then this case gets heard, wins, and parliament votes on leaving the single market. After much blood letting, if parliament agrees to it then the negotiation stands - if it doesn't, it would nullify it immediately. It probably wouldn't even get to the ratifying vote stage...

Which would mean restarting negotiations....though I expect the EU would see that as a victory and would give an extension quite gladly.

Who knows...sounds like it could get messy


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2017)

there will be blood


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 7, 2017)

Tories ,facing defeat, concede again.You wonder why mrs may goes thru this routine ,like that bloke from the vicar of dibley,no.no.no.no.no.no,yes.

I suppose because the tory vote even the remain tory vote thinks she is the bees knees.


Government u-turn to give MPs vote on final Brexit deal


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 7, 2017)

Old Spark said:


> Tories ,facing defeat, concede again.You wonder why mrs may goes thru this routine ,like that bloke from the vicar of dibley,no.no.no.no.no.no,yes.
> 
> I suppose because the tory vote even the remain tory vote thinks she is the bees knees.
> 
> ...


Not really a concession though is it? Right at the end MPs get to vote for either whatever May gets as a deal, or nothing at all.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 7, 2017)

Also i thought this final vote was always on


----------



## gosub (Feb 7, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Not really a concession though is it? Right at the end MPs get to vote for either whatever May gets as a deal, or nothing at all.



Indy changed their headline :Government 'dupes' MPs into clearing the way for hard Brexit


----------



## Combustible (Feb 8, 2017)

gosub said:


> Explains why the European Coal and Steel Community was formed while he was PM, with the UK  NOT in it.



The European Coal and Steel Community was formed before Churchill became PM again. Pretty sure it was Herbert Morrison who killed British participation saying  "The Durham miners won't wear it."


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2017)

gosub said:


> Indy changed their headline :Government 'dupes' MPs into clearing the way for hard Brexit


the indy's been shit since alex moved to the telegraph


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2017)

So, that's all done & dusted for May; no amendments, no report stage...bill passed.
Trebles all round for the Brexiteer tories.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2017)

brogdale said:


> So, that's all done & dusted for May; no amendments, no report stage...bill passed.
> Trebles all round for the Brexiteer tories.


still need to get it through the lords though right? 

so maybe just singles with water


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> still need to get it through the lords though right?
> 
> so maybe just singles with water


I'm sure that the whips will reminding their Lordships how easy it would be to gain popular consent for reform of the upper chamber if they were silly enough to do anything serious to impede progress of the bill.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2017)

Maybe just doubles.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 8, 2017)

brogdale said:


> I'm sure that the whips will reminding their Lordships how easy it would be to gain popular consent for reform of the upper chamber if they were silly enough to do anything serious to impede progress of the bill.



There's been stuff floating about in the Lords recently about Lords reform anyway, I think. (may have imagined)


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> There's been stuff floating about in the Lords recently about Lords reform anyway, I think. (may have imagined)


They're not going to set themselves against the Commons _and_ the electorate.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2017)

I was mocking a yank the other day for electing an orange wanking gibbon with a money fetish when he comes back with 'your still ruled by an unelected house of lords'

which fair took the wind out of my sails as there is no answer to that except 'one day we kill them all'


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2017)

brogdale said:


> if they were silly enough to do anything serious to impede progress of the bill.


recon the lord libs might have a go? They have been ever so desperate to position themselves as the bremain choice


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> recon the lord libs might have a go? They have been ever so desperate to position themselves as the bremain choice


Oh yeah, those 102 will.


----------



## gosub (Feb 8, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I was mocking a yank the other day for electing an orange wanking gibbon with a money fetish when he comes back with 'your still ruled by an unelected house of lords'
> 
> which fair took the wind out of my sails as there is no answer to that except 'one day we kill them all'


Big difference between a bunch going 'you don't want to do it like that and a bloke who could decree his country hop on one leg for 4 months


----------



## Raheem (Feb 8, 2017)

brogdale said:


> They're not going to set themselves against the Commons _and_ the electorate.



They're not going to try to block the bill, but they might do something to try to stop the negotiations remaining in the hands of an unaccountable gaggle of twats. I'm fully expecting Baroness Boothroyd to put it in exactly those terms.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 8, 2017)

Raheem said:


> They're not going to try to block the bill, but they might do something to try to stop the negotiations remaining in the hands of an unaccountable gaggle of twats. I'm fully expecting Baroness Boothroyd to put it in exactly those terms.


Can't see anyone in the Lords drawing attention to notions of unaccountability tbh.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2017)

whenever the issue comes up a sizable portion of people, right wingers included all go 'yeah hang on a minute... in this day and age?'

Life peerages are bad enough but hereditary peerages remind you just how old and cold a regime you have up there in the dizzy heights. We should have harrowed them before the putney debates and seized the moment, a Terror. That way the restoration would never have happened.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 8, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Can't see anyone in the Lords drawing attention to notions of unaccountability tbh.



You're saying they would be awake to the hypocrisy?


----------



## gosub (Feb 8, 2017)

Raheem said:


> You're saying they would be awake to the hypocrisy?


Which hypocrisy?  All treaties signed while we we were a member of the EU have been take it or leave it deals in terms of sovereign Parliament.  Be good to address that long term but not remainer lead


Getting Lords reform out of this would be a bonus


----------



## Raheem (Feb 8, 2017)

gosub said:


> Which hypocrisy?  All treaties signed while we we were a member of the EU have been take it or leave it deals in terms of sovereign Parliament.  Be good to address that long term but not remainer lead
> 
> Getting Lords reform out of this would be a bonus



There's some cross-purposes going on here, Gosub.


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 9, 2017)

Could someone explain to me concisely what the last vote was actually for?

What is this "Blank cheque" that people keep mentioning? there isn't any deal yet is there?


----------



## gosub (Feb 9, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> Could someone explain to me concisely what the last vote was actually for?
> 
> What is this "Blank cheque" that people keep mentioning? there isn't any deal yet is there?



The blank cheque is the government not being given any red lines or preferred outcomes by Parliament.  So that the only real input they will have is a vote on whether to take whatever deal the government can come up with OR a worse leaving arrangement


----------



## newbie (Feb 9, 2017)

Raheem said:


> You're saying they would be awake to the hypocrisy?


they have life tenure, it doesn't matter how often 'hypocrisy' is pointed out


----------



## brogdale (Feb 9, 2017)

newbie said:


> they have life tenure, it doesn't matter how often 'hypocrisy' is pointed out


Unless it came with a credible threat to abolish/reform attached.


----------



## newbie (Feb 9, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Unless it came with a credible threat to abolish/reform attached.


given that there's one or two other matters on the agenda, do you think that's likely in the next couple of years?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 9, 2017)

gosub said:


> The blank cheque is the government not being given any red lines or preferred outcomes by Parliament.  So that the only real input they will have is a vote on whether to take whatever deal the government can come up with OR a worse leaving arrangement


In other words May is now at liberty to fashion the withdrawal in order to be most advantageous to the tories, constituency of financialised capital, finance capital, paymasters/donors and oligarchs.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 9, 2017)

newbie said:


> given that there's one or two other matters on the agenda, do you think that's likely in the next couple of years?


No, but the tory whips have already made sure that _the threat_ has formed part of the news agenda, (see last night's 'Newsnight').


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 9, 2017)

brogdale said:


> In other words May is now at liberty to fashion the withdrawal in order to be most advantageous to the tories, constituency of financialised capital, finance capital, paymasters/donors and oligarchs.


And what would the alternative have been? Just to vote against triggering it? Or to vote for it, but at the same time say "we'd really like you to do this please if possible" (which seems a bit pointless to me)?


----------



## newbie (Feb 9, 2017)

brogdale said:


> No, but the tory whips have already made sure that _the threat_ has formed part of the news agenda, (see last night's 'Newsnight').


Blair had a manifesto commitment, a huge commons majority and plenty of time to to push through relatively modest reforms which were not perceived as his government attempting to strongarm a specific, unrelated, policy which would otherwise be in difficulty.   May has none of those.  What the talking heads squawk about on telly doesn't change the realities.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 9, 2017)

newbie said:


> Blair had a manifesto commitment, a huge commons majority and plenty of time to to push through relatively modest reforms which were not perceived as his government attempting to strongarm a specific, unrelated, policy which would otherwise be in difficulty.   May has none of those.  What the talking heads squawk about on telly doesn't change the realities.


Agreed, but the fact that mention of threats emerged so quickly on the heels of the commons victory is not insignificant; remember we are living through extra-ordinary times.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 9, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> And what would the alternative have been? Just to vote against triggering it? Or to vote for it, but at the same time say "we'd really like you to do this please if possible" (which seems a bit pointless to me)?



TINA, eh?


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 9, 2017)

I don't know what that stands for.


----------



## newbie (Feb 9, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Agreed, but the fact that mention of threats emerged so quickly on the heels of the commons victory is not insignificant; remember we are living through extra-ordinary times.


I certainly recognise the latter point 

 But who is this threat supposed to be significant for?  The whole point about life tenure is immunity from threats by government or anyone else. So the chattering classes can chatter, those who campaigned so vociferously for the sovereignty of parliament can demand the overthrow of half of it so that the executive can proceed unencumbered by scrutiny, and the chattering classes can chatter some more, but so what? Each individual lord can just ignore it all.  Unless parliamentary time and arithmetic can be bent into a House of Lords (Removal of Inconvenient Opposition) Act while A50 is rumbling along, the threats, like the chattering, is just noise.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 9, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I don't know what that stands for.



Sorry.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 9, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I don't know what that stands for.


There is no alternative


----------



## brogdale (Feb 9, 2017)

newbie said:


> I certainly recognise the latter point
> 
> But who is this threat supposed to be significant for?  The whole point about life tenure is immunity from threats by government or anyone else. So the chattering classes can chatter, those who campaigned so vociferously for the sovereignty of parliament can demand the overthrow of half of it so that the executive can proceed unencumbered by scrutiny, and the chattering classes can chatter some more, but so what? Each individual lord can just ignore it all.  Unless parliamentary time and arithmetic can be bent into a House of Lords (Removal of Inconvenient Opposition) Act while A50 is rumbling along, the threats, like the chattering, is just noise.


Yep, just noise...but noise that peers will have heard..... all part of the mix...ratcheting up the pressure on them not to be so silly as to cast themselves as _enemies of the people._


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 9, 2017)

I didn't say there were no alternatives, I said in this vote (as i understand it) there were only 2, either vote for or against. "vote for but with pinky promise you'll try and do only nice things with it" wasn't one of the options. I don't think.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 9, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I didn't say there were no alternatives, I said in this vote (as i understand it) there were 2, either vote for or against. "vote for with pinky promise you'll try and do only nice things with it" wasn't one of the options. I don't think.


Not really; a successful amendment could (theoretically) have bound May to a particular 'red-line' beyond which she would not have negotiated. The opposition failed to achieve that, though.


----------



## newbie (Feb 9, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Yep, just noise...but noise that peers will have heard..... all part of the mix...ratcheting up the pressure on them not to be so silly as to cast themselves as _enemies of the people._



they know that's how they're already seen by a significant chunk of the populace.  Look at this thread, the merest mention of them leads to immediate calls to string them up, and that's before they've done anything at all about the issue at hand.  Meanwhile they can ignore the noise.


----------



## newbie (Feb 9, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Not really; a successful amendment could (theoretically) have bound May to a particular 'red-line' beyond which she would not have negotiated. The opposition failed to achieve that, though.


indeed, by 332-290 they voted to continue to use EU citizens living here as bargaining chips.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 9, 2017)

newbie said:


> they know that's how they're already seen by a significant chunk of the populace.  Look at this thread, the merest mention of them leads to immediate calls to string them up, and that's before they've done anything at all about the issue at hand.  Meanwhile *they can ignore the noise*.



They're at liberty to, but I'd suggest that the thinly veiled threats will reduce the inclination to rebel against their whipping; remember the LDs only have approx 100 out of > 800.


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 9, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Not really; a successful amendment could (theoretically) have bound May to a particular 'red-line' beyond which she would not have negotiated. The opposition failed to achieve that, though.


I didn't think that was how negotiations worked tho? I mean if the entity who you are negotiating with already knows exactly what your terms are then that's not really a negotiation any more.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 9, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I didn't think that was how negotiations worked tho? I mean if the entity who you are negotiating with already knows exactly what your limits are then that's not really a negotiation any more.


'a good man always knows his limitations'
--harry callahan


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> 'a good man knows his limitations'
> --harry callahan


soz i edited that to "terms" already


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 9, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> soz i edited that to "terms" already


that's ok, i got the earlier version


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 9, 2017)

Just redrafting my amendment.


----------



## gosub (Feb 9, 2017)

rutabowa said:


> I didn't say there were no alternatives, I said in this vote (as i understand it) there were only 2, either vote for or against. "vote for but with pinky promise you'll try and do only nice things with it" wasn't one of the options. I don't think.



I had hoped for different, there is a lot of bathwater in or relations with EUrope but there is also a baby that stems from technical understanding of rules regs and the like, that each industry would have their own take on.  With its own dedicated tv channels, the excellent minute taking Hansard provides, right down to the twitter accounts our elected representatives/ advocates have, it struck me as the best forum through which to channel crowded sourced views in order to ensure our novice negotiating team were as up to speed as possible before the  time sensitive stuff started, in order to minimise pitfalls. That hasn't happened.  Instead we got polarising politicking between 'this can't be happening' and 'full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.'   Culminating in the notion that the deal will have to be voted through Parliament being lauded either as a victory for the opposition or 'duping'.  It is, and always would have been a statutory requirement.
Our political 'class' seem woefully ill suited for what is required, at a time when it has rarely been so important they are at the top of their game.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Feb 10, 2017)

On Bloomberg U.K. Can Only Cut EU Migration by 50,000 a Year, Study Suggests


> ...
> The report published Friday by Global Future, a new pro-immigration think-tank, suggested that tighter controls, as promised by the prime minister, would only shave 50,000 off the current net migration total of 335,000 -- 15 percent. May has stuck with her predecessor David Cameron’s promise to get immigration down to the “tens of thousands” -- generally interpreted as meaning below 100,000.
> 
> Annual net migration from the European Union in the year ending June 2016 was 189,000, according to official data. But many of those people are working in industries that would suffer if they weren’t allowed to employ foreign workers. Tighter restrictions on European migrants might also make employers more willing to look at non-EU migrants, who are currently harder to bring into the country.
> ...


UKIP would have a field day with that one. 

All depends on who pulls the strings when designing the points system. It's usually employers. Canada's system was original skewed toward Europeans but I've heard it's now tilting towards bright young Asians.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 10, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Bloomberg U.K. Can Only Cut EU Migration by 50,000 a Year, Study Suggests
> UKIP would have a field day with that one.
> 
> All depends on who pulls the strings when designing the points system. It's usually employers. Canada's system was original skewed toward Europeans but I've heard it's now tilting towards bright young Asians.


Meanwhile, outward migration to the EU is bound to be hit.  The net impact could actually be to _increase_ the net inflow!


----------



## Old Spark (Feb 10, 2017)

Priority sectors for Brexit (allegedly)


----------



## brogdale (Feb 11, 2017)

An extraordinary, if unsurprising, analysis from the Guardian.



> In a sign that public support for the government’s push for a hard Brexit is increasingly precarious, *just 35% of the public said they backed Britain leaving the EU without an agreement with other states. *The UK would then fall back on to World Trade Organisation (WTO) tariffs, which MPs and business leaders have claimed would devastate the economy.


Considering that 37% of the electorate voted 'Leave' in the referendum, I'd say that a finding of 35% still holding faith in the hardest Brexit option available is quite impressively firm polling.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Feb 12, 2017)

On Naked Capitalism Brexit Big Lie: UK Could Have Reduced EU Immigration by 82% Under EU Rules


> ...
> Therefore, even when respecting all EU rules, 2004-11 net immigration of non-British citizens to the UK could have been cut by a stunning 82% (71% non-EU minus 5% asylum seekers plus 16% EU8). But UK authorities decided not to do that.
> 
> The UK Government’s white paper does not even mention these facts, but seems to blame EU mobility rules for the surge in net immigration since the mid-1990s. This is simply incorrect.
> ...


It's after the Brexit horse has bolted but that is a pretty dramatic way of putting it. It was always obvious that British policy lent towards facilitating a surge in immigration rather than London being the helpless victim of Brussels. Also points out EU rights to remain are more rather limited than admitted in May's white paper.

It's a bit hard to explain why a Tory government that had committed low levels of immigration continued to import so many folk from outside the EU despite putting in complex systems of visas not unlike the promised points system. After all xenophobic UKIP was a big worry for many backbenchers. I suspect the reality is having obtusely chosen to use the banking crisis to slash the state it was seen as a form of cheap as chips economic stimulus. The UK economy might well look a as stagnant as Italy's if they had not.

I remain skeptical that this whole Brexit business will actually put much of a dent in migration numbers. That is if the UK economy holds up and labour market demand remains high.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 12, 2017)

brogdale said:


> An extraordinary, if unsurprising, analysis from the Guardian.
> 
> ​Considering that 37% of the electorate voted 'Leave' in the referendum, I'd say that a finding of 35% still holding faith in the hardest Brexit option available is quite impressively firm polling.


Yes, utterly spun piece. The idea that "only" 35% say they would be fine with leaving the EU without any settlement represents a backlash against May is so transparent it's incredible.


----------



## gosub (Feb 13, 2017)

brogdale said:


> In other words May is now at liberty to fashion the withdrawal in order to be most advantageous to the tories, constituency of financialised capital, finance capital, paymasters/donors and oligarchs.



If that were true, it be a soft transition, staying in Single Market at this stage.  She has Colonel Blimp's in her party memberships she is trying to keep happy. Talked to a local tory chairman last night, that had pushed an anti immigration Leave, who told me next thing to go should be EHRC in the name of 'sovereignty'. I got quite annoyed. That was a 70 year old man who just wants to see the world burn.


As the instigator of the EHRC, us leaving would be a perfect justification for the more dubious European states such as Russia to give up on human rights entirely, leading to more refugees...something he just spent  last summer complaining about


----------



## brogdale (Feb 13, 2017)

gosub said:


> *If that were true, it be a soft transition, staying in Single Market at this stage.*  She has Colonel Blimp's in her party memberships she is trying to keep happy. Talked to a local tory chairman last night, that had pushed an anti immigration Leave, who told me next thing to go should be EHRC in the name of 'sovereignty'. I got quite annoyed. That was a 70 year old man who just wants to see the world burn.


I reckon the old guy might be more closely attuned to neoliberalism than you realise. Perhaps this is a good time to re-visit Graeber's _kamikaze capitalism?_
_



*Neoliberalism has always been a form of capitalism that places political considerations ahead of economic ones.* How else can we understand the fact that Neoliberals have managed to convince everyone in the world that economic growth and material prosperity are the only thing that mattered, even as, under its aegis real global growth rates collapsed, sinking to perhaps a third of what they had been under earlier, state-driven, social-welfare oriented forms of development, and huge proportions of the world’s population sank into poverty. Or that financial elites were the only people capable of measuring the value of anything, even as it propagated an economic culture so irresponsible that it allowed those elites to bring the entire financial architecture of the global economy tumbling on top of them because of their utter inability to assess the value of anything—even their own financial instruments. Once one cottons onto it, the pattern becomes unmistakable. *Whenever there is a choice between the political goal of undercutting social movements—especially, by convincing everyone there is no viable alternative to the capitalist order–and actually running a viable capitalist order, neoliberalism means always choosing the first. *

Click to expand...





			For the moment, at least, most capitalists are no longer even thinking about capitalism’s long-term viability.

*It is terrifying, to be sure, to understand that one is facing a potentially suicidal enemy.* But at least it clarifies the situation.
		
Click to expand...

_​


----------



## Wilf (Feb 17, 2017)

Blair wants people to rise up against Brexit
Tony Blair calls on remainers to 'rise up in defence of our beliefs'
 Apart from showing astonishingly bad timing - the deed is almost done - this really shows how bad he has become at 'doing politics'. At least before Iraq, repellent as the project was, he knew how to shape an issue and push an agenda. He was an effective politician.  This stuff is just stupid, ill timed and, were he of any consequence now, a pure gift to ukip in the by elections.


----------



## Kesher (Feb 17, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Blair wants people to rise up against Brexit
> Tony Blair calls on remainers to 'rise up in defence of our beliefs'
> Apart from showing astonishingly bad timing - the deed is almost done - this really shows how bad he has become at 'doing politics'. At least before Iraq, repellent as the project was, he knew how to shape an issue and push an agenda. He was an effective politician.  This stuff is just stupid, ill timed and, were he of any consequence now, a pure gift to ukip in the by elections.



Blair's  got this one  right


----------



## Wilf (Feb 17, 2017)

Kesher said:


> Blair's  got this one  right


How so?  Regardless of what you think of the brexit vote, now is a bizarre point to try and intervene in the process.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 17, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Blair wants people to rise up against Brexit
> Tony Blair calls on remainers to 'rise up in defence of our beliefs'
> Apart from showing astonishingly bad timing - the deed is almost done - this really shows how bad he has become at 'doing politics'. At least before Iraq, repellent as the project was, he knew how to shape an issue and push an agenda. He was an effective politician.  This stuff is just stupid, ill timed and, were he of any consequence now, a pure gift to ukip in the by elections.



tbf, being Prime Minister gave him a bit of an advantage over Iraq that he no longer has.

But I think this only looks stupid if you take it at face value. There's no way Blair thinks he can lead a people's revolt to stop the Brexit Bill. But, realistically, his intervention might bring some anti-Brexit Labour MPs out of their stupor, which is more about the future of the LP than it is about Brexit. Plus, I don't think he will at all mind people thinking in five years' time that they should have listened to him.


----------



## heinous seamus (Feb 17, 2017)

I'd like Tony Blair to rise up to space on a rocket ship destined for the Sun. The cunt.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 17, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Blair wants people to rise up against Brexit
> Tony Blair calls on remainers to 'rise up in defence of our beliefs'
> Apart from showing astonishingly bad timing - the deed is almost done - this really shows how bad he has become at 'doing politics'. At least before Iraq, repellent as the project was, he knew how to shape an issue and push an agenda. He was an effective politician.  This stuff is just stupid, ill timed and, were he of any consequence now, a pure gift to ukip in the by elections.


it's perfectly timed. you state the reason in your own post.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 17, 2017)

discokermit said:


> it's perfectly timed. you state the reason in your own post.


It's a nasty business trying to get into the mind of Tony Blair, bit like trying to work out what Trump is thinking as he heads into the locker room. Same time my money is on the horror at his cuddy neo-liberal EU falling to shit being foremost, causing shit for Corbyn merely a significant undertone.  Could be wrong though.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 17, 2017)

Wilf said:


> It's a nasty business trying to get into the mind of Tony Blair



Satisfying if you do it with a claw-hammer, though, I'd imagine.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 17, 2017)

Wilf said:


> It's a nasty business trying to get into the mind of Tony Blair, bit like trying to work out what Trump is thinking as he heads into the locker room. Same time my money is on the horror at his cuddy neo-liberal EU falling to shit being foremost, causing shit for Corbyn merely a significant undertone.  Could be wrong though.


the timing makes no sense unless it's seen as an intervention into the stoke election, rather than the brexit debate.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 17, 2017)

discokermit said:


> the timing makes no sense unless it's seen as an intervention into the stoke election, rather than the brexit debate.


There's a bit more on what he said here, which even taking account of the guardian's own agenda, pushes it towards your reading of his intervention.  Straws in the wind as to new parties and all that.
Tony Blair: debilitated Labour is facilitating a disastrous Brexit


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 20, 2017)

U.K. Will Need Low-Skilled EU Migrants After Brexit, Davis Says

Don't worry says David Davis to the Estonians - we will need your cheap unskilled labour for a little while yet as have to get our own lot  trained up to do your stuff .So you are safe until we don't need you any more, then you are out.

I would have booted his simpering arse into the freezing Baltic if I was Estonian


----------



## Raheem (Feb 20, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> U.K. Will Need Low-Skilled EU Migrants After Brexit, Davis Says
> 
> Don't worry says David Davis to the Estonians - we will need your cheap unskilled labour for a little while yet as have to get our own lot  trained up to do your stuff .So you are safe until we don't need you any more, then you are out.
> 
> I would have booted his simpering arse into the freezing Baltic if I was Estonian



Aren't half the cabinet old Estonians?


----------



## mauvais (Feb 20, 2017)

It looks like Vauxhall workers are fucked.

GM are pulling out of Europe and probably selling the business (Opel and Vauxhall) to PSA (Peugeot/Citroen/DS). PSA have said they'll guarantee German jobs but, given Brexit, not British ones (Ellesmere Port, Luton).

Both PSA and GM Europe are in trouble so there will have to be major cost savings, so speculation is that the griffin is for the chop.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 22, 2017)

What the Brexitiers failed to tell us #953.....the BBC are reporting that it will cost us £60 billion to buy our way out ( or did they mean €60 billion). Either way...


----------



## gosub (Feb 22, 2017)

hash tag said:


> What the Brexitiers failed to tell us #953.....the BBC are reporting that it will cost us £60 billion to buy our way out ( or did they mean €60 billion). Either way...



Will be closer to £30 bil.  Unless we have two years of bollocks then its down to UN arbitration and the messiest of messy


----------



## hash tag (Feb 23, 2017)

It's not just the BEEB. From the Indy It's in the EU's interests to make Brexit as difficult as possible – and this is how they'll do it

"Brussels officials insist that Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, has no intention of “punishing” Britain. But he will use the clock to seek an early deal on a highly sensitive issue – the UK’s exit fee or divorce settlement, which he calculates at about £50bn."


----------



## pocketscience (Feb 24, 2017)

5 months ago the Eu refused to engage in negotiations, or allow any of it's members to have bi-lateral talks before A50 is triggered. 
Today the Eu, the Czechs, Germans, Italians and French all want the UK to pay €60bn before negotiations even start.

So wtf is going on? is this a pre negotiating tactic on the Eu's part, or a sign that they're not up for it - a 'sod the kids, just get a quick divorce over and done with and apply for a restraining order, never to see each other or speak again' kind of arrangement?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

pocketscience said:


> 5 months ago the Eu refused to engage in negotiations, or allow any of it's members to have bi-lateral talks before A50 is triggered.
> Today the Eu, the Czechs, Germans, Italians and French all want the UK to pay €60bn before negotiations even start.
> 
> So wtf is going on? is this a pre negotiating tactic on the Eu's part, or a sign that they're not up for it - a 'sod the kids, just get a quick divorce over and done with and apply for a restraining order, never to see each other or speak again' kind of arrangement?


Why either or not and?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2017)

.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 24, 2017)

pocketscience said:


> 5 months ago the Eu refused to engage in negotiations, or allow any of it's members to have bi-lateral talks before A50 is triggered.
> Today the Eu, the Czechs, Germans, Italians and French all want the UK to pay €60bn before negotiations even start.
> 
> So wtf is going on? is this a pre negotiating tactic on the Eu's part, or a sign that they're not up for it - a 'sod the kids, just get a quick divorce over and done with and apply for a restraining order, never to see each other or speak again' kind of arrangement?



Unless there's something I'm not understanding (don't rule that out), this isn't really new. The official EU position has always been that there are two sets of negotiations. Firstly, negotiations about the UK leaving and, secondly, negotiations about future trading relations. The two are not supposed to overlap in time. The settling of accounts is part of the first phase, to it is among the things that have to be sorted before the second phase can begin (i.e. not prior to negotiations per se, but prior to negotiations about the future). So all that has happened is that various national governments have said they agree with this position. There might be a bit of flexibility implied if they are focusing on the money (although it might be the Guardian doing that rather than them), because it might mean they are hinting that the second set of negotiations might start early if the money has at least been dealt with, which would be favourable to the UK.


----------



## pocketscience (Feb 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Why either or not and?


yes, it is very likely an and..


----------



## kebabking (Feb 24, 2017)

pocketscience said:


> ...So wtf is going on? is this a pre negotiating tactic on the Eu's part, or a sign that they're not up for it - a 'sod the kids, just get a quick divorce over and done with and apply for a restraining order, never to see each other or speak again' kind of arrangement?



It's the stage management of a dawning reality - that the two year divorce period, which includes 6 months of nothing while waiting for the French and German elections, and another 6 months of getting 'the deal' ratified by the member states and the European parliament - is simply too short a time to get any detailed, substantive trade agreement worked out.

This rhetoric, from both the EU and UK, is simply attempting to make a virtue out of a necessity.

I'd put good money on there being basic, limited agreements on some customs issues, intelligence sharing, extradition procedures and some continuing UK financial contributions to both continuing projects and legacy liabilities like pensions for EU staff accrued while the UK was a member, but I think the chances of any comprehensive trade agreements are very limited - and I think the chances of Theresa May going into the election of 2020 having just agreed to give the EU £60bn as the price of leaving is about zero.

People have to grasp that the rules regarding leaving were quite deliberately written in this way in order to scare countries into not leaving precisely because sorting out a deal in the two years would be between difficult and impossible. 

With regards to the money, May will just tell them to fuck off - and of course once the UK leaves the EU it's not bound by ECJ rulings, and therefore there is no legal mechanism to force the UK to pay anything...


----------



## pocketscience (Feb 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Unless there's something I'm not understanding (don't rule that out), this isn't really new. The official EU position has always been that there are two sets of negotiations. Firstly, negotiations about the UK leaving and, secondly, negotiations about future trading relations. *The two are not supposed to overlap in time. The settling of accounts is part of the first phase, to it is among the things that have to be sorted before the second phase can begin (i.e. not prior to negotiations per se, but prior to negotiations about the future). So all that has happened is that various national governments have said they agree with this position. *.


Can you point me to where these specific rules are stated in  A50 (or any other article in the lisbon treaty) please



Raheem said:


> because it might mean they are hinting that the second set of negotiations might start early if the money has at least been dealt with, which would be favourable to the UK.


Still seems premature for someone who said no negotiations bfore A50.
So, what happens if the UK hits the Eu with a Bill of €60bn tomorrow? Looks like they be able to do all their negotiating via leaks to the press the way the the Eu's carrying on.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 24, 2017)

pocketscience said:


> Can you point me to where these specific rules are stated in  A50 (or any other article in the lisbon treaty) please



It's the reference in 50(2) to negotiating "in accordance with Article 218(3)". If you then look at Article 218, you'll see it's about negotiating with "third countries". The reasoning goes that the UK will not be a third country before it leaves the EU, so negotiations relating to the EU's "common foreign and security policy" (i.e. new agreements with the UK) can't start until the Article 50 process has finished. The UK disagrees but, for the time being, that's the interpretation that seems to have been agreed by the Council of Ministers.



pocketscience said:


> So, what happens if the UK hits the Eu with a Bill of €60bn tomorrow? Looks like they be able to do all their negotiating via leaks to the press the way the the Eu's carrying on.



Do you mean if the EU hits the UK with a bill?


----------



## pocketscience (Feb 24, 2017)

Raheem said:


> It's the reference in 50(2) to negotiating "in accordance with Article 218(3)". If you then look at Article 218, you'll see it's about negotiating with "third countries". The reasoning goes that the UK will not be a third country before it leaves the EU, so negotiations relating to the EU's "common foreign and security policy" (i.e. new agreements with the UK) can't start until the Article 50 process has finished. The UK disagrees but, for the time being, that's the interpretation that seems to have been agreed by the Council of Ministers.


That's a very convoluted interpretation of the actual words and smacks of a cheap hardball tactic by someone with a bad hand.
Do you mean if the EU hits the UK with a bill?[/QUOTE]
No, I meant if the UK hands the Eu a €60bn bill tomorrow. Like arbitrarily.
Why the fuck are the Eu even mentioning the sum if they don't want to negotiate?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 24, 2017)

pocketscience said:


> That's a very convoluted interpretation of the actual words and smacks of a cheap hardball tactic by someone with a bad hand.


Agree with that. It doesn't relate to a country leaving the EU at all as far as I can tell. The UK will not be a 'third country' till it leaves the EU. That sounds undoubtedly correct. But I've just had a look at article 218. It opens with this:



> Without prejudice to the specific provisions laid down in Article 207, agreements between the Union and third countries or international organisations shall be negotiated and concluded in accordance with the following procedure.



Then proceeds to lay out that procedure.

But given that the UK isn't a third country till it leaves the EU, nothing in Article 218 applies. It appears not relevant to the discussion in any way.

That's some serious lawyer-logic to crowbar something not designed at all for this situation into this situation.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 25, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Agree with that. It doesn't relate to a country leaving the EU at all as far as I can tell. The UK will not be a 'third country' till it leaves the EU. That sounds undoubtedly correct. But I've just had a look at article 218. It opens with this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's relevant because of the reference to Article 218 contained in Article 50. I'm not saying it's a good or bad interpretation, because I don't really know. But it is the interpretation the EU27 are currently working to.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 25, 2017)

pocketscience said:


> No, I meant if the UK hands the Eu a €60bn bill tomorrow. Like arbitrarily.
> Why the fuck are the Eu even mentioning the sum if they don't want to negotiate?



I think the EU does want to negotiate, but only a technical negotiation about arriving at a figure, not horsetrading or the kind: "Will you knock a couple of billion off if we do XYZ".

There's not really any dispute that we will owe the EU money on leaving, it's just a question of how much exactly. So, if we gave them an arbitrary bill tomorrow it wouldn't be the same thing. It would just make it look like we'd completely lost the plot.


----------



## pocketscience (Feb 25, 2017)

Raheem said:


> It's relevant because of the reference to Article 218 contained in Article 50. I'm not saying it's a good or bad interpretation, because I don't really know. But it is the interpretation the EU27 are currently working to.


But it doesnt specifically state in either 50 or 218 that the withdrawal negotiations cant be done in conjunction with the future relationship negotiations all in the 2 year period. Thats the bit the Eu's making up.
Any pragmatic approach would mean that to even discuss the 60bn sum they'd need to spill over into the future relationship costs and benifits.
The Eu needs to get out of this greece troika hard ball mode, otherwise they'll be seen by their own citizens as cutting their own noses off to spite their face as the UK isn't greece by a long shot. 
Being the driver of an acrimonious split, the Eu could well harm their own relations with the US and other nations.

I really think Juncker & Co are walking on thinner ice than May with this approach.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 25, 2017)

pocketscience said:


> ....I really think Juncker & Co are walking on thinner ice than May with this approach.



Me to.

The political reality is that if on 1st April 2019 May stands up in the HoC and tells parliament that the UK has left the EU and that, because the negotiations were going so badly and the EU being so unreasonable, she has told them to fuck off and walked out, and that consequently every Audi, BMW, VW and Skoda wanting to be sold in the UK will face a 10% import tax and have to face a full customs inspection to ensure its both safe and not full of heroin, she'd get a full throated cheer from 80% of the house and win a crushing victory at a GE.

If Junker et all go to the council of ministers and tell them that the UK has left with no divorce settlement, and no agreement on anything, they will get a pretty frosty reception - the Irish will be fucked for a start, and the Germans know who will get the bill for those lost UK financial contributions.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 25, 2017)

kebabking said:


> The political reality is that if on 1st April 2019 May stands up in the HoC and tells parliament that the UK has left the EU and that, because the negotiations were going so badly and the EU being so unreasonable, she has told them to fuck off and walked out, and that consequently every Audi, BMW, VW and Skoda wanting to be sold in the UK will face a 10% import tax and have to face a full customs inspection to ensure its both safe and not full of heroin, she'd get a full throated cheer from 80% of the house and win a crushing victory at a GE.


Only in some nationalist fantasy where there are no consequences.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 25, 2017)

kebabking might be overplaying it a bit but I do think they are right that May would have significant support both in the HoC and the country if the UK was 'forced' to leave without a deal.


EDIT: Ignore the silly headline and look at the figures, ATM 35% wouldn't be opposed to such a move, that's before negotiations have even started. Not hard to play it as the EU blocking the UK from getting a fair deal (indeed probably not entirely inaccurate) so I could easy see that figure rising.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Me to.
> 
> The political reality is that if on 1st April 2019 May stands up in the HoC and tells parliament that the UK has left the EU and that, because the negotiations were going so badly and the EU being so unreasonable, she has told them to fuck off and walked out, and that consequently every Audi, BMW, VW and Skoda wanting to be sold in the UK will face a 10% import tax and have to face a full customs inspection to ensure its both safe and not full of heroin, she'd get a full throated cheer from 80% of the house and win a crushing victory at a GE.


best april fools evah


----------



## brogdale (Feb 25, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> kebabking might be overplaying it a bit but I do think they are right that May would have significant support both in the HoC and the country if the UK was 'forced' to leave without a deal.


There's a reason why the hard-core of the tory right have talked this up from the get go.


----------



## BeauWorksFar (Feb 25, 2017)

Has anyone here actually read any content or abstract of the Lisbon treaty and or specifically article 50 because it appears like a touchy subject for liberal remain voters and "Fascists" on he right (I amon the right).
Has it occurred that there are many things being said by the media that are out right lying (in sound like the states now) the fact that they allow lies and don't research to correct is sad and pathetic ad they have their own motives. The contribution in to the EU financially is/has been so significant that leaving the EU is like Britain SELLING shares in a business of sorts, thus making clear thenough fact we are selling means the makeshift bill for leaving a nonsense as well as make it up as you go. We as a country benefit from leaving the EU as there are a fair number of countries that are willing to remove their current raw materials trade with Europe to ally with Britain and America as well as the commonwealth that has numerous countries either joining and rejoining. People need to self educate at least a tad before hearing and believing everything they're told, it's called being gullible or displaying a behavioural trait of gullibility. Always check what you hear then double check it from another source then create the opinion on that.
Do not create animosity by defending your moral high ground you never created but brought you self to... and do not live under an authoritarian, liberalised and most annoyingly  the self proclaimed tolerant politicians as it's being submissive and thoughtless


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2017)

BeauWorksFar said:


> Has anyone here actually read any content or abstract of the Lisbon treaty and or specifically article 50 because it appears like a touchy subject for liberal remain voters and "Fascists" on he right (I amon the right).


this will end well


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2017)

BeauWorksFar said:


> Has anyone here actually read any content or abstract of the Lisbon treaty and or specifically article 50 because it appears like a touchy subject for liberal remain voters and "Fascists" on he right (I amon the right).
> Has it occurred that there are many things being said by the media that are out right lying (in sound like the states now) the fact that they allow lies and don't research to correct is sad and pathetic ad they have their own motives. The contribution in to the EU financially is/has been so significant that leaving the EU is like Britain SELLING shares in a business of sorts, thus making clear thenough fact we are selling means the makeshift bill for leaving a nonsense as well as make it up as you go. We as a country benefit from leaving the EU as there are a fair number of countries that are willing to remove their current raw materials trade with Europe to ally with Britain and America as well as the commonwealth that has numerous countries either joining and rejoining. People need to self educate at least a tad before hearing and believing everything they're told, it's called being gullible or displaying a behavioural trait of gullibility. Always check what you hear then double check it from another source then create the opinion on that.
> Do not create animosity by defending your moral high ground you never created but brought you self to... and do not live under an authoritarian, liberalised and most annoyingly  the self proclaimed tolerant politicians as it's being submissive and thoughtless


i couldn't agree more with you that 'people need to self-educate at least a tad' and look forward to you doing this before your next post.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 25, 2017)

that was just a noise


----------



## brogdale (Feb 25, 2017)

"*...leaving the EU is like Britain SELLING shares in a business of sorts..."*

'kinnel


----------



## mauvais (Feb 25, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> kebabking might be overplaying it a bit but I do think they are right that May would have significant support both in the HoC and the country if the UK was 'forced' to leave without a deal.
> 
> EDIT: Ignore the silly headline and look at the figures, ATM 35% wouldn't be opposed to such a move, that's before negotiations have even started. Not hard to play it as the EU blocking the UK from getting a fair deal (indeed probably not entirely inaccurate) so I could easy see that figure rising.


I don't doubt that there will be support for stubbornly crashing out regardless, but it's likely to be a different matter if and when the UK starts levying taxes on EU goods, at least once those consequences kick in.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 25, 2017)

BeauWorksFar said:
			
		

> Has anyone here actually read any content or abstract of the Lisbon treaty


Yes, me: what do you want to know?




			
				BeauWorksFar said:
			
		

> Do not create animosity by defending your moral high ground you never created but brought you self to... and do not live under an authoritarian, liberalised and most annoyingly the self proclaimed tolerant politicians as it's being submissive and thoughtless


I don't understand this bit. Can you put it in other words?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 25, 2017)

kebabking said:


> The political reality is that if on 1st April 2019 May stands up in the HoC and tells parliament that the UK has left the EU and that, because the negotiations were going so badly and the EU being so unreasonable, she has told them to fuck off and walked out, and that consequently every Audi, BMW, VW and Skoda wanting to be sold in the UK will face a 10% import tax and have to face a full customs inspection to ensure its both safe and not full of heroin, she'd get a full throated cheer from 80% of the house and win a crushing victory at a GE.



That might be her spin on her side. The spin against her, and Davis and Fox and the other fuckwit would be that they fucked it up. Their job was to negotiate and make sure this didn't happen, and they failed.

And there's a long way to go till then. Two grinding years of gridlocked negotiations could easily see her star wane very badly, especially among other tories. Hell you could even see a revival of the yellow scum.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 25, 2017)

pocketscience said:


> But it doesnt specifically state in either 50 or 218 that the withdrawal negotiations cant be done in conjunction with the future relationship negotiations all in the 2 year period. Thats the bit the Eu's making up.
> Any pragmatic approach would mean that to even discuss the 60bn sum they'd need to spill over into the future relationship costs and benifits.



I can see this perspective and, like I say, I don't really have an opinion about what the correct interpretation of A50 is. But it's about who holds the cards. From an EU27 perspective, nothing in principle forces them to hold any negotiations about a future trade deal at all, beyond "OK, fuck off then". So there's no reason they should accept the idea of the UK trying to dictate when those negotiations should begin and end. They'll negotiate in whatever way they think serves them best.

I do wonder if the government is trying to engineer a showdown over the money so as to gain public support either for a deliberate crash-landing or a delay in triggering A50.


----------



## hot air baboon (Feb 25, 2017)

Raheem said:


> There's not really any dispute that we will owe the EU money on leaving, it's just a question of how much exactly.



as the UK has been one of the only 2 or 3 net contributors into the EU over the past few decades then I think "dispute" is very much in order thanks very much....






just as a matter of interest how much did France pay for the benefit of the US nuclear umbrella when it quit the NATO treaty does anyone know


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> just as a matter of interest how much did France pay for the benefit of the US nuclear umbrella when it quit the NATO treaty does anyone know


yes cos it's always a grand debating tactic to compare apples and chinese gooseberries


----------



## Raheem (Feb 25, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> as the UK has been one of the only 2 or 3 net contributors into the EU over the past few decades then I think "dispute" is very much in order thanks very much....



OK, sure. But no-one close to the negotiations on either side takes this position.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 25, 2017)

mauvais said:


> I don't doubt that there will be support for stubbornly crashing out regardless, but it's likely to be a different matter if and when the UK starts levying taxes on EU goods, at least once those consequences kick in.


Well that might affect 2025 but if I were May I wouldn't be worrying about leaving the EU without a deal re the 2020 election. The pressure will be more from capital than from the electorate.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 25, 2017)

BeauWorksFar said:


> Has anyone here actually read any content or abstract of the Lisbon treaty and or specifically article 50 ...



Y'know what, here is _plenty_ of relevant information for the novice - as well as nuff links to source material and the text of the treaty itself. As you posted,


BeauWorksFar said:


> People need to self educate at least a tad


and even Wikipedia is better than nothing.

Happy to help.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 26, 2017)

David Davis' comments on freedom of movement, made earlier this week at a conference in Riga, would seem to have the potential to cause huge political trouble for the tories...



> The UK is *not about to “suddenly shut the door” on low-skilled EU migrants.*.."Davis said in a press conference in Riga, Latvia, that Britain wanted control over immigration but that it *would only restrict free movement of people when it was in the “national interest”.*





> He said: “It will be a gradual process. That will take some time; yesterday I said *it will take years.*
> “Don’t expect just because we’re changing who makes the decision on the policy, the door will suddenly shut: it won’t,” Bloomberg quoted Mr Davis as saying in the Estonian capital of Tallinn on Monday.



Surely many Leave voters will begin to wonder what they voted for?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2017)

brogdale said:


> David Davis' comments on freedom of movement, made earlier this week at a conference in Riga, would seem to have the potential to cause huge political trouble for the tories...
> 
> ​
> Surely many Leave voters will begin to wonder what they voted for?


No one voted for theresa may


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2017)

Raheem said:


> OK, sure. But no-one close to the negotiations on either side takes this position.


Either side? There are not two sides, there are rather more than that. But no one close to the negotiations would share anything with a lightweight larrikin like you.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Feb 28, 2017)

On Politico Theresa May’s Brexit trade bluff


> ...
> If Britain wants to chart its own course as an independent WTO member — and agree deals across the globe — the U.K. will need to secure a sort of trading passport called “WTO schedules.” These schedules are the basis for any trade deal and would determine the terms on which any country can engage with the U.K. Without agreed schedules, London will be in trade limbo.
> 
> As the biggest trade bloc in the world, the EU holds enormous power in determining whether the WTO accepts the U.K.’s schedules, based on Britain’s duties, quotas and subsidies. Goodwill in Brussels is critical if Britain wants a green light for deals with the U.S., Canada, India and South Korea. “May has cornered herself … The EU will hold all the cards,” said a senior WTO official
> ...


Could be a very hard Brexit indeed if May doesn't make nice with the EU quickly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Politico Theresa May’s Brexit trade bluff
> Could be a very hard Brexit indeed if May doesn't make nice with the EU quickly.


i wouldn't trust may to make a salad dressing.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2017)

David Davis' latest expectation management.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2017)

brogdale said:


> David Davis' latest expectation management.


Tell you what, littlebabyjesus and treelover could make a better job of this than David Davis and Boris Johnson. Not much better, but better nonetheless.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 1, 2017)

I dont really understand how the Lords works..they make a recommendation...looks like parliament will reject it...then what happens? Theres no pressure to accept what the Lords propose is there?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 1, 2017)

Depends if the government are willing to use the Parliament Act or not. If they aren't then they have to make a compromise that will satisfy both Houses. But in real terms no, there's no real pressure on the Gov.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 1, 2017)

This is why I dont understand the Lords...still dont really get it.

 Whats the problem of using the Parliament Act?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 1, 2017)

Governments can only use the Parliament Act to force through legislation under certain conditions, basically if the Lords reject a bill twice (actually it's a bit more complicated than that really but that's the gist).


----------



## JHE (Mar 2, 2017)

The HoC will reject the amendment passed by the HoL and the HoL will accept defeat.

I have a question for or about the many people who agree with the Lords' amendment.  The question relates to the position of the 1.2 million (or whatever the figure may be) British people living in other EU countries.

Do proponents of unilaterally guaranteeing the position and rights of EU citizens in the UK believe:

a) unilateral guarantees would be the most effective way of eliciting reciprocal guarantees for Britons in the EU?

b) unilateral guarantees will make no difference to the decisions made by the other governments?

c) the position of Britons in the EU is an unrelated or simply less important question?

d) something else?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 2, 2017)

JHE said:


> The HoC will reject the amendment passed by the HoL and the HoL will accept defeat.
> 
> I have a question for or about the many people who agree with the Lords' amendment.  The question relates to the position of the 1.2 million (or whatever the figure may be) British people living in other EU countries.
> 
> ...


i'm sure they do


----------



## 8den (Mar 2, 2017)

ska invita said:


> I dont really understand how the Lords works..they make a recommendation...looks like parliament will reject it...then what happens? Theres no pressure to accept what the Lords propose is there?



Ironically most Irish people are aware of how the House of Lords and Parliament work together, because the Act of Parliament was created to force Home Rule through in the early 20th century. 

But yes the Lords can rejects bills at least twice, and then if necessary it can be forced through as an act of Parliament.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 2, 2017)

8den said:


> Ironically most Irish people are aware of how the House of Lords and Parliament work together


the house of lords is part of parliament, not a separate entity.

britain has a bicameral parliament, comprising the lower house, the commons, and the upper chamber, the lords.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 2, 2017)

30 Tory MPs 'will vote to give EU nationals the right to stay in Britain' after Brexit



> “Obviously the Tory whips in the Commons are going to work extremely hard with all sorts of bribes to get these people to vote with the Government.
> 
> *“I believe it can be won in the Commons on the basis of morality and principle - and Tories are principled people in general.”*


Doctor, my sides.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 2, 2017)

JHE said:


> The HoC will reject the amendment passed by the HoL and the HoL will accept defeat.
> 
> I have a question for or about the many people who agree with the Lords' amendment.  The question relates to the position of the 1.2 million (or whatever the figure may be) British people living in other EU countries.
> 
> ...



I dunno about unilaterally but those EU citizens who permanently reside here should have their rights guaranteed.  Mainly because its the right thing to do but also when you're entering into these negotiations you should always be on the front foot.


----------



## salem (Mar 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I dunno about unilaterally but those EU citizens who permanently reside here should have their rights guaranteed.  Mainly because its the right thing to do but also when you're entering into these negotiations you should always be on the front foot.


Even on the 24th June I would never have dreamt that we'd be discussing whether to round up and kick out those already settled here and now it seems quite possible. We're looking at throwing the city on the heap and leaving the single market. I'm terrified how far this is going to actually go as the leavecunters don't seem to have a bottom to their range of cuntiness and there is no resistance whatsoever.

Those right wingers  who were paying their £3 or whatever to vote for Corbyn seem to have got great value for money.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 2, 2017)

salem said:


> Even on the 24th June I would never have dreamt that we'd be discussing whether to round up and kick out those already settled here and now it seems quite possible. We're looking at throwing the city on the heap and leaving the single market. I'm terrified how far this is going to actually go as the leavecunters don't seem to have a bottom to their range of cuntiness and there is no resistance whatsoever.
> 
> Those right wingers  who were paying their £3 or whatever to vote for Corbyn seem to have got great value for money.


What makes you think the political wing of finance capital have any intention of 'throwing the city on the heap'?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 5, 2017)

I done a story:

Once upon a time the peoples was angry. Well it goes back a long way, but in the modern era perhaps we can say back to the whole Iraq thing in 2003, how government lied lots and it all went badly.

Then in 2008 some grim stuff happened in the money world because of massive fraud. Very bad. People was even angrier.

Grrrr...

Then the torygraph put out some stuff about MPs expenses which turned it up to beyond 11. They'd known for ages (politics geeks generally had an idea), but the timing helped distract and people can relate more to Duck Island than co-lateralised debt obligations.

Angry angry angry. Then that stuff about paedophiles. Oh god it was disgusting.

Austerity and corruption stuff followed, so furiouser and furiouser the peoples got and government just stumbled around lying as usual.

If only a way could be found to channel such high-octane dissent and put it in a box (a metaphorical box you understand...)

Then, as if by magic...along came the answer!

People were so angry that they chose a simple (far from perfect) enemy and narrowly voted for Britain to leave the EU, shaking fists in hollow rage at the sky against anything, to do anything...to punish THEM! They knew what they were doing was anti establishment because the establishment told them so.

The government hadn't expected this, so we got a new PM who suddently realised this was a great opportunity.

The peoples had their rebellion-in-a-box. They didn't know what was in it, but that's detail: Detail is for experts and experts are against The Will Of The People (tm)

Now they could be told that bad people wanted to take the box away. Anyone who asked what was in the box, or who said it might be rather rubbish was super bad, and not in a James Brown way.

The banking scams, the war crimes, the paedophilia, the incessant corruption...none of it would have to be addressed about any more. The people had their box.

And while everyone argued endlessly about the box and what was in it, the government would find it so much easier to smash public services and vulnerable people.

And that's the true story of how a rebellion became to be just about the most un-rebellious thing imaginable.


----------



## magneze (Mar 5, 2017)

Don't give up the day job.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 6, 2017)

mauvais said:


> It looks like Vauxhall workers are fucked.
> 
> GM are pulling out of Europe and probably selling the business (Opel and Vauxhall) to PSA (Peugeot/Citroen/DS). PSA have said they'll guarantee German jobs but, given Brexit, not British ones (Ellesmere Port, Luton).
> 
> Both PSA and GM Europe are in trouble so there will have to be major cost savings, so speculation is that the griffin is for the chop.


Sold. GM actually cites Brexit as the motivation for sale, not that it wouldn't necessarily have happened anyway. Vauxhall workers are screwed IMO - temporary guarantees 'suggesting' jobs are safe until 2020. In a company owned by the French and heavily German, with serious profitability problems not made any better with more of the same bolted on, we'll see.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Sold. GM actually cites Brexit as the motivation for sale, not that it wouldn't necessarily have happened anyway. Vauxhall workers are screwed IMO - temporary guarantees 'suggesting' jobs are safe until 2020. In a company owned by the French and heavily German, with serious profitability problems not made any better with more of the same bolted on, we'll see.


Be very surprised if Vauxhall workers aren't completely fucked over by this, Just shows that neoliberal attacks on jobs and workers will continue whether the UK is within the superstate or not.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 6, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Be very surprised if Vauxhall workers aren't completely fucked over by this, Just shows that neoliberal attacks on jobs and workers will continue whether the UK is within the superstate or not.


GM never could do effective business outside of America and particularly in Europe for love nor money, so their protestations about Brexit are a bit laughable. But at the same time this is wholly predictable and it's only massive bribes - if that even works beyond the v. short term - that will keep EU-wide, low margin businesses like car manufacturers in Britain. Or the collapse of the EU, I suppose. Ellesmere Port & Luton voted for Brexit too, for what it's worth, so there's that.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 6, 2017)

mauvais said:


> GM never could do effective business outside of America and particularly in Europe for love nor money, so their protestations about Brexit are a bit laughable.



Same with Chrysler I guess. I wonder how Ford managed it - just let Ford in Europe do their own thing?


----------



## mauvais (Mar 6, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Same with Chrysler I guess. I wonder how Ford managed it - just let Ford in Europe do their own thing?


Definitely the same with Chrysler (and the flipside, Daimler-Chrysler was a failure in America). It's now Fiat-Chrysler which just about works.

Ford I think as you say, largely because historically it operated with some autonomy in Germany and Britain and had enough time to properly adapt to those markets instead of imposing Americanisms on them.

It's not perfect though - still part of the squeezed middle and they couldn't manage to make a good go of either Jaguar or Volvo (or for that matter Aston Martin).


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 7, 2017)

<deleted>


----------



## toblerone3 (Mar 7, 2017)

Good news the Lords have voted for a meaningful Parliamentary vote on the terms of Brexit. 

Brexit: Government suffers second defeat in Lords - BBC News

Will this amendment get through when it returns to the House of Commons?  Will Labour vote against this?  I would be shocked if they did. Will there be Tories in the Commons willing to vote for this eminently sensible amendment.


----------



## gosub (Mar 7, 2017)

toblerone3 said:


> Good news the Lords have voted for a meaningful Parliamentary vote on the terms of Brexit.
> 
> Brexit: Government suffers second defeat in Lords - BBC News
> 
> Will this amendment get through when it returns to the House of Commons?  Will Labour vote against this?  I would be shocked if they did. Will there be Tories in the Commons willing to vote for this eminently sensible amendment.



Buit its not that meaningful or sensible.  If the deal isn't to their liking there wouldn't be time to negotiate a different one so would be WTO terms (ie a worse deal).  Quixotic.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 7, 2017)

gosub said:


> Buit its not that meaningful or sensible.  If the deal isn't to their liking there wouldn't be time to negotiate a different one so would be WTO terms (ie a worse deal).  Quixotic.



There may or may not be enough time. It could be that parliament wants fairly minor changes that can be negotiated quickly, or we could end up in a situation where a fleshed-out alternative draft agreement already exists. Or, the EU27 might agree to give more time in the event that the government is defeated. Or the issue might not be about negotiating a different deal - it's not unimaginable that the government might actually opt for WTO terms left to its own devices.

Apart from that, though, having some form of meaningful vote would force greater accountability on the government, because if they try to keep MPs in the dark, they may risk losing the vote at the end of the process.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 9, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Apart from that, though, having some form of meaningful vote would force greater accountability on the government, because if they try to keep MPs in the dark, they may risk losing the vote at the end of the process.



The tories will vote it through whatever it is, because the alternative would be chaos and ruin for their own party.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 9, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> The tories will vote it through whatever it is, because the alternative would be chaos and ruin for their own party.



Maybe they will, but I don't think it's as bad as chaos and ruin, and completely fucking up in the negotiations (which, IMO, is the destination currently in their satnav) could be much worse. Guess we'll have to wait and see if a handful of the scum share that perspective.


----------



## JHE (Mar 10, 2017)

Mr Verhofstadt, an EU negotiator, is making some very attractive noises.

Britons should be able to keep EU benefits after Brexit, says top negotiator

Very generous!

However, I have two doubts:

1.  Usually when talking about the EU, freedom of movement is understood to include freedom to work, not just freedom to travel.  It would be good to see some confirmation that what Verhofstadt is suggesting includes freedom to work.

2.  I fear that Verhofstadt's proposal, assuming that it does include freedom to work, will not be acceptable to all EU governments and will not be acceptable to the European Parliament.  They will very reasonably ask: If the UK isn't letting our people go and work there, why the hell should we let their people come and work in our countries?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 10, 2017)

Isnt this a slightly more coded "those UK citizens who want to stay part of the EU can do so" thing?
This had been floating around a while...a kind of opt in thing.
Like you say raises more questions than answers...I think its designed to divide UK voters further on the issue and create headaches for the government.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 10, 2017)

salem said:


> Even on the 24th June I would never have dreamt that we'd be discussing whether to round up and kick out those already settled here and now it seems quite possible.



No it doesn't.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 10, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Isnt this a slightly more coded "those UK citizens who want to stay part of the EU can do so" thing?



You're right that that's a thing, but in this case, it seems like he is just talking about UK citizens who live in (other) EU countries. Funny thing to have as a top priority. I wonder whether it might be more of a coded way of saying "I don't really give a shit about what Theresa May might be interested in".


----------



## kebabking (Mar 10, 2017)

Raheem said:


> ... Funny thing to have as a top priority. I wonder whether it might be more of a coded way of saying "I don't really give a shit about what Theresa May might be interested in".



Conversely, he may be pissing in his own pond - I bet the million Germans who are involved in the automotive industry are absolutely delighted that the EU's priorities for the post-brexit potential loss of their largest export market are focused on winding up Theresa May...

He may, quite possibly, be trying to be helpful and to rachet the aggro factor down several notches which it could well do with. Its interesting to see that even the Holders of the Sacred Flame are now openly talking about a Multi-speed and multi-direction EU with some countries going full federal EU state and others drifting back to a free trade block. Perhaps if they'd talked like that 5 years ago we wouldn't be where we are now...


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 10, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Its interesting to see that even the Holders of the Sacred Flame are now openly talking about a Multi-speed and multi-direction EU with some countries going full federal EU state and others drifting back to a free trade block. Perhaps if they'd talked like that 5 years ago we wouldn't be where we are now...


Indeed! The Eu just blinked.
Apart from pissing the whole of southern and eastern europe off, It's a step that will alienate marginal Bremainers:
remain in the European Union? - which track?
Does the bremain UK belong to the affluent Northwest that persues a fast track federalisation, cementing an ailing Euro into fiscal union as well as perpetuating and intensifying a North & West vs South & East divide ... or would it better join the underdeveloped souther, eastern and visegrad states (not to mention some their anti immigration agendas)?
.. or fuck it, just get out of dogde sharpish and go it alone...?


----------



## gosub (Mar 11, 2017)

Was unsure to put here or on what vexed me today, coz frankly I've sort of had enough of the whole subject : This isn't the Brexit I envisaged, and will probably hurt..but then you get stuff like this pumped out :



Where to begin? Ah yes.  YOU NEVER SAID A FUCKING WORD WHEN THEY PASSED THE EU CONSTITUTION. That didn't have public consultation, and was ratified through Parliament on simple majority.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 11, 2017)

gosub said:


> Where to begin? Ah yes.  YOU NEVER SAID A FUCKING WORD WHEN THEY PASSED THE EU CONSTITUTION. That didn't have public consultation, and was ratified through Parliament on simple majority.



I somehow find Dawkins slightly more irritating when he is saying something I agree with compared to when he is saying something I disagree with.

But, two wrongs don't make a right. It's possible to believe that no constitutional change ought to be entered into without a clear public mandate, and that both the EU constitution vote and the Brexit vote fell short of that standard.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 13, 2017)

Dawkins seems to have missed the point. He's interpreted a reaction against the pronouncements of arch, patronising old men as a cry for yet more pronouncements from arch, patronising old men.

He also seems to think that being a passable popular science writer with an undergraduate-level grasp of evolution and molecular biology qualifies him as a world expert on absolutely everything. The fact that his major contribution to popular culture, the word 'meme', has come to mean 'deliberately trivial internet in-jokes' must fill him with rage. I hope it does anyway.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 13, 2017)

gosub said:


> Was unsure to put here or on what vexed me today, coz frankly I've sort of had enough of the whole subject : This isn't the Brexit I envisaged, and will probably hurt..but then you get stuff like this pumped out :
> 
> 
> 
> Where to begin? Ah yes.  YOU NEVER SAID A FUCKING WORD WHEN THEY PASSED THE EU CONSTITUTION. That didn't have public consultation, and was ratified through Parliament on simple majority.




I nominate Dawkins for the most punchable face of 2017. And 2018. And 2019, 2020, 2021, etc forever.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 13, 2017)

I don't care for Dawkins really, but the idea of "The British people have spoken", more commonly expressed as "The Will Of The People" (tm) is (especially with the latter) a fundamentally fascistic meme, and used as such. 

"The will of about half the people who voted" just isn't as rhetorically useful.

And if, after 2 years of negotiations under headbangers like Gove and Davis, more people would rather the status quo than to leave, the will of the people will be against the will of the people and the people will be the enemy of themselves.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 13, 2017)

Lords amendments defeated. Govt can now trigger article 50.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 13, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Lords amendments defeated. Govt can now trigger article 50.



Yeah, the Lords aren't going to play ping-pong with this. 

They did vote for an amendment to the Higher Education bill though - one to exclude students and university staff from the proposed immigration cap.


----------



## gosub (Mar 13, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Lords amendments defeated. Govt can now trigger article 50.



Then, perhaps. Rather than trying to drill holes in the life boat/ stop people drilling holes in said lifeboat :they can all start trying to find a way of making this work.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 13, 2017)

gosub said:


> Then, perhaps. Rather than trying to drill holes in the life boat/ stop people drilling holes in said lifeboat :they can all start trying to find a way of making this work.


All aboard the brexit boat!








(Apologies for the sun link)


----------



## bluescreen (Mar 13, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> All aboard the brexit boat!
> 
> (Apologies for the sun link)


ftfy


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 13, 2017)

And if it doesn't work, it's because of the remoaners/eu, not because it's a stupid idea.


----------



## gosub (Mar 13, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> And if it doesn't work, it's because of the remoaners/eu, not because it's a stupid idea.



If it carries on as is, the remainers would have to bare some of the blame.  Its not the leave I wanted or anticipated- the lunatics are most definitely in charge -but they are far more up for scrapping with the equal lunacy of the remainers.


But it will be a bumpy ride no doubt.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 13, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> All aboard the brexit boat!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




A diverse looking bunch. People often forget of Gove that he appointed himself to write an introduction to The Bible. I'm sure our future is safe in his modest hands.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 13, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> A diverse looking bunch. People often forget of Gove that he appointed himself to write an introduction to The Bible. I'm sure our future is safe in his modest hands.



In the beginning Pob created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of Pob was hovering over the waters.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 13, 2017)

gosub said:


> If it carries on as is, the remainers would have to bare some of the blame.  Its not the leave I wanted or anticipated- the lunatics are most definitely in charge -but they are far more up for scrapping with the equal lunacy of the remainers.


It's the leave that was always going to happen and that the remainers warned against. They take none of the blame.


----------



## gosub (Mar 13, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's the leave that was always going to happen and that the remainers warned against. They take none of the blame.


No. The manner and order of remains kitchen sink defense, helped shape it


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 13, 2017)

gosub said:


> No. The manner and order of remains kitchen sink defense, helped shape it


What?. The reason May is talking about a hard brexit is that is all she probably will get. Nothing to do with the remainers.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 14, 2017)

gosub said:


> If it carries on as is, the remainers would have to bare some of the blame.



Why?


----------



## gosub (Mar 14, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why?



I was going to say: with notible exceptions (Gina Miller) they have been a stage of grief behind where they needed to be.  But it predates the referendum - if EUrope was going to work you needed things like the New European paper to be published, preferably before the referendum was even called.


Poor opposition makes for lazy government


----------



## rubbershoes (Mar 14, 2017)

gosub said:


> I was going to say: with notible exceptions (Gina Miller) they have been a stage of grief behind where they needed to be.  But it predates the referendum - if EUrope was going to work you needed things like the New European paper to be published, preferably before the referendum was even called.
> 
> 
> Poor opposition makes for lazy government



So the lack of effective opposition is making May follow the hard brexit line?  

Isn't it more likely that she's doing it to keep the tory party together.  She didn't come across as an ardent leaver ( or remainer) before the referendum.	So her taking this hard line doesn't seem to be caused by strong anti  EU views on her part.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 14, 2017)

gosub said:


> I was going to say: with notible exceptions (Gina Miller) they have been a stage of grief behind where they needed to be.



So this, whatever the fuck it's supposed to mean, makes people culpable for the consequences of a decision they voted against?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2017)

gosub said:


> they have been a stage of grief behind where they needed to be.


i thought you'd know that grief is not linear. it's not like travelling from brixton to walthamstow on the victoria line, one stop at a time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2017)

gosub said:


> Poor opposition makes for lazy government


poor analogies make for lazy posts


----------



## mikey mikey (Mar 14, 2017)

Blame Labour!


----------



## agricola (Mar 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought you'd know that grief is not linear. it's not like travelling from brixton to walthamstow on the victoria line, one stop at a time.



Grief has a different moquette as well.


----------



## gosub (Mar 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought you'd know that grief is not linear. it's not like travelling from brixton to walthamstow on the victoria line, one stop at a time.



Actually it is linear in the sequential sense.  What you don't have control of is timing


----------



## gosub (Mar 14, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> So this, whatever the fuck it's supposed to mean, makes people culpable for the consequences of a decision they voted against?



Partially.

If post remainers had spent the last 9 months focus on the horse of who gets to shape Brexit, rather than the cart of what shape Brexit or even worse the OMG why is this even happening..We'd be in a different place.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 14, 2017)

gosub said:


> Partially.
> 
> If post remainers had spent the last 9 months focus on the horse of who gets to shape Brexit, rather than the cart of what shape Brexit or even worse the OMG why is this even happening. We'd be in a different place.



Explain in some detail how remain voters could have meaningfully changed the makeup of the government in the last nine months. 

I voted remain precisely because of who would get to shape brexit if it happened, ie the tories. They had four years left of a five year fixed term, there was no question it would be them in the driving seat. Anyone who voted leave did so in the full knowledge that the tories would control it, and the near certainty that it would be the eurosceptic right of the tory party domnating proceedings.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 14, 2017)

'Well we all just need to pull our socks up by their bootstraps and stop counting sour grapes before they hatch'


----------



## rubbershoes (Mar 14, 2017)

gosub said:


> Partially.
> 
> If post remainers had spent the last 9 months focus on the horse of who gets to shape Brexit, rather than the cart of what shape Brexit or even worse the OMG why is this even happening..We'd be in a different place.



But the government is doing everything they can to prevent anyone else being involved.


----------



## gosub (Mar 14, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Explain in some detail how remain voters could have meaningfully changed the makeup of the government in the last nine months. Also expl
> 
> I voted remain precisely because of who would get to shape brexit if it happened, ie the tories. They had four years left of a five year fixed term, there was no question it would be them in the driving seat. Anyone who voted leave did so in the full knowledge that the tories would control it, and the near certainty that it would be the eurosceptic right of the tory party domnating proceedings.



On the alternative timeline, where Parliament had won more of a hand over government. I think we would have ended up with a general election : May's majority being too small to pull things off and no real confidence in a Corbyn alternative.  May would probably have increased her majority but small c conservative UK would have settled on soft Brexit. UKIP a handful of seats at most.


----------



## gosub (Mar 14, 2017)

rubbershoes said:


> But the government is doing everything they can to prevent anyone else being involved.



And got away with it, coz on the other side you had quite open plotting to overturn it (which the hardcore leavers tied to the soft Brexiters) and the soft Brexiters outlining their case before securing the ability to carry it out.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 14, 2017)

gosub said:


> On the alternative timeline, where Parliament had won more of a hand over government. I think we would have ended up with a general election : May's majority being too small to pull things off and no real confidence in a Corbyn alternative.  May would probably have increased her majority but small c conservative UK would have settled on soft Brexit. UKIP a handful of seats at most.



Can we please put 'all posters must read the fixed term parliament act before posting' in the FAQ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I nominate Dawkins for the most punchable face of 2017. And 2018. And 2019, 2020, 2021, etc forever.



It's a face that only a boot could love.


----------



## gosub (Mar 14, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Can we please put 'all posters must read the fixed term parliament act before posting' in the FAQ?



Fixed term allows for election in the event of no confidence in the administration and an alternative not being forthcoming. 


Follow you're own FAQ


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 14, 2017)

gosub said:


> Fixed term allows for election in the event of no confidence in the administration and an alternative not being forthcoming.
> 
> 
> Follow you're own FAQ



So you can imagine a universe where a tory controlled parliament voted with a two-thirds majority to bing down a tory government? Time to put down the crack pipe mate.


----------



## gosub (Mar 14, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> So you can imagine a universe where a tory controlled parliament voted with a two-thirds majority to bing down a tory government? Time to put down the crack pipe mate.


Yes, still do. If we had an election tomorrow tories would be returned with a larger majority


I'm not the only one, Green's have put themselves on election footing due to the number of Tory ppc's doing photo shoots in Westminster in the last month...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 14, 2017)

gosub said:


> Poor opposition makes for lazy government


The government know what they are going to do:


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> The government know what they are going to do:


A succinct summation of _Rexit; _accelerated, advanced neoliberalism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> The government know what they are going to do:


you'd think yer man's government had a majority of 142 or something, not some piddling dozen or whatnot


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

brogdale said:


> A succinct summation of _Rexit; _accelerated, advanced neoliberalism.



It's a succinct summation of what Tories have been saying for ever. Did you expect the Tories to all of a sudden stop being Tories because of Brexit?


----------



## agricola (Mar 14, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> The government know what they are going to do:



Liam Fox, who has never run a business in his entire life.  Even his own Government thinks he is talking out of an area near the bottom.

I do however like his recycling of the Cameron-era "fairness agenda", something best summed up as people with arms being blamed for people not having arms, by people who went around cutting other people's arms off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2017)

look at the inversion of fairness here from ole foxy. It amounts to 'if you don't let your kids work for peanuts then thats not fair'. Workers rights are an impediment in a globalised economy. And they are to them. What is to be done with us then? no factories anymore, no productive labour en masse. Automation on the increase. Liam fucking Fox. Suffocate him with a used condom


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 14, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> The government know what they are going to do:



This would explain why Germany and Scandinavia have both stronger worker's rights and higher productivity


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> It's a succinct summation of what Tories have been saying for ever. Did you expect the Tories to all of a sudden stop being Tories because of Brexit?


True enough, but only the most faithful to the (b)Rexit cause were salivating at the opportunity to accelerate the erosion of workers' rights afforded by leaving 5 or more years ago.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

brogdale said:


> True enough, but only the most faithful to the (b)Rexit cause were salivating at the opportunity to accelerate the erosion of workers' rights afforded by leaving 5 or more years ago.



I don't think this is true either. The erosion of workers rights has been the mainstream Tory agenda since its beginnings, and the vast majority of them believed that this would be best achieved _within _the EU. That's why the official position of the Tories was to remain.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I don't think this is true either. The erosion of workers rights has been the mainstream Tory agenda since its beginnings, and the vast majority of them believed that this would be best achieved _within _the EU. That's why the official position of the Tories was to remain.


Then, thats where we'll disagree. Sure they were confident that workers' rights would be eroded within the neoliberal suprastate, but they'll be able to accelerate that erosion free of the inertia of the protection surviving from the period of system competition.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Then, thats where we'll disagree. Sure they were confident that workers' rights would be eroded within the neoliberal suprastate, but they'll be able to accelerate that erosion free of the inertia of the protection surviving from the period of system competition.



Why do you believe they will be able to accelerate it?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why do you believe they will be able to accelerate it?


There will be no primacy of EU law.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2017)

If only they would stamp out the scourge that is pavement cycling now we're free of that effete European namby-pamby law


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

brogdale said:


> There will be no primacy of EU law.



Can you expand on this? I'm not trying to catch you out with anything, btw. I'm just trying to give you space to elaborate so we don't end up going over old ground.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Can you expand on this? I'm not trying to catch you out with anything, btw. I'm just trying to give you space to elaborate so we don't end up going over old ground.


The Fox quote makes explicit some post-Brexit ambitions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Can you expand on this? I'm not trying to catch you out with anything, btw. I'm just trying to give you space to elaborate so we don't end up going over old ground.


It's all auld


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

brogdale said:


> The Fox quote makes explicit some post-Brexit ambitions.



That's not really an expansion.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> That's not really an expansion.


Sorry mate; it's tea time.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Sorry mate; it's tea time.



Fair enough. Maybe later then.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why do you believe they will be able to accelerate it?



They also have the excuse of Brexit now, because we will not have the protection of EU tariffs, in fact we will have to pay extra, we will have to lower our standards in order to be competitive.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> They also have the excuse of Brexit now, because we will not have the protection of EU tariffs, in fact we will have to pay extra, we will have to lower our standards in order to be competitive.



Economies don't all just compete on price though. Economies thrive because they find a niche within which they can locate themselves. There is no way that a strategy of emulating china would work for us as a niche. High tech is the only possible avenue, and the tories know this. It's way too simple to see everything as a one-dimensional race to the bottom.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Economies don't all just compete on price though. Economies thrive because they find a niche within which they can locate themselves. There is no way that a strategy of emulating china would work for us as a niche. High tech is the only possible avenue, and the tories know this. It's way too simple to see everything as a one-dimensional race to the bottom.



Beautifully simple is how I expect David Davies sees it.

We can't compensate for Brexit simply by cutting wages and standards. But it provides a good excuse, and a lot of people will accept it, as they have done with "There's no more money".


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Economies don't all just compete on price though. Economies thrive because they find a niche within which they can locate themselves. There is no way that a strategy of emulating china would work for us as a niche. High tech is the only possible avenue, and the tories know this. It's way too simple to see everything as a one-dimensional race to the bottom.



I agree that any attempt to compete with China, Indonesia etc as a low wage, high output exporter is doomed; particularly if we've shut ourselves out of the EU trading bloc beforehand. I just don't think the tories see it that way, or they simply don't care. Osbourne was plugging the 'mini China' angle long before brexit with his crackpot free enterprise zones.

With the tories, any crisis is an opportunity to attack working people. The 2008 economic clusterfuck was a perfect example; precarious employment, outsourcing, workfare and enforced self-employment have all snowballed in the wake of that. It didn't make any economic sense and there was no coherent rationale or evidence base to any of it, but the tories did it anyway.

There's no route to a successful high tech economy that doesn't involve major investment. And investment is a four letter word to this government.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Fair enough. Maybe later then.


I'm now full as an egg!
Anyway...these EU labour laws that the Rexiteers will be delighted to see the back off...if I were to look some up and list them would you then tell me that it'll make no difference or something? Just to save time etc. I thought I'd ask.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

brogdale said:


> I'm now full as an egg!
> Anyway...these EU labour laws that the Rexiteers will be delighted to see the back off...if I were to look some up and list them would you then tell me that it'll make no difference or something? Just to save time etc. I thought I'd ask.



I'm skeptical that it would make a difference, yes.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I'm skeptical that it would make a difference, yes.


Well we've all saved some time there, then?
I'm pretty certain that such a bonfire of the regulations is precisely one of the key drivers for the Rextiteers, and you're skeptical. One way or another we'll start to find out who's right in just over 2 years time. We must remember to come back to this!


----------



## gosub (Mar 14, 2017)

brogdale said:


> I'm now full as an egg!.


Liked for that phrase, which I've not heard before


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

gosub said:


> Liked for that phrase, which I've not heard before


A family favourite, courtesy of my old Dad's mate '_Cheddar' _Cheeseman. Ched typically used to drink simultaneously in 2 'schools', at different ends of the public bar of _The Railway, _and (consequently) was known to have had some 12 pint lunchtimes. Hence the phrase.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Well we've all saved some time there, then?
> I'm pretty certain that such a bonfire of the regulations is precisely one of the key drivers for the Rextiteers, and you're skeptical. One way or another we'll start to find out who's right in just over 2 years time. We must remember to come back to this!



There are two assumptions your working off here, and I disagree with both of them. The first is that the EU is interested in and capable of protecting the rights of workers. The second follows from the first, and is that the Tories are held back only by EU labour law, absent of which they will be all-powerful.

The first assumption is easy to dismiss as we have the example of Greece to demonstrate that the EU have no interest at all in protecting our rights, and when push comes to shove, will be the driving force behind crushing them. If this first assumption is false, then how can it be true that the only thing stopping a bonfire of rights is Brussels? There must be other dynamics at play here that don't fit into the simplistic 'EU good, Tories evil' narrative.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> There are two assumptions your working off here, and I disagree with both of them. The first is that the EU is interested in and capable of protecting the rights of workers. The second follows from the first, and is that the Tories are held back only by EU labour law, absent of which they will be all-powerful.
> 
> The first assumption is easy to dismiss as we have the example of Greece to demonstrate that the EU have no interest at all in protecting our rights, and when push comes to shove, will be the driving force behind crushing them. If this first assumption is false, then how can it be true that the only thing stopping a bonfire of rights is Brussels? There must be other dynamics at play here that don't fit into the simplistic 'EU good, Tories evil' narrative.


Yeah, that is the well rehearsed ref stuff, but you'll be unsurprised to learn that I don't hold with your first assumption. I agree that _the EU _is not "interested in" protecting the rights of workers, but it does retain a legacy of certain employment laws/regulations that reflect the supra-state's responses to a time when capital was compelled to offer concessions to labour. Obviously they will eventually be formally eroded, but clearly Fox, Davies et al believe that they can put accelerant on the bonfire more effectively without any supra-state intervention.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, that is the well rehearsed ref stuff, but you'll be unsurprised to learn that I don't hold with your first assumption. I agree that _the EU _is not "interested in" protecting the rights of workers, but it does retain a legacy of certain employment laws/regulations that reflect the supra-state's responses to a time when capital was compelled to offer concessions to labour. Obviously they will will eventually be formally eroded, but clearly Fox, Davies et al believe that they can put accelerant on the bonfire more effectively without any supra-state intervention.



But here's the thing. Your whole thesis is that the Tories are held back by the EU from having a bonfire of rights - a bonfire that has already occurred inside another EU country _at the behest of the EU itself_.

Look, I've no doubt that Fox et al _want _to degrade workers protections - that's just the MO of a Tory. It's to be expected. The question is why haven't they done so already when it clearly is possible inside the EU? What has stopped them so far?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2017)

The Tories are using this as an excuse to attack workers' rights. Does this mean that they couldn't have done so within Euro law? Maybe, maybe not; I suspect they would have found it a bit harder but it's not really important. The key point is that it's something that they can pick up on the referendum result as a domestic political justification for doing so. It was never in doubt that they'd do this - they and the press deliberately painted EU interference as being pro-regulation, anti-common-sense etc, and leaving the EU meaning that "we" could act against PC-gone-mad and health-and-safety. They can and will now claim "will of the people" for everything they do.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> But here's the thing. Your whole thesis is that the Tories are held back by the EU from having a bonfire of rights - a bonfire that has already occurred inside another EU country _at the behest of the EU itself_.
> 
> Look, I've no doubt that Fox et al _want _to degrade workers protections - that's just the MO of a Tory. It's to be expected. The question is why haven't they done so already when it clearly is possible inside the EU? What has stopped them so far?


The long contested issue of the UK's relationship with the Social Chapter, and the tories determination to resist/remove it, would suggest that elements of EU labour law primacy have held back UK governments from some erosions of rights.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

brogdale said:


> The long contested issue of the UK's relationship with the Social Chapter, and the tories determination to resist/remove it, would suggest that elements of EU labour law primacy have held back UK governments from some erosions of rights.



Maybe that's true. Can you give some specific examples?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Maybe that's true. Can you give some specific examples?


There's loads out there about the Social Chapter; this is a fairly brief skim.


----------



## B.I.G (Mar 14, 2017)

Thank God for Lexit.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Maybe that's true. Can you give some specific examples?


Is it important if it's not true? They're still doing it, and they weren't doing it before.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

brogdale said:


> There's loads out there about the Social Chapter; this is a fairly brief skim.



So you believe none of these would have been introduced if we had not been in the EU? And you expect all of these to be removed without opposition once we leave the EU?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Is it important if it's not true? They're still doing it, and they weren't doing it before.



Doing what? We're still in the EU.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Doing what? We're still in the EU.


They're acting to attack workers' rights, explicitly justifying it using Brexit. (As we all knew they would do.)


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> They're acting to attack workers' rights, explicitly justifying it using Brexit. (As we all knew they would do.)



Oh come on. They will attempt to do that whatever the situation. They don't need a reason.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Oh come on. They will attempt to do that whatever the situation. They don't need a reason.


Yet they didn't before, not to this degree. The reason is that they can now explicitly use Brexit as a justification; "we must be more competitive, we must get rid of the EU constraints that stop this" whether that's true or not. They've built up that fantasy and now they can use it to justify their actions.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Yet they didn't before, not to this degree. The reason is that they can now explicitly use Brexit as a justification; "we must be more competitive, we must get rid of the EU constraints that stop this" whether that's true or not. They've built up that fantasy and now they can use it to justify their actions.



I'm not convinced. What specific laws have been passed recently that would not have been possible prior to the referendum?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I'm not convinced. What specific laws have been passed recently that would not have been possible prior to the referendum?


You're not convinced by what?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You're not convinced by what?



Not convinced that the Tories have been held back merely by lack of justification. What specific laws have been passed recently that would not have been possible prior to the referendum?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> So you believe none of these would have been introduced if we had not been in the EU? And you expect all of these to be removed without opposition once we leave the EU?


Now you're starting to tell me what I believe; never a good basis for a discussion.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Not convinced that the Tories have been held back merely by lack of justification. What specific laws have been passed recently that would not have been possible prior to the referendum?


Were they confidently saying "we must deregulate the labour market" beforehand? In the same way? They weren't; Fox is explicitly using this to justify what he says.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Now you're starting to tell me what I believe; never a good basis for a discussion.



Both of those were questions.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Were they confidently saying "we must deregulate the labour market" beforehand?



Since circa 1979, yes.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

By the way, what specific laws have been passed recently that would not have been possible prior to the referendum?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Since circa 1979, yes.


No they haven't. They obviously haven't; Fox has explicitly used Brexit as the reason for his policy proposal now.

I've lost interest in talking to you on this. I'm not sure what your reason for this nonsense is but I don't care any more. Post a last word or something if you like.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> No they haven't. They obviously haven't; Fox has explicitly drawn up Brexit as the reason for his policy proposal now.
> 
> I've lost interest in talking to you on this. I'm not sure what your reason for this nonsense is but I don't care any more. Post a last word or something if you like.



Didn't want to answer the question I see.


----------



## Humberto (Mar 14, 2017)

Let them go full tilt. A lot of us haven't got much to lose by not carrying on with softly softly.

Can't put it any clearer.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Since circa 1979, yes.



Your argument seems to be that they have wanted to deregulate labour for a long time, so the advent of the circumstances that may allow them to do this are neither here nor there.

_It was clear that the tiger had wanted to eat Bob for some time. All we did was unlock the cage._


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Your argument seems to be that they have wanted to deregulate labour for a long time, so the advent of the circumstances that may allow them to do this are neither here nor there.
> 
> _It was clear that the tiger had wanted to eat Bob for some time. All we did was unlock the cage._



My argument is that they have had all the opportunity to do so and have not, and that there are many reasons for them not having done so, with the EU being demonstrably not one of them.


----------



## Humberto (Mar 14, 2017)

Socialism: Instant benefits


----------



## brogdale (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Both of those were questions.


Which are literally impossible to answer; we have no way of knowing for sure, so we?
But the evidence we do have suggests that tories have instinctively been opposed to any provisions of the social chapter, and expressed desires to exploit Brexit to reverse concessions to labour.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 14, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> My argument is that they have had all the opportunity to do so and have not, and that there are many reasons for them not having done so, with the EU being demonstrably not one of them.



When they had the opportunity, they did, in that they didn't adopt the Social Chapter or the Working Time Directive. Since 2010, they have not necessarily been "them", because of the coalition. So it's virtually nothing as a window, but Britain's EU membership has substantial prohibited them, given that our labour laws don't generally go much further than what the EU requires.

But what do you think the "many reasons" are?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 14, 2017)

Humberto said:


> Let them go full tilt. A lot of us haven't got much to lose by not carrying on with softly softly.
> 
> Can't put it any clearer.


theres always something to lose and further to fall


----------



## Humberto (Mar 14, 2017)

ska invita said:


> theres always something to lose and further to fall



Inequality might deem that to be true. Realistically if you are poor and cunted off for it then that might just skew how you feel about Brexit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2017)

Humberto said:


> Inequality might deem that to be true. Realistically if you are poor and cunted off for it then that might just skew how you feel about Brexit.


If you're poor you have the most to lose. Unless you're talking about homeless people on the streets.


----------



## Humberto (Mar 14, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you're poor you have the most to lose. Unless you're talking about homeless people on the streets.



The rich have more than the poor. So more to lose. Basic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2017)

Humberto said:


> The rich have more than the poor. So more to lose. Basic.


 The rich might lose some trinkets but the basics of a home, clothing, food, medicine, and the like are protected by the buffer of their wealth.


----------



## Humberto (Mar 14, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The rich might lose some trinkets but the basics of a home, clothing, food, medicine, and the like are protected by the buffer of their wealth.



And the poor don't have that buffer.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2017)

Humberto said:


> And the poor don't have that buffer.


Exactly.


----------



## Humberto (Mar 14, 2017)

So the poor don't have a 'buffer', the rich do and so have a 'buffer' to lose.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2017)

Humberto said:


> So the poor don't have a 'buffer', the rich do and so have a 'buffer' to lose.


Which is nothing to lose, really. In any downturn in fortunes, a poor person is faced with immediate hard choices. New shoes for your kid or continuing to pay for their music lessons, which they're mad keen on. They need shoes, so the music goes. Immediately, an important thing is lost. Down one more notch, and you're faced with making do with the old shoes to pay for the electricity to stay on.  More to lose. Basic.


----------



## Humberto (Mar 15, 2017)

Ok mate. Are you having a disagreement?


----------



## Humberto (Mar 15, 2017)

If you are can you take less than 30 mins. I tend to get bored.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 15, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Since circa 1979, yes.


yes, they resisted signing the social chapter for the entire period the tories were in power prior to 97.

Post brexit they can opt back out of it and rescind everything that stems from it and other EU legislation at will.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 15, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> My argument is that they have had all the opportunity to do so and have not, and that there are many reasons for them not having done so, with the EU being demonstrably not one of them.


how do you work out that an institution that specifically prevents the a UK government from unilaterally reducing workers rights below set minimum levels is demonstrably not one of the reasons the Tories haven't undone any of the laws that Labour passed that stemmed from the EU legislation?

If it's demonstrably the case, please demonstrate it.


----------



## hipipol (Mar 15, 2017)

English argue wiv English, rest get to chew you shit eh??
Idiota!!!!
Fuck off arse seepage


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 15, 2017)

Theresa May must not trigger article 50 before these vital questions are answered | Carole Cadwalldr

sound familiar?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The rich might lose some trinkets but the basics of a home, clothing, food, medicine, and the like are protected by the buffer of their wealth.



They may have those basics in GULAG, after their wealth has been expropriated by the Peoples' Committee for Proletarian Democracy.


----------



## gosub (Mar 15, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> They may have those basics in GULAG, after their wealth has been expropriated by the Peoples' Committee for Proletarian Democracy.



 You can move money offshore in milliseconds these days


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2017)

gosub said:


> You can move money offshore in milliseconds these days



You cannot escape The Peoples' Accounting Committee, who will enact interesting re-education policies with your loved ones, if you send money offshore. 

If you're a recidivist, they'll send your family to Clacton.


----------



## Humberto (Mar 15, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Which is nothing to lose, really. In any downturn in fortunes, a poor person is faced with immediate hard choices. New shoes for your kid or continuing to pay for their music lessons, which they're mad keen on. They need shoes, so the music goes. Immediately, an important thing is lost. Down one more notch, and you're faced with making do with the old shoes to pay for the electricity to stay on.  More to lose. Basic.



You are right actually.


----------



## Humberto (Mar 15, 2017)

ska invita said:


> theres always something to lose and further to fall



You both were.


----------



## MrSpikey (Mar 16, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> By the way, what specific laws have been passed recently that would not have been possible prior to the referendum?



None - the referendum itself didn't alter our legal relationship with the EU at all, and we haven't started the mandated exit process yet. 

Once exit has been achieved, however, the answer may start to become very different.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 16, 2017)

Brenda has signed.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 16, 2017)




----------



## brogdale (Mar 16, 2017)

_The last Queen of the United Kingdom._


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Brenda has signed.



she's thinking she won't have to deal with the mess may is creating


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

brogdale said:


> _The last Queen of the United Kingdom._


yeh kings from now on ftw


----------



## brogdale (Mar 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> she's thinking she won't have to deal with the mess may is creating


_London Bridge is down?_


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

brogdale said:


> _London Bridge is down?_


in today's guardian Operation London Bridge: the secret plan for the days after the Queen’s death


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> in today's guardian Operation London Bridge: the secret plan for the days after the Queen’s death



All that brouhaha could be avoided with a quick trip to B&Q to pick up wood for a scaffold and an axe.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> All that brouhaha could be avoided with a quick trip to B&Q to pick up wood for a scaffold and an axe.


and a wheel. don't forget the wheel.


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 16, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> They may have those basics in GULAG, after their wealth has been expropriated by the Peoples' Committee for Proletarian Democracy.



They may be encouraged to work in line with Stakhanovism but they are not to be recognised for such efforts, as would recipients of the Order of Lenin or Heroes of Socialist Labour.


----------



## Humberto (Mar 16, 2017)

hipipol said:


> English argue wiv English, rest get to chew you shit eh??
> Idiota!!!!
> Fuck off arse seepage



Get to fuck.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> in today's guardian Operation London Bridge: the secret plan for the days after the Queen’s death



My plan is to stay away from the TV and all large, open public spaces for at least a fortnight.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 16, 2017)

I hope she lives to see the break up of the union.


----------



## gosub (Mar 16, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I hope she lives to see the break up of the union.



Bit sorry for Charlie boy, Mummy ruled half the world when he was born. Now....
Biscuit anyone?


----------



## cantsin (Mar 16, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I hope she lives to see the break up of the union.



genuinely encouraging thought amidst the gloom


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 16, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I hope she lives to see the break up of the union.


 

That has cheered me up no end dot. I shall think about that as I drift off to sleep tonight, a smile on my face


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

gosub said:


> Bit sorry for Charlie boy, Mummy ruled half the world when he was born. Now....
> Biscuit anyone?


half? not even a third. after all, charles philip arthur george mountbatten-windsor was born in 1948, after india had gone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I hope she lives to see the break up of the union.


i don't. the sooner she shuffles off this mortal coil the better.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 17, 2017)

On Coppola Comment Game theory in Brexitland


> ...
> The truth is that May's threat to leave the EU on WTO rules is no more credible than Alexis Tsipras's threat to leave the Euro. Leading the UK over the cliff edge onto a pile of jagged rocks is not delivering the best outcome for the UK. She would pay the price for that folly at the ballot box in 2020, or earlier if she lost the support of her (already restive) back-bench MPs. She has no choice but to try to negotiate some kind of soft landing. So the attempt to stifle Parliament is, once again, wrong. She must be chained to the negotiating table, even if it takes a Parliamentary veto to do it.
> 
> But the EU can walk away. After all, if it does nothing, the UK leaves on WTO rules that are a lot more damaging for the UK than they are for the EU. So the EU holds the upper hand. And the EU likes to play brinkmanship, especially when invited to do so by a foolhardy government. So my guess is that there will be a transitional deal. It will be hashed out in a brutal all-nighter just before the Article 50 notice expires. And in that meeting, May will agree to every single one of the EU's terms - because although they will fall a long way short of the benefits the UK currently enjoys, they will be better than the alternative.
> ...


And it's not really the EU but the member states' foreign ministers that Tsipras finally folded too. Then things just reverted to an unhappy status quo for Greece they didn't have to engineer and entirely new legal and trade relationship with the EU and the RoW. 

The trouble with this game is Brexit is a really complicated thing and the remaining member states don't really agree on the least bad outcome. Getting a consensus could easily take two years if the British didn't mess about, cultivated good will and tried hard to forge a deal. May's bluff will be called and she may find she's entirely missed the window for negotiating any sort of tidier exit.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 17, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> ...Alexis Tsipras's threat to leave the Euro.



When did this happen then? Funny, I remember exactly the opposite being the case.




			
				Alexis Tsipras said:
			
		

> Sunday’s referendum is not about whether our country will stay in the Eurozone. This is a given and no one should question this.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 17, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> When did this happen then? Funny, I remember exactly the opposite being the case.


As I recall he'd just held a hurried referendum campaigning to remain in Euro (Greeks were plainly scared of leaving) but reject the very harsh bailout terms. The Germans were saying anything but complete submission on Troika terms would inevitably lead to a very hard Grexit. So it might be more accurate to say Tsipras was calling the Germans bluff but it wasn't a bluff. They were quite willing to risk the EZ disruption a Grexit would cause. They actually seemed to think the spectacle of Greece suffering hyperinflation as it went off the Euro would be a politically useful example. 

This was very predictable as the Krauts had behaved in this self harming way throughout the crisis greatly increasing the damage inflicted on the EZ. The US Fed was quite critical of this. And the EZ FMs plainly pissed off with Greek game playing all lined up behind the Germans in seeing the Greeks as a miscreant to be punished. They even ejected the Greek FM who quite reasonably argued it made no sense for its creditors to continue to gut the Greek economy not seeming to realise politics is really not about rational macroeconomics.

None of this was clever and a lot of it hinged on ideological positions, soured relationships and domestic bad feeling. It does rather foreshadow how Brexit negotiations could be buggered up. Best part of year since the decision to leave there's been no real British attempt to create sympathetic human terrain in the EU just a lot of Tory posturing. May's perpetually arrogant Team Brexit assuming they are in an infinitely superior position to the poor old Greeks and that clearly signalled E27 positions are bluffs that must be met with counter-bluffs is hubris.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 17, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> When did this happen then? Funny, I remember exactly the opposite being the case.


Quite, Tsipras never threatened to leave the Euro, unlike others in Syrzia


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 19, 2017)

On The Irish Economy We have to prepare for the worst


> ...
> There are at least three reasons why I think an “off the cliff” Brexit is the most likely outcome.
> 
> First, and most importantly, an “off the cliff” Brexit what the hard Brexiteers want: a break with the EU that is as clean and as unambiguous as possible. And they are currently driving the show. Arguments about economic interest have no impact on this group: for them, it is all about sovereignty, as they see it.
> ...


May's Brexiters are almost Trumpian in their emboldened stupidity. They've had time. It's like they really don't want to master the nasty technocratic details just stay ahead in the Tory bunfight.

Predicting trouble for folks in the border counties.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 19, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On The Irish Economy We have to prepare for the worst
> May's Brexiters are almost Trumpian in their emboldened stupidity. They've had time. It's like they really don't want to master the nasty technocratic details just stay ahead in the Tory bunfight.
> 
> Predicting trouble for folks in the border counties.


That clip of Davis is really pretty staggering.
_
Um, don't know. Um, not studied that one. Um, yes, I guess you're probably right... _

Benn seems to know more about the consequences of brexit than Davis.

It's not just that Davis has had the last nine months to study this. He's long been a true believer - he's had years to study it.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 22, 2017)




----------



## kabbes (Mar 22, 2017)

One immediate impact of Brexit: every insurer I know in the London Market is now setting up an EU company to carry on being able to write EU business.  The tax revenue from the profit on this business will therefore no longer accrue to the UK.  I'd conservatively estimate that this is worth a good £250m in lost tax revenue per year at least, and possibly multiples of this amount.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 22, 2017)

kabbes said:


> One immediate impact of Brexit: every insurer I know in the London Market is now setting up an EU company to carry on being able to write EU business.  The tax revenue from the profit on this business will therefore no longer accrue to the UK.  I'd conservatively estimate that this is worth a good £250m in lost tax revenue per year at least, and possibly multiples of this amount.


no, couldn't possibly be true, we were clearly told that leaving the EU would bring such huge benefits to the UK government that they'd be able to spend an extra £350 million a week on the NHS.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 22, 2017)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 102667


 
 The utter belligerence and lack of tact is astounding.


----------



## gosub (Mar 22, 2017)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 102667



No fair.  Had to google. Its from the Express which makes it  rather than


----------



## kebabking (Mar 22, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> The utter belligerence and lack of tact is astounding.



To be strictly fair - and to put this in some context, i voted remain - the belligerence and lack of tact is not a one-way street. If the EU structures and member states, or bits of both, wanted as frictionless, good-natured, and pain free process as possible in the interests of both sides, they've gone about it in a very funny way.

We should recall, for example, that its the UK government that sought an early, reciprocal rights agreement over EU and UK nationals and the EU that gave the issue the big finger.

Personally i doubt there will be an agreement, given how hard some parties within the EU - both structures and member states - are trying to poison the atmosphere. The loons here will of course lap it up and make it worse...


----------



## brogdale (Mar 22, 2017)

gosub said:


> No fair.  Had to google. Its from the Express which makes it  rather than


Here's the footage of Cash's intervention...

UK should remind EU about cancelling German WW2 debt to get better deal, says senior Tory MP

So, yes....


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 22, 2017)

whats next? start singing two world wars and one world cup at merkel? doing the finger tash and funny walk?


----------



## gosub (Mar 22, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Here's the footage of Cash's intervention...
> 
> UK should remind EU about cancelling German WW2 debt to get better deal, says senior Tory MP
> 
> So, yes....



But its Bill Cash, a bloke who still doesn't think you leave via Art 50.  A sort of 'why use fire exits when there's a perfectly good wall to walk through'.  Still, septuagenarians are entitled to political opinions.  Sir Tim Barrow makes clear he won't be following his advice.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 22, 2017)

kebabking said:


> To be strictly fair - and to put this in some context, i voted remain - the belligerence and lack of tact is not a one-way street. If the EU structures and member states, or bits of both, wanted as frictionless, good-natured, and pain free process as possible in the interests of both sides, they've gone about it in a very funny way.



If you listen to the people that really matter then things are no quite so alarming. Donald Tusk is pretty sanguine about the whole thing for example. Junker is a raging drunkard, so prone to slurred outbursts and MPs like Cash are just syphilitic Tory tossbags. Both sides providing good entertainment, but cut through the bollocks and you find a core of people who seem to be prepared to just get on with the UK leaving the EU with as little pain and fuss on both sides.


----------



## gosub (Mar 22, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If you listen to the people that really matter then things are no quite so alarming. Donald Tusk is pretty sanguine about the whole thing for example. Junker is a raging drunkard, so prone to slurred outbursts and MPs like Cash are just syphilitic Tory tossbags. Both sides providing good entertainment, but cut through the bollocks and you find a core of people who seem to be prepared to just get on with the UK leaving the EU with as little pain and fuss on both sides.


Guy Verhofstadt???


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 22, 2017)

gosub said:


> Guy Verhofstadt???



Yeah, Merkel is not getting all silly either. It boils down to the money, the EU is a neo-liberal thing and won't let a load of old shite get in the way of the corporations raking it in.


----------



## gosub (Mar 22, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah, Merkel is not getting all silly either. It boils down to the money, the EU is a neo-liberal thing and won't let a load of old shite get in the way of the corporations raking it in.



I think at member state level it will be quite grown up. EUropean Parliament may well be a different story


----------



## kebabking (Mar 22, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah, Merkel is not getting all silly either. It boils down to the money, the EU is a neo-liberal thing and won't let a load of old shite get in the way of the corporations raking it in.



The problem - and i don't disagree with the thrust of your view - is that the EU structures and the awkward squad have veto's over what the grown-ups come up with.

I'd argue that if the negotiations were on a UK-member states basis the results would be both constructive and reciprocal (with perhaps the exception of the French..), the the problem is the structures, the EU parliament and the cranks like Junker have as much power as the member states.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 22, 2017)

kebabking said:


> The problem - and i don't disagree with the thrust of your view - is that the EU structures and the awkward squad have veto's over what the grown-ups come up with.
> 
> I'd argue that if the negotiations were on a UK-member states basis the results would be both constructive and reciprocal (with perhaps the exception of the French..), the the problem is the structures, the EU parliament and the cranks like Junker have as much power as the member states.



True, I do think/hope that Merkel or her replacement plus Tusk and so on will be able to keep them in check. As for Junker, stick him on the celeb death pool list, he's not long of this world


----------



## gosub (Mar 22, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> True, I do think/hope that Merkel or her replacement plus Tusk and so on will be able to keep them in check. As for Junker, stick him on the celeb death pool list, he's not long of this world



I'm afraid the power play between EUropean Council and EUropean Parliament / Commission is bound to rear its head


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 22, 2017)

gosub said:


> I'm afraid the power play between EUropean Council and EUropean Parliament / Commission is bound to rear its head



Again, I think/hope/imagine that as it's not just Gideon who's on the take, that their ultimate masters, big business, will tell them to wind their necks in.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 23, 2017)

On Wolf Street One Sole Aim: “Steal Away” Global Finance from London: Just How Low Can European Governments Go?


> ...
> The fact that Germany also enjoys more influence over European economic policy-making than any other EU Member State would certainly be an added enticement for the world’s biggest financial institutions. Over 70% of respondents to an Ernst & Young survey said they expect Frankfurt to come out on top in the race to displace London.
> 
> But such a move is unlikely to be welcomed by many other European countries, especially those in the South where resentment over Germany’s influence over their economies is already running high. Nowhere is that more so than in Italy whose government is also trying to entice City-based firms to Milan, despite the fact that its own financial sector is hanging by a thread.
> ...


I'd imagine EU governments will go pretty damned low. Every crisis provides opportunities and there's some rich pickings here. Frankfurt looks set to do well from what I'm hearing and like that snip says it's liable to up Kraut power another notch. 

This doesn't mean London will be greatly decreased as a financial centre and great concentration of parasitic systemically risky activities. As the Tories will likely have The City up, unbound and running with scissors after all that splendid volatility in no time.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 24, 2017)

This is a slightly cropped version of a piece I read on FB about why someone is marching against Brexit this weekend.

I am posting it because in so much discourse about racism the perspective of actual victims is so often missed out. So much is about trying to understand the perspective of racists, their motivations etc. or to minimise, excuse and obfuscate.

Typically, conservatives posture that it is "PC gone mad" (tm) to understand perpetrators, that concern for victims come first. With racism those priorities are flipped around. I can't think why.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Mum and dad are 'anglo-Indians' (as that community curiously call themselves, not that ma & pa were fussed).

My background, within two generations is: German (hence surname), French, Portuguese, Dutch, Indian and somewhere along the line I popped out in East London in 1963.

Growing up in London, I had a pretty much idyllic, carefree childhood, surrounded by love. We didn't have much in the way of stuff, but our house was always full of laughter and was a place of shelter for many passing through.

Sure, along with my parents, I raised an eyebrow at awful racist old school comedians on 'New Faces', endured 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum' and just wearily switched off from 'Mind Your (fucking) Language'. But generally - a dreamy kid, into Disney and drawn to the intoxicating noises from 'Top Of The Pops' each Thursday night. (Hence my career now).

In 1977, dad's job transferred to Milton Keynes. Then - it was the whitest place on god's earth. Literally the cliche of an utterly soulless new town. And for me - the shock of leaving my beloved multicultural London school and nervously arriving as a skinny brown kid in a very alien environment. was horrific.

My first day, at break-time, I thought "okay, try and join in". I went to kick the tennis ball coming my way. A voice said "don't pass the ball to the n****r." I stopped and thought: "what, who are they talking about? Oh...me." And in a moment, in that moment, I was crushed and the dreamy child left me, permanently.I know kids can be cruel.

These kids, mainly from surrounding rural areas, had never encountered anyone of colour. At the same time - 'Roots' was on telly. So I was called 'Kunte Kinte' from that day forward, by every sniggering racist kid, every time I entered a classroom (knowing the verbal or physical pasting that lay ahead). The NF were all over the news.During cross-country runs, I was chased down as sport, as soon as out of sight of teachers. Obviously, I became a really good distance runner, really fast. I was consequently invited to run in the school cross country team, but declined.

The teachers had no experience in dealing with racism, so were useless. I didn't tell my parents, as they would feel guilty for moving us from London. So - without wanting to sound martyr-like, I endured it.

Previously in London, I was ace-ing it in school and studying four languages at 13. That all went out the window. Any teacher questioning my performance I just ignored. I locked myself in the music room with the only two friends I made and made the loudest punk music I could, till we were hauled out.

I left school having barely scraped a few 'O' & 'A' levels.In the ensuing years, life for minorities seemingly began to improve; so-called 'political correctness' actually helped stem the tide as regards race, in my view.

The twat racist comedians on telly were replaced with 'alternative' crowd. The hated NF kind of melted away (only to re-incarnate in different forms for political expediency of course). Black & brown faces started appearing on TV soaps.Black culture started becoming part of the fabric of British life. Even dear old Milton Keynes became pretty multi-cultural, and people here pretty accepting.

For sure we had spikes in racial incidents - some seismic a la Stephen Lawrence - which highlighted for a time institutionalised racism.For me, in my complacence - it felt like the idiots had lost. The idiots in the playground.

Why I'm telling you all this: Brexshit to me, very personally represents the same shock as that day in the playground in that Newport Pagnell school: the rise of the idiots (to quote 'Nathan Barley'). The bullying, hateful, ignorant, vile racists are again in plain sight - although some choose to disguise themselves with a veil of respectability (and some run 'newspapers').

The hateful kids in that playground have grown into hateful 'adults', now yelling abuse on social media at anyone threatening their resurgence. This is what Brexit is ALL about to me. Some sofa-bound dickhead in a stained tracksuit doesn't like foreigners. Period. Dress it up any other way.

June 27 last year, I suffered my first racial abuse in 35 years, from two muppets yelling horrible crap from the windows of their lowered BMW. As it was so long since experiencing anything like that, it took me several seconds to realise what was happening.

And this WILL become normalised behaviour for many 'challenged' types post-A50, make no mistake.That this behaviour is not just not challenged, but advocated for and mandated by government charged with our protection/well-being is disgusting to me.

That they play lip service to equalities is truly attempting to put lipstick on a pig. That they REFUSE to defend the rights of 3.5M EU nationals peacefully making a life here makes my blood boil.

That our government and parliament as a whole refuse to see the basic, basic ridiculousness of basing an entire nation's future on lies, misinformation and pure xenophobia makes me incredulous and beyond anger. I'm genuinely struggling to get these words out.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 24, 2017)

18m people voted to leave the EU because they all despise foreigners?


----------



## rubbershoes (Mar 24, 2017)

Can we just take a minute to step back from the 65 rancorous pages of this thread, to remember why we had this referendum in the first place. It was simply because Cameron wanted to stop internal Tory party wrangling.

The country is split in a way i haven't seen in my lifetime and we're in for turbulent times with a chance of real economic shit. And all because Bumface wanted  to tighten his grip on the parliamentary Conservative party.

What a twat 

Right, back to the fighting everyone


----------



## brogdale (Mar 24, 2017)

rubbershoes said:


> Can we just take a minute to step back from the 65 rancorous pages of this thread, to remember why we had this referendum in the first place. It was simply because Cameron wanted to stop internal Tory party wrangling.
> 
> The country is split in a way i haven't seen in my lifetime and we're in for turbulent times with a chance of real economic shit. And all because Bumface wanted  to tighten his grip on the parliamentary Conservative party.
> 
> ...


Always useful to pause and reflect.
But also worth remembering that the referendum had a very long gestation; it didn't just come out of the ether. Cameron just happened to be the Tory leader who cracked under the internal, factional pressure and the perceived external (UKIP) threat.
IMO a useful way of comprehending the Brexit process is to examine the motivations of the long line of Tory 'euro-sceptics' that have built the internal, factional stresses finally released by the seismic shift of Brexit.
These are the neoliberal "ultras" prepared to accept short/medium term economic damage as a price worth paying to accelerate the freeing of their businesses from the legacy of elements of 'post-war social contract' extant within the supra state.
Brexit is the commencement of a new, aggressive stage of the socio-economic cancer of neoliberalism.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 24, 2017)

rubbershoes said:


> It was simply because Cameron wanted to stop internal Tory party wrangling.



A wrangling that was reflective of wider opinion amongst the populace.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 24, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> A wrangling that was reflective of wider opinion amongst the populace.


As presented by the (ultra-neoliberal) oligarch-owned press.


----------



## Winot (Mar 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Always useful to pause and reflect.
> But also worth remembering that the referendum had a very long gestation; it didn't just come out of the ether. Cameron just happened to be the Tory leader who cracked under the internal, factional pressure and the perceived external (UKIP) threat.
> IMO a useful way of comprehending the Brexit process is to examine the motivations of the long line of Tory 'euro-sceptics' that have built the internal, factional stresses finally released by the seismic shift of Brexit.
> These are the neoliberal "ultras" prepared to accept short/medium term economic damage as a price worth paying to accelerate the freeing of their businesses from the legacy of elements of 'post-war social contract' extant within the supra state.
> Brexit is the commencement of a new, aggressive stage of the socio-economic cancer of neoliberalism.



I am reading Daniel Hannan's book What Next? He has been working on the Brexit project since 1991. His motivation is absolutely and openly to reduce the role of the state in favour of the private sector.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 24, 2017)

Winot said:


> I am reading Daniel Hannan's book What Next? He has been working on the Brexit project since 1991. His motivation is absolutely and openly to reduce the role of the state in favour of the private sector.



No one _just reads_ a Hannan book  but yeah, not a surprise from right libertarians.

However, the EU has no desire for preserving state public services either, so whilst libertarians might be wanting to exascerbate the march of neo-liberalism outside of the EU, that the EU is somehow some sort of great pro-worker, pro-public sector institution anyway (when its very ethos is to improve market flexibility, and drive down controls towards better competitiveness of member states) as many liberals and 'lefties' seem to have argued all throughout the referendum, seems equally bizarre and misguided.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 24, 2017)

brogdale said:


> As presented by the (ultra-neoliberal) oligarch-owned press.



Ah yes, the poor sheeple.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 24, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> No one _just reads_ a Hannan book  but yeah, not a surprise from right libertarians.
> 
> However, the EU has no desire for preserving state public services either, so whilst libertarians might be wanting to exascerbate the march of neo-liberalism outside of the EU, that the EU is somehow some sort of great pro-worker, pro-public sector institution anyway (when its very ethos is to improve market flexibility, and drive down controls towards better competitiveness of member states) as many liberals and 'lefties' seem to have argued all throughout the referendum, seems equally bizarre and misguided.


Agreed, but the last, legacy elements of the 'social Europe' concessions, that remain from the period of threat from 'system competition', do represent a frustration to the most radicalised neolibs.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 24, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Ah yes, the poor sheeple.


Who said anything about "sheeple"?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 24, 2017)

After the early 1980's & before the referendum campaign, polling (usual caveats) rarely suggested that Brexit was a _wider opinion amongst the populace..

_


----------



## rubbershoes (Mar 24, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> A wrangling that was reflective of wider opinion amongst the populace.




I don't think that's true.  Before the referendum was called it was  only an issue for ukippers


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2017)

rubbershoes said:


> I don't think that's true.  Before the referendum was called it was  only an issue for ukippers


nah, its been an issue for lots of people, not just kippers. Remember as far back as ole gordy meeting 'that bigoted woman'? she was labour


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 24, 2017)

rubbershoes said:


> I don't think that's true.  Before the referendum was called it was  only an issue for ukippers


You dont think the Eu's behaviour over the last few years had any bearing on uk public opinion?
Greece, Ukraine, mass youth unemployment over half the continent while the unelected decision makers activly drive for the status quo...


----------



## brogdale (Mar 24, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> nah, its been an issue for lots of people, not just kippers. Remember as far back as ole gordy meeting 'that bigoted woman'? she was labour


And that was at a point where Rochdale's rate of immigration from _Eastern Europe _was just under half of that for the UK average.
Wonder what paper she read?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 24, 2017)

pocketscience said:


> You dont think the Eu's behaviour over the last few years had any bearing on uk public opinion?
> Greece, Ukraine, mass youth unemployment over half the continent while the unelected decision makers activly drive for the status quo...


Sure did. Many folk thought "fuck that for a game of soldiers'.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 24, 2017)

kabbes said:


> 18m people voted to leave the EU because they all despise foreigners?


Well about a third of Leave gave immigration as a motivation with just under half citing sovereignty. Crudely liking foreigners coming to the UK and not liking foreigners bossing the UK about. Finally not feeling as European as the continentals and Irish do.

Judging by how both Leave campaigns emphasised things like a very unlikely Turkish accession and in UKIP's case refugee issues this was seen as a key issue to swing voters towards Leave.





So we'd be rather in denial if identity issues were not rather salient ranging from widespread simple nationalist patriotism to outright Enoch was right racism that's gripped a persistent tranche of voters since the 50s. 

To Remain's distress economics seems to have been far less of a motivator with many people being quite willing to risk of shocks and job losses. Sterling crashing downwards was greeted calmly and there's a good deal of smugness of other indicators looking healthy. We'll see how that looks after collision with A50.

As the main Leave campaign was promising a bright new world of unfettered free trade outside the EU a logically consistent Trumpian aversion to vaunting neoliberalism doesn't seem to have been important either. They even half admitted it would probably wipe out the remains of the British industrial base. And with the Tories in a very dominant position that's likely what will happen with the economy turning to services and wages racing to the bottom against unchecked offshore competition as the UK bends over in a series of hasty bilateral trade deals over the next decade.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2017)

copied the old saatchi poster eh? I was to mesmerised by GrassrootsGO campaign ties to see anything else. Mint green stripes, for real


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 24, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> Well about a third of Leave gave immigration as a motivation



Which equals racism, apparently.



> with just under half citing sovereignty.



And?



> Crudely liking foreigners coming to the UK and not liking foreigners bossing the UK about.



Huh?



> Finally not feeling as European as the continentals and Irish do.



The bastards!


----------



## kabbes (Mar 24, 2017)

I am bemused as to where one might end up drawing this racism line.  How many decisions about the running of our country would you be happy to cede and to whom before you decided it was enough?  When you did finally snap, would that be racism too?

I say this as a remain voter, by the way, who still believes leaving will end up hurting us.  I also couldn't personally give much of a stuff about immigration -- I even have sympathy with the "no borders" lot.  But I can understand why people might not feel that way that is _nothing_ to do with disliking foreigners.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 25, 2017)

2 superfluous words?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 26, 2017)

LP throwing the Atlanticists words back at them.



> In a major policy speech on Monday, Labour’s Brexit spokesman, Keir Starmer, will set out six tests for May and EU leaders to meet, including a requirement that any agreement delivers the “*exact same benefits*” as the UK enjoys from being inside the single market and customs union.
> 
> The same phrase was deployed in a Commons debate in January by the Brexit secretary David Davis, when he tried to reassure the pro-EU Tory MP Anna Soubry that there was a clear plan for Brexit that would not harm the UK economy. Davis said a new “comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement” would deliver “the exact same benefits as we have [now]” after the UK leaves.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 26, 2017)

The EU caused the vote to leave. The EU probably understands that. If they had given Cameron some leeway on immigration & not continually suggested we should be paying more then brexit would not be happening. They cannot be so stupid to not understand that any attempt to 'punish' UK to prevent other countries also leaving will show the EU to be antidemocratic & dictatorial to other countries within the EU & cause more unrest within the EU. If the EU loss of our net £6.5bill p/a contribution is to be made up by the other few net contributor countries it will certainly cause more unrest in those countries. If you don't believe UK is a massively important EU export market then go to Dover & watch the twice hourly boatloads of trucks driving out of the docks 24/7.  Or any of the other continental ferryports around the UK. see the amount of import trailers parked in lines.

I see no real problem in delivering a brexit that is pretty much as we are now. Why would anybody not want it? I think it's fair enough to leave the negotiations to the negotiators. I doubt the UK wants a hard border in Ireland so chuck the ball in the EU court. If there is any hard border you will be building it not the UK. The EU wants £50bill off us? That's nearly 8 extra years of net contributions. If we are to make any contributions at all after 2yrs then that will be extra years we are still technically members so certainly nothing should change while we are still paying.

The mad swivel eyed 'brexiteers' that are the likes of Farage, Redwood, Ian Dunked-in-shit & chancer Boris along with busted flush UKIP who I doubt will manage more than a few local councillors from now on have all been sidelined so sanity should now prevail & a sensible solution should be arrived at in due course. The idea we are 'leaving' Europe is daft anyway. Swiss & Norway look European enough to me. "Privileges of membership" ? Who do these cunts think they are? Ask Greece what their privileges of EU membership are?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 26, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> The EU caused the vote to leave.


Yes, ultimately (and quite obviously) this was the electorate's verdict on the EU and, as such, must be regarded as a failure on the part of the supra-state.
In saying so, one important aspect of the vote might, though, get over-looked?
Arguably, this was the first opportunity for voters to participate in a vote offering any meaningful chance of a politically significant outcome/change for over 2 decades. Having been offered a succession of 'choices' between differing stripes of neoliberal shite for so long, no wonder so many voters opted for what they perceived (rightly or wrongly) as the 'change' choice.
My conclusion; NuLab as much to blame as the neoliberal zealots of the vermin party.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 26, 2017)

Yes. NuLab certainly culpable. They allowed immigration without restrictions from the very start when existing EU countries could have restricted migration from the the new EU countries for 2yrs. NuLab saw immigration as a good thing but perhaps did not predict that our weak employment laws would cause employers to invent complete business models that relied on cheap imported & exploited labour & cut out local workers or maybe they did & didn't care?


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 26, 2017)

In business when you welch on a binding contract there tend to be penalties and obligations that still must be met. If you made a deal with competitors they'll often try to shaft you. 

That's what the UK is doing and A50 provides a punitive framework. The remaining countries will act in their own interests and that will sometimes intersect with the UK's and sometimes not. They probably will find it genuinely difficult to find the required consensus and game playing may lead to a great deal of ill will. You do have to remember the EU is only the sum of its parts and power here lies with the member states.

It's just the same as UK exploiting its power as one of the larger EU members pushing heavily an Atlanticist neoliberal agenda, expansion Eastward and Turkish accession. Eagerly toadying to Washington as De Gaulle gloomily predicted les rosbifs would. The UK was in fact rather successful in this but it really wasn't a popular direction in the UK or in much of Western Europe. The UK was almost alone eagerly welcoming a labour supply of EU8 nationals early when most of the EU did not. And at the same time London would eagerly fling open the gates to an unprecedented flood non-EU migrants. The UK despite remaining outside the Euro then met a global banking crisis with daft austerity policies that worsened the downsides of its own very liberal migration policies. It failed to expand the NHS, schools, build public housing of even flood defences when both money and labour was cheap. A remarkably slow recovery based on shrinking the state while bussing in foreign labour perhaps wasn't the work of political genius Osborne thought it was. And all the while the EU was regular used as a scapegoat for what was often mostly policy crafted in London.

In all of this the UK helped create a position for itself in the EU and a wider Europe the voter was far more likely to reject and they did by a narrow margin. The other EU nations have also behaved badly and somewhat self destructively in for instance its petty handling of Greece in a rush to rescue core country bankers but that was always a reason for not viewing a Brexit as liable to be a happily rational affair but an ugly game of angry states. 

About a decade away lies the brave new world of Singapore On Thames: a Tory dream of sovereignty eroding globalised free trade agreements, floods of cheap imports, systemically risky deregulation, corporate tax breaks and low wage service sector jobs and probably still probably with irritatingly high levels of immigration. By that stage the British public may have tardily got round to blaming their new Chinese masters or even the shocking bully boy tactics of the American Federal government as many Trump supporters already do. For they won't blame themselves; never that.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 26, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> In business when you welch on a binding contract there tend to be penalties and obligations that still must be met.



The UK is not breaching the terms of any contract by leaving the EU. The 'contract' in question contains a provision allowing countries to leave. Maybe the EU members will try to impose punitive costs, conditions or both on the UK but they will do so not according to some imaginary set of moral codes but because it suits their own agendas and/or because it's fun.

Not to say that the UK shouldn't make a fair contribution, but there is no objective mechanism for determining what is fair in such a complex scenario. If there was, nobody would want to use it anyway. Fairness lines nobody's pocket. It wasn't fair to cripple the Greek economy in order to save the Greek economy. It didn't even make any sense. Still it happened anyway, because the dominant agenda wanted it to happen and there was no opposing force with enough influence to stop it. Sportsmanship and fair play was not a factor, nor will it be more than background noise in the Brexit negotiations.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 26, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> The UK is not breaching the terms of any contract by leaving the EU. The 'contract' in question contains a provision allowing countries to leave. Maybe the EU members will try to impose punitive costs, conditions or both on the UK but they will do so not according to some imaginary set of moral codes but because it suits their own agendas and/or because it's fun.
> 
> Not to say that the UK shouldn't make a fair contribution, but there is no objective mechanism for determining what is fair in such a complex scenario. If there was, nobody would want to use it anyway. Fairness lines nobody's pocket. It wasn't fair to cripple the Greek economy in order to save the Greek economy. It didn't even make any sense. Still it happened anyway, because the dominant agenda wanted it to happen and there was no opposing force with enough influence to stop it. Sportsmanship and fair play was not a factor, nor will it be more than background noise in the Brexit negotiations.


The Troika didn't save the tiny Greek economy. It's entirely buggered and at far greater costs to the EU than actually saving it would have cost. It was a disgraceful waste of a crisis by the core country states for shady domestic political reasons. 

EU membership has binding legal obligations which includes financial commitments, obligations to EU citizens and trade agreements etc. Like a lot of complex contracts there's an exit clause but like a divorce it's not really intended to be used and it's a messy deterrent to playing away. 

The folk who wrote A50 do say it was designed to hugely favour the remaining states. It is not intended to be fair. That's not how things work in the real world. The remaining states have a democratic obligation to their citizens. If they did not seize any advantage they thought appropriate in the process we be in a fairytale world were the UK was some blessed nation beloved by all.

Kerr who was involved in creating A50 here reckons there's a 75% chance of no real divorce terms being agreed at the end of the two year window. It's liable to go wrong simply because of all 30+ the bodies who have to agree. Nobody knowledgeable seems to think there'll be much progress on trade by then. A50 only allows for a framework for a future trade relationship. I do not expect them to particularly vindictive except perhaps the French. They're all hungrily positioning to grab some of The City's business which is only to be expected. I do expect the Brits to get really stroppy and leave disappointed and bitter.

I tend to look at this from an Irish point of view and Dublin, the most sympathetic EU capital to London, it's a subject for despair. The British have carelessly done serious damage to their political relationship with Ireland. It will likely cause economic pain at both ends of the smaller island. It's opening up greater problems with the Scots as well as Westminster becomes a bumptious rightwing Tory fiefdom set on becoming an elite tax dodgers paradise.

It doesn't help that the lead Brexiteers position basically assumes they can arrogantly treat Continental Europe as if it was the RoI or Scotland to be pushed about and like it while the position is rather the reverse. They've spend best part of a year posturing to their own party and cultivating ill Continental will rather than making nice after a destructive move member states have every right to be angry about.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 26, 2017)

It seems hard to believe that intelligent people would deliberately bring about financial chaos that would reverberate around the world when keeping things more or less what they are now would be much easier. I would have thought UK being an island & not part of the € or Schengen would make it easier to come to some sort of face saving compromise? Ie UK never really was part of the EU project anyway opposing closer integration always complaining about something etc.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 26, 2017)

On Politico Brexit threatens environmental law enforcement


> ...
> Under EU rules, national authorities must plan and report to the European Commission on, for instance, air pollution levels in their cities. The Commission acts as a regulator and a watchdog, and takes laggards to the European Court of Justice, where EU governments that aren’t following the rules face fines and legal action.
> 
> The U.K. is currently one of five countries facing a legal challenge over its air pollution levels. The Commission also took it to court over poor urban waste water treatment and its failure to protect marine species covered by EU nature laws.
> ...


Another complication and a role that often pisses off rural voters that will soon be entirely Westminster's.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 26, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Yes. NuLab certainly culpable. They allowed immigration without restrictions from the very start when existing EU countries could have restricted migration from the the new EU countries for 2yrs. NuLab saw immigration as a good thing but perhaps did not predict that our weak employment laws would cause employers to invent complete business models that relied on cheap imported & exploited labour & cut out local workers or maybe they did & didn't care?


That wasn't my point; they're culpable as they effectively nullified any real electoral choice or opportunity for change as a result of voting.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 26, 2017)

brogdale said:


> That wasn't my point; they're culpable as they effectively nullified any real electoral choice or opportunity for change as a result of voting.


Actually the member states never wanted to devolve their democratic mandate to Brussels and that's why the EU is far more democratic than the shadowy world of NATO or NAFTA meetings but not in a really meaningful way. 

That certainly in the case of UK Tories right from accession. They rather liked being able to blame Brussels for unpopular policies they in fact favoured and have reach well beyond. They got a bit of a scare in the 90s when the Germans started (before Hartz) to look like favouring Social-Democracy. German unification which they often righteously championed turned into a rather German Europe and that set off all sorts of atavistic fire alarms. And before you know it wasn't prosperous Germans an elite City chap might marry but dog whistles about obviously poor Romanian construction workers who were moving in next door. And then the terrifying dusky migrants the London flagrantly favoured drowning in the Med.

The bug in the system they were trying to get rid of was the sort of patriotic, statist, populist, protectionist democracy with Keynesian tendencies that post-48 old Labour once embodied. They wanted entangling chains just as conservatives had clung to the mystical Gold Standard.

A hardwired Tory one party state well right of Maggie Thatcher that Brexit has so far resulted in does all they wanted and more. UKIP have just lost their sole MP and Corbyn's Labour is disappearing up its own arse. The small moderating balance that was a pragmatic Scotland may flit. It's dumb luck like being born into a line of Etonians but that still counts. Even more in this situation which is rather the point.


----------



## JHE (Mar 27, 2017)

EuroCitizens is an organisation of British people in Spain campaigning for the rights of Britons in Spain and of Spaniards in Britain.  (It is mainly based in the Madrid area, but there are other similar organisations based elsewhere in Spain.)

Last week a couple of people from EuroCitizens had a meeting at the British Embassy in Madrid with a representative of the Dept of Brexit plus a couple of members of the embassy staff.  For reasons I do not know, the civil servants advised EuroCitizens against putting their report of the meeting on their blog.

Since the report is not available on the blog, here it is copied and pasted:




			
				EuroCitizens said:
			
		

> THE UK GOVERNMENT’S PLAN F0R A DEAL ON CITIZENS’ RIGHTS
> 
> On Thursday 23 March, two representatives of EuroCitizens met in Madrid with Chris Jones, Director of Justice, Security and Migration at the Ministry for Exiting the European Union, and Tim Hemmings and Alison Brown of the British Embassy. It was a chance for EuroCitizens to express the extreme anxiety of UK nationals in Spain in the face of Brexit and to try to divine what might happen in the near future.
> 
> ...


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> The EU caused the vote to leave. The EU probably understands that. If they had given Cameron some leeway on immigration & not continually suggested we should be paying more then brexit would not be happening.


Thing is, for all the EU's faults this is cobblers.


The EU has given the UK a massive rebate (35%) that no other country has had, meaning that we pay far less than we otherwise would do.
The EU also wasn't responsible for the way in which the UK implemented the free movement related requirements.
It was the UK government that decided to allow full freedom of movement to the new Eastern European members in 2004 at a time when there was only Ireland and Sweden applying the same full freedom of movement. The other 12 countries placed restrictions on it for several years. The EU therefore didn't cause the mass influx of Eastern Europeans into the UK in 2004, our government did.
It was the UK government that chose to implement an opt out (that it had pushed for) from the agency workers directive that meant that in the UK agencies could be used to recruit staff from other EU countries who would be used to under cut local pay and conditions in the UK in a way that was not allowed in the vast majority of EU countries.
There was no change to EU law that allowed the UK to tighten up it's benefit entitlement rules in 2013 for EU migrants to the UK to introduce a 3 month habitual residency test before they'd be eligible for JSA, the UK could have introduced those rules at any time since 2004 but chose not to, so the UK had much less strict benefit rules than most other countries in the EU for newly arrived EU nationals.


I'd say that it was the UK government, both Labour and Tory who were responsible for setting up the background conditions that led to the vote to leave, not the EU itself.

The same applies across loads of different areas that the EU gets blamed for, such as the lack of dredging of rivers.

The EU has fucked some aspects of things up, but our government have repeatedly fucked things up far more than they were actually required to do then pointed the finger at the EU to get them off the hook.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 27, 2017)

I suspect it was the UK government also demanding France weaken its labour laws.

And probably the UK government also demanding yet more austerity from Greece in return for more back-breaking bailouts.

Oh, wait.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 27, 2017)

From anti-capitalism to glowing pro-EU neoliberalism. It's not a great look is it.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> I suspect it was the UK government also demanding France weaken its labour laws.
> 
> And probably the UK government also demanding yet more austerity from Greece in return for more back-breaking bailouts.
> 
> Oh, wait.


I suspect you're making points that have no direct relevance to the UK situation again.

Here's the scope of the directives that underpin what you're talking about, which clearly indicate that they have zero direct impact on the UK. Though I'll admit that it's fairly clear from all these discussion that they have had a significant negative impact on the perception of the EU by people in the UK that probably did have an impact on the way in which they voted.

"
Article 1

Subject matter and scope

1.   This Regulation lays down a system of sanctions for the effective correction of excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area.

2.   This Regulation shall apply to Member States whose currency is the euro."


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> From anti-capitalism to glowing pro-EU neoliberalism. It's not a great look is it.


also a load of cobblers.

I just think we're better off fighting against neoliberalism and austerity from within the EU than we are by ourselves outside the EU under the oh so not neoliberal at all auspices of the WTO only.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2017)

free spirit said:


> also a load of cobblers.
> 
> I just think we're better off fighting against neoliberalism and austerity from within the EU


Yeh well that's not going to happen, is it

It has been notable by its absence of success over the past decade 

And how has Greece fared?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> And how has Greece fared?


 and yet the majority of greeks still want to remain in the euro. It's a complicated situation


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2017)

ska invita said:


> and yet the majority of greeks still want to remain in the euro. It's a complicated situation


Yeh. But not really an advert for it being better fighting against austerity inside the eu


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 27, 2017)

ska invita said:


> and yet the majority of greeks still want to remain in the euro. It's a complicated situation


Do they?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 27, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Do they?


yes


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh well that's not going to happen, is it
> 
> It has been notable by its absence of success over the past decade
> 
> And how has Greece fared?


again with the Greece comparison.

Could the EU do to us what it has done to Greece?

Not unless we signed up to the Euro and all the utterly crap austerity policies that go along with that under the current badly flawed model their using.

If anyone can point me in the direction of any post ever in which I've indicated that I think we should join the Euro and submit to the stability and growth pact rules then this could be a reasonable comparison for people to keep making, but I'm pretty sure that no such posts exist.

It would be perfectly possible for us to remain within the EU and abandon the austerity agenda and invest heavily in growth promoting (green) infrastructure projects that result in a net debt to GDP ratio reduction, and thereby helping to disprove this austerity bullshit. IMO that's something that's more likely to be provable within the EU than while attempting to navigate the economic carnage that will likely follow us dropping out of the EU entirely (although I really hope that the tories do see sense and abandon austerity as we drop out of the EU or we're really going to be in the shit). 

Basically I'm of the opinion that the tide either already is or at least soon will be turning against austerity within the EU in coming years, at which point we'll have found ourselves on the outside looking in and wondering why we left when none of the EU's austerity policies really applied to us anyway.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. But not really an advert for it being better fighting against austerity inside the eu


do you accept that there's a massive difference between our situation and the Greek situation?


----------



## gosub (Mar 27, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Do they?



Been a while since any serious polling.  EUrobarometer must be due soon. But as currently stands, they do, just.


----------



## gosub (Mar 27, 2017)

free spirit said:


> do you accept that there's a massive difference between our situation and the Greek situation?



And the Portuguese situation.  and the Italian situation....  
how much exceptionalism disproves a rule?


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 27, 2017)

ska invita said:


> yes



I'm not convinced by that as time goes on...

Majority of Greeks regret joining euro

Grexit? Greece again on the brink as debt crisis threatens break with EU

And I can't remember where I saw it, but a poll that showed a falling belief in the EU across European members (in some cases, more so than the UK).


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2017)

free spirit said:


> do you accept that there's a massive difference between our situation and the Greek situation?


Perhaps you could leave the strawman out just this once


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

gosub said:


> And the Portuguese situation.  and the Italian situation....
> how much exceptionalism disproves a rule?


As the difference is that we're not in the Euro and that we're therefore not party to virtually all the rules that apply to those countries through which the EU has forced austerity and other measures on those country, you'd need to find an example of a country outside of the Euro area for that exception not to apply.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 27, 2017)

ska invita said:


> yes


Based on what evidence?


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps you could leave the strawman out just this once


how is it a strawman?


Pickman's model said:


> And how has Greece fared?


----------



## gosub (Mar 27, 2017)

free spirit said:


> As the difference is that we're not in the Euro and that we're therefore not party to virtually all the rules that apply to those countries through which the EU has forced austerity and other measures on those country, you'd need to find an example of a country outside of the Euro area for that exception not to apply.



So now, the best place to fight neolibralism and austerity is being half in the boat and ignoring the plight of other members.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2017)

free spirit said:


> how is it a strawman?


Because no one's saying the cases are identical. Why are you carrying on like this?


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

gosub said:


> So now, the best place to fight neolibralism and austerity is being half in the boat and ignoring the plight of other members.


I've never said anything about ignoring the plight of other members, far from it.

We're in a pretty unique position to have been able to help defend them and turn the tide from within the EU while being safe from pretty much any of the sanctions that they currently face. It's brexit that's the position that abandons those countries to their fate. Not that this is currently how the UK government has used it's position in Europe, but had things gone differently with the referendum things could also be going very differently for Corbyn's Labour project and the tories could be the ones imploding, so the make up of the UK government could have been significantly different come 2020. 

A left government in the UK (if we ever got one) would have wielded significant clout within the EU as we've got 1/3 of the votes required to block any measures from passing under the qualified majority voting rules criteria.

So in the event of us electing a left of centre government in the UK we have sufficient clout to make a real difference to the EU's direction of travel, and if that doesn't happen and we've got a tory government then our EU membership acts as a brake on the Tories actions in many other areas where the tories are more neoliberal than the EU.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Because no one's saying the cases are identical. Why are you carrying on like this?


they're not just not identical though, they're in no way comparable and anyone attempting to make the comparison is IMO either being deliberately misleading in doing it or doesn't really understand the situation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2017)

free spirit said:


> they're not just not identical though, they're in no way comparable and anyone attempting to make the comparison is IMO either being deliberately misleading in doing it or doesn't really understand the situation.


Yeh. Now, Greece, not a great advert for what you advocate. Nor Ireland. Nor Italy. In fact what you advocate doesn't seem to have worked anywhere nor does any country's experience even seem to have suggested it's a good idea. Perhaps you could outline why you think it.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. Now, Greece, not a great advert for what you advocate. Nor Ireland. Nor Italy. In fact what you advocate doesn't seem to have worked anywhere nor does any country's experience even seem to have suggested it's a good idea. Perhaps you could outline why you think it.


and having attempted to say I was arguing against a strawman you then go on to clearly demonstrate that you meant the previous post in exactly the way I took you to have meant it.

None of those countries situations are in any way comparable with ours for the reasons already given that you seem to have chosen to ignore.

But seeing as you've mentioned those countries, it's worth pointing out that only Greece has had the same level of real terms reduction in income that we've had at a 10.4% reduction 2007-2015, Ireland and Italy had both had a slight improvement of 1.5% and 0.9% respectively by the end of 2015.

And to be clear on the implications of this - we did this to ourselves, it had fuck all to do with the EU, and even had we been impacted by the EU's stability and growth pact in the way that Spain, Ireland etc were it's very unlikely that the affect would have been as bad as the economic pain our government voluntarily inflicted on us.


----------



## gosub (Mar 27, 2017)

Voting calculator - Consilium

current non EUrozone members : Bulgaria, Crotaia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Sweden, UK.

28member states Minimum “Yes” required for adoption: (55%) 16
+-

19 Yes 

9 No 

0 Abstain
%PopulationMinimum “Yes” required for adoption: 65%
+-

66.65 Yes 

33.35 No 

0.00 Abstain
________________________________________________
*EUrozone can/will dictate the direction and shape of EUrope.*


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2017)

free spirit said:


> and having attempted to say I was arguing against a strawman you then go on to clearly demonstrate that you meant the previous post in exactly the way I took you to have meant it.
> 
> None of those countries situations are in any way comparable with ours for the reasons already given that you seem to have chosen to ignore.
> 
> ...


You've learnt nothing from the past nine years. Not a question, a statement.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You've learnt nothing from the past nine years. Not a question, a statement.


I've clearly not learned the futility of attempting rational discussion on here.

With a few notable exceptions, the level of debate here these days seems to be mediocre at best, with the best anyone seems to be able to come up with being to repeat 'yeah but what about Greece', then do as you've done and wibble when the massive difference between the 2 situations is pointed out.

But maybe I should just buy myself some fucking pom poms and join the  lexit cheer leading team.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2017)

free spirit said:


> I've clearly not learned the futility of attempting rational discussion on here.
> 
> The level of debate here these days seems to be mediocre at best, with the best anyone seems to be able to come up with being to repeat 'yeah but what about Greece', then do as you've done and wibble when the massive difference between the 2 situations is pointed out.
> 
> But maybe I should just buy myself some fucking pom poms and join the  lexit cheer leading team.


Do come back when you are able to attempt rational discussion as on today's showing you can't. You're quite happy to tell lies about what's been said and not so ready to look reality in the face.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2017)

free spirit said:


> also a load of cobblers.
> 
> I just think we're better off fighting against neoliberalism and austerity from within the EU than we are by ourselves outside the EU under the oh so not neoliberal at all auspices of the WTO only.


And how has this done since fucking *2008*? Fucking NINE YEARS of austerity. Where's the better bit? Eh? You're full of shit, you really are.


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 27, 2017)

free spirit said:


> I just think we're better off fighting against neoliberalism and austerity from within the EU than we are by ourselves outside the EU under the oh so not neoliberal at all auspices of the WTO only.



Sadly, it seems like the only at the moment to reverse neoliberalism, austerity etc. would be for the UK to somehow withdraw from itself. 

And now, the EU's version of the aforementioned is going to end up looking like some kind of solution after Brexit turns out to be a failure.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> And how has this done since fucking *2008*? Fucking NINE YEARS of austerity. Where's the better bit? Eh? You're full of shit, you really are.


sorry, but what has UK austerity got to do with the EU?

We've got austerity in the UK because the tory government bought into the economic lies of austerity* and decided of their own accord to go hell for leather to implement it in the fucking ridiculous belief that the way to reduce our debt to gdp ratio at a point where we'd barely started to recover from a massive recession was to slash spending and particularly to slash infrastructure spending.

And the UK population bought into this nonsense to the degree that they re-elected them after 5 years of austerity.

In the UK austerity has sweet fuck all to do with our EU membership. Our government did it to us of their own accord.

Which is the complete opposite of the situation in Greece.



*in large part because it suited their own long term political small state ideology anyway, so they took the opportunity to slash and burn as much of the state as they could while they had the excuse.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Do come back when you are able to attempt rational discussion as on today's showing you can't. You're quite happy to tell lies about what's been said and not so ready to look reality in the face.


what lies?

Feel free to start your part of a rational discussion any time you like.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

Yossarian said:


> Sadly, it seems like the only at the moment to reverse neoliberalism, austerity etc. would be for the UK to somehow withdraw from itself.
> 
> And now, the EU's version of the aforementioned is going to end up looking like some kind of solution after Brexit turns out to be a failure.


In austerity terms it could go either way, I suspect that Hammond has a bit of a different take on it to Osbourne and will open the spending taps to offset the economic impact of brexit at least to bring forward spending on infrastructure projects. This seems more likely given that there's little else left that the bank of england can do as they already used up much of what was left in their arsenal to counter the initial impact of the vote. The downside of that being that the tories would probably get reelected.

If he goes the other way and insists on more austerity in a counterproductive attempt to reduce the deficit in a post brexit crash then we're properly fucked economically, but at least that should result in the tories reputation for economic competence finally being destroyed and they should lose in 2020 and austerity will hopefully be the last thing any incoming government will want to be doing.

There's been loads of signs of the pendulum swinging away from austerity thinking over the last few years particularly in the IMF, but also even within the very EU structures that were being used to crush the Greek economy etc there have been some major changes in emphasis that indicate a recognition that they'd got the calculations wrong and needed to allow more flexibility in the face of an economic crash. But you actually have to read all the documents to sus this out.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 27, 2017)

gosub said:


> Voting calculator - Consilium
> 
> current non EUrozone members : Bulgaria, Crotaia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Sweden, UK.
> 
> ...


What's your contention?

If it's that the Eurozone will dictate the direction and shape of the EU by voting in a block, the evidence doesn't seem to be supporting that to date.

Since the tories got in we've been massively more out of step with Europe than anyone else, but that's at least partly because the tories have been pushing a pro-austerity agenda within the EU itself via EU budgets etc that the rest of the EU have been balking at, as well as rattling the EU's cage to attempt to look like Cameron was standing up to them.

But across the rest of Europe there's no pattern to indicate that the Eurozone are voting as a block. nor that the none Eurozone countries are voting as a block. 

Theoretically what you're saying could happen, but the evidence doesn't seem to show that it is happening.







Per cent of times in losing minority


----------



## gosub (Mar 27, 2017)

free spirit said:


> What's your contention?
> 
> If it's that the Eurozone will dictate the direction and shape of the EU by voting in a block, the evidence doesn't seem to be supporting that to date.
> 
> ...



Oh pretty graphs!  Shame the voting weighting changed Nov 2014. 

That voting calculator allows you to test things by the old system as well.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 28, 2017)

gosub said:


> Oh pretty graphs!  Shame the voting weighting changed Nov 2014.
> 
> That voting calculator allows you to test things by the old system as well.


but the evidence would still be there if the Eurozone were voting as a block.

Though tbf you've got a valid point, the majority requirements were better when they were higher.


----------



## gosub (Mar 28, 2017)

free spirit said:


> but the evidence would still be there if the Eurozone were voting as a block.
> 
> Though tbf you've got a valid point, the majority requirements were better when they were higher.



What, when it was impossible for the EUrozone to win by voting on bloc? (i.e. pre Nov 14)?  Trends tend not emerge until after they are possible.
And the 'wonderful' deal Cameron came back with, actually meant that the EUrozone member states, would have 'the red card' he talked of. 


  - This is of the short of stuff that should have come out in the referendum rather than 'the Turks are coming!' (actually that our clueless media didn't mention it when the change came in shows the disconnect between that bunch of law makers and the UK electorate)


----------



## free spirit (Mar 28, 2017)

gosub said:


> What, when it was impossible for the EUrozone to win by voting on bloc? (i.e. pre Nov 14)?  Trends tend not emerge until after they are possible.
> And the 'wonderful' deal Cameron came back with, actually meant that the EUrozone member states, would have 'the red card' he talked of.
> 
> 
> - This is of the short of stuff that should have come out in the referendum rather than 'the Turks are coming!' (actually that our clueless media didn't mention it when the change came in shows the disconnect between that bunch of law makers and the UK electorate)


I campaigned under the Another Europe is Possible banner, under no illusions that the EU as it currently stands is perfect - it clearly isn't, but we could have stayed and made a coherent case to change elements of it such as this. Having left we've definitely made sure that the Eurozone countries will always control the council votes as we were the biggest counterweight to them.

It's not as if we can actually get away from EU regulations entirely, all our nearest neighbours are either part of it, or have to comply with the bulk of the regulations they set, as will we one way or another. We'll just get no say at all in how those regulations are set, which to me doesn't seem to be an improvement over the democratic issues you refer to.


----------



## gosub (Mar 28, 2017)

free spirit said:


> I campaigned under the Another Europe is Possible banner, under no illusions that the EU as it currently stands is perfect - it clearly isn't, but we could have stayed and made a coherent case to change elements of it such as this. Having left we've definitely made sure that the Eurozone countries will always control the council votes as we were the biggest counterweight to them.
> 
> It's not as if we can actually get away from EU regulations entirely, all our nearest neighbours are either part of it, or have to comply with the bulk of the regulations they set, as will we one way or another. We'll just get no say at all in how those regulations are set, which to me doesn't seem to be an improvement over the democratic issues you refer to.



Influence was already slipping through our fingers - Europe - When is a veto not a veto? - BBC News , and Juncker's coronation...neither of them would of shown up it your graphs despite falling within their 'convenient' X axis. Looking at Another EUrope is possible website - its push EUropean Parliament to fore. For me I don't think there is the the demos for that, nor really the appitite within the UK. What I think would fit would have been a confederation.

They have been talking about a two tier, but it needs an exit mechanism for the EUro to help rebalance, and currently there isn't one nor plans for one. Without that it can't be re-balanced, and  satellite associate membership, which is where were headed would have still put us in a gilded cage. Whilst trade deals like the Canadian one, where the press release boasted of getting rid of 95% of tariffs made a mockery of membership.

WTO TBT agreement means its only in area of health and safety and environmental concerns that EU deviate from global standards, and we get a voice back in the setting of the rest of them. Social chapter is a different story and I suspect most here would welcome if we had to comply...in reality people need to get their shit together - Jonathan Pie was spot on 

The democratic issues still need a lot of work, our media isn't up to the job and getting worse daily (a downward spiral of 'twitter says' and celeb stories most read so give em more celeb stories) and the whole disentanglement from the EU is so complex it almost makes the case for the class of professional politicians that seem to have developed during my lifetime.  But I think they will fuck it up, and then I hope we can move away from the Oxbridge PPE's and back towards those with real life experience.


It isn't a full glass by any means, but there is some liquid in it, enough to work with.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2017)

free spirit said:


> sorry, but what has UK austerity got to do with the EU?
> 
> We've got austerity in the UK because the tory government bought into the economic lies of austerity* and decided of their own accord to go hell for leather to implement it in the fucking ridiculous belief that the way to reduce our debt to gdp ratio at a point where we'd barely started to recover from a massive recession was to slash spending and particularly to slash infrastructure spending.
> 
> ...


You said it was better to be in the EU to campaign against neoliberalism and austerity. Yeh? It's not really worked here over the past decade. As you yourself admit. What am I missing? Where is this upside about being in the EU for this campaigning?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2017)

free spirit said:


> what lies?
> 
> Feel free to start your part of a rational discussion any time you like.


I haven't compared the UK to Greece. I said the Greek experience doesn't really fill one with confidence about your claim it was better to be in the EU to campaign against neoliberalism and austerity. No comparison, no UK experience is similar to or different from that of Greece. You made that bit up.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 28, 2017)

free spirit said:


> Thing is, for all the EU's faults this is cobblers.
> 
> 
> The EU has given the UK a massive rebate (35%) that no other country has had, meaning that we pay far less than we otherwise would do.
> ...


I don't disagree with what you have written but you have failed to actually read the part of my post you quoted. I was being quite specific. Cameron went to the EU seeking some sort of concession on EU migration. All he got was intransigence & a suggestion that the rebate should be cut & UK should pay more. Then he came back & weakly announced 'this is a good deal'.  The EU failed to understand how badly this would go down with many Brits. If the EU had recognised that the UK Labour government at the time had been erroneous in allowing unlimited migration from new EU members & not simply said 'tough luck mate' but given Cameron some concessions showing the EU to be a friend of the UK not an uncaring enemy then I think the vote would have been for remain at least by the margin it was for leave.

This small percentage to leave on a vote brought about by an argument between a few members of a political party has changed world history. Brexit is going to dominate everything for years. The UK could break up. All the things we post about on urban like the NHS & social issues generally are all now going to be sidelined by brexit which will dominate everything. How can any other decisions be made when nobody even knows if there will be a UK in a few years time or what the political landscape will look like?

All this could have been avoided if those power drunk dictators of the EU had simply thrown Cameron a few crumbs instead of treating the people of the UK with contempt. We can only hope sanity prevails among the actual EU countries because if this ends badly they know they will not escape.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I don't disagree with what you have written but you have failed to actually read the part of my post you quoted. I was being quite specific. Cameron went to the EU seeking some sort of concession on EU migration. All he got was intransigence & a suggestion that the rebate should be cut & UK should pay more. Then he came back & weakly announced 'this is a good deal'.  The EU failed to understand how badly this would go down with many Brits. If the EU had recognised that the UK Labour government at the time had been erroneous in allowing unlimited migration from new EU members & not simply said 'tough luck mate' but given Cameron some concessions showing the EU to be a friend of the UK not an uncaring enemy then I think the vote would have been for remain at least by the margin it was for leave.
> 
> This small percentage to leave on a vote brought about by an argument between a few members of a political party has changed world history. Brexit is going to dominate everything for years. The UK could break up. All the things we post about on urban like the NHS & social issues generally are all now going to be sidelined by brexit which will dominate everything. How can any other decisions be made when nobody even knows if there will be a UK in a few years time or what the political landscape will look like?
> 
> All this could have been avoided if those power drunk dictators of the EU had simply thrown Cameron a few crumbs instead of treating the people of the UK with contempt. We can only hope sanity prevails among the actual EU countries because if this ends badly they know they will not escape.


If Cameron wanted concessions he should have held a referendum, Do you want Britain to remain in an unreformed EU. He would then have had an actual mandate to go to Brussels and say give me something real or we're off. But he didn't. Cos he's a pig-fucking fool.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 28, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> If Cameron wanted concessions he should have held a referendum, Do you want Britain to remain in an unreformed EU. He would then have had an actual mandate to go to Brussels and say give me something real or we're off. But he didn't. Cos he's a pig-fucking fool.


Indeed. But the EU are bigger fools for not seeing this coming & allowing some concession on migration. Then those who were wavering might as they entered the polling station have decided for remain & not leave in enough numbers for remain to win. The EU are supposed to be the unelected voice of reason that keeps all these European naughty democracies in line but this is the most spectacular fail in the history of EU fails.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2017)

Some (Cameroonian) tory dissent from former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party & 'ConHome' editor:-


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 29, 2017)

I'll take a punt on #7


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I haven't compared the UK to Greece. I said the Greek experience doesn't really fill one with confidence about your claim it was better to be in the EU to campaign against neoliberalism and austerity. No comparison, no UK experience is similar to or different from that of Greece. You made that bit up.


But answer came there none


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2017)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I'll take a punt on #7


I don't bet on certainties. I wouldn't trust may to make a cup of tea let alone a new relationship with Europe

Fucking paul golding is more competent than may


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Fucking paul golding is more competent than may


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2017)

Mr.Bishie said:


>


It's true. She's as cack-handed a politician as we've ever seen. Soon all of Europe will know it and she'll be exposed as the fraud she is.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 29, 2017)

Fuck em all. Farron & Nuttall earlier on beeb2, nearly vommed


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2017)

Mr.Bishie said:


>


Don't think golding would have given away the next UK EU presidency for a start.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Don't think golding would have given away the next UK EU presidency for a start.



He'd nick a quid off his dying mother, the fuckin scrote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2017)

Mr.Bishie said:


> He'd nick a quid off his dying mother, the fuckin scrote.


And leave a tenner behind, he's such a shit thief


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2017)

So...6 hours in, and...



> Angela Merkel has rejected one of Theresa May’s key Brexit demands, insisting negotiations on Britain’s exit from the European Union cannot run in parallel with talks on the future UK-EU relationship.
> 
> “The negotiations must first clarify how we will disentangle our interlinked relationship,” the German chancellor said in Berlin. “Only when this question is dealt with can we – hopefully soon after – begin talking about our future relationship.”


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 29, 2017)

Two cunts ain't happy either. Hand wringing libs


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 29, 2017)

brogdale said:


> So...6 hours in, and...



Basically, go fuck yourself


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 29, 2017)

The EU was always going to try to do a Greece to us as punishment. All the more reason for leaving. Let's get shot of em as soon as possible.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The EU was always going to try to do a Greece to us as punishment. All the more reason for leaving. Let's get shot of em as soon as possible.


Well, that's obviously nonsense; the supra-state does not have the same leverage over the UK as it does over poor Greece. That said, there will obviously be elements within the EU Institutions/27 who desire exemplary punishment _pour (dis)encourager les autres. _In that context, Rutte's defence against Wilders' 'populist' anti-EU position has undeniably helped to ratchet down the pressure on the EU negotiators to go for the jugular. As has been said many times before, much will depend on the fortunes of the FN & AfD in their forthcoming, respective elections, but the signs are that the Supra-state might not now be so worried about Brexit precipitating a domino effect and existential crisis.


----------



## Ergo Proxy (Mar 29, 2017)

Die Welt front page


----------



## kebabking (Mar 29, 2017)

brogdale said:


> So...6 hours in, and...
> 
> ​



I'd beware of the Grainauds reporting in this - and perhaps all - regards, they've been going down the hysterical remainer rabbit hole of late. Slight, and vague possibilities uttered by total non-entities become absolutes from the mouth of God himself.

Merkel may - or may not - say things about what can or cannot happen, but she has the best part of a million voters working in the automotive sector, and the largest export market for Germany's automotive sectors is...?

Personally i doubt there will be a post-Brexit deal, but I'm also pretty convinced that May will not agree to a divorce deal without one, not least because a divorce deal is primarily going to be about  continuing UK obligations and money, and she won't want to walk into the 2020GE having agreed to keep giving the EU money without a reasonable trade deal for the future in return.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 29, 2017)




----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 29, 2017)




----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I'd beware of the Grainauds reporting in this - and perhaps all - regards, they've been going down the hysterical remainer rabbit hole of late. Slight, and vague possibilities uttered by total non-entities become absolutes from the mouth of God himself.
> 
> Merkel may - or may not - say things about what can or cannot happen, but she has the best part of a million voters working in the automotive sector, and the largest export market for Germany's automotive sectors is...?
> 
> Personally i doubt there will be a post-Brexit deal, but I'm also pretty convinced that May will not agree to a divorce deal without one, not least because a divorce deal is primarily going to be about  continuing UK obligations and money, and she won't want to walk into the 2020GE having agreed to keep giving the EU money without a reasonable trade deal for the future in return.


True, but the story is being reported and interpreted fairly consistently across the piece; even the cunts at the Scum are reporting it as such...



> And Mrs May has also been dealt a blow after Angela Merkel snubbed her call for negotiations on the UK's exit to run alongside trade talks.
> 
> The German Chancellor said: "The negotiations must first clarify how we will disentangle our interlinked relationship - and only when this question is dealt with, can we, hopefully soon after, begin talking about our future relationship.”


----------



## brogdale (Mar 29, 2017)

Mr.Bishie said:


>


Weirdly Neil Hamilton like?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 29, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Weirdly Neil Hamilton like?



Not sure, will ask the artist


----------



## gosub (Mar 30, 2017)

brogdale said:


> So...6 hours in, and...
> 
> ​




Now. Now the the clock is ticking and all the arselings have marked their cards.  Now is the time to open talks with EFTA.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 30, 2017)

I wonder how long till someone seriously proposes joining the USA as an _associate state_ or somes--
Oh no .. already been done. 
Obviously.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 30, 2017)

Mother Merkel needs to tone down her rhetoric. A Germany trying to dominate everything & expecting the rest of the EU to fall meekly in behind is not a good look.


----------



## hash tag (Mar 30, 2017)




----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Mother Merkel needs to tone down her rhetoric. A Germany trying to dominate everything & expecting the rest of the EU to fall meekly in behind is not a good look.


The UK state's decision to leave the supra=state reinforces Germany's hegemony within the 27. Merkel's 'rhetoric' yesterday was very 'toned down'; she merely expressed the preference of her own Government that they feel is in the interest of the German state and the EU.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2017)

hash tag said:


>


----------



## hash tag (Mar 30, 2017)




----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 30, 2017)

brogdale said:


> The UK state's decision to leave the supra=state reinforces Germany's hegemony within the 27. Merkel's 'rhetoric' yesterday was very 'toned down'; she merely expressed the preference of her own Government that they feel is in the interest of the German state and the EU.


I guess the wealthy heads of large German manufacturing businesses will be having a quiet word in her ear then?


----------



## Winot (Mar 30, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Mother Merkel needs to tone down her rhetoric. A Germany trying to dominate everything & expecting the rest of the EU to fall meekly in behind is not a good look.



An alternative view:
http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/over-interpreting-merkel/


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I guess the wealthy heads of large German manufacturing businesses will be having a quiet word in her ear then?


That happens all the time; what particular, current words are you suggesting?


----------



## Whagwan (Mar 30, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I guess the wealthy heads of large German manufacturing businesses will be having a quiet word in her ear then?



What, like this one:




> However, Wissmann, a former transport minister and powerful lobbyist, emphasised that the VDA's priority was to keep the EU's 27 remaining members together.
> 
> "The UK is an important market for the German car industry, but the cohesion of the EU27 and with it the single market is more important for this industry," he said.



German car industry warns UK that 'hard Brexit' could trigger shift south


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 30, 2017)

brogdale said:


> That happens all the time; what particular, current words are you suggesting?


Like there seems to be an awful lot more Mercs/Beemers/Porsche/Audi on UK roads than there does on roads of most other European countries. Not just that though & not just Germany. Consider how you are able to go into a UK supermarket 24/7 & always find fruit & veg on the shelves. To make that happen requires a huge industry of everything from Dutch wholesalers, Dutch/French/Spanish growers to the Romanian & Polish transport industry. In the end nobody is going to risk all that.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Like there seems to be an awful lot more Mercs/Beemers/Porsche/Audi on UK roads than there does on roads of most other European countries. Not just that though & not just Germany. Consider how you are able to go into a UK supermarket 24/7 & always find fruit & veg on the shelves. To make that happen requires a huge industry of everything from Dutch wholesalers, Dutch/French/Spanish growers to the Romanian & Polish transport industry. In the end nobody is going to risk all that.


So, you see the 'balance' of risk as, on the one-side...a loss of market share, profits and dividends, and on the other not having those cars and foods?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 30, 2017)

brogdale said:


> So, you see the 'balance' of risk as, on the one-side...a loss of market share, profits and dividends, and on the other not having those cars and foods?


The neoliberal elite that rule Europe will not allow ideology to cause a loss of market share, profits & dividends. Of that I am certain. It is the sharp division between rich & poor that causes our roads to be rather more full of luxury cars than France for example. We also have an awful lot of people on a small island so plenty of food sales as well. Take a drive on the roads between Hook of Holland & Rotterdam. See those wharehouses half a mile long? Plenty of those exist mostly to service the UK supermarkets.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> The neoliberal elite that rule Europe will not allow ideology to cause a loss of market share, profits & dividends. Of that I am certain. It is the sharp division between rich & poor that causes our roads to be rather more full of luxury cars than France for example. We also have an awful lot of people on a small island so plenty of food sales as well. Take a drive on the roads between Hook of Holland & Rotterdam. See those wharehouses half a mile long? Plenty of those exist mostly to service the UK supermarkets.


Remember when we did all that fact-checky stuff back in pre-referendum times?



> What those exports are as a proportion of all exports—by this measure about 44% of the UK’s exports go to other EU countries, while somewhere between 8-17% of exports from other EU countries go to the UK (depending on how you measure it).
> The value of that trade to the UK and other EU countries’ economies—*exports to the rest of the EU are worth about 13% of the UK’s economy, and exports from other EU countries to the UK are worth about 3-4% of the value of those countries’ economies taken as a whole.*


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2017)

Don't think anyone is going to stop selling us cars or vegetables out of spite, we're just going to be paying more for them.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2017)

I've consistently challenged those on here that cast Leave voters as "_*thick racist fuckwits", *_but I am troubled by the extent to which some soi-disant 'Lexiteers' so readily buy into the tories' memes to justify the choice they made.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2017)

bimble said:


> Don't think anyone is going to stop selling us cars or vegetables out of spite, we're just going to be paying more for them.


Yep, but I'm not convinced that many 'leave' supporters are fully aware of the massive *non-tariff *barrier asymmetry that will exist post-Brexit.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 30, 2017)

You can break down statistics how you like but you also have to use your eyes. I do know a bit about transport so perhaps I see trucks as rather more than something holding me up on the road but go to Dover & see 2-3 ferries per hour each discharging 100 or more trucks. Or go to ferry ports around the country. Harwich, Felixstowe, Ipswich, Immingham, Hull, Teesside, Newcastle, & others on the south coast & the Irish sea. All with several sailings a day. Freight ferries bringing in unaccompanied trailers for onward delivery by UK hauliers. Huge amounts of EU jobs depend on all this. Anybody can think of worst case scenarios but I do not see one here.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> You can break down statistics how you like but you also have to use your eyes. I do know a bit about transport so perhaps I see trucks as rather more than something holding me up on the road but go to Dover & see 2-3 ferries per hour each discharging 100 or more trucks. Or go to ferry ports around the country. Harwich, Felixstowe, Ipswich, Immingham, Hull, Teesside, Newcastle, & others on the south coast & the Irish sea. All with several sailings a day. Freight ferries bringing in unaccompanied trailers for onward delivery by UK hauliers. Huge amounts of EU jobs depend on all this. Anybody can think of worst case scenarios but I do not see one here.


You're barking up the wrong tree; trade wars (if it comes to that) rarely escalate into actual blockades...they're all about tariffs and quotas...the stuff of interminable negotiation.


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2017)

Despite EU subsidies for sheep farming, the UK is a net importer of lamb. The problems we are going to face aren't about people not wanting to sell stuff to us but how we will adjust once the current dependancy on cheap imports no longer works, because things will cost us more.


----------



## Whagwan (Mar 30, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> You can break down statistics how you like but you also have to use your eyes.



Tired of experts are we?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 30, 2017)

brogdale said:


> I've consistently challenged those on here that cast Leave voters as "_*thick racist fuckwits", *_but I am troubled by the extent to which some soi-disant 'Lexiteers' so readily buy into the tories' memes to justify the choice they made.


Everybody on here has their own entrenched views but it's difficult to see how there will not in the end be a sensible solution. There will be no 'hard border' in Ireland because nobody wants it. Free trade will continue between UK & rest of Europe. Despite all the posturing by EU eurocrats the business people of Europe will win the argument in the end. There will be continued cooperation on everything from security & policing to EHIC cards & phone roaming.

The media will continue to look for sensational worst case scenarios. The tabloid press will continue to spout it's usual jingoistic drivel but behind the scenes sensible & rational people will be working things out. Otherwise there will be chaos which will be nobodies interest except Putin's. It is for the UK to sort out it's own internal problems of it's divided society, NHS & decent affordable housing. How that works out will be down to the sort of governments that are elected in the UK. 

As for the EU being 'united' it would appear to me that the net gainer countries would be united in wanting the EU to keep paying for their new roads & it's probable the net contributor countries after losing UK share will be 'united' in wanting to pay the net gainers less. I still think though there are forces at work on both sides of the channel that will be trying to make out look as much like in as possible. We will probably keep paying in some way & free trade will continue.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 30, 2017)

around 13% of German car production is RHD, up to 70% of UK car production is LHD. That's pretty telling


----------



## weltweit (Mar 30, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> around 13% of German car production is RHD, up to 70% of UK car production is LHD. That's pretty telling


How much of that German RHD output is headed for Australia or Japan?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 30, 2017)

I knew someone would ask that and I do not have the numbers to hand I am afraid..., ETA these numbers could be a bit out of date as it was something I was working on post financial crash and may have changed since then.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 30, 2017)

.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 30, 2017)

bimble said:


> Despite EU subsidies for sheep farming, the UK is a net importer of lamb. The problems we are going to face aren't about people not wanting to sell stuff to us but how we will adjust once the current dependancy on cheap imports no longer works, because things will cost us more.



Stop subsidising our own sheep farms and buy more NZ lamb, which is unsubsidised and tends to be cheaper anyway.


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Stop subsidising our own sheep farms and buy more NZ lamb, which is unsubsidised and tends to be cheaper anyway.


Well ye but, we currently buy half of NZ's entire export quota of lamb to the EU (which they get to send tarrif free). When we aren't in the EU anymore, it's not going to just carry on the same price is it?
Most likely we'll start buying our own lamb instead of exporting it.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 30, 2017)

bimble said:


> Well ye but, we currently buy half of NZ's entire export quota of lamb to the EU (which they get to send tarrif free). When we aren't in the EU anymore, it's not going to just carry on the same price is it?
> Most likely we'll start buying our own lamb instead of exporting it.



Which is the sane thing to do.  Its hard to imagine many things as environmentally crazy as importing lamb from NZ and Beef from Oz. Crazy.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 30, 2017)

bimble said:


> Well ye but, we currently buy half of NZ's entire export quota of lamb to the EU (which they get to send tarrif free). When we aren't in the EU anymore, it's not going to just carry on the same price is it?
> Most likely we'll start buying our own lamb instead of exporting it.



Why shouldn't it carry on at the same price? We aren't going to slap tarrifs on imports of lamb from NZ. If the EU puts tarrifs on our lamb going to them, then we can just produce less and with EU subsidies being withdrawn from 2020 that should be easy. 

Our barren lamb farms can be returned to forest and more appropriate landscapes.


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2017)

In the weird world of the global sheep meat market, which I will stop googling about now, it seems we don't want the kind of sheep we produce and are predicted to just eat less sheep post-Brexit. 
Beef and Lamb Matters: Why the UK imports lamb from New Zealand


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 30, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Which is the sane thing to do.  Its hard to imagine many things as environmentally crazy as importing lamb from NZ and Beef from Oz. Crazy.



Why is lamb from NZ cheaper? Because it uses less resources to grow it there and ship it here that it does to grow it here.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 30, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Everybody on here has their own entrenched views but it's difficult to see how there will not in the end be a sensible solution. There will be no 'hard border' in Ireland because nobody wants it. Free trade will continue between UK & rest of Europe. Despite all the posturing by EU eurocrats the business people of Europe will win the argument in the end. There will be continued cooperation on everything from security & policing to EHIC cards & phone roaming.
> 
> The media will continue to look for sensational worst case scenarios. The tabloid press will continue to spout it's usual jingoistic drivel but behind the scenes sensible & rational people will be working things out. Otherwise there will be chaos which will be nobodies interest except Putin's. It is for the UK to sort out it's own internal problems of it's divided society, NHS & decent affordable housing. How that works out will be down to the sort of governments that are elected in the UK.
> 
> As for the EU being 'united' it would appear to me that the net gainer countries would be united in wanting the EU to keep paying for their new roads & it's probable the net contributor countries after losing UK share will be 'united' in wanting to pay the net gainers less. I still think though there are forces at work on both sides of the channel that will be trying to make out look as much like in as possible. We will probably keep paying in some way & free trade will continue.


Unless you really believe that the supra-state will afford the seceding state the same trading privileges it has enjoyed as a paying member, then there will be a hard customs border between NI & RoI, whether or not people want it.


----------



## CRI (Mar 30, 2017)

*UK ministers to use Great Repeal Bill powers to make 1,000 'corrections' to EU laws post-Brexit without any Parliamentary vote*

Tory Government introducing swathes of legislation with zilch scrutiny or accountability? I'm sure everything will be just fine*. *


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2017)

CRI said:


> *UK ministers to use Great Repeal Bill powers to make 1,000 'corrections' to EU laws post-Brexit without any Parliamentary vote*
> 
> Tory Government introducing swathes of legislation with zilch scrutiny or accountability? I'm sure everything will be just fine*. *


you should reread the article as they won't be introducing vast swathes of legislation but making changes to existing legislation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Why is lamb from NZ cheaper? Because it uses less resources to grow it there and ship it here that it does to grow it here.


so you're saying that lamb in new zealand requires fewer calories than lamb grown here. i would like to see your working.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Which is the sane thing to do.  Its hard to imagine many things as environmentally crazy as importing lamb from NZ and Beef from Oz. Crazy.


importing beef from japan and uruguay - fray bentos ring any bells?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 30, 2017)

bimble said:


> Don't think anyone is going to stop selling us cars or vegetables out of spite, we're just going to be paying more for them.



That's not the main point. I have an Audi, if I am to buy another Audi post-Brexit it may come at a higher cost due to tariffs, that's my choice to pay the extra, as the Chinese already do, for example. Or I may choose not to pay the extra and buy a VW, or a Seat, or a Skoda. 

If the UK economy has been punitively battered by a vindictive EU, I may well be quite a bit poorer, so will choose not to renew my car at all.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> so you're saying that lamb in new zealand requires fewer calories than lamb grown here. i would like to see your working.



Resources. Farm land is cheaper there for a start, especially when it doesn't attract subsidy payments.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 30, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I guess the wealthy heads of large German manufacturing businesses will be having a quiet word in her ear then?





Whagwan said:


> What, like this one:
> 
> German car industry warns UK that 'hard Brexit' could trigger shift south



He is a politician and lawyer and NOT the head of a manufacturing business. 

He lobbys for the German automobile industry.

Politico/Lobbyist = Can go fuck himself.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> importing beef from japan and uruguay - fray bentos ring any bells?



I refuse to imagine fray bentos this early in the day.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 30, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> That's not the main point. I have an Audi, if I am to buy another Audi post-Brexit it may come at a higher cost due to tariffs, that's my choice to pay the extra, as the Chinese already do, for example. Or I may choose not to pay the extra and buy a VW, or a Seat, or a Skoda.
> 
> If the UK economy has been punitively battered by a vindictive EU, I may well be quite a bit poorer, so will choose not to renew my car at all.



Or just buy a Japanese car.

ETA: Are you old enough for a Jag yet? Can't be far away.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 30, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Or just buy a Japanese car.
> 
> ETA: Are you old enough for a Jag yet? Can't be far away.



Yep, Japan and India offer very credible alternatives to Germany 

Although probably not rakish enough for a Jag


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 30, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yep, Japan and India offer very credible alternatives to Germany



The Mazdas are pretty decent cars and I think you'd love a Lexus.  Who cares about build quality anyway?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 30, 2017)

NZ is in the grip of a bit of a heated discussion at the minute about the environmental impact of  mass dairy and sheep agriculture


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 30, 2017)

The environmental impact of meat production is disastrous enough before we start shipping it half way round the world, especially when we can ship it from just down the road.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 30, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> The Mazdas are pretty decent cars and I think you'd love a Lexus.  Who cares about build quality anyway?



My dad's had the same Lexus for 10 years now, it's a hybrid and the battery died after 6 months, free replacement under warranty and has never had a single further issue with it. Apart from it looks like a puddle of vomit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Resources. Farm land is cheaper there for a start, especially when it doesn't attract subsidy payments.


But it takes the same *amount of resources* to produce a lamb in NZ as in the UK,that's what I'm driving at, this price thing's a new thing you've introduced in this post


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 30, 2017)

People will just buy more chicken and Hyundais. Spanish veg has to be more crucial for us.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> People will just buy more chicken and Hyundais. Spanish veg has to be more crucial for us.



Yes.  Which is probably why the UK fishing industry will be sold down the river (ha) again.  It will be traded.  I'm genuinely surprised that the fishing industry seem oblivious to this, they seem to celebrating like they won the lottery or something.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> But it takes the same *amount of resources* to produce a lamb in NZ as in the UK,that's what I'm driving at, this price thing's a new thing you've introduced in this post



Oh I thought we were talking about lamb prices.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> People will just buy more chicken and Hyundais. Spanish veg has to be more crucial for us.



turnips are the patriotic choice.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 30, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Yes.  Which is probably why the UK fishing industry will be sold down the river (ha) again.  It will be traded.  I'm genuinely surprised that the fishing industry seem oblivious to this, they seem to celebrating like they won the lottery or something.



We have a better navy than Portugal


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 30, 2017)

I believe there are quite heavy import taxes on fruit & veg in Norway, partly to protect their own agricultural industry. The Norwegian climate is not good for agriculture and IME their produce is terrible.  I wouldn't want some chancer in Norwich to start growing water melons or something.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 30, 2017)

On Mainly Macro One vote that rules them all





Interesting despite the economic shocks not really having arrived yet. Not that it's shifted peoples' opinion on the vote itself. Even Remainers now want the damn Brexit over with.

After all that talk about immigration getting down to the tens of thousands the Three Brexiters have been backing away from any great cut in immigration as this would fairly obviously hurt the economy i.e. shrink GDP and enrage employers. I noticed Boris was admitting the promised benefits of Brexit might take a while to arrive. After already very scanty UK regulations have been slashed back to the bone. Doubtless a Trumpian race to the bottom on elite taxes to enable the wealth creators. And a series of ghastly subservient trade deals that with probably run into the mid-2020s. The UK spiv economy probably will eventually thrive until the next big bust comes and Singapore on Thames may well be the epicentre of that.

What I'm not seeing is much prospect of wage growth (outside of The City) which is tied up with falling productivity which in turn is due to British underinvestment in infrastructure, plant and people. You look across the water at the sober Germans with their stupidly prudent high tech economy in surplus and hands on the levers of European power and the whole Brexit thing is a wild punt on an uncertain future but then that's rather in line with 21st century English casino Capitalism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Yes.  Which is probably why the UK fishing industry will be sold down the river (ha) again.  It will be traded.  I'm genuinely surprised that the fishing industry seem oblivious to this, they seem to celebrating like they won the lottery or something.


this was on radio 4 before the referendum, that waters would not wholly return to exclusively uk use for decades


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 30, 2017)

kebabking said:


> turnips are the patriotic choice.



Our old colonies in the Windies grow bananas, so we can all go down the Strand etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> the whole Brexit thing is a wild punt on an uncertain future but then that's rather in line with 21st century English casino Capitalism.


it's only the brexit a very few people would have chosen. sadly those people are the people with their hands on the levers of power and, what's worse, they're proven liars (e.g. johnson) and / or utterly incompetent (e.g. may)


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Our old colonies in the Windies grow bananas, so we can all go down the Strand etc.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> it's only the brexit a very few people would have chosen. sadly those people are the people with their hands on the levers of power and, what's worse, they're proven liars (e.g. johnson) and / or utterly incompetent (e.g. may)



Surely everyone who voted for it chose it. So it's not the "brexit a very few would have chosen", it's the brexit that everyone might not have preferred but chose anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Surely everyone who voted for it chose it. So it's not the "brexit a very few would have chosen", it's the brexit that everyone might not have preferred but chose anyway.


go back and try again


----------



## gosub (Mar 30, 2017)

CRI said:


> *UK ministers to use Great Repeal Bill powers to make 1,000 'corrections' to EU laws post-Brexit without any Parliamentary vote*
> 
> Tory Government introducing swathes of legislation with zilch scrutiny or accountability? I'm sure everything will be just fine*. *


  he really doesn't get what he's doing. That's hard Brexit with no transition.  At the very least.  

I don't think our political parties, as they currently are, will survive the next 2 years.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Surely everyone who voted for it chose it. So it's not the "brexit a very few would have chosen", it's the brexit that everyone might not have preferred but chose anyway.


It's the tory-led brexit. Everyone who voted for it knew they were choosing that. Well this is what that looks like. As everyone should have known it would.


----------



## gosub (Mar 30, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's the tory-led brexit. Everyone who voted for it knew they were choosing that. Well this is what that looks like. As everyone should have known it would.



I don't hold our political representatives in particularly high regard. But they are demonstrating a new kite mark in fuckwittery that exceeds any expectations.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> go back and try again



No second chances I'm afraid. Brexit means brexit.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 30, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The EU was always going to try to do a Greece to us as punishment. All the more reason for leaving. Let's get shot of em as soon as possible.



1. The position, status, power and influence of the UK in Europe is nothing like that of Greece.
2. Greece was a member of the single currency and the UK is not.
3. In the event of the UK running up huge debt and having to run cap in hand to the IMF, you think they'll be any more merciful?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> No second chances I'm afraid. Brexit means brexit.


if you want that guff to be your comment then so be it.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> he really doesn't get what he's doing. That's hard Brexit with no transition.  At the very least.
> 
> I don't think our political parties, as they currently are, will survive the next 2 years.



If parliament debated and voted on every SI nothing of substance would ever get done.


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 30, 2017)

kebabking said:


> turnips are the patriotic choice.


 
Swedes can be banned until they get off their arses and Swexit.


----------



## Kesher (Mar 30, 2017)

Lloyds (insurance) of London is to become Lloyds of Brussels. Wants to be in the heart of Europe


----------



## Mr Moose (Mar 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Surely everyone who voted for it chose it. So it's not the "brexit a very few would have chosen", it's the brexit that everyone might not have preferred but chose anyway.



It seems quite a few people would have chosen a Brexit that actually involved firing live munitions across the Channel.


----------



## gosub (Mar 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> If parliament debated and voted on every SI nothing of substance would ever get done.



Every one's focusing on the process, not what is being done.  These will be a 1,000 changes that presumably over the years Minister's have been told "you can't do that - EU rules".  So they are, most likely incompatible with EU regs, and therefore probably global regs.  Which makes for a very hard bump in two years time.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 30, 2017)

Kesher said:


> Lloyds (insurance) of London is to become Lloyds of Brussels. Wants to be in the heart of Europe



i think i've just read something - it may even have been the Graun - they have clarrified their position: they aren't leaving London for Brussels, _tens_ of staff will be leaving London for Brussels so they can fiddle the passporting issue.

how the land will shake at this exodus...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 30, 2017)

Kesher said:


> Lloyds (insurance) of London is to become Lloyds of Brussels. Wants to be in the heart of Europe



No it's not.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 30, 2017)

Lloyds in itself doesn't employ that many people but it's still revenue which won't be coming into the uk. What's big news is that they don't expect passporting rights to continue.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> Every one's focusing on the process, not what is being done.  These will be a 1,000 changes that presumably over the years Minister's have been told "you can't do that - EU rules".  So they are, most likely incompatible with EU regs, and therefore probably global regs.  Which makes for a very hard bump in two years time.



I don't see them fiddling about with 1,000 changes that serve no purpose but to assuage the bendy banana brigade but which at the same time preclude trade agreements in various industries.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Surely everyone who voted for it chose it. So it's not the "brexit a very few would have chosen", it's the brexit that everyone might not have preferred but chose anyway.


As there was no white paper laying out clearly what the Brexit terms that would be sought were let alone a proper deliberative process just a lot of vague often contradictory promises it really wasn't clear what people were choosing. 

This can't be said of some other UK referendums like the one on the GFA which presented a very clear set of treaty terms. The SNP at least presented a detailed paper on secession that got savaged for its many impracticalities in the run up to the Scottish referendum. When the Swiss voted on joining the EU back in the 90s it was very clearly set out what that would mean which on rejection in turn led to their very complicated, entangling, bilateral process. An arrangement the now vanished blithering Boris of Brexitland seemed to think was a piece of cake. 

Leave voters were allowed to imagine their own best case. The polling suggested most Leavers seem to have envisaged an amicable Soft Brexit retaining a close relationship with Europe with only a minority favouring an up yours Delors Hard Brexit of the sort that's more liable to happen under May though partly through sheer Tory ineptitude and the likely inability of the EU27 to agree on anything at all complicated. 

One of the few concrete things a Leave vote was meant to mean fortunately did not happen. If Cameron instead of resigning had made good on his promise to invoke A50 on day one it would have been absolute chaos. The UK would now be nearly halfway through the process. Even now it still seems unclear exactly what The Three Brexiters want. The other given was it would be grand opportunity for the Tory right to ram through a neoliberal agenda that went well beyond anything previously cooked up in EU27 capitals. That's the real sucker punch that a lot of Leave voters are going to walk into shortly.


----------



## gosub (Mar 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> I don't see them fiddling about with 1,000 changes that serve no purpose but to assuage the bendy banana brigade but which at the same time preclude trade agreements in various industries.


Davis told Sky News that there were areas of EU law that needed to be "put right."

"We won't want to change everything," he said. "There are lots of parts of EU law that we approve of, that are good, but there will be some things we want to put right."


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 30, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I refuse to imagine fray bentos this early in the day.








Brexit means Fray Bentos!


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> Davis told Sky News that there were areas of EU law that needed to be "put right."
> 
> "We won't want to change everything," he said. "There are lots of parts of EU law that we approve of, that are good, but there will be some things we want to put right."


Well a lot of it was originated in London and a lot more eagerly agreed to by London so that's no surprise.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> I don't see them fiddling about with 1,000 changes that serve no purpose but to assuage the bendy banana brigade but which at the same time preclude trade agreements in various industries.


Beyond ideology they'll have to change quite a lot anyway as otherwise there might be massive legal loopholes in UK law. Sometimes it just minor changes of wording but really it's a massive legislative review of decades of law making. A boondoggle for Constitutional Lawyers.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> Davis told Sky News that there were areas of EU law that needed to be "put right."
> 
> "We won't want to change everything," he said. "There are lots of parts of EU law that we approve of, that are good, but there will be some things we want to put right."



I must have missed the bit where he said "these include regulations on the uniformity of products and services, ensuring we have a hard brexit akin to WTO rules"


----------



## gosub (Mar 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> I must have missed the bit where he said "these include regulations on the uniformity of products and services, ensuring we have a hard brexit akin to WTO rules"



The whole point of putting it all on the UK statue book was to ease smooth transition, where it could be slowly unpicked  at UK's convienience at a later date. My alarm bells rang when they called it "great repeal bill"  

He's might as well have said the government is going to create 1000 compatibility and compliance issues that Parliament will have no say over.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 30, 2017)

gosub said:


> The whole point of putting it all on the UK statue book was to ease smooth transition, where it could be slowly unpicked  at UK's convienience at a later date. My alarm bells rang when they called it "great repeal bill"
> 
> He's might as well have said the government is going to create 1000 compatibility and compliance issues that Parliament will have no say over.



It's wrong to say parliament will have no say over these changes. They will have the power to reject any of them before they are enacted. They won't have the power to debate and amend them, but then that's the whole point - these are by definition minor changes that parliament can block if they deem them to worthy of greater scrutiny.


----------



## gosub (Mar 30, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Surely everyone who voted for it chose it. So it's not the "brexit a very few would have chosen", it's the brexit that everyone might not have preferred but chose anyway.



We had round after round of further integration without public consultation based in increasingly tenuous excuses.  When was the next window on voting Leave?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> Brexit means Fray Bentos!


i wonder what happens if you don't remove the lid before baking


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i wonder what happens if you don't remove the lid before baking



It burst, splattering the walls of your oven with dogfood-smelling revoltingness.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 30, 2017)

Worst episode of mythbusters evah etc.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 30, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> It burst, splattering the walls of your oven with dogfood-smelling revoltingness.



There's a good argument that this is probably better than cooking it 'properly', eating it and having it burst and splattering the walls of your toilet with dogfood smelling revolting mess...


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 30, 2017)

On Slugger Article 50: Will Northern Ireland feature?


> ...
> What remains to be seen is how the British side of the table will deal with Northern Ireland and how far they will push it in the negotiations. While Edinburgh, Cardiff, and Gibraltar might be quite envious of the seemingly high-place being afforded to Northern Ireland in the Brexit negotiations the absence of a Stormont government to provide their own input is likely to jar with many. David Davis’ letter to Stormont parties on “common frameworks” may offer some comfort though it’s clear anxieties remain high.
> ...


I was a bit worried that Irish issues might be an early casualty in a hostile Brexit but they seem to have quite a prominent place according to this.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 30, 2017)

I prepared a fray bento pie for the kids over xmas, they were disgusted and refused to eat it . Ditto Goblin meat pudding. urgh


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Slugger Article 50: Will Northern Ireland feature?
> I was a bit worried that Irish issues might be an early casualty in a hostile Brexit but they seem to have quite a prominent place according to this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 30, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Slugger Article 50: Will Northern Ireland feature?
> I was a bit worried that Irish issues might be an early casualty in a hostile Brexit but they seem to have quite a prominent place according to this.


----------



## phillm (Mar 30, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> My dad's had the same Lexus for 10 years now, it's a hybrid and the battery died after 6 months, free replacement under warranty and has never had a single further issue with it. Apart from it looks like a puddle of vomit.



Tis the car of champions and Alan Partridge.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 30, 2017)

On Politico Brexit talks will be tedious, nasty and painful


> ...
> Given the emotional nature of many of the issues at hand — from the rights of EU and U.K. nationals now residing in either sphere to the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland — the time pressure doesn’t bode well for an agreement.
> 
> That leaves the U.K. at a clear disadvantage. It can’t extend the negotiation phase without the agreement of all 27 remaining EU members. What’s more, it has little leverage in the talks.
> ...


One thing to understand here is the UK is simply seen as contributing to a larger problems. London is to some extent being written off and crowded out by other business. Brexit isn't top of the EU27 agenda. May's Brexiteers have failed to produce the necessary charm offensive to help the British case.


----------



## not a trot (Mar 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> importing beef from japan and uruguay - fray bentos ring any bells?



You've just reminded me there's a tin of corned beef lurking somewhere in the kitchen.


CrabbedOne said:


> Brexit means Fray Bentos!



Their the fuckers that if left in the oven too long you get a six foot high pie.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 30, 2017)




----------



## MrSpikey (Mar 31, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> It's wrong to say parliament will have no say over these changes. They will have the power to reject any of them before they are enacted. They won't have the power to debate and amend them, but then that's the whole point - these are by definition minor changes that parliament can block if they deem them to worthy of greater scrutiny.



The Bill is asking for the ability for executive powers such as statutory instruments to be allowed to be used like never before. If enacted, there won't be the power for Parliament to debate and amend uses of such instruments, and that is the whole point - Parliament won't have the power to reject these changes to the law before they are enacted in any kind of general way. The Government says they cross-their-heart-hope-to-die promise not to misuse these powers, and will totally definitely put any tricky issues that come up before Parliament for proper scrutiny - although nothing in the Bill guarantees that needs to happen. 

May and Davis come across as trustworthy enough though that we shouldn't be worried, though, don't they?


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 31, 2017)

MrSpikey said:


> May and Davis come across as trustworthy enough though that we shouldn't be worried, though, don't they?



It's not really relevant how trustworthy they are - they need to keep the changes non-controversial otherwise parliament will block them and that won't work politically for them. 

Is May trustworthy? No? Does that mean she can't be trusted not to nuke Scotland?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2017)

Access arrangements dependent upon alimony.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Mar 31, 2017)




----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 31, 2017)

Tusk pretty definite that future deals won't happen until brexit is finalised, so forget about 2 years, but who believed that anyway?.


----------



## Ranbay (Mar 31, 2017)

BREXIT BOMBSHELL: Fears for Gibraltar's future as Spain secures VETO over its EU access



> BRUSSELS dropped a Brexit bombshell on Theresa May this morning as it emerged Spain has secured an all-powerful veto over Gibraltar’s participation in any future deal between the EU and the UK.



from the commnets



> 4 minutes ago
> 
> Philip
> 
> is this yet another ACT OF WAR


----------



## gosub (Mar 31, 2017)

Jeff Robinson said:


> View attachment 103215



Leather trousers and Vivienne Westwood outfits? Born 1956?  Elle aime Duran Duran? Je ne crois pas.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 31, 2017)

Ranbay said:


> BREXIT BOMBSHELL: Fears for Gibraltar's future as Spain secures VETO over its EU access
> 
> 
> 
> from the commnets


Hah hah! I hope Gibraltar goes Spanish and Philip shits himself with rage. In public.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Hah hah! I hope Gibraltar goes Spanish and Philip shits himself with rage. In public.


at his age he's quite likely to shit himself in publick anyway.


----------



## gosub (Mar 31, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Hah hah! I hope Gibraltar goes Spanish and Philip shits himself with rage. In public.



Wasn't Gib something like 96% remain?  This has potential to end up in quite a surreal situation


----------



## kabbes (Mar 31, 2017)

Britain to celebrate freedom from Europe by replacing all its laws with identical ones


----------



## gosub (Mar 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> at his age he's quite likely to shit himself in publick anyway.



Might be a different Phillip. 

Dispatch Scofield to walk across Gib runway in tribute and defiance


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 31, 2017)

gosub said:


> Wasn't Gib something like 96% remain?  This has potential to end up in quite a surreal situation


Melted watches and sofas that look like lips?


----------



## gosub (Mar 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Britain to celebrate freedom from Europe by replacing all its laws with identical ones



If they were doing that, I would understand. Its the 1000 they are changing at this stage using statutory powers that worry me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2017)

gosub said:


> Might be a different Phillip.
> 
> Dispatch Scofield to walk across Gib runway in tribute and defiance


thought you meant prince philip


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 31, 2017)

I'm surprised Philip the Express reader is so anti Spanish when he has such a Spanish name.


----------



## gosub (Mar 31, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Melted watches and sofas that look like lips?


Fish.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 31, 2017)

gosub said:


> If they were doing that, I would understand. Its the 1000 they are changing at this stage using statutory powers that worry me.


Playgrounds to become thrillingly dangerous again


----------



## gosub (Mar 31, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Playgrounds to become thrillingly dangerous again



 Get the lead based paint back out..


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 31, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Tusk pretty definite that future deals won't happen until brexit is finalised, so forget about 2 years, but who believed that anyway?.



Wut?

EU sets out 'phased' Brexit strategy - BBC News



> The EU has outlined its Brexit strategy, suggesting trade talks could begin after "sufficient progress" on a separation settlement with the UK.
> 
> The draft guidelines, announced by European Council President Donald Tusk in Malta, advocate a "phased approach".


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 31, 2017)

In The Daily Telegraph European leaders to formally reject Theresa May's Brexit timetable

Unsurprisingly EU27 leaders not budging on having all the complexities of the divorce sorted out before trade gets on the agenda. A50 is only meant to provide a framework for the future trading relationship.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Wut?
> 
> EU sets out 'phased' Brexit strategy - BBC News


That's just preliminary talks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2017)

theresa may's being exposed as the fraud she is


----------



## hash tag (Mar 31, 2017)

I quit!

Sulky MPs and death penalty nostalgia show Britain is far from united

On the day Theresa May triggered article 50, YouGov published a survey of the things people would like to see brought back after Britain has left the EU. Top of the list was the death penalty, with 52% of those who voted leave wishing for its return

If you want the death penalty and want out of the EU why don'y you fuck of to Turkey, perhaps you will be happier there.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2017)

gosub said:


> Wasn't Gib something like 96% remain?  This has potential to end up in quite a surreal situation


This is precisely why they voted 95.9% 'Remain'.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2017)

From the Union's point of view, entirely logical to exploit all bargaining ploys...



> ....unless Britain is willing to let its citizens on “the rock” be subject to an inferior economic future than those in the UK, the EU has effectively handed the Spanish government a veto on Britain’s entire future relationship with the bloc.
> 
> “The union will stick up for its members, and that means Spain now,” a senior EU official said.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I quit!
> 
> Sulky MPs and death penalty nostalgia show Britain is far from united
> 
> ...


the death penalty a proud auld british tradition


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 31, 2017)

brogdale said:


> From the Union's point of view, entirely logical to exploit all bargaining ploys...
> 
> ​



The reply has to be that if the EU wish to impoverish people by cutting them off from markets then Gibraltar will have to revert to other ways of earning a crust, a toll on shipping entering the Med would raise a few quid.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I quit!
> 
> Sulky MPs and death penalty nostalgia show Britain is far from united
> 
> ...


Before you "quit", what's the real story here?



In response to a silly list dreamt up by a polling company (and that nobody is actually going to implement), the vast majority of those asked wanted none of it.

We're continually told the death penalty is wanted by a majority of the public; not in this poll. They don't even want corporal punishment brought back in schools.

I'd have thought that was welcome news.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2017)

i wonder what would happen if gibraltar was incorporated into the uk proper rather than being a dependency.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Before you "quit", what's the real story here?
> 
> View attachment 103266
> 
> ...


yeh. but bring back the auld money.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. but bring back the auld money.


You and the rest of the 7% have some work to do before that takes off.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Mar 31, 2017)

On Slugger Brexit has predictably dire effects for Northern Ireland


> ...
> Northern Ireland’s private sector will be reduced to the sandwich van outside the studio where they film _Game of Thrones. _Until they stop making it next year.
> ...


Newry earlier today:


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i wonder what would happen if gibraltar was incorporated into the uk proper rather than being a dependency.


25% of their GDP from (tax avoiding) online gambling says no.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2017)

(Telegraph) *"Outrage as..."




*


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 31, 2017)

Is the man with the flag stood in Ceuta?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2017)

_*"Fury as..." *_from the _(hate)Mail...
_


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 31, 2017)

brogdale said:


> _*"Fury as..." *_from the _(hate)Mail...
> _
> View attachment 103268


Is it the writer's own fury?_ (MY) FURY AS...
_
To be honest, I'm laughing_. _


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 31, 2017)

Goodbye Gibraltar.

Tories are taking a hammering here.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 31, 2017)

I'm so fucking bored of Brexit and how it has subsumed everything since fucking forever


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 31, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I'm so fucking bored of Brexit and how it has subsumed everything since fucking forever



Without Brexit we'd just have NHS funding and Trump to keep us going


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2017)

DexterTCN said:


> Goodbye Gibraltar.
> 
> Tories are taking a hammering here.


They'll be exposed as the frauds they are


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2017)

Amusingly, the tories allowed their thickest MP (I know; props) out on a rare national media interview; Rosindell is Vice-Chair of the APPG for the rock.



A master-class.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 31, 2017)

Didn't know much about 'Gib', but there was a series about it and it must be said, good riddance to the twats, they can be Spain's problems now.

If we can figure out a way of getting the EU to hand the Falklands over to Argentina that would be a bonus too.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Didn't know much about 'Gib', but there was a series about it and it must be said, good riddance to the twats, they can be Spain's problems now.
> 
> If we can figure out a way of getting the EU to hand the Falklands over to Argentina that would be a bonus too.


Essex can have Sheppey.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 31, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Essex can have Sheppey.



By the time I'm finished sorting this mess out the UK will consist of a tiny area of Southwest Surrey with just me in it. Arms folded. Going, "humph".


----------



## Raheem (Mar 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> By the time I'm finished sorting this mess out the UK will consist of a tiny area of Southwest Surrey with just me in it. Arms folded. Going, "humph".



Surely the UK would have to be whatever field has the Queen in it going "humph".


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 31, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Surely the UK would have to be whatever field has the Queen in it going "humph".



Nope, will be a republic by the time I'm through.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Nope, will be a republic by the time I'm through.





> *You*
> _*Are now
> Entering
> Free Godalming*_


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 31, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Amusingly, the tories allowed their thickest MP (I know; props) out on a rare national media interview; Rosindell is Vice-Chair of the APPG for the rock.
> 
> View attachment 103283
> 
> A master-class.


english flags outside his window

but yes...masterclass, that one...in some countries he'd be expected to top himself after that performance


----------



## Raheem (Mar 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Nope, will be a republic by the time I'm through.



Well, I suppose if it's just you the referendum won't be much of a hurdle. Make sure it can't be hacked, though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Didn't know much about 'Gib', but there was a series about it and it must be said, good riddance to the twats, they can be Spain's problems now.
> 
> If we can figure out a way of getting the EU to hand the Falklands over to Argentina that would be a bonus too.


I think her maj's gov may want to keep that little rock for strategic purposes. Myself I don't care, ask the locals, its their island. MOAR refferenda!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 31, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Well, I suppose if it's just you the referendum won't be much of a hurdle. Make sure it can't be hacked, though.



Putin's taking an interest.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 31, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I think her maj's gov may want to keep that little rock for strategic purposes.



Yeah. They don't keep up though. Britain's place in the world is no longer down to our skillz at kicking the shit out of people, we no longer need expensive bits of cruddy land, we can run our country online, we invented the internet after all. Post-Brexit we need to flood the web with top quality skag at bargain-basement prices. Get the world hooked on 'white' (no scabby brown from Free-UK) and the Opium Wars are back on, prize - the planet


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah. They don't keep up though. Britain's place in the world is no longer down to our skillz at kicking the shit out of people, we no longer need expensive bits of cruddy land, we can run our country online, we invented the internet after all. Post-Brexit we need to flood the web with top quality skag at bargain-basement prices. Get the world hooked on 'white' (no scabby brown from Free-UK) and the Opium Wars are back on, prize - the planet



Not sure that will work so well without the gunboats.

"Dear President Xi Jinping, your objection to the British selling skag to your people has been received. Fuck you, we are going to continue selling as much of the stuff as we want to China, and now you have to give us Hong Kong as well - or you will get another sternly worded email. Love, UK."


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 31, 2017)

Yossarian said:


> Not sure that will work so well without the gunboats.
> 
> "Dear President Xi Jinping, your objection to the British selling skag to your people has been received. Fuck you, we are going to continue selling as much of the stuff as we want to China, and now you have to give us Hong Kong as well - or you will get another sternly worded email. Love, UK."



We've already done China, this time we're gonna sell to France, they fucking love drugs there.


----------



## coley (Apr 1, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> We've already done China, this time we're gonna sell to France, they fucking love drugs there.



The markets probably there, but we seem to have given up our source of production, in a 'fit of absence' probably


----------



## MrSpikey (Apr 1, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> It's not really relevant how trustworthy they are - they need to keep the changes non-controversial otherwise parliament will block them and that won't work politically for them.
> 
> Is May trustworthy? No? Does that mean she can't be trusted not to nuke Scotland?


But the ability of Parliament to interfere with the issuing of SIs can be limited.

"Statutory Instruments...allow the provisions of an Act of Parliament to be subsequently brought into force or altered *without Parliament having to pass a new Act*."

"Most statutory instruments (SIs) are subject to one of two forms of control by Parliament, depending on what is specified in the parent Act. Parliament's control is limited to approving, or rejecting, the instrument as laid before it: it cannot (except in very rare cases) amend or change it. *Whether or not a statutory instrument is subject to affirmative or negative resolution procedure is dictated by the parent act*."

The devil will be in the detail of the parent act.

"To make matters worse, [The Government] needs enough flexibility [on the limits of SIs] to “support a scenario where the UK left the EU without a deal in place”, suggesting a possible avalanche of last-minute changes if Brexit talks fall apart in the final hours before 30 March 2019."

We'll see what the final bill proposes, but it's certainly looking like they'll be asking for some level of freedom in enacting secondary legislation without normal scrutiny.


----------



## Supine (Apr 1, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Surely the UK would have to be whatever field has the Queen in it going "humph".



Nah, she's already applying for her German passport


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 1, 2017)

On Slugger Brexit to force Tayto Northern Ireland to stop selling their popular Cheese & Onion Crisps?


> ...
> Lapif Loor, a Norwegian expat and expert on EU trade Law at Queen’s University Belfast, had this to say:
> 
> _“In the revised 1976 licensing contract the marketing territories were defined based on the EU framework. Tayto (Northern Ireland) got the UK territory and Tayto (Republic of Ireland) got the rest of Europe. With the UK leaving the EU there is a case to be made that this invalidates the agreement and Tayto (Republic of Ireland) can void the agreement.”_​
> ...


Ulster Says No!

Do note the date.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 1, 2017)

It's all very well but Spain will never allow Brexit.


----------



## Supine (Apr 2, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> It's all very well but Spain will never allow Brexit.



How can they stop it?


----------



## kebabking (Apr 2, 2017)

Supine said:


> How can they stop it?



He's being sardonic - it's a reference to Spain's alleged position in an indy Scotland joining the EU, Spain is allegedly prepared to veto membership of newly independent counties so as to send a shot across the bows of its own uppity Catalonians.

Personally i would think that the Spanish push on Gib in the draft EU negotiation documents lends some weight to the above allegation - we'll see whether it survives contact with the German automotive sector amongst other European interests - but to me it does show Spanish willingness to put nationalism ahead of economics interests.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 2, 2017)

Supine said:


> How can they stop it?


Well the A50 clock is ticking and the UK will be ejected out of the EU in two years. Spain can't stop that. 

However they can for instance veto an extension to the very short A50 process period which the UK may be left begging for. That needs a very hard to get unanimous Council vote. When it comes to actually granting the UK the divorce terms it's negotiated it just requires a qualified majority 72% of the members with at least 65% of the population. I would not be pissing off a weighty EU player like Spain (~9% of the EU population) for the next two years. This can come down to even EU minnows extracting concessions from the UK in return for their votes.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 2, 2017)

In Politico EU: No trade deal if UK becomes a tax haven


> ...
> Any free trade agreement with the U.K. “must ensure a level playing field in terms of competition and state aid, and must encompass safeguards against unfair competitive advantages through, inter alia, fiscal, social and environmental dumping,” the EU said in its draft negotiating guidelines published Friday by Council President Donald Tusk.
> 
> From last year, British officials have threatened the EU with the so-called “Singapore model” and said that they would turn the U.K. into a low-tax, low-regulation offshore haven after Brexit if EU leaders refused the U.K. access to the single market.
> ...


Oh dear, the Three Brexiteers are not going to like that. Done while offering the carrot of earlier trade talks.


----------



## Raheem (Apr 2, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> Well the A50 clock is ticking and the UK will be ejected out of the EU in two years. Spain can't stop that.
> 
> However they can for instance veto an extension to the very short A50 process period which the UK may be left begging for. That needs a very hard to get unanimous Council vote. When it comes to actually granting the UK the divorce terms it's negotiated it just requires a qualified majority 72% of the members with at least 65% of the population. I would not be pissing off a weighty EU player like Spain (~9% of the EU population) for the next two years. This can come down to even EU minnows extracting concessions from the UK in return for their votes.



It's not very clear that the thing in Tusk's letter makes a difference one way or another in that regard, though.

This bit of the negotiations is possibly mainly about looking for things to be outraged about.


----------



## Raheem (Apr 2, 2017)

.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 2, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> In Politico EU: No trade deal if UK becomes a tax haven
> Oh dear, the Three Brexiteers are not going to like that. Done while offering the carrot of earlier trade talks.


It's all consistent, I'd have thought.  "Either give us access to free trade or we will become a tax haven.  You choose".  They're not suggesting it be both.


----------



## 8den (Apr 2, 2017)

2020. Disguised as club 18-30 holiday makers British Marines seize key Spanish Holiday resorts. It's basically "Red Dawn" meets 'Was harry on the boat".

Theresa May 'would go to war' to defend the sovereignty of Gibraltar


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2017)

8den said:


> 2020. Disguised as club 18-30 holiday makers British Marines seize key Spanish Holiday resorts. It's basically "Red Dawn" meets 'Was harry on the boat".
> 
> Theresa May 'would go to war' to defend the sovereignty of Gibraltar


a latter-day carry on up the khyber


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2017)

8den said:


> 2020. Disguised as club 18-30 holiday makers British Marines seize key Spanish Holiday resorts. It's basically "Red Dawn" meets 'Was harry on the boat".
> 
> Theresa May 'would go to war' to defend the sovereignty of Gibraltar


i would like it if she went to war. but the chances of her donning bdu and taking up the auld sa-80 unlikely.


----------



## gosub (Apr 2, 2017)

8den said:


> 2020. Disguised as club 18-30 holiday makers British Marines seize key Spanish Holiday resorts. It's basically "Red Dawn" meets 'Was harry on the boat".



tbh.  How would that be different to whats being going on for the last 20years?


----------



## 8den (Apr 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> tbh.  How would that be different to whats being going on for the last 20years?



They'll have to go through customs for a start


----------



## 8den (Apr 2, 2017)

Aaron Banks "Brexit negotiations will go well because Britain is so well regarded international". 

Brexiters "Invade Spain to protect Gilbratar!!!!" 

The next two years will just be monstrously stupid won't they?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2017)

8den said:


> Aaron Banks "Brexit negotiations will go well because Britain is so well regarded international".
> 
> Brexiters "Invade Spain to protect Gilbratar!!!!"
> 
> The next two years will just be monstrously stupid won't they?


tbh one thing which hasn't i think been adequately raised by the remainers - certainly not when it should have been - is that while there are entirely valid reasons for leaving, the people who were always going to be in charge of the exit negotiations, the conservative party, are so riddled with vapid incompetents that they were always going to get a fucking awful deal for the country.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2017)

8den said:


> They'll have to go through customs for a start


everyone goes through customs now. it's just it's been a super-green blue channel.


----------



## gosub (Apr 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh one thing which hasn't i think been adequately raised by the remainers - certainly not when it should have been - is that while there are entirely valid reasons for leaving, the people who were always going to be in charge of the exit negotiations, the conservative party, are so riddled with vapid incompetents that they were always going to get a fucking awful deal for the country.



A Jeremy Corbyn lead Brexit...?  
I 've thought about this.  Listening to the old comedy repeats on radio 4 extra, the competence of our MP's has never been held in high regard, but the filleting of competences both to the EUropean Parliament and devolved assemblies must be reducing the calibre of those entering Westminster, something that could only get worse.  Add to that we are still adjusting to the permanence and search-ability of digital media it'll be a while before more competitent but less than squeaky lean would consider it.

Was always going to be a steep learning curve for 'em, and I'm far from impressed so far, but I think it would just get harder.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2017)

gosub said:


> A Jeremy Corbyn lead Brexit...?
> I 've thought about this.  Listening to the old comedy repeats on radio 4 extra, the competence of our MP's has never been held in high regard, but the filleting of competences both to the EUropean Parliament and devolved assemblies must be reducing the calibre of those entering Westminster, something that could only get worse.  Add to that we are still adjusting to the permanence and search-ability of digital media it'll be a while before more competitent but less than squeaky lean would consider it.
> 
> Was always going to be a steep learning curve for 'em, and I'm far from impressed so far, but I think it would just get harder.


things will only get shitter, as a more prescient d:ream would have sung


----------



## gosub (Apr 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> things will only get shitter, as a more prescient d:ream would have sung



It's partially about stopping the rot.  Fucking blue passports, when there is shed loads of bigger stuff to prioritise.

The wake up call our B-Ark establishment needs.


----------



## 8den (Apr 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh one thing which hasn't i think been adequately raised by the remainers - certainly not when it should have been - is that while there are entirely valid reasons for leaving, the people who were always going to be in charge of the exit negotiations, the conservative party, are so riddled with vapid incompetents that they were always going to get a fucking awful deal for the country.



There was that interview on Sky News the day after the referendum where the Exit campaign just admitted they thought it was the governments job to come up with a exit strategy. 

But yes during the referendum there was a total lack of imagination on the remain campaign when it came to counter arguments. Like,

Anti-Brexit campaigners create 'mock customs post' amid hard border fears

Brilliant Idea. But Completely fucking pointless in Feb 2017


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2017)

8den said:


> There was that interview on Sky News the day after the referendum where the Exit campaign just admitted they thought it was the governments job to come up with a exit strategy.
> 
> But yes during the referendum there was a total lack of imagination on the remain campaign when it came to counter arguments. Like,
> 
> ...


well, there is that well-known tendency for soldiers to always fight the last war, perhaps with campaigners there's an equivalent habit.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 2, 2017)

On Yanis Varoufakis's blog PM Theresa May has miscalculated – Op-ed in THE MIRROR


> ...
> London’s greatest miscalculation would be to assume that the EU’s negotiators are committed to the bloc’s economic interests.
> 
> Whilst negotiating Greece’s debt to the EU with them, I realised in horror that they cared very little about getting their money back and a great deal more about shoring up their relative positions in the games they play with one another – even if this sacrificed large economic gains.
> ...


Well quite and he reckons an interim Norway style deal is the answer.

Some problems there: 

The Norway deal was negotiated with a much smaller EU. The UK might well find a qualified majority of 30+ EU entities won't/can't agree to that. Actually this is probably why May hasn't gone this way. Saying the UK is quite willing to crash out of the EU without a deal avoids a potential political humiliation when that happens by sheer inertia. Selling Dunkirk as victory for plucky Blighty but well beforehand
Like the more complex Swiss bi-laterals deal it's a considerable erosion of national sovereignty in some ways worse than being an EU member as you've no direct say in the making of the rules you'll agree to be governed by  
The Three Brexiteers are not rational calculators of national interest either. It's a more about a inter-Tory bunfight for them and the euro-skeptics this was all done to placate would go berserk as would UKIP.


----------



## 8den (Apr 2, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> The Three Brexiteers are not rational calculators of national interest either.



Thats putting it mildly....


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 2, 2017)

8den said:


> There was that interview on Sky News the day after the referendum where the Exit campaign just admitted they thought it was the governments job to come up with a exit strategy.
> 
> But yes during the referendum there was a total lack of imagination on the remain campaign when it came to counter arguments. Like,
> 
> ...


In N.I. there was a great deal of discussion of the border with Leave generally insisting nothing would change while the Remain folks anticipated this was going to be a problem. I recall the legal advice was this would be a complex issue to sort out as the pre-existing CTA did not apply but not insurmountable.

Brexit may be underway but what the Irish border looks like is not a done deal at all. A Hard Brexit implies a hard EU border in Ireland that neither London or Dublin really want. Even Loyalists who would have been quite keen on a Trumpian wall a few decades ago like the border the way it is. I heard some Dissident Republicans quite fancied having some customs posts to symbolically attack. I'd be wanting that issue sorted out early in A50 negotiations. It seems to be regarded as really important in Brussels but it could easily slip down the agenda if things get stupidly acrimonious as they likely will.


----------



## 8den (Apr 2, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> In N.I. there was a great deal of discussion of the border with Leave generally insisting nothing would change while the Remain folks anticipated this was going to be a problem. I recall the legal advice was this would be a complex issue to sort out as the pre-existing CTA did not apply but not insurmountable.
> 
> Brexit may be underway but what the Irish border looks like is not a done deal at all. A Hard Brexit implies a hard EU border in Ireland that neither London or Dublin really want. Even Loyalists who would have been quite keen on a Trumpian wall a few decades ago like the border the way it is. I heard some Dissident Republicans quite fancied having some customs posts to symbolically attack. I'd be wanting that issue sorted out early in A50 negotiations. It seems to be regarded as really important in Brussels but it could easily slip down the agenda if things get stupidly acrimonious as they likely will.



Sort of preaching the choir here. I live in the Republic and work alot in NI.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 2, 2017)

8den said:


> Sort of preaching the choir here. I live in the Republic and work alot in NI.


A grenzgänger!


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 2, 2017)

*Paul Kavanagh*‏ @weegingerdug 4m4 minutes ago
I always thought Brexit would descend into a ludicrous right wing dystopian chaos. I just never expected it to happen after only four days.

0 replies17 retweets28 likes


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 2, 2017)

Oh dear only a couple of days into Brexit. They just can't help themselves. It's much like Trump without the talent for being a braggart on Twitter.

A bit like drunkenly hinting in a divorce case that the missus deserves a good slap and will get one if the slag tries to keep the kids.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 2, 2017)

So now we're assured we could still_ cripple Spain_ with our navy.

Brexit's going great so far!


----------



## gosub (Apr 2, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> So now we're assured we could still_ cripple Spain_ with our navy.
> 
> Brexit's going great so far!



a failed state with nukes isn't what I voted for.


----------



## A380 (Apr 2, 2017)

8den said:


> 2020. Disguised as club 18-30 holiday makers British Marines seize key Spanish Holiday resorts. It's basically "Red Dawn" meets 'Was harry on the boat".
> 
> Theresa May 'would go to war' to defend the sovereignty of Gibraltar


Except,  given what's just been floated* for the next round of defence cuts, by 2020 the Royal Marines could be down to two blokes in a rowing boat with a black widow catapult...

* did you see what I did there.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 2, 2017)

We should just cut that bit off and bring it home with us. Install it off Dover so we can put toll gates on the Channel.


----------



## gosub (Apr 2, 2017)

A380 said:


> Except,  given what's just been floated* for the next round of defence cuts, by 2020 the Royal Marines could be down to two blokes in a rowing boat with a black widow catapult...
> 
> * did you see what I did there.



I think thats why Fallon is looking so smug "you know those cuts you were planning to my budget?..."


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 2, 2017)

Anyone wondering how the Sunday Sport is covering Brexit? Wonder no more.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 2, 2017)

I'm surprised she was so turned on by that_ fifth largest in the world_ thing.


----------



## phillm (Apr 2, 2017)

FUCK BREXIT !


----------



## Cheesypoof (Apr 3, 2017)

Mrs May's letter to the Irish Times. I don't doubt her sincerity, but there seems to be a lot of rhetoric here, nay, _hot air. _Its all to play for.

Theresa May: I want Ireland and the UK to have a stronger relationship after Brexit


----------



## MrSpikey (Apr 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> a latter-day carry on up the khyber


I can see ITV adopting this as a plotline for Benidorm, should it survive until 2020.


----------



## bimble (Apr 3, 2017)




----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 3, 2017)

In Bloomberg Brexit Britain Could Replace Migrants With Robots


> ...
> While May’s government has pledged to boost investment in artificial intelligence and robotics to increase productivity, the U.K. trails competitors in the number of robots it employs in manufacturing. Excluding automakers, the country has 33 of them installed per 10,000 employees, compared with 170 in Germany and 411 in South Korea.
> 
> If U.K. employers embrace automation, 15 million British jobs could be lost, Bank of England Chief Economist Andy Haldane has said. While the rise of robots has prompted concerns about what will happen to displaced workers, some employers in the U.K. see a solution to a looming labor shortage.
> ...


Little electric bastards coming over here stacking all our shelves.


----------



## gosub (Apr 3, 2017)

http://sdg.iisd.org/news/un-agencie...able-fisheries-management/?platform=hootsuite


 Didn't even fax Brussells to see if this was ok


----------



## Kesher (Apr 3, 2017)

phillm said:


> FUCK BREXIT !




Brilliant


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 3, 2017)

Telling, but not surprising that Clegg is reaching out for 'centrist' Labour politicians, not left ones. 

Nick Clegg urges liberals and centrists to unite against hard Brexiters




			
				Grauniad said:
			
		

> I would welcome and embrace more thinking and writing and talking and speaking amongst liberal Conservatives, one-nation Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, centre-ground Labour folk who want to mount a proper ideological response to that.”
> 
> Welcoming Tony Blair’s new Institute for Global Change, which aims to re-energise the centre ground, Clegg said people were spending too much time getting angry and needed to unite on issues such as “housing, in-work poverty and the ageing population”.



Without irony, warning about bad things that leaving might do, despite his party being part of the very same problem, and reaching out to liberals and conservatives who are too.

(also applicable for Lib Dem are shit thread)


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 3, 2017)

recon the guardian thinks if they keep it up people will like clegg again.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 4, 2017)

On BI Virtually every single Brexit outcome is going to damage British trade





They missed the Hard Brexit+War with Spain option.


----------



## Supine (Apr 4, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On BI Virtually every single Brexit outcome is going to damage British trade
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They do say that war is good for an economy 

We already have Stan deeply embedded on the ground.


----------



## 2hats (Apr 4, 2017)

Supine said:


> They do say that war is good for an economy
> 
> We already have Stan deeply embedded on the ground.


Though I hear that doubts have recently been raised as to how dependable his fifth column is.


----------



## Supine (Apr 4, 2017)

I now have thoughts of our Spanish pensioners banding up into a resistance force like that old movie Red Dawn.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 4, 2017)

On BI ING: Bad Brexit deal for Britain could kick Europe into recession


> *Britain is on course for the worst deal possible — "hard Brexit."*
> *But a bad deal for the British economy could spell recession for the whole of Europe, according to ING: "Things could go very badly."*
> *New polling data show Britons want May to get a deal that EU officials have repeatedly shot down.*
> *A combination of "toxic politics" and economic dislocation could be the most deadly combination for all economies.*
> ...


With the RoI, Belgium and The Netherland catching it right in the plums. 

It's as crazy as implementing self flagellating pro-cyclic austerity policies during a recession but then the Brits and EU27 all opted to do that as well.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 4, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> recon the guardian thinks if they keep it up people will like clegg again.



Said it before and I'll say it again - the LibDems didn't enjoy their stint in Government much, they found being responsible for things much less enjoyable than being purer than the driven snow and carping about stuff from the ivory tower. 

I know it's an unpopular view around here, but they _did_ achieve some good things, things they'd long wanted to do and without being in government could never have done, but they found the costs, the friction, the side-effects of being responsible for things weighed more heavily than the sum of their achievements bouyed them up.

Clegg - and Farron - want to always be the 48, big enough to be important, but never again big enough to be the ones responsible for deciding who's garden a new road goes through, or responsible for taking money from one budget and putting it in another, even when they believe one is more important/deserving than the other. I think the Guardian takes the same view...


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Apr 4, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On BI ING: Bad Brexit deal for Britain could kick Europe into recession
> With the RoI, Belgium and The Netherland catching it right in the plums.
> 
> It's as crazy as implementing self flagellating pro-cyclic austerity policies during a recession but then the Brits and EU27 all opted to do that as well.


It's pessimism vs optimism. That link gives the most pessimistic view that the whole of Europe will suffer if the negotiations end in tears. So that in itself should give cause for optimism. That sensible rational people will work something out in the end. Any talk of 'punishment' shows the EU as undemocratic & dictatorial & will make the EU even more unpopular in the UK than it is now. As things are going now it does seem that it just depends on what spin you put on it. The Spanish/Gib thing for example either ridiculous jingoism making UK look stupid or a very firm line quickly drawn in the sand that Gib stays British. Doom mongering fills the media with interesting stuff to read & makes interesting talking points online but I think one has to remain optimistic that there will be sensible outcome.

What is probably difficult is separating the specific brexit stuff from what might have happened anyway should the vote have been for remain. How would the economies of UK & Europe of fared anyway? The relationship between UK & EU was not that good anyway. Our rebate was always a source of friction. If the UK had voted remain would the EU have not become more hardline demanding more money & closer integration from UK?


----------



## treelover (Apr 4, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Telling, but not surprising that Clegg is reaching out for 'centrist' Labour politicians, not left ones.
> 
> Nick Clegg urges liberals and centrists to unite against hard Brexiters
> 
> ...



No self awareness of his role in exacerbating in work poverty, etc.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 4, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> It's pessimism vs optimism. That link gives the most pessimistic view that the whole of Europe will suffer if the negotiations end in tears. So that in itself should give cause for optimism. That sensible rational people will work something out in the end. Any talk of 'punishment' shows the EU as undemocratic & dictatorial & will make the EU even more unpopular in the UK than it is now. As things are going now it does seem that it just depends on what spin you put on it. The Spanish/Gib thing for example either ridiculous jingoism making UK look stupid or a very firm line quickly drawn in the sand that Gib stays British. Doom mongering fills the media with interesting stuff to read & makes interesting talking points online but I think one has to remain optimistic that there will be sensible outcome.
> 
> What is probably difficult is separating the specific brexit stuff from what might have happened anyway should the vote have been for remain. How would the economies of UK & Europe of fared anyway? The relationship between UK & EU was not that good anyway. Our rebate was always a source of friction. If the UK had voted remain would the EU have not become more hardline demanding more money & closer integration from UK?


Show me the "sensible rational people"? The only ones in evidence during the financial crisis were the Septics and the Swiss. While they went counter-cyclic both the EU27 and Brits engaged in long bouts of avoidable self harm and finger pointing rather than trying to fix anything. Rational self interest is not how politics works hereabouts. Heading off economic damage won't move these people.

If the UK had approached this from Leave day one with a constructive attitude instead of clever chaps like Boris joining some Commission figures in fouling the water this could be going a lot better and it needed to. The "crippling Spain" thing coming up a few days into A50 just rams home how horribly unsuitable May's team are for the delicate task of manipulating a thing with so many moving parts as the EU27. May's set it up to founder on freedom of movement options the UK wants to have but it seems may never actually opt to use with migration levels staying much the same. An orderly exit in two years at the moment seems very unlikely. 

De Gaulle viewed the UK as an unfit member of the EU and he had a point. Unlike Dublin London has had a terribly dysfunctional relationship with Europe and had moved to outer orbit of the EU anyway. A basic problem is the UK is a post-imperial decidedly non-European country. It does not enjoy the likes of the its former vassal the RoI being a near peer in the EU. That has got worse as the EU enlarged Germany unified and became the dominant (if passive) European power. This uncomfortable situation probably doesn't go away after Brexit it just changes.

I'm sure there would be problems if the vote had gone Remain but it's a needless shock to an already fragile system whose messy collapse would hurt everybody. A Remain vote would have been close. As in Scotland there would have been an urgent demand for a second referendum as the "British people had spoken". The Tories would have folded to that again. Cameron would be desperately trying to lever more concessions out of the slow moving EU27. The Core countries increasingly talk of a multi-speed Europe which might eventually have accommodated an option something like a Soft Brexit which the UK might have opted for anyway. In reality that may be the only way a rancour free disentanglement was possible. A reform that subverted the "ever closer union" the UK joined in the first place.

And then there's Trump who might prove even more disruptive to the whole vulnerable globalised system if the twit can get his thumb out of his arse.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> I'm sure there would be problems if the vote had gone Remain but it's a needless shock to an already fragile system whose messy collapse would hurt everybody. A Remain vote would have been close. As in Scotland there would have been an urgent demand for a second referendum as the "British people had spoken". The Tories would have folded to that again. Cameron would be desperately trying to lever more concessions out of the slow moving EU27. The Core countries increasingly talk of a multi-speed Europe which might eventually have accommodated an option something like a Soft Brexit which the UK might have opted for anyway. In reality that may be the only way a rancour free disentanglement was possible. A reform that subverted the "ever closer union" the UK joined in the first place.
> .


I don't think a close remain vote would have led to a second ref, but agree entirely with the second half of your analysis here. A close remain vote would have left Cameron weakened - merely being forced to call the ref was an act of weakness - and yes, I agree that the future would have included a UK refusing to integrate further and being joined perhaps by the likes of Denmark and Sweden on the metaphorical as well as literal edges of the union. And yes, that could have resembled 'soft brexit', which still very possibly could be the result of this process now, only via a far more painful route, and in a way that, so far, has only entrenched tory power.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Apr 4, 2017)

O-oh ....
Up to 100,000 UK jobs at risk as Merkel and Juncker ally warns on euro clearing


----------



## brogdale (Apr 4, 2017)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> O-oh ....
> Up to 100,000 UK jobs at risk as Merkel and Juncker ally warns on euro clearing


Don't fret, these are the cunts who annually threaten to fuck off somewhere else if the state dared to tax them or attempt to limit their grotesque bonuses. Now they can carry out their threat.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 4, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Don't fret, these are the cunts who annually threaten to fuck off somewhere else if the state dared to tax them or attempt to limit their grotesque bonuses. Now they can carry out their threat.


Well after the crash the Swiss due a public outcry wisely cracked down on their systemically risky banks and some banking jobs moved to lax old London but most Swiss bank jobs stayed. However I don't see how that geographic inertia works if it's decided Euro Clearing has to be in the EU and London has bounced outside of it. Then it's a legal matter not about bottom lines and bonuses.


----------



## gosub (Apr 4, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> Well after the crash the Swiss due a public outcry wisely cracked down on their systemically risky banks and some banking jobs moved to lax old London but most Swiss bank jobs stayed. However I don't see how that geographic inertia works if it's decided Euro Clearing has to be in the EU and London has bounced outside of it. Then it's a legal matter not about bottom lines and bonuses.



Its also protectionism of a level not seen in decades. When launched the EUro was going to be a global reserve currency to put an end to US hegemony, yet more nails in the coffin of that idea.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 4, 2017)

gosub said:


> Its also protectionism of a level not seen in decades. When launched the EUro was going to be a global reserve currency to put an end to US hegemony, yet more nails in the coffin of that idea.


Rather in keeping with the new "populist" mood then.


----------



## Raheem (Apr 4, 2017)

gosub said:


> Its also protectionism of a level not seen in decades. When launched the EUro was going to be a global reserve currency to put an end to US hegemony, yet more nails in the coffin of that idea.



This would be spot on, but we may be looking at an example of the Guardian going down the pan. The Guardian puts "clearing" in its headline, but according to Reuters:



> Weber declined to answer specific questions on whether this would involve the moving of clearing of euro-denominated derivatives.



It seems implausible that it would (ETA, at least on an enforced basis), because euro clearing is done all over the world. Passporting would be a different matter, though.


----------



## gosub (Apr 4, 2017)

Raheem said:


> This would be spot on, but we may be looking at an example of the Guardian going down the pan. The Guardian puts "clearing" in its headline, but according to Reuters:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems implausible that it would, because euro clearing is done all over the world. Passporting would be a different matter, though.



FFS.  I don't grasp the chain of logic, but Dr  North's latest blog, but he may have a point, the media is as unfit for purpose as the rest of the establishment, so we could end up with a right stitch up sold as success and the vast majority of people incapable of discerning the truth


----------



## teqniq (Apr 5, 2017)




----------



## SaskiaJayne (Apr 5, 2017)

Ha! ha! latest is Theresa reckons free movement will continue after brexit. PM suggests free movement extension - BBC News brexit means remain then?


----------



## Kesher (Apr 5, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Ha! ha! latest is Theresa reckons free movement will continue after brexit. PM suggests free movement extension - BBC News brexit means remain then?



The day I heard that tautological claptrap: "Brexit means Brexit" confirmed to me that May is  devious  and ultimately incompetent.


----------



## Raheem (Apr 5, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Ha! ha! latest is Theresa reckons free movement will continue after brexit. PM suggests free movement extension - BBC News brexit means remain then?



I wouldn't worry about this. It will only be for a trial period of as long as it takes to make it permanent.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 5, 2017)

Kesher said:


> The day I heard that tautological claptrap: "Brexit means Brexit" confirmed to me that May is  devious  and ultimately incompetent.


Capital will regard such betrayals of promises to the electorate as anything but incompetent.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Apr 5, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Capital will regard such betrayals of promises to the electorate as anything but incompetent.


Yes this. While the Guardianista wring their hands & predict only doomsday the remainer Tories are quietly working with the Eurocrats to sabotage brexit. I'm guessing that's how it will work out.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 5, 2017)

ect





SaskiaJayne said:


> Yes this. While the Guardianista wring their hands & predict only doomsday the remainer Tories are quietly working with the Eurocrats to sabotage brexit. I'm guessing that's how it will work out.


Not really, IMO.
The right party of capital will, in the name of _the people,_ effect a withdrawal from the supra-state. They'll do so to remove/minimise interference in the functioning of their sacred market(s), but all the while seek to placate the more moderate (SME) elements of capital by betraying most of the, potentially damaging, 'promises' made to the credulous elements of the electorate.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 5, 2017)

Well there's a positive note.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Apr 5, 2017)

Reassuring that they are taking it seriously. Although admittedly it would be nice to see reunification.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 5, 2017)

On Bloomberg EU’s Barnier Warns U.K. to Focus on Exit or Risk No Brexit Deal


> The European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator said the U.K. must settle the details of its divorce from the EU before discussing any future free-trade deal or risk crashing out without an accord, in a rebuff to Prime Minister Theresa May.
> 
> “The U.K. government will push for parallel negotiations on the withdrawal and the future relationship,” Michel Barnier told the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France. “This is a very risky approach. To succeed, we need on the contrary to devote the first phase of negotiations exclusively to reaching an agreement on the principles of the exit.”
> 
> ...


Well the rights of citizens is a complicated enough matter to sort out in two years of divorce proceedings which is meant to be the meat of A50. Nobody knowledgeable seems to think a full EU-UK trade deal is doable in that time. In turn the UK will be in a compromised position to work on trade deals with external parties as it has really limited capacities as yet and without a framework with the EU there'll be a lot of unknowns with the RoW. 

Featuring a predictably very upset Farage insisting it's all so unfair and the remaining EU is behaving like the Mafia. Not sure if Nigel has built up a great reserve of good will to draw on there.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 5, 2017)

More of this kind of thing.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 5, 2017)

On The Maritime Executive Port of Dover Sounds the Alarm on Post-Brexit Customs


> ...
> Waggott is not the only person who is concerned; commercial and government stakeholders say that delays could be a serious problem. “We need to avoid checks at port terminals. They are configured for arrive and drive, not wait and queue,” said James Hookham of the UK's Freight Transport Association, speaking to Politico. The EU's lead negotiator on Brexit, Michel Barnier, recently used delays at the Port of Dover as an example of what could happen if Britain and the European Union can't reach a trade deal. "Severe disruption to air transport and long queues at the Channel Port of Dover are just some of the many examples of the negative consequences of failing to reach a deal," he warned.
> 
> Charlie Elphicke, the UK member of Parliament for Dover, warned in a recent interview that Britain needs to be prepared for the possibility that it will not win a favorable deal on trade with the EU, and that it is time to start preparing for customs checks. "I think the first thing that you've got to do is make sure that we've got sufficient investment in infrastructure, that we're prepared and that we've got resilience in the road system," he said. Elphicke suggested moving ahead with a truck parking area, which could be used as a checking area if needed, and upgrading freeway connections. "We've invested tens of millions in Calais, we need to invest in Dover as well," he said.


----------



## Kesher (Apr 5, 2017)

Theresa May 'sabotaged' Government plan to explain benefits of immigration to the British public


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 6, 2017)

Article 50

Don't forget you can pick up some Artic Roll 50 tat.... here ^


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 6, 2017)

Link. 

And a A50 agreement requires a qualified majority that includes countries representing 65% of the EU27 population and 78% of the members. The rather red France, Germany and Spain have 13+16+9=38% of the existing EU's population. The other countries you might want on your side if the Frogs prove difficult are Italy (12%) and Poland(8%). 

So it looks like a low exit bill and messing with the four freedoms are a non-starter. A basic trade framework looks workable and maintaining defence ties are much desired by the EU27. Of course like London insisting it's not bothered and will be fine with no deal there's probably an element of a negotiating positions here. Treating EU nationals badly could make the above go red well more pink. I'd haggle about the tab but it's probably tens of billions.

I don't think May's Brexiteers will be considering a Trumpian flounce from NATO but defence might be were UK has most leverage.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> Link.
> 
> And a A50 agreement requires a qualified majority that includes countries representing 65% of the EU27 population and 78% of the members. The rather red France, Germany and Spain have 13+16+9=38% of the existing EU's population. The other countries you might want on your side if the Frogs prove difficult are Italy (12%) and Poland(8%).
> 
> ...


Until they see the aircraft carrier without planes and the soldiers guarded by cops.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> I don't think May's Brexiteers will be considering a Trumpian flounce from NATO but defence might be were UK has most leverage.


I would have thought the opposite. Defence, if you extend that to include things like police and intelligence cooperation, is the one area where surely the UK has the hardest sell for even including it in negotiations: really, you would bargain with security? I'm already amazed by some of May's pronouncements on this, which have made her sound clueless, and they don't go down well in the tabloids.

Ironically, given that I opposed brexit, the one bit I wouldn't mind seeing disappear is the Europe-wide arrest warrant, which is a shitty system that's been misused by several countries, notably Poland. But it's the bit I would expect the UK to want to maintain virtually unchanged.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would have thought the opposite. Defence, if you extend that to include things like police and intelligence cooperation, is the one area where surely the UK has the hardest sell for even including it in negotiations: really, you would bargain with security? I'm already amazed by some of May's pronouncements on this, which have made her sound clueless, and they don't go down well in the tabloids.


She sounded clueless because she is clueless


----------



## kebabking (Apr 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would have thought the opposite. Defence, if you extend that to include things like police and intelligence cooperation, is the one area where surely the UK has the hardest sell for even including it in negotiations: really, you would bargain with security?...



To be brutal, she's bargaining with the EU's security far more than she's bargaining with the UK - the traffic flow is, while not a one way street (the French and Polish have decent Int/Sy services), a bit like the M4 one way, and the A44 the other.

The UK and France are the big Intelligence and Defence beasts in Europe, and the rest are somewhere between bit-part players and spongers. The EU structures don't really grasp that because defence/security aren't really EU competencies, but the member states very definitely do...

The reaction to May's letter was telling, if the EU countries weren't fussed about the UK giving them the big FO on defence/security, why did they get so excited about it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2017)

kebabking said:


> The reaction to May's letter was telling, if the EU countries weren't fussed about the UK giving them the big FO on defence/security, why did they get so excited about it?


How does she play that here, though? Hard to use it as a bargaining chip if you can be portrayed as risking a compromise over UK security in return for political gain. The next terrorist attack with even a hint of European involvement would be disastrous - regardless of whether or not brexit actually had anything to do with it.


----------



## Raheem (Apr 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How does she play that here, though? Hard to use it as a bargaining chip if you can be portrayed as risking a compromise over UK security in return for political gain. The next terrorist attack with even a hint of European involvement would be disastrous - regardless of whether or not brexit actually had anything to do with it.



Not to mention that she will have to get the final deal through parliament with a slim commons majority. She can pretend for now that security cooperation is a bargaining chip, but that's not the reality.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Not to mention that she will have to get the final deal through parliament with a slim commons majority. She can pretend for now that security cooperation is a bargaining chip, but that's not the reality.


That's my reading. It's nothing to do with brexit, for either side. Absurd to claim it would be. We're still in the absurd days, May mirroring Trump ffs. She reminds me of Tony Blair, worryingly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How does she play that here, though? Hard to use it as a bargaining chip if you can be portrayed as risking a compromise over UK security in return for political gain. The next terrorist attack with even a hint of European involvement would be disastrous - regardless of whether or not brexit actually had anything to do with it.


Yeh but she's clueless so it shouldn't be a great surprise


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's my reading. It's nothing to do with brexit, for either side. Absurd to claim it would be. We're still in the absurd days, May mirroring Trump ffs. She reminds me of Tony Blair, worryingly.


No, Tony Blair had an occasional inkling of what he was up to


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 6, 2017)

I would not say she is utterly clueless- she is looking for her own survival here, very selfish & seemingly not for the good of the country- I dont however see any kind of grand plan anywhere- she is winging it and playing on bluster and non tangible rhetoric. You could make a crass comparison with the pos war brit example or German wiedervereinigung process- there is no 10/ 15/ 20year target, no schedule in evidence. Utterly incompotent fuckwittery at every turn. Just like just about everyone else has hinted at in the previos 70 odd pages


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 8, 2017)

Rupert Murdoch's Sky takeover approved by European regulator

the EU bravely defending the rights of vampire billionairs, we were fools to reject such a quality institution


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 8, 2017)

In The LRB Britain: An Economy on the Brink


> ...
> There now seem to be three possible outcomes for the Brexit negotiations. In the first, Prime Minister May continues to seek an agreement tilted in favor of Britain and the negotiations likely come to a bad end before the two years are up. In this case, the UK runs a high risk of leaving the EU without any agreement on their future trading relationship, with little or nothing to show for Dr. Fox’s travels, and with severe damage to the UK economy.
> 
> The second possibility is that May comes to see the folly of her present course, and follows the pragmatic Swiss in negotiating compromises with the EU on immigration and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. She could then secure a final deal with the EU that would almost certainly not be as good as the UK’s current arrangement, but that might not be too much worse, and with damage to the UK economy that could perhaps in time be remedied. But this would require May to show a degree of fortitude in standing up to the Brexit _jusqu’au-boutistes _in her party, and to the Europhobe London press, which on recent evidence is well beyond her.
> ...


My bold, well of all the Remoaner doomsaying that really would be a very Hard Brexit indeed.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 8, 2017)

In The Irish Times Aviation sector will be at sharp end of Brexit battle


> ...
> *Overall mood*
> There are also ownership rules in Europe,obliging airlines to have majority EU ownership to fly within the EU market. Will the UK shareholders of the likes of Ryanair – which of course is Irish registered – be able to transfer their shareholdings to EU-based ownership structures so that the airlines can meet these rules? Or will the EU make things more difficult?
> 
> ...


So they reckon here that a no deal situation May was flirting with might really ground UK-EU flights for some time. And notice the Gibraltar aspect. I wonder if that also hits freight which Heathrow is a big hub for.


----------



## gosub (Apr 8, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> In The Irish Times Aviation sector will be at sharp end of Brexit battle
> So they reckon here that a no deal situation May was flirting with might really ground UK-EU flights for some time. And notice the Gibraltar aspect. I wonder if that also hits freight which Heathrow is a big hub for.


Cabotage applies on all commercial aviation.  I also this Easyjet s workaround may hit  a snag under ICAO rules, strict interpretation of which is your AOL must be in your main base of operation, you want a French or 2herever AOC.. move your ops and maintenence there... 

Without a deal kiss goodbye to Heathrow as a hub, all UK will be spoke


----------



## Raheem (Apr 8, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> In The Irish Times Aviation sector will be at sharp end of Brexit battle
> So they reckon here that a no deal situation May was flirting with might really ground UK-EU flights for some time.



That's not my reading, although I admittedly know nothing about the airline industry. Presumably, British-owned carriers will still be able to fly in and out of the EU, but a relatively minor amount of business between (other) EU countries will be under threat.


----------



## gosub (Apr 9, 2017)

Raheem said:


> That's not my reading, although I admittedly know nothing about the airline industry. Presumably, British-owned carriers will still be able to fly in and out of the EU, but a relatively minor amount of business between (other) EU countries will be under threat.



Very little flying is A-B-A. most is A-B-C-D-A  cabotage rules make all but A-B-A unworkable


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 9, 2017)

On Bloomberg Trouble Is Brewing for Guinness After Brexit

Who knew the black stuff could be affected?


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 9, 2017)

On Slugger So it turns out the UK’s economic record was pretty average even before Brexit…


> ...
> 
> Moreover, the UK is highly dependent on London and its environs. Apart from London, just one British region – the south-east of England – has a GDP per capita in excess of the EU-15 average, meaning that just 27 per cent of the UK population live in regions wealthier than that EU average.
> Far from catching-up with the richer parts of the EU – as one might expect as they adopt technologies and working practices developed elsewhere – the UK’s poor regions have fallen further behind.
> ...


The above is part of what motivated Brexit but things it'll probably not remedy. I can actually imagine the crowded migrant magnet of London and the SE getting richer after Brexit while the rest of the UK stagnates as cheap goods devastate farming and manufacturing but reckless deregulation and volatility make folk in The City very rich. That essential confidence in London of Brexiteers like Boris isn't misplaced. It's the already left behind parts of the country that are going to be shagged.

Piece does make clear how badly the UK often compares with it's neighbours. Long hours, low skills, sinking productivity, over priced accommodation and often the debt frazzled existence of being an over reaching homeowner. Doesn't mention relative tolerance, a vibrant culture(s), rather good food but you can get that in cheap chic Berlin as well. Hard to enjoy it if you don't speak some German of course.


----------



## Raheem (Apr 9, 2017)

> Hard to enjoy it if you don't speak some German of course.



Or English.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 9, 2017)

On Mainly Macro Why rejoining the EU is so problematic

A Remoaner getting way ahead of himself there.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 9, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Slugger So it turns out the UK’s economic record was pretty average even before Brexit…
> The above is part of what motivated Brexit but things it'll probably not remedy. I can actually imagine the crowded migrant magnet of London and the SE getting richer after Brexit while the rest of the UK stagnates as cheap goods devastate farming and manufacturing but reckless deregulation and volatility make folk in The City very rich. That essential confidence in London of Brexiteers like Boris isn't misplaced. It's the already left behind parts of the country that are going to be shagged.
> 
> Piece does make clear how badly the UK often compares with it's neighbours. Long hours, low skills, sinking productivity, over priced accommodation and often the debt frazzled existence of being an over reaching homeowner. Doesn't mention relative tolerance, a vibrant culture(s), rather good food but you can get that in cheap chic Berlin as well. Hard to enjoy it if you don't speak some German of course.


Tbh anybody that believed the Tory bollocks about the UK's miracle economic revival was off their nut, but then there are a lot of people making macro-economic decisions who don't live in the real world.

I don't really see that London and the SE will benefit from Brexit. Even from the POV of multinationals, it seems almost certain that the UK will get a shitty deal from leaving Europe that will work out to mean this is a less favourable place to do business; there will probably be some tax breaks etc but even that seems at best to make up for the former. And obviously reliance on this sort of capital is one of the things that makes London's economy such an unhealthy bubble anyway, and favourable laws make that worse.

OTOH I don't really think Brexit will do much apart from maybe accelerate the effects of the structural problems we already have, so that's something to feel positive about.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 9, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Tbh anybody that believed the Tory bollocks about the UK's miracle economic revival was off their nut, but then there are a lot of people making macro-economic decisions who don't live in the real world.
> 
> I don't really see that London and the SE will benefit from Brexit. Even from the POV of multinationals, it seems almost certain that the UK will get a shitty deal from leaving Europe that will work out to mean this is a less favourable place to do business; there will probably be some tax breaks etc but even that seems at best to make up for the former. And obviously reliance on this sort of capital is one of the things that makes London's economy such an unhealthy bubble anyway, and favourable laws make that worse.
> 
> OTOH I don't really think Brexit will do much apart from maybe accelerate the effects of the structural problems we already have, so that's something to feel positive about.


Agree with you on the systemic risk of an under regulated City. Leaving the EU was complicated enough but Brexit under May is just going to be an express ride to even more loony neoliberalism in an desperate Tory attempt to cope with the big transitional downsides. 

I was rather anticipating a Singapore on Thames bubble as well as speculators let rip. Often happens after big trade changes. It may pop but volatility is good for bankers especially when the British seem to have rather meekly accepted after the last crash that all that risk pool spreads across the whole country and the austerity con was the answer.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 11, 2017)

On Slugger Brexit bites as EU workers start to say screw you UK we are outa here…


> ...
> Anyway, one of our baby buddies is a nice German couple. Dispute our local cynicism the foreigners I come across love living in Belfast. Sure, the buses never turn up on time and there is dogsh*t everywhere but they like the friendliness of the people. This German couple were happy working away in a local pharmaceutical company, enjoying life in Belfast and all was right in the world. Until, you guessed it, Brexit.
> 
> Although it has not even happened yet the uncertainty is enough for foreign workers to start packing their bags. In the case of the German couple, they have a second child on the way. Before Brexit, they planned to buy a house in Belfast now there is just too much uncertainty. Instead, they are busy applying for jobs in Germany and Switzerland. Also, there is a feeling of the UK just do not want us anymore so feck ya we are out of here.
> ...


Belfast probably was one of the more adventurous choices for Germans even before Brexit. It's actually safer than some British cities these days but you can fall out with the wrong guys. One young friend of mine was renting with a Pole and got threatened with being burnt out a couple of years ago. I did notice a jibes at EU folk after the Leave vote. Bit sad N.I. has low levels of immigration. It's still a place a lot of educated locals like myself choose to escape because it's a small pond and opportunities are better elsewhere. It probably benefitted from skilled EU people having an easy path to try living there. It's actually quite attractive if you are a countryside loving German.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 11, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Bloomberg Trouble Is Brewing for Guinness After Brexit
> 
> Who knew the black stuff could be affected?




Thats a bit of a pointless fucking trip then really isn't it? Package the stuff in Dublin you twats.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Thats a bit of a pointless fucking trip then really isn't it? Package the stuff in Dublin you twats.


the drives north and south are in fact essential for the flavour

next


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> the drives north and south are in fact essential for the flavour
> 
> next




Its the Semtex that does it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Its the Semtex that does it.







guinness and semtex very popular in the czech republick


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 11, 2017)

Czechia now bro'


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Czechia now bro'


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 11, 2017)

I actually saw it on a google map for the first time today as I was planning a driving route to SW Poland next month


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 11, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> the drives north and south are in fact essential for the flavour
> 
> next


Nah, Slab Murphy gets to siphon off his share in Newry.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 11, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Thats a bit of a pointless fucking trip then really isn't it? Package the stuff in Dublin you twats.


Specialisation is what drives trade. Ireland is tiny with limited industrial capacity. It's really not much of a trip. I imagine it was cheaper that way or they would not do it. Be a pity if East Belfast lost the jobs because of some daft malarkey with Brexit and ending up with a hard border.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 11, 2017)

On Bloomberg Understanding the U.K.'s Strange Singapore Envy


> ...
> But can a big(gish), diverse, resource-rich, democratic nation such as Britain really follow in the path of a tiny, semi-autocratic city-state? I've been a fan for a while of the writings of David Skilling, a New Zealander based in Singapore who advises small countries and the corporations doing business in them on how to succeed in this big, scary world. One of his main arguments is that the success of Singapore -- and other small economies such as Denmark, Ireland and Switzerland -- has less to do with specific policy choices than with some core national attributes. Those small states succeed, as I paraphrased Skilling a few years ago, because:
> 
> _They’re cohesive, and thus able to make policy decisions quickly and stick with them.
> ...


Singapore on Thames is a neoliberal dream Tory eurosceptics are apt to gibber about funny to think it might be more applicable to an independent Scotland which might be one side effect of the Brexit.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 12, 2017)

On Bloomberg EU Won’t Back Trade Deal If U.K. Chooses ‘Singapore-on-Thames’


> European Union states are unlikely to ratify a post-Brexit trade deal with the British government should the U.K. seek to recast itself as a regulation-light “Singapore-on-Thames,” according to the EU’s ambassador to the World Trade Organization.
> 
> “They don’t want a free-rider on their doorstep,” Ambassador Marc Vanheukelen said in an interview in Geneva. The EU’s 27 member states and 34 national and regional parliaments would balk at such a plan, he said.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately this is precisely why Brexit appealed to some Tory eurosceptics. Setting up a low tax neoliberal paradise offshored from the restraining EU's regulatory clutches. Exactly the same faction that anticipated a no strings trade deal because of the UK's mighty leverage. I'd anticipate some wiggle room here. The trouble here is this is going to cause an inter-Tory bunfight and if there's no deal it'll default out to Hard Brexit with all sorts of damaging consequences.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 12, 2017)

On Bloomberg Brexit Negotiations May Have to Wait for a New German Government




Tick, tick, tick.

It was always a bit bold of May to pull the trigger on A50 with French and German elections looming but I assume that's as long as late as Tory party politics could bear.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 12, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Bloomberg Trouble Is Brewing for Guinness After Brexit
> 
> Who knew the black stuff could be affected?





Pickman's model said:


> the drives north and south are in fact essential for the flavour
> 
> next





CrabbedOne said:


> Specialisation is what drives trade. Ireland is tiny with limited industrial capacity. It's really not much of a trip. I imagine it was cheaper that way or they would not do it. Be a pity if East Belfast lost the jobs because of some daft malarkey with Brexit and ending up with a hard border.



It has nothing to do with saving them a fortune in tax, or so I am told


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 12, 2017)

hash tag said:


> It has nothing to do with saving them a fortune in tax, or so I am told


the saving in tax is incidental, it's the improvement in the flavour which is the driving motive for the transport.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 12, 2017)

Would that because it is well shaken (not stirred). What short memories some of us seem to have 

Ernest Saunders - Wikipedia


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 12, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Would that because it is well shaken (not stirred). What short memories some of us seem to have
> 
> Ernest Saunders - Wikipedia


yes, we all recall the miracle man.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 13, 2017)

On The Yorkshire Ranter the Airbus supply chain, the press, and leopards


> ...
> To adapt a now-classic joke, it’s as if the Institute of Leopards and Faceripping had issued the following warning: _Voting for the Leopards Ripping Your Face Off Party may cause your face to be ripped off by leopards!_ And the _Daily Telegraph_ replies: _We’ve had enough of experts’ so-called advice. Vote leopard!_
> 
> 52% duly vote for the leopards. A few months on, the Institute of Leopards is back: _We’re observing unusually high incidences of faceripping associated with leopard activity._ And the _Daily Telegraph_ is all: _Shit! Leopards! Somebody do something!_


From the DT:


> ...
> Paul Brooks, Santander's head of business development for manufacturing, said: “The UK is 'hardwired' into the global supply chain".
> 
> "Our aerospace industry has thrived off the back of its competitive advantage in the production of high-value added technology-intensive products, and we forecast that this will continue. Since 2002, the UK industry has more than doubled overseas sales from £13.2 billion to £28.3 billion, an increase of 114pc," he added.
> ...


Bit of a trickier one that than the Guinness example.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 13, 2017)

‘That’s not our Jolly Fisherman’ - child’s view of front page that is shocking Skegness




Skegness residents not happy with piss take newspaper cover.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 13, 2017)

They nicked that from viz


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 13, 2017)

Viz got some shit for that at the time as well- Skegness own the copyright to the jolly sailor motif


----------



## treelover (Apr 13, 2017)

> I call BS on your "facts".
> 
> Go research, and you'll find out who has to be subsidised with thousands of pounds - it's your fellow nationals, the Brits, who sit comfortably in their state benefits, being too posh for doing honest work in the fields. Sky TV subscription is more important to them.



Comment on Guardian article on Brexit, already has 30 recommends, who are these people?


----------



## treelover (Apr 13, 2017)

> Hi, I'm a non-EU immigrant of 6 years, married to a natural-born Brit. I personally pay more in income tax alone than the average British household makes in a year. I pay both income tax and National Insurance, but have no access to public funds or benefits of any kind, and I have to pay a yearly fee to access the NHS.
> 
> That's right, immigrants SUBSIDISE YOUR BENEFITS. If I were to become disabled tomorrow, my British husband & I would get zero help whatsoever. The social safety net doesn't exist for me. But please tell me more about how immigrants are ruining the country and stealing your benefits... because the majority of immigrants here are FUNDING them. You're welcome.



and another one, its getting very divisive.


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 13, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On The Yorkshire Ranter the Airbus supply chain, the press, and leopards
> From the DT:
> Bit of a trickier one that than the Guinness example.


Airbus was moving wing work away from the UK to Korea long before brexit.
How many new production sites has Airbus opened in the Eu in the last 10 years compared to outside the Eu? 
While Airbus has had a stop on recruitment in Europe for years (organic head count reduction and early retirement plans), they've opened huge final assembly lines in Alabama (for its right to work laws -i.e no unions allowed) and China - where they've also invested heavily in a huge composite manufacturing facility.

I cant see the expensive Germans getting much of a look in for new workloads, and the only reason why Spain would be considered isn't a ringing endorsement of the Eu tbf.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 13, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> ‘That’s not our Jolly Fisherman’ - child’s view of front page that is shocking Skegness
> 
> Skegness residents not happy with piss take newspaper cover.


Christ, didn't realise that this piece of shit was still going.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 13, 2017)

Seems to have gone a bit quiet since Article 50 was invoked.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 14, 2017)

In The Irish Times British government realises Brexit is a mistake, official says


> ...
> The official, John Callinan, said on Thursday: “I see signs in the contacts that we’re having, both at EU level and with the UK, of a gradual realisation that Brexit in many ways is an act of great self-harm, and that the focus now is on minimising that self-harm.”
> 
> The remarks by Mr Callinan, the second secretary-general at the Department of the Taoiseach, were delivered at a Brexit seminar organised by the trade unions Impact and Siptu.
> ...


Later compares it to the RoI bailout period.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 14, 2017)

treelover said:


> Comment on Guardian article on Brexit, already has 30 recommends, who are these people?


Guardian readers

Next


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 14, 2017)

On Bloomberg Le Pen Could Boost the Brexit-Battered Pound


> ...
> If we get a Le Pen outcome, that’s going to be a negative for financial stability overall and with that negative for growth,” said Mark Nash, the head of global bonds at Old Mutual Global Investors, which oversees about $37 billion. “What you would see in that situation is the U.K. looking better than the rest of Europe. You’d have the issue of the euro zone breaking up and therefore you’d have sterling becoming a safe-haven asset essentially.”
> 
> The premium on two-week contracts to sell the euro versus the pound over those to buy widened above 2 percentage points Wednesday. That was the biggest premium based on end-of-day prices since records began in 2005, Bloomberg risk-reversals data showed.
> ...


Looking on the bright side of a greater European collapse.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 18, 2017)

In The Irish Times Ministers criticise UK assumption that it could retain key EU agencies after Brexit


> ...
> Senior Government figures have criticised the UK’s attempts to retain two big European Union agencies in London after Brexit.
> 
> Two Ministers yesterday confirmed that the Republic of Ireland was competing to be the future home of the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority. The British government’s department for exiting the European Union, headed by David Davis, had claimed that the future location of the agencies would be decided during Brexit negotiations.
> ...


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 18, 2017)

On Politico Brussels’ Brexit plan: Treat the UK like Norway


> ...
> Brussels now has a plan B: The U.K. could temporarily become a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) while both sides transition into their future relationship, a senior Commission official told POLITICO.
> 
> Joining EFTA, which governs free trade between Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, would allow the U.K. to apply for membership in the European Economic Area (EEA). That grants free access to the EU’s single market. The option — often dubbed the “Norway model” — would preserve current trade ties with the EU and spare the U.K. from negative economic consequences until future trade relations with the EU are sorted out, the official said. It would also retain ties in the area of services.
> ...


The Semi-Brexit.

Much of the entanglements of membership but with little influence. Interim membership of EFTA while UK-EU trade gets sorted out sounds like a sensible strategy but I doubt it's going to work. Complicated to pull off with the EU and very toxic within the Tory party.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Politico Brussels’ Brexit plan: Treat the UK like Norway
> The Semi-Brexit.
> 
> Much of the entanglements of membership but with little influence. Interim membership of EFTA while UK-EU trade gets sorted out sounds like a sensible strategy but I doubt it's going to work. Complicated to pull off with the EU and very toxic within the Tory party.


Electoral suicide.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 18, 2017)

brogdale said:


> Electoral suicide.


Yes Boris's Brexitland is now a cup of hemlock. Interesting a civilised separation followed by a real divorce being presented at all.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 18, 2017)

On Mark Pack's blog The Conservative weak spot on Brexit – and how Theresa May could be the next John Major

A damned hard thing to negotiate at the best of times but May's got a pack of backstabbing "bastards" to her rear just as tricksy Brussels presents a soft Brexit option like a vaudeville custard pie.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 18, 2017)

On Wired Look out, London. Berlin's startup scene is ready for a Brexit bonanza


> ...
> A decade ago, Berlin was barely a speck on Europe’s technology map; now it’s home to more than 2,500 startups. According to Ernst & Young, Berlin startups raised €2.4 billion in venture capital funding in 2015, more than London or Stockholm. As the money pours in, Mindspace’s investment in the city is being echoed elsewhere. “Berlin is getting stronger and stronger,” says Stefan Franzke, head of business and technology at investment agency Berlin Partner. “Every person I spoke to hates Brexit; hates nationalism. Berlin is really a city of freedom. We are open-minded, we have different nations, we love to hear different languages.” Spend time with Berlin-based startups and investors and it’s a pitch you hear time and time again: Berlin is for everyone. According to Franzke, the uncertainty around Brexit is already causing consternation amongst startups. “There’s a lot of waiting. Is it a soft Brexit or is it a hard Brexit? Nobody knows. A lot of talent is leaving the UK. A lot of talent is from the south of Europe and Poland and they don’t feel welcome. In Berlin, they are welcome.”
> 
> Despite sharp increases, rental rates in Berlin are still dwarfed by prices in other western European capitals. One bedroom apartments in the city centre go for around €700 per month; in London, that figure is regularly more than doubled.
> ...


Germany's certainly doing some good PR.


----------



## gosub (Apr 18, 2017)

gosub said:


> Yes, still do. If we had an election tomorrow tories would be returned with a larger majority
> 
> 
> I'm not the only one, Green's have put themselves on election footing due to the number of Tory ppc's doing photo shoots in Westminster in the last month...



And yet all the tv political editors are surprised


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 18, 2017)

On Wired Brexit 1.0: massive holes in the Dover Strait reveal how Britain split from Europe

A quite spectacularly Wet Brexit.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 19, 2017)

On Bloomberg Here’s Where London Bankers Are Moving After Brexit

So far sill in four figures.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 19, 2017)

_On Bloomberg_, _On Wired_, _On Breitbart_,_ On some fucking blog no one's heard of_. Almost every post, a hundred times a day. It's basically spamming. Just stop it.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 19, 2017)

Am I right in thinking that May probably realised that she had the opportunity to call this election now because until the French and German elections are held any negotiations at this point are fairly meaningless and the real negotiations won't begin until after those elections?


----------



## gosub (Apr 19, 2017)

free spirit said:


> Am I right in thinking that May probably realised that she had the opportunity to call this election now because until the French and German elections are held any negotiations at this point are fairly meaningless and the real negotiations won't begin until after those elections?



Hammond has been telling her that for a while apparently.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 19, 2017)

free spirit said:


> Am I right in thinking that May probably realised that she had the opportunity to call this election now because until the French and German elections are held any negotiations at this point are fairly meaningless and the real negotiations won't begin until after those elections?



I don't think she cares much about brexit negotiations tbh. She's certainly not behaving like someone who takes the matter seriously. Even if there won't be any EU-wide talks for a while yet, I reckon there is probably something the government could be getting on with now to better prepare for them given the scale of the diplomatic tasks ahead.

The reason Theresa May is calling this a Brexit election is becaus it's not that at all. It's a my majority isn't big enough election. If May had a coherent plan, something she genuinely believed in, wouldn't she be confident of gaining at least the support of her own party? For me, she's not positioning herself and her party to make a success of brexit, she's positioning herself and her party to survive it. Success is not on the table, even if we did know what 'success' actually meant in this context.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 19, 2017)

A while ago I swore to myself I'd never use the word brexit. Now I find myself worrying over whether or not I should capitalise it.

Still, at least we still hae a choice about that eh?


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 20, 2017)

In The FT EU toughens stance on citizens’ rights – new Brexit draft guidelines

EU officials understandably unhappy with the 85 page form EU nationals seeking residency have to go through. 

There's been a lot of complaints about how Kafkaesque the whole process is even for Brits trying to get permission to bring foreign kin in.


----------



## Kesher (Apr 22, 2017)

Brexit won't free the UK from being influenced by the European Court of Justice, says former judge

May and her Brexiteer ministers' _"Invincible ignorance"_


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2017)

Kesher said:


> Brexit won't free the UK from being influenced by the European Court of Justice, says former judge
> 
> May and her Brexiteer ministers' _"Invincible ignorance"_





> “You can escape the jurisdiction of the ECJ, but you have got to comply with EU standards if you are going to export into the EU,” he told _The Independent_.
> 
> “And who decides what these standards are ultimately if there’s a problem? It’s the ECJ.”



_I.e people like me. We own this shit not you. _

Sir David Alexander Ogilvy Edward - Edward was born in 1934 in Perth and educated at Clifton Hall School and Sedbergh School. He studied Classics at University College, Oxford, taking a break midway for National Service in the Navy (HMS Hornet, 1956–57), and Law at the University of Edinburgh. Edward was awarded the Distinguished Cross, first class, Order of St. Raymond of Peñafort (Spain) in 1979, [Orden de San Raimundo de Peñafort, Cruz Distinguida (Primera Clase)], and in 2012 the Republic of France appointed him as an Officer of the Legion of Honour (Officier de la Légion d'honneur) and Chevalier de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres.

That stuff by him is a statement of patrician ownership of society - nothing else. Invincible arrogance if you will. In fact his use of the catholic concept of invincible ignorance (that is, the errors into which those who have not heard _the goods news_ fall) is a really good example of this.


----------



## Raheem (Apr 22, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> That stuff by him is a statement of patrician ownership of society - nothing else.



He sort of does that just by being a senior judge with a knighthood. Do you think he's actually wrong about anything in particular, though?


----------



## mather (Apr 22, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> _I.e people like me. We own this shit not you. _
> 
> Sir David Alexander Ogilvy Edward - Edward was born in 1934 in Perth and educated at Clifton Hall School and Sedbergh School. He studied Classics at University College, Oxford, taking a break midway for National Service in the Navy (HMS Hornet, 1956–57), and Law at the University of Edinburgh. Edward was awarded the Distinguished Cross, first class, Order of St. Raymond of Peñafort (Spain) in 1979, [Orden de San Raimundo de Peñafort, Cruz Distinguida (Primera Clase)], and in 2012 the Republic of France appointed him as an Officer of the Legion of Honour (Officier de la Légion d'honneur) and Chevalier de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres.
> 
> That stuff by him is a statement of patrician ownership of society - nothing else. Invincible arrogance if you will. In fact his use of the catholic concept of invincible ignorance (that is, the errors into which those who have not heard _the goods news_ fall) is a really good example of this.



Spot on. It really is a pathetic sight to see these liberals grovelling at every pronouncement from some posh toff in a dressed in silly clothes and a wig.


----------



## gosub (Apr 22, 2017)

Headline in the Times  is TTIP back on, only without UK


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 24, 2017)

On Politico European Commission wants UK to pay Brexit costs — in euros

Calculated to give Nigel Farage an embolism.


----------



## gosub (Apr 24, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Politico European Commission wants UK to pay Brexit costs — in euros
> 
> Calculated to give Nigel Farage an embolism.



Not just Farage, "any costs related to its departure from the EU, such as the relocation of agencies now hosted by the U.K.," fuck EU and the horse EU rode in on.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2017)

oh so they aren't benevolent at all but a bunch of vengeful mercenary pricks? Thats schaubles off my xmas card list


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 24, 2017)

gosub said:


> Headline in the Times  is TTIP back on, only without UK




Pretty sure it'll be TTIP back on without the EU tbh.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 24, 2017)

Not good if the exit bill is in Euros. All based on Le Pen not winning the next round of course and stranger things have happened.


----------



## gosub (Apr 24, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> Not good if the exit bill is in Euros. All based on Le Pen not winning the next round of course and stranger things have happened.




For me, Italy is the one to watch


----------



## paolo (Apr 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> My plan is to stay away from the TV and all large, open public spaces for at least a fortnight.



The Corbyn referendum tactic


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 24, 2017)

paolo said:


> The Corbyn referendum tactic


How memories fade


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 24, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> Not good if the exit bill is in Euros. All based on Le Pen not winning the next round of course and stranger things have happened.



Not good if exit bill in euros? So I suppose it would be better if a pound bought 50c.


----------



## paolo (Apr 24, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> A wrangling that was reflective of wider opinion amongst the populace.



I'll dig out new numbers if you want - a fair challenge - but the leaving the EU thing was off the bottom of people's top 10 issues, *until* the referendum was announced.

It wasn't that people were particularly pro or anti. They were indifferent. The idea that the referendum was being clamoured for is bollocks. I started the first thread about the referendum promise on urban, and for the best part of a year, it barely got a post. Nobody gave a shit. And beyond Urban, nobody gave a shit either.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 25, 2017)

Asking the UK to pay for relocation costs for EU agencies is as bonkers as companies asking governments (of the UK or EU) to pay for their relocation costs post Brexit.  You want to move something, you suck it up and pay for that move.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 25, 2017)

paolo said:


> I'll dig out new numbers if you want - a fair challenge - but the leaving the EU thing was off the bottom of people's top 10 issues, *until* the referendum was announced.
> 
> It wasn't that people were particularly pro or anti. They were indifferent. The idea that the referendum was being clamoured for is bollocks. I started the first thread about the referendum promise on urban, and for the best part of a year, it barely got a post. Nobody gave a shit. And beyond Urban, nobody gave a shit either.



Tbf, you only posted 8 times on your own thread after starting it in May 2015, and you didn't post your second post on it until May 2016 - a whole year later. Before that point, there was 1337 posts/45 pages of posts made by the rest of us.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2017)

It got 400 replies in the first three weeks paolo - did you really expect that rate to carry or for a whole year?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Asking the UK to pay for relocation costs for EU agencies is as bonkers as companies asking governments (of the UK or EU) to pay for their relocation costs post Brexit.  You want to move something, you suck it up and pay for that move.


The EU is happy to do the former or something similar for many large companies.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2017)

Weird this, many remain voters  have argued that the eu vote was pretty much all about immigration (like paolo?). Here he argues the eu wasn't on voters radar and has the figures to back it up. How then does he explain persistent findings across all polling groups that immigration was one of the key issues for voters? Was the eu vote about immigration or not?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Apr 25, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Pretty sure it'll be TTIP back on without the EU tbh.



Probably, but at least now we have a chance to fight it.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 25, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Probably, but at least now we have a chance to fight it.




I admire your optimism.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 25, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Probably, but at least now we have a chance to fight it.



Quite. It's easier at least to fight on a UK level with such things, than as part of 28 member states, and for most people, an even less accessible/influenceable EU structure than our own government.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 25, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Quite. It's easier at least to fight on a UK level with such things, than as part of 28 member states, and for most people, an even less accessible/influenceable EU structure than our own government.




There will be no will to fight it from much of the populace and the MPs will fucking lap it up.


At least in the EU we had campaigns that did tell their governments 'no' 


I will get on board any fight there is but realistically they are going to ride roughshod over any fight against it.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Apr 25, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> I admire your optimism.



Why thank you. They call me Mr Optimism, all sunbeams and candyfloss.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 25, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> There will be no will to fight it from much of the populace and the MPs will fucking lap it up.
> 
> 
> At least in the EU we had campaigns that did tell their governments 'no'
> ...



Lol. The EU won't do that with TTIP, let alone other neoliberal trade agreements. Where's the EU in pushing back member states on their opening up of markets to privatisation, weakening their labour laws/rights? Oh wait, its actively involved in the opposite.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> There will be no will to fight it from much of the populace and the MPs will fucking lap it up.
> 
> 
> At least in the EU we had campaigns that did tell their governments 'no'
> ...


What campaigns are you thinking of?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 25, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> What campaigns are you thinking of?




TTIP protesters take to streets across Germany


Tens of thousands protest in Europe against Atlantic free trade deals

Thousands protest TTIP, CETA deals in France, Poland, & Spain as EU vote looms closer


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 25, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> TTIP protesters take to streets across Germany
> 
> 
> Tens of thousands protest in Europe against Atlantic free trade deals
> ...



That's protests by people in those member states, not 'in the EU we had campaigns'. It's not even dependent on being inside or outside the EU - it's normal people and groups protesting about issues, as they've always done to try and influence either their governments and/or institutions. And how much is the EU taking this into account if TTIP is back on the cards again?

And how are those protests any different to any protests that people/groups here also are involved in? E.g. about issues such as the NHS, or cuts? Being inside the EU isn't putting any specific pressure on our government by the EU to stop austerity, build more social housing, stop privatising the NHS is it? As per usual, governments will try and do what they want for the benefit of capital and class interests, whilst the people fight to gain concessions.

Have some people on the left had fucking lobotomies because I'm clearly missing something somewhere?!


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 25, 2017)

Hearing politicians / TV saying "Breg-zit" not "Brek-sit" is seriously starting to do my head in


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 25, 2017)

Anti-TTIP is a good example of European political solidarity IMO. Despite the positive stuff in the linked article a page or two back it's still pretty dead for the EC and is even more dead without the UK govt involved. What we'll get on our own remains to be seen.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> TTIP protesters take to streets across Germany
> 
> 
> Tens of thousands protest in Europe against Atlantic free trade deals
> ...


Sorry, i thought you meant that there were successful campaigns within the EU that told the EU no and that the EU then said _OK, you're the people, it's up to you._ What i have seen is the EU say the latter to states and then when they don't like the results say _sorry no, you're wrong and are going to have to vote again to make that clear to everyone. And this time, make sure you agree with us._

Do people in this country not protest anyway? Or do you mean that they did when we were in the EU but won't be able to once we've left?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 25, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> That's protests by people in those member states, not 'in the EU we had campaigns'. It's not even dependent on being inside or outside the EU - it's normal people and groups protesting about issues, as they've always done to try and influence either their governments and/or institutions. And how much is the EU taking this into account if TTIP is back on the cards again?
> 
> And how are those protests any different to any protests that people/groups here also are involved in? E.g. about issues such as the NHS, or cuts? Being inside the EU isn't putting any specific pressure on our government by the EU to stop austerity, build more social housing, stop privatising the NHS is it? As per usual, governments will try and do what they want for the benefit of capital and class interests, whilst the people fight to gain concessions.
> 
> Have some people on the left had fucking lobotomies because I'm clearly missing something somewhere?!



Because the protestors on those countries had a government that gives a flying fuck what they think. They are able to mount pressure and have people react to them.


Any protests, even under Labour governments are ignored and the same bastards get back in time and time again. Anyone who protests in this country is told to jog on by Westminster, the media and by fellow citizens. The only strike I've seen get sympathy is the junior doctors and that's still a mess.


I'm not saying don't protest, I'm not saying it's a waste of time but I am saying we will be ignored and told to suck it up by the people in charge.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 25, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Because the protestors on those countries had a government that gives a flying fuck what they think. They are able to mount pressure and have people react to them.
> 
> 
> Any protests, even under Labour governments are ignored and the same bastards get back in time and time again. Anyone who protests in this country is told to jog on by Westminster, the media and by fellow citizens. The only strike I've seen get sympathy is the junior doctors and that's still a mess.
> ...



You're all over the shop, sorry.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 25, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> You're all over the shop, sorry.




Any protests will be ignored by the establishment and the perpetrators spun as kooks at best.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2017)

Of course, it's all diff in the EU.


----------



## YouSir (Apr 25, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Any protests will be ignored by the establishment and the perpetrators spun as kooks at best.



But only here, because everyone else lives in a worker's utopia..?


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 25, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Anti-TTIP is a good example of European political solidarity IMO. Despite the positive stuff in the linked article a page or two back it's still pretty dead for the EC and is even more dead without the UK govt involved. What we'll get on our own remains to be seen.



Yes, European political solidarity. It was framed as 'in the EU we had campaigns' and neither is that true, nor the same thing. And lots of protests have always had a European-wide (and beyond) approach and solidarity. All the better imo that this happens outside some sense of 'EU' and collectively between people, nationally and at the European level.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 25, 2017)

YouSir said:


> But only here, because everyone else lives in a worker's utopia..?




Certainly better than this conservative voting ukip supporting shower of shits.


----------



## Raheem (Apr 25, 2017)

twentythreedom said:


> Hearing politicians / TV saying "Breg-zit" not "Brek-sit" is seriously starting to do my head in



I wouldn't let it get to you. It's just the way people say it if they've passed lots of eksams.


----------



## inva (Apr 25, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Certainly better than this conservative voting ukip supporting shower of shits.


let's go to France where Le Pen and some neoliberal rat just got in the 2nd round


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 25, 2017)

inva said:


> let's go to France where Le Pen and some neoliberal rat just got in the 2nd round



Quite.


----------



## YouSir (Apr 25, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Certainly better than this conservative voting ukip supporting shower of shits.



Yes, no conservatives, neo-liberals or cunts running any EU other nation...


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 25, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I wouldn't let it get to you. It's just the way people say it if they've passed lots of eksams.


Now that I've started noticing it I hear it every time  

X = eggs


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2017)

David Allen green's article for the FT is interesting - first part Here, more over the next few days. Subscribe to read


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2017)

Hm, it says subscribe to read, but I just read without subscribing. Hopefully it'll work out for you too.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 25, 2017)

killer b said:


> David Allen green's article for the FT is interesting - first part Here, more over the next few days. Subscribe to read








Clever clogs.


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2017)

I'm not sure we've all confidently predicted things in the last 12 months only to find ourselves overtaken by events. Green has his issues (not least being a Lib Dem), but he's often good on the detail.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 28, 2017)

On Slugger Another curious Brexit side effect. Companies may get grants to move jobs out of the UK…


> ...
> But what happens when the UK leaves the EU, and it is no longer a member state? Well, then it is open season on Eurozone members poaching jobs from the UK. Suddenly the Chech Republic will say to Nissan, why not move your factory to our country? We make very well built Skodas we will have no problem making lovely shiny Nissans. Not only are salaries cheaper, but we will grant aid you, and as we are part of the Eurozone there will be no import tariffs on your products.
> 
> You can see where this is going. Queue flood of companies leaving the UK to chase grant money and cheaper wages in the Eurozone. Remember all those companies Invest NI pumped millions into? But then they vanished when the grants ran out?
> ...


It could be a bit perverse if you think about it. Having your production in an island off The Continent where let's say your market is. Enduring rather high transport/energy costs etc. For lack of local skills or enthusiasm ending up largely importing a workforce from the EU8 with its far lower living costs and then having to pay them more to live in Belfast. In a now fast growing Poland your plant investment would probably be a far sounder one. Of course Belfast being Belfast there may well have been a rich UK subsidy to milk but add on all the potential complications of Brexit to your supply chain and a move East might well appeal even if the EU27 were not competitively offering bungs.


----------



## Smangus (Apr 28, 2017)

The answer to all this of course is Strong and Stable Leadership for the country


----------



## kabbes (Apr 28, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Slugger Another curious Brexit side effect. Companies may get grants to move jobs out of the UK…
> It could be a bit perverse if you think about it. Having your production in an island off The Continent where let's say your market is. Enduring rather high transport/energy costs etc. For lack of local skills or enthusiasm ending up largely importing a workforce from the EU8 with its far lower living costs and then having to pay them more to live in Belfast. In a now fast growing Poland your plant investment would probably be a far sounder one. Of course Belfast being Belfast there may well have been a rich UK subsidy to milk but add on all the potential complications of Brexit to your supply chain and a move East might well appeal even if the EU27 were not competitively offering bungs.


Because it isn't actually that simple.  Why have companies sited themselves in the UK in the first place, given its location on the outer edges on Europe and its different currency to the rest of the EU?  Because there is more to an infrastructure than where the wages are cheapest, is why.  You need various types of skillset from top to bottom, and it might be harder to get those in Poland than it is to get the cheap labour in the U.K.  You need access to all the support services too -- third party suppliers of all types -- and these also might not be so readily available elsewhere.  If it were so easy, companies would have gone five years ago.


----------



## paolo (Apr 28, 2017)

I guess the question then is how far are we from the tipping point of the current benefits of assembly in the UK.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 28, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Because it isn't actually that simple.  Why have companies sited themselves in the UK in the first place, given its location on the outer edges on Europe and its different currency to the rest of the EU?  Because there is more to an infrastructure than where the wages are cheapest, is why.  You need various types of skillset from top to bottom, and it might be harder to get those in Poland than it is to get the cheap labour in the U.K.  You need access to all the support services too -- third party suppliers of all types -- and these also might not be so readily available elsewhere.  If it were so easy, companies would have gone five years ago.


Believe me fixed costs showing up on the quarterly bottom line are often a factor in where you do things. Sterling having continually fallen was one of the main reasons I've seen for creating skilled jobs in the UK rather than on the continent. I got offered a contract in London directly after Sterling tanked last year. It would have been elsewhere otherwise (CA or Switzerland) and at a far better rate. A major factor that locks jobs down to an area is plant and real estate investment. That can make even pricy skill rich Switzerland a good longterm bet but if the Swiss Franc is strong jobs do go elsewhere.

Compare the skill sets available in Poland and you'll find they are better in general than the UK due to good vocational training and free university. Poles tell me only really stupid people have to pay for a degree there. For employers the UK has a big skills problem that's being patched up by EU8 labour. The problem you'll have in Warsaw is its skilled young people are currently being creamed off to the great benefit of economies like the UK. Having offshored a department to Warsaw in the early noughties a multinational I worked for ended up having to subcontract to Ankara and Bangalore to find skilled people to work with Warsaw. The Poles squarely blamed the UK and the RoI for that brain drain. A Polish optimist might hope that's coming to an end with Brexit and growing British hostility to migrants. 

On Slugger they are talking about Belfast here not London. Belfast unlike London is likely to suffer badly from the changes around Brexit. Not just direct effects but the collateral Tory slashing of the state and focus on England that will likely follow. Belfast unlike say the English NE has traditionally had very generous support from the English Tax payer. Thanks to that is Belfast infrastructure these days much better than Warsaw's which the EU has pumped money into to develop? Having work in both for example the roads are better in Belfast and Warsaw tends to get gridlocked. It's a bit like Dublin in that respect. A lot of manufacturing these days relies on distant rather than local supply chains that the complex borders that Brexit promises will fuck up. 

There are simply not so many good reasons to run a business in Belfast apart from UK subsidies. It's still viewed as a gamble on political stability by foreign investors. Indian call centres have been known to choose Belfast over India because of those juicy subsidies but you are not investing in much there. You add that and end to that plus a pre-Thatcherite public sector that's liable to shrink and Belfast will end up looking more like some unemployment blackspot on the Tyne.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 28, 2017)

paolo said:


> I guess the question then is how far are we from the tipping point of the current benefits of assembly in the UK.


If you mean The Union I'd say the English have long had a raw deal compared to the rather sweet one Westminster had with finessed the EU. A rich country with one of the lower per capita EU contributions, remaining outside Schengen and the Euro.

The numbers on the side of the Brexit bus describing UK payments to the EU were I recall pretty comparable to the UK subsidy to N.I. Something English voters seem largely unaware of. The only benefit I can think of for that spend is having some nice fly fishing in country. RoI voters would never offer that sort of lavish support to the North; they are not such mugs. 

Imagine what that might have done for often worse off folks in England. Especially the post-industrial North that would really have benefitted from the sort of subsidies, enlarged public sector and relative autonomy we've largely failed to appreciate in N.Ireland. The Welsh are also a dead weight and the Scots only pay their way when oil prices are high. 

Of course a country is more than a zero sum economic game but I do notice English Tory resentment of the freeloading UK periphery growing. England's increasingly a country of the George Cross not the Union Jack. That should worry folk in the periphery more.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 28, 2017)

On Slugger The EU summit’s declaration on a united Ireland exposes British isolation


> ...
> What does it amount to? The Irish Times gives a wordy explanation of the position  that if Northern Ireland  were to vote for  Irish unification, a united Ireland would inherit the present Republic’s membership. No doubt harmonisation of the tax base and membership of the euro would be  required.
> ...


In contrast to EU positions on Scotland. Not that a vote for Irish unification is likely in my lifetime.


----------



## bimble (Apr 28, 2017)

Unusually good work from the picture editor at Guardian today.


----------



## pocketscience (Apr 29, 2017)

New article for all the Urban Streeckers:

*WOLFGANG STREECK*
*THE RETURN OF THE REPRESSED*


----------



## hot air baboon (Apr 29, 2017)

May urged to ‘avoid negotiating with Brussels AT ALL COSTS’ by ex-Greek finance minister

Speaking to the Telegraph, the former finance minister of Greece said: “My advice to Theresa May is to avoid negotiation at all costs.

If she doesn’t do that she will fall into the trap of [Greek PM] Alexis Tsipras, and it will end in capitulation.”
Prof Varoufakis, who spent months battling the debt collection policies of the EU-IMF Troika during Greece’s financial crisis, believes Brussels will exploit political divisions within Britain to reduce the chance of getting a fair Brexit deal.

After German chancellor Angela Merkel announced Britain should be more “constructive” when it comes to negotiating Brexit, Prof Varoufakis said this could be the beginning of an “EU runaround” for Theresa May.

He warned: “You won’t always know exactly who to talk to and that is deliberate.

“When you make a moderate proposal, they will react with blank stares and look at you as if you were reciting the Swedish National Anthem. It is their way of stonewalling. They will suddenly suspend talks claiming the need for more fact-checking."

“What they are trying to do is to reduce any benefit that Theresa May will get out of the election and downplay her democratic mandate.”

Prof Varoufakis believes the only way for Britain to avoid being forced to play the EU’s game, is to join the European Economic Area for a seven-year transition.

This would safeguard trade and the City while also allowing the UK to withdraw from certain areas of the EU.

He concluded: “They could not refuse this. They wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.”


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 30, 2017)

On Bloomberg EU Throws Down Brexit Gauntlet to Britain as Talks Edge Closer




Now I get why the remaining EU27 would see it being a good thing to act in concert over Brexit. After all that's what the EU is meant to be for: leaning on other parties to get the best collective deal. However what are ~44% of Brits now on the other end of that in negotiations seeing as good about it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 30, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Bloomberg EU Throws Down Brexit Gauntlet to Britain as Talks Edge Closer
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you think for a few moments an answer might occur to you


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 30, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> Now I get why the remaining EU27 would see it being a good thing to act in concert over Brexit. After all that's what the EU is meant to be for: leaning on other parties to get the best collective deal.


Like how they leant on Greece to get the best deal?


----------



## andysays (Apr 30, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Like how they leant on Greece to get the best deal?



That example is entirely consistant with the practice of


CrabbedOne said:


> ...leaning on other parties to get the best collective deal.


providing you recognise that the EU powers-that-be regarded Greece and the Greek people as "another party" and were attempting to get the best collective deal for themselves, the EU powers-that-be, rather than either the Greeks or even the European people.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 30, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Like how they leant on Greece to get the best deal?


Well it is worth remembering what interests got protected there in the context of Brexit. 

It did work out well for Core EU bankers who got to patch up their still rotten loan books. I don't remember many protests from the freedom fighters of Westminister who valiantly rescued RBS etc after they went long on Irish property rather than loans for endless Brigades of unneeded Leopard tanks. By the end of it Dublin and Madrid whose busted banks were then being propped up by the ECB I recall were quite eager to stick it to the Greeks as well. It was deliberately punitive and nodded through by all the Foreign Ministers. Not clever apart from that; an act of self harm. Much more costly for Core tax payers than simple debt forgiveness and the sort of healing support busted Florida got from DC but that wasn't the priority. 

The virtuous Swabian Hausfrau blaming the "lazy Latins" worked rather well for Merkel and other Core politicians. The Germans loved that as much as British Tory voters relished lashing out at the undeserving lower orders with their daft austerity policies. Didn't play so well in France but then it was intended as message to the French.

It's increasingly clear the Brits blundering out of the EU can expect something similarly unsympathetic, politically expedient and short sighted.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Apr 30, 2017)

On Slugger How the Irish government pulled off a Brexit coup

Largely symbolic but still a crafty move compared to lumbering London.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 1, 2017)

The UK Government Is Completely Deluded About Brexit


May is a fucking incompetent - but this is nothing we did not already know.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 1, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> The UK Government Is Completely Deluded About Brexit
> 
> 
> May is a fucking incompetent - but this is nothing we did not already know.


A stout denial of any real difficulties and an assertion of the simple need to have a strong leader to slap Johnny Foreigner into the proper subservient position seems like pretty good domestic politics to me. It worked well for Merkel lashing the _Lazy Latins_ as the overextended Kraut banks were quietly bailed out. It will probably works for May in the short term if she guts her English opposition in this snap GE as she hopes to which is all that matters in this plan. 

As a negotiating position with the EU27 it's probably disastrously arrogant but hey ho it was always going to be fraught and that's the way The Commission wants it if not all their bosses in the Council. Brexit is rapidly morphing into making the UK into a one party Tory state. Which will be followed by ramming through a highly ideological neoliberal domestic agenda of "reforms" with minimal scrutiny. 

And that together with the UK alienating the rest of Europe that will probably make the Tory base very happy. It'll distract from any acrimonious no deal Brexit downsides which probably won't be much felt in the wealthy SE anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 1, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> A stout denial of any real difficulties and an assertion of the simple need to have a strong leader to slap Johnny Foreigner into the proper subservient position seems like pretty good domestic politics to me. It worked well for Merkel lashing the _Lazy Latins_ as the overextended Kraut banks were quietly bailed out. It will probably works for May in the short term if she guts her English opposition in this snap GE as she hopes to which is all that matters in this plan.
> 
> As a negotiating position with the EU27 it's probably disastrously arrogant but hey ho it was always going to be fraught and that's the way The Commission wants it if not all their bosses in the Council. Brexit is rapidly morphing into making the UK into a one party Tory state. Which will be followed by ramming through a highly ideological neoliberal domestic agenda of "reforms" with minimal scrutiny.
> 
> And that together with the UK alienating the rest of Europe that will probably make the Tory base very happy. It'll distract from any acrimonious no deal Brexit downsides which probably won't be much felt in the wealthy SE anyway.


Lots of probably there


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 1, 2017)

On Politico UK MPs: Brexit adds to Northern Ireland’s energy concerns


> ...
> The U.K. government needs to figure out as soon as possible which Northern Irish projects benefit from being on the PCI list and how to make sure they remain financially viable, the committee said.
> 
> “The electricity sector must be given the confidence to continue investing.” Other developments on the list include a compressed air energy storage project, which could help maximize Northern Ireland’s renewables by storing energy when demand lulls, and a gas storage facility.
> ...


UK has to to sort out what it'll do with the EU supported North-South Interconnector. It's silly not to collaborate on these things but it may get lost in the shuffle.


----------



## gosub (May 1, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Politico UK MPs: Brexit adds to Northern Ireland’s energy concerns
> UK has to to sort out what it'll do with the EU supported North-South Interconnector. It's silly not to collaborate on these things but it may get lost in the shuffle.




_"Northern Ireland’s energy prices are so uncompetitive for large users that they’ve led to the loss of major employers, such as a Michelin tire factory due to close next year, and deterred foreign direct investment, the committee said."_   How does that square with the recent Stormont elections and their cause?


----------



## Smangus (May 1, 2017)

Not sure how credible this is but it makes interesting reading. Shows May et al completely ignorant of the 27's take on it all. 


The UK Government Is Completely Deluded About Brexit


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 1, 2017)




----------



## agricola (May 1, 2017)

Smangus said:


> Not sure how credible this is but it makes interesting reading. Shows May et al completely ignorant of the 27's take on it all.
> 
> 
> The UK Government Is Completely Deluded About Brexit



TBH if it shows anything, its that they are approaching this negotiation in the same way that they approached the last few rounds of "talks" with Greece.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 1, 2017)

but the remainers said that they'd never be able to pull a greece on us (solidarity eh) cos we have our own currency. lol.


----------



## weltweit (May 1, 2017)

Theresa May Deluding Herself Over Brexit Deal, Says EU President As Dinner Party From Hell Details Leak | The Huffington Post

Juncker says there will be a bill to pay, May says it isn't in the treaties, a not very friendly dinner by all accounts, Juncker thinks May is deluded.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 1, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> but the remainers said that they'd never be able to pull a greece on us (solidarity eh) cos we have our own currency. lol.


I think it was the brexiters who were saying that. It was obvious that we would be worse off.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 1, 2017)

I'm surprised Juncker is so upset about May's brilliant plan to turn the UK into a tax haven, considering she stole the idea from one Jean-Claude Juncker.


----------



## ferrelhadley (May 1, 2017)

Smangus said:


> Not sure how credible this is but it makes interesting reading. Shows May et al completely ignorant of the 27's take on it all.
> 
> 
> The UK Government Is Completely Deluded About Brexit


Who voted for this clusterfuck?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 1, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> I think it was the brexiters who were saying that. It was obvious that we would be worse off.



Nope.


----------



## Raheem (May 1, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> but the remainers said that they'd never be able to pull a greece on us (solidarity eh) cos we have our own currency. lol.



So Junker thinking May is not quite on the ball equals "pulling a Greece"?


----------



## kebabking (May 1, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> but the remainers said that they'd never be able to pull a greece on us (solidarity eh) cos we have our own currency. lol.



The remainers - and everyone else - is correct, the EU can't do a Greece on the UK because the objective circumstances are very different. The UK economy is vastly larger than Greece's economy, the UK, even in the event of a very messy, nasty Brexit, will still be vastly more credit-worthy than Greece's, and perhaps most importantly in a political context, the UK will have no problem whatsoever telling the EU to fuck off.

You need to think a bit harder about _why_ the EU structures and member states are so exercised about the money - it's because on the 1st April 2019 the EU current account will find itself some £14bn, and 10% of its running costs, down. There is only one EU state with the pockets to plug that hole, yet it's electorate seems remarkably unwilling to do so...

They are exercised about this stuff because they are _worried_ about it, and they are worried for good reason - and when your opponent (for that is what they are) has a vunerability you exploit it.

The only really interesting thing about the leak is how hard the EU thinks that the issues surrounding EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU will be to solve - the UK government thinks that a _reciprocal rights _swap will be fairly easy - perhaps then mi ds should concentrate a little harder on whether the EU is interested in a reciprocal rights agreement, or has it got something else in mind..?

(Remainer, by the way..).


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 1, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> Prof Varoufakis believes the only way for Britain to avoid being forced to play the EU’s game, is to join the European Economic Area for a seven-year transition.
> 
> This would safeguard trade and the City while also allowing the UK to withdraw from certain areas of the EU.
> 
> He concluded: “They could not refuse this. They wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.”



Does anyone know the +'s and -'s of this approach?


----------



## kebabking (May 1, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Does anyone know the +'s and -'s of this approach?



I think it's the 'withdraw from parts of the EU' bit - iirc, and I'm happy to be corrected, the adjudicating body for the EEA is the ECJ and the wider EU structures, which would fall well outside the apparent 'we must not be subject to the ECJ' definition of BREXIT.

To be fair, you can see the point of that view - if California ceceeded from the US, but was still subject to the US Constitution as decided on by the USSC in Washington, then few would say it had really left the US...


----------



## Raheem (May 2, 2017)

kebabking said:


> iirc, and I'm happy to be corrected, the adjudicating body for the EEA is the ECJ and the wider EU structures



EFTA has it's own court, the EFTA Court, so EFTA countries are subject to EU law but not under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. That's roughly the same situation as the government has repeatedly indicated it is aiming for, although without actually saying the first part out loud.


----------



## Raheem (May 2, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Does anyone know the +'s and -'s of this approach?



AFAICT, there's no actual structural advantage to joining EFTA on a temporary basis, as compared to having a tailor-made transitional deal. So, presumably, YV thinks the advantage is that it would be easier to negotiate, on the basis that the UK effectively has some sort of quasi-right to join. But I think he may be being over-optimistic. From EFTAs perspective it doesn't look all that attractive. The UK would dominate it politically and as an economy and all the inevitable difficulties with trying to enforce the rules against a demob-happy country in a rebellious mood would fall in its shoulders, which are a lot less broad than the EU's. Useful to us as a sort of crash-mat, but it's not clear why they would agree, unless we stuffed their mouths with gold, maybe.

I like Varoufakis, although not as much as he does, obvs.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 2, 2017)

kebabking said:


> ...
> 
> The only really interesting thing about the leak is how hard the EU thinks that the issues surrounding EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU will be to solve - the UK government thinks that a _reciprocal rights _swap will be fairly easy - perhaps then mi ds should concentrate a little harder on whether the EU is interested in a reciprocal rights agreement, or has it got something else in mind..?
> 
> (Remainer, by the way..).


One longterm characteristic of HMG is not being very interested in the rights and welfare of its citizens abroad. Something not shared with other EU states like the RoI.

The key parallel with Greece isn't so much the daft game playing by the UK or any power differential but the likely tendency to self harm on behalf of the EU Core for domestic political gain and not very well worked out dogmatic reasons. Greek debts could very easily have been forgiven and the markets stabilised quickly to benefit the EZ. It was seen as useful to have a bad guy for EZ unity and Greece got that role with all the EZ states joining in the arse kicking party. Greece also became the profligate example Tory fiscal hawks pointed to while championing the same daft austerity policies as the Germans. For Republicans Greece was what the US would become if much counter-cyclic state spending under Obama was allowed. A popularly hated scape goat is a great distraction from other woes. None of this boded well for the constructive attitude leading Brexiteers confidently predicted.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2017)

weltweit said:


> Theresa May Deluding Herself Over Brexit Deal, Says EU President As Dinner Party From Hell Details Leak | The Huffington Post
> 
> Juncker says there will be a bill to pay, May says it isn't in the treaties, a not very friendly dinner by all accounts, Juncker thinks May is deluded.


Everyone knows she's both deluded and incompetent


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 2, 2017)

A dull and deluded incompetent. I see that the campaign is no longer about party, but about May- this is a defacto presidential election. Look at this toss:







Jesus fucking Christ. I am hoping the end times hurry up and show their face, just to make this shit stop.  I would be happy with locusts as an interim plague TBH


----------



## Raheem (May 2, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> The key parallel with Greece isn't so much the daft game playing by the UK or any power differential but the likely tendency to self harm on behalf of the EU Core for domestic political gain and not very well worked out dogmatic reasons.



Are there any particular choices you envisage them making that would amount to self-harm, or are you just vaguely worried about it?


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 2, 2017)

all I can hope for now is for an utterly furious, unhinged & vengeful Gove to go postal with a variety of kitchen utensils and massacre the entire cabinet. I dream about David Davies with a sucking chest would as the result of a prolonged Anthony Worrral Thompson branded egg whisk assault or Hammond, his life ebbing away after having his throat opened  up with a Matalan pizza wheel. I can only dream


----------



## Yossarian (May 2, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> all I can hope for now is for an utterly furious, unhinged & vengeful Gove to go postal with a variety of kitchen utensils and massacre the entire cabinet. I dream about David Davies with a sucking chest would as the result of a prolonged Anthony Worrral Thompson branded egg whisk assault or Hammond, his life ebbing away after having his throat opened  up with a Matalan pizza wheel. I can only dream



Sounds like the best outcome to be hoped for, though obviously some kind of provision would have to be made for the surviving Gove to be crushed in a vice or drained dry by leeches.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 2, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Are there any particular choices you envisage them making that would amount to self-harm, or are you just vaguely worried about it?


I can see it all coming a acrimonious cropper on the EU27 rigidly demanding a huge exit payment. As pointed out above the money matters. This is partly needed to cushion EU states from the fiscal effect of the UK with its low per capita contribution but large population leaving. This has direct domestic effects in wealthy states like Germany who will need to fill the gap and they tend to be shortsighted and sensitive to "transfers" as we saw over Greece. Poorer states like Poland benefitting hugely from subsidies growing their economy will push for this. The bumptious Commission wants an example made and this is a rather tangible item. Paying a large exit fee is also very difficult for the Brexiteers to swallow after all those numbers on the side of the bus. It's a pity the EU27 have made this so prominent a part of the early process. This alone can mess up the divorce and get in the way of sorting out all the very complex details of citizen's rights which should be the meat of A50.

The EU27 are also liable to overreach. Trying to control post-Brexit UK tax/trade policy which looks to be a highly regressive race to the bottom but this is unrealistic with the highly neoliberal Tories who sell a low tax/hyper-globalised future as a big trickle down benefit of Brexit. 

Finally failing to agree even a basic framework for trade. To do this the UK's needs to have built up good will with the EU27 so they don't simply use it as an opportunity to squeeze the last drop out of the weaker party. The trade thing is very likely to go wrong in a way that inflicts damage of both the UK and Core EU economies. 

It's to May's domestic advantage to play on the usual anti-Brussels jingoism but it means she's shaping the opening of negotiations in a poor way and likely headed for a Brexit without much of a deal on anything. She'll end up being painted as an obstructive wrecker by EU27 politicians squabbling about the terms themselves.


----------



## Raheem (May 2, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> I can see it all coming a acrimonious cropper on the EU27 rigidly demanding a huge exit payment. As pointed out above the money matters. This is partly needed to cushion EU states from the fiscal effect of the UK with its low per capita contribution but large population leaving. This has direct domestic effects in wealthy states like Germany who will need to fill the gap and they tend to be shortsighted and sensitive to "transfers" as we saw over Greece. Poorer states like Poland benefitting hugely from subsidies growing their economy will push for this. The bumptious Commission wants an example made and this is a rather tangible item. Paying a large exit fee is also very difficult for the Brexiteers to swallow after all those numbers on the side of the bus. It's a pity the EU27 have made this so prominent a part of the early process. This alone can mess up the divorce and get in the way of sorting out all the very complex details of citizen's rights which should be the meat of A50.
> 
> The EU27 are also liable to overreach. Trying to control post-Brexit UK tax/trade policy which looks to be a highly regressive race to the bottom but this is unrealistic with the highly neoliberal Tories who sell a low tax/hyper-globalised future as a big trickle down benefit of Brexit.
> 
> ...



None of that sounds like "self-harm", though. It goes without saying that the EU27 will want to protect their interests. It's not in their interests to write of the UK's obligations or to sign off on a trade agreement that gives it the right to turn itself into an aggressive tax haven. If those are red lines for TM, then of course the whole thing is doomed to failure.

I agree that the end result is likely damage both the UK the EU, but that's just a given. It won't be a sign that the negotiations have failed.


----------



## kebabking (May 2, 2017)

Raheem said:


> None of that sounds like "self-harm", though. It goes without saying that the EU27 will want to protect their interests. It's not in their interests to write of the UK's obligations..



what 'obligations' though?

the treaties make no mention of obligations that continue once a country has left the EU, so talk of obligations isn't legal shit thats written in stone and been signed up to, its political talk.

pretty much everyone bar UKIP thinks that the UK has, for example, an obligation to continue to contribute to the pensions of EU staff accrued while the UK was a member, or to continue to contribute to specific EU projects that the UK agreed to help fund that fall outside the standard budget, or indeed to continue to contribute to the funding of specific projects or agencies that the UK, and the EU, would like the UK to remain part of for the benefit of both sides.

however, its not spousal or child support, there are no legal obligations to continue funding the EU budget just because the Germans don't want to do it, or the French farmers are unwilling to take a hit - the budget is the EU's problem, and as the UK won't be a member of the EU after 1st April 2019, the UK has no more responsibility or obligation towards that budget than the Americans or Chinese.

this will get messy because the A50 process was so badly defined within the EU treaties - much like the dogs breakfast of the Referendum Act - with the greatest of respect to the EU, if they had wanted the obligations of a former/leaving state to be binding, they probably ought to have written them down...


----------



## Raheem (May 2, 2017)

kebabking said:


> the treaties make no mention of obligations that continue once a country has left the EU, so talk of obligations isn't legal shit thats written in stone and been signed up to, its political talk



On the one hand, there's a danger of straying into freeman-on-the-land territory with this line of reasoning. I think you're right that there's no explicit treaty provision about settling accounts, but that doesn't mean it's just the EU's hard fromage if we decide we'd rather not. 

But you're also right that it's something that is going to be sorted out by politics and diplomacy rather than litigation, so we don't need to worry too much about the legal analysis. Whether you call them obligations or naked extortion, it's obvious that simply refusing to pay is a non-starter.


----------



## kebabking (May 2, 2017)

Raheem said:


> ...Whether you call them obligations or naked extortion, it's obvious that simply refusing to pay is a non-starter.



depends what they ask for - and what they offer in return. 

if they want £60bn over the 2019-2023 timescale with no guarantees over the future trade deal, then May will tell them to fuck off, and the only people on the doorsteps, in  parliament, or in the media who will be unhappy with that is the lunatic fringe of the LibDems. to be clear, she'd probably lose a motion of no confidence 648-1 if she did otherwise.

if they ask for _a transitional deal_, in effect a part payment to enable them to transition to having £14bn a year less than they'd planned on having in 2019 and in return were positive about allowing the UK to sell its automotive parts in Europe on the same basis that Germany wants to sell its cars in the UK, then an agreement on UK obligations is much more likely.

this is why, imv, the the EU 's position on the phasing of the agreements is so self-defeating - for the UK, the divorce bit is about handing over money to no longer be part of a club we don't want to be in, while the future bit is about the good things. if the talks were in parallel the UK would be able to measure the good things in the future against the shit bit - the handing over money - and take a wider view and decide that the bribe - i mean _obligation - _is worth it. however, if the EU is determined to go down the phased route and just demand that the UK hand over great wedges of cash with absolutely no promises made about the future, then May will find it politically impossible to agree, and she'll just have to walk out of negotiations and wait for the clock to strike on Brexit day.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 2, 2017)

was just reading a long piece on shaubles over on NLR. Pretty much the architect of european wide neoliberal handcuffs


> . In 2010, he was the prime mover of the Fiscal Stability Pact that two years later would write budgetary corsets into the constitutions of Eurozone members, and has had no hesitation in attacking the European Central Bank, and the low-interest manipulations of its Italian head, for undermining economic discipline in general and German savings in particular


seems like a reasonable chap right?


----------



## Raheem (May 2, 2017)

kebabking said:


> depends what they ask for - and what they offer in return.
> 
> if they want £60bn over the 2019-2023 timescale with no guarantees over the future trade deal, then May will tell them to fuck off, and the only people on the doorsteps, in  parliament, or in the media who will be unhappy with that is the lunatic fringe of the LibDems. to be clear, she'd probably lose a motion of no confidence 648-1 if she did otherwise.



Well, that appears to be pretty much what they want. Let's see if May tells them to fuck off (clue: of course not).


----------



## kebabking (May 2, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Well, that appears to be pretty much what they want. Let's see if May tells them to fuck off (clue: of course not).



its what they _say_ they want at the begining of the process - we'll see if its what they are still demanding as we get to a month out and the current account is going to be £14bn emptier than it normally is.

do you believe that May, or indeed any other remotely possible PM could sign a divorce deal that included handing over £60bn with no promices over future trade?


----------



## Raheem (May 2, 2017)

kebabking said:


> its what they _say_ they want at the begining of the process - we'll see if its what they are still demanding as we get to a month out and the current account is going to be £14bn emptier than it normally is.
> 
> do you believe that May, or indeed any other remotely possible PM could sign a divorce deal that included handing over £60bn with no promices over future trade?



I don't think it will be £60bn. And she won't have to sign it, just agree to it. But, that aside, yes I think that's exactly what will happen. The UK has no leverage over it, and the alternative is far worse.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 2, 2017)

kebabking said:


> depends what they ask for - and what they offer in return.
> 
> if they want £60bn over the 2019-2023 timescale with no guarantees over the future trade deal, then May will tell them to fuck off, and the only people on the doorsteps, in  parliament, or in the media who will be unhappy with that is the lunatic fringe of the LibDems. to be clear, she'd probably lose a motion of no confidence 648-1 if she did otherwise.
> 
> ...


And that's going to benefit your sceptered isle how exactly? You're going to fall back on Empire Free Trade, are you?


----------



## kebabking (May 2, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> And that's going to benefit your sceptered isle how exactly? You're going to fall back on Empire Free Trade, are you?



well, for a start we'll get to watch the structures and member states fight like ferrets in a sack over money...


----------



## Idris2002 (May 2, 2017)

kebabking said:


> well, for a start we'll get to watch the structures and member states fight like ferrets in a sack over money...


While you proceed through the Azure Main in Splendid Isolation. Feck's sake.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 2, 2017)

Raheem said:


> None of that sounds like "self-harm", though. It goes without saying that the EU27 will want to protect their interests. It's not in their interests to write of the UK's obligations or to sign off on a trade agreement that gives it the right to turn itself into an aggressive tax haven. If those are red lines for TM, then of course the whole thing is doomed to failure.
> 
> I agree that the end result is likely damage both the UK the EU, but that's just a given. It won't be a sign that the negotiations have failed.


The EU has the UK over a barrel on the exit fees as any sort of deal is better than no deal but I think it's really difficult for May to bend on that. The UK isn't really legally obligated to make good on prior commitments it agreed to as an EU member but it's hungry not to completely lose some advantages it had in the EU. The best I can imagine her going for is a protracted payment plan linked to future trade talks as there's no hope of sorting those out in the A50 timeframe.

I think the free trading tax haven thing is a given. That's really the basis of Tory future optimism. The UK becoming a bigger even more crimogenic version of the RoI; closer to Boston and Beijing than Brussels. That's what reclaiming British sovereignty from the EU was all about for some Tories not being a marrow growing autarky. The EU27 trying to interfere with that pipe dream would be like denying the sexy trophy wife to hubby after the divorce. It is just going to end up in a destructive bun fight and a chaotic UK retreat from Europe that will hurt a lot of vulnerable people.


----------



## kebabking (May 2, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> While you proceed through the Azure Main in Splendid Isolation. Feck's sake.



i voted remain, for precisely this reason. while i don't doubt, and will greatly lament, that the UK economy will suffer when the UK leaves the single market, i will at least draw some comfort from watching the EU decend into bitter acrimony over money...

i wonder if Germany will stump up the cash, or tell the French to piss off?


----------



## Idris2002 (May 2, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> The EU has the UK over a barrel on the exit fees as any sort of deal is better than no deal but I think it's really difficult for May to bend on that. The UK isn't really legally obligated to make good on prior commitments it agreed to as an EU member but it's hungry not to completely lose some advantages it had in the EU. The best I can imagine her going for is a protracted payment plan linked to future trade talks as there's no hope of sorting those out in the A50 timeframe.
> 
> I think the free trading tax haven thing is a given. That's really the basis of Tory future optimism. The UK becoming a bigger even more crimogenic version of the RoI; closer to Boston and Beijing than Brussels. That's what reclaiming British sovereignty from the EU was all about for some Tories not being a marrow growing autarky. The EU27 trying to interfere with that pipe dream would be like denying the sexy trophy wife to hubby after the divorce. It is just going to end up in a destructive bun fight and a chaotic UK retreat from Europe that will hurt a lot of vulnerable people.


A bigger versh of the RoI. Christ. Are they going to site a thirty-foot high fire breathing Golden Charlie Haughey statue next to the Thames?


----------



## hot air baboon (May 2, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Does anyone know the +'s and -'s of this approach?



Brexit The Options Norway (EEA/EFTA Model)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 2, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> Brexit The Options Norway (EEA/EFTA Model)




If that is correct, why are we not heading down that route?


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 2, 2017)

Because cunts


----------



## Winot (May 2, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If that is correct, why are we not heading down that route?



Because the people have spoken and don't want immigration. And the Norway model requires free movement  of people.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 2, 2017)

Winot said:


> Because the people have spoken and don't want immigration. And the Norway model requires free movement  of people.



That link says not:


----------



## Winot (May 2, 2017)

Hmm. Don't know what the link is talking about but this is from the EFTA website:




			
				EFTA said:
			
		

> The free movement of persons is one of the core rights guaranteed in the European Economic Area (EEA), the extended Internal Market which unites all the EU Member States and three EEA EFTA States – Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It is perhaps the most important right for individuals, as it gives citizens of the 31 EEA countries the opportunity to live, work, establish business and study in any of these countries.



Free Movement of Persons | European Free Trade Association


----------



## Winot (May 2, 2017)

Just had a quick look at EEA Agreement (pdf link). Looks like the opt-out (the "safeguard measure") is intended to be short term to solve a particular problem. It's reviewed regularly and ceases to apply once the problem abates. Also, there is a rider in Art 114:

"If a safeguard measure taken by a Contracting Party creates an imbalance between the rights and obligations under this Agreement, any other Contracting Party may towards that Contracting Party take such proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of the EEA."

So not quite as simple as the link suggests.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 2, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> A bigger versh of the RoI. Christ. Are they going to site a thirty-foot high fire breathing Golden Charlie Haughey statue next to the Thames?


They could have him trousering a brown envelope in the proper cute hoor style.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 2, 2017)

Brexit: Theresa May says she'll be 'bloody difficult' to Juncker - BBC News

You can add Stubborn to Useless Incompetent friendless drone when describing Mayhem now.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 2, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> That link says not:


The Swiss example is telling. Last I heard they were resolving their narrow 2014 referendum to restore immigration quotas for EU folk by implementing an emergency brake on with a range of unlikely provisos such as Swiss unemployment rising to historically high levels. The result could be described as lip service to the idea of even restricting freedom of movement with the EU and it wasn't even clear the EU would wear it


----------



## Raheem (May 2, 2017)

Winot said:


> Just had a quick look at EEA Agreement (pdf link). Looks like the opt-out (the "safeguard measure") is intended to be short term to solve a particular problem. It's reviewed regularly and ceases to apply once the problem abates. Also, there is a rider in Art 114:
> 
> "If a safeguard measure taken by a Contracting Party creates an imbalance between the rights and obligations under this Agreement, any other Contracting Party may towards that Contracting Party take such proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of the EEA."
> 
> So not quite as simple as the link suggests.



Wonder if they produce a pro-forma for it.

"Nature of emergency: Nigel Farage is still on the telly too much."


----------



## Raheem (May 2, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> I think the free trading tax haven thing is a given. That's really the basis of Tory future optimism. The UK becoming a bigger even more crimogenic version of the RoI; closer to Boston and Beijing than Brussels. That's what reclaiming British sovereignty from the EU was all about for some Tories not being a marrow growing autarky.



Undoubtedly this would be a wet dream for many Tories, and I expect those that aren't deluded that it would create a boom would see a slightly less prosperous UK as a price worth paying. But I think the front bench, at least, know by now that it isn't workable. The UK is not going to be signing multiple trade deals massively slanted in it's favour, and tax incentives sizable enough to offset trade barriers would not be seen by potential long-term investors as politically sustainable (because they wouldn't be), not to mention that global capital already expects not to contribute much to national treasuries.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 2, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Undoubtedly this would be a wet dream for many Tories, and I expect those that aren't deluded that it would create a boom would see a slightly less prosperous UK as a price worth paying. But I think the front bench, at least, know by now that it isn't workable. The UK is not going to be signing multiple trade deals massively slanted in it's favour, and tax incentives sizable enough to offset trade barriers would not be seen by potential long-term investors as politically sustainable (because they wouldn't be), not to mention that global capital already expects not to contribute much to national treasuries.


Seems to be were Boris and Davis are hoping to be. May may sugar coat. The trade deals envisaged don't seem to be slanted so much as just entirely without any thought to protectionism. That's an easy sort of deal to do. The Chinese and Septics will lap it up and the UK won't have the weight to do much else with big players. Slashing corporate tax will be sold as stimulating FDI. They're going have to do something to compensate for losing Single Market perks. I'd have said Osborne's austerity wasn't politically sustainable but Tory voters ate that nonsense up like a hot pasty. Looks to me like Leavers will mostly double down in support of all this. Kippers who were Labour are going Tory.


----------



## Raheem (May 2, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> They're going have to do something to compensate for losing Single Market perks.



This encapsulates the way the scale of the problem can be underestimated. We're not talking perks.

This is based on figures plucked from the internet, so please note that caveat.

Nissan exports 960,000 cars from the UK to the EU annually, the average price per car being £21,000. With no EU trade deal, the EU would be obliged under GATS rules to impose a 10% tariff on each car, which works out at a bit more than £2 billion, equivalent to comfortably more than a third of Nissan's global annual profits. That doesn't take into account tariffs on imported components, the costs of moving testing to Europe, employing more people to do the extra admin etc. But, for the sake of convenience let's ignore all that. Maybe they'll also end up selling more cars in the UK, but let's also ignore that.

So, HMG looks to compensate Nissan for the potential £2 billion by cutting its corporation tax, only to find that Nissan only actually pays around £20 million a year in corporation tax. So, it needs to  find another way. Maybe just agree to give Nissan £2 billion of taxpayers' money each year, which they can then pass on to the EU. £2 billion. About 0.25% of current government spending. Just for one factory to tread water. Then HMG realises that there are other car manufacturers operating in the UK and starts to appreciate the scale of the problem.

Admittedly, the situation for car manufacturing is going to be more severe than for most types of business, but I think it illustrates why the government is not going to be indifferent to whether it gets a deal or not.


----------



## bluescreen (May 2, 2017)

The bloody difficult woman is going to have a bloody difficult job (if she gets in).





> *Brussels hoists gross Brexit ‘bill’ to up to €100bn*
> 
> The EU has raised its opening demand for Britain’s bill to an upfront gross payment of up to €100bn, according to Financial Times analysis of new stricter demands driven by France and Germany.


Subscribe to read


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> A bigger versh of the RoI. Christ. Are they going to site a thirty-foot high fire breathing Golden Charlie Haughey statue next to the Thames?



If it's Charlie, shouldn't that be "fume-breathing"?


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 2, 2017)

we could always get an agreeement to pay in GBP, then crash the economy into a weimar style hyper inflation spiral and send a few containers of newly printed £5 notes to the EU to cover the debt. Sorted.


----------



## bluescreen (May 2, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> we could always get an agreeement to pay in GBP, then crash the economy into a weimar style hyper inflation spiral and send a few containers of newly printed £5 notes to the EU to cover the debt. Sorted.


Should work, except for the words before the first comma.


----------



## Raheem (May 2, 2017)

We could mint a trillion special edition pennies with an engraving of the queen's arse instead of her head and have a truck dump them outside the EU Commission.


----------



## Corax (May 3, 2017)

Whilst writing a piece today, I stumbled across the 'fact' that the EU made us change the colour of our ambulances.

We can spend some of that £350m painting them white again!  Ambulances we can be proud of!  Thanks Nigel!


----------



## Raheem (May 3, 2017)

Corax said:


> Whilst writing a piece today, I stumbled across the 'fact' that the EU made us change the colour of our ambulances.
> 
> We can spend some of that £350m painting them white again!  Ambulances we can be proud of!  Thanks Nigel!



I actually think this may be a case of the UK trying and failing to make the rest of Europe turn its ambulances yellow. Yellow ambulances is not particularly a thing in most EU countries. Have an image google if you don't believe me.


----------



## hot air baboon (May 3, 2017)

a hundred _*billion*_ euros... 








( may as well make it a nice round number I suppose )


----------



## Corax (May 3, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I actually think this may be a case of the UK trying and failing to make the rest of Europe turn its ambulances yellow. Yellow ambulances is not particularly a thing in most EU countries. Have an image google if you don't believe me.


It's not really a case of "not believ[ing] you", it's more a case of reading the 2002 Guardian piece that I provided a link to.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 3, 2017)

In The Guardian UK food sector faces enormous challenges post-Brexit, say peers


> ...
> The latest Lords report on the implications of Brexit exposes particularly high dependency on the single market and associated EU trade deals among British farmers and food manufacturers.
> 
> Evidence to the Lords EU energy and environment subcommittee revealed the interconnected nature of much food and drink production that would be threatened by non-tariff barriers. “If you take one example – a bottle of Baileys Irish Cream … if you are a Northern Irish cow, your milk crosses the border five times before it goes into the bottle,” said Ian Wright, director general of the Food and Drink Federation (FDF). “The idea that that would be subject to tariffs hither and yon is really very scary.”
> ...


Baileys! More border crossings than a South Armagh cow in search of subsidy.

This supply chain stuff contains some very nasty surprises for those programmed to believe in the "Rotterdam Effect" which is most Leave Tories. The majority of UK trade is internal but there is a lot of sourcing of components across borders.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> In The Guardian UK food sector faces enormous challenges post-Brexit, say peers
> Baileys! More border crossings than a South Armagh cow in search of subsidy.
> 
> This supply chain stuff contains some very nasty surprises for those programmed to believe in the "Rotterdam Effect" which is most Leave Tories. The majority of UK trade is internal but there is a lot of sourcing of components across borders.


In auld english people buy things all over the place


----------



## newbie (May 3, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i wonder if Germany will stump up the cash, or tell the French to piss off?


austerity  cuts  belt-tightening _hard choices_

the poorest will pay


----------



## Raheem (May 3, 2017)

Corax said:


> It's not really a case of "not believ[ing] you", it's more a case of reading the 2002 Guardian piece that I provided a link to.



You should probably give it another read. It talks about a proposal to the EU that appears to have been spearheaded by British ambulance trusts, but which doesn't appear to have been adopted.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 3, 2017)

Raheem said:


> This encapsulates the way the scale of the problem can be underestimated. We're not talking perks.
> 
> This is based on figures plucked from the internet, so please note that caveat.
> 
> ...




This sounds scary. However it works both ways, many of Nissan's parts import in to the UK from the EU, so they would also be slapped with a 10% tariff, making it more attractive to make them in the UK. Herr Ashtraymaker of Baden Baden will not be pleased with this.
One would imagine that the VW Group may have something to say too?


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 3, 2017)

On Bloomberg Davis Says U.K. Won’t Pay Reported 100-Billion-Euro Brexit Bill


> ...
> *Brexit Bill*
> 
> The latest flashpoint was a Financial Times report that said EU negotiators had revised their initial calculations upward from about 60 billion euros. The FT said that according to its calculations, the new net figure for the bill would be as much as 75 billion euros, once Britain’s share of EU spending and repaid loans were accounted for, giving a gross 100 billion euros. The newspaper’s previous calculations had given a net figure of 40 billion euros to 60 billion euros, in line with the EU’s estimate.
> ...


That new estimate will make celebrating stumping up 50 billion as a great Brexiteer victory so much easier.


----------



## Corax (May 3, 2017)

Raheem said:


> You should probably give it another read. It talks about a proposal to the EU that appears to have been spearheaded by British ambulance trusts, but which doesn't appear to have been adopted.


No, it doesn't.

Just google the CEN FFS.


----------



## hot air baboon (May 3, 2017)

interesting ( free ) telegraph article on the EU's Martin Selmayr - painted as the key eminence noir behind the negotiation

Revealed: How Jean-Claude Juncker's 'monster' is plotting to punish Britain for Brexit


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 3, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This sounds scary. However it works both ways, many of Nissan's parts import in to the UK from the EU, so they would also be slapped with a 10% tariff, making it more attractive to make them in the UK. Herr Ashtraymaker of Baden Baden will not be pleased with this.
> One would imagine that the VW Group may have something to say too?


This argument always seemed a weak one with the Germans. It might apply more to the French and Spanish with their weaker job poor economies. 

Supply chain effects are not liable to be as big a problem for the EU27 as the UK which may award itself a permanent rather than a transient problem. German manufacturers for instance will still have 26 other countries in the Single Market to look to for alternative suppliers which tariffs and other new impediments after Brexit will make more attractive. I'd also not overate their clout. The big auto companies are not as entwined in German political parties as their politically powerful banks. And the Germans running a stupidly big surplus unlike the heavily indebted Brits have lots of state firepower to cushion ill effects by for instance staving off job losses by supporting employers. They've done that in the past.

And then there's the smoke screen of judgemental blaming in the event of failure to reach a deal. The deadbeat Brits stumbling out of the EU onto WTO terms because they won't pay their membership bills will probably appeal to smug German voters just as much as fairy tales about Swabian virtues versus Lazy Latins. That's how Berlin will sell a mutually destructive failure unfortunately.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 3, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> interesting ( free ) telegraph article on the EU's Martin Selmayr - painted as the key eminence noir behind the negotiation
> 
> Revealed: How Jean-Claude Juncker's 'monster' is plotting to punish Britain for Brexit



Selmayr's lauded as some kind of genius. However he is simultaneously pleased the UK is going as we are the big stumbling block to his federal Europe dream, and desiring of punishing us for leaving. Confused thinking like that should not help his cause. However, we have deployed Boris and Davis etc., so I guess Selmayr can do what the fuck he likes...


----------



## hot air baboon (May 3, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> we have deployed Boris and Davis etc.



indeed - the brexit nerve centre as we speak :


----------



## Raheem (May 3, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This sounds scary. However it works both ways, many of Nissan's parts import in to the UK from the EU, so they would also be slapped with a 10% tariff, making it more attractive to make them in the UK. Herr Ashtraymaker of Baden Baden will not be pleased with this.
> One would imagine that the VW Group may have something to say too?



It's not going to be good for EU27 car manufacturing either, but it's not going to be the same existential problem. Nissan would be likely to move most or all of its production to the EU as a consequence. But VW, Renault and Seat are not going to be responding by moving their production to the UK. They will face the problem that the UK will be a declining market. But they will still be selling cars to us. If UK car manufacturing goes completely, we will just have to pay import tariffs on new cars, because there will be no choice. Or maybe it will be possible for the UK car industry to shrink and focus on the domestic market. But EU firms will still dominate, because all the most popular cars produced and sold in Britain are made by German firms or by Nissan, whose main shareholder is Renault.

Anyway, the point I was making was not particularly that we would be come off worse than the EU (although we definitely would), but that the result would be economically devastating for us. Not a calculated risk, but economic suicide. Which is why any suggestion that the government is not aiming for a deal is just wrong.

As an addendum to what I wrote above, I may have overstated how many cars Nissan ships to the EU. I said 960,000, but I've found another source suggesting 350,000 might be closer. Which obviously would make a big difference, although I don't think it undermines the basic point.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 3, 2017)

In The LRB Grisly Panto


> ...
> May insisted that Britain owed the EU no money, since the EU treaties say nothing about it. One of Juncker’s people remarked that the union isn’t a golf club. When Davis said the EU couldn’t force Britain to pay up, Juncker said that if it didn’t there’d be no trade deal. At 7 a.m. on Thursday, he got on the blower to Angela Merkel, who added to her Bundestag address that morning a mention of the ‘illusions’ of some people in Britain about Brexit. Jeremy Cliffe, the _Economist_’s man in Berlin, tweeted that Juncker told Merkel that May was living in ‘another galaxy’ and ‘deluding herself’. Commission sources are also said to rate the chance that the Brexit talks flop at ‘over 50 per cent’.
> 
> That all this wound up in the _FAZ_ can hardly be an accident. Small wonder if May’s grandstanding for domestic electoral consumption is met with leaks from Juncker’s side about what got said over the sorbet. May’s problem is that she has to hang tough, in the time-hallowed posture of British premiers towards the EU, and strike poses that the Commission may – and the ‘fiat Brexit, pereat mundus’ ultras in her own party will – take literally. The net effect may well be to push the country, and its strong and stable leader, to the zero option of no deal.
> ...


Look behind you!


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 3, 2017)

Going to war boys! WAR!




> Threats against Britain have been issued by European politicians and officials. All of these acts have been deliberately timed to affect the result of the general election that will take place on 8 June.


----------



## Raheem (May 3, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Going to war boys! WAR!
> 
> Threats against Britain have been issued by European politicians and officials. All of these acts have been deliberately timed to affect the result of the general election that will take place on 8 June.



She's right though, although it's her who's responsible for the timing. The date of the EU27 Council meeting was set before the general election was called.


----------



## flypanam (May 3, 2017)

The old stalking horse of the fifth column arise in old niges mind Nigel Farage slams 'contemptible EU' for 'stoking Irish nationalism'


----------



## agricola (May 3, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Going to war boys! WAR!



_This speech was brought to you by a point between Beckton and Ilford._


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 3, 2017)

Everyone has it in for Turbo D Mayhem. Everyone.


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 3, 2017)

Raheem said:


> She's right though,* although it's her who's responsible for the timing. The date of the EU27 Council meeting was set before the general election was called.*




So she's not right...?


----------



## Raheem (May 3, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> So she's not right...?



Don't follow.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 3, 2017)

She is absolutely fucking nuts coming up with that toss- she has played right into the faceless eurocrat gravy trainers court, what a fucking amateur. an incompetent clown


----------



## killer b (May 3, 2017)

The hard talk today is entirely election-facing. She wants it to look like war to the electorate - this is her Falklands.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 3, 2017)

Malvinas


----------



## Raheem (May 3, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> She is absolutely fucking nuts coming up with that toss- she has played right into the faceless eurocrat gravy trainers court, what a fucking amateur. an incompetent clown



You're supposing that she and the Eurocrat gravy-trainers have differing objectives.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 3, 2017)

it has to do with the approach to a negotiation


----------



## agricola (May 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> The hard talk today is entirely election-facing. She wants it to look like war to the electorate - this is her Falklands.



It is, though to be an exact parallel she would have had to be the one that invaded the Falklands in the first place.


----------



## Raheem (May 3, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> it has to do with the approach to a negotiation


I think it has more to do with the approach to an election.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 3, 2017)

So leaving the EU is now gonna cost us one hundred billion Euros.

The figure was presumably calculated by this man:


----------



## Corax (May 3, 2017)

Even trying to look at her without my natural antipathy for her and her ilk, I've thought her increasingly autocratic attitude worrisome for a long time - but now she's taken the plunge into full-blown totally fucking barking mad.

She's genuinely starting to remind me of TTT at times.

If I hear her talk about anything other than _No More Nails_ being strong and stable one more time I'm going to start punching Labrador puppies in the face.

If she manages to lose this GE it will be quite some achievement, but maybe she's just the one for such a task!  Here's hoping.


----------



## killer b (May 3, 2017)

She isn't mad. Everything she does and says for the next 6 weeks will be a carefully calibrated attempt to maximise the Tory vote in the GE (also don't forget the local elections tomorrow). 

Whether it'll work or not remains to be seen, but it's a tried and tested technique.


----------



## phillm (May 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> So leaving the EU is now gonna cost us one hundred billion Euros.
> 
> The figure was presumably calculated by this man:



we can just print it from nowhere. Voila - job done !


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> She isn't mad. Everything she does and says for the next 6 weeks will be a carefully calibrated attempt to maximise the Tory vote in the GE (also don't forget the local elections tomorrow).
> 
> Whether it'll work or not remains to be seen, but it's a tried and tested technique.


Yeh like showing her abject horror at a cone of chips


----------



## Corax (May 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> She isn't mad. Everything she does and says for the next 6 weeks will be a carefully calibrated attempt to maximise the Tory vote in the GE (also don't forget the local elections tomorrow).
> 
> Whether it'll work or not remains to be seen, but it's a tried and tested technique.


Well *someone's* mad, and it's either her or the electorate...

Oh.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 3, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Malvinas



Falklands


----------



## killer b (May 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh like showing her abject horror at a cone of chips


They can only work with the materials they've got.


----------



## paolo (May 4, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This sounds scary. However it works both ways, many of Nissan's parts import in to the UK from the EU, so they would also be slapped with a 10% tariff, making it more attractive to make them in the UK. Herr Ashtraymaker of Baden Baden will not be pleased with this.



Or just move the plant to the EU.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 4, 2017)

paolo said:


> Or just move the plant to the EU.



Not sure the EU wants 5000 Geordies swarming all over the place


----------



## Yossarian (May 4, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Falklands



Îles Malouines


----------



## gentlegreen (May 4, 2017)

.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 4, 2017)

killer b said:


> She isn't mad. Everything she does and says for the next 6 weeks will be a carefully calibrated attempt to maximise the Tory vote in the GE (also don't forget the local elections tomorrow).
> 
> Whether it'll work or not remains to be seen, but it's a tried and tested technique.


Seems quite well judged from a GE perspective to me if a bit corny. Mobilise a wide swathe Leave voters once more by playing up the villainy of Brussels. Remainers can also be provoked into disappointed impatience by growing signs of a acrimonious Brexit. EU27 unity not collapsing can be spun as an abuse of plucky little Blighty standing once again against the dark forces of the Continent. Sell May as the essential Warrior Queen in a moment of danger and Corbyn as an ineffectual pretender. The Commission in turn can be relied on to provide pantomime villains for the tabloids by simply restating redlines drawn directly after the Leave vote. Patriotic Brits are suckers for this sort of thing and a lot of them are Kippers and Old Labour people. Outrage bus boarding voters may once more completely lose sight of the radical reforms the Tories actually want to get up to domestically.

The EU27 meanwhile are rather used to this sort of Dad's Army domestic theatrics from London and might wearily expect a flip to a more constructive stance after the GE so perhaps it's less damaging to the Brexit business than it would appear.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 4, 2017)

On Slugger On Brexit, the Irish are caught between two opposing forces, but at least they’re showing more invention and concern about the North than the British and northerners themselves

RoI pretty confident of survival of the Common Travel Area but worried Brexit will bugger their economy so badly they'll need EU support. Not happy with a very large exit bill for the UK looming up at the start of negotiations. Though it occurs to me collapsing Irish farmers who can't sell their beef needing a bung in transition might contradict that.


----------



## Raheem (May 4, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> Seems quite well judged from a GE perspective to me if a bit corny. Mobilise a wide swathe Leave voters once more by playing up the villainy of Brussels. Remainers can also be provoked into disappointed impatience by growing signs of a acrimonious Brexit. EU27 unity not collapsing can be spun as an abuse of plucky little Blighty standing once again against the dark forces of the Continent. Sell May as the essential Warrior Queen in a moment of danger and Corbyn as an ineffectual pretender. The Commission in turn can be relied on to provide pantomime villains for the tabloids by simply restating redlines drawn directly after the Leave vote. Patriotic Brits are suckers for this sort of thing and a lot of them are Kippers and Old Labour people. Outrage bus boarding voters may once more completely lose sight of the radical reforms the Tories actually want to get up to domestically.
> 
> The EU27 meanwhile are rather used to this sort of Dad's Army domestic theatrics from London and might wearily expect a flip to a more constructive stance after the GE so perhaps it's less damaging to the Brexit business than it would appear.



Pretty much spot on, I think. The bottom line is that, since the GE isn't going to rid them of May, the best outcome for the EU27 is for her to increase her majority in Parliament by as much as possible, so that she is rebel-proof and she can start negotiating. I think they'll have been off their faces on champagne in the commission building last night.


----------



## bimble (May 5, 2017)

Editor of the telegraph going full 'stabbed in the back'. Hard to imagine that it's all going to get worse and more embarrassing but no doubt it will.


----------



## Yossarian (May 5, 2017)

bimble said:


> Editor of the telegraph going full 'stabbed in the back'. Hard to imagine that it's all going to get worse and more embarrassing but no doubt it will.
> View attachment 105960



"First World War-style reparations revenge" is going to backfire by making the country more united, presumably behind a strong leader? I'm not sure this guy has completely thought through what the Conservative Party is supposed to represent in his analogy.


----------



## stethoscope (May 5, 2017)

Here comes financial capital once again asserting itself...
Brexit will 'stall' City, says Goldman Sachs chief




			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> The chief executive of Goldman Sachs has warned that London’s financial centre will “stall” due to the turmoil of the Brexit process.
> 
> Lloyd Blankfein, who runs the world’s second largest investment bank, said that a three-decade expansion that has turned London’s financial services sector into a world leader could grind to a halt.
> 
> ...


----------



## teqniq (May 5, 2017)

What a scumbag, definitely one for the salt mines.

Viscount offered £5k for Brexit campaigner Gina Miller to be run over, court hears



> A viscount offered £5,000 for someone to "run over" Brexit campaigner Gina Miller who he described as a "troublesome first generation immigrant" in a "menacing" Facebook post, a court heard.
> 
> Rhodri Philipps, 50, the 4th Viscount St Davids, is alleged to have written the message just four days after Ms Miller won a landmark High Court challenge against the Government last year....


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 5, 2017)

teqniq said:


> What a scumbag, definitely one for the salt mines.
> 
> Viscount offered £5k for Brexit campaigner Gina Miller to be run over, court hears






> pleaded not guilty to three charges of making malicious communications that were "of a menacing character".



Inciting murder is what us plebs would be charged with.



> When called "Mr St Davids" as he was asked to stand, Philipps responded: "I'm not Mr St Davids, I'm afraid, it's Lord St Davids."



Salt mines far too good for this fucker.


----------



## Raheem (May 5, 2017)

Junker playing his role excellently here. He's even managed to borrow some extras from Alice In Wonderland.

Brexit: English language 'losing importance' - EU's Juncker - BBC News


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 5, 2017)

In The LRB The Costs of Divorce


> ...
> Britain’s situation would be difficult enough if it faced an EU that merely felt betrayed and disappointed, masking its hurt with a curt determination to observe the formalities and get on with its life sans the small-minded churl across the Channel. But it’s worse than that: Britain must also deal with European leaders who face making deep, unforeseen cuts in their long term plans for the poorest regions of eastern and southern Europe. European officials experience loss of face; their own departments are trimmed back; their prestige suffers. Luxembourg falters just a little. Perhaps they blame Brexit; perhaps they blame Jean-Claude Juncker.
> 
> The week of Juncker’s dinner with Theresa May – which concluded with him ‘ten times more sceptical’ about a Brexit deal than he had been before, and a headline estimate of Britain’s exit fee in the _Financial Times_ at €100 billion (on closer examination, the figure wasn’t much more robust than the £350 million a week claim) – has been rich in divorce metaphors. It flattered Britain that one German MEP compared the country to a deadbeat dad who wanted to leave his wife and children without a penny. Yet it also underlined how significant Britain’s contribution is to the European family outgoings. The toxic combination of emotion, residual affection, deep shared experiences, accumulated resentment and a mutual sense of being financially taken for a ride by the other one’s lawyer that has doomed many an actual divorce to a crescendo of acrimony is beginning. How often the original consideration – what’s best for the kids? – comes down to a bitter, mutually destructive battle over money.


Divorces where a large chunk of coveted change is involved often get nasty.

The UK has second largest contribution to the EU even if it very modest per capita for such a wealthy country. Lots of it went on a UK/US pet project: expansion Eastward. Developing economies like Poland, Estonia and Romania. A rather faded cause that never really had popular support and in part led to Brexit. This points out that sort of project is quite a matter of face for Brussels. It's also far more obviously in a unified Germany's interest to continue building up its Eastern neighbours. 14 billion Euros PA is a fair chunk of change to source from elsewhere despite the Germans running that huge surplus. 

The EU27 are also anticipating Brexit multiplying economic problems for countries closely linked to the UK like the RoI which may need support. And this is all imminent and highly visible even if the cashflow is relatively trivial compared to maintaining longterm relationships.


----------



## Yossarian (May 5, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Junker playing his role excellently here. He's even managed to borrow some extras from Alice In Wonderland.
> 
> Brexit: English language 'losing importance' - EU's Juncker - BBC News



He has a point: in 2 years, there will be more people in the EU with Slovakian as their official language than English.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 5, 2017)

In The FT How the UK government is making a successful Brexit difficult

Considers how HMG would act in order to have a buggered Brexit and sees little difference from the current posturing. 

It all does feel a little Trumpian with much furious noise concealing great unease at confronting the complexities and perhaps not much calculation beyond short term domestic political advantage. But then that's been the whole Tory Brexit story. Brexit just means cracking on into chaos.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 5, 2017)

Yossarian said:


> He has a point: in 2 years, there will be more people in the EU with Slovakian as their official language than English.



He's just trying to enrage the kippers. In 2 years time how will the French speak to the Slovakian?


----------



## bi0boy (May 5, 2017)

Yossarian said:


> He has a point: in 2 years, there will be more people in the EU with Slovakian as their official language than English.



Does anyone in the UK actually care what language that drunken fool decides to use at a conference on the EU in Italy?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 5, 2017)

bi0boy said:


> Does anyone in the UK actually care what language that drunken fool decides to use at a conference on the EU in Italy?



Yes I do, French is his first language, his old man being a Nazi stooge so I imagine he speaks German too. If in his official capacity he wants to use OUR language, €1bn a word!


----------



## kabbes (May 5, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Here comes financial capital once again asserting itself...
> Brexit will 'stall' City, says Goldman Sachs chief


There's nothing he has said that I would disagree with.  The question is how much we should care.  If we generally think that Britain is far too dependent on its financial sector then it is a good thing for that financial sector to shrink.  On the other hand, if we are just interested in maximising GNP, Brexit was never a good plan.


----------



## Raheem (May 5, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He's just trying to enrage the kippers. In 2 years time how will the French speak to the Slovakian?



Yes, exactly. But it's a nice contribution to the pantomime all the same.


----------



## Yossarian (May 5, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He's just trying to enrage the kippers. In 2 years time how will the French speak to the Slovakian?



In French, possibly in German or English. Probably be the latter if somebody from Japan, Saudi Arabia, or India joins the conversation.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 7, 2017)

On Slugger Over the cliff edge – what would happen if exports to the EU were subject to tariffs


> ...
> Scotland would have the lowest tariffs on exports to the EU (3.5%), due to the fact that petroleum products are such a proportionally large part of the Scottish economy, and these exports attract low tariffs. Conversely, Northern Ireland’s exports would attract the highest tariffs (7.6%), due to the high levies on agricultural and food exports, which are a proportionally large part of the Northern Ireland economy.
> 
> However, Wales and Northern Ireland would be doubly impacted by a hard Brexit, because in addition to their exports attracting the highest tariffs, exports to the EU form a larger segment of their overall economy than is the case in Scotland and England. Exports from England to the EU in 2016 totalled £107 billion, which represented 7.6% of total GVA of £1.433 trillion. By comparison, Welsh exports to the EU were worth £8.27 billion, or 14.8% of Welsh GVA.
> ...


A hard Brexit out to WTO rules anticipated to hit culchies on both sides of the border.


----------



## teqniq (May 7, 2017)

Cambridge Analytica and Robert Mercer again. Proper can of worms.

The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 7, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Cambridge Analytica and Robert Mercer again. Proper can of worms.
> 
> The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked



All sorts going on there. Makes a mockery of all this 'will of the people' crap. 

That said, even if you take the big data/psyops stuff out the equation it's a well known fact that Aaron Banks, one private individual, poured huge amounts of money into pro-brexit campaigns. Nobody seemed to have a problem with that at the time. If we've already accepted the right of wealthy individuals to attempt to buy elections, we can't really complain about them simply updating their methodology. This alt-right cabal which now seems to be forming, and which will doubtless be tinkering in the UK and French elections in some form or other, is just an inevitable consequence of a dysfunctional model of democracy which has always tugged the forelock to capital above all else.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 7, 2017)

In The Guardian 'Brexit boom' gives Britain record 134 billionaires


> ...
> Britain’s has more billionaires than ever, as the super-rich reap the benefits of a “Brexit boom”, according to this year’s Sunday Times Rich List.
> 
> There are now 134 billionaires based in the UK, 14 more than the previous highest total. Fifteen years ago, there were 21.
> ...


Not quite working out as a populist stick it up the rich moment.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 9, 2017)

On Naked Capitalism Hoisted from E-Mail: Puzzling Out the UK’s Shambolic Approach to Brexit


> ...
> What interests me more is why the UK as a whole is so nonchalant about the chaotic handling of Brexit while the EU (and the rest of the world) looks on aghast. There’s no angst in the streets and if you try to engage anyone in conversation about this, no-one I’ve talked to is remotely interested — even hardened Remoaners just shrug. You can’t blame it all on Daily Mail and Telegraph delusional thinking.
> 
> I don’t know if Richard would agree (and I’m not certain on this point so would need a second opinion) but I wonder if, culturally, it is because we don’t view “muddle through” as A Bad Thing but rather as a badge of honour? I recall working on an (ill-fated, of course) project which had a largely German team from the vendor’s side. We had the usual disorganised make-it-up-as-you-go-along mentality which caused utter incomprehension and bemusement. As we were the clients and they were the suppliers, they had little leverage which skewed how much say they had, but they made continuous attempts to instil more rigour and efficiency into the design and decision-making process. To no avail, I hasten to add. It was like trying to push the North Poles of two magnets together. The harder one side shoved, the more resistance was generated. I’ve never encountered anything quite like it, before or since.
> ...


I've spent quite a lot of my career explaining the chaotic ways of English management to teams of perplexed German PHDs and impatient can do Americans. British military disasters of the last hundred years can prove useful by way of illustration, Singapore, Suez, Helmand and of course mythic Dunkirk. That brave tendency to crack on regardless with only the foresight to flagrantly preparing to pivot as a united body and blame everybody else when it goes horribly wrong. May's Brexit does look a classic case of _Oxbridge Seconds Syndrome_. 

At the moment it's pretty much reduced to trying to talk down the consequences of a chaotic Brexit and up the mendacity of The Commission which creates self fulfilling conditions for the former. Article points out UK PLC could rationally respond by preparing for the worst. Though you do have to remember that's all often run by the same sort of Oxbridge types engineering this sulky flounce away from the UK's major European trading partners.


----------



## bimble (May 9, 2017)

This was in Saturday's edition of The Sun. Note the comedy flag gun.
Seemingly unintentional, as it kind of undermines the whole purpose of the piece, or maybe the illustrator was getting their own take across
.


----------



## gentlegreen (May 9, 2017)

I see she's not wearing her £1,000 chaps  ...


----------



## Chilli.s (May 9, 2017)

I pay little attention to politics, so as the thread is now 85 pages and months old I figured brexit must all be done and dusted. What a surprise!


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 10, 2017)

On Slugger Europe’s chief negotiator to make the trip to Northern Ireland that our own Prime Minister is currently too busy for


> Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has said that during a trip to Ireland later this week he will visit the border areas that are soon to become the divide between the UK and the EU. Meanwhile, Theresa May in the run-up to the election that she has made all about Brexit has reversed her earlier promise to visit the place that will likely be most affected by the split with Europe. In this time of uncertainty for Northern Ireland with threats of a return to the hard border of the past, Northern Ireland is currently reliant on the people who are supposedly the UK’s opposition in the negotiations to look out for our interests. The paradox of this situation does not seem to be particularly bothering any of our politicians.
> ...


The border issue does seem to loom larger for Brussels than London.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 12, 2017)

On VoxEU Options for a ‘Global Britain’ after Brexit


> ...
> *Conclusion*
> 
> The UK government states that it is aiming to replace the UK’s membership of the EU by other, broad trade agreements. However, at this stage it is not clear what these new trade agreements will look like and which countries could be involved. What are the alternatives for the UK government? A US-UK trade deal? A more extreme worldwide trade deal? If the UK government aims to compensate for the large negative trade shock of Brexit, the options seem limited. Based on existing empirical evidence on trade agreements, our conclusion is simple. If the UK wants to limit the negative trade effects of Brexit, the UK has no trade-enhancing alternative to an agreement with the EU that essentially mimics the situation in which the UK is a member of the EU.


Not just due to the obvious tyranny of geography but gulfs in culture and legal systems with replacement partners. Which should dictate the UK trying very hard to avoid the messily acrimonious Brexit that seems to be brewing.

You can see what could be coming here as well: hastily struck subordinate trade relationships with the US and China that grate even more than dealing sulkily with Berlin's ascendency in Europe which also isn't going away.


----------



## Ranbay (May 12, 2017)

May was on LBC last night and from what I could pick up she seems to think we are getting free access to free trade deals


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 12, 2017)

Ranbay said:


> May was on LBC last night and from what I could pick up she seems to think we are getting free access to free trade deals



Every day that passes I become more convinced that Theresa May is an honest-to-god simple person.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Every day that passes I become more convinced that Theresa May is an honest to god simple person.


she may be honest to god, but she lies to everyone else.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 12, 2017)

.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 12, 2017)

I see mcewans banging on again:
'1.5m oldsters in their graves' could swing second EU vote, says Ian McEwan

at least he didn't mention the third reich this time


----------



## redsquirrel (May 12, 2017)

Grade A cunt.

This is the scum that supported the Iraq war and called those opposed to it Saddam sympathisers.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 15, 2017)

On Politico Brexit exposes threat to UK cheddar supply


> Britain’s imports of its favorite cheese — cheddar — are under threat because of Brexit.
> 
> Ireland supplies about a third of the U.K.’s cheddar but leading Irish manufacturers are now contemplating switching to mozzarella production because of fears about Britain crashing out of the EU.
> 
> ...


A Hard Cheese Brexit!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2017)

i'll just leave this here



Statewatch News Online: EU wastes no time welcoming prospect of Big Brother databases


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2017)

oh: and this from the echr


http://www.statewatch.org/news/2017/may/echr-simeonovi-v-bulgaria-judgment-pr-12-5-17.pdf


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll just leave this here
> 
> View attachment 106955
> 
> Statewatch News Online: EU wastes no time welcoming prospect of Big Brother databases


My God, that's like what GCHQ was doing a decade ago. Europe's most extensive surveillance society leaving makes so little difference.


----------



## Raheem (May 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> oh: and this from the echr
> View attachment 106957



That heading doesn't quite look complete to me without the words "and I am not making this up".


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 23, 2017)

On Bloomberg Brexit Dims British Dream of Owning a Home in the Spanish Sun

Mainly due to the falling Pound but a Hard Brexit looming ever larger does raise lots of citizenship issues. Becomes a bigger gamble.

Probably the biggest loss due to Brexit for prosperous Middle England: ending up with little choice but to retire there rather than happily grumbling about the natives to each other where they used to holiday.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 24, 2017)

On Bloomberg Bundesbank's Dombret Says Brexit Likely to Be Hard or Very Hard

Expects London to remain the financial centre of Europe with some movement of business to the EU. Brexit requires careful preparation for this. Not particularly pushing Frankfurt. Very happy with "robust" German economy.


----------



## CrabbedOne (May 31, 2017)

On The Irish Economy Brexit: Accelerating the Drive Toward Corporate Tax Harmonisation?


> ...
> Brexit will accelerate the drive to harmonise corporate income tax systems, and the probability of this being successfully passed has increased, not least because of a change in the number of votes. The EU Council now looks completely different: the votes are significantly stacked in favour of the Franco-German alliance. But on CCCTB, qualified majority voting cannot be used, as unanimity is required. However, what this means is that Germany and France will seek to win Irish, Danish, Dutch and Baltic support through consensus, and side-payments.
> 
> Whether or not Ireland chooses to completely veto any attempt to introduce a CCCTB is, of course, a political question, and likely to be determined by the partisan colour of elected government. But it is worth asking whether Irish citizens would support policies aimed at harmonising the tax base, even if Irish elites would not? Ireland is already in the spotlight for facilitating global tax avoidance (not least with the Apple case). Further, Ireland makes up less than 1% of the EU population (even if one adds the Dutch, Danes and Baltic states, combined they are only a small percentage of the EU whole). Hence, is it really in Irelands long term strategic interest to veto those EU policies aimed at strengthening the problem solving capacity of Europe, post-Brexit?
> ...


Bit of a double whammy this: 

Dublin loses an ally in fighting against EU corporate tax harmonisation
Post-Brexit London potentially races to slash it's own CT rates emulating the tax dodgy smaller island's neoliberal business model


----------



## free spirit (Jun 1, 2017)

I'm just going to say before it happens, that if Corbyn wins this election then I may have to concede that the Lexit supporters massive gamble will have paid off. 

I was always working on the basis that the tories wouldn't be so fucking stupid as to risk an election before Brexit, but I'm getting the distinct impression that Corbyn may have somehow deliberately contrived to lure them into a trap, then pounced on them with a well thought out manifesto and a party on the ground that was clearly well prepared to fight this snap election.

It remains one hell of a gamble mind, but if it does pay off then fair play to you all.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 1, 2017)

free spirit said:


> I'm just going to say before it happens, that if Corbyn wins this election then I may have to concede that the Lexit supporters massive gamble will have paid off.



Lexiters predicted that the Tories would implode as a direct consequence of the vote. That didn't happen.


----------



## mather (Jun 1, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Lexiters predicted that the Tories would implode as a direct consequence of the vote. That didn't happen.



Who exactly?


----------



## gosub (Jun 1, 2017)

free spirit said:


> I'm just going to say before it happens, that if Corbyn wins this election then I may have to concede that the Lexit supporters massive gamble will have paid off.
> 
> I was always working on the basis that the tories wouldn't be so fucking stupid as to risk an election before Brexit, but I'm getting the distinct impression that Corbyn may have somehow deliberately contrived to lure them into a trap, then pounced on them with a well thought out manifesto and a party on the ground that was clearly well prepared to fight this snap election.
> 
> It remains one hell of a gamble mind, but if it does pay off then fair play to you all.


Not really.  Having perused Labour's manifesto on Brexit, they are aiming for where we would have ended up anyway had Remain won the referendum.  (and given the poor understanding of EUrope they'd get away with it too)

Yes, you need to stick with Single Market for transitional period longer than the prescribed 2 years, (mind, what vague plans the Tories occasionally mention, are nuts) , but it has to be transitional.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 1, 2017)

mather said:


> Who exactly?



I have to admit I'm thinking of people I know. And it's always possible that they are not representative. But I definitely don't recall anyone saying that we should vote Brexit because it would make the Tories enormously popular and then they'd call a general election thinking they'd clean up but it would all go wrong for them because they would have picked Theresa May as their leader.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 1, 2017)

a spanner in the works was one I mentioned- a disruption to the new normal. This was mentioned as a speculative side bonus by me, other reasons discussed ad nauseum played the greater part in my decision. And well, here we are. No matter how it goes.
Nobody could have predicted how it would go, not even the professional pollsters are sure of their ground anymore


----------



## gosub (Jun 1, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Lexiters predicted that the Tories would implode as a direct consequence of the vote. That didn't happen.



?I think the election, was in part, to theoretically reduce the chances of that happening.... Majority of 20, a hostage to fortune to both wings of the Tory party.  Have an election, pile on another 60-100 seats and then you're back calling the shots...


----------



## Raheem (Jun 1, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> a spanner in the works was one I mentioned- a disruption to the new normal. This was mentioned as a speculative side bonus by me, other reasons discussed ad nauseum played the greater part in my decision. And well, here we are. No matter how it goes.
> Nobody could have predicted how it would go, not even the professional pollsters are sure of their ground anymore



But the spanner in the works was a giant shift to the right, which now has an outside chance of being miraculously corrected. Labour's polling still hasn't caught up to what it was immediately pre-Brexit.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 1, 2017)

gosub said:


> ?I think the election, was in part, to theoretically reduce the chances of that happening.... Majority of 20, a hostage to fortune to both wings of the Tory party.  Have an election, pile on another 60-100 seats and then you're back calling the shots...



This, I'll concede. But the idea that what is happening now is the predicable unfolding of the Lexit plan isn't really credible.


----------



## paolo (Jun 1, 2017)

Raheem said:


> This, I'll concede. But the idea that what is happening now is the predicable unfolding of the Lexit plan isn't really credible.



Was there a lexit *plan*?

As I've understood it so far, it was an ideological objection, not a plan as such. (Apologies in advance if I've got that wrong).


----------



## Raheem (Jun 1, 2017)

paolo said:


> Was there a lexit *plan*?
> 
> As I've understood it so far, it was an ideological objection, not a plan as such. (Apologies in advance if I've got that wrong).



I expect it may have been different things to different people. But, if there was no Lexit plan as such, then that's just one more reason why what's happening now is not the Lexit plan coming to fruition.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

i note efta and vietnam had their fourteenth round of negotiations on a free trade agreement last month, with a fifteenth round scheduled for the autumn. fucking fourteen rounds! over many years! and the tories think a free trade agreement with the eu will be a piece of piss.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jun 9, 2017)

On Bloomberg The U.K. Is Heading for a Hung Parliament. What Happens Now?


> ...
> 5. What could this mean for Brexit?
> 
> First off it will likely delay the divorce talks due to start the week after next. It could also deprive the EU of the familiar negotiating partner they expected to have in May. More planning may be needed, eating into the time available to strike a deal before Britain leaves the bloc in March 2019.
> ...


My bold, the DUP's interesting new position came up on another thread. Not compatible with a "no deal is better than a bad deal" Brexit.


----------



## Supine (Jun 9, 2017)

What an utter omnishambles for the start of Brexit negotiations


----------



## teqniq (Jun 13, 2017)

Labour rules out cross-party Brexit approach until Theresa May drops 'no deal' rhetoric

The crux of the biscuit - for me and it would appear Labour concerning involving other parties in the process - at least at this moment in time:



> ...While Mr Gardiner said Labour wants a successful Brexit, he went on: “When Governments are in a fix they say ‘let’s have a royal commission’ or ‘we need to consult other parties about this’.
> 
> “What that means is ‘shit, we don’t know what to do, so let’s rope others into this so they can share the blame"....



No flies on this bloke and refreshing use of language and honesty from a politician.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 14, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Bloomberg The U.K. Is Heading for a Hung Parliament. What Happens Now?
> My bold, the DUP's interesting new position came up on another thread. Not compatible with a "no deal is better than a bad deal" Brexit.



No, but reality is not compatible with "no deal is better than a bad deal". I'm not sure what the DUP's position exactly is, but I also remain to be convinced it's any different to the Tory one that says it is perfectly possible to get the EU to agree to a set of logically contradictory propositions.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 16, 2017)

Not I think that it needed any real confirmation but if this article is anything to go by, it appears that the UK government is a laughing stock.

Brexit Is Dead: A Wave of Anger Crashes over Britain - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2017)

the tone of dripping contempt is interesting, not just for tories or even politicians but for that which is British, from plumbing to the NHS.  Left me wondering how it must feel to be Greek.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 16, 2017)

I had a fun conversation with someone who's a fairly high up person in weights and measures.  They were lucky enough to have a meeting David Davies recently.  They explained the problems they are going to face post-brexit one of which being pumping petrol.  We pump in litres and all the testing facilities and measurements of what exactly a litre is are in Brussels.  We have no means of accurately collaborating this ourselves.

Davies was shocked by this as it had never occurred to him.  His hastily thought up solution?  Lets just go back to fluid ounces.....  At that point every person in the room did a collective  and spent the rest of the meeting shaking their heads.

Its going to be a great couple of years.


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> all the testing facilities and measurements of what exactly a litre is are in Brussels.  We have no means of accurately collaborating this ourselves.


I'm sorry I don't get that

see Calibration service for mass, length and volume artifacts - GOV.UK


> *Introduction*
> NMO Certification and Testing Services, which is part of Regulatory Delivery, operates under the Secretary of State for the calibration of weighing and measuring instruments, and provides certification of calibration to section 4 and 6 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985.
> 
> NMO supports local authorities through section 4 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985, enabling them to ensure consumers and trade are operating within the required specifications.
> ...





> *Volume calibration*
> NMO has the capability to calibrate vessels from micro-pipettes dispensing a few microlitres to proving tanks which are large volumetric standards with capacities of several thousand litres. UKAS accreditation is held for the gravimetric (inferring the volume from the weight of a liquid discharged or contained) calibration of metal measures, both content and delivery over the range 1 to 500 litres with a best measurement capability of 0.008% of volume. Our UKAS accredited calibration for glassware covers 1 ml to 20 litres. We have the capability to calibrate volumetrically, by discharge of a transfer liquid from a delivery vessel content vessels, ranging from small laboratory glassware to large proving tanks containing thousands of litres. Calibration of large vessels is usually carried out in-situ.



It's entirely possible the European Standard Litre is in Brussels, but I very much doubt that will affect calibration of the British Standard Petrol Pump anytime soon.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 16, 2017)

How do you calibrate the calibration equipment?  This guy knows his stuff believe me.


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2017)

I don't. 

I'm just very skeptical about the premise (though I'm happy to believe that David Davies was correctly quoted).  Calibration is done by carefully going back to a standard.  The suggestion that because that standard is held in Brussels (if it is) Britain will no longer have access to it strikes me as fanciful.  Can the Japanese, Australians or, I dunno, Iranians not measure litres accurately?  

Seems as preposterous as saying that because Universal Time is derived from the old GMT, based on the prime meridian at Greenwich the rest of the world won't be able to tell the time accurately. Or indeed use latitude and longitude.


----------



## pocketscience (Jun 16, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> How do you calibrate the calibration equipment?  This guy knows his stuff believe me.


The same way they do it in Australia (or anywhere else in the rest of the big wide world), maybe?


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jun 16, 2017)

Raheem said:


> No, but reality is not compatible with "no deal is better than a bad deal". I'm not sure what the DUP's position exactly is, but I also remain to be convinced it's any different to the Tory one that says it is perfectly possible to get the EU to agree to a set of logically contradictory propositions.


The DUP in theory want the hardest of hard Brexits (with a hard on while waving a Union Jack) but with an entirely open Irish border no extra checks at seaports and airports and great trade relations with the RoI. There's a similar sort of delusion about this to English Leavers as it's difficult to leave the Customs Unions without creating a host of border problems. As with May's Brexiters the realities will thud home eventually.

The big difference is the DUP are actually very connected to a working/lower middle class base. They're a very effective constituency party notably better at bringing home the bacon to their constituencies than SF. They are concerned with delivering for their voters rather than just being motivated by internal party squabbling as the Tories are. N.Ireland is going to be the part of the UK hit hardest by Brexit due to its geography. For instance they've got a lot of farmers in there core support that are scraping along and will be clobbered if WTO tariffs get put on. That means 15%+ tariffs on dairy which is barely profitable these days anyway. These people will go bust and that will hit the rural N.I. economy in general. Even if the DUP bring back a huge bribe from London and expand the N.I. public sector even more it won't compensate.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 16, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> How do you calibrate the calibration equipment?  This guy knows his stuff believe me.



Yes.  You have to have a special department to do all this stuff.  We don't have one for a lot of it because it was all shifted to Brussels.  The point being made that we need to re-open these things sharpish or do a deal with the EU.  The fact that it had not occurred to the Brexit minister is the point being made here.


----------



## gosub (Jun 16, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Yes.  You have to have a special department to do all this stuff.  We don't have one for a lot of it because it was all shifted to Brussels.  The point being made that we need to re-open these things sharpish or do a deal with the EU.  The fact that it had not occurred to the Brexit minister is the point being made here.



No the point being made it that Davis can't see his solution is just making the problem harder without actually addressing it


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 16, 2017)

gosub said:


> No the point being made it that Davis can't see his solution is just making the problem harder without actually addressing it



That as well.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 16, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> They explained the problems they are going to face post-brexit one of which being pumping petrol.  We pump in litres and all the testing facilities and measurements of what exactly a litre is are in Brussels.  We have no means of accurately collaborating this ourselves.



This is dumb. Will leaving the EU also cause us to forget how to translate things into German, brew Italian coffee, and eat Croissants properly?


----------



## Supine (Jun 16, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I had a fun conversation with someone who's a fairly high up person in weights and measures.  They were lucky enough to have a meeting David Davies recently.  They explained the problems they are going to face post-brexit one of which being pumping petrol.  We pump in litres and all the testing facilities and measurements of what exactly a litre is are in Brussels.  We have no means of accurately collaborating this ourselves.



It's a non issue and shouldn't detract from the other very real issues with brexit.

The litre hasn't used a reference standard (in france, not brussels) for decades.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 16, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Not I think that it needed any real confirmation but if this article is anything to go by, it appears that the UK government is a laughing stock.
> 
> Brexit Is Dead: A Wave of Anger Crashes over Britain - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International



Britain has been a laughing stock for a while if all you read is German papers. At least some of this has to be attributable to teutonic chagrin at our having had the temerity to opt out of their little protection racket.


----------



## mather (Jun 16, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Britain has been a laughing stock for a while if all you read is German papers. At least some of this has to be attributable to teutonic chagrin at our having had the temerity to opt out of their little protection racket.



If you think that is bad then remember the sickening racist frenzy the German media went into during the Greek crisis a few years back, all that crap about lazy, swarthy Mediterraneans. Seriously, no should give a flying fuck what the cunts that make up the German media think.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jun 17, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Britain has been a laughing stock for a while if all you read is German papers. At least some of this has to be attributable to teutonic chagrin at our having had the temerity to opt out of their little protection racket.



The German press are of a similar standard to the British press.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 18, 2017)

newbie said:


> I don't.
> 
> I'm just very skeptical about the premise (though I'm happy to believe that David Davies was correctly quoted).  Calibration is done by carefully going back to a standard.  The suggestion that because that standard is held in Brussels (if it is) Britain will no longer have access to it strikes me as fanciful.  Can the Japanese, Australians or, I dunno, Iranians not measure litres accurately?
> 
> Seems as preposterous as saying that because Universal Time is derived from the old GMT, based on the prime meridian at Greenwich the rest of the world won't be able to tell the time accurately. Or indeed use latitude and longitude.


Calibration will be done by testing one machine against another that has been recently calibrated itself with other reference test machines.

Presumably across the whole of Europe the reference test machines for each standard are regularly calibrated with one machine in Brussels to ensure that all the calibrated testers across the whole of the EU are always calibrated to the exact same standard. Without this over time different countries reference machines will themselves drift away from the standard.


----------



## gosub (Jun 18, 2017)

I am confused as to why the EU is duplicating standards when most of the global standards are housed in Paris


----------



## newbie (Jun 18, 2017)

.


----------



## Supine (Jun 18, 2017)

gosub said:


> I am confused as to why the EU is duplicating standards when most of the global standards are housed in Paris



Because they aren't.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 18, 2017)

Dom Traynor said:


> The German press are of a similar standard to the British press.



Further to this, British liberals lining up with the xenophobic and classist German press to punch down at Leave voters in much the same way that they attacked the resistance of the Greek people against their own oligarchy and German finance is both common and disgusting.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 18, 2017)

Today seems to have marked the start of a renewed process of trying to force the Labour leadership into taking a pro-EU position, unless things change significantly this would still be electorally disastrous. Besides which, how much of the Labour Manifesto could be gotten through while we were in the EU or some other similar arrangement including staying in the customs union?


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jun 18, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> This is dumb. Will leaving the EU also cause us to forget how to translate things into German, brew Italian coffee, and eat Croissants properly?


The problem is more after joining the EU rather a lot of things were taken care of by the institution centrally. The UK now has to make a deal with the EU or do those things once again for itself. This is after all one reason why the UK is leaving (British sausages may soon once again be mostly rusk!) but it's far from a cost free transition.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jun 18, 2017)

Here we go! Tomorrow a country without a government enters its most important negotiations since WW2.

What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jun 18, 2017)

On Bloomberg Trade, Stupid: Three Charts Show Why DUP Needs Soft Brexit







> ...
> Without a deal, Northern Ireland’s exporters face tariffs, based on World Trade Organization rules. The DUP is not demanding the U.K. stays in the customs union as the price for supporting Prime Minister May, the Financial Times reported, without citing anyone.
> 
> “It all depends on the trade deal with the EU,” said Robert Murphy, a former customs official at the Irish tax authority who later worked at the European Commission in Brussels. “Without a free-trade agreement and no-tariff agreement, then it’s WTO tariff rates.”
> ...


The DUP have said they want out of the customs union so the UK has a free hand to do all those fabulous trade deals the Brexiters promised. But look who N.I. trades with. The tyranny of geography is in play. Looking at other instances a comprehensive EU-UK trade deal could take a decade. A50 ends in less than 22 months with the UK now in complete disarray. N.I. farmers are probably going to end up fucked and along with them entire rural communities. They did anticipate that. A lot don't like the EU but didn't vote for this malarkey. 

And when the UK finally makes a trade deal with the much stronger US isn't it likely that means a flood of cheap agri-products that put so many Mexican farmers out of business after NAFTA? This doesn't end for the culchies you see or for anyone who makes stuff for export.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 18, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Besides which, how much of the Labour Manifesto could be gotten through while we were in the EU or some other similar arrangement including staying in the customs union?



AFAIK, all of it. Are you aware of something that would be problematic?


----------



## bimble (Jun 19, 2017)

Well this is kind of as you'd expect, UK capitulates on day one with regard to something we were blustering was going to be a big fight. 

Brexit: Whatever happened to the “row of the summer”?

But don't worry, we've got our top people on it:


----------



## J Ed (Jun 19, 2017)

Raheem said:


> AFAIK, all of it. Are you aware of something that would be problematic?



Nationalisations primarily I would have thought.


----------



## ohmyliver (Jun 19, 2017)

when it fucks up, I wonder if they'll blame it on leavers on the line.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2017)

The exchange of gifts symbolism did make me laugh; a walking aid for the crippled UK and a mountaineering guide for Barnier (watch that cliff edge!).

Whole thing reminded me of those awkward pennant exchanges that seemed compulsory before any game when on schoolboy football tours of the near continent. You know the ones...where you turned up to play their "under 14s", who were all 6 ft with facial hair, and then lost 9-0. 
Hmmm


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2017)




----------



## Ming (Jun 19, 2017)

Here we go...
UK caves in to EU demand to agree divorce bill before trade talks
After this is over it'll become apparent this was all about Tories and the 1% increasing their control over Britain by getting rid of pesky EU oversight and nothing else.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jun 20, 2017)

On Politico EU gains upper hand as uphill Brexit talks begin


> ...
> The initial focus on citizens’ rights and finances prompted some questions about whether another thorny issue — the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland — had been pushed aside.
> 
> Davis insisted the Irish border issue had taken up more time than any other on the first day of talks, but acknowledged it was a ferociously difficult matter to resolve. While he insisted negotiators wanted to maintain an “invisible border” in keeping with the Good Friday Agreement, there would also be a need for new customs and border checks.
> ...


So it's acknowledged there will be checks at the Irish border. From reading around it seems at a minimum freight will be stopped and sometimes inspected. The UK is not expecting any quick resolution on that border. It'll likely drag on to the end of talks. That will not please folk with cross border supply chains.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 20, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Nationalisations primarily I would have thought.



Has this not already been done at least once on this thread? There's nothing about EFTA or the EU that prohibits nationalisations. It's just kipper propaganda. You only have to look at the recent history of nationalisations in the UK rail and banking sectors to know that.

Nationalisations, like any major business transfers, have to comply with EU competition law, but there's nothing in the Labour manifesto to suggest that's not what they intend.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jun 21, 2017)

On Politico Northern Ireland emerges as the thorniest issue in Brexit talks


> ...
> *Hard border not an option*
> 
> A hard border is not considered a viable option by either side, given the political sensitivities around preserving the hard-won peace process in Northern Ireland, already under threat from a political crisis that saw the power-sharing government there collapse in January.
> ...


Once dismissed as a non-issue now emerging as perhaps the best excuse for a softer Brexit. Let's call it the Andrex option.


----------



## Kesher (Jun 22, 2017)

Brexit can still be stopped, European Council leader says


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 22, 2017)

maybe I am using some kind of rubbish browser- but indy links always come up jumbled, and he content is not much better once you have fixed the formatting.

(((netscape)))


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 22, 2017)

Kesher said:


> Brexit can still be stopped, European Council leader says


This is one of those non-news news stories. Of course brexit can still be stopped if both sides agree to stop it. That will continue to be the case until it actually happens. The crap about A50 being final was just that, crap.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 22, 2017)

well its the first time a member state has left so there is no precedent to fall back on, nothing. I don't recon they'd be able to get all the other member states to agree to let us go back in and if they did you can bet it would be on our knees anyway.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 22, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is one of those non-news news stories. Of course brexit can still be stopped if both sides agree to stop it. That will continue to be the case until it actually happens. The crap about A50 being final was just that, crap.



The idea may not be news, but it probably is news that senior EU figures are suddenly making a point of saying it when previously it has been denied.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 22, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> well its the first time a member state has left so there is no precedent to fall back on, nothing. I don't recon they'd be able to get all the other member states to agree to let us go back in and if they did you can bet it would be on our knees anyway.


Go back in, sure. But we're not at that point yet. Nowhere near. Stopping the process now would save all those member states a huge amount of work and grief. They'd jump at stopping it now.

The timing of this statement determines its content. Now that the QS outlining brexit bills has been presented, we are nearing the last point at which both sides can stop without actually doing any more than shaking hands.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 22, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Go back in, sure. But we're not at that point yet. Nowhere near. Stopping the process now would save all those member states a huge amount of work and grief. They'd jump at stopping it now.
> 
> The timing of this statement determines its content. Now that the QS outlining brexit bills has been presented, we are nearing the last point at which both sides can stop without actually doing any more than shaking hands.


we'll see a lot of shaking hands as the magnitude of the task comes home to davis and his callow crew


----------



## pocketscience (Jun 22, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Go back in, sure. But we're not at that point yet. Nowhere near. Stopping the process now would save all those member states a huge amount of work and grief. They'd jump at stopping it now.
> 
> The timing of this statement determines its content. Now that the QS outlining brexit bills has been presented, we are nearing the last point at which both sides can stop without actually doing any more than shaking hands.


Plane takes off


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 22, 2017)

pocketscience said:


> Plane takes off


----------



## Raheem (Jun 22, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Go back in, sure. But we're not at that point yet. Nowhere near. Stopping the process now would save all those member states a huge amount of work and grief. They'd jump at stopping it now.
> 
> The timing of this statement determines its content. Now that the QS outlining brexit bills has been presented, we are nearing the last point at which both sides can stop without actually doing any more than shaking hands.



Mainly true, I think. But the timing is probably more to do with the Tories' domestic position and the encroaching reality that the whole thing is likely to go arse over tit. They want to establish an exit ramp that leads somewhere other than out-with-no-deal.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 22, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Mainly true, I think. But the timing is probably more to do with the Tories' domestic position and the encroaching reality that the whole thing is likely to go arse over tit. They want to establish an exit ramp that leads somewhere other than out-with-no-deal.


Oh sure. The timing is also to coincide with the UK govt's position of weakness, which has come just at the moment negotiations start.   May must be a laughing stock among other leaders. Is there a more useless head of govt in the world at the moment? Maybe Trump.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 22, 2017)

are there any parliamentary votes to be held over Brexit other than the vote over the final package in 2019?

 what pressure might May really come under, beyond griping? My understanding is that there are no more votes and the only concrete challenge would be a vote of no confidence / leadership challenge. That might yet happen if, for example, soft Brexit becomes clear as the path May is following....

?


----------



## Raheem (Jun 22, 2017)

ska invita said:


> are there any parliamentary votes to be held over Brexit other than the vote over the final package in 2019?
> 
> what pressure might May really come under, beyond griping? My understanding is that there are no more votes and the only concrete challenge would be a vote of no confidence / leadership challenge. That might yet happen if, for example, soft Brexit becomes clear as the path May is following....
> 
> ?



There were eight separate Brexit bills in the QS. With Maastricht, John Major had to double-head the legislation with a confidence motion (i.e. if it had been voted down, the government would have fallen) in order to get it through, so something like that is a possibility.

Think it's not just a soft Brexit that poses risks for May. Depending on what course takes, she could have rebels at either end of the Tory spectrum, and it's a hard Brexit that probably guarantees her no votes from the non-NI opposition parties.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 22, 2017)

Raheem said:


> There were eight separate Brexit bills in the QS. With Maastricht, John Major had to double-head the legislation with a confidence motion (i.e. if it had been voted down, the government would have fallen) in order to get it through, so something like that is a possibility.
> 
> Think it's not just a soft Brexit that poses risks for May. Depending on what course takes, she could have rebels at either end of the Tory spectrum, and it's a hard Brexit that probably guarantees her no votes from the non-NI opposition parties.


so there will be a vote next week on each of the Brexit bills?  i forget now what the bills say (I had a brief look on Wednesday) but  are they not currently ambiguous? Their meaning will come with time of negotiations... By which time they will have been (potentially) passed with next weeks vote???


----------



## Raheem (Jun 23, 2017)

ska invita said:


> so there will be a vote next week on each of the Brexit bills?  i forget now what the bills say (I had a brief look on Wednesday) but  are they not currently ambiguous? Their meaning will come with time of negotiations... By which time they will have been (potentially) passed with next weeks vote???



No, no. They will be voted on one by one over the next two years. Quite possibly they won't be in a mad rush.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 23, 2017)

these are the Brexit bills as summarised by the FT...


Repeal bill: This long-expected legislation will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and convert EU legislation into UK law. It gives the government temporary powers to make secondary legislation — something known as “Henry VIII powers”.

Customs bill: This bill seeks to ensure the UK has a standalone customs regime on exiting the EU, which will provide the flexibility to accommodate future trade agreements with the EU and others. The legislation should enable the UK to have “standalone” regimes on value added tax and excise duties on leaving the EU. Until recently it was thought that chancellor Philip Hammond would fight for Britain to stay in the EU customs union — but he has since accepted departure as inevitable.

Trade bill: This puts in place the legal framework to allow Britain to operate its own independent trade policy upon exit from the EU.

Immigration bill: This will allow the government to control the number of incomers from Europe. It makes the migration of EU nationals and their family members subject to relevant UK law post-Brexit.

Fisheries bill: This will enable Britain to control access to its waters and set its own fishing quotas after Brexit. That will, claim ministers, “help ensure prosperity for a new generation of fishermen as well as preserve and increase fish stocks”.

Agriculture bill: This bill promises to create an “effective system” to provide “stability” for farmers and protect the natural environment after Brexit.

Nuclear safeguards bill: This promises a new safeguarding regime because Brexit may require Britain to leave the auspices of Euratom, the European nuclear regulator. The bill gives the Office for Nuclear Regulation powers to take on the responsibilities to meet international nuclear rules.

International sanctions bill: This will establish a new sovereign UK framework to implement international sanctions on a multilateral or unilateral basis.

..............................................

 if parliament votes on each one then that leaves a lot of potential for the process to collapse... Unless a mood of national unity government prevails? It might not  play well for, say, labour, to crash the whole system in a vote... The two year ticking clock creates the pressure of crashing out with no deal. 

 the day after the election iirc Corbyn described the repeal bill as toast. Suggests they plan to vote against?

is the above correct? Is this what awaits?


----------



## nuffsaid (Jun 23, 2017)

Do like this Brexit alternate reality, particularly February

It’s been a grim year – but what if Britain had never voted for Brexit? | Jack Bernhardt

The referendum result has bolstered the Lib Dems – they now favour “hard remain”. Under their new leader Herman Van Rompuy, they hold press conferences exclusively in Esperanto, only pay for things using euros and declares that they’ve gone “full metric system” – they refer to Miles Davis as 1.60934km Davis, and call the former 1980s Labour leader Michael 0.305m. The result has also helped Ukip, who still have a reason to exist – their narrow defeat has just made them resolve to work harder. They’ve declared Clacton-on-Sea a free state, independent of the UK, where everyone must start every conversation with “I’m not racist but …”. Parliament is more polarised and angry than ever: the Lib Dems declares that finding an agreement is like getting blood from a 6350.29g.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 23, 2017)

I'm trying to make sense of the proposals for EU nationals remaining in the UK as it potentially affects friends of mine, suggests they will need to have been here for five years to gain a right to stay. They've been here for less than three years, but their elder son has just started school here, speaks English. Their second kid was born here last year. It's going to cause anxiety in the short term while it's not clarified, then potentially shit for son 1 if he has to switch to schooling in another language in another country. There's people at the shitty end of this Tory posturing.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 23, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> I'm trying to make sense of the proposals for EU nationals remaining in the UK as it potentially affects friends of mine, suggests they will need to have been here for five years to gain a right to stay. They've been here for less than three years, but their elder son has just started school here, speaks English. Their second kid was born here last year. It's going to cause anxiety in the short term while it's not clarified, then potentially shit for son 1 if he has to switch to schooling in another language in another country. There's people at the shitty end of this Tory posturing.



Its a mess already.

This was the easy part, the bit both sides agreed on.  The easy win they could get out of the way.  Already the tories are making a fucking pigs ear of it and will end up having to retreat to a reasonable position.  Inept is too polite.


----------



## mather (Jun 23, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> Do like this Brexit alternate reality, particularly February
> 
> It’s been a grim year – but what if Britain had never voted for Brexit? | Jack Bernhardt
> 
> The referendum result has bolstered the Lib Dems – they now favour “hard remain”. Under their new leader Herman Van Rompuy, they hold press conferences exclusively in Esperanto, only pay for things using euros and declares that they’ve gone “full metric system” – they refer to Miles Davis as 1.60934km Davis, and call the former 1980s Labour leader Michael 0.305m. The result has also helped Ukip, who still have a reason to exist – their narrow defeat has just made them resolve to work harder. They’ve declared Clacton-on-Sea a free state, independent of the UK, where everyone must start every conversation with “I’m not racist but …”. Parliament is more polarised and angry than ever: the Lib Dems declares that finding an agreement is like getting blood from a 6350.29g.



Jesus Christ that is crap! What is it with the Guardian filling up their pages with shitty 'comedy' articles?

They say the Germans have no sense of humour, whilst I can't possibly comment on that either way it is rather evident that liberals have none as the above example clearly illustrates.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 23, 2017)

mather said:


> Jesus Christ that is crap! What is it with the Guardian filling up their pages with shitty 'comedy' articles?
> 
> They say the Germans have no sense of humour, whilst I can't possibly comment on that either way it is rather evident that liberals have none as the above example clearly illustrates.



People scoffed when I told them I would be a stand-up comedian. But who's laughing now eh?


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 23, 2017)

One thing I really hope will get fixed is the disgraceful situation with the fishing industry.  Sadly I think they'll be sold out again as it's just to juicy a bargaining chip.


----------



## mather (Jun 23, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> One thing I really hope will get fixed is the disgraceful situation with the fishing industry.  Sadly I think they'll be sold out again as it's just to juicy a bargaining chip.



Our fishermen, along with everyone else, deserve so much better than this 'government'. I hope that May doesn't last the year, the sooner new elections are held the better.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 23, 2017)

mather said:


> Our fishermen, along with everyone else, deserve so much better than this 'government'. I hope that May doesn't last the year, the sooner new elections are held the better.



Things I'd like to see:

1) Immediate election. Labour majority.
2) Rights unilaterally given to all EU citizens in UK. No strings attached.
3) Lexeeeeeeeet!


----------



## J Ed (Jun 24, 2017)

mather said:


> Jesus Christ that is crap! What is it with the Guardian filling up their pages with shitty 'comedy' articles?
> 
> They say the Germans have no sense of humour, whilst I can't possibly comment on that either way it is rather evident that liberals have none as the above example clearly illustrates.



V similar to Radio 4 'comedy'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2017)

mather said:


> Jesus Christ that is crap! What is it with the Guardian filling up their pages with shitty 'comedy' articles?
> 
> They say the Germans have no sense of humour, whilst I can't possibly comment on that either way it is rather evident that liberals have none as the above example clearly illustrates.


these people employ John Crace to do the jokes bits. For real.


----------



## mather (Jun 24, 2017)

J Ed said:


> V similar to Radio 4 'comedy'.



I don't listen to the radio so I wouldn't know.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 25, 2017)

Raheem said:


> AFAIK, all of it. Are you aware of something that would be problematic?




Notes on the EU and privatisation | Richard Seymour on Patreon



> What I want to do is spell out the possible implications of single market membership for Corbyn's manifesto, focusing on his commitments to nationalisation of mail, rail, energy and water.
> 
> The trend in EU law is to liberalise across economic sectors, and to harmonise whatever provisions facilitate that. The core EU institution, stipulated by Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), is the single market. The single market entails the free movement of goods, capital and services, which are investors rights, further strengthened by the EU’s Services Directive in 2006.
> 
> ...


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jun 25, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Notes on the EU and privatisation | Richard Seymour on Patreon


It's Saturday night, where are your usually shorter salient quotes?


----------



## J Ed (Jun 25, 2017)

diamarzipan said:


> It's Saturday night, where are your usually shorter salient quotes?



lol, the whole thing is worth a read I'm afraid


----------



## Raheem (Jun 25, 2017)

J Ed said:


> lol, the whole thing is worth a read I'm afraid



Barely, I can report. For a blog by some guy, I'm not going to criticise it too much. He's entitled to his opinion and his interpretation of the world. But it's important to look at the reality as well. The vast majority of European railways are publicly owned. If EU law mandates that rail services should be open to private capital, why has there never been a case of private capital exercising this right?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jun 25, 2017)

That's a slightly better argument than "France has nationalised industries so that argument doesn't fly". Are you saying the 4th package doesn't exist? You do realise this is fairly new, so changes are pending, but obviously it means uk can't backtrack and *renationalise*?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jun 25, 2017)

Eek rum, the first argument I've mentioned I heard afore from a friend, I meant to elaborate!


----------



## Raheem (Jun 25, 2017)

diamarzipan said:


> That's a slightly better argument than "France has nationalised industries so that argument doesn't fly". Are you saying the 4th package doesn't exist? You do realise this is fairly new, so changes are pending, but obviously it means uk can't backtrack and *renationalise*?



No, that isn't obvious. As the blog post makes clear, the fourth package isn't about privatisation versus nationalisation. But what the blog also tries to imply is that EU law basically forbids nationalisation of rail services as it is. Based on an examination of case law which shows no such thing. But the significant thing is not not the counter-analysis, it's just the simple observation that most railways in the EU are publicly owned and that's not a situation that is going to suddenly change.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jun 25, 2017)

Raheem said:


> No, that isn't obvious. As the blog post makes clear, the fourth package isn't about privatisation versus nationalisation. But what the blog also tries to imply is that EU law basically forbids nationalisation of rail services as it is. Based on an examination of case law which shows no such thing. But the significant thing is not not the counter-analysis, it's just the simple observation that most railways in the EU are publicly owned and that's not a situation that is going to suddenly change.


The fourth railway package he refers to  is new legislation. 2016. That's not case law, he mentions what can happen in theory. There is no case law to refer to here, please quote which example of case law is brought up as I seem to be misunderstanding you? Your simple observation that railways are not going to be nationalised seems to ignore the introduction of new legislation- I believe they call this statutory law?


----------



## Raheem (Jun 25, 2017)

diamarzipan said:


> The fourth railway package he refers to  is new legislation. 2016. That's not case law, he mentions what can happen in theory. There is no case law to refer to here, please quote which example of case law is brought up as I seem to be misunderstanding you? Your simple observation that railways are not going to be nationalised seems to ignore the introduction of new legislation- I believe they call this statutory law?



I haven't observed that railways are not going to be nationalised. I hope that they will be.

The blogger claims that privatisation could be forced in theory. The basis for this opinion is a little silly. But I don't think it's worth getting into why it's silly, unless you think it's realistic that France, Germany, Spain etc are about to get their railways privatised against their will. Obviously, it isn't.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jun 25, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I haven't observed that railways are not going to be nationalised. I hope that they will be.


thats what they call a typo. 


Privatised. You haven't seen this happen yet because the legislation is new. In the case of the U.K. it's already happened, this means they can't re nationalise. Please tell me you understand? Haaa.


----------



## Raheem (Jun 25, 2017)

diamarzipan said:


> thats what they call a typo.
> 
> 
> Privatised. You haven't seen this happen yet because the legislation is new. In the case of the U.K. it's already happened, this means they can't re nationalise. Please tell me you understand? Haaa.



No, I don't understand. Please explain why you think this.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jun 25, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I haven't observed that railways are not going to be nationalised. I hope that they will be.
> 
> The blogger claims that privatisation could be forced in theory. The basis for this opinion is a little silly. But I don't think it's worth getting into why it's silly, unless you think it's realistic that France, Germany, Spain etc are about to get their railways privatised against their will. Obviously, it isn't.


The basis for this is the 4th railway package he talks about! Google it! That's what I have to do, I am thick as shit when it comes to this stuff


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jun 25, 2017)

Raheem said:


> No, I don't understand. Please explain why you think this.


I can't I'm sorry. I'll try again tomorrow.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jun 25, 2017)

Goooooten achta urban


----------



## Raheem (Jun 25, 2017)

diamarzipan said:


> The basis for this is the 4th railway package he talks about! Google it! That's what I have to do, I am thick as shit when it comes to this stuff



I don't need to Google it. I don't think much to it, but it isn't going to force the privatisation of any rail infrastructure or services. If you think differently, please explain why.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 26, 2017)

5 years being mooted as cut off- apart from it being virtually unenforceable, this conveniently excludes Romanians and Bulgarians from any type of support in the uk if agreed. Ethnic cleansing by the back door.nice sentiment Katrina May.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jun 26, 2017)

this ( looks ) quite a big thing ( potentially ) - as this was one of the major shrouds being waved by the remainer wing of the City lobby

*The City should not overpay for a euro-clearing deal*

Subscribe to read

A deal on joint oversight ought to be possible and remains in both sides’ interests

JUNE 18, 2017 by: Jonathan Ford

So in the end, the EU went for compromise not confrontation. Brussels chose not to use Brexit as a pretext to make a land grab for London’s €1tn a day business of clearing euro-denominated securities.

Tempting as it might have seemed in Europe to try to shift this vital if mundane financial activity into the eurozone, the bloc has concluded that, in practice, the result would be unnecessarily self-harming. True, the City would have been shown that Jean-Claude Juncker meant it when the commission president vowed that Brexit could “not be a success”.

Forcing central counterparties (CCPs) — the institutions that sit in the middle of securities trades guaranteeing each end’s commitments — to move business onshore would have split Europe’s pool of liquidity, denting London’s pre-eminence as the timezone’s largest financial centre. A study conducted last year by the London Stock Exchange, owner of Europe’s largest clearing house, LCH, suggested that it could cost 83,000 British jobs.

But while some of those jobs might have crossed the Channel to Paris or Frankfurt, there would have been consequences, too, for European business from the Balkanisation of the continent’s capital markets. These would have come in the form of painfully higher costs for financial services across the bloc.

The formula served up in last week’s EU proposal is a seductively Delphic solution to the question. The relocation threat has not entirely been taken off the table, and could be revived should the UK not co-operate. In practice though, Brussels has returned the rattling sabre to its scabbard.

Instead, what the EU is proposing is some form of joint supervision. UK based CCPs can continue to clear the lion’s share of euro-denominated securities and derivatives as they do now in London. But in return, those deemed by the EU to be systemically important (a small subset including LCH and US-owned ICE) must accede alongside UK jurisdiction to that of the EU. That means at the very least some form of joint oversight, and will in effect amount to following two sets of rules.

City investors will be sorely tempted to seize the proffered olive branch. Shares in the LSE rose 7 per cent last week on relief that their clearing business might continue without disruption.

But the UK government needs to look coolly at what Brussels is suggesting. Sharing competence might seem like a practical and non-ideological solution. But whether it is workable will require beady scrutiny of the small print.

True, joint supervision is not entirely new territory. The US applies it in many of its dealings with so-called third countries — albeit with a light touch. But it is not clear that is the model Brussels intends to follow.

The EU’s concerns can be placed into two broad categories. One is entirely legitimate; which is that London-based CCPs must be regulated soundly. After all, feckless supervision would not just be a disaster for the UK’s financial system and its still battered taxpayer. The unpleasant fallout could be felt across the whole single currency bloc.

But it is not clear that Brussels’ sole concern is about an overly-light UK touch letting clearing houses take risky punts for competitive reasons. There is also a political desire to shield the euro and EU sovereigns from the unfavourable judgment of the markets — to prevent those verdicts from pushing up borrowing costs, for instance, or from putting troubled banks to the inconvenience of raising additional capital they may struggle to find.

It is the same impulse that led European politicians and regulators to impose short-selling bans or seek to constrain the activities of credit rating agencies. And it is what Christian Noyer meant when the French former central bank governor warned recently on euro clearing that the approach of non-EU authorities could “by definition” never be aligned “with the financial stability interest of the EU”.

Letting the EU superimpose such considerations on UK supervision might buy a quick deal with Brussels. But it would be a Pyrrhic victory. There is nothing to be gained by letting politics or innate conservatism check the freedom of clearing houses to innovate or require customers to back trades with such margin and collateral as they deem necessary for their safe operation. Indeed that would be the quickest way to import eurozone risk into the UK’s financial markets.

A deal on joint oversight ought to be possible, and remains in the interests of both sides. But it cannot be built on boxed-in markets that are deterred from reaching inconvenient conclusions. That would simply prompt an exodus of activity to somewhere more open. And, whatever its location policy, that would not be the EU.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> this ( looks ) quite a big thing ( potentially ) - as this was one of the major shrouds being waved by the remainer wing of the City lobby
> 
> *The City should not overpay for a euro-clearing deal*
> 
> ...


Execsum: nothing much changes


----------



## ska invita (Jun 26, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> I'm trying to make sense of the proposals for EU nationals remaining in the UK as it potentially affects friends of mine, suggests they will need to have been here for five years to gain a right to stay. They've been here for less than three years, but their elder son has just started school here, speaks English. Their second kid was born here last year. It's going to cause anxiety in the short term while it's not clarified, then potentially shit for son 1 if he has to switch to schooling in another language in another country. There's people at the shitty end of this Tory posturing.


why do you call it posturing? Do you not believe they will follow through on this, or mean it?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 29, 2017)

this is from a jenni Russel article in the times paywall, so no link. Its claims mps and business types are aghast at how deluded David Davies is - 



> “Europe has repeatedly made clear to Britain that leaving the EU means we will trade on worse terms than we do now. Every credible economic body, from the OECD to the Bank of England, reports that Brexit is already injuring the economy. No one with experience of government, Europe or trade negotiations seriously believes that disentangling ourselves from the continent and creating a new relationship is going to be simple, quick and all to Britain’s benefit. Even Davis’s cabinet colleagues don’t share his insouciance. The chancellor, Philip Hammond, is much more alarmed by the danger of a bad Brexit, and — as became clear yesterday — has quite a different vision of where we should be heading and how long it will take to get there.
> 
> There is no basis to Davis’s confidence in what he can achieve other than sublime self-belief. The comments from those who’ve worked with him are scathing: “hates to listen to advice”, “delusions of grandeur”, ”vain and quixotic”, “all noise and bluster”. One appalled politician told me: “He has no practical sense of the realities he’s about to confront”. Businesses, diplomats and civil servants report that he prefers assertion to getting to grips with inconvenient facts.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 29, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> 5 years being mooted as cut off- apart from it being virtually unenforceable, this conveniently excludes Romanians and Bulgarians from any type of support in the uk if agreed. Ethnic cleansing by the back door.nice sentiment Katrina May.


It's not a five year cut-off. In this proposal five years is the number of years you have to have lived in the UK to get your citizens rights ('settled' status). Those who don't have five years but arrived before the cut-off date of probably March 2017 will get the chance to accumulate their five years - i.e. they will not be thrown out but will not gain full rights until the end of five years.

The offer still has some brutal implications: if someone with less than five years has to go home to care for a dying relative, will they be able to come back? Maybe not. They are also putting their appalling income limitation on marriage.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 29, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> I'm trying to make sense of the proposals for EU nationals remaining in the UK as it potentially affects friends of mine, suggests they will need to have been here for five years to gain a right to stay. They've been here for less than three years, but their elder son has just started school here, speaks English. Their second kid was born here last year. It's going to cause anxiety in the short term while it's not clarified, then potentially shit for son 1 if he has to switch to schooling in another language in another country. There's people at the shitty end of this Tory posturing.


No, they won't be asked to leave under these proposals. I think everyone commenting on the proposals should look at them carefully. They are shit but there's no need to worry people more than needed.

Brexit weekly briefing: government fails to settle EU citizens' jitters


> EU nationals who come to the UK before a yet-to-be-agreed cut-off date between 29 March 2017 (when article 50 was triggered) and Brexit day will be allowed to accumulate their five years’ residence, the prime minister said:
> 
> _I know there has been some anxiety about what would happen to EU citizens at the point we leave the EU. I want to completely reassure people that under these plans no EU citizen currently in the UK lawfully will be asked to leave at the point the UK leaves the EU – we want you to stay._



What is on offer for EU nationals after Brexit: the key points


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> No, they won't be asked to leave under these proposals. I think everyone commenting on the proposals should look at them carefully. They are shit but there's no need to worry people more than needed.
> 
> Brexit weekly briefing: government fails to settle EU citizens' jitters
> 
> ...


how much worry is justified?


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> how much worry is justified?


It is not justified to be worried about being thrown out the country if you have been here for 2-3 years, because even May's piss-weak offer says that won't happen. My point is that this is all quite stressful for a lot of people, so let's make sure we stress about the real problems of the offer, not about even more catastrophic scenarios that have already been ruled out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> It is not justified to be worried about being thrown out the country if you have been here for 2-3 years, because even May's piss-weak offer says that won't happen. My point is that this is all quite stressful for a lot of people, so let's make sure we stress about the real problems of the offer, not about even more catastrophic scenarios that have already been ruled out.


there would be no stress if only we had competent negotiators with a strong and stable and able leader who was in some small way statesmanlike


----------



## gosub (Jul 2, 2017)

Estonia’s e-residency offers EU bolthole to Britons facing Brexit


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 3, 2017)

U.K. Drops Brexit Bravado as Hammond Tells CEOs May Will Listen

The Chuck Norris Brexit ploy is unravelling at a rate of knots isn't it? The usual headline leeches are falling over themselves to publicly appear virtually human again.
If anything, this just underlines what transient bandwagon jumping self serving fucks they really are  ( TBF though, Hammond was never as gung ho as the rest of the cunts infesting my telly with their snidey sycophantic attention seeking tropespeak)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> U.K. Drops Brexit Bravado as Hammond Tells CEOs May Will Listen
> 
> The Chuck Norris Brexit ploy is unravelling at a rate of knots isn't it? The usual headline leeches are falling over themselves to publicly appear virtually human again.
> If anything, this just underlines what transient bandwagon jumping self serving fucks they really are  ( TBF though, Hammond was never as gung ho as the rest of the cunts infesting my telly with their snidey sycophantic attention seeking tropespeak)


i think the enormity of the task is coming home to them now, so cue frantick reversing.


----------



## gosub (Jul 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i think the enormity of the task is coming home to them now, so cue frantick reversing.



more the reduction of the majority made the task harder. Plus the perceived threat from UKIP evaporated, making a change in tack more than sensible.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 3, 2017)

May could walk out of Brexit talks over exit bill: Telegraph

Katrina May ought to lay off the skunk and the Chuck Norris films in the evenings if this is the pointless macho shit that she thinks is a good idea. I do not think she will be around in September to walk out of anything except praps a long queue at the Post Office.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 3, 2017)

This sounds closer to reality.

Brexit: British officials drop 'cake and eat it' approach to negotiations


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 3, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> It is not justified to be worried about being thrown out the country if you have been here for 2-3 years, because even May's piss-weak offer says that won't happen.



So the only people who need to worry are those who, for some incomrpehensible reason, don't trust theresa may.


----------



## gosub (Jul 3, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> May could walk out of Brexit talks over exit bill: Telegraph


I think that would trigger a general election.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 3, 2017)

some twonk called Ray Basset on my tele saying Ireland should leave the EU. Never going to happen imo


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 3, 2017)

This seems like a guy we can trust.

Brexit Minister ‘Supports Removing Asbestos Laws’ - Real Media - The News You Don't See


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 3, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> some twonk called Ray Basset on my tele saying Ireland should leave the EU. Never going to happen imo



In the past I'd have said you cant rely on anything now, especially given the times Irish referenda have defied the EU. But they will probably be big winners from Brexit as a new European base for multinationals (English speaking, good levels of education) so probably wouldn't want to give that up on the whole.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 3, 2017)

Seems like a guy we can trust...
Brexit Minister ‘Supports Removing Asbestos Laws’ - Real Media - The News You Don't See


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 3, 2017)

More from the "Lower Than Vermin" files.
The new Brexit minister, the arms industry, the American hard right… and Equatorial Guinea


----------



## teqniq (Jul 3, 2017)

Sounds like a proper scumbag.


----------



## Ming (Jul 5, 2017)

So Dominic Cummings (man behind the 350 million for the NHS lie) is now having doubts regarding Brexit. Covering his arse more like.
Is Brexit an error? Now even Vote Leave’s chief is having doubts | Jonathan Freedland


----------



## gosub (Jul 5, 2017)

Ming said:


> So Dominic Cummings (man behind the 350 million for the NHS lie) is now having doubts regarding Brexit. Covering his arse more like.
> Is Brexit an error? Now even Vote Leave’s chief is having doubts | Jonathan Freedland


Cunt.  It was he who shaped leave in worst shaped tool to do the job, ignoring thems that had actually put the decades of thought in.


----------



## Ming (Jul 5, 2017)

gosub said:


> Cunt.  It was he who shaped leave in worst shaped tool to do the job, ignoring thems that had actually put the decades of thought in.


No honour amongst Tories.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 5, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> some twonk called Ray Basset on my tele saying Ireland should leave the EU. Never going to happen imo



That report from Gove's think tank the Policy Exchange is the height of satire (surely?) To be filed with the same reports from the last ten years predicting the collapse of the German economy, the collapse of the EU, the collapse of the euro, UK being welcomed with open arms by other markets etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2017)

Poi E said:


> UK being welcomed with open arms by other markets etc.


come into my parlour said the spider to the fly


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 5, 2017)

The policy exchange is Non thinktank looking at the cast of poltroons they have roped in


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 5, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> The policy exchange is Non thinktank looking at the cast of poltroons they have roped in



Poltroons.


----------



## gosub (Jul 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> come into my parlour said the spider to the fly


Suppose you'd be one of those 'experts' that think spiders eat flies


Pob with probably explain that any BDSM activities spiders and flies engage in is not only consensual but their business


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2017)

boris says the EU can go whistle for the divorce payment. Its nice to know a man so noted for his tact and sensitivity is FS isn't it.


----------



## mod (Jul 11, 2017)

I'm starting to really believe brexit isn't going to happen. Mainly down to the complete incompetence of the government and the division within the tories.

Can the triggering of article 50 be revoked?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 11, 2017)

mod said:


> I'm starting to really believe brexit isn't going to happen. Mainly down to the complete incompetence of the government and the division within the tories.
> 
> Can the triggering of article 50 be revoked?



You wish.


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2017)

mod said:


> Can the triggering of article 50 be revoked?


Depends who you ask. 'Probably' is my best guess.


----------



## mod (Jul 11, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> You wish.



Nope. I'm a card carrying member of UKIP who (obviously) voted leave and will take up arms if Brexit doesn't happen.


----------



## mod (Jul 11, 2017)

mod said:


> Nope. I'm a card carrying member of UKIP who (obviously) voted leave and will take up arms if Brexit doesn't happen.



That was a joke btw.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 11, 2017)

mod said:


> That was a joke btw.



Jokes are not allowed. You fascist.


----------



## mod (Jul 11, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Jokes are not allowed. You fascist.



What about ones I've actually written? Such as....

Which member of The Who slept with the most groupies?

Roger Adultery


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 11, 2017)

mod said:


> What about ones I've actually written? Such as....
> 
> Which member of The Who slept with the most groupies?
> 
> Roger Adultery



You're wrong. It was Paed Townshend.


----------



## mod (Jul 11, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> You're wrong. It was Paed Townshend.



Anyway, Brexit.....


----------



## Supine (Jul 11, 2017)

mod said:


> Anyway, Brexit.....



Back to that bad joke...


----------



## planetgeli (Jul 11, 2017)

teqniq said:


> What a scumbag, definitely one for the salt mines.
> 
> Viscount offered £5k for Brexit campaigner Gina Miller to be run over, court hears



Scumbag defends himself. Badly. Scumbag is guilty.

Aristocrat guilty over 'menacing' Gina Miller Facebook post - BBC News

Sentenced later this week.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 11, 2017)

Yeah I saw.


----------



## gosub (Jul 11, 2017)

I don't presume to know what his great great grand daddy did to earn this bloke a Viscount title, but it was probably less of a serivice than Ms Miller performed by ensuring the democratic t's are crossed and i's dotted.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 12, 2017)

Boris Johnson says the EU can go whistle if it wants any cash from the UK.

Michel Barnier replies, "I hear no whistling, just a clock ticking."


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Boris Johnson says the EU can go whistle if it wants any cash from the UK.
> 
> Michel Barnier replies, "I hear no whistling, just a clock ticking."



the pair of cunts deserve each other.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 12, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> the pair of cunts deserve each other.



Not good, though, that either one of them has "it happened because the other guy's a cunt" available as a ready excuse.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2017)

mod said:


> Can the triggering of article 50 be revoked?



Everyone's making this up as they go along. So it's sort of a 'who knows?' with a side order of 'probably, if we eat enough crow'.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 12, 2017)

Why would A50 be revoked? In the last election two pro Brexit parties in the UK increased their vote share. Two anti Brexit parties in the UK saw their vote share fall. It's a conceit that many people actually give a shit about it now or see the EU as some sort of remedy to the immediate problems they face. And would a contrite UK be welcomed back?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Why would A50 be revoked? In the last election two pro Brexit parties in the UK increased their vote share. Two anti Brexit parties in the UK saw their vote share fall. It's a conceit that many people actually give a shit about it now or see the EU as some sort of remedy to the immediate problems they face. And would a contrite UK be welcomed back?



It's worth remembering how quickly public opinion can change. What was it, three months ago that Theresa May was the most popular leader since Curchill? Support for Brexit may turn out to be as ill founded as...well Maymania doesn't really work and Maynia is a bit forced but you get the idea.

People will soon forget who and what they voted for when it starts costing them personally.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 12, 2017)

But will they see the EU as the solution to their problems, or a pro-Brexit left wing nationalist programme like Corbyn's?


----------



## gosub (Jul 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's worth remembering how quickly public opinion can change. What was it, three months ago that Theresa May was the most popular leader since Curchill? Support for Brexit may turn out to be as ill founded as...well Maymania doesn't really work and Maynia is a bit forced but you get the idea.
> 
> People will soon forget who and what they voted for when it starts costing them personally.


Yeah but it takes 20 years of effort to get a referendum... Remainiacs should remember that


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 12, 2017)

Poi E said:


> But will they see the EU as the solution to their problems, or a pro-Brexit left wing nationalist programme like Corbyn's?



Buggered if I know. I don't think reversing Brexit is likely, but it's almost certainly possible in one form or another.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 12, 2017)

Poi E said:


> But will they see the EU as the solution to their problems, or a pro-Brexit left wing nationalist programme like Corbyn's?



Corbyn doesn't have such a programme. He's committed, at present, to prioritising tariff-free trade and doesn't consider current levels of immigration problematic. That spells out the softest of soft Brexits. As to the future, any changes in this position will be dictated by shifts in public opinion.


----------



## gosub (Jul 12, 2017)

Corby is channelling Schrodeinger


----------



## Poi E (Jul 13, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Corbyn doesn't have such a programme. He's committed, at present, to prioritising tariff-free trade and doesn't consider current levels of immigration problematic. That spells out the softest of soft Brexits. As to the future, any changes in this position will be dictated by shifts in public opinion.



"Free trade dogma" in Corbyn's words? Was there a commitment to the customs union and single market in his manifesto? Nationalising essential assets could also be impeded by EU membership.

Like May (who does it badly) he's trying to be many things to many people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2017)

Poi E said:


> "Free trade dogma" in Corbyn's words? Was there a commitment to the customs union and single market in his manifesto? Nationalising essential assets could also be impeded by EU membership.
> 
> Like May (who does it badly) he's trying to be many things to many people.


That's because there are many voters and he is a politician


----------



## Poi E (Jul 13, 2017)

How much of a vote winner is staying in the EU or forking out for single market membership?


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 13, 2017)

On Naked Capitalism National Audit Office Warns of Brexit Customs IT Train Wreck….Nine Months After Naked Capitalism


> ...
> Richard Smith flagged the Independent’s account:
> 
> _The UK’s spending watchdog has warned the Government’s post-Brexit IT system for customs is heading for a “horror show” that could risk £34bn of public income.
> ...


I think _Project Funk_ might be a good name and there are probably more examples. Six months really isn't a long time in a big IT project. Requirements drifting significantly late on is a nightmare and is one reason why they have a high failure rate.

This is also a good point:


> ...
> So the UK continues to lumber towards a cliff with no intent of turning back. This can’t and won’t end well. Perhaps someone will devise a way to retreat, but too many influential people seem to think that’s politically dangerous, and perhaps more important, the press barons haven’t changed their tune. The flip side is America is demonstrating how well a full bore media campaign can succeed in moving public opinion. If Fleet Street were to come around, a political rethink might become possible, but if not, UK citizens should expect they’ll need to assume the brace position in 2019.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 13, 2017)

If the May's government was a rational actor their opening gambit last June would have been A50 was too short and five years were needed for amicable divorce in everybody's interest. Instead they went with all this no deal is better than a bad deal BS.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2017)

I do find it funny that as the government have given up trying to call it the Great Repeal Bill (now just the Repeal Bill) the press have all fallen neatly in-line with no one questioning anything.


----------



## gosub (Jul 13, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I do find it funny that as the government have given up trying to call it the Great Repeal Bill (now just the Repeal Bill) the press have all fallen neatly in-line with no one questioning anything.



calling it repeal is the misnomer its an entrenching or enshrining bill


----------



## gosub (Jul 13, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> If the May's government was a rational actor their opening gambit last June would have been A50 was too short and five years were needed for amicable divorce in everybody's interest. Instead they went with all this no deal is better than a bad deal BS.


tbf she was then talking about a transitional arrangement


----------



## Raheem (Jul 13, 2017)

Poi E said:


> How much of a vote winner is staying in the EU or forking out for single market membership?



There's recent polling on this question, and it seems just not leaving is what a clear (though not massive) majority of the electorate would prefer at the moment. But obviously no-one is going to put "the EU can have as much money as it wants" on election posters. Labour's position, if an election were called tomorrow, would simply be not to categorically rule it out.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 13, 2017)

gosub said:


> tbf she was then talking about a transitional arrangement


Yes but that's not the basic business of A50 which ends existing arrangements in March 2019 deal or no deal. The divorce and a framework for trade is complicated enough especially as the Brits have proved so disorganised. 

Brexit followed by Trump also appears to have had a unifying effect on the EU27 while the consensus for a Hard Brexit in England is fraying even amongst Tories. It's leaving London showing signs of dithering in a very diminished position.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 13, 2017)

I would not take too much from the 2 year cut off - they may all come across Machiavellian fucks but there is a blunt pragmatism underlying this bluster


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I would not take too much from the 2 year cut off - they may all come across Machiavellian fucks but there is a blunt pragmatism underlying this bluster



For sure but there is a startling ignorance to it all as well.

I posted earlier in the thread about my contact in Weights and Measures and about how they all had the most bizarre meeting with David Davies.  Well the update is that a further meeting ensued with his department where they were still pitching the idea of going back to fluid ounces.  It had to be carefully explained to them that every petrol pump in the country (as well as many sets of scales) would have all have to replaced or modified. This is all possible but the cost to business would be massive.  This is the point everything changed, apparently the mantra coming down from on high is that Brexit should cost business nothing.

There is now a patch up deal going with Dublin to see if we can borrow their weights and measures for a bit.  Dublin used to have the same deal with Teddington some years back.  Oh how things progress on the good ship May, as every day goes past they are realising just what a mess they've got themselves into.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> For sure but there is a startling ignorance to it all as well.
> 
> I posted earlier in the thread about my contact in Weights and Measures and about how they all had the most bizarre meeting with David Davies.  Well the update is that a further meeting ensued with his department where they were still pitching the idea of going back to fluid ounces.  It had to be carefully explained to them that every petrol pump in the country (as well as many sets of scales) would have all have to replaced or modified. This is all possible but the cost to business would be massive.  This is the point everything changed, apparently the mantra coming down from on high is that Brexit should cost business nothing.
> 
> There is now a patch up deal going with Dublin to see if we can borrow their weights and measures for a bit.  Dublin used to have the same deal with Teddington some years back.  Oh how things progress on the good ship May, as every day goes past they are realising just what a mess they've got themselves into.


The cat in no 10 has a better handle on all of this than tm, dd or bj


----------



## free spirit (Jul 13, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> The cat in no 10 has a better handle on all of this than tm, dd or bj


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 13, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> The cat in no 10 has a better handle on all of this than tm, dd or bj



although his policy on brexit is meow loudly for door to be opened then sit in doorway contemplating whether to go out or not.

guess this is more credible than most politicians..


----------



## 8den (Jul 13, 2017)

Brexit is like watching your idiot neighbour try and commit suicide by lowering their heads and repeatedly charging at a wall. But less dignified.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 13, 2017)

8den said:


> Brexit is like watching your idiot neighbour try and commit suicide by lowering their heads and repeatedly charging at a wall. But less dignified.



And less entertaining.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 13, 2017)




----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 13, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> For sure but there is a startling ignorance to it all as well.
> 
> I posted earlier in the thread about my contact in Weights and Measures and about how they all had the most bizarre meeting with David Davies.  Well the update is that a further meeting ensued with his department where they were still pitching the idea of going back to fluid ounces.  It had to be carefully explained to them that every petrol pump in the country (as well as many sets of scales) would have all have to replaced or modified. This is all possible but the cost to business would be massive.  This is the point everything changed, apparently the mantra coming down from on high is that Brexit should cost business nothing.
> 
> There is now a patch up deal going with Dublin to see if we can borrow their weights and measures for a bit.  Dublin used to have the same deal with Teddington some years back.  Oh how things progress on the good ship May, as every day goes past they are realising just what a mess they've got themselves into.



This is the most hilariously bonkers thing I have read in a while.


----------



## Ming (Jul 14, 2017)

So our Boris has said the EU can whistle for the exit bill. Michael Barnier then says he can't here any whistling 'just a clock ticking'.
Subscribe to read
Wonder what cunning plan de Pfeffel and his chums have in store for those euro rats??? Film at 11. Sarcasm aside the plan's to cripple the UK economy, asset strip it and turn it into the deregulated nightmare they'll make loads of money from. The only control they're taking back is for themselves and their backers. Sorry to spoil the surprise.
ETA: I'll C&P the article when i get back home.




Britain has for the first time explicitly acknowledged it has financial obligations to the EU after Brexit, a move that is likely to avert a full-scale clash over the exit bill in talks next week. In a written statement to parliament touching on a “financial settlement”, the government recognised on Thursday “that the UK has obligations to the EU . . . that will survive the UK’s withdrawal — and that these need to be resolved”. The text, released by Joyce Anelay, a Brexit minister, was immediately seen by Brussels as a potentially important development. EU diplomats say the wording “goes further” than Theresa May’s previous reference to Britain being willing to reach a “fair settlement” of unspecified obligations. As negotiators prepared for a round of talks on Monday, Britain’s exit liabilities — estimated by the EU to stand at up to €100bn gross — were proving one of the biggest flashpoints. With Britain’s exit set for March 2019, negotiators on both sides feared a protracted stand-off over money would waste valuable time and delay the point at which the EU decides “sufficient progress” has been made to start trade talks. This [UK] statement goes further than before. That stops an electric shock next week. It would have been a real problem if we had made zero progress on the financial settlement EU DIPLOMAT Britain has not submitted a position paper on financial issues and Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, said this week that the EU can “go whistle” if it insists on demanding “extortionate” sums. In reply Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, said: “I’m not hearing any whistling, just the clock ticking.” He warned that talks would stall unless Britain at least accepts the principle that it has legally binding financial commitments once it leaves. “This [UK] statement goes further than before,” said one EU diplomat involved in the Brexit process. “That stops an electric shock next week. It would have been a real problem if we had made zero progress on the financial settlement.” David Davis, Britain’s Brexit secretary, made no reference to financial issues in a press statement alongside the release of three position papers for talks. Baroness Anelay’s written statement to parliament said: “On the financial settlement, as set out in the prime minister’s [Article 50 letter] the government has been clear that we will work with the EU to determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of our continuing partnership”. “The government recognises that the UK has obligations to the EU, and the EU obligations to the UK, that will survive the UK’s withdrawal — and that these need to be resolved,” the minister added. The Big Read Why the ‘Brussels effect’ will undermine Brexit regulatory push Vital industrial sectors are likely to upset optimistic predictions that Britain will be able to easily negotiate new deals with the EU The British side see the statement as an effort to improve the tone of talks, rather than as a concession of substance. As described in the statement, Britain’s accepted obligations remain too ambiguous to quantify precisely. The EU sees its strongest legal claim being the so-called reste à liquider, or RAL, the backlog of unpaid commitments made by the UK in annual EU budget rounds. If Britain accepted that, negotiators estimate it would amount to €32bn gross and €20bn net at the end of 2019. Long-term liabilities such as pensions would add a further €10bn, according to the EU. Mr Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, were alarmed when Mrs May argued at a dinner in late April that Britain had no legal obligation to settle financial matters when it left the union.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 15, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> Scumbag defends himself. Badly. Scumbag is guilty.
> 
> Aristocrat guilty over 'menacing' Gina Miller Facebook post - BBC News
> 
> Sentenced later this week.


Turns out unsurprisingly that the guy is a proper cunt's cunt:

Been declared bankrupt more than once and did time in a German jail for bleeding a construction company he was supposed to be running dry.

'here is my tiny violin....'

The racist viscount jailed for inciting violence against anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller


----------



## teqniq (Jul 15, 2017)

Sorry for the slight derail as i see there's actually an entire thread devoted to the above arsehole, but back on track speaking of arseholes, ably assisted by the Graun:

Brexit followed by Corbyn in No 10 would put UK flat on its back – Blair

Why aren't you in prison Tone?


----------



## gosub (Jul 15, 2017)

schrodinger being channelled by the tories too
Brexit: the impact of leaving


inclined to agree;   else we are going to need a bigger 'repeal' bill


----------



## gosub (Jul 15, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Sorry for the slight derail as i see there's actually an entire thread devoted to the above arsehole, but back on track speaking of arseholes, ably assisted by the Graun:
> 
> Brexit followed by Corbyn in No 10 would put UK flat on its back – Blair
> 
> Why aren't you in prison Tone?


Oh see he thinks inner EUrozone outer non is a new thing.   Big fat liar. Come back when we only have 45 mins to clinch the deal


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 15, 2017)

Italy Considering 'Nuclear Option' to Send Migrants Into Northern Europe



> Senior Italian government figures are threatening to issue European Union visas to 200,000 migrants, granting them unrestricted access to the bloc’s borderless Schengen Zone


----------



## Raheem (Jul 15, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Italy Considering 'Nuclear Option' to Send Migrants Into Northern Europe



Why are you making me look at this source? Anyway, as expected, the story is bollocks, because of small but important detail which (surprisingly) the article actually mentions in passing.



> Directive 55 offers EU member-states “exceptional” measures to offer “immediate temporary protection” in the EU to ‘displaced people’, but *requires approval from other members* and is likely to face opposition.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 16, 2017)

On Naked Capitalism Government’s Brexit Repeal Bill ‘Power Grab’ Threatens UK Environment Regulations


> ...
> Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas said: “There’s an enormous environment-shaped hole in the Government’s Brexit plans. The Repeal Bill may transfer EU laws onto the British statute, but there’s no provision here for ensuring that these laws are properly enforced by institutions in the UK.
> 
> “The Government knows that this simple transfer isn’t enough to ensure that our environment is protected – and their refusal to legislate for specific environmental protections and enforcement is reckless.”
> ...


Good point that, it's often the institutional regime of enforcement not the regulations themselves that's more important.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 16, 2017)

In The Irish Independent Germans tell Irish that the British are a 'disgrace'


> ...
> The German finance committee had recently returned from a visit to Westminster where they met their British counterparts, according to Mr Butler.
> 
> "They said they met the finance committee in London and they were shocked by the way they handled themselves," Mr Butler said.
> ...


Brits in still winging it shock. There are few things your typical German technocrat hates more than unpreparedness.


----------



## gosub (Jul 16, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Naked Capitalism Government’s Brexit Repeal Bill ‘Power Grab’ Threatens UK Environment Regulations
> Good point that, it's often the institutional regime of enforcement not the regulations themselves that's more important.



Enviornment ain't included in global standards...so no practical requirement as part of immediate process  Laws not adopted ARE in a shady place I grant you, but the whole process is about having the legislatation we have to prove that we have, to the numerous bodies, are in place


----------



## Raheem (Jul 17, 2017)

"Well, did you at least bring a pen?"


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 17, 2017)

Raheem said:


> "Well, did you at least bring a pen?"



No pen, no paper, no cake. Fidget Spinners Brexit.


----------



## Dr. Furface (Jul 17, 2017)

Raheem said:


> "Well, did you at least bring a pen?"


Le Pen?!


----------



## gosub (Jul 17, 2017)

Raheem said:


> "Well, did you at least bring a pen?"


No just a large team of civil servants out of shot in another room.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 18, 2017)

gosub said:


> No just a large team of civil servants out of shot in another room.



Of course. We have nothing at all to worry about.


----------



## 2hats (Jul 18, 2017)

Buckaroo said:


> No pen, no paper, no cake.


No clue.


----------



## Supine (Jul 18, 2017)

2hats said:


> No clue.



Breakfast


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 18, 2017)

From The University Of Sussex A Food Brexit: time to get real


> ...
> 
> Food quality and standards. Brexit campaigners ignored the inbuilt reliance the UK has on pan-European institutions, to which we contribute. A vast array of institutions and scientific infrastructure keeps UK food fit to eat. Brexit campaigners did not inform consumers/voters that US agribusiness is salivating at the prospect of selling foods which have weaker standards, nor that foods derived on world markets use standards which are weaker than the EU’s and those of the USA.
> Replacing the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy. The CAP and CFP are core and old EU policies. They have been much attacked in the UK, often for good reason. Leaving CAP and the CFP exposes a vast policy vacuum. The new Secretary of State has made a statement about even tearing up the CFP predecessor the London Fisheries Convention from 1964! The Coalition and subsequent Conservative Governments provided no policy vision other than a belief that Agri-technology and an export drive will suffice for farming, and that reasserting a 200-mile exclusion will resolve unsustainable fish sourcing. They will not. What’s the point of farming and fishing? How can they mix food production and ecosystems services? These are vital issues for the era of climate change and ecosystem stresses.
> ...


Long paper full of complicated problems and some opportunities.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 18, 2017)

On Slugger Ireland top of the Agenda in Today’s Brexit Negotiations


> ...
> Michael Creed TD, Fine Gael’s Agriculture Minister, vented his frustrations yesterday about the conflicting positions of various UK Government ministers in a range of areas affected by Brexit that are of particular interest to Ireland.
> 
> Creed said:
> ...


TDs increasingly distressed by their neighbour's almost Trumpian level of dysfunction.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 19, 2017)

On BI UK Former UK-EU negotiator: May is handling Brexit in the 'absolute worst way' possible


> ...
> "So just how complex is Brexit?" I ask Bullock, to which he responds with laughter, before composing himself.
> 
> "It's insanely complex. It's just insane. I consider myself something of an expert in some aspects of the EU but every time I talk to anybody else who works in the institutions about Brexit, new areas of insane complexity and potentially awful consequences for the UK come up."
> ...


Not so much getting our country back as discovering it's a Swiss cheese of missing capabilities. Has the UK being described as a "failing state" and details a lot of dysfunctional British behaviour. 

Big problem here is the civil service EU experts in Whitehall were mostly Brexit skeptics. Not necessarily in love with the EU but understanding the complexity of the task of leaving and seeing only worse alternatives on the other side. Leave was based on a confident assertion that a lot of technocratic counsel was essentially bogus fear mongering that could be overcome with blustering patriotism. London's mandarins are probably very tiresome people for the Three Brexiteers to be around as it all dissolves into the intra-Tory bunfight it always was. So the latter stumble around the process unguided making fools of themselves while the EU folk have their duck in a row. This is moving towards a big "told you so" moment. Brexit will still happen but as an obvious status diminishing shambles that in a just world would be career ending.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 19, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> Big problem here is the civil service EU experts in Whitehall were mostly Brexit skeptics. Not necessarily in love with the EU but understanding the complexity of the task of leaving and seeing only worse alternatives on the other side. Leave was based on a confident assertion that a lot of technocratic counsel was essentially bogus fear mongering that could be overcome with blustering patriotism. London's mandarins are probably very tiresome people for the Three Brexiteers to be around as it all dissolves into the intra-Tory bunfight it always was. So the latter stumble around the process unguided making fools of themselves while the EU folk have their duck in a row. This is moving towards a big "told you so" moment. Brexit will still happen but as an obvious status diminishing shambles that in a just world would be career ending.



Some lessons here for a future Corbyn government on intransigent civil servants.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 19, 2017)

I dont think its exactly as CrabbedOne says it is. Civil Servants were not told to expect or prepare for a successful Leave vote, no plan for what to do if it happened was commissioned by government, and since the referendum there has been a refusal from government to fund the massive extra work load civil servants need to do to make this near-impossible task happen with the time frame (i hear). The Civil Service are incapable of making it happen within the time frame, not because they are skeptics, but because the task in enormous and massively underfunded/staffed.

The only way I can see Brexit happening in any way approaching a smooth transition is if everything stay much the same for a number of years and is unpicked and rewritten/negotiated one by one as time goes by. What *appears* to be happening at the moment is this:





...but my hunch is that the transition period will be lengthy and change will come very gradually.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 19, 2017)

ska invita said:


> .but my hunch is that the transition period will be lengthy and change will come very gradually.



Why the optimism?


----------



## ska invita (Jul 19, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Why the optimism?


because i dont believe the Tories would drive UK PLC off a cliff...  defies their core mission of protecting business interests


----------



## Winot (Jul 19, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On BI UK Former UK-EU negotiator: May is handling Brexit in the 'absolute worst way' possible
> Not so much getting our country back as discovering it's a Swiss cheese of missing capabilities. Has the UK being described as a "failing state" and details a lot of dysfunctional British behaviour.
> 
> Big problem here is the civil service EU experts in Whitehall were mostly Brexit skeptics. Not necessarily in love with the EU but understanding the complexity of the task of leaving and seeing only worse alternatives on the other side. Leave was based on a confident assertion that a lot of technocratic counsel was essentially bogus fear mongering that could be overcome with blustering patriotism. London's mandarins are probably very tiresome people for the Three Brexiteers to be around as it all dissolves into the intra-Tory bunfight it always was. So the latter stumble around the process unguided making fools of themselves while the EU folk have their duck in a row. This is moving towards a big "told you so" moment. Brexit will still happen but as an obvious status diminishing shambles that in a just world would be career ending.



He's both wrong and right about patents - the existing patent system (the European Patent Convention) is not an EU institution. Switzerland and Turkey are members. It will continue just the same and the UK's membership will be unaffected by Brexit.

The proposed Unitary Patent System (UPC) is however an EU project. As it stands the UK cannot be a member once it leaves the EU. But the UPC is not ratified yet (there is a legal challenge in Germany) and it might never happen without the UK. 

A better example is trade marks. There is a very successful EU trade mark system. What happens to EU registrations post Brexit? They will continue but no longer cover the UK. So the UK needs to invent a re-registration system. More civil servants needed. And what about cancellation actions which are pending when Brexit happens - do they effect just the EU TM or the new UK ex-EU TM also? How does that change if the basis for the cancellation was an earlier UK right? What about if it was a non-UK right?

One niche area of law. Lots of complexity. Lots up for grabs. Clients around the world are asking - what is going to happen to my IP rights. Nobody knows. No one even knows when we'll know.

Now imagine that confusion replicated across every single bit of UK/EU interaction for the last 40 years.


----------



## gosub (Jul 20, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Of course. We have nothing at all to worry about.



Less, than if the likes of Blair with his version of 3 card brag took hold.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 20, 2017)

ska invita said:


> because i dont believe the Tories would drive UK PLC off a cliff...  defies their core mission of protecting business interests



I heard a city trader putting that one forward recently. Not sure it's the priority for this program of British nationalism.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 20, 2017)

Poi E said:


> I heard a city trader putting that one forward recently. Not sure it's the priority for this program of British nationalism.


I've said it before, but the noticeable lack of (civil service) work behind the scenes suggests two options: crash out, or a long transitional period. Id bet on the second.  who knows though...im just an arm chair tea leaf reader. We'll find out soon enough.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 20, 2017)

On Bloomberg London’s Home Price Growth Has Flatlined. What Happens Next?


> ...
> Paul Cheshire, professor of economic geography at The London School of Economics and Political Science:
> 
> “The turning point is just being reached. Housing prices have continued to rise relative to incomes and the affordability ratio is now at an all-time low. Real incomes are falling as the weakness in the pound feeds through to higher inflation. The ability to raise wages isn’t there and Brexit is making everything more uncertain and worse. London is the epicenter of the U.K. housing market and changes in prices there tend to ripple out. I’m expecting a sharp correction in housing, more on the level of the 1990 crash. I don’t expect negative equity to be as big of a problem as it was then, and interest rates may rise but will still remain low by the standards of the early 1990s.”
> ...


Others weren't so pessimistic. I think the English property bubble might even be worse without Brexit.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 20, 2017)

On Bloomberg France Says ‘We Want Our Money Back’ as Brexit Talks Crawl On


> ...
> As the second round of talks wraps up in Brussels, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire used a hearing in the French parliament in Paris on Wednesday evening to take a hard line on what the EU believes the U.K. owes the bloc in terms of liabilities and obligations.
> 
> To drive his point home, he evoked the spirit of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher when she won a rebate on Britain’s payments to the central EU budget, complaining that the U.K. was losing out despite being one of the biggest contributors.
> ...


My he knows how to wind up Tories.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 20, 2017)

the  housing boil has to be lanced and if Brexit helps that happen then good. Right wing economists said house prices needed to correct down 30% in postcrash 2008... Instead they went up. It's not  going to be pretty but it has to happen


----------



## mather (Jul 20, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> On Bloomberg France Says ‘We Want Our Money Back’ as Brexit Talks Crawl On
> My he knows how to wind up Tories.



That should piss us all off! 

The Tories are cunts but do you actually think they are the one who are going to pay for this, of course they won't. That huge sum will come out of the budget, our tax money. Add that to all the cuts and austerity and it will the poorest in our society who suffer the most. With the current funding crisis in the NHS, social care, benefits and housing the last thing we should be doing is handing that money over to the fucking vultures in the EU.

That French cunt can shove his demands up his arse as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 20, 2017)

And more British nationalism.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 20, 2017)

mather said:


> That should piss us all off!
> 
> The Tories are cunts but do you actually think they are the one who are going to pay for this, of course they won't. That huge sum will come out of the budget, our tax money. Add that to all the cuts and austerity and it will the poorest in our society who suffer the most. With the current funding crisis in the NHS, social care, benefits and housing the last thing we should be doing is handing that money over to the fucking vultures in the EU.
> 
> That French cunt can shove his demands up his arse as far as I am concerned.


Trouble is no deal also be very costly. Could be 3.6-6% of UK's $2.6 trillion GDP according to this. The UK will still want to trade with Europe on the best terms it can get and plainly has fuck all leverage. This doesn't magically go away if the UK throws a huff. Paying whatever the final agreed exit bill is the easy part.

Unfortunately some were under the illusion this divorce would be a cost free walking away from prior commitments London had made to the EU27. It was always going to be a costly and complex process. It follows that it was likely to hurt poor folks rather disproportionately. I'd get angry with the people who sold the snake oil that there'd be a huge bonus for the NHS on leaving let alone that huge pot of money would have to be thrown in the other direction. It's the same snake oil salesmen boasting they'll just tell the EU to go whistle without consequences.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 20, 2017)

ska invita said:


> the  housing boil has to be lanced and if Brexit helps that happen then good. Right wing economists said house prices needed to correct down 30% in postcrash 2008... Instead they went up. It's not  going to be pretty but it has to happen


 
Logically yes, but the reality of mortally wounding the housing market as a deliberate ploy is suicide for any regime. we are a nation of twats.


----------



## gosub (Jul 20, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Logically yes, but the reality of mortally wounding the housing market as a deliberate ploy is suicide for any regime. we are a nation of twats.



At present maybe, but where are we? average first time buyer now 30...  what happens when, say, the average first time buyer age hits 40? I suggest the boot changes foot.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 20, 2017)

ska invita said:


> the  housing boil has to be lanced and if Brexit helps that happen then good. Right wing economists said house prices needed to correct down 30% in postcrash 2008... Instead they went up. It's not  going to be pretty but it has to happen


Happened in Ireland on both sides of the border. Actually a fall 40% if I recall correctly.

Something like the CA dot.com crash in 90s can be healthy brush fire clearing the way for new growth. In contrast there's little good about housing bubbles popping. Buggers credit flow, wrecks business, tanks employment and can be so bad it impinges on sovereignty. That's 08 all over again. There may be an inevitability about it accelerated slightly by Brexit but it will be crappy to live through. 

Governments should be acting to restrain such thing. Some in Europe do. However Westminster has tended to revel in it's housing bubble and pump it up. One of Osborne's prophecies of doom with Brexit was that house price inflation would slow.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 20, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> Happened in Ireland on both sides of the border. Actually a fall 40% if I recall correctly.



In Ireland there were many more houses than people to live in them. That is not the case in most of England and when demand outstrips supply prices will continue to rise. As London has become saturated and far too expensive, it has spread out, now Bristol is becoming too expensive, Brighton already is, Hastings is getting mobbed etc...


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 20, 2017)

In Politico UK criminal check plan for EU citizens is sticking point in Brexit talks


> ...
> A British plan to check the U.K. criminal record of each EU citizen who applies to the Home Office was a major source of friction, one EU diplomat said. More than three million EU citizens live in the U.K. and could be subject to the checks. The EU considers such systematic checks to be impermissible under EU law and believes the U.K. should only carry out checks based on reasonable suspicion, an insider close to the negotiations said.
> 
> “It wasn’t taken … too well,” an EU diplomat briefed on the discussions said of the U.K. position.
> ...


The British clearly came into this with some very strange expectations. It's one thing to do this going forward but it really complicates talks probably for no appreciable gain in security. UK citizens resident in the EU27 retaining EU citizen rights probably isn't going to fly either. They're just another foreign resident in an EU country.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 20, 2017)

many of the houses that were repossessed in the South - specially in the peripheral locations - are still owned by US venture capitalists who bought distressed portfolios en masse when things got really shitty. And they are not taking derisory offers on their stock either


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 20, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> In Ireland there were many more houses than people to live in them. That is not the case in most of England and when demand outstrips supply prices will continue to rise. As London has become saturated and far too expensive, it has spread out, now Bristol is becoming too expensive, Brighton already is, Hastings is getting mobbed etc...


Actually not really true from what I've read. What correct is property got built off in areas where it wasn't needed because of tax incentives. Lots of empty hotels and shoddily built luxury ghost estates, empty rural MacMansions. Symptoms of a speculative genuinely booming economy with a good deal of corrupt practice between developers and TDs. Developers were actually hoarding land round Dublin to push up prices. If you look at Irish urban areas like Dublin there were actually persistent housing shortages and they remain. Prices spiralled in densely packed Irish cities because of easy credit and high market demand just like in the UK. People were panicking to get onto the property ladder and over extending themselves. Bankers had a bonanza of lending backed by foreign credit from the like of RBS. The bubble crept up North and in a very different economy house prices began to track RoI markets rather than the UK. We share some of the same idiot bankers. It's a really spectacular property boom and crash in N.I. 




Linky. Dublin house prices currently seem to at 04 levels.

In England currently not all sources agree there's even a real shortage of housing. There's a lot of under occupation. In some areas empty investment properties are not uncommon. 

London may not be booming but has some of the same problems and effects on the country surrounding it like Dublin. There's a shortage of land to build on because of UK property planning regs that often look a bit like Emerald Tiger land banking round Dublin. Land use is very inefficient. As in the Irish boom there's a tendency to build high end property as the developers margins are better. The housing stock doesn't really suit public needs. Public housing hasn't been built in any quantity since the 70s. You have government measures like Help To Buy that are really help to sell every more expensive properties. Policies effectively encouraging mass immigration from all over the world has also created expectations of ever more demand and higher prices that are supposedly coming to end. Brexit adds some unpredictable shocks and currently a bit of a worrying, headless chicken, spectacle. Housing crashes are really hard to predict. Apparent bubbles sometimes turn out to be sustainable. I'd just not assume past housing market behaviour is a good predictor in England.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 20, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> many of the houses that were repossessed in the South - specially in the peripheral locations - are still owned by US venture capitalists who bought distressed portfolios en masse when things got really shitty. And they are not taking derisory offers on their stock either


I ran into some Poles who been building ghost estates and were buying the viable ones up at rock bottom prices to renovate and resell.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 20, 2017)

try putting in an offer on something out west that has been around for a while - it can take months for a response from the owners as they are all overseas


----------



## mather (Jul 20, 2017)

Poi E said:


> And more British nationalism.



Yeah, me being pissed off that we are being made to pay 100 billion Euros as part of a made up bogus 'leaving fee' to an organisation whose behaviour with each passing day resembles that of the Mafia is 'British nationalism' is just fucking pathetic. I notice that you have nothing to say about the fact that it will be the working class and poorest who lose out the most.

If your idea of 'internationalism' is us handing over money to all the parasites who make up the EU bureaucrats and bankers then you can keep it.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 20, 2017)

It's probably worth having a think about where that money will actually end up once it leaves these shores. It may not all go into new BMWs for bureaucrats. There's a fairly good chance it will ultimately benefit poor people elsewhere in Europe.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 20, 2017)

mather said:


> Yeah, me being pissed off that we are being made to pay 100 billion Euros as part of a made up bogus 'leaving fee' to an organisation whose behaviour with each passing day resembles that of the Mafia is 'British nationalism' is just fucking pathetic. I notice that you have nothing to say about the fact that it will be the working class and poorest who lose out the most.
> 
> If your idea of 'internationalism' is us handing over money to all the parasites who make up the EU bureaucrats and bankers then you can keep it.



Yeah yeah, stand up for the proles by pointing out nasty French cunts. Pathetic.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 20, 2017)

mather said:


> Yeah, me being pissed off that we are being made to pay 100 billion Euros as part of a made up bogus 'leaving fee' to an organisation whose behaviour with each passing day resembles that of the Mafia is 'British nationalism' is just fucking pathetic. I notice that you have nothing to say about the fact that it will be the working class and poorest who lose out the most.
> 
> If your idea of 'internationalism' is us handing over money to all the parasites who make up the EU bureaucrats and bankers then you can keep it.


 
Do you genuinely believe that if, for whatever reason, we did not have to cover our contractual commitments to the EU, then somehow, this lorry load of cash that we suddenly didn't have to pay out would appear and do us any good ? The poorer sections of society are fucked whatever route we go here. the utter enormity of the structual and economic imbalances in the country will be not be fixed by this money. resorting to banker and EU gravy trainers tropes does your argument no good at all.


----------



## mather (Jul 20, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> Trouble is no deal also be very costly. Could be 3.6-6% of UK's $2.6 trillion GDP according to this.



The question is who will incur those losses? GDP figures don't give the whole picture as it includes everything without breaking it down by economic sector and class. After all we always take GDP growth figures with a pinch of salt as that doesn't necessarily mean the poorest or even the majority of people are better off as extreme wealth imbalances  and parasitical economic sectors like legal and finance can skewer such figures. I don't want working people to be the ones to burden this extortion which is what will happen if this extortion comes out of the state budget, if it is shareholders and capitalists then fuck them, they have been getting fatter and richer of our backs for decades now so if they have to feel pain I have no sympathy, after all they love to tell us how we are "all in this together".



CrabbedOne said:


> The UK will still want to trade with Europe on the best terms it can get and plainly has fuck all leverage.



Yeah,  a country of 60 million people and the world's sixth largest economy has no leverage whatsoever. Do you actually believe this nonsense?



CrabbedOne said:


> Unfortunately some were under the illusion this divorce would be a cost free walking away from prior commitments London had made to the EU27. It was always going to be a costly and complex process. It follows that it was likely to hurt poor folks rather disproportionately. I'd get angry with the people who sold the snake oil that there'd be a huge bonus for the NHS on leaving let alone that huge pot of money would have to be thrown in the other direction. It's the same snake oil salesmen boasting they'll just tell the EU to go whistle without consequences.



You know it is possible to be angry at both parties. I have always opposed EU membership and it is a view that I have held for the last two decades so all the bullshit Boris Johnson and Michael Gove came out with about the NHS had fuck all effect in me making my decision on voting in the referendum. I'd wager that applied to a lot of people regardless of whether they voted remain or leave.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 20, 2017)

mather said:


> the world's sixth largest economy



The UK's economy is overwhelmingly based on services. Services can move, and this is increasingly the case. There's no reason to expect to remain the 6th largest economy if we fuck this process up.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> The UK's economy is overwhelmingly based on services. Services can move, and this is increasingly the case. There's no reason to expect to remain the 6th largest economy if we fuck this process up.


Is it?

And can they - are they not as physically rooted as most things? Services not just meaning a number on the end of phone but a barista  on the end of a real order. How they going to move that?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2017)

Service stuff like that is pretty much immovable.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 20, 2017)

IT and admin services, also logistics and information, and financial services can all be moved or at least done from anywhere, and there are creative people all over the world. I wouldn't say the UK is likely to become the poorest place ever, but a lot of our income is made from providing services which could easily be relocated, if efficiencies dictated that. Capital doesn't care where it lives, you know that.


----------



## mather (Jul 20, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> It's probably worth having a think about where that money will actually end up once it leaves these shores. It may not all go into new BMWs for bureaucrats.



But it will. The EU 'bailout' of Greece has failed to solve any of the underlying problems that caused the Greek crisis in the first place and it's only a matter of time before a similar but much larger crisis hits Italy or Spain. The EU and the ECB want our money to cover the cost of any future 'bailouts' it will inevitably impose on it's other member states. 

Also, until May of this year there was no such 'divorce bill' mandated as part of the process of leaving the EU. Then is May the EU came up with it and the figures that have been mentioned seemed to have been plucked out of thin air. 

The EU divorce bill

This 'divorce bill' doesn't cover EU initiatives and areas of collaboration that the UK is involved in (as many remainers claim) but 'liabilities'. 

What exactly are those liabilities? 



> *1. Outstanding budget commitments*
> 
> The EU Budget operates through a multi-annual spending structure, which means projects are paid for over a period of several years. As a result, EU Budget payments are back-loaded and many will be paid out post-Brexit. For example, a key element of EU spending allocations consists of cohesion fund payments, aimed at raising living standards in the 2004 Accession countries. According to the CER, only 25–30% of the biggest cohesion fund payments will actually have been spent by the time Britain is expected to leave the EU in April 2019.
> 
> ...





mojo pixy said:


> There's a fairly good chance it will ultimately benefit poor people elsewhere in Europe.



So nothing at all for poor people anywhere. Just stuff any decent socialist can get behind like paying the bloated salaries and pensions of EU bureaucrats and propping up dodgy loans to a dodgy and corrupt government with links to organised crime in the Ukraine.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2017)

Have you figures for what part of this wonderful economy we should be defending is immovable services? What part services are full stop?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> IT and admin services, also logistics and information, and financial services can all be moved or at least done from anywhere, and there are creative people all over the world. I wouldn't say the UK is likely to become the poorest place ever, but a lot of our income is made from providing services which could easily be relocated, if efficiencies dictated that. Capital doesn't care where it lives, you know that.


Logistics? You mean the computer algorithm coming up with new stuff or the actual physical  stuff moving from part of the chain to part of the chain. That ain't a service industry.


----------



## paolo (Jul 20, 2017)

By bureaucrats, do you mean civil servants?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 20, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> this wonderful economy



If this is where it's at, I'm out. I'll return to just watching. I'm sure it'll all be fine.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2017)

paolo said:


> By bureaucrats, do you mean civil servants?


Oh paolo - swung so low, defending EU bureaucrats, sorry civil servants.

Must defend all civil servants of a monstrous neo-liberal plan. 

Must defend. 

Plan.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> If this is where it's at, I'm out. I'll return to just watching. I'm sure it'll all be fine.


That was unfair of me - sorry. Your picture of 'the economy' is unreal.


----------



## mather (Jul 20, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Do you genuinely believe that if, for whatever reason, we did not have to cover our contractual commitments to the EU, then somehow, this lorry load of cash that we suddenly didn't have to pay out would appear and do us any good ?



If we spent it on working people and social needs like health and housing then yes, absolutely yes.



not-bono-ever said:


> The poorer sections of society are fucked whatever route we go here. the utter enormity of the structural and economic imbalances in the country will be not be fixed by this money.



I never claimed it will fixed *all* the problems and economic imbalances but the sums involved are substantial enough to provide a welcome boost in investment if we spent it on alleviating the effects of austerity and if we are stupid enough to give in to their extortion then you can bet that the current government will use this as an excuse for further cuts, hurting people who have already suffered enough.

It is also interesting that you use the exact same narrative that the ruling class love to use, 'there is no alternative'.  EU imposed neo-liberalism, free trade and capitalist globalisation can't be resisted so we should just throw our hands up and give up shall we? If that is honestly how you feel then why not take your logic to it's logical conclusion and just accept capitalism and join the Tories or Lib Dems?



not-bono-ever said:


> resorting to banker and EU gravy trainers tropes does your argument no good at all.



It really does because part of the the 'divorce bill' is to pay off these parasitical bureaucrats.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 20, 2017)

mather said:


> The question is who will incur those losses? GDP figures don't give the whole picture as it includes everything without breaking it down by economic sector and class. After all we always take GDP growth figures with a pinch of salt as that doesn't necessarily mean the poorest or even the majority of people are better off as extreme wealth imbalances  and parasitical economic sectors like legal and finance can skewer such figures. I don't want working people to be the ones to burden this extortion which is what will happen if this extortion comes out of the state budget, if it is shareholders and capitalists then fuck them, they have been getting fatter and richer of our backs for decades now so if they have to feel pain I have no sympathy, after all they love to tell us how we are "all in this together".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can recall how painful the transition into joining the EU was. A lot of people I knew didn't like the look of it. All those sunk costs and things given away in a country still haunted by empire. But getting after decades of the relationship is much worse. 

Call me cynical but I suspect The City will do just fine whatever happens. Those fellas just love volatility. The people who'll likely be fucked by instability are way further down the food chain. People who make things mostly. And there's long way to go with being fucked believe me. I tend to focus on N.I. problems. Whole rural communities will likely be wiped out if it's a petulant no deal Brexit. The worst part is what follows Brexit if the Tories manage to get their way and start doing bilateral trade deals with merciless giants like the US and China with the same conceited view of UK power. 

On leverage I just look at how little effect British attempts at playing hardball have had on EU27 positions. They've actually hardened. The French never wanted the British in the EU pushing a US agenda and are not being very constructive. Watch _Poldark_, it's often what them Frenchies are like. It (not _Poldark_) plays well with their voters even if it harms their economy. The Germans may be more reasonable but Trump has got everybody's backs up. The EU27 will pursue their own interest and its likely to not be that rational but include a fraction of the self harm that the UK will endure. Even the UK's closest friend the Irish are losing patience with all this daft Tory game playing.

The UK floats off an often hostile continent. It has never been comfortably European. It decided to do this for a variety of reasons not all of them bad. It's time to start facing the consequences and minimising the damage.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 20, 2017)

My picture of ''the economy'' (whatever the fuck that even is beyond the combined financial interactions of everyone with everyone else) is that a huge proportion of it is ''services''. _Services _like business admin, IT, logistics / transport, insurance, banking (oh yeah banking) and ''financial services''. All these are ultimately either mobile or replaceable from elsewhere. Of course the workers don't go, just the processes. The workers have to get jobs selling coffee or working in a Tesco Metro.

There are also eg retail, hospitality, and real estate. These can't move, no, but they depend on wealth creation elsewhere in the economy, so if say banking began moving offshore, fewer coffees might be bought in The City, and so on down to a new Tesco Metro not opening in a suburb and a few new jobs not being available.

The point really is that ''the economy'' isn't some immutable, monolithic lump. It's a dynamic system (am I even having to type this on U75?) and it's not immune to crisis. Brexit is, by almost any measure, a crisis, and it's in the hands of scum. I'm finding optimism and thoughts of a golden future hard to maintain.

I'd add that



mojo pixy said:


> It's probably worth having a think about where that money will actually end up once it leaves these shores. It may not all go into new BMWs for bureaucrats. There's a fairly good chance it will ultimately benefit poor people elsewhere in Europe.



Was a response to the notion that 



mather said:


> That huge sum will come out of the budget, our tax money. Add that to all the cuts and austerity and it will the poorest in our society who suffer the most. With the current funding crisis in the NHS, social care, benefits and housing the last thing we should be doing is handing that money over to the fucking vultures in the EU



As if the struggling in the UK were ever going to benefit from that money either. Come on. Brexit or no Brexit, it was always going to be getting worse. Brexit is the latest pretext. As well as being a massive crisis, which the scum will almost certainly fuck up, from my POV (though probably not theirs).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> My picture of ''the economy'' (whatever the fuck that even is beyond the combined financial interactions of everyone with everyone else) is that a huge proportion of it is ''services''. _Services _like business admin, IT, logistics / transport, insurance, banking (oh yeah banking) and ''financial services''. All these are ultimately either mobile or replaceable from elsewhere. Of course the workers don't go, just the processes. The workers have to get jobs selling coffee or working in a Tesco Metro.
> 
> There are also eg retail, hospitality, and real estate. These can't move, no, but they depend on wealth creation elsewhere in the economy, so if say banking began moving offshore, fewer coffees might be bought in The City, and so on down to a new Tesco Metro not opening in a suburb and a few new jobs not being available.
> 
> ...


Whats the figures for the first line? You keep listing stuff that's immovable as part of it and saying that they are movable. Then making the wrong picture a basis for a freakout.

Wealth creation? What does that mean?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 20, 2017)

Solid figure for services in the UK economy is estimates. 75-80%. ONS says ''three quarters'', also say _services _generate 79% of GDP.

Fair enough, ''wealth creation'' is too vague a term. I mean more specifically _the money people feel they have_, the stuff we spend on more or less shopping, or on having or not having a coffee.

_Freaking out_ is silly. I'm not freaking out, I'm looking at what appears to be a shit situation and saying I think it looks shit. Freaking out would be pointless unless it led directly to Whitehall being burned to the ground, and that's not happening.


----------



## mather (Jul 20, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> The UK's economy is overwhelmingly based on services. Services can move, and this is increasingly the case. There's no reason to expect to remain the 6th largest economy if we fuck this process up.



Not all services can move, that is a gross over generalisation, some will and some won't depending on their sector and a whole host of other issues. 

Besides I think you can agree with me that Britain's over reliance on finance and services is neither good nor sustainable for us in the long term. The service sector mostly provides shit low paid and insecure jobs and the dominance of finance has turned us into a casino economy that has made us especially vulnerable to global financial instability and economic downturns as well as causing regional socio-economic imbalances within Britain. We should be using this as a chance to radically restructure our economy with a focus on agriculture, industry, manufacturing and infrastructure and making sure that all new jobs that are created are decent and well paid. Also a good chance to get rid of the so-called 'gig economy'.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 20, 2017)

I do agree.

It's a shame it's going to take a massive crisis to make it happen**, rather than just doing it gradually and methodically because it's a good idea.

**edit: if that's the kind of thing that ends up happening.


----------



## mather (Jul 20, 2017)

paolo said:


> By bureaucrats, do you mean civil servants?



Same bloody difference. Those are the same cunts who fucked over Greece and to a lesser extent Italy, Ireland and Portugal. Living standards in Greece are now approaching those of the third world.

This is now an increasingly common sight in Greece, people (particularly the elderly) scavenging through bins for food and clothes:












But no, according to you this is not the issue, it's whether that incompetent drunk Jean Claude Junker gets his gold plated pension and all the other perks.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Solid figure for services in the UK economy is estimates. 75-80%. ONS says ''three quarters'', also say _services _generate 79% of GDP.
> 
> Fair enough, ''wealth creation'' is too vague a term. I mean more specifically _the money people feel they have_, the stuff we spend on more or less shopping, or on having or not having a coffee.
> 
> _Freaking out_ is silly. I'm not freaking out, I'm looking at what appears to be a shit situation and saying I think it looks shit. Freaking out would be pointless unless it led directly to Whitehall being burned to the ground, and that's not happening.



And what proportion are movable?

I have no idea how this relates to anything at all? Wealth creation = money you have? Too vague a term - ok, firm it up,

Ok - you're parroting tory guff about wealth creators despite not believing it. That is freaking out. You're tying that to brexit. That is freaking out.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 20, 2017)

It really isn't freaking out.
It really does look like a shit situation.

The whole affair is tory guff, start to finish.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 20, 2017)

To clarify (I hope) I'm not upset the UK is leaving the EU. Fine by me, the EU is shit in ten thousand ways. What does bother me is the actual people who are arranging it all. I read with great hope and interest a lot of the left-wing arguments for Brexit and if I'd thought for a moment that was how it would go down, I'd definitely have voted Leave. I didn't. I voted (vainly) Remain, because I was sure at the time that the people arranging the final deal would be A Conservative Government. Now it turns out it could be worse, because it's a _weak_ conservative government.

Or, unexpected stuff might happen that leads to a Brexit brimming with social democracy and maybe even shoots of socialism. It'll have to be unexpected because it certainly doesn't look the any plans I'm hearing about from the people making the arrangements. There seem to be no plans at all. Maybe this will lead to unexpected stuff that leads to an ideal Brexit. I don't expect it to, therefore _freaking out._


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Is it?
> 
> And can they - are they not as physically rooted as most things? Services not just meaning a number on the end of phone but a barista  on the end of a real order. How they going to move that?



Also worth pointing out that large swathes of what were once considered moveable areas of the service economy, call centres which were outsourced, have returned to Britain.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 20, 2017)

We could do with manufacturing and agriculture back, too. It would be nice to think Brexit would be aimed at that but it seems unlikely.


----------



## mather (Jul 20, 2017)

CrabbedOne said:


> I can recall how painful the transition into joining the EU was. A lot of people I knew didn't like the look of it. All those sunk costs and things given away in a country still haunted by empire. But getting after decades of the relationship is much worse.
> 
> Call me cynical but I suspect The City will do just fine whatever happens. Those fellas just love volatility. The people who'll likely be fucked by instability are way further down the food chain. People who make things mostly. And there's long way to go with being fucked believe me. I tend to focus on N.I. problems. Whole rural communities will likely be wiped out if it's a petulant no deal Brexit.



It benefits the City to have people believe that they are all powerful and untouchable but they are only as powerful as we allow them to be. I would actually welcome all the hedge funds, brokerages and investment banks either closing up shop or moving elsewhere. Given that they all avoid tax and have caused the economic crisis in the first place it is not like their wealth currently benefits us anyway, they simply make the obscenely rich even more richer. Split commercial banking from investment banking and nationalise it and set up a national investment bank to fund projects in place of what the City used to do.

As for regional funding scheme, I am in favour of us at least matching what was lost by EU funding and even increasing it where needed. Especially agriculture which with industry has been neglected by British governments for far too long.



CrabbedOne said:


> On leverage I just look at how little effect British attempts at playing hardball have had on EU27 positions.



That is more about us having an incompetent government who couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery rather than Britain being some helpless tiny country that has no chance against the EU. Unlike the EU, we can get rid of our government, no matter how imperfect our 'democracy' is it is more accountable to voters than any distant EU institution. As thing stand it looks like May's government is on borrowed time, there is talk of a possible party coup against May this autumn and I would be very surprised if May's government would last a full term, even lasting for another year is a big bet. If Corbyn can keep up the momentum he has enjoyed in the polls since June then by October we could have a new and better prime minister. I may not even agree with all of Labour's Brexit plan but I can at least be sure that they won't be as incompetent as this useless lot are, they have really set the bar that low.



CrabbedOne said:


> They've actually hardened. The French never wanted the British in the EU pushing a US agenda and are not being very constructive. Watch _Poldark_, it's often what them Frenchies are like. It (not _Poldark_) plays well with their voters even if it harms their economy. The Germans may be more reasonable but Trump has got everybody's backs up. The EU27 will pursue their own interest and its likely to not be that rational but include a fraction of the self harm that the UK will endure.



I don't want us pushing the US agenda either, or anyone else's for that matter, neither Brussels nor Washington.  As for Germany well whatever problems they have with Trump are between them and Trump, that has fuck all to with us and Brexit. If that is a factor which is influencing negotiations then isn't that just evidence of bath faith on their part, punishing us for something that is an American problem?



CrabbedOne said:


> Even the UK's closest friend the Irish are losing patience with all this daft Tory game playing.



You mean the Irish government and politicians, not the Irish people. Well why should anyone, especially people on the left, care what right-wing Thatcherite politicians like Enda Kenny and Leo Varadkar think?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Also worth pointing out that large swathes of what were once considered moveable areas of the service economy, call centres which were outsourced, have returned to Britain.


Capital goes where it makes money - we're now back at the bottom of the barrel for certain things. But it's not just that, it's that there are soft skills and stuff you can't cut out - another reason why services are not as mobile as the ideal type suggests.


----------



## mather (Jul 20, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> As if the struggling in the UK were ever going to benefit from that money either. Come on. Brexit or no Brexit, it was always going to be getting worse. Brexit is the latest pretext. As well as being a massive crisis, which the scum will almost certainly fuck up, from my POV (though probably not theirs).



I notice you have completely ignored that link I provided which categorically refutes your claim that the 'divorce bill' would be spent on "poor people". As I have said before, the EU is unaccountable to voters, at least we can get rid of our governments and with the way things look that could happen sooner than you think given that May's government is now on borrowed time. Whatever your scepticism about us spending the money where it should be spent, how can you then place faith in the EU to do that when they have no mechanisms of accountability whatsoever and that they have explicitly said what they will be spending the money on? Are you happy with that money being spent on Junkers boozing and dodgy loans to the Ukraine? A mess that the EU had a hand in creating I might add. 

I don't know what your views on the big bank bailouts of 2007-08 was, but if you did oppose those bailouts then I really do struggle to understand how you can support this 'divorce bill'? It is literally making working people and the poor pay for the needs of the super-rich and powerful, again!


----------



## mather (Jul 20, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I do agree.
> 
> It's a shame it's going to take a massive crisis to make it happen**, rather than just doing it gradually and methodically because it's a good idea.



History has a thing for crisis being the catalyst for change. For better or worse, Brexit had the effect of demolishing the whole 'business as usual' mindset that seemed to dominate the thinking of both people and politicians. Since the end of the Cold War we have all lived under the narratives of the 'end of history' and 'there is no alternative', which enabled neo-liberalism to become totally hegemonic. Now that hegemony is crumbling, we should start making our own case against neo-liberalism rather than mourning a system that didn't give two shits about us, which saw every metric of living conditions from housing, working conditions, pay to being able to even raise a family decline under continuous attack from the ruling class.

Also I can't help but think your own sense of pessimism regarding change is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think that change is a distant dream then how can you ever seek to convince anyone else of change if you don't even really believe it yourself? Mark Fisher's observations seem really poignant.


----------



## mather (Jul 20, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> We could do with manufacturing and agriculture back, too. It would be nice to think Brexit would be aimed at that but it seems unlikely.



At least we are out of the Common Fisheries Policy which fucked over our fishing industry, not to mention the huge environmental costs associated with over-fishing that the CFP entailed.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 20, 2017)

mather said:


> I notice you have completely ignored that link I provided which categorically refutes your claim that the 'divorce bill' would be spent on "poor people".



I don't know, *Outstanding budget commitments *(which is point number 1 in the list of what the payment comprises) could mean just about anything. I think _categorically refutes_ is overstating it but I take your point that much of it is guaranteed just to feed the admin and finance machine. Anyway I didn't ignore the link, I read it and I had nothing to add in response. I repeat that I am and was no fan of the EU so you haven't got to convince me of anything when it comes to lack of accountability or corruption.



mather said:


> History has a thing for crisis being the catalyst for change. For better or worse, Brexit had the effect of demolishing the whole 'business as usual' mindset that seemed to dominate the thinking of both people and politicians. Since the end of the Cold War we have all lived under the narratives of the 'end of history' and 'there is no alternative', which enabled neo-liberalism to become totally hegemonic. Now that hegemony is crumbling, we should start making our own case against neo-liberalism rather than mourning a system that didn't give two shits about us, which saw every metric of living conditions from housing, working conditions, pay to being able to even raise a family decline under continuous attack from the ruling class.
> 
> Also I can't help but think your own sense of pessimism regarding change is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think that change is a distant dream then how can you ever seek to convince anyone else of change if you don't even really believe it yourself? Mark Fisher's observations seem really poignant.



_Pessimism regarding change_ is quite a magnificent extrapolation / generalisation from the acknowledgement that yes, I myself am sceptical and worried about the outcome of this Brexit because of whose hands it's effectively in. I'm not marvin the paranoid android ffs  just some person getting by on not a lot, precariously, and not expecting that situation to improve in the forseeable future.

Hubris is grand, _the hegemony of neoliberalism is crumbling_. Yeahmaybe. While that's happening I hope the shops stay open. Little things. I'm looking forward to when there's a system that _gives a shit about us_ though. That'll be grand.



mather said:


> At least we are out of the Common Fisheries Policy which fucked over our fishing industry, not to mention the huge environmental costs associated with over-fishing that the CFP entailed.



It'll be interesting to see what happens if we get seriously stuck into the 200-mile limit issue further down the line.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 20, 2017)

mather said:


> At least we are out of the Common Fisheries Policy which fucked over our fishing industry, not to mention the huge environmental costs associated with over-fishing that the CFP entailed.



Where do you get this stuff from ? fucking hell, sort it out.


----------



## mather (Jul 21, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Where do you get this stuff from ? fucking hell, sort it out.



Sort what out?

You think opening up our waters to fining ships from all over Europe is good for the preservation of fish stocks, by putting even more pressure of them?


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jul 21, 2017)

mather said:


> ...
> You mean the Irish government and politicians, not the Irish people. Well why should anyone, especially people on the left, care what right-wing Thatcherite politicians like Enda Kenny and Leo Varadkar think?


I'm not sure who the idealised "Irish people" are you speak of. Perhaps some quaint folk dwelling in thatched huts amongst strategically placed leprechauns. They do stubbornly elect FF and FG politicians but this is a thing called democracy. Despite all that's happened the Irish still poll as rather pro-EU because on balance it's mostly been good for them. The last significant Irish eurosceptic party SF was even forced finally into being anti-Brexit by the desire to be a popular party in the RoI. Northern Irish Catholics voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. 

Perhaps the enlightened are only signifiant political party that supported Brexit in Ireland. That's a populist nationalist party called the DUP. Despite the focus on "Flegs" they are actually quite worried about a no deal Brexit from what I hear. Having a patriotic, faith based approach to the fundamentally exposed position of the UK in the Brexit business and future trade negotiations does not seem to be confined to them.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 21, 2017)

ska invita said:


> The only way I can see Brexit happening in any way approaching a smooth transition is if everything stay much the same for a number of years and is unpicked and rewritten/negotiated one by one as time goes by. What *appears* to be happening at the moment is this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Four year "transition" deal? Cabinet accepts Brexit transition will mean years of free movement 
Definite sign of something like that. That transition may hang around for even longer, especially with a change in goverment


----------



## Raheem (Jul 21, 2017)

mather said:


> Same bloody difference. Those are the same cunts who fucked over Greece and to a lesser extent Italy, Ireland and Portugal. Living standards in Greece are now approaching those of the third world.
> 
> This is now an increasingly common sight in Greece, people (particularly the elderly) scavenging through bins for food and clothes:
> 
> But no, according to you this is not the issue, it's whether that incompetent drunk Jean Claude Junker gets his gold plated pension and all the other perks.



On the extremely narrow question of Jean-Claude Junker's pension, the thing is that he will get it, come what may. No matter how much of an arsehole he is, no matter what evils he has perpetrated, no matter how illegitimate you think generous public sector pensions are, he will get his pension. The binary choice is between UK taxpayers contributing to it as they are currently set to or taxpayers in other EU countries, including Greece, Italy, Ireland and Portugal, paying extra instead. Of those two options, one must surely be fairer than the other, and there isn't a third.

More broadly, if the UK decides not to reach a financial settlement with the EU, the consequences will not be visited on Jean-Claude Junker's pension. It might be possible for Brussels to make a token effort by economising on Chateau Lafite, gold taps, prostitutes etc. But, in the final analysis, it could only really be paid for by clawing back farming subsidies and structural grants. Whatever you think of these as spending programmes, it's inescapable that it would mean taking money disproportionately out of the poorest of the EU's economies. Unless the richest economies step up to increase their subsidies, that means a country like Greece is going to have to cough up billions


----------



## brogdale (Jul 21, 2017)

mather said:


> History has a thing for crisis being the catalyst for change. For better or worse, Brexit had the effect of demolishing the whole 'business as usual' mindset that seemed to dominate the thinking of both people and politicians. Since the end of the Cold War we have all lived under the narratives of the 'end of history' and 'there is no alternative', which enabled neo-liberalism to become totally hegemonic. Now that hegemony is crumbling, we should start making our own case against neo-liberalism rather than mourning a system that didn't give two shits about us, which saw every metric of living conditions from housing, working conditions, pay to being able to even raise a family decline under continuous attack from the ruling class.
> 
> Also I can't help but think your own sense of pessimism regarding change is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think that change is a distant dream then how can you ever seek to convince anyone else of change if you don't even really believe it yourself? Mark Fisher's observations seem really poignant.





mather said:


> History has a thing for crisis being the catalyst for change. For better or worse, Brexit had the effect of demolishing the whole 'business as usual' mindset that seemed to dominate the thinking of both people and politicians. Since the end of the Cold War we have all lived under the narratives of the 'end of history' and 'there is no alternative', which enabled neo-liberalism to become totally hegemonic. Now that hegemony is crumbling, we should start making our own case against neo-liberalism rather than mourning a system that didn't give two shits about us, which saw every metric of living conditions from housing, working conditions, pay to being able to even raise a family decline under continuous attack from the ruling class.
> 
> Also I can't help but think your own sense of pessimism regarding change is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think that change is a distant dream then how can you ever seek to convince anyone else of change if you don't even really believe it yourself? Mark Fisher's observations seem really poignant.


Or...looked at another way...rather than causing _neoliberal hegemony _to crumble, maybe withdrawing from a supra-national entity, for oligarchic capital, represents a renewed, higher state of neoliberal exploitation.


----------



## Supine (Jul 21, 2017)

mather said:


> Sort what out?
> 
> You think opening up our waters to fining ships from all over Europe is good for the preservation of fish stocks, by putting even more pressure of them?



Your approximately 180 degrees wrong on this issue


----------



## gosub (Jul 21, 2017)

Supine said:


> Your approximately 180 degrees wrong on this issue


except he isn't.  You want an example of responsible fishing in EUrope, you have to look to Iceland, then probably Norway.  Niether inside CFP.


----------



## Smangus (Jul 21, 2017)

Interesting article today, of course capital flight does have knock on effects to those that it employs, both directly and indirectly,

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/brexit-banking-exodus-theresa-may-morgan-Stanley


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 21, 2017)

Brexit might not actually mean Brexit, says May

*BREXIT may mean free movement, unrestrained immigration, closer ties with the EU and many other things which are not actually Brexit, Theresa May has declared. *

Following a week of negotiation with the EU, the prime minister has confirmed that the definition of Brexit is ‘on the table’.


She continued: “Brexit did, previously, mean Brexit, but words change according to usage.

“Because Brexit is a made-up word, which 18 months ago none of us knew, it really doesn’t have any fixed meaning and might end up being forgotten completely.

“Remember it was only five years ago that everyone was saying YOLO, and where is that now?

“Ultimately, Brexit means whatever you want it to mean. And I am determined to make it a success.”

Brexit voter Margaret Gerving said: “I never really knew what Brexit meant anyway. I just wanted it, passionately, with every fibre of my being.”


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2017)

Smangus said:


> Interesting article today, of course capital flight does have knock on effects to those that it employs, both directly and indirectly,
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/brexit-banking-exodus-theresa-may-morgan-Stanley


That's not capital flight. These are not investors in the UK and any investment they are involved with in the UK will still be happening.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 21, 2017)

I heard Green brexit mentioned by Gove this Am.  How does this this in with the red, white and blue brexit we were promised?


----------



## Smangus (Jul 21, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> That's not capital flight. These are not investors in the UK and any investment they are involved with in the UK will still be happening.



But It's a crisis! Don't you unnerstand...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 21, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I heard Green brexit mentioned by Gove this Am.  How does this this in with the red, white and blue brexit we were promised?


It means brexit won't suit your pallette


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 21, 2017)

gosub said:


> except he isn't.  You want an example of responsible fishing in EUrope, you have to look to Iceland, then probably Norway.  Niether inside CFP.


 
The issue is not the CFP, it is what happened before we joined, what we did to our stocks beforehand. Things were obviously fucked in the 60s as we had killed off most of the breeding age cods ( takes up to 10 years for a cod to hit peak reproductivity depending on environment). There is a discussion to be had about the CFP but need to consider the stage at which the CFP kicked in during 1970 and the stock precipice Europe was looking into at that time. Its not something that we have ever really wanted to come to terms with.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 21, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I heard Green brexit mentioned by Gove this Am.  How does this this in with the red, white and blue brexit we were promised?


Im genuinely on the edge of my seat to find out whats going to happen to farming subsidies/other land/sea related issues. Gove is right that the potential for massive impact is there. The CAP is one of the biggest areas where being in the EU has shaped reality.  Though it seems it'll be a good few years or so before any change kicks in - and possibly a different  party shaping the policy when that time comes. 
Its a window to reconfigure the way farming happens in the UK - for better or worse ... Id love to read some proposals on how it could be bettered... they must be out there already

*I heard somoene say that Gove is in the cabinet as effective deputy prime minister, anointed at Murdochs request. Sounded a bit conspiracy theory, but a google has these:
Tom Watson asks May: did Murdoch request Gove's return to cabinet?
Theresa May refuses to deny Rupert Murdoch's involvement in Michael Gove’s cabinet return
Tories refuse to deny Rupert Murdoch role in Michael Gove's cabinet return


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 21, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> That's not capital flight. These are not investors in the UK and any investment they are involved with in the UK will still be happening.


 
its a nameplate transfer exercise - for every master of the universe moving to Frankfurt, there will be half a dozen support staff of various kids that do not justify being moved to Germany. Thye will already be using more convenient tax vehicles for much for their business anyway - eg Holland or Ireland


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> its a nameplate transfer exercise - for every master of the universe moving to Frankfurt, there will be half a dozen support staff of various kids that do not justify being moved to Germany. Thye will already be using more convenient tax vehicles for much for their business anyway - eg Holland or Ireland


Indeed - so they can keep the foot in the door of the EU's lax exploitation regime whilst carrying on over here too.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 21, 2017)

to the UKGapropros of fuck all but one large financial place I came across literally had one room in a block in Switzerland. A block filled with other small rooms with not much happening. Deals were done in London or whatever but - get this - fax and email deal agreements were sent out from the single PC and fax machine in the room, out to the counterparty- who was probably based in another room on another floor. One man operation. for all intents and purposes, there was an office the paper trail led back to the registered comoany in Switzerland. This is extreme but not unusual

The reality is that is not how much tax the global financial have to pay to the UKG, but how much does UKG think is acceptable for them to pay without spooking them. a balancing act that is heavily weighted in one direction.


----------



## gosub (Jul 21, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Indeed - so they can keep the foot in the door of the EU's lax exploitation regime whilst carrying on over here too.


Think EUrozone will tax harmonise and/ or die
They'll have about a decade on the Guinness and then be back


----------



## ska invita (Jul 21, 2017)

mather said:


> You think opening up our waters to fining ships from all over Europe is good for the preservation of fish stocks, by putting even more pressure of them?


on fish stocks im not sure this is an issue...what you can land is what you can land...doesn't really matter what country does the fishing. A lot of what gets caught in UK waters by UK boats gets sent "fresh" / packed in ice to Spain anyhow
Cod has made a recovery Subscribe to read


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2017)

Lexit: the EU is a neoliberal project, so let's do something different when we leave it



> Ceding Brexit to the right was very nearly the most serious strategic mistake by the British left since the ‘70s. Under successive leaders Labour became so incorporated into the ideology of Europeanism as to preclude any clear-eyed critical analysis of the actually existing EU as a regulatory and trade regime pursuing deep economic integration. The same political journey that carried Labour into its technocratic embrace of the EU also resulted in the abandonment of any form of distinctive economics separate from the orthodoxies of market liberalism.
> 
> It’s been astounding to witness so many left-wingers, in meltdown over Brexit, resort to parroting liberal economics. Thus we hear that factor mobility isn’t about labour arbitrage, that public services aren’t under pressure, that we must prioritise foreign direct investment and trade. It’s little wonder Labour became so detached from its base. Such claims do not match the lived experience of ordinary people in regions of the country devastated by deindustrialisation and disinvestment.
> 
> ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 24, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Lexit: the EU is a neoliberal project, so let's do something different when we leave it


I don't agree with all of that article, but the bit you quote, especially, is very good.  Particularly the second paragraph.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 31, 2017)

> The same confirmation bias can be seen in their determination to find bad economic news. Here is a selection of British reports from the past two weeks: Unemployment fell again, as every month since the vote, to 1.49 million (from 1.67 million in June of last year); manufacturing demand is at its highest level since August 1988; retail sales, official figures show, are up 2.9 percent on this time last year.
> 
> Exports were up 10 percent year-on-year in May, helped by the long-overdue correction of the exchange rate. Remainers like to point to the fall in sterling, but rarely mention that, before the vote, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of England agreed that Britain’s currency, seen as a haven from the travails of the euro, was artificially expensive.



Opinion | The Good News on Brexit They’re Not Telling You


----------



## J Ed (Jul 31, 2017)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Opinion | The Good News on Brexit They’re Not Telling You



Daniel Hannan, in case anyone bothers to read it.


----------



## 8den (Aug 2, 2017)

We've also got Diana, a Psychic, & Brexit so it's a Daily Express triple word score.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 2, 2017)

JohhnyCanuck3 said:
			
		

> Opinion | The Good News on Brexit They’re Not Telling You





J Ed said:


> Daniel Hannan, in case anyone bothers to read it.



Johnny Canuck3 : suggest you look Hannan up, and check where he's coming from. He's been a Brexit-obsessive for ever -- out there on the loon-wing of the Tories on this subject.


----------



## 8den (Aug 2, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Johnny Canuck3 : suggest you look Hannan up, and check where he's coming from. He's been a Brexit-obsessive for ever -- out there on the loon-wing of the Tories on this subject.



Hannan makes Gove look like an intellectual titan.


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2017)

Gove _is_ an intellectual titan tbf. As close as they have atm anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2017)

8den said:


> Hannan makes Gove look like an intellectual titan.


dear jesus, is he that thick?


----------



## gosub (Aug 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> dear jesus, is he that thick?


He is a lunatic, for example thinks data protection is a bad thing. But that was a well written article with linked sources, that even pointed out that haters would dismiss it rather than actually read it


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 3, 2017)

gosub : Well I read it. Hannan's article is really not that well written at all. I found it an incoherent jumble of selected snippets of information filtered through his own distorting spyglass.

Just because Remain-article writers are very biased too, and equally selective, doesn't mean any credence should be given to Hannan's "Brexit means ultra-free-market capitalist paradise!!!!1!!1!" nonsense


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 3, 2017)

8den said:


> Gove ....  titan.



thats two letters more than i'd use


----------



## paolo (Aug 3, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> gosub : Well I read it. Hannan's article is really not that well written at all. I found it an incoherent jumble of selected snippets of information filtered through his own distorting spyglass.
> 
> Just because Remain-article writers are very biased too, and equally selective, doesn't mean any credence should be given to Hannan's "Brexit means ultra-free-market capitalist paradise!!!!1!!1!" nonsense



Indeed - Hannan's piece is largely free of any supporting facts.

The one thing he does mention:

"Exports were up 10 percent year-on-year in May"

And fails to note that the rise is exports is... largely to the EU. Via a free market we're going to leave. FFS.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 3, 2017)

He also tries to tie the abandonment of indyref 2 to brexit. At least, he mentions it at the same time as the other effects of brexit he talks about:

"They told us that Scotland would leave Britain; in fact, support for separatism has collapsed, and the Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has shelved her planned independence referendum"

Yeah, because of the SNPs showing in the general election, you mendacious git.


----------



## gosub (Aug 3, 2017)

york new 





paolo said:


> Indeed - Hannan's piece is largely free of any supporting facts.
> 
> The one thing he does mention:
> i like
> ...



I like that the New York Times embeds links to the the revelent supporting facts, rather than the UK system which is largely metatag farming.


----------



## Poi E (Aug 3, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> He also tries to tie the abandonment of indyref 2 to brexit. At least, he mentions it at the same time as the other effects of brexit he talks about:
> 
> "They told us that Scotland would leave Britain; in fact, support for separatism has collapsed, and the Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has shelved her planned independence referendum"
> 
> Yeah, because of the SNPs showing in the general election, you mendacious git.



And support for independence seems pretty much stuck at 45%, somehow taken as reassuring by British nationalists like Hannan.

The man is an obsequious cunt despite his professed libertarianism and a master of specious arguments. Following his professed love of local rule, you would think he would support Scottish independence. Yet he does not. Why, Daniel?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 3, 2017)

paolo said:


> Indeed - Hannan's piece is largely free of any supporting facts.
> 
> The one thing he does mention:
> 
> ...



Are you sure?


Non-EU Exports for May 2017 were £15.7 billion. This was an increase of £1.6 billion (11 per cent) on last month, and an increase of £3.6 billion (30 per cent) compared with May 2016. 


Non-EU Imports for May 2017 were £19.4 billion. This was an increase of £0.4 billion (2.2 per cent) compared with last month, and an increase of £1.9 billion (11 per cent) compared with May 2016. 


In Non-EU trade the UK was a net importer this month, with imports exceeding exports by £3.7 billion.


EU Exports for May 2017 were £13.7 billion. This was an increase of £1.3 billion (11 per cent) compared with last month, and an increase of £2.3 billion (20 per cent) compared with May 2016.
 Am i reading this wrong? Or this?


----------



## Raheem (Aug 3, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Am i reading this wrong? Or this?



Probably not wrong, but suspect it's important to take into account what has happened to Sterling since May last year.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 4, 2017)

paolo said:


> Indeed - Hannan's piece is largely free of any supporting facts.
> 
> The one thing he does mention:
> 
> ...



Indeed, people like Hannan always seize upon increasingly rare good stats and conveniently ignore the fact that we are still in the single market. He famously claimed before the referendum that _“Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.”_ I Haven’t heard him saying that since.

Hannan is also a first degree right wing loon of the_ ‘Hitler was on the left’_ variety.


----------



## Ptolemy (Aug 4, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Hannan is also a first degree right wing loon of the_ ‘Hitler was on the left’_ variety.



"They called themselves National SOCIALISTS - checkmate lefties!!11!"


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 4, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Probably not wrong, but suspect it's important to take into account what has happened to Sterling since May last year.


That will effect why it's happened but not paolo appearing to be making a wild claim in his fact-checking. And then  people applauding it without doing any checking themselves because it fits with their views/prejudices.


----------



## Raheem (Aug 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> That will effect why it's happened but not paolo appearing to be making a wild claim in his fact-checking. And then  people applauding it without doing any checking themselves because it fits with their views/prejudices.



It doesn't look like an obviously wild claim. Have you tried doing the calculation in US dollars?


----------



## paolo (Aug 4, 2017)

There's probably other sources, more recent data etc. (Article isn't paywalled for me.)

Subscribe to read


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 5, 2017)

paolo said:


> There's probably other sources, more recent data etc. (Article isn't paywalled for me.)


Indeed there are...........and the following link , Everything you might want to know about the UK's trade with the EU illustrates that in 2016, the EU accounted for 44% of total UK exports.......whereas the EU used to account for 60% of the UK's exports - so, despite the EU greatly expanding, it's importance relative to UK's export market has continued to contract. One cannot generally say the same about the UK's subsidies to the EU however.

I have waited a long time for any credible rational reason to justify the UK's requirement to subsidise a supranational political entity under the guise of achieving economic growth...........A simple Regional Free Trade agreement would have achieved that, without having to irresponsibly cede political sovereignty, border control, fishing territories etc- .....never mind cost the UK an absolute fortune......and I am still waiting.

 There are numerous 'better causes' at home for which the £multi- billions of subsidies that have been handed over to the EU over the years could have been used.....the correct source of funding to the EU should be via the Overseas Aid budget....which is currently another absolutely ridiculous and unaffordable British politician's 'feel good' gesture....paid for by  the UK taxpayer!!


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 5, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> in 2016, the EU accounted for 44% of total UK exports.......whereas the EU used to account for 60% of the UK's exports - so, despite the EU greatly expanding, it's importance relative to UK's export market has continued to contract. !


Oh well that's OK then "LOL"
Personally I see the supranational political entity as at least as beneficial as the trade.


----------



## paolo (Aug 5, 2017)

The cost of the entity itself (salaries, offices etc) is a relative small % of the money members pay in. The rest goes back out to the members.

Whether or not one agrees with how it is spent is another matter of course. Just like national taxes.

I live in London. We pay out more in UK tax than we get back. Personally I think that's the way it should be. But there could also be a mindset that would say - fuck you. It's "our" money, we should keep it. Then one can extrapolate further. Rich people could say, hey, I pay loads of tax, just to subsidise poorer people, that's not fair.

"Let's keep our money, it's ours." All birds of the same feather.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 5, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> Oh well that's OK then "LOL"
> Personally I see the supranational political entity as at least as beneficial as the trade.


You mean the political entity that is currently murdering people in Greece? Lovely.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 5, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> You mean the political entity that is currently murdering people in Greece? Lovely.


Please explain and cite cases.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 5, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> Oh well that's OK then "LOL"
> Personally I see the supranational political entity as at least as beneficial as the trade.


Really? Well you are entitled to your opinion......but perhaps you could attempt to produce a credible argument to justify your opinion that the UK should remain in that unnecessary, and undemocratic political entity. Other than the facilitating of travel throughout the EU, ( which is somewhat of a mixed blessing), I personally don't see any justification for ceding our political sovereignty to that supranational political union


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 5, 2017)

If it was undemocratic before, with us probably striking an equivalent trade deal outside of it, it will be even less so.

I see such things as human rights, environmental policy, trading standards, health and safety as something best tackled by an entity equivalent to the other world powers.

I admit to a personal angle - having grown up with it and having plans to retire to France, it will cost me at least half of my state pension to pay for health insurance after age 66 - so I'll have paid into the NHS for 44 years and will get nothing from it in the part of my life when I'm most likely to need it -  as well as feeling slightly more of a "foreigner" - though I will apply for naturalisation after the five year waiting period.

Oh and for a while I would have got 1.4 euros per pound.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 5, 2017)

paolo said:


> The cost of the entity itself (salaries, offices etc) is a relative small % of the money members pay in. The rest goes back out to the members.
> 
> Whether or not one agrees with how it is spent is another matter of course. Just like national taxes.
> 
> ...



What nonsense! There should be NO subsidy requirement to create economic growth from trade.....and a quarter of £1 trillion , or thereabouts is hardly a trivial sum, even if it has been spent over the past 40 odd years.In London, as required elsewhere, you have to pay for  for the public  services that are provided....THAT is what you are 'getting back' - or like the EU and Corbyn, do you also believe  that a magical money tree is available??

Now why don't YOU attempt to JUSTIFY that ridiculous political entity for the  supposed benefit of free trade!!......which WOULD be available via a mere Regional Free Trade Agreement.

Your fatuous final comment is just typical of you Europhiles......absolutely devoid of any credible justification.....the argument for Brexit is far more meaningful that your puerile comment.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 5, 2017)

350 million extra pounds per week for the NHS !1!!!


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 5, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Really? Well you are entitled to your opinion......but perhaps you could attempt to produce a credible argument to justify your opinion that the UK should remain in that unnecessary, and undemocratic political entity. Other than the facilitating of travel throughout the EU, ( which is somewhat of a mixed blessing), I personally don't see any justification for ceding our political sovereignty to that supranational political union


Yeh this would be the democracy Theresa May so keen on that she wanted to refuse MPs a vote on article 50


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 5, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> If it was undemocratic before, with us probably striking an equivalent trade deal outside of it, it will be even less so.
> 
> I see such things as human rights, environmental policy, trading standards, health and safety as something best tackled by an entity equivalent to the other world powers.
> 
> I admit to a personal angle - having grown up with it and having plans to retire to France, it will cost me at least half of my state pension to pay for health insurance after age 66 - so I'll have paid into the NHS for 44 years and will get nothing from it in the part of my life when I'm most likely to need it -  as well as feeling slightly more of a "foreigner" - though I will apply for naturalisation after the five year waiting period.


Jeeez....where did you ever get the asinine idea that 'democracy' is a required feature in the arrangement of trade deals??? 
The democracy factor features in the election of a government.....and normally, the Executive is thereby empowered to conclude trade deals .... but that wouldn't involve a political entity.
There is absolutely NO requirement , never mind authority, for the  democratically elected UK government to cede Parliamentary authority to a supranational political entity.

I fully agree with your final comment.....but beneficial global agreement on such matters are best agreed on the global stage, not the EU, which is a totally unnecessary entity, and, your comment about NHS is untrue as you clearly HAVE  had NHS cover throughout your life.  People from the UK, and indeed from places like America even, have retired in France and Spain etc. well before the EEC was spawned - and  without requiring the formation of a political entity too.....if that is your best attempt at providing justification for the EU, then you have failed miserably.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh this would be the democracy Theresa May so keen on that she wanted to refuse MPs a vote on article 50


So what?? That wasn't a confrontation with democracy, that was custom and practice. Our entry , and membership of the EU is via agreed Treaties....and the political convention in the UK has been for the Executive to agree/withdraw/amend Treaties.........not Parliament.
Parliamentary authority for the Royal Prerogative was established centuries ago.

Btw - you forgot to provide  the requested credible justification for the UK's costly membership of a political entity wrt arranging beneficial trade agreements!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> So what?? That wasn't a confrontation with democracy, that was custom and practice. Our entry , and membership of the EU is via agreed Treaties....and the political convention in the UK has been for the Executive to agree/withdraw/amend Treaties.........


So parliament was having a laugh when it passed e.g. the European communities act 1972


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 5, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> View attachment 112863


Yep - just further proof that you are totally devoid of providing a sensible, never mind a credible argument to justify the UK's membership of the EU...... and posting your photograph is hardly a relevant contribution to the debate!!


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> So parliament was having a laugh when it passed e.g. the European communities act 1972


Parliament was certainly not having a laugh in 1972.....they were doing as they were told by the EU, despite Heath assuring all and sundry that UK membership of the EEC did NOT involve the transfer of sovereignty to a supranational entity......................but , the EU , ( or EEC as it was then), REQUIRED all joining members states to enshrine primacy of EU, (EEC) law in the member states own statute books......otherwise they couldn't join....the USSE in action from the word go - and carefully hidden by Heath and his fellow Europhiles who knew  better.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Parliament was certainly not having a laugh in 1972.....they were doing as they were told by the EU, despite Heath assuring all and sundry that UK membership of the EEC did NOT involve the transfer of sovereignty to a supranational entity......................but , the EU , ( or EEC as it was then), REQUIRED all joining members states to enshrine primacy of EU, (EEC) law in the member states own statute books......otherwise they couldn't join....the USSE in action from the word go - and carefully hidden by Heath and his fellow Europhiles who knew  better.


Yeh like France was socialist, like Germany was socialist


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 5, 2017)

I for one can't wait for those unelected bureaucrats in Whitehall to take full control of the bureaucracy back from those unelected bureaucrats in Strasbourg.


----------



## bemused (Aug 6, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I for one can't wait for those unelected bureaucrats in Whitehall to take full control of the bureaucracy back from those unelected bureaucrats in Strasbourg.



Hopfully they'll have a French surname.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 6, 2017)

Our unelected/ elected elites > their unelected / elected elites


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 6, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> Please explain and cite cases.


You're completely unaware of the ECBs role in forcing economic policies onto Greece that are responsible for people's deaths? 

Like this, and this.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 6, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> You're completely unaware of the ECBs role in forcing economic policies onto Greece that are responsible for people's deaths?
> 
> Like this, and this.


It's my understanding that there was pretty well blanket avoidance of paying taxes.


----------



## paolo (Aug 6, 2017)

. (drifting off topic)


----------



## Winot (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Parliament was certainly not having a laugh in 1972.....they were doing as they were told by the EU, despite Heath assuring all and sundry that UK membership of the EEC did NOT involve the transfer of sovereignty to a supranational entity......................but , the EU , ( or EEC as it was then), REQUIRED all joining members states to enshrine primacy of EU, (EEC) law in the member states own statute books......otherwise they couldn't join....the USSE in action from the word go - and carefully hidden by Heath and his fellow Europhiles who knew  better.



It wasn't hidden. The 'Leave' pamphlet in 1975 stated the primacy of EEC law. The 'Remain' pamphlet did not deny it. Instead it argued it didn't matter as the UK still had a veto (true at the time). 

The loss of sovereignty argument is nonsense. If the UK lost its sovereignty how come it's able to leave now?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 6, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> It's my understanding that there was pretty well blanket avoidance of paying taxes.


So they're just getting what they deserve eh?

You utter prick. (Ignoring for the minute the bullshit that is your "understanding")


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 6, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> So they're just getting what they deserve eh?
> You utter prick. (Ignoring for the minute the bullshit that is your "understanding")


Do you pay your taxes ?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 6, 2017)

Oh dear.
Return to read this thread and this is where we are; lordy.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 6, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> Do you pay your taxes ?


If I don't I deserve to die earlier? Have my kids receive fewer educational benefits? Suffer worse health? 

What the fuck are you arguing?


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 6, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> If I don't I deserve to die earlier? Have my kids receive fewer educational benefits? Suffer worse health?
> 
> What the fuck are you arguing?


So you aren't a socialist ?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 6, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> So you aren't a socialist ?





redsquirrel said:


> What the fuck are you arguing?


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 6, 2017)

I believe strongly in paying my taxes to the state so that they can help others less fortunate than myself. 
A key reason I am annoyed about losing my health cover in France is that I would much prefer to pay the French state rather than BUPA.

Though as I earn less than the UK average wage, it seems I'm a nett beneficiary.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 6, 2017)

And so because the people of Greece didn't pay their taxes (at least in your "understanding") they deserve to have economic policies forced on them that will mean they die earlier, that their kids will die earlier, etc. 

You think that's socialism. You wouldn't know socialism if it hit you the face - aptly illustrated by your voting libdem, the fuckers who oversaw a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 6, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> I believe strongly in paying my taxes to the state so that they can help others less fortunate than myself.
> A key reason I am annoyed about losing my health cover in France is that I would much prefer to pay the French state rather than BUPA.
> 
> Though as I earn less than the UK average wage, it seems I'm a nett beneficiary.
> ...


You would have to earn a lot more than the average wage to beat that figure through payroll alone. Try about £45k.

Of course, the money for public spending comes from lots of sources beyond income tax & NI.


----------



## binka (Aug 6, 2017)

I'm not an expert on Greek taxation however if it's anything like here then the opportunity to avoid paying your taxes is proportional to how wealthy you are to start with. Or in other words is it possible the Greeks who didn't pay their taxes aren't the same Greeks that are dying earlier?


----------



## gosub (Aug 6, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> And so because the people of Greece didn't pay their taxes (at least in your "understanding") they deserve to have economic policies forced on them that will mean they die earlier, that their kids will die earlier, etc.
> 
> You think that's socialism. You wouldn't know socialism if it hit you the face - aptly illustrated by your voting libdem, the fuckers who oversaw a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.


they did buy rather a lot of German made tanks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> I believe strongly in paying my taxes to the state so that they can help others less fortunate than myself.
> A key reason I am annoyed about losing my health cover in France is that I would much prefer to pay the French state rather than BUPA.
> 
> Though as I earn less than the UK average wage, it seems I'm a nett beneficiary.
> ...


Which one of those headings covers the monarchy?


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 6, 2017)

_Sovereignty_.

Something to do with the queen innit


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Which one of those headings covers the monarchy?


Aren't they a nett gain ?
A freak show for the tourists ?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 6, 2017)

gosub said:


> they did buy rather a lot of German made tanks.


The people currently being killed by the EU did? I don't think so.



binka said:


> I'm not an expert on Greek taxation however if it's anything like here then the opportunity to avoid paying your taxes is proportional to how wealthy you are to start with. Or in other words is it possible the Greeks who didn't pay their taxes aren't the same Greeks that are dying earlier?


"Blanket avoidance" according to GG


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> Aren't they a nett gain ?
> A freak show for the tourists ?


No


----------



## gosub (Aug 6, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> The people currently being killed by the EU did? I don't think so.
> 
> 
> Blanket avoidance according to GG



The Greeks, currently own more tanks than France and UK combined.  All bought from the Germans whom insisted they honour the contracts at the same time as they were insisting EU cut funding to Greece for malfeasance.  A few Greeks (of the non tax paying variety) will have picked up healthy commissions (alongside the Germans)


Meanwhile your average Greek has been reduced to rummaging in bins.  Someone up thread was arguing the EU is the great class leveller that we need to give more of a chance


----------



## gosub (Aug 6, 2017)

dp


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 6, 2017)

You know, I could respect someone taking the position that being under the rule an undemocratic, neoliberal EU state is no different than being under the rule of an undemocratic British one. I'd think they were wrong, but at least I could accept their opinion as semi-valid.

But one thing that immediately gets my back up is the idea that the EU is this fluffy, progressive, forward-looking club offering nothing but optimism and a bright future for the youth of tomorrow. It's bullshit. 

The EU is a monstrous, lumbering dinosaur, teetering on the brink of a collapse under it's own weight. When it falls it will inevitably crush those that are least able to cope - those who are currently bearing it's weight, such as the Greek public who have to accept austerity so that German banks remain propped up. 

The EU cares nothing for individuals, or rights or freedoms, or lives. It cares only for its own continued existence, and the interests of the old boys club of corporations and hedge fund managers who make up it's strongest supporters.


----------



## gosub (Aug 6, 2017)

And submarines.  At least you crush a significant uprising with 1300 tanks.  Not sure the submarines could be used the same way


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Winot said:


> It wasn't hidden. The 'Leave' pamphlet in 1975 stated the primacy of EEC law. The 'Remain' pamphlet did not deny it. Instead it argued it didn't matter as the UK still had a veto (true at the time).
> 
> The loss of sovereignty argument is nonsense. If the UK lost its sovereignty how come it's able to leave now?


You are the one talking nonsense....the UK joined in '73 not '75!
Now attempt to provide a credible justification for having a political entity to effect economy growth by trade, which was the acclaimed purpose....


----------



## Winot (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> You are the one talking nonsense....the UK joined in '73 not '75!
> Now attempt to provide a credible justification for having a political entity to effect economy growth by trade, which was the acclaimed purpose....





The referendum was in 1975 to decide whether to remain or leave.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Winot said:


> The referendum was in 1975 to decide whether to remain or leave.


So what?? The point being made was that WE WERE TAKEN IN , in 1973....WITHOUT the PUBLIC'S CONSENT!!....and how CAN a country be classified as 'sovereign' when it does not have it's own legislative authority, and cannot even retain full responsibility for permitting people  to reside in their country.....even serial criminals..... absolutely irresponsible..............now - where is that credible justification for joining that undemocratic, and totally unnecessary entity???


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> So what?? The point being made was that WE WERE TAKEN IN , in 1973....WITHOUT the PUBLIC'S CONSENT!!....and how CAN a country be classified as 'sovereign' when it does not have it's own legislative authority, and cannot even retain full responsibility for permitting people  to reside in their country.....even serial criminals..... absolutely irresponsible..............now - where is that credible justification for joining that undemocratic, and totally unnecessary entity???


Right. So as I understand it, you stand for democracy and counterpoint British democracy against EEC/EU undemocracy. But we in the UK do not live and never have lived in a democracy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> So what?? The point being made was that WE WERE TAKEN IN , in 1973....WITHOUT the PUBLIC'S CONSENT!!....and how CAN a country be classified as 'sovereign' when it does not have it's own legislative authority, and cannot even retain full responsibility for permitting people  to reside in their country.....even serial criminals..... absolutely irresponsible..............now - where is that credible justification for joining that undemocratic, and totally unnecessary entity???


Why leave it there? We entered NATO without the public's consent, not to mention the UN, the council of Europe, the osce etc etc. Why are you apparently not in the slightest bothered by these other bodies, some of which have killed many thousands of people and which to varying extents abridge our sovereignty?


----------



## pocketscience (Aug 6, 2017)

gosub said:


> And submarines.  At least you crush a significant uprising with 1300 tanks.  Not sure the submarines could be used the same way


Was going to mention the submarines. German built Submarines. The ones that for some strange reason - beyond all rational thinking, were not incuded in the austerty packages enforced on Greece (again, who was sitting front and center at those talks --> Schueble).
Fucking submarines. More important than hospitals, schools and the general welfare of the population


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Why leave it there? We entered NATO without the public's consent, not to mention the UN, the council of Europe, the osce etc etc. Why are you apparently not in the slightest bothered by these other bodies, some of which have killed many thousands of people and which to varying extents abridge our sovereignty?


What the hell has NATO got to with it ffs!! You are ridiculously comparing  an alliance of countries that joined to together to provide mutual defence, with a totally unnecessary and undemocratic supranational political entity ..... NATO does not legislate or govern those individual countries that have joined the alliance..... you could just as fatuously referred to the WTO, or the UN, or any international alliance of countries - BUT, cite one that acts like the EU!
The latter encourages cooperation between nations to work together  in order to find solutions to various international problems.....but it certainly doesn't endeavour to legislate, and govern any country  - or introduce an unwarranted Parliament.
But perhaps you should endeavour to illustrate this supposed 'abridge' of our sovereignty!! - as well as attempt to provide a credible justification for that monster.......why not have a Regional Free Trade agreement!! 
Answer - as indicated by the trappings already introduced, the ambition of forming the USSE is well underway...........unless of course you personally don't realise what the result of 'ever closer union' means.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> What the hell has NATO got to with it ffs!! You are ridiculously comparing  an alliance of countries that joined to together to provide mutual defence, with a totally unnecessary and undemocratic supranational political entity ..... NATO does not legislate or govern those individual countries that have joined the alliance..... you could just as fatuously referred to the WTO, or the UN, or any international alliance of countries - BUT, cite one that acts like the EU!
> The latter encourages cooperation between nations to work together  in order to find solutions to various international problems.....but it certainly doesn't endeavour to legislate, and govern any country  - or introduce an unwarranted Parliament.
> But perhaps you should endeavour to illustrate this supposed 'abridge' of our sovereignty!! - as well as attempt to provide a credible justification for that monster.......why not have a Regional Free Trade agreement!!
> Answer - as indicated by the trappings already introduced, the ambition of forming the USSE is well underway...........unless of course you personally don't realise what the result of 'ever closer union' means.


Yeh about this socialist bit...


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

I must express my admiration for the posters continuing this inane argument so that this thread can, in its own small way, mirror the idiocy of the current Brexit negotiations.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> I must express my admiration for the posters continuing this inane argument so that this thread can, in its own small way, mirror the idiocy of the current Brexit negotiations.


Another post illustrating the wisdom of the adage that if  you have nothing sensible to say, it would be sensible to say nothing......


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh about this socialist bit...


'Yeh'......as convincing as ever..... see the post above!!


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Another post illustrating the wisdom of the adage that if  you have nothing sensible to say, it would be sensible to say nothing......



You were doing a much better job of doing that before I turned up.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> You were doing a much better job of doing that before I turned up.


You are far too modest....you are the undoubted champion, par excellence !!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> 'Yeh'......as convincing as ever..... see the post above!!


Yeh thought you'd evade the question again.

You do know it's the second time I've asked you to justify this USSE bollocks


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> You are far too modest....you are the undoubted champion, par excellence !!



Your argument is that the EU is undemocratic and therefore you'd prefer to continue with a Queen as head of state and unelected second house? 

At the very least EU membership gave you access to the European Court and European Court of Justice allowing you to challenge your government's actions to a higher authority. 

So explain to me again how leaving the EU "protects" UK democracy?


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh thought you'd evade the question again.
> 
> You do know it's the second time I've asked you to justify this USSE bollocks


You haven't requested anything of the sort....you have merely grunted!! However, typical of a grunter like yourself... always baseless comments.
Perhaps you could explain why a common currency; Parliament; border removal; FoM etc; i.e all the trappings of Federation of States, and  hardly the usual Treaty inclusions of international  free trade deals, is deemed necessary for accessing economic growth from a mere free trade agreement. 

As I stated earlier, what do you believe is the end result of an 'Ever closer union'? You should get out and read some more....

How a secretive elite created the EU to build a world government

The above is just one reference - there are plenty more...if you care to look!


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> You haven't requested anything of the sort....you have merely grunted!! However, typical of a grunter like yourself... always baseless comments.
> Perhaps you could explain why a common currency; Parliament; border removal; FoM etc; i.e all the trappings of Federation of States, and  hardly the usual Treaty inclusions of international  free trade deals, is deemed necessary for accessing economic growth from a mere free trade agreement.
> 
> As I stated earlier, what do you believe is the end result of an 'Ever closer union'? You should get out and read some more....
> ...



Should be worth pointing out the above article was written by the founder of UKIP and judge it accordingly.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> Your argument is that the EU is undemocratic and therefore you'd prefer to continue with a Queen as head of state and unelected second house?
> 
> At the very least EU membership gave you access to the European Court and European Court of Justice allowing you to challenge your government's actions to a higher authority.
> 
> So explain to me again how leaving the EU "protects" UK democracy?


You really do go off on a tangent don't you?? What the hell has the Queen got to do with the governance of the UK??? Even though she is the 'Head of State', and Head of the 'Commonwealth', she is a non-participant when it comes to the governance of the UK......unlike the EU, which has legislative primacy!!
The HoLords is another anachronistic institution, and should be abolished - replaced with an elected senate of say 100 max. - but you are just submitting irrelevancies....
The facts are that the UK elected political Party , ( despite the FFTP flaws), provides the UK with an elected government, the Executive of which has the legislative introduction role...... whereas the EU 'executive' are NOt elected individuals.....and they are the sole source of legislation.

The UK doesn't need the, or desire a Supranational court interfering with the application of BRITISH law in the UK......we have a Supreme Court which should handle that.
Wrt to the protection of UK democracy, get a child of 10 to explain it to you.....


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 6, 2017)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The UK cares nothing for individuals, or rights or freedoms, or lives. It cares only for its own continued existence, and the interests of the old boys club of corporations and hedge fund managers and racists who make up it's strongest supporters.



Fixed that bit. Spot the difference.


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> You really do go off on a tangent don't you?? What the hell has the Queen got to do with the governance of the UK??? Even though she is the 'Head of State', and Head of the 'Commonwealth', she is a non-participant when it comes to the governance of the UK......unlike the EU, which has legislative primacy!!
> The HoLords is another anachronistic institution, and should be abolished - replaced with an elected senate of say 100 max. - but you are just submitting irrelevancies....
> The facts are that the UK elected political Party , ( despite the FFTP flaws), provides the UK with an elected government, the Executive of which has the legislative introduction role...... whereas the EU 'executive' are NOt elected individuals.....and they are the sole source of legislation.
> 
> ...



So fix the flaws in the UK Govt rather than leave the EU.


----------



## gosub (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> So fix the flaws in the UK Govt rather than leave the EU.


No, leave the unfixable EU then fix the undoubted flaws in UK system.


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

gosub said:


> No, leave the unfixable EU then fix the undoubted flaws in UK system.



Yeah, I'm totally sure most Brexiters voted to abolish the monarchy.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> Should be worth pointing out the above article was written by the founder of UKIP and judge it accordingly.


How relevant is that?? It is because of his knowledge of the EU that he clearly felt it should be brought 'out of the closet'. However, instead of merely trying to 'discredit' the author, why don't you try something  positive, for a change,  and try to refute his actual arguments.
Even an outgoing EU President voiced the 'inevitable' result of the EU - Federal Europe will be 'a reality in a few years', says Jose Manuel Barroso, and from another source, FEDERAL EUROPE PLOT: EU draws up plans for United States of Europe behind Britain’s back, and Pavel Telicka - Vice-President of the European Parliament


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> Yeah, I'm totally sure most Brexiters voted to abolish the monarchy.


You always are 'sure'.....but without ever providing a credible reason for it.


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> You always are 'sure'.....but without ever providing a credible reason for it.



Find me one poll that supports that brexiters are in favour of abolishing the monarchy...


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> How relevant is that?? It is because of his knowledge of the EU that he clearly felt it should be brought 'out of the closet'. However, instead of merely trying to 'discredit' the author, why don't you try something  positive, for a change,  and try to refute his actual arguments.
> Even an outgoing EU President voiced the 'inevitable' result of the EU - Federal Europe will be 'a reality in a few years', says Jose Manuel Barroso,



The full quote;



> He (Jose Manuel Barroso) made it clear that his vision for a federation of member states was by no means a superstate, similar to the USA. He called it a “democratic federation of nation states that can tackle our common problems, through the sharing of sovereignty in a way that each country and each citizen are better equipped to control their own destiny”.





> and from another source, FEDERAL EUROPE PLOT: EU draws up plans for United States of Europe behind Britain’s back, and



You'll pardon me if I dont trust a source that published an article about a psychic who claims Diana is pro Brexit.

Diana 'claims from beyond grave': Kate's 'perfect' but Meghan isn't the one for Harry



> Pavel Telicka - Vice-President of the European Parliament



Former Vice President and no longer a MEP.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 6, 2017)

Well to be fair, Diana did probably want to abolish the monarchy.


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Well to be fair, Diana did probably want to abolish the monarchy.



That's why Prince Philip got Mi5 to kill her, duh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> You haven't requested anything of the sort....you have merely grunted!! However, typical of a grunter like yourself... always baseless comments.
> Perhaps you could explain why a common currency; Parliament; border removal; FoM etc; i.e all the trappings of Federation of States, and  hardly the usual Treaty inclusions of international  free trade deals, is deemed necessary for accessing economic growth from a mere free trade agreement.
> 
> As I stated earlier, what do you believe is the end result of an 'Ever closer union'? You should get out and read some more....
> ...


Perhaps you could answer the point I made first. What socialist aspect or aspects of the EU arouse your freedom loving hackles?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2017)

if the EU is so great how come it didn't enforce seatbelt & drink drivinglaws across all member states. Effectively their negligence doomed the princess.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> What the hell has NATO got to with it ffs!! You are ridiculously comparing  an alliance of countries that joined to together to provide mutual defence, with a totally unnecessary and undemocratic supranational political entity ..... NATO does not legislate or govern those individual countries that have joined the alliance..... you could just as fatuously referred to the WTO, or the UN, or any international alliance of countries - BUT, cite one that acts like the EU!
> The latter encourages cooperation between nations to work together  in order to find solutions to various international problems.....but it certainly doesn't endeavour to legislate, and govern any country  - or introduce an unwarranted Parliament.
> But perhaps you should endeavour to illustrate this supposed 'abridge' of our sovereignty!! - as well as attempt to provide a credible justification for that monster.......why not have a Regional Free Trade agreement!!
> Answer - as indicated by the trappings already introduced, the ambition of forming the USSE is well underway...........unless of course you personally don't realise what the result of 'ever closer union' means.


Is it possible for this country, while a member of NATO, to contract an alliance with, say, Russia or China?


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> if the EU is so great how come it didn't enforce seatbelt & drink drivinglaws across all member states. Effectively their negligence doomed the princess.



All part of the master plan...


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> The full quote;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep ---- you usual insinuendo, lack of trust of publications because their political views differ from yours etc.....OK, we understand all that...........  , so now refute the various claims that have been made with actual facts....


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Is it possible for this country, while a member of NATO, to contract an alliance with, say, Russia or China?


What the hell has that got to do with trade???


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> What the hell has that got to do with trade???


You don't even know what you've asked 

It's pitiful


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps you could answer the point I made first. What socialist aspect or aspects of the EU arouse your freedom loving hackles?


On the contrary - you still haven't answered the question that I first asked you!!


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You don't even know what you've asked
> 
> It's pitiful


You certainly are....always evading, or gruntingt!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> On the contrary - you still haven't answered the question that I first asked you!!


I have answered the question you first asked me. No one else has asked me to offer an example of how NATO abridges UK sovereignty.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> You certainly are....always evading, or gruntingt!!


I haven't evaded anything

You by contrast refuse to say why you describe the EU as socialist


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> Find me one poll that supports that brexiters are in favour of abolishing the monarchy...


I don't have to - you made that fatuous claim....not me.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 6, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> You mean the political entity that is currently murdering people in Greece? Lovely.



Christ! Do you even know what murder is?? Yes, the IMF/EU bailouts have failed to address the severe impact on ordinary Greeks, but being loaned 8.5 billion Euros and having to pay some of it back isn’t “murder” you idiot, it’s not like what’s being done to people in places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Venezuela, Palestine, Syria, Somalia etc.

Suggesting that the EU murders civilians is as clumsy and stupid as anything the kippers have ever come up with. Up there with ‘EUSSR’ etc.

Gentlegreen is correct, the root of Greece’s problem was primarily their “national sport” of tax evasion.


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Yep ---- you usual insinuendo, lack of trust of publications because their political views differ from yours etc.....OK, we understand all that...........  , so now refute the various claims that have been made with actual facts....



I refuted the Barroso quote by providing it's context, I ignored the Express because it publishes factless drivel & I pointed out the views expressed by Telicka were those of a former MEP and couldn't be used to prove an overall arch agenda of Federal EU superstate. Now if you'd be so kind as to answer Pickman's question, he's been, quite uncharacteristically, politely insisting you do for several posts now.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I haven't evaded anything
> 
> You by contrast refuse to say why you describe the EU as socialist


I haven't refused at all - but what the hell has 'no one else' got to do with it?? You made that asinine assertion - and cannot back it .up....end of.


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> I don't have to - you made that fatuous claim....not me.



No I pointed out that flaws in your claim that removing the "shackles" of the EU would somehow make it more democratic. You've yet to show me that there's widespread popularity for constitutional reform among Bretixeers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> the root of Greece’s problem was primarily their “national sport” of tax evasion.




^^ these are the people who like to see themselves as progressive. I wonder how much high life flouting the tax people rooting through bins for food and fuel enjoyed. The problem is here they cannot look at whats being done to Greece unless they somehow make it the fault of this big amorphous 'them'. Which greeks?

Its a pretty disgusting attitude but then if you scratch a liberal you'll soon find a tory.


----------



## gosub (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> No I pointed out that flaws in your claim that removing the "shackles" of the EU would somehow make it more democratic. You've yet to show me that there's widespread popularity for constitutional reform among Bretixeers.



You think they'll be rooting for the Lords if it sticks a spanner in the Great Repeal bill?


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

gosub said:


> You think they'll be rooting for the Lords if it sticks a spanner in the Great Repeal bill?



We'll see what people are rooting for when they see how shitty the deal is in 2 year's time. Majority of people now want to remain in the EU, poll finds


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> I haven't refused at all - but what the hell has 'no one else' got to do with it?? You made that asinine assertion - and cannot back it .up....end of.




Having reviewed your lamentable posting history, entirely composed of frothing posts on brexit, it's clear you're a 'loon of some sort. It's also clear that you have but a flimsy grasp of a) what you say, and b) an equally flimsy ability to understand other people's posts.

To give an example: you said I hadn't answered the question you first asked me. But I did, as you were - and remain - the first person to ask me to offer an example of NATO membership abridging UK sovereignty. For some reason my pointing this out has fried your brain.


----------



## gosub (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> We'll see what people are rooting for when they see how shitty the deal is in 2 year's time. Majority of people now want to remain in the EU, poll finds



fuck the repeal bill up and its actually a shittier deal than anyone's contemplated : we've got to prove compliance with WTO for one thing.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 6, 2017)

Time to adopt_ Yakety Sax_ as our national anthem. The words don't even need to fit these days, because Grime.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

gosub said:


> fuck the repeal bill up and its actually a shittier deal than anyone's contemplated : we've got to prove compliance with WTO for one thing.


If there's one thing you can rely on the tories for, it's fucking up brexit


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> I refuted the Barroso quote by providing it's context, I ignored the Express because it publishes factless drivel & I pointed out the views expressed by Telicka were those of a former MEP and couldn't be used to prove an overall arch agenda of Federal EU superstate. Now if you'd be so kind as to answer Pickman's question, he's been, quite uncharacteristically, politely insisting you do for several posts now.


Providing the context of Barros' speech is hardly 'refuting' it - and the rest of your post merely confirms your total lack of 'reasoning', merely expressing innuendo....there are other sources if you care to look - and Monet was largely involved. 
My dialogue with Pickman really has nothing to do with you.....but, for your information,  I will provide what he has requested, after he has provided me with a credible justification for his earlier assertion.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> If there's one thing you can rely on the tories for, it's fucking up brexit


Yet another asinine and unfounded assertion....leaving the EU is by far a better course for the UK, and not just for the regaining of it sovereignty either. The EU always has been a flawed concept.....


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 6, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Christ! Do you even know what murder is?? Yes, the IMF/EU bailouts have failed to address the severe impact on ordinary Greeks, but being loaned 8.5 billion Euros and having to pay some of it back isn’t “murder” you idiot, it’s not like what’s being done to people in places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Venezuela, Palestine, Syria, Somalia etc.
> 
> Suggesting that the EU murders civilians is as clumsy and stupid as anything the kippers have ever come up with. Up there with ‘EUSSR’ etc.
> 
> Gentlegreen is correct, the root of Greece’s problem was primarily their “national sport” of tax evasion.


Good to see you confirming that you're a grade A prick.

The policies forced on the Greece _*have*_ killed people, _*have*_ increased infant mortality. To place the blame on the Greek people for such policies is disgusting.



DotCommunist said:


> Its a pretty disgusting attitude but then if you scratch a liberal you'll soon find a tory.


Yep


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

gosub said:


> fuck the repeal bill up and its actually a shittier deal than anyone's contemplated : we've got to prove compliance with WTO for one thing.



It's becoming quite clear that there is no clear Tory strategy for Brexit. Look at the dust up over Hammond and freedom of movement this week. Recent reports have suggested that EU officials suspected the British ineptitude was part of a cunning strategy. The government have no plan, no idea and no clue what to do. Once the Repeal bill is announced I'm hoping there will be enough justified protest for a second referendum.


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Providing the context of Barros' speech is hardly 'refuting' it -



You mean my providing context showing that the very next words Barros said directly contracted what you claimed he was saying is pretty much a dictionary definition of refuting. 

the definition of refute



> and the rest of your post merely confirms your total lack of 'reasoning', merely expressing innuendo....there are other sources if you care to look - and Monet was largely involved.



If you can provide other sources than former MEPs and newspapers that publish interviews with psychics please do.  



> My dialogue with Pickman really has nothing to do with you.....but, for your information,  I will provide what he has requested, after he has provided me with a credible justification for his earlier assertion.



Is English not your first language?


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Yet another asinine and unfounded assertion....leaving the EU is by far a better course for the UK,



Speaking as someone who is not currently UK resident, I am enjoying watching Brexit, probably for different reasons than yourself.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> Speaking as someone who is not currently UK resident, I am enjoying watching Brexit, probably for different reasons than yourself.


So???


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> So???



No reason. Now back to providing _credible _sources for this planned EU superstate?


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

> Having reviewed your lamentable posting history, entirely composed of frothing posts on brexit, it's clear you're a 'loon of some sort. It's also clear that you have but a flimsy grasp of a) what you say, and b) an equally flimsy ability to understand other people's posts.
> 
> To give an example: you said I hadn't answered the question you first asked me. But I did, as you were - and remain - the first person to ask me to offer an example of NATO membership abridging UK sovereignty. For some reason my pointing this out has fried your brain.


So, yet another forum garrulous - gob bumping his gums again....your deplorable inability to comprehend the written word is definitely a pointer to the lowering standards of our Primary schools....I trust you will improve considerably before you move on to your next school. 
The only thing 'clear' is that you haven't got a clue....which is regularly confirmed by your inability to supply a credible basis to support your opinions....which are clearly not predicated on fact.
So, as you cannot sensibly debate, you might as well just sod off, as they say, until  you mature  - mentally at least.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 6, 2017)

All sod offs aside, it seems the question is, why is the EU bad but eg. NATO _not_ bad?

In your opinion. Given that _sovereignty_ is a concern for you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Yet another asinine and unfounded assertion....leaving the EU is by far a better course for the UK, and not just for the regaining of it sovereignty either. The EU always has been a flawed concept.....


The Conservative government is bereft of talent and incompetent to boot. They will . '. deliver a shit brexit


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> <fart>


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> No I pointed out that flaws in your claim that removing the "shackles" of the EU would somehow make it more democratic. You've yet to show me that there's widespread popularity for constitutional reform among Bretixeers.


No - I was referring to your claim,  *"Yeah, I'm totally sure most Brexiters voted to abolish the monarchy.", *unquote.., and I asked you for some evidence of your frankly, fatuous , as well as groundless assertion...and in addition, if you cannot see that regaining our own democratic  *LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY *for introducing _ALL_ new legislation is regaining our sovereignty,and thereby our democracy,  then you shouldn't be allowed out without a minder  ;o)!!


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


>


Yep, that'[s a more appropriate pen name for you to use....well thought of Fart!!


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> The Conservative government is bereft of talent and incompetent to boot. They will . '. deliver a shit brexit


There is no such thing as a 'shit' Brexit.....ANY or NO post Brexit deal with the EU will be an improvement on our current agreement.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Is it possible for this country, while a member of NATO, to contract an alliance with, say, Russia or China?


What the hell has that got to do with TRADE ffs.......The EU is nothing like NATO, so stop your asinine comparison of apples with oranges. NATO is a mutual defence pact.....and clearly the UK COULD withdraw if it so desired.....but so what?? - WE can also withdraw from the EU.... which we are about to do..... but the former does NOT require ceding elements of sovereignty,/democracy,  whereas the latter does.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 6, 2017)

the EU is not apples, and NATO definitely isn't oranges.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> There is no such thing as a 'shit' Brexit.....ANY or NO post Brexit deal with the EU will be an improvement on our current agreement.


 
You cannot expect to engage anyone in any level of considered debate when this type of baseless shite forms part of an argument. Sort it out.


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> No - I was referring to your claim,  *"Yeah, I'm totally sure most Brexiters voted to abolish the monarchy.", *unquote.., and I asked you for some evidence of your frankly, fatuous , as well as groundless assertion...and in addition, if you cannot see that regaining our own democratic  *LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY *for introducing _ALL_ new legislation is regaining our sovereignty,and thereby our democracy,  then you shouldn't be allowed out without a minder  ;o)!!



I thought it'd be obvious, even to you, that support for the monarchy stands at about 70-80% in the UK, so the idea that all Brexiters are also arrant Republicans is patently absurd.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> You cannot expect to engage anyone in any level of considered debate when this type of baseless shite forms part of an argument. Sort it out.


Yet another mouthy -poster with nothing to say. TRY supporting your baseless rant instead of just mouthing off. You are certainly entitled to disagree with mine, or anyone elses  opinion - but you really have to provide a reasoned argument for doing so.
Opinion is NOT fact - and the fact that the EU sole source of legislative introduction by an unelected cabel IS UNDOUBTEDLY undemocratic.
Out of the EU, the UK will be able to deal with 6 times the number of countries in the EU...without having to subsidise them, without having to cede any sovereignty etc.... so clearly, YOU are the one who should stop talking "*shite"!! *


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 6, 2017)

rofl.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> I thought it'd be obvious, even to you, that support for the monarchy stands at about 70-80% in the UK, so the idea that all Brexiters are also arrant Republicans is patently absurd.


Well even an  idiot like yourself should have realised that with such support for the monarchy , and the majority support for Brexit, then 'Brexiteers' in general would clearly  NOT wish to abolish the Monarchy!! QED.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> What the hell has that got to do with TRADE ffs.......The EU is nothing like NATO, so stop your asinine comparison of apples with oranges. NATO is a mutual defence pact.....and clearly the UK COULD withdraw if it so desired.....but so what?? - WE can also withdraw from the EU.... which we are about to do..... but the former does NOT require ceding elements of sovereignty,/democracy,  whereas the latter does.


Yes it does. In addition, up a bit you were spluttering that the public wasn't consulted about the actual joining of the EU. The public not consulted about entering an alliance with the United States. Nor about this alleged defensive alliance bombing countries in the balkans... Where formerly this country could enter and leave military alliances as it pleased rather harder when your vaunted nuclear weapons can only be used with foreign say-so. But you don't consider this a limitation of UK sovereignty. Strange.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Yet another mouthy -poster with nothing to say. TRY supporting your baseless rant instead of just mouthing off. You are certainly entitled to disagree with mine, or anyone elses  opinion - but you really have to provide a reasoned argument for doing so.
> Opinion is NOT fact - and the fact that the EU sole source of legislative introduction by an unelected cabel IS UNDOUBTEDLY undemocratic.
> Out of the EU, the UK will be able to deal with 6 times the number of countries in the EU...without having to subsidise them, without having to cede any sovereignty etc.... so clearly, YOU are the one who should stop talking "*shite"!! *


Pls could you post something with an actual fact in it.


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> There is no such thing as a 'shit' Brexit.....ANY or NO post Brexit deal with the EU will be an improvement on our current agreement.



I think David Davis is out to prove that wrong. Whatever argues "leave" had have been effectively demolished, you're incapable of extracting yourself from key EU bodies without enormous economic self-harm, the EU standards you are so inexplicably opposed to, will still be in place if you want to trade with Europe (hint: you still do), the lack of freedom of movement will conceivable harm your agricultural self-sufficiency as you wont to be able to harvest crops, the tanking pound will make your own industry weak to foreign imports, and you can't afford to start a trade war. Meanwhile Boris and Gove voted down the extra money to the NHS, everyone is saying how ruinous the deal will be. 

So please explain how any Post Brexit deal will be an improvement that current agreement? What benefits will be gained? Please be specific.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> rofl.


Well, that will do you more good than posting 'shite'.....at least you will get some exercise........


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 6, 2017)

Say what you like about Twitter, at least there's only 140 characters per post.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Pls could you post something with an actual fact in it.


Certainly - you post 'shite' - to coin a phrase....


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> There is no such thing as a 'shit' Brexit.....ANY or NO post Brexit deal with the EU will be an improvement on our current agreement.


Yeh. Right. Consult a medico immediately as you seem to be suffering from may syndrome.


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

For examples of the current shitshow. 

Brexit and the coming food crisis: ‘If you can’t feed a country, you haven’t got a country’

Who are the winners and losers from the pound’s fall?


----------



## 8den (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Certainly - you post 'shite' - to coin a phrase....



Yeah, that's already a thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Certainly - you post 'shite' - to coin a phrase....


Opinion, not fact


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 6, 2017)

I spend a lot of my working life thinking about aspects of brexit and for this reason, I do not get involved in this discussion.most of the discussion is sensible, almost all of it heartfelt from the sides involved. It's pretty juvenile to continue to pile in and add absolutely nothing to such an emotive subject.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> I think David Davis is out to prove that wrong. Whatever argues "leave" had have been effectively demolished, you're incapable of extracting yourself from key EU bodies without enormous economic self-harm, the EU standards you are so inexplicably opposed to, will still be in place if you want to trade with Europe (hint: you still do), the lack of freedom of movement will conceivable harm your agricultural self-sufficiency as you wont to be able to harvest crops, the tanking pound will make your own industry weak to foreign imports, and you can't afford to start a trade war. Meanwhile Boris and Gove voted down the extra money to the NHS, everyone is saying how ruinous the deal will be.
> 
> So please explain how any Post Brexit deal will be an improvement that current agreement? What benefits will be gained? Please be specific.


Geeez - you are hard work 8den. We will no longer have to subsidise them, we will regain full border control, ( which, even though we are not very good at it, will be more responsible), we will again be able to fully govern ourselves,and resume the adoption of democratically produced legislation proposed/passed in accordance with our ELECTED  representatives and procedures, we will regain our prime fishing waters, and be released from the shackles of a needless , and very costly political association, regain the ability to make global trade  agreements.....particularly important as the larger portion of out trade is now outside of the EU- and our food should be a lot cheaper, despite what has been claimed. We will no longer have to support the wasteful CAP, and will be able to import from many  cheaper food sources, once the protectionist high import food tariffs are lifted.
Your 'self harm' claim from 'extracting' ourselves from EU institutions is baseless. There is every reason for both Parties to cooperate jointly on areas of common interest . We aren't 'pulling up the drawbridge' etc....we have always been an outward looking nation, and now, we will again be able to expand  our specific interests globally. 'Standards' pre-date the formation of the EU - customer specification ALWAYS have to be met, irrespective of their variance... we coped very well with that before, and I've no doubt whatsoever that we will manage very well again. 
We let our Commonwealth friends down somewhat when we joined the EU - maybe we can now 'pick up the pieces again'.....they appear to be very willing to do just that - and we do have far stronger ties with them....

It is absolutely egregious to suggest FoM is superior to controlled  immigration.... if that were so, wouldn't that be the norm globally?  But it isn't is it? - the norm is sensible and responsible immigration control.

Of course we will still trade with Europe - the extent of that trade post Brexit however is dependent upon the post Brexit trade agreement - and that is currently unknown, and not solely down to us.....but it is a double edged sword - and the UK , will at least have the potential for replacing FTAs with more numerous ones, as the EU is 27 out of over 190 countries. 

 I'm surprised that all the 'doom and gloom ' merchants seem to have forgotten how well we generally managed without the EU or its equivalent  for centuries before 1973!!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2017)

As a firm leaver, i'm not sure if i'm more put off by the sententious screeching of Stevelin or the bovine bellowing of 8den.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I spend a lot of my working life thinking about aspects of brexit and for this reason, I do not get involved in this discussion.most of the discussion is sensible, almost all of it heartfelt from the sides involved. It's pretty juvenile to continue to pile in and add absolutely nothing to such an emotive subject.


I would agree....so why have you done that?? As I said earlier, I have no difficulty with people not sharing my opinions.... provided they have credible reasons for that. If you feel deeply and strongly about Brexit, then as a forum member you should post your thoughts, and opinions,( provided you provide credible reasons why) - after all, isn't that why you joined in the first place?
I personally believe that we will be far better off outside the EU than in. To me, there is no justifiable reason whatsoever for having a very costly political association for obtaining mutually advantageous economic trade growth.....a Regional Free Trade Deal would enable that.
Further more, Regional Trade Deals do not require an additional Parliament - nor require a common currency, nor need the removal of national borders, nor require an additional 'citizenship' status - with additional citizenship passport association, and additional citizenship embassies scattered around the world, nor create a policy of 'ever closer union'...which does of course, despite those doubting Thomases, embrace all the trappings required for the formation of a Federation of States.....in other words, the USSE.......


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> As a firm leaver, i'm not sure if i'm more put off by the sententious screeching of Stevelin or the bovine bellowing of 8den.


You clearly don't know what a 'screech' is - but then, you don't seem to know what a 'bellow' is either.... but instead of moaning about your perceived low standards of posting, why don't you 'illuminate' this thread with  a succinct post providing the reasons which assisted you in deciding that leaving was your preferred option.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. Right. Consult a medico immediately as you seem to be suffering from may syndrome.


Really - then try and act 'sensibly' for a change... go on, try and support your 'assertion' with credible evidence for once.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Opinion, not fact


Nope - you asked for a 'fact' and you got one ... the evidence is in your postings.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> You clearly don't know what a 'screech' is - but then, you don't seem to know what a 'bellow' is either.... but instead of moaning about your perceived low standards of posting, why don't you 'illuminate' this thread with  a succinct post providing the reasons which assisted you in deciding that leaving was your preferred option.


This stuff is why remain nearly won.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Nope - you asked for a 'fact' and you got one ... the evidence is in your postings.


I want a proper fact not a Stevlin "fact"


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes it does. In addition, up a bit you were spluttering that the public wasn't consulted about the actual joining of the EU. The public not consulted about entering an alliance with the United States. Nor about this alleged defensive alliance bombing countries in the balkans... Where formerly this country could enter and leave military alliances as it pleased rather harder when your vaunted nuclear weapons can only be used with foreign say-so. But you don't consider this a limitation of UK sovereignty. Strange.


Yes, you are doing well - Strange would be yet another appropriate pen name for you!!
 You still stupidly cannot differentiate between the operations of a mutual defence pact and a Supranational Parliamentary entity having the power to impose an undemocratic  legislative requirement on the UK, when it is a supposed 'free trade association'.
In addition, wrt your requested evidence to support my claim that you talk shite - I will use this post of yours as yet another example.....
You are incorrect when claiming  that the UK cannot use its nuclear weapons without the consent of the USA ....... No, America doesn't control Britain's nuclear weapons


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> This stuff is why remain nearly won.


And that is your 'illuminating' contribution..... not one item of reasoned criticism....go back to sleep!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> And that is your 'illuminating' contribution..... not one item of reasoned criticism....go back to sleep!


This is great - an asinine ruddy cheeked eu-bore demanding that i - in august 2017 - offer some posts on the EU. Is this what every sunday is like for you? Or just everyday?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 6, 2017)

8den said:


> Your argument is that the EU is undemocratic and therefore you'd prefer to continue with a Queen as head of state and unelected second house?
> 
> At the very least EU membership gave you access to the European Court and European Court of Justice allowing you to challenge your government's actions to a higher authority.
> 
> So explain to me again how leaving the EU "protects" UK democracy?




Oh do fuck off with that. It is a higher authority which is so racist that it would rather thousands of black people die than the share price of its sick corporations lose a percentage point. Fuck them and all who support that shit.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I want a proper fact not a Stevlin "fact"


You clearly wouldn't recognise a fact if it was right under your nose.... in fact you didn't!! Your stupid response appeared to ignore the 'facts' that were included in the post to which you responded to, asking for 'facts'.

However, here it is again.....so do read carefully to see if you can spot the 'facts' contained therein....

*TRY supporting your baseless rant instead of just mouthing off. You are certainly entitled to disagree with mine, or anyone else's opinion - but you really have to provide a reasoned argument for doing so.
Opinion is NOT fact - and the fact that the EU sole source of legislative introduction by an unelected cabal IS UNDOUBTEDLY undemocratic.
Out of the EU, the UK will be able to deal with 6 times the number of countries in the EU...without having to subsidise them, without having to cede any sovereignty etc.... so clearly, YOU are the one who should stop talking "shite"!!*


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> This is great - an asinine ruddy cheeked eu-bore demanding that i - in august 2017 - offer some posts on the EU. Is this what every sunday is like for you? Or just everyday?


And that is your 'illuminating' contribution..... still not one item of reasoned criticism....go back to sleep! 
My exchange of posts, and the contents, are not  predicated on any specific day of the week - it is merely dependent upon those occasions when some prat makes asinine comments....
I  am certainly aware that I am not the font of all knowledge - and I have at times been shown to be wrong.... a failing that we humans have to live with - but at least when I make an assertion, I endeavour to support my claim with credible reasons.....and yes, I do have strong opinions on our membership of the EU - and my keenness for Brexit is based upon the facts, not on sentiment.
I am still awaiting someone to come out with a credible justification for the UK to continue to unaffordably subsidise the undemocratic EU, and accept an additional and totally inappropriate Parliament , ( for ostensibly participating in Free Trade???), cede responsible border control etc.etc.....when  the actual 'benefit' can be achieved via a virtual cost-free Regional Trade Agreement.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 6, 2017)

ffs


----------



## eatmorecheese (Aug 6, 2017)

Sixth form debating society car crash, quality


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> You clearly wouldn't recognise a fact if it was right under your nose.... in fact you didn't!! Your stupid response appeared to ignore the 'facts' that were included in the post to which you responded to, asking for 'facts'.
> 
> However, here it is again.....so do read carefully to see if you can spot the 'facts' contained therein....
> 
> ...


What facts in that. 6x the no of EU countries? What about the others, can we not trade with them?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2017)

eatmorecheese said:


> Sixth form debating society car crash, quality


Stevlin fourth form at best


----------



## Raheem (Aug 6, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> This stuff is why remain nearly won.



You're being premature. It's why leave nearly won.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 7, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Is this what every sunday is like for you? Or just everyday?



Come, Armageddon! Come!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2017)

Hang on...maybe this actually is the moz we've been talking to? Crudely florid language, repetitive romanticisations of domestic exploitation...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 7, 2017)

has anyone considered the leave vote / seaside town they forgot to close down links?


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> What facts in that. 6x the no of EU countries? What about the others, can we not trade with them?


Didn't notice the unelected Cabal then?   - again, or the fact that we have to subsidise the EU etc, whereas, we wouldn't have to subsidise any of those X6 countries for trading with them. Wrt to trading with the 27 - why did you erroneously  assume that I was implying that we couldn't trade with them???
The extent of trade with the EU will undoubtedly depend on the basis of the post Brexit deal....if any, but I suspect that the UK is more likely to increase the non-EU element of it's total trade unless a very good deal is agreed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Didn't notice the unelected Cabal then?   - again, or the fact that we have to subsidise the EU etc, whereas, we wouldn't have to subsidise any of those X6 countries for trading with them. Wrt to trading with the 27 - why did you erroneously  assume that I was implying that we couldn't trade with them???
> The extent of trade with the EU will undoubtedly depend on the basis of the post Brexit deal....if any, but I suspect that the UK is more likely to increase the non-EU element of it's total trade unless a very good deal is agreed.


You're the remainers' best friend


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Stevlin fourth form at best


Well that mould be considerably higher than yours anyway......when do you expect to leave your Primary school??


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You're the remainers' best friend


Really?? Then I am extremely pleased that you are a 'Leaver'!!


----------



## Badgers (Aug 7, 2017)

Shocking news... 

Brexit caused by low levels of education, study finds


----------



## NoXion (Aug 7, 2017)

For fuck's sake.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2017)

Badgers said:


> Shocking news...
> 
> Brexit caused by low levels of education, study finds


So going to Eton and Oxford didn't really equip Boris Johnson to deal with such complex issues


----------



## NoXion (Aug 7, 2017)

"racist thickos"


----------



## Badgers (Aug 7, 2017)

NoXion said:


> For fuck's sake.


I know. There was me thinking it was only racists and cunts.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2017)

They're on a roll - yesterday they told us Brexit gives babies cancer.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 7, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> They're on a roll - yesterday they told us Brexit gives babies cancer.


They can use the £350m for the NHS to cure the babies cancer...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2017)

This stuff is why we won btw.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 7, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> This stuff is why we won btw.


We?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2017)

Badgers said:


> We?


Yes, we as in leavers. And this stuff as in this. Make sure you lose the aftermath. V important that.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 7, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, we as in leavers. And this stuff as in this. Make sure you lose the aftermath. V important that.


Good work


----------



## gosub (Aug 7, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, we as in leavers. And this stuff as in this. Make sure you lose the aftermath. V important that.


 Whose losing the aftermath?  Got a load of remainics arguing that if we could just overturn the result of a plebicite (by whatever means they can grasp at this week) then, over time the EU can be made a pillar of democracy.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2017)

gosub said:


> Whose losing the aftermath?  Got a load of remainics arguing that if we could just overturn the result of a plebicite (by whatever means they can grasp at this week) then, over time the EU can be made a pillar of democracy.


They were arguing the same before the vote.


----------



## gosub (Aug 7, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> They were arguing the same before the vote.



True, but that addition that makes them implausable


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 7, 2017)

Personally, I would have thought that the Brexit referendum result was  more based on intelligence, and the power to reason  than education. Education is going through the processes of learning, and the accumulation  of  knowledge, whereas intelligence is more of an innate quality, which enables people, ( and animals), to make decisions based on experience...........and the UK has garnered 40 odd years of experience  of being in the EU,(EEC).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Personally, I would have thought that the Brexit referendum result was  more based on intelligence, and the power to reason  than education. Education is going through the processes of learning, and the accumulation  of  knowledge, whereas intelligence is more of an innate quality, which enables people, ( and animals), to make decisions based on experience...........and the UK has garnered 40 odd years of experience  of being in the EU,(EEC).


Can't say your posts show much evidence of either education or intelligence. Rather you seem at pains to put other people down while showing no real signs you have understood or even read what other people have said. Not sure what you mention animals here either, they've never had any real say in the UK or EU political systems.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Can't say your posts show much evidence of either education or intelligence.


That doesn't surprise me. You obviously lack the intelligence to even understand simple sentences..


> Rather you seem at pains to put other people down while showing no real signs you have understood or even read what other people have said. Not sure what you mention animals here either, they've never had any real say in the UK or EU political systems.


I don't put 'other people' down unless they have had a go at me first. I certainly call a spade a spade, and if I consider someone has posted garbage, I will tell them..... and say why - and I would expect the same in return.
For example, I would have thought that you would have associated the fact that some animals are very clever...chimpanzees, elephants etc; and although they didn't vote in the referendum, they clearly have significant intelligence without going to school. 
Experience is a great teacher......and we have accumulated a fair amount of 'experience' wrt to the EU....maybe that is why most of the 'older' section of the electorate voted for leaving - whereas the younger element are more distraught at their perceived difficulties in travelling/working in Europe etc....despite the fact that many 'foreigners' reside/work in other countries, and have done since time immemorial.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> So what?? That wasn't a confrontation with democracy, that was custom and practice. Our entry , and membership of the EU is via agreed Treaties....and the political convention in the UK has been for the Executive to agree/withdraw/amend Treaties.........not Parliament.
> Parliamentary authority for the Royal Prerogative was established centuries ago.
> 
> Btw - you forgot to provide  the requested credible justification for the UK's costly membership of a political entity wrt arranging beneficial trade agreements!!


It's this sort of thing which first led me to wonder about you, being as it is an utterly intemperate and wrong-headed response to my uncontroversial post. The law, as it turns out, is on my side and not yours.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Parliament was certainly not having a laugh in 1972.....they were doing as they were told by the EU, despite Heath assuring all and sundry that UK membership of the EEC did NOT involve the transfer of sovereignty to a supranational entity......................but , the EU , ( or EEC as it was then), REQUIRED all joining members states to enshrine primacy of EU, (EEC) law in the member states own statute books......otherwise they couldn't join....the USSE in action from the word go - and carefully hidden by Heath and his fellow Europhiles who knew  better.


In response to this post I jeered - and rightly so - at your insinuation (USSE) that the founding members of the EEC were socialist. I await any real response on this point which you have been at pains to evade. The EU is not and never has been socialist.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 8, 2017)

please stop.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> You are the one talking nonsense....the UK joined in '73 not '75!
> Now attempt to provide a credible justification for having a political entity to effect economy growth by trade, which was the acclaimed purpose....


I don't like Winot not he me but he skewered you, and this, your pisspoor response, shows how bereft of argument you are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> So, yet another forum garrulous - gob bumping his gums again....your deplorable inability to comprehend the written word is definitely a pointer to the lowering standards of our Primary schools....I trust you will improve considerably before you move on to your next school.
> The only thing 'clear' is that you haven't got a clue....which is regularly confirmed by your inability to supply a credible basis to support your opinions....which are clearly not predicated on fact.
> So, as you cannot sensibly debate, you might as well just sod off, as they say, until  you mature  - mentally at least.


You wouldn't know a debate if it jumped up and whacked your cheeks with a mousetrap. You're a one trick pony, a proper pub bore. I used to know someone who no matter where the conversation opened would be talking about WW2 and the German army within five minutes. With you you'd be on the EU within 30 seconds - crap weather - forecasts not as they were since joining the EEC. Chelsea doing well - where are the British footballers of yesteryear, bloody bosman ruling. Shop down the road out of cucumbers - never happened in the auld days but now the EU gets rid of all the bent ones. Etc ad nauseum.


----------



## nuffsaid (Aug 8, 2017)




----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 8, 2017)

I don't think that our pound shop patriot understands that the EU referendum result was due to many many things, only one of which was the EU.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> It's this sort of thing which first led me to wonder about you, being as it is an utterly intemperate and wrong-headed response to my uncontroversial post. The law, as it turns out, is on my side and not yours.


Still evading the question.... hardly surprising in your case though is it? The Supreme Court undoubtedly ruled against the custom and practise of dealing with treaty issues....which was allowed via exercising the Royal Prerogative.....yet how strange that the Executive now apparently have to seek Parliamentary approval to withdraw from a Treaty - even one which is essentially just on accessing tariff free trade - yet that same Executive can declare war without seeking Parliamentary approval!!
Albeit, after saying that, after the Iraq disaster, I believe Parliament will expect prior consultation .....unless the Uk are attacked.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Still evading the question.... hardly surprising in your case though is it? The Supreme Court undoubtedly ruled against the custom and practise of dealing with treaty issues....which was allowed via exercising the Royal Prerogative.....yet how strange that the Executive now apparently have to seek Parliamentary approval to withdraw from a Treaty - even one which is essentially just on accessing tariff free trade - yet that same Executive can declare war without seeking Parliamentary approval!!
> Albeit, after saying that, after the Iraq disaster, I believe Parliament will expect prior consultation .....unless the Uk are attacked.


Not worth waiting for


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 8, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I don't think that our pound shop patriot understands that the EU referendum result was due to many many things, only one of which was the EU.


 What a pity some The referendum was a binary issue....remain in, or get out....simples!!
What a pity such a simple concept seems to be very difficult for some people to grasp.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 8, 2017)

Shall we start another thread where this issue can be discussed a little more seriously?


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> In response to this post I jeered - and rightly so - at your insinuation (USSE) that the founding members of the EEC were socialist. I await any real response on this point which you have been at pains to evade. The EU is not and never has been socialist.



Of course they haven't......it would appear that your gob is  long overdue several beatings ---- with anvils rathers than mouse traps....

*“The nations of Europe … will need larger markets … Prosperity and vital social progress will remain elusive until the nations of Europe form a federation or a ‘European entity’ which will force them into a single economic unit.”

			~Jean Monnet, 1943*


As the chap who  is known as the ‘Founding Father’ of the EU voiced his political aspirations for the post war Europe said.

Of the various Ideological  groups  across the poloitical spectrum, both Communism and Socialism are  well placed ‘Left of Centre’ as you well know...with Communism being further extreme than Socialism, and the EU has  undoubtedly ‘copied’ the USSR  in specific areas of it’s operations.

For example, just like having the USSR’s  sole legislative authority, (the unelected politburo), the EU’s sole legislative authority is the unelected Commission.

Unlike the USSR of course, the individual countries  can  leave and regain their sovereignty, but whilst they remain a member state, the unelected politburo-like Commission retains legislative primacy which all members are forced to accept.

So - although not as politically extreme as the USSR, the  EU’s  politburo like’ Executive’, certainly places the EU in a ‘left of centre’ political   grouping.


----------



## Winot (Aug 8, 2017)

free spirit said:


> Shall we start another thread where this issue can be discussed a little more seriously?



Put it to a vote?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2017)

Stevlin said:


> Of course they haven't......it would appear that your gob is  long overdue several beatings ---- with anvils rathers than mouse traps....
> 
> *“The nations of Europe … will need larger markets … Prosperity and vital social progress will remain elusive until the nations of Europe form a federation or a ‘European entity’ which will force them into a single economic unit.”
> 
> ...


No it doesn't 

Next


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 8, 2017)

free spirit said:


> Shall we start another thread where this issue can be discussed a little more seriously?


I would err in favour of keeping the thread but not having it spammed with Facebook rubbish. Personally speaking.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 8, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I don't think that our pound shop patriot understands that the EU referendum result was due to many many things, only one of which was the EU.


Really?....well the referendum was merely a binary issue,  either 'stay in' or 'get out'.....that would appear to be a relatively  simple concept to understand!


----------



## Raheem (Aug 8, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I would err in favour of keeping the thread but not having it spammed with Facebook rubbish. Personally speaking.



It's unrealistic to stay in the thread and expect it to reform itself. We need to take back control.


----------



## Stevlin (Aug 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No it doesn't
> 
> Next


What a brilliant response from the forum's resident gobber....but yes - it clearly does....


----------



## free spirit (Aug 8, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I would err in favour of keeping the thread but not having it spammed with Facebook rubbish. Personally speaking.


"Users who make a stream of posts with no meaningful content......?"


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 8, 2017)

Well let's get it over with I suppose.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 8, 2017)

You fool, you cram in a Monnet quote, yet patently have no understanding of Monnets leanings, ambitions and importantly, the ownership of the economic and fiscal backeing for the grand project after 2W2. For fucks sake, do a basic bit of research on what you sling around beforehand.


----------



## Winot (Aug 8, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> You fool, you cram in a Monnet quote, yet patently have no understanding of Monnets leanings, ambitions and importantly, the ownership of the economic and fiscal backeing for the grand project after 2W2. For fucks sake, do a basic bit of research on what you sling around beforehand.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 8, 2017)

oh. too late


----------



## gosub (Aug 8, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well let's get it over with I suppose.



Harsh but fair.

At  least our side can afford to lose regurgitators of lazy trope


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Good to see you confirming that you're a grade A prick.
> 
> The policies forced on the Greece _*have*_ killed people, _*have*_ increased infant mortality. To place the blame on the Greek people for such policies is disgusting.
> 
> Yep



I agree with criticisms of the EU (and to a lesser extent IMF) in its policy towards Greece, but to accuse it of *deliberately* *murdering* civilians is a distortion which belittles what is happening to people who’re actually being tortured, shot and bombed in counties such as those I mentioned.

Brexit itself is a policy which will result in cuts in research and less funding plus staff cuts for essential services such as health and social care. That will inevitably lead to the deaths of vulnerable people in this country. So tell me, when should we start calling brexiteers “murderers”?

Brexit means... an uncertain future for the NHS?

What impact will Brexit have on the health and social care workforce?

Brexit could trigger crisis in care for older and disabled people

Except of course that’s all wrong isn’t it? We all know that the NHS will be getting an extra £350 million a week after brexit…


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 10, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> ^^ these are the people who like to see themselves as progressive. I wonder how much high life flouting the tax people rooting through bins for food and fuel enjoyed. The problem is here they cannot look at whats being done to Greece unless they somehow make it the fault of this big amorphous 'them'. Which greeks?
> 
> Its a pretty disgusting attitude but then if you scratch a liberal you'll soon find a tory.



And there was me thinking that in this country at least it’s tories who have a problem with funding public services and infrastructure through wealth indexed taxation. Do you think a society can operate for the benefit of all its people if its ‘educated professionals’ won’t pay income tax? (I'm not blaming those who are rooting through bins for food). The Greek government only took half its revenue in 2012 because of tax evasion.

If you’re working, I’m sure you pay income tax, don’t you?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 10, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And there was me thinking that in this country at least it’s tories who have a problem with funding public services and infrastructure through wealth indexed taxation. Do you think a society can operate for the benefit of all its people if its ‘educated professionals’ won’t pay income tax? (I'm not blaming those who are rooting through bins for food). The Greek government only took half its revenue in 2012 because of tax evasion.
> 
> If you’re working, I’m sure you pay income tax, don’t you?


reverse gear is it? 'National sport', your words not mine.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> If you’re working, I’m sure you pay income tax, don’t you?


People earning less than £11,500 pay no income tax.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 10, 2017)

Boris Johnson should be jailed over Brexit claims, says ex-David Davis aide


----------



## kabbes (Aug 10, 2017)

Badgers said:


> Boris Johnson should be jailed over Brexit claims, says ex-David Davis aide


More misleading bollocks from the Guardian, given that the actual tweet said "if we had an effective electoral law leading Brexiteers would now be in jail."  That's a long way from saying that somebody should be jailed given existing law.


----------



## gosub (Aug 10, 2017)

kabbes said:


> More misleading bollocks from the Guardian, given that the actual tweet said "if we had an effective electoral law leading Brexiteers would now be in jail."  That's a long way from saying that somebody should be jailed given existing law.


If we had said law David Milliband would also be there for the non referendum over the EU constitution


----------



## gosub (Aug 10, 2017)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I agree with criticisms of the EU (and to a lesser extent IMF) in its policy towards Greece, but to accuse it of deliberately murdering civilians is a distortion which belittles what is happening to people who’re actually being tortured, shot and bombed in counties such as those I mentioned.
> 
> 
> Brexit itself is a policy which will result in cuts in research and less funding plus staff cuts for essential services such as health and social care. That will inevitably lead to the deaths of vulnerable people in this country. So tell me, when should we start calling brexiteers “murderers”?
> ...





Andrew Hertford said:


> And there was me thinking that in this country at least it’s tories who have a problem with funding public services and infrastructure through wealth indexed taxation. Do you think a society can operate for the benefit of all its people if its ‘educated professionals’ won’t pay income tax? (I'm not blaming those who are rooting through bins for food). The Greek government only took half its revenue in 2012 because of tax evasion.
> 
> 
> If  you’re working, I’m sure you pay income tax, don’t you?




There a ring of truth in this and it’s a major reason not to let Brexit emulate Greco –EU relations.  Were it do so you could easily point out UK has more than its ‘fair’share of tax dodgers, and bin divers for that matter (regrettably).  You could also argue Greece behaved as if it wanted a clean break from previous  ties previous administrations had got them into and a largely deaf EUorpean establishment didn’t feel inclined to play ball….

Which, I think strengthens the case for a protracted leave to mitigate against short term chaos (heaven help if the EUropean  cash points were to run out or anything.) But not a reverse ferret so we can pretend democracy doesn’t matter.   True, at present is reason to be deeply suspicious of a particular grain of capitalist ideology  for whom “chaos is opportunity” and all they have to be is unchecked for them to have won…..the only boon from that I can see is that it would become a step towards a sensible democracy.  That we have a narrow brase of political “elite” whose background and  breadth of knowledge that demonstrate PPE and lack of real world work experience must be generating countless Rumsfeld’s unknowns.  Unknown’s that wouldn’t be so unknown if you moved away from that type of representation…

But you are right, there should be a duty of care to try and make things as seamless as possible.  It obviously won’t be, and people will pounce on any headaches, but they are not beyond minimising.


----------



## hot air baboon (Aug 10, 2017)

gosub said:


> there should be a duty of care to try and make things as seamless as possible.



there pretty much is in the Lisbon Treaty 

EUR-Lex - 12007L/TXT - EN - EUR-Lex


----------



## gosub (Aug 11, 2017)

Remain And Leave Voters Are Surprisingly United On Backing A Harder Brexit, According To This Study


----------



## Poi E (Aug 11, 2017)

If so it's good news for the government as the UK can exit without a deal and not face an electorate all that irate at that fact. Perhaps May's approach of being rather less than engaged and prepared with negotiations is well thought through in its bloody mindedness.


----------



## gosub (Aug 12, 2017)

gosub said:


> Remain And Leave Voters Are Surprisingly United On Backing A Harder Brexit, According To This Study



now carries correction : 
*CORRECTION*
August 11, 2017, at 5:17 p.m.
The researchers collected six data points each from 3,293 people, resulting in a dataset of 19,758 choices. An earlier version of this story misstated that the researchers surveyed 20,000 people.


----------



## 8den (Aug 16, 2017)

So 9 months in and the British Govt finally announce their position on the Northern Irish border. 

UK to seek Irish border waivers on customs and food safety after Brexit

No customs checks, no hard border crossing, free movement, so essentially exactly as it stands now, but _different. _Somehow.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2017)

8den said:


> So 9 months in and the British Govt finally announce their position on the Northern Irish border.
> 
> UK to seek Irish border waivers on customs and food safety after Brexit
> 
> No customs checks, no hard border crossing, free movement, so essentially exactly as it stands now, but _different. _Somehow.


tell you what, let's remove even the notional border so everything can move freely on the island of ireland and while we're about it maybe dublin could keep an eye on the 6 counties for a bit


----------



## 8den (Aug 16, 2017)

It staggers me that once again it appears May's govt are utterly clueless about the terms of the good Friday agreement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2017)

8den said:


> It staggers me that once again it appears May's govt are utterly clueless about the terms of the good Friday agreement.



it shouldn't do, it's not like anyone's ever described them as competent - quite the reverse in fact


----------



## free spirit (Aug 16, 2017)

8den said:


> So 9 months in and the British Govt finally announce their position on the Northern Irish border.
> 
> UK to seek Irish border waivers on customs and food safety after Brexit
> 
> No customs checks, no hard border crossing, free movement, so essentially exactly as it stands now, but _different. _Somehow.


The difference being that once the UK starts doing deals with countries outside of the EU there will the administrative burden will fall on businesses for ensuring that any differences in import tariffs between UK and EU are corrected at the point of export to the EU.

That'd be reasonable when the same product was being imported then exported again directly to the EU, but how the fuck is that supposed to work when the imported product is only one component of a move complex finished product that's exported?

Companies are going to have to find ways to account for what proportion of the end product's value stems from imported components from countries with different tariff arrangements, and then arrange for the appropriate tax to be paid on export to the EU.

Now the UK government could legislate to apply that to UK companies, but for it to work they'd be expecting the EU to force every company in Europe to adopt the same process in reverse if they wanted to trade with the UK. That's why this approach is very unlikely to actually work in practice, because the EU aren't going to sign up to that level of increased admin burden on every exporting company in Europe just to keep the UK government happy.


----------



## 8den (Aug 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> tell you what, let's remove even the notional border so everything can move freely on the island of ireland and while we're about it maybe dublin could keep an eye on the 6 counties for a bit



it's a slightly more coherent and well thought out plan than the current UK position and has the added bonus of being slightly cheaper (cause you don't have to bung Arlene £1b quid).


----------



## 8den (Aug 16, 2017)

free spirit said:


> The difference being that once the UK starts doing deals with countries outside of the EU there will the administrative burden will fall on businesses for ensuring that any differences in import tariffs between UK and EU are corrected at the point of export to the EU.
> 
> That'd be reasonable when the same product was being imported then exported again directly to the EU, but how the fuck is that supposed to work when the imported product is only one component of a move complex finished product that's exported?
> 
> ...



"What do we want?"

"The exact same conditions on the Northern Irish border, but yet, different somehow."

"When do we want it?"

"Soonish."


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> tell you what, let's remove even the notional border so everything can move freely on the island of ireland and while we're about it *maybe dublin could keep an eye on the 6 counties for a bit*



For a bit? Ideally forever IMO, but I don't think the north has reached the stage when that can happen yet, I am sure it will one day, sadly most likely not in my lifetime.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 16, 2017)

I am not sure that Dublin wants to take the north on board, despite the rhetoric, but that's another discussion


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 16, 2017)

gosub said:


> now carries correction :
> *CORRECTION*
> August 11, 2017, at 5:17 p.m.
> The researchers collected six data points each from 3,293 people, resulting in a dataset of 19,758 choices. An earlier version of this story misstated that the researchers surveyed 20,000 people.



This LSE survey has certainly been lapped up by the right wing brexit press. In fact it finds that both remainers and brexiters want low trade tariffs, (WTO tariffs anyone?) and that most remainers and even some brexiters accept that an annual payment will be necessary to continue accessing the single market. The tagline could just as easily read 'Remain and Leave voters are surprisingly united on backing a softer brexit'.

The survey also put into context here…

The truth about the claim 29 per cent of Remainers want to deport EU citizens

_“Each person was presented with two menus of Brexit-related outcomes and asked to choose which one they preferred. The option of “neither” was not available.”_

*“What about the idea of massive public support for a hard Brexit?”*
_“To some extent this is based on a similar misreading of the results of the research by journalists.”_

_“Some newspapers __reported__ the findings of the favourability index for propositions such as “paying nothing towards a Brexit divorce bill” (54.7 per cent among Remainers) and “full control over borders” (51.3 per cent among Remainers) as if they were raw percentages of support among the Remainer population – the same mistake as suggesting 29 per cent of Remainers back expulsion of EU nationals.”_


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 16, 2017)

8den said:


> So 9 months in and the British Govt finally announce their position on the Northern Irish border.
> 
> UK to seek Irish border waivers on customs and food safety after Brexit
> 
> No customs checks, no hard border crossing, free movement, so essentially exactly as it stands now, but _different. _Somehow.



The fact that it’s even necessary to discuss putting some kind of border across the middle of a country just highlights the irrational stupidity of both brexit and of the division of Ireland.

The Irish remain overwhelmingly pro EU, even when you include those in the North, who supported Remain by 55% to 45%.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 16, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> reverse gear is it? 'National sport', your words not mine.



It’s an appropriate phrase, but not mine, which is why I put it in inverted commas…

Tax Evaders in Greece: "We Cannot Survive Otherwise" | GreekReporter.com

But you’re avoiding the point, large scale tax evasion means that a society cannot function properly. It’s beyond me how you interpret that as me blaming the poor. If it was only low earners who didn’t pay tax then obviously it wouldn’t be such a problem, but in Greece (as in most places) it was the middle classes and higher earners.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I am not sure that Dublin wants to take the north on board, despite the rhetoric, but that's another discussion


They'll dam' well take what they're given


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 17, 2017)

Brexit: UK looks to keep visa-free travel from EU - BBC News

So johnny forrner will have E-Z access to the UK. Sorta resolves the problem of losing the cheap labour the UK seems to demand , but without any protections or rights for those working black. I am confident however that employers will ensure they follow the right procedures for getting only legal staff on board and pay the right wages.Obvs


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 25, 2017)

Theresa May under fire as student visa myth exposed

Was 100,000
Now 4,600

lolz again. so the much vaunted 100K forren student overstayer numbers being sued as a bludgeon to hammer the anti immigrant message, is complete shite. Even Gideon Osborne raised this as a concern - this was common knowledge across government as well-  but May refused to take it on board, preferring the use the fabricated and baseless higher number. When someone makes Osborne look principled, they have really had to work at being utter dog shit. May is a disgusting , humor free and moral free shitcake. I fucking hate her with a passion I have no felt since Thatcher. Any chance of her dying in office to cheer me up a bit ?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 25, 2017)

8den said:


> "What do we want?"
> 
> "The exact same conditions on the Northern Irish border, but yet, different somehow."
> 
> ...


Fintan O'Toole recently put out an excellent article pointing out precisely this. Our 'brilliant new deal' idea is basically, umm, exactly the same as before....if everything goes according to plan.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Theresa May under fire as student visa myth exposed
> 
> Was 100,000
> Now 4,600
> ...



tbf to Mrs May, the made up figures do make her argument much more forceful than the genuine figures.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Aug 25, 2017)

On Politico EU ‘increasingly doubtful’ Brexit talks will move to phase 2 in October


> ...
> Another EU diplomat described the papers as a “mix of good and bad.” But they objected to what they see as the U.K.’s attempt to blur the strict sequencing of the talks. “[The] U.K. tries to import phase two stuff into papers for phase one, or at least blur the lines between them.”
> 
> In the two weeks running up to the talks, the U.K. government has been bombarding its EU counterparts with a series of position papers on everything from future customs arrangements to the handling of confidential documents.
> ...


After Davies caved on almost the first day on the issue of sequencing and the EU27 have been very clear that trade comes after the rights of citizens. This is what you might call negotiating in bad faith or more simply very poor British negotiating tactics as the clock ticks away on a time boxed process. The Brits are trying to use issues like the Irish border to bring forward trade issues. When you have an inherently weak position in these things its best to embrace that rather than going into defiant denial. A50 is designed to favour the remaining EU states and they simply have far greater clout than the UK does. This has only got worse as Trump and to a lesser extent Brexit seem to have increased EU27 unity while May's gnat's cock majority at the last GE leaves No 10 floundering. 

So far the real only real negotiation is an intra-Tory one. This is really the fatal flaw in the whole thing a party so deeply split over not just the EU but the UK's relationship with Europe was always going to have great difficulty reaching a sensible transitional compromise with the cumbersome EU27.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Aug 25, 2017)

I watch with a mixture of horror and guilty pleasure as the negotiations degenerate into a turd of truly awesome proportions, the problem for May and her merry band of crooks is they need something (anything!!) to point to when they call an election and say look this is what we have to offer else the only other thing they have is more years of austerity and shitting on all and sundry.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I watch with a mixture of horror and guilty pleasure as the negotiations degenerate into a turd of truly awesome proportions, the problem for May and her merry band of crooks is they need something (anything!!) to point to when they call an election and say look this is what we have to offer else the only other thing they have is more years of austerity and shitting on all and sundry.



yeah, it's great, inn'it.


----------



## Riklet (Aug 26, 2017)

Some Yannis history:



Almost a year on and the EU seems pretty true to form....



More recent comments....

Does anything in the past year show anything other than the EU as a giant bumbling economic mess shutting down negotiationa with faceless 'Brussels bureaucrats'?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 27, 2017)

> Brexit is being shaped by big business and banks while the interests of ordinary people are being drowned out, a damning new report has concluded.
> 
> The analysis of lobbyist activity exposes how big corporations and the finance sector are dominating back-room discussions with negotiators in both London and Brussels.


 Brexit negotiations dominated by corporate lobbyists

Not a great surprise perhaps, but it's interesting to see the evidence emerging.



> Analysis of the UK team’s meetings show they were dominated by the finance sector, which concerned 46 gatherings at Dexeu in six months. Goldman Sachs - an investment bank heavily criticised for its actions during the financial crash - attended four meetings.
> 
> HSBC, which recently paid £28 million to Swiss authorities to close a money-laundering case, attended six and lobby group TheCityUK was at eight.
> 
> ...


----------



## ska invita (Aug 27, 2017)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Brexit negotiations dominated by corporate lobbyists
> 
> Not a great surprise perhaps, but it's interesting to see the evidence emerging.


Small firms make up 99% of the uks private sector? Sounds very wrong to me....
 doesn't really matter in terms of the subject at hand, but still.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Small firms make up 99% of the uks private sector? Sounds very wrong to me....
> doesn't really matter in terms of the subject at hand, but still.


I suspect they've confused private sector and private companies and FSB representation with composition.


----------



## CrabbedOne (Aug 27, 2017)

On The Irish Economy Could Ireland credibly threaten to veto an EU-UK trade deal?


> ...
> Yes, we want a close trading relationship with our nearest neighbour, but right now that neighbour is planning to (a) reimpose a border on our island, and (b) sign trade deals that threaten to displace Irish exporters from its market. In my view, the ESRI should not only be modelling the impact of various EU-UK trade deal scenarios on the Irish economy; it should also be modelling the impact on Ireland of the trade deals that the UK may eventually sign with the rest of the world. Opportunity costs are what matter when making decisions, and the net opportunity cost to Ireland of a no-deal Brexit may be smaller than what we sometimes assume, if the alternative involves the UK following through on its current plans. I’d be interested to know how large it would actually be.
> 
> And maybe the Irish government should consider playing hard ball in its continuing attempts to avoid the reimposition of a border in Ireland.


Points out the UK's best EU buddy the RoI may have only a little more to lose by being less than helpful to its largest trading partner. Sounds rather bolder than Dublin usually is to me but you can see things steadily souring. Comes just as Corbyn's Labour seems to be getting cold feet about flouncing out of the Customs Union without a proper trade deal in place. 

I did think the EU might cynically use the Irish border as a bargaining chip but it turns out that's the way a careless London seems to be choosing to play an increasingly weak hand. Liam Fox is clearly more interested in giving the rest of the world tariff free access to British markets ASAP. What this process may do to what were historically very good Irish-British relations is one of the saddest things about it.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Aug 27, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Small firms make up 99% of the uks private sector? Sounds very wrong to me....
> doesn't really matter in terms of the subject at hand, but still.


By number of people employed that's probably true or at least close, 40% of companies are single person outfits eg plumbers, builders, single vehicle hauliers etc (plus the scam that is the likes of Deliveroo and Uber) 
I understand why big biz is sticking its oar in since they stand to lose shitloads of cash if we get the wrong deal (pretty much guaranteed with this shower doing the negotiations) and nothing panics  them like a threat to the bottom line.


----------



## gosub (Aug 27, 2017)

Small Business Statistics

*SMEs and the Economy:*

Small businesses accounted for 99.3% of all private sector businesses at the start of 2016 and 99.9% were small or medium-sized (SMEs).
Total employment in SMEs was 15.7 million; 60% of all private sector employment in the UK.
The combined annual turnover of SMEs was £1.8 trillion, 47% of all private sector turnover in the UK.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 27, 2017)

ah okay, 60% of employment...i thought it was saying 99% of employment in private sector. Thanks...interesting


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2017)

ska invita said:


> ah okay, 60% of employment...i thought it was saying 99% of employment in private sector. Thanks...interesting


basically large businesses are 0.7% of all private sector businesses.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 31, 2017)

EU Brexit negotiator: UK demands on single market are impossible - Politics live

all kinds of shit coming up here from both sides.In light of Mayhems announcement that she will be on the throne for ALL ETERNITY & what seems to be our flaccid, weak and shoddy pissing about so far , I think we will jump ship from these negotiations sooner rather than later. Like in September.

I have no idea what this means or how it will impact us but it is unlikely to be good. Not as good as this September anyway


----------



## ska invita (Aug 31, 2017)

As Riklet/Yanis point out the negotiations were always going to be obstructive from the EU side - its not in their interest to make this easy - but I'm now wondering if EU negotiators sense that the Tories are divided internally and on the way out electorally and banking on Corbyns Labour taking over, with their now semi-official soft brexit position.
?
who knows - can only speculate


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 31, 2017)

I find it hard to believe that the tories have any long term game strategy outside purposefully slowing things down & fucking it up and blaming the EU for their intransigence. Even that weak plan requires an further plan as to what they do when it all goes according to plan.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 31, 2017)

gosub said:


> Small Business Statistics
> 
> *SMEs and the Economy:*
> 
> ...




How many of these small businesses are those employed as a tax dodge by larger businesses? The uber drivers, the bt contractors, the McDonalds franchises?


----------



## ska invita (Aug 31, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I find it hard to believe that the tories have any long term game strategy outside purposefully slowing things down & fucking it up and blaming the EU for their intransigence. Even that weak plan requires an further plan as to what they do when it all goes according to plan.


Seems to me the Tory plan remains cake and eat it. No idea what their fall back position is though


----------



## Smangus (Aug 31, 2017)

ska invita said:


> No idea what their fall back position is though



It'll be the blame the EU for everything going wrong no doubt.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Aug 31, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> In light of Mayhems announcement that she will be on the throne for ALL ETERNITY


Yeah right and I will come home tomorrow to find Emma Watson sprawled on my bed wearing only a smile, it's not actually impossible since it doesn't break the laws of physics but it ain't going to happen, there is probably only slightly more chance than Mayhem is going to be PM a year from now.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 1, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Seems to me the Tory plan remains cake and eat it. No idea what their fall back position is though



Suspect that _is_ the fallback position. It's like they're ordering a pizza, but no-one can agree and no-one has the authority to make a decision, so the default is phoning Casa Barnier and just asking for all the toppings.


----------



## bemused (Sep 4, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Suspect that _is_ the fallback position. It's like they're ordering a pizza, but no-one can agree and no-one has the authority to make a decision, so the default is phoning Casa Barnier and just asking for all the toppings.



Probably this Efta court chief  visits UK to push merits of ‘Norway model’

EFTA seems to be the least worst option.


----------



## gosub (Sep 4, 2017)

bemused said:


> Probably this Efta court chief  visits UK to push merits of ‘Norway model’
> 
> EFTA seems to be the least worst option.


 short term,  otherwise things turn out remarkably similar to how they would have been anyway..  And then we have a problem


----------



## bemused (Sep 4, 2017)

gosub said:


> short term,  otherwise things turn out remarkably similar to how they would have been anyway..  And then we have a problem



They are going to be similar anyway. Seems to me the only sticking point is free movement. Hopefully, at some point, a politician will have the nerve to point out that the ECHR isn't part of the EU and we won't be pulling out of it.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 4, 2017)

gosub said:


> short term,  otherwise things turn out remarkably similar to how they would have been anyway..  And then we have a problem



Yes, but nothing on the scale of the problem we will have if things turn out to be remarkably different. I don't think there's anyone now in a position of influence who doesn't understand that. The Tory grassroots are an obstacle, but I don't think they are a factor.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 4, 2017)

EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier says he will 'teach the UK what leaving the single market means'



> “There are extremely serious consequences of leaving the single market, and they haven’t been explained to the British people. We intend to teach people … what leaving the single market means.”




Our reply: YOUR MUM!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 4, 2017)

How bond villanesque


----------



## gosub (Sep 4, 2017)

bemused said:


> They are going to be similar anyway. Seems to me the only sticking point is free movement. Hopefully, at some point, a politician will have the nerve to point out that the ECHR isn't part of the EU and we won't be pulling out of it.



Too close.  Fulcrums and leverage.


----------



## gosub (Sep 4, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Yes, but nothing on the scale of the problem we will have if things turn out to be remarkably different. I don't think there's anyone now in a position of influence who doesn't understand that. The Tory grassroots are an obstacle, but I don't think they are a factor.



Disagree.   But have always argued from an avoid hard brexit position.


----------



## mather (Sep 4, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier says he will 'teach the UK what leaving the single market means'
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Barnier is an odious parasitical cunt! What is even more amusing is that he probably lacks the sense of self awareness to even see how it is because of him and people like him, always talking down to people with their threats, blackmail and hectoring, that so many are put off the EU in the first instance.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 4, 2017)

bemused said:


> Hopefully, at some point, a politician will have the nerve to point out that the ECHR isn't part of the EU and we won't be pulling out of it.


----------



## bemused (Sep 4, 2017)

mather said:


> Barnier is an odious parasitical cunt! What is even more amusing is that he probably lacks the sense of self awareness to even see how it is because of him and people like him, always talking down to people with their threats, blackmail and hectoring, that so many are put off the EU in the first instance.



It is a weird approach to take. I assume he's trying to demonstrate to other groups who want a vote on the EU membership that there is some abyss that countries fall into if or when they leave the EU. I tend to think at the end of the day it'll just boil down to economics and if both sides want to fuck up a trading relationship which makes the UK the 2nd largest market for the EU and where the EU is almost half our exports.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2017)

bemused said:


> It is a weird approach to take. I assume he's trying to demonstrate to other groups who want a vote on the EU membership that there is some abyss that countries fall into if or when they leave the EU. I tend to think at the end of the day it'll just boil down to economics and if both sides want to fuck up a trading relationship which makes the UK the 2nd largest market for the EU and where the EU is almost half our exports.


You've seen what they're prepared to do to Greece. Being as the government's said all sorts of things about make Britain global again I wouldn't be surprised if the EU simply said go on then


----------



## bemused (Sep 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You've seen what they're prepared to do to Greece. Being as the government's said all sorts of things about make Britain global again I wouldn't be surprised if the EU simply said go on then



Well, they seem to want to fuck them over even harder. First by returning refugees to Greece from other EU countries:

EU states begin returning refugees to Greece as German reunions slow

Then Germany seems keen to derail the deal between the EU and Turkey to slow the flow.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 4, 2017)

mather said:


> Barnier is an odious parasitical cunt!



You've obviously had a good look at him.

OTOH, worth noting that he denies having said the stuff about wanting to "educate the UK", and claims it's just nonsense made up by the British press. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that's at least plausible.


----------



## bemused (Sep 4, 2017)

Raheem said:


> OTOH, worth noting that he denies having said the stuff about wanting to "educate the UK", and claims it's just nonsense made up by the British press. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that's at least plausible.



Reading his tweet denying he said it, I suspect the general sentiment was along the same lines as the news reports.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 4, 2017)

bemused said:


> Reading his tweet denying he said it, I suspect the general sentiment was along the same lines as the news reports.



Who knows? Mind you, I might grow some respect for him if he turns up to the next meeting with DD wearing a cape and mortarboard like the teacher in the Bash Street Kids.


----------



## gosub (Sep 4, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Who knows? Mind you, I might grow some respect for him if he turns up to the next meeting with DD wearing a cape and mortarboard like the teacher in the Bash Street Kids.


Not helpful, my old latin teacher used to wear the garb, ending up making things MORE Bash Street kids


----------



## belboid (Sep 5, 2017)

Government strategy document leaks.  Basically at seems to be just saying Britain First (but we'll be happy to wait a while) a lot

The draft Home Office post-Brexit immigration policy document in full


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Sep 5, 2017)

You can tell it's a serious document because it has flowcharts and graphs in it, not Powerpoint though so loses a bit of seriousness there, even the dumbest manager where I work understands the importance of putting stuff in Powerpoint.


----------



## belboid (Sep 5, 2017)

Pish. You only use PowerPoint if you intend to deliberately show it to people, not pass it around under the desk surreptitiously.


----------



## Poi E (Sep 5, 2017)

No surprises. It states in parts that immigration should benefit existing residents and that where possible labour should be drawn locally. The first wouldn't be hard to show. A person working and paying taxes of whatever nationality benefits residents. Or are we talking other criteria being applied to benefit the locals? The second point carries with it policy considerations like ensuring a sufficiently qualified labour force and protecting that force from competition. Not really compatible with a low tax deregulated economy like the Tory right would like.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 5, 2017)

Initial impression is it is designed to keep the door open for business, but be annoying enough to put many people off from coming to the UK. Its not exactly the nudge-policy the Tories are into, more sharp elbow in the ribs on entry.

For example it allows a mechanism for farmers to hire 'seasonal workers', but definitely in an even more second-class citizen fashion. I think the 2 and 3 year work visas will put a lot of people off from coming to the UK...its hard to move to a new country and takes time to settle in. 2 years flies by, even for those who plan on returning home. And there'll have to be a points-style process to work out how long a visa you get issued.

If those work visas are easy to renew then people might well stay for longer - bouncing back over the border every couple of years. But many will be put off on principle, and as long as there are other places to find work that aren't the UK.

Will be interesting to see the response from the EU in terms of what rights British citizens will have in return.

Some leaks are put out strategically for the better...this one seems designed to fuck things up and throw the cat amongst the pigeons.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Sep 5, 2017)

belboid said:


> Pish. You only use PowerPoint if you intend to deliberately show it to people, not pass it around under the desk surreptitiously.


Good point I stand corrected


----------



## bemused (Sep 5, 2017)

ska invita said:


> Initial impression is it is designed to keep the door open for business, but be annoying enough to put many people off from coming to the UK. Its not exactly the nudge-policy the Tories are into, more sharp elbow in the ribs on entry.



They seem to be trying to apply the rules that already apply if you are outside the EU.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 6, 2017)

I read this as a discreet nod to ratchet up the black economy


----------



## NoXion (Sep 6, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier says he will 'teach the UK what leaving the single market means'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To think that I was greeted with skepticism when I expressed the opinion that Brussels would seek to punish the UK for daring to leave the perfect EU.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 6, 2017)

NoXion said:


> To think that I was greeted with skepticism when I expressed the opinion that Brussels would seek to punish the UK for daring to leave the perfect EU.



As punishments go, though, ill-judged but probably fair mockery isn't really off the scale.


----------



## Poi E (Sep 8, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I read this as a discreet nod to ratchet up the black economy



And it signals a hard Brexit. The immigration proposals are incompatible with any access to the single market. 

Not sure why May continues the negotiations. Let's go hard Brexit and hopefully break up the UK.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2017)

NoXion said:


> To think that I was greeted with skepticism when I expressed the opinion that Brussels would seek to punish the UK for daring to leave the perfect EU.


Yeh. I don't think it's punishing the UK. It's just what leaving the EU means.


----------



## Poi E (Sep 8, 2017)

I'm liking Juncker today, questioning the stability and accountability of Davis. Cheeky bloody sort of froggie. Get back to your vino quaffing.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 9, 2017)

Jesus fucking christ these people


----------



## Poi E (Sep 9, 2017)

Farage speaking at an AfD event complaining that the Germans are not talking about Brexit enough. He's keeping good company. Trotted out the old German car industry bollocks. Truth is Brits will still buy German cars even if they go up by 15% due to tariffs. Only another £30 on the monthly payment.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Sep 9, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Farage speaking at an AfD event complaining that the Germans are not talking about Brexit enough. He's keeping good company. Trotted out the old German car industry bollocks. Truth is Brits will still buy German cars even if they go up by 15% due to tariffs. Only another £30 on the monthly payment.


I had some nitwit at work who told me that due to Brexit that he wasn't going to buy a BMW or an Audi due to Brexit (obviously earns more than I suspect he does) but had bought a good British model instead, a Ford Focus. Wasn't too happy when I pointed out that a) Ford are of course American and b) the Focus is made in Germany


----------



## Raheem (Sep 9, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I had some nitwit at work who told me that due to Brexit that he wasn't going to buy a BMW or an Audi due to Brexit (obviously earns more than I suspect he does) but had bought a good British model instead, a Ford Focus. Wasn't too happy when I pointed out that a) Ford are of course American and b) the Focus is made in Germany



He'll be able to buy British-made cars for years to come. Provided he doesn't mind second-hand.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 10, 2017)

Poi E said:


> I'm liking Juncker today, questioning the stability and accountability of Davis. Cheeky bloody sort of froggie. Get back to your vino quaffing.



Juncker the austerity driving neoliberal EC president. Not much to like there.

But liberals will end up placing themselves into one corner of the indefensible, just to land a swipe at the other corner of the indefensible.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 10, 2017)

Meanwhile, the EUs greatest supporter, wanting to get tougher on freedom of movement and immigration so as to desperately remain in.

Tony Blair: get tough on immigration to stop Brexit


----------



## Poi E (Sep 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Juncker the austerity driving neoliberal EC president. Not much to like there.
> 
> But liberals will end up placing themselves into one corner of the indefensible, just to land a swipe at the other corner of the indefensible.



Your po-faced knee-jerking is pretty dour. It was hardly a defence of Juncker.

Are you one of these alt right, throwing around the world "liberal"


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Meanwhile, the EUs greatest supporter, wanting to get tougher on freedom of movement and immigration so as to desperately remain in.
> 
> Tony Blair: get tough on immigration to stop Brexit


Echoing the same line Umunna did, behold the deeply held commitment to freedom of movement of these people.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Your po-faced knee-jerking is pretty dour. It was hardly a defence of Juncker.
> 
> Are you one of these alt right, throwing around the world "liberal"


Did brexit really break your brain? You used to be a decent coherent anti-power  poster. Went away, came back post-brexit like you'd had a 2x4 accident.


----------



## Poi E (Sep 10, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Did brexit really break your brain? You used to be a decent coherent anti-power  poster. Went away, came back post-brexit like you'd had a 2x4 accident.



And you direct your anger increasingly in the form of embittered, personal attacks.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2017)

Poi E said:


> And you direct your anger increasingly in the form of embittered, personal attacks.


Increasingly? I'd say it's - at worst -  the same level as before the brexit vote. In all likelihood at a lower level. I have the same disdain for people who pretend there's a separation between _them _and their _politics _though.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Meanwhile, the EUs greatest supporter, wanting to get tougher on freedom of movement and immigration so as to desperately remain in.
> 
> Tony Blair: get tough on immigration to stop Brexit



Do you sometimes get the feeling he might actually be a bit too fucking stupid to count as properly evil?


----------



## mojo pixy (Sep 10, 2017)

Sadly, I don't believe he's _that_ stupid.


----------



## paolo (Sep 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> Meanwhile, the EUs greatest supporter, wanting to get tougher on freedom of movement and immigration so as to desperately remain in.
> 
> Tony Blair: get tough on immigration to stop Brexit



Blairs right (IMHO) on a lot of this, but he's - putting it mildly - a spent force. I'd wager that his intervention will not help, and perhaps worsen, the remain cause.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 10, 2017)

I thought this was the 'right-wing racist leave' argument, that us left leavers who never even advocated such were automatically tarred with the same brush by liberal remainers? Now the EU poster boy Blair's saying it, it's _right_?!


----------



## The Fornicator (Sep 10, 2017)

For spent force, perhaps read 'toxic beyond redemption', though he is, at last, slowing reengaging with the reality.

It surely can't be wrong to consider the Ref vote a bargaining position - beyond all this high profile kerfuffle about how much to exit, you would hope the realists are looking at *reimagining* freedom of movement.

Or perhaps we're all spinning on a top until Merkel gets relected - probably a bit of both.


----------



## paolo (Sep 10, 2017)

There's EU countries with tougher immigration rules than ours.

Leaving the EU doesn't enhance our position, as it has been.

Same with rail. The UK has gone far beyond the EU law, in dismantling the system. It's why a lot of UK rail, is state owned. By EU states. Leaving the EU won't change that. It's an issue created by UK policy.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 10, 2017)

Scathing analysis here. Sometimes, well quite often I wonder what it will take to get rid of this bunch of chancers.

The Observer view on Tory ineptitude on Brexit negotiations | Observer editorial


----------



## Poi E (Sep 10, 2017)

The Guardian being remarkably naive. "Securing a satisfactory, coherent deal for all of Britain." When has that ever been the aim of any Tory policy, or the aim of the right wing sentimentalists and romantics littering the landscape?


----------



## paolo (Sep 10, 2017)

On another thought:

Will Greece benefit, or be a loser, from Brexit?


----------



## Raheem (Sep 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> I thought this was the 'right-wing racist leave' argument, that us left leavers who never even advocated such were automatically tarred with the same brush by liberal remainers? Now the EU poster boy Blair's saying it, it's _right_?!



It's not a leave argument, it's a remain argument. Half of UK immigration is non-EU (or was at the time of the referendum), and the UK has always been more generous to EU migrants than the EU requires. So there's  plenty of scope to restrict immigration without leaving the EU if anyone is really determined to do it. It's a perfectly logical argument, but a poor intervention at this stage because it contains two proposals (stay in the EU, clamp down on immigration) which between them alienate the vast majority of the public, plus the whole thing is transparently unprincipled.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 10, 2017)

paolo said:


> On another thought:
> 
> Will Greece benefit, or be a loser, from Brexit?



It's not likely to benefit, but how badly it will be affected will depend on the type of Brexit. Greece is (I think) the most subsidised country in the EU, so if and when the UK stops paying in to the CAP and structural budget, Greece probably stands to lose a few billion annually, all else being equal. Plus, whatever happens generally to the Eurozone will happen to Greece.


----------



## paolo (Sep 10, 2017)

Raheem said:


> It's not likely to benefit, but how badly it will be affected will depend on the type of Brexit. Greece is (I think) the most subsidised country in the EU, so if and when the UK stops paying in to the CAP and structural budget, Greece probably stands to lose a few billion annually, all else being equal. Plus, whatever happens generally to the Eurozone will happen to Greece.



Subsidised, but not the most.

(Luxembourg is a weird outlier. The rest are countries with developing economies. Exit people, I assume, think the UK shouldn't subsidise them)


----------



## Poi E (Sep 10, 2017)

paolo said:


> Exit people, I assume, think the UK shouldn't subsidise them)



Why assume that?


----------



## paolo (Sep 10, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Why assume that?



It's a very broad, and therefore incorrect assumption.

Brexit, as was proposed, made two assumptions:
- There would be financial benefit (bus)
- Immigration would be reduced

Was there anything more than that?

(I know that there was an ideoligical issue. Greece was shafted by the EU, so we if the UK leaves, that will help Greece. I can't see Greece winning from this, but I don't have the facts to hand about their opportunity here)


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 10, 2017)

Raheem said:


> It's not a leave argument, it's a remain argument. Half of UK immigration is non-EU (or was at the time of the referendum), and the UK has always been more generous to EU migrants than the EU requires. So there's  plenty of scope to restrict immigration without leaving the EU if anyone is really determined to do it. It's a perfectly logical argument, but a poor intervention at this stage because it contains two proposals (stay in the EU, clamp down on immigration) which between them alienate the vast majority of the public, plus the whole thing is transparently unprincipled.



It's using the same arguments (immigration control, freedom of movement, division between workers) as the right, but which are now ok because its those 'not-racist at all' and 'progressive' liberals using it as a desperate bid to remain.

And despite those of us left leavers all along making our arguments very clear that we want to dismantle the racist, austerity imposing, neoliberal EU superstate, but being constantly slurred as 'thicko racists' and 'getting into bed with the right' by liberal remainers, it turns out precisely as we always foresaw. That it would be the remain liberals/liberal-left that will actually say and do anything to uphold the rotten institution.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> It's using the same arguments (immigration control, freedom of movement, division between workers) as the right, but which are now ok because its those 'not-racist at all' and 'progressive' liberals using it as a desperate bid to remain.
> 
> And despite those of us left leavers all along making our arguments very clear that we want to dismantle the racist, austerity imposing, neoliberal EU superstate, but being constantly slurred as 'thicko racists' and 'getting into bed with the right' by liberal remainers, it turns out precisely as we always foresaw. That it would be the remain liberals/liberal-left that will actually say and do anything to uphold the rotten institution.


Tbh the guardian were explicitly calling all leave voters thick racist chavs before 23/6/16


----------



## paolo (Sep 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> It's using the same arguments (immigration control, freedom of movement, division between workers) as the right, but which are now ok because its those 'not-racist at all' and 'progressive' liberals using it as a desperate bid to remain.
> 
> And despite those of us left leavers all along making our arguments very clear that we want to dismantle the racist, austerity imposing, neoliberal EU superstate, but being constantly slurred as 'thicko racists' and 'getting into bed with the right' by liberal remainers, it turns out precisely as we always foresaw. That it would be the remain liberals/liberal-left that will actually say and do anything to uphold the rotten institution.



Do you think it will benefit Greece?


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 10, 2017)

stethoscope said:


> It's using the same arguments (immigration control, freedom of movement, division between workers) as the right, but which are now ok because its those 'not-racist at all' and 'progressive' liberals using it as a desperate bid to remain.
> 
> And despite those of us left leavers all along making our arguments very clear that we want to dismantle the racist, austerity imposing, neoliberal EU superstate, but being constantly slurred as 'thicko racists' and 'getting into bed with the right' by liberal remainers, it turns out precisely as we always foresaw. That it would be the remain liberals/liberal-left that will actually say and do anything to uphold the rotten institution.


Yep, utterly shameless.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 10, 2017)

paolo said:


> Do you think it will benefit Greece?



I've long thought that Greece itself has to fall out of the EU, not merely the single currency to have any hope of improving its situation again, and for the benefit of the working class. The tit-for-tat austerity and reform that's fucking ordinary people over in return for more bailouts the country simply cannot afford and finance is just prolonging the crisis (its making those invested in EU institutions rich in the process though).


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 10, 2017)

Away with a diplomat at the minute. Apparently the British negotiation team situation is far far worse than the mess we are reading about in the press. There is no real plan. Panic stations behind closed doors


----------



## 8115 (Sep 10, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Away with a diplomat at the minute. Apparently the British negotiation team situation is far far worse than the mess we are reading about in the press. There is no real plan. Panic stations behind closed doors


You astound me  But it's good to hear it confirmed.


----------



## xenon (Sep 10, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Away with a diplomat at the minute. Apparently the British negotiation team situation is far far worse than the mess we are reading about in the press. There is no real plan. Panic stations behind closed doors



Link?

Oh all the news. Farage is on LBC again. 6 fdays a fucking weak.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 10, 2017)

No link as is friend in the business


----------



## gosub (Sep 11, 2017)

paolo said:


> It's a very broad, and therefore incorrect assumption.
> 
> Brexit, as was proposed, made two assumptions:
> - There would be financial benefit (bus)
> ...



Thats where you are going wrong. Bus/Immigration wasn't aimed at Leave voters but the undecideds, we Leavers gave you our justifications sepreately..


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 11, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> No link as is friend in the business


And of course entirely neutral on the subject.


----------



## classicdish (Sep 11, 2017)

Raheem said:


> ...Greece probably stands to lose a few billion annually, all else being equal...


My rough calculation is that if Brexit means EU budgets shrink by c.10% and Greece currently nets c.5 bn euros then they'd only lose 0.5bn euros.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 11, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> And of course entirely neutral on the subject.



You know him as well ?


----------



## Raheem (Sep 11, 2017)

classicdish said:


> My rough calculation is that if Brexit means EU budgets shrink by c.10% and Greece currently nets c.5 bn euros then they'd only lose 0.5bn euros.



No wonder they're looking so smug, then. 

Just FWIW, my own figure would be around 0.8 billion, based on them getting a little over 6 billion annually and the UK's net contribution being 13%.


----------



## agricola (Sep 11, 2017)

Today's offering from the Maquis:

*Former Europe minister Caroline Flint to defy Labour whips on EU bill *


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2017)

is there a set limit as to how many times you can boy the three line whip off before its withdrawn or does this tend to be done on a case by case basis.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> is there a set limit as to how many times you can boy the three line whip off before its withdrawn or does this tend to be done on a case by case basis.


Depends if it's corbyn issuing it or defying it.


----------



## agricola (Sep 11, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> is there a set limit as to how many times you can boy the three line whip off before its withdrawn or does this tend to be done on a case by case basis.



Case by case, though I can't think of anyone who has lost it over a vote - or even a series of votes.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2017)

Yes the only real punishment is falling behind in the potential positions line - and people like Flint are already at the back of the que.


----------



## bemused (Sep 11, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> is there a set limit as to how many times you can boy the three line whip off before its withdrawn or does this tend to be done on a case by case basis.



I get the feeling he's just letting it fly rather than have a public fight about it.


----------



## gosub (Sep 11, 2017)

agricola said:


> Today's offering from the Maquis:    a grown up.
> 
> *Former Europe minister Caroline Flint to defy Labour whips on EU bill *


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 11, 2017)

I wonder if they are trying to get deselection back on the agenda - i.e some sort of trap.


----------



## gosub (Sep 11, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder if they are trying to get deselection back on the agenda - i.e some sort of trap.



deselected for trying to stop the UK becoming a dumping ground for every sub standard WTO and CE regulated good and preventing UK exports being frozen out of world markets
Even this "new Henry the Eighth powers" are remarkably similar to how the government conducted itself during EU membership. (I thinkthey will need revoking, but AFTER all the t's crossed and i's dotted on the transition)


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 11, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Echoing the same line Umunna did, behold the deeply held commitment to freedom of movement of these people.



I know someone who is Labour party member in Chuka constituency. ( He was Brexit but for a Lexit. Only person I know in Lambeth who was Brexit ). He has heard Chuka in this. Chuka is the line that they are pro immigration but the white working class won't have it. So the right of the party who want to stay in single market need to argue for single market with immigration controls. 

It's more than annoying that Chuka has this line. In Lambeth a lot of people opposed Brexit because they saw it as being about bringing in more immigration controls. As Afro Carribbean friend of mine said it was all about immigration in the end so he opposed Brexit. 

Now Chuka is arguing for more immigration controls. As well as Blair ,as  you say ,saying the same thing .it's infuriating.


----------



## 8115 (Sep 12, 2017)

MPs have voted to give the Brexit withdrawal Bill a second reading.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 12, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> You know him as well ?


Do I have to? Or are you going to argue that someone who works in such environment is/can be neutral? Maybe those all nice journalists and are neutral too.

What would we do without these wonderful civil servants, free from any partisan opinions or beliefs.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 12, 2017)

whatevs.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> I know someone who is Labour party member in Chuka constituency. ( He was Brexit but for a Lexit. Only person I know in Lambeth who was Brexit ). He has heard Chuka in this. Chuka is the line that they are pro immigration but the white working class won't have it. So the right of the party who want to stay in single market need to argue for single market with immigration controls.
> 
> It's more than annoying that Chuka has this line. In Lambeth a lot of people opposed Brexit because they saw it as being about bringing in more immigration controls. As Afro Carribbean friend of mine said it was all about immigration in the end so he opposed Brexit.
> 
> Now Chuka is arguing for more immigration controls. As well as Blair ,as  you say ,saying the same thing .it's infuriating.



Umunna would argue for feeding his granny to a crocodile if he thought there was a market for it.


----------



## roryer (Sep 17, 2017)

Great article on the Saker about Brexit, essentially saying we need to avoid distractions as Corbyn needs to keep the focus on anti-austerity, which is opposite of EU policy.

Am I still happy about my Brexit vote? | The Vineyard of the Saker

*Am I still happy about my Brexit vote?*
*
Jack J.*

*What would have happened if England/the UK had scraped a Remain victory1?*


Cameron would have been lauded as a hero by the Tories, EU top-brass and even high profile Labour and the lib-dem figures.  As would have Blair, Brown, May, and various other despicable people.  Instead Cameron has been ridiculed and castrated; forced to live the rest of his sorry existence outside of Westminster.
Johnson would able to play the gallant loser and ‘whip-up the Tory base’. Instead he’s been exposed as a liar and positioned, by May, to take the blame for a lot of the Brexit mess.  (He could still be Mayor of London right now, but thankfully we have a Labour Mayor, albeit a Blairite.)
Farage and UKIP would still be plastered all over the MSM. I’m still disgusted about how much coverage they get, but thankfully they have been shattered as an electoral force. (For the record I consider them a ploy by the establishment to dress up a load of Tories as anti-establishment and thus a) poach disenfranchised Labour voters (many of whom would never vote ‘Tory’) and b) make the Tory party look ‘less racist’.)
All the dirty lies that the Leave campaign told wouldn’t have come out. £350 million/week etc.
The chicken coup wouldn’t have happened; whilst the Blairite scum would have surely got the knives out for Corbyn at some point, they could not have made more of a mess of it than they did. (Arrgh!)
The Scottish Parliament would not have passed a bill for an INDE II. (Something that may well have been an important factor in May’s decision to hold an election.)
The Tories would be about to hold a leadership contest, one which May and Johnson could compete in, which would include a large dose of hypothetical Brexit, and which would look reasonably respectable. Instead the one they tried holding was so excruciatingly embarrassing they called it off and crowned May, thus demonstrating to everyone their utter contempt for democracy and debate, as well as their lack of individuals with talent/competency.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2017)

Don't 1 & 7 contradict each other?


----------



## Yossarian (Sep 17, 2017)

belboid said:


> Don't 1 & 7 contradict each other?



They'd be holding a leadership contest because after his election win in 2015, Cameron said he would step down before 2020. A promise he fulfilled a little sooner than he expected...


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2017)

Yossarian said:


> They'd be holding a leadership contest because after his election win in 2015, Cameron said he would step down before 2020. A promise he fulfilled a little sooner than he expected...


They wouldn't be holding it now, though.  Especially if he had been lauded as a hero after the win (although, had the win been very close, he wouldn't have been lauded as a hero at all)


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2017)

roryer said:


> Great article on the Saker about Brexit, essentially saying we need to avoid distractions as Corbyn needs to keep the focus on anti-austerity, which is opposite of EU policy.
> 
> Am I still happy about my Brexit vote? | The Vineyard of the Saker
> 
> ...


Pity the castration metaphorical rather than actual


----------



## Ming (Sep 18, 2017)

Wow. They're repeating disproven old lies now.

Gove tweets support for Boris Johnson in £350m-a-week row


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 18, 2017)

.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 18, 2017)

.


----------



## bemused (Sep 18, 2017)

roryer said:


> Instead Cameron has been ridiculed and castrated; forced to live the rest of his sorry existence outside of Westminster.



I'm sure Dave gutted not being PM anymore. I'm sure the millions he's raking in aren't soothing the pain.


----------



## bemused (Sep 18, 2017)

Ming said:


> Wow. They're repeating disproven old lies now.
> 
> Gove tweets support for Boris Johnson in £350m-a-week row



Should that be 'Gove twit[...]'?


----------



## Riklet (Sep 20, 2017)

Interesting, despite being from Banks' odious Westmonster channel.

Skinner wouldnt give em a penny. Is this a realistic possibility for a future Labour government? What might the consequences actually be?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 22, 2017)

wot no Florence chat?

Glad urban is as bored of Brexit as I am


----------



## Poi E (Sep 23, 2017)

She didn't say much apart from the UK not leaving the EU. Sort of.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 23, 2017)

J Ed said:


> wot no Florence chat?
> 
> Glad urban is as bored of Brexit as I am



most tedious massive political upheaval ever.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Sep 23, 2017)

The sole purpose of her plan is to save her own political skin, but it's not actually a bad idea so I suppose doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is better than doing the wrong thing.
plus one massive bonus she seems to  haved pissed  off Farage  and no-one will ever convince me that's wrong.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 23, 2017)

If I want to see people who live in fantasy worlds spaffing about making speeches and wasting time while deadlines approach, in a way that will end up making my life worse, I can go to work.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Sep 23, 2017)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If I want to see people who live in fantasy worlds spaffing about making speeches and wasting time while deadlines approach, in a way that will end up making my life worse, I can go to work.


See you there first thing Monday morning then


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 23, 2017)

J Ed said:


> wot no Florence chat?
> 
> Glad urban is as bored of Brexit as I am



There's no point in following any of it because whatever plan the tories come up with they'll have changed it completely by next week.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 23, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> There's no point in following any of it because whatever plan the tories come up with they'll have changed it completely by next week.


This also sounds like my work.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 23, 2017)

Not sure that Florence did anything beyond muddy already muddied waters and as SpookyFrank said, it can all change in an instant. The main purpose was probably for tories, flunkies and the press to have an autumn jolly somewhere nice on expenses.


----------



## gosub (Sep 24, 2017)




----------



## BemusedbyLife (Sep 24, 2017)

"The enemy of my enemy can also be a twat as well"
That's brilliant I'm starting to like this guy


----------



## Ming (Sep 25, 2017)

Riklet said:


> Interesting, despite being from Banks' odious Westmonster channel.
> 
> Skinner wouldnt give em a penny. Is this a realistic possibility for a future Labour government? What might the consequences actually be?



The Beast! Great fella. Love that he keeps getting chucked out the Chamber for essentially telling the truth in public. 'Half the Tories are crooks!!!'....'WITHDRAW THAT STATEMENT!!!'...'OK, HALF THE TORIES AREN'T CROOKS!!!!'. Now that's a real legend.
And this gem...


----------



## Ming (Sep 25, 2017)

Still think the Tories' deliberate choice of hard Brexit is setting us up for their next attack on the welfare state. Disaster capitalism. 'Well we'll have to tighten our belts...'.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Sep 26, 2017)

If the Tories want a hard brexit then best they start recruiting & training 10000 new customs & excise staff. Handing out £multibillion contracts to build IT systems & buying wharehouses all over the country for new customs sheds right now.


----------



## Ming (Sep 26, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> If the Tories want a hard brexit then best they start recruiting & training 10000 new customs & excise staff. Handing out £multibillion contracts to build IT systems & buying wharehouses all over the country for new customs sheds right now.


New contracts and projects for the boys. And the more they deliberately fuck it up the more they can extract from the public purse. Don't assume this isn't deliberate. It's all about transferring money from public to private hands. That's all it is from the Tories point of view.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Sep 26, 2017)

Will anybody vote for that at next election though ? Labour did far better than expected last GE mostly I think because people just don't like the Tories anymore. If they get it right it might be '97 all over again at next GE.

Point I was making though that if Tories want a hard brexit then they need to state that right now. Don't do any more talking to EU & start preparing right now or it will be chaos on brexit day.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Sep 26, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Will anybody vote for that at next election though ? Labour did far better than expected last GE mostly I think because people just don't like the Tories anymore. If they get it right it might be '97 all over again at next GE.
> 
> Point I was making though that if Tories want a hard brexit then they need to state that right now. Don't do any more talking to EU & start preparing right now or it will be chaos on brexit day.


I think there are a lot of people in the Toty Party and their core supporters who want a hard Brexit, the problem is that the people whose interests the Tory Party serves such as the financial sector and big business (and who pay the bills)  want the very softest of Brexits and preferably none at all.
They're caught in a struggle between those who realise this shit is going to cost them billions and those who are rolling in it while singing "Rule Britannia"
I have no sympathy for any of them, they've brought it on themselves. But  the shit will end up on everyone not just those responsible for this mess.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 26, 2017)

No one with any sense in the City or Industry wants hard brexit - it is financial self harm that no one wants. Yes, BBC breakfast telly will always be able to find some poltroon from Shittingworth in Upper Arseholeshire that owns a sheet metal business who is a tub thumping hard brexiteer, but he isn't where the power lies. Capital will adapt, that what it does wellm, it does not however want to deal with shocks and uncertainty. There will not be a hard brexit*

* will deny this in 2 years time when proved wrong obvs


----------



## teqniq (Sep 26, 2017)




----------



## doodlelogic (Sep 26, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> If the Tories want a hard brexit then best they start recruiting & training 10000 new customs & excise staff. Handing out £multibillion contracts to build IT systems & buying wharehouses all over the country for new customs sheds right now.


Unless they go for the Singapore model - no customs duties. 0.4% of total taxes raised.


----------



## Poi E (Sep 26, 2017)

Still leaves VAT on imports. No government will give that up, so checks will still be required.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 26, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Will anybody vote for that at next election though ? Labour did far better than expected last GE mostly I think because people just don't like the Tories anymore. If they get it right it might be '97 all over again at next GE.
> 
> Point I was making though that if Tories want a hard brexit then they need to state that right now. Don't do any more talking to EU & start preparing right now or it will be chaos on brexit day.


I don’t think they know what they want or indeed what they’re doing. I keep thinking “surely this must be some sort of cunning plan, maybe they are planning to leave Labour with a mess because they think they will lose the next election” but they were just as bad before the previous one when everybody said Labour had no chance. At this rate I could actually see a new referendum on whether to go ahead on the basis of the final non-deal being acceptable (and I don’t think that’s the grand plan either).


----------



## Supine (Sep 26, 2017)

doodlelogic said:


> Unless they go for the Singapore model - no customs duties. 0.4% of total taxes raised.



Feckin expensive to live in Singapore


----------



## AnandLeo (Dec 10, 2017)

Brexit negotiations are at last showing signs of progressing as one could only hope for. Interesting or rather challenging how some of hurdles and objections crop up, and sorted, such as Northern Ireland border, and now the other non-EU member countries who have trade agreements with EU are lobbying against special agreements with Britain better than what they have agreed. Now we can hope that the process will roll on with disagreements, challenges and settlements.


----------



## gosub (Dec 10, 2017)

AnandLeo said:


> Brexit negotiations are at last showing signs of progressing as one could only hope for. Interesting or rather challenging how some of hurdles and objections crop up, and sorted, such as Northern Ireland border, and now the other non-EU member countries who have trade agreements with EU are lobbying against special agreements with Britain better than what they have agreed. Now we can hope that the process will roll on with disagreements, challenges and settlements.



I'd like to share your optimism, but having had a chance to peruse things I'm having my doubts.  
'Non-EU member countries who have trade agreements with EU are lobbying against special agreements with Britain' - I'd guess at that Switzerland, Norway... alongside the parallel complaints of US, Australia et al on how their existing pies will be redivided - don't mind that, it opens up the next layer of the onion Norway say, holding the EU to account to a set of rules its had a chance of help shape, great more learning curve. Trouble is, it on the face of it better than the Swiss managed so Government can poison the well dissing EFTA as their fudge is better..
BUT their fudge is going to fall apart ...'full alignment' clearly means different things to different people, and while the ambiguity keeps things going at the moment. Even if as I understand it, its limited only to : transport, agriculture, education, health, environment and tourism; they are big enough sectors that the ambiguity  will be tested...AND THIS IS WHY IT WILL FALL apart..who will resolve the ambiguity?....the ECJ.   ...That wouldn't be the case going down the EFTA route.



If we actually have to do the danc e


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2018)

Excellent stuff


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2018)




----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2018)




----------



## gosub (May 23, 2018)

gosub said:


> For me, Italy is the one to watch


Italy awaits president's decision on new prime minister


Should Europe be scared of Italy's populists?


----------



## DexterTCN (May 23, 2018)

UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister



> Asked if MPs would be “agreeing the financial settlement before there is a legal treaty on the future relationship”, the minister – eventually – replied: “Yes”





> It was also revealed that HMRC had acknowledged in writing that the technology needed for new customs checks would not be ready for three years


Can anyone see where this is going?  /toilet flushing gif


----------



## gosub (May 23, 2018)

DexterTCN said:


> UK legally bound to pay £39bn Brexit 'divorce bill' before EU trade deal agreed, admits minister
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone see where this is going?  /toilet flushing gif


So HMRC will want to stall for 3 years so they can nearly keep May's borderless border nonsense... How long since Dobbin lasgnas?


----------



## DexterTCN (May 23, 2018)

gosub said:


> So HMRC will want to stall for 3 years so they can nearly keep May's borderless border nonsense... How long since Dobbin lasgnas?


No.  HMRC is preparing for a no deal brexit, the 'technology' is a fantasy.


----------



## gosub (May 23, 2018)

DexterTCN said:


> No.  HMRC is preparing for a no deal brexit, the 'technology' is a fantasy.


The technology isn't a fantasy... It just isn't all you need from a border... And they were doing it anyway as part of the EU Custom alignment... If anything it's late as per usual with tech changes


----------



## DexterTCN (May 23, 2018)

gosub said:


> The technology isn't a fantasy... It just isn't all you need from a border... And they were doing it anyway as part of the EU Custom alignment... If anything it's late as per usual with tech changes


Europe (including Ireland) has not agreed to, nor shown any signs of agreeing to, this non-existent technology.  The GFA guarantees no border.   This cannot be resolved, and certainly not in the timescale available if it could be.


----------



## gosub (May 23, 2018)

DexterTCN said:


> Europe (including Ireland) has not agreed to, nor shown any signs of agreeing to, this non-existent technology.  The GFA guarantees no border.   This cannot be resolved, and certainly not in the timescale available if it could be.


It's CHEIF STE and it's 3 years late already... And they've been working on it since 2010.  What constitutes a border is going to end up being decided by the UN but May has made a few dull moves OR does she really think, after the horsemeat scandal, if the paperwork is OK its OK? Actually after Windrush I think she probably does


----------



## DexterTCN (May 23, 2018)

gosub said:


> It's CHEIF STE and it's 3 years late already... And they've been working on it since 2010.  What constitutes a border is going to end up being decided by the UN but May has made a few dull moves OR does she really think, after the horsemeat scandal, if the paperwork is OK its OK? Actually after Windrush I think she probably does


It's software, right?   Based on the debt management systems used by the revenue?

How does software, or as you call it technology, solve the border problem?

Sasaferrato can vouch for the efficacy of revenue software.


----------



## Supine (May 23, 2018)

DexterTCN said:


> How does software, or as you call it technology, solve the border problem?



I hear they plan on building a border from all those cds that used to be given away free on magazine covers.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 23, 2018)

DexterTCN said:


> It's software, right?   Based on the debt management systems used by the revenue?
> 
> How does software, or as you call it technology, solve the border problem?
> 
> Sasaferrato can vouch for the efficacy of revenue software.



Synonym - A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as happy, joyful, elated.

HMRC software - Teats on a bull.

HMRC software could be grim. Automated processes, mandatory to use, that didn't work. The Tax Credits renewal software was/is a bastard of a thing. Those of us that had been Tax Credits trained did the renewal manually, in a third of the time of the software.

Again in Tax Credits, seemingly random requirements in the renewal system. For example, partner's income could not be blank, even if there were no earnings, 1p had to be entered.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 23, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Synonym - A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as happy, joyful, elated.
> 
> HMRC software - Teats on a bull.
> 
> ...


Tax credits software is, of course, idms, which is the basis of the proposed customs software which will replace a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.   

Software that will replace a border.   Tax credit and debt management software.

It's one of those 'you really had to be there' things.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 23, 2018)

DexterTCN said:


> Tax credits software is, of course, idms, which is the basis of the proposed customs software which will replace a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
> 
> Software that will replace a border.   Tax credit and debt management software.
> 
> It's one of those 'you really had to be there' things.



To be perfectly frank, I'm fucking glad I'm not.


----------



## gosub (May 23, 2018)

You are fucking kidding me so this is bolt on to the as yet unproven CHEIF upgrade in 3 years from a standing start? Phht 





DexterTCN said:


> Tax credits software is, of course, idms, which is the basis of the proposed customs software which will replace a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
> 
> Software that will replace a border.   Tax credit and debt management software.
> 
> It's one of those 'you really had to be there' things.


----------



## hash tag (May 24, 2018)

I am starting to understand why we voted leave now. It was to get rid of people like this?
Next up? 
Former mayor has UK citizenship denied

Perhaps she should come to Wandsworth http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/article/14506/third_advice_event_for_eu_residents?utm_source=Wandsworth%406&utm_campaign=5a8f0825dc-Wandsworth%406&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fbd64a91fa-5a8f0825dc-92187114


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2018)

DexterTCN said:


> Europe (including Ireland) has not agreed to, nor shown any signs of agreeing to, this non-existent technology.  The GFA guarantees no border.   This cannot be resolved, and certainly not in the timescale available if it could be.


No it doesn't. Nor could it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 24, 2018)

DexterTCN said:


> Europe (including Ireland) has not agreed to, nor shown any signs of agreeing to, this non-existent technology.  The GFA guarantees no border.   This cannot be resolved, and certainly not in the timescale available if it could be.


Many republicans would say that far from the GFA guaranteeing no border the GFA reinforces the border as sinn fein now govern for the british state in the six counties and have accepted the unionist veto


----------



## Teaboy (May 25, 2018)

Yeah the GFA enshrined in law a border.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2018)

The gfa is one of those subjects people seem to feel free to just bullshit about safe that most people know little about it. Dexter just tried it, that philosophical did it earlier. I wonder what they have in common?


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 25, 2018)

What happened to the other thread?


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2018)

Philosophical


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 25, 2018)

> You can dance around the fundamental issues all you want but in the end ‘reality cannot be fooled’.



Don't like this bloke, but it's a good summing up of where we are:

On the referendum #25: a letter to Tory MPs & donors on the Brexit shambles


----------



## DexterTCN (May 25, 2018)

UK will build own satellite system if frozen out of EU's Galileo – chancellor

Seems believable.


----------



## Teaboy (May 25, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> The gfa is one of those subjects people seem to feel free to just bullshit about safe that most people know little about it.



Like this chancer.  Minister has not read Belfast Agreement

But how dare anyone question her because she was far too busy on far more important stuff.


----------



## bemused (May 25, 2018)

DexterTCN said:


> UK will build own satellite system if frozen out of EU's Galileo – chancellor
> 
> Seems believable.



Seems an odd thing to block, I assume the UK will be sharing all sorts of sensitive information and systems after Brexit.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 25, 2018)

bemused said:


> Seems an odd thing to block, I assume the UK will be sharing all sorts of sensitive information and systems after Brexit.


brexit means brexit


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 25, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Like this chancer.  Minister has not read Belfast Agreement
> 
> But how dare anyone question her because she was far too busy on far more important stuff.



It's only 20 years old, how could she possibly find the time to read it?


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 25, 2018)

Sharing sensitive stuff with the likes of India and China- that will work out well I am sure


----------



## Teaboy (May 25, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's only 20 years old, how could she possibly find the time to read it?



She was having children.  You wouldn't understand, no one could.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 25, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> She was having children.  You wouldn't understand, no one could.



I like the way she couldn't bring herself to say that she was in labour


----------



## philosophical (May 25, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> The gfa is one of those subjects people seem to feel free to just bullshit about safe that most people know little about it. Dexter just tried it, that philosophical did it earlier. I wonder what they have in common?


No bullshit from me. I think you are mistaken, maybe you have specific examples to back up what you say, do you?


----------



## gosub (May 25, 2018)

bemused said:


> Seems an odd thing to block, I assume the UK will be sharing all sorts of sensitive information and systems after Brexit.


Hopefully in a Boeing Chinnock type way...


----------

