Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]


BS: Brexit & other UK political topics

SPB-Cooperator 01 Sep 20 - 06:43 AM
DMcG 29 Aug 20 - 02:49 PM
Nigel Parsons 29 Aug 20 - 02:04 PM
Stilly River Sage 29 Aug 20 - 09:17 AM
DMcG 29 Aug 20 - 07:01 AM
The Sandman 27 Aug 20 - 12:33 PM
Dave the Gnome 27 Aug 20 - 03:28 AM
DMcG 27 Aug 20 - 03:19 AM
The Sandman 27 Aug 20 - 03:01 AM
Dave the Gnome 27 Aug 20 - 02:24 AM
Nigel Parsons 26 Aug 20 - 04:33 PM
DMcG 26 Aug 20 - 03:42 PM
DMcG 26 Aug 20 - 03:10 PM
Dave the Gnome 26 Aug 20 - 05:51 AM
Nigel Parsons 26 Aug 20 - 04:53 AM
Nigel Parsons 26 Aug 20 - 04:45 AM
Backwoodsman 26 Aug 20 - 04:33 AM
DMcG 26 Aug 20 - 03:58 AM
Dave the Gnome 26 Aug 20 - 03:46 AM
Dave the Gnome 26 Aug 20 - 02:34 AM
DMcG 25 Aug 20 - 06:11 PM
Backwoodsman 25 Aug 20 - 04:53 PM
Dave the Gnome 25 Aug 20 - 09:01 AM
Nigel Parsons 25 Aug 20 - 06:15 AM
DMcG 25 Aug 20 - 06:07 AM
Nigel Parsons 25 Aug 20 - 05:52 AM
DMcG 24 Aug 20 - 11:29 AM
Rain Dog 24 Aug 20 - 11:07 AM
DMcG 24 Aug 20 - 10:02 AM
Nigel Parsons 24 Aug 20 - 09:48 AM
DMcG 24 Aug 20 - 07:48 AM
Nigel Parsons 24 Aug 20 - 07:15 AM
Nigel Parsons 24 Aug 20 - 07:09 AM
DMcG 24 Aug 20 - 06:39 AM
DMcG 24 Aug 20 - 03:17 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Aug 20 - 02:54 AM
Jos 23 Aug 20 - 04:18 PM
DMcG 23 Aug 20 - 10:44 AM
DMcG 23 Aug 20 - 07:05 AM
Backwoodsman 23 Aug 20 - 06:40 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Aug 20 - 05:57 AM
Mr Red 23 Aug 20 - 04:57 AM
DMcG 23 Aug 20 - 03:23 AM
The Sandman 23 Aug 20 - 03:16 AM
SPB-Cooperator 22 Aug 20 - 06:54 PM
Nigel Parsons 22 Aug 20 - 05:01 PM
SPB-Cooperator 22 Aug 20 - 04:47 PM
Nigel Parsons 22 Aug 20 - 02:56 PM
Nigel Parsons 22 Aug 20 - 02:51 PM
DMcG 22 Aug 20 - 02:07 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum Child
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 01 Sep 20 - 06:43 AM

The government's instruction do not provide clear instruction on how to gauatnatee freedom of movement, which only pathetic racists and wannabe neo-****s are against.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Aug 20 - 02:49 PM

If anyone else agrees it is indecipherable I will happily rewrite it. I accept the sentence is quite long and elaborate, but it is hardly of the complexity of Ulysses.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Aug 20 - 02:04 PM

That the government apparently released changed guidance for schools on Friday which is the last normal working day before they need to be in place this coming week is exactly the sort of 'cliff edge' impact I mean: it is impossible to act on anything in this guidance that differs from what went before - as it presumably does or there would be no point in issuing it.

And some people claim that the government's instructions are indecipherable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Aug 20 - 09:17 AM

The old history stuff is completely understood, Dick. No need to patronize. It's the modern stuff that is an incomprehensible tangle. But then, who are we to criticize until we get the current occupant out of the White House? We see your clown and raise you a sociopath.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Aug 20 - 07:01 AM

I talked above about a 'cliff edge' being less about a direct economic one but much more a consequence of a regulatory cliff edge where what needs to be done is not known until just before it needs to be implemented.

That the government apparently released changed guidance for schools on Friday which is the last normal working day before they need to be in place this coming week is exactly the sort of 'cliff edge' impact I mean: it is impossible to act on anything in this guidance that differs from what went before - as it presumably does or there would be no point in issuing it.

I think that is a good indicator that is what we might look forward to at the end of December.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Aug 20 - 12:33 PM

imo johnson is a political opportunist who plays the populist card. Mussolini did this and ended upside down hanging ignominously with his mistress.
for our USA friends. Mussolini [IL DUCE] was an italian fascist Right wing xenophobe


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Aug 20 - 03:28 AM

The whole brexit debacle has been a fiasco from the start and I cannot see it being any different at the end. Not that it will end in December. The effects will be with us forever. The one lesson that we can come away with is that this is what you get by pandering to right wing xenophobes. I only hope that future governments will take heed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Aug 20 - 03:19 AM

You may well be right, Sandman, through it is also possible the party 'persuades' Johnson to quit. The more I think abut it, though, the more complications I see and so I am very loathe to make any predictions on the matter.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Aug 20 - 03:01 AM

I reckon johnson is preparing to use ill health as an excuse to run away from responsiblities regarding Brexit in JAN FEB 2021.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Aug 20 - 02:24 AM

Everyone but you understood my point, Nigel. The Russian involvement in British politics was the point behind the real original post mentioning St Petersberg. Nitpicking at its very best. Well done, Nigel, you win. I shall not take the thread any further off track.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 04:33 PM

Nigel, accepted that the report did not include Brexit does not mean that there was no Russian involvement. The government hushed it up so, going back to my original point, it does seem that there was Russian involvement in the Brexit debacle. Your attempt at derailing the issue is blatant and will not work.

I'm not trying to derail the discussion, your original claim was that Russian involvement in Brexit was in the report. Which you now seem to accept it was not.

Accepting that the statement was in error is a much better way of getting the discussion to move on than trying to justify your original claim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 03:42 PM

Scrap that, sorry. The document is labelled July, not June. So we cannot be certain whether the government saw the document and then announced the end of transition, or the other way around.   If it is the other way round, though, it would seem rather lackadaisical to make an announcement and then only get a presentation on the consequences sometime over the next two weeks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 03:10 PM

I agree the risks due to the near simultaneous end of transition and the virus could not have been foretold specifically in 2016. There was, of course, a more generalised concern about a pandemic, but obviously at a much lower probability.

On the other hand the presentation is dated June and it was the 13th of July that Gove formally announced the transition would end in January 2021. So this government consciously accepted all the risks that have been outlined. A risk is not a certainty, of course, but the increased risk is a deliberate choice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 05:51 AM

Nigel, accepted that the report did not include Brexit does not mean that there was no Russian involvement. The government hushed it up so, going back to my original point, it does seem that there was Russian involvement in the Brexit debacle. Your attempt at derailing the issue is blatant and will not work.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 04:53 AM

Dave the Gnome:
Nigel. Going back to a point you made earlier. The report on Russian intervention did not include the Brexit referendum because it was told not to investigate that. So it doesn't mention Russian involvement in that not because there was none but because the government was embarrassed by it.
My post was a direct response to your claim that the report had detailed involement in Brexit.
"Have you not seen the report on Russian involvement in British politics, including the Brexit debacle, Nigel? Your illustrious leader hushed it up before the election but it is out now".
Which you now appear to accept that it didn't.

However, something else about the headline you reference, "Russian intervention didn't sway the Brexit referendum – our rightwing press did", has been bothering me.

Are you really saying that the right wing press swaying the referendum is any better than the Russians doing it?

No, I am not making that claim, I was just emphasising that the left wing press had already accepted that the report did not include Brexit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 04:45 AM

From DMcG:
For those who have not heard about it, worst case planning document was leaked to The Sun. Although other news sources have reported on this, it seems appropriate to link to The Sun's article.
Yes, it is a worst case planning document. But some of the key risks- no trade deal and a second wave, for example - are not unlikely.


Immediately followed by Dave the Gnome:
I wonder why these worse cases were not explained in 2016.

Possibly because they weren't understood at the time, particularly the risk of a second wave of Coronavirus when we hadn't had a first wave. To what extent may that second wave exacerbate any possible problems at borders, how could that have been foretold?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 04:33 AM

”Given we are still trying to negotiate a trade agreement, the regularity cliff edge is looking inevitable to me. Others may, of course, disagree.”

And, without doubt, they will disagree - having voted for Christmas, the turkeys are very unlikely to want to face the fact that, in the near future, their silly, easily-led heads will be separated from their Union-Flag-bedecked bodies (metaphorically speaking, of course!).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 03:58 AM

I think many of them were, but were dismissed as 'Project Fear'. The main difference this time is that it is the current government considering them, which is of course very much a "Leave" government.

How likely they are will vary. A shortage of some foodstuffs in December seems very likely to me, as we all remember the Great Pasta Shortage at the start of the virus outbreak. I can see that being repeated with a much wider set of foods fairly easily. Power cuts seem less likely to me.

===

I have been thinking a little about the fabled cliff edge, which has not been mentioned for some time. As with so much to do with Brexit, it is remarkably ill defined, so let me tell you how I think of it.

Let's start with the concept of a 'transition'. In the ideal world, we start with a known situation (for example set of rules and regulations) and a destination (with its spelled out set of rules and regulations.) During the transition, firms have, say, two years to implement the IT systems, carry out staff training and whatever so that at the end of the transition period they are ready to go under the new system.   The less time they have to do this - one year rather than two, say - the more difficult it is.   We are currently in the position that with four months to go, very little is known about the final state. Consequently, it is extremely difficult for anyone to have the appropriate IT, training and other preparation.

It turns out that whatever we have called it, we have not had a 'transition period', as few if any firms has had a chance to transition. We have simply had an extended negotiation period and called it a 'transition period'.

This to me is 'the cliff edge': it is not primarily economic. It is the need for firms to adapt to a substantially different way of working with little or no notice. An announcement on 31 December of the new rules that people have to follow from 1st Jan, or even with three months holiday from one side but not the other or whatever, is a cliff edge.

Trying to cope with such changes will almost certainly have significant economic effects, but they are consequences of the regulatory cliff edge.

Given we are still trying to negotiate a trade agreement, the regularity cliff edge is looking inevitable to me. Others may, of course, disagree.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 03:46 AM

Nigel. Going back to a point you made earlier. The report on Russian intervention did not include the Brexit referendum because it was told not to investigate that. So it doesn't mention Russian involvement in that not because there was none but because the government was embarrassed by it.

Howver, something else about the headline you reerence, "Russian intervention didn't sway the Brexit referendum – our rightwing press did", has been bothering me.

Are you really saying that the right wing press swaying the referendum is any better than the Russians doing it? The right wing press who are owned, in the main, by a dysfunctional Australian billionaire, a tax-exile Lord and a Russian family with close links to the KGB. These people have their own agenda and you can be sure that the welfare of the British people is not on it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 02:34 AM

I wonder why these worse cases were not explained in 2016.

Well, not really.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 06:11 PM

For those who have not heard about it, worst case planning document was leaked to The Sun. Although other news sources have reported on this, it seems appropriate to link to The Sun's article.

Yes, it is a worst case planning document. But some.of the key risks- no trade deal and a second wave, for example - are not unlikely.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 04:53 PM

A very interesting piece by Brendan Donnelly Here. I wonder how the Leave-Brigade will dress up the impending shit-show to make it appear as a resounding success?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 09:01 AM

From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 06:43 AM

I am happy to have facts quoted and sources credited, Nigel. Let us hope semantics do not enter into the argument when meanings are obvious either.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 06:15 AM

A cost is certainly not the same thing as a hardship, and to try to conflate the two in order to get away with a misquote is misleading. Everyone has 'costs' every day, that does not mean that they are suffering from 'hardships'.
However, as you say, Let's move on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 06:07 AM

We are trying to avoid arguments on this generation of the many threads, so I will simply say that if a cost is not a hardship, you are in a very fortunate position.

Let's move on!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 05:52 AM

DMcG
I could dig out the exact quotation, which was much longer ago than I thought (Jan 19!) but I am more interested whether you now think, whoever is responsible, that costs to the UK are (almost) inevitable. The Jan 19 post said you thought they may arise but would be worth it to achieve Brexit.
I hate to suggest that you haven't actually quoted me because I didn't insist, as claimed: that costs only 'may' occur. If I've found the same quote as you (27 Jan 2019) it says: "And I don't think I said "There will be some short term hardship". I think I accepted that there 'may' be, but that it was worth it to get out."   The 'possibility' of 'hardships' is different to the 'need' for 'costs'.

Also in the news: The EU and US have signed a trade deal (without needing to accept thes2 pesky chlorinated chickens!)
So much for the numerous arguments, made many times on these threads (by remainers) that such a deal would never be accepted by the US.

My full quote, in context, is here: Here


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 11:29 AM

Yes, Rain Dog, they do now. That doesn't mean they did before.

Of course, as soon as you admit costs, it is reasonable to expect some sort of cost benefit analysis, preferably with more depth than 'perhaps it will work out in the end.'


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Rain Dog
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 11:07 AM

Well I would think that most people would agree that there will be extra cost involved in the immediate future. Of course we will have to wait and see if the cost of leaving works out cheaper down the line.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 10:02 AM

I could dig out the exact quotation, which was much longer ago than I thought (Jan 19!) but I am more interested whether you now think, whoever is responsible, that costs to the UK are (almost) inevitable. The Jan 19 post said you thought they may arise but would be worth it to achieve Brexit.

Also in the news: The EU and US have signed a trade deal (without needing to accept thes2 pesky chlorinated chickens!)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 09:48 AM

It may be that I was responding to something more specific.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 07:48 AM

And yes, I still accept that there will be costs to the UK

Last time we discussed this, Nigel, you objected to a use of 'will' and insisted on a 'may'. Has that changed?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 07:15 AM

Dave the Gnome
Have you not seen the report on Russian involvement in British politics, including the Brexit debacle, Nigel? Your illustrious leader hushed it up before the election but it is out now.

Yes, I saw reports on "Russian involvement in British politics". I did not see that it included (even in the Guardian) involvement in Brexit. In fact there were complaints that involvement in Brexit was excluded from the remit of the reports.
Perhaps you saw different reports.

Guardian:Russian intervention didn't sway the Brexit referendum – our rightwing press did


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 07:09 AM

DMcG:
It seems to me, Nigel, that you are trying too hard to dismiss this issue. There is only one reason why the UK tried to negotiate such a deal and that is that they see it as better than any of the alternatives. And that applies while the negotiations are ongoing.
I am not dismissing the issue. But it is not as yet something which is 'set in stone'. Despite the initial post with an uncredited quote:
EU negotiators have rejected a British request for a migration pact that would allow the government to return asylum seekers to other European countries.
When the Brexit transition period expires on 31 December, the government will lose the right to transfer refugees and migrants to the EU country in which they arrived, a cornerstone of the European asylum system known as the Dublin regulation."


"The EU negotiators have dismissed". Yes, they've also dismissed the UK keeping its own (internationally agreed) fishing rights, and the UK have dismissed EU claims to UK fishing rights. This is all still under negotiation. To choose one particular 'dismissal' by EU as final is a poor starting point for any discussion.

And yes, I still accept that there will be costs to the UK of leaving the EU, but there would also be costs in remaining. I still believe the vote on leaving had the correct result.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 06:39 AM

Interesting remark in "The New European" from Alistair Campbell - I know, ad hominem away! - but I think it it true. It has been a long time since I heard this myself:


As for Brexit, even its high priests have given up singing its praises. I cannot for the life of me remember the last time I heard anyone saying how great it was going to be for the country. It has taken on the feel of a trip to the dentist, or filling in your tax form.

Just got to be done.


Your experiences may differ, of course.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 03:17 AM

I'd being staying at a Premier Inn after visiting my children. My wife called out out that we need to leave for breakfast now to get to them, so "I'll just finish this post before we dash off"...


I do make far fewer typos when I use my laptop, but the phone is a bit of a disaster for them, I am afraid. And I rarely think my posts have enough merit to justify the sort of attention a thesis, job or application or report would get.


Meanwhile, back to Brexit. This comment from the EU that the negotiations are going backwards seems to have stirred some Brexiteers I read elsewhere into action.   They interpret it as saying what the EU wanted is not being achieved but the UK is holding firm and the EU is gradually realising it. Seems unlikely to me: the 'going backwards' phrase to me would be saying that things that had been agreed were not longer being agreed to. To what extent that is talking about things in the WA that the UK is trying to get out of, as opposed to things agreed in principle at the start of this batch of negotiations but no longer accepted is hard to tell. Certainly, there is plenty of the former.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 02:54 AM

I spotted it, Dave :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Jos
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 04:18 PM

I'm getting the hang of these typos now - just look at the letters to the right or left on the keyboard. It gets confusing though when the 'words' include some correct letters. You just need to guess which ones.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 10:44 AM

Wow, what was that word supposed to be? 'should', believe it or not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 07:05 AM

I agree. I will not push the Dublin Agreement issues furthwr unless something changes. Those who wish have set out their views and that ahiykd be enough.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 06:40 AM

Good post, Dave.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 05:57 AM

St Petersburg is a non sequitur

Have you not seen the report on Russian involvement in British politics, including the Brexit debacle, Nigel? Your illustrious leader hushed it up before the election but it is out now.

Dick, up to now no one is insulting anyone. Apart from you. It is not necessary, it is counter productive and it gets threads closed. We can now, hopefully, have a serious discussion where people disagree but respect each other's views and have threads without the rancour that has plagued earlier attempts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Mr Red
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 04:57 AM

At the time you mentioned 'brinkmanship' St Petersburg (sp) hadn't been mentioned

We can all nitpick when we favour parts not the whole. Which, let's face it, is why we have Brexshit.

And external parties pushing propaganda via social media.
Who has the most to gain from a divided Europe?
Who has the effrontery to poison people in other countries?
Manipulating Fakebook barely registers on the poison scale.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 03:23 AM

It seems to me, Nigel, that you are trying too hard to dismiss this issue. There is only one reason why the UK tried to negotiate such a deal and that is that they see it as better than any of the alternatives. And that applies while the negotiations are ongoing.

You have been prepared in the past to accept their may be short term damage to the UK because of Brexit but that in the long term that is an acceptable cost to get the benefits*. I don't see why you can't say the same here: it is less than we wanted but in the long term we can absorb any disadvantages. Instead you seem to be suggesting it is not significant.

* With no estimate of the likelihood of that 'may' or hint of what 'short term' might be in practice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: The Sandman
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 03:16 AM

Why? round and round in circles yet another discussion that gets nowhere, entrenched opinions, what a waste of time, bring back Jim, his style of insult was not as imaginative as MGM, but it provided a relief from the ennui of the fellow with his fishing rod .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 06:54 PM

also it is well documented that English is more widely spoken around (the world than other European languages. I hope you are not too) tight fisted to pay for French/German/Greek etc tuition for every person who may need to seek asylum in the future?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 05:01 PM

also it is well documented that English is more widley spoken around the tight fisted to pay for French/German/Greek etc tuition for every person who may need to seek asylum in the future?
Any chance we can have that comment in English?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 04:47 PM

"So maybe they are still refugees, fleeing an oppressive regime. Do we really want to remain part of a Union with such a regime?"

I need to learn bow to do the italics.....

SO maybe if the racist little ****s in the UK were to make a serious and equal commitment to helping with refugee resettlement, countries that are doing far more than us like France and Germany would be under far less economic pressure.

also it is well documented that English is more widley spoken around the tight fisted to pay for French/German/Greek etc tuition for every person who may need to seek asylum in the future?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 02:56 PM

Mr Red:
Where in the UK might St Petersberg be?

they was deliberately vague but there is no doubt it refers to the politically oriented even if there is no nationality stated or (& I can be the authority on that point) ............ implied.
It has been inferred though. And other than my words, I am not in control of that.


At the time you mentioned 'brinkmanship' St Petersburg (sp) hadn't been mentioned. Only those involved in the negotiations, UK & EU, can employ brinkmanship. St Petersburg is a non sequitur


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 02:51 PM

Which is of course why the UK government sought to have something similar to the Dublin Agreement accepted by the EU.
And which is why, while negotiations are ongoing, we do not know what will be needed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 02:07 PM

we can repatriate failed asylum seekers. Which means after their case has been reviewed. This is unlike the Dublin Agreement under which we could send them to France immediately, I believe. We cannot return a successful asylum seeker who is recognised as a refugee, but again a number would have been returned to France and the decision taken there, leaving France to host the refugee.

So while we can indeed send failed asylum seekers home, the number remaining in the UK is likely to be higher if we do not get agreement in place. Which is of course why the UK government sought to have something similar to the Dublin Agreement accepted by the EU.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 16 June 7:41 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 2022 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.