Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 11:44 AM

Thank you Mossback.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 04:42 AM

Early days yet. The electoral commission do not know their own laws and have given flawed advice.

Electoral Commission suffers High Court defeat over Brexit expenses ...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/.../electoral-commission-suffers-high-court-defeat-over-brexi...
Sep 15, 2018 - The High Court agreed with the Electoral Commission finding in July, when the campaign group was fined, that Vote Leave had broken the law, but said the watchdog had misinterpreted the rules in advice it gave to the Leave campaign. ... Either the Electoral Commission is wrong or the High Court is wrong.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 05:03 AM

It came up on Question Time last night whether Brexit should be delayed until we know the result of this. People will have strong opinions both ways, and I see no benefit in exploring that. But one panellist claimed part of the consideration was that this was not the official leave campaign.


That seems a nonsensical argument to me: it implies only the official campaigns influenced people's opinions, which is not the case. It would only needed to have swayed a few percentage to affect the result so I don't see being "unofficial" has any bearing on the significance.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 05:17 AM

Hilarious that those that argue that leave and remain lied through their teeth therefore the brexit vote should be rerun, and then have the gall to suggest Mr Banks few million from alleged iffy sources single handedly swung the vote. Yet again argue this should make the brexit vote invalid.
Do you boys see a rather fundamental flaw in your argument?

Lord Hains claimed he was too busy to keep track of where his money was coming from,in breach of electoral law.
This is a defence that a billionaire could use with far more conviction.

Just luv to see a consistency in your arguments? I must obtain some more popcorn!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 05:21 AM

Thanks DMcG.
If we are not to accept that only the official campaigns swayed the votes in the referendum, then Aaron Banks' £2m should be compared with the £9m spent by the government in trying to put the Remain side.

Do you think that will happen?
If not, is that possibly because the electoral commission is biased?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 05:54 AM

Iains: I make no comment either way whether this should affect the negotiations or timings of Brexit. I merely point out that I do not think whether it was an official body or not is not important to any such considerations.

Nigel: I am not very interested in what the total spending each side was. I am interested that all such spending is lawful. You, Iains and others have argued about the importance of sticking to the law on another thread: for consistency you need to apply the same discipline here.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 05:57 AM

Does it really not bother you that it was possibly RUSSIAN MONEY that brought about this decision Nigel
Funny thing, patriotism !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 06:00 AM

Tied myself up in 'not's there! :)

For clarity, I meant whether the money was spend by an official body or an unofficial one makes no difference.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 06:32 AM

The government has a very different role in this to the various lobby groups on the leave and remain sides. Having foolishly allowed the referendum, it was perfectly order, as the executive, to let the electorate know what their position was. After all, in theory they knew better than anyone else* what the implications of the referendum decision were likely to be. I can't see any good reason for bringing in the rather modest (in my opinion) sum of money they spent on letting us know their position, and that expenditure should not be set alongside the remain campaign's expenditure. The government is not a lobby group.

*Words chosen advisedly. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 07:24 AM

The other side of the coin from some months ago:
Priti Patel refers Remain campaign to electoral watchdog amid claims it may have breached EU referendum spending rules


https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/referendum-spending-is-a-murky-world-when-it-should-be-crystal-clear/

The entire situation is confused and Parliament and the courts need to clarify just what is allowable and what is not.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 08:12 AM

"The entire situation is confused and Parliament and the courts need to clarify just what is allowable and what is not."
In veiw of the entire cock-up, the only way forward if to put the whole question to a second referendum
No Decision of this importance can be moved forward on the basis if iffy expenses (whoever's) and possible foreign interference
It has been a shambles (fully admitted) from start to finish and it would be crazy to go ahead, knowing what we know
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 08:19 AM

True, Priti Patel made a complaint about spending on the remain campaign but it was rejected as lacking evidence. But I don't think Priti suggested the breach might be due to illegal donations. I think she just claimed overspend.

The rules on what is permitted could benefit from more clarity but there is a definate "legal" and a definite "illegal" area, as well as a grey "We are not sure" area. The alleged foreign donations are in the "illegal" set.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 08:32 AM

Amazing, isn't it, that thoroughly discredited politicians such as Cameron and Priti Patel always manage to creep their way back in. Apologies for the aside.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Nov 18 - 10:27 AM

I suspect Cameron may find obtaining a safe seat poses an insurmountable challenge(Ihope!)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Nov 18 - 05:17 AM

Meanwhile, the Aaron Banks saga continues.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 05 Nov 18 - 11:03 AM

Meanwhile the electoral commission has a few problems.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/the-electoral-commission-is-not-fit-for-its-crucial-purpose.html

They were recently trounced in the courts
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/electoral-commission-suffers-high-court-defeat-over-brexit-expenses-advice-jhnx7hpf6

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 05:27 AM

https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/1041974/pound-euro-exchange-rate-brexit-news-deal-best

Exchange rate the best for months.
Contrary to popular belief the sky is not falling.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 05:44 AM

But still far worse than it was before the Union-Flag Boxers Brigade decided to vote to 'Take are cuntry back'.

A few facts for BrexShiteers' education.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 07:18 AM

How do you know they wear boxers? Any other unhealthy fixations you would care to share with us?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 07:22 AM

Instead of trying to be a barrack-room, clever-shit, smart-arse, Professor, why not comment on the facts?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 07:51 AM

and the opening post was?

OK Can we now have a discussion about Brexit without personal attacks, without name calling and one that sticks to the topic, without deviation or picking up on spelling or perceptions of the use of words

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 04:54 PM

You tell us. By the way, sentences end with full stops.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 05:14 PM

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 28 Nov 17 - 04:20 PM

Having your grammar/spelling/punctuation corrected is very annoying, but the beauty of it is that the person correcting you is invariably guilty of much more of said inelegance than you are. It's generally very easy to pick them to pieces on account of their own peccadillos, always far more numerous than yours, and the temptation to move in for the kill is too great to resist. Very naughty, but I'm only human

As Martin said to his man..............Who's the fool now?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 06:34 PM

I'm not going to bicker with the likes of you, but I would remind you that you serially take the piss out of Jim's posts apropos of his typos. You are the biter bit, old boy. I don't criticise people, ever, who make mistakes, unless they puff out their chests in order to criticise others' peccadillos, as you do. No further comment from me on this. Nighty night.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 07:07 PM

It must be pointed out shaw that it is a silly little game started by you and can easily be demonstrated. All your petty nitpickings are archived. Here is my response some while back to your pontifications
From: Iains - PM
Date: 08 Oct 17 - 03:40 AM

If you do not wish to contribute to the thread, why are you here?
You are trying hard to bring others into the thread simply to stir things up. That is not very clever, is it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 05:32 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 07 Nov 18 - 04:54 PM

You tell us. By the way, sentences end with full stops.

Oh well. That wipes out the use of the question mark, and exclamation mark, at a stroke.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 06:14 AM

Stop engaging with this feller Steve - it's how he works when he runs out of the limited responses he has at his disposal
Brexit is further up Shit Street than it has ever been and the behaviour of those attempting to drive it though by refusing to take it back to the people is indefensible
Why waste time on a serial abuser rather than hit them with the facts of the situation (pause while awaiting further racist abuse about bog-trotting)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 06:17 AM

BREXIT CRISIS EXPLAINED
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 06:50 AM

Re 5 Nov comments on the Electoral Commission (The UK body set up to ensure compliance with electoral law): I think it is worth pointing out that the Times article to be found by following the link shows that the courts upheld fines against the Leave campaign on the basis of its significant breach of the spending rules in relation to a Canadian digital marketing company. It is common ground that at one point the Commission seems to have got it wrong, but in its favour goes the point that it put its mistake right before the court decision, which supported the Commission's eventual position, and which found additional reason for the illegality of the financial arrangements/declarations. The Commission expressed happiness at the fact that it now had the guidance of the court on the matter.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Nov 18 - 01:00 PM

I have finally got round to those purported briefing notes outlining a schedule for the PM to 'sell' her deal to Parliament and us. The government has denied this document has any official status, but even so, this is an interesting entry:


20th - Theme is Delivering for the Whole of the UK - PM to visit the north and or Scotland and the Commons will debate in business motions the date of the Meaningful Vote.

PM will be back in the house to vote. The Cabinet Office publishes its explainer of the deal and what it means for the public, comparing it to No Deal, but not to our current deal.


Whether this is official or not, the time will come when the government must persuade us and Paliament about the merits of the proposal. I wonder if, like this document, they will "compar[e] it to No Deal, but not to our current deal". Maybe comparing it to what we would have if we just stayed as we are is far too painful?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 11:05 AM

I have just opened a letter confirming I am an Irish citizen. I suppose I have to practice all the stereotypes now.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 11:09 AM

"I have just opened a letter confirming I am an Irish citizen."
Stand by for the "bog dweller" jibes, very popular with one of our insecuros
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 11:35 AM

The final Brexit will be neither soft or hard
but rather wet.
The wet Brexit will be independent pricing of agricultural goods crossing the channel.
Rip offs and savings will abound.

-Nostrildamus-

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 01:18 PM

Arlene Foster has said the DUP won't support May's "betrayal" plans for Brexit - (that-s a billion of the taxpayers money down the Swanee) and a cabinet minister resigns over Brexit
Oh Calamity!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 03:03 PM

In his defence Jim he has said that the UK public should have another say in this debacle.

Fair play to himm.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 18 - 03:17 PM

"Fair play to him."
Not criticising him Steve - I only caught the tail of the story
Just pointing out that the Brexit team is like the blind men who went to see the elephant - they only understand the little bit they can grasp themselves but none of them have the faintest idea what the whole animal looks like
Feckin self-destructive madness
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 05:43 AM

he has said that the UK public should have another say in this debacle.

Does that mean we go for a third vote in the unlikely event remain comes out on top?

After all, whatever arguments justify a second vote apply equally to a third.

I think by debacle you mean betrayal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 05:55 AM


Does that mean we go for a third vote in the unlikely event remain comes out on top?

After all, whatever arguments justify a second vote apply equally to a third

I don't think that follows, though no doubt whoever lost would continue to campaign for one. The 2016 vote was whether to leave or not. The proposed vote is on the shape of leaving, with the ability for people to say nothing being offered is good enough.   If they decide it is not good enough, we should not do it, but certainly you are free to argue that better is possible, and once you have come up with something to argue for a vote on it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 06:05 AM

DMcG Essentially you propose another vote to frustrate brexit, no matter how you wish to dress it up.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 06:06 AM

DMcG Essentially you propose another vote to frustrate brexit, no matter how you wish to dress it up

Essentially I propose a vote to ensure any Brexit that happens is acceptable to the people.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 06:07 AM

I should perhaps have phrased it as 'the particular version of Brexit that happens'

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 06:27 AM

And if unacceptable to the people, you wish to frustrate brexit, as I stated.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 06:33 AM

There are Brexit options with an NI relationship that the DUP can back, and options that they will vehemently oppose.

There are Brexit options with a customs union that the UK can end unilaterally, and options where it can only end via a joint agreement.

There are options more like Canada, and options more like Norway

The second vote is not whether Brexit should be frustrated, but whether the particular version the government ends up with is one the people wish.

Now certainly my first preference would be to call the whole thing off. But my second preference is for a Brexit that does as little damage to the UK as possible.   So for example I would prefer just about any 'deal' Brexit to a 'no-deal' Brexit. That second preference is not in any way about frustrating Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 07:04 AM

"DMcG Essentially you propose another vote to frustrate brexit,"
Knowing what we now no, the people have a right to vote again on the issue
There is enough evidence to suggest that those who voted for would no longer do so ad those who didn't vote would come out and vote - even the Conservative party are totally divided on the issue
What on earth is wrong with giving them that right - you apparently believe that doing so would change the vote
Another referendum would be a damn sight cheaper that another bung to the DUP
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 07:19 AM

What on earth is wrong with giving them that right - you apparently believe that doing so would change the vote

Problems understanding the written word again?
My words:Does that mean we go for a third vote in the unlikely event remain comes out on top?

Too busy stalking to read properly perhaps?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 08:09 AM

"you apparently believe that doing so would change the vote"
I have no idea whether it would - if you see nothing wrong with giving people the vote why not say so instead of just hurling abuse
You really ought to control your abusive behaviour, we already know how the extreme right behaves without your reminding us
Grow up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 09:07 AM

oh dear!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 10:11 AM

I know exactly what you mean, and so does everybody else
Time to take the giant step into adulthood -
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 10:57 AM

Yet again gentlemen can I ask that you keep to the subject matter.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Nov 18 - 11:12 AM

I don't think that follows, though no doubt whoever lost would continue to campaign for one. The 2016 vote was whether to leave or not. The proposed vote is on the shape of leaving, with the ability for people to say nothing being offered is good enough.   If they decide it is not good enough, we should not do it, but certainly you are free to argue that better is possible, and once you have come up with something to argue for a vote on it.

It seems that those who have consistently supported Remain believe that the alternative, should an agreement not be reached, is to remain in the EU.
Those who supported Brexit feel that if no 'good deal' (or acceptable deal) is offered then the alternative is that we leave without a deal.

Effectively, the two views above come down to something which was already decided in 2016. We are leaving the EU.