Brexit #2

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: Raggytash
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 11:44 AM

Thank you Mossback.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 12:08 PM

Here You Go

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

As DMcG mentioned earlier Arron Banks is to face a criminal investigation into the, possibly illegal, funding of the leave campaign.

When this was mentioned some time ago by myself and others we were told we were talking nonsense.

The investigation by the National Crime Agency may well throw up some very uncomfortable disclosures for the leave side here.

Could someone please link to the article in todays Guardian.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 09:17 AM

RUSSIAN BREXIT !!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 18 - 09:07 AM

To stop this thread falling off the end, some recent Brexit events have been:

* Raab implying the deal will be agreed by 21st November and having to backtrack.

* Aaron Banks facing an investigation by the National Crime Agency into potential illegalities in the Leave campaign funding.

* The (belated) awareness by the UK fishing sector that EU countries may yet get access to UK waters.

* The home affairs committee being decidedly unimpressed by the Home Office preparations for Brexit.


P

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 11:55 AM

The party which seem to be doing well in recent German elections are the Greens. And thats good for the whole planet.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 11:30 AM

Brexit is due 29 March, 2019, with a transitional period to 31 December, 2020
Angela Merkel has said this will be her final term as German chancellor, confirming that she will not run in 2021.

However she is likely haemorrhaging power big time between now and then.
Good for UK bad for EU. How sad!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 10:36 AM

I don't think that who is Chancellor of Germany has much impact on the UK, brexit or no brexit. Unless its an AFD headbanger of course.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Oct 18 - 09:48 AM

Merkel is stepping down after 2021. Surely this will impact the whole Brexit discussion?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Oct 18 - 09:01 AM

Argentina eyes Falklands again

Ok, it is just a politician talking. But even so, I wonder how many anticipated this could kick off again?

At least we have many more cruise ships we could commandeer this days. (though, I am not sure how many are owned by UK companies any more, so maybe not.)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Oct 18 - 11:51 AM

Very important reminder for The Brexit Bunch...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 18 - 09:35 AM

Typical of Brexit pre-planning, the board set up to examine to problems of the Irish Border are now about to start work !!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 18 - 09:24 AM

That's good news. 52 jobs....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Oct 18 - 09:11 AM

Boeing, the world’s largest plane maker, has opened its first European manufacturing site in Sheffield.

The company will make components for 737 and 767 passenger jets at the new UK operation, with plans to produce thousands of parts each month which will be shipped to the US for assembly.

Brought by guido

https://order-order.com/2018/10/25/sheffield-soars-ahead-boeings-first-european-factory/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 11:14 AM

The Queen wouldn't come into this as, as far as I am aware, UK nationals do not need a visa to travel in the UK.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 11:01 AM

"You seem not to realise that it is not just 'my' government, but the government of the whole UK "
It is riven with so many divisions it can no longer claim to be representative on anybody - it certainly has never adhered to any of the promises that got them elected in the first place
Parliamentary politics has only ever paid lip-service to democracy, but the present situation is based on rabble-rousing against minorities - Enoch's sick dream brought to life
Populism has replaced democracy and is in the process of breeding neo-fascist regimes

"but so did Assad."
And Hitler, of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 10:38 AM

That is, I do not recognise the May regime as the legitimate government of the UK. They may have won an election, but so did Assad.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 10:36 AM

Nigel, I do not recognise them as my government.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 10:14 AM

From: SPB-Cooperator
24 Oct 18 - 08:34 AM
Not acceptable, new arrangements must be in place to ensure a seamless transition. The rest of the world has had more than a year and a half to prepare for this, and if they lack the intellegence to realise that the UK government are too incompetent to secure new measures, then the heads of state should be sacked on the spot.
Yet another comment based on ignorance of the conditions of Article 50. The UK is unable to 'secure new measures' while we remain a part of the EU. (as good a reason as any for leaving)
Also, why are you calling for The Queen to be sacked? She, and only she, is our 'head of state'.

Jim: You tend not to abuse, rather, you refuse to comment on the awkward bits on the grounds that it would incriminate your government - very familiar to those of us who are hooked on courtroom dramas
You seem not to realise that it is not just 'my' government, but the government of the whole UK (so the government of of lot of those arguing against Brexit as well).

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 09:41 AM

" then the heads of state should be sacked on the spot."
Might well be a bit academic after tonight
Jim Carroll

CONFIDENCE VOTE IN MAY COULD BE CLOSE
UK ‘drawing up plans' to charter ships for emergency food and medicines
DENIS STAUNTON London Editor
Theresa May will address the 1922 Committee of Conservative backbenchers this evening amid rumours that the number of MPs seeking a confidence vote in her leadership is close to the threshold of 48.
Her appearance before the committee follows what Downing Street described as an “impassioned” cabinet discussion of her Brexit strategy yesterday.
The prime minister’s official spokesman brushed off an RTÉ report that the EU is prepared to offer Britain a legally binding, UK-wide customs backstop.
“Take any of it with a pinch of salt. The PM set out our position yesterday in relation to the backstop. That remains the case today. The prospect of Northern Ireland being placed in a different customs arrangement to the rest of the UK is unacceptable. The House of Commons has voted to pass a law to that effect,” he said.
According to the report, the withdrawal agreement would still include a Northern Ireland-only backstop, and the UK-wide version would be in a separate treaty to be concluded after Britain leaves the EU next March. The withdrawal agreement would, however, contain a specific commitment to a UK-wide customs arrangement by way of a legal article.

FOUR STEPS
In the House of Commons on Monday, Mrs May outlined four steps to resolve the issue of the backstop, including a demand that the UK-wide customs backstop should be legally binding so there would be no need for a Northern Ireland-only version. Downing Street said later that any Northern Ireland-only backstop was unacceptable.
During yesterday’s cabinet meeting, ministers are report¬ed to have warned that Britain must not remain in a tempo¬rary customs arrangement with the EU for an extended period and that any backstop must not be indefinite.
The cabinet is to receive weekly updates on preparations for a no-deal Brexit and the Financial Times reports that the government is drawing up plans to charter ships to bring in emergency supplies of food and medicines.
The government fears that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, new customs controls in France could create a bottle¬neck on the Dover-Calais route.
“Whatever we do at our end, the French could cause chaos if they carry out checks at their end,” one government official told the Financial Times.
“Dover-Calais would be the obvious pinch point. The French would say they were only applying the rules.”
Edward Leigh last night became the 50th Conservative MP to sign a StandUp4Brexit pledge to oppose Mrs May’s Chequers proposal and demand a hard Brexit.
The signatories, who include Boris Johnson, David Davis and Jacob Rees-Mogg, also oppose the backstop, claiming it cuts Northern Ireland off from the rest of the UK.
1922 Committee chairman Graham Brady indicated yesterday that he has not yet received letters from 48 MPs calling for a confidence vote in Mrs May. If he does, he must call such a vote, which is conducted by secret ballot and the prime minister’s adversaries will need 159 votes to topple her.
If she survives the vote, she cannot be challenged again for a further 12 months.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 09:20 AM

As of 9 October 2018, British citizens had visa-free or visa on arrival access to 186 countries and territories, ranking the British passport 5th in terms of travel freedom (tied with Austrian, Dutch, Luxembourgish, Norwegian, Portuguese and the United States passports) according to the Henley Passport Index.

Travel within the Scgengen area is another matter entirely as is visa free for EU citizens.
Eu citizens freedom of travel outside the EU is dependent on citizenship

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 08:34 AM

Not acceptable, new arrangements must be in place to ensure a seamless transition. The rest of the world has had more than a year and a half to prepare for this, and if they lack the intellegence to realise that the UK government are too incompetent to secure new measures, then the heads of state should be sacked on the spot.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 08:18 AM

We can't force them, no. I lsuppose the theory is that they will continue because it is in our mutual interest. But of course, it will require a negotiation with each of the countries to do that, which will all take time...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 24 Oct 18 - 08:05 AM

Out of interest......

For all the countries in the world we benefit from being part of visa-waiver artangments with the EU, how are we going to FORCE those countries to extend/continue these arrangements if/when the UK leaves the EU?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Oct 18 - 01:50 PM

A most unusual comment section from the Daily Mail.

Who knows, they may eventually acknowledge their part in this little saga.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 23 Oct 18 - 06:54 AM

i'm just off to skipton for a night out - probably discussing brexit in the sound bar and later in the sheep. with green woolly hat - dave the G?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 18 - 03:26 AM

"I immediately thought "Reader, I didn't marry him.""
Wan't he groping around blindly and bumping into things when she finally did?
Nice analogy !
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 18 - 06:31 PM

Er, but nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Remember?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Oct 18 - 05:20 PM

I immediately thought "Reader, I didn't marry him."

That's only about a 0.0001% change to the book...

(Percentage made up: no point anyone working out the actual percentage!)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 18 - 04:32 PM

Only 95% sorted? Humans and chimpanzees share 98.8 of their DNA.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 22 Oct 18 - 04:16 PM

apparently the government have agreed 95% of the final agreement with the EU. with the irish border being the 5% obvs.

hurrah- a triumph for the diplomats.

but does anyone know what that 95% entails? would the EU negotiators agree with this figure. for example i assume the status of us working on the continent and vice-versa be all settled but i don't feel reassured at all. do we still enjoy assurance from ECHR?
it's all a puzzle eh?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 18 - 04:35 AM

It's quite amusing in a dark sort of way to hear that the man who devised the bus lie now sez that leaving the EU would be a mistake. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 18 - 03:57 AM

"Once your argument is shot down in flames, rely on berating the opposition!"
The problem with that Nigel is the worst offender(s) offer no argument other than their original opinion which they refuse to discuss in terms other thna contempt for those who disagree with it - serially
You tend not to abuse, rather, you refuse to comment on the awkward bits on the grounds that it would incriminate your government - very familiar to those of us who are hooked on courtroom dramas
TRY THIS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Oct 18 - 02:09 AM

Also, do not forget that the latest promises are based on borrowing or additional taxes - ie you, dear taxpayer, pay more - whereas the bus message was based on the taxpayer paying no more, or possibly even less as the 'Brexit divided'would be covering it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 08:26 PM

Several things, Nigel. First, as you know (unless you're a babe-in-arms), government promises are worth diddly squat. To give you just one example of a recent Tory promise, immigration was promised to go down to "the tens of thousands." When this did not even begin to happen (on Theresa May's watch), the promise was miraculously downgraded to "an aspiration." Second, £350 million was a lie, as it did not represent anything like our net contribution to the EU, which was far less than £350 million a week. A barefaced lie, Nigel. Third, and this is just a prediction of course, once we leave the EU there'll be little or no extra money for the NHS because the country won't be able to afford it. Watch that space. Fourth, your Tories don't give a flying shite about the NHS in any case. So which bit of my argument is "shot down in flames," Nigel dearest?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 21 Oct 18 - 07:42 PM

Once your argument is shot down in flames, rely on berating the opposition!

BINGO!