BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 03 Jun 19 - 03:22 PM

Dave the gnome obviously cannot differentiate between dyson the man and his tax payments and Dyson the company and its liability (£1.5 billion over the last 5 years.
It is also necessary to bear in mind corporate entities are subject to regular audit.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Jun 19 - 03:34 PM

Yeah a real patriot is your man Dyson.

Took European money to move his operations to Malaysia. You can bet he won't be paying UK tax on future profits from that.

That in my book is akin to the 'treachery' that you are so fond of accusing remainers and even members of the government of.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 03 Jun 19 - 03:35 PM

Don't you dare bring up the war Big Al, my father was fighting in the jungles of Burma long after the D Day lot were home with their families. And he would be thoroughly ashamed of what the country is turning into now. Its not what he fought for. Whilst he was still alive, I was traveling to and working with colleagues from both Germany and Japan. And he thought that was great.

Interesting that you should mention bombing Libya after Lockerbie, when it almost certainly wasn't the Libyans who did it. The USA stuffed us there.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Jun 19 - 05:57 PM

Mine too, when I was having records released in Germany. He was very proud. And my Dad fought through Caen, Vieux Bocage, the Low Countries, the ctossing of the Rhine in a Sherman tank. Quite a lot of his comrades didn't come home to their families.

But he thought the EEC was bollocks and he was right. So I say what I say with quite as much authority as you do.

Gadaffi had been giving succour to the terrorists which plagued and attacked our society for years. Not almost certainly. Definitely.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jun 19 - 03:01 AM

And all this is to do with the EU because..?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Jun 19 - 07:20 AM

Brexit a complete clusterfuck? “Look over there - Jeremy Corbyn {{insert chosen Righty-invention here}}.

The standard diversion-tactic of the Righty nut-jobs.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jun 19 - 10:53 AM

Now both the ambassador and Mr Trump have suggested the NHS is to be considered as part if the trade deal. Matt Hancock has said no, and we await the view from most other potential MPs.

I don't support anyone here in favour of a trade deal wants to declare a red line: "no trade deal if it includes the NHS in any way"?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jun 19 - 10:55 AM

Other potential PMs, of course, not MPs

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jun 19 - 10:59 AM

Even by my standards, there was a lot of eccentric typing errors in that previous-but-one post. I hope people can glean what I meant without my needing to post a corrected version, but let me know if you want me to.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jun 19 - 12:29 PM

I worked it out but I'm sure Nigel will be along shortly ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Jun 19 - 07:08 AM

Oh dear. oh dear.

Reported that Farage has been called to the European Parliament "to explain in person his failure to declare lavish expenses funded by Arron Banks, an insurance tycoon under investigation by the UK’s National Crime Agency."

These expenses may include " £13,000-a-month Chelsea home in the year of the Brexit referendum, visits to the US and a chauffeur-driven car."

Something else that slipped under my radar was a that "Farage, an MEP for two decades, was docked half his salary last year after being found to have misspent EU funds intended to staff his office."

Well fancy that Farage guilty of misspending EU funds.

Link

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Jun 19 - 07:25 AM

Makes Labour MP, Fiona Onasanya’s offence of fibbing over a speeding ticket, that our Resident Right-Wing Extremist Blabber-Gob kept trying to turn into some kind of major international organised crime, pale into utter insignificance, dunnit?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 05 Jun 19 - 01:11 PM

No point in making any comment. Anything contrary to the lefty narrative is promptly deleted.

Feel free to continue with your delusions, you only fool yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Jun 19 - 02:29 PM

Basically Iains cannot, with any honestly, defend his "champions".

Farage, Johnson, Yaxley-Lennon Dyson, Banks et al.

At least Iains has the wit not to pursue their cause further.









Or does he!?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 02:09 AM

It's been quite a long time now, and no comments on the idea that the NHS should be part of a trade deal with the NHS (and yes, I know Trump said two completely different things an hour apart. SO he could switch back to his original statement equally easily.)

Of course, the NHS is not a single thing: it would be possible to have say the mechanisms of NHS drug purchasing - which the US hate - part of the deal but not something else.

So imagine the US decides to play hard-ball. Their stance is (some aspects of the) NHS is part of the deal, or there is no deal at all.

Forget what any of the politicians say. What do our resident Brexiteers say?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 02:29 AM

Popcorn anyone...??

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 03:22 AM

Popcorn ? What a good idea !
To have while awaiting the results of the Peterborough By-election where the Brexit party is expected to give their opposition a fine drubbing. Truly a popcorn moment !

I cannot wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 04:41 AM

Voters might do better to listen to these people. than let themselves be misled by the multi-millionaire man-frog and his sycophantic followers.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 05:29 AM

I'm only quoting the full post to make clear what I'm replying to:
It's been quite a long time now, and no comments on the idea that the NHS should be part of a trade deal with the NHS (and yes, I know Trump said two completely different things an hour apart. SO he could switch back to his original statement equally easily.)
Of course, the NHS is not a single thing: it would be possible to have say the mechanisms of NHS drug purchasing - which the US hate - part of the deal but not something else.
So imagine the US decides to play hard-ball. Their stance is (some aspects of the) NHS is part of the deal, or there is no deal at all.
Forget what any of the politicians say. What do our resident Brexiteers say?

The fact that some aspect of the NHS is on the table as part of the deal does not mean that anything involving the NHS will be part of a final deal.

On the table seems to be a widely misunderstood idea.

Brexit negotiations need to keep "No Deal" on the table. It doesn't mean it will be part of the final decision, but if it is not kept on the table, then it is not available as a fall back position if all we are offered is a poor deal.
Similarly, keeping NHS on the table does not mean that we are surrendering the option not to make it part of any deal.

So having the NHS on the table is not the same as saying it will be part of any trade deal. It is just keeping all options open during the opening of any negotiations.

Hopefully any negotiations would not be handled by someone with the lack of business acumen of Theresa May, who seemed to think that you open negotiations by making all possible concessions, and then expect to still have something to negotiate with.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 06:52 AM

I agree with all of that Nigel but it does not address the key question. If the US insist they do get access the aspects of the NHS or they no deal, do we say ok or do we no deal?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 07:56 AM

Hmmm Peterborough By-Election .........

Me: Mr Greene what is your policy on Welfare
Mr Greene: Er .. I haven't got one
Me: Mr Greene what is your policy on Housing
Mr Greene: Er .. I haven't got one
Me: Mr Greene what is your policy on the NHS
Me Greene: Er .. yet to be formulated .. I haven't got one
Me: Mr Green what is your policy on Education
Mr Greene: Er .. we have got one yet
Me: Mr Greene what is your policy on Defence
Mr Greene: Er ... what... er I haven't got one I'm fairly new to this game

I could go on.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 09:01 AM

I agree with all of that Nigel but it does not address the key question. If the US insist they do get access the aspects of the NHS or they no deal, do we say ok or do we no deal?
That would have to depend on what aspects of the NHS they were asking for access to, and what we would be getting in return. As a general question, with no specifics, it makes little or no sense.
We need (once Brexit is achieved) an opening stance for any negotiations.
Two positions which would be equally ridiculous are:
We will give you full access to all aspects of NHS even if we get nothing in return.
and:
No matter what you offer us we will never allow you access to any aspects of the NHS under any circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 09:17 AM

We know what they are asking for Nigel. They have published a negotiating document. So that side of the equation is well known.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 09:23 AM

US negotiating objectives

Read the section on pharmaceuticals, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 10:08 AM

"No matter what you offer us we will never allow you access to any aspects of the NHS under any circumstances."

That is not at all a ridiculous position. It should be our only position. If they don't like it they can do one. Unlike with the EU, in this case they really do need us more than we need them. In fact I fail to see why we need them at all, what do they produce which we need?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 10:48 AM

”Read the section on pharmaceuticals, for example.”

I’m sure the section on ‘State-Owned and Controlled Enterprises’ didn’t escape your attention either, DMcG.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 10:50 AM

”In fact I fail to see why we need them at all, what do they produce which we need?”

WMDs and their delivery & control systems?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 11:33 AM

I read the section on pharmaceuticals, and on SOEs (State owned enterprises).
I also read the introduction, which seems to be in line with my comments above:
On October 16, 2018, the Trump Administration notified Congress that the President intends to negotiate a trade agreement with the United Kingdom (UK) once it leaves the European Union (EU), in accordance with section 105(a)(l)(A) of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act). Our specific objectives for this negotiation will comply with the specific objectives set forth by Congress in section 102 of the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act.
I realise that American English may differ from British English, but to me the section I've put in bold deals with 'objectives' (a 'wish list') this does not mean that failure to reach one or more 'objective' will mean no deal, just not one which meet all of the objectives.
The paperwork is even headed "Summary of specific negotiating objectives" (same implied meaning). It's just a shame our government didn't think to issue something similar before starting to negotiate with Brussels.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 12:53 PM

The whole paper is negotiating objectives, Nigel. We know that means that these are what will be sought but it accepts they may not all be achieved.

All the commentary I have read on this says it is very much an 'America First' stance. Which is exactly what you would expect: of course the US is putting together the objectives it thinks are in its interests - why would it not, in any circumstances, never mind under an 'America First' administration. So there are lots of phrases that must be read at a deeper level than just the obvious meaning:

Eliminate practices that unfairly decrease U.S. market access opportunities or distort agricultural markets to the detriment of the United States, including:
? Non-tariff barriers that discriminate against U.S. agricultural goods; and
? Restrictive rules in the administration of tariff rate quotas.

Those are things like making the UK accept GM foods, whether it wishes to or not, and no labelling that lets the consumer know. This is stressed elsewhere

Establish new and enforceable rules to eliminate unjustified trade restrictions or unjustified commercial requirements (including unjustified labeling) that affect new technologies.



It is obvious that in principle we can decide not to accept these terms, but once again, the question boils down to are you prepared to "no deal" to maintain your position? So far, the impression I get, Nigel, is that in principle you are prepared to trade anything if the price is right,

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 01:49 PM

The Americans know full well that the UK will be absolutely desperate for a trade agreement, and they will seek to take advantage of that. Nigel may have confidence that the government’s negotiators will resist, for instance, the inclusion of some or all of our healthcare provision, or drastic increases in the cost of drugs from the US. There are many of us though who don’t share that confidence, given the number of MPs who have vested interests in private healthcare and drug manufacturing businesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jun 19 - 02:41 PM

Makes you wonder why Aaron Banks, who made his millions in insurance, is bankrolling Farage and whatever his party of the month is. Surely he is not thinking there may be an opening in health insurance once the NHS is up for grabs. Nah, surely not ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 12:50 AM

"Popcorn ? What a good idea !
To have while awaiting the results of the Peterborough By-election where the Brexit party is expected to give their opposition a fine drubbing. Truly a popcorn moment !"


Bwahaha! And how nice of the Brexit spokesman to blame houses full of Pakistanis for Labour's victory...

Leopards don't change their spots, do they?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 02:02 AM

Thank heavens people are beginning to see sense. In a city where brexit polled over 60% in the referendum, the electorate seem to have given the nasty party the boot. Of course the nicotine stained toad will try to spin it as a great victory but it seems that less than half of those who voted leave are still committed to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 02:06 AM

And how nice of the Brexit spokesman to blame houses full of Pakistanis for Labour's victory

Although Farage would have loved to win, I don't think he would be too bothered by a close result. He will, however, be furious with whoever said that. A key part of his strategy is that all the nasty racists have been left behind in UKIP and the Brexit Party is pure as the proverbial snow. Messages that show that is not the case are far more damaging than merely losing a single contest.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 02:10 AM

He sneaked out of a back door minutes before the result was announced.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 02:47 AM

Our Resident Right-Wing-Extremist-Gammon ex-Squaddie Fruitcake will be along in a minute to tell us it was a ‘magnificent result’ for the ‘valiant Mr. Farage’. I’d have loved to see him doing his square-bashing on basic training, I can hear it now - “But sergeant-major, it’s not me who’s out of step, it’s everyone else!”.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 02:51 AM

Very close run results.
Was it a Labour "we support brexit candididate"?
or a Labour "we do not support brexit candidate"?

The acceptance speech gave no clarity

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 03:00 AM

Your popcorn has turned into sour grapes.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 03:29 AM

BNot at all. Peterborough has always been a swing constituency. To use your own arguments the winner has less of a mandate that the brexiteers. The referendum result was won by a larger percentage than Labour's tenuous grasp on this seat.˜ 3.7/3.3 if my maths is correct.
Mathermagic tis a wonderful thing!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 03:48 AM

Unfortunately, individually-elected MPs don't have "mandates"... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 04:08 AM

A mandate is the authority granted by a constituency to act as its representative.
The authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election
early 16th century: from Latin mandatum ‘something commanded’, neuter past participle of mandare, from manus ‘hand’ + dare ‘give’

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 04:56 AM

The winner has a mandate neither to promote brexit nor promote leave. The winner is entitled to follow her own predilections in that regard and will face the consequences at the next election. She can't "represent" both leavers and remainers. Her job is to act in what she regards as the best interests of her constituents. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 06:08 AM

So you accept that you were wrong. The elctorate grants a mandate to the winner. The strength of the mandate is dictated by the size of the winning vote, as I stated.

As an aside though pertinent:
In a political first, the Labour affiliate group the Jewish Labour Movement has called for the whip to be removed from Labour’s newly elected MP for Peterborough before she has even had a chance to be sworn in as an MP.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 06:13 AM

Not an auspicious start:

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/104305/jewish-labour-movement-disavow-partys

Is a deselection call in the offing?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 06:20 AM

Labour doing well in the polls - Oh look, antisemitism!

When will they ever learn..?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 06:32 AM

The electorate elects a representative. My reading of the definition of mandate is that it is an instruction to do something. An electorate definitely does not give an MP an instruction to do something. Only to represent all of the electors of that constituency, no matter whether they voted for that person or not. The size of the majority is irrelevant. If you don't understand how representative democracy works I suggest that you go back and re-read Burke.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 06:40 AM

On antisemitism, I would listen to Jewish Voice for Labour, which is more open than the Jewish Labour Movement, and accuses the latter of being fixated on defending Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 06:46 AM

I think I will emulate the wild claims that are made by some posters.

Given the reason for the by-election being called it is frankly astonishing that Labour won the seat again especially with an increased margin over the second placed candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 06:47 AM

A deselection call would probably be rejected because this matter was well publicised before the vote. Iains link, is three days earlier, for example. So the rationale assumption is that voters took this into account when they voted.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 07 Jun 19 - 07:26 AM

Given the reason for the by-election being called it is frankly astonishing that Labour won the seat again especially with an increased margin over the second placed candidate.

Not really for those prepared to dig a little
https://www.peterborough.gov.uk/council/about-peterborough/census-2011/

The size of the majority is irrelevant. If you don't understand how representative democracy works I suggest that you go back and re-read Burke.

So pray tell, why do lefties use mathermagic to constantly dispute the outcome of the brexit referendum mandate to leave the EU?

As Spike says:17.4million Leave voters – the largest mandate for anything in British political history