***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 78 *****
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ
Before discussions start in this thread, I would like to point out that any petty arguments, personal attacks, or any other infringement of house rules, etc. will be deleted where we feel fit from now on.
We will not give notice that we have deleted something. Nor will we enter into discussion why something was deleted. That will also be deleted.
It seems that discussion about Brexit brings out the worst in some people.
Be nice, Play nice, and control your temper. Your co-operation would be appreciated.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 14 Mar 19 at 10:40
|
Nissan have decided to build the new X-Trail in Japan, not Sunderland, after all.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47107561
In a letter to employees they said "In a letter to workers, it says continued Brexit uncertainty is not helping firms to "plan for the future"."
Hate to say it but it was predicted here already by our resident Mystic Meg - www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=26227&m=575613
|
I recall that Sunderland was one of the largest percentages for Brexit.
Was it a double bluff? I.e. did they vote to make it more difficult for BMW and Audi to import to the UK, therefore leaving room for them to sell or was it a case of turkeys voting for Christmas?
|
Sunderland was the first city to report iirc.
Gobble gobble.
|
Just a moot point, I don't support a word of the following, just playing Devil's Advocate...
If you deliberately make yourself unemployed, you may not get benefit.
Perhaps Nissan workers that voted Brexit should be denied benefits on those grounds. Proving how someone voted would be another matter of course?
|
|
There was a BBC News Northeast interview about brexit just before the vote, A worker at Nissan said he didnt care about Nissan closing down if he voted for Brexit.
|
Was it a double bluff? I.e. did they vote to make it more difficult for
>> BMW and Audi to import to the UK, therefore leaving room for them to sell
>> or was it a case of turkeys voting for Christmas?
>>
As we are playing devil's advocate, perhaps we might say that they were principled in voting for something they thought was correct even if, they personally, ended up worse off?
|
>> As we are playing devil's advocate, perhaps we might say that they were principled in
>> voting for something they thought was correct even if, they personally, ended up worse off?
Probably, but the "backstop" in their case was that the state would support them after they voted their jobs away.
|
>> Probably, but the "backstop" in their case was that the state would support them after
>> they voted their jobs away.
But it's not the state is it. It's you and me and every other employed person and company paying taxes.
So is it right that they can expect to be bailed out because that's the ultimate democratic choice - i.e. it suits their political choice to lose their job and that may directly lead to me and you paying more taxes!?
If so that's a crock and they shouldn't get benefits.
In the same way that Cornwall shouldn't get replacement for the EU funds that they are losing.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 4 Feb 19 at 12:54
|
So is it right that they can expect to be bailed out because that's the
>> ultimate democratic choice - i.e. it suits their political choice to lose their job and
>> that may directly lead to me and you paying more taxes!?
To go a little further on with this line of thought, perhaps then we should restrict benefits to those who vote against their principles simply to save their jobs?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 3 Feb 19 at 22:30
|
The Nissan decision does, of course, arise from a "double whammy".
Uncertainty around Brexit, and the risk of having tariffs applied for imports into the EU in the future for Sunderland-built cars reduces the value to Nissan of the UK as a manufacturing foothold in the EU (as it shortly is likely not to be).
In addition, Japan has just signed a major trade deal with the EU which will progressively reduce tariffs for cars built there (in Japan) and imported into the EU. This makes the future prospect of building for the EU in Japan considerably more attractive, and might even in itself have tipped the balance on this decision.
Of course, having been caught on the wrong end of both these actions/decisions, neither will the UK reap any wider benefits of the Japan trade deal once out of the EU (and will have to negotiate its own).i
|
Stop whining.
Our great nation of 60 million souls will easily negotiate trade deals around the world far superior to those managed by a bloc of 500 million.
It'll do the nation good to go without food, and I for one don't mind living in a cave as long as we're not in the Euro Superstate.
Out means out.
tinyurl.com/brexit-police-state
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 3 Feb 19 at 23:41
|
>> tinyurl.com/brexit-police-state
Funny that. An acquaintance of mine has recently been recruited to the police as a trainee constable.
They didn't think they were recruiting at the moment but they started training in November.
I wouldn't have thought them suitable given their stated views on certain subjects with rather obvious obnoxious tattoos.
I expect a lot of riot training it taking place.
|
>>Our great nation of 60 million souls will easily negotiate trade deals around the world far superior to those managed by a bloc of 500 million.
..I'm rather Foxed by your views.........
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Mon 4 Feb 19 at 08:19
|
I can't decide whether to look on your suggestion as disgusting, or just childish. I assume it's not satirical as you have repeated it.
The electorate was invited to choose between two options put forward in a referendum decided upon by the last prime minister, with the clear promise that the result would be implemented. I don't remember the 'out' option coming as a package with withdrawal of unemployment-related benefits.
In any case, neither you nor I know what will happen, or indeed what would have happened had the vote gone the other way.
I have no problem with UK being in an EU customs union per se, backstop or no. UK would have to comply with multilaterally agreed standards of some kind in whatever trade agreements apply, in or out. "Having a say" in those arrangements is not a meaningful argument in favour of membership, if you have a small minority vote, no vetos, and no power to opt out. I suspect the lack of a "say" bothers Norway not at all.
The main reason I participate minimally in these discussions is the premise employed by you and others that there is only one right answer, and that anybody who is even prepared to contemplate that it is outside the EU is stupid. That isn't debate. Neither are the "straw man" arguments erected including the one that Nissan employees voted to lose their jobs (and you can't use a quote from one inarticulate vox pop to support it).
It is a truism that management is always to blame. There is undoubtedly a mess. That is down to a failure of government, and while there is a government only it can achieve a solution. The best option from here is almost certainly the withdrawal agreement, with or without a face-saving side letter of some kind.
The obstacle to the withdrawal agreement is mainly the backstop. I'm sure JRM & Co are intelligent enough to understand why there has to be a backstop in an agreement-to-agree, and why the form it takes can't be much different from what it is. What I can't fully understand is why they pretend otherwise.
If we agree to the WA, and if there is a solution to be found by 2021 it should be found by subsequent negotiation. If it can't be found, then it probably comes down to a customs union vs. a nuclear option of some kind that would amount to no deal. But there is no good reason to jump off that cliff now, that I can see.
Incidentally, Nissan says that the X-trail decision will not result in job losses in Sunderland.
|
>> implemented. I don't remember the 'out' option coming as a package with withdrawal of unemployment-related
>> benefits.
But it came with plenty of warnings, one of which came from plant management.
>> In any case, neither you nor I know what will happen, or indeed what would
>> have happened had the vote gone the other way.
Of course we do, none of the last two years would have happened.
>> vetos, and no power to opt out. I suspect the lack of a "say" bothers
>> Norway not at all.
Its a small country, very small economically compared to us, rich in natural power resources, it has little in the way of exporters to worry about. Norway is a red herring employed at length by the leave EU factions, despite the fact its a non valid comparison.
>> The main reason I participate minimally in these discussions is the premise employed by you
>> and others that there is only one right answer,
If we had any "right answers" from the leave faction, that too might be valid, but to date there have been no verifiable, or even likely, beneficial scenarios that would improve this country or its prospects.
>>
>> It is a truism that management is always to blame. There is undoubtedly a mess.
>> That is down to a failure of government,
Not a truism at all, any management faced with undeliverable promises from wildly differing stakeholders, has a responsibility to choose the path of least damage.
>> The obstacle to the withdrawal agreement is mainly the backstop. I'm sure JRM & Co
>> are intelligent enough to understand why there has to be a backstop in an agreement-to-agree,
>> and why the form it takes can't be much different from what it is. What
>> I can't fully understand is why they pretend otherwise.
The Backstop is a self propagating gorgon. Its presence, in its current form, has driven the likelihood of a "crash out hard border" ever closer. If it wasn't there, there would be an agreement by now and the border would be its same silky smooth softness, its presence to be assured in a less confrontational and fraught timescale. Eire have, in effect put a gun to their own heads,
>
>> Incidentally, Nissan says that the X-trail decision will not result in job losses in Sunderland.
No they have said that the promised increase in jobs now wont happen, and that the apprenticeship program will be curtailed. Still they should be used to job losses by a thousand cuts up there, they have the experience of pit closures. A sentiment that was in fact expressed by people in the area.
|
Worth a read, I think...
"The real reasons Nissan pulled its investment"
www.bbc.com/news/business-47115753
|
>> www.bbc.com/news/business-47115753
>>
interesting quote from that article
"So far Liam Fox has only managed to ensure a trade continuity deal with Chile"
Is someone on this forum exercising influence to preserve the family supplies of Marmite ? :-)
|
>>The electorate was invited to choose between two options put forward in a referendum decided upon by the last prime minister, with the clear promise that the result would be implemented. I don't remember the 'out' option coming as a package with withdrawal of unemployment-related benefits.
with absolutely no definition of what those options actually were.
A Hard Exit and BEANO *both* support the result of that referendum. Which was the vote for? Or which of the many alternatives in between?
Cameron recently stated that he did not regret holding the referendum. I wish he'd been asked if he regretted making such an amateurish balls-up of it.
|
I still believe Mrs May will get her deal through perhaps with a tweak or two. She will then be held up as a model of vision and determination.
|
>>Cartoon take by the ever brilliant Steve Bell:
>>
>>www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2019/feb/04/steve-bells-if
-theresa-mays-tory-
>>mission-to-brussels
Is that supposed to be funny? Or witty or perhaps some sort of scathing comment or something?
Quite an awful cartoon IMO.
I don't really know one cartoonist from another and I can't see me bothering to remember this one and his supposed 'brilliance' either.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 4 Feb 19 at 13:29
|
|
Your posting can be read as if it refers to the political stance of Belloc's remarks, 2FMR, "faith in Europe" perhaps. There is a good case for arguing that Catholicism is a European artefact but that is not relevant in the context.
|
|
I don't think political cartons have necessarily to be funny although they can be. They don't have to be scathing comments either They are really there to make you think about events in a new light or from a different angle. Obviously Steve Bell has failed in your case.
|
|
I believe we owe to Bell the perceptive description of "Tory Lite" for Tony Blair's smart political strategy.
|
>> They are really there to make you think
>> about events in a new light or from a different angle. Obviously Steve Bell has
>> failed in your case.
I most certainly have missed the point, in that case. It seemed to me to be an unfunny representation without any particular insight.
What did I miss?
|
|
I doubt that you missed anything.
|
>> Is that supposed to be funny? Or witty or perhaps some sort of scathing comment
>> or something?
>>
>> Quite an awful cartoon IMO.
It's all a matter of what tickles your funny bone
In that particular strip, which will be part of a series, the comparison with Chamberlain is obvious. But the device of Orangemen substituted for Chamberlain's compatriots is a pretty good observation. Bell's style is to pick a politicians characteristic, stick with it and keep embroidering it; hence May's shoes. The shoe outside the aeroplane probably refers to a reported May trait I've forgotten or overlooked.
He did same with Blair's eye that's always watching you and Major's underpants.
I've followed If... since it was a one subject daily strip in early eighties along lines of 'If Lemmings Read Protect and Survive' - Lemmings going over a cliff underneath doors and tables. Another, in light of Appeal Court decision on Bromley Council's challenge to Ken Livingstone's Fares Fair policy was 'If Judges Used Public Transport' with Judicial Robes knotted round bus stops.
As above. It's all a matter of what tickles your funny bone
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 4 Feb 19 at 22:46
|
|
I guess so, but it certainly isn't my kind of thing.
|
Welcome to the real world?
Donald Tusk: Special place in hell for Brexiteers without a plan
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47143135
|
I'm not sure how Henry k's message is offensive?
Anyway, I guess it was a planned speech with some aim. I'm not sure what though. Not exactly helpful language.
|
>> Anyway, I guess it was a planned speech with some aim. I'm not sure what
>> though. Not exactly helpful language.
Tusk has been on the BBC2 series at 9pm Monday looking at EU's handling of crises. He speaks excellent English and has excellent descriptions of what was said and done.
|
> Tusk has been on the BBC2 series at 9pm Monday looking at EU's handling of
>> crises. He speaks excellent English and has excellent descriptions of what was said and done.
>>
>>
I'm sure all of that is true, I'm not sure why you've quoted my post though?
|
>> I'm not sure how Henry k's message is offensive?
I have no idea whatsoever so IMO a rather pointless act.
I am rather disappointed as IIRC it is my first red face :-(
>>
>> Anyway, I guess it was a planned speech with some aim.
The reports on TV say it was very much a planned speech and that he read it literally from the script. It was also tweeted.
|
>> Welcome to the real world?
>> Donald Tusk: Special place in hell for Brexiteers without a plan
Seems to me to be a completely straight statement of opinion; Boris, Michael, Jacob et al had, for most part, no ides what Leave meant but tried to avoid frightening the horses by suggesting Norway was a good model.
|
|
Although the speech needs to be taken in its entirety, his language really does manage to give Brexiteers some credence with their support base. Not his first, and he may be right, but He is not helpful to the EU cause for sure. A hinderance in fact.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 6 Feb 19 at 17:07
|
Good for Tusk, I say.
More ammo for we Brexiters- it's a helpful remark which should illuminate some of the reasons why the E.U. superstate run by unelected Commisars - yes, I meant to spell that way -is anathema to us.
|
>>More ammo for we Brexiters
What do you need ammo for?
You voted emotionally against EU membership. Since that vote [the wider] you has pursued ever increasing isolationism in the face of all evidence suggesting that it is a bad direction and bad for the country.
You have no facts in your favour, no tendencies, economic indicators or anything else. You have only emotion and this dream of a British Empire.
So what do you need ammo for?
|
>> Good for Tusk, I say.
>> More ammo for we Brexiters- it's a helpful remark which should illuminate some of the
>> reasons why the E.U. superstate run by unelected Commisars - yes, I meant to spell
>> that way -is anathema to us.
He is elected, or rather chosen by people we elected.
|
>> Good for Tusk, I say.
>> More ammo for we Brexiters- it's a helpful remark which should illuminate some of the
>> reasons why the E.U. superstate run by unelected Commisars - yes, I meant to spell
>> that way -is anathema to us.
He is elected, or rather elected by people WE elected. Of course the bloke YOU elected spent his time hurling insults around the European parliament rather than trying to do anything useful.
|
...Tusk's message was essentially aimed not at those who voted for Brexit (now that would be an insult and undue political comment). It was rather aimed at (using his words) "those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan of how to carry it out safely" (i.e. the political classes and the ilk of JRM, IDS, Boris, Grayling, etc.)
So, do you, Roger, believe that the above group even at this late stage really have even a sketch of a plan that will/would safely deliver Brexit?
I thought your view of the result was the likelihood of BRINO, as a result of May's plan being accepted because the clock had run down. (Frankly, though I would hate that as well, it has significantly more of a chance than a (default) hard Brexit - despite the window-dressing, there is little or no preparation for or prospect of handling the fallout from the latter, and there is little stomach for it in the majority of Parliament).
So.....if you were to forget any unerring prejudice against the EU, wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to take Tusk's words at face value, and acknowledge that there have been "those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan of how to carry it out safely", and they still don't.
If I were avidly pursuing a full Brexit, I think I might be turning a bit of my ire on those that have promoted a full exit, haven't had a clue how to achieve it, and look like they will fail in doing so, thereby dashing any hopes for yet another generation.
(I was quite amused that, after somebody posted here a week or so ago that there would be no problems at Calais because the Mayor said they were/would be prepared, that Monsieur Grayling has now been declared persona non grata there, having rubbed them up the wrong way with his 'no deal' preparations. They can't even keep potential allies on side ;-) )
|
At the ministerial level Grayling is a monstrous tubesteak.
I can only guess he can talk-the-talk at cabinet level, as otherwise his track record should have had him Khashoggi'd years ago.
|
Anyone travelling to Europe after Brexit is being advised by the Government to check that their passport will still be valid. Here is their advice which contains a useful checker.
www.gov.uk/guidance/passport-rules-for-travel-to-europe-after-brexit
Would hate anyone especially those who voted leave to miss out on their holiday due to an invalid passport :-)
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 6 Feb 19 at 23:56
|
I've got an apartment in Portugal booked from 4 March to 4 April. I didn't even think about BREXIT when booking it last autumn.
If things appear difficult then I'll just stay a bit longer :-)
And that includes travel, food or other shortages, civil unrest or Boris/JRM/JC becoming PM :-)
|
|
If the Boris jrm JC thing happened I'd stay away permanently
|
>> If the Boris jrm JC thing happened I'd stay away permanently
>>
So it wouldn't be all bad news, then?
|
>>So it wouldn't be all bad news, then
www.badum-tish.com/
|
>>
>> At the ministerial level Grayling is a monstrous tubesteak.
Grayling was undoubtedly the worst Lord Chancellor of the nine under whom I served during my career in what was latterly the MoJ. In the interests of political balance Lord Irvine was no great shakes either.
In fact I think I'm right in saying that students of legal history regard Grayling as amongst the worst of all time; and there are some serious players there.
On the other hand Gove, not a man of whom I generally have good word to say, did a pretty good job of unravelling some of Graylings worst decisions - he had the intellect and stature the job needs. It's a great pity that May, with whom he'd had major fallings out, sent him to the back benches.
His replacement, Truss, was a useless non-entity. IMHO Justice, because of its constitutional role, is one of the great offices along with Chancellor, Foreign Secretary etc. No place for middle rankers trying to make their way up the greasy pole, or those in process of sliding down.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 9 Feb 19 at 11:57
|
There's a meme about the 'special place in hell' doing the rounds on Facebook. It says there is already a special place in hell, it's occupants include Oliver Reed and numerous debauched rock stars. It's quite a fun place really.
The no plan Brexiters should instead be put on permanent toilet cleaning.
|
Today is 48 days from Brexit day - 29 March.
If my reading of transit times is correct that means a shipment of cars from Korea or Japan will arrive at a time when it's not known if they arrive on EU, WTO or some unknown terms.
Meanwhile it's reported that votes on terms of withdrawal agreement are being pushed into March.
You couldn't make it up.
|
|
At least we stiffed the French part of the EU yesterday at Twickers!
|
|
Wonderful result for us but what was the second half mass punch-up about? It spread so rapidly that it seemed to have been orchestrated in advance. Even the punches themselves looked more like ballet moves than serious assaults.
|
>> Wonderful result for us but what was the second half mass punch-up about? It spread
>> so rapidly that it seemed to have been orchestrated in advance. Even the punches themselves
>> looked more like ballet moves than serious assaults.
I think if you look a little more carefully, you won't see a punch being thrown. Lots of pushing and shoving, and a few people being grabbed by different bits of the body, but no punches. Nowadays, it's more than they dare do.
Red card and a period of suspension follows if you are caught punching. Not to say it doesn't happen, of course.....
|
Roger,
I don't get it. When I read something, even if it seemingly supports my own views, I still read it realistically and know when it's nonsense.
There are nonsense articles threatening doom, gloom and destruction as a result of Brexit which I can still see as nonsense.
I don't agree with your views, but you're certainly not stupid. Surely you must realise when you're reading garbage, whichever side it is trying to support?
|
Whatever side of the mater you sit, this is just embarrassing....
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47245992
|
Regional airline FlyBMI, last bit of the former British Midland has gone into liquidation. While subject to all the usual pressures of the industry Brexit uncertainty around operation between non UK destinations and tenders for business flying in EU - IIRC it flies some routes between Airbus sites.
www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/16/flybmi-collapses-blaming-brexit-uncertainty
|
"Regional airline FlyBMI, last bit of the former British Midland has gone into liquidation"
According to the Beeb headline this morning, they blamed 'Brexit ....... and EU rules'. Funny ol' world innit?
|
It's annoying the way they report this stuff, it does nobody any good to try and make political or sensational capital out of it.
As I understand it;
It's underlying business wasn't great, a little fragile, but it was survivable. Due to recent changes (fuel costs, carbon costs) etc. their operational figures weren't looking exactly as they were predicted to look so the current figures and their business forecasts were considered by their shareholders.
It appears that they decided further investment was going to be needed.
However, since investors are notoriously risk-averse, the lack of new contracts, *plus* the uncertainty that Brexit brings, meant that they weren't prepared to stump up any more money.
To say that this has happened because of Brexit is pushing the truth somewhat. Brexit certainly hasn't helped, and perhaps stopped the investors putting in more money to keep it going, but Brexit didn't get them into this position, their normal business environment did that.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 17 Feb 19 at 13:56
|
Business at Flybe has be rocky for a few years, they tried to sell it to Eddie Stobart not long ago, but due diligence revealed that Brexit uncertainty made investment in the business unwise. Its a 50/50 share jobie, it was always marginal, Brexit was the final nail.
There will be a lot of nails to in a lot of marginal coffins to come if no deal is reached.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 17 Feb 19 at 16:52
|
Zero,
To be clear it's Fly BMI, formerly British Midland Regional, that's gone into administration. Flybe, formerly Jersey European, continues to operate normally. It has been rocky too but currently has a deal with Stobart and Virgin that might rescue it.
Fly BMI was hobbled by operating fuel thirsty jets in what, size wise, is turbo-prop territory. Travel correspondent on radio this morning pointed out that dividing number of flights last year and number of passengers (both on airline's public notice of its shutdown) load factor was barely 50%. The EU ruling that got them was to do with UK's exclusion from EU carbon emissions trading scheme.
|
Oh for gods sake, I thought it was Flybe, stupid git. Mind you all I said is still true, I was expecting Flybe to fail*, but it seems Stobart renewed their interest in them and bought them anyway. It was a long term on and off affair, and they are still marginal.
Flying with them once, didn't reassure me much then either
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 17 Feb 19 at 17:42
|
You weren't alone Z. Flybe's night duty officer apparently spent most of their shift on Twitter saying 'it's not us'.
Both have previous for abandoning and starting routes at will. BMI abandoned the long standing service from Leeds to Paris, briefly operating to Lille instead before closing their Leeds base. After the end of a franchise agreement that had Loganair's routes mostly branded as Flybe return to the Scottish Airline's own brand Flybe lost a potload of money trying to run rival services from Edinburgh and Glasgow to Stornoway.
Loganair is is in same ultimate ownership as FlyBMI and is reportedly taking over some routes.
|
A taste of what's to come....
tinyurl.com/eat-my-hormone-laden-beef
*Links to US meat lobby article - nothing to do with BBD!
|
The following article is reasonable, and the video statement worth a listen.
www.bbc.com/news/business-47287386
However, as always, the story is incomplete or at least simplistic.
Ian Howells's statement about the reasons and logic behind the closure of manufacturing in Swindon is fair, I think.
The industry changes, technology changes, environmental changes and the global business model changes are the drivers behind the closure of manufacturing in Swindon.
Pretty much, not Brexit.
However, they chose to close not repurpose. Not change to electric vehicles, not change to some other part of the process, but to close.
There could be many reasons why that investment and change is not being made in the UK, and almost certainly Brexit is one of those reasons.
This is the danger of Brexit. The world market, economic and financial and industry drivers cause re-planning and business change within corporations and companies all the time.
It is not that Brexit is driving those changes, it is that when one of those changes occurs and cause a business review, Brexit very much impacts that review and the decisions coming from it.
In this case, for example, one would not close down a successful and profitable manufacturing plant simply because of Brexit. But if one had a not very successful and not very profitable plant and you had to decide what to do with it, then Brexit just leans the balance towards closure and moving elsewhere.
I've done a lot of these reviews, and they are utterly brutal. Utterly, utterly brutal. Mostly because the decisions are made by people who will not have to execute the changes and thus emotional considerations play no part.
Brexit though, very much will.
|
p.s. exactly the same as FlyBMI.
Brexit didn't cause the problem, it just very much shaped the plan.
|
Hunt that is, not Corbyn.
Our clueless Foreign Secretary displays his ignorance of Balkan history bt stating Slovenia is a former vassal of the USSR.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/23/soviet-vassal-state-jeremy-hunt-makes-gaffe-in-slovenia
|
I think she has moved over to delusional....
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47360465
|
Essentially stating that more time should be given to negotiation and so BREXIT should be delayed.
www.bbc.com/news/business-47356866
Kind of glossing over the point that absolutely sod all has been achieved in the last 2 years, why would they think an extra 2 weeks would make any difference?
|
>> Kind of glossing over the point that absolutely sod all has been achieved in the
>> last 2 years, why would they think an extra 2 weeks would make any difference?
That's absolutely right. Seems to be similar to Ms Leadsom's plan for a controlled crash out.
We are probably already past point where 29 March is achievable even if the meaningful vote were tomorrow and 'May's Deal' voted through with a thumping majority.
There's a whole Withdrawal Agreement Bill to go through all its stages in both Houses. Probably other Primary Legislation too.
There are also dozens, probably hundreds, of pieces of Secondary Legislation to be laid. Most would need to be 'negatived' in order to stop them passing but I'd be surprised if some don't need an affirmative vote in order to pass. Given the guerrilla nature of the anti Brexit/anti 'May's Deal' campaigns both Houses could be tied up for months.
My pension was considerably enhanced by skirmishes over electoral/Lords reform log-jamming the Lords so the Public Bodies Bill that provided for the Quango's abolition was delayed.
Small beer compared to Brexit.
Brexit Minister Chris Heaton-Harris (who happens to be my MP) was exuding Micawberish confidence on radio yesterday that 29 March was achievable. I don't know what he thinks might turn up.......
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 25 Feb 19 at 18:20
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47363307
Looks like JC had been forced to come out in favour of another referendum.
Can't see how it's doable this late on.
|
Two years! Two *"£$&%$ years it has taken these fidiots to achieve nothing.
Oh it makes me so mad.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47363307
>>
>> Looks like JC had been forced to come out in favour of another referendum.
>>
>> Can't see how it's doable this late on.
Did his Deputy put in terms of an offer he couldn't refuse; second referendum or bottle of whisky and a revolver?
Referendum 2 is pretty much guaranteed to get an extension to Article 50 so lateness not an issue of itself. OTOH birds will come home to roost over question to be posed and who can vote.
Is question May's deal or Remain, May's deal or WTO or a three way?
Government's reason to exclude migrants in or from UK last time was that referendum was advisory. If this one is decisive then Brits in EU and EU citizens with permanent residence here should have vote. Since we decided it was too difficult/expensive to register workers from EU upon arrival identifying those with permanent residence will be difficult......
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 25 Feb 19 at 22:29
|
Did his Deputy put in terms of an offer he couldn't refuse; second referendum or
>> bottle of whisky and a revolver?
As it's difficult to shift him, the likelihood of him loosing MPs weighed heavily on his mind. I'd imagine a fair few were likely to leave in the next few days.
>> Referendum 2 is pretty much guaranteed to get an extension to Article 50 so lateness
>> not an issue of itself. OTOH birds will come home to roost over question to
>> be posed and who can vote.
Thing is to get an vote it needs legislation, that's not easy or straightforward thing. It'll take some time, as in months. The government's grip on the agenda is weak, but that weak? Even if it were is there enough support for a bill to pass?
|
|
Another referendum is pretty unlikely. Almost certainly would not get through Parliament. Corbyn is in effect making a promise that he knows he will not be able to implement to appease the Remainer wing of his party. The Labour Party is just as riven with disputes as the Conservatives and Corbyn is just playing politics,
|
An other price worth paying?
www.businessinsider.com/brexit-michael-gove-ministers-to-hold-emergency-meeting-over-no-deal-chaos-2019-2?r=US&IR=T
As an outsider we have to use 'approved' pallets to export to EU. We don't have many right now.....
|
|
Another unpalletable truth.
|
the problems keep stacking up
|
|
More Dexion racking required...
|
The law of unintended consequences.....
Immigration
www.bbc.com/news/uk-47400679
|
More genius management from our glorious Government.
www.bbc.com/news/business-47403653
Fidiots.
|
Breaking news is that Government have rolled over and paid £33m to Eurotunnel. It not Chris Grayling's day; he got a kicking earlier on today from National Audit Office over his rushed and flawed part privatisation of the Probation service.
My MP, Chris Heaton-Harris, who's kebabing my a Scots Nat QC on the DeExEU select committee when attempting to defend this is positively cringeworthy might also feel a bit sick today.
|
I was chatting to a salesman who works for an upmarket Spanish estate agency this morning. He must have thought I looked a potential buyer as I was wearing my new expensive Lidl trainers in the gym ! I asked about the Brexit impact on sales to Brits and he thought that it could well not happen the U.K. leaving the EU.
Now I’m not genned up on this but I thought it was a 99% cert we would leave and the only thing to resolve were the conditions. He then swore blind about having no knowledge re increased tax that non EU residents would have to pay on rental income generated from property in Spain....typical smarmy sales bloke.
I took an instant dislike to him
It saved time
Last edited by: legacylad on Fri 1 Mar 19 at 11:11
|
>> Now I’m not genned up on this but I thought it was a 99% cert
>> we would leave and the only thing to resolve were the conditions.
Under Article 50 we leave at 23:00 UK time on 29-03-19.
However Parliament rejected May's agreement on conditions of departure in the meaningful vote held in January. She's trying to 'tweak' the agreement and there's another vote on 12-3-19. She may or may not get it over the line then.
If she doesn't then Article 50 could be extended or withdrawn.
I's possible that could lead to another referendum (or a customs union per Labour poicy) as only means of solving parliamentary deadlock.
My guess is that pro-Brexit wing of Tories will, in end, hold their noses and vote for May's deal as alternative is postponed/no Brexit. Whether DUP will take same line and how both Tory and Labour mavericks vote will determine whether she gets it over line.
By that point we'll still need to extend A50 as there's nothing like enough time to get all necessary legislation through by 29-03. If there's then a guerilla war on individual votes it could take an age. Nearest precedent is Ted Heath's government in 71/2. They got paving legislation through with a decent majority on a free vote but had numerous close calls on detail.
|
>> >> Now I’m not genned up on this but I thought it was a 99%
>> cert
>> >> we would leave and the only thing to resolve were the conditions.
>>
>> Under Article 50 we leave at 23:00 UK time on 29-03-19.
>>
By act of parliament really, to extend that date it needs another act to overturn it. I'm not being pedantic by saying that, just that it's not just a case of asking the EU for an extension.
The last set of votes suggest it should be fairly straightforward, although who knows how it might actually turn out?
|
>> By act of parliament really, to extend that date it needs another act to overturn
>> it. I'm not being pedantic by saying that, just that it's not just a case
>> of asking the EU for an extension.
I'd guess a bill/act to extend A50 time would just include a clause to amend 29-03-19 to some later date or, more rationally, to a date to be determined by Ministers. Incorporating the leave date into primary legislation was, like Mrs May's red lines, something that was bound to either back us into a corner or need to be 'flexed'.
|
I'd guess a bill/act to extend A50 time would just include a clause to amend
>> 29-03-19 to some later date or, more rationally, to a date to be determined by
>> Ministers. Incorporating the leave date into primary legislation was, like Mrs May's red lines, something
>> that was bound to either back us into a corner or need to be 'flexed'.
>>
A date determined by minister would be unlikely to fly with the EU, we'd have to have give them a date. Open ended wouldn't work and that's before you get to the leave favouring MPs. They'd be up in arms over it, as would MPs of all flavours who have got a taste of pushing the government around. They'd not be keen to give ministers to decide when to leave to say the least.
|
|
What does the 33m get us?
|
To answer my own question, an improvement to a terminal and not much else.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47414699
|
>> To answer my own question, an improvement to a terminal and not much else.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47414699
AIUI there's also a contract for medical supplies, which would have been main traffic at Ramsgate, to go through Chunnel but there's a lot of smoke/mirrors being deployed.
|
...in effect, Sweet Fanny Adams.
The government, however, were desperate to keep this out of the courts, not only to avoid revealing certain documentation, but also, I suspect, because the whole process ran clearly contrary to EU procurement law, where the services should have been openly and publicly tendered via the OJEU.
They used an excuse of "urgency, due to unforseen circumstances" - it's not as if we haven't had the exit date written into law for well over a year :-( , which would be extremely difficult to defend as a reason for "closed tendering".
I'm mildly surprised that the EU haven't taken the government to task for the whole process, but maybe the context was seen as just too inflammatory. (believe me, the EU can be pretty robust about transgression of EU procurement law).
|
The guy continues to shine like a supernova.
tinyurl.com/grayling-worthless-tosspot
|
I do hope that the UK isn't pressured into agreeing to this in desperation.
I also hope that supporters of the NHS and/or Farmers who voted leave read this carefully.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47418505
I can't help but wonder what happened to that world desperate to do trade deals with us that we heard so much of.
|
>> I can't help but wonder what happened to that world desperate to do trade deals
>> with us that we heard so much of.
There was an article on Radio 4 the other day re the trade deal with Japan.
We asked them for a duplicate (cut and paste were the words used) of the deal that they have negotiated with the EU.
The wily Japanese wouldn't, on the basis that they are in a better bargaining position than we are (i.e. they see us as weaker out of the EU).
They also are very annoyed at us leaving the EU. They understood that the promise given to them by Margaret Thatcher, that we were a permanent member of the EU has been effectively broken.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 1 Mar 19 at 18:18
|
Never mind.
Brexit morons to get bribes despite voting for their own demise.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47435565
£1.6bn isn't going to go very far at least (split 16 million ways that £100 each).
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 4 Mar 19 at 00:28
|
....and given that it has no been announced that that is a 7-year figure, it will be around £14 p.a.
It'll buy around 4 pints in the North, but... ;-)
An interesting take repeated below from Today's Guardian:
The commentary about the stronger towns fund announced by the government today (see 9.24am), and its impact on the the Brexit parliamentary arithmetic, is premised on the notion that it was Labour-voting constituencies in the north that swung the vote for leave. But in a provocative new book, Brexit and the End of Empire, the academics Danny Dorling and Sally Tomlinson, strongly challenge this argument. They report:
Because of different levels of turnout and numbers of registered voters, most people who voted leave - by absolute numbers - lived in southern England. Furthermore, of all those who voted leave, 59% were middle class (often labelled as A, B or C1), and only 41% were working class (labelled C2, D or E). The proportion of leave voters who were of the lowest two social classes (D and E) was just 24%. One of us published these statistics not long after the vote, in the British Medical Journal, but that did little to quell the middle-class clamour to ‘blame the working class’ ...
In short, then, Tory England voted Britain out. These were areas that had often loyally voted Conservative for decades, but economically were not doing anything like as well as other Tory areas, which cannot have seemed right to many people living there ...
Older, less well-off, less well-educated Tory Britain was where the most votes for Brexit were. It cannot be said often enough. It was not Sunderland or Stoke that swung it.
...not surprising, then that the above post got a frownie....... ;-)
|
Older, less well-off, less well-educated Tory Britain was where the most votes for Brexit were. It cannot be said often enough. It was not Sunderland or Stoke that swung it.
It also cant be ignored that they voted out knowing it could cost them prosperity, a point they acknowledged. So to bail them out due to lack of regional EU funds seems perverse.
|
Which is, of course, all entirely irrelevant at this stage.
All that matters to HMG is buying enough MP's votes since the DUP ones (at £150m per vote) are woefully inadequate.
|
I was watching the rugby yesterday (Ireland / Wales) in a bar. Three of us went, me and two Irish friends one of whom is the Irish Ambassador. He has just, days ago, finished working on the Brexit issue for Ireland. Obviously we spoke about it at some length in between beer and rugby.
Suffice to say it is toe-cringing and mortifying what Brexit and our glorious politicians are doing to external perceptions of us.
|
I can't see a turnaround on the previous vote for the PM's deal.
Chlorine-washed chicken and a private health service anyone?
|
There doesn’t have to be .What is needed is a significant reduction in the numbers opposed to her deal. That give scope for a further vote. Parliament will vote for an extension, the EU will decline leaving a straight choice between the Deal as agreed and No Deal. There would then be a further vote in which the Deal would most likely be approved as no one really wants No Deal.
Theresa May has apparently secured some sort of agreement tonight which makes the above scenario more likely.
By the way nothing wrong per se with chlorine washed chicke. You probably eat chlorine washed salad leaves with no ill effects.
|
>>By the way nothing wrong per se with chlorine washed chicken. You probably eat chlorine washed salad leaves with no ill effects.
Indeed but chlorine washing allows a poorer level of animal husbandry to be 'washed away'.
If I was a Labour politician I would see the possibility to fatally wound the PM and possibly get closer to a GE.
If I was a right-of-centre Tory I'd not want to let down my swivel-eyed loons who voted me in.
If I was a Creationist from Ulster I'd not vote for anything other than a finite backstop.
If I was an SNP politician I'd follow the usual line of not agreeing with the Tories, so I could use the "they voted with the Tories" stick to beat any Labour MPs that vote for the deal.
I don't see it happening.
I guess we'll find out in the next 24 hours...
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 11 Mar 19 at 23:00
|
|
Ireland / Wales? Why I wrote that I have no idea. Wales was on Saturday, Sunday was Ireland / France.
|
>> A game changer or same old?
Don't see it as a big change, just clarification. But it may be the ladder some Tories need to climb down. Too soon to say if it will pass tonight but if majority against is much reduced then odds on TM running the clock down further to meaningful vote # 3 in 10 days time shorten considerably.
|
I’ve always said she will get her deal through. I still believe that will be the case. She will come to be seen by the Tories as a model of dogged determinism up ther with Thatcher and will have earned her place in history.
No one will remember Corbyn.
|
"No one will remember Corbyn."
Oh, I don't know ........ we remember Michael Foot, don't we.
|
"Legal risk of backstop remains 'unchanged' says Geoffrey Cox"
No s***, Sherlock.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47533666
|
Full text of AG's advice here:
tinyurl.com/y5tqwx3z link to scribd)
|
|
The BBC seem to suggest that the PM will lose the vote by 150. Suggestions seem to be that a third vote will be held next week. Not too sure that'll achieve much.
|
149 - they weren't far out. Other things being voted on tomorrow and Thursday to understand the intent of the House.
Which all feels a bit late to me.
|
They and their process, their management of the situation and the dribble that comes out of their mouths are an embarrassment.
Fidiots.
|
So no deal will be voted dow, leaving delaying article 50.
No one could have seen that outcome.
|
|
We can ask for an extension but would we get it and to what end?
|
Yes, because I seem to recall it being agreed that a unilateral choice for the UK to extend A50 was possible.
To what end? Ahahahaha....
To allow for a referendum in no deal vs no Brexit?
To allow for another waste-of-time general election?
As the Europeans will say in unison: It's your Brexit, don't expect us to do it for you.
|
There's no guarantee that it'd be accepted.
To what end seems a reasonable question, I can't see either of those things happening.
I think it's this or no deal. The indicative votes aren't legislation.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 12 Mar 19 at 21:44
|
>> There's no guarantee that it'd be accepted.
>>
>> To what end seems a reasonable question, I can't see either of those things happening.
While I recognise the downsides in terms of trust in government/democracy etc a second referendum seems the only way out. A GE will likely result in another hung and impotent parliament.
Is it plausible for May's deal to pass subject to referendum #2 on deal v remain? Legislation to be passed implementing current deal subject to a binding referendum. Advantages seem to be:
1. Answers question are you sure with these terms? - even Moggy once favoured that idea
2. This time we're prepared for, and with laws to deal with dirty/disproportionate foreign money/influence
3. Electorate would have to include ex-pats/migrants affected; no exclusions
4. Solves constitutional crisis.
|
> 4. Solves constitutional crisis.
I think the questions you try and answer show it would cause just as many issues and as tried to solve.
Even if we assume that it all goes through, what if the vote is still leave then what ?
|
>> Even if we assume that it all goes through, what if the vote is still
>> leave then what ?
If May's deal had passed tonight there would have been a Withdrawal Agreement Bill/Act and a shedload of other legislation to implement it. My suggestion is to pass that legislation subject to confirmation by a referendum, as was case with attempt to reform electoral system under coalition.
Leave vote means leave 28 days later.
Difficulty is dealing with a close result. Personally I'd suggest that if assent of x% of electorate is required for a 24hr stoppage on the Tube then it's not unreasonable to demand same for a massive constitutional change, but that won't be popular......
|
If May's deal had passed tonight there would have been a Withdrawal Agreement Bill/Act and
>> a shedload of other legislation to implement it. My suggestion is to pass that legislation
>> subject to confirmation by a referendum, as was case with attempt to reform electoral system
>> under coalition.
>>
>> Leave vote means leave 28 days later.
I don't think it'd be that simple, as your personal preference I understand it. But as the vote showed in the HoC you've got both remain and leave both voting against the deal because they believe it's bad for different reasons.
I can't, right now, see the HoC even agreeing on the question for another referendum. There could be an argument since we are leaving for the option to be no deal vs WA. The HoC would play that game til the cows came home in any extension period.
|
*missed the edit*
I don't think it'd be that simple, as your personal preference I understand it. But as the vote showed in the HoC you've got both remain and leave both voting against the deal because they believe it's bad for different reasons. I think it shows the vote isn't as binary or as simple.
I can't, right now, see the HoC even agreeing on the question for another referendum. There could be an argument since we are leaving for the option to be no deal vs WA. It might not be want some want but there's an argument for it. Even in trying to decide on the question the HoC would/could play that game til the cows came home in any extension period.
I think many MPs that suggest another referendum motives lie beyond unlocking any gridlock but are too scared to say it.
|
|
My feeling is that there is a growing appetite for a 2nd referendum, and that's what we'll end up with. With BREXIT far away...
|
>>There's no guarantee that it'd be accepted.
You're right - extension needs agreement from everyone.
I was thinking of withdrawal of A50 being possible unilaterally - the ECJ suggested some legal line that if a country revoked it's article 50, and the rEU refused to allow it to do so, it would be the equivalent of the rEU ejecting a member from the Union which is apparently against the rules.
Or something like that.
|
>> I was thinking of withdrawal of A50 being possible unilaterally - the ECJ suggested some
>> legal line that if a country revoked it's article 50, and the rEU refused to
>> allow it to do so, it would be the equivalent of the rEU ejecting a
>> member from the Union which is apparently against the rules.
Govt can unilaterally revoke A50 but presumably, like giving notice, any revocation by UK would have to be "in accordance with its own constitutional requirements". Following Gina Miller's Supreme Court case that would seem to need legislation.
Are there sufficient MPs brave enough to vote for that?
|
You're right - extension needs agreement from everyone.
>>
>> I was thinking of withdrawal of A50 being possible unilaterally - the ECJ suggested some
>> legal line that if a country revoked it's article 50, and the rEU refused to
>> allow it to do so, it would be the equivalent of the rEU ejecting a
>> member from the Union which is apparently against the rules.
>>
>> Or something like that.
It's possible yes but I'd think it rather remote.
|
Mine was due to expire in July, mindful of possible brexit process screwups, so on return from the Caribbean I applied on line for a new passport. Completely painless process, took my own piccy and attached the digital image.
14 days later, new one pops though my letter box.
Its a Burgundy Euro passport YEE HAW - 10 years of remoaner protest carried in my pocket, what a bonus.
As an aside, what a delightful document it is. Plastered with interesting relevant and detailed UK theme pages, generously laced with watermarks, holograms, phosphor dots, magnetic ink, relief characters, silver foil, and I think possibly two micro rfid tags.
Clearly no-one is going to forge this thing, theft of blanks possible maybe, but not sure how much of the tech is added at issue personalisation.
|
>> Mine was due to expire in July, mindful of possible brexit process screwups, so on
>> return from the Caribbean I applied on line for a new passport. Completely painless process,
>> took my own piccy and attached the digital image.
That's the trouble now that you are turned 70!
Do you find that those 3 year periods seem to come round with increasing frequency?
|
>> That's the trouble now that you are turned 70!
>>
>> Do you find that those 3 year periods seem to come round with increasing frequency?
Err no I don't, because I am not. This one will now see me to 74
|
|
Passport =/= driving licence, Duncan.
|
>> Mine was due to expire in July
...mine in November.... I've just been through the same process in order to keep the 6 month's validity. Very similar experience, but just over a week for mine to appear.
Looks like I'm going to be in the EU for the next 10 years ;-)
|
You can with a Nissan. Just not in Sunderland! - smokie