One also argues for the ears that listen or the eyes that read silently, think and bring your ideas into their own discourses.
Printable View
One also argues for the ears that listen or the eyes that read silently, think and bring your ideas into their own discourses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
That would be insanity!
If it was you lot would only demand a third referendum! :banghead
Another incurable optimist :) Call me cynic, but I think people take part in these discussions primarily because they enjoy arguing as an end in itself. I doubt that many members other than the participants read the posts in this section and I've never seen any evidence of anyone changing their mind on any significant matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I've changed my mind lots of times, over the years, thanks to some of these very same posts. Seriously.
You have to really open your mind, not just say it.
In the nick of time, and after night flights to Brussels, phone calls, extended meetings and dead-lines, the UK has concluded the first phase of its negotiations with the EU and can now move to phase two, which begin in the New Year, to open talks on security and trade.
On the three outstanding issues, there is a basic agreement that EU/UK Citizens have right to remain in their current places of abode, that the decisions of the European Court of Justice will be the arbiters of justice in a two-year transition period and that more generally,
“the [ECJ] is the ultimate arbiter of the interpretation of union law” and “UK courts shall therefore have due regard to relevant decisions of the [ECJ] after the specified date [of departure]” as well as consulting with it if the law is unclear. In the last few days, as compromise became inevitable, the British government had attempted to limit this ongoing role to less than five years. The final text includes a sunset clause of eight years instead.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...es-brexit-deal
The agreement to maintain payments to the EU on the basis of existing commitments has been made, but where the headline figure has been between 45-50 billion Euros, an ongoing commitment may in fact increase the sum and the number of years the UK will remain liable for EU expenses, thus:
In her Florence speech, May first conceded that the UK would honour all the ongoing spending commitments of the current EU budget round, even after Brexit. But the divorce agreement makes clear this extends to future spending many years beyond that too. These so-called reste à liquider (RAL) payments will be made when they fall due, rather than upfront, but this only lengthens the extent of British financial obligations.
The UK has also agreed that various contingent liabilities, such as foreign loans and staff pensions, will similarly be offset by some assets it has identified in the EU books. But this means it will take more than a decade, for example, for the UK to be reimbursed for the money it has paid into the European Investment Bank.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...es-brexit-deal
The vexing problem of the border in Ireland between North and South is a fine example of diplomatic linguistic fog -on the one hand the Prime Minister insists the UK is leaving the EU/Single Market/Customs Union, and Northern Ireland will in every sense remain in the UK, while the specific issue of the border itself has been kicked down the road to be discussed in the context of trade. But for Norther Ireland it appears to both give the DUP some vestige of decision-making power, while exposing the contradiction of the current position of the UK government, because it is claimed Northern Ireland will even its own powers-
though the agreement pledges “unfettered access” to UK markets for Northern Ireland whatever happens, it places responsibility on the Northern Ireland executive - which doesn’t currently function – to agree any new rules to stop Northern Ireland from diverging from the Republic and thus stop a hard border from forming. This basically means that if the other points fail, the executive – in which the DUP also has a veto because of powersharing rules – would have to pass the laws to keep Northern Ireland in the single market and customs union, which they say they don’t want
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8098566.html
For some, this is a triumph for Theresa May, because it secures her position as an effective negotiator. It appears to suggest the EU is not taking as rigid a position as some believed and that it is prepared to compromise -for now at least- to keep the talks going, to prevent the UK crashing out of the EU. At the moment it appears Boris Johnson and Michael Gove approve, if only because it means their jobs, salaries and perks are safe. But note the angry reaction of the Night King, writing in the Telegraph-
Every day that the Prime Minister remains in office brings us closer to a Corbyn government and a betrayal of Brexit
And so Theresa May has got her deal. But at what cost? To the 17.4 million Britons who voted to leave the EU, I would argue a heavy one. For the plain fact is that the UK remains a member of the EU in all but name. This is a fudge, as anyone who cares to be honest with themselves will acknowledge.
According to the terms as they appear this morning, vast sums of public money will continue to flow from the UK to Brussels. Britain will continue to be in the grip of the European Court of Justice. And no trade deals can be struck yet because of the transition zone in which the UK will be stuck.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...resa-may-late/
Anal lube, anyone?
So Teresa May as got her deal as she? It's a shame she hasn't explained to anyone exactly what it is? :ignore: :whistle: :?:
Not yet not yet not not not yet, wait, wait...wait...oh bugger! Looks like we have to wait for phase two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
the deal seems to be - we have dicked around for a few months with double d and bojo saying how tough we are - only to say to the eu - oh here have all you asked for - now let's see what crumbs we can have from the table.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
(ironically this pretty much happens at the moment where they are talking about a united europe and countries that didn't ratify the new treaty would be excluded. shit we could have been bought out rather than this clusterfuck that farage and co has gotten us into.)
The full impact of the deal agreed so far is beginning to sink in. Hard Brexiteers like Jacob Rees-Mogg do not yet appear to have jumped out of the trenches yet, whereas Michael Gove has in his own gnomic way registered his scepticism by arguing that
"nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" at the end of the process.After a two-year transition period, the UK would be able to pass laws with "full freedom to diverge from EU law on the single market and customs union," he added.
And the British people would "be in control" to make the government change direction if they were unhappy, he said.
"By the time of the next election, EU law and any new treaty with the EU will cease to have primacy or direct effect in UK law," said Mr Gove.
"If the British people dislike the arrangement that we have negotiated with the EU, the agreement will allow a future government to diverge."
The next general election is currently due to be held in 2022, three years after the UK leaves the EU.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42291191
As always the devil is in the detail. On Citizenship rights, the 'transition' period not only gives the European Court of Justice the control that Theresa May had previously declared to mark a 'red line' beyond which the UK could not go, it does not in fact guarantee that over the long term UK citizens living in the EU will be free to move from one EU country to another, although it does appear to make it impossible for EU citizens in the UK to bring their relatives to live with them in the UK. As we already have situations where EU citizens who have been absent from the UK (often looking after dying relatives in their country of origin) for a certain length of time are not permitted to remain in the UK and the legal cases could mount up.
But there is this little gem which John Rentoul has found which is sure to raise a protest from the hard men-
“Social security coordination rules set out in Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 will apply.”
In other words, EU citizens here will be entitled to tax credits or universal credit on the same terms as UK citizens: the restrictions negotiated by David Cameron have been dropped.
There is also the case of the European Atomic Agency which neatly summarizes the rank stupidity of leaving the EU-
“On Euratom-related (nuclear specific) issues both Parties have agreed principles for addressing the key separation issues relating to the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom. This includes agreement that the UK will be responsible for international nuclear safeguards in the UK and is committed to a future regime that provides coverage and effectiveness equivalent to existing Euratom arrangements.”
We shall not be members of Euratom but we will have “equivalent” arrangements – in other words, we carry on as we are, but have no say in future EU nuclear policy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a8098821.html
Yesterday David Davis may have thrown a bone to the dogs in his own party, claiming on tv
that the joint agreement between London and Brussels published on Friday might not be enacted if no free trade agreement was reached between the two sides, casting into doubt important reassurances over the border between Northern Ireland and the republic.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8102766.html
The Irish have responded to claim the deal is 'bullet-proof'. Either way, it still makes one wonder if the British have any idea as to what they are doing. As someone pointed out on the The World at One on Radio 4 yesterday, those Brexiteers who want to 'take back control' and 'control immigration' may find when they open trade talks with, say, India, that the Indian government wants free movement of workers -even if specified as chemists and engineers- as part of the deal, another, say, the USA, may want to influence the law on investment to the advantage of the US -for example, opening the NHS to US investment firms. Those glorious free trade deals with countries outside the EU may just be another version of what the UK wants to walk away from, even if in a less controlled relationship.
And since writing the above Davis has had to claim he was 'misquoted' and did not mean what he he said yesterday...
What I actually said yesterday, in terms, was we want to protect the peace process, we want to protect Ireland from the impact of Brexit for them. And I said this was a statement of intent which was much more than just legally enforceable. In other words, of course it is legally enforceable under the withdrawal agreement. But even if that did not happen for some reason, [if] something went wrong, we would still be seeking to provide a frictionless, invisible border with Ireland. They’ve completely twisted my words, I’m afraid.
What we’re saying is, this bit of it, the bit about full alignment argument, on the issues which affect the peace process and the Belfast agreement, we would look to that anyway because one of our absolute underpinning aims is to ensure that Ireland, and particularly the Northern Ireland peace process, is not harmed. And what is most symbolic in that is the absence of a hard border, the absence of border posts, and that sort of thing. And we are quite certain we can do that by technical and other means, even if we end up without a deal with the European Union.
When Nick Ferrari, the presenter, challenged Davis by quoting his actual words from the Marr interview at him, Davis said that he had said “much more than legally enforceable” (although that was not the exact phrase he used on Marr). He said there had been “a slight misquote”, although it was not clear if by that he meant that he had slightly misspoken when he was on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday or if he was accusing Ferrari of misquoting him.
(Reading the Marr transcript, it is fairly clear to me that, if Davis did intend to make the point he is making this morning, then he expressed himself very poorly, because he appeared to say the opposite of what he intended.)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live
I think Mr Davis has been eating too many mince pies. Curious that someone claimed that of the MPs on that strange list that was circulated last month, that the MP identified as being 'permanently drunk' was none other than DD -but what do I know?
So, that's perfectly clear, then!
The Government was defeated in the Commons yesterday, the Conservative Party appearing to be a Christmas panto as a small clutch of MPs turned on each other with 'softies' crying 'rubbish' at the attempt by a 'hardy' to defend the govt, though the word 'hard' seems inappropriate to a squashed lemon like Bernard Jenkin (son of Patrick).
The issue was an Amendment -no 7- to the Repeal Bill which concerns the way in which the government can implement any withdrawal agreement from the EU, which the government said it could do without parliamentary consent (under the so-called Henry VIII provisions)- and where the original amendment gave the govt the right to act as it wanted to, the new addition-
added the clause that it should be "subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8108986.html
Because 11 MPs voted against their own party -others abstained- there is now a belief that the govt may also lose its attempt to have the precise date of Brexit included in the Repeal Bill. These two, the vote last night and the vote next week, to the hard Brexiteers smacks of backsliding, yet Theresa May made the astonishing remark ahead of the vote that it was an unnecessary amendment because Parliament had already given the govt the right to negotiate withdrawal without a further vote in Parliament when it followed up the Referendum result with a vote to implement Article 50. She now has to concede that Parliament will vote on the final deal, which yet again puts pressure on her to get a good one.
But what does that mean? To half of Labour and the softies in the Tory party it means an agreement on a transitional period during which the UK will remain, in effect, a member of the EU with all that implies with regard to the 4 Freedoms; with the longer term hope that the EU will agree to a 'bespoke' arrangement that leaves the UK in the Single Market and/or the Customs Union which to some just looks like the UK retaining EU membership under another name.
But this begs the question -will the EU agree to such an arrangement? The irony of all this bloodletting in the Tory Party (one MP, Nadine Dorries has said the 11 rebels should all be de-selected as Parliamentary candidates for the party) is that the EU may argue that just as 'Brexit means Brexit, everywhere' they will not agree to anything other than a transitional arrangement after which the UK is no longer a member of the EU in any shape or form, but free to negotiate some access to its markets if it wants to. The logic of Brexit is that it must mean what it says, or it is not Brexit, which in turn means that Parliament must either find a way to vote to remain in the EU or accept that all this internal conflict over the wordings of amendments is just delaying the inevitable.
Hey Stav. I am vanilla to this "democratic monarchy" you have here... Perhaps you could enlighten me a bit on how the government can be defeated by some bunch of commons... In a normal country, government implements the laws made by parliament. It cannot be defeated, technically, can it? Unless maybe we are already living in a Marxist utopia lol
The United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
A Bill presented to Parliament becomes Law after it has been through several stages -First Reading, Second Reading, Committee Stage, House of Lords, Report Stage, and Third Reading. It becomes Law when the House of Lords declares the Royal Assent- 'La reine le veult'- and is sent to Her Majesty to be signed on vellum parchment, usually made from calf or goatskin.
I present here Bills introduced by the governing party rather than by individual MPs, known as 'Private Member's Bills'.
In the First Reading, the Bill is presented to the House of Commons and normally consists of a title and maybe a short introduction or description of the Bill's intention. The convention is to pass the Bill nem com, whereupon it proceeds to the next stage.
The Second Reading gives the governing party the opportunity to present and justify its Bill and for the opposition to respond, which might be a new piece of legislation, a major overhaul of existing law, or, as is the case with the EU (Withdrawal) Bill in question today, the intention is to repeal historic law and replace it with something else. Hence its popular title the 'Great Repeal Bill', which will repeal the European Communities Act of 1972 which is the legal basis on which the UK joined the EU in January 1973.
Second Readings normally allow the Government to proceed but it is technically possible for the government to lose the vote and thus be forced to drop the bill, a rare event.
The Committee Stage is the crucial sequence of debates in which the Commons has the opportunity to vote on every clause of and amendment to the Bill as presented to the House. In some cases where the Bill is of a specialist nature, say in computing technology, the House will rely on one of the Select Committees to analyse the bill and propose amendments before being voted in on the House. Because the EU (Withdrawal) Bill is a major piece of law, the whole House convenes as a Committee to debate clauses and amendments. Note that in practice MPs do not force a division on every clause and amendment, most are passed through a vocal declaration in the Chamber, but the more controversial ones will lead to a division where every MP's vote is counted.
As a guide, MPs have tabled 378 amendments and 75 new clauses to the the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. One MP, Dominic Grieve has tabled 19 amendments and one new clause.
It is at this stage that MPs can change the text of the Bill, which is what happened with Amendment 7 the other night. Because the government did not want the amendment to pass, it opposed it, but as 11 Tory MPs voted against their own party, it is in this sense that the government was defeated -on an amendment, not on the whole of the Bill, which has some way to go yet.
Once the Committee Stage has been completed the draft goes to the House of Lords where it can be further amended, before returning to the Commons for the Report Stage and is the last opportunity the House has to table amendments before the final
Third Reading which completes the formal process and proceed to the Royal Assent as described above.
A guide to Parliamentary procedure can be found here-
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/legislat...ugh-parliament
The text of the EU Withdrawal Bill, and amendments, can be found here-
https://services.parliament.uk/bills...documents.html
Two articles and one report offer an insight into the problems that the UK is facing with its negotiations over Brexit, the immediate problem of a labour shortage in agriculture, and the broader context in which the UK has managed its 'open economy' since Mrs Thatcher was elected in 1979.
In the first, there is evidence from an EU report that the EU negotiating team takes a different view from the UK on what the transitional arrangement will contain, and how they believe the UK will be able to trade with the EU when it leaves. It reveals that the interim agreement on citizen's rights has yet to reach a more comprehensive agreement on those rights -the UK wants to date them from the invocation of Article 50 in 2017 where the EU wants to maintain free movement through to 2020. Of critical importance, the aim of the UK to negotiate a trade deal which will give it access to the single market and/or the customs union is being challenged by Norway which has said that if the UK gets a special 'bespoke' trade deal, it will demand changes to its own trading arrangements.
The UK wants an arrangement whereby passporting rights currently based in the City of London, would be re-located to the EU through 'shell companies' which would mean that the City would, in effect, retain the rights but using those vehicles, a proposal that is not going very far in the UK. Restrictions on the right of airlines to fly passengers and freight from the UK to destination in the EU suggest the budget airline industry will be forced to change, and probably contract, and thus lead to higher fares, with the options of a £40 flight to Spain disappearing, or graduating to £100.
The classic position, with the UK saying one thing and the EU another is captured here:
Downing Street’s Brexit adviser, Olly Robbins, suggested in a recent cabinet meeting that the UK would operate on three levels post-Brexit with the EU, with some sectors being entirely free from Brussels regulation while others were fully converged to allow frictionless trade. In a third “basket” of sectors, the two sides could share the same goals but “achieve them through different means”.
One senior EU official said: “It’s what we always thought the UK would be going for and that’s why we have been quite clear that we don’t think that it is on.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...brexit-demands
Meanwhile farmers are desperate for labour as the harvesting of Jersey Royals is in crisis-
The largest producer of Jersey Royal potatoes has warned crops may be left to rot in the fields because foreign workers have left ahead of Brexit.
Polish workers – who had previously provided the majority of seasonal labour – have abandoned Jersey following the EU referendum, according to Charlie Gallichan of Woodside Farms, which grows and exports Jersey Royals, vegetables and flowers.
Growers are “trying to keep their heads above water until they get reinforcements” from Africa and elsewhere, he said, warning that the current shortage of staff could result in crops being left in the fields.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8160206.html
The second article is a fascinating essay on the extent to which Mrs Thatcher, by creating an 'open economy' free of regulations limiting foreign ownership of business in the UK has weakened the ability of the UK to make demands in trade deals that would benefit the country.
From the early 1980s, the UK progressively relaxed restrictions on foreign ownership of business and property. This had far-reaching implications for the City of London, starting with the “big bang” reforms of 1986. Britain encouraged foreign ownership through takeovers and mergers of financial institutions, and deregulated financial markets, opening the City to greater competition (and unwittingly leading Britain to be heavily exposed to the 2008 financial crisis).
The article notes the shift from manufacturing to services in the UK economy, but notes too that while the UK has benefited from being in the Single Market, this would not apply to free trade deals outside the EU, while the impact of more liberalization of the UK economy as promised by Brexiteers like Daniel Hannan and Michael Gove would have a negative impact on the economy-
By eliminating all tariffs and deregulating its economy even further, the UK would offset some of the productivity losses from hard Brexit. Cheaper imports would lead to many of Britain’s manufacturing companies to go under, and capital and labour would flow to companies that could compete internationally, or which did not face much import competition in the first place. But the result would be higher unemployment, at least in the short term, greater job insecurity and even higher regional inequality.
London could cope with another radical bout of liberalisation; Sheffield for example, could not.
The concluding remark sums up the problem generated by Brexit-
Now that the Brexit talks will move on to trade, Britain will have to choose. It can maintain EU rules and stay in the customs union, minimising economic costs. It is true that it would then not be able to influence new EU rules. But the alternative is worse: ministers can go to Washington and Beijing, but they’ll be told: “sign here”. What good is achieving sovereignty, only to immediately give it away?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a8160026.html
Willkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome, and of course, Witamy to the latest update on the longest botched suicide in British political history, also known as 'Brexit'
1) This week the House of Lords began its review of the EU Withdrawal Bill. They cannot change the fundamental terms, but it is expected they will propose as many amendments as they can to 'soften the blow'. The Lords will spent most of February tugging this way and that, before the Bill goes back to the Commons for its Third Reading, with the expectation that the Bill will be passed, as amended, probably after Easter in April.
2) In the meantime the EU has presented its view of the 'transitional' arrangements it is proposing to structure the UK's orderly exit from the EU, welcomed by Theresa May and her United Government, sneered at by the Wolves (or are they Jackals?) who sense a betrayal as the UK remains in the EU on EU terms long after Farage Day in March 2019. This is how the EU has presented it:
- There will be no "cherry picking": The United Kingdom will continue to participate in the Customs Union and the Single Market (with all four freedoms). The Union acquis will continue to apply in full to and in the United Kingdom as if it were a Member State. As a result, the United Kingdom should remain bound by the obligations stemming from agreements with third countries. Any changes made to the acquis during this time should automatically apply to the United Kingdom.
- All existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures will apply, including the competence of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
- The United Kingdom will be a third country as of 30 March 2019. It will, therefore, no longer be represented in Union institutions, agencies, bodies and offices.
- The transition period needs to be clearly defined and precisely limited in time. It should not last beyond 31 December 2020. Consequently, the provisions on citizens' rights in the Withdrawal Agreement should apply as of the end of the transition period.
- http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-463_en.htm
However, there is talk of the UK adopting a 'gradual divergence' strategy that would mean instead of a 'clean break' with the EU in 2021 the UK would maintain the same rules it has used as an EU member in areas such as technology, robotics and artificial intelligence and data sharing although this may to some appear to be the 'cherry picking' the EU wants to avoid.
https://www.ft.com/content/464586b4-...0-857e26d1aca4
3) Theresa May is expected to give another 'Important Speech' in February. Can't wait.
4) The rumblings in the Tory Party, with evidence from the letters page of the Telegraph are that Mrs May is doing all she can to prevent the UK from leaving the EU on the 30th March 2019 and must go. I thought she might not survive the winter and we would be having an election next month, but she has survived. The view is that if the Tories do badly in the Local Elections in May she will face a leadership challenge later in the year -before or after the Party conference in October- with the assumption by her enemies she will not stand, whereas she has said today she is not quitting, and so we don't really know as the question, who will replace her? is not that clear given the weird behaviour of Boris Johnson in the last month.
A week is a long time in politics. This time next week who knows where we will be?
I am not sure if the comedy of errors that is Brexit will indeed end well, certainly nobody at the moment is laughing. Last August I pointed out that the interim agreement on Northern Ireland and its border with the Republic of Ireland, in which the UK and EU believed there would be 'regulatory alignment' and thus no need for a 'hard border' was in fact diplomacy kicking this can down the road.
Today, according to The Guardian
The EU has published its plan to effectively keep Northern Ireland in the single market and customs union after Brexit, in a 120-page draft withdrawal agreement that will throw the negotiations into crisis.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-customs-union
It comes in a frenetic week which was sparked off by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn arguing that the UK must seek to form 'a' customs union with the EU when it leaves 'the' customs union in 2019-22. Though welcomed by many in the business community, this was Corbyn needling the Tory Party in his attempt to undermine Mrs May's leadership and lead through a contentious vote on the issue in the Commons to the collapse of the government and a General Election. That Corbyn's position is just another fantasy was underlined by Vernon Bogdanor, the ex-Oxford Professor of Government (he now works in London) in this article in The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nion-eu-turkey
There is a similar problem looming with Gibraltar as Spain claims sovereignty over the airport which is on land claimed by both Spain and the UK, while 'regulatory alignment' suggests that as with Northern Ireland the EU may propose maintaining Gibraltrar's status in the Single Market and Customs Union even though this too would violate 'the integrity' of the UK.
Give their presence of their warships in the South Atlantic, one wonders if China is planning to invade the Falkland Islands. I throw in this daft, crazy idea given that on Brexit most of our politicians are just as crazy and daft and haven't got a clue what they are doing.
In fact; everyone is laughing at the incompetence of the current leader of the UK except you. What cunt can't see that?
I know the thought for you horrible Liberals of a left wing Government will cause you more sleepless nights but it's actually a master stroke by Corbyn getting Labour closer to No.10 Downing Street, that's why you're really annoyed.
YOU & your lot are everything that's wrong with this country.
Mr's Mays' Government doesn't need any help undermining itself. It's the worst Government in living memory! You should be more concerned about what's happening on your own doorstep like 16 young lives being lost in London alone this year because of knife crime, education & the teachers crisis & the NHS instead of worrying about big business & fucking millionaires. People like you have too much money & time on your hands, telling everyone else without money and much time due to working how we should be living ours!
Peejaye, as you know I am not a Liberal, and am opposed to Labour and Corbyn for many reasons other than their fantasy policy framework. Corbyn as I said in the post you have responded to has tried to stir things up in the Tory Party with its customs union gimmick, but Labour policy on Brexit is the same as the Tories but I note your post actually says nothing about Brexit because you are in denial about the partnership on the EU that Corbyn has formed with Theresa May.
As for domestic policy, you don't know what I think about it because I have not discussed it in a thread on the EU, and I have not even implied I know better than you how to spend your money. At the core of this is your refusal to engage with the reality of Brexit, which may make it harder, not easier to resolve critical issues in housing, education, NHS funding and corporate greed. As the ex-civil servant pointed out yesterday, the UK leaving the EU is equivalent to swapping a three course meal for a packet of crisps. In a few years time, that may be all we can afford to eat. Better focus on the matter at hand than make personal statements about me that are of little interest to anyone and wildly off the mark.
All you big PRO-Establishment fuckers can do is speculate. We may as well all listen to a clairvoyant. And as for the ex-civil servant; You mean the millionaire ex- civil servant, probably another cunt crying over the gravy train(for the privileged few, not the many) as all of you remaining moaners are; I'll take the packet of crisps, thanks!
Go and find some gullible cunt who doesn't see right through you lot, your wasting my time.... & oh,
What are you bastard lot going to accuse Jeremy Corbyn of next week? We've had a terrorist & a spy amongst others so far!
I'll go paedophile next?
How odd -RedVex calls me a Communist when I don't share her views, and when I don't share yours it is because I am 'Pro-Establishment'. Had you asked I would have agreed with you that the campaign against Corbyn is plain daft, not least because when I went to a meeting in London in 1981 after the Brixton riots with someone who later sat on the Labour's Front Bench and was a Secretary of State under Blair, on the way home she asked me did I notice the guy from Special Branch? The Mail and Murdoch's dirty rags are desperate, Corbyn at the time was under surveillance owing to his 'dialogue' with Provisional Sinn Fein, so the idea he was a Soviet Spy who had access to British intelligence of any kind is bizarre. And who cares what Margret Thatcher had for breakfast?Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
I don't oppose the state or public ownership of utilities, I just wonder if the UK can make it work given that our track record is so poor. It is worth asking how it is possible for that Bastion of Capitalism, Switzerland to prefer state to private ownership of its utilities, its train services, and so on. If it was a magic formula then we could adopt it without tears, but after Brexit, I don't see where the money is going to come from to pay for it all, though the irony is that if the foreign owners of our utilities and train companies decide the business is no longer profitable for them, the Labour Govt may have to taken them into public ownership anyway, and still nobody wants to concede Brexit will mean rises in income tax, interest rates, VAT or its replacement, customs and excise duties on alcohol and tobacco etc etc.
More to the point: the economy of the Republic of Ireland is deeply connected to the UK; Northern Ireland costs the UK taxpayer around £11 billion a year in subsidies, so when are you going to offer us a solution to the fact that, thanks to you, the UK will be leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union, and that this creates a problem owing to the clause in the Good Friday Agreement that guarantees an open border between North and South? You can speculate as much as you like about what life will be like outside the EU, but right now we need practical solutions, which you seem unwilling to even discuss.
And unless I am mistaken, you are on the same side as that pompous Liar, Boris Johnson, and his menagerie of liars, frauds and fantasists ranging from Jacob Rees-Mogg to Liam Fox, Dominic Raab and Danniel Hannan, not to mention that proven racist Nigel Farage, the man who wants to break up California. A bit more focus on policy might serve you better.
Ha ha ha, brilliant. You really are very ill with it aren't you. :D
You Politicians have been told by "The great un-washed" what we really think of you lot, with your fucking duck-houses & your £40 breakfasts your claiming everyday & you can't handle it. GET OVER IT! I don't debate Politics with Politicians who hide behind a mask.
Firstly; I'm not on anyones' side. I'd stick all those cunts above on top of a bonfire on November 5th....apart from Farage. WE have him to thank for this wonderful moment. :Bowdown:
Secondly; RedVex calls everyone a communist!
& Thirdly; The Railways of Switzerland(SBB) are actually ran by a group of private franchisees over a very lengthy period of time(20+ years).
Go & see your GP for some more medication, the last lot clearly didn't work? Oh & good luck. If it's anything like my surgery, be prepared to wait 4/5 week!
I forgot to add to your latest tantrum;
I am actually on the side of the 52% of the UK population.
You're not with 52% of the population.
You're with 17 million adult voters.
A small thing, but worth pointing out. :shrug
I was a political activist, I admit to that, but have never been a politician, and as a result of what I saw in the CLP I was mostly active in (there were two both in London) I did not want to be associated with corruption even at that level. I could give you the details but I suspect you would find a reason to dismiss them, and I have no doubt that the corrupt practices in Labour councils are replicated by Tory ones too, there are some goodies the most diehard comrade cannot resist, when offered.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
The Swiss rail network is mostly owed by the State, with some branch networks jointly owned by the State, the Canton and local communities. Many are small alpine railway lines that are used for ski resorts in the winter.
As for the NHS, without going into the details I have had extensive treatment these past 18 months and have no complaints other than with hospital food, but that is because I don't like porridge, which is basically vomit and unfit for human consumption; but even if I could, I would not spend £40 on breakfast.
As usual, you are keen to defend Brexit, and I even understand why, yet you cannot think through it to offer us your solution to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic if and when the UK leaves the Customs Union, or if the EU insists that NI remain in the Customs Union provoking, potentially, a constitutional crisis in the UK.
Don't correct me on Swiss Railways. I've travelled every line in the country since the mid 90's & worked as a correspondent for a magazine on the subject. I also have a good friend who's a driver in Luzern. The SBB is ran by private franchisees'.
Just accept; You DON'T know everything!
My job, as stated to you SEVERAL times, is not to find solutions to aid Politicians. I'm a railway man(35 years) in 2013 I attended brewing University in Edinburgh. I now work part time in a family ran brewery. You want me to solve solutions on either those two subjects, maybe I can help you.
I also don't debate with you because you don't accept ANYTHING you don't agree with. You're absolutely obsessed and furious about the subject. :banghead
Get the picture?
I will let you spend your own time finding out what a franchise is, in the meantime I am open to change my mind on any issue if I am persuaded that I am wrong or don't know enough about it-you are unable to persuade me that Brexit is a good idea because so far you have not given me any reason to think so, and when asked about the consequences you shut down debate by claiming it is all speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
What is not speculation is what we have now, a single market of 500 million producers and consumers, a customs union with tariff free movement of goods, trade worth over $200 billion a year. If I knew what was so wrong with that the UK should leave the EU altogether for something better you need to be more specific about what better means. In fact, it is the Leave campaign that have based everything on speculation, as if reality were too much to bear.
Here is an interesting contrast: Gibraltar with Northern Ireland. Because of its different history and connections to both the UK and Spain, Gibraltar appears to present a conundrum every bit as fraught as Northern Ireland. In fact I think now that the situation of Gibraltar, which voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, as it has voted to remain part of the UK, can be solved through a bespoke Customs Union arrangement similar to the ones which affect the French Caribbean, and protectorates like Monaco, San Marino, Andorra and the Vatican. It would require agreement with Spain, which has a veto on Gibraltarian affairs, but in practical terms, the fact that Gibraltar has a border with Spain not the UK, means in it is in the interests of both to find a common agreement. It would mean a part of the UK was still in the Customs Union and subject to both the Single Market and the jurisdiction of the ECJ, but I think this is a compromise that would be accepted even by leave lunatics like Rees-Mogg.
A useful article on the Gibraltar issue is here-
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a8234516.html
Whether a similar bespoke agreement could be reached with Northern Ireland would depend on the Democratic Unionist Party, currently ignoring the fact that most of Northern Ireland voted to Remain in the EU. Theresa May before the Referendum in 2016 argued it would not be possible for the UK to leave the EU without re-imposing a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, that she now has to oppose just that highlights the dilemma of a Conservative Prime Minister who, in reality doesn't believe in the Brexit project she is supposed to be leading.
Your fucking arrogance defies belief? :fu:
The alternative position is to engage in the debate, be it the Customs Union, Northern Ireland, free trade, and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
What is it that you want? Forget about me, focus on the policies. That way you might not be so upset.
You are Jacob Rees Mogg...I claim my five gold sovereigns! :hide-1:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I don't have a double-breasted suit, and definitely don't have seven children! As for those gold sovereigns...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
I personally think you should be sectioned under the mental health act ! I really do ! I'd like to say I feel sorry if you've lost your job, your house & your life savings, as your erratic unstable behaviour suggests on this topic but I'm not sorry. In fact I hope Sir Nigel Farage & David Cameron give you fucking nightmares for the rest of your miserable life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
And there you have it, the insanity of the Brexit.
We're going to bribe, er, i mean, give the EU £35 billion.
And they're going to let us become an offshoot of the Cayman Islands.
Great Britain PLC...Tax haven to the rich and shameless.
With what he's set to make, I'm sure Jacob Rees Mogg thinks it's cheap at twice the price!
Looks like that "Magic money tree" as reared its ugly head again!
The UK already is a fucking tax haven for those bastards, we pay more than that lot ever will ! Ask Mr's Mays husband all about that!
I thought this sort of thing wasn't supposed to happen under Brexit?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-43245227
Quote:
Work is expected to start later in the year provided the company secures "major future orders".
Siemens did not say what would happen to the plans if those orders were not forthcoming.
Definitely maybe! :shrug
Rather than respond to this incoherent post, may I ask you to respond to Theresa May's 'important speech' in which she says that the UK is leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union...but will be negotiating compromises to allow the UK to remain in EU agencies, with access to the Single Market...Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
Then there is the rubbish she spoke about the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic-
80% of North-South trade is carried out by micro, small and medium sized businesses. So for smaller traders - who as members of the community are most affected but whose economic role is not systemically significant for the EU market - we would allow them to continue to operate as they do currently, with no new restrictions.
And for larger traders we would introduce streamlined processes, including a trusted trader scheme that would be consistent with our commitments.
Both of these options for our future customs arrangement would leave the UK free to determine its own tariffs with third countries - which would simply not be possible in a customs union.
I recognise that some of these ideas depend on technology, robust systems to ensure trust and confidence, as well as goodwill - but they are serious and merit consideration by all sides.
So to conclude on goods, a fundamental principle in our negotiating strategy is that trade at the UK-EU border should be as frictionless as possible with no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Goodwill? Trust? 80% trade but what the hell they are just small traders, as in, what about the law??? What about WTO rules on cross-border trade?
And, as a champion of the working class, what about this garbage---?
The UK will need to make a strong commitment that its regulatory standards will remain as high as the EU's. That commitment, in practice, will mean that UK and EU regulatory standards will remain substantially similar in the future.
So we are leaving but everything will be the same? And isn't it your Leave Buddies Liam Fox, Daniel Hannan and Bill Cash who actually want to de-regulate in the name of free markets not 'remain substantially similar in the future'--? Even Corby is against this.
The text of the speech is here, the truth lies elsewhere...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43256183