Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Barky]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

 

If you are basing your assessment of the current status of our BREXIT preparations on a report from Deloitte whose author had no access to number 10 then you are not well informed. Deloitte are quite capable of coming up with utter shit after 12 months of full access for a start.  Also it isn't nearly 6 months is it?  Theresa became PM 4 months and 2 days ago.  Ministers have to get to grips with their brief, and then you need to build early consensus between key players.  You are massively misguided if you think any industry that relies heavily on planning would have demonstrated anything you would want to share publicly 4 months after appointing a project team.  They would just about define the project charter and agree who did what by then.

Not just the report but the nissan sweetheart deal as well. Theres no smoke without fire. All I can say to that is that things must be different in government. In my industry given over four months and a fully staffed team you'd have a lot more than an outline plan.

[GazzinderFox]

34 minutes ago, Barky said:

Not just the report but the nissan sweetheart deal as well. Theres no smoke without fire.

Is the Google deal that the BBC are currently squirrelling away in the business section http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37988095 just based on bribery as well? (yes they don't pay their taxes blah blah blah but they don't do that anywhere).

 

Funny but I bet if google were cutting 3,000 jobs it would be on the BBCs front page...  

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Barky said:

Not just the report but the nissan sweetheart deal as well. Theres no smoke without fire. All I can say to that is that things must be different in government. In my industry given over four months and a fully staffed team you'd have a lot more than an outline plan.

I think you underestimate the complexity of Brexit, but you are right things move more slowly in Government.  Sweetheart deals are nothing new.

[Innovindil]

23 hours ago, GazzinderFox said:

Is the Google deal that the BBC are currently squirrelling away in the business section http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37988095 just based on bribery as well? (yes they don't pay their taxes blah blah blah but they don't do that anywhere).

 

Funny but I bet if google were cutting 3,000 jobs it would be on the BBCs front page...  

Like when inflation rose 1% it was on the front page all day yet when it fell to 0.9% it was on the front page for all of 3 minutes. 

 

Anyone that thinks BBC isn't pushing their own agenda is sinfully deluded. They are supposed to be impartial. 

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Like when inflation rose 1% it was on the front page all day yet when it fell to 0.9% it was on the front page for all of 3 minutes. 

 

Anyone that thinks BBC isn't pushing their own agenda is sinfully deluded. They are supposed to be impartial. 

 

It's easy for either side to cite anecdotes of BBC "bias".

 

For example, yesterday BBC TV news highlighted the fall in unemployment (as measured via the Labour Force Survey), suggesting that Brexit was having little short-term economic impact.

They barely mentioned the fact that unemployment as measured by the "claimant count" (people claiming dole) had risen, suggesting that the economy might be turning in the wrong direction.

 

As it happens, I agree with that prioritisation as statisticians generally believe that the Labour Force Survey is more accurate than claimant count (though a sustained trend in either is relevant).

[Alf Bentley]

Naughty, Naughty Nigel!: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/17/eu-set-to-ask-ukip-group-to-repay-almost-150000-in-misspent-funds

 

"Ukip is likely to be asked to repay tens of thousands of euros by European parliament finance chiefs who have accused the party of misspending EU funds on party workers and Nigel Farage’s failed bid to win a seat in Westminster. The Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe, a Ukip-dominated political vehicle, will be asked to repay €173,000 (£148,000) in misspent funds and denied a further €501,000 in EU grants for breaking European rules that ban spending EU money on national election campaigns and referendums.According to a European parliament audit report seen by the Guardian, Ukip spent EU funds on polling and analysis in constituencies where they hoped to win a seat in the 2015 general election, including the South Thanet seat that party leader Farage contested. The party also funded polls to gauge the public mood on leaving the EU, months before the official campaign kicked off in April 2016".

 

According to Private Eye, UKIP is already in very serious financial trouble, so things could get interesting if the EU does demand its money back...

[Innovindil]

42 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Naughty, Naughty Nigel!: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/17/eu-set-to-ask-ukip-group-to-repay-almost-150000-in-misspent-funds

 

"Ukip is likely to be asked to repay tens of thousands of euros by European parliament finance chiefs who have accused the party of misspending EU funds on party workers and Nigel Farage’s failed bid to win a seat in Westminster. The Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe, a Ukip-dominated political vehicle, will be asked to repay €173,000 (£148,000) in misspent funds and denied a further €501,000 in EU grants for breaking European rules that ban spending EU money on national election campaigns and referendums.According to a European parliament audit report seen by the Guardian, Ukip spent EU funds on polling and analysis in constituencies where they hoped to win a seat in the 2015 general election, including the South Thanet seat that party leader Farage contested. The party also funded polls to gauge the public mood on leaving the EU, months before the official campaign kicked off in April 2016".

 

According to Private Eye, UKIP is already in very serious financial trouble, so things could get interesting if the EU does demand its money back...

Irrelevant tbh. The party is pretty much finished post-referendum anyways. Only reason it started getting support was for brexit, now that that's done they don't have anything to offer. 

[Buce]

Repatriate it!

 

British funds for British political parties!

[Alf Bentley]

22 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Irrelevant tbh. The party is pretty much finished post-referendum anyways. Only reason it started getting support was for brexit, now that that's done they don't have anything to offer. 

 

UKIP might prove to be finished, but I certainly don't think that's inevitable - even if they're currently a shambles.

 

The victories of Brexit and Trump, and the strong showing of nationalist-populist parties in France, Netherlands, Germany and elsewhere all suggest there's a big opportunity for a populist/nationalist anti-establishment party.

UKIP is the logical candidate to fill that gap....though it may implode and some other party may step up.

 

That opportunity is only likely to get greater if any of the following happen:

- economic problems affect living standards/jobs;

- social problems continue (lack of cheap housing, low pay, job insecurity, declining public services)

- no perceptible decrease in immigration/foreigners in UK;

- EU takes a tough negotiating line & no good Brexit deal is easily available;

- Labour  continues to lack credibility as an opposition;

- the Tory Govt is perceived as divided and failing to deal with these problems

 

If I was a betting man, my money would be on at least 4, probably all 6 of those things happening.

 

[Spudulike]

Britain and the Common Market

Geography and history determine that Britain is part of Europe, and Labour wants to see Europe safe and prosperous. But the European Economic Community, which does not even include the whole of Western Europe, was never devised to suit us, and our experience as a member of it has made it more difficult for us to deal with our economic and industrial problems. It has sometimes weakened our ability to achieve the objectives of Labour's international policy.

The next Labour government, committed to radical, socialist policies for reviving the British economy, is bound to find continued membership a most serious obstacle to the fulfilment of those policies. In particular the rules of the Treaty of Rome are bound to conflict with our strategy for economic growth and full employment, our proposals on industrial policy and for increasing trade, and our need to restore exchange controls and to regulate direct overseas investment. Moreover, by preventing us from buying food from the best sources of world supply, they would run counter to our plans to control prices and inflation.

For all these reasons, British withdrawal from the Community is the right policy for Britain - to be completed well within the lifetime of the parliament. That is our commitment. But we are also committed to bring about withdrawal in an amicable and orderly way, so that we do not prejudice employment or the prospect of increased political and economic co-operation with the whole of Europe.

We emphasise that our decision to bring about withdrawal in no sense represents any weakening of our commitment to internationalism and international co operation. We are not 'withdrawing from Europe'. We are seeking to extricate ourselves from the Treaty of Rome and other Community treaties which place political burdens on Britain. Indeed, we believe our withdrawal will allow us to pursue a more dynamic and positive international policy - one which recognises the true political and geographical spread of international problems and interests. We will also seek agreement with other European governments - both in the EEC and outside - on a common strategy for economic expansion.

The process of withdrawal

On taking office we will open preliminary negotiations with the other EEC member states to establish a timetable for withdrawal; and we will publish the results of these negotiations in a White Paper. In addition, as soon as possible after the House assembles, we will introduce a Repeal Bill: first, in order to amend the 1972 European Communities Act, ending the powers of the Community in the UK; and second, to provide the necessary powers to repeal the 1972 Act, when the negotiations on withdrawal are completed.

Following the publication of the White Paper, we will begin the main negotiations on withdrawal. Later, when appropriate and in the same parliament, we will use our powers to repeal the 1972 Act and abrogate the Treaty of Accession - thus breaking all of our formal links with the Community. Britain will at this point withdraw from the Council of Ministers and from the European Parliament.

There will need to be a period of transition, to ensure a minimum of disruption - and to phase in any new agreements we might make with the Community. This will enable us to make all the necessary changes in our domestic legislation. Until these changes in UK law have taken place, the status quo as regards particular items of EEC legislation will remain. And this period will, of course, extend beyond the date when we cease, formally, to be members.

 

Labour Party 1983

[davieG]

Sixty Conservative MPs, including seven ex-cabinet ministers, are calling for Britain to quit the single market and customs union when it leaves the EU.

Writing in the Telegraph, Suella Fernandes MP said only in leaving would the UK "truly be a beacon of international free trade".

Michael Gove, Iain Duncan Smith and Theresa Villier are among her backers.

The government said it would not give a "running commentary" before talks but would aim for the "best possible deal".

It comes as other senior Tories are urging the PM to drop an appeal against a ruling that MPs must vote on Brexit before the process can begin.

'EU shackles'

The group of 60 Tories - out of a total of 328 Conservative MPs - want Britain to pull out of both the European single market and the customs union, which allows its members to trade without tariffs but imposes common duties on goods imported from outside the bloc.

Ms Fernandes said the 23 June vote to leave the EU had been "an instruction to untie ourselves from EU shackles and freely embrace the rest of the world".

"As was made clear in the referendum campaign, remaining in the EU's internal market like Norway, or in a customs union like Turkey, is not compatible with either of these commitments and doing so would frustrate the will of the electorate."

All you need to know about the UK leaving the EU

Drop Brexit case appeal, senior Tories urge May

A government spokeswoman said it was committed to getting a unique deal for Britain, "not an 'off the shelf' solution".

She said: "The government is painstakingly analysing the challenges and opportunities for all the different sectors of our economy.

"The prime minister has been clear that she wants UK companies to have the maximum freedom to trade with and operate in the single market - and to let European businesses do the same here.

"Beyond that, it's not in the UK's interest to give a running commentary on our thinking that could undermine our negotiating position."

[GaelicFox]

Brexit 

 

what Brexit ? 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-protests-parliament-london-article-50-eu-referendun-a7434416.html

 

"Organisers of a supposedly major protest outside Parliament to express their anger at a High Court ruling on Brexit appear to have been disappointed after only a small number of people turned up.A range of pro-Brexit groups had invited around 15,000 people to the event, with almost 2,000 confirming they were planning to attend. However, it appears fewer than 100 demonstrators showed up. [...] "This protest is to remind our judges and MPs of how passionately we feel about our democracy and to let them know that we will not remain silent while privileged establishment figures attempt to change, dilute and disrespect what the people voted for to suit their own agendas".

....So that'll be "not very passionately at all, then"? 

 

I wonder how many will turn up for Farage's march of 100,000 Brexiteers on the Appeal Court, if the appeal goes ahead?

[Strokes]

Since when have the government paid any notice of protests? I'll just wait until election time and vote for the most pro brexit candidate, hopefully that's what they all do. Then we can be properly represented.

[ousefox]

Anybody worried about the OBR financial forecasts then? Or are we still not allowed to listen to experts?

[Alf Bentley]

21 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Since when have the government paid any notice of protests? I'll just wait until election time and vote for the most pro brexit candidate, hopefully that's what they all do. Then we can be properly represented.

 

I tend to agree about the lack of notice taken of protests. I think the last protest that I was on was the massive protest against the impending invasion of Iraq (2003?).

 

Makes you wonder what Farage hopes to achieve by calling on 100,000 to join a protest march to the Appeal Court...anti-democratic intimidation of the British legal system?

 

God only knows what the state of politics and the nation generally will be at the next election if it is in 2020.....pretty unpredictable even if it happens in 2017, tbf.

[Buce]

4 hours ago, Strokes said:

Since when have the government paid any notice of protests? I'll just wait until election time and vote for the most pro brexit candidate, hopefully that's what they all do. Then we can be properly represented.

 

The Poll Tax. 

[Jon the Hat]

4 hours ago, Watson said:

Anybody worried about the OBR financial forecasts then? Or are we still not allowed to listen to experts?

The ones which forecast a couple of years of downturn then a return to similar levels of growth that they predicted before BREXIT vote?  I dont think there is anything remotely surprising about the forecast.  To be honest though, without knowing what the next couple of years bring, they have no more idea as to what the following years will look like than they did pre BREXIT vote.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

On ‎17‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 14:24, Alf Bentley said:

Naughty, Naughty Nigel!: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/17/eu-set-to-ask-ukip-group-to-repay-almost-150000-in-misspent-funds

 

"Ukip is likely to be asked to repay tens of thousands of euros by European parliament finance chiefs who have accused the party of misspending EU funds on party workers and Nigel Farage’s failed bid to win a seat in Westminster. The Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe, a Ukip-dominated political vehicle, will be asked to repay €173,000 (£148,000) in misspent funds and denied a further €501,000 in EU grants for breaking European rules that ban spending EU money on national election campaigns and referendums.According to a European parliament audit report seen by the Guardian, Ukip spent EU funds on polling and analysis in constituencies where they hoped to win a seat in the 2015 general election, including the South Thanet seat that party leader Farage contested. The party also funded polls to gauge the public mood on leaving the EU, months before the official campaign kicked off in April 2016".

 

According to Private Eye, UKIP is already in very serious financial trouble, so things could get interesting if the EU does demand its money back...

Well, they're going to have a bloody long wait! The European Parliament can go and do one.

[Nick]

15 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

Well, they're going to have a bloody long wait! The European Parliament can go and do one.

Or perhaps UKIP should be held to account if they have stolen money?

 

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Or perhaps UKIP should be held to account if they have stolen money?

 

 

It's not stealing when you're taking ill gotten gains from the EU behemoth, haven't you heard?

[Nick]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

It's not stealing when you're taking ill gotten gains from the EU behemoth, haven't you heard?

Wasn't the argument UKIP used to exit the EU that it was money that the UK paid that was misappropriated and spent poorly? Where as they spent it on their own agenda it would seem? Hypocrites, thieves and liars are three words which initially spring to mind! 

[GaelicFox]

May can't even understand how she is going to trigger article 50  

 

its a fudge 

 

there will be no Brexit just a separation of certain ways 

 

 

now MPs look set to get the vote on if we leave the common market 

 

that vote will be trounced in the commons no way are MPs going to vote to leave that common market

 

and if May switches sides and backs leaving the common market and then  loses that vote she will have to resign 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38126899

[foxy boxing]

should we have a referendum on whether or not to have a 2nd referendum. whether people like it or not we need access to the free market and Europe will try and stitch us up with whatever they want for us to get access to it. we want to cut immigration but Europe clearly does not want us to do it. Europe says that the free movement of people is a fundamental right but shouldn't it be a right of our country to be able to limit immigration

[GazzinderFox]

4 hours ago, foxy boxing said:

should we have a referendum on whether or not to have a 2nd referendum.

I dunno. Lets have a referendum on that.