I'm genuinely starting to wonder if the reason the talks aren't moving onto "phase two" (even though both the UK and EU are apparently largely in agreement on the "phase one" issues) is actually at May's and Davis's request, to give them more time to decide what type of "future relationship" they want with the EU.
I read somewhere a while back that David Davis was genuinely overwhelmed by what Brexit actually entailed.
The practicalities of things like, inter alia, the Open Skies Agreement, the Border with the Republic, Euroatom, and converting 46 years worth of laws were things that never crossed his mind until he became Brexit Secretary and incompatible with his initial thoughts (and Mrs May's red lines) on the jurisdiction and competence of the CJEU.
Does anybody have any links or news from the Argentina mid-term elections going on today?
I know this is PB but I think even we fail to raise any enthusiasm for the Argentinian mid-term elections, as I would imagine do even a majority of Argentines themselves.
I'm genuinely starting to wonder if the reason the talks aren't moving onto "phase two" (even though both the UK and EU are apparently largely in agreement on the "phase one" issues) is actually at May's and Davis's request, to give them more time to decide what type of "future relationship" they want with the EU.
I read somewhere a while back that David Davis was genuinely overwhelmed by what Brexit actually entailed.
The practicalities of things like, inter alia, the Open Skies Agreement, the Border with the Republic, Euroatom, and converting 46 years worth of laws were things that never crossed his mind until he became Brexit Secretary and incompatible with his initial thoughts (and Mrs May's red lines) on the jurisdiction and competence of the CJEU.
Between our years of membership and accession, we have a half century of laws, regulations, treaties, trade deals and citizens moves to unpick and rewrite.
Just as well we have such an excellent Parliament to do it in 18 months.
Does anybody have any links or news from the Argentina mid-term elections going on today?
I know this is PB but I think even we fail to raise any enthusiasm for the Argentinian mid-term elections, as I would imagine do even a majority of Argentines themselves.
I love the Argentinian mid terms.
They use d'Hondt PR, which is nearly as good as AV.
So we'll go into Christmas/New Year with no transition deal, and no clear idea of what we're asking for...
May has effectively ceded ground on citizens rights and more money for the EU which is what the EU wanted to hear as shown by their warmer words this week, she is simply delaying the inevitable domestic politics backlash and the possible if not likely Boris resignation if it does indeed transpire than she has agree a £50 billion+ payment to the EU for a deal.
I'm genuinely starting to wonder if the reason the talks aren't moving onto "phase two" (even though both the UK and EU are apparently largely in agreement on the "phase one" issues) is actually at May's and Davis's request, to give them more time to decide what type of "future relationship" they want with the EU.
I read somewhere a while back that David Davis was genuinely overwhelmed by what Brexit actually entailed.
The practicalities of things like, inter alia, the Open Skies Agreement, the Border with the Republic, Euroatom, and converting 46 years worth of laws were things that never crossed his mind until he became Brexit Secretary and incompatible with his initial thoughts (and Mrs May's red lines) on the jurisdiction and competence of the CJEU.
Between our years of membership and accession, we have a half century of laws, regulations, treaties, trade deals and citizens moves to unpick and rewrite.
Just as well we have such an excellent Parliament to do it in 18 months.
Everyday the irony of Tory rightwingers unpicking one of Mrs Thatcher's greatest achievements and thus helping to pave Corbyn to become PM grows larger.
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield: 1) Their official status is that of civilians under arms, not combatants; 2) They are not fighting for any recognised country - moreover, even if ISIL were such a country we are not officially at war with them; 3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court. So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power. Edit - that reply may inform @Freggles as well. Yes, in the sense they are declared enemies of Britain and indeed Western civilisation they are enemy combatants. But if we demolish legality that is the basis of such civilisation to get at such people - what's left to defend? It is an option that is fraught with risk.
Many thanks, ydoethur, for your very sensible reply. It does one`s heart good to see a post on PB from somebody who manages to keep a proper kind of perspective. Among the PB Tory hardliners, where would it stop?
We are bombing and droning IS. Is it any more moral to kill foreigners than Britons fighting for IS? If extra judicial killing of British IS is wrong, Why is it right for the rest of them?
Of course, Dr Fox, if we are talking about the heat of combat. But I had the impression that the Tory MP was talking about the extra-judicial execution of UK citizens when they tried to return to this country.. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The point I was trying to make, really, is that the Tory extremists would like to eliminate everybody and everything that stands in their way. Physical elimination is one thing. But they also go in for breaking electoral rules, cheating, overspending, defamation - and now that we are in full Brexit mode, wrecking the economy and destroying the welfare state. And the social order.
Does anybody have any links or news from the Argentina mid-term elections going on today?
I know this is PB but I think even we fail to raise any enthusiasm for the Argentinian mid-term elections, as I would imagine do even a majority of Argentines themselves.
I love the Argentinian mid terms.
They use d'Hondt PR, which is nearly as good as AV.
I'm genuinely starting to wonder if the reason the talks aren't moving onto "phase two" (even though both the UK and EU are apparently largely in agreement on the "phase one" issues) is actually at May's and Davis's request, to give them more time to decide what type of "future relationship" they want with the EU.
I read somewhere a while back that David Davis was genuinely overwhelmed by what Brexit actually entailed.
The practicalities of things like, inter alia, the Open Skies Agreement, the Border with the Republic, Euroatom, and converting 46 years worth of laws were things that never crossed his mind until he became Brexit Secretary and incompatible with his initial thoughts (and Mrs May's red lines) on the jurisdiction and competence of the CJEU.
Between our years of membership and accession, we have a half century of laws, regulations, treaties, trade deals and citizens moves to unpick and rewrite.
Just as well we have such an excellent Parliament to do it in 18 months.
Everyday the irony of Tory rightwingers unpicking one of Mrs Thatcher's greatest achievements and thus helping to pave Corbyn to become PM grows larger.
If the Tories had left free movement intact and kept the UK in the single market, even avoiding short-term EU immigration restrictions, Corbyn would likely have been in an even stronger position.
Of course, Dr Fox, if we are talking about the heat of combat. But I had the impression that the Tory MP was talking about the extra-judicial execution of UK citizens when they tried to return to this country.. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The point I was trying to make, really, is that the Tory extremists would like to eliminate everybody and everything that stands in their way. Physical elimination is one thing. But they also go in for breaking electoral rules, cheating, overspending, defamation - and now that we are in full Brexit mode, wrecking the economy and destroying the welfare state. And the social order.
I think he was just reinforcing Sir Michael Fallon's view of Brits helping or fighting for ISIS.
“If you are a British national in Iraq or Syria and if you have chosen to fight for [Isis] – an illegal organisation that is preparing and inspiring terror attacks on our streets – then you have made yourself a legitimate target and you run the risk every hour of every day of being on the wrong end of an RAF or a United States missile.”
My own view if you're out in Iraq/Syria fighting/supporting ISIS then you should expect to be killed by the UK and our allies.
That's preferable to them coming back here and causing carnage.
The FAZ article on the second Juncker dinner says that France and Germany would regard making concessions on the Brexit bill as a 'super-bailout' for the UK.
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield: 1) Their official status is that of civilians under arms, not combatants; 2) They are not fighting for any recognised country - moreover, even if ISIL were such a country we are not officially at war with them; 3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court. So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power. Edit - that reply may inform @Freggles as well. Yes, in the sense they are declared enemies of Britain and indeed Western civilisation they are enemy combatants. But if we demolish legality that is the basis of such civilisation to get at such people - what's left to defend? It is an option that is fraught with risk.
Many thanks, ydoethur, for your very sensible reply. It does one`s heart good to see a post on PB from somebody who manages to keep a proper kind of perspective. Among the PB Tory hardliners, where would it stop?
We are bombing and droning IS. Is it any more moral to kill foreigners than Britons fighting for IS? If extra judicial killing of British IS is wrong, Why is it right for the rest of them?
Of course, Dr Fox, if we are talking about the heat of combat. But I had the impression that the Tory MP was talking about the extra-judicial execution of UK citizens when they tried to return to this country.. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The point I was trying to make, really, is that the Tory extremists would like to eliminate everybody and everything that stands in their way. Physical elimination is one thing. But they also go in for breaking electoral rules, cheating, overspending, defamation - and now that we are in full Brexit mode, wrecking the economy and destroying the welfare state. And the social order.
I heard the original interview as it went out on 5live, and I took his words to mean combat deaths in Iraq/Syria.
Of course, Dr Fox, if we are talking about the heat of combat. But I had the impression that the Tory MP was talking about the extra-judicial execution of UK citizens when they tried to return to this country.. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The point I was trying to make, really, is that the Tory extremists would like to eliminate everybody and everything that stands in their way. Physical elimination is one thing. But they also go in for breaking electoral rules, cheating, overspending, defamation - and now that we are in full Brexit mode, wrecking the economy and destroying the welfare state. And the social order.
You'd think the Corbyn situation would teach people not to go in for hyperbole quite so much - it means even legitimate concerns get lost because they don't match up to the scenario you paint, which is frankly preposterous in how evil you label your opponents.
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Lawless in the sense we don't have laws covering significant sectors and rights.
Not lawless in the Mad Max sense.
I don't know, Immorten Joe ran a tight ship, I don't know what all the fuss was about, and he managed to keep the automotive industry thriving even in a literal post apocalypse, so Brexit would be no problem for him.
So we'll go into Christmas/New Year with no transition deal, and no clear idea of what we're asking for...
and a rising divorce/transition bill as we try to buy our way out of this mess.
Since we are assured the EUs' demands are based on logic, and also that they were never budging significantly since they hold the upper hand and are united etc etc, how can the bill increase in any way? Whatever number is arrived at would be the inevitable choice of the EU based on fair calculation, so there is no room for it to shrink or grow in response to our desperation.
So we'll go into Christmas/New Year with no transition deal, and no clear idea of what we're asking for...
and a rising divorce/transition bill as we try to buy our way out of this mess.
Since we are assured the EUs' demands are based on logic, and also that they were never budging significantly since they hold the upper hand and are united etc etc, how can the bill increase in any way? Whatever number is arrived at would be the inevitable choice of the EU based on fair calculation, so there is no room for it to shrink or grow in response to our desperation.
It could rise due to currency fluctuations.
I believe all our contributions to the EU are paid in Euros.
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Lawless in the sense we don't have laws covering significant sectors and rights.
Not lawless in the Mad Max sense.
If RochdalePioneers is right on the risks to the food supply it could be in the Mad Max sense too.
Even if we get tariffs on food that does not end all EU food supplies coming to the UK not to mention consumers can also buy British food and food from the rest of the world outside the EU as an alternative.
So we'll go into Christmas/New Year with no transition deal, and no clear idea of what we're asking for...
and a rising divorce/transition bill as we try to buy our way out of this mess.
Since we are assured the EUs' demands are based on logic, and also that they were never budging significantly since they hold the upper hand and are united etc etc, how can the bill increase in any way? Whatever number is arrived at would be the inevitable choice of the EU based on fair calculation, so there is no room for it to shrink or grow in response to our desperation.
It could rise due to currency fluctuations.
I believe all our contributions to the EU are paid in Euros.
Makes sense - but that still makes the idea the EU will be altering what are supposed to be rational, legal arguments for our obligations ridiculous. Either the amount has been logically calculated, or they have plucked it from thin air, and only the latter is susceptible to 'Ah hah, they are on the ropes, let's make them pay more', and we are assured that is not what they are doing.
The FAZ article on the second Juncker dinner says that France and Germany would regard making concessions on the Brexit bill as a 'super-bailout' for the UK.
Does anybody have any links or news from the Argentina mid-term elections going on today?
I know this is PB but I think even we fail to raise any enthusiasm for the Argentinian mid-term elections, as I would imagine do even a majority of Argentines themselves.
I love the Argentinian mid terms.
They use d'Hondt PR, which is nearly as good as AV.
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Lawless in the sense we don't have laws covering significant sectors and rights.
Not lawless in the Mad Max sense.
I don't know, Immorten Joe ran a tight ship, I don't know what all the fuss was about, and he managed to keep the automotive industry thriving even in a literal post apocalypse, so Brexit would be no problem for him.
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Lawless in the sense we don't have laws covering significant sectors and rights.
Not lawless in the Mad Max sense.
If RochdalePioneers is right on the risks to the food supply it could be in the Mad Max sense too.
Even if we get tariffs on food that does not end all EU food supplies coming to the UK not to mention consumers can also buy British food and food from the rest of the world outside the EU as an alternative.
So long as it doesn't rot en route whilst held up in customs.
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Lawless in the sense we don't have laws covering significant sectors and rights.
Not lawless in the Mad Max sense.
If RochdalePioneers is right on the risks to the food supply it could be in the Mad Max sense too.
Even if we get tariffs on food that does not end all EU food supplies coming to the UK not to mention consumers can also buy British food and food from the rest of the world outside the EU as an alternative.
So long as it doesn't rot en route whilst held up in customs.
Plenty of British apples, British lettuce, cauliflower, carrots, broccoli, potatoes etc you can buy instead if needed.
I've gotten very confused by all the Brexit stuff - her argument is predicated on their being a vote on the final deal by MPs (a vote on a no deal scenario, which I don't get the alternative if they reject it), but has that point been conceded yet? The A50 case was all about the government not having the power to serve the A50 notice, but did the legislation passed permit the government to sign off on any deal that is reached?
As I understand it, there are two separate issues, that would combine to allow for a 'meaningful' vote. Firstly, the government has committed to a final vote on the deal by MPs. David Jones promised it in April. However, as it currently stands a "no" vote constitutes a vote for "no deal" - unless there's time to renegotiate, an agreed fallback position (say an agreed extended transition), or Article 50 is revocable. The government's current position is that the former won't be the case (A50 puts forward a near impossible timetable), the second they'd like in the form of a transition deal, but really that just kicks the can to the end of the transition, and the latter is legally impossible. Miller's, entirely reasonable, argument is that you can't let MPs vote deal or no deal (or, as we are doing now, debate the shape of any deal) when they don't have a clue what the consequences of no deal are. That doesn't actually help the remain cause, but may shake some sense into those ludicrously saying no deal would be anything other than catastrophic and encourage debate about what the absolute necessities of any deal are.
I don't think anyone can argue we're being totally ill served by the debate at the moment. It's the government stonewalling because they're split on what to pursue and how screwed (or not) we are without x or y, the opposition saying they're doing it all wrong but not specifying exactly how they'd do any better, and hardcore Brexiteers insisting we'll be fine even if we douse the country in petrol and strike a match, because we're British damn it.
The second issue is if Article 50 is revocable, which if it is, then it changes the debate entirely - because "no" to a bad deal suddenly isn't "no deal" any more. Parliament could reject the deal, and there would be a fall back option of revoking, either to give more time or totally rethink the whole thing - which if the papers on no deal are as bad as some are speculating, would really be the only option rather than crashing out. Where we'd go from there is anyone's guess - but you can kind of see Miller's point in that MPs are being asked to accept something's inevitability and desirability, under whatever circumstances, while being kept in the dark as to the consequences of either a "no deal" or a bad, partial one.
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Lawless in the sense we don't have laws covering significant sectors and rights.
Not lawless in the Mad Max sense.
If RochdalePioneers is right on the risks to the food supply it could be in the Mad Max sense too.
Even if we get tariffs on food that does not end all EU food supplies coming to the UK not to mention consumers can also buy British food and food from the rest of the world outside the EU as an alternative.
So long as it doesn't rot en route whilst held up in customs.
Plenty of British apples, British lettuce, cauliflower, carrots, broccoli, potatoes etc you can buy instead if needed.
But not enough to feed the country.
Tbf I do not believe anyone will starve in a 'no deal' crash out situation but people will notice things they are used to, disappearing from the supermarket shelves... and that will not make for a happy voting population.
That view instantly strikes me, although I am no expert, as a real legal minefield: 1) Their official status is that of civilians under arms, not combatants; 2) They are not fighting for any recognised country - moreover, even if ISIL were such a country we are not officially at war with them; 3) The actual fighting is taking place outside British territory so unless we are to intervene formally in support their status is irrelevant - they are not fighting us directly and are not committing any crime punishable in a British court. So while I can see why they would be so described, I think there are dangers in the approach he is taking. Bluntly, while I would not weep any particular tears over a few ISIL thugs getting what they cheerfully mete out to others, I can foresee many ways such an attitude could lead to gross misuses of power. Edit - that reply may inform @Freggles as well. Yes, in the sense they are declared enemies of Britain and indeed Western civilisation they are enemy combatants. But if we demolish legality that is the basis of such civilisation to get at such people - what's left to defend? It is an option that is fraught with risk.
Many thanks, ydoethur, for your very sensible reply. It does one`s heart good to see a post on PB from somebody who manages to keep a proper kind of perspective. Among the PB Tory hardliners, where would it stop?
We are bombing and droning IS. Is it any more moral to kill foreigners than Britons fighting for IS? If extra judicial killing of British IS is wrong, Why is it right for the rest of them?
Of course, Dr Fox, if we are talking about the heat of combat. But I had the impression that the Tory MP was talking about the extra-judicial execution of UK citizens when they tried to return to this country.. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The point I was trying to make, really, is that the Tory extremists would like to eliminate everybody and everything that stands in their way. Physical elimination is one thing. But they also go in for breaking electoral rules, cheating, overspending, defamation - and now that we are in full Brexit mode, wrecking the economy and destroying the welfare state. And the social order.
I heard the original interview as it went out on 5live, and I took his words to mean combat deaths in Iraq/Syria.
In that case, I have no problem. Afraid I missed the original interview.
I don't think anyone can argue we're being totally ill served by the debate at the moment. It's the government stonewalling because they're split on what to pursue and how screwed (or not) we are without x or y, the opposition saying they're doing it all wrong but not specifying exactly how they'd do any better, and hardcore Brexiteers insisting we'll be fine even if we douse the country in petrol and strike a match, because we're British damn it.
The second issue is if Article 50 is revocable, which if it is, then it changes the debate entirely - because "no" to a bad deal suddenly isn't "no deal" any more. Parliament could reject the deal, and there would be a fall back option of revoking, either to give more time or totally rethink the whole thing - which if the papers on no deal are as bad as some are speculating, would really be the only option rather than crashing out. Where we'd go from there is anyone's guess - but you can kind of see Miller's point in that MPs are being asked to accept something's inevitability and desirability, under whatever circumstances, while being kept in the dark as to the consequences of either a "no deal" or a bad, partial one.
Thanks. I'm not opposed to more info being available to MPs ahead of a vote, although at this stage I am uncertain as it does feel like a lot of info could indeed harm our negotiations at this point.
The revocability of A50 is a whole other can of worms, though it is amusing that Miller's legal team accepted it wasn't back in the A50 case, since as AlistairMeeks said it aided both sides to do so at the time.
As I understand it, there are two separate issues, that would combine to allow for a 'meaningful' vote. Firstly, the government has committed to a final vote on the deal by MPs. David Jones promised it in April. However, as it currently stands a "no" vote constitutes a vote for "no deal" - unless there's time to renegotiate, an agreed fallback position (say an agreed extended transition), or Article 50 is revocable. The government's current position is that the former won't be the case (A50 puts forward a near impossible timetable), the second they'd like in the form of a transition deal, but really that just kicks the can to the end of the transition, and the latter is legally impossible. Miller's, entirely reasonable, argument is that you can't let MPs vote deal or no deal (or, as we are doing now, debate the shape of any deal) when they don't have a clue what the consequences of no deal are. That doesn't actually help the remain cause, but may shake some sense into those ludicrously saying no deal would be anything other than catastrophic and encourage debate about what the absolute necessities of any deal are.
I don't think anyone can argue we're being totally ill served by the debate at the moment. It's the government stonewalling because they're split on what to pursue and how screwed (or not) we are without x or y, the opposition saying they're doing it all wrong but not specifying exactly how they'd do any better, and hardcore Brexiteers insisting we'll be fine even if we douse the country in petrol and strike a match, because we're British damn it.
The second issue is if Article 50 is revocable, which if it is, then it changes the debate entirely - because "no" to a bad deal suddenly isn't "no deal" any more. Parliament could reject the deal, and there would be a fall back option of revoking, either to give more time or totally rethink the whole thing - which if the papers on no deal are as bad as some are speculating, would really be the only option rather than crashing out. Where we'd go from there is anyone's guess - but you can kind of see Miller's point in that MPs are being asked to accept something's inevitability and desirability, under whatever circumstances, while being kept in the dark as to the consequences of either a "no deal" or a bad, partial one.
Sounds like a very reasonabe assessment. Is Miller arguing theat MPs should be allowed to see the papers 'in camera' so to speak - i.e. sworn to non-disclosure? (Is that even possible?) I assume that if the papers are as bad as speculated, general exposure would seriously undermine our negotiating position (such as it is).
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Lawless in the sense we don't have laws covering significant sectors and rights.
Not lawless in the Mad Max sense.
If RochdalePioneers is right on the risks to the food supply it could be in the Mad Max sense too.
Even if we get tariffs on food that does not end all EU food supplies coming to the UK not to mention consumers can also buy British food and food from the rest of the world outside the EU as an alternative.
So long as it doesn't rot en route whilst held up in customs.
Plenty of British apples, British lettuce, cauliflower, carrots, broccoli, potatoes etc you can buy instead if needed.
But not enough to feed the country.
Tbf I do not believe anyone will starve in a 'no deal' crash out situation but people will notice things they are used to, disappearing from the supermarket shelves... and that will not make for a happy voting population.
Considering the body mass index of most Brits, the return of rationing and a diet of vegetables could do wonders for the health of the nation, within the couple of months immediately post Brexit.
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Lawless in the sense we don't have laws covering significant sectors and rights.
Not lawless in the Mad Max sense.
If RochdalePioneers is right on the risks to the food supply it could be in the Mad Max sense too.
Even if we get tariffs on food that does not end all EU food supplies coming to the UK not to mention consumers can also buy British food and food from the rest of the world outside the EU as an alternative.
So long as it doesn't rot en route whilst held up in customs.
Plenty of British apples, British lettuce, cauliflower, carrots, broccoli, potatoes etc you can buy instead if needed.
But not enough to feed the country.
Tbf I do not believe anyone will starve in a 'no deal' crash out situation but people will notice things they are used to, disappearing from the supermarket shelves... and that will not make for a happy voting population.
As Fox says even if there were to be major problems with the EU food supply I hardly think a diet of British fruit and vegetables (and some British beef and pork and chicken as a treat) is going to lead to mass starvation and famine, or even a great deal of anger, if anything any anger would be directed at the EU and Brits could console themselves with the fact they were supporting British farmers.
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Lawless in the sense we don't have laws covering significant sectors and rights.
Not lawless in the Mad Max sense.
If RochdalePioneers is right on the risks to the food supply it could be in the Mad Max sense too.
Even if we get tariffs on food that does not end all EU food supplies coming to the UK not to mention consumers can also buy British food and food from the rest of the world outside the EU as an alternative.
So long as it doesn't rot en route whilst held up in customs.
Plenty of British apples, British lettuce, cauliflower, carrots, broccoli, potatoes etc you can buy instead if needed.
But not enough to feed the country.
Tbf I do not believe anyone will starve in a 'no deal' crash out situation but people will notice things they are used to, disappearing from the supermarket shelves... and that will not make for a happy voting population.
I remember a TV show abut 30 years ago, that each week featured a celebrity and their pets. Jacques Chirac (then mayor of Paris) was on one week. When asked what was the most popular breed of dog in France, he replied "Zee, how you say, bastard." "m-m-mongrel, you mean" said the embarrassed presenter.
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Lawless in the sense we don't have laws covering significant sectors and rights.
Not lawless in the Mad Max sense.
If RochdalePioneers is right on the risks to the food supply it could be in the Mad Max sense too.
Even if we get tariffs on food that does not end all EU food supplies coming to the UK not to mention consumers can also buy British food and food from the rest of the world outside the EU as an alternative.
So long as it doesn't rot en route whilst held up in customs.
Plenty of British apples, British lettuce, cauliflower, carrots, broccoli, potatoes etc you can buy instead if needed.
But not enough to feed the country.
Tbf I do not believe anyone will starve in a 'no deal' crash out situation but people will notice things they are used to, disappearing from the supermarket shelves... and that will not make for a happy voting population.
Considering the body mass index of most Brits, the return of rationing and a diet of vegetables could do wonders for the health of the nation, within the couple of months immediately post Brexit.
I'm stubbornly 24 on the BMI thingy. I can't seem to gain or lose weight, even when I try.
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Lawless in the sense we don't have laws covering significant sectors and rights.
Not lawless in the Mad Max sense.
If RochdalePioneers is right on the risks to the food supply it could be in the Mad Max sense too.
Even if we get tariffs on food that does not end all EU food supplies coming to the UK not to mention consumers can also buy British food and food from the rest of the world outside the EU as an alternative.
So long as it doesn't rot en route whilst held up in customs.
Plenty of British apples, British lettuce, cauliflower, carrots, broccoli, potatoes etc you can buy instead if needed.
But not enough to feed the country.
Tbf I do not believe anyone will starve in a 'no deal' crash out situation but people will notice things they are used to, disappearing from the supermarket shelves... and that will not make for a happy voting population.
As Fox says even if there were to be major problems with the EU food supply I hardly think a diet of British fruit and vegetables (and some British beef and pork and chicken as a treat) is going to lead to mass starvation and famine, or even a great deal of anger, if anything any anger would be directed at the EU and Brits could console themselves with the fact they were supporting British farmers.
Of course the problem of British vegetables is there might not be anyone to pick them...
Re ISIS fighters, can we not recognise ISIS as a state, perhaps one with land of - say - about one square kilometer somewhere pretty remote.
We can then (a) declare war on ISIS, (b) have those who fight for ISIS be guilty of treason, and (c) have those who travel to join ISIS become citizens of ISIS and therefore strip them of British citizenship.
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Lawless in the sense we don't have laws covering significant sectors and rights.
Not lawless in the Mad Max sense.
If RochdalePioneers is right on the risks to the food supply it could be in the Mad Max sense too.
Even if we get tariffs on food that does not end all EU food supplies coming to the UK not to mention consumers can also buy British food and food from the rest of the world outside the EU as an alternative.
So long as it doesn't rot en route whilst held up in customs.
Plenty of British apples, British lettuce, cauliflower, carrots, broccoli, potatoes etc you can buy instead if needed.
But not enough to feed the country.
Tbf I do not believe anyone will starve in a 'no deal' crash out situation but people will notice things they are used to, disappearing from the supermarket shelves... and that will not make for a happy voting population.
As Fox says even if there were to be major problems with the EU food supply I hardly think a diet of British fruit and vegetables (and some British beef and pork and chicken as a treat) is going to lead to mass starvation and famine, or even a great deal of anger, if anything any anger would be directed at the EU and Brits could console themselves with the fact they were supporting British farmers.
Of course the problem of British vegetables is there might not be anyone to pick them...
Plenty of opportunities then for those in need of some money while waiting for UC.
Re ISIS fighters, can we not recognise ISIS as a state, perhaps one with land of - say - about one square kilometer somewhere pretty remote.
We can then (a) declare war on ISIS, (b) have those who fight for ISIS be guilty of treason, and (c) have those who travel to join ISIS become citizens of ISIS and therefore strip them of British citizenship.
All nation states seem really squiffy about recognising new states except in highly specific circumstances, alas, neverminding any other issues with such a plan, like us deciding who is an IS citizen even if they lose the administration to recognise any persons as citizens themselves.
Stepping up efforts to kill as many in combat so we don't have to deal with the issue with those who return 'home' is probably as best we can do.
Argentina's mid-terms are exciting to one PBer; me!
Argentina is an interesting example of the consequences of a political elite promising an electorate a higher standard of living than their labours can command in the world market, for decade after decade. Assuming Cambiemos (the party of President Macri) does well, it will show that the Argentine people are sick of the unrealistic promises of the Peronists, and are willing to 'take their medicine' for a better future.
What programme can make them safe to rejoin society? Shouldn't they be investigated for crimes against humanity? I suspect that Iraq probably don't want the hassle of extraditing them. An international court should step in and charge them. The truth is that if they don't get back we are better off.
There is - perhaps - a case to be made for bringing people back from ISIS.
If they surrender to you, it removes them as combatants, and it brings information. In war, we always want to encourage surrender rather than a fight to the death mentality.
However, as they are now citizens of ISIS, which we are at war with, and that is incompatible with being a citizen of the UK, we would need to create prisoner of war camps.
Very much off topic for which apologies, but does anyone know of any share trading platforms that allow accounts to be set up by limited companies? Most seem to be for individuals only.
Re ISIS fighters, can we not recognise ISIS as a state, perhaps one with land of - say - about one square kilometer somewhere pretty remote.
We can then (a) declare war on ISIS, (b) have those who fight for ISIS be guilty of treason, and (c) have those who travel to join ISIS become citizens of ISIS and therefore strip them of British citizenship.
All nation states seem really squiffy about recognising new states except in highly specific circumstances, alas, neverminding any other issues with such a plan, like us deciding who is an IS citizen even if they lose the administration to recognise any persons as citizens themselves.
Stepping up efforts to kill as many in combat so we don't have to deal with the issue with those who return 'home' is probably as best we can do.
But they wish to be regarded as a nation state. So why not?
Fortunately, there is land available that is not a million miles from Iraq/Syria, that could become the homeland of ISIS. Can I suggest Bir Tawil?
I don't think anyone can argue we're being totally ill served by the debate at the moment. It's the government stonewalling because they're split on what to pursue and how screwed (or not) we are without x or y, the opposition saying they're doing it all wrong but not specifying exactly how they'd do any better, and hardcore Brexiteers insisting we'll be fine even if we douse the country in petrol and strike a match, because we're British damn it.
The second issue is if Article 50 is revocable, which if it is, then it changes the debate entirely - because "no" to a bad deal suddenly isn't "no deal" any more. Parliament could reject the deal, and there would be a fall back option of revoking, either to give more time or totally rethink the whole thing - which if the papers on no deal are as bad as some are speculating, would really be the only option rather than crashing out. Where we'd go from there is anyone's guess - but you can kind of see Miller's point in that MPs are being asked to accept something's inevitability and desirability, under whatever circumstances, while being kept in the dark as to the consequences of either a "no deal" or a bad, partial one.
Sounds like a very reasonabe assessment. Is Miller arguing theat MPs should be allowed to see the papers 'in camera' so to speak - i.e. sworn to non-disclosure? (Is that even possible?) I assume that if the papers are as bad as speculated, general exposure would seriously undermine our negotiating position (such as it is).
Yes. I think she's specifically arguing that only MPs be shown them. Although a Green MEP, backed by another campaign group is going to the High Court to have them made fully public. Not sure how you'd stop them being leaked, given there are already whispers and the content of some are likely to be sensational. Remainers/soft Brexiteers probably wouldn't even have to say a word, just wait for Redwood and co to call for the civil service to face treachery charges and come to their defence by discussing assessments in that context.
I'm not sure I buy the "undermine our negotiating position" argument though, given the EU have the biggest trade negotiations team in the world and years of our economic data to draw up their own assessments. If our negotiating position was undermined, it was long ago. We've seen what Macron said - that he thinks "no deal" is a patently ludicrous bluff. If the assessments were ok, it might actually even help to publish them to convince the EU we'd been serious in our planning.
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Lawless in the sense we don't have laws covering significant sectors and rights.
Not lawless in the Mad Max sense.
If RochdalePioneers is right on the risks to the food supply it could be in the Mad Max sense too.
Even if we get tariffs on food that does not end all EU food supplies coming to the UK not to mention consumers can also buy British food and food from the rest of the world outside the EU as an alternative.
So long as it doesn't rot en route whilst held up in customs.
Plenty of British apples, British lettuce, cauliflower, carrots, broccoli, potatoes etc you can buy instead if needed.
Time to start reprinting all those WWII cookbooks....
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Nah. As a Remainer, I'm against all this scaremongering. What it risks doing is make=ing a bad deal by May (which seems the most likely) look like a very decent result, giving us some further years of May (who even most Conservatives feel is not ideally suited to the job) plus a temporary bump in Tory fortunes and a period of carefree inaction until reality sinks in.
Very much off topic for which apologies, but does anyone know of any share trading platforms that allow accounts to be set up by limited companies? Most seem to be for individuals only.
Smith & Williamson allows you set up an account for a private company.
Re ISIS fighters, can we not recognise ISIS as a state, perhaps one with land of - say - about one square kilometer somewhere pretty remote.
We can then (a) declare war on ISIS, (b) have those who fight for ISIS be guilty of treason, and (c) have those who travel to join ISIS become citizens of ISIS and therefore strip them of British citizenship.
The law of unintended consequences says ISISland will survive, thrive and prosper, and join the EU shortly after Turkey, and then veto our application to rejoin. Excellent plan, in other words.
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Nah. As a Remainer, I'm against all this scaremongering. What it risks doing is make=ing a bad deal by May (which seems the most likely) look like a very decent result, giving us some further years of May (who even most Conservatives feel is not ideally suited to the job) plus a temporary bump in Tory fortunes and a period of carefree inaction until reality sinks in.
Not sure much can turn around Tory fortunes at this point, but personally I think you have the right of it - I'm not a supporter of no deal, though I understand if the government needs to for negotiating purposes act like it can accept that, but expectations have been massively lowered to the point even a moderate deal may encourage many who would otherwise have been furious (I exclude the die hards who won't be happy with either a return to the EU or paying absolutely nothing, while getting everything).
Re ISIS fighters, can we not recognise ISIS as a state, perhaps one with land of - say - about one square kilometer somewhere pretty remote.
We can then (a) declare war on ISIS, (b) have those who fight for ISIS be guilty of treason, and (c) have those who travel to join ISIS become citizens of ISIS and therefore strip them of British citizenship.
The law of unintended consequences says ISISland will survive, thrive and prosper, and join the EU shortly after Turkey, and then veto our application to rejoin. Excellent plan, in other words.
Given what happened in the past, probably good odds that ISIS will be defeated, local areas will talk of the horrors of what happened, then 10 years later as a result of corruption, mistreatment or just ongoing tribal tension, they or someone just like them will once again find support in the the same areas, and surprise everyone once again.
Very much off topic for which apologies, but does anyone know of any share trading platforms that allow accounts to be set up by limited companies? Most seem to be for individuals only.
I have an account in the name of my ltd company with Hargreaves Lansdowne and very happy with it.
It cannot be set up online, but can be done by post or phone. You need an LEI number, but they will explain the process.
Very much off topic for which apologies, but does anyone know of any share trading platforms that allow accounts to be set up by limited companies? Most seem to be for individuals only.
I have an account in the name of my ltd company with Hargreaves Lansdowne and very happy with it.
It cannot be set up online, but can be done by post or phone. You need an LEI number, but they will explain the process.
The online app is pretty good too.
CGT can be a bit complicated though.
Thanks (and thanks to RCS too).
I'm a bit confused by the CGT comment - I would have thought you may have paid corporation tax on any income or growth and then income tax on any dividend income taken from the company. But then I'm an IT consultant, not a tax expert:-)
That's my biggest fear about Brexit, not that we don't get no deal, but we run out of time to get a deal.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
Sure we could.
Lawless in the sense we don't have laws covering significant sectors and rights.
Not lawless in the Mad Max sense.
If RochdalePioneers is right on the risks to the food supply it could be in the Mad Max sense too.
Even if we get tariffs on food that does not end all EU food supplies coming to the UK not to mention consumers can also buy British food and food from the rest of the world outside the EU as an alternative.
So long as it doesn't rot en route whilst held up in customs.
Plenty of British apples, British lettuce, cauliflower, carrots, broccoli, potatoes etc you can buy instead if needed.
Time to start reprinting all those WWII cookbooks....
As Fox says even if there were to be major problems with the EU food supply I hardly think a diet of British fruit and vegetables (and some British beef and pork and chicken as a treat) is going to lead to mass starvation and famine, or even a great deal of anger, if anything any anger would be directed at the EU and Brits could console themselves with the fact they were supporting British farmers.
I and another PB poster who no longer posts here (paul_bedfordshire?) had a debate several months back on whether the British Isles (ie UK and the republic of Ireland combined) were self-sufficient in food. After trading tables and stats back and forth, the conclusion was that we come close in terms of "meat" (around 90%), but not for the rest of things. And that's including the Republic of Ireland as "us". So even if we continue with the conceit that Eire is in the UK and not in the EU, we are still not self-sufficient in food. So your statement that "I hardly think a diet of British fruit and vegetables (and some British beef and pork and chicken as a treat) is going to lead to mass starvation and famine" is not as true as you think.
This is to an extent a ludicrous debate: we have imported food from elsewhere for decades, the process of preserving food and transporting it long distances by ocean is well understood, we will not starve nor come close to it. But the remarks by you and other members of the party and the MPs and Government add to a growing sense of unease that the Conservative Party genuinely don't understand the scale of the problem.
As Fox says even if there were to be major problems with the EU food supply I hardly think a diet of British fruit and vegetables (and some British beef and pork and chicken as a treat) is going to lead to mass starvation and famine, or even a great deal of anger, if anything any anger would be directed at the EU and Brits could console themselves with the fact they were supporting British farmers.
I and another PB poster who no longer posts here (paul_bedfordshire?) had a debate several months back on whether the British Isles (ie UK and the republic of Ireland combined) were self-sufficient in food. After trading tables and stats back and forth, the conclusion was that we come close in terms of "meat" (around 90%), but not for the rest of things. And that's including the Republic of Ireland as "us". So even if we continue with the conceit that Eire is in the UK and not in the EU, we are still not self-sufficient in food. So your statement that "I hardly think a diet of British fruit and vegetables (and some British beef and pork and chicken as a treat) is going to lead to mass starvation and famine" is not as true as you think.
This is to an extent a ludicrous debate: we have imported food from elsewhere for decades, the process of preserving food and transporting it long distances by ocean is well understood, we will not starve nor come close to it. But the remarks by you and other members of the party and the MPs and Government add to a growing sense of unease that the Conservative Party genuinely don't understand the scale of the problem.
Even on the direst of Brexit predictions we will not have to be 100% self sufficient on food, for starters we will still have the same amount of food from the rest of the world outside the EU regardless of what happens to EU food imports.
It is more the scaremongering of some Remainers, perhaps even including you and another swipe at the supposed ignorance of the 17 million Leave voters to start warning of major food shortages than a real proposition.
As Fox says even if there were to be major problems with the EU food supply I hardly think a diet of British fruit and vegetables (and some British beef and pork and chicken as a treat) is going to lead to mass starvation and famine, or even a great deal of anger, if anything any anger would be directed at the EU and Brits could console themselves with the fact they were supporting British farmers.
I and another PB poster who no longer posts here (paul_bedfordshire?) had a debate several months back on whether the British Isles (ie UK and the republic of Ireland combined) were self-sufficient in food. After trading tables and stats back and forth, the conclusion was that we come close in terms of "meat" (around 90%), but not for the rest of things. And that's including the Republic of Ireland as "us". So even if we continue with the conceit that Eire is in the UK and not in the EU, we are still not self-sufficient in food. So your statement that "I hardly think a diet of British fruit and vegetables (and some British beef and pork and chicken as a treat) is going to lead to mass starvation and famine" is not as true as you think.
This is to an extent a ludicrous debate: we have imported food from elsewhere for decades, the process of preserving food and transporting it long distances by ocean is well understood, we will not starve nor come close to it. But the remarks by you and other members of the party and the MPs and Government add to a growing sense of unease that the Conservative Party genuinely don't understand the scale of the problem.
Even on the direst of Brexit predictions we will not have to be 100% self sufficient on food, for starters we will still have the same amount of food from the rest of the world outside the EU regardless of what happens to EU food imports.
It is more the scaremongering of some Remainers, perhaps even including you and another swipe at the supposed ignorance of the 17 million Leave voters to start warning of major food shortages than a real proposition.
I am not warning of major food shortages: I specifically pointed that out ("This is to an extent a ludicrous debate: we have imported food from elsewhere for decades, the process of preserving food and transporting it long distances by ocean is well understood, we will not starve nor come close to it."). My point was that the Conservative Party don't understand the scale of the problem. This isn't a Remainer thing nor a Leave thing: it's a coping-with-reality thing.
As Fox says even if there were to be major problems with the EU food supply I hardly think a diet of British fruit and vegetables (and some British beef and pork and chicken as a treat) is going to lead to mass starvation and famine, or even a great deal of anger, if anything any anger would be directed at the EU and Brits could console themselves with the fact they were supporting British farmers.
I and another PB poster who no longer posts here (paul_bedfordshire?) had a debate several months back on whether the British Isles (ie UK and the republic of Ireland combined) were self-sufficient in food. After trading tables and stats back and forth, the conclusion was that we come close in terms of "meat" (around 90%), but not for the rest of things. And that's including the Republic of Ireland as "us". So even if we continue with the conceit that Eire is in the UK and not in the EU, we are still not self-sufficient in food. So your statement that "I hardly think a diet of British fruit and vegetables (and some British beef and pork and chicken as a treat) is going to lead to mass starvation and famine" is not as true as you think.
This is to an extent a ludicrous debate: we have imported food from elsewhere for decades, the process of preserving food and transporting it long distances by ocean is well understood, we will not starve nor come close to it. But the remarks by you and other members of the party and the MPs and Government add to a growing sense of unease that the Conservative Party genuinely don't understand the scale of the problem.
Even on the direst of Brexit predictions we will not have to be 100% self sufficient on food, for starters we will still have the same amount of food from the rest of the world outside the EU regardless of what happens to EU food imports.
It is more the scaremongering of some Remainers, perhaps even including you and another swipe at the supposed ignorance of the 17 million Leave voters to start warning of major food shortages than a real proposition.
I am not warning of major food shortages: I specifically pointed that out ("This is to an extent a ludicrous debate: we have imported food from elsewhere for decades, the process of preserving food and transporting it long distances by ocean is well understood, we will not starve nor come close to it."). My point was that the Conservative Party don't understand the scale of the problem. This isn't a Remainer thing nor a Leave thing: it's a coping-with-reality thing.
Don't understand the scale of the problem in what sense? Being unwilling to hand the EU any sum it asks for without scrutinising it first? Ending free movement in favour of a points system? Even you have now said there will not be major food shortages.
My point was that the Conservative Party don't understand the scale of the problem. This isn't a Remainer thing nor a Leave thing: it's a coping-with-reality thing.
Don't understand the scale of the problem in what sense?
Your statement that "I hardly think a diet of British fruit and vegetables (and some British beef and pork and chicken as a treat) is going to lead to mass starvation and famine" only makes sense if you think that we are self-sufficient in food: but we are not. @Big_G_North_Wales (spelling?) was convinced that Welsh farmers could expand beef production to cope with any shortfall, despite the fact that Wales, being wet and on a slope, is more suited to sheep rather than cow production. That MP (Grayling?) who when pressed said that farmers would just have to grow more food. David Davis's assertion that Berlin would come running for a deal when in fact we are moving towards it, not vice versa. The sensation I have that when faced with a question on how are the problems of Brexit going to be handled, the response is either to say that it is no problem, or that the EU will fold somehow, or that the questioner is at fault in posing the question. And many others...
My point was that the Conservative Party don't understand the scale of the problem. This isn't a Remainer thing nor a Leave thing: it's a coping-with-reality thing.
Don't understand the scale of the problem in what sense?
Your statement that "I hardly think a diet of British fruit and vegetables (and some British beef and pork and chicken as a treat) is going to lead to mass starvation and famine" only makes sense if you think that we are self-sufficient in food: but we are not. @Big_G_North_Wales (spelling?) was convinced that Welsh farmers could expand beef production to cope with any shortfall, despite the fact that Wales, being wet and on a slope, is more suited to sheep rather than cow production. That MP (Grayling?) who when pressed said that farmers would just have to grow more food. David Davis's assertion that Berlin would come running for a deal when in fact we are moving towards it, not vice versa. The sensation I have that when faced with a question on how are the problems of Brexit going to be handled, the response is either to say that it is no problem, or that the EU will fold somehow, or that the questioner is at fault in posing the question. And many others...
That sense.
Again, as you have stated whatever the Brecit scenario we will not have to be entirely self sufficient on food, all EU food imports and certainly not all rest of the world food imports, will cease post Brexit. Though if UK consumers buy more British produce their is no harm in that.
As for the 'problems of Brexit' they could all be 'solved' in the view of many a Remainer by stating in the single market, leaving free movement uncontrolled and paying over £50 billion to the EU. However that would neither fully respect the Leave vote or be in the interests of the country, especially in terms of making such a large payment without checking whether there really is an obligation and need for the country to pay such a large sum.
My point was that the Conservative Party don't understand the scale of the problem. This isn't a Remainer thing nor a Leave thing: it's a coping-with-reality thing.
Don't understand the scale of the problem in what sense?
Your statement that "I hardly think a diet of British fruit and vegetables (and some British beef and pork and chicken as a treat) is going to lead to mass starvation and famine" only makes sense if you think that we are self-sufficient in food: but we are not. @Big_G_North_Wales (spelling?) was convinced that Welsh farmers could expand beef production to cope with any shortfall, despite the fact that Wales, being wet and on a slope, is more suited to sheep rather than cow production. That MP (Grayling?) who when pressed said that farmers would just have to grow more food. David Davis's assertion that Berlin would come running for a deal when in fact we are moving towards it, not vice versa. The sensation I have that when faced with a question on how are the problems of Brexit going to be handled, the response is either to say that it is no problem, or that the EU will fold somehow, or that the questioner is at fault in posing the question. And many others...
That sense.
Again, as you have stated whatever the Brecit scenario we will not have to be entirely self sufficient on food, all EU food imports and certainly not all rest of the world food imports, will cease post Brexit. Though if UK consumers buy more British produce their is no harm in that.
As for the 'problems of Brexit' they could all be 'solved' in the view of many a Remainer by stating in the single market, leaving free movement uncontrolled and paying over £50 billion to the EU. However that would neither fully respect the Leave vote or be in the interests of the country, especially in terms of making such a large payment without checking whether there really is an obligation and need for the country to pay such a large sum.
Just love the way all those Leavers are so sure that farmers can increase their productivity overnight. Most farmers I have ever met have always tried to produce the maximum from the land available and the conditions around them. They are already fully aware of market forces, and the subsidises that they will lose in March 2019 that the either the UK consumer or the government will have to pay in some form or other to retain the agricultural industry.
Comments
Many of our problems stem from the contradictions of our mentality.
The practicalities of things like, inter alia, the Open Skies Agreement, the Border with the Republic, Euroatom, and converting 46 years worth of laws were things that never crossed his mind until he became Brexit Secretary and incompatible with his initial thoughts (and Mrs May's red lines) on the jurisdiction and competence of the CJEU.
Cabinet discipline has almost completely broken down.
It can’t go on like this, surely?
Yet it does.
A Gramscian crisis.
Just as well we have such an excellent Parliament to do it in 18 months.
They use d'Hondt PR, which is nearly as good as AV.
The point I was trying to make, really, is that the Tory extremists would like to eliminate everybody and everything that stands in their way. Physical elimination is one thing. But they also go in for breaking electoral rules, cheating, overspending, defamation - and now that we are in full Brexit mode, wrecking the economy and destroying the welfare state. And the social order.
On the 30th of March 2019 we could effectively become a lawless country.
“If you are a British national in Iraq or Syria and if you have chosen to fight for [Isis] – an illegal organisation that is preparing and inspiring terror attacks on our streets – then you have made yourself a legitimate target and you run the risk every hour of every day of being on the wrong end of an RAF or a United States missile.”
My own view if you're out in Iraq/Syria fighting/supporting ISIS then you should expect to be killed by the UK and our allies.
That's preferable to them coming back here and causing carnage.
Not lawless in the Mad Max sense.
I suspect that if no agreement has been made, but both sides productively engaged, there would be an A50 extension.
If one or both parties is in a walkaway state of mind, crash out is very possible.
I believe all our contributions to the EU are paid in Euros.
http://madmax.wikia.com/wiki/Lord_Humungus
But who is our Max?
Video has emerged of French President Emmanuel Macron's dog Nemo urinating on a fireplace at the Elysée palace.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41716115
As I understand it, there are two separate issues, that would combine to allow for a 'meaningful' vote. Firstly, the government has committed to a final vote on the deal by MPs. David Jones promised it in April. However, as it currently stands a "no" vote constitutes a vote for "no deal" - unless there's time to renegotiate, an agreed fallback position (say an agreed extended transition), or Article 50 is revocable. The government's current position is that the former won't be the case (A50 puts forward a near impossible timetable), the second they'd like in the form of a transition deal, but really that just kicks the can to the end of the transition, and the latter is legally impossible. Miller's, entirely reasonable, argument is that you can't let MPs vote deal or no deal (or, as we are doing now, debate the shape of any deal) when they don't have a clue what the consequences of no deal are. That doesn't actually help the remain cause, but may shake some sense into those ludicrously saying no deal would be anything other than catastrophic and encourage debate about what the absolute necessities of any deal are.
I don't think anyone can argue we're being totally ill served by the debate at the moment. It's the government stonewalling because they're split on what to pursue and how screwed (or not) we are without x or y, the opposition saying they're doing it all wrong but not specifying exactly how they'd do any better, and hardcore Brexiteers insisting we'll be fine even if we douse the country in petrol and strike a match, because we're British damn it.
The second issue is if Article 50 is revocable, which if it is, then it changes the debate entirely - because "no" to a bad deal suddenly isn't "no deal" any more. Parliament could reject the deal, and there would be a fall back option of revoking, either to give more time or totally rethink the whole thing - which if the papers on no deal are as bad as some are speculating, would really be the only option rather than crashing out. Where we'd go from there is anyone's guess - but you can kind of see Miller's point in that MPs are being asked to accept something's inevitability and desirability, under whatever circumstances, while being kept in the dark as to the consequences of either a "no deal" or a bad, partial one.
Tbf I do not believe anyone will starve in a 'no deal' crash out situation but people will notice things they are used to, disappearing from the supermarket shelves... and that will not make for a happy voting population.
Why is this causing a stir?
The revocability of A50 is a whole other can of worms, though it is amusing that Miller's legal team accepted it wasn't back in the A50 case, since as AlistairMeeks said it aided both sides to do so at the time.
Jacques Chirac (then mayor of Paris) was on one week. When asked what was the most popular breed of dog in France, he replied "Zee, how you say, bastard."
"m-m-mongrel, you mean" said the embarrassed presenter.
I think it's a consequence of nicotine addiction.
I wonder what the WTO tariff is on tobacco...
We can then (a) declare war on ISIS, (b) have those who fight for ISIS be guilty of treason, and (c) have those who travel to join ISIS become citizens of ISIS and therefore strip them of British citizenship.
Stepping up efforts to kill as many in combat so we don't have to deal with the issue with those who return 'home' is probably as best we can do.
Argentina is an interesting example of the consequences of a political elite promising an electorate a higher standard of living than their labours can command in the world market, for decade after decade. Assuming Cambiemos (the party of President Macri) does well, it will show that the Argentine people are sick of the unrealistic promises of the Peronists, and are willing to 'take their medicine' for a better future.
If they surrender to you, it removes them as combatants, and it brings information. In war, we always want to encourage surrender rather than a fight to the death mentality.
However, as they are now citizens of ISIS, which we are at war with, and that is incompatible with being a citizen of the UK, we would need to create prisoner of war camps.
Fortunately, there is land available that is not a million miles from Iraq/Syria, that could become the homeland of ISIS. Can I suggest Bir Tawil?
I'm not sure I buy the "undermine our negotiating position" argument though, given the EU have the biggest trade negotiations team in the world and years of our economic data to draw up their own assessments. If our negotiating position was undermined, it was long ago. We've seen what Macron said - that he thinks "no deal" is a patently ludicrous bluff. If the assessments were ok, it might actually even help to publish them to convince the EU we'd been serious in our planning.
It cannot be set up online, but can be done by post or phone. You need an LEI number, but they will explain the process.
The online app is pretty good too.
CGT can be a bit complicated though.
I'm a bit confused by the CGT comment - I would have thought you may have paid corporation tax on any income or growth and then income tax on any dividend income taken from the company. But then I'm an IT consultant, not a tax expert:-)
This is to an extent a ludicrous debate: we have imported food from elsewhere for decades, the process of preserving food and transporting it long distances by ocean is well understood, we will not starve nor come close to it. But the remarks by you and other members of the party and the MPs and Government add to a growing sense of unease that the Conservative Party genuinely don't understand the scale of the problem.
It is more the scaremongering of some Remainers, perhaps even including you and another swipe at the supposed ignorance of the 17 million Leave voters to start warning of major food shortages than a real proposition.
That sense.
As for the 'problems of Brexit' they could all be 'solved' in the view of many a Remainer by stating in the single market, leaving free movement uncontrolled and paying over £50 billion to the EU. However that would neither fully respect the Leave vote or be in the interests of the country, especially in terms of making such a large payment without checking whether there really is an obligation and need for the country to pay such a large sum.