"No one has yet on this board explained how they personally will be affected by Brexit for the better*
You should have asked earlier. My life will be enriched by having my faith in democracy restored.
I'm sorry that your belief in democracy had taken such a knock, fragile thing as it must have been. What was it in the first place that made you lose your faith?
you ask for an example then go all snidey when you get one
how many more answers do you think youre going to get now ?
Well first of all it was not an answer. He didn't, presumably, vote for Brexit (if he voted for Brexit) as an exercise in democratic process.
Plus taking him at his word, I'm interested in why he believed that democracy was broken. Not at all snidey. And I'm sure he can answer for himself.
Democracy was utterly broken by the EU when they ignored two referendums that voted down the EU Constitution, and when we in Britain weren't even given the referendum that we were promised. Instead the EU and UK connived to turn the EU Constitution into the Lisbon Treaty, despite it being the same document, solely so they could ram it through parliaments and ignore those democratic votes, and British voters
Am I over-egging the pudding? Well, this is what the EU bigwigs said themselves:
“The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.”
(Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister)
“If it’s a Yes we will say “on we go”, and if it’s a No we will say “we continue”.’
(Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Council)
“The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
(German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the Lisbon Treaty)
“They must go on voting until they get it right.”
(Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission)
And my favourite, by the actual author of the Constitution:
"Public opinion will be led - without knowing it - to adopt the policies we would never dare present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden or disguised in some way."
(Valery Giscard d'Estaing)
Case closed, m'Lud
Question: Do you think the UK more, or less democratic than other European countries?
The Conservative Party has been completely screwing up its attacks on Corbyn over Brexit*. Instead of 'Corbyn is trying to frustrate Brexit', which has tended to be their line, they should have been getting the diametric opposite argument out to young Labour voters - that he is anti-EU and pro-Brexit.
* Yes, yes, I know, they've been screwing up a lot of other things as well.
"No one has yet on this board explained how they personally will be affected by Brexit for the better*
You should have asked earlier. My life will be enriched by having my faith in democracy restored.
I'm sorry that your belief in democracy had taken such a knock, fragile thing as it must have been. What was it in the first place that made you lose your faith?
you ask for an example then go all snidey when you get one
how many more answers do you think youre going to get now ?
Well first of all it was not an answer. He didn't, presumably, vote for Brexit (if he voted for Brexit) as an exercise in democratic process.
Plus taking him at his word, I'm interested in why he believed that democracy was broken. Not at all snidey. And I'm sure he can answer for himself.
Democracy was utterly broken by the EU when they ignored two referendums that voted down the EU Constitution, and when we in Britain weren't even given the referendum that we were promised. Instead the EU and UK connived to turn the EU Constitution into the Lisbon Treaty, despite it being the same document, solely so they could ram it through parliaments and ignore those democratic votes, and British voters
Am I over-egging the pudding? Well, this is what the EU bigwigs said themselves:
“The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.”
(Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister)
“If it’s a Yes we will say “on we go”, and if it’s a No we will say “we continue”.’
(Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Council)
“The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
(German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the Lisbon Treaty)
“They must go on voting until they get it right.”
(Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission)
And my favourite, by the actual author of the Constitution:
"Public opinion will be led - without knowing it - to adopt the policies we would never dare present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden or disguised in some way."
(Valery Giscard d'Estaing)
Case closed, m'Lud
Nah. We were always sovereign and as a sovereign nation we decided to agree on these things. A democratically-elected government decided.
The rest of your post is gumph plus the final concluding argument is...we voted to leave. How much more the fuck democratic and sovereign does it get than that?
Indeed. The UK is the least genuinely democratic country in the EU by virtually every measure. Sure we have lots of virtues, but us lecturing the furriners on democracy is nothing short of stupid.
The Conservative Party has been completely screwing up its attacks on Corbyn over Brexit*. Instead of 'Corbyn is trying to frustrate Brexit', which has tended to be their line, they should have been getting the diametric opposite argument out to young Labour voters - that he is anti-EU and pro-Brexit.
* Yes, yes, I know, they've been screwing up a lot of other things as well.
If they'd pointed out how pro-Brexit Corbyn is, it might also have helped marginalise the people with extreme views in their own party.
I think Britsplaining more accurately describes arrogant Leavers who think shouting at the furriners will help them understand that we are all a lot cleverer than they are, and that they need us more than we need them.
Mr. Topping, both the Government and Opposition promised us a referendum, then the Government (under Brown) reneged upon it. That's not exactly a glittering example of democracy in action.
Morris as elected politicians everything and anything they do is, by definition, democratic.
What the actual? When the PatVal inquiry gets underway, will the auditors simply turn up and point out that, as qualified accountants, everything they did must be compliant with relevant standards?
The Conservative Party has been completely screwing up its attacks on Corbyn over Brexit*. Instead of 'Corbyn is trying to frustrate Brexit', which has tended to be their line, they should have been getting the diametric opposite argument out to young Labour voters - that he is anti-EU and pro-Brexit.
* Yes, yes, I know, they've been screwing up a lot of other things as well.
If they'd pointed out how pro-Brexit Corbyn is, it might also have helped marginalise the people with extreme views in their own party.
Yes, but tricky to get that right. They could push the line that his policy is leading to No Deal, though.
If I voted for Brexit, I'd be an illiterate racist so I'd be unable to do so. if I voted Remain as my wife did, I 'd still expect to see the result honoured (as my wife does), As I come from Boston originally, I'd be in favour of ganga being legalised. Or have I got a bit mixed-up here?
At least, I remember the result of the referendum that Parliament pledged to uphold. Do you?
My point is, you cited a restoration of belief in democracy as being a benefit of Brexit, which is circular. You (people) didn't presumably vote Leave just to test the democratic process. So it must have been to secure benefit for themselves. So what was that? Was it the sovereignty we always had, or something more concrete?
I hesitate to say it might have been on account of foreigners because everyone who voted Leave can't explain at sufficient length how huge a fan of immigration they are.
Although it doesn't sound as though you did actually vote Leave.
Mr. Topping, both the Government and Opposition promised us a referendum, then the Government (under Brown) reneged upon it. That's not exactly a glittering example of democracy in action.
Morris as elected politicians everything and anything they do is, by definition, democratic.
Methinks that most of the Leave inclined posters on this forum don't understand the system of democracy we have, extremely flawed though it is.
*edit: I think some antique dealers will be affected. I'm sure the sector deserves to dictate our entire national economic well-being.
Bureaucrats and dealers in red tape will do well out of Brexit. It's possible some pig farmers will benefit from higher prices for bacon without competition from Denmark, if there's no CAP deal, to offset the sheep farmers who will be wiped out. Exiled's children will be disappointed if they think they will benefit from a recession induced fall house prices. They won't have the jobs to pay for them. You need a job first and then you can think about buying a house.
Usually there are winners and losers with these things. Brexit is remarkable for there being so few winners. Almost everyone is a loser with Brexit.
The Conservative Party has been completely screwing up its attacks on Corbyn over Brexit*. Instead of 'Corbyn is trying to frustrate Brexit', which has tended to be their line, they should have been getting the diametric opposite argument out to young Labour voters - that he is anti-EU and pro-Brexit.
* Yes, yes, I know, they've been screwing up a lot of other things as well.
Nah that's the Lib Dems job. Just a shame the Lib Dems are so incompetent and invisible.
The Conservatives in trying to implement Brexit can't really criticise Corbyn for being too helpful to them. It does them no favours.
"No one has yet on this board explained how they personally will be affected by Brexit for the better*
You should have asked earlier. My life will be enriched by having my faith in democracy restored.
I'm sorry that your belief in democracy had taken such a knock, fragile thing as it must have been. What was it in the first place that made you lose your faith?
you ask for an example then go all snidey when you get one
how many more answers do you think youre going to get now ?
Well first of all it was not an answer. He didn't, presumably, vote for Brexit (if he voted for Brexit) as an exercise in democratic process.
Plus taking him at his word, I'm interested in why he believed that democracy was broken. Not at all snidey. And I'm sure he can answer for himself.
Democracy was utterly broken by the EU when they ignored two referendums that voted down the EU Constitution, and when we in Britain weren't even given the referendum that we were promised. Instead the EU and UK connived to turn the EU Constitution into the Lisbon Treaty, despite it being the same document, solely so they could ram it through parliaments and ignore those democratic votes, and British voters
Am I over-egging the pudding? Well, this is what the EU bigwigs said themselves:
“The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.”
(Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister)
“If it’s a Yes we will say “on we go”, and if it’s a No we will say “we continue”.’
(Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Council)
“The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
(German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the Lisbon Treaty)
“They must go on voting until they get it right.”
(Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission)
And my favourite, by the actual author of the Constitution:
"Public opinion will be led - without knowing it - to adopt the policies we would never dare present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden or disguised in some way."
(Valery Giscard d'Estaing)
Case closed, m'Lud
Question: Do you think the UK more, or less democratic than other European countries?
Answer: we are about to find out.
I can already answer. As per my other post, we are the least democratic country in the EU by almost every measure. We therefore don't need to wait find out. The evidence is overwhelming. I am very surprised that the other 27 have been too polite to tell us to remove the beam from our own eye.
Only the most deluded and doddery old c*nt, losing the very last of his marbles, would even begin to defend the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty - when even the actual author of it- Giscard - admits it was a total and shameful democratic fraud.
Surprise surprise, you turned to out to be that one truly deluded and doddery old c*nt. Bravo.
titter
I am not defending the Lisbon Treaty, O Hard of Understanding One, I am saying that a sovereign, democratic, god dammit British government decided to sign it.
Got a problem with that? Then blame the government. Not the Lisbon Treaty.
I mean after a while it does tbh get tiring explaining the most basic of concepts to you dolts, but I am here to help.
Brexit Background We are approaching the Article 50 BREXIT deadline and are now less than 60 days away from a potential hard Brexit; the 29 March 2019. When BSI initiated our NL contingency plan in August 2016, we could not have foreseen the lack of political progress. Given the current political impasse and following requested updates in the last week from both Competent Authorities for BSI, we have obtained critical information from IGJ /VWS in the Netherlands and the UK MHRA. We would like to provide a clear update to you on our discussions. We specifically asked the Competent Authorities for the EC policy on migration and validity of CE certificates from a UK notified body post 29 March 2019, if Article 50 is enacted and applied on this date without an agreed transition deal. The Competent Authorities advise: a) As of 30 March 2019, the UK will become a third country and the CE certificates will lose their validity. b*) However, very importantly, once CE certificates lose their validity post 29 March, they will not be able to be transferred or migrated to an EU NB. Products will lose market access, and a new conformity assessment will be required. c) Cut off for the product will be based on whether the product is considered as having been ‘placed on the market’. This is not the regulatory definition but the more traditional definition used for product recall or vigilance. The product will be considered ‘placed on the market’ if before 30 March it is physically manufactured and shipped within the supply chain, for example, in a distribution warehouse (within an EU 27 member state) or the end user Hospital/Clinic etc. Product stored at the manufacturer's facility will not be deemed as having been placed on the market. Action required by the manufacturer BSI cannot mandate that you as a legal manufacturer migrate your CE certificates to our Netherlands NB, this is your own commercial decision, and we will follow your instructions into us, however, we would like you to be aware of the following view: We very strongly recommend manufacturers migrate their existing BSI UK NB (0086) CE certificates to BSI NL NB (2797) as a matter of urgency. Failing to complete migration of CE by 29 March creates a likelihood of interrupted market access, and as advised in ‘b*’ above, could lead to prolonged interruption and necessitate a full conformity assessment. BSI will take a centralized approach to the migration process to enable tracking and control; please request the “Migration Pack” details from the following email address > CEcert2NLNB@bsigroup.com
Mr. Topping, both the Government and Opposition promised us a referendum, then the Government (under Brown) reneged upon it. That's not exactly a glittering example of democracy in action.
Morris as elected politicians everything and anything they do is, by definition, democratic.
What the actual? When the PatVal inquiry gets underway, will the auditors simply turn up and point out that, as qualified accountants, everything they did must be compliant with relevant standards?
Jeez Louise. OK one more time.
We vote in the government and they do stuff. It is about as democratic as you can get. It wasn't fraud or robbery or theft or rape or murder or false accounting. It was the democratically-elected government doing stuff.
FT anti brexit stance showing. Of course brexit is a negative to the economy but we are doing better than Italy and Germany and on a par with France
I did wonder why it was a blow to the data?
proabaly because they were rooting for a huge depression post the vote and it hasnt happened
I mean, we haven't left the EU yet. The chaos has barely started. We're still several weeks away from when the ironic contempt starts giving away to first serious concern and then blind panic.
Except the Remain tossers were predicting all those terrible catastrophes just for voting for Brexit before we even actually enacted it. And then when none of their terrible predictions turned out to be true they pretended they were talking about something else - like the lying scum they are.
A UKIP/BNP voter calling people liars and scum. Yep, you heard it here.
LOL. Given I was fighting the BNP on the streets whilst you were writing letters to your local council complaining about cat shit I am amazed you have the balls to even appear on here. You really are a shameful example of humanity. And yes the term scum dos apply very well to you.
Question. If I say I don't care about immigration, but I recognise that lots of people do and it's important to address their legitimate concerns, am I: a) a racist; b) racist by proxy; c) an apologist for racists; or d) something else?
Good question which deserves and is damn well going to get a serious answer.
It's (d) - where (d) is 'a good egg provided that you do not pander to illegitimate concerns'.
Immigration is an important issue which should be debated freely. I never assume somebody is racist purely because they are in favour of immigration being reduced to a lower level than it is today. In my mind they remain non-racist unless and until they demonstrate otherwise, e.g. by telling me how much they hate muslims or black people.
When actively on 'racist watch' (which is most Wednesday afternoons) I look for the following:
1. People who want to virtually close the borders. 2. People who bang on about the country being "full up". 3. People who say that immigration is the BIGGEST problem facing Britain today.
When I find one of these I switch my attitude around. I now assume they ARE racist unless they can prove to me otherwise. Which can't just be by them insisting until they go blue in the face that they aren't - this will not suffice - it has to be more tangible, e.g. I ascertain that they give a goodly proportion of their salary each month to charities specifically devoted to fighting racism. Something like that would be fine.
FT anti brexit stance showing. Of course brexit is a negative to the economy but we are doing better than Italy and Germany and on a par with France
I did wonder why it was a blow to the data?
proabaly because they were rooting for a huge depression post the vote and it hasnt happened
I mean, we haven't left the EU yet. The chaos has barely started. We're still several weeks away from when the ironic contempt starts giving away to first serious concern and then blind panic.
Except the Remain tossers were predicting all those terrible catastrophes just for voting for Brexit before we even actually enacted it. And then when none of their terrible predictions turned out to be true they pretended they were talking about something else - like the lying scum they are.
Indeed - even if we do take a bit of a hit in material terms, people should be appreciating the how much better things will be in the spiritual sphere.
The fact that it's now routine to refer to those with a different political opinion as "tossers" and "lying scum" should be a signpost to the broad and sunlit (albeit hungry) uplands we're moving towards.
They are terms reserved for a particular strain of Remain insect life of which there are unfortunately a few examples on here.
FT anti brexit stance showing. Of course brexit is a negative to the economy but we are doing better than Italy and Germany and on a par with France
I did wonder why it was a blow to the data?
proabaly because they were rooting for a huge depression post the vote and it hasnt happened
I mean, we haven't left the EU yet. The chaos has barely started. We're still several weeks away from when the ironic contempt starts giving away to first serious concern and then blind panic.
Except the Remain tossers were predicting all those terrible catastrophes just for voting for Brexit before we even actually enacted it. And then when none of their terrible predictions turned out to be true they pretended they were talking about something else - like the lying scum they are.
A UKIP/BNP voter calling people liars and scum. Yep, you heard it here.
LOL. Given I was fighting the BNP on the streets whilst you were writing letters to your local council complaining about cat shit I am amazed you have the balls to even appear on here. You really are a shameful example of humanity. And yes the term scum dos apply very well to you.
Dickie perhaps time to give yourself another time out. Not for our sakes, we can handle Leaver dolts being dolts all day long. But for your own well-being.
About a year or so ago I posted that BSI was moving its registrations to Holland. This was attacked by Brexiters as scare mongering. Well as you can see now the plan is being activated. The implications are vast. Very soon (weeks) the MHRA will cease to operate as a controlling body of medical devices and we will have outsourced all our regulation to Europe with no say in it. This is taking back control ?
FT anti brexit stance showing. Of course brexit is a negative to the economy but we are doing better than Italy and Germany and on a par with France
I did wonder why it was a blow to the data?
proabaly because they were rooting for a huge depression post the vote and it hasnt happened
I mean, we haven't left the EU yet. The chaos has barely started. We're still several weeks away from when the ironic contempt starts giving away to first serious concern and then blind panic.
Except the Remain tossers were predicting all those terrible catastrophes just for voting for Brexit before we even actually enacted it. And then when none of their terrible predictions turned out to be true they pretended they were talking about something else - like the lying scum they are.
None? Not the exchange rate or anything like that?
Another Leaver dickhead trying to rewrite history.
The exchange rate drops were beneficial not a catastrophe. They were something we would have wanted even without any mention of Brexit.
Only the most deluded and doddery old c*nt, losing the very last of his marbles, would even begin to defend the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty - when even the actual author of it- Giscard - admits it was a total and shameful democratic fraud.
Surprise surprise, you turned to out to be that one truly deluded and doddery old c*nt. Bravo.
titter
I am not defending the Lisbon Treaty, O Hard of Understanding One, I am saying that a sovereign, democratic, god dammit British government decided to sign it.
Got a problem with that? Then blame the government. Not the Lisbon Treaty.
I mean after a while it does tbh get tiring explaining the most basic of concepts to you dolts, but I am here to help.
Brexit Background We are approaching the Article 50 BREXIT deadline and are now less than 60 days away from a potential hard Brexit; the 29 March 2019. When BSI initiated our NL contingency plan in August 2016, we could not have foreseen the lack of political progress. Given the current political impasse and following requested updates in the last week from both Competent Authorities for BSI, we have obtained critical information from IGJ /VWS in the Netherlands and the UK MHRA. We would like to provide a clear update to you on our discussions. We specifically asked the Competent Authorities for the EC policy on migration and validity of CE certificates from a UK notified body post 29 March 2019, if Article 50 is enacted and applied on this date without an agreed transition deal. The Competent Authorities advise: a) As of 30 March 2019, the UK will become a third country and the CE certificates will lose their validity. b*) However, very importantly, once CE certificates lose their validity post 29 March, they will not be able to be transferred or migrated to an EU NB. Products will lose market access, and a new conformity assessment will be required. c) Cut off for the product will be based on whether the product is considered as having been ‘placed on the market’. This is not the regulatory definition but the more traditional definition used for product recall or vigilance. The product will be considered ‘placed on the market’ if before 30 March it is physically manufactured and shipped within the supply chain, for example, in a distribution warehouse (within an EU 27 member state) or the end user Hospital/Clinic etc. Product stored at the manufacturer's facility will not be deemed as having been placed on the market. Action required by the manufacturer BSI cannot mandate that you as a legal manufacturer migrate your CE certificates to our Netherlands NB, this is your own commercial decision, and we will follow your instructions into us, however, we would like you to be aware of the following view: We very strongly recommend manufacturers migrate their existing BSI UK NB (0086) CE certificates to BSI NL NB (2797) as a matter of urgency. Failing to complete migration of CE by 29 March creates a likelihood of interrupted market access, and as advised in ‘b*’ above, could lead to prolonged interruption and necessitate a full conformity assessment. BSI will take a centralized approach to the migration process to enable tracking and control; please request the “Migration Pack” details from the following email address > CEcert2NLNB@bsigroup.com
We've gone mad. Any sensible policy maker would say, we don't have a viable path, let's hold off until we do.
Best of luck with your product registrations. This something you could do without.
FT anti brexit stance showing. Of course brexit is a negative to the economy but we are doing better than Italy and Germany and on a par with France
I did wonder why it was a blow to the data?
proabaly because they were rooting for a huge depression post the vote and it hasnt happened
I mean, we haven't left the EU yet. The chaos has barely started. We're still several weeks away from when the ironic contempt starts giving away to first serious concern and then blind panic.
Except the Remain tossers were predicting all those terrible catastrophes just for voting for Brexit before we even actually enacted it. And then when none of their terrible predictions turned out to be true they pretended they were talking about something else - like the lying scum they are.
A UKIP/BNP voter calling people liars and scum. Yep, you heard it here.
LOL. Given I was fighting the BNP on the streets whilst you were writing letters to your local council complaining about cat shit I am amazed you have the balls to even appear on here. You really are a shameful example of humanity. And yes the term scum dos apply very well to you.
Dickie perhaps time to give yourself another time out. Not for our sakes, we can handle Leaver dolts being dolts all day long. But for your own well-being.
I don't need to take any advice from you Topping given how reckless you can be with the truth at times.
FT anti brexit stance showing. Of course brexit is a negative to the economy but we are doing better than Italy and Germany and on a par with France
I did wonder why it was a blow to the data?
proabaly because they were rooting for a huge depression post the vote and it hasnt happened
I mean, we haven't left the EU yet. The chaos has barely started. We're still several weeks away from when the ironic contempt starts giving away to first serious concern and then blind panic.
Except the Remain tossers were predicting all those terrible catastrophes just for voting for Brexit before we even actually enacted it. And then when none of their terrible predictions turned out to be true they pretended they were talking about something else - like the lying scum they are.
None? Not the exchange rate or anything like that?
Another Leaver dickhead trying to rewrite history.
The exchange rate drops were beneficial not a catastrophe. They were something we would have wanted even without any mention of Brexit.
They represent a diminution in wealth for the nation.
Only the most deluded and doddery old c*nt, losing the very last of his marbles, would even begin to defend the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty - when even the actual author of it- Giscard - admits it was a total and shameful democratic fraud.
Surprise surprise, you turned to out to be that one truly deluded and doddery old c*nt. Bravo.
titter
I am not defending the Lisbon Treaty, O Hard of Understanding One, I am saying that a sovereign, democratic, god dammit British government decided to sign it.
Got a problem with that? Then blame the government. Not the Lisbon Treaty.
I mean after a while it does tbh get tiring explaining the most basic of concepts to you dolts, but I am here to help.
FT anti brexit stance showing. Of course brexit is a negative to the economy but we are doing better than Italy and Germany and on a par with France
I did wonder why it was a blow to the data?
proabaly because they were rooting for a huge depression post the vote and it hasnt happened
I mean, we haven't left the EU yet. The chaos has barely started. We're still several weeks away from when the ironic contempt starts giving away to first serious concern and then blind panic.
Except the Remain tossers were predicting all those terrible catastrophes just for voting for Brexit before we even actually enacted it. And then when none of their terrible predictions turned out to be true they pretended they were talking about something else - like the lying scum they are.
A UKIP/BNP voter calling people liars and scum. Yep, you heard it here.
LOL. Given I was fighting the BNP on the streets whilst you were writing letters to your local council complaining about cat shit I am amazed you have the balls to even appear on here. You really are a shameful example of humanity. And yes the term scum dos apply very well to you.
Dickie perhaps time to give yourself another time out. Not for our sakes, we can handle Leaver dolts being dolts all day long. But for your own well-being.
I don't need to take any advice from you Topping given how reckless you can be with the truth at times.
Then don't take the advice but if a non-PB Richard Tyndall walked in to some of these exchanges and saw what PB Richard Tyndall had been writing I think he would not like what he saw.
Only the most deluded and doddery old c*nt, losing the very last of his marbles, would even begin to defend the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty - when even the actual author of it- Giscard - admits it was a total and shameful democratic fraud.
Surprise surprise, you turned to out to be that one truly deluded and doddery old c*nt. Bravo.
titter
I am not defending the Lisbon Treaty, O Hard of Understanding One, I am saying that a sovereign, democratic, god dammit British government decided to sign it.
Got a problem with that? Then blame the government. Not the Lisbon Treaty.
I mean after a while it does tbh get tiring explaining the most basic of concepts to you dolts, but I am here to help.
IT'S TIME FOR YOUR PILLS AGAIN.
That it?
A goddam moron called Gordon Brown signed it
Absofuckinglutely. But it was a democratically-elected goddam moron.
Mr. Topping, both the Government and Opposition promised us a referendum, then the Government (under Brown) reneged upon it. That's not exactly a glittering example of democracy in action.
Morris as elected politicians everything and anything they do is, by definition, democratic.
What the actual? When the PatVal inquiry gets underway, will the auditors simply turn up and point out that, as qualified accountants, everything they did must be compliant with relevant standards?
Jeez Louise. OK one more time.
We vote in the government and they do stuff. It is about as democratic as you can get. It wasn't fraud or robbery or theft or rape or murder or false accounting. It was the democratically-elected government doing stuff.
Apologies for pressing this, and/or if I've misunderstood your point here - but does that mean you would therefore have opposed the Iraq War inquiry? On the grounds that the invasion was based on "the democratically-elected government doing stuff"?
I get that there is a distinction between Parliament potentially being misled by the executive, and the Government going back on the spirit of a manifesto commitment - but surely both represent serious breaches of trust with the electorate, and thereby democratic deficits?
FT anti brexit stance showing. Of course brexit is a negative to the economy but we are doing better than Italy and Germany and on a par with France
I did wonder why it was a blow to the data?
proabaly because they were rooting for a huge depression post the vote and it hasnt happened
I mean, we haven't left the EU yet. The chaos has barely started. We're still several weeks away from when the ironic contempt starts giving away to first serious concern and then blind panic.
Except the Remain tossers were predicting all those terrible catastrophes just for voting for Brexit before we even actually enacted it. And then when none of their terrible predictions turned out to be true they pretended they were talking about something else - like the lying scum they are.
A UKIP/BNP voter calling people liars and scum. Yep, you heard it here.
LOL. Given I was fighting the BNP on the streets whilst you were writing letters to your local council complaining about cat shit I am amazed you have the balls to even appear on here. You really are a shameful example of humanity. And yes the term scum dos apply very well to you.
In that case you are even more stupid than I thought. UKIP and BNP are the same to each other in spirit as Sinn Fein are to the IRA. Scum is the correct word to describe both UKIP and it's less posh bastard sibling, BNP. They are organisations of morons and you are a sad and pathetic individual for supporting them. Go and get some help you unpleasant dickhead.
Only the most deluded and doddery old c*nt, losing the very last of his marbles, would even begin to defend the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty - when even the actual author of it- Giscard - admits it was a total and shameful democratic fraud.
Surprise surprise, you turned to out to be that one truly deluded and doddery old c*nt. Bravo.
titter
I am not defending the Lisbon Treaty, O Hard of Understanding One, I am saying that a sovereign, democratic, god dammit British government decided to sign it.
Got a problem with that? Then blame the government. Not the Lisbon Treaty.
I mean after a while it does tbh get tiring explaining the most basic of concepts to you dolts, but I am here to help.
IT'S TIME FOR YOUR PILLS AGAIN.
That it?
A goddam moron called Gordon Brown signed it
Absofuckinglutely. But it was a democratically-elected goddam moron.
And it was ratified by a democratically-elected parliament.
Mr. Topping, both the Government and Opposition promised us a referendum, then the Government (under Brown) reneged upon it. That's not exactly a glittering example of democracy in action.
Morris as elected politicians everything and anything they do is, by definition, democratic.
What the actual? When the PatVal inquiry gets underway, will the auditors simply turn up and point out that, as qualified accountants, everything they did must be compliant with relevant standards?
Jeez Louise. OK one more time.
We vote in the government and they do stuff. It is about as democratic as you can get. It wasn't fraud or robbery or theft or rape or murder or false accounting. It was the democratically-elected government doing stuff.
Apologies for pressing this, and/or if I've misunderstood your point here - but does that mean you would therefore have opposed the Iraq War inquiry? On the grounds that the invasion was based on "the democratically-elected government doing stuff"?
I get that there is a distinction between Parliament potentially being misled by the executive, and the Government going back on the spirit of a manifesto commitment - but surely both represent serious breaches of trust with the electorate, and thereby democratic deficits?
I think any enquiry about a country going to war is going to be built on and informed by a house of cards.
The whole concept of "illegality" in war is absurd. Countries go to war because they, or those that lead them (there's that democracy thing again) believe it is in the nation's interest and no other option is available to them.
We might have gone to war because we didn't like Uday Hussein's gold-plated AK, or because we thought they had the means to launch a nuclear strike on Hartlepool within an hour and a half. But it would not have been illegal.
So in answer to your question, I sort of do oppose the Iraq war enquiry for the legal element, but I approve of it for the lessons learned element.
Then don't take the advice but if a non-PB Richard Tyndall walked in to some of these exchanges and saw what PB Richard Tyndall had been writing I think he would not like what he saw.
He would be quite content. We come on here every day and see the sort of garbage being spewed by people like Nigel (and no, since it seems to need to be said so we don't get any false outrage, you are not one of the people like him in any way) about Leave voters and every once in a while it is good to remind him of exactly what sort of low life he really is. It is good for the soul to shed a bit of light into the dark shadows of their coal black hearts and make them realise exactly what sort of vile pieces of insignificant sputum they really are.
It is also nice to do it from a position of moral authority which on this one particular subject of anti racism I have by the bucket full.
Only the most deluded and doddery old c*nt, losing the very last of his marbles, would even begin to defend the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty - when even the actual author of it- Giscard - admits it was a total and shameful democratic fraud.
Surprise surprise, you turned to out to be that one truly deluded and doddery old c*nt. Bravo.
titter
I am not defending the Lisbon Treaty, O Hard of Understanding One, I am saying that a sovereign, democratic, god dammit British government decided to sign it.
Got a problem with that? Then blame the government. Not the Lisbon Treaty.
I mean after a while it does tbh get tiring explaining the most basic of concepts to you dolts, but I am here to help.
IT'S TIME FOR YOUR PILLS AGAIN.
That it?
Believe it or not, I have realised you really ARE some sad old pensioner, showing signs of early dementia, otherwise you wouldn't be able to post on here 24/7, eerily repeating odd, faintly archaic and cognitively telling words like "dolt". Repetition is a CLASSIC early symptom.
So I am being unusually restrained. I will not engage with you further, for the same reason
LOL
Thus writes the consummate wordsmith. Slightly bizarre, I must say, and I think we are all aware of why you are not going to engage further and it ain't got nothing to do with scie.org.
"No one has yet on this board explained how they personally will be affected by Brexit for the better*
You should have asked earlier. My life will be enriched by having my faith in democracy restored.
I'm sorry that your belief in democracy had taken such a knock, fragile thing as it must have been. What was it in the first place that made you lose your faith?
you ask for an example then go all snidey when you get one
how many more answers do you think youre going to get now ?
Well first of all it was not an answer. He didn't, presumably, vote for Brexit (if he voted for Brexit) as an exercise in democratic process.
Plus taking him at his word, I'm interested in why he believed that democracy was broken. Not at all snidey. And I'm sure he can answer for himself.
Democracy was utterly broken by the EU when they ignored two referendums that voted down the EU Constitution, and when we in Britain weren't even given the referendum that we were promised. Instead the EU and UK connived to turn the EU Constitution into the Lisbon Treaty, despite it being the same document, solely so they could ram it through parliaments and ignore those democratic votes, and British voters
Am I over-egging the pudding? Well, this is what the EU bigwigs said themselves:
“The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.”
(Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister)
“If it’s a Yes we will say “on we go”, and if it’s a No we will say “we continue”.’
(Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Council)
“The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
(German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the Lisbon Treaty)
“They must go on voting until they get it right.”
(Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission)
And my favourite, by the actual author of the Constitution:
"Public opinion will be led - without knowing it - to adopt the policies we would never dare present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden or disguised in some way."
(Valery Giscard d'Estaing)
Case closed, m'Lud
Question: Do you think the UK more, or less democratic than other European countries?
On a par with somewhere like the Netherlands or Demark, which are also constitutional monarchies.
FT anti brexit stance showing. Of course brexit is a negative to the economy but we are doing better than Italy and Germany and on a par with France
I did wonder why it was a blow to the data?
proabaly because they were rooting for a huge depression post the vote and it hasnt happened
I mean, we haven't left the EU yet. The chaos has barely started. We're still several weeks away from when the ironic contempt starts giving away to first serious concern and then blind panic.
Except the Remain tossers were predicting all those terrible catastrophes just for voting for Brexit before we even actually enacted it. And then when none of their terrible predictions turned out to be true they pretended they were talking about something else - like the lying scum they are.
A UKIP/BNP voter calling people liars and scum. Yep, you heard it here.
LOL. Given I was fighting the BNP on the streets whilst you were writing letters to your local council complaining about cat shit I am amazed you have the balls to even appear on here. You really are a shameful example of humanity. And yes the term scum does apply very well to you.
In that case you are even more stupid than I thought. UKIP and BNP are the same to each other in spirit as Sinn Fein are to the IRA. Scum is the correct word to describe both UKIP and it's less posh bastard sibling, BNP. They are organisations of morons and you are a sad and pathetic individual for supporting them. Go and get some help you unpleasant dickhead.
Oh dear Nigel, did your little head just explode. I can smell the bullshit from here.
Brexit Background We are approaching the Article 50 BREXIT deadline and are now less than 60 days away from a potential hard Brexit; the 29 March 2019. When BSI initiated our NL contingency plan in August 2016, we could not have foreseen the lack of political progress. Given the current political impasse and following requested updates in the last week from both Competent Authorities for BSI, we have obtained critical information from IGJ /VWS in the Netherlands and the UK MHRA. We would like to provide a clear update to you on our discussions. We specifically asked the Competent Authorities for the EC policy on migration and validity of CE certificates from a UK notified body post 29 March 2019, if Article 50 is enacted and applied on this date without an agreed transition deal. The Competent Authorities advise: a) As of 30 March 2019, the UK will become a third country and the CE certificates will lose their validity. b*) However, very importantly, once CE certificates lose their validity post 29 March, they will not be able to be transferred or migrated to an EU NB. Products will lose market access, and a new conformity assessment will be required. c) Cut off for the product will be based on whether the product is considered as having been ‘placed on the market’. This is not the regulatory definition but the more traditional definition used for product recall or vigilance. The product will be considered ‘placed on the market’ if before 30 March it is physically manufactured and shipped within the supply chain, for example, in a distribution warehouse (within an EU 27 member state) or the end user Hospital/Clinic etc. Product stored at the manufacturer's facility will not be deemed as having been placed on the market. Action required by the manufacturer BSI cannot mandate that you as a legal manufacturer migrate your CE certificates to our Netherlands NB, this is your own commercial decision, and we will follow your instructions into us, however, we would like you to be aware of the following view: We very strongly recommend manufacturers migrate their existing BSI UK NB (0086) CE certificates to BSI NL NB (2797) as a matter of urgency. Failing to complete migration of CE by 29 March creates a likelihood of interrupted market access, and as advised in ‘b*’ above, could lead to prolonged interruption and necessitate a full conformity assessment. BSI will take a centralized approach to the migration process to enable tracking and control; please request the “Migration Pack” details from the following email address > CEcert2NLNB@bsigroup.com
We've gone mad. Any sensible policy maker would say, we don't have a viable path, let's hold off until we do.
Best of luck with your product registrations. This something you could do without.
Thanks, it really seems the world has gone mad at the moment
About a year or so ago I posted that BSI was moving its registrations to Holland. This was attacked by Brexiters as scare mongering. Well as you can see now the plan is being activated. The implications are vast. Very soon (weeks) the MHRA will cease to operate as a controlling body of medical devices and we will have outsourced all our regulation to Europe with no say in it. This is taking back control ?
Of course it is not "... taking back control ..." but you are wasting your breath pointing it out. Both major parties seem to care little about crashing and burning and their cheerleaders on here will support the Party and spout the same vacuous bilge.
Mr. Topping, both the Government and Opposition promised us a referendum, then the Government (under Brown) reneged upon it. That's not exactly a glittering example of democracy in action.
Morris as elected politicians everything and anything they do is, by definition, democratic.
What the actual? When the PatVal inquiry gets underway, will the auditors simply turn up and point out that, as qualified accountants, everything they did must be compliant with relevant standards?
Jeez Louise. OK one more time.
We vote in the government and they do stuff. It is about as democratic as you can get. It wasn't fraud or robbery or theft or rape or murder or false accounting. It was the democratically-elected government doing stuff.
Apologies for pressing this, and/or if I've misunderstood your point here - but does that mean you would therefore have opposed the Iraq War inquiry? On the grounds that the invasion was based on "the democratically-elected government doing stuff"?
I get that there is a distinction between Parliament potentially being misled by the executive, and the Government going back on the spirit of a manifesto commitment - but surely both represent serious breaches of trust with the electorate, and thereby democratic deficits?
I think any enquiry about a country going to war is going to be built on and informed by a house of cards.
The whole concept of "illegality" in war is absurd. Countries go to war because they, or those that lead them (there's that democracy thing again) believe it is in the nation's interest and no other option is available to them.
We might have gone to war because we didn't like Uday Hussein's gold-plated AK, or because we thought they had the means to launch a nuclear strike on Hartlepool within an hour and a half. But it would not have been illegal.
So in answer to your question, I sort of do oppose the Iraq war enquiry for the legal element, but I approve of it for the lessons learned element.
Thank you. I agree on the illegality point (which is why I didn't raise it, focusing instead on whether Parliament had been misled). I suspect we are best off agreeing to disagree on the other aspects.
Mr. Topping, both the Government and Opposition promised us a referendum, then the Government (under Brown) reneged upon it. That's not exactly a glittering example of democracy in action.
Morris as elected politicians everything and anything they do is, by definition, democratic.
What the actual? When the PatVal inquiry gets underway, will the auditors simply turn up and point out that, as qualified accountants, everything they did must be compliant with relevant standards?
Jeez Louise. OK one more time.
We vote in the government and they do stuff. It is about as democratic as you can get. It wasn't fraud or robbery or theft or rape or murder or false accounting. It was the democratically-elected government doing stuff.
Apologies for pressing this, and/or if I've misunderstood your point here - but does that mean you would therefore have opposed the Iraq War inquiry? On the grounds that the invasion was based on "the democratically-elected government doing stuff"?
I get that there is a distinction between Parliament potentially being misled by the executive, and the Government going back on the spirit of a manifesto commitment - but surely both represent serious breaches of trust with the electorate, and thereby democratic deficits?
I think any enquiry about a country going to war is going to be built on and informed by a house of cards.
The whole concept of "illegality" in war is absurd. Countries go to war because they, or those that lead them (there's that democracy thing again) believe it is in the nation's interest and no other option is available to them.
We might have gone to war because we didn't like Uday Hussein's gold-plated AK, or because we thought they had the means to launch a nuclear strike on Hartlepool within an hour and a half. But it would not have been illegal.
So in answer to your question, I sort of do oppose the Iraq war enquiry for the legal element, but I approve of it for the lessons learned element.
I disagree. Invading other countries is, with certain defined exceptions, illegal under international law, for obvious reasons. I think it is important to establish legality, not least to protect our soldiers who have no choice to kill and be killed.
Mr. Topping, both the Government and Opposition promised us a referendum, then the Government (under Brown) reneged upon it. That's not exactly a glittering example of democracy in action.
Morris as elected politicians everything and anything they do is, by definition, democratic.
What the actual? When the PatVal inquiry gets underway, will the auditors simply turn up and point out that, as qualified accountants, everything they did must be compliant with relevant standards?
Jeez Louise. OK one more time.
We vote in the government and they do stuff. It is about as democratic as you can get. It wasn't fraud or robbery or theft or rape or murder or false accounting. It was the democratically-elected government doing stuff.
Apologies for pressing this, and/or if I've misunderstood your point here - but does that mean you would therefore have opposed the Iraq War inquiry? On the grounds that the invasion was based on "the democratically-elected government doing stuff"?
I get that there is a distinction between Parliament potentially being misled by the executive, and the Government going back on the spirit of a manifesto commitment - but surely both represent serious breaches of trust with the electorate, and thereby democratic deficits?
I think any enquiry about a country going to war is going to be built on and informed by a house of cards.
The whole concept of "illegality" in war is absurd. Countries go to war because they, or those that lead them (there's that democracy thing again) believe it is in the nation's interest and no other option is available to them.
We might have gone to war because we didn't like Uday Hussein's gold-plated AK, or because we thought they had the means to launch a nuclear strike on Hartlepool within an hour and a half. But it would not have been illegal.
So in answer to your question, I sort of do oppose the Iraq war enquiry for the legal element, but I approve of it for the lessons learned element.
Thank you. I agree on the illegality point (which is why I didn't raise it, focusing instead on whether Parliament had been misled). I suspect we are best off agreeing to disagree on the other aspects.
In principle, a war can be unlawful, but you'll only get tried for waging an unlawful war if you lose it.
Trials for much more common for committing unlawful acts during the course of a war.
About a year or so ago I posted that BSI was moving its registrations to Holland. This was attacked by Brexiters as scare mongering. Well as you can see now the plan is being activated. The implications are vast. Very soon (weeks) the MHRA will cease to operate as a controlling body of medical devices and we will have outsourced all our regulation to Europe with no say in it. This is taking back control ?
Morris as elected politicians everything and anything they do is, by definition, democratic.
What the actual? When the PatVal inquiry gets underway, will the auditors simply turn up and point out that, as qualified accountants, everything they did must be compliant with relevant standards?
Jeez Louise. OK one more time.
We vote in the government and they do stuff. It is about as democratic as you can get. It wasn't fraud or robbery or theft or rape or murder or false accounting. It was the democratically-elected government doing stuff.
Apologies for pressing this, and/or if I've misunderstood your point here - but does that mean you would therefore have opposed the Iraq War inquiry? On the grounds that the invasion was based on "the democratically-elected government doing stuff"?
I get that there is a distinction between Parliament potentially being misled by the executive, and the Government going back on the spirit of a manifesto commitment - but surely both represent serious breaches of trust with the electorate, and thereby democratic deficits?
I think any enquiry about a country going to war is going to be built on and informed by a house of cards.
The whole concept of "illegality" in war is absurd. Countries go to war because they, or those that lead them (there's that democracy thing again) believe it is in the nation's interest and no other option is available to them.
We might have gone to war because we didn't like Uday Hussein's gold-plated AK, or because we thought they had the means to launch a nuclear strike on Hartlepool within an hour and a half. But it would not have been illegal.
So in answer to your question, I sort of do oppose the Iraq war enquiry for the legal element, but I approve of it for the lessons learned element.
Thank you. I agree on the illegality point (which is why I didn't raise it, focusing instead on whether Parliament had been misled). I suspect we are best off agreeing to disagree on the other aspects.
In principle, a war can be unlawful, but you'll only get tried for waging an unlawful war if you lose it.
Trials for much more common for committing unlawful acts during the course of a war.
More to the point, you're unlikely to ever get tried if you're on the same side as the USA. I'm not a lawyer, so my view of this has more of a practical than technical bent.
Shuddering blow. It's definitely one of those situations where the FT had a headline ready and tried to fit it to the story rather than create a headline from the story. #fakenews.
Quite. What will be the headline when an actual recession arrives?
Certain sections of the media are completely losing their minds.
Shuddering blow. It's definitely one of those situations where the FT had a headline ready and tried to fit it to the story rather than create a headline from the story. #fakenews.
Quite. What will be the headline when an actual recession arrives?
Certain sections of the media are completely losing their minds.
I did see a headline about crippling interest rate rises. I thought hmmm, really?
One insider says that contrary to the belief of some at Westminster, May had privately hoped that a sizeable victory would give her a way to stand up to her Brexiteers, rather than be held hostage by them.
“It felt quite clear where we were heading and that was the softest possible Brexit outside the single market, with a deal to be done was on a customs union. And it was merely a question of managing the process to get us there,” they say.
“Part of the point of the election was that if we’d got a bigger majority, we would have been able to make the compromises more readily.”
Well, quite. I made that point repeatedly at the time. That is exactly why it was so catastrophic that voters decided not to give her the mandate she needed.
I see that the agonised howling over Europe (like something from the lowest circle of Hell) continues to grow in intensity. I'm not sure that all of you lot are going to make it to March 29th without suffering some kind of catastrophic stress-induced medical event.
On topic, JC can do whatever he likes. Most of the party members appear to maintain their almost religious reverence for him, whilst one assumes that recently reported declines in membership are mainly down to those who are genuinely bothered about Europe simply giving up and walking away, rather than making doomed attempts to lobby for a change in direction that will get them nothing except a hail of pretty nasty abuse.
There won't be another move to topple him as leader because it would be futile, and there won't be a mass exodus of Labour MPs unless and until they're certain that they will be deselected. Absent that incentive, career trumps all other considerations.
Only the most deluded and doddery old c*nt, losing the very last of his marbles, would even begin to defend the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty - when even the actual author of it- Giscard - admits it was a total and shameful democratic fraud.
Surprise surprise, you turned to out to be that one truly deluded and doddery old c*nt. Bravo.
titter
I am not defending the Lisbon Treaty, O Hard of Understanding One, I am saying that a sovereign, democratic, god dammit British government decided to sign it.
Got a problem with that? Then blame the government. Not the Lisbon Treaty.
I mean after a while it does tbh get tiring explaining the most basic of concepts to you dolts, but I am here to help.
IT'S TIME FOR YOUR PILLS AGAIN.
That it?
A goddam moron called Gordon Brown signed it
Absofuckinglutely. But it was a democratically-elected goddam moron.
And it was ratified by a democratically-elected parliament.
Indeed but it was the beginning of the end and why UKIP grew, something of that importance needed ratifying by the people, either by GE or referendum. The smiling EU bureaucrats just added to the sense of the Great British Public being ignored yet again. The seeds of our exit were sown there at that moment, when that fawning idiot Brown, turned up late and signed it as a piece of theatre..
One insider says that contrary to the belief of some at Westminster, May had privately hoped that a sizeable victory would give her a way to stand up to her Brexiteers, rather than be held hostage by them.
“It felt quite clear where we were heading and that was the softest possible Brexit outside the single market, with a deal to be done was on a customs union. And it was merely a question of managing the process to get us there,” they say.
“Part of the point of the election was that if we’d got a bigger majority, we would have been able to make the compromises more readily.”
Well, quite. I made that point repeatedly at the time. That is exactly why it was so catastrophic that voters decided not to give her the mandate she needed.
Perhaps if she'd told the electorate that she wanted a thumping majority in order to ignore the headbangers on her backbenches then they would have given it to her.
Instead she sounded like the headbangers on her backbenches, insulted 48% of the electorate, and scared Remainers into voting for Corbyn to stop her from imposing a hard Brexit.
One insider says that contrary to the belief of some at Westminster, May had privately hoped that a sizeable victory would give her a way to stand up to her Brexiteers, rather than be held hostage by them.
“It felt quite clear where we were heading and that was the softest possible Brexit outside the single market, with a deal to be done was on a customs union. And it was merely a question of managing the process to get us there,” they say.
“Part of the point of the election was that if we’d got a bigger majority, we would have been able to make the compromises more readily.”
Well, quite. I made that point repeatedly at the time. That is exactly why it was so catastrophic that voters decided not to give her the mandate she needed.
She set her red line before the 2017 general election and thus before she lost her majority.
One insider says that contrary to the belief of some at Westminster, May had privately hoped that a sizeable victory would give her a way to stand up to her Brexiteers, rather than be held hostage by them.
“It felt quite clear where we were heading and that was the softest possible Brexit outside the single market, with a deal to be done was on a customs union. And it was merely a question of managing the process to get us there,” they say.
“Part of the point of the election was that if we’d got a bigger majority, we would have been able to make the compromises more readily.”
Well, quite. I made that point repeatedly at the time. That is exactly why it was so catastrophic that voters decided not to give her the mandate she needed.
Perhaps if she'd told the electorate that she wanted a thumping majority in order to ignore the headbangers on her backbenches then they would have given it to her.
Instead she sounded like the headbangers on her backbenches, insulted 48% of the electorate, and scared Remainers into voting for Corbyn to stop her from imposing a hard Brexit.
Only Theresa May is to blame.
No, voters are to blame. Anyone who voted for Corbyn, for any reason, is to blame, but if they voted for Corbyn to stop her from imposing a 'hard Brexit' (which she never planned to do), then Mr Tusk has an especially disagreeable circle of hell lined up for them.
I've just realised I am going to France, for a thriller writer's convention in Lyon, on..... March 29th.
Presuming my Eurostar train is allowed to enter the EU, I will be able to stockpile French goods and bring them back to starving, rioting No Deal Brexit Britain a few days later.
I'm taking orders now for terrines and foie gras. Let me know quantities, etc
What makes you think you'll be allowed to bring them in?
Surely this is yet more signalling to the EU that She's Not Bluffing (even tho she is).
Unless she really isn't bluffing and would go for No Deal, in which case: Holy Fuckola
To my mind the disquieting thing is her continued emphasis on an alteration to the backstop arrangement in the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU seems perfectly clear that's not going to happen, and I've seen no evidence whatsoever to suggest the EU is bluffing.
If the EU isn't bluffing, then by falsely raising expectations about the backstop, May is making her deal less likely to pass, not more.
I also see no sign of her preparing the ground for an alternative way out - Corbyn's proposals, a referendum, a general election or revocation. And no sign of anything that will convince the EU that a solution will be more likely after a 2-3 month extension.
That leaves No Deal, which at least will be easy for her to achieve.
Surely this is yet more signalling to the EU that She's Not Bluffing (even tho she is).
Unless she really isn't bluffing and would go for No Deal, in which case: Holy Fuckola
To my mind the disquieting thing is her continued emphasis on an alteration to the backstop arrangement in the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU seems perfectly clear that's not going to happen, and I've seen no evidence whatsoever to suggest the EU is bluffing.
If the EU isn't bluffing, then by falsely raising expectations about the backstop, May is making her deal less likely to pass, not more.
I also see no sign of her preparing the ground for an alternative way out - Corbyn's proposals, a referendum, a general election or revocation. And no sign of anything that will convince the EU that a solution will be more likely after a 2-3 month extension.
That leaves No Deal, which at least will be easy for her to achieve.
Have we discussed the point that the backstop is very likely to be illegal under EU law?
I also see no sign of her preparing the ground for an alternative way out - Corbyn's proposals, a referendum, a general election or revocation. And no sign of anything that will convince the EU that a solution will be more likely after a 2-3 month extension.
That leaves No Deal, which at least will be easy for her to achieve.
If the DUP think that a No Deal Brexit is a one-way ticket to a united Ireland, what to they do when they're faced with the prospect for real?
One insider says that contrary to the belief of some at Westminster, May had privately hoped that a sizeable victory would give her a way to stand up to her Brexiteers, rather than be held hostage by them.
“It felt quite clear where we were heading and that was the softest possible Brexit outside the single market, with a deal to be done was on a customs union. And it was merely a question of managing the process to get us there,” they say.
“Part of the point of the election was that if we’d got a bigger majority, we would have been able to make the compromises more readily.”
Well, quite. I made that point repeatedly at the time. That is exactly why it was so catastrophic that voters decided not to give her the mandate she needed.
Fascinating article. This section seems relevant.
One source says: “She’s been told – ‘You need to understand prime minister, it’s very simple maths – the ERG [European Research Group] will fuck you, fuck the Conservative party and they will throw themselves over a cliff. Your Remainer colleagues will not’. It’s who’s got the biggest balls.”
“The Remainers need a gameplan to show Julian [Smith] is wrong on this. At the moment, they are rolling over having tummies tickled. And she’s thrown all her weight behind the chief whip.
“She gets to save her party and potentially gets to live for another day. She will be the PM who delivered Brexit. She can blame Parliament and Tusk, Juncker and the EU [for no-deal] and say I managed it as best as anyone could.
“She’s home and dry as long as she sits tight with the Brexiteers who only a few weeks ago wanted her head. It’s utterly tragic.”
I agree with all of that. Or course if the EU (and the Irish in particular) want to avoid anything "tragic" then they can compromise. They won't unless May is prepared to take us over the cliff but if she is prepared to we can get a good deal potentially. Its our only shot.
Even if you are right (I doubt it), is there time for the ruling to be made before March 29?
Jesus. We really are heading for the Tungsten-tipped Brexit. Seppuku Brexit. Golgotha Brexit.
No, there almost certainly isn't time, but although IANAL, I think the argument is pretty convincing. It is based on the point that the Withdrawal Agreement (agreed by the Council under QMV) can only be about the transition, not about the long-term relationship, which can only be agreed after we leave and which requires unanimity and full formal ratification by the various parliaments, Walloons etc. Since the concern is precisely that backstop might be permanent, it's very hard indeed to see how the legal basis of it could be the Withdrawal Agreement.
Quite how this point could be explored is unclear, though. Basically everything is too late - we shouldn't be in this place with just a few weeks to go.
One insider says that contrary to the belief of some at Westminster, May had privately hoped that a sizeable victory would give her a way to stand up to her Brexiteers, rather than be held hostage by them.
“It felt quite clear where we were heading and that was the softest possible Brexit outside the single market, with a deal to be done was on a customs union. And it was merely a question of managing the process to get us there,” they say.
“Part of the point of the election was that if we’d got a bigger majority, we would have been able to make the compromises more readily.”
Well, quite. I made that point repeatedly at the time. That is exactly why it was so catastrophic that voters decided not to give her the mandate she needed.
Fascinating article. This section seems relevant.
One source says: “She’s been told – ‘You need to understand prime minister, it’s very simple maths – the ERG [European Research Group] will fuck you, fuck the Conservative party and they will throw themselves over a cliff. Your Remainer colleagues will not’. It’s who’s got the biggest balls.”
“The Remainers need a gameplan to show Julian [Smith] is wrong on this. At the moment, they are rolling over having tummies tickled. And she’s thrown all her weight behind the chief whip.
“She gets to save her party and potentially gets to live for another day. She will be the PM who delivered Brexit. She can blame Parliament and Tusk, Juncker and the EU [for no-deal] and say I managed it as best as anyone could.
“She’s home and dry as long as she sits tight with the Brexiteers who only a few weeks ago wanted her head. It’s utterly tragic.”
I agree with all of that. Or course if the EU (and the Irish in particular) want to avoid anything "tragic" then they can compromise. They won't unless May is prepared to take us over the cliff but if she is prepared to we can get a good deal potentially. Its our only shot.
You agree with all that, and yet you support the strategy of going over the cliff if the EU doesn't give in?
Thank you for the perfect illustration of the bone-headed stupidity that got us into this mess!
One insider says that contrary to the belief of some at Westminster, May had privately hoped that a sizeable victory would give her a way to stand up to her Brexiteers, rather than be held hostage by them.
“It felt quite clear where we were heading and that was the softest possible Brexit outside the single market, with a deal to be done was on a customs union. And it was merely a question of managing the process to get us there,” they say.
“Part of the point of the election was that if we’d got a bigger majority, we would have been able to make the compromises more readily.”
Well, quite. I made that point repeatedly at the time. That is exactly why it was so catastrophic that voters decided not to give her the mandate she needed.
Perhaps if she'd told the electorate that she wanted a thumping majority in order to ignore the headbangers on her backbenches then they would have given it to her.
Instead she sounded like the headbangers on her backbenches, insulted 48% of the electorate, and scared Remainers into voting for Corbyn to stop her from imposing a hard Brexit.
Only Theresa May is to blame.
No, voters are to blame. Anyone who voted for Corbyn, for any reason, is to blame, but if they voted for Corbyn to stop her from imposing a 'hard Brexit' (which she never planned to do), then Mr Tusk has an especially disagreeable circle of hell lined up for them.
Yep, voting on the basis that Theresa May actually means anything she says shows an extreme lack of judgement.
One insider says that contrary to the belief of some at Westminster, May had privately hoped that a sizeable victory would give her a way to stand up to her Brexiteers, rather than be held hostage by them.
“It felt quite clear where we were heading and that was the softest possible Brexit outside the single market, with a deal to be done was on a customs union. And it was merely a question of managing the process to get us there,” they say.
“Part of the point of the election was that if we’d got a bigger majority, we would have been able to make the compromises more readily.”
Well, quite. I made that point repeatedly at the time. That is exactly why it was so catastrophic that voters decided not to give her the mandate she needed.
Fascinating article. This section seems relevant.
One source says: “She’s been told – ‘You need to understand prime minister, it’s very simple maths – the ERG [European Research Group] will fuck you, fuck the Conservative party and they will throw themselves over a cliff. Your Remainer colleagues will not’. It’s who’s got the biggest balls.”
“The Remainers need a gameplan to show Julian [Smith] is wrong on this. At the moment, they are rolling over having tummies tickled. And she’s thrown all her weight behind the chief whip.
“She gets to save her party and potentially gets to live for another day. She will be the PM who delivered Brexit. She can blame Parliament and Tusk, Juncker and the EU [for no-deal] and say I managed it as best as anyone could.
“She’s home and dry as long as she sits tight with the Brexiteers who only a few weeks ago wanted her head. It’s utterly tragic.”
I agree with all of that. Or course if the EU (and the Irish in particular) want to avoid anything "tragic" then they can compromise. They won't unless May is prepared to take us over the cliff but if she is prepared to we can get a good deal potentially. Its our only shot.
You agree with all that, and yet you support the strategy of going over the cliff if the EU doesn't give in?
Thank you for the perfect illustration of the bone-headed stupidity that got us into this mess!
Yes.
If I wasn't prepared to go over the cliff I would have voted Remain. We either get a deal or go over the cliff, I'd rather get a deal but I made that decision in 2016.
Indeed but it was the beginning of the end and why UKIP grew, something of that importance needed ratifying by the people, either by GE or referendum. The smiling EU bureaucrats just added to the sense of the Great British Public being ignored yet again. The seeds of our exit were sown there at that moment, when that fawning idiot Brown, turned up late and signed it as a piece of theatre..
Clearly means a lot to you and others on here and I can understand why.
But as to most of the 17m I doubt they would know what the Lisbon Treaty was if it accosted them in the street wearing a hoodie with I AM THE LISBON TREATY! writ large across the front.
FT anti brexit stance showing. Of course brexit is a negative to the economy but we are doing better than Italy and Germany and on a par with France
I did wonder why it was a blow to the data?
proabaly because they were rooting for a huge depression post the vote and it hasnt happened
I mean, we haven't left the EU yet. The chaos has barely started. We're still several weeks away from when the ironic contempt starts giving away to first serious concern and then blind panic.
Except the Remain tossers were predicting all those terrible catastrophes just for voting for Brexit before we even actually enacted it. And then when none of their terrible predictions turned out to be true they pretended they were talking about something else - like the lying scum they are.
None? Not the exchange rate or anything like that?
Another Leaver dickhead trying to rewrite history.
The exchange rate drops were beneficial not a catastrophe. They were something we would have wanted even without any mention of Brexit.
Don't forget that the exchange rate drops are beneficial for those who want to create wealth and have a country which lives within its means.
People who want cheaper imported tat and cheaper foreign holidays and who are willing to shut down UK exporting businesses to get them take the opposite view.
Just catching up the thread and not much harmony around, sadly
The debate is as polarised and heated as ever with no compromise in sight
But compromise there has to be and we need a whole load of mps to grow up
Saying that is easy, but I do wish the anger and unnecessary attacks could be dialled down even a little as no one wins in such a confrontational situation
One insider says that contrary to the belief of some at Westminster, May had privately hoped that a sizeable victory would give her a way to stand up to her Brexiteers, rather than be held hostage by them.
“It felt quite clear where we were heading and that was the softest possible Brexit outside the single market, with a deal to be done was on a customs union. And it was merely a question of managing the process to get us there,” they say.
“Part of the point of the election was that if we’d got a bigger majority, we would have been able to make the compromises more readily.”
Well, quite. I made that point repeatedly at the time. That is exactly why it was so catastrophic that voters decided not to give her the mandate she needed.
Fascinating article. This section seems relevant.
One source says: “She’s been told – ‘You need to understand prime minister, it’s very simple maths – the ERG [European Research Group] will fuck you, fuck the Conservative party and they will throw themselves over a cliff. Your Remainer colleagues will not’. It’s who’s got the biggest balls.”
“The Remainers need a gameplan to show Julian [Smith] is wrong on this. At the moment, they are rolling over having tummies tickled. And she’s thrown all her weight behind the chief whip.
“She gets to save her party and potentially gets to live for another day. She will be the PM who delivered Brexit. She can blame Parliament and Tusk, Juncker and the EU [for no-deal] and say I managed it as best as anyone could.
“She’s home and dry as long as she sits tight with the Brexiteers who only a few weeks ago wanted her head. It’s utterly tragic.”
I agree with all of that. Or course if the EU (and the Irish in particular) want to avoid anything "tragic" then they can compromise. They won't unless May is prepared to take us over the cliff but if she is prepared to we can get a good deal potentially. Its our only shot.
You agree with all that, and yet you support the strategy of going over the cliff if the EU doesn't give in?
Thank you for the perfect illustration of the bone-headed stupidity that got us into this mess!
Yes.
If I wasn't prepared to go over the cliff I would have voted Remain. We either get a deal or go over the cliff, I'd rather get a deal but I made that decision in 2016.
If only the question in that referendum had been "If everyone doesn't do what you want them to do, will you jump over a cliff?"
Perhaps the result would have been different. But sometimes I wonder. Ye gods.
Surely this is yet more signalling to the EU that She's Not Bluffing (even tho she is).
Unless she really isn't bluffing and would go for No Deal, in which case: Holy Fuckola
To my mind the disquieting thing is her continued emphasis on an alteration to the backstop arrangement in the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU seems perfectly clear that's not going to happen, and I've seen no evidence whatsoever to suggest the EU is bluffing.
If the EU isn't bluffing, then by falsely raising expectations about the backstop, May is making her deal less likely to pass, not more.
I also see no sign of her preparing the ground for an alternative way out - Corbyn's proposals, a referendum, a general election or revocation. And no sign of anything that will convince the EU that a solution will be more likely after a 2-3 month extension.
That leaves No Deal, which at least will be easy for her to achieve.
Have we discussed the point that the backstop is very likely to be illegal under EU law?
Surely that depends on which judges decide the case ?
Just catching up the thread and not much harmony around, sadly
The debate is as polarised and heated as ever with no compromise in sight
But compromise there has to be and we need a whole load of mps to grow up
Saying that is easy, but I do wish the anger and unnecessary attacks could be dialled down even a little as no one wins in such a confrontational situation
MPs have reached a compromise. Its the EU that aren't willing to compromise an inch. If there's no deal, we can quite reasonably blame them.
Just catching up the thread and not much harmony around, sadly
The debate is as polarised and heated as ever with no compromise in sight
But compromise there has to be and we need a whole load of mps to grow up
Saying that is easy, but I do wish the anger and unnecessary attacks could be dialled down even a little as no one wins in such a confrontational situation
MPs have reached a compromise. Its the EU that aren't willing to compromise an inch. If there's no deal, we can quite reasonably blame them.
Mr. Thompson, untrue. The EU is willing to have more influence over us.
It does give the lie, though, to their claim the negotiations are done and cannot be reopened, when they say in the very next breath things can be changed but only to their liking.
"I agree with all of that. Or course if the EU (and the Irish in particular) want to avoid anything "tragic" then they can compromise. They won't unless May is prepared to take us over the cliff but if she is prepared to we can get a good deal potentially. Its our only shot"
****
I think there are now too many in the EU who are resigned to, or even relishing, a No Deal, as they think it will hurt us waaaaaay more than them. It will be painful for all, but it will bind the EU tighter. See the polls in Ireland where they say they will accept a No Deal rather than accede on the backstop.
Yes, German car-makers etc are finally squealing, likewise French farmers etc, but it is too late. The political energy and willingness does not exist, on the continent, to overrule the Brussels ideologues and get a compromise.
They are playing with fire, but they think they can handle it. We are playing with multiple potential fires, I've no idea if we can handle it.
When the history is written, it will be a history of mutual misunderstanding: we did not comprehend how much Brussels would take control of the negotiations, and how wedded Brussels is to defending the EU as proto-superstate rather than individual nations or interests within. They did not understand how the UK values its democratic system and would refuse to allow a 2nd vote, even when confronted with calamity.
And so, here we are. Over the top we go. It's like the end of Blackadder.
If so it would illustrate why EU membership was never appropriate for the UK.
And exposes decades of "Europe is coming our way" mendacity/delusion/incompetence from UK governments.
I've just realised I am going to France, for a thriller writer's convention in Lyon, on..... March 29th.
Presuming my Eurostar train is allowed to enter the EU, I will be able to stockpile French goods and bring them back to starving, rioting No Deal Brexit Britain a few days later.
I'm taking orders now for terrines and foie gras. Let me know quantities, etc
They are playing with fire, but they think they can handle it. We are playing with multiple potential fires, I've no idea if we can handle it.
When the history is written, it will be a history of mutual misunderstanding: we did not comprehend how much Brussels would take control of the negotiations, and how wedded Brussels is to defending the EU as proto-superstate rather than individual nations or interests within. They did not understand how the UK values its democratic system and would refuse to allow a 2nd vote, even when confronted with calamity.
And so, here we are. Over the top we go. It's like the end of Blackadder.
We've handled worse, we can handle it. It won't be as bad as WWI, it won't be as good as it could have been. C'est la vie.
Just catching up the thread and not much harmony around, sadly
The debate is as polarised and heated as ever with no compromise in sight
But compromise there has to be and we need a whole load of mps to grow up
Saying that is easy, but I do wish the anger and unnecessary attacks could be dialled down even a little as no one wins in such a confrontational situation
MPs have reached a compromise. Its the EU that aren't willing to compromise an inch. If there's no deal, we can quite reasonably blame them.
What amazes me is the number of people who are blithely unaware of what is facing us, potentially, in less than seven weeks. Or if they are aware, they are presuming Oh someone will sort it out.
No one is there to sort it out. I don't think planes will fall out of the sky, but there could be a chain reaction of very very nasty shocking political/economic crises, one on top of the other, as consequences multiply into catastrophes. It could be Lehmans but worse.
OK, time for the gym and some soothing endorphins. Then maybe a gallon of gin.
Or it could be like the dot-com-bubble bursting. Lots of hype and then life goes on.
Even if you are right (I doubt it), is there time for the ruling to be made before March 29?
Jesus. We really are heading for the Tungsten-tipped Brexit. Seppuku Brexit. Golgotha Brexit.
No, there almost certainly isn't time, but although IANAL, I think the argument is pretty convincing. It is based on the point that the Withdrawal Agreement (agreed by the Council under QMV) can only be about the transition, not about the long-term relationship, which can only be agreed after we leave and which requires unanimity and full formal ratification by the various parliaments, Walloons etc. Since the concern is precisely that backstop might be permanent, it's very hard indeed to see how the legal basis of it could be the Withdrawal Agreement.
Quite how this point could be explored is unclear, though. Basically everything is too late - we shouldn't be in this place with just a few weeks to go.
There's also the argument that, by having NI un-renounceably in the backstop, it breaches Article 3 ECHR, at least on the Matthews interpretation, because it stops NI voters being able to vote on legislative matters concerning them - they'd have no MEPs.
There would be a certain irony if HMG's plan were to enter into the backstop and then have the ECtHR strike it down, although the careful reader will note that i am not tipping this outcome.
Just catching up the thread and not much harmony around, sadly
The debate is as polarised and heated as ever with no compromise in sight
But compromise there has to be and we need a whole load of mps to grow up
Saying that is easy, but I do wish the anger and unnecessary attacks could be dialled down even a little as no one wins in such a confrontational situation
MPs have reached a compromise. Its the EU that aren't willing to compromise an inch. If there's no deal, we can quite reasonably blame them.
The EU wanted a Northern Ireland backstop. The UK wanted a UK-wide one. The EU compromised. Obviously, we will blame the foreigners for a mess entirely of our making and that will make a few xenophobes feel good for a while. But it will not solve a thing. A move designed to keep the Tories together whatever the cost to the country is unlikely to be forgotten or forgiven.
Comments
* Yes, yes, I know, they've been screwing up a lot of other things as well.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45636236 / https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-47154287
not that clever
I hesitate to say it might have been on account of foreigners because everyone who voted Leave can't explain at sufficient length how huge a fan of immigration they are.
Although it doesn't sound as though you did actually vote Leave.
Usually there are winners and losers with these things. Brexit is remarkable for there being so few winners. Almost everyone is a loser with Brexit.
The Conservatives in trying to implement Brexit can't really criticise Corbyn for being too helpful to them. It does them no favours.
I am not defending the Lisbon Treaty, O Hard of Understanding One, I am saying that a sovereign, democratic, god dammit British government decided to sign it.
Got a problem with that? Then blame the government. Not the Lisbon Treaty.
I mean after a while it does tbh get tiring explaining the most basic of concepts to you dolts, but I am here to help.
We are approaching the Article 50 BREXIT deadline and are now less than 60 days away from a potential hard Brexit; the 29 March 2019. When BSI initiated our NL contingency plan in August 2016, we could not have foreseen the lack of political progress. Given the current political impasse and following requested updates in the last week from both Competent Authorities for BSI, we have obtained critical information from IGJ /VWS in the Netherlands and the UK MHRA. We would like to provide a clear update to you on our discussions.
We specifically asked the Competent Authorities for the EC policy on migration and validity of CE certificates from a UK notified body post 29 March 2019, if Article 50 is enacted and applied on this date without an agreed transition deal.
The Competent Authorities advise:
a) As of 30 March 2019, the UK will become a third country and the CE certificates will lose their validity.
b*) However, very importantly, once CE certificates lose their validity post 29 March, they will not be able to be transferred or migrated to an EU NB. Products will lose market access, and a new conformity assessment will be required.
c) Cut off for the product will be based on whether the product is considered as having been ‘placed on the market’. This is not the regulatory definition but the more traditional definition used for product recall or vigilance. The product will be considered ‘placed on the market’ if before 30 March it is physically manufactured and shipped within the supply chain, for example, in a distribution warehouse (within an EU 27 member state) or the end user Hospital/Clinic etc. Product stored at the manufacturer's facility will not be deemed as having been placed on the market.
Action required by the manufacturer
BSI cannot mandate that you as a legal manufacturer migrate your CE certificates to our Netherlands NB, this is your own commercial decision, and we will follow your instructions into us, however, we would like you to be aware of the following view:
We very strongly recommend manufacturers migrate their existing BSI UK NB (0086) CE certificates to BSI NL NB (2797) as a matter of urgency.
Failing to complete migration of CE by 29 March creates a likelihood of interrupted market access, and as advised in ‘b*’ above, could lead to prolonged interruption and necessitate a full conformity assessment. BSI will take a centralized approach to the migration process to enable tracking and control; please request the “Migration Pack” details from the following email address > CEcert2NLNB@bsigroup.com
Just remember that good old British saying … Que sera, sera, and chill out.
We vote in the government and they do stuff. It is about as democratic as you can get. It wasn't fraud or robbery or theft or rape or murder or false accounting. It was the democratically-elected government doing stuff.
It's (d) - where (d) is 'a good egg provided that you do not pander to illegitimate concerns'.
Immigration is an important issue which should be debated freely. I never assume somebody is racist purely because they are in favour of immigration being reduced to a lower level than it is today. In my mind they remain non-racist unless and until they demonstrate otherwise, e.g. by telling me how much they hate muslims or black people.
When actively on 'racist watch' (which is most Wednesday afternoons) I look for the following:
1. People who want to virtually close the borders.
2. People who bang on about the country being "full up".
3. People who say that immigration is the BIGGEST problem facing Britain today.
When I find one of these I switch my attitude around. I now assume they ARE racist unless they can prove to me otherwise. Which can't just be by them insisting until they go blue in the face that they aren't - this will not suffice - it has to be more tangible, e.g. I ascertain that they give a goodly proportion of their salary each month to charities specifically devoted to fighting racism. Something like that would be fine.
Best of luck with your product registrations. This something you could do without.
I get that there is a distinction between Parliament potentially being misled by the executive, and the Government going back on the spirit of a manifesto commitment - but surely both represent serious breaches of trust with the electorate, and thereby democratic deficits?
The whole concept of "illegality" in war is absurd. Countries go to war because they, or those that lead them (there's that democracy thing again) believe it is in the nation's interest and no other option is available to them.
We might have gone to war because we didn't like Uday Hussein's gold-plated AK, or because we thought they had the means to launch a nuclear strike on Hartlepool within an hour and a half. But it would not have been illegal.
So in answer to your question, I sort of do oppose the Iraq war enquiry for the legal element, but I approve of it for the lessons learned element.
It is also nice to do it from a position of moral authority which on this one particular subject of anti racism I have by the bucket full.
Thus writes the consummate wordsmith. Slightly bizarre, I must say, and I think we are all aware of why you are not going to engage further and it ain't got nothing to do with scie.org.
Don't play nicely, now. Until Big G gets here, then behave yourselves.
Trials for much more common for committing unlawful acts during the course of a war.
In 30 years or so.
Certain sections of the media are completely losing their minds.
Internal party polling and warnings from her chief whip and party chairman have forced her to 'think the unthinkable'
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-no-deal-brexit-fallback-plan_uk_5c617348e4b0910c63f30fc8
“It felt quite clear where we were heading and that was the softest possible Brexit outside the single market, with a deal to be done was on a customs union. And it was merely a question of managing the process to get us there,” they say.
“Part of the point of the election was that if we’d got a bigger majority, we would have been able to make the compromises more readily.”
Well, quite. I made that point repeatedly at the time. That is exactly why it was so catastrophic that voters decided not to give her the mandate she needed.
I see that the agonised howling over Europe (like something from the lowest circle of Hell) continues to grow in intensity. I'm not sure that all of you lot are going to make it to March 29th without suffering some kind of catastrophic stress-induced medical event.
On topic, JC can do whatever he likes. Most of the party members appear to maintain their almost religious reverence for him, whilst one assumes that recently reported declines in membership are mainly down to those who are genuinely bothered about Europe simply giving up and walking away, rather than making doomed attempts to lobby for a change in direction that will get them nothing except a hail of pretty nasty abuse.
There won't be another move to topple him as leader because it would be futile, and there won't be a mass exodus of Labour MPs unless and until they're certain that they will be deselected. Absent that incentive, career trumps all other considerations.
Well, should've done a lot of things differently.
Instead she sounded like the headbangers on her backbenches, insulted 48% of the electorate, and scared Remainers into voting for Corbyn to stop her from imposing a hard Brexit.
Only Theresa May is to blame.
If the EU isn't bluffing, then by falsely raising expectations about the backstop, May is making her deal less likely to pass, not more.
I also see no sign of her preparing the ground for an alternative way out - Corbyn's proposals, a referendum, a general election or revocation. And no sign of anything that will convince the EU that a solution will be more likely after a 2-3 month extension.
That leaves No Deal, which at least will be easy for her to achieve.
We have a highly regulated society and economy.
For X to happen forms A, B and C need to have their boxes ticked.
And for Y and Z to happen X needs to happen first.
So what happens if form B doesn't get its boxes ticked ?
Everything starts to grind to a halt.
And this happens even if form B is an irrelevant piece of bureaucracy.
So what's that you say ? Ignore form B.
You can't.
Because we have a highly regulated society and economy and if you ignore form B you put yourself at risk of being fined and prosecuted.
So what's that you say ? The government needs to change the law so that form B can be ignored.
But does the government know which all the form Bs are ?
I very much doubt it.
Because that would require an attention to detail which our political class lacks.
One source says: “She’s been told – ‘You need to understand prime minister, it’s very simple maths – the ERG [European Research Group] will fuck you, fuck the Conservative party and they will throw themselves over a cliff. Your Remainer colleagues will not’. It’s who’s got the biggest balls.”
“The Remainers need a gameplan to show Julian [Smith] is wrong on this. At the moment, they are rolling over having tummies tickled. And she’s thrown all her weight behind the chief whip.
“She gets to save her party and potentially gets to live for another day. She will be the PM who delivered Brexit. She can blame Parliament and Tusk, Juncker and the EU [for no-deal] and say I managed it as best as anyone could.
“She’s home and dry as long as she sits tight with the Brexiteers who only a few weeks ago wanted her head. It’s utterly tragic.”
I agree with all of that. Or course if the EU (and the Irish in particular) want to avoid anything "tragic" then they can compromise. They won't unless May is prepared to take us over the cliff but if she is prepared to we can get a good deal potentially. Its our only shot.
https://sites-herbertsmithfreehills.vuturevx.com/20/19043/landing-pages/a-view-from-brussels-february-2018-briefing(2).pdf
Quite how this point could be explored is unclear, though. Basically everything is too late - we shouldn't be in this place with just a few weeks to go.
Thank you for the perfect illustration of the bone-headed stupidity that got us into this mess!
If I wasn't prepared to go over the cliff I would have voted Remain. We either get a deal or go over the cliff, I'd rather get a deal but I made that decision in 2016.
But as to most of the 17m I doubt they would know what the Lisbon Treaty was if it accosted them in the street wearing a hoodie with I AM THE LISBON TREATY! writ large across the front.
People who want cheaper imported tat and cheaper foreign holidays and who are willing to shut down UK exporting businesses to get them take the opposite view.
The debate is as polarised and heated as ever with no compromise in sight
But compromise there has to be and we need a whole load of mps to grow up
Saying that is easy, but I do wish the anger and unnecessary attacks could be dialled down even a little as no one wins in such a confrontational situation
Perhaps the result would have been different. But sometimes I wonder. Ye gods.
It does give the lie, though, to their claim the negotiations are done and cannot be reopened, when they say in the very next breath things can be changed but only to their liking.
And exposes decades of "Europe is coming our way" mendacity/delusion/incompetence from UK governments.
I saw the discussion,
I left...
There would be a certain irony if HMG's plan were to enter into the backstop and then have the ECtHR strike it down, although the careful reader will note that i am not tipping this outcome.