BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Phillip Collins today hits the nail as well asking why it's suddenly OK to change all the policies of the government based on the referendum result.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comme ... -78rn2w33t
I will check that out in print - but as a rule I object to musicians dabbling in politics
He's entitled to an opinion. You should object to the Times reporting it as insight.
he should be remembered for his best work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy52yueBX_s
No Jacket Required could be used at the UKIP conference. Or just outside the door anyway.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Facism is overstating it. .
It probably is, but then again, Mein Kampf talks about the same policy about firms declaring how many non-domestic workers they employ, demanding that they should draw a distinction between the two types.
Ok this is why I think it's fascist.
Leave campaign blames immigrants for our economic woes. Supporting this with the EU is taking £350m per week which means we don't have enough to run our NHS. Despite all the evidence that we need immigrants and they contribute hugely to our tax receipts too.
The actual fact is that we had a banking crisis of huge proportions and since then the whole world has struggled to get everything under control, coupled with a lack of uk investment especially in areas that need it the most. Funny that the biggest EU handouts were in these areas which overwhelmingly voted to leave.
Since the result the Tories have continued to blame immigrants and Johnny Foreigner for all our woes with increasingly nasty rhetoric, at the same time promising that everyone will be looked after and prioritised, and ignoring all economic opinion to the contrary.
A Britain that works for everyone. Not.
Here's a little poem by Michael Rosen.
Fascism: I sometimes fear...
"I sometimes fear that
people think that fascism arrives in fancy dress
worn by grotesques and monsters
as played out in endless re-runs of the Nazis.
Fascism arrives as your friend.
It will restore your honour,
make you feel proud,
protect your house,
give you a job,
clean up the neighbourhood,
remind you of how great you once were,
clear out the venal and the corrupt,
remove anything you feel is unlike you...
It doesn't walk in saying,
"Our programme means militias, mass imprisonments, transportations, war and persecution."0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Facism is overstating it. .
It probably is, but then again, Mein Kampf talks about the same policy about firms declaring how many non-domestic workers they employ, demanding that they should draw a distinction between the two types.
that comparison is just good for knock about politics. The owner of the factory she referenced was iunimpressed by the pack of lies she made up about his workforce
The danger lies with what it says to the external audience whether that be senior officials across the EU or easily inflamed 'Spooners0 -
Joelsim wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Facism is overstating it. .
It probably is, but then again, Mein Kampf talks about the same policy about firms declaring how many non-domestic workers they employ, demanding that they should draw a distinction between the two types.
Ok this is why I think it's fascist.
Leave campaign blames immigrants for our economic woes. Supporting this with the EU is taking £350m per week which means we don't have enough to run our NHS. Despite all the evidence that we need immigrants and they contribute hugely to our tax receipts too.
The actual fact is that we had a banking crisis of huge proportions and since then the whole world has struggled to get everything under control, coupled with a lack of uk investment especially in areas that need it the most. Funny that the biggest EU handouts were in these areas which overwhelmingly voted to leave.
Since the result the Tories have continued to blame immigrants and Johnny Foreigner for all our woes with increasingly nasty rhetoric, at the same time promising that everyone will be looked after and prioritised, and ignoring all economic opinion to the contrary.
A Britain that works for everyone. Not.
Here's a little poem by Michael Rosen.
Fascism: I sometimes fear...
"I sometimes fear that
people think that fascism arrives in fancy dress
worn by grotesques and monsters
as played out in endless re-runs of the Nazis.
Fascism arrives as your friend.
It will restore your honour,
make you feel proud,
protect your house,
give you a job,
clean up the neighbourhood,
remind you of how great you once were,
clear out the venal and the corrupt,
remove anything you feel is unlike you...
It doesn't walk in saying,
"Our programme means militias, mass imprisonments, transportations, war and persecution."
We are disagreeing on the definition of facism. You should invoke Godwins Law and compare them to the rise of Hitler.
This seems like a reasonable definition of facism
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Joelsim wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Facism is overstating it. .
It probably is, but then again, Mein Kampf talks about the same policy about firms declaring how many non-domestic workers they employ, demanding that they should draw a distinction between the two types.
Ok this is why I think it's fascist.
Leave campaign blames immigrants for our economic woes. Supporting this with the EU is taking £350m per week which means we don't have enough to run our NHS. Despite all the evidence that we need immigrants and they contribute hugely to our tax receipts too.
The actual fact is that we had a banking crisis of huge proportions and since then the whole world has struggled to get everything under control, coupled with a lack of uk investment especially in areas that need it the most. Funny that the biggest EU handouts were in these areas which overwhelmingly voted to leave.
Since the result the Tories have continued to blame immigrants and Johnny Foreigner for all our woes with increasingly nasty rhetoric, at the same time promising that everyone will be looked after and prioritised, and ignoring all economic opinion to the contrary.
A Britain that works for everyone. Not.
Here's a little poem by Michael Rosen.
Fascism: I sometimes fear...
"I sometimes fear that
people think that fascism arrives in fancy dress
worn by grotesques and monsters
as played out in endless re-runs of the Nazis.
Fascism arrives as your friend.
It will restore your honour,
make you feel proud,
protect your house,
give you a job,
clean up the neighbourhood,
remind you of how great you once were,
clear out the venal and the corrupt,
remove anything you feel is unlike you...
It doesn't walk in saying,
"Our programme means militias, mass imprisonments, transportations, war and persecution."
We are disagreeing on the definition of facism. You should invoke Godwins Law and compare them to the rise of Hitler.
This seems like a reasonable definition of facism
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
I'm not entirely sure those definitions differ an awful lot.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Facism is overstating it. .
It probably is, but then again, Mein Kampf talks about the same policy about firms declaring how many non-domestic workers they employ, demanding that they should draw a distinction between the two types.
that comparison is just good for knock about politics. The owner of the factory she referenced was iunimpressed by the pack of lies she made up about his workforce
The danger lies with what it says to the external audience whether that be senior officials across the EU or easily inflamed 'Spooners
It does. Guy Verhofstadt's comments last night.
Britain has always been a beacon of tolerance and diversity. It is sad to see that Amber Rudd inflames tensions by denigrating "foreigners" who work in British hospitals, schools, on construction sites; in short people who contribute to the British society.
After recent reports about the rise in xenophobic violence, the outside world watches this latest statement with worry and disbelief. I want to be clear: the EU will defend the fundamental rights of its citizens, wherever they are.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Facism is overstating it. .
It probably is, but then again, Mein Kampf talks about the same policy about firms declaring how many non-domestic workers they employ, demanding that they should draw a distinction between the two types.
that comparison is just good for knock about politics. The owner of the factory she referenced was iunimpressed by the pack of lies she made up about his workforce
The danger lies with what it says to the external audience whether that be senior officials across the EU or easily inflamed 'Spooners
I think the similarities are worth mentioning. It's not a 'thin end of the wedge' argument, but by the same token, if you follow that line of argument to its logical end, it doesn't make for things being pretty or harmonious.
Was reading a Dutch book on the tube today and the guy next to me tapped it as he walked away and said 'it's not looking good for people like you'. I think he meant it nicely. Never really been conscious of what language I read in in public before.0 -
mrfpb wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:I suspect that Amber Rudd is not very bright and will become the sacrificial lamb.
Well, given that her opposite number is Diane Abbott, one of them needs to be replaced in order to get some sense spoken on at least one side of the chamber.
To be fair to Joelism, his comment on tossers was aimed at people supporting the Tories based on the stuff they spouted this week, not on referendum voters. Conference season is all about playing to to the crowd and making outraegous policy statements that they would never consider making in parliament - remember Cameron's promise to march people to the nearest cashpoint to pay their anti-social behaviour fines.
The media feedback once they get out of the conference bubble tends to temper their ambitions.
I am pretty sure "tossers" covers out voters, members of the Tory party and Tory voters - other varieties of tossers are available0 -
François HollandeThere must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price, etc.0
-
Joelsim wrote:
It does. Guy Verhofstadt's comments last night.
Britain has always been a beacon of tolerance and diversity. It is sad to see that Amber Rudd inflames tensions by denigrating "foreigners" who work in British hospitals, schools, on construction sites; in short people who contribute to the British society.
After recent reports about the rise in xenophobic violence, the outside world watches this latest statement with worry and disbelief. I want to be clear: the EU will defend the fundamental rights of its citizens, wherever they are.
He keeps popping up, the great defender of fundamental rights, Guy Verhofstadt, so I decided to do some background reading on how often he has acted to defend some fundamental rights. I couldn't find any comment on France's burkini ban, nor on the jungle, nor on the rise of right wing parties, nor on any fundamental rights except for the EU as an institution a Project.
Now there is no love lost between Farage and Guy Verhofstadt, but like broken clocks, I think Farage may have been right when he saidIf you were to think of this building [the EU Parliament] as a temple, well, Mr Verhofstadt is the high priest. A fanatic. In fact, there is only really one nationalist in this room and it's you [Verhofstadt] because you want flags, anthems, armies... you are an EU nationalist.
Xenophobic violence is horrible, as is all violence, but at least the perpetrators are being prosecuted and looked down upon by the rest of society. What is equally bad is using xenophobic violence to further his own political agenda.0 -
The high horse comment is a bit rich coming from youJoelsim wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Yawn - I'm a busy boy. Try summing up your point concisely and I'll have a think if you feel its that important that I comment personally :roll:Joelsim wrote:Joelsim wrote:An excellent piece on some of the challenges ahead. And a piece from Merkel that supports it.
Basically what I've been banging on (and on and on and on and on) about for months.
We hold almost no cards in negotiation. It's hard Brexit or no Brexit no matter which way we look at it.
If anyone's ever presented something to 27 people (who all have equal power of veto and completely different agendas) then you'll know just how hard this is going to be.
That's before considering a totally divided nation.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/2 ... ritain-out
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... rns-merke/
BTW did anyone read these? Stevo? Comments and thoughts?
No, I didn't think so. No leg to stand on really have you.
You still haven't answered my earlier point about discriminatory immigration policy, but then again I never expected you to because it is discriminatory no matter how hard you try to deflect by invoking Godwin's law.
Oh FFS Steve get off your high horse and stop rambling with straw men.
Maybe read this too.
https://m.facebook.com/GuyVerhofstadt/p ... 73875016:0
Not sure which leg you think I'm standing on? It is heart warming though that you seem to be able take the word of the German Chancellor as pretty much gospel (even if they are commenting on future possible events) and dismiss anything that the UK PM says out of hand. Naive? Biased? Bit of both?
Sure, a hard Brexit is a reasonable possibility - based on what has been said recently by politicians on both sides. How that will play out in reality remains to be seen. Too many people are jumping on the pre-negotiation posturing by both sides as proof of what they have already decided the outcome should be.
Also interesting is the underlying logic that the EU has to 'punish' the UK to discourage others from trying leave. If the EU is such a great club to be in, why would they need to do that?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Looking at the Reuters screen here is looks like it was down to algorithmic trading programs in the Far East markets in the early hours. As you say, it hasn't fully recovered.Rick Chasey wrote:We're back more or less.
Reports that it's a fat finger but I would be surprised; fx isn't susceptible to that, especially big currencies.
Suspect just low liquidity and a lot of shorts. Scramble to find more.
Worry is if it follows the equities pattern the low set during a flash crash it normally ends up back at that low within a month or so.
To save people typing every time it drops a cent, the big banks consensus seems to be headed towards Sterling parity with the Euro and 1.10 to the dollar in the not too distant. The currency is what you expect to flex in this situation - just as well we're not in the Euro then...."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Also interesting is the underlying logic that the EU has to 'punish' the UK to discourage others from trying leave. If the EU is such a great club to be in, why would they need to do that?
We ve chosen to leave the EU, therefore we lose our benefits (and apparently gain £350m per week to spend as we wish) its a very simple logic, applies to clubs, unions and organisations.
i doubt the AA/RAC give free recovery break down to people who dont renew their membership.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Looking at the Reuters screen here is looks like it was down to algorithmic trading programs in the Far East markets in the early hours. As you say, it hasn't fully recovered.Rick Chasey wrote:We're back more or less.
Reports that it's a fat finger but I would be surprised; fx isn't susceptible to that, especially big currencies.
Suspect just low liquidity and a lot of shorts. Scramble to find more.
Worry is if it follows the equities pattern the low set during a flash crash it normally ends up back at that low within a month or so.
To save people typing every time it drops a cent, the big banks consensus seems to be headed towards Sterling parity with the Euro and 1.10 to the dollar in the not too distant. The currency is what you expect to flex in this situation - just as well we're not in the Euro then....
the most worrying thing about parity with the € is that it could drives retirees back from Spain as they will have seen a 20-30% drop in their income.0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -academicsIt is understood a number of LSE academics specialising in EU affairs have been briefing the foreign office on Brexit issues, but the school has received an email informing it that submissions from non-UK citizens would no longer be accepted.
One of the group, who subsequently received notes from their departments telling them of the instruction, is understood to be a dual national, with citizenship of both the UK and another EU member state.
:shock:0 -
Lucky Boris renounced his dual nationality then.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
bendertherobot wrote:Lucky Boris renounced his dual nationality then.
unlucky that he did not renounce his UK nationality0 -
Industrial and Manufacturing Production came in at -0.4% and 0.2% on the month respectively, falling short of expectations of 0.2% and 0.4%.0
-
Grandfathering of trade agreements "might work".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37574598
I remember a lot of people banging on about how the UK would need to simultaneously negotiate all the existing trade deals the EU has. Grandfathering always seemed a touch more sensible. I would even go so far as to say this was a misrepresentation from the Remain side, but alleging that both sides might have been guilty of this is seen as poor form.
I'd like to rewatch the video of the Liverpool law professor and see how many of the problems he identified have already been solved. He maintained that every single law would need to be reviewed to check whether it relied on EU law, but a more pragmatic lawyer comes along and proposes simply writing all EU law into UK law and thus solves the problem in one fell swoop.0 -
All the EU laws are writen into UK law. Well those in the treaties are, we have written some laws to meet EU requirements such as the Equalites Act, but that essentially just rounded up lots of anti discriminatory legislation that we had already written including Race Relations and Sex discrimination that we created independent of the EU in the past.TheBigBean wrote:Grandfathering of trade agreements "might work".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37574598
I remember a lot of people banging on about how the UK would need to simultaneously negotiate all the existing trade deals the EU has. Grandfathering always seemed a touch more sensible. I would even go so far as to say this was a misrepresentation from the Remain side, but alleging that both sides might have been guilty of this is seen as poor form.
I'd like to rewatch the video of the Liverpool law professor and see how many of the problems he identified have already been solved. He maintained that every single law would need to be reviewed to check whether it relied on EU law, but a more pragmatic lawyer comes along and proposes simply writing all EU law into UK law and thus solves the problem in one fell swoop.
All the single market regulations went on the statute books without going through parliament, as it was the only way to operate the market - we couldn't have 20+ parliaments arguing over the lengths of bananas.
In the event of Hard Brexit, we need to choose what to keep and what to leave behind, but it can be a gradual process once we are out.
When we are out the EU will continue to make regulations, and companies will need to have regard for them if exporting to the EU or offering services across the border. If we stay in the single market, we will have to accept all the EU regulations continuing to go on our statute books without Parliament scrutinizing them (or a similar arrangement depending on negotiations but no substantial change to now). This would be an additional hard sell alongside free movement of people if going for Soft Brexit.0 -
I'm not a lawyer, so you would need to take up your argument with one. I'm guessing the issue is either (i) that the UK only passed certain laws because it was compelled to by the EU, and therefore the law should be disregarded as the UK is no longer in the EU (cue endless court cases) or (ii) that there is uncertainty whether all the direct regulations continue to apply. Either way the recent policy announcement solves the problems.
The UK would need to comply with regulations of any exported products wherever they go.0 -
Plus ECJ decisions are used in case law, so there would need to be some thought about those. There is precedent for it though around the world.0
-
TheBigBean wrote:Grandfathering of trade agreements "might work".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37574598
I remember a lot of people banging on about how the UK would need to simultaneously negotiate all the existing trade deals the EU has. Grandfathering always seemed a touch more sensible. I would even go so far as to say this was a misrepresentation from the Remain side, but alleging that both sides might have been guilty of this is seen as poor form.
I'd like to rewatch the video of the Liverpool law professor and see how many of the problems he identified have already been solved. He maintained that every single law would need to be reviewed to check whether it relied on EU law, but a more pragmatic lawyer comes along and proposes simply writing all EU law into UK law and thus solves the problem in one fell swoop.
From what I have read elsewhere that seems a little simplistic. He ignores quota systems and the fact that the other countries may not want to offer us exactly the same terms. They might see an opportunity to exploit the situation for their own advantage.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:I'm not a lawyer, so you would need to take up your argument with one. I'm guessing the issue is either (i) that the UK only passed certain laws because it was compelled to by the EU, and therefore the law should be disregarded as the UK is no longer in the EU (cue endless court cases) or (ii) that there is uncertainty whether all the direct regulations continue to apply. Either way the recent policy announcement solves the problems.
The UK would need to comply with regulations of any exported products wherever they go.
I think bender has more of a legal brain an dhe may chip in, but my understanding is that all the laws are on our statute books and will need to be explicitly repealed by Parlaiment if we don't want them or overwritten by more up to date laws as the need arises. We could as a nation just ignore them, as we will not be subject to the European Court of Justice that ultimately enforces them, but there is usually someone with an axe to grind who will insist on pushing the letter of the law thorough every process that is available if they think it will help them.0 -
This may be over simplistic but does it not take both sides to agree to grandfathering the trade arrangements?0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:This may be over simplistic but does it not take both sides to agree to grandfathering the trade arrangements?
Of course it does, but it is a two way thing and a hindrance to business for both countries for things to suddenly change. Plus I would expect a properly negotiated trade agreement to be better for both sides, so any gaming of the system would come later.0 -
mrfpb wrote:TheBigBean wrote:I'm not a lawyer, so you would need to take up your argument with one. I'm guessing the issue is either (i) that the UK only passed certain laws because it was compelled to by the EU, and therefore the law should be disregarded as the UK is no longer in the EU (cue endless court cases) or (ii) that there is uncertainty whether all the direct regulations continue to apply. Either way the recent policy announcement solves the problems.
The UK would need to comply with regulations of any exported products wherever they go.
I think bender has more of a legal brain an dhe may chip in, but my understanding is that all the laws are on our statute books and will need to be explicitly repealed by Parlaiment if we don't want them or overwritten by more up to date laws as the need arises. We could as a nation just ignore them, as we will not be subject to the European Court of Justice that ultimately enforces them, but there is usually someone with an axe to grind who will insist on pushing the letter of the law thorough every process that is available if they think it will help them.
But whatever the actual reason, the point is that it will mostly be solved by the new bill, and that's a progress.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:This may be over simplistic but does it not take both sides to agree to grandfathering the trade arrangements?
Of course it does, but it is a two way thing and a hindrance to business for both countries for things to suddenly change. Plus I would expect a properly negotiated trade agreement to be better for both sides, so any gaming of the system would come later.
Sure, but this reminds me of that anecdote I heard from I think Obama.
"Which would be more popular in the US: US & Japan GDP growing at 3%, or the US growing at 2% and Japan 1%?".
The answer being the latter, despite both sides losing out. As we've seen in the UK, rationality in this process is not easily come by, and given the negotiations are happening under the backdrop of a) rising anti EU sentiment from the fringes within the nations who benefit most from the EU and b) elections, I can't see rationality trumping all that much.
After all, if that was the case, we wouldn't be in the process now.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:This may be over simplistic but does it not take both sides to agree to grandfathering the trade arrangements?
Of course it does, but it is a two way thing and a hindrance to business for both countries for things to suddenly change. Plus I would expect a properly negotiated trade agreement to be better for both sides, so any gaming of the system would come later.
What you're bypassing is that there are 27 countries and only one needs to veto. We simply don't have a leg to stand on.
Now we are also starting to see the impact on figures and we're still many months from leaving. Whichever way you look at this it's a total disaster.
It wouldn't surprise me if this ends up in a great deal of civil unrest too.0 -
I can't see a remotely rational discussion taking place with the EU. I can with Mexico and Korea though.0
