Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:So a good day for the Prime Minister, at last. Motion carried and some pesky amendments defeated.

Yes folks a good day for the PM is telling the Country over 50 times in the Commons the UK is leaving on the 29th March and then winning an extension..

What a low bar..

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:It is a fact. The single market is part of the EU.

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market_en

So the UK would need to agree such a deal to be part of that single market. Those sorts of propositions were proposed in Westminster but rejected by the Tories.

But you don't need to be a member of the EU to be a member of the Single Market, like Norway. Hence why this is an issue about the single market, not EU v non-EU.

Post-Brexit, the UK will not be a member of the Single Market, but will have access to it. And, no, you do not need a trade deal to access the Single Market.

Any deal would need top be negotiated with Ireland. Ireland are in the EU and tied into their regs so cannot open up borders into the EU without say so from the EU.

I cannot believe you are still clinging to fantasy. The UK government are either the most incompetent one it has ever elected to have over-looked a solution you propose or they realise, rightly so, it is not legally possible.

What deal are you possibly referring to? I'm not talking about trade deals. I'm talking about how goods will be managed across borders. As mentioned earlier, the UK and Ireland have already signed a deal guaranteeing citizens' rights to move between the two countries.

Trade deals that need to be in place. Are you being deliberately dense? Citizens movements is not trade and goods movements.

Now please explain to me how the UK government has allowed itself to be totally embarrassed, ashamed and brought to its knees by its incompetence during Brexit negotiations whilst overlooking your simple solution to all of its problems. Unless your solution is sheer fairy tale and fantasy.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:It is a fact. The single market is part of the EU.

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market_en

So the UK would need to agree such a deal to be part of that single market. Those sorts of propositions were proposed in Westminster but rejected by the Tories.

But you don't need to be a member of the EU to be a member of the Single Market, like Norway. Hence why this is an issue about the single market, not EU v non-EU.

Post-Brexit, the UK will not be a member of the Single Market, but will have access to it. And, no, you do not need a trade deal to access the Single Market.

Any deal would need top be negotiated with Ireland. Ireland are in the EU and tied into their regs so cannot open up borders into the EU without say so from the EU.

I cannot believe you are still clinging to fantasy. The UK government are either the most incompetent one it has ever elected to have over-looked a solution you propose or they realise, rightly so, it is not legally possible.

What deal are you possibly referring to? I'm not talking about trade deals. I'm talking about how goods will be managed across borders. As mentioned earlier, the UK and Ireland have already signed a deal guaranteeing citizens' rights to move between the two countries.

Trade deals that need to be in place. Are you being deliberately dense? Citizens movements is not trade and goods movements.

Now please explain to me how the UK government has allowed itself to be totally embarrassed, ashamed and brought to its knees by its incompetence during Brexit negotiations whilst overlooking your simple solution to all of its problems. Unless your solution is sheer fairy tale and fantasy.

Again - I'm not talking about trade deals. No one is talking about being a member of the Single Market. Neither have I offered a solution, let alone a simple one; instead I've merely speculated about possible options.

But they are evidently not possible solutions in the manner you propose. Why? Well if they were the UK government would have pursued them by now. They are looking for a way out of Europe with no trade deals and no hard border but have not been able to negotiate that. Why?

CaledonianCraig wrote:But they are evidently not possible solutions in the manner you propose. Why? Well if they were the UK government would have pursued them by now. They are looking for a way out of Europe with no trade deals and no hard border but have not been able to negotiate that. Why?

The UK government has, up to now, been near-entirely focused on the withdrawal agreement, not the no-deal exit that is most likely to happen. Hopefully, a new administration will focus on a no-deal exit from the European Union (not Europe) without a hard border in place, though I have my doubts.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:It is a fact. The single market is part of the EU.

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market_en

So the UK would need to agree such a deal to be part of that single market. Those sorts of propositions were proposed in Westminster but rejected by the Tories.

But you don't need to be a member of the EU to be a member of the Single Market, like Norway. Hence why this is an issue about the single market, not EU v non-EU.

Post-Brexit, the UK will not be a member of the Single Market, but will have access to it. And, no, you do not need a trade deal to access the Single Market.

Any deal would need top be negotiated with Ireland. Ireland are in the EU and tied into their regs so cannot open up borders into the EU without say so from the EU.

I cannot believe you are still clinging to fantasy. The UK government are either the most incompetent one it has ever elected to have over-looked a solution you propose or they realise, rightly so, it is not legally possible.

What deal are you possibly referring to? I'm not talking about trade deals. I'm talking about how goods will be managed across borders. As mentioned earlier, the UK and Ireland have already signed a deal guaranteeing citizens' rights to move between the two countries.

Trade deals that need to be in place. Are you being deliberately dense? Citizens movements is not trade and goods movements.

Now please explain to me how the UK government has allowed itself to be totally embarrassed, ashamed and brought to its knees by its incompetence during Brexit negotiations whilst overlooking your simple solution to all of its problems. Unless your solution is sheer fairy tale and fantasy.

Again - I'm not talking about trade deals. No one is talking about being a member of the Single Market. Neither have I offered a solution, let alone a simple one; instead I've merely speculated about possible options.

Rather typical of Brexit zealots, it must be said.

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:No, I'm sure they'll throw in access to the single market as a freebie because we've been so cooperative thus far.

Near-enough every country in the world has access to the Single Market!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36664857

To quote from that very article:

'Countries outside the EU have to negotiate trade deals, pay tariffs, get through customs and abide by EU rules.'

The EU doesn't just hand out access.

I saw Richard Tice on Sky News this morning, saying that the government should invite Brexit Party MEPs to see its preparations for no deal and effectively work with government. What horsesh!t.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:No, I'm sure they'll throw in access to the single market as a freebie because we've been so cooperative thus far.

Near-enough every country in the world has access to the Single Market!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36664857

To quote from that very article:

'Countries outside the EU have to negotiate trade deals, pay tariffs, get through customs and abide by EU rules.'

The EU doesn't just hand out access.

Just like every marketplace in the world, then.

So how does that square with your pal Nigel's 'clean break Brexit'?

Hehe

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430

The BBC's assistant political editor, Norman Smith, said the allegations could not come at a worse time for Mr Johnson, and his critics are likely to use the claims against him in the upcoming contest to become next Tory leader and prime minister.

No this only boosts his chances, unfortunately.

Duty281 wrote:The BBC's assistant political editor, Norman Smith, said the allegations could not come at a worse time for Mr Johnson, and his critics are likely to use the claims against him in the upcoming contest to become next Tory leader and prime minister.

No this only boosts his chances, unfortunately.

Yep, lying can only improve your chances of success in this country. Proud to be British.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The BBC's assistant political editor, Norman Smith, said the allegations could not come at a worse time for Mr Johnson, and his critics are likely to use the claims against him in the upcoming contest to become next Tory leader and prime minister.

No this only boosts his chances, unfortunately.

Yep, lying can only improve your chances of success in this country. Proud to be British.

Well it's more that this case will keep his name in the relentless news cycle. For Boris, this is a good thing.

And though I would love some judicial ruling to punish old Boris, there's more chance of the West Indies winning the Cricket World Cup.

Oh dear me..... sounds like the world's favourite backstabbing henchman, Michael Wormtongue Gove has kicked off his campaign in style.  - I do but jest of course........... maybe.

Now who financed the 400,000 this young man has used to bring his case?

"Crowd funding concerned young citizens!  That's who, ya f@*#er!"

Yes, now which young concerned citizen gave most of it?

Boris will love it of course...and maybe it's he himself who gave most.  It's always good to appear victim of a political smear when you want a vote or two.

He won't love it if it deters enough Tory MPs from voting for him. He's a shoo-in if he gets to the final two, but it's entirely in the hands of Tory MPs whether he gets there.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:He won't love it if it deters enough Tory MPs from voting for him. He's a shoo-in if he gets to the final two, but it's entirely in the hands of Tory MPs whether he gets there.

He can wait.... just about.....one more time.  Leadership of that there party is still a poison chalice until resolution of Brexit issue.

If Boris misses again he can sit back once more and compile his dossier on the 'mistakes' of his enemies, to be ready for the blood letting that will undoubtedly follow any Brexit resolution.  It's a fact that a good slice of the party will be saying they don't like it, whatever the outcome might be.

But the thing of beauty will be if the sword of power finally falls into the hands of Mr Smithers.  Oh that'll be some pantomime to observe if that happens.  The war between Smithers and Barney Gumble will be epic.

Any Tory seriously thinking he's good enough to be PM needs their head examined. Sadly, I think there are quite a few who really believe it.

SecretFly wrote:Oh dear me..... sounds like the world's favourite backstabbing henchman, Michael Wormtongue Gove has kicked off his campaign in style.  - I do but jest of course........... maybe.

Now who financed the 400,000 this young man has used to bring his case?

"Crowd funding concerned young citizens!  That's who, ya f@*#er!"

Yes, now which young concerned citizen gave most of it?

Boris will love it of course...and maybe it's he himself who gave most.  It's always good to appear victim of a political smear when you want a vote or two.

They have been active on twitter for months raising the money to do this. There may well be some large donors - they needed a lot of money for court fees - but it has not come out of nowhere.

SecretFly wrote:Now who financed the 400,000 this young man has used to bring his case?

Dodgy Russians, no doubt. We need a people's vote investigation.

lostinwales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Oh dear me..... sounds like the world's favourite backstabbing henchman, Michael Wormtongue Gove has kicked off his campaign in style.  - I do but jest of course........... maybe.

Now who financed the 400,000 this young man has used to bring his case?

"Crowd funding concerned young citizens!  That's who, ya f@*#er!"

Yes, now which young concerned citizen gave most of it?

Boris will love it of course...and maybe it's he himself who gave most.  It's always good to appear victim of a political smear when you want a vote or two.

They have been active on twitter for months raising the money to do this. There may well be some large donors - they needed a lot of money for court fees - but it has not come out of nowhere.

All the more reason for thinking it is a carefully pre-planned and time delayed 'insurance policy' given the go-ahead nod by a rival. Nice clean politics at work as per usual.

Duty281 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Now who financed the 400,000 this young man has used to bring his case?

Dodgy Russians, no doubt. We need a people's vote investigation.

I am sure their finances are more accountable than a certain private company/political party I could mention. They are not standing for office either

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Oh dear me..... sounds like the world's favourite backstabbing henchman, Michael Wormtongue Gove has kicked off his campaign in style.  - I do but jest of course........... maybe.

Now who financed the 400,000 this young man has used to bring his case?

"Crowd funding concerned young citizens!  That's who, ya f@*#er!"

Yes, now which young concerned citizen gave most of it?

Boris will love it of course...and maybe it's he himself who gave most.  It's always good to appear victim of a political smear when you want a vote or two.

They have been active on twitter for months raising the money to do this. There may well be some large donors - they needed a lot of money for court fees - but it has not come out of nowhere.

All the more reason for thinking it is a carefully pre-planned and time delayed 'insurance policy' given the go-ahead nod by a rival.  Nice clean politics at work as per usual.

No you are misrepresenting what I have said. Timing was based on when they raised the money and the process started before May resigned. This has been a long term process. The timing of the leadership election is just a fortunate/unfortunate coincidence

There we diverge, lost. Court cases are notoriously easy to both expedite and to delay to maximise impact....especially when politics is creeping around the corridors of law.

So forgive me if I don't believe this a coincidence of time.

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Now who financed the 400,000 this young man has used to bring his case?

Dodgy Russians, no doubt. We need a people's vote investigation.

I am sure their finances are more accountable than a certain private company/political party I could mention. They are not standing for office either

Ah yes, the Electoral Commission have thoroughly investigated the Brexit Party twice and found nothing untoward, but I'm sure you know better than the people who have actually conducted these investigations and examined the evidence at hand.

SecretFly wrote:There we diverge, lost.  Court cases are notoriously easy to both expedite and to delay to maximise impact....especially when politics is creeping around the corridors of law.

So forgive me if I don't believe this a coincidence of time.  

All I am saying is that they have been talking about building this case for a long time, and as said it was initiated before May jumped.

US ambassador to the UK Woody Johnson told Andrew Marr that the whole economy - including the NHS - would be on the table in a future US-UK free trade deal. But Im sure theres going to be someone on the forums to explain why thats not actually true and theres nothing to worry about.

There's a party with growing support who famously want the privatisation of the NHS

Is Privatisation a good word or a bad word?  Let's define the emotionality of these words before getting down to the detail of what they are dropped onto.

In one conversation, these anti-Privatisation Nationalising nut-jobs are  ridiculed as yesterday's cavemen throwing up Stonehenge ideas in an ultra modern multi-textural, multi-diversive, inclusivist-progressive world.
Then a deep intake of breath and the same people who sneer at Nationalising Nationalists then easily suggest that Privatisation champions are Far-Right anti-Globalist, non-empathetic, Populist fascist lunatics.  

No wonder Brexit is taking so long to get done.  English Language meltdownanitis outbreak!

Something like privatisation isn't inherently good or bad. It is case dependent.

The simple fact of the matter with the NHS is that it offers an equivalent level of care to the US system for a fraction of the price. Of course it is expensive, and governments don't like spending money, but somebody has to pay. Same with any kind of welfare (or lack of it) It costs money. It is just a question of where in the process the money is spent and who pays for it. Cut funding for GP's and you put more load onto hospitals. Cut basic welfare and you can easily end up having to spend more money on locking people up.

The trouble with the Brits is that they want a world-class NHS but they're simply not willing to stump up the taxes to pay for it. If a party campaigns on a lower tax platform, they garner huge support from the very people who are now complaining about how under-funded the NHS is.

Britain needs to face the facts here. You cannot have an NHS that is fully-functional under the current tax structure.

Pr4wn wrote:The trouble with the Brits is that they want a world-class NHS but they're simply not willing to stump up the taxes to pay for it. If a party campaigns on a lower tax platform, they garner huge support from the very people who are now complaining about how under-funded the NHS is.

Britain needs to face the facts here. You cannot have an NHS that is fully-functional under the current tax structure.

Come on! That's way too sensible a point to make. One of the many elephants in the increasingly cramped room.

Pr4wn wrote:The trouble with the Brits is that they want a world-class NHS but they're simply not willing to stump up the taxes to pay for it. If a party campaigns on a lower tax platform, they garner huge support from the very people who are now complaining about how under-funded the NHS is.

Britain needs to face the facts here. You cannot have an NHS that is fully-functional under the current tax structure.

If the Govt can stump up soon to be 100 billion for the vanity project known as HS2..

Then you needn't have to Tax the backside off everybody..

Investing in infrastructure....Creating jobs....Paying money back into the system...

FDR's New Deal should come to the UK.

Hospitals should be like shopping malls.  Bright, fresh vibrant places with oodles of advertising - Coke, Disney, Addidas, Chanel, Mercedes etc... cinema complexes, eateries, tropical plants, the lot.  We have too Victorian an attitude to what Hospitals should look like and what should feed off them.
Let the biggest Global funders feed on these Hospital spaces... advertisers and product placers.  No false morality about image and tone, just commerce paying high to get access to a trapped audience flowing through these complexes as patients in need of treatment or visitors doing their rounds.
I agree with Pr4wn (shock horror  ) in that people expect all the best resources and treatment without having to foot the bill, but I also think a revolutionary rethink is called for in the physical reality of hospitals and more creative thinking on how to fund them that might be less painful for the unwilling tax payers.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:The trouble with the Brits is that they want a world-class NHS but they're simply not willing to stump up the taxes to pay for it. If a party campaigns on a lower tax platform, they garner huge support from the very people who are now complaining about how under-funded the NHS is.

Britain needs to face the facts here. You cannot have an NHS that is fully-functional under the current tax structure.

If the Govt can stump up soon to be 100 billion for the vanity project known as HS2..

Then you needn't have to Tax the backside off everybody..

Investing in infrastructure....Creating jobs....Paying money back into the system...

FDR's New Deal should come to the UK.

FDR's New Deal, the single most important piece of economic legislation in the history of the world, would be laughed out of any Western Country if it were to be proposed today. Far too little of the money is funnelled upwards.

True...Sad to say...We are the trickle down generation..

Getting America out of the depression and kickstarting an Economy should be the perfect blueprint..

Investing in the People is still the way to kick start Economies..

Money in pockets gets spent and put in other pockets to spend.

Reason why FDR is in most Top 3 lists and it isn't just WW2..

Interesting to see how the new NZ experiment pans out.

I saw that. I'm clueless about economics, but it strikes me that aiming for a constantly-growing economy is unsustainable anyway.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I saw that. I'm clueless about economics, but it strikes me that aiming for a contantly-growing economy is unsustainable anyway.

You'd think these 'Captains of Industry' etc might have realised this by now. Doh!

lostinwales wrote:Interesting to see how the new NZ experiment pans out.

Sorry. Being dumb. What are they doing?

[/quote]

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I saw that. I'm clueless about economics, but it strikes me that aiming for a contantly-growing economy is unsustainable anyway.

But that's already factored into the framework as 'resets' are the Natural bedfellow of constant growth models...or in other words, recessions and depressions that lose people their livelihoods, their homes or sometimes even their very lives in suicide leaps...as happened to a few people known to me in the last big 'reset'.

But the model is perfect if you're a professional money man who sees the clouds coming and gets the opportunity to tell your investor pals in advance.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I saw Richard Tice on Sky News this morning, saying that the government should invite Brexit Party MEPs to see its preparations for no deal and effectively work with government. What horsesh!t.

The state of this:

'Mr Farage later handed in a letter to Downing Street calling for his party's MEPs to be included in the UK's Brexit negotiating team.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48532869

Not quite so effective a stunt when they failed to win the by-election.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I saw Richard Tice on Sky News this morning, saying that the government should invite Brexit Party MEPs to see its preparations for no deal and effectively work with government. What horsesh!t.

The state of this:

'Mr Farage later handed in a letter to Downing Street calling for his party's MEPs to be included in the UK's Brexit negotiating team.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48532869

I have heard that the EU have disbanded their team. The Brexit MP's would be turning up to face an empty table. They would of course still manage to make fools of themselves.

Would also be interesting to see if Farage could manage to turn up more often than he did to the fisheries committee.

superflyweight wrote:Not quite so effective a stunt when they failed to win the by-election.

It would have been laughable enough done on the back of a by-election win - 'We have one seat in Parliament! Do as we command you!' - but on the back of a by-election defeat?

Who on earth decided to go ahead with it?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Not quite so effective a stunt when they failed to win the by-election.

It would have been laughable enough done on the back of a by-election win - 'We have one seat in Parliament! Do as we command you!' - but on the back of a by-election defeat?

Who on earth decided to go ahead with it?

Did you read his letter? Its Frak amazing. He's crying that if FPTP was used they would have 'a majority of over 240 seats', whilst he's spent years crying that FPTP has been holding him back. If you put your disdain for the racism and popularism aside he's a right laugh.

I've just read it, it's a shocker.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48613921

No-deal Brexit moves a step closer.

Dear God.  What did the Grand Old Duke of York say from his barstool...ahem, I mean throne (Speaker Bercow)?
The man must have been absolutely apoplectic with righteous rage!

Off to his chambers in fury to construct yet another Parliament-Objects law for next week!  

Livid, sir!  I tell you, I am more than a trifle livid, sir!

Duty281 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48613921

No-deal Brexit moves a step closer.

Very strange timing by Labour. With a number of MP’s having to abstain because of vote pairing it was always going to require a handful of Tory rebels, who sre in the middle of a leadership contest so dont want to rock the boat too much.

If this vote had been tabled in a month or two I think it would have went the other way.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48613921

No-deal Brexit moves a step closer.

Very strange timing by Labour. With a number of MP’s having to abstain because of vote pairing it was always going to require a handful of Tory rebels, who sre in the middle of a leadership contest so dont want to rock the boat too much.

If this vote had been tabled in a month or two I think it would have went the other way.

I didn't want to get all cynical about this but the trend with Labour on Brexit seems to be in making pointless but very visible actions. Being seen to be doing something to keep remainers on board while in fact achieving nothing that might mitigate or stop the process.