Brexit discussion thread III

Enzokk

Its a little scary that the architect of the policy is in charge of the country right now. Is it any surprise the person she saw fit to replace her at a debate for leaders is in her previous role. She trusts Amber Rudd to continue the work she started, just like she trusted her to be her voice in a TV debate.

I don't expect a change in policy from the Home Office at least. Is there actually, if there is an election and the Conservatives stay in power but get rid of Theresa May, any chance of a change in strategy?

Econ_

Donald Tusk:
"The UK’s decision on Brexit has caused the problem [of the Irish border] and the UK will have to solve it. Without a solution there will be no withdrawal agreement and no transition."



This is why the UK govt and media acting as if the transition deal was 100% going ahead was a complete sham.

J Mysterio

Agree with the above. I'd wonder what measures May is going to actually put in place to right this wrong. I wouldnt be too surprised if they continued to judge this on a case by case basis and that the comments seen by May in the media recently are just PR to dampen the media storm and mobilisation by the affected communities.

Zubeneschamali

Econ_ wrote: »

Donald Tusk: Without a solution there will be no withdrawal agreement and no transition."

This is why the UK govt and media acting as if the transition deal was 100% going ahead was a complete sham.

No, it's the other way around. They absolutely must have a withdrawal agreement and and a transition deal, so all the other stuff they are saying about leaving the CU and SM and having a hard border: that stuff is a sham.

They can't do it by march 2019 - they must get a transition deal, even if it means effectively staying inside the EU until 2021.

wes

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It won't inspire confidence in other people who intend to stay on in the UK the their situation won't change in future. Add in bureaucratic incompetence and bias and it's one more problem that EU citizens don't need.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43794366

Its pure racism, and its a direct result of the scare tactics that May has been at for years now. Any EU citizen would be smart to get out now. The UK has embraced its Xenophobia.

ancapailldorcha

wes wrote: »

Its pure racism, and its a direct result of the scare tactics that May has been at for years now. Any EU citizen would be smart to get out now. The UK has embraced its Xenophobia.

I'm still thinking about my own future here. I'd ruled a return to Ireland out years ago but it's something I find myself thinking more and more about.

The 2014 immigration act which caused this only had 18 MP's vote against it so anyone expecting Labour to be the heroes here are in for disappointment:

https://twitter.com/AllyFogg/status/986528249651126273

Leroy42

In the Express today they have a clip of Farage in the EU complaining that May has sold out the EU, that they never wanted a transition deal etc.

Not quite sure why he thinks that giving such a speech has any relevance in the EU, surely he would be better giving this speech at home (although I suppose that is what it is aimed at)

Anyway, looking at some of the comments below the article, the number of posts about May being weak, the UK having no real politicians etc etc. There are few (I didn't read them all) that ask why Farage did not make all this a possibility prior to the vote. Surely as an EU politician he must have known the approach the EU would have taken?

wes

Another report on how every Brexit possibility will leave the UK poorer:

Each Brexit scenario will leave Britain worse off, study finds


Still no credible reports on Brexit being any kind of success. The closer we get, the clearer it is, how the entire thing will be a disaster.

Enzokk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm still thinking about my own future here. I'd ruled a return to Ireland out years ago but it's something I find myself thinking more and more about.

The 2014 immigration act which caused this only had 18 MP's vote against it so anyone expecting Labour to be the heroes here are in for disappointment:

https://twitter.com/AllyFogg/status/986528249651126273

But who were those that voted against it? We have an internal Labour fight where lots of people want to get rid of the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell and Dianne Abbott, yet they were the ones to vote against the act. People would rather see those that abstained take control in the Labour party. So is it any wonder Labour under Milliband was so soundly defeated at the polls. They were just Tories light but Milliband doesn't look like Cameron. But it doesn't seem like either Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn will be fit to lead. So what the hell now?

Leroy42

Wes, I'm not even going to read it, not because I don't care, but because it doesn't matter.

Those in favour of Brexit will either dismiss any report as biased, or state that it fails to take account of the massive opportunities waiting for the UK once it leaves. Possibly both.

They have comforted themselves that any due to Brexit, even if it does happen, will be short lived and easily replaced by trade deals that the UK is working on. The fact that the UK government have been shown to be completely unprepared and unable to handle Brexit doesn't seem to extend to the thinking that maybe they are not best placed to negotiate these amazing deals.

What I do think will happen is that trade deals will be struck, as they will need to look they are winning. The devil, of course, will be in the detail. With, I suspect massive relaxation of regulations, immigration increases from certain countries and other stuff that is actually against what the UK people wanted but will be sold off in order to secure a win

ancapailldorcha

Enzokk wrote: »

But who were those that voted against it? We have an internal Labour fight where lots of people want to get rid of the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell and Dianne Abbott, yet they were the ones to vote against the act. People would rather see those that abstained take control in the Labour party. So is it any wonder Labour under Milliband was so soundly defeated at the polls. They were just Tories light but Milliband doesn't look like Cameron. But it doesn't seem like either Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn will be fit to lead. So what the hell now?

From here. Here's a list:

Abbott, Ms Diane

Edwards, Jonathan

Lazarowicz, Mark

Leech, Mr John

Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn

Lucas, Caroline

MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan

Mactaggart, Fiona

McDonnell, John

Robertson, Angus

Skinner, Mr Dennis

Teather, Sarah

Ward, Mr David

Weir, Mr Mike

Whiteford, Dr Eilidh

Wishart, Pete

Also:

Tellers for the Noes:

Jeremy Corbyn

and

Hywel Williams

J Mysterio

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm still thinking about my own future here. I'd ruled a return to Ireland out years ago but it's something I find myself thinking more and more about.

The 2014 immigration act which caused this only had 18 MP's vote against it so anyone expecting Labour to be the heroes here are in for disappointment:

https://twitter.com/AllyFogg/status/986528249651126273

A poll released today showed two thirds of those canvassed thought Labour had a problem with 'prejudice'. If Labour has a problem, the conservatives are riddled.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The 2014 immigration act which caused this only had 18 MP's vote against it so anyone expecting Labour to be the heroes here are in for disappointment:

Aren't those the exact Labour MPs you are always complaining about being too extreme and left wing to ever be in Goverrnment? Including Jeremy Corbyn that you think is so useless?

You yourself prefer the bit of the Labour Party that voted for this mess.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Aren't those the exact Labour MPs you are always complaining about being too extreme and left wing to ever be in Goverrnment? Including Jeremy Corbyn that you think is so useless?

You yourself prefer the bit of the Labour Party that voted for this mess.

Few supporters of any party would support every last letter in their manifesto along with absolutely everything they actually do.

Enzokk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

From here. Here's a list:



Also:

It was a bit of a rhetorical question. I was trying to point out that those that voted against it are being actively plotted against by some in the party. Also, the fact that Jeremy Corbyn went against the whip multiple times is used against him, yet when it is for a vote like this it is glossed over.

Zubeneschamali

wes wrote: »

Another report on how every Brexit possibility will leave the UK poorer:

Each Brexit scenario will leave Britain worse off, study finds

Headline numbers, Additional net borrowing each year by 2033-34

Norway: £17bn
Canada: £57bn
WTO rules: £81bn
May's preferred deal:£40bn

Sam Russell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Headline numbers, Additional net borrowing each year by 2033-34

Norway: £17bn
Canada: £57bn
WTO rules: £81bn
May's preferred deal:£40bn

Is this in addition to the status that would pertain if the UK stayed in the EU?

Those are big numbers compared to the net payments to the EU of £10 billion per year.

Zubeneschamali

Sam Russell wrote: »

Those are big numbers compared to the net payments to the EU of £10 billion per year.

Worth every penny for blue passports and wonky fruit and veg.

Rjd2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Aren't those the exact Labour MPs you are always complaining about being too extreme and left wing to ever be in Goverrnment? Including Jeremy Corbyn that you think is so useless?

You yourself prefer the bit of the Labour Party that voted for this mess.

Not exactly a stellar week for Corbyn and his disciples also. FFS a man read out rape threats his wife received yesterday. Lucinda Berger's speech Yesterday was incredibly bleak.

J Mysterio

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is this in addition to the status that would pertain if the UK stayed in the EU?

Those are big numbers compared to the net payments to the EU of £10 billion per year.

All that money that could be spent on the NHS.

J Mysterio

Senior British and EU officials will discuss the UK’s future relationship with the European Union for the first time on Wednesday, in a milestone for the Brexit talks.

More than a year after the government triggered article 50, British and EU negotiators will meet across a table to discuss the UK’s future trade ties.

The talks will be mostly limited to a formal presentation on the negotiating guidelines agreed by EU leaders in March, as well as setting a schedule for future meetings. Nonetheless, it is a significant moment for the UK, 10 months after the Brexit secretary, David Davis, was forced to bow to the EU’s timetable, having previously promised the “row of the summer”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/18/brexit-first-talks-on-uks-future-relationship-with-eu-begin

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

All that money that could be spent on the NHS.

Each figure below represents the percentage of the NHS budget that equates to the cost of Brexit by type:

Norway: 9%
Canada: 31%
WTO: 44%
Bespoke: 22%

J Mysterio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Each figure below represents the percentage of the NHS budget that equates to the cost of Brexit by type

I don't quite understand i'm afraid...

Zubeneschamali

J Mysterio wrote: »

I don't quite understand i'm afraid...

The report lists the costs in 3 terms: billions extra in borrowing per year, millions per week (£262m £877m £1.25bn £615m), and then the total per year as a percentage of the annual NHS budget.

The reason for putting it in those terms is, I think, for comparison with the side-of-the-bus figure from the referendum campaign.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm still thinking about my own future here. I'd ruled a return to Ireland out years ago but it's something I find myself thinking more and more about.

The 2014 immigration act which caused this only had 18 MP's vote against it so anyone expecting Labour to be the heroes here are in for disappointment:

Landing cards are not proof of residency , but they were proof you landed before the deadline.

Theresa May has said the decision to destroy the landing cards of Windrush migrants was taken under Labour.

The prime minister told MPs she was not home secretary when the move was approved, saying it happened in 2009.
...
Labour has disputed her claim, saying the Home Office had said on Tuesday that the decision was taken in 2010 -

57,000 non-nationals arrived before 1971. If they are citizens then their children are too. If not ....

And the paper records are gone.

And future IT systems do not inspire confidence.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/04/12/uk_government_immigration_database/

The UK Home Office will sign a deal with Accenture to replace its clunky 1990s-era immigration and asylum applications system – having previously written off £347m in its last attempted overhaul.
...
Around 30 of the 85 IT systems currently used at the border will need to be replaced or updated in some way, said the Public Accounts Committee in December.

Accenture, Capgemini, Deloitte creating app to register 3m EU nationals living in Brexit Britain

He estimated the cost would be relatively low for a government IT project, at around £10m-£15m. "I guess the complexity will be integrating with other databases," he added.

LOL


Just to put all the above in perspective. Captia got the contract for the Recruitment Partnership Project for the UK Military. It's cost £1.3 Billion and last year 6,060 were recruited.

J Mysterio

I'm fairly shocked that they 'decided' to destroy vital documents which are so important to peoples lives, be it 2009 or 2010.

An absolute disgrace. I'm sure there have been deportations already. Institutional discrimination against people who helped to build Britain.

LuckyLloyd

J Mysterio wrote: »

I'm fairly shocked that they 'decided' to destroy vital documents which are so important to peoples lives, be it 2009 or 2010.

An absolute disgrace. I'm sure there have been deportations already. Institutional discrimination against people who helped to build Britain.

It's been demonstrated numerous times before that institutional discrimination is very much the British way. You yourself will be very familiar with Hillsborough in that regard.

Sam Russell

J Mysterio wrote: »

I'm fairly shocked that they 'decided' to destroy vital documents which are so important to peoples lives, be it 2009 or 2010.

An absolute disgrace. I'm sure there have been deportations already. Institutional discrimination against people who helped to build Britain.

TM was certainly responsible for the 'hostile environment' for immigrants. It was her watch that had the @Go Home' vans going around collecting people for deportation.

She also referred to the Tory party as 'The Nasty Party' at a party conference - never truer words.

flutered

ambro25 wrote: »

The Home Office has been sending thousands of identical 'get out' letters to decades-settled EU immigrants since June 2016, just as illegally/"in error".

Though it would have been difficult for the HO to burn EU immigrants' ID cards and passports, like it allegedly did with the Windrush landing cards under May's ministerial stewardship 4 years ago or so.

Any EU and non-EU immigrant still in the UK, who can't see the font size 100, day-glo writing on the wall, urgently needs an eyesight check.

This won't get any better soon (the HO will just turn to the next target of convenience in the name of political expediency) and exiting the ECHR is next for May & Co.

firstly the irish arrived and were discriminated against, then came the blacks who were discriminated against, next on the list were the poles, nowdays its is the romanians, luckily the irish have law and agreements on their side, will the poles and romanians exscape because of the eu having a say after brexit, or will in the event of a hard brexit will they find themselves in the same boat that the blacks are now in

flutered

Rjd2 wrote: »

That Windrush story is a scandal.
"Come over here and help us and rebuild our country and **** off"

basically, ffs even Nigel Farage thought it was to much.

And earlier we had John Mann read out rape threats of his wife from far left loons.

Where is this new party please?

the new party when and if it launches, will not be allowed to get traction

An Ciarraioch

House of Lords votes to remain in the Customs Union - largely symbolic, but increases the likelihood of a Commons defeat on same:

https://mobile.twitter.com/UKHouseofLords/status/986645506683232256

An Ciarraioch

Also to retain EU-derived workers' rights:

https://mobile.twitter.com/UKHouseofLords/status/986670819320442887

The BBC comments section makes the Daily Mail look tame:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43812360

ambro25

flutered wrote:

<....> luckily the irish have law and agreements on their side

And we’ve all just seen what happened with that one, with the Windrush lot.

The bit you’re looking for, is the removal of the 1999 (legacy) safeguarding clause relevant to the Windrush generations, amongst the edits to the Immigration Act 2014.

No bang, not even so much as a whimper...and here we are.

So long as the British political apparatus remains as it is, this situation won’t improve. Still less so when Brexit effects begin to bite in anger, because nothing exacerbates xenophobic sentiment like socio-economic hardship.

Anthracite

The UK Home Office will sign a deal with Accenture to replace its clunky 1990s-era immigration and asylum applications system – having previously written off £347m in its last attempted overhaul.
...
Around 30 of the 85 IT systems currently used at the border will need to be replaced or updated in some way, said the Public Accounts Committee in December.

I presume the invisible border IT project they are working on is on-budget and will be delivered within the year?

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is this in addition to the status that would pertain if the UK stayed in the EU?

Yes. It's additional borrowing that will be required in each of these scenarios, over and above the level of borrowing that would be required if the UK stayed in the EU.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Those are big numbers compared to the net payments to the EU of £10 billion per year.

These figures take account of the saving of the net UK contributions to the EU budget. In other words, under a Norway-style deal, even after whatever savings it makes on its EU budget contribution, the UK will still need to borrow an extra £17 billion, if it is to maintain current levels of expenditure.

Peregrinus

Anthracite wrote: »

I presume the invisible border IT project they are working on is on-budget and will be delivered within the year?

Yes indeed! It's going to be delivered in a golden carriage drawn by magical unicorns and attended by fairy godmothers.

Peregrinus

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

House of Lords votes to remain in the Customs Union - largely symbolic, but increases the likelihood of a Commons defeat on same . . .

It's more than symbolic. The EU (Withdrawal) Bill has already been through all stage in the House of Commons (which happened in January). But now, because the Lords have amended the Bill, when it is finished its passage through the Lords it has to go back to the House of Commons for further debate, which wouldn't happen if the Lords passed it without amendment.

So the House of Commons is going to have to reconsider the Bill in the light of developments since January. And these include the Labour Party's conversion to a pro-Customs Union policy, and an increasing awareness in the Tory backbenches of the problems which flow from leaving the Customs Union.

And there may yet be other developments before the Commons comes to consider the Bill again. The Lords aren't finished with it yet; they are scheduled to continue their examination (and possibly make further amendments) between now and mid-May, so it may be June or later before the Commons gets to consider this matter again.

And, of course, the other reason that it's more than symbolic is the huge majority against the government. What this means is that those who are sceptical of the Brexit the government is offering are (a) numerous and (b) active. There are still days more debate to go on in the House of Lords, and more than a hundred amendments have been put down, of which so far only 5 have been voted on. The thumping defeat the government has suffered here suggest that it may also be defeated on many more amendments. And every defeat opens up a fresh area of debate when the Bill goes back to the Commons.

ancapailldorcha

According to polling by Global Future, Leave voters reject each scenario modeled by the government as it leaves them worse off than before:

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/986631015509749760

If it indeed comes to pass that the UK is poorer after getting an inferior trading agreement with the EU as seems to be the most likely outcome, I can see a lot of anger coming to the fore that would dwarf that seen when 4.4 million people voted for UKIP. I'm not sure how it would manifest itself in a FPTP system though.

EdgeCase

The problem is they were sold the "Cake and Eat " argument and expect that to be delivered.

What they want is everything to stay the same, just without EU membership or any cooperation with the EU members, yet somehow retain all the rights on a largely one-way basis.

So, if you leave the EU and there are economic consequences to doing that there'll be political uproar as they were told that there would be huge benefits, not huge disadvantages.

However, if you don't leave the EU there'll also be uproar.

The Tories have really painted themselves into a box with lies and spin.

I still don't believe the mainstream Brexiteers really expected to ever have to deliver this. It was always a heady mix of jingoism in the papers, nasty xenophobia dressed up as "English humor" and acceptable because it only targeted the French and Germans etc, coupled with old fashioned nationalism and a good dose of contrarianism.

The problem is now it seems to have become political dogma under a weak PM who is allowing the tail to wag the dog and looks like she'll allow the country to slide into chaos rather than challenge any of the fundamentals of political opinion and actually deal with reality and hard facts and provide leadership.

Leroy42

I think this caricature of May as being weak so not able to withstand the brexiteers is false.

I totally agree that she is weak, and a very poor PM, but her stint in the Home Office and her standing since becoming PM would suggest that far from being 'hostage' to the brexiteers she is a very willing participant. I do accept that it also plays well within the party and I would expect that if the party had gone against Brexit (or the vote and been remain) she would have professed to be a remainer as that was politically expedient but I get the view that she is a brexiteer at heart.

At least one can then understand why she is following this path (remember her 1st Brexit speech where in effect she told the EU to suck it up and hand over the goods) even if I don't agree. To imagine that she is so weak as to be unable to stop what is clearly a train wreck is even more worrying as the UK is currently totally leaderless at one of the most pivotal times in recent history

Zubeneschamali

Anthracite wrote: »

I presume the invisible border IT project they are working on is on-budget and will be delivered within the year?

"Well, Dave wrote some ideas on this napkin, but then I spilled coffee on it, so we are a bit behind already".

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If it indeed comes to pass that the UK is poorer after getting an inferior trading agreement with the EU as seems to be the most likely outcome.

This is not just the most likely outcome, this is the GOAL. This is the whole point, to escape from the EU.

By definition, any trading agreement with the EU from outside will be inferior to being a member, the only questions were by how much, and could the UK make up the difference in trade with the rest of the world [SPOILERS: A lot & No].

This is why, right from the beginning, the UK Government themselves were predicting a 3-6% drop in GDP. Since May decided on SM and CU exit, those numbers have jumped up above 10%.

EdgeCase

That's what I mean by weak though. She doesn't seem to have a clear position on most topics, except war and defense related stuff where she can go all Churchillian.

She was one of the most right wing Home Secretaries in recent decades and has come out with a lot of very anti immigration stances, which would fit with Brexiteers' ideology but are more broad based than just brexit - as they're targeted way beyond just EU migration.

She's always struck me as being about control, policing, data retention, intrusive surveillance, censorship and so on.

Brexit suits her as it means no more pesky EU courts of appeal, human rights laws, data protection and, of course, fewer immigrants.

Her views on the economics of it seems more closely aligned to the centre.

If anything she's the Queen of Cake - as she wants a purely one-way relationship with Europe.

She's very representative of that prevailing English view that Brexit will happen, on exclusively UK terms, without any knock on consequences.

Corbyn also provides basically no opposition to Brexit at all and doesn't tollerate any off message MPs, which is making this 1000 times worse. There's effectively a bipartisan push towards Brexit.

EdgeCase

The concern I would have is that GDP and similar indicators are just crude measures of economic activity. You have to drill down into what that GDP is being generated by.

If it's just city trades, IP movements, etc it's as meaningless as Apple's accounting tweaks impacting GDP here. There's a lot of that goes on in the UK too due to the size of the financial sector and company HQs there. It's not entirely unlike Ireland in that regard, it's just bigger.

The danger is that Brexit will impact real, nuts and bolts businesses and many of them are core job creators and income producers.

I would caution against relying on the notion that you can easily sail through a 10% loss of GDP. It all depends which aspects of the economy are impacted.

Peregrinus

EdgeCase wrote: »

The concern I would have is that GDP and similar indicators are just crude measures of economic activity. You have to drill down into what that GDP is being generated by.

If it's just city trades, IP movements, etc it's as meaningless as Apple's accounting tweaks impacting GDP here. There's a lot of that goes on in the UK too due to the size of the financial sector and company HQs there. It's not entirely unlike Ireland in that regard, it's just bigger.

The danger is that Brexit will impact real, nuts and bolts businesses and many of them are core job creators and income producers.

I would caution against relying on the notion that you can easily sail through a 10% loss of GDP. It all depends which aspects of the economy are impacted.

You certainly can't. Remember the Global Financial Crisis of 2008? UK GDP fell by 4.9% over two years, and they are still living with austerity as a result of that, ten years later. If Brexit causes a 10% fall, that's more than twice as big. Granted, it will unfold over a longer timescale, which makes it easier to manage and perhaps easier to bear, but it will still be incredibly painful.

I would add, though, that the latest study from Global Futures, which ancapailldorcha has pointed about, doesn't look at the effect on Brexit on the GDP, or on the national economy, but specifically on the finances of the government, and the government borrowing requirements. When the model that Brexit would cost X billion pounds, they are not saying that it would cost the nation X billion pounds, just that it would cost the government X billion pounds. It would cost the nation much, much more than that.

Leroy42

There was a blogpost linked earlier in the thread posted by (at least professing to be by) an owner manager of a sportswear company. The effect from Brexit will be basically to close down their business.

Taken at face value, that is very worrying for the UK economy as a whole. Whatever happens with Brexit there will inevitably be a period of transition. Old alliances and supply chains will need to be replaced with new relationships. With that comes issues of supply, quality, finding the right partner etc. It is not simply a case of picking a new supplier.

What will happen to those "just coping" during this phase? Will they be able to absorb the loss in business, the additional costs of setting up new deals. Additional employees will be needed to process customs etc.

None of this seems to have been considered in any depth. Will the government provide cashflow loans at low/zero rates for eg? Will they provide finance guarantees (letters of credit I think they are called) to enable the first orders from new suppliers? Will they arrange for extra customs facilities to provide fast track to reduce delays?

The emphasis is nearly always on big business, but they are best placed to handle things like this. It is the local export led business that will suffer, and be the most ill-equipped to deal with the issues that need to be considered. And the vast majority of people are employed by these firms.

EdgeCase

Government borrowing can also be offset by severe austerity, something that warms the the hearts of many conservatives.

Enzokk

Okay, we can relax. It seems that Theresa May is not racist. She was not in favour of the "Go Home" vans, it was actually approved behind her back when she went on holiday.

https://twitter.com/NickJTimothy/status/986872938283618305

But then this raises more questions than it answers. Did she have no control over her own department that a decision she made was approved and put into action as soon as she left the office? So she is not racist, she is just incompetent.

But then what about the time she blamed a cat for not being able to deport someone? Was her speech changed when she turned her back then as well and she just had to say what was written for her?

Theresa May under fire over deportation cat claim

Home Secretary Theresa May has been criticised for claiming that an illegal immigrant avoided deportation because of his pet cat.

..."We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act... about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat."

But a spokesman for the Judicial Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, which issues statements on behalf of senior judges, said the pet had "had nothing to do with" the judgement allowing the man to stay.

Mrs May told the BBC her speech had been checked before it went out and that the case was "just one example" of where she believed the law was being misconstrued.

So we have either a racist, or someone so incompetent policies are being approved behind her back (or both) running the UK. Backing her up is the DUP, whose leader steadfastly refuses to take responsibility for her own action and decisions.

Arlene Foster was told about need for cost controls two years before RHI imploded – but she doesn’t feel responsible

Although she received information on the need for RHI cost controls more than two years before the scheme ran out of control, Arlene Foster has said that she does not feel any personal responsibility for the failure to put those controls in place.

In evidence to the public inquiry into the ‘cash for ash’ scandal, Mrs Foster accepted that the issue had been put to her in a written ministerial submission in June 2013 but said that the way in which the issue had been brought to her attention by her officials was incomplete and lacked any sense of urgency.

But I am sure Brexit will work out for everyone with the caliber of leaders we see right now.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

None of this seems to have been considered in any depth.

This may be the thinking of people in business in the UK who are steadfastly not panicking and not really making any preparations.

"This has not been considered in detail, it is just waffle so far. When the detail becomes clear, it will be so apocalyptic that it cannot be done. Therefore it will never happen."

ancapailldorcha

Enzokk wrote: »

But then this raises more questions than it answers. Did she have no control over her own department that a decision she made was approved and put into action as soon as she left the office? So she is not racist, she is just incompetent.

I've read in Tim Shipman's book, Fall Out that May afforded vast amounts of power and control to her "chiefs", Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. This was probably what cost her the election. It stands to reason that they were allowed to run amok in the Home Office before she became PM. The Conservative party manifesto was written by Timothy and Ben Gumner with senior ministers like Jeremy Hunt having no input nor idea what was in store for their departments.

I don't know if she is racist. She might just think that the country is overpopulated. She even shoehorned her "tens of thousands" soundbyte in a speech gave before the referendum supporting Remain which resulted in her being sidelined. It's been Conservative party policy for some time so it's hardly anachronistic though why they just didn't cut EU migration back in 2010 and then actually try to work with the EU on some sort of compromise before this referendum is beyond me.