Brexit discussion thread III

Peregrinus

EdgeCase wrote: »

They seem constantly shocked by the fact that the EU, unlike themselves isn’t just throwing Ireland under a bus. Unlike the UK, the EU does actually grant its members huge powers of veto and treats them with a far greater degree of equality and respect. The UK approach is very much that the UK is England and the other countries aren't taken seriously at all really. That's always been the history of the UK. It's never been a union by consent, but by hostile acquisition and forced integration and that's, sadly, still being reflected in modern politics.

There’s also an inability to comprehend that Ireland is a part of the EU and the Eurozone and the European Commission and other institutions' job and role is to protect the EU and the Eurozone . . .

There's a strange Jekyll-and-Hyde thing going on here in the brexity mind.

On the one hand, a fundamental dogma of brexitry is that the people of the UK only ever agreed to join a Common Market, an economic arrangement aimed at securing freer trade to mutual economic advantage. Since then, however, the EU has been transmuted in to a sinister political project which pursues union as an end in itself, for ideological reasons, and not for economic reasons.

Yet they approached, and still approach, the Brexit negiations with an apparently immutable faith that the EU will compromise its unity and its principles for economic advantage. Ireland is a small country and so unimportant, the brexity reasoning goes, and so will be thrown under a bus, and the UK indulged, so the economic impact of Brexit can be minimised. They expect the EU to fail to display solidarity with small member states if larger member states can earn a few shillings by doing so.

Since their whole objection to the EU is that it isn't driven by considerations of economic advantage, a Brexit negotiation strategy which depends on the EU subordinating solidarity, unity, fairness, etc to economic advantage is one which Brexiters should expect not to work. Yet not only do they adopt this strategy, but they get very angry when its dismal results show the fundamental Brexit dogma, that the EU is about more than the money, to be correct.

Alan_P

judeboy101 wrote: »

Are you really telling me they knew nothing? https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brian-lenihan-s-family-criticises-trichet-over-phone-call-1.2198516?mode=amp

Are you really suggesting that 3 year old story where an aunt defends her dead nephew proves they did ?

trellheim

The Greek bailout was an entirely different scenario and has very little in common with the situation Ireland faces now.
Greece broke EU and ECB budgetary rules, lied about it and refused to implement reforms without a gun to their head
In regards to Brexit Ireland has done nothing but be the most stalwart EU supporter, has toed the line and indeed led the EU in many respects
Greek interests and EU/ECB were extemely divergent, Greece wanted to keep spending other peoples money, EU/ECB wanted to ensure they paid for themselves.
In stark contrast Ireland's and the EU's interests are almost perfectly aligned, they both want the UK to A) Be part of the SM/CU Fullfill all their outstanding obligations C) Not to get any special privileges
The EU/ECB wanted to make an example out of Greece in order to presuade all other members that the rules must be followed in order to ensure lasting stability of the EU/Eurozone
The EU want to make an example out of the UK and the folly of leaving the EU and to set a counterexample of Ireland who will demonstrate the benefits of being an EU member
Why would the EU sell us out? They would only be selling out themselves.

Yes I know it was a somewhat different comparison in terms of the situation faced - my point was more the gun-to-the-head lack of choice.

My strong belief is that a compromise that is very unattractive to Ireland will be hammered out, to allow the transition agreement go into effect ( remember there is still NO transition agreement). As far as I can see this is the DExEu's strategy - to delay and delay until the horrible situation on offer is better than no deal. At that point a man will arrive (not from Brussels but from somewhere else - this is what happened last time ) and we will be told 'take the deal' .

RobertKK

Looks like Theresa May has finally totally lost it. On the Andrew Marr show talking about the phantom 'Brexit dividend'.
If she has bought into that crap then a no deal Brexit is looking more likely.

listermint

trellheim wrote: »

Yes I know it was a somewhat different comparison in terms of the situation faced - my point was more the gun-to-the-head lack of choice.

My strong belief is that a compromise that is very unattractive to Ireland will be hammered out, to allow the transition agreement go into effect ( remember there is still NO transition agreement). As far as I can see this is the DExEu's strategy - to delay and delay until the horrible situation on offer is better than no deal. At that point a man will arrive (not from Brussels but from somewhere else - this is what happened last time ) and we will be told 'take the deal' .

Sorry but that's complete hogwash.

There's no basis of fact for peddling that nonsense

trellheim

No basis ? Mark rutter from NL came over last time and told us to take the backstop as we had spotted ways the UK might try and weasel out.

The clock is being run down - a deal should be in place now - thats undeniable. I am telling you - that's how its going to work.

Show me an alternative.

The UK used to want to be a part of the EU

We need to ask the question: What is the EU for? And to get to the answer, we need to look at
what the EU actually does, and analyse rigorously and frankly the tasks it does well, those it does
not so well, and those it does badly. Only once we have a clear sense of our citizens' priorities
can we sensibly ensure the EU's institutions are properly organised and equipped to deliver
them. The European Union is for the citizens of Europe, not the political elites of Europe.
That means focussing discussion not on the process but on the results of EU co-operation. Only
ideologues and specialists are impassioned by esoteric technical issues like the extent of
qualified majority voting or the limits of co-decision.
People care most about the practical benefits they can derive from the EU: more jobs, cleaner
streets, less crime. This is where the debate should begin

Jack Straw, when the UK had the EU Presidency and was pushing through the Nice treaty back in 2001.

sorry forgot link http://ec.europa.eu/dorie/fileDownload.do;jsessionid=v6B0JKLMVmhn4s3gt6Tn9psT7TqSTPr81055gfZF1dSxpWLj2WZG!-1645751347?docId=105369&cardId=105369

Seth Brundle

RobertKK wrote: »

Looks like Theresa May has finally totally lost it. On the Andrew Marr show talking about the phantom 'Brexit dividend'.

Did he challenge her on it?

RobertKK

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Did he challenge her on it?

He didn't really, he asked her if she really believed there would be a Brexit dividend and she said 'Yes' and she was never questioned where this dividend would come from.

Capt'n Midnight

apt answers from a completely unrelated topic

WTF has happened to government in the UK?

WTF has happened to government in the UK?

We had a referendum and decided to let the Daily Mail run the country instead.

This comment about the Univversal Credit system should convince anyone who thinks MaxFac or other e-borders would work

(I was particularly impressed by the way the system couldn't cope with months that had 5 pay days in. Because everyone is paid monthly now. Right? Right.)

And this .. which leave voters from the North of England should pay attention to

"its real aim was to get as many claimants off benefits as possible"

Well, with tens of thousands of people* dying as a result, I'd say they've achieved their aim.

* 45,000 between 2011 and 2014. Not a typo.

The majority of the both Labour and Tories are Mé Féiners. Putting their own personal agendas ahead of party and country

sink

trellheim wrote: »

Yes I know it was a somewhat different comparison in terms of the situation faced - my point was more the gun-to-the-head lack of choice.

My strong belief is that a compromise that is very unattractive to Ireland will be hammered out, to allow the transition agreement go into effect ( remember there is still NO transition agreement). As far as I can see this is the DExEu's strategy - to delay and delay until the horrible situation on offer is better than no deal. At that point a man will arrive (not from Brussels but from somewhere else - this is what happened last time ) and we will be told 'take the deal' .

Your point seems to be if you ignore everything else and just focus on the fact that Greece was forced into a solution it was unwilling to implement on its own, the same could happen to Ireland.

I could just as easily say that Darren Murphy was jailed for life by the courts and so I can see no reason why the same can't happen to me. That's if you ignore the fact that he stabbed his girlfriend to death and burned down her house. All that matters is that courts have a history of jailing people for life.

Context matters and you're failing to account for it.

flatty

RobertKK wrote: »

He didn't really, he asked her if she really believed there would be a Brexit dividend and she said 'Yes' and she was never questioned where this dividend would come from.

The spin on the mainland about that transparently ludicrous statement is that it was part of a trade off between boris and Teresa, whereby Teresa would promote the phrase "brexit bonus" in return for boris' "support" for another while, so there we have it, the British PM is again prepared to openly lie in order to cling to office. GUBU doesn't even begin to describe it.

WomanSkirtFan8

J Mysterio wrote: »

Not sure if you guys saw this in ths Sunday Times last week, thought it was brilliant.

Thats brilliant. Sums up the whole train wreck that is brexit perfectly methinks.

Jim2007

trellheim wrote: »

My strong belief is that a compromise that is very unattractive to Ireland will be hammered out, to allow the transition agreement go into effect ( remember there is still NO transition agreement). As far as I can see this is the DExEu's strategy - to delay and delay until the horrible situation on offer is better than no deal. At that point a man will arrive (not from Brussels but from somewhere else - this is what happened last time ) and we will be told 'take the deal' .

A belief not based on reality. There will be no transition deal until such time as an exit deal has been agreed and the outlines of a traded deal to go with it. Such an agreement must be approved by the 38 regional and national parliaments that make up the EU, not just the member states. This process will not begin until there is a very high chance of it succeeding because there is the potential for it to open up a big can of worms and cause all kinds of issues at the regional level.

What is likely is that the 27 may decide to extend the negotiation period as allowed under A50, which would see the UK remaining a full member for a long time to come. But this is not a transition. They would enjoy full membership rights and obligations.

Strazdas

Peregrinus wrote: »

When the Bill for holding the referendum was before Parliament, there was discussion of whether there should be a requirement for a qualified majority - a majority overall, plus a majority in at least three of the constituent parts of the UK, or a majority including at least 40% of the electorate (so the referendum couldn't be decided by a narrow margin on a low turnout) - that kind of thing. There is precedent for this in referendums that the UK has held before, e.g. the Scottish devolution referendum of 1979.

But the governnment's position was that this wasn't necessary, since the outcome of the referendum would not be legally binding. If the government didn't think that the referendum result reflected a sufficient national consensus, it could decide not to act on it.

In advance of the referendum actually being held, the Tories committed to "respect" the result, which the honours students will note is not quite the same thing as a commitment to implement the result.

However, since the referendum result, the Tories have been hijacked by ultra-Brexiters who assert that the referendum results reflects an immutable "Will of the People™", that their interpretation of the result represents dogma before which all must bow, and that any suggestion of consulting the people or thelr elected represntatives further must be resisted, since it represents an opportunity for the people to betray the Will of the People™.

Only about 10% of MPs in Parliament wanted to leave the EU. This was no exercise in democracy - the process was hijacked first by Cameron and then by the hard Brexit loons and their pals in the press.

flatty

Jim2007 wrote: »

A belief not based on reality. There will be no transition deal until such time as an exit deal has been agreed and the outlines of a traded deal to go with it. Such an agreement must be approved by the 38 regional and national parliaments that make up the EU, not just the member states. This process will not begin until there is a very high chance of it succeeding because there is the potential for it to open up a big can of worms and cause all kinds of issues at the regional level.

What is likely is that the 27 may decide to extend the negotiation period as allowed under A50, which would see the UK remaining a full member for a long time to come. But this is not a transition. They would enjoy full membership rights and obligations.

That's a very interesting post jim, but is that last statement actually a runner? Genuine query here.

trellheim

Context does matter and I am accounting for it - and a couple of posters here take issue with me saying we would be forced into a deal.

Such an agreement must be approved by the 38 regional and national parliaments that make up the EU, not just the member states. This process will not begin until there is a very high chance of it succeeding because there is the potential for it to open up a big can of worms and cause all kinds of issues at the regional level

You think I don't know that ? I've been reading every single bit of PR from the EU, and from Barnier, Tusk, and Verhofstadt and most of the recent Commons (and Dail ) debates - I know the context, and still, I persist.

Do you honestly believe the EU will hold it up if Ireland has a problem with <whatever gets agreed in the next few weeks > ? A lot of the transition agreement has been hammered out, they are at the difficult bits <Ireland etc> ..



Greece is very relevant - small state, beholden to the banks , gets told what to do.

A slightly viable thing is transition agreement with no NI piece in it <can kicking> and that is what I would say we will get told to take. It's an opinion - you're all entitled to your own. What would YOU say will be the outcome from the June EU negotiations and summit ?


In relation to the OP above who mentioned an A50 extension, yes its possible but the UK would have to ask for it, and the ERG would collapse the UK government IMHO because out-means-out

Capt'n Midnight

NHS funding to drop below average.

budget will rise by an average of 3.4% annually - but that is still less than the 3.7% average rise the NHS has had since 1948.

The prime minister said this would be funded partly by a "Brexit dividend", but also hinted at tax rises.

Labour said the government had failed to fund the NHS properly and was relying on a "hypothetical" windfall.

Capt'n Midnight

May says any move towards trade border 'unacceptable'

Mrs May said: "In the week beginning the 9th of July we will publish a white paper which will set out, in more detail than the speeches any of us have given ... we will set out in more detail the ambition we have for the relationship with the European Union in future."

Ambition ? There's only 285 days to go.

And I would be shocked if this new red, white and blue paper didn't repeat the usual stuff that was ruled out five years and five months ago.

"France and Germany both warned the UK could not "cherry pick" EU membership."
- 23 January 2013

Leroy42

But surely that puts the whole Brexit debate to bed.

If TM really believes that Brexit will result in not only a saving on the 12bn pa from lack of contributions, but obviously that it will have no negative impact on the economy even in the short term, then I don't understand what they are even arguing about.

Within 5 years they will have an additional £20bn to spend each year on the NHS, almost double that was stated during the campaign.

My point being, that if she really believes this (and since they don't believe either external experts of even the civil servants I am unsure on what basis they can project any of it) then surely they should be looking to get out ASAP. No transition period needed.

Capt'n Midnight

Finally, the DUP or Arlene at least , are taking small steps. It's the little stuff like this that give hope for the future.


Foster meets Fermanagh GAA team ahead of Ulster final


DUP leader's 'hand of friendship' at Eid celebration in Belfast


The No Surrender attitude in the UK amongst the hard Brexiteers to the EU is scary. The FPTP system and the security of wealth means that a lot of them have nothing to fear either way. Those subject to cuts and Universal Credit delays and screwups on the other hand have a lot to loose.

via Slugger https://unherd.com/2018/06/noise-victimhood-culture-drowned-plight-poor/

A survey by the Royal Society of Arts, published last January, found that economic insecurity has become the “new normal” in the UK. Of more than 2,000 workers surveyed, 40% described their finances as permanently precarious, and 30% said that they were not managing to get by.

joeysoap

Corbyn in danger of losing young voters?

https://mobile.twitter.com/SkyNewsPolitics/status/1008037282169917440/video/1

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

But surely that puts the whole Brexit debate to bed.
...

My point being, that if she really believes this .... then surely they should be looking to get out ASAP. No transition period needed.

ay, there's the rub , only if they can Cherry Pick

Strazdas

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Finally, the DUP or Arlene at least , are taking small steps. It's the little stuff like this that give hope for the future.


Foster meets Fermanagh GAA team ahead of Ulster final


DUP leader's 'hand of friendship' at Eid celebration in Belfast


The No Surrender attitude in the UK amongst the hard Brexiteers to the EU is scary. The FPTP system and the security of wealth means that a lot of them have nothing to fear either way. Those subject to cuts and Universal Credit delays and screwups on the other hand have a lot to loose.

via Slugger https://unherd.com/2018/06/noise-victimhood-culture-drowned-plight-poor/

I think Arlene is one of the more moderate members of the DUP. Some of her MPs are more hardline and she often gets (unfairly) lumped in with them.

trellheim

Mrs May said: "In the week beginning the 9th of July we will publish a white paper which will set out, in more detail than the speeches any of us have given ... we will set out in more detail the ambition we have for the relationship with the European Union in future."

You will note that this is after the EU summit . There is shenanigans going on here because the time for this was before the summit so it could be considered then.

RobertKK

She can’t believe what she is actually saying...
https://twitter.com/marrshow/status/1008269978116579329?s=21

When the experts say there will be a £15 billion hole in the finances.

Leroy42

And if she does believe it then why all the angst and debate about Brexit. It should be done and dusted. 'Thank you EU, its been great, but we are better off without you.'

Not only are they going to able to pocket the savings on the annual contributions, but obviously she believes that at worst there will be no material negative effects on the UK economy.

Why even look for the 2 years, never mind a transition? And if they hold all these benefits then on what basis is she agreeing to any requests from the EU so far?

It simply makes no logical sense and that she is allowed to simply state this in an interview with no questioning at all is a serious lack of integrity from the BBC

Enzokk

RobertKK wrote: »

Looks like Theresa May has finally totally lost it. On the Andrew Marr show talking about the phantom 'Brexit dividend'.
If she has bought into that crap then a no deal Brexit is looking more likely.

I can't quite get the angle here. Everyone and their dog should know there will be no "Brexit dividend" but they are trying to sell one. Are they doing this because they are just the worst government for many years? Or has she chosen a path and is trying to sell to people that it will be alright because the NHS is getting more money, even when they exit the EU with a Canada type deal?

I think we are heading towards a hard Brexit here, even if there is a deal. The deal will be a FTA only and NI will be left on the scrap heap by Theresa May. The DUP will take this because it is in their voters best interest, but they will sell it as betrayal. They will keep the Tories in power though, because that way they control NI politics by keeping Stormont empty and dictating what the NI Secretary does via Theresa May.

Also, this is another lie from Theresa May. She is openly lying to the British public, just like Boris Johnson did with his red bus. Maybe the plan is to keep him in check to keep her in office another month.

sink

trellheim wrote: »

Do you honestly believe the EU will hold it up if Ireland has a problem with <whatever gets agreed in the next few weeks > ? A lot of the transition agreement has been hammered out, they are at the difficult bits <Ireland etc> ..

Greece is very relevant - small state, beholden to the banks , gets told what to do.

Okay so you say you've accounted for context but still insist that the EU will betray Ireland for the benefit of the UK, selling it's out own interest at the same time. Lets examine the exact consequences of such a deal for the EU

Benefits

• EU can lessen damage to a large export market (this is also in Ireland's interests to an even greater degree)

Negatives

• EU has to secure a new border in order to protect the single market from unfair competition
• It has to secure a border of an unwilling member state, where it relies solely on said member state to enforce rules
• EU has to deal with a growing security situation on it western border, where it's already dealing with serious concerns on its eastern border
• EU demonstrates that it's unable to protect member states interest against competing interests of non-members
• EU demonstrates that it can be pushed around if a big enough stick is used (think US trade dispute)
• EU loses privileged access to a large export market and damages exports (even if less than in a no-deal senario)

You're making the same mistake that Brexit strategists (and I use that term loosely) have by thinking that the barest economic interests can outweigh the political interests of the EU.

Even the Greek situation was driven by political concerns that voters in Northern Europe could not countenance paying for the perceived largess of the Greek government and people when they themselves were making economic sacrifices. Greece would have be far easier to solve if Merkel and co did not have to consider their own domestic political interests and instead could focus solely on the economics.

You will have to demonstrate with more clarity why you think the deal the UK wants will benefit the EU more than no-deal, baring in mind that the exact same can be said for Ireland.

trellheim wrote: »

It's an opinion - you're all entitled to your own

I know you're entitled to your opinion, I'm not attacking your right to an opinion. TBH this shows a lack of foundation to your argument if you're starting to feel your right to an opinion is being challenged.

trellheim wrote: »

What would YOU say will be the outcome from the June EU negotiations and summit ?

I would say can kicking is most likely, which will lead to a no-deal cash out next March. I don't believe that will last long as Theresa May's government is guaranteed to collapse. There will be an election and a possible split in the Tory party.

At that stage a hard no-deal brexit will be reality. Imports and exports will crash leading to food shortages (not starvation, just not being able to find your favourite brand of vegetable extract paste), medicine shortages (not all medicines just some specific medicines) and a contracting economy with rising unemployment, inflation etc.

The hard brextremists will no llonger be able to paint a rosy picture of sunlit green fields. Immigration will no longer be the number one factor, the immediate crisis will outweigh all other considerations. The remain side of the Tory party will take over or else the party will split. Corbyn will also campaign on signing a deal on customs and the single market.

The UK will be back within a year looking to sign a deal with the EU along the lines they EU has laid out since the beginning.

The only plausible alternative is that the Theresa May caves and reaches across the aisle for support to pass a soft brexit. However i think this is becoming more unlikely.

trellheim

Okay so you say you've accounted for context but still insist that the EU will betray Ireland for the benefit of the UK, selling it's out own interest at the same time. Lets examine the exact consequences of such a deal for the EU

That is not what I said. Betrayal is the word you are using, not I. Perhaps realpolitik might be more useful as a term, and taking the EU interests over the individual . Although that is over-selling what is likely to be two or three key decision makers on the EU side making what they consider to be a pragmatic decision that the UK will never be able to decide this, and taking matters in hand to sell something to the EU27 that the UK will also agree to.

That pragmatic decision may ( likely) include an unpleasant sort of fudge of the NI issue. If that does happen then, Irish internal politics will come quickly to the fore and you may see an election quickly on our side as well.

I may be wrong - indeed I hope I am but I cannot see an alternative. It suits the ERG to crash out March 2019 ( at this stage they can see it in their grasp ) and the UK media will be happy to sell no-deal as EU messing. UK Labour are in favour of Brexit

J Mysterio

RobertKK wrote: »

She can’t believe what she is actually saying...
https://twitter.com/marrshow/status/1008269978116579329?s=21

When the experts say there will be a £15 billion hole in the finances.

I'm starting to really hate this woman, she is beneath contempt.

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

And if she does believe it then why all the angst and debate about Brexit. It should be done and dusted. 'Thank you EU, its been great, but we are better off without you.'

Not only are they going to able to pocket the savings on the annual contributions, but obviously she believes that at worst there will be no material negative effects on the UK economy.

Why even look for the 2 years, never mind a transition? And if they hold all these benefits then on what basis is she agreeing to any requests from the EU so far?

It simply makes no logical sense and that she is allowed to simply state this in an interview with no questioning at all is a serious lack of integrity from the BBC

This.

The way May tries to put on her 'excited' persona makes me ill. And the canned lines 'I thought you were going to ask that' - how many times have we heard this? Is it all pre-arranged?

Charles Babbage

trellheim wrote: »

I may be wrong - indeed I hope I am but I cannot see an alternative. It suits the ERG to crash out March 2019 ( at this stage they can see it in their grasp ) and the UK media will be happy to sell no-deal as EU messing. UK Labour are in favour of Brexit

Labour are not in favour a "no deal" Brexit. They are likely to show some flexibility on NI and would be able to build a deal.

Harika

RobertKK wrote: »

She can’t believe what she is actually saying...
https://twitter.com/marrshow/status/1008269978116579329?s=21

When the experts say there will be a £15 billion hole in the finances.

That's a tactic, May replaces only what is lost but claims that the NHS gets more. Same happened in Austria with tuition fees, the minister claimed that this would go fully to the universities where it is hard to argue against it. Meanwhile the university budget was slashed so the additional fees only compensate for what was deducted.

Enzokk

J Mysterio wrote: »

This.

The way May tries to put on her 'excited' persona makes me ill. And the canned lines 'I thought you were going to ask that' - how many times have we heard this? Is it all pre-arranged?

The BBC has abdicated their responsibility in fear of more funding cuts. The softly softly approach they take towards interviews with Brexiteers and the their goal to find "balance" means they actually give more time to the minority position. They are not balanced in their quest to be balanced, and to be honest they should be able to tell someone if they are an idiot without trying to appease them.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Labour are not in favour a "no deal" Brexit. They are likely to show some flexibility on NI, one sticking issue and would be able to build a deal.

Labour seems to want their cake and to eat it as well. They want to trade with the EU and be in a customs union but make their own trade deals. The only difference I can see at the moment is that Labour will allow NI to be tied to the single market and the customs union to avoid a border and protect the GFA. At the moment they have no shackles around their necks on NI and as Barnier pointed out could sell a sea border as nothing more or less than what is happening now with checks that I believe does happen.

Enzokk

Harika wrote: »

That's a tactic, May replaces only what is lost but claims that the NHS gets more. Same happened in Austria with tuition fees, the minister claimed that this would go fully to the universities where it is hard to argue against it. Meanwhile the university budget was slashed so the additional fees only compensate for what was deducted.

She is trying to hoodwink the public and some will fall for it. She really is the worst PM off all time in my opinion. She has been caught as the architect of the hostile environment that caused so much misery to their own citizens. She caused her friend to lose her cabinet position due to that. She also recommended Christopher Pope to be knighted 6 months ago. Her actions speak louder than anything that she may say (he initial speech when she became PM was about how she was all for the little guy, yet look at what she has done). Here she is trying...trying to explain the inexplicable.

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1008278694714961920

First Up

Enzokk wrote: »

Harika wrote: »

That's a tactic, May replaces only what is lost but claims that the NHS gets more. Same happened in Austria with tuition fees, the minister claimed that this would go fully to the universities where it is hard to argue against it. Meanwhile the university budget was slashed so the additional fees only compensate for what was deducted.

She is trying to hoodwink the public and some will fall for it. She really is the worst PM off all time in my opinion. She has been caught as the architect of the hostile environment that caused so much misery to their own citizens. She caused her friend to lose her cabinet position due to that. She also recommended Christopher Pope to be knighted 6 months ago. Her actions speak louder than anything that she may say (he initial speech when she became PM was about how she was all for the little guy, yet look at what she has done). Here she is trying...trying to explain the inexplicable.

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1008278694714961920

She is hopeless but she has stiff competition for worst ever.

Cameron's fumbling caused Brexit and Blair's war in Iraq makes him a strong contender.

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

She also recommended Christopher Pope to be knighted 6 months ago.

Actually the issue was that May & Co. were trying to railroad in populist legislation without debate.

Sound familiar ?


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44513497

He explained that he stopped the bill from progressing because he disapproved of how the legislation was being brought in.

"The government has been hijacking time that is rightfully that of backbenchers," he said.

"This is about who controls the House of Commons on Fridays and that's where I am coming from."

He accused the government of trying to "bring in what it wants on the nod", adding: "We don't quite live in the Putin era yet."

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

She is hopeless but she has stiff competition for worst ever.

Cameron's fumbling caused Brexit and Blair's war in Iraq makes him a strong contender.

I'd say Anthony Eden would be on the list thanks to his escapade on the Suez Canal, trying his bit of regime change. Unfortunate his best friend Ike threatened to sell his GBP Government bonds. The UK withdrawal marked the end of the UK as a serious world power.

It is a long list.

Enzokk

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Actually the issue was that May & Co. were trying to railroad in populist legislation without debate.

Sound familiar ?


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44513497

Not buying that. If he hasn't voted against legislation for human rights, same sex marriage, equal pay and hunting and smoking bans I would buy it. Seeing as he also opposed the minimum wage and opposed a bill to give Alan Turing a pardon makes his comment that he isn't a "dinosaur" seem very hollow.

Then you him calling staff in the commons "servants", that is just an excuse to not look like the bigot he is. Actions speak louder than words and his actions are very clear over the years.

Leroy42

Enzokk wrote: »

She is trying to hoodwink the public and some will fall for it. She really is the worst PM off all time in my opinion. She has been caught as the architect of the hostile environment that caused so much misery to their own citizens. She caused her friend to lose her cabinet position due to that. She also recommended Christopher Pope to be knighted 6 months ago. Her actions speak louder than anything that she may say (he initial speech when she became PM was about how she was all for the little guy, yet look at what she has done). Here she is trying...trying to explain the inexplicable.

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1008278694714961920

Is it just me of does May have a facial tick when she is faced with a question either she doesn't know the answer to or knows the answer can't be told honestly?

Its as clear as day in the video clip (1.10) and I'm pretty sure it happens quite a bit (although I haven't gone back through other videos).

Either way, she was caught out totally on the issue, simply had no answer. When she started to say he was a long standing member I was thinking she was about to say the Tory Party but she stuck with parliament.

Leroy42

And yet we still have government ministers coming out with the mantra that 'no deal is better than a bad deal.'

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/975535/Brexit-news-Brexiteer-slaps-down-Tory-rebels-EU-withdrawal-bill-Suella-Braverman-May

This is the minister than only a few weeks ago admitted that the £39bn was payable regardless of the outcome of any deal.

Surely the journalist should be asked her what a no deal would actually mean? and how they have concluded that a bad deal, of which they have no details, can be judged without having that pretty vital piece of information. Particularly sine all the expert advice is saying that a no deal is a disaster.

But since they dismiss these experts, on what are they basing this opinion of 'no deal is better than a bad deal'?

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

And yet we still have government ministers coming out with the mantra that 'no deal is better than a bad deal.'

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/975535/Brexit-news-Brexiteer-slaps-down-Tory-rebels-EU-withdrawal-bill-Suella-Braverman-May

This is the minister than only a few weeks ago admitted that the £39bn was payable regardless of the outcome of any deal.

Surely the journalist should be asked her what a no deal would actually mean? and how they have concluded that a bad deal, of which they have no details, can be judged without having that pretty vital piece of information. Particularly sine all the expert advice is saying that a no deal is a disaster.

But since they dismiss these experts, on what are they basing this opinion of 'no deal is better than a bad deal'?

Either these loons believe what they are saying or are lying to the public, both of which are scary propositions.

Thomas_IV

Leroy42 wrote: »

And yet we still have government ministers coming out with the mantra that 'no deal is better than a bad deal.'

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/975535/Brexit-news-Brexiteer-slaps-down-Tory-rebels-EU-withdrawal-bill-Suella-Braverman-May

This is the minister than only a few weeks ago admitted that the £39bn was payable regardless of the outcome of any deal.

Surely the journalist should be asked her what a no deal would actually mean? and how they have concluded that a bad deal, of which they have no details, can be judged without having that pretty vital piece of information. Particularly sine all the expert advice is saying that a no deal is a disaster.

But since they dismiss these experts, on what are they basing this opinion of 'no deal is better than a bad deal'?

On the fantasy of 'La-La-Land Brexitland'. That's enough for them and always have been that way cos the opinions and foundings of experts were always the dismissed cos they always get in the way of the 'ideal Brexit era'.

Dymo

Look at it from the Brexiters point of view.

Teresa May said there was going to be a huge dividend after Brexit, no more payment to Europe and by 2023 the NHS will be getting an extra 600M a week
No more control from europe.
They can sort out their own immigration laws now.
Doesn't matter what happens in negotiations, every country is going to want to deal with the UK.
It's a shame Boris Johnson isn't running the negotiations he would tell europe where to go.
Europe can go swivel if it thinks we're going to take a bad deal.

That's pretty much Joe Public's opinion and reinforced by newspapers and politicians.

Call me Al

Dymo wrote: »

Look at it from the Brexiters point of view.

Teresa May said there was going to be a huge dividend after Brexit, no more payment to Europe and by 2023 the NHS will be getting an extra 600M a week
No more control from europe.
They can sort out their own immigration laws now.
Doesn't matter what happens in negotiations, every country is going to want to deal with the UK.
It's a shame Boris Johnson isn't running the negotiations he would tell europe where to go.
Europe can go swivel if it thinks we're going to take a bad deal.

That's pretty much Joe Public's opinion and reinforced by newspapers and politicians.

Precisely.. and polling indicates that many brexit supporters say short term pain (job losses, spending cuts etc) is worth it to achieve all of the above.
There is lots of rhetoric but very thin on the practicalities and reality.
And there is a definite irony that the "Better Together" slogan from Scottish independence ref is lost on them..

Leroy42

^^^This always gets me.

How long is short-term and what sort of pain are they talking about?

Many months ago James O'Brien had an electrician leave voter making that same point and accepting short term pain and JOB pointed that that not only him but all his customers would be down, nobody knows for how long or how far.

And nobody seems to be able to state, beyond generalities, how these short-term losses will be made up for in the medium term.

What sections will be most hit, and may not recover? What happens to say the workers in the car plant? Is there a plan to retrain them? It just seems that the UK is fundamentally changing the very structure of the trading situation and little has been done to plan for that. Whether or not it ends up better or worse, moving from trading with France to trading with India.

They are totally different markets, the customers have different wants and culture. Advertising or selling techniques in one doesn't necessarily translate to the other. What are the UK diplomatic corp planning on doing to increase relationships within countries? Is there a plan for trade missions? Will the UK government offer credit guarantees to cover cash-flow?

Who covers the cost of relocating the sales team from Lyon to Jakarta? Do they need offices there or simply a call centre in the UK?

There is lots of talk about the high end Brexit negotiation stuff, but I have seen nothing in terms of the practicable requirements of such a fundamental change.

It is said, though not always true, that it is 5 times more expensive to acquire than retain customers. Yet the UK are doing this across the board.

Sam Russell

Just a short term loss that no-one appears to see.

It costs, I would guess, about £100,000 to employ a civil servant in London what with salary, pension, office provision, etc. There are 10,000 CS in the Dep for Exiting the EU, that is a cost of £1 billion a year. So 10% of the saving of quitting the EU is already taken up with the Dep for Exiting.

Add in the £40 billion exit cost, and the cost of duplicating the 36 EU agencies, like the medicines and banking that used to reside in the UK, and they are unlikely to see any dividend - rather a deficit when you add the extra numbers employed bu the UK Border Force and HMR&C staff to inspect all these shipments.

That is just the direct cost to HMG. Now add in the cost of customs documentation for all these shipments to be paid by industry, and it becomes obvious that the cost of any form of Brexit will be massive - even the softest.

Will the GBP fall like a stone if there is a hard Brexit - or will it recover if there is a very soft Brexit?

In the last 70 years, the GBP has fallen from US$4 to US$1.40 today - that is a fall of 3.5 times or it has fallen to 28.5% of its value against the US Dollar over that time. It has fallen much further against the German currency since 1966.

Mind you, they do have control of their own currency, so they can devalue it further if they wish. They devalued in 1931, 1949, and 1967, and floated in 1971.

We shall see.

LuckyLloyd

This is what "post - truth politics" is

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

^^^This always gets me.

How long is short-term and what sort of pain are they talking about?

Many months ago James O'Brien had an electrician leave voter making that same point and accepting short term pain and JOB pointed that that not only him but all his customers would be down, nobody knows for how long or how far.

And nobody seems to be able to state, beyond generalities, how these short-term losses will be made up for in the medium term.

What sections will be most hit, and may not recover? What happens to say the workers in the car plant? Is there a plan to retrain them? It just seems that the UK is fundamentally changing the very structure of the trading situation and little has been done to plan for that. Whether or not it ends up better or worse, moving from trading with France to trading with India.

They are totally different markets, the customers have different wants and culture. Advertising or selling techniques in one doesn't necessarily translate to the other. What are the UK diplomatic corp planning on doing to increase relationships within countries? Is there a plan for trade missions? Will the UK government offer credit guarantees to cover cash-flow?

Who covers the cost of relocating the sales team from Lyon to Jakarta? Do they need offices there or simply a call centre in the UK?

There is lots of talk about the high end Brexit negotiation stuff, but I have seen nothing in terms of the practicable requirements of such a fundamental change.

It is said, though not always true, that it is 5 times more expensive to acquire than retain customers. Yet the UK are doing this across the board.

When asked about a post-Brexit FTA, the Indian High Commissioner emphasised that, in return, India would require less stringent British immigration laws for its citizens than currently prevail. The ironing is delicious.

Strazdas

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This is what "post - truth politics" is

There are clearly a lot of dumbed down folk in the UK. The right wing press are responsible for around 80% of newspaper sales and people have been reading their nonsense for many years and think everything they read is the actual truth. Brexit probably couldn't happen in any other country.