Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Joe_ Public

listermint wrote: »

Buy tomorrow's Sunday times.


https://mobile.twitter.com/TomJHarper/status/1193279348851314688?s=20


Looks to be a good one

Sunday Times getting the best brexit scoops time and time again, wonder who is the high ranking snitch within the conservative party.

listermint

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Sunday Times getting the best brexit scoops time and time again, wonder who is the high ranking snitch within the conservative party.

Hero?

Letwin_Larry

Nody wrote: »

If you are going to use a quote at least spend the time reading it before posting it; your own quote states clearly that post Brexit investments would be LOWER. Exactly how is that suppose to refute the claim that Brexit is causing less investments and will cause less investments again?

i think you are a bit confused.

PRE Brexit investment IS lower, according to Mr. Carney. Note he used the words "HAVE BEEN" past tense.

"The Bank believes that businesses have been reluctant to commit to new capital projects due to uncertainty ...
“The level of business investment is 25% below where it would otherwise have been."

that's past tense. ie PRE Brexit.

he reckons business investment will rebound once CERTAINTY in the form of a WA returns. Here is what he said "With a deal I would expect a rebound even though it won’t all come back"

now Mr. Carney might be misinformed and business investment may not rebound at all following a WA. but you know given a choice between the Governor of The Bank of England and a poster on Boards.ie, with the greatest of respect, i think i would take the former.

Joe_ Public

listermint wrote: »

Hero?

Yeah, you could say. Maybe more likely a civil servant than a politician.

Enzokk

Here seems to be what the Sunday Times story will cover,

https://twitter.com/TomJHarper/status/1193280610887970816?s=20

https://twitter.com/TomJHarper/status/1193283526017343488?s=20

https://twitter.com/TomJHarper/status/1193290012701470721?s=20

More stories from the report Johnson refused to release and the implications are that Tory donors are involved and possibly named as well.

Capt'n Midnight

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

now Mr. Carney might be misinformed and business investment may not rebound at all following a WA. but you know given a choice between the Governor of The Bank of England and a poster on Boards.ie, with the greatest of respect, i think i would take the former.

Even if business investment rebounds there's a £40Bn a year shortfall to overcome before you get back to where the economy would be without Brexit.

And it'll get worse as every day the UK has further to catch up
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy-report/2019/november-2019

The Office for National Statistics estimates that business investment fell over the past year. Before the EU referendum, business investment was growing by around 5% per year.

Strazdas

Enzokk wrote: »

Here seems to be what the Sunday Times story will cover,


More stories from the report Johnson refused to release and the implications are that Tory donors are involved and possibly named as well.

An immediate question that jumps out at me here is, what are the connections between these nine oligarch types and Putin / current Russian regime? The answer to this one could be hugely embarrassing for Johnson.

Enzokk

Strazdas wrote: »

An immediate question that jumps out at me here is, what are the connections between these nine oligarch types and Putin / current Russian regime? The answer to this one could be hugely embarrassing for Johnson.

You would assume if they are not in jail that they are friendly with Putin.

In other Johnson news, the investigation into his links with Jennifer Arcuri will not be released until after the election. Again you would assume if no charges would be sought they would come out and say it, but not revealing if they would is very strange.

Fury as decision on police inquiry into PM shelved until after election

The scandal over Boris Johnson’s friendship with technology entrepreneur Jennifer Arcuri was reignited on Saturday after the Observer revealed that the independent police watchdog has delayed its announcement on whether the PM should face an investigation into possible criminal misconduct until after the election.

The decision prompted fury from Westminster politicians and London assembly members who said it appeared that a ruling had been “suppressed” in order to protect Johnson from potentially damaging headlines at a crucial stage of the election campaign.

In a private meeting held before parliament was dissolved last week, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) officials agreed not to announce whether they were going to investigate “possible criminality” over allegations about a conflict of interest in Johnson’s dealings while mayor of London with US businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri until after the election.

Sources close to the IOPC investigation said the watchdog was on the verge of announcing its decision on whether it was proceeding with a criminal investigation.

A Dub in Glasgo

'Nine Russian business people who gave money to the Conservative Party are named in a secret intelligence report on the threats posed to UK democracy which was suppressed last week by Downing Street.

Oligarchs and other wealthy Tory donors were included in the report on illicit Russian activities in Britain by the cross-party intelligence and security select committee (ISC), whose publication was blocked by No 10.

Some Russian donors are personally close to the prime minister. Alexander Temerko, who has worked for the Kremlin’s defence ministry and has spoken warmly about his “friend” Boris Johnson, has gifted more than £1.2m to the Conservatives over the past seven years.

MPs on the ISC, which conducted an 18-month inquiry, were also briefed on Alexander Lebedev, the former KGB spy in London whom the last Labour government allowed to buy the London Evening Standard newspaper.

Lebedev’s son Evgeny invited Johnson when he was foreign secretary to parties at the family’s converted castle near Perugia, Italy. The future prime minister apparently travelled without the close-protection police officers that normally accompany senior ministers of state during the trip in April 2018.

The largest Russian Tory donor is Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of Vladimir Chernukhin, a former ally of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. She paid £160,000 in return for a tennis match with Johnson and has donated more than £450,000 in the last year alone.

Britain’s intelligence agencies are understood to be “furious” at the delay in releasing the report because measures to protect sensitive information have already been taken.

It is not known whether the Tory donors are named in the public section of the report, or whether they have been included in its confidential annex, which will remain classified indefinitely.

The government’s argument that it needs more time to redact information has been dismissed by the former cabinet secretary Lord Butler, Lord Ricketts, a former national security adviser, and Lord Anderson, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

Last week, Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, told MPs the delay was “utterly unjustifiable, unprecedented and clearly politically motivated”. She added: “I fear it is because they realise that this report will lead to other questions about the links between Russia and Brexit and the current leadership of the Tory party, which risks derailing their election campaign. What is Downing Street so worried about?”

Thornberry also raised a whistleblower’s claims regarding “relationships” that Johnson’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, made during the “mysterious three years he spent in post-communist Russia”. She said the Downing Street chief of staff allegedly met Vladislav Surkov, who is known as the “grey cardinal” of the Kremlin and has close links to Russia’s security agencies.

In the Commons, Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, said last week that he would not comment on security clearances, but denied the “insinuation” that No 10 was “in the grip of a Kremlin mole”.

In a letter to Thornberry last week, Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, also did not deny the unusual arrangement. “Classified information, especially intelligence, is made available only to those with the appropriate security clearance,” he wrote. “This applies to Mr Cummings and his access is appropriate for someone in his role.”

A Conservative Party spokesman said: “We cannot speculate on what may or may not be in a leaked parliamentary report.”

Andrew Gwynne, a Labour parliamentary candidate, said: “Billionaires fund the Conservative Party, so this sordid cover-up shouldn’t be surprising. The Tories blocked this report and oppose tax transparency so their billionaire backers can continue to rip us off unchallenged.

“Labour is on the side of the many, not the few, so we’ll get dirty money out of politics, introduce an oligarch levy and take on the vested interests selling out our people and public services.”

@TomJHarper'

Letwin_Larry

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

'Nine Russian business people who gave money to the Conservative Party are named in a secret intelligence report on the threats posed to UK democracy which was suppressed last week by Downing Street.

Oligarchs and other wealthy Tory donors were included in the report on illicit Russian activities in Britain by the cross-party intelligence and security select committee (ISC), whose publication was blocked by No 10.

Some Russian donors are personally close to the prime minister. Alexander Temerko, who has worked for the Kremlin’s defence ministry and has spoken warmly about his “friend” Boris Johnson, has gifted more than £1.2m to the Conservatives over the past seven years.

MPs on the ISC, which conducted an 18-month inquiry, were also briefed on Alexander Lebedev, the former KGB spy in London whom the last Labour government allowed to buy the London Evening Standard newspaper.

Lebedev’s son Evgeny invited Johnson when he was foreign secretary to parties at the family’s converted castle near Perugia, Italy. The future prime minister apparently travelled without the close-protection police officers that normally accompany senior ministers of state during the trip in April 2018.

The largest Russian Tory donor is Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of Vladimir Chernukhin, a former ally of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. She paid £160,000 in return for a tennis match with Johnson and has donated more than £450,000 in the last year alone.

Britain’s intelligence agencies are understood to be “furious” at the delay in releasing the report because measures to protect sensitive information have already been taken.

It is not known whether the Tory donors are named in the public section of the report, or whether they have been included in its confidential annex, which will remain classified indefinitely.

The government’s argument that it needs more time to redact information has been dismissed by the former cabinet secretary Lord Butler, Lord Ricketts, a former national security adviser, and Lord Anderson, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

Last week, Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, told MPs the delay was “utterly unjustifiable, unprecedented and clearly politically motivated”. She added: “I fear it is because they realise that this report will lead to other questions about the links between Russia and Brexit and the current leadership of the Tory party, which risks derailing their election campaign. What is Downing Street so worried about?”

Thornberry also raised a whistleblower’s claims regarding “relationships” that Johnson’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, made during the “mysterious three years he spent in post-communist Russia”. She said the Downing Street chief of staff allegedly met Vladislav Surkov, who is known as the “grey cardinal” of the Kremlin and has close links to Russia’s security agencies.

In the Commons, Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, said last week that he would not comment on security clearances, but denied the “insinuation” that No 10 was “in the grip of a Kremlin mole”.

In a letter to Thornberry last week, Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, also did not deny the unusual arrangement. “Classified information, especially intelligence, is made available only to those with the appropriate security clearance,” he wrote. “This applies to Mr Cummings and his access is appropriate for someone in his role.”

A Conservative Party spokesman said: “We cannot speculate on what may or may not be in a leaked parliamentary report.”

Andrew Gwynne, a Labour parliamentary candidate, said: “Billionaires fund the Conservative Party, so this sordid cover-up shouldn’t be surprising. The Tories blocked this report and oppose tax transparency so their billionaire backers can continue to rip us off unchallenged.

“Labour is on the side of the many, not the few, so we’ll get dirty money out of politics, introduce an oligarch levy and take on the vested interests selling out our people and public services.”

@TomJHarper'

STOP PRESS! Russian oligarchs/gangsters try to buy political influence.

Sorry but it's not really much of a scoop is it?
Not much of a revelation, is it.
i believe with enough digging (probably not that much tbh) there is not a party in Western democracies, that Ruski gangsters/Putin has not attempted to influence in some way.

Nothing to be seen here folks. Move on!

Strazdas

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

STOP PRESS! Russian oligarchs/gangsters try to buy political influence.

Sorry but it's not really much of a scoop is it?
Not much of a revelation, is it.
i believe with enough digging (probably not that much tbh) there is not a party in Western democracies, that Ruski gangsters/Putin has not attempted to influence in some way.

Nothing to be seen here folks. Move on!

Context is everything. Why would Putin and Russia want the UK to leave the EU?

And if Brexit is good for Russia, how can that be good for Britain? You admit yourself that Putin is a gangster and a wrong 'un.

Letwin_Larry

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

STOP PRESS! Russian oligarchs/gangsters try to buy political influence.

Sorry but it's not really much of a scoop is it?
Not much of a revelation, is it.
i believe with enough digging (probably not that much tbh) there is not a party in Western democracies, that Ruski gangsters/Putin has not attempted to influence in some way.

Nothing to be seen here folks. Move on!

Wow. That's the biggest apologist excuse I've read here.

Let's see the proof that Russians tried to buy other parties.

I'll be waiting.

Tell me how

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

STOP PRESS! Russian oligarchs/gangsters try to buy political influence.

Sorry but it's not really much of a scoop is it?
Not much of a revelation, is it.
i believe with enough digging (probably not that much tbh) there is not a party in Western democracies, that Ruski gangsters/Putin has not attempted to influence in some way.

Nothing to be seen here folks. Move on!

Do you realise how nonsensical the last statement is if the bit in bold is true?

It's effectively saying, yes, lets have the Russians use illegal practices to influence democracies worldwide, it's not a problem.

HugoRune

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

STOP PRESS! Russian oligarchs/gangsters try to buy political influence.

Sorry but it's not really much of a scoop is it?
Not much of a revelation, is it.
i believe with enough digging (probably not that much tbh) there is not a party in Western democracies, that Ruski gangsters/Putin has not attempted to influence in some way.

Nothing to be seen here folks. Move on!

Surely the situation here (unlike elsewhere) is that the Russians have successfully bought that influence over the Conservatives, and therefore have input in to the decisions of the British government.

Nody

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i think you are a bit confused.

PRE Brexit investment IS lower, according to Mr. Carney. Note he used the words "HAVE BEEN" past tense.

"The Bank believes that businesses have been reluctant to commit to new capital projects due to uncertainty ...
“The level of business investment is 25% below where it would otherwise have been."

that's past tense. ie PRE Brexit.

he reckons business investment will rebound once CERTAINTY in the form of a WA returns. Here is what he said "With a deal I would expect a rebound even though it won’t all come back"

now Mr. Carney might be misinformed and business investment may not rebound at all following a WA. but you know given a choice between the Governor of The Bank of England and a poster on Boards.ie, with the greatest of respect, i think i would take the former.

Once again you are falling over yourself trying to misdirect the quote. Either you believe him which means the investments will be BELOW the non Brexit scenario which means Brexit does drive lower investments in the future as he states or you don't. So which is it; do you believe his claim which means after Brexit has happened the investments will be lower than they would be if Brexit does not happen or not?

listermint

HugoRune wrote: »

Surely the situation here (unlike elsewhere) is that the Russians have successfully bought that influence over the Conservatives, and therefore have input in to the decisions of the British government.

He doesn't care. Yar yar ...something something ...mainstream boo urns. I suspect will be the answer

Leroy42

Letwin_Larry merely shows how much Brexit has corrupted peoples thinking.

Taking back control is the mantra, yet when faced with the probability that a political party is being bought by an foreign government the response is to simply waive it away as normal.

The same has happened in the US where which side you are on is more important than what is right or wrong.

Enzokk

Kwasi Kwarteng here trying to tell us the Tories had time to cost all of the Labour spending pledges at Conference, but didn't have time or will not tell you what their own is. He will not sit there and throw around numbers of Tory spending for the next 5 years, but feels comfortable doing it to the opposition.

https://twitter.com/OFOCBrexit/status/1193461874890878976?s=20

Joe_ Public

That labour costing stuff is just utter bonkers, seems they've just taken every pledge or anything that even vaguely sounded like a pledge and added it all up and probably applied 21% vat because why not? Its like stuff you'd get in a students union election.

Sajid Javid was like a tripped switch on marr, everytime you took your finger off it, he went back talking about labour. Didnt want to talk about his own party at all.

Joe_ Public

Enzokk wrote: »

Kwasi Kwarteng here trying to tell us the Tories had time to cost all of the Labour spending pledges at Conference, but didn't have time or will not tell you what their own is. He will not sit there and throw around numbers of Tory spending for the next 5 years, but feels comfortable doing it to the opposition.

https://twitter.com/OFOCBrexit/status/1193461874890878976?s=20

They didnt just use labour conference, which is misleading because conference doesnt set policy, only aspiration, but they also used the 2017 manifesto which is simply 2 years out of date. Thats fundamentally dishonest and cannot be tolerable. Shouldnt be allowed to get away with this.

looksee

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

STOP PRESS! Russian oligarchs/gangsters try to buy political influence.

Sorry but it's not really much of a scoop is it?
Not much of a revelation, is it.
i believe with enough digging (probably not that much tbh) there is not a party in Western democracies, that Ruski gangsters/Putin has not attempted to influence in some way.

Nothing to be seen here folks. Move on!

You have it backwards, the problem is not with Russia trying to influence etc, but the UK politicians have accepted the invitation. Just because an outside body tries to corrupt a government it does not follow that the government should agree to be corrupted.

This is a useful exercise as it shows that at least some of the people governing are not reliable and gives the electorate the opportunity to reject them.

Danzy

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i'm sorry but you have no way of knowing that. and it sounds like typical anti-American rhetoric you hear from Labour supporters.
of course the US will be seeking the best outcome for themselves, as will the UK. that's just the way it is.
but a good deal is where all sides get something positive. a deal where one side takes all is NOT A GOOD DEAL, and in the longterm probably wont work.

If Johnson wants a comprehensive and radical free market deal that would please the Rees Moggs of his party, he could copy the one America and the EU agreed but Trump shot down upon election.

I doubt a deal like that would get past even the Tory party nevermind the Commons.

fly_agaric

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

'Nine Russian business people who gave money to the Conservative Party are named in a secret intelligence report on the threats posed to UK democracy which was suppressed last week by Downing Street.

Always thought the Conservatives were the party of national security etc vs the dangerous pacifist "Scrap trident"/"terrorist coddling" Labour, but the way they really did very little after Salisbury chemical weapon attack was surprising to me (at the time).
I suppose it is very hard to go after your own donors at the end of the day!

BonnieSituation

Enzokk wrote: »

Kwasi Kwarteng here trying to tell us the Tories had time to cost all of the Labour spending pledges at Conference, but didn't have time or will not tell you what their own is. He will not sit there and throw around numbers of Tory spending for the next 5 years, but feels comfortable doing it to the opposition.

https://twitter.com/OFOCBrexit/status/1193461874890878976?s=20

Tory promises fact checked:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50317404?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/reality_check&link_location=live-reporting-story

woohoo!!!

For the middle of the road average Brit, the choices on offer must be absolutely depressing.

Capt'n Midnight

Joe_ Public wrote: »

That labour costing stuff is just utter bonkers, seems they've just taken every pledge or anything that even vaguely sounded like a pledge and added it all up and probably applied 21% vat because why not? Its like stuff you'd get in a students union election.

And it's still less than a few years of £40Bn a year now and another £70Bn a year later on loss to the UK economy because of Brexit. And you can add tens of billions on top of this for the Tory increased spending promises.

It's crazy to think that the conservative party is planning to borrow so they can spend more while their economic policy is to shrink the economy.

Short of a miracle Tory policy can only result in HUGE cuts to service and or HUGE hikes in taxes in the near future. It's crazy. Compared to "Spend, spend spend" , "tax and spend" sounds sensible

It's like the conservatives are using Fianna Fail tactics to buy votes.

Letwin_Larry

woohoo!!! wrote: »

For the middle of the road average Brit, the choices on offer must be absolutely depressing.

especially with all these daft conspiracy theories doing the rounds.
i mean i like John La Carré books as much as the next guy but ....

CelticRambler

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Sajid Javid was like a tripped switch on marr, everytime you took your finger off it, he went back talking about labour. Didnt want to talk about his own party at all.

This is Trump2016 all over again - every time the Republicans were pinned down on any of their own promises, they reacted with "but Hilary's email, secret server, burn the witch!"

The current Brexiter justification for being optimistic about the speed with which they'll get a FTA signed by the end of the Transition Period is that they're starting from a point of perfect alignment with the EU. Technically, that might be correct in respect to the many EU directives transcribed into UK law, but politically - at least as far as the Tories/BrexitParty are concerned, they're already well along the road to perfect alignment with the worst US practices.

Now I know that current sentiment in Ireland is "we know what side our bread is buttered on" but I do wonder how vulnerable Ireland's electorate might be in a post-Brexit world. We've seen on this thread how our status as "the only English speaking country in the EU" is seen as a selling point; but from my position of exile amongst non-English speakers, I see an awful lot of American influence in ordinary Irish life - forces against which we on the continent are somewhat insulated because of the language barrier.

Capt'n Midnight

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Tory promises fact checked:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50317404?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/reality_check&link_location=live-reporting-story

No mention of how they built ZERO houses out of a promised 200,000 that £2.3Bn was set aside for.


Boris Johnson repeated his claim that Labour: "have a deranged plan to spend £196bn... on renationalisation".
Even if true the worst case is there's a 30% premium paid for the assets, so you'd have £151Bn of assets and there'd be only £45B spaffed up the wall.
(you know Brexit is bad when it's "only" £45Bn in a worst case scenario )


Meanwhile Tries have a deranged plan that is taking £40Bn out of the economy every year.

Joe_ Public

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No mention of how they built ZERO houses out of a promised 200,000 that £2.3Bn was set aside for.


Boris Johnson repeated his claim that Labour: "have a deranged plan to spend £196bn... on renationalisation".
Even if true the worst case is there's a 30% premium paid for the assets, so you'd have £151Bn of assets and there'd be only £45B spaffed up the wall.
(you know Brexit is bad when it's "only" £45Bn in a worst case scenario )


Meanwhile Tries have a deranged plan that is taking £40Bn out of the economy every year.

I shouldn't have bothered but i did check to see of the tories had added that 196bn to their labour costing plans. Of course they did. This despite the fact that not only did many economists dispute the figure but the cbi, which came up with it, had to issue a clarification acknowledging they hadnt done their sums right.

You're right when you said earlier about them copying the US campaigning model right now, who can get away with the biggest lies without any consequences whatsoever. Think there will have to be a reckoning on all this pretty soon if they dont want it to get out of hand, maybe another leveson is needed.