INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3781 Postby Alan H » September 27th, 2018, 7:05 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? No-deal Brexit 'would stop British farming exports for six months'
The National Farmers Union has warned of “catastrophic” consequences for the industry if there is no Brexit deal, after being warned by the EU that the UK faces a six-month wait to be certified as an approved third-country supplier.

This would be a major setback to the food and drink sector, where exports to the EU are worth £13.2bn a year.

The NFU says it has been told informally that although Britain is in complete regulatory alignment with the EU, if there is no deal, the same health checks countries such as China and the US undergo will apply to UK suppliers.

“What we are talking about in effect is a six-month trade embargo until such time we can get the product in, from that point we will face the European’s external tariff wall meaning we will be priced out of the market,” said the NFU’s director general, Terry Jones.

It has been told that 6,000 meat processing plants that export to the EU will have to undergo individual audits by British authorities.

These will then be checked by EU officials and then put to a standing veterinary committee for approval, a process that the NFU has calculated will take six months “at a conservative reading”.

These checks will also be conducted on any other companies supplying food and drink to the EU, including those exporting bottled water, honey, jam, dairy and other fresh foods.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3782 Postby Alan H » September 28th, 2018, 12:12 pm

Ian Dunt's Friday email:
Week in Review: Johnson's emperor-has-no-clothes Brexit

Another week, another intervention by Boris Johnson, this one intended to damage the prime minister as much as possible before the bloodbath that is Tory conference. A piece in today's Telegraph outlines his plan for a SuperCanada (he really calls it that) deal.

The proposals are chiefly remarkable for how garbled and confused they are, even on their own terms. He seems to be trying to show that the hard Brexiters have an alternate plan to Chequers, but in reality only demonstrates that he does not grasp even very basic concepts about the Brexit process.

Chief among these is the transition period, which Johnson wants to sabotage and retain simultaneously. It is a passage of very high-function doublethink, where he occasionally condemns ideas which he has promoted within the very same sentence.

The definition of transition is that nothing changes. It is a time extension mechanism, continuing the existing relationship while talks are conducted. He brands this "humiliating", but then shortly afterwards says it is "necessary to buy some time". How would we do that? Well, transition of course. But a transition that he then goes on to attack as "redundant".

It is "necessary" and "redundant" at the same time, in the very same moment. He can use it to show he has a plan and attack it as evidence of surrender within the same thought. It is a kind of perpetual Brexit motion machine, proposing things and condemning them as betrayal without the need for an external energy source.

The transition is in the withdrawal agreement, along with the £40bn divorce payment Johnson says we have agreed to pay for "nothing in return". Well, not quite. Elsewhere he admits "we will need it".

We now have to renegotiate it, removing all the bits we don't like before March next year. He does not offer any suggestions about what we would offer the EU in exchange for this.

Johnson's comments on Ireland are revealingly angry and spiteful. Although he was part of the government which promised it would not allow Brexit to cause any damage on the island, he seems to resent the way this has gotten in the way of his project.

He suggests the UK should have offered an "unobtrusive soft customs border in Northern Ireland", but instead we agreed there would be "no need for checks of any kind". This is quite a revealing passage. It is a significant downgrade from what was pledged to Ireland. It shows that Johnson's chief annoyance is that Britain did not break its promise.

It is also a validation of the EU decision to put the joint EU-UK promise of no border infrastructure in the legal document, rather than a broader political one. It made sure people like Johnson were forced to actually do what they said they'd do. Of course, he chose to resign instead.

Elsewhere we get the standard insistence of high-tech solutions to the border issue. There is "plenty of evidence from around the world" about how to do it. In fact, there is one striking piece of evidence from around the world: all customs borders have checks, no matter how closely aligned or sophisticated they are.

Whenever anyone writes about the borders you're always waiting for the line where they just admit that they'd stop searching lorries. It always comes eventually. In Johnson's case it arrives about halfway through when he suggests - incredible euphemism, this - a "sensible and pragmatic attitude to very local trade".

After an entire piece trying to wriggle his way out of the promises made on Ireland, Johnson then insists that "our EU friends" should agree to remove the Irish backstop from the withdrawal agreement and that we'll sort it out after Brexit. But don't worry, "both sides are committed to avoiding a hard border". The idea that anyone would believe him at this stage is preposterous.

Most of the rest of the paper is the standard basic error-strewn chuntering with which we've become so despairingly familiar. He attacks EU regulations as hurting the UK economy, demands we leave single market requirements on state aid and social and environmental law, and then, without blinking, insists we'll be able to "negotiate membership of the EU's aviation area" - a key part of the single market. The cake is stale and old but he scoffs it down anyway.

Johnson's fundamental failure to understand the single market remains the same today as it was at the start of sorry spectacle. He believes you can stuff a single market in services into a free trade agreement. In fact, the single market in services works because of precisely the thing he detests: shared regulations.

It is just lies upon lies upon lies, interspersed occasionally with a welp of anger at the fact that the EU is not allowing more lies to solve the problems created by the first lot. This isn't a plan. It is not even the idea of a plan. It is just a shriek of entitlement. His chief accomplishment is to make even the prime minister look good.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3783 Postby Alan H » September 28th, 2018, 4:22 pm

One of 'em experts...

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6478
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3784 Postby animist » September 29th, 2018, 12:02 pm

I suppose even I cling to the apparent impossibility that Brexit No-deal could lead to Britain's isolation in terms of transport. But that is part of the problem - anything that could happen will happen if nothing is done about it:
www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/201 ... ound-our-a

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3785 Postby Alan H » September 29th, 2018, 12:15 pm

A thread on Twitter from Patrick Kielty explaining Ireland to the reality-challenged Johnson: https://twitter.com/PatricKielty/status ... 1816708096

Dear @BorisJohnson,
There is no better Brexit when it comes to the Good Friday Agreement and Northern Ireland. As you still seem bamboozled by all this Paddywackery here’s a few pointers for your next stab in the dark -

My plan for a better Brexit https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... er-brexit/

Boris Johnson: My plan for a better Brexit


As we come now to the final months of the Brexit negotiations we are arriving, at last, at the moment of truth.

1. Northern Ireland is made up of a majority of Unionists (as in the Conservative and Unionist Party) and, believe it or not, a rather large minority of Nationalists (as in Irish Nationalists)
2. These Irish Nationalists don’t see themselves as British but rather inconveniently as Irish (who knew?)
3. For over 30 years we killed each other because of these differences which means Northern Ireland is nothing like Camden or Westminster.
4. The Good Friday Agreement ended that violence by the following devious magic -
Unionists were guaranteed that Northern Ireland would be part of the UK until the majority voted otherwise.
The Irish was border was removed and the island linked so Nationalists could pretend they were already living in a United Ireland (yes, Tony Blair did slight of hand much better than you)
5. Some of these Nationalists then accepted being part of the UK as their day to day lives were essentially Irish.
6. This cunning plan was sold to us on the basis that we were all part of the EU therefore fixation on nationality was so last World War.
7. Implementing the Good Friday Agreement was torturous (think Brexit with actual bombs, not metaphorical suicide vests) but we finally made peace. Yet 20 years later NI remains a divided society.
8. Thanks to your glorious Brexit vision Northern Ireland will become more divided as some form of economic border checks will become part of daily lives.
9. If those checks take place between NI and Ireland, the Nationalists who were once happy being part of the UK will change their mind.
10. If they take place in the Irish Sea some Unionists will be livid. However they'll still support being part of the UK (the clue is in the Unionist bit)
11. Your Brexit lies have opened a Pandora’s box for Northern Ireland. It's one reason why the majority of people in NI voted to remain in the EU (almost as if they knew more about the fragile equilibrium of their politics than you)
12. Barely mentioned before Brexit, a border poll is now inevitable thanks to your monumental ignorance.
13. When that poll is eventually held the Nationalists who were once content being part of a Northern Ireland within the UK and EU will vote to leave the UK to feel as Irish and European as they did before Brexit.
14. The poll will be much closer thanks to your Brexit folly and could easily be lost by Unionists, breaking up the UK.
15. Any break up of the Union will be your fault (a tad inconvenient as a member of the Conservative and er, Unionist party)
16. The EU is not responsible for your blundering lack of foresight. Like most people in Northern Ireland they were happy with the status quo.
17. By the time the penny drops that you can’t preserve the Union you want without the one you don’t, it will be too late.
18. You will be remembered not as the Churchillian visionary you delude yourself to be but the ignoramus who triggered the break up of the UK.
19. If there’s any justice all this will come to pass when you're Prime Minister so you can finally swim in the constitutional sewage you've created (though we all know you’ll be in Nice with your trotters up)
20. Meantime, if you’re so concerned about keeping Northern Ireland totally aligned with the rest of the UK where’s your support for our same sex marriage and women’s right to choose? Your silence is deafening.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6478
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3786 Postby animist » September 29th, 2018, 12:33 pm

Alan H wrote:A thread on Twitter from Patrick Kielty explaining Ireland to the reality-challenged Johnson: https://twitter.com/PatricKielty/status ... 1816708096

Dear @BorisJohnson,
There is no better Brexit when it comes to the Good Friday Agreement and Northern Ireland. As you still seem bamboozled by all this Paddywackery here’s a few pointers for your next stab in the dark -

My plan for a better Brexit https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... er-brexit/

Boris Johnson: My plan for a better Brexit


As we come now to the final months of the Brexit negotiations we are arriving, at last, at the moment of truth.

1. Northern Ireland is made up of a majority of Unionists (as in the Conservative and Unionist Party) and, believe it or not, a rather large minority of Nationalists (as in Irish Nationalists)
2. These Irish Nationalists don’t see themselves as British but rather inconveniently as Irish (who knew?)
3. For over 30 years we killed each other because of these differences which means Northern Ireland is nothing like Camden or Westminster.
4. The Good Friday Agreement ended that violence by the following devious magic -
Unionists were guaranteed that Northern Ireland would be part of the UK until the majority voted otherwise.
The Irish was border was removed and the island linked so Nationalists could pretend they were already living in a United Ireland (yes, Tony Blair did slight of hand much better than you)
5. Some of these Nationalists then accepted being part of the UK as their day to day lives were essentially Irish.
6. This cunning plan was sold to us on the basis that we were all part of the EU therefore fixation on nationality was so last World War.
7. Implementing the Good Friday Agreement was torturous (think Brexit with actual bombs, not metaphorical suicide vests) but we finally made peace. Yet 20 years later NI remains a divided society.
8. Thanks to your glorious Brexit vision Northern Ireland will become more divided as some form of economic border checks will become part of daily lives.
9. If those checks take place between NI and Ireland, the Nationalists who were once happy being part of the UK will change their mind.
10. If they take place in the Irish Sea some Unionists will be livid. However they'll still support being part of the UK (the clue is in the Unionist bit)
11. Your Brexit lies have opened a Pandora’s box for Northern Ireland. It's one reason why the majority of people in NI voted to remain in the EU (almost as if they knew more about the fragile equilibrium of their politics than you)
12. Barely mentioned before Brexit, a border poll is now inevitable thanks to your monumental ignorance.
13. When that poll is eventually held the Nationalists who were once content being part of a Northern Ireland within the UK and EU will vote to leave the UK to feel as Irish and European as they did before Brexit.
14. The poll will be much closer thanks to your Brexit folly and could easily be lost by Unionists, breaking up the UK.
15. Any break up of the Union will be your fault (a tad inconvenient as a member of the Conservative and er, Unionist party)
16. The EU is not responsible for your blundering lack of foresight. Like most people in Northern Ireland they were happy with the status quo.
17. By the time the penny drops that you can’t preserve the Union you want without the one you don’t, it will be too late.
18. You will be remembered not as the Churchillian visionary you delude yourself to be but the ignoramus who triggered the break up of the UK.
19. If there’s any justice all this will come to pass when you're Prime Minister so you can finally swim in the constitutional sewage you've created (though we all know you’ll be in Nice with your trotters up)
20. Meantime, if you’re so concerned about keeping Northern Ireland totally aligned with the rest of the UK where’s your support for our same sex marriage and women’s right to choose? Your silence is deafening.
this in itself should, but won't be, enough, to deter Brexiters

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3787 Postby Alan H » September 29th, 2018, 1:02 pm

animist wrote:this in itself should, but won't be, enough, to deter Brexiters
Is that, do you think, because they are blind, ignorant, don't care, incapable of understanding simple ideas... or what?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6478
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3788 Postby animist » September 29th, 2018, 1:15 pm

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:this in itself should, but won't be, enough, to deter Brexiters
Is that, do you think, because they are blind, ignorant, don't care, incapable of understanding simple ideas... or what?
a bit of each - but they will care if it happens. I think Cameron and Osborne deserve a lot of blame, not merely for gambling our future on this silly vote, but for exaggerating the immediate results of a Leave vote. The Leavers have capitalised on this just so so much over the intervening period, exploiting the natural reluctance of companies to make the uncertainty of Brexit a guiding force in their decisions. Well, now the "crying wolf" story, which I think is an especially apt one for Brexit, is near its climax: either the wolf will not appear, in which case, OK, we Remoaners will have to cave in a bit, or it will appear, in which, total shit happens. The real story of Brexit is that, as Ian Dunt has said, most Brits just do not understand the nature of the EU: all they get is its undoubted venial weaknesses, not the principles on which it operates. Wish I could get this over to my local Brexiteer friends

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3789 Postby Alan H » September 29th, 2018, 2:07 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? No-deal Brexit 'could halt production at UK Toyota plants'
Toyota has said that production at its UK factories would be disrupted for weeks or maybe months if Theresa May failed to strike a Brexit deal.

The Japanese car manufacturer is the latest in a list of foreign car companies to say there could be temporary stoppages and maybe even job losses if there are checks at Dover and Calais as a result of no deal.

“My view is that if Britain crashes out of the EU at the end of March we will see production stops in our factory,” Marvin Cooke, the managing director at the firm’s plant in Burnaston, near Derby, told the BBC.
Cooke said Toyota was looking at its options for storage but said checks and delays would add costs to the bottom line permanently.

“It would reduce our competitiveness. Sadly, that would reduce the number of cars made in the UK and that would cost jobs.”

Last week Honda said it would look to stockpile some components as a contingency. Earlier this month JLR announced that 2,000 staff would move to a three-day week at its Castle Bromwich plant just hours after it was accused of “scaremongering” by a hard Brexiter MP.

BMW announced it was planning to shut its Oxfordshire plant for a month to minimise the impact of a no-deal Brexit that it fears would cause a shortage of parts.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3790 Postby Alan H » September 29th, 2018, 4:12 pm

It's not looking good for the Tories technological solution to the Brexit border problems, is it, when they can't even make a simple conference app without fucking it up with a major breach of all basic security rules and the Data Protection Act: Senior Tory MPs' phone numbers exposed in Conservative Conference app flaw
A major security flaw in the official Conservative Party Conference app has been uncovered, which allowed anyone to access and change the personal details of ministers, MPs and all other attendees.

The app did not require a password to access attendees' accounts, making it possible to access the email addresses and mobile phone numbers of Chancellor Philip Hammond and former foreign secretary Boris Johnson.

Anybody could type in an attendee's email address - MP's are available on the parliament website - to access their profile.

Sky News has found that it was also possible to change the photos and details of cabinet members, MPs, journalists and local councillors attending conference in Birmingham.

Environment secretary Michael Gove's picture was reportedly changed to one of Rupert Murdoch, and his email to a fictional Sun newspaper address.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3791 Postby Alan H » September 30th, 2018, 1:42 am

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit costing Britain £500m a week and rising, says report
Brexit is already costing the public purse £500m a week, new research has found – a stark contrast to the £350m “dividend” promised by the Leave campaign. The Centre for European Reform’s analysis also suggests that the government’s austerity drive would be on the way to completion had Britain voted to stay in the European Union.

It shows that the UK economy is already 2.5% smaller than it would have been had Remain won the referendum. Public finances have been dented by £26bn a year, more than half of the defence budget. This translates to a penalty of £500m a week, a figure that is growing.

The stark finding comes as the Tory conference begins in Birmingham, with Theresa May’s premiership under severe strain. The prime minister faces competing proposals from cabinet ministers over how she should resolve the Brexit impasse with the EU.

The febrile conference coincides with explosive claims that the boss of one UK-based carmaker has been flown by private jet to meet President Emmanuel Macron, in an attempt to persuade the company to move manufacturing to France after Brexit.

Carolyn Fairbairn, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, told the Observer this development was a sign of the economic damage Britain faces from the wrong Brexit deal.

While some cabinet ministers are pushing for a loose, Canada-style trade deal, support is growing in May’s ministerial team and on her backbenches for a deal under which Britain would stay closely tied to the EU for a limited period.

May is being warned that for some businesses a Canada-style deal is little better than crashing out of the EU with no agreement in place. Fairbairn said that companies were already acting to minimise the impact of trade friction at Britain’s borders.

“Among car manufacturers, we have heard of one CEO who has been flown out on private jets to meet Macron about relocating his entire business,” she said. “You have got tens of millions being spent by firms on preparing for friction at borders.

“One of the reasons that the government’s proposals are on the right track is that they will mean no friction at borders. This is what the Canada deal does not do. It does not do it in some really fundamental ways. For some of our members, it is not much better than a no-deal outcome.”

A YouGov poll of 1,000 entrepreneurs and chief executives, carried out by the People’s Vote for another referendum, suggests the Tories risk denting their pro-business reputation over the handling of the Brexit talks. Almost three-quarters (73%) believe Britain is heading for a bad deal. Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, said it suggested the party was “jeopardising its reputation for economic competence with the business community as a result of the way Brexit has unfolded”.

Meanwhile, Britain’s wealthiest funder of independent scientific research, the Wellcome Trust, says it is losing patience with the government. Writing in the Observer, the trust’s director states that in common with industry and universities, his organisation – which spends more than £1bn a year on medical research – is increasingly nervous.

“No deal would leave a void on access to funding, regulation and, critically, migration,” Farrar states. “Wellcome … wants to support researchers, wherever they are from, in order to tackle the greatest global health challenges. But if the conditions and the culture here are damaged that will affect our support. It is not unconditional.”

The CER thinktank’s model on the costs of Brexit examined its impact up until the end of June. It said the findings were a central estimate that contained a margin of error. Researchers created a model of how Britain’s economy would have performed had Remain won in June 2016. An earlier estimate in the summer suggested that Britain’s economy was 2.1% smaller than it would have been by the end of the first quarter of 2018. As it has developed its model and updated it for the second quarter of 2018, the gap has grown.

The model also suggests that had Britain not voted to leave, the deficit would be down to just 0.1% of GDP, or £2bn. It would mean the austerity drive in place since 2010 would be all but complete.

And we've not left yet...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3792 Postby Alan H » September 30th, 2018, 11:56 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3793 Postby Alan H » September 30th, 2018, 12:14 pm

We clearly wouldn't be in this Brexitshambles if David Davis had been in charge of the negiat... oh, wait! 'We need a more robust approach': David Davis unleashes criticism of Brexit negotiations
Now he has unleashed a previously pent-up stream of criticism of Mrs May’s advisers, describing a failure to adequately grasp the “practicalities” of the negotiations, and tendencies to believe EU claims “that are simply exaggerations” and “quail” in front of arguments from Brussels.

Downing Street’s response to the alternative Brexit plan backed by Mr Davis and Boris Johnson last week was to insist that the proposals, a free-trade agreement modelled on the EU arrangement with Canada, would break up the UK. May loyalists in government have taken to the airwaves to voice the same claim since the Prime Minister’s own plan was knocked back by EU leaders in Salzburg earlier this month.

You couldn't make this up. The Tories are still fighting themselves - to the death (hopefully).
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6478
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3794 Postby animist » September 30th, 2018, 12:47 pm

Alan H wrote: You couldn't make this up. The Tories are still fighting themselves - to the death (hopefully).
or to our country's death as a rational, respected and prosperous nation

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3795 Postby Alan H » September 30th, 2018, 12:54 pm

You couldn't make this up part le deux: Theresa May proposes £120m festival to celebrate Brexit
The prime minister has announced plans for a “festival of Brexit Britain” in a bid to quieten discontent from MPs at the start of Tory party conference.

The bizarre proposal - which is already earmarked to cost £120m – is said to have been inspired by the 1851 Great Exhibition during Queen Victoria’s reign, and also the post-war festival of Britain in 1951.

The prime minister has said the event would take place as the country goes through a period of “national renewal” as the UK looks to a future outside of the European Union.

May has claimed that the festival would showcase the best of the UK’s talent in business, technology, arts and sport, and hopes events will take place in every region, even those that voted against Brexit.

The Tories are hoping the 2022 event will also take place ahead of the next scheduled general election – although it is thought an election could take place much sooner.


Made me think of this: Winter Wonderland attraction branded a 'rip off' and 'shambles' after customers complain there was no Santa

screenshot-www.telegraph.co.uk-2018.09.30-12-53-21.png
screenshot-www.telegraph.co.uk-2018.09.30-12-53-21.png (795.15 KiB) Viewed 674 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6478
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3796 Postby animist » September 30th, 2018, 1:31 pm

Alan H wrote:You couldn't make this up part le deux: Theresa May proposes £120m festival to celebrate Brexit
it won't happen, cannot do surely. Even if the country is not in total chaos by the time of the planned festival, staging such would provoke enormous wrecking protests

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3797 Postby Alan H » September 30th, 2018, 5:55 pm

There are no depths to this idiot's stupidity and lack of self-awareness: Theresa May announces Festival of Great Britain and NI plan
The government has announced plans for a Festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take place in 2022.

The proposal was unveiled as the Conservatives gathered in Birmingham for their annual party conference.

Prime Minister Theresa May said the festival will strengthen what she describes as "our precious union".

On Sunday, she defended her approach to Brexit, after former foreign secretary Boris Johnson labelled her plan for leaving the EU as "deranged".

Mrs May has said those who refuse to back the Chequers plan for Brexit are "playing politics".

NI centenary not mentioned

The Festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is described as a "nationwide festival in celebration of the creativity and innovation of the United Kingdom".

Downing Street said it will mark the anniversary of a number of events.

However, the centenary of the creation of Northern Ireland in 2021 was not specified on their list.

Downing Street described the nationwide festival as a "unique event" that echoes the 1851 Great Exhibition and will take place 70 years after the 1951 Festival of Britain.

"Just as millions of Britons celebrated their nation's great achievements in 1951, we want to showcase what makes our country great today," said Mrs May.

The festival is due to begin four months before the next scheduled general election, but Boris Johnson has refused to say that Mrs May should lead the Conservatives into their next Westminster campaign, whether that happens in 2022 or much sooner.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3798 Postby Alan H » October 1st, 2018, 10:23 pm

It's 179 days till Brexit and this is a conversation between Andrew Marr and Prime Idiot-in-chief:

DoXEV4VXoAAU2jB.jpg
DoXEV4VXoAAU2jB.jpg (143.69 KiB) Viewed 614 times


Strong and Stable. And clueless.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3799 Postby Alan H » October 1st, 2018, 10:25 pm

But, lo! There is a technological solution to the self-inflicted border problems after all: Blockchain may resolve Irish border Brexit problem: Hammond

Utterly clueless. It's as stupid as saying we'll get exporters/importers to write everything down in a big ledger.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3800 Postby Alan H » October 1st, 2018, 11:22 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3801 Postby Alan H » October 2nd, 2018, 11:10 am

We won't compromise our principles to rescue the Tory party from Brexit, Guy Verhofstadt warns Theresa May
The European Parliament’s Brexit chief has warned Theresa May that the EU will not abandon its principles to “rescue” her party from a looming disaster of its own making.

Speaking to MEPs on Tuesday Guy Verhofstadt rejected Boris Johnson’s suggestion that talks should be extended, arguing that “enough mess has been created” by Brexit already.

“Let’s stop it,” he said, branding the actions of some Tories in recent weeks “insane”.

Mr Verhofstadt also rejected Sajid Javid’s proposals on immigration controls after Brexit, warning that “will never accept discrimination based on skills and nationality, as Mr Javid this morning proposed”.

He also criticised the Conservative party for being unable to come up with a common position on “the mess of Brexit” years after it had called the referendum.

“We will never undermine the principles of the European project to rescue a political party who is not even capable to find a common line on the mess of Brexit,” he finally told MEPs.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests