Jenny1

Yep. Nausea would seem an appropriate response. On the timeline thoughts above. I know there have been differing views on how 'sacrosanct' UK participation in the EU elections in May is. Suggestions have been made that some kind of compromise, allowing for non-participation, could be reached if the UK were engaged in a referendum on the WA or a GE in the interim. This would mean that an extension to A50 beyond May 23rd would become possible. However there does seem to have been a hardening of legal views recently to suggest that the EU Parliament would not be legally constituted in these circumstances.

It's based on a letter from Juncker to Tusk yesterday saying that Brexit must be wrapped up by the time of European Elections in May. This suggests there may be flexibility for an extension up to that point (on basis of something substantial being done in the UK to justify it presumably). Although clearly both EU and UK side would see a longer extension as being more helpful the assumption is that UK politicians aren't ready to do what would be necessary to achieve that longer extension - ie participate in EU parliamentary elections in May.

I don't think so. I suspect this is just another phase in the ongoing war of attrition. This potential timeline (see below) seems like a probable outcome. If it's correct then TM is only aiming to peel off a few more Withdrawal Agreement opponents today, knowing that she can hold a larger gun to everyone's heads as May 24th approaches, and thus get the WA passed at that point. I see reports that approx 13 previous Tory refuseniks are already indicating they'll be backing her in the vote this evening. https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/03/12/no-fudge-no-unicorns-may-s-new-deal-is-total-failure

No. And any extension beyond May 24th will be on condition that we take part in European elections. It's been clear for a while that that would be necessary if we wanted more time, but too few MPs are awake to this fact. But then, too few of them are awake, full stop. Edited to correct date - that should be May 23rd ofcourse.

...not that you'd know that from the current 'breaking' BBC headline. Do your job, people!

Cox's substantive view is that 'the legal risk remains unchanged'.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenny1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I have to admit Robster (as we're getting > > informal) that my main source of information on > > the effects of all of this on business comes > from > > friends who manage a high spec, but reasonably > > small engineering company in the West Midlands. > > They, of course, have been trading > internationally > > for decades and have found EU membership of > great > > benefit. Which sectors are your friends who say > > Brexit has been beneficial working in? > > I've PM'd you. I'm afraid I don't communicate via PM on the forum on 'hot topics', Robbin, for reasons which I'm sure you'll understand, so will delete your message unread.

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... my main source of information on > the effects of all of this on business... ...aside from the CBI stats of course...

..and when I say 'internationally' I do of course mean to the US, India and China AND the EU.

I have to admit Robster (as we're getting informal) that my main source of information on the effects of all of this on business comes from friends who manage a high spec, but reasonably small engineering company in the West Midlands. They, of course, have been trading internationally for decades and have found EU membership of great benefit. Which sectors are your friends who say Brexit has been beneficial working in?

I certainly agree that we needed, and didn't get, a proper national discussion on this issue. But then we didn't get a proper national discussion on any of the issues related to Brexit. As I've said - at rather tedious length - before, I think that was because the referendum was not called by Cameron in a genuine spirit of 'OK, let's roll up our sleeves and dig deep into the UK's relationship with the EU'. In other words we had nothing like the citizens' assemblies that promoted thorough public debate prior to the referendum on abortion in Ireland. I would have a slightly different starting point on this issue though. Historical antipathy to immigration in the UK isn't unique to this country. What is noticeable is that most cultures become more 'anti immigrant' - sometimes to an extreme degree - at times of economic downturn (like the crash of 2007-8). When people's backs are against the wall, it's human nature to turn on outsiders. And, if allowed to fester, that promotes racism, discrimination and everything hideous that goes with it. But, as the latest LSE report on immigration has shown (and it's not the only one), the big fall in wages post 2008 is due to the global financial crisis and the weak economic recovery that followed it, not immigration. So, while I agree that we need to pull all the available data on immigration out into the open so that people can examine and debate it, we also need to acknowledge that there's a very long history globally, not just in the UK, of scapegoating immigrants for economic problems which are really down to poor government management. And if we're not clear about that, we allow politicians to cynically use anti-immigrant sentiment to distract us from their own culpability.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The irony being that those parts of the country > which are worst off will stand to lose the most > under Brexit. > > The City has made sure it?s ok, so that?s all the > govt cates about. > > The South West, North East and parts of Wales etc > aren?t going to see improvements. The money from > the Stronger Towns fund comes nowhere near > matching what they would?ve got under the EU. But > then they say they medium term pain is worth it. > > They will see in the long term that nothing > changes. As I keep saying, the problems those > areas face are long-term, systemic issues, nothing > to do with the EU. There?s a debate to be had > about immigration for sure, but the decline of > those parts of the U.K. has far more to do with > the policies of successive govts since the 80?s > than anything decided in Brussels. > > But it?s so much easier to hear ?Take Back > Control!? isn?t it? Not that Leave ever defined > what that actually meant, because then they > would?ve had to live up to a promise. Yes, I'd broadly agree with that assessment. I wouldn't go along the implication that our immigration policy needs to change though. Every report I've seen on immigration makes it clear that it's of economic benefit. What we need is politicians with the guts to say so, rather than this lily-livered bunch who pander to counter-factual 'fears'. As to the wider economic picture. If our politicians (both male and female) remain unable to locate their 'cojones' and Brexit does go ahead then yes, already deprived areas will be the hardest hit.

...and of course when I say 'I doubt there are any' - I mean 'I doubt there are any politicians', because I KNOW there aren't any benefits....

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Money,borders and laws is the PMs mantra.If you've > ever had a breakdown of where your taxes have been > spent, the amount on the EU is miniscule. > Borders...UK chose not to implement laws regarding > EU citizens already in place. Immigration is > larger from outside EU anyway. Laws, oh > yeah...bananas. Yes. I think that's a fair assessment of her priorities. It would be interesting to try and identify any politicians who actually believe that Brexit will lead to any benefit for the average UK citizen. I doubt there are any. I think you can categorise pro-Brexit MPs broadly as follows. There's the Johnson/Gove types who never really believed in it as a project, only as an opportunistic mechanism for their own advancement, but were savvy enough to see from an early stage just how far it might promote their careers. Then there's the Rees-Mogg/Liam Fox types who actively want to tank the economy so they can profit from the ensuing fire sale and build a purer form of capitalism and shrink the welfare state to almost nothing. And perhaps the biggest group now are the MPs who are just scared of saying 'no' to the project for fear it will jeopardise their careers.

What I would question k77 is why we're planning on tanking our economy by leaving the EU, thus leaving us with much less cash to pay for public services for the foreseeable future.

Ah. So what was your point, Robbin?

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I think Jenny just missed my point. Did I Robbin? I suspect not. Your point seemed to be that UK contributions to the EU could only be classified as having benefited the UK if they led to the same amount, or more, money being paid by the EU to deprived areas of the UK. You did not appear to understand that the main economic benefit to the UK of EU membership, and of making these payments, lies in giving our businesses access to the largest free market in the world. Any EU grants for deprived areas of the UK are an added bonus, not the economic 'point' of the exercise.

JohnL Wrote: -------------------------- > Grayling would be sacked under normal > circumstances in my view. > May is coming out with statements (like there's no > link between police numbers and violent attacks) > which are just nonsensical and I can't see them > being made in normal times. Yes. Grayling only keeps his job because he's a Brexit supporting May loyalist. There are precious few of those, and May will hang on to anyone she can find who falls into that camp. Grayling certainly wouldn't still be in cabinet if Brexit hadn't completely swamped the political landscape, putting all other considerations aside. I think May talking nonsense on police numbers and violent crime also, as you suggest, relates to the 'Brexit skewed' political climate. I see the connection as being twofold. Firstly May approaches all issues in the same way she does Brexit. She just repeats meaningless guff endlessly and glassily deflects any rational contributions to the debate. Secondly we effectively have no opposition party at the moment (partly due to Corbyn's own lack of interest in Brexit, the only political show in town). This means May can say any old rubbish about anything and expect precious little cogent come-back in the commons.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > and now the media spotlight is off Honda, of > course Brexit was a factor in their closure. > https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/21/h > onda-european-chief-outlined-no-deal-brexit-concer > ns-in-2018 Absolutely. I think many people commented at the time that it's not savvy for international businesses to overtly criticise any political policies in countries in which they invest. What would be the economic benefit in that? I think one would have to be unusually blinkered not to understand what was going on though.

Robbin. I thought you were involved in banking or business of some sort and would therefore have a clearer idea about how the UK's contributions to the EU allow us to access the benefits of trade that it offers, thus enhancing the profits of our businesses? That's where the real financial benefits lie. The fact that deprived areas of the UK also receive EU investment (much more than any UK government is ever likely to invest, and certainly not this one) is an added bonus.

..

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've said many a time - this country just doesn't > get referendums > > The idea that a narrow vote, involving illegal > money and a massive upheaval to this country (and > many others) has exactly the same mandate 3 years > on after everyone involved has buggered off is for > the birds (or, the willfully stubborn) Indeed. Which I think simply reinforces the point, made earlier, that the referendum was never a serious attempt to fully explore the UK's place in or out of the EU. There was no proper presentation and debate of different models for the future shape of the country informing a specific option on the ballot paper (which, as Alan Medic raises above, would have been required in Canadian law). Again, at the risk of repeating myself, if you'd wanted to do the job properly you'd probaby have started with the 'citizen council' model which informed the deep and prolonged debate over abortion in Ireland. But I don't think anyone would mistake Cameron for a serious man. He was simply attempting a quick fix to his own internal party rifts.

I've picked up some of the best maps to Italian cities on arrival at the airport - but I suppose there's no guarantee you'll necessarily find them.

And of course Alan, I meant people with 'deeper and more historical understanding' than me - I wasn't casting aspersions on your own knowledge.

I'm interested in historical perspectives if people have them, as context is always helpful. I don't think it's that useful to go back to anything prior to the nineteenth century.