Brexit View

[JoeLeg]

The thing is that if we don?t present an alternative by 23:00 on 29/03/19, we crash out with No Deal regardless, so ironically both sides now have something to play brinkmanship over.

May is gambling that enough people are fearful of No Deal and will vote for something - anything - else to avoid it.

The ERG and it?s pals will now be gambling that they can defeat everything thus leaving us with the legally unavoidable default position of No Deal.

This will be...interesting.

[JohnL]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> The ERG and it?s pals will now be gambling that

> they can defeat everything thus leaving us with

> the legally unavoidable default position of No

> Deal.

>

But if they vote

1. Mays Deal Yes or No

and that fails

2. No Deal Yes or No

and that fails

3. Extension Yes or No

and that fails

Then to go to No Deal at that stage would directly contradict the vote in No2 - unless May's just playing silly b*ggers and has no intention of listening to any of it if her deal goes down.

[JoeLeg]

The problem is that as it stands we HAVE to leave the EU at 23:00 on 29/03/19.

Is the govt cannot come up with something that they agree between themselves and the EU by that point then we have No Deal and it?s the hardest of Brexits. That?s the position right now, and it will continue to be so unless and until an alternative is offered.

Even if it directly contradicts the vote against No Deal, that won?t matter because all it mean is that we?ve been unable to present an alternative in time.

[JohnL]

Thats what the revised flow chart is showing :(

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47373996

This is all heading to a bad place IMHO.

[JohnL]

Ken Clarke is the voice of reason at the moment (maybe as he's father of the house)

"May I congratulate the prime minister on accepting that we are not remotely ready for the chaos of a no-deal departure on 29 March? I agree with her that no deal at any time would bring very damaging medium and long-term prospects for the British economy and our wellbeing. I will continue to vote for any withdrawal agreement that she manages to get with the other EU countries, but I doubt that she will command a majority for any such agreement in the near future.

Can I turn to the real issue now? How long is the delay that we are contemplating? The prime minister seems to be giving us a date for a new cliff edge at the end of June, but is not the danger that we will merely continue the present pantomime performance through the next three months, and that the public will be dismayed as we approach that date and find that there is similar chaos about where we are going?

May I suggest that we contemplate a much calmer delay, that we have indicative votes following debates in this House, to see where a consensus or majority lies, and then that we prepare our position for the much more important long-term negotiations that have to take place on the eventual settlement? We cannot have several more years of what we have had for the past two years. We have to start proper negotiations with the EU on what exactly we contemplate as our long-term relationships with the Union."

[robbin]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> European Medicines Agency loses battle to end UK

> lease over Brexit

>

> Leaving EU does not ?frustrate? contract with

> landlord Canary Wharf Group, high court rules

>

> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/20/e

> uropean-medicines-agency-loses-bid-to-end-uk-lease

> -over-brexit

>

> Its case was obviously ?frustrated?

You don't say! This must be one of the least surprising results in court during the last year!

[robbin]

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The link I attached was refering to it being

> upheld in the context of leases albeit in a small

> lease of days.My mistake. Will the transcript of

> the court case be public, does anyone know.

Yes, of course. It is at neutral citation ref [2019] EWHC 335 (Ch). Or you could just click on this link to read the judgment...

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-20_Canary-Wharf-v-EMA_Approved-Judgment.pdf

Here's a very small part of it...

247. In short, I do not consider the present situation to come close to a case of frustration of common purpose. Considering the test articulated in paragraph 38 above, the fact is that hindsight has shown that the EMA has paid too high a price for the Premises it acquired, in that it failed to build into the lease the flexibility as to term that events have shown would have been in its commercial interests.

[diable rouge]

Welcome to Global Brexit UK...

[JoeLeg]

Any Leave voter who still thinks we will do well out of a trade deal with the USA should read this.

They?re already showing how they intend to screw us. They?re not even hiding it.

[JohnL]

Slovenia seems to have more say in the world than Theresa May.

What a downhill slide that woman has taken us on.

[carlafindle]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Slovenia seems to have more say in the world than

> Theresa May.

>

> What a downhill slide that woman has taken us on.

You've only just noticed?

[JohnL]

Failing Grayling now internationally known.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/03/world/europe/grayling-ferries-uk.html

[malumbu]

Boring one liners and links - Grayling not a lot to do with the Brexit outcome, toeing the party line and a safe leaver to have on the Cabinet. Start a new thread if you want to discuss him..

Here's a more interesting two liner without a link. Today's bribe to the North and Midlands who voted out - 'Tories magic Brexit money tree'. Or as quite well put by the Labour spokesperson - throwing money at the problem rather than solving it (ie why so many felt disaffected - austerity having much to do with it).

There, loads of substantial stuff to discuss. A pleasure.

[cella]

Your first word sums up most of your posts Malumbu - usually just plain weird - why bother.

[JohnL]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Boring one liners and links - Grayling not a lot

> to do with the Brexit outcome, toeing the party

> line and a safe leaver to have on the Cabinet.

> Start a new thread if you want to discuss him..

>

> Here's a more interesting two liner without a

> link. Today's bribe to the North and Midlands who

> voted out - 'Tories magic Brexit money tree'. Or

> as quite well put by the Labour spokesperson -

> throwing money at the problem rather than solving

> it (ie why so many felt disaffected - austerity

> having much to do with it).

>

> There, loads of substantial stuff to discuss. A

> pleasure.

Boring is one of my better features :)

The EU budget for the same area in a similar time frame was 11 billion - so nowhere near matching it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/01/mapped-where-in-the-uk-receives-most-eu-funding-and-how-does-thi/

[JoeLeg]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Boring one liners and links - Grayling not a lot

> to do with the Brexit outcome, toeing the party

> line and a safe leaver to have on the Cabinet.

> Start a new thread if you want to discuss him..

Dude...Wheaton?s Law, yeah?

>

> Here's a more interesting two liner without a

> link. Today's bribe to the North and Midlands who

> voted out - 'Tories magic Brexit money tree'. Or

> as quite well put by the Labour spokesperson -

> throwing money at the problem rather than solving

> it (ie why so many felt disaffected - austerity

> having much to do with it).

>

> There, loads of substantial stuff to discuss. A

> pleasure.

You must be a riot at parties...

[malumbu]

My apologies I should have used the description of recent postings as superficial, rather than boring. I am in deed boring as I am rather repetitive. But pleased to see that I did not cause offence. And yes, I am an absolute riot at parties. Please feel free to invite me.

Worried that there is some sort of virus though, or botnet, as my posts appear to get an instant but irrelevant response.

[JohnL]

I'll try and be relevant an :) I'm feeling like almost giving up on Brexit (but the fact Mrs May wants us to do that makes me go on). The whole of government has now been effected by Brexit - it's not functioning normally or properly anymore.

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.

Suella Braverman was on TV earlier talking about "getting through" and seeming not to understand how WTO tariffs would work.

Oh and Toyota and BMW both saying UK jobs at risk

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/05/bmw-mini-cowley-no-deal-brexit-toyota

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/honda-european-chief-outlined-no-deal-brexit-concerns-in-2018

Can't the Grown Ups take back control of the country.

[robbin]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Here's a more interesting two liner without a

> > link. Today's bribe to the North and Midlands

> who

> > voted out - 'Tories magic Brexit money tree'.

> Or

> > as quite well put by the Labour spokesperson -

> > throwing money at the problem rather than

> solving...

> ...The EU budget for the same area in a similar time

> frame was 11 billion - so nowhere near matching

> it.

>

Just to be clear - was the quoted sum of ?11 bn from the EU given for free, or were there costs involved in getting that amount which should be factored into the equation?

In other words, given that the UK is a NET contributor (it pays more of its money to the EU than it receives back) do you think that is anything to be taken into account when assessing the merits of a particular course, or should it be ignored?

Say I buy a new car for ?60k. Can I validly claim my assets have increased by ?60k because now I have a new car, or would that be a nonsense, because I shelled out ?60k of my money to acquire it in the first place? What if I overpaid, so I paid ?60k to receive a car with a value of ?40k? Did I benefit by ?60k? Or did I suffer a net loss of ?20k because I paid out more than I received?

Just wondering...

[Jenny1]

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.

[Jenny1]

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.

[Jenny1]

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]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > > Here's a more interesting two liner without a

> > > link. Today's bribe to the North and

> Midlands

> > who

> > > voted out - 'Tories magic Brexit money tree'.

>

> > Or

> > > as quite well put by the Labour spokesperson

> -

> > > throwing money at the problem rather than

> > solving...

> > ...The EU budget for the same area in a similar

> time

> > frame was 11 billion - so nowhere near matching

> > it.

> >

> Just to be clear - was the quoted sum of ?11 bn

> from the EU given for free, or were there costs

> involved in getting that amount which should be

> factored into the equation?

>

> In other words, given that the UK is a NET

> contributor (it pays more of its money to the EU

> than it receives back) do you think that is

> anything to be taken into account when assessing

> the merits of a particular course, or should it be

> ignored?

>

> Say I buy a new car for ?60k. Can I validly claim

> my assets have increased by ?60k because now I

> have a new car, or would that be a nonsense,

> because I shelled out ?60k of my money to acquire

> it in the first place? What if I overpaid, so I

> paid ?60k to receive a car with a value of ?40k?

> Did I benefit by ?60k? Or did I suffer a net loss

> of ?20k because I paid out more than I received?

>

> Just wondering...

There's obviously costs in any form of admin. We were/are a net contributor but my argument has always been we gain more from the EU in other ways and leAvers argue we don't (or we do but the pooling of sovereignty is not worth it).

But IMHO the EU is effectively taking from London or the central pot and giving to the poorer areas in the north/wales etc. It's doing some kind of wealth redistribution. That won't be matched IMHO - in the valleys of south wales there's EU signs everywhere.

I think more money that went to poorer areas will now go to the central pot (which could include NHS or policing so not all necessarily bad - depends how it's done - but this government doesn't do things well :))

[JohnL]

The French Customs are doing a work to rule in order to show us what life will be like after Brexit

"Fortunately, I only had to declare to the zealous customs officer the number of clothes in my bag.?

(Evening Standard)

[robbin]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The French Customs are doing a work to rule in

> order to show us what life will be like after

> Brexit

>

> "Fortunately, I only had to declare to the zealous

> customs officer the number of clothes in my bag.?

> (Evening Standard)

Ha ha. You mean to get more money and better working conditions from their government! Remember Operation Stack?

I think their message is directed towards their French paymasters, it's not to 'show' the UK what Brexit will be like. That's a misrepresentation of the facts (again).