Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[jake]

2 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Norway 4.6%

Switzerland 3.4%

 

So still an EU nation.

 

Here's a point to consider here, all 3 nations - Iceland, Norway and Switzerland - are in the Single Market for the prorection of jobs in their economies. All are broadly open to free movement as a principle. And important distinction from the UK, they all act with an interventionist attitude to the economy by investing a lot in new industries, skills and research and in their workforces (good pay, good conditions and good benefits). 

 

Perhaps it's not the EUs fault but the economic policies of the UK and otger nations. I mean Czech Republic are doing better than the rest within the EU.

 

Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland were overstretched to their debt burdens. Their governments made bad choices. Including in Greece were national accounts were edited to make them euro worthy.

 

The EU troika has a lot to answer for on austerity but the blame of how these places got there is rightly placed at the doors of their own governments Jake.

The thing is though that these countries have no means to alleviate that.

The economy much like the UK economy is set to suit the German /southern conditions.

 

 

[JamboX2]

59 minutes ago, jake said:

The thing is though that these countries have no means to alleviate that.

The economy much like the UK economy is set to suit the German /southern conditions.

 

 

It's not though because each nation has it's own economic policies.

[Cade]

Government just caved in to demands from MPs across all political parties to scupper the "Henry VIII" powers.

 

At the moment, secondary legislation can be put into Law at the stroke of a pen, with Parliament not having a say.

 

Translating the thousands of EU laws into UK laws falls under the umbrella of secondary legislation. 

The Government will now have to seek Parliamentary approval during the translation process.

 

This stops the hard Brexiteers performing their "bonfire of the rights" which they'd been rubbing their hands over.

 

This is great news for the residents of the UK.

[jake]

3 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

It's not though because each nation has it's own economic policies.

Really?

So Greece can decide against the austerity measures placed by Brussels.

I seem to remember the Portuguese being warned against ratifying anti austerity budgets.

Could Spain or Italy devalue their currency.

Why couldn't Greece strike their own deal with the debt to the banks?

Each nation cannot trade individually to suit their own economy.

It's like saying Scotland is free to pull economic levers independent of number 11.

Although I'm not sure a lot of Indy voters will like that.

[JamboX2]

14 minutes ago, jake said:

Really?

So Greece can decide against the austerity measures placed by Brussels.

I seem to remember the Portuguese being warned against ratifying anti austerity budgets.

Could Spain or Italy devalue their currency.

Why couldn't Greece strike their own deal with the debt to the banks?

Each nation cannot trade individually to suit their own economy.

It's like saying Scotland is free to pull economic levers independent of number 11.

Although I'm not sure a lot of Indy voters will like that.

 

Separate currency from the debate and you'll get your answer. You do realise that the spending power and living standard in the Mediterranean has risen on the euro compared the hugely devalued currencies from before?

 

Greece sought a loan to avoid default. Why not just default? The EU cannot force this on nations.

 

The EU isn't ideal but it's better than the alternative. The mood in these nations is still pro-EU and pro-Euro. 

 

Each nation can set their own economic policies, their own economic direction and their own straregies. 

[JamboX2]

3 hours ago, Cade said:

Government just caved in to demands from MPs across all political parties to scupper the "Henry VIII" powers.

 

At the moment, secondary legislation can be put into Law at the stroke of a pen, with Parliament not having a say.

 

Translating the thousands of EU laws into UK laws falls under the umbrella of secondary legislation. 

The Government will now have to seek Parliamentary approval during the translation process.

 

This stops the hard Brexiteers performing their "bonfire of the rights" which they'd been rubbing their hands over.

 

This is great news for the residents of the UK.

Huge victory for moderates and Soft Brexiteers. Between this and the Phase 1 deal a Norway style deal is definitely still on the cards.

Edited December 11, 2017 by JamboX2

[jake]

4 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Separate currency from the debate and you'll get your answer. You do realise that the spending power and living standard in the Mediterranean has risen on the euro compared the hugely devalued currencies from before?

 

Greece sought a loan to avoid default. Why not just default? The EU cannot force this on nations.

 

The EU isn't ideal but it's better than the alternative. The mood in these nations is still pro-EU and pro-Euro. 

 

Each nation can set their own economic policies, their own economic direction and their own straregies. 

Living standards have went up .

I would say mines have also as is anyone's over the last 50 years.

That is nothing whatsoever to do with the euro.

And you should look at the numbers of those in low paid jobs in the UK to understand what is happening in the countries we are discussing.

This is not because of some fake idealistic freedom of movement.

It is because they cannot afford to live In their country of birth.

Currency and the control of its value cannot be separated from the debate jambo.

Anyway buddy I won't change your views.

I have to say at least you are consistent.

Being pro union on both questions.

I am amused at the identical arguments put forward by Space against brexit as against Scottish independence.

And the same scaremongering tactics.

 

[jake]

4 hours ago, Cade said:

Government just caved in to demands from MPs across all political parties to scupper the "Henry VIII" powers.

 

At the moment, secondary legislation can be put into Law at the stroke of a pen, with Parliament not having a say.

 

Translating the thousands of EU laws into UK laws falls under the umbrella of secondary legislation. 

The Government will now have to seek Parliamentary approval during the translation process.

 

This stops the hard Brexiteers performing their "bonfire of the rights" which they'd been rubbing their hands over.

 

This is great news for the residents of the UK.

It is a pity the European parliament does not enjoy the power to propose or repeal legislation.

But hey ho.

EU good UK bad

[JamboX2]

3 hours ago, jake said:

It is a pity the European parliament does not enjoy the power to propose or repeal legislation.

But hey ho.

EU good UK bad

It does... it can sanction any commission legislation and force a re-think.

 

This ignores that the Commission is made up of 28 appointees appointed by the member states. Meaning their actions are already consented to by the member states and the people who voted for their governments...

[JamboX2]

3 hours ago, jake said:

Living standards have went up .

I would say mines have also as is anyone's over the last 50 years.

That is nothing whatsoever to do with the euro.

And you should look at the numbers of those in low paid jobs in the UK to understand what is happening in the countries we are discussing.

This is not because of some fake idealistic freedom of movement.

It is because they cannot afford to live In their country of birth.

Currency and the control of its value cannot be separated from the debate jambo.

 

To an extent I agree - my point is currency is not the be all and end all of it on the economy. 

 

The majority of nations in the EU who provide most of the mobile workforce come from non-Euro states in eastern and central Europe. Why? Because they'll earn a lot more on a zero hours contract or a building contract or picking fruit or working 18 hour days as an NHS nurse than they would on the Zloty, Forint or Lev in the same roles. The drop in the £'s value means they are now going to eurozone nations more than the UK. Because they can more readily better themselves and their families on a more valued currency (also why Spain etc wanted the euro!). 

 

The  problem in the UK (and elsewhere) is that we have more and more jobs which are un-skilled and on a zero hour basis which many of our skilled people don't want to do. We should be looking to ban zero hours (or regulate it) and encourage more highly skilled work to be developed and come to the UK. How education and industrial strategy are bettered by leaving one of the key funders to UK colleges and unis and an investor in our infrastructure and regional development is beyond me. 

 

So I ask you, who cannot afford to live in the country of their birth? Living standards are up because of (a) increased ease of trade bringing more work and investment across the UK by virtue of less obstacles to do both through the EU or (b) because it's happened everywhere  (which it's not)?

 

Things are starting to slide. My generation  (80s/90s) are set to be the first to do worse off in life than their parents. That's not due to the EU holding back government, it's because of bad government in the UK and Scotland.

 

Allocate blame better to achieve more. We're wasting billions that could do the things mentioned and more in housing and health etc on negotiating a worse deal than we have now! We are literally engaged in chopping our noses off to spite ourselves for £40bn. It's nonsensical.

 

3 hours ago, jake said:

Anyway buddy I won't change your views.

I have to say at least you are consistent.

Being pro union on both questions.

I am amused at the identical arguments put forward by Space against brexit as against Scottish independence.

And the same scaremongering tactics.

 

 

Indeed. 

[jake]

8 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

It does... it can sanction any commission legislation and force a re-think.

 

This ignores that the Commission is made up of 28 appointees appointed by the member states. Meaning their actions are already consented to by the member states and the people who voted for their governments...

The commission does have to recognise it but not act on it.

It's also worth noting that the commission swears allegiance to the EU ahead of its nation.

And of course none are elected.

28 people with the power to ignore parliament wishes whether proposed by elected governments is an awful lot of power.

I do wonder at some of the choices on this committee.

Who have some of the British reps been ?

[jake]

2 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

To an extent I agree - my point is currency is not the be all and end all of it on the economy. 

 

The majority of nations in the EU who provide most of the mobile workforce come from non-Euro states in eastern and central Europe. Why? Because they'll earn a lot more on a zero hours contract or a building contract or picking fruit or working 18 hour days as an NHS nurse than they would on the Zloty, Forint or Lev in the same roles. The drop in the £'s value means they are now going to eurozone nations more than the UK. Because they can more readily better themselves and their families on a more valued currency (also why Spain etc wanted the euro!). 

 

The  problem in the UK (and elsewhere) is that we have more and more jobs which are un-skilled and on a zero hour basis which many of our skilled people don't want to do. We should be looking to ban zero hours (or regulate it) and encourage more highly skilled work to be developed and come to the UK. How education and industrial strategy are bettered by leaving one of the key funders to UK colleges and unis and an investor in our infrastructure and regional development is beyond me. 

 

So I ask you, who cannot afford to live in the country of their birth? Living standards are up because of (a) increased ease of trade bringing more work and investment across the UK by virtue of less obstacles to do both through the EU or (b) because it's happened everywhere  (which it's not)?

 

Things are starting to slide. My generation  (80s/90s) are set to be the first to do worse off in life than their parents. That's not due to the EU holding back government, it's because of bad government in the UK and Scotland.

 

Allocate blame better to achieve more. We're wasting billions that could do the things mentioned and more in housing and health etc on negotiating a worse deal than we have now! We are literally engaged in chopping our noses off to spite ourselves for £40bn. It's nonsensical.

 

 

Indeed. 

Yes they may think they will earn more till they have to live here.

I'm not so sure about your demographs.

More and more I see Greek Spanish and Portuguese .

I'm not complaining but it's no joke for them.

It's an indication of the North South split in the EU.

Much like the UK but in reverse.

 

[jake]

Jesus I just checked jambo.

I shall rest my case with this one name 

Peter Mandelson.?

[JamboX2]

Just now, jake said:

The commission does have to recognise it but not act on it.

It's also worth noting that the commission swears allegiance to the EU ahead of its nation.

And of course none are elected.

28 people with the power to ignore parliament wishes whether proposed by elected governments is an awful lot of power.

I do wonder at some of the choices on this committee.

Who have some of the British reps been ?

 

 

Who's been feeding you this? John Redwood. Utter farcical bollocks. They agree to work on behalf of ALL the EU. Like the UN Secretary General works for us all not just his home country of Portugal. Or Sturgeon does for Scotland not just Govan. It doesn't escape the fact they still owe their job to the democratically elected government of the nation they come from. 

 

Again you mention these 28 leaders ignoring their parliaments or constituents... that is an issue of NATIONAL accountability not the EU. If Macron, May, Rutte or Rajoy ignore the wishes of their Parliament or their voters they're likely to not be in a job for long themselves.

 

UK Commissioners? Roy Jenkins, Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson, Bruce Millan, Cathy Ashton, Christopher Soames... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Commissioners_by_nationality?wprov=sfla1

[jake]

3 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

 

Who's been feeding you this? John Redwood. Utter farcical bollocks. They agree to work on behalf of ALL the EU. Like the UN Secretary General works for us all not just his home country of Portugal. Or Sturgeon does for Scotland not just Govan. It doesn't escape the fact they still owe their job to the democratically elected government of the nation they come from. 

 

Again you mention these 28 leaders ignoring their parliaments or constituents... that is an issue of NATIONAL accountability not the EU. If Macron, May, Rutte or Rajoy ignore the wishes of their Parliament or their voters they're likely to not be in a job for long themselves.

 

UK Commissioners? Roy Jenkins, Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson, Bruce Millan, Cathy Ashton, Christopher Soames... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Commissioners_by_nationality?wprov=sfla1

So in effect the commission is a house of lords?

You agree that the commission has to recognise but not act on parliaments sanctions?

And what if jambo what if these people that are placed in these positions were put forward by far right governments.

Still happy with checks and balances?

[jake]

11 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

 

Who's been feeding you this? John Redwood. Utter farcical bollocks. They agree to work on behalf of ALL the EU. Like the UN Secretary General works for us all not just his home country of Portugal. Or Sturgeon does for Scotland not just Govan. It doesn't escape the fact they still owe their job to the democratically elected government of the nation they come from. 

 

Again you mention these 28 leaders ignoring their parliaments or constituents... that is an issue of NATIONAL accountability not the EU. If Macron, May, Rutte or Rajoy ignore the wishes of their Parliament or their voters they're likely to not be in a job for long themselves.

 

UK Commissioners? Roy Jenkins, Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson, Bruce Millan, Cathy Ashton, Christopher Soames... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Commissioners_by_nationality?wprov=sfla1

As you have probably guessed no one's been feeding me  and it certainly would not be John Redwood.

I'm more a Tony Benn guy but rougher round the edges lol.

 

I don't follow party lines .

And I don't blindly stick up for political dogma.

I'm not meaning you do.

I do not like big conglomerates of business or multi nationals.

It concentrates power.

And I certainly don't like the way the EU has shaped up.

[jake]

Was Jeremy Corbyn wrong when he said the EU "suffered a serious democratic deficit"?

[jake]

I couldn't find any examples of the EU parliament sanctioning the EU commission.

Is there any?

And if there is did the commission  act upon It?

[jake]

Was Jeremy Corbyn wrong when he opposed the Maastricht treaty as handing control to bankers?

[redjambo]

43 minutes ago, jake said:

I couldn't find any examples of the EU parliament sanctioning the EU commission.

Is there any?

And if there is did the commission  act upon It?

 

Just a very quick Google for eu parliament votes to stop commission and eu parliament rejects commission came up with these examples:

 

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-17-3710_en.htm

 

https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/press/eu-kommission-muss-handeln/

 

https://www.ft.com/content/6b47b8ca-4f0d-11e4-9c88-00144feab7de

 

https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/parliament-rejects-bid-to-lower-eu-guard-on-fukushima-food-imports/

 

I'm sure that there are plenty more.

 

 

 

[SE16 3LN]

10 hours ago, jake said:

Yes they may think they will earn more till they have to live here.

I'm not so sure about your demographs.

More and more I see Greek Spanish and Portuguese .

I'm not complaining but it's no joke for them.

It's an indication of the North South split in the EU.

Much like the UK but in reverse.

 

That would be true if you took out the tens of thousands of young French people working in the UK, and why wouldn't they with levels of youth unemployment in France still over 40%. The fact is that the UK was a safe employment haven for all EU nationals when the Euro was Donald Ducked and the UK economy was buoyant in comparison. Now the boot is on the other foot they seem hell bent on kicking us in the bollocks. Something changed last week though when the EU suddenly got busy and made a deal. I have my theories as to why that is but I'd be here all day explaining it and I have to go to work.

 

 

[jake]

47 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

That would be true if you took out the tens of thousands of young French people working in the UK, and why wouldn't they with levels of youth unemployment in France still over 40%. The fact is that the UK was a safe employment haven for all EU nationals when the Euro was Donald Ducked and the UK economy was buoyant in comparison. Now the boot is on the other foot they seem hell bent on kicking us in the bollocks. Something changed last week though when the EU suddenly got busy and made a deal. I have my theories as to why that is but I'd be here all day explaining it and I have to go to work.

 

 

Wasn't aware of the high levels of youth unemployment.

But would be interested in your theories.

[jake]

10 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

Just a very quick Google for eu parliament votes to stop commission and eu parliament rejects commission came up with these examples:

 

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-17-3710_en.htm

 

https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/press/eu-kommission-muss-handeln/

 

https://www.ft.com/content/6b47b8ca-4f0d-11e4-9c88-00144feab7de

 

https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/parliament-rejects-bid-to-lower-eu-guard-on-fukushima-food-imports/

 

I'm sure that there are plenty more.

 

 

 

I googled a different description.

Thanks for the answer.

I will read these links .

 

[redjambo]

41 minutes ago, jake said:

I googled a different description.

Thanks for the answer.

I will read these links .

 

 

No problem, Jake. It will be interesting to see what you find out regarding how often the EU Parliament opposes the Commission's decisions, what the legal situation regarding this is, and how often any such Parliamentary decisions "stick".

 

You may be interested that the European Parliament operates information offices in the capitals of all EU member states, and also in some important regional capitals such as Edinburgh. I'm sure that if you contact the Edinburgh office, they would try and answer any questions that you have. Their contact details are at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/edinburgh-office.html

 

Similarly, the European Commission also has an office in Edinburgh. It would be interesting to see what responses you would get asking them the same questions. Their contact details are at : https://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/about-us/scotland-office_en

 

You may as well take advantage of these two offices being on our doorstep while they're still here!

[Jambo-Jimbo]

55 minutes ago, jake said:

Wasn't aware of the high levels of youth unemployment.

But would be interested in your theories.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/

 

According to this article the UK has a rate of 11.8% and there are 18 other EU countries with worse figures than the UK.

The average EU rate of youth unemployment is 16.7% and for the Eurozone it rises to an average of 18.9%.

There are only 3 countries in the EU with youth unemployment lower than 10% and they are Holland 8.9%, Czech Rep 8% and of course Germany at 6.4%.

 

[Cade]

David Davis describing the compromises the UK made in order to move the talks forwards as just "a statement of intent" rather than binding agreements has made the EU harden it's stance.

 

He's a complete liability.

[Hasselhoff]

24 minutes ago, Cade said:

David Davis describing the compromises the UK made in order to move the talks forwards as just "a statement of intent" rather than binding agreements has made the EU harden it's stance.

 

He's a complete liability.

 

He is quite right to say that - if the EU don't budge an inch on trade, why are we giving them a divorce settlement for? They have to play fair throughout. It was the EU who stipulated that we don't talk trade until the amount is confirmed. Both discussions should have been at the same time like the UK wanted. 

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

Oh well, another fly in David Davies ointment. 

 

Suppose people like Francis A will just call it "fake news" or some other rubbish.

 

From The Times:

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a4ca5698-debb-11e7-872d-4b5e82b139be

 

Negotiations on Britain’s future trade agreement will continue only if last week’s withdrawal deal is quickly turned into a legally binding treaty, European Union leaders will state.

a diplomatic draft of the summit text to be agreed by them this week calls on Theresa May to “start drafting the relevant parts of the withdrawal agreement” into law.

In language aimed at David Davis, the Brexit secretary, they will warn that any attempt to backtrack on last Friday’s agreement would result in the EU halting trade talks.

EU officials and diplomats were irritated by Mr Davis’s remark at the weekend that the withdrawal agreement was just a “statement of intent”. “It’s not helpful if people cast everything into doubt 24 hours later,” one source said.

In language aimed at David Davis, the Brexit secretary, they will warn that any attempt to backtrack on last Friday’s agreement would result in the EU halting trade talks.

EU officials and diplomats were irritated by Mr Davis’s remark at the weekend that the withdrawal agreement was just a “statement of intent”. “It’s not helpful if people cast everything into doubt 24 hours later,” one source said.

A diplomatic draft of the summit conclusions states: “Negotiations in the second phase can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken during the first phase are respected in full and translated faithfully in legal terms as quickly as possible.”

requirement would mean that Britain would have to negotiate the small print of a withdrawal treaty, to be introduced into primary legislation without amendment, in the new year.

Yesterday Mrs May told the Commons that she hoped to get a transition deal agreed by March.

The draft states that during a transition “all existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures will apply” and Britain would not be part of EU decision-making.

This is opposed by some cabinet ministers, including Michael Gove, the environment secretary, who has said that Britain’s fishing industry needs protection to prevent the EU using transition arrangements to impose unfair quotas.

Yesterday Mr Davis backed away from his earlier comments and said that the pledge to avoid a hard border in Ireland would be “legally enforceable”.

“What I actually said yesterday, in terms, was we want to protect the peace process, we want to protect Ireland from the impact of Brexit for them,” he told LBC. “And I said this was a statement of intent which was much more than just legally enforceable.”

The European Commission emphasised that while commitments would not be a matter of law until Brexit, respecting last week’s deal was a matter of honour. “We see the joint report of Michel Barnier and David Davis as a deal between gentlemen and it is the clear understanding that it is fully backed and endorsed by the UK government,” the official Brussels spokesman said.

In diplomatic language EU leaders will also tell Britain that it would impose tough conditions for a trade agreement and ensure that there is no preferential or bespoke deal that would allow other trading partners such as Canada to accuse Brussels of discrimination.

The draft text notes that “the European Council will calibrate its approach as regards trade and economic co-operation to avoid upsetting existing relations with other third countries”.

The clause is a blow to the City because it almost certainly means that the EU would not allow financial services to be included in a trade deal, to keep the agreement in line with arrangements with other countries.

In talks next year the EU will insist that Britain agrees to a “level playing field mechanism” to ensure that it cannot get competitive advantage by giving tax breaks or subsidies to industry.

Mrs May has urged the three million or so EU citizens living in the UK to stay after Brexit. In an open letter acknowledging the “underlying anxiety” that Brexit has caused, she said that she was “delighted” that their rights would be protected under the divorce deal. “I greatly value the depth of the contributions you make — enriching every part of our economy, our society, our culture and our national life,” she wrote. “I know our country would be poorer if you left and I want you to stay.”

● The economy is likely to suffer under most plausible post-Brexit trade scenarios, a study from the Rand Corporation, an American think tank, has suggested. It said that leaving the EU with no deal and operating under World Trade Organisation rules would wipe 5 per cent, or £100 billion, off GDP ten years after Brexit, compared with remaining in the EU. Charles Ries, the report’s author, said: “It is in the best interests of the UK, and to a lesser extent the EU to achieve some sort of open trading and investment relationship post-Brexit.”

MPs may get ‘meaningful vote’ to ward off rebellion

The government was last night considering bowing to MPs’ demands for a “meaningful vote” on the terms of Brexit after making a significant climbdown on the use of so-called Henry VIII powers (Henry Zeffman and Francis Elliott write).

As MPs begin two crucial days of debate on the government’s flagship Brexit legislation, ministers are acting to ward off a pair of Tory rebellions that could defeat the administration and fracture new-found party unity. As many as 20 Conservative MPs are planning to vote to amend the EU withdrawal bill so that it forces the government to hold a meaningful vote on the terms of the UK’s exit from the bloc, whether or not there is a deal.

However, the government is locked in discussions with Dominic Grieve, the former attorney-general, to find a way to stave off defeat when the issue is voted on tomorrow. Ministers have previously insisted that MPs be provided with a meaningful vote when they are offered the chance to approve any deal that Theresa May strikes with Brussels.

Mr Grieve and the Conservatives who support him also want MPs to have an opportunity to reject a no-deal Brexit, in which the UK would likely trade with the EU on world-trade organisation terms. “This is very important and we will vote in favour,” the leading rebel Anna Soubry said.

Having more than just “heads of agreement” on the proposed new deal is one of the tests set by Tory rebels for whether any parliamentary vote on the agreement is meaningful. They want Mrs May to abandon her promise to leave the EU come what may on March 29, 2019, to allow for extra time if the details of the deal are still not clear.

Jeremy Corbyn backed that demand in the Commons yesterday, warning that voters “would rather get the best possible deal a little bit later if it meant a better deal for people’s jobs and the economy”.

Today’s debate on the withdrawal bill will focus on Henry VIII powers, which ministers use to sign new rules into law without undergoing the full parliamentary process. Yesterday the government warded off a possible defeat, agreeing to accept an amendment to create a new cross-party “sifting committee” of backbenchers which will decide whether changes to rules transferred from the EU require a vote on the floor of the Commons.

It came after Mrs May basked in what one Tory MP conceded was a rare “outbreak of unity” as she delivered a Commons statement on the EU withdrawal bill. “This is good news for people who voted leave, who were worried that we were so bogged down in tortuous negotiations that it was never going to happen, and it is good news for people who voted remain, who were worried that we would crash out without a deal,” she said.

“We are going to leave, but we will do so in a smooth and orderly way, securing a new deep and special partnership with our friends while taking back control of our borders, money and laws once again.”

[deesidejambo]

19 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Oh well, another fly in David Davies ointment. 

 

Suppose people like Francis A will just call it "fake news" or some other rubbish.

 

From The Times:

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a4ca5698-debb-11e7-872d-4b5e82b139be

 

Negotiations on Britain’s future trade agreement will continue only if last week’s withdrawal deal is quickly turned into a legally binding treaty, European Union leaders will state.

a diplomatic draft of the summit text to be agreed by them this week calls on Theresa May to “start drafting the relevant parts of the withdrawal agreement” into law.

In language aimed at David Davis, the Brexit secretary, they will warn that any attempt to backtrack on last Friday’s agreement would result in the EU halting trade talks.

EU officials and diplomats were irritated by Mr Davis’s remark at the weekend that the withdrawal agreement was just a “statement of intent”. “It’s not helpful if people cast everything into doubt 24 hours later,” one source said.

In language aimed at David Davis, the Brexit secretary, they will warn that any attempt to backtrack on last Friday’s agreement would result in the EU halting trade talks.

EU officials and diplomats were irritated by Mr Davis’s remark at the weekend that the withdrawal agreement was just a “statement of intent”. “It’s not helpful if people cast everything into doubt 24 hours later,” one source said.

A diplomatic draft of the summit conclusions states: “Negotiations in the second phase can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken during the first phase are respected in full and translated faithfully in legal terms as quickly as possible.”

requirement would mean that Britain would have to negotiate the small print of a withdrawal treaty, to be introduced into primary legislation without amendment, in the new year.

Yesterday Mrs May told the Commons that she hoped to get a transition deal agreed by March.

The draft states that during a transition “all existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures will apply” and Britain would not be part of EU decision-making.

This is opposed by some cabinet ministers, including Michael Gove, the environment secretary, who has said that Britain’s fishing industry needs protection to prevent the EU using transition arrangements to impose unfair quotas.

Yesterday Mr Davis backed away from his earlier comments and said that the pledge to avoid a hard border in Ireland would be “legally enforceable”.

“What I actually said yesterday, in terms, was we want to protect the peace process, we want to protect Ireland from the impact of Brexit for them,” he told LBC. “And I said this was a statement of intent which was much more than just legally enforceable.”

The European Commission emphasised that while commitments would not be a matter of law until Brexit, respecting last week’s deal was a matter of honour. “We see the joint report of Michel Barnier and David Davis as a deal between gentlemen and it is the clear understanding that it is fully backed and endorsed by the UK government,” the official Brussels spokesman said.

In diplomatic language EU leaders will also tell Britain that it would impose tough conditions for a trade agreement and ensure that there is no preferential or bespoke deal that would allow other trading partners such as Canada to accuse Brussels of discrimination.

The draft text notes that “the European Council will calibrate its approach as regards trade and economic co-operation to avoid upsetting existing relations with other third countries”.

The clause is a blow to the City because it almost certainly means that the EU would not allow financial services to be included in a trade deal, to keep the agreement in line with arrangements with other countries.

In talks next year the EU will insist that Britain agrees to a “level playing field mechanism” to ensure that it cannot get competitive advantage by giving tax breaks or subsidies to industry.

Mrs May has urged the three million or so EU citizens living in the UK to stay after Brexit. In an open letter acknowledging the “underlying anxiety” that Brexit has caused, she said that she was “delighted” that their rights would be protected under the divorce deal. “I greatly value the depth of the contributions you make — enriching every part of our economy, our society, our culture and our national life,” she wrote. “I know our country would be poorer if you left and I want you to stay.”

● The economy is likely to suffer under most plausible post-Brexit trade scenarios, a study from the Rand Corporation, an American think tank, has suggested. It said that leaving the EU with no deal and operating under World Trade Organisation rules would wipe 5 per cent, or £100 billion, off GDP ten years after Brexit, compared with remaining in the EU. Charles Ries, the report’s author, said: “It is in the best interests of the UK, and to a lesser extent the EU to achieve some sort of open trading and investment relationship post-Brexit.”

MPs may get ‘meaningful vote’ to ward off rebellion

The government was last night considering bowing to MPs’ demands for a “meaningful vote” on the terms of Brexit after making a significant climbdown on the use of so-called Henry VIII powers (Henry Zeffman and Francis Elliott write).

As MPs begin two crucial days of debate on the government’s flagship Brexit legislation, ministers are acting to ward off a pair of Tory rebellions that could defeat the administration and fracture new-found party unity. As many as 20 Conservative MPs are planning to vote to amend the EU withdrawal bill so that it forces the government to hold a meaningful vote on the terms of the UK’s exit from the bloc, whether or not there is a deal.

However, the government is locked in discussions with Dominic Grieve, the former attorney-general, to find a way to stave off defeat when the issue is voted on tomorrow. Ministers have previously insisted that MPs be provided with a meaningful vote when they are offered the chance to approve any deal that Theresa May strikes with Brussels.

Mr Grieve and the Conservatives who support him also want MPs to have an opportunity to reject a no-deal Brexit, in which the UK would likely trade with the EU on world-trade organisation terms. “This is very important and we will vote in favour,” the leading rebel Anna Soubry said.

Having more than just “heads of agreement” on the proposed new deal is one of the tests set by Tory rebels for whether any parliamentary vote on the agreement is meaningful. They want Mrs May to abandon her promise to leave the EU come what may on March 29, 2019, to allow for extra time if the details of the deal are still not clear.

Jeremy Corbyn backed that demand in the Commons yesterday, warning that voters “would rather get the best possible deal a little bit later if it meant a better deal for people’s jobs and the economy”.

Today’s debate on the withdrawal bill will focus on Henry VIII powers, which ministers use to sign new rules into law without undergoing the full parliamentary process. Yesterday the government warded off a possible defeat, agreeing to accept an amendment to create a new cross-party “sifting committee” of backbenchers which will decide whether changes to rules transferred from the EU require a vote on the floor of the Commons.

It came after Mrs May basked in what one Tory MP conceded was a rare “outbreak of unity” as she delivered a Commons statement on the EU withdrawal bill. “This is good news for people who voted leave, who were worried that we were so bogged down in tortuous negotiations that it was never going to happen, and it is good news for people who voted remain, who were worried that we would crash out without a deal,” she said.

“We are going to leave, but we will do so in a smooth and orderly way, securing a new deep and special partnership with our friends while taking back control of our borders, money and laws once again.”

Given that it’s from The Times is it not you who will cry fake news?   Or are you now accepting MSM news.

[Space Mackerel]

2 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Given that it’s from The Times is it not you who will cry fake news?   Or are you now accepting MSM news.

 

Never called it fake news, Francis A called it as that the other day. :-/

[deesidejambo]

8 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Never called it fake news, Francis A called it as that the other day. :-/

So you are happy that the MSM don’t publish a pack of lies anymore?

 

Or only when you don’t like what they report.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

6 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Never called it fake news, Francis A called it as that the other day. :-/

 

Don't know if you called it 'fake news' or not, but there are numerous times that you have criticised people for believing the MSM and of how you don't trust a word they say, yet here you are pushing a story from the very same untrustworthy MSM. 

 

Make your mind up Spacey.

 

[jake]

2 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

No problem, Jake. It will be interesting to see what you find out regarding how often the EU Parliament opposes the Commission's decisions, what the legal situation regarding this is, and how often any such Parliamentary decisions "stick".

 

You may be interested that the European Parliament operates information offices in the capitals of all EU member states, and also in some important regional capitals such as Edinburgh. I'm sure that if you contact the Edinburgh office, they would try and answer any questions that you have. Their contact details are at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/edinburgh-office.html

 

Similarly, the European Commission also has an office in Edinburgh. It would be interesting to see what responses you would get asking them the same questions. Their contact details are at : https://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/about-us/scotland-office_en

 

You may as well take advantage of these two offices being on our doorstep while they're still here!

Lol redm I feel like I've been given homework.

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

David Davis describing the compromises the UK made in order to move the talks forwards as just "a statement of intent" rather than binding agreements has made the EU harden it's stance.

 

He's a complete liability.

 

Funny how the EU Commission agreed with David Davis' comments yesterday.

BRUSSELS - An interim Brexit deal struck by Theresa May and the European Commission is not legally binding but the British prime minister has committed her government to honoring a gentlemen's agreement, an EU spokesman said on Monday.

"Formally speaking, the joint report is not legally binding," the European Commission's chief spokesman Margaritis Schinas told reporters when asked about suggestions from some of May's ministers that the terms of Friday's accord could change.

http://www.todayonline.com/world/may-shook-gentlemens-agreement-brexit-deal-eu-says

 

And again from today in response to David Davis' comments, here's the EU saying that the deal is not legally binding and that it's a 'Gentleman's Agreement'

The European Commission said on Monday the deal was not legally binding yet, but it regarded it “as a deal between gentlemen” with “the clear understanding that it is fully backed and endorsed by the UK government”.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-agreement-verhofstadt/make-eu-gentlemans-agreement-with-britain-binding-eu-lawmakers-idUSKBN1E61EX

 

It's Guy Verhofstadt who is making all the noises today, someone whom everyone knows hates the UK with a passion, all he is doing is trying to make himself and the European Parliament more relevant.

 

 

[redjambo]

Just now, jake said:

Lol redm I feel like I've been given homework.

 

 

Sorry. I'm just someone who places great value on well-sourced information (there are so many baseless "facts" flying around in life, it's a very human thing).

 

And remember to have your report in by Christmas or you won't receive any credits.

[Space Mackerel]

14 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

So you are happy that the MSM don’t publish a pack of lies anymore?

 

Or only when you don’t like what they report.

 

13 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Don't know if you called it 'fake news' or not, but there are numerous times that you have criticised people for believing the MSM and of how you don't trust a word they say, yet here you are pushing a story from the very same untrustworthy MSM. 

 

Make your mind up Spacey.

 

 

Ive never mentioned fake news, what I have mentioned is extremely biased reporting, two completely separate things. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Just now, Space Mackerel said:

 

 

Ive never mentioned fake news, what I have mentioned is extremely biased reporting, two completely separate things. 

 

I didn't say you said it was 'fake news' I said you have criticised the MSM on numerous occasions for being untrustworthy and unreliable, but here you are..................................

[Space Mackerel]

Just now, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I didn't say you said it was 'fake news' I said you have criticised the MSM on numerous occasions for being untrustworthy and unreliable, but here you are..................................

 

Are you saying then that everything you read on the MSM is accurate and completely 100% fact checked? Or do you agree that certain sections are agenda driven and most publications are owned by billionaires with an army of lobbyists and journalistic spivs? 

[Cade]

1 hour ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

He is quite right to say that - if the EU don't budge an inch on trade, why are we giving them a divorce settlement for? They have to play fair throughout. It was the EU who stipulated that we don't talk trade until the amount is confirmed. Both discussions should have been at the same time like the UK wanted. 

 

 

 

Why would the EU bend to the UK's demands on anything?

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 minute ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Are you saying then that everything you read on the MSM is accurate and completely 100% fact checked? Or do you agree that certain sections are agenda driven and most publications are owned by billionaires with an army of lobbyists and journalistic spivs? 

 

Of course not, only a fool would believe everything they see or read in the media, all media, large or small.

But I'm not the one who has repeatedly criticised the MSM and all who read it, but then promotes stories from the very same when it suits their agenda.

[Space Mackerel]

Just now, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Of course not, only a fool would believe everything they see or read in the media, all media, large or small.

But I'm not the one who has repeatedly criticised the MSM and all who read it, but then promotes stories from the very same when it suits their agenda.

 

I quoted an article from The Times, its a far more balanced paper than say the Daily Express or other shite that populates our newstands. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Just now, Space Mackerel said:

 

I quoted an article from The Times, its a far more balanced paper than say the Daily Express or other shite that populates our newstands. 

 

Remind me who owns the Times again?

 

[Space Mackerel]

10 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Remind me who owns the Times again?

 

 

Rupert Murdoch, although it’s demograph is aimed at people with brains. Big difference. 

[deesidejambo]

26 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Rupert Murdoch, although it’s demograph is aimed at people with brains. Big difference. 

Ok so I get it.

 

if a story is printed in the Times it is likely to be reliable because people who buy the Times are brainy, but if the same story is published in the Express it is unreliable because it’s readers are stupid?

 

what about people who read both?

 

and what if the same story is printed in both papers?  Is it both true and fake at the same time?

 

best you just stick to The National - that must be, using your logic, for brainy people.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

29 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Rupert Murdoch, although it’s demograph is aimed at people with brains. Big difference. 

 

A Murdoch publication being described as 'balanced' now there's something you don't hear everyday.

 

And as for The Times being aimed at people with brains, Spacey I'd stop digging as that hole your standing in is only getting bigger mate.

 

[Space Mackerel]

19 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Ok so I get it.

 

if a story is printed in the Times it is likely to be reliable because people who buy the Times are brainy, but if the same story is published in the Express it is unreliable because it’s readers are stupid?

 

what about people who read both?

 

and what if the same story is printed in both papers?  Is it both true and fake at the same time?

 

best you just stick to The National - that must be, using your logic, for brainy people.

 

Christ almighty, I’m away to the pub for a few pre match drinks. Far too much whatabootery in this post. Believe what you like. 

 

Notice not one one person has commented on the artlcle, fake, true, pro EU, anti EU or whatever. 

[deesidejambo]

29 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Christ almighty, I’m away to the pub for a few pre match drinks. Far too much whatabootery in this post. Believe what you like. 

 

Notice not one one person has commented on the artlcle, fake, true, pro EU, anti EU or whatever. 

Which pub are you going to?    You can buy me a pint.  I’m skint.   Them Tories .

[redjambo]

I think that this debate illustrates that perhaps it would be better off taking specific media articles and "facts" to task rather than slating a whole media source (which ends up sounding a bit like "my media source is better than yours, na na na na"). Even Fox News gets their facts right from time to time.

[deesidejambo]

21 minutes ago, redjambo said:

I think that this debate illustrates that perhaps it would be better off taking specific media articles and "facts" to task rather than slating a whole media source (which ends up sounding a bit like "my media source is better than yours, na na na na"). Even Fox News gets their facts right from time to time.

Of course.

 

but in Spacey world the source is always his first focus as to whether the facts are correct or not.      

[Space Mackerel]

31 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Which pub are you going to?    You can buy me a pint.  I’m skint.   Them Tories .

 

Them Tories who you voted for at the last GE aye?