Jump to content

Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )


jumpship

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Martin_T said:

 

It's not a second hand car sale negotiation though is it, where the buyer has no consequences from walking away with no deal.

 

No deal in this context probably means severe economic damage, job losses, supply chain problems (including medicines) which will have direct negative impact on actual people.

 

To rule out no deal is quite frankly the decent thing to do.

 

Or the MPs could have passed May's deal? 

 

And save the people from a catastrophic impact from No deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 25.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mikey1874

    1494

  • ri Alban

    1425

  • Cade

    1385

  • Victorian

    1348

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Seymour M Hersh
10 hours ago, pablo said:

 

Or the MPs could have passed May's deal? 

 

And save the people from a catastrophic impact from No deal?

 

Won't happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Won't happen. 

 

I'm fairly relaxed about it myself, and trust me, I'm more involved in the practicalities of it than most.

 

My point was to the guy I quoted. May has a deal, yeah? And while it's true that hardliners in the Tory party didn't back it, neither did the opposition parties. 

 

So IF a no deal Brexit is going to be so terrible for us, it's the politicians of all parties who didn't back the deal, who will be partly responsible for whatever happens. IMO obviously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

I'm fairly relaxed about it myself, and trust me, I'm more involved in the practicalities of it than most.

 

My point was to the guy I quoted. May has a deal, yeah? And while it's true that hardliners in the Tory party didn't back it, neither did the opposition parties. 

 

So IF a no deal Brexit is going to be so terrible for us, it's the politicians of all parties who didn't back the deal, who will be partly responsible for whatever happens. IMO obviously. 

It was her job to get a deal that people would agree on, if she hadnt taken such a hardline, unhelpful and combative stance with MP’s across all parties from the grt go we might not be in this cluster****.

 

It sits pretty squarely with the Tories IMO even if i think Corbyn is an arse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

It was her job to get a deal that people would agree on, if she hadnt taken such a hardline, unhelpful and combative stance with MP’s across all parties from the grt go we might not be in this cluster****.

 

It sits pretty squarely with the Tories IMO even if i think Corbyn is an arse.

 

I agree with you, this is a shambles created by the Tories. But does partisan party politics come before the best interests of the country? If the choice we faced was between May's deal with the EU and widespread civil unrest? (not that I think that's what will happen)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

I agree with you, this is a shambles created by the Tories. But does partisan party politics come before the best interests of the country? If the choice we faced was between May's deal with the EU and widespread civil unrest? (not that I think that's what will happen)

 

Is May's deal in the best interests of the country though?  I agree that there is a bit of party politics going on (Corbyn's sudden interest in another referendum, which may or may not actually involve a remain option, that's not clear as far as I can make out, for example) but May's sheer bloody mindedness over all of this is, IMO, the clearest example of party politics.  She's trying to keep herparty together, while at the same time keep herself at No10.  It's all a bit Fuhrerbunker from her (again imo).

 

But the choice you mention at the end of your post is precisely May's gambit which, given how roundly defeated it was originally, cannot be in the best interests of the country, but neither is no deal.

 

Parliamentary paralysis would suggest that another referendum is the way forward.  What the question(s) will be is anyone's guess!

 

But bottom line, I'm happy to lay the blame fairly and squarely at the Tories door!  (quelle surprise...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Is May's deal in the best interests of the country though?  I agree that there is a bit of party politics going on (Corbyn's sudden interest in another referendum, which may or may not actually involve a remain option, that's not clear as far as I can make out, for example) but May's sheer bloody mindedness over all of this is, IMO, the clearest example of party politics.  She's trying to keep herparty together, while at the same time keep herself at No10.  It's all a bit Fuhrerbunker from her (again imo).

 

But the choice you mention at the end of your post is precisely May's gambit which, given how roundly defeated it was originally, cannot be in the best interests of the country, but neither is no deal.

 

Parliamentary paralysis would suggest that another referendum is the way forward.  What the question(s) will be is anyone's guess!

 

But bottom line, I'm happy to lay the blame fairly and squarely at the Tories door!  (quelle surprise...)

 

Again,  I don't disagree. It was the comparison against food and medical shortages,  the army out on the streets that I was asking at what point,  do you put party politics to the side?

 

Not that it will happen. I also suspect we'll have a delay, until another referendum can be held. Remain will win that,  mostly because people are sick of whole thing and just want it to go away, more than anything else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Farage telling Leave voters to boycott any new referendum which is a choice between May's deal and Remain.

Not the sharpest tool in the box.

 

The only UK referendum which has ever had a turnout clause was the 1979 Scottish Devolution one.

Edited by Cade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
4 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Again,  I don't disagree. It was the comparison against food and medical shortages,  the army out on the streets that I was asking at what point,  do you put party politics to the side?

 

Not that it will happen. I also suspect we'll have a delay, until another referendum can be held. Remain will win that,  mostly because people are sick of whole thing and just want it to go away, more than anything else. 

 

 

I'd go for four questions (in parliament first, then a referendum if necessary)

 

1.Deal (May version)

2.No Deal and WTO 

3.Remain (and apologise ?)

4.Ask for extension to change red lines , parliament then agrees the red lines and that it will be a straight Deal or remain option when the negotiators come back 

 

With a single transfeable vote - the lowest scoring option being knocked out and the votes transferred to your second choice - that way we get the deal that's the least worst, at least

 

In my opinion Stage 4 should have been the first step by parliament as soon as the referendum result came in. The Tories could have got a mandate for their red lines then that would have reduced to wriggle room. Those in favour of Brexit were too sanguine about parliament's role and are paying the price.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
1 minute ago, Cade said:

Farage telling Leave voters to boycott any new referendum which is a choice between May's deal and Remain.

Not the sharpest tool in the box.

 

The only UK referendum which has ever had a turnout clause was the 1979 Scottish Independence one.

 

 

1979 was a devolution one

 

Good song about it by the (cough cough....) Auchtermuchty misguided ones

 

"Pat votes the Scots way
Just like her mother
But South always takes all
Just like her brother
 
The next time she might vote
So might the others
But times running out pal
Cause they're giving up in numbers
 
What do you do
When Democracy's all through
What do you do
When minority means you?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The obvious and only workable question(s) is a two stage ballot.     Either all comprised on one ballot paper or two separate papers.

 

Stage 1.   Remain or leave.   Remain wins then the second stage becomes obsolete.    Leave wins then stage 2 is active.

 

Stage 2.    Leave on May's deal (or another deal if May's deal is superceded by parliament) or leave with no deal.

 

Two simple choices.    No cluttering up or over complicating the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

I'd go for four questions (in parliament first, then a referendum if necessary)

 

1.Deal (May version)

2.No Deal and WTO 

3.Remain (and apologise ?)

4.Ask for extension to change red lines , parliament then agrees the red lines and that it will be a straight Deal or remain option when the negotiators come back 

 

With a single transfeable vote - the lowest scoring option being knocked out and the votes transferred to your second choice - that way we get the deal that's the least worst, at least

 

In my opinion Stage 4 should have been the first step by parliament as soon as the referendum result came in. The Tories could have got a mandate for their red lines then that would have reduced to wriggle room. Those in favour of Brexit were too sanguine about parliament's role and are paying the price.

 


I disagree on your options Scott. The last thing we need is more confusion around the choices. I'd written just a few days ago that I thought the second referendum was needed at least as much for the Brexiteers to be held responsible for the consequences of their Brexit. The deal negotiated by May IS the deal you get with the red lines insisted upon by the hardline Brexiteers in her party. If the current deal goes ahead then the Brexiteers will continue to squeal that their referendum mandate was never delivered, that David Davis and Dominic Raab will continue to deny the very deal they they themselves negotiated. I'd be delighted with a straight referendum choice between May's deal and remaining. I'd be pleased if the vote is overwhelmingly remain but I would be happy to accept a vote for May's deal and the Tory Brexiteers finally having to own the shit storm they have created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
1 minute ago, RobboM said:


I disagree on your options Scott. The last thing we need is more confusion around the choices. I'd written just a few days ago that I thought the second referendum was needed at least as much for the Brexiteers to be held responsible for the consequences of their Brexit. The deal negotiated by May IS the deal you get with the red lines insisted upon by the hardline Brexiteers in her party. If the current deal goes ahead then the Brexiteers will continue to squeal that their referendum mandate was never delivered, that David Davis and Dominic Raab will continue to deny the very deal they they themselves negotiated. I'd be delighted with a straight referendum choice between May's deal and remaining. I'd be pleased if the vote is overwhelmingly remain but I would be happy to accept a vote for May's deal and the Tory Brexiteers finally having to own the shit storm they have created.

 

 

I would distinguish between what I want to happen and what I think should happen. Your post seems to be about what you want - eg. accepting May's deal just to show the brexiteers they were wrong.

 

I don't think my options are confusing - they offer a way through the mess and a way of avoiding parliament voting itself inadvertently into no deal, which everyone but some of the ERG agrees would be a disaster for the people of these isles.

 

I don't think there is a parliamentary majority for a second referendum - if put to a vote I think it would get voted down.

 

My guess would be that if May comes back with some 'reassurances' on the backstop it would be a close run thing in my options between between1 and 4, 4 being what I think is the least worst option.


I meant to add, that in the event of 4 there would be two alternatives - it comes back to Parliament again or it comes back to a second referendum. I think there may be a majority for a second referendum in parliament then.  In the event of 4 and a second referendum I think remain could then win with most of the country breathing a sigh of relief. A second referendum now would be terribly divisive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Victorian said:

The obvious and only workable question(s) is a two stage ballot.     Either all comprised on one ballot paper or two separate papers.

 

Stage 1.   Remain or leave.   Remain wins then the second stage becomes obsolete.    Leave wins then stage 2 is active.

 

Stage 2.    Leave on May's deal (or another deal if May's deal is superceded by parliament) or leave with no deal.

 

Two simple choices.    No cluttering up or over complicating the question.

 

That’s  an excellent suggestion. In fact it’s too good and therefore won’t happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

Is May's deal in the best interests of the country though?  I agree that there is a bit of party politics going on (Corbyn's sudden interest in another referendum, which may or may not actually involve a remain option, that's not clear as far as I can make out, for example) but May's sheer bloody mindedness over all of this is, IMO, the clearest example of party politics.  She's trying to keep herparty together, while at the same time keep herself at No10.  It's all a bit Fuhrerbunker from her (again imo).

 

But the choice you mention at the end of your post is precisely May's gambit which, given how roundly defeated it was originally, cannot be in the best interests of the country, but neither is no deal.

 

Parliamentary paralysis would suggest that another referendum is the way forward.  What the question(s) will be is anyone's guess!

 

But bottom line, I'm happy to lay the blame fairly and squarely at the Tories door!  (quelle surprise...)

 

The blame for all this is multilayered.

 

Years of the tabloid press pushing an anti-immigration, anti-Europe, low tax and no regs idea without any real challenge and all major parties going along with it for electoral backing.

 

Years of politicians across London, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast being in a bubble and bubbles of their own.

 

A feckless ex-PM who promised the vote to save his party over his nation.

 

A divided opposition who fought each other within and across parties rather than working to form a viable and coherent alternative.

 

The current PM who hunkered herself on day 1 and allowed maniacs to run the asylum. Who bounced herself into a preemptive article 50 notice with no plan and who destroyed her authority in a disastrous election.

 

A vacuous and hidden opposition leader green lighting most of this through and avoiding Brexit at all costs.

 

A Liberal leader who has been AWOL.

 

The SNP who have used this to further their favoured cause and have changed their Brexit views multiple times over 2 years.

 

And parliament as a whole who have failed to act in a national interest and have diminished the UK through their actions.

 

Where has the inquiry into the dodgy leave money been? The suspected Russian involvement? A security service too worried about bad press in investigating this has been a symbol of this malaise. 

Edited by JamboX2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
3 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

That’s  an excellent suggestion. In fact it’s too good and therefore won’t happen. 

 

 

I think the trouble is that Stage 1 would be a formality - MPs, including many remainers would feel they could not vote to remain. Stage 2 would force May's deal through as no deal would be too bad to stomach. I would predict there would be an amendment for an extension rather than either option which would probably pass, leaving everyone dissatisfied.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

Is May's deal in the best interests of the country though?  I agree that there is a bit of party politics going on (Corbyn's sudden interest in another referendum, which may or may not actually involve a remain option, that's not clear as far as I can make out, for example) but May's sheer bloody mindedness over all of this is, IMO, the clearest example of party politics.  She's trying to keep herparty together, while at the same time keep herself at No10.  It's all a bit Fuhrerbunker from her (again imo).

 

But the choice you mention at the end of your post is precisely May's gambit which, given how roundly defeated it was originally, cannot be in the best interests of the country, but neither is no deal.

 

Parliamentary paralysis would suggest that another referendum is the way forward.  What the question(s) will be is anyone's guess!

 

But bottom line, I'm happy to lay the blame fairly and squarely at the Tories door!  (quelle surprise...)

In a nutshell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

The blame for all this is multilayered.

 

Years of the tabloid press pushing an anti-immigration, anti-Europe, low tax and no regs idea without any real challenge and all major parties going along with it for electoral backing.

 

Tories

 

11 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Years of politicians across London, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast being in a bubble and bubbles of their own.

 

New Labour-itis (Tories?)

 

11 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

A feckless ex-PM who promised the vote to save his party over his nation.

 

Tory

 

11 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

A divided opposition who fought each other within and across parties rather than working to form a viable and coherent alternative.

 

Fair point, but not a primary cause.

 

11 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

The current PM who hunkered herself on day 1 and allowed maniacs to run the asylum. Who bounced herself into a preemptive article 50 notice with no plan and who destroyed her authority in a disastrous election.

 

Tory

 

11 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

A vacuous and hidden opposition leader green lighting most of this through and avoiding Brexit at all costs.

 

Not a cause, but a reaction?

 

11 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

A Liberal leader who has been AWOL.

 

Who would listen to him anyway?

 

11 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

The SNP who have used this to further their favoured cause and have changed their Brexit views multiple times over 2 years.

 

Mmm...pretty sure they've been consistently pro-EU.

 

11 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

And parliament as a whole who have failed to act in a national interest and have diminished the UK through their actions.

 

Biggest party?  Tories!

 

11 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Where has the inquiry into the dodgy leave money been? The suspected Russian involvement? A security service too worried about bad press in investigating this has been a symbol of this malaise. 

 

Tory obfuscation!  They are in charge and doing nothing about this!  Tory media naturally rubber earing it.

 

Whilst I agree that the Labour Party hasn't covered itself in glory here, IMO the blame is firmly laid at the Tory Party's door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

UK PM Theresa May to propose Commons votes on no-deal Brexit and Brexit delay, if MPs reject her plan next month.

So pretty much ruling out no deal by stating that there would be a vote if her deal fell through, considering there appear to be a clear majority for a no deal across the parties.

 

So all this bluster is now simply take the deal or delay.

 

All this brinksmanship and bullshit from all sides has already destroyed what little respect people had of the democratic process and parliament.

Edited by Jamboelite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn

You watch Yvette Cooper speaking and you think, how did an absolute roaster like Corbyn end up as Labour leader? They’re literally run by a guy whose only talents are tending to his allotment and inviting terrorists round for tea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May's concessions have only been made in order to continue to control the agenda / timetable of the commons.     To 'concede' the very amendments that were about to be forced on her.     To head off a large party rebellion.

 

She reacts to influences,   only when it imminently threatens her position.    She never proactively reacts for the national interest.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
1 minute ago, Victorian said:

May's concessions have only been made in order to continue to control the agenda / timetable of the commons.     To 'concede' the very amendments that were about to be forced on her.     To head off a large party rebellion.

 

She reacts to influences,   only when it imminently threatens her position.    She never proactively reacts for the national interest.   

 

It's like a Viking sheild wall retreating, grudgingly, inch by inch and forever trying to stab you in the legs as it goes backward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

May's concessions have only been made in order to continue to control the agenda / timetable of the commons.     To 'concede' the very amendments that were about to be forced on her.     To head off a large party rebellion.

 

She reacts to influences,   only when it imminently threatens her position.    She never proactively reacts for the national interest.   

She's ****ing pathetic, and Corbyn should be all over her, except he's ****ing pathetic too.

 

The nick of Westminster just now is utterly depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jamboelite said:

All this brinksmanship and bullshit from all sides has already destroyed what little respect people had of the democratic process and parliament.

 

 

Very very true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Victorian said:

May's concessions have only been made in order to continue to control the agenda / timetable of the commons.     To 'concede' the very amendments that were about to be forced on her.     To head off a large party rebellion.

 

She reacts to influences,   only when it imminently threatens her position.    She never proactively reacts for the national interest.   

 

Shes not alone there. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

You watch Yvette Cooper speaking and you think, how did an absolute roaster like Corbyn end up as Labour leader? They’re literally run by a guy whose only talents are tending to his allotment and inviting terrorists round for tea

because to undermine david Milliband they reduced membership costs to a piece of frayed twine and tackety boots.

Thus flooded their own membership with malcontents to ensure they got rid of the blairites.

They did this, but hobbled their chances of power at the same time----- even the wrong brother was better that what they are left with, the malignant gnome of Hezbollah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jamboelite said:

All this brinksmanship and bullshit from all sides has already destroyed what little respect people had of the democratic process and parliament.

 

Indeed. The crows who were squabbling over my birdfeeder this morning were showing more decorum and consensus than the  current arseholerie of politicians we're having to put up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IBS sorry IDS on Channel 4 news just now on about " further negotiations" with the EU??? its comical. They have been clear of their red lines so there is no further "negotiations" When will they get it into their thick heads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
15 minutes ago, Cade said:

 

 

I like that the last two pages are empty - maybe where the good news paragraphs where due to be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

Thats brutual a no deal results in 6-9% reduction in economic growth than otherwise expected. Scotland anticipated at the worst end of the scale with 8.5%

 

No way should a no deal scenario be allowed to happen. 

 

 

 

I'm not suggesting there's many positives in that reading........but that reduction would be the economic position, 15 years hence and assuming all trade being carried out WTO, with no trade deals entered into during that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

IBS sorry IDS on Channel 4 news just now on about " further negotiations" with the EU??? its comical. They have been clear of their red lines so there is no further "negotiations" When will they get it into their thick heads?

 

This is from 'the Brady amendment'.     When the PM employed Graham Brady as a proxy to move the motion to notionally approve her deal (+ alternative arrangements to replace the backstop).   The one the Tory Party voted for like utter mugs,    despite no specifics whatsoever on what the alternative arrangements were.     The one that was followed by May creeping off to the EU to not actually propose anything and the EU left wondering if the UK would get around to proposing anything at all.

 

They all cheered like simpletons as this was voted through.    Sold a complete pup.     IDS appears to be unicorn spotting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cade said:

**** sake i mean who the **** wants this as an outcome....

 

idiots to a man and clearly no one is going to agree a no deal...not anyone with any sanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet huge numbers of people still peddle the line that protecting the notional integrity of democratic trust is more important than preventing the real,  tangible,  practical effects of a disorderly exit.        Honouring a corruptly derived result > jobs, businesses,  prosperity,  economic trauma,  food & medicine import disruption.

 

Ordinary people in the street brainwashed into peddling an obsolete dogma.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh good... Kirsty Wark is doing Newsnight.    I wonder if she'll be caught out again prompting guests to answer questions one way or the other.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor
9 hours ago, Victorian said:

Yet huge numbers of people still peddle the line that protecting the notional integrity of democratic trust is more important than preventing the real,  tangible,  practical effects of a disorderly exit.        Honouring a corruptly derived result > jobs, businesses,  prosperity,  economic trauma,  food & medicine import disruption.

 

Ordinary people in the street brainwashed into peddling an obsolete dogma.    

There's a huge rump of people who want a car crash no deal exit. Even after the publication of that summary you can bet they'll still want a no deal exit. 

'Take back control' at any cost it would seem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May now telling MPs to do their duty and vote for a deal.     It doesn't appear to register that MPs are not duty bound to vote for whatever month old dead badger is thrown in front of them.      

 

This all feeds nicely into the obvious rationale.    That the PM is the sole person capable of deciding what must be done.    Everyone else is just there to rubber stamp whatever shite she comes out with.     

 

Ir's no good blaming Corbyn for not being effective enough to prevent her shitehousery.    It's our parliamentary system that allows one vain,  arrogant person to hold the country to ransom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been some speculation that,   in the event of parliament successfully taking control of the Brexit agenda / timetable away from her,   she will prevent that by calling a general election.     The very same thing she resisted at the time of the commons no confidence motion.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Victorian said:

There has been some speculation that,   in the event of parliament successfully taking control of the Brexit agenda / timetable away from her,   she will prevent that by calling a general election.     The very same thing she resisted at the time of the commons no confidence motion.     

 

Can she do that under the fixed term parliaments act?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Victorian said:

It's our parliamentary system that allows one vain,  arrogant person to hold the country to ransom.

Arlene? 

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

There has been some speculation that,   in the event of parliament successfully taking control of the Brexit agenda / timetable away from her,   she will prevent that by calling a general election.     The very same thing she resisted at the time of the commons no confidence motion.     

Christ on a bike! I would like to think that the electorate would put the Conservative party to the sword in that scenario but to be honest, we are dealing with folk who still think the NHS will be getting £350M a week and Sri Lanka and Greenland will replace all the trade lost from the EU so I'm not so sure.

 

What does it take though? Mass unemployment, and a complete breakdown in society for folk to realise that the political elites have shafted us? As long as love Island and Eastenders still get aired then its all good!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

Can she do that under the fixed term parliaments act?

Yes, the govt puts forward a motion and the House votes it through.

This is how we had that snap election after the stupid bint took over.

 

So in reality the fixed term act doesn't mean much.

Edited by Cade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Christ on a bike! I would like to think that the electorate would put the Conservative party to the sword in that scenario but to be honest, we are dealing with folk who still think the NHS will be getting £350M a week and Sri Lanka and Greenland will replace all the trade lost from the EU so I'm not so sure.

 

What does it take though? Mass unemployment, and a complete breakdown in society for folk to realise that the political elites have shafted us? As long as love Island and Eastenders still get aired then its all good!

 

 

 

Exactly.    People go on about a breakdown in trust of democracy and politics if the result of the referendum is not 'respected'.     But democracy and politics are already in the gutter.     This government has created a virtual dictatorship via exploiting the weaknesses in our parliamentary machinery.     Contempt and abuse of proceedure at every juncture.      It has laid bare just how unfit for purpose the Westminster business & legislating system is.    After Brexit is dealt with,    politics and Westminster require a massive modernisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

 People go on about a breakdown in trust of democracy and politics if the result of the referendum is not 'respected'.    

 

And therein lies the irony.

 

If there were another referendum and remain won, surely that is the democratic "will of the people"?

 

I suspect that Brexiteers feel they would lose such a referendum.  That's why they don't want one.  Very democratic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

And therein lies the irony.

 

If there were another referendum and remain won, surely that is the democratic "will of the people"?

 

I suspect that Brexiteers feel they would lose such a referendum.  That's why they don't want one.  Very democratic!

 

They even portray any postponement as some kind of Trojan Horse device to facilitate overturning Brexit.     Complete and utter paranoia.

 

But yeah,    why would an up-to-date referendum result be undemocratic compared to one from 2-3 years ago.    It isn't.     It's just a dishonest,  redundant dogma peddled by zealots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTO agrees terms to keep Britain in procurement deal post-Brexit

Britain has agreement at the World Trade Organization to remain within the WTO's Government Procurement Agreement after it leaves the European Union, Britain's mission said.

Britain is a member of the GPA, whose members open up their combined $1.7 trillion (£1.3 trillion) government procurement markets to each other's firms, by virtue of its EU membership.

Diplomats agreed Britain's continuing membership post-Brexit in principle in November, saying few changes would be needed and GPA members had an interest in keeping Britain within the club.

"Today’s decision underlines our determination to minimise any disruption, however we leave the European Union," British Ambassador Julian Braithwaite said.

He said the European Union, Montenegro and Switzerland had had to amend their own membership terms to ensure continuity.

Members of the agreement have to buy their way in by opening up their procurement markets sufficiently to persuade the rest of the club to reciprocate.

Membership would "ensure that British taxpayers and public sector organisations, including government departments, continue to benefit from increased choice and value for money on contracts which are open to international competition. The agreement will continue to protect vital public services such as the NHS (National Health Service)," the British mission's statement said.

There are 47 GPA members, including all EU countries. Australia is joining and China wants to become a member. 

Staying in the GPA is important so that British companies can bid for government work in the United States, the European Union and Japan, and their firms can retain access to Britain's procurement market.

U.S. Ambassador Dennis Shea said the United States welcomed the decision. 

"In 2013, the United Kingdom accounted for over a quarter of the EU’s total procurements covered by the GPA," Shea said.

"The importance of the UK is even more significant when you look at just central government entities where the UK accounts for 46 percent of the EU’s covered procurements." 

 (Reporting by Tom Miles; Editing by Catherine Evans and Janet Lawrence)

 

 

Norway wealth fund shrugs off Brexit, plans rise in UK investments

Norway's $1 trillion (£753 billion) sovereign wealth fund, the world's biggest, said on Wednesday it planned to keep increasing its investments in Britain, and it shrugged off uncertainties about Brexit.

The fund, built from Norway's oil and gas revenues and one of the biggest investors in Britain, said 8.5 percent of its portfolio was in British equities, bonds and real estate at the end of 2018.

"We will continue to be significant" investors in Britain, the fund's CEO Yngve Slyngstad told Reuters after the fund reported a loss in market value for 2018. "And we foresee that over time that our investments in the UK will increase."

"With our time horizon, which is 30 years plus, current political discussions do not change our view of the situation," he said when asked about the risks caused by Britain's plans to quit the EU on March 29.

Even so, Britain's share of the fund's portfolio slipped below Japan's to third from its usual spot in second behind the United States. Slyngstad said the dip was caused by a strengthening of the yen against the pound.

And he said Britain was included in a broad-based global equities buying spree worth about $30 billion from November to January when the fund reckoned it was buying shares on the cheap amid turmoil on markets.

The fund is one of the biggest foreign investors in Britain, as a co-owner of London's Regent Street, as a top five owner in firms such as HSBC and BP among others, and as a holder of roughly 6 billion pounds of UK government debt.

Slyngstad also reaffirmed commitment to Britain even in the case of a 'no-deal' Brexit. Norway is not a member of the EU, although it is bound by many of its rules.

"We see no operational consequences of any possible outcomes," he said. He said that the fund had almost 250 staff in London and would stay at that level regardless of the outcome of the Brexit talks.

Worldwide, the fund owns about 1.4 percent of all equities.

Falls in stock markets meant that the fund, equivalent to $193,000 for every Norwegian man, woman and child, had a negative return on investment of 6.1 percent in 2018, down from a positive 13.7 percent in 2017. 

And it lagged its benchmark index by 0.3 percentage point.

"This is the first time that the fund has had a considerable decline in value," Slyngstad told a news conference. "The only other time was a slight decline in 2002."

The fund's value slipped to 8.26 billion crowns (£728.28 million) at the end of 2018 from 8.49 billion in 2017. But Slyngstad said that market gains so far in 2019 had wiped out last year's losses.

At the end of 2018, the fund's biggest equity holdings were in Microsoft (64.7 billion crowns), Apple (62.7 billion), Alphabet (57.6 billion), Amazon (54.8 billion), Nestle (53.9 billion) and Royal Dutch Shell (51.3 billion).

 (Reporting by Gwladys Fouche and Alister Doyle; Editing by Terje Solsvik, Larry King and Hugh Lawson)

 

 

Ineos to spend 1 billion pounds on UK energy business

Billionaire Jim Ratcliffe's petrochemicals company Ineos said on Wednesday it would spend 1 billion pounds on UK energy assets, including the Forties pipeline, which carries almost half of Britain's oil and gas from the North Sea.

Ineos said it would invest 500 million pounds on overhauling its ageing Forties pipeline, which has been in service since 1975 and can carry up to 600,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil.

Founder and chairman Ratcliffe, Britain's richest man, said the investment underscored the company's commitment to its UK-based businesses.

"Ineos is a supporter of British manufacturing and this 1 billion pounds investment underlines our confidence in our business in the UK," Ratcliffe said.

The company bought the pipeline from BP in late 2018. Within weeks, it was forced to shut the system for around two months to fix a crack in an onshore section, triggering a spike in British natural gas prices in the depths of winter. 

Ineos said the upgrades would extend into the 2040s the lifeline of the pipeline system, which it said carries 40 percent of Britain's offshore crude oil and natural gas. 

Ineos said it would also invest 350 million pounds in a new energy plant at the 200,000-bpd Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland, and an additional 150 million pounds in a new petrochemicals facility in the northern English city of Hull. 

 (Reporting by Amanda Cooper; Editing by Dale Hudson and Jason Neely)

Edited by Dannie Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • davemclaren changed the title to Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...