UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
date
newest »
newest »
Yes the mistake made was trying to help bind the wounds and letting somebody who campaigned for remain to lead the negotiationshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlI48...
we should just have ignored the remoaners and planned for a simple exit
the Remoaners outside of Parliament have had virtually no influence on anything to do with the process. They haven't secured a people's vote, they haven't persuaded Corbyn to their side. Whatever the mess is down to the inability of Brexit politicians to understand, let alone agree, what they want, other than meaningless buzzwords like 'sovereignty' and control. You have very little control in a global economy as the recent economic downturns prompted by issues in other countries (including the US) have shown. The fact that none of our professional politicians seemed to know that the Good Friday Agreement had a built in predicate about being part of the EU is astounding. Commentators were mentioning it at the time around the campaign and certainly in the immediate aftermath of the referendum. Am I a Remainer? Yes. Do I believe in a second vote? No. I think we're just going to have to take our medicine for self-inflicted wounds. I just hope they're not gangrenous.
So the people who didn't vote for Brexit are the cause of the problems brought on by Brexit?Sorry, what?
Michael Cargill wrote: "So the people who didn't vote for Brexit are the cause of the problems brought on by Brexit?Sorry, what?"
no, read what I said.
May is responsible, a remainer put in power because she promised to pull the country together to build a deal everybody would agree on
Marc wrote: "the Remoaners outside of Parliament have had virtually no influence on anything to do with the process. They haven't secured a people's vote, they haven't persuaded Corbyn to their side. Whatever t..."Please will somebody show me a formal legal opinion saying that the good friday agreement means we cannot leave the EU, as opposed to a political comment
So why are you referring to May as a Remainer?She was put in power by the electorate.
Michael Cargill wrote: "So why are you referring to May as a Remainer?She was put in power by the electorate."
Technically she was put in power by the DUP :-)
technically she was put in power by being nominated in the Tory Party leadership competition as a candidate and then after stabs in the back, withdrawals and insinuating ad hominem campaigns by candidates who no one had ever heard of up to that point but looked like they could have won were it not for that boo-boo, meant that May was the last (wo-)man standing. So no one much put her in power
I don't think the Good Friday agreement states that we can't leave the EU but as we were in the EU at the time it was made it is all tied in and so elements might need to be reconsidered. It makes Northern Ireland leaving the EU more complicated than the rest of the UK leaving. I haven't read it fully but here's a link to the agreement, I don't know of any legal statements saying it can't happen.https://assets.publishing.service.gov...
For me my concerns are more about the political instability that this might cause, especially if there is a border put up between us and the south or us and the mainland.
really it's up to the Irish governmentThe last thing they need is a hard border, even in the Irish sea as 85% of Ireland's trade with the EU goes via the UK
It's not just up to the Irish Government though if it was I don't think it would be an issue because there would just be no hard border. A lot of Northern Ireland's trade with the mainland and EU goes through Dublin too so it isn't just Irish goods that are affected. And that's just one aspect of the issue, there is so much more involved in it than trade.The last thing the UK and Ireland need is a hard border, you can't just say it's an Irish issue or responsibility we are part of the UK and should be treated as such instead of being ignored. Especially seeing as our own politicians aren't doing much to help us at the moment.
I have another concern, and in this it is irrelevant which way you voted. May brought back an agreement weighing in (literally, and does anyone else recall Cicero's pithy aside?) at 500 pages. The Cabinet wer4e given less than 24 hours to vote on the document. They were given access only in a secure reading room, with no access to professional support and not allowed to copy any part of the document
How on earth were they to come to a considered decision on a technical and legal document - bearing in mind that none of them (incl Hammond) are competent economists or have legal training - in those circumstances? This agreement has major implications for the UK, something we can all agree on, and it needs proper reflection not a rushed yes/no.
I personally see it as an abuse of process and I hope the Commons puts a stop to it.
Will wrote: "I have another concern, and in this it is irrelevant which way you voted. May brought back an agreement weighing in (literally, and does anyone else recall Cicero's pithy aside?) at 500 pages. Th..."
I have read it, all 585 pages of it and it actually did not take that long. The reasons:
1. Masses and masses of white space. Printing it isn't recommended unless you have shares in the paper manufacturer.
2. Huge sections cover such issues as how planes and ships which leave somewhere before the end of Transition and arrive somewhere else after are to be treated. Obviously these corner cases need to be covered, but they were easily skimmed.
3. The document indicates how things will work from the end of transition (essentially, when the EU agrees we will have settled our accounts and we are not obliged to pay more money except for services rendered, which are itemised) and the agreement of the long term relationship; the so-called back-stop. Which boils down to the UK as a whole being in the Customs Union whilst Northern Ireland is in the Single Market.
4. It doesn't cover the future relationship at all, beyond the suggestion that the backstop is the starting point for further discussions.
It is true there is loads of "The provisions of Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 on reimbursement, recovery and offsetting shall continue to apply in relation to events, in so far as they relate to persons not covered by Article 30, that:
(a) occurred before the end of the transition period; or
(b) occur after the end of the transition period and relate to persons who were covered by Articles 30 or 32 when the event occurred."
stuff that one might think should need to be followed through by lawyers, to ensure that there are no "Every first-born daughter will be sacrificed to Moloch annually" clauses lurking in the referenced legislation, but since these regulations already apply and will be incorporated into UK Law by the UK's EU Repeal Act anyway, I was comfortable reading all these things as meaning "The Status Quo will continue".
It's not just an Irish at all, it's very much a British issue."Control of our borders" is very important to large sections of the Brexit vote.
As is not having Bishopsgate bombed again.
David wrote: "Will wrote: "I have another concern, and in this it is irrelevant which way you voted. I was comfortable reading all these things as meaning "The Status Quo will continue"."
Oh no, can't they just pack it in? If I have to hear "Rocking All Over The World" one more time, I shall get all stabby
Marc wrote: 'If I have to hear "Rocking All Over The World" one more time, I shall get all stabby'Ha! So the explanation of the build up of grumpiness that led to the Brexit vote is a surfeit of 60's Rock.
A novel and incisive contribution to the Political History of the 21st Century.
Never forget that you saw it here first!
Not because I think it'll provoke an argument, but because I think people might find it interestinghttp://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bi...
It's the pdf of the report of the Finnish experiment into basic income
Yes, it's interesting. The BBC Web-site interviewed half a dozen people who'd been in receipt of the Basic Income, and they all expressed regret at its passing.It is noteworthy how difficult the Finns found it to reduce bureaucracy, even when that was one of their aims. When I helped a woman in the UK with an unusual set of circumstances to apply for benefits in the UK, her application and two internal appeals against the decision were rejected. Eventually the appeal went to the final, external tribunal, when it was allowed, as I had expected from the outset. It was hard to avoid the impression that the earlier procedures only existed to make work for bureaucrats.
Ah, that lasting impression: that laws are drafted to benefit lawyers, and regulations to benefit bureaucrats
I read today about a gentleman who got is long term disability allowance approved months after his death.I applaud his family for not giving up.
Will wrote: "Ah, that lasting impression: that laws are drafted to benefit lawyers, and regulations to benefit bureaucrats"The sole purpose!
The petition to Revoke Article 50 (and potentially, starting the whole painful process over again, giving us the two years of Transition whilst still being members and thus in a position to influence EU rules that come into effect during the transition) is now up to 3,000,000 signatures. https://petition.parliament.uk/petiti...
As much as I support Revoke, I don't think 3 million signatures can be stacked up against 17 million Leave votes
A BBC article had quoted someone saying that it would need at least 17 million signatures before it would create interest at parliament.
Jud wrote: "A BBC article had quoted someone saying that it would need at least 17 million signatures before it would create interest at parliament."That was Andrea Leadsom.
The previous petition got to over four million signatures but was then kicked out because so many bots had signed it
Marc wrote: "As much as I support Revoke, I don't think 3 million signatures can be stacked up against 17 million Leave votes"The difference in age profile between Remain voters and Leave voters suggests:
1. About 1.5 million of the people who voted Leave in 2016 are now dead
2. This is something like a million more than Remain voters who died in the same time interval.
Counting dead people's votes is normally considered to be a case of Electoral Fraud!
Marc wrote: "Not in Belfast it isn't!"vote early, vote often :-)
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
How's this Brexit thing looking for you now you know what it is?
- It's already costing the UK £400 million a week (BoE figures)
+ £39 billion over 2 more years (money we've agreed we owe)
+ Unknown quantities thereafter.
And we're going to agree to on-going rule-taking with no say in the formulation of those rules.
A number of Ministers have resigned. In any other circumstances the announcement that Geographically-challenged Dominic Raab and Trumpian-scale Parliamentary liar Esther McVey had quit would be celebrated as Good News ...
Brexit. The Gift That Keeps On Giving!