INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
animist
Posts: 6025
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2821 Postby animist » December 15th, 2017, 8:56 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Tetenterre wrote:
animist wrote:oops, suppose I should have cut and pasted instead! :laughter:
Yes, please. :D
you've baffled me with this, TT. Do you mean that you would rather not have discovered my real name? Too late, it is on record, and you or anyone else here are welcome to email me direct if you'd prefer

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2822 Postby Alan H » December 16th, 2017, 10:41 am

animist wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:
animist wrote:oops, suppose I should have cut and pasted instead! :laughter:
Yes, please. :D
you've baffled me with this, TT. Do you mean that you would rather not have discovered my real name? Too late, it is on record, and you or anyone else here are welcome to email me direct if you'd prefer

We can't read your email! You provided a link to your email, but no one can log in to it because we know neither your email address nor your password!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2823 Postby Alan H » December 16th, 2017, 10:42 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6025
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2824 Postby animist » December 16th, 2017, 11:09 am

Alan H wrote:Aren't some Brexiteers lovely people? Anna Soubry receives messages calling for her to be hanged as a traitor

I know what is going on, and you are sadly right. You, unlike me, are probably too sensible to venture on the Guido Fawkes site, but I do anyway and get lots of abuse. I really don't care, and I don't retaliate. Obviously for MPs like Soubry it is a whole different league, and I phoned her constituency office a few weeks ago to express support. It is not much but you have to do what you can.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2825 Postby Alan H » December 16th, 2017, 11:20 am

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:Aren't some Brexiteers lovely people? Anna Soubry receives messages calling for her to be hanged as a traitor

I know what is going on, and you are sadly right. You, unlike me, are probably too sensible to venture on the Guido Fawker site, but I do anyway and get lots of abuse. I really don't care, and I don't retaliate. Obviously for MPs like Soubry it is a whole different league, and I phoned her constituency office a few weeks ago to express support. It is not much but you have to do what you can
Indeed. I commented under a snippet from LBC by Farage. I wasn't particularly charitable towards him:
Farage was never in frontline politics. He's a nobody; he's simply an odious little man that was once in charge of a nasty little right-wing party that found favour with the right-wing press, BBC Question Time and LBC and had influence far above his standing. He was out of his depth in terms of his intellect but drowned out reasoned, rational voices with his droning, loud-mouth incoherent and repugnant views. He was good for making headlines that riled Daily Mail readers, but has never contributed one iota of good to British society, or indeed, humanity. He is simply a leech on society and a carbuncle on politics.
I got abuse, of course, but not death threats...
Alan,you sound like a marxist odius leftie who has no loyalty to the people of this country. You would rather see foreign people be given houses and benefits than look after your own kind. Shame on you!
It seems they are as bad at arguing as homeopaths.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6025
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2826 Postby animist » December 16th, 2017, 11:27 am

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:Aren't some Brexiteers lovely people? Anna Soubry receives messages calling for her to be hanged as a traitor

I know what is going on, and you are sadly right. You, unlike me, are probably too sensible to venture on the Guido Fawker site, but I do anyway and get lots of abuse. I really don't care, and I don't retaliate. Obviously for MPs like Soubry it is a whole different league, and I phoned her constituency office a few weeks ago to express support. It is not much but you have to do what you can
Indeed. I commented under a snippet from LBC by Farage. I wasn't particularly charitable towards him:
Farage was never in frontline politics. He's a nobody; he's simply an odious little man that was once in charge of a nasty little right-wing party that found favour with the right-wing press, BBC Question Time and LBC and had influence far above his standing. He was out of his depth in terms of his intellect but drowned out reasoned, rational voices with his droning, loud-mouth incoherent and repugnant views. He was good for making headlines that riled Daily Mail readers, but has never contributed one iota of good to British society, or indeed, humanity. He is simply a leech on society and a carbuncle on politics.
I got abuse, of course, but not death threats...
Alan,you sound like a marxist odius leftie who has no loyalty to the people of this country. You would rather see foreign people be given houses and benefits than look after your own kind. Shame on you!
It seems they are as bad at arguing as homeopaths.

The only actual attack which seems at all related to this awful Brexit issue was that on Jo Cox just before the referendum, and I imagine that Soubry's staff will in time get immured to verbal abuse. But it is appalling that we seem to have moved this way, something probably familiar in other countries. Having said this, back in Victorian times I seem to remember that some MPs (eg Charles Stewart Parnell, the Irish Nationalist leader) actually wore guns to protect themselves. What is so awful about the Fawkes site is that he (actually his name is Paul Street) sets them off ranting and feeding off each other, while of course making some sort of living from the ads on the site. Very nasty, though I trust that most of the morons are all bark and no bite

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3192
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: In or out?

#2827 Postby Tetenterre » December 16th, 2017, 3:27 pm

animist wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:
animist wrote:oops, suppose I should have cut and pasted instead! :laughter:
Yes, please. :D
you've baffled me with this, TT. Do you mean that you would rather not have discovered my real name? Too late, it is on record, and you or anyone else here are welcome to email me direct if you'd prefer
Perhaps this may help; here is a link to an email in my gmail inbox:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=c ... 2f9732ed6f

Good luck! :D

I'd rather you'd cut and pasted so that I could actually read the contents of the letter from your MP. :smile:
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6025
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2828 Postby animist » December 17th, 2017, 9:49 am

Tetenterre wrote:
animist wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:Yes, please. :D
you've baffled me with this, TT. Do you mean that you would rather not have discovered my real name? Too late, it is on record, and you or anyone else here are welcome to email me direct if you'd prefer
Perhaps this may help; here is a link to an email in my gmail inbox:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=c ... 2f9732ed6f

Good luck! :D

I'd rather you'd cut and pasted so that I could actually read the contents of the letter from your MP. :smile:
oh I see, sorry. I did cut and paste when I put this on Facebook but overlooked doing it here. The letter is not exactly exciting apart from the amusing mistake about water and bridges. Anyway, here it is:

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
SOAMES, Nicholas

Dear Constituent,
You wrote to me ahead of the debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

As you know the Government lost a major division on this matter. I voted with the Government and I have to say that I regret the result, not least because a perfectly good compromise was offered. However, the position is now as it is and there is a great deal of water yet to flow over the bridge.
I attach various papers that you may find informative.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... Agreements
Best wishes.
Yours sincerely,

The Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Soames MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Tel 020 7219 4143
nicholas.soames.mp@parliament.uk
http://www.nicholassoames.org.uk

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2829 Postby Alan H » December 17th, 2017, 12:12 pm

animist wrote:However, the position is now as it is and there is a great deal of water yet to flow over the bridge.
Good grief.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6025
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2830 Postby animist » December 17th, 2017, 2:18 pm

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:However, the position is now as it is and there is a great deal of water yet to flow over the bridge.
Good grief.

I think that on FB I added a remark to the effect that Old Nick might be making a coded message :laughter:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2831 Postby Alan H » December 17th, 2017, 3:16 pm

:laughter:
animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:However, the position is now as it is and there is a great deal of water yet to flow over the bridge.
Good grief.

I think that on FB I added a remark to the effect that Old Nick might be making a coded message :laughter:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2832 Postby Alan H » December 17th, 2017, 6:28 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2833 Postby Alan H » December 17th, 2017, 6:56 pm

Who'd have guessed? Workers Rights: the Brexit Bonfire Begins?
Put simply, far from increasing workers’ pay, scrapping the working time Directive would reduce that pay for many of them. It’s unfortunate that while most journalists aim to speak truth to power, some seem content to mislead on its behalf.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2834 Postby Alan H » December 18th, 2017, 2:29 pm

What’s the point of a Brexit when nothing changes?
As the academic Alexander Clarkson put it on Twitter, the key question has now changed:

“In 18 months we’ve gone from “Brexit: What the Hell Happens Now?” to “Brexit: What’s the Point?”"

And that is a far more difficult question for pr0-Brexiters to answer.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2835 Postby Alan H » December 18th, 2017, 5:22 pm

Vince Cable: Time to bring down the curtain on the Brexit pantomime
The mess being created around the Irish Border issue exemplifies the hazards ahead. But Brexit is not inevitable and can be stopped. That is why we call for a fresh vote on the Brexit deal (if there is one) with the option to choose an “exit from Brexit”.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2836 Postby Alan H » December 20th, 2017, 1:11 am

The Day the Unicorns Cried: the deal on phase 1 of the Brexit talks
Conclusions

Hard core Brexiteers once insisted that the UK could quickly obtain a short, simple trade agreement from the EU, with the EU capitulating immediately to the UK’s demands. The length and complexity of the Brexit talks to date – before trade talks have even begun – shows the falsehood of these assertions.

So do the details of the agreement to date. If the UK ‘holds all the cards in negotiations’, why did it agree to a financial settlement in the tens of billions? If the UK/Ireland border could simply remain unaffected by the Brexit process, why was there a need for such convoluted language on this issue – with many details still to be worked out? If the citizens’ rights issues could be settled by a simple exchange of letters, why has the UK agreed to the continued application of key aspects of EU law to EU27 citizens in the UK?

It seems evident that the UK/Ireland relationship will continue to remain a central issue not just as regards the withdrawal agreement, but also the UK/EU future relationship. The ironies pile up here. First, while the UK government tried to use discussions of Irish border issues to bring forward talks on the future EU/UK trade relationship, the EU27’s willingness to do just that then exposed the lack of agreement within the UK government (and between the government and the DUP) as to exactly what the UK wants from that future relationship.

Secondly, the joint report treats Northern Ireland as Schrodinger’s province: simultaneously reaffirming its identity as a uniform part of the UK and its distinct status as a part of the UK closely linked to the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps this is to be expected from the influence of the Democratic Unionist Party, which sees no contradiction in simultaneously insisting on Northern Ireland’s uniformity with the rest of the UK and on the need for lower taxes, more spending and different laws on same-sex marriage and abortion there than in the rest of the UK.

Thirdly, the huge overlap between hard core Brexiteers and hard core unionists contains inherent contradictions. Because of the Good Friday Agreement, retaining a close link between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK necessarily means retaining a close link between the entire UK and Ireland – and therefore with the rest of the EU. Brexiteers are keen to enhance links with the USA and the Commonwealth; but Ireland was not the ex-colony they were looking for.

Overall, agreement on the first phase of Brexit talks means that ‘no deal’ in the talks is somewhat less likely – though this might be mirrored by the Remain option being less likely too, if it means that leaving the EU produces only a gradual economic impact, rather than a huge shock. Coupled with the plans for a transitional period which mostly or entirely retains the substantive status quo of EU membership, the joint report envisages a process in which the UK moves gradually from being a semi-detached member of the EU to a semi-detached non-member of the EU.

The UK government has yet to resile from all the magical thinking which Brexiteers have indulged in. But its willingness to compromise on some difficult issues does suggest it recognises that ‘no deal’ is a bad idea. It has also recognised that a transition is necessary, that a financial settlement is inevitable, and (tentatively) that Brexit leprechauns will not solve Irish border issues. The move to the next phase of Brexit talks was a bad day for disaster capitalists and fantasists. But while the sky will be clearer without flocks of flying pigs and unicorns, it does mean that everyone on the ground will now have to listen to the same endless moaning from hard Brexiteers which they have long accused Remainers of.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2837 Postby Alan H » December 20th, 2017, 1:31 pm

This Brexit things is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? IMF downgrades UK growth forecast on Brexit uncertainty
The IMF has cut its UK economic growth forecast, blaming Brexit uncertainty.

The Fund expects growth of 1.6% this year, down slightly from its previous forecast of 1.7%. It expects growth to slow further next year, to 1.5%.

IMF chief Christine Lagarde said uncertainty over the Brexit deal was causing UK firms to delay investment plans.

She also said rising inflation, caused by the fall in the pound, and stagnant wages were squeezing spending power.

But she added that relative to growth in the rest of the world, "the UK is losing out as a result of higher inflation, pressure on wages and incomes and delayed investment".

"If you look at investment alone, with 2.1% of GDP in investment, with the global economy as it is, and the space the UK economy has in that global economy, it should be rolling at 6%."

Remind me again why the Tories are doing this to us?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6025
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2838 Postby animist » December 21st, 2017, 11:53 am

this is getting very strange. On the one hand we have all the furore about cliff edges and Parliament's right to a meaningful vote on a deal BEFORE March 29 2019. Yet it seems that the deal will be made AFTER that date, during whatever period is allowed for this so-called transition. Alan, do you understand why I am confused?


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2839 Postby Alan H » December 21st, 2017, 1:27 pm

animist wrote:
this is getting very strange. On the one hand we have all the furore about cliff edges and Parliament's right to a meaningful vote on a deal BEFORE March 29 2019. Yet it seems that the deal will be made AFTER that date, during whatever period is allowed for this so-called transition. Alan, do you understand why I am confused?


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater
That Santa's letter is great!

I think it's all deliberate confusion and obfuscation and playing with words: I don't think MPs have pushed the Tories anywhere near hard enough on what they actually mean and what and when this vote will be. The Tories are certainly treating Parliament with contempt, to say nothing of the sheer contempt of citizens.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2840 Postby Alan H » December 21st, 2017, 9:18 pm

At long last, the Brexit impact reports are published. All 60...I mean 59.. err 58...57...56...55...54...53...52...51...50...49...48...47...46...45...44...43...42...41...40...39... Yes, all 39 of them: https://twitter.com/CommonsEUexit/statu ... 4673587201

Exiting the EU Cttee @CommonsEUexit
We have published the Govt's 39 sectoral analyses reports http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... lications/


U.K.'s Secret Brexit Studies Reveal That Airbus Makes Planes
For months, journalists tried to get their hands on government papers setting out how leaving the European Union will affect different parts of the British economy. They contained, according to Brexit Secretary David Davis, “excruciating detail.”

But despite boasting about their contents, ministers were reluctant to let anyone else see the documents. In November, after being forced to give way by a vote in Parliament, the government allowed lawmakers to read them under controlled conditions. Their phones were confiscated, and they were only permitted to make notes with pen and paper, lest too much information leak into the public domain.

“These documents in aggregate represent the most comprehensive picture of our economy on this issue to date,” Davis wrote this month, explaining why he was being cautious about publication.

On Thursday, the documents were released online. There was detail, as promised.

“The parts of an aircraft can be simplistically split into three areas,” began the first, on aerospace. It was explained what the industry makes: “structures which include the nose, fuselage, wings, engine nacelles (which encase the engines) and tail; propulsion system which includes engines and propellers, or fan blades; and systems which include the electronics used in the flight system.”

Boeing and Airbus

It went on to reveal that there are two companies in the world that make large passenger aircraft. Now that the documents are public, these firms can be named as Boeing Co. and Airbus SE.

The paper covering the insurance and pensions sector, which employs one in every 100 British workers, is 2,732 words long. “Insurance business operates by firms writing insurance policies for clients, intermediated by brokers,” it reveals. “Insurance firms in turn can pass on excess risk to reinsurance firms, via reinsurance brokers. Insurance underwriting requires large amounts of capital, so the industry tends to be dominated by large firms.”

191-Word Explanation

Each document begins with a 191-word explanation that the package is simply a summary of other documents the Brexit Department possesses.

“Our analysis is not, nor has it ever been, a series of impact assessments examining the quantitative impact of the U.K.’s EU exit on the 58 sectors,” the department explained in a statement. “As our analysis does not exist in the form parliament requested, we took time to bring together information in a way that met parliament’s specific ask.”

The final part of each document, titled “Sector Views,” has been held back at the government’s request, as it explains what companies have said to ministers about Brexit.

Lawmakers were unimpressed. “Most of this could be found on Wikipedia or with a quick Google search,” said David Lammy of the opposition Labour Party. “David Davis clearly misled the House and then set his civil servants the unenviable task of coming up with these documents in a couple of weeks. They look like copy and paste essay crises.”


:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22259
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2841 Postby Alan H » December 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm

Brexit: Government analysis published after long battle
Parliament’s Brexit committee has published 39 of the Government’s sectoral analyses on the impact of leaving the EU on the British economy.

The reports, which Brexit Secretary David Davis had previous said held “excruciating detail” of the departure’s effects, were immediately dismissed by MPs and campaigners as a “shoddy mess” with little detail.

The Committee obtained the documents, touted by Mr Davis, after using a longstanding power to demand government papers. Mr Davis later drew a distinction between impact assessments, which he said did not exist, and “sectoral analyses”, which are more limited in scope.

Labour MP Seema Malhotra, who sits on the committee, said the reports “fall far short of the impact analysis the government implied it was doing a year ago”.

“It remains unclear if these are the original reports or have been written in the last two months,” she added.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest