robbin

Seriously?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Passiflora Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Not sure what you are trying to say JoeLeg or > what > > YMMV means? > > > > Leave voters voted to leave the EU by over one > > point two million voters in 2016 so that is not > a > > 'skin of their teeth vote'. > > > 4% IS by the skin of the teeth. If you factor in > (as tiddles points out) the electorate that didn't > vote at all (almost a third) then that drops even > lower. Your offense at use of that term > demonstrates my point perfectly in fact. The > reason why there is such a bitter and entrenched > ongoing battle over this is precisely because of > that very narrow margin of difference. And also as > tiddles writes, Quorums are par for the course (no > pun intended) in all kinds of democratic > processes. > > A more honest campaign might have led to a > different result. Ever thought about that? What about the huge number of people that voted to remain based on a pack of George Osborne and Cameron's lies? The nonsense coming from them was plainly project fear, no less and has been proven to be false by events that followed (or didn't follow, as the case may be). How many millions do you think were taken in on that side? We will never know how the lies on each side affected the result in terms of numbers, but it is blindingly obvious that to refer only to one side being misled is utterly misleading. BTW I voted to remain and I admit I was not completely taken in by the obvious lies from government remainers but I am certain many people would have been.

I agree though - it is definitely a popcorn moment.

It's hardly surprising that Bercow made that ruling - the rules are clear. It is an absurdity to keep voting on the same 'deal' without any change being made. It's not like a further referendum (although I don't support one)- that could be said to be a different vote because previously there was no actual 'deal' being put to the electorate. There is a logic to a new referendum which is entirely absent on this issue of a Parliamentary vote. There's no democracy involved in simply making people vote again on something which has already been (massively) rejected. The only thing that is changing is not the substance of the 'deal' but the level of 'blackmail'/pressure as the clock gets (seemingly deliberately)run down. That's not democracy. It's a similar principle to that which engages when a party tries to re-litigate an issue which has already been decided by the court. That course would be prevented by issue estoppel or the doctrine of res judicata. Basically it is an abuse of process to keep on asking for the same thing to be adjudicated upon (having not accepted the decision first time around).

I think that anyone voting to back May's 'deal' is either lacking in basic intelligence and/or is negligently lazy(because they have not read and/or understood the two documents) or is consciously putting other interests before those of the country. It is indefensible and I remain surprised that commentators have not picked up on the point I mentioned above - I suppose it is easier for them to stress the simpler to understand concept of the Irish border, but the real killer about the deal is the fact that it will prevent a properly negotiated free trade deal.

That is because of the backstop. The media have focussed on the Irish border point but the structure of the WA and political declaration is such that it would render negotiations on the UK's side impossible. The arbitration procedure could never in reality be invoked to enable the UK to leave the backstop, because of the (stated) conditions that have to be met before the arbitrators could or would find in the UK's favour. Those conditions are so broad and in such terms that permit the EU to insist on pretty much anything they want in the trade negotiations(provided it is not dishonest/in bad faith) without engaging the conditions necessary for the UK to leave the backstop. The upshot of that is that once the WA becomes effective the EU will know that it does not have to do a trade deal with the UK and the UK will have to stay in the backstop/CU indefinitely. The ONLY way for the UK to get out of it would be to agree whatever the EU requires on a trade deal (i.e. full fishery rights as before). In other words the UK would have no negotiation power of any sort whatsoever. As I read the WA the position is that stark. The UK would undoubtedly be better off staying in the EU than taking May's deal - it would positively harm the country (and for the long term). Does anyone who has actually read these crucial documents that so much is being posted about, disagree or construe the documents differently?

The problem with May's deal is it scuppers ANY chance of negotiating a trade deal with the EU, other than one that will cause the UK damage.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Warning - Remoaner alert. > > ...So firstly the PM is not acting as a democrat but > an autocrat. Not my original thought. > > But what other government would not care about a > sizeable percentage of the population, with a high > proportion of professionals, intellectuals > artisans and the type (pomposity alert I also warn > you). A crass comparison (and I am sure that you > can also draw from Stalin), Pol Pot. > > The Khmer Rouge wanted to eliminate the > professional classes, the current UK one wants to > alienate many of them. KR wanted to take the > country back to year zero. This government back to > the 1950s. KR wanted to move to an agrarian > economy. This one both secondary and primary > production. OK all in bad taste, and probably > replace 'the government' by some hard line > Brexiteers. > Yes, that is both crass and in bad taste (not to mention it being a manifestly absurd comparison). Somewhat disrespectful to the 1.8 million people murdered by Pol Pot, too. Talk about losing perspective!

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I dunno Sue - he came close in 2015 and it was a > surprise that that the population reversed their > opinion at last minute... > Hmmm, was it? Maybe this monumental misjudgement contributed something - as it was just 5 days before the election? https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/dec/22/the-ed-stone-ed-milibands-monumental-folly-labour-election-limestone

As you wish, Jenny - although were you to read my PM you would see that all I have said is that I'm happy to answer your question about my friends' businesses and give details by a PM (and offering to do so) but would rather not post something on the open forum, as I wish to remain known as Robbin. Were I to post details, I would no longer have that privilege, as it would be obvious to some readers who I am. Accordingly, you don't really need to delete the message unread as it contains nothing which is either contentious or 'hot', but then again I have just repeated my PM on the open forum so that's no longer an issue!

If it was down to TM and her incompetence, she would manage to get indefinitely locked in to all sorts of stuff. Muppet.

She will probably get lost, or locked in her car again.

lavender27 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People are shite sometimes, was it an MP? Doubt it - politicians may mostly be made of that stuff, but they are far larger than the size of a Lion Bar.

I will never eat another Lion Bar.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's only difficult leaving the EU with a deal if > you barricade your negotiating position with red > lines that are at odds with the EU's 4 freedoms... Quite. As well as giving away for nothing any negotiating advantage or pressure that you may have had.

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have to admit Robster (as we're getting > informal) that my main source of information on > the effects of all of this on business comes from > friends who manage a high spec, but reasonably > small engineering company in the West Midlands. > They, of course, have been trading internationally > for decades and have found EU membership of great > benefit. Which sectors are your friends who say > Brexit has been beneficial working in? I've PM'd you.

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...and of course when I say 'I doubt there are > any' - I mean 'I doubt there are any politicians', > because I KNOW there aren't any benefits.... THIS is why there's no point 'debating' anything with you Jen - it is the unwavering absolute belief that you are right to the exclusion of any other view (as your post amply demonstrates, your opinions have morphed into 'facts'). BTW, I personally know several people whose businesses have already benefitted from the referendum vote and are looking forward to Brexit if it was a no deal scenario, because they will make more profit and take on further staff as a consequence. Before you suggest it, no, they are not market speculators, but medium sized businesses that export substantial amounts to several EU countries and to non-EU countries also. I don't know if you personally have had discussions with people running their own businesses, but if you did, you may be surprised to find that it's not all black and white, good v evil, as you seem convinced it is. Do you yourself export or import anything to the EU or beyond? Is that what is informing your entrenched views?

No - as I said, you missed my point.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > robbin Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > JohnL Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > The French Customs are doing a work to rule > in > > > order to show us what life will be like after > > > Brexit > > > > > > "Fortunately, I only had to declare to the > > zealous > > > customs officer the number of clothes in my > > bag.? > > > (Evening Standard) > > > > Ha ha. You mean to get more money and better > > working conditions from their government! > > Remember Operation Stack? > > I think their message is directed towards their > > French paymasters, it's not to 'show' the UK > what > > Brexit will be like. That's a misrepresentation > of > > the facts (again). > > I'm past caring to be honest - it's deeply > depressing if I think about this mess - It will > all come out in the end assuming there will be an > inquiry. > > I've been told civil servants are taking notes of > everything they are being asked to do. But John, you can't stop caring - you are by far the most regular poster on all things Brexit 'related'! This thread would die a death without you. I hope your tooth gets taken care of without too much discomfort. If it's scheduled for the 29th that might actually be a blessing?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > robbin Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > JohnL Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > Here's a more interesting two liner without > a > > > > link. Today's bribe to the North and > > Midlands > > > who > > > > voted out - 'Tories magic Brexit money > tree'. > > > > > Or > > > > as quite well put by the Labour > spokesperson > > - > > > > throwing money at the problem rather than > > > solving... > > > ...The EU budget for the same area in a > similar > > time > > > frame was 11 billion - so nowhere near > matching > > > it. > > > > > Just to be clear - was the quoted sum of ?11 bn > > from the EU given for free, or were there costs > > involved in getting that amount which should be > > factored into the equation? > > > > In other words, given that the UK is a NET > > contributor (it pays more of its money to the > EU > > than it receives back) do you think that is > > anything to be taken into account when > assessing > > the merits of a particular course, or should it > be > > ignored? > > > > Say I buy a new car for ?60k. Can I validly > claim > > my assets have increased by ?60k because now I > > have a new car, or would that be a nonsense, > > because I shelled out ?60k of my money to > acquire > > it in the first place? What if I overpaid, so > I > > paid ?60k to receive a car with a value of > ?40k? > > Did I benefit by ?60k? Or did I suffer a net > loss > > of ?20k because I paid out more than I > received? > > > > Just wondering... > > > There's obviously costs in any form of admin. We > were/are a net contributor but my argument has > always been we gain more from the EU in other ways > and leAvers argue we don't (or we do but the > pooling of sovereignty is not worth it). > > But IMHO the EU is effectively taking from London > or the central pot and giving to the poorer areas > in the north/wales etc. It's doing some kind of > wealth redistribution. That won't be matched IMHO > - in the valleys of south wales there's EU signs > everywhere. > > I think more money that went to poorer areas will > now go to the central pot (which could include NHS > or policing so not all necessarily bad - depends > how it's done - but this government doesn't do > things well :)) John, those are fair points which I mostly agree with. The distribution/redistribution of wealth should be an internal UK matter though. I don't see it as a Brexit issue. I think Jenny just missed my point.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The French Customs are doing a work to rule in > order to show us what life will be like after > Brexit > > "Fortunately, I only had to declare to the zealous > customs officer the number of clothes in my bag.? > (Evening Standard) Ha ha. You mean to get more money and better working conditions from their government! Remember Operation Stack? I think their message is directed towards their French paymasters, it's not to 'show' the UK what Brexit will be like. That's a misrepresentation of the facts (again).

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are people still really paying cash to builders > these days? lol!

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Here's a more interesting two liner without a > > link. Today's bribe to the North and Midlands > who > > voted out - 'Tories magic Brexit money tree'. > Or > > as quite well put by the Labour spokesperson - > > throwing money at the problem rather than > solving... > ...The EU budget for the same area in a similar time > frame was 11 billion - so nowhere near matching > it. > Just to be clear - was the quoted sum of ?11 bn from the EU given for free, or were there costs involved in getting that amount which should be factored into the equation? In other words, given that the UK is a NET contributor (it pays more of its money to the EU than it receives back) do you think that is anything to be taken into account when assessing the merits of a particular course, or should it be ignored? Say I buy a new car for ?60k. Can I validly claim my assets have increased by ?60k because now I have a new car, or would that be a nonsense, because I shelled out ?60k of my money to acquire it in the first place? What if I overpaid, so I paid ?60k to receive a car with a value of ?40k? Did I benefit by ?60k? Or did I suffer a net loss of ?20k because I paid out more than I received? Just wondering...

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The link I attached was refering to it being > upheld in the context of leases albeit in a small > lease of days.My mistake. Will the transcript of > the court case be public, does anyone know. Yes, of course. It is at neutral citation ref [2019] EWHC 335 (Ch). Or you could just click on this link to read the judgment... https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-20_Canary-Wharf-v-EMA_Approved-Judgment.pdf Here's a very small part of it... 247. In short, I do not consider the present situation to come close to a case of frustration of common purpose. Considering the test articulated in paragraph 38 above, the fact is that hindsight has shown that the EMA has paid too high a price for the Premises it acquired, in that it failed to build into the lease the flexibility as to term that events have shown would have been in its commercial interests.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > European Medicines Agency loses battle to end UK > lease over Brexit > > Leaving EU does not ?frustrate? contract with > landlord Canary Wharf Group, high court rules > > https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/20/e > uropean-medicines-agency-loses-bid-to-end-uk-lease > -over-brexit > > Its case was obviously ?frustrated? You don't say! This must be one of the least surprising results in court during the last year!