Article 50 ruling due now

[PH XKR]

I saw Al was on it and thought it odd the hammer didn't fall. Things in the jaguar forum are very civilised now he is of the tribe!

[KrissKross]

Digga said:

picking peanuts out of poo.

That should be the EU's policy headline for the next 2 years.

[danllama]

bobbylondonuk said:

Why exactly do we have to go through a laborious process of Divorce?

all EU laws & standards are British Law & standards once the Repeal Bill is passed. So as far as any future trade with EU is concerned, it is same as it was yesterday. the only thing left to confirm is the duty rates for each sector- either FTA or WTO

Divorce bill = 4 years net payments - 1/28 of net assets on EU balance sheet. = 4x£8.5bn - (-71bn euro/28) = £35bn ish. write that damn check and throw it at their faces...they can keep the change as well.


So now what is left? do they want out intelligence & military support? Do they want access to our markets? if so we get reciprocal access and co-operation.


And they can stay out of our fishing grounds & the spanish can fk off if they think they can take our rock. Its about time we showcase some British war machine display and sell some of it worldwide to make some hard cash.



What exactly is so complicated that the EU needs a decade to sort out?

Exactly.

[danllama]

bobbylondonuk said:

hyphen said:

bobbylondonuk said:

1/28 of net assets on EU balance sheet.

But most of that 28 don't appear to have ever paid anything in, and most of the countries joined later on. So should the assets be distributed in that manner?

As a Leaver, I dont care....its pocket change in the grand Scheme of things...And the Net Asset value is negative in the 2015 Balance Sheet, so it is not a question of what we get, it is a question of how much we have to pay. Let them keep the change and we can move on. Right now they have the power and the more reasons we give for discussion, the less time we have. so lets take out their best card immediately by paying up. Cash money up front, no more power for you.

It can be done very very quickly. All standards are same, divorce bill is paid in one single payment, all problems solved in 6 months.

Now lets move on to the trade deal for the future....this is where the UK consumer market access is wanted by all 28....they do not want to piss us off if they want their industries to keep being profitable. The power now turns in our favour.

Spot on, especially as they seem to want to stifle us by keeping us in talks, and stopping us from arranging other trade deals in parallel. What a load of bullst.

[Digga]

KrissKross said:

Digga said:

picking peanuts out of poo.

That should be the EU's policy headline for the next 2 years.

[LasseV]

B'stard Child said:

Never known a person request account delete and then not get deleted - esp when Big Al. sees the request - Normal reply after short discussion is

Done.

It is my own business when it goes down and it has nothing to do with this topic.

[KrissKross]

Digga said:

KrissKross said:

Digga said:

picking peanuts out of poo.

That should be the EU's policy headline for the next 2 years.

Whats not funny is the millions that will be spent on idiots wages for basically a turd polishing exercise at our expense. Claiming this is all complicated is just a way of keeping people in non-jobs.

[Digga]

KrissKross said:

Digga said:

KrissKross said:

Digga said:

picking peanuts out of poo.

That should be the EU's policy headline for the next 2 years.

Whats not funny is the millions that will be spent on idiots wages for basically a turd polishing exercise at our expense. Claiming this is all complicated is just a way of keeping people in non-jobs.

I do have a suspicion of that too. A lot of noses are going to have to come out of the trough, and they have a vested interest in plodding.

[SKP555]

LasseV said:

Ok.

What is Russian troll factory:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/64829/russias-troll-army-...

- Lot's of resources

How it works:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/russia-troll-far...

-Through social media: twitter, FB, NyTimes, Guardian, PH....

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3186639/security/se...

- Heavy influence in US president election
- The groups spreading disinformation appeared to target specific swing states in the weeks leading up to the U.S. election
- Clinton and Rubio was targets

http://www.newsweek.com/brexit-russia-presidential...
-More information about Brexit vote


What is their aim?
http://www.smh.com.au/world/finnish-journalists-je...

- The aim is to make you disbelieve anything. A disbelieving, fragile, unconscious audience is much easier to manipulate.

I know that there is a big support for Brexit in the UK but there is a big possibility that "trolls" did have their own influence to outcome of the vote. This is not a tin foil hat theory, this is the world where we are living. Get used to it.

I don't hate russians.

Were you on work experience there at the time?

[PRTVR]

bobbylondonuk said:

Why exactly do we have to go through a laborious process of Divorce?

all EU laws & standards are British Law & standards once the Repeal Bill is passed. So as far as any future trade with EU is concerned, it is same as it was yesterday. the only thing left to confirm is the duty rates for each sector- either FTA or WTO

Divorce bill = 4 years net payments - 1/28 of net assets on EU balance sheet. = 4x£8.5bn - (-71bn euro/28) = £35bn ish. write that damn check and throw it at their faces...they can keep the change as well.


So now what is left? do they want out intelligence & military support? Do they want access to our markets? if so we get reciprocal access and co-operation.


And they can stay out of our fishing grounds & the spanish can fk off if they think they can take our rock. Its about time we showcase some British war machine display and sell some of it worldwide to make some hard cash.



What exactly is so complicated that the EU needs a decade to sort out?

And yet we are told that you can't have access without a cost, yet the majority of the EU pays nothing I struggle to see why we should pay.

[FiF]

SKP555 said:

LasseV said:

12h shifts and about 135 posts/tweets in a one shift. That's a lot of information.

Somr posters here do more than that.

Plus have several false identities, and post information that is shown to be false within minutes taking very little effort.

[Mothersruin]

danllama said:

bobbylondonuk said:

hyphen said:

bobbylondonuk said:

1/28 of net assets on EU balance sheet.

But most of that 28 don't appear to have ever paid anything in, and most of the countries joined later on. So should the assets be distributed in that manner?

As a Leaver, I dont care....its pocket change in the grand Scheme of things...And the Net Asset value is negative in the 2015 Balance Sheet, so it is not a question of what we get, it is a question of how much we have to pay. Let them keep the change and we can move on. Right now they have the power and the more reasons we give for discussion, the less time we have. so lets take out their best card immediately by paying up. Cash money up front, no more power for you.

It can be done very very quickly. All standards are same, divorce bill is paid in one single payment, all problems solved in 6 months.

Now lets move on to the trade deal for the future....this is where the UK consumer market access is wanted by all 28....they do not want to piss us off if they want their industries to keep being profitable. The power now turns in our favour.

Spot on, especially as they seem to want to stifle us by keeping us in talks, and stopping us from arranging other trade deals in parallel. What a load of bullst.

They're politicians - that's what they do, they don't do anything else.

They either make things easy for people to do stuff or make it difficult to do stuff - they don't actually do any stuff themselves.

[anonymous-user]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Given the legal challenges, and anti Brexit debate and protests, regarding the result of the 2016 UK/EU referendum, it is quite possible that the 1975 referendum which took the UK into the EU via the EEC was illegal. Not a single person in the UK voted to join the EU, they voted to join the EEC, which is a completely different construct to the EU. The fact that the EEC decided to change `itself' into the EU in 1993 without asking the people of the various member states extant then, could mean that the whole EU shambles is illegal.
I wonder if there is a statute on such machinations, and even now, whether it would be possible to mount a legal challenge to the UK`s membership of the EU, on the grounds of the duplicitous way it was sucked into the EU, without the consent of the people of the UK.
For many the way that was done is precisely the reason why they voted out in the 2016 referendum.
If someone like Gina Miller can come into the UK and mount a legal challenge to the 2016 referendum, it ought to be possible to launch a legal case against the UK`s EU membership right from 1993.

I've told you this before, the UK has never voted to join the Common Market, EEC or EU. The government took the UK into the Common Market in 1973 with no vote on this from the people of the UK.

The referendum in 1975 was to decide if we should stay in or leave, we were already members at that point.

Please read what I wrote, digest it and then stop posting revisionary history.

[Pan Pan Pan]

jsf said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Given the legal challenges, and anti Brexit debate and protests, regarding the result of the 2016 UK/EU referendum, it is quite possible that the 1975 referendum which took the UK into the EU via the EEC was illegal. Not a single person in the UK voted to join the EU, they voted to join the EEC, which is a completely different construct to the EU. The fact that the EEC decided to change `itself' into the EU in 1993 without asking the people of the various member states extant then, could mean that the whole EU shambles is illegal.
I wonder if there is a statute on such machinations, and even now, whether it would be possible to mount a legal challenge to the UK`s membership of the EU, on the grounds of the duplicitous way it was sucked into the EU, without the consent of the people of the UK.
For many the way that was done is precisely the reason why they voted out in the 2016 referendum.
If someone like Gina Miller can come into the UK and mount a legal challenge to the 2016 referendum, it ought to be possible to launch a legal case against the UK`s EU membership right from 1993.

I've told you this before, the UK has never voted to join the Common Market, EEC or EU. The government took the UK into the Common Market in 1973 with no vote on this from the people of the UK.

The referendum in 1975 was to decide if we should stay in or leave, we were already members at that point.

Please read what I wrote, digest it and then stop posting revisionary history.

You are correct, but that just makes the way in which the UK was duped/sucked into the EU without the consent of the people of the UK even worse.
There was far less knowledge of what joining the EEC would mean for the UK (and subsequently voting to remain in it) in 1975 than there was available for leaving the EU in the 2016 referendum. which means the vote to remain in what would subsequently change itself into the EU was far more questionable in terms of its legality.
If the government had tried to do now in relation to the UK`s membership of the EU, what it did in 1973, there would be uproar in the UK and rightly so.
Fortunately in 2016 the majority of the people of the UK have now voted to leave the EU, so after 40+ years, the original wrongs of the way the UK was taken into the EU have now been righted.

[anonymous-user]

IanH755 said:

Where, once they become our Law, they can be repealed, amended or just left as is. The main point being they will be "our" laws, not EU ones, so we will be able to decide how best to use them for the specific needs of our country.

One very minor example was the banning of using imperial weight units during selling, an EU law which only effected our country, which could be repealed allowing Fruit/Veg sellers to show both metric & imperial weights again. The impact of a repeal would be very minimal but, as a country which still uses both units of measure in everyday situations, it would be an easy win to show how we're removing "silly" EU rules which bring no benefit to the UK.

The issue with the repeal bill as far as I can make out is that it allows the transfer of EU law into UK law by the use of statutory instruments-which means that most of the legislation won't be subject to an act of parliament.

Now-if the UK government keeps everything as it is everything is hunky-dory. However if they start to change things via statutory instruments it becomes more difficult. If it's a case of chucking out the 'wonky bananas' or the I don't think many people would complain. However if they start changing more significant pieces of legislation it becomes dodgy in my opinion-and I'm not sure if the bill allows for oversight of the process.

Part of the use of statutory instruments is logistical-and I get that, but I'm also nervy of a government with little effective opposition effectively pulling back the EU legislation and making changes that it deems important without recourse to parliament.

We'll have to see how it works in practice but I think the 'remainers' in politics will be sat with an itchy trigger finger ready to move at the first sign of changes being made without parliament. This will draw the usual criticism that they are frustrating the will of the people etc-but it would be a valid criticism if changes are made without parliament.

[turbobloke]

cookie118 said:

IanH755 said:

Where, once they become our Law, they can be repealed, amended or just left as is. The main point being they will be "our" laws, not EU ones, so we will be able to decide how best to use them for the specific needs of our country.

One very minor example was the banning of using imperial weight units during selling, an EU law which only effected our country, which could be repealed allowing Fruit/Veg sellers to show both metric & imperial weights again. The impact of a repeal would be very minimal but, as a country which still uses both units of measure in everyday situations, it would be an easy win to show how we're removing "silly" EU rules which bring no benefit to the UK.

The issue with the repeal bill as far as I can make out is that it allows the transfer of EU law into UK law by the use of statutory instruments-which means that most of the legislation won't be subject to an act of parliament.

Why is that an issue? How long does it need to take? Acts would be overkill and suggestions for this look more like wishful thinking for delaying tactics than any genuine interest in oversight.

cookie118 said:

We'll have to see how it works in practice but I think the 'remainers' in politics will be sat with an itchy trigger finger ready to move at the first sign of changes being made without parliament. This will draw the usual criticism that they are frustrating the will of the people etc-but it would be a valid criticism if changes are made without parliament.

Yes, the usual and the accurate criticism that it's just a desire for any delaying tactics available in the desperate hope that some deus ex machina event will occur and Bobby Ewing won't actually leave Dallas or if he does he'll return in some far-fetched plot that defies belief.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

cookie118 said:

The issue with the repeal bill as far as I can make out is that it allows the transfer of EU law into UK law by the use of statutory instruments-which means that most of the legislation won't be subject to an act of parliament.

Why is that an issue? How long does it need to take? Acts would be overkill and suggestions for this look more like wishful thinking for delaying tactics than any genuine interest in oversight.

I've already accepted the fact that the use of statutory instruments is a logistical one-I'm not suggesting that everything should come by an act-it would take too long. However I do see a problem with the government potentially changing what it sees fit, and I'm not sure that there is the provision to prevent this from happening at the moment.

Again-if they do with the bill what they say they will do (a straight transposition) there aren't any issues. However if they start modifying or changing rules-that gets into a very grey area. One of the main things about the leave campaign was 'taking back control' but if a government is changing laws as it sees fit without parliament-is that control?

cookie118 said:

We'll have to see how it works in practice but I think the 'remainers' in politics will be sat with an itchy trigger finger ready to move at the first sign of changes being made without parliament. This will draw the usual criticism that they are frustrating the will of the people etc-but it would be a valid criticism if changes are made without parliament.

Yes, the usual and the accurate criticism that it's just a desire for any delaying tactics available in the desperate hope that some deus ex machina event will occur and Bobby Ewing won't actually leave Dallas or if he does he'll return in some far-fetched plot that defies belief.

Why is an accurate criticism? If the governent is changing laws without consulting parliament-would you not have an issue with that?

[Rich_W]

cookie118 said:

This is a very good point-however I don't think that it matches up with the political reality at the moment in the UK. I actually find Kier Starmer to be a good counterpoint to the Tories in places, however the labour party and lib dems aren't really up to the job and the Tories are able to whip through anything that they see fit.

There is also the fact that the negotiating position is being set by the Tory government with little to no recourse to parliament. For example I would prefer the government to prioritise tarriff-free single market access over immigration controls-however this is not the government's position, and there is no parliamentary oversight of the negotiating position which means that applying pressure through MP's etc is ineffective in trying to achieve this.

I agree there needs to be examination of the process. But I don't believe they will do a crap deal if they can avoid it (on both sides) and I don't want the negotiators to have to keep explaining everything to the media all the time. Which I fear the more vehement anti-Brexit camp will do just to keep reinforcing their "its a st show and we're all doomed" narrative.

I also believe it's possible to negotiate both those aspects at the same time. Ideal scenario in my head on trade and immigration is tariff free access in exchange for priority given to EU residents who have a job in the UK to go to. i.e. Not open borders, not right to free movement, but "Priority to free labour" i.e you have a job lined up with a UK firm before you can come.

cookie118 said:

There are often quotes about the next election and being able to kick the government out if the mess it up. However we only get one shot at the Brexit negotiation. It isn't like a budget where taxes or cuts can be reversed or continued-this is a one off and the government seems to have free reign.

Nothing lasts forever IME. I could foresee a scenario where we get 1 deal and it's "ok" but in time if the EU becomes even more arrogant (hard to believe it could! ) they would try to erode the deal somewhat. Or conversely if (I predict when) they started to fail spectacularly, they come back and try to entice us with a better deal if we just do such and such.

I genuinely don't envisage the deal in 2019 being identical in 2030. Evolution is constant. Expect faster evolution if Frexit occurs. Or Merkel gets booted out (quite likely) due to the utter failure of her open borders nonsense!

cookie said:

Again though-when you say an opportunity thrown up by Brexit-what opportunities will there be? We don't know whether we will have tarriff free access to the single market-in or out of the customs union or if we're going to do a hokie-cokie and go out initially then back in if we can't negotiate trade during Art50 negotiations. This uncertainty is probably good for those who have the resources to take a risk (or who are involved in industries that will be directly involved in the Brexit process), but I'd imagine for most it is a bad thing.

From my personal perspective-I have been keeping my head down, and looking for opportunities but it's nothing that I wouldn't be doing without Brexit. Does that mean I'm not 'uniting' behind Brexit? And also it often seems that not 'uniting' behind Brexit is used as a criticism of a person raising queries about how Brexit is being handled-when in reality what more can they do besides getting on with their job in hand?

Yours was an interesting post-but I don't particularly agree with it.

I think the uncertainty is more in the media than business. Business in general adapts faster than the public. And to be fair where they say "uncertainty" I imagine "new opportunity" It may be that unshackled from the EU behemoth. There's an option to sell a service to another nation that is crying out for some of our best and brightest to run for them.

bobbylondonuk said:

hyphen said:

bobbylondonuk said:

1/28 of net assets on EU balance sheet.

But most of that 28 don't appear to have ever paid anything in, and most of the countries joined later on. So should the assets be distributed in that manner?

As a Leaver, I dont care....its pocket change in the grand Scheme of things...And the Net Asset value is negative in the 2015 Balance Sheet, so it is not a question of what we get, it is a question of how much we have to pay. Let them keep the change and we can move on. Right now they have the power and the more reasons we give for discussion, the less time we have. so lets take out their best card immediately by paying up. Cash money up front, no more power for you.

It can be done very very quickly. All standards are same, divorce bill is paid in one single payment, all problems solved in 6 months.

Now lets move on to the trade deal for the future....this is where the UK consumer market access is wanted by all 28....they do not want to piss us off if they want their industries to keep being profitable. The power now turns in our favour.

I tend to agree. the 50, 60 Bn figures are just posturing.

Though I've always wondered if Latvia is that important to us in terms of Trade. We talk about the EU27. But I daresay there's only really 6 or 7 that we do a lot of business with to the point that the lesser nations are largely irrelevant.

cookie118 said:

Now-if the UK government keeps everything as it is everything is hunky-dory. However if they start to change things via statutory instruments it becomes more difficult. If it's a case of chucking out the 'wonky bananas' or the I don't think many people would complain. However if they start changing more significant pieces of legislation it becomes dodgy in my opinion-and I'm not sure if the bill allows for oversight of the process.

Part of the use of statutory instruments is logistical-and I get that, but I'm also nervy of a government with little effective opposition effectively pulling back the EU legislation and making changes that it deems important without recourse to parliament.

We'll have to see how it works in practice but I think the 'remainers' in politics will be sat with an itchy trigger finger ready to move at the first sign of changes being made without parliament. This will draw the usual criticism that they are frustrating the will of the people etc-but it would be a valid criticism if changes are made without parliament.

I agree with you, but I don't think this is going to be like Mr Trump did the other day with the Environmental repeal. Which was rather sad actually

The minor changing of legislation IMO will be more towards things like "we have the right to deport" (as mentioned today) or "we don't default to the ECJ, we have our own" I'd be interested to see what happens to the Time working directive. Every employer I've had has given me the form to sign to opt out. And I've signed it every time, so in terms of actually stopping me (or any of my colleagues) working 48+ hours it's completely irrelevant. And in a way it's held over any new employees head to see what sort of person they are going to be,

Do you think we should change, keep or delete this one?

So long as the Remainers in politics choose their battles carefully, and don't just machine gun every single thing to delay ad nauseum. Then it'll be fine. Don't shy away from critique, it's important, but also don't be those who cried wolf.

[anonymous-user]

I think we mostly agree on the stuff above, just coming at it from different sides.

Rich_W said:

cookie118 said:

Now-if the UK government keeps everything as it is everything is hunky-dory. However if they start to change things via statutory instruments it becomes more difficult. If it's a case of chucking out the 'wonky bananas' or the I don't think many people would complain. However if they start changing more significant pieces of legislation it becomes dodgy in my opinion-and I'm not sure if the bill allows for oversight of the process.

Part of the use of statutory instruments is logistical-and I get that, but I'm also nervy of a government with little effective opposition effectively pulling back the EU legislation and making changes that it deems important without recourse to parliament.

We'll have to see how it works in practice but I think the 'remainers' in politics will be sat with an itchy trigger finger ready to move at the first sign of changes being made without parliament. This will draw the usual criticism that they are frustrating the will of the people etc-but it would be a valid criticism if changes are made without parliament.

I agree with you, but I don't think this is going to be like Mr Trump did the other day with the Environmental repeal. Which was rather sad actually

The minor changing of legislation IMO will be more towards things like "we have the right to deport" (as mentioned today) or "we don't default to the ECJ, we have our own" I'd be interested to see what happens to the Time working directive. Every employer I've had has given me the form to sign to opt out. And I've signed it every time, so in terms of actually stopping me (or any of my colleagues) working 48+ hours it's completely irrelevant. And in a way it's held over any new employees head to see what sort of person they are going to be,

Do you think we should change, keep or delete this one?

So long as the Remainers in politics choose their battles carefully, and don't just machine gun every single thing to delay ad nauseum. Then it'll be fine. Don't shy away from critique, it's important, but also don't be those who cried wolf.

I think we should keep it. It's a right, even if a minor one that most people are ok with signing away.
If the UK wants to change it, it should go through parliament, not be changed by an SI.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 2nd May 06:41

[hornetrider]

So it seems the phoney PR leak offensive has begun from our European friends. Juncker et al leaking that Theresa is delusional with regards to our obligations and responsibilities.

Have some decorum and negotiate properly in confidence with some respect you fools. This kind of language is inflammatory.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/01/jean-cl...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/how-...