Brexit - merged threads

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

You do have to ask the question could any other party really be this bad?

Of course they can!  - all governments have mishaps in 'competence' - principally because they all rely on the same civil service who actually organise these things;

The Department for transport has over 18,000 staff with grayling at the head - so he is in overall 'charge', but all of the negotiation, legwork, advice will be from the civil service workforce of 18,000.  Its a poor record, but the 'current Minister' carries the can for all of his Department, but cannot examine every decision personally.

[oowee]

8 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

Perhaps you have an alternative suggestion as to why our government cannot house our own homeless, some of who have served the country and people on waiting lists yet manage to find homes for people almost as soon as they arrive in our country?  I'm not making this an arguement, just curious on what you might attribute it too.

Lack of votes and short term governments,results in short term policy. We could easily house them but the issue is more than housing. Drug use and dependency are part of the issue. No doubt this stuff will get worse as we go forward lurching from left to right as a reaction to the failing of the other. 

7 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Of course they can!  - all governments have mishaps in 'competence' - principally because they all rely on the same civil service who actually organise these things;

The Department for transport has over 18,000 staff with grayling at the head - so he is in overall 'charge', but all of the negotiation, legwork, advice will be from the civil service workforce of 18,000.  Its a poor record, but the 'current Minister' carries the can for all of his Department, but cannot examine every decision personally.

He has personally over ridden departmental advice. 

[Gordon R]

oowee - any chance you might actually answer what Dave-G asked?

[oowee]

Just now, Gordon R said:

oowee - any chance you might actually answer what Dave-G asked?

? I just did. If you mean this bit 'yet manage to find homes for people almost as soon as they arrive in our country'

We agreed in an earlier post that we have no evidence for this. 

 

I see that the EU fund a refugee crisis rehoming fund although I don't know much about it's use. 

[JohnfromUK]

22 minutes ago, oowee said:

He has personally over ridden departmental advice. 

I don't have that level of detail.  ALL governments have had plenty plenty instances of incompetence.

[das]

On 27/02/2019 at 22:59, Raja Clavata said:

it WAS 52% leave and 48% remain. Nobody knows if that still holds just the same way that nobody can credibly claim that 100% of the 52% who voted leave on the basis of "leave means leave".

What does 'leave means leave 'then?      Obvious to me, it means sod off EU.

Edited March 1, 2019 by das

[pinfireman]

The New Statesman has published an unintentionally hilarious article by the aptly-named Dr Rebecca Grossman, a GP who is trying to hard sell the notion that no deal could lead to “more unplanned pregnancies” or even “individuals resorting to alternative methods of contraception, such as sterilisation.” Has she forgotten that Brexit was about bringing an end to protectionism?

Unfortunately it looks like Dr Grossman hasn’t actually bothered to read the Department of Health’s reports on no deal planning herself, which leave her lurid claims looking rather limp. The Government has already taken measures to open new shipping channels and procure freight capacity to ensure that all medical supplies can still get smoothly in and out of the UK even if there is increased friction at the border. In any case, trusty condoms are built with stamina in mind – they can survive on the shelf for three years, far longer than the six weeks suppliers are anticipating having to last for…

To top it all off, Dr Grossman explains how the UK’s most popular condom, Durex, has its production facilities “entirely in China, India, and Thailand” – all countries which the EU has no free trade agreements with. Another Project Fear prediction which can be safely tossed into the dustbin of history

7 minutes ago, das said:

What does 'leave means leave 'then?      Obvious to me, it means sod off EU.

and me!

EUROZONE SUFFERS WORST MANUFACTURING slump since 2013 !

 

The Eurozone’s economic slide continues with the latest manufacturing index figures showing the steepest contraction in manufacturing since June 2013. February’s PMI figures showed a fall to 49.3 (anything below 50 indicates contraction), the lowest level since June 2013, with new orders at their lowest since April 2013 and export orders at their lowest level in over six years. Germany’s performance was particularly poor on 47.6 – the wurst in 74 months…

The bottom line is that the EU increasingly cannot afford to have no deal. Eurocrats are panicking about legal chaos if the UK’s membership is extended beyond the European Parliament elections, the UK’s seats have already been allocated to other countries so the EU isn’t just braced for lawsuits from the UK, it may also have to face several from the likes of the German Vegetarians Party. The only thing still allowing the EU to stick to its intransigent position is the fact that UK Parliament is doing all their dirty work for them

Source  Guido Fawkes

Edited March 1, 2019 by pinfireman
spelling

[pinfireman]

59 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Of course they can!  - all governments have mishaps in 'competence' - principally because they all rely on the same civil service who actually organise these things;

The Department for transport has over 18,000 staff with grayling at the head - so he is in overall 'charge', but all of the negotiation, legwork, advice will be from the civil service workforce of 18,000.  Its a poor record, but the 'current Minister' carries the can for all of his Department, but cannot examine every decision personally.

You only have to watch Yes Minister to get the drift.............

BREXIT BLAME GAME !

 

The narrative is starting to become fashionable that it will somehow be Brexiteers’ fault if Brexit doesn’t happen. If there is any truth to this at all it is only because Brexiteers have been forced into such a dire position than they are increasingly facing a terrible dilemma of voting for May’s deal against their consciences or risking an even worse Brexit outcome. Trying to pin the blame on them for staying loyal for so long to a Government that was systematically pulling the wool over their eyes is a questionable reimagining of history…

It turns out actual Brexit voters don’t agree either. YouGov asked Leave voters who they would “consider to be responsible” if Brexit ends up not taking place. In top spot, with 82% saying they would bear “a lot” or “some” of the responsibility, were “MPs who opposed Theresa May’s Brexit deal because they wanted to stop Brexit.” In second place was the EU itself, with 80% giving them the blame, while 80% also blamed MPs who wanted a softer Brexit, although to a lesser degree.

Jeremy Corbyn and “the media” also shoulder a lot of the blame, Theresa May gets off lightly in relative terms. Leave voters are also largely sympathetic towards MPs who opposed the deal because they wanted a ‘harder’ Brexit or no deal at all, only 29% and 26% give them “a lot” of responsibility if that leads to Brexit not happening. Fundamentally it is a collective failure of the political class who gave the decision to the people but still haven’t been able to come to terms with the fact that the people didn’t give answer they wanted…

[Mice!]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

So give me some reasoned evidence of where these 'Balkanized' ethnic zones exist

how many do you want? Preston Blackburn Bolton to name three in the northwest, there are complete divides around where people live, and I'm sure its the same through the country

 

[pinfireman]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Lack of votes and short term governments,results in short term policy. We could easily house them but the issue is more than housing. Drug use and dependency are part of the issue. No doubt this stuff will get worse as we go forward lurching from left to right as a reaction to the failing of the other. 

He has personally over ridden departmental advice. 

and you know this....how?

THERESA MAY REGARDS BREXIT AS A DAMAGE LIMITATION EXERCISE!

So says her former advisor Nick Timothy !

The inexorable truth straight from the mouth of the adviser who knew her best. Much as Timothy rightly took much of the blame for the 2017 election debacle, if anything the long-term damage done by removing the true Brexit believer from May’s inner circle has been far greater…

Source Guido Fawkes

[pinfireman]

8 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I think this is a lesser issue than those coming in and expecting a 'work free' life under our (very generous to immigrants) benefits system.

The issue is that the benefits system is badly targeted, badly administered and still (despite recent improvements) rewards the idle and feckless.  In my view, (and I have stated this on various threads before benefits (and decent living standard ones) should be available to;

• The genuinely disabled (whether by accident, injury, illness or birth, and both physical and mental) both short and long term
• Those who have fallen on hard times (redundancy etc.)
• Those who have to care for relatives where state care cannot surfice

The above should receive benefits that give them a 'reasonable and comfortable' lifestyle - i.e. well fed, warm, suitable accommodation, but should not extend to funding a 'life of luxury'.  These have to be paid for by others who have to work hard and pay their taxes to support this.

Benefits (other than minimal subsistence in the form of some non cash exchangeable payments) should NOT be available to;

• The bone idle who have never bothered to contribute
• Those who choose a 'self unemployed' lifestyle
• Those with 'substance issues' who won't comply with state provided programmes
• Those who won't make some effort to 'help themselves'
• Those who have only come to the UK recently and have never contributed

Virtually everyone in the UK who works would wish to support the genuinely disabled, the sick and elderly ........ but get very disenchanted when they see the bone idle benefits scroungers having a better lifestyle than they themselves can afford - paid for by their taxes.  The British working population is not here to fund free-loading lifestyles for anyone (and that includes politicians!).

Very true!

8 hours ago, Retsdon said:

The Dutch parliament has been discussing Brexit, and one of the points that was made is that we're in such a mess because the debate we're having now about how to Brexit should have been conducted three years before the vote, and not three years after it! Hard to argue with...

What? 3 more years of Project Fear? No thanks!

[das]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

The real problem - the elephant in the room if you like is simply that we have a relatively small country (geographically), already heavily populated.  The housing stock is in short supply, it is difficult to build more without using 'virgin' land.   Infrastructure being power supply (grid and more local) capability, gas supply capability (local pipework mainly), water supply, drainage/sewage treatment, waste disposal, road and rail capacity is near 100% capacity in many cases and cannot readily be 'stretched' further requiring whole new plants/massive new investment taking both time and resource.  Education, health facilities, etc. are all stretched.  We are incapable of being self sufficient in almost every respect (energy, food etc.)

Put bluntly, the country (in its present form) is FULL.

You have hit the nail very directly on the head my friend. This should be obvious to a huge % of the population but it seems not.😪

[pinfireman]

3 hours ago, oowee said:

Oxford economics report last year said each worker makes a net contribution of £2300 a year. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-workers-uk-tax-treasury-brexit-migrants-british-citizens-a8542506.html

A report in 2013 said migrants arriving since 2000 made a net contribution of £25bn

Recent immigrants were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than people native to the UK and 3% less likely to live in social housing, says the report written by Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini.

But going back further to 1995, the study found that non-EEA immigrants arriving between that year and 2011 had claimed more in benefits than they paid in taxes, mainly because they had more children than people already living in Britain.

The academics also found that recent immigrants from the EEA – the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – participated more in the labour market. Their study was based predominantly on official reports including the British Labour Force Survey as well as tax data and public expenditure statistics. The EEA immigrants were also more likely to have a university degree than British people.

Where is your evidence?

and we believe Oxford Economics? Why? They do not have a great track record! And look at the names of the authors.....

Edited March 1, 2019 by pinfireman

[old man]

9 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I think this is a lesser issue than those coming in and expecting a 'work free' life under our (very generous to immigrants) benefits system.

The issue is that the benefits system is badly targeted, badly administered and still (despite recent improvements) rewards the idle and feckless.  In my view, (and I have stated this on various threads before benefits (and decent living standard ones) should be available to;

• The genuinely disabled (whether by accident, injury, illness or birth, and both physical and mental) both short and long term
• Those who have fallen on hard times (redundancy etc.)
• Those who have to care for relatives where state care cannot surfice

The above should receive benefits that give them a 'reasonable and comfortable' lifestyle - i.e. well fed, warm, suitable accommodation, but should not extend to funding a 'life of luxury'.  These have to be paid for by others who have to work hard and pay their taxes to support this.

Benefits (other than minimal subsistence in the form of some non cash exchangeable payments) should NOT be available to;

• The bone idle who have never bothered to contribute
• Those who choose a 'self unemployed' lifestyle
• Those with 'substance issues' who won't comply with state provided programmes
• Those who won't make some effort to 'help themselves'
• Those who have only come to the UK recently and have never contributed

Virtually everyone in the UK who works would wish to support the genuinely disabled, the sick and elderly ........ but get very disenchanted when they see the bone idle benefits scroungers having a better lifestyle than they themselves can afford - paid for by their taxes.  The British working population is not here to fund free-loading lifestyles for anyone (and that includes politicians!).

If only that was the reality?

[oowee]

2 hours ago, pinfireman said:

and you know this....how?

 

I don't know, it's an educated guess. Seems to me a good reason why a government does not do something that most would recognise as worth doing.

Care to offer an alternative proposition? 

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

I don't know, it's an educated guess. Seems to me a good reason why a government does not do something that most would recognise as worth doing.

Care to offer an alternative proposition? 

you not answering then?

[oowee]

See previous post and follow thread.

Repeated

I think we are in danger of going off topic but :-

Where is the internecine war in the UK? 

The UK put South African women into death camps and traded in slaves but I hope some of us have since found education. These conflicts are born out of hatred and ignorance with the persecution of minorities in the absence of the rule of law. Nothing like the civilised and largely educated society that we have here. Surely the way forward is more exposure to and understanding of difference. 

I agree that there are exceptions but that does not make it the norm. It would be more accurate to say that history has shown that uneducated people have not been kind to minority groups. To follow that argument, is to fear anything that is not your own. A very sad state of affairs to live in fear of difference. 

I would suggest that the greater issue is the competition for scarce world resources at a nation state level where the biggest and most powerful will prevail. 

[old man]

Don't worry peeps, haven't they just had another pay rise to confirm their brilliance?

[JRDS]

1 hour ago, old man said:

Don't worry peeps, haven't they just had another pay rise to confirm their brilliance?

So well earned don't you think.  How can JRM & ERG group think that removal of the backstop makes her Remain deal palatable?  It was put there to be removed at the last minute so blatantly, we are being played by the lot of them.  New party needed and it will be a Right Wing one.

Edited March 2, 2019 by JRDS

[panoma1]

1 minute ago, JRDS said:

So well earned don't you think.  How can JRM & ERG group think that removal of the backstop makes her Remain deal palatable?  It was put there to be removed at the last minute so blatantly, I think we are all being played by the lot of them.  New party needed and it will be a Right Wing one.

Yep diversionary tactics! Whilst everyone is concentrating on one unpalatable issue, the others slip by unnoticed!

[Dave-G]

46 minutes ago, JRDS said:

... How can JRM & ERG group think that removal of the backstop makes her Remain deal palatable? ...

The backstop IS the main sticky part. If its sorted we can make a fair give and take common market deal. 

Edited March 2, 2019 by Dave-G
Better wording

[JohnfromUK]

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

How can JRM & ERG group think that removal of the backstop makes her Remain deal palatable?

Because the 'deal' is simply short term for the 'transition period' between 29th March and December 2020.  Long term it doesn't matter at all - except that we cannot 'escape it' unilaterally. (the dreaded backstop) - which is why the backstop MUST go.   Anything else in the deal is out of date as at December 2020.

We still need to negotiate the actual leave trading terms and conditions post December 2020.  They have not even started that.  It would have been common sense to have been negotiating those at the same time since it is hard to see how you can get a good smooth transition plan if you don't know what terms you are transitioning to. 

The EU has flatly refused to talk about any future trade deal until we sign up to the transition period deal.  We SHOULD have flatly refused to talk about any 'deal' in isolation and it should have been linked to the final trade deal (i.e. we are not paying you £39 billion unless we have a GUARANTEED trade deal at the end) ......... and if they wouldn't talk about that - we should have walked away. 

However - right at square one - we agreed to their basic terms of no talk on the long term future trade until the transition period is fully signed up.  This was a serious mistake.

There are HUGE issues to be surmounted in the actual 'post December 2020' trade deal - like France has already stated it will demand to retain (some) fishing rights in our coastal waters ...... or they may not let us out of the backstop.

[TriBsa]

38 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Because the 'deal' is simply short term for the 'transition period' between 29th March and December 2020.  Long term it doesn't matter at all - except that we cannot 'escape it' unilaterally. (the dreaded backstop) - which is why the backstop MUST go.   Anything else in the deal is out of date as at December 2020.

We still need to negotiate the actual leave trading terms and conditions post December 2020.  They have not even started that.  It would have been common sense to have been negotiating those at the same time since it is hard to see how you can get a good smooth transition plan if you don't know what terms you are transitioning to. 

The EU has flatly refused to talk about any future trade deal until we sign up to the transition period deal.  We SHOULD have flatly refused to talk about any 'deal' in isolation and it should have been linked to the final trade deal (i.e. we are not paying you £39 billion unless we have a GUARANTEED trade deal at the end) ......... and if they wouldn't talk about that - we should have walked away. 

However - right at square one - we agreed to their basic terms of no talk on the long term future trade until the transition period is fully signed up.  This was a serious mistake.

There are HUGE issues to be surmounted in the actual 'post December 2020' trade deal - like France has already stated it will demand to retain (some) fishing rights in our coastal waters ...... or they may not let us out of the backstop.

December 2020? That will be 4 1/2 years since we voted out! All we have had is feet dragging, deceit, delay and lies from this pathetic government.  It took 9 months before they even got around to invoking Article 50 to supposedly get the ball rolling. We need to get out now, or I fear we'll never get out. Any more delays will be just another ruse to keep us in.

[JRDS]

The EU will give absolutely jack, they just want our £39 Billion.  No deal is the only way we will have a successful future.

The EU council are a total bunch of crooks.

Edited March 2, 2019 by JRDS

[oowee]

Pigeons coming home to roost springs to mind, but you knew that.