Brexit - merged threads

[ditchman]

10 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Used to be known as treason, and I think you can remember the penalty ?

i believe tony blair engineered the removal of the death penalty for treason...........(proberly wanted to feel safer before they shredded his expense claims before he left office....i believe it is standard practice for expenses records to be shredded for exiting prime ministers)

[JohnfromUK]

This is developing into a very bizarre situation;

• There was a vote on membership - which the government promised to follow - it came out as leave.
• The government (by triggering Article 50 which parliament passed with a large majority) committed to leave with no deal CLEARLY mentioned as 'better than a bad deal'' at the end of March 2019
• There was a general election with BOTH main parties (Tory and Labour) promising to honour Article 50 in their manifestos on which all candidates campaigned.
• A deal was put to Parliament on three occasions - which they rejected every time as a 'bad deal' - and the architect of that deal (May) resigned and was replaced (by Johnson).
• The end March 2019 deadline was missed and extended to end October 2019
• Johnson has told the EU what we need in a deal that he thinks he can get passed by Parliament (basically no 'backstop')
• The EU says they will not remove article 50 and will not renegotiate the leave agreement (despite it having been rejected by Parliament as a bad deal)
• So we are at the 'no deal is better than a bad deal' state where the only 'deal' offered is a bad one (Parliaments decision) and both main parties manifestos agreed on leaving with terms where the no deal was a clearly stated 'fall back' in the case of a 'bad deal'.
• Now the Labour Shadow Chancellor is suggesting he will send someone to the Queen to tell her how to do her job and the Leader of the Labour party is trying to give instructions to the Cabinet Secretary.  People who both campaigned in their manifesto on honouring article 50 (which I believe they both voted for)

I would like to see a deal - but for me as I have said several times in this thread - there can be no 'backstop' which prevents us leaving at our choice in the event that deals on future trade, fishing etc cannot be reached (and the French have already said they will only sign a fishing deal if they retain full rights over our waters).  The whole thing was about regaining control - and a backstop is totally contrary to that.  Therefore IF the backstop isn't removed from the deal offered, we cannot agree to that deal - so on October 31st, no deal it is.  Over to the EU.

[Scully]

16 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

This is developing into a very bizarre situation;

• There was a vote on membership - which the government promised to follow - it came out as leave.
• The government (by triggering Article 50 which parliament passed with a large majority) committed to leave with no deal CLEARLY mentioned as 'better than a bad deal'' at the end of March 2019
• There was a general election with BOTH main parties (Tory and Labour) promising to honour Article 50 in their manifestos on which all candidates campaigned.
• A deal was put to Parliament on three occasions - which they rejected every time as a 'bad deal' - and the architect of that deal (May) resigned and was replaced (by Johnson).
• The end March 2019 deadline was missed and extended to end October 2019
• Johnson has told the EU what we need in a deal that he thinks he can get passed by Parliament (basically no 'backstop')
• The EU says they will not remove article 50 and will not renegotiate the leave agreement (despite it having been rejected by Parliament as a bad deal)
• So we are at the 'no deal is better than a bad deal' state where the only 'deal' offered is a bad one (Parliaments decision) and both main parties manifestos agreed on leaving with terms where the no deal was a clearly stated 'fall back' in the case of a 'bad deal'.
• Now the Labour Shadow Chancellor is suggesting he will send someone to the Queen to tell her how to do her job and the Leader of the Labour party is trying to give instructions to the Cabinet Secretary.  People who both campaigned in their manifesto on honouring article 50 (which I believe they both voted for)

I would like to see a deal - but for me as I have said several times in this thread - there can be no 'backstop' which prevents us leaving at our choice in the event that deals on future trade, fishing etc cannot be reached (and the French have already said they will only sign a fishing deal if they retain full rights over our waters).  The whole thing was about regaining control - and a backstop is totally contrary to that.  Therefore IF the backstop isn't removed from the deal offered, we cannot agree to that deal - so on October 31st, no deal it is.  Over to the EU.

All makes sense to me, and as much as I’m hoping for a no deal Brexit, and despite all the above, I genuinely can’t see us leaving, with or without a deal. I sincerely hope I’m wrong. 

[panoma1]

17 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

This is developing into a very bizarre situation;

• There was a vote on membership - which the government promised to follow - it came out as leave.
• The government (by triggering Article 50 which parliament passed with a large majority) committed to leave with no deal CLEARLY mentioned as 'better than a bad deal'' at the end of March 2019
• There was a general election with BOTH main parties (Tory and Labour) promising to honour Article 50 in their manifestos on which all candidates campaigned.
• A deal was put to Parliament on three occasions - which they rejected every time as a 'bad deal' - and the architect of that deal (May) resigned and was replaced (by Johnson).
• The end March 2019 deadline was missed and extended to end October 2019
• Johnson has told the EU what we need in a deal that he thinks he can get passed by Parliament (basically no 'backstop')
• The EU says they will not remove article 50 and will not renegotiate the leave agreement (despite it having been rejected by Parliament as a bad deal)
• So we are at the 'no deal is better than a bad deal' state where the only 'deal' offered is a bad one (Parliaments decision) and both main parties manifestos agreed on leaving with terms where the no deal was a clearly stated 'fall back' in the case of a 'bad deal'.
• Now the Labour Shadow Chancellor is suggesting he will send someone to the Queen to tell her how to do her job and the Leader of the Labour party is trying to give instructions to the Cabinet Secretary.  People who both campaigned in their manifesto on honouring article 50 (which I believe they both voted for)

I would like to see a deal - but for me as I have said several times in this thread - there can be no 'backstop' which prevents us leaving at our choice in the event that deals on future trade, fishing etc cannot be reached (and the French have already said they will only sign a fishing deal if they retain full rights over our waters).  The whole thing was about regaining control - and a backstop is totally contrary to that.  Therefore IF the backstop isn't removed from the deal offered, we cannot agree to that deal - so on October 31st, no deal it is.  Over to the EU.

Pretty well sums it up for me!....I just hope the electorate, whether they are leave or remain, have long memories, and will remember those turncoat MP's who have tried everything to subvert and frustrate the democratic process that they agreed, gained advantage on (got elected!) and voted for!

[JohnfromUK]

45 minutes ago, Scully said:

All makes sense to me

 

39 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Pretty well sums it up for me!

What I want to make crystal clear are;

• Both Tory and Labour committed to honouring the referendum - as did ALL of their candidates standing on their manifestos
• IT was made VERY CLEAR that no deal was a fallback if we couldn't get 'a good deal'
• A deal WAS negotiated and was recommended by the Government ...... but rejected as a bad deal THREE TIMES by Parliament.  Labour who claim they want a deal and won't take a 'no deal' consistently whipped against voting for the only deal the EU has offered
• It is therefore NOT UNREASONABLE to be falling back on a no deal, since the EU has said they will not negotiate on the deal offered further

To those (especially Parliamentarians and MPs) claiming they didn't ever expect a 'no deal' the paper trail to where we are now is very clear and has been a direct consequence of Parliaments own actions.

Edited August 9, 2019 by JohnfromUK

[Yellow Bear]

The irony of all this is that JC, after all his party has done, has the bare faced audacity to call what BJ is doing Undemocratic  -  you could not make it up

[TIGHTCHOKE]

39 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

The irony of all this is that JC, after all his party has done, has the bare faced audacity to call what BJ is doing Undemocratic  -  you could not make it up

Easy to be critical when you have no substance and never have to make good on your promises.

Edited August 9, 2019 by TIGHTCHOKE
an M!

[panoma1]

Apparantly, Corbin has written to a senior civil servant in an attempt to block the government forcing through an undemocratic, no deal Brexit! He seems to have missed the point that there is no need to force through a no deal Brexit, all the government need to do is....sit tight and do nothing........until 31st October, and the UK will democratically leave the EU anyway........by default!

[Jaymo]

I hope someone has a plan- Sterling now at a 10 year low against the major currencies, and this time it’s of our own making and not the 08 Lehman Bros derived type.

Was reading someone’s reference to our exports and how they are also declining due to the weak pound- but oh you say, a weak pound means it’s better for export! Seems someone forgot that much of our major manufacturing relies on components purchased outside of the UK-ooops

I’ve ten years left for my final salary pension, let’s hope it’s invested correctly even if it is guaranteed by my employer to be at a certain level 🙂

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Jaymo

[Retsdon]

17 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

Sterling now at a 10 year low against the major currencies,

Retired Brits here in Thailand are feeling the pinch. The Thai Baht is a strong currency these days and the other day my friend was telling me that his income,  made up of a state pension and a small company pension from Rolls Royce,  is down over 35 percent. And quite honestly, nowadays anyone here relying solely on a British state pension will be right up against it. But five or six years ago they were doing OK.

[Jaymo]

5 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Retired Brits here in Thailand are feeling the pinch. The Thai Baht is a strong currency these days and the other day my friend was telling me that his income,  made up of a state pension and a small company pension from Rolls Royce,  is down over 35 percent. And quite honestly, nowadays anyone here relying solely on a British state pension will be right up against it. But five or six years ago they were doing OK.

But you know what the reaction will be to such a statement don’t we.

Same as for any expats who seem to be thought of as some sort of pariah for daring to choose to do so. 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Jaymo

[Retsdon]

 

7 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

But you know what the reaction will be to such a statement don’t we.

Well, in the UK anyone's probably up against it with just a state pension too. But then if it's your only income you'll get some kind of rent support, heating allowance, bus pass, health care, and so on and so forth to pad it out. If you retired overseas you get none of that. And nor do you get any subsequent increases in your pension rate. I'm eligible for mine in a couple of years and once I take it -that's it. The amount I get will stay the same until I die - no increases at all.. Considering that I've paid the exact same NI contributions as anyone else, it seems a bit unfair. Especially as I won't be availing myself of the rent support, heating allowance, bus pass, health care, etc,etc. But hey ho, that's just how it is.

[Rewulf]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/french-fishermen-threaten-to-block-uk-so-no-fish-can-get-in-after-nodeal-brexit-115151448.html

My kingdom for a fish? 😂

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/french-fishermen-threaten-to-block-uk-so-no-fish-can-get-in-after-nodeal-brexit-115151448.html

My kingdom for a fish? 😂

Send a gunboat (or don't we have any?)

[Scully]

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

Send a gunboat (or don't we have any?)

A few punts, but I think that’s it. 🙂

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, Scully said:

A few punts, but I think that’s it. 🙂

We have a huge aircraft carrier with no aircraft and a big leak .......

[Capt Christopher Jones]

21 hours ago, ditchman said:

i believe tony blair engineered the removal of the death penalty for treason...........(proberly wanted to feel safer before they shredded his expense claims before he left office....i believe it is standard practice for expenses records to be shredded for exiting prime ministers)

Then he changed religion "Hail Mary Thrice " 

[pinfireman]

After keeping everyone guessing for weeks about whether they were going to blow even more taxpayers’ money on trying to appeal against their comprehensive defeat in the Darren Grimes case, the Electoral Commission have finally decided that they will not be appealing. Today was the deadline for them to appeal, they have confirmed to Guido that they aren’t.

It finally draws a line under three years of their vindictive pursuit of one young Brexit campaigner, with the Electoral Commission resorting to trying to string Grimes up on a technicality after failing to find anything substantive over the course of multiple investigations. Without the generous support of Guido readers, Brexit hero Darren would never have been to challenge their perversion of justice in the first place. Grimes can now rest easy, meanwhile the pressure on the Electoral Commission is continuing to mount…

Source: Guido Fawkes

You will not find this on the BBC! Maybe now the Electoral Commission will go after the Remain camp (don,t hold your breath!) and investigate all the complaints in the dossier submitted 2 years ago by Minister Priti Patel?

[ditchman]

4 hours ago, Jaymo said:

I hope someone has a plan- Sterling now at a 10 year low against the major currencies, and this time it’s of our own making and not the 08 Lehman Bros derived type.

Was reading someone’s reference to our exports and how they are also declining due to the weak pound- but oh you say, a weak pound means it’s better for export! Seems someone forgot that much of our major manufacturing relies on components purchased outside of the UK-ooops

I’ve ten years left for my final salary pension, let’s hope it’s invested correctly even if it is guaranteed by my employer to be at a certain level 🙂

 

if you look carefully at your terms and conditions and non-excutive directors list.........you will no doubt reckonise a name on the list of the pensions scheme directors list....a certain Philip Green.........who has a vast shareholding in stuff and other pension schemes..........

i wish you well

Edited August 9, 2019 by ditchman

[Jaymo]

1 hour ago, ditchman said:

if you look carefully at your terms and conditions and non-excutive directors list.........you will no doubt reckonise a name “mickey mouse holdings” ..

i love you more and more each day...

 

These types of scenario have been foreseen and I’m lead to believe from our Pension Trustees board and our Management that even if ‘certain members ‘ of “mickey mouse holdings” and other such establishments are involved,  there is protection put in place, without divulging too much.

So, I’m still a happy bunny 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Jaymo

[SpringDon]

2 hours ago, Jaymo said:

Indeed <snip> happy bunny 

Spoilsport

Edited August 9, 2019 by SpringDon

[sportsbob]

16 hours ago, Retsdon said:

 

Well, in the UK anyone's probably up against it with just a state pension too. But then if it's your only income you'll get some kind of rent support, heating allowance, bus pass, health care, and so on and so forth to pad it out. If you retired overseas you get none of that. And nor do you get any subsequent increases in your pension rate. I'm eligible for mine in a couple of years and once I take it -that's it. The amount I get will stay the same until I die - no increases at all.. Considering that I've paid the exact same NI contributions as anyone else, it seems a bit unfair. Especially as I won't be availing myself of the rent support, heating allowance, bus pass, health care, etc,etc. But hey ho, that's just how it is.

If you lived in the UK then you would be spending your pension in the UK, the companies you spend it with will have staff etc etc so the money goes back into the system and generates more wealth this then can be paid out in the form of NHS care and benefits. If you live overseas then it is most likely your pension payment will be a total net loss to the UK economy so perhaps it may be considered only fair for you to be given less .

[Jaymo]

2 hours ago, sportsbob said:

If you lived in the UK then you would be spending your pension in the UK, the companies you spend it with will have staff etc etc so the money goes back into the system and generates more wealth this then can be paid out in the form of NHS care and benefits. If you live overseas then it is most likely your pension payment will be a total net loss to the UK economy so perhaps it may be considered only fair for you to be given less .

With that analogy, then any pensioner should not be allowed a Bank Account in case they hoard and don’t spend, those that are unemployed and don’t contribute the same shouldn’t receive the same, finally then, if those 73% or whatever it was stated the other day that although employed , do not pay tax - then they should surely also receive a lower pension?

I know that you can’t even take income Tax into the equation as it’s supposedly derived from NI contributions! Now how about those whose NI bill is greater than most people’s Income tax bill, should they get more?

Surely in contradiction to your statement of the use of the word “NHS”, mr ( or mrs) expat will probably not be such a drain on this, as those remaining Pensioners in the UK- still fair to have a tiered system when the expat is most likely having to pay for a policy for their Healthcare in the Country that they are domiciled, out of their Pension having payed in all their working lives! 

 

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

With that analogy, then any pensioner should not be allowed a Bank Account in case they hoard and don’t spend,

No, they will spend it in this country eventually, or pass it to kids or state.

 

5 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

those that are unemployed and don’t contribute the same shouldn’t receive the same,

They dont, generally, what lacks in pension is made up in other benefits, but they have to be resident in the UK for that.

 

7 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

finally then, if those 73% or whatever it was stated the other day that although employed , do not pay tax - then they should surely also receive a lower pension?

If they breach the tax free limit through combined pension/employment, they do pay income tax.

 

8 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

I know that you can’t even take income Tax into the equation as it’s supposedly derived from NI contributions! Now how about those whose NI bill is greater than most people’s Income tax bill, should they get more?

Yes, I think they should.

 

9 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

Surely in contradiction to your statement of the use of the word “NHS”, mr ( or mrs) expat will probably not be such a drain on this, as those remaining Pensioners in the UK- still fair to have a tiered system when the expat is most likely having to pay for a policy for their Healthcare in the Country that they are domiciled, out of their Pension having payed in all their working lives! 

This is where it gets complicated, an expat living is eg . Thailand can either pay for treatment over there, or more often than not, moves back over here (temporarily ) to get more expensive treatment, it depends on their status in whatever country, so that argument is fairly weak.
What will be interesting is how EU expats are treated by the various countries , once we leave.
The common sense approach is to have a reciprocal agreement.

My personal opinion, is the NHS in its present form is doomed, its a massive creaking behemoth of waste and poor financial management.
Its abused by many, and surely cant keep going the way it is.
The only reason no government dare reform it, is because it would be the wheel that government would be broken on.
Which is a sorry state of affairs.

[Retsdon]

3 hours ago, sportsbob said:

If you lived in the UK then you would be spending your pension in the UK, the companies you spend it with will have staff etc etc so the money goes back into the system and generates more wealth this then can be paid out in the form of NHS care and benefits. If you live overseas then it is most likely your pension payment will be a total net loss to the UK economy so perhaps it may be considered only fair for you to be given less .

It's not as logical as that. Some expat pensioners get an annual increase because the UK has some kind of arbitrary agreement with the countries they're domiciled in (UK pensioners in the Phillipines or Jamaica for example get the increases, but not those in New Zealand despite the UK having reciprocal social security arrangements with NZ) . But the bulk of these countries where you get oncreases are those in the EEA.

It'll be interesting to see if the UK wants to maintain these reciprocal pension and health benefits post Brexit. Or perhaps, with the fall in the value of sterling  and no increases we'll be unable to survive and have to return home en masse to throw ourselves on the mercy of the British taxpayers.