Brexit, for once some facts.

[Zlatan]

The EU would not prevent Corbyn nationalising anything, why do you persist with denying that?

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

Somebody else who can't read Art 107,and perhaps your stance should be pointed out to Corbyn and not us. After all it's his insistence he would not have freedom required to carry out his mandate. (another post you didn't read)
And perhaps the EU would support him, but perhaps he doesn't think he should have to defer to them,which he must now.

 

[Woosh]

Why a nursing degree?

they learn a lot more than half the number of degree courses currently on offer.
there is one year course but there is also a proper 3-4 years degree course, entry requires 3 A levels, BBC grades.
https://www.essex.ac.uk/courses/ug00315/1/bsc-nursing-adult

 

[Zlatan]

https://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-new-eu-rules-make-it-impossible-to-renationalise-railways-61180

Read it fully Flecc and OG. That's without Art 107.

Are are you saying this is wrong too or that EU would ratify changes anyway..
It could easily be argued any changes we make towards nationalisation would be endorsed by EU, what is beyond dispute is
A)We would have to seek approval from EU.
B) That approval could not be guaranteed.
The fact we need to seek approval is in itself a reason for leaving EU for many people and probably JC.
It seems to me the claims by remainers of leavers being misinformed is actually the other way around. Time for some remainers to look at what's happening in EU more closely .

 

[flecc]

Well please explain, as I, ve asked 3 times before, Corbyn's stance on EU. It was exactly the reason he offered as to his dislike of EU.
Its your refusal to accept implications of Art 107. It would be impossible to Nationalise any industry without
A) Giving some kind of state aid
Or B
B) Affecting similar industries in other parts of EU.
Yes, I agree EU may well endorse any re nationalisation efforts but again 2 points
A) They are not obliged to do so.
And
B)Any government would have to defer to EU for ratification. (And its been the case no matter what you say about Art 107,since 2012)

And as I, ve asked before, please explain Corbyn's stance on EU. Your stand point depends on knowing it yet you fail to even attempt to explain it.
Perhaps he has changed his mind and is now pro EU. If so please provide a link. If he is anti EU please explain his reasoning.
You continually accuse me of being anti Corbyn but fail to defend his view.
Labour's anti EU stance has contributed to our situation and maintained May in power yet you support Corbyn's stance. Odd at best.

Again you do it, one long rant about Corbyn, not just in relation to article 107 but also about his stance on the EU, my opinion of him, my not defending him, his perhaps changing his opinion on th EU, him supposedly keeping May in power.

That is what is odd, your anti-Corbyn and anti-EU obsessions that prevent you keeping any sense of proportion.

I'm well aware that Corbyn has plusses and minuses for the top post.

I'm well aware that the EU has many faults.

I'm well aware that EU membership had disadvantages.

I'm well aware that the UK has strengths.

But I'm also well aware of the opposite side to each of those, in other words a balanced view.

What I do know with absolute certainty is that having continuous right wing or left wing governance always leads to a bad outcome. Only a balance of the two through some alternation is ultimately acceptable. The UK needs a left wing government now, but only for a while, to correct some of the damage the Conservatives have done and to nationalise some state essentials like the railways. Since the 1970s we've made the big mistake in settling for far too long in each of Tory and Labour governance in turn, both with harm done.

What I also know with certainty is how badly UK governments of both persuasions have treated many of it's subjects and how it often took the EU and its courts to right those wrongs. Once again a balance is best, this time achieved by the UK having an organisation with oversight able to intervene to an extent.

So in essence I'm against any one view of how to govern since all are lacking. The best results come from inclusion of the widest possible range of views, both country political and supra-national.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

Somebody else who can't read Art 107,and perhaps your stance should be pointed out to Corbyn and not us. After all it's his insistence he would not have freedom required to carry out his mandate. (another post you didn't read)
And perhaps the EU would support him, but perhaps he doesn't think he should have to defer to them,which he must now.

Has the thought not occurred he may be wrong?

 

[Zlatan]

Again you do it, one long rant about Corbyn, not just in relation to article 107 but also about his stance on the EU, my opinion of him, my not defending him, his perhaps changing his opinion on th EU, him supposedly keeping May in power.

That is what is odd, your anti-Corbyn and anti-EU obsessions that prevent you keeping any sense of proportion.

I'm well aware that Corbyn has plusses and minuses for the top post.

I'm well aware that the EU has many faults.

I'm well aware that EU membership had disadvantages.

I'm well aware that the UK has strengths.

But I'm also well aware of the opposite side to each of those, in other words a balanced view.

What I do know with absolute certainty is that having continuous right wing or left wing governance always leads to a bad outcome. Only a balance of the two through some alternation is ultimately acceptable. The UK needs a left wing government now, but only for a while, to correct some of the damage the Conservatives have done and to nationalise some state essentials like the railways. Since the 1970s we've made the big mistake in settling for far too long in each of Tory and Labour governance in turn, both with harm done.

What I also know with certainty is how badly UK governments of both persuasions have treated many of it's subjects and how it often took the EU and its courts to right those wrongs. Once again a balance is best, this time achieved by the UK having an organisation with oversight able to intervene to an extent.

So in essence I'm against any one view of how to govern since all are lacking. The best results come from inclusion of the widest possible range of views, both country political and supra-national.
.

That is a very good post Flecc, nearly all of which both makes sense and I agree with.
However, it neither explains Corbyn's stance or accepts there are problems around Nationalisation with regards to EU membership, which there obviously are. (Either simply fact we would need their ratification or that it could be refused,)

 

[flecc]

However, it neither explains Corbyn's stance or accepts there are problems around Nationalisation with regards to EU membership, which there obviously are.

Since we are leaving the EU there's no problem with nationalisation, but even if we weren't leaving we wouldn't need EU permission to nationalise all or part of the railways. Haven't you noticed how we've already done it? When the rail infrastructure company Railtrack failed, we permanently nationalised it as Network Rail. When the East Coast franchise failed we took it back into public ownership and then later did the same with the South-Eastern Rail company. These are the realities of what happens, not the theory of article 107 which in practice can be completely ignored as these events proved.

Corbyn's stance is a realistic way of maximising his vote by avoiding specifically upsetting anyone (other than you of course!). I've explained this to you umpteen times. How long before you accept that and stop repeatedly accusing me of not explaining?
.

 

[oyster]

I wondered who would be the first to see GDPR action. It would be good to see a substantial fine levied against some of the GDPR miscreants - and there is plenty of competition as to which one will be the first...


Vote Leave data firm hit with first ever GDPR notice

A Canadian analytics firm that worked for Vote Leave has received the UK's first formal notice under a key data law, the UK's data protection watchdog has confirmed.

AggregateIQ (AIQ) was accused of processing people's data "for purposes which they would not have expected".

The firm has appealed against the notice, which was issued by the UK's Information Commissioner's Office.

Law firm Mishcon de Reya said the notice was "significant".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45589004

 

[Danidl]

Why a nursing degree? This is just sugar coating on a devious scheme to get nurses to pay for their own training. Occupations such as nursing, policing and many others do not require a degree. The training for these jobs should be funded by the government or the employer in the form of an apprenticeship, not the student / apprentice themselves.

The whole degree for everything culture is a complete scandal and young people, plus their parents, have literally been mugged by the government.

Sorry as someone who has family links into the medical game, though not in it myself, I must disagree.. I did have reservations and still have a few, but irrespective from where the funding comes, Nursing degrees are appropriate. Modern medicine and health care has become much more complex, and is no longer a case of nurses mopping brows, or scrubbing floors to prevent sepsis. I don't want to bother explaining, and it is very much off topic, but I did nor want my silence being considered as agreement.

 

[Nev]

I have an interest in politics but many of the regulars in this thread know a great deal more about it than I do. So I have a few questions for you to see what your thoughts are.

I am going to make what I assume are reasonable assumptions. Lets say TM manages to get her Chequers deal with a few alterations, approved by the EU.

She then brings it back to our parliament and tells everyone if it is rejected then we leave on WTO rules.

Question 1.
What do you folks think will happen in this situation.

The labour leadership will instruct their MPs to vote against because the deal will not tick their list of criteria. Many right wingers in the Conservative party will vote against because they don't consider it to be a proper Brexit.

So unless some labour MPs who are worried about crashing out on WTO rules vote with the government, TM's deal will not get approval.

Question 2.
Assuming TM loses the vote, do we leave on WTO rules even though there is apparently no majority in parliament for this option?

Question 3.
Could TM call for a peoples vote as a way around this dilemma?

I know she has always been against this idea, but how many times did she say she would not be calling a snap election when she first became PM. Then when she thought she was likely to get a 100 plus majority she suddenly changed her mind.

Question 4.
If TM and the government lose the vote and decide to just leave things as they are and so we leave on WTO rules, can parliament themselves do anything about it?

I think there is a majority of MPs that do not want to crash out on WTO rules, but I think there is a danger it might happen as a kind of default option. Is there some kind of procedure in parliament that can prevent this. As I understand it, everything is currently in place (ie its the law) that if there is no deal, then we automatically leave on WTO rules next March.

Question 5.
If we leave on WTO rules will it be as bad as many of the experts predict? There are experts on both sides of this debate, but I see it a bit like the climate debate. There are experts on both sides of the climate change argument, but there are a lot more experts that say we facing global warming than there are that say we are not.

It seems the same with WTO rules there seems to be a lot more credible people saying WTO rules would be very harmful for us than there are people saying it would be good for us.

 

[Zlatan]

I have an interest in politics but many of the regulars in this thread know a great deal more about it than I do. So I have a few questions for you to see what your thoughts are.

I am going to make what I assume are reasonable assumptions. Lets say TM manages to get her Chequers deal with a few alterations, approved by the EU.

She then brings it back to our parliament and tells everyone if it is rejected then we leave on WTO rules.

Question 1.
What do you folks think will happen in this situation.

The labour leadership will instruct their MPs to vote against because the deal will not tick their list of criteria. Many right wingers in the Conservative party will vote against because they don't consider it to be a proper Brexit.

So unless some labour MPs who are worried about crashing out on WTO rules vote with the government, TM's deal will not get approval.

Question 2.
Assuming TM loses the vote, do we leave on WTO rules even though there is apparently no majority in parliament for this option?

Question 3.
Could TM call for a peoples vote as a way around this dilemma?

I know she has always been against this idea, but how many times did she say she would not be calling a snap election when she first became PM. Then when she thought she was likely to get a 100 plus majority she suddenly changed her mind.

Question 4.
If TM and the government lose the vote and decide to just leave things as they are and so we leave on WTO rules, can parliament themselves do anything about it?

I think there is a majority of MPs that do not want to crash out on WTO rules, but I think there is a danger it might happen as a kind of default option. Is there some kind of procedure in parliament that can prevent this. As I understand it, everything is currently in place (ie its the law) that if there is no deal, then we automatically leave on WTO rules next March.

Question 5.
If we leave on WTO rules will it be as bad as many of the experts predict? There are experts on both sides of this debate, but I see it a bit like the climate debate. There are experts on both sides of the climate change argument, but there are a lot more experts that say we facing global warming than there are that say we are not.

It seems the same with WTO rules there seems to be a lot more credible people saying WTO rules would be very harmful for us than there are people saying it would be good for us.

I, ve always thought the questions a person poses represent a much better picture of their understanding than another's assumption of knowledge. The questions you ask are extremely pertinent and nobody (IMO) actually knows the answers. Your enquiry leads me to suspect you are as well versed on subject as anyone but good luck... I haven't a clue on any of them. OG will know I suspect.

 

[Woosh]

we can live with Canada or even WTO deal while negotiating a permanent deal with the EU and rest of the world - that's not the problem, but we need to pay the divorce bill and have some transition period. Without signing the withdrawal treaty with the EU, it will be chaos for months.

 

[Woosh]

Question 2.
Assuming TM loses the vote, do we leave on WTO rules even though there is apparently no majority in parliament for this option?

when the tick-tock stops, we are out of the EU without the withdrawal treaty, we will trade on WTO terms but may have to negotiate from January some immediate arrangements to keep pilots flying and truck drivers working, medicine, food, electricity etc. and a hard Irish border.

 

[Woosh]

Question 3.
Could TM call for a peoples vote as a way around this dilemma?

I know she has always been against this idea, but how many times did she say she would not be calling a snap election when she first became PM. Then when she thought she was likely to get a 100 plus majority she suddenly changed her mind.

yes but there is no majority in the HoC at the moment to support this idea.

 

[Woosh]

Question 4.
If TM and the government lose the vote and decide to just leave things as they are and so we leave on WTO rules, can parliament themselves do anything about it?

I think there is a majority of MPs that do not want to crash out on WTO rules, but I think there is a danger it might happen as a kind of default option. Is there some kind of procedure in parliament that can prevent this. As I understand it, everything is currently in place (ie its the law) that if there is no deal, then we automatically leave on WTO rules next March.

No. the government runs the HoC business so the opposition MPs alone can't initiate a new law to force the government's hand.

 

[Woosh]

Question 5.
If we leave on WTO rules will it be as bad as many of the experts predict? There are experts on both sides of this debate, but I see it a bit like the climate debate. There are experts on both sides of the climate change argument, but there are a lot more experts that say we facing global warming than there are that say we are not.

It seems the same with WTO rules there seems to be a lot more credible people saying WTO rules would be very harmful for us than there are people saying it would be good for us.

I think the biggest problem is the balance of payments.
Investors, not just foreigners, will take their money out of the UK by any means. The BoE will be forced to defend the Pound against a tsunami of selling. There is no way a sane government can just let the country fall off the cliff.

 

[flecc]

It seems the same with WTO rules there seems to be a lot more credible people saying WTO rules would be very harmful for us than there are people saying it would be good for us.

I'm sure this majority is right. Our trading with the EU would be immediately harmed, while our ambition to trade more with the rest of the world would take a considerable time to achieve, or even never be achieved.

Both involve losses with only their eventual scale and durations to be learnt the hard way.
.

 

[Zlatan]

I think the biggest problem is the balance of payments.
Investors, not just foreigners, will take their money out of the UK by any means. The BoE will be forced to defend the Pound against a tsunami of selling. There is no way a sane government can just let the country fall off the cliff.

At risk of contradicting myself.. have we had many sane governments? Ever?Wars boom and bust. Listen to a debate in HoC, doesn't sound very sane.

 

[oyster]

As discussed here, now from YouGov...

Labour 'could win 1.5m more votes' by backing Brexit referendum
YouGov says endorsing ‘people’s vote’ would bring net gain in general election

 

[Zlatan]

As discussed here, now from YouGov...

Labour 'could win 1.5m more votes' by backing Brexit referendum
YouGov says endorsing ‘people’s vote’ would bring net gain in general election

They would need to change leader to do that tho.