I think they can justify it by saying 'we are paying less for the same advantages compared to staying in'.
Truth is flexible.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Truth is flexible.
Like Danidl I don't drink alcohol, so I'll have to let this slur on London pass. I should mention in passing though that we have a number of microbreweries in London supplying particular small numbers of pubs, so there's probably some very good beers available here.
That said, I've heard Watneys are brewing Red Barrel again.
.
Jon Snow has a view on tax avoidance which somewhat distances him from the mainstream media, the monarchy, aristocracy, the tory party and the eejits who vote for the land and property owning, tax avoiding scum.
Tom
Tom
well yes we know the truth is flexible, but are you sure they people will fall for it twice? Remember they don't think there are any advantages to staying in.
yes, so you've just undone your own point haven't you?
I am not interested in the question. As Mr Barnier said, it's not an exit bill.
It's a recognition of what we agreed to pay and a commitment to settle the account when it's rendered. So it's not a bill as such.
It's like you give to your staff a company credit card. If you have a heart attack when you get the statement, it's your fault in the first place.
The money is owed, it's got to be paid eventually either with an agreed percentage of GDP then the balance is brought forward or pay per accounting period.
It's a recognition of what we agreed to pay and a commitment to settle the account when it's rendered. So it's not a bill as such.
It's like you give to your staff a company credit card. If you have a heart attack when you get the statement, it's your fault in the first place.
The money is owed, it's got to be paid eventually either with an agreed percentage of GDP then the balance is brought forward or pay per accounting period.
Last edited:
Over the years, I don't think I have purchased the FT more than three or four times and that was only to see if was any better than the other broadsheets of the day. Remember their advertising slogan, 'No FT; no comment!'?
Here, they have this to say about 'Brexit' and I find it interesting only in as far as their readership demographic is more than a little different from that of most of the tabloid propaganda organs owned by billionaires.
Ah, their paywall won't allow reproduction here! You can check it out for yourself online if interested.
This is a poor copy:
The UK once had a deserved reputation for pragmatic and stable politics. That will not survive the spectacular mess it is making of Brexit.
Remember what has happened. In an unnecessary referendum, a small majority chose an option they could not understand, because it had not been worked out. Thereupon, a new prime minister, with no knowledge of the complexities, adopted the hardest possible interpretation of the outcome. She triggered the exit process in March 2017, before shaping a detailed negotiating position. Some 70 days later, in an unnecessary election, she lost both her majority and her authority.
The Conservative party is so split over Brexit as to be no longer a coherent party of government. It is, as a result, questionable whether the compromises needed over money owed to the EU, rights of EU residents and the role of the European Court of Justice, could win approval in parliament. The Labour party will offer no relief: it wants another general election and is now about as split over Brexit as the Tories.
Meanwhile, Michel Barnier, the EU’s negotiator, patiently explains, as if to inattentive children, that “the clock is ticking”. In late March 2019, the UK will exit the EU. If businesses are to make sensible plans, they will need to know what is going to happen no later than a year from now. If the deal is to be ratified, it must be sealed by autumn 2018.
Moreover, as the EU has insisted, “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. Mr Barnier also argues that the UK must recognise that an exit deal will demand a substantial payment. This was in response to Boris Johnson, Britain’s foreign secretary, who remarked in parliament: “I think that the sums that I have seen . . . seem to me to be extortionate and I think ‘go whistle’ is an entirely appropriate expression.” If the UK sticks to this, there will certainly be no deal, be it a good one or a bad one.
The UK government has failed to prepare the ground for any of the necessary compromises. It could probably not do so, in any case, because a significant number of Brexiters fail to understand the weakness of the UK’s hand: damage to access to the EU market would, for example, be far worse for the UK than vice versa, because the EU’s economy is some five times bigger than Britain’s.
Worse, many Brexiters seem prepared for a “no deal”. But the UK would then, in the view of its most important economic partners, have defaulted on its legal obligations. The EU is a creature of law. Members would view such a violation of UK obligations as heinous.
Anybody who thinks EU members would then co-operate over vital British interests, such as the flow of goods or aviation, is dreaming. Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, has noted that the UK may be unable to process a vastly increased number of customs declarations after Brexit. But this underplays the risks. What will happen to the procedures on the other side?
The UK government is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It will find it almost impossible to agree and implement a sensible deal on the divorce, the nature of the longer-term trading arrangement and the transition in the time available. But it would be even more impossible to fail to do so. Who knows which will win? My guess is that “no deal” is now the more likely.
Sooner or later, markets will realise this, too. That could be destabilising for sterling and cause another spike in inflation. That would create a painful dilemma for the Bank of England. Jeremy Corbyn’s arrival as prime minister could also become more credible. How, after all this tomfoolery, could the Conservatives continue to claim the mantle of sober competence?
What would happen then? Many Remainers still hope that, as the economy becomes still worse, the polls showing a continued rough balance between Brexiters and Remainers, will break for the latter, so causing a big shift of opinion in parliament. I see no constitutional objection to a referendum on the terms of Brexit (or the absence of such terms). Referendums are merely a (dangerous) political tool. But politically another referendum would be dynamite, further aggravating the deep splits over the European issue.
The UK has become so ludicrous because the issue of the EU is so deeply felt by a significant part of the body politic. The Brexiters are the Jacobins of UK politics. Their ideological intensity has devastated the Conservative party and reduced British politics to its present shambles. There is, as a result, neither a comfortable exit from Brexit nor a plausible way of managing it smoothly.
Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. So it now is over Brexit.
martin.wolf@ft.com
Tom
Here, they have this to say about 'Brexit' and I find it interesting only in as far as their readership demographic is more than a little different from that of most of the tabloid propaganda organs owned by billionaires.
Ah, their paywall won't allow reproduction here! You can check it out for yourself online if interested.
This is a poor copy:
The UK once had a deserved reputation for pragmatic and stable politics. That will not survive the spectacular mess it is making of Brexit.
Remember what has happened. In an unnecessary referendum, a small majority chose an option they could not understand, because it had not been worked out. Thereupon, a new prime minister, with no knowledge of the complexities, adopted the hardest possible interpretation of the outcome. She triggered the exit process in March 2017, before shaping a detailed negotiating position. Some 70 days later, in an unnecessary election, she lost both her majority and her authority.
The Conservative party is so split over Brexit as to be no longer a coherent party of government. It is, as a result, questionable whether the compromises needed over money owed to the EU, rights of EU residents and the role of the European Court of Justice, could win approval in parliament. The Labour party will offer no relief: it wants another general election and is now about as split over Brexit as the Tories.
Meanwhile, Michel Barnier, the EU’s negotiator, patiently explains, as if to inattentive children, that “the clock is ticking”. In late March 2019, the UK will exit the EU. If businesses are to make sensible plans, they will need to know what is going to happen no later than a year from now. If the deal is to be ratified, it must be sealed by autumn 2018.
Moreover, as the EU has insisted, “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. Mr Barnier also argues that the UK must recognise that an exit deal will demand a substantial payment. This was in response to Boris Johnson, Britain’s foreign secretary, who remarked in parliament: “I think that the sums that I have seen . . . seem to me to be extortionate and I think ‘go whistle’ is an entirely appropriate expression.” If the UK sticks to this, there will certainly be no deal, be it a good one or a bad one.
The UK government has failed to prepare the ground for any of the necessary compromises. It could probably not do so, in any case, because a significant number of Brexiters fail to understand the weakness of the UK’s hand: damage to access to the EU market would, for example, be far worse for the UK than vice versa, because the EU’s economy is some five times bigger than Britain’s.
Worse, many Brexiters seem prepared for a “no deal”. But the UK would then, in the view of its most important economic partners, have defaulted on its legal obligations. The EU is a creature of law. Members would view such a violation of UK obligations as heinous.
Anybody who thinks EU members would then co-operate over vital British interests, such as the flow of goods or aviation, is dreaming. Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, has noted that the UK may be unable to process a vastly increased number of customs declarations after Brexit. But this underplays the risks. What will happen to the procedures on the other side?
The UK government is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It will find it almost impossible to agree and implement a sensible deal on the divorce, the nature of the longer-term trading arrangement and the transition in the time available. But it would be even more impossible to fail to do so. Who knows which will win? My guess is that “no deal” is now the more likely.
Sooner or later, markets will realise this, too. That could be destabilising for sterling and cause another spike in inflation. That would create a painful dilemma for the Bank of England. Jeremy Corbyn’s arrival as prime minister could also become more credible. How, after all this tomfoolery, could the Conservatives continue to claim the mantle of sober competence?
What would happen then? Many Remainers still hope that, as the economy becomes still worse, the polls showing a continued rough balance between Brexiters and Remainers, will break for the latter, so causing a big shift of opinion in parliament. I see no constitutional objection to a referendum on the terms of Brexit (or the absence of such terms). Referendums are merely a (dangerous) political tool. But politically another referendum would be dynamite, further aggravating the deep splits over the European issue.
The UK has become so ludicrous because the issue of the EU is so deeply felt by a significant part of the body politic. The Brexiters are the Jacobins of UK politics. Their ideological intensity has devastated the Conservative party and reduced British politics to its present shambles. There is, as a result, neither a comfortable exit from Brexit nor a plausible way of managing it smoothly.
Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. So it now is over Brexit.
martin.wolf@ft.com
Tom
Last edited:
It's a bit rich when the FT starts cribbing our material Tom, what is the world coming to? one can't even be a "Red under the Bed " these days without ending up representing the Establishment view.
This is too, too much! I'm Revolting!
Zatlan might agree with you... About the revolting bit...!!It's a bit rich when the FT starts cribbing our material Tom, what is the world coming to? one can't even be a "Red under the Bed " these days without ending up representing the Establishment view.
This is too, too much! I'm Revolting!
This from Reuters UK is curious
"
Exclusive - Toyota made UK investment decision after Brexit reassurances: sources"
"
Reuters made a freedom of information (FOI) request to the business ministry to see documentation relating to the investment decision, which the ministry said included a letter.
In its response, an official at the ministry refused to release the letter and a company briefing note, saying the information was "both highly commercially sensitive" and "would be likely to cause harm to the company's commercial interests if disclosed."
Clark has refused to publish the Nissan letter. He said he will release the information when it is no longer commercially confidential.
Now why is that being bandied about at this juncture?
For instance, how would the information
"be likely to cause harm to the company's commercial interests if disclosed."
More likely the information would harm certain political careers
Is there a whiff of Eau Rattus norvegicus about this affair?
The inevitable question is : Did they come cheaper than the DUP deal?
"
Exclusive - Toyota made UK investment decision after Brexit reassurances: sources"
"
Reuters made a freedom of information (FOI) request to the business ministry to see documentation relating to the investment decision, which the ministry said included a letter.
In its response, an official at the ministry refused to release the letter and a company briefing note, saying the information was "both highly commercially sensitive" and "would be likely to cause harm to the company's commercial interests if disclosed."
Clark has refused to publish the Nissan letter. He said he will release the information when it is no longer commercially confidential.
Now why is that being bandied about at this juncture?
For instance, how would the information
"be likely to cause harm to the company's commercial interests if disclosed."
More likely the information would harm certain political careers
Is there a whiff of Eau Rattus norvegicus about this affair?
The inevitable question is : Did they come cheaper than the DUP deal?
Not so much 'curious' as downright unacceptable! What happened to 'more open government' and 'greater transparency'?
If taxpayers' money is being selectively used to induce foreign-based owners of businesses in the UK to continue their presence here post-'Brexit' when previous tory governments deliberately starved British industries of investment to the point where they were no longer viable and were then sold off cheaply to foreign speculators, then the public needs to know the fine detail.
It is bad enough to witness a government which should be exercising good husbandry of the nation's finances, particularly at this time, squandering £1billion+ on the political wing of the Ulster protestant terrorist groups, simply to ensure they are able to remain in office, but to offer sugar-coated 'please don't go' deals to foreign companies here with no real guarantees is shameful. It is shameful because the ordinary citizens, the ones whose taxes are deducted at source if they happen to earn enough to actually pay tax, have had nothing but austerity for 7 years while the rich have seen their wealth increase dramatically in that time, particularly those who happen to be both wealthy and an MP or peer of the realm.
Not only that, those self-same PAYE citizens must work till they become infirm or die in harness before becoming entitled to a pension under tory rule. In what way, therefore, can it be at all morally acceptable that those 800+ entitled to a seat in the Lords can pocket £300 for each and every day they choose to attend, even if only to have a few drinks at the bar and have an afternoon nap on their leather-upholstered benches?
This country needs to change and only a Labour government provides the means by which inclusive government is possible. Alas, I fear that no amount of persuasion, no evidence, no incontestable facts will ever change the minds of those brought up and educated their whole lives on a diet of anti-socialist propaganda. They will only respond to pain in large measure and that is exactly what they will be feeling before too much longer. That pain, of course, will be of the self-harm variety but they will learn their lesson eventually.
My sadness is that millions of poor, the elderly, the disabled, the sick and the younger generation will have to suffer along with the morons who think they are superior or know better because they have always voted tory....because it's the patriotic thing to do/parents voted tory/employer votes tory/media is all tory....ad infinitum.
Tom
There is a tasty morsel in the information from Reuters
"two sources told Reuters."
Nissan and Toyota perhaps, putting the "Squeeze" on?
Who could blame them when there is after all a "Magic Money Tree"
Brexit is after all in the nature of a "Closing Down sale", and a little extra cash on the side would come in handy to fund a new EU based plant after a suitable delay gradually running down the UK operations "For the look of the thing"
Soon to come, there will not be anymore hand outs, that if any is left hidden somewhere out there.
MS.
MS.
Re: the Question "Is there a Brexit promise still standing?"
The answer you'll get from the Government (if any) is likely to be like a version of
"The Pirate Code"
From Pirates of the Caribbean
"
"They're not Promises really, more in the nature of Guidelines,
Anyway we're Torys aren't we?"
Start the day with a laugh
From the Telegraph
"
ExclusiveDavid Davis uses special Faraday briefcase to stop foreign spies snooping on Brexit secrets"
"
David Davis is carrying his Brexit documents and electronic equipment in a briefcase which has been fitted with a Faraday cage to protect them from being accessed by foreign spies.
The Brexit secretary has also swapped his i-watch for a Garmin watch amid concerns that foreign spies could activate the microphone on the device and listen in to meetings.
Faraday briefcases can effectively block all wireless, cellular, GPS and WiFi signals. Mr Davis will be able to put his mobile devices into the case and know that they cannot be spied on."
Shades of James Bond Film isn't it? lets see
The Watch that Watched Me?
And now Documents can be read while inside Dispatch Cases?
I do hope he has a tinfoil hat in case they can read his thoughts!
Sorry but hysterical laughter has overcome me, this is getting more absurd by the day
"Foreign Spies, and Brexit secrets?"
We can add Paranoia now to the list of Pro Brexit feelings.
Just a question, how will he leak things to the Press like Hunt did when the time comes?
From the Telegraph
"
ExclusiveDavid Davis uses special Faraday briefcase to stop foreign spies snooping on Brexit secrets"
"
David Davis is carrying his Brexit documents and electronic equipment in a briefcase which has been fitted with a Faraday cage to protect them from being accessed by foreign spies.
The Brexit secretary has also swapped his i-watch for a Garmin watch amid concerns that foreign spies could activate the microphone on the device and listen in to meetings.
Faraday briefcases can effectively block all wireless, cellular, GPS and WiFi signals. Mr Davis will be able to put his mobile devices into the case and know that they cannot be spied on."
Shades of James Bond Film isn't it? lets see
The Watch that Watched Me?
And now Documents can be read while inside Dispatch Cases?
I do hope he has a tinfoil hat in case they can read his thoughts!
Sorry but hysterical laughter has overcome me, this is getting more absurd by the day
"Foreign Spies, and Brexit secrets?"
We can add Paranoia now to the list of Pro Brexit feelings.
Just a question, how will he leak things to the Press like Hunt did when the time comes?
Last edited: