Brexit, for once some facts.

[flecc]

They got All Capone on tax evasion. Everything else was ok because they couldn't pin the extortion and racketeering on him?

Indeed, prosecuting the perpetrators. So in the case in question it's the UK companies who so willing evaded their due taxation who should be prosecuted.

The Juncker's facility that they used was not criminal, only the use of that is criminal.

For example in our own arena, companies can legally sell any power e-bike, or any other form of vehicle illegal for use on the roads. It's only when they are wrongly used that the law is broken.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

Lets run a little"What if" scenario

Imagine that you came across a thread where the majority on it supported something that you were hostile to, and yet you could not provide facts and figures to back up your views.

What would a person in that situation do?
There are alternatives and the norm would be to shrug and ignore it, moving on, but how would someone intent on disrupting the debate behave?

The answer is to come on and make as much trouble as possible with outrageous claims and behavior in the hope of antagonising someone enough to make them say something you can report to the administrators.

Of course this is purely a theoretical situation, for thankfully no normal person would employ such techniques would they?

 

[Wicky]

And in more Brexit good news, as if it can't get any worse...

Poverty causing 'misery' in UK, and ministers are in denial, says UN official

"Prof Alston, an expert in human rights law based at New York University, visited locations including Belfast, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Essex, Glasgow, London and Newcastle on a fact-finding mission."

"Levels of child poverty are "staggering" and 1.5 million people were destitute at some point in 2017, the Australian (Philip Alston) said."

"...he said he witnessed "a lot of misery, a lot of people who feel the system is failing them, a lot of people who feel the system is really just there to punish them"."

"The approach to benefits was "punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous", he said."

He warned that the poor would "bear the brunt" of the expected impact of Brexit on the UK economy, and said the fall in the value of the pound had already cost low-income families £400 a year.

"In my meetings with the government, it was clear to me that the impact of Brexit on people in poverty is an afterthought," he said."

""Ministers with whom I met told me that things are going well that they don't see any big problems and they are happy with the way their policies are playing out," Prof Alston said."

 

[tillson]

Agreed, but it's the UK which is the villain, we are demanding no free movement. That's not friendly.
.

I’m not sure why we are demanding control over the movement of people from the EU to the U.K. We have total control over the number of people coming to the U.K. from outside the EU, but have comprehensively failed apply any controls at all. In fact, the numbers are increasing. So what’s the point?

 

[Danidl]

I’m not sure why we are demanding control over the movement of people from the EU to the U.K. We have total control over the number of people coming to the U.K. from outside the EU, but have comprehensively failed apply any controls at all. In fact, the numbers are increasing. So what’s the point?

Quite so.. what was the point?.

 

[oldgroaner]

Yes, of course it is OG; they all knew exactly what they were voting for!

If only a few of them would ask themselves one simple question and that question is this: 'Why is it that the people leading the crusade to be free of the EU are, without exception, millionaires, multi-millionaires and billionaires?'

The plebs who voted to leave after the rabble-rousers of the extreme right had stirred their jingoistic spirit could even be excused for being the thick, imbecilic racists that they are, egged on as they were by the scum of the British establishment.

So, they knew OG; they knew that the multi-millionaires in question had suddenly developed a humanitarian desire for the first time in the annals of history to serve the common people by creating the means by which the ordinary folk would be better off….yeah, they knew!

The rhetoric of those purveying this 'bright future' was firmly based in these words by a chap from the west midlands known as Bill:

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

Tom

I have a far more appropriate speech for the present situation we find ourslelves in than that Tom and ironically it ws used entirely out of context by the UKIP
This was the Title

BREXIT MUST MEAN EXIT!
TAKING CONTROL
The Ukip Plan
For Leaving The European Union​

With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself​

​

John of Gaunt, Richard 11 by William Shakespeare
...........................................
Clearly Brexit exists on the other side of a cosmic reversing field!

And I doubt that there exists a more appropriate epitaph for Brexit
than that little speech​

 

[oldtom]

"Ministers with whom I met told me that things are going well that they don't see any big problems and they are happy with the way their policies are playing out," Prof Alston said."

Well, that's all right then!……..and there was me worrying about people dying due to these government initiatives. I should have recognised that government ministers know what they are doing.

Tom

 

[oldgroaner]

I’m not sure why we are demanding control over the movement of people from the EU to the U.K. We have total control over the number of people coming to the U.K. from outside the EU, but have comprehensively failed apply any controls at all. In fact, the numbers are increasing So what’s the point?

I'll have a shot at that if I may
It's an attempt to convince that section of the leave vote that was concerned at the levels of Foreigners coming in and taking jobs and generally freeloading that the Government is doing something about it, even though they aren't and won't

 

[Fingers]

Lets run a little"What if" scenario

Imagine that you came across a thread where the majority on it supported something that you were hostile to, and yet could you not provide facts and figures to back up your views.

What would a person in that situation do?
There are alternatives and the norm would be to shrug and ignore it, moving on, but how would someone intent on disrupting the debate behave?

The answer is to come on and make as much trouble as possible with outrageous claims and behavior in the hope of antagonising someone enough to make them say something you can report to the administrators.

Of course this is purely a theoretical situation, for thankfully no normal person would employ such techniques would they?

Are they picking on you again? Making you write insulting posts because you disagree with their opinions?

Awwww. Poor you.

Try and rise above it you brave little soldier.

 

[tillson]

I'll have a shot at that if I may
It's an attempt to convince that section of the leave vote that was concerned at the levels of Foreigners coming in and taking jobs and generally freeloading that the Government is doing something about it, even though they aren't and won't

.........and are not competent to do so.

 

[Danidl]

We should all dial it down a bit.

We can have different opinions and not be rude.

For instance imo the EU should accept that we democratically voted to leave their club and they should accept this, carry on with their project and not try and punish us for leaving.

We can still be friends and close and trade whilst allowing free movement.

1.Fingers that is the fact... The EU fully accepted that the right of the UK to leave. .. contrast that with the expressed view of the US supreme court . No EU officials engaged in the pre Referendum kerfuffle. Even Irish politicans who fully understood the implications, chose to respect the rights of the UK to decide.
2. The only engagement from the EU was a reiteration was that once out of the club,the same privileges of membership would not be available. Perhaps they were remiss in not boldly writing out what these were and putting them on a fleet of blue buses..
3. Since then certain UK commentators and politicians have continually fed the line that BREXIt was easy, painless, and one would have all the benefits and none of the pain. You are not to be blamed for believing them.
4. The level of vitriolic comment directed at EU workers in the UK, post BREXIt, has created a level of bitterness . Difficulties in retaining NHS staff is evudence of that .
5. It is a continuing part of the BREXIt narrative of victimhood that the EU is seeking to punish the UK.. again an untruth.
When the UK is again capable of adult behaviour, then an adult relationship between the UK and EU might be possible. As an outsider I have been surprised by what passes for political dialogue from senior UK figures (excluding civil servants)

 

[oldgroaner]

.........and are not competent to do so.

Incompetence is paradoxically the one area they are actually competent in!

 

[Fingers]

1.Fingers that is the fact... The EU fully accepted that the right of the UK to leave. .. contrast that with the expressed view of the US supreme court . No EU officials engaged in the pre Referendum kerfuffle. Even Irish politicans who fully understood the implications, chose to respect the rights of the UK to decide.
2. The only engagement from the EU was a reiteration was that once out of the club,the same privileges of membership would not be available. Perhaps they were remiss in not boldly writing out what these were and putting them on a fleet of blue buses..
3. Since then certain UK commentators and politicians have continually fed the line that BREXIt was easy, painless, and one would have all the benefits and none of the pain. You are not to be blamed for believing them.
4. The level of vitriolic comment directed at EU workers in the UK, post BREXIt, has created a level of bitterness . Difficulties in retaining NHS staff is evudence of that .
5. It is a continuing part of the BREXIt narrative of victimhood that the EU is seeking to punish the UK.. again an untruth.
When the UK is again capable of adult behaviour, then an adult relationship between the UK and EU might be possible. As an outsider I have been surprised by what passes for political dialogue from senior UK figures (excluding civil servants)

Only the most foolish of the foolish would have believed this would be a simple process.

One would have thought that the EU would have worked with us and been more helpful. Particularly the Irish but sadly that hasn't been the case.

Once we agreed the exit payments I thought we could have all been adults and became partners. But we've heard so much nonsense. From the French saying we couldn't fly over their airspace to the EU saying we couldn't use the tech we designed and paid for it's become obvious that this is a hostile exit.

The mood of this country is now resolved to a hard Brexit and it didn't need to be.

 

[oyster]

From the French saying we couldn't fly over their airspace

Please back that up with decent evidence.

 

[oldgroaner]

I see robust Parliamentary Democratic debate is alive and well in Sri Lanka

 

[Fingers]

Please back that up with decent evidence.

I can't be too bothered to find the French quote but I will if you really really want me to.

But will the Irish pm do?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/irish-prime-minister-warns-british-flights-could-be-banned-from-irish-airspace-despite-the-raf-policing-irish-air-space/

 

[flecc]

the EU saying we couldn't use the tech we designed and paid for it's become obvious that this is a hostile exit.

I take it you mean Galileo? If so that is not true.

We will have exactly the same access to the Galileo GPS signals as the rest of the world outside of EU membership.

But as a non member we cannot have access to the highest resolution signal, partly because because of the defence implications and partly that to have that access we need to pay our share of the ongoing running costs. This can change with negotiation if we are reasonable.

Once again, we chose to exit and have to accept that we cannot leave, stop paying, but retain membership benefits. That's not hostile, it's the norm for any organisation. Why can't you accept that simple universal fact?
.

 

[oldgroaner]

Only the most foolish of the foolish would have believed this would be a simple process.

One would have thought that the EU would have worked with us and been more helpful. Particularly the Irish but sadly that hasn't been the case.

Once we agreed the exit payments I thought we could have all been adults and became partners. But we've heard so much nonsense. From the French saying we couldn't fly over their airspace to the EU saying we couldn't use the tech we designed and paid for it's become obvious that this is a hostile exit.

The mood of this country is now resolved to a hard Brexit and it didn't need to be.

You scored exactly nil with that lot!
"Only the most foolish of the foolish would have believed this would be a simple process..
Trade Secretary Liam Fox once said a Brexit deal would be easy but now he is pleading for us not to blame him if there is no deal at all.

One would have thought that the EU would have worked with us and been more helpful. Particularly the Irish but sadly that hasn't been the case.

let's look at what has happened so far
UK announces it wants to leave and triggers Article 50.

EU is upset, but wants to know HOW the UK will be leaving so that arrangements for departure and plans for a framework for a future relationship can be made. It also insists that the UK must pay a large settlement before it leaves.

UK doesn't know how to answer this question because it never really thought about it, but decides that it wants no free movement, but free movement of goods and professionals. It also doesn't really want to pay the settlement either, but realises that it will have to.

EU says that this is cherry-picking and is not allowed. It can either leave entirely and have a trade deal, leave entirely with no deal or be in the EEA. It agrees that £40bn must be paid for the UK to leave.

UK realises that leaving entirely will result in hard border between Northern Ireland (which is unacceptable) and being in the EEA will mean accepting free movement and paying Brussels a lot of money (which is also unacceptable). UK insists on a solution with no hard border.

EU insists that the UK must come up with its own solution for no hard border and waits for their proposal. It suggests that NI can stay in the Customs Union and that the UK border controls can be enforced on the Irish sea.

UK doesn't like the EUs proposal and thinks that maybe staying in the Customs Union might be a good idea after all, but it's ultra extreme segment insists that this wouldn't deliver Brexit and staying in the Customs Union is out of the question. The Lord's then say that going out of the Customs Union is out of the question and so a bitter squabbling match begins. This grinds negotiations down to a halt because the EU will not negotiate until answers have been given to the key issues and have agreed upon.

The EU realises it can't adopt too much of a hard stance because this would topple the Prime Minister and may mean that a hard-line Brexiteer comes into power, so they relax their attitudes and agree to continue with negotiations.

The Prime Minister even demands a “mandate” to strengthen her position and to attempt to unify the government on Brexit. This backfires big time and puts the government in a worse position than it started with. The squabbling continues and the EU can only sit and wait.

The UK finally asserts that it's going out of the Customs Union, but still doesn't want a hard border, which the EU insists won't work.

Meanwhile, UK accepts that EU funding to its institutions and economy, as well as UK contributions to joint ventures, stops. It also accepts that certain restrictions to trade and migration must be enforced on both sides. Finally, it is also accepted that many treaties between the UK and the EU will no longer apply. Hence the air space access that needs to be negotiated

But if only the UK could work out a trade deal with the EU, which can only happen once the UK figures out what happens with NI. All UK proposals to the EU are rejected and all EU proposals to the UK are also rejected. Nothing tangible can be agreed.
And then out of the Blue it all changes.

Suddenly then we have this amazing agreement that even the man who supposedly negotiated resigns over, after agreeing to go along with it in a Cabinet meeting

Negotiations on the use of the Tech systems is underway and if this is a hostile exit, how do you explain there is a draft agreement?

And finally you post this

"The mood of this country is now resolved to a hard Brexit and it didn't need to be.

Really? it is highly unlikely that is true.

 

[oldgroaner]

From The Times
A Brexit minister has been caught up in the controversy surrounding spending by the campaign to leave the European Union because of a memo he wrote in early 2016.

Steve Baker, a leading figure in Vote Leave and now a minister in the Department for Exiting the EU, told colleagues that his organisation had found a way “to spend as much money as is necessary to win”. The law states that only the designated main referendum campaigns could spend £7 million before the vote. Other organisations that wanted to take part would have had to register with the electoral commission and could have spent up to £700,000, providing they proved there was no controlling influence from the designated campaign

 

[oldgroaner]