Brexit Schmexit

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, Comfy Bean said:

For me, a general expectation that these would be published unedited. Parliamentary instruction or not.

Bizarrely you claim Lammy is a lying ignorant twat for highlighting this issue and make out that Davis is really just changing the format to help us thickos understand the big numbers. We should thank him I suppose :-)

How long have we been waiting on these edited reports ?

Seems this started months ago.

I'm pointing out that there was no promise made to the HoC of 'unedited' that Lammy has claimed, that's all.

Davis said very clearly that the reports would need to be edited before they were handed over. It's the exact reason why there's been a delay of a few weeks, a delay that the HoC (via the speaker) accepted.

If Lammy wants to attack Davis for the editing, fine. Just don't bullshit by saying there was a requirement for unedited.

[zahidf]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I'm pointing out that there was no promise made to the HoC of 'unedited' that Lammy has claimed, that's all.

Davis said very clearly that the reports would need to be edited before they were handed over. It's the exact reason why there's been a delay of a few weeks, a delay that the HoC (via the speaker) accepted.

If Lammy wants to attack Davis for the editing, fine. Just don't bullshitby saying there was a requirement for unedited.

which the govt then contradicted with what Barker said

[zahidf]

15 hours ago, eFestivals said:

it takes two to impose a border.

The UK is still saying it doesn't want a border.

Ireland is saying it will impose the hardest border.

Who wants the border?

And either we accept that sovereign states are able to act in a sovereign manner, or we might as well give up the concept of sovereignty ... but if you choose that second one, get back to us when Ireland is giving it up too, so a mutual agreement *can* be made.

If UK leaves single market and customs union it automatically makes NI-ROI the external border of EU. Ireland is then bound by its treaties to enforce that border. So for Kate Hoey, Rees-Mogg et al to say UK not choosing a border is deeply dishonest. The Brexiters can say UK won't bother on its side, or pay, but their choices are still imposing a legal obligation on IRE that Irish haven't chosen and don't want.

And you know, the uk government is the one CHOSING to leave the single market/customs union. All the acts of disruption are there fault

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, zahidf said:

which the govt then contradicted with what Barker said

but there still wasn't the thing that Lammy claimed. :rolleyes:

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

If UK leaves single market and customs union it automatically makes NI-ROI the external border of EU. Ireland is then bound by its treaties to enforce that border.

Which means what?

Ireland would be erecting that border, not the UK.

The UK has to take responsibility for its choices. The same applies with Ireland.

 

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

So for Kate Hoey, Rees-Mogg et al to say UK not choosing a border is deeply dishonest. 

brexiters dishonest? Who knew. :lol:

Guess what Jezza was voting for in 2011 - where he didn't give a shit about the GFA either.

 

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

The Brexiters can say UK won't bother on its side, or pay, but their choices are still imposing a legal obligation on IRE that Irish haven't chosen and don't want.

The Irish have *chosen* their own treaty obligations.

Just as the UK is varying its treaty obligations, the same option is open to Ireland too. If its choice is not to vary them, it gets the consequences of its choice - no differently to how the UK gets the consequences from its choice to vary.

Everyone has sovereignty, not just the UK. 

 

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

And you know, the uk government is the one CHOSING to leave the single market/customs union. All the acts of disruption are there fault

So if the UK said NI could remain in the SM/EU, you'd then spend the rest of your life slagging off the EU for all the disruption it forces onto NI via changed EU rules?

If the UK owns the consequences of the changes it makes, then the same applies with the EU at all points in history too. You can't free pass them unless you free pass the UK too.

But anyway, my point wasn't particularly about who gets the blame for whatever the final outcome might be.

My point was to point out that Ireland's 'threat' is a crock of idiotic counter-productive shite, because they'd be forcing the final outcome to be what they say they don't want.

For a start, no sovereign country accepts or bends to that sort of ultimatum from another sovereign country. Those sorts of 'threats' are what leads to war.

If Ireland had decided to leave the EU and the UK was staying, do you think Ireland would accept a diktat from the UK of the same kind? Or would it say "fuck you UK, we stopped being your slave 100 years ago. We're independent and will make our own choices."?

Brexit might be (is) a crock of shit, but it doesn't mean only the UK can be a moron around it.

Same with the EU's demand that the ECJ keeps sovereignty over UK law even after the UK has exited. The only sensible response from *any* govt to that sort of demand is "fuck off".

[zahidf]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I'm pointing out that there was no promise made to the HoC of 'unedited' that Lammy has claimed, that's all.

Davis said very clearly that the reports would need to be edited before they were handed over. It's the exact reason why there's been a delay of a few weeks, a delay that the HoC (via the speaker) accepted.

If Lammy wants to attack Davis for the editing, fine. Just don't bullshit by saying there was a requirement for unedited.

 

[eFestivals]

if you use twatter as your source, you'll continually be a twat. :rolleyes:

The HoC vote wasn't a binding vote, tho the govt said it would respect the vote and publish.  Bercow said the govt had to respond by a particular day.

The govt responded by that day, to say they couldn't release them immediately, as they needed collating and reviewing and possibly editing.

That was accepted by Bercow.

The point is to get the relevant info of the impact to the brexit committee, and NOT for the docs to be given to the brexit committee in the form they existed at the time the vote was made.

But hey, you just be Trump and make it up.

If the govt have taken the piss with their editing, that's a different thing. The fact they've been edited isn't by itself a breech of anything.

[eFestivals]

 

8 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

how does "as open as we can" equal "nothing edited"?

Learn to understand what words mean.  

 

[zahidf]

Well lets see what davis says later

 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Well lets see what davis says later

so what Davis has said that you've already quoted and which was deemed acceptable by Bercow counts for nothing ....?

And twatter and the twats (great band name ) is the only thing that counts...? 

Govt by twatter. And people thought brexit is bad.

Edited November 28, 2017 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

so what Davis has said that you've already quoted and which was deemed acceptable by Bercow counts for nothing ....?

And twatter and the twats (great band name ) is the only thing that counts...? 

Govt by twatter. And people thought brexit is bad.

well i guess we wont see what Davie said, since he hasnt turned up to answer the question

[zahidf]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

so what Davis has said that you've already quoted and which was deemed acceptable by Bercow counts for nothing ....?

And twatter and the twats (great band name ) is the only thing that counts...? 

Govt by twatter. And people thought brexit is bad.

Well that went badly for the Govt

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Well that went badly for the Govt

and for Lammy, too.

Cos if it was what Lammy claims, Bercow has no future to decision to make over a 'contempt' debate, he could have declared it in contempt already just by the fact of editing.

But he hasn't. And that's because any editing isn't in-itself 'contempt'. 

Which someone might have said yesterday, when he pointed out that Lammy was being a twat.

Calling wolf before there's a wolf only makes people ignore. It's not helpful.

[eFestivals]

Quote

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, says ... the Commons motion was clear; it said

the information should be handed over to the select committee.

Note that. It's about the info being handed over, and not the documents in unaltered form.

Here's the exact wording of the motion...,

Quote

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the list of sectors analysed under the instruction of Her Majesty’s Ministers, and referred to in the Answer of 26 June 2017 to Question 239, be laid before this House and that the impact assessments arising from those analyses be provided to the Committee on Exiting the European Union.

Nothing there about shovelling all documents in their existing form into a bin bag and handing that over, just that the impact assessment info has to be provided.

But anyway, I don't doubt that morons everywhere will pursue the situation to the nth degree and than claim a major victory if they win,  while brexit continues down its path with full Labour support.

Some actual interest in stopping brexit rather than trying to catch the govt on a technicality would be a great thing.

But it ain't happening from Labour. Cos Corbyn and McD are no less of brexit headbangers as Davis, Fox, Gove, Boris, Bone, Mogg, IDS, and all the other little englanders.

Edited November 28, 2017 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and for Lammy, too.

Cos if it was what Lammy claims, Bercow has no future to decision to make over a 'contempt' debate, he could have declared it in contempt already just by the fact of editing.

But he hasn't. And that's because any editing isn't in-itself 'contempt'. 

Which someone might have said yesterday, when he pointed out that Lammy was being a twat.

Calling wolf before there's a wolf only makes people ignore. It's not helpful.

I dont think bercow can hold a minister in contempt. Needs a motion from the house to be passed. Fairly clear one will be passed 

Well thats up to the brexit committee i guess as to whether they feel the disclosure is sufficent or not. The fact the govt want another motion to be passed suggests they tend more towards Lammys position on it.

If the reports are as bad as they look? Makes it easier to stop Brexit

Edited November 28, 2017 by zahidf

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I dont think bercow can hold a minister in contempt. Needs a motion from the house to be passed. Fairly clear one will be passed 

if it does, it will be a political decision based only in being able to mindlessly scream "victory", without the first idea if there's really one or not.

Go read the motion; and go read what Davis said when he said he'd comply with the motion (which no one screamed about at the time).

 

Quote

Well thats up to the brexit committee i guess as to whether they feel the disclosure is sufficent or not.

PMSL

The govt can only disclose what it has. Starmer has already complained that the file is too thin in his opinion, without having read the file, and based only on what he's used to for paperwork bulk as a lawyer. Talk about empty.

The 'reports' are what the reports are, not how Starmer imagines them to be.

(better still from the SNP: they say there's no mention of Scotland, in reports by business sector and not by region. )

And while it might be a good thing to have super-thick analysis of each of those 58 business sectors, they're only any good at that size if the relevant people have time to read each of them, and the time to quibble in negotiations over every aspect raised within them. 

Back in the real world (like it or not) trying to get a new agreement with the EU is limited on time and in the detail that can be gone into, and where any half-able mind already knows there will be bad impacts in places - perhaps lots and lots of places - but bad impacts are not a reason by themselves to change course from what the public has voted the UK should do.

 

Quote

The fact the govt want another motion to be passed suggests they tend more towards Lammys position on it.

Nah, you've just made that up all by yourself.

The govt has been criticised by both remain and leave tories for not engaging with the motion in the first place, and thru that allowing people like you to make up your own version of things.

Another vote to clarify the motion or a vote for contempt are both governed by political outcomes (which party can muster the votes for their side, basically) and not the truth of the matter, and are both the same game from parties playing politics.

Only one of them will have the votes to win. Which one it might be isn't clear to me at the mo.

But it's about "winning", and not what the motion said.

 

Quote

If the reports are as bad as they look? Makes it easier to stop Brexit

"if the reports are as bad as they look". 

How do you know how they look without seeing them? Jez. Talk about making it up like a brexiter.

But anyway, I have a bridge to sell, and i hear you're a buyer for just about anything. It's cheap. Say, fifty quid?

There was an ICM poll yesterday, where only an offer of £10bn or less to the EU was majority-acceptable, with a huge majority against the £40bn May is supposedly offering.

Patel has said today that we should tell the EU to fuck off. Public is with her, not you or me.

Edited November 28, 2017 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

if it does, it will be a political decision based only in being able to mindlessly scream "victory", without the first idea if there's really one or not.

Go read the motion; and go read what Davis said when he said he'd comply with the motion (which no one screamed about at the time).

 

PMSL

The govt can only disclose what it has. Starmer has already complained that the file is too thin in his opinion, without having read the file, and based only on what he's used to for paperwork bulk as a lawyer. Talk about empty.

The 'reports' are what the reports are, not how Starmer imagines them to be.

(better still from the SNP: they say there's no mention of Scotland, in reports by business sector and not by region. )

And while it might be a good thing to have super-thick analysis of each of those 58 business sectors, they're only any good at that size if the relevant people have time to read each of them, and the time to quibble in negotiations over every aspect raised within them. 

Back in the real world (like it or not) trying to get a new agreement with the EU is limited on time and in the detail that can be gone into, and where any half-able mind already knows there will be bad impacts in places - perhaps lots and lots of places - but bad impacts are not a reason by themselves to change course from what the public has voted the UK should do.

 

Nah, you've just made that up all by yourself.

The govt has been criticised by both remain and leave tories for not engaging with the motion in the first place, and thru that allowing people like you to make up your own version of things.

Another vote to clarify the motion or a vote for contempt are both governed by political outcomes (which party can muster the votes for their side, basically) and not the truth of the matter, and are both the same game from parties playing politics.

Only one of them will have the votes to win. Which one it might be isn't clear to me at the mo.

But it's about "winning", and not what the motion said.

 

"if the reports are as bad as they look". 

How do you know how they look without seeing them? Jez. Talk about making it up like a brexiter.

But anyway, I have a bridge to sell, and i hear you're a buyer for just about anything. It's cheap. Say, fifty quid?

There was an ICM poll yesterday, where only an offer of £10bn or less to the EU was majority-acceptable, with a huge majority against the £40bn May is supposedly offering.

Patel has said today that we should tell the EU to fuck off. Public is with her, not you or me.

The whole Brexit thing is political. Its not an economic or fact based choice!

Yeah the govt are hiding them because of all the good news they contain over Brexit!

I think Starmer believes its too thin based on david davis saying in parliament that they are massively detailed on more than one occasion

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by zahidf

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, zahidf said:

The whole Brexit thing is political. Its not an economic or fact based choice!

No shit sherlock. Just like McD's thing of borrowing £250Bn is also a political choice, and not an economic or fact based choice.

Just because something is a political choice - and even a clearly bad choice on some angles - doesn't mean it can't be done.

I fucking hate brexit, but I do accept the vote was won and that grants a right to govt (of any shade) to follow thru, bad consequences and all.

 

Quote

Yeah the govt are hiding them because of all the good news they contain over Brexit!

Internal briefing papers are a standard of all govts, and the standard is that they don't get published and the govt (of any shade) fights their publication. 

We've yet to see these particular papers, but here's betting that the impacts they talk about are not generally quantified for the extent of their negative (or positive) impacts, and instead only point out the places they will impact.

So, for example, for airlines, it might point out that a new flights agreement is needed (and perhaps how one might be achieved) - which shows the impact of leaving the EU - but doesn't try to value what the impact of no agreement is.

 

Quote

I think Starmer believes its too thin based on david davis saying in parliament that they are massively detailed on more than one occasion

a politician talking up their own work? That's never happened before.

And as for what 'massively detailed' is, it depends where you're sat. If you're an airline exec, you might want everything to the nth degree for it to be 'massively detailed'.

But Davis is sat in a place which has to overlook everything - not just airlines - and he has to be able to absorb and retain and use the details for all of that everything ... which would be impossible if everything were to the detail to satisfy an airline boss and the bosses of the other 57 sectors.

For where Davis is sat, 800 pages *IS* massively detailed. Cos remember, the direct impact onto business sectors is just one small part of the big thing which is brexit.

Just because Starmer is sat twiddling his thumbs doing nothing over brexit and so has time to read those 800 pages and a lot more,  doesn't get to mean it's the same for the guy in the hot seat. If Starmer and Davis swapped places, Starmer would think 800 pages for just the business impact aspect was plenty enough too.

Meanwhile, you've slagged the tories endlessly about the ireland border issue, while failing to notice that Labour has nothing at all different. Zilch, nothing, nada. It plans to leave the single market too, remember - and that's been stated categorically by Corbyn again and again and again.

[zahidf]

Ha!

 

[zahidf]

TAKING BACK CONTROL

 

[ThomThomDrum]

Channel 4s vox pop on Brexit and the Irish border was utterly depressing  

[LJS]

Sorry I missed another day of Neil staunchly defending the Tories...& if that fails saying labour are just as bad.

 

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Sorry I missed another day of Neil staunchly defending the Tories...& if that fails saying labour are just as bad.

 

oh look, shooting the messenger again, because your head is empty of anything of substance.

Still, you now admit you'd have fucked Scotland with indy, so i guess that's progress.

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

9 hours ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Channel 4s vox pop on Brexit and the Irish border was utterly depressing  

UK: you're asking the impossible
IE: why is it impossible?
UK: because of the policy we chose
IE: can that be changed?
UK: yes
IE: will you change it?
UK: no
IE: why not?
UK: we don't want to
IE: so it is possible, but you won't do it?
UK: IRELAND IS BEING UNREASONABLE!!! 

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, zahidf said:

UK: you're asking the impossible
IE: why is it impossible?
UK: because of the policy we chose
IE: can that be changed?
UK: yes
IE: will you change it?
UK: no
IE: why not?
UK: we don't want to
IE: so it is possible, but you won't do it?
UK: IRELAND IS BEING UNREASONABLE!!! 

what don't you understand about soverinty? Oh, everything.

But if you want it given up, do tell us all how the the EU won't force changes on the UK, no differently to how the UK could be said to be trying to force changes onto Ireland.

The UK is doing nothing different to Ireland or the EU: trying to get what it wants to suit itself.

Only an idiot can say it's wrong for the UK to do that while saying it's right for others to do that.

Brexit is be a crock of shit, by so is your brain.