EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[bnm]

Only bad loosers want a second referendum. Then a 3rd then a 4th !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What about bad spellers and bad users of exclamation marks?

 

[nlogax]

We're at the football chanting stage of the debate now. That's how low the argument has sunk.

No, it's just Basher. Again.

 

[EM2]

From the then Home Secretary in 2016:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...e-inevitable-after-brexit-may-warns-1.2693758

The British home secretary has warned of Irish Border controls in the event of Brexit during a visit to Northern Ireland to campaign for a remain vote in Thursday’s referendum on the UK’s EU membership.

While in Co Down on Tuesday, Theresa May said it was “inconceivable” that there would not be changes to current arrangements between the North and the Republic if the UK votes to leave the EU.

The senior British cabinet member called to Denroy Plastics in Bangor, where she was accompanied by independent unionist MP Lady Sylvia Hermon, and also to Mash Direct in Comber, where she was accompanied by UUP leader Mike Nesbitt.

Ms May said that, while the Common Travel Area between the two countries existed prior to the EU, if there was a Brexit some form of control would be inevitable.

“It is inconceivable that a vote for Brexit would not have a negative impact on the North/South Border, bringing cost and disruption to trade and to people’s lives,” she said. (my emphasis)

“Put simply, Northern Ireland outside the EU could not prevent free movement and continue with an open North/South Border.”

Economic argument

Ms May also claimed the “economic argument for Northern Ireland to vote remain is compelling.

“Not only does Northern Ireland rely on EU exports to a greater extent than nearly every other region of the UK, 50,000 jobs here are linked to EU trade,” she said.

“The local agrifoods sector is a major economic player and importantly Northern Ireland is a net beneficiary of European funding.

“In so many ways, the economic argument for remain is particularly strong in Northern Ireland.”

Tom Kelly, the Stronger In chairman in the North, said the Remain campaign is concentrating on getting people out to vote on Thursday.

“I am very confident that we will win both the argument in the UK and Northern Ireland,” he said.

 

[nidave]

No second referendum is needed. WE ARE GOING OUT. Only bad loosers want a second referendum. Then a 3rd then a 4th !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So when jrm and farage all said they think a 2nd referendum was a good Idea they were bad loosers if they had lost???

 

[nidave]

According to @JWhittingdale: “The Prime Minister was given a very strong mandate to negotiate an alternative to the backstop. It is now up to the EU, and in particular the Irish government, to find that alternative.”

Take your time. Read that again. Take in its sheer majesty.

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1090647864538263552?s=19

So basically the alternative is to make someone else come up with the answer.

 

[Esker-pades]

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1090647864538263552?s=19

So basically the alternative is to make someone else come up with the answer.

That is entirely the problem. The debate is presented as simple, but no solutions are given. The response is "well, I'm not in charge, so it's up to the others to find something". If Brady or Whittingdale or anyone else has an actual solution to the Irish border problem that doesn't involve technology that hasn't been invented but protects both a soft border between Northern Ireland and the Republic and one between the Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I am very interested to hear it. That would make everything so much more simple. The lack of actual solutions is very telling.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Less than 2 months to go and we still don't know how the country will operate. Laughing stock of the world.

 

[AlterEgo]

It’s been a great ride so far. I’m nearly out of popcorn.

 

[AM9]

It’s been a great ride so far. I’m nearly out of popcorn.

Well unless the corn is grown in the UK, you might have problems getting new supplies.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Caroline Lucas yesterday:

The PM is pushing us out of a plane without a parachute, promising “alternative arrangements” will be made before we hit the ground.​

 

[HH]

Caroline Lucas yesterday:

The PM is pushing us out of a plane without a parachute, promising “alternative arrangements” will be made before we hit the ground.​

Something I'd very much like to do to the Nigels, Borises and Jacobs of this sorry fiasco.

 

[furnessvale]

Something I'd very much like to do to the Nigels, Borises and Jacobs of this sorry fiasco.

While others would like to do that with the likes of Anna Soubry and Dominic Grieve, but that advances the debate not one iota.

 

[HH]

While others would like to do that with the likes of Anna Soubry and Dominic Grieve, but that advances the debate not one iota.

Debate?

BTW have Anna Soubry and Dominic Grieve deliberately lied on numerous occasions for their own advantage? Have they been as hypocritical as Farage? As nakedly ambitious as BoJo? As greedy as Smugg? I don't think so.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The eu stopping the Siemens Alstom merger is the reason why it needs the reset button hitting.

 

[nidave]

US lobby groups for agriculture and pharmaceutical firms want UK standards changed to be closer to those of the US in a post-Brexit trade deal.

The meat lobby wants the sale of growth hormone-fed beef, currently banned in the UK and EU, to be allowed in the UK.

The drugs company lobby wants changes to the NHS drugs approval process to allow it to buy more of US drugs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47036119

Considering people are saying running out of food will help the NHS as it will cure the obesity problem in the UK anyone wish to tell me why this is a good thing?

 

[Jonny]

Meanwhile...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1...-bill-Theresa-May-financial-settlement-latest
EU plots to SUE Britain unless May forks over £39billion divorce bill in no-deal scenario
EU CHIEFS will demand Britain hands over the entire £39billion divorce bill even in the event of a no-deal Brexit, it has emerged.
Eurocrats will use the threat of legal action to ensure Britain continues to hand over the vast fee that was negotiated as part of Theresa May’s doomed Brexit deal. The plans, which will infuriate Brexiteers, have been worked up in Brussels to ensure the political project’s budget isn’t wrecked by a no-deal divorce. A senior EU official revealed the proposals as part the the Commission’s final no-deal contingency announcement.
(article continues)

How exactly would they manage that? What court (that would be able to bind the UK government) would even have jurisdiction?

The UK government would be liable to the EU for precisely nothing in the event of a no-deal. What part of completely free from the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit do the likes of Juncker, Barnier et al. not understand.

Or has Monsieur Juncker been on the Sciatica again?

 

[ainsworth74]

The UK government would be liable to the EU for precisely nothing in the event of a no-deal

Ah yes, what a good image to project to potential trading partners around the world. "Yes we'll sign up to this agreement and agree to contribute x to costs for y. But if we change our mind and unilaterally terminate the agreement we will not be paying anything. Even amounts we've already committed to spending".

 

[bramling]

Meanwhile...


How exactly would they manage that? What court (that would be able to bind the UK government) would even have jurisdiction?

The UK government would be liable to the EU for precisely nothing in the event of a no-deal. What part of completely free from the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit do the likes of Juncker, Barnier et al. not understand.

Or has Monsieur Juncker been on the Sciatica again?

With a caveat that it’s a Daily Express article so naturally should be treated with the same caution as their long-range weather predictions, the more we see of this sort of thing the more public opinion will harden against the EU.

 

[nidave]

Meanwhile...


How exactly would they manage that? What court (that would be able to bind the UK government) would even have jurisdiction?

The UK government would be liable to the EU for precisely nothing in the event of a no-deal. What part of completely free from the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit do the likes of Juncker, Barnier et al. not understand.

Or has Monsieur Juncker been on the Sciatica again?

Its the express so its full of BS and not remotely credible. But according to a WTO expert (who people have said is talking rubbish in the past) has said something similar

No-Dealers could be right to say the UK's failure to pay the EU the 39b it owes won't hugely impact future negotiations with third parties. Unfortunately, no post-Brexit negotiation could even remotely approach UK-EU in importance... and it sure as **** will impact that one.

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1090906329881939969
Will people take his side now he has said something that they agree with or are they going to say they had enough of experts and its "project fear" from him.


Meanwhile.. School Dinners need to be "flexible"

A no-deal technical notice issued by the Department for Education to schools in England on Thursday was the latest in more than 80 already published.

It explained to managers and caterers that the government would not be able to guarantee the supply chain of any food and told them they would have “significant flexibilities within the school food standards”.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-exit-no-deal-preparations-for-schools-in-england/eu-exit-no-deal-preparations-for-schools-in-england

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/31/progress-on-school-dinners-could-be-rewound-after-brexit?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&fbclid=IwAR33vTBuposbWsgNtnCqoqeHAUKxOOENEQywlTnoG9T4cOT3lyA3Dn8Lsk8

 

[Esker-pades]

There were people who voted leave in order to have flexible food safety standards.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Meanwhile...


How exactly would they manage that? What court (that would be able to bind the UK government) would even have jurisdiction?

The UK government would be liable to the EU for precisely nothing in the event of a no-deal. What part of completely free from the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit do the likes of Juncker, Barnier et al. not understand.

Or has Monsieur Juncker been on the Sciatica again?

And yet some say people who voted to leave are racist, bigoted, xenophobic blah blah.

 

[LOL The Irony]

With a caveat that it’s a Daily Express article so naturally should be treated with the same caution as their long-range weather predictions, the more we see of this sort of thing the more public opinion will harden against the EU.

Ditto. But I still wouldn't put it past the eu...

 

[EM2]

What court (that would be able to bind the UK government) would even have jurisdiction?

The UK government would be liable to the EU for precisely nothing in the event of a no-deal. What part of completely free from the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit do the likes of Juncker, Barnier et al. not understand.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factc...oid-paying-the-39-billion-brexit-divorce-bill

David Davis and others have suggested the UK could leave the EU without paying the £39 billion “divorce bill” designed to cover our outstanding financial commitments to Brussels.

A House of Lords report from 2017 says that we won’t be bound by EU law after Brexit, and so we could get out of paying the bill. But that report is contentious. Irrespective of our membership of the EU, we are still bound to our financial commitments under international law. (my emphasis)

And it’s worth remembering that even beyond the legal issues, reneging on our financial obligations is likely to make any free trade deal with Europe, or other potential partners, politically impossible.

Or has Monsieur Juncker been on the Sciatica again?

You think he's grumpy because he's got a sore back?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Meanwhile...


How exactly would they manage that? What court (that would be able to bind the UK government) would even have jurisdiction?

The UK government would be liable to the EU for precisely nothing in the event of a no-deal. What part of completely free from the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit do the likes of Juncker, Barnier et al. not understand.

Or has Monsieur Juncker been on the Sciatica again?

Are you the sort or person who believes you shouldn't have to pay child benefit too?

We made financial commitments, it would look very bad as Ainsworth says to go back on those commitments. EU or not you do not go back on agreements and commitments. Because that is what an honourable country would do.

 

[nlogax]

How exactly would they manage that? What court (that would be able to bind the UK government) would even have jurisdiction?

The UK government would be liable to the EU for precisely nothing in the event of a no-deal. What part of completely free from the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit do the likes of Juncker, Barnier et al. not understand.

Imagine a country not honoring its existing financial commitments with a trading block. Imagine how that country will then be perceived going into any future trade negotiations.

The UK will pay what it owes regardless of you not liking it, and if it doesn't the EU will rightfully take the UK to international court in The Hague. The view that you can just walk away from your financial obligations without repercussions is, quite frankly, dumb as a rock. Probably dumber.

 

[furnessvale]

Ah yes, what a good image to project to potential trading partners around the world. "Yes we'll sign up to this agreement and agree to contribute x to costs for y. But if we change our mind and unilaterally terminate the agreement we will not be paying anything. Even amounts we've already committed to spending".

We are liable for things we have already agreed. The true figure for these is estimated at £8-10bn, far less than the extortionate £39bn demanded by the EU which is far more than the gross contributions the UK would have paid in the same period, let alone net.

 

[ainsworth74]

We are liable for things we have already agreed. The true figure for these is estimated at £8-10bn, far less than the extortionate £39bn demanded by the EU which is far more than the gross contributions the UK would have paid in the same period, let alone net.

Still hardly the best way of saying "Do business with us! We're a reliable trading partner who sticks by our commitments!" is it?

 

[Jonny]

The UK will pay what it owes regardless of you not liking it, and if it doesn't the EU will rightfully take the UK to international court in The Hague. The view that you can just walk away from your financial obligations without repercussions is, quite frankly, dumb as a rock. Probably dumber.

If you are a nation state, it is a different matter to an individual. You can legally fight back (as a last resort).

 

[Geezertronic]

Still hardly the best way of saying "Do business with us! We're a reliable trading partner who sticks by our commitments!" is it?

I think the £8-10bn figure would be sticking to our commitments, rather than the extortionate £39bn the EU want for not a lot back in return

 

[jellybaby]

I think the £8-10bn figure would be sticking to our commitments, rather than the extortionate £39bn the EU want for not a lot back in return

How did you come to that amount? I can't find a breakdown anywhere of how the final figure has been calculated.