Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[SpurMeUp]

The UK was a great place to do business from - our position as a UK manufacturer was widely regarded due to the standards and methodology used in the UK.

EU law prevented that and made the status of a UK producer worthless. At that point there was no reason to put a plant in RoW because the UK methods which drove the world to us were no longer used. Not only did the EU level the playing field between them and us (intentionally) in doing so, they (I believe inadvertently) levelled the playing field between us and RoW.

I guess you're trying to articulate without telling the internet all the ins and outs of your work so fair play. But its interseting. You potentially have detailed information - a case study - which outlines how all this EU-UK regulation and trade plays out. How much the EU gives you, and how much it takes away is interesting. Shame we can't really discect that openly. I would say that ultimately however, anyone's position on this debate is emotional. It starts from whether you like europe and your feeling and history with it all. From there people fill in the blanks to meet that pre-judgment. Are you any different? I would not say that I was. Though I'd claim that my pre-judgments are based on history and economics as well as emotions.

 

[P.D.]

Agree there is a lack of invention in politics. Ironically I think Boris could be someone who has the capacity to try new ideas. But he’s a slave to Brexit now, it being the thing that got him in power; and the Tory’s fear of Farage delivering Corbyn.

Remain and reform is interesting. Harness all the important things that have been thrown up by Brexit and deliver something of rap value to the UK. Focus on viable actions.

One of which is to work with member states to finesse FoM. Have to remember the EU is just a representation of member states wishes. With support from members we can shape the EU. The UK has in the past. They key is it has to work for the other nations too. With issues of illegal immigrants freely travelling across borders in the EU, and various popularist parties gaining support, there is potential to make some subtle changes. I’m not sure they’d be enough for most Leavers as we’d have to keep some form of free movement. Just set in place ways to control it more. No benefits tourism etc


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

I don't believe there's enough interest in really reforming it, you'd need all the main players on side and Macron for instance 100% won't be onboard. Merkel is stepping down so would be non committal I think.

If there was genuine enthusiasm to reform and get back towards the original principles of a trading block then I'd likely have voted remain but their answer to all the issues seems to be the opposite where they call for more EU, more integration etc.

There's a whole sea of people who voted leave not so much because of what the EU is now but because of the direction of where it's headed and it's inabilty to change.

The EU has big decisions to make, the pace of change and spread of information is gathering - how for instance do they square of FOM vs impact on climate change?

 

[scaramanga]

I guess you're trying to articulate without telling the internet all the ins and outs of your work so fair play. But its interseting. You potentially have detailed information - a case study - which outlines how all this EU-UK regulation and trade plays out. How much the EU gives you, and how much it takes away is interesting. Shame we can't really discect that openly. I would say that ultimately however, anyone's position on this debate is emotional. It starts from whether you like europe and your feeling and history with it all. From there people fill in the blanks to meet that pre-judgment. Are you any different? I would not say that I was. Though I'd claim that my pre-judgments are based on history and economics as well as emotions.

I can't talk about the ins and outs of my business, no. I wouldn't particularly want to either - my thoughts and opinions are my own and I wouldn't want people I work with, customers, auditors, etc to view my business self through the lens of my personal opinions. I will often discuss similar topics with those I meet and work with, but my opinions would be far more guarded than they are here.

What I can tell you is that through lobbyists, I have seen and heard the way our own politicians are trodden on by the EU and how, despite some even taking up our cause in parliament, they are left with no option but to comply.

I certainly don't think our business is unique, and I know it's not alone in having these problems. The emotional side of my feelings towards much of this is that these laws were placed specifically to advantage EU businesses over the UK. In some cases, clear and democratic rules/methods were skirted around to do so. That's what makes Johnson's use of every legal method available to him OK in my book - he's simply playing them (and those who would seek to force Remain under the name of removing no deal) at their own game.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

A Scottish judge has refused to order a temporary halt to Boris Johnson's plan to shut down the UK Parliament.

A group of 75 parliamentarians were seeking an interim interdict - similar to an injunction - at the Court of Session ahead of a full hearing.

Their request was declined by Lord Doherty, who said he was not satisfied there was a "cogent need" for an interdict.

However the full hearing will now be heard next Tuesday, rather than Friday.

Lord Doherty said this was because it was in the interests of justice, and in the public interest, for the case - which is opposed by the UK government - to proceed as quickly as possible.

But he said: "I am not satisfied that it as been demonstrated that there is a need for an interim suspension or an interim interdict to be granted at this stage."

The judge will not decide on the merits of the case until he has heard legal arguments from both sides on Tuesday, with his final ruling potentially being delivered the following day.

His decision not to grant an interdict was largely because the first possible date that Parliament can be suspended is next Friday.

The prime minister wants to suspend parliament - a process known as proroguing - for several weeks ahead of a Queen's Speech on 14 October. The UK is due to leave the EU on 31 October.

The cross-party group of politicians involved in the case, including SNP MP Joanna Cherry and Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson, wants the court to rule that it would be illegal and unconstitutional for him to do so.

Their QC, Aidan O'Neill, said the prime minister should lodge a signed affidavit - a sworn statement on oath - with the court setting out his reasons for wanting to prorogue parliament.

The Court of Session ruling came as former prime minister Sir John Major announced he was joining forces with campaigner Gina Miller to oppose the decision to suspend Parliament in the courts.

Ms Miller had already launched her own attempt, and Sir John said by joining her he would avoid "taking up the court's time" by lodging a separate case of his own.


Ive really mixed feelings on this sort of thing.

While I completely understand the notion that politicians should have avenues to block the government from going crazy, it really doesnt sit well that the government can be actively cut out of governing because MPs try and take legal action.

Pro Remain/Leave/Whatever - it really bothers me that politicians can use these apparatus to effectively further their own political agenda against the government in place.

 

[wiziwig]

Although written with sarcasm, it is not a bad idea. Other EU nations have similar concerns. Baveria in Germany wants to put up its own border posts. Hungry are not cool with free movement etc. A combination of working with other EU nations to evolve FoM, plus excercising our own controls that are allowed under EU law but we are not using at the moment e.g. the ability to register and send back migrants from the EU who are not working after 4 weeks.

Simple effective things could have been done. But Brexit is all about the conservative party. The referendum was to placate half of it. The decisions May and Boris make are driven by stopping it splitting in half. We are the victims.

Simple effective things couldn't be done as there is no desire to and never will be and national government is obligated to play ball. I'm sure you know this..

FOM is a core principle of the long term Federalist dream of a United States Regions Of Europe ... The destruction of the diversity of European nations.. The demoralisation of large swathes of the indigenous populations across Europe, with the EU message that the control of the country is not theirs.

The trouble I have with your position is that it's not reality as you're arguing for the European Common Market rather than for the EU... We love Europe, we just don't love the EU and yes, some of us get emotional about the well being of our nation..

 

[P.D.]

I think this falls into the immoral camp like tax avoidance, not something most people would condone but using the rules to suit their own agenda. From what I read they only lose 4 days sitting time anyway and to be fair they've had 3 years to discuss brexit and no one (remainers and leavers) has been able to agree on anything in that time which includes 2 series of indicative votes.

 

[scaramanga]

I think this falls into the immoral camp like tax avoidance, not something most people would condone but using the rules to suit their own agenda. From what I read they only lose 4 days sitting time anyway and to be fair they've had 3 years to discuss brexit and no one (remainers and leavers) has been able to agree on anything in that time which includes 2 series of indicative votes.

I would agree if I thought the genuine aim of those looking to legally block a No Deal Brexit we trying to do just that. 5 seconds of war gaming will tell us that blocking No Deal can only lead to remaining.

For that reason, any manoeuvres that might seem to be skirting around the edges of legal/moral code are simply a fair retaliation to those attempting to subvert the result of the referendum.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Simple effective things couldn't be done as there is no desire to and never will be and national government is obligated to play ball. I'm sure you know this..

FOM is a core principle of the long term Federalist dream of a United States Regions Of Europe ... The destruction of the diversity of European nations.. The demoralisation of large swathes of the indigenous populations across Europe, with the EU message that the control of the country is not theirs.

The trouble I have with your position is that it's not reality as you're arguing for the European Common Market rather than for the EU... We love Europe, we just don't love the EU and yes, some of us get emotional about the well being of our nation..

I can only reference Ricky too tricky...have you thought about setting this to music? [emoji23]

Loved the bit about reality.

As has been covered too Many times before European nations are fiercely independent with some of the strongest cultures in the world. There is no way they would squish together into a united stars of Europe. If you fear that, you have probably been lied to.

Truth is the EU is more agile than our national government and is continually evolving. It’s very new in the grand scheme of things. You need to believe that things are possible.

Don’t have time myself right now, but check this out see what you think https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....-angela-merkel-fight-for-survival-freilassing


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Parklaner81]

I think this falls into the immoral camp like tax avoidance, not something most people would condone but using the rules to suit their own agenda. From what I read they only lose 4 days sitting time anyway and to be fair they've had 3 years to discuss brexit and no one (remainers and leavers) has been able to agree on anything in that time which includes 2 series of indicative votes.

Shhhhh, we don't want minor details like this getting in the way of a good outpouring of faux-outrage...

 

[scaramanga]

Shhhhh, we don't want minor details like this getting in the way of a good outpouring of faux-outrage...

I think the official term for what they're doing is "frothing"

 

[Baleforce]

I think this falls into the immoral camp like tax avoidance, not something most people would condone but using the rules to suit their own agenda. From what I read they only lose 4 days sitting time anyway and to be fair they've had 3 years to discuss brexit and no one (remainers and leavers) has been able to agree on anything in that time which includes 2 series of indicative votes.

Shhhhh, we don't want minor details like this getting in the way of a good outpouring of faux-outrage...

is that not assuming the usual recess break, which it has been suggested wouldn't be taken as normal?

 

[P.D.]

is that not assuming the usual recess break, which it has been suggested wouldn't be taken as normal?

No evidence it wouldn't have other than a few comments, I haven't seen any parties making moves to cancel all arrangments and part of the governements case will likely be that for the last x years there's been a recess.

 

[Baleforce]

No evidence it wouldn't have other than a few comments, I haven't seen any parties making moves to cancel all arrangments and part of the governements case will likely be that for the last x years there's been a recess.

true, but the recess would have been voted on in parliament at least

 

[Robspur12]

I dont believe rhetoric of the leavers, and its rather patronising for you suggest such.

I remember very well at the time. The UK has a genuine issue with immigration, the leader of a sovereign nation - one of the largest contributors to the whole EU project - goes to them to express these issues and look for means to mitigate them.

The EU, in their hubris, dont even entertain the notion. There is nothing wrong with the EU, and we should just know our place in that. Pat on the head, fudge off. Sniggers as DC leaves with his tail between his legs because they are so arrogant they cannot fathom someone deciding to leave. So they just mug you off.

So we have the referendum, the one he warned of, the one they so casually ignored, and the people of the nation tell the EU to stick it.

And here we are.

Makes you wonder where we might be if the EU were actually open to change, rather than the dogmatic approach to the project they have.

I dont believe rhetoric of the leavers, and its rather patronising for you suggest such.

I remember very well at the time. The UK has a genuine issue with immigration, the leader of a sovereign nation - one of the largest contributors to the whole EU project - goes to them to express these issues and look for means to mitigate them.

The EU, in their hubris, dont even entertain the notion. There is nothing wrong with the EU, and we should just know our place in that. Pat on the head, fudge off. Sniggers as DC leaves with his tail between his legs because they are so arrogant they cannot fathom someone deciding to leave. So they just mug you off.

So we have the referendum, the one he warned of, the one they so casually ignored, and the people of the nation tell the EU to stick it.

And here we are.

Makes you wonder where we might be if the EU were actually open to change, rather than the dogmatic approach to the project they have.

Point is the EU l have been willing to listen. See the details in my earlier post of the concessions they granted Cameron and the concessions that had been given to the UK previously. It is the leave narrative that says the EU have given the UK nothing and to entirely blame brexit on the EU.

Negotiating to change one of the central pillars of the EU movement was not something that was going to be achieved over a relatively short period of time. It was a huge ask and would not be changed on the say so of one member state. What would have been required was to build support and consensus with other member states who had similar concerns. For whatever reason Cameron was unable to do that. Partly because Britain was never all in on the EU project. Cameron called the referendum too early before he had worked to get the EU to accept or temper fom.

Cameron never helped himself. He flip flopped on his support for the EU for short term political expediency. Corbyn is doing much the same. Our politicians never made a good case for remaining.

 

[scaramanga]

is that not assuming the usual recess break, which it has been suggested wouldn't be taken as normal?

If recess was going to cause a lack of time to bring bills, why take the whole summer off?

The same problem remains (no pun) - unelectable opposition leader, only the opposition leader can bring a vote of no confidence. I've seen some fairly solid legal advice making the point that the PM can't be bound by parliament on foreign affairs, with the recourse if parliament is unhappy being a VONC.

 

[P.D.]

Point is the EU l have been willing to listen. See the details in my earlier post of the concessions they granted Cameron and the concessions that had been given to the UK previously. It is the leave narrative that says the EU have given the UK nothing and to entirely blame brexit on the EU.

Negotiating to change one of the central pillars of the EU movement was not something that was going to be achieved over a relatively short period of time. It was a huge ask and would not be changed on the say so of one member state. What would have been required was to build support and consensus with other member states who had similar concerns. For whatever reason Cameron was unable to do that. Partly because Britain was never all in on the EU project. Cameron called the referendum too early before he had worked to get the EU to accept or temper fom.

Cameron never helped himself. He flip flopped on his support for the EU for short term political expediency. Corbyn is doing much the same. Our politicians never made a good case for remaining.

Why should Corbyn make a case for remaining, he's one of the biggest eurosceptics in parliament. If anything he should be outling the reason he's had those views for such a long time and demonstrate what a brexit from the left/socialist point of view would bring.

Infact the most silly thing Corbyn has done is become a hostage to his own party rather than coming out and being honest with his views, one of the things many people admired about him was concistency of viewpoint (even if they didn't like his policies) but now even that's wavered.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Point is the EU l have been willing to listen. See the details in my earlier post of the concessions they were granted Cameron and the concessions that had been given to the UK previously. It is the leave narrative that says the EU have given the UK nothing and to entirely blame brexit on the EU.

Negotiating to change one of the central pillars of the EU movement was not something that was going to be achieved over a relatively short period of time. It was a huge ask and would not be changed on the say so of one member state. What would have been required was to build support and consensus with other member states who had similar concerns. For whatever reason Cameron was unable to do that. Partly because Britain was never all in on the EU project.

Cameron never helped himself. He flip flopped on his support for the EU for short term political expediency. Corbyn is doing much the same. Our politicians never made a good case for remaining.

The concessions were meaningless fluff, avoiding the issue while giving the pretence of Cameron achieving something.

And there is a great deal of difference, IMO, between being willing to meet and being willing to listen. They most certainly did not dot he latter, IMO.

I dont doubt Cameron could have done a lot more, or handled it better. Truthfully I think he shared some of the EU arrogance that even if we did go to referendum remain would obviously win.

Even so, the EU did him, us, and themselves a disservice in how they approached it. And, IMO, betrayed their attitude to the project.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Why should Corbyn make a case for remaining, he's one of the biggest eurosceptics in parliament. If anything he should be outling the reason he's had those views for such a long time and demonstrate what a brexit from the left/socialist point of view would bring.

His party were officially for remain, and as leader he had a responsibility to voice their point of view.

Something that was conspicuous by its absence, and honestly fudging shameful on his part.

It was about that point where it became obvious he doesnt give a fudge about the Labour party, only his own agenda. Which is basically Boris in a red tie, anything, any cost, whatever it takes for that PM job...

 

[Robspur12]

The concessions were meaningless fluff, avoiding the issue while giving the pretence of Cameron achieving something.

And there if a great deal of difference, IMO, between being willing to meet and being willing to listen. They most certainly did not dot he latter, IMO.

I dont doubt Cameron could have done a lot more, or handled it better. Truthfully I think he shared some of the EU arrogance that even if we did go to referendum remain would obviously win.

Even so, the EU did him, us, and themselves a disservice in how they approached it. And, IMO, betrayed their attitude to the project.

You are speculating on what the EU would do. What we know happened, Cameron went with a package and they granted most of it. It makes me laugh when posters dismiss the concessions as "fluff." It was what we asked for!! He needed to work harder on negotiating with the EU. Unfortunately his own hubris felt that he could win a referendum so he gave up too early.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

You are speculating on what the EU would do. What we know happened, Cameron went with a package and they granted most of it. It makes me laugh when posters dismiss the concessions as "fluff." It was what we asked for!! He needed to work harder on negotiating with the EU. Unfortunately his own hubris felt that he could win a referendum so he gave up too early.

Of course its fluff. Temporary relief, nothing long standing or meaningful.

And of course DC asked for it, it was easily attainable and allowed for him to come back with something. Its PR, from a politician looking to keep his job in desperate need of a win.

The point is, the actual issue, wasnt even entertained. Thats the key part of the whole debacle.

I am no fan of Cameron, he is scum. And yes, he most certainly should have done more/better. That doesnt change the EU aspect of it though.