brexit?!!?

[thalbergmad]

As you seem to be struggling with many things, I thought I would summarize.

1. After years of concern over the ever encroaching EU, the Tories whilst an elected government promised a referendum. You would not have seen the call for this as it was by ordinary working class people and not your champagne socialist buddies and snobby left wing musicians.

2. The Tories whilst an elected government duly held the referendum.

3. Brexit won by a majority of over 1,000,000 people.

4. It is now the duty of Parliament to carry out the wishes of this majority.

It is as simple as that. No need for pages of blowing out your arse.

Thal

[ahinton]

HAHA, everyone with a brain knows the left leaning BBC are anti Brexit.

Assuming that you have one (and I'm perfectly certain that you do), I can only note with interest your preparedness to link to an article on its website when it suits you but to describe the institution as "left leaning" and "anti Brexit" on other occasions!

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I think the BBC has an inherent and sometimes insidious bias towards the status quo, as opposed to a bias regarding either side of the political spectrum. On many other things I find it broadly neutral but it is anti-Brexit (and, for that matter, anti Scottish independence). It's usually not overt but is reflected in choice and use of language.

[ahinton]

As you seem to be struggling with many things

As I have already noted, I am "struggling" with nothing on this topic.

I thought I would summarize.

1. After years of concern over the ever encroaching EU, the Tories whilst an elected government promised a referendum. You would not have seen the call for this as it was by ordinary working class people and not your champagne socialist buddies and snobby left wing musicians.

2. The Tories whilst an elected government duly held the referendum.

3. Brexit won by a majority of over 1,000,000 people.

4. It is now the duty of Parliament to carry out the wishes of this majority.

It is as simple as that.

It's anything but!

"After years of concern over" what some but bny no means all might have thought of as "the ever encroaching EU", the Tories when in office did indeed promise a referendum on UK's continued EU membership.

However, you assert that I "would not have seen the call for this as it was by ordinary working class people".

Firstly, I saw "the call for it" as a perfectly transparent and cynical ploy on the Tories' part to attempt to address what it perceived as internecine wars within itself that might ultimately risk some of their MPs defecting (I nearly wrote "defecating") to UKIP; I am by no means the only person to have recognised this as the Tories' reason for its decision on the matter or indeed that it was both an unwise and inappropriate decision.

Secondly, I was as unaware as most people that the Tories were heavily populated or influenced by "ordinary working class people" (whoever they might be); since when did a Tory government seeking to remain in office pander to the alleged wishes of "ordinary working class people", many of whom had noted voted for it and would probably not do so in future, when preparing its election manifesto?!

Thirdly, I do not have "champagne socialist buddies and snobby left wing musicians", whatever either of those might be or whyever it might be that you think that I do (not that the company that I choose to keep is relevant to the issues at stake here).

Fourthly, the Tories didn't just promise and then deliver a referendum and stand passively and neutrally on the sidelines to let the electorate decide; on the contrary, they made it abundantly clear that they supported the status quo (apart from some fraught and largely unsuccessful attempts to negotiate with EU before holding it) and indeed allocated some £10m of our money to persuading the electorate to vote Remain. They came unstuck and their electoral credibility came unstuck with them.

Neither Leave nor Remain "won", nor did the 1m+ more people who voted for the former than did so for the latter constitute a "majority" of the electorate, since only around 72% of that electorate voted either way; OK, that was undoubtedly a comparatively high turnout, but it still meant that only some 37% of the electorate in just two of UK's four countries voted for UK to leave EU (to say mothing of all the misleading that prompted some of them to do so). The Tories who held the referendum were regarded by many as "the establishment" and many people voted in the hope of delivering a kick in the pants to them; it was accordingly to a significant degree an anti-establishment protest vote.

"It is now the duty of Parliament" to serve the best interests of the UK populace as effectively as it can - but then it is always Parliament's duty to do that. If it fails to honour that duty, it will deserve to be voted out and may well be so if matters develop in ways that are seen as failing to benefit UK.

If it were all as "simple" as you claim, why is it that, 111 days after the opinion poll result became known, nothing material has yet been done to implement Brexit and the UK economy is beginning to suffer not so much from the negative effects of a possible Brexit but from the ongoing uncertainties and inactions that now pertain.

It is not even as though there is - or indeed is ever likely to be - majority agreement about what might constitute a "hard" and a "soft" Brexit, or which of them is the best way to try to go.

We don't yet know what the outcome of the Court cases might be or how long it might take to reach their respective conclusions.

We don't know for certain when or if Article 50 will be invoked, or whether, if it is invoked, Scotland will call a second independence referendum and/or Northern Ireland might try to stay with EU by becoming part of the Republic (and it is interesting to note that people from the Republic are currently going to NI in their droves to buy stuff while the UK pound is so low against the Euro).

We do not know and cannot predict how many firms that employ people in UK will relocate all or parts of their operations elsewhere during the ongoing period of confusion, uncertainty and possible negotiation.

We do not yet know to what extent UK will remain obligated to EU even after it servers its ties with it, should it ever do so.

Above all, we do not know what results any negotiations will achieve and whether and to what extent they might or might not benefit UK; should they not favour UK's interests, UK will have gone through all that Brexit plans and negotiations entail to no avail and at colossal expense to the UK taxpayer.

If Scotland and/or NI quit UK during any negotiations before they are complete and the end result of those negotiations proves to be so adverse to UK's interests, UK will have lost two of its four constituent parts for nothing.

Yes, it's all just SO simple, as you aver!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Gawd, he is off on one again.

Thal

[ahinton]

I think the BBC has an inherent and sometimes insidious bias towards the status quo, as opposed to a bias regarding either side of the political spectrum. On many other things I find it broadly neutral but it is anti-Brexit (and, for that matter, anti Scottish independence). It's usually not overt but is reflected in choice and use of language.

If it is indeed pro the status quo but anti-Brexit and anti-Scottish independence, it must be some kind of broadcasting equivalent of a contortionist!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Gawd, he is off on one again.

"Off" or "on"? Make up your mind! "One" what, anyway?

Anyway, never mind that; here's a couple more more from the "leftie" Guardian (only they're not):
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-climbdown-labour-tory-rebels-article-50-a7356821.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/12/brexit-strategy-theresa-may-labour-jeremy-corbyn-pmqs-live/

...and from the even more Commie Daily Express:
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/720416/Banks-threaten-to-LEAVE-Britain-unless-Theresa-May-gives-Brexit-details

...and home news from abroad...
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/fiona-hyslop-brexit-democratically-unacceptable-for-scots-1-4256325

Not to mention good old BBC again, which gives a fair few clues as to what the rest of EU's thinking...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37632305

And the Indie again:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/daily-mail-brexit-daily-express-the-sun-tabloids-language-political-intolerance-traitors-a7357591.html

Also
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/10/daily-chart-6

If not BBC, how's about ITV?:
https://www.itv.com/news/utv/update/2016-10-12/pm-questioned-over-irish-border-post-brexit/

...or then...
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/fx-focus-pound-euro-heading-post-brexit-lose-lose-situation-1586044

and lastly (for now, anyway)
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-markets-brexit-idUKKCN12C1UL

That should keep you out of mischief for some time (athough I do say "should", not "will")...

In the meantime, perhaps you might consider founding a newspaper called the Daily Thalegraph, so that anyone who reads it for items about Brexit will find only anti-Remain, pro-"hard" Brexit, xenophobic, "will of the people", anti-Scottish, anti-EU and broadly anti-European sentiments and can if so they choose paste links to these from its online version; should you do so, I will promise that, even though I might not read much of that stuff, I will readily peruse all articles in it about rare 19th century piano concertos, banjo news, velocipedic information, items about St. Kilda, the Shetlands and other remote places belonging to the British Isles and reports about the weakening pound couched in the specific terms of the numbers of them that you've diligently been losing through diet and exercise.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You have got more links than St Andrews and i am not wading through that lot.

I wonder how much of the uncertainty that is causing trouble with the Pound is because of Brexit, or because of politicians, business leaders, silly lefties and their silly court cases and other associated remoaners who cannot accept the result of the referendum and let the government get on with negotiations?

There would be far less uncertainty if all this opposition to democracy would cease.

Thal

[ahinton]

You have got more links than St Andrews and i am not wading through that lot.

I wonder how much of the uncertainty that is causing trouble with the Pound is because of Brexit, or because of politicians, business leaders, silly lefties and their silly court cases and other associated remoaners who cannot accept the result of the referendum and let the government get on with negotiations?

There would be far less uncertainty if all this opposition to democracy would cease.

As I stated, the problems befalling the pound are not all about Brexit but Brexit uncertainties are a major influence thereon; that's by no means only my view but an opinion that's extensively publicised. The negotiations if they commence will not reduce this effect or indeed any other effect; once people know something of what's going on (which right now they don't), more negative resposes and results will be seen.

In the meantime, your problem appears to be that "politicians, business leaders, silly lefties and their silly court cases and other associated remoaners" are all mere troublemakers whose voices need permanently to be silenced so that the undemocratic processes of leaving EU can proceed unimpeded; in practice, however, that simply can't and won't work, not least because those people constitute a large sector of society and have a substantial impact on UK's economy and will continue to do so as long as UK still has one.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

But it is them that are causing the uncertainty as well as silly court case No.1 today.

Thal

[ahinton]

But it is them that are causing the uncertainty as well as silly court case No.1 today.

Well, the politicians - first on your list - are certainly guilty of spreading confusion and uncertainty; of that there can be no doubt.

But what of the others? - that's to say the "business leaders, silly lefties and their silly court cases and other associated remoaners who cannot accept the result of the referendum and let the government get on with negotiations"?

Business leaders and those on the left are merely responding to the lack of certainty and action.

The Court cases have made no impact so far because they've yet to be tried (and appealed if necessary) and they're not only being mounted by those "on the left" in any case.

Those who supported and continue to support Remain (including the majority of politicians, incidentally) do accept the result in the sense the result is the result but not that it has been democratically achieved or is representative of the majority of the electorate which, as we know, it isn't.

Ultimately, only Parliament can resolve the confusion and uncertainty by means of decisive action for which no one else is or can be responsible. The very fact that 16½ weeks after announcement of the opinion poll result we do not even known when Article 50 will be invoked and therefore cannot be absolutely certain if it will be is as indicative as anything else that the government of the day is unsure what to do, largely because no one had prepared for that result in advance; few had even anticipated it, including the government which actively promoted the opposite result before and during the campaign and that government has yet to reach agreement even upon what "Brexit" does or should mean - i.e. hard or soft, freedom of movement as now or less or none, single market or no single market, &c.

There is therefore no point whatsoever in trying to blame anyone else for the confusion and uncertainties for which sole responsibility rests with the government which has not exactly done itself any favours from having attempted to address this issue by means of a non-legally binding referendum in the first place.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

BBC's report in advance of the Court case to be commenced today rather interestingly ends as follows:

If the court concludes that Parliament must approve Article 50, that could be a game-changer.

The majority of MPs campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU. They could, in theory, vote against the activation of Article 50.

But would they risk enormous political and social ructions by rejecting the referendum result?

Most members of the House of Lords are also opposed to Brexit. That raises the possibility of another extraordinary scenario - an unelected Lords voting against the wishes of 17.4 million people.

If the government loses its case in the British courts, they could eventually go to the European Court of Justice.

It raises the possibility of a truly strange scenario - Brexit ministers asking European judges to overturn the decision of the British courts.

Paragraphs 2 & 3 of this raise the "heads you win, tails you lose" quasi-Catch 22 situation in which, if it is indeed decided that Parliament must hold a debate and vote on Brexit, MP's will risk being seen as risking either "enormous political and social ructions by rejecting the referendum result" by voting against Brexit or the contempt of the electorate if they vote for it and against the personal beliefs than prompted them to vote Remain in the first place. If that wouldn't be a case of "a rock or a hard place" I'm not quite sure what would.

In such circumstances, I would hope that MPs voted according to their beliefs as their constitutents - especially those who voted for them - have a right to expect them to do; if they don't (unless any of them have genuinely changed their minds from Leave to Remain or vice versa), they will rightly be pilloried for their abject dishonesty and deemed unfit for purpose as constituents' Parliamentary representatives.

That said, the spectacle of the government losing the case and appealing to the European Court of Justice does at least have a ring of amusement about it! If it does indeed lose it and takes the case to ECJ and loses there, the sheer quantity of egg that it will thereby have attracted to its face would be more than sufficient to provide Brexit - sorry, breakfast - to the entire nation!

But of course the case might fail; we cannot know until it's been tried and, if unsuccessfully, appealed should the losing side take that step. It is in any case but one of around eight such cases to be heard, unless, of course, this one achieves ultimate success, in which case the others will probably fall by the wayside.

It is also only fair to recognise that these cases are largely about challenges to procedure rather than Remain or Leave.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

If it [BBC] is indeed pro the status quo but anti-Brexit and anti-Scottish independence, it must be some kind of broadcasting equivalent of a contortionist!

I can't agree, as both Brexit and Scottish independence represent significant changes to the framework of the UK. Thus it would be natural to oppose them if in favour of the status quo.

[ahinton]

I can't agree, as both Brexit and Scottish independence represent significant changes to the framework of the UK. Thus it would be natural to oppose them if in favour of the status quo.

Whilst I see your point, I do not believe that there would be any significant appetite to hold a second Scottish independence referendum unless Brexit were to proceed, so it would be a case of one cessation of the status quo giving rise to another. Scotland voted against independence first time around when Brexit was not on the cards.

That said, I am not especially convinced that BBC is showing itself to be unequivocally pro-Remain and anti-Scottish independence in any event. If it were so in either case, a finger of accusation could justly be pointed at it for political bias in the way that it could not against other media outlets, simply because BBC is (at least so far) taxpayer funded wheras all the others are run by businesses. Nevertheless the government is also taxpayer funded and, when this one launched the UK/EU in/out referendum, it overtly declared itself to be pro-Remain and used some £10m of taxpayers' funds to promote that cause. That this exercise failed is just one piece of evidence to show that the referendum outcome was that of a protest vote against the establishment and, as such, I think that we should all be relieved that it is not legally binding!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

From the perspective north of the border:

https://www.refinery29.uk/2016/10/126263/scotland-referendum-brexit-scottish-independence-nicola-sturgeon

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/13/nicola-sturgeon-challenges-may-with-second-referendum-bill-scottish-independence-snp-conference

https://dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/2016/10/snp-to-oppose-brexit-bill-as-sturgeon-raises-indy-stakes/

From The Economist (which ought to be able to be relied upon to know a thing or three about the economic impact of Brexit should it happen):
https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/10/economic-impact-devaluations

But not everything about a possible Brexit is necessarily bad, as may be noted from
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/brexit-marmite-shortage-is-only-12018699
and, whilst continued falls in the value of the UK pound are bound to result in price inflation there, the possible disappearance of Marmite from supermarket shelves can only be cause for celebration - not to say also mirth, as evident from
https://newsthump.com/2016/10/13/removal-of-marmite-makes-brexit-all-worthwhile/

Now, by contrast, an Aussie perspective at
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/10/all-due-respect-brexit-complicated-pamela-anderson-writes-theresa-may
which ought to persuade Thal that this issue is far from simple if nothing else does, although the reference to the risk of cruelty to circus animals in UK might be taken to be about its politicians...

And lastly (for now) a piece on post-referendum hate crimes and, although it's in the Guardian, the statistics are from the Home Office which one might reasonably presume is not a "loony left" institution:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/13/hate-crimes-eu-referendum-home-office-figures-confirm

So much uncertainty, so little time - er, no, actually, so MUCH time, methinks, for this looks set to drag on for many years unless someone has the good sense to put the boot into it.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

So much uncertainty, so little time - er, no, actually, so MUCH time, methinks, for this looks set to drag on for many years unless someone has the good sense to put the boot into it.

So are you suggesting that we simply ignore the views of 17,000,000 people??

Thal

[thalbergmad]

It is also only fair to recognise that these cases are largely about challenges to procedure rather than Remain or Leave.

Horsecrap. These cases are largely about stopping Brexit.

Thal

[ahinton]

So are you suggesting that we simply ignore the views of 17,000,000 people??

No, certainly not; neither am I suggesting that those "views" - insofar as they are genuine views arrived at in the absence of coercion, misleading and the rest and insofar as a substantial proportion of them arose from a desire to send a message of protest to the establishment - should take precedence over those of the 16,000,000+ who voted Remain. I am also not suggesting that the views of the 17,000,000 represent a majority of the UK electorate, because they do not.

The principal point here, however, is that UK has a democratically elected government paid for by the electorate to follow Parliamentary procedures in the making and repealing of laws and that those procedures should have been followed in this case, especially as it is one of the most important for UK's future to have been raised in decades.

For such a democractically elected government instead to persuade Parliament to allow it to sidestep those processes and subject this overarchingly vital subject to a non-legally binding referendum and then expect it to act upon the result as though it were legally binding is a nonsense, an abnegation of due Parliamentary responsibility and, frankly, way more immoral that anything that was ever revealed in the MPs' expenses scandal.

You have suggested that I would not have accepted a result favouring Brexit even had it been achieved through due Parliamentary process and in that you are wrong; I would have deplored it, of course, but I would not have sought to claim that the outcome had been arrived at in an undemocratic, unParliamentary or otherwise illegal way becaucase that would not have been the case.

There are other matters debated and voted on in Parliament with which I disagree but I accept that the laws concerned were at least arrived at following due process there. There is one in particular of which you know that I disapprove strongly, albeit not the entire piece of legislation but one specific part thereof - but I do not intend to discuss that here. If you want to email me about it, please feel free to do so and I will be happy to provide some brief (yes!) and basic explanation.

Whilst the Court cases are indeed largely being brought by Remain supporters, at least one is being brought by an ex-pat who, whatever his view on the matter, was not allowed to vote anyway, so in reality it hardly matters which side he was on; the fact remains (sorry!) that these cases are being brought largely on the grounds of wilful Parliamantary failure to follow due democratic process, although one is being brought on the basis of the adverse effects of the deplorable conduct of the campaign.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Horsecrap. These cases are largely about stopping Brexit.

Leaving aside that I am not aware that equine excrement has any part to play in any of these cases, the fact is that none of these pieces of litigation is or indeed can be about stopping Brexit per se and that is in any event not the brief of those bringing them; indeed, had they been transparently about that alone, I doubt that they would have reached trial stage because they would likely have been regarded as vexatious.

Whilst none of these cases could possibly lead directly to the halting of Brexit in its tracks, should those of them that seek to force Parliament to follow due process in respect of the matter be successful and, following such due process, a majority of MPs vote against pursuing Brexit (as they would have done in June had it been put to them rather than to the electorate), the result will indeed be the abandonment of Brexit; however, that will have been a consequence of a Parliamentary decision, not one that would have been ratified or even influenced by the outcome of any Court case.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I am also not suggesting that the views of the 17,000,000 represent a majority of the UK electorate, because they do not.

They represent a majority of the UK electorate that voted my old sausage and that is what is important.

Thal

[ahinton]

They represent a majority of the UK electorate that voted my old sausage and that is what is important.

Whilst they do indeed represent a majority of those who voted, they do not represent a majority of the electorate, which is what I pointed out; they represent around 37% of the electorate that was entitled to vote.

What is really important, however, is the cynical manner in which David Cameron's government included the promise of a referendum on the issue in his party's election manifesto in 2015 rather than either doing nothing at all about it or including a pledge to debate it in Parliament, then held the referendum while seeking to persuade the electorate to vote Remain because that's what he and the majority of his party believed in yet did not bother to inform voters that the outcome would not be legally binding as it would have been had it been debated and voted on in Parliament as should have been the case.

He came unstuck over this, not least as a consequence of the anti-establishment vote that resultded in a slightly higher total for Leave than for Remain and now he's resigned and left his successor in a parlous situation in which she's uncertain what to do or when, not least because no one planned in advance for the possibility of a pro-Brexit vote as hardly anyone anticipated that outcome.

As we've both said on many occasions, however, let's wait and see what happens. I have no idea what will happen when, why or how; we can only watch and wait while taking each hour as it comes and noting what has happened.

I suppose that the worst that could possibly happen might be that Article 50 be triggered, negotiations commence and then either the outcome of one or more of the Court cases stops it all in its tracks and forces its unwinding or - even worse still - the outcomes of next year's elections in Germany, Netherlands and France ultimately lead to the wholesale break-up of EU before those negotiations will have ended, the consequence of either or which would be that UK will have wasted squillions of pounds and hundreds of thousands of hours on attempts to take UK out of an EU that, in the latter scenario, will no longer even exist.

In the meantime, what matters even more, since you mention the humble sausage, is whether or for how much longer it might be possible to buy sausages at Tesco. Someone needs somehow to find an effecive way to Unilever us all out of Brexit.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I suppose that the worst that could possibly happen might be that Article 50 be triggered, negotiations commence and then either the outcome of one or more of the Court cases stops it all in its tracks and forces its unwinding or

I thought that was not the purpose of the silly court cases.

Thal

[ahinton]

I thought that was not the purpose of the court cases.

The purpose of each Court case is what it is and each needs to be read in order to gain proper understanding of it. Most of them relate to the way in which the subject was put forward for assessment rather than whether or not UK should leave EU.

I maintain, however, that the worst possible outcome of all that might follow is that UK spends vast resources on Brexit negotiations but then finds either that it has to stop them because the entire business is found to be illegal or that, before those negotiations complete, EU has disintegrated and so there's no longer anything left for UK to leave.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

It seems that Unilever and Tesco have kissed and made up (or something) and so their temporary dispute appears to be over.

Marmite and Brexit still, however, seem to me to be equally sickening things.

Best,

Alistair

[Bob]

I was just about to post that it was hitting fan when it came to this....
https://time.com/4529747/marmite-shortage-tesco-brexit/


It's already something like $5-8 bucks where I am.  Per jar.

[ahinton]

I was just about to post that it was hitting fan when it came to this....
https://time.com/4529747/marmite-shortage-tesco-brexit/


It's already something like $5-8 bucks where I am.  Per jar.

But what size jar? There's more than one, surely?

All that I can say about this temporary blip is
(a) that Marmite's not the only thing of which there's a shortage in UK where Brexit is concerned (and I'm not talking about things that you can buy in supermarkets) and
(b) some of what's being said about Brexit and the referendum that led to it's about as unpalatable as Marmite (and that takes some doing)...

But never mind the cost of Marmite, real or fabled; there are other things that cost even more and will substantially rise in cost again should the UK pound continue its slide:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/10/much-will-brexit-add-cost-trident-hinkley-point/

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It appears a review of the EU accounts reveal that liabilities exceed assets by £65,000,000,000.

Not surprising when you look at some of the waste. A £788,000 loan to Mozambique, a £14,000 donation to a youth club in Azerbaijan that did not exist, £3,600 on a mountain bike, £90,000 on building stone walls and £137,000,000 in animal welfare in Romania, all considered ineligible with no link to EU objectives.

Do you really want to be a part of this??

I don't.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1951394/wheelchair-bound-woman-was-gang-raped-by-group-of-migrants-after-asking-to-use-the-loo-at-asylum-centre/

Meanwhile, some peace loving immigrants let in by the EU, gang rape a disabled woman in a wheelchair.

No doubt some stupid lefties are already clamouring to protect them from being deported in case the poor little things would be in danger.

Thal

[ahinton]

It appears a review of the EU accounts reveal that liabilities exceed assets by £65,000,000,000.

Not surprising when you look at some of the waste. A £788,000 loan to Mozambique, a £14,000 donation to a youth club in Azerbaijan that did not exist, £3,600 on a mountain bike, £90,000 on building stone walls and £137,000,000 in animal welfare in Romania, all considered ineligible with no link to EU objectives.

Do you really want to be a part of this??

I never said that it was perfect, but we are a part of it and will remain so even after Brexit should that occur; what goes on in EU affects every European nation and will continue to do so indefinitely untill and unless it is either fundamentally reformed or it collapses altogether.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1951394/wheelchair-bound-woman-was-gang-raped-by-group-of-migrants-after-asking-to-use-the-loo-at-asylum-centre/

Meanwhile, some peace loving immigrants let in by the EU, gang rape a disabled woman in a wheelchair.

No doubt some stupid lefties are already clamouring to protect them from being deported in case the poor little things would be in danger.

A disgraceful, deplorable and disgusting crime indeed, but would it be any less so had it been committed by non-immigrants?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Of course not, but my point is that this was an avoidable crime since the criminals should not even be there.

No doubt they will be imprisoned at obscene expense and by the time they are let out, some leftie prick will fight their cause and they will be allowed to stay and rape others.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I nver said that it was perfect, but we are a part of it and will remain so even after Brexit should that occur; what goes on in EU affects every European nation and will continue to do so indefinitely untill and unless it is either fundamentally reformed or it collapses altogether.

The administration deserves to collapse, as it is riddled with fraud, stupidity and incompetence.

If it were a business, it would be bankrupt, despite the billions of tax payers money being pumped into this failed experiment.

Thal

[ahinton]

Of course not, but my point is that this was an avoidable crime since the criminals should not even be there.

Your point sadly shows that you miss the point, unless you genuinely believe that the perpetrators of this most disgusting crime committed it only because they were immigrants; there is no evidence of which I am aware that they would not have committed it had they stayed where they were before they immigrated.

No doubt they will be imprisoned at obscene expense and by the time they are let out, some leftie prick will fight their cause and they will be allowed to stay and rape others

I do not know all the facts of the case any more than I know how Swedish laws on deportation might differ from those of UK, but I would be rather surprised if the Swedish authorities would not consider deporting these criminals if they're allowed by law to do so.

That said, if they are deported (at the Swedish taxpayers' expense), I imagine that there would be no guarantee of their being punished for their crime in the country to which they were deported, so justice would not have been done, let alone seen to have been done.

Something of a rock and a hard place, no?

But then you're back on your immigration hooby-horse once again, rather than dealing with Brexit! Immigrants into Sweden are not affected by what has happened and what might or might not happen in respect of Brexit.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The administration deserves to collapse, as it is riddled with fraud, stupidity and incompetence.

It doesn't. The administration is made up of human beings from a number of EU member states and, if it does indeed collapse and take down the remainder of EU with it, those within and outside EU who will have been victims of the "fraud, stupidity and incompetence" of which you write will remain so and will never gain redress; furthermore, if there is nothing to replace EU upon such collapse (just like there's no plan for Brexit), everyone in Europe - especially those in what were the 28 EU member states - is likely to suffer indefinitely.

One has only to think of the cost and time involved in unravelling UK's legal, financial, trading, cultural and other relationships with EU and its predecessor institutions over more than four decades to appreciate the incalculable and indeed unthinkable cost and time involved in all other 27 member states having to do the same. Europe as a whole - especially the ex-EU member states - could and probably would end up being bankrupted by this; now wouldn't that please our dear friend President Putin! (at least he might momentarily take his eyes off the slough of electoral despond into which US is fast descending)...

If it were a business, it would be bankrupt, despite the billions of tax payers money being pumped into this failed experiment.

It would indeed but, whilst two wrongs don't make a right even when their respective scales are very different, the same goes for UK as it does for EU; if you don't believe that, just read Jacques Peretti's article Money down the drain on p.9 of the next edition (15-21 October 2016) of Radio Times and watch the programme to which it relates, Who's spending Britain's millions?, next Tuesday at 20.00 on BBC2.

OK, this kind of thing does not only afflict UK - there must be plenty of parallel examples in France, Netherlands and elsewhere but, again, two or more wrongs don't make a right.

One has also to bear in mind the immense additional cost to UK of one particular aspect of the fallout from its Brexit "decision", namely the adverse effect upon its currency, to recognise that the very inflation that UK has managed to avoid for years will return in a most harmful way.

Massive infrastructure projects including but by no means limited to Trident, Hinkley Point, HS2/3/4/5 and the additional runway at Heathrow will inevitably suffer hundreds of billions of additional cost purely because so much of what's needed for them will have to be purchased from outside UK - and all this at a time when UK's coffers will already be drained by the cost of negotiating and implementing Brexit (should that happen), not least for the comprehensive review and overhaul of more than four decades of law (and how many lawyers from where will be needed for that?).

Best,

Alistair

[Bob]

BUt what size jar. There's more than one, surely?

All that I can say about this temporary blip is
(a) that Marmite's not theonly thing of which there's a shortage in UK where Brexit is concerned (and I'm not talking about things that you can buy in supermarkets) and
(b) some of what's being said about Brexit and the referendum that led to it's about as unpalatable as Marmite (and that takes sme doing)...

But never mind the cost of Marmite, real or fabled; there are other things that cost even more and will substantiall rise in cost again should the UK pound continue its slide:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/10/much-will-brexit-add-cost-trident-hinkley-point/

Best,

Alistair

4.4oz/125g

Imported.  I wasn't surprised it was expensive but it's the real thing I guess.  This is Marmite.  Marmite or Vegemite.... Still about that price where I am.

[ahinton]

4.4oz/125g

Imported.  I wasn't surprised it was expensive but it's the real thing I guess.  This is Marmite.  Marmite or Vegemite.... Still about that price where I am.

At least you don't have to buy the horrible stuff! (and Vegemite is even worse)...

I did rather like the invented word "Marmageddon" that I saw somewhere about this, but I think that we should be wary of overlooking the fact that, whilst pound is UK's principal unit of currency, its smaller one, pence, is (so far, at least) the US Vice-Presidential candidate...

Anyway, back on topic...

What price this "sovereign, independent" country that Ms May bangs on about achieving, courtesy of Brexit?
https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/fall-pound-shows-sovereignty-s-limits

As to the legalities:
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/14/understanding-the-peoples-challenge-does-theresa-may-need-parliaments-approval-to-trigger-brexit/

And the negotiating team?
https://leftfootforward.org/2016/10/revealed-theresa-may-has-packed-her-brexit-committee-with-diehard-leavers/

And what of Poundland?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pound-value-currency-status-brexit-dollar-euro-latest-a7360956.html
(typos 'n' all)

Those'll do for now.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Your point sadly shows that you miss the point, unless you genuinely believe that the perpetrators of this most disgusting crime committed it only because they were immigrants; there is no evidence of which I am aware that they would not have committed it had they stayed where they were before they immigrated.

Your point missed my point. The crime was committed in a Country that they should not have been in and therefore was preventable.

Thal

[ahinton]

Your point missed my point. The crime was committed in a Country that they should not have been in and therefore was preventable.

But who should decide who should be in which country, when and on what grounds? How could any country's immigration authorities possibly know in advance that any immigrant will commit a crime such as this once he/she has immigrated?

Logic determines that the only way to guarantee avoidance of such crimes committed specifically by immigrants (rather than committed per se) is to stop all immigration in all countries so that the criminals can commit such crimes only in their own countries; that would not prevent such crimes from being committed or make them any less serious, but it would ensure immense damage to almost every country in the world by outlawing all immigration/emigration. It is therefore a mercy that this could never happen.

There's the point, Thal!

But, again, this point is not about Brexit so would better be addressed in another thread dedicated to discussion of immigration, crime and the relationship (if any) between them.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

But who should decide who should be in which country, when and on what grounds? How could any country's immigration authorities possibly know in advance that any immigrant will commit a crime such as this once he/she has immigrated?.

How silly. Sweden should decide who comes into Sweden, England should decide who comes into England, Finland should decide who comes into Finland. Do you see a pattern emerging or is it beyond your left wing brain??

A country will not know that any immigrant will commit a crime, but keeping out all illegals would be of assistance. You cannot check on those that have no papers.

And it does relate to Brexit, as these people were let into Europe and have travelled across borders to get to Sweden. And now the idiots at the EU, want to introduce quotas to force its members to take in the number of immigrants it says they should.

Do you want to be part of this??. I don't.

Thal

[ahinton]

How silly. Sweden should decide who comes into Sweden, England should decide who comes into England, Finland should decide who comes into Finland. Do you see a pattern emerging or is it beyond your left wing brain??

It is not beyond my left wing brain because I do not have one; whether it's beyond my left or right brain in the neurological sense might be open to question in the unlikely event that anyone should wish to question it.

What you write about who should decide upon who should come to whichever country, when and why omits recognition of the fact that the quotas concerned have indeed largely been decided by each individual nation and not enforced EU, at least as far as refugee immigrants are concerned.

EU has neither exerted nor sought unilaterlly to exert pressures on its member states as to the numbers of immigrants from outside EU that each should take; what it has rightfully done and continues to do is ensure that its member states adhere to its rules about freedom of movement of EU citizens within EU.

The absolutely appalling case that you cite and for whose victim I have every possible sympathy  is of a crime committed not by people entitled to such free movement between EU member states but by actual immigrants to an EU member state from outside Europe.

A country will not know that any immigrant will commit a crime, but keeping out all illegals would be of assistance. You cannot check on those that have no papers.

Indeed. The problem here, however, is twofold. Firstly, there is no guarantee that an illegal immigrant will commit any crime other than entering another country illegally once he/she has arrived there; secondly - and far more importantly - "keeping out all illegals" is deeply problematic because most of them enter the country of their choice not only illegally but also clandestinely in order to try to avoid being caught, so finding them is always very difficult and they cannot be tried and deported until and unless they have first been found.

And it does relate to Brexit, as these people were let into Europe and have travelled across borders to get to Sweden. And now the idiots at the EU, want to introduce quotas to force its members to take in the number of immigrants it says they should.

Should EU start to try to lay the law down about which of its member states must take in how many refugees (for I believe that it refugees of whom you write here) it might well come unstuck to the extent that those states will not always have adequate infrastructure properly to support them and might accordingly resist its diktats on this; however, letting in refugees is not synonymous with letting in criminals.

A senior police officer with whom I discussed the illegal immigrant question once said to me that he prefers that officers try to find criminals who have committed crimes wherever they've come from rather than those who have committed no crime other than entering the country illegally and that to allocate undue resources to the latter was letting the public down by implicity sanctioning crimes that have been committed; I can well see his point.

As I implied, had the criminals in the gang rape case been Swedish born residents of Stockholm, for example, their crime would have been no more or less grave; the principal difference would have been that they'd have had to be tried and, if found guilty, imprisoned at Swedish taxpayers' expense whereas, because these particular criminals were immigrants, it might be possible for the Swedish authorities instead to try them and deport them. Were the immigrants who did this terrible thing legal or illegal immigrants and would it make any difference which they were?

Crimes know and respect no national boundaries. Would you feel any differently about the post-referendum hate crimes in UK of which one resulted in the death of a Polish man legally entitled to live and work in UK had they been committed by legal or illegal immigrants to UK from outside EU instead of by UK citizens?

Do you want to be part of this??. I don't.

Whether or not you or I might want to be "part of this", we are alive and therefore are part of it like the rest of us whether we like it or not and will remain so as long as people move from one country to another legally or otherwise and as long as people still commit crimes.

Even if there were ever to be international agreement to stop all immigration (if only in a hapless attempt to prevent crimes caused by legal immigrants in the countries to which they've immigrated), crime would not suddenly disappear; I doubt that anyone ever thinks "let's get together to gang rape a disabled woman because we're immigrants, legal or otherwise"...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Despite your half a million words, the fact remains that these immigrants somehow sneaked their way into Europe who are doing nothing to stop this idiocy and in fact are offering a ferry service across the Med.

They have no right to be here and lo and behold they make use of the lack of border control between individual Countries to reach Sweden where they have committed a terrible crime. If the crime had been committed by a local it would indeed have been terrible, but when it is committed by those that should not even be there in the first place, it is worse as it is avoidable.

I have heard Merkel speaking of quotas to ensure all member states are taking in sufficient immigrants, and no doubt this will be decided by idiot MEP's without any consideration for the extant populations that will be affected.

If they had claimed asylum at there port of entry, as the EU dictates, again this crime would not have happened.

You need to think more of the victims and less of the immigrants.

Thal

[ahinton]

Despite your half a million words

You really need to learn to count or, failing that, copyu and paste items into something like MS Word and check the word count before making sill stgatements like that!

the fact remains that these immigrants somehow sneaked their way into Europe who are doing nothing to stop this idiocy and in fact are offering a ferry service across the Med.

They have no right to be here and lo and behold they make use of the lack of border control between individual Countries to reach Sweden where they have committed a terrible crime.

Are you saying that you know for certain that those who committed this ghastly crime were illegal immigrants? If so, perhaps they will be deported as a consequence although, as I wrote earlier, that might mean that they esacpe justice.

If the crime had been committed by a local it would indeed have been terrible, but when it is committed by those that should not even be there in the first place, it is worse as it is avoidable.

Again, I don't see the logic in that because there isn't any. You are right to observe that the crime would have been as grave regardless of who committed it but is would likewise have been equally grave regardless of where it had been committed. The fact (if indeed it is one) of it having been committed by illegal immigrants does not make the crime any more or less serious; what it does do is pinpoint the commission of the second and quite separate crime of entering a country illegally.

I have heard Merkel speaking of quotas to ensure all member states are taking in sufficient immigrants, and no doubt this will be decided by idiot MEP's without any consideration for the extant populations that will be affected.

If they had claimed asylum at there port of entry, as the EU dictates, again this crime would not have happened.

Sorry but, once again, it would have happened somewhere provide that the perpatrators were motivated to commit it; do you really believe that they only did so becauise they were in a foreign country to which they'd immigrated illagelly?

You need to think more of the victims and less of the immigrants.

You need to think more of the facts. I have every sympathy for the victim, as indeed I stated and I would do so irrespective of whether the crime had been committed by legal citizens of the country in which it took place or by legal or illegal immigrants thereto.

Think of it from the opposite perspective. Suppose that the very same crime had been committed by legal citizens of Sweden upon a disabled woman who happened (with or without their prior knowledge) to be an illegal immigrant; would that have made the crime any more acceptable? Of course it wouldn't! The only material difference in this case would have been that the rapists the committed the crime of gang rape and the victim had committed the crime of illegal entry into the country in which she'd been raped.

Again, though, this is about serious crime againt the person first and foremost and about immigration, principally of thge illegal kind - and it's not about Brexit. I am in no sense seeking to undermine the importance of the subject or indeed of what you write about it but I do believe that it should be discussed in a separete thread devote to that subject rather than being shoehorned into one on Brexit which by nature and definition centres primarily upon the political, constitutional, legal, economic and cultural issues directly related to the possibility of UK leaving EU; accordingly, I have started one for you and anyone else who wants to participate in it..

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

OK, back to topic.

I don't know if there's any way that anyone interested in attending https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/10/14/event-reminder-parliament-and-brexit-constitutional-conundrums-and-parliamentary-practicalities/ who's not a paid up UKCLA member could gain admission to this but there's an email address to which an enquiry can be made.

From Scotland again:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/the-snp-is-in-discussions-with-other-parties-to-block-brexit?utm_term=.uy5B6qVO4y#.vaj6Vw9B5Y

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-goverment-seeks-to-keep-eu-citizensh/

...and this won't help do anything other than fuel the fires:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/theresa-may-leaves-out-scottish-secretary-from-brexit-cabinet-1-4258626

And now a little spoilsportsmanship from a right-wing Tory MP in the neighbouring constituency to the one where I lived for many years and who has been described as "the Honourable Member for the 19th century":
https://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/jacob-rees-mogg-bath-infected-banes-eu-brexit-result/story-29809255-detail/story.html

As the impatient and irritated Yorkshireman said to his clumsy wife, "every time tha drops summat, that Brexit"

Ah, well...

Best,

Alistair

[mjames]

England, Norway, Sweden, France, and so on do have a say on who goes in and out. what are you talking about?

"Freedom of movement" applies to EU nationals, if you're from outside the EU then you won't experience the same freedom Europeans have. You have to apply for VISAS, residency forms, work permits, and so on. The fact that "illegal" immigrants can just show up in Sweden and get a house is NOT because the EU forces them to, it's because of (pre-migration crisis) Sweden's lax laws on refugee policies and immigration. Failure of being able properly document non-EU immigrants lies in the responsibility of the government, not the EU. All countries in the EU have full on autonomy on what to do with their immigration policies. The problem here is that what Merkel is referring to are not "immigrants" per say, but WAR REFUGEES. Of course I know you'll bark the "economic migrants for benefits and rape white girls", that's precisely why they're screening the arrivals and determining who's an actual refugee or not.

Also, Western European nations VOLUNTARILY signed up for the multilateral treaty on war refugees. England, Sweden, and so on could have opted out from ratifying but they chose not to. This is a direct result of their own decisions, not a breach on their autonomy. Stop spouting bullshit.

[thalbergmad]

Well done to the EU idiots for scuppering a multi billion pound trade deal with Canada as it was vetoed by a pissarse little province called Wallonia.

What a useless institution.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Also, Western European nations VOLUNTARILY signed up for the multilateral treaty on war refugees. England, Sweden, and so on could have opted out from ratifying but they chose not to. This is a direct result of their own decisions, not a breach on their autonomy. Stop spouting bullshit.

No doubt the raped woman will be overjoyed to read your moronic post and the vast majority of illegals are not even war refugees but economic migrants.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I think in the final analysis it doesn't matter whether the criminal perpetrators are migrants, refugees or illegal whatevers. The fact is they've committed the crime.  Illegal immigration by definition can't be fully stopped; we can try to minimise it but little more. Criminals should feel the full force of the law and that shouldn't be coloured by their social designation.

[mjames]

No doubt the raped woman will be overjoyed to read your moronic post and the vast majority of illegals are not even war refugees but economic migrants.

Thal

I don't give a sh*t about your raped women or whether or not European countries should allow illegal immigrants in. I don't give a damn. You can also stop shoehorning your false-sincerity/concern about rape victims, it doesn't work on me.

I'm just sick of your idiotic rhetoric about some sort pseudo-tyrant EU bullying you into allowing refugees, economic migrants, or immigrants or whatever into your country; when in reality you have always had full control in regards to handling non-EU immigrants. Stop being so dense. Hopefully I'll still be here in PS to see just how post-Brexit England handles non-EU immigrants.

[thalbergmad]

I think in the final analysis it doesn't matter whether the criminal perpetrators are migrants, refugees or illegal whatevers. The fact is they've committed the crime.  Illegal immigration by definition can't be fully stopped; we can try to minimise it but little more. Criminals should feel the full force of the law and that shouldn't be coloured by their social designation.

It does matter whether the criminals were migrants , refugees or illegals. Sweden is the rape capitol of Europe and needs to protect its people and it cannot do this until it realises why.

A good explanation here [urlhttp://www.allenbwest.com/ashleyedwardson/mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-why-sweden-is-now-rape-capital-of-the-west  [/url]

Not suitable for blinkered left wing idiots.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I don't give a sh*t about your raped women or whether or not European countries should allow illegal immigrants in. I don't give a damn. You can also stop shoehorning your false-sincerity/concern about rape victims, it doesn't work on me. 

Most blinkered left wing twats couldn't care about crimes committed by illegals against their own people so your spasticated comments do not surprise me.

If a member of your family was raped by one, you might just change your tune, but you might just be to pathetic and boneheaded.

Thal