Seriously though, a lot of potentially very dodgy money seems to have gone towards a close final vote. The usual story is those millions didn't make a difference. Why do people spend them then is the basic answer?
Here's a summary of the Electoral Commission's findings.
The Electoral Commission has completed its current investigation into certain payments made to Better for the Country Limited (BFTC) and Leave.EU Group Limited (Leave.EU). These payments were for the purposes of meeting expenses incurred by BFTC (including on behalf of Leave.EU) in the 2016 EU Referendum. The Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect a number of criminal offences and have referred the matter to the National Crime Agency (NCA).
A total of £8m in funding was provided to BFTC and Leave.EU to be available for paying expenses incurred by one or other of them in the EU Referendum. This included £6m provided to Leave.EU (paid on its behalf to BFTC to use for Leave.EU’s referendum spending), and £2m provided to BFTC.
BFTC used this money to spend at least £2.9m in the regulated campaign period for the 2016 EU Referendum, either by making donations to other campaigners, or by other spending.
Leave.EU told us that Arron Banks was the only other party to the £6m loans, and that the moneys were loans from him. BFTC told us it was funded by Mr Banks and his group of insurance companies and that Mr Banks was the source for the other £2m.
Following an investigation we launched on 1 November 2017, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that:
- Mr Banks was not the true source of the £8m reported as loans - The parties to the financial transactions that led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account included a non-qualifying or impermissible company, Rock Holding Limited, which was incorporated in the Isle of Man - Leave.EU, Elizabeth Bilney (the responsible person for Leave.EU), BFTC, Mr Banks, and possibly others, concealed the true details of these financial transactions, including from us, and also did so by knowingly making statutory returns/reports which were incomplete and inaccurate, or false - Various criminal offences may have been committed
Accordingly, we have referred this matter to the NCA, for it to take forward. We will liaise with the NCA to provide whatever assistance it may require.
From the evidence we gathered, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that a number of offences may have been committed.
These relate to the financial transactions which led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account. Mr Banks and Ms Bilney (and through them BFTC and Leave.EU) gave us unsatisfactory explanations about these transactions, and we have reasonable grounds to suspect that they knowingly concealed and sought to conceal the true circumstances.
We also have reasonable grounds to suspect that a non-qualifying or impermissible person or body, Rock Holdings (incorporated in the Isle of Man), was a party to the relevant transactions.
We have reasonable grounds to suspect a number of offences under electoral law may have been committed. Further offences are not within the regulatory remit of the Commission. For those offences where we may impose civil sanctions, our sanctions are limited at £20,000.
The sums of money involved in these matters are significant. The relevant funding amounted to £8m, which included loans of £6m to Leave.EU, a registered campaigner in the EU Referendum. BFTC was loaned £2m, and put at least £2.9m into the referendum campaign.
The financial transactions we have investigated include companies incorporated in Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. These jurisdictions are beyond the reach of the Electoral Commission for the purpose of obtaining information for use in criminal investigations or proceedings.
Having considered these and other factors, the Commission, having completed its current investigation, has referred this matter to the NCA.
Here's a summary of the Electoral Commission's findings.
The Electoral Commission has completed its current investigation into certain payments made to Better for the Country Limited (BFTC) and Leave.EU Group Limited (Leave.EU). These payments were for the purposes of meeting expenses incurred by BFTC (including on behalf of Leave.EU) in the 2016 EU Referendum. The Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect a number of criminal offences and have referred the matter to the National Crime Agency (NCA).
A total of £8m in funding was provided to BFTC and Leave.EU to be available for paying expenses incurred by one or other of them in the EU Referendum. This included £6m provided to Leave.EU (paid on its behalf to BFTC to use for Leave.EU’s referendum spending), and £2m provided to BFTC.
BFTC used this money to spend at least £2.9m in the regulated campaign period for the 2016 EU Referendum, either by making donations to other campaigners, or by other spending.
Leave.EU told us that Arron Banks was the only other party to the £6m loans, and that the moneys were loans from him. BFTC told us it was funded by Mr Banks and his group of insurance companies and that Mr Banks was the source for the other £2m.
Following an investigation we launched on 1 November 2017, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that:
- Mr Banks was not the true source of the £8m reported as loans - The parties to the financial transactions that led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account included a non-qualifying or impermissible company, Rock Holding Limited, which was incorporated in the Isle of Man - Leave.EU, Elizabeth Bilney (the responsible person for Leave.EU), BFTC, Mr Banks, and possibly others, concealed the true details of these financial transactions, including from us, and also did so by knowingly making statutory returns/reports which were incomplete and inaccurate, or false - Various criminal offences may have been committed
Accordingly, we have referred this matter to the NCA, for it to take forward. We will liaise with the NCA to provide whatever assistance it may require.
From the evidence we gathered, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that a number of offences may have been committed.
These relate to the financial transactions which led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account. Mr Banks and Ms Bilney (and through them BFTC and Leave.EU) gave us unsatisfactory explanations about these transactions, and we have reasonable grounds to suspect that they knowingly concealed and sought to conceal the true circumstances.
We also have reasonable grounds to suspect that a non-qualifying or impermissible person or body, Rock Holdings (incorporated in the Isle of Man), was a party to the relevant transactions.
We have reasonable grounds to suspect a number of offences under electoral law may have been committed. Further offences are not within the regulatory remit of the Commission. For those offences where we may impose civil sanctions, our sanctions are limited at £20,000.
The sums of money involved in these matters are significant. The relevant funding amounted to £8m, which included loans of £6m to Leave.EU, a registered campaigner in the EU Referendum. BFTC was loaned £2m, and put at least £2.9m into the referendum campaign.
The financial transactions we have investigated include companies incorporated in Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. These jurisdictions are beyond the reach of the Electoral Commission for the purpose of obtaining information for use in criminal investigations or proceedings.
Having considered these and other factors, the Commission, having completed its current investigation, has referred this matter to the NCA.
Hopefully they can drag that charlatan Farage and his Russian contacts in to the mix somehow. Mind you they will probably end up appealing their case at the European Court of Human Rights.
If Brexit is all about "taking back control of our borders, laws and money" and the Brexit that is visited upon us prevents us taking back control of our borders (specifically, the Irish border; deciding whether there's a border in the Irish Sea; and the efficacy and efficiency of the Kent sea borders), laws (specifically, being tied into agreeing to abide by EU laws and regulations, without being able to help set them) and money (specifically, being required to continue paying into the EU past the Brexit date of 29 March next year, and being forced to pay additional tariffs), then that version of Brexit isn't Brexit. Empirically.
Quite. I wonder what form of brexit actually means brexit, and whether said brexit is physically possible without building a giant wall across Ireland, chiselling off Gibraltar, and blowing up the channel tunnel.
The issue seems to be the UK saying that there will be the same border as now in Ireland in the future because of the anticipated trade deal. The EU are saying what if there is no trade deal? In preparing for no deal, which we hear is going on left right and centre what with 'technical notices' and so on the UK government has no credible idea regarding that border. I mean what is the 'technical notice' regarding the Irish border in a no deal scenario? If one existed we would certainly know about it. The pound might as well fall (or rise) for whatever that matters, the finances are a minor part of brexit anyway, the more fundamental issue is that without a border there is no brexit at all because the UK will not have 'taken back control of it's borders'. Mind you those who voted for brexit knew they were voting for no brexit anyway.
Well I blindly thought that there would be some sort of border between the 2, like all the other countries that have internal borders......but silly me, I forgot we cant do that because it will upset a few people who dont respect democracy ot the rule of law.
Next time by neighbour wants to put a new fence up between us I'll just lob a few petrol bombs into his garden & put a bomb under his car....that will teach him.
The issue seems to be the UK saying that there will be the same border as now in Ireland in the future because of the anticipated trade deal. The EU are saying what if there is no trade deal? In preparing for no deal, which we hear is going on left right and centre what with 'technical notices' and so on the UK government has no credible idea regarding that border. I mean what is the 'technical notice' regarding the Irish border in a no deal scenario? If one existed we would certainly know about it. The pound might as well fall (or rise) for whatever that matters, the finances are a minor part of brexit anyway, the more fundamental issue is that without a border there is no brexit at all because the UK will not have 'taken back control of it's borders'. Mind you those who voted for brexit knew they were voting for no brexit anyway.
Well I blindly thought that there would be some sort of border between the 2, like all the other countries that have internal borders......but silly me, I forgot we cant do that because it will upset a few people who dont respect democracy ot the rule of law.
Next time by neighbour wants to put a new fence up between us I'll just lob a few petrol bombs into his garden.....that will teach him.
It must be lovely living in your own little world where decades of violence and hundreds (thousands?) or deaths can be dismissed with a pithy statement like that.
It's all so simple isn't it? If only everybody would agree with you and think exactly the same way then there wouldn't be any problems at all.
We can't have a simple border because of hundreds of years of military, political and religious strife. Mostly instigated by Britain's invasions and rule over Ireland in the past. History can't simply be dismissed and forgotten about unless you want it to repeat. I guess your attitude is typical of many remainers, who cares about the consequences or costs, you want what you want, and you want it now.
The issue seems to be the UK saying that there will be the same border as now in Ireland in the future because of the anticipated trade deal. The EU are saying what if there is no trade deal? In preparing for no deal, which we hear is going on left right and centre what with 'technical notices' and so on the UK government has no credible idea regarding that border. I mean what is the 'technical notice' regarding the Irish border in a no deal scenario? If one existed we would certainly know about it. The pound might as well fall (or rise) for whatever that matters, the finances are a minor part of brexit anyway, the more fundamental issue is that without a border there is no brexit at all because the UK will not have 'taken back control of it's borders'. Mind you those who voted for brexit knew they were voting for no brexit anyway.
Well I blindly thought that there would be some sort of border between the 2, like all the other countries that have internal borders......but silly me, I forgot we cant do that because it will upset a few people who dont respect democracy ot the rule of law.
Next time by neighbour wants to put a new fence up between us I'll just lob a few petrol bombs into his garden.....that will teach him.
It must be lovely living in your own little world where decades of violence and hundreds (thousands?) or deaths can be dismissed with a pithy statement like that.
It's all so simple isn't it? If only everybody would agree with you and think exactly the same way then there wouldn't be any problems at all.
We can't have a simple border because of hundreds of years of military, political and religious strife. Mostly instigated by Britain's invasions and rule over Ireland in the past. History can't simply be dismissed and forgotten about unless you want it to repeat. I guess your attitude is typical of many remainers, who cares about the consequences or costs, you want what you want, and you want it now.
All I want is what I was offered - to leave the EU.
If leaving the EU means that we need a border between us & them to satisfy "freedom of movement" then that is what needs to happen otherwise why was there a Referendum in the first place ?? If what you are offering can't be acheived then what's the fecking point. This is a serious question. If you, or anybody, is saying that there can never be a border between the 2 countries then there can never be Brexit. full stop. dont need to argue over trade, divorce bills or anything else.
I might as well ask my kids what they want for their tea.......chickens milk or cows eggs.
With Brexit making it a divided kingdom rather than a United Kingdom, what do people think the country will look like in the near future? Will we see it broken up into a England/Wales union with Northern Ireland and Scotland going their own way? It seems that Brexit is more likely to hasten the independence of the constituent countries far more than their independence parties were ever able to.
The issue seems to be the UK saying that there will be the same border as now in Ireland in the future because of the anticipated trade deal. The EU are saying what if there is no trade deal? In preparing for no deal, which we hear is going on left right and centre what with 'technical notices' and so on the UK government has no credible idea regarding that border. I mean what is the 'technical notice' regarding the Irish border in a no deal scenario? If one existed we would certainly know about it. The pound might as well fall (or rise) for whatever that matters, the finances are a minor part of brexit anyway, the more fundamental issue is that without a border there is no brexit at all because the UK will not have 'taken back control of it's borders'. Mind you those who voted for brexit knew they were voting for no brexit anyway.
Well I blindly thought that there would be some sort of border between the 2, like all the other countries that have internal borders......but silly me, I forgot we cant do that because it will upset a few people who dont respect democracy ot the rule of law.
Next time by neighbour wants to put a new fence up between us I'll just lob a few petrol bombs into his garden.....that will teach him.
It must be lovely living in your own little world where decades of violence and hundreds (thousands?) or deaths can be dismissed with a pithy statement like that.
It's all so simple isn't it? If only everybody would agree with you and think exactly the same way then there wouldn't be any problems at all.
We can't have a simple border because of hundreds of years of military, political and religious strife. Mostly instigated by Britain's invasions and rule over Ireland in the past. History can't simply be dismissed and forgotten about unless you want it to repeat. I guess your attitude is typical of many remainers, who cares about the consequences or costs, you want what you want, and you want it now.
Well, this being the case why was there a Referendum in the first place ?? If what you are offering can't be acheived then what's the fecking point. This is a serious question. If you, or anybody, is saying that there can never be a border between the 2 countries then there can never be Brexit. full stop. dont need to argue over trade, divorce bills or anything else.
I might as well ask my kids what they want for their tea.......chickens milk or cows eggs.
Well, you've certainly nailed the million dollar question.
The answer however is very simple, and I claim my million dollars (worth more that £1 million pounds shortly)
David Cameron is a slippery, shiny faced pork stuffer blinded by entitlement throwing a dice to appease a braying mob of self interested xenophobic charlatans, and fucked it up completely, because said charlatans acted according to type (something Hameron couldn't even anticipate) and lied their way, backstabbing all the way, to try and please themselves.
This stack of farmyard effluent is the prize they won.
Here's a summary of the Electoral Commission's findings.
The Electoral Commission has completed its current investigation into certain payments made to Better for the Country Limited (BFTC) and Leave.EU Group Limited (Leave.EU). These payments were for the purposes of meeting expenses incurred by BFTC (including on behalf of Leave.EU) in the 2016 EU Referendum. The Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect a number of criminal offences and have referred the matter to the National Crime Agency (NCA).
A total of £8m in funding was provided to BFTC and Leave.EU to be available for paying expenses incurred by one or other of them in the EU Referendum. This included £6m provided to Leave.EU (paid on its behalf to BFTC to use for Leave.EU’s referendum spending), and £2m provided to BFTC.
BFTC used this money to spend at least £2.9m in the regulated campaign period for the 2016 EU Referendum, either by making donations to other campaigners, or by other spending.
Leave.EU told us that Arron Banks was the only other party to the £6m loans, and that the moneys were loans from him. BFTC told us it was funded by Mr Banks and his group of insurance companies and that Mr Banks was the source for the other £2m.
Following an investigation we launched on 1 November 2017, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that:
- Mr Banks was not the true source of the £8m reported as loans - The parties to the financial transactions that led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account included a non-qualifying or impermissible company, Rock Holding Limited, which was incorporated in the Isle of Man - Leave.EU, Elizabeth Bilney (the responsible person for Leave.EU), BFTC, Mr Banks, and possibly others, concealed the true details of these financial transactions, including from us, and also did so by knowingly making statutory returns/reports which were incomplete and inaccurate, or false - Various criminal offences may have been committed
Accordingly, we have referred this matter to the NCA, for it to take forward. We will liaise with the NCA to provide whatever assistance it may require.
From the evidence we gathered, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that a number of offences may have been committed.
These relate to the financial transactions which led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account. Mr Banks and Ms Bilney (and through them BFTC and Leave.EU) gave us unsatisfactory explanations about these transactions, and we have reasonable grounds to suspect that they knowingly concealed and sought to conceal the true circumstances.
We also have reasonable grounds to suspect that a non-qualifying or impermissible person or body, Rock Holdings (incorporated in the Isle of Man), was a party to the relevant transactions.
We have reasonable grounds to suspect a number of offences under electoral law may have been committed. Further offences are not within the regulatory remit of the Commission. For those offences where we may impose civil sanctions, our sanctions are limited at £20,000.
The sums of money involved in these matters are significant. The relevant funding amounted to £8m, which included loans of £6m to Leave.EU, a registered campaigner in the EU Referendum. BFTC was loaned £2m, and put at least £2.9m into the referendum campaign.
The financial transactions we have investigated include companies incorporated in Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. These jurisdictions are beyond the reach of the Electoral Commission for the purpose of obtaining information for use in criminal investigations or proceedings.
Having considered these and other factors, the Commission, having completed its current investigation, has referred this matter to the NCA.
It is definitely not a witchhunt. Because the Electoral Commission is completely neutral. Except for all the Commissioners who have spoken out against Brexit.
Confirms what I have been hearing in my own talks with exporters and trade practitioners.
“74 per cent of businesses in the UK have a positive outlook on international trade.
The 17 per cent of participants who reported a negative outlook on international trade identified Brexit as their main concern, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
83 per cent of UK businesses are prepared for Brexit, focusing on reviewing contracts and checking internal policies and procedure, compared to 79 per cent in France and 75 per cent in Germany.
UK companies are polarised on Brexit, as 40 per cent view it as a positive, 31 per cent as negative and 22 per cent predict it will have no impact.
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) study has indicated that UK private sector growth was steady in the three months to October, driven by healthy growth in the business and professional services sector, as well as distribution.”
Here's a summary of the Electoral Commission's findings.
The Electoral Commission has completed its current investigation into certain payments made to Better for the Country Limited (BFTC) and Leave.EU Group Limited (Leave.EU). These payments were for the purposes of meeting expenses incurred by BFTC (including on behalf of Leave.EU) in the 2016 EU Referendum. The Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect a number of criminal offences and have referred the matter to the National Crime Agency (NCA).
A total of £8m in funding was provided to BFTC and Leave.EU to be available for paying expenses incurred by one or other of them in the EU Referendum. This included £6m provided to Leave.EU (paid on its behalf to BFTC to use for Leave.EU’s referendum spending), and £2m provided to BFTC.
BFTC used this money to spend at least £2.9m in the regulated campaign period for the 2016 EU Referendum, either by making donations to other campaigners, or by other spending.
Leave.EU told us that Arron Banks was the only other party to the £6m loans, and that the moneys were loans from him. BFTC told us it was funded by Mr Banks and his group of insurance companies and that Mr Banks was the source for the other £2m.
Following an investigation we launched on 1 November 2017, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that:
- Mr Banks was not the true source of the £8m reported as loans - The parties to the financial transactions that led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account included a non-qualifying or impermissible company, Rock Holding Limited, which was incorporated in the Isle of Man - Leave.EU, Elizabeth Bilney (the responsible person for Leave.EU), BFTC, Mr Banks, and possibly others, concealed the true details of these financial transactions, including from us, and also did so by knowingly making statutory returns/reports which were incomplete and inaccurate, or false - Various criminal offences may have been committed
Accordingly, we have referred this matter to the NCA, for it to take forward. We will liaise with the NCA to provide whatever assistance it may require.
From the evidence we gathered, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that a number of offences may have been committed.
These relate to the financial transactions which led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account. Mr Banks and Ms Bilney (and through them BFTC and Leave.EU) gave us unsatisfactory explanations about these transactions, and we have reasonable grounds to suspect that they knowingly concealed and sought to conceal the true circumstances.
We also have reasonable grounds to suspect that a non-qualifying or impermissible person or body, Rock Holdings (incorporated in the Isle of Man), was a party to the relevant transactions.
We have reasonable grounds to suspect a number of offences under electoral law may have been committed. Further offences are not within the regulatory remit of the Commission. For those offences where we may impose civil sanctions, our sanctions are limited at £20,000.
The sums of money involved in these matters are significant. The relevant funding amounted to £8m, which included loans of £6m to Leave.EU, a registered campaigner in the EU Referendum. BFTC was loaned £2m, and put at least £2.9m into the referendum campaign.
The financial transactions we have investigated include companies incorporated in Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. These jurisdictions are beyond the reach of the Electoral Commission for the purpose of obtaining information for use in criminal investigations or proceedings.
Having considered these and other factors, the Commission, having completed its current investigation, has referred this matter to the NCA.
It is definitely not a witchhunt. Because the Electoral Commission is completely neutral. Except for all the Commissioners who have spoken out against Brexit.
Do you expect the National Crime Agency to be in on this witch hunt?
With Brexit making it a divided kingdom rather than a United Kingdom, what do people think the country will look like in the near future? Will we see it broken up into a England/Wales union with Northern Ireland and Scotland going their own way? It seems that Brexit is more likely to hasten the independence of the constituent countries far more than their independence parties were ever able to.
I don’t know much about NI (actually, I don’t know much about anything), but the SNP’s conundrum is that, despite Scotland voting overwhelmingly to remain (70% or something like that) and despite Brexit looking overwhelmingly like a disaster, support for independence hasn’t really moved up the scale much.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Sturgeon et al might actually want a hard Brexit/cliff edge scenario as a “soft” Brexit probably won’t do much for the independence cause.
I think Scottish independence is still pretty unlikely any time soon, but it’s maybe a bit more likely than in May 2016.
Here's a summary of the Electoral Commission's findings.
The Electoral Commission has completed its current investigation into certain payments made to Better for the Country Limited (BFTC) and Leave.EU Group Limited (Leave.EU). These payments were for the purposes of meeting expenses incurred by BFTC (including on behalf of Leave.EU) in the 2016 EU Referendum. The Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect a number of criminal offences and have referred the matter to the National Crime Agency (NCA).
A total of £8m in funding was provided to BFTC and Leave.EU to be available for paying expenses incurred by one or other of them in the EU Referendum. This included £6m provided to Leave.EU (paid on its behalf to BFTC to use for Leave.EU’s referendum spending), and £2m provided to BFTC.
BFTC used this money to spend at least £2.9m in the regulated campaign period for the 2016 EU Referendum, either by making donations to other campaigners, or by other spending.
Leave.EU told us that Arron Banks was the only other party to the £6m loans, and that the moneys were loans from him. BFTC told us it was funded by Mr Banks and his group of insurance companies and that Mr Banks was the source for the other £2m.
Following an investigation we launched on 1 November 2017, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that:
- Mr Banks was not the true source of the £8m reported as loans - The parties to the financial transactions that led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account included a non-qualifying or impermissible company, Rock Holding Limited, which was incorporated in the Isle of Man - Leave.EU, Elizabeth Bilney (the responsible person for Leave.EU), BFTC, Mr Banks, and possibly others, concealed the true details of these financial transactions, including from us, and also did so by knowingly making statutory returns/reports which were incomplete and inaccurate, or false - Various criminal offences may have been committed
Accordingly, we have referred this matter to the NCA, for it to take forward. We will liaise with the NCA to provide whatever assistance it may require.
From the evidence we gathered, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that a number of offences may have been committed.
These relate to the financial transactions which led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account. Mr Banks and Ms Bilney (and through them BFTC and Leave.EU) gave us unsatisfactory explanations about these transactions, and we have reasonable grounds to suspect that they knowingly concealed and sought to conceal the true circumstances.
We also have reasonable grounds to suspect that a non-qualifying or impermissible person or body, Rock Holdings (incorporated in the Isle of Man), was a party to the relevant transactions.
We have reasonable grounds to suspect a number of offences under electoral law may have been committed. Further offences are not within the regulatory remit of the Commission. For those offences where we may impose civil sanctions, our sanctions are limited at £20,000.
The sums of money involved in these matters are significant. The relevant funding amounted to £8m, which included loans of £6m to Leave.EU, a registered campaigner in the EU Referendum. BFTC was loaned £2m, and put at least £2.9m into the referendum campaign.
The financial transactions we have investigated include companies incorporated in Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. These jurisdictions are beyond the reach of the Electoral Commission for the purpose of obtaining information for use in criminal investigations or proceedings.
Having considered these and other factors, the Commission, having completed its current investigation, has referred this matter to the NCA.
It is definitely not a witchhunt. Because the Electoral Commission is completely neutral. Except for all the Commissioners who have spoken out against Brexit.
Do you expect the National Crime Agency to be in on this witch hunt?
Nothing would surprise me given the polarised state of the country.
The issue seems to be the UK saying that there will be the same border as now in Ireland in the future because of the anticipated trade deal. The EU are saying what if there is no trade deal? In preparing for no deal, which we hear is going on left right and centre what with 'technical notices' and so on the UK government has no credible idea regarding that border. I mean what is the 'technical notice' regarding the Irish border in a no deal scenario? If one existed we would certainly know about it. The pound might as well fall (or rise) for whatever that matters, the finances are a minor part of brexit anyway, the more fundamental issue is that without a border there is no brexit at all because the UK will not have 'taken back control of it's borders'. Mind you those who voted for brexit knew they were voting for no brexit anyway.
Well I blindly thought that there would be some sort of border between the 2, like all the other countries that have internal borders......but silly me, I forgot we cant do that because it will upset a few people who dont respect democracy ot the rule of law.
Next time by neighbour wants to put a new fence up between us I'll just lob a few petrol bombs into his garden & put a bomb under his car....that will teach him.
Or upset a few people who respect an international treaty freely entered into by the UK? Does the Good Friday Agreement trump Brexit, or does Brexit trump the Good Friday Agreement? If it does, then the detailed practical day to day solutions for the new hard border needs to be wheeled out. Any suggestions?
Confirms what I have been hearing in my own talks with exporters and trade practitioners.
“74 per cent of businesses in the UK have a positive outlook on international trade.
The 17 per cent of participants who reported a negative outlook on international trade identified Brexit as their main concern, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
83 per cent of UK businesses are prepared for Brexit, focusing on reviewing contracts and checking internal policies and procedure, compared to 79 per cent in France and 75 per cent in Germany.
UK companies are polarised on Brexit, as 40 per cent view it as a positive, 31 per cent as negative and 22 per cent predict it will have no impact.
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) study has indicated that UK private sector growth was steady in the three months to October, driven by healthy growth in the business and professional services sector, as well as distribution.”
Good to read. I work mainly with global corporations, and they can probably deal with most of what gets thrown at them, but it's mainly the uncertainty that is causing problems. Once we know what the Dickens is actually going to happen, people will be better equipped to carry on.
A lot of investment is being deferred, so there may even be a boost if we get a deal
Here's a summary of the Electoral Commission's findings.
The Electoral Commission has completed its current investigation into certain payments made to Better for the Country Limited (BFTC) and Leave.EU Group Limited (Leave.EU). These payments were for the purposes of meeting expenses incurred by BFTC (including on behalf of Leave.EU) in the 2016 EU Referendum. The Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect a number of criminal offences and have referred the matter to the National Crime Agency (NCA).
A total of £8m in funding was provided to BFTC and Leave.EU to be available for paying expenses incurred by one or other of them in the EU Referendum. This included £6m provided to Leave.EU (paid on its behalf to BFTC to use for Leave.EU’s referendum spending), and £2m provided to BFTC.
BFTC used this money to spend at least £2.9m in the regulated campaign period for the 2016 EU Referendum, either by making donations to other campaigners, or by other spending.
Leave.EU told us that Arron Banks was the only other party to the £6m loans, and that the moneys were loans from him. BFTC told us it was funded by Mr Banks and his group of insurance companies and that Mr Banks was the source for the other £2m.
Following an investigation we launched on 1 November 2017, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that:
- Mr Banks was not the true source of the £8m reported as loans - The parties to the financial transactions that led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account included a non-qualifying or impermissible company, Rock Holding Limited, which was incorporated in the Isle of Man - Leave.EU, Elizabeth Bilney (the responsible person for Leave.EU), BFTC, Mr Banks, and possibly others, concealed the true details of these financial transactions, including from us, and also did so by knowingly making statutory returns/reports which were incomplete and inaccurate, or false - Various criminal offences may have been committed
Accordingly, we have referred this matter to the NCA, for it to take forward. We will liaise with the NCA to provide whatever assistance it may require.
From the evidence we gathered, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that a number of offences may have been committed.
These relate to the financial transactions which led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account. Mr Banks and Ms Bilney (and through them BFTC and Leave.EU) gave us unsatisfactory explanations about these transactions, and we have reasonable grounds to suspect that they knowingly concealed and sought to conceal the true circumstances.
We also have reasonable grounds to suspect that a non-qualifying or impermissible person or body, Rock Holdings (incorporated in the Isle of Man), was a party to the relevant transactions.
We have reasonable grounds to suspect a number of offences under electoral law may have been committed. Further offences are not within the regulatory remit of the Commission. For those offences where we may impose civil sanctions, our sanctions are limited at £20,000.
The sums of money involved in these matters are significant. The relevant funding amounted to £8m, which included loans of £6m to Leave.EU, a registered campaigner in the EU Referendum. BFTC was loaned £2m, and put at least £2.9m into the referendum campaign.
The financial transactions we have investigated include companies incorporated in Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. These jurisdictions are beyond the reach of the Electoral Commission for the purpose of obtaining information for use in criminal investigations or proceedings.
Having considered these and other factors, the Commission, having completed its current investigation, has referred this matter to the NCA.
It is definitely not a witchhunt. Because the Electoral Commission is completely neutral. Except for all the Commissioners who have spoken out against Brexit.
Do you expect the National Crime Agency to be in on this witch hunt?
Nothing would surprise me given the polarised state of the country.
You really are quite Trump-like on the quiet, aren't you, @Southbank. Everything you don't like hearing becomes fake news, everything that goes against you and your worldview is some giant conspiracy. Perhaps I should have dumped you in the alt.right dustbin after all.
are you really defending that fat stinking pile of turd Aaron Banks? Really?
Here's a summary of the Electoral Commission's findings.
The Electoral Commission has completed its current investigation into certain payments made to Better for the Country Limited (BFTC) and Leave.EU Group Limited (Leave.EU). These payments were for the purposes of meeting expenses incurred by BFTC (including on behalf of Leave.EU) in the 2016 EU Referendum. The Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect a number of criminal offences and have referred the matter to the National Crime Agency (NCA).
A total of £8m in funding was provided to BFTC and Leave.EU to be available for paying expenses incurred by one or other of them in the EU Referendum. This included £6m provided to Leave.EU (paid on its behalf to BFTC to use for Leave.EU’s referendum spending), and £2m provided to BFTC.
BFTC used this money to spend at least £2.9m in the regulated campaign period for the 2016 EU Referendum, either by making donations to other campaigners, or by other spending.
Leave.EU told us that Arron Banks was the only other party to the £6m loans, and that the moneys were loans from him. BFTC told us it was funded by Mr Banks and his group of insurance companies and that Mr Banks was the source for the other £2m.
Following an investigation we launched on 1 November 2017, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that:
- Mr Banks was not the true source of the £8m reported as loans - The parties to the financial transactions that led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account included a non-qualifying or impermissible company, Rock Holding Limited, which was incorporated in the Isle of Man - Leave.EU, Elizabeth Bilney (the responsible person for Leave.EU), BFTC, Mr Banks, and possibly others, concealed the true details of these financial transactions, including from us, and also did so by knowingly making statutory returns/reports which were incomplete and inaccurate, or false - Various criminal offences may have been committed
Accordingly, we have referred this matter to the NCA, for it to take forward. We will liaise with the NCA to provide whatever assistance it may require.
From the evidence we gathered, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that a number of offences may have been committed.
These relate to the financial transactions which led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account. Mr Banks and Ms Bilney (and through them BFTC and Leave.EU) gave us unsatisfactory explanations about these transactions, and we have reasonable grounds to suspect that they knowingly concealed and sought to conceal the true circumstances.
We also have reasonable grounds to suspect that a non-qualifying or impermissible person or body, Rock Holdings (incorporated in the Isle of Man), was a party to the relevant transactions.
We have reasonable grounds to suspect a number of offences under electoral law may have been committed. Further offences are not within the regulatory remit of the Commission. For those offences where we may impose civil sanctions, our sanctions are limited at £20,000.
The sums of money involved in these matters are significant. The relevant funding amounted to £8m, which included loans of £6m to Leave.EU, a registered campaigner in the EU Referendum. BFTC was loaned £2m, and put at least £2.9m into the referendum campaign.
The financial transactions we have investigated include companies incorporated in Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. These jurisdictions are beyond the reach of the Electoral Commission for the purpose of obtaining information for use in criminal investigations or proceedings.
Having considered these and other factors, the Commission, having completed its current investigation, has referred this matter to the NCA.
It is definitely not a witchhunt. Because the Electoral Commission is completely neutral. Except for all the Commissioners who have spoken out against Brexit.
Do you expect the National Crime Agency to be in on this witch hunt?
Nothing would surprise me given the polarised state of the country.
You really are quite Trump-like on the quiet, aren't you, @Southbank. Everything you don't like hearing becomes fake news, everything that goes against you and your worldview is some giant conspiracy. Perhaps I should have dumped you in the alt.right dustbin after all.
are you really defending that fat stinking pile of turd Aaron Banks? Really?
Aaron Banks is even more revolting than Nigel Farage - can we export them both to the US?
Here's a summary of the Electoral Commission's findings.
The Electoral Commission has completed its current investigation into certain payments made to Better for the Country Limited (BFTC) and Leave.EU Group Limited (Leave.EU). These payments were for the purposes of meeting expenses incurred by BFTC (including on behalf of Leave.EU) in the 2016 EU Referendum. The Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect a number of criminal offences and have referred the matter to the National Crime Agency (NCA).
A total of £8m in funding was provided to BFTC and Leave.EU to be available for paying expenses incurred by one or other of them in the EU Referendum. This included £6m provided to Leave.EU (paid on its behalf to BFTC to use for Leave.EU’s referendum spending), and £2m provided to BFTC.
BFTC used this money to spend at least £2.9m in the regulated campaign period for the 2016 EU Referendum, either by making donations to other campaigners, or by other spending.
Leave.EU told us that Arron Banks was the only other party to the £6m loans, and that the moneys were loans from him. BFTC told us it was funded by Mr Banks and his group of insurance companies and that Mr Banks was the source for the other £2m.
Following an investigation we launched on 1 November 2017, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that:
- Mr Banks was not the true source of the £8m reported as loans - The parties to the financial transactions that led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account included a non-qualifying or impermissible company, Rock Holding Limited, which was incorporated in the Isle of Man - Leave.EU, Elizabeth Bilney (the responsible person for Leave.EU), BFTC, Mr Banks, and possibly others, concealed the true details of these financial transactions, including from us, and also did so by knowingly making statutory returns/reports which were incomplete and inaccurate, or false - Various criminal offences may have been committed
Accordingly, we have referred this matter to the NCA, for it to take forward. We will liaise with the NCA to provide whatever assistance it may require.
From the evidence we gathered, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that a number of offences may have been committed.
These relate to the financial transactions which led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account. Mr Banks and Ms Bilney (and through them BFTC and Leave.EU) gave us unsatisfactory explanations about these transactions, and we have reasonable grounds to suspect that they knowingly concealed and sought to conceal the true circumstances.
We also have reasonable grounds to suspect that a non-qualifying or impermissible person or body, Rock Holdings (incorporated in the Isle of Man), was a party to the relevant transactions.
We have reasonable grounds to suspect a number of offences under electoral law may have been committed. Further offences are not within the regulatory remit of the Commission. For those offences where we may impose civil sanctions, our sanctions are limited at £20,000.
The sums of money involved in these matters are significant. The relevant funding amounted to £8m, which included loans of £6m to Leave.EU, a registered campaigner in the EU Referendum. BFTC was loaned £2m, and put at least £2.9m into the referendum campaign.
The financial transactions we have investigated include companies incorporated in Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. These jurisdictions are beyond the reach of the Electoral Commission for the purpose of obtaining information for use in criminal investigations or proceedings.
Having considered these and other factors, the Commission, having completed its current investigation, has referred this matter to the NCA.
It is definitely not a witchhunt. Because the Electoral Commission is completely neutral. Except for all the Commissioners who have spoken out against Brexit.
Do you expect the National Crime Agency to be in on this witch hunt?
Nothing would surprise me given the polarised state of the country.
You really are quite Trump-like on the quiet, aren't you, @Southbank. Everything you don't like hearing becomes fake news, everything that goes against you and your worldview is some giant conspiracy. Perhaps I should have dumped you in the alt.right dustbin after all.
are you really defending that fat stinking pile of turd Aaron Banks? Really?
Aaron Banks is even more revolting than Nigel Farage - can we export them both to the US?
Here's a summary of the Electoral Commission's findings.
The Electoral Commission has completed its current investigation into certain payments made to Better for the Country Limited (BFTC) and Leave.EU Group Limited (Leave.EU). These payments were for the purposes of meeting expenses incurred by BFTC (including on behalf of Leave.EU) in the 2016 EU Referendum. The Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect a number of criminal offences and have referred the matter to the National Crime Agency (NCA).
A total of £8m in funding was provided to BFTC and Leave.EU to be available for paying expenses incurred by one or other of them in the EU Referendum. This included £6m provided to Leave.EU (paid on its behalf to BFTC to use for Leave.EU’s referendum spending), and £2m provided to BFTC.
BFTC used this money to spend at least £2.9m in the regulated campaign period for the 2016 EU Referendum, either by making donations to other campaigners, or by other spending.
Leave.EU told us that Arron Banks was the only other party to the £6m loans, and that the moneys were loans from him. BFTC told us it was funded by Mr Banks and his group of insurance companies and that Mr Banks was the source for the other £2m.
Following an investigation we launched on 1 November 2017, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that:
- Mr Banks was not the true source of the £8m reported as loans - The parties to the financial transactions that led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account included a non-qualifying or impermissible company, Rock Holding Limited, which was incorporated in the Isle of Man - Leave.EU, Elizabeth Bilney (the responsible person for Leave.EU), BFTC, Mr Banks, and possibly others, concealed the true details of these financial transactions, including from us, and also did so by knowingly making statutory returns/reports which were incomplete and inaccurate, or false - Various criminal offences may have been committed
Accordingly, we have referred this matter to the NCA, for it to take forward. We will liaise with the NCA to provide whatever assistance it may require.
From the evidence we gathered, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that a number of offences may have been committed.
These relate to the financial transactions which led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account. Mr Banks and Ms Bilney (and through them BFTC and Leave.EU) gave us unsatisfactory explanations about these transactions, and we have reasonable grounds to suspect that they knowingly concealed and sought to conceal the true circumstances.
We also have reasonable grounds to suspect that a non-qualifying or impermissible person or body, Rock Holdings (incorporated in the Isle of Man), was a party to the relevant transactions.
We have reasonable grounds to suspect a number of offences under electoral law may have been committed. Further offences are not within the regulatory remit of the Commission. For those offences where we may impose civil sanctions, our sanctions are limited at £20,000.
The sums of money involved in these matters are significant. The relevant funding amounted to £8m, which included loans of £6m to Leave.EU, a registered campaigner in the EU Referendum. BFTC was loaned £2m, and put at least £2.9m into the referendum campaign.
The financial transactions we have investigated include companies incorporated in Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. These jurisdictions are beyond the reach of the Electoral Commission for the purpose of obtaining information for use in criminal investigations or proceedings.
Having considered these and other factors, the Commission, having completed its current investigation, has referred this matter to the NCA.
It is definitely not a witchhunt. Because the Electoral Commission is completely neutral. Except for all the Commissioners who have spoken out against Brexit.
Do you expect the National Crime Agency to be in on this witch hunt?
Nothing would surprise me given the polarised state of the country.
You really are quite Trump-like on the quiet, aren't you, @Southbank. Everything you don't like hearing becomes fake news, everything that goes against you and your worldview is some giant conspiracy. Perhaps I should have dumped you in the alt.right dustbin after all.
are you really defending that fat stinking pile of turd Aaron Banks? Really?
Aaron Banks is even more revolting than Nigel Farage - can we export them both to the US?
It's funny, because he's on-air at the moment. Hosting a call-in. About the investigation of criminals. And which alleged crimes should be prioritised...
Confirms what I have been hearing in my own talks with exporters and trade practitioners.
“74 per cent of businesses in the UK have a positive outlook on international trade.
The 17 per cent of participants who reported a negative outlook on international trade identified Brexit as their main concern, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
83 per cent of UK businesses are prepared for Brexit, focusing on reviewing contracts and checking internal policies and procedure, compared to 79 per cent in France and 75 per cent in Germany.
UK companies are polarised on Brexit, as 40 per cent view it as a positive, 31 per cent as negative and 22 per cent predict it will have no impact.
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) study has indicated that UK private sector growth was steady in the three months to October, driven by healthy growth in the business and professional services sector, as well as distribution.”
Completely irrelevant unless they beak down and weigh the results according to how many jobs the reporting companies provide and what percentage of UK GDP they represent.
I have not read or heard, over recent days, any of the leaders of the UK’s largest manufacturing industries reporting that actually, “we were wrong”, and Brexit is not a threat to our “just in time production processes” and we are now confident Brexit will be a roaring success and we will not have to move jobs and production to the EU. Maybe they did report that and I missed it?
The issue seems to be the UK saying that there will be the same border as now in Ireland in the future because of the anticipated trade deal. The EU are saying what if there is no trade deal? In preparing for no deal, which we hear is going on left right and centre what with 'technical notices' and so on the UK government has no credible idea regarding that border. I mean what is the 'technical notice' regarding the Irish border in a no deal scenario? If one existed we would certainly know about it. The pound might as well fall (or rise) for whatever that matters, the finances are a minor part of brexit anyway, the more fundamental issue is that without a border there is no brexit at all because the UK will not have 'taken back control of it's borders'. Mind you those who voted for brexit knew they were voting for no brexit anyway.
Well I blindly thought that there would be some sort of border between the 2, like all the other countries that have internal borders......but silly me, I forgot we cant do that because it will upset a few people who dont respect democracy ot the rule of law.
Next time by neighbour wants to put a new fence up between us I'll just lob a few petrol bombs into his garden.....that will teach him.
It must be lovely living in your own little world where decades of violence and hundreds (thousands?) or deaths can be dismissed with a pithy statement like that.
It's all so simple isn't it? If only everybody would agree with you and think exactly the same way then there wouldn't be any problems at all.
We can't have a simple border because of hundreds of years of military, political and religious strife. Mostly instigated by Britain's invasions and rule over Ireland in the past. History can't simply be dismissed and forgotten about unless you want it to repeat. I guess your attitude is typical of many remainers, who cares about the consequences or costs, you want what you want, and you want it now.
All I want is what I was offered - to leave the EU.
If leaving the EU means that we need a border between us & them to satisfy "freedom of movement" then that is what needs to happen otherwise why was there a Referendum in the first place ?? If what you are offering can't be acheived then what's the fecking point. This is a serious question. If you, or anybody, is saying that there can never be a border between the 2 countries then there can never be Brexit. full stop. dont need to argue over trade, divorce bills or anything else.
I might as well ask my kids what they want for their tea.......chickens milk or cows eggs.
If only those arguing for a leave vote in 2016 had made clear that taking back control would mean the reintroduction of border controls...
The problem with your argument (other than that needing a border doesn't "satisfy" freedom of movement, as opposed to frustrating it) is that the UK Government has, from the outset stated that it would ensure that there would be no change to the position of the border in Ireland, as part of Theresa May's mutually incompatible prospectus for Brexit.
It is the continuing inability to magick up an impossible solution, one that will respect the "Will of the People" (in this case a particular version trademarked by ERG, N Farage, B Johnson, et al), the UK's international obligations and the Government's oft-reiterated commitments, that undermines the possibility of a coherent Brexit and future trade deal being negotiated.
I don't want to suggest that the Government is the prisoner of malign forces, but...
Talk to businesses in Northern Ireland, and most will argue that the backstop offer from the EU (effectively making the 6 Counties an EU Free-Trade zone, and a natural destination for inward investment) is just about the best possible outcome for the economy. The EU27 backstop is for regulatory checks, many of which already happen between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, to be extended, not to take Northern Ireland out of the UK. If I was a Brexiteer, I'd bite their arm off.
There can certainly be a border put in place, but reinstating border controls will have consequences, not least because that will mean crashing out without a Brexit deal and the damage that such a failure to agree a deal with its closest economic allies will have for the perception of the UK's ability to negotiate in good faith in trade matters.
The possibility of violence is there, at least according to the PSNI, and it should not be ignored, but that is not the only damage to the UK that would be likely with the reintroduction of border controls.
Confirms what I have been hearing in my own talks with exporters and trade practitioners.
“74 per cent of businesses in the UK have a positive outlook on international trade.
The 17 per cent of participants who reported a negative outlook on international trade identified Brexit as their main concern, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
83 per cent of UK businesses are prepared for Brexit, focusing on reviewing contracts and checking internal policies and procedure, compared to 79 per cent in France and 75 per cent in Germany.
UK companies are polarised on Brexit, as 40 per cent view it as a positive, 31 per cent as negative and 22 per cent predict it will have no impact.
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) study has indicated that UK private sector growth was steady in the three months to October, driven by healthy growth in the business and professional services sector, as well as distribution.”
Completely irrelevant unless they beak down and weigh the results according to how many jobs the reporting companies provide and what percentage of UK GDP they represent.
I have not read or heard, over recent days, any of the leaders of the UK’s largest manufacturing industries reporting that actually, “we were wrong”, and Brexit is not a threat to our “just in time production processes” and we are now confident Brexit will be a roaring success and we will not have to move jobs and production to the EU. Maybe they did report that and I missed it?
So you believe experts when they agree with you but not when they dont? I thought that’s what Brexiteers apparently did?
Neither HSBC nor the CBI good enough for you then?
Comments
The Electoral Commission has completed its current investigation into certain payments made to Better for the Country Limited (BFTC) and Leave.EU Group Limited (Leave.EU). These payments were for the purposes of meeting expenses incurred by BFTC (including on behalf of Leave.EU) in the 2016 EU Referendum. The Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect a number of criminal offences and have referred the matter to the National Crime Agency (NCA).
A total of £8m in funding was provided to BFTC and Leave.EU to be available for paying expenses incurred by one or other of them in the EU Referendum. This included £6m provided to Leave.EU (paid on its behalf to BFTC to use for Leave.EU’s referendum spending), and £2m provided to BFTC.
BFTC used this money to spend at least £2.9m in the regulated campaign period for the 2016 EU Referendum, either by making donations to other campaigners, or by other spending.
Leave.EU told us that Arron Banks was the only other party to the £6m loans, and that the moneys were loans from him. BFTC told us it was funded by Mr Banks and his group of insurance companies and that Mr Banks was the source for the other £2m.
Following an investigation we launched on 1 November 2017, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that:
- Mr Banks was not the true source of the £8m reported as loans
- The parties to the financial transactions that led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account included a non-qualifying or impermissible company, Rock Holding Limited, which was incorporated in the Isle of Man
- Leave.EU, Elizabeth Bilney (the responsible person for Leave.EU), BFTC, Mr Banks, and possibly others, concealed the true details of these financial transactions, including from us, and also did so by knowingly making statutory returns/reports which were incomplete and inaccurate, or false
- Various criminal offences may have been committed
Accordingly, we have referred this matter to the NCA, for it to take forward. We will liaise with the NCA to provide whatever assistance it may require.
From the evidence we gathered, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that a number of offences may have been committed.
These relate to the financial transactions which led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account. Mr Banks and Ms Bilney (and through them BFTC and Leave.EU) gave us unsatisfactory explanations about these transactions, and we have reasonable grounds to suspect that they knowingly concealed and sought to conceal the true circumstances.
We also have reasonable grounds to suspect that a non-qualifying or impermissible person or body, Rock Holdings (incorporated in the Isle of Man), was a party to the relevant transactions.
We have reasonable grounds to suspect a number of offences under electoral law may have been committed. Further offences are not within the regulatory remit of the Commission. For those offences where we may impose civil sanctions, our sanctions are limited at £20,000.
The sums of money involved in these matters are significant. The relevant funding amounted to £8m, which included loans of £6m to Leave.EU, a registered campaigner in the EU Referendum. BFTC was loaned £2m, and put at least £2.9m into the referendum campaign.
The financial transactions we have investigated include companies incorporated in Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. These jurisdictions are beyond the reach of the Electoral Commission for the purpose of obtaining information for use in criminal investigations or proceedings.
Having considered these and other factors, the Commission, having completed its current investigation, has referred this matter to the NCA.
Apropos of nothing in the news today of course.
We won
You lost
Get over it.
I'm sure Putin must have been involved.
Next time by neighbour wants to put a new fence up between us I'll just lob a few petrol bombs into his garden & put a bomb under his car....that will teach him.
It's all so simple isn't it? If only everybody would agree with you and think exactly the same way then there wouldn't be any problems at all.
We can't have a simple border because of hundreds of years of military, political and religious strife. Mostly instigated by Britain's invasions and rule over Ireland in the past. History can't simply be dismissed and forgotten about unless you want it to repeat. I guess your attitude is typical of many remainers, who cares about the consequences or costs, you want what you want, and you want it now.
If leaving the EU means that we need a border between us & them to satisfy "freedom of movement" then that is what needs to happen otherwise why was there a Referendum in the first place ?? If what you are offering can't be acheived then what's the fecking point. This is a serious question. If you, or anybody, is saying that there can never be a border between the 2 countries then there can never be Brexit. full stop. dont need to argue over trade, divorce bills or anything else.
I might as well ask my kids what they want for their tea.......chickens milk or cows eggs.
The answer however is very simple, and I claim my million dollars (worth more that £1 million pounds shortly)
David Cameron is a slippery, shiny faced pork stuffer blinded by entitlement throwing a dice to appease a braying mob of self interested xenophobic charlatans, and fucked it up completely, because said charlatans acted according to type (something Hameron couldn't even anticipate) and lied their way, backstabbing all the way, to try and please themselves.
This stack of farmyard effluent is the prize they won.
“74 per cent of businesses in the UK have a positive outlook on international trade.
The 17 per cent of participants who reported a negative outlook on international trade identified Brexit as their main concern, followed by exchange rates and tariffs.
83 per cent of UK businesses are prepared for Brexit, focusing on reviewing contracts and checking internal policies and procedure, compared to 79 per cent in France and 75 per cent in Germany.
UK companies are polarised on Brexit, as 40 per cent view it as a positive, 31 per cent as negative and 22 per cent predict it will have no impact.
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) study has indicated that UK private sector growth was steady in the three months to October, driven by healthy growth in the business and professional services sector, as well as distribution.”
https://google.co.uk/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/business/companies/financial/brexit-has-not-dampened-uk-s-international-trade-confidence-says-hsbc-report-1-4822608/amp
I wouldn’t be surprised if Sturgeon et al might actually want a hard Brexit/cliff edge scenario as a “soft” Brexit probably won’t do much for the independence cause.
I think Scottish independence is still pretty unlikely any time soon, but it’s maybe a bit more likely than in May 2016.
Does the Good Friday Agreement trump Brexit, or does Brexit trump the Good Friday Agreement?
If it does, then the detailed practical day to day solutions for the new hard border needs to be wheeled out.
Any suggestions?
A lot of investment is being deferred, so there may even be a boost if we get a deal
are you really defending that fat stinking pile of turd Aaron Banks? Really?
I have not read or heard, over recent days, any of the leaders of the UK’s largest manufacturing industries reporting that actually, “we were wrong”, and Brexit is not a threat to our “just in time production processes” and we are now confident Brexit will be a roaring success and we will not have to move jobs and production to the EU. Maybe they did report that and I missed it?
The problem with your argument (other than that needing a border doesn't "satisfy" freedom of movement, as opposed to frustrating it) is that the UK Government has, from the outset stated that it would ensure that there would be no change to the position of the border in Ireland, as part of Theresa May's mutually incompatible prospectus for Brexit.
It is the continuing inability to magick up an impossible solution, one that will respect the "Will of the People" (in this case a particular version trademarked by ERG, N Farage, B Johnson, et al), the UK's international obligations and the Government's oft-reiterated commitments, that undermines the possibility of a coherent Brexit and future trade deal being negotiated.
I don't want to suggest that the Government is the prisoner of malign forces, but...
Talk to businesses in Northern Ireland, and most will argue that the backstop offer from the EU (effectively making the 6 Counties an EU Free-Trade zone, and a natural destination for inward investment) is just about the best possible outcome for the economy. The EU27 backstop is for regulatory checks, many of which already happen between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, to be extended, not to take Northern Ireland out of the UK. If I was a Brexiteer, I'd bite their arm off.
There can certainly be a border put in place, but reinstating border controls will have consequences, not least because that will mean crashing out without a Brexit deal and the damage that such a failure to agree a deal with its closest economic allies will have for the perception of the UK's ability to negotiate in good faith in trade matters.
The possibility of violence is there, at least according to the PSNI, and it should not be ignored, but that is not the only damage to the UK that would be likely with the reintroduction of border controls.
Neither HSBC nor the CBI good enough for you then?