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?
Erm, Not according to the experts at Jaguar Land Rover
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?
I believe the people who actually run our major manufacturing companies and actually make investment decisions affecting substantial numbers of jobs in the UK.
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?
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book. By chance, if you remainders got your "people vote" and one of the questions was "by leaving the EU we would have to put a border between the UK & the EU....do you vote Yes or No" what would say the outcome should be if the majority agreed ? Just say, sorry can't do it because 2 Governments signed an agreement 20 years ago that to stop people killing each other we'd just leave an open border for ever & if we ever decide to change the terms of that agreement then someone could put a bomb in a pub & kill hundreds of people.
As I said a few weeks ago that the IRA have won......yes, it was a flippant remark, and I back tracked and said that the terrorists have won. Care to disagree ?? because all I'm hearing is that a border can not be put up because of the GFA. Times change & situations change.......otherwise we'd still have an Empire.
Unfortunately the report you quote is from the Scotsman, and I really can't be arsed to turn off my ad blocker for them. But I would be curious to know in order to consider calmly @Red_in_SE8 valid point, what the sample was, which research company did the work and whether there were any external partners funding the research. Just, like, part of my usual diligence arising from professional market research training.
I did Google to see whether any other news outlet carries the report. None that I found. Curiously, I did find that HSBC did another survey which was terribly Brexit-positive in April, carried with some fanfare by the Express.
It is then quite difficult to square with the other eye-catching stories that jump out from page 1 of my Google research...that HSBC itself, as a business, is not very positive about Brexit at all. It is "preparing for Brexit" by jumping ship...
Oh well, we will soon find out, won't we. Only 148 days to go. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
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?
I think that leaving the EU will cause some short term economic problems. I think that our political class is mainly useless. I do not like Banks, Farage or Johnson ( I have some regard for Gove because his educational reforms improved my children's education).
I also know that politically motivated prosecutions are entirely possible and that our country is so polarised that people, even with the best of intentions, will allow it to cloud their judgement.
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?
I think that leaving the EU will cause some short term economic problems. I think that our political class is mainly useless. I do not like Banks, Farage or Johnson ( I have some regard for Gove because his educational reforms improved my children's education).
I also know that politically motivated prosecutions are entirely possible and that our country is so polarised that people, even with the best of intentions, will allow it to cloud their judgement.
So not alt.right but alt.realist.
Do you really, genuinely doubt the political independence of the electoral commission?
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?
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book. By chance, if you remainders got your "people vote" and one of the questions was "by leaving the EU we would have to put a border between the UK & the EU....do you vote Yes or No" what would say the outcome should be if the majority agreed ? Just say, sorry can't do it because 2 Governments signed an agreement 20 years ago that to stop people killing each other we'd just leave an open border for ever & if we ever decide to change the terms of that agreement then someone could put a bomb in a pub & kill hundreds of people.
As I said a few weeks ago that the IRA have won......yes, it was a flippant remark, and I back tracked and said that the terrorists have won. Care to disagree ?? because all I'm hearing is that a border can not be put up because of the GFA. Times change & situations change.......otherwise we'd still have an Empire.
Good point. The same people who are saying that the Referendum was a one time event and should be repeated because times have changed are saying that the GFA is writ in stone and cannot be challenged.
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?
I think that leaving the EU will cause some short term economic problems. I think that our political class is mainly useless. I do not like Banks, Farage or Johnson ( I have some regard for Gove because his educational reforms improved my children's education).
I also know that politically motivated prosecutions are entirely possible and that our country is so polarised that people, even with the best of intentions, will allow it to cloud their judgement.
So not alt.right but alt.realist.
My dog would have made a better education secretary than Michael Gove.
If my complexion was a bit pink, I would probably start this answer with something like "I am sick and tired of people like you running this great country down". :-)
And that's kind of true. 25 years living on the continent has shown me the very high regard in which both our justice system and police force are held, and the very good reasons why they hold that esteem in the eyes of other countries. Of course neither are perfect but it really is not right that you should so casually imply that neither can now be trusted, simply because they are now investigating something that might not fit well with your worldview. You carry on like that and influence others to do so, then you really are asking for a serious breakdown in the fabric of the country you claim to care so much about. It is patently clear that there are serious grounds for investigating what that absolute slimeball has been up to. And, anticipating the sort of casual slur that you and many people of similar mind throw at them, the Electoral Commission has actually said "yep, above our pay grade"and handed it to people who have both the resources and the authority to do the job effectively.
If you really think you can no longer trust the police and justice system perhaps you should consider emigration to a country whose leadership has taken back control, to the apparent satisfaction of its citizens. I'm recommending Russia of course. The tottie is to die for. Even an ugly fat slug like Aaron Banks got laid there.
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?
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book. By chance, if you remainders got your "people vote" and one of the questions was "by leaving the EU we would have to put a border between the UK & the EU....do you vote Yes or No" what would say the outcome should be if the majority agreed ? Just say, sorry can't do it because 2 Governments signed an agreement 20 years ago that to stop people killing each other we'd just leave an open border for ever & if we ever decide to change the terms of that agreement then someone could put a bomb in a pub & kill hundreds of people.
As I said a few weeks ago that the IRA have won......yes, it was a flippant remark, and I back tracked and said that the terrorists have won. Care to disagree ?? because all I'm hearing is that a border can not be put up because of the GFA. Times change & situations change.......otherwise we'd still have an Empire.
You will not have seen me advocating a 'peoples vote', what I have said on that is it might be the least worst of a string of terrible options.
You wrote this:
"by leaving the EU we would have to put a border between the UK & the EU....do you vote Yes or No"
Isn't that the question I ask most frequently? How would the 'putting' happen in practical terms?
If the majority of people agreed with the question as you put it, wouldn't they be agreeing to a 'blind border' unless it was made explicit how that would happen?
If they did agree to that blind border their early challenges would be with people who occupy property on both sides of the border? If brexit voters in that situation are cool with things like kids being turfed out of half their homes whilst the UK compulsorily purchase the other half perhaps the UK population would televise such a scenario for all to see.
You also write:
if we ever decide to change the terms of that agreement
You might be aware that the agreement is not signed by the UK alone, hence the term agreement. If the terms are changed then all must continue to agree, or one party or another breaks their word.
Perhaps that is the question for this imaginary forthcoming vote 'By leaving the EU the UK will unilaterally break it's word on an international treaty, do you vote yes or no?'
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?
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book. By chance, if you remainders got your "people vote" and one of the questions was "by leaving the EU we would have to put a border between the UK & the EU....do you vote Yes or No" what would say the outcome should be if the majority agreed ? Just say, sorry can't do it because 2 Governments signed an agreement 20 years ago that to stop people killing each other we'd just leave an open border for ever & if we ever decide to change the terms of that agreement then someone could put a bomb in a pub & kill hundreds of people.
As I said a few weeks ago that the IRA have won......yes, it was a flippant remark, and I back tracked and said that the terrorists have won. Care to disagree ?? because all I'm hearing is that a border can not be put up because of the GFA. Times change & situations change.......otherwise we'd still have an Empire.
Good point. The same people who are saying that the Referendum was a one time event and should be repeated because times have changed are saying that the GFA is writ in stone and cannot be challenged.
Go figure.
I think you have highlighted something interesting here.
However I would suggest those inclined to challenge the Good Friday Agreement as much as they like.
I don't know what form that challenge might take, because there has already been a referendum agreeing to it.
Indeed we seem to be in a referendum v referendum situation and Makro's car park might be needed.
golfaddick wrote above:
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book Yet the GFA was ratified by 'A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want' as well. Are they not equal then, neither trumps the other?
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?
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book. By chance, if you remainders got your "people vote" and one of the questions was "by leaving the EU we would have to put a border between the UK & the EU....do you vote Yes or No" what would say the outcome should be if the majority agreed ? Just say, sorry can't do it because 2 Governments signed an agreement 20 years ago that to stop people killing each other we'd just leave an open border for ever & if we ever decide to change the terms of that agreement then someone could put a bomb in a pub & kill hundreds of people.
As I said a few weeks ago that the IRA have won......yes, it was a flippant remark, and I back tracked and said that the terrorists have won. Care to disagree ?? because all I'm hearing is that a border can not be put up because of the GFA. Times change & situations change.......otherwise we'd still have an Empire.
Good point. The same people who are saying that the Referendum was a one time event and should be repeated because times have changed are saying that the GFA is writ in stone and cannot be challenged.
Go figure.
I think you have highlighted something interesting here.
However I would suggest those inclined to challenge the Good Friday Agreement as much as they like.
I don't know what form that challenge might take, because there has already been a referendum agreeing to it.
Indeed we seem to be in a referendum v referendum situation and Makro's car park might be needed.
golfaddick wrote above:
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book Yet the GFA was ratified by 'A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want' as well. Are they not equal then, neither trumps the other?
I dont remember voting on the GFA......have uou got a date of that Referendum ??
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?
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book. By chance, if you remainders got your "people vote" and one of the questions was "by leaving the EU we would have to put a border between the UK & the EU....do you vote Yes or No" what would say the outcome should be if the majority agreed ? Just say, sorry can't do it because 2 Governments signed an agreement 20 years ago that to stop people killing each other we'd just leave an open border for ever & if we ever decide to change the terms of that agreement then someone could put a bomb in a pub & kill hundreds of people.
As I said a few weeks ago that the IRA have won......yes, it was a flippant remark, and I back tracked and said that the terrorists have won. Care to disagree ?? because all I'm hearing is that a border can not be put up because of the GFA. Times change & situations change.......otherwise we'd still have an Empire.
Good point. The same people who are saying that the Referendum was a one time event and should be repeated because times have changed are saying that the GFA is writ in stone and cannot be challenged.
Go figure.
I think you have highlighted something interesting here.
However I would suggest those inclined to challenge the Good Friday Agreement as much as they like.
I don't know what form that challenge might take, because there has already been a referendum agreeing to it.
Indeed we seem to be in a referendum v referendum situation and Makro's car park might be needed.
golfaddick wrote above:
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book Yet the GFA was ratified by 'A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want' as well. Are they not equal then, neither trumps the other?
I dont remember voting on the GFA......have uou got a date of that Referendum ??
It was only held on the island of Ireland, not that it matters, our constitution clearly states which would take precedence.
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?
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book. By chance, if you remainders got your "people vote" and one of the questions was "by leaving the EU we would have to put a border between the UK & the EU....do you vote Yes or No" what would say the outcome should be if the majority agreed ? Just say, sorry can't do it because 2 Governments signed an agreement 20 years ago that to stop people killing each other we'd just leave an open border for ever & if we ever decide to change the terms of that agreement then someone could put a bomb in a pub & kill hundreds of people.
As I said a few weeks ago that the IRA have won......yes, it was a flippant remark, and I back tracked and said that the terrorists have won. Care to disagree ?? because all I'm hearing is that a border can not be put up because of the GFA. Times change & situations change.......otherwise we'd still have an Empire.
Good point. The same people who are saying that the Referendum was a one time event and should be repeated because times have changed are saying that the GFA is writ in stone and cannot be challenged.
Go figure.
I think you have highlighted something interesting here.
However I would suggest those inclined to challenge the Good Friday Agreement as much as they like.
I don't know what form that challenge might take, because there has already been a referendum agreeing to it.
Indeed we seem to be in a referendum v referendum situation and Makro's car park might be needed.
golfaddick wrote above:
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book Yet the GFA was ratified by 'A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want' as well. Are they not equal then, neither trumps the other?
I dont remember voting on the GFA......have uou got a date of that Referendum ??
It was only held on the island of Ireland, not that it matters, our constitution clearly states which would take precedence.
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?
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book. By chance, if you remainders got your "people vote" and one of the questions was "by leaving the EU we would have to put a border between the UK & the EU....do you vote Yes or No" what would say the outcome should be if the majority agreed ? Just say, sorry can't do it because 2 Governments signed an agreement 20 years ago that to stop people killing each other we'd just leave an open border for ever & if we ever decide to change the terms of that agreement then someone could put a bomb in a pub & kill hundreds of people.
As I said a few weeks ago that the IRA have won......yes, it was a flippant remark, and I back tracked and said that the terrorists have won. Care to disagree ?? because all I'm hearing is that a border can not be put up because of the GFA. Times change & situations change.......otherwise we'd still have an Empire.
Good point. The same people who are saying that the Referendum was a one time event and should be repeated because times have changed are saying that the GFA is writ in stone and cannot be challenged.
Go figure.
I think you have highlighted something interesting here.
However I would suggest those inclined to challenge the Good Friday Agreement as much as they like.
I don't know what form that challenge might take, because there has already been a referendum agreeing to it.
Indeed we seem to be in a referendum v referendum situation and Makro's car park might be needed.
golfaddick wrote above:
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book Yet the GFA was ratified by 'A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want' as well. Are they not equal then, neither trumps the other?
I dont remember voting on the GFA......have uou got a date of that Referendum ??
Is there a written UK constitution all of a sudden?
No, but we still have a constitution, it makes it pretty clear that no parliament can bind future parliaments, or it did when I studied constitutional law.
Is there a written UK constitution all of a sudden?
No, but we still have a constitution, it makes it pretty clear that no parliament can bind future parliaments, or it did when I studied constitutional law.
By the same token, the current Parliament can, whilst being fully within its constitutional rights, abandon Brexit; and that it can also abandon, without a care in the World, all its international treaty obligations, or could pass sweeping legislation to criminalise swathes of modern life. There may be the constitutional shield, but the nature of the checks and balances within the constitutional settlement are such that Parliament (supposedly, at least) takes very seriously the potential outcomes of its actions.
If the national 2016 referendum is sacrosanct, then so also would be the supranational referendum and internationally ratified agreement from 1998. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Constitutionally, the current Parliament has no obligation to respect the outcome of the 2016 referendum, or even the solemn statements of those who swore to respect its outcome.
The argument from Brexit true believers is that the UK can renege upon commitments that it has freely entered into (my concern is that that process is already underway), without any consequence.
If the UK proves faithless in its international dealings, then that will clearly influence the willingness of other countries and blocs to treat with the UK, and would radically alter the terms on which any negotiations would proceed. Unless the intention is to justify some perverse intention to inscribe the Brexit 50p with the legend "Perfidious Albion", I cannot see the point of such an approach.
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?
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book. By chance, if you remainders got your "people vote" and one of the questions was "by leaving the EU we would have to put a border between the UK & the EU....do you vote Yes or No" what would say the outcome should be if the majority agreed ? Just say, sorry can't do it because 2 Governments signed an agreement 20 years ago that to stop people killing each other we'd just leave an open border for ever & if we ever decide to change the terms of that agreement then someone could put a bomb in a pub & kill hundreds of people.
As I said a few weeks ago that the IRA have won......yes, it was a flippant remark, and I back tracked and said that the terrorists have won. Care to disagree ?? because all I'm hearing is that a border can not be put up because of the GFA. Times change & situations change.......otherwise we'd still have an Empire.
I'd care to disagree.
Really quite a lot.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the Peace Process and the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement are all about, and have little or no understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland.
The Peace Process is the only method by which the terrorists (on both sides) could, genuinely, be outflanked by civil society.
It allowed everyone to believe that they had won (especially those relatives of people who would otherwise have been killed or maimed, whether policemen, soldiers or "collateral damage" of either sides' set of bastards stupidity), and provide hope that, definitely not quickly nor comprehensively enough, Northern Ireland could become a place of political, economic and social normality.
Anyone here can be British, Irish, Irish and British, or Northern Irish, and everyone could read into the agreement an interpretation that suited their own particular perspective. There were no losers.
The terrorists, especially the Dissidents, like the shits behind the Omagh bomb of August 1998,or the killing of PC Ronan Kerr, also in Omagh, in 2011, don't give a flying fuck about the hardening of the border in Ireland to any great extent. If anything, they welcome it, which is precisely why Dissident Republican political leaders argued in favour of a pro-Leave vote in the referendum (look at the numbers of votes cast for Brexit in Derry/Londonderry, it was not just Loyalists) It will just provide them with a greater range of "legitimate targets" to attack, and increase the potential for statements drenched in crocodile tears explaining how upset they will be with those caught up in the collateral damage.
In fact, if we manage to find a solution that prevents additional barriers on the border, to the extent that they protect the Good Friday Agreement, it will be because Civil Society (minus the DUP admittedly), and the security services, will have won out, not the IRA, or any other terrorist grouping.
The terrorists will have won, will have what they want, if the border is changed. On this issue, no doubt for reasons of the loftiest idealism, those who support change to the current border set-up in Ireland, whether Jacob Rees Mogg, the rest of ERG, David Davis, or anyone arguing (in the absence of any evidence on the ballot papers used) that it's what "we" voted for in 2016, are on precisely the same side of this argument as the terrorists. Doubtless that will bring a warm glow to their hearts....
Constitutionally, the current Parliament has no obligation to respect the outcome of the 2016 referendum, or even the solemn statements of those who swore to respect its outcome.
That's absolutely correct, as the referendum was only advisory, with it being such a close result I don't believe HMG should respect the outcome, it should have always required a 60/40 (as an example) split to change the status quo.
The point I was trying to make was that it is not.a case of referendum v referendum, as our constitution makes clear, even if some people believe we don't have one.
The problem is that when the Northern Ireland border was brought up during the referendum it was dismissed by Leave as something that wouldn't be a problem as the EU would give us a trade deal that allowed an open border. It seems you are able to make promises such as this to get your vote and have no responsibility to be answerable for it.
One of the big reasons for the GFA, apart from politicians of both colours being brave enough to talk to terrorists to find a solution to prevent deaths and make people's lives better, is that the question of Irish independence became weaker due to us all being part of the EU. It still wasn't easy to achieve and the casual approach to it of some who should know better, having lived through the bombs and deaths, is frightening. If only the world was simple, but it isn't and it isn't going to be anytime soon.
It is no good throwing your rattle out of the pram because the awareness has arrived that all this is much more complex than a dispute with your next door neighbour. It is, it always was and the fact people take this stance without any concept of it is a big reason why we shouldn't have had the referendum in the first place. But the reason people don't want another is they fear remain will now win. Many people who voted leave, did so for good reasons, but have also seen the rubbish and incompetence we have witnessed over the last couple of years. people who aren't worried about the detail, don't want to give people the chance to change their minds. What are they afraid of? Another firm leave vote will help the country come to terms with making leave work, so there is a logic to it from both sides. That is of course if the divisions within the country, the safety and wellbeing of people and even the future of the Union itself are not that big a deal for you!
The argument that the referendum was just advisory may be correct, but we can't avoid the fact the country is deeply split over this and another referendum could help fix that once and for all. Ignoring the will of the people is not an option, but asking them if they still feel the same is not the same thing! For those that are calling it undemocratic, I think the reality is that it is the only true democratic solution to something that is and will further tear this country apart.
This morning the R4 Today programme has interviewed Carole Cadwalladr, the Guardian journalist who has led the investigations into Banks, LeaveEU funding, and Cambridge Analytica. On her own. So what?
Ms Cadwalladr has been working on the stories for a couple of years. As we have discussed, the BBC was very reluctant to pick it up. When she was finally invited on to the Marr Show, he allowed her to be "cross-examined" about her story by that screeching cow Isobel Oakeshott, as opposed to reviewing the papers. I, among many others complained to the BBC about that ( Iwent through three stages of their unsatisfactory system), but still some elements in the BBC did their best to try to discredit her. She revealed that R4T had invited her on a few months later, but she withdrew when she learnt that Oakeshott would be there too "for balance". Meanwhile Banks continuously abused her on Twitter in very personal terms (this is why I do the same to him, on Twitter as well as on here). He published photos of her on Twitter with a pet cat, and (continuously) tries to portray her as a mad woman alone in her flat with her cat (subtext: not getting laid). In the meantime, the Met Police were, until this week refusing to consider the evidence against Leave EU; Cressida Dick had apparently described it as "too politically sensitive"- an interesting reason for not investigating an alleged crime.
All that changed this week, and clearly as part of that R4T had to change its attitude to Carole C. That was the significance of giving her a "free hit" this morning. All is not entirely transparent, that said; in the otherwise good interview later with Cressida Dick, Humphreys asked her to confirm that she was now investigating Banks, but when she replied that it was at an early stage, he failed to put to her Carole C's claim minutes earlier that while they had the allegations since May, they didn't start looking at it until September - a crucial delay for those of us who might think any criminality should be established before Brexit happens.
Overall I post this to assert the opposite of what @Southbank claims (without offering any real-life examples) - that "The Establishment" is trying to stop Brexit. On the contrary, the Establishment has been using the tools at its disposal to lean on Scotland Yard and the BBC to ignore the mounting evidence of criminality in the referendum. Fortunately Britain is still a country where the government does not have such tools to so easily lean on the likes of the Guardian, Channel 4, James O'Brien, etc. The truth will out in Britain, but as we know as Charlton fans, sometimes we all have to do our bit to help get it out there.
Is there a written UK constitution all of a sudden?
No, but we still have a constitution, it makes it pretty clear that no parliament can bind future parliaments, or it did when I studied constitutional law.
That is not an answer regarding comparing the two referenda.
If my complexion was a bit pink, I would probably start this answer with something like "I am sick and tired of people like you running this great country down". :-)
And that's kind of true. 25 years living on the continent has shown me the very high regard in which both our justice system and police force are held, and the very good reasons why they hold that esteem in the eyes of other countries. Of course neither are perfect but it really is not right that you should so casually imply that neither can now be trusted, simply because they are now investigating something that might not fit well with your worldview. You carry on like that and influence others to do so, then you really are asking for a serious breakdown in the fabric of the country you claim to care so much about. It is patently clear that there are serious grounds for investigating what that absolute slimeball has been up to. And, anticipating the sort of casual slur that you and many people of similar mind throw at them, the Electoral Commission has actually said "yep, above our pay grade"and handed it to people who have both the resources and the authority to do the job effectively.
If you really think you can no longer trust the police and justice system perhaps you should consider emigration to a country whose leadership has taken back control, to the apparent satisfaction of its citizens. I'm recommending Russia of course. The tottie is to die for. Even an ugly fat slug like Aaron Banks got laid there.
As with many things Brexit related, it depends on your point of view. I deeply resented the Government using my taxes to put out a leaflet saying stay in the EU. For that reason I think that the amount of money spent by Leavers on their campaign was fine with me. It is a separate matter in my mind as to whether the source of this money was legitimate. Banks has to answer to that himself. The pursuit of him and the official Vote Leave campaign by the Electoral Commission would not have been tainted had so many of the Commissioners not been open Remainers and some of them campaigners for a second referendum. It is just the way it is now in this country.
Unfortunately the report you quote is from the Scotsman, and I really can't be arsed to turn off my ad blocker for them. But I would be curious to know in order to consider calmly @Red_in_SE8 valid point, what the sample was, which research company did the work and whether there were any external partners funding the research. Just, like, part of my usual diligence arising from professional market research training.
I did Google to see whether any other news outlet carries the report. None that I found. Curiously, I did find that HSBC did another survey which was terribly Brexit-positive in April, carried with some fanfare by the Express.
It is then quite difficult to square with the other eye-catching stories that jump out from page 1 of my Google research...that HSBC itself, as a business, is not very positive about Brexit at all. It is "preparing for Brexit" by jumping ship...
Oh well, we will soon find out, won't we. Only 148 days to go. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
Surely they are either innocent or guilty. If the latter, it is very serious. Same would apply to Remain. Comparing it with the government leaflet, which I though was a mistake at the time, isn't fair. The government was entitled to have an official position, leavers should be grateful that Cameron gave them the referendum. The rest of us think he should be locked up for it! Maybe he could share a cell with Banks!
This morning the R4 Today programme has interviewed Carole Cadwalladr, the Guardian journalist who has led the investigations into Banks, LeaveEU funding, and Cambridge Analytica. On her own. So what?
Ms Cadwalladr has been working on the stories for a couple of years. As we have discussed, the BBC was very reluctant to pick it up. When she was finally invited on to the Marr Show, he allowed her to be "cross-examined" about her story by that screeching cow Isobel Oakeshott, as opposed to reviewing the papers. I, among many others complained to the BBC about that ( Iwent through three stages of their unsatisfactory system), but still some elements in the BBC did their best to try to discredit her. She revealed that R4T had invited her on a few months later, but she withdrew when she learnt that Oakeshott would be there too "for balance". Meanwhile Banks continuously abused her on Twitter in very personal terms (this is why I do the same to him, on Twitter as well as on here). He published photos of her on Twitter with a pet cat, and (continuously) tries to portray her as a mad woman alone in her flat with her cat (subtext: not getting laid). In the meantime, the Met Police were, until this week refusing to consider the evidence against Leave EU; Cressida Dick had apparently described it as "too politically sensitive"- an interesting reason for not investigating an alleged crime.
All that changed this week, and clearly as part of that R4T had to change its attitude to Carole C. That was the significance of giving her a "free hit" this morning. All is not entirely transparent, that said; in the otherwise good interview later with Cressida Dick, Humphreys asked her to confirm that she was now investigating Banks, but when she replied that it was at an early stage, he failed to put to her Carole C's claim minutes earlier that while they had the allegations since May, they didn't start looking at it until September - a crucial delay for those of us who might think any criminality should be established before Brexit happens.
Overall I post this to assert the opposite of what @Southbank claims (without offering any real-life examples) - that "The Establishment" is trying to stop Brexit. On the contrary, the Establishment has been using the tools at its disposal to lean on Scotland Yard and the BBC to ignore the mounting evidence of criminality in the referendum. Fortunately Britain is still a country where the government does not have such tools to so easily lean on the likes of the Guardian, Channel 4, James O'Brien, etc. The truth will out in Britain, but as we know as Charlton fans, sometimes we all have to do our bit to help get it out there.
I have never used the term 'Establishment' for the following reason. While I do believe that a majority of those in the intellectual, political and business elites oppose Brexit, 95% of academics apparently for example, these people no longer represent a coherent world view in the way that the old establishment did in the days of Empire, or even up until the end of the Cold War, when nation religion and family bound them together ideologically.
What binds them together now is essentially fear of change, the Remain campaign was small c conservative and driven primarily by loss aversion , or 'Project Fear' as it is known. They want to hold on to the EU for fear of something worse. Yet they were and still are incapable of providing a positive vision of life in the EU, despite having their hands on nearly all the tools of public persuasion. I voted Leave in part because I saw it as one way of disrupting the stagnant political system and helping to trigger more radical change.
This morning the R4 Today programme has interviewed Carole Cadwalladr, the Guardian journalist who has led the investigations into Banks, LeaveEU funding, and Cambridge Analytica. On her own. So what?
Ms Cadwalladr has been working on the stories for a couple of years. As we have discussed, the BBC was very reluctant to pick it up. When she was finally invited on to the Marr Show, he allowed her to be "cross-examined" about her story by that screeching cow Isobel Oakeshott, as opposed to reviewing the papers. I, among many others complained to the BBC about that ( Iwent through three stages of their unsatisfactory system), but still some elements in the BBC did their best to try to discredit her. She revealed that R4T had invited her on a few months later, but she withdrew when she learnt that Oakeshott would be there too "for balance". Meanwhile Banks continuously abused her on Twitter in very personal terms (this is why I do the same to him, on Twitter as well as on here). He published photos of her on Twitter with a pet cat, and (continuously) tries to portray her as a mad woman alone in her flat with her cat (subtext: not getting laid). In the meantime, the Met Police were, until this week refusing to consider the evidence against Leave EU; Cressida Dick had apparently described it as "too politically sensitive"- an interesting reason for not investigating an alleged crime.
All that changed this week, and clearly as part of that R4T had to change its attitude to Carole C. That was the significance of giving her a "free hit" this morning. All is not entirely transparent, that said; in the otherwise good interview later with Cressida Dick, Humphreys asked her to confirm that she was now investigating Banks, but when she replied that it was at an early stage, he failed to put to her Carole C's claim minutes earlier that while they had the allegations since May, they didn't start looking at it until September - a crucial delay for those of us who might think any criminality should be established before Brexit happens.
Overall I post this to assert the opposite of what @Southbank claims (without offering any real-life examples) - that "The Establishment" is trying to stop Brexit. On the contrary, the Establishment has been using the tools at its disposal to lean on Scotland Yard and the BBC to ignore the mounting evidence of criminality in the referendum. Fortunately Britain is still a country where the government does not have such tools to so easily lean on the likes of the Guardian, Channel 4, James O'Brien, etc. The truth will out in Britain, but as we know as Charlton fans, sometimes we all have to do our bit to help get it out there.
I have never used the term 'Establishment' for the following reason. While I do believe that a majority of those in the intellectual, political and business elites oppose Brexit, 95% of academics apparently for example, these people no longer represent a coherent world view in the way that the old establishment did in the days of Empire, or even up until the end of the Cold War, when nation religion and family bound them together ideologically.
What binds them together now is essentially fear of change, the Remain campaign was small c conservative and driven primarily by loss aversion , or 'Project Fear' as it is known. They want to hold on to the EU for fear of something worse. Yet they were and still are incapable of providing a positive vision of life in the EU, despite having their hands on nearly all the tools of public persuasion. I voted Leave in part because I saw it as one way of disrupting the stagnant political system and helping to trigger more radical change.
What radical change are you looking to be triggered?
I'm not sure it's fear of something worse, rather a fear of the unknown - and nobody on the Brexit side has quantified that 'unknown'. What exactly do you think the unknown looks like?
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?
I think that leaving the EU will cause some short term economic problems. I think that our political class is mainly useless. I do not like Banks, Farage or Johnson ( I have some regard for Gove because his educational reforms improved my children's education).
I also know that politically motivated prosecutions are entirely possible and that our country is so polarised that people, even with the best of intentions, will allow it to cloud their judgement.
So not alt.right but alt.realist.
Did Gove’s educational reforms include providing children with basic essentials like pencils ? Under his tenure as a Education Secretary funding was strangled and many schools now rely on parents to provide the basic needs of the children. You’ll forgive me if I don’t share you’re enthusiasm for the odious creep.
Comments
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46045334
As I said a few weeks ago that the IRA have won......yes, it was a flippant remark, and I back tracked and said that the terrorists have won. Care to disagree ?? because all I'm hearing is that a border can not be put up because of the GFA. Times change & situations change.......otherwise we'd still have an Empire.
Unfortunately the report you quote is from the Scotsman, and I really can't be arsed to turn off my ad blocker for them. But I would be curious to know in order to consider calmly @Red_in_SE8 valid point, what the sample was, which research company did the work and whether there were any external partners funding the research. Just, like, part of my usual diligence arising from professional market research training.
I did Google to see whether any other news outlet carries the report. None that I found. Curiously, I did find that HSBC did another survey which was terribly Brexit-positive in April, carried with some fanfare by the Express.
It is then quite difficult to square with the other eye-catching stories that jump out from page 1 of my Google research...that HSBC itself, as a business, is not very positive about Brexit at all. It is "preparing for Brexit" by jumping ship...
Oh well, we will soon find out, won't we. Only 148 days to go. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
I also know that politically motivated prosecutions are entirely possible and that our country is so polarised that people, even with the best of intentions, will allow it to cloud their judgement.
So not alt.right but alt.realist.
Go figure.
If my complexion was a bit pink, I would probably start this answer with something like "I am sick and tired of people like you running this great country down". :-)
And that's kind of true. 25 years living on the continent has shown me the very high regard in which both our justice system and police force are held, and the very good reasons why they hold that esteem in the eyes of other countries. Of course neither are perfect but it really is not right that you should so casually imply that neither can now be trusted, simply because they are now investigating something that might not fit well with your worldview. You carry on like that and influence others to do so, then you really are asking for a serious breakdown in the fabric of the country you claim to care so much about. It is patently clear that there are serious grounds for investigating what that absolute slimeball has been up to. And, anticipating the sort of casual slur that you and many people of similar mind throw at them, the Electoral Commission has actually said "yep, above our pay grade"and handed it to people who have both the resources and the authority to do the job effectively.
If you really think you can no longer trust the police and justice system perhaps you should consider emigration to a country whose leadership has taken back control, to the apparent satisfaction of its citizens. I'm recommending Russia of course. The tottie is to die for. Even an ugly fat slug like Aaron Banks got laid there.
You wrote this:
"by leaving the EU we would have to put a border between the UK & the EU....do you vote Yes or No"
Isn't that the question I ask most frequently? How would the 'putting' happen in practical terms?
If the majority of people agreed with the question as you put it, wouldn't they be agreeing to a 'blind border' unless it was made explicit how that would happen?
If they did agree to that blind border their early challenges would be with people who occupy property on both sides of the border? If brexit voters in that situation are cool with things like kids being turfed out of half their homes whilst the UK compulsorily purchase the other half perhaps the UK population would televise such a scenario for all to see.
You also write:
if we ever decide to change the terms of that agreement
You might be aware that the agreement is not signed by the UK alone, hence the term agreement. If the terms are changed then all must continue to agree, or one party or another breaks their word.
Perhaps that is the question for this imaginary forthcoming vote 'By leaving the EU the UK will unilaterally break it's word on an international treaty, do you vote yes or no?'
However I would suggest those inclined to challenge the Good Friday Agreement as much as they like.
I don't know what form that challenge might take, because there has already been a referendum agreeing to it.
Indeed we seem to be in a referendum v referendum situation and Makro's car park might be needed.
golfaddick wrote above:
A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want trumps anything in my book
Yet the GFA was ratified by 'A Referendum put down by HM Government asking its citizens what they want' as well.
Are they not equal then, neither trumps the other?
If the national 2016 referendum is sacrosanct, then so also would be the supranational referendum and internationally ratified agreement from 1998. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Constitutionally, the current Parliament has no obligation to respect the outcome of the 2016 referendum, or even the solemn statements of those who swore to respect its outcome.
The argument from Brexit true believers is that the UK can renege upon commitments that it has freely entered into (my concern is that that process is already underway), without any consequence.
If the UK proves faithless in its international dealings, then that will clearly influence the willingness of other countries and blocs to treat with the UK, and would radically alter the terms on which any negotiations would proceed. Unless the intention is to justify some perverse intention to inscribe the Brexit 50p with the legend "Perfidious Albion", I cannot see the point of such an approach.
Really quite a lot.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the Peace Process and the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement are all about, and have little or no understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland.
The Peace Process is the only method by which the terrorists (on both sides) could, genuinely, be outflanked by civil society.
It allowed everyone to believe that they had won (especially those relatives of people who would otherwise have been killed or maimed, whether policemen, soldiers or "collateral damage" of either sides' set of bastards stupidity), and provide hope that, definitely not quickly nor comprehensively enough, Northern Ireland could become a place of political, economic and social normality.
Anyone here can be British, Irish, Irish and British, or Northern Irish, and everyone could read into the agreement an interpretation that suited their own particular perspective. There were no losers.
The terrorists, especially the Dissidents, like the shits behind the Omagh bomb of August 1998,or the killing of PC Ronan Kerr, also in Omagh, in 2011, don't give a flying fuck about the hardening of the border in Ireland to any great extent. If anything, they welcome it, which is precisely why Dissident Republican political leaders argued in favour of a pro-Leave vote in the referendum (look at the numbers of votes cast for Brexit in Derry/Londonderry, it was not just Loyalists) It will just provide them with a greater range of "legitimate targets" to attack, and increase the potential for statements drenched in crocodile tears explaining how upset they will be with those caught up in the collateral damage.
In fact, if we manage to find a solution that prevents additional barriers on the border, to the extent that they protect the Good Friday Agreement, it will be because Civil Society (minus the DUP admittedly), and the security services, will have won out, not the IRA, or any other terrorist grouping.
The terrorists will have won, will have what they want, if the border is changed. On this issue, no doubt for reasons of the loftiest idealism, those who support change to the current border set-up in Ireland, whether Jacob Rees Mogg, the rest of ERG, David Davis, or anyone arguing (in the absence of any evidence on the ballot papers used) that it's what "we" voted for in 2016, are on precisely the same side of this argument as the terrorists. Doubtless that will bring a warm glow to their hearts....
The point I was trying to make was that it is not.a case of referendum v referendum, as our constitution makes clear, even if some people believe we don't have one.
One of the big reasons for the GFA, apart from politicians of both colours being brave enough to talk to terrorists to find a solution to prevent deaths and make people's lives better, is that the question of Irish independence became weaker due to us all being part of the EU. It still wasn't easy to achieve and the casual approach to it of some who should know better, having lived through the bombs and deaths, is frightening. If only the world was simple, but it isn't and it isn't going to be anytime soon.
It is no good throwing your rattle out of the pram because the awareness has arrived that all this is much more complex than a dispute with your next door neighbour. It is, it always was and the fact people take this stance without any concept of it is a big reason why we shouldn't have had the referendum in the first place. But the reason people don't want another is they fear remain will now win. Many people who voted leave, did so for good reasons, but have also seen the rubbish and incompetence we have witnessed over the last couple of years. people who aren't worried about the detail, don't want to give people the chance to change their minds. What are they afraid of? Another firm leave vote will help the country come to terms with making leave work, so there is a logic to it from both sides. That is of course if the divisions within the country, the safety and wellbeing of people and even the future of the Union itself are not that big a deal for you!
The argument that the referendum was just advisory may be correct, but we can't avoid the fact the country is deeply split over this and another referendum could help fix that once and for all. Ignoring the will of the people is not an option, but asking them if they still feel the same is not the same thing! For those that are calling it undemocratic, I think the reality is that it is the only true democratic solution to something that is and will further tear this country apart.
Ms Cadwalladr has been working on the stories for a couple of years. As we have discussed, the BBC was very reluctant to pick it up. When she was finally invited on to the Marr Show, he allowed her to be "cross-examined" about her story by that screeching cow Isobel Oakeshott, as opposed to reviewing the papers. I, among many others complained to the BBC about that ( Iwent through three stages of their unsatisfactory system), but still some elements in the BBC did their best to try to discredit her. She revealed that R4T had invited her on a few months later, but she withdrew when she learnt that Oakeshott would be there too "for balance". Meanwhile Banks continuously abused her on Twitter in very personal terms (this is why I do the same to him, on Twitter as well as on here). He published photos of her on Twitter with a pet cat, and (continuously) tries to portray her as a mad woman alone in her flat with her cat (subtext: not getting laid). In the meantime, the Met Police were, until this week refusing to consider the evidence against Leave EU; Cressida Dick had apparently described it as "too politically sensitive"- an interesting reason for not investigating an alleged crime.
All that changed this week, and clearly as part of that R4T had to change its attitude to Carole C. That was the significance of giving her a "free hit" this morning. All is not entirely transparent, that said; in the otherwise good interview later with Cressida Dick, Humphreys asked her to confirm that she was now investigating Banks, but when she replied that it was at an early stage, he failed to put to her Carole C's claim minutes earlier that while they had the allegations since May, they didn't start looking at it until September - a crucial delay for those of us who might think any criminality should be established before Brexit happens.
Overall I post this to assert the opposite of what @Southbank claims (without offering any real-life examples) - that "The Establishment" is trying to stop Brexit. On the contrary, the Establishment has been using the tools at its disposal to lean on Scotland Yard and the BBC to ignore the mounting evidence of criminality in the referendum. Fortunately Britain is still a country where the government does not have such tools to so easily lean on the likes of the Guardian, Channel 4, James O'Brien, etc. The truth will out in Britain, but as we know as Charlton fans, sometimes we all have to do our bit to help get it out there.
I deeply resented the Government using my taxes to put out a leaflet saying stay in the EU. For that reason I think that the amount of money spent by Leavers on their campaign was fine with me.
It is a separate matter in my mind as to whether the source of this money was legitimate. Banks has to answer to that himself.
The pursuit of him and the official Vote Leave campaign by the Electoral Commission would not have been tainted had so many of the Commissioners not been open Remainers and some of them campaigners for a second referendum. It is just the way it is now in this country.
What binds them together now is essentially fear of change, the Remain campaign was small c conservative and driven primarily by loss aversion , or 'Project Fear' as it is known. They want to hold on to the EU for fear of something worse. Yet they were and still are incapable of providing a positive vision of life in the EU, despite having their hands on nearly all the tools of public persuasion. I voted Leave in part because I saw it as one way of disrupting the stagnant political system and helping to trigger more radical change.
I'm not sure it's fear of something worse, rather a fear of the unknown - and nobody on the Brexit side has quantified that 'unknown'. What exactly do you think the unknown looks like?