| The Countdown begins. (n/t) on 20:41 - Jul 22 with 812 views | peenemunde |
| The Countdown begins. (n/t) on 19:19 - Jul 22 by longlostjack |
Is it boring in New York ? [Post edited 22 Jul 19:22]
|
I’m actually fishing on a bank of a beautiful river just outside a place called Utica, as we speak.
I shall be arriving into New York City itself at around 8 pm U.K. time on Tuesday.
The weather is great people very friendly met lots of Trump supporters and even have “make America great again” baseball cap on. |  | |  |
| The Countdown begins. on 20:49 - Jul 22 with 800 views | peenemunde |
| The Countdown begins. on 19:12 - Jul 22 by Shaky |
. . .but it is more than a little fcuking sad, isn't it?
People won't talk to the E20 persona any more, and now you have had to go into the politics of crass stupidity to get a bit of bite.
I can only imagine what kind of a shit-fest of an emotional life you must lead.
Sad! Baby. [Post edited 22 Jul 19:16]
|
I’m actually very calm and enjoy life, but do like to laugh at people such as you who actually think their constant hysterical posting of regurgitated nonsense will somehow change the referendum result.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 | | | |
| The Countdown begins. on 21:18 - Jul 22 with 772 views | Kilkennyjack |
| The Countdown begins. on 20:49 - Jul 22 by peenemunde |
I’m actually very calm and enjoy life, but do like to laugh at people such as you who actually think their constant hysterical posting of regurgitated nonsense will somehow change the referendum result.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 |
Twitter says ::
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ..commit a criminal act that reflect adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer...(or to) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Raab has a case to answer ..? |  |
| ‘Beware of the risen people’ ........🍀🇮🇪 💚
YesCymru 🏴 |
| |
| The Countdown begins. on 23:43 - Jul 22 with 715 views | Kerouac |
No compromise now over democracy By Richard Tuck
Written by Richard Tuck
"If we value transparency and trustworthiness in our politics, we have to leave the EU and detoxify our public life; until we have thoroughly disentangled ourselves from it, distrust will remain the default attitude of the British public. Remainers cannot avoid the distrust so many of us feel about them, and we would be extraordinarily foolish to suppose that they do not deserve it.
The morning after the referendum, like many people who had voted to Leave, I was in a mood to compromise. The result after all had been fairly close, and if a new constitutional settlement was to last, it had to compel quite widespread consent. I thought that membership of the EEA might be possible; certainly some kind of free trade arrangement was imperative. Since June 2016, however, I have changed my mind, and I think I am not alone. The reason is partly that as I have thought more about the nature of the EEA and the role in it of the ECJ I have backed away from it as a solution; but the key reason is more profound than that. The behaviour of the leading supporters of remaining in the EU during the period after the referendum has made me deeply mistrustful of any compromise, since it is clear that all compromise proposals leave open a route quite quickly back into the EU in some fashion, and there are absolutely no grounds to think that the prominent Remainers will not seize the opportunity to go down it.
Trust has become the central issue in British politics. And in doing so, it has reminded us of one of the main objections to the EU, and why accusations of treason have alarmingly become a staple of the right-wing press in Britain. The EU is an institution which – despite all its window-dressing – is still essentially an intergovernmental organisation. Decisions are made through the familiar processes of international bargaining, though unlike other international bargains the ones made in the EU directly apply to the internal arrangements of the member states. And international negotiations have always been pre-eminently the arena in which governments act secretly and spring faits accomplis on their citizens. The age of the secret treaty may be over, though I wouldn’t rule out the existence of a wide range of secret “understandings” between modern states, particularly over such things as nuclear weapons. But secrecy in general is endemic to international relations. Because of this, even if a country’s constitution gives the final say over an international agreement to the legislature (as ours arguably does not), in practice the negotiations are entirely in the hands of the executive, the repository of secrets in most modern states. International negotiations also tend to give a disproportionate role to the civil servants, the “sherpas” in contemporary parlance, who prepare the ground for their (supposed) masters, since very few modern politicians have the time or the experience to pay as much attention to international politics as they do to the internal politics of their own countries. Their instincts are also likely to be much less acute when they leave the familiar territory in which they have made their careers.
This is the particularly toxic feature of the EU. A democratic state like the United Kingdom has, by and large, a pretty open debate about important domestic issues. There may be secret manoeuvrings within party executives and within Whitehall, but it all has to come out into the open before any firm decisions are made, and politicians can relatively easily be forced into u-turns. But to make important decisions through international bargaining, decisions which then structure the economy, and even to some extent the society, of a member state, as those made through the EU institutions must do, is to bring secrecy into the heart of domestic politics. With secrecy inevitably comes mistrust. As modern states do more and more through international agreements, distrust of politicians grows among their populations, who suspect that their ruling classes now have more in common with the ruling classes of other countries than they do with the ruled of their own. They may be right in this mistrust – after all, for much of the pre-democratic history of our countries this would have been an entirely well-founded apprehension – but even without a cultural sympathy of this kind the logic of the international structures makes a politician into a kind of secret agent within their own country. Who knows what they really want, and what they have implicitly as well as explicitly agreed to?
Defenders of the EU can agree with all this, and they can go on to say that for this reason it is vital to turn the EU into a proper state with the kind of transparent internal politics that we were used to in our individual nations fifty or sixty years ago. But as things stand that ambition looks absurdly utopian – far more utopian than anything Brexiteers are guilty of. Like so much of the EU, its political accountability is stuck in a half-way house, unable to move forward or backwards. If we value transparency and trustworthiness in our politics, we have to leave the EU and detoxify our public life; until we have thoroughly disentangled ourselves from it, distrust will remain the default attitude of the British public, and nothing can be done about that during the interim period we have embarked upon. Remainers cannot avoid the distrust so many of us feel about them, and we would be extraordinarily foolish to suppose that they do not deserve it; in this respect, at least, there is a profound asymmetry between Leave and Remain, for no one seriously thinks that Leavers have a secret agenda – the whole point of their position is to throw open British politics once again to the public gaze, and public debate. There is – alas – no basis for compromise now between the sides."
Professor Richard Tuck is a Fellow of the British Academy and Frank G. Thomson Professor of Government at Harvard. This letter, written on 17 May 2018, is one of his forthcoming Letters to the Left on Brexit. |  |
| |
| The Countdown begins. on 00:21 - Jul 23 with 697 views | Kerouac |
'RIP IT UP and START AGAIN!'
Davis breaks silence with STUNNING Brexit advice for May
DAVID DAVIS has urged the Prime Minister to tear up her Brexit White Paper and “start again” in an explosive interview in which he lays bare the inside story of Britain’s fraught negotiations with the EU.
By Camilla Tominey, Political Editor
PUBLISHED: 00:01, Sun, Jul 22, 2018 | UPDATED: 08:29, Sun, Jul 22, 2018
In his first newspaper interview since standing down as EU exit secretary, the Tory veteran reassures Sunday Express readers that it is not too late to save Brexit.
He calls on Theresa May to accelerate no-deal preparations, insisting leaving on World Trade Organisation terms is “not the end of the world”.
With unprecedented candour, the former leadership contender lays bare the details of his short telephone conversation with the Prime Minister after his resignation and reveals how Doreen, his wife of 45 years, persuaded him to leave. Describing the Chequers compromise as “trapping Britain’s fingers in the mangle”, he claims the EU will agree to a better deal as it comes under increasing pressure from the other 27 member states in the autumn.
Unleashing an attack on the Treasury for orchestrating “Project Fear Mark III”, he lays into the Whitehall establishment, accusing it of believing in “nonsensical forecasts” and “patronising” voters.
Vowing to “fight very hard from the outside” for the Brexit 17.4 million people wanted, the former SAS-trained soldier believes the UK would vote 60-40 to leave if there was a second referendum tomorrow.
He also boasts that Dominic Raab, his successor at the Department for Exiting the European Union (Dexeu), is in constant contact, describing him as “my boy”.
In this political interview of the year, he reveals in his own words the inside story of Brexit and what really happened at that dramatic Chequers meeting.
Is the Brexit White Paper “dead”?
We’re going to have to do a reset and come back and look at it all again. What we mustn’t do is leave everything on the table and offer something else on top.
One of the traditional tactics of the EU is to say: “OK, but not enough” and pocket what they’ve already been given. We can’t allow that. We’ll have to say: “Sorry, if that deal’s not enough then it’s no longer available.”
I think when we get to the autumn, if we are in the situation where we don’t have any degree of agreement, we’re going to have to start again.
What should the Prime Minister do next?
I want the Prime Minister to publish a particular project. This was always in my mind as a reserve parachute, what we do if we don’t get a deal.
And basically what we do is take all of the deals that the European Union has struck with Canada, South Korea, South Africa, Switzerland, New Zealand – a whole series of them – and composite the best bits. From both sides, by the way, not just our side.
We produce a 40-page document but then get international lawyers to turn it into a treaty so it would go from 40 pages to hundreds and hundreds of pages, if not thousands.
So that’s on the shelf, come the autumn and if the current arrangements don’t work out, we say: “OK, we’ll retreat from that, we’re asking for a bit less, this is what we’re asking for, every single line of this has been given to somebody else in some treaty somewhere else in the world.”
So that’s what I would call Canada plus, plus, plus.
Because this is a thousand moving parts, it is impossible to tell you the individual way through, there will be half a dozen possibilities. People’s minds change in accordance with the pressure that’s put on them and the more high pressure the negotiation is, the more they’ll look around for other options.
Today, I wouldn’t expect the Government to be particularly welcoming of Canada plus, plus, plus – but I think, come the autumn, we’ll be in a different position.
Is it too late to save Brexit?
It’s not too late but we’re going to have to fight very hard from outside to influence the way the Government goes. Through September and October it’s going to be a very high intensity argument, I think. It’s a terribly self-serving comment but I am reminded of one letter I got from one of the whips commiserating, saying: “I’m very sorry you’re going, etc etc,” and lots of flattering stuff, but the last paragraph said: “But it strikes me you might be more powerful where you are than where you have been before.”
There’s a big hearts-and-minds exercise to do, both with the party in the House and other parties, the DUP, and the Labour members and so on.
At the end of the day, the most testing vote last week was in or out of the customs union and we won it on five votes, thanks to those Labour MPs – and that’s how tight the battle’s going to be.
One of the arguments put after my departure and Boris’s was, well they don’t have an alternative – which is sort of bonkers since we spent seven weeks creating the alternative.
I take the view that leaving on WTO terms will be uncomfortable in the short term but actually perfectly good in the long term – but all of the options, other than the Chequers one, are good in the long term and what we are arguing about is how much short-term discomfort you have.
Should we fear “no deal”?
It’s not the best outcome, although people get terribly frightened about it as if it’s the end of the world – it’s nothing like that.
You have the two extremes, you have the utopians and the dystopians. At one end you expect Mel Gibson to walk on stage, at the other it’s all fine, nothing will happen.
If we go to WTO it will be if the negotiations break down, so there will be a degree of hostility. You might see some quite deliberate problems but they won’t last for ever, they’re likely to last months rather than years. It could be weeks or months, who knows? But not very long is the answer.
Why do I say this? Well cast your mind back. What’s the indicator of the problem at Dover? It’s Operation Stack, lorries down the M20. The first thing that tells you is this is not a frictionless border – it gets problems for other reasons.
Sometimes the reasons have been quite long-lasting – 74 times in 20 years. So much for a frictionless border. The last big one was 2015 when there were 31 days of Operation Stack. Nobody liked it, no one would allow it to happen if you could avoid it but we managed to get past it. That’s the first thing to understand.
The people of Kent were quite properly in uproar but nevertheless, it didn’t bring the country to a halt.
Secondly, if this was done deliberately it would be a massive piece of self-harm because if you block the channel port one way, you block it both ways.
It’s a sort of continual circuit so from that point of view, it’s not likely to last very long because you are going to have French farmers in uproar.
The next thing to bear in mind, because people worry most about Dover, is that you can move up to 40 per cent of traffic to other ports. Zeebrugge, Antwerp, Rotterdam all want more trade and they are preparing for this already.
In this world of ours, people never seem to report Brexit good news. There was an NAO [National Audit Office] report recently that the customs software was all on target.
Are we prepared enough for no deal?
Not yet. They need to accelerate. In my view what is currently a “consult and cajole” operation has got to turn into a “command and control” system and I think you’ll see under Dominic [Raab] far more centralisation of control over the course of the summer with Dexeu taking the lead.
By the end of the summer it should be plain we are making proper preparations for this. Frankly if we get to October and it’s not looking good, we should accelerate again – more money, more resources and so on.
I think there’s a fair amount of fear of no deal around the EU. I’ve talked to the politicians in some of the major ports and they’re very concerned. Only this week, Xavier Bertrand, the man who runs Hauts-de-France, which includes Calais and Dunkirk, he said we have to get on with the bilateral planning and he’s saying to the [European] Commission: “You can’t stop us talking to the UK customs authorities any longer.”
So there’s pressure for that already. And I think if we get beyond October, other countries will start to really fear no deal. The Netherlands and Belgium and Ireland will all suffer really quite badly for different reasons. So they won’t want to do it, Sweden won’t want to do it, Spain won’t want to do it.
You go around and each of the member states have their own reasons and they are rational reasons, so I think the pressure on the negotiations will suddenly increase dramatically and the Commission will not be able to stick by its ideological lines.
So far, the Commission sticking by ideological lines hasn’t really cost them very much.
They think they’ve got their money, we think we’ve got our implementation period, we’ve got the citizenship issue sorted out but there’s been no threat to the countries.
If we get to the EU Council meeting and we haven’t got any progress, the threat of no deal will suddenly get very real and I think that’s the point where new ideas will play.
Will the EU eventually do a deal with Britain?
Yes, eventually. But the countries will deal. The Commission will always be the hardliners in this exercise. We did an exercise in March where I did 18 countries in two weeks and it worked – it had an effect on the Council and you could see the results. I often tell the story – many years ago, when I was the Europe minister, there was one particular treaty change which nobody really liked, driven by the French and Germans.
I had the Spanish, Italian and the Danish foreign secretaries all saying to me: “David, you must veto this.” And I said: “Use your own bloody veto! Why should I veto it?” They all said: “You can stand up to the Franco-German axis, we can’t” and that used to be the issue, that France, Germany and the Commission were this sort of unbeatable trio.
We were the only people who would take them on. We’d use our veto and argue and people would sort of stand behind us. Now we’re not there to stand behind and some countries are beginning to become a bit more willing to talk about their own interests.
On the Northern Ireland border issue:
It’s not mythical but it’s certainly heavily misunderstood. The point that people forget is that there’s a border there already.
There’s a VAT border, there’s an excise border, there’s a currency border, there’s a legal border and it’s managed perfectly well as it stands by the Irish and the British customs and police authorities together.
One of the problems we have with the Commission is that they don’t trust anybody. It was one of the things that bridled with me early on when [EU negotiator Michel] Barnier said: “You have to earn trust.” And I thought, this country has been earning trust for a long time, it stands by its responsibilities more than most.
With a decent amount of interaction between our agencies and the Irish agencies, it’s manageable. The problem was that in December the Irish government insisted on this phrase “full alignment” and are now trying to use it as a lever.
Of course there are two understandings of full alignment. Our understanding is clear – it’s full alignment of outcomes. That doesn’t create a barrier down the Irish sea. What we can’t say suddenly is, “Oh, it’s going to be in the single market”. That’s an affront to the integrity to the Kingdom.
When did you decide to resign and what was the Prime Minister’s reaction?
She first told me about her plans on the Monday and I told her I didn’t think it was a good idea. I got a written copy about Wednesday lunchtime and fired off a letter back, going through why I thought it was not viable.
I don’t get angry. I’m not an emotional person on these things. I had won most of my arguments but this time I thought, “This can’t work. This can’t fly”.
Then we drafted my speech for Chequers, which started with the words, written across it in my handwriting: “I’m going to be the odd man out, Prime Minister”. I went through why it was wrong in my view, why it couldn’t work because of the phrase I use all the time: “It traps our fingers in the mangle.” And they’ll keep turning the mangle and we’ll never get out, we’ll never get away.
I’ve famously resigned twice, which is obviously excessive, but when I make a big decision I always put two days’ cooling off period in my own mind. So I slept on it for two nights. When I resigned over the civil liberties, the 42 days, I spent a whole weekend sitting in the drawing room of my house in Yorkshire, playing Mozart and drawing out all the possible outcomes, you know, like logic trees on a big piece of paper.
There was nothing quite so complicated needed for this. I didn’t do logic trees for this, it wasn’t necessary. The big things in my mind were: “One: can I stand at the despatch box and say this? And tell the truth?” And the answer’s no. Another thing was: “Other people are depending on my judgment on this.”
I talked it over with my wife and her advice was: “Leave.” Mind you, she’s had to put up with the workload and the absence really.
I don’t talk politics at home much but I did about this. I talked to her, I talked to my chairman on the phone because he was abroad and I talked to my president. I spent an hour with him going through the permutations and he just said: “I’m surprised you waited this long.”
I spoke to the Prime Minister late on Sunday night. She said she was disappointed. She said that twice. It was quite a short conversation really, there was no point stringing it out.
Were you relieved?
No, no, no. Although there was a series of internal battles about things, I stuck with it for so long because it’s an incredibly important task.
Who was the biggest thorn in your side, civil servant Olly Robbins or Chancellor Philip Hammond?
Well I don’t think of it that way. You’ve got a Whitehall establishment which putting it mildly, is not an enthusiast for the project. And certainly at the Treasury, which believes all these nonsensical forecasts. Project Fear Mark III, I think it is now.
The Treasury in total believes this stuff and I don’t. I simply think this is mathematical mumbo jumbo.
These are the forecasts which didn’t foresee the banking crisis, that got completely wrong the effect of the referendum.
If you believe the forecasts you tend to get rather frightened of this or that outcome. I think they’re too mechanistic and don’t take into account the way people behave.
You hear a lot of businesses complaining. Fair enough, they’ve got their issues to defend, but a lot are saying: “Where are the opportunities in this, where are we going? Where’s our next export market?” And you can’t model that. You can’t even guess it, frankly.
So you’ve got inevitably a civil service and some of the ministers as well whose primary instinct is to defend what we have. But if we’d spent the last 10 centuries of our history defending what we have, we’d be a very much poorer country if that precludes things that can make us into a great country. We’re going to have a massive growth in services, we are one of the world’s lead service exporters.
Under the Chequers proposal, the rules for those things are going to be written in Brussels. How can you have the rules for your best industries, your future, your champions, written somewhere else?
And how will they write those rules? Well go ask James Dyson. They wrote the rules deliberately to disadvantage him.
Or go and ask somebody who has got a diesel car that’s not worth very much now because they rigged the rules to suit the German car industry.
Do you want to be the next PM?
I’ve just given up my job, I don’t want another one! We’ve got to get through the next six months, we don’t have time for a leadership contest.
You were accused of being “asleep at the wheel”, “not across the detail” and “lazy”:
Ha! They should talk to my wife!
On Dominic Raab, his successor as Brexit Secretary:
We’ve obviously had conversations. Bear in mind I recruited him into politics in the first place. He’s my boy, as it were and he’s doing the right things.
He’s very clever but he’s also very tough. He’s the best possible replacement for me.
On the PM:
Much more than her predecessor, she takes Cabinet government really seriously – but we’ve got a Cabinet that’s three-quarters Remain.
I actually think she’s a good Prime Minister, she’s well intentioned. When we’ve got a decision or an issue to deal with, she takes her time over it, she reads all the papers, she takes all of the views, consults with everybody and then makes a decision.
The problem with this issue is it’s so complex you’re going to have to trust somebody’s judgment and she chose to trust somebody’s judgment other than mine.
On Boris:
He uses more flowery language than me but he makes the same point. I’ve no idea [if I could back him again]. I did last time. He was the person who I gave my first support for and I was very disappointed when he didn’t run. With a bit of luck, it will be after I’m gone. I intend to stand at the next election, but who knows?
On Michael Gove’s theory that he can “rescue” Brexit in March:
I think it misses the fundamental point which is the Union always uses the agreements it has to expand, not reduce, its power.
If you are a subscriber to “get it done, then fix it later”, what you are really subscribing to is fixing it in 20 years time when the amount of trade we do with Europe is so small it won’t matter any more.
In 20 years we’ll be down to 20 per cent trade with Europe but I didn’t sign up to this to create a 20-year timetable of exit. In a way it’s a self-deception – it’s people trying to rewrite their bit of history to make it sound better than it is.
On the Remain campaign to reverse the referendum result:
All that continued assault on the outcome is just bogus, patronising nonsense, it really is. And that’s why I think they’ve lost a chunk of the pragmatic Remainer vote.
About a month ago I went for a bicycle ride into Selby, not very far from me. There was a man running, doing his exercise. I stopped to check where I was and he said: “Are you who I think you are?” And I said: “Probably”. He said: “Well, good luck, I’m a Remainer and I cannot stand the way that some of the Remainers are behaving.
“London Remainers are so patronising about us, as though somehow we’ve got a lower IQ than them.”
If there was another referendum tomorrow, would Leave win?
I think they would. I think it would be about 60-40 and there are a number of reasons for it.
Number one, the behaviour of the Commission. One of the tactics I adopted was to be as reasonable as possible, just to make plain we’re not the ones causing trouble. That’s come across.
The second reason is the pragmatic Remainers who don’t like the behaviour of attempting to reverse the referendum. The third... a recent survey saying something like 51 per cent wanted a no deal. This is a sort of annoyance, a “Who do you think you are?” type response.
The trouble with having a second referendum is that it changes the negotiating dynamic, it makes the other side want to give us a harder deal so we’ll stay in. | |
| |
| The Countdown begins. on 02:32 - Jul 23 with 669 views | DJack |
| The Countdown begins. on 15:10 - Jul 22 by peenemunde |
We don’t have to explain anything- who do you think you are 🤣 |
You ignored the rest of my points. If you are to take the UK in a different direction then you DO HAVE TO EXPLAIN. Who do you think you are. |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| The Countdown begins. on 08:18 - Jul 23 with 608 views | pikeypaul |
249 AFLI
SIUYRL
No deal is coming home and I fecking love it. |  |
| |
| The Countdown begins. on 09:39 - Jul 23 with 579 views | Shaky |
No deal on Brexit risks civil unrest, says Amazon
Tech firm warns minister at business summit
The Times, July 23 2018, 12:01am
The head of Amazon in the UK has said that there could be “civil unrest” within two weeks if Britain leaves the European Union with no deal.
Amazon UK became the first business to issue such a warning. It was given at a meeting on Friday organised by Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary.
Doug Gurr, UK manager for the American online giant, told the other guests, who included representatives of Britain’s biggest businesses, that this worst-case outcome formed part of his contingency planning.
The remark stunned those present, with some expressing scepticism about Amazon’s forecast.
An Amazon spokesman declined to confirm or deny the comments but said: “Like any business, we consider a wide range of scenarios in planning discussions so that we’re prepared to continue serving customers and small businesses who count on Amazon, even if those scenarios are very unlikely.
“This is not specific to any one issue — it’s the way we plan for any number of issues around the world.”
In his first television interview as Brexit secretary, Mr Raab accused Brussels yesterday of “irresponsibly” stepping up pressure by stating that there were no arrangements in place for how UK and EU expatriates were to be treated in the event of no deal. “I think that’s a rather irresponsible thing to be coming from the other side. We ought to be trying to reassure citizens on the Continent and also here,” he told The Andrew Marr Show on BBC One. “There is obviously an attempt to try and ramp up the pressure.”
Mr Raab said that he would return to Brussels for talks on Thursday and “strain every sinew” to get the best deal, adding that one could be reached in October if the “energy, ambition and pragmatism” that Britain brought to negotiations were reciprocated.
Asked about reports that Britain planned to stockpile medicines and food in the event of a failure to reach agreement, Mr Raab would say only that they were “selective snippets”. He insisted that a deal could be in place by October despite the slow progress in negotiations with the EU.
Dominic Grieve, a leading pro-EU Tory, said that a no-deal Brexit would be “absolutely catastrophic”, telling Sky News: “We will be in a state of emergency — basic services we take for granted might not be available.”
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, also urged a “serious stepping up” of talks to avoid an exit without a deal.
An EU source dismissed Mr Raab’s remarks, saying that the bloc was the “opposite of irresponsible” and adding: “We have a legal responsibility to explain to businesses, other bodies and the wider public what a no-deal might mean. It is also a fact that the negotiations are not completed and the date of Britain’s withdrawal is now some eight months away. There is still no certainty that there will be a ratified withdrawal agreement in place on that date.”
Fears that Britain could exit the EU without a deal have been growing within UK business circles. The Times reported last month that the aerospace company Airbus was on the verge of withdrawing investment from Britain because of the stalled negotiations. Tom Williams, chief operating officer at Airbus, said: “In the absence of any clarity we have to assume the worst-case scenario.”
Mr Gurr’s comments came at a day-long meeting of business leaders and Mr Raab at Chevening, the government’s grace-and-favour country retreat in Kent. Among those present were Andy Higginson, chairman of the grocery chain WM Morrison; Sir Ian Cheshire, chairman of Barclays; Dame Inga Beale, chief executive of Lloyd’s of London; and Sinead Lynch, UK country chairwoman at Shell. It was the third such meeting between executives and Brexit ministers.
One person present told The Times that Mr Raab had made a good impression as he had a “lot more grip” than his predecessor, David Davis. “People seem to feel marginally more positive than when they went in. Let’s hope so, given that one of the people there with a significant supply chain had civil unrest within two weeks in their no-deal planning.”
Mrs May will host a cabinet meeting in Gateshead today to discuss a Brexit deal that works for all corners of Britain. Last week Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, questioned Mrs May’s plan for leaving the union. He also rejected British proposals on the City’s access to the European financial market after Brexit, arguing that they would undermine the power of Brussels.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-deal-on-brexit-risks-civil-unrest-says-ama |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Countdown begins. on 09:47 - Jul 23 with 570 views | Highjack |
| The Countdown begins. on 09:39 - Jul 23 by Shaky |
No deal on Brexit risks civil unrest, says Amazon
Tech firm warns minister at business summit
The Times, July 23 2018, 12:01am
The head of Amazon in the UK has said that there could be “civil unrest” within two weeks if Britain leaves the European Union with no deal.
Amazon UK became the first business to issue such a warning. It was given at a meeting on Friday organised by Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary.
Doug Gurr, UK manager for the American online giant, told the other guests, who included representatives of Britain’s biggest businesses, that this worst-case outcome formed part of his contingency planning.
The remark stunned those present, with some expressing scepticism about Amazon’s forecast.
An Amazon spokesman declined to confirm or deny the comments but said: “Like any business, we consider a wide range of scenarios in planning discussions so that we’re prepared to continue serving customers and small businesses who count on Amazon, even if those scenarios are very unlikely.
“This is not specific to any one issue — it’s the way we plan for any number of issues around the world.”
In his first television interview as Brexit secretary, Mr Raab accused Brussels yesterday of “irresponsibly” stepping up pressure by stating that there were no arrangements in place for how UK and EU expatriates were to be treated in the event of no deal. “I think that’s a rather irresponsible thing to be coming from the other side. We ought to be trying to reassure citizens on the Continent and also here,” he told The Andrew Marr Show on BBC One. “There is obviously an attempt to try and ramp up the pressure.”
Mr Raab said that he would return to Brussels for talks on Thursday and “strain every sinew” to get the best deal, adding that one could be reached in October if the “energy, ambition and pragmatism” that Britain brought to negotiations were reciprocated.
Asked about reports that Britain planned to stockpile medicines and food in the event of a failure to reach agreement, Mr Raab would say only that they were “selective snippets”. He insisted that a deal could be in place by October despite the slow progress in negotiations with the EU.
Dominic Grieve, a leading pro-EU Tory, said that a no-deal Brexit would be “absolutely catastrophic”, telling Sky News: “We will be in a state of emergency — basic services we take for granted might not be available.”
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, also urged a “serious stepping up” of talks to avoid an exit without a deal.
An EU source dismissed Mr Raab’s remarks, saying that the bloc was the “opposite of irresponsible” and adding: “We have a legal responsibility to explain to businesses, other bodies and the wider public what a no-deal might mean. It is also a fact that the negotiations are not completed and the date of Britain’s withdrawal is now some eight months away. There is still no certainty that there will be a ratified withdrawal agreement in place on that date.”
Fears that Britain could exit the EU without a deal have been growing within UK business circles. The Times reported last month that the aerospace company Airbus was on the verge of withdrawing investment from Britain because of the stalled negotiations. Tom Williams, chief operating officer at Airbus, said: “In the absence of any clarity we have to assume the worst-case scenario.”
Mr Gurr’s comments came at a day-long meeting of business leaders and Mr Raab at Chevening, the government’s grace-and-favour country retreat in Kent. Among those present were Andy Higginson, chairman of the grocery chain WM Morrison; Sir Ian Cheshire, chairman of Barclays; Dame Inga Beale, chief executive of Lloyd’s of London; and Sinead Lynch, UK country chairwoman at Shell. It was the third such meeting between executives and Brexit ministers.
One person present told The Times that Mr Raab had made a good impression as he had a “lot more grip” than his predecessor, David Davis. “People seem to feel marginally more positive than when they went in. Let’s hope so, given that one of the people there with a significant supply chain had civil unrest within two weeks in their no-deal planning.”
Mrs May will host a cabinet meeting in Gateshead today to discuss a Brexit deal that works for all corners of Britain. Last week Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, questioned Mrs May’s plan for leaving the union. He also rejected British proposals on the City’s access to the European financial market after Brexit, arguing that they would undermine the power of Brussels.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-deal-on-brexit-risks-civil-unrest-says-ama |
“No deal on Brexit risks civil unrest, says Amazon tech firm warns minister at business summit”
Is it just me or does this not scan correctly? Does anybody proof read this shyte? |  |
| The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. | | Poll: | What’s your favourite crock? |
| |
| The Countdown begins. on 10:09 - Jul 23 with 557 views | LeonWasGod |
| The Countdown begins. on 23:43 - Jul 22 by Kerouac |
No compromise now over democracy By Richard Tuck
Written by Richard Tuck
"If we value transparency and trustworthiness in our politics, we have to leave the EU and detoxify our public life; until we have thoroughly disentangled ourselves from it, distrust will remain the default attitude of the British public. Remainers cannot avoid the distrust so many of us feel about them, and we would be extraordinarily foolish to suppose that they do not deserve it.
The morning after the referendum, like many people who had voted to Leave, I was in a mood to compromise. The result after all had been fairly close, and if a new constitutional settlement was to last, it had to compel quite widespread consent. I thought that membership of the EEA might be possible; certainly some kind of free trade arrangement was imperative. Since June 2016, however, I have changed my mind, and I think I am not alone. The reason is partly that as I have thought more about the nature of the EEA and the role in it of the ECJ I have backed away from it as a solution; but the key reason is more profound than that. The behaviour of the leading supporters of remaining in the EU during the period after the referendum has made me deeply mistrustful of any compromise, since it is clear that all compromise proposals leave open a route quite quickly back into the EU in some fashion, and there are absolutely no grounds to think that the prominent Remainers will not seize the opportunity to go down it.
Trust has become the central issue in British politics. And in doing so, it has reminded us of one of the main objections to the EU, and why accusations of treason have alarmingly become a staple of the right-wing press in Britain. The EU is an institution which – despite all its window-dressing – is still essentially an intergovernmental organisation. Decisions are made through the familiar processes of international bargaining, though unlike other international bargains the ones made in the EU directly apply to the internal arrangements of the member states. And international negotiations have always been pre-eminently the arena in which governments act secretly and spring faits accomplis on their citizens. The age of the secret treaty may be over, though I wouldn’t rule out the existence of a wide range of secret “understandings” between modern states, particularly over such things as nuclear weapons. But secrecy in general is endemic to international relations. Because of this, even if a country’s constitution gives the final say over an international agreement to the legislature (as ours arguably does not), in practice the negotiations are entirely in the hands of the executive, the repository of secrets in most modern states. International negotiations also tend to give a disproportionate role to the civil servants, the “sherpas” in contemporary parlance, who prepare the ground for their (supposed) masters, since very few modern politicians have the time or the experience to pay as much attention to international politics as they do to the internal politics of their own countries. Their instincts are also likely to be much less acute when they leave the familiar territory in which they have made their careers.
This is the particularly toxic feature of the EU. A democratic state like the United Kingdom has, by and large, a pretty open debate about important domestic issues. There may be secret manoeuvrings within party executives and within Whitehall, but it all has to come out into the open before any firm decisions are made, and politicians can relatively easily be forced into u-turns. But to make important decisions through international bargaining, decisions which then structure the economy, and even to some extent the society, of a member state, as those made through the EU institutions must do, is to bring secrecy into the heart of domestic politics. With secrecy inevitably comes mistrust. As modern states do more and more through international agreements, distrust of politicians grows among their populations, who suspect that their ruling classes now have more in common with the ruling classes of other countries than they do with the ruled of their own. They may be right in this mistrust – after all, for much of the pre-democratic history of our countries this would have been an entirely well-founded apprehension – but even without a cultural sympathy of this kind the logic of the international structures makes a politician into a kind of secret agent within their own country. Who knows what they really want, and what they have implicitly as well as explicitly agreed to?
Defenders of the EU can agree with all this, and they can go on to say that for this reason it is vital to turn the EU into a proper state with the kind of transparent internal politics that we were used to in our individual nations fifty or sixty years ago. But as things stand that ambition looks absurdly utopian – far more utopian than anything Brexiteers are guilty of. Like so much of the EU, its political accountability is stuck in a half-way house, unable to move forward or backwards. If we value transparency and trustworthiness in our politics, we have to leave the EU and detoxify our public life; until we have thoroughly disentangled ourselves from it, distrust will remain the default attitude of the British public, and nothing can be done about that during the interim period we have embarked upon. Remainers cannot avoid the distrust so many of us feel about them, and we would be extraordinarily foolish to suppose that they do not deserve it; in this respect, at least, there is a profound asymmetry between Leave and Remain, for no one seriously thinks that Leavers have a secret agenda – the whole point of their position is to throw open British politics once again to the public gaze, and public debate. There is – alas – no basis for compromise now between the sides."
Professor Richard Tuck is a Fellow of the British Academy and Frank G. Thomson Professor of Government at Harvard. This letter, written on 17 May 2018, is one of his forthcoming Letters to the Left on Brexit. |
"The morning after the referendum, like many people who had voted to Leave, I was in a mood to compromise."
 pull the other one. Maybe he was but that's not representative of the Brexiteers in the government or on here. |  | | |
| The Countdown begins. on 10:10 - Jul 23 with 553 views | Shaky |
| The Countdown begins. on 09:47 - Jul 23 by Highjack |
“No deal on Brexit risks civil unrest, says Amazon tech firm warns minister at business summit”
Is it just me or does this not scan correctly? Does anybody proof read this shyte? |
Yes, I am afraid it is you that is unable to see 2 lines, and has insufficient experience of reading newspapers to understand that articles are prefaced by a headline and a sub-headline.
Why doesn't that surprise me? | |
| |
| The Countdown begins. on 10:16 - Jul 23 with 547 views | Highjack |
| The Countdown begins. on 10:10 - Jul 23 by Shaky |
Yes, I am afraid it is you that is unable to see 2 lines, and has insufficient experience of reading newspapers to understand that articles are prefaced by a headline and a sub-headline.
Why doesn't that surprise me? |
Ahh now I’ve clicked the link it makes more sense. It just didn’t look right the way you robotically copied and pasted it. | |
| The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. | | Poll: | What’s your favourite crock? |
| |
| The Countdown begins. on 13:55 - Jul 23 with 503 views | cwm02 |
| The Countdown begins. on 17:18 - Jul 22 by exiledclaseboy |
The president if the EU Parliament is elected by MEPs who are in turn directly elected by the people of EU member states.
The president of the EU Council is elected by the heads of state of the EU member states who make up the Council. All of whom are in some way elected by the people of the EU member states.
The president of the European Commission is appointed by the above mentioned EU Council made up of heads of state etc
Not sure who the other two alleged presidents are.
Who elects the U.K. prime minister to that office? Or the U.K. head of state? No one. [Post edited 22 Jul 17:19]
|
The only EU body which is directly elected by the public is the Parliament (our MEP's). Which has little power - its power is equivalent to our House of Lords: it can delay legislation or send it back for modification. The Commission holds all the power.
And as British voters, how do we influence the policies adopted by the 27 other European member states, so that the European Council or the EU president?
If other EU member states operate in a bloc, we can't.
British democracy isn't perfect. But it is FAR more democratic, far more local to the electorate, and FAR easier to be influenced by British voters, then the EU. |  | | |
| The Countdown begins. on 19:43 - Jul 23 with 416 views | Kerouac |
| The Countdown begins. on 13:55 - Jul 23 by cwm02 |
The only EU body which is directly elected by the public is the Parliament (our MEP's). Which has little power - its power is equivalent to our House of Lords: it can delay legislation or send it back for modification. The Commission holds all the power.
And as British voters, how do we influence the policies adopted by the 27 other European member states, so that the European Council or the EU president?
If other EU member states operate in a bloc, we can't.
British democracy isn't perfect. But it is FAR more democratic, far more local to the electorate, and FAR easier to be influenced by British voters, then the EU. |
Correct my friend.
Anyone arguing otherwise is either thick as pig excrement or a liar. | |
| |
| The Countdown begins. on 19:46 - Jul 23 with 413 views | Pegojack |
Aaron Banks, one of the major financers of UKIP and Brexit being shown on C4 news tonight to be heavily involved in bribing government officials in southern Africa to get licences for diamond mining.
In short, another major Brexiteer shown to be more crooked than a corkscrew.
What a shock. [Post edited 23 Jul 19:57]
|  | | |
| The Countdown begins. on 20:03 - Jul 23 with 394 views | longlostjack |
| The Countdown begins. on 19:46 - Jul 23 by Pegojack |
Aaron Banks, one of the major financers of UKIP and Brexit being shown on C4 news tonight to be heavily involved in bribing government officials in southern Africa to get licences for diamond mining.
In short, another major Brexiteer shown to be more crooked than a corkscrew.
What a shock. [Post edited 23 Jul 19:57]
|
All boils down to money in in the end Pego. The likes of Banks, the Mogg and Farage are worried about the EU controlling their little tax avoidance schemes. The mugs are the people without money who fall for their little game. As Peens would say - brainwashed. |  |
| |
| The Countdown begins. on 22:00 - Jul 23 with 315 views | Jango |
| The Countdown begins. on 20:03 - Jul 23 by longlostjack |
All boils down to money in in the end Pego. The likes of Banks, the Mogg and Farage are worried about the EU controlling their little tax avoidance schemes. The mugs are the people without money who fall for their little game. As Peens would say - brainwashed. |
And obviously the likes of Soros, Tony Blair etc have no personal interest in their campaigns for remain and are just doing what they think is best for Britain. Salt of the earth that lot. |  | | |
| The Countdown begins. on 22:51 - Jul 23 with 292 views | longlostjack |
| The Countdown begins. on 22:00 - Jul 23 by Jango |
And obviously the likes of Soros, Tony Blair etc have no personal interest in their campaigns for remain and are just doing what they think is best for Britain. Salt of the earth that lot. |
Soros is fine. | |
| |
| The Countdown begins. on 23:12 - Jul 23 with 279 views | Kilkennyjack |
| The Countdown begins. on 13:55 - Jul 23 by cwm02 |
The only EU body which is directly elected by the public is the Parliament (our MEP's). Which has little power - its power is equivalent to our House of Lords: it can delay legislation or send it back for modification. The Commission holds all the power.
And as British voters, how do we influence the policies adopted by the 27 other European member states, so that the European Council or the EU president?
If other EU member states operate in a bloc, we can't.
British democracy isn't perfect. But it is FAR more democratic, far more local to the electorate, and FAR easier to be influenced by British voters, then the EU. |
Tell that to the good voters in Scotland and the north of Ireland who both voted Remain - but they get bounced out of Europe by the weight of English (and welsh) votes.
Especially Scotland who voted to stay in a UK within Europe. Not a Brexidiot island ruled by the member for the C18th.
Or the elected Welsh and Scottish parliaments who have been totally ignored on Brexit.
A peoples vote is now essential once the terms are known.
No deal is not a serious option. | |
| ‘Beware of the risen people’ ........🍀🇮🇪 💚
YesCymru 🏴 |
| |
| The Countdown begins. on 23:43 - Jul 23 with 261 views | the_oracle |
| The Countdown begins. on 13:55 - Jul 23 by cwm02 |
The only EU body which is directly elected by the public is the Parliament (our MEP's). Which has little power - its power is equivalent to our House of Lords: it can delay legislation or send it back for modification. The Commission holds all the power.
And as British voters, how do we influence the policies adopted by the 27 other European member states, so that the European Council or the EU president?
If other EU member states operate in a bloc, we can't.
British democracy isn't perfect. But it is FAR more democratic, far more local to the electorate, and FAR easier to be influenced by British voters, then the EU. |
A few cut and pastes.
Commission proposes, the other institutions make the law. We ( UK) gets what it wants most of the time.
from the EU Council- The UK voted on the winning side 97.4% of the time in 2004-09 period and 86.7% of the time in the 2009-15 period.
Commission has only a limited role in EU law-making. It can decide some less important rules, and in general it is the only institution that can propose new laws, but it doesn’t have the power to pass them on its own.The authority to make law belongs to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Commission proposal only becomes an EU law when it attracts the support of two majorities. It needs both a majority in the Council, representing at least 55% of EU countries and 65% of the EU population, and a majority in the Parliament.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-brussels-bureaucrats/
And in what way is my vote more democratic at home?. I vote in a Labour stronghold. What ever candidate I vote for I will get a Labour Mp, the same if you vote somewhere like Ribble valley you will get a Tory. the only votes that really count are those in marginals. | | | |
| The Countdown begins. on 05:45 - Jul 24 with 202 views | pikeypaul |
The start of another beautiful day closer to being OUT of the EU
248 AFLI
SIUYRL
NO DEAL IS COMING HOME | |
| |
| The Countdown begins. on 06:54 - Jul 24 with 191 views | peenemunde |
| The Countdown begins. on 23:12 - Jul 23 by Kilkennyjack |
Tell that to the good voters in Scotland and the north of Ireland who both voted Remain - but they get bounced out of Europe by the weight of English (and welsh) votes.
Especially Scotland who voted to stay in a UK within Europe. Not a Brexidiot island ruled by the member for the C18th.
Or the elected Welsh and Scottish parliaments who have been totally ignored on Brexit.
A peoples vote is now essential once the terms are known.
No deal is not a serious option. |
Wrong again. Scotland voted to remain in the U.K. end of.
I bet you can’t back your claim up.
You keep going on about Scottish and northern Irish Democratic rights, what about the same rights for the Welsh who voted out.
All your arguments are built on sand. | | | |
| The Countdown begins. on 07:03 - Jul 24 with 187 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
“We are close to a no deal ........by accident “
Jeremy Hunt 2018
You don’t know what you’re doing
You don’t know what you’re doing
We should burn down parliament |  |
| |
| The Countdown begins. on 07:11 - Jul 24 with 181 views | Batterseajack |
50 years will fly by 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
