Forum menu
That article is poppycock, the UK has already implemented everything required by the directive
Why do we oppose it if we are already doing it and leading the way ?
That you would dismiss the facts is odd that you would make the claim that where we lead on tax avoidance others follow is absurd and not a view facts can do anything other than refute.
FWIW i dont think this alone is why we want to leave.
We didnt oppose anyhting mentioned in the article linked by WF, indeed we funded the research by the OECD that developed many of the ideas and Cameron drove the International agreement when we were President of the G8
the UK is the biggest centre of money laundering and tax evasion in the world along with its various dependencies and offshore havens and the tories have fought tooth and nail to prevent any real action to clamp down of tax avopidence. Camerons fortune comes from tax avoidance / evasion.
they have talked the talk on it but refused to walk the walk, fought to make any measures toothless.
we are not fooled
along with its various dependencies and offshore havens
For someone who has spent so many years banging on about self governance and independence for Scotland, you don’t appear to understand much about the concepts of legislative and judiciary autonomy do you?
Are the swivel-eyed really getting upset about where their passports are made?
In with Schneider on this
https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/976728274243145728?s=19
From today's London ES:
"Fury as post-Brexit blue passports to be made by Franco-Dutch firm."
Yeah, I can just see the meltdown at Schloss Farage and Reese-Mogg Towers now...
Tom Peck in today's Independent (i)
"The UK’s fishing industry, whose total contribution to the British economy is slightly smaller than that of the pet insurance sector, would have to toil under the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy for 19 long months more."
Ouch!
sauce https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nigel-farage-brexit-fishing-protest-westminster-a8266651.html
the passport thing sums it up doesn't it?
the gov could have just said to the current supplier 'change the colour will you mate?'. but no, there isn't nearly enough to be getting on with in this whole debacle, so they have to go through a new procurement process, and because there are EU regs on spending like this, it has to be opened up to european businesses to bid as well as UK ones.
except it doesn't.
the french have their passports made in france only, because they regard it as a security issue.
bloody europeans making us jump through hoops that actually we don't have to jump through we've just chosen to. but you can be damn sure that farage and mogg will make a big hoohah about it all and white van man will believe it's all europe's fault. again.
sigh.
You people do realise that chip cards were invented in France and French passport security technology systems really are as good as you get, don't you. I have no problem with Airbus wings being made in Bristol, they're rather good at it. You can't be good at everything so don't try to be. But if you are good at something don't cut yourself off from potentioal buyers with paperwork, frontiers, tarifs, legal obstacles and bad will because several kms of water is already an obtacle and there's no point turning la Manche into a wall.
the gov could have just said to the current supplier ‘change the colour will you mate?’. but no, there isn’t nearly enough to be getting on with in this whole debacle, so they have to go through a new procurement process, and because there are EU regs on spending like this, it has to be opened up to european businesses to bid as well as UK ones.
They won't through the procurement process because the current contract is expiring. They are bound to choose the Most Economically Advantageous Tender, under OJEU procurement rules. When we leave, we'll be bound by WTO procurement rules....which will still prevent us from favouring UK companies.
surely they could just have extended it for 2 or 3 years .
They are bound to choose the Most Economically Advantageous Tender, under OJEU procurement rules.
They're not, actually.
Let's be honest, the UK could have cited 'security issues' and kept the passport manufacture at home, if that was important, or maybe outsourcing it for a £50mil saving was more importanter. Who knows.
What we do know is our government still has its head up its own backside.
So, Simon Jenkins thinks we are going to get a pretty soft Brexit:
Wishful thinking, or good insight?
Softer and softer until it melts away into nothing like the snow. Or perhaps a sticky mess like ice cream.
I could accept a Norway. It keeps a rabid shouty Remainer like me happy while leaving the eu, which was the only question asked.
the passport thing sums it up doesn’t it?
Seems to me that, just like the fishing, once again we have lots of remainders casting around telling us that brexiteers are “livid” “outraged” and “up in arms” over the passport decision, whereas in reality the brexiteers have shrugged their shoulders and said “who cares, it’s saved 50 million quid” in the belief that Danny La Rue should have sharpened their pencils a bit when bidding for the contract.
"Remainders" like the Daily Mail?
Yes, that measured response is exactly as you describe it.
So back to the Brexit What Is It Good For?
Absolutely nothing! Say it again!
- increased "red tape"
- worse trading arrangements with RoW
- less say over international rules and regulations
- more dependant on the good will of the political leaders of our EU neighbours
Absolutely Nothing.
I think we need a deep voiced “Huh” at this point. Just before the “what is it good for?”
In other news, Armando Iannucci has confirmed that he is in the second year of a four year contract to write reality.
“Reality as satire is a fantastic art form and a wonderful opportunity. I’m just really pleased that god let me do this. Wait til you see what I have in line for the Brexies next”
Brexit: what would Malcolm Tucker do?
I could accept a Norway. It keeps a rabid shouty Remainer like me happy while leaving the eu, which was the only question asked.
I am not sure. Although it meets the normal definition of compromise by pissing everyone off it fails to address the underlying issues and so provides a stab in the back myth opportunity for those who will profit from the mess.
Norway or similar is the 650b of brexit, the pointless middle ground that nobody really wants and just means tons of disruption and expense for trivial benefit. It still costs us money, influence and opportunity, it doesn't Turk Bark Control enough... It'd be a classic fudge but realistically if these had been the options on the ballot paper: stay in eu, or have a norway style arrangement, the vote would have been "stay in EU".
Of course the norway option is shit. hard brexit is shitter.
Which is 29” and which is 26” though? It matters as if I could only choose one it would be 29” but would choose 650b over 26”.😕
Brexit is trading in a carbon Enduro gnarpoon for a Walmart bso & trying to convince yourself it's just as great
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-trade-customs-union-theresa-may-a-managed-surrender/
ah yes but is it a blue BSO ?
[i]ninfan wrote:[/i]
whereas in reality the brexiteers have shrugged their shoulders and said “who cares, it’s saved 50 million quid” in the belief that Danny La Rue should have sharpened their pencils a bit when bidding for the contract.
Yeah, that's definitely what's happened
Yep Twitter was stuffed with brexies frothing over that one
Simon Hart, a Conservative, goes next.
Q: Have you made any assessment as to whether this over-spending would have affected the result?
Wylie says he has two points.
First, if someone is caught doping in the Olympics, no one asks if that made the different to them winning the race.
You should not win by cheating, he says.
He says this vote made a fundamental change to the constitution of the country.
Second, Dominic Cummings himself said the internet campaign was what made all the difference, he says.
He says the “conversion rates” for the campaign’s online advertising were “incredibly effective”.
He says it is perfectly credible to say that, without cheating, there would have been a different result.
cheaters
I think we may be heading to the high court here....
Interesting that this story is mostly unreported by the BBC which has instead gone for blanket wall-to-wall coverage of a few dozen people standing around with placards criticising Corbyn over anti-semitism.
A case of 'he who pays the piper, calls the tune', one suspects.
The Australian cricket team cheating in a game (not even against England) has made more news in this country than the leave campaign cheating over something that will affect everyone in this countries life. This country is ******
No wonder Cummings deleted his Twitter account, it must've been dawning on him that he was incriminating himself & the campaign
The allergations were widely reported on the BBC relating to the funding, Where is the quote above from and when was it said? Was it in the last hour?
Do we think this cheating issue will affect the result?
Oh and it's here
The select committee is currently hearing from whistleblower Christopher Wylie, who accused his former employer, Cambridge Analytica, of gathering the details of 50 million users on Facebook through a personality quiz in 2014.
He alleges that because 270,000 people took the quiz, the data of some 50 million users, mainly in the US, was harvested without their explicit consent via their friend networks.
Mr Wylie claims the data was sold to Cambridge Analytica, which then used it to psychologically profile people and deliver pro-Trump material to them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43554135
Filed under If Mark Zuckerberg will front up to parliament, it look slike it's an evolving piece so being updated as the hear and write it
Do we think this cheating issue will affect the result?
I don’t think it will.