More bad news for the [s]truthers[/s] leavers
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/14/honda-uk-warns-mps-of-consequences-of-leaving-eu-customs-union

We have the bankers leaving in droves, UK manufcturers and the CBI stating what a disaster it will be and the 3 amigos still refuse to aknowledge anything is wrong

Also the wants of the business leavers made clear -0 scrap worker and environmental protection

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/sir-james-dyson-brexit_uk_5a08336fe4b01d21c83eff64

Alternatively - banks have scaled back their relocation plans, the French now arguing that fragmenting clearing is a bad idea (this morning) and DD suggesting a deal with bankers yesterday over special travel plans at the UBS conference

Not that remoaners are interested in facts of course

Mind the flood of bankers!!!!

The last polls suggest that people want the process concluded ASAP even remainers. So we still have to see his massive change of minds

Last week at least the polls also suggested on balance that people think leaving is a bad idea.

Remember we checked that THM?

Yes and we also saw what they want the gov to do - even the remainers

don't confuse THM with awkward facts. Its unfair on him

THM: the debate (as I'm sure you know) wasn't about what Article 50 + 2 years added up to.

It was about whether we should be enshrining that date into UK Law as part of the primary legislation.

Our Brexit secretary says that negotiations will run to the 59th minute of the eleventh hour.

So why make law that further impedes our negotiators if things are running a "minute" or two late? How does that help them get the best deal?

[img] [/img]
More enemies of the people time, how very dare they question and challenge, don't they know it's going to make us late

The Independent describes bad-tempered exchanges during last night's debate in the Commons, which it says regularly spilled over into the question of Brexit itself.
The newspaper quotes the former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, calling it "an extraordinarily painful process of national self-mutilation I'm required to facilitate".
The Daily Express says Labour's leader in the European Parliament has let slip a secret plot to stop Brexit.
It says Richard Corbett wants to ensure Britain remains a full EU member during a two-year "transition period" in the hope the time can be used to overturn the referendum result.

Well let’s think of leaving is a bad idea and they want the government to bring things to a conclusion - what would fit both of those?

Is there anything obvious?

No?

No point at all Graham.

Never said otherwise. I am aware who sets the timetable and who is able to change it. As before, it’s very simple

Why both sides are getting sweaty about it beats me. But his whole process is becoming farcical

Perhaps we may eventually get down to what is important ie negotiating the terms of our access and vv

Here’s hoping

No point at all Graham.
Never said otherwise.

You said the date was blindingly obvious. That's why I asked you to expand but you were stuck in curt one word answer mode for some reason.

I am aware who sets the timetable and who is able to change it.

Still doesn't explain why it is a good idea for us to make laws that remove that possibility.

I'm not sure I understand your position. You seem to agree that there is "no point at all" in such law, but you don't want it debated as it is obvious why we need it?

The date is important because it's in the plan, why is it in the plan?
Because all good plans need dates in them.
We don't have time to discuss trivial things like the date or the outcomes because we have to book meetings and flights etc. we need to do this because it's in the plan.
The outcomes are not really important compared to delivering the plan on time, if we don't do that we will all get into a lot of trouble. If we have to change dates then it means we need to re do the plan again and that could take weeks.
In reality it's a sorry mess somewhere between Arnold's revision timetables
[img] [/img]
and a massive government funded project where they specifically got the worst of the worst project guys in to do it who have no real idea what is going on but have made up some cool metrics and a dashboard

But his whole process is becoming farcical

Becoming? Has been since Cameron announced the referendum.

A study in procrastination by both sides almost as if neither side actually wants to face up to the implications of Britain leaving. Plus a few swivel eyed loons like IDS who just don’t want to face up to the real world of the 21st century.

A few months ago the guy was being attacked for not having a date in the plan, now it's the opposite. But this still ignore the obvious - the date is set, we know that, and any change is not at our discretion anyway. So the whole debate is pointless and doesn't not need masses of time or even words.

Hence the previous short replies.

I like that the Telegraph has gone all 'enemies of the people'

Or should that be enemies of the Putin?

Setting an arbitrary deadline to complete something when you have no idea what you're going to do is a bit silly, no? I see this all the time at work.

Brexit is like dog * on the Tory party shoe, they just want rid of it as quickly as possible so they can move on (blame) other people for all the other * that happens post Brexit.

Just as the Telegraph morphs to the Daily Mail the desperation of the Tory right becomes evident in the approach to Brexit - leaked cabinet minister letters, a vote that's not a vote, clearing out the sex pests, fixed dates? Ken Clark trying to talk down the loons..... oooh and where are those 58 reports.

It's a ****ing joke and about 50% of the people in this country are being subjected to the biggest "long con" the world has ever seen.

But his whole process is becoming farcical

Only someone who has had their head firmly stuck up their arse for the past two years could possibly think it is only now "becoming" farcical. It was stupid before the referendum, but the collapse of govt, rushing through of A50 with no thought to the consequences, brilliant pursuit of the election, its aftermath and subsequent hostage situation in No 10 is well beyond that.

Comedians are reduced to reading out headlines and waiting for the laugh. They genuinely couldn't make this stuff up.

An we are still no nearer any plausible credible plan for how to deal with this mess than we were in 2016. Tick tock.

The corporate raiders are already lining up, the only way to get inward investment post Brexit is low tax rates, low regulation of labour (see James Dyson and Tim "Wetherspoon") but don't worry poor people Wetherspoons will be able to knock 15p off a happy meal.

the French now arguing that fragmenting clearing is a bad idea (this morning)

Setting an arbitrary deadline

😯

Oldman - imagine how the >50% must feel when so many of the representative argue that their views should be dismissed. Lovely to see how F Field was treated yesterday when he mentioned this inconvenient fact!! Still the left has always sought to quash dissent and debate.

Setting an arbitrary deadline to complete something when you have no idea what you're going to do is a bit silly, no?

You may think that but the time to argue the point was when the Treaty of Lisbon was negotiated, now it is a fait accompli, absent unanimous agreement otherwise, ja?

Oldman - imagine how the >50% must feel when so many of the representative argue that their views should be dismissed.

What is it with you two? (THM & Mefty) Trolling or can't read A50?

The deadline can be moved if all parties agree. In fact, "we" could make it earlier with or without agreement.

There was no date/time in the referendum question.

Only in your eyes Ed. But hard to pitch something to suit your distorted lens. So won't even try.

Kelvin 😉

Still the left has always sought to quash dissent and debate.

front page of the torygraph would indicate that is not confined to one side of the debate

but dont let facts impinge on your bigotry 😉

Still the left has always sought to quash dissent and debate.

Please don't try to paint it as a left vs right issue. That infection has already taken over American politics, casting a shadow over every discussion.

As Ken Clarke said:

[i]"I am the rebel. I espoused the policies that the Conservative party has followed for the 50 years of my membership of it until we had a referendum 18 months ago, and I regret that I have not yet seen the light. He and I, like the hon. Member for Bolsover, remain consistent; we are probably each of us wrong. In the course of this, there are some very, very serious issues to be settled in this Bill. I ask the Government to reconsider silly amendments that were thrown out because they got a good article in The Daily Telegraph but might eventually actually do harm."[/i]

And while we are on Ken Clarke, his backing of Hilary Benn's point was on the money too:

[i]The right hon. Gentleman has been a political ally of mine in previous cross-party arrangements, but not on this occasion. He has dodged answering the perfectly serious point that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) just put to him. As things stand, article 50 will take effect in March 2019 and we will leave. Anything in the Bill is superfluous to that. A problem could arise only if — and this is possible — 28 member states all agree that they are near to a conclusion but that they require a few more days or weeks to settle it. Once we are going they will not want us to stay in much longer, because they will not want us around for the European Parliament elections. However, it would be utterly foolish if 28 Governments all agreed to extend the process and the British representative had to say, “But we’ve put into ?British law a timing that says, to the second, when we are actually leaving.” That seems to me a rather serious flaw in the proposed new clause.[/i]

Graham - your correct, but read ^ and it's very much a Tory issue. Odd that...well not really when you don't think about it.

My reference was to quashing of dissent more that Brexshit/A50 tbc.

Kimbers - it's not really worth reading Torygaph, Indy, Guardian or Standard on this issue. They are all as bad as each other. Yes, the Torygraph was exceptional today.

What is it with you two? (THM & Mefty) Trolling or can't read A50?

Just making the point to Mols the deadline emanates from the treaty, not us. The clue was I quoted his post and mirrored his frightful use of "no?" in my post.

When you have to explain your sneer...

Just making the point to Mols the deadline emanates from the treaty, not us.

Kelvin seemed to be making the same point - but must have misunderstood.

A50 (3)

Read A50… the two years is not immovable. Why on earth try and make it so with a UK law and bind the hands of all involved in the negotiations? If we need an extra month, week, day, minute, second… either to reach an agreement, or to implement it, and all sides agree, then take that time. A50 uses language a 10 year old can understand to make it clear this is possible. Our government is trying to remove that flexibility, because…

When you have to explain your sneer...

I know I should exercise more self control when responding to such well meaning questions.

Read A50… the two years is not immovable.

absent unanimous agreement otherwise

Yes, it needs agreement to extend the period … why write into UK law that even with agreement the exit date is immutable?

Okay so we all agree that, with unanimous agreement from the EU, there [b][i]is[/i][/b] scope for moving the leave date (as also stated by Ken Clarke, Hilary Benn, et al)?

Yes? No argument there I think.

So the question is: why would we make it illegal for that to happen?

Especially when we already know the negotiations are behind and our Secretary for Brexit tells us that they will go to the 59th minute of the eleventh hour?

What does that move gain us?

(Edit: cross-post with kelvin making the same point)

Who's making the point you are arguing against?

[quote=GrahamS ]

What does that move gain us?

Us? Nothing?

May? It placates the rabid leavers in the tory part (temporarily)

Who's making the point you are arguing against?

The government.

And those MPs who dissent are slammed here for being time wasters, and in the press as mutineers.

Yes, it needs agreement to extend the period … why write into UK law that even with agreement the exit date is immutable?

EDIT: But unusual for a Government to give away power.

Ooo… good news… special travel deal for those working in financial services after Brexit… I don't have my FT access here… can you post some quotes THM …?

there can't be negotiations going to wire.

1) you forget the EU is involved
2) our government looks to also be avoiding decision making
3) we could have an agreement, but, at the last minute, need more time to be ready for the exit date
4) an extension can be granted by the Council, it doesn't need to be immediately approved by the EU Parliament

Who's making the point you are arguing against?

Well, [i]you[/i] were arguing that [i]"the whole debate is pointless. We have an exit date"[/i], that it was blindingly obvious, very simple, and you couldn't understand why "both sides are getting sweaty about it".

So [i]presumably[/i] you don't think it should be debated and we should just accept this law?

No, I stick to my original point.

No, I stick to my original point.

Which was what THM?

I thought this was your original point on it:

[i]"..if their bored they could also get a bit sweaty about the date of leaving. That could pass a couple of hours and it's not as though the answer is obvious."[/i]

Little point us playing that game Graham. Time to walk away.

Mefty - it's a piss poor argument.

It is not the most compelling one, but I am not a dyed in the wool Brexiteer who extols the virtues of Parliamentary Primacy. Perhaps it is a preemptive move which Telegraphs the need for other compromises that they will be less keen on.

We have arbitrary deadlines set where I work. It usually results in half-arsed schemes.

@slowoldman couple that with piss poor planning and scoping and unrealistic expectations, difficult stakeholders and budget issues and it's only going one way. But still will of the people and all that best just suck it up princess and use the time spent worrying to perfect that Gruel recipe.

It was

Perhaps it is a preemptive move which Telegraphs the need for other compromises that they will be less keen on.

(Amusing capitalisation) Yeah I wondered if this was the intention, a show of [i]"Hey we really mean it. We've put the date in law and everything"[/i] but if it was then I think it has spectacularly backfired because veteran MPs have looked at it and rightly said [i]"What? Why on earth would you do that?"[/i].

No link, no source and that despite a request. You're just full of... hot air, THM.

but must have misunderstood.

He understood, but as you write in riddles with no source, link or anything tangible what you oringinally intended to say may have got lost in your attempts to belittle, sneer, condescend, mock, Micky take, troll, provoke, insult, mislead, talk down to... .

Ah, I now have an orphan post.

Not sure I agree with your points, fundamentally any deal has to be wrapped up to give time for the EU parliament to approve it, which I think is assumed to be a period of 6 months, so September next year. If it can't be done by September and everyone agrees a new deadline, there is more than sufficient time to get it through Parliament.

That said it is not impossible to imagine a scenario where its gets stuck in the EU, or indeed a member state's where applicable, parliament. In that case, a deadline extension may be sought at short notice and we will have created a rather unfortunate rod for our own back.

It was

Yes

It might even have been imagined as a compromise…

- we won't storm out early with no deal
- we won't indefinitely delay our exit

…the reality is it looks to remove much needed flexibility we might all need in 2019

If we need to roll back to old customs systems, for example, because of an, unsurprising, problem occurring with the implementation of the new IT system that is going live just before our exit, then May, or later, might be more wise for all than the end of March.

teamhurtmore - Member
It was

So in summary the government is doing everything in it's power (which is a funny thing to type at the moment) to make doubly sure that the whole thing ends up with a leave/flounce. If I was cynical I would have to guess that some are quite worried that some people might play the call if off card.

Ed, you really are a charmer aren’t you. 😉

Mike. Yes you are correct the gov is attempting to negotiate how we leave the EU. That WAS on the ballot paper !

…the reality is it looks to remove much needed flexibility we might all need in 2019

I agree, it would be possible to deal in the legislation with known unknowns, but it is always the unknown unknowns that bite you on the arse.

Not what I said though was it, I'll try and write it simpler...
They are putting obstacles in the way of anyone who tries to get in their way.
They do not need to do all of this to negotiate an exit - if somebody does something that they do not need to do it raises suspicions as to the motives.

Have they released those docs yet?

Edit -
@mefty given how well they are dealing with the known known's that are the 3 first items the UK agreed to sort before moving on to anything else how does that look for some of the unexpected items.
The Known Unknows are scary enough

😛

He understood, but as you write in riddles with no source, link or anything tangible what you oringinally intended to say may have got lost in your attempts to belittle, sneer, condescend, mock, Micky take, troll, provoke, insult, mislead, talk down to...

This most imaginative line in invective would be rather more effective if the comment you quote was discussing one of THM's posts, unfortunately it was one of mine.

Check the previous page, Mefty. Unless you've said exactly the same it's a quote from THM.

So in summary the government is doing everything in it's power....to make doubly sure that the whole thing ends up with a leave...

You decide

Comedians are reduced to reading out headlines and waiting for the laugh. They genuinely couldn't make this stuff up.
An we are still no nearer any plausible credible plan for how to deal with this mess than we were in 2016. Tick tock.

The corporate raiders are already lining up, the only way to get inward investment post Brexit is low tax rates, low regulation of labour (see James Dyson and Tim "Wetherspoon") but don't worry poor people Wetherspoons will be able to knock 15p off a happy meal.

It must be so nice in a black and white world...
Has the UK presented a realistic plan yet? Given any decent accurate assessments of what will follow their potential outcomes?
Nope nothing at all. The public is being kept in the dark as the more that comes to light the more people turn on the project.

Three excellent posts.

I reckon we should call the whole thing off, work out what it has already cost us to date and bill this back to the people who voted 'leave'. Then it's either "pay your bill for wasting our time" or a full day in the stocks in their local community so they can be pelted with rancid fruit and veg by the grown-ups.

I'm going to try to have that image in my head when I go to sleep tonight so I can live this brilliant world in my head for a few hours.

Before waking up to another day of national humiliation and refusal to face the facts that less and less people every day actually want this to happen.....

Call it off and I reckon you can forget the rebate. No quote, this is pure gratuitous speculation on my part, but if I'm thinking it you can bet it's also crossed the minds of people in high places in Europe.

The war cry of the remoaners - do everything we can (including making lots of things up) to ensure that the result is ignored. The people, sorry the thickos, must not be respected. They don’t understand, far too complex for their feeble little minds.

Well I'm beginning to understand what this red white and blue Brexit is going to look like.

How can you - we haven’t started negotiating the details yet? At least not in public

Another question mark at the end of a statement which your English teacher would hav eunderlined in red back in school but I'll answer al the same, THM. Davies has started negotiating the details:

He's offered too little cash, too few rights to EU citizens in the UK and an unacceptable fudge for N.I.. Negotiations are therefore not advancing.

The war cry of the remoaners - do everything we can (including making lots of things up) to ensure that the result is ignored. The people, sorry the thickos, must not be respected. They don’t understand, far too complex for their feeble little minds.

We're not the ones that think the people are too feeble to have a say on the final deal.

Why do you want to deny them that say?

If the 52 percent is as solid a democratic mandate as you say. Prove it.

The war cry of the remoaners

Sigh - obvious troll line - boring us all away - yawn.

Any chance you could contribute, and pass on some of the details of the special travel deal for those in your sector suggested by DD and outlined in the FT today?

That said it is not impossible to imagine a scenario where its gets stuck in the EU, or indeed a member state's where applicable, parliament. In that case, a deadline extension may be sought at short notice and we will have created a rather unfortunate rod for our own back.

Which, on past form (e.g. Greece), is not impossible or unlikely - can-kicking to the next meeting is the EU's forte!

The people, sorry the thickos, must not be respected. They don’t understand, far too complex for their feeble little minds.

But you've already admitted that the decision wasn't made on sound reasoning, haven't you?

...can-kicking to the next meeting is the EU's forte!

butbutbut, i thought the EU would be begging us for a deal?

The people, sorry the thickos, must not be respected. They don’t understand, far too complex for their feeble little minds.

Indeed - but let them suffer, while our wonderful financial wizards retain their FOM. Pliable thing, democracy!!

THM a few sensible questions -

1. Will people on less than the national average salary be financially better off post Brexit

2. Will unskilled/semi skilled people be more secure in respect to having a home and an income post Brexit

3. Will social mobility increase post Brexit

4. Will the cost of living increase post Brexit

I think you work in the financial sector so you may have a better view than most.

The people, sorry the thickos, must not be respected. They don’t understand, far too complex for their feeble little minds.

I respect thickish as I respect every human being. Its just I don't want them making decisions.

Whomis the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool that follows the fool?

I love the idea of bankers getting ~FOM while no one else does. The EU will not allow that - it would be illegal under EU law. A deal to give them visas easily would work but that is not FOM

Easy visa for those working in :
Healthcare, construction, engineering, education, research, biotechnology, agriculture, care, IT. Oh, and coffee shops.