Forum menu
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.
Gone too far now.
Gone too far now.
It can be stopped this afternoon.
sadly even though it looks like CA/ AIQ/Vote Leave blatantly broke the law to subvert democracy, teh swivel eyed Brexies, including May, are far too comitted now
The best we could see is some people from CA/ AIQ/Vote Leave being prosecuted, it also raises further questions about teh current government trying to keep teh DUP donations secret
If they call another referendum will this thread get closed and a new one started ?
and the storm moves on
Really is looking like democracy is having some problems.
So leavers not particularly interested in whether the rules of democracy are followed!!!
Who'd have thought it?
From mrmo’s link...
quote from the director of the Vote Leave campaign, Dominic Cummings: “Without a doubt, the Vote Leave campaign owes a great deal of its success to the work of AggregateIQ. We couldn’t have done it without them”.
People would be more concerned of there was a decently evidenced allegation, nothing in the Observer comes close to that. Comes across as someone looking vainly for a secret weapon to excuse Remain's and Hilary's losses.
Well if it stops the country from a massive act of self-harm, I'll clutch at them straws!
So if the government voted to keep the DUP deal secret & Brexiters that voted for it knew it was an illegal , were they trying to cover up their own crimes?
People would be more concerned if they valued democracy rather than the win. The claim there is no evidence is as brazen as a trump tweet and frankly beneath you and serious response.
The only issue is whether their dark arts were decisive- I assume neither of think the winners were so bad they "cheated" with a method that did not work.
Really? You missed the bit about making a donation to somebody then controlling exactly what they were doing with the cash? That isn't legal within UK rules.
Where is the evidence, just some barely credible jokers.
So that video above showing who was directing things? That isn't evidence?
I guess it's a little inconvenient to think that this was a deliberate conspiracy. Going to ruin a few
There is abslute hard evidence of the overspending and the illegal paper only transfers of money. clearly illegal
That GIF, no that is not evidece, it isn't even a decent presentation.
Perhaps we shall let the courts decide based on what is presented to them. Of course you could go for plan A, deny, Plan B Attack the evidence, Plan C attack the source... it's all very Trumpian and we can see how well that is working out for him.
There u go mefty
Im sure the shredders have been working overtime, but much harder to delete digital footprint
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/978705050309718016?s=19
That is only evidence that they worked to ensure that their data was legal, hardly nefarious activity.
Your naivety is charming, but don't worry im sure the brexiter elites will make sure that no one of consequence will face the music
Perhaps we shall let the courts decide based on what is presented to them.
It was in court last week, Court confirmed Election Commission had said legal to donate to other campaigns if no co-ordination.
The allegations are that they were not really other organisations, just spin offs created soecspecific to channel 💰💰
had said legal to donate to other campaigns if no co-ordination.
Which is the crux of the issue and allegations
Cabinet Office minister Chloe Smith said ministers should not pre-empt the findings of the independent Electoral Commission's investigations into whether any campaigners breached political finance rules..
Serious enough to be investigated though isn't it.
Well it has been investigated twice and there is a third attempt now, but on the basis that Remain were cleared of co-ordination and they are documented as holding daily conference calls to agree press lines, I think the chances of any joy being brought to remainers are very remote.
Investigated with all the current evidence?
I say again what evidence? Proper evidence, not tweets or articles.
Probably what has been given to them, direct tistimony etc. after all if nothing had changd why look at it again? The point above about deletions occuring after investigation on March 1st suggest tracks were being covered, if those documents or evidence of the deletion is presented then it's well worth a look. Unless you have decided nothing could possibly be wrong there.
Loving Mefty's efforts… but not really sure his heart is in it. Good work though… "there is no evidence"… "look into my eyes"… "there is no evidence"…
My highlight of the week is far more dry than all this opaque methods and funding stuff… it's this from our PM… when replying to one of her own MPs…
Is that actually real?
Does anyone remember those Longjohns sketches with Bird and Fortune?
Kelvin - I think you accidentally reprinted one.
No my heart is in it because I think it is a load of bollocks, I watched some of the great whistleblower's evidence, he said he worked for the company in 2013 and 2014 and yet is giving "categorical" evidence on what the company did in 2015.
The other whistleblower admitted on tv, there was no smoking gun.
Its wishful thinking bollocks.
What would be proper évidence ?
At the moment there are witnesses and digital trail of documents.
That is good start.
There is clear evidence including a paper trail of the overspending. You can prentend all you like this is not so
They were reviewing a dossier of evidence supplied by solicitors Bindmans, which contained examples of alleged collusion showing that Vote Leave and BeLeave were not separate and therefore that the leave campaign spent over the £7m legal limit set by the Electoral Commission.
https://www.ft.com/content/ff5bbc0c-3120-11e8-b5bf-23cb17fd1498
UK cries foul over exclusion from EU satellite planMinisters
and companies push to retain full participation in Galileo project after Brexit
Damn EU rules denying us our cake
Data.
Even outside the EU, we'll be able to take part in such schemes IF we accept the rules and jurisdiction over data that the EU creates. Other posts on this page remind us that data, and the protection of it, is more and more important.
when I was at Cardiff Uni all the student union paperwork on Kinnock apparently went missing (83-86), but rumour was that he started several different political parties in order to bag more funding from the student union pot.
Same with clinical trials Kelvin, a lot of UK studies in limbo at the moment, because we can't say what relationship will be re privacy laws etc.
See also UKs cake & eat it position over EMA
Very frustrating for researchers & drug companies
Sutely all the industry heads are giving Enola May a bollocking?
There is clear evidence including a paper trail of the overspending. You can prentend all you like this is not so
Aren’t the key phrases in the article you linked to “lawyers said” and “may have”?