I have read the FT pretty much every day for 30 years - very much a Europhile paper
Choose what you want to read
Choose what you want to read
That doesnt really help in a referendum though does it? Where some people might not have your refined tastes in reading material.
I have read the FT pretty much every day for 30 years
Yup, I do follow the FT too. Isn't it strange that when newspapers are bought by right-wing billionaires with agendas that the quality of news suffers? Who'd have thought...
Choose what you want to read
I choose to read the Brexit impact reports!
When you post parliamentary briefings here people can’t be bothered to read them
Faux outrage about documents - since views are so entrenched anyway
FT is unusual in accommodating a range of views but there are plenty of papers that are pro Europe. Odd that moaners who complain about press must ignore the quality papers if they refute this
Must be Wail readers 🙂 or even worse WoS
what if all EU countries go out from EU? and stay as autonomous states
THM - stop it with the bullshit. Pretty clear from the history of this thread that plenty of people posting here read briefing papers, and bills, and the FT. And they (and I) would read the impact reports, at the very least for any sectors we have interest in, if they were published (if they have been written). This obviously isn't true of most voters… because most voters aren't as boring us those of us who take such a close interest in such things… what appears in the "popular press", on the radio, and on TV, sets the agenda far more than pink papers and full unredacted parliamentary briefing papers.
"Faux outrage" - over the minister in charge of a new department set up to handle how we leave the EU clearly lying about the work his department has/hasn"t done as regards looking at the effects of how we leave the EU?
"Faux" ?
Odd that what is read is immediately forgotten
What a waste of paper and time!
“In the single market” etc.... 😯
EMA debate showed the same
[i]“There were no 58 sectoral impact assessments” says the PM today... but Davis said she had read some of them in October...?[/i]
They *really* never expected to have to actual provide them did they.
So are we back to the thickos again? Stop then voting, they have no rights to express their views....
Timewasting troll.
Davies lies to parliament must be running close to contempt surely?
[i]The SNP is going to raise a point of order immediately after PMQs suggesting David Davis is in contempt of parliament.[/i]
*rubs hands*
Close to contempt?
We're way beyond that right now.
Source: www.parliament.uk
[i]Contempt of privilege is a term used to describe any act - or failure to act - that may prevent or hinder the work of either House of Parliament.[/i]
THM, forget party for a moment, if an MP has knowingly lied, repeatedly. They should be stripped of the whip and thrown out of parliament. Yes or No.
When you post parliamentary briefings here people can’t be bothered to read them
Faux outrage about documents - since views are so entrenched anyway
I'm quite happy to admit that I have no intention of reading 58 sectoral impact analysis papers that are in such [i]excruciating detail[/i] that even the PM and cabinet only bother to read the summaries.
BUT... I do agree with Seema Malhorta that by not making these papers available (despite being ordered to do so) [i]"the fundamental right and responsibility of MPs to scrutinise government policies on behalf of our constituents is being undermined"[/i].
Must be Wail readers or even worse WoS
My link was to The New Statesman. Not sure if that counts as a "quality paper" or not to you, but it's hardly the Daily Mail.
So are we back to the thickos again?
YOU are the one criticising people for not reading the right papers!
The SNP is going to raise a point of order immediately after PMQs suggesting David Davis is in contempt of parliament.*rubs hands*
Good.
not sure of exact protocol tbh but certainly should lose position - BTW I am not a DD fan at all. Never have been. That’s why I am relieved that there are sensible people doing the actual negotiations. Hence the progress made to date with some imaginative solutions that were a bit too nuanced for Arlene and her friends sadly
Irony is that both sides of the border have relatively high exposure to negative effects of a failure. And they are making it more likely - at least the RoI were on board and being sensible with the compromise that had been reached
So why are we leaving?
Because we want to pay for access to a market under the terms of the members of that market without actually having any influence in the decisions relating to that market?
Manufactured faux outrage from the remainders as usual in presenting something that they already knew as some sort of devastating revelation
they knew this ages ago:
[i]The sectoral analysis is a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis, contained in a range of documents developed at different times since the referendum. It examines the nature of activity in the sectors, how trade is conducted with the EU currently in these sectors and, in many cases, considers the alternatives following the UK’s exit from the EU as well as considering existing precedents. The analysis ranges from the very high level overarching analysis to sometimes much more granular level analysis of certain product lines in specific sectors. The analysis in this area is constantly evolving and being updated based on our regular discussions with industry and our negotiations with the EU. [b]It is not, nor has it ever been, a series of discrete impact assessments examining the quantitative impact of Brexit on these sectors.[/b][/i]
[url] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/06/mps-feared-a-david-davis-cover-up-worse-he-had-nothing-to-hide [/url]
Utter.
Clowns.
It is not, nor has it ever been, a series of discrete impact assessments examining the quantitative impact of Brexit on these sectors.
Why not?
[i]Rees-Mogg asks PM “when she goes to Brussels will she apply a coat of red paint to her red lines, because they are beginning to look a bit pink?”. Blue on Blue.[/i]
It's all kicking off.
JRM asking the PM @ PMQs to ensure her redlines don't start turning pink… still, it's the noises made by "remoaners" that prevents her seeking out sensible compromises, I'm sure.
[url= http://www.seemamalhotra.com/do_ministers_understand_brexit_impacts ]Transcript[/url] of the Brexit Select Committee exchange on 25th October 2017:
Seema Malhotra: Could I ask you another question? You have answered that question; that was very helpful. Has the Prime Minister seen the impact assessments that have been published, yes or no?Mr Davis: The details of them? Sorry, did you say “have been published”?
Seema Malhotra: Sorry, I am just asking whether she has seen the impact assessments. A yes or no answer is fine.
Mr Davis: Which ones? I will give a proper answer; I do not give yes/no answers.
Seema Malhotra: I mean the impact assessments that you have not published.
Mr Davis: That we have not published?
Seema Malhotra: Yes.
Mr Davis: [b]She will know the summary outcomes of them. She will not necessarily have read every single one. They are in excruciating detail.[/b]
Seema Malhotra: Has the Cabinet seen the analyses?
Mr Davis: No, they will not have. They will have seen the summary outcomes. That is all.
Seema Malhotra: I imagine there may have been interest expressed if they covered the areas of other Secretaries of State.
Mr Davis: They would have elements of their own departments. Of course they will have a view of anything their own department is responsible for, yes.
GrahamS - MemberTranscript of the Brexit Select Committee exchange on 25th October 2017:
Seema Malhotra: Could I ask you another question? You have answered that question; that was very helpful. Has the Prime Minister seen the impact assessments that have been published, yes or no?
Mr Davis: The details of them? Sorry, did you say “have been published”?
Seema Malhotra: Sorry, I am just asking whether she has seen the impact assessments. A yes or no answer is fine.
Mr Davis: Which ones? I will give a proper answer; I do not give yes/no answers.
Seema Malhotra: I mean the impact assessments that you have not published.
Mr Davis: That we have not published?
Seema Malhotra: Yes.
Mr Davis: She will know the summary outcomes of them. She will not necessarily have read every single one. They are in excruciating detail.
Seema Malhotra: Has the Cabinet seen the analyses?
Mr Davis: No, they will not have. They will have seen the summary outcomes. That is all.
Seema Malhotra: I imagine there may have been interest expressed if they covered the areas of other Secretaries of State.
Mr Davis: They would have elements of their own departments. Of course they will have a view of anything their own department is responsible for, yes.
Posted 2 minutes ago # Report-Post
Choose what you want to read
Good to see THM is fully aligned to Tory policy, at least.
All together now...........
"You say Brexit, I say fiasco, dum de dum de dar.....
Let's call the whole thing off."
Manufactured faux outrage from the remainders as usual in presenting something that they already knew as some sort of devastating revelation
Since we've known for ages that the Tories are incompetent lying fools, we shouldn't be surprised when they act like incompetent lying fools?
Danny - tell me which major party is not committed to delivering Brexit (ignoring Starmer contradicting Corbyn yesterday which is acceptable)?
If the government were to fall, snap election, and Labour were elected - I suspect they would (rightly) use the notion that the 'Brexit' we are heading for is not what the majority of people who voted for it were expecting.
When the terms were known, I think they might go for a second referendum - one last chance before we pull the trigger etc.
A vote for Labour in a GA right now is a clear vote against Brexit, so I think they would be empowered to do something like this.
It's all pie in the sky anyway - Labour sit back, pay lip service by making the 'right noises', watch the Tories destroy themselves over this and enjoy 15 years in power afterwards.
Brexit is so toxic that no one else wants it.
A second referendum would also make sense for Labour in that they are divided themselves over it all - although not to the extent of the tories
On the contrary, a fringe group of influential Conservatives and ragtag bunch of old socialists want Brexit but for entirely incompatible reasons, which have been largely debunked for the latter group anyway.
Regardless of who wants Brexit, I find it deeply concerning that parliament is mired in misinformation and obfuscation.
We should've called a public inquiry in July 2016 and ensured that the judiciary heading the inquiry were protected from political and media interference and left to get on with creating their own impact assessments.
I can't imagine that anyone thought impact assessments wouldn't be useful docs. If they haven't therefore been created, then that to me says someone specifically said not to. Who would do that, and what purpose / why?
If I planned a project for work with significant cost and didn't do an IA, I'd be fired. IF I were even able to get away with it.
I think Davies is toast. Clear lies to parliament.
More lies then. 😥
Nice little video from the Marr show a few months ago
Contempt yet?
If I planned a project for work with significant cost and didn't do an IA, I'd be fired. IF I were even able to get away with it.
This x 1000
Its absolutely staggering that this hasn't been done. Which leads me to this conclusion..
I can't imagine that anyone thought impact assessments wouldn't be useful docs. If they haven't therefore been created, then that to me says someone specifically said not to. Who would do that, and what purpose / why?
What if staff were asked to start work on impact reports, but the answers were wrong, so they were moved on to other things. I might have heard something along those lines. But that was ages ago, if it was said at all.
DD had a meeting with my CEO together with others recently. Don’t know where this got written up though.
We did our own impact reports!! Like most businesses. Never rely on politicians
If I planned a project for work with significant cost and didn't do an IA, I'd be fired. IF I were even able to get away with it.
Quite. THM and others have been telling us for some time about the extensive impact assessments and planning they have quite rightly being doing with financial institutions, big business and the like.
(Edit: 3 seconds before I posted this in fact 🙂 )
But the DexEU claim they haven't bothered with all that? And that the 58 impact reports they repeatedly mentioned were more of an aspiration?
Stinks!
Never rely on politicians
Obvs. Especially when they chose to ignore, and sideline, civil servants who tell the truth.
You can't help but think that the reason the sectoral reports are not available is because they make for unpalatable reading and have been sent back for a rewrite or quietly shoved in a cupboard somewhere. The longer their publication is delayed, the further we will be down the track towards the leave date, and the less time the message they carry will have to fuel public sentiment against Brexit.
Well the EU have done the impact assessments and in the absence of anything else, we're screwed if we go the preferred cliff edge as demanded by Legatum.
But that was the point.
The EU impact assessments stress the large negative effect on particular areas of many rEU counties as well as our own … they paint a very lose lose situation. Useful to look at in absence of DD misdirecting his team, government, parliament, and public.
Been busy but has Davis just admitted to lying to parliament & ppublic about having done any impact assessments?
good job there are soem grown up, turns out they are all on teh other side of the channel
ANyway, poor DAvis, hes desperate to get out, first it was quitting if Green got fired, then blaming may for DUP balls up, now laying this turd in parliament
he still cant escape brexishambles!
