The Brexit Thread

[Patrick Brown]

Quote

Nigel Farage 'looking for new party'

 

FOR VIDEO SEE SOURCE

 

Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage says, if the UK ends up contesting the European Parliament elections, he will be on a party list.

If Article 50 is extended, he believes the UK could end up taking part in the May elections after all - but the MEP has quit his former party so will not be standing for them.

He said: "If this happens, I will make sure that there is a political party there with a list that I can be part of."

 

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46918004/nigel-farage-looking-for-new-party

 

[Chang]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/17/portugal-plans-special-lanes-for-britons-in-its-airports-after-brexit

 

Given the enlightened self interest of Portugal - I wonder if the UK could do the same.  In other words exit without a deal as such but immediately pass their own legislation which for instance:

 

1. guarantees rights of legal migrants to continue living and working in uk

2.  No tariffs for EU goods - and so no border checks in Ireland

3.  that the uk will honour all commitments to areas such as research grants, security and so on.

 

and challenge the EU to reciprocate.

 

 

 

 

 

All this talk of "deals" and "no deals", "soft Brexit" and "hard Brexit" misses the point entirely.

 

The Left Wing Liberal Establishment along with the E.U. do not wish the U.K. to leave the European Union and will do everything in their collective power to prevent us doing so. At the moment their efforts appear to be an extension of article 50 and creating a bar to the U.K. leaving without a deal. But all talk of deals is simply a red herring, their ultimate aim being to keep us within the European fold.

 

Such is the inherent evil of those involved that they still preach to us that their actions are performed in our best interests and the best interest of the nation. Sadly many are still taken in by this mendacity but growing numbers are seeing through it all. I even have some faint hope that Apech is starting to see the light.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Chang

[Chang]

Take a look at this letter published in the Times, doubtless authored by Angela Merkels lady in waiting Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer but countersigned by numerous luvvies. It is of course a load of effusive drivel but is praised by Remainiacs as showing how much we are loved by our German cousins. 

[Patrick Brown]

Alas I really do see violence coming as the corruption within government is so blatant. 

 

I think a very large number of people are simply furious and will remain so for the foreseeable future. 

 

Britain is broken and our government was the cause.  

 

It's frightening as democracy is dead in our country! 

 

The UK is now being controlled by Dictators! 

 

 

[Apech]

18 minutes ago, Chang said:

Take a look at this letter published in the Times, doubtless authored by Angela Merkels lady in waiting Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer but countersigned by numerous luvvies. It is of course a load of effusive drivel but is praised by Remainiacs as showing how much we are loved by our German cousins. 

 

[Chang]

8 minutes ago, Patrick Brown said:

Alas I really do see violence coming as the corruption within government is so blatant. 

 

I think a very large number of people are simply furious and will remain so for the foreseeable future. 

 

Britain is broken and our government was the cause.  

 

It's frightening as democracy is dead in our country! 

 

The UK is now being controlled by Dictators! 

 

 

 

Whilst the politico's pander to and promise us the world at election time they always have their own agenda which they will pursue relentlessly whilst in power.

 

The referendum has put the ruling elite in a parlous position as the people voted for something which the establishment are firmly set against. Everything that has unfolded is a result of this and we have Politico's manueuvring in a pretence of attempting one thing, namely leaving the E.U. whilst working towards another end, namely retaining our links with the European Union.

 

This results in them appearing like a naked man on a rock and the more they twist and turn the more they show their arse.

[Apech]

30 minutes ago, Chang said:

 

All this talk of "deals" and "no deals", "soft Brexit" and "hard Brexit" misses the point entirely.

 

The Left Wing Liberal Establishment along with the E.U. do not wish the U.K. to leave the European Union and will do everything in their collective power to prevent us doing so. At the moment their efforts appear to be an extension of article 50 and creating a bar to the U.K. leaving without a deal. But all talk of deals is simply a red herring, their ultimate aim being to keep us within the European fold.

 

Such is the inherent evil of those involved that they still preach to us that their actions are performed in our best interests and the best interest of the nation. Sadly many are still taken in by this mendacity but growing numbers are seeing through it all. I even have some faint hope that Apech is starting to see the light.

 

I think I've already recognised that in actuality there is no deal as such.  It is simply the arrangements for leaving.  After leaving things like trade negotiations start - this is how the EU insisted it should be.  So what May presented to Parliament was just a list of agreed (or not agreed in this case) arrangements concerning how we leave.  To be honest apart from the payment of 39 billion most of it seems of little consequence - especially the back-stop.  All it does is allow a kind of orderly withdrawal under controlled conditions - which as I have said before I favour.

[Chang]

[Apech]

45 minutes ago, Chang said:

Take a look at this letter published in the Times, doubtless authored by Angela Merkels lady in waiting Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer but countersigned by numerous luvvies. It is of course a load of effusive drivel but is praised by Remainiacs as showing how much we are loved by our German cousins. 

 

This kind of thing is not without precedent:

 

“bravery and determination of the British forces had won Hitler’s respect, though he would make fun of the peculiarities of the British army.       He claimed, ironically, that the British were in the habit of stopping their artillery barrages at tea time, so that he, a messenger, could run his errands safely at that hour”

[Patrick Brown]

15 minutes ago, Chang said:

 

 

Perhaps we should differentiate between stupid, low intelligence and lying! 

 

I've always said 'cleverness is a noose you hang yourself with' but for the life of me, I can't figure May out!  

 

Maybe she is stupid? 

[Chang]

3 minutes ago, Patrick Brown said:

 

Perhaps we should differentiate between stupid, low intelligence and lying! 

 

I've always said 'cleverness is a noose you hang yourself with' but for the life of me, I can't figure May out!  

 

Maybe she is stupid? 

 

Stupidity is a lack of intelligence, understanding, reason, wit, or common sense. Stupidity may be innate, assumed or reactive.

 

Oh I think she fits the bill.

 

 

[Apech]

6 minutes ago, Patrick Brown said:

 

Perhaps we should differentiate between stupid, low intelligence and lying! 

 

I've always said 'cleverness is a noose you hang yourself with' but for the life of me, I can't figure May out!  

 

Maybe she is stupid? 

 

 

I see May as brittle and without the kind of charm a natural leader needs.  I wouldn't say she is unintelligent.  However her judgement seems flawed as she time and time again relies on obstinacy, digging her feet in, where perhaps she could give a little.

 

 

[Patrick Brown]

1 minute ago, Chang said:

 

Stupidity is a lack of intelligence, understanding, reason, wit, or common sense. Stupidity may be innate, assumed or reactive.

 

Oh I think she fits the bill.

 

 

 

A coat made out of an old rug!!!!!!! 

 

So, so funny!

 

 

[Patrick Brown]

Just now, Apech said:

 

 

I see May as brittle and without the kind of charm a natural leader needs.  I wouldn't say she is unintelligent.  However her judgement seems flawed as she time and time again relies on obstinacy, digging her feet in, where perhaps she could give a little.

 

 

 

Yes 'obstinacy' that's what I would have said if I could've spelt it! 

 

A wise man knows a dead end when he see's it. 

[Chang]

And yet for all of her obvious faults we have up and coming female M.P.'s who seek to emulate her style. See Victoria Atkins below, staunch Remainiac, barrister and establishment figure who spent days searching for a matching anchor chain to wear around her neck.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Chang

[Patrick Brown]

Conditioning is a hard burden to carry so I feel privileged that I've had very little formal education/indoctrination!

 

I could argue that stupidity and low intelligence are different if you bring ignorance into the equation. Is may choosing to remain ignorant which I would class as stupidity or is she just thick? I mean no ones that thick surely?

 

Fek me she's still trying to get the square peg in the round hole!!     

[Patrick Brown]

This'll be interesting and a change from Nigel, starting at 6:00 tonight:

 

 

[Apech]

[Patrick Brown]

I rarely watch 'Question Time' as it's bad for my blood pressure but this episode seems fairly well balanced:

 

 

[Patrick Brown]

Quote

The top 40 horrors lurking in the small print of Theresa May’s Brexit deal

NOVEMBER 2018

This week, Theresa May’s government teetered on the point of collapse over her proposed Brexit deal. The withdrawal agreement between the UK and Brussels led to Dominic Raab and Esther McVey resigning in protest. However, May’s remaini

ng ministers have since attempted to rally around her at least in the short term. Speaking on Friday, Liam Fox – the International Trade Secretary – gave a speech in which he declared ‘a deal is better than no deal’. This is rather different to May’s old claim that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’.

 

So, is Fox right? Cockburn thought it best to let readers decide for themselves. In theory, Britain is leaving the EU on 29 March 2019. But the legal small print, published by Brussels, shows what this means. Parliament will be asked to ratify a deal which clearly admits that ‘all references to ‘Member States’ and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.’ (Article 7). So the UK will be bound by EU laws, at least during a transition period. But this ‘transition period’ can be be made to last forever (Article 132). And even if a successor deal is agreed, the UK will have signed away other rights for years to come.

 

Just in case readers don’t have the time to go through the lengthly document themselves, Cockburn has compiled a list of the top 40 horrors lurking in the small print of Theresa May’s Brexit deal:

In summary: The supposed ‘transition period’ could last indefinitely or, more specifically, to an undefined date sometime this century (‘up to 31 December’, Art. 132). So while this Agreement covers what the government is calling Brexit, what we in fact get is: ‘transition’ + extension indefinitely (by however many years we are willing to pay for) + all of those extra years from the ‘plus 8 years’ articles.

 

Should it end within two years, as May hopes, the UK will still be signed up to clauses keeping us under certain rules (like VAT and ECJ supervision) for a further eight years. Some clauses have, quite literally, a ‘lifetime’ duration (Art.39). If the UK defaults on transition, we go in to the backstop with the Customs Union and, realistically, the single market. We can only leave the transition positively with a deal. But we sign away the money. So the EU has no need to give us a deal, and certainly no incentive to make the one they offered ‘better’ than the backstop. The European Court of Justice remains sovereign, as repeatedly stipulated. Perhaps most damagingly of all, we agree to sign away the rights we would have, under international law, to unilaterally walk away. Again, what follows relates (in most part) for the ‘transition’ period. But the language is consistent with the E.U. imagining that this will be the final deal.

 

The top 40 horrors:

 

From the offset, we should note that this is an EU text, not a UK or international text. This has one source. The Brexit agreement is written in Brussels.
May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. ‘All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.’ (Art 6). Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately, excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7)
The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court, governing the entire Agreement – Art. 4. stipulates that both citizens and resident companies can use it. Art 4.2 orders our courts to recognize this. ‘If the European Commission considers that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfill an obligation under the Treaties or under Part Four of this Agreement before the end of the transition period, the European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union’. (Art. 87)
The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).
The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2))
Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – one of the most dangerous provisions. (Article 168). This cuts the UK off from International Law, something we’d never do with any foreign body. Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174)
‘UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United Kingdom’. No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.
The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the country joined the EU.
Several problems with the EU’s definitions: ‘Union law’ is too widely defined and ‘United Kingdom national’ is defined by the Lisbon Treaty: we should given away our right to define our citizens. The ‘goods’ and the term ‘services’ we are promised the deal are not defined – or, rather, will be defined however the EU wishes them to be. Thus far, this a non-defined term so far. This agreement fails to define it.
The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
Furthermore, the UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101)
The GDPR clause. The General Data Protection Regulation – the EU’s stupidest law ever? – is to be bound into UK law (Articles 71 to 73). There had been an expectation in some quarters that the UK could get out of it.
The UK establishes a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – if it was, why would it need to be subject to continued monitoring? (Article 164). This Joint Committee will have subcommittees with jurisdiction over: (a) citizens’ rights; (b) ‘other separation provisions’; (c) Ireland/Northern Ireland; (d) Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; (e) Gibraltar; and (f) financial provisions. (Article 165)
The Lifetime clause: the agreement will last as long as the country’s youngest baby lives. ‘the persons covered by this Part shall enjoy the rights provided for in the relevant Titles of this Part for their lifetime’. (Article 39).
The UK is shut out of all EU networks and databases for security – yet no such provision exists to shut the EU out of ours. (Article 8)
The UK will be tied to EU foreign policy, ‘bound by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union’ but unable to influence such decisions. (Article 124)
All EU citizens must be given permanent right of residence after five years – but what counts as residence? This will be decided by the EU, rather than UK rules. (Articles 15-16)
Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy. (Article 34)
The UK agrees to spend taxpayers’ money telling everyone how wonderful the agreement is. (Article 37)
Art 40 defines Goods. It seems to includes Services and Agriculture. We may come to discover that actually ‘goods’ means everything.
Articles 40-49 practically mandate the UK’s ongoing membership of the Customs Union in all but name.
The UK will be charged to receive the data/information we need in order to comply with EU law. (Article 50)
The EU will continue to set rules for UK intellectual property law (Article 54 to 61)
The UK will effectively be bound by a non-disclosure agreement swearing us to secrecy regarding any EU developments we have paid to be part. This is not mutual. The EU is not bound by such measures. (Article 74)
The UK is bound by EU rules on procurement rules – which effectively forbids us from seeking better deals elsewhere. (Articles 75 to 78)
We give up all rights to any data the EU made with our money (Art. 103)
The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for. (Art. 144)
The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid. (Article 93)
Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally. (Articles 106-116)
The UK is forbidden from revealing anything the EU told us or tells us about the finer points of deal and its operation. (Article 105).
Any powers the UK parliament might have had to mitigate EU law are officially removed. (Article 128)
The UK shall be liable for any ‘outstanding commitments’ after 2022 (Article 142(2) expressly mentions pensions, which gives us an idea as to who probably negotiated this). The amount owed will be calculated by the EU. (Articles 140-142)
The UK will be liable for future EU lending. As anyone familiar with the EU’s financials knows, this is not good. (Article143)
The UK will remain liable for capital projects approved by the European Investment Bank. (Article 150).
The UK will remain a ‘party’ (i.e. cough up money) for the European Development Fund. (Articles 152-154)
And the EU continues to calculate how much money the UK should pay it. So thank goodness Brussels does not have any accountancy issues.
The UK will remain bound (i.e coughing up money) to the European Union Emergency Trust Fund – which deals with irregular migration (i.e. refugees) and displaced persons heading to Europe. (Article 155)
The agreement will be policed by ‘the Authority’ – a new UK-based body with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’. (Article 159)
The EU admits, in Art. 184, that it is in breach of  Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which oblige it to ‘conclude an agreement’ of the terms of UK leaving the EU. We must now, it seems, ‘negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship.’ And if the EU does not? We settle down to this Agreement.
And, of course, the UK will agree to pay £40bn to receive all of these ‘privileges’. (Article 138)

 

This article was originally published on The Spectator’s UK website

 https://spectator.us/40-horrors-theresa-mays-brexit-deal/

 

Old but still very interesting/frightening. Dodgy deal!  

Edited January 18, 2019 by Patrick Brown

[Chang]

30 minutes ago, Patrick Brown said:

 

Old but still very interesting/frightening. Dodgy deal!  

 

Yes a very dodgy deal from the Brexiteers point of view but a most wonderful deal to those in the Remainiac camp.A deal to tide us over until we come to our senses and return completely to the E.U. fold.

[Patrick Brown]

WEEK 10

Currently LIVE as I type:

 

EDIT UPDATED LIVE STREAM:

 

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by Patrick Brown

[Patrick Brown]

Oh My! Same old story anybody that's pro Brexit is a racist! Of course Abbott doesn't get it that people dislike because she is so, so, fake and shallow and not because of the colour of her skin!!!!

 

Quote

Diane Abbott accuses BBC Question Time of legitimising racism

 

Diane Abbott has accused BBC Question Time of legitimising racist abuse after claims that the shadow home secretary was singled out before and during Thursday night’s episode of the political discussion programme.

The Labour politician claimed she had been unfairly mocked in the warm-up and had been interrupted more often than other panellists by Fiona Bruce, the programme’s new chair.

 

“We are appalled by the treatment of Diane Abbott on BBC’s Question Time,” a spokesperson for Abbott said. “It was clear that a hostile atmosphere was whipped up, propped up by reports of inappropriate and sexist commentary in the audience warm-up session.

“A public broadcaster like the BBC should be expected to be a model of impartiality and equality. The BBC cannot claim anything of the sort when analysis of the programme shows that the only black woman on the panel was jeered at and interrupted more times than any other panellist, including by the chair herself.

 

“The media must stop legitimising mistreatment, bias and abuse against Ms Abbott as a black woman in public life. The BBC should be ashamed that their programming is complicit in such behaviour.”

 

Audience members who attended the filming of Question Time in Derby claimed that the warm-up for the programme included innuendo about Abbott’s past relationship with Jeremy Corbyn and that the audience booed her name when it was announced.

The audience loudly applauded when she was asked about Corbyn’s refusal to engage in Brexit talks with Theresa May unless the prime minister ruled out a no-deal departure from the EU.

 

Abbott’s staff suggested the warm-up had “set the whole audience up to be quite negative” about the politician, while pointing at online viral videos suggesting Bruce had interrupted Abbott more than the other panellists.

A BBC spokesperson said the corporation had been in touch with Abbott’s team but suggested some of the claims about the show’s treatment of her which went viral on social media are false. “We are sorry to hear Diane Abbott’s concerns over last night’s edition of Question Time and we have contacted her team today to reassure them that reports circulating on social media are inaccurate and misleading. Diane is a regular and important contributor to the programme … we firmly reject claims that any of the panel was treated unfairly either before or during the recording.”

 

Question Time and other BBC current affairs programmes have become a lightning rod for claims of media bias against Labour, with the corporation repeatedly forced to defend aspects of its presentation of political topics.

The Momentum campaign group launched a petition demanding the BBC apologise after Bruce backed claims that Labour was behind in the opinion polls.

 

The Momentum petition referred to an exchange where panellist Isabel Oakeshott said that Labour were “way behind in the polls” and Abbott replied that “we are kind of level-pegging” before Bruce said that Labour were “definitely” behind. But recent polling has found the two parties roughly neck and neck.

Abbott has appeared on Question Time at least 29 times over several decades, according to her office. In a 2017 article for the Guardian, she described her experience as one of the UK’s first black MPs, highlighting the level of abuse she received on social media.

 

“I went into politics to create space for women and other groups who have historically been treated unfairly,” she wrote. “Once, the pushback was against the actual arguments for equality and social justice. Now the pushback is the politics of personal destruction. This is doubly effective for opponents of social progress. Not only does it tend to marginalise the female ‘offender’, but other women look at how those of us in the public space are treated and think twice about speaking up publicly, let alone getting involved in political activity.”

 

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/18/diane-abbott-accuses-bbc-question-time-of-legitimising-racism

 

[Apech]

 

[Patrick Brown]

27 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

I tried to laugh but my venom for this idiot yearns to be released!