Thanks for all those data-flow warnings, UK.gov. Now let's talk about your own Brexit prep. Yep, just as we thought Senior government officials have reportedly been warned that public bodies are not prepared for the implications on crucial data transfers if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal. According to The Times, three-quarters of 63 public bodies surveyed between October and December said they rely on data stored or …
In her letter, Moriarty said: "We have identified key communication milestones and are developing messaging with specific calls to action for IT readiness in each project's communication plan."
In other words: said precisely nothing of any note or value, but no doubt had other know-nothings nodding sagely in full agreement at what a splendid roadmap it was.
That's about the sum of it.
Or more accurately, "we hope we're not fucked because there is fuck all we can do".
I was let into some of these discussions last week and the nuclear scenario is that we will lose all connnectivity to EU based data centres. Apparently the backup plan is to pay MS shit loads of money to move it to UK data centres IF they can.
But plan A is basically to cross fingers and pray
I was let into some of these discussions last week and the nuclear scenario is that we will lose all connnectivity to EU based data centres. Apparently the backup plan is to pay MS shit loads of money to move it to UK data centres IF they can.
But why would that happen? The datacentres are owned/operated by MS, Amazon, Apple and connected via capacity owned by US and other network operators. And most of Ireland's connectivity ends up transiting the UK. So with any digital blockade, Ireland stands to lose more than the UK.. Especially if the UK decides to tweak taxes post-Brexit to make building datacentres in the UK more attractive, and lower latency.
If the data is only UK citizens no problem, the Eu allows you to process foreigner's data there.
But if the system also includes confidential medical data on Eu nationals then they aren't going to allow it to be sent to some 3rd world country with no adequate data protection laws - like the UK and USA.
>But if the system also includes confidential medical data on Eu nationals then they aren't going to allow it to be sent to some 3rd world country...
So the lorries need to be beyond recall ie. on UK territory before 11pm on the 29-March...
The question is thus when does the data move need to start, so as to avoid the risk of French protests/strikes, 'random' customs/documentation checks etc. blocking ports etc.
Suspect the answer is, it should have happened already...
"Dump them in the ocean seems to be the current plan..."
Depending on exactly where the non-existent N.I/G.B. or Eire/G.B. border is set, any ocean dump could end up still being at least partially inside the E.U. customs region due to the coastal bits extending out a few miles around countries.
Putting the data-centres in the Channel could also be problematic as France will have a sea border with the remnant U.K.
Brexit is a huge mess. Maybe we should just forget we mentioned it?
As an anon coward, that doesn't live in Her Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it looks to me that it's way overdue for you chaps to hold a second *binding* referendum and cancel the madness that is Brexit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVy7faNKEtM
"recent selfless and principled deliberations of our legislators"
Oh yes, we have been watching for, what's it now, two years?
Of course, the real court jester in the whole stuff-up is David Cameron. He started the pregnancy and then promptly handed the abortion over to his successor.
https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-richard-dawkins-atheist-eu-referendum-david-cameron-8760146
"the real court jester in the whole stuff-up is David Cameron" - The vote worked out very well for Cameron, he was able to leave the building and get lots of lovely new job offers ... while leaving Theresa May with the job of washing the Brexiters toilet paper in the hope that that we can resell it to the world afterwards.
I perhaps might rather hope that such a referendum allows for more options than just "cancel", otherwise what would be the point of it? Even whilst I happened to be wearing a "remain" hat I think that (now it is a bit clearer what the possible outcomes might be) the public should get a choice between the in/may/out options.
Blah, blah, blah! Just more Project Fear!
Another referendum would be a betrayal of democracy!
Rule Britannia, Britanna rule the waves!!
It's all fine, nothing to see here. Pick up your rose-tinted specs at the checkout.
Okay, okay, I'm going! Mine's the one with the dried frog pills in the pocket.
@Doctor Syntax
"a write in option, with prizes for anything that looks as if it stands a chance of working."
Easy. Hard brexit, no NI border (UK side) and that is the default position unless the EU is willing to negotiate reciprocal agreements. There we go, easy.
codejunky says, "Easy. Hard brexit, no NI border (UK side) and that is the default position unless the EU is willing to negotiate reciprocal agreements. There we go, easy."
Your plan is amazing! A HardBrexit like that is surely going to be an absolute success! We all just have to think positively and we can build this thing together and stand this stormy weather. Because after HardBrexit nothing is going to stop us, nothing is going to stop us, now!
Well, there's the mass smuggling, the mass uncontrolled immigration and the mass uncontrolled emigration.
Also the mass job losses, the factory closures, the farm closures and the ten-ish year depression...
Other than those blatantly obvious flaws large enough to drive several thousand lorries through, no problems at all.
@Richard 12
"Well, there's the mass smuggling, the mass uncontrolled immigration and the mass uncontrolled emigration."
That doesnt make any sense unless your talking about the Irish border which means you must be against the current situation in Ireland. Why?
"Also the mass job losses, the factory closures, the farm closures and the ten-ish year depression..."
That makes no sense. Explain.
"Other than those blatantly obvious flaws large enough to drive several thousand lorries through, no problems at all."
You havnt pointed out any flaws. You have made a couple of complaints that mean nothing with no backing or explanation, just complaining. Try actually pointing out where there is a problem and we can discuss.
As Ireland is an EU member it might just want to transport stuff to the EU, and EU members might also want to transport stuff to Ireland.
Trouble is come March 30th there's going to be a big obstruction in the way:-
The UK.
You can either plough through the UK with two customs checks at EU exit/entry points, or skirt around it which would be expensive in cost and time.
I presume arrangements can be made whereby cargo can be "sealed" during transportation through the UK, which would be the most practical way to minimise journey times and costs.
@Ken Moorhouse
"Trouble is come March 30th there's going to be a big obstruction in the way:-
The UK."
Actually you appear to be wrong. Its the EU in the way. The EU demanding a border. The EU insisting one must be there. The EU accepting they will be the ones putting a border there. So that would be the EU in the way.
Actually you appear to be wrong. Its the EU in the way. The EU demanding a border. The EU insisting one must be there. The EU accepting they will be the ones putting a border there. So that would be the EU in the way.
Love the logic, Leavers want to leave, but actually without the border and goods from Ireland crossing UK territory want to continue being in the single market ie. remain...
@Roland6
"Love the logic, Leavers want to leave, but actually without the border and goods from Ireland crossing UK territory want to continue being in the single market ie. remain.."
You might want to look at it logically. The UK having control of its own borders. That means it has control to choose what to do to its borders. To deal with the world, not just the EU little world. If you think that is the same as remain you must be on something pretty strong.
You might want to look at it logically. The UK having control of its own borders. That means it has control to choose what to do to its borders.
But unless the UK controls it's own borders there is really no border, which means the UK is still within the EU...
@Codejunky - So assuming democracy we leave the EU (voted for 2-0). So after that point would you be advocating joining the EU? I ask this question because it would be joining with no opt outs. Accept the EU in all its glory, no opt outs, the Euro currency, all of it.
Well, the problem I have with this question is that I expect (and have a tenner on it) the UK to rejoin the EU - in all its glory within my lifetime. Now which is worse: leave and rejoin or remain and benefit from the opt outs and influencing both the direction and pace of change?
@Roland6
"But unless the UK controls it's own borders there is really no border, which means the UK is still within the EU..."
And that is where you got it wrong. The Irish border is not the UK border, it is part of the UK but not the UK. Also it is practically impossible to apply a real border there and neither side of Ireland want that nor does the UK. So the UK can choose to not have a border which would be made much easier if the EU would accept that too. But they dont have to, its their problem. Control over our borders mean we control, we choose not the EU,
"Well, the problem I have with this question is that I expect (and have a tenner on it) the UK to rejoin the EU - in all its glory within my lifetime"
And that is what we voted out of and there were plenty claims that would never happen if we remain (that of course we didnt trust). Trapped in the EU I too believe we would be taken piece by piece because that is already happening.
The remainers seem sold on the idea of remaining if we keep the opt outs. But very little of the UK seems sold on the idea of selling out the country and fully joining the EU. They are happy as boiling frogs but the reality repulses them. The leavers aint falling for the boiling.
One commenter before said they were happy to join the EU, Euro and all (which is part of being in the EU) but most people know the Euro is a short road to ruin. How many people would really support actually joining the EU? Not many I think. I have people try to convince me remain is for the status quo. But only a fool would believe that and it scares me how many are fooled. Or that they claim so.
Trouble is come March 30th there's going to be a big obstruction in the way:-
The UK.
Ireland is working on that. New routes from Dublin and Rosslare around the UK, skipping a possible logistics nightmare.
And going the other way, it seems the UK is also the obstruction, denying ECMT permits to Northern Irish haulage operators so they won't be able to work in Ireland in a no deal scenario, and if you read the tweet there's a lovely UNIX epoch bug in the message shown to haulage operators, which bodes well for the magic unicorn customs system on the NI border that the UK is proposing if they can't even get a date right.
A HardBrexit like that is surely going to be an absolute success!
It won't, but if we could convince the EU "negotiators" that it was a serious option then it just might focus their minds more on achieving a real compromise than scoring a pyrrhic victory. As it is, the constant calls from Corbyn&Co to take "no deal" off the table just sends the message to the EU that we'll chicken out at the last minute, so all they have to do is stonewall and wait for us to give in. Not helpful.
"...it just might focus their minds more on achieving a real compromise..."
Look, the thing is the UK decided to leave the EU, not the EU deciding to expel the UK. So why is the onus on the EU to come up with a solution?
It's like someone at a party, dropping their trousers and shitting on the floor and then complaining about the smell and then asking the host to clean up the mess. The EU has been clear from the outset what they would and would not accept. It's only the cluelessness of the likes of David Davis or Dominic Raab coupled with the robotic inflexibility of Theresa May that has led us to the current situation. If the EU had a clear idea of what the UK wants other than just leaving things might have gone a bit smoother.
So why is the onus on the EU to come up with a solution?
It isn't, and that isn't what I said, although it appears to be all that remainers are capable of hearing. Good negotiations should target a compromise where both sides get something, and both sides concede something, but you usually need a way to apply a little encouragement. Obviously both sides will push hard to concede as little as possible, so when the UK gives the EU a perfect opening to just shrug their shoulders and say "this is the deal, take it or leave it", it's entirely the fault of the UK's idiot negotiators and the behind-the-scenes twits like Hammond for giving them the impression that we'll concede eventually.
If you saw a second-hand car you really, really wanted, priced at £10K, would you go to the salesman and tell him "I'm OK with giving you £10K if I have to, but I'd like to start the negotiations at £7K"? Would you expect him to reply anything but "It's £10K, take it or leave it"? Of course not. You need to convince him that you're really prepared to walk away without a deal if he won't compromise, it's the only way to get him to negotiate properly. Maybe you won't get far, depending on how much he wants the deal, but you'll certainly stand more chance than if you tell him right off that you'll definitely buy it at any price. That's what Corbyn, Hammond & co are doing by insisting publicly that "No Deal" isn't acceptable (whether it really is or not).
The EU is willing to offer Single Market + Customs Union to the UK without it being a member of the EU, so where's the lack of compromise on the EU side?
The reality is this would have been all done and dusted six months ago if Theresa May didn't change her backstop from a NI-wide thing into a UK-wide thing... and then vote against it anyway.
Easy. Hard brexit, no NI border (UK side) and that is the default position unless the EU is willing to negotiate reciprocal agreements. There we go, easy.
It's always good to savour the brexiteers' insight that, by leaving, Plucky Little Britain now has the EU by the short and curlies, ever more desperate to dance to our will.
@Claverhouse
"It's always good to savour the brexiteers' insight that, by leaving, Plucky Little Britain now has the EU by the short and curlies, ever more desperate to dance to our will."
Why? What is it with the tyrannical idea of subjugating everyone to 'our will'? Why must we have the EU by the short and curlies? If they dont want to negotiate that is their right. They gave the option of leave or remain and we have voted so its pretty simple.
Why? What is it with the tyrannical idea of subjugating everyone to 'our will'? Why must we have the EU by the short and curlies? If they dont want to negotiate that is their right. They gave the option of leave or remain and we have voted so its pretty simple.
The solution to the NI border issue could be very simple: no border controls for people. Random controls for goods. The UK refused this option. The are using the people in NI and the good Friday agreement as hostages in order to open a loophole in the EU borders and enable British smuggling of Asian goods.
You've never been to that border, have you?
The thing about that border is that it has more crossing points than any other in the world, passes straight through several people's actual houses, and more individual "shipments" cross it daily than anyone has been able to count.
So no, random searches of "goods" don't work either. What's the difference between my car and a commercial vehicle?
The thing about that border is that it has more crossing points than any other in the world, passes straight through several people's actual houses, and more individual "shipments" cross it daily than anyone has been able to count.
And even in the days when there was a hard border (and I remember them, getting the "triptych" for the car to show at the customs post) there were far more "unapproved" crossings than "approved" ones, and people were expected to only use the approved ones for goods (which they did, of course, always..). It worked, and would be even easier today with CCTV and ANPR cameras.
Because that is (essentially) what successive generations of British governments have thought they had the right to do with the EU despite the facts..
a) The EU is a group of 28 countries.
b) France and Germany were already major economies and were founder members.
c) The UK provides the smallest proportion of all EU bureaucrats. Even Romania provides more.
d) Cameron pulled his MEP's from the Europe wide Conservative grouping so was not plugged in with like minded parties across Europe when he presented his Brexit proposals.
There's having a sense of history and there's having a sense of entitlement that's bordering on the f**king delusional.
Yes Minister
Series 1 (1980)
Episode Five: The Writing on the Wall
Hacker: I don't want the truth. I want something I can tell Parliament!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing — set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch... The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?
Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.
Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The Foreign Secretary explains the Napoleon prize.]
Martin: Yes, it's a NATO award given once every five years: gold medal, big ceremony in Brussels, £100 000. The PM's the front runner this time. It's for the statesman who's made the biggest contribution to European unity.
Sir Humphrey: Since Napoleon. That is if you don't count Hitler.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The Minister tries and gets a straight answer out of Sir Humphrey Appleby.]
Jim Hacker: When you give your evidence to the Think Tank, are you going to support my view that the Civil Service is over manned and feather-bedded, or not? Yes or no? Straight answer.
Sir Humphrey: Well Minister, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn't very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage.
@John Smith 19
"Because that is (essentially) what successive generations of British governments have thought they had the right to do with the EU despite the facts.."
I am not taking any particular issue with your comment, but my issue with Claverhouse's comment is that attitude but attributing it to leave particularly to me who said nothing of the sort.
One of my complaints is how there are very few remainers who want to actually join the EU, they want to remain so we are opted out of the various parts of the EU. I was impressed with MJB7 who is a remainer who actually wants to be in the project but most realise it is a short path to ruin. Leavers just have a little less faith in the EU project than most remainers.
" ... no NI border (UK side) ..."
I never understood why we can't have a border with Eire down the middle of the Irish Sea like sensible countries do, Eire then being the entire Emerald Island.
Yes, yes, there's some guys on the northern bit that don't want to be Irish, so, okay, fine, let them move to some gods-forsaken pile of rock like Pitcairn or the Malvinas where they can be as British as they wish.(Not Gibralter, they have their own Brexitish issues.) For the monies we've already wasted on Brexit we could probably have relocated them and given them all a house.
So a couple of days ago, the Bbc evoked the image of tonnes of Dutch tomatoes rotting in lorries whilst awaiting inspection. Ohnoes!
This of course assumes the UK decides it needs to perform any more inspections than it does now. Or the Dutch will try slipping in rotten tomatoes rather than the current contractually specified stuff our supermarkets have ordered. And it's much the same with NI. The UK is under no obligation to secure the EU's borders, other than in the spirit of being a good neighbour. We have a bazillion CCTV and other surveillance systems that can watch cross-border stuff to spot shenanigans. And of course a long standing free movement deal with the Irish that well pre-dates the EU.
That's not to say there are no challenges, but they're mostly due to threats that the EU will withdraw co-operation and access to systems that would remain mutually beneficial post-Brexit, ie EUropol or EUratom. And I guess if we're kicked out of the EU's nuke club, we won't have to buy EDF's stonkingly expensive reactor and could look at alternatives, like Japan or Korean designs instead.. Or for much lolz, Rosatom..
>So a couple of days ago, the Bbc evoked the image of tonnes of Dutch tomatoes rotting in lorries whilst awaiting inspection.
I agree these types of stories are just clickbait, if however, they were English tomatoes destined for the EU there might be some mileage in the inspection/documentation claims. Personally, I think the biggest logistical issue with cross channel trade is whether the UK retains it's privileged crossing points and points of entry to the EU, or whether more stuff will have to go via the RoW/WTO entry points - I suspect this is the primary driver behind the ferry contracts.
I think part of the problem is that many don't really appreciate the current May agreement is more about setting out the field for the real negotiations that will happen after the 29-March than defining how things will be after the negotiation period; where it is assumed matters will be improved upon. So the "backstop" position is really just getting agreement on whatever the current rules (as previously agreed by the UK) say and imply, something it seems many in the UK don't want to accept - which is why so many seem to think the EU is playing hardball when in fact it is simply pointing to the rules the UK previously agreed to.
Yup. Any UK grower looking to export to the EU would still have to produce to EU standards, or their product might get rejected on entry, or by the end customer. Entry points could get more interesting given the EU 'free ports', which excluded Harwich/Felixstowe which could end up getting more traffic. If the UK moves to free trade, that can simplify the paperwork, but stuff would still need to be inspected just as it is now.
And having read the agreement, it's like you say.. pretty much a framework and not necessarily binding. Especially the bits about EU staff getting to live tax free and immunity from prosecution. And like you say, given we've been following the EU's internal rules, there shouldn't really be a problem unless we change those rules, or the EU does.
the current May agreement is more about setting out the field for the real negotiations that will happen after the 29-March than defining how things will be after the negotiation period; where it is assumed matters will be improved upon.
If the backstop had a time limit I'd agree with you, but as it stands now the EU has zero incentive to negotiate anything. With that agreement it can simply refuse to take calls from May, knowing that we will have no choice but to do what it tells us to until it decides otherwise. Where is the EU incentive to improve anything later? A time-limited backstop would focus everyone's mind on improving things in the background once the public furore has died down.
If it had a time limit then it would be utterly useless.
Same if either side could end it without the agreement of the other.
One or other party could simply run out the clock or pull out unilaterally and fuck the other. Same thing either way.
I'll paint you a picture:
How about we agree that I hold a sword over your head, and you hold one over mine for the next few years. I happen to be wearing a suit of armour so I'll only be mildly inconvenienced if you drop yours, while you'll lose an arm if I drop mine. (Doesn't matter which way around you think this is)
The unilateral option A is that I can decide to drop it on your head at any moment, or vice-versa. The time limit option B is that we agree to drop the swords when the alarm sounds, no matter what happens to be under the swords at the time.
Option C is that we both agree we won't drop the swords at all, we'll put them down gently once we've jointly agreed what to do.
Remember that I'm wearing armour, and you aren't. Would you accept A or B?
Of course not, you're not stupid.
@John Smith 19
"Kwitters voted to support what was basically a blank sheet of paper, to be filled in later."
Which the leavers wanted filling in here and the remainers wanted filling in by the EU.
"That doesn't sound too smart to me."
Yup. At least here they have to be somewhat accountable.
>If the backstop had a time limit I'd agree with you
So let us put a time limit on the backstop. However, because we are ensuring every eventuality is covered, what can be put in the agreement to cover the possibility of nothing having been agreed when the time limit expires?
Personally, I think Sein Fain are being a little too quiet at the moment, because the obvious and simplest solution is for NI to join the Republic. Looking at British history, it wouldn't surprise me if such a decision is made by the Westminster Conservatives and people are only given a few days notice of the transaction.
That would be tantamount to Westminster abandoning NI. This is dangerous talk. If it happened then expect The Troubles to resurface. It is on the same level as saying that [the Republic of] Ireland should also invoke Article 50. That would solve the EU GB dilemma immediately and without question, but it would cause tremendous turmoil in Ireland. Let's not visit either of these scenarios unless it comes as the result of an agreed democratic process instigated from within the whole of Ireland itself. That process, without aiming at any defined result, may take years, but it can not be rushed.
>That would be tantamount to Westminster abandoning NI.
Agree
>That process, without aiming at any defined result, may take years, but it can not be rushed.
Agree
However, as I said looking at British history, there have been times when the British did simply cut and run and sod the consequences. Given this mindset seems to fit the ardent Brexiteer who takes glee in the UK dropping out of the EU with no deal on 29-Mar, I wouldn't rule it out - even though I agree it is a scenario I don't really want to see...
Let's not visit either of these scenarios unless it comes as the result of an agreed democratic process instigated from within the whole of Ireland itself. That process, without aiming at any defined result, may take years, but it can not be rushed.
But that's part of GFA. If the people of NI and Ireland both agree to unite, the rest of the UK won't object. Much. But the GFA (and Sunningdale) were constitutional agreements that predated the Lisbon Treaty and between the UK and RoI. Come April 1st, it's highly unlikely that the UK will implement strip searches at gun point along the border between the UK and RoI. The UK has said repeatedly that it'll honor the terms of the GFA.
Problem is with the EU, ie Brussels controls the EU's border security, so the existence of the GFA complicates any current or future EU border policy.. As does Gibraltar and it's land crossing with Spain, which has often had.. issues with free movement.
"And I guess if we're kicked out of the EU's nuke club, we won't have to buy EDF's stonkingly expensive reactor and could look at alternatives, like Japan or Korean designs instead."
I rather think that construction work at the EDF plant at Hinkley is well underway. Trying to get out of that contract now wouldn't exactly improve the UK's standing as a reliable partner.
Oh, and as far as Japanese alternatives are concerned, take a gander at this:
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/markets/sectors/infrastructure/energy/wylfa-hitachi-scraps-work-at-nuclear-site/10039046.article?search=https%3a%2f%2fwww.constructionnews.co.uk%2fsearcharticles%3fkeywords%3dnuclear
Basically, Hitachi pulled the plug on this GBP 16 million project because it was way too expensive and the British government didn't want to throw even more cash at it. I rather think nuclear has had its day, is now to expensive and too complicated compared with renewables. And that's even without looking at the costs/problems associated nuclear waste disposal and reactor decommissioning (as it happens I've just finished a little project in that area).
Incidentally, the UK isn't being kicked out of Euroatom, it decided to leave the EU and associated institutions, will of the people, etc.
I rather think nuclear has had its day, is now to expensive and too complicated compared with renewables. And that's even without looking at the costs/problems associated nuclear waste disposal and reactor decommissioning (as it happens I've just finished a little project in that area).
But oddly, 'renewables' are even more expensive. There are problems with reliability, ie SSE lost a lot of money last summer due to low winds and hot weather. We've just had snow and cold weather with wind providing <1% of demand. So 'renewables' need a lot of assistance from gas turbines or even old coal generation to meet demands. As Germany discovered when it decided to close it's reactors and replace them with dirty, but baseload capable coal.
And around the world, countries are commissioning new reactors. So for example, Turkey's Akkuyu order for 4x1.2GW units for $20bn, or less than 1xHinkley. But lobbying against nuclear makes ours a lot more expensive, even though it's low carbon generation. But then lobbying helps explain why we're still tilting at windmills. That costs, whether it's Nissans decision to pull out of diesel engine manufacture in Europe or wondering how snowed-in, stranded motorists might cope if they were inside EVs.
>But oddly, 'renewables' are even more expensive.
You omitted the hidden cost element - the renewables levy every energy user has to pay(*). If you include the subsidy in the cost of 'renewables' you will find that their per MW price is significantly higher (ie. 25-35% more) than the price agreed for Hinkley Point C.
(*) Yes all that cashback people get for having roofs and/or fields of solar panels, wind farms etc. comes from the renewables levy on everyone's bills.
>And around the world, countries are commissioning new reactors.
Yet another example of "UK plc management" stupidity. The increasing demand for electricity was forecasted and generally known about for decades, yet the UK government decided it didn't want to be a centre of excellence in this technology, and so sold off UK IP and closed down R&D, with the obvious result we now have to import the expertise and technology...
>even though it's low carbon generation.
It might be low carbon generation, however the construction of new reactors, involving lots of special steels and concrete isn't low carbon ...
You omitted the hidden cost element - the renewables levy every energy user has to pay(*). If you include the subsidy in the cost of 'renewables' you will find that their per MW price is significantly higher (ie. 25-35% more) than the price agreed for Hinkley Point C.
Yup, but that quickly gets complicated. So there are various forms of subsidy, or just plain inefficiencies. There are the basic costs, which are higher than nuclear, and much higher than gas. Then other massive costs related to connecting remote on/offshore 'renewables', constraint payments when there's a wind surplus and reserve payments when there's no wind and gas has to spool up. All because wind and solar are fundamentally intermittent. The 'renewables' lobby promises solutions, like spending billions on batteries to solve a problem fundamental to it's industry. But that kind of waste and inefficiency is EU energy 'policy'.
Australia's also had some fun with it's pile of batteries. Those couldn't provide all their potential energy because they also provide frequency stability, which Aussie energy users pay heavily for.
It might be low carbon generation, however the construction of new reactors, involving lots of special steels and concrete isn't low carbon ...
True. Producing those speciality steels was something the UK did because it couldn't compete with producing basic steels against cheaper producers, like say, Poland, which has a much lower energy & labour cost. Plus some political interference, ie Sheffield Forgemaster's wanting a new press, but support for that being deemed against state aid rules.. Yet the ECB's been busily bailing out and subsidising other European competitors via it's QE programme.
But massive windfarms also require a lot of steel & concrete, along with energy to bake composite blades etc.
The UK does still make reactors, ie Rolls Royce and the only new reactors to have been built in the last few decades are in our Astute subs. With political will, it would be possible to make modular, civil versions of those.. And being smaller, would also be easier and cheaper to decommission.
That's the sort of thick headed Little Englander thinking that makes the EU want to have a hard border.
Compared to the insular, short-sighted thinking from the Remnants. The EU already has a 'hard border', ie tariff walls to protect French farmers. Any country has a border, and they're always two sided. So the EU's been building harder borders to stop economic migrants, which the EU's objected to and is causing it political problems.
Since Irish independence, the UK's had a variety of borders between the UK and Ireland. So free movement predating the EU. Sometimes that's been abused or exploited, ie movement of terrorists or shenanigans like 'Slab' Murphy and others who had farms straddling the border and moved cattle back & forward to game agricultural subsidies. GFA limited the free movement of the terrorists, and the UK can carry on policing the border per GFA. Anything illegal crossing into NI, and the UK can bounce it back to Ireland. Anything going UK to Ireland would be up to Ireland/EU to police and enforce.
That's no difference to how it works for the EU's other neighbours. Ok, so sometimes it's exploited, eg Norway blending ethanol from the US to sell into the EU, but it's up to the EU to police it's borders, not the UK.
You can hope, you can even join the campaign.
Considering almost all of the leave.uk pledges have failed, reality is kicking in, 5% of the voters have probably died, and there's 2 years worth of new adults, there's a good chance the "will of the people" differs from what is actually happening.
There really does need to be another vote (and that's one of the few reasons of extending the 2 year period). However, the government know full well what the results will be. But, they're not calling another referendum because "democracy".
Also, there can't be 3 options - there needs to be four: Remain/self-terminate then deal/no-deal
5% of the voters have probably died, and there's 2 years worth of new adults, there's a good chance the "will of the people" differs from what is actually happening
So you assume that youngsters want to Remain, oldies want to Leave, and as the oldies die the pendulum will swing steadly to Remain?
If that were actually true, then the Leave viewpoint would have been declining for decades, yet it hasn't. It actually increased to the point where it was carried in a referendum, so your basic assumption must be flawed.
The bit you're forgetting, in your enthusiasm to make people vote again and again until you get the result you want, is that somewhere in that middle range between "young" and "old" something happens to change Remain voters into Leave voters.
I suggest that it's "experience", and it's still happening today.
@Version 1.0
"But we vote for politicians all the time and we're allowed to change our minds (and votes) every few years ... are you saying that in your world this isn't democracy?"
Actually you are wrong. We vote for politicians, the winner gets in and runs things for a few years and then we have another vote. So that means we need to actually apply the democratic result and let it run for a few years (how long before we got a vote on the EU? 20yrs or so?).
Except there is a big problem, remainers dont want to join the EU! This wonderful utopia and remainers dont want to join it, they want to remain with all the opt outs. We could leave the EU (as voted for) and then if you guys can rally enough support we could apply to join. But that means joining the wonderful project proper, and I dont know many advocating that!
In other words your bright idea has brought us the worst of all worlds.
Yup, there's a lot that's wrong with it but some of us contrive to avoid bringing sharp knives near our faces if we don't like what we see in the mirror.
@Doctor Syntax
"In other words your bright idea has brought us the worst of all worlds."
In what way? Not my fault some people want to be in the EU (because its great) but not in the EU (because its crap). At least leave isnt confused, we want out.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
You want "out"
Would that be Norway "out"? Norway+ "out" ? Canada "out"? Turkey "out"? Totally bespoke "out" ? F**k everybody "out" ?
Now it's decision time and all the little Leave sub groups have zero agreement with each other. *
*But just enough to f**k up the whole British economy in the meantime by winning a referendum by 13:12.
@John Smith 19
"Now it's decision time and all the little Leave sub groups have zero agreement with each other."
While I have been pointing out the lack of cohesion in remain as a reply to this kind of statement, I probably dont need to now do I since nobody seems able to agree on anything in gov including what kind of remain they want. But I will.
The EU is a socialist/capitalist utopia, a globalist/protectionist entity, a collection of members/federalist project, the EUSSR/US of E, and so on.
Some wanted to remain to keep the status quo (someone actually commented that to me recently on the reg!!!) some because it needs sensible reform. Even pro-remain media insisted we had to be there to help reform it, and its shit but we gotta make it better. The French president has already stated the French could vote out given a choice, and he only got elected on a platform of reforming the EU! Anti EU/Euro parties are gaining all over the member states.
"by winning a referendum"
That is the only bit you needed at the end. Just as the remain motives dont matter, its the vote they cast that matters.
Well _this_ Remainer wants to join Schengen and the Euro, and I believe dropping the rebate would be a small price to pay for that. However I recognize that these are not particularly popular choices in the UK. Achieving EU membership _without_ a commitment to Schengen and the Euro can only realistically be done by remaining a member. (There's also the point that Spain might be difficult about Gibralter if we tried to rejoin.)
"Well _this_ Remainer wants to join Schengen and the Euro, and I believe dropping the rebate would be a small price to pay for that. However I recognize that these are not particularly popular choices in the UK. "
1) Schengen makes no real sense when we have no land border with Schengen.
2) Joining the Euro is a terrible idea until it's a fiscal union. And then it's a terrible idea because northern Europe would be driving trucks full of cash south every week.
3) You want to pay more to join the Euro?
Remain in the EU, yes, but the Euro as currently implemented is idiocy.
England is closer to mainland France than Corsica is, and Corsica is in the Schengen zone.
Right now, if I want to take the train to Paris, I have to go through one ticket barrier and two passport barriers. If we were in Schengen, then I would only have to go through the ticket barrier, and it would be the same as boarding any other train at St Pancras.
>We vote for politicians, the winner gets in and runs things for a few years and then we have another vote.
Not quite, they try and run things for a few years, their 'success' depends on how good they are at playing the Westminster system to overcome the opposition - both HM Opposition and opposition within the Government. Somehow this natural democratic process isn't democratic for many Brexiteers, who would rather have a dictatorship...
@Roland6
"Not quite, they try and run things for a few years"
Which still stands that the vote is cast, the winner gets in to implement their ideas and we have another vote after a few years. Brexit is voted for, the next step is implement.
"Somehow this natural democratic process isn't democratic for many Brexiteers, who would rather have a dictatorship..."
How is it a dictatorship to implement a democratic vote? It would be undemocratic not to follow the result. In fact we have had 3 votes for change and 2 of those resulting in leave. Doesnt sound like leave is anti-democratic to insist on applying the result.
How democratic s it to implement an advisory vote as if it were binding?
An advisory vote that purposefully excluded those who would be adversely affected by one outcome (UK nationals living in the EU > 15 years), where one side has been found to have profoundly cheated in numerous ways, and has been fined accordingly. An advisory vote, where the promises made were based on multiple mutually-exclusive lies? An advisory vote, where once the veil has been pulled from the peoples' eyes, they are told, "tough, you voted for the lies, and you can't have anopther say".
Pretty damn undemocratic, I'd say.
I'm in two minds about a second referendum though. Refrerenda are pretty bad as far as democratic choices go, just like any opinion poll, as they reduce complex inssues to a simple question. Far better would be to withdraw A50, implement a proper system of PR, and then have a general election, with one party being clear that theri manifesto is to leave the EU (with an agreed plan of how to do so in advance). Then if it really IS the democratic will of the people to leave the EU, they'll get voted in, and it'll happen.
@Doctor Syntax
"How democratic s it to implement an advisory vote as if it were binding?"
So void the original 70's vote some remainers keep referencing as the EU and so we leave. We also have 2 general elections, 1 to have a referendum to change our relationship with the EU because we aint happy (else why change?) and 1 to confirm we want to leave the EU. The only major party offering remain was almost wiped out.
How is it democratic to keep us in an institution we are obviously against being a part of?
How is it democratic to keep us in an institution we are obviously against being a part of?
I clearly live in a universe where the word 'obviously' has a different meaning to yours.
So void the original 70's vote some remainers keep referencing as the EU and so we leave.
I assume you are referencing the 1975 advisory referendum where people voted to remain. Void that all you like; the result of that was to take no action, so instead... take no action?
We also have 2 general elections, 1 to have a referendum to change our relationship with the EU because we aint happy (else why change?) and 1 to confirm we want to leave the EU.
Well lets see, the Conservative manifesto in the 2015 election contained quite a lot more than 'we will hold a referendum', so to any sensible observer, the people 'obviously' didn't vote just on that one issue. May's 2016 election resulted in... a hung parliament and no mandate for the thing she went into the election to get, so effectively the opposite to the result you claim (the only 'leave' party lost its majority, even against someone as 'unelectable' as Corbyn). Lets not forget all the manifesto promises she made but has conveniently broken since either. I count seven, so far... https://govtracker.co.uk/
The only major party offering remain was almost wiped out.
...and not because hey were offering remain, but because of the disastrous coalition government with the Tories, which proved that they were not to be trusted.
@Loyal Commenter
"I clearly live in a universe where the word 'obviously' has a different meaning to yours."
3 votes resulting for change, 2 for leave. Maybe.
"I assume you are referencing the 1975 advisory referendum where people voted to remain. Void that all you like; the result of that was to take no action, so instead... take no action?"
I mean the referendum over the common market. Being advisory there is no need to follow that at all. Remainer logic!
"Well lets see, the Conservative manifesto in the 2015 election contained quite a lot more than 'we will hold a referendum'"
So we had a referendum on the subject with nothing else to interfere, and we voted leave.
"May's 2016 election resulted in... a hung parliament"
With the only major party for remain (lib dem) lost amazingly. So remain obviously isnt that important.
"Lets not forget all the manifesto promises she made but has conveniently broken since either"
Thats fine. I dont claim she is any good, nor the party, nor the previous ones. Labour lied their arse off for 13 years.
"...and not because hey were offering remain, but because of the disastrous coalition government with the Tories, which proved that they were not to be trusted."
So you accept that remaining in the EU is not so important. Or people would have voted for them. Because they were the only major party offering remain. And remain were practically wiped out regardless of your political leaning (left/right) the consensus was leave.
Also they couldnt be trusted because they joined with the tories. Who have been in power since labour. Do you not have to take paracetamol after such mental gymnastics?
>the winner gets in to implement their ideas
>Doesnt sound like leave is anti-democratic to insist on applying the result.
No the winner gets the opportunity to try and put their ideas into effect; currently the Conservative Executive is trying to get their idea of Brexit approved by Parliament and are, quite rightly, being given a rough time.
Also, you are assuming that the Conservative party's and Parliament's idea of Brexit is the same as yours, likewise their take on the 'result'.
>How is it a dictatorship to implement a democratic vote? It would be undemocratic not to follow the result.
I would be cautious with that line of reasoning, I can foresee a future Government, using it to push through their entire manifest... I seem to remember a previous government using the argument you may have voted for the candidate/party with the most things you like, however that vote actually meant you agreed with the entire manifesto...
@Roland6
"No the winner gets the opportunity to try and put their ideas into effect; currently the Conservative Executive is trying to get their idea of Brexit approved by Parliament and are, quite rightly, being given a rough time."
And the default is hard brexit. Heading the right way anyway it would seem.
"Also, you are assuming that the Conservative party's and Parliament's idea of Brexit is the same as yours, likewise their take on the 'result'"
I dont assume they are the same. Once out of the EU we are a free country to vote who we want to take the direction we choose. First part however is to leave the EU.
"I would be cautious with that line of reasoning, I can foresee a future Government, using it to push through their entire manifest"
So democracy would be dangerous. So what alternative do you propose?
"I seem to remember a previous government using the argument you may have voted for the candidate/party with the most things you like, however that vote actually meant you agreed with the entire manifesto..."
I remember promises for a referendum on the EU membership under labour and it not happening. And pledges that were either weasel words or just outright lie. But we vote for parties we believe will do best for the country. We can groan at the tories right now but it beats the hell out of labour right now.
@John Smith 19
"Except this is a referendum."
1 referendum 2 GE
"There is no "After a few years" bit"
Fantastic, now tell the rest of the remainers who keep demanding another vote.
"Did you think there is some sort of "second chance" if you and your pals f**k this up?"
There isnt? So you wouldnt advocate rejoining the EU? But that would of course require joining the project fully instead of trying to opt out of allsorts. Is that a problem? Do you not want to be in the EU? Is it really that bad? (I think I know the answer but it is fun to ask)
I "advocate" not being stupid and realizing the UK has a pretty sweet deal as it stands, despite what a vast swath of the press in the UK tell people.
But critical thinking amongst kwitters was never your strong point, was it? Otherwise you'd have spotted most of their complaints were a) Down to successive British govt f**kups the EU has nothing to do with and is entirely an internal UK matter and b) The Home Office.
OTOH those deals seemed mostly to benefit businesses right to treat their staff like (to coin a phrase) "disposable work units"
And I quite like the sound of the "Transparency and Money Laundering Regulations"
But I can see a large swath of the EU thinking "Thank f**k they've gone."
The UK often seems to have been a carping, grudging Member, while parts of its Civil Service have Gold Plated EU rules at every opportunity for their own benefit or convenience (again, nothing to do with Brussels. Entirely a UK problem).
So no I don't have a serious problem with re-joining, but I'd expect the EU would not be generous with the terms.
Do you have a serious problem admitting you're a delusional f**kwit? Or were you one of those who fell for AggregateIQ's targeted lying campaign?
I also don't have a problem with you admitting either of those statements.
Because the time is coming when we'll all be seeing who was really telling the truth about "Project Fear" or "Project Reality." Wheather it's full speed ahead for the "Sunlit uplands" or right into the past of the s**tstorm.
"I "advocate" not being stupid and realizing the UK has a pretty sweet deal as it stands, despite what a vast swath of the press in the UK tell people."
So you dont advocate joining the EU. That wonderful project is so good you dont want to join it, you want to 'remain' to be opted out of various parts of the project. We voted to leave, why dont you advocate rejoining the EU and voting for a party to rejoin?
"But critical thinking amongst kwitters was never your strong point, was it?"
Your the one wanting to remain so the UK doesnt join the EU proper. I am wanting leave because I also agree the EU sucks. I am just a little less impressed with the EU than you.
"But I can see a large swath of the EU thinking "Thank f**k they've gone.""
Probably. Apart from the teething problems of the UK leaving their group they would probably consider it better to have members who want to be in the project without all the opt outs. Not that the electorates seem to agree but thats another conversation.
"The UK often seems to have been a carping, grudging Member"
Right so why dont you advocate not being a grudging member and instead we could surrender the UK entirely to the EU? No? Or do you want to remain because you want the opt outs? Why is that? If the EU is so good why not join it completely? (I know the answer)
"So no I don't have a serious problem with re-joining, but I'd expect the EU would not be generous with the terms."
What do you mean generous? If you join the EU you surrender your country, your currency and in return your a member of the EU. Or do you want to opt out of things?
"I also don't have a problem with you admitting either of those statements."
The issue you seem to miss with that is a delusional fuckwit wouldnt know because of their delusion and instead would think they are right regardless of fact. Someone who fell for a targetted propaganda campaign could be shown their mistake by discussing fact and reason. If you cannot discuss on fact and reason I dont expect you to admit the second statement and if you are the first you wouldnt know.
"Because the time is coming when we'll all be seeing who was really telling the truth about "Project Fear" or "Project Reality.""
Actually we already have. A number of lies from the official leave campaign have been pointed out. Also a number of lies from the official remain campaign have been exposed. During the campaigning an amount of misrepresentation by Mark Carney was exposed by Mervyn King and the independence of the BoE was also brought into question due to Marks involvement. Also predictions of the brexit recession is so far 2-0 in respect of prediction and reality (now moved to a nebulous 'coming'). While the predictions might be for the UK's success or failure another question is if the EU will address its crises and survive.
So you dont advocate joining the EU. That wonderful project is so good you dont want to join it, you want to 'remain' to be opted out of various parts of the project.
Be careful here codejunky! :) This is just another way of putting what the Brexiteers wanted, namely all the benefits of 'remaining' in the Single Market, just opting out of the political union and freedom of movement requirement and with the freedom to pen our own trade deals...
>Your the one wanting to remain so the UK doesn't join the EU proper.
The way the referendum was framed, what 'Remain' actually meant wasn't really examined or fleshed out. Although given the European Union Act 2011, the broad consensus was that Remain did mean maintaining the then-current status quo (along with D.Cameron's rather interesting deal that would have shifted the EU's centre of power), participating in the 2019 summit on the future direction of the EU, then holding a referendum if the treaty changes arising from the summit required a change to the balance of power/'sovereignty'.
>another question is if the EU will address its crises and survive.
Be in no doubt, the EU will address its crisis, as to 'survive' that depends on the meaning and viewpoint you wish to put on it. For example, it could be said that the ECSC did (or didn't) survive, it being transformed firstly into the EEC and then into the EU. Thus I expect the EU will survive, but in a changed form.
@Roland6
"Be careful here codejunky! :) This is just another way of putting what the Brexiteers wanted"
Some brexiteers wanted that yes. But since the goal of the project is 'ever closer union' and 'more europe' it is understandable that both some remainers and brexiters want similar things but some have more/less trust in the EU.
"participating in the 2019 summit on the future direction of the EU, then holding a referendum if the treaty changes arising from the summit required a change to the balance of power/'sovereignty'."
Absolutely nothing at all even hinted such democracy. And if the result would be leave (again) we would be in this situation still. We have been promised referendums and a say but have not been allowed to because we would vote to leave. The sneaky application of the EU project has not improved peoples opinion of it.
"Be in no doubt, the EU will address its crisis, as to 'survive' that depends on the meaning and viewpoint you wish to put on it."
Ok. The EU is in a migration crisis, financial crisis and a severe popularity crisis. Without serious reform the currency area is doomed, it economically isnt viable (one of the arguments of not joining). The EU is increasingly unpopular with the populations of member countries leading to very interesting possibilities, one of those was brexit of course.
"Thus I expect the EU will survive, but in a changed form."
That I would agree with. As far as I can see the EU either falls back to a common trade area (less objectionable) or pushes ahead with federalisation. The problem with pushing ahead is how unpopular it would be and likely to cause more members to leave and significant problems with the populations. So at the minute it sits paralyzed unwilling to go back but unable to go forward.
@codejunky - up voted because of your calm and reasoned presentation.
>Absolutely nothing at all even hinted such democracy.
Well, the referendum requirement was in the European Union Act 2011. If you remember the Cons, Labour and LibDems all committed to holding a referendum in the event of any further transfer of sovereignty, this got incorporated into the Act. Because of the way the EU works, the summit this autumn was known about back in 2010. Thus the stage was set for the UK to walk into the summit with everyone knowing that whatever was agreed would have to satisfy the UK electorate or not get ratified additionally, it put a rod to the backs of the UK politicians doing the negotiating.
Yes, assuming everything went pear-shaped and having failed to ratify the treaty and come up with an acceptable alternative, Westminster would have to consider whether the time had come for an in/out referendum. However, the key difference between this scenario and today would be the understanding and mood of the UK electorate, ie. people would have their eyes open.
When you try to put words in my mouth you sound quite like a troll.
I think the current UK deal gives it significant privileges other members don't enjoy. If the UK were suddenly to decide to rejoin it would not get those terms back. IOW it'd get the deal everyone else gets. The UK walked out on the EU, not the other way around. You'd be delusional to think you'd get those back, as you would be in expecting any EU institutions to automatically come back to the UK.
"The issue you seem to miss with that is a delusional fuckwit wouldnt know because of their delusion and instead would think they are right regardless of fact. "
So let's see that means
a) You're not likely to admit you could be wrong. Ever.
b) How about the fact that the NHS claim was bu***hit, and admitted as much with days of it appearing? Or most impact assessments show the UK worse off post Brexit? Or the claim Leave sent 1000 000 000 lies (that's about 16 for every man, woman and child in the UK) to its (very carefully selected) group of leave voters to ensure they voted the "right" (or should that be far Right?) way? That's not a Marketing campaign. That's a Black propaganda campaign of the sort the CIA used to engage in. Feeding cherry picked bu***hit to carefully selected marks to wind them up and let them run. I wonder if they'd be allowed to for a 2nd referendum?
"If you join the EU you surrender your country, your currency and in return your a member of the EU."
Ahh, they authentic voice of a kwitter.
The hysterical tone says it all.
9 countries in the EU do not use the Euro. So no you don't "surrender your currency" and last I heard all EU countries still run their own tax, foreign and home policy, with the results that should be obvious to most Reg readers.
This sort of drivel has proved very convenient for British politicians and civil servants over the years. "It's the EU wot made us do this. Blah. Blah.."
And what happened when the British Parliament asked for a say in this sovereignty that this process was supposed (because in reality it won't) bring back to Blighty by the Conservative govt?
Basically "You're supposed to have sovereignty. You're not supposed to actually use it (to question the government on the plans it didn't have). Go away and stop bothering us"
I don't think the EU is perfect but it gives the UK
a) A very big, closely located market for goods and services (especially financial, which are 3x what the UK mfgs)
b) It's social justice requirements put a bottom to how badly UK employers can treat their work force, which have historically been pretty s**t.
c) It puts a limit on how bad UK governents (or rather their data fetishist senior civil servants) can spy on their people.
d) It gives the UK a say in EU wide issues and the leverage to implement solutions individual countries cannot.
@John Smith 19
"When you try to put words in my mouth you sound quite like a troll."
I am trying to get a simple answer out of you. Something so simple and easy to do I dont understand why you refuse. But assuming I guessed wrong last time, so you do advocate rejoining the EU without opt outs?
"I think the current UK deal gives it significant privileges other members don't enjoy"
Yes. And even with opt outs we voted to leave and so we leave. If you think we should be in the EU why not advocate rejoining the EU? Or are you so determined we need to remain because you want opt outs of the EU as a (quoting you here) "carping, grudging Member".
"rejoin it would not get those terms back. IOW it'd get the deal everyone else gets"
But if the EU is so fabulous then rejoining even without opt outs should be enough? Why shouldnt we commit to the glorious project? Why do we need the opt outs?
"You're not likely to admit you could be wrong. Ever."
Then you obviously have never read my post history.
"b)"
Thats a lot of hysterical bull and the CIA is American.
"So no you don't "surrender your currency" and last I heard all EU countries still run their own tax, foreign and home policy, with the results that should be obvious to most Reg readers."
Unless something has changed only Denmark has the exclusion (apart from UK) not to have to join the Euro. The others have to work toward the convergence criteria to then join the Eurozone. But go on you were saying...
"a) A very big, closely located market for goods and services (especially financial, which are 3x what the UK mfgs)"
London has been the global financial centre for Europe for how long?
"b) It's social justice requirements put a bottom to how badly UK employers can treat their work force, which have historically been pretty s**t."
SJW has become a derogatory term and for good reason.
"c) It puts a limit on how bad UK governents (or rather their data fetishist senior civil servants) can spy on their people."
The EU relies on UK intelligence as the EU isnt actually that good, particularly with criminals and terrorists abusing the EU openness.
"d) It gives the UK a say in EU wide issues and the leverage to implement solutions individual countries cannot."
The world is bigger than the EU. The world does not stop at EU borders. Just because the UK gets a small say in EU matters it is insular.
" am trying to get a simple answer out of you. "
Then you could have asked. You still sound like a troll.
I "advocated" not leaving in the first place. I'll advocate another position when and if the UK leaves. So far what we've seen is the Brexit equivalent of the "phony war" of 1939. The real s**tstorm hasn't even started.
"Yes. And even with opt outs we voted to leave and so we leave. "
When enough floating voters had been spoon fed bu***hit by Aggregate IQ working for the Leave campaign, while a substantial portion of the UK electorate thought the answer so obvious they didn't see the point in wasting there time to vote. Something I think would change in a second referendum if "Cancel Leave" was an option.
<argmentative BS>
"But if the EU is so fabulous then rejoining even without opt outs should be enough? Why shouldnt we commit to the glorious project? Why do we need the opt outs?"
Save the sneering tone for Margaret Thatcher. She negotiated most of them. You wanted to leave, now you're asking about re-joining. Why don't you go away and have a little think about what you want?
""b)"
"That's a lot of hysterical bull and the CIA is American."
Well done on being able to identify where the CIA is based, but why don't we look at some of those ads
here and
"Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey are joining the EU!
WTF? In how many centuries? And while we're at it who pushed hardest for all the East European countries to join the EU with full travel rights? That would the UK, continuing to try to play "Divide-and-rule" in the 21st century.
"We need an immigration system that ensure Britsh young people more jobs" Next to a neatly dressed young black woman on a tube train.
WTF is that about? Maybe what the UK needs is an education system that ensures young people more (well paid) jobs?
My impression of the UK employment market is non UK nationals are taking up jobs in things like toilet cleaning, coffee shops, bar work and all night bakeries.
Not the sort of well paid (not too demanding) office jobs young British people seem to fantasize will magically drop into their laps post Brexit (unless they fantazise about being a Premier League Footballer, but that might take some effort). Who do they think they are? One of Jacob Rees Moggs children?
Or the shot of a bull fight with "These are animals, not entertainment"
Since when has the EU had anything to do with encouraging bull fighting?
Entirely a Spannish and French thing. And how would the UK leaving the EU improve things for the bulls?
"Because... it's the EU, innit" perhaps?
About as related to the EU as the colour of UK passports.
According to the EU the Euro is the only currency in 19 member states.
The last time I did maths 28-19 = 9 states that are in the EU but don't have the Euro. Sounding not quite mandatory, is it not?
"London has been the global financial centre for Europe for how long?"
Who cares? Without frictionless trade across the UK/EU border it's status is f**ked, which might explain why 100s of Bn of Euros were transferred recently out of the City of London to offices still within the EU, like Dublin and Frankfurt.
"SJW has become a derogatory term and for good reason."
By right wing Aholes everywhere. Starting to sound like a bit of a troll again.
"The EU relies on UK intelligence as the EU isnt actually that good, particularly with criminals and terrorists abusing the EU openness."
Not able to answer the statement, so you answer a different one. Troll warning level is climbing.
"The world is bigger than the EU. The world does not stop at EU borders. Just because the UK gets a small say in EU matters it is insular."
And by extension is vastly bigger than the UK on its own.
So if the UK gets a "small" say in EU matters it will have a very small say in relating to any bigger entity.
Which means when the UK goes out there what does it offer?
A market of 60 million , when it was part of a market of 550 million.
A financial center that's on the wrong side of a tariff wall with the worlds 2nd largest currency?
Nuclear weapons the UK could sell off to someone (no questions asked)?
When the delusional aholes who voted Leave did so most of them seemed to be thinking fondly, not of the UK (as it is) but the UK + The British Empire
That was a formidable global institution, with land areas comparable to the US, Russia and China (since it included Canada and India).
But UK - The British Empire --> Not much to be honest.
It's not "Project Fear," it's "Project Reality."
@John Smith 19
"Then you could have asked. You still sound like a troll."
Basic english lesson for you. That character at the end is called a question mark and denotes the end of a question. My question I did ask- "So you wouldnt advocate rejoining the EU?"
"I "advocated" not leaving in the first place"
Which is not on the table. So assuming democracy we leave the EU (voted for 2-0). So after that point would you be advocating joining the EU? I ask this question because it would be joining with no opt outs. Accept the EU in all its glory, no opt outs, the Euro currency, all of it.
"You wanted to leave, now you're asking about re-joining"
Ha troll. I am for leave. But you claim to want us in the EU. Democratically we have decided to leave. So I want to know if you would want to join the EU project without opt outs. I want to know because it sounds like you only want to be in the EU if we have opt outs. Which leads to an interesting discussion.
"And while we're at it who pushed hardest for all the East European countries to join the EU with full travel rights? That would the UK"
And that would be the UK gov of wanting to be in the EU. If you dont like it blame the UK gov who wanted to be in the project and our 'say' was being used to promote these countries into the EU. We want out.
"
Reply to post: Re: "There isnt? So you wouldnt advocate rejoining the EU?"
Thanks for all those data-flow warnings, UK.gov. Now let's talk about your own Brexit prep. Yep, just as we thought
15 hrs
John Smith 19
Gold badge
Reply Icon
FAIL
Re: "There isnt? So you wouldnt advocate rejoining the EU?"
" am trying to get a simple answer out of you. "
Then you could have asked. You still sound like a troll.
I "advocated" not leaving in the first place. I'll advocate another position when and if the UK leaves. So far what we've seen is the Brexit equivalent of the "phony war" of 1939. The real s**tstorm hasn't even started.
"Yes. And even with opt outs we voted to leave and so we leave. "
When enough floating voters had been spoon fed bu***hit by Aggregate IQ working for the Leave campaign, while a substantial portion of the UK electorate thought the answer so obvious they didn't see the point in wasting there time to vote. Something I think would change in a second referendum if "Cancel Leave" was an option.
<argmentative BS>
"But if the EU is so fabulous then rejoining even without opt outs should be enough? Why shouldnt we commit to the glorious project? Why do we need the opt outs?"
Save the sneering tone for Margaret Thatcher. She negotiated most of them. You wanted to leave, now you're asking about re-joining. Why don't you go away and have a little think about what you want?
""b)"
"That's a lot of hysterical bull and the CIA is American."
Well done on being able to identify where the CIA is based, but why don't we look at some of those ads
here and
here
"Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey are joining the EU!
WTF? In how many centuries? And while we're at it who pushed hardest for all the East European countries to join the EU with full travel rights? That would the UK, continuing to try to play "Divide-and-rule" in the 21st century.
"<propaganda BS>"
That has nothing to do with my comment and you may dislike such propaganda (I dislike it) but both remain and leave official campaigns were just as bad.
"According to the EU the Euro is the only currency in 19 member states.
The last time I did maths 28-19 = 9 states that are in the EU but don't have the Euro. Sounding not quite mandatory, is it not?"
That kinda sounds like your being purposefully ignorant but your beliefs might actually be that wrong. The mandatory part of the Euro is only 2 (UK and Denmark) have opt outs for the currency. The others have to move toward joining it, its mandatory. Please tell me you can understand that or you might be a lost cause.
"Who cares? Without frictionless trade across the UK/EU border it's status is f**ked, which might explain why 100s of Bn of Euros were transferred recently out of the City of London to offices still within the EU, like Dublin and Frankfurt."
And others have been waiting for the fall of London for a long time. They are still waiting. You think those Euros mean we are losing the City of London? That bypasses the rules of the EU with a few poxy brass plates on offices that already exist. Thats why it pissed of Junker.
"By right wing Aholes everywhere. Starting to sound like a bit of a troll again."
Aww I get the bad feeling your an extreme lefty. Anyone to the right of them is a right wing Ahole, and SJW really is a derogatory term due to the abuse carried out in its name.
"Not able to answer the statement, so you answer a different one"
Actually I avoided pointing out to you that you were defending the EU taking sovereignty over countries, out of politeness. Put bluntly the EU is an interfering micromanaging monster and I prefer we do take back our sovereignty because at least we can vote for our leadership.
"And by extension is vastly bigger than the UK on its own."
Exactly. We both agree the world is bigger than the EU and by extension vastly bigger than the UK. That supports my point.
"So if the UK gets a "small" say in EU matters it will have a very small say in relating to any bigger entity."
This is the discussion I was having with someone else about having to have power over others. We are in NATO, UN and the WTO so we have plenty say in bigger entities and more relevant entities than the EU. But since trade is a cooperative and mutually beneficial effort the world being bigger than the EU is why we are better off dealing with the world.
"A financial center that's on the wrong side of a tariff wall with the worlds 2nd largest currency?"
Actually with a failing currency. One that got so close to deflation while barely existing for any length of time in its first recession. And if they want it to be an international reserve currency then piping it through the global financial centres is a benefit. Up to them if they want to cut themselves off from that but then its not much use.
"When the delusional aholes who voted Leave did so most of them seemed to be thinking fondly, not of the UK (as it is) but the UK + The British Empire"
Really? On odd occasion Empire is brought up by a leaver, but regularly by remainers. But the remainers then use the empire arguments for being in the EU, as if their thoughts are of being part of the empire. Its an odd situation I find that the very elements leavers are accused of seem to reflect the very traits the remainers push to remain.
Or the claim Leave sent 1000 000 000 lies (that's about 16 for every man, woman and child in the UK) to its (very carefully selected) group of leave voters to ensure they voted the "right" (or should that be far Right?) way?
And Remain paid Facebook a fortune to push their propaganda. It cuts both ways.
9 countries in the EU do not use the Euro. So no you don't "surrender your currency"
Yes, you do. The UK and Denmark, as existing members, negotiated opt-outs, but every new member is required to use the euro once they meet the economic conditions. Sweden is trying very hard not to meet those, to avoid being forced into the eurozone
I don't think the EU is perfect but it gives the UK
a) A very big, closely located market for goods and services (especially financial, which are 3x what the UK mfgs)
We had that with the EEC, no need for a political union.
b) It's social justice requirements put a bottom to how badly UK employers can treat their work force, which have historically been pretty s**t.
I feel that the UK actually hits a happy medium between the brutal rules that apply in places like the US and the ludicrously excessive protections in places like France. That shows in how the UK has one of the lowest unemployment rates, and highest growth, among the EU members.
c) It puts a limit on how bad UK governents (or rather their data fetishist senior civil servants) can spy on their people.
I'm no fan of the snooper's charter, but I'm sceptical that the EU will actually do any better in the long run. In my experience it's just better hidden, despite what the public rules might say.
d) It gives the UK a say in EU wide issues and the leverage to implement solutions individual countries cannot.
That's down to the EU's choice. It already works with non-EU countries like the US, Canada, China, etc. all of whom have input on joint ventures. There is no reason why that wouldn't apply to UK-EU relations, other than the EU's obvious desire to prevent the UK from gaining any advantage from Brexit.
a) A very big, closely located market for goods and services (especially financial, which are 3x what the UK mfgs)
We had that with the EEC, no need for a political union.
Well the EEC had the right intention, just that it wasn't particularly successful in creating an open market, hence one of the reasons M.Thatcher pushed the Single Market, which I suggest over nearly 30 years has been more successful in delivering the intended objective.
The fly in the ointment has been who defines the rules of the SM? For whatever reason the political union project got to keep these. Hence why T.May's deal is the way it is: want to stay in the SM, you have to accept the rules EU/Brussels decides.
Interestingly, in the years before the Referendum, Farage was wanting to leave the EU but stay in the SM... The other aspect of this is that when the SM was set up, there was some conversation about WTO and basically, one of the purposes of the SM was, because its small membership, it could fast track trade liberalisation, that the WTO, due to its structure. was incapable of doing in any reasonable time frame.
5% of the voters have probably died, an ...
You conveniently left this bit from the copy+paste of the comment you where replying to::
Considering almost all of the leave.uk pledges have failed, reality is kicking in
I voted leave - but the promises haven't materialised. Like you, I was grossly misinformed. But, if there's anything worse than ignorance, it's continual ignorance. After enlightenment, I've changed my mind, but I can't because of... democracy?
Our say is being suppressed in the name of democracy.
Speaking of "democracy", perhaps the millions of tax-payers - who are propping this country up, and who's lives will be directly impacted should have been asked? You know, "the foreigners". Likewise the millions of UK citizens leaving in the other EU countries.
On the plus side, we have front-row seats to the self-inflicted demise of our country on both a humanitarian and financial level, while our great-grandchildren will be face-palming in their history lessons. *slow-clap*
If that were actually true, then the Leave viewpoint would have been declining for decades, yet it hasn't. It actually increased to the point where it was carried in a referendum, so your basic assumption must be flawed.
...
is that somewhere in that middle range between "young" and "old" something happens to change Remain voters into Leave voters.
The desire to give the politicians a bloody nose?
From what I saw of the various survey's conducted around the time of the referendum, was a rather significant number of people who regarded themselves as being disenfranchised, saw the referendum as a way of making mischief... Which sort of makes the basic assumption that the vote really was for leave flawed. However, as we have seen the headline result was all the nutters in the Conservative party needed to jump on their hobby horses and go tilting at wind mills.
You mean all those people whose lives didn't match their (vastly over inflated and unjustified) ambitions?
Those people who need someone to blame for their failures?
Yes, I think you're onto something."Blame the foreigns" is a time honored tactic.
But I think Dominic Cummings found them first.
" the public should get a choice between the in/may/out options."
In addition to listing all the Brexit options and "Remain", I firmly think there should be a "None of the above" option, just to see whether we (the voters) are actually paying any attention. It might be amusing (or not) to see how many people put their mark against it....
"...a referendum allows for more options than just "cancel", otherwise what would be the point of it?"
Deal or no deal, given the deal that May brought back, with all the ties and obligations, what is the difference?
With one we will be rule takers, paying into a system where we have no vote. Also we will not be able to make those wonderful deals Liam Fox keeps prattling on about. The other option is to crash out on WTO terms, with no access to Europol, Euratom or as the article mentions data stored in the EU. You thought that the UK getting booted out of Galileo was bad? You ain't seen nothing yet.
The danger is now so clear and the alternatives so poor that any reasonable, sane and truly responsible government would be pulling the emergency cord and stopping this madness, but it won't. The interests of the Conservative party are far more important to the PM and her ministers than any damage that will be done to everyone in the country whether they voted to leave the EU or not.
After all a lot of those pushing for a no deal Brexit have already moved their businesses and assets outside the UK, so why should they worry? See Dyson and Rees-Mogg for that little sleight of hand.
than any damage that will be done to everyone"
As they always were.
This whole process has been about
a) Keeping the Parliamentary Conservative Party together
b) Killing off UKIP.
In both cases job done. Kippers. Smoked.
The wrecking of the UK economy is (in their eyes) a small price to pay for clinging to power (and a number of their disaster capitalist members will do rather well out of the chaos as a bonus).
We got the preferred result in the 1970s but that didn't stop another referendum. Why should it now?
The "preferred result" was to join what was then "the Common Market". What we were voting on more recently was essentially whether we wanted to remain part of a forced march to a European super state.
Or is there a newly-minted Leavers' rule - no more frequently than every forty years?
For that sort of major change once per generation seems to be the usual rule of thumb, so every 25-30 years if requested would seem a reasonable compromise to avoid constant upheaval. Pity we didn't get one 25 years ago when we were taken into the EU.
For a government to hold a referendum and then ignore the result would be political suicide
Show me on the diagram the universe where the current government hasn't already comitted political suicide? They're not going to go down in history as a paragon of good governance you know.
If you just want non-binding advice you hold an opinion poll, not a referendum.
If you hold a non-binding referendum (and exclude specific groups from it), is is an opinion poll. Just because Cameron promised that his government would implement the result (and then promptly quit) doesn't make it binding, it just means he made an unconsitutional promise (it directly condradicted the enabling bill that MPs voted for) which he then ran away from.
Legally, and consitutionally, the non-binding referndum has exactly as much weight as an opinion poll. i.e. none.
Time to have another public Brexit vote?
Too late. Poison has flown in copious amounts, trust has been broken. If there were a referendum among the European citizen in ALL the European countries the majority would vote for Brexit.
A second referendum would be just another parody of democracy from a country that keeps talking with with pride about their fake democracy and a people that keep accusing the unelected in Brussels while their government is named by an unelected head of state and an unelected House of Lords has a big say on their laws.
If there were a referendum among the European citizen in ALL the European countries the majority would vote for Brexit.
I think there would be an embarrassing (to the EU) number who'd opt for Frexit, Italexit, Czexit, etc. Let's see what the May elections bring.
As someone living in Europe and therefore being blamed for Everything that is wrong with Great Britain, despite everything "we" are blamed for was pretty much entirely the creations of successive UK governments, I think that Brexit should be unconditionally carried out, on time, deal or no deal, no matter.
Just get on with it, get it done and get out! Please!
Cancelling Brexit would be like letting that crazy, bipolar, ex partner move back in after s/he wanted a divorce because s/he wanted to "see other people" but instead spent 2 years on SoMe slagging "that bitch husband" and arguing over how s/he also wants the house, the car and the cat; but forgot to file the divorce proceedings and find a place to live in all the excitement, so now, totally unprepared for anything, at the very last moment, s/he insists on moving back in "because none of that stuff really meant anything, Darrrhling".
-- Two moths later, s/he will be right back to his/her old game and no dinner, no blowjobs, no nothing will be given without an argument!
Upvoted for the nice analogy, but please don't lump all of us UK citizens in the same boat please.
I'm as embarrassed by the Brexiteers as I suspect most thoughtful, intelligent and imaginative Americans are by their sorry excuse for a president.
I don't really see what the problem is.
Whether we leave with a 'deal' or not does not impact data as we will still be a 'third country' to the EU. It's only if that deal specifically includes a clause that the EU will, using section 101 of EU Regulation 2016/679. The withdrawal agreement in Article 71 suggests some protections of personal data but does not state that the UK will be found to have equivalent data protections under this agreement. However having fully implemented GDPR then the European Commission could very quickly agree adequacy of data protection whether there is a deal or not - remember the USA is still deemed adequate despite being refer to the courts saying it sin't and obviously doesn't have the same safeguards as the UK.
Therefore accessing of data that is stored in the EU can still be access just by the UK determining that it is holds sufficient data protection when they formalise the Great Repeal Bill.
The issue then comes if the EU determine that they refuse to grant the UK a status that would ensure it is seen a adequate to protect EU data and they also feel that the data sat on the servers in the EU is now EU data due to residency and refuse to allow it to be processed by the UK. However how would they know if that data holds PII without somehow demanding to see that data.
I don't think anyone stopped using US servers when it was found that Safe Harbour was not adequate - I'm not sure why our GDPR protections and the EU GDPR protections would suddenly seem to be invalid and therefore the data storage location immediately relevant?
Have you seen the proposals the EU came up with concerning .eu domain registrations? If the same panel that gets to decide GDPR adequacy is the one making decisions about data protection then you can pretty much guarantee that a zero tolerance stance will be taken to the UK post-brexit.
The UK seems to be wilfully heading towards crashing out of the EU in a manner that would be incredibly damaging for both sides. This isn't going to help the case for the UK to be given any sort of special treatment in the aftermath, if anything it will harden attitudes.
The USA was given a special pass for data protection because nearly all of the worlds social media companies originated and run their services from there. EU consumers wanted access to that, and were not going to take it kindly if EU regulators shut everything down after these services had already gained traction, regardless of it being for their own protection. Hence a huge amount of kicking problems under the carpet to come up with safe harbor, and subsequently privacy shield. Chance of UK gaining similar status? About the same as the number of international social media companies that started here - zero.
"However having fully implemented GDPR then the European Commission could very quickly agree adequacy of data protection whether there is a deal or not"
How quick is quickly? And your argument suggests that GDPR is implemented. The current DPA contains various weasel clauses to allow HMG a good bit of wrggle room. If the examiners don't like them then a new DPA is needed.
"I don't think anyone stopped using US servers when it was found that Safe Harbour was not adequate"
They went to relying on contractual clauses which are again under attack in the courts. In the case of HMG's data there probably isn't a contract in place. How do they get round that?
"Who needs data transfer and fancy IT?"
Data transfer and fancy IT are two different things. I hope you're not running a business on the assumption they're not. Your data can exist in any form including hand-written. Your data transfer can be anything from handing someone that hand written not upwards. Your data processing can be shuffling through that pile of paper on your desk.
Anyone here subscribed to ‘Brexit’ updates on GOV.UK? The email advice just comes pouring in ... and tells you nothing except that everything will (or will not) change - the simple fact is that after two years of negotiations and planning, nobody actually knows what's going to happen in eight weeks time.
But the Brexiters insist that all we have to plan for the unimaginable.
El Reg - please a new icon for these debates, perhaps a unicorn?
@Version 1.0
"the simple fact is that after two years of negotiations and planning, nobody actually knows what's going to happen in eight weeks time."
So your saying the remainer PM with the remainer civil service is making a mess of negotiating after not listening to the leavers who were doing a fair job? Shocked I tell you!
"the remainer PM"
I never believed that. She's a brain washed Home Sec who'd like to get out from under the ECHR let alone the ECJ.
"the remainer civil service"
That'll be the folks who actually have to try to advise governments on what's practical in the real world. I wonder why they'd be remainers (except for the HO thinking about those pesky European courts).
Logically civil servants should be totally behind Brexit.... loads of new quangos, 'fact finding' trips to exotic locations rather than downtown Brussels, something new to blame for failure, opportunity to tear up irrelevant EU imparted copper plated bureaucracy and replace it with new improved UK gold plated bureaucracy, great graft opportunities once food rationing kicks in.....
>Logically civil servants should be totally behind Brexit
But think of the downside, without the EU providing a steady stream of regulations and legislation to be copper plated and translated into UK law, the civil servants will have to rely more on Westminster providing work. Also currently, if things go wrong - especially with the copper plating, then you can always shrug your shoulders and point the finger at Brussels...
One of the wryly amusing parts of Brexit is that probably in the last three years (Cameron's "new deal" tour and then Brexit), the UK has probably spent more and devoted more time talking with the EU than it has done in the preceding 30 years when it was supposed to be government policy to be at "the centre of EU decision-making"...
@Doctor Syntax
"Or his no true Scotsman story."
Oh yey we are back to you saying that again! Yippee! Oh wait you are still saying that May is not a remainer while she campaigned to remain and trying to keep us in the EU. But she is no true Scotsman!
Go on shout it out again! May is no true Scotsman!
I see plenty own goals in these debates but if you keep throwing such slow balls I am gonna hit them back.
> So your saying the remainer PM with the remainer civil service is making a mess of negotiating after not listening to the leavers who were doing a fair job? Shocked I tell you!
If that is truely believed that May is a remainer by Brexit MP's then why was vote to kick her out so badly organised?
the simple fact is that after two years of negotiations and planning, nobody actually knows what's going to happen in eight weeks time.
After the vote the government spent months pretending to prepare something, but then showed up at the negotiations empty handed.
After Article 50 was notified some more time was lost for a snap election and some more fake preparations.
In all this time Theresa May and her collaborators spent a lot of time making nice speeches and appearing on the media and very little time at the negotiating table.
So, what you are complaining about didn't happen by chance. Any delay won't change anything there will be no plan because nobody wants a plan.
I'm not complaining, just observing ... there's no point it trying to assign blame because everyone involved is incompetent - the fact of the matter is that the UK has always been run by the old boys network of public school chums and they have no clue. All the politicians involved are squabbling over who gets to run the country, none of them give a damn about the consequences of their decisions.
Personally, I think that the Brexit concept was quite reasonable but it has been pushed by idiots who have no idea that if you are going to jump off a cliff then it's a smart idea to make sure that there's a big pile of mattresses at the bottom. You can't jump off and say, "Don't worry about it, we'll figure it out" when you're halfway down.
Except that is what the Leave campaign did do.
That's what happens when you trust people whose degrees are in concocting plausible and logical sounding bu***hit.
The British people (the smarter ones) will learn the meaning of the phrase "Never trust a Tory posh boy."
"In all this time Theresa May and her collaborators spent a lot of time making nice speeches and appearing on the media and very little time at the negotiating table."
To be fair to May she did send one of her True Believers to negotiate. Then another. How many is it now?
Apparently it is not mandatory. That is the beauty of this option. No messy referendum to worry about either. Theresa May will pacify the Brexiteers by saying we will reactivate Article 50 "when we are ready".
Random link:-
https://news.sky.com/story/government-could-bypass-parliament-to-revoke-article-50-11571873
Lifted from:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47231597
Mr Barclay said the government's priority was to secure a deal and said: "The only way to avoid 'no deal' is either to secure a deal on the terms the prime minister has set out... the only other option would be to revoke Article 50 (the process by which the UK will leave the EU)."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
