The Positive Brexit Thread

[Bill 1,788]

43 minutes ago, horsefly said:

 everything the BBC does is part of a Marxist plot to overthrow democracy (and that includes stories about cats stuck up trees).

I am not sure which Marx that refers to, Harpo, Chico or Groucho as there is nothing in anything Karl Marx wrote that speaks of plots, or over throwing governments.

That the BBC reflects in its news and current affairs programmes the cultural mix of the UK must be highly upsetting to racists such as Swindle, who cannot understand why the BBC is not as some Mr Cholmondley-Warner (Harry Enfield) style broadcaster.

Johnny Speight picked up on this need to cling to some mythical past with his Alf Garnett character. An angry man, unable to come to terms with his all too obvious failing and inadequacies, and so constant railing against a changing country - as do brexiteers.

This was a BBC at the time was hosted ground breaking and innovative comedy, hard hitting social comment in such programmes as Play for Today and freedom to consistently challenge and evolve.

Something that righties were scared of as they huddled around Mary Whitehouses skirts. The BBC was to bring about the end of the world......as they knew it, so they declared. The age of deference was slipping away. Society has always moved forward - it is whether you embrace it, of whether you recoil, as a vampire from garlic.

The ravings of Swindle and his fellow bigots, will in future years, seem just as bizarre as we now regard -early Victorians belief that anyone on a train going more than 30mph would vaporise. The hatred towards others because of their skin colour or sexuality will be something future generations will struggle to understand.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, SwindonCanary said:

It proves that twice as many people think the BBC is left winged, like myself 

But twice as many think it is neutral than think it is right leaning. In fact its the largest % along with those who don't know.

But all you righties are watching the Andrew Neil ego channel anyway.

Andrew Neil. Chairman of the right wing Spectator and former editor of the Sunday Times.🥶

Why do these people think they are so important? I merely want the facts presented to me and make up my own mind and not be brainwashed into their established partisan ideas.

I would rather hear that Dawn Butler was excluded from Parliament from calling Johnson a liar, a statement easily proved with the amount of evidence, than some egotistical journo telling me which way to think about her views.

 

[SwindonCanary 455]

53 minutes ago, Well b back said:

You must be beginning to hate a lot of people 

Europeans    NO

BBC   YES

Footballers NO

NHS  NO

DUP  NO

Musicians NO

Migrants who are being persecuted in their own Countries  NO

Kate Bingham WHO ?

Not bad, you got one right 

[Herman 9,717]

Who took the bloody poll? 

[A Load of Squit 5,134]

24 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Not bad, you got one right 

From the evidence of you posts I'd say he got them all right.

You can say otherwise but we're just saying that's what you post so that's all we can go by. 

[Well b back 3,190]

6 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

From the evidence of you posts I'd say he got them all right.

You can say otherwise but we're just saying that's what you post so that's all we can go by. 

Indeed

I have only gone by his postings, the footballers for instance he would not support, but he did support the government. To say he doesn’t know who Kate Bingham is quite comical.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Well b back

[SwindonCanary 455]

Dame Catherine Elizabeth Bingham DBE, known as Kate Bingham, is a British venture capitalist. She is a managing partner at a venture capital firm, SV Health Investors Of no interest to me 

[horsefly 4,287]

7 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Dame Catherine Elizabeth Bingham DBE, known as Kate Bingham, is a British venture capitalist. She is a managing partner at a venture capital firm, SV Health Investors Of no interest to me 

And there was me thinking you had gone on and on about the government's marvellous vaccine roll-out. Something that is very much down to Kate Bingham's excellent leadership.

[Well b back 3,190]

3 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Dame Catherine Elizabeth Bingham DBE, known as Kate Bingham, is a British venture capitalist. She is a managing partner at a venture capital firm, SV Health Investors Of no interest to me 

So why did you accuse her of lying when when she said ‘ Boris Johnson ‘ was not being very truthful in saying we could not have done our roll out had we still been in the EU. She was the person that made the U.K. roll out possible.

You have basically just said all your comments on Kate Bingham were given despite you not even knowing who she was, nice, why did you accuse her of not telling the truth ?.

I look forward to you booing the Norwich players for taking the knee and booing the NHS workers as they walk around the pitch in a couple of weeks time at FCR, but I bet you will be to scared when you are not behind your computer.

[Well b back 3,190]

Just nipped to the Supermarket as only 1/2 could be supplied on our delivered order. I can honestly say ‘ Nothing to see there ‘.

Empty shelves unlike Swindon misleading us.

[SwindonCanary 455]

35 minutes ago, horsefly said:

And there was me thinking you had gone on and on about the government's marvellous vaccine roll-out. Something that is very much down to Kate Bingham's excellent leadership.

WRONG AGAIN

Edited July 23, 2021 by SwindonCanary

[Herman 9,717]

Still no pork pies in Asda. And that is a disgrace. 

[A Load of Squit 5,134]

10 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

WRONG AGAIN

Despite a lot of people (me included) being sceptical about her appointment Kate Bingham deserves huge praise for her work.

Her excellent leadership and honesty about how our membership of the EU had no bearing on our vaccine procurement and roll out should not be overlooked. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a-statement-regarding-kate-bingham-and-the-vaccine-taskforce

Kate stepped back from her full-time role as Managing Partner at SV Health Investors to take on this role as Chair of the Taskforce, for which she is unpaid.

Under her leadership of the Vaccine Taskforce, in the past six months:

• Britain has struck agreements to buy 350m doses of vaccine: these involve the six leading candidates under development including the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines.
• The VTF has reached in principle agreement with AstraZeneca to supply a neutralising antibody cocktail as a prophylactic treatment once clinical trials are completed and it is approved by regulators.
• 300,000 people have enrolled in a national registry expressing their interest to take part in clinical trials to accelerate the development of a successful vaccine.
• The UK is pioneering controlled human challenge studies, dependent on ethics and regulatory approvals, to assess and accelerate the development of effective vaccines more quickly and with far fewer participants than a standard phase 3 trial.
• The Vaccine Taskforce has provided funding in several UK sites to manufacture vaccine to cover the UK population.
• The UK has committed to ensuring that everyone at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, anywhere in the world, has access to a safe and effective vaccine, and has donated £500m to the Covax international vaccine-sharing initiative to enable this.
• The VTF has launched a series of podcasts on Amazon and Spotify with experts discussing all key aspects of vaccine development to help inform the public about what to expect from COVID-19 vaccines, in addition to extensive media interviews and conference appearances.
• An article detailing the achievements of the Vaccine Taskforce was published in The Lancet last week.
•  

[Well b back 3,190]

1 hour ago, SwindonCanary said:

WRONG AGAIN

So why in December did you say it was, but using it to attack the EU.

[horsefly 4,287]

1 hour ago, Well b back said:

So why in December did you say it was, but using it to attack the EU.

The buffoon has morphed into Bart Simpson without the charm or intelligence. Just throwing out "wrong again" or "not true" as if that acts as some kind of justification is childishness of a most pathetic kind. Also he seems to forget that all we have to do is look back through the threads to see what idiocy he has spouted before.

[Herman 9,717]

19 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

you forget to mention it's to do with covid 

From the 15th. This was predictable.

 

[Bill 1,788]

A very informative piece from the Financial Times, which highlights how Johnson entered into this agreement fully aware of the consequences, which now being played out.

 

"When Lord David Frost announced his latest plan to reboot the Northern Ireland protocol yesterday, he correctly observed that most of the “current friction” between the EU and the UK stems from the rancorous debate over Northern Ireland. “If we can eliminate this, there is a huge prize on offer,” he wrote in the preamble to the document. “A better and more constructive relationship between the UK and the EU, without mistrust, and working effectively to support joint objectives.

”It’s hard to argue with that statement, and yet it is equally hard to square the substance of the Frost proposals with his gloss that it is all an even-handed, mutually consensual attempt to make the Northern Ireland situation work for both sides. Because it is plainly not. The 28-page command paper does not offer detailed technical solutions to difficult problems; it is a return to old arguments and an assault on the fundamentals of the protocol itself, which leaves Northern Ireland de facto in the EU single market for goods in order that the rest of the UK could leave the EU on the hardest possible terms.

To make that deal work, Boris Johnson agreed that Northern Ireland should follow large tracts of EU laws and regulations that are set out in the annexes to the protocol. Logically, the enforcement of these rules needs to be under the writ of the European Court of Justice, since that court is the sole arbiter of EU law.

The Frost proposals demand that that structure is replaced with a “treaty-based” approach that uses an international arbitration mechanism. At the same time, Frost wants UK goods — even if they do not conform to EU standards — to be allowed to circulate freely in Northern Ireland, so long as they are clearly labelled for consumption in the region. And he wants for companies in Great Britain to be able to self-certify if goods are destined only for Northern Ireland, and if they are, to be exempt from all checks at the Irish Sea border. For goods going in the other direction (from Northern Ireland into Great Britain) Frost has rejected the EU’s offer of avoiding formal export declarations by using other data sources, such as ship manifests, so that there is no record of goods leaving the EU single market, as is required by EU law.

The ECJ, as the enforcer of the rules of the EU single market would — in Frost’s vision — have no control over goods circulating in Northern Ireland, and no north-south border at which to police them. The net result of this is a legal free-for-all that removes the border in the Irish Sea and — by inexorable extension — pushes it back either on to the island of Ireland, or into the sea between Ireland and the rest of the EU, thereby diluting Ireland’s place in the EU single market.

Frost is not naive. He knows very well that this proposal will not be acceptable. It is not legally or politically viable. Instead, it is an attempt to rewind the clock back to conceptual arguments that were lost back in 2019, but that the Johnson government now wants to try to win again. To be fair to Frost, this protocol never looked like his favoured solution. He argued strongly for the “alternative arrangements” to create a light-touch north-south border, believing that the rest of the EU would ultimately force Dublin to accept this compromise. He was wrong. Merkel and the EU27 held firm and Johnson then agreed the protocol in the space of nine days in October 2019 in order to “get Brexit done”.

As we now know from Dominic Cummings’ blog, the prime minister was following instructions to do this and ignore officials “babbling” about Northern Ireland. Having signed the deal to get Brexit done in 2019, Frost and Johnson then elected to sign a hasty Canada-style trade deal that, by taking the UK as far as possible outside the regulatory orbit of the EU, put the absolute maximum pressure on the Irish Sea border arrangement they agreed the previous year. These were clear choices, the consequences of which cannot now be cast as unforeseen.

Edwin Poots, then the Democratic Unionist party’s agriculture minister, specifically wrote to the government in June last year warning that if it concluded a super-hard EU-UK trade deal without a Swiss-style veterinary agreement to align rules on animal and plant products, the protocol would place “unacceptable burdens” on the people of Northern Ireland. And so it has come to pass. Six months into the implementation of the protocol, the government clearly regrets those choices and is demanding a rethink based on a mish-mash of pleas to “trust us”, technological solutions and “mutual enforcement” concepts that it knows the EU won’t legally tolerate.

The extraordinary “section one” of the command paper tries to imply that Johnson almost signed the original deal under duress, because (in this telling) parliament’s insistence that the UK could not leave the EU without an agreement had “radically undermined the government’s negotiating hand”. If that is correct, then by implication the demands in this paper suggest that Frost now believes the Johnson government has a stronger hand created by the deteriorating political and economic facts on the ground, and that he intends to use it.

From an EU perspective this is, as one diplomat described it to me, “gangster politics”. And given the EU is not going to agree to the UK’s core demands, this move seems destined to provoke further EU legal action (which Frosts says is unhelpful) and very likely a UK decision to trigger the Article 16 override clause.

It is not too late to pull back, but time is short. Businesses want clarity by the end of August on any new rules or extension to grace periods, which Frost has demanded as part of a “standstill” while a new deal is thrashed out. Perhaps it is still possible, if the EU shows a high degree of flexibility, to keep the core of the protocol but transfer the “at risk” approach that governs tariffs to the agrifood arena, which is by far the largest source of friction. This would instantly reduce the burden of checks.

Still, this latest UK gambit hardly feels conducive to fostering an atmosphere of compromise. Indeed, it will be hard for the European Commission to avoid taking further legal action with regards to the existing agreement, if the UK keeps on this track. None of this is likely to bring clarity for business or calm to Northern Ireland’s febrile politics. As Frost said, there is indeed a “huge prize” to be had in reaching an agreement. This feels like an odd way to go about grasping it."

 

The disturbing thought, and knowledge, is that this bloated buffoon will continue to wheeze and bluster in the full knowledge that he will concede, back down and perform yet another U turn - as he has at every turn with the EU. Lie to voters (are you listening fishing industry) cause untold damage to peoples lives and the UK economy, before spouting more promises that cannot be kept.

[horsefly 4,287]

5 hours ago, Bill said:

A very informative piece from the Financial Times, which highlights how Johnson entered into this agreement fully aware of the consequences, which now being played out.

 

"When Lord David Frost announced his latest plan to reboot the Northern Ireland protocol yesterday, he correctly observed that most of the “current friction” between the EU and the UK stems from the rancorous debate over Northern Ireland. “If we can eliminate this, there is a huge prize on offer,” he wrote in the preamble to the document. “A better and more constructive relationship between the UK and the EU, without mistrust, and working effectively to support joint objectives.

”It’s hard to argue with that statement, and yet it is equally hard to square the substance of the Frost proposals with his gloss that it is all an even-handed, mutually consensual attempt to make the Northern Ireland situation work for both sides. Because it is plainly not. The 28-page command paper does not offer detailed technical solutions to difficult problems; it is a return to old arguments and an assault on the fundamentals of the protocol itself, which leaves Northern Ireland de facto in the EU single market for goods in order that the rest of the UK could leave the EU on the hardest possible terms.

To make that deal work, Boris Johnson agreed that Northern Ireland should follow large tracts of EU laws and regulations that are set out in the annexes to the protocol. Logically, the enforcement of these rules needs to be under the writ of the European Court of Justice, since that court is the sole arbiter of EU law.

The Frost proposals demand that that structure is replaced with a “treaty-based” approach that uses an international arbitration mechanism. At the same time, Frost wants UK goods — even if they do not conform to EU standards — to be allowed to circulate freely in Northern Ireland, so long as they are clearly labelled for consumption in the region. And he wants for companies in Great Britain to be able to self-certify if goods are destined only for Northern Ireland, and if they are, to be exempt from all checks at the Irish Sea border. For goods going in the other direction (from Northern Ireland into Great Britain) Frost has rejected the EU’s offer of avoiding formal export declarations by using other data sources, such as ship manifests, so that there is no record of goods leaving the EU single market, as is required by EU law.

The ECJ, as the enforcer of the rules of the EU single market would — in Frost’s vision — have no control over goods circulating in Northern Ireland, and no north-south border at which to police them. The net result of this is a legal free-for-all that removes the border in the Irish Sea and — by inexorable extension — pushes it back either on to the island of Ireland, or into the sea between Ireland and the rest of the EU, thereby diluting Ireland’s place in the EU single market.

Frost is not naive. He knows very well that this proposal will not be acceptable. It is not legally or politically viable. Instead, it is an attempt to rewind the clock back to conceptual arguments that were lost back in 2019, but that the Johnson government now wants to try to win again. To be fair to Frost, this protocol never looked like his favoured solution. He argued strongly for the “alternative arrangements” to create a light-touch north-south border, believing that the rest of the EU would ultimately force Dublin to accept this compromise. He was wrong. Merkel and the EU27 held firm and Johnson then agreed the protocol in the space of nine days in October 2019 in order to “get Brexit done”.

As we now know from Dominic Cummings’ blog, the prime minister was following instructions to do this and ignore officials “babbling” about Northern Ireland. Having signed the deal to get Brexit done in 2019, Frost and Johnson then elected to sign a hasty Canada-style trade deal that, by taking the UK as far as possible outside the regulatory orbit of the EU, put the absolute maximum pressure on the Irish Sea border arrangement they agreed the previous year. These were clear choices, the consequences of which cannot now be cast as unforeseen.

Edwin Poots, then the Democratic Unionist party’s agriculture minister, specifically wrote to the government in June last year warning that if it concluded a super-hard EU-UK trade deal without a Swiss-style veterinary agreement to align rules on animal and plant products, the protocol would place “unacceptable burdens” on the people of Northern Ireland. And so it has come to pass. Six months into the implementation of the protocol, the government clearly regrets those choices and is demanding a rethink based on a mish-mash of pleas to “trust us”, technological solutions and “mutual enforcement” concepts that it knows the EU won’t legally tolerate.

The extraordinary “section one” of the command paper tries to imply that Johnson almost signed the original deal under duress, because (in this telling) parliament’s insistence that the UK could not leave the EU without an agreement had “radically undermined the government’s negotiating hand”. If that is correct, then by implication the demands in this paper suggest that Frost now believes the Johnson government has a stronger hand created by the deteriorating political and economic facts on the ground, and that he intends to use it.

From an EU perspective this is, as one diplomat described it to me, “gangster politics”. And given the EU is not going to agree to the UK’s core demands, this move seems destined to provoke further EU legal action (which Frosts says is unhelpful) and very likely a UK decision to trigger the Article 16 override clause.

It is not too late to pull back, but time is short. Businesses want clarity by the end of August on any new rules or extension to grace periods, which Frost has demanded as part of a “standstill” while a new deal is thrashed out. Perhaps it is still possible, if the EU shows a high degree of flexibility, to keep the core of the protocol but transfer the “at risk” approach that governs tariffs to the agrifood arena, which is by far the largest source of friction. This would instantly reduce the burden of checks.

Still, this latest UK gambit hardly feels conducive to fostering an atmosphere of compromise. Indeed, it will be hard for the European Commission to avoid taking further legal action with regards to the existing agreement, if the UK keeps on this track. None of this is likely to bring clarity for business or calm to Northern Ireland’s febrile politics. As Frost said, there is indeed a “huge prize” to be had in reaching an agreement. This feels like an odd way to go about grasping it."

 

The disturbing thought, and knowledge, is that this bloated buffoon will continue to wheeze and bluster in the full knowledge that he will concede, back down and perform yet another U turn - as he has at every turn with the EU. Lie to voters (are you listening fishing industry) cause untold damage to peoples lives and the UK economy, before spouting more promises that cannot be kept.

That's a very perspicuous expostion of where the issues stand. The shocking thing is that all this was equally clear at the time  the deal with the NI protocol was signed. There really is just one main issue that is preventing a resolution of the problems with the protocol, and that is the refusal of the UK to match the safety and quality standards that regulate the production of food in the  EU's single market. It is obviously impossible for the EU to agree to an arrangement that would leave their market vulnerable  to contamination by foodstuffs that do not meet those standards. As the article points out, even Edwin Poots recognised this last year. There is only one rational explanation for why the government is prepared to sacrifice NI in persisting with this refusal to match EU standards, and that is to make it possible for the UK to lower its own standards for food production. The government have persistently lied about this and claimed that they have no intention to do this, indeed, they even absurdly claimed they refused to agree to match EU standards because they want to exceed those standards. The egregious nature of this lie should be obvious; the EU have only demanded that we should match their standards, leaving the UK completely free to exceed those standards if it so wished. If the government were telling the truth about this there would not be a single reason why they shouldn't simply agree to match EU standards and end the nightmare of the border in the Irish sea. The trade deal with Australia is a clear indication of the direction the UK is heading, we're about to have our market flooded with substandard food produced in substandard conditions, food the EU would not dream of allowing past the lips of its own citizens. Yet another example that the big brexit lie is regressing  the UK back to the 1950s.

[Van wink 2,994]

56 minutes ago, horsefly said:

That's a very perspicuous expostion of where the issues stand. The shocking thing is that all this was equally clear at the time  the deal with the NI protocol was signed. There really is just one main issue that is preventing a resolution of the problems with the protocol, and that is the refusal of the UK to match the safety and quality standards that regulate the production of food in the  EU's single market. It is obviously impossible for the EU to agree to an arrangement that would leave their market vulnerable  to contamination by foodstuffs that do not meet those standards. As the article points out, even Edwin Poots recognised this last year. There is only one rational explanation for why the government is prepared to sacrifice NI in persisting with this refusal to match EU standards, and that is to make it possible for the UK to lower its own standards for food production. The government have persistently lied about this and claimed that they have no intention to do this, indeed, they even absurdly claimed they refused to agree to match EU standards because they want to exceed those standards. The egregious nature of this lie should be obvious; the EU have only demanded that we should match their standards, leaving the UK completely free to exceed those standards if it so wished. If the government were telling the truth about this there would not be a single reason why they shouldn't simply agree to match EU standards and end the nightmare of the border in the Irish sea. The trade deal with Australia is a clear indication of the direction the UK is heading, we're about to have our market flooded with substandard food produced in substandard conditions, food the EU would not dream of allowing past the lips of its own citizens. Yet another example that the big brexit lie is regressing  the UK back to the 1950s.

Nice work you two

[Herman 9,717]

Are you ready to apologise for brexit yet?

[horsefly 4,287]

4 hours ago, Van wink said:

Nice work you two

You're supposed to remain at child at heart, not a child in the brain Wee Willy Winkie.

[horsefly 4,287]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/uk-government-orders-councils-to-display-eu-flag-as-condition-of-receiving-covid-high-street-cash/ar-AAMvtXo?ocid=msedgntp

What a pleasurable sight that will be.

[Well b back 3,190]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/uk-government-orders-councils-to-display-eu-flag-as-condition-of-receiving-covid-high-street-cash/ar-AAMvtXo?ocid=msedgntp

What a pleasurable sight that will be.

It was all a scam Swindon.

But she added: "With parts of the UK like Wales previously receiving £400million every year from the EU but now set to receive a measly £10 million from the government's levelling up fund, this branding is a small reminder of the support that's been lost to the areas of the UK most in need.”

 

 

 

 

 

[A Load of Squit 5,134]

Without trust you have nothing. This is why all these deals Liz Truss is negotiating are duds.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/24/business/brexit-deal-northern-ireland-gbr-intl-cmd/index.html

Just seven months after singing its praises, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is attempting to rewrite the Brexit deal he signed with the European Union.

It's a risky move that will undermine Britain's credibility as a trustworthy trading partner at the very moment that the UK government is seeking to forge economic alliances far beyond Europe to justify its "global Britain" sales pitch for Brexit, according to experts.

................................

To be clear, the UK government's capricious behavior is a bad look, but it won't necessarily prove fatal to future trade alliances. It could, however, weaken its negotiating position.

[SwindonCanary 455]

ITV News Correspondent Dan Rivers has tweeted a picture of the men, who he said are from Sudan and South Sudan, crammed onto a small dingy but not wearing lifejackets. He wrote alongside this: "We’ve just spotted a migrant boat with 13 men paddling across the Channel. All from Sudan and S. Sudan. No life jackets, no engine, 5 miles off France !

[horsefly 4,287]

31 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

ITV News Correspondent Dan Rivers has tweeted a picture of the men, who he said are from Sudan and South Sudan, crammed onto a small dingy but not wearing lifejackets. He wrote alongside this: "We’ve just spotted a migrant boat with 13 men paddling across the Channel. All from Sudan and S. Sudan. No life jackets, no engine, 5 miles off France !

Yep! Brexit has really helped strengthen our borders hasn't it!

[Herman 9,717]

This you Swindo?

https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1418883590499311625

[horsefly 4,287]

I've just had a thought. All those vegetables rotting in the fields, and all the unsold milk souring in dairies could be sent to Natalie Elphicke's Dover constituency. I'm sure she would be able to galvanise a few of the locals to pelt and soak the assylum seekers from a vantage point on the white cliffs.

Ahhh! just spotted a flaw in my plan. We don't have enough migrants to collect the stuff from the fields and dairies, or to drive the lorries to take it to Kent. I herby admit I have fallen foul of the infamous "Tim Martin fallacy"

[Herman 9,717]

If covid doesn't kill us....

https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1418988096369143812

[Van wink 2,994]

6 hours ago, horsefly said:

You're supposed to remain at child at heart, not a child in the brain Wee Willy Winkie.

Eh