[Politics] Brexit

[beorhthelm]

If ever there was a time for 'reaching out' across party lines then this is it. But what we'll get is a bunker mentality. And the likes of Rees-Mogg and pals will be grinning like Cheshire cats.

i have a suspicion if there was a free vote the May deal might go through. 40 votes away. im sure some more Conservatives would vote against but how many more Labour would vote for it if not whipped? it does mean we stay in the customs union for transistion (the whole reason brexiteers object because we stay in), while "a customs union" can be negotiated in the 18 mths, so how far is it from Labour's policy any way?

 

[Mental Lental]

you skipped over items 4 on ward where opt out dont apply. the EU will evolve, items 7, 8, 9 have been openly discussed and promoted by EU leaders in the past couple of years so its not a flight of fantasy. we should accept this if we remain not try to ignore conquences like leave campaign. embracing EU is to embrace closer union over time. who doesnt want uniform tax and financial regulations to control the excess of companies avoiding tax or common foreign policy to address international relations and united front as a single block? cant trust the MPs in Westminster to make decisions anymore, may be technocrats in Brussels is the better option.[/QUOTE]

I totally accept the other points and you can put me firmly in the "after this shit show I'd rather we WERE run from Brussels now" camp. It also doesn't excuse the quite frankly staggering level of ignorance with regards to bleating on about Schengen and the Euro at this late stage without demonstrating any knowledge of the opt-outs we have in place for those items.

 

[Bold Seagull]

One of the common arguments I hear on a regular basis is that leavers did not know what they were voting for. The same could be said for those who voted remain. Did they know what they were really voting for?

The accepted direction of travel of the EU is ever closer political union. The Lisbon treaty will inevitably have to be changed by further treaty in order to progress this ever closer union and to tighten the rules of membership. If the UK remains then we will be expected to become full members of the EU as it moves towards full convergence by 2025. The U.K. can therefore expect to have to accept some or all of the following within the next two to ten years.


1) Losing its rebate.
2) Joining Schengen.
3) Joining the euro.
4) Uniform corporate and personal taxation.
5) Uniform regulation of financial services.
6) EU jurisprudence.
7) Budgetary supervision by an EU treasury.
8) Formalised EU armed forces, operational and procurement structures.
9) EU foreign, defence and security policies taking precedence over national forces and policies.
10) Mandatory migrant quotas.
11) Removal of Article 50.
12) Other transfers of competencies from member states to the EU, i.e. further losses of sovereignty.

I get the impression that many remain voters voted for the status quo. That is not possible if you consider the direction the EU is traveling. If you voted remain and accept these as possible outcomes and accept that the EU represents technocratic supra-nationalism, then I have no problem with that whatsoever. Personally I prefer sovereign national democracy but each to their own.

If we're leaving the EU for reasons BEFORE they actually happen, what a shame this political conviction couldn't be applied to climate change.

 

[CHAPPERS]

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/da...idnt-investigate-vote-leave-and-dup-donation/

The Electoral Commission decided that “it would not be in the public interest to investigate” even if Vote Leave broke the law by coordinating with the Democratic Unionist Party during the 2016 Brexit referendum, new documents reveal.

The elections watchdog also said that money obtained from crime might not make a political donation unlawful. The comments were made following concerns raised in a BBC Northern Ireland documentary about a secretive £435,000 donation given to the DUP’s Brexit campaign.

Last week, Vote Leave dropped its appeal against the Electoral Commission’s ruling that it broke the law in a different way – by channelling hundreds of thousands of pounds of donations to BeLeave, another pro-Brexit campaign group. The official Vote Leave campaign, whose leaders included Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, has been fined multiple times and referred to the Metropolitan Police for breaking electoral law.

Internal documents prepared by the Electoral Commission after the BBC Northern Ireland documentary reveal little appetite to investigate potential Vote Leave coordination in the DUP’s referendum spending. As Vote Leave had already been fined for a breach of electoral law after giving money to BeLeave “it would not therefore be in the public interest to investigate even if there was evidence of an offence”, the regulator said.

The DUP received £435,000 from the Constitutional Research Council (CRC), a shadowy group led by Richard Cook, a former Tory candidate allegedly involved in illegal waste dumping. The ultimate source of the DUP’s Brexit cash has never been disclosed but much of it was spent with the same suppliers as Vote Leave, including an obscure Canadian data analytics firm.

Jolyon Maugham, the barrister behind the Good Law Project, said: “The Electoral Commission seems to think that because Vote Leave has been found guilty of one offence, legally it cannot be found guilty of another one. That is a profound misstatement of the law. And that’s bad enough. But even more troubling are its consequences.

“How many other times did the Electoral Commission fail to investigate because it didn’t think it was in the public interest for us to know? What else is out there that they wrongly closed their eyes to? How many other times did Vote Leave break the law?”

MPs have called on the Electoral Commission to look afresh at possible further breaches of electoral law by Vote Leave.

Labour MP Ben Bradshaw said: "I am extremely concerned that the Electoral Commission deemed it against the public interest to investigate this properly. It was the biggest donation in Northern Irish political history and we still do not know its true origins. Now that we know conclusively that Vote Leave broke the law by channelling money illegally to BeLeave, it is vital that the Commission reopens its investigation into this."

The elections watchdog has said that it was “not satisfied there is sufficient evidence for the Commission to have a reasonable suspicion that offences have taken place.”

The documents form part of the Good Law Project’s judicial review of the Electoral Commission’s investigation into the DUP. They also reveal that the party received more than £13,000 from the CRC after the Brexit vote, including £7,000 just days after the 2017 Stormont elections. In all, the CRC has given the DUP almost £450,000.
Working together?

In June 2018, BBC Northern Ireland’s Spotlight team aired a documentary that raised serious questions about whether Vote Leave and the DUP were ‘working together’, which is prohibited under electoral law. As openDemocracy has previously revealed, senior Electoral Commission staff at the time privately expressed ‘concerns’ that the DUP had broken the law, but decided not to investigate.

The bulk of the DUP’s massive Brexit donation was spent on a wraparound advert in the Metro newspaper just days before the European Union referendum. Spotlight journalists discovered that the advert, costing £282,000, had been booked directly by Richard Cook, not the DUP.

The Constitutional Research Council made a donation of £335,000 to the DUP on the very same day as the Metro advert was booked. Spotlight stated that the DUP’s Metro advert suggests coordination with Vote Leave because the ad was targeted “in London” and was published after “Vote Leave had reached its spending limit”.

In internal documents the Electoral Commission said that there were “a number of possible explanations for Mr Cook allegedly booking the DUP advert in the Metro”. Ignoring the Spotlight revelations, the elections regulator went on to say that it would not be “appropriate” to contact Metro to ask about the advert as “there is no evidence Mr Cook or the CRC directed or influenced the DUP’s spending, even [that] he had booked the ad”.

The Electoral Commission’s internal report noted that the CRC’s Richard Cook has had a chequered business history, including involvement in illegal waste and a questionable $80m contract to dispose of Ukrainian railway tracks that fitted the profile of money laundering. The watchdog said UK elections law “is silent on whether or not money obtained from crime would make a political contribution unlawful”.

The elections regulator also noted similarities in the DUP and Vote Leave’s spending. But again decided that there were no grounds to investigate.

The DUP bought Brexit election placards from a Cambridgeshire advertising company called Soopa Doopa. The company received combined spending from Leave campaigners of £800,000, the bulk of it coming from the official Vote Leave campaign.

The DUP also spent around £40,000 on social media with Aggregate IQ, an obscure Canadian data analytics company that has been linked to the controversial Cambridge Analytica. Vote Leave spent almost £3m with AIQ, much of it in the final days of the campaign.

AIQ’s chief Jeff Sylvester told Spotlight that his contact in the DUP was Belfast city

councillor Lee Reynolds. Reynolds was seconded to Vote Leave Northern Ireland during the Brexit campaign.

The DUP went on to pay AggregateIQ £12,000 as part of its March 2017 Northern Ireland Assembly election campaign. Over £3,300 of this was paid to AggregateIQ for services provided to the campaigns of three DUP candidates, while a further £8,600 was paid for services provided to the party.

Around the same time, the CRC gave the DUP just over £13,000. The CRC, which has never revealed its donors, also gave £6,500 to the pro-Brexit European Research Group of MPs in December 2016.
‘Real question marks’

Reacting to openDemocracy’s story Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake said: "I would expect Government Ministers involved in law-breaking Leave campaigns to claim it was 'not in the public's interest' to investigate further possible breaches of the law, but not the independent Electoral Commission! We need our regulator to adopt zero-tolerance towards electoral law-breaking. Any whiff of cheating in referenda or election campaigns damages our democracy.".

Jolyon Maugham called on the elections watchdog to re-examine spending by other pro-Brexit groups: “We already know the High Court has profound concerns about the Electoral Commission’s investigation into the DUP. It has said it is ‘inevitable’ the Electoral Commission will have to reopen its investigation following a Court of Appeal hearing in July. And there are real question marks about its investigation into the relationship between Vote Leave and Veterans for Britain.”

An Electoral Commission spokesperson said:

We are an evidence-based regulator and undertake our work to the highest standards. In August 2018, we concluded an assessment into allegations of joint spending by Vote Leave and the DUP. We had requested further evidence from BBC Northern Ireland that first aired the allegations. No further evidence was forthcoming and there was insufficient evidence to open an investigation. This decision was taken in line with our Enforcement Policy.

Vote Leave was fined last year after the Electoral Commission concluded that it had broken legal spending limits by donating hundreds of thousands of pounds to another leave campaigner, the then 22-year-old fashion student Darren Grimes, founder of BeLeave.

Vote Leave appealed against the fine, claiming that its donation to Grimes had been signed off by the commission. Supporters of the group suggested, without evidence, that commission staff were opposed to leaving the EU and were persecuting Leave campaigners.

However, in a statement released on Friday afternoon, the Electoral Commission said Vote Leave had withdrawn its appeal. “We found that [Vote Leave] broke the electoral rules set out by parliament to ensure fairness, confidence and legitimacy at an electoral event,” it said.

Richard Cook has denied any wrongdoing in his business dealings or in relation to the DUP donation.

Cook told the Sunday Herald: “The CRC is regulated by the Electoral Commission. We operate solely in the UK. We accept donations only from eligible UK donors. We donate solely to permissible UK entities. Any suggestion that we have done anything else is basically defamatory. I’m not going to get into the donors, like I am not going to get into the members.”

The DUP has said the party has been “open and transparent” about the CRC donation.

A spokesman said: “The DUP is well aware of its responsibilities and has complied with the regulations as set out by the Electoral Commission. If we failed to comply we would be subject to further investigation.

“In the interests of transparency we have provided information into the public domain which we were not legally obliged to provide. There is no additional information provided to the Electoral Commission that we have failed to publish.”

 

[Lincoln Imp]

You believe everything the government tells you?

Well you believe everything Honda tells you.

 

[ManOfSussex]

c) if a or b (or even a + b!) then could be the end of the Tory party in its current configuration?

Basically that's what Rachel Sylvester is saying in her column today - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/ukip-infiltrators-will-tear-the-tories-apart-7jntwh5zx

She makes a point I didn't know. On the flip side to the 'Purple Momentum' 'Ukipification of the Tory party' 'Islamophobic English nationalist party' problem that is mentioned, that revoke A50 petition has got 98 Tory MP's in seats where their majority is less than the number of constiuents who signed it. In some cases an awful lot less. Examples of which are:

Zac Goldsmith - Majority of 45 - 27k+ signed the petition.
Theresa Villiers - Majority of 353 - 16k+ signed the petition.
Maria Caulfield - Majority of 5508 - 14k+ signed the petition.
Graham Brady - Majority of 6426 - 13k+ signed the petition.
The Honourable Member for the 17th Century - Majority 10235 - 10.8k+ signed the petition.
Steve Baker - Majority of 6578 - 10k+ Signed the petition.
and best of all - Ms Amber Augusta Rudd - Majority 346 - 10k Signed the petition.

https://www.livefrombrexit.com/petitions/241584

 

[Simster]

One of the common arguments I hear on a regular basis is that leavers did not know what they were voting for. The same could be said for those who voted remain. Did they know what they were really voting for?

The accepted direction of travel of the EU is ever closer political union. The Lisbon treaty will inevitably have to be changed by further treaty in order to progress this ever closer union and to tighten the rules of membership. If the UK remains then we will be expected to become full members of the EU as it moves towards full convergence by 2025. The U.K. can therefore expect to have to accept some or all of the following within the next two to ten years.


1) Losing its rebate.
2) Joining Schengen.
3) Joining the euro.
4) Uniform corporate and personal taxation.
5) Uniform regulation of financial services.
6) EU jurisprudence.
7) Budgetary supervision by an EU treasury.
8) Formalised EU armed forces, operational and procurement structures.
9) EU foreign, defence and security policies taking precedence over national forces and policies.
10) Mandatory migrant quotas.
11) Removal of Article 50.
12) Other transfers of competencies from member states to the EU, i.e. further losses of sovereignty.

I get the impression that many remain voters voted for the status quo. That is not possible if you consider the direction the EU is traveling. If you voted remain and accept these as possible outcomes and accept that the EU represents technocratic supra-nationalism, then I have no problem with that whatsoever. Personally I prefer sovereign national democracy but each to their own.

This is a terrible post. Your "direction of travel" narrative is just supposition. The FACT is that we have vetoes over pretty much everything that matters to us - nobody can just "do away" with these vetoes.

 

[mikeyjh]

One of the common arguments I hear on a regular basis is that leavers did not know what they were voting for. The same could be said for those who voted remain. Did they know what they were really voting for?

The accepted direction of travel of the EU is ever closer political union. The Lisbon treaty will inevitably have to be changed by further treaty in order to progress this ever closer union and to tighten the rules of membership. If the UK remains then we will be expected to become full members of the EU as it moves towards full convergence by 2025. The U.K. can therefore expect to have to accept some or all of the following within the next two to ten years.


1) Losing its rebate.
2) Joining Schengen.
3) Joining the euro.
4) Uniform corporate and personal taxation.
5) Uniform regulation of financial services.
6) EU jurisprudence.
7) Budgetary supervision by an EU treasury.
8) Formalised EU armed forces, operational and procurement structures.
9) EU foreign, defence and security policies taking precedence over national forces and policies.
10) Mandatory migrant quotas.
11) Removal of Article 50.
12) Other transfers of competencies from member states to the EU, i.e. further losses of sovereignty.

I get the impression that many remain voters voted for the status quo. That is not possible if you consider the direction the EU is traveling. If you voted remain and accept these as possible outcomes and accept that the EU represents technocratic supra-nationalism, then I have no problem with that whatsoever. Personally I prefer sovereign national democracy but each to their own.

And you wonder why so many don't now trust the result of the referendum? Your post is a litany ranging from uninformed speculation to downright BS. Your own personal tour de force being number 12 - Basically anything else that you can't think of right now, great work.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

im getting pretty pissed at the MPs as i realise their thinking - 100 more MPs voted for a second referendum than to give themselves power to revoke article 50. think about that, they dont want to continue on the current path but dont have the courage to simply have the power to call it off. its illogical and bankrupt. vote to revoke, leave deal, no deal, those are the only honest options.

I agree with you that MPs lack courage but in fairness to them they are simply saying that if Brexit is to be brought to a halt then it is better done by the same voters that triggered it. If MPs did the deed themselves there would be claims of illegitimacy.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

One of the common arguments I hear on a regular basis is that leavers did not know what they were voting for. The same could be said for those who voted remain. Did they know what they were really voting for?

The accepted direction of travel of the EU is ever closer political union. The Lisbon treaty will inevitably have to be changed by further treaty in order to progress this ever closer union and to tighten the rules of membership. If the UK remains then we will be expected to become full members of the EU as it moves towards full convergence by 2025. The U.K. can therefore expect to have to accept some or all of the following within the next two to ten years.


1) Losing its rebate.
2) Joining Schengen.
3) Joining the euro.
4) Uniform corporate and personal taxation.
5) Uniform regulation of financial services.
6) EU jurisprudence.
7) Budgetary supervision by an EU treasury.
8) Formalised EU armed forces, operational and procurement structures.
9) EU foreign, defence and security policies taking precedence over national forces and policies.
10) Mandatory migrant quotas.
11) Removal of Article 50.
12) Other transfers of competencies from member states to the EU, i.e. further losses of sovereignty.

I get the impression that many remain voters voted for the status quo. That is not possible if you consider the direction the EU is traveling. If you voted remain and accept these as possible outcomes and accept that the EU represents technocratic supra-nationalism, then I have no problem with that whatsoever. Personally I prefer sovereign national democracy but each to their own.

You have a point, I readily admit. When I voted remain I didn't like that I had tacitly supported the EU and all its faults, obviously certain reforms are needed. If the option had been 'Remain, obviously, but let's keep working to solve the unchecked internal immigration, sort out the CAP, plus a few other things, then I'm fine because it's obviously in everyone's interests to stay in the union', then I would have been happier with my vote.

I'm sure that this was one of the reasons behind the very late shift in support to Leave in the days before the referendum. Its a bit like all those people who wanted to vote Labour in 92 but couldn't bring themselves to tick the box for Kinnock as PM. When we next got the chance to vote we kicked the Tories out in a massive landslide, there was some residual regret over the 92 election there.

As for your list, some of those things are never going to happen, eg the Euro, and you've added it in just to scare people, a Project Fear if you will.

Some of those things are good for us. Migrant quotas - certainly needed. Regulation of financial services? Yes please, our government has woefully failed, we don't want another Northern Rock or lehmann bros. We can pick over all the others when the campaign for Ref2 is underway

 

[Dick Head]

Looking for that actual front page I found this:-

View attachment 106934


I'm just surprised they didn't write it on a bus, as well.

Like **** she does!

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Speaking of subjective it's only your opinion we haven't had a clear, informed, honest ratification ...

I'm loath to do this, as you are generally at the lucent, decent debate end, of the Leavers' spectrum, but....


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

What a BELLEND.

 

[Baldseagull]

One of the common arguments I hear on a regular basis is that leavers did not know what they were voting for. The same could be said for those who voted remain. Did they know what they were really voting for?

The accepted direction of travel of the EU is ever closer political union. The Lisbon treaty will inevitably have to be changed by further treaty in order to progress this ever closer union and to tighten the rules of membership. If the UK remains then we will be expected to become full members of the EU as it moves towards full convergence by 2025. The U.K. can therefore expect to have to accept some or all of the following within the next two to ten years.


1) Losing its rebate.
2) Joining Schengen.
3) Joining the euro.
4) Uniform corporate and personal taxation.
5) Uniform regulation of financial services.
6) EU jurisprudence.
7) Budgetary supervision by an EU treasury.
8) Formalised EU armed forces, operational and procurement structures.
9) EU foreign, defence and security policies taking precedence over national forces and policies.
10) Mandatory migrant quotas.
11) Removal of Article 50.
12) Other transfers of competencies from member states to the EU, i.e. further losses of sovereignty.

I get the impression that many remain voters voted for the status quo. That is not possible if you consider the direction the EU is traveling. If you voted remain and accept these as possible outcomes and accept that the EU represents technocratic supra-nationalism, then I have no problem with that whatsoever. Personally I prefer sovereign national democracy but each to their own.

Mate, the status quo for as long as we wanted it was exactly what was on offer, in UK law, we would have had to have had a referendum on any further transfers of power to the EU, and it was stated explicitly that it was already the case, but would be written up for clarification in the treaties, that the UK was not committed to ever closer union, without detriment. True, none of us know what the future holds exactly, it might be that we chose at a referendum in the future to take another step, but it could not be forced upon us by either a sneaky UK Government or the EU.
This is not just my belief, it was the case at the time of the referendum.

 

[vegster]

Mate, the status quo for as long as we wanted it was exactly what was on offer, in UK law, we would have had to have had a referendum on any further transfers of power to the EU, and it was stated explicitly that it was already the case, but would be written up for clarification in the treaties, that the UK was not committed to ever closer union, without detriment. True, none of us know what the future holds exactly, it might be that we chose at a referendum in the future to take another step, but it could not be forced upon us by either a sneaky UK Government or the EU.
This is not just my belief, it was the case at the time of the referendum.

We always opted out of anything we didn't like.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Hardly a surprise.

https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1112985381077692417?s=19

Looks like we'll be either waiting for a united Ireland, or to meet the terms of the withdrawal agreement before we ever get an EU trade deal.

Our Atlantic Bridge, Airstrip One future had better be good.

 

[Baldseagull]

you skipped over items 4 on ward where opt out dont apply. the EU will evolve, items 7, 8, 9 have been openly discussed and promoted by EU leaders in the past couple of years so its not a flight of fantasy. we should accept this if we remain not try to ignore conquences like leave campaign. embracing EU is to embrace closer union over time. who doesnt want uniform tax and financial regulations to control the excess of companies avoiding tax or common foreign policy to address international relations and united front as a single block? cant trust the MPs in Westminster to make decisions anymore, may be technocrats in Brussels is the better option.

I agree that for some levels of tax law, EU wide regulations would serve us all better, but for any transfer of powers to the EU from the UK to happen, would require a referendum.

 

[nicko31]

Mate, the status quo for as long as we wanted it was exactly what was on offer, in UK law, we would have had to have had a referendum on any further transfers of power to the EU, and it was stated explicitly that it was already the case, but would be written up for clarification in the treaties, that the UK was not committed to ever closer union, without detriment. True, none of us know what the future holds exactly, it might be that we chose at a referendum in the future to take another step, but it could not be forced upon us by either a sneaky UK Government or the EU.
This is not just my belief, it was the case at the time of the referendum.

Seems it was a cut and paste from this Brextremist...

https://twitter.com/skisidjames

 

[ManOfSussex]

Hardly a surprise.

https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1112985381077692417?s=19

Looks like we'll be either waiting for a united Ireland, or to meet the terms of the withdrawal agreement before we ever get an EU trade deal.

Our Atlantic Bridge, Airstrip One future had better be good.

I've always found it utterly bemusing that some people think a no deal scenario is sustainable and in any way at all to our advantage.

Democratic Congressmen Boyle and Neal have indicated we'll be waiting a long time for that US trade deal/Airstrip One future as well if there's a hard border in Ireland.

 

[CHAPPERS]

The fact that Cabinet members seem to be happy with No Deal (or are pretending to be, either way) is a ****ing disgrace, as is the fact that Labour did not whip for the SNP amendment last night.

Edit: Sorry to link to he Daily Hate but...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6875015/Top-mandarins-bombshell-No-Deal-Brexit-warning.html

Sir Mark's 14-page letter warns:

No Deal would result in a 10 per cent spike in food prices and the collapse of some businesses that trade with the EU;
The Government would come under pressure to bail out companies on the brink;
It would hamper the ability of the police and security services to keep people safe;
It would lead to the reintroduction of direct rule in Northern Ireland for the first time since 2007;
A recession will hit the UK and the pound's depreciation will be 'more harmful' than in 2008;
Our legal authorities and judicial system would be put under 'enormous pressure'.

No Deal Cabinet members need to be faced the **** down today.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

*No deal* Dystopia Day in just 10 days time.

Still got my stockpile intact, fuel jerry cans still full, just need to re-brim the vehicle tanks.