Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

[McHrozni]

What has the EU been doing to come up with something better than the current backstop?

EU did their part. The only way British approach to negotiation could work is if Royal Army controlled Paris, Brussels, Berlin and everything in between. Then BJs approach would be rational and it would work to.

Alas, UK has long since fallen from their perch and must adjust accordingly. There are solutions that don't require the current backstop, but UK already dismissed them all. The ball is in British court to explain how to get around this obstacle.

McHrozni

 

[a_unique_person]

What do you mean?



They put forward the Irish Sea backstop but the UK government, under May, rejected it. Then they suggested the current backstop and May accepted it. They probably feel they have done their part. The problem is that the UK government couldn’t get it through parliament so May kept coming back asking if she could change it or get some reassurances. But the deal remained the same and the EU have given a number of extensions which would allow the UK tome to think of a better idea. What else are they required to do?

They accepted what May presented. The problem was her own government rejected it in Parliament.

 

[McHrozni]

They accepted what May presented. The problem was her own government rejected it in Parliament.

Clearly, the EU is at fault for not rejecting what May offered and presenting herself with something else that was better and acceptable to Parliament

McHrozni

 

[Vixen]

This horrible idea that poor people are poor because they didn't invest wisely needs to be stamped on immediately.

You can't invest money you don't have. And thanks to austerity and ******** like Brexit the poor are worse off than ever.

It should also be noted that thanks to the magic of maths those with significant assets who invest necessarily grow their wealth at a faster rate in absolute terms than those with little invested. So wealth inequalities tend to be exacerbated over time.

Then fees and the like mean its often not worth investing small amounts.

It should also be noted that the first rule of any risky investing is don't invest what you can't afford to lose which for a hell of a lot of people is 'anything at all'

I was not in any way suggesting that. Yes, of course, there is genuine poverty, which tragically often runs from generation to generation.

What I am knocking is our debt-fuelled economy. Ordinary people who acquire goods on debt they cannot really afford, the car, the uni course, the tele, the laptop, the mobile. According to the stats from a few years ago, the average debt of a Brit was as much £8K (excluding mortgage). In other words something like £150 - £300 per month is wasted every month on interest alone.

There are actually people who don't bother planning for their old age in the belief 'I can always top up my pension with housing benefits and pension credit', or 'it's such a long way off'. However, all Social Security does is bring up your pension to the level of the minimum pension and maybe £30 on top at most. So, about a third of UK Brits live out their lives in exiguous circumstances living hand to mouth because of sheer apathy over money matters. That's their choice but don't moan about people who were wiser.

It's like scratching someones car with your keys because they can afford to run a better model than you.

It's nonsense to say 'it's not worth investing small amounts' because of fees. This might be true of ordinary savings account where interest is stuck at 0.75% (up from 0.5%) but if you regularly, say contribute a tiny sum of £20 per week into a tax beneficial source, such as a recognised pension fund it immediately translates into £24 at basic rate or £28 at higher rate it's a no-brainer far better return than most investment accounts, especially bearing in mind the accumulative effect over even a short period of time.

Maybe a single mum with a kid and no job won't have anything left at the end of the day but how long does being a 'mum with young children' last?

 

[Vixen]

This. 100 times this.

Consider any capital you put into investment as a loss - gone, wiped out, then anything you make from it is a bonus.

There are huge numbers of people who simply don't have that luxury. They don't have 'extra' money. They can't afford what they already need, far less what they would like to have.

I disagree. If they can afford to pay interest on their credit cards they can afford to save the same amount instead.

 

[Lothian]

I was not in any way suggesting that. Yes, of course, there is genuine poverty, which tragically often runs from generation to generation.

What I am knocking is our debt-fuelled economy. Ordinary people who acquire goods on debt they cannot really afford, the car, the uni course, the tele, the laptop, the mobile. According to the stats from a few years ago, the average debt of a Brit was as much £8K (excluding mortgage). In other words something like £150 - £300 per month is wasted every month on interest alone.
'

How many 18 year olds can afford to pay for a university degree? You would only have a couple of universities restricted to the rich if students are not to take on debt for the fees.

 

[Vixen]

This update from the Supreme Court appears to be saying that the government's defence isn't denying that Johnson prorogued parliament in order to silence MPs and to protect his leave plan:

The examples of prior prorogation QC Lord Keen used were pathetic. Simply reeling out the fact there have been 'politically motivated' prorogations before doesn't mean the Supreme Court cannot rule on this one.

Likewise, he argues that the lack of a witness statement from the Prime Minister is completely irrelevant, and as mentioned by the Scottish judges.

It can't have helped, though.

 

[Vixen]

Indeed. Because the English court ruled in the first case that proroging parliament wasn't a matter for the courts regardless of the reasons. They never considered therefore whether his stated reason was true or false.

The Scottish court initially had taken the same position but on appeal the higher court ruled that the fact that he was doing it to attempt to frustrate the will of parliament and to avoid proper oversight in fact made it a matter for the courts even though it may well normally not be.

There seems to be little to no debate on whether Johnson is a liar legally. Merely whether his being a liar is a matter for the courts or not.

This is also why it was dishonest for the Tories to paint the decision in the English court as agreeing with them. It was merely a statement that 'there is nothing we can do about it'

I think Lord Pannick QC for Gina Miller successfully made his point about Unison vs the then Attorney General who implemented a fee of £1,000 to bring an employment tribunal case. Unison's counsel successfully argued that this was a matter for law as it attempted to prevent the individual* from having access to it. In other words, a minister's political action can be challenged in the high court. Many observers think he will win on this point.

Bear in mind it went to the Supreme Court because the 'law is silent' on prorogation which is why the lower court dismissed the case but gave it permission to go to the Supreme Court to have a ruling in the public interest.

He also struck target when he suggested that if the appeal is dismissed it could mean any future PM could shut down parliament for six months or even a year and there is nothing you can do about it.

*The counter argument from Lord Keen is that there is no identifiable individual who is affected so therefore common law does not apply.

 

[Vixen]

Rather sinister that they proposed she renounce her UK citizenship as a solution to the problem.

I am forecasting that this will be what Home Secretary Priti Patel will have in mind after the UK's exit from the EU. This is because so many Brits now have dual nationality (via the EU) that in effect it means they are still free to move around Europe. Being the vicious nasty character she is she will demand people choose one way or the other.

 

[Vixen]

It's not that difficult to squat on a w.c., but I wouldn't advise it in a public lavatory given how loose those seats frequently are.

This is where advanced yoga comes in handy.

 

[The Don]

I am forecasting that this will be what Home Secretary Priti Patel will have in mind after the UK's exit from the EU. This is because so many Brits now have dual nationality (via the EU) that in effect it means they are still free to move around Europe. Being the vicious nasty character she is she will demand people choose one way or the other.

That would be a typical approach from the "nasty party". I wonder if they will extend this approach to dual nationals in general.

Mrs Don is a dual UK/US national. Acquiring her UK citizenship was a relatively expensive process and renouncing her US citizenship would be very expensive. If this became a general rule then a lot of people are going to be very upset.

Then again, this is nothing new for the Tories. Back in the early 80's the idea was floated that dual nationals would not be eligible for free university tuition - though in the end the idea was dropped. I gave up my US citizenship then because I felt I had no use for it and the risk of no free university education was preying on my mind.

 

[Vixen]

How many 18 year olds can afford to pay for a university degree? You would only have a couple of universities restricted to the rich if students are not to take on debt for the fees.

OK. That's allowable.

 

[Lothian]

This update from the Supreme Court appears to be saying that the government's defence isn't denying that Johnson prorogued parliament in order to silence MPs and to protect his leave plan:

Not quite.

They are arguing that there is nothing wrong with having political reasons for prorogation so the court does not need to consider and rule on whether Boris had a political purpose.

In other words. "I am not saying my untrustworthy client had a political reason but even if he did there would be no breach of the law"

Edited to add.

They don't want the court saying there was a political reason. If this was a lower court they could as the English court did decide it was not a decision for the court to make. Where you have a two stage decision (1. is this something the court can rule on/ does the law forbid prorogation for political reasons and 2 is he guilty) lower courts will often make both decisions with the second being conditional. Eg. We don't think this is something we can rule on but if we are found to be wrong (by a higher court) we would say he was guilty because....
The supreme court decision can not be appealed and can not be overridden except by another supreme court decision. As no other court is likely to review their decision they would be highly unlikely to answer the question of whether there were political reasons unless they had found they could rule on the case.

 

[Tolls]

... say contribute a tiny sum of £20 per week into a tax beneficial source, such as a recognised pension fund it immediately translates into £24 at basic rate or £28 at higher rate it's a no-brainer far better return than most investment accounts, especially bearing in mind the accumulative effect over even a short period of time.

Well, that shows you how disconnected you seem to be.
£20 a week is not a tiny sum for lots and lots of people.
The same people who would most definitely not be on a higher rate of tax.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Not quite.

They are arguing that there is nothing wrong with having political reasons for prorogation so the court does not need to consider and rule on whether Boris had a political purpose.

In other words. "I am not saying my untrustworthy client had a political reason but even if he did there would be no breach of the law"

How is that different from not denying a political motivation?

 

[Lothian]

How is that different from not denying a political motivation?

If by ' not denying' you mean 'admitting' the difference is they are not admitting. They are saying it is an irrelevant issue, not worth discussing.

If by 'not denying' you mean they have neither denied or admitted, I agree with you.

I was not sure what you meant.


Edited to give an example.

If I am accused of being a Man U fan and it is argued that I was born in Manchester. My counsel may point out that there are loads of people born in Manchester who are not Man U fans. That is not admitting I am a Man U fan, it is saying where you are born is irrelevant.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://www.ft.com/content/7453c686-d9b7-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17

The FT on Wednesday morning reports on a chastening encounter over lunch between Mr Johnson, Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker, which one official described as a “penny dropping” moment for the prime minister over what it really means to replace the Irish backstop.

According to an account of the meeting, the prime minister was told by his EU counterparts in no uncertain terms that the UK’s plan to replace the backstop by allowing Northern Ireland to stick to common EU rules on food and livestock (known as SPS) was not enough to prevent customs checks on the vast majority of goods that cross the Irish border.

At that point, a befuddled Mr Johnson turned to David Frost, his chief negotiator, and Stephen Barclay, Brexit secretary, and said: “So you’re telling me the SPS plan doesn’t solve the customs problem?”

The exchange, according to one EU official, was part of an abrupt “learning curve” for Mr Johnson in his first face-to-face meeting with Mr Barnier and Mr Juncker since he took office.

Another official describes the prime minister gradually “slumping” in his chair as the reality of the UK’s negotiating position and the limited time left to strike an agreement dawned on him. “He wasn’t used to hearing it”, added the official.

Mr Juncker told his college of commissioners in Strasbourg on Tuesday that the Luxembourg lunch was the first time that “Boris Johnson understood the meaning of the single market”.

Glad to know it's all going well, and that the people most qualified for the job are negotiating on our behalf.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If by ' not denying' you mean 'admitting' the difference is they are not admitting. They are saying it is an irrelevant issue, not worth discussing.

If by 'not denying' you mean they have neither denied or admitted, I agree with you.

I was not sure what you meant.

By "not denying" I mean "not denying". Had I meant "admitting" I would have said "admitting".

 

[Lothian]

By "not denying" I mean "not denying". Had I meant "admitting" I would have said "admitting".

In that case I am lost on the point you were making.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If I am accused of being a Man U fan and it is argued that I was born in Manchester[...]

...then you'd be completely exonerated.

Dave