RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Who ever could have seen that coming? apart from... just about everyone, that is.

So much for they need us and thus the talks will be nice and civil.

EU in disregarding the results of a referendum shock.

This is typical media hype. All of the noises from the major players have been positive and conciliatory since Wednesday. And recent weeks have seen a slew of reports from influential institutions demanding that constructive, non-adversarial talks are the best route to go down to reach an agreement that best suits both sides. Though, you wouldn't expect a paper with the Mirror's modus operandi to lead with such views.
Of course, should divorce terms not be amicably reached the Mirror may have called it correctly. There's a sentence I never expected to write.

Which referendum? The one to stay ruled by GB or the brexit one (96% to remain)

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: So much for they need us and thus the talks will be nice and civil.

EU in disregarding the results of a referendum shock.

This is typical media hype. All of the noises from the major players have been positive and conciliatory since Wednesday. And recent weeks have seen a slew of reports from influential institutions demanding that constructive, non-adversarial talks are the best route to go down to reach an agreement that best suits both sides. Though, you wouldn't expect a paper with the Mirror's modus operandi to lead with such views.
Of course, should divorce terms not be amicably reached the Mirror may have called it correctly. There's a sentence I never expected to write.

Which referendum? The one to stay ruled by GB or the brexit one (96% to remain)

The former.

There are going to need to be separate agreements needed for such as the Irish border and the Gibraltar/Spain border. If they can hive some aspects of those off from the main deal that'd actually make sense, frankly better that Spain use their veto there than on the whole deal.

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

canta_brian wrote:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/f ... t-10136422

Lol

Who ever could have seen that coming? apart from... just about everyone, that is.

So much for they need us and thus the talks will be nice and civil.

Didn't May say something about witholding intelligence and help with security?

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Who ever could have seen that coming? apart from... just about everyone, that is.

So much for they need us and thus the talks will be nice and civil.

Didn't May say something about witholding intelligence and help with security?

"In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be we weakened," said Theresa.
Taken at face value it looks like a threaten. Taken in context with the previous paragraph it looks like a statement of fact.

Mays comments on security were no more or less pointed than others made by EU leaders. Without agreement on security issues then cooperation will be damaged.

Stones of granite wrote:The reality will bite in around 5 years time when we find that our trade with Europe is becoming increasingly blocked because of claimed non-compliance with European regulations, despite the GRB making them part of UK law. The French in particular will point to every amendment in EU law, however minor, and point out that UK law has not kept up.
This means that our Parliamentarians with all their repatriated sovereignty will increasingly spend their time trying to follow what is happening in Europe, debating the changes and updating UK law. Not forgetting, of course, that these changes were effectively decided in Europe, and no longer with any UK involvement or influence.

But at least we'll have regained our sovereignty....

Exactly. These Brexit fuckwits don't actually understand the point of the single market, why it's vastly superior to a trade deal and the role of the ECJ in securing that.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:The reality will bite in around 5 years time when we find that our trade with Europe is becoming increasingly blocked because of claimed non-compliance with European regulations, despite the GRB making them part of UK law. The French in particular will point to every amendment in EU law, however minor, and point out that UK law has not kept up.
This means that our Parliamentarians with all their repatriated sovereignty will increasingly spend their time trying to follow what is happening in Europe, debating the changes and updating UK law. Not forgetting, of course, that these changes were effectively decided in Europe, and no longer with any UK involvement or influence.

But at least we'll have regained our sovereignty....

Exactly. These Brexit fuckwits don't actually understand the point of the single market, why it's vastly superior to a trade deal and the role of the ECJ in securing that.

Not to mention in 5 years time a savage amount of those Brexit voting dickheads will actually be dead. Fuck I hate old people. They can't drive either.

Still in disbelief at some of the Brexit voters whom I confronted in the following days of the referendum who said they'd still be in the single market and be able to dictate immigration.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:The reality will bite in around 5 years time when we find that our trade with Europe is becoming increasingly blocked because of claimed non-compliance with European regulations, despite the GRB making them part of UK law. The French in particular will point to every amendment in EU law, however minor, and point out that UK law has not kept up.
This means that our Parliamentarians with all their repatriated sovereignty will increasingly spend their time trying to follow what is happening in Europe, debating the changes and updating UK law. Not forgetting, of course, that these changes were effectively decided in Europe, and no longer with any UK involvement or influence.

But at least we'll have regained our sovereignty....

Exactly. These Brexit fuckwits don't actually understand the point of the single market, why it's vastly superior to a trade deal and the role of the ECJ in securing that.

I get not understanding the single market. But how they could fail to see trade levels before and after and not see how it drives growth I simply don't understand, that puts in them in the flat earthists and anti-vaxxers. I can also quite understand why one would think the division of the increased wealth isn't working for many groups, but the distribution of that wealth is a domestic agenda, so take it up with the UK government and not the EU.

I still think the economics baffled many voters. £350milllion a day sounded like a colossal amount (I know it wasn't accurate but it was the figure used) and without any examination of the benefits coming back, it just sounds like money down the pan for no benefit.

Sandydragon wrote:I still think the economics baffled many voters. £350milllion a day sounded like a colossal amount (I know it wasn't accurate but it was the figure used) and without any examination of the benefits coming back, it just sounds like money down the pan for no benefit.

A lot would have voted to leave and the money be damned, though man of the leaders will be fine come what may, but a lot of leavers might get rather cross if anything but a panacea emerges, and if things get worse there'll be some blame that needs shifting.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I still think the economics baffled many voters. £350milllion a day sounded like a colossal amount (I know it wasn't accurate but it was the figure used) and without any examination of the benefits coming back, it just sounds like money down the pan for no benefit.

A lot would have voted to leave and the money be damned, though man of the leaders will be fine come what may, but a lot of leavers might get rather cross if anything but a panacea emerges, and if things get worse there'll be some blame that needs shifting.

Agreed. Some leavers would have voted out regardless of any economic argument. Sovereignty arguments trump all and there is no argument that would convince them otherwise.

There is also immigration to consider which had a powerful effect regardless of £350m per week. But wit ha result so close, I wonder how many looked at the EU and saw waste and incompetence (not unreasonable statements by themselves) and then looked at the figure provided by the leave campaign and thought it was just unreasonable to carry on paying that. Both sdies bent the trust in that campaign, but the £350m per week for the NHS was perhaps the most useful distortion.

In 3 years times when there are problems, I wonder who will be blamed then? Probably remainers for not backing the process. I doubt that those who have argued that there are trade deals just waiting to be signed will accept any responsibility (and for the record I hope they are actually right and that economic prosperity will be ours come 2019 - I just think that we are in for a rocky ride for a few years).

Quite why he's decided to tie this to Brexit I've no idea. As the article itself points out, it's been on the rise for yonks. The Great Repeal Bill will merely highlight the issue. Of course, if the various committees spent more time scrutinising legislation rather than seeking headlines by shouting at Brailsford, Green (not that Green doesn't deserve to be shouted at/punched in his metaphorically wonderful obese gut) etc and actually let the quangos get on with their jobs, and/or stopped buggering off on pointless foreign 'fact finding trips' this might not be such a problem. Though, having said all that the Executive are the root cause.

Perhaps more to the point, even taking all the above in to account, the UK parliament is a lot more powerful than the EU parliament. In fact, a lot of the laws transferred by the Great Repeal
Bill will have come in to being at a time when the EU parliament had no powers at all other than comment, ie no powers at all.

Mellsblue wrote:Quite why he's decided to tie this to Brexit I've no idea. As the article itself points out, it's been on the rise for yonks. The Great Repeal Bill will merely highlight the issue. Of course, if the various committees spent more time scrutinising legislation rather than seeking headlines by shouting at Brailsford, Green (not that Green doesn't deserve to be shouted at/punched in his metaphorically wonderful obese gut) etc and actually let the quangos get on with their jobs, and/or stopped buggering off on pointless foreign 'fact finding trips' this might not be such a problem. Though, having said all that the Executive are the root cause.

Perhaps more to the point, even taking all the above in to account, the UK parliament is a lot more powerful than the EU parliament. In fact, a lot of the laws transferred by the Great Repeal
Bill will have come in to being at a time when the EU parliament had no powers at all other than comment, ie no powers at all.

If you'd followed the discussion you'd know that it is proposed to give the government very wide powers indeed to vary all EU legislation adopted on our leaving the EU. That's why Brexit is relevant.

You betray an ignoance of how legislation is enacted. Select Committees do not scrutinise Bills, they scrutinise policy and its implementation. Standing Committees scrutinise legislation and they are not the people chasing headlines.

The UK Parliament being more powerful than the European Parliament is a complete irrelevance.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Quite why he's decided to tie this to Brexit I've no idea. As the article itself points out, it's been on the rise for yonks. The Great Repeal Bill will merely highlight the issue. Of course, if the various committees spent more time scrutinising legislation rather than seeking headlines by shouting at Brailsford, Green (not that Green doesn't deserve to be shouted at/punched in his metaphorically wonderful obese gut) etc and actually let the quangos get on with their jobs, and/or stopped buggering off on pointless foreign 'fact finding trips' this might not be such a problem. Though, having said all that the Executive are the root cause.

Perhaps more to the point, even taking all the above in to account, the UK parliament is a lot more powerful than the EU parliament. In fact, a lot of the laws transferred by the Great Repeal
Bill will have come in to being at a time when the EU parliament had no powers at all other than comment, ie no powers at all.

If you'd followed the discussion you'd know that it is proposed to give the government very wide powers indeed to vary all EU legislation adopted on our leaving the EU. That's why Brexit is relevant.

You betray an ignoance of how legislation is enacted. Select Committees do not scrutinise Bills, they scrutinise policy and its implementation. Standing Committees scrutinise legislation and they are not the people chasing headlines.

The UK Parliament being more powerful than the European Parliament is a complete irrelevance.

Trust me, I've followed it. My point is that legislation has been poorly scrutinised for years now and the problem is slowly becoming worse. What they are doing has been done for years, as anyone who'd followed it prior to the referendum would know, it's just Brexit and the great repeal bill has brought the issue to the fore.

I know how it works. If these committees weren't set up to double up on the work of quangos the MP's would have more time to scrutinise legislation.

The judge complains there will be a democratic deficit in our parliament because of Brexit, but the democratic deficit when and where these laws were initially made is worse. Though, it must be said that the UK parliament is moving in the wrong direction and the EU parliament has moved in the correct direction.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... U-hat.html

Brenda's hat.
Reading the comments section it seems that none of them are too keen on the suggestion that Brenda's a Remoaner.
But that looks a pretty clear statement to me.

Interesting to see how much progress the government has actually made since the referendum. The Great Repeal Bill is now the Repeal Bill, and...?

Digby wrote:Interesting to see how much progress the government has actually made since the referendum. The Great Repeal Bill is now the Repeal Bill, and...?

We have a shiny new government department.

Its obvious why May is dragging her heels over Brexit,she doesn't want to leave, she voted remain, she should never have been made PM, it should have been a leave candidate who was made PM.
All these threats from the EU cronies about consequences are a load of crap, Britain has one of the largest economies in Europe, the EU are desperate for us to stay, the EU is crumbling under its own bureaucratic weight, as an organisation and force they are a complete waste of space.
If by "hard Brexit" they mean we must get out asap whatever the consequences then I'm all for it. The EU is like a giant millstone around our necks, all it has done is drive wages down while sucking the life out of all our resources, we are well rid of it, if that ever happens, and I'm very doubtful of that.
The EU is great for the rich globalists and big business, its a complete catastrophe for the working class.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Interesting to see how much progress the government has actually made since the referendum. The Great Repeal Bill is now the Repeal Bill, and...?

We have a shiny new government department.

Shiny and new in the sense it's borrowed from other departments who previously worked with the EU. Although I'd grant they've put a moron in charge.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Interesting to see how much progress the government has actually made since the referendum. The Great Repeal Bill is now the Repeal Bill, and...?

We have a shiny new government department.

Shiny and new in the sense it's borrowed from other departments who previously worked with the EU. Although I'd grant they've put a moron in charge.

And expensive. I read in a paper from the Institute of Govt a while ago that the average first year set-up costs for each new department is £15 million.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: We have a shiny new government department.

Shiny and new in the sense it's borrowed from other departments who previously worked with the EU. Although I'd grant they've put a moron in charge.

And expensive. I read in a paper from the Institute of Govt a while ago that the average first year set-up costs for each new department is £15 million.

That's peanuts. Even before ongoing payments to the EU are sorted, the divorce bill is sorted, and the impact to trade is felt we'll easily top a billion in the administration costs of Brexit. Mind given we've pretty much 2 years of parliament given over to Brexit it's hardly insightful to note it'll be an expensive old time.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Shiny and new in the sense it's borrowed from other departments who previously worked with the EU. Although I'd grant they've put a moron in charge.

And expensive. I read in a paper from the Institute of Govt a while ago that the average first year set-up costs for each new department is £15 million.

That's peanuts. Even before ongoing payments to the EU are sorted, the divorce bill is sorted, and the impact to trade is felt we'll easily top a billion in the administration costs of Brexit. Mind given we've pretty much 2 years of parliament given over to Brexit it's hardly insightful to note it'll be an expensive old time.

As you got self say, it's reshuffling the chairs on the deck rather than moving them on to a new boat. Hence my point was more the cost of each new administration fumbling around the edges of stuff to create a shiny new department that are mostly rebadged existing departments. In the grand scheme of things £15m may be peanuts, and I certainly wasn't saying it's expensive in the context of Brexit, but multiply it across all the new departments created in the last ten years and you've sorted capital expenditure in schools across a fair few cities.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: And expensive. I read in a paper from the Institute of Govt a while ago that the average first year set-up costs for each new department is £15 million.

That's peanuts. Even before ongoing payments to the EU are sorted, the divorce bill is sorted, and the impact to trade is felt we'll easily top a billion in the administration costs of Brexit. Mind given we've pretty much 2 years of parliament given over to Brexit it's hardly insightful to note it'll be an expensive old time.

As you got self say, it's reshuffling the chairs on the deck rather than moving them on to a new boat. Hence my point was more the cost of each new administration fumbling around the edges of stuff to create a shiny new department that are mostly rebadged existing departments. In the grand scheme of things £15m may be peanuts, and I certainly wasn't saying it's expensive in the context of Brexit, but multiply it across all the new departments created in the last ten years and you've sorted capital expenditure in schools across a fair few cities.

but this happens in all major ops. they cost money to run of themselves.

I don't know how many times as a for instance I've been part of an office where we've suddenly moved to a new bank of desks, had desk space reduced and extra desks added, had new offices go up, moved to a new floor, moved to a new building, had teams merge, had teams diverge, had some staff secluded off/ringfenced (even put behind the sometimes literal chinese wall)

I don't really know how one avoids such costs unless an organisation simply makes no changes.

In saying that I do consider too many managers make changes simply so they feel they've done something, and often the better decision would have been to do nothing. But when you look at what gets people promoted it's not typically a more coherent long term strategy, its shouting and making supposed short term advances