Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westminstenders: The wheels on bus start to fall off, start to fall off…

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 06/04/2017 21:42

The wheels on bus start to fall off, start to fall off…

Since Article 50 has been triggered – 8 days ago:

  1. A week after a terror attack in London, the government threatened to stop co-operation over security issues with the EU. This was quickly retracted as ‘not being a threat’. Except it was.

  2. The ‘Great’ Repeal Act White Paper was published. Its vague, lacks detail, does not have a draft bill and there is no plan for a public consultation over it. It proposes sweeping powers for the government without parliamentary scrutiny using Henry VIII powers.

  3. HMRC have said the new computer system planned for launch in 2019, won’t be able to cope with the additional work which leaving the Customs Union would produce. It would be five times the work load which sounds like a lot more red tape.

  4. Spain have said they would not oppose an Independent Scotland being in the EU.

  5. May’s article 50 letter did not mention Gibraltar and after the publication of the EU draft document on how the Brexit process would be handled, this looks like a massive error and oversight. One of the clauses was that any future arrangements with regard to Gibraltar had to be settled with Spain bi-laterally rather than by the EU and the UK’s agreement with the EU would not apply to Gibraltar, unless Spain agreed. This has been taken as an affront to Gibraltar’s sovereignty, although the document says nothing about sovereignty. Michael Howard, however, decided this was sufficient grounds to threaten our ally Spain with war.

May has not condemned his comments, and laughed it off. Though she was happy to get worked up about the word ‘Easter’ a couple of days later.

Of course, this situation was entirely predictable and was predicted yet this situation seems to have taken the government by surprise. Our reaction, in the context of everything else, has made the UK look like a basket case.

  1. The government’s plan to run talks on the UK’s settlement on leaving the EU in parallel with talks on the UK’s future relationship with the EU has been rejected by the EU. Instead we must do things in stages, with advancement to the next stage only possible after completing the last: Stage 1 – Exit, Stage 2 – Preliminary agreement on future relation, Stage 3 – Exit/Transition Deal, Stage 4 – As third country status enter a new deal.

The effect of this also means that deals we currently have with counties like South Korea through the EU need to be revisited. There is no guarantee these countries will want to continue trading with us on the same terms, if they do not want to.

  1. The EU has set out its own red lines. Our deal 'must encompass safeguards against...fiscal, social & environmental dumping'. Our transition deal must not last longer than three years and individual sectors, like banking, should not get special treatment.

Donald Tusk has said we don’t need a punishment deal as we are doing a good job of shooting ourselves in the foot, whilst Guy Verhofstadt said Brexit is Brexit is a 'catfight in Conservative party that got out of hand” and hoped future generations would reverse it.

  1. May has admitted that we might well have no deal in place by the time we leave the EU. Until now we have been told we would have a deal in two years. She has also admitted an extension of free movement of people beyond Brexit.

  2. The Brexit Select Committee published their report which warned about the dangers of exit without any deal, as well as talking about problems relating to the ‘Great’ Repeal Act, Gibraltar and NI. This is sensible and you’d think uncontroversial, but the Brexiteers threw the toys out of their pram saying it was too pessimistic. The government’s job is, of course, to plan for problems no matter how unlikely – such as disasters – and to hope that never happens. It seems that these Brexiteers don’t want to act responsibility or do their job.

  3. Questions at the WTO have been asked about how Brexit will affect them. Interest in the subject came initially from Indonesia about Tariff Rate Quotas, but other parties who were watching closely were Argentina, China, Russia and the United States.

  4. Phillip Hammond has openly said that there are a number of Tory MPs who want us to not make any agreement with the EU and to crash out in a chaotic exit.

  5. Polling has suggested that people want Brexit to be quick and cheap. Not only that, but the word ‘Brexit’ has started to poll badly. Instead the Brexit department are advising officials to use the phrase “new partnership with Europe”. Lynton Crosby, the mastermind behind 2015’s Conservative victory has also warned that the Tories would probably lose 30 seats they gained from the LDs at an early election.

Of course, even a 2020 election might prove challenging with a transition deal still likely to be unresolved as Brexit drags on. Government strategy is, apparently, to hope that Remainer's anger will have dissolved by 2020.

Eight days in, and the Brexit Bus looks like it strayed into 1980's Toxeth and got torched, its wheels nicked, and graffitied with obscenities over its £350million pledge.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
BigChocFrenzy · 12/04/2017 20:08

comfort No point in discussing ISIS terrorism until our countries are prepared to take effective measures:

  • sanctions against Saudi Arabia - stop buying their oil, selling them weapons
  • ditto for any other countries funding terror against us
  • stop the Western and Russian wars for oil and military bases
  • agree a common policy between the West and Russia to smash terror states
  • restrictions on reporting of terrorists in the media - report the attacks, but not the names of the terrorists or the gory details (there are precedents - remember Gerry Adams being dubbed because he was not allowed to be heard in person)

Until world leaders get serious, we are just handwringing and emoting

  • police the internet and shut down Isis sites wherever found
comfortandjoyce · 12/04/2017 20:13

BigChocFrenzy

sanctions against Saudi Arabia - stop buying their oil, selling them weapons
ditto for any other countries funding terror against us
stop the Western and Russian wars for oil and military bases
agree a common policy between the West and Russia to smash terror states
police the internet and shut down Isis sites wherever found

I very strongly agree with those points.

No point in discussing ISIS terrorism until our countries are prepared to take effective measures

restrictions on reporting of terrorists in the media - report the attacks, but not the names of the terrorists or the gory details (there are precedents - remember Gerry Adams being dubbed because he was not allowed to be heard in person)

And totally disagree about those ones. Your proposed censorship of the media is terrifying and would lead to the last vestiges of public trust in it breaking down. The public would rightly suspect a cover up if the perpetrators' identities and motives were systematically suppressed.

HashiAsLarry · 12/04/2017 20:16

restrictions on reporting of terrorists in the media
The very least they should be doing is stopping the frenzy in the aftermath of attacks by making them wait for the official services to provide details. Like with Westminster for instance and the man who was in prison.

BigChocFrenzy · 12/04/2017 20:16

Membership of UK political parties.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05125

"As of March 2017 Labour has 517,000 members

Liberal Democrats has 82,000 members as of February 2017.

As of July 2016
the SNP had 120,000 members,
the Green Party (England and Wales) 55,500,
UKIP 39,000
and Plaid Cymru 8,300"

BigChocFrenzy · 12/04/2017 20:18

The Conservative Party had 149,800 members as of December 2013, the latest available estimate published by CCHQ.
No idea if that has changed since

comfortandjoyce · 12/04/2017 20:19

You must also recognize how impractical those restrictions would be. In an age of social media, it would be as pointless as when the security services smashed hard drives in the Guardian's basement to try to destroy the Snowden files.

Mistigri · 12/04/2017 20:19

Terrorists get weapons from somewhere; usually they are not produced locally. Someone makes money from selling them. If one were to get serious about the causes of terrorism worldwide, then the sensible first line of defence would be to work harder at preventing arms from getting into the hands of terrorists. Hint: that means that arms manufacturers' profits would take a hit.

One of the reasons why terrorism kills relatively few people in Europe, as compared with the Middle East and Africa, or even with "ordinary" gun deaths in America, is that it is relatively hard to get hold of military weapons. This is undoubtedly why vehicular terrorism has become the method of choice of deranged individuals in Europe - they would find it hard to obtain arms that, in other regions, they could source relatively easily (or even purchase legally with few or no checks as is the case in the US).

BigChocFrenzy · 12/04/2017 20:20

Censoring names of perpetrators has been strongly recommended by some anti-terrorist experts, who actually know what motivates and encourages these failures and loners

HashiAsLarry · 12/04/2017 20:22

Social media's existence doesn't mean other media should dumb down too Hmm

woman12345 · 12/04/2017 20:23

And tories on 149 000 as of 2013, their figures seem strangely low, out of date. Low party numbers mean nothing if you can buy the result though.
www.electionexpenses.co.uk
25 days and the 2015 result will have been purchased.

comfortandjoyce · 12/04/2017 20:24

BigChocFrenzy

Censoring names of perpetrators has been strongly recommended by some anti-terrorist experts, who actually know what motivates and encourages these failures and loners

So you've said, and I can see the argument. But that benefit would not be worth the total demolition of public trust in the media. What do you think would happen? The public would draw their own conclusions about who had committed the attacks.

comfortandjoyce · 12/04/2017 20:26

Hashi

Social media's existence doesn't mean other media should dumb down too

If the public knows that the regular media is being deliberately censored, then social media will be the only one they will believe. Do you really want that?

Peregrina · 12/04/2017 20:27

Re Lib Dem membership - it was 87,000 a few weeks ago.

As for being a Councillor, locally we have a full slate. Personally, I feel more suited to backroom tasks, which are just as important.

Conservatives/Labour/Lib Dems/Greens are all putting up full slates locally, but some of them are 'paper' candidates i.e. they aren't going to canvass and don't really expect to get elected. The big collapse in candidates standing has come from UKIP.

DH votes differently from me, and is active in another party, but obligingly delivered some leaflets for me!

BigChocFrenzy · 12/04/2017 20:27

Social media has to get names of terrorists from somewhere, normally the authorities.
Very few people go onto ISIS sites.

It would take a concerted effort to starve terrorists of the publicity they crave:
terror without publicity wouldn't work.

In a war, the authorities control the information.
In WW2 for example (which my late father and uncles fought in) there was considerable censorship.
Not just about operational matters, but also to keep up British morale.

This is a war.
It's what I mean about getting serious.
It means givng up some things we take for granted.

HashiAsLarry · 12/04/2017 20:27

Media: the government have asked us not to report on certain aspects of cases and we've agreed.
That won't undermine confidence in most people. Largely because most people know it happens all the time in other crimes. The media breaking that vow though definitely would undermine confidence.

HashiAsLarry · 12/04/2017 20:29

If the public knows that the regular media is being deliberately censored, then social media will be the only one they will believe. Do you really want that?
Only by the sort of loons who already do this, no change there.

BigChocFrenzy · 12/04/2017 20:29

There was considerable trust in the censored British media in WW2, because it never lied, just withheld some facts.
I don't know if the public has changed so much in what it is prepared to accept in a war.

Carolinesbeanies · 12/04/2017 20:30

Just de-lurking

"There are plenty of other threads where you can have a paranoid hate fest against Muslims"

"However, I'm sure there are plenty of threads around where you can tell each other how horrible and frightening Muslims are."

BCF, Im not being a smart arse here, but where are these? Ive never seen one, but then Ive never gone looking. Do they get dumped in a particular forum?

Id have plenty to say on them, if this were the case.

Off to lurk again.

BigChocFrenzy · 12/04/2017 20:31

Just like we can't publicise all security measures, because then the terrorists woukd know about them too

BluePeppersAndBroccoli · 12/04/2017 20:31

I don't know about censoring names of perpetrators but I do know that we need to be careful about the use of the words terrorist or terrorism.

Westminster attack is still referred as a terrorist act. We know it wasn't. It was the act of a loner that clearly had major MH issues. So terrible yes. But not a terrorist attack as we think about it (ISIS),

Since then there hasn't been a few other acts like this. But every time, it has been branded a terrorist attack before any investigation has ever been done. If the perpetrator looks a bit Muslim or if it looks like what they would do (car arriving in a crowd), then it just is.
I think we would do much better with avoiding the words until a proper inquest has been done and then say 'yes it was xxx'. I think it would be better to stop making assumptions, say things that are wrong because they ibht be true, branding names around before we know this is the right person (again the guy that was reported as the 'terrorist' happened to be in prison. Can you imagine the issue if he hadn't and could possibly have been the perpetrator? Etc etc)

In effect, there is a strong need for boundaries on what is and isn't acceptable in reporting the news.

BigChocFrenzy · 12/04/2017 20:34

Similarly, sanctions against Saudi Arabia would hurt us.
Waging war is very costly, in lives, money, even civil rights

comfortandjoyce · 12/04/2017 20:35

BigChocFrenzy

In a war, the authorities control the information.
In WW2 for example (which my late father and uncles fought in) there was considerable censorship.
Not just about operational matters, but also to keep up British morale.

This is a war.
It's what I mean about getting serious.
It means givng up some things we take for granted.

Well, I admire your seriousness, but I'd be careful about the implications of that wartime attitude - as well as censorship, mass internment was also practised on the Allied side, as was carpet bombing, with no human rights law to get in the way.

BigChocFrenzy · 12/04/2017 20:36

btw, my views on combatting terrorism are generally regarded in my social circle as being rather rightwing.
Few of us here are entirely centre or left or right

BluePeppersAndBroccoli · 12/04/2017 20:39

This btw isnt withholding information or censorship. It's about talking anit the truth and not making a huge thing out of nothing.

E.g. A guy driving a dustbin wagon drove into a crowd. He killed 6 people. This has never been treated as a terrorist attack or given much publicity. I'm pretty sure most people have forgotten about it.
Policeman killed doing his job, unfortunately there are plenty too but again there is never much publicity around it and certainly not at the level we've seen in Westminster.

Now bring the word terrorism and everyone is branded a traitor (remember the photo of the Muslim woman?) or a hero. For what is basically very similar to what happened in Glasgow.

This is giving ISIS too much publicity, for something they don't have anything to do with!!
Why are we doing That? Confused

Peregrina · 12/04/2017 20:40

There was considerable trust in the censored British media in WW2, because it never lied, just withheld some facts.

I think this depends on who you were and where you were. The Minister of Information was Duff Cooper. He employed people to go round spreading good news i.e. there had not been bombing in such and such a place. These were tagged with the nickname of Cooper's Duffs.