Brexit (Old)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Bizarre it was blocked then - why?

Maybe because it was viewed as nothing more than another attempt to discredit Brexit.

People are too willing these days to jump on the smallest thing to smear people they don't like or who express views that are contrary to their own.

Let's see the evidence before we jump to conclusions. Aaron Banks sounds very confident that no such evidence will be found on the basis that the allegations are false.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Gavin78

Now times have moved on from that it's showing the EU is weaker than ever.

You're right. From Damien's link:

This week against a background of heightened tension with the Kremlin, the largest Nato exercise since the Cold War has been taking place in Norway.
The frontline of the new hostilities is no longer the preserve of soldiers and tanks, however.
Eight million pounds is a small price to pay for a military superpower for the break-up of the EU, a rival alliance.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You're right. From Damien's link:

Except that just because Britain is leaving the EU doesn't mean there will not continue to be co-operation on matters of national security.

The EU will continue to be our neighbours and we will continue to have a common interest on many issues.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

... for which I read “is this an argument for re-running the referendum”, and to which I reply, with the greatest of respect to you, we are leaving, there isn’t going to be a re-run, and you need to deal with it.

I am sure you did not mean to come across as patronising but telling people to "deal" with it certainly gives that impression.

[Sephiroth]

This is all very silly. Bickering about Aaron Banks and the Daily Mail.

There is some light in the dark corner. I hope that I'm not misreading sentiment that the EU prominente have concluded that their combined financial depth is insufficient to fund investment and that they need to continue calling on the London markets as at present.

If that's true, the UK has a strong negotiating card to play in terms of the rule regarding withdrawal by the EU of equivalence recognition.

I also think, from my armchair, that this card can also be used to ease the Irish question.

Let's see. 21-November is it?

Originally Posted by ianch99

I am sure you did not mean to come across as patronising but telling people to "deal" with it certainly gives that impression.

You need to read the several posts between myself and Andrew last night for context. Yes, shouting “deal with it” at someone across a table would be unpleasant, but in its correct sense, dealing with something is sound advice to the alternative, which in this case is hanging on to every futile hope that “it” isn’t going to happen.

We are leaving, and the sooner everyone deals with it, i.e. accepts what’s happening, stops deceiving themselves that it can be halted and starts looking for ways to accommodate this new truth in their lives, the (relatively) happier they will be.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

You need to read the several posts between myself and Andrew last night for context. Yes, shouting “deal with it” at someone across a table would be unpleasant, but in its correct sense, dealing with something is sound advice to the alternative, which in this case is hanging on to every futile hope that “it” isn’t going to happen.

We are leaving, and the sooner everyone deals with it, i.e. accepts what’s happening, stops deceiving themselves that it can be halted and starts looking for ways to accommodate this new truth in their lives, the (relatively) happier they will be.

Agreed, Chris. I know that the result of the referendum was difficult to bear for some, and a section of the population is genuinely worried about what is coming.

But it is pointless fighting it now, and I think that once a deal is announced, this will reassure many people who are currently worried about Brexit.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

This is all very silly. Bickering about Aaron Banks and the Daily Mail.

There is some light in the dark corner. I hope that I'm not misreading sentiment that the EU prominente have concluded that their combined financial depth is insufficient to fund investment and that they need to continue calling on the London markets as at present.

If that's true, the UK has a strong negotiating card to play in terms of the rule regarding withdrawal by the EU of equivalence recognition.

I also think, from my armchair, that this card can also be used to ease the Irish question.

Let's see. 21-November is it?

Dominic Raab wrote a letter indicating that 21 November was the expected date for a deal. But this was withdrawn just three hours later. https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-raab-suggests

---------- Post added at 17:17 ---------- Previous post was at 17:11 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Agreed, Chris. I know that the result of the referendum was difficult to bear for some, and a section of the population is genuinely worried about what is coming.

But it is pointless fighting it now, and I think that once a deal is announced, this will reassure many people who are currently worried about Brexit.

Just to add a bit of flavour to Chris's post. My original post was a reflective piece on how we should react if it was found that Arron Banks was found guilty. It opened by stating that Brexit negotiations should continue. It was not a run-of-the mill "We need a referendum post.
I do think that any potential interference in the democratic process by a hostile state is a concern and we need to be thoughtful about how we tackle it.
Business is worried about Brexit on many fronts.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Dominic Raab wrote a letter indicating that 21 November was the expected date for a deal. But this was withdrawn just three hours later. https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-raab-suggests
<SNIP>.

What about the substantive point I was making?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What about the substantive point I was making?

More of a hypothesis than a substantive point, imho...

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Dominic Raab wrote a letter indicating that 21 November was the expected date for a deal. But this was withdrawn just three hours later. https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-raab-suggests

---------- Post added at 17:17 ---------- Previous post was at 17:11 ----------


Just to add a bit of flavour to Chris's post. My original post was a reflective piece on how we should react if it was found that Arron Banks was found guilty. It opened by stating that Brexit negotiations should continue. It was not a run-of-the mill "We need a referendum post.
I do think that any potential interference in the democratic process by a hostile state is a concern and we need to be thoughtful about how we tackle it.
Business is worried about Brexit on many fronts.

You just cannot help yourself can you?

You really want him to be guilty, even though he states that he wants his day in court to clear his name as he denies all accusations from the Remainers in the EC. I call them Remainers because they have taken a blind eye to the £9 Million the government spent on the Remain propaganda leaflet they sent to every household in Britain - that should NEVER have been allowed, pretty much like President Obama with his back of queue threat, which we then learn that he was just following a diplomatic request from then Prime Minister, David Cameron.

So what if Arron Banks may or may have not committed offences - the Remain side is just as, if not more complicit in heavy, dodgy influencing and yet, leave still won despite the Remain campaign getting a nice boost to it's campaign in the form of that tax payer funded Pro-Remain leaflet.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What about the substantive point I was making?

The deal on financial services seems to be that we’re going to keep close to EU regulations and in return we’ll have continued access to European markets. There isn’t much suggestion it’s extended beyond that.

---------- Post added at 18:14 ---------- Previous post was at 18:08 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

You just cannot help yourself can you?

You really want him to be guilty, even though he states that he wants his day in court to clear his name as he denies all accusations from the Remainers in the EC. I call them Remainers because they have taken a blind eye to the £9 Million the government spent on the Remain propaganda leaflet they sent to every household in Britain - that should NEVER have been allowed, pretty much like President Obama with his back of queue threat, which we then learn that he was just following a diplomatic request from then Prime Minister, David Cameron.

So what if Arron Banks may or may have not committed offences - the Remain side is just as, if not more complicit in heavy, dodgy influencing and yet, leave still won despite the Remain campaign getting a nice boost to it's campaign in the form of that tax payer funded Pro-Remain leaflet.

The Government leaflet happened outside of the campaign so it’s not in the scope of what the electoral commission does. Morally dodgy perhaps but not illegal.

And not ‘so what’ if laws were broken. If there is a suspicion of offences the police investigate it. I have not been one of the ones here saying this should mean another referendum but the accusations still need to be looked into.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

You just cannot help yourself can you?
You really want him to be guilty, even though he states that he wants his day in court to clear his name as he denies all accusations from the Remainers in the EC. I call them Remainers because they have taken a blind eye to the £9 Million the government spent on the Remain propaganda leaflet they sent to every household in Britain - that should NEVER have been allowed, pretty much like President Obama with his back of queue threat, which we then learn that he was just following a diplomatic request from then Prime Minister, David Cameron.

Lol, I can help you though! Here's a quote from one of my posts hoping that he hasn't acted illegally.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I will find it interesting to see how the Arron Banks case develops but happily accept that this interest is not universally shared.
For the reputation of the UK, I hope he hasn't acted illegally as it would cast a shadow on our country's standing.

Originally Posted by Mick

So what if Arron Banks may or may have not committed offences - the Remain side is just as, if not more complicit in heavy, dodgy influencing and yet, leave still won despite the Remain campaign getting a nice boost to it's campaign in the form of that tax payer funded Pro-Remain leaflet.

If someone or an organisation is thought likely to have broken the law, it should be investigated. No one is above the law and that is the backbone of Western democracies.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Dominic Raab wrote a letter indicating that 21 November was the expected date for a deal. But this was withdrawn just three hours later. https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-raab-suggests

He must have spoken out of turn and let the cat out of the bag too early!

Originally Posted by Damien

]

The Government leaflet happened outside of the campaign so it’s not in the scope of what the electoral commission does. Morally dodgy perhaps but not illegal.

And not ‘so what’ if laws were broken. If there is a suspicion of offences the police investigate it. I have not been one of the ones here saying this should mean another referendum but the accusations still need to be looked into.

You often like to jump in with the habit of offering critic to something, or a certain point, I never actually said.

So here goes.

1) Never said Arron Banks should not be investigated. I merely commented on the issue of Banks being investigated and suggesting Remainers are typically clutching at straws hoping it will stop Brexit, which it will not, nor should it.

2) Never said the leaflet was illegal.

Dodgy - yes deffo and that's as far as I am willing to travel - unlike some, calling people criminals before they have actually gone to trial and been successfully convicted.