The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[ml1dch]

17 minutes ago, choffer said:

Apparently Raab had a 4 hour face-to-face with Barnier last night  this means he has already had more time in the company of “the opposition” than his predecessor. 

 

 

* Source - BBC Breakfast this morning.

 

(this year, not in total, not that it changes the point)

Personally, I'd say that the less time that tits like Raab and Davis spend getting in the way, the better.

 

[StefanAVFC]

Published in 2016. Now it's No Deal or nothing

This is a good comment I think.

Quote

I keep telling people - we're witnessing a right wing coup by stealth. They've shifted the goalposts massively since the vote, but everyone just accepts their parameters. What would have been considered a hard Brexit is now soft to JRM and his band of crooks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/90f07e/vote_leave_2016_taking_back_control_is_a_careful/

Gove on Vote Leave (same link as above)

Quote

'It has been argued that the moment Britain votes to leave a process known as “Article 50” is triggered whereby the clock starts ticking and every aspect of any new arrangement with the EU must be concluded within 2 years of that vote being recorded - or else…

'But there is no requirement for that to occur - quite the opposite. Logically, in the days after a Vote to Leave the Prime Minister would discuss the way ahead with the Cabinet and consult Parliament before taking any significant step. 'Preliminary, informal, conversations would take place with the EU to explore how best to proceed.

'It would not be in any nation’s interest artificially to accelerate the process and no responsible government would hit the start button on a two-year legal process without preparing appropriately.

'Nor would it be in anyone’s interest to hurry parliamentary processes.We can set the pace.

Mental how much the rhetoric has changed from responsibly taking back control to leaving at any cost in just 2 years.

Edited July 20, 2018 by StefanAVFC

[bickster]

Aaron Banks links to Russia

Quote

Brexit backing businessman Arron Banks sought financial help for his diamond mines from Russia, according to claims made in South African court documents obtained by Channel 4 News.

The documents were written and filed months before recent newspaper revelations of his multiple contacts and meetings with Russians.

The claims, made by his former business partner and contained in a sworn affidavit, were presented to the high court in Kimberley.

The court papers, obtained by Channel 4 News, relate to a civil action between Mr Banks’s diamond company, Distribution Rocks, and its partner firm, Supermix. Distribution Rocks is suing Supermix for failing to pay in excess of ZAR 7m he claims is owing to him.

They allege Mr Banks travelled to Russia and discussed Russian investment in his mines, which were struggling financially.

The statement of his former business partner says: “I was finally made aware in October [2015] that in truth, Banks had been dealing with Russians who contemplated investing in the mines…. I was informed by Banks that he had travelled to Russia and discussed with them the diamond opportunities as well as gold mining opportunities in Russia. He further indicated that he would be meeting with the Russians again during November [2015].”

He also claims in the documents that Banks raised money from investors for the mines, but instead put the funds into the Brexit campaign and other interests.

“Throughout the early part of 2015 Arron Banks was promising the imminent arrival of these funds. Construction of operation on the mine sites continued in expectation of the funds, however these funds were not forthcoming.”

“It has recently become apparent that the funds were in fact raised but were used by Arron Banks in other interests that he has including but not limited to the his participation in the funding of Brexit.”

The court documents paint a picture of alleged financial issues at the three mines near Kimberley in South Africa in 2014 and 2015. Newlands mine, thought to be the most productive, appears to have failed to hit its production target, while the other two mines, Blaauwbosch and New Elands required significant investment in order to reach full capacity.

An email dated 13 April 2015 and sent to Mr Banks from his business partner reveals the mines were losing money and struggling to pay wages.

“Further to our discussion on Wednesday. We are currently running approximately R4.5 million in the red, of which approx R1.75m are creditors…. This month we will require a further R1.3 million to see us through the month, including salaries. Obviously we will have sales in early May, however we still need to see the month through.”

The documents also claim that Arron Banks planned to raise money from investors by issuing a bond.

The affidavit states: “During the latter part of 2014 further funding was required for the various businesses. Banks advised that he had various funding options open to him, one of which was to create a financial instrument (a diamond bond) whereby £4 million and $5 million would be raised for the capitalization of the business and the other was through a loan from Southern Rock, another Gibraltar headquartered insurance company belonging to Arron Banks and/or STM Life, also of Gibraltar, over which Arron Banks exerted significant influence, although he was not the majority shareholder.”

A prospectus for the bond, seen by Channel 4 News, promised an “exciting opportunity”.  It stated that after the investment, Newlands Mine could make profits averaging $7,000,000 per annum, while Blaauwbosch was predicted to make $10,000,000 each year. The bond documents have since been removed from the internet.

Mr Banks told Channel 4 News that the bond was considered in 2015, but never went ahead.

“Every mining group in the world raises funds via equity or bonds to fund their activities to suggest otherwise is false….Both mines are operating normally under new more successful management.”

“The proposed bond was considered in March 2015 , 2 months before the general election & 12 months before the date of referendum was announced by David Cameron.

“In the end, we did not proceed with the bond raise or any form of external fund raise.

“Unless I was mystic meg it would have been impossible to know that I would be involved in the referendum campaign or that it would even take place ! …

“The notion that Brexit was funded by the Russian’s is risible and just part of the continuing attacks on anyone involved with Brexit…”

“The other evidence Channel 4 have provided is from a court filing by a former business partner responding to our claim of damages.

“We deny in full all of his allegations & would comment that since he is being sued for considerable damages he is hardly a reliable witness.

“I have had no business dealings with any Russian investors through any of my businesses…”

Finally, Mr Banks dismissed the Channel 4 News report as “Fake news”.

The claims of Russian involvement were included in the affidavit, which was filed in the court in Kimberley on the 28th of February 2018, months before The Sunday Times and others revealed Mr Banks had had more extensive contact with Russians than he had previously admitted.

Damian Collins MP, the Chair of the DCMS Select Committee who called Mr Banks to give evidence to the Committee told Channel 4 News: “I think the allegations throw a completely different light on Arron Banks’s relationship with the Russians.

“The papers suggest that he was actively seeking investment with the Russians. He was actively seeking to do deals to support his mining interests in South Africa.

“This all happened before his famous ‘boozy lunch’ with the Russian ambassador. So the Russians knew that Arron Banks needed money and he was looking to them for it.

“Now I think he has to explain once again whether anything came of these meetings and discussions, and why he didn’t tell us when he was in front of the committee about these other meetings as well. It was clearly very material to his interests.

“There is also this issue of the bond he sought to raise. Now some people would say that if he is so rich that he can afford to spend millions of pounds on Brexit, why does he have to go running around the world trying to raise money through a bond issue to support his mining interests? So where does Arron Banks’s money really come from?

“I think this throws up yet more questions about the nature of his businesses, where the money has come from to pay for Brexit, given that a number of his businesses, by different reports, didn’t seem to be making much money at that time. He has clearly got to go to finance his businesses from outside, so where did the money come from that enabled him to spend so much money on Brexit? And what is the full extent of his contact with the Russians during this time to discuss business opportunities, and what came of them? There is clearly a lot more to this that Arron Banks let on when he came in front of the committee.”

Channel 4

[Chindie]

Raab today deciding that the best thing he can possibly do is play tough guy to the home crowd and threaten to renege of agreements like paying debt if we don't get a deal.

An excellent strategy on all fronts.

It makes us out to be completely untrustworthy to the EU, a great position for a negotiation that is delicate for everyone involved.

It makes us out to be completely untrustworthy to everyone else, undermining negotiations throughout the world that haven't even started yet.

It shapes the payment away from a legitimate and honest payment for things owed that an honourable party would pay, into a shifty inducement that looks like we're completely incompetent negotiators (the last bit of which is accurate I guess).

Another prat in place too busy playing to the crowd to actually get the job done well. Fits in well with this current parliament, glorified PR men selling an image to a home crowd but without any substance. Empty suits and plastic smiles.

[HanoiVillan]

Thought Andrew Rawnsley had a good summary yesterday:

Desperate Brexit deadlock triggers the search for a miraculous escape

[. . .]

'When there is stalemate, folk will look to find ways to resolve it. Saying to themselves: “We can’t carry on like this”, they search for an escape from this hot mess.

One way to attempt to break the deadlock would be to try a new prime minister. A new face at Number 10 might – it would rather depend on the identity of the face – just might begin with more goodwill and credibility. The ultimate deciders of a Tory leadership contest would be the party’s small and largely elderly membership. Given their views, they would be highly likely to replace Mrs May with a Brexiter. With the benefit of hindsight, it might have been better had one of the Outers taken over when David Cameron resigned two years ago. This could have forced the Brexiters to take full possession of the enterprise rather than shooting down everyone else’s suggestions for avoiding a calamitous Brexit while never producing a plausible plan of their own.

The complete absence of such a plan was a conspicuous feature of Boris Johnson’s hollow resignation speech. Something else was also missing. Although the only consistent feature of his career is the throbbing ache of his ambition, there was no call from the former foreign secretary for the removal of Mrs May. The hard Brexiters are ever willing to wound, but afraid to strike. Their noisy bluster has a cowardly heart. The bulk of Conservative MPs continue to calculate that it would be a disaster to create a three-month hiatus in the negotiations with the EU while the Tories conduct a vicious and chaotic fight for the premiership. At the end of it, whoever emerged as leader would face unchanged party and parliamentary arithmetic.

An alternative solution to the stalemate is to assemble a GNU, also known as a government of national unity. This notion has received increased attention because its advocates include Sir Nicholas Soames, the Conservative MP who is the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill. Churchill’s wartime government saw the Tory, Labour and Liberal parties governing together in a joint mission to defeat an external enemy. It is therefore no template for addressing a crisis brought on by Britain’s highly charged internal divisions. The country is not at war with hostile powers, but in conflict with itself. A slightly better precedent for a cross-party cabinet to navigate Brexit might be the “national” government of the 1930s, which was formed after the Wall Street crash to deal with the economic emergency of the Great Depression.

Ramsay MacDonald’s decision to enter a coalition with the Tories split Labour and saw the party eviscerated at the ballot box. MacDonald became an eternal traitor in Labour folklore. Even if Jeremy Corbyn were not mindful of that, he feels neither obligation nor incentive to help the Conservatives extract themselves from the quicksands of Brexit. You don’t throw a rope to your political opponent when he is drowning in a bog of his own making. Brexit is currently “owned” by the Tories, as will be the economic consequences if they prove to be bad. Mr Corbyn is not going to take co-parentage of Brexit. Even centrist Labour MPs who disagree with him about almost everything else will not do the Tories that favour. You are as likely to see a GNU as you are a dodo.

A fresh election would be a third way to try to end the impasse. If the parliament produced by the last election is incapable of resolving Brexit, then perhaps we should ask the people to choose a new parliament. This is the solution desired by the Labour leadership. One problem is that the people might just return another hung parliament, which would leave us back at square one. The opinion polls had been registering modest Tory leads for a few months. In reaction to the most recent trouble and strife, the polls have shifted to report a modest Labour lead. That doesn’t give Conservative MPs any incentive to trigger an early election and an early election can only happen if there are at least some Conservative MPs willing to vote for it.

This might be different were Labour led by a different kind of leader. I guess then there might be some Tories who would be sanguine about the idea of handing over the Brexit torture to the other party. They might even welcome it, but I have yet to meet a Conservative MP who is willing to trigger an election that could put Mr Corbyn in Number 10 and hand control of the Treasury to John McDonnell.

Time is running out on the Brexit negotiations. No one thinks a deal can be done to the supposed October deadline. This has some people talking about buying more time. Another idea being canvassed is to seek more space to find a solution by asking for a postponement of the exit date. The article 50 process can be extended, but only if the other 27 EU member states agree to it. And their agreement has to be unanimous. Everyone would have to give the nod to more time, every country from Cyprus to Slovenia, from Malta to Estonia. One or more EU countries might well treat a request for more time as an opportunity to gain some leverage, a chance to press an agenda or pursue an interest. It is just about conceivable that some injury time could be granted, but it is reckless to assume that this is guaranteed.

The fifth and most dramatic way to break the deadlock is to hand responsibility back to the public by holding a further referendum. The voters created the conditions for this stalemate by narrowly choosing Brexit two long years ago and then declining to give anyone a parliamentary mandate in the subsequent general election. What the people have done, only the people can fix.

The bad objection to a further referendum is that it would be a negation of the people’s will. That’s nonsense. You aren’t negating the people’s will by allowing the people a further opportunity to express their will. If the people choose to change their view, that’s democracy for you. Democracy ceases to be democracy if the people can’t change their minds.

The better objection to another referendum is that it would be hard to agree on the question when there will be three options: to leave on the terms that the government strikes with the EU (if it manages to agree terms); to leave without any deal; or to stay in the EU.

One solution is to put all three to the people, eliminate the option that proved least popular in an initial vote and then ask the people to decide between the two outstanding choices. This could be done by preferential voting. Or it could be done French-style, with two rounds of voting. The idea of the triple-choice plebiscite has been kicked around in nerdy circles for a while and has gained a bit more traction since it was advocated by the former cabinet minister Justine Greening.

This would be a highly contentious constitutional innovation for Britain. It would mean a highly unusual and unpredictable three-sided campaign. For there to be any chance of it happening, at least one of the major parties would have to support the idea and neither is willing to do so at the moment.

That this is being talked about at all tells us just how desperate the Brexit deadlock has become.'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/22/desperate-brexit-deadlock-triggers-the-search-for-a-miraculous-escape

[Genie]

21 hours ago, Chindie said:

Raab today deciding that the best thing he can possibly do is play tough guy to the home crowd and threaten to renege of agreements like paying debt if we don't get a deal.

An excellent strategy on all fronts.

It makes us out to be completely untrustworthy to the EU, a great position for a negotiation that is delicate for everyone involved.

It makes us out to be completely untrustworthy to everyone else, undermining negotiations throughout the world that haven't even started yet.

It shapes the payment away from a legitimate and honest payment for things owed that an honourable party would pay, into a shifty inducement that looks like we're completely incompetent negotiators (the last bit of which is accurate I guess).

Another prat in place too busy playing to the crowd to actually get the job done well. Fits in well with this current parliament, glorified PR men selling an image to a home crowd but without any substance. Empty suits and plastic smiles.

We don't really have much to negotiate with do we, this 30 odd billion payment is just being used as a bit of leverage (because we have nothing else).

[Chindie]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

We don't really have much to negotiate with do we, this 30 odd billion payment is just being used as a bit of leverage (because we have nothing else).

It's not leverage though. We agreed to the sequencing of the negotiations, that things needed to be agreed before discussions began on anything else, which included right at the start covering agreed payments, and we agreed to make those payments alongside the other opening commitments to progress negotiations.

We're now openly suggesting we should rip up those agreements.

That action would damage us so much, by torpedoing the negotiations as they stand, by damaging our standing in any negotiation going forwards, etc etc, that it is not really leverage. It's just more of the gun to our heads stuff that no deal was right at the start.

It's just more of the Tory party being more worried about the front page of the Heil than the future of the country.

[Genie]

I think we're f**ked whatever happens. At least if we hang on to the £39b its something.

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, Genie said:

I think we're f**ked whatever happens. At least if we hang on to the £39b its something.

Not if we remain...

[Genie]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Not if we remain...

True.

Currently we're walking into the Apple store and asking them for a discount on the new iPhone and they're saying no. We don't really have any way of getting them to give us anything do we apart from "goodwill" or "valuable customer" which is also stretching it a bit.

[Chindie]

14 minutes ago, Genie said:

I think we're f**ked whatever happens. At least if we hang on to the £39b its something.

Not necessarily.

We're currently **** because we have a completely feeble government that doesn't appear to understand what they're doing whilst also having their complete mentalist tail wag the dog.

There's little reason why we can't come round to having the softest Brexit possible. It'll just require some politicians with brains and bollocks. If they're really brave and have their heads screwed on, they could ask to bin the whole idea, although they'd need to hope the EU would accept.

Our heading towards to No Deal is totally our own fault, because of that feeble government and cowardly (and/or dumb, self interested) parliament. And if we 'get' No Deal, £39bn is going to be scant recompense. Because it'll be a disaster.

Only this morning Amazon head honchos are reported to be thinking a No Deal scenario would see the country 2 weeks from civil unrest.

[Chindie]

I don't usually listen to it but this week's Remainiac podcast is worth a listen. David Allan Green is the guest and as anyone who follows him on clearing in the woods-ter knows he's worth a listen. He's quite pragmatic (and from a Remain standpoint, pessimistic) about the situation.

[ml1dch]

28 minutes ago, bickster said:

Not if we remain...

I'd say we're pretty screwed even then.

I don't think that there will riots if we just call the whole thing off, but if a large section of society (rightly or wrongly) feels disenfranchised, making them feel further disenfranchised isn't a path to a happy, reunited country.

Particularly when you consider the amount of economic and political capital the likes of Mogg and Farage will make out of pouring oil on that particular fire.

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

I'd say we're pretty screwed even then.

I don't think that there will riots if we just call the whole thing off, but if a large section of society (rightly or wrongly) feels disenfranchised, making them feel further disenfranchised isn't a path to a happy, reunited country.

Particularly when you consider the amount of economic and political capital the likes of Mogg and Farage will make out of pouring oil on that particular fire.

Agreed but I don't see how any of the three logical outcomes overcomes that particular problem

[Genie]

25 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

I'd say we're pretty screwed even then.

I don't think that there will riots if we just call the whole thing off, but if a large section of society (rightly or wrongly) feels disenfranchised, making them feel further disenfranchised isn't a path to a happy, reunited country.

Particularly when you consider the amount of economic and political capital the likes of Mogg and Farage will make out of pouring oil on that particular fire.

It would have to be a remain, but with better terms than today. Even if it was a smallest of the small improvements, it could be sold as a "deal".

[lapal_fan]

33 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

I'd say we're pretty screwed even then.

I don't think that there will riots if we just call the whole thing off, but if a large section of society (rightly or wrongly) feels disenfranchised, making them feel further disenfranchised isn't a path to a happy, reunited country.

Particularly when you consider the amount of economic and political capital the likes of Mogg and Farage will make out of pouring oil on that particular fire.

Who gives a ****? 80% of the brexit voters are gonna be dead in 20 years anyway.  Even if we do leave hard, they won't even be around to see the mess they left. 

**** em'.

Or, if they want a jolly up, I'm confident I'd take 3 or 4 on in a hand to hand combat scenario  

[StefanAVFC]

DId anyone see the interview with JRM and Krishna Guru Murphy?

JRM is a word removed, simple.

He states that the benefits will be 50 years from now. Mental.

I'll be 76, no European citizenship and my kids will never have known the wonder that was free movement.

Edited July 23, 2018 by StefanAVFC

[PieFacE]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

DId anyone see the interview with JRM and Krishna Guru Murphy?

JRM is a word removed, simple.

He states that the benefits will be 50 years from now. Mental.

I'll be 76, no European citizenship and my kids will never have known the wonder that was free movement.

Like it's possible to predict what the world is going to look like in 50 years  

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, PieFacE said:

Like it's possible to predict what the world is going to look like in 50 years  

The bloke is both a characterture and a charlatan.

I have no idea how he's so popular.

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

The bloke is both a characterture and a charlatan.

I have no idea how he's so popular.

I'm wondering how small his majority will be at the next election. Currently 10k in a remain constituency, neighbouring Bath already booted out a Tory over Brexit