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

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I particularly like his question about who the referendum bill was supposed to advise. Parliament itself?

I don't.

The argument made is not/was not that the Referendum bill was advisory but that the result of the referendum (that came about because of the Referendum bill passing through parliament and becoming the Referendum Act) was.

Edited December 15, 2016 by snowychap

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, Awol said:

I'm sure we can take this Sheila's recounting of the meeting as the gospel truth. She clearly has no agenda whatsoever. 

I'm no fan of May or the Tories but it's amazing how people will uncritically lap up anything that reinforces their own viewpoint. 

There's something in that. Thing is though there are parts of the lady's story that ring true and parts that don't. I think a lot of people are able to tell when something is authentic and when it's not and when someone has an axe to grind and when they just want to recount what happened. Let's face it we hear politicians getting interviewed on the telly all the time, and most of us can spot when they're talking toss, so why should reading someone's acount be any different.

The thing, as well, with accusations of "agenda" is that even if true, it doesn't necessarily mean what someone says is false. It's like if you said "I spoke to Ken Clarke and he was [whatever]" that wouldn't mean that you reported what he said or how he acted becuase you had an agenda...

Parts of that citizen's account reflect previously observed traits, as Dav said.

[MakemineVanilla]

28 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I don't.

The argument made is not/was not that the Referendum bill was advisory but that the result of the referendum (that came about because of the Referendum bill passing through parliament and becoming the Referendum Act) was.

My take on what he said, right or wrong, was that the advisory status, which Remainers are making a meal about, was actually a constitutional nicety which acknowledged the Crown's right to veto the result, which of course would never be exercised.

It certainly is perfectly believable that the MPs now banging on about Parliamentary oversight and scrutiny never actually turned up to perform that responsibility when proposals came from the EU.

[villakram]

8 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Wasn't really sure where to post this but thought it was interesting.

Just shows how wildly wrong perceptions are:

I wonder how many muslims check the box marked muslim come census time. No bloody way I would given the way things have been, particularly in the past 15 years.

[Awol]

@blandy That's fair comment. I do find the idea May is now some super committed Brexiteer to be a bit ridiculous and have no trouble believing she's social kryptonite. 

That particular story just feels... manufactured. 

[snowychap]

25 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

My take on what he said, right or wrong, was that the advisory status, which Remainers are making a meal about, was actually a constitutional nicety which acknowledged the Crown's right to veto the result, which of course would never be exercised.

He doesn't make that argument- at least not clearly and the lack of clarity allows him to transpose the 'advisory' descriptor from the result to the Bill/Act in order to allow himself the room to get to his line about Liege lords.

He, on more than one occasion in a minute or so there, mixes up the Bill/Act itself with the outcome of the referendum that was put in place as a result of the Act. That is not unintentional. He is not an idiot.

Edited December 15, 2016 by snowychap

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

I wasn't there obviously, I have no real judgment on the meeting.

I have seen her flounder at every question and start talking about what Labour did  7+ years ago everytime Corbyn asks a question, though, so it seems plausible enough.

only 7 years , VT still blames everything on Thatcher

[Davkaus]

Excellent deflection, you ought to be on the front bench

Edited December 15, 2016 by Davkaus

[blandy]

21 minutes ago, Awol said:

That particular story just feels... manufactured. 

If it is, it would be the very first Brexit related thing to not be wholly accurate!

[chrisp65]

10 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Wasn't really sure where to post this but thought it was interesting.

Just shows how wildly wrong perceptions are:

I've mentioned it before, but my nipper did a questionnaire about Syrian refugees and asked people to estimate how many there were in the area and comment on what they thought of that number.

Not terribly scientific or balanced or weighted, but the clear majority of responses were estimating numbers in the dozens or hundreds. One thought it was thousands. The vast majority thought there were already enough or too many.

At the time of the questionnaire there were no Syrian refugees. Not one.

Months later the town accepted its first family of four. Initially we were invited to a welcome BBQ. Then the council cancelled it as they were worried it would only raise complaints and bad publicity.

Quite a lot of people are just pricks.

[peterms]

3 hours ago, snowychap said:

He is not an idiot.

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

[Chindie]

I discovered today I work with someone who voted Leave because 'it would be interesting'. I also know someone who complained neither side gave them the answers to everything so because they didn't understand they voted Leave.

I can only shake my head.

[darrenm]

I was pretty close to spot on with my guesses on that quiz yesterday. I slightly underestimated the amount of Muslims in the UK but I knew it wasn't many compared to the popular opinion.

I also wildly underestimated how happy people are. I said 20% were either very or quite happy. It was 80ish if I remember correctly. All these people being shat on and they're happy about it.

[darrenm]

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I discovered today I work with someone who voted Leave because 'it would be interesting'. I also know someone who complained neither side gave them the answers to everything so because they didn't understand they voted Leave.

I can only shake my head.

Lots of people I know say the same. When there's no obvious side to go with, they'll go with change rather than staying the same.

'Is everything perfect? No? Then why keep everything as it is?'

[bickster]

5 hours ago, villakram said:

I wonder how many muslims check the box marked muslim come census time. No bloody way I would given the way things have been, particularly in the past 15 years.

Have you ever met a Muslim that denies being a Muslim?

[HanoiVillan]

6 hours ago, bickster said:

Have you ever met a Muslim that denies being a Muslim?

How would you know?

[chrisp65]

Surely by definition, if you were denying you were a muslim, then, you ain't no muslim bruv?

[tonyh29]

8 hours ago, bickster said:

Have you ever met a Muslim that denies being a Muslim?

Barack Obama

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by tonyh29

[Davkaus]

On 12/10/2016 at 07:46, Awol said:

Japan's SoftBank Corp has decided to establish the global HQ of it's new $100 billion technology fund in London.

Bloody Brexit.

Not even a week later, it's come out that at least a couple have threatened to leave unless the tories start to give some 'clarity'. Awkward!

It's worth noting that while this $100billion technology fund being based in London sounds very impressive, it has lead to the creation of ten (10) jobs in London. A few more dozen may be possible in the future. With any luck they'll get in to triple figures.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-japanese-banks-philip-hammond-move-uk-to-eu-jobs-government-position-a7478771.html

 

Quote

 

Brexit: Japanese banks tell Philip Hammond they will move UK jobs within 6 months

Firms including Nomura demand clarity in approach to withdrawl from union or they will begin relocating functions to Europe

apanese banks have told Philip Hammond they will begin moving operations to the EU within six months unless the Government can provide clarity on the UK’s access to the single market.

Banks including Nomura and Daiwa Capital Markets, which employ thousands of people in Britain, reportedly held a “frank” meeting with the Chancellor on 1 December.

According to the Financial Times, one senior Japanese finance executive said it “would be better for our EU-based customers to have an alternative hub”. 

READ MORE

Lloyd’s of London to establish EU base in 2017

The Chancellor met with top bank bosses in Tokyo again on Thursday, when they reiterated fears about the potential negative impact of Brexit on their UK businesses and urged clarity from the Government about its plans.

Mr Hammond said: “It’s fairly binary for them: they either have access to their markets or they don’t have access.

"If they have full access to the markets from London they can continue operating as now. If they don’t, they will have to restructure the way their operations address the European market.

0:00

/

0:39

 

Labour MP claims it's 'highly probable' Russia interfered with Brexit referendum

“I've been seeking to cement the UK-Japanese bilateral relationship,” Hammond told reporters. “Japan is Britain's second-most-important foreign direct investor after the United States.”

Japanese banks employ 5,000 people, mostly in London, with insurers and other financial groups employing many thousands more.

Brexit has already prompted Japan’s largest banking group, Mitsubishi, to begin the move. It has beefed up its Amsterdam operation and begun moving staff from London since the June vote.

Brexit Concerns

22show all

Japanese firms, like their US counterparts, have demanded confirmation that passporting would be maintained after the split, an assurance that Mr Hammond simply cannot give at present.

Passporting allows EU firms to sell their services across the EU’s 31 nations while only being subject to one set of regulations. Without confirmation, the exodus will reportedly begin in mid-2017.

Philip Hammond is hoping to secure a “transitional deal” which will ensure a “smooth and orderly Brexit” rather than a cliff edge in 2019, when the two-year negotiation period will end. Without such a deal, firms face a mountain of rule changes and regulatory uncertainty.

In September the Japanese government issued an unprecedented warning that the country’s firms would move their headquarters out of Britain “if EU laws cease to be applicable”.

Japanese firms employ around 140,000 people in the UK, with Nomura bank, Hitachi and carmakers Honda, Nissan and Toyota all having major bases in the country.

On Wednesday, it was revealed that 40 per cent of US firms with UK bases said they are considering moving to the EU because of uncertainty over Brexit.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by Davkaus

[ml1dch]

Butprojectfear... liesonbothsides... butwhataboutJeremyCorbyn... theymighthavemovedanyway... iftheyregoingthenwedidn'twanttheminthefirstplace... theyrenotgoingwhowantstoliveinParis... tooearlytotell... whocarestheworldisgoingtoburnanyway... flippinJapswhowonthebloodywaranyway... itdoesntmatteriftheeconomycrashesitsworthittonothavetotalktoBrussels...

Did I miss anything?