rockingrobin

32 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Another rip roaring thread on Europe's favourite subject.  It is absolutely right that emotions run high on this as it is going to have life changing effects on many of us.

 

Maybe we could break down the options into three groups.  First is that we could walk away without any deal and paying no money.  Second is that we could have a second referendum to see if the people still think that leaving is a good idea.  Third is to keep negotiating and try to get something positive from the Brexit outcome.

 

There is a fourth but I think that is not viable.  That would be to reverse Brexit and carry on as before.  We cannot do that because it would just cause more division in the country with people nit-picking everything, every day.  I am afraid we have dug this hole and we are stuck in it.

 

Anyway it is now decision time if we are to continue to negotiate some sort of deal.  Two weeks to come up with a divorce settlement figure and a way to get over the Irish border problem.  If not then it will be months before we can hope to make any progress and that really will mean not enough time.  Certainly not enough for businesses.  May and Davis are on a knife edge here.  Nobody is going to challenge May for the leadership. because quite rightly nobody wants to inherit this mess.  

 

The decision that the UK government have to make is the reason why the phase 1 issues are stalling.

After the completion of phase 1 , the the UK government have to choose the direction of the future relationship, maintain or diverge from EU regulatory equivalence . This is likely to create a split within the conservative ranks as there is no common position on what the future relationship the UK should adopt

33 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

was the woman morally offended at the time?

if the answer is "no"

then where is the wrong

Sexual crimes is not about the sex, but the power exerted over another person

5 hours ago, Thongkorn said:

There was an incident today in the UK an illegal immigrant that was being held in a detention center pending his asylum appeal, It was refused , So He got legal aid and sued the Government for£80.000, Because they held him too long, By EU Law, and you wonder why  people voted to leave the Mad house.

This is not correct , details here

http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/10/violent-asylum-seeker-wins-80000-compensation-for-being-falsely-imprisoned-7070087/

This is just simply making it clear that the UK will not be implementing the EU's anti tax avoidance measures that are due after the Brexit date

1 hour ago, retarius said:

Certainly a Priti lady and talented, indeed tipped by many to be a future PM, but with some distorted views. She is a Hindu Nationalist supporter (Modi's BJP) as well as ex-Minister for Aid. She has rightly been fired (aka signed a resignation letter given to her by Theresa May). Lying to your bosses and being found out is never the best policy.....having said that she is hard faced if nothing else and will now have a victim-complex. I'm sure her meteoric rise will only be hampered temporarily.

 

What concerns me is the level of influence Israel has over British (and US) politicians. This needs to be investigated and an assessment made as to whether this influence is beneficial to the British people and whether it is positive for the region. I'm pretty sure that Priti wasn't elected by her constituents because of her fanatical support of Natanyahu and Israel, and she has operated as an agent for Israel....trying to use aid funds for the Israeli army indeed. We need to curb the influence of Israel and develop a more moral foreign policy in the Middle East.

The Jewish Chronicle is reporting T.May was aware

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/no-10-knew-about-priti-patel-israel-meetings-1.447605

15 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Lord Bridges was given his chance in government. He continued to be an unrepentant remainer who undermined the government's brexit plans, so he had to go. Anything he said about said plans has to be put into this context.

 

You didn't provide that link to what you claim he said about collated brexit impact surveys.

It seems rather strange that the PM and Cabinet have only seen the summaries of the assesments if they have not been produced

See answers to questions 131 and 132 from DD oral evidence on the 25th Oct 2017

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/exiting-the-european-union-committee/the-progress-of-the-uks-negotiations-on-eu-withdrawal/oral/72017.pdf

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

Lord Bridges was given his chance in government. He continued to be an unrepentant remainer who undermined the government's brexit plans, so he had to go. Anything he said about said plans has to be put into this context.

 

You didn't provide that link to what you claim he said about collated brexit impact surveys.

Apologies 

There are a few links from committee hearings I am not in a position to post at present.

However to keep you going DD on the Andrew Marr show in June stated 50 analysis had already been completed 

I understand it is likely an interested party is going to launch a judicial revue to have them published

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

Lord Bridges is a remainer who was pushed out of government in a similar way to Sir Ivan Rogers being pushed out of the civil service: they were both troublemakers operating in enemy territory.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/273fb412-503f-11e7-a1f2-db19572361bb

 

Again, could you be more specific with your claim?

Lord Bridges was the permanent under secretary for the DexEU. So would have a good grasp on the state of affairs

7 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

A complete misinterpretation. David Davis was referring to the collation of these assessments in a form which can be presented to the relevant committee. Civil servants look at the bigger picture. They can analyse complex collections of documents. They compartmentalise such things according to their requirements, not to present one particular aspect to a government committee.

Lord Bridges told Parliament , I think during 2016 that they was already in a managable form

36 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

There was also this taken from the article:

“As we have made clear, it is not the case that 58 sectoral impact assessments exist,” Davis said. Instead, he said, civil servants had carried out “a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis, contained in a range of documents developed at different times since the referendum”, and it would take time to prepare them for publication.

He added: “It is not, nor has it ever been, a series of discrete impact assessments examining the quantitative impact of Brexit on these sectors.”

“Given the above, it will take my department – and other departments, since this work draws on inputs from across government – time to collate and bring together this information in a way that is accessible and informative for the committee,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/06/speaker-gives-government-until-tuesday-to-publish-brexit-assessments?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=251188&subid=20190052&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

 

I certainly hope Davis is lying. Otherwise we would have to believe that the government doesn't even have an idea of what the total impact of Brexit would be. Nothing like flying blind into a storm.

This FOI reply to Robert Davidson states that the impact assesments do exist

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/400172/response/977358/attach/html/3/DEX000365.pdf.html

43 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

There was a government statement that redactions were required. I'm sure you'll find that the reply was that some of the documents are too sensitive without the necessary redactions. The government also made clear why those redactions were necessary. The ploy by Labour to cause political strife for the government over this is not in any way some kind of justification of Labour's position.

 

Your analysis of impact assessments is simplistic to say the least. Where those various assessments are depends on who asked for them, when they were asked for, under which policy they were asked for, etc, etc. Or do you thing that the government and civil service is just one big homogenised department? 

The FOI reply was before Parliament debated and voted on the assesments to be made available

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

That's quite a clever misinterpretation of the state of affairs on this Robin. Could you flesh out your claims (properly this time please)? Just on your last point alone, the government has stated that documents will require redactions, not that they cannot be released because they are too sensitive.

I will provide the links to the evidence hearings later

The too sensitive claim , came from a reply to a freedom of information request.

The redaction was challenged in parliament .

The position that the assesments lie across policy documents is somewhat illogical, impact assesments are there to help formulate policy , not the other way round

34 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

What a grandstander and show pony Bercow is. The government has already explained that the info is spread far and wide across many policy documents and research, which is exactly what you would expect with a subject as complex as brexit. It's going to take time for said info to be collated into one bullet point-type file.

This simply cannot be the case. 

On record we have the Dexeu stating that 50 assesments have been completed , with another 20 to be done. If they are spread across many policy documents then all would have been completed or none.

We also have on record the department stating that the assesments will form the negotations

We are now being told that the assesments are not very detailed , however this contradicts previous statements from evidence hearings and FOI requests , stating  , the assesments go into excruciating detail, or they cannot be released because the contents are sensitive.

2 hours ago, cooked said:

Are we feeling OK?
I was asking a question. Thanks for your helpful espouse. I was self employed, an unfortunate divorce wiped out all my savings. Not that that has anything to do with you.



Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

A quick calculation puts your date of birth around 1948, if correct you will fall into the old pension scheme, 

https://www.gov.uk/state-pension

Whilst working and paying NIC is the obvious source of contributions , dont forget periods of unemployment can be counted if qualifying for credits at the time

20 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

Quite possibly, but it still doesn't answer the question why, unless this is a FATCA/money laundering related issue and the refusal of one bank to work with another as a result.

This may be of interest

https://www.swift.com/insights/news/rma-and-rma-plus_managing-correspondent-connections

11 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

SWIFT is owned by its members who reap the rewards, pay the bills and realise any profit from the SWIFT system.  Each one has a unique code or account ID which identifies individual banks hence the underlying messaging system is simple enough, it therefore follows that members are able to transfer funds amongst themselves, providing they are actually members.

 

We know for certain that both HSBC UK and Bangkok Bank are members of SWIFT because they both have active SWIFT codes that can be successfully used when transferring to and from those banks via other banks.

 

So why would two members of SWIFT who readily have the capability to transfer funds between each other, would benefit financially from doing so (profit) chose not to allow settlement between each other, I'm looking for the answer to that question rather than simply saying they don't have accounts set up - I don't have an account set up with Bangkok Bank but I'm willing to bet I could write a cheque payable to Bangkok Bank and it would get deposited to their account. EDIT TO ADD: I believe settlement is a function of BIS, to which all banks belong.

I think the answer lies within SWIFT's mandated Relationship Manager Application, which require the receiving institution to declare who can send them messages 

8 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I don't agree the two banks would need accounts each other, if you said they would both need to be members of SWIFT I could agree to that however.

How would the monies move from bank A to bank B

3 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Sorry that I had overlooked your post and not seen it until now. I agree that the list gets us much closer to the proof I was looking for so thank you for posting it. The questions now are, why do two banks need that relationship when they both have an international presence and both use SWIFT for international transfers? The second and more obvious question is why BB wouldn't have a relationship with HSBC and is that HSBC global or just HSBC UK, anyone?

The 2 banks would need accounts with each other to transfer the actual funds. The SWIFT system is only a messenger service and as far has I am aware (but could be wrong) does not move the monies

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

On your first point, Ted Heath lied to the nation about what we were actually joining. That's a matter of record, and my second link goes into great detail about how duplicitous his government was on the matter.

Could you flesh out your claims about the constitution? Harold Wilson's government appeared to think the opposite of yourself.

In Dicey , all Acts of Parliament have equal status.

Thorburn introduced the posotion of constitutional legislation.

The HS2 case went further and implied that the individual statutes themselves could fit into an heirachy where one takes precedence over another.

Under this the UK domestic laws could take supremacy over the EU

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Explained quite well by Vernon Coleman here:

 

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

 

Further explanation of the Heath government's duplicity (and the lasting change on political behaviour) here:

 

http://campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/britain-europe-bruges-group/

The author of the first link posted. appears to omit some vital details.

He forgets to note the conservative manifesto of T Heath declared its intention. to join

He relies on the Bill of Rights 1889, for his assertion that membership was unlawful. it is correct that this act is still active ,however the statement referred to is part of the oath of allegiance to William and Mary .Subsequent acts have altered this

Clearly from Thorburn v Sunderland a referendum is not required to change the constitution .It was from this case that a constitutional statute status was established

6 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

A referendum is a constitutional requirement for any change in law which affects the UK's sovereignty. If you don't like that, campaign to have the law changed.

Sorry , but you are going to have to provide a link to substantiate this claim

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

Post proof, then it'll be fact, until such time it's opinion only!

HSBC do not appear on  Bangkok Banks list of correspondent banks for international transfer

http://www.bangkokbank.com/BangkokBank/BusinessBanking/BusinessSolution/TransferingFunds/ReceivingFunds/Pages/default.aspx

7 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Nobody in their right mind actually believed that 350m per week would go to the NHS. The slogan never said that. I read it as more money WOULD be available to fund the NHS but not the full 350m.

 

Unlike Corbyn who said he WOULD wipe out student debt.

 

 

 

Giselle Stuart , vote leave co-chair declared she would spend it on the NHS.

3 hours ago, dundee48 said:

Never ceases to amaze me,this is the biggest remoaner lie of them all as has been explained umpteen times.

Where does it say on the bus that the NHS will get all of the money the UK gives the EU?

It was provided here , 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/

8 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

Wouldn't it be so helpful to the UK if Corbyn actually stood up for his well-known support for brexit, and got behind the UK's attempt to leave the abomination that he personally despises, instead of him playing the disgraceful political games that he's playing, ably assisted by his dodgy lawyer Keir Starmer?

Are you saying that J Corbyn should support policies based upon ideology as opposed to the information available.