Big bike forced off road by car on Bangkok highway - video

[webfact]

Back Brexit law or risk chaos, PM May's Conservatives tell lawmakers

 By William James

 

Britain's Prime Minister, Theresa May, joins Sutton and Cheam Member of Parliament (MP), Paul Scully, as he campaigns for the forthcoming London local elections, in south west London, Britain January 13, 2018. REUTERS/Leon Neal/Pool

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservative Party urged lawmakers to back the government's Brexit legislation at a vote in parliament later on Wednesday, warning opponents that trying to block the plan would bring chaos.

 

The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is set to complete its first journey through parliament's lower house some time after 1900 GMT, a milestone on the long road towards cementing the legal foundations of Brexit.

 

The bill repeals the 1972 law which made Britain a member of the EU and transfers EU laws into British ones. It has become a focal point for the divisive debate about what type of EU divorce Britain should seek, severely testing May's ability to deliver on her exit strategy without a parliamentary majority.

 

Nevertheless, despite one embarrassing defeat, several government concessions and criticism from within her own party, May is expected to win a vote that will see the bill passed to parliament's largely pro-EU upper chamber for more scrutiny.

 

Speaking ahead of the vote, Conservative Party Chairman Brandon Lewis called on the opposition Labour Party, which has opposed May's strategy at almost every turn, to back the bill and show it is not trying to overturn the 2016 EU referendum.

 

"Labour say over and again that they support the referendum result, and can be trusted to act responsibly, but today that will be put to the test. They can either back this bill or vote for chaos," Lewis said.

 

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said he will instruct his party to vote against the bill if concerns about democratic accountability, protection of workers, the environment and consumer rights are not addressed.

 

Even if Labour vote against, May should be able to win a vote thanks to an arrangement with a small, pro-Brexit Northern Irish Party. A number of Labour lawmakers could also defy Corbyn to help the bill through.

 

The upper house of parliament, the House of Lords, will take months to scrutinise the bill before it can become law. While many there are expected to try to soften the Brexit approach, the most likely area for changes to the bill involves rather technical, constitutional issues.

 

This month both pro- and anti-EU politicians have raised the question of whether to hold a second referendum to give voters the chance to approve whatever withdrawal treaty is agreed with Brussels before Britain leaves the bloc.

 

Leaders of EU institutions weighed into this debate by saying on Tuesday that Britons were still welcome to stay in the EU if they had a change of heart.

 

In response, May's spokesman repeated her determination to follow through on Brexit, even though she campaigned against it in 2016.

 

(Reporting by William James; editing by Mark Heinrich)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-01-17

[rudi49jr]

I think they got that backwards: Brexit is causing the chaos, so opposing Brexit would probably fix that.

[Jip99]

3 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

I think they got that backwards: Brexit is causing the chaos, so opposing Brexit would probably fix that.

 

 

Seriously ?

[the guest]

UK should have another referendum, and this time tell the British thickos what the advantages of the EU are, or is the silly red bus coming out again?

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, the guest said:

UK should have another referendum, and this time tell the British thickos what the advantages of the EU are, or is the silly red bus coming out again?

 

There are no advantages to the EU, any more than there are any advantages to the victim who has been stealthily addicted to an opiate: "Things will get much worse when you stop! Best to carry on taking it."

 

No 'clever' remainer has yet been able to answer my question as to why Europe needs an extra, overbearing tier of mostly appointed government in order to function in a cooperative manner.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, the guest said:

UK should have another referendum, and this time tell the British thickos what the advantages of the EU are, or is the silly red bus coming out again?

 

Thank you very much for insulting over 17 million people, including me, by calling us thickos.

 

Those who have no clear response resort to insults.

 

You just proved it.

[stephenterry]

12 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

There are no advantages to the EU, any more than there are any advantages to the victim who has been stealthily addicted to an opiate: "Things will get much worse when you stop! Best to carry on taking it."

 

No 'clever' remainer has yet been able to answer my question as to why Europe needs an extra, overbearing tier of mostly appointed government in order to function in a cooperative manner.

And no 'clever' Brexiteer has been able to answer my  question as to why buy goods from Singapore, Hong Kong, or other far flung places when the UK has the biggest (and cheapest) tariff-free market on its doorstep?

 

While I appreciate your point re 'imperfect'  governance  I do hope the UK will agree to remain in both the EU market and customs union, because it would be madness not to do so, from an economy POV. Whether that's possible after the transition period, I have no idea.  

 

What the British government should have done after the referendum result, was to identify exactly what were the public concerns with being a member of the EU,  and show how they would rectify that position  whilst remaining a member with a 'voice' as it is clear now that by upping sticks any 'benefits' of leaving are (possibly) going to bankrupt the UK's economy in doing so. And who is going to pay for this?  The young generation, that's who. And that's the legacy May's government will leave them. A £50 billion debt as from March 2019.

 

 

[rudi49jr]

19 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Seriously ?

Yes

[Laughing Gravy]

17 hours ago, the guest said:

UK should have another referendum, and this time tell the British thickos what the advantages of the EU are, or is the silly red bus coming out again?

David Cameron already tried that in the first referendum and people realized, there are far fewer benefits to the federalisation of Europe or have you forgot that. Insulting people saying they are thick just shows what kind of person you are. You will go down well with some other posters on here, who continually try and make those who voted leave, as inferior, failing at all times. Trying to quantify a 'silly red bus' as you put it and the reason why people voted to leave, is well silly.

[Khun Han]

4 hours ago, stephenterry said:

And no 'clever' Brexiteer has been able to answer my  question as to why buy goods from Singapore, Hong Kong, or other far flung places when the UK has the biggest (and cheapest) tariff-free market on its doorstep?

 

While I appreciate your point re 'imperfect'  governance  I do hope the UK will agree to remain in both the EU market and customs union, because it would be madness not to do so, from an economy POV. Whether that's possible after the transition period, I have no idea.  

 

What the British government should have done after the referendum result, was to identify exactly what were the public concerns with being a member of the EU,  and show how they would rectify that position  whilst remaining a member with a 'voice' as it is clear now that by upping sticks any 'benefits' of leaving are (possibly) going to bankrupt the UK's economy in doing so. And who is going to pay for this?  The young generation, that's who. And that's the legacy May's government will leave them. A £50 billion debt as from March 2019.

 

 

 

The market on our doorstep is only the cheapest because of high tarriffs placed on imports from countries outside the EU. On an equal footing, most EU goods and products are more expensive.

 

Was your crystal ball a Christmas present?

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

The market on our doorstep is only the cheapest because of high tarriffs placed on imports from countries outside the EU. On an equal footing, most EU goods and products are more expensive.

 

 

Really? Then how do you explain that the EU as a whole has had a positive trade balance with the rest of the world since 2013 except for 2 quarters where it went very slightly negative? 

https://tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/balance-of-trade

 

[Khun Han]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Really? Then how do you explain that the EU as a whole has had a positive trade balance with the rest of the world since 2013 except for 2 quarters where it went very slightly negative? 

https://tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/balance-of-trade

 

 

Two reasons: EU exports are largely of the specialist goods/high tech/high marquee value types; EU tarrifs restrict the import of day-to-day goods.

 

How much meat does the EU export to Australasia? How much fruit and veg does the EU export to South America? How much in household goods/small electricals does the EU export to Asia? How much clothing does the EU export to Asia? Etc, etc.

[ilostmypassword]

10 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Two reasons: EU exports are largely of the specialist goods/high tech/high marquee value types; EU tarrifs restrict the import of day-to-day goods.

 

How much meat does the EU export to Australasia? How much fruit and veg does the EU export to South America? How much in household goods/small electricals does the EU export to Asia? How much clothing does the EU export to Asia? Etc, etc.

Well, it's mostly a highly economically developed area. Of course it exports high tech stuff. The kind of industry that pays high wages.

 As for fruit and vegetables? Do you really want European workers to be paid the kind of wages South Americans earn? And what percentage of the economy is fruits and vegetables anyway? The more economically developed a nation is, the smaller that percentage is going to be.

And as for the EU restricting the import of day to day goods?  Really Is it  reasonable to suppose that other nations would just accept EU restrictions on their exports but not impose countervailing restrictions on EU exports? That's not how the world works. Here's a link to just EU trade with China a major source of day to day goods. . It hardly supports your contentions.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/china/

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, it's mostly a highly economically developed area. Of course it exports high tech stuff. The kind of industry that pays high wages.

 As for fruit and vegetables? Do you really want European workers to be paid the kind of wages South Americans earn? And what percentage of the economy is fruits and vegetables anyway? The more economically developed a nation is, the smaller that percentage is going to be.

And as for the EU restricting the import of day to day goods?  Really Is it  reasonable to suppose that other nations would just accept EU restrictions on their exports but not impose countervailing restrictions on EU exports? That's not how the world works. Here's a link to just EU trade with China a major source of day to day goods. . It hardly supports your contentions.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/china/

 

You agreed with my first contention about the nature of most EU exports.

 

My second contention about day-to-day goods. Firstly, do you really want to help keep second and third world countries as second and third world countries by restricting trade with them? And your attempt to make equivalence between restrictive EU trading practices and trading practices across the world in general is laughable: The EU has looong been notorious throughout the world for being difficult to trade with. Anyway, you sidestepped my question about why the EU can't export much in the way of day-to-day goods outside it's member area, so I'll answer it for you. It's because, on an equal footing, the EU's goods are too damn expensive, even compared to produce from wealthy first world countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

 

I don't know what your link is supposed to prove, or how it fails to support my contentions. One of the first things it states is that the EU keeps China on a tight trade leash, which actually supports one of my contentions.

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

You agreed with my first contention about the nature of most EU exports.

 

My second contention about day-to-day goods. Firstly, do you really want to help keep second and third world countries as second and third world countries by restricting trade with them? And your attempt to make equivalence between restrictive EU trading practices and trading practices across the world in general is laughable: The EU has looong been notorious throughout the world for being difficult to trade with. Anyway, you sidestepped my question about why the EU can't export much in the way of day-to-day goods outside it's member area, so I'll answer it for you. It's because, on an equal footing, the EU's goods are too damn expensive, even compared to produce from wealthy first world countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

 

I don't know what your link is supposed to prove, or how it fails to support my contentions. One of the first things it states is that the EU keeps China on a tight trade leash, which actually supports one of my contentions.

I guess I have to ask what is your definition of day to day goods? Appliances? Clothing? Which of these goods do Australia, New Zealand, and Canada manufacture? I don't know of any major developed nation where these are manufactured in significant quantities.

As for the EU keeping China on a tight trade leash, it's also true that the reverse is the case as the link I suppled shows:

"When China joined the WTO in 2001 it agreed to reform and liberalise important parts of its economy. 
While China has made progress, some problems remain:

• a lack of transparency
• industrial policies and non-tariff measures that discriminate against foreign companies
• strong government intervention in the economy, resulting in a dominant position of state-owned firms, unequal access to subsidies and cheap financing
• poor protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights"

Your claim is I think the first time I've heard China described as a victim of unfair trading practices!

 

[billd766]

On 18/01/2018 at 10:09 AM, stephenterry said:

And no 'clever' Brexiteer has been able to answer my  question as to why buy goods from Singapore, Hong Kong, or other far flung places when the UK has the biggest (and cheapest) tariff-free market on its doorstep?

 

While I appreciate your point re 'imperfect'  governance  I do hope the UK will agree to remain in both the EU market and customs union, because it would be madness not to do so, from an economy POV. Whether that's possible after the transition period, I have no idea.  

 

What the British government should have done after the referendum result, was to identify exactly what were the public concerns with being a member of the EU,  and show how they would rectify that position  whilst remaining a member with a 'voice' as it is clear now that by upping sticks any 'benefits' of leaving are (possibly) going to bankrupt the UK's economy in doing so. And who is going to pay for this?  The young generation, that's who. And that's the legacy May's government will leave them. A £50 billion debt as from March 2019.

 

 

 

Don't forget the middle and the older generations who also pay income tax etc.

 

I started paying income tax in July 1959 at the age of 15 years and 2 months. I will be 74 in May and I will pay income tax until the day I die.

 

I didn't whine and moan  about paying the bills for my parents and grandparents generation so why do you think the younger generation will and are moaning now?

 

Who do you think will be paying for them in the future? It will be the unborn generations yet to come who will, in turn, moan about the snowflake MeMeMe generation who are moaning now.

[Grouse]

11 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

You agreed with my first contention about the nature of most EU exports.

 

My second contention about day-to-day goods. Firstly, do you really want to help keep second and third world countries as second and third world countries by restricting trade with them? And your attempt to make equivalence between restrictive EU trading practices and trading practices across the world in general is laughable: The EU has looong been notorious throughout the world for being difficult to trade with. Anyway, you sidestepped my question about why the EU can't export much in the way of day-to-day goods outside it's member area, so I'll answer it for you. It's because, on an equal footing, the EU's goods are too damn expensive, even compared to produce from wealthy first world countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

 

I don't know what your link is supposed to prove, or how it fails to support my contentions. One of the first things it states is that the EU keeps China on a tight trade leash, which actually supports one of my contentions.

I was under the impression that one the main Brexiter points was to defend U.K. jobs from being undercut by European labour? Why then open our markets to imports from third world countries with very low labour costs, poor environmental standards and appalling animal welfare standards. The EU is correct in levelling the playing field to protect EU jobs as far as can reasonably be achieved.

[dick dasterdly]

On 1/17/2018 at 8:38 PM, the guest said:

UK should have another referendum, and this time tell the British thickos what the advantages of the EU are, or is the silly red bus coming out again?

Can't believe the posters that 'liked' this post....

 

Mindless arrogance reigns supreme .

[dick dasterdly]

On 1/18/2018 at 10:09 AM, stephenterry said:

And no 'clever' Brexiteer has been able to answer my  question as to why buy goods from Singapore, Hong Kong, or other far flung places when the UK has the biggest (and cheapest) tariff-free market on its doorstep?

 

While I appreciate your point re 'imperfect'  governance  I do hope the UK will agree to remain in both the EU market and customs union, because it would be madness not to do so, from an economy POV. Whether that's possible after the transition period, I have no idea.  

 

What the British government should have done after the referendum result, was to identify exactly what were the public concerns with being a member of the EU,  and show how they would rectify that position  whilst remaining a member with a 'voice' as it is clear now that by upping sticks any 'benefits' of leaving are (possibly) going to bankrupt the UK's economy in doing so. And who is going to pay for this?  The young generation, that's who. And that's the legacy May's government will leave them. A £50 billion debt as from March 2019.

 

 

"What the British government should have done after the referendum result, was to identify exactly what were the public concerns with being a member of the EU,  and show how they would rectify that position  whilst remaining a member with a 'voice'"

 

An ideal scenario, but impossible in reality.

[dick dasterdly]

13 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, it's mostly a highly economically developed area. Of course it exports high tech stuff. The kind of industry that pays high wages.

 As for fruit and vegetables? Do you really want European workers to be paid the kind of wages South Americans earn? And what percentage of the economy is fruits and vegetables anyway? The more economically developed a nation is, the smaller that percentage is going to be.

And as for the EU restricting the import of day to day goods?  Really Is it  reasonable to suppose that other nations would just accept EU restrictions on their exports but not impose countervailing restrictions on EU exports? That's not how the world works. Here's a link to just EU trade with China a major source of day to day goods. . It hardly supports your contentions.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/china/

"As for fruit and vegetables? Do you really want European workers to be paid the kind of wages South Americans earn?"

 

They already are due to the easy availability of cheap labour from poor EU countries....

[dick dasterdly]

23 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I was under the impression that one the main Brexiter points was to defend U.K. jobs from being undercut by European labour? Why then open our markets to imports from third world countries with very low labour costs, poor environmental standards and appalling animal welfare standards. The EU is correct in levelling the playing field to protect EU jobs as far as can reasonably be achieved.

Agree with parts of this post, but have to point out that wages are kept to minimum wage (or lower....) rates - partly as a result of allowing the incredibly cheap labour from poor EU countries....

 

EU regulations haven't stopped "appalling animal welfare standards".  Battery farms and the like still exist.  And that's without going into relatively recent food scandals....

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

Agree with parts of this post, but have to point out that wages are kept to minimum wage (or lower....) rates - partly as a result of allowing the incredibly cheap labour from poor EU countries....

 

EU regulations haven't stopped "appalling animal welfare standards".  Battery farms and the like still exist.  And that's without going into relatively recent food scandals....

I think you will find that wages in the majority of the 198 countries of the world have much lower wages than the U.K. AND Eastern European counties. 300 Baht a day in Thailand!!!

 

As for animal welfare, let's get real here. Fancy eating produce from Nigeria or other s*** hole countries? Cheaper of course.

[Khun Han]

7 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I guess I have to ask what is your definition of day to day goods? Appliances? Clothing? Which of these goods do Australia, New Zealand, and Canada manufacture? I don't know of any major developed nation where these are manufactured in significant quantities.

As for the EU keeping China on a tight trade leash, it's also true that the reverse is the case as the link I suppled shows:

"When China joined the WTO in 2001 it agreed to reform and liberalise important parts of its economy. 
While China has made progress, some problems remain:

• a lack of transparency
• industrial policies and non-tariff measures that discriminate against foreign companies
• strong government intervention in the economy, resulting in a dominant position of state-owned firms, unequal access to subsidies and cheap financing
• poor protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights"

Your claim is I think the first time I've heard China described as a victim of unfair trading practices!

 

 

Household electricals are manufactured in several EU countries, but they are too expensive to export to other than niche markets outside the EU because Asian manufacturers have cornered the markets on price. Australasia produces cheaper, better quality meat than the EU, despite having similar overheads. Most of the EU fashion houses get their manufacturing done in Asia (which turns the gravity economy theory on it's head btw) because it's cheaper.

 

From your link:

 

The EU is committed to open trading relations with China. However, the EU wants to ensure that China trades fairly, respects intellectual property rights and meets its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

In 2013 the EU and China launched negotiations for an Investment Agreement. The aim is to provide investors on both sides with predictable, long-term access to the EU and Chinese markets and to protect investors and their investments.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Household electricals are manufactured in several EU countries, but they are too expensive to export to other than niche markets outside the EU because Asian manufacturers have cornered the markets on price. Australasia produces cheaper, better quality meat than the EU, despite having similar overheads. Most of the EU fashion houses get their manufacturing done in Asia (which turns the gravity economy theory on it's head btw) because it's cheaper.

 

From your link:

 

 

The EU is committed to open trading relations with China. However, the EU wants to ensure that China trades fairly, respects intellectual property rights and meets its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

In 2013 the EU and China launched negotiations for an Investment Agreement. The aim is to provide investors on both sides with predictable, long-term access to the EU and Chinese markets and to protect investors and their investments.

You still haven't defined what you mean by "everyday goods." 

And no, they don't have similar overheads for meat. Australia (I assume that's what you meant) has year round pasturage for its animals. It's a lot cheaper to raise them on grass year round. They also beat Canada and the USA on price. Is that the EU's responsibility too?

And why do you think Asian manufacturers have cornered the market on price? Cheap labor for one. Freedom to pollute for another.

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

"As for fruit and vegetables? Do you really want European workers to be paid the kind of wages South Americans earn?"

 

They already are due to the easy availability of cheap labour from poor EU countries....

One constant feature I find in Brexiter's arguments is substituting hyperbole for fact. I just did a check on Peru, now one of the major exporters of produce. The minimum wage there is about 190 pounds per month. In the UK the minimum wage is 1237 per month. ANd the peruvian work week is 48 hours. So, no, European workers aren't being paid at the same rate as workers from South America.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

One constant feature I find in Brexiter's arguments is substituting hyperbole for fact. I just did a check on Peru, now one of the major exporters of produce. The minimum wage there is about 190 pounds per month. In the UK the minimum wage is 1237 per month. ANd the peruvian work week is 48 hours. So, no, European workers aren't being paid at the same rate as workers from South America.

Nice to see some truths coming out ?!

[Khun Han]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

You still haven't defined what you mean by "everyday goods." 

And no, they don't have similar overheads for meat. Australia (I assume that's what you meant) has year round pasturage for its animals. It's a lot cheaper to raise them on grass year round. They also beat Canada and the USA on price. Is that the EU's responsibility too?

And why do you think Asian manufacturers have cornered the market on price? Cheap labor for one. Freedom to pollute for another.

 

You really do just make it up as you go along! It's the middle of winter here in the UK, and there is a cold snap at the moment. This week, the cattle have been out grazing on the farms I've driven past. The Australian farming regions also have proper winters with cold, inclement weather.

 

EU businesses are quite happy to use Asian manufacturers. But, apparently, it's unethical for EU consumers to get the price benefit of these cheaper manufactured goods. How does that work then?

 

Everyday goods: consumer goods and foodstuffs, as opposed to high-tech engineering, etc. I though it was obvious.

[ilostmypassword]

21 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

You really do just make it up as you go along! It's the middle of winter here in the UK, and there is a cold snap at the moment. This week, the cattle have been out grazing on the farms I've driven past. The Australian farming regions also have proper winters with cold, inclement weather.

 

EU businesses are quite happy to use Asian manufacturers. But, apparently, it's unethical for EU consumers to get the price benefit of these cheaper manufactured goods. How does that work then?

 

Everyday goods: consumer goods and foodstuffs, as opposed to high-tech engineering, etc. I though it was obvious.

"The Australian farming regions also have proper winters with cold, inclement weather."

Are you seriously contending that the climate of the UK and Australia are equally temperature? So where in the UK do those oranges for marmalade come from?

 

"But, apparently, it's unethical for EU consumers to get the price benefit of these cheaper manufactured goods. How does that work then?"

So consumers in the EU don't get the benefit of the cheaper manufacturing costs? In other words these good cost consumers just as much as they would if they were manufactured in the EU? Really?

[Khun Han]

17 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

"The Australian farming regions also have proper winters with cold, inclement weather."

Are you seriously contending that the climate of the UK and Australia are equally temperature? So where in the UK do those oranges for marmalade come from?

 

"But, apparently, it's unethical for EU consumers to get the price benefit of these cheaper manufactured goods. How does that work then?"

So consumers in the EU don't get the benefit of the cheaper manufacturing costs? In other words these good cost consumers just as much as they would if they were manufactured in the EU? Really?

 

"Are you seriously contending that the climate of the UK and Australia are equally temperature? So where in the UK do those oranges for marmalade come from?"

 

I'm seriously contending that your assertion of cheaper overheads for Australian farmers due to climate is a nonsense. And sheep don't need a roof over their heads.

 

"So consumers in the EU don't get the benefit of the cheaper manufacturing costs? In other words these good cost consumers just as much as they would if they were manufactured in the EU? Really?"

 

Yes. Really.

[stephenterry]

20 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

"What the British government should have done after the referendum result, was to identify exactly what were the public concerns with being a member of the EU,  and show how they would rectify that position  whilst remaining a member with a 'voice'"

 

An ideal scenario, but impossible in reality.

 

My point (cause and effect) was intended to show that May's government reacted in an unprofessional manner by enacting Article 50 without taking the time to consider the reasons behind the referendum vote and establishing some dialogue with the EU about it (whether or not anything substantial could be achieved). That should have been the first step by any responsible UK government. 

 

The gung-ho attitude demonstrated by Mrs May was probably based on her conviction that she would lead Britain back to colonial times where we ruled the waves, and on a personal note, better than Thatcher. That was before the election that nearly ousted the government, and now the Tory Brexit negotiations are clearly leading to financial disaster at every turn, the latest being to pacify France re refugees at Calais and for the provision of financial services to French businesses.

 

And lying in wait will be the fate of Ireland's borders and Scotland's desire to remain in the EU, plus parliament's vote on the final deal which could bring down May's government, and let Labour in to ruin the UK economy at a quicker rate than May's.

 

And I've yet to read any government report on the pros and cons of the Brexit impact on the UK, and the financial implications on the economy, which is shameful. It's all whistling in the dark, suck it and see, and smoke and mirrors politics.

 

All in all it just hasn't been thought through, has it?