UK's Hammond accused of failing to release funding for no-deal Brexit: The Telegraph

[webfact]

UK's Hammond accused of failing to release funding for no-deal Brexit: The Telegraph

 

Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond returns to Downing Steet in London, Britain, December 17, 2018. REUTERS/Toby Melville/Files

 

(Reuters) - UK Finance Minister Philip Hammond has been accused by his colleagues in the cabinet of failing to release the necessary funding required to prepare Britain for a no-deal Brexit, the Telegraph newspaper reported late on Sunday.

 

British Communities Secretary James Brokenshire has written to the Treasury saying his department was given 35 million pounds ($44.46 million) for helping councils prepare for Brexit, the amount being less than half of what had been requested, the newspaper reported.

 

At least another department had made a similar complaint about Hammond's failure to release more money, the newspaper reported without mentioning further details.

 

Brokenshire said his department does not have enough to prepare for Brexit whether Britain leaves the European Union with or without a deal, the report added, citing the British Communities Secretary's letter to the Treasury sent shortly before Christmas.

 

($1 = 0.7873 pounds)

 

(Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Bengaluru)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-12-31

[melvinmelvin]

is Hammond pro Brexit or a remainer?

 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

is Hammond pro Brexit or a remainer?

 

 

I'm not sure if it matters. The article said "less than half of what had been requested". It didn't use the word granted. 

Perhaps that's a mistake by the report, or it's business as usual, organisations want more from the common coffins, than they will eventually get.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, oilinki said:

I'm not sure if it matters. The article said "less than half of what had been requested". It didn't use the word granted. 

Perhaps that's a mistake by the report, or it's business as usual, organisations want more from the common coffins, than they will eventually get.

No mistake. He's a remainer. Remainers in charge of remaining by all available and disorderly means.  

[welovesundaysatspace]

If you don’t have the money to afford a no-deal Brexit, don’t do a no-deal Brexit. 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, nauseus said:

No mistake. He's a remainer. Remainers in charge of remaining by all available and disorderly means.  

And yet UK is heading towards no-deal cliff. How does that work out?

[JAG]

26 minutes ago, oilinki said:

And yet UK is heading towards no-deal cliff. How does that work out?

Very simply. The referendum showed that a clear majority of those who voted, wished for the UK to leave the EU.

 

Notwithstanding that a significant number of ministers in the government wish to prevent the UK from effectively leaving the EU. Hammond is very much one, (personally I think that he is the real driving force behind this), the Prime Minister is another. They are the principal players in the efforts to arrange a "deal" which means that the UK does not effectively leave. Therefore they have made no preparation or proper contingency plans for actually leaving, despite the referendum starting the process over two years ago. They are actually doing their best to prevent both the decision of the electorate and the manifesto commitments on which they were elected in the subsequent general election being carried out. The cliff edge is of their making, they wish for it to be the only alternative.

 

Now whether one agrees or not that the UK should leave the EU, such action shows a staggering arrogance and cynical approach to the decision of the electorate, expressed in both the referendum and the last general election.

Edited December 31, 2018 by JAG

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, JAG said:

Very simply. The referendum showed that a clear majority of those who voted, wished for the UK to leave the EU.

 

A significant number of ministers in the government wish to prevent the UK from effectively leaving the EU. Hammond is very much one, (personally I think that he is the real driving force behind this), the Prime Minister is another. They are the principal players in the efforts to actually produce a "deal" which means that the UK does not effectively leave. Therefore they have made no preparation or proper contingency plans for actually leaving, despite the referendum starting the process over two years ago. They are actually doing their best to prevent both the decision of the electorate and the manifesto commitments on which they were elected in the subsequent general election being carried out.

 

Now whether one agrees or not that the UK should leave the EU, such action shows a staggering arrogance and cynical approach to the decision of the electorate, expressed in both the referendum and the last general election.

Clear majority? No, that was miniscule majority if we want to be honest.

 

There was plenty of protest votes against the government, which is expected in these kind of situations. Also the Brexit campaign did excellent job for confusing the electorate with mixed messages from two different campaigns. 

 

I'm not complaining that UK is leaving. At the end of the day it's probably for the best for us in EU. We can finally go forward. 

 

I'm wondering why and and who initially decided that this negotiated deal is bad for UK? Who supported that view before all the rest of lemmings started yell the same message?

 

 

[SheungWan]

2 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

is Hammond pro Brexit or a remainer?

He is instinctively sensible, so see if you can work it out.

[SheungWan]

55 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

If you don’t have the money to afford a no-deal Brexit, don’t do a no-deal Brexit. 

That would be over the heads of the Hard Brexiteers here.

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

No mistake. He's a remainer. Remainers in charge of remaining by all available and disorderly means.  

The Royal Prerogative Hard Brexiteer Team speak out. Their Enemies of the People chant.

Edited December 31, 2018 by SheungWan

[JAG]

4 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Clear majority? No, that was miniscule majority if we want to be honest.

 

There was plenty of protest votes against the government, which is expected in these kind of situations. Also the Brexit campaign did excellent job for confusing the electorate with mixed messages from two different campaigns. 

It was a clear majority of those who voted, in one of the largest turnouts in any democratic activity in the UK for many years - if we want to be honest.

 

You simply cannot know, and have no way of knowing what motivated those who voted, either for or against leaving. I do not wish to be rude, but as you are not British I rather suspect that you have a limited understanding of the issues, from the point of view of the British electorate and at the time took little interest in the campaigns. If it were a protest vote, I suggest that the protest was against a succession of Governments which have ensured that the views of the British people were effectively ignored on the subject of the EU, going back perhaps as far as the whole business over the Maastricht Treaty some 25 years ago. As for confusing the electorate, well I know little of Finnish politics, but I am sure you would be (rightly) annoyed if I were to suggest that your current government came to power because your electorate was too stupid and confused to understand why they voted for it.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

If you don’t have the money to afford a no-deal Brexit, don’t do a no-deal Brexit. 

35m, as opposed to 39bn.

 

Mmmm, difficult decision.....

 

Admittedly, I'm being flippant here - as other depts. would also be asking for far more money to prepare for a genuine brexit.

[vinny41]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

If you don’t have the money to afford a no-deal Brexit, don’t do a no-deal Brexit. 

I guess the same applies for remaining in the EU as we can't afford the £39 billion plus payments

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, vinny41 said:

I guess the same applies for remaining in the EU as we can't afford the £39 billion plus payments

I’m pretty sure the EU will give you a good interest rate on your debt. Don’t worry. 

[vinny41]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I’m pretty sure the EU will give you a good interest rate on your debt. Don’t worry. 

I am sure the other 27 EU members could agree to waive all EU membership fees for the UK for the next 10 years

Edited December 31, 2018 by vinny41

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

I am sure the other 27 EU members could agree to waive all EU membership fees for the UK for the next 10 years

Is there any particular reason to do so?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, JAG said:

ou simply cannot know, and have no way of knowing what motivated those who voted, either for or against leaving. I do not wish to be rude, but as you are not British I rather suspect that you have a limited understanding of the issues, from the point of view of the British electorate and at the time took little interest in the campaigns.

I agree with this. It has been quite an voyage to get to know a bit better how Brits really think. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 minute ago, oilinki said:

Is there any particular reason to do so?

Why wouldn’t they, after they offered the U.K. the easiest deal in history?

[vinny41]

4 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

If you don’t have the money to afford a no-deal Brexit, don’t do a no-deal Brexit. 

 

4 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Is there any particular reason to do so?

Well according to the remainers on here the UK is poor and can't afford the EU membership fees so wouldn't it good for the rest of the EU to say No problem you can stay and pay no fees for 10 years

Edited December 31, 2018 by vinny41

[Guest]

1 minute ago, vinny41 said:

 

Well according to the remainers on here the UK is poor and can't afford the EU membership fees so wouldn't it good for the rest of the EU to say No problem you can stay and pay no fees for 10 years

Why would it be good for the rest of the EU?

[vinny41]

2 hours ago, oilinki said:

Why would it be good for the rest of the EU?

It Gives the EU the chance to demonstrate that being a member of the EU club is not just about money ,  The 27 EU members can show their community spirit, helping out the UK

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

It Gives the EU the chance to demonstrate that being a member of the EU club is not just about money ,  The 27 EU members can show their community spirit, helping out the UK

I see. Indeed, for the rest of us, EU is not just about money. Let's talk about that couple of years after Brexit. 

 

 

[JAG]

3 hours ago, oilinki said:

I agree with this. It has been quite an voyage to get to know a bit better how Brits really think. 

Oh, I should imagine that there is as wide a spectrum of views on political matters in The UK as there is in Finnland. Monolithic centralised parties following a "diktat line" are not really part of the UK political scene. Both our major parties are essentially coalitions of a variety of views. Perhaps that is one reason why we have the mess we have, with the party in government,(Conservatives), whilst claiming to be carrying out the decision made in the referendum, are actually doing everything they can to thwart it - the faction in control (just) are essentially remainers. The main opposition party, (Labour), equally split on the matter, is rather sitting on its' hands. As for how Brits really think, well rather more of those who bothered to vote think we should leave than think we should remain.

 

I think the mistake many observers make is to think that decision was arrived at as a result of the 2016 campaign. It is a point of view, a thought if you like, which has been brewing for many years. The people were only allowed to declare their views in 2016. The result may have been different, (I certainly may not have voted to leave), if the UK's political establishment had over the last 20 odd years done anything to address or allay those widely held views in their dealings with the EU. They didn't. " 'cos they knew best."

That led to the rise of a new single issue party - UKIP. Because of our electoral system they were not able to win seats in parliament, but they were able to threaten the control of both the major parties. The referendum was a move on the part of the Conservative Party to shoot that particular tiger. It worked, although ironically if the Conservative Party are now (as looks likely) complicit in remaining, in all but name, in the EU it will probably energise UKIP again.

 

The people essentially didn't agree with their political establishment.. That is why they voted out. To that extent, it could possibly be described as a protest vote. I hope you will come to understand that it is a complex and long-running debate within the UK. Leavers and remainers are drawn from a wide cross-section of the UK, socially, politically and economically. It is a feature of the debate that I find myself agreeing with two such entirely disparate characters as the late Tony Benn and Jacob Rees Mogg, politically poles apart but of the same view on this! It is far from being as simple as it is painted. It reflects many factors, not least the UK's central role (whether you like it or not you cannot deny it) in the politics and history of Europe in the last 120 years.

Edited December 31, 2018 by JAG

[Guest]

I'm not sure what you mean monolithic centralised parties with diktat-line.

 

For me the two major UK parties have become bi-partisan, quite like in the USA. The problem of that is that it no longer matter what is good for the common people, as long as party is winning. That's not democracy in the fullest sense to me. 

 

In Nordic countries we tend to focus solutions first (and of course we have some knuckleheads too), but the great majority of people want to find solutions.. and that requires reasonable compromises. 

 

We had our UKIP party and we let them be part of the government. It didn't take too long and the party split in two due internal issues. One of their MP's is an semi permanent sick leave due problems with alcohol and the fact that he grabbed another, woman, MP at the parliament house, while drunk. Fortunately these folks are representing only small proportion of the population. 

 

As I have, over the past couple of years, watched UK's media and political discourses, pretty much first time ever, I'm not surprised at all that many of the British wish to leave the EU. What I saw was very aggressive, impolite blame game. Interviews which were not comprehensive, but more of few minute soundbites. Tweets if you wish.

 

For me, that's simply not a way to create long term plans for the future. It might be a great show to the public, but it's really doesn't serve as educational one. 

 

The UK I saw, was one which I'm happy let go out of EU. I just hope I got a distorted view, what today's UK really represents. I thought you were the cool kids. Not so much anymore.

 

The benefit of Brexit for UK is that your politicians (and media) can no longer blame EU for all their own shortcomings. That should make UK's or England's political environment a lot healthier.

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Guest

[7by7]

I don't understand.

 

For 2.5 years we have had Brexiteers telling us that a no deal Brexit was the best deal and would save the UK taxpayer billions of pounds. 

 

Now they are complaining because the Chancellor wont release taxpayers money to cover the costs of a no deal Brexit!

 

Shome mishtake, shurely!

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

 

[Basil B]

12 hours ago, SheungWan said:

He is instinctively sensible, so see if you can work it out.

Apart from living next door to the PM, he is probably aware the Brexit game is over... would be stupid to wast money on something that is not going to happen. 

[nauseus]

13 hours ago, SheungWan said:

The Royal Prerogative Hard Brexiteer Team speak out. Their Enemies of the People chant.

Goshgeewilly jinkwinks! You had to edit that! Happy New Year.

[evadgib]

Hampering Hammond...

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by evadgib