Brexit

[eman]

Good ol Dianne turned up tonight with her box of Anadin and voted to trigger article 50.

 

[Xtractorfan]

Good ol Dianne turned up tonight with her box of Anadin and voted to trigger article 50.

That is about as newsworthy as Nigel going to the pub for a pint.... who cares.

 

[M80]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38914231

I am biased, but I only see forked tongue.

 

[Frontstep]

If Ms Abbot doesn't believe in Democracy why be an MP.

One wonders what the increasingly sidelined Lib Dums will do next.

Their last stand is in the Lords, 102 anti democracy campaigners is a sizeable chunk.

 

[JBell]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38914231

I am biased, but I only see forked tongue.

Whenever I see a picture of her I can't decide if she is angry at everything or just plain arrogant

 

[LostKiwi]

Germany - a little more than annoyed with us so being overtly bullish about what it will cost us, petrified the same will happen there. Secretly they want to do a deal ASAP as we are their largest market for goods but Merkel has to tow the EU line as she is power hungry.

We aren't Germanys largest trading partner.

France and the US are both bigger importers of German goods than we are.

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/deu/

 

[JBell]

We aren't Germanys largest trading partner.

France and the US are both bigger importers of German goods than we are.

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/deu/

I stand corrected but they wouldn't want to loose $100bn of trade because someone in the Hague is being awkward

 

[Frontstep]

The top export destinations of the United Kingdom are the United States ($51B), Germany ($46.5B), the Netherlands ($34.2B), Switzerland ($33.6B) and France ($27B).

The top import origins are Germany ($100B), China ($62.7B), the Netherlands ($50.7B), the United States ($44.4B) and France ($41.5B).


http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/

 

[davemercedes]

The Plan

With all the ongoing crass remarks such as "I want a red, white and blue Brexit"... "We are not going to issue a running commentary"... "There are countries queueing up to get deals with us"... etc I made a point some months ago that I was very worried that "they" really didn't seem to know what they were doing. As the months went by and the fact that we had little or no experienced trade negotiators was repeatedly mentioned, I continued to be seriously concerned at what would happen.

But now we've had the Commons vote we know. - There is no plan. - There has never been any plan...

All the other stuff including the shameful waste of money on a totally disgraceful and unnecessary Appeal Court process was nothing more than a diversion - just like Theresa May's non-manifesto inspired recreation of grammar schools, care for employees versus executive salaries and the evangelistic "fighting of injustices". Meanwhile the NHS is in just as big a crisis - probably worse according to the latest A&E reports, than when Theresa May first denied it and there is no credible plan in place to sort it out. Maybe someone should have suggested that she just put a paper up in the Commons as she had to do in the end and spent the Court of Appeal money on the NHS instead! Hmm... that sounds familiar, somehow...

Sometime after the end of March our Brexit negotiator team is now going to find out what the EU will give us and probably make a bit of a theatrical objection and then either roll over or perhaps we'll tell them that we shall switch to WTO rules - but we have to regain our WTO status first. That may be the necessary action in the long run, but getting there is likely to take a long time: -

WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo is quoted as saying back in June:

"A closer look at the details suggests some key issues could be politically contentious among the WTO’s members, currently 162 countries." Simple sums make it obvious that that's worse than negotiating with 27 other EU countries and 29 of the WTO countries are the current EU members plus the EU itself anyway.

- But maybe those negotiations have all been included in "the plan"?

 

[Frontstep]

The shameful waste of money was the direct result of an attempt to derail the Brexit process by Ms Millar and the Pimlico plumber.

Scratching at a fault in the parliamentary process to get absolutely nothing but the privilege of frustrating the passage of a democratic referendum vote they didn't agree with.

You make the common mistake of believing you can go into a complex negotiation with many people and have everything laid out in some sort of plan..

That "plan" would be toilet paper in no time.


We don't have to "see what they will give us" the EU is about to enter a very fractious period, elections loom and debt builds with Greece, Portugal and Italy.


We will be in a much better place than many think.
Apple who are no slouches in business are putting a lot of time and effort into the UK and think we will prosper.

Are they naive ?

They trade very successfully worldwide so will we.

 

[LostKiwi]

Whatever the motivation of Ms Miller it did provide clarity on the power of the PM (and I believe that was her intention).
I've said it several times now, under Article 50 the government has to satisfy UK constitutional requirements in order to invoke A50. Ms Millers action has actually prevented a late challenge after A50 is invoked in the European Court on the basis that constitutional requirements were not met.

 

[Frontstep]

If only Ms Millar and the plumber had felt the need to pursue the issue before or even subsequently on issues other than Brexit you might have a point.


She and her supporters were simply frustrated remainers who were looking for any way they could think of to frustrate the outcome of a referendum vote they were on the losing side of.

 

[LostKiwi]

If only Ms Millar and the plumber had felt the need to pursue the issue before or even subsequently on issues other than Brexit you might have a point.


She and her supporters were simply frustrated remainers who were looking for any way they could think of to frustrate the outcome of a referendum vote they were on the losing side of.

Thats your opinion (and it would seem the blinkered view of many Brexiters who see any action contrary to their views as a threat to the whole process). As I said her actions have actually helped Brexit not hindered it. Now A50 can be seen to have been invoked according to the requirements laid down in the treaty (i.e. the need to be invoked per the constitutional rules of that country). It also closes the door on anyone subsequently trying to stall Brexit on the basis that Article 50 was not invoked per the constitution and was therefore not valid. Now that would have been a spanner in the Brexit works while it was sorted out.
I see nothing wrong with ensuring due process is defined and is seen to be followed.

 

[Frontstep]

Thats your opinion (and it would seem the blinkered view of many Brexiters who see any action contrary to their views as a threat to the whole process). As I said her actions have actually helped Brexit not hindered it. Now A50 can be seen to have been invoked according to the requirements laid down in the treaty (i.e. the need to be invoked per the constitutional rules of that country). It also closes the door on anyone subsequently trying to stall Brexit on the basis that Article 50 was not invoked per the constitution and was therefore not valid. Now that would have been a spanner in the Brexit works while it was sorted out.
I see nothing wrong with ensuring due process is defined and is seen to be followed.

Thats the problem your failure to see that I have given you fact not opinion, she and her supporters have not (unless you can show me to be wrong) on any other issue questioned the powers.

 

[LostKiwi]

Thats the problem your failure to see that I have given you fact not opinion, she and her supporters have not (unless you can show me to be wrong) on any other issue questioned the powers.

What is factual about:

She and her supporters were simply frustrated remainers who were looking for any way they could think of to frustrate the outcome of a referendum vote they were on the losing side of.

Brexiteers reactions to the whole event aren't exactly heavy on fact but there was much emotion as opposed to reasoned thinking.
For example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...th-threats-online_uk_581ba19fe4b020461a1bec57

She herself has always stated her decision to bring the court case was legal and not political:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37861888

"It is about any government, any prime minister, in the future being able to take away people's rights without consulting Parliament," she said.
"We cannot have a democracy like that. That isn't a democracy, that is verging on dictatorship."


And while we're talking about facts Ms Millar's colleague in bringing the action was a hairdresser, not a plumber.....
"Ms Miller launched the Brexit legal case with London-based Spanish hairdresser Deir Tozetti Dos Santos".

 

[Yugguy]

Whatever the motivation of Ms Miller it did provide clarity on the power of the PM (and I believe that was her intention).
I've said it several times now, under Article 50 the government has to satisfy UK constitutional requirements in order to invoke A50. Ms Millers action has actually prevented a late challenge after A50 is invoked in the European Court on the basis that constitutional requirements were not met.

I agree - as a Leaver I welcomed it as it means the government can't be accused of rail-roading it in.

 

[Frontstep]

What is factual about:



Brexiteers reactions to the whole event aren't exactly heavy on fact but there was much emotion as opposed to reasoned thinking.
For example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...th-threats-online_uk_581ba19fe4b020461a1bec57

She herself has always stated her decision to bring the court case was legal and not political:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37861888

"It is about any government, any prime minister, in the future being able to take away people's rights without consulting Parliament," she said.
"We cannot have a democracy like that. That isn't a democracy, that is verging on dictatorship."


And while we're talking about facts Ms Millar's colleague in bringing the action was a hairdresser, not a plumber.....
"Ms Miller launched the Brexit legal case with London-based Spanish hairdresser Deir Tozetti Dos Santos".

Of course the inconvenient bit you missed out here in BIG


If only Ms Millar and the plumber had felt the need to pursue the issue before or even subsequently on issues other than Brexit you might have a point.

If you honestly believe her reasons were based on legal not political arguments then why did she accept support from people who clearly had a political agenda and far more importantly,

why didn't she seek to challenge the very existence of the prerogative she had a problem with ?


You are struggling to support your argument somewhat if you feel the need to discount Ms Millars and Mr Mullins involvement he has got rather "dressy" hair though

 

[LostKiwi]

Of course the inconvenient bit you missed out here in BIG


If only Ms Millar and the plumber had felt the need to pursue the issue before or even subsequently on issues other than Brexit you might have a point.

If you honestly believe her reasons were based on legal not political arguments then why did she accept support from people who clearly had a political agenda and far more importantly,

why didn't she seek to challenge the very existence of the prerogative she had a problem with ?


You are struggling to support your argument somewhat if you feel the need to discount Ms Millars and Mr Mullins involvement he has got rather "dressy" hair though

You could look at what else Ms Millar does and what stances she has taken in the past. Whilst its true she hasn't challenged the PM in the past that may purely be because she hasn't seen the need.

I suggest you look to her past achievements, her 'ethos' and then decide if this was anti Brexit or not.

For example:
She has campaigned against board bonuses.
She has campaigned for more transparency, and an end to hidden fund charges and mis-selling in the City of London’s fund management industry.
She has campaigned against the amount charities take in administration costs.
She has campaigned against domestic abuse.
She is a major contributor to the Margaret Thatcher Infirmary at the Royal Hospital Chelsea (even though she has always voted Labour apparently).
She and her husband have set up a foundation to make it easier for 'time poor' philanthropists to donate responsibly.
She has taken on the city with regard to the practises employed in the financial sector in order to try and get better protection for small investors.

From her own LinkedIn page (https://www.linkedin.com/in/ginamillerscm) she says she is concerned with:
Civil Rights and Social Action
Economic Empowerment
Education
Environment
Human Rights
Politics
Poverty Alleviation

I see no conflict of interest in what she did with respect to taking on the government in terms of her previous activities and causes. She was simply ensuring our human rights were protected and that the correct process was adhered to.
Clearly the courts agreed with her.

 

[Craiglxviii]

You could look at what else Ms Millar does and what stances she has taken in the past. Whilst its true she hasn't challenged the PM in the past that may purely be because she hasn't seen the need.

I suggest you look to her past achievements, her 'ethos' and then decide if this was anti Brexit or not.

For example:
She has campaigned against board bonuses.
She has campaigned for more transparency, and an end to hidden fund charges and mis-selling in the City of London’s fund management industry.
She has campaigned against the amount charities take in administration costs.
She has campaigned against domestic abuse.
She is a major contributor to the Margaret Thatcher Infirmary at the Royal Hospital Chelsea (even though she has always voted Labour apparently).
She and her husband have set up a foundation to make it easier for 'time poor' philanthropists to donate responsibly.
She has taken on the city with regard to the practises employed in the financial sector in order to try and get better protection for small investors.

From her own LinkedIn page (https://www.linkedin.com/in/ginamillerscm) she says she is concerned with:
Civil Rights and Social Action
Economic Empowerment
Education
Environment
Human Rights
Politics
Poverty Alleviation

I see no conflict of interest in what she did with respect to taking on the government in terms of her previous activities and causes. She was simply ensuring our human rights were protected and that the correct process was adhered to.
Clearly the courts agreed with her.

I wonder if she has any stake in some City law partnerships?

 

[LostKiwi]

I wonder if she has any stake in some City law partnerships?

She studied law so probably knows a few people.