[Politics] Brexit

[Baker lite]

http://www.cityam.com/265247/government-expects-5000-brexit-job-losses-city

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ector-general-carolyn-fairbairn-a8594436.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/million-job-loss-alert-from-no-deal-brexit-dhtklgbtd

https://www.law.com/legal-week/2018...lose-3bn-in-turnover/?slreturn=20181103082627

Could, possibly,predicted.
On our way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[vegster]

The public have in many cases been sheltered from higher import costs with retailers taking the hit with disasterous consequences. But apparently its all worth it, cheaper shoes and clothing on the way, but Moggy says it will all be worth it in 50 years...

My local chippy put a sign in his window explaining that he has reluctantly had to raise his prices as Spuds and fish have never cost him so much.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

My local chippy put a sign in his window explaining that he has reluctantly had to raise his prices as Spuds and fish have never cost him so much.

On this topic, one piece of good news last week was that the Daily Mail reported gloomy advertising sales, citing Brexit uncertainty among advertisers. Let that nasty rag suffer, at least. (Elsewhere on the DM, I see Quentin Letts has now abandoned ship.)

 

[beorhthelm]

My local chippy put a sign in his window explaining that he has reluctantly had to raise his prices as Spuds and fish have never cost him so much.

yeah my local chippy put up such sign couple years ago too. and a few years before that.

 

[ManOfSussex]

On this topic, one piece of good news last week was that the Daily Mail reported gloomy advertising sales, citing Brexit uncertainty among advertisers. Let that nasty rag suffer, at least. (Elsewhere on the DM, I see Quentin Letts has now abandoned ship.)

Unfortunately he's doing a Melanie Phillips and leaving the DM for The Times though.

 

[CHAPPERS]

The Govt in all sorts of trouble in the Commons this evening.

 

[pb21]

What's the deal with this legal advice and why don't they just publish it? The withdrawal deal is published so everyone is able to review it from a legal perspective?

 

[Blue3]

What's the deal with this legal advice and why don't they just publish it? The withdrawal deal is published so everyone is able to review it from a legal perspective?

If the reason is confidentiality then why no release the document to the shadow Brexit minister and the Brexit spokespersons for the other parties so that they can read it and to then ask questions in the house of the attorney general

 

[astralavi]

What's the deal with this legal advice and why don't they just publish it? The withdrawal deal is published so everyone is able to review it from a legal perspective?

I think they are partly arguing that as the details relate to further negotiations that to release this would give the EU an a negotiating advantage, thus against the national interest. (arguebly any government discussions and there release could be against the national interest) they are also saying there is not much to see in the paper which seems like a contradiction, the MPs are naturally suspicious. There is also concern that there is no real power to force a contempt motion, and even if it would not be in time for the vote

 

[KZNSeagull]

If the reason is confidentiality then why no release the document to the shadow Brexit minister and the Brexit spokespersons for the other parties so that they can read it and to then ask questions in the house of the attorney general

The opposition parties have had the opportunity to ask questions on the legalities within the withdrawal agreement since 4:30pm. So far, only about 2 of them have asked anything vaguely pertinent.

The Attorney Generals argument is that to publish his legal advice in full when we are still negotiating with the EU is not in the national interest. Not because it holds anything in it that compromises the govt, but because it may contain information that could compromise the negotiations (eg different negotiation scenarios etc). He stated in the commons that he would give exactly the same answers that he gave the government on any question that members wanted to ask about the withdrawal agreement. He gave some very interesting answers to those that asked pertinent questions. The trouble is that opposition MP's decided that the only question they wanted to ask is why would not publish the entire legal advice. He answered that question about 50 times and therefore, in my opinion, wasted a golden opportunity to get to the crux of the issues.

 

[Ernest]

The opposition parties have had the opportunity to ask questions on the legalities within the withdrawal agreement since 4:30pm. So far, only about 2 of them have asked anything vaguely pertinent.

The Attorney Generals argument is that to publish his legal advice in full when we are still negotiating with the EU is not in the national interest. Not because it holds anything in it that compromises the govt, but because it may contain information that could compromise the negotiations (eg different negotiation scenarios etc). He stated in the commons that he would give exactly the same answers that he gave the government on any question that members wanted to ask about the withdrawal agreement. He gave some very interesting answers to those that asked pertinent questions. The trouble is that opposition MP's decided that the only question they wanted to ask is why would not publish the entire legal advice. He answered that question about 50 times and therefore, in my opinion, wasted a golden opportunity to get to the crux of the issues.

Why didn't the Tories vote against it then

 

[KZNSeagull]

Why didn't the Tories vote against it then

Dunno, you will have to ask them. But as the Attorney general said, if they had opposed it and lost, he would still not publish the entire legal advice as it is incumbent upon him not to publish anything that, in his opinion, is against the national interest.

 

[Ernest]

Dunno, you will have to ask them. But as the Attorney general said, if they had opposed it and lost, he would still not publish the entire legal advice as it is incumbent upon him not to publish anything that, in his opinion, is against the national interest.

I wonder if he thinks sacrificing his political career for May is worth it

 

[Hampster Gull]

I see the far right, the guy whose stage name is Tommy Robinson and others, are doing a Brexit Betrayal March this Sunday. Let’s hope the centre and the left stand up to this.

 

[KZNSeagull]

I wonder if he thinks sacrificing his political career for May is worth it

The impression I got from him is that, if he is sacrificing his political career, it is over long held legal and conventional principles rather.

 

[Ernest]

The impression I got from him is that, if he is sacrificing his political career, it is over long held legal and conventional principles rather.

Doubt he has any principles as he is a Tory

 

[Blue3]

The opposition parties have had the opportunity to ask questions on the legalities within the withdrawal agreement since 4:30pm. So far, only about 2 of them have asked anything vaguely pertinent.

The Attorney Generals argument is that to publish his legal advice in full when we are still negotiating with the EU is not in the national interest. Not because it holds anything in it that compromises the govt, but because it may contain information that could compromise the negotiations (eg different negotiation scenarios etc). He stated in the commons that he would give exactly the same answers that he gave the government on any question that members wanted to ask about the withdrawal agreement. He gave some very interesting answers to those that asked pertinent questions. The trouble is that opposition MP's decided that the only question they wanted to ask is why would not publish the entire legal advice. He answered that question about 50 times and therefore, in my opinion, wasted a golden opportunity to get to the crux of the issues.

The problem is how can you ask questions about a document and its legal advise when you have not seen it?

It like being asked to review a book before it's been published

 

[Hampster Gull]

The problem is how can you ask questions about a document and its legal advise when you have not seen it?

It like being asked to review a book before it's been published

It’s convention not to publish, and for good reasons outlined. Any sensible party would get their own advice, unfortunately Labour are not a sensible party anymore

 

[Blue3]

Doubt he has any principles as he is a Tory

Principles and Tories are not words often used in the same sentence unless the words lack of are included

 

[pb21]

I think they are partly arguing that as the details relate to further negotiations that to release this would give the EU an a negotiating advantage, thus against the national interest. (arguebly any government discussions and there release could be against the national interest) they are also saying there is not much to see in the paper which seems like a contradiction, the MPs are naturally suspicious. There is also concern that there is no real power to force a contempt motion, and even if it would not be in time for the vote

Hadn't appreciated that it was legal advice on future scenarios as well as the withdrawal deal.