Typical weak clique response. You should be correcting slurs which you know are incorrect. Your brief as moderator should have been explained not to be biased.
So you now accept your slur was totally wrong. My discussions with another poster on PM should remain private although I did apologise for any comments during a difficult period. I did not need to apologise for the comment you have attributed towards me because I did not say it.
My brief as moderator included giving people a time away from the site to reflect on their use of it. No one as yet has asked me to do it, and I would be reluctant to do so, but that option is open to me.
I stand by what I said, as I think it's 100% accurate I would also do it in person too Can you please stop disrupting this thread, like you have with several other threads recently? It might be because Project Fantasy is slowly falling apart, just like Boris' bridge to France idea
Agreed. The next few months are going to be very busy for the UK Parliament with a whole raft of Bills being introduced and numerous inquiries into the potential opportunities and challenges presented by Brexit for a range of different industries. One would hope that now we know there will be an implementation period that the Government might be able to provide a bit more certainty on what the impacts will be...
The trouble with this is the damage done. It can never be repaired. And if we get to a second referendum, are people going to say, “well, there’s no turning back, now, we’ve burned our boats” and vote exit again? Kind of like when a racist reveals their true colours. There’s no turning back, no one will believe they didn’t mean it.
I find it interesting that I make a comment about the referendum being called, but an Act of Parliament and an admission by the European Commission were both ignored and no-one picked up on it. Since I made that post earlier, I have sent an email to Jersey's First Minister about this, but I do realise that he will have to consult with the Bailiff (head of the legal profession in the island) and the Queen's representative on the island, the Lieutenant-Governor, then possibly their counterparts in Guernsey before approaching the relevant people in the UK.
It is odd that Gibraltar voted and Channel Islands did not. Do you know whether Isle of Man got a vote? I guess it's constitutional as my understanding that CI and IoM are crown dependencies whereas Gibraltar is an overseas territory so there may be different rules that apply. Jersey must surely be more affected by it than any other island as its bigger, has more trade etc.
Sensible advice from Simon Jenkins Don't fixate on a second Brexit vote. Focus instead on trade | Simon Jenkins
Hang on - are you now advocating that we remain in the single market? That's a Damascene conversion if ever I saw one.
Dan, I know from my friends there that they didn't have a vote in IoM. We regularly have French markets on the island, and before the referendum there was concern that these would stop, or at least be less frequent, if the vote was in favour of leaving the EU. Also, over the last few years there have quite a few new businesses to import food from "home" for our Portuguese and Polish communities. There are very few "true" Jersey people left (that is defined, certainly in terms of eligibility to work in the UK without needing a work permit as you, both parents and all 4 grandparents were born on the island) and I imagine it is a similar situation in Guernsey.
There are many legalities surrounding this whole mess that have been pushed to one side in the Brexit supporters desire to leave. Gibralter is obvious as is Northern Ireland, but in both cases there has still been no solution put forward. People are having their lives changed which they do not want. It is no wonder the courts are keeping so busy. The CI case seems even more complex, and it does seem odd that the UK passport holders were not given a vote. Who did get the chance to always seemed a bit selective, not very democratic if you wish to go down that line.
I have no problem staying in the single market if the UK's red lines are respected. As this is doubtful we should not have a second referendum and hope a perfectly acceptable deal can be reached, failing this let us leave without one a.s.a.p.to give industry time to react to the changes.
There's issues for Jersey and Guernsey on food exports and fisheries as well. I think the biggest challenge for the Government is that there are a huge range of things that have to be thought about and addressed before we leave. The crown dependencies issue is very complex - but then aside from what colour passports should be I think everything is!
Surely if we leave with no deal at all industry would not have time to react to changes would it? That's the whole point of the implementation period - and if you meant leave with no deal during that period then apologies.
85% of industry do not trade with the EU. Others trade extremely well with non EU countries, quite simple to trade with the EU under WTO rules until the EU return to the table when desperate for a deal.
Very interesting, Barry. Particularly the inclusion of apparent anomaly re Gibraltar. Let us know the outcome.
Confused with Labour's stance on Brexit? Diane Abbott’s Brexit confusion – part II Steerpike please log in to view this image please log in to view this image Steerpike 19 January 2018 3:14 PM Here we go again. For some time now Labour’s Brexit confusion can be described as ‘complicated’ at best. Matters aren’t helped by the fact that Labour shadow cabinet members often go on the airwaves and contradict each others – sometimes even themselves. This was evidenced last month took to the Andrew Marr show to claim that Labour had never supported a second referendum – despite writing to a constituent to say she would argue for the ‘right of the electorate to vote on any deal that is finally agreed’. Now it seems Labour’s ever-changing Brexit position is getting too much even for Abbott. In an interview with Prospect, the shadow home secretary attempts to explain her party’s stance on the customs union – before turning to her aide to check she has got it right: ‘I ask Abbott for clarity—but it is not forthcoming. “We’re certainly going to stay in the single market and customs union during the transition, and I believe what we’re saying is that we’re going to be staying in the customs union after that,” Abbott says, before turning to her adviser to ask for help. “I think that’s what they’re saying, isn’t it?” The reply comes back: “Nothing’s off the table.” Abbott turns back to me. “Nothing’s off the table,” she repeats.’ Mr S suggests Abbott needn’t worry too much about grasping it – it will only change again in a day anyway…
