http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...uk_579f6339e4b0f42daa4ac9a6?ib8caysyjopxk1emi You have to laugh - Department for Exiting EU hold their meetings in Starbucks...
I agree with all he says, but, as a point of order, he means thisTory government, not the one with whom he had his Faustian agreement?
From the BBC website Republic of Ireland 'to seek special EU status' Posted at11:26 Northern Ireland Secretary James Brokenshire has reiterated the UK government's line that there will be "no return to the borders of the past" with the Republic of Ireland. The Guardian reports that "an increasingly anxious Irish government is to apply to the EU for special status to prevent a hard border being re-established if the UK leaves the EU customs union, and insists on controlling the flow of European migrants". The article continues: "Charles Flanagan, the Irish foreign minister, said the UK and Irish governments would seek special legal status for Ireland, even though an open border between Ireland and the UK would in theory be a route through which tens of thousands of EU citizens could travel to the UK. "Martin McGuinness, the deputy first minister in Northern Ireland and Sinn Féin’s leader, spoke to David Davis, the UK’s Brexit minister, on Sunday, to discuss government plans after speeches at the Conservative conference revealed a cabinet leaning towards leaving both the EU single market and the customs union." The Irish government will announce on Tuesday that it is setting up a civic dialogue to be held in Dublin on 2 November involving political parties, business organisations and non-governmental organisations from Northern Ireland and the Republic."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...subsidies-could-be-diverted-to-nhs-after-bre/ Anyone else struggling with this headline? "EU farming subsidies could be diverted to NHS after Brexit" Surely someone 'in authority' realises that after Brexit there will be no more EU subsidies?
Can you imagine this Govt which has a bedrock of rural membership reducing any commitments to its farmers?
Not really - especially when said farmers in receipt of subsidy include Queenie and sundry other members of the Landed Gentry.
Incidentally I have been in dialogue with my local MP (Lib Dem) and he wrote me this: "Of course I very much share your disappointment at the result of the referendum. As you know, I and the Liberal Democrats locally and nationally campaigned for us to stay in the EU. Locally we made the positive case for our membership and the positive benefits for the UK. Too much campaigning by David Cameron and George Osborne focused on the negative consequences of leaving, rather than making the positive case for us staying in. I am aware that many people are concerned about the consequences of leaving the EU. The fact is that there was little planning of what would happen in the event of a ‘Brexit’ vote and even less understanding on the part of many people of what would unfold if that happened. There has been much understandable concern about the future of EU citizens living in the UK. I firmly believe that we need to be very clear that EU citizens living and working in the UK have a right to remain in the UK, and I have therefore written to EU citizens here in Leeds North West to offer my support. It is important that assurances to this end are provided by the Government and I will be pushing for this to happen as soon as possible. The way in which the referendum campaign was fought has raised a great many concerns. A lot of voters were left confused about the vote and there simply weren’t sufficient information and explanations. There is, in particular, concern about the clearly misleading and dishonest claims made by some of the Leave campaigners, notably the one that led people to believe they were securing additional funding of £350 million a week for the NHS. This was shoddy and those who made such claims should be held to account for doing so. Nevertheless, the result, though close, was a decisive one – and it was always envisaged that the outcome would be a binding one based on a simple majority. So realistically there is no possibility of a second referendum on our membership of the EU and nor would one be justified. The Remain campaign had made clear to the Brexit campaigners that the result would be decisive and that it would settle the issue, so we cannot change that when the result didn’t go the way we wanted. The Prime Minister has also made clear that there will not be a general election and although we cannot rule out the Government seeking to dissolve itself to call one (which is what needs to happen under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act) especially with the civil war going on in the Labour Party, it does seem from everything she is saying that Theresa May’s intention is for the Government to get on and negotiate our exit from the EU before having an election. So an early election – and the possibility of parties and candidates standing on a platform of seeking to reverse the referendum result or having a second referendum doesn’t appear to be a possibility. With this being the case, all UK wide MPs and parties do need to accept that the country needs stability and leadership at the moment. What I do think should happen is that the Government should make clear the terms of negotiation to Parliament at the earliest opportunity. After that there should be a formal vote in Parliament to give notice under Article 50 and trigger the process for withdrawal. I need also to make clear that this vote must not be confused with seeking to block our exit from the EU, which would not be democratically acceptable. It is right that MPs scrutinise the terms of negotiation and have an input into this process. It would not however be right simply to seek to stop or hold it up, when actually that could be detrimental to the UK and our best chances of negotiating good terms of trade in the future. The new Prime Minister and Government have outlined how things will proceed now. The only formal process for leaving the EU comes through Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). The government of the withdrawing state notifies the European Council of its wish to leave the EU. This triggers the negotiation process around the transitional arrangement and also any future arrangement between the EU and the leaving state. Two years is allotted for the negotiations, during which all EU laws continue to apply to the leaving state. If no agreement is reached after two years, all EU rules and rights cease to apply to the withdrawing country – unless the period is extended by unanimous agreement of the other 27 states. The leaving country is not part of any discussions around the agreement and is essentially presented with a take-it-or-leave-it offer at the end of the negotiations. Theresa May has suggested that she may not trigger Article 50 till 2017. Where I think there could be a strong case for asking the British people to have a say again would be over the terms of exit and our relationship going forward. We do not and cannot know what the terms might be and there are several options for the kind of relationship we might have with EU nations. So once we are at the end of the negotiations, the Government of the day should put its final, negotiated position to the British people in a referendum. Depending on how the negotiations have gone, it might then be possible for the Government to bring into that referendum an option of staying in the EU – perhaps on renegotiated changed terms, which at that stage might be realistic, if the EU leaders are prepared to see the EU evolve (which it will now do anyway, one way or another) and this option could then be considered (a little bit like ‘devolution light’ in Scotland). We will however only know if that might be possible when the negotiations have concluded – and in the meantime, the priority must be to secure the best deal in them. As a party, the Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for us to be an outward looking, internationalist and cooperative nation, whatever the nature of the final relationship we have. We will also continue to fight for a better, fairer Britain in whatever context in which our nation exists and operates internationally. ..... I have put in bold some interesting considerations above...... the terms of BREXIT are what we need to consider and are so important....
Well that is all very sensible. I consider the current situation and strategy to be wholly damaging to the country, ridiculous in the extreme and entirely undemocratic given the nature of the result. A bloody farce!
Headline is wrong but article basically explains it. Farmers get a lot of subsidies; suggestion is they get less and NHS more. Whether that is from the taxpayer via Brussels or not is not really material.
To my mind, 'UK wide' excludes the administrations in Scotland and in NI - DUP/Sinn Fein/SNP only operate in those countries. Irrelevant I know, as, in true Westminster democratic style, neither are being allowed to participate in the negotiation process anyway. What might really set the cat amongst the pigeons would be a 'Stuff you, we're off' decision by both - effectively leaving May and her cronies in a situation where they have to negotiate an EU exit on behalf of a minority of voters.
Last week the Daily Mail did their public duty with an 'expose' on aristocrats receiving EU farming subsidies. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa...ire-Saudi-prince-given-EU-farm-subsidies.html It tickled me at the time that they forgot to mention their own editor, Paul Dacre - whose grouse shooting and deer stalking interests in Scotland allow him to trouser a sizeable sum in 'farm subsidies'...
A number of people have suggested this - what is the point - as he says it is the EU that will give the final terms and if the British public don't like them the EU will smile and say - tough,you were the ones who triggered Brexit. You cannot then go back for more negotiations. Doubt that is even legal. There is no legislation that reverses Article 50. We could apply to re-join. No rebates, no special exemptions, in Schengen and in the Euro. I don't think so.
This Damien Green is a bit of a worry - won't give a straight answer to a simple question. His non-answer must surely start a flow of doctors out of the country - and put further strain on the NHS.
There is no legislation which prevents a reversal Leo, it is a grey area because it was never considered likely that it would be invoked. There is also no mechanism in place whereby a country can be forced out of the EU. against their will. The referendum also had no legal attachment which said it was binding, and by EU. regulations regarding referendums a second is not only legal, but normal if circumstances have changed.
