Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[leicsmac]

Mentioned this in the past, annoyed that it hasn't been thought through.
  
   https://www.ft.com/content/f2440686-47ce-11e8-8ae9-4b5ddcca99b3

 

    As part of its rearguard actions to reverse the EU’s decision, Britain is preparing to block the approval of procurement for the next batch of Galileo satellites, designed as a rival to the Pentagon’s GPS system, at a Berlin meeting of the European Space Agency council on Wednesday.

The plan must be approved unanimously by ESA member states. A previous vote was postponed at the last minute in March as the row over UK involvement in the secure elements of Galileo spiralled. A UK government official warned that if the vote went ahead, “we will vote against”.

Ministers are also looking at whether the UK could respond by refusing to let the EU use ground stations for Galileo in two British overseas territories, the Falkland Islands and Ascension Island in the South Atlantic.

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has said the Galileo project “needs to be prepared for Brexit”. While Brussels is excluding UK companies from being involved in developing its sensitive infrastructure, the EU insists UK use of the highly-encrypted part of the Galileo system is open to negotiation.

“The EU cannot share security-relevant proprietary information with countries outside the EU,” Mr Barnier said. “But there are of course ways Galileo can co-operate with third countries and these are open to the UK as well.”

In a letter to the European Commission last week, Mr Clark hinted that the UK would take tough action if Brussels did not back down on barring UK access to Galileo’s secure elements. He said Britain hosted “infrastructure” for Galileo services, adding he hoped the UK could “continue to do so” under an EU security partnership.

He called for a three-month freeze on procurement early this week, just before final bids were due for a contract to manage Galileo’s ground control services.

An Airbus spokesman acknowledged the company’s commitment to shift its ground control services work to the EU post-Brexit “puts 100 jobs in Portsmouth at risk”. Other bidders also confirmed to the Financial Times that they had made the same commitment.

Mr Clark said the government would “continue to work with the UK space sector on this issue and through our modern industrial strategy will ensure the UK can realise the opportunities of the commercial space age”.

Tension has risen in recent days after the commission refused to back down despite repeated entreaties by London, which has urged a post-Brexit security and defence treaty with the EU.

“They’re playing hardball,” said one senior UK government official. “We’re looking at a range of options, but unless they back down, we will withdraw from Galileo. We are scoping the possibility of launching our own system.”

Although Britain’s defence budget is already strained, ministers are studying the possibility of pooling existing resources to create a lower-cost GPS rival. They are also looking at whether the UK could work with the US to create a complementary and highly secure system akin to Galileo’s Public Regulated Service, the highly-encrypted part that is designed to continue operating even if other navigation systems are jammed.

The UK armed forces were planning to use Galileo to supplement its use of the US GPS system, which remains under the control of Washington. The US, which initially opposed the development of Galileo, is now negotiating access to PRS, as is Norway.

Industry officials said the government is giving serious consideration to UK-designed alternatives, which could be cheaper than the “Rolls-Royce” approach taken by Galileo. The UK is already providing some of the most crucial technology including ground control, navigation payloads and encryption. “We have the expertise,” said one senior executive.

David Davis, Brexit secretary, is also said by colleagues to be “furious” over the commission’s stance, while Olly Robbins, the UK’s Brexit negotiator, held frosty discussions with his counterparts in Brussels last week.

 

Edited 25 April 2018 by leicsmac

[Guest]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Mentioned this in the past, annoyed that it hasn't been thought through.
  
   https://www.ft.com/content/f2440686-47ce-11e8-8ae9-4b5ddcca99b3

 

    As part of its rearguard actions to reverse the EU’s decision, Britain is preparing to block the approval of procurement for the next batch of Galileo satellites, designed as a rival to the Pentagon’s GPS system, at a Berlin meeting of the European Space Agency council on Wednesday.

The plan must be approved unanimously by ESA member states. A previous vote was postponed at the last minute in March as the row over UK involvement in the secure elements of Galileo spiralled. A UK government official warned that if the vote went ahead, “we will vote against”.

Ministers are also looking at whether the UK could respond by refusing to let the EU use ground stations for Galileo in two British overseas territories, the Falkland Islands and Ascension Island in the South Atlantic.

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has said the Galileo project “needs to be prepared for Brexit”. While Brussels is excluding UK companies from being involved in developing its sensitive infrastructure, the EU insists UK use of the highly-encrypted part of the Galileo system is open to negotiation.

“The EU cannot share security-relevant proprietary information with countries outside the EU,” Mr Barnier said. “But there are of course ways Galileo can co-operate with third countries and these are open to the UK as well.”

In a letter to the European Commission last week, Mr Clark hinted that the UK would take tough action if Brussels did not back down on barring UK access to Galileo’s secure elements. He said Britain hosted “infrastructure” for Galileo services, adding he hoped the UK could “continue to do so” under an EU security partnership.

He called for a three-month freeze on procurement early this week, just before final bids were due for a contract to manage Galileo’s ground control services.

An Airbus spokesman acknowledged the company’s commitment to shift its ground control services work to the EU post-Brexit “puts 100 jobs in Portsmouth at risk”. Other bidders also confirmed to the Financial Times that they had made the same commitment.

Mr Clark said the government would “continue to work with the UK space sector on this issue and through our modern industrial strategy will ensure the UK can realise the opportunities of the commercial space age”.

Tension has risen in recent days after the commission refused to back down despite repeated entreaties by London, which has urged a post-Brexit security and defence treaty with the EU.

“They’re playing hardball,” said one senior UK government official. “We’re looking at a range of options, but unless they back down, we will withdraw from Galileo. We are scoping the possibility of launching our own system.”

Although Britain’s defence budget is already strained, ministers are studying the possibility of pooling existing resources to create a lower-cost GPS rival. They are also looking at whether the UK could work with the US to create a complementary and highly secure system akin to Galileo’s Public Regulated Service, the highly-encrypted part that is designed to continue operating even if other navigation systems are jammed.

The UK armed forces were planning to use Galileo to supplement its use of the US GPS system, which remains under the control of Washington. The US, which initially opposed the development of Galileo, is now negotiating access to PRS, as is Norway.

Industry officials said the government is giving serious consideration to UK-designed alternatives, which could be cheaper than the “Rolls-Royce” approach taken by Galileo. The UK is already providing some of the most crucial technology including ground control, navigation payloads and encryption. “We have the expertise,” said one senior executive.

David Davis, Brexit secretary, is also said by colleagues to be “furious” over the commission’s stance, while Olly Robbins, the UK’s Brexit negotiator, held frosty discussions with his counterparts in Brussels last week.

 

Just another example of a Brexit even the leading Brexiteers hadn't planned or expected.

[Guest]

Another good decision by the lords.

 

May loses Lords vote on post-Brexit powers for ministers

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/25/may-loses-lords-vote-on-post-brexit-powers-for-ministers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

Even if we're going to crash out with a skeleton deal, it's clear that parliamentary scrutiny should have absolute primacy over changes that are required. The ideas voted through my mps were a horrific power grab. Those that supported them here really should look at themselves. I'll admit that sometimes I argue for things I probably shouldn't. It happens. And this issue is one upon which people argued for when they really shouldn't have. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

10 hours ago, Strokes said:

I agree that we need to fund home training and that should have always been the case. Sadly this government is completely inept at looking at the bigger picture when it comes to education.

That article is a typical guardian brexit hatchet job again though, I know you guys love much more balanced reporting of the facts. So why does it not mention the huge increase in the non EU migrant nurses from the Philippines, India etc? Shitrag.

 

Becasue that has no direct relation to the immediate piece this was centred on - it stemmed from EU statistics given to them and obtained quotes from reactions to it from political figures.

 

There’s was never an attempt or real need to broaden the scope, given the time frame to publish the piece. 

[Strokes]

22 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Becasue that has no direct relation to the immediate piece this was centred on - it stemmed from EU statistics given to them and obtained quotes from reactions to it from political figures.

 

There’s was never an attempt or real need to broaden the scope, given the time frame to publish the piece. 

What tripe, it didn’t fit into the agenda or under the headline.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

37 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What tripe, it didn’t fit into the agenda or under the headline.

 

Its not tripe - reports such as that have to be put out in a matter of hours, there is no time to consider a completely different angle and obtain quotes / sources for that.

 

That is the job of comment pieces / feature articles that may come later.

 

The reporter who wrote that would have been supplied those specific figures I imagine - probably by the Royal Collage of Nursing - who yes, probably knew that the information being provided would suit the Guardian’s narrative, but that’s it.

 

There’s not much more too it than that. It  is the realty of news news gathering practices. 

[Dr The Singh]

Just for this reason, I'm voting Corbyn

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us

 

 

[Strokes]

13 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Its not tripe - reports such as that have to be put out in a matter of hours, there is no time to consider a completely different angle and obtain quotes / sources for that.

 

That is the job of comment pieces / feature articles that may come later.

 

The reporter who wrote that would have been supplied those specific figures I imagine - probably by the Royal Collage of Nursing - who yes, probably knew that the information being provided would suit the Guardian’s narrative, but that’s it.

 

There’s not much more too it than that. It  is the realty of news news gathering practices. 

There is no time for proper journalism? Yeah because it’s a shitrag, like the tabloids.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Strokes said:

What tripe, it didn’t fit into the agenda or under the headline.

Strokes, you're really down in the Guardian for no reason other that it believes in different things than you. It actually had a comment piece about why we perhaps wouldn't join the single market if we weren't already in it the other week so the idea it's simply promoting one agenda - though of course, the vast majority of its commentators are pro-eu - is nonsense.

Edited 26 April 2018 by Guest

[Guest Foxin_mad]

15 hours ago, Strokes said:

No other government will deliver a brexit, so they are the only hope we’ve got of getting one. So until it’s done, I will back them, yes. Do I think they’re shit, yes, they’re are awful, I’m yet to be convinced that the opposition offer better though. Just a different type of shitness.

This is the strangest thing. I cant think there is anyone who can say the government are doing a great job, I think the issue is that people are saying that we could be in a much worse position as a country with the opposition in charge.

 

People are somehow believing that a far left extremist Labour government would solve all of the problems the country has, its laughable, they really wouldn't.

 

That lot would absolutely decimate our GDP with huge taxes on the Financial sector (75%) which would lead to them moving to Hong Kong with jobs, they would destroy the increasing manufacturing private sector growing outside London. They might succeed in reducing the gap between rich and poor, mainly because they will create more poor people a lot more. 

 

Still at least we can buy back British Rail, British Gas, Midlands Electric and BT and use them if they are not on strike! It will only take 12 months to get a broadband line installed whilst the unions decide who's job it is to do what bit. 

 

The problems Brexit will cause really are small fry compared to the prospect of this incompetent hateful bunch of class warriors gaining power. If Corbyn ever enters number 10 this country really is done as a nation. 

Edited 26 April 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Rogstanley]

10 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

This is the strangest thing. I cant think there is anyone who can say the government are doing a great job, I think the issue is that people are saying that we could be in a much worse position as a country with the opposition in charge.

 

People are somehow believing that a far left extremist Labour government would solve all of the problems the country has, its laughable, they really wouldn't.

 

That lot would absolutely decimate our GDP with huge taxes on the Financial sector (75%) which would lead to them moving to Hong Kong with jobs, they would destroy the increasing manufacturing private sector growing outside London. They might succeed in reducing the gap between rich and poor, mainly because they will create more poor people a lot more. 

 

Still at least we can buy back British Rail, British Gas, Midlands Electric and BT and use them if they are not on strike! It will only take 12 months to get a broadband line installed whilst the unions decide who's job it is to do what bit. 

 

The problems Brexit will cause really are small fry compared to the prospect of this incompetent hateful bunch of class warriors gaining power. If Corbyn ever enters number 10 this country really is done as a nation. 

Why do you keep going on about rich people leaving due to tax when you've had it demonstrated to you via irrefutable evidence that it is simply untrue? I know you like a rant but come on. You can't keep saying the same things after they've been proven untrue.

[Guest MattP]

14 hours ago, toddybad said:

Another good decision by the lords.

 

May loses Lords vote on post-Brexit powers for ministers

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/25/may-loses-lords-vote-on-post-brexit-powers-for-ministers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

Even if we're going to crash out with a skeleton deal, it's clear that parliamentary scrutiny should have absolute primacy over changes that are required. The ideas voted through my mps were a horrific power grab. Those that supported them here really should look at themselves. I'll admit that sometimes I argue for things I probably shouldn't. It happens. And this issue is one upon which people argued for when they really shouldn't have. 

(for the bolded bit)

 

You don't even actually look into this do you? Just see EU = Good, Brexit = Bad. The Customs Union option is the worst of the lot, it leaves us still inside the jurisdiction of the EU with absolutely no say in how it's run. The Labour position on this a few months ago was excellent and your shadow minister Barry Gardner made the case for leaving the CU brilliantly - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/24/leaving-eu-single-market-customs-union-brexit-britain-europe

 

Quote

 

Some have suggested we should retain membership of the customs union, the benefits of which extend to goods rather than services, and establish common import tariffs with respect to the rest of the world. But that is not possible. The only members of this union are the member states of the EU, and they alone have negotiating power.

 

Other countries such as Turkey have a separate customs union agreement with the EU. If we were to have a similar agreement, several things would follow: the EU’s 27 members would set the common tariffs and Britain would have no say in how they were set. We would be unable to enter into any separate bilateral free trade agreement. We would be obliged to align our regulatory regime with the EU in all areas covered by the union, without any say in the rules we had to adopt. And we would be bound by the case law of the ECJ, even though we would have no power to bring a case to the court.

 

As a transitional phase, a customs union agreement might be thought to have some merit. However, as an end point it is deeply unattractive. It would preclude us from making our own independent trade agreements with our five largest export markets outside the EU (the US, China, Japan, Australia and the Gulf states).

 

More important, were, say, the EU to negotiate an agreement with the US that was in the union’s best interests but against our own, our markets would be obliged to accept American produce with no guarantee of reciprocal access for our own goods into the US.

 

 

We'd be better off just staying in the European Union than coming out and staying in the Customs Union. Then we can start the campaign again to leave properly via electing a parliament to do so.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

(for the bolded bit)

 

You don't even actually look into this do you? Just see EU = Good, Brexit = Bad. The Customs Union option is the worst of the lot, it leaves us still inside the jurisdiction of the EU with absolutely no say in how it's run. The Labour position on this a few months ago was excellent and your shadow minister Barry Gardner made the case for leaving the CU brilliantly - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/24/leaving-eu-single-market-customs-union-brexit-britain-europe

 

 

We'd be better off just staying in the European Union than coming out and staying in the Customs Union. Then we can start the campaign again to leave properly via electing a parliament to do so.

You didn't even look at the article did you? It was about last night's vote to limit the powers conferred to the executive to rewrite laws without parliamentary approval. Absolutely nothing to do with the customs union. The issue raised is one that should have agreement from all sides of the debate. Perhaps you want to start again?

Edited 26 April 2018 by Guest

[Guest Foxin_mad]

12 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Why do you keep going on about rich people leaving due to tax when you've had it demonstrated to you via irrefutable evidence that it is simply untrue? I know you like a rant but come on. You can't keep saying the same things after they've been proven untrue.

It hasn't been demonstrated via 'irrefutable evidence'. I have seen some opinion piece written by a left wing professor. I show detailed reports of rich leaving France under Holland. As we have said many times everyone can find a expert who supports their agenda.

 

The Banks absolutely will leave in they have Financial Transactions taxes etc. etc. etc. proposed by Labour, Corbyn has said he will 'make them pay' and make the 'rich pay'. This is very dangerous rhetoric for a country that relies on 75% of its GDP being paid for by mostly international banking institutions. 

 

I actually don't disagree with the sentiment that Britain is too reliant on financial services and London/SE Centric, we need to slowly rebalance the economy. There has been some progress in this area as manufacturing as a percentage of GDP has increased each year since 2010. 

 

If we make the banks 'pay' now you wont be able to pay for all the wonderful free things Comrade Corbyn wants, and we probably wont even be able to afford basic things like helping somebody rushed into A&E after a car crash. 

 

STILL SOCIAL JUSTICE! EVERYONE POOR!  RED ARMY!  KEEP THE RED FLAG FLYING! 

 

If you don't think the banks and their jobs will leave under a Labour Tax regime, why one Earth would they live because of Brexit? Which essentially will end up being a diplomatical waste of time and effort when we eventually end up with what we have now but called Brexit! 

Edited 26 April 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You didn't even look at the article did you? It was about last night's vote to limit the powers conferred to the executive to rewrite laws without parliamentary approval. Absolutely nothing to do with the customs union. The issue raised is one that should have agreement from all sides of the debate. Perhaps you want to start again?

Apologies, I assumed it was the Lords bill on retention of the Customs Union. To be honest the sooner we get rid of the HoL the better anyway.

 

Absurd in this day and age an unelected set of privledged can have this much influence over the elected body.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, MattP said:

Apologies, I assumed it was the Lords bill on retention of the Customs Union. To be honest the sooner we get rid of the HoL the better anyway.

 

Absurd in this day and age an unelected set of privledged can have this much influence over the elected body.

I agree when it comes to cronies and party funders etc. I happen to believe that the lords tends to take a less partisan view and often improves legislation. Last nights vote is a case in point - MPs voted as they were told to, broadly, and are too busy thinking about their careers to vote as they really believe. The idea of the executive being given Henry VIII power should worry everybody bit was voted through the commons absolutely wrongly. The Lord's did their job superbly last night. However much you want Brexit you should be agreeing with this. So I'd like to retain something to do the job of the lords. I should believe in an elected second chamber but I always worry if that'll just lead to the same partisan politics that we get in the commons. The fact the lords have protected positions allows them to vote with their concience. That's actually a very good thing. So I'd actually retain it though with different rules around membership and how people get put into the lords.

Edited 26 April 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

On a separate matter, if Amber Rudd doesn't end up resigning over the absolute fiasco in the home office the idea of anybody ever resigning over anything ever again has gone for good. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

13 minutes ago, toddybad said:

On a separate matter, if Amber Rudd doesn't end up resigning over the absolute fiasco in the home office the idea of anybody ever resigning over anything ever again has gone for good. 

Possibly in the Westminster bubble. I mean you have the leader of the opposition already immune to calls to resign over a failure to deal with an internal culture where MPs who do not agree with 'dear leader' are harassed and harranged out of the party with a barrage of hateful abuse, ranging from rape threats and anti-Semitism. Its a pretty disgusting culture, but if you have snakes like Seamus Milne in there it is to be expected. 

Edited 26 April 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

Possibly in the Westminster bubble. I mean you have the leader of the opposition already immune to calls to resign over a failure to deal with an internal culture where MPs who do not agree with 'dear leader' are harassed and harranged out of the party with a barrage of hateful abuse, ranging from rape threats and anti-Semitism. 

Do you write for the daily mail?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Do you write for the daily mail?

No do you write for the Guardian? . 

 

If being the 'leader' of an establishment with a huge internal culture problem is not a good reason to resign then I do not know what else could be to be honest. If the daft old cvnt did leave it would instantly make Labour more electable, if they could ditch the entire shadow cabinet and scale back their spending plans they would be votable. 

Edited 26 April 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Sharpe's Fox]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

(for the bolded bit)

 

You don't even actually look into this do you? Just see EU = Good, Brexit = Bad. The Customs Union option is the worst of the lot, it leaves us still inside the jurisdiction of the EU with absolutely no say in how it's run. The Labour position on this a few months ago was excellent and your shadow minister Barry Gardner made the case for leaving the CU brilliantly - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/24/leaving-eu-single-market-customs-union-brexit-britain-europe

 

 

We'd be better off just staying in the European Union than coming out and staying in the Customs Union. Then we can start the campaign again to leave properly via electing a parliament to do so.

Don't care if it brings down the goverment. I'd go full eurononce and start singing Ode to Joy in a beret if it meant JC and JMcD could start delivering SOCIAL JUSTICE

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

No do you write for the Guardian? . 

 

If being the 'leader' of an establishment with a huge internal culture problem is not a good reason to resign then I do not know what else could be to be honest. If the daft old cvnt did leave it would instantly make Labour more electable, if they could ditch the entire shadow cabinet and scale back their spending plans they would be votable. 

Id happily see the leadership and half the shadow cabinet replaced and agree out would boost the ratings.same policies but different leader would result in a landslide win imho.

[Guest MattP]

57 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I agree when it comes to cronies and party funders etc. I happen to believe that the lords tends to take a less partisan view and often improves legislation. Last nights vote is a case in point - MPs voted as they were told to, broadly, and are too busy thinking about their careers to vote as they really believe. The idea of the executive being given Henry VIII power should worry everybody bit was voted through the commons absolutely wrongly. The Lord's did their job superbly last night. However much you want Brexit you should be agreeing with this. So I'd like to retain something to do the job of the lords. I should believe in an elected second chamber but I always worry if that'll just lead to the same partisan politics that we get in the commons. The fact the lords have protected positions allows them to vote with their concience. That's actually a very good thing. So I'd actually retain it though with different rules around membership and how people get put into the lords.

To be honest my only wish from this was that there was so much scrutiny, passion and debate about these powers when we were giving them away in the first place.

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

To be honest my only wish from this was that there was so much scrutiny, passion and debate about these powers when we were giving them away in the first place.

 

But that's different thing.

I'm happy with the EU having the powers it has. Parliament and the lords did scrutinise, they just didn't come to an answer you liked. That's a different thing.

[Guest MattP]

Another cracking story on Internal Labour and Barmy Chris, MP turns up to give evidence against someone who threw anti-semitic abuse at her - Chris Williamson turns up to give a character reference for the abuser.

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/94662/chris-williamson-condemned-being-character-witness

Quote

 

A Labour MP has been condemned after it emerged he has agreed to be a character witness for a party activist accused of anti-Semitism.

 

Chris Williamson's decision comes amid controversy over his planned appearance next week on a platform with Jackie Walker, who is also facing claims of stirring up anti-Jewish feeling.

Mr Williamson - a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn - is due to give evidence at the disciplinary hearing of Marc Wadsworth, who is accused of verbally abusing Jewish MP Ruth Smeeth.

 

Ms Smeeth was flanked by around 50 colleagues as she arrived at the meeting of Labour's National Constitution Committee in London this morning.

But it also emerged that Derby North MP Mr Williamson was there supporting Mr Wadsworth, who is a member of the Momentum Black Connexions group.

He has been suspended from the Labour party since the alleged incident involving Ms Smeeth, which took place at the launch of Shami Chakrabarti's report into anti-Semitism nearly two years ago.

One Labour MP said: "Chris Williamson should be following Wadsworth out of the party - so he will probably be in the Shadow Cabinet by Christmas."

Earlier, Shadow International Trade Secretary Barry Gardiner said Mr Williamson was "wrong" to appear alongside Jackie Walker. She has been suspended by Labour since she claimed "the Jews were the chief financiers of the slave trade".

He said: "One in this country is still innocent until proven guilty. It's right that when somebody has been found guilty nobody should share a platform. My own view, my personal view, is that Chris is wrong to share a platform with somebody who has expressed the views that she has."