Brexit

lex-man wrote:Slightly outside of the Brexit discussion, I think we seriously need to change the laws about what politicians can say. I mean we have a ton of advertising laws about what adverts for biscuits can say but politicians are free to run their month spouting any old gooseberry fool and nothing happens.

Rocsteady wrote:

Karl wrote:

Lucien wrote:[I've blocked the following people so don't try to engage with me: Hexx, Karl, Moggy]

Nice try but I know the forum software won't let you block admins.

Saboteur

Hexx wrote:Um...I blocked Lucien like 3-4 years ago (I forget why)

I've no idea why he'd think I'd engage with him since I don't think I've ever clicked Show Post and replied :S

Although Errkal blocks Moderators for you if you ask nicely.

Moggy, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

GRcade, which is currently on your ignore list, has posts.
Display these posts.

Philip Hammond says criticism over Brexit comments 'absurd'

The chancellor has described as "bizarre" and "absurd" accusations he is talking down the economy.

Philip Hammond had been criticised for saying that the Brexit process has created uncertainty.

But in an interview, Mr Hammond said he was a realist and that he wanted to "protect and prepare" the economy for the challenges ahead.

Mr Hammond was speaking in Washington, where he is attending an International Monetary Fund meeting.

The chancellor said: "It is absurd to pretend that the process we are engaged in hasn't created some uncertainty. But the underlying economy remains robust.

"I am committed to delivering a Brexit deal that works for Britain," he added.

twitter.com/JamesMcGrory/status/918829388485005312

twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/918772092027498496

Moggy wrote:I love that Hexx thinks that him putting me on ignore would annoy me. I'd be grateful.

Ermm we are way off topic now.

Philip Hammond says criticism over Brexit comments 'absurd'

The chancellor has described as "bizarre" and "absurd" accusations he is talking down the economy.

Philip Hammond had been criticised for saying that the Brexit process has created uncertainty.

But in an interview, Mr Hammond said he was a realist and that he wanted to "protect and prepare" the economy for the challenges ahead.

Mr Hammond was speaking in Washington, where he is attending an International Monetary Fund meeting.

The chancellor said: "It is absurd to pretend that the process we are engaged in hasn't created some uncertainty. But the underlying economy remains robust.

"I am committed to delivering a Brexit deal that works for Britain," he added.

It's looking like a very easy way of getting rid of your political enemies now is to tell everyone that they are "not committed" to Brexit.

What a ridiculous situation we are in.

Lucien wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:This is what has annoyed me the most. The vast majority who voted to leave did so due to border controls and immigration as they believed the problem was the EU. But what annoys me isn't that they thought that it's that successive governments have failed to explain this to the public, they've spent years implying that the problem was the EU when in fact it was our governments choice as to what we did with immigration. I believe that they felt our economy needed this immigration but they didn't want to explain to the public that it was their choice and instead blamed the EU which in the end backfired. Even when it got as far as the brexit debates the remain side just stood there and took the all the flak on immigration, they never explained it the real situation and processes and how we could have a lot more control over our borders if we wanted to but we've chosen not to.

The UK's ability to lessen EU immigration was minimal anyway. We'd have had an influx of EU immigrants either way, and could only have kicked that can down the road. Future EU reform was the only hope if you wanted to remain. I agree with you when you say MPs probably wanted immigration, and so ignored the people they represented - that, of course, only added to the problem.

[I've blocked the following people so don't try to engage with me: Hexx, Karl, Moggy]

That simply isn’t true Lucien - the hurdles that can be thrown up to stop immigration are many, even within the EU. Did you see my earlier posts on moving to the (liberal) Netherlands?

I did, yep. Curious about you saying that the things weren't written into law? Did you mean EU law?

The barriers exist but I have doubts that they'd massively impact immigration in the UK, or impact it enough that people would be happy with the results (the ones who currently aren't). I'm happy to be shown otherwise, though/see how it is in the Netherlands' case.

Moggy wrote:The first graph is encouraging but there’s not as big a gap as it appears when you look at the numbers. It’s going the right way though.

The second one is misleading. Even ardent Leavers are not fans of the way things are going as they are worried about “betrayal” and Brexit not being as hard as they want it to be. “Going badly” would reflect both Remainers and hardcore Leavers dissatisfaction.

Nuclear industry acts on 'no deal' Brexit as MPs plot Euratom rebellion
The UK's nuclear chief says leaving Euratom is an "existential threat" to the industry, as MPs plan to amend the EU exit bill.

The British nuclear industry is activating plans to relocate some nuclear material and components around Europe, Sky News understands.

The move comes in anticipation of a failure to replace the UK's existing trading arrangements with Europe and the globe before Britain leaves the EU in March 2019.

Executives are now planning for potential legal barriers to the highly controlled movement of nuclear parts and materials into and out of the United Kingdom after Brexit.

Leading figures speaking privately to Sky News have complained of "no visibility" that full arrangements will be in place by 2019 to replace existing arrangements under the Euratom nuclear safety treaty and related third country treaties - and are "planning for a world where that doesn't happen".

The news comes as Sky News has learned Tory MPs plan a rebellion on Euratom by backing a new amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill, stalling leaving the treaty (which is separate from the EU), until the Government reports on how it will replace every existing nuclear relationship.

The transport, trade and regulation of nuclear materials, components and know-how is governed by a series of nuclear safeguards that have operated in the UK for four decades through the Euratom treaty.

In the Article 50 letter, the UK signalled its desire to leave Euratom at the same time as leaving the European Union.

This has led to a race against time to set up a domestic safeguards arrangement accredited by the International Atomic Energy Agency, a replacement arrangement with Europe, and a series of bilateral deals to replace Euratom's arrangements with key nuclear partners such as the US, Japan, Canada and Australia.

But talks to accredit this new domestic arrangement with the IAEA are far from complete, say industry insiders, and need to be finished before a range of new UK bilateral deals can be negotiated and then ratified in legislatures across the globe, including in the US Congress and by President Donald Trump.

"If we haven't got all that done then we are facing disruption to absolutely everything," says Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the Nuclear Industries Association.

"Fifteen months to two years sounds like a lot of time. It's not.

"The clock is ticking and it has been since the referendum and we've made very little progress so far."

The industry was also adamant that there is a serious issue about the supply of medical isotopes, a byproduct of the continental European nuclear industry, critical for cancer treatments.

The Government has dismissed fears over their supply as "scaremongering" but industry figures pointed out that their supply and transport is governed by the rules of the Nuclear Common Market and they are materials mentioned in the annexe of the Euratom treaty.

In its half-year results, Urenco, the partly state-owned uranium enrichment company reported: "The UK's withdrawal from Euratom also presents significant risks and Urenco is developing business continuity plans with the aim of mitigating some of the potential risks to the company".

On Monday an amendment on Euratom to the EU Withdrawal Bill tabled by Conservative former minister Ed Vaizey and Labour's Rachel Reeves will be published.

It will prevent the use of delegated powers until the Commons and the Lords votes for a published Government strategy to replace protections, safeguards, research and trading arrangements which "will lapse as a result of the UK's withdrawal from membership of the European Atomic Energy Community".

The amendment is expected to attract widespread Conservative rebel support, alongside others on Henry VIII powers and a Commons vote on the exit deal.

twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/918852496587739137

twitter.com/juliahb1/status/918603594567471104

Moggy wrote:“Hammond, your jobs at risk!”
“Brussels are the enemy!!!!”
“Good boy.”

Rex Kramer wrote:

Moggy wrote:“Hammond, your jobs at risk!”
“Brussels are the enemy!!!!”
“Good boy.”

Spineless.