UK Politics: The End of May

[Heartofice]

I wasn't just the EC Budget chief who said this either:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/816923/Brexit-news-EU-Guy-Verhofstadt-UK-lose-rebate-opt-outs-if-rejoins

Quote

"BRITAIN will lose the favourable terms of its EU membership including the budget rebate and opt-outs on Schengen and the euro if it chooses to withdraw Article 50 and rejoin the club, the European parliament’s Brexit negotiator said today."

The ever "lovely" Guy Verhofstadt said :
 

Quote

 

 "I know yesterday Emmanuel Macron spoke about an open door, he said If Britain is changing its mind it will find an open door. I can say agree I don’t disagree with him but like Alice in Wonderland not all doors are the same.

"It will be a brand new door. A brand new door with a new Europe, a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real power and with unity. That is the door towards Europe." 

 

 

[Which Tyler]

Then they're wrong.

If we revoke article 50 without having left, and we've never left, and our terms aren't renegotiated unless we want to.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Then they're wrong.

If we revoke article 50 without having left, and we've never left, and our terms aren't renegotiated unless we want to.

So you are saying they are lying??? 

See you in court Guy! 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

In some (maybe not so) distant futures the rebates will be gone. Yes. I don't like Oettinger at all. But his position seems to be closest to reality. Continuation of the gradual exit from the rebates.

Which is not the same as. Revoke and all the rebates are gone

Macron can expect demand a lot of things, it doesn't mean they become reality. I mean I'd like to see him try to. But I just don't see the legal mechanism for it. And Guy is describing Macron's (and maybe  his own) vision for Europe. However Macron can't even get Merkel onboard for his European vision, so how likely is it, that Britain will not veto the living daylight out of his proposals? Spoiler: Not very likely.

I thought somebody with English as his mother tongue should be able to comprehend what is actually being said.

[Loge]

13 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Then they're wrong.

If we revoke article 50 without having left, and we've never left, and our terms aren't renegotiated unless we want to.

Apparently that's not true. From the Wikipedia article:  

Quote

Although the rebate is not set in the EU treaties, it is negotiated as part of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) every seven years and must be unanimously agreed.^[4]

 

So, the rebate will be subject to negotiations.

 

[Heartofice]

Well if the two of the more important people in Europe like to come out and say that the rebate will disappear should Britain revoke Article 50 then I suspect there might be something in it. 

Even if they are wrong, it seems clear that our rebate would disappear at some point and be negotiated out, especially with our weak negotiating position, and so we would in fact be paying far more than we are now.. and then what Boris was saying would be even closer to the truth, and everyones crying would be for nothing.

[SeanF]

Rebates would likely go in the next round of budgetary negotiations, in any case.

[SeanF]

9 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Tory leadership just hotted up - this was always a possibility, but...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/boris-johnson-trial-brexit-court-lying-prosecution-nhs-vote-leave-a8934451.html

Oh, and before anyone comments on how "convenient" the timing is - this has been rattling away since September, and IIRC this decision was given an approximate date in March - any leadership timing is down to May (who can't have not known, surely)

The case is BS, though.  There have been any number of attempts to sue and prosecute politicians over things they've said in elections which have got nowhere.  The courts are not interested in adjudicating political arguments.

 

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

The case is BS, though.  There have been any number of attempts to sue and prosecute politicians over things they've said in elections which have got nowhere.  The courts are not interested in adjudicating political arguments.

 

The timing is clearly not a coincidence either 

 

Edit.. ok maybe it is, but it’s certainly not good timing 

[The BlackBear]

Well I guess we're not having IndyRef2 as Sajid 'won't allow' it. I have no idea which of the Tory candidates I'd dislike the least.

[john]

13 hours ago, SeanF said:

The case is BS, though.  There have been any number of attempts to sue and prosecute politicians over things they've said in elections which have got nowhere.  The courts are not interested in adjudicating political arguments.

The courts aren’t interested in adjudicating BS cases either.  The two things can’t be true.  Political motivations for bringing the case, sure.  But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a case to answer.  There is, the district judge said so.

And if the timing of her resignation was an example of political nous by May, that would almost be ... impressive!?!

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, john said:

The courts aren’t interested in adjudicating BS cases either.  The two things can’t be true.  Political motivations for bringing the case, sure.  But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a case to answer.  There is, the district judge said so.

If we are going to start prosecuting politicians for lying then we are going to run out of space in our prisons.

[Nevarfeather]

23 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If we are going to start prosecuting politicians for lying then we are going to run out of space in our prisons.

So politicians should be above the law?
interesting take

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, Nevarfeather said:

So politicians should be above the law?
interesting take

I'm saying all politicians lie all the time. Who is going to be next?

[Nevarfeather]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I'm saying all politicians lie all the time. Who is going to be next?

Oh i see, youre saying they break the law all the time but we should do nothing about that

interesting take

what's the difference between a politician and the tobacco industry or a journalist or a civil servant? If the Tobacco industry lied about their product on the side of a bus they would get dragged into court, if a journalist lied about a quote they would face prosecution, if a civil servant lied about a policy they would face the law....none of those can lie without facing consequences, but you think we should just have special case for politicians. like i say that's a really interesting take

[Werthead]

The charge against Boris would be Misconduct in Public Office, using his status as a Member of Parliament and former Mayor of London to make grandiose claims which were verifiably untrue. Technically, Gove (who was an actual minister at the time) would also be open to the same claim.

14 hours ago, SeanF said:

Rebates would likely go in the next round of budgetary negotiations, in any case.

Britain can veto this. Britain's position is also that if the rebate goes, then all subsidies for all member states go, including the subsidies for French farmers (which is the only thing keeping them afloat), so that's not going to happen. France would quit the EU first.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

The charge against Boris would be Misconduct in Public Office, using his status as a Member of Parliament and former Mayor of London to make grandiose claims which were verifiably untrue. Technically, Gove (who was an actual minister at the time) would also be open to the same claim.

Britain can veto this. Britain's position is also that if the rebate goes, then all subsidies for all member states go, including the subsidies for French farmers (which is the only thing keeping them afloat), so that's not going to happen. France would quit the EU first.

I'm aware what the charge is.  It's just not going to get anywhere.  Even Jolyon Maugham thinks it's absurd.  It's like the efforts that people made to sue or prosecute Tony Blair over Iraq.  You basically have to injure or defraud people, or refrain from acting in such a way as to injure or defraud people, in the course of acting in a public office, to be convicted.  The CPS make it plain in their guidance that the bar for conviction is a very high one. 

[Which Tyler]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

The CPS make it plain in their guidance that the bar for conviction is a very high one. 

Which is relevant how? This case has nothing to do with the CPS.

 

 

Anyway, is anyone else just waiting for Larry Mouser to announce his leadership bid?
TBH, I've probably more faith in him than any of the other candidates.

[Spockydog]

14 minutes ago, Soylent Brown said:

While the legal case may not have legs, we absolutely should be holding politicians to account for their lies. It really shouldn't be acceptable that some of these fuckers churn out bullshit almost non-stop.

Indeed. It would be nice if someone crowdfunded a private prosecution of David Davies. His repeated lies about the non-existence of the 60 or so sector impact assessments he commissioned were inexcusable. 

 

[williamjm]

I know it's only a single poll and could turn out to be an outlier, but it's still something to see the Lib Dems leading a general election poll, with Labour and the Tories tied for third behind Farage.