Here's a summary of that Declaration Of UK Independence that brexiteers have been waiting for:

 

(BBC website)

 

The main details from the Chequers statement:

 

1. The UK would accept continuing "harmonisation" with EU rules on the trade in goods, covering only those necessary to ensure frictionless trade

 

2. Parliament would have the final say over how these rules are incorporated into UK law, retaining the right to refuse to do so

 

3. There will be different arrangements for trade in services, including financial products, with greater "regulatory flexibility" and "strong reciprocal arrangements"

 

4. Freedom of movement as it stands will come to an end but a "mobility framework" will ensure UK and EU citizens can continue to travel to each other's territories and apply for study and work

 

5. A new customs arrangement will be phased in, with the goal of "a combined customs territory"

 

6. The UK will be able to control its own tariffs and develop an independent trade policy

 

7. The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will end but the UK will pay regard to its decisions in areas where common rules are in force

 

Just to be helpful, here's how I expect the EU will respond:

 

1. Keep the same tax rates as the EU on incoming goods and outgoing UK goods and you've got a deal. Other than that how do you stop cheap foreign imports illegally crossing a "frictionless border" into the EU?

 

2. So it's an agreement not to agree if it's a bit rainy and the mood takes? Sounds a bit dodgy. Exclude the "Right To Refuse" bit and you've got a deal.

 

3. Sounds like you want Services access to the EU, 80% of your business, in return for giving the EU Services access (much less of our business). What's all this "flexibility" crap actually mean to our laws? You want us to change our laws so you can save London as the financial centre of Europe? Err why don't we just take your business instead, thanks?

 

4. So, like all citizens of the world, you can apply to work in the EU, and twe can apply to work in the UK? How, exactly, does that mean anything other than what Americans have to do to work in both currently? Sounds like an attempt to sort-of have non-Freedom-of-movement preferred treatment so that you don't lose all those cheap labouring jobs and doctors jobs that you're going to have to attract from outside Europe instead (ie lots of non-whites, that'll go down really well with Brexiters. How's that limit-thing on NHS doctors worked out for you?)

 

5. So, a customs agreement then? It can't be an "arrangement" unless you sign something. At which point it's an "agreement". We have those already, with Norway and Switzerland. Works very well. They give us cash every year to have access to the EU. Are you suggesting we give them freebies along with the UK? Piss off!

 

6. No it won't. See above comments about illegal goods entering the EU, and the Good Friday Agreement which guarantees no restrictions on goods. You DID sign up for it you know? Failing that we are making arrangements to introduce a hard border. We've been very organised about it. A Hard Brexit means no access at all for the whole of the UK for anything, it will mean you being treated as if you were Russian goods entering the EU by land.

 

7. Err, no. It's our club and our rules. If you don't want to agree the rules piss off and join another club. Hopw on Earth can we agree to a non-member having control over our rules and regulations, what are we, insane? That would mean the end of the EU. Twats.

 

 

 

 

What could possibly go wrong by October, eh?

Here's a summary of that Declaration Of UK Independence that brexiteers have been waiting for:

 

(BBC website)

 

The main details from the Chequers statement:

 

1. The UK would accept continuing "harmonisation" with EU rules on the trade in goods, covering only those necessary to ensure frictionless trade

 

2. Parliament would have the final say over how these rules are incorporated into UK law, retaining the right to refuse to do so

 

3. There will be different arrangements for trade in services, including financial products, with greater "regulatory flexibility" and "strong reciprocal arrangements"

 

4. Freedom of movement as it stands will come to an end but a "mobility framework" will ensure UK and EU citizens can continue to travel to each other's territories and apply for study and work

 

5. A new customs arrangement will be phased in, with the goal of "a combined customs territory"

 

6. The UK will be able to control its own tariffs and develop an independent trade policy

 

7. The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will end but the UK will pay regard to its decisions in areas where common rules are in force

 

Just to be helpful, here's how I expect the EU will respond:

 

1. Keep the same tax rates as the EU on incoming goods and outgoing UK goods and you've got a deal. Other than that how do you stop cheap foreign imports illegally crossing a "frictionless border" into the EU?

 

2. So it's an agreement not to agree if it's a bit rainy and the mood takes? Sounds a bit dodgy. Exclude the "Right To Refuse" bit and you've got a deal.

 

3. Sounds like you want Services access to the EU, 80% of your business, in return for giving the EU Services access (much less of our business). What's all this "flexibility" crap actually mean to our laws? You want us to change our laws so you can save London as the financial centre of Europe? Err why don't we just take your business instead, thanks?

 

4. So, like all citizens of the world, you can apply to work in the EU, and twe can apply to work in the UK? How, exactly, does that mean anything other than what Americans have to do to work in both currently? Sounds like an attempt to sort-of have non-Freedom-of-movement preferred treatment so that you don't lose all those cheap labouring jobs and doctors jobs that you're going to have to attract from outside Europe instead (ie lots of non-whites, that'll go down really well with Brexiters. How's that limit-thing on NHS doctors worked out for you?)

 

5. So, a customs agreement then? It can't be an "arrangement" unless you sign something. At which point it's an "agreement". We have those already, with Norway and Switzerland. Works very well. They give us cash every year to have access to the EU. Are you suggesting we give them freebies along with the UK? Piss off!

 

6. No it won't. See above comments about illegal goods entering the EU, and the Good Friday Agreement which guarantees no restrictions on goods. You DID sign up for it you know? Failing that we are making arrangements to introduce a hard border. We've been very organised about it. A Hard Brexit means no access at all for the whole of the UK for anything, it will mean you being treated as if you were Russian goods entering the EU by land.

 

7. Err, no. It's our club and our rules. If you don't want to agree the rules piss off and join another club. Hopw on Earth can we agree to a non-member having control over our rules and regulations, what are we, insane? That would mean the end of the EU. Twats.

What could possibly go wrong by October, eh?

 

Or, to paraphrase, the UK still wants to go from being a member with lots of opt-outs to being a non-member with some opt-ins.

 

Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed.

How so?

 

Well, none of us like the Tories very much, but most of us don't see paranoid conspiracy theories as being the only possible reason people would vote for them. Their economic policies will benefit many voters more than the Corbyn's would. Labour's tradition tax/borrow/spend agenda is obvious;y going to be popular with those who don't expect to have to foot the bill - but the main problem is, Labour don't know where to stop, hence the mess the economy was in when they left office in 2010.

Or, to paraphrase, the UK still wants to go from being a member with lots of opt-outs to being a non-member with some opt-ins.

 

Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed.

 

Nothing much there for *Remainers* to complain about...

Well, none of us like the Tories very much, but most of us don't see paranoid conspiracy theories as being the only possible reason people would vote for them. Their economic policies will benefit many voters more than the Corbyn's would. Labour's tradition tax/borrow/spend agenda is obvious;y going to be popular with those who don't expect to have to foot the bill - but the main problem is, Labour don't know where to stop, hence the mess the economy was in when they left office in 2010.

 

The main problem with your statement is facts don't support it. National debt is the highest ever. The mess left by Labour was from supporting Tory policies with regard to Banking and bankers and business leaders doing what they want (Banking crisis was supported by and created by Tories in the first place, on Tory free market big-is-brilliant what's too-big-to-fail attitudes and policies).

 

Tories have just said we are going to be taxed more in order to pay for the NHS to cover the lies they made about the EU refunds covering it in the referendum. Following their starving it in the first place.

 

I agree about conspiracy theories. The reality is a large proportion of people just get pissed-off about something and vote emotionally with no regard to consequences about false promises, led by newspaper headlines.

Well, none of us like the Tories very much, but most of us don't see paranoid conspiracy theories as being the only possible reason people would vote for them. Their economic policies will benefit many voters more than the Corbyn's would. Labour's tradition tax/borrow/spend agenda is obvious;y going to be popular with those who don't expect to have to foot the bill - but the main problem is, Labour don't know where to stop, hence the mess the economy was in when they left office in 2010.

 

The national debt has doubled under the incompetent rich old Etonian club.

 

And the alright Jacks have their numbers inflated by an attack dog one party state media that convinces other people to vote for that odious party. If you are not rich, they do not represent you.

The national debt has doubled under the incompetent rich old Etonian club.

 

And the alright Jacks have their numbers inflated by an attack dog one party state media that convinces other people to vote for that odious party. If you are not rich, they do not represent you.

 

The BBC may be biased (though I would argue it's not what you claim it is) but they dont actually say VOTE TORY, at worst they attack the other parties more than they attack Tories and that is the only sort of bias. Compare that with say Fox News, which is blatant pure propaganda with no basis in fact. It's Murdoch's view of the universe writ large and it is him more than any other individual in existence who has caused the detestable deterioration and lies in democracies across the world, but especially the USA and UK. Or try Russia Today and spot the propaganda and lies. It's not difficult. Most of the world's big news outlets are truly state or mogul-controlled, and in comparison, even with the recent evidence of bias, the BBC is just farty small-fry, and Corbyn is free to take them head-on and turn up to challenge them directly instead of sitting on his arse moaning about it. There is a body for complaints, and he can pursue that if he'd actually turn up and have a specific reason to complain. Until he battles for his parties causes, rather than ignore those he doesn't like, ignore his core voters, and actually stand up as a man of principle for what's right rather than get weighed down by his own decades-long biased views mumbling in the background he can only hope to be the Party Of Not Tory, which is not a great way to convince people to vote for you....

The national debt would've increased a lot under any government taking over though. There was a budget decifict of almost £150 billion a year when the tories took over. If you wanted the national debt to decrease/stay the same with such a budget deficit, you would be talking austerity 100 times worse than what the tories have already done. The budget deficit has decreased over the years to now reasonable levels, being 2.4% of GDP in 2017 and likely lower for 2018. The debt as a % of GDP should start falling over the next few years. Getting the deficit and ulitmately the debt down is definitley a priority. The government spend £39 billion a year on the interest and with the debt still rising and interest rates also beginning to rise, it'll save money in the long run getting it down.

 

However, I don't agree with the way they've gone about it. They could've easily have scrapped HS2 (£55 billion+) and Hinkley (£20 billion+) and spent half of that money on impoving existing infrastructure/building other infrastructure for a more resonable price. The other half of the money could've then been used to fund public services and keep funding levels fairly unchanged for them as opposed to the cuts that were implemented.

You mean the austerity measures that weren't necessary, were a lie repeated ad infinitum by the press and have been described as an ideological choice rather than an economic benefit?

The national debt would've increased a lot under any government taking over though. There was a budget decifict of almost £150 billion a year when the tories took over. If you wanted the national debt to decrease/stay the same with such a budget deficit, you would be talking austerity 100 times worse than what the tories have already done. The budget deficit has decreased over the years to now reasonable levels, being 2.4% of GDP in 2017 and likely lower for 2018. The debt as a % of GDP should start falling over the next few years. Getting the deficit and ulitmately the debt down is definitley a priority. The government spend £39 billion a year on the interest and with the debt still rising and interest rates also beginning to rise, it'll save money in the long run getting it down.

 

However, I don't agree with the way they've gone about it. They could've easily have scrapped HS2 (£55 billion+) and Hinkley (£20 billion+) and spent half of that money on impoving existing infrastructure/building other infrastructure for a more resonable price. The other half of the money could've then been used to fund public services and keep funding levels fairly unchanged for them as opposed to the cuts that were implemented.

 

Facts and figures over the long term and since the Banking Crisis.

 

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_natio...eficit_analysis

 

Just to point out: Tories and Labour held the same view about bankers in the years leading up to the Crisis: neither took any notice of warnings. At the next 2 elections both parties were also competing to slash more than the other one, or quicker. The result has been a lot of dead people, a lot of homeless people, 10 years of hardship, and now Brexit casting a loooong shadow over the future which may have disastrous economic consequences yet to come.

 

If the NHS hadnt been piecemeal cut into bits (cough, Tory) and remained one unified IT-connected system then perhaps a large deal of the debt that would have happened anyway as we all live longer (historically-speaking, but not actually recently-speaking) then maybe that "black hole" might have been quite cost effective. Same goes for shitty expensive local government and national government privatisations which could have saved tons of money just by keeping skilled staff instead of selling it to profit-driven pirates. So - lots of alternatives to the massive problems resulting from stupid political decisions over decades on both sides (but mostly Tory). And as usual it's Joe Bloggs that saves the neck of the rich lying twats and their dumb-ass extreme obsessions about the private sector being better and cheaper. It isn't. It CAN be, but usually it isn't. There are consequences.

 

 

You mean the austerity measures that weren't necessary, were a lie repeated ad infinitum by the press and have been described as an ideological choice rather than an economic benefit?

 

I agree, hence my second statement about HS2/Hinkley. Plus there are many other things that could've been done instead.

 

Let's just hope the soft brexit goes through so the economy can get a boost from increased confidence in the future relationship with the EU, which should increase tax revenues and help decrease the budget deficit sooner rather than later. Of course that all depends on the EU now. The upcoming week will be interesting with the white paper published and the EU reaction.

 

The Tories find themselves in a very difficult position though. The Tories gained a lot of the UKIP vote after promising "Brexit means Brexit". With a (very) soft Brexit agreed by the cabinet, the tories could lose a few % in the opinions polls. Not too sure what effect it will have in terms of which parties remainers vote, as a lot of those are more likely to vote LDs/Labour/SNP/Green.

Brexit Secretary David Davis has RESIGNED!

!!!!! *.*

Boris next pls

Steve Baker is gone as well!!! :lol:

LMAO!!

 

Who was it who said the last time England got to the semi finals thr woman prime minister was on her last legs?! Wonder if the government is about to collapse AGAIN

As much as I'd love to relish in Tory histrionics, this would be much more ideal if they were in opposition right now. If you see it as a telenovella rather than determining the future of the country then it's pretty lit though.

The Tories find themselves in a very difficult position though. The Tories gained a lot of the UKIP vote after promising "Brexit means Brexit". With a (very) soft Brexit agreed by the cabinet, the tories could lose a few % in the opinions polls. Not too sure what effect it will have in terms of which parties remainers vote, as a lot of those are more likely to vote LDs/Labour/SNP/Green.

 

BUt where would those returning UKIP voters go? There's no-one else that would offer them anything better...

Thicky lazy Davis knows it's all a shit-show and has been itching to get an exit since he got the job and realised he was never going to deliver any of his Referendum promises. He's even so thick he doesn't realise the EU won't agree to May's Fantasy EU Football and he may well be more likely to get the Hard Brexit he clearly wants.

 

Rather than UKIP, who are dead and buried, one should focus on Labour. Keir Starmer was on Breakfast BBC getting the knife in on the Tories (Note, with no Tory rep to counter his views) and was asked quite reasonably what Labour would do differently. He waffled about the split Tories, was reminded about split Labour, blathered on about how the country was split, families were split, and it was complicated. He DID infer Parliament should have a final vote on it, but at no point suggested the public should, despite the clear corrupt referendum campaign financed by Russian oligarchs, the lies and promises that havent and wont be delivered, and his own leaders part in not pushing Labour policy to Remain and buggering off on holiday instead and demanding Article 50 get invoked the very next day.

 

So that's why Labour politicians don't appear on the BBC. They get asked about Brexit and don't have an answer.

 

 

Interesting that the announcement for his resignation wasn't announced until after tomorrow's front pages were already printed. Once a politician...

 

Could be another General Election in the offing, which is the last thing we need at the moment. If it triggers May's resignation, it'll probably won't be one of the "characters" that takes over in my humble opinion, it'll be someone outwardly capable like Saviid Javid.