I checked with Barnier within the last hour. Who has duke is still the sticking point and not Ireland, they said they would write off the £39 billion if we keep him, we asked duke but he said he was busy, talking to people
Airbus statement was at Government's request..... Airbus’s Senior UK Vice President Katherine Bennett let slip a key nugget of information live on Sky News this afternoon as part of their anti-No Deal media blitz. When challenged over whether “the government put you up to this,” after initially deflecting the question, Bennett confirmed that the Government had indeed asked them to up the ante on Project Fear: “They did say could you make sure that you make clear the potential impact of a No Deal, and we are happy to do that because No Deal is potentially going to be catastrophic for us. ”Tom Williams, then chief operating officer and the only Briton on the company’s board, warned that if Brexit meant delays caused by the reintroduction of border and customs controls, along with the need to stockpile parts, Airbus faced a €1bn-a-week bill. Really??? You only turnover £60B/year, have you had Abbot working on your figures? Complete bollocks! Jaguar to extend closure "due to Brexit". How convenient, I thought it was because they couldn't sell their cars in China?
And McClusky said jlr boss said the business could fold in weeks with no deal More dreamers from the hard left
I bet they won’t be dropping Heineken or Carlsberg or Guinness though. It’s just a little statement that won’t affect their business but will make a small point.
I don’t think it is anymore. I’m pretty sure all Guinness is now brewed at the enlarged brewery at St. James’ Gate, Dublin and then shopped worldwide.
Not since the brewery there was demolished and replaced with office blocks twelve years ago! http://breweryhistory.com/wiki/index.php?title=Guinness_(Park_Royal)
"Her Majesty’s Government controls the legislative agenda through the Leader of the House in conjunction with the Speaker of the House. The Leader of the House is a cabinet minister, currently Andrea Leadsom, a Brexiteer and Theresa May’s last rival for the leadership in 2016 after Cameron resigned because he lost the referendum. Theresa May won by default because Leadsom withdrew when journalists started door-stepping her relatives. The final two leadership candidates are supposed to be put to the ordinary party membership around the country for a vote, a membership which is overwhelmingly Brexiteer, and whose most favoured outcome is a tungsten-tipped Brexit. There was much talk last week of Conservative Remain members of parliament, in particular former ministers Nick Boles (junior minister under Cameron) and Dominic Grieve (attorney general under Cameron) taking control of the legislative agenda despite the fact that the agenda is at the control of the Government under Royal Prerogative. This would be subverting the authority of the Crown by removing the right to set the agenda from the Leader of the House. Seizing control of the legislative agenda, for the purposes of preventing a ‘no deal’ Brexit, would require the assent of the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow. When he was first elected to that position, he was described as Caligula’s Horse, and has lived down to that description throughout his tenure. Bercow is a Remain supporter. On Monday, Sir Stephen Laws, the government’s retired head of constitutional law, warned that the usurpation of the legislative agenda from the Government of the Crown could necessitate the refusal of Royal Assent for the first time since the reign of Queen Anne, a time before the Act of Union with Scotland, more than 300 years ago. This is where you get the concept of a Presidential veto from. However, there is no parliamentary override vote. Having the warning issued by Sir Stephen was a discreet way of warning the Speaker, analogously to having a former Chief of the Defence Staff speak to the press to warn politicians of things that a serving military officer cannot say. Because Monday’s warning was clearly insufficient to deter the Speaker from the proposed usurpation of the legislative agenda, it was repeated on Tuesday by a spokesman of Her Majesty’s Government. That seems to have had the effect, because all of the amendments presented to the Speaker by the members of parliament yesterday are amendments to motions, not amendments to legislation. In other words, they are merely opportunities for meaningless bloviating with no force of law. This avoids the Queen having to refuse Royal Assent to legislation. If Parliament had attempted to hold an override vote, then it is likely that the troops that are normally seen by the tourists in full ceremonial uniforms would have been sent directly to the chamber of the Commons to arrest the speaker, seize the mace (the legal authority of parliament), and throw the offenders in the Tower of London (that’s what it’s there for). The Queen would then have prorogued parliament pending fresh elections. The last time such things happened, there was a civil war of Parliament against the King. The King lost his head in Whitehall, and Parliament made such a mess of things that his son was invited to restore the monarchy. Charles the First had been particularly feckless, which must have been surprising because his father, James the First had been one of our best monarchs. It is worth noting that the Queen allowed herself to be caught on an open microphone during her robing in the Victoria Tower for the State Opening of Parliament, prior to the referendum, voicing her support for Brexit. That didn’t happen by accident. The Victoria Tower is where all the Acts of Parliament are all held on vellum scrolls. So, the position now is that the House of Commons will not manage to pass any legislation to change the already legislated default position of ‘no deal’ with the EU. On the matter of Brexit, we have crushed our enemies, seen them driven before us, and what we are now hearing is the lamentation of their women. What will happen now is that Theresa May will consult with absolutely everyone in an alleged effort to put together some type of workable deal. This is simply a displacement activity, like a hamster washing itself when threatened. The consultations will assume an ever more feverish intensity the closer we get to 29 March. But the fact is that the alignment of interests of all groups involved in Brexit is such that no coherent position can be established for a deal to be made. She is now, as some have alleged, simply running down the clock to ‘no deal’. But of course that this is now government policy must be denied to the last breath". If this is true, a no-deal Brexit is most likely. So..... to put it into simple terms - To try and stop brexit and repeal the law, it would have to go through secondary legislation used to make changes to law, the existing Act of Parliament (law) and does this mainly through statutory instruments. It needs to go through the House of Lords procedure - statutory instruments (takes time) House of Commons procedure - statutory instruments (again takes time) then back to the lords and then back to the house, all of this takes time". Excerpt from an email on Vox Popoli,
The EU’s long-running duplicity over the Irish border has finally come to a head this week with the Commission wrapping itself up in knots trying to maintain its spurious position on the backstop after Commission Spokesman Margaritas Schinas caused a major fuss on Tuesday by saying that the EU would force Ireland to erect a hard border in the event of no deal. Not going to happen. Michel Barnier then let the cat out of the bag yesterday while trying to reverse the diplomatic damage, admitting that in the event of no deal “we will have to find an operational way of carrying out checks and controls without putting back in place a border”, going on to say that “my team have worked hard to study how controls can be made paperless or decentralised, which will be useful in all circumstances.” Thus blowing apart the entire fiction that the backstop is necessary to avoid a hard border… The Telegraph’s James Crisp grilled Schinas on this very point today, who ended up so flustered by the question that he eventually snapped back: “write what you like”. The sham of needing the backstop to avoid a hard border is finally starting to unravel in Brussels. Time the sycophantic British media and political establishment woke up too… https://order-order.com/2019/01/24/...HPJQPqR-hz5YYi-9x4Q11lsKddm7xOmnBhDWytt3CQywU
Both the EU and UK have indeed tried hard to come up with a way to avoid a hard border via technology but have so far failed miserably. That is the whole point of the backstop, to harmonise both sides of the border while further attempts are made to find a technological solution.
