More post brexit referendum good news!!!!

[Tall Paul]

I can't see how London can be a special case, it isn't a country.

If you define country as an independent sovereign state, which seems to be the accepted definition, neither is Northern Ireland.

[dsr]

Knowing what you think the EU is, and what it actually is have been proven time and time again to be vastly different.

I think it's a political union of 28 countries of which the UK is only 1, it's a political body with a very greedy and self-serving executive that are in it for themselves, it's a body that means any country that's a member is not an independent country, and it's a body that's riddled with corruption and can't ever get its a clean audit report on its accounts.

What part of this is wrong?

[Sidney1st]

If you define country as an independent sovereign state, which seems to be the accepted definition, neither is Northern Ireland.

Good luck saying that to the Irish.

[Lancasterclaret]

Your second part is a UKIP fantasy, as is the third and the fourth?

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditor ... eu-budget/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You don't like or want the EU. I get that, but your reasons are not based on fact.

[UpTheBeehole]

I think it's a political union of 28 countries of which the UK is only 1, it's a political body with a very greedy and self-serving executive that are in it for themselves, it's a body that means any country that's a member is not an independent country, and it's a body that's riddled with corruption and can't ever get its a clean audit report on its accounts.

What part of this is wrong?

You're confusing (your own, warped) opinion with fact.

Always has been your problem.

[Sidney1st]

Name me the FTSE 100 companies headquartered in Leave voting areas

Ah so you want to narrow it down to suit your side of the argument?
Why didn't you say so in the first place...

Or wouldn't that suit your argument?

[Sidney1st]

You're confusing (your own, warped) opinion with fact.

Always has been your problem.

Ding dong the irony gong has been sounded.

[UpTheBeehole]

Ah so you want to narrow it down to suit your side of the argument?
Why didn't you say so in the first place...

Or wouldn't that suit your argument?

????


Just name me the FTSE 100 companies headquartered in leave voting areas.

I'll even give you an interactive map to help.

http://www.cityam.com/1418219397/north- ... -you-think

[UpTheBeehole]

Ding dong the irony gong has been sounded.

Who can forget the famous intro to Rank films, where the topless strongman hits a gong, resulting in a a huge 'ding dong' sound.





It's doorbells which go ding dong, you utter doorbell.

[UpTheBeehole]

????


Just name me the FTSE 100 companies headquartered in leave voting areas.

I'll even give you an interactive map to help.

http://www.cityam.com/1418219397/north- ... -you-think

Still waiting Sidney

[Sidney1st]

????


Just name me the FTSE 100 companies headquartered in leave voting areas.

I'll even give you an interactive map to help.

http://www.cityam.com/1418219397/north- ... -you-think

Which bit did you struggle with the most?
Are you saying only the top 100 companies make money for the UK?
Is that why you want to narrow it down to them?

[Sidney1st]

Who can forget the famous intro to Rank films, where the topless strongman hits a gong, resulting in a a huge 'ding dong' sound.





It's doorbells which go ding dong, you utter doorbell.

Makes no odds, the irony was dripping off that post of yours.

[UpTheBeehole]

Makes no odds, the irony was dripping off that post of yours.

My opinion is always driven by fact.

[nil_desperandum]

So if most recent reports are correct the Brexit talks have stalled because the governing party - the DUP, won't agree to the proposed solution to the Irish border issue.
Further: Given the reaction to the proposal from the Scots, Welsh, the City of London and others, it's hard to see where TM can turn next.
Will this be - as so many predicted - the defining moment in the whole hard / soft brexit debate, and indeed in the whole brexit debate.
If the government collapses over this, and Labour put forward a sensible brexit policy, (probably including a referendum on the final deal), then I can see them romping home in the ensuing election.
[For this reason TM will just continue negotiating for as long as she can and just hope for the best. It's not a v strong negotiating position.]

[Guich]

[quote="nil_desperandum"] Labour put forward a sensible policy

I fear that may be far too big a challenge for the current Labour leadership, which is why we have an in-fighting, dysfunctional government for the foreseeable future.

[Sidney1st]

My opinion is always driven by fact.

Yeah we have that chat before and we've already proven it's ********.

[Paul Waine]

????


Just name me the FTSE 100 companies headquartered in leave voting areas.

I'll even give you an interactive map to help.

http://www.cityam.com/1418219397/north- ... -you-think

Hi UTB, as the referendum was a UK wide vote, I'd suggest that every FTSE company based in the UK fits into your "leave voting area." The ones not listed in the UK obviously weren't in any voting areas.

I think someone posted earlier about it being "a little servile" to suggest job applications to be made to one of the recently announced new employment opportunities.

I'm pretty clear that in a democracy the electorate is free to make their own decisions - and don't need to follow the lead of their employer, if they have one.

[Sidney1st]

Labour can put forward what they like but a large chunk of the country have already stated they didn't want Labour in charge at the last election.

[thatdberight]

So if most recent reports are correct the Brexit talks have stalled because the governing party - the DUP, won't agree to the proposed solution to the Irish border issue.
Further: Given the reaction to the proposal from the Scots, Welsh, the City of London and others, it's hard to see where TM can turn next.
Will this be - as so many predicted - the defining moment in the whole hard / soft brexit debate, and indeed in the whole brexit debate.
If the government collapses over this, and Labour put forward a sensible brexit policy, (probably including a referendum on the final deal), then I can see them romping home in the ensuing election.
[For this reason TM will just continue negotiating for as long as she can and just hope for the best. It's not a v strong negotiating position.]

If the European position is that (according to Varadker) the requirement is no hard border, "whatever the outcome", time to say that requirement is undeliverable and we would be negotiating in bad faith to continue.

[Healeywoodclaret]

Saying “I would love it if...(someone)...smashed your teeth in” would count as incitement to violence if you were any more than a keyboard warrior. Close enough to a threat in my book.

Especially when you follow it up with this...



...and this...



Now will you answer my question? Or just carry on with your “I know you are but what am I?” approach.

I’ll repeat it to make things easier for you

Do you understand that LC never called you a libtard?

Extra marks if you can tell me the point he was making.

Saying you would love it is close enough to a threat in your book. But it's not a threat is it?

[Bacchus]

So if most recent reports are correct the Brexit talks have stalled because the governing party - the DUP, won't agree to the proposed solution to the Irish border issue.

It's incredible that negotiations on the Irish border issue appear to be taking place without input from the Northern Ireland parties, particularly the DUP given their current arrangements with the government. It seemed strange that the DUP would be on board with the proposal that came out earlier. Now it's clear that they weren't it highlights the staggering arrogance of the government in apparently assuming they'd just fall into line with whatever agreement was reached.

[Lancasterclaret]

I think there will be a lot of phone calls tonight pointing out to the DUP that what they want is just not possible.

As long as they get more money for the North, and someone points out to them the economic windfall heading their way, then I'm sure they will fall into line.

The alternative damages them and brings in the near certainty of a labour govt under Corbyn. That won't be allowed by the DUP under any circumstances.

[Bacchus]

Labour can put forward what they like but a large chunk of the country have already stated they didn't want Labour in charge at the last election.

A majority of the country made clear they didn't want the Tories in charge but here we are.

[Bacchus]

I think there will be a lot of phone calls tonight pointing out to the DUP that what they want is just not possible.

As long as they get more money for the North, and someone points out to them the economic windfall heading their way, then I'm sure they will fall into line.

The alternative damages them and brings in the near certainty of a labour govt under Corbyn. That won't be allowed by the DUP under any circumstances.

I don't think it's just the DUP that would oppose a customs border between NI & GB. We're into impacting trade within the UK as well as internationally then.

As for DUP red lines - if it came to a choice between a Labour government and taking the first steps towards a unified Ireland, my guess would be that they'd opt for the former.

[RocketLawnChair]

A majority of the country made clear they didn't want the Tories in charge but here we are.

A larger majority didn’t want Labour though and that’s democracy. You accept what your given after a democratic vote.

UTB is rhyming off cities that voted Remain. It does not matter one jot. The referendum was one person one vote and we voted in constituencies to make counting easier no other reason. The referendum wasn’t a FPTP vote.

[thatdberight]

I don't think it's just the DUP that would oppose a customs border between NI & GB. We're into impacting trade within the UK as well as internationally then.

As for DUP red lines - if it came to a choice between a Labour government and taking the first steps towards a unified Ireland, my guess would be that they'd opt for the former.

They'd correctly see the former (while its Corbyn's Labour) as accelerating the latter much more quickly than anything else, so I'd not be so sure about that.

[Sidney1st]

A larger majority didn’t want Labour though and that’s democracy. You accept what your given after a democratic vote.

UTB is rhyming off cities that voted Remain. It does not matter one jot. The referendum was one person one vote and we voted in constituencies to make counting easier no other reason. The referendum wasn’t a FPTP vote.

Apparently accepting the result of a democratic vote doesn't apply to here.

[CrosspoolClarets]

This is step 1. Step 2 is that the ROI do not want customs arrangements with the wider UK either, it is too much of their overall trade. That's why this is the path to staying in, in essence, and NI are the excuse.

Looks like the Tories with their Remain leader are hoping the threat of Corbyn will keep the likes of Boris and the DUP in line. Not easy. This is going to widen divisions not heal them.

[summitclaret]

At some point soon TM is going to have to take a big risk. She is going to have to tell the DUP that if they bugger up Brexit then they can look forward to a united Ireland. This is because after the inevitable early GE, Corbyn will give his friends in Ireland what they want. The majority of the English and Welsh will never forgive them if they cock up Brexit.

[Bacchus]

Is "Corbyn will reunify Ireland" the new "Turkey are joining the EU" when it comes to bullshit reasons for Brexit at any cost?

I'm fairly certain he couldn't do it unilaterally.

[Greenmile]

Saying you would love it is close enough to a threat in your book. But it's not a threat is it?

Are you going to answer my question?

[If it be your will]

Hi Lancs, isn't it JC's intention to give us all a big tax bill? It was all costed in his/momentum's manifesto.

Did you see Roy Hatersley's comments that Labour needs to fight back against the takeover by Momentum?

If Labour is elected next month we will guarantee that for the next five years there will be no tax rises for income taxpayers earning less than £80,000 a year

When you said 'us all', I think you meant to type 'me'. For 95% of 'us all' Labour's manifesto pledges would have been free.

[If it be your will]

There's actually quite a good bit of truth in this.

Well, yes. Until you seek the truth.

[Greenmile]

I think it's a political union of 28 countries of which the UK is only 1, it's a political body with a very greedy and self-serving executive that are in it for themselves, it's a body that means any country that's a member is not an independent country, and it's a body that's riddled with corruption and can't ever get its a clean audit report on its accounts.

What part of this is wrong?

Everything after the first comma.

[Sidney1st]

Everything after the first comma.

So they've had their accounts audited and signed off then?

[aggi]

So they've had their accounts audited and signed off then?

Yes.

[Greenmile]

So they've had their accounts audited and signed off then?

This link was already provided by LC, but again, just for you.

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditor ... eu-budget/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And in case you can’t click links for some reason here’s the headline facts (it’s really worth reading the whole thing, though)...

Claim
The EU’s accounts haven’t been signed off for years.

Conclusion
Auditors say the accounts have been accurate since 2007. But they have historically recorded significant errors in how money is paid since their first audit in 1995. In the most recent year, they found a significant part of the EU’s spending was largely error-free for the first time.

Hopefully that puts that particular canard to bed (don’t worry - I’m sure there will be others).

[bluelabrador16]

UpTheBeehole

"My opinion is always driven by fact."

[Sidney1st]

signing_off_eu_accounts.png (50.6 KiB) Viewed 2368 times

That's amusing from that link.

[dsr]

This link was already provided by LC, but again, just for you.

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditor ... eu-budget/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And in case you can’t click links for some reason here’s the headline facts (it’s really worth reading the whole thing, though)...

Claim
The EU’s accounts haven’t been signed off for years.

Conclusion
Auditors say the accounts have been accurate since 2007. But they have historically recorded significant errors in how money is paid since their first audit in 1995. In the most recent year, they found a significant part of the EU’s spending was largely error-free for the first time.

Hopefully that puts that particular canard to bed (don’t worry - I’m sure there will be others).

What the auditors are saying is that from 1994 to 2006 the accounts were wrong - the numbers that were reported did not report the money that was spent. And from 1985 to 2015, that even that money which was recorded was spent wrongly. In the case of the most recent year, the best year they have ever had, 3.1% of spending was paid to people or organisations that weren't entitled.

Many people, apparently, are entirely satisfied with that. I'm not. Any plc that has that sort of report will not be a plc for very long - because in the real world of business, if your audit report says "the accounts always used to be inaccurate, but now they're accurate so we can see thay are fraudulent" - it's a signed audit report, but it's not a good one.

Put it the other way round - for the first time in the EU's history, the auditors have been able to issue a report saying that significant parts of the accounts are right. Should we put the flags out?

[Greenmile]

signing_off_eu_accounts.png

That's amusing from that link.

Did you read the article, or did you just look at the pictures?

I’ll make it easier for you again...

Error is not always the same as fraud or waste

Just because some money is paid in error doesn’t mean people all the people involved have deliberately tried to defraud the EU.

A small minority of the cases that the auditors look at each year involve suspected fraud. The UK’s Public Accounts Committee of MPs has concluded for years that the complexity of the EU’s spending programmes, which creates misunderstandings, contributes towards these errors.

It also doesn’t necessarily mean the money was ‘wasted’, just that it wasn’t paid out according to the rules. One way to run afoul of the rules, for instance, is to award an EU-funded contract directly without holding a proper bidding process. Even though the rules haven’t been followed, it's not always the case that another firm would have been able to put in a lower bid.

The Court explains:

“Our estimate of the level of error is not a measure of fraud, inefficiency or waste. It is an estimate of the money that should not have been paid out because it was not used in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.”

The most common type of error is when people claim for costs they’re ineligible for, followed by procurement errors like the one discussed above.

[Greenmile]

What the auditors are saying is that from 1994 to 2006 the accounts were wrong - the numbers that were reported did not report the money that was spent. And from 1985 to 2015, that even that money which was recorded was spent wrongly. In the case of the most recent year, the best year they have ever had, 3.1% of spending was paid to people or organisations that weren't entitled.

Many people, apparently, are entirely satisfied with that. I'm not. Any plc that has that sort of report will not be a plc for very long - because in the real world of business, if your audit report says "the accounts always used to be inaccurate, but now they're accurate so we can see thay are fraudulent" - it's a signed audit report, but it's not a good one.

Put it the other way round - for the first time in the EU's history, the auditors have been able to issue a report saying that significant parts of the accounts are right. Should we put the flags out?

Another who didn’t read the article. I don’t know why I bother.

Edit - nobody’s asking you to put any flags out. I for one just want you to stop spreading lies like “(the EU)...can't ever get its a clean audit report on its accounts.” (sic) I don’t expect you will, though.

[CrosspoolClarets]

If Labour is elected next month we will guarantee that for the next five years there will be no tax rises for income taxpayers earning less than £80,000 a year

When you said 'us all', I think you meant to type 'me'. For 95% of 'us all' Labour's manifesto pledges would have been free.

I would feel more reassured if “income tax” in your quote read “income, national insurance, corporation, capital gains, wealth, inheritance or VAT”.

[dsr]

The most common type of error is when people claim for costs they’re ineligible for, followed by procurement errors like the one discussed above.[/i]

The former is fraud, and the latter is close to fraud. One pound in every 32 is spent by someone who isn't following the rules? That may not be much to you, but it seems like a lot to me. If 1 in 32 projects, assuming the rulebreakers are working in the same proportion as the rule followers, is run by somoene that isn't following the rules - how many people have been sacked? It should be a lot, but I bet it isn't.

I#ll tell you this much - if 3+% of Tesco's income was being spent where it shouldn't be, heads would be rolling. Why should governments be different?

[thatdberight]

Is "Corbyn will reunify Ireland" the new "Turkey are joining the EU" when it comes to bullshit reasons for Brexit at any cost?

I'm fairly certain he couldn't do it unilaterally.

But he would have agreed in a flash to what the Unionist population, through their main party, find unacceptable.

[dsr]

Another who didn’t read the article. I don’t know why I bother.

Edit - nobody’s asking you to put any flags out. I for one just want you to stop spreading lies like “(the EU)...can't ever get its a clean audit report on its accounts.”. I don’t expect you will, though.

A clean audit report doesn't say that 3.1% of the money was subject to error. A clean audit report says that the accounts are materially correct.

[Greenmile]

The former is fraud, and the latter is close to fraud. One pound in every 32 is spent by someone who isn't following the rules? That may not be much to you, but it seems like a lot to me. If 1 in 32 projects, assuming the rulebreakers are working in the same proportion as the rule followers, is run by somoene that isn't following the rules - how many people have been sacked? It should be a lot, but I bet it isn't.

I#ll tell you this much - if 3+% of Tesco's income was being spent where it shouldn't be, heads would be rolling. Why should governments be different?

Because the EU hold themselves to higher standards than Tesco. Now, are you going to withdraw your lie?

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

We should leave the EU every week, it's hilarious.
My favourite bit is when the UK offers the EU even more and they nearly, but not quite, take it and then they all point and laugh at the little UK and its pathetic, loser leader, begging for a deal.
If "Leave" voters were Turkeys they'd vote for Christmas.

[Greenmile]

A clean audit report doesn't say that 3.1% of the money was subject to error. A clean audit report says that the accounts are materially correct.

The first sentence of the article’s headline conclusion is “Auditors say the accounts have been accurate since 2007”. You said “(the EU) can't ever get its a clean audit report on its accounts.”

These two statements are contradictory, so the way I see it, you have two options - you can go all Donald Trump and call Full Fact “fake news”, or you can admit you were lying (or mistaken) and try not to spread that lie any further.

Why do I have the feeling you will do neither, and just move the goalposts again?

[Lancasterclaret]

Interesting to note that the DUP are all for wanting the same rules for the UK and Northern Ireland all of a sudden.

Good news for womens rights at least.

This total, utter shitstorm shows no sign of getting any better soon and anyone who thinks we are going to be better off and that we haven't been damaged on the world stage should really be in a home.

And as the result of all this is going to be a Corbyn government, and massively increased immigration from the sub-continent, then the expressions on a hell of a lot of Brexiteer faces is going to be priceless.