Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Gulliver Foyle
1 follower
1 follower
About
Posts

Post has attachment
Gulliver Foyle commented on a post on Blogger.
The post WW1 use of chemical weapons was "normalised" during the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980's (that was when Saddam was a 'friend' of the west). I must admit that I don't recall airstrikes being ordered against the Iraqi regime by Reagan and Thatcher to deter the "normalisation" of their use. Perhaps that's because as a "friend of the west" the west sold Saddam the precursors to the gas he used or perhaps it's because the victims of the attacks were Iranian soldiers and civilians and then, as now, Iran is the enemy.

Anyway, the number of Syrian civilians who have died as a result of chemical weapons is no more than a couple of hundred, and as appalling a death as this is is it anymore terrible than being vaporised by a bomb, or ripped to shreds by shrapnel, or slowly bleeding to death as a result of bullet wounds. Tens of thousands have died this way yet we must stop "normalising" the use of chemical weapons by hurling a few missiles in the vague direction of Syrian military targets that, due to the need to avoid Russian casualties, were probably already cleared of any useful target material.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Gulliver Foyle commented on a post on Blogger.
As with the other assessments both before and after the referendum, this latest document is simply a statement of the obvious, the self inflicted act of leaving the EU and T May's personal decision to also leave the Single Market, erects barriers to trade where there were none previously.  And by that I do not just mean introducing barriers with our single and by far most important trading partner but also the fact that all our other existing FTA's and bilateral deals with other countries negotiated as part of EU membership, which is probably why even SM membership is still sub-optimal as we cannot guarantee roll over of other EU trade deals we currently benefit from.

The Tory government though, having lost the plot a long time ago, are unlikely to reverse course of their own volition, our only chance now is that they will agree to the "vassal state" transition period to avoid the impending cliff edge which might just tide us over until such time as a different, less ideological and incompetent government comes to power.  Even a transitional deal though is not a fait accompli given the way the ERG Ultras headed by the Member of Parliament for the 1850's is behaving.

Whether or not Labour bite the bullet now and use this impact assessment to come out in favour of continued SM membership remains to be seen, If they are true to their stated aims of a jobs first Brexit it seems the only viable option.  If I had a Labour MP I would already have been writing to them about this, as it is my MP just happens to be the egregious D Davis, the Secretary of State for causing the next recession.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Gulliver Foyle commented on a post on Blogger.
"And it's about time Theresa May stood up and slung 'em because they took down John Major and they took down David Cameron, two great leaders, neither of whom stood up to them."

This is revisionist nonsense, Major resigned as leader of the Party in 1995 saying it was time to “put up or shut up” to his Eurosceptic MP’s, he beat John Redwood in the resulting election.  And looking at Majors last cabinet before the 97 election and you can see he pretty much ignored the Europhobes in his own party, only Peter Lilley and Michael Howard could be described as Eurosceptic and back then both kept that tendency in the background.  He did the opposite of T May, he actually stamped his authority on the Party.  It was the electorate, fed up of Tory sleaze, that ended his premiership not the loony wing of his Party.

And Cameron was defeated by his own hubris and his fear of UKIP not the swivel eyed loons on the back benches.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Gulliver Foyle commented on a post on Blogger.
There are 2 key reasons why manufacturing has received a welcome recent upswing, firstly the value of Sterling has markedly depreciated following the referendum and secondly global growth is stronger.  Now unless the government is taking credit for global growth (when the UK is rock bottom of the league) and are really keen to take responsibility for a "run on the pound" (given how difficult it would then be to predict such things should the opposition get elected) then it's difficult to see how they can take credit for manufacturing's recent recovery (albeit only just getting back to pre-crash levels).

It's also worth noting that at least two of the areas where manufacturing activity has been particularly high are automobile and aviation manufacture, both highly susceptible to the kind of botched Brexit the Government can definitely claim would be there responsibility.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Gulliver Foyle commented on a post on Blogger.
I’ve not been following A C Graylings output, concentrating more on the actual negotiation and utterings of the Ultra brexiteers inside the Tory Party and Government (where the danger lies) but what seems clear with respect to those on the Remain side who cling to the belief that Brexit will be reversed is that there are two fundamental obstacles to this happening in the near and foreseeable future.

Obstacle one is the Referendum result itself, whether or not you believe the debate was poor (it really was) or that people were lied to (they were, by both sides but mainly ‘Vote Leave’) the fact is a majority voted to leave and, advisory or not, it would be dangerous to try to reverse this decision.

Obstacle two is the legal process that started once A50 was invoked.  Unless something extraordinary occurs we will leave the EU (even if only in name) on 30th March 2019.

What we are left with is what we were always left with following a debate where the leave side had no plan, how and on what terms we should leave.  It should by now be dawning on even the most ill-informed amongst us that the UK Gov. does not actually know what sort of future relationship it wants, and knows even less what it can reasonable achieve*.  Pretty much from day one T May has tied her own hands but one by one the red lines she drew shortly after becoming PM have been blurred and then been crossed.  The fact that she invoked A50 without having an end state mapped out is probably the single biggest error T May has made (and admittedly it has a lot of competition) because the timing of when to invoke A50 was her single biggest negotiating assett.  Ever since the UK has been on the back foot as evidenced at pretty much every stage since.  Capitulation on the sequencing initially followed by capitulation on the settlement, citizens’ rights and perhaps most importantly of all, the RoI/NI border.

Given that the EU got pretty much everything it wanted out of phase 1 it would be unwise to expect anything different from phase 2, the UK will accept the terms offered on the transition (accepting the 4 freedoms, ECJ ruling and 100% of the EU acquis) with no seat at the table – taxation without representation if you will. 

My view has been clear since the referendum, and it is shared by a number on the leave side and, I believe, many on the remain side.  We respect the Ref. result and leave the EU but we maintain our EEA membership and re-apply to join EFTA, forging a future outside the EU within a smaller but not insignificant group of nations while maintaining existing trade terms with our single biggest export partner.  Aside from those who obsess about immigration I struggle to see what’s so controversial with this position.

*Unless T May and the slightly less insane wing of her Cabinet are fully aware of what the plan needs to be but are delaying revealing it as long s possible because she and they know what will happen once the totally insane wing get wind of it.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Gulliver Foyle commented on a post on Blogger.
From the Conservative election manifesto 2017: -

"Workers' rights conferred on British citizens from our membership of the EU will remain"

If Gove et al want to strip away the working time directive they will be breaking their own manifesto promise.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Gulliver Foyle commented on a post on Blogger.
Things you won't read in the Spectator and similar "news" outlets include the draught guidelines for phase 2 of A50 withdrawal talks and the nature of the transitional period the EU will offer: -

"While an agreement on a future relationship can only be finalised and concluded once the United Kingdom has become a third country, the Union will be ready to engage in preliminary and preparatory discussions with the aim of identifying an overall understanding of the framework for the future relationship"

Or, in plain English, there won't be a trade deal coinciding with the end of the withdrawal agreement.  This will have to wait until the UK has left the EU and becomes a third country.

"As regards transition, the European Council notes the proposal put forward by the United Kingdom for a transition period of around two years, and agrees to negotiate a transition period covering the whole of the EU acquis, while the United Kingdom, as a third country, will no longer participate in or nominate or elect members of the EU institutions"

Or, the UK will stay in the Single Market and accept all CJEU rulings during the transitional period but without any representation and.....

"Such transitional arrangements, which will be part of the Withdrawal Agreement, must be in the interest of the Union, clearly defined and limited in time. In order to ensure a level playing field based on the same rules applying throughout the Single Market, changes to the acquis adopted by EU institutions and bodies will have to apply both in the United Kingdom and the EU. All existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures will also apply. As the United Kingdom will remain a member of the Customs Union and the Single Market (with all four freedoms) during the transition, it will have to continue to apply and collect EU customs tariffs and ensure all EU checks are being performed on the border vis-à-vis other third countries."

The UK will continue to pay full subs for participation on the SM during the transitional period and allow continued free movement.  If you're one of those people who believes continued EEA membership via EFTA was "no pay, no say" then you would have been wrong.  This however is "no pay, no say" on steroids.

But, if you were to believe the headlines in the Daily Fail etc. last week you may be mistaken in believing that the UK came out on top on phase one talks.  You would have been the victim of MSM fake news.

Source https://www.politico.eu/article/tusk-puts-forward-guidelines-for-phase-2-talks/
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Gulliver Foyle commented on a post on Blogger.
It's even worse than our blogger describes above as far as David Davis credibility is concerned, way back in September 2016 he answered questions to a Commons committee: -

<<“Mike Gapes MP: Yesterday you told the Lords EU Select Committee that you are going to ask businesses to give you a quantitative assessment of the impact of various scenarios on their sectors. How are you going to assess the validity of that data?

“Mr Davis: You have elided two things. I think I was talking to Lord Green, and what I said was that we will carry out quantitative assessments and, yes, of course, some of the information will come from there, but it will be the same way you test any data given to you. You look at how it was calculated, you ask for the—

“Mr Gapes: You will carry it out, or the businesses will carry it out?

“Mr Davis: We will carry out some of our own, yes; that’s right. The example I cited earlier is people comparing the effect of tariffs and nontariff barriers. How do you assess that? How big are the problems? Where are they?

“Mr Gapes: You also said that your Department doesn’t yet have the capacity to assess that data. When do you expect to have that capacity?

“Mr Davis: The trite answer is “before we need it”, but the sequence of events is a little like this: we are, at the moment, doing the round tables and the bilateral discussions; we will then be asking for data and submissions from them, which is already coming in some cases; we will then be doing the assessments. That is a little way away. The Department has doubled in one month, and I suspect it will double in size again, and that is about the point at which we will be looking for that information.

“Mr Gapes: Will that be before or after article 50 is triggered?

“Mr Davis: Before.”>>

It is abundantly obvious now that no quantitative assessment was made before A50 was invoked, and that very little has taken place since.  Yet This government has consistently pedalled the lie that "no deal is better than a bad deal" and that even now ERG MP's like Iain Duncan Cough are still insisting that we should leave without a deal, despite having no idea whatsoever of the damage this will do to the UK economy.  The No Deal threat that was already on life support is now effectively dead, which pretty much leaves the UK Gov. negotiating strategy in ruins.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Gulliver Foyle commented on a post on Blogger.
And the Tory cheerleaders in the right leaning parts of the fourth estate have, predictably, latched onto the elimination of Stamp Duty on homes under £300k as some great boon to FTB's while conveniently ignoring that the move is projected to increase FTB ownership by a staggeringly small 3,500 while at the same time increasing the value of the properties affected.

So rather than actually doing anything to improve the chances of FTB's actually buying a home (which generally involves things like having enough affordable houses in the right locations and wages that are actually not falling in real terms) Spread Sheet Phil has done what Tory chancellors before him have done and fuelled house price inflation, which of course is the whole point of the policy.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Gulliver Foyle commented on a post on Blogger.
I don't get this obsession with staying in the EU Customs Union, nor am I convinced the UK, when it leaves, can or should remain in it.  As far as I can tell, with the exception of the city state of Monaco, only EU members are in the EU-CU.  Essentially the EU is a Customs Union and when we leave the EU we leave the CU.

What is disappointing is that, in obsessing about trying to stay in the CU we are missing the much more important objective of staying in the Single Market which we certainly can remain in while leave both the EU and the CU. 
Why economic suicide is a bad idea
Why economic suicide is a bad idea
anotherangryvoice.blogspot.be
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded