Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[harry94]

28 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

The backstop is not the only part of the WA that the ERG oppose.

They will oppose it anyway but a number of Labour (hopefully soon to be ex Labour) PMs might help get Johnson over the line though the arithmetic will be very tight.

 

I think a lot of the animosity over it was that May was presenting it as a blank cheque. She was going to the Commons and even saying that it could be used as a basis for a Norway type solution or anything members wanted. The WA itself says very little at all, it's mostly just a (time limited) procedural piece with the obligations cemented for the financial contributions and citizens rights - there wasn't really anything anyone seemed particularly furious about in there, a few bits of seethe about transition etc but it was just optics. The backstop is the only thing that had any political implications or would have any tangible impact on the future relationship and a future UK executive from being able to do whatever they want.

I'd be quite confident predicting that if the backstop was modified to not chain the whole of the UK to any ongoing customs arrangement, the ERG would be quite happy to support their buddy Boris if he's leading the process and can draft what he wants in the political deceleration document. They want something tangible which says that they will not commit to the single marker or a customs union and it's even better if they can be seen as delivering Brexit and then attempt to campaign with that at the next election.

I think the Labour defections will be needed to make up for the DUP and a handful of Tory moderates rather than the ERG. There seem to be around 40 or so Labour MPs who seem to be pretty staunch Brexiteers at the moment so I think that will be his game if he's sincere about getting a deal to a vote.

[Granny Danger]

29 minutes ago, harry94 said:

I think a lot of the animosity over it was that May was presenting it as a blank cheque. She was going to the Commons and even saying that it could be used as a basis for a Norway type solution or anything members wanted. The WA itself says very little at all, it's mostly just a (time limited) procedural piece with the obligations cemented for the financial contributions and citizens rights - there wasn't really anything anyone seemed particularly furious about in there, a few bits of seethe about transition etc but it was just optics. The backstop is the only thing that had any political implications or would have any tangible impact on the future relationship and a future UK executive from being able to do whatever they want.

I'd be quite confident predicting that if the backstop was modified to not chain the whole of the UK to any ongoing customs arrangement, the ERG would be quite happy to support their buddy Boris if he's leading the process and can draft what he wants in the political deceleration document. They want something tangible which says that they will not commit to the single marker or a customs union and it's even better if they can be seen as delivering Brexit and then attempt to campaign with that at the next election.

I think the Labour defections will be needed to make up for the DUP and a handful of Tory moderates rather than the ERG. There seem to be around 40 or so Labour MPs who seem to be pretty staunch Brexiteers at the moment so I think that will be his game if he's sincere about getting a deal to a vote.

You could be right.  However the ERG don’t want, amongst other things, to hand over £39bn to Europe and Farage will make a big deal of this in a GE which I’m sure is on the cards before Christmas.

 

[harry94]

10 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

You could be right.  However the ERG don’t want, amongst other things, to hand over £39bn to Europe and Farage will make a big deal of this in a GE which I’m sure is on the cards before Christmas.

 

Any arrangement gives ammunition I suppose. I think that the Brexit Party and ERG will flex their muscles at some point but I'd be astonished if Boris hasn't been in talks for a while on how to buy both off (and he already has given Mogg a role), it seems to be his speciality - he was even trying to boast to Sturgeon a while back about 'buying you guys off' with full fiscal autonomy.

He's got the leader of the ERG in cabinet, seems to be working on getting their whips as well but has been met with some resistance so far. The ERG are a pain for him but a PM like Boris is very valuable to them as well, they won't get anyone as perfect again who has roots in their cause.

On the Brexit Party side, plenty of ways he could use the role of PM to enrich Farage and his donors. If he wanted to, he could even give Farage a peerage and then make him a minister. Hell, he could even do that and also get the ambassador role too. Moderates pissed off but again, they are spinless and always seem to fall in line if it's for their party.

[ICTJohnboy]

6 hours ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

8 hours ago, pawpar said:

Meanwhile Jo " I would do anything for Brexit but I wont vote for Jeremy Corbyn " shows her true blue colours again. 
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49468218 

A very strong showing by the SNP in Shetland later this week could begin to undermine her leadership only weeks into it.

 

They've got an excellent candidate in Tom Wills, a born and bred Shetlander who is highly regarded by many of the locals. Might not actually win the seat, but will certainly slash the Lib Dem majority that has prevailed in Shetland since God was a lad.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by ICTJohnboy

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, harry94 said:

I think a lot of the animosity over it was that May was presenting it as a blank cheque. She was going to the Commons and even saying that it could be used as a basis for a Norway type solution or anything members wanted. The WA itself says very little at all, it's mostly just a (time limited) procedural piece with the obligations cemented for the financial contributions and citizens rights - there wasn't really anything anyone seemed particularly furious about in there, a few bits of seethe about transition etc but it was just optics. The backstop is the only thing that had any political implications or would have any tangible impact on the future relationship and a future UK executive from being able to do whatever they want.

I'd be quite confident predicting that if the backstop was modified to not chain the whole of the UK to any ongoing customs arrangement, the ERG would be quite happy to support their buddy Boris if he's leading the process and can draft what he wants in the political deceleration document. They want something tangible which says that they will not commit to the single marker or a customs union and it's even better if they can be seen as delivering Brexit and then attempt to campaign with that at the next election.

I think the Labour defections will be needed to make up for the DUP and a handful of Tory moderates rather than the ERG. There seem to be around 40 or so Labour MPs who seem to be pretty staunch Brexiteers at the moment so I think that will be his game if he's sincere about getting a deal to a vote.

Heard someone on the radio yesterday saying the ERG are more entrenched than ever now that a hard brexit is seriously on the cards, and they'll have nothing to do with any kind of modified WA. If rationality was in play and the interests of the country foremost, I'd agree with you, but it's not. They want a total severance on March 31st no matter the cost. The only way they would compromise is if Parliament gets its act together and seriously threatens the chances of leaving at all, which they won't, the split between People's Vote, GE and pass the WA lots means they'll be as useless as ever. Only thing I can see stopping it is if Boris comes behind a General Election before Halloween.

[harry94]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

Heard someone on the radio yesterday saying the ERG are more entrenched than ever now that a hard brexit is seriously on the cards, and they'll have nothing to do with any kind of modified WA. If rationality was in play and the interests of the country foremost, I'd agree with you, but it's not. They want a total severance on March 31st no matter the cost. The only way they would compromise is if Parliament gets its act together and seriously threatens the chances of leaving at all, which they won't, the split between People's Vote, GE and pass the WA lots means they'll be as useless as ever. Only thing I can see stopping it is if Boris comes behind a General Election before Halloween.

The problem the ERG have though is that 'no deal' does not necessarily equate to the hardest form of Brexit long-term.

If we do leave without a deal, it doesn't change the fact that things like the backstop etc are there as prerequisites moving forward. A trade deal won't get through Congress in the States if the Irish situation is contentious and then the countries with arrangements with the EU already won't tolerate that; the EU  will obviously use the terms of the WA as a starting point for the trade agreement. If we are seriously in that scenario, the pressure on the PM is much much greater than it is now and they could end up being in a position where they have zero bargaining chips so bend further back towards the customs/single market options.

Very hard to really determine but I think the practical hurdle has always just been the type of border we've got with Ireland. If a PM could make that go away somehow (i.e. going back to May's first backstop plan), they could go the free trade agreement route and be offered a seat at the table to negotiate any future deal in their own interests. Having a proper plan at giving away shit to American corporations could be very exciting for some of them, I'm sure they will be picked up as part-time consultants on a good hourly rate. We're already seeing it a bit with the Priti Patel stories this morning (although bribery is a weekly story for her tbf).

[welshbairn]

Whatever happens Brexit is going to be dominating the political agenda for at least another 5 years. People will get so fed up with it that they won't care if we stay in or become the 51st State of America. Only thing that would put it on the back burner would be WW3 or a total collapse of the financial system.

[Cerberus]

That video of Boris and Trump walking down the stairs at Biarritz is cringey.

Boris is completely the Beta male in that relationship.

[UsedToGoToCentralPark]

Boris seems to have realised that dealing with Merkel and Macron instead of Tusk and Co is the best way to get some movement on things. I'm thinking we might get something through and possibly down to the fact that Boris seems to know that keeping every option on the table and a definitive leave date which the EU seem to be taking seriously now.

[Granny Danger]

Johnson press conference; 20 minutes saying nothing and ignoring questions and making ‘jokes’.

The buffoon act will begin to grate soon enough.

Also seems that all his talk about withholding some of the £39bn is in-house only, never raised in discussion with the EU.

He’s a stammering clown.

[ICTJohnboy]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

Johnson press conference; 20 minutes saying nothing and ignoring questions and making ‘jokes’.

The buffoon act will begin to grate soon enough.

Also seems that all his talk about withholding some of the £39bn is in-house only, never raised in discussion with the EU.

He’s a stammering clown.

 

Not hard to see why Johnson and Trump have such a high regard for each other.

[lichtgilphead]

7 hours ago, strichener said:

Perhaps she is actually more informed than you are. 

The correct legislation is The General Product Safety Regulations 2005 which does implement an EU Directive.  This legislation specifically removes section 10 from the CPA 1987 and therefore removed the offence of providing goods that "fail to comply with the general safety requirement;" which is now part of the GDPSR 2005.

Short Version

Strichener is talking sh*te (again)

TL:DR Version

The fact that Stritchener cannot even refer to the correct abbreviation for the GPSR demonstrates that he's completely out of his depth here.

Firstly, I would refer him to Regulation 3 of the GPSR. This specifically states that the GPSR doesn't apply to goods that are subject to sector-specific safety requirements. The General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) provides a general safety framework that must be observed in relation to consumer products which are not covered by the sectoral regulations. It was also designed to supplement and fill gaps which the sector-specific legislation did not address.

Secondly, I wasn't referring to Section 10 of the CPA. I was referring to Section 2 (Civil law liability for defective products) and to Sections 11 (safety regulations) and 12 (offences against the safety regulations)

Section 2 CPA

If I'm injured by an unsafe electrical product, it's possible for me (or my executor) to raise a civil action under the CPA if death, personal injury or damage to private property has resulted from the unsafe product.

As a private individual, I cannot raise an action under the GPSR. 

Accordingly, I'm correct about the CPA being the main Act that allows me to enforce my civil rights.

Sections 11 & 12 CPA

Sections 11 & 12 set out criminal offences relating to the sector-specific regulations. 

Section 11 states that the Secretary of State can make regulations regarding the safety of goods. These regulations will take precedence over GPSR requirements for goods to which these regulations apply.

Examples of safety regulations made under Section 11 include the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 & 2016, the Low Voltage Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1989 & the Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994. 

Section 12 makes it an offence to contravene provisions of these regulations. For example, Regulation 5 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 states (in part)

5.—(1) Electrical equipment shall be—

(a) safe

Accordingly, If an unsafe electrical product that contravenes regulation 5 results in a report to the Procurator Fiscal, the defendant will be charged with a breach of Section 12 of the CPA.

In some very limited circumstances, the GPSR will apply if the sector-specific regulations do not address all the risks. However, you always look at the sector-specific legislation first.

So, I'm also right about the CPA being the main act used by the state to regulate the safety of second-hand electrical goods for sale in shops.

Over to you, Strichiner. 

 

 

[John Lambies Doos]

 
They've got an excellent candidate in Tom Wills, a born and bred Shetlander who is highly regarded by many of the locals. Might not actually win the seat, but will certainly slash the Lib Dem majority that has prevailed in Shetland since God was a lad.
 
 

Unfortunately they previously said the same thing about Dunus Skene

[ICTJohnboy]

6 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

8 hours ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 
They've got an excellent candidate in Tom Wills, a born and bred Shetlander who is highly regarded by many of the locals. Might not actually win the seat, but will certainly slash the Lib Dem majority that has prevailed in Shetland since God was a lad.
 
 

Unfortunately they previously said the same thing about Dunus Skene

 

Skene was a political opportunist. He was a member of Labour, Scottish Labour (SLP) and even the Lib Dems before becoming a member of the SNP.

He was further handicapped by virtue of being born in Dundee, brought up in Fife and educated at Eton.

To their credit the good people of Shetland saw through him very quickly.

This will be close run contest.

 

[LongTimeLurker]

8 hours ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

They've got an excellent candidate in Tom Wills, a born and bred Shetlander who is highly regarded by many of the locals. Might not actually win the seat, but will certainly slash the Lib Dem majority that has prevailed in Shetland since God was a lad.

Is Tom Wills any relation to Jonathan Wills who used to stand for Labour?

[ICTJohnboy]

Just now, LongTimeLurker said:

Is Tom Wills any relation to Jonathan Wills who used to stand for Labour?

 

Son of Jonathan Wills.

I knew him quite well as a presenter/producer on BBC Radio Shetland, and also a journalist with the Shetland Times, when I lived up there for a spell in the late 70s/early 80s.

 

[LongTimeLurker]

Definitely an upgrade on Danus Skene then.

[strichener]

1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said:

Short Version

Strichener is talking sh*te (again)

TL:DR Version

The fact that Stritchener cannot even refer to the correct abbreviation for the GPSR demonstrates that he's completely out of his depth here.

Firstly, I would refer him to Regulation 3 of the GPSR. This specifically states that the GPSR doesn't apply to goods that are subject to sector-specific safety requirements. The General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) provides a general safety framework that must be observed in relation to consumer products which are not covered by the sectoral regulations. It was also designed to supplement and fill gaps which the sector-specific legislation did not address.

Secondly, I wasn't referring to Section 10 of the CPA. I was referring to Section 2 (Civil law liability for defective products) and to Sections 11 (safety regulations) and 12 (offences against the safety regulations)

Section 2 CPA

If I'm injured by an unsafe electrical product, it's possible for me (or my executor) to raise a civil action under the CPA if death, personal injury or damage to private property has resulted from the unsafe product.

As a private individual, I cannot raise an action under the GPSR. 

Accordingly, I'm correct about the CPA being the main Act that allows me to enforce my civil rights.

Sections 11 & 12 CPA

Sections 11 & 12 set out criminal offences relating to the sector-specific regulations. 

Section 11 states that the Secretary of State can make regulations regarding the safety of goods. These regulations will take precedence over GPSR requirements for goods to which these regulations apply.

Examples of safety regulations made under Section 11 include the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 & 2016, the Low Voltage Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1989 & the Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994. 

Section 12 makes it an offence to contravene provisions of these regulations. For example, Regulation 5 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 states (in part)

5.—(1) Electrical equipment shall be—

(a) safe

Accordingly, If an unsafe electrical product that contravenes regulation 5 results in a report to the Procurator Fiscal, the defendant will be charged with a breach of Section 12 of the CPA.

In some very limited circumstances, the GPSR will apply if the sector-specific regulations do not address all the risks. However, you always look at the sector-specific legislation first.

So, I'm also right about the CPA being the main act used by the state to regulate the safety of second-hand electrical goods for sale in shops.

Over to you, Strichiner. 

 

 

Women complains about EU regulations stopping her from selling second hand electrical items.

Your enforcement of your rights has f**k all to do with it.  She is right, you are wrong.

 

[lichtgilphead]

1 minute ago, strichener said:

Women complains about EU regulations stopping her from selling second hand electrical items.

Your enforcement of your rights has f**k all to do with it.  She is right, you are wrong.

 

More absolute sh*te from Stritchener. He doesn't know when to give up.

So far, he's quoted the wrong regulations. Now he doubles down on an absolute fallacy.

It's perfectly legal to sell second-hand electrical items, as long as some basic safety checks are carried out and records kept

https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/product-safety/second-hand-electrical-goods

Neither EU nor UK product safety requirements prevent anyone from selling electrical goods that are known to be safe.

 

[strichener]

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

More absolute sh*te from Stritchener. He doesn't know when to give up.

So far, he's quoted the wrong regulations. Now he doubles down on an absolute fallacy.

It's perfectly legal to sell second-hand electrical items, as long as some basic safety checks are carried out and records kept

https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/product-safety/second-hand-electrical-goods

Neither EU nor UK product safety requirements prevent anyone from selling electrical goods that are known to be safe.

 

You should probably read you own links.

Quote

Key legislation
General Product Safety Regulations 2005

 

Time to stop digging.  You fucked up but are too stubborn to admit it.  Not surprising for some one who doesn't know there is a difference between the SNP and Scottish Government.

Let's put this to bed once and for all.  Here is an extract from House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial  Strategy Committee report

The safety of Electrical Goods in the UK

Quote

The EU and UK Systems of product safety

The UK’s system of product safety is heavily intertwined with that of the EU. 
Producers and importers are required under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 to take immediate corrective action if they become aware a product is unsafe. This action might entail a product recall, modification, repair or other process.  The industry is also required to ensure that consumer products are safe under the General Product Safety 
Directive (GPSR) (2001/95/EU) and other EU-wide-sector product safety laws. These are enforced in the UK by market surveillance authorities, mainly local Trading Standards.  EU legislation also requires enforcement authorities to communicate on unsafe products, 
mainly through the EU’s RAPEX system.

The GPSR directive applies  to second hand goods with the following exception:

shall not apply to second-hand products supplied as antiques or as products to be repaired or reconditioned prior to being used, provided that the supplier clearly informs the person to whom he supplies the product to that effect;

Finally if your strawman "Neither EU nor UK product safety requirements prevent anyone from selling electrical goods that are known to be safe." was actually the point of the discussion then you stating that it was UK law would have been pointless since your now arguing that there is no laws to stop the selling.  The point is that the onus on the charity to ensure that it is not faulty has the consequence of stopping then from selling the items due to potential liabilities which would be prosecuted under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005.