Exit from Brexit

Never say never.
As women we know what is said or done in the heat of the moment is quite often wrong and changing ones mind is quite normal.

,Jalima1108, you have changed threads but still making the same cheap throughway comments that you were making on another brexit thread a few minutes ago.

However, once again you make those comments/posts without joining the debate in any meaningful way.

Perhaps you have no opinions or cannot form any opinions of your own.

Over the next few weeks, hundreds of local Labour parties will consider a contemporary motion backing a ‘people’s vote’ on Brexit, with a view to sending it to Labour conference. It has already been passed by nine CLPs, while another 130 or so are set to debate it before the deadline of 13th September. The question is whether the motion is chosen in the priorities ballot, which determines what is to be debated at conference. And that depends on how hard the party leadership, and particularly Momentum, whip against prioritising a Brexit debate.

labourlist.org/2018/08/will-labour-conference-2018-debate-a-peoples-vote-on-brexit/

Varian not only were the Leave campaign supported by the wealthy, so too the Remain campaigns by 23 of not only wealthy people but also these people are within the upper echelons of the Establishment. Even Cameron used the Tax payers money to send out a glossy brochure to support Remain. Take a look at this :

Billionaire investor George Soros has contributed £400,000 (Dh2 million) to a campaign which is aiming to overturn Britain’s exit from the European Union. The Telegraphnewspaper revealed that Mr Soros, who came to notoriety in 1992 when he made hundreds of millions of pounds betting against the British currency, had hosted a dinner for remain-supporting Tories at his Chelsea home on Monday night.
“George Soros’s foundations have along with a number of other major donors also made significant contributions to our work,” Mark Malloch-Brown, a former British diplomat who is chair of the Best for Britain campaign group.
“Indeed, through his foundations he has contributed £400,000,” said Mr Malloch-Brown, who has previously worked in senior positions at the United Nations and Britain's foreign ministry.

www.thenational.ae/world/europe/george-soros-contributes-funds-to-brexit-remain-campaign-1.702679

Every household in England will receive a glossy 14-page booklet through their letterbox next week making the case for Britain to remain in the European Union, as the government kicks off a £9m taxpayer-funded publicity blitz.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/06/cameron-to-push-case-remain-eu-with-9m-taxpayer-funded-publicity-blitz

23. Sir Alan Parker

Sir Alan Parker is Chairman of Brunswick.Brunswick
Donation: £40,000.
Net worth: £128 million.
Parker is the chairman of one of the most powerful public relations groups in Britain — Brunswick advises more than a quarter of FTSE 100 companies.
T=16. Tony Langley

YouTube/52SuperSeries
Donation: £50,000.
Net worth: £1.32 billion.
Langley oversees Langley Holdings, which is worth at least £1.2 billion. The company stemmed from turned around his family’s struggling business unit which makes mining equipment. He owns the racing yacht Gladiator, and a helicopter and a twin-turbo jet.

T=16. Tony Gallagher

Donation: £50,000.
Net worth: £850 million
Gallagher is a property mogul who has a £1 billion private rental business. His property portfolio include expensive properties in London and other major cities. He is also close friends with former Prime Minister David Cameron and even threw a party for Cameron’s 50th birthday at his Oxfordshire mansion last year.
T=16. Sir Simon Robertson

Sir Simon Robertson from London is knighted by Queen Elizabeth II at BuckinghamPalace.PA
Donation: £50,000.
Net worth: £110 million.
Robertson is a former Goldman Sachs employee and shareholder who went to Eton. He was also the deputy chairman of HSBC until last year.

T=16. Sir Peter Rigby

PA
Donation: £50,000.
Net worth: £600 million.
Rigby founded the Rigby Group 42 years ago and it now has sales of £1.8 billion and 7,500 staff.

T=16. Lord Glendonbrook

Parliament website
Donation: £50,000.
Net worth: £200 million.
Lord Glendonbrook, also known as Michael Bishop, was one of the first openly gay senior executives in corporate Britain. He was the former chairman of Midlands-based airline bmi and made most of his money from the sale of his stake, once German aviation giant Lufthansa bought BMI in 2008. He is also a big Tory party donor, having given more than £1 million in total.
T=16. Glenn Earle

Teach First
Donation: £50,000.
Net worth: £105 million.
Earle is the former chief operating officer at Goldman Sachs who had a £40 million stake in the Wall Street giant when it floated in 1999. He now is a member of the National Theatre's board and is a non-executive director on several others.
T=16. Bruno Schroder

Schroders
Donation: £50,000.
Net worth: £4.26 billion.
Schroder and his family own a £3.8 billion stake in City-based asset management group Schroders. He is the great-great-grandson of John Henry Schroder, who co-founded the Schroders businesses in 1804. He is still a non-executive director of the group.
15. John Armitage

Funds People Videos/YouTube
Donation: £65,000.
Net worth: £540 million.
Armitage, who runs Egerton Capital, made a killing in 2015 after betting against crashing energy stocks. Armitage has a 50% stake in the group, meaning his dividends are pretty stellar. His fortune rose by £40 million over the year.
T=12. Mike Lynch

Mike Lynch of Dark TraceMatt LLoyd/Rex Features
Donation:£100,000.
Net worth: £469 million.
Lynch grew up in London's East End and founded software company Autonomy, which he sold to HP for £6.5 billion.
T=12. Ian Wace

Donation:£100,000.
Net worth: £505 million.
Wace, one of the duo that makes up the Marshall Wace, sold a 25% stake in their hedge fund to the US private equity group KKR, making £50 million.
Both Wace and Paul Marshall also gained £93 million worth of KKR shares in the deal.
T=12. David Brownlow

David Brownlow/Huntswood
Donation:£100,000.
Net worth: £215 million.
Brownlow co-founded a regulatory and compliance advice to the financial services industry company called Huntswood in 1996.
11. Ewan Kirk

PA
Donation: £110,000.
Net worth: £225 million.
Kirk is another former Goldman Sachs partner who launched his Cambridge-based hedge fund manager Cantab Capital Partners in 2006. It manages $3.5 billion and he owned two-thirds of the business before he sold it in 2016.
10. Andrew Law

Andrew Law giving a speech on behalf of the Law Family Charitable Foundation at the Trinity Church of England School in Manchester, UK.Law Family Charitable Foundation
Donation:£200,000.
Net worth: £475 million.
Former Goldman Sachs trader Law is the chairman and main shareholder in New York hedge fund Caxton Associates.
9. Denise Coates.

WPA Pool / Getty
Donation: £262,500
Net worth: £5 billion.
She is Britain's richest self-made woman thanks to turning her small betting shop into the world's largest online gambling company — Bet365.
8. Ian Taylor

Bloomberg TV
Donation: £359,000.
Net worth: £180 million.
Taylor is the CEO of private commodities company Vitol, which ships 303 million tons of crude oil and other products a year.
7. Lisbet Rausing

YouTube/UC Berkeley Events
Donation: £359,000.
Net worth: £9.25 billion.
Rausing is a science historian and philanthropist but gains her wealth from being part of the Rausing family packing empire, Tetra Pak. She's the eldest daughter of Hans Rausing and his wife Märit Rausing who sold their 50% stake in the Tetra Pak carton operation for £4.4 billion.

6. Nathan Kirsh

Nathan KirshSAentrepreneurs/YouTube
Donation: £500,000.
Net worth: £3.977 billion.
Kirsh founded a Swaziland corn milling business in 1958, which later led to his sizeable fortune. He has a sizeable stake in New York-based cash and carry operation Jetro Holdings because he runs the Kirsh Group, which has a 75% stake in Jetro.
5. Lloyd Dorfman

Lloyd Dorfman from London is made a CBE by The Queen at Buckingham Palace.PA
Donation: £600,000.
Net worth: £556 million.
Dorfman founded the Travelex chain in London and received £240 million for part of his stake when he sold it in 2014. In 2014 he and Network Rail launched the Doddle parcel collection service.
4. Mark Coombs

Donation: £750,000.
Net worth: £1.156 billion.
Coombs is the CEO of Ashmore Group, worth more than £2 billion.

T=2. Mike Gooley

YouTube/TravelMail
Donation: £1 million.
Net worth: £360 million.
Gooley, a former SAS soldier for 10 years, set up travel agency Trailfinders in 1970 and it made him a multi-millionaire.

T=2. David Harding.

CNBC/YouTube
Donation: £1 million.
Net worth: £1.3 billion.
Harding is one of the richest hedge fund managers in Britain. He set up Winton Group in 1997 and it also gained $1.1 billion in the days after the referendum.


1. Lord Sainsbury Now does not support Political causes in favour of charity.

PA
Donation: £4,228,234.
Net worth: £560 million.
Lord Sainsbury is by far the biggest financial backer of the remain campaign and even gave £2.1 million each to Labour and the Liberal Democrats parties. He was the former Labour science minister.
uk.businessinsider.com/sunday-times-rich-list-2017-biggest-donors-to-the-remain-campaign-against-a-brexit-2017-5/#t2-david-harding-22

varian Mon 13-Aug-18 21:11:48
Over the next few weeks, hundreds of local Labour parties will consider a contemporary motion backing a ‘people’s vote’ on Brexit, with a view to sending it to Labour conference. It has already been passed by nine CLPs, while another 130 or so are set to debate it before the deadline of 13th September. The question is whether the motion is chosen in the priorities ballot, which determines what is to be debated at conference. And that depends on how hard the party leadership, and particularly Momentum, whip against prioritising a Brexit debate.

This is very interesting Varian. Clearly you are heavily involved. The grassroots of the Labour Party who voted Leave will desert leaving the Labour Party in the hands of the extremist's.

Smart observation Jalimal.

I am not involved in the Labour Party but I recognise that they are the official opposition and it is about time they started to oppose the madness tbat is brexit.

Well that would be difficult since they stood for election and re-election at the General Election on a Pro Brexit mandate. To change that would mean the end of the Labour Party as we know it. Perhaps that is what a lot of the far left want.

Things have to be done in a proper manner Varian in a democracy, other wise we do have anarchy. If anyone want's to change anything then they will need to form a party and stand at the next General Election on a mandate that mirrors what they want to do. People will vote for them or not. That's how it's done!

Your lack of understanding of our democracy is astounding

As is your's Varian. You really think that you can overthrow two majority votes one for Brexit and another supporting mandates of the two leading Political party's who were voted into Government and Opposition. I just have to ask this, have you been use to a different system at some time?

Allygran1, no one is interested now in cut and paste as to what has gone before in regards to Brexit. What is of supreme importance with just over six months until Brexit actually comes into being, is what will be the situation on that day in regards to working families everyday lives and employment.

With the leaders of industry now coming out ever more forcefully with statements on the effects a "no deal" Brexit will have on their industries, then it is those statements which are now commanding the main opinion debate at the present time.

It would seem that the leave campaign leaders and supporters have no answers or counter debate to those industry leaders statements. in that they "run away" in reliance of what has gone before in the Brexit debate or the old worn out slogan of "take back control".

Many would seem to now ask " take back control of what", our ports that cannot cope without frictionless trade, a broken transport system and what is left of Britains manufacturing industry rapidly moving to Europe.

I believe in the above are the outright challenges that the leave supporters have to confront and answer if the tide of public opinion now flowing strongly towards remaining in the European Union is to be checked.

So, let us see on this forum if the leave supporters can justify the "no deal" Brexit that their leaders now seem to support, and demonstrate how that would be in the interests of all working families in the UK.

Have you read the cut and paste from Joelsnan...no I thought not!

There are two options Grandad if the EU are to remain intransigent, which I doubt..however let us assume they do. The UK has no other option than go down the WTO route. That means the EU lose out! We have all our temporary contingencies in place for that outcome. With a deal if it is not the right deal TM has two options accept it and suffer the consequences of whatever the deal is that is not right, or she walks away and we go WTO.

Grandad can you demonstrate how it would not be in the interests of "all working families in the UK". The manufacturing industry in the EEA (not Europe) as you so often refer to it. The EEA manufacturing is in the doldrums, not many are going to consider right now moving their manufacturing industries to EEA Countries. The situation in Europe is bad. Get the rose coloured specs off!

It's copy and paste. Nothing is cut, all the original is still there.
I still can't really take seriously someone who misuses the English language

Having read about WTO regulations etc they are far worse than EU ones and that really is an unelected body! There is no guarantee that they will let the U.K. join anyway as several countries have intimated they will vote against.

Seems this thread is also getting like a playground

Told you before Maizie...you are more privileged than I. It's aint the way I write it, it's wot I say that matters Gov! [pulling forelock] Clearly it rattles your cage!

Welshwife information on WTO.

The WTO is not pretending to be anything other than an unelected body. It is a trade organisation that as it say's World Trade Organisation. It is not pretending to be a Country and control with regulations the "four freedoms" that bind into every trade agreement. Nor is it making all UK citizens into WTO citizens and issuing passports. Nor does it control who travels where.

^The UK’s status in the WTO after Brexit
Lorand Bartels* 23 September 2016^

Conclusion
To summarise, on the basis of the analysis offered here, the UK already today possesses full WTO rights and obligations under the WTO multilateral trade agreements, even if these are, at present, for the most part, exercised and performed on its behalf by the EU. In many respects it is not complicated to identify these rights and obligations, and this is particularly true of rights and obligations applicable erga omnes partes to all WTO Members (or categories of Members). There is a question concerning the territorial limitation in the UK’s GATS schedule, according to which the schedule only applies to EU territory, but it is argued, based on the ‘moving frontiers’ rule, that this limitation can be ignored in the UK’s new schedule.
Complications arise where the UK’s rights correspond to part of an obligation, determined on a quantified basis, that is currently set out in the EU and EU Member State schedules.

These EU and EU member schedules are currently being disconnected from the UK schedules.

This is the case for the EU’s right to subsidise agricultural production up to a set limit. It was suggested that the UK should adopt a subsidy commitment calculated by applying the UK:EU ratio of payments from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy over the past three years to these commitments. As to the UK’s quantified obligations corresponding to the EU’s country-specific tariff rate quotas, it is likely that, in practice, quotas are likely to be established with relevant WTO Members by agreement, in accordance with Article XIII:2 of the GATT 1994. However, such agreements should be reached against the background of the fact that the UK currently possesses obligations with respect to these tariff rate quotas; it is just difficult to know what these obligations mean in practice. The real problem, however, is that regardless of how a quota might be determined, the EU-27 would have a right to access this quota under Article XIII:2. This would raise the possibility of a non- violation complaint, on the basis that at the time the quotas were agreed, they would exclude imports from other EU Member States. To forestall such a complaint, it was suggested that the UK could offer tariff rate quotas corresponding to recent imports, including from the EU-27, over a representative most likely three-year period.
As to the procedure to be followed, it was suggested that the UK should submit new schedules under Article II of the GATT 1994 and Article XX of the GATS, as other ‘changes’ and rectifications to the current EU schedule, in respect of itself and its territory. It is almost certain that other WTO Members will object to these schedules, but, importantly, these objections do not require the UK to enter into renegotiation of the UK’s entire schedule, as is sometimes thought to be the case*. *Other WTO Members hold no veto over the determination of the UK’s schedules or over its legal position within the WTO in any other respect*. *At most, objections might lead to arbitration on the value of a compensatory adjustment following an alleged modification of the UK’s services concession (which might be zero) ^and dispute settlement proceedings in respect of any given measure alleged to violate the UK’s commitments or that otherwise nullifies or impairs benefits under the GATT 1994 or the GATS. However, it is also submitted that the UK will be able to forestall any such proceedings by determining its tariff rate quota and subsidy commitments along the lines suggested here.

newsite.diplomaticlawguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Lorand-Bartel-UK-WTO-Schedules-Paper-September-2016.pdf

This is a cut and paste. Cut meaning that it is not the full analysis, this part has been cut from the rest and then pasted on here. The link has the whole document. This might clear up one posters understanding of what 'cut' in these circumstances means.

The United Kingdom already has membership of the WTO. We joined 1st January 1995. Wisely it would appear!

All the backstops are in place nellie. Intransigence from the EU is expected and prepared for as you say UK is already a member of the WTO since 1995. Even that membership was absorbed and taken over by the EU.

To summarise, on the basis of the analysis offered here, the UK already today possesses full WTO rights and obligations under the WTO multilateral trade agreements, even if these are, at present, for the most part, exercised and performed on its behalf by the EU. So another thing we are taking back unto ourselves as we Brexit.

Ok, I'm back. Some things are just too hard to ignore!

Allygran1

^"Well that would be difficult since they stood for election and re-election at the General Election on a Pro Brexit mandate ...

And that is just one of many reasons why it is totally ridiculous to claim that the 2017 General Election result validates Brexit - a claim that you, amongst others, have made up-thread.
Surely you don't believe that everyone who voted for either of those parties was in favour of Brexit? I can state quite unequivocally that that is untrue. Any reasonably intelligent voter would have read the parties' manifestos and based their vote on the whole. That is what General Elections are all about - not one-issue votes.

In fact, even the claim that Labour stood on a pro-Brexit mandate seems dubious. I don't pretend to have read their manifesto in detail, but a quick glance at it now shows that Brexit wasn't even top of the list, and when it does appear, it says "Labour accepts the referendum result ...", which is hardly the same thing.

The 2017 General Election result is in no way whatsoever an endorsement of the referendum result, and claims that it is are blatantly untrue. The only second vote that could possibly do that would be a second referendum.

Your comment about 2017 General Election result validating Brexit.

How can you state "unequivocally that that is untrue" Mama?
Please tell me how you know that this is not true?

Two votes, majority leave the EU in one, General Election with both party's standing on a Pro Brexit mandate both re-elected as were all the MP's on that Mandate. Both Government and Opposition re-elected on a Pro Brexit Mandate.

Brexit not being at the "top of the List" in the Labour Party manifesto makes no difference whatsoever Mama. It is one of the promises made to the electorate to get them to vote Labour.

Mama. The General Election was a resounding endorsement of the Referendum result and authorised the Government to proceed to exit from the EU.

'Labour accepts the referendum.' That is the same thing as endorsing brexit! As the referendum was in favour of brexit and Labour accepted the referendum how could it not endorse brexit?!!!

So the parties manifestos were just for fun, were they, allygran?
And are you saying that everyone who voted either Labour or Conservative was pro-Brexit? Ridiculous!