Here's an opportunity for all the Leavers

It would be good, though, Lemongrove, to read about just what legislation leavers will be pressing for to help exports and customs control and minimise the adulteration of food with substances that we so far have not allowed in, to get immigration for key employment fields while avoiding being a magnet for economic migrants from the whole globe, to ensure everyone has enough to live on while clamping down on benefit fraud at all levels, to put safety regulations in place that don't make it viability impossible, food safety without "banning bent bananas" and so on and so forth.

All sweetness and light? Not humanly possible, but it is possible to discuss without personal vituperation.

Varian, with regard to your post @8:03 today, you state that "Democracy has lost. We have all lost".

In the above, and speaking as someone who voted Remain in the referendum, I firmly believe that democracy has won in the final outcome of the debate as to whether Britain should remain or leave the European Union.

There was a prevalence among all those who took part in the referendum ballot, and those that did not clearly held no views on the matter. Therefore, those who polled to leave held a valid democratic majority in that end outcome.

What all in this nation should now be concentrating on at this point in time is for Britain to make the best of the position it now finds itself in. Therefore, there is only one attitude to take, and that must be that we go forward from where we all are, for that will be the only way to ensure the most promising future possible for our children and grandchildren.

No other attitude holds any future for anyone.

^ I firmly believe that democracy has won in the final outcome of the debate^

I can only assume, Grandad, that you are completely unaware of the serious questions which have been raised over the nature of the Leave Campaigns; illegal funding, foreign intervention, illegal data scraping from social media accounts, use of targeted advertising, not universally available for everyone to see, to judge, and to respond to. Not to mention the 'industrial strength' lies (all on record but all being furiously backpedalled on or deleted).

Either you're not aware of all these things or you're happy to close your eyes to them and condone the actual death of democracy which these things contribute to.

Did the Government not indicate that the report on Russian interference would be published after the election. Has anybody seen it?

I doubt it will ever see the light of day, Greta. The people running the government now are the same people who ran the Leave campaign. The last thing they want is any light shone on their actions.

The result, although a dreadful shock and, IMO. a disastrous decision, I could have come to terms with had not so much emerged since about the devious, illegal, and undemocratic nature of the main Leave campaigns.

And I reserve my absolute right to keep repeating this, however much it might annoy the Leavers on here.

It doesn't annoy us.
You are perfectly entitled to express your opinion.
That is democracy.

Very good answer, easybee.

MaizieD, in regard to your post @11:23 today, there are undoubtedly questions over the way the leave campaign conducted their campaign during the referendum. However, that is now all "water under the bridge", and as I stated in my post @11:04 today there can be now no other attitude for this nation but one of we go forward from where Britain now finds itself.

The United Kingdom has now left the European Union and therefore there is no other attitude but the above that can, or will, produce any positive results.

By example to the above, we in our business spent many long hours last week completely separating the operations of our European office from those which are carried out in our British Offices. The legislation that controls industrial Safety in both Europe and the United Kindom has now unlocked and may not stay in alignment. Therefore both sectors of the business must now reflect that fact and become independent and self-sustaining both financially and operationally.

We all regretted having to carry out the above, but there could be no other option if the business is to be sustainable and effectively operational into the future.

Many other British businesses are now carrying out similar to the above to maintain sustainability which is all very sad but a very necessary action and attitude.

Grandad

Your post of 11.04 certainly resonates with me.

Spit on.

Noooooooo

Not spit ' SPOT' on. Phew.

Greta Mon 10-Feb-20 11:31:58

'Did the Government not indicate that the report on Russian interference would be published after the election. Has anybody seen it?'
---

MaizieD Mon 10-Feb-20 12:03:10

'I doubt it will ever see the light of day, Greta. The people running the government now are the same people who ran the Leave campaign. The last thing they want is any light shone on their actions.

And I reserve my absolute right to keep repeating this, however much it might annoy the Leavers on here.'
--

It is not so much having the right to repeat your point that is annoying it is the fact you do not check to understand what is happening before making statements.

This is from PMQ' s 5th February 2020:-

OWEN THOMPSON SNP whip

"We know that the Prime Minister has form in ducking democratic scrutiny at every opportunity and that his party is no stranger to receiving Russian donations, but his repeated refusal to publish the report on Russian interference in UK democracy is unjustifiable and unacceptable. Will he tell us clearly, without bluff and bluster, when the report will be published, why it has been delayed for so long, and when he will reconvene the Intelligence and Security Committee?

BORIS JOHNSON

The report will of course be published—as the hon. Gentleman knows full well—when the Intelligence and Security Committee is reconstituted, and I think that his conspiratorial frame of mind is likely to be thoroughly disappointed by the results.
------------------

As we know Parliament was ' dissolved ' for the purpose of the General Election and therefore the Intelligence and Security Committee, as with other committees, is awaiting the announcement of it's new appointments.

So when The Russia Interference report will be released is unknown but excuses would not be a viable position now for the Government I agree.

I agree with your last sentence POGS.

Democracy isn't just about putting a cross in a box. A healthy democracy depends on a pro-active public, which isn't passive about what's going on. The government must be accountable for what it does. It needs to keep its promises. Otherwise, democracy is meaningless.

If the Russia Report shows that people acted illegally, they must be named and action taken.

There are enough warning bells about the way this government has acted in the short time it's been in power for me to be cynical about its motivations. Maybe the majority of people don't care, but I do - and others do too.

That doesn't mean I don't accept the result of the referendum, but nothing is ever static.

The Russian Report was ready for release before the end of the last government. The Chair of the the Intelligence and Security Committee, Dominic Grieve, said that it had been cleared for publication and there was no reason at all why its release should be delayed. It was blocked by the PM

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-news-russia-report-intelligence-agency-grieve-a9187616.html

BORIS JOHNSON

The report will of course be published—as the hon. Gentleman knows full well—when the Intelligence and Security Committee is reconstituted, and I think that his conspiratorial frame of mind is likely to be thoroughly disappointed by the results.

I am completely aware of this, POGS. You might believe this compulsive serial liar; I, and many other people, don't.

When If the Intelligence and Security Committee is reconstituted. I wouldn't put it past this scheming bunch of shysters - with advice from Cummings - to abolish the committee.

It would appear that the Prime Minister is responsible for nominating members for the Committee. but so far, has declined to do so.

There are apparently legal actions ongoing to force publication.

Dominic Grieve was the last Committee Chairperson, so knows what's in the report.

The Report was given to the Prime Minister on October 17th 2019.

Parliament was dissolved on November 6th 2019.

That was 20 days in my reckoning for the PM to read it and approve the release. There was nothing unusual for a Report to be published outside of 20 days.

During that time the political landscape of Brexit/General Election took center stage and Parliament was dissolved as we know.

On winning the General Election the Prime Minister ' signed off ' the report on Dec 16th. The Parliamentary procedure follows that the ' Newly ' formed Intelligence and Security Committee must take up position before it's release and that is where we are.

Now I know the likes of Dominique Grieve, Hilary Clinton et al who are no friends of Boris Johnson tried to discredit the PM but there is also a complete failure to understand that in fact nothing unusual has happened but hey politics is a game of spin and accusation.

If Boris Johnson holds back the release of the Russia report after the new Intelligence and Security Committee sanctions the release I will hold him to account.

Time will tell.

growstuff Mon 10-Feb-20 14:35:39

'When If the Intelligence and Security Committee is reconstituted. I wouldn't put it past this scheming bunch of shysters - with advice from Cummings - to abolish the committee.'
--

Dear lord what utter rubbish.

You can see how partisan politics leads to conspiracy theories that to be honest makes some look silly.

POGS, I'm not holding my breath about it because I doubt there will be anything incriminating left in it. Apparently, Johnson had already made a number of redactions. As you say, it had been signed off and there isn't anything else to be done before publication. It just seems very suspicious. He's squirming and people will think there must be a reason for that.

growstuff

'Apparently, Johnson had already made a number of redactions'
----

Redactions are done for security reasons and I think there are '' many eyes ' looking for that.

There is absolute no chance Cummings or Johnson could possibly abolish the Intelligence and Security Committee no matter if you think they are ' shysters '

As for saying:-

' He's squirming '. Is he, or just going through due process?.

We will each have our own opinion but at least ' facts' should be part of the equation before deciding.

It is a fact, POGS, that Johnson is a compulsive serial liar and his word cannot be trusted. Yes, it's a 'fact' that he has said the report will be posted. He is perfectly capable of going back on his word.

There is absolute no chance Cummings or Johnson could possibly abolish the Intelligence and Security Committee

Why not? There is absolutely no-one to call him to account. Could it be subject to a legal challenge?

He could constitute a new committee under a different name with much the same functions. Then claim that the Select Comm. that compiled the report no longer exists so there is no need to publish it..

Maizie d

'Why not? There is absolutely no-one to call him to account. Could it be subject to a legal challenge?'
--

Johnson does hold the majority in Parliament but to abolish the Justice and Security Act 2013 would be challenged not only in Parliament but also The Lords and Courts.

I do not think there is any chance of that happening but you do so we will have to agree to disagree.

He could amend the Act, POGS. No Parliament is bound by its predecessors.

Cummings is very creative...

Will we ever see the report which was passed by the security services and cleared for release last September or will we given a censored version further redacted by Johnson?

Those who manouevered him into Downing Street, those who wish this country harm, do not want this report disclosed.

Just as it is a 'fact' that Boris Johnson declared:

"^There will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK.
These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present.^"

It didn't take long for that promise to be broken.

On the Citizens' Rights watchdog:

”^Overseeing the whole system is the snappily-titled Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements. This is the watchdog which will assess how fair the process is and if the government is complying with the requirements of its deal with the EU.
The exact composition of it is unclear right now. There'll be executive and non-executive directors. Sources suggest the government wants to hand this to the Ministry of Justice, rather than the Home Office. Advocates for European citizens want it led by the chief inspector of borders and immigration, who is at least one step removed from the government and has already worked on the issue. Alternately, a senior judge could be put in place.
But regardless of how it's constituted, the entire functioning of the watchdog has been fiddled with to make it more compliant. As Peter Foster reported in the Telegraph earlier this week, the EU have written to Brexit secretary Stephen Barclay raising concerns about the powers the government has given itself to abolish the watchdog.^”

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2020/01/09/with-his-majority-in-place-johnson-chips-away-at-eu-citizen

I know that this will be seen by some as ”bleating on and on”. I'll take that risk.

A co-incidence - I have just read an article about the fish supposedly thrown back by UK fishermen under what a poster thought was EU legislation. The media have quoted "a million tonnes of dead fish a year" but that is both a wild estimate of the TOTAL by all nations fishing in the North Sea and no longer a requirement.

"Reality Check verdict: No one has ever come up with a credible figure of one million tonnes for UK fishermen alone. It's true that UK fishermen were required by EU rules in the past to throw back unwanted or undersized fish - although exactly how much is not known. The EU started reversing these rules in 2016 and by 2019 vessels weren't allowed to throw back any fish subject to quotas.

In 2008, a report from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) put the figure [the total] for the North Sea at one million tonnes. Again it did not single out the UK. This was calculated by subtracting kilos of fish sold from kilos of fish caught." I do wonder too whether some of those kilos of "fish caught" and "fish sold" got lost in the counting, one way or another.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51415240