/ Project Fear or Stark Reality?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The Lemming 12 Sep 2019

Seems like Yellow Hammer is more stark in its description than Gove was willing to portray to calm worries of No Deal.

Boris has an escape boat, do you?

Now that the No Deal assessment has been released, should private communication between No 10 Advisors be released as well?

Post edited at 08:13
3
john arran 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

Did you see that the released report is the same as the one leaked to the Sunday Times a few weeks ago, except that the title has magically changed from saying 'Baseline' to saying 'Worst case scenario'?

I know they take us all for idiots but for how long are we going to keep proving them right?

1
wercat 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

I wondered if it was so named to "Hammer" the "Yellow" (insult) alleged "Project Fear" experts

stevieb 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> should private communication between No 10 Advisors be released as well?

my instinctive answer is no. In much the same way that the UK ambassador needs to be able to communicate openly with the PM, so must his advisors in number 10. 

5
wintertree 12 Sep 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> my instinctive answer is no. In much the same way that the UK ambassador needs to be able to communicate openly with the PM, so must his advisors in number 10. 

If the advisors were accountable and working for the national/public interest I might agree with you.

Something I don’t know - where does Cummings’ salary actually come from?  

Ian W 12 Sep 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> If the advisors were accountable and working for the national/public interest I might agree with you.

> Something I don’t know - where does Cummings’ salary actually come from? 

As a special adviser, he would normally be paid from public funds - there is a pot for this. Chukka Umunna has submitted a FOI request, as it is thought unlikely he would work for the normal special adviser salary (anything up to £160k), but this is completely unsubstantiated. The FOI request has been turned down, and we will all have to wait until december, when advisers salaries etc are published as a matter of course.

cb294 12 Sep 2019
In reply to wercat:

I thought it was someone showing dark humour, given that the yellowhammer song is in folk tradition transcribed as "A little bread and no CHEESE".

CB

jimtitt 12 Sep 2019
In reply to wintertree:

Special advisors are temporary civil servants, a list with their saleries is published yearly. He'll be on 140,000+.

wercat 12 Sep 2019
In reply to cb294:

very apt

The Lemming 12 Sep 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> my instinctive answer is no. In much the same way that the UK ambassador needs to be able to communicate openly with the PM, so must his advisors in number 10. 


An ambassador by their very nature has gravitas and represents a nation.

An advisor has more grubby connotations and is using their five minutes of fame to fill their pockets from the gravey train that will end abruptly once their specialist skills have been spent. Those specialist skills, depending on your perspective, could harm the country. And more importantly a WhatsApp conversation would reveal the true personality and thought process before it is filtered for media consumption.

I'm betting the private conversations are career breaking and potential for jail time, quite possibly for the new PM.

Post edited at 09:49
2
stevieb 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

That doesn’t change the underlying point. Advisors should be free to give advice openly and honestly. If every little email is made public then either the advice will be given verbally or the advice will be constrained. Neither of these is beneficial. 

If there is a police investigation then obviously they should have access to much more. 

summo 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

I presume you also agree that all communications from Labour meetings, Corbyn, McCluskey, McDonnell, other union leaders, etc should be public too? We might be able to work out just what Labours stance really is! 

3
The Lemming 12 Sep 2019
In reply to summo:

Get back under your bridge.

20
summo 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> Get back under your bridge.

Oh I guess you only want the aides assisting the people you dislike to go public? Off to the gulag for me. 

Post edited at 10:59
5
The Lemming 12 Sep 2019
In reply to summo:

Not playing.

1
baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

You do understand what private means so why do you want to see it?

jezb1 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> Seems like Yellow Hammer is more stark in its description than Gove was willing to portray to calm worries of No Deal.

> Boris has an escape boat, do you?

> Now that the No Deal assessment has been released, should private communication between No 10 Advisors be released as well?

What do you think?

MG 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

No one is asking for private material.  The request is specifically for material relating to government by communicated using private phones etc., presumably to avoid scrutiny.

1
The Lemming 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> You do understand what private means so why do you want to see it?


The Yellowhammer documents were private. Do you think that should have remained private considering the gravity of the situation that the nation is?

1
baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

And how do you separate a ‘private’ message on a phone from an ‘official’ message?

Private meaning personal and official to something relating to the government.

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

Yellow hammer documents were compiled for the government.

There’s a world of difference between publishing them and scrolling through the entire contents of someone’s phone.

2
MG 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> And how do you separate a ‘private’ message on a phone from an ‘official’ message?

The content, clearly. 

"Home at 8pm" > obviously private

"Let's pretend proroguing is all about a new parliament but it clearly isn't but let's do this by Whatsapp to avoid an official record" > clearly shouldn't be private.

The Lemming 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> And how do you separate a ‘private’ message on a phone from an ‘official’ message?

I think that any HR Department can answer that one. However if you want a Law Court to play as well then the stakes are much higher than being sacked.

1
baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

And who is going to read this content?

Would you want your private messages read by whoever?

Would you trust the ‘private’ content not to be leaked because I wouldn’t.

This is as dangerous territory as suspending parliament, lying to the queen, etc

3
The Lemming 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

Who lied to the queen?

1
baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> I think that any HR Department can answer that one. However if you want a Law Court to play as well then the stakes are much higher than being sacked.

Can they?

How many jobs allow someone to demand access to your private phone?

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> Who lied to the queen?

Johnson, allegedly, according to some sources.

Bob Kemp 12 Sep 2019
In reply to summo:

Another false equivalence... we're talking about the Government, not the Conservative Party. Now if the Cons were to make all their communications public, that would be fun...

MG 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> And who is going to read this content?

Everyone, who wanted to, I would hope.  These messages if they exist (and it hasn't been denied) should be available.

> Would you want your private messages read by whoever?

Again, these aren't private messages

> This is as dangerous territory as suspending parliament, lying to the queen, etc

You think being compelled to release messages wrongly (probably illegally) sent on private phones is comparable to suspending parliament?  I think you need to calibrate.    How about if it was say financial fraudsters accused of something similar as with lending rates recently, would you similarly object?

The Lemming 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Can they?

> How many jobs allow someone to demand access to your private phone?

Employers with Secret Services and spy tech at their disposal?

MonkeyPuzzle 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Can they?

> How many jobs allow someone to demand access to your private phone?

Special Advisor to Sajid Javid apparently, if ordered by Johnson and Cummings.

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

So you want a person to hand over their private phone so that anybody who wants to read all of its content can do so?

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Special Advisor to Sajid Javid apparently, if ordered by Johnson and Cummings.

Your employer can demand all sorts of things but that doesn’t mean that it’s allowed or that you have to comply.

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> Employers with Secret Services and spy tech at their disposal?

Were you wearing your tin foil hat when you typed that?

1
MG 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

Why are you being so childish? As I've explained now three times this isn't about reading all messages.

wintertree 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> And how do you separate a ‘private’ message on a phone from an ‘official’ message?

> Private meaning personal and official to something relating to the government.

You go through each message one by one and determine if it is “personal” or “something relating to government”.  For the ones relating to government you put the message in the collection that is then released.

Not exactly rocket science is it...

> And who is going to read this content?

I expect a reputable digital forensics firm would be employed to do this.

> Would you want your private messages read by whoever?

If I was at the top levels of government I would assume various agencies around the world were routinely reading my WhatsApp etc so the prospect of a firm actually bound by UK privacy rules wouldn’t upset me...

> Would you trust the ‘private’ content not to be leaked because I wouldn’t.

Find me an example of private phone content leaked in the UK by a digital forensics firm working for the police.

> This is as dangerous territory as suspending parliament, lying to the queen, etc

I agree, setting a precedent that one is not allowed to look for evidence of criminality in personal messages because the individuals could be embarrassed by release of their dick picks [1] or whatever is dangerous territory.  

There must be appropriate due process for a search but if followed it should totally include unofficial channels or it’s a toothless waste of time.  For you to argue about excluding channels and not due process is odd.

[1] synonym for “selfie” in this instance,

Post edited at 12:00
baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> Why are you being so childish? As I've explained now three times this isn't about reading all messages.

I’m not being childish but I might be being a bit thick but I still don’t understand how you know if a message is private or not unless you read it.

3
timjones 12 Sep 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Did you see that the released report is the same as the one leaked to the Sunday Times a few weeks ago, except that the title has magically changed from saying 'Baseline' to saying 'Worst case scenario'?

> I know they take us all for idiots but for how long are we going to keep proving them right?

I'd say that it makes little difference whether you call it a baseline or a worst case scenario.

It's just a disappointment when we need to see the important information on what is being done to mitigate the risks.

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> You go through each message one by one and determine if it is “personal” or “something relating to government”.  For the ones relating to government you put the message in the collection that is then released.

> Not exactly rocket science is it...

So you read all the content in the hope of finding something that relates to what you’re looking for?

And hope that whoever reads the content doesn’t find anything else, totally unrelated to the initial search, which they might feel like leaking?

1
timjones 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> Get back under your bridge.

Maybe he could join you under you bridge ;)

wintertree 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> How many jobs allow someone to demand access to your private phone?

Quite a few actually.

Example 1 - although I never explicitly agreed to it, when I added my work emails over to my phone I granted my employer various access to the device including the ability to remote wipe it.  This is covered in subsection X of paragraph Y of page Z of one of our many policies.

Example 2 - If somebody that I produce written communication about submits a subject access request to my employer for communications about themselves, and I am asked to provide all written communication from me with reference to that person, then it matters not a jot if that is written on a work server, a piece of paper locked in my desk draw or on my mobile.  I ether provide it or I am breaking the law.

wintertree 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> So you read all the content in the hope of finding something that relates to what you’re looking for?

> And hope that whoever reads the content doesn’t find anything else, totally unrelated to the initial search, which they might feel like leaking?

Like I said – not rocket science. This happens day in day out in civil and criminal investigations, and there is no shortage of law to clobber someone with if they leak *any* information.   It should be pretty obvious that a digital forensics firm has a very strong motivation to be compliant with the law and best practice when it comes to not leaking information… 

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> > How many jobs allow someone to demand access to your private phone?

> Quite a few actually.

> Example 1 - although I never explicitly agreed to it, when I added my work emails over to my phone I granted my employer various access to the device including the ability to remote wipe it.  This is covered in subsection X of paragraph Y of page Z of one of our many policies.

> Example 2 - If somebody that I produce written communication about submits a subject access request to my employer for communications about themselves, and I am asked to provide all written communication from me with reference to that person, then it matters not a jot if that is written on a work server, a piece of paper locked in my desk draw or on my mobile.  I ether provide it or I am breaking the law.

You agreed to these things.

We’re discussing the reading of a person’s phone content, by all and sundry according to one poster, with no hint of illegality.

If you’re OK with that then fine but I’m not. 

4
seankenny 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> And who is going to read this content?

> Would you want your private messages read by whoever?

> Would you trust the ‘private’ content not to be leaked because I wouldn’t.

> This is as dangerous territory as suspending parliament, lying to the queen, etc

Excellent. You’ve just worked out why officials get given work phones and are expected to use work phones for official business.

Now tell us what should happen when officials think the rules shouldn’t apply to them, and so use their personal phones to conduct government business in order to avoid scrutiny. What should happen in that case?

Eric9Points 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

I read it last night and didn't find it too disturbing. Businesses will find ways to continue to do business provided they make a profit. I thought the issue of pensions paid to UK citizens living in the EU and vice versa was perhaps the most troubling.

I'm far more concerned by the longer term impact a No Deal Brexit would have on the economy.

Anyway, we're not leaving without a deal.

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to seankenny:

> Excellent. You’ve just worked out why officials get given work phones and are expected to use work phones for official business.

> Now tell us what should happen when officials think the rules shouldn’t apply to them, and so use their personal phones to conduct government business in order to avoid scrutiny. What should happen in that case?

And how do we know that officials have been using their private phones for official business?

Is Cummings even an official?

4
Oceanrower 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Anyway, we're not leaving.

Fixed the last sentence for you...

Eric9Points 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> Seems like Yellow Hammer is more stark in its description than Gove was willing to portray to calm worries of No Deal.

> Boris has an escape boat, do you?

> Now that the No Deal assessment has been released, should private communication between No 10 Advisors be released as well?


How do you know what is communicated if it is private?

Harry Jarvis 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> And how do we know that officials have been using their private phones for official business?

We don't. Would you take the word of Johnson and Cummings if they were to deny that they had used their private phones for official business? 

> Is Cummings even an official?

He is a Special Advisor, and as such is a Civil Servant. 

seankenny 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

Is Cummings an official? If you were genuinely curious you could look at Wikipedia which has the following description of a special advisor: 

“Special advisers are paid by central government and are styled as so-called "temporary civil servants" appointed under Article 3 of the Civil Service Order in Council 1995.”

How do we know? Other officials - presumably those who expect government to work in a regular fashion - have told Dominic Grieve that they suspect the improper use of personal phones. Now he is trying to find out. Again, easy to research this and find out for yourself.

Now tell us, why are you so keen to see the norms of government subverted?

MonkeyPuzzle 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> And how do we know that officials have been using their private phones for official business?

Whistleblowers/leaks from within government.

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to seankenny:

> Is Cummings an official? If you were genuinely curious you could look at Wikipedia which has the following description of a special advisor: 

> “Special advisers are paid by central government and are styled as so-called "temporary civil servants" appointed under Article 3 of the Civil Service Order in Council 1995.”

> How do we know? Other officials - presumably those who expect government to work in a regular fashion - have told Dominic Grieve that they suspect the improper use of personal phones. Now he is trying to find out. Again, easy to research this and find out for yourself.

> Now tell us, why are you so keen to see the norms of government subverted?

I’m keen to know where the boundaries of privacy lie.

So far we’ve had it suggested that, on the say so of unnamed people, some other people should be forced to hand over their private phones to allow the content of said phones to be read by whoever wants to.

I don’t see how, by objecting to this, I am keen to see the norms of government subverted.

4
MG 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> We’re discussing the reading of a person’s phone content, by all and sundry according to one poster, with no hint of illegality.

Help us out here.  Who has said that, and where?

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> Help us out here.  Who has said that, and where?

You did, today, at 11.36

’Everyone, who wanted to, I hope’

1
MG 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> So far we’ve had it suggested that, on the say so of unnamed people,

All the people are named.  They voted for it in parliament.  There is a list - try google.

MG 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

I've highlighted three times that it is the content related to governance I am talking about.  By ignoring this again and quoting in that misleading way, you are now just flat out lying.  As you well know, just above that post, I wrote

The content, clearly. 

"Home at 8pm" > obviously private

"Let's pretend proroguing is all about a new parliament but it clearly isn't but let's do this by Whatsapp to avoid an official record" > clearly shouldn't be private.

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> All the people are named.  They voted for it in parliament.  There is a list - try google.

What am I supposed to google?

’Some unnamed person says Cummings used his phone so he should hand it over?’

2
SDM 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Can they?

> How many jobs allow someone to demand access to your private phone?

I have a work phone and work computers. These are used for work and are not intended to be used for private communications. My employer has the right to access files, usage, emails etc on these.

My private phone and computer are not used for work. My employer does not have a right to access these.

All pretty standard.

I know various departments within the civil service have a great number of restrictions on access to ensure that private devices cannot be used to access sensitive information and that sensitive information cannot make it's way on to the public domain uncontrolled. These restrictions apply to employees and external advisors. Surely these basic security measures apply all the way to the top to ensure neither sensitive government information nor people's private correspondence ends up in the wrong hands?

Andy Hardy 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Can they?

> How many jobs allow someone to demand access to your private phone?


To be fair, in how many jobs can you totally shaft the entire country?

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> To be fair, in how many jobs can you totally shaft the entire country?

To be equally fair, not many.

balmybaldwin 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Can they?

> How many jobs allow someone to demand access to your private phone?

A majority - its pretty standard practise where employee misconduct (particularly potentially criminal conduct) is suspected/under investigation

In fact it's so prevalent the EU have been trying to restrict this access which is a bit ironic.

For instance from my own employee handbook: 

Breach of this policy may result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. Disciplinary action may be taken regardless of whether the breach is committed during working hours, and regardless of whether our equipment or facilities are used for the purpose of committing the breach. Any employee suspected of committing a breach of this policy will be required to co-operate with our investigation, which may involve handing over personal devices, relevant passwords and login details.

It is also known that Cummings did this himself last week when he fired Javid's adviser - I didn't see any objections from downing street to this.

Post edited at 13:44
In reply to baron:

Why are you STILL ignoring the bit about only relevant messages being released to be read by 'all and sundry' - the level of dishonest debate from you is staggering sometimes

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Thanks for that.

What is ‘this policy’ that you refer to?

balmybaldwin 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

It's part of our Social media and use of the internet policy - covers things like slandering the company, revealing confidential documents (breach of non disclosure etc), releasing/selling/offering to sell customer data, opening back doors in our systems etc. It's pretty wide ranging.

Tyler 12 Sep 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Did you see that the released report is the same as the one leaked to the Sunday Times a few weeks ago, except that the title has magically changed from saying 'Baseline' to saying 'Worst case scenario'?

Strange decision to only publish the worst case view, I wonder when they are going  to publish the most likely scenario

Harry Jarvis 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

Do you think it right that advisors and members of Government can hide their communications simply by using private phones instead of using their official phones? 

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

> Why are you STILL ignoring the bit about only relevant messages being released to be read by 'all and sundry' - the level of dishonest debate from you is staggering sometimes

Because you’ve just made that up.

Have you read the thread?

The OP asked if advisors should release private communications.

I said no, others, strangely enough, disagreed.

Where is this dishonest debate that you’re talking about?

4
baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> It's part of our Social media and use of the internet policy - covers things like slandering the company, revealing confidential documents (breach of non disclosure etc), releasing/selling/offering to sell customer data, opening back doors in our systems etc. It's pretty wide ranging.

Thanks again

McHeath 12 Sep 2019
In reply to cb294:

Brilliantly (bird-)spotted!

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Do you think it right that advisors and members of Government can hide their communications simply by using private phones instead of using their official phones? 

I think that they are entitled to hide their private conversations from public view.

If they are engaged in illegal activities then the police can use their existing powers.

The OP was referring to Operation Yellowhammer which isn’t illegal.

I’m presuming that the Government still keeps many things secret for many years?

Harry Jarvis 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> The OP was referring to Operation Yellowhammer which isn’t illegal.

The OP was referring to Operation Yellowhammer, and to the instruction from Monday's Humble Address which directed Johnson to disclose messages relating to the suspension of parliament sent by his senior adviser, Dominic Cummings and various other aides on WhatsApp, Facebook, other social media and both their personal and professional phones.

Senior Conservatives have received information suggesting some impropriety in the way the Prime Minister and his advisors dealt with the issue of the prorogation and the reasons given to the Queen for the request to prorogue. 

Do you think the PM and his advisors should be held to account, or should they simply be allowed to get with anything they fancy? 

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

The OP said ‘Now that the No Deal assessment has been released, should private communication between No 10 Advisors be released as well’.

I took that to be a direct reference to the Yellowhammer documents.

You have added the issues raised by the humble address.

I think that the government and its advisors should obey the law.

Edited to add - 

Sorry, I’ve just read this

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-humble-address-motion

I can see what you mean now.

Apologies.

I still think that the government should obey the law.

Post edited at 14:28
Ian W 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

I dont think its adds anything by revealing the conversations. 

We know that both Johnson and Cummings give precisely no sh1ts about the truth or what people think of them, so whatever is on the phones / emails etc is of only passing interest, unless obviously criminal, in which case it will come out as part of a police investigation, as has already been mentioned upthread. They both appear to follow the mantra of "the end justifies the means", so if Cummings has been tasked with getting us out of the EU by 31st oct, he will do almost literally anything in order to achieve that. Other consequences, intended or otherwise, are completely irrelevant. Boris just seems to want to be in power for as long as possible. 

Dont forget - it doesnt matter if its a lie, as long as people believe it.

Harry Jarvis 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> The OP said ‘Now that the No Deal assessment has been released, should private communication between No 10 Advisors be released as well’.

> I took that to be a direct reference to the Yellowhammer documents.

Which were released as a result of the same Humble Address. 

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Which were released as a result of the same Humble Address. 

Yes, just read that.

See my edited previous post.

SDM 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> Strange decision to only publish the worst case view, I wonder when they are going  to publish the most likely scenario

They already did according to the Times. The "worst case" scenario published is apparently identical to the most likely scenario that has already been leaked to the Times.

Reading between the lines of their reporting, it seems almost certain that the report relating to the actual worst case scenario has also been leaked by the Times but they are sitting on it for now.

I think this story is going to run and run.

Tringa 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

More than two years ago Liam Fox said trade deals with the EU will be the easiest in history and therefore Yellowhammer must be fake news.

While Special Advisers are temporary civil servants they are appointed by the relevant politician, not centrally and ordinary civil servants are required to provide information and advice and to carry out their duties impartially.

Dave

MonkeyPuzzle 12 Sep 2019
In reply to SDM:

The Scottish government copy, dated 02/08, same as the released copy, says "Base Case" rather than the "Reasonable worst case" stated on the released one. Oops.

SDM 12 Sep 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

It's embarrassing that they thought they could get away with that. Shows the contempt they have for us all.

jkarran 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> And how do you separate a ‘private’ message on a phone from an ‘official’ message? Private meaning personal and official to something relating to the government.

In this instance: Does it relate in any way to proroguing parliament or the timing of events toward the end of this session?

Yes: It's no longer private.

No: It's private.

jk

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> In this instance: Does it relate in any way to proroguing parliament or the timing of events toward the end of this session?

> Yes: It's no longer private.

> No: It's private.

> jk

I don’t disagree with that.

It was just the idea that somebody - anybody according to one poster - could go through the contents of your phone in order to decide what is private and what isn’t.

MonkeyPuzzle 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

How else would you investigate an allegation of using private devices to conduct illicit government communication?

jkarran 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> It was just the idea that somebody - anybody according to one poster - could go through the contents of your phone in order to decide what is private and what isn’t.

Yeah but that has been clarified countless times yet you're still banging on about it as if you don't get it.

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Yeah but that has been clarified countless times yet you're still banging on about it as if you don't get it.

Go on then, humour me.

How does the process of selecting whose phone to examine, who does the examining, who decides what government policies are being investigated, who is the info distributed to, etc work?

And all without breaching any privacy laws.

3
baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> How else would you investigate an allegation of using private devices to conduct illicit government communication?

I don’t know.

How has it been handled in the past?

This can’t be the first time can it.

Maybe someone like Alastair Campbell would know about such things?

Harry Jarvis 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> How does the process of selecting whose phone to examine, who does the examining, who decides what government policies are being investigated, who is the info distributed to, etc work?

The issue regarding 'what government policies are being investigated' is clearly laid out in the Humble Address:

"all correspondence and other communications (whether formal or informal, in both written and electronic form, including but not limited to messaging services including WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook messenger, private email accounts both encrypted and unencrypted, text messaging and iMessage and the use of both official and personal mobile phones) to, from or within the present administration, since 23 July 2019 relating to the prorogation of Parliament sent or received by one or more of the following individuals: Hugh Bennett, Simon Burton, Dominic Cummings, Nikki da Costa, Tom Irven, Sir Roy Stone, Christopher James, Lee Cain or Beatrice Timpson;"

This was passed by a majority in the HoC on Monday.

As to the how - the police, using digital forensics, investigate communications all the time. It's really not very complicated. 

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Are you suggesting that the police now become involved?

I do not support a no deal Brexit nor the suspension of parliament.

However, there have been many controversial government policies over the years and yet there seems to be no precedent for what the humble address demands. why is that?

Johnson is accused, quite rightly, of stretching parliamentary procedures to the limit (and of illegal acts) yet the humble address was used in a way that is never has been before, there doesn’t seem to be much disquiet expressed about that on this thread.

It would seem that those opposed to Johnson are prepared to engage in any tactics in order to damage him while deploring a similar approach from the government.

4
MonkeyPuzzle 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

Are you seriously asking why parliament is having to set precedents to respond to a government shutting down parliament at the most crucial period in at least 70 years and that has openly considered ignoring the law?

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Are you seriously asking why parliament is having to set precedents to respond to a government shutting down parliament at the most crucial period in at least 70 years and that has openly considered ignoring the law?

Yes.

Is this the first time that a government has done something controversial?

In those previous cases did parliament use a humble address to demand individuals hand over their private communications devices?

This isn’t just about getting to the truth about suspending parliament otherwise MPs would have demanded the phones from senior officials who advise the PM and maybe even from the PM himself.

It’s about opposition and disaffected Conservative MPs exercising their newly found power to inflict damage on a government which is more than capable of self destructing on its own.

And while I think that the government can take care of itself what about those named advisers?

Are they all deemed to be involved? Or is it just trawling to see what turns up?

It’s another example of the Brexit process leading to the overturning long held conventions and procedures when it suits one side or the other.

Post edited at 18:55
4
wintertree 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> As to the how - the police, using digital forensics, investigate communications all the time. It's really not very complicated. 

Muss, but this time they need to investigate their *gasp* private mobile phones.  

Its a well known fact that all terrorists and drug dealers use their private and not work mobiles for crime.  

Less flippantly it’s interesting that WhatsApp is being floated as the medium - that is purportedly encrypted end-to-end denying spooks access to the data except by digital or physical access to the phones at either end of the conversation.  

Yanis Nayu 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

Don’t use your work ‘phone for private stuff and vice versa then. 

The Lemming 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Yes.

> Is this the first time that a government has done something controversial?

I think that you need to step away from the keyboard and have a think. And then think some more.

I'd say that Brexit is quintessentially the most controversial "Peace Time" crisis to engulf this country in centuries.

The Lemming 12 Sep 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> Less flippantly it’s interesting that WhatsApp is being floated as the medium - that is purportedly encrypted end-to-end denying spooks access to the data except by digital or physical access to the phones at either end of the conversation.  

Maybe the TV series "The Wire" has become essential viewing at an Induction process of new advisers to the PM?

MonkeyPuzzle 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Yes.

> Is this the first time that a government has done something controversial?

No. And this won't be the first time parliament has had to take necessary steps to hold government to account, i.e. do their stated job.

> In those previous cases did parliament use a humble address to demand individuals hand over their private communications devices?

Not sure whether Pitt the Elder ever had to hand over his Blackberry, I must admit.

> This isn’t just about getting to the truth about suspending parliament otherwise MPs would have demanded the phones from senior officials who advise the PM and maybe even from the PM himself.

So now your argument is *more* people should have to hand over their communication records?

> It’s about opposition and disaffected Conservative MPs exercising their newly found power to inflict damage on a government which is more than capable of self destructing on its own.

I'd say that hoofing longstanding MPs out the party for doing exactly what the now PM did only months before definitely wouldn't help garner any sympathy, but it appears that they're challenging the reasons for prorogation and putting the national interest first.

> And while I think that the government can take care of itself what about those named advisers?

What do you think is going to happen to them?

> Are they all deemed to be involved? Or is it just trawling to see what turns up?

There is a leak in Downing St and the names would have been guided by that source. Nikki da Costa and Dominic Cummins are pretty good shouts wouldn't you say? It's not trawling if there's a specific allegation.

> It’s another example of the Brexit process leading to the overturning long held conventions and procedures when it suits one side or the other.

No. This isn't a six-of-one issue. One side is alleged to have prorogued parliament under false pretences and therefore lied to parliament and the monarch. The other side has tried to use every avenue procedurally available to them to challenge this.

Do you think that the parliamentarians trying to stop the no-deal Brexit via potentially unlawful means should have just let it happen?

Post edited at 20:07
baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> Don’t use your work ‘phone for private stuff and vice versa then. 

What?

baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> I think that you need to step away from the keyboard and have a think. And then think some more.

> I'd say that Brexit is quintessentially the most controversial "Peace Time" crisis to engulf this country in centuries.

I can’t think of a civil answer to your insulting post so you’ll have to excuse me if I ignore you.

7
baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I think that most of the MPs who are trying to stop a no deal Brexit actually want to stop Brexit altogether.

The buffoon Johnson has just given them a whole load of new ammunition.

Parliament has stopped a no deal Brexit on 31st October - which was the right thing to do - so the humble address really has nothing to do with stopping no deal and everything to do with posturing for a general election or a referendum.

3
ali k 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Parliament has stopped a no deal Brexit on 31st October - which was the right thing to do - so the humble address really has nothing to do with stopping no deal and everything to do with posturing for a general election or a referendum.

No, Parliament has passed a law requiring Johnson to ask for an extension beyond 31st Oct if certain conditions aren’t met.

Johnson (and others in his Cabinet) are suggesting that he won’t abide by that law under any circumstances.

So, given Johnson’s clear contempt for Parliament as just an inconvenience and his refusal to abide by the law, you can understand why MPs might be keen to expose his real motives for proroguing Parliament (not the patently obvious LIE that he’s been spouting repeatedly about a Queen’s Speech).

The danger of a no-deal brexit on 31st Oct will not be eliminated until Johnson secures the extension he is obliged by law to so do. That is why MPs are so keen to hold him to account in Parliament in the meantime, and why the humble address was so important.

Post edited at 07:21
baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to ali k:

And how will parliament hold Johnson to account if he refuses to ask for an extension?

I would suggest that there’s been more public scrutiny of Johnson’s actions since he prorogued Parliament than there would have been if Parliament had carried on as normal.

TV news, newspapers and social media are full of politicians , experts and commentators who are analysing and speculating 24/7. Even Bercow had a speech televised.

I can’t comment about what’s happening on the radio as I don’t listen to it.

1
MG 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> I would suggest that there’s been more public scrutiny of Johnson’s actions since he prorogued Parliament than there would have been if Parliament had carried on as normal.

Well clearly we don't need parliament at all.  Let's just have a PM.  Obvious.  Perhaps we should rebrand things so everyone is clear - "Great Helmsman", maybe.

MonkeyPuzzle 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> I think that most of the MPs who are trying to stop a no deal Brexit actually want to stop Brexit altogether.

Despite large numbers of them having voted for the WA multiple times.

> The buffoon Johnson has just given them a whole load of new ammunition.

He's not a "buffoon" he's a cynical, authoritarian who has to be brought to heel.

> Parliament has stopped a no deal Brexit on 31st October - which was the right thing to do - so the humble address really has nothing to do with stopping no deal and everything to do with posturing for a general election or a referendum.

The Conservative politicians who have lost the whip and will likely lose their seats are posturing for a GE? Interesting take.

2
baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Despite large numbers of them having voted for the WA multiple times.

> He's not a "buffoon" he's a cynical, authoritarian who has to be brought to heel.

> The Conservative politicians who have lost the whip and will likely lose their seats are posturing for a GE? Interesting take.

If large numbers of them had very for the WA we’d have left by now.

So you think Johnson is following a cunning plan?

I presume that many of the MPs are posturing for a referendum, as I stated, rather than a GE.

2
ali k 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> I would suggest that there’s been more public scrutiny of Johnson’s actions since he prorogued Parliament than there would have been if Parliament had carried on as normal.

> TV news, newspapers and social media are full of politicians , experts and commentators who are analysing and speculating 24/7.

Are you seriously suggesting the soundbite-driven media questions, or twitter commentary is in any way comparable to the forensic questioning of e.g. cross-party select committees? (one of which Boris Johnson was supposed to be attending this week but did not due to prorogation).

jkarran 13 Sep 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> Less flippantly it’s interesting that WhatsApp is being floated as the medium - that is purportedly encrypted end-to-end denying spooks access to the data except by digital or physical access to the phones at either end of the conversation.  

It strikes me as very odd that people who might have cause to consider themselves surveillance targets consider any consumer phone app remotely secure. It seems likely the cypher text is sufficiently encrypted in transit to make it an unappealing target whether or not it's truly secure (history would suggest caution here) but the plain text each end, available to the operating system certainly isn't secure if you're already on the radar of a security service or spying operation. At best it seems the 'end to end' encryption probably prevents mass speculative eavesdropping.

jk

baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> Well clearly we don't need parliament at all.  Let's just have a PM.  Obvious.  Perhaps we should rebrand things so everyone is clear - "Great Helmsman", maybe.

We obviously need a Parliament but one that functions.

Have you ever watched Parliamentary TV?

For the majority of the time the chamber is almost empty.

It’s perfectly feasible for MPs to communicate with each other by other means than face to face.

Mobile phone for example - an official phone of course - wouldn’t want any talk of impropriety would we?

If Parliament was sitting they wouldn’t be holding Johnson to account they’d just be slagging him off and he’d be ignoring them. Unless the opposition have another humble address up their sleeves?

5
MG 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Mobile phone for example - an official phone of course - wouldn’t want any talk of impropriety would we?

Government by mobile phone??  I think Lemming had a point higher up.

seankenny 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Have you ever watched Parliamentary TV?

> For the majority of the time the chamber is almost empty.

I guess you’ve never heard of Select Committees. And tell me what use an MP who is an expert on domestic violence attending a detailed debate on tax policy, and vice versa.

> It’s perfectly feasible for MPs to communicate with each other by other means than face to face.

I guess you’ve never heard of Parliamentary privilege, or see the importance of Hansard.

> Mobile phone for example - an official phone of course - wouldn’t want any talk of impropriety would we?

That you think using a personal mobile for official business to avoid scrutiny is all just a bit of a laugh is concerning. 

> If Parliament was sitting they wouldn’t be holding Johnson to account they’d just be slagging him off and he’d be ignoring them. Unless the opposition have another humble address up their sleeves?

Since you clearly don’t think Parliament have been holding the government to account recently, can you please explain to us what that process should look like?

baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> Government by mobile phone??  I think Lemming had a point higher up.

Isn’t that what started this thread?

Lemming was being insulting, you don’t have to join in.

Post edited at 10:05
3
wintertree 13 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> It strikes me as very odd that people who might have cause to consider themselves surveillance targets consider any consumer phone app remotely secure

Quite.  With some of the side channel attacks (eg Rowhammer) that we know about and with the sheer complexity of both the components and the devices it’s hard to see how any device “consumer” enough to run popular messaging platforms could ever be considered secure, let alone the messaging clients.

If I’m ever going off the grid it’s hand written one-time-cypher books with dedicated transcription areas (so no other paper is used).  I’d improve upon alleged Vatican practice by having perforated pages (easy removal) made from edible paper.  There would be a metal flap attached to the spine to go behind the transcription page to prevent memory impressions of the hand written copy.

baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to seankenny:

> I guess you’ve never heard of Select Committees. And tell me what use an MP who is an expert on domestic violence attending a detailed debate on tax policy, and vice versa.

> I guess you’ve never heard of Parliamentary privilege, or see the importance of Hansard.

> That you think using a personal mobile for official business to avoid scrutiny is all just a bit of a laugh is concerning. 

> Since you clearly don’t think Parliament have been holding the government to account recently, can you please explain to us what that process should look like?

So any MP who isn’t in the chamber is on a select committee? How many bars are there in the House of Commons?

I never said that trying to avoid scrutiny was a laugh but I’m fairly sure that this government didn’t invent it.

I didn’t say that Parliament hasn’t held the government to account, just that they wouldn’t be doing that at present. 

1
In reply to wintertree:

Seems a bit over the top for telling your mates you will be in the pub by 7.30

The Lemming 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Lemming was being insulting, you don’t have to join in.

I advised you to step away from the keyboard and have a think. Maybe you should try again?

MonkeyPuzzle 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> If large numbers of them had very for the WA we’d have left by now.

Well unfortunately, the PM, the leader of the house and others in the ruling party voted against it. Strange that you blame the ones who voted for it as trying to stop Brexit.

> So you think Johnson is following a cunning plan?

I think he thought he did. Him and Cummings miscalculated, fortunately.

> I presume that many of the MPs are posturing for a referendum, as I stated, rather than a GE.

I'd venture that the government are doing that.

baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> I advised you to step away from the keyboard and have a think. Maybe you should try again?

Maybe you should stop being so patronising?

Would I be banned if I told you to f*ck off?

4
The Lemming 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Maybe you should stop being so patronising?

> Would I be banned if I told you to f*ck off?


Not really.

But I still advise that you step away from the keyboard.

1
MG 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Maybe you should stop being so patronising?

> Would I be banned if I told you to f*ck off?

You might want to listen to his advice, it's not insulting.  At the very least, listen to what people are telling you..

baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> You might want to listen to his advice, it's not insulting.  At the very least, listen to what people are telling you..

Telling me!

You can f..k off as well.

6
MonkeyPuzzle 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Telling me!

> You can f..k off as well.

And you've found the inevitable end point of trying to defend this national disgrace.

baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> And you've found the inevitable end point of trying to defend this national disgrace.

It’s an Internet forum.

And UKC as well.

If you don’t enjoy debating a topic, especially one where people may have different, wrong, ridiculous and sometimes offensive opinions and views, then fine but then why bother?

Enjoy the echo chamber.

3
The Lemming 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> It’s an Internet forum.

> And UKC as well.

Its like shooting fish in a barrel now. You're making it too easy for all of us. Where shall I start?

> If you don’t enjoy debating a topic, especially one where people may have different, wrong, ridiculous and sometimes offensive opinions and views, then fine but then why bother?

Yes, why do you bother?

> Enjoy the echo chamber.

Many people are trying to reply with different views but sadly the only echoes are coming from you.

Once somebody resorts to swearing they have lost the argument.

May I suggest that you step away from the keyboard, and have a think?

Post edited at 11:10
MonkeyPuzzle 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> It’s an Internet forum.

> And UKC as well.

> If you don’t enjoy debating a topic, especially one where people may have different, wrong, ridiculous and sometimes offensive opinions and views, then fine but then why bother?

> Enjoy the echo chamber.

Fun fact: neither ducks' quacks nor internet flounces have an echo.

baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

I take it that ‘step away from the keyboard and have a think’ actually means don’t type anything that you disagree with?

Strange how a thread about closing down debate ends with you trying to do the same.

4
baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Fun fact: neither ducks' quacks nor internet flounces have an echo.

Could you repeat that in English, please?

1
summo 13 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

To get back on thread and your stark reality. You can't keep borrowing endlessly to shore up a failing currency or system. The eu/ecb has decided to start QE again in November at a modest €20bn / month, it's only a year since they stopped it. 

MonkeyPuzzle 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Could you repeat that in English, please?

It's great that you're trying to quit, but for god's sake just have that cigarette.

wintertree 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Enjoy the echo chamber.

There’s only one poster whose contributions to the thread resembles an echo - the same content coming round again and again despite the patient and varied contributions from different posters trying to share their viewpoints with you.

Just be sure to use your private mobile phone when you tell me to f—k off too.

wintertree 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Seems a bit over the top for telling your mates you will be in the pub by 7.30

Lbh pna’g or gbb pnershy gurfr qnlf.

seankenny 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> So any MP who isn’t in the chamber is on a select committee? How many bars are there in the House of Commons?

No, they are also doing constituency case work, meeting representatives from the public and private sectors, charities, etc, sitting on their own parties’ policy and regulatory bodies, writing articles, doing interviews etc.

I know it suits your populist instincts that MPs are a bunch of lazy, over paid freeloaders, but I don’t think that’s accurate in the majority of cases.

> I never said that trying to avoid scrutiny was a laugh but I’m fairly sure that this government didn’t invent it.

So you think it’s all business as usual. Whereas lots of constitutional experts don’t.

> I didn’t say that Parliament hasn’t held the government to account, just that they wouldn’t be doing that at present. 

So they were holding the government to account but suddenly they will stop. Why is that?

baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> There’s only one poster whose contributions to the thread resembles an echo - the same content coming round again and again despite the patient and varied contributions from different posters trying to share their viewpoints with you.

> Just be sure to use your private mobile phone when you tell me to f—k off too.

There’s no patient and varied contributions on this thread just the same divisions along pro and anti Brexit lines that we’ve come to know and love.

Why would I tell you to f..k off?

Have you patronised or insulted me?

1
Harry Jarvis 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> There’s no patient and varied contributions on this thread just the same divisions along pro and anti Brexit lines that we’ve come to know and love.

Presumably you include yourself in that assertion? 

1
baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Presumably you include yourself in that assertion? 

Yes

Harry Jarvis 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Yes

So perhaps you could try to raise your game and make rather more useful contributions. I'm sure we'd all like to see some examples. 

baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> So perhaps you could try to raise your game and make rather more useful contributions. I'm sure we'd all like to see some examples. 

Jeez, it’s hard enough being one of the few pro Brexit posters on this forum as it is.

And now you want coherent, reasoned, accurate and well thought out arguments as well?

Harry Jarvis 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> And now you want coherent, reasoned, accurate and well thought out arguments as well?

I'm sure that would be welcome. 

MG 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> There’s no patient and varied contributions on this thread just the same divisions along pro and anti Brexit lines that we’ve come to know and love.

Most of the discussion is only indirectly about Brexit.  Whether parliament can or should be prorogued to avoid scrutiny, and whether this should be arranged using opaque communications are much wider issues.

baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> I'm sure that would be welcome. 

It won’t.

People’s views are too entrenched.

You’ve seen how the numerous Brexit threads degenerate on this forum.

Has anyone ever changed their position?

Oh yes, now I remember.

I recently offered to become a remainer but was told to stop being ridiculous.

That’s the level we’re operating at.

2
baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> Most of the discussion is only indirectly about Brexit.  Whether parliament can or should be prorogued to avoid scrutiny, and whether this should be arranged using opaque communications are much wider issues.

They are indeed.

In reply to wintertree:

"Lbh pna’g or gbb pnershy gurfr qnlf."

7.30am it seems.....

jkarran 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> People’s views are too entrenched... Has anyone ever changed their position?

Yeah, a few have.

> I recently offered to become a remainer but was told to stop being ridiculous.

It was on condition of utterly unrealistic preconditions, you were being ridiculous intentionally or otherwise.

> That’s the level we’re operating at.

Indeed.

jk

Post edited at 13:12
baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Yeah, quite a few have.

> It was on condition of utterly unrealistic preconditions, you were being ridiculous intentionally or otherwise.

> Indeed.

> jk

Gone on, name them.

I offered to change my position in return for a change to the UK’s EU membership terms 

I thought we were about compromise but you and others immediately called my request unrealistic and ridiculous.

No analysis or discussion just a straight dismissal. 

jkarran 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Gone on, name them.

I'm terrible with names but there are regularly posters who say they voted out but would now vote differently, indeed I recall seeing one or two flip the other way too. PMP appeared to have his #remainernow moment the other day, we'll see if that sticks. In real life I know several.

> I offered to change my position in return for a change to the UK’s EU membership terms 

Yes, a ridiculous change.

> I thought we were about compromise but you and others immediately called my request unrealistic and ridiculous.

It was, you wanted the benefits others enjoyed without the responsibilities they bear. Ok. Explain what else we would trade to achieve that and I'll stop thinking you're just taking the piss.

> No analysis or discussion just a straight dismissal.

I did explain the problem. As usual you pretended to not understand.

jk

1
Lusk 13 Sep 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> Lbh pna’g or gbb pnershy gurfr qnlf.


I've actually managed to decode that!!!!!!

baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

I asked for the UK to be treated exactly the same way as the vast majority of the other EU countries i.e. to not be a net contributor.

You gave me a set or reasons why you thought that it was important for the UK to be a net contributor. 

So we had a difference of opinion but only my idea was deemed, by posters who by some coincidence are all remainers, to be ridiculous.

So no room for compromise and no changing the EU?

Is it any wonder that most leavers haven’t changed their mind?

2
jkarran 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> I asked for the UK to be treated exactly the same way as the vast majority of the other EU countries i.e. to not be a net contributor.

While failing to recognise in respect of budget contributions the UK already receives special preferential treatment! Now explain what you/we have to bargain in exchange for better terms still, why the other nations upon whom our burden would fall should accept?

> So no room for compromise and no changing the EU?

Not once we're out, no, at least not in our favour. You won, get over it!

> Is it any wonder that most leavers haven’t changed their mind?

None at all.

jk

john arran 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> I asked for the UK to be treated exactly the same way as the vast majority of the other EU countries i.e. to not be a net contributor.

That's a bit like a higher rate UK taxpayer demanding to pay tax at the same rate as the vast majority of others, completely failing to acknowledge that differential rates are in place for very good reasons and are there for the benefit of the whole society, ultimately including the higher rate taxpayers.

1
Ian W 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> I asked for the UK to be treated exactly the same way as the vast majority of the other EU countries i.e. to not be a net contributor.

But the vast majority aren't net recipients, the split is 13 contributors, 15 recipients.

From 2007 to 2013 the UK were 10th in the table for net contributions as a % of GNI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union 

Stichtplate 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Ian W:

> But the vast majority aren't net recipients, the split is 13 contributors, 15 recipients.

> From 2007 to 2013 the UK were 10th in the table for net contributions as a % of GNI.

Fair enough, except the 15 billion we pay into the EU annually is only a small part of the story. In terms of the relative economic benefits of our relationship with the rest of the EU the £64 billion annual trade deficit we rack up dwarfs our membership fee. Then there's the fact that the UK's foreign workers send home more cash than those of any other EU country; over $17 billion pa, compared to Germany's $14 billion and France with $10 billion, those are 2015 figures, so the extra 500,000 net EU migrants who've arrived since then have, no doubt, considerably bumped up that amount. 

Edit: when you look at those numbers, our annual 5 billion rebate and position of number 10 in contributors tends to make a lot more sense.

Post edited at 15:03
In reply to baron:

> Gone on, name them.

Pefa. Has courageously admitted she was misinformed and says she would change her vote to remain

And me, for that matter. Prior to the referendum I was ambivalent. In part due to engaging in these threads, now firmly remain

Has anyone changed from remain/fence sitting to leave here? Not rhetorical question- would be interesting to see if they have.

Ian W 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Fair enough, except the 15 billion we pay into the EU annually is only a small part of the story. In terms of the relative economic benefits of our relationship with the rest of the EU the £64 billion annual trade deficit we rack up dwarfs our membership fee. Then there's the fact that the UK's foreign workers send home more cash than those of any other EU country; over $17 billion pa, compared to Germany's $14 billion and France with $10 billion, those are 2015 figures, so the extra 500,000 net EU migrants who've arrived since then have, no doubt, considerably bumped up that amount. 

> Edit: when you look at those numbers, our annual 5 billion rebate and position of number 10 in contributors tends to make a lot more sense.

I'm not sure you support my point or not!

Regarding the trade deficit, i dont attribute that to either our government or the EU's. ts a personal choice to purchase something from the UK or Europe, and it does seem strange that the uk populus is (for eg) so willing to buy an imported car than their european counterparts. If even half those buying an e class merc bought a jag xf instead, or an astra rather than a focus, the balance of payments deficit would be somewhat different....

Stichtplate 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Ian W:

> I'm not sure you support my point or not!

> Regarding the trade deficit, i dont attribute that to either our government or the EU's. ts a personal choice to purchase something from the UK or Europe, and it does seem strange that the uk populus is (for eg) so willing to buy an imported car than their european counterparts. If even half those buying an e class merc bought a jag xf instead, or an astra rather than a focus, the balance of payments deficit would be somewhat different....

 That’s rather like saying if people are concerned about climate change it’s not up to the government or the EU to intercede, it’s up to the individual to make better choices.

In matters of national interest, like climate change or trade deficit, it’s surely better mitigated by treaties, international bodies and government policies rather than leaving it to individuals to sort out.

baron 13 Sep 2019
In reply to john arran:

> That's a bit like a higher rate UK taxpayer demanding to pay tax at the same rate as the vast majority of others, completely failing to acknowledge that differential rates are in place for very good reasons and are there for the benefit of the whole society, ultimately including the higher rate taxpayers.

No, it’s asking for a return to a trade association and not a social project.

I understand that the UK benefits from being a member of the EU but so do all the other EU countries, most of whom are net recipients.

If the UK benefits for other countries becoming more developed then let’s fund it through the overseas aid budget.

2
The Lemming 13 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

For dullards like me, here's a brief summery of the Yellowhammer document.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz7Gc7BUong

Ian W 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

Somewhat different topics, I would say. Governments can pass laws about things that directly affect climate change, but passing a law preventing an individual from buying a german car??

You and i have a simple choice if the balance of payments is an issue for you. Support british industry or not. Remember that every 20 mercs bought over jags puts a brummie on the dole.

And treaties dont affect the wishes of people to buy product a or b. Plenty of people owned BMWs in the uk prior to 1973......

john arran 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> If the UK benefits for other countries becoming more developed then let’s fund it through the overseas aid budget.

I couldn't give a monkeys which budget the costs are channelled through as long as we all get to benefit from the EU membership we'd be contributing to.

summo 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

>  That’s rather like saying if people are concerned about climate change it’s not up to the government or the EU to intercede, it’s up to the individual to make better choices.

> In matters of national interest, like climate change or trade deficit, it’s surely better mitigated by treaties, international bodies and government policies rather than leaving it to individuals to sort out.

You might want to Google sulphur hexaflouride, which the EU failed to ban because industry lobbying. 

Stichtplate 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Ian W:

> Somewhat different topics, I would say. Governments can pass laws about things that directly affect climate change, but passing a law preventing an individual from buying a german car??

I didn't mention laws. I said such matters are better addressed with treaties, international bodies and government policies rather than leaving it to individuals to sort out.

> You and i have a simple choice if the balance of payments is an issue for you. Support british industry or not. Remember that every 20 mercs bought over jags puts a brummie on the dole.

You and I do have a simple choice, but if the issue is a £64 billion trade deficit, our choices don't matter. Yes, motivate enough individuals and change can be enacted but most people don't care enough. You may as well say we could halve the police budget if only people would stop committing crimes.

> And treaties dont affect the wishes of people to buy product a or b. Plenty of people owned BMWs in the uk prior to 1973......

You don't think international agreements (or lack there of) affect purchasing choices? What do you think an instant 10% price increase on BMWs under WTO will do to their sales?

Edit: typos

Post edited at 18:27
seankenny 13 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> No, it’s asking for a return to a trade association and not a social project.

It’s not a social project - it’s a single market. Which does mean that governments within that market try to get the different bits of it to converge to a similar standard of living. And much of the EU money (as far as I understand it) goes to infrastructure type projects which build the capacity of different bits of the market. Which in theory helps everyone. 

> I understand that the UK benefits from being a member of the EU but so do all the other EU countries, most of whom are net recipients.

Hold on a moment. Although it is true “most” are net recipients, it is 13 to 15, so a more accurate description might be “just over half of whom are net recipients”. More interestingly, why are you so fixated on this idea that we are somehow being taken advantage of? Where does this distrust of outsiders and sense of grievance come from? 

Genuine question, as always.

> If the UK benefits for other countries becoming more developed then let’s fund it through the overseas aid budget.

Ahhh but the overseas aid budget is for development and humanitarian aid which has a quite strict definition, so if you started spending that money in say Poland, it would no longer actually count as overseas aid. I know this sounds like nitpicking, but the point is that this stuff is complicated...

Matt Podd 13 Sep 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

Bollox to Brexit

Ian W 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I didn't mention laws. I said such matters are better addressed with treaties, international bodies and government policies rather than leaving it to individuals to sort out.

Fine, treaties etc. However, I am talking about personal choices. A German is more likely to buy a german car than any other type. A frenchman is more likely to buy a french made car than any other. A brit is more likely to buy German than british. It is a difference in national psyche. Similarly the idea of allowing rail companies and power companies to be owned by other countries seems very strange to our european neighbours.

> You and I do have a simple choice, but if the issue is a £64 billion trade deficit, our choices don't matter. Yes, motivate enough individuals and change can be enacted but most people don't care enough. You may as well say we could halve the police budget if only people would stop committing crimes.

Well obviously you and I as 2 individuals cant make much difference, but for added clarity for you, I really mean the combination of individual choice; there are 64m uk residents all of whom (well, those economically active, anyway) who can all make the choice. If we all do it, then that 64bn will be much smaller.

> You don't think international agreements (or lack there of) affect purchasing choices? What do you think an instant 10% price increase on BMWs under WTO will do to their sales?

It'll reduce them by a couple of percent. BMW are already seen as a premium brand and can price their vehicles accordingly already. They'll be less affected than (say) ford or renault / nissan. However, the sales they lose here will be compensated for in other markets as the cars we currently export will be similarly less competitive in their other markets, so BMW will expect to take sales from british brands there. The BMW chairman has already said they will concentrate on those markets where they sell 94% of thier cars.

Post edited at 20:06
Stichtplate 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Ian W:

> Fine, treaties etc. However, I am talking about personal choices. A German is more likely to buy a german car than any other type. A frenchman is more likely to buy a french made car than any other. A brit is more likely to buy German than british. It is a difference in national psyche. Similarly the idea of allowing rail companies and power companies to be owned by other countries seems very strange to our european neighbours.

> Well obviously you and I as 2 individuals cant make much difference, but for added clarity for you, I really mean the combination of individual choice; there are 64m uk residents all of whom (well, those economically active, anyway) who can all make the choice. If we all do it, then that 64bn will be much smaller.

Yeah, personal choice on a national scale. The personal choices of 64 million people are very hard to alter, except by big changes like governmental policy leading to large cost changes, as was my original point.

> It'll reduce them by a couple of percent. BMW are already seen as a premium brand and can price their vehicles accordingly already. They'll be less affected than (say) ford or renault / nissan. However, the sales they lose here will be compensated for in other markets as the cars we currently export will be similarly less competitive in their other markets, so BMW will expect to take sales from british brands there. The BMW chairman has already said they will concentrate on those markets where they sell 94% of thier cars.

In the event of a no deal Brexit the number of UK drivers likely to have the spare cash to flash on a new Beemer at a 10% mark up is likely to take quite a hit. Factor in the high proportion of 3 and 5 series that are company cars, with most companies having strict price banding and I'd say your proposed 2% sales fall is hugely optimistic. 

Oh, and BMW's 6% sales in the UK? Actually almost 10%, as many as are sold in France, Italy and Japan combined.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/267252/key-automobile-markets-of-bmw-group/

Ian W 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Yeah, personal choice on a national scale. The personal choices of 64 million people are very hard to alter, except by big changes like governmental policy leading to large cost changes, as was my original point.

Its nothing to do with government policy, its a british "thing". We are just not as patriotic as other nations when it comes to personal purchases. It would be an extraordinarily brave government to put import tariffs on goods to such a level where it altered buying behaviour that significantly. And given their free market ethos, it wont be the tories!

> In the event of a no deal Brexit the number of UK drivers likely to have the spare cash to flash on a new Beemer at a 10% mark up is likely to take quite a hit. Factor in the high proportion of 3 and 5 series that are company cars, with most companies having strict price banding and I'd say your proposed 2% sales fall is hugely optimistic. 

Price banding for company cars is based on monthly lease cost, not list price; but i can see further falls in sales anyway; the new car market is in turmoil anyway.

Who mentioned 2%? And my figure of a "couple" was in response to the "10% price rise" . Clearly the economic circumstances likely after brexit will cause more than this; the forecast 8% drop in GDP will crucify the economy.

> Oh, and BMW's 6% sales in the UK? Actually almost 10%, as many as are sold in France, Italy and Japan combined.

Yes indeed - my figure was bmw brand only, the 9.6 includes mini (unsurprisingly as its a bmw owned brand).

Stichtplate 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Ian W:

> Its nothing to do with government policy, its a british "thing". We are just not as patriotic as other nations when it comes to personal purchases. It would be an extraordinarily brave government to put import tariffs on goods to such a level where it altered buying behaviour that significantly. And given their free market ethos, it wont be the tories!

You're  having a laugh if you think consumer behaviour has nothing to do with government policy. I finally gave up fags in response to government tax hikes, something I have in common with most of my ex smoker mates. If we crash out with no deal, European car imports immediately jump 10% in price, then there's the inevitable fall in the pound and suddenly your base level 3 series has jumped from 31 to 36 grand. That's a hell of a disincentive to buy a Beemer, even without factoring in the likelihood of everyone getting twitchy about job prospects in post Brexit Britain.

> Price banding for company cars is based on monthly lease cost, not list price; but i can see further falls in sales anyway; the new car market is in turmoil anyway.

Is there not an incredibly strong link between list price and lease cost? I think they go hand in glove.

> Who mentioned 2%? And my figure of a "couple" was in response to the "10% price rise" . Clearly the economic circumstances likely after brexit will cause more than this; the forecast 8% drop in GDP will crucify the economy.

Agreed. But it's not just going to crucify our economy. The EU has already spent 2.6 trillion on QE, its just recommitted to another 20 billion a month, Germany's long bankrolled the EU project and now they're teetering on the edge of recession...and guess who's their biggest market for passenger car's? The UK, we buy 18% of the cars they export.

Much is made on UKC of our governments idiocy over Brexit. I'm in full agreement, but hardly anyone talks about the risks to the wider European economy and hardly anyone seems to acknowledge EU intransigence over reciprocal arrangements in everything from data transfer to healthcare access.

1
Ian W 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> You're  having a laugh if you think consumer behaviour has nothing to do with government policy. I finally gave up fags in response to government tax hikes, something I have in common with most of my ex smoker mates. If we crash out with no deal, European car imports immediately jump 10% in price, then there's the inevitable fall in the pound and suddenly your base level 3 series has jumped from 31 to 36 grand. That's a hell of a disincentive to buy a Beemer, even without factoring in the likelihood of everyone getting twitchy about job prospects in post Brexit Britain.

Govt policy can influence strongly, of course it can. But you are then going down the trump road, and in complete opposition to all polict that has been in place in the UK forever. Given a level playing fild, Brits simply arent as patriotic as other nations. We simply dont see the bigger picture.

> Is there not an incredibly strong link between list price and lease cost? I think they go hand in glove.

Lease prices are based on depreciation. Beemers and Mercs have low depreciation percentages, so are more competitive than other brands at the same price point. Just look at any lease website.

> Agreed. But it's not just going to crucify our economy. The EU has already spent 2.6 trillion on QE, its just recommitted to another 20 billion a month, Germany's long bankrolled the EU project and now they're teetering on the edge of recession...and guess who's their biggest market for passenger car's? The UK, we buy 18% of the cars they export.

46 % of UK exports go to the EU. 8% of EU exports go to the UK. Nobody has ever pretended that brexit is good for the EU; but in comparative terms, irt doesnt even come close to the effect on the UK. It also has a wider effect on the UK as we also lose the current tariff free access to other markets, such as Japan.

> Much is made on UKC of our governments idiocy over Brexit. I'm in full agreement, but hardly anyone talks about the risks to the wider European economy and hardly anyone seems to acknowledge EU intransigence over reciprocal arrangements in everything from data transfer to healthcare access.

EU intransigence? The UK governments choice is for a clean break, WTO, no deal brexit, or so it appears. We will be no different to any other third country in their eyes. If we want to be given better treatment, we had better sharpen up and smell the coffee pdq. Its absolutely zero to do with "EU intransigence" and everything to do with idiotic UK govt expectations. THe only EU country that will suffer significantly is the RoI. And possibly normandy as all the UK retired schoolteachers try to repatriate.....although the advantage for those loking to move there (such as me) is that property is , er, highly competitive there at the moment.

Post edited at 23:44
Stichtplate 14 Sep 2019
In reply to Ian W:

> Govt policy can influence strongly, of course it can. But you are then going down the trump road, and in complete opposition to all polict that has been in place in the UK forever. Given a level playing fild, Brits simply arent as patriotic as other nations. We simply dont see the bigger picture.

Personally I see at as a credit to Brits that our patriotic fervour is so low key that it holds little sway over our purchasing decisions. We make relatively few distinctions over where stuff comes from, be that cars, food or our neighbours. Our favourite food is curry, our favourite cars are German and despite Brexit far more foreigners come to live here, year in year out, than wish to leave. I've never been convinced by the widespread notion that the referendum result meant we'd succumbed to a little Englander mentality.

> Lease prices are based on depreciation. Beemers and Mercs have low depreciation percentages, so are more competitive than other brands at the same price point. Just look at any lease website.

You're right of course, but wouldn't a 15% price hike see a corresponding increase in lease price because depreciation will remain a constant?

> 46 % of UK exports go to the EU. 8% of EU exports go to the UK. Nobody has ever pretended that brexit is good for the EU; but in comparative terms, irt doesnt even come close to the effect on the UK. It also has a wider effect on the UK as we also lose the current tariff free access to other markets, such as Japan.

That's one way of looking at it. Viewed another way, once uk leaves the EU we'll represent 18% of that external world market. 18% of your market share is not something you should bugger about with lightly.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

...and funny you should mention Japan. The EU exports far less to Japan than it does to the UK and even more significantly, the EU exports less to Japan than Japan exports to us. Looking at the deal in broad strokes, the main benefits have been touted as Japan's manufacturers get easier access to Europe and Europe's farmers gain easier access to Japan. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but while Europeans love Japanese cars and electronics, Europe's farmers grow very little rice and Japanese consumers have very little interest in European cereal crops or dairy products. 

Now look at the UK position re Europe. We import far more from Europe than they do from us so a tariff free deal such as was offered to Japan would surely be in the EU's best interest, but apparently such a deal would be impossible. I wonder why?

> EU intransigence? The UK governments choice is for a clean break, WTO, no deal brexit, or so it appears. We will be no different to any other third country in their eyes. If we want to be given better treatment, we had better sharpen up and smell the coffee pdq. Its absolutely zero to do with "EU intransigence" and everything to do with idiotic UK govt expectations. THe only EU country that will suffer significantly is the RoI. And possibly normandy as all the UK retired schoolteachers try to repatriate.....although the advantage for those loking to move there (such as me) is that property is , er, highly competitive there at the moment.

Yeah intransigence. The EU have stated that as far as deals go, it's all or nothing, they categorically won't entertain any small scale side deals such as on data transfer. The sort of stuff which would make no difference to how things are currently run and would just make the whole process a little less painful for both parties. The EU have even refused to allow the UK to directly pay health care costs for the 800,000 British citizens living in Europe despite the fact that we've unilaterally offered to continue providing health care for the 3,700,000 EU citizens over here.

The whole Brexit thing is a clusterf*ck of epic proportions and yes, it's entirely of our own making, but that doesn't excuse EU negotiators of acting like the vengeful wronged wife in a divorce court, more interested in inflicting pain than achieving an equitable separation. Brexit will inevitably cause more grievous harm to the UK's economy than to Europe's but a no deal Brexit could very likely pull the whole continent into recession.

Post edited at 00:59
1

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.