Whitey Grandad

The online parliamentary petition calling for another referendum was debated in committee. I surprisingly found it an interesting read and have selected a few statements here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-09-05/debates/1609058000001/EUReferendumRules My hon. Friend is right. That is the case, which is why it was breathtaking to hear that Britain will not be discussing Europe for much longer. If we exit the European Union, this House is about to be consumed with legislation that will probably be with us for more than a decade. One Whitehall Department alone, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has 1,200 pieces of legislation that would need to be repealed. The task ahead for the nation is gargantuan. We are perhaps talking about the sort of effort involved in reconstruction after the war, or something comparable to the birth or the loss of empire. It is important to note that it has been said that the referendum “does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented”. Those are not the words of a bitter remain campaigner, but of the House of Commons Library briefing on the European Union Referendum Bill. It is important to think hard about the fact that when we voted on the referendum it was described to the House as advisory and non-binding. It was advice—to hear what the people had to say; but it was not binding. It was not two thirds. ​It was not a quadruple lock—all nations agreeing, so that we can move forward in a straightforward constitution. It was a non-binding advisory referendum. As such we need further mechanisms to hear that advice and really think about the detail of how we now move forward. What are hon. Members scared of? Why are they so scared of Parliament looking at it? Is it because the Government of the day are divided on the issue? Is that why they are scared about having such debate? I suspect it is. We must also remember that 63% of the electorate did not vote for Brexit at all; that more than 2 million British expats were denied a vote, and 13 million more decided not even to cast their vote. So what are the circumstances in which I would entertain our having a second vote? A very clear set of promises were made. There would be £350 million going to the NHS every week. We would maintain full access to the single market, while not having the free movement that goes with it. EU citizens already here would be given the right to stay. As far as I am concerned, a set of clear pledges were given by all the different vote leave campaigners. I believe that if the deal that is reached at the end of this process is substantially and materially different from that that many of the leave voters believed they were promised, we could legitimately ask for a second referendum, but the fact is that we have not got to that point yet. If we go straight to one now, we will simply further divide our country. The Government’s paper on alternatives to EU membership gave four options. The BBC lists five. The Centre for European Reform sets out seven. Which of those was voted for by those voting leave? None of them. How many will we end up with? Well, one of them. What parliamentary or, indeed, public scrutiny have we had of an actual plan to leave the EU? Absolutely none because there was not one and there is not one. That is why I strongly support not just maximum parliamentary scrutiny but calls for a further referendum on the terms of Brexit once they are clear, and on our future relationship with the EU, so that we can all assess what that looks like in the real world. During the campaign, when pressed on the alternative to EU membership, leave campaigners would squeal that they could not possibly be expected to answer those questions because they were not a Government in waiting, but rather they wanted the British people to be in control. What would fulfil that promise more thoroughly than ensuring that the public get the opportunity to cast a positive vote for what a potential Brexit looks like, in addition to their vote against remaining part of the EU?​ It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. One reason why the petition had so many signatories is that there was some confusion about what Brexit might mean, and what “Brexit means Brexit” might mean. However, a consensus has now been clearly established in Westminster Hall that Brexit means breakfast. When I said that before the summer, the BBC thought it was a slip of the tongue, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has confirmed that it is in fact the case. Whether it is a dog’s breakfast or a full Scottish breakfast has yet to be determined, but the Prime Minister has appointed some cereal[/color] Brexiteers to lead the negotiations. Perhaps it is no surprise that some of them are getting a frostier reception in European capitals, and that some of our neighbours just want to say cheerio to the UK as soon as possible. Article 50 is a fuse; once it is lit it cannot be extinguished. If it is prepared for well, it may lead to an extraordinary firework display, as Britain illuminates the world stage with a renewed sense of commercial purpose, but if it is prepared for hastily and badly, the fuse will result in an explosion whose economic consequences will set back our country for a generation.

Yes they do although the payouts have been reduced in line with othere savings returns. Minimum purchase is £100. Back in the 70s my mum gave me £2 for my birthday and not needing the money at that moment I bought two one pound bonds. Since then I have twice won £50 and I still have the original bonds

Yes we did, but a few years later in 1976. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_IMF_Crisis Britain really was a basket case in those dismal days. The only bright spot was the birth of our second child in the same year.

Quite right too. It would show that you're a fan of Herculaneum.

In other news a trade deal with Australia will take several years. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/australia-says-there-will-not-be-a-brexit-trade-deal-with-uk-for-years-a7229366.html

By that do you mean STs with no aways? I have the problem that I shall not be at home to receive the recorded delivery before I fly out to Milan.

This is where it could get complicated. Unless there is a specific local decree covering our particular match I can't see how it can be regulated. Are they seriously going to exclude British citizens only? I cannot see how they could introduce such a regulation but that wouldn't help us if the turnstile police turn us away. I have been skimming through the Italian legal articles about their Tiffosi cards and they are only for Italian citizens who want to sit in the away sections and come from the region of the away team. In general 'strangers' don't need a card to buy tickets in the home sections. At least that's how I read it.

I've just had another look at the Inter site and you do have to be registered to buy a ticket online and I apologise for having misled anybody. My browser had logged me in automatically. Tickets will be available at the ticket outlets throughout the country. I cannot believe that they will refuse to serve someone with a British passport but sell them to any other national. What happens at the turnstiles is another matter.

More, yes please Neither of these two examples have any cost implications for my business, nor any others with which I am acquainted. Further to the point, do you think we would be able to continue to trade with the EU if we did not comply with any of their (our) regulations?

Ah. Did I read omewhere in this forum http://forzainterforums.com/showthre...iuseppe-Meazza that you can ask your hotle to get the tickets on your behalf?

Nothing in that list actually impinges upon our small businesses or, to put it another way, nothing there is particularly onerous or relevant. I like this bit: "improving standards for cross-border parcel delivery". What border would that be, hampshire/Dorset? Or this: "rapid agreement of faster approval processes for the pharmaceuticals industry through the new clinical trials regulation" . How does that sit with this?: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-to-cost-jobs-if-britain-loses-medicines-watchdog-gpg7znmpr In fact, if you read through the proposals you will see that they relate to improvements within the EU When we are outside things will get a lot more complicated. When you look at the details you cannot help but conclude that they are appropriate in a modern, non-exploitative economy.

Juncker has no power and does not appear on our TVs every minute.

What ****ing red tape? And exporting to the EU is a doddle at the moment but that will all have a great pile of red tape dumped upon it. It will not be possible to have different standards for exporting to non-EU and EU countries. Those outside the EU want to see standards for their purchases and those inside will insist in them. Businesses cannot have two different sets of products and stock systems. What EU red tape applies to those businesses that don't export? Please be warned that I have asked this question many times and am still waiting for a reply.

There's a 53-page thread about buying tickets here: http://forzainterforums.com/showthread.php?657-Tickets-to-Stadio-Giuseppe-Meazza I liked this comment: "Don't buy any tickets. Enjoy the beautiful city of Milan without ruining your holiday by watching us taking a dump on the pitch in the derby."

Can you not appreciate the illogicality of having a stadium that holds over 82,000 but only letting in 32,000? Personally I would have been just as happy to go to Roma or any other stadium with a large capacity within reasonable travelling time. I agree with you about Inter and the restriction on numbers. We ought to know what the reason is.

Once again you have misinterpreted the meaning. 'Let the government deal with it' is a fair representation.

Do you really believe that there is less paperwork in selling to the rest of the world than selling to the EU? The other argument is that if the EU does change any regulations then we shall have no part in that process.

It's not called that any more, its called Quantitive Easing. Keep up

Not true. Status quo can mean 'the situation as it is now' or 'existing state of affairs' which can also mean changes if you're happy that those changes are being managed by your elected representatives.

Absolutely #catch22

No it's not a poor argument at all. I repeat: what is so special about away games? There are plenty plenty of STs who can't go regularly to away games for all sorts of reasons. I know it has been this way for domestic aways but that doesn't make it right or fair. You could just as easily consider it fairer if the away tickets were offered first to those who have not been to away games before, spread them around a bit. The present arrangements just create a hardcore of ultras. Why offer Be'er Sheva when Milan is a lot closer and has a much bigger capacity?

Staus quo means status quo. In my case that meant that I was comfortable with our relationship with our European partners and none of the scaremongering from the Leave campaigners had any effect on me.

I touched on this earlier. If you can't get an away ticket for a stadium that holds over 80,000 then when can you? And if you can't then you won't in future situations. This arrangement is self-fulfilling. What do so special about away games? Don't 19 home games a season for over 25 seasons count for something over some youngster who may only have become a member a couple of years ago and doesn't have any family or work commitments?

Then why not buy tickets in cash from the ticket outlets?

My pleasure . I hope to see you there.