The UK Brexit vote to leave the EU

[greybeard]

Boris Johnson Threatens To Block Nicola Sturgeon From UN Climate Change Summit
HuffPost UK Rachel Wearmouth,HuffPost UK

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-john...073545737.html

Boris Johnson has threatened to block Nicola Sturgeon from attending a UN summit on climate change in Glasgow.

The prime minister looks to be on a collision course with the Scottish First Minister after telling Tory activists on Sunday night he did not want her “anywhere near” the COP26 event next year.

A spokeswoman for the FM hit back calling Johnson “childish” while SNP MP Joanna Cherry called the PM “a bad loser”.

The UN summit will see more than 30,000 delegates from around the world descend on the Scottish city to discuss how to tackle the ongoing global climate emergency.

It is not clear that the British prime minister has any power to stop the FM from from attending.

The SNP-led government in Holyrood has made climate change a key plank of its policy agenda and Johnson’s bid to refuse Sturgeon a seat at the table is likely to enrage the FM.

According to The Scottish Sun, Johnson told activists at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester he wanted to see Union flags at the event and just “a Saltire or two”.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon delivers her statement, in response to the Supreme Court ruling, at the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh.

He said: “The leaders of the entire world will come to Glasgow for the COP26 climate change summit.

“I guess I don’t mind seeing a Saltire or two on that summit but I want to see a union flag - I don’t want to see Nicola Sturgeon anywhere near it.

“The Scottish Nationalist Party didn’t secure that summit in Glasgow, it was the United Kingdom government.”

A spokeswoman for the FM told HuffPost UK Johnson had proved himself “incapable” of tackling climate change, adding: “Boris Johnson certainly sounded like he was enjoying himself at the Tory drinks reception – but out in the real world people will be deeply embarrassed to hear their Prime Minister acting so childishly.

“It is right that COP26 should come to Scotland given our leadership in climate action – we were one of the first countries in the world to acknowledge the global climate emergency and the Scottish Government has introduced the toughest targets in the UK and amongst the toughest legislative targets in the world to ensure our action matches the scale of our climate ambitions.

“When it comes to issues of common concern such as climate change, the SNP Government are proud to play our part and work in partnership with other governments – something that Boris Johnson seems completely incapable of doing.”

Edinburgh South West MP Joanna Cherry QC, who led attempts in the Court of Session to defeat the government’s case for proroguing parliament, said: “Boris Johnson is a bad loser.

“He’s obviously very sore that it was Scottish politicians through the Scottish courts who thwarted his attack on parliamentary democracy. I’m sure the international delegates attending the climate change summit will be far more interested in hearing from the lead of the Scottish Government given its leading record on climate change.

“Indeed, I would be surprised if he’s still around by then.”

It comes just days after Sturgeon slammed the Prime Minister for his “violent” language following yet another heated debate on Brexit in the Commons on Wednesday.

Johnson was criticised for dismissing MPs’ concerns about their safety as “humbug” and for saying that the best way to honour the late Jo Cox is to “get Brexit done”.

Ex-Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson stood down in August, the day after Johnson announced he would prorogue parliament.

Since then, polls then have pointed to them losing potentially every one of their 13 MPs at the next election.

The shutdown of parliament was later ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.

[Matthew]

Posted by samildamach (here)
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/her...-defence-union
Summary
Lord blackheath was shut down for asking questions,on the u.k armed forces a long with mi6 being handed over to Brussels.
Do they get the nukes to?
The eu empire is in sight the stakes are high

It gets scary; good find samildamach

From https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/her...defence-union:

...
It goes beyond this. They are to take control of our intelligence services, the whole core of Five Eyes. They will have MI6 and the Cheltenham monitoring centre, and we will be completely excluded from it under the new arrangements and have no access either to the

[greybeard]

I used to think Boris Johnson could get a Brexit deal. Not after last week
The Guardian Simon Jenkins,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/used-think...151311072.html

I cannot recall a more critical week in British politics. It will decide whether parliament, the law and public opinion can hold the prime minister, Boris Johnson, to account, or whether a new poison has entered public life. We need constantly to remember that Britain faces no menace to its security or prosperity. It could by now be outside the EU with agreed terms of trade. This crisis is entirely the outcome of one man’s device to seize control of his party.

From the moment Johnson began his final climb to power, his appeal has been crudely populist. He has discarded the core Tory tradition of fiscal probity with a welter of spending pledges and tax cuts, plus plans for immigration control and toughness on crime. On Brexit, he has distorted a near trivial “freedom to trade with the rest of the world” with claptrap about vassalage, sovereignty and patriotism. The idea that Brexit will bring a new dawn of national wealth is absurd. It is simply how Johnson became prime minister.

Now I wonder if perhaps Johnson’s legacy may be just a bad dream, a sick and expensive Bullingdon brawl

So far, so familiar. What is novel about the current upheaval is the attempted disruption of political convention. This has little to do with Johnson but with his bizarre aide, Dominic Cummings, whose control over his seemingly disoriented boss appears total. Cummings’ tactic is brittle, divisive and implacable, though its effectiveness cannot be underrated. Polls showed scant support for Johnson over his supreme court defeat, but his party remains a full 13 points ahead of Labour.

Johnson’s theatrical belligerence – which he absurdly told the Andrew Marr Show on Sunday was “misunderstood … a model of restraint” – is a trope borrowed from US politics, seen most vigorously in the antics of Donald Trump. It goes back to the tactic adopted by the McCarthyites in the 1950s, when any victim of Joseph McCarthy and his young lawyer Roy Cohn would be assailed with wildly repetitive accusations of communism and homosexuality. Cohn’s tactic was “to bring out the worst in my enemies; that’s how I get them to defeat themselves”. He would “go after a man’s weakness, and never threaten unless you mean to follow through to the end”. Cohn went on to advise Richard Nixon and ended as personal lawyer to none other than the young Trump, clearly an avid pupil.

One Cohn method was the relentless recitation of a damaging falsehood. Trump incanted “crooked Hillary” at every turn and eventually wore her down. Cummings, as portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch on screen, would order Brexit campaigners to ignore any facts and just keep saying “£350m for the NHS”. Likewise, Johnson, when pinned down by Marr over his dismissal of threats of violence against MPs as “humbug”, robotically repeated “get Brexit done” and accused opponents of surrender. The maxim is: never back down, never apologise.
Dominic Cummings.
‘An obsession with antagonism and belligerence, with the creative power of chaos.’ Dominic Cummings. Photograph: David Mirzoeff/PA

At his party’s conference in Manchester this week, Johnson’s audience is not parliament. It is a distant and exasperated electorate that he hopes despises parliament, the metropolis, remainers and judges alike. This is pure Cohn: “I don’t want to know what the law is; I want to know who the judge is.” A populist needs an identifiable elite against which to champion “the people”. The BBC plays along, with ridiculous vox pops each evening asserting the establishment is “out to stop Brexit”.

Britain’s present parliament, for all the insults being hurled at it, has spent three agonising years trying to implement the knife-edge 2016 Brexit referendum. Then, the nation did not speak, it mumbled. It left parliament to disentangle the meaning of how to seek a new relationship with the rest of Europe. With a nation clearly and evenly split, that search still continues. That is why the Johnson/Cummings talk of capitulation and surrender is so crass. A democracy means a 48% minority has some rights, and parliament’s duty is to honour them with compromise.

Last Wednesday Johnson’s response to the supreme court judgment suggested he had no interest in compromise. He shouted, offended, flannelled and played to gallery guffaws. He relished watching the hapless Jeremy Corbyn fall into his trap. Rather than rise to the occasion as a conciliator and national leader, Corbyn tried merely to out-rant Johnson. A meticulous dignity could have been lethal.

Until now, I had thought Johnson’s tactics were at least shrewd. I assumed that, once Manchester was over, he would change gear and become the embodiment of pragmatism and national unity. He would patch up the May deal, meet Dublin’s concerns over a future border and achieve EU withdrawal by 31 October. He would secure cross-party approval for the deal in parliament, leaving only a handful of diehard remainers and no-dealers in denial. He would have delivered. A Tory election victory would be near certain.

Related: Tory MPs beware: if you whip up an angry mob, they may end up angry with you | Marina Hyde

I had reckoned without Cummings. Analysis of his limited writings in last week’s New Statesman shows an obsession with antagonism and belligerence, with the creative power of chaos. He seems a true revolutionary. When he and Michael Gove engineered the firing of David Davis as Tory chairman, they cited Al Capone: “Find the toughest guy in the room. Embrace him like a brother. And then slam his head against the wall.”

Johnson was in full Capone mode last week. He must have known he would need cross-party support for any deal. So why treat the Commons as he did? The answer is, Cummings sees his boss as the perfect bull in a china shop. Backed by an embittered and estranged electorate, he will smash institutions and conventions, and lead people into some new dawn, even if it is merely another hung parliament, a delayed Brexit and yet more rancour.

I am an incurable optimist. Just now I wonder if perhaps Johnson’s legacy may be just a bad dream, a sick and expensive Bullingdon brawl. Theresa May failed to leave the EU, and so perhaps might Johnson. After all the sound and fury, some new dawn will arrive, leaving nothing behind but a stale smell of the night before.

• Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

¤=[Post Update]=¤

There’s a lot wrong with this viral list about the Lisbon Treaty

A large number of our readers have asked us to factcheck a list of claims about the Lisbon Treaty, or “what will actually happen if we stay in the EU”, which has gone viral on social media.

The list has appeared in numerous versions across different platforms since mid-December. The text at the beginning and end is often different, but the central list of claims is virtually identical across most of the versions we’ve seen.

Much of it is wrong. The list is a mixture of false claims, and claims that have some truth but could be misleading given the context.

That’s partly because many recent versions of the text wrongly say that everything on the list is due to the “Lisbon Treaty”. However, the earliest version of the list we’ve been able to find only says that some of the things on it are due to the Lisbon Treaty.
The Lisbon Treaty

Many recent versions of the list begin with this (or similar) text, which wasn’t present in earlier versions:

WHY IS NOBODY TALKING ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY, THE TREATY THAT COMES INTO FORCE 2020, ITS WORSE THAN THE SO CALLED DEAL, IF 99% OF THE BRITISH THINK THIS THE DEAL IS BAD JUST LOOK AT THE LISBON TREATY. PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW, LEAVERS AND REMAIMERS..“What will actually happen if we stay in the EU” is a question no remainer will ever answer but here it is warts and all.

The Treaty of Lisbon is an agreement which made alterations to some of the key treaties setting out how the European Union operates.

It’s wrong to say that the Lisbon Treaty comes into force in 2020. It was agreed by all EU member countries in 2007 and came into force in 2009, and has been in place ever since. If the UK were to remain in the EU beyond March 2019 for any reason then the Lisbon Treaty wouldn’t suddenly change things.
The list

KNOWN OUTCOMES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN AGREED AS TRUE BY ALL SIDES:

1: The UK along with all existing members of the EU lose their abstention veto in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty when the system changes to that of majority acceptance with no abstentions or veto’s being allowed.

This is wrong. The Lisbon Treaty did make changes to how EU law gets passed which reduced the scope of states’ veto ability, but it did not abolish veto powers; and these changes are already in effect, rather than coming into force in 2020. The term “abstention veto” is not a part of European Union law (as you can see by the fact that most Google results for the term are references to this list.)

EU legislation has to be approved by the Council of the European Union, which is made up of ministerial representatives of the governments of all EU member states.

Depending on the type of issue it is voting on, it has three different standards for passing laws—a simple majority (where 15 out of the 28 states must agree); “qualified majority” (where laws must be approved by at least 55% of states, that have to represent at least 65% of the EU’s population); and a unanimous vote (where all voting states must agree, which therefore gives any single government a veto over the law.)

The Lisbon Treaty changed a large number of policy areas from being ones that needed unanimity (thus giving states a veto) to ones that were decided by qualified majority. At the same time, the Lisbon Treaty changed how qualified majority voting worked—this actually gave the UK slightly more voting power than it had before through the link with a country’s population, which is widely seen as having benefited large countries such as the UK, France and Germany.

The UK also doesn’t have to participate in EU legislation relating to justice and home affairs, but can choose to opt-in if it wants to.

It’s not clear what is meant by the claim that the Lisbon Treaty would see states losing their “abstention veto”. On issues that require unanimity, it’s the case that simply abstaining from a vote does not stop it passing (the Lisbon Treaty did not change this), but states can still veto by voting against.

2: All member nations will become states of the new federal nation of the EU by 2022 as clearly laid out in the Lisbon treaty with no exceptions or veto’s.

This is not something contained in the Lisbon Treaty or in any other EU agreements.

While some European politicians have spoken about their desire for a more federal European system, akin to the United States of America, there are currently no developed plans for this to happen.

The Lisbon Treaty only uses the term “federal” when describing the Federal Republic of Germany and (on one or two occasions) Austria and Belgium too. At no point does the Treaty mention the year 2022.

3: All member states must adopt the Euro by 2022 and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU as laid down in the Lisbon treaty.

At the moment, 19 of the 28 EU members are part of the ‘Euro area’. Both the UK and Denmark have “opt-outs” to joining. The UK’s opt-out, which says that the UK “shall be under no obligation” to adopt the Euro, is explicitly referenced in the Lisbon Treaty.

The treaty does reference the ultimate goal of “the euro becoming the currency of all Member States of the Union”, but that doesn’t override the UK’s opt out, and it does not set a time limit on that goal.

The seven EU member states that do not currently use the Euro, and do not have an opt-out, are expected to join the Euro, but only when they meet certain conditions. These criteria include: inflation (the way prices change over time) and long-term interest rates in that country must be within a certain distance of the three “best performing” countries in the EU, public finances must be “sound and sustainable”, exchange rates must be stable. The Lisbon Treaty says that countries not meeting these requirements will not have to adopt the euro.

A similar claim, based on a prediction in an opinion piece in the Telegraph from 2014, has been circulating recently, claiming that all EU members will have to adopt the Euro after 2020. The UK’s opt-out means that it, and any other countries with opt-outs, do not have to do this.

4: The London stock exchange will move to Frankfurt in 2020 and be integrated into the EU stock exchange resulting in a loss of 200,000 plus jobs in the UK because of the relocation. (This has already been pre-agreed and is only on a holding pattern due to the Brexit negotiations, which if Brexit does happen, the move is fully cancelled - but if not and the UK remains a member it’s full steam ahead for the move.)

The London Stock Exchange (LSE) and Deutsche Börse (its German equivalent) announced in February 2016 that they had proposed a merger to combine their activities. (This merger was not set out in, or related to, the Lisbon Treaty.)

However the merger was blocked by the EU in March 2017, on the grounds that it risked creating a monopoly.

Under the terms of the proposal, the two businesses would have continued to operate under their existing brand names and would not have merged into an “EU stock exchange”—nor does any such stock exchange exist. There was discussion of some level of job losses as a potential result of the merger, but nothing close to the 200,000 scale, and the LSE denied that there was any planned relocation to Frankfurt.

Separately, in January 2017, Xavier Rolet, the Chief Executive of the London Stock Exchange, told a committee of MPs that over 200,000 UK jobs—across the country—could be at risk if the terms of Brexit meant financial “clearing” jobs had to leave the UK. This was not linked to the proposed merger with Deutsche Börse, and was explicitly spoken of as a possible result of Brexit, rather than a result of staying in the EU.

5: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of the UK

EU law has to be approved by the European Parliament (made up of elected MEPs from all EU member states) and the Council of the EU (comprising relevant government representatives from each EU country). The Lisbon Treaty put the European Parliament’s power to approve law on an equal footing with the Council, and widened the number of areas over which they could make laws.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the highest court on matters of EU law.

For all EU member countries, EU law takes “supremacy” over domestic law—to ensure that rules are applied uniformly throughout the EU. The UK has accepted the supremacy of EU law for some time—since parliament passed the European Communities Act in 1972—so it’s not as a result of the Lisbon Treaty.

EU law doesn’t cover all aspects of UK law. In areas where no EU law is applicable, the UK parliament and courts are the supreme bodies for making and judging law.

6: The UK will adopt 100% of whatever the EU Parliament and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for the UK to have the Lords or even the Commons as we know it today.

As discussed earlier, the UK also has some ability to veto EU laws, and has opt-outs from certain EU policies.

As we explained above, it’s correct that the UK (as an EU member) must adopt any EU laws that are passed—but there are many areas of UK law not covered by the EU. This has been the case for decades, during which time the House of Commons and Lords have continued to function and pass UK law.

7: The UK will NOT be able to make its own trade deals.

The next few items on the list largely describe the status quo of EU membership.

It’s correct that the UK can’t strike its own trade deals if we remain in the EU, as this has to be done at an EU-wide level. But we would be a part of (and have influence over) all the deals that the EU negotiates. For the most part this isn’t related to the Lisbon Treaty. Even before the Treaty came into force EU member countries couldn’t agree their own trade deals and the EU had largely exclusive powers over trade. The Lisbon Treaty expanded these powers slightly.

8: The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade tariffs.

It’s correct that under the rules of the EU’s customs union, all EU countries have to set the same tariffs on imports from outside the EU. There are no tariffs on trade between EU countries. This is not related to the Lisbon Treaty.

9: The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade quotas.

The EU applies a number of “tariff quotas” (where tariffs are reduced or removed on a certain amount of trade in particular goods). As a member state, the UK follows these and can’t set its own quotas. This is not related to the Lisbon Treaty.

10: The UK loses control of its fishing rights

As a member of the EU, the UK is part of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which originated back in the 1970s. Under this policy, the EU sets a limit on the number or tonnage of each species of fish that can be caught by each country in a year.

Fishing vessels registered in the EU have equal access to EU waters, with two exceptions. At the moment EU member states are allowed to place limits on who can fish in their territorial waters, and up to 100 nautical miles fishing is restricted to those who traditionally fished there, but the legislation covering this expires in 2022. Whether it will be replaced is a matter for the politicians to determine.

We’ve written more about this here.

The Lisbon Treaty sets out that the EU has powers over “the conservation of marine biological resources” as part of the CFP and shares power with member countries over the rest of fisheries policy.

11: The UK loses control of its oil and gas rights

Within the EU, national governments have control over where companies can search for and produce oil and gas in their countries, and over granting licenses to companies. In the UK, onshore oil and gas licensing powers are devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So remaining in the EU wouldn’t mean losing these rights.

There are EU rules which govern how licensing must occur. The government has said these EU licensing rules, and rules on environmental protections, will continue to operate even if there is a no deal Brexit.

(The Lisbon Treaty does discuss the broad goal of a more integrated European energy policy, but states that “such measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply”.)

12: The UK loses control of its borders and enters the Schengen region by 2022 - as clearly laid down in the Lisbon treaty

This is false. The Schengen area is a group of 22 EU countries and four non-EU countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) which don’t have internal border controls.

Six EU countries aren’t part of Schengen, including the UK.

The UK has an opt-out from Schengen and hasn’t signed the Schengen agreement. The agreements setting out the UK’s opt-out also can’t be removed without the consent of the UK. If the government did want to get rid of the opt-out and join the Schengen area there would need to be a referendum on this.

It doesn’t say anywhere in the Lisbon Treaty that the UK has to join the Schengen system by 2022, or by any other date.

The UK does take part in some elements of the Schengen system, for example those relating to criminal law and policing rules. These special circumstances, and the ability of the UK to ‘opt-in’ to parts of Schengen are reflected in the Lisbon Treaty.

13: The UK loses control of its planning legislation

This is false. Member states have to follow EU laws on some aspects of planning. But EU laws on town and country planning must be unanimously supported by member states. This means the UK can effectively veto EU planning legislation as a member of the EU.

14: The UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear deterrent

This is false. The EU doesn’t have its own army, although some key players are supportive of the idea. The Lisbon Treaty sets out that the EU’s “common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy.”

But unlike in other areas of EU decision-making, the European Commission can’t propose laws about security and defence. And it can’t implement common defence policies unless the European Council unanimously approves. This effectively gives the UK a veto on any EU defence policies.

UK law also states that no such common EU defence powers can be handed from the UK to the EU without the approval of parliament and a referendum on the decision.

The Lisbon Treaty does not say anything about the UK’s nuclear deterrent. The House of Commons Library says: “Decision making on the use of British nuclear weapons is a sovereign matter for the UK. There is no requirement to gain the approval of the United States or other NATO allies for their use and only the Prime Minister can authorise an instruction to fire.”

15: The UK loses full control of its taxation policy

The EU does not have a direct role in raising taxes or setting tax rates, and the EU also has no say in how countries spend their tax revenues.

However, the EU does oversee national tax rules, in order to ensure they are consistent with relevant EU policies.

For instance, all member states have to have broadly similar rules and minimum rates on VAT, and taxes on petrol, tobacco and alcohol.

Elsewhere, the EU aims to ensure that its members' tax policies conform to EU principles such as non-discrimination and free movement. It also wants a coordinated EU approach on tax evasion. The Lisbon Treaty led to some small changes to tax policy—but most of the examples listed above pre-date it.

EU decisions on tax matters require unanimous agreement from all member countries, so the UK effectively has a veto on them.

16: The UK loses the ability to create its own laws and to implement them

False. See answers to claims 5 and 6.

17: The UK loses its standing in the Commonwealths

The UK is a member of the Commonwealth—“a voluntary association of 53 independent and equal sovereign states”, where “all members have an equal say—regardless of size or economic stature”.

The UK’s membership of the Commonwealth is not affected by Brexit or by membership of the EU, and there is nothing in the Lisbon Treaty about the Commonwealth.

Commonwealth countries aren't a collective trading bloc, but the UK might seek to do trade deals with Commonwealth countries after Brexit (something it can’t pursue on its own as part of the EU). There is some debate as to how feasible and valuable these would be.

18: The UK loses control of any provinces or affiliated nations e.g.: Falklands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar etc

This is not stated anywhere in the Lisbon Treaty, nor would it happen as a result of the UK remaining in the EU.

The future of the UK’s relationship with Gibraltar has previously proved a sticking point in Brexit negotiations. The government has set out a “Memoranda of Understanding” on matters relating to Gibraltar, stating that this does “not imply any modification of the respective legal positions of the Kingdom of Spain or of the United Kingdom with regard to sovereignty and jurisdiction in relation to Gibraltar”. However, some new processes will be established (in areas like police and customs) to ensure cooperation between the UK and Spain after Brexit.

If the UK remained in the EU, its relationship with Gibraltar would presumably remain as it is now.

19: The UK loses control of its judicial system

False. See answers to claims 5 and 6.

20: The UK loses control of its international policy

False. See answer to claims 7-9, and 14.

21: The UK loses full control of its national policy

That depends on what you mean by “full control”. The Lisbon Treaty widened the number of areas over which the EU parliament could pass laws, but there are many areas of UK law which are not covered by EU regulations. We explain this more in the answers to claims 5 and 6.

22: The UK loses its right to call itself a nation in its own right.

This isn’t true.

23: The UK loses control of its space exploration program

The UK has its own space agency that’s part of the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. It is responsible for leading on UK civil space policy and “its contribution to European initiatives”, coordinating investment and regulating UK civil space activities, among other things.

The Lisbon Treaty says that the EU has powers in “the areas of research, technological development and space … in particular to define and implement programmes”, but it also says that this isn’t at the expense of member countries also having powers in these areas.

It also says that the EU can draw up a European Space policy and “promote joint initiatives, support research and technological development and coordinate the efforts needed for the exploration and exploitation of space.” It also gives the European Parliament and the Council powers to create a European space programme. But excluded from this is the power to ‘harmonise’ the laws and regulations of member countries—or make them all the same on the issue.

The UK is a member of the European Space Agency (ESA), which sent astronaut Tim Peake into space in 2016. The ESA is not an EU body, so whether we stay in or leave the EU our membership of the ESA won’t be affected. Brexit will affect the UK’s ability to participate in some collaborative space programs such as the Galileo satellite navigation system.

24: The UK loses control of its Aviation and Sea lane jurisdiction

The EU has significant influence over the UK’s transport policy. Its rules on aviation cover a number of areas including licensing and safety. Most of these regulations were set out in Treaties which pre-date the Lisbon Treaty.

Shipping rules in the UK are governed by the UK’s membership of a number of international organisations including the International Maritime Organisation, the OECD, and the UN Commission on International Trade law; as well as the EU. The Lisbon Treaty says nothing specific about shipping. National vetoes over EU laws on shipping and aviation were dropped in the 1980s.

25: The UK loses its rebate in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon treaty

The UK, like several other EU members, gets a “rebate” which reduces the amount it pays into the EU budget.

The EU has proposed that we would lose our rebate if we stayed in the EU as a full member beyond 2020.

This is in line with an EU proposal to get rid of all the rebates it gives to its members—including Denmark and the Netherlands—over the course of the next budget.

The proposed removal of the rebate would be part of the “Multiannual financial framework” (the EU’s long-term budget) which requires unanimous agreement among member states, so the UK could potentially block it.

The Lisbon Treaty doesn’t mention the rebate at all.

26: The UK’s contribution to the EU is set to increase by an average of 1.2bn pa and by 2.3bn pa by 2020

The Office for Budget Responsibility, the UK public spending watchdog, has forecast that the UK will contribute around €16 billion to the EU budget in 2018, €17.2 billion in 2019 and €18.5 billion in 2020. That’s after any rebate or discount the UK receives, but before any money is spent in the UK by the EU.

In pounds that works out at around £14.1 billion in 2018, £15.2 billion in 2019 and £16.3 billion in 2020, based on the latest exchange rates, or an increase of around £1 billion per year.

2020 is the last year the UK would contribute towards the EU budget, assuming that the UK exits the EU and a withdrawal agreement is passed by parliament. It is also the year in which the EU’s current budget comes to an end (these generally run in seven year blocs and the rules around them were amended by the Lisbon Treaty—though not any specific amounts to be paid).

We’ve written more about the UK’s contributions towards the EU budget here.

With thanks to UK in a Changing Europe and Professor Steve Peers for their help with reviewing this factcheck.

This article is part of our work factchecking potentially false pictures, videos and stories on Facebook. You can read more about this—and find out how to report Facebook content—here. For the purposes of that scheme, we’ve rated this claim as a false because most of the claims are incorrect.

[greybeard]

Be careful what you believe.
Dont take any ones video--viewpoint as truth
Investigate --follow the money.
This is an investigative forum--im not capable of in depth search.
There must be some here capable of unbiased investigating.

"The moment a point of view is held know that you are identifying with an illusion."
Now that from A Course In Miracles but it may be relevant here.
Im comfortable taking the middle ground but I don't appreciate lies an distortions were peoples future is at stake. That applies to both Leave without a deal and Remain.
In balance which is the more truthful--don't ask me.
Up to the voting public

Chris

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by greybeard (here)
I used to think Boris Johnson could get a Brexit deal. Not after last week
The Guardian Simon Jenkins,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/used-think...151311072.html

Anything about Brexit in Guardian articles will be pro EU and anti national independence.

[greybeard]

Anything the Sun says pro exit, deal or no deal.
So where does the truth sit?
Chris
Ps I don't mind if Boris has a love of women--only can he be trusted to be truthful as PM--has he really the best interest of the voters at heart?

[greybeard]

He'll be out in five minutes': Queen will fire Boris Johnson if he refuses to seek Brexit extension, former attorney general says
The Independent Andrew Woodcock,The Independent

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/hell-five-...104800867.html


The Queen would dismiss Boris Johnson as prime minister if he refused to comply with a law requiring him to seek an extension to Brexit talks, leading Remainer Dominic Grieve has said.

The former attorney general said the PM would be “out in five minutes” if he tried to defy a Supreme Court order to go to Brussels.

Mr Grieve said he expected current attorney Geoffrey Cox and lord chancellor Robert Buckland would resign, while the civil service would withdraw co-operation with a prime minister openly flouting the law in this way.

A cross-party group of anti-no deal MPs passed legislation known as the Benn Act, earlier this month,which requires Mr Johnson to seek an extension to the Article 50 Brexit extension, delaying the date of withdrawal to the end of January, if he has not secured parliamentary approval for a deal or a no-deal outcome by 19 October.

Mr Johnson has branded the legislation a “surrender act” and insists that despite its provisions he will not ask Brussels for an extention beyond the scheduled Brexit date of 31 October.

But Mr Grieve said that would lead to an instant legal challenge which would reach the Supreme Court within days, where judges would issue a rarely-used order known as “mandamus” requiring a public official to carry out a non-discretionary responsibility.

“He would be taken to court and a writ of mandamus would be issued against him and he would be told that he had, as a matter of law, to write the letter,” Mr Grieve told Sky News.

“I suspect the courts could deal with it very quickly.”

Mr Grieve added: “At that stage, the cabinet secretary and civil service will refuse to work for him. I assume the attorney general and lord chancellor would have resigned, because it is such a flagrant breach of the law.”

Even though Mr Cox has been a vocal supporter of Mr Johnson’s approach to Brexit, Mr Grieve said he was “a good enough lawyer to know you can’t support a prime minister who is breaking the law of the land”.
(EPA)

Pressed on whether Mr Johnson would face further legal action if he refused to comply with the court order, Mr Grieve said: “There is no question of putting the prime minister on trial.

“The Supreme Court - Her Majesty’s judges - telling the prime minister that as a matter of law he has to do something? He will be gone in five minutes. He will be dismissed.”

Asked if it was the Queen who would dismiss Mr Johnson in these circumstances, Mr Grieve replied simply: “Yes.”

The former attorney general insisted that it was a “hypothetical position”, but added: “If he intends to continue behaving in this completely ludicrous fashion, yes, perhaps.”

[happyuk]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by greybeard (here)
I used to think Boris Johnson could get a Brexit deal. Not after last week
The Guardian Simon Jenkins,The Guardian

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/used-think...151311072.html

Anything about Brexit in Guardian articles will be pro EU and anti national independence.

I think you're probably right.

Eddie Dempsey the pro-Brexit trade union activist from South East London has just been ‘No-Platformed’ by middle class (self-proclaimed) socialists for his views on the issue. These great Guardianista defenders of democracy are all for free speech... as long as you agree with them.

Our televisions are awash with the middle class Remainer militants throwing their toys out of the pram. I saw one with a placard that read: ‘Save democracy! Stop Brexit!’ – absurd when all the Remainers have done for three years is try to undermine the biggest democratic vote in British history. What we’re seeing are Britain’s liberal elite (the BBC, media, civil service, big business, academia) demonstrate their contempt for the popular will and the ever-demonised working class.

[greybeard]

Most of this is emotional on both sides.
I would like to see hard economic facts (as far as that's possible)
How much will the average person benefit from leaving without a deal?
No benefit--no leave and I appreciate there is more than money involved.

The current promises made by the Chancellor--where is the money coming from?
All the answers seem very vague.
All things for all people---since when did politicians keep pre- election promises?
Regardless of the bias of various papers --can the truth be found?

Chris

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Most of this is emotional on both sides.
I would like to see hard economic facts (as far as that's possible)
How much will the average person benefit from leaving without a deal?
No benefit--no leave and I appreciate there is more than money involved.

Right: it's not about economics, personal or otherwise. It's about the creeping power of the EU, as what David Icke calls The Totalitarian Tiptoe — a model for the North American Union, and the four other 'Unions' that are planned prior to the ONE super-union of the singular global superstate.

[greybeard]

A ONE super-union of the singular global superstate is never going to happen Bill.
Too many different cultures.
Nothing is permanent everything transient--that may be a spiritual perspective but its true.
Impermanence a major statement by The Buddha.

So we can say to the ordinary person as much as we like that the globalists are taking over the world but if they, having had a good income,are facing being jobless and loosing their house and car, they would not see fighting Globalism as a priority.

Chris

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by greybeard (here)
A ONE super-union of the singular global superstate is never going to happen Bill.
Too many different cultures.

But look at Europe, and the EU.

You could say exactly the same thing.

[Baby Steps]

The economic reasoning behind these blocs is sound. Just imagine what various African nations could gain if they could organise a common currency and utilise the heft of an entire continent to try to extract concessions from our corporate hegemons. The African one will be easy.

The eu can still be presented if required as a success for most of its citizens. It’s an economic argument , just look at the industrial development and investments occurring in Eastern Europe - that is why Ukraine is so keen to join,

The eu is acknowledged to be deficient in democracy and transparency. It was ready to sign us up for TTIP with its secret courts etc without hesitation.

Once similar groupings are predominant it will be easy to exert centralised power over them without us even hearing about it.

That is the global dictatorship that is being built.

In Germany the word ‘nationalism’ is being demonised by being conflated with nazism. People generally do not accept that the eu is building a new nation, so effectively the eu is nationalist, but lacks as many democratic checks and balances as the nations being disempowered and subsumed


See the following from 'Full Fact.org':

Compared to a country, the EU has democratic shortcomings


Seen in that light, there are a number of key democratic shortcomings or failings, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Usherwood:
The European Council and the Council of Ministers (the two bodies where member countries meet) still hold many sessions in private or only partly make their records public, which makes it difficult to always know who has said what, or how individual countries have voted;
Much implementation of EU laws still happens under the opaque ‘comitology’ system, although it has been changed recently;

The European Parliament lacks some of the powers normally associated with national parliaments. It cannot formally propose new laws or raise taxes, for example;
There is no clear alternation of power. While different groups might gain more seats in the European Parliament, this is not necessarily matched by similar changes in the ‘executive’ branches of the EU—the European Commission, and the national governments in the Council;
The complexity of the system also makes it hard to ensure that EU funds are not misspent;
Perhaps most significantly, most EU citizens do not identify strongly with the EU, so some will argue that it doesn’t have the same legitimacy that national systems enjoy.
There are still questions about the right balance to strike
There is a tension that might be obvious from this list. The remedies that would most simply address them would also mean a considerable strengthening of EU powers, making it look even more like a state.
This dilemma has been seen most clearly with the increasing powers given to the European Parliament—which has nonetheless seen declining turnout for elections.
In the absence of a shared European community of the kind found within countries, it might not be possible—if at all desirable—to build a system that unifies people like many nation states have done. But this does not of itself mean that some form of democracy is impossible.
Dr Hagemann and Professor Usherwood say that the question is how to get the best balance in a system which seeks to address the needs of both states and peoples in Europe, especially within an EU that handles both mundane technical regulations and highly political questions.

[greybeard]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by greybeard (here)
A ONE super-union of the singular global superstate is never going to happen Bill.
Too many different cultures.

But look at Europe, and the EU.

You could say exactly the same thing.

We are talking world wide Bill.
Look at it this way.
Crusaders set out to have one religion throughout the world--Christianity.
Human nature --people die for an ideal-- their chosen way of life--religion, politics, football team.
Too much coming out about Boris for it all to be untrue or made up by the papers.
The blanket assumption that all journalists are in the pay of or under the control of--whatever -whoever.
Or blanket blaming--its the middle class--yesterday it was the elite--the employers--always some one to blame.

Whilst Im on it --how come Germany saved the wing of Thomas Cook and UK would not even consult with them--why not?--banks saved, others saved-- This Government has agenda--and its right wing in the extreme as far as I can see.

I hope im wrong in my assumptions but leaving without a deal is just a bad idea for the working people an those small businesses that employ them

Chris

[araucaria]

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1314363

This is an astonishing performance from Joseph Farrell, both in form and content. Form: he loudly states that he is not trying to sell his book, then states even more loudly that we absolutely must buy his book, the only source for material such as quotes from… Hansard, the public record of UK Parliamentary business. Duh! There was a time when new books and conspiracy theories were based on material not available elsewhere…

Content: the EU supposedly intends to annex the British military and secret service. This info makes Brexit a totally desirable outcome. But there is simply no way this can be squared with the major fact, namely that throughout the three years that the country has been deeply divided, Brexit sympathizers/executors have been in charge. They could at any time have achieved overnight national consensus in favour of Leave simply by making public what Farrell is touting as alternative media news. There would be no security risk involved; on the contrary, there would be a huge security risk in saying nothing. Most Remainers would become Leavers. Catering to the “we won the war” mentality would have been a surefire way to avoid three years of division: why has it not happened? Because the division, not Brexit per se, has been the purpose (or effect) all along, and the perpetrators are in Westminster, not Brussels. Or, to put in another way, any old Brexit, soft or hard, was not good enough, it was always going to be the chaotic No Deal version. Consider: the post-referendum election gave May a slim majority to vote an exit; the opposition was mathematically too weak to prevent it. Her deal was thrown out three times by the no-dealers on her own benches. This election, which might be viewed as a second referendum (the way parliament votes the same legislation several times over), showed that there was already no majority for a hard Brexit, let alone a No Deal Brexit. “Brexit” has always meant too many different things to be a workable concept.

Back to Farrell: the only conventional way of stealing someone’s army is to defeat it in war. Presumably the secret service and the army would be aware of any danger long before Joseph Farrell and would have taken any necessary steps. After all, defence through self-defence is what they are there for; if they can’t do that, good riddance. Not to do so would be treasonous and would amount to admitting that the UK is governed by clandestine pro-Europeans. In which case, why bother at all with the whole rigmarole? If word came out, most Leavers would become Remainers, for what would be the advantage over being bona fide active Europeans? Combined with most Remainers becoming Leavers, as stated above, you would have everyone wondering whether they are coming or going. Which is precisely the current state of the nation, the afore-mentioned “major fact” that any theory needs to explain.

Then there is the supposedly nefarious mention of Africa as let’s say an area of concern. Of course Africa is an area of concern. There are problems in Africa that everyone would like to see fixed, including immigration. Here in Normandy, the only category trying to board UK-bound trucks at the ferry terminal are young Somalians etc., i.e. Africans, not middle easterners. Instead of fixing this end of the problem, why not fix things at their end so that they don’t want to leave in the first place? Let’s have more remainers instead of more leavers! Take John Le Carré: no one takes him to task for transferring his spy novels from Checkpoint Charlie (the Smiley books) to Kenya (The Constant Gardener): the world has moved on, and so unfortunately has the “nefarium”. As our perceptions expand at an increasingly faster rate, the world is getting smaller, at an increasingly faster rate. Britain is now on Africa’s doorstep and has been in Africa’s living-room for much longer. The only way for people to cope is to let more and more things slide, by showing increasing tolerance, and active tolerance, which is helpfulness. However, what we are seeing wherever we look is increasing intolerance, e.g. by applying today’s tougher standards to yesterday’s behaviour. Making mountains out of molehills instead of making molehills out of mountains. Making noise about noise does not improve the signal.

Joseph Farrell is a case in point. As a long-serving alternative Nazi-hunter, he is carrying on where Simon Rosenthal, down to the last one or two centenarians, is forced to leave off. The destructive forces behind historical Nazis are more active than ever, and spreading, which only goes to prove that there has to be another better way to deal with the new threats that they pose. Already armies are irrelevant since they are allegedly being picked off by politicians… Confrontation and elimination are so twentieth century. These are options that are thankfully outdated: in other words, we no longer need to kill each other to defend our interests. We are making progress even when all the signs point the other way. But chasing or playing catch-up is no longer an option: the only way is to get in front and stand in the way.

One of these new threats is the existence of hedge funds, whereby the system can be milked of billions and billions simply by betting on failure. Destruction is so much easier than construction and betting on failure is so much more lucrative when you can arrange to ensure it happens. So when the former chancellor Philip Hammond claims hedge funds stand to gain hugely from a no-deal Brexit, then you begin to understand why it has to happen, and how without resistance from parliament and the courts, and ultimately the people, it will be made to happen. The next step being to introduce rioting – for it certainly won’t be a spontaneous popular revolt.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...brexit-inquiry

The upshot of this is that bona fide Brexit supporters should be worried whether their ideas did not actually originate with these people. The leading proponents of Brexit are not your friends. A few examples. Johnson is a former classics scholar: he knows that Cato the Elder liked to begin his speeches with “Delenda Carthago est” (Carthage must be destroyed) – not a reasoned policy, just a mantra: it will be done. Here Johnson is in a league of his own, saying "Get Brexit done" every other sentence: not a mantra, a reasoned policy?? Delenda Britannia est?
Michael Gove: "The answer... is to reflect on what Yogi Berra, the American baseball coach said, which is 'One should never make predictions, especially about the future'". Newspeak for populists. Whatever happened to serious plans, promises and government manifestoes: “we will do this, we will do that”? They are reduced to mantras.
“Toby Young, an associate editor of the Spectator, laughed off the [groping] allegation. He told an event at conference: “Back then at the Spectator, in those raucous days, people complained if Boris didn’t put his hand on their knee. Times really have changed.” OK, one thing is sure from this: Boris was groping people all the time. Another thing is less sure: people (everyone) liked it. So basically he is confirming the allegation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ory-conference

The closer we focus on a problem, the bigger the problem becomes: so, we try the opposite and find it works better. We should understand by now that “being the change we want to see” involves more friendship and cooperation, not more confrontation and isolation. This notably means giving the conspiracy theories a rest; instead of constantly accusing people, we might put it all down to the zeitgeist: the information revolution and the resulting explosion of contradictory data; the money-grabbing on an unbelievable new scale and the resulting explosion of chaos and hardship. We don’t need alternative news, what we need it alterative news, meaning “having the tendency to produce alteration” (improved health, OED), perhaps through making light of alterity or otherness – other people’s and our own.

When everyone wants to make themselves heard over the din, the wiser course may be to create a silence by saying very little and maybe using a bit of old-fashioned discernment. Would you buy a secondhand car from Boris Johnson? Not likely. Would you welcome him as a forum member with his views and inflammatory statements? I don’t think so. So he’s somewhere at the lower end of the trustworthiness scale. Maybe that’s because he answers fairly closely the description of the sociopath who rises to power. What does that say about this Brexit/anti-EU thing he is trying to sell you? If he were a family member, would you be close, or would you shun him? And if you are just one of the people, whyever place your trust in that spoilt child of the over-privileged? Democracy, if it ever happens, is rule of the people by the people; right-wing populism is rule of the people by the elite in people’s clothing. Hence the biggest illusion of all is to stop at the (not untrue) idea that Johnson is the puppet of Dominic Cummings: the more important fact of the matter is that Dominic Cummings is Johnson’s puppet.

[greybeard]

Thank you araucaria for an excellent post.
I suspect there is s a lot of truth in your post as there was in the one exposing the lies about the Lisbon Agreement.
No army gives up control of its forces without a big uproar,
I believe a lot of MP's are honest and serve the nation which is I suspect why a damaging no deal exit is fought.
It good to see some debate happening here.

Chris

[Matthew]

Posted by araucaria (here)
...
We should understand by now that “being the change we want to see” involves more friendship and cooperation, not more confrontation and isolation. This notably means giving the conspiracy theories a rest; instead of constantly accusing people, we might put it all down to the zeitgeist: the information revolution and the resulting explosion of contradictory data; the money-grabbing on an unbelievable new scale and the resulting explosion of chaos and hardship. We don’t need alternative news, what we need it alterative news, meaning “having the tendency to produce alteration” (improved health, OED), perhaps through making light of alterity or otherness – other people’s and our own.

When everyone wants to make themselves heard over the din, the wiser course may be to create a silence by saying very little and maybe using a bit of old-fashioned discernment. Would you buy a secondhand car from Boris Johnson? Not likely. Would you welcome him as a forum member with his views and inflammatory statements? I don’t think so. So he’s somewhere at the lower end of the trustworthiness scale. Maybe that’s because he answers fairly closely the description of the sociopath who rises to power. What does that say about this Brexit/anti-EU thing he is trying to sell you? If he were a family member, would you be close, or would you shun him? And if you are just one of the people, whyever place your trust in that spoilt child of the over-privileged? Democracy, if it ever happens, is rule of the people by the people; right-wing populism is rule of the people by the elite in people’s clothing. Hence the biggest illusion of all is to stop at the (not untrue) idea that Johnson is the puppet of Dominic Cummings: the more important fact of the matter is that Dominic Cummings is Johnson’s puppet.

I hear you say we should get along more, and not trust Boris. I don't trust him, except it's good to hear him call Theresa May's deal the 'surrender bill', as it's too bad to be a deal, but has parity with surrender treaties.

The Brexit referendum has already been had, and the point of no deal is it enables an honest negotiation if you have the threat of no deal on the table. But it's past that now, democracy has been cheated by Bercow who was meant to be unbiased (he abused SO24 emergency debates), betrayed by opposition MP's who rejected a general election (FFS!), and the supreme court (set up by Tony Blair) who are not elected and this is possibly the most worrying abuse of democracy. Democracy is at risk, you don't seem to understand.

Nothing any of us can do about it - it's past that, but it's sad to see them wangle out of a very clear 17.4 million strong leave vote, in the biggest turnout for a democratic exercise in our country's history. It was super clear, and only remainers argue it was not clear. Part of the many shenanigans that helped them steal our democracy

[greybeard]

People believe that they made an informed decision---informed by who?
For what reason?
I believe that Boris attempted to steal democracy when he got parliament shutdown.
Parliament, faults and all prevents a dictatorship and is a democracy as is the law of the land there to protect democracy
No one above the law, that's democratic
The judges verdict I believe was fair and proper.

I also get the frustration of this Brexit situation unresolved for years.
The will of the people--no it was not a landslide victory to leave--more information available now.
There is a saying "You can tell the character of a man by the fruits of his endeavours"
As was said would you buy a used car from Boris?
Sanctioning him as PM seems like the end justify s the means--no matter what.

Had tea with my daughter just now.
Her husband has a Male clothes business where most of his products come from abroad.
They are concerned for their future and their children, whom they are having to finance going through University at the moment.

His Parents voted leave as they though they might get a bigger pension--he and my daughter think they were selfish. My daughters words--They wont be around to see the long term affects of leaving without a deal--the children of today will be

At least now we are having a debate about this important subject.
Chris

[Matthew]

Posted by greybeard (here)
People believe that they made an informed decision---informed by who?
For what reason?

...

The same old remainer shenanigans - remainers say this a lot, we've had this same discussion, we're going round in circles thanks to the minority of remainers promoting what they thing leavers knew or didn't know

Posted by greybeard
...
I believe that Boris attempted to steal democracy when he got parliament shutdown.
Parliament, faults and all prevents a dictatorship and is a democracy as is the law of the land there to protect democracy
No one above the law, that's democratic
The judges verdict I believe was fair and proper.

...

Is this because he called for a general election, and was stopped implementing the democratic will of the people in a huge and famous democratic exorcise.

You drink too much Kool-aid

Posted by greybeard
...

I also get the frustration of this Brexit situation unresolved for years.
The will of the people--no it was not a landslide victory to leave--more information available now.
There is a saying "You can tell the character of a man by the fruits of his endeavours"
As was said would you buy a used car from Boris?
Sanctioning him as PM seems like the end justify s the means--no matter what.

Had tea with my daughter just now.
Her husband has a Male clothes business where most of his products come from abroad.
They are concerned for their future and their children, whom they are having to finance going through University at the moment.

His Parents voted leave as they though they might get a bigger pension--he and my daughter think they were selfish. My daughters words--They wont be around to see the long term affects of leaving without a deal--the children of today will be

At least now we are having a debate about this important subject.
Chris

Be concerned for the future of democracy for these children too, and perhaps fairness with foreign trade which the EU is not promoting but the UK is - no deal is the starting premise, the truth of the trade dynamic, and what is fair comes after that. But i probably put democracy above the latter, both are for the children's sake imho

Matthew

[greybeard]

Matthew I have agreement with some of what you say.
Saying leaving without a deal has not as yet pressurized the EU negotiators into a major shift.
The bottom line for them is the Irish border--the backstop.

I really cant see that democracy is in any danger--now.

You may well have voted leave knowing what you were voting for but the information given out by Boris and friends before the referendum has been proven to be inaccurate.
So many voted believing this information to be true--would they vote the same way now?

There does not seem to be much disagreement about leaving with a deal and I think that's really what people expected.

So, as I have said, I think it fair for people to have a chance to vote the same or have a change of mind.

An election really is a separate issue with lots of thing to vote on, a referendum is about one thing.

If my grand children end up having to leave University I dont think they would find much solace in me sayiig "Its for the good of democracy" they have worked for years as have many others to get to Uni.
Their parents worked years , took risks to build their business it would have been easier to work for a boss, not that that's safe these days either.
Chris