Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Jack Knave on September 28, 2016, 12:39:45 PM
-
https://euobserver.com/tickers/135270
“We have to accept the democratic decision and the shit campaign of Cameron,” German EU commissioner Gunther Oettinger said on Tuesday at a meeting of the European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association, according to British newspaper The Times. “I’m sorry, that’s life and shit happens", Oettinger said. Former British PM David Cameron lost the referendum in June on Britain's EU exit.
Very diplomatic language!!!
Once again the EU failing to take responsibility for its fuck ups, from their perspective. They were the ones who missed judged the mood in the UK and gave Cameron nothing, thinking in their usual arrogant and 'divine right' way that the British people could be bullied into staying in their EU, elitist's shithole.
-
https://euobserver.com/tickers/135270
“We have to accept the democratic decision and the shit campaign of Cameron,” German EU commissioner Gunther Oettinger said on Tuesday at a meeting of the European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association, according to British newspaper The Times. “I’m sorry, that’s life and shit happens", Oettinger said. Former British PM David Cameron lost the referendum in June on Britain's EU exit.
Very diplomatic language!!!
Once again the EU failing to take responsibility for its fuck ups, from their perspective. They were the ones who missed judged the mood in the UK and gave Cameron nothing, thinking in their usual arrogant and 'divine right' way that the British people could be bullied into staying in their EU, elitist's shithole.
In your nicely detailed description of the EU hierarchy you omitted one very important word - corrupt! Have you seen their expenses and they are the ones that they dare to publish - what about the rest?
-
I don't know what expenses the EU hierarchy claim Owlswing but I've heard comments about them before so would be quite interested if you can point me in the right direction. I've no objection to anyone claiming reasonable expenses or earning a lot of money but if they are really over the top, that's a different matter.
-
Have you seen their expenses and they are the ones that they dare to publish - what about the rest?
Yes - a certain Mr Farage seems very reluctant to give up his expenses.
Oh and do you remember this:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/24/mps-expenses-ukip-nigel-farage
-
That's interesting Trent but is Farage typical of MEPs? Given that he doesn't believe in the UK being in the EU, I wouldn't have thought so. I daresay they are a mixed bunch. No doubt the expenses system needs to be overhauled but I would have thought anyone doing that job is entitled to decent expenses.
-
That's interesting Trent but is Farage typical of MEPs? Given that he doesn't believe in the UK being in the EU, I wouldn't have thought so. I daresay they are a mixed bunch. No doubt the expenses system needs to be overhauled but I would have thought anyone doing that job is entitled to decent expenses.
Yes I would think they are a mixed bunch and do deserve decent expenses. I just thought it was worth reminding some that St Nigel of Farage enjoys sticking his snout in the trough.
-
Nothing surprises me about that man (not heard much of him in the last couple of weeks though - thankfully).
-
I don't know what expenses the EU hierarchy claim Owlswing but I've heard comments about them before so would be quite interested if you can point me in the right direction. I've no objection to anyone claiming reasonable expenses or earning a lot of money but if they are really over the top, that's a different matter.
https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/disgraced-mep-expelled-labour-party
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/02/two-meps-took-home-over-1million-each-in-salary-and-expenses-pay/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/may/27/expenses-meps-european-parliament
-
https://euobserver.com/tickers/135270
“We have to accept the democratic decision and the shit campaign of Cameron,” German EU commissioner Gunther Oettinger said on Tuesday at a meeting of the European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association, according to British newspaper The Times. “I’m sorry, that’s life and shit happens", Oettinger said. Former British PM David Cameron lost the referendum in June on Britain's EU exit.
Very diplomatic language!!!
Once again the EU failing to take responsibility for its fuck ups, from their perspective. They were the ones who missed judged the mood in the UK and gave Cameron nothing, thinking in their usual arrogant and 'divine right' way that the British people could be bullied into staying in their EU, elitist's shithole.
It might lack the finer points of diplomacy but it's fair comment. Cameron totally failed to squash the blatant lies of the Brexiteers and we are all paying the price.
-
In your nicely detailed description of the EU hierarchy you omitted one very important word - corrupt! Have you seen their expenses and they are the ones that they dare to publish - what about the rest?
I'm well aware of that side of the EU but my OP was more about the hubris and the out of touch stubbornness of these blind elites. The EU and their Treaties are their gods, just as it was similarly the case with the Soviet Union.
-
It might lack the finer points of diplomacy but it's fair comment. Cameron totally failed to squash the blatant lies of the Brexiteers and we are all paying the price.
L.A., hi,
Are you talking about that sincere up-front politician who never broke a promise, or lied, and simply radiated honesty and care for all?
-
It might lack the finer points of diplomacy but it's fair comment. Cameron totally failed to squash the blatant lies of the Brexiteers and we are all paying the price.
The EU didn't give Cameron the tools to do the job. They are the ones at fault here. That was plain stupid of them!
-
The EU didn't give Cameron the tools to do the job. They are the ones at fault here. That was plain stupid of them!
I don't care Jack. I want my share of Brexit prosperity, the 350 million quid to the NHS, No waiting in hospitals as promised in the referendum broadcasts and I want it now, when are the brexiteers going to come up with the goods?
-
I don't care Jack. I want my share of Brexit prosperity, the 350 million quid to the NHS, No waiting in hospitals as promised in the referendum broadcasts and I want it now, when are the brexiteers going to come up with the goods?
just to check though you may not be white enough for that?
-
I don't care Jack. I want my share of Brexit prosperity, the 350 million quid to the NHS, No waiting in hospitals as promised in the referendum broadcasts and I want it now, when are the brexiteers going to come up with the goods?
Come on Vlad, you are an intelligent being, you know that Brexit is a process and will take time.
-
I don't care Jack. I want my share of Brexit prosperity, the 350 million quid to the NHS, No waiting in hospitals as promised in the referendum broadcasts and I want it now, when are the brexiteers going to come up with the goods?
Do you have to wait long in hospitals, Vlad? That hasn't been my experience, nor my husband's or anyone I know. I've heard about such things on the news - but when is good news ever broadcast?
I'm going to look at the links you posted, Owl. Thanks.
Done. Peter Skinner expelled from Labour Party, seems to be the right action.
Not bothered about the rest, good for anyone if they can make a few bob legally. I imagine the system will be overhauled and tightened up in the future so it will be more difficult - but won't affect us if we are out of the EU.
-
It might lack the finer points of diplomacy but it's fair comment. Cameron totally failed to squash the blatant lies of the Brexiteers and we are all paying the price.
But there in lies the problem; it can be very difficult to squash lies when there is no precedent to base such action on.
I notice from today's Metro that "Brexit vote 'costs City jobs'". (p.28) Seem to remember that the Remain camp suggested that this would be result of a 'Leave' vote.
-
But there in lies the problem; it can be very difficult to squash lies when there is no precedent to base such action on.
I notice from today's Metro that "Brexit vote 'costs City jobs'". (p.28) Seem to remember that the Remain camp suggested that this would be result of a 'Leave' vote.
yep, mine is one of them. As were the 1800 others, including the 70 I sacked before mine went.
-
Do you have to wait long in hospitals, Vlad? That hasn't been my experience, nor my husband's or anyone I know.
It varies.
-
I can assure you Brownie that if you aren't waiting long now - you will be very shortly, unless something extraordinary is done about the funding of the NHS.
Thinks - like maybe a mythical figure of £350 million a week!
Seriously, 90% of Trusts including the one I work in are really, really struggling with debts that keep mounting due to having to make year-on-year efficiency savings - or as I like to think of them in my quaint, old fashioned way - cuts.
The public and staff will suffer, unless there are dramatic changes to the funding structure.
-
L.A., hi,
Are you talking about that sincere up-front politician who never broke a promise, or lied, and simply radiated honesty and care for all?
I'm talking about a well intentioned man who screwed-up.
-
The EU didn't give Cameron the tools to do the job. They are the ones at fault here. That was plain stupid of them!
Cameron's problem was that he was fighting by Marquess of Queensberry rules when a baseball bat would have been more appropriate.
-
I'm talking about a well intentioned man who screwed-up.
Morning,
You are very, very generous! Did you not notice all the broken promises, or the spurious predictions he and Osborne perpetrated. Did you not realise he was working for big business who funded his horrid Government. The fact that he ran off when his house of cards collapsed showed what he was like when the crunch came. He even makes me warm to Corbyn when I compare the two!
-
Morning,
You very, very generous! Did you not notice all the broken promises, or the spurious predictions he and Osborne perpetrated. Did you not realise he was working for big business who funded his horrid Government. The fact that he ran off when his house of cards collapsed showed what he was like when the crunch came. He even makes me warm to Corbyn when I compare the two!
Osborne's dire predictions haven't gone away. It's a bit like a man falling off a cliff concluding that the the dangers are much over-rated.
Big Business employs millions, indirectly supports most small businesses and pays vast amounts of tax. We damage Big Business at our peril.
-
I'm talking about a well intentioned man who screwed-up.
No, an incompetent, self-serving man who screwed up just about everything he touched. Don't forget Libya, and the consequences of that ill-planned intervention: how many lives have been lost because of that? What a legacy: Brexit catastrophe, Libya, austerity, and the cuts to welfare for those with the least. And where is he now? Probably planning his own lucrative future. He's a disgrace, in every sense.
-
Osborne's dire predictions haven't gone away. It's a bit like a man falling off a cliff concluding that the the dangers are much over-rated.
Big Business employs millions, indirectly supports most small businesses and pays vast amounts of tax. We damage Big Business at our peril.
Osborne was making predictions as far ahead as the latter part of the next decade; how absurd! In his last shambles budget his "predictions" were collapsing within a week!! As to Big Business: many of them are working off the back of migrant workers to whom they often don't even pay the minimum wage. Not to mention the billions they collectively rip us all off with their tax arrangements. It is small business which is the back-bone of our economy.
-
No, an incompetent, self-serving man who screwed up just about everything he touched. Don't forget Libya, and the consequences of that ill-planned intervention: how many lives have been lost because of that? What a legacy: Brexit catastrophe, Libya, austerity, and the cuts to welfare for those with the least. And where is he now? Probably planning his own lucrative future. He's a disgrace, in every sense.
All that is a matter of opinion, the relevant facts are that he screwed-up and is no longer on the scene.
-
Dear Bashers,
Mr Cameron!! That's old Lapsed hero you are dissing, he was educated at Eton and Oxford, which means ( according to old Lapsed :P ) he always plays with a straight bat don'tcherknow :P
Anyway, on a more serious subject, this brexit nonsense has brought out some serious facts that I was totally unaware of.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37493956
Billionaires being given EU subsidies, I wonder if her Majesty and the Duke of Westminster are thinking of relocating to mainland Europe.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Bashers,
Mr Cameron!! That's old Lapsed hero you are dissing, he was educated at Eton and Oxford, which means ( according to old Lapsed :P ) he always plays with a straight bat don'tcherknow :P
Anyway, on a more serious subject, this brexit nonsense has brought out some serious facts that I was totally unaware of.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37493956
Billionaires being given EU subsidies, I wonder if her Majesty and the Duke of Westminster are thinking of relocating to mainland Europe.
Gonnagle.
Hi Gonners,
I dare say that, in the fullness of time, there will be other examples of how his old Etonian chums and the like, will have "benefitted." And not to forget the huge tax hand-out the rich got. Don't you just love the guy - if you're rich or politically totally biased!! He was a Thatcherite and it showed in the cavalier manner he treated the less fortunate in society. I reckon he went home at night and morphed into the Iron Lady!
-
All that is a matter of opinion, the relevant facts are that he screwed-up and is no longer on the scene.
How can you say that the catastrophic intervention in Libya was a matter of opinion. It was a first-class, horrific blunder, and we will be facing the consequences for years, not to mention the poor souls who are suffering and dying because of it. As with Brexit, he failed to plan for any outcome. A truly disgraceful performance..
-
Dear Bashers,
If I remember correctly, for all her failings, Maggie would never have let the likes of Farage or the EU get the better of her.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Bashers,
If I remember correctly, for all her failings, Maggie would never have let the likes of Farage or the EU get the better of her.
Gonnagle.
As you will have guessed, I'm no fan of Maggie, but I will say that with her you got what you saw and she was, for the most part, up front. With Cameron it has been duplicity.
-
Osborne was making predictions as far ahead as the latter part of the next decade; how absurd! In his last shambles budget his "predictions" were collapsing within a week!!
Osborne's predictions were based on financial models - sophisticated computers simulations of the economy. There are margins of error and they can be wrong, but they are perfectly legitimate and you can't ignore them. What is more, some of those forecasts will probably happen.
As to big business: many of them are working off the back of migrant workers to whom they often don't even pay the minimum wage. Not to mention the billions they collectively rip us all off with their tax arrangements. It is small business which is the back-bone of our economy.
That is unfair B.A. The vast majority of companies big and small pay their taxes. If a government choose to allow special tax concessions to a company in order to encourage investment in this country (and the jobs that go with it),you can hardly blame the company.
Migrants who take low-pay jobs tend to be filling vacancies that UK workers are unable or are unwilling to do, but in doing so help boost the economy and create new jobs. A typical example would be the migrant workers who pick fruit and veg. Without them the whole industry would die.
-
How can you say that the catastrophic intervention in Libya was a matter of opinion. It was a first-class, horrific blunder, and we will be facing the consequences for years, not to mention the poor souls who are suffering and dying because of it. As with Brexit, he failed to plan for any outcome. A truly disgraceful performance..
As many commentators have pointed out, there are dangers in intervening and dangers in not intervening, just look at Syria! - maybe Cameron got it right maybe he got it wrong, but he has gone so it's a bit irrelevant.
-
As many commentators have pointed out, there are dangers in intervening and dangers in not intervening, just look at Syria! - maybe Cameron got it right maybe he got it wrong, but he has gone so it's a bit irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant to the poor so-and-sos left to face the music.
-
Osborne's predictions were based on financial models - sophisticated computers simulations of the economy. There are margins of error and they can be wrong, but they are perfectly legitimate and you can't ignore them. What is more, some of those forecasts will probably happen.
That is unfair B.A. The vast majority of companies big and small pay their taxes. If a government choose to allow special tax concessions to a company in order to encourage investment in this country (and the jobs that go with it),you can hardly blame the company.
Migrants who take low-pay jobs tend to be filling vacancies that UK workers are unable or are unwilling to do, but in doing so help boost the economy and create new jobs. A typical example would be the migrant workers who pick fruit and veg. Without them the whole industry would die.
It matters not what models Osborne and the Treasury were using. You cannot predict what the economic situation will be in 15 years time. Osborne was "predicting" the economic consequences from day 1 of Brexit, with his decision to have an emergency budget, and he has been proved wrong - a scenario he was well used to! And then the so-called predictions up to the end of the 20's. Joseph Stiglitz said the predictions were not worth the paper they were written on, and he is an independent observer, with no axe to grind!
And surely you don't believe that companies all pay up their taxes without demur! TENS OF BILLIONS of £'s are lost to the economy through big companies failing to pay their dues, one way or another, every year!
-
It's not irrelevant to the poor so-and-sos left to face the music.
It might be interesting to run a 'What if' thread to explore all the possible consequences of alternative courses of action in these kinds of situation. It would seem likely (with hindsight) that either a lot more or a lot less intervention might have resulted in a less bloody outcome - but who knows? . . . and what about Syria? should we have intervened there?
There are no simple solutions.
-
It matters not what models Osborne and the Treasury were using. You cannot predict what the economic situation will be in 15 years time. Osborne was "predicting" the economic consequences from day 1 of Brexit, with his decision to have an emergency budget, and he has been proved wrong - a scenario he was well used to! And then the so-called predictions up to the end of the 20's. Joseph Stiglitz said the predictions were not worth the paper they were written on, and he is an independent observer, with no axe to grind!
And surely you don't believe that companies all pay up their taxes without demur! TENS OF BILLIONS of £'s are lost to the economy through big companies failing to pay their dues, one way or another, every year!
In many ways economic models are like the meteorological models used for weather forecasts. It's true that both are imperfect and are likely to be less accurate the further ahead you look but a major event such as Brexit might be likened to Global warming - you can't be certain exactly what effect it will have on the daily forecast years ahead, but you can be pretty certain that on average it's going to be hotter.
-
In many ways economic models are like the meteorological models used for weather forecasts. It's true that both are imperfect and are likely to be less accurate the further ahead you look but a major event such as Brexit might be likened to Global warming - you can't be certain exactly what effect it will have on the daily forecast years ahead, but you can be pretty certain that on average it's going to be hotter.
You can't assume anything about global warming; and even less so, monumentally less so, about Brexit, or any economic "prediction."
-
You can't assume anything about global warming; and even less so, monumentally less so, about Brexit, or any economic "prediction."
The meteorologists would certainly point to the steadily upward curve in world temperature and claim that it verifies their model. I'm sure that the creators of economic models also try to factor in long term effects.
Only time will tell us how good they are.
-
You can't assume anything about global warming; ...
Sadly, you don't have to, BA; the evidence is already out there.
-
Sadly, you don't have to, BA; the evidence is already out there.
Sure, but can anybody be certain what the situation will be in another 20 or 30 years, either for better or worse. In terms of economics that uncertainty is multiplied many, many more times, which was the point I was making.
-
The EU didn't give Cameron the tools to do the job. They are the ones at fault here. That was plain stupid of them!
Actually the 52% of the voters who voted for Brexit are the ones at fault. The lies of the Brexit campaign were adequately pointed out but they decided to vote for yesterday anyway for various spurious reasons.
-
Actually the 52% of the voters who voted for Brexit are the ones at fault. The lies of the Brexit campaign were adequately pointed out but they decided to vote for yesterday anyway for various spurious reasons.
I'm not sure that is entirely fair.
My wife used to work for the NHS and meets socially with her former colleagues fairly regularly. She was shocked to discover (just before the referendum) that they all intended to vote Leave because they expected the NHS to get a large proportion of that £350 million per week!
If a lie of such magnitude was employed in commercial advertising the Advertising Standards people would take the company to the cleaners, but in this case, all they could do was fine them a couple of grand for the bus ad - and that was after the damage was done!
My guess is that a very large number of voters were misled by such lies.
-
It might be interesting to run a 'What if' thread to explore all the possible consequences of alternative courses of action in these kinds of situation. It would seem likely (with hindsight) that either a lot more or a lot less intervention might have resulted in a less bloody outcome - but who knows? . . . and what about Syria? should we have intervened there?
There are no simple solutions.
We intervened with a valid reason, in order to check both Daesh and the abominable Assad. But, as ever with Cameron, there was no long-term plan, and the situation has steadily deteriorated to the present chaos and slaughter. We, and our allies to be fair, totally failed to recognise the Russian intentions, and Putin has been a step ahead of us all along.
-
We intervened with a valid reason, in order to check both Daesh and the abominable Assad. But, as ever with Cameron, there was no long-term plan, and the situation has steadily deteriorated to the present chaos and slaughter. We, and our allies to be fair, totally failed to recognise the Russian intentions, and Putin has been a step ahead of us all along.
As I said, there are no easy answers.
-
Something relevant...
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/30/europe/brexit-news-100-days/index.html
*************
The Britain that Samuele Marcora fell in love with still exists: He can ride his motorbike along winding mountain roads and past unspoilt sandy beaches, laugh at stand-up comedy nights, enjoy live music at rock gigs, or meet his PhD students for coffee.
As long as he doesn't open his mouth.
Marcora doesn't even have to talk in his mother tongue to spark a reaction: In his adopted hometown of Chatham in Kent, southeast of London, just speaking English with an Italian accent can be enough to provoke a reaction.
This is post-Brexit referendum Britain. And it's a place Marcora, who has lived and worked in the UK for 18 years, barely recognizes.
That decision has left many of the 3.2 million EU citizens living in the UK in limbo as Britain decides how it will Brexit. Will they be allowed to stay? And do they want to live in a country that voted to leave?
"Over the past two years, the atmosphere in the UK has changed towards EU migrants. I don't feel welcome here [any more] ... [It was] such a tolerant and open society, and we have enjoyed being part of it, but now it feels different."
She decided to take pre-emptive action: "I am sad to leave friends, but at the same time, I don't want to sit here for two years and wait."
Just weeks after the Brexit vote, she was offered a new teaching job back in Germany.
*************
-
One of the things that might help here would be if the PM came out and said all current immigrants from the EU are able to stay - but, no she wants hostages
-
One of the things that might help here would be if the PM came out and said all current immigrants from the EU are able to stay - but, no she wants hostages
Yes, there is just so much shit heading for that fan. The motor industry are just starting to become vocal:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/30/nissan-hard-brexit-compensation-new-uk-investment-tariffs
-
Sririam, I feel sorry for the person you quoted and, yes, the attitude is terrible but you don't know Chatham. You probably think of Kent, the Garden of England: Chatham is not that, it is a really rough area and what this person has experienced does not surprise me one bit.
-
I can assure you Brownie that if you aren't waiting long now - you will be very shortly, unless something extraordinary is done about the funding of the NHS.
Thinks - like maybe a mythical figure of £350 million a week!
Seriously, 90% of Trusts including the one I work in are really, really struggling with debts that keep mounting due to having to make year-on-year efficiency savings - or as I like to think of them in my quaint, old fashioned way - cuts.
The public and staff will suffer, unless there are dramatic changes to the funding structure.
Not because of PFI payments?
-
Cameron's problem was that he was fighting by Marquess of Queensberry rules when a baseball bat would have been more appropriate.
No he was not. He used project fear like the rest of them. He has also been playing dirty for years, lying through his teeth like the rest of them.
-
Dear Bashers,
If I remember correctly, for all her failings, Maggie would never have let the likes of Farage or the EU get the better of her.
Gonnagle.
No, her own party!!!
-
Actually the 52% of the voters who voted for Brexit are the ones at fault. The lies of the Brexit campaign were adequately pointed out but they decided to vote for yesterday anyway for various spurious reasons.
The fault lay with the EU and politics as usual. They voted for the future not the past.
-
No he was not. He used project fear like the rest of them. He has also been playing dirty for years, lying through his teeth like the rest of them.
I always thought that 'Project fear' was a bit of an underestimate. The effects of losing the single market would be cataclysmic for this country. As I pointed out to B.A. we are rather in the position of a (rather naive) person falling of a cliff - everything seems fine so far . . .
The rocks at the bottom of the cliff are just starting to appear.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/30/nissan-hard-brexit-compensation-new-uk-investment-tariffs
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/30/jaguar-land-rover-brexit-ralf-speth-eu-british-cars
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/12/uk-economy-near-standstill-brexit-vote-hits-investment-bcc
https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-companies/
And a 'Hard' Brexit will be very hard indeed.
-
Not because of PFI payments?
Not in the case of the Trust I work at - or indeed many others. PFI was worked into the finances long ago. I don't particularly approve of it - but it is not the cause of the current issues.
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37532364
**********
Theresa May will formally begin the Brexit process by the end of March 2017, she has told the BBC.
The prime minister confirmed the deadline for triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which sets in place a two-year process of withdrawal.
She has also promised a "Great Repeal Bill" in the next Queen's Speech, which will overturn the act that took the UK into the forerunner of the EU.
It will remove the European Communities Act 1972 from the statute book.
**********
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37532364
**********
Theresa May will formally begin the Brexit process by the end of March 2017, she has told the BBC.
The prime minister confirmed the deadline for triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which sets in place a two-year process of withdrawal.
She has also promised a "Great Repeal Bill" in the next Queen's Speech, which will overturn the act that took the UK into the forerunner of the EU.
It will remove the European Communities Act 1972 from the statute book.
**********
Thanks, Sriram, that's a good summary - and in the link - of Theresa May's conversation with Andrew Marr, this morning. If folk here missed it, it's worth iplayering - is about 30mins in length.
-
It seems a clever move by May, as presumably it will please the hard Brexit people. It appears to get rid of EU law, but actually absorbs it into English law, (or is that UK law?). Then the bits that the UK parliament doesn't like, can be got rid of. However, that promises to be a long process.
I guess that behind the scenes the vexed question of trade deals goes on. One of the problems with hard Brexit is that tariffs could be expensive. I would guess again that the negotiators are seeking some kind of bespoke deal, with not very big tariffs, and exemptions on free movement, e.g. Polish builders allowed in, and so on. May will hope to please both hard Brexit and soft Brexit people.
-
No he was not. He used project fear like the rest of them. He has also been playing dirty for years, lying through his teeth like the rest of them.
If anything, he wasn't playing Project Fear enough. That was the prerogative of IDS, BJ, NF, and MG.
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37532364
**********
Theresa May will formally begin the Brexit process by the end of March 2017, she has told the BBC.
The prime minister confirmed the deadline for triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which sets in place a two-year process of withdrawal.
She has also promised a "Great Repeal Bill" in the next Queen's Speech, which will overturn the act that took the UK into the forerunner of the EU.
It will remove the European Communities Act 1972 from the statute book.
**********
The Repeal Act will be difficult and could be knocked about within the Commons, and from the Commons to the Lords and back, for ages. It could even trigger a GE. I expect one in May 2018.
-
If anything, he wasn't playing Project Fear enough. That was the prerogative of IDS, BJ, NF, and MG.
I think I've told you about this before. The term project fear is only valid if it is based on a lie. Most of what the Leavers said was essentially true.
-
I think I've told you about this before. The term project fear is only valid if it is based on a lie. Most of what the Leavers said was essentially true.
£350 million? The biggest lie of all. And still no apology, no shame, no nothing.
If the leave campaign was a brand it would have been taken off the shelf as unfit for sale for just the one lie.
-
£350 million? The biggest lie of all. And still no apology, no shame, no nothing.
If the leave campaign was a brand it would have been taken off the shelf as unfit for sale for just the one lie.
I thought someone would bring that up.
Essentially true (read my post again for this phrase). The figure may not be totally on the ball but it is roughly right and the idea of this is also possible to some degree because of the money we will save from our EU membership fee. The aspiration was sincere and noble. It should also be born in mind that the Leavers were not in power and were not in a position to implement anything they said; they were not campaigning to get into power either - this is essentially a get out of jail free card, as there was no legal obligation hanging over their heads.
-
I heard a pre referendum piece on Radio 4 about the £350 million where some finanicial bod did an analysis of the claim. According to him the figure was about correct however he did say that a fair bit comes back to the UK in the way of grants and subsidies etc, which any post Brexit government will need to maintain as payments but he concluded there was about £80 million from the £350 million which may be left over and that would more or less be available to the Government.
-
I heard a pre referendum piece on Radio 4 about the £350 million where some finanicial bod did an analysis of the claim. According to him the figure was about correct however he did say that a fair bit comes back to the UK in the way of grants and subsidies etc, which any post Brexit government will need to maintain as payments but he concluded there was about £80 million from the £350 million which may be left over and that would more or less be available to the Government.
The thing about this figure is that the rebate has to be added to it, or retained, as it would be lost in due course, and if we had stayed the EU would have taken that as a green light that the people of the UK agreed with the EU ever closer together project and stopped the rebate.
As for the grants etc. these were for projects in the UK chosen by the EU, not by us, and so were not necessarily beneficial to us or to our liking. Often we had to put in money to these; so for example every £ the EU put into 'their' project we had to put in a £. Often these projects, like so many EU projects, did more harm than good. So this sum too has be included, or retained, in the 350 figure. It is true that we would have to keep up the subsidies etc. to the sectors who get them, such as the farmers, but we can now apply projects that do more good than the EU crap.
-
It seems a clever move by May, as presumably it will please the hard Brexit people. It appears to get rid of EU law, but actually absorbs it into English law, (or is that UK law?). Then the bits that the UK parliament doesn't like, can be got rid of. However, that promises to be a long process.
I guess that behind the scenes the vexed question of trade deals goes on. One of the problems with hard Brexit is that tariffs could be expensive. I would guess again that the negotiators are seeking some kind of bespoke deal, with not very big tariffs, and exemptions on free movement, e.g. Polish builders allowed in, and so on. May will hope to please both hard Brexit and soft Brexit people.
If she is actually able to get a deal that pleases both sides it will surely be a miracle capable of qualifying her for sainthood. There appears to be a fundamental incomparability.
If free movement of labour is curtailed, that will hit the agricultural sector, probably fatally for some areas. If we lose the single market, that will hit all those companies that set-up manufacturing plants in this country to serve the EU. Those ones operating on low profit margins will not be sustainable.
Just those two points alone would cause massive unemployment and loss of tax revenue, yet they seem to be inevitable with a Hard Brexit.
-
Wonderful irony here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/wetherspoons-tim-martin-loses-millions-brexit-result-leave-eu-referendum-a7114231.html
"Tim Martin, chairman and founder of the pub group JD Wetherspoon, has seen £18 million wiped off the value of his shares in the days following the Brexit vote - a very poor return on the £224,000 he spent on campaigning to leave the EU."
He also doesn't seem to have noticed that he employs a huge number of EU citizens and many of his pubs couldn't function without them!
-
The thing about this figure is that the rebate has to be added to it, or retained, as it would be lost in due course, and if we had stayed the EU would have taken that as a green light that the people of the UK agreed with the EU ever closer together project and stopped the rebate.
. . .
Exactly the kind of 'miss-selling' that brought massive fines and compensation claims in the PPI scandal - yet the Brexiteers get away Scot-free!
-
Dear Forum,
Just where should this post belong ( careful :P ) The Tory party conference is all about brexit ( well blaming brexit ) Mr Hammond is for turning, Mr Osborne was a jolly nice fellow but brexit means we have to change, Mr Hammond is now saying we have to invest, more money for housing ( is that public or private ) more money for transport, so we give more money to private investors who run our transport :o
Well Mr Hammond, the SNP and Labour have been saying for ages that we need more investment, nice that you are taking their advice.
Theresa May is telling us that brexit means brexit but not a Norway deal and Boris is applauding her for her clarity, what bloody clarity!
The Tories at play, and that is all they are doing, playing with the life's of the great British public, and just to end my little rantette, at the conference they have a shooting gallery, yes! this is what the public want, more grouse shooting moors >:(
Gonnagle.
-
This made me laugh.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ct1Ub3DXgAAftmJ.jpg
-
Yes, there is just so much shit heading for that fan. The motor industry are just starting to become vocal:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/30/nissan-hard-brexit-compensation-new-uk-investment-tariffs
Ideally any compensation would come out of the pockets of the 52% of voters who voted for Brexit. In reality, of course, we'll all end up paying.
-
Just where should this post belong ( careful :P ) The Tory party conference is all about brexit ( well blaming brexit ) Mr Hammond is for turning, Mr Osborne was a jolly nice fellow but brexit means we have to change, Mr Hammond is now saying we have to invest, more money for housing ( is that public or private ) more money for transport, so we give more money to private investors who run our transport :o
Maybe, but it is likely that the investment will go into infrastructure, which is run and organisaed by a part of the Departmnent of Transport (at least it is in England and Wales) - perhaps the Scottish equivalent is run by a private company.
Well Mr Hammond, the SNP and Labour have been saying for ages that we need more investment, nice that you are taking their advice.
But as I pointed out in a previous post that was in reply to a similar comment by your good self, Gonners, investing doesn't necessarily mean that the investor comes out of the red. Let's take an example. House prices aren't going to faal all that much, unless several hundred thousand houses suddenly come onto the market. The investment isn't in houses, but in employing the builders and I'm not aware that there are any major public construction companies, here in Wales, in England or in Scotland.
Theresa May is telling us that brexit means brexit but not a Norway deal and Boris is applauding her for her clarity, what bloody clarity!
I doubt whether there is any chance of our getting a Norway-style deal. After all Norway have never been part of the Union and therefore haven't riled the Union leaders by voting to withdraw - with all the complications and problems that that cause those very same leaders.
The Tories at play, and that is all they are doing, playing with the life's of the great British public, and just to end my little rantette, at the conference they have a shooting gallery, yes! this is what the public want, more grouse shooting moors
I believe that that shooting range is part and parcel of the complex they are using - not something that the Tories have brung in.
-
I think I've told you about this before. The term project fear is only valid if it is based on a lie. Most of what the Leavers said was essentially true.
Immigration a problem - lie
£350 million to the NHS - lie
Easily get bipartisan trade deals with other countries - lie
Reclaiming sovereignty - lie
-
I thought someone would bring that up.
Essentially true (read my post again for this phrase). The figure may not be totally on the ball but it is roughly right and the idea of this is also possible to some degree because of the money we will save from our EU membership fee. The aspiration was sincere and noble. It should also be born in mind that the Leavers were not in power and were not in a position to implement anything they said; they were not campaigning to get into power either - this is essentially a get out of jail free card, as there was no legal obligation hanging over their heads.
The figure was completely wrong. It was a lie.
The promise to give all the money to the NHS was reneged on the day after the vote.
Nigel Farage is against the EU but takes his salary from them. A liar.
-
The thing about this figure is that the rebate has to be added to it, or retained, as it would be lost in due course, and if we had stayed the EU would have taken that as a green light that the people of the UK agreed with the EU ever closer together project and stopped the rebate.
That's a lie. The £350 million was before the rebate was subtracted.
There's no way the rebate could be taken away because we have (or rather had) a veto.
Even though your side won you still can't help regurgitating the lies.
As for the grants etc. these were for projects in the UK chosen by the EU, not by us
Do you think we will get to choose the projects in future? The government will spend it on whatever it likes - probably reducing the deficit.
-
Immigration a problem - lie
£350 million to the NHS - lie
Easily get bipartisan trade deals with other countries - lie
Reclaiming sovereignty - lie
Your post - LIE!!!
-
The figure was completely wrong. It was a lie.
The promise to give all the money to the NHS was reneged on the day after the vote.
I have explained, they were not in power or vying for power and so had no way of delivering it. So they were free to say what they like. Only a fool would have taken their words as being anything of substance. However, most Leave voters voted on other issues so it doesn't matter. ;D
-
This made me laugh.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ct1Ub3DXgAAftmJ.jpg
Probably hilarious if you are on an index-linked pension but not so funny for the rest of us.
-
I have explained, they were not in power or vying for power and so had no way of delivering it. So they were free to say what they like. Only a fool would have taken their words as being anything of substance. However, most Leave voters voted on other issues so it doesn't matter. ;D
I know people who actually voted Leave purely on that one issue, people that you would not normally regard as stupid, in fact people that you might find treating you in hospital - but that doesn't matter, it's just a big laugh is it?
-
That's a lie. The £350 million was before the rebate was subtracted.
Yes, which is what I was saying. It had to be left in because the EU would take it away if we had Remained. In other words if we Remained we would lose the rebate and so be paying the full wack.
There's no way the rebate could be taken away because we have (or rather had) a veto.
You still haven't learnt how nasty the EU is, and that they don't play fair, and do not keep to their own rules.
Do you think we will get to choose the projects in future? The government will spend it on whatever it likes - probably reducing the deficit.
You are myopic!!! We can now vote out those who make our laws, whereas before we couldn't because the Commission were unelected and ruled with a divine right.
-
I know people who actually voted Leave purely on that one issue, people that you would not normally regard as stupid, in fact people that you might find treating you in hospital - but that doesn't matter, it's just a big laugh is it?
I never said there were non just that most had other reasons, and some more than one reason.
The way the whole referendum was run was a sick joke, and totally amateurish. Not least that Cameron and co. did no Brexit planning - the guy was a total shit!
-
Your post - LIE!!!
Nope
-
I have explained, they were not in power or vying for power and so had no way of delivering it.
So they promised something they knew they couldn't deliver.
So they were free to say what they like. Only a fool would have taken their words as being anything of substance.
So you agree they lied. They were lying about being able to do something about immigration too.
However, most Leave voters voted on other issues so it doesn't matter. ;D
How do you know all the Leave voters voted on other issues? All it would have needed is just over 1 out of every 26 to vote the other way and the vote would have been won by Remain.
-
Yes, which is what I was saying. It had to be left in because the EU would take it away if we had Remained.
That's a lie. The EU couldn't take it away.
-
Nope
Yep!
-
So they promised something they knew they couldn't deliver.
So you agree they lied. They were lying about being able to do something about immigration too.
It was just an aspiration! ;D We all knew they were not in power or had the power to act out what they had expressed as aspirations.
How do you know all the Leave voters voted on other issues? All it would have needed is just over 1 out of every 26 to vote the other way and the vote would have been won by Remain.
I never said 'all'.
And your "what if" is just sour grapes.
-
That's a lie. The EU couldn't take it away.
Why not?
-
I'm guessing that the Tory stuff about immigrants in companies will have the SNP sharpening their pencils. Why stay in a UK where stupid racists will be emboldened?
-
I'm guessing that the Tory stuff about immigrants in companies will have the SNP sharpening their pencils. Why stay in a UK where stupid racists will be emboldened?
I'm not sure why anyone with any talent would want to stay in a UK with a economy in a downward spiral.
-
Dear Your Majesty,
Good evening Ma'am, yer Royal Highness ( think that covers all bases ) just a quick post to inform you of what is happening in this little Kingdom of yours, well they are at it again ( Yes Ma'am, you know who I mean ) they have started work on building brand new Submarines to protect your shores, yes Ma'am it is great that we have money to burn on wonderful projects like this, your loyal subjects are swimming in dosh, not only that Your Majesty but we are also spreading the wealth, those wonderful Frenchies are going to supply the steel to build your weapons of mass destruction wonderful sailing ships, so jolly good all round.
Your loyal subject and Servant,
Gonnagle.
PS: Some of your subjects are a tad unhappy because we are not using British steel, but I think the fact that we are helping the less fortunate ( those poor Frenchies ) is something they just can't grasp.
-
That's right Gonners ... we now have a government committed to :
- "an economy that works for everyone"
- "restoring fairness",
- "Making the market work for working people".
-
Is that working fruit pickers?
-
I think they'll have to pick it elsewhere! Then we can import it, 'ready canned!
-
That's right Gonners ... we now have a government committed to :
- "an economy that works for everyone"
- "restoring fairness",
- "Making the market work for working people".
Which in its statement is explicit in saying that Cameron's Big Society shit wasn't.
-
Dear Your Majesty, Good evening Ma'am, yer Royal Highness ( think that covers all bases ) just a quick post to inform you of what is happening in this little Kingdom of yours, well they are at it again ( Yes Ma'am, you know who I mean ) they have started work on building brand new Submarines to protect your shores, yes Ma'am it is great that we have money to burn on wonderful projects like this, your loyal subjects are swimming in dosh, not only that Your Majesty but we are also spreading the wealth, those wonderful Frenchies are going to supply the steel to build your weapons of mass destruction wonderful sailing ships, so jolly good all round. Your loyal subject and Servant, Gonnagle. PS: Some of your subjects are a tad unhappy because we are not using British steel, but I think the fact that we are helping the less fortunate ( those poor Frenchies ) is something they just can't grasp.
A whole lot more are really cheesed off that Westminster's weapons of mass destruction will be based as usual near Scotland's biggest city....despite Scotland's Parliament united (apart from Ruth the mooth and her merry men) against it. Hi, Gonners!
-
Kez likes the nukes
-
Kez likes the nukes
Er....unless she's changed her mind....which she usually does about three times a day.
Yes, I know, she's cutting down a bit.
-
Why not?
Because the budget has to be agreed by all member states, and therefore each has a veto. Therefore the only way that that rebate could be altered would be if the UK itself voted for it to be altered.
-
Which in its statement is explicit in saying that Cameron's Big Society shit wasn't.
damn ... should have inserted a <sarcasm> tag. :(
-
Dear Udayana, ( I do like that name, it kind of rolls of the tongue )
Good morning to you ;)
- "an economy that works for everyone"
- "restoring fairness",
- "Making the market work for working people".
Is the everyone you talk about, everyone, everyone!! or just British everyone >:( I mean I am okay ( I am alright Jack ) I am wearing my Union Jack boxer shorts, so I am sorted, hell! I can even sing the whole national Anthem, even the bit about crushing those pesky rebellious Scots >:( Cut me and I bleed red, white and blue, so this everyone you talk about, hopefully it is just us British everyone and not those pesky foreigners who keep things like our NHS running, I know, I work with them, wonderful workers but they are so foreign :o
Gonnagle.
-
Thing is, though, May wasn't speaking for 'britain' or the 'british' NHS - since there ain't no such animal. Scotland's NHS has been separate since 1947, and the various devolved governments have had no issues with the import - or indeed export - of skilled professionals.
-
Dear Jim,
It is great to see you posting again old son, thing is you are talking to an auld Scottish Protestant, you know the type, the Gers, Union flag, God and the Queen, that type of nonsense, but I am working on it, if the Tories keep pushing at the same old same old, then I will be voting for Independence, it might be the best legacy I can leave the children of this country.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jim,
It is great to see you posting again old son, thing is you are talking to an auld Scottish Protestant, you know the type, the Gers, Union flag, God and the Queen, that type of nonsense, but I am working on it, if the Tories keep pushing at the same old same old, then I will be voting for Independence, it might be the best legacy I can leave the children of this country.
Gonnagle.
[/quote
What miffed me - well, one of the many things, actually, was the continual use of 'british' - when some of the institutions May referred to have been separate since their creation, long before any devolution.
This, as you well know, is a sore point for most Scots, regardless of their stance on independence or political parties.
-
Dear Jim,
Well old son! I have a smile on my face as I type this, the Tories are kneejerking to this brexit nonsense, trying to sound "oh so British" and I agree that somethings are not totally British, as in the NHS, but the thing for me personally is that I can now see through their smoke screen, their carnival hall of mirrors and I personally think that the British electorate have awoken from their political slumber and are now watching very closely ( that could be wishful thinking on my part ) I also think they are running scared of this Corbyn fellow and the clout of the SNP, the Tories need to step into the 21st century, compassion needs to be included in their politics, compassion for all, not just the so called Brits.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Udayana, ( I do like that name, it kind of rolls of the tongue )
Good morning to you ;)
Is the everyone you talk about, everyone, everyone!! or just British everyone >:( I mean I am okay ( I am alright Jack ) I am wearing my Union Jack boxer shorts, so I am sorted, hell! I can even sing the whole national Anthem, even the bit about crushing those pesky rebellious Scots >:( Cut me and I bleed red, white and blue, so this everyone you talk about, hopefully it is just us British everyone and not those pesky foreigners who keep things like our NHS running, I know, I work with them, wonderful workers but they are so foreign :o
Gonnagle.
Best ask May, as those were her words. I do know that whatever she says to win the centre ground, even if well intentioned, her policies and party will act to achieve the exact opposite. There will be more inequality, more discrimination and an economic shambles. She's even picked a date for triggering Article 50 that sounds good, about the "right" time, but doesn't take into account factors such as French and German elections that we know will affect how good a deal we will eventually get.
And how is anything Amber Rudd proposed consistent with those quotes? - Not that any of it is workable.
-
Dear Udayana,
Good post ;) And you seem to be more up on the subject than I am, and you are right, the Tories are a train wreck waiting to happen, trouble is we are all passengers on that very train >:(
Gonnagle.
-
From this side of the Tweed, May faces one almighty burach. This 'cover all' brexit bill could cause a stushie here. The ECHR was enshrined in the Scotland Bill 1997 - and Westminster asked the Scots to approve it before enacting it - thus creating the Scottish Parlament. A further two Westminster acts have further entangled the constitution of that parliament in EU legislation. A Westminster bill to remove EU legislation, ECHR, etc, from the Scottish constitution would, of necessity (thanks to that self same legislation passed by Westminster) require Holyrood's approval. Since the Greens, Lib Dems and SLAB as well as SNP are adamantly opposed to any changes in the Scotland Act, the scene is set for yet more confrontation. Brexit doesn't mean brexit - it may mean a constitutional hiatus of massive proportion.
-
Dear Sassenachs,
Oor Jim is back, but not to worry I will translate, burach = a mess, stushie = a quarrel/argument, oh! and sassenachs, could be a derogatory term for any Englishman, but not to worry, I myself am a sassenach, a term for any lowlander in Scotland :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sassenachs,
Oor Jim is back, but not to worry I will translate, burach = a mess, stushie = a quarrel/argument, oh! and sassenachs, could be a derogatory term for any Englishman, but not to worry, I myself am a sassenach, a term for any lowlander in Scotland :P :P
Gonnagle.
.......Sassenach can also refer to Lowland Scots, though!
-
This one is for Jim (and any other fans of all things 'Who'):
"Don't you think she looks tired?"
-
This one is for Jim (and any other fans of all things 'Who'):
"Don't you think she looks tired?"
This one is for Jim (and any other fans of all things 'Who'):
"Don't you think she looks tired?"
[/quote
Harriet Jones - now, There's a Prime Minister May might look at in depth........
-
Thing is, though, May wasn't speaking for 'britain' or the 'british' NHS - since there ain't no such animal. Scotland's NHS has been separate since 1947, and the various devolved governments have had no issues with the import - or indeed export - of skilled professionals.
Neither, to be fair has the UK government up till now.
In 2015, net immigration was about 330,000 people. Just over half of them were from the EU. However, the remaining half were from outside the EU which means we don't have to let them in. So, if immigration is such a huge problem, why didn't the government cut it in half?
There is no political will to deal with the immigration "problem" for a couple of reasons:
Immigrants tend to be net contributors to the government's coffers. They are more likely to be paying taxes and less likely to be using the NHS and drawing a pension than the indigenous population.
The problem isn't really a problem at all. 330,000 is less than 0.5% of the population and that is a historic high. Once Brexit kicks in and the economy tanks, we'll probably find that we have net emigration. The UK population is only going up at all because of immigrants.
Finally, 330,000 is just a number. Reducing it to, say, 100,000 is a story, but it's a pretty abstract story. "UK Immigration officers deny mother right of entry to be with her husband and children" is also a story but it's a human story that people can relate to. If we significantly reduce immigration, we'll get many more stories like that. That's the kind of publicity the government doesn't want.
-
I also think they are running scared of this Corbyn fellow
Nobody is running scared of Corbyn except the Parliamentary Labour Party. When they look at what is happening to Labour, the only thing the Tories are scared of is wetting themselves through laughing to much.
British politics is an utter shambles at the moment.
-
Nobody is running scared of Corbyn except the Parliamentary Labour Party. When they look at what is happening to Labour, the only thing the Tories are scared of is wetting themselves through laughing to much.
British politics is an utter shambles at the moment.
I second that sentiment. The lack of an ability to organise a piss up in brewery springs to mind.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Well I was about to say nice post ( the one before your last ) and to add, well that seems to be what the Brexiteers want, a government which is tough on migrants, and that is who the Tories are playing too, the brexiteers.
As for Mr Corbyn, one Tory has already come as saying, ignore the man at your peril.
Mr Corbyn in my opinion is a quietly spoken intelligent fighter, he will keep chipping away at the true enemy of this country, the Tories, the Labour party needs to shut up about Corbyn and start to back the man, once that happens, the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP will join him in the house to bring the Tories down.
Gonnagle.
-
Mr Corbyn in my opinion is a quietly spoken intelligent fighter,
But he's also fucking useless.
he will keep chipping away at the true enemy of this country, the Tories, the Labour party needs to shut up about Corbyn and start to back the man, once that happens, the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP will join him in the house to bring the Tories down.
The Labour Party does back Corbyn. The problem is that he is useless and the reason the Parliamentary Party doesn't like him is that they, who have to work with him every day, know it.
-
Gordon Bennet....I agree with JeremyP......
-
Because the budget has to be agreed by all member states, and therefore each has a veto. Therefore the only way that that rebate could be altered would be if the UK itself voted for it to be altered.
When did the EU keep to its rules when to do so would mean to hinder its ever closer union project and selfish desires?
-
When did the EU keep to its rules when to do so would mean to hinder its ever closer union project and selfish desires?
Please give me an example where the EU has over-ruled a veto from a member state on an issue where all member states must agree for the issue to be passed.
-
Gordon Bennet....I agree with JeremyP......
I second that!!!
-
Please give me an example where the EU has over-ruled a veto from a member state on an issue where all member states must agree for the issue to be passed.
That's not what I said.
-
Dear Jack, Jim and Jeremyp, ( the three "J's" sounds like a soul band )
Well that is three names I will keep in mind when you all eat humble pie.
Gonaagle.
Sorry,
Gonnagle.
I am enjoying a large Bells or two, sue me.
-
Dear Jack, Jim and Jeremyp, ( the three "J's" sounds like a soul band )
Well that is three names I will keep in mind when you all eat humble pie.
Gonaagle.
Sorry,
Gonnagle.
I am enjoying a large Bells or two, sue me.
Regardless of the value of his policies/ideas etc. the guy can't lead and run a party. He is a Mr Bean of politics.
-
Dear Jack,
Regardless of the value of his policies/ideas etc. the guy can't lead and run a party. He is a Mr Bean of politics.
Course he is, the media have told you ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jack, Jim and Jeremyp, ( the three "J's" sounds like a soul band )
Well that is three names I will keep in mind when you all eat humble pie.
Gonaagle.
Sorry,
Gonnagle.
I am enjoying a large Bells or two, sue me.
[/quote
Bells?
Sue you?
Nope. Send you for a taste bud check, well, possibly.......
-
Dear Jack, Course he is, the media have told you ;) Gonnagle.
- I might agree with a few of his policies; however, he needs to appeal, not only to his members (and unite them....which is an impossibility), but also connect with those 'middle England' voters (horrible phrase) who lent their votes to elect Blair. He has virtually no chance. I'm no Labour supporter (who'd have guessed), but Corbyn has condemned britain to ten years of increasingly nasty Tory misrule. I really wish I was wrong about that.
-
Indeed.
Jeremy Corbyn - allied with our lack of a more representative voting system and David Cameron's failure to consider any Constitutional review after the Scottish referendum - has ensured that the United Kingdom is effectively a one party state.
-
That's not what I said.
In response to my statement that the only way that the rebate could be removed would be if the UK itself voted for its removal (as the budget must be agreed by all member states) you said that the EU doesn't follow it's own rules, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask you for an example where the EU has over-ruled a veto from a member state on an issue where all member states must agree for the issue to be passed.
Your evasion is noted, as, of course, you cannot give me an example.
-
Dear Jack,
Course he is, the media have told you ;)
Gonnagle.
No. Because I'm not blind. I know an idiot when I see one.
-
In response to my statement that the only way that the rebate could be removed would be if the UK itself voted for its removal (as the budget must be agreed by all member states) you said that the EU doesn't follow it's own rules, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask you for an example where the EU has over-ruled a veto from a member state on an issue where all member states must agree for the issue to be passed.
Your evasion is noted, as, of course, you cannot give me an example.
I said they don't follow their own rules - that's all their rules, not just the ones with vetoes. I'm sure you know of some of their rules they have not kept to.
-
Dear Jack,
No. Because I'm not blind. I know an idiot when I see one.
That's great, will you include Farage, Cameron and Blair when asked about idiots, just asking ::)
Gonnagle.
-
I said they don't follow their own rules - that's all their rules,
Do you menthe follow none of their rules or some but not all of their rules.
not just the ones with vetoes.
You haven't yet shown that they don't honour vetoes yet.
-
Dear Jack,
That's great, will you include Farage, Cameron and Blair when asked about idiots, just asking ::)
Gonnagle.
I include those who are idiots not ones you think are ones. Cameron and Blair were not idiots just evil. Farage is a saint! :)
-
Do you menthe follow none of their rules or some but not all of their rules.
If the rules frustrate their wet dream of ever closer union or threaten to take it backwards then they ignore them and do what the will.
You haven't yet shown that they don't honour vetoes yet.
That's besides the point as I clearly explained. A few more turns of those bolts might just do it.
-
If the rules frustrate their wet dream of ever closer union or threaten to take it backwards then they ignore them and do what the will.
And yet you don't seem to be able to come up with any examples.
That's besides the point as I clearly explained. A few more turns of those bolts might just do it.
No it's exactly the point. Your claim was that we would lose our rebate because the EU would ignore our veto but you seem to be completely incapable of showing that they could do that.
-
And yet you don't seem to be able to come up with any examples.
The 3% deficit rules of the Eurozone which both Germany and France broke in the first year and then carried on and did nothing to put their economies straight in regards to this. Hence the shit state of the Euro.
No it's exactly the point. Your claim was that we would lose our rebate because the EU would ignore our veto but you seem to be completely incapable of showing that they could do that.
That was not my claim. My claim was that they break their own rules when it suits them - or they would change them just to suit their delusional ideology.
-
I said they don't follow their own rules - that's all their rules, not just the ones with vetoes. I'm sure you know of some of their rules they have not kept to.
So if they don't follow all their rules that would necessarily include vetoes.
So again I ask for an example where the EU has over-ruled a veto from a member state on an issue where all member states must agree for the issue to be passed.
-
The 3% deficit rules of the Eurozone which both Germany and France broke in the first year and then carried on and did nothing to put their economies straight in regards to this. Hence the shit state of the Euro.
The Eurozone is not the EU.
Whose veto did France and Germany ignore?
That was not my claim. My claim was that they break their own rules when it suits them - or they would change them just to suit their delusional ideology.
Your claim was that we would lose our rebate because the EU would ignore our veto. If you have conceded that that particular claim is false, that's fine by me.
-
So if they don't follow all their rules that would necessarily include vetoes.
So again I ask for an example where the EU has over-ruled a veto from a member state on an issue where all member states must agree for the issue to be passed.
Moderator: content removed Your logic in this is nonsensical.
-
The Eurozone is not the EU.
Whose veto did France and Germany ignore?
Your claim was that we would lose our rebate because the EU would ignore our veto. If you have conceded that that particular claim is false, that's fine by me.
They would find away. They would change the rules. Blackmail and the like. They don't play fair.
-
Moderator: content removed Your logic in this is nonsensical.
No idea what comment was removed.
But of course my comment isn't nonsense. You claimed that the EU don't follow all their rules. So that must necessarily involve their rule of member state veto in certain decisions where all member states must agree.
So once again, an example please where the EU has over-ruled a veto from a member state on an issue where all member states must agree for the issue to be passed.
Of course you can't answer, because there never has been such a case.
-
No idea what comment was removed.
But of course my comment isn't nonsense. You claimed that the EU don't follow all their rules. So that must necessarily involve their rule of member state veto in certain decisions where all member states must agree.
So once again, an example please where the EU has over-ruled a veto from a member state on an issue where all member states must agree for the issue to be passed.
Of course you can't answer, because there never has been such a case.
That's a straw man. If someone cheats in situation A you then will not trust them in situation B even though they may have never cheated in situation B. Your logic is flawed!!!
-
They would find away. They would change the rules. Blackmail and the like. They don't play fair.
No this is just paranoia on your part.
-
That's a straw man. If someone cheats in situation A you then will not trust them in situation B even though they may have never cheated in situation B. Your logic is flawed!!!
No that is completely flawed thinking.
And by inference you seem to be accepting that they don't cheat in situation B, in other words over-ruling a veto from a member state in a decision which requires all member state to agree. Which is what would be required for the UK's rebate to be removed. Or rather it would require the UK to vote for its removal.
So thanks, via a rather oblique route, for confirming that the EU cannot remove the UK's rebate (unless the UK itself agrees).
-
They would find away. They would change the rules. Blackmail and the like. They don't play fair.
Hmm - what a bit like a campaign that was entirely focussed on bringing back control to our sovereign parliament, and then denies that parliament any say or proper involvement in the most important decision facing the UK in most of our lifetimes.
I'd call that not playing fair.
-
Surely to goodness we don't need anymore evidence that Brexit crashed the car.
How can there not now be mass unemployment with such a rise in import prices.
-
No this is just paranoia on your part.
No, it is back up by the EU's past performance.
-
No that is completely flawed thinking.
And by inference you seem to be accepting that they don't cheat in situation B, in other words over-ruling a veto from a member state in a decision which requires all member state to agree. Which is what would be required for the UK's rebate to be removed. Or rather it would require the UK to vote for its removal.
So thanks, via a rather oblique route, for confirming that the EU cannot remove the UK's rebate (unless the UK itself agrees).
Learn how to read first before you try replying to forum posts!!!
-
Learn how to read first before you try replying to forum posts!!!
I can and I do - but nice obfuscation - once again avoiding answering the question as to whether the EU has ever over-riddent a member state veto on an issue where all member states must agree.
-
I can and I do - but nice obfuscation - once again avoiding answering the question as to whether the EU has ever over-riddent a member state veto on an issue where all member states must agree.
Your assessment of my post was all wrong.
-
Your assessment of my post was all wrong.
On the contrary I think I have got the last few posts spot - effectively an attempt to avoid answering a straight question with obfuscation.
-
On the contrary I think I have got the last few posts spot - effectively an attempt to avoid answering a straight question with obfuscation.
I have answered it and demolished your straw man. Like the Remoaners you just can't accept defeat.
-
On the contrary I think I have got the last few posts spot - effectively an attempt to avoid answering a straight question with obfuscation.
I think the problem is that whilst some Remain predictions haven't been glaringly obvious in their occurrence, there have been a number that have jumped out of the media morass and have highlighted the fact that some Leave predictions were questionable.
-
I have answered it and demolished your straw man. Like the Remoaners you just can't accept defeat.
Why is it that the best the Brexiters have is to claim that the Remainers are moaners or are trying to bring down the country?
Could it be that their leaders promises turned out to be empty and their plans turned out to be fictional? Yes, I think it could.
-
I have answered it and demolished your straw man. Like the Remoaners you just can't accept defeat.
Nope you never answered it.
I asked for an example of a situation where the EU over-ruled a veto by a member state on an issue where all member states must agree.
There has been no answer from you - just avoidance tactics, obfuscation and a complete failure to answer my question.
And by the way I never posited a straw man, so how you might have destroyed said no-existent straw man is rather perplexing.
-
Nope you never answered it.
I asked for an example of a situation where the EU over-ruled a veto by a member state on an issue where all member states must agree.
There has been no answer from you - just avoidance tactics, obfuscation and a complete failure to answer my question.
And by the way I never posited a straw man, so how you might have destroyed said no-existent straw man is rather perplexing.
That whole post is a straw man. If you can't understand plain English that's not my fault.
-
That whole post is a straw man. If you can't understand plain English that's not my fault.
Do you understand what"straw man" means?
Asking a question of you to make you justify your claim is not constructing a straw man.
-
That whole post is a straw man. If you can't understand plain English that's not my fault.
I think that the main proponent of straw men on this thread, from OP to the post before this, is you, Jack. You are also the most efficient non-answerer of questions on the board.
-
Do you understand what"straw man" means?
Asking a question of you to make you justify your claim is not constructing a straw man.
But misrepresenting what I said and then constructing a question round that is.
-
I think that the main proponent of straw men on this thread, from OP to the post before this, is you, Jack. You are also the most efficient non-answerer of questions on the board.
And when was this vote taken? I must have missed the memo, or are you all ganging up on me? :(
-
But misrepresenting what I said and then constructing a question round that is.
Nobody misrepresented what you said. You said that the EU would take away our rebate which is an action that would require them to somehow overrule the inevitable British veto. It was pointed out to you that this was not possible but you persist in saying it is and you can't justify your claim.
-
Nobody misrepresented what you said. You said that the EU would take away our rebate which is an action that would require them to somehow overrule the inevitable British veto. It was pointed out to you that this was not possible but you persist in saying it is and you can't justify your claim.
Nothing is impossible, not for the EU when it comes to getting round their own rules.