***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 76 *****
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ
Before discussions start in this thread, I would like to point out that any petty arguments, personal attacks, or any other infringement of house rules, etc. will be deleted where we feel fit from now on.
We will not give notice that we have deleted something. Nor will we enter into discussion why something was deleted. That will also be deleted.
It seems that discussion about Brexit brings out the worst in some people.
Be nice, Play nice, and control your temper. Your co-operation would be appreciated.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 25 Jan 19 at 02:06
|
There's a thing called 'normality bias' that makes people reluctant to believe in imminent disaster even if it is staring them in the face. It hasn't happened before, why should it happen now?
It might or might not be the case that no-deal will be catastrophic, but it would be normal for people to be in denial about it.
It's very linked to confirmation bias in which any information that supports our preferred beliefs is given great weight and information that doesn't is ignored, which is why it is so hard to change someone's mind with argument.
I suspect this is happening with regard to 'no-deal' Brexit, and with the Trump bandwagon in the US.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 9 Jan 19 at 10:39
|
>>any information that supports our preferred beliefs is given great weight and information that doesn't is ignored
I accept that this is true. But I don't understand it, and certainly have never done it.
The way to deal with the world is to start with understanding how it is, not how we wish it was. Surely the whole point of discussion is the opposite of what you just said?
You are not that likely to learn stuff from people you agree with. You will actually improve your understanding by discussing with people you do not agree with. Obviously one can learn from anybody, but it is far better to discuss either your own views or those of another, in an environment that challenges those views?
Simply to ignore opposing views is surely pointless.
|
>> >>any information that supports our preferred beliefs is given great weight and information that doesn't
>> is ignored
>>
>> I accept that this is true. But I don't understand it, and certainly have never
>> done it.
That makes you very unusual I think. I think of it as a natural behaviour, especially in the context of an argument where winning is often more important than being right. Objectivity requires real effort if it is possible at all.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-parliaments-46810616
Looks like the government has been thrown (another) curve ball.
|
Trying to ignore the fact that Bercow is and always has been an idiot of the very first order. Fortunately for my sanity this is probably the beginning of his end.
As with most of what he has done, it is not likely to achieve fundamental change, he just barking at the cars as they pass. He is a nasty, self-important and conceited little man that we would be far better without, whatever our political allegiance.
This is more a behavioural change than any significant constitutional or legal event. At least insofar as Brexit is concerned. It could potentially force a non-binding debate. And if a vote resulted, it would be a non-binding secret ballot. It does though allow much more scope for political games and grandstanding by our wonderful political leaders.
I wonder if we could make being interviewed or quoted by the media a capital offence for politicians?
Just more of the games that the politicians are playing with our lives and country. They are a laughing stock and they are tarring us with the same brush.
On the next GE I want a box to tick that says..
"None of them. They are all self-serving, unmitigated idiots that come the revolution will be the wall against which we stand mere criminals"
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 29 Jan 20 at 10:27
|
|
I think it'll almost certainly force a vote of alternatives, I think the idea is that it'll point the government towards a consensus in the HoC but I can't see it. From what I've read there seems to be no majority in favour of a single course of action.
|
Trying to ignore the fact that Bercow is and always has been an idiot of the very first order.
Possibly but even idiots can be right from time to time and I think he has probably made the correct decision. This whole debacle has been largely caused by Government ignoring the views of Parliament. There is no majority in Parliament for a hard Brexit or indeed Theresa May's Deal
Surely the role of the Speaker is to facilitate Parliament to express its views. That is what Bercow has done. That he Government doesn't like it or makes it difficult for them is irrelevant.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 29 Jan 20 at 10:26
|
I thought and considered again given your comments. But honestly, I disagree with you. I do concede that my opinion of him as a person undoubtedly flavours my reaction. But I think he is wrong at several levels.
Firstly, I think it is not so simple as whether his decision was right or wrong. As speaker it is a decision that he should not have made. It is not his position to take a side, or decide what the Government should or should not do. He is merely there to regulate business and ensure it is conducted in accordance with the rules, and is publicly responsible for it being that way.
Secondly, since it would appear that custom and accepted normal practice may be disregarded in the event that the speaker decides it should be, how on earth will 90% of the goings on be managed going forward since it is almost entirely regulated by custom and accepted practice? A great deal of what the impartial Speaker is supposed to regulate is exactly protocol and custom.
Lastly what he had done will bring no advantage to anyone. It won't bring much disadvantage to anyone other than the electorate either. It is simply a continuation of the games being played in Westminster and various TV Studios by a bunch of appalling human beings with an eye of future consultancy and directorships, not to mention TV political discussion shows.
These people are appalling, and I include those that shout things I agree with as much as those who shout things I oppose. The publicised and vocal arm of our political system is pathetic.
And, as it happens, it would appear that the parties are pretty uniform in their opinion of what Bercow did, irrespective of political allegiance.
He has almost certainly caused his own exit. Changes may not move that fast in Westminster, but at times they can be inexorable. And I think this is one of those times.
tl:dr he has brought increased chaos and prevarication, in-fighting and posturing, simply for his own gratification and agenda.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 10 Jan 19 at 02:02
|
> Firstly, I think it is not so simple as whether his decision was right or
>> wrong. As speaker it is a decision that he should not have made. It is
>> not his position to take a side, or decide what the Government should or should
>> not do. He is merely there to regulate business and ensure it is conducted in
>> accordance with the rules, and is publicly responsible for it being that way.
Surely as speaker he has to rule on various issues and therefore will seemingly be in favour of one side or another. Any decision he makes it will help or hinder the government, if only in a miniscule way, but still in principle he decision will favour one side or another.
I might well have read it wrong but most of the requests, if not from a minister, are just chinned off 99.9%. However a decision is still taken.
>> Secondly, since it would appear that custom and accepted normal practice may be disregarded in
>> the event that the speaker decides it should be, how on earth will 90% of
>> the goings on be managed going forward since it is almost entirely regulated by custom
>> and accepted practice? A great deal of what the impartial Speaker is supposed to regulate
>> is exactly protocol and custom.
Indeed it'll certainly make it interesting in the future for governments trying to run the HoC business. Although accepted practice isn't always much of a reason to keep things the same. The custom came about because someone decided it would be done that way. So I've no problem with him changing it, as long as the implications are understand and on that point I'd agree I'm not sure he knows what is likely to happen in the future.
>>
>> Lastly what he had done will bring no advantage to anyone. It won't bring much
>> disadvantage to anyone other than the electorate either. It is simply a continuation of the
>> games being played in Westminster and various TV Studios by a bunch of appalling human
>> beings with an eye of future consultancy and directorships, not to mention TV political discussion
>> shows.
My understanding is that this was done so the government would know in more specific terms what support various alternative courses of action had.
|
>> This whole debacle has been largely caused by Government
>> ignoring the views of Parliament.
I'm no great fan of Bercow's personality, though I think he has made some decent calls on various issues, and there is little doubt (IMO) that the opprobrium heaped upon him from the Govenment benches arises to a large extent from him making (seemingly proper) judgements which have led to them having to handle more scrutiny than they would like (which in May's case, from nearly all her time in Government, both as PM and before, is none - not for nothing is the current situation described almost exclusively as "May's deal").
The fact is that the situation is far worse than CG's quote. In reality, the Government has, almost since the start of this process, been actively avoiding any opportunity for Parliament as a whole to even put forward its views , or for those views to become even partially apparent.
This has included the Government deliberately abstaining on a number of votes (which it expected to lose, but didn't want it made apparent just by how much), and culminated in "pulling" the opportunity to vote on the final position, as there was an expectation of losing. This latter led to the finding of contempt, which should patently have resulted in (in parliamentary terms) a rather different approach from the Government.
Instead, we have since only seen more of the same - it is patently obvious (I've been posting so for some time) that the Government is attempting to run down the clock in order to try to force Parliament into accepting a deal that they otherwise wouldn't. To me, that is a clear abuse of Parliamentary procedure.
IMO, whether or not it will make a blind bit of difference to the final result, Mr Speaker, being effectively the custodian of Parliament's reputation, has done the correct thing (and frankly, it takes some balls, presumably aided by the fact he has already said he is going to stand down).
He may not have followed precedent, but he certainly hasn't avoided procedure, and there is a very strong argument that any Government, having been found to be in contempt (for which there is little precedent) but doesn't change its behaviour should probably expect some backlash.
Unprecedented response to unprecedented circumstances.
Take back control my *rse.
|
>> The fact is that the situation is far worse than CG's quote. In reality, the
>> Government has, almost since the start of this process, been actively avoiding any opportunity for
>> Parliament as a whole to even put forward its views , or for those views
>> to become even partially apparent.
A trend which seems set to continue as government has reportedly allowed only 90mins debate on option B and one amending motion.
|
TM's handling of this entire charade is nonsensical, ridiculous, incompetent and getting worse. Her cabinet is, if anything, worse and the rest of her party is a pathetic laughing stock.
Her refusal to allow, or at least attempts to avoid, debate is simply one small part of an overall dog's breakfast.
If there were *any* level of competent opposition to her then she would crash and burn.
As it is, who knows......
|
>> TM's handling of this entire charade is nonsensical, ridiculous, incompetent and getting worse.
And yet and yet. I still believe that her deal,will be agreed. She will lose next week’s vote certainly but ultimately she is playing a game of chicken with Parliament. Since most are strongly opposed to no deal and there is no other option which can gain a majority she will eventually get her deal through. Her’s is the only game in town.
If she does get the deal through Parliament.I rather suspect she will be seen in a different light.
Could be wildly wrong of course.
|
I suspect that you are correct.
But it really is a house of cards, one wrong wind and it could all go very badly wrong.
|
....I shouldn't worry about the £39 Billion, Roger.
I understand that, in the event that it does become payable, HMRC are well into the advanced planning for its recovery through the tax code of all Leave voters.
Price worth paying and all that.....
;-)
|
Roger, if we crash out with no deal, do we still have to pay the £39billion?
Is it in fact the settling of our debts to the EU, net of our investments and income in the EU and is payable under whatever circumstances we leave? And that if we do not pay we could be compelled to pay in court?
Or is it ONLY payable because it is part of TM's transition deal?
In fact, does TM's deal have *anything* to deal with our leaving at all? In any way at all?
Or is her deal solely concerned with what happens *AFTER* we leave?
Lastly, can anything, any deal, any negotiation change the terms of our leaving other than simply not leaving? Or are ALL deals solely related to the period after we have left?
|
And this is what our idiotic, self-centered and worthless politicians have created....
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-46814527
With this mentality WTF knows what will happen next?
|
Plenty of rabbits around here - if it comes to *it*.
Loadsa wood too for my solid fuel stove.
Got my own private water supply.
Plus it would give me an excuse to bump orf the wood pigeons that nick the dicks seed.
I don't take any meds either, but I could probably use a few, especially the green & white 20mg jobbies.
:o}
|
Don't throw out those old copies of the Daily Mail
"Andrew Large, director general of the Confederation of Paper Industries, told Politics Live that while a "lot of work" is taking place to avoid a shortage in toilet roll it was possible."
|
WE all know why the dinosaurs died out, or think we do. At the end of the Cretaceous period a cataclysmic asteroid impact caused a global mass extinction that eradicated millions of species, with the dinosaurs by far the most famous casualty.
www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-death-throes-of-tyrannosaurus-brex/
|
|
I dont think I have ever seen such a more vivid example of the pot calling the kettle black.
|
I suspect her grasp of politics is as week as her understanding of Paleontology. It is now widely accepted that the widespread extinctions - around 65% of species were indeed caused by the Chicxulub impact.
Dinosaurs did not however all become extinct. I can see some of their descendants as I write this. There are quite a few of them on the bird table.
|
|
Why do you read that garbage?
|
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46872266
What are these idiots doing to the UK?
|
|
Seems three of the amendments weren't even put forward to a vote. Seems it was just pulled for political tactical reasons, poor form messing about with such an important vote due tonight.
|
Seems a much worse result than expected, most seem to guess 150-180. In the end it was 230.
I wonder if labour will put forward the confidence vote tonight?
|
What an embarrassment and laughing stock our parliament is.
|
|
I reckon there will be another referendum which will include specific questions to assist Parliament in reaching a new UK position. I think this is likely because MPs would want to "ensure they have properly engaged with the public" (i.e. pass the buck, as they are incapable of decision making on their own!!)
|
I can remember laughing at the US for having to choose between Trump and Clinton.
Not feeling so clever now.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46887852
|
|
May's offer of cross party talks seems pretty empty as she's not prepared to include Corbyn who is, whatever you think of him, the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
|
To exclude Corbyn is a nonsense.
Irresponsible, petulant and typical of the silly little games our politicians play.
And the more I think about it the more annoyed I get.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 16 Jan 19 at 15:51
|
>typical of the silly little games our politicians play
someone commented in work the other day how "politics" is a term used in the workplace more and more to explain decisions that may not seem too logical but now we are totally seeing out the absolute definition of politics every day!
|
Despite the overwhelming defeat of the (her) withdrawal agreement, it seems like it will be plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Until and unless something really dramatic happens (and I don't expect the government to lose the vote of no confidence - there doesn't seem to be enough Conservative MPs that will put country before party to ensure that) it would appear that Ms May is quite prepared to carry on with almost exactly the same blinkered approach, almost exactly the same "red lines" and almost exactly the same almost universally discredited withdrawal agreement, running the clock down until there is a stark choice between it and a hard Brexit.
I suspect she would be quite capable of letting the latter happen, and then blaming everyone else because they didn't back her ("better") witdrawal agreement.
What depths are our politics now plumbing! How can a PM who has been defeated at such a level on her agreement feel that she is entitled to continue as if very little has happened. By precedent, any previous PM would have immediately have fallen on their sword - and let's be clear, it is her agreement that has fallen, not the Government's, not her party's, but hers. (which is one of the main reasons it failed - the level of Government and party revolt would under other circumstances be astounding - but actually, it has been predicted for months). The personal responsibility couldn't be much greater.
She is the worst politician I've seen in my lifetime, and I've lived through a few. Her behaviour is a disgrace, and she should resign and kick-start the change of direction that is needed.
It matter not a jot whether you support in or out (unless it happens to be the hardest of outs), the position she has left the country in is unforgivable.
|
>> She is the worst politician I've seen in my lifetime, and I've lived through a
>> few. Her behaviour is a disgrace, and she should resign and kick-start the change of
>> direction that is needed.
Where to? Do you have a good direction? No, is there an agreed direction in parliament
? No And thats the problem, dont go blaming her for trying, and achieving a direction. You haven't got a better one.
>> It matter not a jot whether you support in or out (unless it happens to
>> be the hardest of outs), the position she has left the country in is unforgivable.
CVobblers you speaketh from your bottom. There are three choices, In, out (hard) or hybrid. She went for the hybrid which is the only sensible option to meet the brexiteers, and to try and keep them in a job. Blame the rabid brexiteers and the rabid micks for the problem we have now, Not May.
God it gets on my teets for people to have a go at May when she has the crapiest job in history that no-one else wants or can do, including you.
|
>>
>>
>> Where to? Do you have a good direction? No, is there an agreed direction in
>> parliament
No, there isn't, but in the end there will have to be one (even if by default). Ms May has wasted 2.5 years properly engaging with no-one, not her cabinet, not her party, not even her Brexit ministers (I've lost count), and certainly not any of the stakeholders outside these groups whilst she hangs on to her own-devised precious red lines and plan, studiously ignoring the fact that almost all of the foregoing have been telling her from early on that it won't fly. The whole thing has been exacerbated by her early invokation of Article 50 without any sense of direction, and needlessly embedding the exit date in law.
This is all a very large part of there being no agreed direction in parliament at a late stage.
>> ? No And thats the problem, dont go blaming her for trying, and achieving a
>> direction. You haven't got a better one.
I certainly do have a better one, but whether I could get it through parliament is also certainly debatable ;-). ...but, seriously, if I'd been responsible for picking up the pieces from the referendum, I as sure as hell would have had a plan that I thought I *could* get through parliament before setting the clock ticking, or wouldn't have done the latter.
>> Cobblers you speaketh from your bottom. There are three choices, In, out (hard) or hybrid.
>> She went for the hybrid which is the only sensible option to meet the brexiteers,
>> and to try and keep them in a job.
...and she's (so far) failed. Not only that, but the nature of her planning, project management and execution means that (barring dramatic developments) the hard constraints from here on in almost certainly mean a very sub-optimal result. That will be down to her.
>>Blame the rabid brexiteers and the
>> rabid micks for the problem we have now, Not May.
>>
If she had been more 'inclusive' in devising her hybrid agreement, without (all) her red lines, she might well not have had to rely on the "rabid" communities. There are a significant number of MPs across the house who would, at the outset, have been open to a form of soft Brexit, subject to having been consulted, and their concerns taken on board. (enough, I suspect, to form a majority, if not an overwhelming one). Driving any sort of change, it pays to understand all your stakeholders, and devise a way of keeping *enough* of all of them on-side, otherwise, you are set up to fail.
>> God it gets on my teets for people to have a go at May when
>> she has the crapiest job in history that no-one else wants or can do, including
>> you.
>>
..don't expect me to have any sympathy for her. She volunteered for the job out of political ambition, she's constitutionally unsuited, she's cocked up big style; as a politician, she should go.
And, whilst the thought is rather abhorrent, I reserve the right to continue to get on your "teets". :-O
|
All true.
But if she was the only incompetent, publicity seeking idiot then we may have done ok. But she's not. They are all like it.
The entire mob have wasted the 2 years. And whilst she certainly had made a hash of it, she is and was by no means alone.
|
I'm far from enamoured by (most of) the rest of them, from wherever they hail, but the issue has been greatly exacerbated by her behaviour.
There has been no attempt whatsoever to involve anybody else in the way forward.
Corbyn is a pain in the *rse, but even if he wasn't it is difficult to see what difference he and the Labour party could have made over the last 2.5 years. She doesn't take input from *anybody* (and very rarely has throughout her political life).
The practical reality is that (given the parliamentary numbers) the only thing that could possibly have made any difference would have been a vote of no confidence in her, and deposition be, her own party.
If you want the evidence of that, simply look at the happenings of the last few days.
I tend to laugh at the statement that "ignoring the will of the people" will bring parliament into disrepute - it is already there.
|
... and now Corbyn has been invited he has made his excuses... How on earth can he propose no confidence about the Tories with his record...
Anyway I can see how it might look like 2 years have been wasted but I believe you can't blame TM for it. That's because I believe whoever had come up with whatever solution it would have had the same outcome. And I believe any further proposed solution, or at least fairly specific options, will be put to "the people", as I mentioned earlier.
If the people the Beeb had as sound bites in the news today truly represent "the people", God help us...
|
>> ... and now Corbyn has been invited he has made his excuses... How on earth> can he propose no confidence about the Tories with his record...
I think he was always going to do this or similar, he's main objective is to be PM. This series of brexit votes are simply are means to that end. We shouldn't be surprised, he's a politician.
I get the impression that brexit, per se, isn't something that he has particularly strong views on.
>> Anyway I can see how it might look like 2 years have been wasted but
>> I believe you can't blame TM for it. That's because I believe whoever had come
>> up with whatever solution it would have had the same outcome.
I agree with this, there's no single majority view, as far as I can see that's she ignored. If there'd been a large majority in the HoC with a single view of what they agreed on that would be a different affair. But there isn't, reaching out to more groups in parliament may have peeled off more people but wouldn't have changed to winning the deal vote.
There's lots of talk of the PMs red lines but what about those in the HoC are they prepared to move on theirs?
|
>> I think he was always going to do this or similar, he's main objective is
>> to be PM. This series of brexit votes are simply are means to that end.
>> We shouldn't be surprised, he's a politician.
>> I get the impression that brexit, per se, isn't something that he has particularly strong
>> views on.
He does, he is very Pro EU, Europe is much more socialist in outlook and policy then the UK and is a natural ally. The problem is, his natural electorate on who he will rely for votes is anti EU.
This is why the Labour policy on Brexit is non existent.
>> There's lots of talk of the PMs red lines but what about those in the
>> HoC are they prepared to move on theirs?
The red lines are laughable. On both sides. The EU red line is no border between Eire and NI, The UK red line is no border between NI and the UK and no border between Eire and NI.
A hard Brexit caused by the the existence of the red lines ensures they will get breached, how ironic is that.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 17 Jan 19 at 09:28
|
>> He does, he is very Pro EU, Europe is much more socialist in outlook and
>> policy then the UK and is a natural ally.
Then why was he so luke-warm with his public utterances before the referendum?
Shuffling papers etc, very half hearted.
When he wants to, he can be a very competent orator.
|
....the "received wisdom" is that he is anti-EU.
Whilst it may have social(ist) leanings in some of its stance, at its core its policies on state aid, nationalisation, etc. would stand firmly in the path of the implementation of a Corbynite manifesto.
|
>> ....the "received wisdom" is that he is anti-EU.
>>
>> Whilst it may have social(ist) leanings in some of its stance, at its core its
>> policies on state aid, nationalisation, etc. would stand firmly in the path of the implementation
>> of a Corbynite manifesto.
Its policies on state aid and nationalisation were those pushed by the uk, and almost entirely ignored sidelined or bypassed by the European nations.
Corbyn is pro EU (as are the financial backers - the trade unions) but dare not utter so, as it will make him unelectable by his core support.
|
>>>Corbyn is pro EU
Really? I thought he was constantly anti EU until he found himself leader of Labour in the run up to the referendum where he was supposed to back pro-remain but was pretty half-hearted in demonstrating engagement with that view. He would often say during that campaign he supported the EU... and then would add... but a reformed EU and list how they must change in line with his socialist ideals... which of course was never going to happen at the wave of a Corbyn wand.
The day after the result to leave he couldn't wait for us to enact the "public will" by insisting Article 50 should be invoked urgently. As far as I can see the public vote achieved his core personal anti-EU belief but made it look as if no blame could lay at his door.
|
>>
>> >> He does, he is very Pro EU, Europe is much more socialist in outlook
>> and
>> >> policy then the UK and is a natural ally.
>>
>> Then why was he so luke-warm with his public utterances before the referendum?
Because his core electorate is anti EU. Labour Party policy and utterances are reams and reams of non specific nothingness. The Labour Party is just as much a mess on Brexit as the Tory party. They dont know what to say or what to do.
|
> He does, he is very Pro EU, Europe is much more socialist in outlook and
>> policy then the UK and is a natural ally. The problem is, his natural electorate
>> on who he will rely for votes is anti EU.
>>
>> This is why the Labour policy on Brexit is non existent.
I get the balancing act between his party and his core voters. Nevertheless I don't see him as some who is very pro EU. I can't say I'd even heard of him before he became leader of Labour but I can't I've seen much of saying he's pro EU in the past when he could and did say as he pleased.
|
Corbyn is making a pig's ear of this. He can see May, making clear hard Brexit is a red line, and see what they can agree. That is his responsibility as formal Leader of Opposition and he's no business ducking it.
He has though always been Euro-Sceptic with a long history of rebelling against the whip on EU issues (ie during Blair years).
While May continues to micro-manage this process doing as much as possible herself I fear it is doomed. Radio report this morning referred to cabinet member saying she has no charm and can suck the goodwill out of a room.
|
>> Radio report this morning referred to cabinet member saying she has no
>> charm and can suck the goodwill out of a room.
And that really is her only failing. She has the personality and aura of a toilet seat. Which of course is the root cause of the defeat in the commons. Her attempt to get breathing space and wiggle room with a snap election (given the polls at the time) was absolutely the right thing to do. Her toilet seatness however wrecked that, putting her in a worse position. Her only option then was to get the best deal going for all sides, wind down the clock and offer it as a fait accompli in an attempt to neutralise the swivel eyed loons of all sides, which came back to savage her.
Pah, politicians disgust me. We should get rid of them.
|
>>We should get rid of them.
And replace them with what? Appointees of some dictator perhaps? Repulsive though many of them seem, they do an essential job in our democracy.
|
>>Repulsive though many of them seem, they do an essential job in our democracy.
Just get rid of the Labour and Limp Dem ones then.
|
>> seem, they do an essential job in our democracy.
They have just spent the last two years making a mockery of it, and its getting worse.
|
|
I love the way Corbyn was decrying the "red lines". then inserts some of his own before he will get involved.
|
What? writing rubbish?
like Under pressure from the West, Israel has tried to bridge an unbridgeable gulf with rejectionist Arabs. As a result, it has been unable to extricate itself from a perpetual state of war and terrorist attack.
And being rabidly anti Islam, and a Trump supporter?
Fits the bill perfectly.
|
>> www.melaniephillips.com/west-holding-breath-desperate-battle-britain/
Before plunging into an erroneous statement about what law says she really should have consulted her husband who could have explained that Acts of parliament can be, and often are, amended or ven repealed before they come into effect........
|
Remember Lord Liley's "30 no-deal truths" as posted by Dog?
Remember number 10?
"The UK is making good progress in replicating the EU’s most important preferential trade arrangements - Switzerland has already agreed to carry over existing preferences."
From the BBC Today....
"[Liam Fox] conceded that no post-Brexit trade deals have been confirmed, saying they depended on whether other countries were willing to "put in the work."
The Department for International Trade said some deals are at an advanced stage, but none have been rolled over so that they will cover the UK post-Brexit.
[The deal with Switzerland] has not been formally signed yet and the details of what "replicate the existing EU-Switzerland arrangement as far as possible" means are not clear.
FIdiots.
The whole article is worth a read...
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46917999
|
I tried googling the article title and it seemed to work
"Dispatches from Brexit Britain, a ramshackle state"
|
I recall him saying he was going to lie in front of the bulldozers.........
.....but wasn't that in connection with the third runway at Heathrow?
;--)
|
|
Plus he was challenged to stand in front of the water cannons he bought as the Major of London (never happened).
|
As I understand it, JCB are a major donor to the Tory party and Lord Bamford is very pro Brexit.
I wonder if they are hoping that the competition's diggers would become more expensive after Brexit?
|
I had some contact with Bamford back in the 90s.
That he should support Brexit and long for the return of the Empire does not surprise me.
|
>> I had some contact with Bamford back in the 90s.
>>
>> That he should support Brexit and long for the return of the Empire does not
>> surprise me.
Private company, like Dyson. If it was listed he'd have institutional shareholders to answer to.
Weatherspoon is listed but given its success and lack of dependence on European imports institutions don't care about Tim Martin's eccentricities.
|
|
Well, Boris didn't need any help from a JCB to dig himself any deeper. He sees himself as a latter day Churchill. The man is a fantasist.
|
>>He sees himself as a latter day Churchill
Churchill had so, so many flaws. Nevertheless he was probably the best war time Prime Minister we could have wanted.
He was also a warrior, statesman and Nobel Prize winner.
Johnson isn't even in the same league.
|
Brexit Negotiation Committee had a 65 minute session with, one time Brexit Secretary, David Davis on 16th January, and that was broadcast by BBC2 at 8:0 PM this evening.
It was extremely interesting. He talked of his visits to 26 of the 27 EU members, several more than once. Their aim was to keep the UK in the EU. The EU arranged things in secret. Not like the UK democratic way.
The EU negotiators were determined the UK would not get any advantage from leaving the EU. With May continuing to 'Negotiate in good faith', she was just getting sucked into their scheme' to achieve that. A waist of UK negotiating time.
He implies that it is now best to exit Brexit with no deal. "Trading with the EU would be sorted out by this summer." It would not take years. EU members would need to do that in order to trade with us. 'Many agreements have been written ready to be adopted' as soon as the EU realises that will be how we exit. The idea that there will be great problems is scare mongering.
We would be in control of our own laws, immigration, fishing waters, etc. Not have the french demanding fishing rights.
Read it for yourself. I don't have a link, but BBC will have one.
|
I don't know a lot about fishing, and it would seem that Davis doesn't either.
Most of the fish we catch we export to the EU
Most of the fish we eat we import from non-EU [e.g. Norway].[BTW. The "Norway +++++" solution often mentioned excludes fisheries]
So, if May and the other clowns screw up Brexit it will make little or no difference to the fish on your table. But the fish export business could be in a very difficult position.
Also, anything we export to the EU will remain subject to all EU regs. whether we are in the EU or not.
As I said, I certainly don't know enough about it to know what the UK Fishery Industry needs out of Brexit, but I bet it's not "No Deal".
As for the "trade will be sorted out by the summer" then I am reasonably sure that is correct. It'll be BEANO. We will do everything we do now, we will follow every reg. and proc. we do now, but we won't get a vote or a veto.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 21 Jan 19 at 00:19
|
You seem to know more than David Davis !!
Personally I don't. He says Calais (sp) does not want a queue. That will be resolved very quickly to get traffic flowing as now. We can/are setting up and alternative port, ferries, and a French destination.
Fini. I have better things to do than follow chatter on here. Bye.
Last edited by: busbee on Mon 21 Jan 19 at 12:48
|
>> You seem to know more than David Davis !!
I suspect David Davies was colouring the truth. He's been caught out doing that a few times in the last two years.
|
'Official' recording of his sessio is here:
www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8567577b-99fd-4168-8420-a46c456c34e1
Working today so no time to listen. Would be interesting to know not just what Davis asserted but what his interlocutors made of it. Same panel made my MP, Chris Heaton-Harris look a complete chump. Believe his questioner is a Scottish QC; he was no match.
Dominic Cummings of leave campaign fame describes Davis as being 'thick as mince' and lazy to boot. Both have been said by other people too.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 21 Jan 19 at 14:02
|
>> I have better things to do than follow chatter on here. Bye.
Don't flounce just because people disagree with you or know more than you.
Presumably you thought it worthwhile to post your comments, did you want them not to be discussed?
|
Exit Brexit the David Davies way you say?
"...Mr Davis has also been made a board member of German manufacturing company Mansfelder Kupfer Und Messing for six months - from which he earned £36,085.
He may be one of the lead leavers but clearly the EU trough was irresistible to his snout :-)
From "David Davis to earn £60,000 for 20 hours work at JCB", www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46981440
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 23 Jan 19 at 23:57
|
|
EU citizens are to be excused paying £65 for settled UK status and those of them who have already paid are to be refunded. Is this in the hope that UK citizens living in the EU will in turn be allowed to stay put or is it yet another bit of appeasement - or both?
|
>> is it yet another bit of appeasement - or both?
Appeasement? Not sure if the connection with Chamberlain and Hitler was intentional. Its called reciprocation.
I was always amused by the views aired in a TV interview by a retired English couple living in Spain.
"We need to leave the EU, get the foreigners out"
|
>> EU citizens are to be excused paying £65 for settled UK status and those of
>> them who have already paid are to be refunded. Is this in the hope that
>> UK citizens living in the EU will in turn be allowed to stay put or
>> is it yet another bit of appeasement - or both?
I'm sure she hopes EU states (individually - this is not a competence of the EU itself) will reciprocate. Mention of appeasement is way off the mark though fairly typical of the way WW2 era language is appropriated in this debate.
EU Citizens here are practically all workers, here because we need them. The EU benefit drone living at our expense is a myth. My manager, full time working single parent and tax payer, is Czech so caught up in this.
They came here on strength of their EU passport or National Identity card which was evidence of their right to work. Nothing in EU law stopped us registering them say 3 months after they arrived. UK governments of both stripes chose not to as part of its mission to avoid red tape and cost. We now want to change the rules and they'll need to purchase a card and jump through hoops to retain that right - post Brexit an employer will have to see the card.The proposed £65 is not an inconsequential sum - it's a day's work at Minimum Wage. Why should they pay that after a decision they had no part in?
Furthermore it's very easy to see this turn into another Windrush type SNAFU with people ending up in limbo or being subject to egregious decisions. Making it free removes any affordability issues. The alternative of a means test would be expensive to operate and as we know from other areas is something people find humiliating and avoid.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 22 Jan 19 at 10:50
|
>>EU Citizens here are practically all workers, here because we need them
Let's take that a little further
EU Citizens here are practically all workers, whose birth/childhood and full education costs have been paid by the country they have left behind.
Worth their weight in gold to the UK economy.
|
Came across this today - might be worth following.
goo.gl/ULtPRj
|
>> Guardian piece on Irish cross border dairy trade and planning for Brexit:
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/22/planning-is-a-nightmare-irish-milk-firm-fears-lights-out-after-brexit
>>
Funnily enough I am waiting for my snow delayed flight from Belfast, having just visited an employer of over 300 people, many of whom are EU citizens. They have done very little planning because they don’t know what to plan for!
|
Dyson, "Brexit is good for the UK" ups shop and sods off to Singapore
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46962093
|
>> Dyson, "Brexit is good for the UK" ups shop and sods off to Singapore
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46962093
>>
>>
>>
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; what an absolute two faced @&*%$€# that man is!
|
... it's a good job the politicians involved in Brexit aren't like that ......
:-(
|
The day after listening to the question session of DD (by Rees Mogg, I think) and the Brexit Committee being very pleased and grateful for the information he supplied, I found a WETHERSPOONNEWS magazine, via my letterbox, and Brexit was the main topic in it.
It showed, with snippets from several main, trusted, newspapers, that wrong advice was given that food prices would go up, after we leave. And as far as is known, none of them have so far published corrections for that. Thus many persons still believe that to be true and are helping spread false information.
The truth is, the price of food will come down, as we will not then be collecting import taxes to pay to the EU. There are apparently over 1200 items on which that happens. A simple one is non-EU oranges. We are the only EU country not to grow them. So EU tax us!
It is time to stop saying that we must not have a no-deal exit, because of all the food cost it would involve and put it into a proper perspective. People representing industry are are also spreading wrong information via TV, says WSN.
|
|
If you believe Tim Martin over real and reputable spokesmen you need your bumps felt.....
|
>> It showed, with snippets from several main, trusted, newspapers, that wrong advice was given that
>> food prices would go up, after we leave. And as far as is known, none
>> of them have so far published corrections for that. Thus many persons still believe that
>> to be true and are helping spread false information.
No corrections have been published because to date its not false information, We haven't left yet, so then it will be disputable or not.
>>
>> The truth is, the price of food will come down, as we will not then
>> be collecting import taxes to pay to the EU. There are apparently over 1200 items
>> on which that happens. A simple one is non-EU oranges. We are the only EU
>> country not to grow them. So EU tax us!
Sorry, incorrect, and no way can you possibly use the word "truth" you just don't know and nor do your sources of information because we haven't left yet so that too is disputable. I love the way you state we are the only UK country not to grow oranges, thats possibly the most outrageous ignorance of geography and climate I have ever seen.
>> It is time to stop saying that we must not have a no-deal exit, because
>> of all the food cost it would involve and put it into a proper perspective.
>> People representing industry are are also spreading wrong information via TV, says WSN.
People representing industry are telling you the way it is. Not the politicians. I suggest they know more than your "truthful" assertions.
You seem to be just rearranging what Tim Martin says, the man who is now saying that beer prices will go up because of rising labour costs due to Brexit.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 23 Jan 19 at 22:12
|
“A simple one is non-EU oranges. We are the only EU country not to grow them. So EU tax us!“
Yep, The Germans are well known for their massive orange groves
|
And green beeners
Sorry Z. Couldn’t resist
|
>> And green beeners
>>
>> Sorry Z. Couldn’t resist
Oh har de lard, Porsche belly.
|
>>A simple one is non-EU oranges. We are the only EU country not to grow them
Factoid of the day?
www.statista.com/statistics/578409/fresh-oranges-production-volume-european-union-by-country/
I've read some crap on this site but that's one of the best.
|
Current Cost of oranges in and out of the EU.
UK Large Orange @ Asda 30p
Australia, Large Orange at Woolworth. A$0.9 (49p)
Next Europe is evil fake news please.
|
>>Fini. I have better things to do than follow chatter on here. Bye
So the "better things" are reading that tripe?
It's not even worth replying in detail to. Only EU country not to grow Oranges?? FFS, did you even stop to think about that for a moment?
|
>> The day after listening to the .........spreading wrong information via TV, says WSN.
>>
I thought you had gone?
|
Brexit Discussion - Volume 74 - Manatee
