|
Post by staffordshrew on May 22, 2019 15:03:04 GMT 1
No you didn't..................... Shut your festering gob you snotty faced heap of parrot droppings! Errr, might have my scripts mixed up. No, maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on May 22, 2019 15:53:48 GMT 1
No you didn't..................... Shut your festering gob you snotty faced heap of parrot droppings! Errr, might have my scripts mixed up. No, maybe not. Yes, but I came here for an argument!!
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on May 22, 2019 15:54:42 GMT 1
Think just about everybody has had enough of Labour's "remain on the fence" stance on Brexit. Roll on Sunday, it looks as though the two main parties are going to get an absolute kicking, potentially less than 20% between them if the polls are anything to go by. Put simply in my opinion we cannot sign up for this pathetic deal, it's not Brexit we're still tied to the EU. But it’s the only deal that’s been offered to the electorate MPs or Labour during them finally being ask by May to help.... May’s deal or no deal so Labour won’t back either or are on the fence as you say..... p.s. why isn’t Mays deal Brexit (not that I’m for it in any way) ?it was a very simple question on the Ballot Remain a member of the EU or Leave the EU..... nothing else covered by the question, we can leave and the EU and do pretty well anything else regarding all the trade and travel options if we leave the EU in anyway we’ve done what was asked on the referendum... You and others might not like it but tough the question and details given for options were pathetic hence the mess! As a remainer I too don’t like Mays deal, no deal won’t and can’t happen so what’s the answer if it isn’t going back to the people?
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on May 22, 2019 16:28:44 GMT 1
Think just about everybody has had enough of Labour's "remain on the fence" stance on Brexit. Roll on Sunday, it looks as though the two main parties are going to get an absolute kicking, potentially less than 20% between them if the polls are anything to go by. Put simply in my opinion we cannot sign up for this pathetic deal, it's not Brexit we're still tied to the EU. no deal won’t and can’t happen Why? Its the default LEGAL position if a deal cannot be agreed.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 22, 2019 18:42:12 GMT 1
no deal won’t and can’t happen Why? Its the default LEGAL position if a deal cannot be agreed. Politics, that's why. No deal will only happen if the EU loses patience and cuts the cord. I can't see the UK opting for it and it's quite evidently still a minority preference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2019 19:03:33 GMT 1
Again, missing the point. You're avoiding the point. My point is that the interests of 40 million people need to looked after regardless of whether they voted or not. Some of whom where unable to vote. It's not about voting to get the result I want. We are going to leave. What I want is a good exit deal that will cause minimum disruption to trade, free movement and protect my right as a worker. I think it is reasonable to expect people who didn't have a say last time out to be able to have their interests looked after their MPs without being called traitors, or whatever. And then have a vote on the outcome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2019 19:04:23 GMT 1
Spot on. And, you are right about not ignoring the 17 million. Point is though, plenty on here are happy to ignore the other 40 odd million. 24 of your fabled 40 odd million obviously don’t care either way, as they didn’t vote. So hardly being ignored are they? They had the choice to vote, and said no thanks. Ridiculous straw clutching argument No it isn't and again, missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on May 22, 2019 19:38:44 GMT 1
With a new, pro brexit,PM on the cards I think the EU could soon lose patience and that will cut parliament out of the equation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2019 20:05:15 GMT 1
Leadsom quits and Laura Kuenssberg reckons she's the 36th minister to go under May.
Remarkable.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 22, 2019 20:13:45 GMT 1
With a new, pro brexit,PM on the cards I think the EU could soon lose patience and that will cut parliament out of the equation. If you think that, after three years of profound disagreement and getting nowhere, it's all going to be resolved simply by a change of PM, I can only say that seems very unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 22, 2019 20:14:30 GMT 1
Leadsom quits and Laura Kuenssberg reckons she's the 36th minister to go under May. Remarkable. ….. is one word for it, though not the one I'd choose.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 22, 2019 21:21:30 GMT 1
I was fairly relaxed about brexit and felt the government had it under control, but now Andrea Leadsom has resigned I’m not sure the country can cope
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 22, 2019 21:27:02 GMT 1
With a new, pro brexit,PM on the cards I think the EU could soon lose patience and that will cut parliament out of the equation. You can’t cut Parliament out of the equation. Parliament is the sovereign decision making body and only they can decide when and how we leave the EU Decision rests with the 600 or so MPs to work this all out and come to some decision - anything else, referendum, brexit party, EU MEPs and opinion polls is just fluff round the edges
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on May 22, 2019 22:30:28 GMT 1
Following up on what Downie wrote about Guy Verhofstadt, here's what he (GVH) says about sovereignty.
"We all know national sovereignty is meaningless when you talk about climate change or migration or security. You can only gain sovereignty over those issues by using the added value of a common approach. The only way to react to Trump's protectionism, for example is to take the collective power to take counter-action."
He argues that federalism is the opposite of centralised power, "it is only the British who don't understand that".
He continues to argue that every other European nation acknowledges that on the federal level you do those overarching things collectively, "then clearly some things are best organised at the state level and most things at the local level".
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on May 22, 2019 23:27:25 GMT 1
Shut your festering gob you snotty faced heap of parrot droppings! Errr, might have my scripts mixed up. No, maybe not. Yes, but I came here for an argument!! Ohh sorry, this is abuse, sorry arguments are just down the corridor. (Stupid git).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 6:42:00 GMT 1
Following up on what Downie wrote about Guy Verhofstadt, here's what he (GVH) says about sovereignty. "We all know national sovereignty is meaningless when you talk about climate change or migration or security. You can only gain sovereignty over those issues by using the added value of a common approach. The only way to react to Trump's protectionism, for example is to take the collective power to take counter-action." He argues that federalism is the opposite of centralised power, "it is only the British who don't understand that". He continues to argue that every other European nation acknowledges that on the federal level you do those overarching things collectively, "then clearly some things are best organised at the state level and most things at the local level". Collective power is exactly the point I made back in December. How small nations, when compared to USA, China, Russia, India and now Brazil, can bargin as a collective. There is some irony in the fact that some on the Left want to reject that collective bargaining power. GVH's comments about feberalism are interesting in light of what I posted the other day when talking about Smith's idea of a federalist Empire. I think we do understand federalism, but some in this country refuse to see any benefit in it at all. If we were on mainland Europe, maybe it would be different. After all the last time we were invaded was 1066.
|
|
|
Post by percy on May 23, 2019 6:49:22 GMT 1
Given that May’s deal (the only deal in town) is dead - we are looking at revoke or “no deal”. This makes our models much easier at work.
To give an idea of impact, our fx dealers tell me that market consensus us is that revoke will return sterling to 1.25 euros whereas “no deal” will take us to 0.95.
The reason that rates dropped this week is that May’s deal has been dropped from the models as a possibility.
The fx guys are fairly basic so as a rule of thumb if the exchange rate falls below 1.1 then the markets are expecting “no deal”.
It is MUCH tighter than I thought it would be.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on May 23, 2019 7:09:45 GMT 1
I fully grasp that Leave won the referendum and that 17.4m people voted to go, but what did they vote for, a Norway type deal, a Canada++ deal, a customs union only deal, an access to the single market only deal, Theresa Mays total mess of a deal or even a no-deal? No-one can acurately say what proportion of the 17.4m voted for any of those options and there is no way to keep all of them happy. Even if half of those that voted leave wanted no deal that would leave less than 9m people happy with the outcome out of a population of 65m+. Surely even the most ardent leaver can't claim that that is a fair representation.
The article 50 declaration was rushed and forced the government to take on the biggest political upheaval in living memory in a two year window. Everyone knows that you can't please all of the people all of the time, but the Tories can't even please those in their own party some of the time and the starting of art. 50m before we had any sort of concensus in parliament was a huge error of judgement, not just by the Tories, but by Labour as well for not forcing more discussion before the declaration.
I personally would like a 2nd vote, but accept that that is not likely, however my 2nd preference would be for Art. 50 to be revoked, MPs from ALL parties get round the table and discuss with the EU what deal is likely to get traction with a majority in parliament and be approved by other 27 and then re-trigger article 50 giving us two more years to get everything in place to ensure a smooth transition. In that two year period we can actually get the country, businesses and people prepared for everything and keep the distruption to a minimum. Perhaps we could even get back to running the chuffing country properly and if the parties can work together on something as devisive as Brexit and find a consensus there might be a faint possibiltiy of them finding common ground on other issues too.
OK, I'll admit the last thought there was a bit pie in the sky. Sorry
|
|
|
Post by percy on May 23, 2019 7:18:39 GMT 1
I fully grasp that Leave won the referendum and that 17.4m people voted to go, but what did they vote for, a Norway type deal, a Canada++ deal, a customs union only deal, an access to the single market only deal, Theresa Mays total mess of a deal or even a no-deal? No-one can acurately say what proportion of the 17.4m voted for any of those options and there is no way to keep all of them happy. Even if half of those that voted leave wanted no deal that would leave less than 9m people happy with the outcome out of a population of 65m+. Surely even the most ardent leaver can't claim that that is a fair representation.
The article 50 declaration was rushed and forced the government to take on the biggest political upheaval in living memory in a two year window. Everyone knows that you can't please all of the people all of the time, but the Tories can't even please those in their own party some of the time and the starting of art. 50m before we had any sort of concensus in parliament was a huge error of judgement, not just by the Tories, but by Labour as well for not forcing more discussion before the declaration.
I personally would like a 2nd vote, but accept that that is not likely, however my 2nd preference would be for Art. 50 to be revoked, MPs from ALL parties get round the table and discuss with the EU what deal is likely to get traction with a majority in parliament and be approved by other 27 and then re-trigger article 50 giving us two more years to get everything in place to ensure a smooth transition. In that two year period we can actually get the country, businesses and people prepared for everything and keep the distruption to a minimum. Perhaps we could even get back to running the chuffing country properly and if the parties can work together on something as devisive as Brexit and find a consensus there might be a faint possibiltiy of them finding common ground on other issues too.
OK, I'll admit the last thought there was a bit pie in the sky. Sorry
Completely logical assessment and I completely agree, but then you see people like that woman who harassed David Davis and you realise that we are in a very bad place and anything can happen because the politicians are looking for simple messages to appeal to those who don’t want the detail.
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on May 23, 2019 7:47:45 GMT 1
Yes, but I came here for an argument!! Ohh sorry, this is abuse, sorry arguments are just down the corridor. (Stupid git). Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on May 23, 2019 7:53:58 GMT 1
I fully grasp that Leave won the referendum and that 17.4m people voted to go, but what did they vote for, a Norway type deal, a Canada++ deal, a customs union only deal, an access to the single market only deal, Theresa Mays total mess of a deal or even a no-deal? No-one can acurately say what proportion of the 17.4m voted for any of those options and there is no way to keep all of them happy. Even if half of those that voted leave wanted no deal that would leave less than 9m people happy with the outcome out of a population of 65m+. Surely even the most ardent leaver can't claim that that is a fair representation.
The article 50 declaration was rushed and forced the government to take on the biggest political upheaval in living memory in a two year window. Everyone knows that you can't please all of the people all of the time, but the Tories can't even please those in their own party some of the time and the starting of art. 50m before we had any sort of concensus in parliament was a huge error of judgement, not just by the Tories, but by Labour as well for not forcing more discussion before the declaration.
I personally would like a 2nd vote, but accept that that is not likely, however my 2nd preference would be for Art. 50 to be revoked, MPs from ALL parties get round the table and discuss with the EU what deal is likely to get traction with a majority in parliament and be approved by other 27 and then re-trigger article 50 giving us two more years to get everything in place to ensure a smooth transition. In that two year period we can actually get the country, businesses and people prepared for everything and keep the distruption to a minimum. Perhaps we could even get back to running the chuffing country properly and if the parties can work together on something as devisive as Brexit and find a consensus there might be a faint possibiltiy of them finding common ground on other issues too.
OK, I'll admit the last thought there was a bit pie in the sky. Sorry
Completely logical assessment and I completely agree, but then you see people like that woman who harassed David Davis and you realise that we are in a very bad place and anything can happen because the politicians are looking for simple messages to appeal to those who don’t want the detail. That's the problem though isn't it? The referendum was played out with soundbites, the negotiations (if you could call them that) were played out with soundbites and this EU election (to elect MEPs to serve in the supposedly undemocratic EU parliament, WTF) is also being played out the same way. The real world can't be allowed to run on soundbites, bulletpoints and tweets, it's a lot more complex than that.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on May 23, 2019 9:44:24 GMT 1
Ohh sorry, this is abuse, sorry arguments are just down the corridor. (Stupid git). Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door. Classic comedy, you can't beat those old Two Ronnies scripts can you.............
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on May 23, 2019 10:11:40 GMT 1
Listening to Heseltine on the car radio yesterday, the gist of what he thought should happen seemed to be revoke article 50, then, whenever the next election is, the parties offer up what they propose to do in their manifestos. That way the parties will be able to detail how they would actually do things and be quizzed on it
The problem with referendums is that they they toss the result into the politician's laps with no clear idea how to achieve it. In this case the problem was compounded by the Tories letting May get away with "Brexit means Brexit" for far too long.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 11:08:27 GMT 1
So now she has announced that a 4th attempt at the Withdrawal Bill will not be sought, so thats now dead in the Water... and with it goes her final grasp on office. So now either cancel Brexit, or leave with no deal.....
What a disaster she has been in office... and thank god her opposite number in Labour has managed to trump her on incompetence
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on May 23, 2019 12:07:34 GMT 1
So now she has announced that a 4th attempt at the Withdrawal Bill will not be sought, so thats now dead in the Water... and with it goes her final grasp on office. So now either cancel Brexit, or leave with no deal..... What a disaster she has been in office... and thank god her opposite number in Labour has managed to trump her on incompetence I think her opposite number in Labour says, thinks and does a lot of the right things, but is grossly misrepresented by the press and the BBC. The problem now is going to be that with the Tories in charge the best they seem to be offering is Boris, so we probably move from a stupid w***n to a stupid m*n. Which leaves a hole for this bloke to crawl through
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 12:07:54 GMT 1
Sounds like May will still be PM to welcome Trump. The big question is will she still be leader of the Tory Party at the time ?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 23, 2019 12:11:30 GMT 1
Listening to Heseltine on the car radio yesterday, the gist of what he thought should happen seemed to be revoke article 50, then, whenever the next election is, the parties offer up what they propose to do in their manifestos. That way the parties will be able to detail how they would actually do things and be quizzed on it The problem with referendums is that they they toss the result into the politician's laps with no clear idea how to achieve it. In this case the problem was compounded by the Tories letting May get away with "Brexit means Brexit" for far too long. I'm no Heseltine fan - his snobbish dismissal of Thatcher when she was running for leader was both hilarious and horrible - but that is an interesting proposal for resolving the crisis. In practice however, I'm not sure it's feasible with our first past the post system. It would require remain voters to coalesce around a single party and I'm not convinced the parties are capable of setting aside their own narrow interests in that way. It would also give brexit ltd a second life in a general election which we could really do without.
|
|
|
Post by albionshrew on May 23, 2019 12:31:02 GMT 1
Listening to Heseltine on the car radio yesterday, the gist of what he thought should happen seemed to be revoke article 50, then, whenever the next election is, the parties offer up what they propose to do in their manifestos. That way the parties will be able to detail how they would actually do things and be quizzed on it The problem with referendums is that they they toss the result into the politician's laps with no clear idea how to achieve it. In this case the problem was compounded by the Tories letting May get away with "Brexit means Brexit" for far too long. Surely a GE before Brexit (possible?) would well and truly split Labour. Conservatives could be splitting anyway, with that lunatic Boris in charge. Maybe a People's Vote would get the politicians off the hook? It would be easier to choose a succesful Shrewsbury Town defensive line-up than sort out Brexit! (Postcards to SR, please)
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on May 23, 2019 13:57:06 GMT 1
I see Peston on the ITV website states "May should count herself very fortunate she isn't a football manager, because she'd have been back managing Port Vale some time ago." Tell that to poor old Mr Askey, at least it's a job...could be worse, like managing Telford.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on May 23, 2019 18:48:46 GMT 1
I see Peston on the ITV website states "May should count herself very fortunate she isn't a football manager, because she'd have been back managing Port Vale some time ago." Tell that to poor old Mr Askey, at least it's a job...could be worse, like managing Telford. No, Lucy Allan already has that job. And does it badly too.
|
|