Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Observer II

    Peoples vote ?

    The term "hard" or "soft" Brexit was invented by the Remoaners, in order to sell the idea of somekind of half leaving, where we would accumulate the up sides whilst getting rid of the downsides (something Labour still seem to believe), thus the birth of cakeism. It was only when they introduced it, that I discovered that by voting LEAVE, I was voting for a hard Brexit, complete seperation, and finally independence for the UK; no political dictatorship from unelected Brussels beaurocrats; no coughing up £10 billion a year to bail out basket case economies in the Balkans wanting to join, no more total incompetance in allowing in illegal migrants, and no more free movement of people from EU States, whether they have a job or not.. The reality is, that ultimately, the pragmatism of the market will sort out the trade issues, as such a large market on their doorstep will not be ignored by German car makers or French, Belgian, Dutch, and Irish farmers etc. Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece (all with a large unemployment issue), will not wish to impede the thousands of British tourists visiting their countries either. The PM has been too timid or has tried the soft option, and the EU has taken advantage all along, walking away will bring them to their senses.
  3. Yesterday
  4. Confused52

    Peoples vote ?

    The deal is not as one sided as I expected I really don't agree with the 3rd world comment because they don't care enough about the UK to bother. They will now turn to dealing with Italy and Hungary after they work out how to get new money to pay off the joiners. Expansion should now stop which is good for European peace. The point is that I don't have any faith in politicians but I also don't assume that they have anything other than national self interest and the UK is a massive market that it would be stupid to destroy. The comment about the Spectator was to highlight that is written from one point of view just as it would be if it were from the Grauniad or the Independent. I no longer read any newspaper. I used to read the Independent when my other half bought it sometimes but it turned way too left wing for me. I prefer balance which is why I don't listen to the BBC any more as they now behave like the broadcasting arm of the Grauniad but with their own agenda.
  5. asperity

    Peoples vote ?

    And do you really believe that shower are actually capable of "negotiating in good faith"? They are doing their best to get the best deal for the EU, nothing more and nothing less. And if they reduce the UK to 3rd world status they will consider their work done. You obviously have too much faith in the honesty of politicians Confused. As for your "it is from the Spectator" comment, what is that supposed to mean? Are you a Grauniad reader perchance?
  6. Confused52

    Peoples vote ?

    It is from the Spectator and much is simplistic and incorrect. In particular the infinite vassalage is poppycock, The binding withdrawal agreement commits the EU to negotiating in good faith and not getting to an agreement for the sake of keeping us in the customs union would not meet that requirement, so we could just walk away under the treaty of Vienna. Another problem is highlighted in the recitals, which do not form part of the treaty at all. You didn't vote for a hard Brexit, it wasn't on the ballot paper.
  7. Observer II

    Peoples vote ?

    Con, Have you read Asp's summary of "the deal" on the Brexit Topic ? I'm sorry, but to me it looks like a surrender document, that far from gaining us freedom, locks us, without a say; into infinite vassalage to Brussels. Now listening to the Remoaner MPs, it's obvious by their continued reference to THREE options (No deal, May's deal or Remain); that they are trying to construct a three way referendum that will split the Leave vote and keep us in the EU - such is the nature of politicians. Just for interest, I voted for a "hard" Brexit, there was no mention on the ballot form of any "deals", just LEAVE or REMAIN; LEAVE won, but it seems the "Dark State" didn't like it. Dave, the Tory squabbles over a Leader won't change the Parliamentary arithmatic in relation to a vote on the deal, and given the lack of anyone with Churchillian gravitas, changing the PM isn't a solution either. So, get those civil servants off their butts and into line, and prepare for the worst, while hoping for the best, as we did in 1940.
  8. Davy51

    Peoples vote ?

    Obs,i think when the Leave MP was interviewed on BBC yesterday & came out with the statement that the Brexiteers would "enter a room & only emerge when a leader was found" was a pointer that none would commit to taking up May's job. I could imagine a scenario when a potential leader was asked to step forward that all the savvy ones would step back leaving the dupe in no man's land. I seem to remember Mrs May was left out on such a limb in 2016.
  9. Confused52

    Peoples vote ?

    Sorry Obs but I really do not agree. The disruption caused by No deal is tantamount to self harm. The current deal is not at all a bad one and I cannot see why I am hearing all this macho rubbish from both sides. The behaviour of the EU during these negotiations has been reprehensible and show that we should not stay in their club. However that is not enough of a reason to crash and burn into penury. Both of the sides of this argument need to get real and resume normal grown up British pragmatism. The present political debate is childish. No one voted for a hard Brexit they voted to leave and they didn't know the terms. To claim any one didn't vote for this or that Brexit is absurd, the country as a whole had to negotiate and to not accept what the government has arrived at is just anti-democratic and quite honestly puerile. We all need to pull together to get the best we can out of the lot in the EU and not fight amongst ourselves to make them the winners. Rant over.
  10. Observer II

    Peoples vote ?

    Dave, I don't know any "Brexiteers" that wanted anything out of the EU cake; the cake obsession has been led by a Remoaner PM and her advisors, trying to please both sides. Last hope is for Parliament to vote this surrender document down and prepare for no deal or for the Spanish to veto the deal .
  11. P J

    The end of the dinosaurs

    oh its just a joke, thought from the title that the forum was shutting down
  12. P J

    Peoples vote ?

    so how would you like your omelette lol Democracy was thwarted when the leave campaign lied and cheated on spending.
  13. Evil Sid

    Brexit again -

    Especially the french. "we don't like that. BLOCKADE THE PORTS" 🚣‍♂️🚣‍♂️
  14. Davy51

    Peoples vote ?

    Democracy has already been thwarted. The people's vote of 2016 has been betrayed by the civil servants & it is doubtful that any of the Brexiteers actually have the bottle to seize the poisoned chalice from Mrs May. The democratic will of the people has been ignored.
  15. P J

    Peoples vote ?

    LEAVER: I want an omelette. REMAINER: Right. It’s just we haven’t got any eggs. LEAVER: Yes, we have. There they are. [HE POINTS AT A CAKE] REMAINER: They’re in the cake. LEAVER: Yes, get them out of the cake, please. REMAINER: But we voted in 1975 to put them into a cake. LEAVER: Yes, but that cake has got icing on it. Nobody said there was going to be icing on it. REMAINER: Icing is good. LEAVER: And there are raisins in it. I don’t like raisins. Nobody mentioned raisins. I demand another vote. DAVID CAMERON ENTERS. DAVID CAMERON: OK. DAVID CAMERON SCARPERS. LEAVER: Right, where’s my omelette? REMAINER: I told you, the eggs are in the cake. LEAVER: Well, get them out. EU: It’s our cake. JEREMY CORBYN: Yes, get them out now. REMAINER: I have absolutely no idea how to get them out. Don’t you know how to get them out? LEAVER: Yes! You just get them out and then you make an omelette. REMAINER: But how?! Didn’t you give this any thought? LEAVER: Saboteur! You’re talking eggs down. We could make omelettes before the eggs went into the cake, so there’s no reason why we can’t make them now. THERESA MAY: It’s OK, I can do it. REMAINER: How? THERESA MAY: There was a vote to remove the eggs from the cake, and so the eggs will be removed from the cake. REMAINER: Yeah, but… LEAVER: Hang on, if we take the eggs out of the cake, does that mean we don’t have any cake? I didn’t say I didn’t want the cake, just the bits I don’t like. EU: It’s our cake. REMAINER: But you can’t take the eggs out of the cake and then still have a cake. LEAVER: You can. I saw the latest Bake Off and you can definitely make cakes without eggs in them. It’s just that they’re horrible. REMAINER: Fine. Take the eggs out. See what happens. LEAVER: It’s not my responsibility to take the eggs out. Get on with it. REMAINER: Why should I have to come up with some long-winded incredibly difficult chemical process to extract eggs that have bonded at the molecular level to the cake, while somehow still having the cake? LEAVER: You lost, get over it. THERESA MAY: By the way, I’ve started the clock on this. REMAINER: So I assume you have a plan? THERESA MAY: Actually, back in a bit. Just having another election. REMAINER: Jeremy, are you going to sort this out? JEREMY CORBYN: Yes. No. Maybe. EU: It’s our cake. LEAVER: Where’s my omelette? I voted for an omelette. REMAINER: This is ridiculous. This is never going to work. We should have another vote, or at least stop what we’re doing until we know how to get the eggs out of the cake while keeping the bits of the cake that we all like. LEAVER/MAY/CORBYN: WE HAD A VOTE. STOP SABOTAGING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. EGGSIT MEANS EGGSIT. REMAINER: Fine, I’m moving to France. The cakes are nicer there. LEAVER: You can’t. We’ve taken your freedom of movement.
  16. Davy51

    Brexit again -

    What has always puzzled me is the way that the UK hangs on to the coat tails of every EU law. Other EU countries pick & choose which laws suit them.
  17. Observer II

    Brexit again -

    Just hope every MP has read it and will vote against it - and we can crash out in March.
  18. Last week
  19. asperity

    Brexit again -

    From Steerpike at the Spectator ref. the Withdrawal Agreement: The top 40 horrors: From the offset, we should note that this is an EU text, not a UK or international text. This has one source. The Brexit agreement is written in Brussels. May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6). Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately, excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7) The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court, governing the entire Agreement – Art. 4. stipulates that both citizens and resident companies can use it. Art 4.2 orders our courts to recognise this. “If the European Commission considers that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties or under Part Four of this Agreement before the end of the transition period, the European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union”. (Art. 87) The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158). The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2)) Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – one of the most dangerous provisions. (Article 168). This cuts the UK off from International Law, something we’d never do with any foreign body. Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174) “UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United Kingdom” No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise. The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the country joined the EU. Several problems with the EU’s definitions: “Union law” is too widely defined and “United Kingdom national” is defined by the Lisbon Treaty: we should given away our right to define our citizens. The “goods” and the term “services” we are promised the deal are not defined – or, rather, will be defined however the EU wishes them to be. Thus far, this a non-defined term so far. This agreement fails to define it. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104) Furthermore, the UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101) The GDPR clause. The General Data Protection Regulation – the EU’s stupidest law ever? – is to be bound into UK law (Articles 71 to 73). There had been an expectation in some quarters that the UK could get out of it. The UK establishes a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – if it was, why would it need to be subject to continued monitoring? (Article 164). This Joint Committee will have subcommittees with jurisdiction over: (a) citizens’ rights; (b) “other separation provisions”; (c) Ireland/Northern Ireland; (d) Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; (e) Gibraltar; and (f) financial provisions. (Article 165) The Lifetime clause: the agreement will last as long as the country’s youngest baby lives. “the persons covered by this Part shall enjoy the rights provided for in the relevant Titles of this Part for their lifetime”. (Article 39). The UK is shut out of all EU networks and databases for security – yet no such provision exists to shut the EU out of ours. (Article The UK will tied to EU foreign policy, “bound by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union” but unable to influence such decisions. (Article 124) All EU citizens must be given permanent right of residence after five years – but what counts as residence? This will be decided by the EU, rather than UK rules. (Articles 15-16) Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy. (Article 34) The UK agrees to spend taxpayers’ money telling everyone how wonderful the agreement is. (Article 37) Art 40 defines Goods. It seems to includes Services and Agriculture. We may come to discover that actually ‘goods’ means everything. Articles 40-49 practically mandate the UK’s ongoing membership of the Customs Union in all but name. The UK will be charged to receive the data/information we need in order to comply with EU law. (Article 50) The EU will continue to set rules for UK intellectual property law (Article 54 to 61) The UK will effectively be bound by a non-disclosure agreement swearing us to secrecy regarding any EU developments we have paid to be part. This is not mutual. The EU is not bound by such measures. (Article 74) The UK is bound by EU rules on procurement rules – which effectively forbids us from seeking better deals elsewhere. (Articles 75 to 78) We give up all rights to any data the EU made with our money (Art. 103) The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for. (Art. 144) The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid. (Article 93) Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally. (Articles 106-116) The UK is forbidden from revealing anything the EU told us or tells us about the finer points of deal and its operation. (Article 105). Any powers the UK parliament might have had to mitigate EU law are officially removed. (Article 128) The UK shall be liable for any “outstanding commitments” after 2022 (Article 142(2) expressly mentions pensions, which gives us an idea as to who probably negotiated this). The amount owed will be calculated by the EU. (Articles 140-142) The UK will be liable for future EU lending. As anyone familiar with the EU’s financials knows, this is not good. (Article143) The UK will remain liable for capital projects approved by the European Investment Bank. (Article 150). The UK will remain a ‘party’ (i.e. cough up money) for the European Development Fund. (Articles 152-154) And the EU continues to calculate how much money the UK should pay it. So thank goodness Brussels does not have any accountancy issues. The UK will remain bound (i.e coughing up money) to the European Union Emergency Trust Fund – which deals with irregular migration (i.e. refugees) and displaced persons heading to Europe. (Article 155) The agreement will be policed by ‘the Authority’ – a new UK-based body with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’. (Article 159) The EU admits, in Art. 184, that it is in breach of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which oblige it to “conclude an agreement” of the terms of UK leaving the EU. We must now, it seems, “negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship.” And if the EU does not? We settle down to this Agreement. And, of course, the UK will agree to pay £40bn to receive all of these ‘privileges’. (Article 138)
  20. P J

    Peoples vote ?

    yet another Brexiteer numpty who doesn't really seem to get it. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nadie-dorries-slams-brexit-deal-leave-remain-jk-rowling-a8639216.html?fbclid=IwAR0OD8AlBaeEEAz2p83fP01Z6oVzHvud3wjXYQPYp66vVXg6kclMqjnDkMs
  21. algy

    Police priorities ?

    Bring back Boot camp that they had in the late 50's. a friend of mine was sentenced to a period in one, he never offended again.
  22. algy

    The end of the dinosaurs

    Full marks for trying, Asp. 😊
  23. Observer II

    Peoples vote ?

    As most of us said from the beginning, it's Hotel California and anyone trying to escape will be humiliated in order to keep the rest in line. We can see the way the Brussels dictatorship operates, with their actions against Poland and Hungary, and now Italy; amazingly these countries are prepared to tolerate it - must be they're net recipients of EU funding. From the beginning the Gov has suffered from "cakeism", believing that an organisation founded on strict rules will bend them to suit the UK. Well this is their final offer, it's take it or leave it; and it's time Labour and the SNP woke up to the fact that it cannot be improved with 6 pie in the sky "tests". Leaving means - leaving the customs union, the single market and the ECJ; and if that means a hard border in Ireland - so be it. Yes it will mean initial hardship and confusion, but if our civil servants get off their butts and prepare for the worst, we'll overcome those difficulties. You can't make omlettes without cracking eggs. Now if MPs vote down the PM's plan, it leaves us crashing out next March, and in my opinion, that's fine, just get on with it.
  24. Evil Sid

    Peoples vote ?

    But that was always going to happen with the EU. Any contributing member wanting to get out will face the same sort of backlash from the EU. "if you thought being in was bad just wait until you see what's in store for you when you try to get out" was always going to be the stance. "The EU need us more than we need them" Was the cry from the leave camp, "Were all doomed" was always going to be the cry from the remain camp. "bleah" is the cry from the apathy camp. "this is great for sales" is the cry from the media no matter what. The none voters have no say at all. I cast my vote when asked to. Which way i voted is of no consequence. The votes were tallied and the result was announced.I will abide by that result whether i agree that it is right or wrong. The practicalities of what sort of deal we make with the EU is very complex. Ministers have the ultimate responsibility for it but it is the civil servants who do all the "leg" work and "advise " the ministers. (civil servants that at lower levels do not change with the elected government, mainly because they are the only ones who know where the coffee machine refills are and such). If i feel sorry for anything it will be those out of work mep's. Ministers may resign their position but they still have a job in the gov, us plebs would have to sign on and start looking for new employment elsewhere.
  25. P J

    Peoples vote ?

    Offenderati? That’s this forums regularti surely? Offended by everything, I think it’s an age thing. The entire Brexit argument is unraveling with even the forums most rabid supporter accepting that “hardship” is on it’s way. Britain has been mugged off
  26. Confused52

    Peoples vote ?

    It is quite common for Management to report on work matters of which they have no understanding, indeed it is common every month! What he was told to do was get ready for a no deal. The fact that there are so many different views amongst MPs is the reason that it is no difficult to get agreement not the problem of the agreement. Have you read the documents or are you just repeating the opinions of the offenderati?
  27. P J

    Peoples vote ?

    Tosh, it’s an unmitigated failure that has a snowflakes chance in hell of passing parliament. So we have successive Brexit secretaries, each of whom have resigned and you claim they had nothing to do with the negotiations? Hilarious. So every time Raab came on the tv to tell us how negotiations were going he was just making it up? You really do miss the obvious a lot of the time. If he is as the affecting the negotiations what the hell was he being paid for?
  1. Load more activity
×