The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Mapletree  Croydon 28 Aug 19 10.43pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I've written in it, which is more than your sorry arse has done. Once again, I've answered this.....larger companies will adjust to whatever the new dynamics are. This country will continue to do well economically after an adjustment period....regardless of the EU position. If we have 'no deal'.....which I doubt....it will ultimately be a more competitive trading environment for them. That partly explains your hatred for the US on these boards because you hate it that the UK will continue to be a coveted market regardless of the spectre of the EU. Ah, larger companies will adjust, yes they will. When I was in the City last year I watched that 'adjustment' starting in real time. The Banks were moving people to other cities. International businesses don't have to keep all their activities here and will vote with their feet if their trading relationships are made tougher and more expensive. I don't hate the US but I am deeply aware that it is a ruthless power bloc and will always seek greater monopolistic strength.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Stirlingsays 29 Aug 19 1.36am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Ah, larger companies will adjust, yes they will. When I was in the City last year I watched that 'adjustment' starting in real time. The Banks were moving people to other cities. International businesses don't have to keep all their activities here and will vote with their feet if their trading relationships are made tougher and more expensive. I don't hate the US but I am deeply aware that it is a ruthless power bloc and will always seek greater monopolistic strength.
Oh the irony. I notice you fail to make any actual predictions. I repeat, the UK is a coveted investment country and will continue to be so.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 29 Aug 19 6.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
LOL. For me, the key to how today pans out is how many times the option of a vote of No Confidence is mentioned. It was telling that almost all of the loudest voices from yesterday expressing outrage all failed to mention it. Perhaps they forget? Clearly many were tired and emotional (Paul Mason is my new favourite remainer).
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 29 Aug 19 6.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
LOL. For me, the key to how today pans out is how many times the option of a vote of No Confidence is mentioned. It was telling that almost all of the loudest voices from yesterday expressing outrage all failed to mention it. Perhaps they forget? Clearly many were tired and emotional (Paul Mason is my new favourite remainer). The opposition now have their chance as soon as parliament returns next week I expect they should table a vote of no confidence in the government, if not why not.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyboy1978 29 Aug 19 7.10am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
The opposition now have their chance as soon as parliament returns next week I expect they should table a vote of no confidence in the government, if not why not. No confidence in what though!!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 29 Aug 19 7.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
The opposition now have their chance as soon as parliament returns next week I expect they should table a vote of no confidence in the government, if not why not.
If Corbyn does not like it, he has an option to oppose it and over turn it all. Surely a no brainier?
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| DANGERCLOSE london 29 Aug 19 9.41am |
|
|---|---|
[Tweet Link]
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 29 Aug 19 10.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
LOL. For me, the key to how today pans out is how many times the option of a vote of No Confidence is mentioned. It was telling that almost all of the loudest voices from yesterday expressing outrage all failed to mention it. Perhaps they forget? Clearly many were tired and emotional (Paul Mason is my new favourite remainer). What’s Paul Mason up to then? He was originally a leaver, just not under the tories. I’ve seen Paul Mason on a joe,co.U.K video sat on a protest. It’s all to do with ‘Boris undermining democracy and being elected under a coup of 150,000 old white racists voting him in.’ (Willo lol) Nothing about parliament undermining democracy meaning Boris has to do this. Paul Mason was all for Brexit. I lost track of it all through the months and quartets of objections. Why not now? Too Tory a Brexit? Not to no deal? What exactly? Edited by Rudi Hedman (29 Aug 2019 11.51am)
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| davidpercival Croydon 29 Aug 19 10.43am |
|
|---|---|
|
I think you are referring to the triggering of Article 50 to withdraw. The point was that this was done on the assumption that there would be an agreement about leaving. Mrs May ballsed up the whole thing by creating red lines about what could be in the negotiations about leaving. If she had taken the majority view in parliament she would have taken us out of the EU on the basis some sort of customs union arrangement. That would have been supported by Labour because that is what they said in the 2017 General Election. What we have now is Johnson taking us out without an agreement and blocking out any other option by closing down Parliament at the crucial time. Even if you are a thick, racist Brexiteer, as you describe yourself, I would hope you can see it is no way to behave in a parliamentary democracy. Originally posted by davenotamonkey
Let's see shall we. Under your hypothetical "question", you are missing the small nugget that Corbyn would already have an ACT OF PARLIAMENT that encodes this very policy, in law, in black and white, with Royal Assent granted. Corbyn would have in fact won the vote 494-122 to put this on the statute books. Now, to come back to your question. If the MPs felt so strongly about this "controversial policy", perhaps they shouldn't have voted in full knowledge that this is a permitted, viable and legal outcome of that act. It would sound to me then, that MPs "didn't know what they were voting for" (oh, the irony) when the bill was presented for: - a first reading If that were the case, in your hypothetical question, then I would have little sympathy with myself, or those MPs moaning that it is "THE END OF DEMOCRASSY!!z! ZOMG!!" when the HOC overwhelmingly voted for the bill to become law. But then, I imagine I have a somewhat skewed take on the whole democracy thing, being a thick, racist "Brexs***ter".
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 29 Aug 19 11.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by davidpercival
I think you are referring to the triggering of Article 50 to withdraw. The point was that this was done on the assumption that there would be an agreement about leaving. Mrs May ballsed up the whole thing by creating red lines about what could be in the negotiations about leaving. If she had taken the majority view in parliament she would have taken us out of the EU on the basis some sort of customs union arrangement. That would have been supported by Labour because that is what they said in the 2017 General Election. What we have now is Johnson taking us out without an agreement and blocking out any other option by closing down Parliament at the crucial time. Even if you are a thick, racist Brexiteer, as you describe yourself, I would hope you can see it is no way to behave in a parliamentary democracy. You are joking right? The Remainers in Parliament have been trying to subvert a democratic vote for months. This measure is attempting to ensure that we can leave no matter what and stop self serving MPs and die hard Europhiles trying to remove our best bargaining tool. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (29 Aug 2019 11.21am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 29 Aug 19 11.29am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
You are joking right? The Remainers in Parliament have been trying to subvert a democratic vote for months. This measure is attempting to ensure that we can leave no matter what and stop self serving MPs and die hard Europhiles trying to remove our best bargaining tool. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (29 Aug 2019 11.21am) Cue the vote was advisory (yawn).
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| davenotamonkey 29 Aug 19 11.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by davidpercival
I think you are referring to the triggering of Article 50 to withdraw. The point was that this was done on the assumption that there would be an agreement about leaving. Mrs May ballsed up the whole thing by creating red lines about what could be in the negotiations about leaving. If she had taken the majority view in parliament she would have taken us out of the EU on the basis some sort of customs union arrangement. That would have been supported by Labour because that is what they said in the 2017 General Election. What we have now is Johnson taking us out without an agreement and blocking out any other option by closing down Parliament at the crucial time. Even if you are a thick, racist Brexiteer, as you describe yourself, I would hope you can see it is no way to behave in a parliamentary democracy. I stopped reading past these sentences. You've just proved my point. Intentions and best endeavors mean sweet FA when it comes down to Acts of Parliament. The Act was passed, overwhelmingly so, with no amendments added. Your argument of "What May said, what Farage promised, what Tusk offered" MEAN NOTHING. The Commons knew full well that one of the end-states of this Act would be to leave without an Agreement. After all, they all read Article 50(3), didn't they? They knew that this act gave direct effect to all the clauses in Article 50, didn't they? What would have been the alternative to activating the Article 50 notification that was compatible with the electorate's decision to leave the EU? I'm all ears.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.