Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 1991 of 2586 < 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 >

Topic Locked

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

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

Stirlingsays

29 Aug 19 1.36am

Originally posted by Mapletree

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
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Oh the irony. 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

Matov

29 Aug 19 6.37am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Oh the irony.

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

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!! They look twice as competent than the last lot!
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!!
They look twice as competent than the last lot!

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. Well quite. That is what makes all this BS about a coup so ludicrous. Everything Johnson has done is in line with Parliamentary procedure. And Labour have been requesting a Queens speech for ages. 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

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.

Well quite. That is what makes all this BS about a coup so ludicrous. Everything Johnson has done is in line with Parliamentary procedure. And Labour have been requesting a Queens speech for ages.

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

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

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 29 Aug 19 10.04am

Originally posted by Matov

LOL.

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 - the second reading (and all debates therein) - committee stage (and all amendment debates therein) - report stage - and third reading (again, with all the extensive debates) (in addition to any ping-pong to the upper house). 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". Here: [Link]
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
- the second reading (and all debates therein)
- committee stage (and all amendment debates therein)
- report stage
- and third reading (again, with all the extensive debates)
(in addition to any ping-pong to the upper house).

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".

Here:

[Link]

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

Hrolf The Ganger

29 Aug 19 11.20am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by davidpercival

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

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 29 Aug 19 11.29am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

You are joking right?

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

davenotamonkey

29 Aug 19 11.34am

Send a Private Message to davenotamonkey

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.

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

Topic Locked

Page 1991 of 2586 < 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors