rockingrobin

5 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

If you don't pay attention then you can't claim later on that you were not informed or told. He actually said it numerous times in interviews and made it part of his speech for remaining.

 

Not paying attention is not an excuse for being obtuse. Both sides may have said things that were misleading, sadly that's politics.. But this was the PM who consistently told the public what would happen if they voted to leave. I really wish people would admit it and respect democracy.

It is irrelevant what D.Cameron said , because he lost. People voted for what  leave said.

A winning campaign doesnt carry out the wishes of their opponents who they have defeated , but are committed to their own promises.

4 hours ago, AlexRich said:

 

It looks like the tragic event in London is being hijacked by a rent-a-mob who are politically motivated. This type of tragedy could have occurred under any council in the UK. I'm no fan of May or her approach to Brexit but I certainly don't blame her for what happened in London. 

The Conservative government was the first to commit on  reducing regulation,  adopting the 'one in two out approach'

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140206/halltext/140206h0002.htm

I hear that the UK has agreed to the EU sequencing in the forthcoming negotations

6 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

I didn't ask you that. I agree that there will be squabbles. I asked you if you believe that the UK will be embargoed.

The issue is not about tariffs, but the non tarriff bariers , such as conformity testing

1 minute ago, owl sees all said:

I can remember the PM of a Caribbean country coming to the UK and going away empty handed on deals for fruit, especially bananas. They were too small, too yellow, too sweet and not straight enough. Made big news in the UK. I was living in Kingston (JA) at that time and I can recall the dismay. 

Maybe you could place a date on this, the EU-US Banana war took 20years to resolve, and gives a good demonstration that whatever the status there are rules and regulations out of your control

 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/world/20110121STO12285/ending-the-banana-wars-who-wins-and-who-loses

4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Do you honestly, seriously believe that the UK will be embargoed by the rest of the world Robin?

On brexit we will have our own WTO scheduelles that will have to be accepted by all members , no doubt there will be some who will feel that they are at a disadvantage and will seek compromise.

9 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

There is simply too much of this trade protectionism going on worldwide. Protectionism leads to cartelism and big business running it all.

 

The UK has taken the bold step of leaving the sinking ship and now it is time to start opening our minds to world trade. Let's start with deals for those delicious bananas from the Caribbean that we couldn't get because of the EUs restrictive policies.

You will find the restrictions on Bananas from the former colonies is due to the US succesfully complaining to the WTO , see the "bananas wars"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/mar/05/eu.wto3

27 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

George Galloway and Nigel Farage reckon just get out! No more payments to Europe. First thing to do is reclaim our fishing waters. Negotiate as we go. Start trading with the rest of the world as of now. 

 

That's a stance I can accept as well.

But it is unrealistic, on which terms is the UK going to trade , WTO ?, and what do you propose to do when a member of the WTO object to our scheduales.

14 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

I would be quite happy for us to do so, and so was the government up until recently. We're complaining about the fact that the attempt to just walk away is being sabotaged at every turn by certain interests, as shown in the recent link provided by Laughing Gravy..

We have just had an election on the basis of strengthening T.May brexit hand. The electorate voted otherwise, and reduced T.May majority, surely a rejection of the walk away argument that the government was promoting before 8th June

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

I wouldn't worry about it too much, bremainers don't believe in them anyway.

Not really concerned about polls, but am looking forwad to the Mansion House speech tonite

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

I said there was an increase, you have decided to add the word 'huge' to help you get your agenda across, why do you feel the need to add and twist my words? Which ever way you look at it, you are wrong and I don't intend to have a bickering match with you.

Latest poll I could find yougov for the times, as reported here

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/world/2017/04/27/yougov-britons-regret-brexit-decision/

57 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Probably more people now support Brexit, as many thought at the time that  the earth would cease to exist upon Brexit, well that's what the Remoaners predicted.

 Instead they can now see the true intentions of our masters in the Brussels Bureacracy.

The only way to know is to ask them

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/06/14/murder-case-evidence-mishandled/

42 minutes ago, superal said:

Spot on about the winning margin statement , in hindsight was this ever discussed ?  For such important matters a convincing margin of votes to change is sometimes invoked .  I bet Cameron had wished he had thought about that .

Going off topic a bit,

The referendum itself was lawful, the result advisory, non binding.

there is some minor commentery on when and how the formal decision to leave was taken, to satisfy Art 50(1).The Act of notification subsequently passed after the court cases could be intepreted as an implicit decision to leave ( Parliaments intention) , but as the so called three knights opinion suggested, parliament when repealing and making law has to be specific, so questioned if the UK could satisfy making the decision before negotations have been completed.

It should be noted Art50(1) is for the domestic courts and not the ECJ , therefore if no challenge to the decision making is brought it becomes a moot point

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

It should have been mandatory/compulsory as should voting in GE's; removing the "what ifs" at a stroke.

If people dont wish to vote , for whatever reason, then is that not their democratic right

2 minutes ago, Naam said:

correct! the ECJ ruling was 2 years and 3 months ago and had as basis "EUR clearing without the UK adopting the common currency". the situation changes completely should Brexit become a reality. any pro UK ruling in this matter is nothing but wishful thinking.

If T.May is correct and is going to end the ECJ juristiction in the Uk , then I cannot see how the ECJ could make any ruling as it simply would not have juristiction in the UK , the aggrieved party

13 minutes ago, superal said:

Spot on about the winning margin statement , in hindsight was this ever discussed ?  For such important matters a convincing margin of votes to change is sometimes invoked .  I bet Cameron had wished he had thought about that .

The winning margin was debated  as an amendment , as the act was going through parliament ,but refused by the minister for Europe at the time (D.Liddington), becuase the referendum was advisory

7 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

More threats from the EU.

Even the ECB don't think trying to move it after the UK leaves to EU is a good idea, and it can be challenged legally if they try to force it. There are in fact several overseas (outside the EU) Euro clearing houses including New York.

 There was a good article in the FT this week about this, and apparently the ECJ have already turned down an application by the EU saying  it isn't enforceable, given the other clearing houses elsewhere.

The ECJ did previously rule in London's favour, however there is nothing stopping the EU in future altering the conditions, such as only providing leverage support to the Eurozone , and with th UK refusing to accept ECJ judgements after Brexit,  how will the UK challenge such a move.

47 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

I think we should be honest here.
Immigration was one of the big issues in the Brexit vote. I reckon one-fith (or more) of all those who voted for Brexit do actually feel "look, I've only got a small problem with them Polish and other East Europeans turning up in Britain, what I don't like is more coloureds turning up in my England, being in the EU means that we've lost control of our borders, the EU is causing more and more coloureds to come into our country, so, we've got to get out of that EU".

But, Britain has already got almost total control over the non-EU migrants coming into Britain, the coloured ones are nearly all non-EU migrants. Britain pulling out of the EU does not mean that Britain will have more power to reduce coloured immigrants entering Britain. Britain already has nearly full power to do this.

I accept that lots of Brexiteers do feel "I don't care if they're from Poland or Africa, I just don't want lots more of them in Britain". But some do feel that it's the coloureds who need to be stopped. Some people noticed them coloureds in Calais, trying to get into England. And them boats carrying black people from North Africa across the Mediterranean Sea. This is what some people didn't like.


Back to Boris. I reckon Boris was never really a full supporter of Brexit. He is a highly ambitious man, wanting to be prime minister.  He reckoned that the referendum was NOT going to bring about Brexit. But he joined in with Brexit, knowing that he was the most high profile supporter of Brexit, and this would give him massive publicity and credit. He was banking on the vote being (just about, marginally) in favour for staying in. And then, Cameron would give him (Boris) a senior position in the cabinet, to silence (or placate) the Brexiteers and to unify the country (unify the Brexiteers and Remainers).

With regards Boris, what as to be considered is D.Cameron's announcement that he would not be standing for a third term.Which inevitably meant that a leadership contest would take place. The referndum opened an opportunity for Boris to pursue is ambitions , and if the result had gone the other way he could have declared that he was the only candidate that could unify the Conservatives factions.

2 hours ago, Orac said:

 

Did she actually mention pulling out of the Single Market in her manifesto. I can't see it anywhere despite it being stated before the election which will mean she has to get it through HoL as well rather that it being nodded though as a manifesto commitment.

 

Taken from Manifesto

' The final agreement will be subject to a vote in both houses of parliament. As we leave the European Union, we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union but we will seek a deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement.'

1 hour ago, Orac said:

 

Did she actually mention pulling out of the Single Market in her manifesto. I can't see it anywhere despite it being stated before the election which will mean she has to get it through HoL as well rather that it being nodded though as a manifesto commitment.

 

Does the Salisbury convention apply when no party gains an overall majority.

11 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Not much of a success for Tories, really, is it?  Arguably worse than losing.

 

Everyone understands the math- well hopefully!

 

The point is a staggering proportion of the electorate voted for an out and out socialist party that appeared dead and buried.

 

It's also in the nature of these things that the pendulum continues to swing, and I don't see anything but gaffe, dreariness, and disaster coming out of the Brexit camp.

More staggering is that they voted for a labour party whos own candidates had little confidence in the leadership

2 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

I doubt Sinn Fein's statsus at Westminser is going to change unless Corbyn invites then in(which wouldn't surprise me. What a total mess: a party that will reluctantly get into bed with a bunch of fruitkakes versus a party (or at least it's leader) which would get into bed with a bunch of fruitkakes at the drop of a hat.

They don't need to be invited in , having won seats in a General Election they have the right to take them seats at Westminster, but choose not to do so. why would this change under Corbyn.

1 minute ago, Khun Han said:

 

Highly disingenuous Robin. A Corbyn government would favour Sinn Fein. You make some great contributions to all sorts of discussions. Why do you demean yourself by getting involved with certain intellectually dishonest factions? You are better than that.

It is factual, I am willing to listen to any thoughts on how SF  could be an advantage to Corbyn, considering they dont take their seats at Westminster

6 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

PMSL. "Lets not get into Irish politics" and then proceed to do so by bigging up Sinn Fein.

SF have not entered into any coalition , even in the irish republic, so I fail to see why that would change , considering that they dont take their seats at Westminster.