10 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

 

Is it Groundhog Day or something?

We discussed this yesterday where it came down to your claims being backed up by nothing more than ‘a feeling’. If you have come up with something more substantial that gets round the treaty obligations and opt outs that are the legal basis for us not requiring to adopt the euro then please tell us about them rather than perpetuating this lie that you seem to be clinging to.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

I think CG has already made a case. It's not about legality and opt outs its about the overall ambitions of the EU......a currency for all. If that's what the project wants/needs that's what Brussels will get in due course. As far as the EU is concerned the Projects needs are greater than ours. 

I've already explained how they could get around the treaty obligations.  Read my comment again.

Must have missed that bit. Was it where they could change the rules to disadvantage those that didn’t adopt the euro forcing us to join it - have you forgotten about Art 50 which always gives us the option to walk away?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

22 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

The wrong question was asked, the margin is far too small for it to be a successful vote, what's inconsistent about that simple observation!

The vote was exactly that, a vote, which had no legislative power. 

How would you define the UK parliamentary democracy where a prime minister can try to exclude parliament from the democratic process.

Even when involved, parliament has little say, the UK is controlled by a handful of unelected ministers. I seem to have heard that somewhere before.

I think CG has already made a case. It's not about legality and opt outs its about the overall ambitions of the EU......a currency for all. If that's what the project wants/needs that's what Brussels will get in due course. As far as the EU is concerned the Projects needs are greater than ours. 

So - when they do that we have the option of leaving and would almost certainly have the support of several other EU countries at that point.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

2 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

 

So - when they do that we have the option of leaving and would almost certainly have the support of several other EU countries at that point.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

I have already made the point, the reasons for leaving the EU are not single issue aka, the Euro.. 

11 minutes ago, sandyf said:

The vote was exactly that, a vote, which had no legislative power. 

How would you define the UK parliamentary democracy where a prime minister can try to exclude parliament from the democratic process.

Even when involved, parliament has little say, the UK is controlled by a handful of unelected ministers. I seem to have heard that somewhere before.

The vote was given legislative power when the lower house voted overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50.

The Parliament of the UK legislates for the whole of the UK.

I have already made the point, the reasons for leaving the EU are not single issue aka, the Euro.. 

You were talking specifically about the Euro in the post I responded to.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

2 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

You were talking specifically about the Euro in the post I responded to.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

My broader point was made in post 3990. 

20 hours ago, nauseus said:

It was reported, how private is that? 

Feel free to define private any way you want.

You are obviously irritated that what Mark Carney said in private ended up in the public domain. Not surprising, I doubt if any brexiteer wants to be told that brexit has cost the country £200 million a week already.

But but but, when we leave we won't have to pay 200 mill a week to the EU so it will cancel out, won't it, it will, won't it!

 

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

 I doubt if any brexiteer wants to be told that brexit has cost the country £200 million a week already.

I don't mind when I consider the cost to benefit ratio. 

30 minutes ago, aright said:

The vote was given legislative power when the lower house voted overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50.

The Parliament of the UK legislates for the whole of the UK.

Verbal diarrhea. The parliament vote to trigger Art 50 did not bestow any powers on the referendum result whatsoever.

The current major party in the UK parliament has bribed a number of MP's in an attempt to ensure that parliament will legislate in whatever way the unelected ministers decide. Its a numbers game and if it wasn't for rebels the unelected bureaucrats would always win.

2 minutes ago, aright said:

 

I don't mind when I consider the cost to benefit ratio. 

Excuse me, the cost to benefit ratio, what exactly is that ratio likely to be?

Just now, simoh1490 said:

Excuse me, the cost to benefit ratio, what exactly is that ratio likely to be?

If expressed as cost/benefit very low, if expressed as benefit/cost very high. 

6 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Verbal diarrhea. The parliament vote to trigger Art 50 did not bestow any powers on the referendum result whatsoever.

The current major party in the UK parliament has bribed a number of MP's in an attempt to ensure that parliament will legislate in whatever way the unelected ministers decide. Its a numbers game and if it wasn't for rebels the unelected bureaucrats would always win.

What rubbish. The conservatives were bribing the Labour Party were they or do you see it the other way round. References? I didn't see anything about it in the [papers.

Just now, aright said:

If expressed as cost/benefit very low, if expressed as benefit/cost very high. 

Hmmm I see, interesting, you don't know, again, in fact you don't have a clue, again!

 

So cost to benefit ratio is very low you claim, you're already up to 200 mill a week, then there's the leaving bill on top, you seem to think we're going to do a stonking amount of business once we leave, more than we've ever done before in the history of time...how does that work then our could your math be, ahem, flawed?

1 minute ago, simoh1490 said:

Hmmm I see, interesting, you don't know, again, in fact you don't have a clue, again!

 

So cost to benefit ratio is very low you claim, you're already up to 200 mill a week, then there's the leaving bill on top, you seem to think we're going to do a stonking amount of business once we leave, more than we've ever done before in the history of time...how does that work then our could your math be, ahem, flawed?

Lets face it .....you don't really know what cost to benefit means do you. I will wait while you look it up.

5 minutes ago, aright said:

Lets face it .....you don't really know what cost to benefit means do you. I will wait while you look it up.

Times up! I will move on!

6 minutes ago, aright said:

Lets face it .....you don't really know what cost to benefit means do you. I will wait while you look it up.

 

Do Emeritus Research Professors at the LSE not get taught math., is that not on the curriculum, it seems odd. Anyway, you made a claim that the cost to benefit ratio is very low, and as such, spending 200 mill. per week on Brexit is OK as a result. We want the details, it might help us change our minds and become raving loonies Brexiteers also..

24 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Feel free to define private any way you want.

You are obviously irritated that what Mark Carney said in private ended up in the public domain. Not surprising, I doubt if any brexiteer wants to be told that brexit has cost the country £200 million a week already.

Can you show me the calculation for this £200m a week that Brexit has supposedly cost? I suspect he let that number 'slip out' just to put the frighteners on. He went to the same school of kidology as George Osborne.

 

It seems he managed to fool at least one person

 

43 minutes ago, aright said:

 

I don't mind when I consider the cost to benefit ratio. 

A small price to pay to go to my deathbed knowing there will forever be an England.

Small price for me, anyway, not sure how the kids feel about it, but if they were that bothered, they'd have made sure they were old enough to vote.

44 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Verbal diarrhea. The parliament vote to trigger Art 50 did not bestow any powers on the referendum result whatsoever.

The current major party in the UK parliament has bribed a number of MP's in an attempt to ensure that parliament will legislate in whatever way the unelected ministers decide. Its a numbers game and if it wasn't for rebels the unelected bureaucrats would always win.

I thought ministers were selected from the governing party's available MPs.

 

I hadn't realised that they could choose unelected ministers.  Which of the current crop are not elected?

 

The bureaucrats, on the other hand, are full-time career professionals, whose job it is to implement the decisions of the elected part-timers and amateurs as efficiently and effectively as possible. We are lucky, in the UK, that our civil service is stable and professional.

 

SC

50 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

But but but, when we leave we won't have to pay 200 mill a week to the EU so it will cancel out, won't it, it will, won't it!

Oh yes, we will...

 

So it won't

6 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

A small price to pay to go to my deathbed knowing there will forever be an England.

Small price for me, anyway, not sure how the kids feel about it, but if they were that bothered, they'd have made sure they were old enough to vote.

Silly Billy, you've gone all nostalgic, give your self a slap and you'll feel better.

Just now, tebee said:

Oh yes, we will...

 

So it won't

I feel a pantomime coming on. 

9 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

A small price to pay to go to my deathbed knowing there will forever be an England.

.....

 

But there may not be a United Kingdom anymore...

20 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

 

Do Emeritus Research Professors at the LSE not get taught math., is that not on the curriculum, it seems odd. Anyway, you made a claim that the cost to benefit ratio is very low, and as such, spending 200 mill. per week on Brexit is OK as a result. We want the details, it might help us change our minds and become raving loonies Brexiteers also..

"Excuse me, the cost to benefit ratio, what exactly is that ratio likely to be? "

When someone says that I know they don't understand what a cost to benefit probability analysis is. Its value is a single number derived from a ratio. I believe the financial benefits of leaving the EU will be substantially greater than the cost of leaving the EU  therefore is a positive benefit. The extent of positivity depends on outcomes and we wont know either until we leave.  If you feel differently great but my hunch is as good as yours. Go back to talking to yourself you are more interesting that way. 

Just now, aright said:

"Excuse me, the cost to benefit ratio, what exactly is that ratio likely to be? "

When someone says that I know they don't understand what a cost to benefit probability analysis is. Its value is a single number derived from a ratio. I believe the financial benefits of leaving the EU will be substantially greater than the cost of leaving the EU  therefore is a positive benefit. The extent of positivity depends on outcomes and we wont know either until we leave.  If you feel differently great but my hunch is as good as yours. Go back to talking to yourself you are more interesting that way. 

Then why didn't you just say that at the outset, all you had to do was say you don't know and we would all understand, it's OK, rather than wasting time like this, silly boy.

1 minute ago, simoh1490 said:

Then why didn't you just say that at the outset, all you had to do was say you don't know and we would all understand, it's OK, rather than wasting time like this, silly boy.

Its a bit rich accusing me of not knowing  but its all part of the deflection isn't it.

1 minute ago, aright said:

Its a bit rich accusing me of not knowing  but its all part of the deflection isn't it.