British foreign secretary quits in protest over May's Brexit plan

[jayboy]

[BobBKK]

Boris was always a clown anyway I was amazed he was made FS but then he had to be 'bought off' after his strong showing in the leadership battle. Seems like politics, everywhere, is having a rum time.

[RuamRudy]

11 hours ago, vogie said:

Jacob Rees Mogg doing what he does best, talking sense.

 

 

I think that the skills he demonstrates when it comes to helping himself and his rich friends avoid paying the taxes that the rest of the UK has to endure exceed even his impressive verbosity.

[Laughing Gravy]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

I think that the skills he demonstrates when it comes to helping himself and his rich friends avoid paying the taxes that the rest of the UK has to endure exceed even his impressive verbosity.

RR you may have a point but doesn't every Prime minister do the same and if true, he would seem an ideal candidate. I like his politics personally but not he religious beliefs. As it comes to ethics, it would be great to see all Politicians take a psychometric test on this very issue.

 

I wonder how many would actually pass?

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

RR you may have a point but doesn't every Prime minister do the same and if true, he would seem an ideal candidate. I like his politics personally but not he religious beliefs. As it comes to ethics, it would be great to see all Politicians take a psychometric test on this very issue.

 

I wonder how many would actually pass?

Sadly, I fear that you are right, but the fact that he is only one more parasite in a long line of parasitic government leaders doesn't make it stick in the craw any less.

 

We are told to look forward for a new era in British prosperity, but the reality is that, no matter how Brexit turns out, we are handing over control of everything to the same self serving, morally bankrupt parasites who have been fleecing us blind for decades.

 

I have said this before but I shall repeat it. Rees Mogg is not your friend. He does not want what is best for you, your children or your grandchildren. He wants to put the country in a position where he and his chums can bleed us all dry without the fear of EU interference.

[jayboy]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

I think that the skills he demonstrates when it comes to helping himself and his rich friends avoid paying the taxes that the rest of the UK has to endure exceed even his impressive verbosity.

I see what you mean - at least up to a point.But like him or not (I don't much in the sense of not agreeing his Brexit stance)) I think its self deceiving to believe that JRM is primarily or even mainly motivated by self interest.Certainly he has made money in the City but most of his kind (hedge fund managers and the like) are passionate Remainers.Whether you like it or not there is principle here at work.

 

Nor do I think he is afflicted by verbosity (do you understand what the word means?).Part of his appeal is that he speaks very clearly and in a straight forward way.

 

I think JRM is profoundly wrong but also recognise that he is a powerful and attractive political force.Hence his wide appeal, while noting he doesn't have much support in the House Of Commons.To argue that he acts through self interest is not only misleading but misses the point.

 

But for some Brits of whatever political complexion and almost all journalists (notwithstanding their own often privileged background) there is no greater sin than being a toff. ( Tony Benn excepted of course)

 

 

[jayboy]

8 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 He wants to put the country in a position where he and his chums can bleed us all dry without the fear of EU interference.

To continue from my last post, your comment is no more than pub talk.It's just the kind of cartoonish nonsense that can be acceptable as political invective but not as serious argument.

 

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, jayboy said:

To continue from my last post, your comment is no more than pub talk.It's just the kind of cartoonish nonsense that can be acceptable as political invective but not as serious argument.

 

Not as serious as this, for example?

 

1 hour ago, jayboy said:

 

[jayboy]

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Not as serious as this, for example?

 

 

A cartoon is clearly a cartoon - intended to make an amusing point albeit with an underlying serious message.Your post was mostly cartoonish and if you wish it to be considered in that light - that's fine.If you wished it to be taken seriously (and that seemed to be the case) it's just ill considered and silly pub talk.I don't have any problem with over the top political invective but it needs to be rooted in reality.Your post wasn't.

[dragonballz]

14 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Quite.  The people saying let's spend the 350 million on the NHS had no right to say that at all.  It was all spin and the great unwashed sucked it up and voted to leave!

quite,but the question is , who said we will spend all the 350 million pounds on the nhs ?At the time this shit hit the fan and the media was accusing people of lying i have yet to see a person  be accused of saying it and after searching and studying interviews have never found anyone who said it . Perhaps you can enlighten me ?

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, jayboy said:

A cartoon is clearly a cartoon - intended to make an amusing point albeit with an underlying serious message.Your post was mostly cartoonish and if you wish it to be considered in that light - that's fine.If you wished it to be taken seriously (and that seemed to be the case) it's just ill considered and silly pub talk.I don't have any problem with over the top political invective but it needs to be rooted in reality.Your post wasn't.

Rather than a treatise on the seemingly unassailable class system that dominates the political structures of our country, I wrote about 6 sentences lamenting the fact that, while we are transitioning from a position of having, apparently, unrepresentive and self serving politicians ruling over us, what we are looking forward to is a home-grown equivalent. If you consider it hyperbolic, that is your right, but to say that it is not rooted in reality suggest that it is you who has missed the point.

[citybiker]

I think that the skills he demonstrates when it comes to helping himself and his rich friends avoid paying the taxes that the rest of the UK has to endure exceed even his impressive verbosity.

It's called smart intelligent business model incorporating decent clever accountants.

CI, cayman islands, Bermuda & Guernsey are just three at the top of my head, and I know plenty of Scots who also use these over seas locations, it's not illegal.

This industry will continue to flourish, my ex is a former accountant now fund manager as most of the best talent goes to accountancy, legal or banking.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

[RuamRudy]

8 minutes ago, citybiker said:

It's called smart intelligent business model incorporating decent clever accountants.

CI, cayman islands, Bermuda & Guernsey are just three at the top of my head, and I know plenty of Scots who also use these over seas locations, it's not illegal.

This industry will continue to flourish, my ex is a former accountant now fund manager as most of the best talent goes to accountancy, legal or banking.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk
 

I am not suggesting that anything he does in this respect is illegal. Whether it is moral for politicians to benefit is another question, especially given the ability of the government to influence the policy and legislation that makes it legal. But ultimately it comes down to ideology and where you think is a fair balance for the burden of taxation on the population.

 

I must admit, however, that my knowledge of how these schemes work is limited, never having been in a position to take advantage of them. But it makes me wonder why some seem to escape scrutiny while others fall foul of the law -  the outcry over Jimmy Carr's tax saving efforts, for example. Did he simply choose the wrong tax avoidance vehicle? Anyway - off topic.

[baansgr]

On 7/10/2018 at 5:53 AM, simple1 said:

Is it legally possible for HMG to exit from BREXIT? If so...

 

What is currently the level of voter support for BREXIT now reality of the lies by Leavers have been exposed? Doubt Corbyn can achieve power, so why not announce intention to exit from Brexit and a General Election for voter buy-in or not. 

The level of support for brexit has actually increased now the lies from the remainers hve been exposed. Even carnage carney has admitted they were all wrong.

[citybiker]

I am not suggesting that anything he does in this respect is illegal. Whether it is moral for politicians to benefit is another question, especially given the ability of the government to influence the policy and legislation that makes it legal. But ultimately it comes down to ideology and where you think is a fair balance for the burden of taxation on the population.
 
I must admit, however, that my knowledge of how these schemes work is limited, never having been in a position to take advantage of them. But it makes me wonder why some seem to escape scrutiny while others fall foul of the law -  the outcry over Jimmy Carr's tax saving efforts, for example. Did he simply choose the wrong tax avoidance vehicle? Anyway - off topic.

In simple terms, choose your tax advisor/IFA carefully and wisely.

The UK, especially London has been known and highlighted for years for its business & corporate capabilities, other areas are questionable agreed.

The EU is desperate for CoL access as nothing within Europe comes close to being a rival....Brussels need less focus on autocratic policies and more on internal self reform, they ignored the UK pleas & Brexit is partially a result factor.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, dragonballz said:

quite,but the question is , who said we will spend all the 350 million pounds on the nhs ?At the time this shit hit the fan and the media was accusing people of lying i have yet to see a person  be accused of saying it and after searching and studying interviews have never found anyone who said it . Perhaps you can enlighten me ?

You must have looked really, really strenuously. I found it in under 1 minute. Are you using the Telegraph's search engine?

Although to be fair the claim was revised by this person. He subsequently claimed it was an underestimate.:

I look forward to see your debunking of this.

Boris Johnson says his £350 million a week Brexit claim was an 'underestimate'

Boris Johnson has defended the Leave campaign's claim that Brexit will give Britain an extra £350 million a week to spend on the NHS by arguing the campaign could have used a larger figure.

The foreign secretary has told The Guardian that the figure splashed across the side of the Leave campaign's battle bus in the run-up to the 2016 Brexit referendum should have been bigger than £350 million.

Johnson was pictured standing in front of the bus which had the slogan "we send the EU £350 million a week, let's fund our NHS instead" emblazoned on the side.

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-says-his-350-million-a-week-brexit-claim-was-an-underestimate-2018-1

[jayboy]

Rather than a treatise on the seemingly unassailable class system that dominates the political structures of our country, I wrote about 6 sentences lamenting the fact that, while we are transitioning from a position of having, apparently, unrepresentive and self serving politicians ruling over us, what we are looking forward to is a home-grown equivalent. If you consider it hyperbolic, that is your right, but to say that it is not rooted in reality suggest that it is you who has missed the point.

Now that is verbosity!

You were suggesting that JRM’s advocacy for Brexit was based on personal benefit for himself and his chums.Don’t make me embarrass you by quoting your actual words.

It’s nonsense and frankly a bit simple minded to suggest this.I suspect you on reflection now understand it’s a bit more complex.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Chomper Higgot]

44 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

Now that is verbosity!

You were suggesting that JRM’s advocacy for Brexit was based on personal benefit for himself and his chums.Don’t make me embarrass you by quoting your actual words.

It’s nonsense and frankly a bit simple minded to suggest this.I suspect you on reflection now understand it’s a bit more complex.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Your defense of Rees-Mogg on this is founded in naivety, either your own our the naivety you assume in others.

 

It’s clearly of concern when a politician is running a hedge fund while making decisions and/or pushing policy that, regardless of it actually benefits his hedge fund, may be perceived to benefit him and his investors.

 

https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/rees-mogg-take-note-politics-and-investment-dont-mix-20180614

 

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, baansgr said:

The level of support for brexit has actually increased now the lies from the remainers have been exposed. Even carnage carney has admitted they were all wrong.

Did a bit of research which doesn't match your comments...

 

The overall picture is a negative one. Slightly more of the British public think that voting to leave the EU was wrong for Britain than think it was the right decision, and on most measures more people expect it will have a negative than a positive impact.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/06/23/eu-referendum-two-years/

 

Are not Carney's current opinions associated with a Soft Brexit as opposed to Hard Brexit?

[jayboy]

Your defense of Rees-Mogg on this is founded in naivety, either your own our the naivety you assume in others.
 
It’s clearly of concern when a politician is running a hedge fund while making decisions and/or pushing policy that, regardless of it actually benefits his hedge fund, may be perceived to benefit him and his investors.
 
https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/rees-mogg-take-note-politics-and-investment-dont-mix-20180614
 
 

You are missing the point.I wouldn’t argue that it’s not a concern.I would argue that it’s not the prime or even the main motivator.

In any event the City establishment including those involved in precisely JRM’s line of business are fervent Remainers.

Perhaps you need to do a little more research - or perhaps you are just another person repelled by JRM’s schtick - not a unreasonable position.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[jayboy]

Ironic that on the day the morally ambiguous Foreign Secretary resigned one of his predecessors, Lord Carington M.C, the sixth baron, passed away at the great age of 99.He is probably best remembered for taking responsibility and resigning in 1982 when the Argentinians invaded the Falkland Islands - though the fault was not his own.He was one of those Tories whose political beliefs were suffused with compassion for all his fellow countrymen.Like Harold Macmillan this humanity arose from horrific war experience when young public school educated officers were dramatically made aware that squaddies under their command were no different from themselves.

 

Throughout his life Carington was kind and courteous to everyone he came across.He admired Thatcher but could not share her rigid economics at the expense of social coherence.He made mistakes, notably too self indulgent at the Paras' excesses on Bloody Sunday.

 

He won the M.C for outstanding bravery at Arnhem as a young tank commander.When asked many years later what for he replied, "Oh it was just pot luck".In his memoirs he did not even mention his heroic war service.

 

We have no time for his patrician type today in our politics and some would argue our current politicians are much better at reflecting the egalitarian and multicultural society we live in.They are probably right.

 

But when I think of Peter Carington I rather wonder if we have lost something as well.

[dragonballz]

On 7/11/2018 at 12:40 PM, bristolboy said:

You must have looked really, really strenuously. I found it in under 1 minute. Are you using the Telegraph's search engine?

Although to be fair the claim was revised by this person. He subsequently claimed it was an underestimate.:

I look forward to see your debunking of this.

Boris Johnson says his £350 million a week Brexit claim was an 'underestimate'

Boris Johnson has defended the Leave campaign's claim that Brexit will give Britain an extra £350 million a week to spend on the NHS by arguing the campaign could have used a larger figure.

The foreign secretary has told The Guardian that the figure splashed across the side of the Leave campaign's battle bus in the run-up to the 2016 Brexit referendum should have been bigger than £350 million.

Johnson was pictured standing in front of the bus which had the slogan "we send the EU £350 million a week, let's fund our NHS instead" emblazoned on the side.

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-says-his-350-million-a-week-brexit-claim-was-an-underestimate-2018-1

He claimed that the UK's gross weekly contribution to the EU will rise to £438 million by the end of the proposed two-year transition period in 2021.

The government will be able to "take back control" of this money and spend it on the NHS, he added.

"As and when the cash becomes available – and it won’t until we leave – the NHS should be at the very top of the list."

From the link you sent TOP OF THE LIST  for money not for all of it as everybody knows 
 Secondly this is after brexit not before which is what the discussion was about so this is more spin 
Thirdly i do not use telegraph search engine or business insider search engine  (an american elitist company ceo henry blodget banned for life from wall street )as they only report what they want . I  do not search for other peoples answers i look at videos of the people involved and have not found one person so far saying that they would give 350 million to the nhs . Perhaps you should stop using third parties to argue your point and use your brain instaead