29 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

not sure I am that impressed by this submarine

she screwed up solidly re handling a50 without consulting parliament, wily?

she screwed up solidly re a50 AGAIN, wily?

she screwed up solidly re snappy GE, wily? (didn't even have to, enjoyed majority already)

 

remains to be seen if she can convince angry dup to support the deal in parliament

Oh she makes mistakes enough, and "screws up" as you put it. How much is directly down to her? Well government is supposed to be a team business - "primus inter pares" and all that, and the current Conservative Party is the absolute antithesis of a team, and absolutely incapable of functioning as such. She does seem to have a knack of wriggling out of the "screw ups"

 

The present mess in UK politics, with an equally divided opposition party, which has been rather captured by a faction which is less than representative of it's core electorate, doesn't provide much of a realistic alternative.

 

As an aside, all those Labour MPs who put Corbyn put forward as a candidate for leader, whether in the interests of "fairness", or for "shit and giggles", must regret what they have done...

 

1 hour ago, JAG said:

I believe she was, as Home Secretary, known as "The Submarine". At the first sign of trouble she would go deep and rig for silent running.

She did well to survive that long at the Home Office. If you look at her predecessors' casualty rate! The job entails being the fall guy for just about every domestic UK problem. Whilst lacking somewhat in the charisma stakes (Blair and Cameron had it by the bucketloads and look where it has got us) she is undoubtedly a wily operator.

Not well served by her party though...

But somehow the £1.2billion HMS Astute managed to run aground yesterday.

The Royal Navy super-sub's rudder got stuck in mud and shingle off the Isle of Skye after venturing into the entrance of a shallow bay to take crew aboard.

Stuck high and dry, she languished there under the bemused gaze of locals as red-faced top brass waited anxiously for the tide to rise.

[News report 2010 in a UK fishwrapper].

 

Its happening again..

51 minutes ago, JAG said:

Oh she makes mistakes enough, and "screws up" as you put it. How much is directly down to her? Well government is supposed to be a team business - "primus inter pares" and all that, and the current Conservative Party is the absolute antithesis of a team, and absolutely incapable of functioning as such. She does seem to have a knack of wriggling out of the "screw ups"

 

The present mess in UK politics, with an equally divided opposition party, which has been rather captured by a faction which is less than representative of it's core electorate, doesn't provide much of a realistic alternative.

 

As an aside, all those Labour MPs who put Corbyn put forward as a candidate for leader, whether in the interests of "fairness", or for "shit and giggles", must regret what they have done...

 

re team

 

Yes, I have also noted the team efforts or the absence of such rather.

From my viewpoint, outside of UK, it seems TM is part of the lack of team effort problem.

 

I see two teams

PM and the cabinet, and cabinet/PM with the Tory back-benchers.

 

I might be wrong on this but it looks as she is driving the UK including Brexit has her private show.

Not much policy is developed jointly within the cabinet

or jointly with Tory MPs.

No wonder she experiences problems and knives. 

 

UK is not a 1 woman show, neither is Brexit.

 

She is a bit like the no no no no lady, immune to signals hints and advice.

 

13 hours ago, Patriot1066 said:

... we are in fact controlled by the Germans who we have had to fight in Two world wars! 

Brexit For Dummies Part 2.

11 hours ago, nontabury said:

....However, unfortunately he’s under the illusion that he’s so intellectually supperior to us mere mortals.....

I doubt Grouse does 'supper'.

12 hours ago, Patriot1066 said:

When will Blair actually get arrested for war crimes?

About the same time you make a non-silly contribution.

12 hours ago, JAG said:

What you describe in your post is exactly, to the last detail, what a very significant number of Eastern European drivers did. The taxi (private hire) companies would engage an agency to bring them over - literally by the busload. The same agency would arrange for licences ( a.k.a. badges) from the local authorities - somehow circumventing the various criteria demanded of the local drivers, and the taxi companies would hire them cars - often three drivers sharing a car so it was on the road 24/7, trundling around slavishly following their GPS. In weeks the number of taxis on the road in my city doubled, and incomes halved. There was no discernable benefit to anyone, other than the agents and taxi company proprietors. Certainly no Tax or NI was paid.

Some years ago my vehicle was hit in Meadowhall car park by a foreign driver, He gave his details but it later emerged that it was a false name and address. Turned out it was a shared taxi vehicle used by the whole family who all claimed to have been driving it that afternoon, a family that were long time UK residents. The police just gave up and the insurance company came after me for the £500 excess.

Obviously with the paranoia you only found it necessary to mention migrant drivers.

18 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

I doubt Grouse does 'supper'.

Obsessive supping?

If trading all around the world was so beneficial then many more UK companies would already be involved. The fact is trade barriers such as distance, finance and language are an major impediment to most UK business, and those barriers are not going to go away outside the EU.

It is also blatantly obvious that many companies just cannot compete with a local supplier. Those that have taken the plunge may well sell at breakeven and look to the domestic market to maintain profit levels. As perverse as it sounds exporting can push prices up in the UK.

There is no dispute that trading with other countries outside EU regulation will be of significant benefit to certain sectors but of little benefit to Joe public, of course pigs may take to the air and profits go to the essential services.

Theresa May has often been likened to Margaret Thatcher, remember the son Mark.

 

The Mathew Hedges case should be a warning to some of the dangerous path they want to choose.

2 minutes ago, sandyf said:

If trading all around the world was so beneficial then many more UK companies would already be involved. The fact is trade barriers such as distance, finance and language are an major impediment to most UK business, and those barriers are not going to go away outside the EU.

It is also blatantly obvious that many companies just cannot compete with a local supplier. Those that have taken the plunge may well sell at breakeven and look to the domestic market to maintain profit levels. As perverse as it sounds exporting can push prices up in the UK.

There is no dispute that trading with other countries outside EU regulation will be of significant benefit to certain sectors but of little benefit to Joe public, of course pigs may take to the air and profits go to the essential services.

Theresa May has often been likened to Margaret Thatcher, remember the son Mark.

 

The Mathew Hedges case should be a warning to some of the dangerous path they want to choose.

The Chinese don't have a problem with language or distance.

GB never had that problem either when it was Great.

Don't worry Sandy, I have little doubt, the UK will be known as

the SCE.. ie.  Stupid Colony of Europe.

I bet, the day after the referendum it was all decided by the

ruling, plotting, scumbags.

 

when I read in msm re the handling of  the deal I see different messages

some say acceptance by qualified majority, Spain can not block

some say Spain can block

 

there are two parts here

a) the deal itself, treaty stuff I assume, rather than mou stuff or contract

b) the political declaration, the cover page if you like

 

anybody know for sure?

 

 

A leavers view of the UK gov position

 

Any such vision is absent from this entire process. What we are seeing is a hamfisted piece of electoral triangulation, with a spent administration attempting to reconcile the needs of business while trying to appease the leave voting public. This results in a wholly inadequate agreement which pleases nobody and doesn't even protect our trade. Moreover, it is wildly inconsistent with Brexit if the aim was to remove the political authority of the EU. This is essentially the dead hand of managerialism - the form of government which has dominated for most of my adult life.

 

https://peterjnorth.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-rotten-state-of-britain.html

 
My position, like I think most remainers, is that I'll go along with this as long as responsible steps are taken to minimise the damage to the economy ... no one in the Leave camp was indicating that the UK would just crash out, all of them were promising a good exit deal. I did move on as we were all promised a damage limitation deal. I don't have a problem with others requesting another referendum, that is their right. Nigel Farage would not have gone away nor would the ERG group. 
 
I just watched an interview with the polling expert Professor Curtice who stated that 50% of leavers do not want "no deal", this was from a recent UGOV poll. So the "will of the people" does not support "no deal". What you have now is a government that cannot seal a deal and a parliament in gridlock. The only fair and sensible option is to put the issue back into the hands of the people of the UK. If leavers believe that the result will be the same why are they so scared? We all know thew answer to that question, they would lose. You cannot undermine democracy by a democratic vote.
 
 

"You'll go along with this as long as..."

What that really means is, "I'll respect the vote unless..... , and then I won't".

Remainers seem to feel very entitled. Yes the vote was close and yes remainers number a significant amount of people and as such need to involved in the debate, but you could be forgiven for thinking that it is they who won the vote, considering the amount of attention that gets placed on how they feel about things.

Regarding promises that were made about Brexit, this wasn't an election for a group of people who had a manifesto and who, if voted in, were promising to implement that manifesto.

Promises made by people who wouldn't be driving the bus could never mean very much. Not because they were necessarily impossible to deliver as you conclude. Had we had a government full of leavers and a Houses of Commons (and Lords) that wasn't intent on trying to sabotage Brexit, we would have told the EU on day one that we were leaving without a deal and would be making plans to that effect, negotiations with the EU would have gone very differently. The tone we set from the beginning was critical and it was totally wrong.

We've had negotiations led in the main by people who didn't believe in Brexit and who were hamstrung by fear. Weak and desperate for any bone the EU would toss their way. No wonder then how awful the deal therefore has turned out. Remainers in parliament and in the media played their part in ensuring a bad deal, constantly talking up the EU and talking down their own country. Insisting that we couldn't possibly mention "no deal" to the EU. The EU saw a weak and divided country and thought to themselves, we don't really need to offer these guys anything. Quite right too. Standing up for themselves. All we needed to do was the same thing. As soon as anyone ever did from our camp though it was met with cries of "what arrogance, how unfriendly, what a little Englander, that's not how you get a good deal".

Anyway, bearing in mind that no promise could be made about the Brexit deal that would be delivered when people voted in 2016, how good or bad it would be, how badly the politicians would negotiate and how disingenuous many of them would turn out to be in having said they would respect the will of the people, the one promise that was set in stone and was explicitly spoken by the prime minister of the day and sent to everybody's doorstep in print was that voting to leave would mean LEAVING the EU completely, no ifs, no buts.

And that is what Britain must now do to uphold democracy. Yes, democracy is a process and no, democracy doesn't stop after a vote, but democracy does have to do what a vote promises to. If you give people a choice and say you will implement their decision, but then dilly dally for a couple of years not implementing it, wringing your hands, scratching your head, saying that actually you can't really do it and would you mind awfully voting again, there WILL be a reaction to that and there WILL be a long term impact on democracy. If you think there won't, go ahead and try. The mess you'll create for Britain will far outweigh a no deal Brexit.





Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Some years ago my vehicle was hit in Meadowhall car park by a foreign driver, He gave his details but it later emerged that it was a false name and address. Turned out it was a shared taxi vehicle used by the whole family who all claimed to have been driving it that afternoon, a family that were long time UK residents. The police just gave up and the insurance company came after me for the £500 excess.

Obviously with the paranoia you only found it necessary to mention migrant drivers.

I'm sorry that your vehicle was involved in an accident, that the police declined or were not prepared to pursue those responsible, and that you had to pay the insurance excess. It sounds most unfair.

 

I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion at hand, other than a frankly rather pathetic attempt to continue your groundless crusade to try and establish that I am suffering from some sort of paranoia as regards foreigners. If that is the best you can come up with I would suggest you stick to your revealed activities as a highly experienced, and doubtless highly successful "exporter". Amateur psychoanalysis, especially when trying to diagnose holding differing opinions to yours as a mental illness, is obviously not your "forte"!

 

Before TM used Brexit means Brexit as kind of a mantra she was proud of.

 

Now TM says; have your pick:

my deal - no deal - no Brexit (or does she say my deal or no Brexit? doesn't matter, silly anyway)

 

Assuming that the deal will survive in the EU this week:

When parliament handles the deal formally next month (early December?)

 

if they should vote it down (not sure they have the guts) - What then?

 

I guess if TM should then shout, OK no Brexit then.

She might see a motion of non-conf in parliament.

If she says, right, we crash out in March. What then?

 

I can understand people are worked up about this deal,

it looks fairly meagre to me.

 

referendum summer 2016 - final end of game xmas 2022, that is 6.5 years for not very much.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

Before TM used Brexit means Brexit as kind of a mantra she was proud of.

 

Now TM says; have your pick:

my deal - no deal - no Brexit (or does she say my deal or no Brexit? doesn't matter, silly anyway)

 

Assuming that the deal will survive in the EU this week:

When parliament handles the deal formally next month (early December?)

 

if they should vote it down (not sure they have the guts) - What then?

 

I guess if TM should then shout, OK no Brexit then.

She might see a motion of non-conf in parliament.

If she says, right, we crash out in March. What then?

 

I can understand people are worked up about this deal,

it looks fairly meagre to me.

 

referendum summer 2016 - final end of game xmas 2022, that is 6.5 years for not very much.

 

 

 

1939-1945....About the same, we moved on and prospered..

What have we got here:

Disgusting Conflict of Interest: Theresa May’s Husband’s Investment Firm Made a “Financial Killing” from the Bombing of Syria

Headline from GR.

 

With the thought of the EU army, Mrs. Mays nipples must be on stalks, with the expectation of hubby flogging his load of lovely missiles.

So lads that's the outcome..Looks like Brexit, quacks like a Brexit,

But it ain't.

5 hours ago, JAG said:

I believe she was, as Home Secretary, known as "The Submarine". At the first sign of trouble she would go deep and rig for silent running.

She did well to survive that long at the Home Office. If you look at her predecessors' casualty rate! The job entails being the fall guy for just about every domestic UK problem. Whilst lacking somewhat in the charisma stakes (Blair and Cameron had it by the bucketloads and look where it has got us) she is undoubtedly a wily operator.

Not well served by her party though...

Yes she has 'steeliness'.  Her mistake is to hitch herself to the wrong wagon. 

57 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

Before TM used Brexit means Brexit as kind of a mantra she was proud of.

 

Now TM says; have your pick:

my deal - no deal - no Brexit (or does she say my deal or no Brexit? doesn't matter, silly anyway)

 

Assuming that the deal will survive in the EU this week:

When parliament handles the deal formally next month (early December?)

 

if they should vote it down (not sure they have the guts) - What then?

 

I guess if TM should then shout, OK no Brexit then.

She might see a motion of non-conf in parliament.

If she says, right, we crash out in March. What then?

 

I can understand people are worked up about this deal,

it looks fairly meagre to me.

 

referendum summer 2016 - final end of game xmas 2022, that is 6.5 years for not very much.

 

 

 

I think that's 'the point'.

 

The 'deal' is obviously remain in name only - whilst paying even more for the 'privilege'.

 

Politicians aren't entirely stupid, and realise that this is an easily recongnisable leave in name only deal - whilst paying 39bn for the 'privilege'.

 

How will the electorate react?  None of us know - but they have been subjected to years of 'no deal will result in a disaster' rhetoric from the media....

1 hour ago, transam said:

1939-1945....About the same, we moved on and prospered..

We now have a totally different set of conditions. Most frightening is the threat to world peace that global warming will present; we've already had a small taster this year with extreme weather conditions. The fact is even if we as a world stopped carbon emissions tomorrow, the world we know will face an existential crisis.  I can see pandemics, and plagues. I can well see population reduced to millions, if any at all.  I've always regarded Brexit as a sideshow.

13 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I think that's 'the point'.

 

The 'deal' is obviously remain in name only - whilst paying even more for the 'privilege'.

 

Politicians aren't entirely stupid, and realise that this is an easily recongnisable leave in name only deal - whilst paying 39bn for the 'privilege'.

 

How will the electorate react?  None of us know - but they have been subjected to years of 'no deal will result in a disaster' rhetoric from the media....

 

re no/deal disaster - keep in mind that MPs are also part of the brainwashed electorate

 

11 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I think that's 'the point'.

 

The 'deal' is obviously remain in name only - whilst paying even more for the 'privilege'.

 

Politicians aren't entirely stupid, and realise that this is an easily recongnisable leave in name only deal - whilst paying 39bn for the 'privilege'.

 

How will the electorate react?  None of us know - but they have been subjected to years of 'no deal will result in a disaster' rhetoric from the media....

 

How will the electorate react?  This is a very difficult one to answer.  Ordinarily Tories would be crucified at the next GE, but Labour are simply un-electable at present imo.  Corbyn et al delight socialists like me, and so are popular with true Labour supporters, and with the young, but in order to get elected Labour must gain the trust of the centre right; that just isn't going to happen. 

 

I think ennui may win the day: the working class could just turn their backs on politics, for the same reason most of us would like to.

 

Things could get tasty if another populist emerges.  I see a recipe for a far right nationalist government the like of which the UK has never seen.

4 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Brexit For Dummies Part 2.

Is it at all possible for you to provide a post that is longer than half a dozen words? And it would also be appreciated if such a post was intelligently thought out and constructive.

O.K I know I’m asking a lot,but it is Black Friday.

 

Just now, melvinmelvin said:

 

re no/deal disaster - keep in mind that MPs are also part of the brainwashed electorate

 

More importantly, they are looking out for their own interests...

 

Leave the eu?

 

Eu mp jobs have gone, and if they don't do everything in their power to stop genuinely leaving the eu - they may have less chance of directorship jobs in the big companies....

2 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

when I read in msm re the handling of  the deal I see different messages

some say acceptance by qualified majority, Spain can not block

some say Spain can block

 

there are two parts here

a) the deal itself, treaty stuff I assume, rather than mou stuff or contract

b) the political declaration, the cover page if you like

 

anybody know for sure?

 

 

Can one country,in this instance Spain block an agreement?

Well no say the experts, unless your country is led by Angela Merkel.

11 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

How will the electorate react?  This is a very difficult one to answer.  Ordinarily Tories would be crucified at the next GE, but Labour are simply un-electable at present imo.  Corbyn et al delight socialists like me, and so are popular with true Labour supporters, and with the young, but in order to get elected Labour must gain the trust of the centre right; that just isn't going to happen. 

 

I think ennui may win the day: the working class could just turn their backs on politics, for the same reason most of us would like to.

 

Things could get tasty if another populist emerges.  I see a recipe for a far right nationalist government the like of which the UK has never seen.

I'd agree entirely, if Corbyn hadn't revealed his true colours by not supporting leave.

 

I think I'm corrrect in saying that most labour constituencies voted leave?  But Corbyn was cowed into silence by the politicians in his party?

2 hours ago, tebee said:

A leavers view of the UK gov position

 

Any such vision is absent from this entire process. What we are seeing is a hamfisted piece of electoral triangulation, with a spent administration attempting to reconcile the needs of business while trying to appease the leave voting public. This results in a wholly inadequate agreement which pleases nobody and doesn't even protect our trade. Moreover, it is wildly inconsistent with Brexit if the aim was to remove the political authority of the EU. This is essentially the dead hand of managerialism - the form of government which has dominated for most of my adult life.

 

https://peterjnorth.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-rotten-state-of-britain.html

I'm obviously missing something here as this seems to support the brexit viewpoint?

 

Not that it matters as it's just a 'blog'.  Even more pointless than 'expert opinion'......

10 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

How will the electorate react?  This is a very difficult one to answer.  Ordinarily Tories would be crucified at the next GE, but Labour are simply un-electable at present imo.  Corbyn et al delight socialists like me, and so are popular with true Labour supporters, and with the young, but in order to get elected Labour must gain the trust of the centre right; that just isn't going to happen. 

 

I think ennui may win the day: the working class could just turn their backs on politics, for the same reason most of us would like to.

 

Things could get tasty if another populist emerges.  I see a recipe for a far right nationalist government the like of which the UK has never seen.

 

a  far right nationalist party might not be that bad if combined

with a Labour split into left and centre.

 

if you then on top of that managed to vastly improve the UK election system,

UK may benefit quite a lot me thinks

 

5 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'd agree entirely, if Corbyn hadn't revealed his true colours by not supporting leave.

 

I think I'm corrrect in saying that most leave constituencies voted leave?  But Corbyn was cowed into silence by the politicians in his party?

"I think I'm corrrect in saying that most leave constituencies voted leave?" For once you are definitely correct there!

 

Corbyn is a Brexiter as he intends more state support for industry. If he was strongly for remain, as he should be, Brexit would be dead by now. I suppose a big bus might come at exactly the right time!

10 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

We now have a totally different set of conditions. Most frightening is the threat to world peace that global warming will present; we've already had a small taster this year with extreme weather conditions. The fact is even if we as a world stopped carbon emissions tomorrow, the world we know will face an existential crisis.  I can see pandemics, and plagues. I can well see population reduced to millions, if any at all.  I've always regarded Brexit as a sideshow.

Spot on.  By 2050 the world population reaches 10billion

and food becomes a problem.   One child per family,

like the Chinese did, leading to self sufficiency economy,

recommended by Rama 9. 

I expect the Americans will handle most of the population

culling, it is they that made the Georgia Stones.