Extreme Brexit could be worse than financial crisis for UK: BoE

[welovesundaysatspace]

32 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Can you explain why Article 50 was triggered then please? 

Because parliament decided so. Let’s see what parliament decides next. 

[CG1 Blue]

17 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Because parliament decided so. Let’s see what parliament decides next. 

And why did they decide to trigger Article 50?

[melvinmelvin]

has daylight saving time reached Westminster? now it is 19.10 in Bangkok

what time in HoC? 13.10 or 12.10?

 

 

[nauseus]

39 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Because parliament decided so. Let’s see what parliament decides next. 

But why did they decide so?

[nauseus]

10 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

has daylight saving time reached Westminster? now it is 19.10 in Bangkok

what time in HoC? 13.10 or 12.10?

 

 

12:10  well 12:20 now.  12:22 

Edited March 11, 2019 by nauseus
12:22 

[melvinmelvin]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

12:10  well 12:20 now.  12:22 

right, and deliberations will start at ?

 

 

[aright]

 

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

Can you explain why Article 50 was triggered then please? 

 

34 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

And why did they decide to trigger Article 50?

 

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

But why did they decide so?

 

Another Remainer outside his comfort zone pleading the fifth Amendment. I have asked for his take on the May elections 3 times and I am still waiting. Pathetic!

Eager to attack; terrified to defend.

Edited March 11, 2019 by aright

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

right, and deliberations will start at ?

 

 

May's crap plan to be debated again tomorrow with no further significant input or concessions from the EU as far as I can tell. There is a vote in the evening (UK time) for which Grouse will stay up late, with cheese and tomato sandwiches and a bottle of Monkey Shoulder (or two).   

[dunroaming]

57 minutes ago, nauseus said:

May's crap plan to be debated again tomorrow with no further significant input or concessions from the EU as far as I can tell. There is a vote in the evening (UK time) for which Grouse will stay up late, with cheese and tomato sandwiches and a bottle of Monkey Shoulder (or two).   

Yes a vote again tomorrow.  Last week I did think (briefly) that she might just push it through but not any more.  I think it will be positively rejected yet again because she hasn't made any progress.  So who is going to vote against it?  Remainers and Brexiteers alike?  Neither want it but each side wants a different result from Brexit.  It is widely expected that the vote on Wednesday will be to kick out No-Deal and then an extension to the deadline.  Then what?  More concessions or the Norway style deal which would leave us half in and half out?

 

BUT! at 3.30pm (GMT) today, a statement will be read out in the house.  Don't know what the content will be but could it be May attempting to kick the can yet again!  Waiting with bated breath for that!

[wilcopops]

8 hours ago, LucysDad said:

 

 

Pointless.

 

 

None of that is relevant to my reasons for voting LEAVE.

Now that IS a rarity .... Brexiteer with REASONS for voting leave.

 

 

[wilcopops]

5 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

But none of those things matter. They are all irrelevant. Everybody knew this wasn't an advisory only referendum (except you it seems), so why are you wasting time going on about it? What are you hoping to achieve? Just move on. 

What an extraordinarily ill. Informed comment.

 

Even the courts disagreed with you

 

3 NOVEMBER 2016

Article 50 ruling: the EU referendum was only ever "advisory"

The high court's decision has offered Remainers a glimmer of hope, but safeguards were built into the original legislation to protect against Brexit.

[CG1 Blue]

9 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

What an extraordinarily ill. Informed comment.

 

Even the courts disagreed with you

 

3 NOVEMBER 2016

Article 50 ruling: the EU referendum was only ever "advisory"

The high court's decision has offered Remainers a glimmer of hope, but safeguards were built into the original legislation to protect against Brexit.

You miss the crux of my argument. I don't deny it was legally advisory only. 

And that particular 'glimmer of hope' ship sailed long ago, so I was asking why keep bringing it up. 

[talahtnut]

The government, the establishment, and the central

banks will not allow Brexit. They have given the electorate

2+ years of fearmongering, enough to engineer the desired

opinion change, the standard method of government

control.  Voting is a futile execise, nothing will change

except that poverty, debt, and the fraud will increase.

You might be able to see that I'm a Brexiter with the 'ump,

and the thought of Grouse crowing is unbearable.

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

May's crap plan to be debated again tomorrow with no further significant input or concessions from the EU as far as I can tell. There is a vote in the evening (UK time) for which Grouse will stay up late, with cheese and tomato sandwiches and a bottle of Monkey Shoulder (or two).   

right, I would prefer red wine for the sandwiches and Monkey Shoulder for the 

afterburner later on

 

so the plan still is

exit with may-deal then exit with 0-deal today

those failing

more deliberations and probably confused voting tomorrow

That is still the plan?

 

[nauseus]

20 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

right, I would prefer red wine for the sandwiches and Monkey Shoulder for the 

afterburner later on

 

so the plan still is

exit with may-deal then exit with 0-deal today

those failing

more deliberations and probably confused voting tomorrow

That is still the plan?

 

You and Grouse should discuss the snacks and dwinkies.

 

Tomorrow is the meaningless vote.

 

 

[7by7]

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

Oh sorry, I must have missed your historical facts that prove me wrong. Please put them up again.

For starters there's the Single European Act and Maastricht Treaty! See below for more on this.

 

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

History lessons not necessary, thanks. The 1974 "renegotiations" came up with few concessions and none of them major. The lie of "no loss of essential sovereignty" was continued and most people believed it.  

It was not a lie; there was no essential loss of soveriegnty. Of course, when any country signs an international treaty there is always some loss of sovereignty by the signatories in the areas covered by the treaty. 

Quote

Sovereignty - the ability to run our own affairs - was very much an issue in the 1975 referendum.

Enoch Powell, the maverick right wing Tory who had just become an Ulster Unionist MP, and left wing Labour cabinet minister Tony Benn - the loudest voices in the Out campaign - talked endlessly about it.

In its leaflet to voters, the Out campaign warned that the Common Market "sets out by stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation," in which Britain would be a "mere province".

The In campaign openly acknowledged that being a member of the EEC involved "pooling" sovereignty with the eight other nations who were members at the time

(source)

 

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

You bring in Thatcher and Major and the events associated with them are true but were not really relevant to the debate in this substring, except that the Maastricht Treaty was so important that there should have been an "informed" referendum before that too, at which point I think we would have also voted out.

Yet again you call historical events which prove you wrong over your claimed major loss of sovereignty in 1975 irrelevant because you have no argument to dispute them.

 

It was the Single European Act which laid the foundations and the Maastricht Treaty which followed that turned the collection of trading nations known as the EEC into the closer political union known as the EU.

 

Thatcher and Major both strongly belived in the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty enshrined in our constitution which holds Parliament to be supreme; so neither of them felt the need to hold a referendums to vote on matters which had already, albeit after some difficulties, been approved by Parliament.

 

You will almost certainly be shocked to hear that I agree with you on one point; such major changes should have been put to the  public in a referendum. But I am not sure why you have put informed in inverted commas. Is this a way of saying that you'd prefer the public to cast their votes in ignorance of all the facts except those you feed them? That is, after all, what the Leave campaign desired and in the main acheived in 2016.

[7by7]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

May's crap plan to be debated again tomorrow

You and your fellow Brexiteers have repeatedly referred to May's plan as 'crap.'

 

Yet if even one of you has ever said what you belive to be wrong with it and what changes you would make to better it; I must have missed it.

 

So enlighten me; what specifics in her plan do you disagree with, and with what would you replace them?

 

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

with no further significant input or concessions from the EU as far as I can tell

Why should the EU have any further input, let alone concessions? We told them we want to leave, they have no obligation to have any input at all and certainly have no obligation to make any concessions!

 

Of course, continuing to trade with us is in their interests as well as ours; but they have agreed to a deal, and it is not their fault that Brexiteers in Parliament are doing their best to scupper it. Even though said Brexiteers have as much idea about what they would replace it with as Brexiteers here do; i.e. no idea at all.

 

Like most Brexiteers here, they simply bleat that we are the UK and the EU should give us everything we want.

 

That was, after all: the crux of Leave's campaign in 2016; "Vote leave and we can get rid of all the bits of EU membership we don't like, while keeping the bits we do."

 

That was the biggest lie of all, and unfortunately 52% of voters fell for it. 

 

 

 

[bomber]

1 hour ago, talahtnut said:

The government, the establishment, and the central

banks will not allow Brexit. They have given the electorate

2+ years of fearmongering, enough to engineer the desired

opinion change, the standard method of government

control.  Voting is a futile execise, nothing will change

except that poverty, debt, and the fraud will increase.

You might be able to see that I'm a Brexiter with the 'ump,

and the thought of Grouse crowing is unbearable.

 

 

what poverty? as for debt calling off brexit wont fix it but at least it will help the slow process of paying it off,the £100s of millions wasted on brexit would also of helped,brexit was backed by fraudsters but i doubt they will waste their money a second time,so i would say fraud has been slightly dented.

[wilcopops]

4 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

You miss the crux of my argument. I don't deny it was legally advisory only. 

And that particular 'glimmer of hope' ship sailed long ago, so I was asking why keep bringing it up. 

You seem to have forgotten what you posted...

"Everybody knew this wasn't an advisory only referendum (except you itseems)," 

[SheungWan]

6 hours ago, talahtnut said:

The government, the establishment, and the central

banks will not allow Brexit. They have given the electorate

2+ years of fearmongering, enough to engineer the desired

opinion change, the standard method of government

control.  Voting is a futile execise, nothing will change

except that poverty, debt, and the fraud will increase.

You might be able to see that I'm a Brexiter with the 'ump,

and the thought of Grouse crowing is unbearable.

I don't think any fat ladies have sung quite yet. The sequence of events still contain a degree of uncertainty including Theresa May's position.

Edited March 11, 2019 by SheungWan

[samran]

 

Think the Commonwealth can save Brexit Britain? That’s utter delusion

Great article by former Australian PM, Kevin Rudd.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/11/commonwealth-save-brexit-britain-utter-delusion-kevin-rudd?CMP=soc_567

 

Two of his main points: India isn’t a free trading nation, and if you think the ‘special relationship’ with the US is going to get you diddly squat, then think again. 

[wilcopops]

if you think WTO will be UK's savior, think again too

 

"If the UK chooses to put no tariffs on goods from the EU, it must also have no tariffs on goods from every WTO member." BBC

[wilcopops]

has May's new "legally binding" deal been analyzed yet?

[nauseus]

8 hours ago, 7by7 said:

For starters there's the Single European Act and Maastricht Treaty! See below for more on this.

 

It was not a lie; there was no essential loss of soveriegnty. Of course, when any country signs an international treaty there is always some loss of sovereignty by the signatories in the areas covered by the treaty. 

 

Yet again you call historical events which prove you wrong over your claimed major loss of sovereignty in 1975 irrelevant because you have no argument to dispute them.

 

It was the Single European Act which laid the foundations and the Maastricht Treaty which followed that turned the collection of trading nations known as the EEC into the closer political union known as the EU.

 

Thatcher and Major both strongly belived in the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty enshrined in our constitution which holds Parliament to be supreme; so neither of them felt the need to hold a referendums to vote on matters which had already, albeit after some difficulties, been approved by Parliament.

 

You will almost certainly be shocked to hear that I agree with you on one point; such major changes should have been put to the  public in a referendum. But I am not sure why you have put informed in inverted commas. Is this a way of saying that you'd prefer the public to cast their votes in ignorance of all the facts except those you feed them? That is, after all, what the Leave campaign desired and in the main acheived in 2016.

Heath lied and he admitted it later. I'm sick of going through the same old stuff. Try something else.

[nauseus]

8 hours ago, 7by7 said:

You and your fellow Brexiteers have repeatedly referred to May's plan as 'crap.'

 

Yet if even one of you has ever said what you belive to be wrong with it and what changes you would make to better it; I must have missed it.

 

So enlighten me; what specifics in her plan do you disagree with, and with what would you replace them?

 

Why should the EU have any further input, let alone concessions? We told them we want to leave, they have no obligation to have any input at all and certainly have no obligation to make any concessions!

 

Of course, continuing to trade with us is in their interests as well as ours; but they have agreed to a deal, and it is not their fault that Brexiteers in Parliament are doing their best to scupper it. Even though said Brexiteers have as much idea about what they would replace it with as Brexiteers here do; i.e. no idea at all.

 

Like most Brexiteers here, they simply bleat that we are the UK and the EU should give us everything we want.

 

That was, after all: the crux of Leave's campaign in 2016; "Vote leave and we can get rid of all the bits of EU membership we don't like, while keeping the bits we do."

 

That was the biggest lie of all, and unfortunately 52% of voters fell for it. 

 

 

 

If you can't understand it's crap, then I won't be able to convince you otherwise.   

[Chomper Higgot]

18 minutes ago, nauseus said:

If you can't understand it's crap, then I won't be able to convince you otherwise.   

Go on give it a try.

 

Offer an alternative (you could even offer the Brexiteer Plan B if you can find it).

[samran]

1 hour ago, wilcopops said:

if you think WTO will be UK's savior, think again too

 

"If the UK chooses to put no tariffs on goods from the EU, it must also have no tariffs on goods from every WTO member." BBC

That will suit the arch brexiters in parliament just fine. 

 

They are all about ultra free markets, no government intervention. The neo neo liberals wet dream.

 

And from their country estates they won’t care a jot if all your imports come from China  and destroy local industry. They’ll just cry over their hedgerows ‘be more competitive’ to their forelock tugging masses. 

[talahtnut]

5 hours ago, SheungWan said:

I don't think any fat ladies have sung quite yet. The sequence of events still contain a degree of uncertainty including Theresa May's position.

The fat ladies position is P46.  1 like for your optimism.

[damascase]

3 hours ago, wilcopops said:

if you think WTO will be UK's savior, think again too

 

"If the UK chooses to put no tariffs on goods from the EU, it must also have no tariffs on goods from every WTO member." BBC

True! Known as the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in the WTO Agreement.

By the way: the UK is currently granting unilateral preferential tariffs to developing countries under the EU’s - UN based -Generalized System of Preferences. The MFN-clause is waived for this regime. When the UK is out the EU and does not have its own GSP in place, it will have to levy the normal duties on imports from those countries (or it will have to apply these preferences to all WTO Members).

[7by7]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

Heath lied and he admitted it later. 

Can you provide a direct quote from Heath in which he admits this?

 

 I have found plenty of articles etc. asserting that Heath lied; but nothing written by or directly quoting Heath himself in which he says this.

 

The closest I've found is No, Britain wasn't lied to when we joined the EU. We knew what we were getting into

Quote

Where there was disagreement was over what pooling sovereignty meant in practice. Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath argued that the “Brexiteer” conception of sovereignty was too narrow and legalistic: “It is right that there should have been so much discussion of sovereignty … If sovereignty exists to be used and to be of value, it must be effective. We have to make a judgment whether this is the most advantageous way of using our country's sovereignty.”...................

.............At the heart of this debate was not deception but genuine disagreement, over whether the economic benefits of EEC membership combined with the opportunity for greater collective power through pooled sovereignty outweighed the infringement upon narrow national sovereignty that EEC membership entailed.

 

 

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

I'm sick of going through the same old stuff. Try something else.

Translation: "I've lost the argument and know it; but I'm not going to admit it!"