5 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

He could have been the American president as he was born in the USA and did not renounce his citizenship until 3 years ago. He speaks fluent latin, French and Italian and is the author of several books with a classics degree from Oxford University. He is anything but a 'buffoon'

When somebody speaks fluent Latin, French and Italian, is the author of several books with a classics degree from Oxford University, does NOT mean he could be a "buffoon" when it comes to political ideas

Lib Dems and greens are becoming the only half sensible options..

 

 

15 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

It's a withdrawal deal. That's leaving. Legally. Pity leavers don't like it, live with it and move on. 

Read it yet?

2 hours ago, Jane Dough said:

Boris will bring back the fun to British politics. They will need some belly laughs as the pound drops ever closer to 27 baht.

 

Blue line GBP/EUR, black line Euro/US$

So, slowly but surely the British pound creaps to be an ounce.  Well done. Nov 2015 the pound was worth € 1,43, now 1,1191... and in my young years ( 1971) … DM 11,82 /2 = € 5,91... 

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Ya I'm a Remainer too... bring on the Second Ref

No, no, no... Under NO circumstances the UK citizens are allowed to judge about the Brexit result… Imagine.. the entire art 50 procedure will be blown off.. 

2 hours ago, tebee said:

Diane Abbott has a 2:2 in history from Cambridge, rather like Theresa May who got a 2:2 in Geography from Oxford.

Boris managed a whole 2:1 in  ancient literature and classical philosophy from Balliol 

 

So why do we elect these second rate politicians with second rate degrees from "good" colleges in useless subjects ? We seem to be getting what you would expect from them, which is not much.

 

I dropped out of a Science degree at North East London Poly, but I could do better than them.

To be a politician, you need only a very big mouth and a lot of phantasy. The truth… is of no importance. See the British court for a politician, who promiseed 350 mln pounds for the NHS instead of "burning it in Brussels". 

23 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

It's a withdrawal deal. That's leaving. Legally. Pity leavers don't like it, live with it and move on. 

But it's not. It's a thinly veiled Surrender Treaty that would subjugate the UK to the EU under vassalage potentially for ever. 

That's not Leaving. It's the Merkel/May lie that has been kicked out of parliament three times already. What sort of realist do you really think you are? It's unreal.

8 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

 

Blue line GBP/EUR, black line Euro/US$

So, slowly but surely the British pound creaps to be an ounce.  Well done. Nov 2015 the pound was worth € 1,43, now 1,1191... and in my young years ( 1971) … DM 11,82 /2 = € 5,91... 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/18/ecb-president-mario-draghi-speech-sintra-portugal.html

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Don't my MP's have more than one vote?  perfectly ok, as Brexit has not happened, that we re-ask:

 

1/ leave on a no deal (if no deal is reached)

 

2/ stay

Why a referendum should have only 2 (two) choices ? In many nations, a choice comes between "the candidates". And if one candidate did NOT get the 50% majority in the first round, the nr 1 + 2 against each other.

1) no deal 

2) revoke art 50 = stay

3) the May deal

4) a Norwegian etc way  ( pay but no say)

5) a CEPA = Canada treatment

 

Examples enough in the voting rounds in the House of Commons.

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

you think never a Scottish independence vote again?  wow that's harsh - new voters are added in 100,000s yearly and it's been three years now

So… what leaves the EU = England  minus Greater London + Unionist Ireland

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

you think never a Scottish independence vote again?  wow that's harsh - new voters are added in 100,000s yearly and it's been three years now

And it would appear that Conservatives members are quite happy for Scotland to leave the union as a price for getting brexit (didn't they used to be the conservative and unionist party?)

 

A majority would even be happy to see their own party destroyed ! 

 

Edited June 18, 20197 yr by tebee

2 hours ago, transam said:

So in 1942 (three years on) you would have capitulated....?

When the USA would not have stepped in... and Hitler did not invade the Soviet Union.. probably in 1941 already.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/the-may-1940-war-cabinet-crisis-churchills-darkest-hour/  

13 minutes ago, tebee said:

And it would appear that Conservatives members are quite happy for Scotland to leave the union as a price for getting brexit (didn't they used to be the conservative and unionist party?)

 

A majority would even be happy to see their own party destroyed ! 

 

This only verifies that the whole exercise is about the Toxic Tories retaining power. Scotland deserves better.

2 hours ago, vogie said:

that is how democracy works

No, that is NOT how democracy works. yes, majority governs, but NOT ignoring a huge minority, especially when that is 48,11% of the electorate.

Second: in "leave" was NOT mentioned under which conditions and consequences.

Why you refuse to let the British people Judge about these resulsts ?

Edited June 18, 20197 yr by puipuitom

4 hours ago, vogie said:

So are you justifying the EUs travelling circus and wasting of money is part and parcel of the EU.

 

The “travelling circus” shuttle sees 750 MEPs and 3,000 administrative staff make the round trip to conduct business in the French city for four days a month. They are followed by lorries carrying 2,500 plastic containers of files.

The Court of Auditors report reveals calculations that taxpayers across Europe would save more than £2billion over the next 50 years if the MEPs stayed put.

There would also be a one-off windfall of £490million if the Strasbourg buildings were then sold off. The buildings are said to cost £50million a year in upkeep.

The Conservatives, who are campaigning to have the practice stopped, put the cost higher at around £130million.

Excuse my ignorance,but is there any practical reason for this moving to France or is just to satisfy the French?

2 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

 

 

Boris's character is what is in question here though, and this letter from his former schoolteacher puts it in a nutshell.

Just see the presens situation: when it comes to an open and public debate, on TV, where is Boris ? ?  G O N E , hiding.

4 minutes ago, StevieAus said:

Excuse my ignorance,but is there any practical reason for this moving to France or is just to satisfy the French?

Its just to satisfy the French IMHO. No practical reason that I can see. And probably another opportunity to fiddle the expenses.

Edited June 18, 20197 yr by potless
added something.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

And Germany has 709 at 1.12. So what?

 

The UK needs to retain its parliament. We don't need the other one.

England also needs it's own, being the only country in Europe without one.

23 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

No, that is NOT how democracy works. yes, majority governs, but NOT ignoring a huge minority, especially when that is 48,11% of the electorate.

Second: in "leave" was NOT mentioned under which conditions and consequences.

Why you refuse to let the British people Judge about these resulsts ?

You have contradicted yourself in the first sentence, "No, that is NOT how democracy works" then you go on to say, "yes majority governs," we all cannot go home with a coconut, only the winners.

 

Mrs May found out that trying to please everyone just doesn't work, she ended up pleasing no-one.

"I can't tell you the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone" (Ed Sheeran.)

 

Remainers will never accept the result, but they sure try as hard as hell to convince the leavers that they are the losers. That is not how democracy works either.

38 minutes ago, StevieAus said:

Excuse my ignorance,but is there any practical reason for this moving to France or is just to satisfy the French?

It's just to satisfy the French.

5 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

The EU Parlament has 751 seats for 512 million inhabitants.

The UK Parlament has 650 seats for 66 million inhabitants.

Calculating the parliamentary cost per inhabitant gives a ratio of 1.4 to 9.8.

 

Organizational quality and functioning decision-making ability are not considered at all.

 

I stick to my statement:

The UK government and the UK parliament are currently the most expensive clown circus in the world.

tomacht cannot stand to see or hear anything positive about the UK, best just to leave him be he's happy enough.

You have contradicted yourself in the first sentence, "No, that is NOT how democracy works" then you go on to say, "yes majority governs," we all cannot go home with a coconut, only the winners.
 
Mrs May found out that trying to please everyone just doesn't work, she ended up pleasing no-one.
"I can't tell you the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone" (Ed Sheeran.)
 
Remainers will never accept the result, but they sure try as hard as hell to convince the leavers that they are the losers. That is not how democracy works either.

When all said and done the remainers are fascists who are trying to overthrow a democratic decision.

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

45 minutes ago, potless said:

Its just to satisfy the French IMHO. No practical reason that I can see. And probably another opportunity to fiddle the expenses.

The governments of the EU Member States unanimously agreed in 1992 to permanently set the seats of the EU institutions in the EU Treaty.

 

This has had a significant impact on Parliament's working arrangements: the official seat and place where most plenary sessions take place has since become Strasbourg, the parliamentary committees meet in Brussels, and the official seat of the Parliament's Secretariat (ie the Parliamentary staff) is Luxembourg , In 1997, this scheme was fully incorporated into the EU Treaty.

 

Any change to the current system would require an amendment to the Treaty, which would have to be unanimously agreed by the governments of all Member States and ratified by all national parliaments.

 

 

20 minutes ago, evadgib said:

England also needs it's own, being the only country in Europe without one.

First things first! ????

8 minutes ago, rott said:

tomacht cannot stand to see or hear anything positive about the UK, best just to leave him be he's happy enough.

I would like to hear or see something positive from the UK.

Would cheer me up, if you would send some examples.

I'm just sorry to watch friends shoot themselves in the kneecaps.

8 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

The governments of the EU Member States unanimously agreed in 1992 to permanently set the seats of the EU institutions in the EU Treaty.

 

This has had a significant impact on Parliament's working arrangements: the official seat and place where most plenary sessions take place has since become Strasbourg, the parliamentary committees meet in Brussels, and the official seat of the Parliament's Secretariat (ie the Parliamentary staff) is Luxembourg , In 1997, this scheme was fully incorporated into the EU Treaty.

 

Any change to the current system would require an amendment to the Treaty, which would have to be unanimously agreed by the governments of all Member States and ratified by all national parliaments.

 

 

Sounds so difficult. Better just keep wasting money then. Maybe they could come to Bognor Regis as well for a week or two, before their summer hols?

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Sounds so difficult. Better just keep wasting money then. Maybe they could come to Bognor Regis as well for a week or two, before their summer hols?

A 2013 European Parliament study has shown that € 103 million could be saved every year if all Parliament's activities were moved from Strasbourg to Brussels (figures for 2014). This amount is not insignificant, even if it represents only 6% of Parliament's budget or 1% of the EU's administrative budget or just 0.1% of the total EU budget.

 

The possible cost savings would be associated with a further centralization.

Wonder that just a Brexiteer advocates further EU centralization.

 

The organizational structure of the EU requires unanimity of all members and ratification by national parliaments. The UK supported this structure in 1992 fully.

 

Sorry if it is too difficult to understand

 

 

18 minutes ago, nauseus said:

First things first! ????

Agreed. It's only in the last few months that I have realized that we need one.

23 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

I would like to hear or see something positive from the UK.

How about UK will shortly have a B-B-Brexiter PM & will leave EU by 31 October?

4 minutes ago, evadgib said:

How about UK will shortly have a B-B-Brexiter PM & will leave EU by 31 October?

That should be good news?

For whom?

Certainly for the Russians and the USA.