Britain's Queen could be asked to suspend parliament on Wednesday: BBC journalist

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, teatree said:

Hurling insults just shows you don't have an argument.

 

As John Stewart Mills said, if you cannot understand the opposing view in its most cogent form then what right do you have to be so confident in your own?

 

You are pretty much just calling people who you disagree with smelly poo heads.  

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck why shouldn't you call it "duck"?

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Sticky Wicket said:

Amazing how you know the thought processes of 17 millions Leave voters.

"thought processes"? 555

[PremiumLane]

6 minutes ago, teatree said:

Butthurt that Brexit isn't going how you wanted are you?

 

Brexit is about sovreignty full stop.

so closing down parliament is sovereignty? How about the fact that under EU rules we always had sovereignty... but then again with most Brexiters it is all just hyperbole and meaningless statements with no grounding in reality

[DannyCarlton]

12 minutes ago, teatree said:

Butthurt that Brexit isn't going how you wanted are you?

 

Brexit is about sovreignty full stop.

Yep, white British sovreignty.

Edited August 29, 2019 by DannyCarlton

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

It's not just protocol. She had a choice. She was well within her rights to refuse to prorogue her parliament. If she had been the people's queen and had any respect for her own parliament, that's what she would have done.

 

However, she decided to side with her own, Reece Mogg, Johnson and the rest of the Eton and Oxford upper class twits, showing her true colours. Not the people's queen, the head of an establishment that ensures that the UK is the most class concious country in the Western World.

 

Post brexit, there will no doubt be an even more vociferous campaign to remove her and her fetid brood from what's left of the UK. They can go back to Germany and live out their days there, no longer a burden on the british treasury.

 

 

"go back to Germany and live out their days there" - how very anti European of you!

[OneMoreFarang]

15 minutes ago, teatree said:

Oh the irony!

It is the EU that is a protectionist club and the UK which is reaching out across the globe.

That's wonderful that the UK is reaching out.

And who do you expect will give the UK any better deal then they had with the EU? The USA? China? Who?

And I wonder which countries will bother at all trying to make a deal with the UK. They all can see how that worked with the EU. Years of work, a ready deal, but then no deal. A total waste of time.

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

"go back to Germany and live out their days there" - how very anti European of you!

I'm part German too. I'm eligable to play football for Germany. No idea why they've never asked me.

 

I might join them.

[OneMoreFarang]

14 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

Not to it's members it isn't and it's a huge market.

Reaching out to the world? Yes, using WTO standards.

How long do you think it will take to hammer out trade deals with 20 or 30 separate other countries? Do you think that those trade deals will be one-sided that will overwhelmingly favour the UK?

Of course, at the same time these trade deals are being haggled over, people will be struggling with increased prices and job losses. Do you think that bargaining from a position of weakness will benefit the UK? How do you compare the bargaining strength of the UK alone compared to the EU?

It seems you want to try logic with Brexiters.

Logic works only with logically thinking people.

[teatree]

6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

That's wonderful that the UK is reaching out.

And who do you expect will give the UK any better deal then they had with the EU? The USA? China? Who?

And I wonder which countries will bother at all trying to make a deal with the UK. They all can see how that worked with the EU. Years of work, a ready deal, but then no deal. A total waste of time.

The EU is shrinking in terms of its share of world trade.  Currently around 15% and fading fast.

 

The future is in global trade not just little EU.

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems you want to try logic with Brexiters.

Logic works only with logically thinking people.

I too have found brexiteers have a lot in common with Thais. Xenophobic, absence of logic, worried about "face" and always blame someone else for their faults.

[teatree]

20 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck why shouldn't you call it "duck"?

Because smearing people is not a convincing tactic.

[luckyluke]

3 hours ago, luckyluke said:

In Belgium King Baudoin refused to sign the law about abortion, out of conscience (1990). 

He was declared by Parliament in the impossibility to raign for 36 hours. 

The abortion law was implemented in this period, thus without the Kings signature. 

 

The King expressed his opinion, showing He was not a marionette. 

Nauseus, you commented this post with a " Sad " emoticon.

Fine.

Except it is not clear what you  consider as being sad :

 

The abortion law itself ?

The fact that the King was declared impossible to raign ?

The King expressing an own opinion ?

[NanLaew]

15 minutes ago, PremiumLane said:

How about the fact that under EU rules we always had sovereignty... it is all just hyperbole and meaningless statements with no grounding in reality

 

Most awesome (unintended) ironical post of the day award goes to...

[NanLaew]

1 minute ago, luckyluke said:

Nauseus, you commented this post with a " Sad " emoticon.

Fine.

Except it is not clear what you  consider as being sad :

 

The abortion law itself ?

The fact that the King was declared impossible to raign ?

The King expressing an own opinion ?

Sadness is responding to emoticons.

 

True sadness is suing them in the first place.

[evadgib]

14 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

I too have found brexiteers have a lot in common with Thais. Xenophobic, absence of logic, worried about "face" and always blame someone else for their faults.

With the amount of bait thrown around in various guises what do you expect?

Edited August 29, 2019 by evadgib

[vogie]

8 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Who should offer such an acceptable deal? The EU worked long and hard on such a deal with the UK but then the UK didn't like it. Now the UK makes no further suggestions for a better deal but still blames the EU. Pathetic!

 

And about no-deal: It seems the leavers always say they want to follow the referendum. Ok, that is fair enough. How many people voted in that not binding referendum for a no-deal Brexit? And how many people believed when the leavers promised that the trade agreement with the EU will be the easiest ever?

 

I think we agree that what the people agreed to in 2016 has little to do what is happening now. So why not ask the people again is they want to leave without a deal, with the possible deal or stay in the EU. That would be democracy. If parliament votes for no-deal that would also be democracy. But giving parliament no voice in this is definitely not democracy. That is "the winner takes it all" - with all the consequences that will follow.

 

Enjoy the ride!

 

And about no-deal: It seems the leavers always say they want to follow the referendum. Ok, that is fair enough. How many people voted in that not binding referendum for a no-deal Brexit? And how many people believed when the leavers promised that the trade agreement with the EU will be the easiest ever?

 

I think it would be fair to say that everybody that voted to leave the EU, voted for a deal, and if a deal couldn't be agreed for whatever reason, the default option can only be no-deal, that's how it works. I don't think many leavers had any pre-conceived ideas about trade deals, only to add that Cameron did tell us that we would be leaving the single market and the custom union. So having said that it was up to Brussels and our MPs to work out a deal, blame could and should be apportioned to both parties, May and Robbins didn't want to leave the EU and so allowed the EU to offer us anything they deemed fit. We all surely must agree it was a total shambles as far as negotiating goes.

 

I think we agree that what the people agreed to in 2016 has little to do what is happening now. So why not ask the people again is they want to leave without a deal, with the possible deal or stay in the EU. That would be democracy. If parliament votes for no-deal that would also be democracy. But giving parliament no voice in this is definitely not democracy. That is "the winner takes it all" - with all the consequences that will follow.

 

All we have done since 2016 is kick the can down the road, Mrs May was a total failure and an embarrassment to our country. Boris has done more in his short term in office than May did in 3 years in her time there.

Ignoring the majority of the referendum is certainly not democracy and the thought of asking the people again because we got it wrong the first time fills me with disgust. Remainers have tried for 3 years now to thwart and overturn the peoples referendum, it must not be allowed to happen. 

 

[DannyCarlton]

3 minutes ago, teatree said:

The EU is shrinking in terms of its share of world trade.  Currently around 15% and fading fast.

 

The future is in global trade not just little EU.

And you think that the EU doesn't trade globally? After brexit, GB will have to remake all those trade agreements that it currently trades under the EU banner. Will take years and will certainly be less preferential than the agreements they currently trade under.

 

If the EU is shrinking by 15% in world trade, by rote, so is the UK. Post Brexit it will shrink even more rapidly. In a race to the bottom GB will beat EU by a measured mile.

[OneMoreFarang]

7 minutes ago, teatree said:

The EU is shrinking in terms of its share of world trade.  Currently around 15% and fading fast.

 

The future is in global trade not just little EU.

Did you do the math about the percentage of the UK? That should give you an idea how important the UK is in this world.

I know sometimes it's hard to accept reality. But reality just won't go away.

[DannyCarlton]

3 minutes ago, evadgib said:

With the amount of bait you throw around in your various guises what do you expect?

Various guises?

[luckyluke]

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

Sadness is responding to emoticons.

An opinion you are of course entitled to have.

 

I react out of curiosity in this specific case, as there are different possibilities involved.

[teatree]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Did you do the math about the percentage of the UK? That should give you an idea how important the UK is in this world.

I know sometimes it's hard to accept reality. But reality just won't go away.

Did you do the math about the trade deficit the UK currently has with the EU?  It is in their interests to hammer out a deal too.

 

 

[Joe Mcseismic]

3 minutes ago, teatree said:

The EU is shrinking in terms of its share of world trade.  Currently around 15% and fading fast.

 

The future is in global trade not just little EU.

The UK as a present member of the EU is part of 40 free trade deals that trade with 70 countries.

Once the EU leaves, it will have to negotiate with these 70 countries again.

How long do you think that will take just to get the UK where it is presently?

Do you think that it will be free trade with all 70 countries, or do you reckon there might be a few tariffs involved?

 

Until these trade deals come into being, the UK will have to trade under WTO rules (which ain't very good) and the British people will suffer price increases and not an insignificant amount of job losses.

 

If you don't agree, please feel free to add yet another "sad" or, "confused" emoticon to this post.

[OneMoreFarang]

7 minutes ago, teatree said:

28 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck why shouldn't you call it "duck"?

Because smearing people is not a convincing tactic.

Yes, I agree with that.

But I think the process works like this:

First people try to talk with other people and find similar ground and look at facts.

With some people that works just fine.

But then with others it's impossible to agree on facts because some people just ignore facts. And arguing with them is like arguing with religious fanatics. They believe! And they don't believe in facts.

So what's the result of that: It is impossible to convince people who ignore facts. And then it's easy to call them names.

[teatree]

6 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

And you think that the EU doesn't trade globally? After brexit, GB will have to remake all those trade agreements that it currently trades under the EU banner. Will take years and will certainly be less preferential than the agreements they currently trade under.

 

If the EU is shrinking by 15% in world trade, by rote, so is the UK. Post Brexit it will shrink even more rapidly. In a race to the bottom GB will beat EU by a measured mile.

Ignoring the fact that the vote to leave was about sovreignty and not economics, I believe the UK will thrive outside the EU (if it ever happens) and other countries will follow suit.

Edited August 29, 2019 by teatree

[nauseus]

12 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Nauseus, you commented this post with a " Sad " emoticon.

Fine.

Except it is not clear what you  consider as being sad :

 

The abortion law itself ?

The fact that the King was declared impossible to raign ?

The King expressing an own opinion ?

I was sad that this Belgian example has been used as a (false) comparison to yesterday's British constitutional event, which it is not. In your case, it seems that King Baudouin actually requested the Belgian Government to declare him temporarily unable to reign, so that he could avoid signing the measure into law. He did not want to sign it for (Catholic) religious reasons which is understandable.

 

But thanks for spelling my name correctly!

Edited August 29, 2019 by nauseus

[teatree]

3 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

The UK as a present member of the EU is part of 40 free trade deals that trade with 70 countries.

Once the EU leaves, it will have to negotiate with these 70 countries again.

How long do you think that will take just to get the UK where it is presently?

Do you think that it will be free trade with all 70 countries, or do you reckon there might be a few tariffs involved?

 

Until these trade deals come into being, the UK will have to trade under WTO rules (which ain't very good) and the British people will suffer price increases and not an insignificant amount of job losses.

 

If you don't agree, please feel free to add yet another "sad" or, "confused" emoticon to this post.

Calm down dear, I havnt reacted to any of your posts.

[teatree]

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yes, I agree with that.

But I think the process works like this:

First people try to talk with other people and find similar ground and look at facts.

With some people that works just fine.

But then with others it's impossible to agree on facts because some people just ignore facts. And arguing with them is like arguing with religious fanatics. They believe! And they don't believe in facts.

So what's the result of that: It is impossible to convince people who ignore facts. And then it's easy to call them names.

And I could easily apply the same logic to the way you post on here.

[Joe Mcseismic]

As far as I'm concerned, the people that voted for Brexit didn't care about the economy. They voted for "sovereignty" and "immigration". As shown on this thread, the Brexit camp doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the economy.

 

It's very telling that none of these Brexit supporters want to discuss the real reason they voted the way they did; sovereignty and immigration. I agree that immigration policy was far too lax and there are many places now where native-born Brits feel like they are living in a foreign country. The shear ungratefulness shown by the 7/7 bombers and immigrants trying to dictate how Britain should be run. This gets up my nose just as much.

But, I look at the immigration problems the same way I look at gun control in the USA.

Yes, something should have been done, but, the time for action was decades ago. That boat sailed long ago. It's far too late now.

[luckyluke]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

I was sad that this Belgian example has been used as a (false) comparison to yesterday's British constitutional event

Your opinion you of course are entitled to have.

Anyway thanks for answering, except I don't understand the thing about your name ( I assume maybe some kind of English humor ).

[OneMoreFarang]

10 minutes ago, vogie said:

And about no-deal: It seems the leavers always say they want to follow the referendum. Ok, that is fair enough. How many people voted in that not binding referendum for a no-deal Brexit? And how many people believed when the leavers promised that the trade agreement with the EU will be the easiest ever?

 

I think it would be fair to say that everybody that voted to leave the EU, voted for a deal, and if a deal couldn't be agreed for whatever reason, the default option can only be no-deal, that's how it works. I don't think many leavers had any pre-conceived ideas about trade deals, only to add that Cameron did tell us that we would be leaving the single market and the custom union. So having said that it was up to Brussels and our MPs to work out a deal, blame could and should be apportioned to both parties, May and Robbins didn't want to leave the EU and so allowed the EU to offer us anything they deemed fit. We all surely must agree it was a total shambles as far as negotiating goes.

 

I think we agree that what the people agreed to in 2016 has little to do what is happening now. So why not ask the people again is they want to leave without a deal, with the possible deal or stay in the EU. That would be democracy. If parliament votes for no-deal that would also be democracy. But giving parliament no voice in this is definitely not democracy. That is "the winner takes it all" - with all the consequences that will follow.

 

All we have done since 2016 is kick the can down the road, Mrs May was a total failure and an embarrassment to our country. Boris has done more in his short term in office than May did in 3 years in her time there.

Ignoring the majority of the referendum is certainly not democracy and the thought of asking the people again because we got it wrong the first time fills me with disgust. Remainers have tried for 3 years now to thwart and overturn the peoples referendum, it must not be allowed to happen. 

 

Interesting comment.

I think the main difference between May and Boris is that May tried to reach an agreement between all involved (at least mostly). She was not able to reach an agreement but she knew people still have to live together after Brexit and the EU is still there after Brexit. The UK and EU have to work together somehow.

It seems Boris wants to win. "I did it, we left the EU with no deal." and "We won't pay." And then? How does that work for the future? Should the UK citizen just pretend there is no Europe? Or how about accepting reality that you need some agreements with your neighbors. And ripping up all existing agreements in the hope that sometime in the future things will somehow get better is just plain stupid.