Opponents of 'no-deal' Brexit defeat PM Johnson, who promises an election

[yogi100]

13 hours ago, evadgib said:

Another car crash from Emily Thornbury:

 

Is that the same Emily Thornbury who's on 80 grand a year as a Labour MP and who made a spectacle of herself and her Labour Party when she made scornful remarks about English working people with her 'White Van Man' comments?

 

Yet still has the nerve to collect her salary as an MP representing the same political party we're meant to believe stands up for working class people.

 

Yeah, I'm sure it's the same Emily Thornbury, there can't possibly be two of 'em.

[evadgib]

10 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

Is that the same Emily Thornbury who's on 80 grand a year as a Labour MP and who made a spectacle of herself and her Labour Party when she made scornful remarks about English working people with her 'White Van Man' comments?

 

Yet still has the nerve to collect her salary as an MP representing the same political party we're meant to believe stands up for working class people.

 

Yeah, I'm sure it's the same Emily Thornbury, there can't possibly be two of 'em.

Did you see her on QT last week? Fiona Bruce couldn't believe it either! ????

[stevenl]

40 minutes ago, transam said:

So what about..."But usually used as a means of evading both".....

 

I was self employed for decades and I don't like the sentence that you feel is OK...

That refers to 'cash in hand' and not to 'self employed'. Please read.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That refers to 'cash in hand' and not to 'self employed'. Please read.

I was self-employed running a shop, it was ALL cash in hand, I was a taxi driver, ALL cash in hand....You know nothing...

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, transam said:

I was self-employed running a shop, it was ALL cash in hand, I was a taxi driver, ALL cash in hand....You know nothing...

I know exactly how it works.

 

Again insults, why. No questionmark, no need to answer, it would be the same again anyways.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

Did you see her on QT last week? Fiona Bruce couldn't believe it either! ????

Yes. So bad she's having trouble getting a new motor insurance policy.

[sandyf]

19 hours ago, yogi100 said:

 

Thanks for the valuable information SF.

 

But could you now please explain how knowing what SMEs are would influence how someone votes. 

 

The way I'm reading your post you're asserting that had I known what an SME was I may have voted differently. Am I correct?

No you are not correct.

I you really knew what you were voting for you would have known that SMEs, or whatever name you wanted to give to them, represented the largest percentage of the workforce and being SMEs, or whatever name you want to give them, would be the most vulnerable with the loss of the single market.

 

As for voting, that is a matter for the individual. Information gives rise to a more informed perspective and it would be a sad case indeed for someone to deliberately vote in a manner that put the livelihood of the largest part of the workforce in jeopardy.

I don't think for one minute that was the intention of the electorate, with a lack of meaningful dialogue just unaware of the potential outcome.

 

Freedom of movement has to a certain extent a physical presence and something the public can relate to. The Single Market on the other hand is an abstract concept and quite meaningless to the majority, they were never told otherwise.

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, transam said:

So what about..."But usually used as a means of evading both".....

 

I was self employed for decades and I don't like the sentence that you feel is OK...

You distorted the interpretation to make an issue out of nothing -  usually used as a means of evading.

[transam]

5 minutes ago, sandyf said:

You distorted the interpretation to make an issue out of nothing -  usually used as a means of evading.

Distorted....Evade.....Are you serious....If you go back, the guy I was replying to should have used the word "could" but used the word "usually" regarding evade paying tax....He knew what he was writing.....

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, transam said:

Distorted....Evade.....Are you serious....If you go back, the guy I was replying to should have used the word "could" but used the word "usually" regarding evade paying tax....He knew what he was writing.....

He was referring to 'cash in hand' and not as you claimed to 'self employed'. So yes, distorting and evading.

[transam]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

He was referring to 'cash in hand' and not as you claimed to 'self employed'. So yes, distorting and evading.

Most of my life was cash in hand and I was self-employed...I know what I read.

[yogi100]

34 minutes ago, sandyf said:

No you are not correct.

I you really knew what you were voting for you would have known that SMEs, or whatever name you wanted to give to them, represented the largest percentage of the workforce and being SMEs, or whatever name you want to give them, would be the most vulnerable with the loss of the single market.

 

As for voting, that is a matter for the individual. Information gives rise to a more informed perspective and it would be a sad case indeed for someone to deliberately vote in a manner that put the livelihood of the largest part of the workforce in jeopardy.

I don't think for one minute that was the intention of the electorate, with a lack of meaningful dialogue just unaware of the potential outcome.

 

Freedom of movement has to a certain extent a physical presence and something the public can relate to. The Single Market on the other hand is an abstract concept and quite meaningless to the majority, they were never told otherwise.

 

Well I am correct then. Your actual words were 'If you really knew what you were voting for you would know that SMEs are the largest employer in the UK'.

 

That's exactly the same as telling me that if I did not know what an SME is I did not know what I was voting for.

[stevenl]

21 minutes ago, transam said:

Most of my life was cash in hand and I was self-employed...I know what I read.

Maybe, but what you read was not what he wrote.

[Forethat]

29 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Maybe, but what you read was not what he wrote.

After reading your posts I understand exactly why remainers at some point came to the conclusion that "Leave the European Union" meant "Leave the European Union, but only if we can agree not to leave European Union".

 

It's a reading comprehension issue. Clearly.

[7by7]

8 hours ago, yogi100 said:

What exactly are these full effects of Brexit on the UK's economy you've just mentioned.

 

Do you mean like people losing their jobs, getting in work benefits, having zero hours contracts and the introduction of food banks. Are they some of these effects?

 As already proven to you; unemployment is falling and has been since the 1990s.

 

In work benefits, food banks etc. are nothing to do with the EU. 

 

Zero hours contracts? EU law fixes minimum rights for 'gig economy' workers

Quote

The European Parliament says the new legislation will apply to "the most vulnerable employees on atypical contracts and in non-standard jobs" - including those on zero-hour contracts.

 

Not that the new protection will apply to British workers, of course: unless we decide to Remain after all.

 

The economic effects I mean are those which sandyf was talking about; especially the effects of trading on WTO terms and it's tariffs. The effects Cummings took great pains to conceal from the public during the referendum campaign. The effects labelled 'Project Fear' whenever a Remainer tried to discuss them during that campaign.

 

A subject which has been explained so many times in these topics that I don't intend doing so again so that you can, as always, simply ignore facts which you don't care for.

 

[7by7]

8 hours ago, transam said:

So now UK self-employed in your opinion are crooks....You really are something..

 That is not what I said.

 

You are either deliberately misinterpreting my words because you think it means you've scored a petty point; or your English comprehension skills are sadly lacking.

 

I'm pretty certain it's the former.

[7by7]

8 hours ago, yogi100 said:

He's never done a hard days work in his life yet knows all about those of us who have.

 

He's the sort who'd never dream of giving a bit of work to an Englishman while there are Eastern Europeans about especially if they'll do it cheaper which is why they want us to stay in their precious EU.

 

8 hours ago, transam said:

Yeh, and all those religious friends running curry shops, cash work, are all incredibly decent chaps with incredibly wonderful account books...Bwaaaah.

 

I see that you have both fallen back on your usual tactic of "I've no facts to back up my absurd posts, so I'll through out a few unfounded insults instead!"

 

Yet you have the nerve to say that it is Remainers who resort to insults! Look in the mirror, boys; look in the mirror.

[7by7]

8 hours ago, transam said:

So what about..."But usually used as a means of evading both".....

 

I was self employed for decades and I don't like the sentence that you feel is OK...

 I was explaining the difference between 'paid in cash' and 'paid cash in hand' to your mate, as he seems as confused by this as he is about the saying 'as thick as two planks!' 

 

You two must be the only two British workers who do not know the difference!

 

I was self employed for 30 years until my illness meant I had to give up my chosen profession; every person I knew then, employed, self-employed or not working, and still know now, does know the difference!

[7by7]

4 hours ago, transam said:

Distorted....Evade.....Are you serious....If you go back, the guy I was replying to should have used the word "could" but used the word "usually" regarding evade paying tax....He knew what he was writing.....

 Yes, because as every British person of working age, and many below, knows that being paid cash in hand or on the lump is usually a means of evading tax.

 

Totally different from being paid in cash, from your customers paying you in cash, from my pupils paying me in cash.

 

As you well know; unless you really are sorely lacking in your English comprehension skills; which I very much doubt!

 

You tried to score a petty point; again. It's backfired on you; again. Give it up before you make yourself look even more childish.

[yogi100]

5 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 As already proven to you; unemployment is falling and has been since the 1990s.

 

In work benefits, food banks etc. are nothing to do with the EU. 

 

Zero hours contracts? EU law fixes minimum rights for 'gig economy' workers

 

Not that the new protection will apply to British workers, of course: unless we decide to Remain after all.

 

The economic effects I mean are those which sandyf was talking about; especially the effects of trading on WTO terms and it's tariffs. The effects Cummings took great pains to conceal from the public during the referendum campaign. The effects labelled 'Project Fear' whenever a Remainer tried to discuss them during that campaign.

 

A subject which has been explained so many times in these topics that I don't intend doing so again so that you can, as always, simply ignore facts which you don't care for.

 

 

And how many of the 8.7 million people of working age who are economically inactive do you think are in reality swinging the lead with feigned ailments like bad backs, supposed mental problems, stress and depression etc.

 

Perhaps you believe and will claim it's only the 1.5 million the government tell us are actually unemployed?

 

You've 'proven' absolutely zilch so pull the other one it's got bells on.

 

It's a situation that has arisen when there are far too many cheap immigrant workers from the EU making the work ethic a lot less attractive for the indigenous workers than it should be.

 

You've even got Eastern Europeans hassling people for work in the car parks of B&Q when they've purchased materials to do a bit of DIY over the weekend.

 

You've also had 'em wanting to clean your car windscreen when you stopped at traffic lights. If you waved 'em away they sometimes even spat on your car.

 

That was unimaginable before we joined the EU.

 

The EU champions and welcomes immigration. Merkel's let millions of 'em in so has France, Italy, Spain, Greece and the Benelux countries.

 

When they get their passports they can go anywhere in the EU and our dimwitted, naive politicians and their equally naive sycophantic followers are only too eager to roll out the red carpet for them.

 

That's the main reason we wanted out and will still want out for the sake of our young people when they eventually enter the job market.

 

Some people are only capable of manual work but even so our politicians should act in their interests as well as in those of wealthy businessmen.

 

Not make their prospects so bleak that they consign themselves to a hopeless existence on benefits sometimes supplemented by a bit of illegal dealing in the pharmaceutical trade. That's what's happening in the real world of our inner cities and towns.

[kingdong]

15 hours ago, yogi100 said:

He's never done a hard days work in his life yet knows all about those of us who have.

 

He's the sort who'd never dream of giving a bit of work to an Englishman while there are Eastern Europeans about especially if they'll do it cheaper which is why they want us to stay in their precious EU.

You find them on tv shows like builders from hell they pay peanuts get monkeys them spew their rings up when it all goes tits up

[beautifulthailand99]

Farage the nihilist - keep up the good work. A centrist coalition is what the UK needs now not extremist wreckers. 

BREAKING - this is what No  Deal could bring -and no sane , sensible person voted for this. Utter madness to those that would contemplate this .

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf

 

A ComRes poll for The Telegraph out today put the Tories on 30 per cent, Labour on 29 per cent, the Lib Dems on 17 per cent and the Brexit Party on 13 per cent.  

If those levels of support were repeated at the next election, the Electoral Calculus website suggests the Tories would finish 41 seats short of the 320 needed for a majority. 

Mr Johnson could win 285 seats to Labour's 266 while the Lib Dems would surge to 38 MPs. Mr Farage could finish without a single seat.

Such a result would make it almost impossible for the Tories to form a government and would potentially open the door to a Labour/SNP/Lib Dem coalition. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7452187/Boris-Johnson-launches-extraordinary-attack-not-fit-proper-Nigel-Farage.html

[kingdong]

7 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

 

Such a result would make it almost impossible for the Tories to form a government and would potentially open the door to a Labour/SNP/Lib Dem coalition. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7452187/Boris-Johnson-launches-extraordinary-attack-not-fit-proper-Nigel-Farage.html

With corbyn as puppet pm,what could possibly go wrong?happy days are here again.

[beautifulthailand99]

2 minutes ago, kingdong said:

With corbyn as puppet pm,what could possibly go wrong?happy days are here again.

Well if you vote Farage you know who to blame !

[kingdong]

1 minute ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Well if you vote Farage you know who to blame !

Yeah,the remainers

[beautifulthailand99]

1 minute ago, kingdong said:

Yeah,the remainers

Keep up the good work we remainers are relying on you to support the Brexit Party.

[beautifulthailand99]

The Yellowhammer summaries are horrific. 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf

[Jip99]

52 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

The Yellowhammer summaries are horrific. 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf

 

 

Which parts scared you ?

 

I saw nothing to cause me to hide under the pillow.

[Jip99]

Here are a few comments on Yellow Hammer, albeit from the Sun, it does provide some commentary rather than just scaremongering headlines.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9896161/what-is-operation-yellowhammer/

[beautifulthailand99]

10 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Which parts scared you ?

 

I saw nothing to cause me to hide under the pillow.

Well you don't run a business , or rely on imported medicines , or care about disruption to the manufacturing supply chain on which 100 of thousands of jobs depend , or have a relative in social care , or rising fuel and food prices for a start. I say if this doesn't concern you then you are a wrecker who wishes ill on the country. And that's that - I hope and pray wiser counsel will prevail.