UK PM Johnson appeals to party for support over controversial bill

[david555]

22 minutes ago, Bruntoid said:

So place your bets. Whose turn is it to make Bojo look an even bigger idiot this time ? House of Lords, the courts or his own party (again)

He doesn't need  neither of both …. he can do that all alone by himself perfect I find …… 

Edited September 12, 2020 by david555

[Loiner]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

I hate to interrupt you mid-rant, but you do know that Brandon Lewis is a Tory minister? You know, part of Boris' gang. The bloke you so fervently support?

I know who he is, and now was. Your point is?

[Dumbastheycome]

Oh  dear oh  dear !

Post  Covid effects have yet to be  fully  understood.

In many more ways than one !

[elliss]

10 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Sadly, Starmer has shown how ineffective a leader he is, and how worthless Labour Lite is as an opposition. The democratic process is dying in the UK and nobody seems to care. 

 

    Indeed .

     Starmer,  along with the previous labour/opposition party leader , Corbyn.

    Have shown , no  opposition  whatsoever to the Tory Government .

      A sad time for democracy . Vote for a change of government ..? 

       Those were the days ..

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by elliss

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

Oh I should imagine the world (a "wold" is something very different, an upland forest in rolling countryside - but then I acknowledge that English is not your first language, not withstanding your evident and often voiced enthusiasm for condemning our political process) is watching with some interest the EU's attempts to dictate matters to a sovereign nation which is no longer a member, Of course how they regard it will depend upon their own political stance. If they are upholders of democracy, parliamentary and national sovereignty they will probably quite understand and approve. If they are of the mind which yearns for an unelected Franco-German hegemony, dictating a sclerotic continental economic protection racket then they will no doubt think as you do!.

Eu dictates matters? You find it perfectly normal to sign an agreement, negotiate for a considerable time based on that agreement, and then renegade from that agreement?

 

Wto, now please. Why wait, after all it was only an agreement.

 

Your hidden snipe about a spelling mistake is below the belt.

Edited September 12, 2020 by stevenl

[herfiehandbag]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Your hidden snipe about a spelling mistake is below the belt.

So it is quite acceptable for him to post offensive comments generalising about what he perceives as a national trait within my country, but to comment on his spelling is "below the belt"?

 

If one ventures to post such "robust comments" then one must expect equally  "robust" responses.

[Nigel Garvie]

4 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

So it is quite acceptable for him to post offensive comments generalising about what he perceives as a national trait within my country, but to comment on his spelling is "below the belt"?

 

If one ventures to post such "robust comments" then one must expect equally  "robust" responses.

Nothing to do with robust, according to my memory of Forum rules,  spelling and grammar Nazis are discouraged (My words). That is twice recently on this topic "Brake" was another. 

Try responding to the other posters argument rather than nit-picking - maybe.

[Nigel Garvie]

4 hours ago, elliss said:

 

    Indeed .

     Starmer,  along with the previous labour/opposition party leader , Corbyn.

    Have shown , no  opposition  whatsoever to the Tory Government .

      A sad time for democracy . Vote for a change of government ..? 

       Those were the days ..

 

There is a vast difference between Starmer and Corbyn which surely anyone can see. Starmer takes Boris apart week after week at PMQ. Corbyn was inadequate to say the least. A man of very limited intelligence who neither had the flexibility or imagination to rise above the Socialism of the 70s, mostly no longer relevant. I have noticed that it is an unfortunate habit of some of my fellow Independence supporters to launch attacks on Starmer because of his stance on Scotland. The fact is that he is the real deal, a genuine politician, in this case trying to rescue his party from oblivion. 

   His problem is that Corbyn was incredibly unpopular with the ordinary voter all over the UK, and Corbyn handed Boris an 85 seat majority. Anyone imagining that Boris won this through his own ability is in the terminal stages of self- delusion. 

 

Without this large majority Boris/Cummings would not be quite so keen to break international law.

[herfiehandbag]

3 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Nothing to do with robust, according to my memory of Forum rules,  spelling and grammar Nazis are discouraged (My words). That is twice recently on this topic "Brake" was another. 

Try responding to the other posters argument rather than nit-picking - maybe.

Very well, let us consider my post to which you object. I will take out that comment, which was in parentheses anyway.

 

I said " Oh I should imagine the world is watching with some interest the EU's attempts to dictate matters to a sovereign nation which is no longer a member, Of course how they regard it will depend upon their own political stance. If they are upholders of democracy, parliamentary and national sovereignty they will probably quite understand and approve. If they are of the mind which yearns for an unelected Franco-German hegemony, dictating a sclerotic continental economic protection racket then they will no doubt think as you do!"

 

That is an entirely valid response. It may be a view with which you do not agree, but that does not mean it cannot be expressed.

[stevenl]

8 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

So it is quite acceptable for him to post offensive comments generalising about what he perceives as a national trait within my country, but to comment on his spelling is "below the belt"?

 

If one ventures to post such "robust comments" then one must expect equally  "robust" responses.

You don't see the difference between a general comment and a personal one?

 

You omitted my contentual response to only answer criticism on a personal comment, makes it look like you're not interested in the content of the discussion.

[herfiehandbag]

47 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You don't see the difference between a general comment and a personal one?

 

You omitted my contentual response to only answer criticism on a personal comment, makes it look like you're not interested in the content of the discussion.

The post concerned (#80) was one of two in succession which were clearly made in an attempt to be offensive about, and to, many Englishmen. I consider that the intent and effect was to be offensive, and I found it personally offensive - hence my response. Others have taken me to task for breaking forum rules by acting as a "spelling and grammar NAZI"; but those same rules also forbid posts which make offensive comments about groups and nationalities in general, a rule which posts #80 and #81 certainly breach, along with quite a lot of other posts on this topic!

 

I do not mock posts (such as yours) made by those for whom English is not their native language if they are not intended to be offensive in that manner.

 

Now for a response to the content of your post. The point has been made before, but I will do so again. These negotiations have been rendered largely meaningless by the EU's intransigence over certain areas. Now, it is reported (by the BBC's Europe Correspondent amongst others) that the EU is preparing punitive tarrif regimes and sanctions to damage if not wreck certain of the UK's major industries if their ultimatums in these areas are not met. That can hardly be described as a reasonable negotiating stance. I think it is fair to suggest that the negotiations are now irretrievably broken as a result of this intransigence - something which could hardly come as a surprise to anyone with a nodding acquaintance with M. Barniers's Gaullist roots! The "Internal Markets Bill" is to be decided by a sovereign Parliament, freely elected, it is presented by a democratically elected government, having been discussed in Cabinet, and is being reported on by a free press. It is intended to give the government powers to protect the UK from such intransigence and ultimatums.

 

As an aside, it would be interesting to know the views (which will probably not be made public) of your own government on the matter - pragmatism has always been something of a trait in the Netherlands political scene, yes?

 

As for WTO rules, yes please, to my mind they should have been implemented from the start. Personally I think that it was foolish to imagine that any agreement could ever have been reached - the current Franco-German hegemony within the EU would prevent that, it is after all why we decided to leave. 

 

 

[vogie]

5 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Nothing to do with robust, according to my memory of Forum rules,  spelling and grammar Nazis are discouraged (My words). That is twice recently on this topic "Brake" was another. 

Try responding to the other posters argument rather than nit-picking - maybe.

You hardly hold the moral high ground here when you have stated that people don't vote the same as you are "traitors," please show some consistancy Nigel. Faux indignation.

[Rookiescot]

24 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

The post concerned (#80) was one of two in succession which were clearly made in an attempt to be offensive about, and to, many Englishmen. I consider that the intent and effect was to be offensive, and I found it personally offensive - hence my response. Others have taken me to task for breaking forum rules by acting as a "spelling and grammar NAZI"; but those same rules also forbid posts which make offensive comments about groups and nationalities in general, a rule which posts #80 and #81 certainly breach, along with quite a lot of other posts on this topic!

 

I do not mock posts (such as yours) made by those for whom English is not their native language if they are not intended to be offensive in that manner.

 

Now for a response to the content of your post. The point has been made before, but I will do so again. These negotiations have been rendered largely meaningless by the EU's intransigence over certain areas. Now, it is reported (by the BBC's Europe Correspondent amongst others) that the EU is preparing punitive tarrif regimes and sanctions to damage if not wreck certain of the UK's major industries if their ultimatums in these areas are not met. That can hardly be described as a reasonable negotiating stance. I think it is fair to suggest that the negotiations are now irretrievably broken as a result of this intransigence - something which could hardly come as a surprise to anyone with a nodding acquaintance with M. Barniers's Gaullist roots! The "Internal Markets Bill" is to be decided by a sovereign Parliament, freely elected, it is presented by a democratically elected government, having been discussed in Cabinet, and is being reported on by a free press. It is intended to give the government powers to protect the UK from such intransigence and ultimatums.

 

As an aside, it would be interesting to know the views (which will probably not be made public) of your own government on the matter - pragmatism has always been something of a trait in the Netherlands political scene, yes?

 

As for WTO rules, yes please, to my mind they should have been implemented from the start. Personally I think that it was foolish to imagine that any agreement could ever have been reached - the current Franco-German hegemony within the EU would prevent that, it is after all why we decided to leave. 

 

 

Oddly enough post number 80 makes no reference to the English.

It does say "Brit" though.

So somehow in your mind Brit = English. 

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

You hardly hold the moral high ground here when you have stated that people don't vote the same as you are "traitors," please show some consistancy Nigel. Faux indignation.

Not once have I seen Nigel refer to anyone as a traitor.

The only people I see calling people traitors are Brexiteers.

And of course there are those who vote up such posts calling remainers traitors. Such as yourself.

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Not once have I seen Nigel refer to anyone as a traitor.

The only people I see calling people traitors are Brexiteers.

And of course there are those who vote up such posts calling remainers traitors. Such as yourself.

It is on record of Nigel saying it, it is not on record of me saying it, but nice try, but no cigar.

Edited September 13, 2020 by vogie

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, vogie said:

It is on record of Nigel saying it, it is not on record of me saying it, but nice try, but no cigar.

Read my post again. I never said you used the word traitor. You did however vote up a post by someone else who called me a traitor.

Not once can I recall Nigel calling anyone a traitor.

[crobe]

It is, patently, of little use to argue with Brexiters in terms of evidence (Boris signed the agreement), fact (The EU market is 5 times the size of the UK), or regulation (international treaties supercede national legislation).

This is because for the ardent Brexiteers it is not about the facts or evidence, Brexit for them is a calling, a cult, in fact a religion.

It is like pointing out the curvature of the Earth to flat-earthers - if it does not fit their premise they ignore it.

 

Like most religions it is founded on hypocrisy and determined to ignore the realities of life around it, and is also intolerant and exclusive.

Brexiteers catechism is national sovereignty, taking back control etc. but cannot countenance this when the same is asked for by the Scottish - just as the Christian faith cannot countenance the Muslim faith and vice versa.

And in another parallel, they frequency cite other Brexiteers as "evidence" of their claims, just as suicide bombers will claim authority from the rantings of specific Imams rather than the original text.

 

But at some point religion comes up against the hard aspects of reality - regardless of the con-job sold to the masses of eternal life and 72 virgins, the truth is that when you die, you die

And the reality will be the post -Brexit world. 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by crobe

[herfiehandbag]

18 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Oddly enough post number 80 makes no reference to the English.

It does say "Brit" though.

So somehow in your mind Brit = English. 

Oh dear - more nitpicking!

[vogie]

14 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Read my post again. I never said you used the word traitor. You did however vote up a post by someone else who called me a traitor.

Not once can I recall Nigel calling anyone a traitor.

Easily solved, ask him.

[stevenl]

55 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

<snip>

I do not mock posts (such as yours) made by those for whom English is not their native language if they are not intended to be offensive in that manner.<snip>

You'd better not, my English is of a much higher standard than many native speakers, even more so if you include Americans.

 

Your views on the negotiations seem rather partial, and to a great extent fueled by an anti europe sentiment, especially towards 2 countries. A sentiment I see often here, and I can only explain that from a longing to a lost past. I hardly ever see an anti UK sentiment from Europe, although it seems frustrations have been growing a bit recently.

[transam]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You'd better not, my English is of a much higher standard than many native speakers, even more so if you include Americans.

 

Your views on the negotiations seem rather partial, and to a great extent fueled by an anti europe sentiment, especially towards 2 countries. A sentiment I see often here, and I can only explain that from a longing to a lost past. I hardly ever see an anti UK sentiment from Europe, although it seems frustrations have been growing a bit recently.

Well, the UK did come to the aid of many EU countries didn't they, "Lest we forget", eh..????

 

The UK is trying to get it's future in order without strings, the UK is not bombing the sh_t out of the EU is it.....

[crobe]

7 minutes ago, transam said:

Well, the UK did come to the aid of many EU countries didn't they, "Lest we forget", eh..????

And there has not been a major war in Europe for 75 years, the Berlin wall has come down, the Balkans are now more peaceful than they have ever been and the Baltic states have been freed from Russian hegemony.

 

In all these the EU has been a major contributor, both in hard power and in diplomacy and the institution of the rule of law.

While it does not need the UK to do this, it has been strengthened by having the UK as a member during these times.

 

Lest we forget..

 

[luckyluke]

I suppose it is impossible to know if the U.K. people are prepare to accept everything from their p.m. for the sake of Brexit and the U.K..

Does the end justifies the means in any circumstances?

 

I didn't always accept everything, so there were decisions in my life who didn't turn out very well.

Sometimes I think if my moral satisfaction is the only one I should have considered.

 

 

[RuamRudy]

6 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

There is a vast difference between Starmer and Corbyn which surely anyone can see. Starmer takes Boris apart week after week at PMQ. Corbyn was inadequate to say the least. A man of very limited intelligence who neither had the flexibility or imagination to rise above the Socialism of the 70s, mostly no longer relevant. I have noticed that it is an unfortunate habit of some of my fellow Independence supporters to launch attacks on Starmer because of his stance on Scotland. The fact is that he is the real deal, a genuine politician, in this case trying to rescue his party from oblivion. 

   His problem is that Corbyn was incredibly unpopular with the ordinary voter all over the UK, and Corbyn handed Boris an 85 seat majority. Anyone imagining that Boris won this through his own ability is in the terminal stages of self- delusion. 

 

Without this large majority Boris/Cummings would not be quite so keen to break international law.

Nothing to do with his stance on independence - Labour is so far behind in Scotland that his opinion is largely irrelevant and will make little material difference in the long run. 

 

Last PMQs he had an open goal to expose our useless, morally bankrupt prime minister for having lied to parliament, the country and Betty herself, but he chose to ignore all that and prattle on about things much less pressing. There may be strategy in the approach he is taking, but I don't see it. The best strategy, in my opinion, is to kick Johnson as hard as he can and as often as he can. If we cannot rely upon the leader of the opposition to do this, who will?

[baansgr]

16 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Wow you come across as an angry man.

Buyers remorse perhaps?

Look you guys won. We are leaving the EU. However the EU IS a far bigger entity than little old UK. Its a fact mate. Get used to it. Being the first to flounce out does not mean anyone else will follow. Especial when they look at the UK's drama strewn departure. Its been a joke so far worthy of a Christmas panto.

So when it comes to negotiations between a huge trading group and an insignificant other party then guess who holds all the cards?

Yes its the other guys. The bigger boys.

Hey you voted for it. Enjoy what you have won and lets celebrate.

And the reason it has been a joke is because of all those remainders not accepting the vote and continually trying to overturn it...as recently as a few months ago, remainder MPs were writing to the EU saying the UK didn't want to leave...it's done and almost dusted with no thanks whatsoever to all those sore losers that can't accept what the majority voted for.

[transam]

36 minutes ago, crobe said:

And there has not been a major war in Europe for 75 years, the Berlin wall has come down, the Balkans are now more peaceful than they have ever been and the Baltic states have been freed from Russian hegemony.

 

In all these the EU has been a major contributor, both in hard power and in diplomacy and the institution of the rule of law.

While it does not need the UK to do this, it has been strengthened by having the UK as a member during these times.

 

Lest we forget..

 

Yes, the UK's nuclear deterrent has done a good job, plus the USA's backup...????

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

You'd better not, my English is of a much higher standard than many native speakers, even more so if you include Americans.

 

Your views on the negotiations seem rather partial, and to a great extent fueled by an anti europe sentiment, especially towards 2 countries. A sentiment I see often here, and I can only explain that from a longing to a lost past. I hardly ever see an anti UK sentiment from Europe, although it seems frustrations have been growing a bit recently.

I have no doubt that your English is of a commendably high standard - but please do not lead me into discussion of "American English" - on that too my views are partial!

 

Now of course my views on the negotiations are partial - I am firmly on one side of the divide which they are seeking, and failing, to bridge. I offer my interpretation of why. 

 

I am certainly not anti European. I speak French and German and have in my "previous life" (not in the Buddhist sense I hasten to add) lived and worked with people from both countries - as well as with the Dutch and the Danes. I am anti EU, certainly in it's present form and the path which it is taking. My point on the Franco-German hegemony (which I presume is where you discern anti European sentiment) is rather born out by the way in which the appointment of the two top jobs in the EU, President of The European Commission (Ursula Von Der Leyen - Germany) and President of The European central Bank (Christine Lagarde - France) was shall we say "managed" recently?

 

As for anti UK sentiment well, I could (but will not) name at least half a dozen regular posters here who virtually never post without including such sentiments - or perhaps more specifically anti English sentiments.

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by herfiehandbag

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

 

As for anti UK sentiment well, I could (but will not) name at least half a dozen regular posters here who virtually never post without including such sentiments - or perhaps more specifically anti English sentiments.

If you are going to insinuate something, why not show some courage and actually come out and say it rather than taking the cowardly approach of slinging mud then running away?

[transam]

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

If you are going to insinuate something, why not show some courage and actually come out and say it rather than taking the cowardly approach of slinging mud then running away?

He doesn't have too, the readers and writers here know.....????

[robblok]

1 hour ago, transam said:

Well, the UK did come to the aid of many EU countries didn't they, "Lest we forget", eh..????

 

The UK is trying to get it's future in order without strings, the UK is not bombing the sh_t out of the EU is it.....

God man that old cow.. it has been eons ago that that happend. Had other countries not joined the war you lot would be speaking German too. You act like you won the war while in reality you played a minor part.

 

Having said that you did not even do anything, your quite old but not that old. Why bring something up like that. I think a lot Brits are living in the past. All that pounding on your chest for something you did not even play any part in. Its hilarious to be honest. People who havent done anything with their lives often become nationalistic. Your a great example.  WW2 ended 75 !!!!! years ago. You act like its still relevant.