May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[CharlieK]

On 12/1/2016 at 1:38 PM, jpinx said:

You are seriously wrong -- the referendum was to leave the EU, not the free trade area. Your attitude to TM as "hedging her bets" only proves that she's doing the right thing since to declare a hand at this early stage would be tantamount to rolling over for Junkers and Tusk --  I'd include Shultz, but he's gone/going home If you are unhappy with your MP's performance - take it up with your constituency office - it's got nothing to do with the Brexit vote. 

 

TM is astute enough to play along for now while we see what happens in the various european elections.  Things are not going to stay the same and she will be dealing with a different set of people regarding Brexit next year -- assuming France does not actually vote Le Penn in and they jump ship from the EU first.  It's all to play for -- so sit back and watch how the cards come out. 

 

Meantime -- who is suffering?

 

enacting article 50 would be enough, that in it self would show that the government is serious about it. Besides there is no rule that says having enacted article 50, means we must start negotiating the next day. 

 

what we have now is court hearings, and other party leaders promising to vote against it if they don't get what they want. So until the parliamentary games are over it is not certain that Brexit will happen. 

 

As you have said TM might end up negotiating with different leaders, so as Germany doesn't go to the polls till October next year, could mean waiting till then to start negotiations.

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by CharlieK

[Loeilad]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

Go away.... I can also tell you about my experiences working within big business, and how more was expected for less that started a few decades ago.

 

My favourite was when the Union Rep. where I worked admitted that he had no interest in the lower paid - only those on our grade edit - or above.....

 

I could also tell you about my time working in the public sector (thereafter) - when it also became obvious that the same attitude was at play for those at the lower end of the scale.  How do I know about this?  Because I was the poor sod looking at (and arguing against) the job descriptions and pay for those at the bottom.

 

Meanwhile, I was also seeing those (at the top) who had recently 'retired' being given increased salaries a few months before they retired or consultancies/new well-paid positions etc. etc.

 

And don't get me started on the 'recommended suppliers'!  Corruption at its worst.

"my experiences working within big business," - now THAT is a line to play with!

[dick dasterdly]

9 hours ago, Loeilad said:

As Wil Self said

"Not all Brexiteers are racist, but all racists are Brexiteers"

 

So why would you vote with the racists?

 

23 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I was annoyed enough to find the poster that quoted Wil Self - as if his quote was worthy, or had any relevance.

 

17 minutes ago, Loeilad said:

It seems to be a common practice amongst Brexiteers to attack the messenger rather than the message - a sign of poor agruing abilities

I'm very sorry for you that Wil Self has been shown to be yet someone else with 'an opinion'.

 

YOU chose to quote his opinion as if it was worthy, so blame yourself if you get some feedback on some celebrities opinion quoted by yourself as if it was important!

[dick dasterdly]

20 minutes ago, Loeilad said:

"my experiences working within big business," - now THAT is a line to play with!

Feel free - if you're really that desperate (roll eyes).

 

No doubt you'll turn this into another Benny Hill sketch too....

Edited December 2, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[nausea]

I think the recent by-election result may have a few Tories worried; what was that - a c. 23,000 majority overturned by a Lib-Dem anti-Brexiteer. They'd better make a good job of this Brexit thing. Nothing is set in stone, nor is the Tories position as one of the major parties, or Labour's. 

[Orac]

I think the recent by-election result may have a few Tories worried; what was that - a c. 23,000 majority overturned by a Lib-Dem anti-Brexiteer. They'd better make a good job of this Brexit thing. Nothing is set in stone, nor is the Tories position as one of the major parties, or Labour's. 

The Labour result was particularly interesting, they fielded an anti-Corbyn candidate and only managed to get 1,500 votes which is even less than registered Labour party members in the constituency (1,600). The Tories can at least take solace that UKIP are in such a state at the moment with major problems and thus not really a threat to split the pro-brexit vote.

[NickJ]

Just keep re-doing or redefining the word of the people. Keep at it. see where it leads.

[7by7]

People are aware that the Conservatives did not field a candidate in Richmond, are they?

 

Goldsmith resigned on a point of principle; the government's decision to build a third runway at Heathrow. He fought his campaign as an independent on that local issue.

 

Olney and the Lib Dems took an antiBrexit stance in their campaign and fought it on that issue; based on the fact that Richmond voted to remain in the EU. Almost certainly because they knew that fighting Goldsmith on the third runway issue would result in their defeat.

 

Unfortunately for Goldsmith, most of the 53% who bothered to vote chose to give the government a bloody nose on the issue of Brexit rather than stand by a man who was interested, on this occasion, in protecting their local interests.

 

None of which will effect Brexit.

 

The government still has a, small, majority in the House, and is committed to fulfilling the wish, albeit misguided wish, of the majority of the people who voted in the referendum to leave the EU.

 

[nausea]

I think the word of the people spoke pretty clearly here, albeit in a rather biased constituency. I want to see what happens when inflation hits. At the end of the day people care about money in their pocket.

[nausea]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

People are aware that the Conservatives did not field a candidate 

 

Yeah, I'm aware. The issues were pretty clear cut though. The fact the Tories didn't field an alternative candidate suggests he was still an "honourable" Tory, as far as they were concerned. This was a protest vote against Brexit. The Tories may have made a big mistake by fixing their horse to the Brexit cart, the middle classes are overwhelmingly against it, and it's usually the middle classes who hold the key to power in any country, where they exist. 

[7by7]

So are you saying that. despite their pre referendum pledge. that the government should simply ignore the result because it didn't go the way most of them wished?

[SheungWan]

57 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Just keep re-doing or redefining the word of the people. Keep at it. see where it leads.

 

Hard Brexiteers doing a Monty Python sketch in their dreams.

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, nausea said:

I think the recent by-election result may have a few Tories worried; what was that - a c. 23,000 majority overturned by a Lib-Dem anti-Brexiteer. They'd better make a good job of this Brexit thing. Nothing is set in stone, nor is the Tories position as one of the major parties, or Labour's. 

 

The result brings into question what would happen if Theresa May called a general election. IMHO no risk to the Tories as a major party, but doubts emerge whether the overall majority might be at risk if the Lib Dems managed a resurgence. The forum hard brexiteers will no doubt double-down on the anti-parliamentary rhetoric Vs the Will Of The People flag waving, but at least for now the mood will swing towards a more soft brexit accommodation in the country notwithstanding the blood and thunder from certain quarters.

[nausea]

You sound very complacent. Any reasonable person would take this as a shot over the bows, which I must admit you seem to acknowledge - soft brexit and all that. So we've achieved what? The point is a hard brexit is going to be very painful, and the people advocating it need to be truthful and stop mucking around.

[AlexRich]

1 hour ago, NickJ said:

Just keep re-doing or redefining the word of the people. Keep at it. see where it leads.

 

This by-election vote was the word of the people

 

... so as Brexiteers would say, accept the result, that's democracy, get behind the winner, you lost, etc.

 

i know, sounds ridiculous, doesn't it. Why would anyone change their view or stop campaigning for what they believed in because of one vote?

[billd766]

9 hours ago, jpinx said:

I was told by tax accountants that I could get everything from UK pensions paid taxfree into an offshore account.  That's where my ideas came from.   I have no problem with "no taxation without representation", but there are vast areas of uncertainty in the whole situation, kept deliberately muddy by the various tax authorities.

 

 

 

There was no uncertainty in what the taxman told me.

 

His response basically was, nice try, but no cigar.

 

Perhaps your tax advisor knows how to bend the rules a little but AFAIK and certainly in my case I still have to pay tax on income earned in the UK.

[billd766]

6 hours ago, Loeilad said:

It seems to be a common practice amongst Brexiteers to attack the messenger rather than the message - a sign of poor agruing abilities

 

Really? I as the one who posted the link to Wikipedia but I made no comment and certainly no attack on your post.

 

I also managed to spell Will Self's name correctly which is something that you failed to do having brought the person into the post.

 

He has a greater chance of changing someones convictions simply because he has access to the newpapers as a columnist.

 

That doesn't make him brighter or smarter than other people nor does it make him more stupid.

 

He has as much right to comment as you or I do but it doesn't mean that people have to agree with what he says.

 

I disagree with his comments.

[AlexRich]

I'm sure I speak for everyone on this thread in wishing Mrs Olney a successful career in politics

.... 

"A beaming Mrs Olney said the result would send a “shockwave” through Downing Street.

In her victory speech at the count she called it a rejection by Londoners of the “Ukip vision for Britain” that was echoed in Mrs May’s recent Conservative Party conference speech.

“We were seeing the Ukip vision for Britain in the ascendancy — intolerant, backward-looking and divisive, just  as we see it in America and across Europe,” she said".

[SheungWan]

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

So are you saying that. despite their pre referendum pledge. that the government should simply ignore the result because it didn't go the way most of them wished?

 

Pledges, promises, interpretations, understandings, spins, etc., have no currency. The precise wording of the referendum does. That is why within the UK parliamentary democracy, the terms of the withdrawal from the EU are in play across the spectrum from a hard brexit all the way over to varieties of softer versions.

[jpinx]

9 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

There was no uncertainty in what the taxman told me.

 

His response basically was, nice try, but no cigar.

 

Perhaps your tax advisor knows how to bend the rules a little but AFAIK and certainly in my case I still have to pay tax on income earned in the UK.

Interesting -- sorry if I rattled your cage a bit, but maybe the specifics of the circumstances are not the same.  I confess to not bothering with trying to get the UK state pension taxfree because it basically falls within the allowance, but I know I can get my personal UK pension taxfree - they offered it to me...

[jpinx]

4 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

Pledges, promises, interpretations, understandings, spins, etc., have no currency. The precise wording of the referendum does. That is why within the UK parliamentary democracy, the terms of the withdrawal from the EU are in play across the spectrum from a hard brexit all the way over to varieties of softer versions.

And therein lies the GREAT LIE that is politics.  Joe Public is not interested in wading through the text of every new law and relies on digestible bite-sized chunks making up an understandable  precis, but the people who supply that are the politicians and the press -- the biggest bunch of 2-faced liars that you will ever have the misfortune to meet :)

[Loeilad]

20 minutes ago, jpinx said:

And therein lies the GREAT LIE that is politics.  Joe Public is not interested in wading through the text of every new law and relies on digestible bite-sized chunks making up an understandable  precis, but the people who supply that are the politicians and the press -- the biggest bunch of 2-faced liars that you will ever have the misfortune to meet :)

This is the kind of nape-of-the-neck cynicism that you see linked to conspiracy theories that make certain sections of the electorate so malleable in the hands of the very politicians they seem to berate

[Loeilad]

9 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Really? I as the one who posted the link to Wikipedia but I made no comment and certainly no attack on your post.

 

I also managed to spell Will Self's name correctly which is something that you failed to do having brought the person into the post.

 

He has a greater chance of changing someones convictions simply because he has access to the newpapers as a columnist.

 

That doesn't make him brighter or smarter than other people nor does it make him more stupid.

 

He has as much right to comment as you or I do but it doesn't mean that people have to agree with what he says.

 

I disagree with his comments.

QED.

[jpinx]

25 minutes ago, Loeilad said:

This is the kind of nape-of-the-neck cynicism that you see linked to conspiracy theories that make certain sections of the electorate so malleable in the hands of the very politicians they seem to berate

Indeed -- it is a two-edged sword.  I support no particular conspiracy theory but I do wonder how Joe Public is expected to make an "informed decision" when all that is available to him is the spinning top that is the mockery of political truth.  No wonder people become "conspiratorists" when there is so little of the apparent reality they can rely on. 

[nontabury]

On December 1, 2016 at 2:59 PM, sandyf said:

Unrepresentative of the views of citizens from the UK.

Gibralter voted to remain

Northern Ireland voted to remain

Scotland voted to remain

Wales voted to leave

England voted to leave.

 

A result based on regional dominance can hardly be described as representative.

 

The whole of the U.K. Plus Gibralter went into this vote as ONE. Not as regions.

Why you should highlight Gibralter with it's 30,000 inhabitants I just don't know.

 I'm guessing that as a Remoaners, had the vote,resulted in 50.95% of voters in N.Ireland,Wales and England ( 60,000,000 population)voting in favour of Britex, while if the Scots ( with only 6,000,000 ) had voted 9-1 and thus tipped the scale to remain, this result based on just one sparsely populated region would have been acceptable.  If this had had happened, I for one would have accepted that result, as that is what democracy is all about.

 

 

[nontabury]

19 hours ago, AlexRich said:

Zak Goldsmith loses the Richmond by-election to the Liberal Democrats ... looks like the 48% are having their voices heard?

 

More to come ...  

 

 I don't accept this democratic vote, can anyone put me in touch with a rich banker who would be willing to finance an appeal to the courts, in order to make this result void.

Edited December 3, 2016 by nontabury

[sandyf]

23 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Indeed -- it is a two-edged sword.  I support no particular conspiracy theory but I do wonder how Joe Public is expected to make an "informed decision" when all that is available to him is the spinning top that is the mockery of political truth.  No wonder people become "conspiratorists" when there is so little of the apparent reality they can rely on. 

So you accept that Joe Public is more likely to make an 'uninformed decision'.

[SaintLouisBlues]

5 minutes ago, sandyf said:

So you accept that Joe Public is more likely to make an 'uninformed decision'.

Yes - it's called "democracy"

[sandyf]

8 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

The whole of the U.K. Plus Gibralter went into this vote as ONE. Not as regions.

Why you should highlight Gibralter with it's 30,000 inhabitants I just don't know.

 I'm guessing that as a Remoaners, had the vote,resulted in 50.95% of voters in N.Ireland,Wales and England ( 60,000,000 population)voting in favour of Britex, while if the Scots ( with only 6,000,000 ) had voted 9-1 and thus tipped the scale to remain, this result based on just one sparsely populated region would have been acceptable.  If this had had happened, I for one would have accepted that result, as that is what democracy is all about.

 

 

Read post 1879

[sandyf]

6 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

Yes - it's called "democracy"

You can argue all day over the meaning of democracy. The result was close to half and half so there was no overwhelming vote in favour.

Parliamentary sovereignty was brought about by the will of the people but TM wants to bypass it, which will of the people should take precedence, yesterday or today?

The High Court ruled against the government but the government is not prepared to accept the decision, but it is unacceptable for anyone else to follow the governments example, how hypocritical is that.

David Cameron has a lot to answer for and the repercussions of his actions are going to cause problems for years to come, something the brexit camp need to accept. It was only a yes or no to open the lid but it can never be closed again.