ContinueWe use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website; if you continue without changing your settings - or dismiss this message - we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on www.theconferenceforum.co.uk

The Conference Forum

Return to front page

Newest article: Re: Irlam v York on the telly by Tafkat ycfcToday 14:46Today at 14:46:05view thread

Oldest article: Oh dear, what a piece of bad luck by Yeoman4/9 23:47Wed Sep 4 23:47:02 2019view thread

MenuSearch

Next thread: Trump pt 9643942187066 by Sweepy19/9 07:08Thu Sep 19 07:08:11 2019view thread

Politics thread #354589

By Sicknote11/9 10:13Wed Sep 11 10:13:32 2019

Views: 1626

Boris Johnson’s suspension of UK Parliament is unlawful, judges at Scotland’s highest civil court rule

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

What now?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Top trolling

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))12/9 15:03Thu Sep 12 15:03:48 2019In response to Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 692

https://external-preview.redd.it/aGDLMshfctQciYqb8hCTsYi8_3TpRyQpE4qop5gcLLw.jpg?width=637&auto=webp&s=66776f4d818c41bc94410b1d05a4ecfd0b96d405

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Top trolling

By NWS18/9 19:18Wed Sep 18 19:18:24 2019In response to Top trollingTop of thread

Views: 168

Sadly, the press are pushing brexit so much we now have sister papers in Scotland and Ireland reporting very differently, to the English version, on the same issue

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Top trolling

By Dougie MacDougall12/9 15:35Thu Sep 12 15:35:05 2019In response to Top trollingTop of thread

Views: 595

BTW - when the Hootsmon, which is the most Unionist of the Scottish papers comes out with something like that, you know you've screwed up.

reply to this article | return to the front page

The real reason for "no deal"

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))12/9 09:13Thu Sep 12 09:13:31 2019In response to Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 917

aka "retards brexit", Boris was backed by hedgefund managers during his campaign for leadership. They now stand to make around £8bn from retards brexit:

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/brexit-disaster-capitalism-8-billion-bet-on-no-deal-crash-out-by-boris-johnsons-leave-backers/


So who cares if thousands some OAP's die due to lack of care, so long as you're filthy rich?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Ste B12/9 16:55Thu Sep 12 16:55:34 2019In response to The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 531

I work with people who have a learning disability and find this offensive.

While people who have a learning disability may have similar levels of understanding about a no deal Brexit as these people, they'd never actually vote for it.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))12/9 19:12Thu Sep 12 19:12:46 2019In response to Re: The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 415

Sadly they may suffer more than most because of it.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Mr Nice (Forever Claret 83)12/9 16:27Thu Sep 12 16:27:47 2019In response to The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 538

Not quite true. There are £8bn of total bets on Brexit....£4.5m in favour of No Deal, £3.5m in favour of remain or a deal. Remember these are HEDGE fund managers and they don't just go one way on each issue. Like a bookie they are running a book which is currently 56% pro Bo Deal Brexit which is probably the most likely outcome still so is about right.

Hard brexiters are more worried about the new EU laws coming into force in January that'll make them have to disclose offshore holdings.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Taz (SUFC)12/9 22:46Thu Sep 12 22:46:04 2019In response to Re: The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 315

That's just what's wagered on the final outcome though innit. They've surely raked in fortunes doing nowt but shorting stirling for 3 years solid.

reply to this article | return to the front page

WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By SamBee12/9 15:37Thu Sep 12 15:37:05 2019In response to The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 633

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By Diane Abbott's Afro (The Luton Fan)12/9 18:23Thu Sep 12 18:23:40 2019In response to WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLETop of thread

Views: 474

Goodness me. And the crowd lapping up. He looks and sounds pissed.

4 pages of saying "we're off and we'll be nice to you if you're nice to us".

Drivel.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By cufc infinity (cufc_infinity)12/9 21:46Thu Sep 12 21:46:56 2019In response to Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLETop of thread

Views: 355

I've said before votes should be accompanied by a small set of multiple choice question regarding basic economics / politics etc and your vote is weighted by how many you get right

dunno why that ended up there, I was replying to the below
-1 for me

Edited by cufc_infinity at 21:47:35 on 12th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By Barda EUFC12/9 23:53Thu Sep 12 23:53:27 2019In response to Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLETop of thread

Views: 292

The Fleet tried a similar thing in order to sell tickets to fans for the playoff final vs Maidstone that I don't like to talk about.

Who's the goalkeeper? That sort of thing.

It didn't go down well.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By NWS13/9 00:14Fri Sep 13 00:14:48 2019In response to Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLETop of thread

Views: 279

Some of ours got right effed off at having to learn all about Fleet

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By Barda EUFC13/9 10:01Fri Sep 13 10:01:15 2019In response to Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLETop of thread

Views: 219

It wasn't handled very well.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 22:16Thu Sep 12 22:16:19 2019In response to Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLETop of thread

Views: 325

No vote for you sunshine

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By Feng Huang12/9 16:01Thu Sep 12 16:01:24 2019In response to WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLETop of thread

Views: 562

There should be a minimum IQ level mandatory in any voting

Set at a low level like 120 bit high enough to exclude these morons ....

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By NWS13/9 00:16Fri Sep 13 00:16:01 2019In response to Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLETop of thread

Views: 287

Under this 16m remainers beat 0.4m brexiters

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By skippy12/9 16:25Thu Sep 12 16:25:27 2019In response to Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLETop of thread

Views: 523

Do you believe IQ is a sufficient measure to demonstrate intelligence?

My IQ is lower than when I was at college, however my knowledge and problem assessing/solving skills are massively greater than when I was at college, am I now less intelligent?

IQ tests are generally a series of small problems conducted within a certain time frame, they are rarely complex or multi-faceted.
I recommend a perusal of 'The Mismeasure of Man' by Stephen J Gould before anyone considers implementing something like using IQ to measure ability to understand complex problems.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By Joe Hawkins12/9 16:02Thu Sep 12 16:02:38 2019In response to Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLETop of thread

Views: 536

There'd be a few on here missing out then old lad.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)12/9 15:45Thu Sep 12 15:45:20 2019In response to WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLETop of thread

Views: 554

I shouldn't be surprised but fucking hell.

Best comment about him:

"Fuck me, he looks like a homeless Thundercat."

https://twitter.com/Nick_Pettigrew/status/1169917427016196096

Edited by Marked Ox at 15:52:39 on 12th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By Bork12/9 16:29Thu Sep 12 16:29:02 2019In response to Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLETop of thread

Views: 510

Ha!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By Bork12/9 15:43Thu Sep 12 15:43:20 2019In response to WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLETop of thread

Views: 546

What a fucking bellend.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By DesCartes12/9 17:03Thu Sep 12 17:03:13 2019In response to Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLETop of thread

Views: 464

I can't imagine what kind of regular customer he attracts to his drinking dens.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLE

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))12/9 15:42Thu Sep 12 15:42:29 2019In response to WHAT WE REALLY HATE - IS CLEVER PEOPLETop of thread

Views: 532

"Do people think we're stupid?"

Thats excellent Allan.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Diane Abbott's Afro (The Luton Fan)12/9 10:18Thu Sep 12 10:18:56 2019In response to The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 737

Completely damning.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Lenny Baryea (MUFC)12/9 15:58Thu Sep 12 15:58:38 2019In response to Re: The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 547

Completely damning.

Or not.

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/09/12/1568281802000/No-deal-Brexit-is-not-a-hedge-fund-conspiracy/

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 20:59Thu Sep 12 20:59:34 2019In response to Re: The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 347

Actually, I’ll think you’ll find that millionaires are always poking their noses in to Brexit.

https://twitter.com/BBC_Hayley/status/1172206532060221440

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Meerkat12/9 21:15Thu Sep 12 21:15:49 2019In response to Re: The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 334

Is it true that Mandelson and Blair are running the Parliamentary Pro EU operation, or is that Daily Mail scare stories?
Supposed to be through intermediaries......i can see why they would want to keep it quiet if true!!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 21:22Thu Sep 12 21:22:43 2019In response to Re: The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 331

I think they should do a show where Blair, Mandy, Campbell, Cameron, Osborne and Coulson are locked in a house so that they can thrash out their differences. And they should have cameras everywhere so that we can see the discussions. And I think it should last forever.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)12/9 21:40Thu Sep 12 21:40:08 2019In response to Re: The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 326

I think you should chuck a few more in like Farage, JRM, Mark Francois etc and have a battle royale. The winner gets to leave but they have to live in Cleator Moor.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 22:14Thu Sep 12 22:14:45 2019In response to Re: The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 311

That’s just the first series of Brexit House.

Farage, Arron Banks, JRM, Mark Francois, Boris, Adonis, Bercow, Oliver Robins, Fiona Hill, Nick Timothy, Dominic Cummings etc would be in the sequel.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)13/9 10:45Fri Sep 13 10:45:11 2019In response to Re: The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 211

Bercow would win that as he'd outsmart the lot of them.

Bercow's comments about Johnson having to follow legislation that have upset Bernard Jenkin has amused me no end.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 18:53Thu Sep 12 18:53:36 2019In response to Re: The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 389

Jeez that one brought the nutters to the comments

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 11:46Thu Sep 12 11:46:31 2019In response to Re: The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 698

Yes. that article certainly separates those who try to understand complexities from rabid conspiracy theorists.

Edited by Baldman at 12:15:45 on 12th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Lenny Baryea (MUFC)12/9 13:47Thu Sep 12 13:47:35 2019In response to Re: The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 617

Excuse my ignorance but isn’t 8bn actually a relatively small amount for these funds? Would it be safe to assume that they’ve hedged (clues in the name, right?) and so would also make money if there *wasn’t* a no-deal Brexit?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Return of the Macc (WLADITT)12/9 14:59Thu Sep 12 14:59:11 2019In response to Re: The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 547

Not necessarily. You can hedge and still have downside risk

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Shanghai12/9 14:29Thu Sep 12 14:29:37 2019In response to Re: The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 570

there is no place for logic like that when it comes to the resident bedwetters.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By interserie12/9 14:48Thu Sep 12 14:48:13 2019In response to Re: The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 582

Hedge Funds are the Masters of the Risks v Return Universe. That's where the "story" breaks down.

Edited by interserie at 15:35:47 on 12th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: The real reason for "no deal"

By Auto Baldman (DesCartes)12/9 09:19Thu Sep 12 09:19:05 2019In response to The real reason for "no deal"Top of thread

Views: 782

http://www.theconferenceforum.co.uk/article/1356201

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Jawknee (Barnet Ben)11/9 22:11Wed Sep 11 22:11:55 2019In response to Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 949

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Bullsgold12/9 08:31Thu Sep 12 08:31:42 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 766

I doubt he's far off the depressing truth.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))11/9 22:15Wed Sep 11 22:15:13 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 915

Well, we did try to warn them.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Yellowhammer

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)11/9 21:46Wed Sep 11 21:46:25 2019In response to Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1009

Has anybody had a read, (assuming what I read is the genuine thing)?

Distinct lack of detail considering it is being used in Govt planning imo. Unless the detail exists elsewhere but hasn't been released publically, as otherwise it is a 6 page effort and it kind of reminds me of the David Davis' planning document farce. Rather than the findings being surprising, the lack of detail/depth is what surprises me.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Operation Black Swan

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))12/9 15:21Thu Sep 12 15:21:47 2019In response to YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 568

There are two other Government reports, that are yet to be published.

1) Operation Kingfisher: which relates to potential problems for businesses.

And crucially;

2) Operation Black Swan: The real "shit hits the fan" impact assesement report.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Operation Black Swan

By Lenny Baryea (MUFC)12/9 15:46Thu Sep 12 15:46:49 2019In response to Operation Black SwanTop of thread

Views: 547

Is there one for what happens if/ when the EZ tanks?

Interest rates cut deeper into negative territory and QE re-starting in November.

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/eurusd/12038-the-euro-today-european-central-bank-decision-in-focus

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Operation Cuckoo club

By Joe Hawkins12/9 15:56Thu Sep 12 15:56:57 2019In response to Re: Operation Black SwanTop of thread

Views: 527

/www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49674176

Edited by joe hawkins at 15:57:20 on 12th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Operation Black Swan

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)12/9 15:42Thu Sep 12 15:42:19 2019In response to Operation Black SwanTop of thread

Views: 519

Are the MPs pushing for these to be published?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Diane Abbott's Afro (The Luton Fan)12/9 08:13Thu Sep 12 08:13:29 2019In response to YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 784

I'm sure this is the Executive Summary and not the complete version but it doesn't include reasons such as 'the French being absolute shitcunts' when it comes to customs and immigration.

All summer I've had no end of problems with French customs that I just don't have in other EU countries.* They attempt to add on VAT for non-VATable items for example and have freight and admin charges which stretch the absolute limits of the law.

*Disclaimer: for work purposes, nothing else!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 00:06Thu Sep 12 00:06:33 2019In response to YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 862

I bet this goes all knicker wetting.

:p

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Honnor12/9 06:15Thu Sep 12 06:15:03 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 821

It may be worst case scenario but I'm sure even you didn't vote for the prospect of this. This is the sort of info that was needed before the vote in 2016, then an informed decision could be made. I can't recall at any point in time a sitting governments official position was to inflict the possibility of Yellowhammer or such like on its citizens, there is more to this.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Differentiabull12/9 06:31Thu Sep 12 06:31:11 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 809

I'm not sure it makes a blind bit of difference to the debate.

Whichever side of the debate you sit on, it plays into narratives you already believe (it'll be a disaster / this is project fear).

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)12/9 09:08Thu Sep 12 09:08:02 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 734

Does it play into the Project Fear narrative when it has been accepted by a "no deal" wanting Govt/PM?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))12/9 09:09Thu Sep 12 09:09:54 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 730

Only for the stupid.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 09:20Thu Sep 12 09:20:37 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 719

I can see the 'pot kettle black' line getting some hammer today....

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Honnor12/9 06:39Thu Sep 12 06:39:48 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 802

I know we have an incompetent government but being the official response, you'd hope, even the most ardent of brexiteer realise it's not going to be a walk in the park and some could suffer, that's if they care

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 06:19Thu Sep 12 06:19:42 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 840

Also the sort of information that should have been provided before we signed the Lisbon Treaty

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DesCartes12/9 09:41Thu Sep 12 09:41:34 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 725

Why?

For a start, any assessment of the impact/risks associated with one of the states leaving under a 'No Deal' would be based on a set of assumptions, many of which may well have changed dramatically 10 years later - therefore rendering that assessment invalid.

But I would accept that the Lisbon Treaty was an opportunity to create a better 'framework' for the process whereby one of the member states leaves the EU. An opportunity, perhaps, to establish that 'No Deal' was not an acceptable option? This would require a more relaxed application of the 2-year deadline for leaving from the point of triggering Article 50. While that timeframe (albeit that it is unnecessarily aggressive) should be the objective, in terms of agreeing and implementing a deal , the process should include a series of check-/breakpoints and penalty payments with the ability to agree an extension if the end date can't be achieved.

No doubt this suggestion would cause apoplexy amongst the Leaver community. 'We'll be stuck in the EU fowever! These are not our fwends.!'

So why are we now in the situation now where 'No Deal' is a very real possibility? I point to the actions of a succession of Tory governments which:

* Acceded to the demands of a vocal minority in agreeing to hold a referendum on EU membership
* Failed to understand what have turned out to be massive risks associated with posing a over-simplistic question to the British public
* Allowed internal and foreign parties with a variety of vested interests to interfere in this democratic process, thus distorting the outcome
* Showed indecent haste in triggering Article 50 without adequate assessment of what actually needed to be done and the risks
* Established, and stuck with, unreasonable 'red lines' as the basis for negotiations
* Called an ill-judged General Election which resulted in no overall majority and a dependency on satisfying the demands of right-wing elements (ERG, DUP)
* Showed intransigence despite repeatedly losing parliamentary votes on a Withdrawal Agreement
* Triggered a leadership election which resulted in a mendacious, self-interested buffoon, 'in hoc' to the right wing politicians and hedge fund managers, being elected by a tiny minority of the British population

I rest my case, m'lud.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 11:45Thu Sep 12 11:45:26 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 632

I often look at your posts waiting for the point where our views diverge. But I can’t fault that one. Spot on.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Sweepy12/9 11:49Thu Sep 12 11:49:31 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 621

Slightly surprised you agree with Allowed internal and foreign parties with a variety of vested interests to interfere in this democratic process, thus distorting the outcome.

Must be too used to you playing the role of Leonard Leave.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 12:03Thu Sep 12 12:03:07 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 616

No, I don’t think that’s arguable really. The extent to which it distorted the outcome is difficult to know obviously.

I’m a Remainer!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))12/9 08:35Thu Sep 12 08:35:44 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 740

Fantastic whataboutary.

Bravo sir!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 08:49Thu Sep 12 08:49:14 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 736

The Lisbon Treaty was about European integration Dimmers

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))12/9 15:49Thu Sep 12 15:49:03 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 518

Your whataboutary has just been trumped by Lenny.

So I'm going to have to take that back. Sorry old bean.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 18:55Thu Sep 12 18:55:33 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 379

Dimmers, this is a great disappointment. I don’t know what Lenny has said but I assume it’s not actually Whataboutery given your record. Can you please reconsider.?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))12/9 19:12Thu Sep 12 19:12:59 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 365

LOLZ, good one.

Edited by DMN (Shit Forum) at 19:13:05 on 12th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Honnor12/9 06:56Thu Sep 12 06:56:24 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 796

Agreed, that didn't have the threat of food shortages, civil unrest, etc though.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 07:14Thu Sep 12 07:14:46 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 796

Not immediately, but to get ourselves in to the position of being so beholden to an external agreement looks like negligence to me. These downsides come from the fact that we went along with European integration.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By MS12/9 08:33Thu Sep 12 08:33:09 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 749

These downsides come largely through leaving without a deal. Also don’t think Lisbon has a fundamental effect on the issues of customs and seamless borders. Wasn’t that the treaty of Rome in 1957, for us of course in the early 70’s?

Besides if I’d said to you even a year ago that a PM was threatening to ignore parliament to force through the worst possible version of Brexit would you have believed me? Now try and play that argument in 2006...

Sorry, dates of Lisbon’s and Maastricht’s mixed up

Edited by MS at 08:36:04 on 12th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 08:51Thu Sep 12 08:51:12 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 721

Ah yeah probably. Lisbon was really my shorthand for European integration.

On No Deal, I agree. But the negotiating position we are in is very weak so we will likely come out of this badly either way.

I don’t really understand your second point.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By MS12/9 09:15Thu Sep 12 09:15:17 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 712

My second point was in answer to you saying we should have had a "yellowhammer" style report before signing Lisbon. My point was, try to go back to 2006 e.g. before Lisbon, and play a yellowhammer style report into the argument and the circumstances that would bring it into play... Can you see it making any difference? After all Eurosceptics would say, much as they did in 2016, that they don't want such a scenario, neutrals wouldn't believe we could be in a situation where any government would inflict this upon ourselves and total Europhiles would likely dismiss it as "project fear"!

The overall point being it wouldn't have made a jot of difference because a) it doesn't change the customs issues anyway and b) the discussion about it would have seemed fantastical.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 09:26Thu Sep 12 09:26:15 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 706

Ah yes. No, I don’t disagree on the likelihood of it being that useful.

My overall complaint is that we have got ourselves completely dependent on an external entity with seemingly little consideration of the consequences. And no referendum along the way (for 40 years at least).

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Lenny Baryea (MUFC)12/9 09:44Thu Sep 12 09:44:18 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 702

My overall complaint is that we have got ourselves completely dependent on an external entity with seemingly little consideration of the consequences. And no referendum along the way (for 40 years at least).

Bingo.

https://brexitcentral.com/mark-francois-mp-appalling-handling-lisbon-treaty-sowed-seeds-brexit/

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DesCartes12/9 10:07Thu Sep 12 10:07:08 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 675

I read no further than the 'Mark Francois MP - appalling' in the URL...

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Lenny Baryea (MUFC)12/9 10:08Thu Sep 12 10:08:36 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 673

That doesn't surprise me.

Head. Sand.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 10:26Thu Sep 12 10:26:11 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 653

Or Donkey. Water. :p

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DesCartes12/9 10:16Thu Sep 12 10:16:50 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 664

Joke, m8.

And my post was an attempt at a gag...

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Lenny Baryea (MUFC)12/9 10:24Thu Sep 12 10:24:57 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 651

Double whoosh. Yikes.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By MS12/9 09:33Thu Sep 12 09:33:01 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 694

I'll repeat, there is almost no consequence listed in that report that doesn't flow directly from Customer Union/Single Market and that was very much in place, and would still be an issue, before the 1970's referendum. You may not like the closer integration, FOM etc but that's not what's causing the issue it's the border and customs checks.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Auto-Boris (Sweepy)12/9 07:25Thu Sep 12 07:25:11 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 790

I know. It's a shame the single market and the customs union allowed peace in northern Ireland to happen.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 07:28Thu Sep 12 07:28:50 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 778

Blimey. You’ll have to show your workings on that one.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Sweepy12/9 09:12Thu Sep 12 09:12:21 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 705

Peace in Northern Ireland was an upside of going along with European Integration. That's all.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 09:27Thu Sep 12 09:27:33 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 701

I don’t think European integration was a causal factor in peace in ireland. At the most I would say that European integration made it a little easier to implement.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Sweepy12/9 09:29Thu Sep 12 09:29:57 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 722

I don’t think European integration was a causal factor in peace in ireland

Really?? It allowed - via the SM + CU - the border to disappear, which was surely rather important?

Edited by Sweepy at 09:32:03 on 12th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By skippy12/9 16:49Thu Sep 12 16:49:24 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 491

Err you do appreciate that it was a security border not a customs border don't you? As a security border it wasn't continuous and any checks were ad hoc.
The CTA started in 1926 and ever since there has been free movement of people and mostly free movement of goods ever since.
ROI joined Europe in the 70s and opted out of Schengen precisely because it would create a customs border when the UK opted out.

The promising not to kill each other was the reason the security border was removed, nothing to do with being in the SM or CU.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By MS12/9 17:44Thu Sep 12 17:44:28 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 429

Err it was always a customs border up until the EU rules meant that the customs element was greatly reduced and then dropped entirely - That's why you can find images such as - /images.app.goo.gl/xybnh6uxRuGxjMe99 It's true that by the 1980's it was essentially a security border.

Ireland joining Schengen when the UK didn't would not have created a customs border but a requirement to check the passports of people crossing the border. Same as there is no customs border between us and France but you still need a passport.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Sweepy12/9 17:43Thu Sep 12 17:43:26 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 421

Oh, I thought there was a Customs border up until 93.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By skippy12/9 18:47Thu Sep 12 18:47:05 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 377

Yeah I meant immigration border rather than customs.

The custom restrictions between ROI, GB & NI were amazingly lax.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Sweepy12/9 23:15Thu Sep 12 23:15:48 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 268

I thought smuggling was a key source of paramilitary funding? This significantly reduced after 93, helping to, as baldman says above, "exhaust the IRA". This all helped feed into the climate that ultimately produced the GFA.

Is it fair to say that the EU integration that crystallized in 93 led to dramatic social and economic changes on boths sides of the border which then supported the political settlement that followed not that long after?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By skippy13/9 08:20Fri Sep 13 08:20:53 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 239

No, protection, robbery, fraud and donations were the main sources of income. Fuel smuggling was quite lucrative but was only worth it a limited times.
The lack of price disparity on many items meant smuggling over the border was more a petty item, oddly I think fuel smuggling increased after 93.

I would agree it helped in a small part, but would say that there was little economic change in NI leading up to the GFA. There was massive change in ROI (Celtic Tiger and all that) but that was driven more by internal policies and the attraction of foreign investment as well as EU subsidies.

I believe the sea change came about because of the massive drop in IRA funding from the US, in the early 90s the US became subject to terrorist attacks, particularly the WTC bombing. This made raising funds for a terrorist organisation a bit toxic politically and a shift in their laws made the IRA a proscribed organisation.

Politically Thatcher's back door policy was dropped and Major's more open policy on negotiations started to have traction.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)13/9 08:34Fri Sep 13 08:34:07 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 238

Did the IRA ‘lose’ the war?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By skippy13/9 09:59Fri Sep 13 09:59:15 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 229

That rather depends on what criteria you consider they were fighting for.

PIRA was formed as a reaction to the increasing discrimination and attacks on catholics in the 60s, in that respect they've largely achieved their aim.
Clearly there is not a united Ireland so their nationalist objective wasn't achieved.

Militarily they were losing but were still capable of carrying out significant attacks, that could have dragged on for years and the UK Govt had lost the stomach for that. The UK Govt was suffering politically at this time with the collapsed convictions of the Guildford 4 and Maguire 7 plus the increasing exposure of collusion between the British Army, RUC and UDA.

With the loss of significant US funding the IRA ramped up their other criminal activities particularly the protection rackets and many catholics started viewing them as gangsters rather than freedom fighters, they lost a lot of their supporter base.

Whilst Blair got a lot of credit for the GFA, even I have to praise Major for the serious groundwork he did to make the GFA even conceivable.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)18/9 18:55Wed Sep 18 18:55:49 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 156

As I understood it, when the army arrived they were greeted as protectors and given tea and cake by catholics. The unionists attacked them and killed a police officer and the army killed two Protestants.

The situation settled down and catholic’s were protected (but not equal), before the provos were really set up.

So they achieved protection (which was there at the time arguably), achieved equality (which was not but would, I think, have come with time anyway), and did not achieve a United ireland. So they were pretty much defeated versus their aims.

They will ‘win’ in the end of course. Ireland will be united in the end, maybe even in my lifetime. But bloodshed on all sides was a complete waste.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By skippy18/9 20:17Wed Sep 18 20:17:44 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 120

The period between the army arriving and it all going to shit was very short.
The IRA getting set up led to some heavy handed army operations that turned the majority of catholics against them.

The Falls Road curfew led to the split in the IRA, the provos being the faction bringing the arms into NI and considering the army to be an occupying enemy.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Auto Polio (Duncan Biscuit)18/9 20:28Wed Sep 18 20:28:40 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 130

Did you watch the BBC4 prog on the Troubles last night.

Illuminating.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)19/9 00:07Thu Sep 19 00:07:20 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 91

I watched the first one and the one with Peter Taylor. Both excellent.

They were all f**king mad

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By skippy18/9 21:06Wed Sep 18 21:06:19 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 103

No, will iplayer them at some point.

Some of this stems from the release of files the MOD/FO 'forgot' to release under the 30 year rule.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)13/9 10:11Fri Sep 13 10:11:25 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 215

I think it’s right that the British government were exhausted too. And public opinion didn’t really support any serious ‘war winning’ measures. The world was changing.

As I understood it (although my reading is very dated now) the Brits has infiltrated high up in the IRA so, while the cell structure meant they could still attack, their days of being a serious persistent threat were probably receding.

I will have to read a bit more. There are a couple of documentaries on BBC2/4 at the moment about the troubles.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By skippy13/9 10:27Fri Sep 13 10:27:29 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 210

There's one which features the priest who was the go-between the IRA and the UK Govt.
Quite interesting in the way it discusses Thatcher's public policy of defiance compared to her secret policy of attempted negotiation.
Bugger if I can remember what it's called.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Sweepy13/9 08:26Fri Sep 13 08:26:00 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 266

Interesting, ta.

I saw this thread the other day, relevant to the discussion we were having.

https://twitter.com/EamonnMcKee/status/1172893009723187206?s=09

Edited by Sweepy at 07:00:42 on 19th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 12:07Thu Sep 12 12:07:54 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 606

It helped the implementation but as I understand it the IRA was pretty much exhausted.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Meerkat12/9 12:34Thu Sep 12 12:34:35 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 595

Think I read that the rise of modern sensors etc was starting to make it very hard for the IRA to operate in bandit country.
But the mainland bombings were still going weren’t they?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DarrenG WFC12/9 10:11Thu Sep 12 10:11:37 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 661

Did it need them to dissappear?

And now a 3rd party (the EU) and its need to protect them is the biggest threat to the border reappearing.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Sweepy12/9 11:33Thu Sep 12 11:33:07 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 625

Did it need them to dissappear?

As far as I understand, the spicier members of the border nationalist communities considered border infrastructure a critical GRIPE, yes.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DarrenG WFC12/9 14:01Thu Sep 12 14:01:25 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 550

You haven't answered the question.

Were they the only reason the border infrastructure was able to disappear.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Sweepy12/9 15:30Thu Sep 12 15:30:43 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 511

Ah, yes, the CTA. Three strands allowed for border infrastructure to disappear. Two of them because of EU membership.

Hope that's right Darren!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))12/9 10:42Thu Sep 12 10:42:56 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 635

You've spelt "Bozo's stupid idea to go for a retards brexit" wrong.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Honnor12/9 07:23Thu Sep 12 07:23:32 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 777

So now we are agreed there are downsides, do you think those in the vote leave campaign were a bit negligent with the truth, promising easy trade deals, sunny uplands etc, or do you think they were not aware of what a vote leave would unleash?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 07:45Thu Sep 12 07:45:38 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 767

Firstly we don’t know what the outcome will be. The transition is a mess, but the ‘sunny uplands’ narrative I think referred to future trade deals.

It’s difficult to answer your question as to the Leave campaign. In my opinion it was a coalition of self interested careerists, sociopathic ideologues and incompetent nincompoops. With a smattering of well meaning people who understood the issues facing parts of our society.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 07:10Thu Sep 12 07:10:31 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 802

I'm confident that whilst there will be some shortages for a small time that nobody will starve, and do people think there'll be no civil unrest if we ignore the majority and remain?

No, we're leaving as we voted to do.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Bullsgold12/9 08:38Thu Sep 12 08:38:42 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 730

If we leave and it all goes Yellowhammer then there will be a serious amount of civil unrest.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)12/9 08:51Thu Sep 12 08:51:59 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 719

“All goes yellowhammer.”

First time I’ve heard that. I will be using that from now on.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 08:42Thu Sep 12 08:42:26 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 722

We'll see.

But it goes around in a circle, I voted to leave and expect the will of the majority to be followed, remainers lost and don't want to leave so are using the 'no deal' line to continue to try prevent the will of the majority winning through.

And on and on....

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Bullsgold12/9 08:49Thu Sep 12 08:49:59 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 722

It was advisory referendum which resulted in just above half of the voters opting for 'Leave'. I would suggest that if the options on the paper in 2016 were a) Remain b) May's Deal c) Yellowhammer or d) don't care then a) and d) would've won it by a landslide.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 09:04Thu Sep 12 09:04:47 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 714

An advisory referendum the government calling it said they'd abide by, and those options weren't on the ballot paper, it was a simple question with a binary choice of answer and leave won.

To me it is as simple as that.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Bullsgold12/9 09:35Thu Sep 12 09:35:22 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 698

Even if the Government had to abide by the result, the only sensible conclusion to the 52% vs 48% problem is to go for a 'Brexit in name only' exit. Which is obviously a terrible idea as we just cut off our own bollocks and stand there crying about it.

Sadly, as the plethora of options weren't stated on the ballot paper we're all going to have to put up with whatever happens... which I don't believe will be a 'no deal'. What I think will happen is that at some stage 'they' are going to have to go for a second referendum. I think Remain will win it marginally and the country will explode.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 09:40Thu Sep 12 09:40:24 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 703

I'd say the next GE will serve as a second referendum and would imagine the Brexit party would form a coalition with the tories for an overall majority and take us forward and out.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DesCartes12/9 09:56Thu Sep 12 09:56:40 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 671

Bless. Drug shortages starting to bite?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 10:13Thu Sep 12 10:13:34 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 652

Insulin's not a drug, it's a 'biological' substance, and is weed really a drug?

At a guess I'd say this country grows more dope than it imports, terrorism shut the old smuggling routes in the main, the Afghan black in lorry fuel tanks, Morrocan dope through Spain same as the old 'Columbian Gold'

It's smack, coke and guns that are the earners now.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)12/9 09:54Thu Sep 12 09:54:15 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 668

You'd be wrong on the last point as according to Johnson's Govt, Farage and his ilk shouldn't be near Govt.

Then again, Leavers do ignore what they said previously so.....

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Bullsgold12/9 09:45Thu Sep 12 09:45:18 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 687

Maybe Labour will form a coalition with the Lib Dems on the agreement that a second referendum will take place?

Who knows.

Edited by Bullsgold at 09:55:33 on 12th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Rob (Alice Glass)12/9 09:43Thu Sep 12 09:43:00 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 683

Yes I'm sure BXP will be a great help in forming a governing coalition with their currently projected *checks notes* 1 MP from Thurrock.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Sicknote12/9 09:42Thu Sep 12 09:42:38 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 680

It would be wrong for a GE to be fought on the single issue of Brexit, much safer to have a SR.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)12/9 09:11Thu Sep 12 09:11:32 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 704

No deal wasn't on the Ballot paper.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 09:22Thu Sep 12 09:22:03 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 700

You're right, but neither was the sunny uplands one.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Rob (Alice Glass)12/9 08:07Thu Sep 12 08:07:20 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 751

I don't think there would be. People (those that are still following the news) would shrug and get on with their lives. Because at the end of the day nothing would be negatively changing in their day-to-day lives.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))12/9 08:36Thu Sep 12 08:36:41 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 721

Unless they lose their job.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 08:27Thu Sep 12 08:27:05 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 737

I'd guess you don't get out much if that's what you think, I'm losing an average of 2.5 minutes per clean nodding and tutting in reply to opinions of todays politics.

And there's a thought, a house I clean's neighbour is a commie corbyn loving guy, "we've already won the next election" is his opening line whilst calling me a tory, though I do whistle 'the international' whilst doing his next doors fronts as I know he'll be out of the back to tell me how it is, he voted leave though.

I may get there today, I always call him 'comrade'.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Rob (Alice Glass)12/9 08:33Thu Sep 12 08:33:33 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 732

People in the UK don't go mental. They tut and shrug and get on with things. Some white, middle-aged men would be angry, but then they're always angry so it'd be hard to tell the difference.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 08:38Thu Sep 12 08:38:44 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 734

As I said, you maybe need to get out more as it appears you don't 'get' people, I can't understand why you'd use 'white' as a definition either, other than as a dislike of the indigenous.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Return of the Macc (WLADITT)12/9 08:54Thu Sep 12 08:54:56 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 730

Because it is almost entirely bald middle 30-60 year old white men who take to the streets with flags and tinnies in anger about anything they don't understand

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Meerkat12/9 11:02Thu Sep 12 11:02:57 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 632

Descartes is more than 60 isn’t he?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DesCartes12/9 12:26Thu Sep 12 12:26:49 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 596

Whatever happened to 'FAO Descartes' and 'You're over 60, aren't you? Civility cost nothing, my man.

Still has his own hair AND Understands. Apart from that, RotM did well...

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 09:07Thu Sep 12 09:07:36 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 721

I'm 52 and have proudly worn a skinhead since my teens, I've the British Bulldog with flag tattoo'd on my arm, am tea total and entirely understand what's going on.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DesCartes12/9 12:50Thu Sep 12 12:50:25 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 576

'tea total'?

There's a separate thread for that

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 13:06Thu Sep 12 13:06:23 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 561

:) Aye, omelette I was going to suggest for that....

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Return of the Macc (WLADITT)12/9 09:14Thu Sep 12 09:14:20 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 703

Having read your posts, I'm not sure that you do.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 09:23Thu Sep 12 09:23:23 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 694

Fair enough :) again, a matter of opinion depending on your bias.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Pol Pot12/9 08:44Thu Sep 12 08:44:04 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 739

Remainers don't get why people would be motivated by anything other than narrow personal advantage.

Bourgeois individualism (Remain) versus community identity (Leave).

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)12/9 09:15Thu Sep 12 09:15:54 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 715

Johnson, Farage, JRM, Mark Francois and the average leave voter in the north east have a common community identity? Hahaha.

The 1st 4 all fit your remain definition.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Sweepy12/9 09:21Thu Sep 12 09:21:11 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 701

Surely the leave voters who voted to stop FoM in order to see their wages increase were motivated by narrow personal advantage?

Most Remainers motivated by pragmatism in my view. Which has proven to be sensible, unsurprisingly.

I feel sorry for Pol that his audience for his PROFOUNDNESS is us lot rather than tens of thousands of followers on Twitter.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DesCartes12/9 07:53Thu Sep 12 07:53:54 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 775

You should have mentioned this before...

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 07:59Thu Sep 12 07:59:31 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 755

I know, but :) it's not like project fear's been done before either.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Barda EUFC12/9 08:16Thu Sep 12 08:16:00 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 737

Is this project fear though?

This is the Government's own paper on what they think will happen in the event of a no deal Brexit.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 08:19Thu Sep 12 08:19:49 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 744

And on first reading of the hyperbole it makes one sit up, but further down the article is what was actually said, and that isn't so troubling, and we did the medicines bit at the beggining of the year as we were supposed to leave in March.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)12/9 09:18Thu Sep 12 09:18:29 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 702

You need to tell the medicines bit to the Haematology Doctor I was speaking to yesterday.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 09:34Thu Sep 12 09:34:27 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 703

No, it would appear MY needs are catered for, and if not I'm good till Christmas as I'm restocking, which is the opposite to the freedom of movement where my needs aren't catered for.

Although all us T1s are going to die again like we did in March according to my twitter feed, but that's ok as I've a few crazy Brexiteers on there posting pictures of knights and dragons.

The eeyou won't give us a deal as it weakens their position with the number of populist partys appearing, ttheir goal is to deter the others for following in our path where common sense should be applied.

I doubt the eeyou commission memebrs have seen their own local areas impacted in a negative way by fom.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Tara (ProgressiveTara)12/9 13:00Thu Sep 12 13:00:00 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 565

I do wonder how restricting your freedom of movement caters for your freedom of movement. But there you have it.

Your idea of common sense involves threatening Ethnic Cleansing. Let us not forget that.

We now have the governments own planning and disaster management portrayed as project fear.

The mind boggles for what you would actually need to see before you back down.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 13:05Thu Sep 12 13:05:10 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 566

I thought of you earlier when a customer slipped a £20 note in my t shirt breast pockets for cleaning plant roots out of his gutter downpipe out for him.

Nice touch that :p

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Mr Staffordshire12/9 13:16Thu Sep 12 13:16:39 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 555

Mines a pint, cheers!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 13:24Thu Sep 12 13:24:13 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 558

:p It's a new swim costume for the child as she's outgrown her current one as I found out when preparing to swim her yesterday evening.

Not all bad tho, she said she'd go to the gym, my gym day off so fair enough, she met a couple of boys from her school there and I'd noticed a woman with a cracking pair of norks I've not seen before, I had to look twice and think I got clocked on the second glance, funny old world but she smiled when my young un introduced her as the boys mum.

They've gotta be chipped man :)

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Mr Staffordshire12/9 13:32Thu Sep 12 13:32:21 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 551

You randy old man ;-)

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 13:38Thu Sep 12 13:38:54 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 545

Haha I wish, the oops feeling on introduction made me forget to look for a ring, mid 40's at a guess but shapely and suiting being top heavy.

Years back windowcleaning my mate and I spyed a bra on a washing line looking like a small hammock and a weed in their gutter, we were discussing the size of the bra as you do before knocking for the money, the guy quoted our one line about his gutter weed.

Oops :p

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)12/9 09:56Thu Sep 12 09:56:24 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 670

So screw everybody else then. You fit Pol's "remain" definition claim perfectly.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 10:15Thu Sep 12 10:15:34 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 658

But that applies to you too shirley?

I'm a leaver by the way ;) but it does equally apply to the remainers outlook, 2 camps saying screw you, and you wonder why the eeyous are saying it too...

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)12/9 11:17Thu Sep 12 11:17:06 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 633

Unless it is to do with medication, food etc and ease of import, then no it doesn't currently apply to me as in my present circumstances I don't directly benefit from EU membership any more than a leave voter in the North.

Edited by Marked Ox at 11:20:21 on 12th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 13:13Thu Sep 12 13:13:11 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 552

I sympathise with you in regard to medication, honestly I do, but still and all voted simply on what I feel is best for me and mine.

As did everybody else, as did the postal votes.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Sweepy12/9 09:39Thu Sep 12 09:39:34 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 689

I thought it was your medical condition that prevented you from engaging in a regular employment. Thus, FoM isn't relevant in your case.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 10:08Thu Sep 12 10:08:40 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 658

My condition can be an issue, it limits my flexibillity and as such affects my competitiveness in the work place, (Disabillity act puts it as is) and as such the more people competing for a post the less chance I have of getting it, so knowing that fact I do what I do as it works, more or less and in a bit of a hit and miss fashion.

Take the extra numbers fom provides away, then the playing field is a little more level for me as I do have some uses but they're a lot harder sell as is and if I'm honest I can't be arsed with that game as is.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Sicknote12/9 10:10Thu Sep 12 10:10:56 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 653

Have you considered retraining for a job more suited to you / your disability?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Tara (ProgressiveTara)12/9 13:37Thu Sep 12 13:37:23 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 549

Before I read it, yadda yadda yadda "only want to work in a manual profession that I don't know whether I'll be fit for doing until a wake up, which of course makes me unemployable, so instead I'll fuck about with some cash in hand and benefits rather than do a job I don't like through fear of failure, oh and poles"

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 10:22Thu Sep 12 10:22:30 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 660

Aye, I'm looking at options but only have experience in working with my hands (and I'm good with my hands and enjoy working with them), have trade qualifications in what's now a niche part of the engineering industry, retraining there is CNC setting but them's 12 hour shifts so it's not really an option.
I did this job as it fitted with the kids school hours and was a better gig than being a single dad on benefits, but they're grown up and my circumstances about to improve aren't in that corner any more, my control is a lot better than it was so in a small way the world's going to be my oyster if I can be arsed to prise open the shell.

But there were a lot more shells to open pre fom...

Edited by joe hawkins at 10:22:56 on 12th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Tara (ProgressiveTara)12/9 13:37Thu Sep 12 13:37:37 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 552

and there it is.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 13:48Thu Sep 12 13:48:48 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 547

Wazzup mate? Your office lass doesn't want to use your dicktaphone?

I'm not on benefits per se but was able to claim some rent assistance, same as any other single parent (with or without a disabillity) as my earnings were at the level that allowed me to do so.

That's a little different to signing on and working in bars in my book whilst slagging those who strive to make the best of a bad situation but don't sign on.

Edit, talking of tits in another thread and one has appeared...

Edited by joe hawkins at 13:49:49 on 12th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Tara (ProgressiveTara)12/9 14:05Thu Sep 12 14:05:53 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 539

Never signed on in my life.

Rent assistance - benefits - can't be arsed with full time work.

Like everything Slobodan - tell it to the judge.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Joe Hawkins12/9 14:15Thu Sep 12 14:15:02 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 531

My herb garden is shut down mate, I'm far too busy to be playing Mr Myagi meets Mr Nice at this point in my life....

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By JonnyJ (jonnyj)11/9 23:17Wed Sep 11 23:17:51 2019In response to YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 854

Well, I feel silly now. Can't believe I missed out on the opportunity to vote for that. I'll never forgive myself.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By MS11/9 22:04Wed Sep 11 22:04:41 2019In response to YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 914

It’s the same as was in the Sunday Times, which remember was “out of date”, with just two changes. Firstly The heading that used to be “base assumption” is now “reasonable worst case scenario” and they redacted section 15 which basically says that two oil refineries will likely close with 2,000 direct job loses and the potential for fuel shortages.

So all very reassuring now we know the previous “to be expected” is now “worst case” because someone changed the wording in August!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))11/9 21:55Wed Sep 11 21:55:15 2019In response to YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 925

The Government have released a redacted version.

Sadly for them the leak is unredacted:

https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/status/1171864228879372289

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))11/9 21:48Wed Sep 11 21:48:32 2019In response to YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 933

Tory MP:


The leaked document wasn’t out of date. This isn’t project fear. It is a sober assessment of what could happen.

No deal is not ‘vanishingly inexpensive’ or a ‘bump in the road’. This is only a part of the chaos and long term damage our country would suffer. We must stop this.



No deal will destroy the Country.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Meerkat11/9 22:00Wed Sep 11 22:00:06 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 918

Mr melodrama as usual!!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))11/9 22:01Wed Sep 11 22:01:37 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 917

I take it you've not read the report? The full one, not the Government Spin one.

If you can read that, and be happy with it; then you have serious mental health issues.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Taz (SUFC)11/9 22:15Wed Sep 11 22:15:19 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 907

Project fear innit.

Also, it's not about making cunts like JRM and Boris's mates rich. No no. it's about our FWEEDOM!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By Baldman (Baldman)11/9 22:28Wed Sep 11 22:28:28 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 932

The Tinfoil Hat Times

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Yellowhammer

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))11/9 22:28Wed Sep 11 22:28:58 2019In response to Re: YellowhammerTop of thread

Views: 890

With lashing of ginger beer whibble all round!

Edited by DMN (Shit Forum) at 22:29:07 on 11th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)11/9 19:14Wed Sep 11 19:14:12 2019In response to Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1047

Anybody watching The Andrew Neil Show?

The Govt Minister (Kwasi Kwarteng) is squirming tremendously like a good 'un.

Edit for name.

Edited by Marked Ox at 19:17:49 on 11th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By DesCartes11/9 19:22Wed Sep 11 19:22:32 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1038

Oh God, it's Farridge now with Mr. Wetherspoon lurking in the background.

Where Al Qaeda when you actually need them...

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Joe Hawkins11/9 19:40Wed Sep 11 19:40:10 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 997

Probably meeting with corbyn....

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Sicknote11/9 19:28Wed Sep 11 19:28:22 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1015

Even Al Qaeda have standards and wouldn’t go near a Wetherspoon

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By DesCartes11/9 19:29Wed Sep 11 19:29:23 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1015

LYW

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)11/9 19:23Wed Sep 11 19:23:02 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1022

Indeed.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By DesCartes11/9 19:27Wed Sep 11 19:27:48 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1036

Man escorted out.



LOL

Edited by DesCartes at 20:20:06 on 11th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)11/9 20:58Wed Sep 11 20:58:04 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 964

I did chuckle at that.

I also laughed at Kwarteng's verbal gymnastics trying to avoid saying the judges were bad judges for the ruling (ie. he would say they weren't BUT others would and then following up with a sentence including "the Judges are interfering"). Andrew Neil didn't let this go.

Edited by Marked Ox at 21:05:37 on 11th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Brexit Pact threadjack

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)11/9 15:33Wed Sep 11 15:33:11 2019In response to Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1256

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49665789

Tories refuse a GE pact with Farage's lot.

Edited by Marked Ox at 15:34:26 on 11th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By Sicknote11/9 21:19Wed Sep 11 21:19:05 2019In response to Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 955

No coalition of cunts then?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By Joe Hawkins12/9 00:05Thu Sep 12 00:05:20 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 818

I cant see the lib dems and labour getting voted in so no.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2

By Honnor11/9 17:08Wed Sep 11 17:08:45 2019In response to Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1174

Why I don't support Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/11/brexit-ultras-triumph-neoliberalism?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3XeXvRhKPDv8fVaJGfpClI_KSk1oLudsXtc0NDnRGsbP3wOpKwJmPSnKA#Echobox=1568188651

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2

By Meerkat11/9 17:39Wed Sep 11 17:39:11 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2Top of thread

Views: 1148

More chance of defeating new liberalism outside the EU than trapped in a new liberal trade zone that loves big multinational companies

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2

By Slim Jim11/9 18:36Wed Sep 11 18:36:30 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2Top of thread

Views: 1051

There's me thinking the EU helped protect us (eg bendy bananas) and the planet (eg vacuum cleaners) from big business. They're also at the forefront of trying to get them to pay tax somewhere, aren't they? Gosh, what a misunderstanding.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))11/9 18:20Wed Sep 11 18:20:07 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2Top of thread

Views: 1076

Fucking hell.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2

By Honnor11/9 18:10Wed Sep 11 18:10:03 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2Top of thread

Views: 1089

Have you seen who's in charge?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2

By Meerkat11/9 18:11Wed Sep 11 18:11:46 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2Top of thread

Views: 1079

The electorate.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2

By Honnor11/9 18:16Wed Sep 11 18:16:38 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2Top of thread

Views: 1075

Does this not remind you of any group in particular (hint, tories)

Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism and free market capitalism.[2]:7[3] While it is most often associated with such ideas, the defining features of neoliberalism in both thought and practice have been the subject of substantial scholarly discourse.[4] These ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade[5] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[13] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.[14][15]

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2

By Meerkat11/9 18:18Wed Sep 11 18:18:59 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2Top of thread

Views: 1070

Yep. But once we are out of the EU we can vote for a government that does what we want, be that neoliberal or stopping free trade to build a Corbyn wonderland

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2

By Honnor11/9 18:22Wed Sep 11 18:22:34 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2Top of thread

Views: 1059

I think we can do that now, plus being in an organisation that has checks and balances on rouge, wayward governments can't be a bad thing.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2

By Baldman (Baldman)11/9 18:41Wed Sep 11 18:41:23 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2Top of thread

Views: 1053

The EU is pretty much a hypercapitalist entity. It enforces free trade and restricts the ability of governments to intervene in markets.

The Tories are the same/worse of course but it doesn’t change what the EU actually is.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2

By Honnor11/9 18:50Wed Sep 11 18:50:36 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2Top of thread

Views: 1051

If that's the case, why are the Tories hellbent on leaving, it's fuck all do with democracy and "the people voted for it"

Edited by Honnor at 18:50:56 on 11th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2

By Baldman (Baldman)11/9 19:08Wed Sep 11 19:08:29 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2Top of thread

Views: 1023

Ah yeah, that’s fair. The EU is free trade within a certain geographical area. Outside of that area, the EU is more mercantilist.

The mentalists would like the free trade bit to be global.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 18:43Wed Sep 11 18:43:57 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2Top of thread

Views: 1032

Remind me again which member state was the main driver behind that.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2

By Baldman (Baldman)11/9 18:52Wed Sep 11 18:52:11 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjack part 2Top of thread

Views: 1042

Well true in the glory days of monetarism and laissez faire

Edited by Baldman at 18:52:38 on 11th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By Meerkat11/9 15:49Wed Sep 11 15:49:45 2019In response to Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1195

No real surprise - Boris could hardly offer a clean Brexit guarantee when he has been insisting he is negotiating (whether you think he wants a no deal exit is a different matter)

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By Nigel L11/9 16:39Wed Sep 11 16:39:12 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1153

"clean"?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By Auto-Boris (Sweepy)11/9 16:34Wed Sep 11 16:34:15 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1172

How can it be "clean" when it will create even more of a mess than we currently have?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By DesCartes11/9 16:43Wed Sep 11 16:43:48 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1155

Katspeak.

A bizarre phrase he keeps trotting out.

Johnson's in no position to offer anything other than his resignation.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By Meerkat11/9 17:07Wed Sep 11 17:07:31 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1136

A clean Brexit is one where we actually escape the control of the EU IMO
However in this instance I was paraphrasing Farage
Mr Farage has offered a "non-aggression pact" between his party and the Conservatives, on the condition that Mr Johnson sign up for "a clean-break Brexit" - in other words, no deal.

But of course you rarely pay attention before trotting out the catchphrases you chant in your pro EU social media echo chamber

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By DesCartes11/9 19:05Wed Sep 11 19:05:39 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1032

'But of course you rarely pay attention before trotting out the catchphrases you chant in your pro EU social media echo chamber'

Rightio 😂😂😂😂

Let's take that phrase 'clean-break Brexit' and split it into two:

a) A 'Clean Break' represents someone's view of the end state once we've got through this - whatever 'this' is - and things have stabilised.

b) 'Brexit' represents the transition process of getting from the current state (A) to the future 'Clean Break' end state (B).

So there's two major issues here:

i) Getting a clear definition of 'Clean Break' that everyone understands. One could surmise that this includes:

- Being outside of the EU Customs Union and the Single Market
- No 'Freedom of Movement' between the UK and the 'rump' (I'm sure that's what Leavers would call it) of the EU
- No participation in EU research/collaborative programmes (e.g. Erasmus - providing opportunities for
young people and teaching staff to study, work, and train abroad - or Horizon)

- No influence on our laws from the European Court of Justice
- No requirement to align to the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy, and no presence in its associated agencies
- Clear demarcation of waters for fishing purposes
- No membership of EU standards organisations, and no obligation to comply with EU standards - e.g. those associated with the environment
- No ongoing payments into the EU relating to membership, and no funding of UK initiatives by the EU, subsidies for farming, etc.
. etc., etc.

Is that what you would understand by a 'Clean Break'? If so, what have I missed that falls under the 'etc., etc'? If not, what is your definition? And is this really what we want?

b) The 'Brexit' process, to get from A to B - assuming a definition of 'B' on the above lines - is massively complicated and would probably run for years, with this country experiencing considerable pain in the interim. Amongst other things, it needs to cover:

- The process of extricating ourselves from the Customs Union, Single Market, programmes, standards bodies, agencies, policies, etc., etc.
- Putting the equivalent in place for the UK
- Identifying, agreeing and settling any financial arrangements associated with each of these memberships, etc.
- Managing the people impact of such changes, including - where possible - finding equivalent roles for those displaced
- Etc.

So please don't toss the phrase 'Clean Brexit' around as though it was a rag doll. I would respectively suggest that you haven't an f****g clue about what you're talking about, or are burying your head in the sand - or both.

Edited by DesCartes at 19:12:30 on 11th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By Meerkat11/9 19:36Wed Sep 11 19:36:21 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 989

Ooh touchy.
Really obvious consultant talk there, trying to put people off with far too much babbling.
Clean Brexit is an end State not a description of how we get there.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By DesCartes11/9 19:43Wed Sep 11 19:43:58 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 980

So when not...

I'm trotting out the catchphrases you chant in your pro EU social media echo chamber

...I'm into...

'Really obvious consultant talk there, trying to put people off with far too much babbling.'

...but I'm also touchy!

Clearly a 'No Win' scenario for me.

There's no 'consultant talk' there, it's a genuine attempt, in plain English, to get an understanding of what your definition of 'Clean Break' (not 'Clean Brexit') - would be? Can you not just address my questions (and drop the childish insults)?

Brexit
/ˈbrɛksɪt,ˈbrɛgzɪt/

noun
the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.
"the report warned that Brexit would reduce the EU's potential GDP"


'Withdrawal' is a Process, not an End State. 'Clean Break' would be the End State.

Edited by DesCartes at 19:44:27 on 11th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By Meerkat11/9 19:48Wed Sep 11 19:48:04 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 986

Complaining about childish insults is pretty rich from you!
Clean break means you have broken from the control of the EU. Doesn’t have to be no deal, but Farage sees it that way.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By DesCartes11/9 19:52Wed Sep 11 19:52:27 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 997

So, does it or does it not include all of the following?

- Being outside of the EU Customs Union and the Single Market
- No 'Freedom of Movement' between the UK and the 'rump' (I'm sure that's what Leavers would call it) of the EU
- No participation in EU research/collaborative programmes (e.g. Erasmus - providing opportunities for
young people and teaching staff to study, work, and train abroad - or Horizon)
- No influence on our laws from the European Court of Justice
- No requirement to align to the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy, and no presence in its associated agencies
- Clear demarcation of waters for fishing purposes
- No membership of EU standards organisations, and no obligation to comply with EU standards - e.g. those associated with the environment
- No ongoing payments into the EU relating to membership, and no funding of UK initiatives by the EU, subsidies for farming, etc.
. etc., etc.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By Meerkat11/9 21:15Wed Sep 11 21:15:43 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 933

Yes

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By Slim Jim11/9 17:15Wed Sep 11 17:15:20 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1122

What I don't understand is the insistence on no deal.

In either case, once we've left it'll be full steam ahead negotiating a FTA with our largest trading partner. Surely it's better to have some sort of deal in the meantime? Either we jump off the cliff and see how high we want to climb up it again, or we climb down it until we reach the level we want. The latter causes less disruption which must be best for business.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By Meerkat11/9 17:40Wed Sep 11 17:40:42 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1120

Best for business is not necessarily best for the people.
And your idea relies on a good deal being on offer, which it isn’t.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By . (steve blake)11/9 19:29Wed Sep 11 19:29:49 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1017

So on this part we're people orientated and Brexit has their interests at heart, but at the same time we're business and shareholder orientated if worker's rights are detrimental to dividends... I'm getting the picture that Brexit is all things to all people and that EVERYTHING about it is positive......

I have doubts

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By MS11/9 20:25Wed Sep 11 20:25:06 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1007

It’s Schroedingers Meerkat. He’s all about the little people unless they happen to want better pay in which case they become uppity and not deserving unless of course the lower pay might be EU related in which case they’re oppressed and being short changed by big business unless of course big business is maxim8sing shareholder value in which case.....

And on and on and on

reply to this article | return to the front page

^nailed it.

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))12/9 08:37Thu Sep 12 08:37:38 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 733

No text

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By Meerkat11/9 21:17Wed Sep 11 21:17:24 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 939

They aren’t little people if they are a big politicised union extorting employers

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By . (steve blake)11/9 20:33Wed Sep 11 20:33:10 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 965

Many thank!s!! That's cleared up all my questions, I have come to an informed conclusion.....

I'll let you know what that is in due course

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))11/9 18:12Wed Sep 11 18:12:24 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1075

A bad deal > AIDs > No deal.

HTH

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By Meerkat11/9 18:17Wed Sep 11 18:17:33 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1063

That is obviously totally untrue

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))11/9 18:19Wed Sep 11 18:19:29 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1054

LOLZ

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))11/9 16:36Wed Sep 11 16:36:37 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1170

We need to start calling "No deal Brexit" what it really is:

"Retards Brexit".

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By Baldman (Baldman)11/9 17:01Wed Sep 11 17:01:19 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1140

What a pleasant chap you are

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By DMN (DMN (Shit Forum))11/9 17:55Wed Sep 11 17:55:24 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1082

Thx xxx

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Brexit Pact threadjack

By Barda EUFC11/9 16:37Wed Sep 11 16:37:00 2019In response to Re: Brexit Pact threadjackTop of thread

Views: 1140

IT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Summary judgement is pretty damning

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 10:34Wed Sep 11 10:34:24 2019In response to Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1416

https://twitter.com/bbclornag/status/1171714405685452801?s=21

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Summary judgement is pretty damning

By Baldman (Baldman)11/9 10:40Wed Sep 11 10:40:44 2019In response to Summary judgement is pretty damningTop of thread

Views: 1377

Is it? I’m not sure how it establishes jurisdiction really.

Obviously the documents that were produced showed that prorogue was motivated by a desire to stymie scrutiny, but I’m not sure why that is the court’s business.

I think it should be, but I don’t see how they are saying it actually is. *heads off to DAG’s twitter account.*

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Summary judgement is pretty damning

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 11:04Wed Sep 11 11:04:25 2019In response to Re: Summary judgement is pretty damningTop of thread

Views: 1329

The point he makes about the difference between Scots and English Law is pretty apposite.

Although based in London, people should reflect that it's the UK Supreme Court, not the Englaih Supreme Court.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Diane Abbott's Afro (The Luton Fan)11/9 10:28Wed Sep 11 10:28:23 2019In response to Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1379

But other courts in England and Wales found it lawful?

1...2...3... cue the Daily Hate Mail calling these judges "Enemies of the People".

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Mike C (AFC Telford) (Mike C)11/9 11:03Wed Sep 11 11:03:55 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1322

Completely different legal system. It doesn't surprise me that it's been found unlawful. Most Acts of Parliament have to have parallel acts passed alongside them eg Public Health (Scotland) Act 2008. Largely because any enforcement action etc is different. Take Coroners for example. Scotland doesn't have them, or coroners inquests, they have Procurator Fiscals who operate differently.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By interserie11/9 17:14Wed Sep 11 17:14:57 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1116

Yes, the English judges (at a lower court) were clear that they didn't see any illegality. So far legal commentators in the media seem to be saying that it's the Scottish court that is out of step. Expectations seem to be that the Supreme Court will find in the Government's favour.

That should be fun!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 17:46Wed Sep 11 17:46:30 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1087

Would that be English commentators without a clue as regards Scots Law saying that they expect the Supreme Court to overturn this.

A few things to note. In the first instance, the Outer House of the Court of Session found against the petitioners, Joanna Cherry et al, the Inner House of the Court of Session is the appeals court and that's what found in favour today. In the English High Court, the judge there found against the petioners there, Gina Miller, et al. However, rather than going to the Court of Appeal, that's been fast tracked to the Supreme Court, so the Court of Appeal hasn't had to opine as in Scotland.

There is also a third case being heard in Northern Ireland in which no judgement has been returned so far.

The Supreme Court justices will have to apply the law appropriate to each jurisdiction, it's not the case that English Law trumps Scots Law or vice versa and presumably if they find that in one jurisdiction the government has acted illegally that will be sufficient. Northern Irish Law is also a separate jurisdiction but is closer to English Law than Scots Law as they have similar origins.

Not quite as big a slam dunk that the UKG will win as some might suggest and remember that no-one gave Gina Miller a chance in her original case.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)11/9 19:16Wed Sep 11 19:16:31 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1001

Also, Andrew Neil is suggesting that the Scottish case was on a different point of law than the English case.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 19:31Wed Sep 11 19:31:08 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 993

There's two parts to the case. Firstly whether or not it's justiciable, ie, whether it's something the courts should consider. If they decide that's not the case, then the action fails. That's what happened in the High Court and in the Outer House and they don't need to consider whether or not it was unlawful or not.

If they decide it is justiciable then they have to decide on whether or not it was unlawful and that's what theInner House ruled on today.

The High Court in England only decided it wasn't justiciable, they didn't make any comment beyond that

The first point if you like is on a point of law, the second is on the facts of the case.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)11/9 21:08Wed Sep 11 21:08:14 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 935

Ah rightio. Cheers.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Baldman (Baldman)11/9 18:43Wed Sep 11 18:43:33 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1026

DA Green was suggesting the verdict would be one for all nations (or rather the U.K. as a whole) and they’d have to balance different jurisdictions. I may have read that wrong.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 18:48Wed Sep 11 18:48:04 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1043

It's certainly an interesting conundrum and for me, getting to this stage it's a win-win. If the judgement is upheld then it deals a possibly fatal blow to Johnson. If the judgement is overturned because of a "UK decision" then think of the political capital you can make out of that.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Meerkat11/9 17:48Wed Sep 11 17:48:25 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1089

Surely the Supreme Court has to overrule one of the decisions or we are in a very strange constitutional place!!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)11/9 19:22Wed Sep 11 19:22:40 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 997

Said elsewhere, Andrew Neil has claimed the Scottish case and English case were both made on different points of law. If I can explain it correctly, I think the Scottish case was that Johnson lied (to paraphrase) to the Queen while the English case was that the action of proroguing was illegal or something like that.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 18:00Wed Sep 11 18:00:42 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1075

Not sure that necessarily follows. The U.K. Parliament is the Parliament of the U.K. which seems like an obvious thing to say but that means it's subject to all of the different legal systems in the UK, that's English Law, Scots Law and Northern Irish Law, ie it has to act in accordance with *all* jurisdictions. If its actions are deemed to be unlawful in one of those jurisdictions then they need to adhere to that.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Meerkat11/9 18:08Wed Sep 11 18:08:31 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1074

That would be a constitutional mess though - the UK Parliament being bound by Scottish law in opposition to English law.
What is the difference between the two systems that could give different judgments anyway, or is it a jurisdiction opinion difference?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 18:25Wed Sep 11 18:25:30 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1047

I'm not a constitutional lawyer but as I understand it there are fairly fundamental differences when it comes to constitutional matters.

There are two fundamental acts of Parliament, both passed in 1689, to enable the succession of William and Mary and which defined the relationship between parliament and the monarch,

These were the Bill of Rights passed by the English Parliament and the Claim of Right passed by the Scottish Parliament. This was before the Act of Union and both Parliaments had to act independently to replace James VII/II with William and Mary.

As well as being separate acts, they come from different legal and constitutional traditions.

A lot of UK constitutional law flows from these two acts of different parliaments.

Generally speaking governments try to steer clear of breaching either.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Baldman (Baldman)11/9 18:45Wed Sep 11 18:45:35 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1026

I think there are more recent orecedents that apply too. As I understand it English law has precedents which mean the courts have less jurisdiction in matters of Parliament.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 18:51Wed Sep 11 18:51:59 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1018

One of the fundamental differences is that in the English tradition, Parliament is held to be sovereign above all, in the Scots tradition, the people are held to be sovereign.

A lot of English precedent may flow from that.

Edited by Dougie MacDougall at 18:52:14 on 11th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Baldman (Baldman)11/9 17:18Wed Sep 11 17:18:45 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1108

I think the English court decided that it had no jurisdiction... see here:

https://www.ft.com/content/12097e7c-d47f-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77

Very different from saying there was no illegality.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 10:36Wed Sep 11 10:36:01 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1356

All part of the process, it's what happens in the Supreme Court which is ultimately what's important.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Mr Staffordshire11/9 10:30Wed Sep 11 10:30:57 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1374

Don’t forget Scotland overwhelmingly voted to remain...

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Diane Abbott's Afro (The Luton Fan)11/9 10:41Wed Sep 11 10:41:18 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1361

Are you suggesting that a court and its judges are not neutral?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Mr Staffordshire11/9 10:43Wed Sep 11 10:43:22 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1354

I am no expert but it could well be...

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Diane Abbott's Afro (The Luton Fan)11/9 10:52Wed Sep 11 10:52:04 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1341

Be quiet...

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Joe Hawkins11/9 11:12Wed Sep 11 11:12:32 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1311

I'd agree with Mr Staffs.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Mr Staffordshire11/9 10:53Wed Sep 11 10:53:11 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1334

Don’t worry I am always mute...

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By DesCartes11/9 10:21Wed Sep 11 10:21:30 2019In response to Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1396

He's going daaaan.

Anyone planning to interview him today, about the events of the last week or so, should be asking the equivalent of:

'Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?'

Edited by DesCartes at 10:29:00 on 11th September 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 10:15Wed Sep 11 10:15:16 2019In response to Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1393

Supreme Court on Tuesday.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By The Very Revd. Roy Summersby KC11/9 10:30Wed Sep 11 10:30:46 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1368

But by the time the Supreme Court judge on this it is conference season. Will they just work an extra 4 days next term?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 10:33Wed Sep 11 10:33:39 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1357

If the Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Session then I'd expect them to be back in Parliament the next day.

FWIW, the SNP doesn't benefit from any parliamentary conference recess and holds its autumn conference over a long weekend, absolutely no reason why other parties shouldn't do the same.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Lenny Baryea (MUFC)11/9 11:43Wed Sep 11 11:43:34 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1304

If the Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Session then I'd expect them to be back in Parliament the next day.

For what purpose?

From the Guardian:

At the hearing in Scotland, Judge Lord Carloway told the court:

"We are of the opinion that the advice given by the government to her majesty the Queen to prorogue parliament was unlawful and that the prorogation itself was unlawful"

As PA Media reports, Carloway referred the matter to the supreme court for resolution. Campaigners said their understanding was that parliament can now reassemble if it so wishes. The UK government said it would appeal against the court’s decision.


^^^ I’m no legal expert, but should their opinion come into it?

Interesting thread from the FT’s legal commentator:

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1171717055911014400

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 11:51Wed Sep 11 11:51:15 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1282

Not if the Supreme Court rules the UKG's action was unlawful.

Separation of Powers and all that

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Lenny Baryea (MUFC)11/9 14:16Wed Sep 11 14:16:10 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1199

To be clearer, I meant their *opinion* not *their* opinion.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 15:01Wed Sep 11 15:01:52 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1182

It's what judges do, make judgements based on their interpretation of the law. Appeal courts are there to make sure that interpretation is correct.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Lenny Baryea (MUFC)11/9 16:56Wed Sep 11 16:56:28 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1129

It’s not clear to me what law has been broken; why this prorogation has been deemed unlawful

I read this BBC article and found it interesting that the QC presenting the argument for why it was legal to prorogue mentions a divisional court ruling which turned down an application for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty* because, in essence, it was thought to be a political rather than a legal judgment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49650729

* National referendums on the European Constitutional Treaty (superseded by the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007):

Czech Republic: cancelled; never held
Denmark: cancelled; never held
France: No (55% with 69% turnout)
Ireland: cancelled; never held
Luxembourg: Yes (57% with 88% turnout)
Netherlands: No (62% with 63% turnout)
Poland: cancelled; never held
Portugal: cancelled; never held
Spain: Yes (77% with 42% turnout)
United Kingdom: cancelled; never held

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Baldman (Baldman)11/9 17:09Wed Sep 11 17:09:07 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1117

There’s a full judgement coming on Friday so stay tuned. But as I understand it it is a constitutional ruling... the separation of powers between Parliament and the executive ensures that we don’t end up ruled by a dictator who can legislate and change his mind at will without scrutiny.

The case is brought on the basis that Boris is trying to sidestep this constitutional safeguard. That hinges on whether he lied to the queen. The court believes that he did therefore he acted against the constitution by ignoring Parliament’s right to scrutinise govt actions.

Seems fair enough to me. And a proper safeguard.

I don’t know what gives the court jurisdiction and I don’t know what effective remedy they can implement (although Maugham seems to think they have effectively set aside the prorogue action). But looking forward to the judgement and the Supreme Court.

Instinctively it feels right that the court should be able to do this.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 17:50Wed Sep 11 17:50:55 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1083

One thing that's is interesting is that the three judges have come to the same conclusions but for different reasons, which tends to suggest - in law - that the action was illegal on more than one level, rather than a single technical detail, which presumably will make the appeal more challenging.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Lenny Baryea (MUFC)11/9 18:01Wed Sep 11 18:01:27 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1079

One thing that's is interesting is that the three judges have come to the same conclusions but for different reasons, which tends to suggest - in law - that the action was illegal on more than one level, rather than a single technical detail, which presumably will make the appeal more challenging.

Or that they’re making it up as they go along! :-)

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 18:04Wed Sep 11 18:04:47 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1067

If by they you mean Boris and co then I completely agree. They also seem to have damaged their own case between the original hearing and the appeal.

This has the whiff of a lanky toff who thinks himself an expert in English Constitional history but little about the parallel history of the Constitution in Scotland.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By The Very Revd. Roy Summersby KC11/9 11:27Wed Sep 11 11:27:51 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1286

when are the party conferences scheduled this year?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Auto-Boris (Sweepy)11/9 10:14Wed Sep 11 10:14:36 2019In response to Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1394

Ignore and carry on.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By SamBee11/9 10:19Wed Sep 11 10:19:43 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1382

Well, it is very quickly being analysed as to whether this means prorogueation (sp?!) is paused, therefore it's possible that the MP's have to go back to work.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 10:25Wed Sep 11 10:25:45 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1378

The court hasn't made an interim order to suspend prorogation, which they could do, presumably because the Supreme Court hearing is already lined up next week.

The full judgement will be published on Friday - and is likely to be embarrassing for the government - the summary judgement is that the court held that prorogation of Parliament is unlawful if it's used for the purposes of stopping parliamentary scrutiny, ie, they didn't believe the UKG's rationale. Unanimous decision of three judges.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By interserie11/9 18:27Wed Sep 11 18:27:30 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1062

It seems that regardless of the detailed judgement of the Scottish Court published on Friday, it will be the the view(s) of the Supreme Court next week that will be critical. The tradition has been not to interfere in political spats and a change in that approach will open a very large can of worms such that no Government could take action in a disputed area without someone challenging every dotted I and crossed T in the courts. That could be more damaging than the hardest of Brexits.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Baldman (Baldman)11/9 20:21Wed Sep 11 20:21:20 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 961

I think the point is that the scotland has a different tradition.

And, my question to you is... if the courts should not intervene when there is a breach of the constitution then who should? Who polices our constitution?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 18:34Wed Sep 11 18:34:52 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1033

Governments get taken to court all the time over the legality of their actions, quite often they Lose. I think that laws put through by departments that Chris Grayling was in charge of have a very bad record in this regards.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By SamBee11/9 10:34Wed Sep 11 10:34:28 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1355

Was basing that possible on this tweet from one of the instigators of the case

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Dougie MacDougall11/9 10:39Wed Sep 11 10:39:42 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1343

That might technically be correct however, it's only the government that can recall parliament and the court doesn't appear to have made an order to force them to do that. So I suspect that parliament won't sit until either the government recalls it voluntarily or is forced to by the courts.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By SamBee11/9 10:51Wed Sep 11 10:51:24 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1334

I wonder if it would be of great propaganda benefit for every opposition MP to turn up to the House of Commons and get to work. The site of multiple parties trying to find solutions whilst tory benches are bare would be a sight...

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By SamBee11/9 10:55Wed Sep 11 10:55:39 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1323

Oooh, plot twist

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Lord M.Ox (Marked Ox)11/9 10:22Wed Sep 11 10:22:08 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 1377

A bugger if you've made plans such as going on the campaign trail.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Politics thread #354589

By Joe Hawkins11/9 20:32Wed Sep 11 20:32:49 2019In response to Re: Politics thread #354589Top of thread

Views: 955

A spurious link to politics but I read that a Katie Hopkins has visited the boards favourite con Tommy Robinson in jail.

And Mr Farage appears offended by the tory party.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Previous thread: The European Parliament by Hughesy18/9 13:23Wed Sep 18 13:23:03 2019view thread