advertisement


Oh Britain, what have you done (part ∞+25)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
richgilb said:
I am not supporting Boris. If I see shite in other rags about his aides and the like supposedly saying things, I think the same thing. But noone is posting them here. So there is nothing to say. Other than...

Boris needs pulling apart by chimpanzees. He is not to be trusted with anything. He should stop talking about a general election and start talking about a 2nd referendum.

I trust my position is clear. I do not attack Guardian articles in support of the Conservative Party or Brexit. I just wish people here would rely on the Guardian less. It does not reinforce a point.
Click to expand...


I see your point and great to hear. But where else in the uk papers with exception of sunday times can you read facts. Check out the sun. Irish times and irish indo generally are balanced but no doubt irish times and guardian are brothers in arms. But I believe they are honourable folks a bit like Ken Clarke. Fighting the good fight.
 
tonerei said:
I see your point and great to hear. But where else in the uk papers with exception of sunday times can you read facts. Check out the sun. Irish times and irish indo generally are balanced but no doubt irish times and guardian are brothers in arms. But I believe they are honourable folks a bit like Ken Clarke. Fighting the good fight.
Click to expand...
The bbc gets slagged here but I think they do not pad articles out with 'one source said' kind of stuff. Quotes seem to have names attached to them with the BBC....happy to be shown I am wrong though!

I don't see the Guardian as any more honourable than the Telegraph. I avoid both!
 
Agree BBC is fine with exception of QT. There general reporting is honest. Unfortunately most of the interview programees on most channels struggle to call out lying and go after BJ and his team. Labour are not saints but their main spokesmen and woman appear genuine. Ditto Caroline Lucas.
Its a sorry mess one of the interviewees today Jim Power (economist)was very impassioned and genuinely so. He nailed the UK man. You could fully sense his concern at the lies and narrow views being projected at him.
British commenators need to get impassioned and go on the attack against this tory leadership
 
Cav said:
So was May's deal rejected by the UK Government 3 times or not?

Was it rejected by the EU ever?

Simple questions.
Click to expand...

One important point is that despite being so branded, the withdrawal deal on offer was not May's, but the EC's. And it was indeed rejected three times in the HoC.

So when is a deal not a deal, an agreement not an agreement?

Once again, I'll help you. The answer is when one side does not agree with it.

The point that I was making, and will make again, is that ideology needs to be set aside and the gates opened to getting an FTA in train. Too much time has been wasted.
 
stevec67 said:
don't worry, the referendum is going to last a generation all right. The generation behind most of us, the millennial s, are going to be paying for it until they retire at 75. We'll be lucky if they don't boil us down for soap.
Click to expand...

Yep along with having the jobs, the rising property equity, good pensions and the free Universities the boomers have given the millennials one last present: Brexit contagion.
 
Colin Barron said:
Italy raises money from many pots,you may be correct but they just call it debt; interesting the France holds the most at 21%, uk hold 2%.
Click to expand...
Thanks, my point being that you can't just apply the domestic and business model of loans and banking to national finances, because the mechanism is very different, just as you can't apply the 'household budget' model to national economics. So that, kinda, invalidates your argument about borrowing upthread.
 
eternumviti said:
One important point is that despite being so branded, the withdrawal deal on offer was not May's, but the EC's. And it was indeed rejected three times in the HoC.
Click to expand...

That is not true. It was an agreement between EU and UK negotiators. The branding of 'May's Deal' is a ERG fanboi construct. Which has become pretty typical when unpalatable facts don't suit their narrative.
 
Today for first time I read hard data about investments, Dutch investments in UK went from 50b in 2016 to -11b in 2018, British investments in NL went from 14b in 2016 to 80b in 2018. Thank you.
 
eternumviti said:
One important point is that despite being so branded, the withdrawal deal on offer was not May's, but the EC's. And it was indeed rejected three times in the HoC.

So when is a deal not a deal, an agreement not an agreement?

Once again, I'll help you. The answer is when one side does not agree with it.

The point that I was making, and will make again, is that ideology needs to be set aside and the gates opened to getting an FTA in train. Too much time has been wasted.
Click to expand...
How much will a new FTA cost?
 
eternumviti said:
One important point is that despite being so branded, the withdrawal deal on offer was not May's, but the EC's. And it was indeed rejected three times in the HoC.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that the backstop was a UK proposal. Theresa May had, at least, some understanding of the impact of Brexit on the GFA and NI.

The rest of the deal was also a negotiation or at the inistance of the UK—the 'transition period' for example.

May got the best deal available considering the red lines. For the Brexiteers no deal would be good enough.

The fantasies presented by the leave campaign have turned out to be just that. For Cummings et. al. that's no problem. No Deal is what they always wanted but they had to obfuscate this fact with lies during the campaign.

'Leaving the EU will make you poorer and well paid jobs will go, but we'll make a packet from deregulation and disaster capitalism' didn't fit on the side of a bus.

Stephen
 
SteveS1 said:
That is not true. It was an agreement between EU and UK negotiators. The branding of 'May's Deal' is a ERG fanboi construct. Which has become pretty typical when unpalatable facts don't suit their narrative.
Click to expand...

This place often resembles a forum for the hard of thinking.

The 'deal' thrashed out by the EU and the British negotiators had to be put before the HoC before it could become an agreement.

It failed to meet the consent of the HoC three times.

It is therefore not an agreement.
 
stephen bennett said:
I think you'll find that the backstop was a UK proposal. Theresa may had, at least, some understanding of the impact of Brexit on the GFA and NI.

Stephen
Click to expand...

As I recall the backstop was conceived on the UK side as something rather looser and more informal, but the EU put their lawyers on it and within an instant they had outwitted the UK side.

The backstop has to be time-limited or it is unacceptable. A time-limit is unacceptable to the EU, therefore the backstop is unacceptable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top