|
Post by smallthorner on Jun 28, 2019 20:24:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2019 20:25:39 GMT
I think that socialist Remainers need to consider what Raheem is saying here. When the EU funded CBI are doom mongering, on whose behalf do they speak? /
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2019 20:26:26 GMT
Doubt it. He was too much of a free thinker/ non- conformist
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Jun 28, 2019 20:33:10 GMT
Doubt it. He was too much of a free thinker/ non- conformist He could see what the European empire could bring to the Promised Land. Water treatment. Sanitation. Currency. Health care. Social responsibility. Food allocation. He argued against his own establishment far more than the Romans. He was your original Europhile.
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Jun 28, 2019 20:35:08 GMT
I think that socialist Remainers need to consider what Raheem is saying here. When the EU funded CBI are doom mongering, on whose behalf do they speak? / It really is a mystery why any socialist would want to remain in the EU.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2019 20:36:40 GMT
Doubt it. He was too much of a free thinker/ non- conformist He could see what the European empire could bring to the Promised Land. Water treatment. Sanitation. Currency. Health care. Social responsibility. Food allocation. He argued against his own establishment far more than the Romans. He was your original Europhile. Yes he certainly criticised the hypocrisy of the ruling class.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jun 28, 2019 20:40:47 GMT
Matthew 7 v6 Don't cast your pearls before swine. As much as I am not a Christian , there are some eternal truths in the gospels, which is why they have stood the test of time. I'd prefer to refer to them than the EU ideology Jesus was a Remainer. With regard to the Romans he was very much a Leaver.
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Jun 28, 2019 20:45:13 GMT
He could see what the European empire could bring to the Promised Land. Water treatment. Sanitation. Currency. Health care. Social responsibility. Food allocation. He argued against his own establishment far more than the Romans. He was your original Europhile. Yes he certainly criticised the hypocrisy of the ruling class. The ruling class being the incumbent priests and kings. He was against their wealth and influence. A la. ... your conservative party and it's greed and selfishness. A la... Boris, Nigel, Cameron etc etc.. He was a socialist and remainer. I'm an agnostic by the way.😊
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2019 20:49:27 GMT
Yes he certainly criticised the hypocrisy of the ruling class. The ruling class being the incumbent priests and kings. He was against their wealth and influence. A la. ... your conservative party and it's greed and selfishness. A la... Boris, Nigel, Cameron etc etc.. He was a socialist and remainer. I'm an agnostic by the way.😊 As I say he was against the hypocrisy of the Scribes, the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Political and Religious ruling class...A la today's ruling Political class of career politicians and EU bureacrats who think that they know best by imposing their top down belief system and look down on ordinary people ( the Labour party chattering class are probably worse than the Tories and the EU super "Politicians" are in a different class of ' we know best')
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2019 20:54:52 GMT
Mark's gospel 17 v1 " The UK must leave the EU. It is the correct and democratic thing to do . V2 It might be difficult to escape from such oppression of your masters but we must persevere. V3 It will be worth it in the end , the people will see the light v 4 don't listen to Smallthorne and other soothsayers
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Jun 28, 2019 20:57:25 GMT
With regard to the Romans he was very much a Leaver. Well. In the referendum of AD28... He definitely voted Romans remain. I've seen the papyrus.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jun 28, 2019 21:03:48 GMT
With regard to the Romans he was very much a Leaver. Well. In the referendum of AD28... He definitely voted Romans remain. I've seen the papyrus. Cool. I think we've deviated a tad.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2019 21:07:48 GMT
With regard to the Romans he was very much a Leaver. Well. In the referendum of AD28... He definitely voted Romans remain. I've seen the papyrus.[/quote In the CE 31 he changed his mind. Luke23 v34 Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Jun 28, 2019 21:11:45 GMT
I think that socialist Remainers need to consider what Raheem is saying here. When the EU funded CBI are doom mongering, on whose behalf do they speak? / It really is a mystery why any socialist would want to remain in the EU. You think this is good for the UK?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2019 21:14:40 GMT
It really is a mystery why any socialist would want to remain in the EU. You think this is good for the UK? It depends what you mean by "the UK". I guess those working class people getting a pay rise , perhaps better job security might think so. The bosses might not.
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Jun 28, 2019 21:17:46 GMT
Well. In the referendum of AD28... He definitely voted Romans remain. I've seen the papyrus. Cool. I think we've deviated a tad. You're not seriously wanting a serious discussion about the political and social thinkings of Jesus are you? 😊
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Jun 28, 2019 21:20:26 GMT
It really is a mystery why any socialist would want to remain in the EU. You think this is good for the UK? And you don't?
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Jun 28, 2019 21:30:14 GMT
You think this is good for the UK? And you don't? The industrial UK economy (in modern times) has always been reliant on moderated imported labour. It's a sign of a growing prosperous economy. That balance has to be controlled of course. That's the job of the Government.
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Jun 28, 2019 21:39:22 GMT
The industrial UK economy (in modern times) has always been reliant on moderated imported labour. It's a sign of a growing prosperous economy. That balance has to be controlled of course. That's the job of the Government. The government have become lazy and rely on the EU to govern. It's why parliament are frightened to death to leave the EU.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2019 21:39:38 GMT
The industrial UK economy (in modern times) has always been reliant on moderated imported labour. It's a sign of a growing prosperous economy. That balance has to be controlled of course. That's the job of the Government. Times change. Germany needs immigration ( Turks) having a relatively low population growth rate. We don't . One size across Europe doesn't fit all ...ask the Greeks , Hungarians and Italians who don't particularly like immigration.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 28, 2019 21:50:39 GMT
The industrial UK economy (in modern times) has always been reliant on moderated imported labour. It's a sign of a growing prosperous economy. That balance has to be controlled of course. That's the job of the Government. In global terms the mass employment of ( manual working class) workers in the UK has come to an end. I wish that something was in place to replace it. and we had the entrepreneurship and freedom to innovate our own industries....but even then to be competitive with robotics and AI it's doubtful that we will need a similar workforce as in the past. The service industries, manual farm labouring ( seasonal fruit picking) , call centres and distribution centres may be .....but mind dumbing work that needs addressing as the modern way of exploiting the working class.
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Jun 28, 2019 21:57:16 GMT
The industrial UK economy (in modern times) has always been reliant on moderated imported labour. It's a sign of a growing prosperous economy. That balance has to be controlled of course. That's the job of the Government. The government have become lazy and rely on the EU to govern. It's why parliament are frightened to death to leave the EU. No numpty. Parliament knows that forty years of involvement in this institution needs a lot of sorting and sensible discussion. Not a Tory civil war that could ultimately destroy the Party and take us into a place that seriously affects our country. Parliament (as the name means) is a place of debate and talking. We should have had more on this subject years ago. And then a Party who could put forward an exit strategy in their election mandate. If they couldn't do that then so be it. Politics and referendum don't mix. See my posts three years ago.
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Jun 28, 2019 22:37:51 GMT
Congratulations to David Gauke MP. Should shut a few people up.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jun 28, 2019 23:11:33 GMT
Matthew 7 v6 Don't cast your pearls before swine. As much as I am not a Christian , there are some eternal truths in the gospels, which is why they have stood the test of time. I'd prefer to refer to them than the EU ideology Jesus was a Remainer. Many evangelical Christians are opposed to the EU. I've posted this before if anyone has the time (72 mins) to actually listen to what David Hathaway, a prominent evangelist, has to say. It was produced 5 years ago well before the referendum. Many none Christians will find it hard to listen to (it's very long winded) and find his views extreme.
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Jun 30, 2019 12:29:55 GMT
Interesting view on the obligation to pay the £39bn from House of Lords - Brexit and the EU budget as withholding/part withholding seems to be the position promoted by Johnson/Hunt respectively. However, the strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong. Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all. This would be undesirable for the remaining Member States, who would have to decide how to plug the hole in the budget created by the UK’s exit without any kind of transition.You pays your lawyer and you takes your choice on the requirement to pay it seems.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 30, 2019 12:41:26 GMT
Interesting view on the obligation to pay the £39bn from House of Lords - Brexit and the EU budget as withholding/part withholding seems to be the position promoted by Johnson/Hunt respectively. However, the strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong. Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all. This would be undesirable for the remaining Member States, who would have to decide how to plug the hole in the budget created by the UK’s exit without any kind of transition.You pays your lawyer and you takes your choice on the requirement to pay it seems. Much of the €39 billion is for the two year transition period effectively we still pay membership fees but if there is no deal there is no transition and no €39 billion either. There is also an argument we should be due a refund for our share of assets etc nevermind the fact countries joining the eu dont have to pay so we do we have to pay to leave....
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jun 30, 2019 16:12:36 GMT
Interesting view on the obligation to pay the £39bn from House of Lords - Brexit and the EU budget as withholding/part withholding seems to be the position promoted by Johnson/Hunt respectively. However, the strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong. Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all. This would be undesirable for the remaining Member States, who would have to decide how to plug the hole in the budget created by the UK’s exit without any kind of transition.You pays your lawyer and you takes your choice on the requirement to pay it seems. Much of the €39 billion is for the two year transition period effectively we still pay membership fees but if there is no deal there is no transition and no €39 billion either. There is also an argument we should be due a refund for our share of assets etc nevermind the fact countries joining the eu dont have to pay so we do we have to pay to leave.... The £39B is money that we've committed to and it's very likely that we'd be sued if we tried to withhold it. It also wouldn't put us ("Global Britain") in a good light elsewhere in the world and the EU wouldn't deal with us in the future if we didn't settle our financial commitments. It's brainless rhetoric from Johnson and Hunt which might satisfy the ultra Brexiteers, but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny in the real world.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 30, 2019 16:24:09 GMT
Much of the €39 billion is for the two year transition period effectively we still pay membership fees but if there is no deal there is no transition and no €39 billion either. There is also an argument we should be due a refund for our share of assets etc nevermind the fact countries joining the eu dont have to pay so we do we have to pay to leave.... The £39B is money that we've committed to and it's very likely that we'd be sued if we tried to withhold it. It also wouldn't put us ("Global Britain") in a good light elsewhere in the world and the EU wouldn't deal with us in the future if we didn't settle our financial commitments. It's brainless rhetoric from Johnson and Hunt which might satisfy the ultra Brexiteers, but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny in the real world. Sued at which court Dave? Under what breach?
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jun 30, 2019 16:30:23 GMT
The £39B is money that we've committed to and it's very likely that we'd be sued if we tried to withhold it. It also wouldn't put us ("Global Britain") in a good light elsewhere in the world and the EU wouldn't deal with us in the future if we didn't settle our financial commitments. It's brainless rhetoric from Johnson and Hunt which might satisfy the ultra Brexiteers, but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny in the real world. Sued at which court Dave? Under what breach? The International Arbitration court in The Hague. It probably won't come to that because sense will undoubtedly prevail and it will be paid because we will need to have a relationship with the EU even in the event of no deal.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 30, 2019 16:44:46 GMT
Sued at which court Dave? Under what breach? The International Arbitration court in The Hague. It probably won't come to that because sense will undoubtedly prevail and it will be paid because we will need to have a relationship with the EU even in the event of no deal. I don't believe it has such jurisdiction Dave , based on precedents unless you can show otherwise. We have not breached any agreement to pay. Just exercising an article (50) as part of our membership agreement.. nothing in it about exit fees/ future spending commitments. The EU needs to reduce its budget if a contributor leaves. We equally should be entitled to reimbursement for or an interest in current EU assets yo which we have contributed but relinquish on leaving. Most governments of the world would not disrespect us but admire us. The £39b is simply a creation of a Remainer colluding with the EU. No legal basis.
|
|