|
|
Post by smallthorner on Oct 3, 2018 21:00:01 GMT
France fighting for us you mean...I don’t think wishing for a return to the good old days of 1066 is the best argument I have heard for Brexit or against the EU. Mind you, it’s not the worst either! Wow... I've read it all now - you think the Norman conquest of England was the French fighting for us?..... No wait, I've finally seen the light and worked it out, you're French aren't you? Haha.. Wondered how long it would take.. In fairness to oggy... I think he edited his post and got a bit mixed up. |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Oct 3, 2018 21:25:22 GMT
Irrelevant. If you go back to 1066 it was pretty much 100% against Europe. You want do your DNA map Clayton. You'll be a Remainer in no time 😂😂 All went downhill mate in 1035 when King Canute died, rest was history as they say! Come to think of it I'm not overly keen on getting my feet wet.... DNA map you say   |
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Oct 3, 2018 21:37:19 GMT
You want do your DNA map Clayton. You'll be a Remainer in no time 😂😂 All went downhill mate in 1035 when King Canute died, rest was history as they say! Come to think of it I'm not overly keen on getting my feet wet.... DNA map you say Oh yes.. Any self respecting Brexit debater should have one. Mine.. 25% Scandanavian 25% Saxon 25% Iceni 10% Robin Hood area 15% Brown Edge 😊 |
|
|
|
Post by upthefud on Oct 4, 2018 5:30:00 GMT
Unfortunately, the very few amounted to 544 to 53 in favour of granting the referendum. That 544 included Cameron, Mr David; Soubry, Anna; Khan, Sadiq; Umunna, Mr Chuka; Greening, Justine; Farron, Tim. All happy to give the question over to the public to decide. Presumably happy to draw a full salary despite reneging on doing their duty to the full. That's where all this started. If you let someone else do your job don't moan about the outcome if it's not to your liking. Go back a year before. Nobody wanted the vote. It just wasn’t considered an issue until Cameron made it one. Yes we did, UKIP were absolutely flying and eating up support from both Labour and the Tories |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Oct 4, 2018 7:07:14 GMT
A referendum that very few wanted got us in this mess, another may be the only way to get us out. Otherwise all I can see is a no deal brexit (that only extreme nutters really want) and then a Corbyn government a few months later once we our economy has binned completely. It’s not the most optimistic of futures but looks most likely to me. Unfortunately, the very few amounted to 544 to 53 in favour of granting the referendum. That 544 included Cameron, Mr David; Soubry, Anna; Khan, Sadiq; Umunna, Mr Chuka; Greening, Justine; Farron, Tim. All happy to give the question over to the public to decide. Presumably happy to draw a full salary despite reneging on doing their duty to the full. That's where all this started. If you let someone else do your job don't moan about the outcome if it's not to your liking. That's it in a nutshell. Now they want to give the people another vote in hope that they have come round to their way of thinking. Cowards. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 4, 2018 7:37:52 GMT
We only let European golfers join in with us in 1979, it was GB and then GB and Ireland until then Yes. Just a few years after we joined the Common Market/EU Your foot well and truly shot. 😁 How is it shot, it shows we were quite capable of playing against the yanks on our own and it was us that let the europeans join us, not the other way around. Keep clinging on with your fingertips. |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Oct 4, 2018 7:42:47 GMT
All went downhill mate in 1035 when King Canute died, rest was history as they say! Come to think of it I'm not overly keen on getting my feet wet.... DNA map you say   Oh yes.. Any self respecting Brexit debater should have one. Mine.. 25% Scandanavian 25% Saxon 25% Iceni 10% Robin Hood area 15% Brown Edge 😊 Just got mine back. 40% Bass 40% Pedigree 15% Chicken drumsticks 5% Readybrek I'm a bit confused. Where did the Readybrek come from?  |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 4, 2018 8:30:29 GMT
France fighting for us you mean...I don’t think wishing for a return to the good old days of 1066 is the best argument I have heard for Brexit or against the EU. Mind you, it’s not the worst either! Wow... I've read it all now - you think the Norman conquest of England was the French fighting for us?..... No wait, I've finally seen the light and worked it out, you're French aren't you? I am no historian but I thought it was the french invading to get rid of the Saxons, the previous invaders!? Not really to do with Brexit either way |
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Oct 4, 2018 8:30:56 GMT
" 1. Leave or remain. If remain wins we stay, if leave wins we leave." That's what DID happen isn't it? ".... unknown option of “leave” on the ballot paper without spelling out what that actually means." I think most of us DID understand what 'leave' meant and means. There was a lot of discussion and debate about it at the time. It was only 'not understood' by those who, with hindsight, chose not to understand it. So can you tell me what the leave vote was on the Brussels 2 regs as everyone in my profession is dying to know. Also on reciprocity of judgements. If you genuinely know the answers, you can make a fortune on talks to major law firms, chambers and the law society. I can put you in touch as you seem to know more than the lawyers who have been appointed by the government to advise on these issues. If you cannot answer those questions, you don’t know what the leave vote was for. Not to mention the bigger more obvious problems like customs, irish border etc that we still don’t know about following the leave vote. Oggy, you really are getting desperate aren’t you! No, I can’t tell you about Brussels 2 regs or reciprocity of judgements. In common with virtually everyone else, I cast my vote and then trust the politicians and officials to deal with the small print. In the same spirit, can you tell me which will be the next country to join the EU, with whom will the EU sign its next trade deal, which is likely to be the next Eurozone country requiring a bailout or how many non EU nationals will the Germans invite over to Europe next year to be shared evenly among us all. NO, of course you can’t. And if you cannot answer those questions, you don’t know what the remain vote was for. Arguments like that can go on for ever. When you voted Liberal in the 2010 General Election, did you vote that way so that the Liberals would form a coalition with the Conservative party because Clegg didn’t like Brown, or that the Libs would vote for the raising of university student tuition fees to £9000 per year after they specifically promised to oppose any rise. NO, of course you didn’t. You cast your vote in the way you saw fit at the time and then observed how it all panned out. You trusted the politicians and the officials to do the right thing. That’s the way it works, so why don’t you knock it off with this idiotic “what sort of Brexit did you vote for?” circular argument and come up with something new? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 4, 2018 8:31:49 GMT
Go back a year before. Nobody wanted the vote. It just wasn’t considered an issue until Cameron made it one. Yes we did, UKIP were absolutely flying and eating up support from both Labour and the Tories Flying??? How many MPs did they have? 1? Even the lib dems were doing better |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 4, 2018 8:33:25 GMT
So can you tell me what the leave vote was on the Brussels 2 regs as everyone in my profession is dying to know. Also on reciprocity of judgements. If you genuinely know the answers, you can make a fortune on talks to major law firms, chambers and the law society. I can put you in touch as you seem to know more than the lawyers who have been appointed by the government to advise on these issues. If you cannot answer those questions, you don’t know what the leave vote was for. Not to mention the bigger more obvious problems like customs, irish border etc that we still don’t know about following the leave vote. Oggy, you really are getting desperate aren’t you! No, I can’t tell you about Brussels 2 regs or reciprocity of judgements. In common with virtually everyone else, I cast my vote and then trust the politicians and officials to deal with the small print. In the same spirit, can you tell me which will be the next country to join the EU, with whom will the EU sign its next trade deal, which is likely to be the next Eurozone country requiring a bailout or how many non EU nationals will the Germans invite over to Europe next year to be shared evenly among us all. NO, of course you can’t. And if you cannot answer those questions, you don’t know what the remain vote was for. Arguments like that can go on for ever. When you voted Liberal in the 2010 General Election, did you vote that way so that the Liberals would form a coalition with the Conservative party because Clegg didn’t like Brown, or that the Libs would vote for the raising of university student tuition fees to £9000 per year after they specifically promised to oppose any rise. NO, of course you didn’t. You cast your vote in the way you saw fit at the time and then observed how it all panned out. You trusted the politicians and the officials to do the right thing. That’s the way it works, so why don’t you knock it off with this idiotic “what sort of Brexit did you vote for?” circular argument and come up with something new? It is actually a simple question to answer if you know what the outcome of the leave vote is. With chequers, reciprocity will continue. No deal, it won’t. But we don’t know which one you voted for yet!! |
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Oct 4, 2018 8:33:31 GMT
Unfortunately, the very few amounted to 544 to 53 in favour of granting the referendum. That 544 included Cameron, Mr David; Soubry, Anna; Khan, Sadiq; Umunna, Mr Chuka; Greening, Justine; Farron, Tim. All happy to give the question over to the public to decide. Presumably happy to draw a full salary despite reneging on doing their duty to the full. That's where all this started. If you let someone else do your job don't moan about the outcome if it's not to your liking. That's it in a nutshell. Now they want to give the people another vote in hope that they have come round to their way of thinking. Cowards. |
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Oct 4, 2018 8:59:52 GMT
Oggy, you really are getting desperate aren’t you! No, I can’t tell you about Brussels 2 regs or reciprocity of judgements. In common with virtually everyone else, I cast my vote and then trust the politicians and officials to deal with the small print. In the same spirit, can you tell me which will be the next country to join the EU, with whom will the EU sign its next trade deal, which is likely to be the next Eurozone country requiring a bailout or how many non EU nationals will the Germans invite over to Europe next year to be shared evenly among us all. NO, of course you can’t. And if you cannot answer those questions, you don’t know what the remain vote was for. Arguments like that can go on for ever. When you voted Liberal in the 2010 General Election, did you vote that way so that the Liberals would form a coalition with the Conservative party because Clegg didn’t like Brown, or that the Libs would vote for the raising of university student tuition fees to £9000 per year after they specifically promised to oppose any rise. NO, of course you didn’t. You cast your vote in the way you saw fit at the time and then observed how it all panned out. You trusted the politicians and the officials to do the right thing. That’s the way it works, so why don’t you knock it off with this idiotic “what sort of Brexit did you vote for?” circular argument and come up with something new? It is actually a simple question to answer if you know what the outcome of the leave vote is. With chequers, reciprocity will continue. No deal, it won’t. But we don’t know which one you voted for yet!! My questions to you were simple too. But you chose not to address any of them. I think it is pretty simple really - Nobody knows exactly what they are voting for in any election or referendum. They vote for the general idea or gist of an argument and then trust that the politicians and officials will act in the spirit of the result. None of it is micro managed by the electorate and there are never details published in advance to the degree that you are questioning now. If these details are so important to you and the rest of the ‘remain camp’, why were they not raised before the vote (when you thought you were going to win) rather than afterwards (by which time you’d lost)? |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 4, 2018 9:15:32 GMT
That's it in a nutshell. Now they want to give the people another vote in hope that they have come round to their way of thinking. Cowards. And that worked out well for the persians didnt it  How many people were pissed up when they voted in the referendum, or the general election when a party had in its manifesto abot holding a referendum. People are really getting desperate now. |
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Oct 4, 2018 9:38:01 GMT
People are really getting desperate now. Yes, it does look like it. |
|
|
|
Post by upthefud on Oct 4, 2018 11:02:09 GMT
Yes we did, UKIP were absolutely flying and eating up support from both Labour and the Tories Flying??? How many MPs did they have? 1? Even the lib dems were doing better Third biggest party and fastest growing since pre WW1. Don’t get desperate |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 4, 2018 11:13:27 GMT
Flying??? How many MPs did they have? 1? Even the lib dems were doing better Third biggest party and fastest growing since pre WW1. Don’t get desperate 1MP. They should have had waaaay more, but perhaps their followers should have turned out for the PR vote. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 4, 2018 11:15:59 GMT
It is actually a simple question to answer if you know what the outcome of the leave vote is. With chequers, reciprocity will continue. No deal, it won’t. But we don’t know which one you voted for yet!! My questions to you were simple too. But you chose not to address any of them. I think it is pretty simple really - Nobody knows exactly what they are voting for in any election or referendum. They vote for the general idea or gist of an argument and then trust that the politicians and officials will act in the spirit of the result. None of it is micro managed by the electorate and there are never details published in advance to the degree that you are questioning now. If these details are so important to you and the rest of the ‘remain camp’, why were they not raised before the vote (when you thought you were going to win) rather than afterwards (by which time you’d lost)? Next time there’s a vote, read the party manifestos as that tells you what you are voting for. Are you as excited as me in finding our what the majority voted for? We will find out soon. Next election we should have a lucky dip and you have to vote for whoever you pull out of the hat. It would be about as blind a vote as a leave vote was! |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 4, 2018 11:22:45 GMT
So can you tell me what the leave vote was on the Brussels 2 regs as everyone in my profession is dying to know. Also on reciprocity of judgements. If you genuinely know the answers, you can make a fortune on talks to major law firms, chambers and the law society. I can put you in touch as you seem to know more than the lawyers who have been appointed by the government to advise on these issues. If you cannot answer those questions, you don’t know what the leave vote was for. Not to mention the bigger more obvious problems like customs, irish border etc that we still don’t know about following the leave vote. Oggy, you really are getting desperate aren’t you! No, I can’t tell you about Brussels 2 regs or reciprocity of judgements. In common with virtually everyone else, I cast my vote and then trust the politicians and officials to deal with the small print. In the same spirit, can you tell me which will be the next country to join the EU, with whom will the EU sign its next trade deal, which is likely to be the next Eurozone country requiring a bailout or how many non EU nationals will the Germans invite over to Europe next year to be shared evenly among us all. NO, of course you can’t. And if you cannot answer those questions, you don’t know what the remain vote was for. Arguments like that can go on for ever. When you voted Liberal in the 2010 General Election, did you vote that way so that the Liberals would form a coalition with the Conservative party because Clegg didn’t like Brown, or that the Libs would vote for the raising of university student tuition fees to £9000 per year after they specifically promised to oppose any rise. NO, of course you didn’t. You cast your vote in the way you saw fit at the time and then observed how it all panned out. You trusted the politicians and the officials to do the right thing. That’s the way it works, so why don’t you knock it off with this idiotic “what sort of Brexit did you vote for?” circular argument and come up with something new? In answer to your questions: I knew it was possible that when voting lib dem they could form part of a coalition. Surely everyone knows that may happen when you vote!? I knew the best chance of the lib dems getting any power is in a coalition and I am pleased they took one for the country because we have now seen what an unencumbered Tory government does. The coalition were far more centre than right wing. The lib dems had no choice but to vote with the Tory government for the tuition fees vote. Otherwise they have to resign. It’s how being in government works. Look at Boris Johnson and David Davis’ resignations. You vote with the government if you are a minister. Surely you know that!? Back to brexit, did you or did you not vote for a hard border in Ireland? You’re not sure yet! It is to be seen! Or is that the type of ‘small print’ you are referring to that can be sorted out however MPs like later on!? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 4, 2018 11:28:07 GMT
Car sales slump 20%. It must be project fear......oh no wait, it’s simply a hard fact. Good old brexit, boosting our economy (potentially in 50 years time according to JR moggy but his financial projections are accurate unlike all those damned professional economists and business leaders who project brexit to be bad!)
|
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Oct 4, 2018 11:44:36 GMT
Oggy, you really are getting desperate aren’t you! No, I can’t tell you about Brussels 2 regs or reciprocity of judgements. In common with virtually everyone else, I cast my vote and then trust the politicians and officials to deal with the small print. In the same spirit, can you tell me which will be the next country to join the EU, with whom will the EU sign its next trade deal, which is likely to be the next Eurozone country requiring a bailout or how many non EU nationals will the Germans invite over to Europe next year to be shared evenly among us all. NO, of course you can’t. And if you cannot answer those questions, you don’t know what the remain vote was for. Arguments like that can go on for ever. When you voted Liberal in the 2010 General Election, did you vote that way so that the Liberals would form a coalition with the Conservative party because Clegg didn’t like Brown, or that the Libs would vote for the raising of university student tuition fees to £9000 per year after they specifically promised to oppose any rise. NO, of course you didn’t. You cast your vote in the way you saw fit at the time and then observed how it all panned out. You trusted the politicians and the officials to do the right thing. That’s the way it works, so why don’t you knock it off with this idiotic “what sort of Brexit did you vote for?” circular argument and come up with something new? In answer to your questions: I knew it was possible that when voting lib dem they could form part of a coalition. Surely everyone knows that may happen when you vote!? I knew the best chance of the lib dems getting any power is in a coalition and I am pleased they took one for the country because we have now seen what an unencumbered Tory government does. The coalition were far more centre than right wing. The lib dems had no choice but to vote with the Tory government for the tuition fees vote. Otherwise they have to resign. It’s how being in government works. Look at Boris Johnson and David Davis’ resignations. You vote with the government if you are a minister. Surely you know that!? Back to brexit, did you or did you not vote for a hard border in Ireland? You’re not sure yet! It is to be seen! Or is that the type of ‘small print’ you are referring to that can be sorted out however MPs like later on!? So, you cast your vote without knowing exactly what you were voting for? Fair enough – that’s what we all do isn’t it? (and I bet a possible Lib/Tory coalition wasn’t in their manifesto, was it?) As for Ireland – When I voted ‘leave’ I did consider that some form of hard border would be introduced between the North and the South. I don’t see any alternative but, as I’ve said, I’m happy to accept that the politicians and officials will take care of the small print and l’actualités just like they do after all referendums and elections. Off topic a little – Looking longer term, I would be delighted to see a reunified Ireland with the Northern Ireland population offered a choice of remaining in that country, or able to have an assisted move to the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Oct 4, 2018 11:46:43 GMT
Car sales slump 20%. It must be project fear......oh no wait, it’s simply a hard fact. Good old brexit, boosting our economy (potentially in 50 years time according to JR moggy but his financial projections are accurate unlike all those damned professional economists and business leaders who project brexit to be bad!) Who would have thought that as cars become more and more reliable, and as their bodywork lasts longer and longer, eventually, there may be fewer new cars sold? |
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Oct 4, 2018 12:04:16 GMT
Wow... I've read it all now - you think the Norman conquest of England was the French fighting for us?..... No wait, I've finally seen the light and worked it out, you're French aren't you? I am no historian but I thought it was the french invading to get rid of the Saxons, the previous invaders!? Not really to do with Brexit either way That's just what you do all the time isn't it? Twist a story to suit your pro EU agenda. When the French (Normans) invaded England it was to take control of England just as the Germans (Saxons) had done previously - not to help us poor English out. Just like when the English owned Calais, we didn't invade to help our French friends out with their admin.
Just like your claim that Brexit has caused a car sales slump of 20% when the truth is down to the German car manufacturers cheating emission tests causing new regulations to be put in place. That won't stop you repeating both for the next few months in the sad hope that you'll convince everybody that 'your' facts are correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Oct 4, 2018 13:00:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 4, 2018 13:29:09 GMT
For £38 billion I'll have a few cherries otherwise nahhhh you are alright. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 4, 2018 13:36:05 GMT
Car sales slump 20%. It must be project fear......oh no wait, it’s simply a hard fact. Good old brexit, boosting our economy (potentially in 50 years time according to JR moggy but his financial projections are accurate unlike all those damned professional economists and business leaders who project brexit to be bad!) Since 1 September, all cars sold in the EU have had to undergo a new test known as the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure. This has replaced all existing tests of emissions and fuel economy and has caused carmakers to struggle to cope. SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes said: "With the industry given barely a year to reapprove the entire European model line-up, it's no surprise that we've seen bottlenecks and a squeeze on supply. "These are exceptional circumstances, with similar declines seen in other major European markets. The good news is that, as backlogs ease, consumers and businesses can look forward to a raft of exciting high-tech cars and a market keen to recover lost momentum." Project half-truth as always, looks like the EU is to blame better off out |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Oct 4, 2018 13:40:26 GMT
176 days until Brexit.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Oct 4, 2018 14:59:28 GMT
The Attorney General makes some good points here....it's a shame that he is not talking about full Brexit. He's certainly a great speaker, previously a top Barrister,
( Don't necessarily agree with all he says, nor can we necessarily believe people at the moment)
He says
"I voted to leave the EU because the Political and democratic price of Ever closer union was just too high" ...from 2.00 minutes onwards
|
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Oct 4, 2018 17:34:18 GMT
SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes said: "With the industry given barely a year to reapprove the entire European model line-up, it's no surprise that we've seen bottlenecks and a squeeze on supply.
"These are exceptional circumstances, with similar declines seen in other major European markets. The good news is that, as backlogs ease, consumers and businesses can look forward to a raft of exciting high-tech cars and a market keen to recover lost momentum."
Alex Buttle, director of car-buying comparison website Motorway.co.uk, said the figures would send "shock waves" through the motor industry.
He added: "We are now entering a crucial and unprecedented period for the car industry, as the next new number plate will be March 2019, when the UK is due to leave the EU.
"It's likely to be a rollercoaster ride for new car sales figures for the foreseeable future, but it feels like we have just plunged into a deep canyon."
Funny how you manage to reproduce one comment from a story, (which just happens to back up your argument) and call the story a half-truth. The full account (presented in the very next paragraph) hints that at the very least some other people in the car industry are worried about Brexit.
|
|
|
|
Post by pearo on Oct 4, 2018 20:57:26 GMT
Could it be that now the EU have seen that we are willing to walk away with no deal that Audi, BMW, Volkswagen, Renault, Peugeot etc. are concerned that one of their biggest markets will now be in charge of it’s own policies and it’s further scaremongering.
|
|
