Jump to content

Brexit - merged threads


scouser
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

7 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I can't see how he could form a party sufficiently quickly to make any real difference for years.  He might pick up some defections from one of the main parties, but even any with large majorities would be at risk because their old party would field an 'official' candidate against them - and they would have the backing of a big 'party machine'.

What is emerging here is that no party (and only some members of the Tory party and the DUP) actually want a 'clean break'.

Mainstream Tory are mostly either a May deal, or a Customs Union/Single Market type of deal - with a few complete "Remain".  Only a minority are ERG style clean break.

Virtually all Labour are a Customs Union/Single Market type of deal - with or "Remain", and despite what they say about carrying out Brexit, what they are asking for is really Remain in all but name.

ALL LibDem, SNP and Green are firmly Remain

But, as I said before, Farage can motivate a large number of people to set aside their old politics, and do something different! And that something is to tactically vote (using former UKIP voters) to oust some of the traitors who have very small majorities! Soubry, Greening, Morgan etc.....and when they fall, the other traitors, like Grieve, will feel a cold wind coming..............Remember, UKIP got approx 4.5% of the vote in the majority of English constituencies.....more than enough to unseat the sitting MP in the 50 constituencies with the smallest majorites!   A large number of us are NOT going back to the old way of tribal voting, and our numbers are growing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, silver pigeon69 said:

I don't think UKIP had a chance of winning an election but it had enough of an influence (4m? votes) to make Cameron panic enough, to call a referendum.

and enough, if tactically used, to unseat quite a few leading Remoaners!

6 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

Trouble is, it will never happen, it would just be the Conservatives that would suffer and we would end up with only Labour for many years. Labour voters are just that Labour voters.

I was speaking to one the other night and he said he would never vote for Corbyn the man is a joke, when I asked who he would be voting for at the next general election, guess what his answer was, Labour. You could put Ian Huntley in charge and he would still vote Labour.

True, but you live in London...a hotbed of Labour supporters.

6 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Maybe true, the thing is, those in the Conservatives trying to block brexit are the self serving, sneaky, selfish members of the party and if they realise that if they damage brexit, they could very well be damaging themselves, they might take a different view, the only problem with that is they're so arrogant that they probably don't think it's a possibility but im sure it will happen in the long run if they continue to blatantly ignore the people's will. 

It will happen...........we will make it happen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oowee said:

This is not correct. Under Blair the early years had very tight fiscal control of UK finances :-' Even New Labour’s fiercest critics must acknowledge that central bank independence ushered in stable UK growth and relatively low inflation. During the 1997 election campaign, the Conservatives ran under the slogan “Britain is booming — don’t let Labour blow it”. More than justifiable given Labour’s track-record, this message was wrong. The UK grew at an annual rate of 2.4pc during the 10 years Blair was in office, compared with 2.1pc on average during the previous half century.' - Source Telegraph 15th Jan 19.

Our children and grand children will be paying for the standard of living we are experiencing even without the parlous spending of labour and subsequent administrations. We are living beyond our means and not paying the true cost of the resources that we are exploiting. Our policy for meeting global environmental standards relies upon our export of polution to China and the sub continent. Our housing market benefits house owners to the detriment of our children. Our pensions are paid at a level that is not sustainable by our children. 

Norway was able to take bold decisions on investing in the future because they do not suffer the electoral weakness of the first past the post system. Even small parties get a say. How much more balanced would the UK politics be with such a system? A new Party for Farage could well make a significant difference under such a system. 

Blair,s New Labour, and Corbyn,s Rabble are two very different animals!  (and Blair got a flying start when the  sealed tender bids for  mobile phone licences)  (set up under the previous Conservative  gov) produced £16 BILLION, and not the £4 Billion that the Treasury  was expecting...that gave Brown the opportunity to look  good!

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

That is true, but overall taking the continuous Blair/Brown period of Labour government , they inherited a quite reasonable economic state, initially held that , but by the time they left power when Brown was replaced by Cameron - the economy was in a truly dreadful state.  They repaid little or nothing of previous debt - and left a much larger debt - plus sold all of the gold reserves off cheap and committed a pile of future debt under dodgy PFI initiatives - which effectively mortgaged the future to make the present look better than it was.

Norway has a much higher standard of living than here.  In my view the main reason they did well was not the electoral system, but a tight money control that spent wisely and saved. 

Our poor performance was due to continuously subsidising loss making state ventures, rather than encouraging new money to invest in new profitable ones.

All this is getting off topic for Brexit.

Correct!

11 minutes ago, oowee said:

Gambia 🙂 Is that in the EU? 

No limpDumbs for me. I want a bit of everything. 😎

 

Well, you cannot have it! It,s not a sweet shop!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Exactly, now imagine a party with 17.4 million votes, maybe brexit being blocked will be a good thing, it could be the end of the two horse race. 

Just going off the last election votes, Conservatives –13,667,213 , Labour –12,874,985, so 17.4 mill votes, voted tactically would have a real impact on the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bazooka Joe said:

Just going off the last election votes, Conservatives –13,667,213 , Labour –12,874,985, so 17.4 mill votes, voted tactically would have a real impact on the outcome.

Time will tell, but I believe if they don't honour the referendum result those in power will see a political landscape they've never seen before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of my big concern leading up to the 29th March is that we could have ove 10m(wont say all 17.4 as i doubt all will) unhappy people that may buy yellow vests. But we only have about 240,000 police officers in total... Just because people haven't done it like the french, doesn't mean they won't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ShootingEgg said:

one of my big concern leading up to the 29th March is that we could have ove 10m(wont say all 17.4 as i doubt all will) unhappy people that may buy yellow vests. But we only have about 240,000 police officers in total... Just because people haven't done it like the french, doesn't mean they won't. 

I suspect there'd be more justifiable and pent up provocation for that over here where the action is being done in anger over a concerted and wilful decision of ploticians to defy the electorate on such a large single issue, rather than several issues lumped together that are not of the European peoples liking.

It's taken a very long time over way too many deceits for the polite British to consider demanding brazenly snidy ploticians take notice. 

Ploticians is not a typo.

Edited by Dave-G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theresa May has scrapped the £65 fee millions of EU citizens were going to have to pay to secure the right to continue living in the UK after Brexit.

It came as the prime minister made a statement to MPs on how she plans to get them to back a Brexit deal.

👍:yay:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMF.jpg?resize=540%2C333&ssl=1

The International Monetary Fund has released a forecast showing they expect the UK to have the joint-fastest GDP growth among European countries in the G7 nations in both 2019 and 2020. This is a significant upgrade from their October forecast..

The IMF is also predicting that growth will rise further next year, from 1.5% in 2019 to 1.6% in 2020, after the UK has formally left the EU. The forecast assumes that Britain leaves the EU, albeit with a deal in 2019…

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liz Truss said that this proves “Despite the naysayers, the UK has defied all forecasts and is will be the third fastest growing economy in the G7 showing that our approach is working.” Still waiting for that Brexit recession we were told was inevitable…

Naturally, oowee, with his inside knowledge, will contest this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, oowee said:

Theresa May has scrapped the £65 fee millions of EU citizens were going to have to pay to secure the right to continue living in the UK after Brexit.

It came as the prime minister made a statement to MPs on how she plans to get them to back a Brexit deal.

👍:yay:

Oh we'll stand the cost of personel shuffling all that paperwork ourselves then. 

TBH I can't imagine a paltry £65 cost of legitimising their residence here is likely to cause any hardship but can we assume that EU citizens living here will be getting voting rights which would explain the otherwise very tiny tweak?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave-G said:

Oh we'll stand the cost of personel shuffling all that paperwork ourselves then. 

TBH I can't imagine a paltry £65 cost of legitimising their residence here is likely to cause any hardship but can we assume that EU citizens living here will be getting voting rights which would explain the otherwise very tiny tweak?

+1 

Pandering to the house again, never mind the taxpayer, who  can pick up the tab of around several hundred million quid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no-deal-poll.jpg?resize=540%2C335&ssl=1

A new ICM Poll alarmed the Guardian last night, with No Deal being the public’s leading option as to what should happen next. It’s also the legal default as long as Parliamentary deadlock continues…

No Deal: 28%

Referendum: 24%

General Election: 11%

Withdrawal Agreement: 8%

Whilst a cleaner Brexit is comfortably popular among the public, according to  Election Maps UK, just 116 MPs support it. This is despite 498 MPs voting to set No Deal as the legal default when they triggered Article 50…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pinfireman said:

IMF.jpg?resize=540%2C333&ssl=1

The International Monetary Fund has released a forecast showing they expect the UK to have the joint-fastest GDP growth among European countries in the G7 nations in both 2019 and 2020. This is a significant upgrade from their October forecast..

The IMF is also predicting that growth will rise further next year, from 1.5% in 2019 to 1.6% in 2020, after the UK has formally left the EU. The forecast assumes that Britain leaves the EU, albeit with a deal in 2019…

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liz Truss said that this proves “Despite the naysayers, the UK has defied all forecasts and is will be the third fastest growing economy in the G7 showing that our approach is working.” Still waiting for that Brexit recession we were told was inevitable…

Naturally, oowee, with his inside knowledge, will contest this!

This is oowee not Bumpy. :-) 

Growth is based on a deal that's half in, quarter in or mostly out???? The IMF must be the ones with inside knowledge to make such a prediction. If this is a true statement from the IMF it needs to say on what deal it's based on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, bumpy22 said:

This is oowee not Bumpy. :-) 

Growth is based on a deal that's half in, quarter in or mostly out???? The IMF must be the ones with inside knowledge to make such a prediction. If this is a true statement from the IMF it needs to say on what deal it's based on. 

A  new pseudonym?  You crafty old sod!  I knew that you would know more than the combined might of the IMF.............:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎20‎/‎01‎/‎2019 at 10:21, Newbie to this said:

Trouble is, it will never happen, it would just be the Conservatives that would suffer and we would end up with only Labour for many years. Labour voters are just that Labour voters.

I was speaking to one the other night and he said he would never vote for Corbyn the man is a joke, when I asked who he would be voting for at the next general election, guess what his answer was, Labour. You could put Ian Huntley in charge and he would still vote Labour.

My family is from the Valleys, and I've been saying this from the beginning, and I've mentioned it many times on this thread. Thanks Newbie to this!  

Cheers

Aled

Link to comment
Share on other sites

knowbetter.jpg?resize=540%2C317&ssl=1

Fresh from telling his constituents that he knows better than them, Labour’s Ipswich MP Sandy Martin has claimed in his ‘weekly column’ that the Prime Minister had met with Corbyn to discuss Brexit options. A meeting she offered but the Labour leader famously refused to accept…

“On Wednesday evening the Prime Minister finally agreed it might be sensible to speak to others, and Jeremy Corbyn met her to try to get her to rule out a no-deal Brexit completely, before negotiating a reasonable deal. So far, it appears she has refused.”

Sandy’s account is the opposite of the truth. Either he’s the least informed MP in Westminster, or he’s switched tactics from patronising his constituents to deliberately lying to them…

My bet,  he,s lying to them!

MARR-CUSTOMS-DEAL-copy.png?resize=540%2C308&ssl=1

The BBC’s flagship political interviewer has been a little bit indiscreet with his personal views on Brexit. According the Estates Gazette, Andrew Marr stood in for Laura Kuenssberg as guest speaker at the British Council for Offices annual dinner last Tuesday, where he told the guests “why he fears no-deal Brexit”. Not a surprising view for a Beeb bigshot to hold but normally they keep it to themselves…

The veteran broadcaster was instead plumping for the alternative option of a “customs deal” along the lines of what Labour are calling for:

“There are plenty of big attractions. It solves a lot of problems and I think a lot of senior MPs will be pushing this on May. It could work, even if people say it is not a real Brexit, as the main reason that the vast majority of people voted to leave was based on issues around immigration. The problem for May is that she will likely lose a quarter of Tory MPs – the likes of Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davis – who will argue that it is not a proper Brexit.”

Looks like Red Andy might have had a momentary lapse back to his days as Editor of the Independent when he was busy attacking Tony Blair. For being too Eurosceptic

More garbage from a BBC trougher! Red Andy the "unbiased"  presenter! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ons.jpg?resize=540%2C301&ssl=1

New ONS figures show that the Government only overspent by £35.9 billion over the last nine months, £13.1 billion less compared to last year. Overspending is now at its lowest level since 2002…

The ONS has also revealed that wages have risen faster than prices, increasing by 3.4%, with inflation at just 2.3%. There are 141,000 more people in work compared to the Summer, and 328,000 more than this time last year. All despite Brexit…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OECD chief Jose Angel Gurría is so chillaxed about a no-deal Brexit. Telling Sky’s Ed Conway in Davos, “What’s the worst scenario? A no deal, WTO rules…the whole world is running by WTO rules these days!”

 

Naturally, ooweee will know better!

NO-DEAL-AFFAIRS-copy.png?resize=540%2C321&ssl=1

Project Fear has taken a salacious turn today with claims that no deal could cause a spike in extramarital affairs. A saucy study by the Illicit Encounters website claims that “hard economic times typically see an an increase in infidelity” as people “seek solace in the arms of an extramarital partner” but are unwilling to take the hit of paying a divorce bill, instead “opting to negotiate trade deals outside of their union”. They even claim that Leavers are more likely to be looking for a bit on the side…

Will the spectre of scandal make restless MPs more or less enthusiastic for the potential ‘opportunities’ that come with a no-deal Brexit? It could explain why one particular MP is so keen to stop it…

As expected, Tory backbencher Andrew Murrison has re-tabled his amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement which would demand a time limit on the backstop. His amendment simply reads: <At end add: ‘but insists on an expiry date to the backstop.’> May’s Plan A for ‘Plan B’ now looks to be convincing her MPs to back this amended version of the deal…

While the EU is doing its best to maintain unity in public, concerns about the backstop derailing the whole negotiation are clearly bubbling away under the surface – Poland wobbled yesterday while the EU have skewered the Irish Government today by saying for the first time that they would demand a hard border if there is no deal. EU divisions are only going to get worse as 29th March approaches…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...