old man Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 18 hours ago, Bazooka Joe said: He had a face like a slapped **** when he said that, it's getting down to the wire now. Just hope Dismay has the balls to stick it out, I'd rather have a deal in our favour, if not WTO Brexit it is for me. I'm afraid that as our lot have so far shown an absence of cojones, it's just an impossible hope. Despite being told NO for weeks the pathetic woman and crew still waste our money on eurostar trips, the lunches must be good? 16 hours ago, Walker570 said: What a disgusting little man Tusk is. Of course he can see his likely pension going down the drain fast. Pity they don't react to a sprinkle of salt like a leech does. Plus that guy 'Vontacar' ....good Irish name that, is in the same class. They are all disgusting individuals IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 19 hours ago, ShootingEgg said: Nice to see tusk saying there is a special place in hell for the people(mps) who backed Brexit... Saying in effect "go to hell" to the people with whom you are about to start negotiations isn't a good way to start things off. Mr Tusk is clearly very immature, or just downright stupid and rude. He should loose his job as he clearly has no intention of serious leadership in a negotiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said: Saying in effect "go to hell" to the people with whom you are about to start negotiations isn't a good way to start things off. Mr Tusk is clearly very immature, or just downright stupid and rude. He should loose his job as he clearly has no intention of serious leadership in a negotiation. He's a 'chancer', saw the chance to treble his income off the back of the people of Europe and left his job in Poland to work in the Euro Sewer. I now see on this mornings news in the UK parliament that there are those who stood up and supported his comments, including that little dwarf Bercow. I do hope that come the next election you all remember their names and don't vote "because my dad always voted that way". We certainly need a branch and root clear out down there in London. Edited February 7, 2019 by Walker570 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) 12 hours ago, pinfireman said: TOP LAW FIRM SAYS THAT BACKSTOP IS ILLEGAL UNDER EU LAW! It’s not just the legality of the backstop under UK law and the Good Friday Agreement that is being challenged, now a leading legal firm has said that the backstop is also illegal under EU law. HerbertSmithFreehills state in their latest ‘View From Brussels’ briefing that: “on the basis of the EU’s own view of what is legally allowed under Article 50 and on the basis of which the negotiations proceeded, the backstop in its present form is illegal as a matter of EU law. The Attorney-General of the UK came to a similar conclusion in paragraph 17 of his advice to the government of 13 November 2018. It could also be argued that the backstop is inconsistent with the aim of the Treaty on the European Union to promote peace (expressed in its Article 3) since it is inconsistent with the institutional provisions of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and therefore undermines it.” There is also a formalised legal procedure in the EU for ensuring the legality of an envisaged international agreement set out under Article 218(11) of the TFEU, which could force the ECJ to give a ruling before 29th March. The backstop is only being kept alive by bluster from the EU – and the acquiescence of the UK… UPDATE: One of the two co-authors of the briefing note, Eric White, was the head of the Trade and WTO Group of the European Commission’s Legal Service until two years ago. If even he thinks it’s illegal… Mind you, I bet oowee knows better than him! Th EU doesn't give a fig about audited accounts why would it care about legality? As usual out mob play the ostrich card, dimmer than Toc H lamps. Edited February 7, 2019 by old man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 7 minutes ago, Walker570 said: He's a 'chancer', saw the chance to treble his income off the back of the people of Europe and left his job in Poland to work in the Euro Sewer. I now see on this mornings news in the UK parliament that there are those who stood up and supported his comments, including that little dwarf Bercow. I do hope that come the next election you all remember their names and don't vote "because my dad always voted that way". We certainly need a branch and root clear out down there in London. DRAIN the SWAMP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 19 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said: Mr Tusk is clearly very immature, or just downright stupid and rude. He should loose his job as he clearly has no intention of serious leadership in a negotiation. It just exposes the problem, as an unelected person, he can't be gotten rid of by the people he insults. The sooner we leave via a hard brexit (it's the only way I believe we'll ever truly leave) the better. Mr Tusk and chums can play King of the castle on their sinking EU ship on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McSpredder Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) 42 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: DRAIN the SWAMP! Reminds me of that TV series "A very peculiar practice", broadcast a few years ago, in which the senior partner always used the expression "the ****-ant swamp" to describe the money-grubbing, self-serving bureaucracy of the fictional university in which he was based. Edit: I see that PW has inserted asterisks to replace the common word for urine. Edited February 7, 2019 by McSpredder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 I see Gina Miller was given airtime on the BBC this morning! Who is she? What relevance has her opinion got in the scheme of things?.....as far as I know, she and her opinion has no more relevance in any debate than any random member of the public! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 1 minute ago, panoma1 said: I see Gina Miller was given airtime on the BBC this morning! Who is she? What relevance has her opinion got in the scheme of things?.....as far as I know, she and her opinion has no more relevance in any debate than any random member of the public! But of course the BBC are not impartial, they are openly REMOANERS from top to bottom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 1 minute ago, panoma1 said: I see Gina Miller was given airtime on the BBC this morning! Who is she? What relevance has her opinion got in the scheme of things?.....as far as I know, she and her opinion has no more relevance in any debate than any random member of the public! I could be very controversial: She is female, a minority, ....... All good old BBC favourites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 A little sensible comment; https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/02/to-hell-with-tusk.html?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Thursday 7th February 2019&utm_content=Thursday 7th February 2019+CID_60ac8477f517a25e9f47e05c69ac2a1e&utm_source=Daily Email&utm_term=To Hell with Tusk Donald Tusk has it the wrong way round. Those to whom he was clearly referring – pro-Brexit Conservative politicians – had a “sketch of a plan”, and more. It was more or less the Canada-style proposal that he proposed on March 7 last year, and described himself as a “Canada Plus Plus Plus” plan on October 4, echoing the language of David Davis and others. The main divergence between those Brexiteers and himself was over the Northern Ireland backstop. So he should not be entirely surprised that the Commons has now rejected it, and that that he, the EU and the UK are where they are today. What has brought all three to this pass is not disagreement among Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and the former Vote Leave Team, but the refusal of the Commons (broadly) and the Conservatives (specifically) to unite behind a Canada-type plan. None the less, Tusk cannot now complain that he doesn’t know what both want where the Withdrawal Agreement is concerned. The former has voted for junking the backstop and the latter agrees that it must change, at the very least (with the exception of a small band in this case of Remainers and Soft Brexiteers). The most likely driver of Tusk’s remark, which was carefully planned and promoted, is that he is frustrated by the Commons’ unwillingness to roll over. That is certainly Hell – at least for him. There will be other readings of his words. One is that he knows that the EU will, in time, offer concessions on the backstop, if the Commons holds firm – even if these are not the removal outlined in the Brady amendment and the Malthouse Plan. And that this frustrates him. Another is that he and the EU are determined not to make any such offer now. They are waiting to see if the Commons hares off in the other direction to that it took last week: in other words, whether it will vote next week for the Cooper amendment, or something like it, thereby making it likely that the Commons will take control of the negotiation and shift towards a Norway Plus-type approach. It may be that the point of Jeremy Corbyn’s latest volte-face on Brexit is to anticipate precisely that. On this site yesterday, Richard Graham wrote about how political positions can emerge by accident – by the different actors mis-reading each others’ intentions. The UK and Brexiteers themselves have sometimes misread the EU’s. But the reverse is also true, and Tusk’s remarks may be evidence of it. His calculation may be to try to isolate the European Research Group and Cabinet pro-Leavers. But all he may have achieved is to bolster the view among many voters, not all of whom voted Leave in 2016, that the EU is dragging its feet and gambling on MPs backing down. Hence perhaps the support for No Deal we’re seeing on the BBC’s Question Time – and elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 15 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: It may be that the point of Jeremy Corbyn’s latest volte-face on Brexit is to anticipate precisely that. Quite possibly, but labour's very dodgy position is exposed in this recent poll. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/06/not-opposing-brexit-could-lose-labour-45-seats-says-leaked-report It also finds that fighting Brexit loses it 11 seats (estimated obviously) so the fabled snap election labour keep asking for has proved to be a poison chalice, that no doubt will now be quietly forgotten about. May is going to get rebuked today in Brussels, of that there is little doubt, which leaves the option of no deal, or labour supporting Mays soft deal, and losing grassroots support. At least remain doesn't seem to be a viable alternative anymore, judging by the lack of noise from its proponents. Self preservation always prevails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) Am I correct in my understanding that all the problems with the "deal" on offer from the EU including the Irish backstop, were bought about solely by the EU's refusal to engage in negotiations with the UK on a future relationship? Until AFTER the UK had left the EU! Does that not mean that effectively there is, and never has been, a real agreed by negotiation, position between the EU and the UK? The EU have given nothing and offered nothing to the UK, and conversely, the UK had given in to all the EU's demands? Including a multi billion £ "divorce" settlement! The Irish backstop would surely be unnecessary if the EU had entered into genuine negotiations with the UK, in order to reach a mutually acceptable trade agreement, as soon as the notice to leave the EU had been lodged over two years ago by the UK, and prior to the UK leaving? Why did the EU refuse to do this? Rhetorical question! I fail to see how two party's can ever reach an agreement, if one party refuses to negotiate! I believe the EU will maintain this intransigent position, so I do not think the EU will give May anything today which she can get through Parliament so........... The only thing left now for the UK is to leave without a "deal" and then negotiate any future relationship with the EU, from a position of strength? Edited February 7, 2019 by panoma1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinfireman Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 Regardless of idiots like Tusk, and Corbyn, we are LEAVING, departing, going etc etc bye bye Eu. You are a sinking ship, you just don,t know it yet! P.S. Don,t forget to buy your fireworks for March 29th.....round here, they are selling out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, pinfireman said: Regardless of idiots like Tusk, and Corbyn, we are LEAVING, departing, going etc etc bye bye Eu. You are a sinking ship, you just don,t know it yet! P.S. Don,t forget to buy your fireworks for March 29th.....round here, they are selling out! I sincerely hope you're correct. I was going to ask how the hell we got ourselves into this mess, but it isn't us; it's those who are supposed to represent us. We were given an in out referendum by a PM who wanted to stay, so when the result didn't go his way he left, so to replace him was put in charge yet another politician who wants to stay! It would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact she is in charge of negotiations to leave! 😂 You really couldn't make this up! It's like a Monty Python sketch. JUST LEAVE! How hard can it be for crying out loud! Edited February 7, 2019 by Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpringDon Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Scully said: I sincerely hope you're correct. I was going to ask how the hell we got ourselves into this mess, but it isn't us; it's those who are supposed to represent us. We were given an in out referendum by a PM who wanted to stay, so when the result didn't go his way he left, so to replace him was put in charge yet another politician also wants to stay! It would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact she is in charge of negotiations to leave! 😂 You really couldn't make this up! It's like a Monty Python sketch. JUST LEAVE! How hard can it be for crying out loud! +1. Just get with it and then sort out deals from a position of necessity rather than waffling and posturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, Scully said: We were given an in out referendum by a PM who wanted to stay, so when the result didn't go his way he left, so to replace him was put in charge yet another politician also wants to stay! It would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact she is in charge of negotiations to leave! I think the real problem (reflecting on many happy hours watching "Yes Minister") is that we have the negotiations being conducted by civil servants who are staunch remainers. David Davis was a confirmed leaver ...... and I think his eral problem was that the civil servants weren't on the same sheet as he was. It was Margaret Thatcher who always said that "Yes Minister" was far more true to life than people thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 His name is Olly Robbins i believe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 2 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: A little sensible comment; https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/02/to-hell-with-tusk.html?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Thursday 7th February 2019&utm_content=Thursday 7th February 2019+CID_60ac8477f517a25e9f47e05c69ac2a1e&utm_source=Daily Email&utm_term=To Hell with Tusk Donald Tusk has it the wrong way round. Those to whom he was clearly referring – pro-Brexit Conservative politicians – had a “sketch of a plan”, and more. It was more or less the Canada-style proposal that he proposed on March 7 last year, and described himself as a “Canada Plus Plus Plus” plan on October 4, echoing the language of David Davis and others. The main divergence between those Brexiteers and himself was over the Northern Ireland backstop. So he should not be entirely surprised that the Commons has now rejected it, and that that he, the EU and the UK are where they are today. That's interesting I do not remember any plans put on the table sketch or otherwise at the point of the referendum. Would that be the same Canada deal that virtually excludes our most profitable business, services. The one that allows discrimination on the grounds of nationality? 5 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said: I think the real problem (reflecting on many happy hours watching "Yes Minister") is that we have the negotiations being conducted by civil servants who are staunch remainers. David Davis was a confirmed leaver ...... and I think his eral problem was that the civil servants weren't on the same sheet as he was. It was Margaret Thatcher who always said that "Yes Minister" was far more true to life than people thought. Yep that's true. One would be looking for unicorns the other dealing with reality. 🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said: David Davis was a confirmed leaver ...... and I think his eral problem was that the civil servants weren't on the same sheet as he was. There is strong evidence that he was deliberately and systematically undermined, left off circulation lists and not told of meetings that were taking place etc. That has not been forgotten, we will be coming back to that one later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 2 hours ago, panoma1 said: I see Gina Miller was given airtime on the BBC this morning! Who is she? What relevance has her opinion got in the scheme of things?.....as far as I know, she and her opinion has no more relevance in any debate than any random member of the public! The evidence appears to suggest she is a paid agitator, if so, that should be investigated fully. Was the (alleged) money paid to her campaign accounted for in the remain returns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 47 minutes ago, Vince Green said: The evidence appears to suggest she is a paid agitator, if so, that should be investigated fully. Was the (alleged) money paid to her campaign accounted for in the remain returns? Her campaign funds, nearly £400,000 was crowdfunded, using the anonymous below £500 loophole, to get past this rule. Obviously theres no way of finding out who made all the £499 donations without it going criminal, theres time for that yet... Her husbands hedgefund company was heavily involved with soros, before he set up on his own with a large amount of capital he got from somewhere This company has yet to make a profit. All this is on the public record, no tin foil involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 An interesting headline in the daily Telegraph; The 3 choices the PM now faces are simple: betray your people, betray Northern Ireland, or leave without a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aled Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 Vince Green: I'd be really interested, if you could point me to the evidence, I'd like to read it. Thanks Aled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 44 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: An interesting headline in the daily Telegraph; The 3 choices the PM now faces are simple: betray your people, betray Northern Ireland, or leave without a deal. I thought that was the vote to leave the EU? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts