Jump to content

Recommended Posts

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So you still don't understand how the EMA works?

> Back to your echo chamber then...

>

> New jobs coming to the UK are fantastic; why

> wouldn't we be in support? Genuine question.


I suspect the reasoning is that (a) Leavers are right (don't ask, they just are) which means (b) Remainers must be wrong about everything so © everything Remainers do, say or think must be harmful to the interests of the nation and therefore (d) anything that isn't harmful (jobs, flowers, babies etc) must be abhorrent to Remainers.


This isn't logic as you might understand it, but it is the logic of the hate-sheets. It's logic that appeals most strongly to those darning string-vests in mildewed bedsits simply because they have been conditioned (possibly by Thatcherism) to be the useful optimists of Capital, cheering on every tax dodge, fraud and fiddle in the belief that, if they do, then the day will surely come when they too can have a bank account in the Caymans. It the logic of sea-lions clapping for fish in the hope of getting the whole bucket, and no less demeaning or futile.

Great fanfare from the Brexiters today because the Bank of England say that the banks could survive a disorderly Brexit. This is based on the fact that the banks have passed their latest stress tests, which study how they would cope with a 4.7% drop in GDP, 33% drop in house prices, 27% drop in the value of the pound and interest rate rising to 4%. Well huzzah, yes we may be about to crash into that iceberg but this time we've made sure there are enough lifeboats, so nothing to worry about.

David Davis said the 58 impact assessments were in excruciating detail, there was so much detail even the PM had only read summaries etc. etc. Today he turns over a few A4 pages in a lever arch file and says that's most of it then ducks out of facing the music.


The committee sounds annoyed and implies he should explain himself pretty quickly, I think he's going into the bell tower to cool down when he shows up in front of them. The Speaker hints he might soon be facing a charge of misleading parliament.

Davis is wiggling like a fish caught on a line - he still might get away though.


"Sir Keir Starmer is raising a point of order. He says MPs expected the papers to be handed over unedited.

He asks Bercow for his guidance as to whether or not the government has complied with the motion. If it hasn?t, is that a contempt of the House? And what should happen next?


The SNP?s Pete Wishart says he has already written to Bercow suggesting there has been a contempt of parliament. He asks Bercow to respond. ?This is contempt and the government must be held accountable for its failure to comply,? he says.


Marcus Fysh, a Conservative, says on page 201 of Erskine May it says ministers do not have to disclose all information when required to.


John Bercow dismisses Fysh?s comment, saying he is familiar with the precedent."



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/28/priti-patel-condemns-mays-brexit-strategy-and-says-eu-should-be-told-to-sod-off-over-money-politics-live

and Ken Clarke as usual gets to the core issue


"Ken Clarke, the pro-European, says this issue arose because the government decided not to vote against Labour motions. As a result the Commons is passing motions criticising the government. The Commons is being reduced to a debating chamber, he says. Parliamentary accountability has been reduced. What can be done to get back to the situation where the government is accountable to the Commons?"

and one final quote (today there have been some good ones)


"Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory Brexiter, asks if the passing of a new motion would negate any charge of contempt against David Davis. Bercow says that is a hypothetical question."


Would then the passing of a new referendum negate Brexit ?

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Settlement can be agreed. EU citizens rights can

> be agreed. It beats me how they will solve the

> Irish border question which I hope is where the

> whole Brexit thing falls over. If their plan is a

> border in the Irish sea, just don't tell the DUP

> that. They won't like it.


Took their while to catch up........


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42202830

Maybe we're all looking at this the wrong way.


With all the demands from competing interests to stay in the single market, customs union, passporting rights, ECJ still calling the shots on Citizens rights etc and even sentient animals wagging their tails why don't we just say to the EU you pay us ?10 Billion a year and we'll carry on as normal.

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> With all the demands from competing interests to

> stay in the single market, customs union,

> passporting rights, ECJ still calling the shots on

> Citizens rights etc and even sentient animals

> wagging their tails why don't we just say to the

> EU you pay us ?10 Billion a year and we'll carry

> on as normal.


Great idea - because we're in a perfect position of strength to try to dictate terms, aren't we?

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> keano77 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > With all the demands from competing interests

> to

> > stay in the single market, customs union,

> > passporting rights, ECJ still calling the shots

> on

> > Citizens rights etc and even sentient animals

> > wagging their tails why don't we just say to

> the

> > EU you pay us ?10 Billion a year and we'll

> carry

> > on as normal.

>

> Great idea - because we're in a perfect position

> of strength to try to dictate terms, aren't we?



I think he's joking - Actually what did Thatcher use to get the rebate back in the day - I always assumed her handbag :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I went to France recently and in the city I visited there were large billboards on the main streets urging people to stop their dogs from messing on the streets and in a little park a sign said something to the effect that this park was built for your enjoyment not as a dumping ground for dog mess. There were also big signs about not fly tipping. I wonder if councils are too worried about offending dog owners by making a fuss about this major problem. I was a dog owner for many years, got free bags from the council and there were even bins around then.
    • I was also woken by this. It happened in two bursts, which felt even more anti social.
    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...