Pans Jambo Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, frankblack said: You are having an absolute mare - again. Couldnt resist it Frank Edited October 21, 2019 by Pans Jambo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 Government saying they are going to rush through the Brexit legislation this week. What could possibly go wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 Customs Union vote will feck Boris right up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Pans Jambo said: Couldnt resist it Frank Time is running out on Indy Ref 2.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Pans Jambo said: Couldnt resist it Frank Too easy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 8 minutes ago, Justin Z said: Too easy Predictable lame tag team attempt trying to defend a hard of thinking poster who brands all No voters orange men on this thread. Try harder next time.👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLadd Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 I like how the SNP more want time to scrutinise the Brexit Bill to see exactly where they think Scotland will be worse off leaving the Brussels Union. They have no such concern regards scrutiny when it comes to the black hole and fiscal wreckage they would visit should Scotland exit the London Union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 29 minutes ago, frankblack said: Predictable lame tag team attempt trying to defend a hard of thinking poster who brands all No voters orange men on this thread. Try harder next time.👍 Stop diggin Frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_ Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 Pans and Frank, can you two just stop the foreplay and have sex, then we can all get on with discussing Brexit. Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 34 minutes ago, frankblack said: Predictable lame tag team attempt trying to defend a hard of thinking poster who brands all No voters orange men on this thread. Try harder next time.👍 Go pour yourself a beer, Franky. Or make yourself a piña colada. Put your feet up, relax. Consider your life choices. If you have a cuff handy, take your blood pressure--not something you want to mess about with. For what it's worth, I don't even remember who made that comment; it's clearly bothered you far more than anyone else even began to take notice. Or, carry on with your most entertaining radge crusade, your call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLadd Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Zlatanable said: I had a similar thought to this today. I imagine the SNP/others would be angry at the delay caused by politicians arguing that the decision might have been the wrong one, based on economic matters. Imagine English court cases blocking them after a leave UK ref win? We now know it has to go through the Westminster parliament before it can go ahead, just winning a ref isn't enough to leave a political and economic union or do the SNP think they can just walk away? Hypocrites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 1 minute ago, JackLadd said: Imagine English court cases blocking them after a leave UK ref win? We now know it has to go through the Westminster parliament before it can go ahead, just winning a ref isn't enough to leave a political and economic union or do the SNP think they can just walk away? Hypocrites. We now know no such thing and pretending doesn't make is so. It's remarkable, the number of times the very clear law on the nature of the Brexit referendum (advisory, versus the legal nature of the independence referendum, not advisory) has been rehashed in this thread alone, and yet people insist on clinging to their comfort blanket fictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLadd Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Justin Z said: We now know no such thing and pretending doesn't make is so. It's remarkable, the number of times the very clear law on the nature of the Brexit referendum (advisory, versus the legal nature of the independence referendum, not advisory) has been rehashed in this thread alone, and yet people insist on clinging to their comfort blanket fictions. Cameron was an idiot that they rolled. They won't be getting any second ref without Westminster parliament approval and any divorce should they win will 100% have to be approved also. Unless they opt for hard Ukexit. I wouldn't put anything past this mob. Edited October 21, 2019 by JackLadd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, JackLadd said: Cameron was an idiot that they rolled. They won't be getting any second ref without Westminster parliament approval and any divorce should they win will 100% have to be approved also. Unless they opt for hard Ukexit. I wouldn't put anything past this mob. Cameron was indeed an idiot for setting precedents in both referenda that such massive constitutional change can be enacted on a 50% +1 vote basis. But that is now the public's expectation. Legally, there's nothing to quibble with in the first part of your post. Politically, we'll see how long a Westminster position of not allowing a second referendum can last. It'll be interesting to see. I fully expect if independence is achieved that both countries, knowing it is in both of their best interests to work out a sensible agreement, will do so with relatively few bumps. Probably something not entirely unlike the UK/Republic of Ireland situation, with a common travel area, using the successful Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement from the 1930s as model legislation for a modern Anglo-Scots trade act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Justin Z said: Cameron was indeed an idiot for setting precedents in both referenda that such massive constitutional change can be enacted on a 50% +1 vote basis. But that is now the public's expectation. Legally, there's nothing to quibble with in the first part of your post. Politically, we'll see how long a Westminster position of not allowing a second referendum can last. It'll be interesting to see. I fully expect if independence is achieved that both countries, knowing it is in both of their best interests to work out a sensible agreement, will do so with relatively few bumps. Probably something not entirely unlike the UK/Republic of Ireland situation, with a common travel area, using the successful Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement from the 1930s as model legislation for a modern Anglo-Scots trade act. Far too sensible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dobmisterdobster Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, Justin Z said: Cameron was indeed an idiot for setting precedents in both referenda that such massive constitutional change can be enacted on a 50% +1 vote basis. But that is now the public's expectation. Legally, there's nothing to quibble with in the first part of your post. Politically, we'll see how long a Westminster position of not allowing a second referendum can last. It'll be interesting to see. I fully expect if independence is achieved that both countries, knowing it is in both of their best interests to work out a sensible agreement, will do so with relatively few bumps. Probably something not entirely unlike the UK/Republic of Ireland situation, with a common travel area, using the successful Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement from the 1930s as model legislation for a modern Anglo-Scots trade act. The timing is crucial. The SNP are desperate to strike while the iron is hot, targeting a 2021 date. Waiting until things cool down and polling to return to a consistent No lead is probably the best bet for the UK govt. The question put to voters will be interesting. I would personally insist on "Should Scotland remain a part of the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom" to be on the ballot instead of what was asked last time. There might not even be a pro-independence majority in Holyrood come 2021 considering the proportional electoral system they have. The bottom line is, while we may eventually have an indyref 2. The SNP cannot have everything their way like last time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 1 hour ago, JackLadd said: I like how the SNP more want time to scrutinise the Brexit Bill to see exactly where they think Scotland will be worse off leaving the Brussels Union. They have no such concern regards scrutiny when it comes to the black hole and fiscal wreckage they would visit should Scotland exit the London Union. They are running out of opportunities to litigate and stop Brexit. This must be plan Z. Remember they refused to deal with David Davies over bills transferring powers from Brussels to Westminster and Holyrood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said: The timing is crucial. The SNP are desperate to strike while the iron is hot, targeting a 2021 date. Waiting until things cool down and polling to return to a consistent No lead is probably the best bet for the UK govt. The question put to voters will be interesting. I would personally insist on "Should Scotland remain a part of the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom" to be on the ballot instead of what was asked last time. There might not even be a pro-independence majority in Holyrood come 2021 considering the proportional electoral system they have. The bottom line is, while we may eventually have an indyref 2. The SNP cannot have everything their way like last time. The other spanner in the works is Labour's plans for a confirmatory referendum on the Brexit deal. That would set a precedent that effectively prevents Independence. It would be interesting to see if the SNP backed this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 1 minute ago, frankblack said: The other spanner in the works is Labour's plans for a confirmatory referendum on the Brexit deal. That would set a precedent that effectively prevents Independence. It would be interesting to see if the SNP backed this. I'm not with you, how so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, Smithee said: I'm not with you, how so? First they need to win a referendum, which is a tall order. Secondly they would need to negotiate a divorce deal and put that deal to the people. Chances are the No side would be able to destroy that deal and cancel Independence by winning the confirmatory vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, frankblack said: First they need to win a referendum, which is a tall order. Secondly they would need to negotiate a divorce deal and put that deal to the people. Chances are the No side would be able to destroy that deal and cancel Independence by winning the confirmatory vote. That seems a bit speculative TBH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 Just now, Smithee said: That seems a bit speculative TBH That is Labour's proposal for Brexit. Just saying there would then be a precedent for any Indy Ref 2 bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, frankblack said: That is Labour's proposal for Brexit. Just saying there would then be a precedent for any Indy Ref 2 bill. Really? I can see where you’re coming from, but independence and Brexit are different things. For example, any indyref 2 would, I assume, fall under the auspices of Holyrood, like the first one. Why would Westminster precedence be applicable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLadd Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 15 minutes ago, Justin Z said: Cameron was indeed an idiot for setting precedents in both referenda that such massive constitutional change can be enacted on a 50% +1 vote basis. But that is now the public's expectation. Legally, there's nothing to quibble with in the first part of your post. Politically, we'll see how long a Westminster position of not allowing a second referendum can last. It'll be interesting to see. I fully expect if independence is achieved that both countries, knowing it is in both of their best interests to work out a sensible agreement, will do so with relatively few bumps. Probably something not entirely unlike the UK/Republic of Ireland situation, with a common travel area, using the successful Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement from the 1930s as model legislation for a modern Anglo-Scots trade act. It should be a min of 66% to take us out of a 300 year old union and not up to a 1% margin that might well consist of 16 y/o kids who can't vote otherwise and have no property or careers to lose. I really don't see us holding many aces in a break up to make England roll over. It's going to be extremely painful for us on some new currency, reduced budgets, start up costs and higher interest rate borrowing. Money and business will flood out of Scotland and there will be nothing the SNP can do about it. Best case for them is on the Euro quick and vassal status in Brussels ala Finland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Dannie Boy said: There’s the problem we have. So many options, so many objections and to many answers. Hence my last suggestion of do you still want to leave. If the answer is yes then we will forever be stuck on this merry go round or not so no so merry! Great choice for remainers as I said Maybe a choice that included some version.of leave might just be more democratic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 1 minute ago, JackLadd said: It should be a min of 66% to take us out of a 300 year old union and not up to a 1% margin that might well consist of 16 y/o kids who can't vote otherwise and have no property or careers to lose. I really don't see us holding many aces in a break up to make England roll over. It's going to be extremely painful for us on some new currency, reduced budgets, start up costs and higher interest rate borrowing. Money and business will flood out of Scotland and there will be nothing the SNP can do about it. Best case for them is on the Euro quick and vassal status in Brussels ala Finland. So should have been a 66% majority to stay in it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 13 minutes ago, Boris said: Really? I can see where you’re coming from, but independence and Brexit are different things. For example, any indyref 2 would, I assume, fall under the auspices of Holyrood, like the first one. Why would Westminster precedence be applicable? Because if the SNP back Labour’s stance they’re effectively saying that a referendum should be subject to a confirmatory vote further down the line. Hypocritical to do otherwise, although I don’t doubt the SNP’s capacity for being hypocritical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 Just now, Dusk_Till_Dawn said: Because if the SNP back Labour’s stance they’re effectively saying that a referendum should be subject to a confirmatory vote further down the line. Hypocritical to do otherwise, although I don’t doubt the SNP’s capacity for being hypocritical. Except they are different types of referendum. Brexit was advisory for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 Just now, Dusk_Till_Dawn said: Because if the SNP back Labour’s stance they’re effectively saying that a referendum should be subject to a confirmatory vote further down the line. Hypocritical to do otherwise, although I don’t doubt the SNP’s capacity for being hypocritical. I think there should be a confirmatory vote myself, seems mental not to after everything we've seen! I certainly wouldn't see that as a shoe-in for No after a win for Yes in a first referendum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Boris said: Except they are different types of referendum. Brexit was advisory for example. Irrelevant. What is relevant is that the SNP want a confirmatory referendum because they disagree with the original result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Smithee said: I think there should be a confirmatory vote myself, seems mental not to after everything we've seen! I certainly wouldn't see that as a shoe-in for No after a win for Yes in a first referendum. No, me neither but it makes the odds longer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 To be fair, the precedence would be to have a primary referendum for the principle and a secondary one on the final details. Referenda are now totally redundant without that failsafe. It doesn't matter what happens in this instance. It doesn't matter who favours which policy. Any referendum should be on that model from now on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 28 minutes ago, JackLadd said: It should be a min of 66% to take us out of a 300 year old union and not up to a 1% margin that might well consist of 16 y/o kids who can't vote otherwise and have no property or careers to lose. I really don't see us holding many aces in a break up to make England roll over. It's going to be extremely painful for us on some new currency, reduced budgets, start up costs and higher interest rate borrowing. Money and business will flood out of Scotland and there will be nothing the SNP can do about it. Best case for them is on the Euro quick and vassal status in Brussels ala Finland. Why? It wasnt 66% to take us in over 300 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 9 minutes ago, Victorian said: To be fair, the precedence would be to have a primary referendum for the principle and a secondary one on the final details. Referenda are now totally redundant without that failsafe. It doesn't matter what happens in this instance. It doesn't matter who favours which policy. Any referendum should be on that model from now on. Agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Sausage Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 15 minutes ago, Victorian said: To be fair, the precedence would be to have a primary referendum for the principle and a secondary one on the final details. Referenda are now totally redundant without that failsafe. It doesn't matter what happens in this instance. It doesn't matter who favours which policy. Any referendum should be on that model from now on. 100% agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 Im smelling proper fear & desperation on this thread. The unionists are shitting it. Now praying they dont loose Brexit as its not going as Boris planned, & now trying to change the rules on a Scottish independence referendum. 2 completely different things & in any case, it was Cameron’s fault for pushing a simple Yes/No referendum on Brexit before knowing any of the details on how it would look. At least the Scottish version will have some kind of roadmap. No doubt that’ll be open to interpretation but its better than a fantasy plastered on the side of a bus. Anyway, the smell of unionists arses collapsing on here is a beautiful thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
systemx Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 It seems that Northern Irish businesses will have to fill in export forms to send goods to the UK,must've left Arlene out of the loop on that one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLadd Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 48 minutes ago, John Findlay said: Why? It wasnt 66% to take us in over 300 years ago. There wasn't any vote when we had the reformation either. It was just made illegal to be RC, convert or suffer the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 The upcoming programme bill, second reading, committee stage and Lords reading is an absolute quagmire. All kinds of variables. It's about 6 months business to get done in a few days. Will never happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 8 minutes ago, Victorian said: The upcoming programme bill, second reading, committee stage and Lords reading is an absolute quagmire. All kinds of variables. It's about 6 months business to get done in a few days. Will never happen. Most likely. If the Withdrawal Deal is passed bar this legislation then I guess the EU will give the extension to pass that while trade negotions start in parallel. If Westminster doesn't accept Boris' deal, god knows if the EU will get pissed off and just walk away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, frankblack said: Most likely. If the Withdrawal Deal is passed bar this legislation then I guess the EU will give the extension to pass that while trade negotions start in parallel. If Westminster doesn't accept Boris' deal, god knows if the EU will get pissed off and just walk away. There's every reason to believe that trade deal negotiations will be sabotaged by the UK side. Another sham process. People in parliament know it / highly suspect it. They're trying to introduce a mechanism to prevent a 2020 no deal. Meantime, there will be an election at some stage. If the headbangers / pound shorters win then they'll rip out every safeguard that parliament puts in. This is now down to the really nasty end stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 1 hour ago, frankblack said: Most likely. If the Withdrawal Deal is passed bar this legislation then I guess the EU will give the extension to pass that while trade negotions start in parallel. If Westminster doesn't accept Boris' deal, god knows if the EU will get pissed off and just walk away. I thought they voted against that even being possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 8 minutes ago, graygo said: I thought they voted against that even being possible? No - they voted to ask for an extension from the EU if a deal isn't passed in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 9 minutes ago, frankblack said: No - they voted to ask for an extension from the EU if a deal isn't passed in time. I was meaning the Letwin amendment. Does that not make the withdrawal deal unable to be passed until the legislation is passed first? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo, Goodbye Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 4 hours ago, frankblack said: First they need to win a referendum, which is a tall order. Secondly they would need to negotiate a divorce deal and put that deal to the people. Chances are the No side would be able to destroy that deal and cancel Independence by winning the confirmatory vote. This would only happen if the SNP went into Indy negotiations as a minority government. Which I think we can safely assume won't happen. Had TM not handed over her majority two years ago in that snap GE, Stage 1 of Brexit would probably be resolved by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 6 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said: Irrelevant. What is relevant is that the SNP want a confirmatory referendum because they disagree with the original result. Nope. The SNP want a confirmatory referendum because the thick as ****ing mince British public didn't have the remotest clue what they were voting for. From a comment I saw earlier: "They (the British press) actively encourage ignorance in the populance. Before the referendum an organiser of the focus groups reported that voters he was meeting: “ have absolutely no idea what the EU was or how it worked at all, to a point that beggars belief. No one had ever heard of the single market or knew about what it did. They have literally no idea what we are on about. Literally no idea”. The organiser concluded: “We must not assume that people share our assumptions... It is obvious to us that action X causes action Y. It is not obvious at all to them... They make no connection between lower growth and less money for public services. You actually have to say to them `If the economy slows down it means businesses and people make less money, and less money means less tax revenue for the government, which means less money for the NHS”. Tremendous stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said: Nope. The SNP want a confirmatory referendum because the thick as ****ing mince British public didn't have the remotest clue what they were voting for. From a comment I saw earlier: "They (the British press) actively encourage ignorance in the populance. Before the referendum an organiser of the focus groups reported that voters he was meeting: “ have absolutely no idea what the EU was or how it worked at all, to a point that beggars belief. No one had ever heard of the single market or knew about what it did. They have literally no idea what we are on about. Literally no idea”. The organiser concluded: “We must not assume that people share our assumptions... It is obvious to us that action X causes action Y. It is not obvious at all to them... They make no connection between lower growth and less money for public services. You actually have to say to them `If the economy slows down it means businesses and people make less money, and less money means less tax revenue for the government, which means less money for the NHS”. Tremendous stuff. It's almost like one could draw from that the conclusion that the majority of the population is a bit thick. 🤔 They also bought the bullshit about the UK being overrun with Turks and Bulgarians as the immigration the EU forced on us spiralled out of control.🤔 It's like the Brexit vote was driven through by people of lower intelligence with racist/xenophobic tendencies.😯 Who knew?👍 Edited October 22, 2019 by The Mighty Thor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 9 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said: Irrelevant. What is relevant is that the SNP want a confirmatory referendum because they disagree with the original result. 62% of Scotland's voters disagreed with the result. All constituencies disagreed with result. All Scottish MPs should be backing the SNP. After all, we were guaranteed EU membership if we voted no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 66% , see if you forced that on Scotland. I think they'd say, ok, cheers. Nothing worse than a reply Scot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said: Nope. The SNP want a confirmatory referendum because the thick as ****ing mince British public didn't have the remotest clue what they were voting for. From a comment I saw earlier: "They (the British press) actively encourage ignorance in the populance. Before the referendum an organiser of the focus groups reported that voters he was meeting: “ have absolutely no idea what the EU was or how it worked at all, to a point that beggars belief. No one had ever heard of the single market or knew about what it did. They have literally no idea what we are on about. Literally no idea”. The organiser concluded: “We must not assume that people share our assumptions... It is obvious to us that action X causes action Y. It is not obvious at all to them... They make no connection between lower growth and less money for public services. You actually have to say to them `If the economy slows down it means businesses and people make less money, and less money means less tax revenue for the government, which means less money for the NHS”. Tremendous stuff. Government has been lowering education for decades. 8 hours ago, Victorian said: There's every reason to believe that trade deal negotiations will be sabotaged by the UK side. Another sham process. People in parliament know it / highly suspect it. They're trying to introduce a mechanism to prevent a 2020 no deal. Meantime, there will be an election at some stage. If the headbangers / pound shorters win then they'll rip out every safeguard that parliament puts in. This is now down to the really nasty end stage. That's the end game. No trade deal means no deal exit in December 2020. Jacob is a wee bit too up himself at the minute, hopefully the man is sent back to the back benches, pretty soon. Edited October 22, 2019 by ri Alban Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.