|
Post by peterparker on Aug 14, 2019 7:36:57 GMT
Ah Democracy. The sort of thing where the PM is potentially going to circumnavigate democracy, to deliver democracy, all the while a democratic vote to see if people have changed their minds after 3 years of nonsense is deemed undemocratic
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Aug 14, 2019 7:39:58 GMT
To go back to contingency planning, interesting to hear one of the top bods at Admiral Insurance say they prepared for No Deal from day 1.
some operations moved to Madrid at a cost of THIRTY MILLION POUNDS
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Aug 14, 2019 7:56:46 GMT
Ah Democracy. The sort of thing where the PM is potentially going to circumnavigate democracy, to deliver democracy, all the while a democratic vote to see if people have changed their minds after 3 years of nonsense is deemed undemocratic I don't think anyone thinks it's undemocratic but that it undermines democracy.We have been over this before there's no point in asking the electorate a question then complaining about the outcome. I've seen loaDS of stuff on here about "well yep but the question wasn't about this type of deal etc" however, I can't recall anyone saying the question was the wrong one before we voted. Finally, if we have another vote and it's a small majority to stay in,is that ok or should we rerun every 3 years to see if the electorate have changed their minds?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 7:56:57 GMT
To go back to contingency planning, interesting to hear one of the top bods at Admiral Insurance say they prepared for No Deal from day 1. some operations moved to Madrid at a cost of THIRTY MILLION POUNDS Yes, the cost private business is hard to calculate as they dont always declare it. But it's on top of the £6.1B the Government are providing for. Listening to R4 this morning I didnt realise my old MP, Grant Schapps, was now Transport Secretary. He rather blithely reported that he is issuing invitations to tender for a £300M contract to emergency airlift of supplies into the UK, in the event of need. He specifically mentioned medical supplies. Now I get contingency planning, all well and good. But to go these lengths the Government must worry that this situation could come to pass, a fairly high percentage chance that it will. This is contradictory to the argument that there will be no problem, a couple of "ripple" perhaps, but nothing big. Now I have no idea if this £300M is part of the £6.1B as I have lost count. Nor the estimated £500M Michael Gove has proposed to buy up sheep (lambs) that would not be marketable after a 40% tarrif under WTO. In this case what happens in year two? Answer = devastation to sheep farming in the UK. So Leavers, you keep rattling on about democracy, do you honestly believe people actually voted for this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 8:10:18 GMT
To go back to contingency planning, interesting to hear one of the top bods at Admiral Insurance say they prepared for No Deal from day 1. some operations moved to Madrid at a cost of THIRTY MILLION POUNDS Yes, the cost private business is hard to calculate as they dont always declare it. But it's on top of the £6.1B the Government are providing for. Listening to R4 this morning I didnt realise my old MP, Grant Schapps, was now Transport Secretary. He rather blithely reported that he is issuing invitations to tender for a £300M contract to emergency airlift of supplies into the UK, in the event of need. He specifically mentioned medical supplies. Now I get contingency planning, all well and good. But to go these lengths the Government must worry that this situation could come to pass, a fairly high percentage chance that it will. This is contradictory to the argument that there will be no problem, a couple of "ripple" perhaps, but nothing big. Now I have no idea if this £300M is part of the £6.1B as I have lost count. Nor the estimated £500M Michael Gove has proposed to buy up sheep (lambs) that would not be marketable after a 40% tarrif under WTO. In this case what happens in year two? Answer = devastation to sheep farming in the UK. So Leavers, you keep rattling on about democracy, do you honestly believe people actually voted for this? I can't honestly believe that you believe all of this bullsh1t ! As for Democracy, Article 50 was implemented by an overwhelming vote in the HoC. Article 50 only has two options, either leave with a deal, or if no deal can be agreed, to leave without a deal. Very very simple, and I'm sure the MP's knew what they were voting for! Leaving without a deal is therefore the express democratic wish of Parliament ! It is written in Law! Nobody is 'forcing' a no deal through. It is what MP's voted for OVERWHELMINGLY ! If those same MP's are now claiming that they didn't know what they voted for, and thereby passed it onto the Statute Book, a law that affects over 60 million people then they must be totally incompetent and quite frankly, unfit to guide the country. And certainly unfit to pass any other future laws! Feck me, Article 50 only had two options.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 8:11:36 GMT
Ah Democracy. The sort of thing where the PM is potentially going to circumnavigate democracy, to deliver democracy, all the while a democratic vote to see if people have changed their minds after 3 years of nonsense is deemed undemocratic Are you suggesting that the UK hold a Referendum on EU membership every three years? I suppose it's better than making people wait 41 years before they had a vote on it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 8:39:15 GMT
Yes, the cost private business is hard to calculate as they dont always declare it. But it's on top of the £6.1B the Government are providing for. Listening to R4 this morning I didnt realise my old MP, Grant Schapps, was now Transport Secretary. He rather blithely reported that he is issuing invitations to tender for a £300M contract to emergency airlift of supplies into the UK, in the event of need. He specifically mentioned medical supplies. Now I get contingency planning, all well and good. But to go these lengths the Government must worry that this situation could come to pass, a fairly high percentage chance that it will. This is contradictory to the argument that there will be no problem, a couple of "ripple" perhaps, but nothing big. Now I have no idea if this £300M is part of the £6.1B as I have lost count. Nor the estimated £500M Michael Gove has proposed to buy up sheep (lambs) that would not be marketable after a 40% tarrif under WTO. In this case what happens in year two? Answer = devastation to sheep farming in the UK. So Leavers, you keep rattling on about democracy, do you honestly believe people actually voted for this? I can't honestly believe that you believe all of this bullsh1t ! As for Democracy, Article 50 was implemented by an overwhelming vote in the HoC. Article 50 only has two options, either leave with a deal, or if no deal can be agreed, to leave without a deal. Very very simple, and I'm sure the MP's knew what they were voting for! Leaving without a deal is therefore the express democratic wish of Parliament ! It is written in Law! Nobody is 'forcing' a no deal through. It is what MP's voted for OVERWHELMINGLY ! If those same MP's are now claiming that they didn't know what they voted for, and thereby passed it onto the Statute Book, a law that affects over 60 million people then they must be totally incompetent and quite frankly, unfit to guide the country. And certainly unfit to pass any other future laws! Feck me, Article 50 only had two options. What bullshit exactly am I supposed to not believe. In the case of the proposed airlift, it was a direct statement from the Secretary of State for Transport. Are you suggesting he was lying on the Radio?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Aug 14, 2019 8:39:43 GMT
Ah Democracy. The sort of thing where the PM is potentially going to circumnavigate democracy, to deliver democracy, all the while a democratic vote to see if people have changed their minds after 3 years of nonsense is deemed undemocratic Are you suggesting that the UK hold a Referendum on EU membership every three years? I suppose it's better than making people wait 41 years before they had a vote on it! No Nobby, just pointing out the ridiculousness of it all
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 8:51:20 GMT
Are you suggesting that the UK hold a Referendum on EU membership every three years? I suppose it's better than making people wait 41 years before they had a vote on it! No Nobby, just pointing out the ridiculousness of it all Well, it is ridiculous to call for another referendum three years after the first one, where the result has not even been implemented !
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Aug 14, 2019 8:52:37 GMT
Ah Democracy. The sort of thing where the PM is potentially going to circumnavigate democracy, to deliver democracy, all the while a democratic vote to see if people have changed their minds after 3 years of nonsense is deemed undemocratic I don't think anyone thinks it's undemocratic but that it undermines democracy.We have been over this before there's no point in asking the electorate a question then complaining about the outcome. I've seen loaDS of stuff on here about "well yep but the question wasn't about this type of deal etc" however, I can't recall anyone saying the question was the wrong one before we voted. Finally, if we have another vote and it's a small majority to stay in,is that ok or should we rerun every 3 years to see if the electorate have changed their minds? Somewhere previously I did say that it should be a 2 stage process, on the principle and then on the terms. Funnily enough, even JRM agreed until the result came through. I went to sleep on the eve of the result with Nigel Farage saying the fight goes on, that was until the result and it became set in stone and not "best if three". So two senior leave campaigners changed their minds, but the country can't? Were we to stay, we had mechanisms in place to ensure Parliamentary oversight on new laws and future referenda on treaty changes. Whilst I was disappinted with rhe result, I accepted it in line with the terms proposed by the Leave campaign, that is close economic and business ties but outside of the political structures. However, what I did see was the 'victors' taking liberty with what the result meant and TM setting unnecessary and restrictive red lines in order to prove he leave credentials. Had we been looking at a Common Market model, then I think we could have already left. Now that the terms of reference has been changed by both time and events, it is my democratic right to contest the decision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 8:58:10 GMT
I can't honestly believe that you believe all of this bullsh1t ! As for Democracy, Article 50 was implemented by an overwhelming vote in the HoC. Article 50 only has two options, either leave with a deal, or if no deal can be agreed, to leave without a deal. Very very simple, and I'm sure the MP's knew what they were voting for! Leaving without a deal is therefore the express democratic wish of Parliament ! It is written in Law! Nobody is 'forcing' a no deal through. It is what MP's voted for OVERWHELMINGLY ! If those same MP's are now claiming that they didn't know what they voted for, and thereby passed it onto the Statute Book, a law that affects over 60 million people then they must be totally incompetent and quite frankly, unfit to guide the country. And certainly unfit to pass any other future laws! Feck me, Article 50 only had two options. What bullshit exactly am I supposed to not believe. In the case of the proposed airlift, it was a direct statement from the Secretary of State for Transport. Are you suggesting he was lying on the Radio? Sometimes politicians say things to give the appearance that they are actually doing something. As I have said previously, the RAF have Galaxy C-17's that can provide any airlift required. They belong to the government, would costs nothing. Also, the UK import about 4 billions worth of Pharmaceuticals, and export about 18 billions worth. In fact, they are one of the UK's biggest exports. How much of that 18 billion that goes to the EU, I don't know. But once again, it's a two-way street. Also, why/how would there be problems getting the stuff into the UK? Who is going to hold it up? Who is going to block it? I'm still struggling to understand this. Why would the UK impose hold-ups at the incoming Ports for goods that are needed? Can anyone explain?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 9:21:51 GMT
What bullshit exactly am I supposed to not believe. In the case of the proposed airlift, it was a direct statement from the Secretary of State for Transport. Are you suggesting he was lying on the Radio? Sometimes politicians say things to give the appearance that they are actually doing something. As I have said previously, the RAF have Galaxy C-17's that can provide any airlift required. They belong to the government, would costs nothing. Also, the UK import about 4 billions worth of Pharmaceuticals, and export about 18 billions worth. In fact, they are one of the UK's biggest exports. How much of that 18 billion that goes to the EU, I don't know. But once again, it's a two-way street. Also, why/how would there be problems getting the stuff into the UK? Who is going to hold it up? Who is going to block it? I'm still struggling to understand this. Why would the UK impose hold-ups at the incoming Ports for goods that are needed? Can anyone explain? Regardless of your opinions, the Secretary of State said he was going out to tender. That's traceable, he is going to look silly in the industry if he does not now do this. As to who voted for what, can you claim the the leave campaign actually told people about all this before they voted leave? If the margin had been 75/25 then I would agree it would not be relevant. But it wasnt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 9:29:05 GMT
Sometimes politicians say things to give the appearance that they are actually doing something. As I have said previously, the RAF have Galaxy C-17's that can provide any airlift required. They belong to the government, would costs nothing. Also, the UK import about 4 billions worth of Pharmaceuticals, and export about 18 billions worth. In fact, they are one of the UK's biggest exports. How much of that 18 billion that goes to the EU, I don't know. But once again, it's a two-way street. Also, why/how would there be problems getting the stuff into the UK? Who is going to hold it up? Who is going to block it? I'm still struggling to understand this. Why would the UK impose hold-ups at the incoming Ports for goods that are needed? Can anyone explain? Regardless of your opinions, the Secretary of State said he was going out to tender. That's traceable, he is going to look silly in the industry if he does not now do this. As to who voted for what, can you claim the the leave campaign actually told people about all this before they voted leave? If the margin had been 75/25 then I would agree it would not be relevant. But it wasnt. It doesn't matter what the leave campaign said, or didn't say. Haven't you realised that yet? Nobody knew that the elected government of the day, elected on a promise to 'respect the referendum result' would do everything in their power to keep the UK attached to the EU in practically every possible way. Nobody foresaw what May was going to attempt with her ridiculous WA (which somehow morphed into a Treaty).
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Aug 14, 2019 10:04:22 GMT
What bullshit exactly am I supposed to not believe. In the case of the proposed airlift, it was a direct statement from the Secretary of State for Transport. Are you suggesting he was lying on the Radio? Sometimes politicians say things to give the appearance that they are actually doing something. As I have said previously, the RAF have Galaxy C-17's that can provide any airlift required. They belong to the government, would costs nothing. Also, the UK import about 4 billions worth of Pharmaceuticals, and export about 18 billions worth. In fact, they are one of the UK's biggest exports. How much of that 18 billion that goes to the EU, I don't know. But once again, it's a two-way street. Also, why/how would there be problems getting the stuff into the UK? Who is going to hold it up? Who is going to block it? I'm still struggling to understand this. Why would the UK impose hold-ups at the incoming Ports for goods that are needed? Can anyone explain? Globemaster III, Galaxy is the American C-5. However, leaving my OCD aside we have only 8 such aircraft (A400s and C130s are in the same situation) which are already stretched on training, maintenance and operations, plus the fact we have limited peacetime flying hours and crew. It will cost in terms of fuel and other ancilliary requirement such as spare parts. The value would be sheer tokenism, as would using the RFA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 10:48:23 GMT
Sometimes politicians say things to give the appearance that they are actually doing something. As I have said previously, the RAF have Galaxy C-17's that can provide any airlift required. They belong to the government, would costs nothing. Also, the UK import about 4 billions worth of Pharmaceuticals, and export about 18 billions worth. In fact, they are one of the UK's biggest exports. How much of that 18 billion that goes to the EU, I don't know. But once again, it's a two-way street. Also, why/how would there be problems getting the stuff into the UK? Who is going to hold it up? Who is going to block it? I'm still struggling to understand this. Why would the UK impose hold-ups at the incoming Ports for goods that are needed? Can anyone explain? Regardless of your opinions, the Secretary of State said he was going out to tender. That's traceable, he is going to look silly in the industry if he does not now do this. As to who voted for what, can you claim the the leave campaign actually told people about all this before they voted leave? If the margin had been 75/25 then I would agree it would not be relevant. But it wasnt. What would happen after two years?
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Aug 14, 2019 11:35:10 GMT
Regardless of your opinions, the Secretary of State said he was going out to tender. That's traceable, he is going to look silly in the industry if he does not now do this. As to who voted for what, can you claim the the leave campaign actually told people about all this before they voted leave? If the margin had been 75/25 then I would agree it would not be relevant. But it wasnt. What would happen after two years? All dismissed at the time as Project Fear, after all "no one is threatening our position in the single market". By the way, is that you posting on the Army Rumour Service Brexit thread?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 11:47:07 GMT
What would happen after two years? All dismissed at the time as Project Fear, after all "no one is threatening our position in the single market". By the way, is that you posting on the Army Rumour Service Brexit thread? Aye, tis I
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Aug 14, 2019 11:49:33 GMT
All dismissed at the time as Project Fear, after all "no one is threatening our position in the single market". By the way, is that you posting on the Army Rumour Service Brexit thread? Aye, tis I I was hoping their debating skills could improve, never mind. 😀
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 11:57:39 GMT
Aye, tis I I was hoping their debating skills could improve, never mind. 😀 It's a shocker at times eh! I have loads of them on 'ignore'. I don't post often as I feel a bit like an interloper, coming from the wet side and all that !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 12:25:04 GMT
Regardless of your opinions, the Secretary of State said he was going out to tender. That's traceable, he is going to look silly in the industry if he does not now do this. As to who voted for what, can you claim the the leave campaign actually told people about all this before they voted leave? If the margin had been 75/25 then I would agree it would not be relevant. But it wasnt. It doesn't matter what the leave campaign said, or didn't say. Haven't you realised that yet? Nobody knew that the elected government of the day, elected on a promise to 'respect the referendum result' would do everything in their power to keep the UK attached to the EU in practically every possible way. Nobody foresaw what May was going to attempt with her ridiculous WA (which somehow morphed into a Treaty). The elected Government if the day may well be incompetent, no argument from me on that. However WTO tarrifs are a fact if we leave with no deal. Leaving with a deal required a compromise on the Northern Irish issue during negotiations for the final trade, both of which have impacted our position. None of this was given an impact assessment and brought to voters attention during the campaign (by either side, in detail) I maintain that if voters had been asked to spend over £6billion as a result of no deal the "floaters" who may have voted leave on a whim, would not have done so.
|
|