Extreme Brexit could be worse than financial crisis for UK: BoE

[mommysboy]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/no-deal-brexit-theresa-may-chris-grayling-m20-fake-traffic-jam-a8715351.html

 

At least Dad's Army was funny!

[billd766]

11 hours ago, sandyf said:

Are you suggesting that appeals should be heard after the execution?

 

It is normal practice to correct potential mistakes before damage results, not after. It really comes down to what people consider more important, the will of the people nearly 3 years ago or the will of the people now.

The government has said that there will be no second referendum, the Labour party has said there will be no second referendum, so why all of a sudden, do the "people" want a second referendum?

 

Do the people demand a second general election if their party does not get into power, do the people demand a second local election, if their local party does not get into power.

 

If a second election is held and the Remainers win can the Leavers demand a third election if the result does not come out the way that they want it? Or the best of 3 or 5 or 7 or the first to 11 wins?

 

If this is started then a precedent is set and then where will it end?

 

There was a referendum in 2016 in which the government of the day said that your vote counts and we will carry out that decision.

 

Everybody who voted knew that.

 

At that time nobody knew what would happen and those that didn't bother to vote will have to live with that decision and it was THEIR decision not to vote.

 

The fact that Cameron jumped ship is a fact of life.

 

Teresa May took on the job and said many times that we WILL leave the EU on 29 or 30 March this year.

 

She also said many times that a no deal is better than a bad deal.

 

Now she is pushing a bad deal rather than a no deal, thus contradicting herself once again.

 

Would a Leaver have been a better choice for PM when Cameron quit? IMHO the answer is yes.

 

However the MPs who are leavers probably looked at the poisoned chalice and decided that it wasn't worth it in the longer term.

 

Teresa May took it on probably believing she could win and still stay within the EU possibly in name only. Again, IMHO she miscalculated badly, even to the extent of another GE and only scraped home with the help of the DUP, and has the ownership of this whole horrible mess.

 

Even her supporters in the DUP don't want her version of Brexit.

 

What will happen when it goes to a vote later this month?

 

I have no idea but I suspect that she will lose.

 

Will the Labour party put up a vote of confidence in the government? They are talking about it, and if they do, will they win?

 

JC says that they will try to renegotiate if they win but they will still leave, but they are not so much in favour of a people vote either.

 

If they don't win, then what?

[Guest]

Brexit is now really starting to roll forward. Take a deep breath and hold on. The next few months are going to be interesting.

 

+++++

JUST IN: EU Commission says #Brexit deal will not be renegotiated, and that deal on the table is the only deal possible

 

+++++

 

Brexit Spurs $1 Trillion Asset Moves to EU From London, EY Says

 

Banks, insurers and money managers are planning to move about 800 billion pounds ($1 trillion) of assets from the U.K. to the rest of Europe as Brexit uncertainty takes its toll, according to a survey conducted by EY.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-07/may-battles-to-save-deal-as-parliament-returns-brexit-update

[aright]

12 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:

For the umpteenth time: he is a civil servant, not a politician. Do you elect civil servants in the UK?

My question wasn't was he a civil servant but what part did I or any one else play in a process which gives the most powerful job in the EC to this man? 

 

"In a scathing report, the European ombudsman said the commission had committed four counts of maladministration in appointing Martin Selmayr as its most senior civil servant in February.

The report also rebuked the commission for its “defensive, evasive and, at times, combative” communications over the appointment, which provoked widespread criticism in the European parliament."

 

You obviously disagree with the Ombudsman and the European Parliament and endorse the process and Selmayer

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/04/eu-watchdog-finds-juncker-broke-rules-to-promote-political-ally

[anon676545345]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

The government has said that there will be no second referendum, the Labour party has said there will be no second referendum, so why all of a sudden, do the "people" want a second referendum?

 

Do the people demand a second general election if their party does not get into power, do the people demand a second local election, if their local party does not get into power.

 

If a second election is held and the Remainers win can the Leavers demand a third election if the result does not come out the way that they want it? Or the best of 3 or 5 or 7 or the first to 11 wins?

 

If this is started then a precedent is set and then where will it end?

 

There was a referendum in 2016 in which the government of the day said that your vote counts and we will carry out that decision.

 

Everybody who voted knew that.

 

At that time nobody knew what would happen and those that didn't bother to vote will have to live with that decision and it was THEIR decision not to vote.

 

The fact that Cameron jumped ship is a fact of life.

 

Teresa May took on the job and said many times that we WILL leave the EU on 29 or 30 March this year.

 

She also said many times that a no deal is better than a bad deal.

 

Now she is pushing a bad deal rather than a no deal, thus contradicting herself once again.

 

Would a Leaver have been a better choice for PM when Cameron quit? IMHO the answer is yes.

 

However the MPs who are leavers probably looked at the poisoned chalice and decided that it wasn't worth it in the longer term.

 

Teresa May took it on probably believing she could win and still stay within the EU possibly in name only. Again, IMHO she miscalculated badly, even to the extent of another GE and only scraped home with the help of the DUP, and has the ownership of this whole horrible mess.

 

Even her supporters in the DUP don't want her version of Brexit.

 

What will happen when it goes to a vote later this month?

 

I have no idea but I suspect that she will lose.

 

Will the Labour party put up a vote of confidence in the government? They are talking about it, and if they do, will they win?

 

JC says that they will try to renegotiate if they win but they will still leave, but they are not so much in favour of a people vote either.

 

If they don't win, then what?

 

I thoroughly expect May to renege on her pledge to exit the EU on the 30th of March and play for more time to 'negotiate' sic. In reality it's just a ploy to frustrate Brexit, keep kicking the can down the road till eventually we get a slightly modified version of her terrible deal, one that keeps us in the EU in all but name. 

[7by7]

5 hours ago, vinny41 said:

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Still looks bad for someone who thinks the EU is a bad thing.

Dont see why if you did a poll of forum members and asked them is the  majority (%)  of their financial portfolio / investments kept inside Thailand or Outside I think we both now what the answer is 

 If those TV members who have the majority, indeed any, of their portfolio in Thailand were at the same time telling the rest of us that Thailand is an undemocratic bureaucracy intent on removing all our freedom and thus we should have nothing to do with it, then I would call them the same as I call Rees-Mogg; one rule for the rich, another for the rest hypocrites. 

[7by7]

5 hours ago, vinny41 said:

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Still looks bad for someone who thinks the EU is a bad thing.

Dont see why if you did a poll of forum members and asked them is the  majority (%)  of their financial portfolio / investments kept inside Thailand or Outside I think we both now what the answer is 

 If those TV members who have the majority, indeed any, of their portfolio in Thailand were at the same time telling the rest of us that Thailand is an undemocratic bureaucracy intent on removing all our freedom and thus we should have nothing to do with it, then I would call them the same as I call Rees-Mogg; one rule for the rich, another for the rest hypocrites. 

[aright]

5 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Bureaucrats advise and draft; elected politicians actually make the law.

 

Educate yourself by reading the link I provided earlier.

 

 

 

I see you have run out of argument and seek subterfuge in the lame excuse

 

"Educate yourself by reading the link I provided earlier."

I have done that

 

In an earlier post you said "Commissioners do not make decisions nor policy nor law within the EU; the European parliament and the Council of Ministers do. " In your latest post you exclude Council of Ministers and say elected politicians actually make the law.

Hardly consistent is it?

If you have changed your mind regarding your claim just say so. 

 

Please pick holes in my rationale after all I was only responding to your claims regarding Commissioners, decisions policy and law. You made them....I didn't

I suggest you reread and understand what you said then dissect my reply.

"Commissioners do not make decisions nor policy nor law within the EU"

Since the Commission are the only body that can make the decision to initiate legislation they are directly responsible for what legislation is considered (policy) and for turning proposed legislation into law. 

 

[7by7]

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Bureaucrats advise and draft; elected politicians actually make the law.

 

Educate yourself by reading the link I provided earlier. 

 

Exactly; and no, we don't elect civil servants in the UK.

 

4 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

  Well not everybody agrees with you. 

please note this is a video produced by the E.u backing BBC. 

 

 

From very early on in the video "Olly Robbins, Theresa May's chief advisor on Europe."

 

Advisor; do you really not know the meaning of that word?

 

All politicians have advisors on a variety of subjects; PMs more than most. Would you rather they didn't and so knew nothing about anything? 

 

Robbins can advise May; whether or not she takes that advice is up to her. Even if she does, she still has to get her Cabinet of Democratically elected politicians to accept that advice before putting it to the Democratically elected Parliament for approval.

 

BTW; "E.u backing BBC?"

 

Maybe, for a small example, you missed their attempts to block the pro EU protesters trying to get into shot when they were interviewing politicians from both sides on Parliament Green.

 

Of course, the BBC get attacked for bias from both sides. 

 

For example, last February Andrew Adonis, a former Labour minister and one of the most prominent voices campaigning for Britain to remain in the EU, alleged that the BBC was pro-Brexit, claiming in a tweet that “the Brexit bias is now so deep the BBC doesn’t even realise it."

 

That the BBC often gets accused of bias by all sides on many controversial subjects indicates to me that they are actually getting the balance about right.

 

[7by7]

Just now, aright said:

I see you have run out of argument and seek subterfuge in the lame excuse

 

"Educate yourself by reading the link I provided earlier."

I have done that

 

In an earlier post you said "Commissioners do not make decisions nor policy nor law within the EU; the European parliament and the Council of Ministers do. " In your latest post you exclude Council of Ministers and say elected politicians actually make the law.

Hardly consistent is it?

If you have changed your mind regarding your claim just say so. 

 

Please pick holes in my rationale after all I was only responding to your claims regarding Commissioners, decisions policy and law. You made them....I didn't

I suggest you reread and understand what you said then dissect my reply.

"Commissioners do not make decisions nor policy nor law within the EU"

Since the Commission are the only body that can make the decision to initiate legislation they are directly responsible for what legislation is considered (policy) and for turning proposed legislation into law. 

 

 

As it is obvious from you comment "In your latest post you exclude Council of Ministers and say elected politicians actually make the law.

Hardly consistent is it?" that, despite claiming to have read my link, that you still haven't a clue, then I will try and keep it really simple for you.

 

The Council of Ministers is made up of elected politicians from all member governments, sometimes elected ministers, often the actual elected heads of those governments.

 

They make all the major decisions, others are made by the MEPs in the European Parliament.

 

Like civil servants across the globe, the Commission can advise, even instigate; but they cannot decide; only the elected representatives either in the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers can do that.

 

If it is still too complicated for you to understand, I'm sorry; but I fail to see how I can make it any simpler.

[aright]

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

As it is obvious from you comment "In your latest post you exclude Council of Ministers and say elected politicians actually make the law...…………………………………………….

 

10 out of 10 for obfuscation, intellectual muddle and failure to answer questions. 

[7by7]

1 minute ago, aright said:

10 out of 10 for obfuscation, intellectual muddle and failure to answer questions. 

As i said to you:

12 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

If it is still too complicated for you to understand, I'm sorry; but I fail to see how I can make it any simpler.

 

Do you have a friend who can explain the difference between elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats?

 

'Cos i give up trying to so do. Either you are too intellectually challenged to comprehend or, far more likely, you simply refuse to do so because that would mean you also accepting your whole argument for what it is; complete and utter falsehood.

[aright]

I understand the difference between elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats but that's not the issue is it; as much as it appeals to your comfort zone. Any peripheral so you don't have to face the central issue and provide a constructive answer.

 

My original statement on this, taken from the Euro Parliaments own document said

“A Member of the European Parliament, working in one of the parliamentary committees, draws up a report on a proposal for a ‘legislative text’ presented by the European Commission, the only institution empowered to initiate legislation. "  

If you are saying Europarl is wrong just say so.....stop mincing.....it saves time 

When you say my argument is complete and utter falsehood it's not my argument its the word of Europarl……..go figure who is intellectually challenged. 

end of story

 

[sandyf]

11 hours ago, billd766 said:

The government has said that there will be no second referendum, the Labour party has said there will be no second referendum, so why all of a sudden, do the "people" want a second referendum?

 

I am not in favour of national referendums in the first place, in the UK they are nothing more than a government sponsored opinion poll, only ever been 3 so all this talk about again and again is garbage. Parliament must make the decision and no politician can preempt what parliament will decide so DC was out of order in saying what he did.

A referendum got us into this mess and without a strong consensus in parliament another may be the only way out. You have to bear in mind that if the government lose the vote parliament take control so it will no longer be up to the government what happens next.

What has been said today may well make the vote even more contentious.

 

A leading human rights lawyer has warned a no-deal Brexit would be be illegal because of the “real and immediate risk to life”.

Jonathan Cooper, who was awarded an OBE for his work in 2007, says the government would be knowingly putting the British public in danger if the UK crashes out of the EU without an agreement.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-deal-brexit-illegal-risk-life-human-rights-lawyer-jonathan-cooper-a8715841.html

[rixalex]

On 1/6/2019 at 6:02 PM, 7by7 said:

 

Except they don't; and I have never they have. 

 

As should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of Engli8sh comprehension I am merely pointing out that at least one prominent Brexiteer has twice called for a second referendum, only to change his mind.

 

I offered one plausible reason for his change of heart; he's scared he'd lose. What explanation do you have?

 

Read what I have actually posted and then find someone who can explain it to you.

 

If that seems condescending, I'm sorry but you seem incapable of understanding it by yourself.

 

Unless, of course, you do fully understand it and are merely playing games. in a feeble effort to score what you see as debating points. 

What has happened to you 7by7?

 

You are i believe a well-respected, well-liked member of this forum who is usually well reasoned and informative. But when it comes to Brexit it's like this red mist descends and you become another person, incapable of debating without becoming personally offensive and rude. I am genuinely quite shocked and saddened. It makes me feel glad to not be living in Britain as i imagine this is the sort of thing that people are experiencing face to face with neighbours, friends and even family.

 

Firstly, if you are going to make condescending remarks about my ability to understand English, can you try doing a slightly better job of writing it? A sentence such as "Except they don't; and I have never they have." does not read easily at all.

 

Secondly, when i asked you to stop speaking on behalf of leavers, vis-a-vis your comment about many leavers wanting to have all the benefits of being in the club without being in the club, your response was along the lines of, "don't be such an idiot, of course i wasn't speaking for leavers, didn't you see the question mark at the end, don't you understand question marks, you idiot". To paraphrase. And then, having attacked me for not having understood what a question mark does, you then slipped in that you were speaking on behalf of some leavers who you had heard saying they wanted the benefits of the club without being in it. Attacked me for no reason in other words.

 

Thirdly, regarding your great interest in the words of Mr Farage on the matter of another referendum, and why he might not be in favour of one now. It's very obvious that you think he is opposed to one because he thinks he would lose. You may well be right. I don't know. I guess you would have to ask Mr Farage himself, wouldn't you?

 

I've given you my reasons for why I don't think there should be another referendum (and multiple other times on various threads on this forum) and you didn't respond then, so i won't waste my time explaining again.

[sandyf]

6 hours ago, aright said:

 

My original statement on this, taken from the Euro Parliaments own document said

“A Member of the European Parliament, working in one of the parliamentary committees, draws up a report on a proposal for a ‘legislative text’ presented by the European Commission, the only institution empowered to initiate legislation. "  
 

And the European Commission is directed by the European Council.

We realise it is in the leavers interest to convince people that the Commission is not working under direction from above.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

I am not in favour of national referendums in the first place, in the UK they are nothing more than a government sponsored opinion poll, only ever been 3 so all this talk about again and again is garbage. Parliament must make the decision and no politician can preempt what parliament will decide so DC was out of order in saying what he did.

A referendum got us into this mess and without a strong consensus in parliament another may be the only way out. You have to bear in mind that if the government lose the vote parliament take control so it will no longer be up to the government what happens next.

What has been said today may well make the vote even more contentious.

 

A leading human rights lawyer has warned a no-deal Brexit would be be illegal because of the “real and immediate risk to life”.

Jonathan Cooper, who was awarded an OBE for his work in 2007, says the government would be knowingly putting the British public in danger if the UK crashes out of the EU without an agreement.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-deal-brexit-illegal-risk-life-human-rights-lawyer-jonathan-cooper-a8715841.html

quote "I am not in favour of national referendums in the first place, in the UK they are nothing more than a government sponsored opinion poll, only ever been 3 so all this talk about again and again is garbage."

 

But a second referendum is what many Remainers are asking for. Is this garbage as well?

 

If the Remainers win the second referendum, even though first is not yet completed, does that not give the Leavers the right to demand another referendum? And so on ad finitum.

[mshs]

On 11/28/2018 at 4:34 PM, TopDeadSenter said:

As a committed Brexiteer I take no notice of these ongoing and nonsensical threats from the establishment. Project Fear was a disaster and did not work, time to drop the negativity. To have our country back, in any shape or state, is a far better outcome than to remain in the failed experiment that is the European Union. Constant riots in France, shocking unemployment across the Spain, Portugal and Italy, porous borders and evil NGOs reeking havoc on the social cohesion across the board. Bully-boy non elected eurocrats telling us how to live and think. No. No. No. We will take a nice, fast, hard Brexit and we will be proud to be Great Britain once again.

 

Good.  The people has spoken and your "deep state" is not happy.

The need of the hour is a refund policy that goes with all these polls and forecasts.

[dick dasterdly]

11 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

From very early on in the video "Olly Robbins, Theresa May's chief advisor on Europe."

 

Advisor; do you really not know the meaning of that word?

 

All politicians have advisors on a variety of subjects; PMs more than most. Would you rather they didn't and so knew nothing about anything? 

 

Robbins can advise May; whether or not she takes that advice is up to her. Even if she does, she still has to get her Cabinet of Democratically elected politicians to accept that advice before putting it to the Democratically elected Parliament for approval.

 

BTW; "E.u backing BBC?"

 

Maybe, for a small example, you missed their attempts to block the pro EU protesters trying to get into shot when they were interviewing politicians from both sides on Parliament Green.

 

Of course, the BBC get attacked for bias from both sides. 

 

For example, last February Andrew Adonis, a former Labour minister and one of the most prominent voices campaigning for Britain to remain in the EU, alleged that the BBC was pro-Brexit, claiming in a tweet that “the Brexit bias is now so deep the BBC doesn’t even realise it."

 

That the BBC often gets accused of bias by all sides on many controversial subjects indicates to me that they are actually getting the balance about right.

 

"Of course, the BBC get attacked for bias from both sides."

 

I agree that historically this has always been the case, but you're avoiding the point that the Newsnight report (and Newsnight are normally pretty good at reporting neutrally) was not at all happy with Olly Robbins level of influence.

[dick dasterdly]

9 hours ago, aright said:

I understand the difference between elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats but that's not the issue is it; as much as it appeals to your comfort zone. Any peripheral so you don't have to face the central issue and provide a constructive answer.

 

My original statement on this, taken from the Euro Parliaments own document said

“A Member of the European Parliament, working in one of the parliamentary committees, draws up a report on a proposal for a ‘legislative text’ presented by the European Commission, the only institution empowered to initiate legislation. "  

If you are saying Europarl is wrong just say so.....stop mincing.....it saves time 

When you say my argument is complete and utter falsehood it's not my argument its the word of Europarl……..go figure who is intellectually challenged. 

end of story

 

Jeremy Paxman made a very interesting/horrifying programme about this a long time ago.

 

Sorry, I don't have a link to the programme, but I'm sure a more enthusiastic poster will be able to find it.

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

I am not in favour of national referendums in the first place, in the UK they are nothing more than a government sponsored opinion poll, only ever been 3 so all this talk about again and again is garbage. Parliament must make the decision and no politician can preempt what parliament will decide so DC was out of order in saying what he did.

A referendum got us into this mess and without a strong consensus in parliament another may be the only way out. You have to bear in mind that if the government lose the vote parliament take control so it will no longer be up to the government what happens next.

What has been said today may well make the vote even more contentious.

 

A leading human rights lawyer has warned a no-deal Brexit would be be illegal because of the “real and immediate risk to life”.

Jonathan Cooper, who was awarded an OBE for his work in 2007, says the government would be knowingly putting the British public in danger if the UK crashes out of the EU without an agreement.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-deal-brexit-illegal-risk-life-human-rights-lawyer-jonathan-cooper-a8715841.html

re this OBE guy, it appears that OBEs are handed out without much due diligence - cheap stuff

 

I think that newspaper articles like that have the opposite effect of what the fear monger want to achieve.

Several normal Brits will read this and think

what the boomboom I am sick and tired of shit like this, I want out NOW

 

 

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, mshs said:

Good.  The people has spoken and your "deep state" is not happy.

The need of the hour is a refund policy that goes with all these polls and forecasts.

Apparently that "deep state" consists of roughly half the population of the UK.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, rixalex said:

Thirdly, regarding your great interest in the words of Mr Farage on the matter of another referendum, and why he might not be in favour of one now. It's very obvious that you think he is opposed to one because he thinks he would lose. You may well be right. I don't know. I guess you would have to ask Mr Farage himself, wouldn't you?

 

So, in other words when a politician reverses himself 180 degrees on an issue, the thing to do is wait until he explains himself. Until then, our judgement should be suspended. I think we need a new word for this. How about "Brexceptionalism"?

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

quote "I am not in favour of national referendums in the first place, in the UK they are nothing more than a government sponsored opinion poll, only ever been 3 so all this talk about again and again is garbage."

 

But a second referendum is what many Remainers are asking for. Is this garbage as well?

 

If the Remainers win the second referendum, even though first is not yet completed, does that not give the Leavers the right to demand another referendum? And so on ad finitum.

That is stretching things a bit far. The whole concept of people knew what they were voting for does not hold water, nobody knew what the vote actually meant as there was no white paper published on how the withdrawal would be implemented.

 

If you agree to buy a house and the surveyor tells you it is sinking and the cost is beyond your means, you revoke your original agreement, happens regularly.

Now there is a detailed agreement on the table and if parliament finds it unacceptable, what should be the next move, keep asking parliament ad finitum?

I will admit that my preference would be that parliament just revoke Art 50 but I accept that in all fairness it ought to go back to the public and in the light of what they now know if the result is the same so be it.

 

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

re this OBE guy, it appears that OBEs are handed out without much due diligence - cheap stuff

 

I think that newspaper articles like that have the opposite effect of what the fear monger want to achieve.

Several normal Brits will read this and think

what the boomboom I am sick and tired of shit like this, I want out NOW

 

 

It is irrelevant what you, I or the people think about the author or the content.

The ones that will be sitting up and taking notice are those that may well be held to account.

[nontabury]

16 minutes ago, sandyf said:

That is stretching things a bit far. The whole concept of people knew what they were voting for does not hold water, nobody knew what the vote actually meant as there was no white paper published on how the withdrawal would be implemented.

 

If you agree to buy a house and the surveyor tells you it is sinking and the cost is beyond your means, you revoke your original agreement, happens regularly.

Now there is a detailed agreement on the table and if parliament finds it unacceptable, what should be the next move, keep asking parliament ad finitum?

I will admit that my preference would be that parliament just revoke Art 50 but I accept that in all fairness it ought to go back to the public and in the light of what they now know if the result is the same so be it.

 

 

The vast majority of people did not know the full implications, when in 1975 they were asked to vote on joining the trading block,called the EEC.

 And as we all now know,we were lied to and deceived by our politicians of the day.

 Come 2016, did we know everything, off course not. However thanks to the benifits of social media, we were far better informed. And that led to the British people Democratically voting to leave this so called union.

 Unfortunately those on the losing side have refused to accept this decision, thus today we have great divisions in our society.

 

[talahtnut]

When people listen to those in power who

own the media, there will be no real brexit.

Better to listen to the French, Italians, Greeks

etc. In December, Salvini mocked the French

president as a “lab mouse elected to keep the

elitist political system in place.”

Remainers need not worry about a real  brexit,

it's not going to happen, so we will not all die

instantly, or fall of the big cliff.. but be prepared

to buy a yellow vest later. These elitists are not

interested in democracy or the public, only your

money.

 

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

It is irrelevant what you, I or the people think about the author or the content.

The ones that will be sitting up and taking notice are those that may well be held to account.

You mean UK politicians?

 

 

[billd766]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

That is stretching things a bit far. The whole concept of people knew what they were voting for does not hold water, nobody knew what the vote actually meant as there was no white paper published on how the withdrawal would be implemented.

 

If you agree to buy a house and the surveyor tells you it is sinking and the cost is beyond your means, you revoke your original agreement, happens regularly.

Now there is a detailed agreement on the table and if parliament finds it unacceptable, what should be the next move, keep asking parliament ad finitum?

I will admit that my preference would be that parliament just revoke Art 50 but I accept that in all fairness it ought to go back to the public and in the light of what they now know if the result is the same so be it.

 

I still disagree with you but I will leave it at that.

 

I respect your opinion and I can see where you are coming from, but I suspect that neither of us is likely to convince the other.

 

Have a great week.

[nausea]

Guys are playing games .Wait and see. The pound is orettty strong.If ihad money, i'd invest now. 

.