Jump to content
BANGKOK

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

snoop1130

May is said to withdraw parliamentary vote on her Brexit deal

Recommended Posts

Not one poster on here has come forward and said he or she has been personally disadvantaged by being in the EU or personally benefitted by the UK government's policies. In fact, if truth be known, it's probably the opposite - and for the UK's younger generation the opportunities to freely travel around Europe on a job search or on a gap year would have been positively an advantage.

 

Unfortunately, it will now cost more with the pound depreciating every day while this Brexit madness continues, most of it brought about by the UK government's failure to accept the best possible withdrawal deal would not in fact be better than remaining in the EU. And now they're preparing for a suicidal no-deal scenario, which will, IMO, bring about a parliamentry vote of no confidence in May's government followed by a probable general election.

 

Here's hoping...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vogie, you do realise that RM's emerging markets hedge fund would benefit from the UK leaving the EU as it would need to set up new trade deals with those 'emerging' countries, and it is why he relocated a UK office to Dublin in order to take aadvantage of a base in the EU. 

He is clearly a glib-talking MP (and protected by his healthy financial status) who is only out for himself, not his constituency or the UK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Declare the referendum vote VOID?  Restore democracy by doing so? 

Do you really think the referendum was valid, more than 16.14 million leavers with the same point of view would have added some credibility. Pooling various arguments against a single cause is a bit of a distortion.

Only the delusional would believe that leavers have been singing from the same hymn sheet.

 

One has to assume that when contemplating surgery, the latest information has no part to play in the final decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sandyf said:

Do you really think the referendum was valid, more than 16.14 million leavers with the same point of view would have added some credibility. Pooling various arguments against a single cause is a bit of a distortion.

Only the delusional would believe that leavers have been singing from the same hymn sheet.

 

One has to assume that when contemplating surgery, the latest information has no part to play in the final decision.

Better to void or extend Article 50 until some sanity is restored with a change of government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Vogie, you do realise that RM's emerging markets hedge fund would benefit from the UK leaving the EU as it would need to set up new trade deals with those 'emerging' countries, and it is why he relocated a UK office to Dublin in order to take aadvantage of a base in the EU. 

He is clearly a glib-talking MP (and protected by his healthy financial status) who is only out for himself, not his constituency or the UK. 

The company that my son works for has merged with a company in Dublin in an attempt to secure their future. The prospect of relocation is like a black cloud hanging over him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, clearly the mayor of London is against Brexit. He thinks the UK needs more "peace loving" Muslims.

 

You know... like they have in France. I mean only 3 dead and a dozen wounded. That's nothing!

 

Plus other peace loving Muslims hiding the killer. Yep, UK should become more like France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Vogie, you do realise that RM's emerging markets hedge fund would benefit from the UK leaving the EU as it would need to set up new trade deals with those 'emerging' countries, and it is why he relocated a UK office to Dublin in order to take aadvantage of a base in the EU. 

He is clearly a glib-talking MP (and protected by his healthy financial status) who is only out for himself, not his constituency or the UK. 

JRM investments have been discussed before and to suggest any impropriety has been total speculation. We are talking about Mrs Mays pulling of her brexit deal and Mr Rees Moggs opinion on it, digging the dirt merely deflects on what he is saying.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vogie said:

JRM investments have been discussed before and to suggest any impropriety has been total speculation. We are talking about Mrs Mays pulling of her brexit deal and Mr Rees Moggs opinion on it, digging the dirt merely deflects on what he is saying.

He's saying 'Mag to grid' 😂

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, evadgib said:

He's saying 'Mag to grid' 😂

For those with no military map training, 'get rid'😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vogie said:

JRM investments have been discussed before and to suggest any impropriety has been total speculation. We are talking about Mrs Mays pulling of her brexit deal and Mr Rees Moggs opinion on it, digging the dirt merely deflects on what he is saying.

 

 

 

He's entitled to put whatever spin on his view of what Brexit entails even when it could be contested as untrue, and if denouncing May's deal enhances his self-interests, that's is what I expect him to do - and most other politicians as well.

 

In other walks of life 'conflict of interests' has to be disclosed or not pursued. Whether actively pursuing an influential government agenda by being the chairman of the EU Research Group that focuses on Brexit and by being a co-founder of an emerging markets hedge-fund (that trades on market uncertainties like Brexit) is 'improper' is debatable, but it's a very thin line, IMO.   

 

     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

He's entitled to put whatever spin on his view of what Brexit entails even when it could be contested as untrue, and if denouncing May's deal enhances his self-interests, that's is what I expect him to do - and most other politicians as well.

 

In other walks of life 'conflict of interests' has to be disclosed or not pursued. Whether actively pursuing an influential government agenda by being the chairman of the EU Research Group that focuses on Brexit and by being a co-founder of an emerging markets hedge-fund (that trades on market uncertainties like Brexit) is 'improper' is debatable, but it's a very thin line, IMO.   

 

     

And what are your "conflict of interests" in denouncing Mr Rees Mogg.

 

In my opinion JRM is not liked by remainers as he is highly intelligent and poses a threat to their interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, vogie said:

And what are your "conflict of interests" in denouncing Mr Rees Mogg.

 

In my opinion JRM is not liked by remainers as he is highly intelligent and poses a threat to their interests.

Quote: In 2018, Somerset Capital opened an investment fund in Dublin. A prospectus for the new business listed Brexit as one of the risks, as it could cause "considerable uncertainty". Rees-Mogg, who is a partner of the business but does not make investment decisions, defended the move, stating: "The decision to launch the fund was nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit".

 

Is or is that not a conflict of interest? As well as not being in accordance with reality. The 'honourable' MP's statements (as Chairman of the ERG) are as bad as Trump's rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 7by7 said:

We all know the lies told by the Leave campaign; the £350 million a week for the NHS which leaving would provide being the most obvious and well known.

 

I asked several days ago in a different thread for an example of a Remain campaign lie; so far no one has provided one.

 

Will you now do so?

 

I'm looking for a proven lie; not a projection which may or may not happen once we have actually left.

 

Didn't the Chancellor of the Exchequer mention something about there needing to be a emergency (read punishment) budget immediately after a vote to leave?

 

This threat would have potentially swayed more voters than something said or promised by a leaver, because Osbourne wasn't talking about what he would do hypothetically, IF he was the Chancellor, he WAS the Chancellor and he WAS in government, and so therefore if he said there would need to be an emergency budget, most people would probably think that that is exactly what would happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...