I don't think moaning about the economics of north/south means people are in any way envious. Quite the reverse actually. I, ve got many friends who rode the crazy house price rises in London but still can't enjoy the choice many outside that bubble can enjoy. Think there are more in South envious of fact northerners kids can afford houses.. Its short sighted to not see both sides of argument. I would not live in London for a Kings ransom. Too far from sea, too much traffic, too expensive.List goes on.. As for city links. You, d have to be a pretty sad individual to find envy there. Envy of a beach somewhere, or sun, or quiet but London. I don't think so OG..
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Just caught a few minutes of:
The Navy Lark
Series 6
The Calais Dock Strike
More organised than brexit...
The Navy Lark
Series 6
The Calais Dock Strike
More organised than brexit...
Looks like the rocks have moved and they have crawled out from beneath them again.
Tom
Tom
What will TM do with 158+ votes but, possibly, almost as many against?
The BBC’s Andrew Neil says BBC research shows that more than 158 Tory MPs – the threshold – have now said that they will vote for Theresa May.
But he points out that just because MPs says they will vote for May, that does not necessarily mean they will.
The BBC’s Andrew Neil says BBC research shows that more than 158 Tory MPs – the threshold – have now said that they will vote for Theresa May.
But he points out that just because MPs says they will vote for May, that does not necessarily mean they will.
So I take it on balance that you think the last two years have been a shambles?. I think we can agree on that. Where I might differ is on your erroneous assertion that it was the " biggest majority in history" when the difference was 600,000 people out of 34,000,000 ticked one box other than another.From Owen Patterson - good stuff here.
Dear Sir Graham,
I write to inform you that I no longer have confidence in the Prime Minister. It would be a travesty if the democratic verdict of the 2016 referendum – the largest in British history – were not delivered, yet the Prime Minister’s proposed “deal” is so bad that it cannot be considered anything other than a betrayal of clear manifesto promises.
These broken promises typify more than two years of poor Government decision-making. It was a mistake not to begin intense preparations for leaving on WTO terms the moment the result was delivered, approaching the negotiations with a stronger hand, positioned to walk away without a deal and consequently much more likely to secure a good one.
It was a mistake for our EU negotiations to be led by a career civil servant with no business experience when the Government had on hand a vastly experienced international trade negotiator, Crawford Falconer.
It was a mistake to create a new Brexit Department only to keep two secretaries of state so in the dark that they had to resign over a policy one would have thought they were overseeing. Trying to bounce Cabinet ministers into supporting her White Paper on the Future Relationship before they had a chance to consider it fully – as the Prime Minister did at Chequers – is simply an intolerable way for a Prime Minister to govern.
It was a mistake to treat Brexit miserably as a problem to be solved rather than an exciting opportunity to be grasped. The UK is the world’s fifth largest economy. We are a key Nato member, a permanent UN Security Council member, a Commonwealth realm, a nuclear power.
We are the source of the English language, the common law and occupy the ideal time-zone for global trade. Yet from the outset we have approached these negotiations as a feeble and unworthy supplicant. As Falconer said, future historians will ask in exasperation: “Why were we so negative about our future?”
These mistakes have eroded trust in the Government, to the point where I and many others can no longer take the Prime Minister at her word. Almost two dozen times, she has ruled out membership of the Customs Union, yet the Withdrawal Agreement’s “single customs territory” sees us locked into it in all but name.
She has repeatedly said “no deal is better than a bad deal”, but it is clear her objective was to secure a deal at any cost.
The backstop would see the whole UK remain in a customs union with the EU, with Northern Ireland in the Customs Union and Single Market.
This could see new internal UK borders in breach of the Belfast Agreement’s Principle of Consent and the requirement to consult the Northern Ireland Assembly.
It breaches the Acts of Union 1800. The UK would not have the unilateral right to end the arrangement. We could be locked into it indefinitely as a permanent rule-taker while paying £39 billion for the privilege.
European customs experts regard the Withdrawal Agreement’s customs arrangements as woefully out of date, proposing physical stamps and paper systems not used for nearly 20 years. They are so vague that it would be impossible to put them into practice.
Eleventh-hour “reassurances” on this issue are mere warm words if the legal text is unchanged. In any case, there is much more besides the backstop making the Withdrawal Agreement unacceptable.
No amount of tinkering will yield a majority in Parliament for this deal. The Government needs to consider more boldly the possible alternatives which might command that support. President Tusk offered just such an alternative in March: a wide-ranging, zero-tariff free trade agreement.
That deal foundered on the question of the Northern Ireland border, but existing techniques and processes can resolve this. From my October meeting with Michel Barnier, I know that a willingness exists on the EU side to explore these possibilities more fully. The meeting also confirmed that Tusk’s offer is still on the table.
Throughout this process, I have sought to support the Government. The conclusion is now inescapable that the Prime Minister is the blockage to the wide-ranging free trade agreement offered by Tusk which would be in the best interests of the country and command the support of Parliament.
I, therefore, have no confidence in Theresa May as Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party and ask that you hold a vote of no confidence.
Which begs the question, 'Why are the BBC wasting taxpayers' money on a known to be unreliable poll?'
The only answer is that it's just another piece of propaganda, conditioning both MPs and public alike that May is going to win the vote of confidence issue. In the case of tory MPs, it's going to be viewed as a terrible career move to be seen to have voted against May. Undoubtedly, many of them will bottle it, especially if they are leant on either in person today or via email or telephone by the Chief Whip's heavies.
Tom
But those in the south don't envy the north their circumstances, the direction of migration shows that only too clearly with Northerners coming here in droves over the years.
.
exasperated the public are becoming, demanding it be brought to a conclusion, whatever that is...
That is the rub. It is only the beginning of the process, unless article 50 is withdrawn.
Tom.. I learned a long time ago when you give something away,it's no longer yours... So it is not taxpayers money, it's BBC money. It may originally have been money owned by taxpayers and even tax frauds, but in paying the licence fee it is now BBC money. If the Government on your behalf,voted them extra money.. it's now BBC money also.
Indeed, and that's an indication of how little the Leaver public understood what they were voting for. They largely seemed to think it would be just a quick separation, having little concept that the entire process could take very many years.
.
Crikey I'm getting flak from Historians now! a thumbs down after all this time?
Times really must be hard in the leave camp!
Its an interesting spoiling technique to try and resurrect two years old comments and bump them up, to swamp the current debate with irrelevent arguments, but easily thwarted.
Look at the date of the post and don't respond to long dead arguments, as there are are more important items to discuss right now.
No time to waste on feeding trolls
Last edited:
That neatly sidesteps or overlooks the fact that if I wish to watch my television, I am obliged to pay for a TV licence, even if I never watch any BBC channels. It may well be the case that my obliga(tory) licence fee collected by the government becomes the BBC's money in turn but I find it objectionable that it is then used in part to fund people like Laura Kuenssberg, Andrew Neill, John Humphries, Andrew Marr, John Pienaar and a load of other dyed-in-the-wool tory mouthpieces, there simply to reinforce the message required of their masters at tory central office.
All I require of the BBC is that they report the day's news; I really do not need any editor to spin the report in a particular way but that is exactly what I am forced to put up with unless I switch off…..and I am forced to pay for that!!
Tom
Yes probably but missing North and it's naturally friendly folk... Nobody would be envious of living in London flecc. Probably Sandbanks or St Tropez or Carribean but not London... Its a silly argument.
You haven't given any reason for that simply expressed a belief
I wonder how much Moggie made in the delay? could be millions, as it only take seconds to arrange
If May wins the leadership challenge,which I am sure she will,she is then stronger against the Tory 'bastards'. The numbers in the vote will give her an indication of how strong the Tory Leavers actually are.
I think the ERG were stupid to go for a confidence vote now,May is now protected from another vote for 12 months and could be determined to teach the Rees-Moggs and Boris a lesson,red hot poker perhaps???
She may feel confident to put a vote to parliament cancelling Art 50,we know from the ECJ she can do that. Dont forget the first referendum was only advisory.
This could be the end of Brexit.
KudosDave