What did she say about Thatcher ? I can't find it.
Oh come on. The conversation had barely started and you went straight into well what about the Danes. You basically did the republican reaction to whenever racism is brought.
Cheers.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Oh come on. The conversation had barely started and you went straight into well what about the Danes. You basically did the republican reaction to whenever racism is brought.
Cheers.
I've elaborated on it already. I don't feel I need to keep repeating myself each time you ask.
So she was wrong to make a sweeping statement and then when pushed on it, she was also wrong to explain using a specific example?
I'm beginning to understand how you find this debating thing so difficult to get your head around.
Can you point me to where? I must have missed it.
I don't think you get it do you?
Oh come on. The conversation had barely started and you went straight into well what about the Danes.
Cheers.
Are you even sure what you're talking about anymore
.What do you do by the way? You still haven't answered. You seem to think my job has a baring on my opinions and allows you to make judgement on me as a person so would be nice to see the other side of the spectrum.
I imagine you are suggesting she should have presented some manner of data to support her claim of what anyone with eyes, ears and a brain knows to be true. She used a real world example to back up an obvious point. Not every conversation needs to be backed up by scientific data - particularly when debating with people who have based an entire movement on obfuscation of facts and data.
I like your style but you are not helping. You are like an english version of @Massive Spanner.
It's like pulling teeth in here it really is! I'm sure there's some really smart and bright posters (infact I know this lot are) but Christ they can by hard work.
Very boring sound design stuff. Its not quite the ''superhero'' work of a police officer but I'll be impressed if you get any reading out of that.Are you even sure what you're talking about anymore
What do you do by the way? You still haven't answered. You seem to think my job has a baring on my opinions and allows you to make judgement on me as a person so would be nice to see the other side of the spectrum.
I'm finding it difficult to wrap my head around the irony of this.
The feck did I do?I like your style but you are not helping. You are like an english version of @Massive Spanner.
I'll direct your face into the wall mate if you're not careful that's fairJust referring to your directness when discussing.
We never did find out what the EU/Ireland are supposed to compromise on.
We did not. But we shouldn't allow that to cloud the focus of how nasty Irish people are being to English people.
I think it's an absolute disgrace that the Irish posters on here are blaming England for something that's England's fault!
There are pretty sizeable minorities who oppose FoM in richer EU countries, and this sentiment appears to be growing.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/...hreat-how-europeans-view-freedom-of-movement/
I don't really see the issue with different nations deciding on different approaches to immigration. If Finland wants to welcome in a load of Brits, great, no one is going to force Finland to stop allowing Brits to work in the country.
I should also point out my girlfriend, who I live with in London, is Austrian (hence the weirdly specific knowledge about Austrian immigration law earlier in the thread). We plan to perhaps move to Austria one day... so its not like it doesn't potentially affect me either!
I'm not saying EU countries should restrict immigration from other EU states... I am saying they should have some right to restrict immigration, if they wish.
Last edited:
More than happy.We are all hard work. I have been pestering @MikeUpNorth and he is happy to do the same.
What about the nasty English people blaming the English people for the problems.
Yep. Don't feed the troll.
From your article one can see the Uk is way out in front, the Guardian article pointed out it being a major issue in France at the presidential election, must have missed that but then again Le Pen hates all foreigners especially non-EU ones.
Of course there will be some opposition to it in every country but any anti-immigrant sentiment is not in the main against European citizens.
But different EU countries do treat EU citizens differently. The UK are very lax even though they have border controls whereas Belgium are very strict and France are more strict than the UK. If someone is not a burden on the state I see no reason to object to anyone whatever their nationality and if they are the UK have the power to do something about it.
Last edited:
Interesting stuff. The Conservatives clearly have something up their sleeve but I've no idea what. If Boris has to go to the EU and request an extension surely he has to resign after everything he's said about not doing. That said, I thought he'd resign after the Supreme Court ruling so you never know.
I think the point made on question time last night that there is a much longer game being played out here is worth remembering. A general election is most certainly going to happen.
I think we'll get a deal but if there isn't and is an extension, then it's the Trump defence of "blame them"
Is this the one where he sends a letter requesting an extension and immediately sends a second one saying ignore the first letter?
Last edited:
I think he just requests his extension and complies with the law, and uses all of that as ammunition for a GE - “look at what this traitor parliament have made me do!” sort of thing.
His goal would be to convince the more moderate Leave voters (who have probably been put off by his insistence on no-deal) by a) showing his willingness to compromise and try to get a deal and b) paint parliament as wanting to remain and frustrate Brexit.
His goal would be to convince the more moderate Leave voters (who have probably been put off by his insistence on no-deal) by a) showing his willingness to compromise and try to get a deal and b) paint parliament as wanting to remain and frustrate Brexit.
I can only imagine they've got an alternative plan. Given they had officials from Hungary secretly in parliament the other day it'll be a backdoor deal for a veto. Can only be found to have acted unlawfully if they're caught.
Now does it make it harder for the rebels to justify a VONC and national unity government?
Now does it make it harder for the rebels to justify a VONC and national unity government?
its Going to be very difficult to persuade the brexit party not to put up candidates if he has extended... perhaps a full on WTO and we wont pay a penny and we will prioritize a trade deal with america manifesto might be enough to get them to agree a non aggression pact with conservatives stepping down in a number of pro brexit labour seats... essentially we could end up with a government reliant on farrage and a bunch of brexit mps who could make the ERG and DUP look like moderates.
I think he simply sends it via Yodel in which case it won't arrive until the new year anyway.
Much appreciated! A couple of further questions if you have the time/inclination.
Secondly traveling between Ireland and Northern Ireland isn't an issue irrespective of Brexit, since someone from Senegal who had the right to work in Italy could freely travel throughout 26 EU countries without any checks. He wouldn't be able to work in the other 25 countries, but that would be the same with ROI and NI post Brexit. So an English man could travel to NI, then to ROI, then to Italy and it wouldn't be an issue in the same manner (again though he couldn't work outside of the UK) The UK and Ireland have a Common Travel Area. There is no issue with people travelling within the islands whatever happens. ROI is not in Schengen, so a person needs to show documentation to travel from ROI to Italy.
- In this situation could there not be a Common Travel Area for movement of people only between NI and ROI. With ROI not being in Shengen it makes it even less unpalatable for UK citizens to be able to wander around NI and ROI freely; with ROI citizens being able to wander NI and UK likewise. This wouldn't include workers rights of course.
- Why would they require regulatory alignment if US states without regulatory alignment can have open borders? Again if cannabis can be legal in one state and illegal in another state; why couldn't the same apply with chlorinated chicken? If produce were legal in NI and illegal in ROI, why couldn't it be policed exactly as cannabis is policed between California and Arizona?
- Isn't this a spurious argument? Wouldn't it be the same as someone back in 1998 saying that the GFA was impossible because of the potential for illegal goods to be smuggled across the border? I can't imagine a deal with the magnitude of the GFA being held up because of the potential for cocaine smugglers to exploit the open border. Surely both ROI and NI both respect the fact that their law enforcement agencies would not allow illegal goods to pass from one country to the other... Whether they be illegal on both sides or illegal on one side only? In these circumstances surely just as would be the case with Luxembourg legalising cannabis and Belgium having to police cannabis crossing the border, ROI would police chlorinated chicken? I genuinely can't see why smuggling across an open border between ROI/NI would be any different than sending a boat 350 odd metres from Warrenpoint to Omeath
I don't see how that could happen. The pledge from Johnson in the court includes a commitment that he will do nothing to undermine the Benn Act. Meeting with Hungary and securing an arrangement that leads them to exercise their right to a veto would obviously contravene that. Assuming that is the case, it would be clear to any observer that Hungary would only do that on the basis of some kind of quid pro quo with the UK government. If Johnson's plan is to get Hungary to exercise their right to veto an extension, surely the last thing he would do is commit himself in a court of law to precisely the opposite? He's got to have had enough of getting humiliated by the courts, and I cannot see how the result could be anything but that if this indeed were to be the case. Nevertheless, I concur that there's probably some sort of plan behind all this, but Hungary vetoing it does not seem to me a possibility anymore.
Yeah it's hard to predict what will happen. I'm now just in the mind frame that I'd ask "well what would Trump do? Yeah Boris will probably that."
We're probably also guilty of falling into the trap that there is some kind of 'plan' behind any of this at all. They're making it up as they go along. And it may well be just as plausible that Johnson and his advisers have come to the conclusion that they simply cannot get around the Benn Act in spite of all their attempts to identify a viable loophole and have decided to actually obey the law this time; admittedly, this may well just be wishful thinking. Johnson will have to renege on his claim to rather be dead in a ditch, but does it matter? The soundbite is out there and it will have appealed to the people he wanted it to.
Last edited:
Offer Hungary a fek ton of cash if they veto (instead of sending the money to the EU?)
hes certainly got a plan
Not sure when the opposition could call a vote of no confidence
Think they could call for one on Monday with the vote on tuesday before prorogation (not sure they will though as the mood seems to be to wait and push johnson past 19th)
Then Parliament not back till 14th and am I right in thinking the queens speech will take priority over other business...possibly even including a vote of no confidence? -(not sure can anybody confirm that) and the queens speech normally takes a week worth of parliamentary time - so basically 21st / 22nd - perhaps it would be as late as 23rd they could call a confidence motion if they dont act on Monday?... and he could have talked somebody into vetoing by then?