Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
fatshaft

So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Freggyragh said:

There aren’t really. The economy is not in a very good state. The UK’s debt is running at about 85% of GDP - pretty high for peacetime. The currency has been shedding value for a number of years and real earnings have only just started to recover from the biggest drop in over a century. People are looking for someone to blame. Since the Liebour government bailed out the reckless bankers the super-wealthy have skilfully managed to redirect a certain percentage of the population’s anger towards immigrants and globalism. There’s very little mention these days of the likes of Fred the Shred and his massive pension paid for indirectly out of public funds, in fact, bankers and hedge-fund managers and their erstwhile colleagues are now held up as heroes of Brexit. It’s a familiar story. 

it is........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its going to be a interesting 3 months.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, woody2 said:

when does the new week start??????????????????????????????????????????

"Next week's vote would "definitely" go ahead, she told the BBC"

"MPs are expected to be asked to vote on it on either the 14 or 15 of January "

eh?

 

22 minutes ago, mojomonkey said:

Date for the vote on May's deal is confirmed for next Tuesday, 15th January 2019:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46777987

 

What's the odds on it be called off?

keep up at the back........

:whistling:

still could be worse......

skynews-volkswagen-california_4267839.jpg.e89a3b55e51e7ac1dcfc50fed3f0f21a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was merely highlighting that the Government has now confirmed the date of the vote, as opposed to someone saying it is expected to go ahead. There is a significant difference between “expected” and “confirmed”, but I suppose those on here that are in a constant state of meltdown will always object to the unobjectionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, mojomonkey said:

I was merely highlighting that the Government has now confirmed the date of the vote, as opposed to someone saying it is expected to go ahead. There is a significant difference between “expected” and “confirmed”, but I suppose those on here that are in a constant state of meltdown will always object to the unobjectionable.

that someone was the pm in a interview on sunday.......

guess who sets the date.......

snowflake armageddon has started folks- trust you to be first......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not the one getting upset, once again it is you getting all worked up. God knows why you get so bothered about unobjectionable factual statements, I can only assume you cannot bear to actually agree with someone sometimes. I for one hope that the vote does go through and they can actually implement Brexit, it is what the majority of people voted for so (in my opinion) it should happen. I really cannot see the Government going for a no deal Brexit, so if the votes fails I think they will look to extend the deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mojomonkey said:

I was merely highlighting that the Government has now confirmed the date of the vote,

have they..........

 

1 minute ago, mojomonkey said:

I’m not the one getting upset, once again it is you getting all worked up. God knows why you get so bothered about unobjectionable factual statements, I can only assume you cannot bear to actually agree with someone sometimes. I for one hope that the vote does go through and they can actually implement Brexit, it is what the majority of people voted for so (in my opinion) it should happen. I really cannot see the Government going for a no deal Brexit, so if the votes fails I think they will look to extend the deadline.

no press release yet and the bbc only say "government sources"..........

learn to read.......

snowflake armageddon has started folks.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mojomonkey said:

Calm down Woody, you're doing your blood pressure no good.

#fakenews

just like your "factual statement"

Just now, the stinking enigma said:

He's had his meltdown. Now he's back. Reinvigorated.

nah.......

laughing at the remoans snowflake armageddon........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Freggyragh said:

Happy to oblige:

Furthermore, since 2009 the EU has its own fundamental rights legal instrument - the EU Charter of Fundamental rights.

 

11 hours ago, woolley said:

Why does a humble free trade bloc need one of these? This is the kind of stuff that is roundly despised. Genuine free trade area, no problem. Bring it on! All of the bollox that goes with it, no thanks!

 

9 hours ago, Freggyragh said:

It’s based on the European Convention on Human Rights and the  European Social Charter - both of which are Council of Europe conventions, not EU conventions. The Council of Europe isn’t a trading block. There are 47 members of the Council of Europe. The U.K. was one of the 10 founding members. The Council was set up in 1949 to protect human rights and the rule of law in Europe after the horrors of the 1940s and to prevent the spread of totalitarian communism. The drafting of ECHR was guided by a U.K. Conservative politician, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who had been a prosecutor at Nuremberg. They go further than similar UN resolutions in that they have, in theory, mechanisms for ensuring compliance. I don’t think you’ve read any of these documents in any detail, because I don’t think you’ll find anything in them to upset you. The Treaty of Lisbon wasn’t much more than a formal mass ratification by the EU of principles of law already covered by Council of Europe membership, except for the bits about collective defence and security co-operation which spooked the Irish and were subsequently dropped before Ireland signed. 

Well, yes. I know the difference between these various European bodies. Indeed I have pointed them out here on numerous occasions when others have confused them, notably the CoE, the ECHR and the ECJ. However, this is a textbook example of obfuscation by verbosity which does not answer my question, so I'll try again. Why is a humble trading bloc getting involved in a Charter of Fundamental Rights? It does not stand even the most cursory scrutiny. If "principles of law (are) already covered by Council of Europe membership" why would a trading bloc need to ratify them or have any business in doing so? Surely this is unnecessary duplication. The only inescapable logical conclusion is that the EU is not a trading bloc. It is something else. But we knew that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this silly talk of meltdowns has got me wondering, is there actually any side that is currently happy with the state of Brexit?

 

Those fervently remain are upset at the prospect of leaving in any form and those wanting to leave seem generally unhappy with the leaving deal being put forward. I presume that the new vote will be over some form of revised deal, is that really going to satisfy the naysayers?

 

I guess the only ones who possibly may be satisfied are the ones wanting a no deal Brexit, there seems a high correlation between many of those people and their wealth being linked to funds gambling on the value of the Pound. Obviously it could happen but I personally cannot see the Government allowing a no deal Brexit happening, unless of course the EU refuses to extend a deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, P.K. said:

Are you saying that the Opposition of Her Maj's Government shouldn't have used the "humble address" to force the Maybot to put the legal ramifications of brexit into the public domain?

 

12 hours ago, woolley said:

It did no good whatsoever, so there was no point. It also set what might in the future turn out to be a dangerous precedent and that was why it was resisted.  It certainly didn't bring new information into the public domain. Not one iota.

 

10 hours ago, P.K. said:

Now THATS funny!

An avid brexiteer who bangs on and on about the myth that is "sovereignty" pushes back on those proving that parliament is sovereign.

It's a good thing that I am such a patient man around here. Again, you make a point, get a response and then abandon the point to pick up something irrelevant. You said that the opposition used the humble address to force the government to put the legal ramifications of Brexit (actually the "Irish Backstop") into the public domain. It didn't. All of the salient points had already been released prior to the humble address in a written summary to MPs. The AG also turned up to the House and spent hours at the despatch box answering questions from MPs. In both the legal advice and the statement to the House, Cox covered the whole subject candidly and said that yes, the backstop could conceivably be perpetual but that it was not in anyone's interests for it to be so, least of all the EU. The humble address was mischief making which brought out no new information at all as I said above. Parliament is indeed sovereign but with that power comes responsibility.

Edited by woolley
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mojomonkey said:

All this silly talk of meltdowns has got me wondering, is there actually any side that is currently happy with the state of Brexit?

 

Those fervently remain are upset at the prospect of leaving in any form and those wanting to leave seem generally unhappy with the leaving deal being put forward. I presume that the new vote will be over some form of revised deal, is that really going to satisfy the naysayers?

 

I guess the only ones who possibly may be satisfied are the ones wanting a no deal Brexit, there seems a high correlation between many of those people and their wealth being linked to funds gambling on the value of the Pound. Obviously it could happen but I personally cannot see the Government allowing a no deal Brexit happening, unless of course the EU refuses to extend a deadline.

its already law..........

and the numbers at the moment don't support anything else......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×