llap Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 So. We got Brexit... So which Australians, New Zealanders, Chinese or Americans have you reprobates signed us up with so far? Can you name one yet? What are you even asking? Trade deals? The UK is front of the line with Trump. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA how cute....you genuinely believe that. I know it. He's already put the bust of Churchill back in the Oval Office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Front of queue to meet with the guy who'll only buy American and hire American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llap Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Front of queue to meet with the guy who'll only buy American and hire American. Source? He has never said or practiced any such dogma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 once the gov. conceded that triggering article 50 removed rights they had lost the case, article 50 does not remove any rights This is the nub. What Woody says is absolutely right. Once that point was conceded - and it should not have been because it is erroneous - the court could come up with no other judgment. Government lawyers are notorious for leading on the wrong argument and making a hash of the whole case. They are actually not very good and the opposing litigant tends to buy the most learned barrister (whether in fact or by reputation, but both amount to the same thing). In this case it was Lord Pannick and he ran rings around the Attorney General. I was a party to a tax case in the High Court a few years ago when HMG was arguing our side. We were so dismayed by the aspects they chose to argue the case on - and we knew that they were going to lose - that we paid for a barrister to "assist" them and he finished up virtually taking it over in court and putting it back on the right track where we could win. This taught me a lot about government lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Front of queue to meet with the guy who'll only buy American and hire American.Source? He has never said or practiced any such dogma. His rhetoric so far has been quite protectionist. I hope I'm wrong but I don't see why people think he's desperate for a UK specific deal. The bust of Churchill was never removed, FAKE NEWS!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llap Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 The protectionism is mainly a counter-reaponse to decades of Chinese protectionism and currency manipulation. It doesn't really apply to a small operation like the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 No, he's never practiced it. But he's been saying it throughout his campaign, and in his inauguration speech "Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength. We will follow two simple rules: buy American and hire American". But you can't believe what he says so... who knows either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I love Albert's topics posted just after midnight. They#re brillo!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I love Albert's topics posted just after midnight. They#re brillo!!!!! edited by Albert at 00:45 edited by Albert at 00:46 edited by Albert at 00:47 edited by Albert at 00:48 edited by Albert at 00:49 edited by Albert at 00:50 edited by Albert at 00:51 edited by Albert at 00:52 edited by Albert at 00:53 edited by Albert at 00:54 edited by Albert at 00:55 edited by Albert at 00:56 edited by Albert at 00:57 edited by Albert at 00:58 edited by Albert at 00:59 edited by Albert at 01:00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 once the gov. conceded that triggering article 50 removed rights they had lost the case, article 50 does not remove any rights This is the nub. What Woody says is absolutely right. Once that point was conceded - and it should not have been because it is erroneous - the court could come up with no other judgment. Government lawyers are notorious for leading on the wrong argument and making a hash of the whole case. They are actually not very good and the opposing litigant tends to buy the most learned barrister (whether in fact or by reputation, but both amount to the same thing). In this case it was Lord Pannick and he ran rings around the Attorney General. at least no10 can do what they want now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I love Albert's topics posted just after midnight. They#re brillo!!!!! edited by Albert at 00:45 edited by Albert at 00:46 edited by Albert at 00:47 edited by Albert at 00:48 edited by Albert at 00:49 edited by Albert at 00:50 edited by Albert at 00:51 edited by Albert at 00:52 edited by Albert at 00:53 edited by Albert at 00:54 edited by Albert at 00:55 edited by Albert at 00:56 edited by Albert at 00:57 edited by Albert at 00:58 edited by Albert at 00:59 edited by Albert at 01:00 The best posts (with lots of posters I suppose) are those posted after closing time, but edited first thing next day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 I love Albert's topics posted just after midnight. They#re brillo!!!!!edited by Albert at 00:45edited by Albert at 00:46edited by Albert at 00:47edited by Albert at 00:48edited by Albert at 00:49edited by Albert at 00:50edited by Albert at 00:51edited by Albert at 00:52edited by Albert at 00:53edited by Albert at 00:54edited by Albert at 00:55edited by Albert at 00:56edited by Albert at 00:57edited by Albert at 00:58edited by Albert at 00:59edited by Albert at 01:00You twot edited at 20.27You Twit edited at 20.26 You twat edited at 17.20 ...and I have a time machine and you don't Edited to remove failed attempt to kill Donald Chump in 2 years. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 The bust of Churchill was never removed, FAKE NEWS!!!!! Rubbish. It was an "alternative fact" which I'm sure is going to become the vogue explanation for the next four years. You know, like Teresa May was "being economical with the truth" over whether or not she knew about the Trident swinger before the vote. Why would anyone trust a politician...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 have the remaintards figured out the judges stuffed them yet....... i see that parliaments agenda had been cleared before the judgment was known Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Strolling to get the morning paper I noticed from the front page of The Daily Wail (inevitably) that they've already kicked off a smear campaign against Gina Miller. What odious creatures they are.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.