Len Rum
Well-Known Member
And what about "even if" ECJ still rules ok after Brexit and immigration remains unchecked will it still be " worth any pain the weird club decide to inflict"?
- Status
i kne albert davy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 12,299
What she meant was dire economic consequences if we don't vote right, she said there wouldn't be an election. She didn't mean that either especially when she spotted what state Jezza and his followers had the Labour party in.
Are you Philip Green in disguise? The EU that "offered the generous pensions" was the EU that we're a member of. Do you handle all your business dealings with so little commitment to honesty and contractual liability?
Len Rum
Well-Known Member
Run that by me again.
Gelsons Dad
Well-Known Member
You really are on the WUM mate.
let me translate for the hard of thinking.
Tory Government: UK first, best possible outcome, firm negotiation.
Labour Government: Shambles
Helmet Cole
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 8,054
I'd like to think the ECJ will not have anything to do with countries outside the EU. Sure we might have to abide by common standards to trade, but that is no different to a variety of normal relationships we have with other states. As far as intelligence cooperation goes the EU are a busted flush with top down governance of intell capability by eurofor and Europol a myth. In layman's terms intell sharing doesn't work anyway as there are trust issues between states that hamper it. Don't get scared by google mate.
Helmet Cole
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 8,054
Short answer - yes. We need immigrants. We don't need to be part of a weird club that behaves like a kidnapper.
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 26,114
Let's get this straight....
May said she could get a good deal = good deal (though she's never spelt out what a good deal might be)
She also said "No deal is better than a bad deal" so no deal = not as good as a good deal, but not as bad as a bad deal (but as we know that no deal would be very, very bad, a bad deal must be, well...A hell of a lot badder)
But now we have May wittering on about..."serious consequences" and " economic prosperity and security being at risk", I suppose that must = Return of Project Fear! Don't you dare vote Labour! Corbyn will negotiate a bad deal, which will be worse than no deal, which I used to say wouldn't be too bad, but I now admit would be pretty bad, but would be better than a bad deal, though I've never spelt out what a bad deal might look like, because in all likelihood that's what I'll probably get.
What the fuck?! It's very strange that May has cranked this message out so early in the campaign. Parties only tend to use this kind of rhetoric when they get the jitters. May is still sitting on a healthy poll lead, so panicking this early means there's something rotten in the heart of Downing Street.
I never wait with baited breath for your replies, but surely even you must have a memory better than a goldfish. This is a major turning point. The lies May is spinning now are markedly different from the lies she was spinning only a month ago, this isn't nuanced lying, it's volte face. Today's lies look remarkably like the porkies she was spouting when she was a remainer last summer, before her miraculous conversion to the joys of leaving. May's latest whoppers are the same as the ones she used during the referendum but are now in service to a diametrically opposed viewpoint.
Surely even you must see that?
Or does your analysis begin and end at... May good, Corbyn bad?
Last edited:
The problem with May's speech was that it began with a lie - "threats against Britain have been issued by European politicians and officials" (what threats?) - and ended, after the warning about dire consequences if we get the negotiations wrong, with an election pitch that's simply vacuous. "With me you will get strong and stable leadership, and an approach to Brexit that locks in economic growth, jobs for our children and strong finances for the NHS and the country’s schools." In a speech about how badly it's gone so far, how can she promise so good an outcome?
As for throwing in the NHS and education which are both in crisis under her government....
As for throwing in the NHS and education which are both in crisis under her government....
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 26,114
I think May is utterly lost, she has no bearings. Her only stand out trait is her ambition and she'll say whatever is required in its service, she's also betting heavily on the gullibility of the British electorate and the unpopularity of Corbyn.
To come out with....
"threats against Britain have been issued by European politicians and officials"
Ahead of negotiations with those very same officials, tells me things are very, very bad.
As for this....
"With me you will get strong and stable leadership, and an approach to Brexit that locks in economic growth, jobs for our children and strong finances for the NHS and the country’s schools."
It makes my stomach turn.
Last edited:
Clearly not wrong at all. I posted a simple fact - you posted a silly GIF with no substance to it.
I would suspect that on this thread this is not just IMO - I would think a lot of people consider a lot of your posts to just be simple distraction.
To adapt an old adage - "if you have nothing worthwhile to say - say nothing".
You cannot do that though so, IMO - and I am sure that of others, you just post nonsense a lot of the time.
You are starting to add a level of light relief though. I would guess that I was not the only one on here to actually LOL to see the mighty TPF post:
"You're a snob and you bore us to death with you monotonous class based diatribe"
Irony does not get close
Last edited:
I do not think that it is really that we have signed up for 'commitments' - I think that it is more that the EU runs in a 7 year investment plan and it has made commitments to a number of initiatives across the EU27 - based on the assumption of them being able to spend our money.
I have been repeatedly commenting since 23/06 that access to and a dependency on ‘our money’ is a key negotiating weakness for the EU / strength for the UK and we need to play it carefully.
They are simply trying to build up the biggest 'notional bill’ that they can so that they have removed their risk. If we give in to it – as Dim Tim or nice Jeremy would, then at a stroke we have removed their main issue. If we remain firm it would mean that they would have to row back from the commitments that they have made to the poorer members of the EU to secure their allegiance - or make compromises to us. They have been used to having our money to spend as they like and in return only largely treat us with contempt. All of a sudden they are faced with the threat of it not being available.
I mentioned earlier in this thread that:
"I am in Cyprus on holiday - the village nearby is having new sewers installed and new pavements to meet EU standards I am overlooking an area of the sea where a project has been agreed to build a new marina - all with EU funding - but where does it come from!! Could we not do something for the welfare of the UK with the money if we retained it under our control?"
In the same post I pointed out:
We have a trump card - money. The EU has had a queue of countries wanting join in the expansionist aims of the EU leaders - why? The article below demonstrates how countries benefit from the EU largesse - but the money has to come from somewhere. Germany gives a lot but they also get a lot of control - we are the 2nd biggest contributor but get only contempt - certainly no influence.
An extract from the article:
"More than €250 billion were or will be spent since Poland joined the bloc with other former communist states in 2004. In today’s dollars, that’s equivalent to more than the US-funded Marshall Plan provided to western Europe after the second World War."
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...e-ireland-it-may-actually-be-poland-1.3036011
Last edited:
As we pay in a lot more than comes to the UK is it not simple logic that any money that farmers and scientists receive from the UK does not need to face any shortfall?
We could just make those payments direct – or we could decide to invest ALL of the money elsewhere in the UK based on what WE rather than the EU determine to be our priorities.
Last edited:
Not sure what you are getting at here Len
I thought that she made a very good speech this afternoon - although I only heard it in the car whilst trying to pretend to be listening to the wife.
She offered me a lot of reassurance.
What is a major concern to me is that there are some - Dim Tim etc. that would suck it all up from the EU and docilely just meet their demands. It follows that if we as a nation were daft enough to give away, for no valid reason, sums of the sort the EU are leaking out then that would have major economic consequences.
To get reassurance for yourself I suggest that you need to:
1. Firstly recognise and accept that the 23/06 vote was in favour of leaving the EU
2. Secondly get over your disappointment and accept that it seems, thankfully, that we have in place a government that is determined to give effect to that vote
3. Then recognise, as is becoming clearer, that the EU do have a major dependency on our money - I recall some months ago you debating that with me saying essentially that our contribution was a pittance that they could readily replace.
4. Then, like many others, become offended on behalf of the UK at the cheap manner in which the EU are concocting this bill to simply try and screw us royally as it is their last chance to do so.
5. Finally breathe a sigh of relief that we seem to have a PM that has the balls to face down this contemptuous bollocks and use the EU's dependency on our money in a way that is likely to make them have to make concessions.
Those are my suggested steps for you Len - just think if we had Dim Tim or that nice bloke Jeremy facing these challenges.
I would like to add a 6th step - but this is just my wishful thinking probably.
6. Recall how many times in the last months I have pointed out to you that, from a negotiating POV, it is highly likely that we are going to need to have the option to threaten to walk-away because the our Trump Card is the EU's dependency on access to our money and that card needs to be played well.
As these events are unfolding, who knows, you might bring yourself to consider that my comments may have had some validity afterall and acknowledge that?
Edit: to add that when you and others were demanding that the Veto (strangely called meaningful vote) amendment to the A50 bill should be made - I was debating that this would immediately pass all the negotiating power and control to the EU.
Just picture the situation (try and do it objectively) if that had been passed - all the EU would have to do is keep saying no deal until you pay 100bm - or any figure they can invent.
They would know that this would not get sanction in a veto vote so the negotiations would never get concluded and we would be left paying for ever more until we withdrew the A50 notice - giving the EU everything they wanted. For me it seems some people just cannot see what is blindingly obvious with regard the positioning of the EU and the machinations their sycophants in Westminster were playing on the EU's behalf.
Also, their are some on here that are just so entrenched in their pro-EU views that they just suck it all up - when, IMO, they should be starting to become more than a bit offended on behalf of the UK.
Last edited:
Well said - trouble is, IMO, a number on here have Stockholm syndrome and fight the EU's fight
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 26,114
Last edited:
Its all an argument about cash. We need to know what we are willing to pay for access to the EU market, and to not pay out anymore. Accountants should be able to work out what spending agreements we have signed up to already, minus what we would have received back. We need to threaten tariffs on EU imports if they are doing the same. It will end up in a trade war and everyone will loose out. We will have a buy British campaign next, although not much is made in the UK anymore. We will pay for Thatcher's policies of destroying manufacturing again.
The position at the moment seems to be not one of where we go through ‘the accounts’ to see what our allocation is – it seems to be more of the EU thinking up any and every method that they can to link their commitments to a UK obligation – no matter how tenuous – to make the ‘bill’ as big (biggest) as possible.
It is all fanciful but that is not an issue for the EU they just want to either ‘invent’ a bill so big that it leads to us deciding not to leave or can cover the black hole once we have left.
But you are right – it is all (at least largely) about money - and the politics of protecting their federalist dream
The word you're scrabbling for is saboteurs.
No - I think that as I highlighted Helmut's use of the word 'kidnapper' it is obvious that Stockholm Syndrome were clearly the correct words to use. I think everyone else on the thread would have understood that linkage.
Saboteurs would not actually make any sense when responding to a post and highlighting 'kidnapper'
Another day - another TPF distraction post with a silly GIF that offers no substance
I see one of the positives of leaving the EU is that we can stop subsidies to farmers. They get fortunes for doing nothing. We don't need them either, imports are cheaper.
- Status