Brexit (Old)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s my duty to report on matters as I see fit. Unless you actively think nationalism should trump freedom of speech? That’s rather dangerous if you do.

Playing the free speech card is totally unnecessary. You don't have a "duty to report … as [you] see fit". You have the right to do so.

That your remarks are not constructive is a pity. If you are going to snip, why not be constructive about it?

Btw, I forgot to ask earlier; are you happy for the UK to be in partnership with Macron, given that he's trying to stiff us over fishing rights and the backstop?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Where did I question your freedom to speak your mind? I merely commented that you appeared not to want the best for this country. I notice you didn't deny it.

If the Chancellor’s emergency budget to mitigate the negative consequences of Brexit isn’t in the best interests of this country then I don’t know what is. Should a Finance Minister remove himself from his obligations to do so?

If he is unfit for office do you propose replacing this Government?

---------- Post added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 19:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Playing the free speech card is totally unnecessary. You don't have a "duty to report … as [you] see fit". You have the right to do so.

That your remarks are not constructive is a pity. If you are going to snip, why not be constructive about it?

Btw, I forgot to ask earlier; are you happy for the UK to be in partnership with Macron, given that he's trying to stiff us over fishing rights and the backstop?

I’ve commented on the fishing rights a number of times. All trade deals involve concessions- that’s the nature of capitalism. It is you who frames it in terms of “us” and “them” with the largest trading bloc on the planet.

I don’t see my comments as unconstructive. There’s no reason to be positive about a situation that makes the people of this country poorer when there’s a viable alternative.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

If the Chancellor’s emergency budget to mitigate the negative consequences of Brexit isn’t in the best interests of this country then I don’t know what is. Should a Finance Minister remove himself from his obligations to do so?

If he is unfit for office do you propose replacing this Government?

Again, you're just being contrary without taking in the full argument.

Just step back and recall what Osborne threatened, when he was the Chancellor purporting to act 'in the best interests of this country' and threatened an emergency budget if the Referendum were to support Leave.

This Chancellor, an avowed Remainer who has done everything within his power to thwart the Referendum result, can be judged in the same discredit light as Osborne.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Again, you're just being contrary without taking in the full argument.

Just step back and recall what Osborne threatened, when he was the Chancellor purporting to act 'in the best interests of this country' and threatened an emergency budget if the Referendum were to support Leave.

This Chancellor, an avowed Remainer who has done everything within his power to thwart the Referendum result, can be judged in the same discredit light as Osborne.

So you are accusing the Chancellor of lying to Parliament when he said the last budget was on the basis of a deal?

I’ve taken into account all of the arguments that I consider relevant.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

<SNIP>

I’ve commented on the fishing rights a number of times. All trade deals involve concessions- that’s the nature of capitalism. It is you who frames it in terms of “us” and “them” with the largest trading bloc on the planet.
When the "them" says, before the ink is dry on the Withdrawal Agreement, that he will keep us in perpetual Backstop (words to that effect) if we don't give away our fishing waters, the "us and them" is entirely justified.

If we do leave based on that agreement, then surely you, as a patriotic Brit, would not want to give in to that sort of blackmail.

I don’t see my comments as unconstructive. There’s no reason to be positive about a situation that makes the people of this country poorer when there’s a viable alternative.
Of course you don't. It doesn't make us much poorer (our 90.7% growth conversation) and your negativity is not fully justified.

[jfman]

I don’t see how it’s unpatriotic to want us to get the best deal we can, with fishing rights (or anything else) as part of any negotiation to smooth our trade relationships with other economies.

If you think it’s blackmail that’s your flawed interpretation of how negotiations work.

Poorer is a relative concept and you don’t understand economic growth calculations, which we’ve established and there’s no need to repeat. The calculations you describe don’t say what you claim because you didn’t baseline 100%.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t see how it’s unpatriotic to want us to get the best deal we can, with fishing rights (or anything else) as part of any negotiation to smooth our trade relationships with other economies.

If you think it’s blackmail that’s your flawed interpretation of how negotiations work.

Poorer is a relative concept and you don’t understand economic growth calculations, which we’ve established and there’s no need to repeat. The calculations you describe don’t say what you claim because you didn’t baseline 100%.

I fully understand how negotiations work. I regularly negotiate deals and there is give and take. But what Macron has done is plain nasty, political grandstanding and, frankly, blackmail. I walk away from any such situation.

Your contrariness is probably more pixie than sincere because a normal person would also not wish to be blackmailed like this.

As to your insulting remark about my not understanding economic growth calculations, there was no need to baseline to the current 100%. It was sufficient to take the 100% from the top, since that was the comparison being made.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a4004961.html

Donald Tusk outlines three possible options.

Well what did you expect, they’re turning the pressure up to 11.

I think they can turn the pressure up to 15, May and the cabinet can charm offence all they want and you can have 30 tv debates.

This deal is not going to get through Parliament.

So Mr Tusk, says the outcome will either be No Deal, or No Brexit. Brexit however is enshrined in law. A law that parliament voted for...convincingly.

Ergo,,,,,,no deal? But no deal ( we are told ) will not be allowed by Parliament..........parliament is walking into a paradox of it’s own making.


As I said earlier, it’s fascinating, real popcorn time.

Originally Posted by Pierre

So Mr Tusk, says the outcome will either be No Deal, or No Brexit. Brexit however is enshrined in law. A law that parliament voted for...convincingly.

Or this deal on a second vote or some sort of fudge

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Damien

Or this deal on a second vote or some sort of fudge

Interesting TM would allow a second vote for MPs but not for the public !

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Why do you want no deal? It isn't plain and simple.

Hyperinflation, job losses, empty supermarket shelves, no health cover abroad. Either people genuinely don't realise or its a form of masochism.....

You don’t know any of that. ( apart from health cover, but I always take out insurance anyway) If you do, do yourself a favour and put your lottery numbers on, and put mine on too while you’re at it.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I fully understand how negotiations work. I regularly negotiate deals and there is give and take. But what Macron has done is plain nasty, political grandstanding and, frankly, blackmail. I walk away from any such situation.

Your contrariness is probably more pixie than sincere because a normal person would also not wish to be blackmailed like this.

As to your insulting remark about my not understanding economic growth calculations, there was no need to baseline to the current 100%. It was sufficient to take the 100% from the top, since that was the comparison being made.

Your comparison doesn’t baseline 100%.

Your flawed interpretation implies that if one economy has 10% growth and another 9% less growth its “91%” of that growth.

100-110
100-109.1

When commentators use 9% less its baselined. So rather than 110% of the original size they mean 101%, or just 10% of the growth experienced elsewhere.

---------- Post added at 20:12 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well what did you expect, they’re turning the pressure up to 11.

I think they can turn the pressure up to 15, May and the cabinet can charm offence all they want and you can have 30 tv debates.

This deal is not going to get through Parliament.

So Mr Tusk, says the outcome will either be No Deal, or No Brexit. Brexit however is enshrined in law. A law that parliament voted for...convincingly.

Ergo,,,,,,no deal? But no deal ( we are told ) will not be allowed by Parliament..........parliament is walking into a paradox of it’s own making.


As I said earlier, it’s fascinating, real popcorn time.

I’ve expected this for some time. As stated earlier, Parliament is sovereign and can unbind itself if there’s the political will to do so. I’d go so far as to say the will is clear, it’s the political expedience of who takes the fall that’s the problem.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s my duty to report on matters as I see fit.

You’re hardly Woodward or bloody Bernstein. You’re not reporting on anything. You posting on a discussion forum for Broadband nerds.

Originally Posted by Mr K

Interesting TM would allow a second vote for MPs but not for the public !

Well Parliament are meant to be the one making decisions in our system anyway. I would be happy never to have a referendum on anything ever again.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

You’re hardly Woodward or bloody Bernstein. You’re not reporting on anything. You posting on a discussion forum for Broadband nerds.

My personal duty to Queen and country isn’t bound but your interpretation of the user base of CF.

Indeed you don’t know if I’m a journalist.