You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.
Services: Virgin for TV and Internet, BT for phone
Posts: 26,536
Re: Brexit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
They are not EU Funds - they are OUR funds which they then distribute back to the UK.
We are a NET Contributor, in other words we put more in than we get out - you do know what that means, yeah ?
It's like you giving me £500, I then give you £200 of it back and then have the cheek to tell you what to buy with it.
Have the government committed to replacing those funds when they have been lost? Essentially cutting out the middle man (the EU) and funding those projects directly? I've seen nothing to suggest they've even promised to look at doing that.
Hugh - you seriously need to lose this consistent irritating and flippant attitude.
As usual, you're getting things in a muddle again, probably due to too much reliance on Google surfing no doubt.
There would be nothing apparent with proroguing of Parliament, as the Queen is the Constitutional Reigning and Sovereign Monarch, Head of State of the Common Wealth.
Does it require the Queen officially? I can't see her being willing to suspend Parliament for political reasons.
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,925
Re: Brexit
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
A really interesting video about examining the paradox in Wales where areas voted to Leave when they were net recipients of EU funds
Mick has already said it but it bears repeating: there is no such thing as EU funds. We are a net contributor by quite some margin. Every penny spent in Wales (yet with that disingenuous blue flag forcibly glued to it), can be more than matched by spending from the U.K. government or by the devolved executive.
Quote:
Bit like the question to Leave, eh?
Nope. The question on the ballot was debated at length, across a variety of media. Sooner or later you’re going to have to accept that a national debate took place yet at the end of it, most people disagreed with you.
Have the government committed to replacing those funds when they have been lost? Essentially cutting out the middle man (the EU) and funding those projects directly? I've seen nothing to suggest they've even promised to look at doing that.
Yes they have, I suggest you go look.
BREAKING: People's Vote MPs consisting of Cross Party support announce this morning they WILL NOT be tabling an Amendment next week for a Second Referendum.
---------- Post added at 12:10 ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Does it require the Queen officially? I can't see her being willing to suspend Parliament for political reasons.
I have explained several pages ago there is two ways the Queen could act at the advice of her Government, she won't act if they do not advise her to.
One is not to give Royal Assent to any Backbench or opposition Bill. No Royal Assent, means it does not become law, the other is proroguing of Parliament, it is not covered in the Fixed term parliament act and is legally possible.
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,925
Re: Brexit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
Have the government committed to replacing those funds when they have been lost? Essentially cutting out the middle man (the EU) and funding those projects directly? I've seen nothing to suggest they've even promised to look at doing that.
How can they make such a pledge? That’s a matter for party manifestos at the election following our departure from the EU when, for the first time in a generation, regional development will be an issue for British voters choosing a British government (actually a fair chunk of it is likely to be found to be within the competence of the devolved administrations so it will become an election issue in Wales, Scotland and NI as well).
Remainers are continually setting up pointless strawmen like this. The referendum was not an election and the debate was not a series of pledges or manifesto launches. It was about deciding where the power to make decisions over the U.K. should rest, and it was about the consequences of those decisions presently being taken elsewhere (such as limited control over immigration, the EU’s ability to demand additional billions from the U.K. while we’re powerless to object, its ability to set market regulations that may not suit us, to decide who we can trade with and on what terms ... the list goes on).
I have explained several pages ago there is two ways the Queen could act at the advice of her Government, she won't act if they do not advise her to.
One is not to give Royal Assent to any Backbench or opposition Bill. No Royal Assent, means it does not become law, the other is proroguing of Parliament, it is not covered in the Fixed term parliament act and is legally possible.
I can't see the Queen doing anything considered improper or setting herself up against Parliament though. Even if it's the Government asking her to do it. She protects the institution too much and this is country isn't really split on the question of the Monarchy so why risk that?
Mick has already said it but it bears repeating: there is no such thing as EU funds. We are a net contributor by quite some margin. Every penny spent in Wales (yet with that disingenuous blue flag forcibly glued to it), can be more than matched by spending from the U.K. government or by the devolved executive.
Yet again you miss the point. You are naive to believe that this Government will replace these funds on a like-for-like basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Nope. The question on the ballot was debated at length, across a variety of media. Sooner or later you’re going to have to accept that a national debate took place yet at the end of it, most people disagreed with you.
Sooner or later you’re going to have to accept that No Deal was not on the ballot paper and there is no mandate for such. "Most" people (also known as 37% of the electorate) did not vote to be poorer.
__________________
Unifi Express + BT Whole Home WiFi | VM 1Gbps
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,925
Re: Brexit
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
Yet again you miss the point. You are naive to believe that this Government will replace these funds on a like-for-like basis.
I make no judgement about whether this government will replace those funds. I will judge the party manifestos on this issue in 2021 (if not sooner), when structural funding will be a British election issue for the first time in a generation. That’s what Brexit is for. That is the point.
Quote:
Sooner or later you’re going to have to accept that No Deal was not on the ballot paper and there is no mandate for such. "Most" people (also known as 37% of the electorate) did not vote to be poorer.
Seriously, this again .... we debated a range of outcomes. The leave campaign generally outlined the opportunities while the remain campaign highlighted the risks (occasionally they agreed what would happen but disagreed over whether it was a good thing, e.g. our departure from the customs union).
There is a simple mandate to leave the EU. The referendum question was not qualified or limited in any way, so it is a nonsense to claim that there is no mandate for one consequence or another.
I make no judgement about whether this government will replace those funds. I will judge the party manifestos on this issue in 2021 (if not sooner), when structural funding will be a British election issue for the first time in a generation. That’s what Brexit is for. That is the point.
Seriously, this again .... we debated a range of outcomes. The leave campaign generally outlined the opportunities while the remain campaign highlighted the risks (occasionally they agreed what would happen but disagreed over whether it was a good thing, e.g. our departure from the customs union).
There is a simple mandate to leave the EU. The referendum question was not qualified or limited in any way, so it is a nonsense to claim that there is no mandate for one consequence or another.
Of the two sides Leave was the one making claims about "the easiest deal ever" and similar expectations. Not quite working out as planned and I for one feel conned by Leave and their misdirection in the name of winning.
Before we were born, so my recollection is patchy, iirc she suspended then dismissed the Australian PM and dissolved their parliament in the mid '70's due to some constitutional crisis or other
Before we were born, so my recollection is patchy, iirc she suspended then dismissed the Australian PM and dissolved their parliament in the mid '70's due to some constitutional crisis or other
__________________
To be or not to be, woke is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous wokedome, Or to take arms against a sea of wokies. And by opposing end them.
I can't see the Queen doing anything considered improper or setting herself up against Parliament though. Even if it's the Government asking her to do it. She protects the institution too much and this is country isn't really split on the question of the Monarchy so why risk that?
But it’s ok to risk Democracy?
It is not improper. It would be legally possible. She would be protecting her people and restore the Democratic foundations being abused by Remainer MPs in parliament ignoring the will of the Electorate.
Join CF
You are here: 
