Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Konig

  • Rank
    HPC Poster

Recent Profile Visitors

369 profile views
  1. Not a very good attempt at a diversion tactic response - and one which is frankly is full of meaningless garbage statements. The 'pay them to go home' line was National Front stock in the 1970/1980's. You posted that we 'should make them an offer'. With my post I am clearly questioning where do you draw the line, how do you define who is them exactly, and what if someone else decides they have a different view of who should be up for this 'exit bonus' ?
  2. And what then? Extend that 'offer' to the 'blacks', followed by the '*****(tanis)', and hell, why not complete the job and finish up with the "oirish'.... Errol and the gardener - among others - how did you become so embittered? Genuine question....
  3. FFS. No plan as usual. Getting back to basics, can anyone refresh my mind as to 'why and when?' the EU became the devil itself? Now, I hate the Tories, because of support for bankers, support for businesses that escape paying tax, support for HIPI, being anti workers employment rights, their pathological hatred of pubic sector workers, and anyone on benefits... But in terms of what Brexit will achieve, what and how will the above change?
  4. As far as I have read, article 50 is pretty vague, and only covers the agreement as far as the process of exiting the EU goes i.e. who pays who's pensions, our contributions to EU payments and liabilities etc. During those 2 years for agreeing those terms we will also start to to negotiate how trade will work post-Brexit, but that is not actually what article 50 covers. There are basically three scenarios as far as I can see for a UK-EU Brexit trade - We get the 'jumbo EU trade deal' Boris reckons, with some concession on FOM, or The EU and UK agree it will take years to thrash out a trade agreement - Hammond suggested at least 6 years previously, - and it is business as usual with all four 'freedoms' until we do (though the Government can say "we heard you and we are leaving the the EU"), or We go WTO The first option is the 'of course they still want to sell fizzy wine, smelly cheese and top-end cars to us'. The problem is that only a few of the 27 countries sell that stuff to us. Still a chance it could happen. The second option will be hard to sell to the Leave voters, and will still create a slow down and extend uncertainty in economic terms. But if the first option is off the table then the pros and cons of the second option can only be argued as an alternative to option 3. Option 3 is the only one that will mean a really tough economic hit, which in turn is the only way that Labour under Corbyn could get in, and May must know this. So I really can not her going for that, unless the second option is off the table, which may well of course be a possibility. I know that some die-hard Brexiters on here will start shouting 'pitchforks' or 'UKIP landslide next GE'.... but 1) this thread seems generally sensible and balanced so far, and 2) If you really believe in pitchforks and UKIP landslides (in a first past the post 650 constituency voting model), you will find like minded adults over on the on Brexit: what happens next? thread willing and ready for some 'mutual fantasy pleasure'....
  5. Early in this thread we did the 'what's the Brexit plan?' stuff. No Leave voters could come up with one. Then we did the 'Brexit will mean the economy will tank' stuff. Leave voters shouted 'project fear' for a while and then did a complete u-turn and said 'we all knew that but don't care, it's worth it' (except for some who said, 'that's the point, so they eat grass by the side of the road like me'). Then came the 'article 50 judges are crooked' phase. Now we are in the 'your children will be conscripted unless we leave' phase... Where do we go next with this? No cult here then...nothing to see...move on...
  6. Just when you think the MSM have started to get it that sky-high London prices are not actually a good thing.... http://www.cityam.com/253263/does-donald-trump-win-mean-london-house-prices
  7. I think article 50 will be triggered, by Parliament. And that is democratically right, in my view, based on the vote Leave mandate. But what people - here and in the media - seem to forget is that Parliament still has to agree whatever the eventual 'Brexit deal' is that is negotiated, after the 2 year time frame. Now that raises different democratic issues altogether. Does the Leave mandate of last June mean that Parliament will at that future point in time be democratically obligated to accept whatever Brexit terms are negotiated / offered? And what if parts of that 'deal' are considered to cross any 'red line' held by some, but not necessarily all Brexiters? Examples could include we agree to still pay some money in for some sort of preferential access to parts of the single market, or we agree to still allow significant immigration on some basis e.g. by region (Scotland, London), by sector (e.g. construction) or 'on demand' (e.g. employers can recruit from Eastern Europe as long as they have advertised within the UK and not filled the posts). In that case should Parliament be democratically obliged to not accept the deal, based on the vote Leave mandate?
  8. You think we have a "negotiating position" but then declare we actually "just voted to leave". So, which one is it? Or will you just choose which position to take according to your own personal view of every issue that comes up during the next 2 (more like 10) years of unraveling this mess....
  9. On a slightly less sarcastic note, and in response to the title question of this thread, the answer could possibly be 'yes and no'. For example, we trigger article 50 and start negotiations, 2 years starts to loom and its clear no grand deal can be done, so there is an extension on EU membership, with all the terms the same as now (single market access, we pay in, FOM, etc.) and this goes on and on while we try and negotiate a 'final' exit - 5, 10, 15 years etc. Incidentally, the scenario above could play out as an 'interim' arrangement for the same length of time but with us actually leaving the EU after the 2 years. So all the above but no seat at the table, meaning we would have left, but not really
  10. Forgive me my past sins, I have now seen the light and have been converted! We should trigger article 50 straight away and let May personally decide what should or should not be the whole future basis of the UK's relationship with the EU and therefore, in may respects, with the rest of the world, completely and absolutely unfettered by Parliament at all times. She should then go and demand that from the EU, with the threat of a boycott of fizzy Italian wine. If the EU will not agree, or possibly offers Her any compromise that She personally likes the sound of, then whatever She chooses will be the terms on which the UK will leave. For She has total and divine right to decide what Brexit means, and can only be judged in the 2020 General Election, when it will all be too late and we have to accept whatever She has decided. Just thinking about it makes me feel so..... democratically cleansed
  11. The reaction of most of the Brex#itters on here to the High Court decision sounds more and more like the Property 118 brigade about S24 - "we'll just overwhelm the national grid, innit" - or worse, like Trump - "those judges were crooked".... It really is just a cult of those who have no understanding of how politics, economics, and the whole world actually works, as well as being a scary example that is similar to the brainwashed mentality of 1930s Germany . Yes, I get the referendum voted 'we should leave the EU'. I accept that. But it follows that it is now up to those who run the country to work out what that means, how it will be taken forward, and get a mandate to take that forward. If you think an unelected Tory PM has the right to decide to grant or take away your rights, without Parliament agreeing, then you really do need to be eating grass by the side of the road...
  12. Which is why we end up with another General Election before article 50 is triggered. And a GE trumps everything....
  13. That the High Court said our constitution does not actually allow (non-elected) Prime Ministers of the UK to take away our democratic, parliament-granted rights by using an ancient legal Royal Prerogative loophole, designed to shaft the peasants, to personally decide what Brexit actually means and what rights we may, or may not, be left with, once She has decided. Big turnout I predict - may need at least two coaches - many more if they plan to stop by the side of the road to pick up those on here who 'are eating grass and want everyone else to'....
  14. As long as there is a credible plan for brexit parliament will be obliged to vote for article 50. So no problem then. Oh, hang on....
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.