Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[Riedquat]

3 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

Exactly. It was an example of how we can take back control of our finances.  The NHS was a good example as it's currently MASSIVELY underfunded and in debt. 

So I guess we can never use examples again.  If an MP says "what a waste of money spending on Trident - we could be spending that on the NHS!" then according to Remoaners we automatically assume that's a party manifesto promise no matter what. 

 It's also a lie! Money cannot be spent anywhere other than where it's being spent right now. How dare you suggest otherwise, liar!

[canbuywontbuy]

38 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

 It's also a lie! Money cannot be spent anywhere other than where it's being spent right now. How dare you suggest otherwise, liar!

LOL - how dare we even try to change the status quo!

[onlyme2]

There is no evidence that the central bank or Carney saved a run on the pound.

In fact quite the reverse, their open gob operations, rounds of QE, interest rate drop and foreign bond purchasing have undermined the pound significantly and created an environment where those short the pound could feel very safe indeed in their positions. 

There were big currency positions that were blown out on the night/morning of the election. Not unusual, this happens in all markets where the market is wrong and gets caught wrong footed.

 

 

 

[Futuroid]

Farage to lead 100,000-strong march on Supreme Court on day of historic Brexit court hearing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/06/nigel-farage-to-lead-100000-strong-march-on-supreme-court-on-day/

Black shirts optional, or mandatory I wonder? 

[Errol]

20 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

Black shirts optional, or mandatory I wonder? 

Only for the fascists who will doubtless turn up to to spoil the event.

[knock out johnny]

38 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

Farage to lead 100,000-strong march on Supreme Court on day of historic Brexit court hearing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/06/nigel-farage-to-lead-100000-strong-march-on-supreme-court-on-day/

Black shirts optional, or mandatory I wonder? 

Pointless, pointless march - the courts will decide on the law not a mob

If they kick off and try and storm the court I fully expect skulls to be cracked

[EUBanana]

24 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

Farage to lead 100,000-strong march on Supreme Court on day of historic Brexit court hearing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/06/nigel-farage-to-lead-100000-strong-march-on-supreme-court-on-day/

Black shirts optional, or mandatory I wonder? 

The world turned upside down.  The oligarchs are now democrats and the democrats are fascists.

[Futuroid]

8 minutes ago, Errol said:

Only for the fascists who will doubtless turn up to to spoil the event.

I wonder if they'll be approaching via Cable Street?

[Futuroid]

12 minutes ago, knock out johnny said:

Pointless, pointless march - the courts will decide on the law not a mob

If they kick off and try and storm the court I fully expect skulls to be cracked

Those UKIPers are a bit handy with their fists - I hear Mike Hookem'again might be in attendance.

[rollover]

33 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

Farage to lead 100,000-strong march on Supreme Court on day of historic Brexit court hearing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/06/nigel-farage-to-lead-100000-strong-march-on-supreme-court-on-day/

Black shirts optional, or mandatory I wonder? 

Nigel Farage said it before:

Quote

 

Nigel Farage has said violence on the streets could be the "next step". He told the BBC said it was "difficult to contemplate" it happening in Britain, but added "nothing is impossible". “It’s legitimate to say that if people feel they’ve lost control completely, and we have lost control of our borders completely as members of the EU, and if people feel voting doesn’t change anything, then violence is the next step," he said.

Labour shadow cabinet minister John Ashworth reacted to Farage's comments. "Hitler, violence on the streets - what a pair of charmers Boris & Farage are.” Huffington post

 

[Riedquat]

Sounds like someone trying to claim that a predication of something (and not that unsound one either) is the equivalent of condoning it or calling for it. That said it's not automatically wrong to condemn someone even if they do say they're prepared to resort to violence. As unfortunate as it is sometimes that is the only viable path. Obviously it's ground that needs to be trod very carefully.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Riedquat

[thecrashingisles]

5 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

Oh the irony.....let me quote myself:-

You didn't even read my post!

edit: see my post below about thecrashingisles - something a lot more pathetic going on here.

Firstly you edited your post while I was replying to include the figure of £250m.  If you look at the text I quote it is not there. 

Secondly you are still wrong.  £250m a week is the gross figure after the rebate has been deducted.  Money that is 'funnelled to farmers and poorer areas of the country' is deducted from this figure.  It is not the rebate which we can spend on whatever we want.

[thecrashingisles]

6 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

Why did you quote this :-

...but not this:-

it's really pathetic and immature that you can't counterargue my point so you quote just an exercept of my post out of context, remove my mention of £250M net a week, then accuse me of poor arithmetic.  You even put a full stop after NHS, when a comma was there! Then you quoted the paragraph below - so you deliberately removed the part where I mentioned £250M a week net, then claimed I can't add up. 

So there we have it - a remoaner who absolutely concedes I am right, and in frustration, misquotes me as a distraction. Now I know the low level you will stoop to - noted. 

And if anyone doubts I wrote what I wrote and didn't edit it after crashingisles' post, please read my post again.  All it talks about is the rebate! Now how I can be talking about a rebate all through my post and think there is no rebate, and that really I think we pay £350M to the EU each week without a rebate?! Even crashingisles' quoted my paragraphs mentioning rebate! 

thecrashingisles - this is the post I found you out.  You are a pathetic weasel.

 

I quoted your post exactly as it was before you edited it, only deleting the photo so as not to pollute the thread.

Just to help you out, here is the relevant bit of your own link that you haven't understood. 

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
 

Quote

 

£350 million is what we would pay to the EU budget, without the rebate.
But the UK actually pays just under £250 million a week.
The UK Statistics Authority has said the EU membership fee figure of £19 billion a year, or £350 million a week, is "not an amount of money that the UK pays to the EU each year".

The UK gets money back
The government then gets some of that money back, mainly through payments to farmers and for poorer areas of the country such as Wales and Cornwall.
In 2015, the UK's ‘public sector receipts’ amounted to £4.5 billion
So overall we paid in £8.5 billion more than we got back, or £23 million a day.

 

£250m is the gross contribution, not the net contribution which is £161m a week.

Edited November 8, 2016 by thecrashingisles

[thecrashingisles]

5 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

....and the funny thing is - thecrashingisles hasn't disagreed with anything I've written in my post - he could only resort to ad hominem, and that was only possible by pretending I hadn't even mentioned the £250M net! No counterargument to the rebate and that we can't control how it's spent.  Yep, case closed, and I outed a weasel in the process.

£250m is gross not net.  The fact that you persist in attacking me despite me pointing out that your own link makes this clear doesn't say much for you.

[Byron]

Well, on just this little forum we have managed to argue and confuse everybody as to the EU contribution/ rebate etc.,

I cannot see any court case doing any better.

[the gardener]

KOJ - you've argued consistently that the recent High Court judgement regarding Parliamentary approval is needed to invoke Article 50.

Surely you are aware that countless treaties have been negotiated and signed prior to being put to ratification by Parliament. To claim that this judgement is correct is to say those treaties were illegally negotiated and signed.

I don't think you'll find anyone on either side who is arguing that no legislation need be put to Parliament. The Government has said there will be a Great Repeal Bill which will be an Act of Parliament.

Triggering article 50 in itself leads to no change in the law or anyone's rights. I am incredulous that the learned judges think it does. A schoolchild can see through that argument.

The judgement is highly suspect.

Edited November 8, 2016 by the gardener

[thecrashingisles]

15 minutes ago, the gardener said:

KOJ - you've argued consistently that the recent High Court judgement regarding Parliamentary approval is needed to invoke Article 50.

Surely you are aware that countless treaties have been negotiated and signed prior to being put to ratification by Parliament. To claim that this judgement is correct is to say those treaties were illegally negotiated and signed.

I don't think you'll find anyone on either side who is arguing that no legislation need be put to Parliament. The Government has said there will be a Great Repeal Bill which will be an Act of Parliament.

Triggering article 50 in itself leads to no change in the law or anyone's rights. I am incredulous that the learned judges think it does. A schoolchild can see through that argument.

The judgement is highly suspect.

Triggering article 50 starts a countdown and after 2 years we are out, deal or no deal.  That's why it inevitably leads to a change in people's rights.  Both parties in the case argued that article 50 is irreversible.

[Saver]

17 minutes ago, the gardener said:

KOJ - you've argued consistently that the recent High Court judgement regarding Parliamentary approval is needed to invoke Article 50.

Surely you are aware that countless treaties have been negotiated and signed prior to being put to ratification by Parliament. To claim that this judgement is correct is to say those treaties were illegally negotiated and signed.

I don't think you'll find anyone on either side who is arguing that no legislation need be put to Parliament. The Government has said there will be a Great Repeal Bill which will be an Act of Parliament.

Triggering article 50 in itself leads to no change in the law or anyone's rights. I am incredulous that the learned judges think it does. A schoolchild can see through that argument.

The judgement is highly suspect.

No its not. See my answer on the other thread which explains why I think Maastricht is different.

Its highly unlikely you understand the law better than three senior judges who spent a long time thinking about this, researching all the cases and drawing on their years of legal experience.

 

[EUBanana]

1 hour ago, Futuroid said:

I wonder if they'll be approaching via Cable Street?

You ought to feel ashamed.   These guys won the referendum and are being suppressed, and you call THEM fascists? 

The fascists are the ones in Brussels who have made undermining democratic nations a way of life.

[EUBanana]

2 minutes ago, Saver said:

No its not. See my answer on the other thread which explains why I think Maastricht is different.

Its highly unlikely you understand the law better than three senior judges who spent a long time thinking about this, researching all the cases and drawing on their years of legal experience.

 

Problem is trust in the Establishment is low - thanks to their own antics.  The judges may well be right, I imagine quite a lot of people are past caring.

[knock out johnny]

LOLZ

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37909299

Scottish government to intervene in Brexit case

[kzb]

10 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

It was not a manifesto promise or a pledge or a lie, it was a theoretical saving that was highlighted by the Leave campaigners (who had no manifesto, beause...it was a referendum, not an election).  The rebate that's returned from the £350M is ear-marked in the form of EU subsidies - in effect, our gross contribution to the EU is spent/ear-marked and can't be spent on the NHS, whereas if we left the EU, it COULD (he he!) be spent on the NHS (yep, the whole £350M), just like the Leave battlebus explains in plain English below:-

 

Notice "let's"? Does that sound like a promise or a pledge? It sounds like.....a suggestion!!

Since when did a suggestion become a pledge? It's merely an example of how much more control we can have over our finances if we left the EU.

Remoaners love to moan on about the semantics of "send", but the full amount of £350M is ear-marked anyway and cannot be spent on the NHS, as highlighted here:-

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
 

So to sum up, when we leave the EU, that £350M could be spent on the NHS whereas now it simply cannot - the rebated is funneled to farmers and poorer areas of the country - we have no say on directing that rebate to the NHS, and of course, the bigger chunk (the estimated £250M a week) that's sent and spent in the EU.

Remoaners totally missed the most obvious point in all of this - we have full control over where that money can be spent if we leave the EU!

No lie told.  No promise that was broken.  Just facts that can be corroborated.  Case closed.

 

 

 

Well said.

It's common in English to leave out "understood" words.

So "£350 million to the NHS" should be interpreted as "£350 million available to the NHS".

It's theoretically available should the government choose to spend it that way.  That was always my interpretation of it throughout the campaign.

It is not a demonstrable lie, like the tuition fee pledges in multiple elections.  Those tuition fee pledges could be proven to be lies in court, whereas you would have trouble proving this "£350 million to the NHS" is a demonstrable lie. (Who knows -it may actually happen in many years' time.)

We should also note that our net contribution is set to increase going forward, because we are one of the few growing economies in the EU.

Edited November 8, 2016 by kzb

[Saver]

3 minutes ago, kzb said:

 

Well said.

The £350 million is our gross contribution.  It's common in English to leave out "understood" words.

So "£350 million to the NHS" (which I don't think they ever said directly) should be interpreted as "£350 million available to the NHS".

It's theoretically available should the government choose to spend it that way.  That was always my interpretation of it throughout the campaign.

It is not a demonstrable lie, like the tuition fee pledges in multiple elections.  Those tuition fee pledges could be proven to be lies in court, whereas you would have trouble proving this "£350 million to the NHS" is a demonstrable lie. (Who knows -it may actually happen in many years' time.)

We should also note that our net contribution is set to increase going forward, because we are one of the few growing economies in the EU.

Oh come on.

They had it on a bus touring the country, and a huge billboard by Boris in a press conference. It was obviously designed to strongly imply it would go to the NHS. They never said "one option might be" etc, whilst being careful enough to be able to claim now "we never explicitly said that".

 

[canbuywontbuy]

1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

£250m is gross not net.  The fact that you persist in attacking me despite me pointing out that your own link makes this clear doesn't say much for you.

No, it's £350M gross.  In fact, the size of the rebate is meaningless in the point I am making - the fact remains the same: £350M of money is spent in the EU, with the rebate amount ear-marked to EU-approved expenditure in the UK.  FACT.  We have no control over how that £350M is spent.  FACT. 

Question: do we have a say over where the rebate is spent?

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by canbuywontbuy

[canbuywontbuy]

9 minutes ago, Saver said:

Oh come on.

They had it on a bus touring the country, and a huge billboard by Boris in a press conference. It was obviously designed to strongly imply it would go to the NHS. They never said "one option might be" etc, whilst being careful enough to be able to claim now "we never explicitly said that".

 

What does "let's" mean?