Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Buce

What's in the news?

By Buce, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Buce

Buce

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Sorry Buce, didn’t realise you were such a Williams fan!

 

I’m not. :huh:

 

Shit, did you mean William’s own music? I thought you meant Page’s. ?

Edited by Buce
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Weird. If Williams really wanted to torment Jimmy Page he’d blast his own music at him. 

 

AC/DC would have been a better choice than Black Sabbath.

 

There would have been a pleasing symmetry in the bloke responsible for "Stairway to heaven" being driven mad listening to "Highway to hell".

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buce

Buce

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Boris Johnson dismisses Brexit claims of Jaguar Land Rover boss

Former foreign secretary claims he knows more about car making than Ralf Speth

 

Johnson served as foreign secretary from July 2016 until July last year. He has not served in transport roles in central government although, as mayor of London from 2008 to 2016, he had responsibility for transport in the capital.

 

Speth, on the other hand, has more than 30 years’ automotive industry experience, after starting out working for BMW in his native Germany. He worked for BMW for 20 years and also had a stint as director of production for Ford’s luxury car brands. He joined JLR in February 2010 as chief executive, joining the board of Tata Motors at the same time. He also has a doctorate in engineering and is a professor at the University of Warwick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toddybad

Toddybad

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't really want to get too involved in this but, given that later today we're likely to see a government in complete meltdown, it's hard not to pass any comment at all. 

 

I honestly can't work out what leave MPs are doing. I can only think it's a longer term plan to take control of the Tory party, because it doesn't appear to be about Brexit.

 

It's no secret that parliament won't let no deal happen.

 

Although recent votes have been close, the approx 250 MPs voting with the government for May's deal today made up the vast majority of the less than 300 votes against the remain/Norway MPs' amendments. So we're looking at 50 no deal MPs plus perhaps a proportion of those currently voting with May. So it seems likely that at least two thirds of the house are against no deal.

 

I happen to think that no deal wasn't ever an option on the ballot paper at the referendum and, although the will of the people can be said to have been determined back in 2016, it doesn't become binding on government to drag us out catastrophically. It becomes binding on government to try to leave sensibly. But that's not really the point of this post.

 

I'm obviously a remainer (though I could be convinced by Norway type affair though it's unlikely to be in EFTA as Norway don't want that), but I genuinely can't understand why a Leaver would vote against May's deal.

 

The only reason a backstop exists is because we were adamant that the 'implementation period' (lol) had to be time limited.

 

Clearly, under the deal, we leave the EU at the end of March. That's the ultimate result for leavers. 

 

We would then have a period of transition. If the final trade deal isn't quite complete by the end of the transition (and it was leavers that claimed the deal would be quick and easy), then we clearly need either more transition, or something else, to bridge the gap. And it can't be time limited now as we don't know how long the gap would be. It wouldn't make any sense for the backup to have a guaranteed time limit. It itself is simply an insurance policy if more time is required.

 

The only argument really being used against the deal by leavers is some sort of paranoid delusion that the EU are trying to force us to stay.

 

Yet the EU believes that in allowing the whole UK to have a customs union and single market access through the whole of the transition and backstop it has given a huge win to the UK, as it doesn't want a state not in the EU to have that much access really. 

 

It seems to me that with the parliamentary arithmetic as it is, this deal is the only chance leavers have of leaving with a harder Brexit still on the table after withdrawal.

 

It takes us out of the EU on March, gives them 2+ years to try to replace May and install a Brexiteer Prime Minister, and keeps the Tories in power (not that I expect that to change anyway). So they'd have 95% of what they're looking for.

 

Yet they're poised to vote against because of some weird conspiracy theory about the backstop.

 

What's worse is they've convinced leavers across the country that the deal is terrible for their aims,  when it doesn't really seem to be.

 

I can only conclude that they don't want Brexit to happen but want remainers to take the blame. Which makes me think it's really about control of the Tory party.

 

 

Edited by Toddybad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Countryfox

Countryfox

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

I don't really want to get too involved in this but, given that later today we're likely to see a government in complete meltdown, it's hard not to pass any comment at all. 

 

I honestly can't work out what leave MPs are doing. I can only think it's a longer term plan to take control of the Tory party, because it doesn't appear to be about Brexit.

 

It's no secret that parliament won't let no deal happen.

 

Although recent votes have been close, the approx 250 MPs voting with the government for May's deal today made up the vast majority of the less than 300 votes against the remain/Norway MPs' amendments. So we're looking at 50 no deal MPs plus perhaps a proportion of those currently voting with May. So it seems likely that at least two thirds of the house are against no deal.

 

I happen to think that no deal wasn't ever an option on the ballot paper at the referendum and, although the will of the people can be said to have been determined back in 2016, it doesn't become binding on government to drag us out catastrophically. It becomes binding on government to try to leave sensibly. But that's not really the point of this post.

 

I'm obviously a remainer (though I could be convinced by Norway type affair though it's unlikely to be in EFTA as Norway don't want that), but I genuinely can't understand why a Leaver would vote against May's deal.

 

The only reason a backstop exists is because we were adamant that the 'implementation period' (lol) had to be time limited.

 

Clearly, under the deal, we leave the EU at the end of March. That's the ultimate result for leavers. 

 

We would then have a period of transition. If the final trade deal isn't quite complete by the end of the transition (and it was leavers that claimed the deal would be quick and easy), then we clearly need either more transition, or something else, to bridge the gap. And it can't be time limited now as we don't know how long the gap would be. It wouldn't make any sense for the backup to have a guaranteed time limit. It itself is simply an insurance policy if more time is required.

 

The only argument really being used against the deal by leavers is some sort of paranoid delusion that the EU are trying to force us to stay.

 

Yet the EU believes that in allowing the whole UK to have a customs union and single market access through the whole of the transition and backstop it has given a huge win to the UK, as it doesn't want a state not in the EU to have that much access really. 

 

It seems to me that with the parliamentary arithmetic as it is, this deal is the only chance leavers have of leaving with a harder Brexit still on the table after withdrawal.

 

It takes us out of the EU on March, gives them 2+ years to try to get rid of May and install a Brexiteer Prime Minister, and keeps the Tories in power (not that I expect that to change anyway). So they'd have 95% of what they're looking for.

 

Yet they're poised to vote against because of some weird conspiracy theory about the backstop.

 

What's worse is they've convinced leavers across the country that the deal is terrible for their aims,  when it doesn't really seem to be.

 

I can only conclude that they don't want Brexit to happen, but want remainers to take the blame. Which makes me think it's really about control of the Tory party.

 

 

 

What it’s actually about is that the majority of people voted to leave and those that didn’t think that those that did are complete fvckin thickos and are totally fvckin things up in an attempt to sabotage the will of the people.   What a fvckin mess.

 

Btw ..   nice to have you back Toddy ...   :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toddybad

Toddybad

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

What it’s actually about is that the majority of people voted to leave and those that didn’t think that those that did are complete fvckin thickos and are totally fvckin things up in an attempt to sabotage the will of the people.   What a fvckin mess.

 

Btw ..   nice to have you back Toddy ...   :)

Cheers mate.

There has been an epic failure to manage expectations (when leave was put on the ballot absolutely nobody ever thought it would be leave without anything in place, or it wouldn't have been on the ballot) and dishonesty by the prime minister about what no deal would mean.

Not sure at what point people decided that being asked what our future with the EU should be means that they suddenly get imbued with the power to decide precisely what that means when only senior officials/privy council members etc have information pertinent to decision making. 

But, as I say, don't really want to get into it beyond my post above. 

Edited by Toddybad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buce

Buce

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, RODNEY FERNIO said:

I voted leave and so did the majority any other decision means that we are not living in a democratic country.

 

Who told you we live in a democratic country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mayofox

Mayofox

Posted
Posted

Why is May talking about a united Ireland? There''s absolutely no call for it, on either side of the border. The north want to stay tied, while in the south, it's an unthinkable prospect. Never mind the history of the two countries, we don't want any part of the North's financial woes.

 

This is a last minute feeble 'scare' from May. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lionator

Lionator

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RODNEY FERNIO said:

I voted leave and so did the majority any other decision means that we are not living in a democratic country.

Our head of state is unelected, therefore our elected government will never be fully sovereign. We're not a democratic country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Toddybad said:

I don't really want to get too involved in this but, given that later today we're likely to see a government in complete meltdown, it's hard not to pass any comment at all. 

 

I honestly can't work out what leave MPs are doing. I can only think it's a longer term plan to take control of the Tory party, because it doesn't appear to be about Brexit.

 

It's no secret that parliament won't let no deal happen.

 

Although recent votes have been close, the approx 250 MPs voting with the government for May's deal today made up the vast majority of the less than 300 votes against the remain/Norway MPs' amendments. So we're looking at 50 no deal MPs plus perhaps a proportion of those currently voting with May. So it seems likely that at least two thirds of the house are against no deal.

 

I happen to think that no deal wasn't ever an option on the ballot paper at the referendum and, although the will of the people can be said to have been determined back in 2016, it doesn't become binding on government to drag us out catastrophically. It becomes binding on government to try to leave sensibly. But that's not really the point of this post.

 

I'm obviously a remainer (though I could be convinced by Norway type affair though it's unlikely to be in EFTA as Norway don't want that), but I genuinely can't understand why a Leaver would vote against May's deal.

 

The only reason a backstop exists is because we were adamant that the 'implementation period' (lol) had to be time limited.

 

Clearly, under the deal, we leave the EU at the end of March. That's the ultimate result for leavers. 

 

We would then have a period of transition. If the final trade deal isn't quite complete by the end of the transition (and it was leavers that claimed the deal would be quick and easy), then we clearly need either more transition, or something else, to bridge the gap. And it can't be time limited now as we don't know how long the gap would be. It wouldn't make any sense for the backup to have a guaranteed time limit. It itself is simply an insurance policy if more time is required.

 

The only argument really being used against the deal by leavers is some sort of paranoid delusion that the EU are trying to force us to stay.

 

Yet the EU believes that in allowing the whole UK to have a customs union and single market access through the whole of the transition and backstop it has given a huge win to the UK, as it doesn't want a state not in the EU to have that much access really. 

 

It seems to me that with the parliamentary arithmetic as it is, this deal is the only chance leavers have of leaving with a harder Brexit still on the table after withdrawal.

 

It takes us out of the EU on March, gives them 2+ years to try to replace May and install a Brexiteer Prime Minister, and keeps the Tories in power (not that I expect that to change anyway). So they'd have 95% of what they're looking for.

 

Yet they're poised to vote against because of some weird conspiracy theory about the backstop.

 

What's worse is they've convinced leavers across the country that the deal is terrible for their aims,  when it doesn't really seem to be.

 

I can only conclude that they don't want Brexit to happen but want remainers to take the blame. Which makes me think it's really about control of the Tory party.

Explain how parliament can stop No Deal happening without the government agreeing?

 

For what it's worth my prediction. 

 

Deal loses by around 170

Labour tables motion of No Confidence

Loses it

Corbyn still refuses to change as he wants no part of taking this on

May's deal passes on 2nd attempt with small changes on backstop

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick

Nick

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Isle of Wight Fox said:

https://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/17356946.masked-superhero-the-wight-knight-pledges-to-clean-up-isle-of-wight-streets/

 

Can't see this ending well.

Masked superhero.

 

From Newport

 

Whos 20-30 years old

 

And an ex doorman

 

Living on the Island

 

And has a daughter

 

They’ll never find out his identity.

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick

Nick

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, MattP said:

Explain how parliament can stop No Deal happening without the government agreeing?

 

For what it's worth my prediction. 

 

Deal loses by around 170

Labour tables motion of No Confidence

Loses it

Corbyn still refuses to change as he wants no part of taking this on

May's deal passes on 2nd attempt with small changes on backstop

I think this will likely be very close to what happens. My feeling is that Mays deal won’t pass a second time and article 50 will be extended and it’ll drag on. Had JRM’s Brexiteers left their vote of no confidence until this moment I feel May would have been toppled. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toddybad

Toddybad

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, MattP said:

Explain how parliament can stop No Deal happening without the government agreeing?

 

For what it's worth my prediction. 

 

Deal loses by around 170

Labour tables motion of No Confidence

Loses it

Corbyn still refuses to change as he wants no part of taking this on

May's deal passes on 2nd attempt with small changes on backstop

You may be right on the second bit. I don't expect the motion of no confidence to pass.

I expect a closer second vote. But I think there's no chance of no deal. People like Letwin have made it very clear they will vote in any way necessary to avoid that, which it sounded like included collapsing the government if necessary. There's nothing stopping a second vote of confidence if Corbyn can demonstrate MPs votes have changed.  

 

On your first point only a few days ago you were railing against ignoring parliamentary precedents. Now you're suggesting the government could just ignore the clear will of the House on our biggest foreign policy issue since the war? Not going to happen.

 

I am interested to see what the scheme is that the Norway/remain MPs have come up with to enforce control over the executive if they had to. It would clearly involve changing the rules of parliament but the fact they are able to do so is in itself a backstop against dictatorship. 

 

Interesting times.

 

Anyway, I'm out of here to talk about Leicester City elsewhere on the forum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...