Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII

Old 1st Jan 2019, 22:52
  #2221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 54
Posts: 0
quite the opposite in fact, otherwise it would have already been taken to court.

By all accounts its wording and process has been frustratingly cock on for the remainers.

Per say the ref itself wasn't legally binding. When they were forced to put it through the houses and it followed democratic process it carved it in stone the follow on actions. If they and let them just issue art 50 without house approval then there would have been grounds for claiming ARt 50 was issued without democratic process which is illegal under EU law and it would have been revoked.

As it is thanks to a remainer the whole thing is box ticked i's and t's dotted and crossed and zero wiggle room. Spectacular own goal.

Which is one of the reasons why I chucked 50 quid at the Scottish pols crowd funding to force the ECJ ruling on the revocation of ARt 50. it didn't actually matter which way it went, it would either make everything much harder for one side or the other. And thus make default exit more likely. I suspect the was more leave supporters funding it than remain.

And for hundreds of years that exactly what happened with the death sentence. Although to be honest for the majority of the UK its more a life sentence than death sentence the outcome of the ref.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 23:14
  #2222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chez Sprog
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by tescoapp View Post
quite the opposite in fact, otherwise it would have already been taken to court.
Lol! If only remain had had someone of your windswept intellect on their side two years ago!


Originally Posted by tescoapp View Post
Per say the ref itself wasn't legally binding. When they were forced to put it through the houses and it followed democratic process it carved it in stone the follow on actions. If they and let them just issue art 50 without house approval then there would have been grounds for claiming ARt 50 was issued without democratic process which is illegal under EU law and it would have been revoked.

As it is thanks to a remainer the whole thing is box ticked i's and t's dotted and crossed and zero wiggle room. Spectacular own goal.

.
What a load of circular guff. Gina Miller sought to have the government have regard for the sovereignty of parliament. That is exactly what every last Brexit head I talk to tells me they voted for. You cannot seriously claim therefore that was 1) a spectacular own goal when it's a much vaunted objective of Brexit and 2) Argue that Miller has single handedly caused stop Brexit to fail. Its palpable nonsense. The scenario you describe is highly questionable & even if it went that way would have been a procedural mater, so if you're going to scoff, cobble together something more coherent than that & preferably don't kick off with 'per say'
Sprogget is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 00:34
  #2223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 54
Posts: 0
Well to be honest its time and time again with them and tis 50 quid was well spent making life difficult for anything other than a default exit. Once something has had a court ruling on, it removes all options.

What she delivered is a huge own goal because it removed any right of appeal and made the exit completely legal and beyond challenge. If she had left it,even with the current state of play, it could have been deemed illegal and against democratic process and as such ART 50 would be instantly revoked and there would have been nothing the UK could have done against it.

Last edited by tescoapp; 2nd Jan 2019 at 07:02.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 07:19
  #2224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,627
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
Hourly departure with with an 9 hour cycle time ((3.5 + 1 + 3.5 + 1) takes 8 ships. But I presume Thanet means port capacity, not that Seaborne intend to offer that number of movements.
Thanks for working that out, I did a quick mental calculation - no calculator to hand!

I honestly doubt whether in it's present condition Ramsgate could handle half of Thanet's capped figure. I think that number was based on the premise that there would be no significant customs involvement with trucks, which is extremely unlikely to be the case when we leave, either on 29th March, or with transition on 31 December 2020.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 08:02
  #2225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by tescoapp View Post
Well to be honest its time and time again with them and tis 50 quid was well spent making life difficult for anything other than a default exit. Once something has had a court ruling on, it removes all options.

What she delivered is a huge own goal because it removed any right of appeal and made the exit completely legal and beyond challenge. If she had left it,even with the current state of play, it could have been deemed illegal and against democratic process and as such ART 50 would be instantly revoked and there would have been nothing the UK could have done against it.
she does seem to have gone pretty quiet recently, reflecting on her actions, perhaps?
andrewn is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 08:09
  #2226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lincoln
Age: 67
Posts: 454
Originally Posted by andrewn View Post
she does seem to have gone pretty quiet recently, reflecting on her actions, perhaps?
This site is what Gina Miller is currently up to:

https://endthechaos.co.uk/
Exrigger is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 08:22
  #2227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by Exrigger View Post
This site is what Gina Miller is currently up to:

https://endthechaos.co.uk/
cutting through the bull she basically just wants another referendum! And I bet wee Jimmie Krankie would like another as well, and maybe the Basques, the Flemish, actually we could all just have a referendum on any given topic at any time, that would be ideal - not!

What part of the phrase "once in a generation" do these people not get?

Anyway, as long as there's no public money involved she can carry on venting for all I care
andrewn is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 08:25
  #2228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 58
Personally I'm ok with some aspects of Brexit. What I'm not ok with is if the "benefits" also come with economic costs. What I would propose is this: those wanting to pursue a hard Brexit register themselves as supporters of such a course. If things turn out swimmingly then they will be entitled to a bonus, say a reduced rate of in one tax or a an addition to their pensions.

Let's see this for what it is, a big financial gamble. So if after Brexit things turn humpty we can likewise turn to those ( presumably 17+million) and ask them to stump up the shortfall in terms of a higher tax contribution or having their pensions reduced. It's a straightforward gamble, so come on Brexiteers buy your tickets now for the great Eurobillions lottery. What could possibly go wrong?
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 08:34
  #2229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: england
Posts: 269
I wonder what the commission is thinking now that a no deal is more likely? Out of the 3 possible scenarios, cancel art50," mainly neutral", Agree to the withdrawl agreement with the back stop" EU win". No deal Brexit" EU lose". A more equitable withdrawl agreement would have been so much better.
yotty is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 08:49
  #2230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by Effluent Man View Post
Personally I'm ok with some aspects of Brexit. What I'm not ok with is if the "benefits" also come with economic costs. What I would propose is this: those wanting to pursue a hard Brexit register themselves as supporters of such a course. If things turn out swimmingly then they will be entitled to a bonus, say a reduced rate of in one tax or a an addition to their pensions.

Let's see this for what it is, a big financial gamble. So if after Brexit things turn humpty we can likewise turn to those ( presumably 17+million) and ask them to stump up the shortfall in terms of a higher tax contribution or having their pensions reduced. It's a straightforward gamble, so come on Brexiteers buy your tickets now for the great Eurobillions lottery. What could possibly go wrong?
It's a fascinating topic and what you say, about the risks, has a lot of merit. However I'd contend two alternative views.

1. The world, our "global village", continues to evolve. Much of the future growth, and therefore opportunity and wealth, will be concentrated in Asia and Africa. Putting more focus on these global relationships will, I suspect, bring economic benefits in the longer-term. An unproven premise I accept!
2. For many Leavers the economic impacts of leaving were secondary. For some this will be because other issues were considered much more important (sovereignty, immigration). For others there was an understandable kick-back to project fear, underpinned by a greater self belief in our capabilities as the 4th or 5th largest economy on the planet.

My own view is that leaving the EU is unlikely to have a material impact on either our economic well being or overall standing in the world. And that, in the round, the benefits of leaving will outweigh any negatives. A significant number of people disagree with that viewpoint, as we all know.
andrewn is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 09:03
  #2231 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,878
"35-39 billion" over 12 years.

The Treaty of Versailles and the 1921 London Schedule of Payments required Germany to pay 132 billion gold marks (US$33 billion) in reparations to cover civilian damage caused during the war. The 1924 Dawes Plan and the 1929 Young Plan reduced the debt to 112bn gold marks, and granted Germany loans to meet its payments. When Hitler came into power, the system of payments had collapsed (partly due to the Depression and the devaluation of the Reichsmark). Although the country had only paid about one eighth of what it owed, Hitler refused to pay any more.

A new agreement in 1953 - the London Treaty - agreed to suspend many payments until Germany was unified. By the time the country was reunified in 1990, the world had changed dramatically since the days of Versailles, and policymakers decided to write off most of the original sum. It was, essentially, a return to the conditions in the 1932 Lausanne agreement, and a reduced amount of payments was reactivated.

In 2010, Germany finally paid off the World War I reparations, with the last 70 million euro (60m) payment (interest on loans taken out to the pay the debt) on the 20th anniversary of German reunification.

Isn't history fun!

Mac
Mac the Knife is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 09:29
  #2232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,415
Originally Posted by tescoapp View Post
quite the opposite in fact, otherwise it would have already been taken to court.
There are a number of court cases in the works. Suggest you don't rely on the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation for news about them.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 09:39
  #2233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 54
Posts: 0
I don't really follow Brexit on the BBC it's pretty pointless. It just creates a project fear page daily.

The legal stuff I follow on legal forums a bit like this for aviation. They have running updates on most cases it's more a time line of a cases progress than comment on the the actual topic.

There is nothing I can see that will conclude before 29th of March that would cause issues.

There are loads of stamping of feet they cheated type cases. But nothing that will alter the timeline.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 10:14
  #2234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 58
Andrewn, You make my point for me, it's a great unknown how this is going to turn out. So we just need the Brexiteers to be prepared to put their money with their mouths. I am pretty certain that this won't end well in pure financial terms so I'm not even going to wager the housewive's half crown that traditionally went on Lester Piggott each year. Let's see the Rees-Moggs the Johnson's and the Foxe's stake all their worldly goods on this spin of the roulette wheel. Maybe then I will begin to believe in their project. As things stand I can see things going pear shaped and them all walking sheepishly away murmuring "it wasn't me guv". Well it bloody well was them and if they end up getting Corbynised it damned well serves them right.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 10:15
  #2235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,415
Originally Posted by tescoapp View Post
There are loads of stamping of feet they cheated type cases.
Yeah. I understand the logic of attacking on all conceivable fronts, but there are now so many of these cases each with such a small chance of success that it's not clear which are worth contributing to. So far I've only helped fund the CJEU A50 case, which was a win, and does affect the timetable, in that we can, at the last second, withdraw A50 and there's nothing anybody can do to stop it.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 10:36
  #2236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by Effluent Man View Post
Andrewn, You make my point for me, it's a great unknown how this is going to turn out. So we just need the Brexiteers to be prepared to put their money with their mouths. I am pretty certain that this won't end well in pure financial terms so I'm not even going to wager the housewive's half crown that traditionally went on Lester Piggott each year. Let's see the Rees-Moggs the Johnson's and the Foxe's stake all their worldly goods on this spin of the roulette wheel. Maybe then I will begin to believe in their project. As things stand I can see things going pear shaped and them all walking sheepishly away murmuring "it wasn't me guv". Well it bloody well was them and if they end up getting Corbynised it damned well serves them right.
I personally won't be holding anyone responsible, regardless of what happens next. And neither do I see it as "their project". We've been in the EU for forty years, as a result of a democratic vote. We've now been through another democratic process and elected to leave. And I'm perfectly comfortable with the outcome, we just need to get on with it and look forwards, and stop trying to sow division and apportion blame, in my opinion.
andrewn is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 10:43
  #2237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 54
Posts: 0
They got the legal costs back off the government the other day.

​​​​​​It's pissed both the UK and the EU off. It's put the EU in a very difficult position in the unlikely event it occurs. UK can basically block them moving forward. They have been on hold for 3 years now. Another couple and it will be fatal.

None of the they cheated cases can actually change things.

​​​​​By the looks of it they are all against people that can afford any fine dished out and will consider it money well spent or basically kids with no assets that will go bankrupt the day the fine is dished out or pay it back at 1 quid a month.

To be honest it hurt the entity that you want to stay in more than it's helped change the situation. It was a win win case if you want exit. One way would basically block UK cancelling, the other causes major possibly fatal issues for the EU if the UK does cancel.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 11:02
  #2238 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 918
And off to a good start then.....it's nice to see a few trivial details , such as , erm, a lack of tangible assets perhaps ?..these being in the form of large chunks of metal known as ferries..... don't cause any concern for Grayling...and why would they, no other forms of transport do, so why set a precedent here.......plus it's nice to learn about his reassurances as to how the Gov't have done their very best on behalf of the electorate.....

Coming soon...Gov't to requisition all those former sea forts to be re-commissioned .....no expense to be spared in the defence of the UK !

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46735303
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 11:16
  #2239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 54
Posts: 0
If there is a clause and no money upfront I can't see an issue.

To be honest the fact that the boss of Lloyd shipping reckons its got a chance means more than the other opinions both sides of the fence.

What ever occurs and if they are needed or not I hope thier project is a success.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 12:04
  #2240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,415
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
And off to a good start then.....it's nice to see a few trivial details , such as , erm, a lack of tangible assets perhaps ?..these being in the form of large chunks of metal known as ferries.....
An airline these days can be nothing much more than a ticket pricing algorithm. All the commodity stuff - web sites and aeroplanes and suchlike - can be hired in if and as necessary.

So the question is: why should the government hire through a middleman, who's going to want an additional profit, rather than hiring direct?
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.