Brexit - whats the difference.....

Lol...good job that was Private Eye as when @Playford7 said that in jest he was pilloried.
What does Farage do now anyway?

I see there were demonstrations today in Dover at the government's failure to stop the illegal economic migrants from crossing the channel.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

It's not like illegal immigration will stop once GB isn't part of the EU anymore... If anything it might get worse, but then again the system in GB where you don't need a passport and all that seems to be geared towards inviting (illegal) immigrants in. Or atleast it seems that way to me.
 
Very biting 'satirical' cover of course, but had we not covered this? And again I ask - other than at least attempting to maintain a country's borders, so as not to allow a complete free-for-all from unvetted arrivals, is the U.K supposed to allow anyone and everyone in, for fear of being labelled 'racist'?

What happened to the first safe point of refuge, does that not apply anymore? Are all arrivals genuine asylum seekers, so no need to vet anyone I take it? And what happens when we actually can't take anymore?

Thing is we already have a system in place for asylum seekers to make official applications via that route. But apparently that's also no longer applicable
 
Lol...good job that was Private Eye as when @Playford7 said that in jest he was pilloried.

The joke was would it be on Playford's Christmas list without actually mentioning his name :)

Anyway Private Eye is satire so it gets away with pretty much anything.

Well, apart from the Princess Diana front cover..... That issue is worth quite a lot of money now I believe, which is annoying, as I actually had it back in the day,,,,

1599327472677.png
 
Very biting 'satirical' cover of course, but had we not covered this? And again I ask - other than at least attempting to maintain a country's borders, so as not to allow a complete free-for-all from unvetted arrivals, is the U.K supposed to allow anyone and everyone in, for fear of being labelled 'racist'?

It isn't a cover, it's just one of the throwaway jokes in this issue's 'GnomeMart' section :)
 
With the looming world slump, printing of money, quantitative easing etc. and real chance of stagflation, has anyone been investing their savings in gold bullion? As you'll be lucky to get 100 quid per year in interest from 100k in the bank now, it might be an idea. I recently had a dabble, have already made 3-4%.

In the UK due to a quirk that we still mint some legal tender in Gold, unlike Silver (commemorative or collector sets), Platinum and Palladium there is no VAT levied on Gold. You can buy £100 Gold Britannias at 1oz .999 gold weight for example, as well as sovereigns. You can get Aussie gold Koalas, or Krugerrands for 1oz too.

There has been a run on gold recently with the Royal Mint running out of all but the really expensive 400oz bars, OK if you have 560k to spend lol.

You are exempt from tax on the first 11k of annual gold profit too.
 
So this is..... slightly alarming.

Rumours abound that this is a prelude to a No Deal, and would effectively set the UK at near 'rogue state' status on the international stage.

We'll have to wait to see if the story is confirmed or not in the next week or so.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


1599429705689.png
1599429692672.png
 
I always thought that deal he struck last year was ****, the other leaders were jubilant and all smiles. They said it was a transitional deal to be in place while we negotiated the real final deal, so I don't know if tearing part of it up is illegal or wrong. Probably a warning shot to the EU, we're not mucking around - but who knows?

1599433324730.png

At the end of the day the EU's rules should not come before trading between european countries, the trade is more important to the countries than these rules dreamt up in brussels.
 
Last edited:
I always thought that deal he struck last year was ****,

The problem with this argument is it's the same as Iain Duncan Smith's revisionism. If the deal was so shit, why was it presented as an 'oven ready deal', why were we told it would GET BREXIT DONE? Why did anyone vote for it if they could see it was a load of shit?

Or was it an elaborate double bluff? 'I shall vote for this oven ready deal and GET BREXIT DONE, even though I think the deal is shit and I don't agree with it at all, because I am absolutely confident that the UK will then go on to rip up an internationally binding legal agreement and shit all over its commitments to its neighbours to do something I approve of more'.

I'll just remind you again how IDS reacted in the Commons when this 'shit' deal was passed..... This is the man who promoted the same shit deal endlessly, lest we forget. (Perhaps he didn't read it? And/or understand it?)

1599462319786.png
 
The problem with this argument is it's the same as Iain Duncan Smith's revisionism. If the deal was so shit, why was it presented as an 'oven ready deal', why were we told it would GET BREXIT DONE? Why did anyone vote for it if they could see it was a load of shit?

Or was it an elaborate double bluff? 'I shall vote for this oven ready deal and GET BREXIT DONE, even though I think the deal is shit and I don't agree with it at all, because I am absolutely confident that the UK will then go on to rip up an internationally binding legal agreement and shit all over its commitments to its neighbours to do something I approve of more'.

I'll just remind you again how IDS reacted in the Commons when this 'shit' deal was passed..... This is the man who promoted the same shit deal endlessly, lest we forget. (Perhaps he didn't read it? And/or understand it?)

View attachment 141088

wasn't IDS reaction a part of westminster's sort of tribal atmosphere, two fingers as it were to the lab/lib/snp members sat opposite that had been trying to block any form of brexit from happening, rather than celebrating it as a great deal. I think even rees mogg was persuaded to vote for it, there was a danger to the conservative party itself [from nigel's new party] due to the 3 year inability to get the brexit departure bills passed. I expect the deal brought a lot of relief politically.

I read an opinion on twitter last night that the agreement with the EU was based on the fact that the negotiations happening now would be carried out in good faith, and there is an argument to be had that the EU has not been doing that.
 
Say what you want about Referendum-duping, it all becomes secondary on either side of the divide if politicians decide to do last-minute U-turns.

It's all becoming rather unsavoury, but then it's always been a game to these people, from their plush abodes
 
'Unforseen' as in Theresa May knew full well that the WA Johnson agreed to would put a border down the Irish Sea and leave NI in a perilous position.

So 'unforseen' as in completely well understood by Johnson's predecessor, which is why she wouldn't agree to it.

For clarity, when Johnson 're-negotiated' the WA and passed it off as a success, he basically threw NI under the bus (in a fashion Theresa May point blank refused to), sold it as his 'fantastic oven ready deal', got elected on that basis, and now wants to go back on what he explicitly agreed to, and lied to the British public about.

1599547943947.png
1599548028426.png
 
Last edited:
A few reminders of just how awfully the UK government is behaving.

Do note please that this isn't just a domestic issue, many other countries around the world are paying full attention to what an untrustworthy and unreliable negotiator the UK has turned out to be, and will modify their behaviour to us accordingly.

It's like the mate who's always cadging drinks off you on a promise he'll get the rounds in next time, but he never does. Eventually, you'll just stop buying him drinks.

1599551983810.png
1599552018528.png

This one hasn't aged well.

1599552192777.png

1599552239642.png
1599552265301.png
 
The posturing is real. The bravado is real. Even Johnson's hair has taken on a poker-face all of its own.

"Yoohoo guys, we're over here! We're that troublesome island that do more U-turns than Pacman. You will respect our authori-tieh!"

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Pop Quiz - who said this?

--------------

Britain does not break Treaties. It would be bad for Britain, bad for our relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade we may need to make.

--------------






Margaret Thatcher.


You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
From the same speech:


The choice is clear. We can play a role in developing Europe, or we can turn our backs on the Community.

By turning our backs we would forfeit our right to influence what happens in the Community. But what happens in the Community will inevitably affect us. The European Community is a powerful group of nations. With Britain as a member, it is more powerful; without Britain it will still be powerful. We can play a leading role in Europe, but if that leadership is not forthcoming Europe will develop without Britain.

Britain, if she denounced a treaty, cannot then complain if Europe develops in conflict with Britain's interests.
 
Just so we understand where we're at, the Northern Ireland Secretary just stood up in the House of Commons and said:

'Yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.'

We're all OK with this? Really? Price worth paying for Brexit?

1599570666331.png

At least we can get a giggle out of it, I suppose.

1599570761311.png
 
1599573449567.png

Barnier's 'The waters are yours but the fish are ours' logic must fit the criteria of negotiating in bad faith ?

Apparently another bone of contention on top of fish, are the level playing field provisions on state aid, where typically the uk already spends less than half the average EU member:

As things stand, the UK spends considerably less on state aid than most other EU countries. In 2016 the UK spent 0.36% of GDP on state aid excluding railways compared to 0.65% in France and 1.31% in Germany. Only five countries spent less. [LSE brexit blog]

Dominic cummings wants to up govt investment into the technology sector, seems eminently sensible, and therefore we can't run the risk of the EU and its courts interfering & deciding what we can and can't do in this regard.
 
Yes I remember that being a really hot topic during the referendum, the freedom for the UK to allocate more state aid to an as yet doesn't exist hi tech sector. (PRO TIP - I predict that these new hi tech companies will all be run by pals of Cummings and other senior Tories.)

Also, EU members already have substantial freedoms on state aid and how to allocate it, as demonstrated by your numbers above :)

When governments start admitting they're deliberately setting off down a path of breaking international law, there's a problem.

1599576142766.png
 
Yes I remember that being a really hot topic during the referendum, the freedom for the UK to allocate more state aid to an as yet doesn't exist hi tech sector. (PRO TIP - I predict that these new hi tech companies will all be run by pals of Cummings and other senior Tories.)

:laugh: Well that should keep the journalists [and private eye] busy finding out about it and telling the public.

I don't think that lewis bloke had much of a choice, some things can't be dressed up, but the logic and any explanation are just as important. Weasel words would just have given the remainer pundits [esp legal professionals] more ammunition and reason to pursue it until the govt admitted it. [and then look worse for the initial denial]
 
I don't think that lewis bloke had much of a choice, some things can't be dressed up, but the logic and any explanation are just as important.

I'm not really sure that's how breaking the law works mack, try that with the police should you ever get arrested for something. 'Well you see officer, I only broke the law in a specific and limited way, and I told everyone I was going to do it'.

'Ahhh right you are mack, on your way then!'

On a wider note, it's worth remembering what the NI Protocol was for, it wasn't a terrible Brussels ploy to break up the UK or impose rules on us or punish us, it was a plan to prevent customs posts getting blown up which is what happened in the days before peace in Ireland.

Customs posts aren’t just a target or provocation, they’re also a visceral reminder of centuries of imperialism, a land divided and a community denied the right to assert its identity. Fuck the government forever for subordinating that to ERG nationalism and Boris Johnson’s ego.
 
Customs posts aren’t just a target or provocation, they’re also a visceral reminder of centuries of imperialism, a land divided and a community denied the right to assert its identity.

That is an interesting juxtaposition to hold alongside strongly supporting the EU, where laws are being made centrally by unelected bureaucrats, even a choice of president isn't given to the people.

Also what about the way the EU responded to the catalan situation and spain, how does that fit with upholding this no doubt noble principle?

1599601797690.png

I believe the issue the uk govt face is having internal trade between the UK and NI attract tariffs, which is obviously madness, so they want to make sure that cannot happen. That's my understanding, but I could be wrong, hopefully all will be revealed tomorrow.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Click here for Red Cherry Casino

Meister Ratings

Back
Top