OK so were are left with one stick ...... snap the bugger in half and we have two sticks. See there's always a solution !!
You might have hit on something here. A Remoaner will see a broken stick A Bremoaner will see 2 sticks that can be rubbed together.
When you see a car maker in the U.K. reducing workforce numbers, it's not surprising to see extreme remainers get into a sexual frenzy claiming it's all brexit And yet, within the last few days, Ford has announced it will cut in excess of 5,000 jobs in Germany and close a gearbox factory near Bordeux costing an additional 800 jobs. Remainers? they be silent
Most people realise the car industry is in a continuos state of flux. Funny though that Ford and Turkey is not mentioned again, another EU conspiracy ...maybe the jobs in Germany and Bordeaux are going there... When we start to get in to positive territory with the number of manufacturers (all types) that give thumbs up to Brexit, then that would be something worth talking about.
It's refreshing to see someone who has said brexit caused uk car industry job losses, now agreeing what many have said all along that it is the state of flux within the industry itself more than any other factor.
http://www.eumemes.eu/brexit-boycott-lists.html Fairly sure the above site is pro remain. Interesting that their 'lists' would suggest more support for leave than remain, unless I'm missing something
So they seem to be telling you to boycott the Brexit Companies even though they are very much in the majority - all I hear from Remoaners on here is that all businesses back remain - perhaps they will shed some light on this?
Nothing is theoretical: it all has to be done. What is happening right now is this very process, but without the hard deadline of when we are leaving. This gives the government time to understand the problem (because they don't right now: backstop? ferry-less ferry companies? queues at Dover?), doesn't have a solution for any of it and can't get anything approved even if they did! If anything, negotiating the deal first before triggering the fuse would give us much more power in determining the outcome; the upper hand if you will. What Brexit did was to fix the date of the marriage before they had even started dating anyone.
No, otherwise these would not be happening, just a few https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47399500 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/03/03/europeans-double-uk-investment-since-brexit-vote/ I would admit some countries are suspending or holding back on further or new investment until they know what the situation is. I know some will have used the U.K. for access to europe and will do what is right for their business.
Did you miss the 42 year marriage before the vote where the majority decided to call it a day on the marriage?
This is our Parliament's rules. It's the process of Parliamentary Sovereignty. You know, that thing that we don't have until we leave the EU.
No it isn't, it's a bunch of Remoaner MP's dicking about with the system as they are self centred cvnts
You do understand that anyone with the authority to negotiate and plan for Brexit was actually planning for a version of Remain that didn't immediately trigger a popular revolution, right? That all the efforts, all the show-boating, all the displays of difficulty and incompetence, the stream of "Brexit Secretaries" (LOL), all of it, was deliberate in an effort to deflect the Public from the conclusion that the UK Government fully intended from the very beginning to effectively over-turn the 2016 Referendum result. Think about it. We have seen no evidence of an attempt to leave the EU except in the most superficial fashion. The universally accepted sensible bargaining position or strategy, of leaving with "No Deal" unless a mutually beneficial deal is reached was NEVER EVEN ATTEMPTED. If the Government had said, "Nah mate, no Brexit for you", what do you think would have happened? Instead, we have seen, "It can't be done!", played out over and over and over again but with no hard evidence that "it cannot be done". This is precisely how you defy the will of a people without incurring their ire or more importantly, their rebellion. It is beyond any kind of doubt now. There are literally no set of circumstances which can logically explain the drama we have seen played out for two-and-a-half years. Brexit was never going to be attempted, except a bastardised form that was worse than Remain and which will quickly lead to the UK rejoining the Project. Anyone thinking, "yeah, conspiracy theory" right now is not a serious person and need not trouble me with their naivety and absence of critical, penetrative thought. Away with you : o )
yon craig murry has a suspicious mind no? Brexit has revealed further the rottenness of the British political Establishment, but I am still truly shocked now to see the Government of the United Kingdom negotiating a major international treaty on the acknowledged, discussed and now published basis that it has every intention of breaking that treaty once it is in force. Officially published by the Attorney General, no less. The Westminster Government’s contempt for international law was fully demonstrated just two weeks ago when it repudiated the International Court of Justice – an act which is the ultimate disavowal of the rule of international law – over the decolonisation of the Chagos Islands. So in one sense it is no shock that they are prepared to sign a treaty with no intention of honoring it. . But what is quite astonishing is that the discussions with the DUP and ERG on how to sign up to the backstop and then dishonour it, have been carried out fully in public, and with the potential other party to the treaty looking on. I simply do not see how the EU can now sign the Withdrawal Agreement which was negotiated with May, when they have been given firm evidence that the UK intends to cheat on that Agreement. I especially cannot understand the pusillanimous attitude of the government of Ireland to this development. The UK has published in advance that it is taking Ireland and the Irish people for fools and has no intention of keeping to the Irish backstop. The reaction of the Government of Ireland is to pretend not to notice. That is an astonishing dereliction of its duty to the people of Ireland, North and South. . The more so as Geoffrey Cox’s “advice” is an unsubtle hint to the DUP, should the backstop become effective, to restart the Loyalist violence with which they were for decades so closely associated, in order to provide the pretext for cancelling the backstop. In reading this, it is essential to remember that this legal advice was written, as a matter of definite fact, directly for the DUP audience to try and influence the DUP in the next “meaningful” vote. To signal to an organisation as steeped in blood as the DUP that the way out of the “Backstop” arrangement which they so hate, would be to demonstrate it is having a “socially destabilising effect in Northern Ireland”, clearly gives a very direct incentive to Loyalists to restart violence. Anybody who knows anything about the history and politics of Northern Ireland must be aware that what I have just written is true. At the very best reading, Cox’s “advice” is grossly irresponsible and reckless. . t is also very poor legal advice. Unlike Geoffrey Cox, I have actually negotiated a number of international treaties, including most of the UK’s continental shelf boundary agreements, the Protocol on Deep Seabed Mining to UNCLOS and the Sierra Leone Peace Agreement. Cox’s interpretation of Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on Treaties is complete nonsense. To start with, Article 62 is designed not to facilitate but to prevent treaties being dishonoured under the excuse of “unforseen circumstances”. It reads: . Article 62 Fundamental change of circumstances 1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless: (a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and . 21 (b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty. 2. A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty: (a) if the treaty establishes a boundary; or (b) if the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty. . 3. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the change as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty. . Very plainly indeed, neither 1 a) nor 1 b) apply to the situation Cox outlines. Just not working out the way you intended is not grounds to dishonor a treaty. Social discontent in Northern Ireland would not radically transform the obligations under the treaty nor is social content the essential basis of consent to the treaty. The second, and frankly hilarious, point is that Cox’s advice is demonstrably nonsense. To permit the dishonoring of the treaty, a change in circumstance must not only be “fundamental” it must also be “unforeseen”. Yet in his legal advice Cox foresees and specifies the “unforeseen” event that might lead to cancellation! I rest my case. It is worth reminding you – as the MSM refuse to do – that the Tory Brexiteers oppose the Good Friday Agreement, and destroying it is to them a potential gain from Brexit rather than a disaster to be averted. Remember this by Michael Gove, asserting that the British military option would be better than the Good Friday Agreement? . Ulster’s future lies, ultimately, either as a Province of the United Kingdom or a united Ireland. Attempts to fudge or finesse that truth only create an ambiguity which those who profit by violence will seek to exploit. Therefore, the best guarantee for stability is the assertion by the Westminster Government that it will defend, with all vigour, the right of the democratic majority in Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom. Ulster could then be governed with an Assembly elected on the same basis as Wales, and an administration constituted in the same way. Minority rights should be protected by the same legal apparatus which exists across the UK. The legislative framework which has guaranteed the rights and freedoms of Roman Catholics and ethnic minorities in Liverpool and London should apply equally in Belfast and Belleek… In such circumstances, resolute security action, the use of existing antiterrorist legislation and the careful application of intelligence could reduce the IRA to operating as it did in the fifties and sixties. Combining such security measures with a political determination not to allow Ulster’s constitutional status to be altered by force of arms would rob the republicans of hope. It can be done. But does any Government have the will? Interestingly enough, after I published an article on Gove’s 58 page pamphlet attacking the Good Friday Agreement, the Tory think tank which published it, the Centre for Policy Studies, immediately took it down from the web. I have, however, copied it to my own website. By chance, my next couple of speaking engagements are in Northern Ireland. This is not the subject I was intending to discuss, but I never know what I am going to say when I stand up anyway. Happy to answer questions on anything
