Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    1708 apparently.
    And how did that end?
    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

    Comment


    • The French lost

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planne..._Britain_(1708)

      Edit, but search engines are useless atm - all you get is BJ hits...

      “Hearing that the Queen could be asked to agree to prorogue parliament as early as today,” Robinson, the former BBC political editor, said. “She’'s in Balmoral. Would be done by Order in Council. Only one source. Not confirmed. Watch this space.”
      https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKCN1VI0RJ

      Sure some of our British members can help.
      Last edited by Snowygerry; 28 Aug 19, 09:05.
      Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

      Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
        Until the markets adjust - which they inevitably would. And quite swiftly. That is (in a sense) what being in the free market is all about. Regardless the increase in market price would not help the UK fishermen but would actually increase profitability of the EU (and Norwegian & Icelandic) fish in the EU markets. Which is the reason why i said the primary beneficiaries would be the Icelandic & Norwegian fishermen.

        The main problem with the UK fishing industry has never been the EU or even the CFP but UK's own policies towards selling off their quotas (which BTW might easily continue even after the Brexit) and how the UK has seen fit to distribute its own quotas (system which is not influenced by the EU but handled by the UK even now).

        Except it works the other way around as well. Since despite of your beliefs the fishing is not a closed market. Which means the cost increase in the UK fish will translate into lower profitability in the UK fish industry. Which means either lower profits or less fishermen. If you imagine that the average consumer in the EU would pay premium just to make the UK fish industry survive you will be sorely disappointed. It may take a bit for the markets to adjust but other parties will be ready and eager take the share of market previously handled by the UK since after Brexit that share is no longer protected or beneficiary of the Single Market.

        You do understand that after leaving the EU the UK will be competing against all competitors while those already in the EU Single Market will benefit from the protective tariffs and non-tariff barriers (it is after all one of the reasons they are there for). Ironically the increase in the cost of fish is more likely to benefit the EU fishermen far more than the UK fishermen since if the market price of the fish would increase then the profit margin for the EU fishermen will increase alongside that - for the UK fishermen it is not the same since they have to deal with tariffs and non-tariff barriers as well which is more than likely to offset any increase in cost.

        Have you ever stopped for a moment and wondered why the Norwegians have that fishing agreement with the EU? If anything that you wrote were true then they would benefit far more from not having that deal in place. Yet they do. Does it mean that Norwegians do not know what they are doing or that you do not know what you are saying?
        Because in the 1950's the Norwegians swapped fish with the Soviet Union for - Poltava automobiles.....

        NO ONE IN Norway WANTS that AGAIN...


        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
          Sure some of our British members can help.
          Not now they can't: this morning's news has them gagging on their tea and crumpets..
          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

          Comment


          • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

            Not now they can't: this morning's news has them gagging on their tea and crumpets..
            Actually the .pro rogue is more apparent than real despite the whining of EU loyalists.

            Parliment is pro rogued every year in mid September for the party conferences. The only difference with what Boris has done is extend the break for an extra week to allow for a new Queen's speech. Again this is not unusual. The current Parliamentary session has lasted two years, longer than any since the time of the Commonwealth. They usually last a year.

            Boris hasn't done anything that would not normally done. One of his promises is to restore normality and this is part of it.

            In practical terms it puts pressure on the EU fanatics to put up or shut up. If they want they still have time to try a vote of no confidence. However Boris wins if they do whatever the result. If Boris wins the VONC they are humiliated. If they win then there will be an election and Boris would orobably be returned with a thumping majority. He is riding high in the polls at present based on his promise to leave the EU by 31st October come what may.
            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

              When was the last time a reigning British monarch prorogued Parliament?

              Doesn't the Queen's Speech to Parliament normally take place in the spring?
              Pro rogue is routine. Liz has done it numerous times.
              "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

              Comment


              • The last monarch to prorogue Parliament was Charles I - things could've gone better subsequently.

                On a related note, the darling of Scottish Unionism, Ruth Davidson, seems to be on the verge of resigning as Scottish Conservative leader. Frankly, her jaiket's been on a shoogly peg since she suggested that Scotland use the EU elections to send a message to Nicola Sturgeon about how they felt on independence - they did, but it wasn't to Ruthie's liking.
                Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

                Comment


                • It seems that the two right honorable members from the United Kingdom have a difference of opinion over the history of a monarch proroguing Parliament.

                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by the ace View Post
                    The last monarch to prorogue Parliament was Charles I - things could've gone better subsequently.

                    Tosh every monarch porogues parliament on a regular basis - it's part of the regular routine. Charles was the last monarch to attempt to rule without a parliament which is different.

                    However Would be Czar of the World Boris appears to the first PM to request a prorogue not for normal parliamentary administration but to block it from interfering with what he wants. Perhaps a very short haircut would also be appropriate.
                    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                    Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                      Tosh every monarch porogues parliament on a regular basis - it's part of the regular routine. Charles was the last monarch to attempt to rule without a parliament which is different.

                      However Would be Czar of the World Boris appears to the first PM to request a prorogue not for normal parliamentary administration but to block it from interfering with what he wants. Perhaps a very short haircut would also be appropriate.
                      I should've said against its will. You're right that Parliament is normally prorogued at the end of each session - when business is concluded. As to Boris' new haircut, you'll get no argument from me there.

                      Of course, if there's no Parliament to block a Section 30 order...
                      Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MarkV View Post
                        Tosh every monarch porogues parliament on a regular basis - it's part of the regular routine.
                        Which assume that Brexit is regular routine. I guess we can agree it is not the case.

                        Charles was the last monarch to attempt to rule without a parliament which is different.
                        Whether BJ is acting as Charles will most likely set before Court (High Court or SCUK). Since Speaker Bercow seem against prorogation and a majority of MP are against a no deal Brexit this lead to the second constitutional crisis in less than 3 years.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                          Tosh every monarch porogues parliament on a regular basis - it's part of the regular routine. Charles was the last monarch to attempt to rule without a parliament which is different.

                          However Would be Czar of the World Boris appears to the first PM to request a prorogue not for normal parliamentary administration but to block it from interfering with what he wants. Perhaps a very short haircut would also be appropriate.
                          Again wrong. Both Atlee and Major used pro rogue for political purposes.

                          it is only four days longer than the normal at this time of year. And having a Queen’s speech is more than enough reason for that.
                          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                            Again wrong. Both Atlee and Major used pro rogue for political purposes.
                            Both Atlee and Major acted in agreement with Parliament. BJ use proroguation in order to bypass Parliament.

                            Comment


                            • "A very British Coup" was the title of my morning paper here.

                              But they agree with Surrey here that the idea is to provoke elections, which Johnson appears confident of winning.

                              Hard to imagine, I'd like to see a politician, with the King in tow, try to prevent parliament from gathering here, he best bring an army of several million or there would be blood on the senate floor,


                              but to each his own


                              Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

                              Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Metryll View Post

                                Both Atlee and Major acted in agreement with Parliament. BJ use proroguation in order to bypass Parliament.
                                If the EU supporting MPs don’t like it then they can always try a VONC, if they have the guts.
                                "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X