Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%

  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
How would you have us carry responsibility Bruce? I don't understand what you're asking for. We didn't call the referendum, we didn't fight the shocking remain campaign, we didn't screw up the negotiation process repeatedly. We didn't elect Johnson. Tell me how you think we should take responsibility?

If it's any consolation to you it's been open season to call leave voters every name under the sun and imply that we're all closet Nazis since the vote. Not only can you call us everything you want, you can do so and know that nobody will ever question you, unlike our MP's who need to have their delicate feelings protected.

Because, as is constantly reminded, you voted for it and it wouldn't have happened without you.

There's this belief that the idea you voted for is grand, if only the right people implemented it. The alternative argument is that you backed a turkey.
 
So the yellowhammer report is how bad Brexit will be on this country .

If only the government spent the 2 years since declaring we were leaving actually preparing for this.

Seems to me the shock value isnt a shock value at all. It's the ineptitude of the governments to even prepare for this.

If only they could do something to stop it happening.
 
How would you have us carry responsibility Bruce? I don't understand what you're asking for. We didn't call the referendum, we didn't fight the shocking remain campaign, we didn't screw up the negotiation process repeatedly. We didn't elect Johnson. Tell me how you think we should take responsibility?

If it's any consolation to you it's been open season to call leave voters every name under the sun and imply that we're all closet Nazis since the vote. Not only can you call us everything you want, you can do so and know that nobody will ever question you, unlike our MP's who need to have their delicate feelings protected.
I think it's more to do with continuing insistence on blind faith. Despite all of the above.

Since the referendum

  • The pound has tanked
  • The Prime Minister has lied to the queen & suspended parliament
  • Organisations are saying that instability in market is presenting them problems
  • We're stockpiling medicines
  • It's caused a constitutional crisis
  • Newspapers are openly writing about delightful it is that the Prime Minister is lying and misleading the population.
  • Banks and financial institutions are moving money out of the UK.
  • We're championing moving from inside the world's largest market to operating on the most basic trade terms.
  • It's estimated that it's cost around €66b pounds to UK households.
  • We will lose freedoms and rights as a result of leaving and the government has said they will, after we leave, seek to remove individual rights and freedoms from UK Nationals (rights which they are currently relying on to stop the UK public seeing where they have connived to suspend parliament and discussion about the impact that No Deal will have on that population).
  • Police and defence saying that the UK will be less safe as a result of inability to operate freely across borders.
Meanwhile those telling you that it will be glorious are betting against the £ failing and making hundreds of millions doing so.

I think if I had voted for that, ignoring people telling me that it would happen, I might think at this point 'Maybe I got it wrong, maybe it's not a good idea. I've changed my mind'.
 
Because, as is constantly reminded, you voted for it and it wouldn't have happened without you.

There's this belief that the idea you voted for is grand, if only the right people implemented it. The alternative argument is that you backed a turkey.
The question still stands Bruce. How would you have us "take responsibility"?
 
I think it's more to do with continuing insistence on blind faith. Despite all of the above.

Since the referendum

  • The pound has tanked
  • The Prime Minister has lied to the queen & suspended parliament
  • Organisations are saying that instability in market is presenting them problems
  • We're stockpiling medicines
  • It's caused a constitutional crisis
  • Newspapers are openly writing about delightful it is that the Prime Minister is lying and misleading the population.
  • Banks and financial institutions are moving money out of the UK.
  • We're championing moving from inside the world's largest market to operating on the most basic trade terms.
  • It's estimated that it's cost around €66b pounds to UK households.
  • We will lose freedoms and rights as a result of leaving and the government has said they will, after we leave, seek to remove individual rights and freedoms from UK Nationals (rights which they are currently relying on to stop the UK public seeing where they have connived to suspend parliament and discussion about the impact that No Deal will have on that population).
  • Police and defence saying that the UK will be less safe as a result of inability to operate freely across borders.
Meanwhile those telling you that it will be glorious are betting against the £ failing and making hundreds of millions doing so.

I think if I had voted for that, ignoring people telling me that it would happen, I might think at this point 'Maybe I got it wrong, maybe it's not a good idea. I've changed my mind'.

But the likes of Rees Moog and the people who fund Johnson will make a few quid from us leaving plus getting away from the tax laws that the EU have planned to clamp down on tax avoidance schemes.

That's the crux of it.
 
So the yellowhammer report is how bad Brexit will be on this country .

If only the government spent the 2 years since declaring we were leaving actually preparing for this.

Seems to me the shock value isnt a shock value at all. It's the ineptitude of the governments to even prepare for this.
If only they could do something about it?

Just a reminder:

IMG_20190912_113825.webp
IMG_20190912_113820.webp
 
'Maybe I got it wrong, maybe it's not a good idea. I've changed my mind'.
Even if people felt that way what would be the point in saying so? The government wouldn't pay the slightest bit of attention and all they'd get at best would be a condescending pat on the head and a lecture. It's not like it would change anything.
 
1. It's not. It's a Base Case scenario that they've changed the title of.

2. Medical supplies have been stockpiled. It's common knowledge. Medicines are also being categorised as the UKs highest prioy. But there are drugs that aren't included in those stockpiling measures - such as some Anti-psychotic drugs and non prescription drugs that may be essential daily items. Further to this, drugs with specific temperature requirements, short life spans and radiology/chemical treatments that rely on door to door supply chains will be heavily affected by disruption.

3. I keep seeing on social media the question being asked 'why only 5 pages?'. I suspect the answer is that the government has deferred a lot of planning to Local Authority, Local Resilience Forums, local Health providers/commissioners asking that they ensure preparedness based upon key aspects like data, supply chain, workforce, clinical consumables etc and asking for assurance in respect of those arrangements. The difficulty is that the guidance either asks that nothing is done as the government is managing it or asks for mitigation that can't reasonably be achieved. So largely organisations are returning a rating of 'partial' preparedness as they don't know what interventions the government is making. But...whenever clarity is sought from government about specific issues, the answer is always 'we'll add it to the list or it's something we are considering' which does not engender confidence 1 month away from a potential No Deal.
1. It's not. It's a Base Case scenario that they've changed the title of.

2. Medical supplies have been stockpiled. It's common knowledge. Medicines are also being categorised as the UKs highest prioy. But there are drugs that aren't included in those stockpiling measures - such as some Anti-psychotic drugs and non prescription drugs that may be essential daily items. Further to this, drugs with specific temperature requirements, short life spans and radiology/chemical treatments that rely on door to door supply chains will be heavily affected by disruption.

3. I keep seeing on social media the question being asked 'why only 5 pages?'. I suspect the answer is that the government has deferred a lot of planning to Local Authority, Local Resilience Forums, local Health providers/commissioners asking that they ensure preparedness based upon key aspects like data, supply chain, workforce, clinical consumables etc and asking for assurance in respect of those arrangements. The difficulty is that the guidance either asks that nothing is done as the government is managing it or asks for mitigation that can't reasonably be achieved. So largely organisations are returning a rating of 'partial' preparedness as they don't know what interventions the government is making. But...whenever clarity is sought from government about specific issues, the answer is always 'we'll add it to the list or it's something we are considering' which does not engender confidence 1 month away from a potential No Deal.
Looks like I was wrong to take you off ignore.
 

'The High Court in England plainly agreed with us'

From the High Court case:

the Prime Minister has a broad discretion in deciding when to advise the
Queen that Parliament should be prorogued. He submits, however, that on the
extraordinary facts of this case, there has been such a manifest abuse:
(1) because of the exceptional length of the prorogation, during a critical
period, when time is of the essence;
(2) because the Prime Minister provides no reasonable justification on
the facts for requiring a prorogation of such exceptional length; and
(3) because the evidence demonstrates that the decision of the Prime Minister is infected by ‘rank bad reasons’ for the prorogation, namely that Parliament does nothing of value in September and the risk that Parliament will impede the achievement of his policies, both of which demonstrate a fundamental failure on the Prime Minister’s part to understand the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

However...

All of these arguments face the insuperable difficulty that it is impossible for the court to make a legal assessment of whether the duration of the prorogation was excessive by reference to any measure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top