Brexit negotiations

[Clinton]

Today's good news:

The largest company in the world; yes, larger than Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet et al, is going to float on the London Stock Exchange. Not Berlin. Not Paris. Not even NY. International businesses aren't deserting London because of the impending Brexit, they are flocking to London.

Also...

Aviva losing 100+ staff at their Southend office. The good news is that Aviva are not moving those jobs to Paris, they are moving them to Perth. That's Perth, UK.

Strong pound hurting the FTSE today. (and that's despite the BoE's Deputy saying that he doesn't back a rate rise - a comment that would normally push GBP down). GBP keeps rising and has already clawed back a third of the progress is made downwards in the immediate aftermath of the Referendum. So, not very good news on that front, but hopefully it will improve.

 

[Newchodge]

The largest company in the world; yes, larger than Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet et al, is going to float on the London Stock Exchange. Not Berlin. Not Paris.

They are not going to float, they want to float but only if we are prepared to change our regulations for them. That is most likely the reason they want to come to London - thery know they can bully us into changing the rules, something they would not be able to do in he rest of Europe.

 

[The Byre]

The tory right? Plus of course some of those who want completely out of Europe. We call those people 'voters'.

And they accounted for 26% of the population.

So much for 'The Will of the People'.

 

[Clinton]

... thery know they can bully us into changing the rules, something they would not be able to do in he rest of Europe.

That's why all the other bourses in Europe were trying to attract them ...and offering to change their rules.

You do need slightly different rules for sovereign controlled firms as they operate differently to purely commercial entities. It's as much for our own protection.

Each time I post a good news story I'm sure there'll be someone trying to poke a hole. Let me declare I'm not going to be answering most of them. If you want sad stories there's always the Guardian and the Independent.

 

[Mr D]

And they accounted for 26% of the population.

So much for 'The Will of the People'.

The decisions are made by those who vote. The population who decide not to vote or who cannot vote do not get counted that way.
Whether you or I like it or not the decision of the majority of those who did vote was to leave. For whatever reason.
I don't like the result but I do accept the result.

Unless of course you want 100% of the population to be forced to vote regardless? At the barrel of a gun or merely threat of imprisonment?
I've a 6 week old 2nd cousin, how should he vote? He's part of the population, just not a registered voter.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

The largest company in the world; yes, larger than Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet et al, is going to float on the London Stock Exchange. Not Berlin. Not Paris. Not even NY. International businesses aren't deserting London because of the impending Brexit, they are flocking to London.

Which fits my earlier post that the May, Johnson, Davis "opportunities" entail dealing with countries we shouldn't touch with a barge pole

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Each time I post a good news story I'm sure there'll be someone trying to poke a hole. Let me declare I'm not going to be answering most of them. If you want sad stories there's always the Guardian and the Independent.

That would be me because your examples are ridiculous and silly and don't take a deeper view of what they say. You not answering anything would be good for this thread.

 

[STDFR33]

Which fits my earlier post that the May, Johnson, Davis "opportunities" entail dealing with countries we shouldn't touch with a barge pole

We've always dealt with these types of countries.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

We call those people 'voters'.

And before May was in the Home Office no survey showed up a percentage of 'voters' against the ECJ. More people were concerned about Home Insulation than the ECJ. Even if asked specifically I doubt you would get many people voting to remove our rights.

 

[Mr D]

And before May was in the Home Office no survey showed up a percentage of 'voters' against the ECJ. More people were concerned about Home Insulation than the ECJ. Even if asked specifically I doubt you would get many people voting to remove our rights.

You may have missed some of the debate about the referendum before we voted.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

We've always dealt with these types of countries.

And so have I but unlike May etc. I was never in a position to bring pressure on their human rights record. Nor did I make it a policy decision to turn my back on European clients.

 

[Mr D]

Which fits my earlier post that the May, Johnson, Davis "opportunities" entail dealing with countries we shouldn't touch with a barge pole

Luckily enough you are not in government. The governments we have had over the years have decided which countries we should deal with. Rather a lot of countries overall.
When you become Dictator you can decide which countries we should deal with. And make it happen.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

You may have missed some of the debate about the referendum before we voted.

Well so did the polling organisations in 2010.

 

[Mr D]

And so have I but unlike May etc. I was never in a position to bring pressure on their human rights record. Nor did I make it a policy decision to turn my back on European clients.

Some of our bigger trade partners have human rights records. We have human rights record too - should other countries turn their backs on us?

 

[Mr D]

Well so did the polling organisations in 2010.

6 years before we voted in a referendum? Not surprising.

 

[Clinton]

... your examples are ridiculous and silly ...

Absolutely, but I'll keep them a bit less silly than the hopelessly biased, one-sided articles in the Guardian and Independent (or the "i" as the pretentious pratts would have us call them).

 

[STDFR33]

And so have I but unlike May etc. I was never in a position to bring pressure on their human rights record. Nor did I make it a policy decision to turn my back on European clients.

Why just May?

Blair had plenty of time in power to do it when doing dodgy deals with these types of countries.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Why just May?

Blair had plenty of time in power to do it when doing dodgy deals with these types of countries.

Its May who has recently visited Saudi Arabia and described trade with the country as a "marvelous opportunity" for the UK. Also she is a woman and you would assume knew how women were treated.

When I first visited Saudi Arabia I was unaware that women were not allowed to drive. Now, a few years later I'm sure every politician is aware.

 

[Mr D]

Its May who has recently visited Saudi Arabia and described trade with the country as a "marvelous opportunity" for the UK. Also she is a woman and you would assume knew how women were treated.

When I first visited Saudi Arabia I was unaware that women were not allowed to drive. Now, a few years later I'm sure every politician is aware.

You are aware that for some decades now the UK has maintained a friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia and sold them such things as aircraft?
Unless we want to go and invade the country and run it ourselves we really cannot force them to change their ways of doing things.
How would you feel if by the same principle as you seem to have that they tried to get us to treat our women like they treat theirs?
Should that country not trade with us because of how we treat our women?

 

[Newchodge]

How would you feel if by the same principle as you seem to have that they tried to get us to treat our women like they treat theirs?

The argument against Saudi weapons trade has little to do with how 'they treat their women', but their current illegal bombardment of Yemen and their appalling human ridgts record, plus the allegation (as yet unproved) that they fund terrorist activity in Europe.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

You are aware that for some decades now the UK has maintained a friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia and sold them such things as aircraft?

Of course! The Al-Yamamah arms deal made a lot of money but hasn't done much to help our country's reputation.

 

[quikshop]

When I first visited Saudi Arabia I was unaware that women were not allowed to drive. Now, a few years later I'm sure every politician is aware.

I'm going to regret asking this but... what's your point?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...heresa-may-conservatives-labour-a7839016.html

To all those voting leave because they thought the UK was more democratic than the EU need to think again.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

You are aware that for some decades now the UK has maintained a friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia and sold them such things as aircraft?
Unless we want to go and invade the country and run it ourselves we really cannot force them to change their ways of doing things.
How would you feel if by the same principle as you seem to have that they tried to get us to treat our women like they treat theirs?
Should that country not trade with us because of how we treat our women?

I think it's the hypocrisy that is the issue.

The UK (and many other countries) are happy to attack human rights records of many nations, but they are noticeably quiet when those countries provide big trade opportunities.

She does criticise other countries and does try to pressure them - unless they're rich and easily offended.

 

[quikshop]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...heresa-may-conservatives-labour-a7839016.html

To all those voting leave because they thought the UK was more democratic than the EU need to think again.

I like this bit;

However, they will admit there are no specific restrictions in the legislation to prevent ministers also changing aspects of law they “do not like”.

This is a left wing virtual rag soaked in Tory hatred and Brexit denial stating speculation as fact. Really Cobby, your references are as embarrassing as your unqualified pro-EU bias

 

[Newchodge]

How would you feel if by the same principle as you seem to have that they tried to get us to treat our women like they treat theirs?
Should that country not trade with us because of how we treat our women?

Are you aware of how appallingly sexist and degrading that comment is? How we treat our women? I wasn't aware that being a woman meant that I was a possession of you and yours (we, presumably meaning men).

 

[STDFR33]

Are you aware of how appallingly sexist and degrading that comment is? How we treat our women? I wasn't aware that being a woman meant that I was a possession of you and yours (we, presumably meaning men).

Or maybe he means 'we' as in society. As in how our society treats women compared to how the Saudi society treats women.

 

[Newchodge]

Or maybe he means 'we' as in society. As in how our society treats women compared to how the Saudi society treats women.

Turn it around. Would anyone talk about the way we treat our men, in the same way?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

However, they will admit there are no specific restrictions in the legislation to prevent ministers also changing aspects of law they “do not like”.

This is a left wing virtual rag soaked in Tory hatred and Brexit denial stating speculation as fact. Really Cobby, your references are as embarrassing as your unqualified pro-EU bias

OK, if you prefer another source how about Parliament's own website.

The Government sometimes adds this provision to a Bill to enable the Government to repeal or amend it after it has become an Act of Parliament. The provision enables primary legislation to be amended or repealed by subordinate legislation with or without further parliamentary scrutiny.

Such provisions are known as Henry VIII clauses, so named from the Statute of Proclamations 1539 which gave King Henry VIII power to legislate by proclamation.

You may think that is benign but when one minister can decide what the law of the country is without a vote in the Commons it makes a mockery of democracy.

An example of this was luckily thwarted a few years ago in what became known among the creative arts as Clause 43. This would have enabled one minister to give the organisation of all UKs copyright to Google without a vote.

 

[STDFR33]

Turn it around. Would anyone talk about the way we treat our men, in the same way?

He was comparing the treatment between the UK and Saudi Arabia.

Men are able to drive, and don't have to walk five feet behind their wives in Saudi Arabia.

I think you are just being 'offended' to try and stir up and an argument, and it's derailing the discussion.

 

[Mr D]

The argument against Saudi weapons trade has little to do with how 'they treat their women', but their current illegal bombardment of Yemen and their appalling human ridgts record, plus the allegation (as yet unproved) that they fund terrorist activity in Europe.

Indeed.
However just because people within a country support terrorists or the state itself looks the other way while terrorists supported we can still trade with them, still even consider them an ally.
We trade with the US - may have noticed they invade places a lot and bomb people? Legal or illegal bombardments don't mean much to the recipients.
We've bombed people, whether legal or illegal again doesn't matter to the recipient.

 

[Mr D]

Of course! The Al-Yamamah arms deal made a lot of money but hasn't done much to help our country's reputation.

Wasn't aware our reputation needed help. We appear still to be doing well many years later.

 

[Mr D]

Are you aware of how appallingly sexist and degrading that comment is? How we treat our women? I wasn't aware that being a woman meant that I was a possession of you and yours (we, presumably meaning men).

No, wasn't aware at all. Perhaps you can enlighten us sometime.
I treat my wife well, that does not make her my possession. Her father gave her away but I can forgive him for that.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

and don't have to walk five feet behind their wives in Saudi Arabia.

I'm not sure about that. I've seen couples walking hand in hand. It looks a bit odd when the man is wearing a western suit and he is hand in hand with a woman dressed to to toe in black.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Coming back to the "divorce bill", apparently the real situation is that the EU owes us around a trillion Euros:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/reports_articles/the-uks-trillion-euro-counter-claim-against-the-eu/

 

[Mr D]

I can imagine the EU version of Boris responding to that. A trillion euros would not make us flavour of the month with those paying it.

Perhaps if rather than going for as much as we can from each other we each try for something that at least lets us live next door to each other? Nil score draw even?

 

[Newchodge]

I think you are just being 'offended' to try and stir up and an argument, and it's derailing the discussion.

Think what you like, but don't ascribe motives to me based on your own perceptions.

You may have noticed, or not bothered to, that I answered the main question before raising this point. How is that derailing the discussion?

 

[Mr D]

Think what you like, but don't ascribe motives to me based on your own perceptions.

You may have noticed, or not bothered to, that I answered the main question before raising this point. How is that derailing the discussion?

You are happy to ascribe motives to others based on your own perceptions.

 

[Newchodge]

You are happy to ascribe motives to others based on your own perceptions.

I did not ascribe any motive to you. I merely asked if you were aware how sexist and degrading your comments were. (Clearly you are not). I did not state that you were deliberately being sexist or trying to degrade women.

 

[Mr D]

You ascribed me with posting something sexist and degrading.
Whether you believe that or not I certainly do not believe the post was that way.