@edps
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
I do not disagree with the comments supporting the CPS, but (tongue in cheek) it would have been really nice to have dragged it all out just to make the obsequious and obnoxious Royal Reporters speak in hushed tones about the affair and imply it wasn’t really his fault.
It was however yet another massive own goal by the Royal PR brigade, who should have done a much better job of rapidly getting the facts, paying massive hush-money to the victims and constraining (strait-jacket + gag?) the DofE.
To ease your search I have emboldened the questions you could not find.
Why ever would the EU agree to that, assuming of course that they could? This has not been the subject of any discussion in the press, and any mention of WTO is poo-poohed by the Brexiteers who irritatingly never address the critical trade details. Its all going to be so easy, the EU will roll-over and do whatever we ask as they (supposedly) have so much to lose. Assuming they are legally able and willing to do what you suggest (doubtful) then I would speculate the EU will say fine, but it will cost you 90% of your normal nett EU contributions. Nothing is for nothing in this world. Let the ERG idiots wriggle out of that one!
…. Having answered the questions posed to me I would appreciate your response on why the EU should give away their Trade Deals without exacting a stiff payment (even higher if we pauper ourselves with a Hard Brexit).
You may also care to reference the Government position on this aspect as well. As you can see it is all a meaningless ‘intent’ with no force or legality. However the bottom line is that a Hard Brexit is a real Oh Sh*t situation.
Perhaps I should explain that the soft options of continuing an existing Trade Deal only apply if a tripartite arrangement has been negotiated. The EU own the deal and would be the negotiators, when we leave we are no longer an EU member so cannot automatically avail ourselves of such deals. The EU could object if we try and do it without their cooperation. Without EU good will, and judging by how crap we are at negotiating we could be five years in the wilderness.
I know that you do not trust the Beeb on Brexit (maybe because they give the hard truths) but they have addressed this situation and it all comes out as a stack of ‘maybes’, and ‘the UK could be on thin ice’. i.e. it all depends on just how cooperative the EU states are on this one. This is NOT something the EU Commissioners can dictate as member states can legally veto Trade deals. In my experience when dealing with commercial matters you normally have to pay one way or another for cooperation.
As the EU has repeatedly stated it will not enter into Trade discussions until the divorce has been settled and we have left the EU, our negotiators have not been able to address these points.
I said before I have zero interest in reading and even less interest in analysing the biased propaganda of Soros. Anything he communicates has a dollar motive to it. Sorry but that is my last word on him.
I take it from your repeated evasions that you are trying to avoid answering my questions?
As said earlier the Royal Household Ltd could make a single deposit of £500000 and cover all their vehicles on all their estates. Apparently this is very tax effective for moderately large to large companies. Even better however is to pay the premiums to a wholly owned Barbados Insurer who only has one customer!
I assume you meant Richard or Les, not me.
If you refer back to an earlier post, I said at that time the DofE’s only recourse was to eat crow, surrender his licence and pay redress to the victims. (I doubt the Palace uses an Insurance Company). This was the legal opinion of a top (apparently) Barrister retained by one Newspaper.
Great age and surrendering a licence often avoids a prosecution. There are many precedents, but injuries make it less cut and dried. The Palace would in crude terms have had to buy off the victims.
Richard, if you can show links between Soros and the KGB then I’ll happily include them in my list of his dubious friends.
I do not care if others think my dislike and distrust of Soros is irrational because it dates back to the days of Thatcher joining the ERM and Soros’s destruction of Sterling, but it does, so don’t even ask me to read his propaganda.
Richard, I’ve no idea, but the CIA have worked with some truly nasty people in the past such as Al Qaeda. They have been a law unto themselves.
In the past they often ran sub-rosa operations against any nation or state they saw offering a political and/or economic challenge to the US’s hegemony. Starting twenty or so years ago the EU offered such a challenge when OPEC started pricing in a Euro inclusive basket, and running a foreign policy that challenged that of the US.
All I would say as far as Soros is concerned, I would love to see if or when he started shorting the Euro, as he did with Deutsch Bank.
Having answered the questions posed to me I would appreciate your response on why the EU should give away their Trade Deals without exacting a stiff payment (even higher if we pauper ourselves with a Hard Brexit).
One law for really old pharts who surrender their license and another for the rest of us!
I’m sure you will accept that the CIA has a long and ignominious history of running their own (at times illegal) foreign policy agenda. This is frequently in direct opposition to stated US State Dept policies. If you then read the way that Soros has been directly linked with the CIA, you will get a better grasp for his agenda, and why you should distrust him.
[edit] if you question my use of ‘illegal’ just Google CIA links with drug smuggling in South East Asia and South America.
As you included a long quote on Soros and Capital Economics I do not feel embarrassed in setting out this quote from The Guardian:
Brexit has already cost the UK economy at least £80bn since the EU referendum, and a damaging no-deal scenario could force an emergency cut in interest rates, according to a Bank of England rate-setter.
Gertjan Vlieghe, a member of the Bank’s monetary policy committee, said that since the vote in June 2016, the economy had lost about 2% of GDP compared with a scenario where there had been no significant domestic economic events.
Britain had lost about £40bn a year, or about £800m a week of lost income, he said, in the period since the referendum as its economy stalled while the rest of the world recorded one of its strongest expansions of the past decade.Vlieghe’s estimate for the weekly cost of Brexit so far is more than double the £350m the Leave campaign claimed could be saved on EU membership fees and instead spent on the NHS. The claim, emblazoned on the side of the campaign’s battlebus, became a key focus for debate in the run-up to the vote.
Vlieghe said in London on Thursday: “That 2% of GDP is not trivial, that’s £40bn or if you prefer it in bus units, it’s £800m a week.”
Why ever would the EU agree to that, assuming of course that they could?
This has not been the subject of any discussion in the press, and any mention of WTO is poo-poohed by the Brexiteers who irritatingly never address the critical trade details. Its all going to be so easy, the EU will roll-over and do whatever we ask as they (supposedly) have so much to lose.
Assuming they are legally able and willing to do what you suggest (doubtful) then I would speculate the EU will say fine, but it will cost you 90% of your normal nett EU contributions. Nothing is for nothing in this world. Let the ERG idiots wriggle out of that one!
Sorry – if you say Soros I think propaganda. That man is totally untrustworthy as proved by HIS wartime past.
However I do agree that trade barriers are not good for any economy. Now prove to me that we do not lose all the trade deals that the EU negotiated over the years and have to fall back on WTO tariff for the long period it will take to renegotiate them.
As Dave keeps pointing out Japan (for example) cannot just give us an automatic pass into its legal trade agreement with the EU. It would need a NEW trade agreement with the UK if it wanted to avoid giving the rest of the world its EU tariff rates. I am of course mainly referring to our exports such as Scotch Whisky. (370,000 yen/kl if outside EU, now zero to EU members).
The past is the past, and in the words of every Financial Analyst “Past performance is no guarantee of future performance”. Remainers such as I look to the future and see it as pretty black as a result of Brexit. If I were young I would have upped sticks and emigrated long ago.
The WSJ has its own agenda too. The whole world outlook is gloomy, except for the moment the US – but I cannot understand why a Democratic Newspaper would not highlight that!
Most industries have simple visual check systems to make certain that forgetfulness does not kill. Tags are regularly used when working on electrical substations and are similarly used in the chemical industry for isolation systems. In both cases forgetting to isolate something, or forgetting to remove the isolation afterwards could result in a dangerous situation.
Soros actually started all the immigrant mess in the EU. He formulated a deliberate plan to flood the EU with Middle East migrants. One link of many possible ones.
As a result I would not believe a word the man says – he has a CIA destabilising agenda.
Plainly ‘close to’ is not the same as remaining in, is it?
No but it is one hell of a lot more accurate than saying that those votes should be counted as ‘leave’!
Perhaps I should now stop tarring this Government as a bunch of inept Greylings. Even the Daily Express cannot gloss over the fact that the Department of Transport is being sued over the secretive way Greyling awarded the contract to the mysterious Seaborne freight Company. I’m afraid May cannot protect her friend very much longer – he has to go.
Hope they do not find out the value of the car, the Insurance Company is likely to just write it off in those circumstances.
Actually yes, it will make a (very slight) difference. Now is the age of ‘Big Data’ and web scrapers running through sites, social media etc and doing things such as counting the number of times that ‘Brexit lies’ or ‘Brexit Dissemblers’ occurs. As election day or second referendum day draws closer this helps modify how political parties set out their policy. Surely you must have noticed the way that May has moved her policies to become slightly more in tune with the feelings of the general public. Individual MPs are also influenced by the ‘pink paper’ summaries of voter trends they receive. For example I am sure that the bulk of Conservative MPs hate being tarred with the brush of ‘lazy inept Greylings!’.
-
AuthorPosts