P.K. Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, quilp said: Dear god... I'm glad you mentioned Him. 5 hours ago, woolley said: Well, yes. I know the difference between these various European bodies. Indeed I have pointed them out here on numerous occasions when others have confused them, notably the CoE, the ECHR and the ECJ. Would you please stop confusing me with references to the church. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 47 minutes ago, P.K. said: Like all things brexit it was handled very badly. Starmer took the very reasonable view that if the AG had told them everything there was nothing left to hide. They were keeping stum ergo there must be something that they are keeping from Her Maj's Opposition. I suspect the AG was being "economical with the truth" as the saying goes. On what grounds do you suspect that? If you listened to his performance in the House you would be in absolutely no doubt that he laid it all on the line about the "backstop" including what might happen in a worst case scenario. It was hard-hitting stuff and nobody there can have believed he was pulling his punches. It was a commanding speech and Q&A session. I listened to the entire session and I have seen the legal advice released after the humble address. Nothing of substance had been previously withheld. If it had been, do you not think your friends at the Guardian would have been screaming blue murder? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 1 hour ago, P.K. said: Like all things brexit it was handled very badly. Starmer took the very reasonable view that if the AG had told them everything there was nothing left to hide. They were keeping stum ergo there must be something that they are keeping from Her Maj's Opposition. I suspect the AG was being "economical with the truth" as the saying goes. "Brexit: The Uncivil War" is on tonight. I'll record it for later viewing and then forget all about it like most of the stuff we've recorded. The Saturday Grauniad ran a piece where four people were given a preview and asked to comment. They were Andrew Rawnsley their political commentator, Gloria De Piero Labour MP, Gina Miller (no introductions needed) and Shahmir Sanni the whistleblower who brought Vote Leave's dodgy dealings into the public eye. The comments of Miller and Sanni I thought were most revealing and well worth a read. Particularly the latter. For those with an open mind of course.... https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jan/06/brexit-uncivil-war-reviews-andrew-rawnsley-gina-miller-gloria-de-piero-shahmir-sanni c4= funded by the eu........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 £394 million extra a week the nhs will be getting since the referendum come exit day...... £600 million extra a week the nhs will be getting by 2022/23....... who lied again??????????????????????????????????? it was the remoans.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 17 minutes ago, woolley said: On what grounds do you suspect that? If you listened to his performance in the House you would be in absolutely no doubt that he laid it all on the line about the "backstop" including what might happen in a worst case scenario. It was hard-hitting stuff and nobody there can have believed he was pulling his punches. It was a commanding speech and Q&A session. I listened to the entire session and I have seen the legal advice released after the humble address. Nothing of substance had been previously withheld. If it had been, do you not think your friends at the Guardian would have been screaming blue murder? Surely the thing is if you hold ANYTHING back it's IMMEDIATELY going to generate suspicion on the other side of the chamber. This isn't rocket science. So it's a bloody stupid thing to do. There can't be any complaints at what happened apart from this is the worst administration I have ever known. It's also the worst opposition I have ever known hence they have to take some of the blame for the government's ineptitude. As to the Grauniad screaming blue murder they took the advice of a QC. This worthy adjudged that the government were holding the information back on the grounds of the attorney - client privilege. This falls down because Ministers are no ordinary clients and the legal advice would have been funded by the taxpayer. Not only that but Ministers should be acting on the interests of the people they are bound to represent. He goes on to say "In any true democracy, the public should be able to see that advice, to discuss and debate it, and since it is not infrequently proved, later in court, to have been wrong, to expose its errors before the government acts unlawfully or mistakenly." And to "discuss and debate it" includes Members of Parliament..... So Her Maj's Opposition were absolutely right in the actions taken. Storm in a teacup. However, as I posted earlier, it was a bloody stupid thing to do and should have been handled far better than it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, P.K. said: Surely the thing is if you hold ANYTHING back it's IMMEDIATELY going to generate suspicion on the other side of the chamber. This isn't rocket science. no reason to allow non-gov. members to see anything...... the rules are now going to be changed..... stammer is full of sh1t.....every week he says he's going to bring down the gov..... all he does is waste parliaments time...... hopefully him and migrant gina are the first to be deported for been a waste of space....... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 28 minutes ago, woody2 said: c4= funded by the eu........ Woodyfact. Channel 4 is funded by advertising. The EU recently approved a U.K. government plan to potentially subsidise C4 by providing a funding ‘safety net’ for C4 and ITV during hard times. Every penny of that would come from the U.K. government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Freggyragh said: Woodyfact. Channel 4 is funded by advertising. The EU recently approved a U.K. government plan to potentially subsidise C4 by providing a funding ‘safety net’ for C4 and ITV during hard times. Every penny of that would come from the U.K. government. the list of things you don't understand gets longer...... wto.......who is in charge of the met......gender Vs sexuality....... and now who underwrites c4....... eu is funding c4....... typical libcuck...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 7 hours ago, woolley said: Why is a humble trading bloc getting involved in a Charter of Fundamental Rights? Because trade agreements rely on level playing fields. If Country A has human rights, the rule of law and a free market economy then it would lose out to a dictatorship with half the country enslaved, in prison or working for buttons and unable to form unions. http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/labor-c1.asp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASEAN_Human_Rights_Declaration Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 13 minutes ago, woody2 said: the list of things you don't understand gets longer...... wto.......who is in charge of the met......gender Vs sexuality....... and now who underwrites c4....... eu is funding c4....... typical libcuck...... There are people who can help, and there is advice out there you know. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 16 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: Because trade agreements rely on level playing fields. If Country A has human rights, the rule of law and a free market economy then it would lose out to a dictatorship with half the country enslaved, in prison or working for buttons and unable to form unions. http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/labor-c1.asp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASEAN_Human_Rights_Declaration I read somewhere that there were concerns about some of the newer entrants reverting back to communism iirc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 6 minutes ago, P.K. said: I read somewhere that there were concerns about some of the newer entrants reverting back to communism iirc. france????????????????????????// 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 More than three question marks can only mean one thing MELTDOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 18 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: loser waffle you failed again libcuck........ ifs= eu funded cbi=eu funded even chris patten (you know pro eu) said he may lose his £100k pension........guess what he wants another referendum...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 2 hours ago, P.K. said: "Brexit: The Uncivil War" is on tonight. I'll record it for later viewing and then forget all about it like most of the stuff we've recorded. You record television programmes? Are you living on a parallel steampunk timeline? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.