pete75 wrote:I did a very quick search and found these. DOn't know if they show favour but they certainly seem to be very positive comments compared to his previous words on the same.
I think it is only positive in the sense that there is an opportunity that could be taken but also points out the risk if it isn't taken by all (which, IMHO, seems unlikely in the present political climate).
Mark Carney wrote:It is possible that new rules of the road will be developed for a more inclusive and resilient global economy. At the same time, there is a risk that countries turn inwards, undercutting growth and prosperity for all.
My point was that it's positive compared to anything else he's ever said about Brexit. That's what the Brexiters are picking up on.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
brooksby wrote:Can someone please explain why our PM keeps going on about how they *have* to go ahead on Brexit because it was a manifesto promise etc etc, when every political party in history (including her's) has quite happily broken manifesto promises before without any qualms?
Because she sees electoral advantages for her party. They break manifesto promises when they don't think it will have any effect at the ballot box.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
pete75 wrote: Because she sees electoral advantages for her party. They break manifesto promises when they don't think it will have any effect at the ballot box.
I agree.
But I also wonder if she's badly misjudged it and that at the next election the Tories will suffer a massive and crushing defeat.
This assumes a certain amount of coherent opposition of course. Still there is opposition and Ms Soubry and Ms Allen are eloquent and forthright and probably more vocal now too.
I do wish it could have all been different though.
NATURAL ANKLING wrote:I see also that the chief of the bank of England made a "U" turn on his predictions about Brexit, if it could not get anymore confusing.
Link or it didn't happen.
I remember Carney a couple of months ago saying that Brexit it could be good for the country. Previously he has said it’s not if I got that right. I will try and find a link to what I said, if I can’t then I’m simply relying on my memory and it might be incorrect. Edited https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegr ... rexit/amp/ Well I found something, sorry the link is not a full text, will try a bit more searching later.
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
brooksby wrote:Can someone please explain why our PM keeps going on about how they *have* to go ahead on Brexit because it was a manifesto promise etc etc, when every political party in history (including her's) has quite happily broken manifesto promises before without any qualms?
I remember a commentator before the referendum saying that although it wasn't binding, it would be political suicide for any party in power to go against the result. I had the impression that was a popular view at the time, possibly even an accurate one.
Deciding whether a hypothetical Tory political suicide would be a good thing is left as an exercise for the reader.
Everyone's ghast should get a good flabbering now and then. --Ole Boot
NATURAL ANKLING wrote:I remember Carney a couple of months ago saying that Brexit it could be good for the country. Previously he has said it’s not if I got that right. I will try and find a link to what I said, if I can’t then I’m simply relying on my memory and it might be incorrect. Edited https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegr ... rexit/amp/ Well I found something, sorry the link is not a full text, will try a bit more searching later.
Full article not readable without signing up to other stuff. But the first lines suggest a speech about the global economy in which Brexit is mentioned twice. That Brexit may hold opportunities for bankers and speculators is not denied (not by me anyway) but the question is, do I want to see personal rights and freedoms lost to feed such immoral types.
The question of maintaining a peaceful Europe is also a factor. There are dark forces at work here that would like to see a tolerant and secular Europe weakened.
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
Indeed, Caroline Lucas suspects he is up to no good and that is he is trying to circumvent proper scutiny, so much, that she is raising the issue. Quite right Ms Lucas, his specialist area is arms dealing.
And amid all these trivial issues like the economic and social future of this (dis)United Fiefdom, I'm going to have to find private health insurance to replicate the benefits of the EHIC. Perspective, eh?
At least they've still got Arkell's fine beers to drown their sorrows.
I’m not saying that what you say isn’t correct very well might be. Car manufacturers make money on a very few of the cars they make, That is to say that when they make models if I don’t make the full production run they can actually lose money so was a bit of a gamble. I’m not sure what the profit margin is but any business has to draw a line and how much money they lose. If you’re talking about a 10% tariff on the Honda outside The EU then This probably it’s up all the profit. What would you do.
Dictated by speech forgive the grammar.
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
