About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Boomers worked for their cash.
No one uses cash these days, malc.
Boomers got a lot of stuff on a plate. House price windfalls being the biggest, along with gold plated pensions at 60. Gen Xers are the once who've really lost out.
Bollocks, they've had a decade of interest rates on the floor, all to protect the value of their inheritance.
But many - probably the majority - will not get an inheritance, either their parents haven't got one or if they have it will be spent on care fees.
Totally off topic I wonder what the long term economic consequences will be of vast quantities of money being diverted to care companies rather than being handed down to children and charities.I guess it creates a lot of employment in the care sector so that is a benefit.
We are fortunate not to need an inheritance but it would be all the same if we did because it's all but disappeared in care fees now at £60,000 pa per person and rising.
Dignitas beckons for me when the time comes I'd rather the cash went to the dogs home than the care companies!
Many parents now give cash to their children for their deposits for houses etc in their 50s and 60s ie well before care home fees are an issue. While if you only have at home care thanks to the scrapping of the dementia tax you still pay nothing from your house value on care fees after death while benefiting from Osborne's raising of the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million still
There are adverts to that end on TV. I'm somewhat(!) iffy about equity release myself.
I benefited from it when buying my flat as did my sister and as have many of my generation I know, though fortunately my parents had enough savings not to need equity release to do it
The EU seem to be getting a lot of criticism but there’s a reason they can’t agree to the duration of the extension until after the vote on Monday .
If MPs don’t back an election and then Bozo freaks out and says right I’m pulling the WAIB .
What do the EU do then ? No election and no imminent chance of the deal passing .
If Bozo does that any goodwill in the EU will disappear completely .
So I expect another u turn from Bozo , if MPs vote against the election he’ll then have to bring the WAIB back anyway .
And if he doesn't we leave with no deal 2 days later because the EU have to respond in writing and the HOC has to agree. Letters lost in post or unexpected delays are increasing no deal considerably
The HoC does not have to agree.
I think you find it does but I am willing to be corrected if someone can affirm otherwise
If the EU offer the three months Johnson has to accept it . If the EU offer less time MPs have to vote . If the EU offer more than 3 months then Johnson can accept it but if he likes put it to MPs. I think that’s what the Benn Act says.
No.
If the EU offer an extension to 31st January, the PM has to accept it, end of.
If the EU offer less time (or more time) the PM can accept it without a vote.
If he doesn't want to accept an alternative to 31st January he has to get the HoC to reject, within two calendar days, a motion:
“That this House has approved the extension to the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union which the European Council has decided.”
But there is no necessity for that vote in order for any extension to be accepted.
If the HoC wasn't sitting during the two calendar days when they offer the extension the PM just has to accept it no matter what the proposed date is, as no HoC vote is possible.
So what happens if they ofer 14 days and he the accepts it? Is the Benn act then defunct?
Defunct isn't the word I'd use, but it was written very specifically for extending beyond October 31st, so would have no bearing on a new Exit Day of, say, November 15th.
A new Act would be required to force the PM to delay again (if no other Brexit option was chosen).
So what happens if they extend until November 1st and say you have until the end of next week to ratify the deal?
We'd be out with No Deal unles the HoC chose to Revoke.
But the EU could achieve the same effect by simply refusing to extend.
Hunt would have asked for an extension and the Brexit Party would be ahead of the Tories again.
Boris did not ask for an extension, he just forwarded Parliament's extension request on, a difference.
Boris has also removed the GB backstop to get a new Deal, Hunt would not have done
How's your Hungarian Prime Minister?
And what happened to Boris resigning?
Boris did not send an extension letter, only a letter opposing further extension with an unsigned copy of the Benn Act, thus no need for him to resign
What rot. He sent the following letter:
Dear Mr President,
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The fact he childishly refused to get his crayon out and write "Luv frum Boriz" at the end is neither here nor there. He's the PM and he sent the letter as he was required by law to do.
So I repeat Boris just sent an unsigned copy of the Benn Act and an accompanying signed letter opposing further extension.
Thanks for confirming
One of these days I'm going to send and unsigned cheque to see if the payee's bank accepts it as settlement of the debt!
You still use cheques?
For an organisation of which I'm local Treasurer, which still bumbles along with them. Also need one or two a year for some local organisations membership subs.and the like. But I agree with your sentiment. My bro-in-law refuses to use transfers. It does annoy me!
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort ng I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Boomers worked for their cash.
No one uses cash these days, malc.
Boomers got a lot of stuff on a plate. House price windfalls being the biggest, along with gold plated pensions at 60. Gen Xers are the once who've really lost out.
Bollocks, they've had a decade of interest rates on the floor, all to protect the value of their inheritance.
But many - probably the majority - will not get an inheritance, either their parents haven't got one or if they have it will be spent on care fees.
Totally off topic I wonder what the long term economic consequences will be of vast quantities of money being diverted to care companies rather than being handed down to children and charities.I guess it creates a lot of employment in the care sector so that is a benefit.
We are fortunate not to need an inheritance but it would be all the same if we did because it's all but disappeared in care fees now at £60,000 pa per person and rising.
Dignitas beckons for me when the time comes I'd rather the cash went to the dogs home than the care companies!
Many parents now give cash to their children for their deposits for houses etc in their 50s and 60s ie well before care home fees are an issue. While if you only have at home care thanks to the scrapping of the dementia tax you still pay nothing from your house value on care fees after death while benefiting from Osborne's raising of the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million still
There are adverts to that end on TV. I'm somewhat(!) iffy about equity release myself.
Hunt would have asked for an extension and the Brexit Party would be ahead of the Tories again.
Boris did not ask for an extension, he just forwarded Parliament's extension request on, a difference.
Boris has also removed the GB backstop to get a new Deal, Hunt would not have done
How's your Hungarian Prime Minister?
And what happened to Boris resigning?
Boris did not send an extension letter, only a letter opposing further extension with an unsigned copy of the Benn Act, thus no need for him to resign
What rot. He sent the following letter:
Dear Mr President,
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The fact he childishly refused to get his crayon out and write "Luv frum Boriz" at the end is neither here nor there. He's the PM and he sent the letter as he was required by law to do.
So I repeat Boris just sent an unsigned copy of the Benn Act and an accompanying signed letter opposing further extension.
Thanks for confirming
One of these days I'm going to send an unsigned cheque to see if the payee's bank accepts it as settlement of the debt!
They probably would I don’t think they are looked at.
What is true is he didn't die in a ditch instead of leaving on the 31st Oct.
He has ditched that deadline and moved on, and I doubt any of the papers will scream blue murder like they would have done under May (no matter that parliament has forced his hand, because part of his argument was he wouldn't allow his hand to be forced)
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort ng I wish I could remember what prog it was.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
No one uses cash these days, malc.
Boomers got a lot of stuff on a plate. House price windfalls being the biggest, along with gold plated pensions at 60. Gen Xers are the once who've really lost out.
Bollocks, they've had a decade of interest rates on the floor, all to protect the value of their inheritance.
But many - probably the majority - will not get an inheritance, either their parents haven't got one or if they have it will be spent on care fees.
Totally off topic I wonder what the long term economic consequences I'd rather the cash went to the dogs home than the care companies!
Many parents now give cash to their children for their deposits for houses etc in their 50s and 60s ie well before care home fees are an issue. While if you only have at home care thanks to the scrapping of the dementia tax you still pay nothing from your house value on care fees after death while benefiting from Osborne's raising of the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million still
The party of opportunity and home ownership. Hope you were born to rich and generous parents and you might have a house deposit by your 60s. What are the youngsters complaining about!?
By 40 most people are on the property ladder still, helped by shared ownership and help to buy schemes etc the Tories have brought in if they are not high earners, as well as parental support.
Of course in the North and the Midlands, Wales and Scotland and NI most have bought their first property well before 40 as house prices are much cheaper
This is where the EU wash their hands of it all and give us an open-ended extension that can be terminated on the 1st of any future month by mutual ratification.
Hunt would have asked for an extension and the Brexit Party would be ahead of the Tories again.
Boris did not ask for an extension, he just forwarded Parliament's extension request on, a difference.
Boris has also removed the GB backstop to get a new Deal, Hunt would not have done
How's your Hungarian Prime Minister?
And what happened to Boris resigning?
Boris did not send an extension letter, only a letter opposing further extension with an unsigned copy of the Benn Act, thus no need for him to resign
What rot. He sent the following letter:
Dear Mr President,
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The fact he childishly refused to get his crayon out and write "Luv frum Boriz" at the end is neither here nor there. He's the PM and he sent the letter as he was required by law to do.
So I repeat Boris just sent an unsigned copy of the Benn Act and an accompanying signed letter opposing further extension.
Thanks for confirming
One of these days I'm going to send an unsigned cheque to see if the payee's bank accepts it as settlement of the debt!
They probably would I don’t think they are looked at.
I believe that's correct, unless there's a dispute.
This is where the EU wash their hands of it all and give us an open-ended extension that can be terminated on the 1st of any future month by mutual ratification.
Does that mean we have to put up with those bloody 'get ready for Brexit' ads forever?
Oh God... If Brexit ends up being cancelled we'll probably have people who claim we legally left on October 31st 2019 because Boris didn't sign the letter.
The EU seem to be getting a lot of criticism but there’s a reason they can’t agree to the duration of the extension until after the vote on Monday .
If MPs don’t back an election and then Bozo freaks out and says right I’m pulling the WAIB .
What do the EU do then ? No election and no imminent chance of the deal passing .
If Bozo does that any goodwill in the EU will disappear completely .
So I expect another u turn from Bozo , if MPs vote against the election he’ll then have to bring the WAIB back anyway .
And if he doesn't we leave with no deal 2 days later because the EU have to respond in writing and the HOC has to agree. Letters lost in post or unexpected delays are increasing no deal considerably
The HoC does not have to agree.
I think you find it does but I am willing to be corrected if someone can affirm otherwise
If the EU offer the three months Johnson has to accept it . If the EU offer less time MPs have to vote . If the EU offer more than 3 months then Johnson can accept it but if he likes put it to MPs. I think that’s what the Benn Act says.
No.
If the EU offer an extension to 31st January, the PM has to accept it, end of.
If the EU offer less time (or more time) the PM can accept it without a vote.
If he doesn't want to accept an alternative to 31st January he has to get the HoC to reject, within two calendar days, a motion:
“That this House has approved the extension to the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union which the European Council has decided.”
But there is no necessity for that vote in order for any extension to be accepted.
If the HoC wasn't sitting during the two calendar days when they offer the extension the PM just has to accept it no matter what the proposed date is, as no HoC vote is possible.
So what happens if they ofer 14 days and he the accepts it? Is the Benn act then defunct?
Yes (well, fulfilled rather than defunct, but yes).
I was standing in the rain supervising a dig when I typed it so 'defunct' was the first word that sprang to mind in a rush
But you are right fulfilled is more appropriate.
Fair enough... I hope you find what you are looking for!
Hunt would have asked for an extension and the Brexit Party would be ahead of the Tories again.
Boris did not ask for an extension, he just forwarded Parliament's extension request on, a difference.
Boris has also removed the GB backstop to get a new Deal, Hunt would not have done
How's your Hungarian Prime Minister?
And what happened to Boris resigning?
Boris did not send an extension letter, only a letter opposing further extension with an unsigned copy of the Benn Act, thus no need for him to resign
What about your absolute certainty that Macron won't allow an extension and that Boris will resign if there is an extension.
The annoying thing is your predictions were not unreasonable scenarios, it is just you insist that future unknown events are a matter of fact, which they are not.
If people didn't predict things here it would be a boring site and it isn't. Try saying you think something will happen, or believe, or I predict, rather than telling people NO, WRONG, etc.
As is apparent you can also be wrong sometimes, although you are putting up a ridiculous attempt to claim you are not.
Oh God... If Brexit ends up being cancelled we'll probably have people who claim we legally left on October 31st 2019 because Boris didn't sign the letter.
Perhaps there could be a separate queue at Calais customs for those who think we have left?
Hunt would have asked for an extension and the Brexit Party would be ahead of the Tories again.
Boris did not ask for an extension, he just forwarded Parliament's extension request on, a difference.
Boris has also removed the GB backstop to get a new Deal, Hunt would not have done
Hunt (much) better process - but Johnson better politics. Hey ho.....
Hunt's process would have been worse. What would have been better about Hunt?
Johnson got a renegotiated deal, does anyone really think Hunt would have?
Maybe? I don't see what was inherently unique with Johnson in his reopening. He spoke to people and figured out what he was willing to throw away; turned out it was the DUP and NI. Would Hunt have done that? Maybe, maybe not.
Those arguing Johnson "united" the Tory party also forget that to do so he chucked out 21 MPs. If Hunt had done that to the ERG for something similar in the other direction, I'm sure many here would have called foul. Johnson has not really done anything spectacular. Unexpected, yes. Positive, even from a leave perspective, not so much.
So what happens if they ofer 14 days and he the accepts it? Is the Benn act then defunct?
Defunct isn't the word I'd use, but it was written very specifically for extending beyond October 31st, so would have no bearing on a new Exit Day of, say, November 15th.
A new Act would be required to force the PM to delay again (if no other Brexit option was chosen).
So what happens if they extend until November 1st and say you have until the end of next week to ratify the deal?
The EU are not bound by the Benn-Burt Act. There's little practical or legal difference between them refusing to extend and offering an extension of one day.
The options for Parliament would be the same, though we're running short of time now to do anything other than Revoke or No Deal without an extension in that scenario.
Hunt would have asked for an extension and the Brexit Party would be ahead of the Tories again.
Boris did not ask for an extension, he just forwarded Parliament's extension request on, a difference.
Boris has also removed the GB backstop to get a new Deal, Hunt would not have done
How's your Hungarian Prime Minister?
And what happened to Boris resigning?
Boris did not send an extension letter, only a letter opposing further extension with an unsigned copy of the Benn Act, thus no need for him to resign
What rot. He sent the following letter:
Dear Mr President,
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The fact he childishly refused to get his crayon out and write "Luv frum Boriz" at the end is neither here nor there. He's the PM and he sent the letter as he was required by law to do.
So I repeat Boris just sent an unsigned copy of the Benn Act and an accompanying signed letter opposing further extension.
Thanks for confirming
One of these days I'm going to send an unsigned cheque to see if the payee's bank accepts it as settlement of the debt!
They probably would I don’t think they are looked at.
I've just had an unsigned cheque returned.
But a cheque is not a letter. Why are people discussing the letter? It was sent. He asked for an extension, as required under the law.
This is where the EU wash their hands of it all and give us an open-ended extension that can be terminated on the 1st of any future month by mutual ratification.
That's exactly what they should do really. Extension continues until either mutual ratification or if deal is rejected then no deal at end of the current month. Do that, say that there will be no more renegotiations with this government or any future one. That is brexit, the UK can either take the deal, reject it and revoke, or reject it and no deal. We just sit in the EU until something happens on our end to make a decision.
Well, quite. I pointed out yesterday that the Guardian article didn't specify exactly what the questions were, and that this probably meant it was rubbish. I was surprised that people here took it seriously, TBH. This was the Guardian at its worst.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
Boomers did not, in most cases, earn the pensions they are now receiving. That is why most pension schemes have deficits. If the boomers had paid sufficient contributions during their working lives these deficits would not exist.
Utter garbage , it was part of their total renumeration and salaries were kept lower due to the pensions. PS: given how stupid you are I will explain simply. Majority of the deficits were due to companies milking the pensions for extra profits to get directors bonuses increased. They took far to many contribution holidays, it was nothing to d owith eth workers or their contributions.
It’s even sillier than that
Majority of the deficits are due to government policy keeping the risk free rate nailed to the floor (meaning that future liabilities are discounted at a far lower rate than historically)
Has Johnson admitted we are not leaving on 311019 yet ? What a waste of a shit load of money on advertising.
90% of people thought we would be leaving on that date 6 months ago.
The advertising didn't start till much more recently. By which point I'm not convinced that the politicians actually believed it. A lot of what's been going on, especially in govt, has been bravado. Boris's election took up most of the negotiation time, making it nigh on impossible to achieve the 31 Oct date.
Hunt would have asked for an extension and the Brexit Party would be ahead of the Tories again.
Boris did not ask for an extension, he just forwarded Parliament's extension request on, a difference.
Boris has also removed the GB backstop to get a new Deal, Hunt would not have done
How's your Hungarian Prime Minister?
And what happened to Boris resigning?
Boris did not send an extension letter, only a letter opposing further extension with an unsigned copy of the Benn Act, thus no need for him to resign
What rot. He sent the following letter:
Dear Mr President,
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The fact he childishly refused to get his crayon out and write "Luv frum Boriz" at the end is neither here nor there. He's the PM and he sent the letter as he was required by law to do.
...if it was a letter from him it'd be on his letterhead...
Legally (and, to be honest, factually) it does not have to be on his letterhead to be a letter from him.
Oh God... If Brexit ends up being cancelled we'll probably have people who claim we legally left on October 31st 2019 because Boris didn't sign the letter.
I think there is a difference between an election in February or October and one in mid-December, less than 2 weeks till Christmas. My work Xmas party is the next day, for instance (could make for a very awkward evening). Nobody will thank the Tories for this, I think Labour should go for it.
The last time a PM went to the country in December it backfired for him horribly. I predict a repeat.
When was that?
6th December 1923
The PM Stanley Baldwin started the campaign with 344 seats and ended it by losing 86 of them.
So, 4 years short of a century ago. Yep - that’s a telling precedent.....
If you were HYUFD, you'd be claiming it was an iron rule.
The only phrase I can say in a Belfast accent is “the iron law of historical necessity” - paisleys justification for saying NO
Have you decided whether to be Irish or not yet?
I’m in no hurry to do so. Having two passports isn’t something that should be done lightly. I just mentioned it was an option if things become intolerable
You're lucky. Some of us didn't vote for Brexit and have no such option.
If you can prove some familial connection to Charles from 5 centuries ago, he'll see what he can do on the old influence front.
You’re in luck! My Scottish roots are much deeper than that!
Of course they are.
I’m not aristocracy... just a family that doesn’t throw anything away... (we probably qualify as gentry but not titled or anything like that)
Hunt would have asked for an extension and the Brexit Party would be ahead of the Tories again.
Boris did not ask for an extension, he just forwarded Parliament's extension request on, a difference.
Boris has also removed the GB backstop to get a new Deal, Hunt would not have done
How's your Hungarian Prime Minister?
And what happened to Boris resigning?
Boris did not send an extension letter, only a letter opposing further extension with an unsigned copy of the Benn Act, thus no need for him to resign
What about your absolute certainty that Macron won't allow an extension and that Boris will resign if there is an extension.
The annoying thing is your predictions were not unreasonable scenarios, it is just you insist that future unknown events are a matter of fact, which they are not.
If people didn't predict things here it would be a boring site and it isn't. Try saying you think something will happen, or believe, or I predict, rather than telling people NO, WRONG, etc.
As is apparent you can also be wrong sometimes, although you are putting up a ridiculous attempt to claim you are not.
Spot on. It’s the certainly that is maddening, coupled with the childish reluctance to retract after the fact. See also Gin with his patronising election chatter.
Mr. Above, if the Commons refuse to back a deal, refuse to back a revocation, refuse to have a vote of no confidence in the Government, and refuse to agree anything else the logical conclusion is that this Commons is no good for anything but prevarication.
[Of course, the next Commons could be worse].
Clearly this parliament is not great. That is a separate issue to whether the PM should be able to decide when the election is, when the law is clear that is for parliament to decide, and the mandate from the people is for 5 years.
The issue is that Parliament is not doing its job
It is preventing the executive from doing its but is not willing to replace the executive
Parliament passed the WA and it is the executive who have stalled it specifically for seeking political advantage.
It wants to amend a treaty. Not it’s job. Parliamentary overreach is the heart of the problem
Much as I'm not a fan a referendum on the deal amendment wouldn't nor would Boles proposed change (I think). Customs Union depends how it is worded.
Amendments that seek to amend the WA should be disallowed though.
A referendum would be fine as an amendment (of course they would design it to be undemocratic but in principle it’s ok). Legislating to set the PD is interfering in the executive’s role
Well, quite. I pointed out yesterday that the Guardian article didn't specify exactly what the questions were, and that this probably meant it was rubbish. I was surprised that people here took it seriously, TBH. This was the Guardian at its worst.
No, I've read the questions and it seems to me that the comments are justified and Warren's criticisms are tendentious. The main point he's making is "If I don't think there is much risk of violence to MPs if we remain in the EU, it's very easy for me to say remaining is worth the risk of violence to MPs", but firstly I don't share the view that one should regard the risk of violence as acceptable, even if one thinks it unlikely, and secondly the subsequent questions show that half the sample do indeed think there *is* such a risk, so his comparison with a fantasy event is specious.
Warren notes that these aren't filter questions, so in theory many of the people who aren't worried might be the one who don't think it's likely, but as more people aren't worried by violence than people who think it's unlikely, there is evidently a substantial body of opinion that accepts violence as worth the outcome.That seems to me surprising, worrying, and not to be dismissed lightly.
One could argue that having a general election is the best way to approximate having a referendum with multiple options.
The problem there is that the options given aren't very clean. For example : You can have a referendum on the Deal if you accept mass nationalisations and higher taxes. Or you can have the Deal as long as you accept a dementia tax and loss of school dinners. Or you can have revoke if you accept PR for future elections. Or No Deal if you accept PM Farage. Or Single Market membership if you happen to be in Scotland.
Well in our system MPs decide it all, that's the gist behind Parliamentary Sovereignty.
That's the entire problem - that's not apparently the case any more
The fundamental case of the swivel-eyed loons is that direct democracy is superior to parliamentary democracy, but we absolutely cannot ask the people to fix this with a referendum. So we have to have an election where parties stand for their beliefs but some of those beliefs are undemocratic... because direct democracy is superior to parliament. Fucking idiots, the lot of them.
You really are fucking dumb today aren't you. The point with any democracy whether it is Parliamentary or Direct is that it is only democratic if it is actually listened to and put into effect. Just asking questions and then ignoring the answers is not democracy.
Not implementing it is exactly the right thing to do if the country no longer wants you to implement it.
that is not your call to make. Waiting long enough so people might no longer care is again a complete failure of democracy. We are back to you only liking democracy when you are winning
Thickie Tyndall doesn't know what democracy is. It's a process. You don't stop the process because you like one result.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Boomers worked for their cash.
No one uses cash these days, malc.
Boomers got a lot of stuff on a plate. House price windfalls being the biggest, along with gold plated pensions at 60. Gen Xers are the once who've really lost out.
Bollocks, they've had a decade of interest rates on the floor, all to protect the value of their inheritance.
But many - probably the majority - will not get an inheritance, either their parents haven't got one or if they have it will be spent on care fees.
Totally off topic I wonder what the long term economic consequences will be of vast quantities of money being diverted to care companies rather than being handed down to children and charities.I guess it creates a lot of employment in the care sector so that is a benefit.
We are fortunate not to need an inheritance but it would be all the same if we did because it's all but disappeared in care fees now at £60,000 pa per person and rising.
Dignitas beckons for me when the time comes I'd rather the cash went to the dogs home than the care companies!
Many parents now give cash to their children for their deposits for houses etc in their 50s and 60s ie well before care home fees are an issue. While if you only have at home care thanks to the scrapping of the dementia tax you still pay nothing from your house value on care fees after death while benefiting from Osborne's raising of the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million still
There are adverts to that end on TV. I'm somewhat(!) iffy about equity release myself.
These "Equity Release" reverse mortgages are the next mis-selling scandal waiting to happen. Anyone thinking of using one is well advised to seek their own independent financial advise beforehand.
These "Equity Release" reverse mortgages are the next mis-selling scandal waiting to happen. Anyone thinking of using one is well advised to seek their own independent financial advise beforehand.
I think they're potentially interesting for people like me who have no younger dependents or any real interest in legacies- if we buy somewhere we're fine with only paying half the price and accepting that the balance plus interest go to the lender when we're dead. I@ve taken advice and even as a cynic about all advertising, the adverts seemed to me fair enough. How do you think they mislead people?
NickPalmer said: "I think they're potentially interesting for people like me who have no younger dependents or any real interest in legacies- if we buy somewhere we're fine with only paying half the price and accepting that the balance plus interest go to the lender when we're dead. I@ve taken advice and even as a cynic about all advertising, the adverts seemed to me fair enough. How do you think they mislead people?"
Equity release products are far superior now than they used to be. Having said that, borrowers still tend to underestimate the interest that gets piled onto the debt (on a compounding basis). Of course, the property should rise in value too. Products these days have negative equity guarantees, which is why lenders will only lend a lowish percentage of the property value (depending on borrower`s age).
Equity release mortgage are useful to have in the event of care home fees because the property equity is less (as you have, in effect, spent some equity).
You need to look out for:
- high arrangement fees/broker fees - valuation fee (which is in the interest of the lender not the borrower but the borrower pays) - interest rates are higher than on a standard mortgage (this is taking advantage IMO, there is no reason why they should be higher) - make sure that you fully understand the rules should you wish to move home (remembering that you will be moving home with a debt (unless you pay it off)) - check early redemption penalties (hopefully there will be none)
Finally, I always start by telling folk to consider a standard mortgage first and furnish the interest payments only out of their income. This means that the sum borrowed will always be the same, though the property value will (one hopes) be rising. Many lenders these days (Nationwide are one of the best (but are strict on criteria)) will allow the mortgage term to run to death.
About 20 years ago I remember watching a programme on BBC Something in the afternoon and it was these old blokes, all in collar and tie, and patterned cardigans sitting on velour armchairs chatting over tea about funny stuff that happened during the war. Any one of them could have been your favourite great uncle and they were just the sort of folk that the woke generation would have taken the piss out of mercilessly as being old fogeys and out of touch.
And then the credits rolled and listed the participants and each one of them had at least two or three of an AFC, DFC, DSO, etc. It was the most amazing thing I wish I could remember what prog it was.
It's this generation's kids, the baby boomers, that the woke lot take the piss out of. The generation that fought in the War are almost all dead now. Boomers are pretty ridiculous, to be fair.
I detect a lot of green cheese there.
Qué?
Envy of the Boomers and their lifestyles/money versus the pathetic snivelling woke one we have now, who want it all on a plate for nothing. Boomers worked for their cash.
Boomers did not, in most cases, earn the pensions they are now receiving. That is why most pension schemes have deficits. If the boomers had paid sufficient contributions during their working lives these deficits would not exist.
Utter garbage , it was part of their total renumeration and salaries were kept lower due to the pensions. PS: given how stupid you are I will explain simply. Majority of the deficits were due to companies milking the pensions for extra profits to get directors bonuses increased. They took far to many contribution holidays, it was nothing to d owith eth workers or their contributions.
I could respond with facts but I have a rule that I do not reply to insults on here.
I wish others did the same.
Good rule.
What he meant was he got clobbered for talking mince so he would use a puerile excuse and leg it.
Comments
Cheap Apple rubbish, eh?
But the EU could achieve the same effect by simply refusing to extend.
But I agree with your sentiment. My bro-in-law refuses to use transfers. It does annoy me!
They probably would I don’t think they are looked at.
What is true is he didn't die in a ditch instead of leaving on the 31st Oct.
He has ditched that deadline and moved on, and I doubt any of the papers will scream blue murder like they would have done under May (no matter that parliament has forced his hand, because part of his argument was he wouldn't allow his hand to be forced)
Anything else is just nonsense. Its in the past anyway.
Of course in the North and the Midlands, Wales and Scotland and NI most have bought their first property well before 40 as house prices are much cheaper
Johnson got a renegotiated deal, does anyone really think Hunt would have?
https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1187074272277217281
The annoying thing is your predictions were not unreasonable scenarios, it is just you insist that future unknown events are a matter of fact, which they are not.
If people didn't predict things here it would be a boring site and it isn't. Try saying you think something will happen, or believe, or I predict, rather than telling people NO, WRONG, etc.
As is apparent you can also be wrong sometimes, although you are putting up a ridiculous attempt to claim you are not.
Those arguing Johnson "united" the Tory party also forget that to do so he chucked out 21 MPs. If Hunt had done that to the ERG for something similar in the other direction, I'm sure many here would have called foul. Johnson has not really done anything spectacular. Unexpected, yes. Positive, even from a leave perspective, not so much.
The options for Parliament would be the same, though we're running short of time now to do anything other than Revoke or No Deal without an extension in that scenario.
But a cheque is not a letter. Why are people discussing the letter? It was sent. He asked for an extension, as required under the law.
https://twitter.com/Fellwolf/status/1187610735729369090?s=20
Brexiteers are setting their rose-tinted clocks back 50 years.
Majority of the deficits are due to government policy keeping the risk free rate nailed to the floor (meaning that future liabilities are discounted at a far lower rate than historically)
Warren notes that these aren't filter questions, so in theory many of the people who aren't worried might be the one who don't think it's likely, but as more people aren't worried by violence than people who think it's unlikely, there is evidently a substantial body of opinion that accepts violence as worth the outcome.That seems to me surprising, worrying, and not to be dismissed lightly.
Equity release products are far superior now than they used to be. Having said that, borrowers still tend to underestimate the interest that gets piled onto the debt (on a compounding basis). Of course, the property should rise in value too. Products these days have negative equity guarantees, which is why lenders will only lend a lowish percentage of the property value (depending on borrower`s age).
Equity release mortgage are useful to have in the event of care home fees because the property equity is less (as you have, in effect, spent some equity).
You need to look out for:
- high arrangement fees/broker fees
- valuation fee (which is in the interest of the lender not the borrower but the borrower pays)
- interest rates are higher than on a standard mortgage (this is taking advantage IMO, there is no reason why they should be higher)
- make sure that you fully understand the rules should you wish to move home (remembering that you will be moving home with a debt (unless you pay it off))
- check early redemption penalties (hopefully there will be none)
Finally, I always start by telling folk to consider a standard mortgage first and furnish the interest payments only out of their income. This means that the sum borrowed will always be the same, though the property value will (one hopes) be rising. Many lenders these days (Nationwide are one of the best (but are strict on criteria)) will allow the mortgage term to run to death.
Hope this is helpful.