O/T David Davis...........

Just because he's got all his certificates doesn't make him any good as a political international manager, he's got a whiff of Spackman about him .

 

Oh dear! I don't even know where to start with that but I will try.
Firstly, you wrote "..... NUM a none racist organization unlike 3 of your crew who have just been arrested for terrorism while serving". It may not have been your intention but the wording categorically implies that the SAS IS a racist organisation (read what you wrote again)

Putting aside your poor grammar in your posts and your inability to articulate a reasoned argument without resorting to personal abuse I was merely pointing out that David Davis , who you accuse of being a "pi1ock" , is clearly far from one having not only the qualifications but has worked at a high level in the actual real world. Qualifications alone do not mean that much but he has the track record in industry to back them up.

As regards your self proclaimed "greatest achievement", whilst I applaude your loyalty and adherence to your principles, I recall that the NUM actually lost the dispute, so it can hardly be called an achievement. I hated Thatcher and believe the legacy of her time in office has had profound effects on the fabric of our society. Her ideology was deeply flawed and she became vindictive and I was, I am ashamed to say, happy when she finally died and believe history will not look kindly on her.
They (Cons) are not my "Tory heroes" nor are they "My party" I have no particular loyalties and have voted Labour on one or two occasions in my life. Personally I do not fully trust any politician and vote for the party at the time which I think will do the least damage, attempting to read between the lines of each manifesto rather than , as you appear to, follow blind alliegance to one particular party. At the present time I feel Corbyn,McDonnell,Starmer are opportunists more concerned with gaining power than the overall interests of the UK. I agree that that probably makes them no different than the Conservatives but the duplicity shown by all the parties is outweighed by the fact I would not trust Labour to steer us through the stormy waters of the EU negotiations.
You accuse me of being "thick" and would have been a "scab" (having never met me) Hhmm!

I am happy that you have led a full and satisfying life and have grandchildren (at least we have that in common) although there seems to be a lot of bitterness and anger in your posts suggesting some underlying dissatisfaction with your life so clearly you have not "enjoyed every minute".

 

But he backed up his paper qualifications with 17 years in the real world working for a major company and being promoted to a high level and delivering results. Therefore no 'Spackman'

 

Well said that man

 

The Tories won the last election with the BNP's 2005 election manifesto near enough.

 

The current Conservative Party and every incantation since Thatcher (other than John Major's government) and the Blairite hump of the Labour Party are right wing extremists.

It shows how they have shifted the centre to the right in UK politics when a Labour Party suggesting politics that are implemented by most right wing governments in Europe are branded Marxist.

David Davis is an affable fool. You wouldn't want him to negotiate crisps exiting a crisp packet but he's a personable chap. Keir Starmer absolutely destroyed him in parliament yesterday to the extent it was almost painful to watch so god knows what the EU will do to him.

The powers the Conservatives are trying to confer on themselves are extremely worrying given their general incompetence and ambition. It's disingenuous to claim that this is 'business as usual' given the scope and breadth that we are talking about. It's an affront to democracy dressed up in respecting democracy.

 

Shame ,- you just broke the run of your posts that I could agree with.

How is personally abusing someone you have never met (i.e calling them "thick" and a "scab" ) "Well said".

 

I meant his rejection of what was to be honest an unprovoked personal attack. You don't know the chap. It's a bit strong to assume stuff. Of course he was bound to hit back.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labours-keir-starmer-forensically-tears-11129294

Not for those with a delicate constitution

 

Irrespective of your politics and views of Brexit, David Davis has not previously been involved with international negotiations - so to leave someone that is completely inexperienced in charge of the most important negotiations for this country since WWII is at best extremely optimistic and at worst a catastrophic mistake for the future of the country. If the position was advertised by a private company, his application would probably not even get as far as the interview stage. He does seem affable, but also display shocking levels of arrogance and he is putting his hubris before the country.

And to top it off, he turns up for a couple of hours of negotiations before leaving (the entire UK contingent didn't turn up on the first day of negotiations as it was a bank holiday). With so much as stake, he should just about be living in Brussels for the next year.

 

Yawn Unprovoked personal attack.? Pointing out the unfounded allegations and referring to past posts with factual inaccuracies is no such thing. Neither is pointing out the stupidity of past and current comments (those comments, statements, and inferences without supporting evidence to back them up = Asking a question is not a personal attack . Where have I called him, stupid, thick or scab?

 

Don't want to wade into all this in depth - there are race meetings to sort out, for one thing!

However Tekktyke, I have to take issue with you on one point. I would have to strongly disagree with you lumping Keir Starmer in with the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell. Sir Keir has more knowledge and expertise regarding the EU and it's laws than any other present parliamentarian, in my view. He is not of the hard left (cf. Michael Mansfield, for instance) but so far as I can see believes that it is only by being involved that the Labour Party can come back towards a more widely-accepted positioning, by which I mean a position that can make some appeal to marginal Tory or swing voters, as well as Labour's more traditional constituency. It would have been a very smart move if David Davis had attempted to build a cross-party grouping involving Sir Keir to work towards an acceptable brexit solution. But it's very hard to swallow pride and work with colleagues from other parties. But I very much hope that Sir Keir is a future Labour leader, just as I hope that Rory Stewart will lead the Tory party one day soon. We'd have a much more intelligent-looking parliament if those two were at the helm.

 

Err ...."Davis worked for Tate & Lyle for 17 years, rising to become a senior executive, including restructuring its troubled Canadian subsidiary.
So you dont think that would have required any negotiating skills then.?
Besides he does have a team of lawyers and advisors from Whitehall to assist (including the one who forensically dismantled the so-called 'divorce' bill line by line at the last EU UK Brexit meeting causing Barnier to lose his composure. )

You only read what you want to read.

 

LOL

 

OK point taken. He does have a very prestigious background and I can full understand that as a barrister his power his analytical and oratory skills could probably make short work of most politicians (including David Davis) in the debating chamber.. I am not aware of how left leaning, or otherwise, he is so it was clearly unfair on my part to lump him with those I see as professional opportunistic politicians.
I also have no legal in depth understanding of the full implications of ths Henry VIII issue, something I suspect, few, if any, on this BB do either.
To me it seems simple enough in that the bill should allow straightforward migration of the EU legislation into UK law to enable us to move forward, T
he problem seems to be that thereafter changes to the law that should be debated by the full house, however long it takes . Nevertheless are being driven through by the cabinet only and this would continue with future Government thereby removing Parliament from the law changing process. That possibly naive summary it does seem to me that the Govt are trying to power grab .
Others argue that this has always existed (a bit like the Executive powers of the US president when an impasse has been recahed by the two houses) Surely it requires no more than a paragraph in the bill to state that changes to all migrated legislation must follow the due process and be debated by parliament. If that is what Labour are proposing without adding bells and whistles to the amendment what is the problem?

 

So you do accept the government should have powers to do what they like without parliament?

 

That is exactly what Labour, and quite a few Tories are proposing!

Most of the EU legislation that has already been absorbed is obscure and technical. But in amongst, there are some hugely important safeguards and protections. It is only right that the whole parliament should have the opportunity to fully debate the removal of such measures.

Incidentally, these provisions have already been incorporated into UK domestic law. The "repeal bill" could simply state that the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 shall not affect or invalidate any EU legislation which has already been adopted into UK law. You only need to make it more complicated than that if you want to "power grab" by adding Henry VIII clauses to allow ministers to tinker with them!

 

Good question. Ask the Tory Party.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...l-spanish-pensioners-immigrants-a7934881.html

 

MY issue on this is not with you but the sources you quote. The Guardian, and to a lesser extent the Independent (oxymoron alert) are transparently pro EU. The Guardian has been rabidly anti Brexit from day one. Facts are one thing but the Guardian 'cherry pick' their sources (as do the BBC) and whilst not lying they do not present balance in their articles. The right wing Tory press are no different, but the problem is many people chose to get their information on one side or the other. I am sorry, but rightly or wrongly I feel you are one of those people. No offence intended.

I DO acknowledge that I tend to come down anti Cons on this issue of Govt revising/abolishing individual legislation from the block imported EU laws aka the 'repeal bill' after the process is completed without parliamentary scrutiny. But, again, I lack the in depth understanding of the full complexity of the issue having only information from media sources with an agenda (both sides of the divide)

Edit: Oh dear! I just read the article in the link. Is the Independent still regarded as a serious newspaper and source of news? The article was barely worthy of a 6th form college paper from a trainee journalist . Opinion pieces are one thing but a rant presenting them as an accurate portrayal of the true situation is ridiculous. Besides Private Eye do far better satirical and withering articles on controversial subjects and no one side is safe.