EU Referendum

[SocketRocket]

So Nicola doesn't have a veto on triggering article 50. This car crash interview reveals the spin she uses.

[video=youtube;xD-SM9BjjpQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD-SM9BjjpQ[/video]

 

[MarkE]

So Nicola doesn't have a veto on triggering article 50. This car crash interview reveals the spin she uses.

That was outstanding political waffle. In a near 14 minute interview she answered nothing at all.

 

[Foxholer]

That was outstanding political waffle. In a near 14 minute interview she answered nothing at all.

Yep! A very good example of how to say nothing about the topic/point the interviewer wants an answer about, but plenty on the topic the politician wants to talk about! While she seemed a little shaky at times, she handled it significantly better than the likes of how Michael Howard handled his one with Jeremy Paxman!

...If we were to piggyback the Canadian trade deal, which has recently been mentioned then that would stop free movement.

That would definitely be a good thing! I don't believe FoM was ever considered in this deal - because of the significant distances involved!

Oh! And it took 12 years from (official) proposal to fruition!

 

[SocketRocket]

Yep! A very good example of how to say nothing about the topic/point the interviewer wants an answer about, but plenty on the topic the politician wants to talk about! While she seemed a little shaky at times, she handled it significantly better than the likes of how Michael Howard handled his one with Jeremy Paxman!



That would definitely be a good thing! I don't believe FoM was ever considered in this deal - because of the significant distances involved!

Oh! And it took 12 years from (official) proposal to fruition!

It doesn't take 12 years to piggyback it and I believe I heard that Canada are happy for us to do that.

How can freedom of movement be based on proximity, that would be unreasonable. The reason is that Canada, the USA, Australia, China etc would not wear it.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

So Nicola doesn't have a veto on triggering article 50. This car crash interview reveals the spin she uses.

[video=youtube;xD-SM9BjjpQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD-SM9BjjpQ[/video]

She NEVER said she had a veto [shakes head slowly as Daily Mail reader gets confused]

marke.......How can she reply to something that she does not control.
Different UK Government ministers said about three different time scales and options in one day.
Until the UK government get their act together there is nothing much the Scottish government can say or do.

Your slips are showing boys.

 

[harpo_72]

Thats a rather delusional post. I doubt if you have ever employed anyone or ran a business that operates internationally. Do you have any qualifications in business? I doubt if you have done any of these things but are just a frustrated guardian reader who thinks the state and your precious EU are responsible for keeping you in a security blanket. I have probably forgot more about business and economics than you know. Tool.

Tools are useful .... your not

 

[MarkE]

She NEVER said she had a veto [shakes head slowly as Daily Mail reader gets confused]

marke.......How can she reply to something that she does not control.
Different UK Government ministers said about three different time scales and options in one day.
Until the UK government get their act together there is nothing much the Scottish government can say or do.

Your slips are showing boys.

She can't. I was just marvelling at the ability to ignore everything she was asked. All politicians do it, but she seems especially adept.
What she should have said was 'No we have no veto, nor any real influence on brexit as the country has already spoken in the referendum. We also have no chance of remaining in the eu, whether in or out of the UK'.
But she prefers to waffle and to build herself up as the great Scottish saviour. I bet she watches Braveheart every night with her hot malty drink.

 

[SocketRocket]

She NEVER said she had a veto [shakes head slowly as Daily Mail reader gets confused]

marke.......How can she reply to something that she does not control.
Different UK Government ministers said about three different time scales and options in one day.
Until the UK government get their act together there is nothing much the Scottish government can say or do.

Your slips are showing boys.

"Shakes head" Thats a good one even for you Doom, She certainly is a master of the old head shake.

Lets see what she actually said then. Sounds very much like she was suggesting she had a veto to me.

[video]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-scotland-nicola-sturgeon-eu-uk-theresa-may-scottish-veto-block-withdrawal-a7141231.html[/video]

 

[Foxholer]

"Shakes head" Thats a good one even for you Doom, She certainly is a master of the old head shake.

Lets see what she actually said then. Sounds very much like she was suggesting she had a veto to me.

[video]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-scotland-nicola-sturgeon-eu-uk-theresa-may-scottish-veto-block-withdrawal-a7141231.html[/video]

Did she actually state (or agree) that she had a veto though?

A 1 word (Yes/No) only reply please!

 

[SocketRocket]

Tools are useful .... your not

Thats because Im not one, you on the other hand are quite useful in typifying the nonsensical balderdash that so many of the Remainers are spewing out in their bitterness. Get over it!

 

[SocketRocket]

Did she actually state (or agree) that she had a veto though?

A 1 word (Yes/No) only reply please!

I will reply any way I want I knew it was a mistake to take you off that ignore list.

She indicated it by replying that she was in a very strong position to block it. A '0' word reply only please!

Back onto the ignore now Foxy as you cant help being my little stalker. Bye !

 

[PhilTheFragger]

I think that some posters in this thread need to calm down, dip their heads in a bucket of water and put their handbags away

Before I get my infraction hat on

Thank you

 

[Blue in Munich]

Tools are useful .... your not

Tools are only useful in the right hands; outside of that they tend to sit around taking up valuable space that could be put to better use.

 

[Foxholer]

I will reply any way I want I knew it was a mistake to take you off that ignore list.

She indicated it by replying that she was in a very strong position to block it. A '0' word reply only please!

Back onto the ignore now Foxy as you cant help being my little stalker. Bye !

Phew! Thanks! That's probably going to save me a lot of time!

Btw. the answer was 'No'!

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Did she actually state (or agree) that she had a veto though?

A 1 word (Yes/No) only reply please!

Sorry Foxy but I think you are being a little disingenuous.

Much as I may not wish to agree with Socket it seems clear to me that, for the benefit of her domestic audience, Ms Sturgeon was happy to, at the very least, create the impression that she had the power to veto Brexit.

She needed a boost as her much vaunted trip to Brussels had, as expected, achieved the square root of bugger all.

 

[Foxholer]

Sorry Foxy but I think you are being a little disingenuous.

Much as I may not wish to agree with Socket it seems clear to me that, for the benefit of her domestic audience, Ms Sturgeon was happy to, at the very least, create the impression that she had the power to veto Brexit.

She needed a boost as her much vaunted trip to Brussels had, as expected, achieved the square root of bugger all.

How am I being disingenuous?

Perhaps you would care to answer the question I posed to Socket - for which he seems to have thrown his toys out of the pram....

Did she state she had a veto? No of course she didn't - because she hasn't got one!

But her implication - 'a very strong position' - is classic political speak (aka twaddle!) to push her particular 'position'!

Btw. It's no crime to agree with Socket! There's actually quite a lot (well...maybe some!) I actually do too!

 

[SocketRocket]

Sorry Foxy but I think you are being a little disingenuous.

Much as I may not wish to agree with Socket it seems clear to me that, for the benefit of her domestic audience, Ms Sturgeon was happy to, at the very least, create the impression that she had the power to veto Brexit.

She needed a boost as her much vaunted trip to Brussels had, as expected, achieved the square root of bugger all.

I just don't get this . I have a view on things and I am prepared to debate it, I get accused of insulting people but it is always in defence as most of my posts get attacked and name called. I guess it would be more comfortable for a group on here that take a left wing view on most issues if there were no opposing viewpoints, they could bang on about how Brexit is a disaster, how wonderful mass immigration is for our well being and how the nasty Conservatives are ruining the country. Any counter views are normally met with remarks like Racist, Xenophobic, Stupid, uneducated and so on.

So, please explain to me exactly why you wouldn't want to agree with me? surely that would depend on the context and content of the subject.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I just don't get this . I have a view on things and I am prepared to debate it, I get accused of insulting people but it is always in defence as most of my posts get attacked and name called. I guess it would be more comfortable for a group on here that take a left wing view on most issues if there were no opposing viewpoints, they could bang on about how Brexit is a disaster, how wonderful mass immigration is for our well being and how the nasty Conservatives are ruining the country. Any counter views are normally met with remarks like Racist, Xenophobic, Stupid, uneducated and so on.

So, please explain to me exactly why you wouldn't want to agree with me? surely that would depend on the context and content of the subject.

Well on this particular topic you just need to look at my signature to see my position on the Referendum to see that I might feel that you and I would make uncomfortable bedfellows, politically speaking.

However, I am not a Guardian (or Daily Mail) reader and I do not think that the Conservative Party is the earthly representative of the Devil.

But I also do not share your view on immigration or the potential for a Utopian existence following Brexit.

Sadly perhaps I am one of those wishy-washy middle of the road types.

Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion (even you and your more vociferous opponents) but I am not obliged to share any one of those.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

How am I being disingenuous?

Perhaps you would care to answer the question I posed to Socket - for which he seems to have thrown his toys out of the pram....

Did she state she had a veto? No of course she didn't - because she hasn't got one!

But her implication - 'a very strong position' - is classic political speak (aka twaddle!) to push her particular 'position'!

Btw. It's no crime to agree with Socket! There's actually quite a lot (well...maybe some!) I actually do too!

And there you have it :- "her implication".

As yo acknowledge political twaddle but all for a purpose.

 

[SocketRocket]

Well on this particular topic you just need to look at my signature to see my position on the Referendum to see that I might feel that you and I would make uncomfortable bedfellows, politically speaking.

However, I am not a Guardian (or Daily Mail) reader and I do not think that the Conservative Party is the earthly representative of the Devil.

But I also do not share your view on immigration or the potential for a Utopian existence following Brexit.

Sadly perhaps I am one of those wishy-washy middle of the road types.

Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion (even you and your more vociferous opponents) but I am not obliged to share any one of those.

Thanks for the frank reply. Of course I don't expect you or anyone to agree with me but on the other hand I would expect that to be on a case by case basis. Without labouring the matter, my view on immigration is a points based system, I have never suggested we have no immigration.