Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

I wasn't going to mention your ridiculous claim about 'governing law' when applied to moving the Banks from UK to Germany but you screwed that up as well by your ignorance. 'Governing law' is only applicable if there is a contractual dispute and determines the country's laws that will be used to settle that dispute . I am sorry but I don't have to just sit back and take a lot of crap from you.

Exactly! You have finally got it. So, when your 'man on the telly who proves you right' said that it is impossible to enact a contract under English law in Frankfurt, he was wrong. End of matter.

[Tim Drayton]

boris gove and farage are responsible for this. Never mind ministerial jobs they should be locked up for inciting these thugs.

I don't think you can blame them! They did not advocate violence just the idea that the UK should be able to chose who they want to come and live/work in the UK. To me, that does not seem to be an unreasonable expectation.

There has been a 57% rise in hate crime following the disgustingly racist campaign waged by the leave side in the referendum, and now this murder ... and you say there is no connection!

For as long as I can recollect, whenever serious and quite legitimate concerns about the unprecedented levels of UK immigration have been raised the same shout-down cry has gone out fron the Left. "RACIST!". Nothing changes it seems.

As for the so-called culpability for murder of Farage and Johnson, absolute tosh. You remind me of Dim Jim, arbiter of Cyprus Living, who insists upon Thatcher's personal responsibility for his mate's suicide, post job loss. Barking.

BTW, when this subject is continually raised by disgruntled Remainers, years before a sensible view can actually be formed, pointing out that in the largest electoral event within the UK's history they lost the vote has nothing to do with "a game of conkers" and everything to do with a reminder of the nature of democracy: the tyranny of the majority, as they say.

There are many documented cases of foreigners in the UK, whether working there, students or tourists, being accosted by people saying something along the lines of, "We voted for the foreigners to leave. Why are you still here?" So, how can you claim there is no connection between the referendum and these attacks, one now having resulted in murder?

[Tim Drayton]

I wasn't going to mention your ridiculous claim about 'governing law' when applied to moving the Banks from UK to Germany but you screwed that up as well by your ignorance. 'Governing law' is only applicable if there is a contractual dispute and determines the country's laws that will be used to settle that dispute . I am sorry but I don't have to just sit back and take a lot of crap from you.

By the way, that's another ludicrous example of the man of straw fallacy. What was my so-called rediculous claim about 'governing law' when applied to moving the Banks from UK to Germany? My only claim was that, as opposed to the 'man on the telly who supposedly proves you right', two private law parties can indeed enact a contract in Frankfurt and, by including a governing law clause, see to it that that contract is governed by English law.

[Londonrake]

Handbags at dawn?

Or........ spanners at sunset?

I wondered when you would poke your oar in Spanner ! Nothing intelligent to add then LR?

I suspect that the ongoing campaign for a Remain vote will see the both of us out. One can continue to respond to the daily trawl for perceived "I told you so" articles but it begins to feel a bit like a pointless Troll feeding exercise. These matters are of course much better left in the hands of career, ivory tower politicos, rather than the great unwashed electorates. Isn't that the stuff of Brussels?

My apologies for the earlier flippancy. No offence intended.

[Tim Drayton]

You can't quote any MSM reports that can demonstrate that ANY of the remain campaign was even remotely true.

Typical man of straw fallacy. The remainers supposedly said that, if the vote was for leave, there would be an instant apocalypse and the sky would fall in the next day. Well, the sky didn't fall in the next day so they were wrong! What intellectual dishonesty. Nobody made such claims. The claims that were made were based on the premise that article 50 would be triggered the day after and the UK would rapidly leave the union. In fact, as each day passes, it becomes clearer that we are in a 'Hotel California' situation and may never even get round to leaving. At the moment the UK remains an EU member and life carries on as before. Even so, there are plenty of negative auguries. The pound is weaker. Interest rates have been reduced to a pathological quarter percent and business confidence levels are low. To demonstrate empirically that the 'remain campaign was true', as you put it, the UK will first of all need to leave the EU, because the claims of the remain campaign were that 'If the UK leaves the EU, the consequences of this will be ...". The remain campaign did not say that these things would happen just because the vote was for leave.

Again ..... that is your opinion only! Not a single link to a credible source to support your opinion.

What about the claims that there would be an income tax rise, the mortgage rates would rocket and house prices would tumble ......... surely if that had been a credible reason to remain, to avoid just that, then we should be seeing some evidence? But it seems not!

You want a credible source to support my opinion that the UK has not yet left the EU?

Let's have one more go:

The claims made were for the consequences IF/WHEN the UK leaves the EU, i.e. AFTER this happens, in other words, later in time. Since the UK has not yet left the EU, of course we are not yet experiencing these consequences.

#1 Quote where I have said that or even suggested that the UK has left the EU. Once again your reading skills leave a lot to be desired. Read carefully before you make a statement .... otherwise it shows you as being a bit flippant in translating what you read. And for someone who makes a living out of translation ...... it isn't good for your credibility.

Oh dear. I can see this is going to be another hopeless effort. I am afraid you are not the sharpest tool in the shed. I wish I knew how to explain things so that you could understand them. Let's have one more go:

I am a lot sharper and much better informed than you are, at least I can read and understand what I have read, a capability you seem to lack!

Since the UK has not yet left the EU, of course we are not yet experiencing these consequences.

Exactly as I explained to you but you managed to misread .... again.

OK, precisely which opinion did you want a credible source to support? It would help if you clarified that. Othwerwise I don't know which opinion I am supposed to be supporting, since the only point I have made is that the disastrous consequences that leave supporters predict will result from the UK leaving the EU can only manifest themselves when that has happened, so it is pretty stupid to ask for empirical evidence before the event. That is not an opinion but a logical statement.

[Tim Drayton]

Handbags at dawn?

Or........ spanners at sunset?

I wondered when you would poke your oar in Spanner ! Nothing intelligent to add then LR?

I suspect that the ongoing campaign for a Remain vote will see the both of us out. One can continue to respond to the daily trawl for perceived "I told you so" articles but it begins to feel a bit like a pointless Troll feeding exercise. These matters are of course much better left in the hands of career, ivory tower politicos, rather than the great unwashed electorates. Isn't that the stuff of Brussels?

My apologies for the earlier flippancy. No offence intended.

I hate to say it, but it was actually your mate who revived this thread with a few 'told you so' quotes of his own, taken from the MSM that he supposedly mistrusts, and one of which referred to a so-called 'post-Brexit boom' which is a logical impossibility given that the UK is currently still an EU member. I'm sorry, but such nonsense deserves trashing.

[Londonrake]

It's a long, sad tale but "your mate" is light years from the actual situation. This probably being the single subject that we have not historically been diametrically opposed on - and even this, more-or-less, for different reasons. Nevertheless, he's no fool. Just like you.

[Robin Hood]

I wasn't going to mention your ridiculous claim about 'governing law' when applied to moving the Banks from UK to Germany but you screwed that up as well by your ignorance. 'Governing law' is only applicable if there is a contractual dispute and determines the country's laws that will be used to settle that dispute . I am sorry but I don't have to just sit back and take a lot of crap from you.

By the way, that's another ludicrous example of the man of straw fallacy. What was my so-called rediculous claim about 'governing law' when applied to moving the Banks from UK to Germany? My only claim was that, as opposed to the 'man on the telly who supposedly proves you right', two private law parties can indeed enact a contract in Frankfurt and, by including a governing law clause, see to it that that contract is governed by English law.

I realize that you are a bit thick but ....... What don't you understand about the ...... IF THERE IS A DISPUTE! That is the only time the clause comes into effect. You missed the ball completely! If you read/watch other interviews and papers by Keen, in those he refers to ' the procedures' ..... if you listen to the HARDtalk programme again, that makes more sense than your off target comments.

[Robin Hood]

Handbags at dawn?

Or........ spanners at sunset?

I wondered when you would poke your oar in Spanner ! Nothing intelligent to add then LR?

I suspect that the ongoing campaign for a Remain vote will see the both of us out. One can continue to respond to the daily trawl for perceived "I told you so" articles but it begins to feel a bit like a pointless Troll feeding exercise. These matters are of course much better left in the hands of career, ivory tower politicos, rather than the great unwashed electorates. Isn't that the stuff of Brussels?

My apologies for the earlier flippancy. No offence intended.

But you have to admit it is interesting to see how people quote things that then turn out to be a load of bollox and change the scenario to give a different perception! At least I can back my views by quoting various credible sources.

Well, I am older than you but I think we WILL both see the results and sooner than expected .... maybe? If the EU starts falling apart .... article 50 will be defunct. Europe will do what the UK is doing, take what it thinks is a reasonable approach in every ones interest ...... and just walk away from Junker and the Federalists. Each country will then enact the trade agreements agreed, but as a trading group not a Federal State. Have a look at some of these .........

TD:
Just a few of the 461,000 articles available that do NOT think the EU is as strong as you suggest your many ‘surveys’ have suggested. Surveys which you have not yet provided links to? I won’t post all of them but even you should manage to get the gist .........

EU collapse is now 'practically IRREVERSIBLE' after Brexit, says George Soros
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/683518/EU-collapse-Brexit-EU-referendum-European-Union-George-Soros-investors

European Union Collapse Imminent If These 2 Ticking Time Bombs Explode
by Cameron Saucier • June 30, 2016
http://wallstreetexaminer.com/2016/06/european-union-collapse-imminent-2-ticking-time-bombs-explode/

Economist Says European Union On Verge Of Collapse
Posted on June 7, 2016 by Sean Adl-Tabatabai in News, World
http://yournewswire.com/economist-says-european-union-on-verge-of-collapse/

French PM warns EU may collapse in coming months
Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:17AM
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/01/21/446718/French-prime-minister-Davos-warn-EU-collapse

European Union Collapse a Question of ‘When’, Not ‘If’ Warns Moody’s
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/05/european-collapse-a-question-of-when-not-if-warns-moodys/

Fresh recession will cause eurozone collapse, warns Swiss bank
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/02/recession-will-lead-to-eurozone-collapse-warns-french-bank/

This opinion from someone far better qualified than me to express his view on the EU and the dangers it faces.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/countering-imf-propaganda-against-brexit/5537580


I suggest those surveys you read may have been ‘slightly’ misleading ........... deliberately.

Did you ever watch ‘Titanic’ ...... it was unsinkable they said ....... but it sunk anyway. Just a slight design flaw ....... nothing to worry about they said !

LR: No offence taken

[Tim Drayton]

I wasn't going to mention your ridiculous claim about 'governing law' when applied to moving the Banks from UK to Germany but you screwed that up as well by your ignorance. 'Governing law' is only applicable if there is a contractual dispute and determines the country's laws that will be used to settle that dispute . I am sorry but I don't have to just sit back and take a lot of crap from you.

By the way, that's another ludicrous example of the man of straw fallacy. What was my so-called rediculous claim about 'governing law' when applied to moving the Banks from UK to Germany? My only claim was that, as opposed to the 'man on the telly who supposedly proves you right', two private law parties can indeed enact a contract in Frankfurt and, by including a governing law clause, see to it that that contract is governed by English law.

I realize that you are a bit thick but ....... What don't you understand about the ...... IF THERE IS A DISPUTE! That is the only time the clause comes into effect. You missed the ball completely! If you read/watch other interviews and papers by Keen, in those he refers to ' the procedures' ..... if you listen to the HARDtalk programme again, that makes more sense than your off target comments.

Yes, if there's a dispute, then this is the law that the contract is deemed to be governed by and interpreted according to. The only time this point is of any consequence is if there is a dispute. Otherwise both parties are in agreement and the question of which law the contract is governed by is not an issue. Listen again from about eight minutes into the interview that you hoped none of us would be able to access and you will hear that your man makes the assertions:

1- Most contracts are negotiated under English law (in itself a highly specious claim given that contracts are private matters that are not generally in the public domain and so there can exist no statistics about the numbers of contracts concluded under different legal systems and I seriously doubt that more than half of the contracts concluded in the world are under English law) and
2- You can't do that in Frankfurt.

I understand the second claim to mean, "You can't negotiate a contract in Frankfurt under English law" and this is wrong because, if you include a governing law clause stating that the contract is subject to English law, you can indeed do this.

Your 'man on the telly who supposedly proves you right' was totally wrong on that point. He made an off the cuff remark in support of his view but got it wrong. That's all there is to it. Boy, you are a sore loser. And you have the cheek to accuse others of that!

Thank goodness I don't have to go through the whole of that interview and deconstruct it for you. There's probably not enough time between now and the end of the universe for that.