Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
A bigger Bribe should work the trick
I think that “May’s deal” is actually a deal constructed by the EU and deliberately intended to be so unattractive that we remain. I doubt if any negotiation took place, more a case of, this is what you are getting. It’s a sort of win / win + bonus, situation for the EU, A lose / lose + kick in the teeth, situation for us. May seems to have opted for lose + kick in the teeth on our behalf.
What a trustworthy man Mogg has turned out to be.
Edit. Untrustworthy!
Last edited:
The critical question is, are the offshore tax avoidance schemes safe under this agreement?
That would be the minimum requirement for the Mogg faction surely?
I can see where you're coming from. But we have different perspectives on it. I think Brexit was fundamentally flawed and undeliverable (not least economically) so may tried to window dress a form of brino as Brexit ("its what the people voted for and she is after all their only $£%^&ing friend"). and the eu realising all of this, accepted it. I cant think of an appropriate analogy. it is I think perhaps a bit like having to shake hands with a demented leper. One smiles politely (and bravely) and keep on reminding oneself that modern medicine means it's not really a problem. that's I think what the eu did.
The problem basically is that Remainers, not leavers knew that leavers effectively were going to get something utterly different from the Brexit they were led to believe was on offer.
There was never the slightest hope that it would turn out well.
How could it?
Our politicians never fully committed to EU membership, so effectively we have lived like Remora on a Shark for forty odd years treated far too leniently by the EU while using it as a whipping boy the cover our own mistakes, and in that process alienating a mass of the public quite wrongly to be biassed against it.
Then we have the worst and most extreme clowns in Westminster who happen to be skilled con men promising the earth before the referndum, notably without the slightest inkling or intent of making their promises come true, supported by Cambridge Anayltic using Psy ops warfare techniques to activate a normally dormant, easily conned section of the public to come out in support.
The supreme irony is that the two front men didn't actually give a damn about Brexit, it was simply a way of improving their chances of becoming PM though improving their popularity.
From their point of view it would have been better if the Vote had gone the other way!
Let us invert that: It would be safe (or at least safer) for all cars to be able to travel at speeds considerably in excess of the speed limit?
They have to come up with cases like tractors. Well, in my recent experience, the majority of tractors can travel at almost 30 mph and pull over when sensible. Very often, but not always, any attempt to overtake is actually in itself dangerous regardless of any speed limiter. Just the other day I was in the lead position behind a tractor and someone overtook me and the tractor - in a place where they simply could not see round the bend adequately. But if the limiter is set to speed limit, it will often be 60. And that is plenty fast enough to overtake a tractor safely.
Some one said last night that the DUP might instead of voting for Mays deal, abstain. This will still mean May will need a lot of Labour MPs to either support her deal or abstain as well to get it passed. I would not be surprised if the DUP do abstain then JRM and most of the other Ultras would probably support her.
I know JRM has said he would only support her deal if the DUP also supported it, but lets face it he will change his mind when it suits him.
It certainly sounds easy to do, but just like Brexit I suspect it might be a bit more complicated. I have not looked at this in any detail but off the top of my head. The cables feeding the lampposts, the switch gear controlling those cables, the transformers in the sub stations, would all have been sized for the likely lighting load. I am sure they would have been sized to cope with some additional load being connected, but I am not sure if they would be able to cope with lots of electric cars drawing quite a lot of current from them. These cars would often be connected up at night when people have come home from work, and at night is when the street lights are on. So both loads would be connected at the same time so could lead to over load conditions.
Yes,although that brings to mind france's 80mph (130kph) limit on rural roads. In my experience a significant difference from 70 when things go wrong, suddenly. But it cannot be such an exact science then
Correction: motorways 130 km/h
Double carriageway: 110 km/h
Rural roads: 80 km/h (gilet jaune don't like it)
Town: 50 km/h
90 km/h on some sections of road with passing lanes and 30 km/h sections in towns.
The difficult bit is climbing up the lamp post gripping the end of a heavy lead with two crocodile clips in your mouth then unscrewing the bulb with a free hand.
You did far more than that. Even though my post wasn't in any way about remain or leave, like Zlatan you immediately brought my being a remainer into your reply, showing the true reason why you both chose a perceived opportunity to attack.
And then you threw in some arrogant and wholely unbased assertions and added an insulting addition to my forum name, with the known intention that it would cause offence.
You clearly have no standards and don't even know what standards are, so you are hardly someone fit to lecture me on posting behaviour.
.
Last edited:
Fingers, do the forum a favour and either moderage your vulgarity or find somewhere else to troll
I doubt there will be any response from Tommie,our NI colleague, about the quick passage of the following... In a very busy month getting our no deal Brexit legislation in place etc..... You may recall his posting when two NI fishing boats were arrested in Dundalk Bay last month....
. From the Irish Times...
"Minister for the Marine Michael Creed has appealed to a mussel fisherman not to continue the hunger strike he began in protest over legislation to restore access to Irish waters for Northern Ireland fishing vessels.
Gerard Kelly, who began his “fast for fish” hunger strike outside the Dáil on Tuesday was one of four mussel fishermen to take a successful Supreme Court case against what is known as the voisinage informal agreement between the Republic and Northern Ireland which allowed access by each side to the other’s 9.6 km (6 mile) inshore fishing zone.
In 2016 the Supreme Court ruled there was no legal entitlement for fishermen from the North to fish in the zone from the coast to 9.6 km out to sea.
Legislation introduced to restore that right was fast-tracked this month following the recent detention by the Naval Service of two vessels from the North for illegally fishing in Irish waters.
The Seanad on Tuesday night passed the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Bill to restore the reciprocal arrangement that had been in place from 1965 until the 2016 Supreme Court decision. The legislation goes to the Dáil on Thursday."
. From the Irish Times...
"Minister for the Marine Michael Creed has appealed to a mussel fisherman not to continue the hunger strike he began in protest over legislation to restore access to Irish waters for Northern Ireland fishing vessels.
Gerard Kelly, who began his “fast for fish” hunger strike outside the Dáil on Tuesday was one of four mussel fishermen to take a successful Supreme Court case against what is known as the voisinage informal agreement between the Republic and Northern Ireland which allowed access by each side to the other’s 9.6 km (6 mile) inshore fishing zone.
In 2016 the Supreme Court ruled there was no legal entitlement for fishermen from the North to fish in the zone from the coast to 9.6 km out to sea.
Legislation introduced to restore that right was fast-tracked this month following the recent detention by the Naval Service of two vessels from the North for illegally fishing in Irish waters.
The Seanad on Tuesday night passed the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Bill to restore the reciprocal arrangement that had been in place from 1965 until the 2016 Supreme Court decision. The legislation goes to the Dáil on Thursday."
Some of the leave voters on here seem reduced to expressing their disappointment by resorting to vulgarity.
I quite understand, Brexit has to be the biggest disappointment for them, but I would remind them it is for us too.
Have a go at the people who led you astray and betrayed you, not remainers.