They're Brussels, that's the hated EU.
.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
.
What left? have we still got one?
Might be a more appropriate response to that.
The Press are the villains of the piece with regard to the sham Nationalist and the right wing Politicians are simply surfing the wave.
Don't you have a pollution problem with sprouts,excess methane?
KudosDave
Easily solved with one of those "Cataclysmic Converter " thingies I'm reliably informed by a VW technical wizard.
Great article just in from Daniel Hannan on all this:
"I keep being told by half-clever pundits that Theresa May was never a Remainer in her heart. Some even imply that the Prime Minister privately voted Leave.
Such stories are utter tripe. I know several people who tried to convince the then Home Secretary to come out against EU membership, and who got nowhere. In private, as well as in public, Theresa May made a pragmatic case for Remain. She is, though, a sincere democrat. Once the country had voted, she understood that there was no point in sulking. The worst possible approach, as she was well aware, would be to go about Brexit peevishly or half-heartedly.
This point is worth reiterating, partly because the insinuations are a wholly unjustified attempt to cast doubt on May’s integrity, and partly because an absurd narrative is being built up around the notion that she is some sort of fanatical Brexiteer. Nick Clegg talks of a “Brexit-at-all-costs government”, Nicola Sturgeon of “hard Tory Brexit”. They, like the Labour front bench, want us to think that the country is in the hands of doctrinaire Eurosceptics. So it’s worth reminding ourselves that the Prime Minister, three quarters of her Cabinet and two-thirds of her MPs campaigned to stay in the EU. In accepting the people’s verdict, they are being the opposite of doctrinaire.
So why, some Remainers ask, the tough talk on immigration? Why the readiness to walk away from a trade deal rather than compromise on free movement? Well, listen to what the Prime Minister is actually saying, rather than to what some Remainers imagine her to be saying. She has made clear that she wants and expects a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU, but that she’d rather have no deal than a bad deal. That’s surely the most obvious, almost banal, of positions.
I argued throughout the campaign that we could and should retain free trade with the EU, based on zero tariffs and the mutual recognition of standards. I still think this is overwhelmingly the likeliest outcome. Although some British commentators are in a competitive moan-fest about how dreadful things will be, I haven’t heard a single politician on either side of the Channel calling for trade barriers.
Still, it would be extraordinary – inexcusable, indeed – for May to go into the talks without a bottom line. If, for example, the rest of the EU really were to insist on a £53 billion upfront exit fee before trade talks could begin, she would quite rightly weigh that up against the cost of £5.2 billion in tariffs under WTO rules and conclude that we’d be better off with a third-country status, such as is held by the United States or Australia.
The Prime Minister’s attitude to the rest of the EU is co-operative and friendly. She misses no opportunity to say that Britain will be the EU’s closest ally. She wants a trade deal that will, in effect, keep most of the existing economic arrangements in place. And she seems to be feeling her way toward a reasonable compromise on immigration, whereby EU nationals would be able to come to the UK on five-year work visas, though without an automatic entitlement to in-work benefits.
If you’re looking for a truly doctrinaire position, look across the Channel. EU leaders have agreed a line, which they keep repeating, to the effect that the UK must not be better off in future than it is now. That’s a doubly revealing stance. First, it suggests that, other things being equal, leaving the EU will make a country better off – except in so far as Brussels deliberately seeks to damage it.
Second, it shows that the EU isn’t really about the prosperity of its members. After all, why shouldn’t the other 27 states, as well as Britain, aim to get a better deal than they have now? Almost every electorate in Europe would, for example, prefer what May is proposing on migration – freedom of labour subject to ultimate national control, and without automatic welfare rights – to what they have now. So why not let them have it? Because the EU elevates closer integration over the economic interests of its member states, obviously. That attitude – the truly dogmatic attitude – is why the euro exists.
And that attitude, ultimately, is why Britain is leaving. It is tempting to look for long-term explanations for big events, and many pundits, having failed to see Brexit coming, were soon telling us that it had been “all about” populist anger, or immigration or whatever. In truth, things usually have a more immediate cause. Brexit was prompted, as those involved with the process now admit, by David Cameron’s failure to come back from Brussels with any powers returned.
Until February 2016, opinion polls were finely balanced – at least when people were offered a binary in-or-out choice. Throw in a middle option, a looser form of membership, and it commanded the support of around 70 per cent of voters. Had Cameron been able to come back with such a deal – had he repatriated just one or two powers, and thereby set a precedent – he’d have won.
Yet the EU could not bring itself to deviate from ever-closer union, even if that meant losing its second largest financial contributor. Which is, of course, its right. It’s just that that inflexibility explains why Brexit was both inevitable and correct. Britain has always wanted a deal with the rest of the EU based on trade and co-operation, not political amalgamation. Last year, we learned that such a deal could not be had while we were members, and that we must instead seek it from the outside. Which is precisely what we are now doing."
Happy days.
"I keep being told by half-clever pundits that Theresa May was never a Remainer in her heart. Some even imply that the Prime Minister privately voted Leave.
Such stories are utter tripe. I know several people who tried to convince the then Home Secretary to come out against EU membership, and who got nowhere. In private, as well as in public, Theresa May made a pragmatic case for Remain. She is, though, a sincere democrat. Once the country had voted, she understood that there was no point in sulking. The worst possible approach, as she was well aware, would be to go about Brexit peevishly or half-heartedly.
This point is worth reiterating, partly because the insinuations are a wholly unjustified attempt to cast doubt on May’s integrity, and partly because an absurd narrative is being built up around the notion that she is some sort of fanatical Brexiteer. Nick Clegg talks of a “Brexit-at-all-costs government”, Nicola Sturgeon of “hard Tory Brexit”. They, like the Labour front bench, want us to think that the country is in the hands of doctrinaire Eurosceptics. So it’s worth reminding ourselves that the Prime Minister, three quarters of her Cabinet and two-thirds of her MPs campaigned to stay in the EU. In accepting the people’s verdict, they are being the opposite of doctrinaire.
So why, some Remainers ask, the tough talk on immigration? Why the readiness to walk away from a trade deal rather than compromise on free movement? Well, listen to what the Prime Minister is actually saying, rather than to what some Remainers imagine her to be saying. She has made clear that she wants and expects a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU, but that she’d rather have no deal than a bad deal. That’s surely the most obvious, almost banal, of positions.
I argued throughout the campaign that we could and should retain free trade with the EU, based on zero tariffs and the mutual recognition of standards. I still think this is overwhelmingly the likeliest outcome. Although some British commentators are in a competitive moan-fest about how dreadful things will be, I haven’t heard a single politician on either side of the Channel calling for trade barriers.
Still, it would be extraordinary – inexcusable, indeed – for May to go into the talks without a bottom line. If, for example, the rest of the EU really were to insist on a £53 billion upfront exit fee before trade talks could begin, she would quite rightly weigh that up against the cost of £5.2 billion in tariffs under WTO rules and conclude that we’d be better off with a third-country status, such as is held by the United States or Australia.
The Prime Minister’s attitude to the rest of the EU is co-operative and friendly. She misses no opportunity to say that Britain will be the EU’s closest ally. She wants a trade deal that will, in effect, keep most of the existing economic arrangements in place. And she seems to be feeling her way toward a reasonable compromise on immigration, whereby EU nationals would be able to come to the UK on five-year work visas, though without an automatic entitlement to in-work benefits.
If you’re looking for a truly doctrinaire position, look across the Channel. EU leaders have agreed a line, which they keep repeating, to the effect that the UK must not be better off in future than it is now. That’s a doubly revealing stance. First, it suggests that, other things being equal, leaving the EU will make a country better off – except in so far as Brussels deliberately seeks to damage it.
Second, it shows that the EU isn’t really about the prosperity of its members. After all, why shouldn’t the other 27 states, as well as Britain, aim to get a better deal than they have now? Almost every electorate in Europe would, for example, prefer what May is proposing on migration – freedom of labour subject to ultimate national control, and without automatic welfare rights – to what they have now. So why not let them have it? Because the EU elevates closer integration over the economic interests of its member states, obviously. That attitude – the truly dogmatic attitude – is why the euro exists.
And that attitude, ultimately, is why Britain is leaving. It is tempting to look for long-term explanations for big events, and many pundits, having failed to see Brexit coming, were soon telling us that it had been “all about” populist anger, or immigration or whatever. In truth, things usually have a more immediate cause. Brexit was prompted, as those involved with the process now admit, by David Cameron’s failure to come back from Brussels with any powers returned.
Until February 2016, opinion polls were finely balanced – at least when people were offered a binary in-or-out choice. Throw in a middle option, a looser form of membership, and it commanded the support of around 70 per cent of voters. Had Cameron been able to come back with such a deal – had he repatriated just one or two powers, and thereby set a precedent – he’d have won.
Yet the EU could not bring itself to deviate from ever-closer union, even if that meant losing its second largest financial contributor. Which is, of course, its right. It’s just that that inflexibility explains why Brexit was both inevitable and correct. Britain has always wanted a deal with the rest of the EU based on trade and co-operation, not political amalgamation. Last year, we learned that such a deal could not be had while we were members, and that we must instead seek it from the outside. Which is precisely what we are now doing."
Happy days.
It seems you may be onto something here Dave.
NASA is investigating the use of biofuels, including a brassica (cabbage family) based one, to reduce jet engine particulates that also contribute to global warming when deposited in the troposphere.
The fascinating account of the risky use of NASA's DC8 in the experiments is told in the current edition of the BBC's radio 4 "Inside Science" program.
You'll be able to listen to the program now on the i-player by using this link. The item starts at 7m 40s in and ends at 14m 12 s.
So if NASA can get energy from a cabbage, I see no reason why Kudos can't get current from Cos (The Romaine variety of lettuce).
.
Last edited:
No, the methane isn't a problem, it's an opportunity. You store it in a wee tank on your bike, then when you get home you plumb it into your house heating system saving you money.
I didn't invest £1.73 in this without giving it some thought.
Looks like I'll need to invest another £1.73. It's an expensive game this inventing.
I've just been looking through my posts in this thread. I'm not too sure that I'm taking this Brexit/indyref2 situation seriously. How on Earth will I make it through the next two years with that attitude?
Well done for sheer effort and time wasted on that load of piffle.
Lets reduce the problem to something you might understand.
Only one thing keeps this country afloat.
The financial swindles of the City of London, which accounts for the Bulk of our income
What industry remains will not support the Nation and will only at best provide 20% of our minimum financial needs.
The rest of the Economy is simply money moving inside the country which can be used to give an illusion of an economy that is booming.
I'll make it even simpler for you
If london fails to continue we are Bankrupt, rather than in a permanent decline as we are now.
Do us all a favour, and stop this nonsense that all is well
We are on the Titanic, sailing at Flank Speed into a sea filled with ice.
You are living out a fantasy that has no basis in fact, it has become for some a sort of religious fervour to totally deny the reality of the situation.
Cast doubts on the integrity of Theresa May?
And you expect to be taken seriously after making a remark like that?
Seek help.
There's a little of Bill Gates in all of us!No, the methane isn't a problem, it's an opportunity. You store it in a wee tank on your bike, then when you get home you plumb it into your house heating system saving you money.
I didn't invest £1.73 in this without giving it some thought.
Indeed, I had two Daughters......one learned to play the bagpipes.....Are you speaking from experience?
Unfortunately it was an unequal match, even for a Scot's tolerance.
That's how I came by my Moniker
Many years ago, one of my neighbour's daughter learned how to play the pipes. Now, he didn't want her doing it in the house so he sent her to the garage. His garage was nearer my house than his. Many a day, after a nightshift I lay in bed listening to, what sounded like, a cat with it's tail stuck in a fire.Indeed, I had two Daughters......one learned to play the bagpipes.....
Unfortunately it was an unequal match, even for a Scot's tolerance.
That's how I came by my Moniker
My son had a piper at his wedding, he played a game of what can only be described as, Name that tune. No one won the game.
Now then, I quite like listening to the bagpipes at times.
It can make a nice change from listening to music.
.
OMG,,,this is a dangerous forum,come up with a dubious plan to con £2.8 million out of May....not difficult at the moment,especially if it looks anti jobs due to Brexit and the thread soon degenerates to cabbages and sprouts,the end was as inevitable as Brexit,a load of s......!!!!!
KudosDave
KudosDave