Back on track re brexit.. Brittany ferries have just announced a direct Ireland Spain ferry link... Passengers and freight. Leaving out the type of pr guff companies feel obligated to use , I suspect that a strong reason is to prevent the anticipated cumulative Brexit delays of traversing the UK with fresh produce. The overall journey time Cork to Santander will be 26 hrs. This means a reduction in road traffic and jobs in the UK.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Yep, I see that but unfortunately we have to sell 4x4 crew buses aswell. You dont have to take that much business away before the whole lot crumbles.
We all rely on cars / lorries for transport delivery of goods, which we all accept. What many wont appreciate is that the business , trade, industry, commerce that those same vehicles provide is essential to keep us all fed. Take away the car from western civilisation, what else disappears ? Steel industry, insurance, tyre manufacturer and the spending power of all those building those cars...Its not so simple we can just stop or even slow down...if we do...it could all stop. The whole lot is interrelated somewhere. So as Flecc argues, we keep our foot down and head for the cliff...or global warming..or economic disaster when credit bubble bursts, or when sea is poisoned by all our by products.. Its not an easy solution and Brexit merely becomes a slight distraction along the path..
Its always going to be a hard path to negotiate, balancing economic survival without bringing about some disaster.
It really only matters how quickly transitions occur. As humans we can very quickly adopt and that which was abhorrent can become the new normal. How long has it taken a belief in a creator, which fueled political economic and legal structures for many thousands of years , to be replaced, in the West at least as some kind of bemused forebearance for such beliefs?
so you managed to find a biassed post, well done, the fact remains that Attlee rebuilt the nation from being a bombed out shell and rehoused the millions of displaced, which compares more than favourably with this Government that is filling the streets with homeless and starving.
As to this
"The only issue that annoys me is that you and your kind ( Tom) have destroyed whatever chance Labour had of getting power with all your inflammatory insulting rhetoric. People just dont want it . "
More of your fantasies? we simply point out the huge swindles and injustices you love so well, and it's amazing that you imagine that that influences 65 Million people we have no contact with.
what people don't want is the sort of Pink Tory imitation New Labour sham that the likes of you imagine will save the nation.
Grow up, that is dead as a Dodo.
So what do people want OG ? No tories ? No pink mid ground ? No extreme left ? There,s nothing left ?
Unless ofcourse you wake up and realise the policies and beliefs you support require a revolution and probably a damned civil war to get there...for what ? A pack of policies that will destroy us.
You rant about this and that but don't even see what you represent..
Said it time and time again please tell us which government you do want. ? An extreme left ? Country is crying out for exactly that you mock. A pink compromise..like France has done.
From the Guardian.
"
Taxpayers will be forced to hand over nearly £200bn to contractors under private finance deals for at least 25 years, according to a report by Whitehall’s spending watchdog.
In the wake of the collapse of public service provider Carillion, the National Audit Office found little evidence that government investment in more than 700 existing public-private projects has delivered financial benefits.
The cost of privately financing public projects can be 40% higher than relying solely upon government money, auditors found.
They also disclosed that the government has a £35m equity stake in one of Carillion’s major projects – public money that is now at risk."
Off Topic? perhaps, but it reinforces the fact that this Government cannot be trusted to run the affairs at the country and we will be even further in their power after Brexit.
Aren't we lucky?
"
Taxpayers will be forced to hand over nearly £200bn to contractors under private finance deals for at least 25 years, according to a report by Whitehall’s spending watchdog.
In the wake of the collapse of public service provider Carillion, the National Audit Office found little evidence that government investment in more than 700 existing public-private projects has delivered financial benefits.
The cost of privately financing public projects can be 40% higher than relying solely upon government money, auditors found.
They also disclosed that the government has a £35m equity stake in one of Carillion’s major projects – public money that is now at risk."
Off Topic? perhaps, but it reinforces the fact that this Government cannot be trusted to run the affairs at the country and we will be even further in their power after Brexit.
Aren't we lucky?
Still pushing that tired old line?
Do give up, no one is buying, and perhaps it has escaped your notice that I have been anti towards the so called opposition parties too.
And I forecast that there would be the very trouble you fear after Brexit because the public will become angry.
"Pack of policies that will destroy us?"
We have them already, in case you haven't noticed. It's called
BREXIT. And you can add to that outsourcing public contracts to dodgy companies too!
Zlatan asked again what sort of Government does OG want? forgetting that I went into detail long ago in this thread.
I am not interested in notions such as a "left wing Government"
I am not interested in notions such as a "left wing Government"
- All governments to be coalition of all Mp's
- No such thing as an opposition without powers that may as well go home and get a useful job.
From the Independent
"
MPs have voted against including the European Charter of Fundamental Rights in UK law after Brexit.
A Labour amendment, tabled in the name of Jeremy Corbyn, sought to retain the provisions in the Charter but was voted down by 317 votes to 299.
The EU Withdrawal Bill, which is currently in its report stage in the House of Commons, will transfer all existing EU law into UK law when Britain leaves the EU in March 2019.
Can someone explain why they want to do this?
Realistic Answers only please.
"
MPs have voted against including the European Charter of Fundamental Rights in UK law after Brexit.
A Labour amendment, tabled in the name of Jeremy Corbyn, sought to retain the provisions in the Charter but was voted down by 317 votes to 299.
The EU Withdrawal Bill, which is currently in its report stage in the House of Commons, will transfer all existing EU law into UK law when Britain leaves the EU in March 2019.
Can someone explain why they want to do this?
Realistic Answers only please.
That's a compromise, the sort I,ve been saying all along.
As to brexit bring the caause of all problems that's utter rubbish.
And by the way OG you,d still end up with a government way past pink...would have rather a horrible tinge of blue....Personally would rather get a pink Milliband but your support of the tories is to be expected with your brainwashing ;reading all those daily mail articles.
And that's exactly the point you are missing. Supporting extreme left will push us into a blue compromise. ( It is doing now) If labour supporters came to their senses they would ditch Corbyn and be in power with a compromised pinkish Labour, which is way more attractive than current situation and any future one; the way we are going at moment that is.
Last edited:
it’s because the words ‘European’ and ‘rights’ are in it.
Seriously, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is used by lawyers to create twisted defence strategies, for example, there is a case of VAT fraud. Such scenarios can conceivably happen here after brexit if ECHR still takes precedence over our own 1998 Human Rights Act.
I suspect it has more to do with deporting immigrants after brexit.
Yes. It was David Cameron who started this process and Labour made no attempt to oppose it. The reason for these is simple.
Since 1994 we've passed some criminal justice laws that breach our own prior laws, including the Human Rights Law and the Geneva convention, both applicable in the UK.
The third of these unlawful laws was the 2003 Sex Offences Act, passed into force by Labour.
Since the EU has freedom of travel, all member countries keep an eye on each other's new laws since their own citizens are affected if in another EU country. After they'd examined the Sex Offences Act 2003, Germany, France and Italy all protested that law was illegal since it breached both UK and EU law.
That created a problem since those countries and the many other EU countries agreeing would not support an arrest or extraction of one of their citizens under that act. But our government did not want to rewrite that very complex act and in any case wanted to keep it's illegal and unfair nature, so Cameron's solution was to get rid of the Human Rights Act and replace it with his own Bill of Rights which would no doubt permit the abuse of process to continue.
That is where we are at, the Tories wanting to continue that abuse and Labour having supported it, only Corbyn as ever now showing any degree of decency.
MPs feel safe in continuing this abuse of process since they know how much the public hate any sexual abuse and so are unlikely to protest or be bothered whether that law is unfair or not. But what the public are unaware of is that law ropes in entirely innocent people, and changes in the way such trials are conducted mean the trials themselves deny justice by subverting prior practice. What I mean by that is that anyone charged with a sexual offence is regarded as guilty unless subsequently proved innocent. Police, lawyers and even judges refer to accusers as victims prior to trial or judgement, showing a belief in a defendant's guilt. Of course in law they should be considered innocent until proven guilty and accusers should be refered to as Complainants until the defendant is proven to be guilty.
At this stage you might be one of those who feel, who cares, lock 'em up, so let me give you a sample from that law:
If an adult, even a parent, in a non-sexual touch (those words in the act) places a hand on a child, regardless of them being fully dressed, such as touching a shoulder or guiding though a door, an offence is committed. The guideline sentence for that offence is six months imprisonment. If there is considered to be any aggravating circumstance that rises to one year. If the touch is shown to be innocent, the minimum sentence is 28 days imprisonment.
There is a further breach of prior law in the act. You will no doubt be aware that the age of homosexual consent is 16 years, aligned in law with that for heterosexuals since January 2001. However the Sex Offences Act 2003 has a provision raising that to 17 years for either, in breach of prior law.
The purpose of these changes in the 2003 act was to convict every abuser, but in doing that it means many innocent people have been convicted. One former Home Office minister was even heard to say, "I don't care how many innocent people end up in prison, just so long as not one abuser remains on the streets". So much for the old adage, "Better that twelve guilty men go free than one innocent person be convicted".
Now even the Home Office which has a vested interest in saying the system they run is sound, admits that there are an estimated 3000 innocent people in prison. That's 4%, one in 25, and independent bodies feel the true figure is very much higher.
A number of our more decent lawyers have vigorously protested about these abuses but government remains unmoved.
This isn't the only recent abusive law, the others concerning legal process for all cases but I've picked on it since it is by far the worst.
.
Last edited:
You really need to try to understand something other than your own prejudices and try and see the bigger picture.
A coalition Government system would be a huge advance, and yes i do read the loony right press
Aneurin Bevan said
"I read the press avidly.
It is my one source of continuous fiction."
Perhaps if you followed his example you would be a wiser man, instead of indulging in flights of fancy against anyone who disagrees with your limited viewpoint.
There is however a question that you could answer for me, how does a Socialist like myself suffer "Brainwashing" by reading the right wing press?
Even more extraordinary, can you quote me an instance where I have ever expressed support for the Tories?
Sorry, but you appear to have utterly lost your way.
Please engage the brain before the keyboard.
Last edited:
The Joy of Brexit eh,flecc, all power to the enemies of the people.
Which would mean that I, as a father, couldn't hug one of my sons in public?
Such a law in Spain would have 99.9% of the population in jail! That is one of the disturbing aspects about your "Englishness" the lack of physical contact and your need for a magic protective wall - no brushing with strangers in the street for example.
Obviously it's unlikely that the average police officer would blindly arrest for such an act. But in a case where a malicious complaint was lodged, the act enables a totally unfair conviction. It makes everyone a potential victim of injustice.
.
The clue was in “last 25 years.” Not just this government, but all governments.
PFI was liked by Labour and they used it extensively. I even met a bell-end Labour MP a few weeks ago who was still singing the praises of PFI and advocating that we should be extending its use:- Twat.
Nobody posts or reads more Tory articles than you do.
And as normal you miss the point and regress to insults.
" enemies of the people" You sound like Wolfy and his Tooting popular front.
It's one of the many reasons I insist that Tony Blair's "New Labour" was nothing of the sort but just a Conservative variant.
A corruption of democracy solely for the purposes of dishonestly getting into power. Sadly there are still many who believe Labour should return to this path.
.
And in meantime hundreds of girls were ( and probably still are) being groomed by gangs.( gangs of a particular type ?)