Buce Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 9 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Easy solution. Kill all the old folk. Next problem please. I can see you're only a plastic Tory. A proper Tory would have gone on to suggest feeding the newly-dead oldies to benefit recipients, thus enabling further benefits cuts. 1
Innovindil Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 7 minutes ago, Buce said: I can see you're only a plastic Tory. A proper Tory would have gone on to suggest feeding the newly-dead oldies to benefit recipients, thus enabling further benefits cuts. Damn that's a good idea. An oldie food bank, so to speak?
Guest Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 14 minutes ago, Buce said: I can see you're only a plastic Tory. A proper Tory would have gone on to suggest feeding the newly-dead oldies to benefit recipients, thus enabling further benefits cuts. Tbf you've got it wrong. The oldies vote Tory. It would be the other way around.
Strokes Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 1 hour ago, Innovindil said: Can't let the oldies out unchecked. Would be like the walking dead. Shuffling slippers and strange groans. Alright leave old @Buce alone now. 1
Guest MattP Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 Great speech from Kemi Badenoch in parliament today, she's going places.
Strokes Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 16 minutes ago, MattP said: Great speech from Kemi Badenoch in parliament today, she's going places. She is excellent.
Guest MattP Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 19 minutes ago, Strokes said: She is excellent. Wouldn't waste much time in getting people her into the cabinet.
leicsmac Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 To be fair, the racial/political divide in the UK is so much less than in other places, and while what Ms Badenoch said definitely applies in the UK and is good to see that there is much less division and identity doesn't mean as much (thanks to a lot of progress from all concerned, come a long way from monkey chants and the "n***** for a neighbour" campaigning) I wouldn't necessarily say its a good message for black people everywhere - at least for the time being. Think about how a lot of the conservative community views race in various areas of the US, for example.
Guest MattP Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 10 minutes ago, leicsmac said: To be fair, the racial/political divide in the UK is so much less than in other places, and while what Ms Badenoch said definitely applies in the UK and is good to see that there is much less division and identity doesn't mean as much (thanks to a lot of progress from all concerned, come a long way from monkey chants and the "n***** for a neighbour" campaigning) I wouldn't necessarily say its a good message for black people everywhere - at least for the time being. Think about how a lot of the conservative community views race in various areas of the US, for example. Milo Yiannapoulos did his bit for the cause the other week marrying his black boyfriend.
leicsmac Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, MattP said: Milo Yiannapoulos did his bit for the cause the other week marrying his black boyfriend. "I've got black friends" taken to its logical conclusion. Edited 14 November 2017 by leicsmac
Guest Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 Dan Roberts has been covering the business select committee hearing with the motor industry. He has posted these on Twitter. Honda UK telling MPs it imports 2 million components a day from Europe on 350 trucks and holds 1 hours worth of stock. It would take 18 months to put customs admin in place but every 15 minutes of delay would cost £850,000 a hour. That's not including WTO tariffs of 10% and 4.5%. — Dan Roberts (@RobertsDan) November 14, 2017 Oh, and if there's a divergence in regulatory standards, Honda UK cites research showing cost of converting a EU car to match US standards is equivalent to another 26% tariff increase. 40% of extra workers hired to build new Civic at Swindon were EU workers, 30% at Bracknell HQ. https://t.co/Q4ld2evjTQ — Dan Roberts (@RobertsDan) November 14, 2017
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 37 minutes ago, toddybad said: Dan Roberts has been covering the business select committee hearing with the motor industry. He has posted these on Twitter. Honda UK telling MPs it imports 2 million components a day from Europe on 350 trucks and holds 1 hours worth of stock. It would take 18 months to put customs admin in place but every 15 minutes of delay would cost £850,000 a hour. That's not including WTO tariffs of 10% and 4.5%. — Dan Roberts (@RobertsDan) November 14, 2017 Oh, and if there's a divergence in regulatory standards, Honda UK cites research showing cost of converting a EU car to match US standards is equivalent to another 26% tariff increase. 40% of extra workers hired to build new Civic at Swindon were EU workers, 30% at Bracknell HQ. https://t.co/Q4ld2evjTQ — Dan Roberts (@RobertsDan) November 14, 2017 Obviously a Russian bot trying to cause trouble.
leicsmac Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 3 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said: Obviously a Russian bot trying to cause trouble. Speaking of which... http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41973043 What do people think of the idea of a.) Possible Russian meddling in the democratic process of a few countries and b.) A possible disconnect between Downing Street and the White House on this matter (considering that Trump seems to think there was no Russian meddling at all)?
Guest Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 4 hours ago, leicsmac said: Not really a reply to anyone, but an observation on the debate in the last page: Though the volatility of the markets caused by humans being humans makes it difficult, is it really so pointless to attempt to factor in long-term significant changes in the Earth to economic forecasts? I mean, while it may not happen for a longish time it also has the potential to shake up the world economy in a way unparalleled by any human activity (short of a nuclear war), so perhaps provision (including economic ones) should be made? It's easy to say that we can't predict what the long-term effects of climate change will be (and that's partly true) but seeing as we know CO2 levels and general temperatures are rising, it's a safe conclusion this will lead to some kind of drastic (if unspecified as yet) change. The market tends to see drastic change as always negative and so it follows that ergo the effect on the market will not be good. Perhaps more should be done to account for this and to research and make better predictions (and you know, believe them rather than think the vast majority of the scientific community is lying because reasons) so as to get a better idea of the change we're in for and plan for it and the economic effects accordingly? A report from last month suggests europe needs to be free of fossil fuels by 2035 to stand any chance of achieving it's targets for a 2°C temperature rise. It says there's already practically no charge of meeting the initial 1.5°C target. Despite the need to completely redesign our energy sources and therefore economy in a very short space of time, Matt thinks we shouldn't even consider this in economic forecasts .
Guest Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 Grieve says some Tories are 'delusional' about Brexit and May's Brexit date amendment 'quite simply unacceptable' Grieve says some of his Tory colleagues are “delusional” about how easy they think it will be to replicate trade agreements when the UK leaves the EU. He says there are 759 external treaties that apply through the UK’s membership of the EU. Those are all put at risk by amendment 381, the government one saying the UK has to leave on 29 March 2019 come what may, he says. He says the new amendment landed on the party like a dictact. He goes on: It is quite simply unacceptable because what it does is fetter the government’s own ability to carry out the negotiation. The amendment calls into question the government’s competence, he says. He says it also plays into the hands of those who want no deal. He will not vote for it. Even if he is the only person voting against it, he will do so, he says. He says he wants ministers to go away and think again. He will see if he can table something But if the government focuses on how to carry out this “dangerous” task sensibly, he will back it, he says.
Guest MattP Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 Why would anyone listen to Dominic Grieve? It's obvious what he, Soubry and Morgan are doing, they don't appear to have the numbers anyway to stop the bill. Roll on the vote next week and we can get this enshrined into law.
Guest Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 14 minutes ago, MattP said: Why would anyone listen to Dominic Grieve? It's obvious what he, Soubry and Morgan are doing, they don't appear to have the numbers anyway to stop the bill. Roll on the vote next week and we can get this enshrined into law. Nobody is trying to stop Brexit at this point. They're just trying to add some sanity to the debate. Why would a government ever add something to a bill like this that reduces it's leeway and forces it to do something even if it isn't yet ready? That's completely barmy. We're being led by rabid and delusional Brexiters, paranoid about "saboteurs".
Guest Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 16 minutes ago, MattP said: Why would anyone listen to Dominic Grieve? It's obvious what he, Soubry and Morgan are doing, they don't appear to have the numbers anyway to stop the bill. Roll on the vote next week and we can get this enshrined into law. Oh, and the vote on the date being in the bill (the government version from last week) won't be voted on until after the committee stage, just before Xmas.
Webbo Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 Just now, toddybad said: Nobody is trying to stop Brexit at this point. They're just trying to add some sanity to the debate. Why would a government ever add something to a bill like this that reduces it's leeway and forces it to do something even if it isn't yet ready? That's completely barmy. We're being led by rabid and delusional Brexiters, paranoid about "saboteurs". It's quite obvious. without a deadline the EU and the remainers in parliament will keep on delaying making a deal in the hope that we'll eventually change our mind. Now there is a deadline, if they want a deal they have to get on with it or else tell us to make other arrangements.
Guest Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: It's quite obvious. without a deadline the EU and the remainers in parliament will keep on delaying making a deal in the hope that we'll eventually change our mind. Now there is a deadline, if they want a deal they have to get on with it or else tell us to make other arrangements. The remainers in parliament aren't the ones negotiating the deal. I'm struggling to see how it's obvious the EU are going to hold anything up when it's the UK's refusal to put forward a sensible proposition for the bill, people's rights and Northern Ireland that's holding things up. You can argue with their timetable but we agreed it on the first day of negotiations. You leave voters are only desperate to have it put in because you know public opinion will move against Brexit as it becomes more and more apparent what a mess were getting ourselves into.
Webbo Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 3 minutes ago, toddybad said: The remainers in parliament aren't the ones negotiating the deal. I'm struggling to see how it's obvious the EU are going to hold anything up when it's the UK's refusal to put forward a sensible proposition for the bill, people's rights and Northern Ireland that's holding things up. You can argue with their timetable but we agreed it on the first day of negotiations. You leave voters are only desperate to have it put in because you know public opinion will move against Brexit as it becomes more and more apparent what a mess were getting ourselves into. We both know that's bullshit, they're being awkward and you know it. What do you care anyway? It's going to be a disaster so we might as well get it over with.
Strokes Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 13 minutes ago, Webbo said: We both know that's bullshit, they're being awkward and you know it. What do you care anyway? It's going to be a disaster so we might as well get it over with. Hold your horses, it might not be so bad...........oh wait is the express ok to use, something about bikinis.....oh well. http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/879163/Brexit-Britain-135-billion-windfall-after-EU-divorce
Guest Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Webbo said: We both know that's bullshit, they're being awkward and you know it. What do you care anyway? It's going to be a disaster so we might as well get it over with. No it isn't bullshit. They set out a timetable that we agreed to as well as their expectations. We've spent months trying to divide and rule and failing. The government had made an absolute mess of things so far. I repeat, there are over 700 agreements with other countries we access as part of the EU. We will need to negotiate all of them again and without the strength in numbers. In fact, from a position of weakness. And you believe that's doable dept the fact we can't even agree a bill after months of talking to our closest partners. Edited 14 November 2017 by Guest
Webbo Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 8 minutes ago, toddybad said: No it isn't bullshit. They set out a timetable that we agreed to as well as their expectations. We've spent months trying to divide and rule and failing. The government had made an absolute mess of things so far. I repeat, there are over 700 agreements with other countries we access as part of the EU. We will need to negotiate all of them again and without the strength in numbers. In fact, from a position of weakness. And you believe that's doable dept the fact we can't even agree a bill after months of talking to our closest partners. Then why won't they tell us how much they want? Because if we offer £40 million they'll want £60 million, if we offer £60 million they'll want £80 million. We all know what's going on. If you the want EU to beat us, fair enough, that's your privilege but don't expect the rest of us to swallow their crap. 1
Guest Posted 14 November 2017 Posted 14 November 2017 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: Then why won't they tell us how much they want? Because if we offer £40 million they'll want £60 million, if we offer £60 million they'll want £80 million. We all know what's going on. If you the want EU to beat us, fair enough, that's your privilege but don't expect the rest of us to swallow their crap. They want us to tell them what we're willing to pay for. Obviously it has a value but neither side will publicly talk about the value. They have told us exactly what they think we should pay for but we have refused to properly respond. I'm watching the match now webbo, I'm bored of your stupidity.
Recommended Posts