desensitized43 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 4 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: I can't put into words how much I hate that man. And this one - It's alright though, he's a funny chap.... remember when he was dangling from that zipwire waving mini union jacks around?? hilarious remember when he flattened a japanese schoolboy? hilarious remember when he got that poor lady an extra 20 years on her iranian prison sentence? hilarious Definitely the kind of guy who's word we should be trusting. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 the problem with "there is a negotiation going on" is that no the negotiation has happened, we agreed something in principle that we then voted against after, its too late our ineptitude is only rivalled by our arrogance, something boris sums up perfectly 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 28 minutes ago, blandy said: I quoted you because you mentioned the Gov't (lies) about time being OK. I referred to them in the context of the government asking for an A50 extension for purely procedural reasons (as per @LondonLax's post). My full sentence was: 4 hours ago, snowychap said: The government is still claiming that they've got enough time so I can't see them saying they haven't and asking for more until the very last moment. 28 minutes ago, blandy said: On the WTO, there's a whole bunch of nations objecting to carrying on with the UK allocated part of the EU quota staying the same, there's all the stuff to be defined about what trade tarrifs we lay down on any WTO trade - i.e. do we charge lower tarriffs. It has to be set in our laws, T.May can't just ad lib it or wing it. From a post back in October: As far as intended tariffs, that surely is what SIs were made for? 28 minutes ago, blandy said: And on the King Henry stuff, thanks. SO they've done around half of what needs to be done, with just a few weeks of the 2 years left. IT's not going to happen is it? Your detailed stats back up what I said. They haven't done (i.e. completed) even a half. I very much doubt it is going to happen but it may do (they may try and lay huge numbers of SIs during the recess, for example). I think far too much of the whole Brexit chat has involved people invoking as absolute certainty what is very likely (or unlikely). It's as big a danger that they do, somehow, get them all done(as if they didn't get them all done) as it will suggest that not enough time has been given to construction or scrutiny. 28 minutes ago, blandy said: And there's still the busines of the serious bills s on Security, Trade etc. Yes, they've still got plenty of stuff to do. I think I may have said that on occasion. I'm not so sure that it means what you suggested it to mean in an earlier post with regard to 'the EU laws that will no longer apply'. Link: Quote James Segan: The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Ten Key Implications for UK Law and Lawyers ... The intended effect is continuity: the existing body of EU law is frozen as at exit day, and adopted as UK law. The content of EU law as it stands at 29 March 2019 is therefore going to be a critical piece of legal history for the purpose of UK law for decades to come. The legal reality will not, however, be one entirely of continuity – far from it. ... Edit: I haven't read through all of that above link but the whole point of the Withdrawal Act was basically to do this - with quite a bit more besides on top. Obviously, as per the included bit, even with this, it will be far from entirely a case of continuity. Edited January 30, 2019 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 47 minutes ago, blandy said: there's all the stuff to be defined about what trade tarrifs we lay down on any WTO trade - i.e. do we charge lower tarriffs On a radio food programme recently, Tim Worstall from the Adam Smith Institute called for zero tariffs on food. His response to the objection that this would wipe out British farming was basically ok, bring it on. Here. Quote Radio 4’s Farming Today programme discussed the possible impact on food prices of a No Deal Brexit this morning (Monday 28 January). Guy Watson, joint owner of Riverford was asked what impact any delays in trade would have on his business. Guy Watson “I am terrified of the implications of a No Deal or a Disorderly Brexit. It will take about four days lost trading to wipe out any potential profit. It will probably take a fortnight for us to breach our banking covenants and be effectively bankrupt after 30 years of building the business. To be told by people who have no idea how their food is produced that this is Project Fear makes me incandescent with rage.” However, the programme also interviewed Tim Worstall of the free trade, neoliberal think tank The Adam Smith Institute who thinks he has spotted an opportunity from leaving without a deal. Tim Worstall said: “The WTO tariffs are a maximum that we may charge if we wish to. If we don’t wish to charge them, we can charge 0%. Nothing. And, if we were being sensible we would charge nothing. Me? I argue for consumers. So let’s have cheap food. Let’s not have tariffs on food from anywhere. If farmers can’t make money on that situation, well farmers can go out of business.” Vicki Hird, food and farming co-ordinator at Sustain responded this afternoon: “The Adam Smith Institute suggests that after Brexit the UK should simply remove all tariffs on food, casually and carelessly acknowledging that this would put UK farmers out of business. These comments are an insult to our farming communities. He says he argues for consumers but what he is proposing would wipe out the livelihoods not just of farmers, but farm workers and food producers all along the supply chain. It would destroy rural cohesion, devastate our rural communities and change irrevocably our much-loved rural landscapes. “Even if our farmers could compete against cheap, zero tariff imports, they would have to lower our food standards in order to do so. Mr Worstall claims to speak for consumers and yet appears to be unaware that British consumers have already said they will categorically not trade away their high food quality.” The programme also interviewed analyst Harry Schmidt who warned that even if we remove tariffs from food after Brexit, prices will rise. He argued that delays at borders, checks by customs authorities, the need for certificates and administrative costs would all increase prices that would need to be borne by consumers in the UK, lest European producers find new markets elsewhere. He also made the point that US, Canadian and Brazilian farmers, for example, could not easily scale up to meet the needs of UK consumers due to the high standards demanded in the UK. So, a future of collapsing agriculture, zero food security, dependence on continually being able to import, food standards plummeting. Sounds like the exact opposite of what a sensible food policy would look like. But hey, that's the ASI for you. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 30, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted January 30, 2019 32 minutes ago, snowychap said: They haven't done (i.e. completed) even a half. I very much doubt it is going to happen but it may do (they may try and lay huge numbers of SIs during the recess, for example). I think far too much of the whole Brexit chat has involved people invoking as absolute certainty what is very likely (or unlikely). It's as big a danger that they do, somehow, get them all done(as if they didn't get them all done) as it will suggest that not enough time has been given to construction or scrutiny. Yes, on the bolded bit. The whole King Henry thing is already a massive drop in scrutiny, due to time pressures, and to then whisk through >300+ in a couple of months is going to mean error, mistakes, abuse, unintended consequences and all the rest. The whole gist of my post was that the government is lying when it says it has enough time. It doesn't. It just cannot be done (properly) in the time available. Not remotely. Never mind Unicorns and Rainbows, the basic actions which were theoretically in the control of and based on the capability of Parliament and the Government are not going to be realised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted January 30, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted January 30, 2019 ...And then wouldn't it make sense to our us to pay a lot less tax and fit the market to provide us with a better standard of healthcare? Tories across the Commons will be pinching themselves with glee. And checking their shares in pharmaceutical companies and private medical businesses. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 1 hour ago, desensitized43 said: remember when he got that poor lady an extra 20 years on her iranian prison sentence? hilarious remember when that didn't happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 30, 2019 Moderator Share Posted January 30, 2019 20 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: remember when that didn't happen I remember when he complicated her defence severely by saying something that wasn't true. His erroneous statement lead to the possibility of a fresh charge being brought against her but in the end, this came to nothing. He must, however, have been responsible for extra anguish for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family. He didn't come out of it with any credit 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 9 minutes ago, bickster said: I remember when he complicated her defence severely by saying something that wasn't true. His erroneous statement lead to the possibility of a fresh charge being brought against her but in the end, this came to nothing. He must, however, have been responsible for extra anguish for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family. He didn't come out of it with any credit so you agree it didn't happen and the OP made it up , thanks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 It’s totally fine because he didn’t get her 20 more years. Defending him here is not a good look, regardless of whether the original post was inaccurate or not. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: It’s totally fine because he didn’t get her 20 more years. Defending him here is not a good look, regardless of whether the original post was inaccurate or not. could you point out where anybody defended him ? didn't think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: remember when that didn't happen I'm afraid you completely missed the point I was trying to make. You're correct though, he didn't get her an extra 20 years, but his mishandling of his office (and his mouth) is a major reason why she's still in jail. Rather than defend a British citizen, he completely undermined her defence to the point that it was impossible for Iran not to jail her. Not that I think she'd have received any kind of fair trial anyway. The original point was my personal belief that he's a complete buffoon. An incompetent in pretty much every way that matters. He's reached his position in life purely because of his family name and their enormous (and frankly disgusting) personal wealth. It's also my belief that he's probably the biggest danger to the country right now because if/when the whole Brexit mess comes to a head and the Tories (rightly) get the blame, they might turn to him to bail them out, and guess what, he'll probably win over a large portion of the uneducated electorate. Why? Because he's funny? Because he's interesting, in a massively eccentric sort of way? Because of his expensive education, upbringing, and eloquence give the "common man" the loving reassurance that he actually knows what he's doing? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted January 30, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted January 30, 2019 3 minutes ago, desensitized43 said: I'm afraid you completely missed the point I was trying to make. It happens a lot* round here - you'll get used to it. (* Particularly prevalent in the Bolitics and Bruce threads and the threads of whichever players are currently starring as forgotten man or great new hope.) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 52 minutes ago, desensitized43 said: I'm afraid you completely missed the point I was trying to make. You're correct though, he didn't get her an extra 20 years, but his mishandling of his office (and his mouth) is a major reason why she's still in jail. Rather than defend a British citizen, he completely undermined her defence to the point that it was impossible for Iran not to jail her. Not that I think she'd have received any kind of fair trial anyway. The original point was my personal belief that he's a complete buffoon. An incompetent in pretty much every way that matters. He's reached his position in life purely because of his family name and their enormous (and frankly disgusting) personal wealth. It's also my belief that he's probably the biggest danger to the country right now because if/when the whole Brexit mess comes to a head and the Tories (rightly) get the blame, they might turn to him to bail them out, and guess what, he'll probably win over a large portion of the uneducated electorate. Why? Because he's funny? Because he's interesting, in a massively eccentric sort of way? Because of his expensive education, upbringing, and eloquence give the "common man" the loving reassurance that he actually knows what he's doing? at the risk of being falsely accused (again ) of defending him , is there any evidence to back this up ? ( btw , i don't think anything Boris said made it impossible for Iran not to jail her , she was already in jail and already sentenced to 5 years , I think in the race to bash Boris / anything Tory related , we are over looking the fact that the Iranian regime are the ones who have locked her up without grounds ( or not , guess we may never know for sure ) I get your point he's a buffoon that's been found out , I think that was acknowledged some time back even by those that found him amusing previously ... He won't be PM his fleeting chance has been and gone as for missing your point , perhaps if you used facts instead of making them up , it would be easier to see the point you are making Edited January 30, 2019 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 30, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted January 30, 2019 46 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: is there any evidence to back this up ? Yes. The Iranian prosecution citing what he said in evidence against her in new charges against her. She was brought back to court. Not a fine moment in British diplomacy by the bell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 1 hour ago, choffer said: the Bolitics and Bruce That sounds like it ought to be a pub in Edinburgh. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, blandy said: Yes. The Iranian prosecution citing what he said in evidence against her in new charges against her. She was brought back to court. Not a fine moment in British diplomacy by the bell. All I can see is that she was brought back to court and received no extra sentence and no extra charges , so I still think that means there isn’t any evidence that she is only in jail “in major part to Boris” no disagreement over the second paragraph though Edited January 30, 2019 by tonyh29 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 She'd get more sense out of the giant dog. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted January 30, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted January 30, 2019 Good rule of thumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts