snowychap Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, peterms said: You may have misread it. See for example another in the thread: No, I didn't misread it. I read all the thread (well, I ignored Mr Bastani but that seems a largely sensible play). I thought it was a bit bloody shit. Edited February 7, 2019 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 12 minutes ago, snowychap said: Hmm. I think the 'mental health slurs' line is a bit bloody shit. Could you say why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, peterms said: Could you say why? Because it and its use here suggests that the person pursuing the point is using the phrase merely as a convenient vehicle. Edited February 8, 2019 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 12 minutes ago, snowychap said: Because it and its use here suggests that the person pursuing the point is using the phrase merely as a convenient vehicle. Ok. That was not my impression. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 8, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted February 8, 2019 11 hours ago, chrisp65 said: I'm getting the vibe they didn't go on to a titty bar and do slammers. I reckon she's the weirdest looking person I've ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 8, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted February 8, 2019 9 hours ago, snowychap said: the person pursuing the point is using the phrase merely as a convenient vehicle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted February 8, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 8, 2019 30 minutes ago, snowychap said: Project "Fear"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 8, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 8, 2019 10 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: Project "Fear"? Well they'll obviously say that because it's the starting point of a negotiating position, these things are changed closer to agreement /moggmode #bellend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 9 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: Project "Fear"? I know right? I'm not sure you need an economics doctorate to understand that someone representing a market of 500 million consumers would be able to extract a more favourable trade agreement than one representing 66 million. I'll say it...we told you so, morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 Am I missing something with this. Currently there is a 10% tariff on Japanese goods coming in from Japan, set by the EU. I know this is to be phased out gradually in the next 10 to 15 years. So if we offered a low tariff or none at all, wouldn't the Japanese be happy with that, and wouldn't it make things cheaper for the consumer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 8, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 8, 2019 9 minutes ago, colhint said: Am I missing something with this. Currently there is a 10% tariff on Japanese goods coming in from Japan, set by the EU. I know this is to be phased out gradually in the next 10 to 15 years. So if we offered a low tariff or none at all, wouldn't the Japanese be happy with that, and wouldn't it make things cheaper for the consumer? If you offer the lower tariff to Japan, you have to offer it to the rest of the world. Which is why there isn't a single country that operates on WTO rules. By the time any FTA was agreed with Japan by the UK, the tariffs they'd be getting into the EU would be very close to if not already zero anyway. FTAs take upwards of 7 years to agree, despite what the Moggs of this world will tell you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post StefanAVFC Posted February 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 8, 2019 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 How and why is Hoey still in the Labour party? Absolute bun. Note: before anything kicks off, I have no idea and no interest what her religious or racial background is. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 On a very tangentially linked point, our Eurovision entry isn't actually all that terrible. Or maybe it's just that literally anything is better than the Villa game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 Watching a bit of Newsnight and that Owen Jones chap gets asked a question by Emily Maitliss, he starts to answer it and she starts to talk over him. So he says 'can I answer the question please'. To which EM, says 'no'. Asked him something else and talked over his next answer. It's all gone a bit weird. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 On 30/12/2018 at 18:59, wazzap24 said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46714984 Genius. National embarrassment comes to its inevitable conclusion. Quote A firm with no ships that was to ensure ferries kept crossing the Channel in a no-deal Brexit has had its contract cancelled. Seaborne Freight's contract worth £13.8m had attracted widespread criticism after it emerged the firm owned no vessels suitable for carrying goods or vehicles. The Department for Transport said it had decided to terminate the Seaborne's contract after Irish company Arklow Shipping, which had provided backing to the deal, stepped away. A DfT spokeswoman said: "Following the decision of Seaborne Freight's backer, Arklow Shipping, to step back from the deal, it became clear Seaborne would not reach its contractual requirements with the Government. "We have therefore decided to terminate our agreement" https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-firm-with-no-ships-has-ferries-contract-cancelled-11632176 Reckon it was clear to everyone that wasn't the Government back at the end of December. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 Just plain incompetence? Or has someone somewhere made a few quick quid by being able to say they had a big government contract? Either way, it's not a farce, its a national embarrassment and government heads should roll. A ferry contract to a ferry company that doesn't really exist, with no ferries and no port and the small print on the legals is about pizza delivery. It would be a rubbish lazy episode of a political comedy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 52 minutes ago, ml1dch said: National embarrassment comes to its inevitable conclusion. https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-firm-with-no-ships-has-ferries-contract-cancelled-11632176 Reckon it was clear to everyone that wasn't the Government back at the end of December. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 If only the Irish would make their position clear on the border and the backstop, instead of this constant fudging. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts