Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

BREXIT

Old 15th Sep 2020, 19:29
  #5821 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Coasting South
Age: 65
Posts: 62
asdf1234 Unless I'm wrong, CG was referring to Trump, Jezza and G W Bush as the useful idiots and not the electorate. Like BJ, Trump and Bush were useful .electable mascots, front men to their puppet masters. Johnson is not fit for purpose
hiflymk3 is online now  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 19:30
  #5822 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 60
Posts: 804
[QUOTE=asdf1234;10886109]
Originally Posted by charliegolf View Post
And that is where you and your ilk keep on failing. By calling the electorate "useful idiots". You did it without prompting and without irony. So, let me, a useful idiot, give you a wake up call. Keep on denigrating the majority and they will keep on disappointing you by electing someone you don't like. We thrive on your disappointment, we love it! As I've posted elsewhere in this thread, the orange one was voted in because the alternative was a sex molestor's wife who supported her husband in his devious doings. Yet you call the Trump electors "useful idiots". Given the alternative I see them as very clever. Same as those who voted Boris in - the alternatives were not worth contemplation.
asdf1234
Given Trumps record, and recorded thoughts on women I personally can not believe you could post those comments. As for thriving on Our disappointment be my guest, you go low we go high, and we will see how history judges us.
Kind regards
Mr Mac
Mr Mac is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2020, 22:00
  #5823 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,900
Mr Mac, just for the record, the quote in your post isn't mine, it's from asdf1234.

asdf1234 Unless I'm wrong, CG was referring to Trump, Jezza and G W Bush as the useful idiots and not the electorate. Like BJ, Trump and Bush were useful .electable mascots, front men to their puppet masters. Johnson is not fit for purpose
Hiflymk3- you're not wrong, it's exactly what I meant.

CG
charliegolf is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 08:09
  #5824 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 60
Posts: 804
charliegolf
Humble apologies,sorry for the confusion on my part. I will await a response from asdf1234 which will no doubt be along in due course.
Kind regards
Mr Mac
Mr Mac is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 09:22
  #5825 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,841
From the BBC

"Brexit Freight System will be ready on time...


.......Logistics UK, which represents freight businesses, said it was informed by government officials on Monday that a beta - or test - version would be available in December, but would not be fully operational until April.

In a statement, the Director of Policy at Logistics UK Elizabeth de Jong said it was unacceptable and a "massive blow to UK businesses and the economy".

But the government now says "beta" is a standard labelling practice for a digital service that is fully operational, and that it has reassured industry that Smart Freight will be operational by December.
My emphasis....How 1984....
wiggy is online now  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 09:45
  #5826 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
But the government now says "beta" is a standard labelling practice for a digital service that is fully operational, and that it has reassured industry that Smart Freight will be operational by December.
Oh dear! Beta means a system that has been released for test and evaluation (dress rehearsal if you like). It will be chock full of glitches, most new systems are, and I suspect will be fit for purpose some time around when the covid "test and trace system" is, so we shouldn't hold our collective breath.

This is another government train crash looking for somewhere to happen, as was the Child Support Agency and Universal Credit, except this train crash will effect the majority of our population at some level.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 10:07
  #5827 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 355
Beta systems are only released to a subset of potential users who are expected to report the inevitable faults. There is no way a government should be releasing such a system to experiment on the general population.

We come back again to the Daily Star's front page
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-54171553
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 13:00
  #5828 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 431
Originally Posted by Mr Mac View Post
charliegolf
Humble apologies,sorry for the confusion on my part. I will await a response from asdf1234 which will no doubt be along in due course.
Kind regards
Mr Mac
Alas Mr Mac, I fear your faith may be misplaced.
Avionker is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2020, 15:39
  #5829 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by Avionker View Post
Alas Mr Mac, I fear your faith may be misplaced.
Hello, I'm here👋
asdf1234 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 07:35
  #5830 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,715
POLITICO:

What probably matters more than all this … is how the EU responds to the announcement yesterday that Downing Street had done a deal with IM bill skeptic Bob Neill to stave off a rebellion on Tuesday, despite the resignation of senior law officer Richard Keen over the legislation. No. 10 officials were bullish last night that the compromise agreement did not constitute a climbdown and in fact “strengthened” the controversial provisions in the bill. One Tory MP wryly tells Playbook that the Neill amendment couldn’t have done more to help the government if it had been cooked up by No. 10, because it ended up with the rebels backing the bill and the key provisions remaining intact. There will now be two government amendments to the IM bill next week:

Amendment 1 … will be a redrafted Neill amendment requiring a parliamentary vote before ministers can go ahead and override the Withdrawal Agreement.

Amendment 2 … will limit the prospects of any judicial review into the exercise of the provisions. Playbook is told the government wants to narrow any judicial review timeframe to three months in order to prevent “endless litigation.” A government official says: “We’re setting clear limits on the scope and timeliness of judicial review into the exercise of these powers. This makes clear that any judicial review proceeding must be brought within a tight timeframe. Not only does it give certainty to people and businesses it also means that the EU can’t expect the use of these powers to be overturned by the courts.”

Over to you, Michel: Given the Neill amendment doesn’t actually stop the bill from breaching international law, and if anything, together with the judicial review amendment, makes it less likely the courts could block any attempt to rip up the Withdrawal Agreement, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier faces a big call over the next few days. Asked whether the parliamentary “lock” would address Brussels’ concerns, one EU official tells the FT: “No, no no.” Brussels wanted Johnson to remove all offending powers, they said, not “put them in an ‘emergency use only box’ that MPs can unseal at a moment’s notice.”

But hang on … That’s not how another senior EU27 source reads it. They tell my POLITICO colleague Jack Blanchard (remember him?) that the deal with Tory backbenchers could yet give both sides the “space” to tiptoe back from the brink. The source said they believed Barnier’s team would be prepared to “close one eye” to Johnson’s actions and keep negotiating if they believe the will is still there in No. 10 to strike a deal. “It is still in every EU nation’s interests to find an agreement,” the source said. They added that Brussels may feel obliged to initiate legal action if the IM bill proceeds as expected — but that talks could continue in the background even after such a step. Well, well.
ORAC is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 08:01
  #5831 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Narnia
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
POLITICO:

What probably matters more than all this … is how the EU responds to the announcement yesterday that Downing Street had done a deal with IM bill skeptic Bob Neill to stave off a rebellion on Tuesday, despite the resignation of senior law officer Richard Keen over the legislation. No. 10 officials were bullish last night that the compromise agreement did not constitute a climbdown and in fact “strengthened” the controversial provisions in the bill. One Tory MP wryly tells Playbook that the Neill amendment couldn’t have done more to help the government if it had been cooked up by No. 10, because it ended up with the rebels backing the bill and the key provisions remaining intact. There will now be two government amendments to the IM bill next week:

Amendment 1 … will be a redrafted Neill amendment requiring a parliamentary vote before ministers can go ahead and override the Withdrawal Agreement.

Amendment 2 … will limit the prospects of any judicial review into the exercise of the provisions. Playbook is told the government wants to narrow any judicial review timeframe to three months in order to prevent “endless litigation.” A government official says: “We’re setting clear limits on the scope and timeliness of judicial review into the exercise of these powers. This makes clear that any judicial review proceeding must be brought within a tight timeframe. Not only does it give certainty to people and businesses it also means that the EU can’t expect the use of these powers to be overturned by the courts.”

Over to you, Michel: Given the Neill amendment doesn’t actually stop the bill from breaching international law, and if anything, together with the judicial review amendment, makes it less likely the courts could block any attempt to rip up the Withdrawal Agreement, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier faces a big call over the next few days. Asked whether the parliamentary “lock” would address Brussels’ concerns, one EU official tells the FT: “No, no no.” Brussels wanted Johnson to remove all offending powers, they said, not “put them in an ‘emergency use only box’ that MPs can unseal at a moment’s notice.”

But hang on … That’s not how another senior EU27 source reads it. They tell my POLITICO colleague Jack Blanchard (remember him?) that the deal with Tory backbenchers could yet give both sides the “space” to tiptoe back from the brink. The source said they believed Barnier’s team would be prepared to “close one eye” to Johnson’s actions and keep negotiating if they believe the will is still there in No. 10 to strike a deal. “It is still in every EU nation’s interests to find an agreement,” the source said. They added that Brussels may feel obliged to initiate legal action if the IM bill proceeds as expected — but that talks could continue in the background even after such a step. Well, well.
How can somebody simply override what has been agreed and ratified, and at the same time to continue negotiations on future relationship.

Are those people capable of thinking two steps ahead?
Big_D is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 08:24
  #5832 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 35
From what I understand, we either break the Good Friday Agreement or break the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement as they seem to be mutually incompatible in relation to a border between UK, ie NI and Eire come 31st December 2020. So I guess that either way, the UK could be breaking international law.
golfbananajam is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 08:38
  #5833 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 431
Originally Posted by golfbananajam View Post
From what I understand, we either break the Good Friday Agreement or break the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement as they seem to be mutually incompatible in relation to a border between UK, ie NI and Eire come 31st December 2020. So I guess that either way, the UK could be breaking international law.
And that will be because of whom? Who has painted the U.K. into a corner?

Not the EU.
Avionker is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 08:44
  #5834 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 60
Posts: 804
Big D
Two steps, I think many would be quite pleased if they did one, two would be a time for street parties of no more than 6. I can see some lawyers making some money out of this somewhere, in the not too distant future.

Orac
No mention on US discussions re borders in and around Eire and NI this morning, which are all over the news, but on which you appear a little quiet. I have not read the Telegraph so an update from yourself would be in order.

Kind regards
Mr Mac
Mr Mac is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 09:36
  #5835 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by Mr Mac View Post
Orac
No mention on US discussions re borders in and around Eire and NI this morning, which are all over the news, but on which you appear a little quiet. I have not read the Telegraph so an update from yourself would be in order.

Kind regards
Mr Mac
As ORAC is an active supporter of the Conservative Party, I don't think we can expect her to report on the mounting difficulties that the present government has created for itself.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 10:22
  #5836 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 19
From the beeb:
Mr Raab said "the threat to the Good Friday Agreement comes from the EU's politicisation of the issue".

He defended the bill as "precautionary and proportionate" adding "what we can't have is the EU seeking to erect a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and Britain".
Is it just me or is that utter nonsense? How would the EU have the power to create a border between NI & GB? (Leaving aside the odd use of the word 'erect' to describe a sea border!)
Running Ridges is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 10:34
  #5837 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,715
No change to the comments from the Democrats since they started making them last week - except Biden has chipped in.

The point, as Rabb is making to them today - is that the IM paper doesn't breach the GFA, it preserves it in the case that the EU attempts to block imports from the UK mainland to NI.



ORAC is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 10:37
  #5838 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 5,306
Originally Posted by Running Ridges View Post
Is it just me or is that utter nonsense? How would the EU have the power to create a border between NI & GB? (Leaving aside the odd use of the word 'erect' to describe a sea border!)
It's already being built - as pointed out earlier the Good Friday and the Withdrawal Agreement are technically incompatible - NI cannot be simulatneously in the EU and the UK Single Market without a great deal of creative thinking and fudge being eaten.
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 10:42
  #5839 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 60
Posts: 804
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
As ORAC is an active supporter of the Conservative Party, I don't think we can expect her to report on the mounting difficulties that the present government has created for itself.
Sallyann1234
If that is indeed the case, then it will be getting very quiet from her, as to quote Michael Sheen and his character in Apocalypse now "the shit piles up so fast around here you would need wings to stay above it ".
Kind regards
Mr Mac
Mr Mac is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2020, 10:48
  #5840 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 841
I think that as well as decrying BoJo's intention of reneging on an agreement he signed only last year, because its terms are not in the UK's interests, we must remind ourselves that we all knew at the time that the agreement would be a catastrophe and said so loud and clear.

The terms were dictated by Brussels, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

BoJo meekly signed, so that he could boast that he was a fantastic negotiator who had achieved what his predecessor had failed to achieve in 3 years.

And now, as with all BoJo's reckless actions, stupidity and promises, it's all unravelling around him.

Today's Times has a leading article raising the possibility that the Conservative MPs will twig quite soon just how useless and dangerous BoJo is as a PM. The words "by Christmas" relating to action to remove him (and his cabal of sycophants and fools) have started to appear.

The putsch cannot come too soon, if we are to survive as a nation. If you have a Tory MP, lobby her or him unmercifully. BoJo is a threat to all their nice salaries and financially very rewarding perks; they'll understand what's needed to keep all that.
old,not bold is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.