Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[GrizzlyDave]

6 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Ok, this is getting waaaaay out of hand.  This started on twitter when “QT started off by rolling into Gammon central into a gammon wall” (not my words, words I read on twitter), which then produced a picture of 9 middle aged, fat, venting and apoplectic middle class white guys, veins throbbing, puce with anger.  It was, I still believe, a light hearted swipe at QT’s usage of mostly pro Brexit voters on it (I no longer watch it).  It was intended, for remainers to have a giggle at, as a puerile bit of fun, and it got hijacked and turned into something it isn’t, wasn’t and will never be.  I can assure you, just from the responses today, you should be able to see it.  I have never called someone a brextard, nor gammon (apart from a lighthearted swipe at Pitchfock earlier) and will never use those terms, mainly as I prefer more vulgarity in taking the mickey put of people.  I have, once or twice, called someone I know a brexidiot, as he was being a brexidiot.  Now thankfully, he has chaged his position (resistance is fEUtile Dave as we know….).  I, personally, shrug off all insults, as they’re nothing, they mean nothing to me.  I find it cute people on the internet can get so outraged by an insult, when they have no idea whom the other person is, and thus should have no impact on their life.  Ccc is as good an example of this as any; call him what you like and, like an adult, he’ll shrug it off as it is meaningless.  I have never once complained about the multitude of names I have bene called here, as they are meaningless.  Were my wife to start calling me some of the things I have been called on a rugby pitch I’d be concerned.  Some people need to grow up and stop the faux outrage.

I don't believe you took the time to trade mark it. I have now, so you're barred form using it (good line btw, made me laugh)

The line is DFDS and CPH to Oslo.  Malmo is Sweden, so would be EU to EU (in case you didn't realise).

Hmm I did know that - not sure why I went down the rabbit hole on that. I’ll see what I can find...

As for gammon; as I said I don’t find it offensive; but it is racist. And I’m disappointed it has been used on the forum.

The debate hasn’t been heated at all, just explaining why it is racist/not racist depending on your view.

[HairyOb1]

18 minutes ago, Pitchfork said:

If you want to single me out and attack me for having an opposing view thats fine as it exposes your bigotry and intolerance. I'm not one to be bullied by agressive posts and name calling. You can mock me all you like, no problem.

I like the reversal tactic although its rather flawed - i.e. accuse me of doing what you are doing.

Having said all the above, I have no bad feelings towards to you, it's clear you are passioniate about the subject and maybe that is clouding your view. I'm more than happy to continue the debate if you can calm down a bit or to drop it and move on as the thread is becoming rather dominated by a single subject.

Look, I know you're seemingly unable to get this, but using the words "not one to be bullied by agressive [sic] posts and name calling." and then going on to call me bigoted and intolerant, is comical.  

I didn't single you out, you've changed position more times than a hooker at a gang bang, and followed me with this argument.  My position, unlike yours, has been constant, and any argument you've put up, I've easily dismissed using facts, and reason.  Yet you continue to state this is all name calling.

I am happy to move on, but if you continue to move the goal posts, I will point it out and move them back again.  

Edited June 7, 2018 by HairyOb1

[Riedquat]

13 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

 

Indeed, it's effectively calling them a retard because of their views and is equally as derogatory.

Oh, I don't think much of it, I was just sticking with the point about insulting someone's views vs insulting their appearance. Views are fair game is the point, even if it would be better if we all had better things to say about them. I appreciate it can be hard to if someone has views that are the opposite of all you hold dear.

[HairyOb1]

7 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Hmm I did know that - not sure why I went down the rabbit hole on that. I’ll see what I can find...

As for gammon; as I said I don’t find it offensive; but it is racist. And I’m disappointed it has been used on the forum.

The debate hasn’t been heated at all, just explaining why it is racist/not racist depending on your view.

I thought you had, but didn't want to assume too much.

I don't find it racist at all, in its etymology, usage or anything.  I can't understand, logically, how it can be.  It's puerile, childish and an insult, to me, but not racist.

It's not heated, but it's tearing away from the main discussion point.  

[HairyOb1]

3 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Oh, I don't think much of it, I was just sticking with the point about insulting someone's views vs insulting their appearance. Views are fair game is the point, even if it would be better if we all had better things to say about them. I appreciate it can be hard to if someone has views that are the opposite of all you hold dear.

RQ, there are many on here I am happy debating with, but I am not going to sit by and allow my argument to be twisted and turned into something it isn't.  And if someone is being plain daft, I am more than happy to remind them.  But, and this is genuine, if someone wants a discussion with me, I am genuinely happy to have one.  However, if that person then keeps moving the goal posts, changing their angle, I am going to go full bore into it, as then it isn't a discussion, someone just wants to be right and there's no problem with pointing that out.

[GrizzlyDave]

10 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

I thought you had, but didn't want to assume too much.

I don't find it racist at all, in its etymology, usage or anything.  I can't understand, logically, how it can be.  It's puerile, childish and an insult, to me, but not racist.

It's not heated, but it's tearing away from the main discussion point.  

Yilport operates Oslo; I can’t find any info on Copenhagen-Oslo sea cargo transport.

I would imagine it would be easier just to bang down the E6... (600km)

[rollover]

49 minutes ago, thehowler said:

It is tricky, isn't it? And oh so easy to ridicule.

I don't want to ridicule it, it's just my opinion.

I just couldn't/can't see how Brexit, better arrangement with EU than it is now, could be delivered and implemented. In the way it was promised it is difficult or impossible to deliver.

[Pitchfork]

Rather than labour the point, I wonder if we can all agree on the following:

- Name calling is childish

- Name calling based on someones physical apearance is really not nice

- Referencing and singling out group of people by their skin colour/race and applying a derogatory term is racist.

Time to move on?

[HairyOb1]

6 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Yilport operates Oslo; I can’t find any info on Copenhagen-Oslo sea cargo transport.

I would imagine it would be easier just to bang down the E6... (600km)

Apologies, you were right!  It is CMP who manage the port area in Nordhavn.

They manage all of the ships in harbour.

http://www.cmport.com/ships-in-port/calls

[HairyOb1]

6 minutes ago, Pitchfork said:

Rather than labour the point, I wonder if we can all agree on the following:

- Name calling is childish Absolutely

- Name calling based on someones physical apearance is really not nice Absolutely

- Referencing and singling out group of people by their skin colour/race and applying a derogatory term is racist. Without labouring a point here, no, sorry, but I know the line your peddling and I disagree, and that's ok.

Time to move on? Absolutely.

 

[GrizzlyDave]

1 minute ago, HairyOb1 said:

Apologies, you were right!  It is CMP who manage the port area in Nordhavn.

They manage all of the ships in harbour.

http://www.cmport.com/ships-in-port/calls

Yeah, they mange Copenhagen and Malmo as a joint enterprise.

From what I can tell - the majority is inside EU cargo (having come in/gone out from the big ports).

Cargo doesn’t operate just in time; it’s fast - but not that fast.

[HairyOb1]

1 minute ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Yeah, they mange Copenhagen and Malmo as a joint enterprise.

From what I can tell - the majority is inside EU cargo (having come in/gone out from the big ports).

Cargo doesn’t operate just in time; it’s fast - but not that fast.

Yes, most of the trade is intra EU, but the one terminal I am talking about it EU\EEA and it's taking a lot of time, for relatively few trucks to clear customs.  

[GrizzlyDave]

1 minute ago, HairyOb1 said:

Yes, most of the trade is intra EU, but the one terminal I am talking about it EU\EEA and it's taking a lot of time, for relatively few trucks to clear customs.  

Interesting... to be expected though?

I presume the EEA cargo is from Norway, Iceland, is Greenlandic the EEA?

[thehowler]

Is this what all the Dave Davis fuss was about? The backstop memo...

The UK is clear that the temporary customs arrangement, should it be needed, should be time limited, and that it will be only in place until the future customs arrangement can be introduced. The UK is clear that the future customs arrangement needs to deliver on the commitments made in relation to Northern Ireland. The UK expects the future arrangement to be in place by the end of December 2021 at the latest.

 So we get an extra year of ersatz transition...no real deadline, not sure who decides or when, or whether it can be extended. That old can is getting pretty crumpled with all the kicking.

Class, icy tweet from Barnier...

I welcome publication of #UK proposal on customs aspects of IE/NI backstop. We will examine it with 3 questions: is it a workable solution to avoid a hard border? Does it respect the integrity of the SM/CU? Is it an all-weather backstop?

All-weather? I hope Dave packed his SAS-issue sou'wester...

[Pitchfork]

15 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

- Referencing and singling out group of people by their skin colour/race and applying a derogatory term is racist. Without labouring a point here, no, sorry, but I know the line your peddling and I disagree, and that's ok.

That reply really does say it all.

[cock-eyed octopus]

The situation is now obvious.

The EU will ensure we leave with the maximum economic damage they can inflict on us (without causing ructions within the 27 member states). They see this as being in their (the EU organisation's) best interests.

No British government would take the risk of said economic damage. It would kill their chances of election.

Thus the government are impaled on the horns of a dilemma; leave & risk unpopularity via economic problems, or remain & risk unpopularity by ignoring the referendum vote (with the spectre of a resultant massive UKIP resurrection at the next election).

I suspect therefore that this is all an elaborate dance to deceive the electorate. Unfortunately for the government it's easy to see through. I doubt they believe they have much choice in the matter however.

 

[rollover]

40 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

The situation is now obvious.

The EU will ensure we leave with the maximum economic damage they can inflict on us (without causing ructions within the 27 member states). They see this as being in their (the EU organisation's) best interests.

No British government would take the risk of said economic damage. It would kill their chances of election.

Thus the government are impaled on the horns of a dilemma; leave & risk unpopularity via economic problems, or remain & risk unpopularity by ignoring the referendum vote (with the spectre of a resultant massive UKIP resurrection at the next election).

I suspect therefore that this is all an elaborate dance to deceive the electorate. Unfortunately for the government it's easy to see through. I doubt they believe they have much choice in the matter however.

 

It is tricky, isn't it? And oh so easy to blame EU.

[jonb2]

39 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

The situation is now obvious.

The EU will ensure we leave with the maximum economic damage they can inflict on us (without causing ructions within the 27 member states). They see this as being in their (the EU organisation's) best interests.

No British government would take the risk of said economic damage. It would kill their chances of election.

Thus the government are impaled on the horns of a dilemma; leave & risk unpopularity via economic problems, or remain & risk unpopularity by ignoring the referendum vote (with the spectre of a resultant massive UKIP resurrection at the next election).

I suspect therefore that this is all an elaborate dance to deceive the electorate. Unfortunately for the government it's easy to see through. I doubt they believe they have much choice in the matter however.

 

Our government should have planned better - thick conceited bastaards. Bet you would still vote for them though.

We are the ones leaving, can't blame to EU for looking after their own interests after we've kicked them in the teeth.

I have hoped for the hardest Brexit possible. Still might be on the cards with any luck. I want people to learn some lessons. To think for themselves - not trust the Tories ever again.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/brexit-leaders-prove-that-the-campaign-to-leave-the-eu-was-entirely-driven-by-self-interests/04/06/

[South Lorne]

2 hours ago, thehowler said:

Class, icy tweet from Barnier...

I welcome publication of #UK proposal on customs aspects of IE/NI backstop. We will examine it with 3 questions: is it a workable solution to avoid a hard border? Does it respect the integrity of the SM/CU? Is it an all-weather backstop?

All-weather? I hope Dave packed his SAS-issue sou'wester...

...the current Shengen agreement which we are not party to , does not work now as people with dodgy passports are going through no border now from any EU country to Dublin to Belfast to Glasgow to London and use ferries/ air from any EU country  to Dublin / Holyhead and  rail to London ..we need to plan better and tell the unelected Barnier whose unimaginable EU pension depends on painting over the EU cracks. When the electorate in the UK are dictated to by such a bureaucrat ...the harder the BREXIT is the better....and Mr Soros and his merry band should shrink away with their trouble making.....

[cnick]

What will happen to food prices if some EU political people decide they will prevent food trade with UK people ...... could food produced in Africa be cheaper? ...... guess it would take some time for them to get up to speed with production?

[GrizzlyDave]

7 minutes ago, South Lorne said:

...the current Shengen agreement which we are not party to , does not work now as people with dodgy passports are going through no border now from any EU country to Dublin to Belfast to Glasgow to London and use ferries/ air from any EU country  to Dublin / Holyhead and  rail to London ..we need to plan better and tell the unelected Barnier whose unimaginable EU pension depends on painting over the EU cracks. When the electorate in the UK are dictated to by such a bureaucrat ...the harder the BREXIT is the better....and Mr Soros and his merry band should shrink away with their trouble making.....

Do you not need a passport:ID check to get on a ferry/plane from ROI/NI to GB?

edit - ROI isn’t in Schengen.

Edited June 7, 2018 by GrizzlyDave

[South Lorne]

13 hours ago, jonb2 said:

How about Boris's £350 million per week NHS slush fund? Will and his people bought that - hook, line and sinker.

.....the arithmetic detail can be argued forever but the important issue is that we regain our democratic freedom from the excessively highly-paid unelected bureaucrats in the EU, who need our contribution to keep the EU going a lot more than we need them as we are net contribitors, one of the few....if you are happy with that you can move your home across the channel....

Edited June 7, 2018 by South Lorne

[cock-eyed octopus]

12 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

Our government should have planned better - thick conceited bastaards. Bet you would still vote for them though.

We are the ones leaving, can't blame to EU for looking after their own interests after we've kicked them in the teeth.

I have hoped for the hardest Brexit possible. Still might be on the cards with any luck. I want people to learn some lessons. To think for themselves - not trust the Tories ever again.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/brexit-leaders-prove-that-the-campaign-to-leave-the-eu-was-entirely-driven-by-self-interests/04/06/

So who should I vote for?

 

[GrizzlyDave]

56 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

The situation is now obvious.

The EU will ensure we leave with the maximum economic damage they can inflict on us (without causing ructions within the 27 member states). They see this as being in their (the EU organisation's) best interests.

No British government would take the risk of said economic damage. It would kill their chances of election.

Thus the government are impaled on the horns of a dilemma; leave & risk unpopularity via economic problems, or remain & risk unpopularity by ignoring the referendum vote (with the spectre of a resultant massive UKIP resurrection at the next election).

I suspect therefore that this is all an elaborate dance to deceive the electorate. Unfortunately for the government it's easy to see through. I doubt they believe they have much choice in the matter however.

 

Aye - soft fudge brexit

[GrizzlyDave]

1 minute ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

So who should I vote for?

 

Labour