Let's not lose sight of the important facts here. We have the right to keep our bananas bendy.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Wait for the retort. "But we have a free and independent press." As long as the lies they tell favour the Conservative party and toe the Brexit line, that's alright. It's fascinating how the BBC are constantly accused of bias simply because they question and don't necessarily accept what the mythmakers on the Right say to be the gospel truth or to make sense.
What newspapers can't do is publish a made up photo and claim it is real. In this case, the Mail put a footnote - "photo posed by models" which is perfectly proper. So long as they did not contravene copyright on the original photo, they've done nothing wrong imo. You may not like the Mail, Bobby, but don't let your prejudices cloud your judgement here!
Yes. A footnote. In small print which immediately catches the attention of the vast majority of people who spend 3 hours a day reading it from cover to cover. What do you say was the purpose of the doctored photograph?
With a group of friends you club together to buy a holiday home (let's say a ski chalet in the French Alps). You get a mortgage together, make the purchase and start paying the mortgage, which of course stretches into the future, but you enjoy the benefits of the chalet.
A couple of years later your wife starts nagging away at you, saying she doesn't like your friends and the rules they (and you) have agreed to help the smooth and fair running of the chalet, you are paying too much of the mortgage (although in an excellent bit of negotiation, you are paying less than you really should be), there are loads of other places to go which would be better.
Tired of the constant whining you agree to leave the partnership, which delights your wife, although she surprises you by saying she still actually wants to go to the chalet as she enjoys the benefits, and anyway 'we've paid for it'.
Your friends are of course very disappointed when you break the news to them. They ask you for a lump sum to cover at least part of the future mortgage payments which you made a commitment to. After this is settled you can discuss terms for future use of the chalets facilities.
Your wife is outraged, she says you shouldn't pay anything towards the mortgage and you should get the use of the chalet for free and without having to respect the rules, because you are so important and such a great skier, they all benefit from simply watching you on the slopes. She texts all her friends and the partners of your friends, stridently denouncing your partners as 'vindictive bullies'. Discussions with your by now ex friends are going nowhere.
Who is the **** in this scenario?
A couple of years later your wife starts nagging away at you, saying she doesn't like your friends and the rules they (and you) have agreed to help the smooth and fair running of the chalet, you are paying too much of the mortgage (although in an excellent bit of negotiation, you are paying less than you really should be), there are loads of other places to go which would be better.
Tired of the constant whining you agree to leave the partnership, which delights your wife, although she surprises you by saying she still actually wants to go to the chalet as she enjoys the benefits, and anyway 'we've paid for it'.
Your friends are of course very disappointed when you break the news to them. They ask you for a lump sum to cover at least part of the future mortgage payments which you made a commitment to. After this is settled you can discuss terms for future use of the chalets facilities.
Your wife is outraged, she says you shouldn't pay anything towards the mortgage and you should get the use of the chalet for free and without having to respect the rules, because you are so important and such a great skier, they all benefit from simply watching you on the slopes. She texts all her friends and the partners of your friends, stridently denouncing your partners as 'vindictive bullies'. Discussions with your by now ex friends are going nowhere.
Who is the **** in this scenario?
Last edited:
In this scenario it will be the others
Because if yo u ever want sex again the last thing you will be doing is calling the wife a ****
Because if yo u ever want sex again the last thing you will be doing is calling the wife a ****
Ever thought about writing fiction, Stan?
The EU have signally failed to present an invoice with quantified items to which they claim to be legally entitled. Why? Well, if you believe the House of Lords Committee earlier this year, it's because there is no legal obligation under the Treaties for the UK to pay anything. See this Guardian report:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/uk-could-quit-eu-without-paying-a-penny-say-lords
So Barnier the attack-dog is asking us to pay many billions without us knowing what for, and what benefit it will bring. This has to be settled at heads of government level. If Merkel agrees that the deal can be discussed as a whole and not in separate compartments, then progress will be made and UK and European businesses and consumers will be the winners.
No Goldie, I read the stuff you post and realise there is no way I could make up better stuff.
And whether or not we have a 'legal obligation' is irrelevant. It's about goodwill, which we are burning by the bucketload in every engagement.
Last edited:
No Goldie, I read the stuff you post and realise there is no way I could make up better stuff.
Thanks, it's taken years of practice...
Well Goldie, that say more about the UK if the UK doesn't know what it's obligations were going to be in the coming years.
It is absolutely simple, it's a contract negotiation, common ground needs to be reached. Unfortunately, and only from the press in Europe, I read Danish, Geramn and several trade rags, it appears that the UK would like to take the approach one takes when one hasn't a clue about where they stand in as far as a decent base line.
Vindictive? - Is that what I should be called by the many suppliers I deal with, when I've probably done a little better than the bullshit WIN/WIN?
What about when I'm dealing with a monopoly and I can't get what I consider fair - should I call them vindictive or should I at least try to make myself more attractive in some way - ease of doing business/innovation etc.?
We all know the EU is filled wiith many ****s - **** me the UK supplies enough to it themselves. We all foresaw that if there was a Brexit, the very least that would happen was that this would be a catalyst for change, in all likelihood it wasn't going to be particularly great for either side but change would come.
The ****s that have been sent couldn't even get that right. The EU is stronger than ever and it will take Merkel longer to sort out the ****s that even she despises.
RangerCol - All of the EU are complete vindictive ****s - the UK hedge funds that try at every possible turn to destroy country economies such as Sitz and Denmark are just dandy. You haven't got a Scooby Doo, it must be bliss living in your World, I envoy you that you are able to see it so simply and so black and white (nothing intended or should be infered by last 3 words, other than the clarity you see things)
Vindictive? - Your politicains (alll and every single one of them) are the vindictive ****s. Only thing is they've underestimated the amount of clever ****s that are hanging around this Neanderthal place called Europe.
Davies/Corbyn/May/Floppy ****/Fox et al? - You're having a bubble
I'll accept just the simple truth. I thought that was the purpose of investigative journalism but obviously not. It was not the lady who was the subject of the article and therefore should not have been associated with her. So I'll ask again what precisely was the purpose of linking that mocked up photo with her. There are more important matters at stake here than breach of copyright.
Barnier is undoubtedly better prepared for this as the Tories wasted a full year while decided to play for vanity stakes. It may not seem fair to the Brits but the EU got on with it during the 12 months that were pissed away by the Tories. Having said that I suspect you really have lost sight of the way these things work. I doubt whether Barnier has a detailed idea of how every cent has been calculated -he has his minions and bureaucrats to crunch those numbers for him. At this stage they are talking about principles and trying to get some idea of what obligations the UK accepts it has. At the moment that ranges from "Nothing at all" to "We intend to fully meet our financial obligations to our friends in Europe." Do you know which is it? I'm pretty sure that Davies, Fox and May don't. On that fundamental question apparently nobody on the British side has a clue. Once that has been agreed it will lessen the areas of dispute and the accountants can get to work to agree the figures. When dealing with such ****wits it's small wonder that the other side are not prepared to accept the argument to talk about trade first on the basis that 'if we do, tomorrow we'll all be millionaires'. That simplistic con man's logic doesn't work in the real world because there is a lack of trust in Europe that the UK will honour its obligations.
Let's turn the argument on its head. If you three are right then surely it must be more sensible for the UK to give the commitments that are sought and cut through this waffle by simply agreeing within limit with what is put to them. That way we can bring forward the day when we can all trade with each other and the rest of the world and all make big bucks for our respective countries.
Can't wait to get out...................just can't wait!! Every post you make, full of hate and nastiness against my great Country makes me more and more impatient to get the hell away from the vindictive, hateful, selfish, inward looking, undemocratic EU.
Last edited:
You really are not seeing it are you? Do you take any notice of the news? The EU are determined to make it as hard a brexit as possible by being completely uncooperative.
Can't wait to get away!!
I think it's you that's chosen not to see it for several decades, Col.
We've chosen to leave on a whim with no real plan for the future. Why should they give us an easy ride?
On the basis that "Brexit means Brexit", but that nobody can actually define what a successful leaving of the EU actually is, I'm going to suggest that we'll not be leaving, whatever the Referendum result was. The UK economy cannot afford the medium term carnage that we will all suffer thanks to our less-than-wonderful government and the vague terms of reference they appear to have. The longer term picture may well be rosy (if only you Brexiteers can actually explain how in any detail, but you seem unable or unwilling) but too many of us will be casualties along the way. Once the price of leaving is finally understood, we'll all agree it isn't worth paying. Either we'll decide to stay or we'll accept so many of the existing EU conditions which we currently enjoy, to avoid the carnage, that we won't be able to tell the difference.
Very rarely disagree with you mate but every time I go outside this country seems a little less Great.
What nonsense. This Country has been incredibly sceptical about the EU for my entire adult life, which is why Governments avoided the vote for so long................they knew what would happen! It wasn't a whim and the EU simply want to punish us for daring to leave.
Anyway, I'm clearly in the minority on here so I'll leave all you EU lovers to it for a bit.
David Davis is pursuing (proudly it seems) a course of 'constructive ambiguity' in the negotiations. The EU negotiators are scratching their heads and telling us that this is not acceptable, and that we need to be more explicit about what we are seeking. But you portray this as them being uncooperative?