politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Video Analysis: Demographics – What We Can Do
Comments
-
And leave you pretty cold.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Your puns are a bit flake-y.ydoethur said:
999. The others are a vanilla bunch at the best of times.Mortimer said:
Did they call 999, or the cone hotline?ydoethur said:
That pun is crackers.AlastairMeeks said:
Only to be expected of sundae drivers.TheScreamingEagles said:
0 -
-
Well, having read my "homage" version of the Enfield sketch, what do you think my REAL position is re. Brexit?Recidivist said:
So you've taken an amusing sketch that satirises the patronising approach society used to have towards women, and transcribed remainers into the place where the original refers to women. I am not sure what exactly the point of this is. I can see no humour in it at all. You are presumably not insinuating that leavers are patronising remainers. It's just a bit odd.Sunil_Prasannan said:
ContextDavidL said:
Sunil, you're late taking your pills again.Sunil_Prasannan said:REMAINERS - KNOW YOUR LIMITS!
An ordinary dinner party, the sort of occasion we all enjoy. The LEAVERs are exchanging witty stories. And look at the REMAINERs; aren’t they pretty? Look at the way they laugh, they’re delightful. But now the conversation turns to more serious matters.
LEAVER 1:
“I wonder if the Government should stay out of the EU Customs Union”
LEAVER 2:
“I think it should.”
LEAVER 1:
“Good. Then we’re all agreed.”
But oh dear, what’s this? One of the REMAINERs is about to embarrass us all…
REMAINER:
“I think the Government should stay in the Customs Union, so that the Pound can reach a level that would keep our exports competitive.”
The REMAINER has foolishly attempted to join the conversation with a wild and dangerous opinion of his own! What half-baked drivel! See how the LEAVERS look at him with utter contempt!
LEAVER 2:
“Alastair, we’re going home!!”
REMAINERS - KNOW YOUR LIMITS!
Look at the effect of education on a LEAVER and a REMAINER’s mind. Education passes into the mind of a LEAVER. See how the information is evenly and tidily stored.
Now see the same thing on a REMAINER. At first we see a similar result. But now look. Still at a reasonably low level of education his brain suddenly overloads. He can't take in complicated information. He becomes frantically and absurdly deranged.
Look at these venomous harridans. They went to university. Hard to believe they are all under 25. Yes, over-education leads to ugliness, premature aging and beard growth. And ranting on online political betting fora.
Now, let’s see the proper way.
LEAVER 1:
“Good. So we’re all agreed. We should stay out of the Customs Union.”
REMAINER:
“Oh, I don’t know anything about the Northern Ireland Backstop, I’m afraid, but I do love little kittens! They’re so soft, and furry.”
LEAVER 2:
“What a delightful thought, you dear, sweet, fragile little thing! I adore you, Alastair!”
REMAINERS - KNOW YOUR LIMITS. In thought, be plain and simple, and let your natural sweetness shine through!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w0 -
Imagination that breaks up our country?Anazina said:
As I said downthread, keep London and Scotland in the EU too. Both also devolved administrations.welshowl said:
Not quite. They voted to in a referendum to stay with the rest of the UK also staying, not to stay without the rest of the U.K: there’s a difference.Anazina said:
So keep it in the EU. After all, its people voted for that.Philip_Thompson said:
It is a completely daft idea that drives a coach and horses through the GFA. If this backstop goes ahead then NI will be in a hellish undemocratic limbo. Part of the UK and electing MPs to Westminster but not subject to British laws. Subject to EU laws but not electing MEPs and not having their national government's votes in the European Council. It is an absurd suggestion that violates the GFA completely.Foxy said:
Well ultimately, if Brexit is to allow customs and regulatory divergence, then there has to be a customs border, and the only thing to be decided is where it is located, in the sea or on land. If we are to remain in lockstep with the EU then why Brexit?archer101au said:
May has been humiliated by the EU, again. They offered her 15 minutes before tossing her out to get her own dinner. The moment she was out the door, the President of the EP rejected Chequers and said it was 'not acceptable' and they leaked that the November summit had been cancelled. Just waiting for Tusk's tweet to complete the experience.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She will not take a different approach. She is proving to you she is a bloody difficult woman as the whole nuance is moving to the marginalisation of ERG. The mood is changing, you can see it on here, you can see it in the media, indeed the daily mail is fully on board with her, and in discussions on twitter and social media
As far as Chequers is concerned virtually no one in the electorate has a clue what it is. Go down any high street and you would struggle to find even one voter who could describe it
I am sorry, but your particular brexit is over
Quite how you get from there to the mood is changing is beyond me. May is driving straight down the path to no deal. If I am charitable for a minute and assume she has a plan, it is that she is going to go for no deal, rally the country
Special status for NI in terms of being in both UK and EU is one way past this. Not such a daft idea.
Imagination is required.
Or, Remainers accepting defeat.
I’ll give you a clue. Accepting defeat is more likely to get through Parliament. At every point so far, Remainers in the HoC have lost or surrendered. Apart from a single process point which has been nullified by the sounds of it.0 -
Disagreed completely.Benpointer said:
Yes indeed.another_richard said:
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.Benpointer said:Off topic: Anyone seen First Man yet?
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
I appreciate we have had a lot of advances sonce 1969, including an information technology revolution, but I can't help feeling that in the long term historians will look back at the moon landings as a peak for our current civilisation - the equivalent of 117AD for the Roman Empire. I fear we are on a long, gradual descent to a new dark age (sadly).
The computers in our cars are more advanced than those that took men to the moon. The technology to go to the moon is there, better than it was 50 years ago - it's just that going for the sake of going lost its appeal. When we return to the moon - and we will - it will be for more of a purpose.0 -
Yes, and Cardiff, and Monmouthshire, but not Newport between them. Or maybe Liverpool and Manchester as little islands. Or we could repartition Ulster to keep Antrim and most of Down outside the CU and SM, because they voted to Leave?Anazina said:
As I said downthread, keep London and Scotland in the EU too. Both also devolved administrations.welshowl said:
Not quite. They voted to in a referendum to stay with the rest of the UK also staying, not to stay without the rest of the U.K: there’s a difference.Anazina said:
So keep it in the EU. After all, its people voted for that.Philip_Thompson said:
It is a completely daft idea that drives a coach and horses through the GFA. If this backstop goes ahead then NI will be in a hellish undemocratic limbo. Part of the UK and electing MPs to Westminster but not subject to British laws. Subject to EU laws but not electing MEPs and not having their national government's votes in the European Council. It is an absurd suggestion that violates the GFA completely.Foxy said:
Well ultimately, if Brexit is to allow customs and regulatory divergence, then there has to be a customs border, and the only thing to be decided is where it is located, in the sea or on land. If we are to remain in lockstep with the EU then why Brexit?archer101au said:
May has been humiliated by the EU, again. They offered her 15 minutes before tossing her out to get her own dinner. The moment she was out the door, the President of the EP rejected Chequers and said it was 'not acceptable' and they leaked that the November summit had been cancelled. Just waiting for Tusk's tweet to complete the experience.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She will not take a different approach. She is proving to you she is a bloody difficult woman as the whole nuance is moving to the marginalisation of ERG. The mood is changing, you can see it on here, you can see it in the media, indeed the daily mail is fully on board with her, and in discussions on twitter and social media
As far as Chequers is concerned virtually no one in the electorate has a clue what it is. Go down any high street and you would struggle to find even one voter who could describe it
I am sorry, but your particular brexit is over
Quite how you get from there to the mood is changing is beyond me. May is driving straight down the path to no deal. If I am charitable for a minute and assume she has a plan, it is that she is going to go for no deal, rally the country
Special status for NI in terms of being in both UK and EU is one way past this. Not such a daft idea.
Imagination is required.
A non starter. As I’m sure you know.0 -
Go Nadine!!!!!!!!Scott_P said:
0 -
Exactly and bring it on - TM would win and would be secure for another year. Don't you see a problem for you in theresteve_garner said:
She's not waiting, she's sent her letter which is what she means by "done my bit".Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why are you waiting NadineScott_P said:0 -
It's always pleasant to debate with you. Of course, there's a very British danger (as Cyclefree has pointed out) of rating manner over content - I know centrist voters who would consider voting for either Corbyn and Rees-Mogg just because they like their manner, even though neither is remotely close to their political preferences. Conversely there are people who are politically moderate but alienate voters just by shrieking at them.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Nick - I have expressed great concern over how many posters are using unnecessary language, sheer arrogance, I know better than you attitude, and much worse.NickPalmer said:Glancing over the thread I see people calling each other morons, scumbags and cowards. Who are you trying to impress?
I do try to argue my case, but am equally up for persuasion if someone can make a better case, but I stop reading once I see this behaviour.
It seems to run through our politics from the highest offices in the land and elsewhere and I will call it out when I see it.
It is not that I am any better than anyone else but everyone, yes everyone, deserves to be treated with respect0 -
Really? Have you any better ideas? Brexit is such a mess it is time to think the unthinkable. All of the nations and regions I have mentioned already have devolved governments. You are just being silly.welshowl said:
Yes, and Cardiff, and Monmouthshire, but not Newport between them. Or maybe Liverpool and Manchester as little islands. Or we could repartition Ulster to keep Antrim and most of Down outside the CU and SM, because they voted to Leave?Anazina said:
As I said downthread, keep London and Scotland in the EU too. Both also devolved administrations.welshowl said:
Not quite. They voted to in a referendum to stay with the rest of the UK also staying, not to stay without the rest of the U.K: there’s a difference.Anazina said:
So keep it in the EU. After all, its people voted for that.Philip_Thompson said:
It is a completely daftFoxy said:
Well ultimately, if Brexit is to allow customs and regulatory divergence, then there has to be a customs border, and the only thing to be decided is where it is located, in the sea or on land. If we are to remain in lockstep with the EU then why Brexit?archer101au said:
May has been humiliated by the EU, again. They offered her 15 minutes before tossing her out to get her own dinner. The moment she was out the door, the President of the EP rejected Chequers and said it was 'not acceptable' and they leaked that the November summit had been cancelled. Just waiting for Tusk's tweet to complete the experience.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She will not take a different approach. She is proving to you she is a bloody difficult woman as the whole nuance is moving to the marginalisation of ERG. The mood is changing, you can see it on here, you can see it in the media, indeed the daily mail is fully on board with her, and in discussions on twitter and social media
As far as Chequers is concerned virtually no one in the electorate has a clue what it is. Go down any high street and you would struggle to find even one voter who could describe it
I am sorry, but your particular brexit is over
Quite how you get from there to the mood is changing is beyond me. May is driving straight down the path to no deal. If I am charitable for a minute and assume she has a plan, it is that she is going to go for no deal, rally the country
Special status for NI in terms of being in both UK and EU is one way past this. Not such a daft idea.
Imagination is required.
A non starter. As I’m sure you know.0 -
Sorry to break it to you Mr G, but it it comes to the vote, I don’t think May has a chance of staying.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Exactly and bring it on - TM would win and would be secure for another year. Don't you see a problem for you in theresteve_garner said:
She's not waiting, she's sent her letter which is what she means by "done my bit".Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why are you waiting NadineScott_P said:
She’ll probably lose a vote. But if she wins on say 60% she won’t be able to progress legislatipnwithout those who voted against her.
Here’s a clue. If she was convinced she’d win, she’d have egged the letter writers on...0 -
Are you sure?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Exactly and bring it on - TM would win and would be secure for another year.steve_garner said:
She's not waiting, she's sent her letter which is what she means by "done my bit".Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why are you waiting NadineScott_P said:0 -
-
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.FF43 said:
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.another_richard said:
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.Benpointer said:Off topic: Anyone seen First Man yet?
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
0 -
As someone here once said, "Go Nads!"Scott_P said:
0 -
BrexitterRecidivist said:
True. The Brexitland one was quite funnyBenpointer said:
Most of Sunil's posts are a bit odd to be fair.Recidivist said:
So you've taken an amusing sketch that satirises the patronising approach society used to have towards women, and transcribed remainers into the place where the original refers to women. I am not sure what exactly the point of this is. I can see no humour in it at all. You are presumably not insinuating that leavers are patronising remainers. It's just a bit odd.Sunil_Prasannan said:
ContextDavidL said:
Sunil, you're late taking your pills again.Sunil_Prasannan said:REMAINERS - KNOW YOUR LIMITS!
An ordinary dinner party, the sort of occasion we all enjoy. The LEAVERs are exchanging witty stories. And look at the REMAINERs; aren’t they pretty? Look at the way they laugh, they’re delightful. But now the conversation turns to more serious matters.
LEAVER 1:
“I wonder if the Government should stay out of the EU Customs Union”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
-------------
New words by Sunil, original music by Marc Almond & Dave Ball.
Friday morning going slow
I'm watching the election show
Lots of Ladbrokes slips on the floor
Memories of the night before
Out knocking up and having fun
Now I've stopped reading The Sun
Waiting for the results to show
But why I voted no one knows
Voting, polling
Blogging, trolling
And now I'm all alone
In Brexit Land
My only home
I think it's time to write a thread
To vent the bemusement in my head
Spent my money on online bookies
Got nowt here but all the cookies
Clean my suit and my rosette
Election promises to forget
Start campaigning all over again
Kid myself I'm having fun
Voting, polling
Blogging, trolling
And now I'm all alone
In Brexit Land
My only home
Looking out from my worldview
I've really nothing else to do
Seems like I have started fretting
Let's read Political Betting
Forget The Mirror and The Times
The battle bus with such great lines
Look around and I can see
A thousand punters just like me
Voting, polling
Blogging, trolling
And now I'm all alone
In Brexit Land
My only home
Voting, polling
Blogging, trolling
And now I'm all alone
In Brexit Land
My only home
(I'm waiting for Brexit
Or am I wasting time)
0 -
Theresa The Deceiver.Scott_P said: 0 -
+1!TOPPING said:
Delighted to hear.another_richard said:IIRC a few people were concerned about the absence of Richard Tyndall.
I can confirm he's fine and continues to visit PB but has taken a break from commenting.
Yo Richard!
(Tyndall, not another_ although hi another_ )0 -
It's not an unreasonable fear. Though I dare say a few not necessarily Labour supporting people here have expressed they might vote for you in part due to your fine mannersNickPalmer said:
Of course, there's a very British danger (as Cyclefree has pointed out) of rating manner over content - I know centrist voters who would consider voting for either Corbyn and Rees-Mogg just because they like their manner, even though neither is remotely close to their political preferences. Conversely there are people who are politically moderate but alienate voters just by shrieking at them.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Nick - I have expressed great concern over how many posters are using unnecessary language, sheer arrogance, I know better than you attitude, and much worse.NickPalmer said:Glancing over the thread I see people calling each other morons, scumbags and cowards. Who are you trying to impress?
I do try to argue my case, but am equally up for persuasion if someone can make a better case, but I stop reading once I see this behaviour.
It seems to run through our politics from the highest offices in the land and elsewhere and I will call it out when I see it.
It is not that I am any better than anyone else but everyone, yes everyone, deserves to be treated with respect
0 -
I agree, it’s a bit tough on us morons, scumbags and cowards.NickPalmer said:Glancing over the thread I see people calling each other morons, scumbags and cowards. Who are you trying to impress?
No need to call us out.
0 -
Dunt matter. It's the principle. Citizens are part of the negotiations.SeanT said:
Except, it didn't. Harry Cole misread it.TOPPING said:
Are you really this much of a twat? They should accede just because what, you want them to be nice? Jeez. Even I said from the outset that the Brits should not give concessions unilaterally to EU citizens, despite what some wanky Leavers (R Tyndall foremost amongst them) wanted because, well duh, it is a negotiation and doing what we did meant that we would be leaving our citizens in the EU high and dry.SeanT said:
Jesus. You're almost gleeful that the EU - in the form of France - is making life horribly uncertain for Brits in France, even as the British government unilaterally guarantees the rights of French people in the UK.Foxy said:
Well duh!CarlottaVance said:
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
We're the good guys here, they're the bad guys, for once there is no grey area - and yet still you're cheering for the EU? Go jump in a lake.
And lo, it came to pass.
lol0 -
Scotland and NI are not unreasoable. Both have long had seperate legal systems and extensive devolution. London would be trickier, though perhaps a special economic zone could be possible.welshowl said:
Yes, and Cardiff, and Monmouthshire, but not Newport between them. Or maybe Liverpool and Manchester as little islands. Or we could repartition Ulster to keep Antrim and most of Down outside the CU and SM, because they voted to Leave?Anazina said:
As I said downthread, keep London and Scotland in the EU too. Both also devolved administrations.welshowl said:
Not quite. They voted to in a referendum to stay with the rest of the UK also staying, not to stay without the rest of the U.K: there’s a difference.Anazina said:
So keep it in the EU. After all, its people voted for that.Philip_Thompson said:
It is a completely daft .Foxy said:
Well ultimately, if Brexit is to allow customs and regulatory divergence, then there has to be a customs border, and the only thing to be decided is where it is located, in the sea or on land. If we are to remain in lockstep with the EU then why Brexit?archer101au said:
May has been humiliated by the EU, again.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She will not take a different approach. She is proving to you she is a bloody difficult woman as the whole nuance is moving to the marginalisation of ERG. The mood is changing, you can see it on here, you can see it in the media, indeed the daily mail is fully on board with her, and in discussions on twitter and social media
As far as Chequers is concerned virtually no one in the electorate has a clue what it is. Go down any high street and you would struggle to find even one voter who could describe it
I am sorry, but your particular brexit is over
Quite how you get from there to the mood is changing is beyond me. May is driving straight down the path to no deal. If I am charitable for a minute and assume she has a plan, it is that she is going to go for no deal, rally the country
Special status for NI in terms of being in both UK and EU is one way past this. Not such a daft idea.
Imagination is required.
A non starter. As I’m sure you know.
Ultimately we need either partition or a Brexit acceptable to the majority of both Remainers and Leavers. No sign of the latter.
Note that I currently live on the wrong side of those borders, although Leicester voted Remain.0 -
Some of us are *only* the most patronising posters on PB.Nigelb said:
I agree, it’s a bit tough on us morons, scumbags and cowards.NickPalmer said:Glancing over the thread I see people calling each other morons, scumbags and cowards. Who are you trying to impress?
No need to call us out.0 -
I find that hard to believe, only for the reason that it was clear back when it was agreed that there was going to be disagreement about how a meaningful vote was to be defined - which is to say, there were always going to people who would claim it would not be a meaningful vote no matter what, and other people pushing to make it as meaningless as possible.Scott_P said:
So my first instinct would be that it is yet another Brexit skirmish along familiar lines, perhaps dragging in a few non-regular combatants due to the issue but ultimately just part of the same old issue that they parked before.0 -
All the way to BINO.
May truly is a political genius.0 -
Agree and your last sentence is so succinctNickPalmer said:
It's always pleasant to debate with you. Of course, there's a very British danger (as Cyclefree has pointed out) of rating manner over content - I know centrist voters who would consider voting for either Corbyn and Rees-Mogg just because they like their manner, even though neither is remotely close to their political preferences. Conversely there are people who are politically moderate but alienate voters just by shrieking at them.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Nick - I have expressed great concern over how many posters are using unnecessary language, sheer arrogance, I know better than you attitude, and much worse.NickPalmer said:Glancing over the thread I see people calling each other morons, scumbags and cowards. Who are you trying to impress?
I do try to argue my case, but am equally up for persuasion if someone can make a better case, but I stop reading once I see this behaviour.
It seems to run through our politics from the highest offices in the land and elsewhere and I will call it out when I see it.
It is not that I am any better than anyone else but everyone, yes everyone, deserves to be treated with respect0 -
The other piece of transportation tech dating from 1969, was of course Concorde. Will there ever be another supersonic airliner?currystar said:
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.FF43 said:
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.another_richard said:
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.Benpointer said:Off topic: Anyone seen First Man yet?
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.0 -
I'd prefer to be a bounder or a cad, or perhaps a rapscallion.Nigelb said:
I agree, it’s a bit tough on us morons, scumbags and cowards.NickPalmer said:Glancing over the thread I see people calling each other morons, scumbags and cowards. Who are you trying to impress?
No need to call us out.0 -
Brexit has turned everyone mad (and I include myself in that)NickPalmer said:Glancing over the thread I see people calling each other morons, scumbags and cowards. Who are you trying to impress?
In Westminster your party even thinks Brexit is more important than calling out a Speaker complicit in a culture of abuse and intimidation against women clerks!
Did you ever think you would see the day the Labour Party would sink so low Dr Plamer?0 -
I don't. It's now or never for it to happen before Brexit. A year from now is after the dust has settled from Brexit and in plenty of time before the next election.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Exactly and bring it on - TM would win and would be secure for another year. Don't you see a problem for you in theresteve_garner said:
She's not waiting, she's sent her letter which is what she means by "done my bit".Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why are you waiting NadineScott_P said:
Even if a challenge now is no more successful than Sir Anthony Meyer's challenge was in 1989 it won't prevent a more successful challenge next year. It's worth a shot.0 -
YesGIN1138 said:
Are you sure?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Exactly and bring it on - TM would win and would be secure for another year.steve_garner said:
She's not waiting, she's sent her letter which is what she means by "done my bit".Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why are you waiting NadineScott_P said:0 -
Putting the hard border along the Cheviots would be a workable solution. The EU would still have 28 members, including a 32-county Eire and an independent Scotland.Anazina said:
As I said downthread, keep London and Scotland in the EU too. Both also devolved administrations.welshowl said:
Not quite. They voted to in a referendum to stay with the rest of the UK also staying, not to stay without the rest of the U.K: there’s a difference.Anazina said:
So keep it in the EU. After all, its people voted for that.Philip_Thompson said:
It is a completely daft idea that drives a coach and horses through the GFA. If this backstop goes ahead then NI will be in a hellish undemocratic limbo. Part of the UK and electing MPs to Westminster but not subject to British laws. Subject to EU laws but not electing MEPs and not having their national government's votes in the European Council. It is an absurd suggestion that violates the GFA completely.Foxy said:
Well ultimately, if Brexit is to allow customs and regulatory divergence, then there has to be a customs border, and the only thing to be decided is where it is located, in the sea or on land. If we are to remain in lockstep with the EU then why Brexit?archer101au said:
May has been humiliated by the EU, again. They offered her 15 minutes before tossing her out to get her own dinner. The moment she was out the door, the President of the EP rejected Chequers and said it was 'not acceptable' and they leaked that the November summit had been cancelled. Just waiting for Tusk's tweet to complete the experience.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She will not take a different approach. She is proving to you she is a bloody difficult woman as the whole nuance is moving to the marginalisation of ERG. The mood is changing, you can see it on here, you can see it in the media, indeed the daily mail is fully on board with her, and in discussions on twitter and social media
As far as Chequers is concerned virtually no one in the electorate has a clue what it is. Go down any high street and you would struggle to find even one voter who could describe it
I am sorry, but your particular brexit is over
Quite how you get from there to the mood is changing is beyond me. May is driving straight down the path to no deal. If I am charitable for a minute and assume she has a plan, it is that she is going to go for no deal, rally the country
Special status for NI in terms of being in both UK and EU is one way past this. Not such a daft idea.
Imagination is required.0 -
Hell, she could probably right a letter herself - so long as you are calling for a vote of no confidence in the leader does it even matter if you plan to vote in favour of said leader?Mortimer said:
Sorry to break it to you Mr G, but it it comes to the vote, I don’t think May has a chance of staying.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Exactly and bring it on - TM would win and would be secure for another year. Don't you see a problem for you in theresteve_garner said:
She's not waiting, she's sent her letter which is what she means by "done my bit".Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why are you waiting NadineScott_P said:
She’ll probably lose a vote. But if she wins on say 60% she won’t be able to progress legislatipnwithout those who voted against her.
Here’s a clue. If she was convinced she’d win, she’d have egged the letter writers on...0 -
Another year of business not knowing what investment decisions to make is no answer at all. Especially as it will move us no nearer the EU having to respect us at the end of that extra year.Scott_P said:
Sorry, Theresa, but it is time for you to go.0 -
What about Grieve now saying she's reneging on the meaningful voite?Big_G_NorthWales said:
YesGIN1138 said:
Are you sure?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Exactly and bring it on - TM would win and would be secure for another year.steve_garner said:
She's not waiting, she's sent her letter which is what she means by "done my bit".Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why are you waiting NadineScott_P said:
Seems to me she's deceived everyone (remainers and leavers) these past two years and pissed everyone off...
The only thing they probably do all agree on is: #GetMayOut 0 -
I think it even more astonishing that we were on the moon just 25 years after the first real modern rocket in the V2.currystar said:
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.FF43 said:
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.another_richard said:
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.Benpointer said:Off topic: Anyone seen First Man yet?
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
Some of the technology was very rudimentary by modern standards. The Russian Space Museum in Moscow has a great display. I think that as a world we were far less safety conscious in those days.0 -
Of course it can be done - but consider that at the height of the Apollo program, it was costing the US the equivalent of $80bn a year.currystar said:
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.FF43 said:
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.another_richard said:
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.Benpointer said:Off topic: Anyone seen First Man yet?
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
Give SpaceX that kind of cash, and they’d be there in 3 years, tops.
0 -
I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.0
-
You seem to be running low on responses to use when you are shown to be a complete twat.SeanT said:
With all due respect, you are a turd-eating old fool, and you constantly smell of your own urine.TOPPING said:
Dunt matter. It's the principle. Citizens are part of the negotiations.SeanT said:
Except, it didn't. Harry Cole misread it.TOPPING said:
Are you really this much of a twat? They should accede just because what, you want them to be nice? Jeez. Even I said from the outset that the Brits should not give concessions unilaterally to EU citizens, despite what some wanky Leavers (R Tyndall foremost amongst them) wanted because, well duh, it is a negotiation and doing what we did meant that we would be leaving our citizens in the EU high and dry.SeanT said:
Jesus. You're almost gleeful that the EU - in the form of France - is making life horribly uncertain for Brits in France, even as the British government unilaterally guarantees the rights of French people in the UK.Foxy said:
Well duh!CarlottaVance said:
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
We're the good guys here, they're the bad guys, for once there is no grey area - and yet still you're cheering for the EU? Go jump in a lake.
And lo, it came to pass.
lol0 -
First man is really two films - the technical attempt to reach the moon and the psychological analysis of Armstrong. The first is compelling- the second less so. But worth the effort.0
-
So today No 10 has further annoyed:
- Brexiteers who don’t want a longer transition
- Remainers who thought the meaningful vote would allow them to stop Brexit.
That’s probably 48, y’know.0 -
Mortimer
Yes, it’s been obvious that fanatics like you, and your brethren in Parliament, have been entirely unwilling to compromise for the past two years, and indeed have become seemingly more extreme every time something is suggested that might soften the outcome. It is a shame that outlandish solutions now must be considered. But there it is.0 -
Another 32 days and she will overtake Henry Campbell-Bannerman's tenure as PM.Danny565 said:
Her philosophy seems to be "they laughed at her, but Nicola Murray hung around for a long time, didn't she?". Genuine respect.Alistair said:All the way to BINO.
May truly is a political genius.
Incredibly, it seems 7 PMs served for less than a year. Around half have lasted less than 5 years. Tough gig.0 -
You haven’t. It doesn’t.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
0 -
Hey, that’s a pretty contested category.Mortimer said:
Some of us are *only* the most patronising posters on PB.Nigelb said:
I agree, it’s a bit tough on us morons, scumbags and cowards.NickPalmer said:Glancing over the thread I see people calling each other morons, scumbags and cowards. Who are you trying to impress?
No need to call us out.
0 -
And Grieve will not accept DD. The party will not survive the brexiteers taking overGIN1138 said:
What about Grieve now saying she's reneging on the meaningful voite?Big_G_NorthWales said:
YesGIN1138 said:
Are you sure?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Exactly and bring it on - TM would win and would be secure for another year.steve_garner said:
She's not waiting, she's sent her letter which is what she means by "done my bit".Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why are you waiting NadineScott_P said:
Seems to me she's deceived everyone (remainers and leavers) these past two years and pissed everyone off...
The only thing they probably do all agree on is: #GetMayOut
Indeed if TM goes brexit will go with her0 -
You’re right as usual RN. It only makes things worse.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
0 -
Unless perhaps it's a ruse to cover up some fudge. Hard to see how, though.welshowl said:
You haven’t. It doesn’t.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
0 -
‘Fanatics’. The majority voted for the country to Leave. The only fanatics are those who oppose that democratic decision.Anazina said:Mortimer
Yes, it’s been obvious that fanatics like you, and your brethren in Parliament, have been entirely unwilling to compromise for the past two years, and indeed have become seemingly more extreme every time something is suggested that might soften the outcome. It is a shame that outlandish solutions now must be considered. But there it is.0 -
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
0 -
Business has welcomed it tonightMarqueeMark said:
Another year of business not knowing what investment decisions to make is no answer at all. Especially as it will move us no nearer the EU having to respect us at the end of that extra year.Scott_P said:
Sorry, Theresa, but it is time for you to go.0 -
Well quite. It finds a way to kick the can, but if they cannot figure a solution in the time allotted already there's no reason they will with an extra year.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
0 -
Well, I have never been a Bercow fan, but clearing him out and not clearing out the dozen offending MPs and their enablers, would be doing a completely inadequate response. In the HoC debate there did seem fairly common ideas over who they are.GIN1138 said:
Brexit has turned everyone mad (and I include myself in that)NickPalmer said:Glancing over the thread I see people calling each other morons, scumbags and cowards. Who are you trying to impress?
In Westminster your party even thinks Brexit is more important than calling out a Speaker complicit in a culture of abuse and intimidation against women clerks!
Did you ever think you would see the day the Labour Party would sink so low Dr Plamer?
0 -
It was the EU's suggestion, wasn't it?TOPPING said:
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
0 -
There definitely could be another Concorde, the technology is there, but there is just not the demand for one, compare the Dreamliner to a 707, technology in planes has moved on massively, even Concorde had regular updates. My point is that the technology no longer exists to send a man to the moon and bring them back. Remember in 1971 America sent an electric car to the moon, an electric car in 1971!Sunil_Prasannan said:
The other piece of transportation tech dating from 1969, was of course Concorde. Will there ever be another supersonic airliner?currystar said:
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.FF43 said:
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.another_richard said:
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.Benpointer said:Off topic: Anyone seen First Man yet?
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.0 -
Why BigG.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And Grieve will not accept DD. The party will not survive the brexiteers taking overGIN1138 said:
What about Grieve now saying she's reneging on the meaningful voite?Big_G_NorthWales said:
YesGIN1138 said:
Are you sure?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Exactly and bring it on - TM would win and would be secure for another year.steve_garner said:
She's not waiting, she's sent her letter which is what she means by "done my bit".Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why are you waiting NadineScott_P said:
Seems to me she's deceived everyone (remainers and leavers) these past two years and pissed everyone off...
The only thing they probably do all agree on is: #GetMayOut
Indeed if TM goes brexit will go with her
The vast majority of our party are Brexiteers.
The majority of the voters voted Leave.
Why should we be dominated by naysayers?0 -
China will send people to the moon. They have an active programme that is well on the way. They are cautious in their announcements but I would expect it within a decade.currystar said:
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.FF43 said:
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.another_richard said:
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.Benpointer said:Off topic: Anyone seen First Man yet?
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.0 -
Yes, Leave. Not the Hard No Deal Brexit you now champion. 48-52 is not a vote for complete isolation. Grow up.Mortimer said:
‘Fanatics’. The majority voted for the country to Leave. The only fanatics are those who oppose that democratic decision.Anazina said:Mortimer
Yes, it’s been obvious that fanatics like you, and your brethren in Parliament, have been entirely unwilling to compromise for the past two years, and indeed have become seemingly more extreme every time something is suggested that might soften the outcome. It is a shame that outlandish solutions now must be considered. But there it is.0 -
Assuming May isn't an actual bona fide idiot (debatable at this stage) then:
1) This proposed extra year of vassalage solves none of the outstanding issues; but,
2) it will almost certainly enrage her party to new heights of froth
Therefore we must conclude that she *intends* to be VONCed for this.0 -
Yes, to solve our problem. Which it doesn't do. It's a red herring.Richard_Nabavi said:
It was the EU's suggestion, wasn't it?TOPPING said:
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
0 -
It really can't. The last time a human left the earth's orbit was in 1972, thing about that, for whatever reason in the last 46 years not a single human has left the earth's orbit. If it could be done now then China would have done it ,Nigelb said:
Of course it can be done - but consider that at the height of the Apollo program, it was costing the US the equivalent of $80bn a year.currystar said:
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.FF43 said:
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.another_richard said:
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.Benpointer said:Off topic: Anyone seen First Man yet?
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
Give SpaceX that kind of cash, and they’d be there in 3 years, tops.
0 -
Right now no-one can get anyone into Low earth orbit, let alone the moon. OK, so it's a bit of a transition time post RUD from Russia, SLS going nowhere and a massively overcautious approach on Commercial crew.
But still he ISS astronauts are effectively stranded right now !0 -
Another false dichotomy-fier.Anazina said:
Yes, Leave. Not the Hard No Deal Brexit you now champion. 48-52 is not a vote for complete isolation. Grow up.Mortimer said:
‘Fanatics’. The majority voted for the country to Leave. The only fanatics are those who oppose that democratic decision.Anazina said:Mortimer
Yes, it’s been obvious that fanatics like you, and your brethren in Parliament, have been entirely unwilling to compromise for the past two years, and indeed have become seemingly more extreme every time something is suggested that might soften the outcome. It is a shame that outlandish solutions now must be considered. But there it is.
The alternative to this fudge is not no deal. It is a different approach.0 -
It might be that she's just be conned by the EU and the oleaginous Olly Robbins into making another concession for the EU to bank-and-thank and offer nothing in return.
Only this time, to really hammer home that they're just *toying* with her, they've conned her into making a concession that they don't care about, and achieves nothing useful, but will further drive a wedge between her and what remains of her authority.0 -
I don't understand your point. The actual hardware doesn't exist at the moment but that doesn't mean we have lost the ability to reproduce it. The Chinese are sending rovers to the moon, and I can't see that it would be that much more difficult for them to send astronauts.currystar said:
There definitely could be another Concorde, the technology is there, but there is just not the demand for one, compare the Dreamliner to a 707, technology in planes has moved on massively, even Concorde had regular updates. My point is that the technology no longer exists to send a man to the moon and bring them back. Remember in 1971 America sent an electric car to the moon, an electric car in 1971!Sunil_Prasannan said:
The other piece of transportation tech dating from 1969, was of course Concorde. Will there ever be another supersonic airliner?currystar said:
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.FF43 said:
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.another_richard said:
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.Benpointer said:Off topic: Anyone seen First Man yet?
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.0 -
Not according to business and Barnier has said this evening they need more time to explore a UK wide customs union to overcome the Irish problemMortimer said:
You’re right as usual RN. It only makes things worse.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
0 -
How does adding an extra year to the transition period do either of those things?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Not according to business and Barnier has said this evening they need more time to explore a UK wide customs union to overcome the Irish problemMortimer said:
You’re right as usual RN. It only makes things worse.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
0 -
In fairness, she’s “considering” it. Not accepting of it at this point. Assuming you mean the extended transition?grabcocque said:It might be that she's just be conned by the EU and the oleaginous Olly Robbins into making another concession for the EU to bank-and-thank and offer nothing in return.
Only this time, to really hammer home that they're just *toying* with her, they've conned her into making a concession that they don't care about, and achieves nothing useful, but will further drive a wedge between her and what remains of her authority.0 -
To be a bit more explicit, I can see why business leaders would want a longer transition, and that there could be an argument for an extra transition year if it is thought that the time is needed to finalise the exact details of a trade deal. However, we haven't even started discussing those details, and they aren't the stumbling block at the moment, so it's bizarre to put this forward as some kind of way forward on the backstop issue.0
-
They presumably are at their wits end and wondered if it would help the PM.Richard_Nabavi said:
It was the EU's suggestion, wasn't it?TOPPING said:
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
0 -
The Irish problem is immediate, the third year gives business the time it needs to adapt to the new environmentgrabcocque said:
How does adding an extra year to the transition period do either of those things?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Not according to business and Barnier has said this evening they need more time to explore a UK wide customs union to overcome the Irish problemMortimer said:
You’re right as usual RN. It only makes things worse.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
0 -
Guess what happens in another year's time?Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
Another extension!
BINO.0 -
Twat.SeanT said:
I was offering the olive branch of respect. A call for peace. And this is how you respond? Calm down.TOPPING said:
You seem to be running low on responses to use when you are shown to be a complete twat.SeanT said:
With all due respect, you are a turd-eating old fool, and you constantly smell of your own urine.TOPPING said:
Dunt matter. It's the principle. Citizens are part of the negotiations.SeanT said:
Except, it didn't. Harry Cole misread it.TOPPING said:
Are you really this much of a twat? They should accede just because what, you want them to be nice? Jeez. Even I said from the outset that the Brits should not give concessions unilaterally to EU citizens, despite what some wanky Leavers (R Tyndall foremost amongst them) wanted because, well duh, it is a negotiation and doing what we did meant that we would be leaving our citizens in the EU high and dry.SeanT said:
Jesus. You're almost gleeful that the EU - in the form of France - is making life horribly uncertain for Brits in France, even as the British government unilaterally guarantees the rights of French people in the UK.Foxy said:
Well duh!CarlottaVance said:
No deal means no deal, and Britons in France, Spain or Tuscany become 3rd party nationals, with all the implications of that, under sovereign national law.
What is it about leaving the EU that Brexiteers cannot understand?
We're the good guys here, they're the bad guys, for once there is no grey area - and yet still you're cheering for the EU? Go jump in a lake.
And lo, it came to pass.
lol0 -
Not a chance! I suppose they could just go to the Science Museum in London and borrow Apollo 10 lunar lander which is there. It really can't be done. What I liked from First Man is that before take off, the astronauts have about 10 people making sure their spacesuit is on correctly, when they got to the moon in the tiniest of spaces they had to put on their spacesuit themselves. Remember if they made a mistake they would die.FF43 said:
China will send people to the moon. They have an active programme that is well on the way. They are cautious in their announcements but I would expect it within a decade.currystar said:
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.FF43 said:
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.another_richard said:
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.Benpointer said:Off topic: Anyone seen First Man yet?
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.0 -
Farage on Newsnight says we must leave the EU, the Single Market and the Customs Union, says Norway and Switzerland are 'tiddly little countries' with their own arrangements and the Tories must get rid of May as soon as possible after she concedes again on a longer transition period in return for a minor concession on the Irish border0
-
Probably wrong too.currystar said:
There definitely could be another Concorde, the technology is there, but there is just not the demand for one, compare the Dreamliner to a 707, technology in planes has moved on massively, even Concorde had regular updates. My point is that the technology no longer exists to send a man to the moon and bring them back. Remember in 1971 America sent an electric car to the moon, an electric car in 1971!Sunil_Prasannan said:
The other piece of transportation tech dating from 1969, was of course Concorde. Will there ever be another supersonic airliner?currystar said:
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.FF43 said:
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.another_richard said:
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.Benpointer said:Off topic: Anyone seen First Man yet?
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
The demand is there, but noise regulations over land have made it impractical until recently (sonic boom reducing designs have been developed).
We should see a supersonic business jet in around five years:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2018/10/15/ge-reveals-engine-that-could-make-aerions-ambitious-supersonic-business-jet-take-flight/
With something larger to follow on.0 -
It would help the PM, as well as themselves and the European economy, if they'd stop faffing around and start actually negotiating the future relationship, rather than stalling on totally artificial obstacles.TOPPING said:
They presumably are at their wits end and wondered if it would help the PM.Richard_Nabavi said:
It was the EU's suggestion, wasn't it?TOPPING said:
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
0 -
Ken Clarke now on Newsnight says UK government must commit to never have a hard border in Ireland to respect the GFA0
-
Why would they? It could be done but for what purpose. Our voyages into space have become less so that we can and more for a mission. The proposals for future moon missions aren't just to go to the moon for the sake of it, it is either as a stepping stone to Mars or for human habitation. We could swiftly return to the moon if that was all we were trying to achieve but that doesn't give any meaningful returns on investment.currystar said:
It really can't. The last time a human left the earth's orbit was in 1972, thing about that, for whatever reason in the last 46 years not a single human has left the earth's orbit. If it could be done now then China would have done it ,Nigelb said:
Of course it can be done - but consider that at the height of the Apollo program, it was costing the US the equivalent of $80bn a year.currystar said:
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.FF43 said:
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.another_richard said:
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.Benpointer said:Off topic: Anyone seen First Man yet?
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.
Give SpaceX that kind of cash, and they’d be there in 3 years, tops.0 -
End of CanadaHYUFD said:Ken Clarke now on Newsnight says UK government must commit to never have a hard border in Ireland to respect the GFA
0 -
It has, hasn't it? Of course the UK can't bind the EU and the Irish government.HYUFD said:Ken Clarke now on Newsnight says UK government must commit to never have a hard border in Ireland
0 -
Probably, in fairness. But it doesn’t.TOPPING said:
They presumably are at their wits end and wondered if it would help the PM.Richard_Nabavi said:
It was the EU's suggestion, wasn't it?TOPPING said:
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
Both the U.K. and EU are pretty clueless about each other.
But that’s why we are here.0 -
The backstop comes into force at the end of the transition period if a final trade deal that solves the Irish border problem has not been completed.Richard_Nabavi said:To be a bit more explicit, I can see why business leaders would want a longer transition, and that there could be an argument for an extra transition year if it is thought that the time is needed to finalise the exact details of a trade deal. However, we haven't even started discussing those details, and they aren't the stumbling block at the moment, so it's bizarre to put this forward as some kind of way forward on the backstop issue.
Clearly, if there is any chance that a final trade deal would avoid the need for the backstop to come into effect, then providing more time for one to be negotiated makes the use of the backstop less likely.
What it doesn't do is address the (valid/paranoid) concerns of some that a backstop with no end date is an attempt to annex Northern Ireland. Perhaps some concerns are too (crazy/intractable) to address.0 -
On a slightly related note, Beijing built 21 underground lines totalling 600km between 2002 and 2017FF43 said:
China will send people to the moon. They have an active programme that is well on the way. They are cautious in their announcements but I would expect it within a decade.currystar said:
Man will never go back to the moon, despite the amazing advances in technology over the past 50 years the technology does not exist to get a man to the moon. In 1960 America had never even sent a man into space, yet just 9 years later they landed men on the moon. Just think of the madness of where we are now, even China with all their technology and money can't do it, yet 50 years ago America with no technology could. I have seen First Man , a really good film, what struck me was the lunar lander, it was basically a tin can with silver foil wrapped round it. I really find it hard to believe that something that was possible in 1969 is simply not possible any more.FF43 said:
China has an active manned lunar landing programme. Nominally they are aiming for 2036 but I would expect them to bring that date in drastically. The programme seems to be going well and they have a lot of the technology in place.another_richard said:
Only four of the twelve who walked on the moon are still alive.Benpointer said:Off topic: Anyone seen First Man yet?
As a child of the 60s the space race and Apollo programme are indelibly etched in my memories. Looking forward to some full-on nostalgia about what is surely a pinnacle of himan achievement
Its entirely possible that at some point there will be no living human who went there.
Something which would have seemed unimaginable fifty years ago baring some subsequent civilisation ending event.0 -
But accepting a backstop doesn’t provide business with the certainty of knowing what comes next.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The Irish problem is immediate, the third year gives business the time it needs to adapt to the new environmentgrabcocque said:
How does adding an extra year to the transition period do either of those things?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Not according to business and Barnier has said this evening they need more time to explore a UK wide customs union to overcome the Irish problemMortimer said:
You’re right as usual RN. It only makes things worse.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
Without a withdrawal agreement there will be no transition.
The concept of a backstop must be abandoned for progress to be made.0 -
-
Possibilities;
1) She's an idiot/exhausted/given up caring and has no idea what she's proposed, why, and who it will enrage.
2) She knows that this will achieve nothing, but it's something to say, and kicking the can down the road is all she has left, however little sense it makes.
3) This is a ploy to force her party to VONC her, so she can win it, then capitulate totally to the EU before Christmas.
4) The EU is toying with her, and at this point she's too weak and terrified to even bother arguing
5) We're in the Full Retard timeline0 -
People seem to have wildly different views on their motivations in that sphere, in the some insist the EU are suggesting various thinks to help her, others think they are trying to box her in so she has to cave in and offer referendums or go for a new GE.TOPPING said:
They presumably are at their wits end and wondered if it would help the PM.Richard_Nabavi said:
It was the EU's suggestion, wasn't it?TOPPING said:
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
0 -
I think we will end up in a near permanent transition, in the Single Market and Customs Union for years but still technically outside the EU but for most purposes still inside it and only the whole UK staying in the Single Market and Customs Union will avoid a hard border in Ireland and appease the DUP.SeanT said:
Quite. As someone else has said, it's just another year of doubt and uncertainty, with the same pain at the end anyway. It's worse.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
No Deal is better than this.
If we compare Brexit to coming off heroin (and there are odd parallels, and I was once a heroin addict) then this transition period is like going onto methadone, which makes you slightly dopey and slow and addicted to methadone, but is supposedly good, because it gets you off heroin.
However you lose the rush and fun of heroin, and you do not regain the clarity and drive of being totally clean. And then you have to quit methadone anyway, at the end, and that's not fun.
So TMay wants to move us from heroin to methadone, and she's now proposed we stay on methadone an extra year, as if that's a good thing. Why?
I am beginning to think we have to do this cold turkey. Lock ourselves indoors with a load of Valium, booze, a puke bucket, some porn and a couple of DVD box sets, and just sweat out the pain and anguish. It will hurt, a lot, but you get clean quick, and life can start again much faster.
There is now no majority in Parliament for anything else0 -
I see little evidence to assume the EU27 are in any mood at all to take pity on May. Why would they?kle4 said:
People seem to have wildly different views on their motivations in that sphere, in the some insist the EU are suggesting various thinks to help her, others think they are trying to box her in so she has to cave in and offer referendums or go for a new GE.TOPPING said:
They presumably are at their wits end and wondered if it would help the PM.Richard_Nabavi said:
It was the EU's suggestion, wasn't it?TOPPING said:
It is solipsism on a national level thinking that things will come round to us eventually.Richard_Nabavi said:I must have missed something obvious, but I can't for the life of me see how extending the transition period for a year makes a ha'pence of difference to resolving the artificial obstacle of the Irish backstop, which is supposed to be the stumbling block.
0 -
Everybody wants their son to go to a mixed-sex school and their daughter to go to a single-sex school.Foxy said:There was this rather interesting poll by Yougov that showed Britons want FOM for ourselves in the EU, but not the reverse:
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/03/british-attitudes-freedom-movement/
Hypocrisy is a great British tradition
0 -
If I had a dollar for every time you called the end of Canada.Big_G_NorthWales said:
End of CanadaHYUFD said:Ken Clarke now on Newsnight says UK government must commit to never have a hard border in Ireland to respect the GFA
What about the end of Chequers? It has been rejected by everyone...0 -
My money is on two. I don't doubt she is frustrated enough to not mind if there is a VONC, but I don't think she'd deliberately provoke on for the reason she could not be sure how badly she would provoke all the other MPs to the point she would not win it.grabcocque said:Possibilities;
1) She's an idiot/exhausted/given up caring and has no idea what she's proposed, why, and who it will enrage.
2) She knows that this will achieve nothing, but it's something to say, and kicking the can down the road is all she has left, however little sense it makes.
3) This is a ploy to force her party to VONC her, so she can win it, then capitulate totally to the EU before Christmas.
4) The EU is toying with her, and at this point she's too weak and terrified to even bother arguing
5) We're in the Full Retard timeline0 -
It's only Ken Clarke. Who cares what he thinks?Big_G_NorthWales said:
End of CanadaHYUFD said:Ken Clarke now on Newsnight says UK government must commit to never have a hard border in Ireland to respect the GFA
0 -
They have. On our side.HYUFD said:Ken Clarke now on Newsnight says UK government must commit to never have a hard border in Ireland to respect the GFA
It’s the EU that will tell the Irish to build one in a no deal scenario. But I suspect in that case the technology would not then dismissed as “magical thinking”. Which would be ironic.0 -
A somewhat extreme reaction to their legalising cannabis.Mortimer said:
If I had a dollar for every time you called the end of Canada...Big_G_NorthWales said:
End of CanadaHYUFD said:Ken Clarke now on Newsnight says UK government must commit to never have a hard border in Ireland to respect the GFA
0
