Jump to content

The_godfather

Members
  • Content Count

    296
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

The_godfather last won the day on January 10

The_godfather had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

78 Excellent

About The_godfather

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 28/05/1982

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So just to be clear: If we do 70 new trade deals with countries on the same terms as the existing trade deals that we already had with those countries, plus the others for the other 20+ countries that are being ratified now (we're up to nearly 100 trade deals now if you are keeping count), then we will be in a far better place?
  2. I'm a bit confused, but then I don't think I'm the only one. Unless by statues, you are referring to those little rabbits in government that become frozen in the headlights of 'accountability', I'm not sure what in the name of Tom Jones you are talking about, but, without wishing to labour a point, I don't think you do either. If you would like me to explain: * Black Lives Matter is a campaign group * The Labour Party is a political party. * These are different entities. * The 'working class' are not, and have not for a long time, been a homogeneous group of voter
  3. So, just to clarify for everyone based on this thread, Starmer should: Back Corbyn because the report doesn't call him anti-semitic Expel Corbyn because he refuses to acknowledge the serious nature of the report findings on anti-semitism Explain why he didn't speak out against anti-semitism previously enough Also explain why he is speaking out against anti-semitism now Explain why Corbyn has been ejected Criticise the government Back the government Appease the left to ensure unity within Labour Root out those in the left that are still se
  4. We're all resigned. Until this lot drag as many people under as they can, so they line the pockets of their own. Thought it was pretty restrained.
  5. There is a lot of grandstanding on all sides to be honest right now. It's clear that the government have not got the first idea what they are doing. Worse, they are not driven by anything other than manic ideology. There will be no effective track & trace system. There will continue to be fragmented, poorly thought out policy, appalling communication, being dragged into reactive decisions rather than leading, backsliding, and, after it is all over, blame shifting and scapegoating to ensure that the NHS/scientists/EU/little spacemen from Mars are the ones who dunnit, not me guv. N
  6. Good people on both sides, eh? Firstly, and most importantly, there's no way it is a victory for Trump. Not because Biden bested him in the traditional sense; that's a pointless mechanism through which to measure the outcome - you might as well have a 'debate' with a chimp. But because the only people the debates are relevant to is the undecided middle ground, or really uncertain voters on either side. That might constitute a bigger proportion of voters than people think, but with politics being so polarized, it's difficult to say. (It also doesn't mean he won't win, but in the context
  7. Sounds pretty democratic to me Geo, you can't have it both ways? Either you revisit key issues every 4 years to make decisions to see if they are still in the national interest. Or you dogmatically continue down a path from 4 years ago that in the intervening period has been demonstrated to be a $hitshow. Usual, contradictory incoherent nonsense.
  8. What do you mean, what price Dave? Surely you should be the one to tell us that? With all these benefits being gained from Brexit, it would be a pretty heavy price indeed I'm sure, maybe you could elaborate. We'd lose our sovereignty for sure. The golden goose. The will of the people. We'd have to start kow-towing to Brussels. Who knows where it could end - prawn cocktail crisps, bananas, German manufacturing. We'd lose out on the 0.07% GDP boost from the Japanese FTA too. The shoemakers of Northern England would be devastated.
  9. RB, I only have 24hrs in a day, so unfortunately I just don't have time to rebut line by line the ill-informed nonsense that you continue to put on here, whatever the best intentions are. I do actually appreciate that you continue to try and piece together some sort of argument, even as I find it within it as many holes as the A500. It wasn't a tactic. I picked the central point of your post/argument to refute. If you would like me to elaborate on it, I will do so. No issue in relation to the content of your copy and paste. No issue in relation to acknowledgment that Clause 38 of the WAB
  10. Forget the hot mess of the rest of the reply, this is the key line; the emperor's new clothes. What kind of country doesn't have values, or culture that are conducive to international law? A tinpot dictatorship; an authoritarian state, a revolution? Loads of countries, apparently, only follow the law when it suits them. So on that basis, it's only fair, and reasonable that we should just pick and choose which laws we should follow, based on our values and culture; not the laws themselves. Maybe we should extend that train of thought, whereby individuals could also pick and choose whi
  11. No-one is assuming that, no-one is saying that. It's clear, it's in black and white and it's agreed by both parties that a border is required. It depends on the detailed nature of what is agreed in the trade deal, which, at a high level, has already been agreed, and which the government is now pretending that it needs to change. It's only the British government that insists, contrary to the agreement (for the absence of confusion - deal, 2 parties having signed it after negotiation) in place: Goods don't need to be checked regardless of whether there is any kind of border. M
  12. There's a definite Den Perry vibe to it...
  13. You clearly don't realize that this line of thinking is utterly crazy. Primarily, it's based on your bold text. Where is your evidence/source for asserting that 3rd party status was assumed and not part of any negotiation. The Sun? Telegraph? Bojo Fanclub? Even assuming that you are 100% right (which is highly unlikely), so what? The government negotiated, agreed, and signed up to a legally binding agreement. If they are so f*cking dumb that they didn't see that this could have been used against them, why did they agree to the loophole. Why didn't they 'close the loophole' back then?
  14. Well that's clearly not true. Not going to go over old ground about 2016, it's been done to death. Are you suggesting that the 2019 election was based on people voting Conservative not for the Deal that was central to Johnson's election promise, but instead an abstract, unspoken concept of leaving that could be filled in later? Because that's just nuts.
  15. Stokes is such a huge loss all round - batting, bowling (5th seamer...!), fielding, leadership. Someone that can win the game by himself in a session. You can't possibly replace that. I'd like to find a place for Curran - he offers something a bit different with left arm, and some punchy batting, although I can understand why he can't get in. He is just the kind of cricketer that 'makes things happen'. While I don't advocate chopping and changing, I don't yet feel comfortable with the opening partnership. Left/right hand combo is good, but with both not fluent scorers, the pressure i
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy