BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
The one with the 12 golden stars.ddraver said:Which one?
0 -
Just the one to my mind.ddraver said:Oh ok, the one I fly with my imaginary communism flag is it?
Starting to think I have a sleepwalking problem with all these political affiliations I'm told I hold that I have no idea about...0 -
Clearly I was confused by this sort of thing:rjsterry said:
They still do rely on experts including the IEE and British Standards. The Building Regulations aren't generally politicised and seem to generally cope well with developing technology. My point was that legislating for standards does not restrict innovation.HilaryAmin said:
In the old days governments were happy to appoint experts to decide safety regulations, e.g. the IEE.rjsterry said:
The Building Regs, which covers not only electrical safety, but drainage, ventilation, fire safety, prevention of falls, etc, etc. is covered by legislation and is regularly updated. Even under the current bunch of idiots.surrey_commuter said:rick_chasey said:
Depends how you craft the legislation but that is a downside yesDorset_Boy said:If the standard is legislated for, doesn't that remove the incentive to innovate and come up with a better solution?
Changing the standard would be well nigh impossible so nobody would devote resources to looking to improve what already existed.
All the people who would rather the Govt decide rather than market forces must never have considered this decision will be made by some vacuous cretin like JRM or Mad Nad.
Sadly these days everything has become politicised and politicians dare not trust experts as demonstrated by the appointment of the Prime Minister who is only an expert in a field of bullshit, lies and personal ambition.
Obviously we need regulations and cannot leave it to individual commercial interests as demonstrated by the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
In a speech to the Federation of Small Business Cameron said 100 standards and building regulations were facing the bonfire – a move which he claimed would save around £60 million a year for housebuilders – or £500 for each new home built.
His announcement effectively re-iterates the government’s commitment to trim down building regulations as part of its Housing Standards Review.
Although the final details of which standards will be chopped are not expected to be announced until the Spring, it has been reported that criteria relating to the size of windows, sizes of rooms, and demands for renewable energy sources will face the cull. The red tape-busting bonfire is also likely to signal the end of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
Paul King, chief executive of the UK-GBC, said: ‘It is the same poisonous political rhetoric from Number 10, devaluing environmental regulation in a slash and burn manner. These words are not only damaging and irresponsible, but misrepresent the wishes of so many modern businesses, both large and small.’
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/archive/cameron-claims-victory-in-bonfire-of-the-building-regulations
0 -
Thanks. I will be continuing to voice my opinion on what I think the UK should be doing to ameliorate the disaster of Brexit. You never know, baby steps and all that, back towards pragmatism and rebuilding the relationship with the EU, which currently doesn't look like it's going to go away.Stevo_666 said:Feel free to complain for 40 years.
"It’s your job, the job of business, to gear yourselves up to take the opportunities which a single market of nearly 320 million people will offer.
"Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world’s wealthiest and most prosperous people.
"Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it.
"It’s not a dream. It’s not a vision. It’s not some bureaucrat’s plan. It’s for real."
Margaret Thatcher, 1988.0 -
Any idea how often a Dutch National can enter/leave the UK within the allotted maximum stay period if the travel is not for business? Asking for family who arrive from outside EU and want to spend a few months between the UK and NL.
Not specified anywhere on Gov websites, friends in Home Office are unsure. Can’t find any other info. I know in theory it should be fine, but don’t want them running into one of Thicky Priti’s lackeys at passport control.
On the wider issue of Brexit, I don’t think we’ll ever really “move on”, “just get on with it”, “bigger things to deal with”, etc - to do so without discussion, debate and improvement would risk more ridiculous on-the-hoof policy proposals. I’ve found generally that the people who want to shut down the discussions aren’t interested in improving things, but are worried about admitting they’ve been played.0 -
It would seem that the government hasn't moved on, though.Stevo_666 said:
Feel free to complain for 40 years. As the reality is, we won't be going back for a long time, if at all. Who knows what the EU will look like by then. Or if they would ever have us back.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
I've made this point several times, but it seems this is the thread where people just want to keep on complaining.
As long as you refuse to take the point that wanting to move the dial back to political pragmatism (i.e. the Brexit that happened is a big pile of poo, and that at least not cutting ourselves off more, and maybe moving back towards more co-operation might be beneficial) is not simply 'complaining', then you're going to be disappointed in this thread. By its very nature, wanting to move the political dial will involve pointing out the problems of the current situation. I've also made the point several times that Brexit itself happened because the likes of Farage were 'complaining' for forty years.
We could rehash the old debates about how much it is a 'Big pile of poo' or not - but as mentioned before, I've moved onto more important things. Which speaks for itself.
Code for Sustainable Homes wasn't actually part of the Building Regs. The requirements for Part L (which relate to the CSH) have tightened up anyway since then. Good searching, thoughHilaryAmin said:
Clearly I was confused by this sort of thing:rjsterry said:
They still do rely on experts including the IEE and British Standards. The Building Regulations aren't generally politicised and seem to generally cope well with developing technology. My point was that legislating for standards does not restrict innovation.HilaryAmin said:
In the old days governments were happy to appoint experts to decide safety regulations, e.g. the IEE.rjsterry said:
The Building Regs, which covers not only electrical safety, but drainage, ventilation, fire safety, prevention of falls, etc, etc. is covered by legislation and is regularly updated. Even under the current bunch of idiots.surrey_commuter said:rick_chasey said:
Depends how you craft the legislation but that is a downside yesDorset_Boy said:If the standard is legislated for, doesn't that remove the incentive to innovate and come up with a better solution?
Changing the standard would be well nigh impossible so nobody would devote resources to looking to improve what already existed.
All the people who would rather the Govt decide rather than market forces must never have considered this decision will be made by some vacuous cretin like JRM or Mad Nad.
Sadly these days everything has become politicised and politicians dare not trust experts as demonstrated by the appointment of the Prime Minister who is only an expert in a field of bullshit, lies and personal ambition.
Obviously we need regulations and cannot leave it to individual commercial interests as demonstrated by the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
In a speech to the Federation of Small Business Cameron said 100 standards and building regulations were facing the bonfire – a move which he claimed would save around £60 million a year for housebuilders – or £500 for each new home built.
His announcement effectively re-iterates the government’s commitment to trim down building regulations as part of its Housing Standards Review.
Although the final details of which standards will be chopped are not expected to be announced until the Spring, it has been reported that criteria relating to the size of windows, sizes of rooms, and demands for renewable energy sources will face the cull. The red tape-busting bonfire is also likely to signal the end of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
Paul King, chief executive of the UK-GBC, said: ‘It is the same poisonous political rhetoric from Number 10, devaluing environmental regulation in a slash and burn manner. These words are not only damaging and irresponsible, but misrepresent the wishes of so many modern businesses, both large and small.’
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/archive/cameron-claims-victory-in-bonfire-of-the-building-regulations
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The worst case scenario, which is highly unlikely, is the automated passport control refers them to a human who asks a few questions to check that they are not working*, but on the basis you get leave to stay for 180 days on each entry, it is hard to see how entering five times in the space of 90 days is going to trouble anyone.pinkbikini said:Any idea how often a Dutch National can enter/leave the UK within the allotted maximum stay period if the travel is not for business? Asking for family who arrive from outside EU and want to spend a few months between the UK and NL.
Not specified anywhere on Gov websites, friends in Home Office are unsure. Can’t find any other info. I know in theory it should be fine, but don’t want them running into one of Thicky Priti’s lackeys at passport control.
On the wider issue of Brexit, I don’t think we’ll ever really “move on”, “just get on with it”, “bigger things to deal with”, etc - to do so without discussion, debate and improvement would risk more ridiculous on-the-hoof policy proposals. I’ve found generally that the people who want to shut down the discussions aren’t interested in improving things, but are worried about admitting they’ve been played.
*unemployed backpacker is going to attract more attention than a retired person visiting family and friends, but even then unless there was an actual intention to work, I can't see that there would be a problem0 -
That's Schengen not the UK.ddraver said:I don't think it matters how many times. I'm guess 89 is the technical answer.
(Yes, they really do check the 90 days thing.)0 -
Thanks. I don’t think it matters either, but dealing with elderly, risk-averse relatives! Also, there should be guidance - unlimited times, max of X return trips, etc. There’s a Brexit efficiency that Rees-Smugg could implement if he weren’t so busy writing pissynotes to staff.ddraver said:I don't think it matters how many times. I'm guess 89 is the technical answer.
(Yes, they really do check the 90 days thing.)0 -
Immigration is risk based, so that sort of thing doesn't work. Each time someone enters the country they are seeking new permission to enter.pinkbikini said:
Thanks. I don’t think it matters either, but dealing with elderly, risk-averse relatives! Also, there should be guidance - unlimited times, max of X return trips, etc. There’s a Brexit efficiency that Rees-Smugg could implement if he weren’t so busy writing pissynotes to staff.ddraver said:I don't think it matters how many times. I'm guess 89 is the technical answer.
(Yes, they really do check the 90 days thing.)0 -
No worries,pinkbikini said:
Thanks. I don’t think it matters either, but dealing with elderly, risk-averse relatives! Also, there should be guidance - unlimited times, max of X return trips, etc. There’s a Brexit efficiency that Rees-Smugg could implement if he weren’t so busy writing pissynotes to staff.ddraver said:I don't think it matters how many times. I'm guess 89 is the technical answer.
(Yes, they really do check the 90 days thing.)
I haven't seen any more stories about spanish teenagers being sent to Yarl's Wood for a while so hopefully the Border Force has grown a brain even if the Home Secretary hasnt...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Thanks for the reply. I get the risk-based stuff, but the HO should specify something as a baseline - it’s either unlimited or not. It’s not that hard to put down a marker, unless you’re a post-Brexit dept run by a lazy sycophant in thrall to a serial liar.TheBigBean said:
Immigration is risk based, so that sort of thing doesn't work. Each time someone enters the country they are seeking new permission to enter.pinkbikini said:
Thanks. I don’t think it matters either, but dealing with elderly, risk-averse relatives! Also, there should be guidance - unlimited times, max of X return trips, etc. There’s a Brexit efficiency that Rees-Smugg could implement if he weren’t so busy writing pissynotes to staff.ddraver said:I don't think it matters how many times. I'm guess 89 is the technical answer.
(Yes, they really do check the 90 days thing.)0 -
It's nothing to do with Brexit. This is how it has always operated for all non-EU countries. Plenty of people own homes in the UK which they will regularly visit without the right to live in them. Provided an immigration officer/machine is satisfied that someone will not work during their stay and will leave at the end, then they can visit an unlimited number of times.pinkbikini said:
Thanks for the reply. I get the risk-based stuff, but the HO should specify something as a baseline - it’s either unlimited or not. It’s not that hard to put down a marker, unless you’re a post-Brexit dept run by a lazy sycophant in thrall to a serial liar.TheBigBean said:
Immigration is risk based, so that sort of thing doesn't work. Each time someone enters the country they are seeking new permission to enter.pinkbikini said:
Thanks. I don’t think it matters either, but dealing with elderly, risk-averse relatives! Also, there should be guidance - unlimited times, max of X return trips, etc. There’s a Brexit efficiency that Rees-Smugg could implement if he weren’t so busy writing pissynotes to staff.ddraver said:I don't think it matters how many times. I'm guess 89 is the technical answer.
(Yes, they really do check the 90 days thing.)
The home office does have published guidance on things, but beyond that there is nothing they can say as it is at the discretion of the immigration officer. The only people who have a right to enter are Brits (and Irish presumably). Even when the UK was in the EU, other nationals could still be refused entry.
0 -
Page 21 is the guidance on frequent visits
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019544/Visit.pdf0 -
rjsterry said:
It would seem that the government hasn't moved on, though.Stevo_666 said:
Feel free to complain for 40 years. As the reality is, we won't be going back for a long time, if at all. Who knows what the EU will look like by then. Or if they would ever have us back.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
I've made this point several times, but it seems this is the thread where people just want to keep on complaining.
As long as you refuse to take the point that wanting to move the dial back to political pragmatism (i.e. the Brexit that happened is a big pile of poo, and that at least not cutting ourselves off more, and maybe moving back towards more co-operation might be beneficial) is not simply 'complaining', then you're going to be disappointed in this thread. By its very nature, wanting to move the political dial will involve pointing out the problems of the current situation. I've also made the point several times that Brexit itself happened because the likes of Farage were 'complaining' for forty years.
We could rehash the old debates about how much it is a 'Big pile of poo' or not - but as mentioned before, I've moved onto more important things. Which speaks for itself.
Code for Sustainable Homes wasn't actually part of the Building Regs. The requirements for Part L (which relate to the CSH) have tightened up anyway since then. Good searching, thoughHilaryAmin said:
Clearly I was confused by this sort of thing:rjsterry said:
They still do rely on experts including the IEE and British Standards. The Building Regulations aren't generally politicised and seem to generally cope well with developing technology. My point was that legislating for standards does not restrict innovation.HilaryAmin said:
In the old days governments were happy to appoint experts to decide safety regulations, e.g. the IEE.rjsterry said:
The Building Regs, which covers not only electrical safety, but drainage, ventilation, fire safety, prevention of falls, etc, etc. is covered by legislation and is regularly updated. Even under the current bunch of idiots.surrey_commuter said:rick_chasey said:
Depends how you craft the legislation but that is a downside yesDorset_Boy said:If the standard is legislated for, doesn't that remove the incentive to innovate and come up with a better solution?
Changing the standard would be well nigh impossible so nobody would devote resources to looking to improve what already existed.
All the people who would rather the Govt decide rather than market forces must never have considered this decision will be made by some vacuous cretin like JRM or Mad Nad.
Sadly these days everything has become politicised and politicians dare not trust experts as demonstrated by the appointment of the Prime Minister who is only an expert in a field of bullshit, lies and personal ambition.
Obviously we need regulations and cannot leave it to individual commercial interests as demonstrated by the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
In a speech to the Federation of Small Business Cameron said 100 standards and building regulations were facing the bonfire – a move which he claimed would save around £60 million a year for housebuilders – or £500 for each new home built.
His announcement effectively re-iterates the government’s commitment to trim down building regulations as part of its Housing Standards Review.
Although the final details of which standards will be chopped are not expected to be announced until the Spring, it has been reported that criteria relating to the size of windows, sizes of rooms, and demands for renewable energy sources will face the cull. The red tape-busting bonfire is also likely to signal the end of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
Paul King, chief executive of the UK-GBC, said: ‘It is the same poisonous political rhetoric from Number 10, devaluing environmental regulation in a slash and burn manner. These words are not only damaging and irresponsible, but misrepresent the wishes of so many modern businesses, both large and small.’
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/archive/cameron-claims-victory-in-bonfire-of-the-building-regulations
My dear chap or chapess, it took me 5 seconds to find that. Hardly 'good searching', but thanks anyway!rjsterry said:
It would seem that the government hasn't moved on, though.Stevo_666 said:
Feel free to complain for 40 years. As the reality is, we won't be going back for a long time, if at all. Who knows what the EU will look like by then. Or if they would ever have us back.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
I've made this point several times, but it seems this is the thread where people just want to keep on complaining.
As long as you refuse to take the point that wanting to move the dial back to political pragmatism (i.e. the Brexit that happened is a big pile of poo, and that at least not cutting ourselves off more, and maybe moving back towards more co-operation might be beneficial) is not simply 'complaining', then you're going to be disappointed in this thread. By its very nature, wanting to move the political dial will involve pointing out the problems of the current situation. I've also made the point several times that Brexit itself happened because the likes of Farage were 'complaining' for forty years.
We could rehash the old debates about how much it is a 'Big pile of poo' or not - but as mentioned before, I've moved onto more important things. Which speaks for itself.
Code for Sustainable Homes wasn't actually part of the Building Regs. The requirements for Part L (which relate to the CSH) have tightened up anyway since then. Good searching, thoughHilaryAmin said:
Clearly I was confused by this sort of thing:rjsterry said:
They still do rely on experts including the IEE and British Standards. The Building Regulations aren't generally politicised and seem to generally cope well with developing technology. My point was that legislating for standards does not restrict innovation.HilaryAmin said:
In the old days governments were happy to appoint experts to decide safety regulations, e.g. the IEE.rjsterry said:
The Building Regs, which covers not only electrical safety, but drainage, ventilation, fire safety, prevention of falls, etc, etc. is covered by legislation and is regularly updated. Even under the current bunch of idiots.surrey_commuter said:rick_chasey said:
Depends how you craft the legislation but that is a downside yesDorset_Boy said:If the standard is legislated for, doesn't that remove the incentive to innovate and come up with a better solution?
Changing the standard would be well nigh impossible so nobody would devote resources to looking to improve what already existed.
All the people who would rather the Govt decide rather than market forces must never have considered this decision will be made by some vacuous cretin like JRM or Mad Nad.
Sadly these days everything has become politicised and politicians dare not trust experts as demonstrated by the appointment of the Prime Minister who is only an expert in a field of bullshit, lies and personal ambition.
Obviously we need regulations and cannot leave it to individual commercial interests as demonstrated by the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
In a speech to the Federation of Small Business Cameron said 100 standards and building regulations were facing the bonfire – a move which he claimed would save around £60 million a year for housebuilders – or £500 for each new home built.
His announcement effectively re-iterates the government’s commitment to trim down building regulations as part of its Housing Standards Review.
Although the final details of which standards will be chopped are not expected to be announced until the Spring, it has been reported that criteria relating to the size of windows, sizes of rooms, and demands for renewable energy sources will face the cull. The red tape-busting bonfire is also likely to signal the end of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
Paul King, chief executive of the UK-GBC, said: ‘It is the same poisonous political rhetoric from Number 10, devaluing environmental regulation in a slash and burn manner. These words are not only damaging and irresponsible, but misrepresent the wishes of so many modern businesses, both large and small.’
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/archive/cameron-claims-victory-in-bonfire-of-the-building-regulations
0 -
Within what parameters does being a 'Brit' currently fall?TheBigBean said:
It's nothing to do with Brexit. This is how it has always operated for all non-EU countries. Plenty of people own homes in the UK which they will regularly visit without the right to live in them. Provided an immigration officer/machine is satisfied that someone will not work during their stay and will leave at the end, then they can visit an unlimited number of times.pinkbikini said:
Thanks for the reply. I get the risk-based stuff, but the HO should specify something as a baseline - it’s either unlimited or not. It’s not that hard to put down a marker, unless you’re a post-Brexit dept run by a lazy sycophant in thrall to a serial liar.TheBigBean said:
Immigration is risk based, so that sort of thing doesn't work. Each time someone enters the country they are seeking new permission to enter.pinkbikini said:
Thanks. I don’t think it matters either, but dealing with elderly, risk-averse relatives! Also, there should be guidance - unlimited times, max of X return trips, etc. There’s a Brexit efficiency that Rees-Smugg could implement if he weren’t so busy writing pissynotes to staff.ddraver said:I don't think it matters how many times. I'm guess 89 is the technical answer.
(Yes, they really do check the 90 days thing.)
The home office does have published guidance on things, but beyond that there is nothing they can say as it is at the discretion of the immigration officer. The only people who have a right to enter are Brits (and Irish presumably). Even when the UK was in the EU, other nationals could still be refused entry.
When I did a search: "home office definition of british", it simply returned definitions of the home office. My passport says I am a 'British Citizen' but what if I don't have a passport? How do I prove I am British?
"The Home Office is the lead government department for immigration and passports, drugs policy, crime, fire, counter-terrorism and police."
One of their goals was:
"protect vulnerable people and communities"
Like send them to Rwanda?0 -
I'd say us now being a non-EU country has a liiiiitle to do with Brexit.TheBigBean said:
It's nothing to do with Brexit. This is how it has always operated for all non-EU countries. Plenty of people own homes in the UK which they will regularly visit without the right to live in them. Provided an immigration officer/machine is satisfied that someone will not work during their stay and will leave at the end, then they can visit an unlimited number of times.pinkbikini said:
Thanks for the reply. I get the risk-based stuff, but the HO should specify something as a baseline - it’s either unlimited or not. It’s not that hard to put down a marker, unless you’re a post-Brexit dept run by a lazy sycophant in thrall to a serial liar.TheBigBean said:
Immigration is risk based, so that sort of thing doesn't work. Each time someone enters the country they are seeking new permission to enter.pinkbikini said:
Thanks. I don’t think it matters either, but dealing with elderly, risk-averse relatives! Also, there should be guidance - unlimited times, max of X return trips, etc. There’s a Brexit efficiency that Rees-Smugg could implement if he weren’t so busy writing pissynotes to staff.ddraver said:I don't think it matters how many times. I'm guess 89 is the technical answer.
(Yes, they really do check the 90 days thing.)
The home office does have published guidance on things, but beyond that there is nothing they can say as it is at the discretion of the immigration officer. The only people who have a right to enter are Brits (and Irish presumably). Even when the UK was in the EU, other nationals could still be refused entry.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Even if you don't have a passport, you should be able to enter provided you can prove citizenship. I'd imagine it would be very painful and it's likely that most airlines would refuse to carry you in any case.HilaryAmin said:
Within what parameters does being a 'Brit' currently fall?TheBigBean said:
It's nothing to do with Brexit. This is how it has always operated for all non-EU countries. Plenty of people own homes in the UK which they will regularly visit without the right to live in them. Provided an immigration officer/machine is satisfied that someone will not work during their stay and will leave at the end, then they can visit an unlimited number of times.pinkbikini said:
Thanks for the reply. I get the risk-based stuff, but the HO should specify something as a baseline - it’s either unlimited or not. It’s not that hard to put down a marker, unless you’re a post-Brexit dept run by a lazy sycophant in thrall to a serial liar.TheBigBean said:
Immigration is risk based, so that sort of thing doesn't work. Each time someone enters the country they are seeking new permission to enter.pinkbikini said:
Thanks. I don’t think it matters either, but dealing with elderly, risk-averse relatives! Also, there should be guidance - unlimited times, max of X return trips, etc. There’s a Brexit efficiency that Rees-Smugg could implement if he weren’t so busy writing pissynotes to staff.ddraver said:I don't think it matters how many times. I'm guess 89 is the technical answer.
(Yes, they really do check the 90 days thing.)
The home office does have published guidance on things, but beyond that there is nothing they can say as it is at the discretion of the immigration officer. The only people who have a right to enter are Brits (and Irish presumably). Even when the UK was in the EU, other nationals could still be refused entry.
When I did a search: "home office definition of british", it simply returned definitions of the home office. My passport says I am a 'British Citizen' but what if I don't have a passport? How do I prove I am British?
"The Home Office is the lead government department for immigration and passports, drugs policy, crime, fire, counter-terrorism and police."
One of their goals was:
"protect vulnerable people and communities"
Like send them to Rwanda?
0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
tailwindhome said:
#remainersbrexit
#tooearlytotell
#tolatetodoanything
#someoneelsesfault
etc.
How long can they keep on making these excuses for the #pileofpoo with a vaguely straight face?0 -
Classic revolutionary answer.tailwindhome said:
“Not pure enough”
It’s been done so often now. Millennia.
“The problem is our idea was not executed purely enough.”0 -
10 years into the Bolshevik revolution everyone was poorer, and hungrier.
Every year they got poorer and hungrier. They blamed more and more people for not executing the vision substantially enough - or indeed not executing non-Bolsheviks enough. Eventually they would blame the farmers for the hunger. They’d shoot the rich ones and call them Kulaks and whip the poor ones for not growing enough.
How’s it going? What are the benefits of Bolshevik Russia? Name one? “Ask me in 10 years when our project is over” etc etc
It’s the same here just much more trivial.0 -
Bernard Jenkins was on Times radio yesterday talking about the NI protocol.
Without irony he trooped out the 'German car manufacturers won't allow a trade war' argument. The interviewer literally laughed at him.
The thing with this trade war is that it will be all one sided and we will just allow EU businesses to trade as they are as it will only further exasperate the cost of living crisis to do otherwise.
Once again it will be British businesses and exporters who bear the brunt.
He also said that anyone who voted against the bill would be voting to rip up the GF agreement.
Brexiteers have played fast and loose with peace on the island of Ireland since 2016 so to now have the temerity to suggest that they are the guardians of the GF agreement is utterly abhorrent.0 -
Pure Brexit is imperialism. Putinesque stuff. That is why JRM likes the 1950s, pre-Suez.. We need to cut off his..
..Viagra supply.0 -
Banks lost the libel case vs Carole Cadwalladr who wrote something about his connections to the Russians which Banks contested.2
-
Ha.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
.
As I understand it, her defence was that Banks had no reputation to be damaged by accusing him of telling lies.rick_chasey said:Banks lost the libel case vs Carole Cadwalladr who wrote something about his connections to the Russians which Banks contested.
0
