Jump to content

Jools

Members
  • Content Count

    5,267
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Jools last won the day on May 21 2019

Jools had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

386 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

2,006 profile views
  1. When you virtually close 40% of the economy you're bound to have a sharp down turn and when 40% are allowed back you're bound to have a sharp upturn. Obviously there're businesses that won't bounce back, but the vacuum created will be filled by new leaner businesses -- There's going to be a hard 12 to 18 months, but we'll be back to where we were before the next election I'm hoping the economy will continue to bounce back with more innovation and encouragement for start-ups etc, not just the hope to replace 2-3 million low-skilled jobs with other low-skilled jobs for migrants. We need to buck up our ideas a bit and start pushing GDP up by real per capita growth, not just by adding another 4 million workers. As you say, a lot depends on the virus and how the government deals with it from here on in.
  2. Now where did I state that it was, elastic man? It isn't, but it's not as bad as the scaremongers are making out and I know you're sensible enough to believe Andrew Neil over Chris Cuomo Or do I
  3. CNN!! Possibly more Lefty biased than the BBC - and the majority know it. A list of CNN controversies and lies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies CNN I'll take a pass if you don't mind... I prefer to believe the OECD and Andrew Neil on this: https://data.oecd.org/leadind/composite-leading-indicator-cli.htm https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1321858/BBC-news-andrew-neil-uk-recession-uk-economy-ONS-figures-latest-coronavirus CNN
  4. We're not in recession, Billock, in fact we're recovering faster than Spain, France, and Italy, and on par with Germany according to the OECD.
  5. Who's that supporting her, Herminge?
  6. I'll wager good money now that the figure will end up a lot higher than that.
  7. If that's the case, Ricardo, the government should cease wrecking the economy any further... The ONS says that overall deaths are below average for the time of year for the seventh consecutive week and COVID-19 deaths are at a 19-week low --- In the week ending July 31 there were 193 deaths that had COVID-19 on the death certificate, which makes three months of falls since a weekly peak of 8,758 in April - It's the lowest figure since 103 died in the week ending March 20, before lockdown. 928 people died of flu or pneumonia in the last week of July -- The 7th consecutive week in which more people had died of flu or pneumonia than of COVID-19. While fewer than usual died in care homes and hospitals, 676 more died at home than average -- Experts say this is because people are staying away from the NHS out of fear. The ONS tells us we are now well below normal average deaths, so the government should cease with their stupidity in believing Marxist professors and end the lockdown.
  8. Bit late to the party, sonyc Looks like overactivity on this message board leads to poor concentration... See Herman, Billock and their alter egos for further proof
  9. I told you why back in April and again on pg 332 of this thread: Jools ~ The Swedes are suggesting the virus is no different to any other flu: https://softwaredevelopmentperestroika.wordpress.com/2020/07/06/sweden-is-back-to-normal/ And as I suggested back in April, it's looking like the government should've gone with their initial plan of 'Herd Immunity'... Unfortunately, the government were persuaded to lockdown on the strength of a Lefty scientist who threatened half a million Covid 19 deaths by now... Labour would've done nothing differently --- In fact the consequences would likely have been dire. Your reply to the above: Herminge ~ Blimey, you write some utter pony at times but this is probably the worst I've seen. A clear refusal to look at the facts to see what actually happened and is happening
  10. Do please explain to us how what Charles Day states is fact free? You can find and read NAFTA and CPTTP on withdrawal agreements and how that is totally relevant to the WA all by yourself without my or Charles Day's reminding you of the facts... Because you're a Lefty and a Remainiac, your denial of facts is perfectly understandable, but you have to realise you're 're making yourself look a right **** in the process
  11. Your leader sent his kids back to school at the height of the outbreak
  12. I'm pretty sure people (even the Remainiac goon squad) would be more interested in your response to the fact that the WA isn't worth the paper it's written on than my gig goings and Bowie meetings you insufferable @nus... Discuss the subject at hand for Christ’s sake.
  13. Been the same all the way through with you Remainiacs --- Always taking your eye off the ball, so to speak. Read the following article scribed last year by Charles Day: The EU was never capable of dealing with Brexit We are now meandering towards a real Brexit deadline. In typical British fashion, we’ve let the other two times that they bumped into us with their trolley in the supermarket go. In similarly typical fashion, the third time is about to be “not on”. But as we head towards the inevitable, it is worth understanding the simplest of truths: the EU was never capable of dealing with Brexit. And an even bigger truth must be whispered very quietly: they can’t conclude Free Trade Agreements. We turned insular immediately after the vote. We blamed ourselves and began a long internal debate which almost never mentioned the EU – just a lot of class warfare and Godwin’s law. But a Withdrawal Agreement (WA) is – and was – a distraction. It is not needed in any comparable treaty. Take a look at what NAFTA says: “Article 2205: Withdrawal A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties. And the CPTTP, which says: Article 30.6: Withdrawal “Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement by providing written notice of withdrawal to the Depositary. A withdrawing Party shall simultaneously notify the other Parties of its withdrawal through the overall contact points designated under Article 27.5 (Contact Points). “A withdrawal shall take effect six months after a Party provides written notice to the Depositary under paragraph 1, unless the Parties agree on a different period. If a Party withdraws, this Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties. While all EU treaties prior to Lisbon had this to say: “... That’s right, nothing. The idea of a WA is entirely novel to law. It was invented in the Lisbon Treaty, but that very same Treaty doesn’t bother to define it. Without definition, words in an agreement are utterly pointless – if I sign one with you, promising you a made-up sum of money, then that means nothing at all. So why have we all fixated on a Withdrawal Agreement (WA)? Because, you see, leave or remain voter, admitting the truth was much harder; but, the EU, under the Lisbon Treaty, just doesn’t function. It’s been easier to waste three years arguing about the text of a unicorn WA – which turned in to a shopping list of the EU27, than to accept that truth. When was the last time the EU concluded an FTA? You may have been misled into thinking it was Japan – no, that wasn't not ratified. Canada? No, not ratified either. Every EU state has one really big trading partner – the USA. Good idea to get an FTA with them isn’t it? No. The EU couldn’t even pretend to sign that one. It was vetoed. What about Brazil? They’re a colossal market. Best not to ask, but no. The Australians? Incredibly charming, honest trustworthy people – surely we have got an FTA with them? Err, no…says Brussels. The sad fact has always been that Ivan Rogers is right – in the end, they won’t manage to do one with us either. If it interests you, look here for their own view of their record (note even they only claim South Korea). Look a bit closer and the detail of even that one FTA is here. The truth is that membership of the EU took away our ability to make our own FTAs. The reward was hardly any FTAs and increasingly global isolation. Now we see the culmination of that – they won’t even be able to conclude one with us. If the EU can’t – and three years of voluntary inaction has shown it can’t – conclude an FTA with the UK then honestly, what hope does it have? Theresa May is the first sad casualty of this truth. But what is the point of castigating her successor, whichever charming blonde-haired wonder he be, with this false pursuit of a WA? A WA means nothing, Tweedledum-like it has been perverted in to a weapon against the UK for daring to try to leave. We, rightly, rejected it. But even had we accepted it, it would not have made the slightest difference. Stage two after the WA is accepted or rejected is an FTA negotiation – but, whisper it with me, they can’t conclude FTAs.
  14. Pleased to be of service, dullard, you'd cry if you didn't laugh wouldn't you
×
×
  • Create New...