Jump to content
Jools

The Positive Brexit Thread

Recommended Posts

Did Swindo really say pay a decent wage‚Ķ..in a shrinking economy, with a benefit system designed to keep the lazy Brits in comfort! ūüĎćūüėā

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A serious report into education standards is turned into another part of the culture war. These ****os aren't in the slightest bit interested in fixing the problems facing this country but simply want to keep us divided so we don't notice. 

Get rid of these clowns if you have any affection for this country. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lighten up guys, study's have found those living long have an optimistic look on life  

I'm sure it will do you good.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Another industry not happy they voted leave.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-57503274

 

And that is an  industry that contributes £4.1bn to the UK economy, as opposed to the £1.4bn from fishing. Meanwhile, anyone who is a fan of the theatre of the absurd should take a look at Frost's answer to the HoC committee.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Ha ha this is so funny, do you realise Iceland are part of the EU vaccine programme and because of that are basically neck and neck with the U.K. on % vaccinated. I think the EU would be the last people that Iceland would be slating at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

They still have not done¬†it, can't they get all the country's to agree¬†ūüėȬ†

The EU is not so desparate as "Global Britain". Joining the CPTPP is pretty much worthless, it is all a gesture to reassure idiots like @SwindonCanary that what they voted for isn't a bit ****

Edited by BigFish
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

you clearly did not watch the whole video 

I did

The former prime minister is Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson, who got caught with his paws in the Panama cookie jar 

A good interview with him is linked in with This Report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The British government has asked the European Union to extend the grace period before a ban comes into force on the sale of chilled meats and fresh sausages into Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK.

I bet the EU will give in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/06/2021 at 12:25, horsefly said:

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! You've had all this time to google the issue, read the  articles I posted links to, and yet you are still too thick to understand the very simple statement, "For legal purposes treaties are treated as contracts". So very embarrassing!

So you admit the British government didn't sign a treaty with Pfizer, but they actually signed a contract. Which would make you think there is a difference between a treaty and a contract.

Or perhaps you could tell us about the famous Maastricht Contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SwindonCanary said:

The British government has asked the European Union to extend the grace period before a ban comes into force on the sale of chilled meats and fresh sausages into Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK.

I bet the EU will give in

Or even if they don’t coco will tell us they did.

Why sign such a hopeless deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

So you admit the British government didn't sign a treaty with Pfizer, but they actually signed a contract. Which would make you think there is a difference between a treaty and a contract.

Or perhaps you could tell us about the famous Maastricht Contract?

Any news on the German / EU deal to manufacture 1.8 billion doses of Pfizer ? Just wondered wether what they signed was a contract or a treaty and wether they will be supplying the U.K. or the US will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

And that is an  industry that contributes £4.1bn to the UK economy, as opposed to the £1.4bn from fishing. Meanwhile, anyone who is a fan of the theatre of the absurd should take a look at Frost's answer to the HoC committee.

ūüėÄ

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/22/they-might-have-got-more-brexit-sense-out-of-frosty-the-snowman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

So you admit the British government didn't sign a treaty with Pfizer, but they actually signed a contract. Which would make you think there is a difference between a treaty and a contract.

Or perhaps you could tell us about the famous Maastricht Contract?

I ought to be astonished by your willingness to embarrass yourself by repeatedly displaying chronic levels of ignorance, but then I remind myself that you show not the slightest compunction in posting racist, misogynist, and homophobic rants, or abusing the victims of paedophiles.

Are you really so foolish that you don't realise people can see through your laughably transparent attempt to impute to me nonsensical views I have never espoused? Or is it the case that your understanding of the English language is so poor that you can't grasp the meaning of a simple conditional statement. Either way, being a charitable individual, I will try one last time to explain to you something a primary school child has no problem grasping.

My claim is:

 "For legal purposes a treaty is treated as a contract"

Let's break that down for you if it will help, as clearly you struggle with a whole sentence:

First clause: "FOR LEGAL PURPOSES". This clause restricts the context of application of the complete sentence to legal contexts. In other words, it does not claim that what follows in the next clause has any application beyond a legal context. So no, the words "treaty" and "contract" are not being treated as synonyms across all contexts.  Quite simple really, if you just concentrate on the meanings of the words being used. 

Second clause: "a treaty is treated as a contract". Following from the first clause this makes the claim that in legal contexts the obligations agreed to in a treaty are treated as contractual obligations that can be prosecuted in a court of law. If you have followed the dispute over the NI protocol then you would have to be ignorant beyond redemption not to realise that the EU has precisely threatened just such legal action if the UK does not fulfil its obligations.

Really not difficult stuff to understand if you're not blinded by extreme right wing hatred. Neither is it very difficult to google the issue in order to confirm this rather mundane legal point. You could also look up the links I posted explaining the treatment of treaties as contracts. But somehow experience suggests you won't let a mortifying display of the most embarrassing levels of ignorance get in the way of an opportunity to vent hatred and bile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

They have very little money but still spend it on all sorts of projects 

Are they spending £200m on a Royal yacht too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today is the 5th anniversary of the day some idiots in this country voted to impose sanctions on everyone else.

In the 5 years since they've made the country worse off.

It's the new April fools day!¬†ūüėÄ

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Are they spending £200m on a Royal yacht too?

The re- commissioning of the Royal yacht is a great thing,  and will boost our standing around the world. When the old one was taken, it's the only time I've seen the queen cry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

The re- commissioning of the Royal yacht is a great thing,  and will boost our standing around the world. When the old one was taken, it's the only time I've seen the queen cry.

Indeed far better than seeing children cry through hunger when they are not provided with free meals in the school holidays, or maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

The re- commissioning of the Royal yacht is a great thing,  and will boost our standing around the world. When the old one was taken, it's the only time I've seen the queen cry.

Rule, Britannia,

Britannia waives the rules.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

The re- commissioning of the Royal yacht is a great thing,  and will boost our standing around the world. When the old one was taken, it's the only time I've seen the queen cry.

Tears of joy that the bloody thing was scrapped. I take it you haven't considered the fact that the queen refuses to let the boat be named after her late husband (A fabulous swipe at Boris's pathetic attempt to curry favour). 

This is an extraordinarily stupid folly at a time of record debt. Give the money back to the international aid budget which not only does good for impoverished people, but also does wonders for the country's reputation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today a truce is expected to be agreed in the ongoing sausage wars.

 

The Wurst is behind usūüėČūüá¨ūüáß

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SwindonCanary said:

The re- commissioning of the Royal yacht is a great thing,  and will boost our standing around the world. When the old one was taken, it's the only time I've seen the queen cry.

Like all major projects the government undertakes , The Boris Boat will be delivered ( if at all ) years behind schedule and vastly over the estimated cost. Sadly Her Maj will be long dead by then.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MooreMarriot said:

Like all major projects the government undertakes , The Boris Boat will be delivered ( if at all ) years behind schedule and vastly over the estimated cost. Sadly Her Maj will be long dead by then.

It will still be a boost to our standing throughout the world no matter who's on it. Maybe king Charles !  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SwindonCanary said:

It will still be a boost to our standing throughout the world no matter who's on it. Maybe king Charles !  

Not at all, it will not boost the UK's standing with anyone. Instead it rather paints the country as desparate and a little pathetic. Its only purpose is a £200 million boost to the fragile egos of Brexiteers.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old ROYAL YACHT was known thought-out the world, I believe the new one will do the same. It was used as base for any dignitary's  when abroad, they had official function's on it.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...