On 05/09/2019 11:59, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

They do show a majority of brexiteers that would support no deal if
the EU was the one causing the problems, which it isn't.

That point of view is debatable. If the EU and the UK can't reach an
agreement on a deal which is acceptable to UK MPs, is the fault a) the
EU's, b) the UK's, c) both the EU's and the UK's. I'd go for option c):
*both* sides need to give ground if they are to reach a compromise, and
be prepared to abandon entrenched positions or restrictive rules of
engagement.

I hope we reach an *acceptable* deal by 31 October. Failing that, I just
want to get out of Europe and abandon the EU. I am pig-sick of MPs
stalling and preventing what was decided by the referendum from taking
place.

Is the EU willing to lose £39 billion in "divorce settlement" if the UK
leaves without a deal? Is the UK willing to live with the consequences
of no deal? Which side will give in?

Whose silly idea was it to change the rules about governments being able
to call general elections at a time of their choosing? If the
Conservatives are returned with a greater majority, I wonder if that
rule will be reversed - or at least changed to ignore anyone who
abstains: the result of the vote was 298 votes in favour of an election
to 56 against, this was less than the 2/3 of the *total* number of MPs.
In any election, those who abstain should be disregarded; not to do so
is to implicitly add their numbers to the losing side.

The rules haven't changed.
boris would like them to.


We have an election anyway..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49594793

boris's brother has quit being a tory MP so there will be a bye election.

Even he doesn't want to leave.

On 05/09/2019 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/09/2019 11:59, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

They do show a majority of brexiteers that would support no deal if
the EU was the one causing the problems, which it isn't.

That point of view is debatable. If the EU and the UK can't reach an
agreement on a deal which is acceptable to UK MPs, is the fault a) the
EU's, b) the UK's, c) both the EU's and the UK's. I'd go for option
c): *both* sides need to give ground if they are to reach a
compromise, and be prepared to abandon entrenched positions or
restrictive rules of engagement.


No they dont.

Because no deal is in fact the optimal outcome for both.
It's a terrible outcome for *Europe*, but Europe is - as it is rapidly
realizing - not something te EU gives a tuppeny **** about.



I hope we reach an *acceptable* deal by 31 October.

We wont.

Failing that, I just want to get out of Europe and abandon the EU. I
am pig-sick of MPs stalling and preventing what was decided by the
referendum from taking place.

Indeed.

Is the EU willing to lose £39 billion in "divorce settlement" if the
UK leaves without a deal? Is the UK willing to live with the
consequences of no deal? Which side will give in?

The EU will, if te remainer plots dont work, accept no deal and then
demand £39bn before it sits down to talk trade.

I *hope* that Boris says 'come back when you have changed your mind'


Whose silly idea was it to change the rules about governments being
able to call general elections at a time of their choosing?

Civil service wanted to guarantee stability with the clegg/cameron
coalition.

If the Conservatives are returned with a greater majority, I wonder if
that rule will be reversed - or at least changed to ignore anyone who
abstains: the result of the vote was 298 votes in favour of an
election to 56 against, this was less than the 2/3 of the *total*
number of MPs. In any election, those who abstain should be
disregarded; not to do so is to implicitly add their numbers to the
losing side.

Indeed. a clever move by Corbyn.

Defeat it without actually voting against it.

IF we get a proper brexit government woth a mandate LOTS of what has
been going on - particularly Ber****s role - needs to be revisited.





Yet more threats from brexiteers.

If brexiteers really don't like parliamentary democracy then they should
find a country that they do like and leave.

"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
EU Citizen Brian Reay G8OSN wrote:
On 04/09/2019 10:40, Roger Hayter wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

On 04/09/2019 08:59, Spike wrote:

We're about to see Cole's Comrade Corbyn not support a Parliamentary
vote for the General Election he's been screaming for for so long.
It's
quite the spectacle to see the real Jeremy Corbyn exposed and crushed.

It is a bit weak and watery, isn't it? Oh yes, we want an election,
we're ready, bring it on. Oh, you mean *now*? Well, we didn't mean
that exactly, er, obviously. We're not doing too well in the polls,
and
weren't expecting one for quite a time yet, and we're not really ready.
Yes, of course we'll do whatever it takes to rid the country of this
dangerous government as soon as possible. It's absolutely necessary.
We're the next government and can't wait to lead the country as it
should be led.

Can you get back to us on that one please?

Perhaps Corbyn thinks that preventing no-deal Brexit is more important
than becoming PM. Boris could easily change the date of the election
to November, after Brexit. So just be patient a week unilt the No Deal
Act is law and I'm sure we'll be glad to arrange a general election.



Nonsense.

Corbyn knows he will be toast in an election and is too cowardly to risk
agreeing to one.

Labour landslide before Christmas, OM.

from 20% in the polls you've go to be kidding

the best they they can hope for is a Lab/Ld/SNP coalition having a majority

Oh boy what fun that will be


tim

On 05/09/2019 12:28, dennis@home wrote:

Whose silly idea was it to change the rules about governments being
able to call general elections at a time of their choosing? If the
Conservatives are returned with a greater majority, I wonder if that
rule will be reversed - or at least changed to ignore anyone who
abstains: the result of the vote was 298 votes in favour of an
election to 56 against, this was less than the 2/3 of the *total*
number of MPs. In any election, those who abstain should be
disregarded; not to do so is to implicitly add their numbers to the
losing side.

The rules haven't changed.
boris would like them to.

Perhaps he or his predecessor should have done it already. Its repeal
was a pledge in the Conservative Party's 2017 manifesto.

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/09/2019 12:28, dennis@home wrote:

Whose silly idea was it to change the rules about governments being
able to call general elections at a time of their choosing? If the
Conservatives are returned with a greater majority, I wonder if that
rule will be reversed - or at least changed to ignore anyone who
abstains: the result of the vote was 298 votes in favour of an
election to 56 against, this was less than the 2/3 of the *total*
number of MPs. In any election, those who abstain should be
disregarded; not to do so is to implicitly add their numbers to the
losing side.

The rules haven't changed.
boris would like them to.

Perhaps he or his predecessor should have done it already. Its repeal
was a pledge in the Conservative Party's 2017 manifesto.

and yet it only became law a few years earlier - when Cameron was PM.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
Rambo wrote:
On 5 Sep 2019 08:11:16 GMT, Stephen Cole
wrote:

Spike wrote:
On 04/09/2019 22:05, Pamela wrote:

Boris is an incompetent clown wherever he appears. Currently he's the
only British prime minister who has lost every vote.

And Corbyn is the only opposition leader to call for a General Election
for two years and then refuse the chance when it was offered.


He’s giving BoJo a few more weeks worth of rope to hang himself with, Burt.
The smartest thing for the opposition parties to do is to get into
November, after Boris has been forced to beg the EU for an extension and no
deal has been averted, and then call no confidence in the government.
Sorted! HTH.

Correct. Jezza knows full well that if Johnson can't get a deal from
the EU by Nov 1st that can get through Parliament, (which is highly
unlikely) then the Tory vote will be split by Farage in a later
November election.

Jezza isn't running scared of an election at all. His strategy and
those of the other opposition parties is quite clear.

Quite. And Boris calling him chicken sums it up. Calling someone chicken
says they won't take a stupid risk. Rather laudable to me.

--
*By the time a man is wise enough to watch his step, he's too old to go anywhere.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/09/2019 09:48, tim... wrote:
What do you think will be most remembered when we do get to the next
election

Jeremy Chickening Out

or

Boris being Humiliated?


Boris hasnt been humiliated.

Not even by his brother resigning to spend more time away from his family?


Corbyn has chickened out

--
*A bicycle can't stand alone because it's two tyred.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 05/09/2019 14:12, charles wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/09/2019 12:28, dennis@home wrote:

Whose silly idea was it to change the rules about governments being
able to call general elections at a time of their choosing? If the
Conservatives are returned with a greater majority, I wonder if that
rule will be reversed - or at least changed to ignore anyone who
abstains: the result of the vote was 298 votes in favour of an
election to 56 against, this was less than the 2/3 of the *total*
number of MPs. In any election, those who abstain should be
disregarded; not to do so is to implicitly add their numbers to the
losing side.

The rules haven't changed.
boris would like them to.

Perhaps he or his predecessor should have done it already. Its repeal
was a pledge in the Conservative Party's 2017 manifesto.

and yet it only became law a few years earlier - when Cameron was PM.

[I wonder why people don't DIY a bit of background before posting such
stuff]

It was the coalition agreement wot dunnit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011#Reasons_for_changing_the _previous_system

"Prior to the 2010 general election, the Conservative Party manifesto
made no mention of fixed-term parliaments. The Labour Party manifesto
said it would introduce fixed-term parliaments, but did not say how long
they would be. The Liberal Democrat manifesto included a pledge to
introduce four-year fixed-term parliaments.

....

The journalist John Rentoul has suggested that one of the subsequent
coalition government's motives for passing the legislation was a concern
about its own potential instability. In this view the legislation was
intended to make it difficult for either coalition partner to force an
early election and bring the government down."

It's not insignificant that the Bill was introduced by Nick Clegg.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:40:46 +0000
Spite Burted this out:


Cole's imaginary friend ('Burt') now seems to be getting a pasting
over the issue.



That reminds me of Bean's "I have *Never* originated personal abuse",
and that's not a good thing, Burt.

NY wrote
dennis@home wrote

They do show a majority of brexiteers that would support no deal if the
EU was the one causing the problems, which it isn't.

That point of view is debatable. If the EU and the UK can't reach an
agreement on a deal which is acceptable to UK MPs, is the fault a) the
EU's, b) the UK's, c) both the EU's and the UK's. I'd go for option c):
*both* sides need to give ground if they are to reach a compromise, and be
prepared to abandon entrenched positions or restrictive rules of
engagement.

Trouble is that the irish border is a real problem for that, particularly
if you believe that a hard border there would see the stupid irish
blowing each other up again. I dont believe that, but clearly some do.

And its not hard to see why the EU doesnt want no border controls
at all there with the UK out of the EU. But less clear why they arent
prepared to agree to the same arrangement between Denmark and
Greenland. Greenland isnt in the EU.

I hope we reach an *acceptable* deal by 31 October.

Cant see that happening given Barnier's recent article in
the Telegraph where he was completely intransigent about
the backstop unless thats just an ambit claim/bluff etc.

Failing that, I just want to get out of Europe and abandon the EU. I am
pig-sick of MPs stalling and preventing what was decided by the referendum
from taking place.

Is the EU willing to lose £39 billion in "divorce settlement" if the UK
leaves without a deal?

Boris has said that the UK will pay what it
owes, but in his usual style, hasnt made it
clear if he considers that to be £39B or even
if the meant that even with a no deal brexit.

Is the UK willing to live with the consequences of no deal?

The odds would have to be with that given the detail of
Article 50, but clearly lots hate the idea of a no deal brexit
and I believe that many of them honestly believe that it
would have bad economic consequences for the UK.

Which side will give in?

The UK doesnt have to give in to end up with a no deal brexit
but its hard to see the current parliament buying that.

Whose silly idea was it to change the rules about governments being able
to call general elections at a time of their choosing?

Fixed term parliaments have always been one of those fashion
things. The yanks have always had that approach and they arent
alone on that. And plenty of countrys have changed to fixed terms.

If the Conservatives are returned with a greater majority, I wonder if
that rule will be reversed

I dont recall any country changing back after going for fixed terms
but I have never researched that. Likely some banana republic etc
has. There doesnt appear to be a comprehensive wiki on that.

or at least changed to ignore anyone who abstains: the result of the vote
was 298 votes in favour of an election to 56 against, this was less than
the 2/3 of the *total* number of MPs.

Yeah, pretty poor drafting there.

In any election, those who abstain should be disregarded; not to do so is
to implicitly add their numbers to the losing side.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 04:06:15 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Trouble is that the irish border

Trouble is that it's ALL none of yours, trolling senile Ozzie pest!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

And its not hard to see why the EU doesn't want no border controls
at all there with the UK out of the EU. But less clear why they arent
prepared to agree to the same arrangement between Denmark and
Greenland. Greenland isnt in the EU.

That might not be entirely unconnected with the fact that
Greenland is an island which is 2,920 km away from Denmark.

Whereas the distance between the Republic of Ireland and
Northern Ireland is around 0.000000001 mm.

At a rough guess.

HTH


michael adams

....

"tim..." wrote in message
...


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 04/09/2019 12:56, tim... wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 04/09/2019 08:59, Spike wrote:

We're about to see Cole's Comrade Corbyn not support a Parliamentary
vote for the General Election he's been screaming for for so long.
It's
quite the spectacle to see the real Jeremy Corbyn exposed and crushed.

It is a bit weak and watery, isn't it? Oh yes, we want an election,
we're ready, bring it on. Oh, you mean *now*? Well, we didn't mean
that exactly, er, obviously. We're not doing too well in the polls,
and weren't expecting one for quite a time yet, and we're not really
ready. Yes, of course we'll do whatever it takes to rid the country of
this dangerous government as soon as possible. It's absolutely
necessary. We're the next government and can't wait to lead the country
as it should be led.

come on Norman

you know as well as anyone that such brickbats will be forgotten in a
couple of month's time, when they agree to an election (after the
leaving date has been extended, or whatever)

Corbyn reminds me of St Augustine;

"Lord, make me chaste - but not yet'.

here's how the Mail calls it:

"Boris Johnson's bid for snap election is CRUSHED: Jeremy Corbyn chickens
out of letting public go to the polls as Labour MPs abstain to inflict
humiliating defeat on PM"

Not exactly a Corbyn supporting (or Boris bashing) organ

What do you think will be most remembered when we do get to the next
election

Jeremy Chickening Out

or

Boris being Humiliated?

Neither, it will mostly be about avoiding Corbyn being the PM for other
reasons.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/2019 09:51, Rambo wrote:
On 5 Sep 2019 08:11:16 GMT, Stephen Cole
wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 04/09/2019 22:05, Pamela wrote:

Boris is an incompetent clown wherever he appears. Currently he's the
only British prime minister who has lost every vote.

And Corbyn is the only opposition leader to call for a General Election
for two years and then refuse the chance when it was offered.

Hes giving BoJo a few more weeks worth of rope to hang himself with,
Burt.
The smartest thing for the opposition parties to do is to get into
November, after Boris has been forced to beg the EU for an extension and
no
deal has been averted, and then call no confidence in the government.
Sorted! HTH.
Correct. Jezza knows full well that if Johnson can't get a deal from
the EU by Nov 1st that can get through Parliament, (which is highly
unlikely) then the Tory vote will be split by Farage in a later
November election.

If he goes openly for no deal as the only viable option, though, he'll
hoover up all the Brexit Party voters, probably with Farage's blessing.
And that's quite possible because no-one can see any deal being reached
that is acceptable to both the EU and the UK Parliament. We've tried that
before. It hasn't worked, and almost certainly won't.

Jezza isn't running scared of an election at all.

If he's not, he should be. He's at just over 20% in the polls compared
with the 40% he actually achieved last time out, and is now sharing any
remain voters with the LibDems and the Greens. It's obvious what that
will mean as regards seats in Parliament.

His strategy and those of the other opposition parties is quite clear.

Yes, it's prevaricate, delay and cross their fingers hoping for something
to turn up to change their fortunes.

Yeah, thats clearly what he is about and it clearly is the
best approach for him to take given his dismal poll results.

Dont spose they let Boris ride around on his bike much anymore,
so its not very likely some bus will run him over now.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 06:03:12 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Yeah, that¢s clearly

It's clearly ALL none of yours, senile Ozzie pest!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 05:52:26 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Neither, it will mostly be about

It is all about your trolling, you trolling 85-year-old senile pest!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 04/09/2019 20:04, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 4 Sep 2019, dennis@home wrote
(in article ):

On 04/09/2019 18:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/09/2019 17:44, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural wrote in message
...

It is strange how at the moment only Boris wants an election.
I wonder why...

The actual answer...

If he calls an election the constituencies of the deselected rebel
Tories
and retirees will be able to put up new loyal candidates. Thus
maintaining
or increasing his majority (so he hopes)

As it is, his position is falling away as a result of withdrawing the
whip from the rebels who are either going to vote against him, or
abstain.

Why should Corbyn want to help him out at this point ?

The penny possibly dropped as he was facing Corbyn across the
dispatch box and was reduced I believe, to calling him a big girl's
blouse.

Anyway, thank you for your question.
So you admit that the popular mandate in the country is with Boris?
And leaving?
Without a deal?
So why not have a 'peoples vote' on it?

Stop making stuff up.
Most of the population want a deal including those that voted leave.

When people say €œmost of the population€� they usually mean their mummy,
daddy, big sister (who they spy on in their bedroom), and the dog.



Current polls show that there isn't even a majority of brexiteers that
want no deal.

They do show a majority of brexiteers that would support no deal if the EU
was the one causing the problems, which it isn't.

Of course it is given that Barnier has just said that the backstop is non
negotiable.

So overall of the people that voted about 70% don't want a no deal brexit

They clearly do given that its the EU that wont
allow a deal that the parliament will accept.

so parliament is acting on the will of the people

Another remoaner lie.

as it is supposed to unlike boris who couldn't give a stuff about the
people as long as they vote for him.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 06:29:21 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Of course

Of course you are only a trolling piece of senile Ozzie ****, senile Rodent!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 04/09/2019 21:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/09/2019 20:36, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , "dennis@home"
writes
On 04/09/2019 18:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/09/2019 17:44, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

It is strange how at the moment only Boris wants an election.
I wonder why...

The actual answer...

If he calls an election the constituencies of the deselected rebel
Tories
and retirees will be able to put up new loyal candidates. Thus
maintaining
or increasing his majority (so he hopes)

As it is, his position is falling away as a result of withdrawing the
whip from the rebels who are either going to vote against him, or
abstain.

Why should Corbyn want to help him out at this point ?

The penny possibly dropped as he was facing Corbyn across the
dispatch box and was reduced I believe, to calling him a big girl's
blouse.

Anyway, thank you for your question.

So you admit that the popular mandate in the country is with Boris?
And leaving?
Without a deal?
So why not have a 'peoples vote' on it?

Stop making stuff up.
Most of the population want a deal including those that voted leave.

These days, I doubt if most of the population even want to leave at all.
Bless.

Well then - have an election.

We are not going to give boris the option of delaying the election until
after the 29th!

You get no say on that and neither does the parliament.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 05/09/2019 11:59, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

They do show a majority of brexiteers that would support no deal if the
EU was the one causing the problems, which it isn't.

That point of view is debatable. If the EU and the UK can't reach an
agreement on a deal which is acceptable to UK MPs, is the fault a) the
EU's, b) the UK's, c) both the EU's and the UK's. I'd go for option c):
*both* sides need to give ground if they are to reach a compromise, and
be prepared to abandon entrenched positions or restrictive rules of
engagement.

I hope we reach an *acceptable* deal by 31 October. Failing that, I just
want to get out of Europe and abandon the EU. I am pig-sick of MPs
stalling and preventing what was decided by the referendum from taking
place.

Is the EU willing to lose £39 billion in "divorce settlement" if the UK
leaves without a deal? Is the UK willing to live with the consequences of
no deal? Which side will give in?

Whose silly idea was it to change the rules about governments being able
to call general elections at a time of their choosing? If the
Conservatives are returned with a greater majority, I wonder if that rule
will be reversed - or at least changed to ignore anyone who abstains: the
result of the vote was 298 votes in favour of an election to 56 against,
this was less than the 2/3 of the *total* number of MPs. In any election,
those who abstain should be disregarded; not to do so is to implicitly
add their numbers to the losing side.

The rules haven't changed.
boris would like them to.


We have an election anyway..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49594793

boris's brother has quit being a tory MP so there will be a bye election.

Even he doesn't want to leave.

Or has decided that parliament is of no interest to him anymore.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 07:01:55 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


You get no say on that and neither does the parliament.

YOU get no say in ANYTHING British, you senile trolling asshole from Oz!

--
Bod addressing senile Rot:
"Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless
and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of
trouble."
Message-ID:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/09/2019 12:28, dennis@home wrote:

Whose silly idea was it to change the rules about governments being
able to call general elections at a time of their choosing? If the
Conservatives are returned with a greater majority, I wonder if that
rule will be reversed - or at least changed to ignore anyone who
abstains: the result of the vote was 298 votes in favour of an
election to 56 against, this was less than the 2/3 of the *total*
number of MPs. In any election, those who abstain should be
disregarded; not to do so is to implicitly add their numbers to the
losing side.

The rules haven't changed.
boris would like them to.

Perhaps he or his predecessor should have done it already. Its repeal
was a pledge in the Conservative Party's 2017 manifesto.

and yet it only became law a few years earlier - when Cameron was PM.

Because the LimpDims forced it on him when they were in coalition.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 07:30:17 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Because the LimpDims forced it on him when they were in coalition.

**** off from normally evolved humans' ngs, you abnormal senile Ozzie pest!

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 07:12:52 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Or has decided that parliament

None of yours, you ****ed up trolling 85-year-old senile asshole!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

And its not hard to see why the EU doesn't want no border controls
at all there with the UK out of the EU. But less clear why they arent
prepared to agree to the same arrangement between Denmark and
Greenland. Greenland isnt in the EU.

That might not be entirely unconnected with the fact that
Greenland is an island which is 2,920 km away from Denmark.

Whereas the distance between the Republic of Ireland and
Northern Ireland is around 0.000000001 mm.

At a rough guess.

Irrelevant to BORDER CONTROLS, ****wit.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:05:08 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



Irrelevant

What could be more irrelevant than your senile trolling, you subnormal
trolling senile pest?

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

And its not hard to see why the EU doesn't want no border controls
at all there with the UK out of the EU. But less clear why they arent
prepared to agree to the same arrangement between Denmark and
Greenland. Greenland isnt in the EU.

That might not be entirely unconnected with the fact that
Greenland is an island which is 2,920 km away from Denmark.

Whereas the distance between the Republic of Ireland and
Northern Ireland is around 0.000000001 mm.

At a rough guess.

Irrelevant to BORDER CONTROLS, ****wit.

You do realise of course that its much easier to implement
border controls when the territories involved are separated
by 2,920 km of sea, than it when the said border runs through
fields or allegedly, through peoples houses ?


michael adams

....

michael adams mjadams25@ukonline wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

And its not hard to see why the EU doesn't want no border controls
at all there with the UK out of the EU. But less clear why they arent
prepared to agree to the same arrangement between Denmark and
Greenland. Greenland isnt in the EU.

That might not be entirely unconnected with the fact that
Greenland is an island which is 2,920 km away from Denmark.

Whereas the distance between the Republic of Ireland and
Northern Ireland is around 0.000000001 mm.

At a rough guess.

Irrelevant to BORDER CONTROLS, ****wit.

You do realise of course that its much easier to implement
border controls when the territories involved are separated
by 2,920 km of sea, than it when the said border runs through
fields or allegedly, through peoples houses ?


michael adams

Just a minor detail.

The EU claim they dont want border controls between NI and Ireland.

Ireland claim they dont want controls, even though they are starting to
construct them.

The UK have said they dont want controls. The arent building any new
controls.


The only obstacle, ie the only people actually trying to build controls,
are the Irish- who are part of the EU.

So, in other words, just like in everything else, the EU are lying.

There are many thousands of miles of land border in the world which are no
more than a notional line on the ground. In the great scheme, a fraction
are monitored, fenced, patrolled.....

Youve clearly not traveled.

On 06/09/2019 09:08, Brian Reay wrote:
michael adams mjadams25@ukonline wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

And its not hard to see why the EU doesn't want no border controls
at all there with the UK out of the EU. But less clear why they arent
prepared to agree to the same arrangement between Denmark and
Greenland. Greenland isnt in the EU.

That might not be entirely unconnected with the fact that
Greenland is an island which is 2,920 km away from Denmark.

Whereas the distance between the Republic of Ireland and
Northern Ireland is around 0.000000001 mm.

At a rough guess.

Irrelevant to BORDER CONTROLS, ****wit.

You do realise of course that its much easier to implement
border controls when the territories involved are separated
by 2,920 km of sea, than it when the said border runs through
fields or allegedly, through peoples houses ?


michael adams

Just a minor detail.

The EU claim they dont want border controls between NI and Ireland.

Ireland claim they dont want controls, even though they are starting to
construct them.

The UK have said they dont want controls. The arent building any new
controls.


The only obstacle, ie the only people actually trying to build controls,
are the Irish- who are part of the EU.

So, in other words, just like in everything else, the EU are lying.

There are many thousands of miles of land border in the world which are no
more than a notional line on the ground. In the great scheme, a fraction
are monitored, fenced, patrolled.....

Youve clearly not traveled.







build a big beautiful wall ....

On 05/09/2019 12:25, tim... wrote:

As a leaver, ISTM that Boris has dug himself into a hole that's quite
possibly could end in No Brexit

He didn't need to do it, and I wish he hadn't done it.

He overplayed his hand.Â* He assumed (as Norman did) that Corbyn was
absolutely certain to go for the immediate GE.

He didn't play through the very real possibility that more sensible
heads in the Labour party would hold him back.

It's an absolutely extraordinary situation for an opposition to turn
down the opportunity of a general election that could possibly see them
in power. That's their raison d'etre, their sole objective. To
shilly-shally about it not being the right time makes it look
unprepared, frightened, incompetent and incapable of taking over.

Which it probably is in fact.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message ...
michael adams mjadams25@ukonline wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

And its not hard to see why the EU doesn't want no border controls
at all there with the UK out of the EU. But less clear why they arent
prepared to agree to the same arrangement between Denmark and
Greenland. Greenland isnt in the EU.

That might not be entirely unconnected with the fact that
Greenland is an island which is 2,920 km away from Denmark.

Whereas the distance between the Republic of Ireland and
Northern Ireland is around 0.000000001 mm.

At a rough guess.

Irrelevant to BORDER CONTROLS, ****wit.

You do realise of course that its much easier to implement
border controls when the territories involved are separated
by 2,920 km of sea, than it when the said border runs through
fields or allegedly, through peoples houses ?


michael adams

Just a minor detail.

The EU claim they don't want border controls between NI and Ireland.

This is all very interesting I'm sure Brian,and I don't wish to appear unduly rude.
but in this instance I'm only really interested in examining Speed's reasoning
(if it could be so termed) in considering the two borders to be in any way
equivalent. For the purposes of argument or anything else. As it so happens
I can't actually make out what his argument actually is but I don't consider
that any great handicap in pursuing the matter in hand.

extensive snippage .


michael adams

....

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/09/2019 12:28, dennis@home wrote:

Whose silly idea was it to change the rules about governments being
able to call general elections at a time of their choosing? If the
Conservatives are returned with a greater majority, I wonder if that
rule will be reversed - or at least changed to ignore anyone who
abstains: the result of the vote was 298 votes in favour of an
election to 56 against, this was less than the 2/3 of the *total*
number of MPs. In any election, those who abstain should be
disregarded; not to do so is to implicitly add their numbers to the
losing side.

The rules haven't changed.
boris would like them to.

Perhaps he or his predecessor should have done it already. Its repeal
was a pledge in the Conservative Party's 2017 manifesto.

and yet it only became law a few years earlier - when Cameron was PM.

Because the LimpDims forced it on him when they were in coalition.

because they, quite reasonably, didn't want him cutting and running (from
the coalition) at a point convenient to him, not necessarily because they
ideologically wanted it.

I like the idea in principle, but the legislation does seem to be lacking:

1) it doesn't seem to define who it is who gets the first attempt at forming
a new government after a VoC, and even if that were to be stated, there
should perhaps be a legislated possibility for more than one person to try.

2) there does seem to be a gap where a lame duck minority government (which
can't get through normal business) also cannot call an election because the
opposition (who also can't form a minority government) wont agree to it.
Not a situation that anyone envisaged happening, but it is the one we are in
now. Not, that I'm suggesting that any solution to this question should
allow Boris (in this case) to call a snap election, but a time out period of
3 months after which there is a lesser threshold might be appropriate.

tim

On 06/09/2019 09:32, michael adams wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message ...
michael adams mjadams25@ukonline wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

And its not hard to see why the EU doesn't want no border controls
at all there with the UK out of the EU. But less clear why they arent
prepared to agree to the same arrangement between Denmark and
Greenland. Greenland isnt in the EU.

That might not be entirely unconnected with the fact that
Greenland is an island which is 2,920 km away from Denmark.

Whereas the distance between the Republic of Ireland and
Northern Ireland is around 0.000000001 mm.

At a rough guess.

Irrelevant to BORDER CONTROLS, ****wit.

You do realise of course that its much easier to implement
border controls when the territories involved are separated
by 2,920 km of sea, than it when the said border runs through
fields or allegedly, through peoples houses ?


michael adams

Just a minor detail.

The EU claim they don't want border controls between NI and Ireland.

This is all very interesting I'm sure Brian,and I don't wish to appear unduly rude.
go on go on

brian reay is rude to everybody so go on go on ....

On 06/09/2019 09:32, michael adams wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message ...
michael adams mjadams25@ukonline wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

And its not hard to see why the EU doesn't want no border controls
at all there with the UK out of the EU. But less clear why they arent
prepared to agree to the same arrangement between Denmark and
Greenland. Greenland isnt in the EU.

That might not be entirely unconnected with the fact that
Greenland is an island which is 2,920 km away from Denmark.

Whereas the distance between the Republic of Ireland and
Northern Ireland is around 0.000000001 mm.

At a rough guess.

Irrelevant to BORDER CONTROLS, ****wit.

You do realise of course that its much easier to implement
border controls when the territories involved are separated
by 2,920 km of sea, than it when the said border runs through
fields or allegedly, through peoples houses ?


michael adams

Just a minor detail.

The EU claim they don't want border controls between NI and Ireland.

This is all very interesting I'm sure Brian,and I don't wish to appear unduly rude.
but in this instance I'm only really interested in examining Speed's reasoning
(if it could be so termed) in considering the two borders to be in any way
equivalent. For the purposes of argument or anything else. As it so happens
I can't actually make out what his argument actually is but I don't consider
that any great handicap in pursuing the matter in hand.

extensive snippage .


michael adams

...


**** it just make the north channel the border and let the irish fight
it out to the last man standing .....

On 06/09/2019 10:22, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 06/09/2019 09:32, michael adams wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
michael adams mjadams25@ukonline wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

And its not hard to see why the EU doesn't want no border controls
at all there with the UK out of the EU. But less clear why they
arent
prepared to agree to the same arrangement between Denmark and
Greenland. Greenland isnt in the EU.

That might not be entirely unconnected with the fact that
Greenland is an island which is 2,920 km away from Denmark.

Whereas the distance between the Republic of Ireland and
Northern Ireland is around 0.000000001 mm.

At a rough guess.

Irrelevant to BORDER CONTROLS, ****wit.

You do realise of course that its much easier to implement
border controls when the territories involved are separated
by 2,920 km of sea, than it when the said border runs through
fields or allegedly, through peoples houses ?


michael adams

Just a minor detail.

The EU claim they don't want border controls between NI and Ireland.

This is all very interesting I'm sure Brian,and I don't wish to appear
unduly rude.
but in this instance I'm only really interested in examining Speed's
reasoning
(if it could be so termed) in considering the two borders to be in any
way
equivalent. For the purposes of argument or anything else. As it so
happens
I can't actually make out what his argument actually is but I don't
consider
that any great handicap in pursuing the matter in hand.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* extensive snippage Â* .


michael adams

...


**** it just make the north channel the border and let the irish fight
it out to the last man standing .....
they love conflict anyway ....

"michael adams" mjadams25@ukonline wrote in message
o.uk...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

And its not hard to see why the EU doesn't want no border controls
at all there with the UK out of the EU. But less clear why they arent
prepared to agree to the same arrangement between Denmark and
Greenland. Greenland isnt in the EU.

That might not be entirely unconnected with the fact that
Greenland is an island which is 2,920 km away from Denmark.

Whereas the distance between the Republic of Ireland and
Northern Ireland is around 0.000000001 mm.

At a rough guess.

Irrelevant to BORDER CONTROLS, ****wit.

You do realise of course that its much easier to implement
border controls when the territories involved are separated
by 2,920 km of sea, than it when the said border runs through
fields or allegedly, through peoples houses ?

There are no border controls for EUians or greenlanders, ****wit.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 19:45:49 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


You do realise of course that its much easier to implement
border controls when the territories involved are separated
by 2,920 km of sea, than it when the said border runs through
fields or allegedly, through peoples houses ?

There are no border controls for EUians or greenlanders, ****wit.

Keep your troll**** out of normally evolved humans' ngs, you senile pest
from Oz!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"tim..." wrote in message
...


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/09/2019 12:28, dennis@home wrote:

Whose silly idea was it to change the rules about governments being
able to call general elections at a time of their choosing? If the
Conservatives are returned with a greater majority, I wonder if that
rule will be reversed - or at least changed to ignore anyone who
abstains: the result of the vote was 298 votes in favour of an
election to 56 against, this was less than the 2/3 of the *total*
number of MPs. In any election, those who abstain should be
disregarded; not to do so is to implicitly add their numbers to the
losing side.

The rules haven't changed.
boris would like them to.

Perhaps he or his predecessor should have done it already. Its repeal
was a pledge in the Conservative Party's 2017 manifesto.

and yet it only became law a few years earlier - when Cameron was PM.

Because the LimpDims forced it on him when they were in coalition.

because they, quite reasonably, didn't want him cutting and running (from
the coalition) at a point convenient to him, not necessarily because they
ideologically wanted it.

I like the idea in principle, but the legislation does seem to be lacking:

1) it doesn't seem to define who it is who gets the first attempt at
forming a new government after a VoC,

Yes it does. The govt has a fixed time to attempt to reverse that, 2 weeks.

and even if that were to be stated, there should perhaps be a legislated
possibility for more than one person to try.

There is.

2) there does seem to be a gap where a lame duck minority government
(which can't get through normal business) also cannot call an election
because the opposition (who also can't form a minority government) wont
agree to it. Not a situation that anyone envisaged happening,

Yes it was. That’s why a 2.3 majority is required to force a general
election.

but it is the one we are in now. Not, that I'm suggesting that any
solution to this question should allow Boris (in this case) to call a snap
election, but a time out period of 3 months after which there is a lesser
threshold might be appropriate.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 20:15:02 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

1) it doesn't seem to define who it is who gets the first attempt at
forming a new government after a VoC,

Yes it does.

In auto-contradicting mode again, you abnormal senile Australian pest? LOL

and even if that were to be stated, there should perhaps be a legislated
possibility for more than one person to try.

There is.

In auto-contradicting mode again, you abnormal senile Australian pest? LOL

2) there does seem to be a gap where a lame duck minority government
(which can't get through normal business) also cannot call an election
because the opposition (who also can't form a minority government) wont
agree to it. Not a situation that anyone envisaged happening,

Yes it was.

In auto-contradicting mode again, you abnormal senile Australian pest? LOL

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

"michael adams" mjadams25@ukonline wrote in message
o.uk...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

And its not hard to see why the EU doesn't want no border controls
at all there with the UK out of the EU. But less clear why they arent
prepared to agree to the same arrangement between Denmark and
Greenland. Greenland isnt in the EU.

That might not be entirely unconnected with the fact that
Greenland is an island which is 2,920 km away from Denmark.

Whereas the distance between the Republic of Ireland and
Northern Ireland is around 0.000000001 mm.

At a rough guess.

Irrelevant to BORDER CONTROLS, ****wit.

You do realise of course that its much easier to implement
border controls when the territories involved are separated
by 2,920 km of sea, than it when the said border runs through
fields or allegedly, through peoples houses ?

I think the argument is about the being NO border control between Denmark
and Greenland despite Greenland not being in the EU

Thus:

If it's OK for Greenland, why's it not OK for NI?

Though whether it is actually correct to suggest that there are no border
controls between Denmark and Greenland, I have no idea

tim