"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 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.

what really annoys me is people talking about the problems of this border
which are either not problems at all or are current problems

In the first category we have people mumbling on about movement of people
for day to day business reasons when it is clear that this is resolved by
the existing (and to be kept) British Isles Common travel Area.

and in the second we have people arguing about "without a border how will we
stop smuggling", ignoring the fact that whilst within the EU there is
already a problem of smuggling, that we have to find a way to police with an
open border.

tim

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
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. 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

we live in extraordinary times

that could possibly see them in power.

But what if they assess that turning it down today gives them a greater
chance tomorrow?

That's their raison d'etre, their sole objective.

Can't agree with that

they have many other roles to play. It's daft suggesting otherwise

To shilly-shally about it not being the right time makes it look
unprepared, frightened, incompetent and incapable of taking over.

As I have said, in a months time when they do agree to a GE, that will all
be forgotten - good luck with running an election campaign around "Labour
wouldn't agree to this election a month ago, the cowards!"

OTOH Boris' failure to leave the EU on Oct 31st wont be (sadly)

Which it probably is in fact.

that's another matter

tim

On 6 Sep 2019, tim... wrote
(in article ):


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"charles" wrote in message
...
In ,
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

The easy way to sort that out would make abstentions illegal on any election
proposal.

After all, an MP should either be for or against a general election, not
prevaricating and fence sitting cowards like the Labour Partys MPs have
been recently.

Maybe the youth of today want a prevaricating and fence-sitting government in
power, and will vote for one? But no one else does.

On 05/09/2019 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



Boris hasnt been humiliated.



*gasps for breath laughing*

On Friday, 6 September 2019 12:31:52 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
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. 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

we live in extraordinary times

I think I'd choose a differnt word.


that could possibly see them in power.

But what if they assess that turning it down today gives them a greater
chance tomorrow?

Why wouldn't labour or anyone else be suspicious if suddenly offered the chance for an election by anyone, let alone Boris.

Could it be that Boris knows he's so ****ed everyone and everything up that he wants out and to blame another party for leaving the EU with whatever it brings.

For there to be general electrion it won't happen until mid october and that doesn't leave much time to sort any new deal out before the 31st when we're meant to be leaving and the most likely option would be to delay leaving again.
Not that it;s be a bad thing but those who voted leave will see it as further evodence of blocking democracy and that will be seen as the fault of labour and the PM and Boris will get of free with a large salery and talk fees for the rest of his life. Unless of course some ditch arrives and he tops himself.

We're all allowed our fantasies it just acting on them that might be illegal ;-)


That's their raison d'etre, their sole objective.

Can't agree with that

they have many other roles to play. It's daft suggesting otherwise

To shilly-shally about it not being the right time makes it look
unprepared, frightened, incompetent and incapable of taking over.

As I have said, in a months time when they do agree to a GE, that will all
be forgotten - good luck with running an election campaign around "Labour
wouldn't agree to this election a month ago, the cowards!"

It depends on how labour explains their reason for not wanting a GE at this time, surely they should make the point that it;s the conserative a
ka Boris are in power and they should extend the deadline which gives any party who win the next GE a chance to deal/bargin within there own party rather than take the conservatives 'batton' and run with it.
Let the party that wins the GE have their own batton to beat the EU with

On Friday, 6 September 2019 13:05:29 UTC+1, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 6 Sep 2019, tim... wrote
(in article ):


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"charles" wrote in message
...
In ,
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

The easy way to sort that out would make abstentions illegal on any election
proposal.

Why does the EU allow abstentions ?
Surely they must have some use.


After all, an MP should either be for or against a general election, not
prevaricating and fence sitting cowards like the Labour Partys MPs have
been recently.

No, why should any party dictate to another when an election should take place.
If the conservatives want to resign from govenment then they should do so.


Maybe the youth of today want a prevaricating and fence-sitting government in
power, and will vote for one? But no one else does.

But what if love island is on TV they won't get the chance to vote.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"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.

But that doesn't explain where any border controls *would*
be, if there were any, does it ? And whether those possible
locations might have any bearing on decisions as to whether
to have a border control or not.

Or put another way who is going to travel 2,920 km across
the choppy Norwegian Sea, possibly in all weathers so at
to buy a can of Glyphosate, some crooked cucumbers, or
some chlorinated chicken.

And I'm still trying to work out what this is supposed
to mean.

" 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." ?


michael adams

....

In message , tim...
writes


"michael adams" mjadams25@ukonline wrote in message
news:kNqdnTpDB7CKje_AnZ2dnUU78WXNnZ2d@brightview. co.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

It's unlikely that people like Ciran the Van Driver are likely to be
making many same-day urgent, just-in-time courier deliveries between
Copenhagen and Nuuk. I would expect that most goods will go via
consolidated bulk transport using shipping companies.




--
Ian

On 6 Sep 2019, Chris Bartram wrote
(in article ):

On 05/09/2019 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



Boris hasnt been humiliated.

*gasps for breath laughing*

Youve obviously spent too long reading the Guardian.

Or you are ****ed.

Or both.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 12:13:20 +0100
"tim..." wrote:

"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


You don't have to go as far as Denmark, there are islands around the UK
which are UK dependencies but not part of the UK and hence not in the
EU. I haven't travelled to any of them for some years, but I don't think
there are many obstacles in getting to the Isle of Man, which my
daughter visits occasionally.

--
Joe

On 2019-09-06, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 6 Sep 2019, Chris Bartram wrote
(in article ):

On 05/09/2019 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



Boris hasnt been humiliated.

*gasps for breath laughing*

Youve obviously spent too long reading the Guardian.

Or you are ****ed.

Or both.

The effect on the brain is quite similar.

On 06/09/2019 09:30, Norman Wells wrote:
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.Â* That's their raison d'etre, their sole objective.Â* 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.

not if that election can possibly return a Boris with a greatly
increased majority because of his lust for brexit and of course the no
deal exit has to be stopped when the bill that stops it becomes law.

On 06/09/2019 13:27, Chris Bartram wrote:
On 05/09/2019 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



Boris hasnt been humiliated.



*gasps for breath laughing*

Bless!

You really don't understand politics, do you.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

"Joe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 12:13:20 +0100
"tim..." wrote:

"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


You don't have to go as far as Denmark, there are islands around the UK
which are UK dependencies but not part of the UK and hence not in the
EU. I haven't travelled to any of them for some years, but I don't think
there are many obstacles in getting to the Isle of Man, which my
daughter visits occasionally.

these islands are in the British Isles CTA so incidental personal travel is
unregulated (apart from having to give your details to the transportation
company in case there's an incident)

It's commercial transportation of goods that we are interested in

tim

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:59:38 +0000, Spike wrote:

On 03/09/2019 19:19, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 3 Sep 2019, Stephen Cole wrote

So, the forthcoming General Election campaign is going to be quite the
spectacle as we see the real Boris Johnson exposed and crushed. Its going
to be great! Goodbye Brexit! :-D

Goodbye any thin veneer of democracy.

The people voted for Brexit, but the Establishment didnt want that.

At least now the electorate are finding out before they have to vote (if they
can be bothered) ever again.

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.

people here, also, don't appear to know what is going on

labour do want a general election. They want the legislation = 'no deal off the table'
to have been approved, before they accede to a general election.

repeating the juvenile lines, headline attention (thick brexiter) grabbing lines, they get to be headlines
, floated by that fat piece of **** and his pet 'guru'

On 6 Sep 2019, test898 wrote
(in article ):

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:59:38 +0000, Spike wrote:

On 03/09/2019 19:19, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 3 Sep 2019, Stephen Cole wrote

So, the forthcoming General Election campaign is going to be quite the
spectacle as we see the real Boris Johnson exposed and crushed. Its
going
to be great! Goodbye Brexit! :-D

Goodbye any thin veneer of democracy.

The people voted for Brexit, but the Establishment didnt want that.

At least now the electorate are finding out before they have to vote (if
they
can be bothered) ever again.

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.

people here, also, don't appear to know what is going on

labour do want a general election. They want the legislation = 'no deal off
the table'
to have been approved, before they accede to a general election.

Or, at least, that is what they tell the media.

What they are frightened of, is an election returning Boris to power before
Oct 31 with a small working majority; which would enable him to pass
legislation repealing all the undemocratic bollox we have seen going through
parliament this week.

But of course the dimwits who support remain, will believe whatever socialist
bull**** is put out by the TV and social media.

I cant move on social media for numpties slagging off BoJo as some kind of
crazed alien who is hell bent on UK destruction, while refusing to accept
that Labours previous immigration policy had already pressed the
accelerator on UK destruction about 15 years ago.

Corbyn is just lying in order to run down the clock, when three weeks ago he
was slagging off Brexiteers for running down the clock.

On 06/09/2019 14:13, Joe wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 12:13:20 +0100
"tim..." wrote:

"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


You don't have to go as far as Denmark, there are islands around the UK
which are UK dependencies but not part of the UK and hence not in the
EU. I haven't travelled to any of them for some years, but I don't think
there are many obstacles in getting to the Isle of Man, which my
daughter visits occasionally.

Are the channel islands in the EU?

They are in the customs union but not in the EU!


--
€œPeople believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, ones
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
ones suitability to be taken seriously.€�

Paul Krugman

On 06/09/2019 16:02, test898 wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:59:38 +0000, Spike wrote:

On 03/09/2019 19:19, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 3 Sep 2019, Stephen Cole wrote

So, the forthcoming General Election campaign is going to be quite the
spectacle as we see the real Boris Johnson exposed and crushed. Its going
to be great! Goodbye Brexit! :-D

Goodbye any thin veneer of democracy.

The people voted for Brexit, but the Establishment didnt want that.

At least now the electorate are finding out before they have to vote (if they
can be bothered) ever again.

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.

people here, also, don't appear to know what is going on

labour do want a general election. They want the legislation = 'no deal off the table'
to have been approved, before they accede to a general election.

And then they will renege. You watch. A gutter rat has more morality
than Labour.



--
€œThe fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell

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

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"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.

But that doesn't explain where any border controls *would* be, if there
were any, does it ?

Irrelevant given that there arent any.

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


"Joe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 12:13:20 +0100
"tim..." wrote:

"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


You don't have to go as far as Denmark, there are islands around the UK
which are UK dependencies but not part of the UK and hence not in the
EU. I haven't travelled to any of them for some years, but I don't think
there are many obstacles in getting to the Isle of Man, which my
daughter visits occasionally.

these islands are in the British Isles CTA so incidental personal travel
is unregulated (apart from having to give your details to the
transportation company in case there's an incident)

It's commercial transportation of goods that we are interested in

No evidence of any border controls with the commercial
transportation of goods to or from those islands.

"test898" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:59:38 +0000, Spike wrote:

On 03/09/2019 19:19, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 3 Sep 2019, Stephen Cole wrote

So, the forthcoming General Election campaign is going to be quite the
spectacle as we see the real Boris Johnson exposed and crushed. Its
going
to be great! Goodbye Brexit! :-D

Goodbye any thin veneer of democracy.

The people voted for Brexit, but the Establishment didnt want that.

At least now the electorate are finding out before they have to vote (if
they
can be bothered) ever again.

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.

people here, also, don't appear to know what is going on

labour do want a general election. They want the legislation = 'no deal
off the table'
to have been approved, before they accede to a general election.

While thats what they are currently claiming, it remains
to be seen if they will actually support a general election
once the no deal off the table has been approved or if
thats just more Corbyn bull****.

repeating the juvenile lines, headline attention
(thick brexiter) grabbing lines, they get to be headlines,
floated by that fat piece of **** and his pet 'guru'

Pamela wrote:
On 11:07 6 Sep 2019, Spike wrote:
On 06/09/2019 09:28, Pamela wrote:
On 09:31 6 Sep 2019, Spike wrote:
On 05/09/2019 15:36, Pamela wrote:
On 10:40 5 Sep 2019, Spike wrote:


Interesting, but I did say that 'Corbyn is the only opposition
leader to call for a General Election for two years and then refuse
the chance when it was offered',

That was Boris's taunt at PMQ,

Boris: "We are going to call a General Election"
Corbyn: "Despite my asking for one for two years, that's a No,
thanks".

as if such childish name calling would magcally compel Corbyn to
call an election.

Since when has the offer of a General Election been classed as
'childish name calling'?

The very notion tells us how
Boris projects his vanity and thinks others act the same as he would.

The very rejection of the offer tells us that Corbyn is a liar.

Exactly what lie has Corbyn told? You seem to be mixing up Corbyn's
requests to Theresa May for an election with imagining Corbyn has
pledged to enable an election if a Tory PM got into a sticky situation.

The fact that he declined the call for the very General Election that he
has been demanding for the last two years. It is now very clear he had
no intention of honoring that request.

Where's the lie you allege Corbyn told about a general election? You wrote
the following but it seems untrue. Do you want to correct it?

"The very rejection of the offer tells us that Corbyn is a liar."


Burts got a habit of writing untrue things, tbh.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 09:18:48 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


But that doesn't explain where any border controls *would* be, if there
were any, does it ?

Irrelevant

What could be more irrelevant than your senile existence and your senile
trolling, you senile trolling asshole from Oz?

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

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:57:01 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

It's commercial transportation of goods that we are interested in

No evidence

A LOT of evidence of your senility, your mental sickness and your trolling,
senile asshole from Oz!

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 13:00:44 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

labour do want a general election. They want the legislation = 'no deal
off the table'
to have been approved, before they accede to a general election.

While that¢s what

I'm pleased to see that you hardly get any feedbacks in any of the threads
you infest with your senile presence, senile Rodent! But KEEP trying, you
desperate senile fool! LOL

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

Pamela wrote:
On 07:02 7 Sep 2019, Stephen Cole wrote:

Pamela wrote:
On 11:07 6 Sep 2019, Spike wrote:
On 06/09/2019 09:28, Pamela wrote:
On 09:31 6 Sep 2019, Spike wrote:
On 05/09/2019 15:36, Pamela wrote:
On 10:40 5 Sep 2019, Spike wrote:


Interesting, but I did say that 'Corbyn is the only opposition
leader to call for a General Election for two years and then
refuse the chance when it was offered',

That was Boris's taunt at PMQ,

Boris: "We are going to call a General Election"
Corbyn: "Despite my asking for one for two years, that's a No,
thanks".

as if such childish name calling would magcally compel Corbyn to
call an election.

Since when has the offer of a General Election been classed as
'childish name calling'?

The very notion tells us how
Boris projects his vanity and thinks others act the same as he
would.

The very rejection of the offer tells us that Corbyn is a liar.

Exactly what lie has Corbyn told? You seem to be mixing up Corbyn's
requests to Theresa May for an election with imagining Corbyn has
pledged to enable an election if a Tory PM got into a sticky
situation.

The fact that he declined the call for the very General Election that
he has been demanding for the last two years. It is now very clear he
had no intention of honoring that request.

Where's the lie you allege Corbyn told about a general election? You
wrote the following but it seems untrue. Do you want to correct it?

"The very rejection of the offer tells us that Corbyn is a liar."


Burt's got a habit of writing untrue things, tbh.

Is Spike the same person as Burt?

Yes, Burt dropped a bollock a few years ago and got his socks confused,
outing (one of) his alternative posting IDs in the process. Its especially
funny as theres a post in the archives under that ID where hes
complaining about the police bursting in once and seizing all his
computers, the dirty old bugger.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Though whether it is actually correct to suggest that there are no
border controls between Denmark and Greenland, I have no idea


You don't have to go as far as Denmark, there are islands around the UK
which are UK dependencies but not part of the UK and hence not in the
EU. I haven't travelled to any of them for some years, but I don't think
there are many obstacles in getting to the Isle of Man, which my
daughter visits occasionally.

Are the channel islands in the EU?

They are in the customs union but not in the EU!

Most remainers (IMHO) would be perfectly happy with a deal which kept us
in the CU and SM. As Corbyn proposed.

But not the ERG and other hard line Brexiteers.

--
*I used up all my sick days so I called in dead

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
people here, also, don't appear to know what is going on

labour do want a general election. They want the legislation = 'no
deal off the table' to have been approved, before they accede to a
general election.

And then they will renege. You watch. A gutter rat has more morality
than Labour.

Meaning you think the current Tory party has better morals? Since you
singled out Labour?

--
*He's not dead - he's electroencephalographically challenged

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

Spike wrote:
On 07/09/2019 10:02, Pamela wrote:
On 10:49 7 Sep 2019, Stephen Cole wrote:
Pamela wrote:
On 07:02 7 Sep 2019, Stephen Cole
wrote:

Pamela wrote:
On 11:07 6 Sep 2019, Spike wrote:
On 06/09/2019 09:28, Pamela wrote:
On 09:31 6 Sep 2019, Spike wrote:
On 05/09/2019 15:36, Pamela wrote:
On 10:40 5 Sep 2019, Spike wrote:

Interesting, but I did say that 'Corbyn is the only opposition
leader to call for a General Election for two years and then
refuse the chance when it was offered',

That was Boris's taunt at PMQ,

Boris: "We are going to call a General Election" Corbyn: "Despite
my asking for one for two years, that's a No, thanks".

as if such childish name calling would magcally compel Corbyn to
call an election.

Since when has the offer of a General Election been classed as
'childish name calling'?

The very notion tells us how Boris projects his vanity and thinks
others act the same as he would.

The very rejection of the offer tells us that Corbyn is a liar.

Exactly what lie has Corbyn told? You seem to be mixing up
Corbyn's requests to Theresa May for an election with imagining
Corbyn has pledged to enable an election if a Tory PM got into a
sticky situation.

The fact that he declined the call for the very General Election
that he has been demanding for the last two years. It is now very
clear he had no intention of honoring that request.

Where's the lie you allege Corbyn told about a general election? You
wrote the following but it seems untrue. Do you want to correct it?

"The very rejection of the offer tells us that Corbyn is a liar."

Burt's got a habit of writing untrue things, tbh.

Is Spike the same person as Burt?

Yes, Burt dropped a bollock a few years ago and got his socks confused,
outing (one of) his alternative posting IDs in the process. It's
especially funny as there's a post in the archives under that ID where
he's complaining about the police bursting in once and seizing all his
computers, the dirty old bugger.

Having your computers seized by the police is a serious matter.

Presumably the authorities suspected Spike/Burt of some serious crime and
were able to obtain a search warrant. I wonder if he was eventually
convicted.

Don't confuse Comrade Cole's hysterical hyperventilating with actual
fact, he does this sort of thing all the time.

Its all in the archives, Burt.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

Pamela wrote:
On 10:49 7 Sep 2019, Stephen Cole wrote:

Pamela wrote:
On 07:02 7 Sep 2019, Stephen Cole
wrote:

Pamela wrote:
On 11:07 6 Sep 2019, Spike wrote:
On 06/09/2019 09:28, Pamela wrote:
On 09:31 6 Sep 2019, Spike wrote:
On 05/09/2019 15:36, Pamela wrote:
On 10:40 5 Sep 2019, Spike wrote:

Interesting, but I did say that 'Corbyn is the only opposition
leader to call for a General Election for two years and then
refuse the chance when it was offered',

That was Boris's taunt at PMQ,

Boris: "We are going to call a General Election" Corbyn: "Despite
my asking for one for two years, that's a No, thanks".

as if such childish name calling would magcally compel Corbyn to
call an election.

Since when has the offer of a General Election been classed as
'childish name calling'?

The very notion tells us how Boris projects his vanity and thinks
others act the same as he would.

The very rejection of the offer tells us that Corbyn is a liar.

Exactly what lie has Corbyn told? You seem to be mixing up
Corbyn's requests to Theresa May for an election with imagining
Corbyn has pledged to enable an election if a Tory PM got into a
sticky situation.

The fact that he declined the call for the very General Election
that he has been demanding for the last two years. It is now very
clear he had no intention of honoring that request.

Where's the lie you allege Corbyn told about a general election? You
wrote the following but it seems untrue. Do you want to correct it?

"The very rejection of the offer tells us that Corbyn is a liar."

Burt's got a habit of writing untrue things, tbh.

Is Spike the same person as Burt?

Yes, Burt dropped a bollock a few years ago and got his socks confused,
outing (one of) his alternative posting IDs in the process. It's
especially funny as there's a post in the archives under that ID where
he's complaining about the police bursting in once and seizing all his
computers, the dirty old bugger.

Having your computers seized by the police is a serious matter.

Presumably the authorities suspected Spike/Burt of some serious crime and
were able to obtain a search warrant. I wonder if he was eventually
convicted.


Poor Old Burt.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On 06/09/2019 13:05, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 6 Sep 2019, tim... wrote
(in article ):


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"charles" wrote in message
...
In ,
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

The easy way to sort that out would make abstentions illegal on any election
proposal.

After all, an MP should either be for or against a general election, not
prevaricating and fence sitting cowards like the Labour Partys MPs have
been recently.

Maybe the youth of today want a prevaricating and fence-sitting government in
power, and will vote for one? But no one else does.


if you are not for, you are against.

In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
Just a minor detail.

The EU claim they don‘t want border controls between NI and Ireland.

Ireland claim they don‘t want controls, even though they are starting to
construct them.

The UK have said they don‘t want controls. The aren‘t 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.

Not wanting and having to have are two entirely different things.

I take it you think the Leave mantra of taking back control of our borders
nonsense then? If all of them are to be totally open.

--
*I finally got my head together, now my body is falling apart.

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