Re: Today's LOLs in Brexit

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
> Two fascinating developments;
>
> Government confirmation that the agreement made on Friday is legally
> binding and cannot be rowed back.
>
> The EU confirming that it intends to extend opt-in EU citizenship to any
> British that wants it.
>
> So, not only are we legally guaranteed the softest of Soft Brexits, but
> those of us sane enough to see the folly of leaving the EU can choose to
> not leave!
>
> It's going to be incredibly satisfying in the future to point out to
> Brexit-loving blue British Passport holders that my maroon EU Passport
> gives me so many more rights than them.
>

And this evening's LOLs in Usenet; I sent this to the wrong newsgroup! Have
had a few beers, is my excuse.

FUs set!

--
STC / M0TEY /
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur

[Brian Reay]

You seem desperate to convince yourself over this fudge Steve. Why not
just wait? Like Cummins, you can bluff and bluster as much as you like
but it won't change anything.

Give it time and we can revisit the topic- just like we remind Cummins
of his empty threats- and see how the fudge turns out.



--

Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

it's not your friends that buy you drink .....but if you bought it
yourself that is OK .....tee hee

--
OFCOM know exactly what the hobby is worth..£00.00
Once you see the RSGB logo you know you're blackballed....

[FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI]

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vZJXB.221705$QV3.1...@fx11.am4...

> On 12/11/2017 8:39 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>>> Two fascinating developments;
>>>
>>> Government confirmation that the agreement made on Friday is legally
>>> binding and cannot be rowed back.
>>>
>>> The EU confirming that it intends to extend opt-in EU citizenship to any
>>> British that wants it.
>>>
>>> So, not only are we legally guaranteed the softest of Soft Brexits, but
>>> those of us sane enough to see the folly of leaving the EU can choose to
>>> not leave!
>>>
>>> It's going to be incredibly satisfying in the future to point out to
>>> Brexit-loving blue British Passport holders that my maroon EU Passport
>>> gives me so many more rights than them.
>>
>> And this evening's LOLs in Usenet; I sent this to the wrong newsgroup!
>> Have
>> had a few beers, is my excuse.
>>
>> FUs set!
>>
> it's not your friends that buy you drink .....but if you bought it
> yourself that is OK .....tee hee
>

Anybody is welcome to buy me a drinK.
--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.uk

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 12/11/2017 8:39 PM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>>> Two fascinating developments;
>>>
>>> Government confirmation that the agreement made on Friday is legally
>>> binding and cannot be rowed back.
>>>
>>> The EU confirming that it intends to extend opt-in EU citizenship to any
>>> British that wants it.
>>>
>>> So, not only are we legally guaranteed the softest of Soft Brexits, but
>>> those of us sane enough to see the folly of leaving the EU can choose to
>>> not leave!
>>>
>>> It's going to be incredibly satisfying in the future to point out to
>>> Brexit-loving blue British Passport holders that my maroon EU Passport
>>> gives me so many more rights than them.
>>>
>>
>> And this evening's LOLs in Usenet; I sent this to the wrong newsgroup! Have
>> had a few beers, is my excuse.
>>
>> FUs set!
>>
> it's not your friends that buy you drink .....but if you bought it
> yourself that is OK .....tee hee
>

Went to Asda to get some woolly socks to deal with this infernal cold and
grabbed a four-pack of Leffe Blonde on way to the tills. At 6.6% abv, that
stuff is lethal!

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/2017 20:39, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>>> Two fascinating developments;
>>>
>>> Government confirmation that the agreement made on Friday is legally
>>> binding and cannot be rowed back.
>>>
>>> The EU confirming that it intends to extend opt-in EU citizenship to any
>>> British that wants it.
>>>
>>> So, not only are we legally guaranteed the softest of Soft Brexits, but
>>> those of us sane enough to see the folly of leaving the EU can choose to
>>> not leave!
>>>
>>> It's going to be incredibly satisfying in the future to point out to
>>> Brexit-loving blue British Passport holders that my maroon EU Passport
>>> gives me so many more rights than them.
>>>
>>
>> And this evening's LOLs in Usenet; I sent this to the wrong newsgroup! Have
>> had a few beers, is my excuse.
>>
>> FUs set!
>>
>
> You seem desperate to convince yourself over this fudge Steve. Why not
> just wait? Like Cummins, you can bluff and bluster as much as you like
> but it won't change anything.
>
> Give it time and we can revisit the topic- just like we remind Cummins
> of his empty threats- and see how the fudge turns out.
>

Well, given that Davis had to perform a FURIOUS backpedal yesterday on his
comments on Marr on Sunday, no doubt after a severe bollocking from the EU
on Sunday evening, and the Government's subsequent statement that the
agreement is legally binding, no need to wait! We've got the shape of our
Brexit, and it's a Soft one!

[Brian Reay]

As I said, wait and see. You are like a kid at Xmas. Are you so lacking
in confidence you are right?

As I keep reminding you, you are behaving just like Cummins with his
empty threats. He has been claiming legal action is about to happen for
5 years, nothing has come of them, nor will they. He is bluffing and
blustering, just like you.

Spike is just the same with his predictions of 'doom' for the RSGB,
ukram, RSGGTech, ..... he seems to be trying to convince himself he is
right. The evidence from history certainly isn't on his side- remember
ukram was supposed to have had its 'last post' by now and he predicted
problems for RSGBTech at the AGM. Needless to say, like a Cummins
threat, it was just hot air.

The current deal, if you can call it that, is a fudge. No one won or
really lost. That is obvious from the way both 'sides' are variously
claiming victory and defeat at the same time. It isn't even a
compromise, although that is how they try to present it.

It is as silly as the time when a deal had to be sealed by a certain
time, so the room clock was turned back. Only in politics.

[Brian Howie]

In message
<1127021978.534717490.419965....@news.individual
.net>, Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> writes

Scottish citizens theoretically could claim French dual citizenship
under the terms of the "Auld Alliance" treaty until 1903 and vice versa.

The French influence in Scotland is still evident to this day. For
example Jim is off to "Little France" in Edinburgh this morning.

Brian
--
Brian Howie

[Bernie]

On 11 Dec 2017 20:39:26 GMT

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/12/12/the-biggest-week-yet-in-brexit-politics

[Brian Reay]

There is a 'Petite France' in London. Oddly, the UK Passport office used
to be (may be still is) there.

[Brian Reay]

Sitting reading the Telegraph this morning in the garage, I read a
couple of reports on 'the Deal'.

Steve is definitely trying to bolster his spirits.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

If the EU *and* UK state that last week's agreement is legally binding,
then that means that we're going to maintain regulatory alignment with the
EU to prevent NI/Ireland or NI/rUK borders, which means de facto single
market and customs union membership. No ifs, no buts, no coconuts, OM,
that's what will happen. It's incredible, really, how plainly the
government demonstrated their desperation to secure a trade deal, which is
comforting in a way as at least we can now be sure that the "no deal is
better than a bad deal" arsewater was nothing more than naked politicking.
What'd be better is if Parliament grew some balls and carried a motion to
revoke A50 and forget the whole sorry affair, but one step at a time I
guess.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

"Brexit by cock-up", yup, that's about right.

[Spike]

On 12/12/2017 11:41, Brian Reay wrote:

> Steve is definitely trying to bolster his spirits.

Apologies for butting in to your private Brexit spat.

You might be interested in part of an email I received this morning from
a friend and former colleague whose hobby is travelling in Europe. He said:

"...did plenty of walking and talking and met a chap who had been an EU
agricultural subsidies commissioner. He was very interesting to talk to
and was of the opinion that most European politicians were of such low
quality that it was not surprising the outlook was poor".

I guess neither you nor Cole rub shoulders with EU Commissioners, so you
might be interested in the observations of someone who had direct
experience of EU politicians.



--
Spike

"Once you see the RSGB logo you know that you are on the right track"
But to what? Publish RSGBTech/RSGBTechnical's definitions of
'genuine', 'interest', 'known', 'trouble', and 'maker', and the vetting
policy.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 12/12/2017 11:41, Brian Reay wrote:
>
>> Steve is definitely trying to bolster his spirits.
>
> Apologies for butting in to your private Brexit spat.
>
> You might be interested in part of an email I received this morning from
> a friend and former colleague whose hobby is travelling in Europe. He said:
>
> "...did plenty of walking and talking and met a chap who had been an EU
> agricultural subsidies commissioner. He was very interesting to talk to
> and was of the opinion that most European politicians were of such low
> quality that it was not surprising the outlook was poor".
>
> I guess neither you nor Cole rub shoulders with EU Commissioners, so you
> might be interested in the observations of someone who had direct
> experience of EU politicians.
>

Your writing's gone right off the boil, Burt, nowhere near as good as it
used to be when you were doing your "at the centre" stories.

[Brian Reay]

Ok Steve , have it your way- I'm more than happy to wait and see how
things turn out.

You can bluff and bluster as much as you like.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

and probably will kill a few people ......

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

yes just back from little france no sign of the noble french punters
that used to reside there..... just a load of yellow people like wot I
was ....

[Brian Reay]

On 12/12/2017 12:26, Spike wrote:
> On 12/12/2017 11:41, Brian Reay wrote:
>
>> Steve is definitely trying to bolster his spirits.
>
> Apologies for butting in to your private Brexit spat.
>
> You might be interested in part of an email I received this morning from
> a friend and former colleague whose hobby is travelling in Europe. He said:
>
> "...did plenty of walking and talking and met a chap who had been an EU
> agricultural subsidies commissioner. He was very interesting to talk to
> and was of the opinion that most European politicians were of such low
> quality that it was not surprising the outlook was poor".
>
> I guess neither you nor Cole rub shoulders with EU Commissioners, so you
> might be interested in the observations of someone who had direct
> experience of EU politicians.
>
>
>

It was inevitable you would pop up with such a 'contact' making such a
bogus claim.

BTW, if you check my earlier posts, you will see I was less than
complimentary re those involved in the discussions. A fudge was all but
inevitable, which is exactly what we have.

The EU and British have stated it is a 'gentleman's agreement', slapping
down the Irish who say it is binding. Steve, of course, knows better
than the EU.

Just like a messy divorce, where the lawyers have a field day, the media
pundits and armchair 'experts' are loving this divorce. The worldly wise
are sitting back enjoying the mayhem. Your claim is just icing on the cake.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Where's the "bluff" or, indeed, "bluster" in anything I've said re Brexit
here? Have you seen the news today, where Verhofstadt gave David Davies in
particular and the British government in general a public dressing down and
branded them untrustworthy? And did you see the EU had to add further text
to last week's agreement reiterating that all agreed re NI, settlement
value, and ECJ oversight is inviolable and legally binding?

LOL!

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/2017 12:26, Spike wrote:
>> On 12/12/2017 11:41, Brian Reay wrote:
>>
>>> Steve is definitely trying to bolster his spirits.
>>
>> Apologies for butting in to your private Brexit spat.
>>
>> You might be interested in part of an email I received this morning from
>> a friend and former colleague whose hobby is travelling in Europe. He said:
>>
>> "...did plenty of walking and talking and met a chap who had been an EU
>> agricultural subsidies commissioner. He was very interesting to talk to
>> and was of the opinion that most European politicians were of such low
>> quality that it was not surprising the outlook was poor".
>>
>> I guess neither you nor Cole rub shoulders with EU Commissioners, so you
>> might be interested in the observations of someone who had direct
>> experience of EU politicians.
>>
>>
>>
>
> It was inevitable you would pop up with such a 'contact' making such a
> bogus claim.
>
> BTW, if you check my earlier posts, you will see I was less than
> complimentary re those involved in the discussions. A fudge was all but
> inevitable, which is exactly what we have.
>
> The EU and British have stated it is a 'gentleman's agreement',

Not according to David Davies (on behalf of the British government) or Guy
Verhofstadt (on behalf of the EU), OM. Look up the videos of them saying so
rather than gullibly believe what the Torygraph is telling you.

[Spike]

On 12/12/2017 15:39, Brian Reay wrote:
> On 12/12/2017 12:26, Spike wrote:
>> On 12/12/2017 11:41, Brian Reay wrote:

>>> Steve is definitely trying to bolster his spirits.

>> Apologies for butting in to your private Brexit spat.

>> You might be interested in part of an email I received this morning
>> from a friend and former colleague whose hobby is travelling in
>> Europe. He said:

>> "...did plenty of walking and talking and met a chap who had been an
>> EU agricultural subsidies commissioner. He was very interesting to
>> talk to and was of the opinion that most European politicians were of
>> such low quality that it was not surprising the outlook was poor".

>> I guess neither you nor Cole rub shoulders with EU Commissioners, so
>> you might be interested in the observations of someone who had direct
>> experience of EU politicians.

> It was inevitable you would pop up with such a 'contact' making such a
> bogus claim.

It could be worse, the conversation could have taken place in a
supermarket queue.

> BTW, if you check my earlier posts, you will see I was less than
> complimentary re those involved in the discussions. A fudge was all but
> inevitable, which is exactly what we have.

> The EU and British have stated it is a 'gentleman's agreement', slapping
> down the Irish who say it is binding. Steve, of course, knows better
> than the EU.

> Just like a messy divorce, where the lawyers have a field day, the media
> pundits and armchair 'experts' are loving this divorce. The worldly wise
> are sitting back enjoying the mayhem. Your claim is just icing on the cake.

You shouldn't believe what you read in the papers.

My Commissioner trumps your Daily Telegraph article.

[Brian Reay]

Your friend has suddenly been promoted to a Commissioner. That was
quick. In your last post he just 'rubbed shoulders' with them.

Perhaps there was a sudden vacancy, after all the recent fudge was
rather embarrassing.

Or, perhaps your story is just another fabrication and you've slipped up
again.

Enjoy your tantrum ;-)

[Bernie]

On 12 Dec 2017 12:25:05 GMT

I'm, uncharacteristically, going to align with Brian, and say that I
think nothing is set in stone, yet. Have a look at the rest of the
politics.co.uk site.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/12/12/the-irish-border-and-the-revenge-of-game-theory

Do you follow Ian Dunt on twitter? He's on holidays ATM, but he's worth
following if you're interested.

[Spike]

Nope. read it again, a bit more slowly.

> Perhaps there was a sudden vacancy, after all the recent fudge was
> rather embarrassing.

> Or, perhaps your story is just another fabrication and you've slipped up
> again.

> Enjoy your tantrum ;-)

Looks like your parade got rained on. What else would one expect a
Telegraph reader to say when the rug gets pulled from under his argument.

[Brian Reay]

No Spike, you need to either stop making things up or take more care
when you do.

[Spike]

You're going to have to get used to the idea that you travel to France
in a caravan and sit in the sun drinking beer, while more mature people
go to France, stay in hotels, and meet interesting people. The latter is
a much better way of informing oneself about events than reading the
Torygraph. Give it a try, see if you measure up to the new level. We
won't be holding our breath.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

who would want to go to france anyway ....

--
OFCOM know exactly what the hobby is worth..£00.00

Once you see the RSGB logo you know you're blackballed....

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Sorry for delay coming back, got busy. But in the interim, the whole
"legally binding" aspect of last week's agreement has taken firmer form,
with the EU really digging their heels in. It's nailed on, certainly if we
want a deal. If there's any backsliding, the EU will tell us to get fucked.

>Have a look at the rest of the
> politics.co.uk site.
>
> http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/12/12/the-irish-border-and-the-revenge-of-game-theory
>
> Do you follow Ian Dunt on twitter? He's on holidays ATM, but he's worth
> following if you're interested.

I did for a while but got fed up of his semi-regular hysterical fits about
Corbyn's supposed "Hard-Brexiteer" mindset.

[Brian Reay]

Hang on, it was either firm or it wasn't AT THE TIME, that was the whole
point.

> with the EU really digging their heels in. It's nailed on, certainly if we
> want a deal. If there's any backsliding, the EU will tell us to get fucked.
>

What has happened since is:

Ireland claimed the original 'deal' was binding. UK and EU said it wasn't.

Later, the UK and EU changed- saying it needs to be made binding.

All in all, that tells you the original deal was a fudge. Nothing was
really settled- those involved didn't really seem to know what they'd
agreed.

So you can run around the playing field claiming victory as much as you
like but don't be at all surprised to learn the ball wasn't even near
the goal mouth.

>
>> Have a look at the rest of the
>> politics.co.uk site.
>>
>> http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/12/12/the-irish-border-and-the-revenge-of-game-theory
>>
>> Do you follow Ian Dunt on twitter? He's on holidays ATM, but he's worth
>> following if you're interested.
>
> I did for a while but got fed up of his semi-regular hysterical fits about
> Corbyn's supposed "Hard-Brexiteer" mindset.
>

Corbyn, like all the other MP's (of either party), is more interested in
trying to score points in the current farce.

[Brian Reay]

On 14/12/17 14:45, Brian Morrison wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2017 14:20:37 GMT

> Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>
>> I did for a while but got fed up of his semi-regular hysterical fits
>> about Corbyn's supposed "Hard-Brexiteer" mindset.
>

> Corbyn has been anti-EU since the dawn of time, well until he thought
> that the EU was on the side of the workers! Hint: it really isn't...
>

Neither is Corbyn.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2017 14:20:37 GMT
> Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>

>> I did for a while but got fed up of his semi-regular hysterical fits
>> about Corbyn's supposed "Hard-Brexiteer" mindset.
>

> Corbyn has been anti-EU since the dawn of time, well until he thought
> that the EU was on the side of the workers! Hint: it really isn't...
>

He's certainly had reservations about much of it, yes. But he's no Hard
Brexiteer, he's on the record plenty of times during EURef saying that
we're better off in than out, and since the referendum he's argued for the
next best thing; single market and customs union membership. Dunt's main
problem with Corbyn is that he's not throatily demanding that we scrap
Brexit altogether, but to have done so would have been politically unwise.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:57:50 +0000
> Brian Reay wrote:
>
>> All in all, that tells you the original deal was a fudge. Nothing was
>> really settled- those involved didn't really seem to know what they'd
>> agreed.
>

> And it couldn't be settled at this stage because it depends on things
> not yet discussed and decided upon.
>

You seem to not have any awareness of what the whole Phase 1 agreement was
about, so let me help you;

The EU wanted clarity on three major issues before they would move on to
trade discussion; the NI/Irish border situation, the settlement of
financial obligations, and the status of EU citizens. The UK government
spent seven months squirming over all three points but eventually, at the
11th hour, caved in to *all* of the EU's demands. Doing so means the EU is
now prepared to discuss trade with us. HTH.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

It was, but then Davis dropped a bollock by trying to play down the
commitment the Government had made and the EU responded by changing the
text of the draft agreement to make it even clearer and more indisputable.

>> with the EU really digging their heels in. It's nailed on, certainly if we
>> want a deal. If there's any backsliding, the EU will tell us to get fucked.
>>
>
> What has happened since is:
>
> Ireland claimed the original 'deal' was binding. UK and EU said it wasn't.
>
> Later, the UK and EU changed- saying it needs to be made binding.
>

Nonsense. I suggest you read more news sources, you're denying yourself
understanding of actual reality.

> All in all, that tells you the original deal was a fudge. Nothing was
> really settled- those involved didn't really seem to know what they'd
> agreed.

Everybody involved knew what they'd agreed, the British simply chose to lie
about it. The EU quickly slapped them back into line, and quite rightly.

> So you can run around the playing field claiming victory as much as you
> like but don't be at all surprised to learn the ball wasn't even near
> the goal mouth.

How will you react if your children apply for that opt-in EU citizenship
that's being touted?

>>> Have a look at the rest of the
>>> politics.co.uk site.
>>>
>>> http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/12/12/the-irish-border-and-the-revenge-of-game-theory
>>>
>>> Do you follow Ian Dunt on twitter? He's on holidays ATM, but he's worth
>>> following if you're interested.
>>
>> I did for a while but got fed up of his semi-regular hysterical fits about
>> Corbyn's supposed "Hard-Brexiteer" mindset.
>>
>
> Corbyn, like all the other MP's (of either party), is more interested in
> trying to score points in the current farce.

There's the next election to win, that's the most important thing. The
Tories are destroying themselves with Brexit, and it's wise to let them do
so. Once the government falls at some point next year and Corbyn moves in
to Number 10, then that's the point that Article 50 is revoked on the
grounds that the Tories have so badly botched Brexit that it would be
suicidal to continue.

[Brian Reay]

Oh dear.

The money we've agreed to pay is around the net amount we'd have paid
anyway during the transition period.

The status of EU citizens was never threaten- especially after the EU
guaranteed the status of UK nationals in the EU. Likewise, if UK
nationals, any UK nationals, what to be EU nationals, that is their
choice. I don't want to be one.

The boarder was open to discussion but, as I've explained, that is
hardly a major loss to the UK, far from it.

You really should look into behind the headlines Steve.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
> On 15/12/17 07:06, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>> Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:57:50 +0000
>>> Brian Reay wrote:
>>>
>>>> All in all, that tells you the original deal was a fudge. Nothing was
>>>> really settled- those involved didn't really seem to know what they'd
>>>> agreed.
>>>
>>> And it couldn't be settled at this stage because it depends on things
>>> not yet discussed and decided upon.
>>>
>>
>> You seem to not have any awareness of what the whole Phase 1 agreement was
>> about, so let me help you;
>>
>> The EU wanted clarity on three major issues before they would move on to
>> trade discussion; the NI/Irish border situation, the settlement of
>> financial obligations, and the status of EU citizens. The UK government
>> spent seven months squirming over all three points but eventually, at the
>> 11th hour, caved in to *all* of the EU's demands. Doing so means the EU is
>> now prepared to discuss trade with us. HTH.
>>
>
> Oh dear.
>
> The money we've agreed to pay is around the net amount we'd have paid
> anyway during the transition period.

Yes, aka "the settlement of financial obligations", as I said above.

> The status of EU citizens was never threaten-

Yes, it was, multiple times and by cabinet ministers, including the PM.

>especially after the EU
> guaranteed the status of UK nationals in the EU.

They continued to threaten the status of EU citizens even after that.

>Likewise, if UK
> nationals, any UK nationals, what to be EU nationals, that is their
> choice. I don't want to be one.
>
> The boarder was open to discussion but, as I've explained, that is
> hardly a major loss to the UK, far from it.

Conceding on the NI/Irish border means the de facto membership of the
SM/CU, and the loss of trade deals that require any regulations contrary
(see chlorine-soaked chicken) to that de facto membership. I don't view
that as a loss, but I'm surprised you don't either.

> You really should look into behind the headlines Steve.
>

You give the overall impression that you don't read the news at all, Brian.

[James M Stewart]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message
news:1952280520.535039320.278584....@news.individual.net...

nice put down ...

[Brian Reay]

On 15/12/2017 14:10, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
> Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>> On 15/12/17 07:06, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
>>> Brian Morrison <ne...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:57:50 +0000
>>>> Brian Reay wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All in all, that tells you the original deal was a fudge. Nothing was
>>>>> really settled- those involved didn't really seem to know what they'd
>>>>> agreed.
>>>>
>>>> And it couldn't be settled at this stage because it depends on things
>>>> not yet discussed and decided upon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You seem to not have any awareness of what the whole Phase 1 agreement was
>>> about, so let me help you;
>>>
>>> The EU wanted clarity on three major issues before they would move on to
>>> trade discussion; the NI/Irish border situation, the settlement of
>>> financial obligations, and the status of EU citizens. The UK government
>>> spent seven months squirming over all three points but eventually, at the
>>> 11th hour, caved in to *all* of the EU's demands. Doing so means the EU is
>>> now prepared to discuss trade with us. HTH.
>>>
>>
>> Oh dear.
>>
>> The money we've agreed to pay is around the net amount we'd have paid
>> anyway during the transition period.
>
> Yes, aka "the settlement of financial obligations", as I said above.

Only the obligations during the transition period.

No different to you having a magazine subscription, giving two years
notice of cancellation, paying meanwhile, and still getting the magazine.

>
>> The status of EU citizens was never threaten-
>
> Yes, it was, multiple times and by cabinet ministers, including the PM.

No they weren't.

>
>> especially after the EU
>> guaranteed the status of UK nationals in the EU.
>
> They continued to threaten the status of EU citizens even after that.

No they didn't.

>
>> Likewise, if UK
>> nationals, any UK nationals, what to be EU nationals, that is their
>> choice. I don't want to be one.
>>
>> The boarder was open to discussion but, as I've explained, that is
>> hardly a major loss to the UK, far from it.
>
> Conceding on the NI/Irish border means the de facto membership of the
> SM/CU, and the loss of trade deals that require any regulations contrary
> (see chlorine-soaked chicken) to that de facto membership. I don't view
> that as a loss, but I'm surprised you don't either.

Which could be useful to us.

The chicken thing you are obsessed with shows you know knowing. It is no
more 'chlorine soaked' than your tap water.

>
>> You really should look into behind the headlines Steve.
>>
>
> You give the overall impression that you don't read the news at all, Brian.
>
>

Oh dear Steve.

You are reading the headlines and seeing what you want to see.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

I saw them do it on TV. Are you saying I hallucinated it?

>>
>>> Likewise, if UK
>>> nationals, any UK nationals, what to be EU nationals, that is their
>>> choice. I don't want to be one.
>>>
>>> The boarder was open to discussion but, as I've explained, that is
>>> hardly a major loss to the UK, far from it.
>>
>> Conceding on the NI/Irish border means the de facto membership of the
>> SM/CU, and the loss of trade deals that require any regulations contrary
>> (see chlorine-soaked chicken) to that de facto membership. I don't view
>> that as a loss, but I'm surprised you don't either.
>
> Which could be useful to us.
>
> The chicken thing you are obsessed with shows you know knowing. It is no
> more 'chlorine soaked' than your tap water.
>

It's not tap water, Brian. It's diluted chlorine. Go drink a glass of
diluted chlorine and see how you feel 10 minutes later.

>>
>>> You really should look into behind the headlines Steve.
>>>
>>
>> You give the overall impression that you don't read the news at all, Brian.
>>
>>
>
> Oh dear Steve.
>
> You are reading the headlines and seeing what you want to see.
>

You keep dreaming, OM.

[Brian Reay]

You need to check your facts.

(hint between 25 and 50 ppm isn't diluted chlorine. Tap water can be up
to 5 ppm (5mg per litre) The chicken is rinsed in it to kill surface
bacteria. )


Besides your claim being wrong, there is no evidence the process is harmful.

The EU 'gripe' is due to differences in the way the chickens are reared
and process conditions, not the chlorine.


If you are that bothered by chlorine, give up eating all processed food,
eating in restaurants,.... A standard way to wash down work surfaces is
diluted bleach. The smell is chlorine.





The remoaners are whining for the wrong reasons.

[Spike]

The real test is: Do they serve chlorine chicken at Lodge Night dinners?

[Paul Cummins]

In article
<544840128.535070637.429273....@news.individual.n

et>, use...@stephenthomascole.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:

> > You are reading the headlines and seeing what you want to see.
> >
>
> You keep dreaming, OM.

One gets to the point where, when all else can be excluded, one has to
consider that the biggest problem here is obvious.

Once one examines all of the issues that an individual has with pretty
much every other member of this newsfroup, and the same person's
inability to face facts, even when presented in the simplest terms, one
comes to the inevitable conclusion that the only common factor in this
person's difficulties is that person.

As a result the conclusion that must be drawn is that individual both
seeks the trouble that his regular offensive allegations, accusatory
statements and alternative facts cause, and does so due to some issue
that he has and not due to anything being done by any other person, no
matter which "side" they seem to be on.

No doubt the mental health issue behind this failure will be relied upon
as mitigation at the relevant time.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk

[Paul Cummins]

In article <p11lng$fct$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:

>
> You need to check your facts.
>
> (hint between 25 and 50 ppm isn't diluted chlorine. Tap water can
> be up to 5 ppm (5mg per litre) The chicken is rinsed in it to kill
> surface bacteria. )

You need to check YOUR facts:

> A typical poultry chiller may have a chlorine demand of *1000-2000ppm*

By way of comparison, a healthy swimming pool should be between 1-3ppm of
Chlorine. Most water companies in the UK using Chlorine for mains
supplies (not all do) aim for a value of around 0.5ppm. an order of
magnitude less than the 5 you claim.

http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/consumers/advice-leaflets/chlorine.pdf

[Brian Reay]

On 16/12/2017 11:44, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <p11lng$fct$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
>
>>
>> You need to check your facts.
>>
>> (hint between 25 and 50 ppm isn't diluted chlorine. Tap water can
>> be up to 5 ppm (5mg per litre) The chicken is rinsed in it to kill
>> surface bacteria. )
>
> You need to check YOUR facts:
>
>> A typical poultry chiller may have a chlorine demand of *1000-2000ppm*

http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/1383/chlorine-still-the-most-popular-sanitizer-in-the-poultry-industry/

USDA limit : 50ppm

>
> By way of comparison, a healthy swimming pool should be between 1-3ppm of
> Chlorine. Most water companies in the UK using Chlorine for mains
> supplies (not all do) aim for a value of around 0.5ppm. an order of
> magnitude less than the 5 you claim.
>
> http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/consumers/advice-leaflets/chlorine.pdf
>

Read your own reference.

WHO states up to 5mg/litre (that is 5ppm).

[Paul Cummins]

In article <p146db$46u$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:

>
> WHO states up to 5mg/litre (that is 5ppm).

That's World Health - what's the British limit?

[Spike]

On 16/12/2017 08:56, Spike wrote:
> On 15/12/2017 23:26, Brian Reay wrote:
>> On 15/12/2017 23:02, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

>>> It's not tap water, Brian. It's diluted chlorine. Go drink a glass of
>>> diluted chlorine and see how you feel 10 minutes later.

>> You need to check your facts.

>> (hint between 25 and 50 ppm isn't diluted chlorine. Tap water can be

>> up to  5 ppm (5mg per litre) The chicken is rinsed in it to kill

>> surface bacteria. )

>> Besides your claim being wrong, there is no evidence the process is
>> harmful.

>> The EU 'gripe' is due to differences in the way the chickens are
>> reared and process conditions, not the chlorine.

>> If you are that bothered by chlorine, give up eating all processed
>> food, eating in restaurants,.... A standard way to wash down work
>> surfaces is diluted bleach. The smell is chlorine.

> The real test is: Do they serve chlorine chicken at Lodge Night dinners?

I guess not. Says it all.