Brexit means Brexit…and more bicycles...maybe

srchar wrote:

Genuine question to people who think we'll be without food and medicine after a few days outside the EU: who exactly do you think is going to close the ports and prevent goods reaching the shelves?

It's jsut about everything backing up because it will take long to process everthing, hence the practise runs on the M20 allowing for delays https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-45021133

(can't see why inward would be any different).

David9694 wrote:

...

I still hope that Brexit whatever form it takes will be an anti-climax, like the Millennium Bug turned out to be in 1999/2000.  There were information campaigns around that too, I wonder what the content of this next one will be, a “Protect and Survive” for the 2020s?

...

Boris, among others, has trotted this one out occasionally. Apart from the obviously fallacious reasoning (‘nothing happened then, therefore nothing will happen now’), it entirely misrepresents the facts of the time. The Millenium bug was a real risk, avoided precisely because we planned for it and did something about it. I made quite a lot of money for two years out of it as a contract programmer. And the problems we were addressing were real.

crazy-legs wrote:

There's an awful lot of stuff that Leave votors haven't understood!

Still, don't worry - you can't be as bad as Dominic Raab, our former genius Brexit Secretary in charge of these high level deals and agreements - who "hadn't quite understood" the importance of the English Channel as a trade gateway to the continent.

Or David Davis (another Brexit Secretary - gosh we do get through them quite quickly don't we?!) who didn't understand that deals might not be easy.

So not understanding partial quotes is quite minor really. You'll get over it.

 

Insinuates leave voters are stupid.

Misspells voters.

Rich_cb wrote:

crazy-legs wrote:

 

There's an awful lot of stuff that Leave votors haven't understood!

Still, don't worry - you can't be as bad as Dominic Raab, our former genius Brexit Secretary in charge of these high level deals and agreements - who "hadn't quite understood" the importance of the English Channel as a trade gateway to the continent.

Or David Davis (another Brexit Secretary - gosh we do get through them quite quickly don't we?!) who didn't understand that deals might not be easy.

So not understanding partial quotes is quite minor really. You'll get over it.

 

Insinuates leave voters are stupid. Misspells voters.

The Kippers have just elected a new leader - his name is Dick Braine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49307101

crazy-legs wrote:

[There's an awful lot of stuff that Leave votors haven't understood!

Still, don't worry - you can't be as bad as Dominic Raab, our former genius Brexit Secretary in charge of these high level deals and agreements - who "hadn't quite understood" the importance of the English Channel as a trade gateway to the continent.

Or David Davis (another Brexit Secretary - gosh we do get through them quite quickly don't we?!) who didn't understand that deals might not be easy.

Not forgetting the Northern Ireland secretary who hadn't 'realised' that people in Northern Ireland tend to vote along sectarian lines in elections. I was going to ask 'Where the hell do they find them?' but the answer is usually either Eton or crawling out from under a stone like KPMG.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

I said that No-deal would be blamed on all those who rejected a deal, Brexiteers and Remainers alike.

No you didn't. Look at what you wrote. I'm afraid that is a lie.

The reason we are heading, seemingly inevitably now, for a no-deal Brexit is because Remain voting MPs rejected the negotiated deal.

But it seems that facts are more fluid and less important than ideology for Brexiters and Trumpists.

I never understand people who partially quote someone in a thread where the full quote is easily viewed.

Here's the bit you omitted.

Any damage caused by no-deal can be blamed squarely on those who rejected the deal.

Notice the use of the word blame in that sentence.

Did you see the word blame in the partial quote you used?

HarrogateSpa wrote:

You are either mistaken or deliberately not telling the truth. The deal was rejected by the extreme Brexiters of the ERG and the DUP. They voted against it. Rees-Mogg. Arlene Foster.

No deal can be blamed squarely on the Brexiters who voted against a deal - the same people who, in the Referendum campaign in 2016, said there was no chance of leaving the single market, and a deal would be easy.

Unfortunately, those who promoted Brexit are charlatans, liars and extremists. You cannot trust them. That they have got so far is down to the gullible, and those who want to be deceived.

Were they the only members of parliament to reject the deal?

I said that No-deal would be blamed on all those who rejected a deal, Brexiteers and Remainers alike.

The only difference being that the Brexiteers you mentioned rejected the deal to facilitate no deal.

The Remainers rejected the deal to facilitate remain.

I though Remainers were meant to be the intelligent ones?

Rich_cb wrote:

The reason we are heading, seemingly inevitably now, for a no-deal Brexit is because Remain voting MPs rejected the negotiated deal. Any damage caused by no-deal can be blamed squarely on those who rejected the deal.

It wasn't a negotiated deal, it was a withdrawal agreement that begins the rest of the dealings.

Even Boris and JRM rejected it (along with all the DUP) so don't go blaming remain voters for it. (admittedly they did finally and reluctantly swing behind it when it sited their own political agenda).

The reason we're in this almighty fucking mess is because 17 million people were fooled into believing the lies, spin, deceit and manipulation. And now the media are busy spinning the line that it's all the fault of the EU / remoaners / non-believers / the rest of the world.

crazy-legs wrote:

Even Boris and JRM rejected it (along with all the DUP) so don't go blaming remain voters for it. (admittedly they did finally and reluctantly swing behind it when it sited their own political agenda).

The reason we're in this almighty fucking mess is because 17 million people were fooled into believing the lies, spin, deceit and manipulation. And now the media are busy spinning the line that it's all the fault of the EU / remoaners / non-believers / the rest of the world.

In this context the withdrawal agreement is the 'deal'.

It's unbelievable that years after the result so many Remain voters can't accept that decision and continue to cling desperately to the idea that people were fooled/tricked etc.

The consequences of no-deal will be the fault of those who rejected the 'deal'.

Nobody else.

Mungecrundle wrote:

If Brexit has become nothing but a damage limitation exercise involving spending £billions in contingency planning... ...then wtf are we still going ahead with it?

The only reason I've seen that remotely makes sense and matches the facts, is that the EU is introducing tax evasion legislation, so the rich decided we had to leave.  They own the media so were able to manipulate the gullible with their lies, fantasies and messages on the side of a bus.

The whole purpose of Brexit is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

burtthebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

If Brexit has become nothing but a damage limitation exercise involving spending £billions in contingency planning... ...then wtf are we still going ahead with it?

The only reason I've seen that remotely makes sense and matches the facts, is that the EU is introducing tax evasion legislation, so the rich decided we had to leave.  They own the media so were able to manipulate the gullible with their lies, fantasies and messages on the side of a bus.

The whole purpose of Brexit is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

The timing of the Brexit vote just after the Panama Papers scandal makes this the most plausible explanation.

hawkinspeter wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

If Brexit has become nothing but a damage limitation exercise involving spending £billions in contingency planning... ...then wtf are we still going ahead with it?

The only reason I've seen that remotely makes sense and matches the facts, is that the EU is introducing tax evasion legislation, so the rich decided we had to leave.  They own the media so were able to manipulate the gullible with their lies, fantasies and messages on the side of a bus.

The whole purpose of Brexit is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

The timing of the Brexit vote just after the Panama Papers scandal makes this the most plausible explanation.

A report from several years ago exposes the whole financial, corrupt ponzy scheme that is the UK https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/when-a-mafia-expert-tells-us-britai...

Double, sorry.  I think the weather is so foul, lots of cyclists are keeping the servers busy.

burtthebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

If Brexit has become nothing but a damage limitation exercise involving spending £billions in contingency planning... ...then wtf are we still going ahead with it?

The only reason I've seen that remotely makes sense and matches the facts, is that the EU is introducing tax evasion legislation, so the rich decided we had to leave.  They own the media so were able to manipulate the gullible with their lies, fantasies and messages on the side of a bus.

The whole purpose of Brexit is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Good lord! You mean Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and his nanny, and Dulwich educated ex City financier Nigel Farage (who's still drawing his MEP salary from an organisation he despises) aren't really men of the people with the interests of the common folk at heart? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

brooksby wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

If Brexit has become nothing but a damage limitation exercise involving spending £billions in contingency planning... ...then wtf are we still going ahead with it?

The only reason I've seen that remotely makes sense and matches the facts, is that the EU is introducing tax evasion legislation, so the rich decided we had to leave.  They own the media so were able to manipulate the gullible with their lies, fantasies and messages on the side of a bus.

The whole purpose of Brexit is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Good lord! You mean Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and his nanny, and Dulwich educated ex City financier Nigel Farage (who's still drawing his MEP salary from an organisation he despises) aren't really men of the people with the interests of the common folk at heart? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

At least millionaire Aaron Banks didn't have any agenda in co-founding Leave.EU or "gifting" money to Farage.

ktache wrote:

It had never entered my mind that post brexit Britian could plunge into a Mad Max style dystopian future until the then brexit secratary David Davies decided to start talking about it.

Unfortunately the bicycle is probably not the solution to this as the roving gangs of War Boys can easily defeat the humble pushbike in their armoured death bringing machines.

Now the zombie apocolypse, slightly different matter, the bicycle could be a viable means of transportation when all the fuel is gone, provided they are the slow moving, shambolic zombies of George A. Romero's Day/Night of the Dead rather than those quick witted, fast running ones from Danny Boyle's 28 Days later.

Well it's frequently been pointed out that the motorised vehicles in The Walking Dead should have become completely unusable a few seasons ago, as the 'gasoline' in them would all have turned to jelly.  Apparently the additives in them would slow that process, but it would only have been a question of a few years.  So the gang - and their various human enemies - should all have resorted to bicycles long ago.

If I'd have been writing for a zombie show, I'd have opened an episode with a scene where survivors are trudging up a hill, and suddenly hear a strange rattling sound.  To then be confronted with a peleton of zombies on bikes (a zeleton?) free-wheeling wildly down the hill at them...while on fire.  Trying to explain how that came about would constiute the rest of the episode.  It would probably involve Boris Johnson in some capacity.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

[

 

Well it's frequently been pointed out that the motorised vehicles in The Walking Dead should have become completely unusable a few seasons ago, as the 'gasoline' in them would all have turned to jelly.  Apparently the additives in them would slow that process, but it would only have been a question of a few years.  So the gang - and their various human enemies - should all have resorted to bicycles long ago.

If I'd have been writing for a zombie show, I'd have opened an episode with a scene where survivors are trudging up a hill, and suddenly hear a strange rattling sound.  To then be confronted with a peleton of zombies on bikes (a zeleton?) free-wheeling wildly down the hill at them...while on fire.  Trying to explain how that came about would constiute the rest of the episode.  It would probably involve Boris Johnson in some capacity.

 

That's at least 3 more terrible seasons of the walking dead you've now inspired if the writers are reading this! The series is now so bad I can actually see this happening.

Rick_Rude wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Well it's frequently been pointed out that the motorised vehicles in The Walking Dead should have become completely unusable a few seasons ago, as the 'gasoline' in them would all have turned to jelly.  Apparently the additives in them would slow that process, but it would only have been a question of a few years.  So the gang - and their various human enemies - should all have resorted to bicycles long ago.

If I'd have been writing for a zombie show, I'd have opened an episode with a scene where survivors are trudging up a hill, and suddenly hear a strange rattling sound.  To then be confronted with a peleton of zombies on bikes (a zeleton?) free-wheeling wildly down the hill at them...while on fire.  Trying to explain how that came about would constiute the rest of the episode.  It would probably involve Boris Johnson in some capacity.

That's at least 3 more terrible seasons of the walking dead you've now inspired if the writers are reading this! The series is now so bad I can actually see this happening.

They've definitely jumped the shark with The Walking Dead. They p*ssed me off by dragging out the war with Negan for two series.

I'm currently getting near the end of the comics - I think issue 193 is the very last one, ever.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Well it's frequently been pointed out that the motorised vehicles in The Walking Dead should have become completely unusable a few seasons ago, as the 'gasoline' in them would all have turned to jelly.  Apparently the additives in them would slow that process, but it would only have been a question of a few years.  So the gang - and their various human enemies - should all have resorted to bicycles long ago.

If I'd have been writing for a zombie show, I'd have opened an episode with a scene where survivors are trudging up a hill, and suddenly hear a strange rattling sound.  To then be confronted with a peleton of zombies on bikes (a zeleton?) free-wheeling wildly down the hill at them...while on fire.  Trying to explain how that came about would constiute the rest of the episode.  It would probably involve Boris Johnson in some capacity.

That's at least 3 more terrible seasons of the walking dead you've now inspired if the writers are reading this! The series is now so bad I can actually see this happening.

They've definitely jumped the shark with The Walking Dead. They p*ssed me off by dragging out the war with Negan for two series.

I'm currently getting near the end of the comics - I think issue 193 is the very last one, ever.

I stopped watching quite a while ago.  It was OK, had some very good stuff (effects, acting, and the occasional effective storyline or set-peice) but also a lot of flaws (mainly illogical plots and inconsistent characterisation).

I gather George Romero and others have disparaged it as 'a soap opera with zombies', but I don't see that as a bad thing - kind of like Eastenders but more cheery and not as unrelentingly bleak and depressing.

I presume the original outbreak somehow involved Iain Duncan Smith or 'Failing Grayling' being put in charge of some science or medical project.