How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 2)
Discussion
coldel said:
He stood and spoke about Grenfell and his closing rant was '390million for a refit of Buckingham Palace, bet they get a sprinkler system!'
Just on that basis alone he's doing a disserviceYes BP is getting a refit. Yes it will probably have sprinklers too. The Palace is a major tourist attraction though. One that will be open to the general public in due course
The reason Grenfell (and where was he BEFORE the fire? he's by no means the only one) didn't have sprinklers is because in a block that big with that number of people in it. The amount of false alarms would be horrendous! Literally every day and every night. And of course a system would call the fire brigade every time. And the worst thing you can do with an electrical fire is dump water on it!
Its more complicated than he wants to admit with his one liners. (I'll assume he DOES have the intelligence required)
Slight deviation.
Of course whatever happened to the individual whose fridge was the cause of the fire? The same media Pie represents that only cover the part of the story designed to elicit a certain response...
Rich_W said:
Just on that basis alone he's doing a disservice
Yes BP is getting a refit. Yes it will probably have sprinklers too. The Palace is a major tourist attraction though. One that will be open to the general public in due course
The reason Grenfell (and where was he BEFORE the fire? he's by no means the only one) didn't have sprinklers is because in a block that big with that number of people in it. The amount of false alarms would be horrendous! Literally every day and every night. And of course a system would call the fire brigade every time. And the worst thing you can do with an electrical fire is dump water on it!
Its more complicated than he wants to admit with his one liners. (I'll assume he DOES have the intelligence required)
Slight deviation.
Of course whatever happened to the individual whose fridge was the cause of the fire? The same media Pie represents that only cover the part of the story designed to elicit a certain response...
It is meant to be satirical and tongue in cheek, I don't think in any way shape or form it is meant to be taken literally. The context he was debating at the time was class divide, that concerns were not deemed important enough, that the cladding was there to make the blight on the landscape look better in a very affluent part of London, and had no other reason to actually be on the building. Yes BP is getting a refit. Yes it will probably have sprinklers too. The Palace is a major tourist attraction though. One that will be open to the general public in due course
The reason Grenfell (and where was he BEFORE the fire? he's by no means the only one) didn't have sprinklers is because in a block that big with that number of people in it. The amount of false alarms would be horrendous! Literally every day and every night. And of course a system would call the fire brigade every time. And the worst thing you can do with an electrical fire is dump water on it!
Its more complicated than he wants to admit with his one liners. (I'll assume he DOES have the intelligence required)
Slight deviation.
Of course whatever happened to the individual whose fridge was the cause of the fire? The same media Pie represents that only cover the part of the story designed to elicit a certain response...
He could be right or wrong, the idea is to get people thinking a bit more laterally.
Rich_W said:
The reason Grenfell (and where was he BEFORE the fire? he's by no means the only one) didn't have sprinklers is because in a block that big with that number of people in it. The amount of false alarms would be horrendous!
Sprinklers don't work like they do in the movies - a "false alarm" won't flood the whole block!Rich_W said:
Oh Lynn you ugly, ugly troll.
Attacking peoples grammar on an internet forum (you'd have a melt down on old shortened twitter!
) does tend to point towards a superiority complex. And attacking where someone grew up (and I never once said I lived in Croydon, but hey keep lying - Though I have been down Davidson Road a few times) doesn't do you any favours. I know where I come from. I know what I've achieved. I know what people from my school/social group have achieved. Some well, some not so well. But I NEVER look down on someone from where they come from. Why would I? I'm not that insecure. I judge people based on how they deal with me. I dread to think how you come across in real life to people.
I don't know why anyone engages with you. You like the other Remainiacs on this thread Ajd/OBD/mx5 NEVER understand where people are coming from. You never accept anything anyone says as plausible. You lie, misread, find "facts" to fit your warped arguments. And then when that fails. Time and Time again, you attack the poster instead of having the intelligence and social ability to make a sensible counter point. Not one Leave voter on here has dismissed a sensible counter idea to any of the problems of the EU. The only time they get rejected is when it's essentially "not leaving but staying in the EU" If anything we've seen Leave voters suggest ways the EU should change. But as ever you lot dismiss everything that doesn't involve "stay in, more migrants, more power to the EU. More payments to the EU. In fact f
k the UK"
At no point have I seen any of the aforementioned undesirables explain WHY immigration is a concern to many. At no point have I seen them explain WHY we should stay in the EU ,except for the blindly optimistic "its better for us" (Parts of it are great. Parts that cant be changed definitely not.) They assume that Brexit will be a complete unmitigated disaster and we will all be eating gruel for the next 50 years as we become a sleepy backwater. You have no idea what the EU is going to do in 5 years. Let alone 10. You can't predict the future, but find numerous biased articles on Indy and Guardian sites to "prove" you're correct.
And riding above all this is
I never understand why you even care?
You're obviously doing considerably better than everyone else here. With your massive salary, husband and family and fleet of nice cars. I can only guess with your constant level of condescension, that you hope one day to work for the EU Commission. It seems to be the one trait they admire over all else. So keep it up
I asked you to provide evidence of me lying. Like with everything else, you failed to do so. I even let you argue with yourself, and you managed to lose that one. You've introduced Croydon into the discussion after being shown that your argument about the origin of immigrants was particularly stupid. Attacking peoples grammar on an internet forum (you'd have a melt down on old shortened twitter!
) does tend to point towards a superiority complex. And attacking where someone grew up (and I never once said I lived in Croydon, but hey keep lying - Though I have been down Davidson Road a few times) doesn't do you any favours. I know where I come from. I know what I've achieved. I know what people from my school/social group have achieved. Some well, some not so well. But I NEVER look down on someone from where they come from. Why would I? I'm not that insecure. I judge people based on how they deal with me. I dread to think how you come across in real life to people.I don't know why anyone engages with you. You like the other Remainiacs on this thread Ajd/OBD/mx5 NEVER understand where people are coming from. You never accept anything anyone says as plausible. You lie, misread, find "facts" to fit your warped arguments. And then when that fails. Time and Time again, you attack the poster instead of having the intelligence and social ability to make a sensible counter point. Not one Leave voter on here has dismissed a sensible counter idea to any of the problems of the EU. The only time they get rejected is when it's essentially "not leaving but staying in the EU" If anything we've seen Leave voters suggest ways the EU should change. But as ever you lot dismiss everything that doesn't involve "stay in, more migrants, more power to the EU. More payments to the EU. In fact f
k the UK"At no point have I seen any of the aforementioned undesirables explain WHY immigration is a concern to many. At no point have I seen them explain WHY we should stay in the EU ,except for the blindly optimistic "its better for us" (Parts of it are great. Parts that cant be changed definitely not.) They assume that Brexit will be a complete unmitigated disaster and we will all be eating gruel for the next 50 years as we become a sleepy backwater. You have no idea what the EU is going to do in 5 years. Let alone 10. You can't predict the future, but find numerous biased articles on Indy and Guardian sites to "prove" you're correct.
And riding above all this is
I never understand why you even care?
You're obviously doing considerably better than everyone else here. With your massive salary, husband and family and fleet of nice cars. I can only guess with your constant level of condescension, that you hope one day to work for the EU Commission. It seems to be the one trait they admire over all else. So keep it up
I asked you why do I need FoM if I'm in my 'bolt hole in Finland'. You failed once again.
Maybe if you invest more time in yourself, constructively, you won't have to compete for NMW jobs with immigrants who can't even speak English.
Edited by jjlynn27 on Monday 18th December 16:35
mx5nut said:
Rich_W said:
The reason Grenfell (and where was he BEFORE the fire? he's by no means the only one) didn't have sprinklers is because in a block that big with that number of people in it. The amount of false alarms would be horrendous!
Sprinklers don't work like they do in the movies - a "false alarm" won't flood the whole block!
False alarms sound alarms. If a sprinkler fires in one flat, it will flood the flat below at the very least! Alarms mean people have to evacuate whether that's a floor or the whole block. People get fairly sick of evacuating (or even merely investigating any alarm call) every time a neighbour has a fag or burns their food (My own smoke detector hates my toaster!) Then the one time they DO need to evacuate. Everyone ignores it!
It's completely unworkable UNLESS you have 24hr onsite coverage by actual people like you get in somewhere like Canary Wharf
Rich_W said:
mx5nut said:
Rich_W said:
The reason Grenfell (and where was he BEFORE the fire? he's by no means the only one) didn't have sprinklers is because in a block that big with that number of people in it. The amount of false alarms would be horrendous!
Sprinklers don't work like they do in the movies - a "false alarm" won't flood the whole block!False alarms sound alarms. If a sprinkler fires in one flat, it will flood the flat below at the very least!
What is it with you leavers and jumping to conclusions without the full facts?
JagLover said:
First step was agreeing a payment. Second step agreeing to a transition deal on the EUs terms, we might be able to register new EU migrants in this period though (I think that was also allowed as full members ) . Final step signing the trade deal that mostly safeguards EU interests.
Why else do you think Gove was saying a future UK government could revisit the deal negotiated.
You have seem to have forgotten the Irish question. So unless the buffoons can finally square the no SM/CU and no border circle, and I suspect they will fail. The UK is committed to full adoption of all SM and CU measures. Not sure the tory faithful will love the outcome but they have no one else to vote for. ) . Final step signing the trade deal that mostly safeguards EU interests.Why else do you think Gove was saying a future UK government could revisit the deal negotiated.
Mrr T said:
You have seem to have forgotten the Irish question. So unless the buffoons can finally square the no SM/CU and no border circle, and I suspect they will fail. The UK is committed to full adoption of all SM and CU measures. Not sure the tory faithful will love the outcome but they have no one else to vote for.
I believe you are incorrect.jsf said:
The reason the cladding and new plastic double glazing was added was to increase the energy efficiency of the building. It wasn't done to beautify the building.
Now can we get back to the subject of the thread.
The 2014 report in to the fitting of the cladding makes numerous references to the look and feel of the surrounding area and to quote that 'the conditions of those living in the surrounding area were suitably protected" - it was quite clear that choice of the cladding came down to a number of factors of which 'looks' was one of them. Official reports like this will come out in the impending inquiry.Now can we get back to the subject of the thread.
But like you say, back on subject.
mx5nut said:
Rich_W said:
mx5nut said:
Rich_W said:
The reason Grenfell (and where was he BEFORE the fire? he's by no means the only one) didn't have sprinklers is because in a block that big with that number of people in it. The amount of false alarms would be horrendous!
Sprinklers don't work like they do in the movies - a "false alarm" won't flood the whole block!False alarms sound alarms. If a sprinkler fires in one flat, it will flood the flat below at the very least!
What is it with you leavers and jumping to conclusions without the full facts?
sidicks said:
Mrr T said:
You have seem to have forgotten the Irish question. So unless the buffoons can finally square the no SM/CU and no border circle, and I suspect they will fail. The UK is committed to full adoption of all SM and CU measures. Not sure the tory faithful will love the outcome but they have no one else to vote for.
I believe you are incorrect.“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement “
Since you either have a border or you do not have a border. It's all or nothing unless the buffoons think of a plan and am not expecting a plan any time soon.
Mrr T said:
il. The UK is committed to full adoption of all SM and CU measures. Not sure the tory faithful will love the outcome but they have no one else to vote for.
That's not quite true if you read the Progress Report and then read the Good Friday Agreement to which it refers in conjunction with it.It is all hugely vague with acres of wiggle room in all directions.
Mrr T said:
The word are:
“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement “
Since you either have a border or you do not have a border. It's all or nothing unless the buffoons think of a plan and am not expecting a plan any time soon.
You appear to be ignoring the words in bold, and making a quite specific interpretation of the remainder!“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement “
Since you either have a border or you do not have a border. It's all or nothing unless the buffoons think of a plan and am not expecting a plan any time soon.
Wouldn’t ‘full adoption of ALL SM and CU measures’ include freedom of movement?
Mrr T said:
The word are:
“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement “
Since you either have a border or you do not have a border. It's all or nothing unless the buffoons think of a plan and am not expecting a plan any time soon.
If you examine the areas of North-South co-operation and the 1998 agreement they are surprisingly limited with agriculture being the main part.“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement “
Since you either have a border or you do not have a border. It's all or nothing unless the buffoons think of a plan and am not expecting a plan any time soon.
Neither document really says much about the border (in fact the 1998 agreement says nothing) or defines what a border is, what a "soft" border actually is or what a "hard" border actually is.
It has more holes than.....a border with lots of holes.
sidicks said:
Mrr T said:
The word are:
“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement “
Since you either have a border or you do not have a border. It's all or nothing unless the buffoons think of a plan and am not expecting a plan any time soon.
You appear to be ignoring the words in bold, and making a quite specific interpretation of the remainder!“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement “
Since you either have a border or you do not have a border. It's all or nothing unless the buffoons think of a plan and am not expecting a plan any time soon.
Wouldn’t ‘full adoption of ALL SM and CU measures’ include freedom of movement?
I would agree the wording suggests the full adoption only applies to goods which would cross a physical border, so no free movement, would not apply to services, or capital.
So that means we have to follow all EU product standards, tariffs, and any FTA would require the other party to also follow all EU standards, so no new FTA, except where the EU had already agreed.
confused_buyer said:
Mrr T said:
The word are:
“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement “
Since you either have a border or you do not have a border. It's all or nothing unless the buffoons think of a plan and am not expecting a plan any time soon.
If you examine the areas of North-South co-operation and the 1998 agreement they are surprisingly limited with agriculture being the main part.“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement “
Since you either have a border or you do not have a border. It's all or nothing unless the buffoons think of a plan and am not expecting a plan any time soon.
Neither document really says much about the border (in fact the 1998 agreement says nothing) or defines what a border is, what a "soft" border actually is or what a "hard" border actually is.
It has more holes than.....a border with lots of holes.
That means no border, soft, hard or made of fairy dust.
Mrr T said:
The bit in bold is the cunning plan the brexit buffoons have promised for some time now but they never seem to find?
I would agree the wording suggests the full adoption only applies to goods which would cross a physical border, so no free movement, would not apply to services, or capital.
So that means we have to follow all EU product standards, tariffs, and any FTA would require the other party to also follow all EU standards, so no new FTA, except where the EU had already agreed.
The paradox is that if there truly are no agreed solutions to anything then as things stand the document has no value anyway as it only has any force as part of an overall agreement.I would agree the wording suggests the full adoption only applies to goods which would cross a physical border, so no free movement, would not apply to services, or capital.
So that means we have to follow all EU product standards, tariffs, and any FTA would require the other party to also follow all EU standards, so no new FTA, except where the EU had already agreed.
Even taken as face value it certainly doesn't rule out some sort of open but nonetheless customs border.
If you read the GFA and cross border co-operation areas it is mainly agriculture and things like emergency services, waterways, roads, telecoms etc. - the list isn't actually all that extensive.
Basically, it is a magnificent political fudge but doesn't really settle much at all.
BTW, you can still have limited FTAs even as part of the Single Market as Norway, Switzerland etc. demonstrate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff