TheCat

Seriously Seph. Please go see someone if my comments are winding you up this much. I dont think im saying anything so extreme as to warrant this sort of reaction. But in anycase you obvioulsy do, and neither me, nor stomaching my brexit arguements (since they clearly affect you so much) are worth your mental health. Im not even joking or winding you up mate.

Ken78.....its clear we all react to things differently. As an aside, I'd advise you not to come on to any of the politics or brexit threads, if you think the Sue is an EDF bully....she would have to be one of the more genteel amongst the rough and tumble of EDF brexit chats for example:)!!

zerkalo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I highly recommend this podcast about cognitive > dissonance to The Cat and everyone else who might > be interested in such topics. (disclaimer: it's by > a Guardian journalist but the points made are > valid across the political spectrum) > > https://politics-on-the-couch.zencast.website/epis > odes/dissonance-theory-why-no-one-says-they-were-w > rong > > My original question was 'how things have changed > for you?' and I provided a personal example. It's > often easier to double down on our rhetoric when > we hold views that are very important to us rather > than admit that the other person has a valid > point. If the response was 'sorry mate, Brexit is > not perfect, but I think the opportunities are > going to be better in general as a whole' I would > accept that. For me it might just be the > inconvenience of a delayed parcel and an > unexpected cost, but for many others their > livelihoods are at stake. Fair enough, reasonable comment; and hopefully my longer comment above gives you a more verbose version of "Sorry Mate, Brexit is not perfect'....

Sephiroth....Is this some sort of internet version of 'go on, then...I dare ya?" Here's one for you....https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/22/brexit-has-given-competitive-edge-on-car-battery-tariffs-says-nissan-chief ......I guess I really could huh?:) Seriously though, by focusing on the changes/difficulty in the import/export logsitics...is that really a surprise to anyone? Even all but the most extreme Brexiteers always acknowledged that trade with the EU would not be seamless post Brexit. You're basically moaning about things that most sensible leavers conceded would be a weakness of Brexit, and a particularly important weakness in the first 6-12 months post-transition. If the economy and trade has not remoulded and adjusted to the shock in time (different things will take different amounts of time, so please dont (again) demand specific answers about how much time...i've said 10 years on another post to another poster to make a proper informed decision if that helps) then that will certainly be something you can store up to use at your 'gotcha' moment. But that time is not yet. Your doom-mongering tone shows nothing much has changed for you over the past 5 years I guess. But to give you some recent context which might help you to remember that the whole world isnt falling in.....I recall it wasnt long ago that I was being told (by yourself amongst others, if I recall correctly) that the benefits Brexit could bring to the fishing industry were 'irrelevant' in the grand scheme of things, as fishing was only ~0.1% of UK GDP...now all I hear from remainiacs is 'wont SOMEONE think of the FISHERMAN!!.... As I've said many times before, both remain and leave have positives and negatives. Neither outcome is all good or all bad, each one will exhibit certain opportunities and weaknesses that the other does not. Annyway...I'll post this article here from behind the firewall at the DT, which is written by a remainer, but I think is quite balanced, and within the article, the author has summed up many of the large reasons why I (and others) supported Leave. Nothing to do with 'sunny uplands' or with a shift to immediate frictionless trading logistics outside the EU...but plenty to do with flexibility to tailor domestic policy over the longer term.... Britain's nimble vaccine taskforce puts EU bureaucracy to shame ? and shows how Brexit can succeed Britain was successful in securing jabs because we could pursue the interests of one country, not 28 JULIET SAMUEL 15 January 2021 ? 8:00pm Kate Bingham has taken her share of flak. The ex-head of the Vaccine Taskforce has been mocked for hiring a PR consultancy at a ?670,000 cost to the taxpayer. But even accounting for that cost, by making the right bets on the right vaccines and making them early, she and her team have delivered value for money a billion times over. The question is how. The British state has hardly shown its best side since the start of the pandemic or, indeed, since the Brexit vote. Both Covid and the Brexit negotiations have provided ammunition for those who argue that Britain is no exceptional, great power but an averagely run country whose autonomy won?t change much because cooperation, bureaucratic expertise and scale are what really count in the modern world. Step forward Ms Bingham. She was asked this week how she had managed to secure supplies of the most promising vaccines so quickly. Her answer: ?We were quick and nimble. We were clearly not the largest buyer. The US and the European Union are much more substantial buyers than the UK, yet we were both the first to secure the contract and the first to deploy.? The venture capitalist also described how she had drawn on her contact book to hire the right people and build relationships with the vaccine front-runners at lightning speed. In other words, the decision to stay out of the EU?s vaccine procurement programme paid off. The conditions for joining, Ms Bingham explained, had been too arduous, requiring the UK to abandon existing negotiations and forego any independent deals with promising suppliers in future. Politely, she didn?t mention the other ball and chain around the leg of EU vaccine procurement: the catastrophic dilution of public health goals by nationalist industrial policy, which limited the EU?s early engagement with the US-German partnership, Pfizer-BioNTech, and drove it to waste time on the UK-French alternative developed by Sanofi and GSK. Brexit was not intrinsic to this decision. The UK was invited to join the EU programme despite leaving the EU, and if we had remained, we could still have opted out. But whatever happens with vaccine distribution, the divergent fortunes of the two procurement schemes provide strong evidence in favour of one argument for Brexit: the idea that political coherence, nimbleness and the ability to tailor policy to one set of interests, rather than 28, all matter more than scale. Advertisement This was a difficult debate to have in theory. Critics of Brexit have repeatedly demanded to know what it is ?for?. Some Brexit voters would answer that the point is to deregulate and cut taxes. Others would say it?s to reduce immigration. I contend, however, that most Brexit supporters simply had a general sense we would be able to run our affairs better without moulding our laws around compromises designed to accommodate very different economies and societies. It?s not that Britain is some sort of alien species among European nations, harbouring a desire to go back to coal-mining and colonisation. Our aims are similar to those of other Western countries. It?s just that the particular way we pursue them does, in fact, matter. This should not be a controversial idea. One theory of Europe?s development from the Renaissance onwards is that it was precisely the competition for talent and technology that drove the continent forwards so quickly, rather than the modern notion that large blocs are beautiful. The news reported yesterday that the UK may scrap certain EU labour regulations should be viewed in the same light. Predictably, Labour and the country?s rump of Brexit refuseniks claim that this is an assault on workers by swivel-eyed Thatcherites. This seems unlikely. Ministers hardly look like they are spoiling for a fight against the unions and there is little evidence that the EU working time directive directly limits UK activity, since there are few contracts clustered around the thresholds it sets for hours. The rules do, however, impose an arduous administrative burden on employers to record staff hours in a particular way. As with Covid vaccine procurement, it is not about the ends, but the means. On the other hand, autonomy does have a cost. It is being borne by firms and people who could, until recently, shuttle across our borders with minimal hassle. The transition has gone better than the doom-mongers predicted, but even the Prime Minister admits there are ?teething problems?. A third of trucks arriving in Dublin port from the UK are being held up for having the wrong paperwork, for example, while supermarket shelves in Northern Ireland were temporarily emptied by new checks down the Irish Sea and Scottish fishermen have seen their exports spoil while waiting for customs clearance into Europe. Advertisement These are only the most visible costs of Brexit. Most of the hassle happens outside the ports. It?s hidden in warehouses, where foremen are learning to fill in customs forms; in homes where Britons with houses on the Med are counting up the days they can spend abroad; and in studios, where musicians are grappling with the visa requirements they now have to fulfil to go on tour around Europe. The avoidance of these costs was always the strongest argument for the advantages of scale and the EU single market. But that argument is not as watertight as its advocates believe. Scale, too, has a cost. It is also hidden, in the small print of state aid rules moulded around German industrial policy, the financial regulation catering to French insurance firms and the priorities pursued in trade talks that favour machine tools over services. I have no idea whether Ms Bingham was a Remainer, like me, or a Brexiteer. But whether she intended it or not, her work may well end up being the most persuasive test-case for Brexit yet to emerge. The small task force she led has not only given the UK a head-start on vaccines. It has also planted other seeds, encouraging work to replace syringes with oral doses for future pandemics, funding the development of an antibody manufacturing industry and finding new ways to use the UK?s impressive virus genome sequencing capacity. The British state might have proved its mediocrity in all too many ways over the last year, but this one, crucial project has shown that success isn?t about scale and uniformity. It is about competence and focus. There is no reason why any other policy area, from trade to agriculture and business regulation, cannot prove the same point.

The OP could be slightly reworded to the exact same effect for the opposing argument.... It's been a few weeks now since the UK-EU trade deal was signed following the departure of the UK from the EU block earlier last year. How have things changed since then for you, if at all? Are there any signs that point towards the total implosion of life as we know it? Where is the disastrous future for this country that we were all promised? I could also post a similar facile, cherry-picked set of links with positive commentary on the transition so far...neither means bugger all. Its far too early to claim 'told you so' for either side. We can also all take the most extreme soundbites from the 'opposing side' as a means of mocking them...you choose 'sunny uplands', how about I choose David Cameron's 2016 claims that Brexit could mean Europe is torn apart by another violent conflict.... So delivery of your package has been delayed in Germany, pleae let me know when can we expect the Messerschmidtt to appear over the skies of London as was promised?

Yes, you must Seabag. Something we both agree on.

You must have missed the 'previous job' in the openeing line.... It was when I ran PR and Corporate Social Responsibility for Lord Voldemort.

You're the one talking garbled nonsense now Seabag. I'm not sure what it is that you think you know?

I guess Guardian columnist, John Harris, must work for the Tory party too it seems.... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/24/history-labour-keir-starmer-boris-johnson (Okay...I'll drop it now....;))

Oh man....I spent hour's in the press office last night photoshopping that pic....can't believe I missed the mirror.... But to be fair, it was late, and Govey did have a late night poker game going in the room next door....

In a previous job, I got summoned to the big boss's office got a bollocking for using the word 'bollocks' in a message to a colleague when referring to my thoughts on something that someone at another organisation had said publically (the colleague didn't complain, it was IT/Big brother who raised it) At first, I thought the big boss was joking when he said 'can you explain why you have been swearing on company IT systems?' I responded by saying I didn't think 'bollocks' was a swear word...as it was openly used in a Newcastle Brown ale advert in the US and Australia....he didn't seem to have any sense of humour or sense of embarrassment that he 'had to say something' as it had been raised in the internal system. Maybe it's becuase I didn't grow up in this country (as it is a distinctly British expression) and perhaps it's more offensive than I realise? I think FFS falls very much into a similar bucket....

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blimey boyz > > You lot obviously need a hobby or something as > you've been so active on here on a Saturday night. > > > Maybe you're missing the pub, or something to do > with your hands 😱 > > How about getting yourselves some needles and try > making the attached trendy items Actually, you know Spartacus....I've thought for a while that you must be a member of the Meat Packers Union.... First the "I dont get it" Vegan thread, and now mitten designs that could easily be used for abattoir work...

Well, I guess thinking that makes it easier for you to dismiss comments you don't like, rather than accept that a regular member of the public might hold views different from you (and all your echo chamber mates), or even (heaven forbid) give you cause to question any aspects of your own position...but anyway.... whatever helps you get through the day big guy....

HAHAHA.....Oh my giddy aunt. I truly hope you're taking the Michael. I'd have to be the worst media office employee in the world, given some of the things I've said about the Tories on this forum. Even on this thread, I've said they were flailing, lack transparency and show incompetence. But I guess that could all be a ruse to throw you off the scent....that's how cunning us Tory press officer can be...almost as cunning as the foxes I make it my life's passion to hunt and murder legally.... You must truly live in the echoiest of echo chambers, if you see the fact that I argue the case for Leave, and now 'attack' the opposition as an indication that I must work for the Tories. Absolutley priceless. That'll do me.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve thought this for a while, that you work for > the Tory Party > > The Brexit thing, now attacking the opposition. Is this directed at me?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...and perhaps that?s why BoJo avoids Kier?s > questions. We?re heading for 400-500,000 deaths by > Xmas IMO, and Kier?s suggestions to date (if acted > upon) would have significantly reduced that. Slightly off topic...but you believe that we will average well over 1000 deaths a day for the whole year? That seems pretty out there...not saying it's wrong, but definitely a "ballsy forecast KK....

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm guessing the recent Cat - Blah Blah entente > cordiale has been ripped-up...:) It must be this damn veganuary.....:)

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I heard Kier, during yesterday?s (?) PMQs, asking > why BoJo had not followed the Home Sec?s > suggestion to close/restrict borders last March > 2020. > BoJo literally didn?t answer the question, he just > blagged on about how the UK has ?one of the most > stringent pandemic border controls in the world of > any nation? (it hasn?t). > The gall of it, what?s the point of PMQs if he > ignores what he?s asked ?! I agree it's frustrating. But Boris is hardly alone in not answering questions asked of him. Doesn't make it okay of course, and transparency in decision making is clearly not a strength of this government, that's for sure. While of course 'opposing' what the government does is part of the opposition's job, I would be interested to know what labour would have done if they were in government? (maybe not in PMQ's, but in other forums) How would their decision making process have worked? Surely one part of the role is presenting an alternative government? I find that Labour under Sir Kier have addressed and moved on from many of the weakest aspects of corbyn's leadership, but often seem to stop short of actively making a clear stand on a number of issues...hugging the fence more often than not. Initially, I could understand this, as just showing basic competence without rocking any boats would have created a clear point of difference to Boris and co who were very much flailing through much of 2020....but now with brexit deal signed, and vaccine programme actually accelerating reasonably well, I think it's not enough to just chip away at the poor government decisions....

Blimey. Talk about pointless comments. I thought it was a mildly amusing comment on a rather important role in British politics, which might prompt some discussion. That was the point. There's threads on here about faulty chocolate, fake grass, noisy toddlers, and troublesome people skipping on the pavement....and you object to one about the leader of Her Majesty's opposition? Or is that I've said something you don't like about him?I mean heaven knows that can't have opinionated comments on an internet forum. Well, at least not ones that you seemingly don't personally like in anycase. I'm sorry though, I didn't realise that threads needed your prior approval....I've amended the guidelines for the lounge to the below to avoid any further mix ups... The Lounge... The place to relax and chat about anything. Feel free to discuss the price of fish, music issues, share gardening tips it's up to you. Unless Blah Blah says it's not okay.

A colourful quote in The Spectator from a Tory MP on the opposition leader........ "MPs in former red wall seats are also growing increasingly confident that Keir Starmer does not pose much of a threat to them. 'The more he flip flops, the more people don't like Keir. He's seems shifty. He's like a husband during a divorce proceeding who says they will be civil but then can't resist jabs,' one says" I can't help but agree..I see a lot of what Sir Kier is against, but not a great deal of what he is 'for'..

I don't know what's wrong with the Fierce and Foamy Sea.....

'Faulty' chocolate? Maybe they'l just off to 'repair' it:)

It's penal....not penile....

They're illegitimate flags. Worst flags ever. Loser flags. Trust me. I know this.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > So...hypothetically...if everyone over the age > of 70 was banned from setting foot outside of > their home, and the rest of the population went > about their lives with absolutely no > restrictions...I'd hazard a guess that the death > rate would plummet. Surely one can argue that this > is a change in restrictions which would be of > benefit to public health? Now clearly thats not > paritucularly practical or realistic, but its an > example to make the point - I don't accept the > premise that any change to 'lockdown' means we > also must expect that it will have overall > negative consequences. > > Hence the desire for discussion. > > You make the same mistake as everyone else in > neglecting the fact that many more people fill > hospitals because they are too sick to recover > without specialist help. Many of those people are > in other ages groups. In fact, the bigger age > group in hospital with covid at the moment are > those in the 30s and 40's. And that is the problem > with this debate. Covid is far more complex than > people over 70 dying. Letting the virus spread > freely, even excluding the over 70's, means tens > of millions of people suddenly becoming infected. > Even a tiny fraction of that needing hospital care > would overwhelm the NHS. I'm not advocating the EXAMPLE I used. Its an off the top of head example of illustrate that there MIGHT be other things worth discussing. But, in anycase, just like that...we're having a discussion, shame there wasn't a more high profile one 6 months ago Anyway...some light bedtime reading to add to the thinking... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-sustainable-alternative-to-blanket-lockdowns/ https://hospitalpharmacyeurope.com/views/an-alternative-strategy-for-covid-19/ https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-four-traps-governments-fall-into-when-making-decisions-about-lockdown-149684