Posts by Rob Alka

    Getting close to three years now since we voted to leave the EU, yet we'll still in it.

    I must check what the betting agencies are offering that we'll still be in the EU in 6 months' time, 1 year's time.

    Or what will be the vote in a 2nd referendum referendum (Remain or Leave with a deal or Leave without a deal). If the betting shops have opened their doors, I bet Remain will have the shortest odds.

    There is more information in various publications about the Withdrawal agreement. If true, it is as we suspected ... a Brino plan agreed between Merkel and May. I've posted a couple here:

    May’s Secret Brexit Betrayal Pact with Merkel

    A German Brexit? A scandal of subversive statecraft

    Okay, could be dismissed as conspiracy theories. And yet it is the only alternative (or additional) explanation to the theory that May has lost her mind. Instead, what we have here is May and a small handful of cohorts on both sides of the Channel conspiring to deliver Remain (or something close enough).

    To turn the screw in the Brexit coffin, Barnier has said that the divorce payment will increase significantly if Britain asks for an extension beyond just a few weeks to just dot the i's and cross the t's. Thus, a long extension will rack up such a heavy divorce bill that Remain becomes the only affordable option ... which today would most certainly accord with the majority of citizens .... if not because it is the better outcome but simply because it's the only outcome this country is capable of achieving

    In theory May's evil mayhems could push Britain into leaving without a deal. But, in practice, that requires the will of Parliament who have clifftops and catastrophes rattling around in their addled timid brains. So it's a case of "sod people democracy". Besides, a second referendum would show the eroding will of the 52% who wanted to Leave a couple years ago when it all seemed a slam dunk victory. It still could have been a slam dunk. But not with what Britain's government, citizens and media have become.

    Shamima Begum: Home Secretary criticised as baby dies

    The death of the baby is of course tragic, but what would've been more tragic is if this baby grew up in the UK and then carried out a terrorist act against us in the future. That would be more "tragic."

    About time we start to put our own interests first.

    Let's be honest. The death of the baby isn't tragic. It's a relief. When it comes to kids being like their parents, it doesn't matter in this case whether it's nature or nurture. In this case either would have created or brought up a potential terrorist/monster/human with bits missing.

    Even a simple matter like this leaves Britain arguing with itself about humanity, morality, innocent children, etc etc. What a bunch of lame-brained tossers we have in Britain

    Stormy Daniels: Porn star's Trump hush money case thrown out

    Trump is having a very good day.

    I think Trump deserves a good day on this issue. Compared with Jack The Zipper (aka John Kennedy) The Donald seems quite saintly.

    Obviously the payment to Story Daniels was a blackmail pay-off to avoid ruining his private reputation, therefore prevent voters from being distracted from his presidential promises and therefore help him get elected. One may as well argue that if he broke a leg during his campaign and bought pain killers and surgery to continue getting around during campaigning, that too would be payment to help him get elected.

    It's both a relief and a surprise that the American political and legal establishment can be even more stupid, pedantic, partisan and vindictive than our lot in Britain

    I think like a lot of multinationals they're issuing threats in order to extract grants from El Gov. to bribe them to stay. It's not yet public knowledge what inducements were given to Nissan. Big corporations see Brexit as a chance to fatten up the bottom line.

    What is the difference between "incentivising" a foreign company to set up manufacturing in this country versus "bribing" them to do so?

    Which is more cost-effective for us: to incentivise/bribe a foreign company to set up a manufacturing here that employs our citizens and boosts the economy through consumer spending or spend money on unemployment and social housing benefits?

    I suspect that in reality BMW were just waiting for an excuse to move Mini production elsewhere, how fortunate for them that Brexit came along when it did.

    Interesting. Why do you think BMW were keen to have an excuse for moving Mini-production elsewhere.

    I think it could be any or all of these reasons

    1) Sales of the BMW Mini have plateaued in the last 2-3 years.

    2) There is more upward sales potential for BMW Mini elsewhere in Europe, so why let that be impeded by Britain's Brexit vacillations

    3) It was a brilliant piece of image toadying to have Britain's reincarnated iconic Mini made in Britain but that ploy has now run its course

    4) The image toadying in (3) was always a bit of a double edged sword, inasmuch that many Brits resented that the Krauts rather than us were able to cash in on this British icon (ie like selling the family silver to our former enemy)

    Words can't express how proud and honoured I feel to be told that there was a brief moment when you agreed with much of what I said.

    Naturally I'm devastated that this fleeting triumph, your agreement, has been so cruelly snatched away because of my later innocent remark to which you took exception

    Don't be too personally offended by the paint if it doesn't dry as quickly as you expected

    A lot of words, Rob, but we just have differing views. You appear determined to blame the electorate for everything that is wrong in this country, whereas I blame UK politicians for everything wrong. We are only given the choices that politicians decide to give us (if they allow us a choice in the first place), which is a tactic borrowed from (and probably actively encouraged by) the EU.

    In a way, the EU 'purchase' of, and manipulation of, UK politicians, organisations and businesses is quite amazing and well designed ... if you were a fraudster. They use their victims money to buy even more power to acquire more victims. A true Ponzi scheme. The EU politicians are deceitful, very crafty, and very scheming, but not good governors. How else do you explain the rise in EU scepticism and the failing economies? Their power is based upon deceiving the various electorates, and has been from the start. Nobody wants to believe that EU and UK politicians are lying toerags, but everything points towards it and this has been reluctantly accepted now. Only the complete subjugation of EU citizens can save the EU, and if that occurred ... would it be worth saving?

    Where do I get my information? From everywhere and anywhere and not just the Brexit media. I try to verify every claim made, but I make my own decisions. If Brexit is stopped, or becomes Brino, then I will despair for our country.

    Whether to blame the electorate or who they elect? It’s not either-or. I grant you the electorate don’t have much to choose from but at the same time it must be daunting for a potential high quality candidate to contemplate running for election, when it has all the substance of a beauty contest or selection of a candidate who appeals to the lowest common denominator. Have you ever met the people in a typical constituency party select committee? It’s a vomit-making experience.

    I couldn’t agree with you more that the EU has the underhandedness of a cartel, with ambitions distinctly unhealthy for the future of a continent which would have more in common with one another if EU’s chains were removed. I’ve already told you I’m a Leaver not a Remainer, without a deal which would compromise truly leaving. So gimme a break here and stop selling!

    My only beef is that over 2 years since the referendum, this incompetent Government (or Parliamentary system or British democracy – call it what you want) is still unable or unwilling to decide how to leave – or even whether to leave at all. Don’t try and blame the EU for that. They are what they are and they’ve been eloquently clear about that. The world looks on and thinks Britain is, at best, a pale shadow of their former selves, at worst, a bunch of arrogant deluded schmucks. You can’t blame the EU for that.

    As for where you get the specific information that supports your unsubstantiated assertions or discoveries, by all means keep it a secret. It’s a bit like the scene from Guys & Dolls, where the gangster is playing craps with Sky Masterson and after the gangster has lost a few times says “we’ll now play with my dice”, and Sky Masterson looks at the dice and says “there’s no marking on any of the 6 sides” and the gangster says “don’t worry, I know what the markings are on each side”.

    If you are unable or unwilling to make a stronger case for Leaving than simply to castigate the EU, then let’s leave at that.

    continued reply posting to Fidget

    You’re right, the electorate didn’t choose May. The electorate chose the chumps who chose May. I still fear the Conservative-disposed electorate would have chosen May at the outset because they simply can’t tell the difference between a real leader with intelligence and vision versus a vacuous faker.

    I don’t think this country has enough time to, as you put it, to “learn from experience”. If the death penalty was ever brought back I would want to include applying it to any politician who responds to a screw-up by saying “there have been lessons learned”.

    You’re right; I do think EU politicians are more competent than British politicians. With very few exceptions, I find an interview with an EU politician is usually intelligent, candid and clear, whereas in the majority of cases I find the precise opposite with British politicians (and it’s their native tongue for Chrissakes!). Boris has become Bertie Wooster-ish and almost inarticulate, Gove is like an early model of Artificial Intelligence, David Davis has always tried to “wing it” and deflect with amusing asides, and Rees-Mogg has recently become opaque and as slippery as an eel. As for May, she seems psychotic and I suspect the only topic worth talking to her about would be fashion for middle-aged women and even here I suspect she would say that when buying clothes, she seeks to get the best possible deal.. The rest of the world, outside the EU, thinks Britain has become a basket case. They used to respect Britain. How can you, Fidget, even faintly associate the British Government with competence? You’ll be telling me next that Britain’s negotiating style for leaving the EU in a satisfactory way has been masterfully conducted and has won us complete admiration and respect by the other EU member states..


    You’re right, our economy is doing well in comparison to the EU. That’s not much of a basis for comparison. Besides, I don’t know where you get your facts (as opposed to anecdotal; snippets) but if ever you’d like to share them I’d be grateful. I fear anecdotes are all we can find for the time being. After all, we’re still in the EU – so you could argue that our economy benefits from being under an EU umbrella. Okay, I get it, you’re an optimist, I’m a pessimist. We found that out a fair while ago. That said, you do realise – don’t you? - that I’m more in favour of Leaving than Remaining, even without a deal. It’s just that I’m craving to hear a better argument for Leaving from the more intelligent Brexiteers that goes further than Brexit evangelism, and anti-Remain warnings about “being rule takers” and “loss of Sovereignty” (Thatcher, during her best years, would never have let that happen). Someone needs to tell Marc Carney to desist from being an EU-UK self-appointed guru and if he wants to make a contribution to the debate then ask him for some hard facts rather than so-called projections based on make-believe-but-never-revealed scenarios.

    Anecdotal snippets of outrageous fortune from a Brexiteer newspaper like the Daily Express are not to be decried but they’re not enough. Nonetheless, thank you for those two weblinks. Even for a sourpuss like me, your enthusiasm is contagious. Do bear in mind the distinction between Britain receiving investment versus selling off our assets. In the end, that’s what risks turning Britain into rule takers

    I agree with you about pursuing trade deals outside the EU being premature. They might also prove unnecessary.


    You might find this weblink useful and heartening:…-be-feared-marcus-fysh-mp

    When I referred to Leavers as appearing pig ignorant I admit to hyperbole but I still think a large noticeable proportion of them display that attitude and an alarming number are proud of their ignorance. That said, I recognise that it is defiance against the smug patronising air of Remainers and, although I think such defiance is entirely justified, I don’t think it does Leavers any favours.

    Because I focused entirely on the shortcomings of Remainers with nothing to say about Remainers I can see how that would appear biased. You assumed I had nothing derogatory to say about Remainers. Wrong! I’m was concentrating on criticising Leavers because I feel they present themselves and their argument in a way which has too much belligerence and too little substance. I don’t think Remainers are winning the battle, I think it’s that Leavers are losing the battle. I can guess your response: “whatever”. But Leavers shouldn’t be losing the battle when so many Remainers are sanctimonious, smug, sneering people and see themselves as culturally and commercially better informed if not downright elitist. There is certainly a social class divide. Too many Leavers are whistling in the dark or cocking a snoot at the establishment. I can’t say I blame them. But when doing that, they’re shooting themselves in the foot.

    Like you, I too know people who voted Leave and none of them strike me as a pig ignorant underclass. But, unlike you, I wasn’t posting a comment about my friends or acquaintances. As you probably know, I’m a researcher and I was making a researcher’s observation and you just have to believe that I simply “don’t do bias”. I draw conclusions from data and observations; and I would contend that venturing an opinion does not in itself represent bias. I don’t say “in my humble opinion” because I - and surely anyone else - has every right to express an opinion without feeling humble about it. As for when the H in IMHO stands for “honest”, why would anyone want to offer a dishonest opinion unless they were a typical politician or Goebbels or Jon Snow or a commission -hungry financial advisor or an estate agent ……. okay, there are an endless number of snakes in the grass, but don’t they often start their sentences with “to be honest”?

    As for your points about University today versus years ago, I agree entirely with your observation. The situation you describe as to why years ago only a small percentage would go to university certainly applies in my case. Today, the percentage is much higher but if the Government lowers the bar for admission, it’s the old story: GIGO. I’d best move back to the subject before Horizon moves my reply to another thread! (to be continued in next posting .........

    First, just to clear my path, let me deal with my inflammatory/provocative statement ".....embarrassingly high proportion of Brexiteers portraying themselves as a pig-ignorant underclass". First of all, don't take it personally! Just about everything you write, even the stuff I disagree with, portrays you as the very opposite of a pig ignorant underclass. That's why I was despondent when we had a spat a month or two ago. When I say "a high proportion of Brexiteers ...." I don't mean most or the majority or most. And yes, of course there is a high proportion of Remainers with a presumed elitism and dismissal of those Leavers less wealthy and educated than up-market Remainers. Hilary Clinton, typifying a self-styled elitist) blew it when she described Trump supporters as "the despicables". Yet there is no denying a significant difference in class profile between Remainers and Leavers which I posted late last year. No one commented on it (except maybe Horizon, with his customary careful assessment of unpalatable truths, viz "rubbish". More worryingly, IQ has been on a steady decline, education has lowered its bar, there is a mob rule atmosphere pervading this country - and other countries - because governments have lost the plot, and there is an underclass within an underclass, best described as feral and murderously violent. The crocodile tears of bleeding heart liberals fills me with despair. (Cameron invited William Bratton NYC police chief to head up the Met (his record of reversing the crime and violence in NYC - and now in LA - was fantastic. By Theresa May (aka Darth Vader), as Home Secretary vetoed that proposal). This damn country is getting increasingly worse at doing anything properly.

    1 Agreed, however it takes two to tango and I'm not sure either party wants a fair deal.

    2. You say most Brexiters realised the EU would be as difficult as possible and were heartened by the promise of 'no deal is better than a bad deal'. Are you saying Brexiteers were =heartened by the assurance of a mentally retarded parrot who could only remember half a dozen phrases fed to her?

    3. You say nothing other than EU control will be acceptable to the EU. You are probably right. If only Britain governed itself properly I'd be dead set against being under the EU thumb but, on the whole, they seem more competent and more civilised than us As for EU control of the border, which is probably what you mean by control, I agree one should leave it to N&S Ireland to sort it out, where Britain will have a border and Northern Ireland can pass through that border unchecked provided (a) they have a border with Southern Ireland and haven't yet united with Southern Ireland (I wish they would ..... from Good Friday to Good Riddance!).

    4. We agree!!

    5. We agree!!.

    6. You say investment is excellent. and surprising. I would ask this: can you you give me any sources to back up your assertion (just anecdotal evidence isn't enough, as it often goes in two directions). My instinct is that a lot of investment from outside, together with planned industrial exoduses, are all in a pending tray until finding out if we are leaving either with a soft Remainer-ish deal (BINO), or a medium hard deal (May's lock-in for which I believe in due course we could pick open that lock if we needed or desired to do so (eg lousy trade relations talks) or the dreaded default no-deal, which can only work if fence-sitting, unprepared, incompetent industry and government doesn't screw it up (and God knows they have form!). I thinkonce Britain makes up its bloody mind the pile-up in the pending tray will hurtle into action like the release of a stretched rubber band. That would be a mini boom and maybe we can build on that. Meanwhile we are in no-man's land.

    7. We agree!!

    8. We agree!!

    9. You say "rubbish". Is this from some Forum Box handbook of useful phrases for an underclass?! True, "most" of our trade is non-EU but "most" is about 55%. The forecast is that our non-EU trade is going to grow and our EU trade decline. Maybe. Meanwhile, we're not getting getting anywhere arranging trade deals with non-EU countries. Which is hardly surprising when the EU has or is signing them up with EU trade deals and there is a real risk that EU favouritism will turn in cartel pressure. Your point about British business putting 100% of their exports into EU trade is misleading. In this context, with tup to half of Britain's exports to the EU that are destined for non-EU countries, the EU is just a clearing house in terms of customs tariffs and standards rather than actual export sales. But I do share your misgiving about channelling all our business through an EU cartel/Mafia style protection racket .....with a German accent.

    I used to think British business could just make their own arrangements outside the EU without interference or sabotage or an incompetent muck up from the dead hand of Parliament. But I fear I'm being too swashbuckling and unrealistic. I have yet to find a website that explains why Britain can't simply trade outside the EU based on WTO rules, using mutually agreed tariffs. Because if we can do that, why are we grubbing around trying - without success - to arrange trade agreements with non-EU countries? I'm supposed to be the obnoxious know-it-all but I can't answer that question. The way I see it, there is no reason why a trade deal will be a bigger bargain to either side than simply having tariffs arranged without the existence of a trade deal. Granted a trade deal makes the admin a bit easier but if America - and the rest of the non-EU world - can manage to trade without the constraint of a trade deal , why can't we?.


    That doesn't sound too bad at all.8)

    How has the EU changed since we had the referendum vote? I don't believe it has and those that voted for LEAVE have no reason to change their minds if there were another vote on the matter.

    What change?

    Good question. What has changed since voting in the referendum to leave is entirely confined to Britain:

    1) Our hopelessly incompetent Government, unable to negotiate an amicable Leave deal with the EU

    2) Our failure to realise and accept that the EU were not kidding when they identified factors that were non-negotiable

    3 Our failure to consider an acceptable method of border customs control between Eire (in the EU) and Northern Ireland (once felt the EU)

    4) Our Prime Minister's malignancy, mediocrity and megalomania that has rendered her cabinet unfit for purpose and dis-empowered

    5) Our Prime Minister's decision to call for a general election and reveal her failings beyond our worst expectations , thereby losing a workable majority, thereby trying to buy Northern Ireland MP votes, leading to them exercising leverage by holding the balance of power

    6) The increasingly scorched earth state of Britain' economic attraction for inward investment

    7) The incompetence of Government in making adequate provisions for Leaving without a deal (largely because of an inability to negotiate a deal and the unwillingness of Theresa May to consider any other deal than her own, which she knows is flawed, which quite probably reveals that she is contriving to Remain in the EU

    8} The unwillingness of Tory MP's to replace such a toxic prime Minister, for fear it might cost them the next General Election. By now it is quite possibly too late to do so. Britain is mistaking the Prime Minister's psychosis as fortitude.

    9) British businesses which rely heavily on export sales are unable to plan even for this year let alone the next, because after 2 years it is still uncertain whether Britain will be leaving the EU and under what trading terms.

    No one thinks much of politicians. But very few people even in their wildest dreams could imagine that voting to leave the EU would lead to this Keystone Cops farce that makes Britain seem a country of tossers & losers, with an embarrassingly high proportion of Brexiteers portraying themselves as a pig-ignorant underclass.

    Yes, Rob. That's exactly what happened when we were asked to vote for the Common Market, and there is tons of evidence to prove it!

    I agree. It's a good example. In which case, there should have been - AND WAS - a second referendum to find out if British citizens wanted to remain in a Common Market that had morphed into a different animal called the EU. As you know, my debate with Horizon is that I don't remember any "Common-Marketeers" insisting that the vote for the Common Market was binding and that a major change of circumstances calling for a second referendum was an affront to Democracy and therefore to be denied. After all, the fact that the Common Market was renamed the EU to acknowledge a fundamental change in mission (from trading cooperation to a trading cartel and a political federalisation across Europe) was ample reason for the British EU 2016 referendum. Hence, why not another referendum to reflect the change of circumstance since June 2016?

    Just because the change of circumstance has been caused by Britain rather than the EU does not alter the fact that potentially it could prove just as devastating and therefore surely justifies another referendum to decide whether the previous vote still stands up in the the light of changed circumstances. In this case the changed circumstances spring from the Government completely misreading - or concealing - the EU's willingness to permit Britain to leave the EU with a deal enabling Britain to maintain a workable trade and political relationship with the EU.

    Having said all that, I am against the whole idea of a people's referendum other than a general election or bi-election to choose who are to be our elected representatives for a finite period. I think there can be some exceptions that merit a referendum but right now I can't think what they could be. Certainly I don't think a big enough percentage of the electorate are able or willing to get to mental grips with the EU referendum issues to the extent of making a reasonably informed vote. Instead I believe it is the job of elected representatives to make the right decision and if they cannot or will not do so, then our system of political democracy is fatally flawed and a people's referendum is an abrogation of responsibility for how our system of sovereignty and democracy is supposed to function - and therefore needs major revision - but you've heard that refrain from me more than enough times!

    Ok, I'll accept the bait on this one.:)

    As one of the wailers, we are all participated in a democratic vote and a majority voted to leave the EU. It is as simple as that.

    One day you will knock on Heaven's Door and they will show you around where everyone is smilingly serene and the usher will say "before you decide, take a look at Hell, some people prefer it and find this holier-then-thou scene a bit goody-two-shoes". So you take the ferry down to hell and the devilish usher gives you the virtual reality goggles to see what it's like and it's fantastic - lots to drink, gorgeous hookers, watershutes, sunshine, videogames and endless TV streaming on demand. So you go back to heaven and say "thanks you're right, hell is more my scene, never a dull moment, byee!" You return to hell, check in and it's a bloody inferno, the hookers are ugly, the water shute is also a sewage disposal unit, the sun is merciless and the mosquitoes are drawing your blood. You angrily confront the usher receptionist and complain "it wasn't at all like this when I came last week, I want to go to Heaven - why did you deceive me like this?". And he replies "aah, that's when we were having a recruitment campaign and trying to win your vote". You say "I want to change my vote, it's a big decision". And he says "Sorry but you only get one vote, so you're stuck with us". "You argue to him that "it's changed, it isn't like you presented it". He replies "voters can't keep changing their vote, things are bound to change just like on earth. Try and look at it like democracy".

    Horizon: Thanks for an important update to the thread you created last year which at the time I found incredibly useful. You're clearly a useful expert in this stuff. I'm writing a lengthy comment not only because I'm the Chief Bore on Forum Box but also because I'd welcome your no-holds-barred comments on my thinking and plans.

    My motivation to take action has been dampened, even paralysed by the numerous options which seem to be going through a state of development or flux.

    My number one dampener/procrastinator is my reluctance to commit by financial subscription to a movie source with a limited selection of movies that I want to see. It would be like having to pay for membership to a theatre or cinema and then find they are hardly ever showing anything I want to see or, even more frustrating, much of the stuff I want to see is only available on a rival member-only source to which I haven't subscribed. The more member-only download/streaming services there are, the more fragmentation of what is being offered, and the more restricted the choice except to people who are willing to pay membership fees to 2 or more sources.

    In a way I have been gradually suckered into that very situation with Sky. Their menu shows things I want to see, which requires increasing my subscription and, before I know it, I've segued into Sky Plus to include movies on vhaannels 301-315, most of which are dross and I'm waiting several months for a good new release to enter the Sky Plus channels or I must pay an extra ad hoc £5-6 to download it from the "Sky Store".

    That said, the Sky Plus system of planning, recording for playing later, fast-forwarding through commercials and downloading a movie for £5-6 from Sky's movie store of new(ish) releases is easy and clever. If I run out of patience waiting for the movie to get offered in Sky Store - and cannot bring myself to see it in a cinema surrounded by munching murmuring moronic neanderthals - I can buy the CD on Amazon movie which is about £10-15, which is still a lot cheaper than cinema admission for two persons.

    This kind of Sky system creates for me a lazy soft option loyalty but at the same time I know I'm missing out on better options. In particular I see that Netflix is a big success story and millions of subscribers can't all be wrong. And now that they are producing/financing, at an increasing rate, their own movies and series - and now that Roma demonstrates that Netflix is a real contender in the production/financing end of the movie business - I owe it to myself to take a more serious look at Netflix. I can see on their website what new releases they are offering members.

    And here's what might be for me the sales clincher: I can subscribe in & out of Netflix month by month so, if there's nothing of interest in a particular month, I can cancel my membership (on line or by 'phone) and then a month later reinstate my membership (which resides on their system for a few months, to make reinstatement effortless).

    I can also with Netflix get through quickly to a real well-informed human being rather than a speech-recognition computer that is impossible to communicate with (other than yes or no). This alone is a more than adequate reason to loath and detest Sky and minimise my expenditure with them.

    So my plan is to downgrade my Sky Plus package from £27pm, which includes free movies on Channels 301-315, to their "entertainment package" at £17pm, where I can still buy the new(er) movies in their Sky movie store at £5-6. With this saving I can be a one-tv screen member of Netflix at £6pm and financially I'll come out ahead.

    As for Britbox, anything involving ITV or Channel 4 could have the kiss of death. I tried to watch Endeavour on TV and there are 3 seasons of running over the same period, where the schedule of play of the episodes of each of the series is completely hit or miss. I had to give up learning the outcome from one episode to another (in those instances where each episode was not a self-contained story). If ITV can be that incompetent, I'm not holding my breath waiting for their version of SVOD.

    Ron's point about Britbox being free of ads highlights the other kiss of death which ITV and Channel 4 are hardwired to inflict on their customers. Channel 4's All 4/Walter productions is one of the most tawdry cons I have ever come across but with Channel 4 is it entirely par for the course (Jeremy Isaacs (the founder of Ch 4) must by now have spun in his grave almost continuously).

    It is so typical of Britain to develop a niche that is essentially inward looking. In an English speaking market I feel it is commercial suicide to ignore the American contribution. By all means provide a weighting towards British-made productions but majoring on that aspect will be a Unique Selling Proposition with hardly any S and where the U stands not only for Unique but also for Unwanted - by which I mean a gap in the market but without a market in the gap. Besides, Talking Pictures pre-empts a big slice of that niche.

    Q1 How does democracy work when the Prime Minister can defy the majority will of democratically elected representatives (ie Parliament)?

    Q2 How can it be logical and sane to include in the referendum an option which is agreeable to the EU but which an overwhelming majority of those voting to leave consider is unacceptable and waters down the reason for leaving to such an extent that it becomes more accommodating to Remainers than Leavers?

    Q3 How long does a voting decision remain valid when the original assumptions behind Leaving have been overtaken by unexpected events or circumstances (including letting it be controlled by a Prime Minister who is mentally deranged)?

    Q4 How long does a referendum vote remain valid and enforceable when up-to-date current day research reveals that these unexpected events or circumstances will almost certainly produce a referendum outcome that is now practically certain to be in favour of Remaining?

    Q5 Why should Parliament honour an out-of-date referendum result that has almost certainly reversed, especially when the wailing and waning majority of Leavers are hellbent on leaving even though that is against the latest majority preference? How does that close-mindedness chime with any sane person's idea of democracy?

    Q6 Why is the founder of this forum, who likes on occasion to do a mini poll of forum members, reluctant or scared to instigate a poll which seeks answers to the above questions and, of course, reveals the preference between Remain versus Leave but stay in Customs Union versus Leave with no deal?

    1 The MPs were re-selected on the last Labour manifesto to respect the result of the referendum.

    2 Have you got a link to that yougov poll?

    3 Rubbish. But I'd like to see what nonsense yougov have come up with, before arguing further

    1 So what? It's just a manifesto. Everyone with at least half a brain knows that it's a wishlist or a good-intention list, which may or may not be implemented, depending on circumstances not envisaged at the time the manifesto was conjured up. It's like a selling brochure rather than a policy contract or terms & conditions. But you already that. You are just pretending to be simple minded. Right?

    2 Find it yourself. You don't need to be spoon fed. It's easy. You got a computer. I'm not your f-ing secretary!!

    3 No one can convincingly boast of having a completely open mind. But you seem to want to boast of having a completely closed mind. It's unattractive. Why would anyone want to have a civilised debate with someone who is or pretends to be a pigheaded ignoramus?

    I think Britain has a chance to be great if it leaves the EU without a BINO-ish deal. If that happens, it will be ins spite of rather than because of you.

    PS Somewhere else you say "Forget parties, the MPs should all become independents". Seriously, not a bad idea. Enough party MP's are behaving that way anyhow. All that's needed is to make the voting procedure in the commons more fast and dynamic and let them appoint an upper cabinet of ministers that also form the executive, to represent them and negotiate on their behalf, just as they have acted as appointed representatives of each constituency's electorate. The big obstacle to that happening comes from constituency voters who think along left vs right partisan lines and, like yourself, burble on about a manifesto, a referendum and democracy. Oh yes, also, loads of people in the hall in Question Times last night kept criticising those on the panel of being "disingenuous". Clearly a last-minute addition to their simple vocabulary. It would have been funny if it wasn't so sad.

    On Question Time last week, Fiona Bruce asked in the middle of a discussion about this woman, whether it really made the UK safe preventing her from coming back to the UK. Everyone was of the opinion it didn't.8| My geography is pretty bad, but even I can work out that if she is physically not in this country, she cannot do any harm to it.

    I will try and check up about the international law on statelessness too, if I get a chance.

    I'm sure you already know that Fiona Bruce's question (even if she only half knew what she was really asking) was not about our safety from this ghastly subcreature nor her little Damian III, nor her British friends (fighters for the cause) but whether ISIS and the other mad buggers from Muslim countries will hitch a lift aboard the next dinghy heading across the Channel to our friendly shores.

    I need to be reminded of how extremists are, as today's Times puts it, "aided by the banning of this bride" who is unfazed by seeing decapitated heads, not to mention others of her ilk, like the one who witnessed the stoning of a women and thought it "cool"?

    What does "aiding" them mean? That we are reinforcing their excuse or justification for killing British citizens? I never realised that they needed our help in that regard. I always thought that perceiving us to be "infidels" or "non-believers" was a good enough reason and, failing that, well, it's what they do. We watch TV, go shopping, attend pop concerts, while the enthusiasms or devotions of these evil or mad buggers is more to do with chopping off heads or setting off bombs in public places.

    I suppose the downside of banning these sub-humans from entering out country is that we are re-energising their desire to pursue their "reason for being", as well as helping them to recruit and, if need be, radicalise additional feeble-minded or sub-humans to join their ranks, most of whom are young Muslims, but with a fair sprinkling of whites who feel Britain must be sorted out and, besides, what else is there to do other than take some boring job?

    On that basis, our nervous political leaders, whose idea of a long-term far-reaching moral decision extends no further than voter appeal in the next general election, aided by lawyers who know everything there is to know about international law and human rights, where morality is a useless or irrelevant distraction. Together they reach the inescapable decision: let her in. Why? it's the law. No, really why? Because it's best not to annoy all her British compatriots, aka the other evil mad buggers on this side of the channel. This argument easily extends to "if they really want to enter Britain and they're making a bit of a fuss about it, let them in too". How long does Britain think or hope these sleeping dogs will lie?

    It is not simply Brexit that causes Honda to pull sticks. Nor is it the fact that Honda manufacturing in Japan can be certain of having entry into the EU market through the deal that Japan has signed up with the EU. Nor is it that Honda's market share reflects its lacklustre range and brand image compared with the other marques competing in the same segments as Honda. Nor is it that Britain's possible deal with the EU for friction-less and amicable trade with the EU is in danger of falling apart. I believe the deciding factor in Honda closing down in Britain simply to leave a sinking ship before it's too late. Britain has become stupid, obnoxious and allowed the Government to its economy, security, social fabric and public services.

    The preoccupation with Brexit vs BINO vs Remain is no longer irrelevant. Britain is flailing and failing, and the EU is unable and most decidedly unwilling to help Britain climb out of the mess which they alone have created for themselves. Once we were "The Right Stuff". Now we're the wrong stuff.

    The new "breakaway party in embryo" may or may not come to anything. The very fact that the first thing they plan to do prior to announcing their policies is to "listen to British citizens". This is hilariously pathetic when British citizens are waiting to listen to them and probably shouldn't hold their breath. That's their policy: to lead Britain by asking where we'd like to go and then following.

    There is something predictably pathetic about a new political "party in embryo" asking voters what they want in politics. For goodness sake, aren't there any politicians left who know what they're offering rather than seeking to become a market research identikit of voter needs?

    As for this breakaway group's Remainer orientation, it is arguably not a betrayal of democracy, but rather an upholding of democracy. This is because a significant (not simply marginal) majority of voters today have said that , in the light of what has happened since that referendum, they would rather Remain.

    Specifically, You Gov reports that close to half of Britons (47%) believe that Remain would now win in a repeat of the 2016 referendum, By contrast, only 29% of people think that Leave would prevail. The remaining 24% don’t know.

    Get real: the 2016 referendum result is well beyond it's safe use-by date. Britain would get ill from consuming that 2015 result.

    I'm so tired of listening to people, including the general public, deciding what to do with this intrinsically evil merciless creature by weighing up an interminable list off fine points of law. Are we really unable to recognise evil? Does it really matter whether this evil creature was once an innocent saint? It's the pedant and neo-tolerant who inspire the lyric in "Gee Officer Krupke". At times it seems as if no one in this stupid f--kng country has any idea of right vs wrong, good vs bad, without first checking the rules. I think too many Brits use law or rules of procedure to conceal their innermost feelings, either because they don't know what to feel, don't know how they should feel, or don't want to reveal their true feelings to others, even to themselves. What a cold unemotional tight arse country Britain has become. or perhaps always was. The self-congratulatory rationale I hear of how we are a civilised country that keeps to the rules of law is a sick joke when the reality is that .......

    - this creature is let in

    - avails herself of Britain's health and social benefits

    - is either pardoned or given a noncustodial sentence or early parole or released from a mental home as de-radicalised

    - joins up with a terrorist cell in Britain (gee, shock & surprise, to us and, of course, to her confused mum)

    - and she and her cell kill loads of innocent people in a shopping centre or pop concert bombing

    - and the survivors or locals all get together, with flowers and tears, for a mass singalong, just like at Manchester Arena

    When I mentioned the answers on Question Time from recognisable individual panellists and individual audience members as being circumspect rather than, as it seemed to you, "very PC" , I really wasn't kidding about them being in the gaze of an Islam fatwa. I see ISIS as just the extreme end of an Islam continuum that is an increasing enemy of the Christian West.

    from moderate Muslim (live & let live)

    to observant (who would appreciate Europe and the US building Sharia Law into its system)

    to devout Musim (wanting Islam to be ascending and feeling "the American's had it coming with 9/11")

    to extreme Islam ("kill the infidels", aka non-believers)

    We all know ISIS is an Islamic movement based on radicalism, extremism and global terror. We need to remember that ISIS is the spearhead of a long term vision of Islam hegemony held by Saudi Arabia and pretty much all Muslims in the Middle East (and probably a great many everywhere). Isis is rooted in Wahhabism, which developed in the 18th century and is practised particularly in Saudi Arabia. The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia (religious scholars) condemns ISIS. The Saudi ruling class, attuned to political hegemony, are more forgiving of Isis, content to turn a blind eye to its activities.

    It is against that background that, like you, I place myself between the two extremes but, also like you, nearer to the "take ‘em out” part of the centre ground ...... and I’m not wavering here!

    Did you watch Question Time last night? That was basically the same as you describe with LBC, totally PC. Doesn't anyone realise we are at war with these people and they would kill us in a heartbeat if given the opportunity.

    Now that ISIS is almost destroyed, I know what I would do with these woman and all the ISIS women and their brats in the Syrian camp that they're in and it wouldn't be giving them warm blankets....

    War is war.

    Yes I watched Question Time. For the panel, do you think it is a genuinely-held PC or just fear of getting murdered by a Muslim? Or in the case of the politician panellists, a compulsive need to be all things to all voters?

    After all, we speak our minds on your Forum thanks to the absence of zealous PC moderators and because we are disguised under a pseudonym. The Question Time audience express their true attitude under the camouflage of mass applause. Geanted, there is scattering of individual microphoned comments from those willing to put their head above the parapet for a few seconds of fame but even those are usually expressed with restraint, just in case a Fatwa photograph poster of them appears in the Isis equivalent of a Post Office.

    No warm blankets from you then huh? Me neither. Perhaps sacks, if there's a river nearby. :)

    I do so prefer your "war is war" to "the law's the law"!

    In this morning's Times, good to see that readers' comments on Brexit are still permitted (yawn yawn yawn). Sad, bad and decidedly creepy to see that the The Times has withdrawn reader comment boxes for all news "stories", including its own leader comment, about the Isis grown-up child/girl/mother, unfazed by decapitation and suchlike, who wants to return to Britain and present us with her next pregnant offering, which could be 3rd time lucky for her but unlucky for us.

    The Times leader about this wretched creature needs translating. It says

    If Britain does not show willingness to reintegrate Ms Begum and other Isis recruits, they could become part of radical Islamism’s perverse narrative of victimhood."

    What the Times really means here is that if we don't let her in, Isis will grown in numbers and grow in their efforts to kill us". Enough said. Best to let them all in.

    The Times also says:

    "There can be no promise of immunity from prosecution. Ms Begum is no innocent, and must be met with the full force of the law, yet her place is in Britain"

    So there we have it. A short period of incarceration and early parole; or even a suspended sentence so she can raise "Omen III". If anyone wants to tell me that "The Law's the Law", I'll scream.

    We already know that the meek shall not inherit the earth. Surely we also know that politically-correct neo-liberals do not even deserve to inherit the earth.

    Stephen Barclay (current Brexit sec) has just said in the commons discussion over the government's EU motion, that a no deal Brexit will happen on the 29th March if a deal with the EU doesn't get agreed. This was in reply to a question by John Barron, another conservative MP.

    PM defeated over Brexit strategy

    May loses the vote and she is not even in the chamber to see it. About time she goes.

    PM defeated over Brexit strategy

    About time she goes.

    Yuh think?



    Crashing Out

    Falling off a cliff

    Unaffordable food prices

    Empty shelves

    Shortage of life-saving medicines

    Food from EU to Britain rotting in Calais

    Bankruptcies, liquidations, unemployment

    Foreign investment into the UK drops to near zero

    British companies relocate all or part of their operation abroad to EU - or just about anywhere except UK or Middle East

    £1 slides to <1 Euro

    1930 Depression will look like a picnic by comparison. Marc Carney agrees with that and his bags are packed

    Irish dead against it although they're not sure what "it" is, but insist it will break Good Friday Agreement because .... well, because it will

    Many activists in the Labour Party think it's all because of the Jews. Corbyn doesn't disagree or agree

    British public want to have their say and think referendum should just ask: "Do you think Britain should just get on with it? Yes or no?".

    Theresa May remains in power thanks to her renowned fortitude. She is having trade talks with President Madura in Venezuela and is widely believed to be in Caracas (this could be a mistype for "widely believed to be crackers)

    I ) think the Irish PM sees Brexit as a quick way to get a UI (united Ireland) and damn who gets burnt along the way. I don't see any signs that this has a religious dimension to it at all.

    2 But on the southern ports, they still need to have some form of customs checks, even though the republic is in the EU. Now, you've put it that way, I think you're right.

    3 Interesting, but then why are Rees-Mogg et all making a fuss over the backstop? If we can ultimately LEAVE come what may or May (excuse the pun), then I don't see the problem.

    1 If Unification happens it will certainly have a religious dimension. The Protestants will be permanently ill-treated underdogs. One of many instances: I did a research project in Dublin and Belfast into reasons for preference between Harp and Carlings. I was given a lengthy list of product attributes (flavour, colour, strength, gassiness, head) and life style images (aspirational, friendly, laddish, white vs blue collar etc etc ). The finding was an overriding, almost sole reason for preference based Catholics choosing Harp and Protestants choosing Carlings, ie lager by a Catholic versus a Protestant brewery. I found numerous case-histories like that, eg Catholic versus Protestant banks

    2 Thanks for understanding

    3 We can't reveal in advance to the EU that we're prepared to unilaterally leave the backstop if we feel disposed to do so. Because (a) if that breach of agreement became a legal row we would be going to court without clean hands and that would prejudice the verdict , (b) revealing a willingness to break the treaty or pact is hardly a good start to discussions and negotiations for a successful trusting EU-UK trading relationship.

    locs differentiantion was only, repea, and iumage for a brewery into it happens It will have a