Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by asperity

  1. asperity

    Peoples vote ?

    And do you really believe that shower are actually capable of "negotiating in good faith"? They are doing their best to get the best deal for the EU, nothing more and nothing less. And if they reduce the UK to 3rd world status they will consider their work done. You obviously have too much faith in the honesty of politicians Confused. As for your "it is from the Spectator" comment, what is that supposed to mean? Are you a Grauniad reader perchance?
  2. asperity

    Brexit again -

    From Steerpike at the Spectator ref. the Withdrawal Agreement: The top 40 horrors: From the offset, we should note that this is an EU text, not a UK or international text. This has one source. The Brexit agreement is written in Brussels. May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6). Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately, excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7) The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court, governing the entire Agreement – Art. 4. stipulates that both citizens and resident companies can use it. Art 4.2 orders our courts to recognise this. “If the European Commission considers that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties or under Part Four of this Agreement before the end of the transition period, the European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union”. (Art. 87) The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158). The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2)) Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – one of the most dangerous provisions. (Article 168). This cuts the UK off from International Law, something we’d never do with any foreign body. Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174) “UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United Kingdom” No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise. The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the country joined the EU. Several problems with the EU’s definitions: “Union law” is too widely defined and “United Kingdom national” is defined by the Lisbon Treaty: we should given away our right to define our citizens. The “goods” and the term “services” we are promised the deal are not defined – or, rather, will be defined however the EU wishes them to be. Thus far, this a non-defined term so far. This agreement fails to define it. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104) Furthermore, the UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101) The GDPR clause. The General Data Protection Regulation – the EU’s stupidest law ever? – is to be bound into UK law (Articles 71 to 73). There had been an expectation in some quarters that the UK could get out of it. The UK establishes a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – if it was, why would it need to be subject to continued monitoring? (Article 164). This Joint Committee will have subcommittees with jurisdiction over: (a) citizens’ rights; (b) “other separation provisions”; (c) Ireland/Northern Ireland; (d) Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; (e) Gibraltar; and (f) financial provisions. (Article 165) The Lifetime clause: the agreement will last as long as the country’s youngest baby lives. “the persons covered by this Part shall enjoy the rights provided for in the relevant Titles of this Part for their lifetime”. (Article 39). The UK is shut out of all EU networks and databases for security – yet no such provision exists to shut the EU out of ours. (Article The UK will tied to EU foreign policy, “bound by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union” but unable to influence such decisions. (Article 124) All EU citizens must be given permanent right of residence after five years – but what counts as residence? This will be decided by the EU, rather than UK rules. (Articles 15-16) Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy. (Article 34) The UK agrees to spend taxpayers’ money telling everyone how wonderful the agreement is. (Article 37) Art 40 defines Goods. It seems to includes Services and Agriculture. We may come to discover that actually ‘goods’ means everything. Articles 40-49 practically mandate the UK’s ongoing membership of the Customs Union in all but name. The UK will be charged to receive the data/information we need in order to comply with EU law. (Article 50) The EU will continue to set rules for UK intellectual property law (Article 54 to 61) The UK will effectively be bound by a non-disclosure agreement swearing us to secrecy regarding any EU developments we have paid to be part. This is not mutual. The EU is not bound by such measures. (Article 74) The UK is bound by EU rules on procurement rules – which effectively forbids us from seeking better deals elsewhere. (Articles 75 to 78) We give up all rights to any data the EU made with our money (Art. 103) The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for. (Art. 144) The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid. (Article 93) Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally. (Articles 106-116) The UK is forbidden from revealing anything the EU told us or tells us about the finer points of deal and its operation. (Article 105). Any powers the UK parliament might have had to mitigate EU law are officially removed. (Article 128) The UK shall be liable for any “outstanding commitments” after 2022 (Article 142(2) expressly mentions pensions, which gives us an idea as to who probably negotiated this). The amount owed will be calculated by the EU. (Articles 140-142) The UK will be liable for future EU lending. As anyone familiar with the EU’s financials knows, this is not good. (Article143) The UK will remain liable for capital projects approved by the European Investment Bank. (Article 150). The UK will remain a ‘party’ (i.e. cough up money) for the European Development Fund. (Articles 152-154) And the EU continues to calculate how much money the UK should pay it. So thank goodness Brussels does not have any accountancy issues. The UK will remain bound (i.e coughing up money) to the European Union Emergency Trust Fund – which deals with irregular migration (i.e. refugees) and displaced persons heading to Europe. (Article 155) The agreement will be policed by ‘the Authority’ – a new UK-based body with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’. (Article 159) The EU admits, in Art. 184, that it is in breach of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which oblige it to “conclude an agreement” of the terms of UK leaving the EU. We must now, it seems, “negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship.” And if the EU does not? We settle down to this Agreement. And, of course, the UK will agree to pay £40bn to receive all of these ‘privileges’. (Article 138)
  3. asperity

    Peoples vote ?

    To be fair to Chamberlain, he acted as he did in order to buy the country time to re-arm. Treason isn't buying time, she's wasting it.
  4. asperity

    Peoples vote ?

    I don't think that immigration will be the issue when/if we ever get away from the EU because, as the remoaners love to point out, without the EU the UK will become a bankrupt basket case and who in their right mind will come here? In fact the immigration will become a great emigration. Get out of that one without moving to quote the great Eric Morecambe 😎
  5. asperity

    Colourful collision

    Daily Mail is reporting a collision between two paint tankers. One was heading for China with 25000 tons of red paint the other was on its way to the UK with 25000 tons of blue. First indications are that some sailors have been marooned .....
  6. asperity

    North Korea

  7. asperity

    "hate crime" ?

    Agreed 😉
  8. asperity


  9. asperity

    "hate crime" ?

    Sadiq Khan gave all occupants an amnesty so it doesn't really matter now 🤐.
  10. asperity

    Police priorities ?

    Best of luck with that. You have to do something really serious these days to get a custodial sentence - like non payment of TV Licence or being Tommy Robinson 😏.
  11. asperity

    Police priorities ?

    This is so true. I believe that the armed forces have come out against National Service many times as they don't want their efficiency impaired by having to try and train unwilling young men, many of whom would not gain anything from the experience in any case.
  12. asperity

    "hate crime" ?

    I don't want to keep going back to this but it seems you haven't looked at the link I posted giving the rehousing status at present. And exaggerating numbers such as "hundreds injured" when the official reports give the number as "more than 70" doesn't help to put things in perspective. Yes it was a terrifying event and the people affected should be given all the help they need, but using the police and the court system in a heavy handed way to deal with some peoples' idiocy is over the top.
  13. asperity

    "hate crime" ?

    I'm not saying that people who are offended by everything are per se stupid, but to share that offended feeling on social media and decry anyone who doesn't share that feeling as being somehow subhuman is stupid. And as for taking these idiots to court, well unless a new law is enacted and made retrospective (something I wouldn't put past our joke of a PM) the case would be laughed out. They did something stupid and for that they've been held up in front of public opinion and ridiculed. End of story.
  14. asperity

    "hate crime" ?

    Grenfell Tower rehousing: https://grenfellsupport.org.uk/rehousing-residents-from-grenfell-tower-and-grenfell-walk/ All seems to be nearly sorted. And some stupid people do something tasteless at a private party that some stupid person video'd and shared on social media, enabling some more stupid people to be offended. I don't know what society has become when everybody has to be "offended" by anything, and anybody who isn't suitably "offended" is deemed to be beyond the pale.
  15. asperity

    "hate crime" ?

    Fair enough Confused, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of fraud has been perpertrated on the back of this tradgedy. I notce I've received a downvote for my last post. Someone not liking my opinion but not willing to say why?
  16. asperity

    forum update problem?

    😎🤑💪👌Wow! Hours of fun for all the family. 😂 Pity we can only post one at a time though 🤔.
  17. asperity

    "hate crime" ?

    I didn't say that I thought it was acceptable behaviour because I don't, any more than I think burning effigies of politicians is acceptable. I even think that burning an effigy of Guy Fawkes is sick behaviour, but you seem to think it's okay for some reason. However I don't think that heavy handed use of the law (and I don't actually think there is a law against being stupid) is the proper use of police resources, given that they claim not to have any. Also stupid is the way politicians like May think it's their job to pronounce their verdict on people being stupid (quite ironic really). Hundreds of people died in Grenfell? Really? There were only 120 flats in the building, and the final death toll stands at 71, which is horrific enough without overexaggerating the number for effect. Interestingly there was a report yesterday saying that 150 families are still waiting to be rehoused which, given there were only 120 flats in the building, leads to the conclusion that someone is telling porkies.
  18. asperity


    Me: What's the WiFi password? Barman: you need to buy a drink first. Me: Okay I'll have a Coke please. Barman: Will Pepsi do? Me: Fine. How much is that? Barman: £1.50, here you go. Me: Thanks, so what is the WiFi password? Barman: you need to buy a drink first, no spaces, all lower case letters.
  19. asperity

    2019 fixtures

    Wolves 2019.docx
  20. asperity

    "hate crime" ?

    I believe the police are now searching the houses of the people involved. I wonder how they managed to get warrants for that. I presume it's all part of "the process is the punishment". Of course alternatively the hard pressed and underfunded constabulary could be doing something more useful like trying to stop the outbreak of knife crime dahn there in that there Lahndan, but that could be problematic for them. Much easier to go rummaging through the personal effects of some tin eared idiots.
  21. asperity

    "hate crime" ?

    And what about the people who routinely use bonfire night to burn effigies of Maggie, Boris, Treason May and other much loved public figures, should they all "have the book thrown at them"? These aren't just posted online, but shown on the Mainstream news channels. Let's get a sense of proportion here and just show these people that they aren't funny or clever, but "throwing the book at them" isn't the way to do it.
  22. asperity

    Observer and PJ

    Is there any chance of giving these two obsessives a thread of their own where they can rant at each other without any one else having to witness it?
  23. asperity

    "hate crime" ?

    They're too busy investigating a video of someone burning a cardboard copy of the Grenfell Tower. Not so much a hate crime, more an offence against common decency and good taste.