melvinmelvin

5 hours ago, sandyf said:

With covid the government were handed a 'get out of jail free' card, pick up the blame for everything for years to come.

For example, loss of protected names will be the result of business being shut down by covid rather than trade deals.

 

as we say in Norway,

nothing is so bad that it ain't good for something . . .

3 hours ago, lifeincnx said:

If you really have to ask I take it you've never been there.

actually, been to Vancouver and Ottawa a zillion times, at one time in the distant past even had a GF from Thunder Bay

still don't quite get it

so suppose I should be written off as daft then,

ok that, no sweat

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 Temporary, minimum wage, part time or zero hours contracts. 

 

Full time vacancies are few and far between; even for the skilled, highly qualified and/or experienced. 

right

assuming that what you say is reasonably close to the reality;

the interesting Quiz is; how much of this is

Brexit related, will it improve or the opposite or stay as is after the BRINO Brexit step has been taken?

Corona virus related?

dump in World economy related?

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

The financial costs and benefits of EU membership cannot be assessed purely on the net contribution each member makes to the EU budget.

 

Even the Express reported last January that by the end of 2020 the estimated loss to the UK's GDP since 2017 by Brexit will be £23 billion more than the total net contributions paid by us to the EU since 1973!

ah!

the Express what would Chancellor Coffer Master do without the Express, the ultimate source of fact and guidance!

doesn't even have smth useful on page 3

20 minutes ago, vogie said:

We all have a moral responsibility to our fellow man, "if you see your brother standing by the road, with a heavy load from the seeds he sowed, and you see your sister falling by the way, just stop and say you're going the wrong way," try a little kindness, it will overcome your blindness.????

fair enough,

but look at what you are up to;

practical handling of refugees/migrants/paperless/criminals/benefitters, all sorts congregate on the shores of France

not much kindness (but plenty of blindness) to be found in Europe today when it comes to the handling

look at Turkey/Greece/Italy and what they have to deal with, virtually alone

I don't think it can be expected that France will act in a different way,

they are probably more than happy if the guys nip across the channel

anyway, soon hah pm, I'm off to me off licence,

with all this channel talk today I have a hard time deciding if I should vessel or vehicle . . .

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Don't you think that it morally wrong to allow children and pregnant women to set sail in a rubber dinghy into one of the most busiest shipping lanes in the world, at best it is totally irresponsible and whilst these people are in France they are responsible of the French authorities. It seems to me that by ignoring the fact that these people are in extreme danger the French are being less than humanitarian. And I'm sure that if the cargo was drugs they would soon find a way to stop the dinghy, but we are not talking drugs, we are talking about the safety of our fellow humans. The immigrants themselves have proven they don't take their own safety seriously enough, they need protecting from themselves, especially the most vunerable of the 'passengers'.

sure, no problem agreeing generally with what you say,

what you  and others in UK want is to have these dinghy trips stopped before they leave French shores

a general guiding principle in Europe is that if its not forbidden its legal (and not the other way around)

there are no laws against dinghy trips, not for me, not for you, not for pregnant females

there are no laws against low morale

there are no laws against low ethics

there are for sure no laws against doing very stupid things

there are no laws against embarking on risky undertakings, big or small stomach

there are no laws against being careless with one's own safety

in many countries there are some laws around with the aim to protect people from themselves,

   forced medical treatment

   being in mental hospital against one's will

   safe guarding the person's assets

   etc

but not against farting around in plimzollers

Good mouning, allo allo, I don't like what you are doing. You must stop!

Could of course be tried.

Overloading is probably a factor in this that can be used as a stopper.

So, people/boat should be reduced to what is legal, there goes that stopper

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

I never said "illegal" I said humanitarian and I never said "boat", I said rubber dinghy, built for 4 persons and loaded to the gunnels with 12ish.

rubber dinghy is a boat or vessel if you like

if its not illegal, how can the frogs stop them?

which legal instrument to apply in order to enforce stop?

2 hours ago, vogie said:

If the UK can see these rubber dinghys coming in, why can't the French see them leaving and more to the point, why do they allow pregnant woman and children to embark on such a very dangerous journey, it doesn't seem very humanitarian to me, don't the French care (rhetorical).

why?

it is hardly illegal for a pregnant woman to board a boat and embark on a journey, risky or not

2 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Like I said, you would have to build a wall in the channel then in order to not let anyone in in the first place. Once their boats are in UK waters, what the UK gonna do? 

Good Mouning,

call it wall if you like, (paid for by France or others)

or use high speed Coast Guard Patrol Boats for border/passport control

23 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Boarding a boat is probably not illegal, so there’s nothing much the French police can do about it. They could patrol the border in the channel, but that would cost a bit for nothing in return (quite the opposite, they’re probably happy to get rid of people who want to leave anyway; wow, that sounds like Brexit). So the UK would have to pay if it wanted to outsource their border control to the French, but that would upset Brexiteers who wanted to “take back control” of their borders. So in the end, the UK will have to deal with them, unless it wants to build a wall in the channel. Sending them back will hardly work as many don’t have paperwork. It’s not like you can put them in the mail and write “E. Macron, Paris” on it. 
 

I believe the UK and France will agree on a deal similar to the one between the EU and Turkey. 

 

its not necessarily a question of sending back,

the objective is to not let into UK

no paperwork - no hindrance - you don't have to  let people into UK paperwork or not

9 minutes ago, vogie said:

I think you'll find Yorkie bars may be cheaper after Brexit. "A campaign group has suggested that chocolate could go down if unilateral trade deals with chocolate producing countries such as Indonesia and Brazil could remove punitive tariffs imposed by Brussels on exports."

is that so? what a relief for the UK society

would have been more of a result if bars in Yorkshire became cheaper . . . . .

12 minutes ago, tebee said:

I wonder what this guy is going to do - after Brexit the Dublin Agreement ends. The UK is no longer authorised to return refugees crossing the Channel. Royal Navy is unable to enter French waters without permission, must intercept boats in UK waters, and is required by international maritime law to land them in the UK.

naah,

there are alternative, intensivate the border control at sea, stop trespassers at the border

rather than on the UK beach

10 minutes ago, tebee said:

And now, because we are no longer part of the EU and have taken back control of our borders,  the French want £30 million to help us 

 

 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/08/08/french-ask-30m-police-channel/

guess that demand can be mitigated by offering a cod quota or two

2 hours ago, wpcoe said:

I wonder if there is a profitable way to monetize the use of oil-eating microbes.  If only there were a way to force oil tanker operators to fund such a use.

the downside of oiltanker accidents and resulting leaks are generally vastly exaggerated, even in arctic conditions

it looks awful when it happens, beaches/coastlines are bogged down,  costs an arm and a leg and very long time to clean up  lots of birdlife goes down the drain fisheries hardly affected at all

since the first big accident, Torey Canyon, off the southern coast of UK early in the 1960s, experience has shown (without exception) that a handful of years after the accident the fisheries in the affected area goes through the roof

the fisheries become way way better than what anyone can remember

(why? oil=CH, thats what we (and the guys below the surface) eat)

5 hours ago, 7by7 said:

That is not what the Mail article says.

 

You should read articles before commenting on them; stops you looking so foolish.

its Surnday;

where have all the humour gone?

down the drain every one

5 hours ago, Surelynot said:

Now that is fun......might get a Schengen visa next time, fly to France and get a dinghy across the channel ......quicker, cheaper and easier.

and do not forget:

way more scenic than an underwater/ground train or an above clouds aircraft

53 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Illegal immigrants cannot claim benefits in the UK.

where have all the humour gone

down the drain every one