JG220

Ffs (and I apologise for swearing, even in acronyms) it isn’t 1945, it’s 2019. They are our partners, our neighbours, in some cases our families. I think you should be ashamed of yourself for even posting such tripe and think you should take the opportunity to go and edit/ take back your post. (I’ll edit mine in turn) Else I think you should think about whether or not you share the right values for this board.

Not another all colour coded car! Thats the 5th I know off. Two Greens, Two Blues and a Red. It looks fab, obvs (I like the silver wheels)

Back on the road today and still running in. I also replaced the painted carbon spoiler with an OEM naked carbon spoiler.

No, thats not correct. I'd point you to here: https://fullfact.org/europe/british-influence-eu-council-ministers/ The UK's influence in Europe was actually on an upward trajectory since population size started determining voting power in 2014. In any event, I think you're referring to article 116 of the Lisbon treaty which gives the EU powers over veto for some taxes. The UK can still veto alone.

That's not quite right. We have a veto which we have used and we have agreed with the vast majority of European legislation. Something like 95%. Hang on, let me get you the figures. Here you go: https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/ The British government has voted against EU laws 2% of the time since 1999 Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix. In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%. This is counting votes in the EU Council of Ministers, which passes most EU lawsjointly with the European Parliament.

No, there were problems on both sides of the campaigning. The Leave one had elements which broke the law. The remain one hasn't been proven to have done anything illegal, the but mass leaflet was no doubt morally questionable. In any event, i don't see how that is relevant to whether or not we should be listening to anything on RT given the evidence of Russian interference with the Trump and possibly Brexit vote.

Couldn't agree with you more @Steve V8. However, much better to influence from within than watch from the bench.

Is it new? If it is new, I'd trailer it. The clean wishbones benefit dramatically from a clear coat of undercoat to stop them corroding. It is best applied before exposure to salt and so. As for the safety of the conditions, that wouldn't enter the debate for me, you'd be fine in any weather. They are even pretty good on snow.

You see, I don't really think of it Brexiteers vs Remainers in the way that you've set out. The problem is that while Brexit seems like a unilateral event, it is anything but. It's a bit like getting a right wing government in and then being annoyed when they issue perceived left leaning policy. That is the polarising issue of a referendum when the outcome can actually be black, while or any shade of grey in between. And the issue is that there is opposition to the way we undertake Brexit (Ignore no Brexit at all for a moment). If you are of the hard Brexit leading view, then you will be annoyed when elements of the agreement seem to be leaning towards a soft Brexit. And therefore, No, I don't accept that remainers are largely responsible for the mess and how we are going to leave. I think that those that thought that a non-unilateral event could be a unilateral one were always going to be disappointed. Where I think some criticism is justified is for those that want no Brexit at all (And i am one of those by the way), and it only makes sense if you follow the argument through (at least it does for me). Because when you've compromised within the shades of grey (because even brexiteers can't agree) then what you end up with is an almighty mess. May's deal united everyone in their hatred of it And therefore when you get to the point where the compromise is a significantly worse position than you were in before (according to me, remember this is still my view, but it is also widely shared) then the most grown up thing do to is to pause and think and maybe not do it at all. Couple of arguments around the actual referendum. It was advisory, there is no doubt that it had to be acted on, but it was not a legally binding vote. My view is that we voted for the strategic direction of the UK to leave the EU. Much like we do in our large organisation (I work for a multi-national), we set the strategy, and then we go an execute it. The implementation of that strategy will get multiple reviews and considerations throughout the process. Referendum 1 therefore = Strategic intent. Referendum 2 = Implementation (how you want to leave). Where it gets less comfortable is that i would have remain on the second ballot and the reason for that is that none of the implementation methodologies, to me, are appealing. And i accept that that is democratically challenging unless you can set out what I have just done above. There, hopefully some insight into a remainer view, that was able enough/brave enough/british enough/sober enough/old enough (whatever the reason was, that you thought that a remainer wouldn't reply) to post a reply

No, you voted for out of everything, because that was your interpretation of what you were voting for. I've posted the links before, I can again if you want, but deals and trade deals were being put forward by the leave campaign before the referendum. That is why leave is the not same for everyone. RT news is a Russian state sponsored propaganda network, I'm not sure why you'd believe anything on there. in any event, i don't see much scope for riots whatever the outcome. We don't have the passion and aggression of the French

Looks like it’s behind a paywall Game theory says Brexit negotiations are now all about avoiding blame The UK and the EU are continuing Brexit talks because, as game theory suggests, both sides want to avoid being blamed for the fallout, says Petros Sekeris UK prime minister Theresa May and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker are at loggerheads Xinhua/REX/Shutterstock By Petros Sekeris The Brexit negotiations have reached a deadlock. The future form of the UK’s border in Ireland remains a huge sticking point, and there are deep divisions in the UK’s House of Commons. Can there be a deal for the UK’s exit from the EU? And if so, when can we expect it? In this context of extreme uncertainty, game theory can help us understand the actors’ actions based on their intentions but also on the rules of the game they are playing. Game theory uses mathematics to understand how situations are shaped when two or more ”players” are involved in strategic interactions, which together define a “game”. For simple zero-sum games between two players, like chess, there can be only one winner. But for complex negative-sum games between two or more players, like the Brexit negotiations, all sides could lose, which is where the problems begin. Some of the losses on the UK side are already beginning to manifest: several businesses are relocating their activities, anticipating that the negotiations will break down completely and result in a no-deal Brexit. In short, the damages of Brexit are already becoming a reality, at a time when neither of the players in the game seems to be prepared to give any ground in the negotiations – and indeed at a time when both parties claim to be advancing no-deal planning. So why did the UK government and the EU agree yesterday to fresh talks later this month? Blame game The answer could lie in both parties’ desire not to take the blame for what appear likely to be formidable economic losses. As things stand, history will probably record Brexit as a mutually damaging divorce between the UK and EU. But we don’t yet know who will take most (or all) of the blame. In game theoretic terms, the two players are engaged in a war of attrition (or a dynamic game of chicken) where both flex their muscles attempting to convince their opponent to give in first, while both sustain short-term costs as long as the issue remains unresolved. The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier may have claimed that the EU isn’t impressed by UK’s no-deal Brexit blame game, but the pressure from the EU for the UK to “clarify its intentions with respect to the next steps as soon as possible” amounts to blaming London for any negative outcome. The stakes are high because the “defeated” side will see its credibility and bargaining power harmed in the long run, be this in the context of the Scottish independence debate or of separatist tensions inside It is almost certain that the British government will ask to delay the UK’s exit date – currently scheduled for 29 March. The EU governments will implicitly be compelled to unanimously grant the extension or else risk shouldering the blame for the failed agreement. The actual length of any delay of the exit date will be an intensely debated question. The UK might gain significantly from still being in the EU when the European Parliament elections take place between 23 and 26 May: in theory that would give the UK a say in deciding the next EU budgets – which could provide powerful leverage in the exit negotiations. But given the incompatibility of the players’ goals, further negotiations are unlikely to secure an agreement. Legal experts will probably then be asked to find yet another way of further extending the negotiations. The game will proceed until one side puts an end to the negotiations. But in doing so, that side will take the blame for the entire process having gone wrong. The stakes couldn’t be much higher.

I chose my words carefully. I said it made you sound like an arse. Whether or not you’ve recieved abuse over the past 2 years doesn’t really enter the argument I was making. Your post was inflammatory and I was giving you some objective feedback about it and then I moved on without rising to it further. The effect of your retort which actually is a bit offensive is now having the effect of derailing the very point you were trying to make and risks the conversation shifting away from it. Let me try and bring it back then. I think you’re right in many respects that Brexiteers have every right to feel agrieved of how brexit is going. It is not the promised land which was set out in the referendum. Worst still, given a different path over the last two years, it would have been possible to get to a better place than we are in today. However, i still don’t see how this can be a surprise to anyone. The European integration was always going to be hard to undo, and there was no clear plan for how it was to be done anyway. We all decided in our minds what good might look like having taken the decision to go. My perspective was for the closest integration possible including a customs union, free movement, etc etc (yes, a sudo-European member). That could still be called Brexit. A hard Brexiteer May have taken the alternative view. In any event whatever you thought you voted for, there was (by the very fact there was no plan) a spectrum of options for how to leave. And the point I was making above is that it should have been perfectly obvious that with a very tight majority in the refendum in the first place, weak opposition, weak government and a very strong EU, it was always going to be a horrible compromise. In every group, team, select committee even in the cabinet people fit all across that spectrum and that’s why it’s a mess. 18 months ago in this thread we said it can’t be done and it still can’t be done satisfactorily. This is quite a good article which will infuriate you even more given that it sets out a possibility that we are heading for years of extensions https://www.newscientist.com/article/2193345-game-theory-says-brexit-negotiations-are-now-all-about-avoiding-blame/

I think we agreed some pages ago that a modicum of respect is what this board prides itself on. Belittling the remain voice with comments such as ‘though I suspect they won’t’ has the effect of making you sound like you think you are superior, braver, able to confront the argument when remainers can’t or won’t. In other words you sound like an arse. That feedback aside, I don’t think the Steve Baker testimony changes anything not does it set out anything we didn’t already know. It was well understood that no10 had pushed aside the authority of the brexit department and the effect of that friction undoubtably is that we’ve ended up in a weaker position. But that was obvious from the outset. With such a small majority for the leave vote, there was Always going to be approx 48% of the people involved wanting to shift one way or the other. The combination of weak majority, weak opposition, continued in fighting in the conservative party and so on and so on is the reason we are in this position. You can’t blame remainers for that.

It must be a typo. I have most of the options on mine, including Carbon Aero Pack (£3500), Light weigh brakes (£1500), AC (£1200), Red Callipers (£350), Hard Top (£1200), Exclusive paint (£2200), Full Carpets (£350), Mats (£100), Sound Insulation (£350), Cruise (£100), Stereo (£400) and Interior Colour Pack (£450, i think). And i think that lists it at about £61,500 ish.

8 in fact. /Facepalm

What an excellent video.

Yes, thats right. All the matt black bits have been colour coded. I think the matt black works, i actually quite like it, but i prefer the colour coding. I was a bit extreme on this one as it has the carbon aero kit, and the carbon spoiler has been painted to match the colour coordinating.

I don't remember it quite like that. I recall that the answer to the regular question of 'what are we going to do about trade with our closest allies?' was that we would come to preferential arrangements (i.e not WTO) to enable trade. Those arrangement effectively meant some kind of deal. What was obvious at the time, but maybe not to all, was that in order to have those arrangements, the UK may have to accept some trading rules (like for example free movement, in the event of a customs union) and therefore to say that leave was a hard brexit vote, to me at least is somewhat stretching what was being pitched at the time. Unless of course people voting leave thought they could have their cake and eat it.

I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. However, if you had another vote with no deal on the ballot, at least you could be sure.

Hi Ian, This is Lotus Exclusive 'Essex Blue' .

190 on mine. 190 miles. Would love to get it to 190k though

This is going over old ground, I think this stat first surfaced during the referendum debate, but i find this very interesting in the context of the 'take back control' moto Or in other words, the UK would pas 98% of EU legislation whether in or out. Only under a brexit agreement it will have no input, no ability to influence, and no veto. Mental.

No. I've been of the view for some time (including much earlier in this thread) that Brexit will go away. Unfortunately its going to be a long road to get there though.

Quite a lot of what Lammy said this week resonates with me. I agree with the vast majority : The lies, the swindle, the hoarding of power, the inability of parliament to be fit for purpose. Where it falls down a bit is in its attribution of the Brexit vote to the poorer in society. I just don't think that's right. I think that that the 'take back control' (indeed a deluded fantasy) is the most common argument the 'older generations' put forward when I speak to them. I think the split isn't one of wealth of social standing, but it is one of generation. This is just about perfect though (from about ab month ago):

I don't think that poll shows anything at all. I do agree though that generally the mood of the public isn't proportionally represented in Parliament. But that is nothing new. I'd say it was the opposite, the BBC is marginally anti-brexit.