buctootim

Mumsnet can be harsh

A normal country doesn't threaten to shoot itself in the head unless other countries give it what it wants

Its the economist's suppressed smirk when her colleague says the "the British think this is a negotiation between equals" that I love the best.

and local constituency MPs do? You think the member for Newcastle north gives a stuff about Dorset? Or the SNP about Clacton?

So your argument is that its more democratic the PM is chosen by the 70,000 Tory Party members (or 12 DUP MPs) than the elected European leaders choosing the President of the European Council.

No. You are confusing correlation. There is a correlation between education and knowledge and a correlation between low levels of education and ignorance. The fact that you can find some ignorant academics and some pin sharp people who never attended school doesnt change that.

Its funny how Brexit posters can't see what a ridiculous position that is to take when all EU positions are directly elected or nominated by the national governments. Unlike the UK where you don't get to vote in the Queen, the Prime Minister or the House of Lords.

Of course not all fall into the stereotypes. There are ill informed idiots on both sides. The reality is though that, on average, Brexit voters are less educated and less knowledgeable about the issues.

I think we know the answer to that. Did you see the quote from Honda in the FT? Currently they hold only 36 hours worth of parts for production - relying on hundreds of trucks crossing the channel every day. To build in a bigger safety buffer of nine days supply in order to cope with 'draggier' movement of goods would require the largest building in the world. Honda arent even the biggest UK car manufacturer - Nissan and JLR would have far bigger problems.

I'll help you out of your customary ill informed hole "It is difficult to see how it would make economic sense for multinational volume manufacturers—the bulk of the UK automotive sector—to base production in the UK in a no deal or WTO tariff scenario. The shift of manufacturing to countries within the customs union and single market would be inevitable; the cost in UK jobs could be in the hundreds of thousands, and inward investment in the hundreds of millions. For the automotive sector, no deal would undoubtedly be hugely damaging. The Government should not seriously contemplate this outcome." Who are these whinging Remainers? Um the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee of the House of Commons https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmbeis/379/379.pdf

and the EU for 'punishing' Britain by not giving it everything on the magic wishlist.

Maybe. I think he's just fortunate with timing. The flotsam that floated to the top of the wave.

but plus the additional costs of setting up a raft of new agencies. More bureaucracy, delays at borders, visas, paperwork, higher costs and loss of jobs and wealth . Thats what Brexiteers voted for right?

Decent article here. Essentially shrill or flawed attacks on Trump distract from his real failings and consolidate his support. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/politics/republican-voters-trump.html?action=click&module=Ribbon&pgtype=Article

Irrelevant side note, but I had a thing with a woman from Arkansas. She was adamant that sex was only penis / fanny penetration and all the rest was just fooling around. Seems to be a Southern thing. In his language Clinton was honest / right when he said "I did not have sex with that woman"

That's not entirely fair. I want to hear more about how the UK-Chile avocado trade is going to save us post Brexit.

US Challenges China's Tax Exemption for Locally Produced Planes https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-planes-idUSKBN0TR1RL20151208

WTO Probe Illegal Subsidies to Bombardier (Canada) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/wto-to-probe-canadian-jet-subsidies-in-new-blow-to-bombardier

Boeing Subsidies (US) Ruled Illegal by WTO https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38131611 "The reality is that neither of these companies can exist without government subsidies. The development costs of new aircraft are just too big, and the risks and rewards too great, for governments to stay out of it. Boeing gets money from NASA and the US Department of Defence; Airbus from very, very cheap government loans. For years this was the case and an uneasy truce reigned over the world aerospace market throughout the 1990s and beyond. Then, in 2004, all hell broke loose and the lawyers on both sides have been at each others throats for 12 years - a nice little earner for them. Could the end of this legal gravy plane be in sight? Perhaps. It's not just the US and Europe who are at it. Canada's government subsidises Bombardier, and then there is the biggest threat to the Airbus and Boeing duopoly. It is called Comac, the state-funded Chinese plane maker with the world commercial aviation market its number one target."

Trump is a weird mix of views. Obviously mainly 'right' but on tariffs and protectionism its the Republicans who are against him whilst his main supporters are Democrats.

Basics for you. 1. The Chinese plant is final assembly only, so will actually create work for British suppliers 2. China ordered 180 airbus planes last year. Its standard practice to expect some local production for that volume of work. 3. The global market for commercial planes is growing. The new factory is additional, not a replacement

Thats simply untrue. Their presence in the UK and UK suppliers was growing until Brexit.

On second thoughts I going with this one, to celebrate my love of Angor Wat.

Enjoy getting a reaction. Personally I find it creepy. A bit like still trying to pull Andy Durman up on something he posted four years ago.

Be honest, at least with yourself. If Pepe wasn't associated with the alt right you wouldn't have used it as your avatar. You could have chosen Kermit or Peppa Pig but didnt. I wonder why that is? As Shurlock says, you just want to provoke a reaction whilst having a plausible deniability get out if the heat gets too much.