The broad sunlit uplands of next March. Yeah, really. .

[midgetman]

Thanks. At least during this attempt to leave people are actually being told what's needed. Under Teresa we were 30 days out and no clue as to procedure.

Personally I think so much money has been spent on public information that there's no intention to have a "deal". Whether or not that matters only history will tell.

I still don't believe we're going to leave. The Establishment are still doing their best to thwart it and Mr Johnson is playing into their hands.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[bauble]

Having watched a lot of the coverage from parliament over the Brexit debate (?) I began to wonder about the tone of much of the remain side. Yes! I accept that both sides have used strong language, however, Leave or Remain is not World War Three, life will go on either way, I strongly suspect that such as, for example, Dominic Grieve, that they have a very personal interest in the outcome, by which I mean financial or similar. The attitude of the remainers and the lengths they are willing to go to in order to scupper Article 50, is deeply suspicious. It is way beyond politics, and a belief in a United Europe, they are perfectly willing to over ride the Referendum result, and alienate a huge swathe of those who voted to leave. Democracy clearly means nothing to them.

In time we may find out exactly what is behind these people, and I bet it is not 'savoury'.

[John Turner]

Apart from some specifics (peripheral Trump stuff that arose), like Colin McKay, I've endeavoured to stay out of the direct Brexit discussion. Unlike Max, I've felt, and still do, that we will leave. It's the manner of that leaving which seems to be the issue and frankly all this one sided diatribe is wearing a bit thin; merely a way of attributing blame to something that was always going to be difficult to achieve. I'll withdraw now and probably not comment again!

[Mike Harte]

Bob, if you are going to lob brick-bats around, then you should be prepared to back them up with facts.

Having looked at Grieve's declared interests from the current register, I see no particular financial interest that would support either remain or depart, just a cross section of publicly quoted shares. I would imagine that he is a law-abiding individual as he is still a practising QC at the Bar, and he donates fees from outside engagements and equivalent amounts from expenses for such activities to charity.

He does have, though, a property in France but I doubt that that is his major concern. I happen to own some land in Spain that I had been hoping to use to build a property on, but that does not influence me on how I voted.

However, investigative journalists have uncovered some evidence that certain backers of the Leave campaign have a definite interest in the UK's economy slumping after Brexit, especially if if the UK leaves without a deal. Most of these individuals have taken what is known as "short positions" on the outcome, i.e. betting that the economy slumps.

[bauble]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Bob, if you are going to lob brick-bats around, then you should be prepared to back them up with facts.

Having looked at Grieve's declared interests from the current register, I see no particular financial interest that would support either remain or depart, just a cross section of publicly quoted shares. I would imagine that he is a law-abiding individual as he is still a practising QC at the Bar, and he donates fees from outside engagements and equivalent amounts from expenses for such activities to charity.

He does have, though, a property in France but I doubt that that is his major concern. I happen to own some land in Spain that I had been hoping to use to build a property on, but that does not influence me on how I voted.

However, investigative journalists have uncovered some evidence that certain backers of the Leave campaign have a definite interest in the UK's economy slumping after Brexit, especially if if the UK leaves without a deal. Most of these individuals have taken what is known as "short positions" on the outcome, i.e. betting that the economy slumps.

Thanks for that Mike, always willing to be corrected, I only used Greive as an example because of his attitude in parliament, not aiming specifically at him.

As I hopefully made clear I am concerned that the level of opposition, is way beyond political disagreement.

All of our representatives are voted in on a majority, no MP gets 100% of the votes cast, why then, are they quite happy to accept their position on that basis but not the referendum result?

You make he point that people on the leave side also plan to benefit from the situation, in any such scenario there will be winners and losers, that is the way life works. Virtually all of the problems with leaving are caused by 'Remainers' of influence MP's Judges, Media types, (BBC) determined to stop Brexit. The paltry and frankly scandalous attacks on the Prime Ministers character, are evidence of the levels to which these people will stoop.

I do not claim to be an expert on the in's and out's of Brexit, I voted leave for the simple reason I believe in Britain, and do not think our best interests are served by being tied to an undemocratic institution like the EU.

I FULLY EXPECTED TO BE WORSE OFF AFTER WE LEFT, WHEN I VOTED LEAVE. I WAS WILLING TO ACCEPT BOTH FINANCIAL AND SOCIAL UPHEAVAL
IN MY OWN LIFE AS A BURDEN WORTH SHOULDERING TO BE FREE OF THE CLOYING HAND OF BRUSSELS. A VERY EXPENSIVE BUREACRACY TO BE PART OF.

Anyway what else have I got to do apart from spending time on here?

Peace be with you.

[Mike Harte]

Bob, perceptions can sometimes lead you in the wrong direction. And it is often useful to research these types of matter.

In Grieve's case, he was re-elected to represent the Beaconsfield constituency in 2017, receiving a fraction just under two-thirds of the total votes cast. And in the referendum, they voted by a slim majority to remain.

So it could be argued that he is strongly supporting the majority view of his constituents, which just happen to follow his own opinions. Much the same as Ken Clarke, who actually voted for Theresa May's deal, who has oft declared that we should remain. In 2017, he was re-elected receiving 52% of the votes cast, and in the referendum his voters voted by 58.5 percent to remain.

So, these thing are not always what they seem. Just as I cannot believe that all 11 judges in the Supreme Court decision were all remainers; they just came to the conclusion that what Johnson had done was undemocratic. And as for the "attacks" on Johnson, he is the one giving everyone their ammunition.

[bauble]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Bob, perceptions can sometimes lead you in the wrong direction. And it is often useful to research these types of matter.

In Grieve's case, he was re-elected to represent the Beaconsfield constituency in 2017, receiving a fraction just under two-thirds of the total votes cast. And in the referendum, they voted by a slim majority to remain.

So it could be argued that he is strongly supporting the majority view of his constituents, which just happen to follow his own opinions. Much the same as Ken Clarke, who actually voted for Theresa May's deal, who has oft declared that we should remain. In 2017, he was re-elected receiving 52% of the votes cast, and in the referendum his voters voted by 58.5 percent to remain.

So, these thing are not always what they seem. Just as I cannot believe that all 11 judges in the Supreme Court decision were all remainers; they just came to the conclusion that what Johnson had done was undemocratic. And as for the "attacks" on Johnson, he is the one giving everyone their ammunition.

Mike I do not want to continue this particular point ad nauseum as other posters may get fed up, so I will leave (Oops) by just once again stressing my main point. The level of opposition is out of all proportion to the decision made by the voters.

Always happy to disagree with you

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Bob, perceptions can sometimes lead you in the wrong direction. And it is often useful to research these types of matter.

In Grieve's case, he was re-elected to represent the Beaconsfield constituency in 2017, receiving a fraction just under two-thirds of the total votes cast. And in the referendum, they voted by a slim majority to remain.

So it could be argued that he is strongly supporting the majority view of his constituents, which just happen to follow his own opinions. Much the same as Ken Clarke, who actually voted for Theresa May's deal, who has oft declared that we should remain. In 2017, he was re-elected receiving 52% of the votes cast, and in the referendum his voters voted by 58.5 percent to remain.

So, these thing are not always what they seem. Just as I cannot believe that all 11 judges in the Supreme Court decision were all remainers; they just came to the conclusion that what Johnson had done was undemocratic. And as for the "attacks" on Johnson, he is the one giving everyone their ammunition.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/256223
This petition to Parliament is because Grieve,s constituents voted by a majority to leave .
Which is also why his local party voted to deselect him , because he was not doing what his voters wanted .

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/256223
This petition to Parliament is because Grieve,s constituents voted by a majority to leave .
Which is also why his local party voted to deselect him , because he was not doing what his voters wanted .

Tel, nobody is absolutely certain what the true figures were for Beaconsfield (and that includes the members of his local party), but the publicly accepted result was that the estimated voting was 51% to remain, 49% to leave.

I only recently became aware that, for such an important vote that determines the future of this country, the authorities didn't consider it important enough to actually record the individual voting results of each constituency, just taking the overall result from each region. Therefore there are only records for about 40 constituencies available.

This link provides the figures: http://democraticdashboard.com/const...y/beaconsfield .Wikipedia explains how the figures were gathered.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Tel, nobody is absolutely certain what the true figures were for Beaconsfield (and that includes the members of his local party), but the publicly accepted result was that the estimated voting was 51% to remain, 49% to leave.

I only recently became aware that, for such an important vote that determines the future of this country, the authorities didn't consider it important enough to actually record the individual voting results of each constituency, just taking the overall result from each region. Therefore there are only records for about 40 constituencies available.

This link provides the figures: http://democraticdashboard.com/const...y/beaconsfield .Wikipedia explains how the figures were gathered.

A petition to Parliament would not have even been accepted if it started out with false facts .
But it is very difficult to get at actual figures , because most of the MSM make up their stories as they go to suit their own agenda .
Incidently , there has been constituency EU voting figures worked since the referendum , which show how over 400 MPs own area voters went in the EU vote , and quite a lot of them are against democracy by not wanting the same thing as their electorate .

[Tel 911S]

https://fullfact.org/online/referend...-constituency/

This link show over 400 constituencys voted to leave , & 240 odd voted to stay .

But it is from " Fullfact " , which is more often known as FAUX FACTS , because it does have a bias .

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

https://fullfact.org/online/referend...-constituency/

This link show over 400 constituencys voted to leave , & 240 odd voted to stay .

But it is from " Fullfact " , which is more often known as FAUX FACTS , because it does have a bias .

Tel, that is meaningless because constituencies do not contain equal numbers of voters. That is why the coalition government were trying to change the constituency borders as well as reducing the number of MPs.

However, the changes would have affected Labour seats more than the other parties, so, of course, they do not support the proposed changes.

[Peter Mallett]

Didn't the Labour government change the boundaries to limit conservative constituencies? I believe it's called Gerrymandering.

[bauble]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Didn't the Labour government change the boundaries to limit conservative constituencies? I believe it's called Gerrymandering.

The point that everyone seems to miss is that figures for 'leave' 'remain' are totally irrelevant, if they voted at all, by the rules they are obliged to accept the result. That is how a referendum works. Individual constituencies/areas/regions have no bearing, only the overall majority counts, and Leave won. Everybody should accept the result and get on with Brexit. Sadly too many members of parliament are unable to accept that. Anyone trying to obstruct, delay or stop the UK leaving the EU is dishonest, and not worthy of a place in parliament,

Shane on them.

[zefarelly]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Didn't the Labour government change the boundaries to limit conservative constituencies? I believe it's called Gerrymandering.

The Conservatives did the same in Sussex too in the 80's, moved a few boundaries. All part of their game.

[The Fat Clerk]

Originally Posted by bauble

The point that everyone seems to miss is that figures for 'leave' 'remain' are totally irrelevant, if they voted at all, by the rules they are obliged to accept the result. That is how a referendum works. Individual constituencies/areas/regions have no bearing, only the overall majority counts, and Leave won. Everybody should accept the result and get on with Brexit. Sadly too many members of parliament are unable to accept that. Anyone trying to obstruct, delay or stop the UK leaving the EU is dishonest, and not worthy of a place in parliament,

Shane on them.

Hear hear

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Didn't the Labour government change the boundaries to limit conservative constituencies? I believe it's called Gerrymandering.

Originally Posted by zefarelly

The Conservatives did the same in Sussex too in the 80's, moved a few boundaries. All part of their game.

The matter is covered in quite a bit of detail in Wikipedia(as much as it can be trusted).

[Lancsbreaker]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Didn't the Labour government change the boundaries to limit conservative constituencies? I believe it's called Gerrymandering.

Technically it isn't either (or any) of the parties that alter constituency boundaries - that is the responsibility of the electoral commision who's role is to try to ensure, as much as is possible, that every constituency is as equally representative in terms of numbers as any other - always a tricky job and of course, open to any interpretation of political misdoing....

[Colin McKay]

Well, personally speaking it can't come soon enough


https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/n...CLHRX_xC6UxDQ8

[Mike Bell]

All I get from the link is a spam Aldi advert, but before that loads just get a glimpse of the article!

Which lay-bys....... ?

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Colin McKay

Well, personally speaking it can't come soon enough


https://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/n...CLHRX_xC6UxDQ8

I assume you mean the re-opening of various lay-byes and car parks that are currently closed? Complete with cameras of course.

Would video action cameras or ANPR for overstaying one's time produce the higher revenues?

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

All I get from the link is a spam Aldi advert, but before that loads just get a glimpse of the article!

Which lay-bys....... ?

I got a spam free version in Aus so if it is any help...

No-deal Brexit could lead to increase in dogging in Kent lay-bys, cabinet minister warns

A government minister fears traffic jams sparked as a result of a no-deal Brexit could lead to an unlikely surge in... dogging.

The cabinet member is said to have confessed his worries for Kent's lay-bys and quiet car parks at last week's Conservative Party conference, The Sunday Times reports.

He fears stalled lorry drivers will get bored waiting in their cabs and head out seeking lewd liaisons.

“One of the things we talk about in these no-deal meetings concerns hauliers and their activities,” the minister said.

“The main thing is whether they will turn up at the Channel ports with the right paperwork. But there are also dogging hotspots all over the place.”

Dogging is the slang term for having sex with strangers or watching others do so in public.

The government's Yellowhammer contingency report warns Kent will face months of congestion and disruption, with significant two-and-a-half-day queues at ports. It does not mention dogging.

The fearful minister, who believes those delays on transport links to Dover will lead to a rise in the activity, is concerned about bored British truckers.

“Do Europeans even do dogging?" he added.

"There is something deeply British about dogging.”

While the cabinet tries to muster less delays at Kent ports, patrols at Penenden Heath Recreation Ground in Maidstone have been stepped up in a bid to curb dogging and cottaging.

How is Brexit going to affect Kent? For all the latest news, views and analysis visit our dedicated page here https://www.kentonline.co.uk/brexit/

[midgetman]

Right. Back to the original theme of the thread. Here's the government advice on going racing in Europe after Brexit.

https://www.gov.uk/taking-goods-out-uk-temporarily

Follow the link to the ATA carnet and you see it's possible and it costs £325.96 plus a deposit. Or you can use something called the Duplicate List which even the web site admits is more difficult.

Whatever, you have to use the red channel at customs.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Right. Back to the original theme of the thread. Here's the government advice on going racing in Europe after Brexit.

https://www.gov.uk/taking-goods-out-uk-temporarily

Follow the link to the ATA carnet and you see it's possible and it costs £325.96 plus a deposit. Or you can use something called the Duplicate List which even the web site admits is more difficult.

Whatever, you have to use the red channel at customs

Nothing new there Max, but thanks for the link. Carnets are used for other parts of the world, so the process is well established.

This is of course IF we leave without some sort of deal.......

[Mike Bell]

Done some research on ‘Duplicate Lists’, and appears that to be able to use them you need an ‘EORI’ number. (Economic Operator Registration and Indentification number ) Seems I qualify for one of these, surprisingly, so I’ve now got one.....

In theory I can use the process to import and export race cars, equipment and spares without any fees being necessary. Sounds to good to be true....