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

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Never mind all of this positive news. I have just learned that once we have Brexited it will again become mandatory to display the bold style GB plates on the back of our vehicles when driving outside the UK. (This also includes of course Southern Ireland).
I wonder if you can still get the Townsend Thorenson ones?

Yes, that was always going to be the case, and luckily I had a supply of old Ferry Operator issued ones! Magnetic not so clever if your transport is aluminium or carbon fibre, Peter.....

Not so simple is if you have a number plate with the EU ring/badge on the left hand side, but as you would expect, enterprising sticker makers now offer a range of alternatives to cover it- some not even rude!

[Peter Mallett]

Well don't buy fancy aluminium or carbon fibre cars then! My Jeep has the EU logo but our other cars don't so I only need to buy one rear number plate.

Another positive is that the UK won't have to adopt the European two pin plug system.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Well don't buy fancy aluminium or carbon fibre cars then! My Jeep has the EU logo but our other cars don't so I only need to buy one rear number plate.

Another positive is that the UK won't have to adopt the European two pin plug system.

Yes, we certainly don’t want to change electricity sockets and plugs after all these years. That would be akin to to driving on the right.

It’s the truck trailer that is aluminium skinned..... The CF vehicle is unlikely to ever be used for trans-Europe travel, that would need a Tesla! (Whoops- Aluminium except for the new one, but even that has boot and some other panels made of it......)

[midgetman]

With any luck we'll need the plates in Scotland soon too. Get rid of that Sturgeon woman.

I am actually reassured by Yellowhammer. It looks like someone is thinking about/preparing for the future at last unlike under May. Perhaps it won't be as chaotic as I'd assumed because someone is grown up enough to do some planning. I see the document as sensible planning - "what's the worst that can happen and how do we stop it?"

I wonder how true the persistent stories about prominent Brexiteers standing to make a lot of money in the event of a no deal are? They're quite persuasive and seem to come from good sources.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Peter Mallett]

I suspect there's a lot of truth in it. But then it means they'll want it to be a success.

[bauble]

Originally Posted by midgetman

With any luck we'll need the plates in Scotland soon too. Get rid of that Sturgeon woman.

I am actually reassured by Yellowhammer. It looks like someone is thinking about/preparing for the future at last unlike under May. Perhaps it won't be as chaotic as I'd assumed because someone is grown up enough to do some planning. I see the document as sensible planning - "what's the worst that can happen and how do we stop it?"

I wonder how true the persistent stories about prominent Brexiteers standing to make a lot of money in the event of a no deal are? They're quite persuasive and seem to come from good sources.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

If we manage to leave M, we will all be winners.

[GORDON STREETER]

I am not going to delve into the Government and Brexit fiasco as there will always be a conflict of interest whoever is in charge. At this moment I am in Spain who also have major problems with a non workable government and they are not the only other ones on the continent with serious problems

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by GORDON STREETER

I am not going to delve into the Government and Brexit fiasco as there will always be a conflict of interest whoever is in charge. At this moment I am in Spain who also have major problems with a non workable government and they are not the only other ones on the continent with serious problems

Exactly. Which is why it may not be much longer before the whole thing crumbles. They've started quantitative easing again today. Good for those in the north but very bad for those in the south.

[gary396]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

.....They've started quantitative easing again today. Good for those in the north but very bad for those in the south.

Another benefit of living in Yorkshire then! 😀

[Peter Mallett]

Stupid boy!

[gary396]

[Lancsbreaker]

What puzzles me about the Scottish Court decision is that they declared the prorogation as "unlawful" but didn't seem very clear about stating what law had been broken - merely asserting they didn't believe that the PM had the right motives......but is there any law saying what motives have to be?


On another topic I did get a stick-on plate with my add-on vehicle breakdown insurance for my recent trip to Zandvoort - annoyingly I'd already lashed out a couple of quid buying some magnetic ones from Amazon

[bauble]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

What puzzles me about the Scottish Court decision is that they declared the prorogation as "unlawful" but didn't seem very clear about stating what law had been broken - merely asserting they didn't believe that the PM had the right motives......but is there any law saying what motives have to be?


On another topic I did get a stick-on plate with my add-on vehicle breakdown insurance for my recent trip to Zandvoort - annoyingly I'd already lashed out a couple of quid buying some magnetic ones from Amazon

Do keep up. The three Scot judges decided that during a confidential meeting with the Queen, Boris Johnson lied, as there were only two people present one of them must have blabbed.

[Peter Mallett]

The issue is not whether he lied it is all about parliamentary procedure. Of a government is considered unlawful, not illegal, in what it does then it means the judiciary become a part of the government. Something that is against any form of democracy. Likewise it means that anyone can take.the government of the day to court if they don't like what they are doing. Look out Jeremey Corbyn.

[GORDON STREETER]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Likewise it means that anyone can take.the government of the day to court if they don't like what they are doing. Look out Jeremey Corbyn.

He is already getting scrubbed up for the court case

[Peter Mallett]

Yes I saw that.

[The Fat Clerk]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT View Post
Never mind all of this positive news. I have just learned that once we have Brexited it will again become mandatory to display the bold style GB plates on the back of our vehicles when driving outside the UK. (This also includes of course Southern Ireland).

Both my cars have Northern Irish number plates (3 letters 4 digits) and aside from Wales & Scotland the only other Country I drive in is the Republic, and I will be joining my many friends in the 'North' who will not be putting GB plates anywhere.

My next visit is next month when we are going over to celebrate my 60th Birthday, coincidenly we'll be there after the '31st' so will be interesting to see what happens, not that I think for a minute the bunch of pathetic self interested school kids that call themselves Politicians will have managed to carry out the will of the people by then.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

What puzzles me about the Scottish Court decision is that they declared the prorogation as "unlawful" but didn't seem very clear about stating what law had been broken - merely asserting they didn't believe that the PM had the right motives......but is there any law saying what motives have to be?

We should find out tomorrow when the Court of Session hands down it's written ruling. However, from what I have seen and heard, I think that the judges decision is based on a legal technicality.

From what I heard/read, it would appear that when the formal request for an order to prorogue parliament is made to the Monarch that the Privy Counsellors much also provide the Monarch with a written memo/note confirming the reason for the request at the same time as the verbal request. It would seem that No.10 either failed or forgot to provide the note, which would therefore make the order to prorogue invalid. We shall see if this is correct tomorrow.

By the way, reading one article from a usually reliable source, it would appear that Brenda was actively involved in the mechanics surrounding the proroguing. It was her idea that the 3 Privy Councillors travelled upto Balmoral rather than her having to fly down to London, and it was suggestion that the date of the opening of parliament should occur after she had made her already announced return to London after her summer break in Scotland. All designed to make it seem as if this was all part of a normal matter. All spoilt when every man and his dog realised that the point of the exercise was that Johnson and Co, were attempting to stop MPs scrutinising what they were up to and trying to effectively leave the EU without a deal.

[bauble]

Johnson and Co, were attempting to stop MPs scrutinising what they were up to and trying to effectively leave the EU without a deal.[/QUOTE]

That's right Mike … to effectively leave the EU in line with the mandate given by the British Public in a Referendum. Well spotted.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by bauble

That's right Mike … to effectively leave the EU in line with the mandate given by the British Public in a Referendum. Well spotted.

Nope. The options were:

Remain
Leave

Where 'Leave' is 'Leave' as determined by the government - be that 'No deal', 'good deal', 'Mays deal', 'crap deal' or 'some other deal that as of yet doesn't exist'. Leave with no deal was not an option in the referendum.

[bauble]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

Nope. The options were:

Remain
Leave

Where 'Leave' is 'Leave' as determined by the government - be that 'No deal', 'good deal', 'Mays deal', 'crap deal' or 'some other deal that as of yet doesn't exist'. Leave with no deal was not an option in the referendum.

Funny how 'deal' is bandied about so much by ardent remainers, yet we never hear of a 'deal' to remain.
I might well have voted to remain if there had been a deal on the table.

A massive reduction in our financial contributions, control over immigration, and free movement of people, dropping out of the customs union, a hard Irish border. Maybe a simple trading agreement was all we needed. Why I could easily be a Remainer.

What ever clever interpretation the Remain camp want to put on it everyone I have ever heard or spoken to on the Leave side voted to get out without any other consideration. 'Out' meant 'OUT'. no if's no but's, just LEAVE.

Anyone who voted in the referendum automatically agreed to accept the result. That is how such things work, to now try and overthrow the result says a lot about the character of people who do so. I would not want to have a bet with them. Probably never pay up if they lost.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bauble

A massive reduction in our financial contributions, control over immigration, and free movement of people, dropping out of the customs union, a hard Irish border. Maybe a simple trading agreement was all we needed. Why I could easily be a Remainer.

With respect, this nonsense about immigration and free movement of people is a load of spherical objects.

As far as immigration from outside of the EU is concerned, the UK has full control of who it admits, whether that be to work or study or maybe just to marry. And I would suggest that the ever decreasing unemployment figures in the last 10 years or so would demonstrate that the UK actually needs this level of immigration. Furthermore, immigration from outside of the EU accounts for roughly two thirds of net immigration.

And as for admitting EU nationals, it is up to the UK government to set their own rules, just as it is for other EU countries. Spain, for example, only allows EU nationals to reside permanently in the country if they are able to demonstrate that they will be financially able to support themselves, or that they have employment, and also that they will not need to rely on the state to provide medical care. Those are the requirements in very simple terms; there is more to it than this.

So, as the UK government, past and present, have never set out such rules, it's the UK's fault and the EU should not be blamed.

[Peter Mallett]

Actually have You read the treaty Mike? You are not allowed to place a restriction on free movement unless it's for security or health reasons.

[bauble]

[QUOTE=Mike Harte;3927751]With respect, this nonsense about immigration and free movement of people is a load of spherical objects.

Mike Thanks for that, I don't get much respect anywhere lately.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Actually have You read the treaty Mike? You are not allowed to place a restriction on free movement unless it's for security or health reasons.

Peter, whether I have read the treaty or not, having lived in Spain for about 10 years, I do know their residency rules for EU nationals. To acquire a "residencia" which you need to apply for if you wish to stay for more than 3 months. And below is from the UK.gov website on the matter:

Originally Posted by UK.gov

EU citizens applying for residency in Spain may be required to produce evidence of sufficient financial means to support themselves (and dependants).


Applicants may also be asked for proof of private or public healthcare insurance. More details about the application process and documentation you need are available on the website of the Spanish Ministry for Work and Social Security.

I can tell you that the Spanish authorities in the area where I lived insist on the above. And they don't always make it easy either.